College and Research Libraries By R O B E R T J . K E R N E R Essentials in the Training of University Librarians—IV Robert Kerner is professor of modern European history, University of Califor- nia. IN A SENSE the position of university li-brarian has become an impossible one. It is expected that a university librarian should be an expert technical librarian, a splendid administrator, a first-rate public relations man, a scholar whose learning and insight should be the equivalent of a doctorate in a hundred-odd departments, and a human being besides. Stated this way, we know we are discussing a man that did not, does not, and never will exist. H e is like the "economic man" our economists set up and tear down from time to time. If he lives, he lives in the imagi- nation or the hazy and mystical future. It is assumed, therefore, that we are not discussing such a fiction or even such a "library m a n " to shoot at. W h a t w e are discussing is a man who is to serve most usefully university scholars and students in a learned atmosphere. Starting from this point, we may note that technical library school training is valuable, but not the most important item in his training. Help for that purpose should be readily available in his staff. In fact, it is easy to imagine a first-rate university librarian without this training. M o r e essential is intensive study in some one broad field of knowledge, most prob- ably the equivalent of the work for the Doctor's degree. T o obtain a doctorate would be most desirable. Its purpose is an intimate acquaintance with the problems which scholars and competent students meet in pursuing their work. These prob- lems, if understood by the librarian, will be found to be more than simple bibliog- raphy, or a net-work of bibliographical tools capable of catching items which un- cover materials and roads to knowledge. It will include some comprehension of the sources of that field and the numerous directions in which they lead, as well as the reverse. Once this training has been se- cured, it will react on all his judgments and relations. It will teach him funda- mentals, obtainable in no other way. H a v - ing had this academic training, but necessarily lacking similar information and training in the hundred other fields of knowledge, such a librarian should be able to consult those who know, to pursue pa- tiently and intelligently the purpose of building collections and of finding numer- ous other ways of serving scholarship. Such men will necessarily have some fa- cility in the reading of French and G e r - man, if not also other languages. Should Engage in Productive Scholarship Such a librarian should engage to a lim- ited extent in productive scholarship in his field of specialty, whether this be in the production of bibliographies which will be pioneers in forgotten or unknown direc- D EC EMBER, 1939 33 tions, or whether in the writing of mono- graphs. J u s t as no real teacher can keep alive only by teaching, so the real librarian cannot be most useful without producing scholarly material. T h e teaching of a regular course in his special field might lead him to understand other problems. In fact, it would be more logical from this angle to select university librarians from among those scholars on the faculty who have already shown their skill as teachers and writers rather than from technically trained librarians. T h e y can acquire what they need of that in a relatively short time. N o w , if to this we add a modicum of administrative and executive ability based on common sense, a certain tact in dealing with scholars and advanced students, and a little humor, we shall approach the ideal of a university librarian. Such a man would be welcomed in the society of schol- Discussion Nathan van Patten, director of libraries, Stanford University, discussing Dr. Ker- ner's paper observed: AFTER READING Professor Kerner's paper I find myself in complete agreement with the views which he has expressed. I came to the same conclusions as long ago as the N e w Haven conference and have continued to restate my belief that li- brarianship as a profession lacks a well defined content in the sense that law, medi- cine, and engineering have such a content. T h e professional status of the librarian more closely resembles that of the college or university president. T h e r e is no pro- fessional school for the training of college and university presidents. T h e office has been filled with distinction and with fail- ure by men who have come to it from the ars, in faculties, and by serious students. B y his own training and judgment he would justify his place in the university community and in the national academic organizations. A university librarian, as such or as an individual scholar, could meet with the national academic organi- zations, thus gaining a comprehension of ideals and needs which he cannot get in any other way. He would cease to be merely a " c l e r k , " or a "martinet," or a "hod-carrier," or "an obstacle to scholars and scholarship," terms so often heard in academic criticism. H e would have a solid and respectable partnership in the business of academic life and he would disappear as a "problem" in nearly every university faculty. Such a librarian is a human possibility and it is possible to train such librarians. In fact, they are now being trained. professions of law, medicine, theology, and engineering; from the army, from business, and from many subject specialties in teach- ing and research. It seems clear to me that it is much bet- ter to attempt to make a librarian from a man or woman who is already well es- tablished in the practice of one of the older recognized professions than it is to expect young men and women with the limited training available in our library schools to become competent librarians under the continuing handicap of a lack of adequate preparation and a too frequent inability to orientate themselves in the society of scholars. W e should not overlook the fact that the formal training of the average library worker has covered from eight to eighteen months as compared with a minimum of sixty months in the case of the medical 34 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH L I B R A R I E S ' profession and that this sixty months is based upon a carefully planned pre-medical education of at least thirty-six months. It is becoming increasingly apparent that we must either adopt an advanced concept as to what constitutes an adequate preparation for librarianship or be con- tent to see the more important professional posts go to scholars who can bring to the office an experience and competency not easily found among those candidates who have been trained only in the technical as- pects of librarianship. These candidates have as an advantage only the slender margin of from eight to eighteen months of formal instruction in the library school, a considerable part of which time has been given over to work which is certainly not upon a professional level. Librarianship cannot gain recognition as a profession by continued assertion and protest. Professional status can be ac- quired by accomplishment, and accomplish- ment in librarianship is not a matter of improving technical processes, collecting statistics, and worrying too much in public about salaries and prestige. Carl M. White, librarian, University of North Carolina, commented at the end of the foregoing discussion: T H E PAPERS read today are dissimilar in some respects, but I am impressed by their similarities and it is these similarities I prefer to emphasize. In particular, I should like to emphasize the following points. Everyone seems to agree, in the first place, that, as universities have grown, un- usual demands have come to rest on the shoulders of the university librarian. Both the Wilson and the Kerner papers stress this point. W e seem to be agreed, in the second place, that these demands are not entirely uniform in all universities; that certain qualifications will inevitably weigh more heavily in certain appointments than in others; that, within limits, the resultant multiplicity and variety of gifts and points of view are valuable to the profession ; that in practice, there seems to be no straight and narrow way leading directly from the cradle to a position as university librarian ; and that it is therefore exceedingly difficult —impossible, in fact—to outline in detail a program of training which is universally and necessarily the best for all prospective university librarians. Nevertheless—and here again we are agreed—training for university librarian- ship should be as systematic as we can make it, instead of being left to the acci- dent of circumstances. It is undoubtedly true that the university librarian must bring to his task certain assets which, so f a r as I am aware, are never the direct product of class assignments and appren- ticeship at regular desks of duty. But rec- ognition of this fact is, I assume, not tantamount to saying that successful uni- versity librarians are born, not made. T h e y are made in part by the background of training and experience which they bring with them to their daily decisions. T h e more we know, therefore, of the typical situations encountered during the career of the university librarian and plan programs of study with these realities in mind, the more we facilitate intelligent preparation for university librarianship. T h i s is but applying a well-known prin- ciple of vocational training to our own profession, but it is a principle which has not claimed much attention until recently. Appropriating one of Wordsworth's fig- ures, the university librarian has often D EC EMBER, 1939 35 found himself voyaging through strange seas of thought alone, without even a very deserving body of professional literature to guide him. University Aims Should Prescribe Service Agreement seems to extend even to the broad objectives of training. T h e univer- sity library exists, of course, to serve the university. Accordingly, the service given should be prescribed, not by some precon- ceived notion as to what library service is, but by the aims and policies of the insti- tution to be served. T h e librarian who builds his program according to these speci- fications needs " a broad general under- standing of the objectives of the university as a whole as opposed to a narrower de- partmental v i e w ; he should possess a scholarly knowledge of library science and related fields of scholarship; he should have a thorough understanding of the functional relationships which exist among the various departments of the library, and ability to organize and direct library per- sonnel." I have quoted the language of the W i l - son paper. T h e other contributors might have said it a little differently but the exact phrasing does not matter. W h a t is more important is that the functional con- ception of the university library which underlies the Wilson statement seems to be common to all of the views here presented. U p to a certain point, the training pro- grams recommended for attaining these objectives are themselves similar. T h u s professional training should be postponed until the student has secured a sound gen- eral education and acquired familiarity with such tool subjects as he expects later to use. When it is begun, professional training should embrace a year of concentrated study aimed at familiarizing the student with libraries considered as bibliographical and educational instruments. A s I under- stand it, this is what library schools the country over are trying to do, each in its own way, through the curriculum for the first year. Beyond a certain point, however, the training programs differ. T h e Kerner paper envisages a type of training which sees the librarian as a scholar in a com- munity of scholars; the Williamson paper a type of training which sees the librarian at the head of a staff specially trained for the varied tasks performed in a modern research library; the Wilson paper a type of training which sees the librarian as an educational administrator; the Mitchell paper a type of training which sees the li- brarian as an inevitable combination of technician and scholar faced—at least at present—by embarrassing difficulties in getting in the time at his command the training he actually needs. Points of View Complementary While the views represented by the four papers are thus divergent, they are not dis- parate. In other words, so long as we keep to the positive emphasis in each paper, I see no inherent conflict. Instead, I find some justification for regarding the dif- ferent points of view as complementary. Scholarly training, for example, has its place. H o w essential it is those of us who have been denied it can easily fail to appreciate. W e are apt to know not and know not that w e know not. University librarianship is, after all, a learned profes- sion. Membership in the society of the learned is reserved for those having certain tastes and attainments which, without attempting accurate description, may be suggested by saying that they are the quali- 36 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH L I B R A R I E S ' fkations sought in developing university faculties. Whatever else the university librarian must have in the way of equip- ment, it seems as though he should have the same kind of timbre and training his colleagues have. W i t h Professor Kerner and some of Director Mitchell's respond- ents, I am personally unable to see any substitute for intensive study in some broad field of learning. Precisely what subjects qualify as legitimate "fields" is a difficult question but one w h i c h — I think it may be fair to say—is usually secondary to the manner of study and the attitude of the student. I find a little disappointing the suggestion that the degree of Doctor of Philosophy be regarded—like neon in a vacuum—as all but worthless in itself but as valuable for publicity purposes. T h e embryonic "climber" in the profession may as well be reminded before paying the price for his P h . D . that degrees in them- selves do not make a very salutary lasting impression on the learned. In Fairness to the Work Likewise library-school training has its place. H o w essential it is those of us who have been denied it can likewise easily fail to appreciate. Again w e are apt to know not and know not that we know not. T h e library school works no miracle in its matriculants. It imparts no advices which are mysterious or inscrutable. Neverthe- less, the library administrator cannot— even if he wished—confine himself to policies in the abstract and leave all opera- tions in the concrete to "technicians." His decisions affect those operations all the way from the basement to the attic. In all fairness to the work and those who do it, therefore, universities need library admin- istrators who are able to see the biblio- graphical and educational techniques in- volved in the best library service in clear perspective. Normally, the path to such understanding leads through the operations themselves, not around them. T h e neces- sary background may be secured through years of practical experience or a relatively f e w months of systematic study at a good library school. M a n y distinguished uni- versity librarians have had no formal library training, but probably very f e w of them would advise the longer route if the more systematic approach were available to the one being advised. Finally, training aimed at broad educa- tional and social perspective has its place. In fact, the end and aim of all training, academic or technical, might be said to be a species of educational statesmanship. Pick out a young scholar trained in Eng- lish or some other subject, give him the usual nine months of training in a library school, place him in charge of a university library and his performance may be ex- pected to remain below the level of that of the best university librarians for a varying period of years. W h a t is the dif- ference? Genius? Perhaps, but the suc- cessful librarian is more likely to attribute it to what he has learned during his experi- ence. Some things are perhaps learned through experience and experience alone. Nevertheless, the principle still holds: Wherever an area of professional experi- ence can be marked out and studied sys- tematically, the learning period can be shortened. In the case of Professor Ker- ner's "library man," it ought to be possible to shorten the training period even fur- ther by bringing scholarly and professional interests into sharp focus during the period of graduate study. Undoubtedly there are problems to be worked out in developing a training program of this sort, but the idea of concentrating systematic study on D EC EMBER, 1939 37 what experience shows to be relevant to professional success seems to be sound. In closing, I should like to turn the discussion in a slightly different direc- tion. So f a r , we have been dealing almost ex- clusively with the university librarian con- sidered as the ranking member of the staff. W h a t about the rest of the staff and the relation of their positions to his? A r e we to think of the highest positions in the profession as within or outside the reach of the person who comes up from the ranks? M y comments on these interlock- ing questions will necessarily be brief and will do little more than punctuate the Williamson paper with an emphasis to which it seems to be entitled. Rephrasing one of the premises of that paper, a basic obligation of a profession is to provide continuity from the lower to the higher brackets of responsibility. T h e end in view, of course, is not to place a premium on mediocrity or seniority, but to allow the best ability to make its way to the top. T h e r e is a second value. One college of education refuses to announce courses for prospective deans of women— although it places young women in such positions regularly—on the ground that the self-picked dean of women is seldom as successful in every way as the one "dis- covered" and encouraged to enter the field by some educational administrator. A scheme of organization which permits young librarians with administrative abil- ity to move from lower through higher to the highest positions enables the profession to pick and train its own future leaders better than a scheme which requires im- porting persons with ready-made training to fill the positions at the top. B y way of summarizing what needs to be done, the obvious place to begin is with recruiting. However, the new wine of ability which is sought will have to be handled with care. Existing forms of organization have left f e w positions below the top rung in the ladder which appeal to those whose interest and training equip them to do something besides routine work. I venture to say that this fact has had fully as much to do with discouraging per- sons of outstanding ability from entering the library field as salaries—although we have heard considerably more of the latter. T h e new plan of staff organization put into effect recently at the University of California affords one type of solution to this problem. Its success will be watched carefully by other university libraries. Finally, training needs to be considered as a phase of good library management. Industry has learned the lesson already. Key positions are filled by persons who have, besides their formal training, a cer- tain amount of training on the job. It is taken for granted that no school and no chance moving from one industrial center to another will provide the type of selec- tion and training needed. Different li- braries have differing practices, but the tendency is to regard training as essen- tially the function of the library schools. Whether in-service training is to include systematic study during the period of em- ployment is a mater of terminology, but there is no doubt as to the responsibility of the university and the university libra- rian for both. T h e illusion that the only way to grow professionally is to get away from work and study for a degree needs to be shattered. Nevertheless, those who really deserve encouragement to go f u r - ther—either in academic or more narrowly technical studies—should receive it. 38 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH L I B R A R I E S '