BY JAMES THAYER GEROULD, _University of Missouri, Columbia_.
The recent discussion of the departmental library system at the
University of Chicago and the consequent restatement of the position of
that university in reference to such libraries, together with the
consideration of the problem in the annual reports of Dr. Canfield and
Mr. Lane, have called up anew the question of the expediency of the
system. Is the departmental library to be a permanent feature of the
university library? Is the highest effectiveness of a library to be
secured by a policy of decentralization?
The public library has answered the question, finally, it seems, in the
affirmative. Do the arguments which have induced the public librarian to
establish branches and delivery stations apply in the case of the
university library? Is the university library of the future to be housed
in a single building, or is it to be scattered about in class rooms and
laboratories? To my mind, there is no more important question of
administration before those of us who are trying to render the
university library an efficient instrument of instruction than this.
With many librarians there is an element of necessity entering into the
question. Mr. Lane is facing a condition where the library has
altogether outgrown its building, and some place must be found where
books can be stored and used. The situation is much the same in many
other places. Shall the facilities of the library be enlarged by
building or shall the books be transferred to the various departmental
libraries? Mr. Lane, speaking for his own library, says of the latter
alternative: "It would commit the library to an entirely different
policy from what it has pursued hitherto, and such a change would be
little short of a revolution for this library."
At the University of Missouri we are expecting in the near future to
begin the construction of a library building, but, before adopting any
definite plans, we are trying to work out the problems that have just
been stated, and to make ourselves reasonably sure that we are right
before we go ahead.
There are arguments enough on all sides of this question, of which Dr.
Canfield says that it has not two sides only, but a dozen. We must
premise that no two departments use their books in exactly the same way,
and that, consequently, methods of administration must differ. It is
generally for the advantage of all, for example, in a university where
there is a law school, that the books on private law should be separated
from the main collection and treated as a branch library. Similarly
medicine, theology and possibly a few other subjects may be withdrawn
and administered separately.
In some of our universities one or more of the departments are several
miles away from the main body of the institution. It is obviously
necessary that the books most used in those departments should be near
enough so that the students can have access to them without too much
inconvenience and loss of time. In the ordinary institution, however,
most of the buildings are grouped in a comparatively small area, and it
is seldom more than five minutes' walk from the most remote building to
the library. In a condition such as this, and with the exceptions noted
above, I am inclined to the opinion that the university is best served
by a central library containing the main collection, and small, rigidly
selected laboratory libraries comprising books which from their very
nature are most useful in the laboratory as manuals of work.
The arguments generally advanced in favor of the system are these:
1. The instructor needs to be able to refer, at a moment's notice, to
any book relating to his subject.
2. The system enables the instructor to keep a more careful watch over
the reading of his students.
3. The best interests of the library demand that each division of the
library shall be directly under the eye of the men most interested in
it, that is to say, the instructors in the various departments; that
they should direct its growth and watch over its interests.
That the first and second of these arguments have great weight cannot be
denied, but with a properly constructed library building and most
careful administration the requirements of both instructor and student
can be met quite as well by a central system.
It is, of course, quite impossible for each instructor to have in his
office all the books necessary for his work. The duplication necessary
for this purpose would be impracticable even for the most wealthy
university. He must, therefore, go from his office or class room to the
department library and search for the book himself. With the confusion
which generally reigns in a library of this sort, and with the lack of
effective registration of loans, this is quite often a matter of some
difficulty.
At Columbia University the office of each professor is in telephonic
communication with the central library. When a book is wanted the
library is notified by telephone, the book is found and sent out at
once. Within ten minutes from the time that the request reaches the
library the book is generally in the instructor's hands. He may lose two
or three minutes' time, but the amount lost is more than compensated by
the readiness with which others can use the books of the department, and
by other advantages to be considered later. At Columbia, too, the system
of stack study rooms provides in a very satisfactory way for the second
objection. There, as many of you have seen, the stacks are distributed
through a series of small rooms, the light side of which is supplied
with tables and used for study rooms and for seminar purposes. If the
instructor can use the departmental library for his work room, he can
certainly use this room to as good advantage, for here he has the
entire collection and not a selected few of his books. I believe fully
that an instructor who is sufficiently interested in the reading of his
students to watch over it carefully in his departmental library, will
find that he is able to keep just as close a relation to it, if his
students are working in a central library. He may be obliged to make
slight changes in his methods, but the result ought to be the same.
The third argument in favor of the departmental library system is of a
different nature. Is the librarian or the professor best qualified to
direct the growth and watch over the interests of the different
departments of the library? So far as I know, this argument is given
more consideration at Chicago than anywhere else. It may be true, in
certain cases, that the professor has the greater qualification for this
work, but when this is the case it argues that the professor is an
exceptional one or that the university has been unfortunate in the
selection of its librarian.
It is quite needless to say that the librarian should be in constant
conference with the teaching force regarding purchases, but that he
should delegate all of his powers of purchase in any given field, admits
of the gravest doubt. Laude, in his recent work on the university
library system of Germany, attributes a great deal of the success of
those libraries to the fact that they are independent and autonomous
institutions, enjoying a much greater measure of freedom than is
accorded to any similar American institution. Too many professors are
apt to buy books in their special field and slight other lines of
research in their own subject. For example, a zoologist, who is doing
research work along the lines of embryology, is very apt to overload the
collection at that point and neglect other equally important lines.
Again, very few instructors, even granting them the qualifications
necessary for the work, have the time or patience for it. If the amount
appropriated to the department is at all large, a considerable portion
of the sum is quite frequently unexpended at the end of the year. Some
interesting tables, prepared by Mr. Winsor for his report for the year
1894-95, show that in seven selected departments the amount of books
ordered, including continuations, was only about 50 per cent. of the
appropriation, plus one quarter, the allowance for orders not filled.
While this proportion would probably not hold good in all departments or
in all places, it exhibits an almost uniform tendency and a tendency
which must be corrected if a well-rounded out library is to be secured.
The system of departmental control is very sure to create a feeling of
departmental ownership, a feeling that the books, bought out of the
moneys appropriated to a particular library, should remain permanently
in that library, and that any one from outside who wishes to use the
books is more or less of an intruder. Pin any one of these men down, and
they will admit that the books are for the use of all, but the feeling
exists, notwithstanding, and is the cause of constant friction.
The departmental library renders the books difficult of access. If the
library is large enough to warrant the setting apart of a separate room
for its use, this room can seldom be open for as large a portion of the
day as the central library, and when it is open the books cannot be
obtained as readily by the great body of the students as if they were in
a central building. Most students are working in several lines at once.
They are compelled, by this system, to go from one room to another, and
to accommodate themselves to differing hours of opening and to varying
rules for the use of the books. Then, too, it frequently happens in the
case of small libraries that the books are kept in the office of the
head of the department, and can only be consulted when he is in his
office and at liberty. The difficulty is here greatly increased. I know
of cases where even the instructors in the same department have found
difficulty in getting at the books, and the library was, in effect, a
private library for the head professor, supported out of university
funds. If instructors cannot use the books, how can the student be
expected to do so?
There is a sentiment, false, perhaps, but nevertheless existing in the
minds of many students, that any attempt to use the books under these
circumstances is an endeavor to curry favor with the professor. This
feeling does not exist in connection with the use of the books at a
central library.
If a book in a departmental library is needed by a student in another
department, he must either go to the department and put the custodian to
the inconvenience of looking it up for him, or he must wait at the
central library while a messenger goes for the book. His need of the
book must be very pressing before he will do either.
If the different fields of knowledge were sharply defined, the
departmental system might be a practicable one, but such is not the
case. The psychologist needs books bearing on philosophy, sociology,
zoology and physics, the sociologist gathers his data from almost the
whole field of human knowledge, the economist must use books on history
and the historian books on economics. The system hampers him exceedingly
in the selection and use of his material, or it compels the university
to purchase a large body of duplicate material, and restricts, by so
much, the growth of the real resources of the library.
The system, it seems to me, induces narrowness of vision and a sort of
specialization which is anything but scientific. Trending in the same
direction is the separation of the books, in any given field, into two
categories. The undergraduate may need some such selection, but any
student who has gone beyond the elements of his subject should have at
his command the entire resources of the library. The needs of the
elementary student can be met by direct reference to certain books, or
by setting aside the volumes required as special reference books and
allowing free access to them.
A large amount of our most valuable material is found in the
publications of scientific and literary societies and in periodicals. In
many cases these must be kept at the central library. They will be much
more frequently read if the readers are using the central library and
availing themselves of the information given in the catalog.
From the administrative point of view, there is nothing impossible in
the organization of the departmental system, provided that finances of
the library admit of the increased expenditure. As Mr. Bishop has
pointed out in a recent number of the _Library Journal_, the element of
cost seems to have been utterly left out of consideration in the recent
discussions at the University of Chicago. It is possible that, with the
immense resources of that institution, they may be able to ignore that
factor, but most of us are compelled to reduce administrative
expenditures to the lowest point consistent with good work.
Aside from the cost of the duplication of books already noted,
necessitated by the division of the books among the different
departments, there are the items of space and labor to be considered. It
needs no argument to show that there is a great economy of space gained
by the consolidation of all libraries, with the exceptions previously
referred to, into one central building. An entire room is frequently
given up to a departmental library of three or four hundred volumes,
when a few extra shelves and possibly a slight increase in the seating
capacity of the reading room would accommodate it in the central
library. The cost of maintenance, of heating and of lighting is also
undoubtedly greater under the departmental arrangement.
The greatest increase in expense is, however, in the item of service. In
order properly to control a branch of this sort, an employe of the
library must be in constant attendance. The duties and responsibilities
of such a position are so small that only the lowest paid grade of
service can be employed with economy. The amount necessary to pay the
salaries of such persons could, with much greater advantage to the whole
institution, be used for the employment of a few specialists, highly
trained in different lines, who would act as reference librarians in
their respective fields. Our American libraries are, as a class,
compared with those of foreign universities, singularly deficient in
this quality of assistance. Sooner or later we must supply this lack,
and every move which tends in another direction must be examined with
care.
The university library exists for the whole university--all of it for
the whole university. In an ideal condition, every book in it should be
available, at a moment's notice, if it is not actually in use. This
should be our aim, and it should be from this viewpoint that we should
judge the efficiency of our administration and the value of any proposed
change.
SUGGESTIONS FOR AN ANNUAL LIST OF AMERICAN THESES FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.