College and Research Libraries


Recent Publications 
BOOK REVIEWS 

Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: 
Proceedings of the Third National Con-
ference of the Association of College and 
Research Libraries. Ed. by Suzanne C. 
Dodson and Gary L. Menges. Chicago: 
Association of College and Research Li-
braries, American Library Assn., 1984. 
414p. $20, ACRL members; $28, non-
members. ISBN 0-8389-6787-6. 
As the title indicates, this paperbound 

volume contains the papers, addresses, 
and discussions presented at the third na-
tional conference of the Association of 
College and Research Libraries. With the 
publication of these proceedings we 
should pause and reflect on the accom-
plishments of the ACRL national confer-
ences. After three conferences there 
should be some assessment of how well 
the academic library profession has 
achieved what it set out to do in 1978. 

The first national conference seemed 
like an idea whose time had come. Other 
professions had national conferences, and 
certainly we also should have one~ 
perhaps in part to confirm our member-
ship among the professions. Without a 
doubt much of the academic library pro-
fession was caught up with the excitement 
of a national conference just for academic 
librarians where scholarly papers were to 
be read and discussed. What better way to 
celebrate the fortieth anniversary of 
ACRL? 

By most accounts the first national con-
ference was a success . More than twenty-
six hundred librarians attended. The pro-
c~dings contained seven theme papers 
and sixty-six contributed papers. A few 
participants complained they did not 
have the opportunity to hear all the pa-

pers they wanted, and some commented 
that speakers read through their papers 
with little regard for audience interest. 
Nevertheless, with the passage of time 
the Boston conference has achieved 
Woodstock-like status among academic 
librarians. 

After the enthusiasm generated by the 
first conference, inevitably the second na-
tional conference would be anticlimactic. 
Some eighteen hundred participants 
braved the brisk Minneapolis fall weather. 
Perhaps the decrease in the number of 
participants from the first conference re-
flected the austerity among libraries often 
discussed at this conference . The pub-
lishers of the conference proceedings, 
however, evidently did not believe that 
academic libraries shared the economic 
austerity of the rest of the country. They 
published the 5 theme papers and 56 con-
tributed papers in two volumes with the 
combined price of $125! 

Before the third national conference, a 
few academic librarians expressed serious 
doubts as to the "success" of the national 
conferences. Certainly there had been a 
few minor grumblings about the quality of 
the papers, the missed sessions, and lack 
of delivery style among the speakers. 
Now, however, two librarians publicly ex-
pressed their concerns about the success 
of the national conferences as a form of 
scholarly communication. Coughlin and 
Snelson, writing in The Journal of Academic 
Librarianship (March 1983), titled their cri-
tique of the conferences ''Searching for 
Research in ACRL Conference Papers." 
These authors concluded that more than 
two-thirds of the papers presented at the 
first two conferences were not research re-

441 



442 College & Research Libraries 

ports. They called for a fifty-fifty split in 
research and scholarly papers for the third 
ACRL national conference and an exclu-
sion of the "how-l-done-it-good" paper. 

Was progress made at the third national 
conference? The answer is a qualified 
"yes." First, the conference organizers 
made a concerted effort, through their in-
structions to contributors and a workshop 
session at the previous ALA Midwinter 
Meeting to ensure the effective delivery of 
the contributed papers. They requested 
that accepted contributed papers be sub-
mitted "copy-ready" for duplication, to 
reduce printing costs. The reduced costs 
should ensure wider distribution of the 
proceedings. In fact, the conference par-
ticipants received a free copy. No longer 
did participants have to rely on microfiche 
readers or pay exorbitant prices to read the 
papers they missed at the conference. 

How well has the third national confer-
ence served as a forum for scholarship 
among academic librarians? By 1984 it had 
become "conventional wisdom" among 
academic librarians, as pointed out by 
Sharon Rogers in the wrap-up session, 
that conference papers presented at Bos-
ton and Minneapolis had not been cited. It 
is still too early to determine the citation 

:. pattern for the third conference. The lack 
of citations should not be surprising. First, 
one suspects that most librarians, like 
most members of other professions, re-
serve their best efforts for the journals. 
Second, the proceedings of the confer-
ences are not as widely distributed as arti-
cles in the more prestigious journals are. 
The reduced costs of the Seattle proceed-
ings should encourage wider distribution 
and, thus, increased citation. Finally, the 
proceedings of the conferences have not 
been indexed, as are contents of library 
journals. Library Literature should index 
the ACRL national conference proceed- · 
ings as it does library journals. 

Unfortunately, the conclusion that the 
contributed-papers aspect of the confer-
ence is not working is firmly implanted in 
the minds of many librarians. The number 
of contributed papers has been steadily re-
duced at each succeeding conference. 
Sharon Rogers and Robert Pesek, how-
ever, pointed out, in their carefully pre-

September 1985 

pared analysis in the proceedings of the 
third conference, an increased sophistica-
tion in the papers presented. They de-
scribed the primary format of the Boston 
and Minneapolis conferences as "author 
as biographer," through which the author 
describes systems in various stages of de-
velopment. They described the single 
most common format of the Seattle con-
ference as "author as analyst," through 
which the author performs primary re-
search and discusses issues. Rogers and 
Pesek found encouraging movement from 
the earlier conferences to the third confer-
ence in the areas of ''conceptual theory'' 
and "analytic science." 

This volume contains 47 contributed pa-
pers, 6 theme papers, and the papers from 
four alternate-format sessions. The theme 
papers are also published in the Septem-
ber 1984 issue of College and Research Li-
braries. These papers represent, as de-
scribed in the preface, the best of the 166 .. j 
papers submitted for review to the 118 re-
viewers. The acceptance rate of 28 percent 
is respectable and comparable to many 
journals. This does not mean that a few 
questionable papers did not slip through, 
but the reviews had to be done hastily to 
meet deadlines. With the large number of 
reviewers involved, some variation in 
judgment is inevitable. 

The result is a collection of papers that 
ranges considerably in quality and subject 
and contains something for everyone. 
There are a few solid research pieces, 
which unfortunately do not necessarily 
lend themselves to oral presentations but 
make interesting reading in the proceed-
ings. In addition, there are the ubiquitous 
"how-l-done-it-good" papers, which ap-
pear even weaker in print than when 
heard. To the chagrin of some of the more 
research-oriented librarians, many librari-
ans voted their preferences with their feet, 
and the "how-1-done-it~good" papers of-
ten had larger audiences than the more 
methodological, rigorous papers. Never-
theless, before we engage in too much 
self-flagellation, such papers-in the form 
of well-developed case studies and similar 
scholarly activities-deserve some place at 
a conference largely attended by practi-
tioners. T~e establishment of a "position 



papers" category for the fourth confer-
ence is a recognition of the · interest in "lo-
cally implemented experiences," as the 
organizers of that conference euphemisti-
cally have described "how-l-done-it-
good" papers. Finally, although not re-
ported in the proceedings, some of these 
papers were subjected to rather probing 
questions from the audience . Librarians 
interested in presenting such papers at fu-
ture conferences should keep in mind that 
they will have to defend their work. 

Are the conferences worthwhile? Are 
they more of an opportunity for librarians 
to speak than listen? Certainly there is a 
notable downward trend in attendance: 
fewer than fourteen hundred librarians at-
tended the Seattle conference. For most of 
the hard questions about the conferences, 
it is too early to have definitive answers. If 
Rogers and Pesek are correct, the confer-
ences may foster increased sophistication 
in scholarly activities among academic li-
brarians . Given the widely publicized call 
for papers, many librarians who had 
never thought of submitting an article to a 
journal may have submitted a paper for 
presentation at a conference. In addition, 
several hundred librarians, mariy of 
whom would never have otherwise had 
the opportunity, had the experience of ref-
ereeing their colleagues' papers. Finally, 
literally thousands of librarians shared in 
the give-and-take of the scholarly process 
as papers were read, discussed, criticized, 
and defended. Is there room for improve-
ment? The answer is "yes, of course." 
Not everything lived up to the ideal, but 
practice is almost always essential for im-
provement. 

This relatively inexpensive volume of-
fers the reader a wide variety of informa-
tion covering a full range of contemporary 
academic librarianship. Often the papers 
are only loosely related to the theme of the 
conference (does anyone really take the 
conference theme seriously when writing 
contributed papers?), but this should not 
be a concern. Not every paper will capture 
the attention of the reader, but there are 
enough to merit the purchase of this vol-
ume. Those seeking a complex mystery 
novel with an intricate plot and multidi-
mensional characters will be disap-

Recent Publications 443 

pointed. This is a collection of short stories 
and the reader can skim through picking 
favorites to read. Some are good and some 
are not. Some will encourage the reader to 
search for additional information in other 
sources and some can be quickly dis -
missed. 

The reviewer will exercise the privilege 
of identifying a few of his favorite papers: 
Gresham Riley, president of Colorado 
College, enthusiastically articulated his 
support for bibliographic instruction in his 
theme paper. In a second theme paper, 
Bill Moffett, director of libraries at Oberlin 
College, described the frustrations of col-
lege librarianship as ''life in the minor 
leagues." Finally, in a contributed paper, 
Gary Lawrence provided an excellent 

· analysis of the economic realities of "Fi-
nancial Management of Online Cata-
logs," which librarians should keep in 
mind as they seek to use the computer to 
solve their problems and provide better 
service. Purchase of the conference pro-
ceedings as well as attendance at and par-
ticipation in future ACRL national confer-
ences are highly recommended.-Larry 
Hardesty, Eckerd College. 

Martin, Lowell i\.. Organizational Structure 
ofLibraries. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 
1984. 302p. $14.50 LC 84-4859 ISBN 0-
8108-1696-2 
This is an ambitious survey book de-

scribing organizational aspects of public, 
school, academic, and special libraries. 
Lowell Martin, a distinguished library ad-
ministrator, has integrated his consider-
able practical experience with a careful re-
view of contemporary library and 
management literature, producing a suc-
cinct, mostly cognizant comparison of the 
structures, relationships, and trends of 
these several enterprises. 

The book begins with an examination of 
the evolution of management thought and 
practice generally. While many such sum-
maries are available elsewhere, Martin's 
keen observations and pointed focus 
make his unique. He notes that whereas li-

1 

brary management practice in general 
mirrors that of other types of organiza-
tions, it suffers fr_om a significant time lag · 
in the use of ·current concepts. Worse,