College and Research Libraries Each chapter holds interest for a specific audience. Unfortunately they are all lost in a collection of this sort. They would have been better placed as journal articles where their content could have reached the specific audiences for which they were written. Unless a library has a standing order for the series, this individual volume will add little to its professional collection.-Robert D. Stueart, Simmons College, Boston, Massa- chusetts. ALA Survey of Librarian Salaries. Office for Research and Office for Personnel Resources with assistance from the Uni- versity of Illinois Library Research Cen- ter. Chicago: American Library Assn., 1982. 108p. $40 paper. LC 82-11537. ISBN 0-8389-3275-4. In using any survey it is important to distinguish between what it is and what it is not. Because of the pressure of eco- nomics and the availability of other data, this survey covers only two types of li- braries: "public libraries serving popula- tions of at least 25,000 and academic li- braries which are not part of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)." Those who seek salary information on other types of libraries must seek else- where, but they can be aided in doing so by a bibliography of salary surveys, which is included in an appendix. The survey was sent to fourteen hun- dred randomly selected libraries in J anu- ary of 1982. Five types of library categories were stratified by four regions in the United States. Response rates by type var- ied from 54 percent for two-year colleges and universities to 82 percent for large public libraries. Small public libraries had a response rate of 73 percent, and four- year colleges, 57 percent. A copy of the survey instrument and a note on the tech- nical considerations in the sampling are contained in an appendix. The survey attempted to elicit informa- tion about thirteen job titles ranging from director, and associate or assistant direc- tor, to coordinator of children's services. Some of the titles were unique to public li- braries, but the rest could also exist in aca- demic libraries. There are obvious difficulties in any sur- Recent Publications 81 vey in communicating with the respon- dent. The surveyor cannot know and can- not really take into account all of the particulars in every case; summary deci- sions must be made. In this case decisions were made on issues such as the meaning of "full-time," "professional," job level, position title, and contributed salary. Us- ers of this survey should be careful to read what the compilers say about how these issues were handled. Decisions are rea- sonable, but individual users may con- front a different situation than those sum- marized by the compilers. The actual data of the survey are ar- ranged by position, scheduled and actual salaries for each position, the four geo- graphic regions plus an "all" category, and finally, within each cell by low, mean, and high salary together with the number in the cell. The surveyors present, in supplemen- tary tables, data on beginning profes- sional salaries and on employee benefits- a notoriously difficult type of data to elicit and analyze. There are also useful appen- Heritage on Microfillll Rare and out-of-print titles and documents on 35mm silver halide microfilm. • French Books before 1601 • Scandinavian Culture • 18th Century English Literature • Victorian Fiction • Literature of Folklore • Hispanic Culture Send for catalog and title information today. ,..,.]~~~ 70 Coolidge Hill Road Watertown, MA 02172 (617) 926-5557 82 College & Research Libraries dixes on employee compensation pro- grams, ALA salary issue policies, and a se- lected bibliography on compensation and employee benefits. The survey is a useful work, profession- ally done. It will be a valuable tool for li- brary managers and anyone else who is in- terested in librarian compensation issues. But it does not answer critical issues on eq- uity and appropriateness of salaries, something of constant concern, and no one should expect it to do so. Survey in- . struments covering such a broad scale cannot be precise enough to answer local questions. For this, the interested librar- ian must conduct a narrower analysis that compares institutions more nearly like one another than the survey was able to do. In addition, other factors such as expe- rience, training, education, sex, and race must be considered. None of these are in- cluded in the survey, but analysis of them in any given situation is critical for an equi- table and effective compensation plan. Consequently, the survey is useful in a general way, because it provides a context within which to view salary issues in the libraries, but it cannot be relied upon to provide a basis for specific decisions.- Richard J. Talbot, University of Massachu- setts, Amherst. College Libraries: Guidelines for Profes- sional Service and Resources Provision. 3d ed. London: The Library Associa- tion, 1982. 63p. (Distributed in the U.S. by the Oryx Press) $12. ISBN 0-85365- 635-5. Because of many changes in libraries, higher education, and in support of higher education, the Executive Commit- tee of the Colleges of Further and Higher Education Group of the Library Associa- tion undertook, in 1980, revision of its 1971 standards. The result was a generally well presented and up-to-date set of stan- dards. These British standards immediately in- vite comparison with their American counterpart: "Standards for College Li- braries" (College & Research Libraries News, October 1975). At first glance, both docu- ments appear to cover about the same points and say much the same thing. Yet there are differences, some of which stem January 1984 from the way the British Guidelines were conceived and prepared. Noting that "too often . . . [standards] are simply a de- mand for resources, reflecting only theo- retical opinions, and offering little in re- turn,'' the Guidelines describe not only what is needed to provide a reasonable level of service, but promise to spell out what the institution can expect in return. Despite that promise, the Guidelines are no more specific than the American "Stan- dards," except for the "User Education" section. Another conceptual difference is in the way the two standards specify lev- els of necessary support. While both em- ploy quantitative formulas to determine collection size and staffing, the American approach relies largely on statistical norms, whereas the British use expert judgment and experience of the ''better institutions." The true measure of any new set of stan- dards, however, is the degree to which it successfully addresses matters not cov- ered or inadequately covered previously. The Guidelines do address some of these gaps. They place greater stress than the American "Standards" on achieving a close and integral relationship between the library and the academic program: col- lege librarians must ''see themselves as educators in the fullest sense.'' The entire "User Education" section elaborates on this concern, a matter accorded a single paragraph in the "Standards for College Libraries." The Guidelines stress the need ''to involve the library in the early stages of all course planning,'' including changes in content . or teaching methods . Involvement in curriculum planning is not dealt with in the "Standards." Because they were published seven years after the "Standards," in a period of financial stringency, the Guidelines argue for not cutting back on library support: "There is a danger of entering a down- ward economic spiral in which a poorly funded library becomes less valuable to staff and students, use drops off, with the result that funding is further reduced, and · so on. II The Guidelines also discuss the in- creasing dependence of libraries on tech- nology and the budgetary implications of that dependence, matters not touched on in the "Standards. II