Archives of Library Research From the Molesworth Institute 9780866564663

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Contents
Introduction: Disjunctive Librarianship
The History of The Molesworth Institute
A Note About the Texts
The Molesworth Institute
Introduction
The Molesworth Institute Revisited
Introduction
FOOTNOTES
A Computer Analysis of Library Postcards (CALP)
Introduction
CATALOGING AND CLASSIFICATION
NEW TECHNOLOGIES
PRELIMINARY ANALYSES
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
FOOTNOTE
Negative Library Growth
Introduction
A Cost Analysis of a Cost Analysis
Introduction
Connectiwhat?
Introduction
Umbrella Disappearance, Exchange, and Loss Rates in American Academic Libraries
Introduction
FOOTNOTES
An Innovative Approach to Collection Management
Introduction
FOOTNOTE
An Observation on Shelving Practices
Introduction
Multiple Acronymization as a Creative Solution to the Effective Use of Library Resources
Introduction
MOUSER
FOOTNOTE
The Librarian 's Record: A Neglected Library Periodical Revived
Introduction
FOOTNOTES
Oscar Gustafsen: A Tragic Minor Figure of American Librarianship
Introduction
New Measures of Library Efficiency
Introduction
FOOTNOTES
OLCC, Inc.: Offline Library Creative Cataloging
Introduction
SUPERDESTANDARDIZATION: ETHIC FOR THE 80s
DECORATED CARD HOLES AND OTHER FARSIGHTED TRENDS
REFERENCES
Precostretrieval; or, Old Wine in New Bottles
Introduction
PRESERVATION
RETRIEVAL
COMPACT STORAGE
Cornelia’s Last Information Search
Introduction
Full Circle; or, the Last Shall Be First
Introduction
THE SETTING
THE SEARCH
A VISIT TO EAST MACHIAS
THE DECISION
Selections from the Dictionary of Libinfosci Terms
Introduction
Permissions

Citation preview

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute Norman D. Stevens Director

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute is a monographic supplement to the journal Technical Services Quarterly, Volume 3, 1985. It is not supplied as part of the subscription to the journal, but is available from the publisher at an additional charge.

First published 1985 by The Haworth Press, Inc., 28 East 22 Street, New York, NY 10010

This edition published 2015 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1985 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be repro­ duced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo­ copying, microfilm and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Stevens, Norman D. Archives of library research from the Molesworth Institute. “ A monographic supplement to the journal Technical services quarterly, volume 3, 1985” —T.p. verso. 1. Library science—Anecdotes, facetiae, satire, etc. I. Technical services quarterly. V. 3 (Supplement) II. Title. Z682.5.S69 1985 020’.207 85-16354 ISBN 0-86656-466-7

ISBN 13: 978-0-86656-466-3 (hbk)

Dedication

This compilation is dedicated to the friendship and memory of Homer D. Babbidge, Jr., former President of the University of Connecticut, who had an abiding interest in academic humor.

CONTENTS Introduction: Disjunctive Librarianship

1

The History of The Molesworth Institute

3

A Note About the Texts

5

The Molesworth Institute

7

The Molesworth Institute Revisited

11

A Computer Analysis of Library Postcards (CALP)

15

Negative Library Growth

23

A Cost Analysis of a Cost Analysis

25

Connectiwhat?

31

Umbrella Disappearance, Exchange, and Loss Rates in American Academic Libraries

33

An Innovative Approach to Collection Management

41

An Observation on Shelving Practices

45

Multiple Acronymization as a Creative Solution to the Effective Use of Library Resources

47

The Librarian 's Record: A Neglected Library Periodical Revived

55

Oscar Gustafsen: A Tragic Minor Figure of American Librarianship

59

New Measures of Library Efficiency

65

OLCC, Inc.: Offline Library Creative Cataloging

71

Precostretrieval; or, Old Wine in New Bottles

75

Cornelia’s Last Information Search

79

Full Circle; or, the Last Shall Be First

83

Selections from the Dictionary o f Libinfosci Terms

89

Permissions

107

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

Introduction: Disjunctive Librarianship

Recent years have seen a considerable stir created by those who advocate what has come to be called alternative librarianship. Those advocates are an active group seeking to bring about a change in the way in which we, as librarians, think and act. Unfortunately those visionaries are no more inclined to treat librarianship with the levity that it so often deserves than are the more traditional members of the profession. Indeed alternative librarians often take themselves far more seriously than do regular librarians. They may write what sometimes passes for humor but behind it there always lurks an ele­ ment of deadly seriousness. Their humor is designed as satire in­ tended to help bring about change. Unfortunately just as the alternative librarians seem to have pre­ empted other aspects of librarianship so they seem, sometimes, to have pre-empted library humor. Fortunately there is another group of librarians who, while a much smaller minority, do offer a real alternative. We are committed, at least with some part of our mind, to what really is an alternative to the hide-bound traditions of the library profession. Our view can best be characterized as represent­ ing disjunctive librarianship. We find the library world, like the real world, impossible to understand on a rational basis. We turn then to the outer reaches of our mind and treat librarianship with the irra­ tionality that it deserves. While we most often turn to humor merely to enjoy ourselves, we do sometimes do so to make a point. That point is simply that the world of librarianship is ridiculous and that we should all take a far less serious view of our work. What we ac­ complish as librarians is not, after all, likely to change the world. One of the most significant characteristics of disjunctive librari­ anship is that its advocates are not out to change the world, or even to convert other librarians to our point of view. If we write for publication, we do so for those who will appreciate our efforts for what they are. Just fun. 1

2

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

For most of my professional career I have been an ardent practi­ tioner of disjunctive librarianship. All of my work of that kind has appeared under the rubric of The Molesworth Institute. The present text represents the major papers published by me in my role as Director of The Molesworth Institute. These papers are intended solely for the entertainment of the reading audience. Let those who would read more into them beware. Norman D. Stevens

The History of The Molesworth Institute

The Molesworth Institute had its origins in the late 1950s when I, along with my esteemed colleague Francis A. T. Johns, was a grad­ uate student in the School of Library Service at Rutgers University. The original purpose of this organization has long since been for­ gotten and the origins of its name are likewise shrouded in mystery. For many years The Molesworth Institute remained only a fig­ ment of my imagination until I took it upon myself to write a general piece on its work which was published in the ALA Bulletin in 1963. While I continued, in other respects, to pursue my interest in library humor after the appearance of that article, which did generate con­ siderable response, another six years were to pass before I again ventured to write of that organization. A second article, also of a general descriptive nature, appeared in the ALA Bulletin in 1969. Again matters languished until it occurred to me that it was pos­ sible to go well beyond general articles describing in broad terms the potential work of an imaginary institute to the actual production of articles describing in greater detail the specific projects of such an organization. Since the appearance of “ A Computer Analysis of Library Postcards (CALP)” in 1974, that has been the main thrust of the work of, and the writings about, The Molesworth Institute. For the most part all of the work of The Molesworth Institute has emanated from ideas generated at library meetings and conferences when the regular proceedings have dragged on and my attention, and that of my colleagues, has begun to wander. Many of the ideas incorporated in these writings have come, either directly or indirect­ ly, from inspiration provided by colleagues. I owe a profound debt of gratitude to all who have, wittingly or unwittingly, contributed to my work. It is impossible to identify and thank them all individually or, at this point, to pinpoint with any degree of accuracy just where a particular thought came from. Over the past twenty-five years I have also sought to create an identity for The Molesworth Institute. For that reason a concen­ trated effort has been made to list the Institute and its staff in a wide 3

4

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

range of directories and biographical dictionaries. Those entries re­ main lurking out there to trap the unwary, to please the knowing, and to provide credibility for The Molesworth Institute. In the same fashion, and for the same reasons, I have carried on a wide range of correspondence with a wide range of people about the work of The Molesworth Institute. Most of that has been in the spirit of the organization and has been done more for pleasure than to create an image of reality. Those who have been especially suppor­ tive have been encouraged to designate themselves as Fellows of The Molesworth Institute. There remains the future. I trust that over the next twenty years, or more, the work of The Molesworth Institute will continue un­ abated. I trust that I may be able, from time to time, to contribute some additional articles that may furnish some relief from the reali­ ties of librarianship. New times demand new challenges. I am cer­ tain that The Molesworth Institute will be able to respond to the challenges of the future in new and imaginative ways. Norman D. Stevens

A Note About the Texts

The text of these papers, as offered here, represents the official 1985 text as approved by The Molesworth Institute. The papers appear here primarily in the way in which they were first published. My original texts, as submitted for publication, were subject, in most cases, to improvement through the editorial pro­ cess. I am grateful for the skill with which many editors improved my work. To some extent, however, the texts as presented here are a blend between my original thoughts and the words as first pub­ lished. “ The Umbrella Paper” has appeared previously in at least two slightly different forms. A few of the papers which have not been published before have been given as oral presentations in a slightly different form. The frequent references to the previous work of The Molesworth Institute generated, by design, a series of footnotes to that work which were a feature of the papers as published. In that way I sought to build a chain of credibility for the work of The Molesworth Insti­ tute. Those footnotes have been eliminated since The Molesworth Institute has established itself.

5

The Molesworth Institute

Introduction This paper, which originally appeared in the ALA Bulletin (57: 75-6, 1963), was the first full-length published piece describing the work of The Molesworth Institute. The favorable response that it generated, including some letters published in subsequent issues of the ALA Bulletin, helped establish the concept of an imaginary organization devoted to pursuing odd kinds of library research as one worth further attention. * * * As the result of numerous inquiries concerning the activities of The Molesworth Institute in recent months, the Board of Directors of the Institute with considerable reluctance has authorized publica­ tion of this brief article describing its basic goals and some of its library-oriented projects. The Molesworth Institute was founded as a privately supported non-profit organization in 1956. Its basic objectives are to foster the growth and development of Molesworth studies in the United States, to combat the subversive and anti-human activities of the Treens, to encourage the spread of general knowledge and raise the general standard of intelligence throughout the world, and to destroy the basic fabric of bibliography. Our research workers, who are dedi­ cated to these objectives, serve entirely on a volunteer basis to work on particular projects which they feel will best meet these objec­ tives. For that reason, and because the Institute is interested only in pure research and will not accept financial aid from outside sources, work on most of our projects proceeds slowly and we do not en­ visage their completion in the near future. One project that is currently occupying much of our time and ef­ forts is the development of a paper stock for use in a program de­ signed to force libraries to reevaluate each item in their collection after a given period of time (we have been thinking in terms of a twenty-year period but have not yet finalized our decision) and 7

8

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

which will, at the same time, reduce the costs of recataloging, with­ drawal, etc. Under the expert guidance of Dr. Timothy Peason, formerly of St. Custard’s, we are developing a paper stock which will automatically change its color after, say, nineteen years. It will then totally disintegrate a year later. This paper is designed pri­ marily for use as catalog cards. When the card changes its color from white to bright purple it is a signal that the book which that card represents is to be reevaluated. If the book is to be discarded, it simply may be set aside for a year and then thrown away. The li­ brary records may be ignored because they will disappear automat­ ically. If, on the other hand, the book is to be retained, it will have to be recataloged according to the latest code (what a boon!). The new cards can then be filed while the old ones are forgotten. Until the cataloging-in-source project fell through, we had been working on a scheme to use a similar paper for books. We are now holding this phase of the development in abeyance until an accept­ able scheme for the distribution of catalog cards with the books as issued by the publisher is perfected. Ideally, with both cards and books on our special paper, the library would have to put those items which it felt it necessary to keep after the given period into some type of microform. Those items could then be recataloged, while other items could be ignored. These would remove them­ selves without further work on the part of the library staff. Of course a larger custodial staff equipped with vacuum cleaners might be needed to remove the accumulated dust. Research of this nature, however, is only a small part of our ac­ tivities. Our major efforts to date have been devoted to publishing projects. Brief mention of three of these projects may be in order at this point. First, we plan to solve a major space problem for li­ braries by microfilming all Braille books, perhaps the bulkiest of all library items. Second, we are preparing an octo-lingual interlinear edition of the famous 1721 Chinese encyclopedia, the Ku Kin T u Shu Thi’ C h’eng, which was originally published in 5,020 volumes. For some time a team of outstanding world scholars have been translating this major work into English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Swahili, and Treen. The Chinese text will be reproduced from the original wood blocks. Our third project is the publication of all of the books from the long-lost Librairie Sainct Victor which were recently rediscovered in the basement of the Vladivostok Free Public Library. This will include, among other titles, La Gualimaffree des Bigotz and L ’Histoire des Farfaditz.

Norman D. Stevens

9

Perhaps our major project, completed but lacking publication funds, is a periodical designed to amaze and confound the biblio­ graphic world. This periodical, to be issued at the whim of the editor, will be entitled, purely and simply, Ibid. Its format will be so plain that it will be impossible to distinguish references to it from other, more legitimate, references using the term Ibid. In other words, by properly citing the periodical Ibid.f with or without page references, any statement appearing in it can be attributed to any author. All of our articles, untitled and unsigned, naturally, will be brief, general, and of the highest literary quality. In an effort to fur­ ther confuse and spread the influence of Ibid. , each subscriber may make whatever corrections or additions he desires to the contents of any issue. We hope to include in an early issue the famous Molesworth-Peason Universal Statistical Table which completely supersedes and makes totally unnecessary such works as Statistical Abstracts and similar pieces of nonsense which have hitherto hin­ dered would-be scholars and research workers. The Institute’s non-library oriented projects are equally important but cannot be mentioned here. Suggestions for other projects of value to libraries that would further the aims of the Institute are always welcome, as are research workers who are willing to devote their time and energy to any of our ongoing projects.

The Molesworth Institute Revisited

Introduction This, the second major paper on the work of The Molesworth In­ stitute to be published, also appeared in the ALA Bulletin (63: 1275-7, 1969). It may have helped precipitate the subsequent change in the title of that journal. This paper, like its predecessor, provides a general description of the work of The Molesworth Insti­ tute but also sets the stage for some of the more specific papers which were to follow. *

*

*

Since 1956 there has existed in various locations in the United States a little-known, privately supported, non-profit research orga­ nization known as The Molesworth Institute. Some of its earlier ac­ tivities were reported on in the ALA Bulletin. Since that time work on many of the important projects described there has continued un­ abated by our small staff of dedicated volunteer research workers. Some significant, albeit minor, contributions have been made by the Institute in recent years.1 Progress in general, however, has been somewhat slow and, in some areas, distressingly unspectacular, but we now expect at almost any time the kind of breakthrough in our project to microfilm all Braille books that will bring the Institute the recognition it so richly deserves. As sponsored research elsewhere has turned increasingly to auto­ mation and information retrieval, as well as to other more signifi­ cant areas, the Board of Directors of The Molesworth Institute have felt that the non-sponsorable research of its workers has fallen somewhat too close to reality and that a fundamental reassessment of the Institute’s goals was long overdue. Consequently they re77

12

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

cently decided to move the headquarters of the Institute to a more bucolic atmosphere; and, in conjunction with that move, they spon­ sored the Spring Hill Conference on the state of the art. As a result, the basic goals of The Molesworth Institute were reaffirmed. These goals are, “ To foster the growth and development of Molesworth Studies in the United States, to combat the subversive and anti­ human activities of the Treens, to encourage the spread of general knowledge and raise the general standard of intelligence throughout the world, and to destroy the basic fabric of bibliography.” 2 The goals were also broadened to include “ the investigation and applica­ tion of techniques being developed in other scientific disciplines to the world of books and libraries.” 4 In the few short weeks since this conference was held a number of significant new projects are already under consideration and the work at The Molesworth Institute has developed a new atmosphere of intensive application, dedication, and rededication. As always one of the major problems is finding enough capable, dedicated re­ search workers with a fundamental commitment to the basic goals of The Molesworth Institute. The Board of Directors has, therefore, contrary to its usual policy, agreed to announce the basic details of some of the new areas currently being investigated in the hopes that this will stimulate a number of people to become Fellows of The Molesworth Institute. We earnestly solicit applications from inter­ ested parties who feel that they possess the necessary qualifications. One of our most significant new studies will be carried out in aca­ demic institutions as soon as enough volunteers can be found. It has often been said that “ The library is the heart of the institution.” To test this statement we now have a team of research workers investi­ gating the possibility of heart transplants. We propose, for example, to move intact the library from a large ARL institution to a small college to see if the latter is suddenly rejuvenated and if the former can survive the shock. The prospects for transplants are numerous and only a few such exchanges should furnish much valuable infor­ mation on the size of a “ heart” which is needed to maintain institu­ tions of varying ages, sizes, and natural conditions. Another study involves the development of a non-citation index in which it is proposed to list regularly all scientific papers which have not been cited by another author.5 This work may then be used either in identifying work that may be completely ignored since it has never been cited, or, by the more imaginative, in identifying im-

Norman D. Stevens

13

portant work that ought to be pursued further. Along somewhat the same lines we are considering the establishment of a number of NIGEL centers in parallel to the ERIC centers. The NIGEL centers (Negative Information on Godawful Educational Literature) will be concerned with the collection and destruction of educational reports and literature in a number of different areas. These centers will pub­ lish weekly bibliographic listings. Some consideration is being given to the possibility of the preservation for historical purposes only of the reports selected for destruction probably by publication in microfiche form at a reduction ratio far beyond the capacity of any reader now available. Still another line of investigation concerns itself with the collec­ tion of picture postcards of libraries to assist in two projects. The first involves the use of a Hinman collator to identify the common features of library buildings in an effort to design the perfect library building. The second involves a consideration of the use of laser beams, and other advanced techniques, in the field of microminia­ turization, to develop programs for the solid state transmission of books and readers from one library to another. Finally one of our most important new studies is CRAM III (Clear and Readable Automation Manuals). Because of the urgent and difficult nature of the problem, the initial stages of Project CRAM and CRAM II were bypassed since our preliminary studies revealed that CRAM III is the first level at which any significant im­ provements are capable of being shown. Many of the details of CRAM III are, at the moment, either confidential or not fully worked out but we can indicate that one line of research involves the mechanical translation of a number of automation manuals into Treen. The Molesworth Institute is now earnestly seeking research workers who wish to devote their energies to these, or similar research projects of their own making, vital tasks.

FOOTNOTES 1. See, for example, Library Journal 90:2916, 1965; and 92:945, 1967. 2. Ibid. In response to numerous requests from readers who have not seen Ibid. and whose libraries may not have complete files, I thought I might report here on one of the most significant accomplishments of The Molesworth Institute which has previously only appeared in Ibid. That is, of course, the famous Molesworth-Peason Universal Statistical Table.

14

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute Figure 1 The Molesworth-Peason Universal Statistical Table3 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 * * ft & __

2 12 22 32 42 52 62 72 82 92 #

3 13 23 33 43 53 63 73 83 93 &

4 14 24 34 44 54 64 74 84 94

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95

6 16 26 36 46 56 66 76 86 96

7 17 27 37 47 57 67 77 87 97

8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98

9 19 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 99

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figures not available Latest figures______(e.g., 1938) Estimate based on sample o f _____ % (e.g., 3.7) Users may provide their own symbols and notes for the remaining spaces.

Special note: Through the use of these tables the researcher can immediately provide himself with any statistics he desires, and by properly quoting Ibid. can attribute them to any authori­ ty he desires (e.g., the researcher first quotes a legitimate statement from Archer’s bookMatableland Today; he then states that the consumption of peanut butter in Matableland in 1965 amounted to 250 lbs. per person which statement he footnotes to Ibid.). 3. Abbreviated version; for complete table and further explanation see Ibid. 4. Spring Hill Conference on the Future of The Molesworth Institute, December 9-13, 1968. Proceedings p. 13. 5. Our initial proposal was to list in the NCI works that had not been cited in another paper; our preliminary sample indicated that 97.3% of all authors cite their own works in later papers.

A Computer Analysis of Library Postcards (CALP)

ABSTRACT. A description of a sophisticated application of com­ puter techniques to the analysis of a collection of picture postcards of library buildings in an attempt to establish the minimum architec­ tural requirements needed to distinguish one style of library building from another and to assist in the description of the ideal library building. The objectives of the program, the techniques utilized, the past history of the project, and the results to date are described. A number of side benefits of the program are also described.

Introduction Building on a general idea mentioned in the previous paper, this paper, which originally appeared in the Journal o f the American Society fo r Information Science (25:332-5, 1974), was the first to report in detail on a specific project of The Molesworth Institute. This paper also has the distinction of being the first, but not the only, of the papers of The Molesworth Institute to be included in Bill Katz’s annual compilation of the best of our literature. *

*

*

In addition to its other programs, The Molesworth Institute has for some time been engaged in a massive effort to collect picture postcards of libraries throughout the world. These cards have been collected for a variety of reasons, including some aesthetic and per­ sonal interests, but primarily to support the research programs of The Institute. Two projects involving the use of these cards have been described in an earlier report. “ The first involves the use of a Hinman collator to identify the common features of library buildings 15

16

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

in an effort to design the perfect library building. The second in­ volves a consideration of the use of laser beams, and other advanced techniques in the field of microminiaturization, to develop programs for the solid state transmission of books and readers from one library to another.” The second project mentioned above is still in the planning stages, but some rough preliminary design studies have been completed. It appears, on the basis of work to date, that a much more highly de­ veloped technological state of the art will have to be achieved before that effort can be sustained. The first project has been proceeding along the lines originally described and much useful work has been accomplished. It appears now, however, that the work of that proj­ ect will largely be supplanted by the work of the project described in this paper. A final report on the Hinman collator project will be issued in early 1975 by the team of architects and librarians that has been conducting it.

CATALOGING AND CLASSIFICATION In attempting to achieve the preliminary organization of the mate­ rial for the Hinman collator project certain problems of cataloging and classification were encountered. After some thought a new system of organization was designed which not only assisted materi­ ally in that project but has, as was indicated, led to its demise. When our collection numbered only a few hundred cards no system was needed. However, the vast accumulation of cards over the past five years has led our librarians into a variety of efforts to arrange and classify this collection which now numbers over 5,000 cards. We did initially utilize a standard library system (see Figure One for a sample of the record produced) but unfortunately Bliss, Cutter, Dewey, the Library of Congress classification, U .D .C., and the Anglo-American Cataloging Code all proved to be totally inade­ quate for our specialized needs. For a time we felt that Ranganathan was on the right track and we attempted to develop a system, known as PAL (Postcard Analysis of Libraries), based on his work. Although we employed him as a con­ sultant and hired two Indian librarians who had been trained by him, we soon found that staff turnover, and more especially the aging of existing staff, resulted in a significant variation in indexing levels.

Norman D. Stevens

17

Figure One Early Catalog Record

Bingham , H .F ., pub. Ashby tow n lib rary , Ashby, Mass. E x eter, N .H ., F rank W. Swallow, n.d. colored p o stcard

13.5 x 9 cm .

Unused.

1. L ibraries.

2. Ashby, Mass. - L ib raries.

I. Ashby Town L ibrary. 7 7 H a 34

t he M olesw orth In stitu te - P ostcards

The main difficulty lay in establishing concisely the personality facet of this material. Despite intensive training efforts, tests showed that as we attempted to retrieve material for our research projects we were obtaining a poor recall/precision ratio (57.2%/32.8%). This effort was subsequently abandoned for that reason. We then reverted to our initial, somewhat primitive, system which incorporated a combination of alphabetical arrangement by place, a cross-reference file by type and name of library, human memory, and visual scanning of the file. Tests showed that this gave us a high recall ratio (97.3%) but a low precision ratio (2.7%). Given the nature of our projects and the then relatively small size of our file, about 1523 cards, this seemed to be satisfactory. In early 1971, however, our file underwent a tremendous growth in a short period of time as a result of new interest in a variety of projects relating to it. This interest was sparked by Miss Cecily Cardew who had joined our staff in late 1970 as a special research asso­ ciate and fellow. Her interest grew, in part, out of the work she was conducting in connection with her doctoral program in librarianship and architecture at Lord Howe University.

18

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

NEW TECHNOLOGIES Miss Cardew began to investigate the possible applications of computer technology to the organization of this file. Preliminary discussions with our library and programming staffs were encourag­ ing. Next discussions were held with several outside consultants, in­ cluding Lawrence Clark Powell,1 who had previously expressed an interest in this area. It was then concluded that there was indeed an enormous amount of information on these cards that pertained, either directly or indirectly, to library architecture and history, and that computer processing of that information was feasible. A prelim­ inary work sheet (see Figure Two) was developed and programs were written to test this hypothesis. Approximately 200 cards were then encoded into a machine readable data base and a series of tests were run. Figure Two Preliminary CALP Work Sheet 10 N am e of L ib ra ry __________________________________ 20 P lac e ______________________________________________ 30 P o stc a rd 31 Size (in c m .)_____________________________

32 D a te ______________________________________ 33 P ublisher__________________________________ 34 C olor___ or 35 B lack & W hite____________ 36 U sed___ or 37 U nused____________________ 4 0 - 4 4 E x te rio r____ or 4 5 - 4 9 In te rio r_________________ SO T yp e of C o n s tu rc tio n _____________________________ 60 T ype of L ib ra ry __________________________________ 70 A rc h ite c tu r a l S ty le 72 C a rn e g ie__________________________________ 74 M odern____________________________________ 76 O th e r

SO Other Distinguishing Features

Norman D. Stevens

19

As a result of those discussions and tests we next organized a month-long planning conference, known as Project INNREX (In­ formation Retrieval Experiments) which was held in Rockport, Mass. from August 2 to September 3, 1971. This conference, which brought together a small group of our own staff and outside library and computer experts, resulted in an intensive discussion of file organization, the basic objectives and goals of the project, the utility of the information, how the relevant information could best be en­ coded, and technical feasibility. It was concluded, for example, that in addition to architectural information the proper analysis of the details on these cards would enable librarians and social historians to study, for example, the relationships of dogs, and other animals, to libraries. Future technical options, including the possible devel­ opment of an optical scanning device which would enable us to di­ rectly encode the information, were also discussed but it was agreed that the project should move forward as rapidly as possible utilizing existing technology. At the conclusion of the conference a statement of goals and objectives and a detailed work plan were adopted. After the conference the research and programming staff of The Institute, under the direction of Miss Cardew, developed a series of eight work sheets for the encoding of the information from the cards. These cover the following major categories: (100) the post­ card (color, manufacturer, size, etc.); (200) philatelic information (cancellation, place-date-time of cancellation, stamp, etc.); (300) message (person to whom card is addressed, library related/non­ library related, etc.); (400) library (architect, date, name, place, etc.); (500) basic building facts (other past or present uses, shape, size, type of construction, etc.); (600) specific exterior features of the building (chimneys, ivy, lightning rods, porticos, pediments, signs, swag, weathervanes, etc.); (700) exterior features not part of the building (animals, cannons, flagpoles, flowers, means of transportation, other buildings, people, shrubs, statues, trees, etc.); and (800) interior views (animals, area of library, books, bookstacks, furniture, library equipment, lighting fixtures, other ac­ coutrements, people, plants, etc.). (See Figure Three for an exam­ ple.) In addition programs were written in Fortran to run on our IBM 360 Model 67 configuration computer. We now have on-line capability and have three IBM 3275 cathode ray terminals which enable our research staff to carry out their research analyses. Unfor­ tunately our programming techniques are somewhat unique and we believe that documentation of techniques and programs only leads to

20

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute Figure Three Final CALP Work Sheet

600 Specific e x terio r fe a tu re s of th e building 603 Air conditioners___________________________ 606 Awnings___________________________________ 609 Billboards_________________________________ 612 C him neys__________________________________ 615 C locks____________________________________ 618 C upolas___________________________________ 621 Dome_____________________________________ 624 Doors_____________________________________ 6 2 4 . 0 3 N um ber____________________________ 6 2 4 . 0 6 L o c a tio n s __________________________ 6 2 4 . 0 9 Shape_______________________________ 6 2 4 . 1 2 Size_________________________________ 6 2 4 . 1 5 Open____ or 6 2 4 . 1 8 Closed_________ 627 Flagpoles__________________________________ 6 2 7 . 0 3 No Flag____________________________ 6 2 7 . 0 6 Flag________________________________ 6 2 7 . 0 8 Num ber of s ta rs and strip es____ 630 G argoyles_________________________________ 633 Inscriptions________________________________ 636 Ivy________________________________________

639 Lightning rods_____________________________ 642 Lights_____________________________________ 645 Pedim ent__________________________________ 648 P illa rs ____________________________________ 6 4 8 . 0 3 C orinthian___________________________ 6 4 8 . 0 6 Doric_______________________________ 6 4 8 . 0 9 Ionic_______________________________ 6 4 8 . 1 2 O ther_______________________________ 651 Porches____________________________________ 654 P orticos____________________________________

Norman D. Stevens

21

657 Signs______________________________________ 660 S teps______________________________________ 663 Television anten n as_______________________ 666 Tow ers____________________________________ 669 W eathervanes______________________________ 672 Windows___________________________________ 6 7 2 . 0 3 N um ber_____________________________ 6 7 2 . 0 6 L ocations___________________________ 6 7 2 . 0 9 Shape_______________________________ 6 7 2 . 12 Size________________________________ 6 7 2 . 15 Open_____ or 67 2 . 18 Closed_________ 6 7 2 . 2 1 S tained glass_______________________ 6 7 2 . 2 4 Shades______________________________ 6 7 2 . 2 7 O pen____________________________ 6 7 2 . 3 0 Closed___________________________ 675 - 699 O th er in form ation______________________

a lack of imagination on the part of our programmers. We are unable, therefore, to make our data base or programs available to other interested institutions. We are willing to utilize our programs and to develop new programs, at no charge, at The Institute for qualified researchers. A limited number of fellowships are available to support such researchers while they are at The Institute.

PRELIMINARY ANALYSES To date we have encoded the 5,000 postcards currently in our col­ lection and have done a number of analyses. One of the more inter­ esting indicates that only ten cards show a dog either in or entering a library, while ten interior views include moose heads, which would seem to confirm the impression that most libraries have for a long period of time systematically discriminated against dogs. Another analysis shows that the most frequent library related message on these cards is, “ I haven’t yet read all of the books here. Ha! Ha!” This tends to demonstrate that library-related humor is of a very low

22

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

level. Some efforts have been made to determine the growth rates of ivy on the exterior of libraries. While preliminary indications seem to show a somewhat faster rate of growth for Carnegie libraries, our research has been hampered by the lack of comparative information for other public buildings. FUTURE ACTIVITIES Those analyses are, however, apart from our main objectives. The major objective has been to analyze the architectural informa­ tion in an effort to determine the requirements of the ideal library building and to identify those features which distinguish one type or style of building from another. Some of the elements of the ideal building have tentatively been identified (e.g., the length and nature of the inscription on the exterior of the building), but indications are that we will need to analyze another 7,000 cards in order to more definitely establish that and other requirements. Some library types (e.g., Early Carnegie-Eastern) have also been tentatively identified but here, again, additional analysis of a larger number of cards will be required. At our current rate of progress and given the continued acquisition of raw data at a reasonable rate it appears that C ALP will run until at least 1982. By that time we believe that the data which we will have analyzed will enable The Molesworth Institute to issue a comprehensive and definitive report describing the various com­ ponents of the ideal library building and defining a number of types of buildings. This report will be most useful if library buildings are still being constructed in anything approximating the design ele­ ments of the period 1900-1920 since the bulk of our information comes from that time. FOOTNOTE 1. Powell, L. C. “ Any Postcards,” Library Journal 87:2960 (1962).

Negative Library Growth

Introduction This paper, which appeared originally in The U*n*a*b*a*s*h*e*d Librarian (Number 13, Fall 1974, p. 6), was inspired by an ad in Li­ brary Journal although problems with remote book return boxes at the University of Connecticut Library also contributed to the ap­ proach to helping control library growth described here. * * * Drastic problems sometimes require radical solutions. While zero library growth now is receiving much attention, The Molesworth In­ stitute has been engaged for several years in research designed to help libraries achieve negative library growth. This research was undertaken in response to a request from a major research library faced with severe space problems, stabilizing budgets, an inade­ quate circulation system, a book drop system that simply didn’t work, as well as a host of other problems. After much study of conventional solutions which proved either too expensive or too complex, we recommended a simple, inexpen­ sive solution which soon proved to have dramatic impact. At a total cost of under $5,000, three paper disintegrators manufactured by the Security Engineered Machinery Co., Inc. (see Library Journal 96:1951, 1971) were installed in place of the conventional book return collection points. Two were installed initially as remote loca­ tion collection points and one within the library. They proved so ef­ fective, however, that within a year the one in the library was moved to another remote location and a larger model was installed in the library. By reducing all books being returned to “ a mass of tiny, confetti­ like particles,” this system has had truly startling effects. Negative library growth has been accomplished; the collections have been reduced from 1,495,327 volumes to 1,233,608.5 volumes in less than three years. Space problems have been reduced and plans for a 23

24

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

new building have been abandoned at a saving of at least $15 mil­ lion. Rather than being forced to install an expensive computerbased circulation system, the library has been able to totally aban­ don its circulation system at an annual savings of at least $75,000. Cataloging has been abandoned as well and books are simply shelved alphabetically by author at an annual savings of at least $400,000. Weeding is automatic, users are insured of getting more new and valuable material and less old and outdated material since all savings have been put into the book fund. Most importantly, however, this new approach has entirely elim­ inated the rubbish-picking activities of the curious which, in the past, had created serious litter and public relations problems for the library. It also, of course, represents a major contribution to paper recycling efforts. A few faculty members are unhappy over the loss of their favorite texts but administrators and students alike are extremely pleased since faculty members are now forced to update their readings, and their thinking, constantly. Some traditionalists feel that the library has lost its research potential but that is a small price to pay for the enormous savings that have been achieved. A complete 10-page report on this major study entitled Negative Library Growth; How We Run Our Library Excellent (Storrs, Con­ necticut, 1974) is available for $50 from The Molesworth Institute.

A Cost Analysis of a Cost Analysis

ABSTRACT. An investigation into the application of the sophis­ ticated techniques of work analysis (e.g., cost benefit analysis, game theory, operations research, etc.) to those techniques is described. A detailed example of the application of the techniques of cost analysis to a cost analysis of catalog card reproduction and filing is pre­ sented. A generalized formula (vCA = xasCA — cCA) for demonstrating the value of a cost analysis is developed. Finally some brief comments on the next level of investigation are made.

Introduction The first program session of SIG/CON, a special interest group within the American Society for Information Science devoted solely to conning others into believing that the work described by partici­ pants is of a serious nature, was held in Boston in the fall of 1975. This paper was originally presented at that session and was first pub­ lished in the first, and to date the only, printed proceedings of a SIG/ CON session (Stanford, CA, The SIG/CON Press, 1977. p. 10-15). * * * “ For ’tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petar.” Hamlet Since its inception in 1956 the work of The Molesworth Institute has been dedicated in large measure to the imaginative and in­ novative application of developing technology to the complex prob­ lems of information science and librarianship. That continues to constitute one of the main themes of our work. Increasingly, how­ ever, The Institute has turned to the use of the sophisticated tech­ niques of management control to study some of the more complex problems of information science and librarianship. All of this work is, of course, carried out within the general framework and philoso25

26

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

phy of The Institute and with an eye to the imaginative and innova­ tive uses of those techniques. In 1973 Dr. Basil Fotherington-Thomas, Expediter of Internal Research at Juan Fernandez University, became affiliated with The Molesworth Institute. Originally assigned to the umbrella project, Dr. Fotherington-Thomas, whose special interests lie in the area of operations research and related disciplines, soon became interested in the possibilities of applying management techniques to the investi­ gation of those techniques themselves. Among the techniques which he suggested should be examined one against the other were: case studies, cost analysis, cost benefit analysis, critical path analysis, decision analysis, decision models, game theory, management by objectives, operations research, penultimate precision testing, queu­ ing theory, simulation, statistical decision techniques, and value analysis. Under his direction we undertook to apply those techniques against each other. We soon found that to do so effectively was a complex and difficult task if not an impossible one. Once we began examining one of those techniques in terms of another, the tech­ nique being examined turned out to be virtually ununderstandable. In addition the technique being used for the study invariably had built into it a bias in its own favor which clearly demonstrated that the technique being studied had no value whatsoever. Although we attempted to make adjustments in our work to compensate for both of those factors, we were unable to find a satisfactory resolution. Research along those lines does continue. One of our earliest studies, for example, was an attempt to apply cost benefit analysis to game theory, operations research and simu­ lation as alternative means of conducting a study for a major re­ search library in its consideration of the use of the OCLC cataloging subsystem as an alternative to its existing manual system. Although the study was conducted three times, each time with considerable refinement, the results were inevitably the same. In an attempt to measure benefits by survey research procedures no administrator, librarian, or user wished to use any of the funds theoretically allo­ cated to him or her to carry out a study using any of those methods. In fact, although no other alternatives were allowed for, no person surveyed wished to use the funds theoretically available for imple­ mentation of the OCLC system. All persons questioned clearly indi­ cated that if additional funds were available they would elect to use those funds to improve the collections and services of the library. Unable to overcome at that time the problems which seem to be

Norman D. Stevens

27

inherent in that approach, we turned to a less complex approach in which we applied the technique under consideration directly to the technique itself. This overcame the problem of ununderstandability but left a reverse bias problem. The study of a technique using the methods of that technique tend to indicate that the technique is in­ deed worthwhile. That problem can best be compensated for by in­ serting a bias factor into the final results. Our work in this area began with some relatively simply studies but encouraged greatly by the results we have moved on to many more complex ones. It is, however, perhaps simpler to grasp the im­ plications of our work if we explain a simple example simply. One major study which we carried out involved the use of cost analysis techniques to investigate a cost analysis conducted by a ma­ jor academic library just prior to and just after its utilization of the OCLC cataloging subsystem as an alternative to its traditional manual system. Many of the results were so controversial that we are not yet able to make our complete report available. We have secured authorization to use, for illustrative purposes, one portion of that report. Among a wide range of cost analyses that were made for this in­ stitution by its own systems staff was a detailed study of the costs of reproducing and filing catalog cards under its existing manual system. Those costs were then analyzed in detail against the costs of obtaining and filing catalog cards through the use of the OCLC on­ line cataloging subsystem. Records were maintained for a threemonth period under the old system and for a three-month period after the implementation of the OCLC system with allowance for a three-month period after the implementation of the new system for it to be operating at reasonable efficiency. As those studies were being carried out, the staff of The Moles­ worth Institute, under the direction of Dr. Fotherington-Thomas, carried out a detailed cost analysis of the costs of conducting those cost analyses. Every effort was made to accurately identify and assign all of the costs involved. Those costs were as follows: I. Personnel A. Salaries

$15,000

Systems analyst

Vi person year

Clerk typist

lA person year $ 2,000

Part-time help

Vi person year $ 3,000

$10,000

28

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

B. Benefits 100% (N.B. includes malpractice insurance) Total II. Overhead A. Heat, light, rent, telephone, etc.

$15,000 $30,000 $ 2,000

B. Supplies (N.B. does not include extraneous use of paper clips and rubber bands during period of study)

$

530

C. Copying costs

$

650

D. Other

$ 1,000 Total

$ 4,180

III. Direct Costs A. Lower productivity of library staff during period of study

$ 1,500

B. Staff time spent in keeping records for the study

$ 2,000

C. Staff time spent in discussing study and its effects on them (N.B. estimate only)

$ 3,000

D. Higher error rates during period of study

$

Total

900

$ 7,400

IV. Indirect Costs A. Answering inquiries from other institutions concerning the study

$

B. Attendance of systems analyst at meeting to report on study

$ 3,000

C. Merit increment given to systems analyst to reflect value of study (N.B. includes increased benefits and both salary and benefits are $ averaged for remainder of career)

V. Bias Factor

800

50

Total

$ 3,850

Total

$

Grand Total of All Costs

950

$46,380

Norman D. Stevens

29

The next step was to apply our findings against the findings arrived at in the cost analysis studies. In abbreviated terms those studies produced the following results: I. Pre-OCLC (N.B. all costs are given per card) A. Card reproduction

$ .042

B. Sorting cards for filing

$ .010

C. Filing

$ .012

D. Error correction and other miscellaneous costs

$ .006

Total

$ .07

II. Post-OCLC (N.B. all costs are given per card) A. Card reproduction

$ .034

B. Filing

$ .012

C. Error correction, and other miscellaneous costs

$ .006

D. Added aggravation of dealing with OCLC

$ .008

Total

$ .06

At an estimated average of 235,000 cards per year over the next twenty years, the total annual cost saving is $2,350. ($16,450 preOCLC annually as against $14,100 post-OCLC annually). Applying the costs of the cost analysis to the results of the cost analysis we can demonstrate that in just 19.73 years the savings realized will pay for the costs of conducting the cost analysis. This demonstrates conclu­ sively, and as far as we know for the first time, that cost analysis as a technique of library management is valuable and can produce net savings for an institution. A more detailed analysis of this segment of our study along with an analysis of the remaining portions of that study have demon­ strated that a generalized formula (vCA = xasCA - cCA) [where v = value, CA = cost analysis, x = number of years over which savings can be projected, as = annual savings, and c = cost] can be used as a means of assessing the true value of a cost analysis. We are currently considering further refinements of this in­ novative approach to library problems. We have begun a study

30

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

which seeks to apply the techniques of cost analysis to the investiga­ tion of a cost analysis of a cost analysis. It appears that this approach can be extended indefinitely (i.e., CAn —►. . . —►CA4 —►CA3 —►CA2 —►C A 1) but unfortunately initial indications are that beyond the second level there is a rapid and progressive expansion of costs. Fortunately we neglected to keep careful and detailed records of the costs of the study which we have just reported so we were unable to apply that approach to this study.

Connectiwhat?

Introduction In the early 1970s the Connecticut State Library introduced Connecticar and Connecticard as two new statewide library services. At a meeting at which yet another new service was proposed, it seemed possible that the Connecti- prefix would be attached to it as well. This paper, which originally appeared in Connecticut Libraries (18, # 1, 1976, p. 12-3), was intended to suggest the infinite possibilities that existed for the use of that prefix with other words beginning with the letter c. Connecticabal - the Connecticut Library Association Connecticaballero - a male librarian from Connecticut Connecticachalot - the Connecticut state animal Connecticachinnation - the noise often produced at a CLA meeting Connecticad - a delinquent borrower with a Connecticard Connecticadet - a library technical assistant in the State Library Connecticadre - the State Library staff Connecticaesar - the State Librarian Connecticalamity - the condition of most library budgets in Connecticut Connecticalculation - statewide library planning in Connecticut Connecticalendar - a listing of library meetings in Connecticut Connecticalenture - the goals of Target ’76 Connecticalico - the new official uniform for the State Library staff Connecticall - Library Line Connecticaller - the President of CLA Connecticalliblephary - seen on many female librarians in Connecticut Connecticalligrapher - the Secretary of CLA 31

32

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

Connecticallow - the condition of many older male librarians in Connecticut Connecticalorific - CLA luncheons Connecticamp - CLA meetings Connecticamp follower - a non-existent type Connecticandidates - nominees for CLA offices Connecticant - the Target ’76 reports Connecticapitol - the building across from the State Library Connecticapitation - state aid to libraries in Connecticut Connecticapnomancy - a means of planning for library growth in Connecticut Connecticapon - served at CLA luncheons Connecticaptain - the State Librarian Connecticaprive - CATV Connecticar - statewide delivery service in Connecticut Connecticard - statewide borrowers card in Connecticut Connecticardigan - object being knit by many female attendees at CLA meetings Connecticare - old age assistance for Connecticut librarians Connecticarl - the holder of a Connecticard Connecticarnac - driver of a Connecticar Connecticamage - serious accident involving Connecticar Connecticarouse - a party at a CLA meeting Connecticariwitchet - these definitions Connecticash - a library fine paid by the holder of a Connecticard Connecticastle - the State Library Connecticat - a female librarian Connecticatalog - the Connecticut Union Catalog

Umbrella Disappearance, Exchange, and Loss Rates in American Academic Libraries

Introduction This paper was originally presented in a slightly different form at the third annual SIG/CON session at the meeting of the American Society for Information Science in Chicago in 1977. It has subse­ quently been presented, in still other slightly different forms, on other occasions. Perhaps the best known but the least readily avail­ able of the papers of The Molesworth Institute, “ the umbrella paper” was first published in Selected Papers from The Journal o f Irreproducible Results (1976) and later in the only known issue of The Librarian's Record (5:19-24, 1980). * * * Research has become more and more difficult. With the explo­ sion of learning and knowledge that has taken place in this century, virtually every subject of any importance whatsoever has been explóred and examined from every angle. To carry out research in new and untouched fields of knowledge, it has become necessary to delve deeply into areas that may, on the surface and to the uniniti­ ated, seem trivial, but, nevertheless, ultimately do have an impor­ tant contribution to make to the general advancement of knowledge. One such area that has not yet been adequately explored in a pseudo­ scientific fashion is umbrellas. The Molesworth Institute has under­ taken some initial, preliminary investigations into that subject as it touches upon libraries. As will be seen, much remains to be done but we hope that our initial thrust into this new, untapped area of scientific study will inspire others in librarianship, and others in other fields, to pursue this humid source of investigation. A thorough review of the literature, based primarily on a search of a complete file of Umbrella Abstracts carried out online, indi33

34

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

cated that most of the previous studies dealing with the two major natural phenomena associated with umbrellas has been strictly of the folklore variety. Of course if you leave your umbrella home, it’s sure to rain.1 The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella: But chiefly on the just, because The unjust steals the just’s umbrella.2 ‘‘I never borrowed your umbrella, ’’ said a borrower, ‘‘and if I did, I brought it back.” 3 “ For Adelard Took, for his VERY OWN, from Bilbo; on an umbrella. Adelard had carried off many unlabelled ones.” 4 It appears as though there has been only one scholarly examina­ tion of the general umbrella problem to date. That, surprisingly, was undertaken by Robert Louis Stevenson in an essay on “ The Philosophy of Umbrellas” written in 1894.5 That essay, which is all the more remarkable because it contains what is perhaps the earliest statement of what has come to be known as Murphy’s Law, deals with both aspects of the problem. In describing the relationship of the umbrella to rain, Stevenson states, Not the least important, and by far the most curious property of the umbrella, is the energy which it displays in affecting the atmospheric strata. There is no fact in meteorology better es­ tablished—indeed, it is almost the only one on which meteorol­ ogists are agreed—than that the carriage of an umbrella pro­ duces dessication of the air; while if it be left at home, aqueous vapor is largely produced, and is soon deposited in the form of rain. No . . . theory competent to explain this hygrométrie law has yet been given (as far as I am aware) by Herschel, Dove, Glaisher, Tait, Buchan, or any other writer; nor do I pretend to supply the defect. I venture, however, to throw out the conjecture that ultimately it will be found to belong to the same class of natural laws as that agreeable to which a slice of toast always descends with the buttered surface downwards.6 Unfortunately that phenomenon lies largely outside the realm of

Norman D. Stevens

35

libraries and information science, and, thus, outside the scope of The Molesworth Institute. Its further investigation must be left to others more qualified to treat of it. The essence of the second natural phenomenon also associated with umbrellas was also succinctly dealt with by Stevenson. He stated that, Except in a very few cases of hypocrisy joined to a powerful intellect, men, not by nature umbrellarians, have tried again and again to become so by art, and yet have failed—have ex­ pended their patrimony in the purchase of umbrella after um­ brella, and yet have systematically lost them, and have finally, with contrite spirits and shrunken purses, given up their vain struggle, and relied on theft and borrowing for the remainder of their lives.7 As library annual reports have indicated for some time—here one need only cite, for example, the famous passage found in column 1,303 of the Annual Report o f the Library at Alexandria for 250 B.C.—the disappearance, exchange, and loss of umbrellas are phenomena closely associated with libraries. Thus it seemed only fitting for The Molesworth Institute to under­ take a scientific examination of the relationship of umbrellas to li­ braries, and we have recently concluded the initial stages of such an examination. Initially we undertook a comprehensive review of library annual reports. That review began, naturally, with the passage cited from the annual report of the library in Alexandria and was carried out through 1976. It covered over four million annual reports of li­ braries of all kinds and all sizes in all countries but, unfortunately, ultimately proved to be inconclusive. While it produced almost 3,000 references to the umbrella problem, those references were virtually all simply subjective comments and furnished no valid sta­ tistical data.8 Next we utilized The Molesworth Institute’s own computerized file of the information contained on some 5,000 picture postcards of libraries. That analysis produced a significant amount of informa­ tion about the number of people shown carrying umbrellas in exte­ rior views of libraries (17.3% of the people shown), the number of people shown carrying umbrellas in interior views of libraries (2.3% of the people shown), and the number of unattended umbrel­

36

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

las in libraries (329 in 973 interior views). It soon became evident, though, that this information could shed little light on the basic prob­ lem primarily because it represented data from specific points in time rather than over an extended period of time. Next we drafted and tested with a sample of 500 users in 5 li­ braries, a simple questionnaire concerning past umbrella practices and current umbrella behavior. That approach was rejected when the results seemed to indicate that people were unwilling to respond honestly to questions on such a delicate subject and when it was ap­ parent that such a survey itself directly affected the current umbrella behavior which was, after all, the subject of the survey. Direct observation was tried briefly but it too was abandoned when it quickly was evident that it was too difficult to record accu­ rately and retain the voluminous observations that were involved. Finally the technical staff of The Molesworth Institute designed and constructed an ingenious device, since, of course, fully pa­ tented, which solved the problem. That device automatically photo­ graphs all umbrellas which pass by it along with the individual who is carrying it; by use of an ultra-micro-computer attached directly to the umbrella sensing device all of the information contained in the photographs is compared, analyzed, recorded, and tabulated. After initial tests proved successful, five of these devices were built and were ultimately installed in 5 of the largest academic libraries in the United States for the academic year 1976/1977. At the start and end of that year all of the umbrellas lying unattended in those libraries were also photographed and analyzed by the device. The results of this survey, which are given in Table One, were extremely interesting but somewhat complex. Basically 8 different statistics were obtained and were then combined as shown to calcu­ late disappearance, exchange, and loss rates. The loss rate, for ex­ ample, was calculated by subtracting the number of people with the same umbrella entering and leaving the library from the number of people entering the library with an umbrella. The disappearance and exchange rates were calculated in a similar, but slightly different, fashion and can best be understood by reference to Table One. The results for the 5 libraries as a whole indicated a disappear­ ance rate of 50.8%, an exchange rate of 29.7%, and a loss rate of 82.3% for that year. Perhaps the most interesting individual occur­ rence took place in Library E, the smallest library in the survey, where there were 251 umbrellas either in the library at the start of the year or entering the library, but only 100 umbrellas left the

Table One Disappearance, Exchange, and Loss Rates Library A

Category

Library B

Library C

c—

5

fLO +

82.0%

S*

2 2 .3 %

00

on IT»

2 6 .6 %

O'

2 8 .1 %

CM LO

51.7%

■=r

*+

CM

LTi

C—

1 6 ,8 9 5

1 ,9 5 9

=t

2 5 ,8 6 4

vO

(11) Umbrella Loss R ate ([# l-#3] as % of #1)

s * on

35.8% LTi CO

37

(10) Umbrella Exchange R ate ([#4+#5] as % of [#l+#6])

on CM t—

on

R ate CO

(9) Umbrella Disappearance (#8 as % of [#l+ #6])

30,998 -=3"

for

306

LTi -=JITi

5 ,2 8 8

CM

7,031

CM OO ON

3 0 ,5 0 7

on

25

0

5 ,8 5 3

CM on ex?

(8) Umbrellas Unaccounted

8 2 ,2 3 6

6,501

on

529

(7) Number of Umbrellas in Library (End)

10 0

8,765

t— •=r

(6) Number of Umbrellas in Library (Start)

VO

on

0

(5) Total Number of People With Umbrella Leaving but not Entering

1 7 2 ,0 2 3

m CM

1 2 ,6 2 2

200

OO m

9,363

(4) Total Number of People With Different Umbrella Entering and Leaving

Totals

-=r

(3) Total Number of People With Same Umbrella Entering and Leaving

2 7 ,1 1 9

co

4 8 ,7 1 8

Library E

0

763,602

(2) Total Number of People Leaving With Umbrellas

■=3OO on

(1) Total Number of People Entering With Unbrellas

Library D

38

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

library while 295 umbrellas remained in the library at the end of the year. The result was a net gain of 144 umbrellas and an umbrella appearance rate of 57.4%. This study, entering as it has into a new field of knowledge, has determined for the first time accurate figures of the disappearance, exchange, and loss rates of umbrellas in American academic li­ braries. These figures would seem to confirm the popular impres­ sion, suggested by what data is available in library annual reports, that those rates are significantly high. The special umbrella sensing devices have been left in those 5 libraries and the figures have been kept each year since 1976/1977. In general the figures for subse­ quent years show approximately the same individual and overall rates. Each of the libraries has begun reporting those figures in their annual reports as well as in their reporting to the annual statistical questionnaires from the Association of Research Libraries and HEGIS. Unfortunately the special committees appointed to deal with the possible incorporation of umbrella statistics into the ques­ tionnaires have not yet been able to reach any general agreement. The matter is simply too complex and has provoked extensive dis­ cussion of other statistics relating to libraries that might be gener­ ated. No date can now be given as to when the work of those com­ mittees will be completed and acted upon. Nevertheless, as soon as additional fiinds can be found, other um­ brella sensing devices incorporating the latest advances in laser and optic fiber technology will be constructed and installed in other li­ braries in this country. Our hope is that we may eventually be able to establish standards for American academic libraries in this most significant area. Similar figures from other types of libraries, other countries, and other environments would be helpful for comparative purposes. Those figures are not, of course, currently available but we expect, based on the numerous inquiries we have received to date, that others will be inspired by our innovative research and will begin to extend our studies to their disciplines. There is some hope that the 1990 United States census may at last begin to adequately deal with the umbrella issue. Finally it should be pointed out that the unexplained appearance and disappearance of umbrellas is another aspect of the general um­ brella problem that requires further investigation. It would appear to be related to, if not a part of, the scarf, single glove, and single overshoe/rubber problem that plays such a significant role in library management. The Molesworth Institute is now in the initial stages of

Norman D. Stevens

39

planning a research project which will investigate that problem as it relates to libraries. That investigation will largely be focused on an attempt to confirm the hypothesis that there is somewhere, perhaps even in Library E of our current study, an umbrella graveyard similar to the well-known, but as yet undiscovered, elephant grave­ yards. FOOTNOTES 1. Gelett Burgess Are You a Bromide? N.Y., Huebsch, 1906. p. 2. 2. Attributed to Lord Bowen (1835-1894). See Walter Sichel The Sands of Time London, Hutchinson, 1923. p. 82. 3. Carl Sandburg “ The People Yes” in his The Complete Poems New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970. p. A l l . 4. J.R.R. Tolkein The Lord o f the Rings; The Fellowship o f the Ring N.Y., Ballantine Books, 1965. p. 64. 5. Robert Louis Stevenson “ The Philosophy of Umbrellas” in his The Mind o f Robert Louis Stevenson N.Y., Yoseloff, 1963. p. 110-5. 6. Ibid., p. 114. 7. Ibid. 8. The sole exception being the annual report of the East Caraway Public Library which for a number of years around 1915 did carry a table indicating the percentage of patrons of the library carrying umbrellas. See Edmund Lester Pearson’s column “ The Librarian” for March 31, 1915 in his The Librarian: Selections from the Column of That Name (Scarecrow Press, 1976) p. 436-9.

An Innovative Approach to Collection Management

ABSTRACT. This is a report of the pragmatic application of nu­ merous library studies which indicate that a small portion of a library’s collection provides for a large portion of the use. In contra­ vention to an earlier study by The Molesworth Institute which focused on a technique designed to provide for wider use of the little used items in a library collection, this study focuses on a technique de­ signed to identify, in a continuing fashion, those items in a library collection that are used and to highlight their accessibility while pro­ viding for the disposition of items that are not used.

Introduction This paper, which was written as part of the work of the New En­ gland Academic Librarians’ Writing Seminar, a program sponsored by the Council on Library Resources, originally appeared in Collec­ tion Management (2:25-8, 1978). It harked back to the earlier work of The Molesworth Institute but also sought to use an actual ap­ proach to library problems, in this case Trues well’s work with in­ ventory theory, in a slightly absurd fashion. * * * In an earlier report, “ Negative Library Growth,” The Moles­ worth Institute reported on a radical technique it had developed which was designed to reduce not just the growth level but the actual total size of library collections, especially in academic libraries. Un­ like most of the previous work of the Institute, which had received virtually universal acclaim, that report was seriously challenged by many who felt that it was heretical to eliminate the most heavily used portions of a library’s collections. Despite that challenge, the re­ search staff of the Institute which conducted the original investiga­ tion continues to feel that that was indeed a sound approach to a serious problem. Conceivably, the process of assuring in a natural 41

42

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

way that the formerly neglected portions of a library’s collections will receive much greater use could result in significant new intel­ lectual developments as books that have sat unused for years are finally used. Nevertheless, to satisfy those who criticized that approach to col­ lection management, the research staff of the Institute re-examined the problem to see if pragmatic approaches which would reverse that situation might be developed. “ A characteristic of inventory in business or industry is that approximately 80% of the number of transactions taken from a warehouse represents about 20% of the items stocked.” 1 In the examination of a number of library situa­ tions against that characteristic, Trues well and others have found basically the same pattern. Using this information, the staff of the Institute attempted to determine whether or not there is some ready way in which that 20% can be identified on a continuing basis and made more accessible while the 80% is also identified and placed into storage, or otherwise effectively disposed of. Various pragmatic approaches to identifying used/nonused mate­ rial do exist and, as a starting point, they were carefully examined to determine whether or not the techniques of measurement could be adapted to produce automatic techniques for dealing with the high­ lighting or disposition of material. The more traditional methods of checking circulation records, using standard studies of the half-life of journals in a particular field, checking material left on desks, etc., were examined as were the more elusive methods of library folklore such as the measurement of dust levels, the sealing of mate­ rial shut with string, tape, or staples, the deliberate concealment of material behind a staffed desk, etc. Unfortunately, it was concluded after many months of serious investigation that these approaches were helpful only in identifying levels of use. While evidence in­ dicated that the folklore methods were substantially more reliable than the traditional scientific methods, neither proved to be of any practical value in assisting a library in managing its collections. Next, seeking a solution in the new technology, the possibility of using the OCLC data base in approaching this problem was careful­ ly reviewed. In one library of 500,000 volumes an extensive project of checking all retrospective holdings against the data base for up­ dating accompanied by the weeding from the collection of all items not already in the data base was undertaken. Since one would expect to find extensive overlap of heavily used items from library to

Norman D. Stevens

43

library, the absence of record in the OCLC data base was taken as an indication that an item was in all likelihood little used. Since material had to be brought to a work station in this process, the elimination of material was semi-automatic. Unfortunately a later analysis of the results of this project indicated a serious flaw in it. Of the 500,000 volumes, 400,000 (80%) were in the data base and only 100,000 (20%) were not! Finally, after considerable thought, a radical new approach as imaginative in its own way as that described in our previous work was devised. At the present time the final details of the proposal are being developed and we are attempting to identify an academic library which has just added its 1,000,000th volume to assist us in conducting a test of this proposal. We would begin by recalling all items currently in use and closing the library for a period of time, perhaps over a summer vacation period, in order to undertake a substantial rearrangement of the col­ lection. That rearrangement would compress the existing collections into the least accessible 80% of the library’s stack space leaving the most accessible 20% of the stack space vacant. When the library reopened and began to circulate material, material being returned would be shelved according to the following pattern, for reasons that will be explained in more detail below: material being borrowed and returned for the first time would be shelved in the least accessi­ ble 16% of the vacant space; material being borrowed and returned for the second or more time would be shelved in the most accessible 4% of the vacant space. For the initial period, material being added to the collection would be shelved with the older material. Our esti­ mates are that in approximately one year the collection would redis­ tribute itself and at that time the 80% of the collection that was un­ used could be disposed of thus freeing up a substantial portion of the library building for other, more productive purposes. After that point, new material being added to the collection would be shelved separately and, if not used and thus added to the working collection within a year’s time, could also be disposed of. The collection might then remain stable, but we suspect that care­ ful study would indicate that whereas in the past 200,000 volumes had met 80% of the user needs, with a collection of 200,000 vol­ umes, 40,000 volumes would soon meet 80% of the user needs. It is for that reason that we would initially shelve the active collection in 16% (80%) and 4% (20%) of the vacant space. As a next step 8,000

44

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

of those 40,000 volumes might meet 80% of the user needs. Carried to its logical conclusion our projections indicate that this technique might well provide the long-sought after method of identifying the book which answers all information needs. FOOTNOTE 1. Trueswell, Richard W. “ Some Behavioral Patterns of Library Users: The 80/20 Rule.” Wilson Library Bulletin A3 \458, 1969.

An Observation on Shelving Practices

Introduction Also written within the context of the New England Academic Li­ brarians’ Writing Seminar, this paper grew out of a chance conver­ sation at a meeting of the OCLC Users Council. It appeared origi­ nally in Library Journal (103:1236, 1978) and holds the distinction of being the second paper from The Molesworth Institute to be in­ cluded in Bill Katz’s annual compilation of the best of our literature. * * * A common practice, especially among academic libraries, in oc­ cupying a new library building with ample shelving for future growth of the collections is to leave the top and bottom shelf of each stack section empty. This is done to provide an easy means for ex­ pansion and presumably also because those shelves are the most in­ convenient to access for most users. That practice deserves careful examination at a time when increasing costs require libraries to be concerned as much with the economics of operation as the conve­ nience of users. Practical experience, verified by a recent series of experiments carried out by The Molesworth Institute, indicates that most brows­ ing or other casual use of library collections involves material on those shelves that are at or near eye level of most users (4% top shelf; 10% second shelf; 45% third shelf; 35% 4th shelf; 5% sixth shelf; and 1% bottom shelf). Further investigation indicates that dirt tends to accumulate at a greater rate on empty shelves than on the tops of books or on the empty portions of shelves with some books on them. This appears to be due to the fact that removing books from the shelves and replacing them tends to dislodge accumulated dirt. Furthermore on empty shelves dirt accumulates more rapidly on the top and bottom shelves than on the middle shelves (2 mm per year top shelf; 1.5 mm per year second shelf; .05 mm per year third shelf; .009 mm per year fourth shelf; 1.3 mm per year fifth shelf; 3 mm per year sixth shelf; and 4 mm per year bottom shelf). 45

46

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

In an effort to pursue the consequences of those observations, The Molesworth Institute conducted a year-long controlled experiment in two new academic library buildings of comparable size and com­ plexity, with similar user populations. In Library A the traditional practice of shelving the collection with the top and bottom shelf of each section left empty for future expansion was followed. In Li­ brary B the third and fourth shelves (counting from the top down) of each section were left empty for future expansion. Over the period of that year Library A reported that 15% of its users were unable to locate the item they were looking for whereas in Library B only 4% of the users were unable to do so. This was despite the fact that Library A spent a total of 933 person hours on shelf reading and Li­ brary B only 311 person hours. At the end of that year Library A re­ ported a greater accumulation of dirt (an average of 3.2 mm per empty shelf) than did Library B (an average of only .061 mm per empty shelf) and neither had devoted any time to the removal of dirt. The only adverse affect was that Library B did report a greater accumulation of miscellaneous trash (candy wrappers, old newspa­ pers, coffee cups, crumpled note paper, etc.) being left on its empty shelves than did Library A and this required some greater time (150 person hours per year as against 25 person hours per year) to clean up. Some additional unanticipated observations were also made. While previously the circulation of the two libraries had been com­ parable, in the year of the experiment Library A showed over a 100% increase in circulation which brought its circulation system and staff to a point of near collapse; Library B, on the other hand, registered a more manageable increase in its circulation of only 25%. Unfortunately like many other innovative experiments, this one floundered on an unexpected development. Initially Library B found that the greater visibility which resulted from having open shelves in the middle of each stack section offered a better opportunity for the supervision of users. The limited staff available, it soon turned out, was unable to effectively undertake that supervision. Instead the in­ cidence of exhibitionism and other unnatural acts that disturbed users rose to an unacceptable level (1.73 incidents a day as against .13 incidents per day in Library A) and the experiment had to be abandoned. The practice of leaving the middle two shelves in each stack section empty for future expansion cannot be recommended.

Multiple Acronymization as a Creative Solution to the Effective Use of Library Resources

ABSTRACT. This article reports on a study by The Molesworth Institute of how the use of resources in an academic library can be al­ tered to provide for a greater expenditure for materials. The effects acronyms have on the development of programs are also considered. Through imaginative use of the acronym MOUSER (Making the Op­ timal Use of Services and Educational Resources) five levels of possible budget alteration are suggested.

Introduction This paper was originally presented at the fifth annual session of SIG/CON at the American Society for Information Science meet­ ings in Minneapolis in October of 1979. A unique feature of that presentation was a (p)reactor panel which responded to the paper before it had been presented. This paper has not previously been published. *

*

*

In the past The Molesworth Institute has been concerned with a generalized approach to the major bibliographic concerns of the uni­ verse and with specific technical solutions to a diversity of library problems such as library postcards, cost analysis, and umbrellas. Except for one specific investigation of a technical approach to neg­ ative library growth, The Molesworth Institute has not dealt in broad fashion with the major financial crisis that currently faces American libraries. Since many libraries, especially academic 47

48

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

libraries, are now faced with the dilemma of either finding addi­ tional funding to match the growth in their costs or finding a means of reducing those costs while keeping existing levels of service rea­ sonably intact, it is clear that a bold new approach to this major problem is required. When it was suggested to The Molesworth Institute that it might wish to investigate the solution to this problem, especially as faced by a major American university library with a budget of $5,000,000 in 1976/1977, we saw this as an opportunity to break new ground and accepted the challenge. We were specifically asked to examine how we might suggest ways of drastically altering the pattern by which $3,000,000 of that budget (60%) was being expended for sal­ aries and wages while only $1,500,000 (30%) was being expended for books, periodicals, and binding in order to allow that library to make better use of its available resources. The library had already engaged in a number of cooperative activities but had found that those had tended to increase rather than decrease personnel costs and had not provided any better access to resources. To deal with a problem of this magnitude, a major retreat of the entire research staff of The Institute was needed. During October 1976 that group, with a few special consultants, met at the Must Y. Mouser Conference Center in Dodona, Connecticut to consider the challenge of this assignment. As is so often the case a series of fortuitous circumstances led to the solution ultimately adopted. The keynote speaker used as the theme of her remarks Melvil Dewey’s famous quote, “ The time was when a library was very like a museum, and a librarian was a mouser in musty books . . . ’M It was only natural to conclude that however the problem was approached, the acronym for such a proj­ ect inevitably had to be MOUSER. Struck by the coincidence that the acronym had a dual origin it was decided that it should have a dual meaning as well. This led to an investigation of the history and use of acronyms and the discovery that the limitations imposed by acronyms had invariably restricted the creative approaches that were taken in suggesting solutions to the problem under investiga­ tion. Acronyms are an anachronism. The conclusion was soon reached that even a dual meaning was not sufficient and that the acronym MOUSER should have an infinite variety of definitions in order to allow for the development of an infinite variety of solutions to the financial problems faced by American academic libraries. Much time was devoted to a computer-based analysis of English

Norman D. Stevens

49

and foreign language dictionaries in order to construct as wide a range of definitions as possible for the acronym. After considerable debate the group settled on one set of options which ran from Mini­ mus, through Miniscule, Macilent, Modicum, Meagre, Manage­ able, Middling, Moderate, Mean, Medium, Measured, Meted, Meandering, Majestic, Mammoth, Massive, Magnificent, to Maxi­ mum Offerings to the USER. As each of the acronyms was devel­ oped, a set of solutions appropriate to the particular definition was suggested and investigated. Through that creative technique the re­ search staff of The Molesworth Institute felt that it had a grasp of how the problem might be addressed. It became apparent, though, that even the range of terms that had been developed was too limiting and that a mathematical shorthand notation for describing the program should be adopted. This nota­ tion, MOUSER1", allowed for an infinite number of approaches. This had the added advantage of allowing for a more logical se­ quence of those approaches which words had not been able to pro­ vide simply because it had been impossible to agree upon the proper sequence of word quantifications. It remained only to agree upon a definition for the acronym and that was accomplished with the selec­ tion of the phrase Making the Optimal t/se of Services and Educa­ tional Resources. While the details of MOUSERn have not yet been fully devel­ oped, the range of options encompassed in MOUSER15 can now be described in relatively specific terms. Those options were designed to offer alternative means of making substantial reallocations within a library budget depending on which level of MOUSER a library elects to implement. The ranges that were presented were all in accord with the initial mandate to suggest ways in which the maximum utilization of funds for the purchase of materials could be achieved. Other approaches that would allow for the maximum utilization of funds for person­ nel, or for other purposes, remain to be developed but are under in­ tensive examination. The present MOUSER options are: MOUSER1—a major reduc­ tion in public services staff; MOUSER2—the total elimination of public services staff; MOUSER3—some reduction of technical ser­ vices staff; MOUSER4—further reduction of technical services staff; and MOUSER5—a maximum reduction of total staff. Each level is cumulative so that the savings accomplished at one level are automatically encompassed at the next level. (See Table One)

50

s

o « 3 ^£

h8* 3 *-*

8.

1 á «-j

J

"c3 0

M

W

Ü O

I

1

i

■a e 2

o o

o o

C l

• b e-

o o o^ o" o

o o o^ o" o o^ ▼ -H «e-

• b e-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

O O^ tn ■ be-

O O o o o^ o" o m ■ be-

*e-

o o o^ o" o o^ t-H ■ b*

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

o o o^ cT o

o o o^ o' o io

un OC

Cd 00 D O S

2

o

o

00

tí

Qt

1 < 1 1 1 1

1 11

11 11

1 1 1 1

O O o" o Tf -be-

O o o^ o o o^ csf * & e -

o o o^ o~ o io rH • b e-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

oc

[d 00 D O 2

o o o^ o" un

o' o io ■ be-

o o o^ o" o io CvT ■ be

o o o^ o" o o^ of • b e-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

o o o^ o" io

o o o^ o' o Ob IO • b e-

10

O o o^ o' o o^ m • b e-

o o o

1 1 « 1 1 1 1 1 1

-be-

O O O

S «

o o o^ o o

o o o^ o' o c> cr> • b e-

en aí Cd 00 D O

c

o o o^ o' o m m • b e­ of -be-

DC

UJ 00 D O 2

Ol

$ 500,000 & Vú

$1,000,000

O O O^ o' o r-H csf -be-

$2,000.

o o o^ o' O LO

$2,000, • b e-

Techni Service

oo D O S

Public Services

Pre-MOUSER

M .£

Books Stage

Norman D. Stevens

51

MOUSER1 Despite a concentrated effort over a long period of time to mini­ mize effective service to users, investigation showed that in the library under study about 20% of the total budget was devoted to this useless purpose. It was decided that this expenditure could be substantially reduced by the provision of services at random, or at the choice of the library, rather than at the choice of the individual user. Books could be circulated at random by charging out to one user what had been returned by the previous user thus saving, among other things, the total cost of reshelving. Similar, although slightly more complex, procedures were worked out whereby the reference staff could answer questions by bibliomancy. Procedures for other random services continue to be studied. Through con­ trolled demonstrations it has been proven that such random service has no significant impact on the intellectual quality of the academic program of the institution. In fact there is some evidence to suggest that such techniques can bring about a slight, measurable increase in the quality of programs. MOUSER2 At the next stage a number of techniques were explored for ex­ tending the concept of reducing public services to the point where virtually all staff could be eliminated. At the same time methods were developed for improving the level of service by providing ac­ cess 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to any and every item in the library collection with absolutely no danger of theft or mutilation. In its simplest form this approach calls for the installation of glass par­ titions around the entire library collection with walkways outside of those partitions for the users. All users are thus able to examine all of the collection at any time. A modified alternative calls for pro­ viding spaces at selected intervals in which material, selected at ran­ dom, can be placed adjacent to the glass partitions so that users can actually read selected portions of the collection. The alternative is slightly more costly since staff is required to display the material. Controlled demonstrations have again proved that the simple MOUSER2 approach has no significant impact on faculty and stu­ dent performance.

52

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

MOUSER3 Since even the total elimination of public services staff has only a slight effect on the total budget of a library, attention was given next to the possibility of achieving similar savings through the reduction of the traditionally larger, more expensive, and less productive tech­ nical services staff. The implementation of MOUSER12 would eliminate much of the need for close classification of materials and, in addition, the possibility of applying random techniques to the cat­ aloging and classification of materials seemed attractive. Careful study proved that one cataloging rule is as effective as the next and that by selecting at random which rule(s) is to be applied to which book, significant savings can be attained with no significant reduc­ tion in the quality of cataloging. MOUSER4 Further studies showed that in conjunction with MOUSER12 all cataloging and classification could be eliminated and that books could be shelved at random. Through this approach almost 80% of the technical services staff costs can be eliminated. Even at this level, however, the increased funds available for the purchase of material would not allow a library to purchase everything that is published. A selection staff and some cataloging staff to prepare a finding list would still be required to avoid unnecessary duplication. Even at this level the dramatic increase in purchasing power for li­ brary materials would result in a significant increase in the library’s rate of growth and the size of its collection. With an improved statis­ tical standing academic performance improves as does the ranking and rating of the library and the institution by external professional experts. MOUSER5 By elimination of the selection staff a further major reduction can be made in the technical services staff. Such a reduction would make it possible for a library to spend virtually all of its available funds for the purchase of materials. By giving simple instructions to dealers and publishers a library would be in a position to acquire,

Norman D. Stevens

53

without the tedious process of selection, virtually everything needed to support the teaching and research needs of the institution. Prelim­ inary studies again show that the use of random techniques, espe­ cially given the far larger sum of money available, for the selection of material would produce a research collection of significantly more value than is now produced by most academic libraries. MOUSER" The most difficult stage lies ahead. Despite intensive study it has been possible so far only to postulate the initial portions of MOUSER". The goal is to develop techniques that will enable a li­ brary to spend its total budget on library materials and to eliminate entirely the need for any expenditure for staff or other purposes. Despite the most intensive efforts of the research staff of The Molesworth Institute we have as yet been totally unable to suggest any effective way of eliminating the costs of library administration even though our studies confirm the fact that library administrators make a negative contribution to the effective operation of a library. The more heretical of our research staff have also proposed that our basic goal should be re-examined. They believe that the goal should be to find ways in which the library could generate income for the institution by the sale of outmoded parts of the collection. Unfortu­ nately they have not yet been able to demonstrate how this could be accomplished without the expenditure of more in personal services than would be received in income. The challenges that face the successful completion of this project are enormous but we are confident of our ability to meet them and to make a substantive contribution to the improvement of library ser­ vice in American academic libraries. FOOTNOTE 1. Melvil Dewey “ The Profession” American Library Journal 1:5, 1876.

The Librarian ’s Record: A Neglected Library Periodical Revived

Introduction Edmund Lester Pearson was one of the earliest practitioners of disjunctive librarianship. This paper, which marks a slightly differ­ ent trend in the work of The Molesworth Institute, reports on one aspect of his many contributions to the field. It originally appeared in Serials Review (5:38-9, July/September 1979). The October 1978 issue described in this article never appeared but, subsequently, The Molesworth Institute did publish the March 1980 issue which in­ cludes “ The Umbrella Paper.” A limited number of copies of that issue are still available from The Molesworth Institute ($3.00). * * * While the Library Miscellany1 is unquestionably the least known of all library periodicals, The Librarian ’s Record2 is certainly by far the least familiar and most neglected American library periodical. Indeed, so little is known of The Librarian ’s Record, that a record of only four issues exists and copies of those issues are extremely diffi­ cult to locate.3 Much of the information that is available about the journal comes from the perceptive comments on it that appeared in Edmund Lester Pearson’s weekly column “ The Librarian” in The Boston Evening Transcript.4 The Librarian’s Record was a unique publication. A practical journal, it was devoted largely to the important questions of how to run a library, especially a small public library, good. In fact Ralph Shaw’s later widespread use of that phrase, commonly thought to be the earliest known use, was unquestionably plagiarized from an ear­ ly editorial in The Librarian ’s Record. Among its most popular fea­ ture was “ The Question Box,” a column of practical advice to the practicing librarian. In addition it was the only library periodical of its time to devote space on a regular basis to library poetry. The 55

56

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

“ Poet’s Corner” contained works by some of the most prominent library poets of the early 1900s, including the noted Obadiah Buchlieber. The known issues of The Librarian ’s Record contained many val­ uable contributions to the literature. Its editorial on “ Library Ideals” in the June 1909 issue has been widely reprinted and has served as the inspiration for countless thousands of library school lectures. The last known issue, in September 1910, contained two major articles that represent the nature of the basic editorial philoso­ phy behind that journal. The first was Fritilla L. Larkin’s neglected classic of practicality, “ Shall Pickled Limes Be Permitted in the Children’s Room?” The other was Percival Gooch’s outstanding testimonial on “ The Public Library as a Factor in Civic Useful­ ness.” Although other issues and articles seldom reached that level of perfection, The Librarian ’s Record deserves to be remembered and reread for the steady quality of its contents. It is fortunate, both for library historians and contemporary li­ brarians, that publication of The Librarian ’s Record was resumed in 1978.5 The new editors have chosen not only to resume publication in the old tradition but to reprint articles and items from the original journal as they become identified and located. By including, in the October issue, both Miss Larkin’s and Mr. Gooch’s pieces cited above, the editors have rendered a particular service to librarians of today. Seldom have there been two such articles that address the im­ portant questions of the past in a way that has such direct relevance to the critical issues of the present. The effort to reconstruct, from what little is known, the contents of the as yet unlocated issues of The Librarian ’s Record deserves special commendation. In particular the publication in January 1979 of the Ezra Beesly Free Public Library Special Issue is of signifi­ cance to all library historians. Little is known, outside of infrequent comments in Edmund Lester Pearson’s column, of the work of that library in the early 1900’s, but it is clear, as this Special Issue so dramatically illustrates, that the town of Baxter had one of the least progressive libraries of the time. Under the leadership of Oscar Gustafsen, whose tragic career is brilliantly traced here in a bio­ graphical sketch by Basil Fotherington-Thomas, the town of Baxter retained many of the worst features of nineteenth century American librarianship well into this century. This special issue sheds much light on the growth and development of the ideas and issues of the time.

Norman D. Stevens

57

In resuming publication of The Librarian’s Record the new editors have brought back to American librarianship an element of respectability and gentility that has been lacking for too long. Devoted to the homely virtues and the dedication that have, over the past hundred years, made “ Our Profession” what it is, this journal bids fair to become increasingly important as a major moral force in the shaping of librarianship. It is a solid title not concerned with the myriad of social issues that have befuddled our real work over the past decade. Nor does it deal with the passing fads and fancies of audiovisual services, automation, games in children’s rooms, tool rental, fees, and similar frivolities that detract from the basic and fondamental book-related services that are the true heart of librari­ anship. The revival of “ The Poet’s Corner” as the only regular feature in any American library periodical devoted to serious poetry about libraries fills a long-felt need. By the same token, the resumption of the popular feature “ The Question Box” is most welcome; there librarians can receive practical advice about the real and serious day-to-day problems which they face. While “ Action Exchange” in American Libraries seeks to serve this same need, “ The Question Box” is vastly superior. One new feature is “ Tales of Ancient Biblioteccia,” a charming mini-column which is devoted to brief histor­ ical tales and incidents with a moral for today’s practitioners. It is the articles and editorials that make the revived The Librarian ’s Record worth serious consideration by all libraries and librarians. Although only four issues have appeared to date, they contain a range of material not found in other American library periodicals. It is also significant that the editors have managed to identify a body of refreshing new writers so that one is not subject to the same old tired thoughts on the same old tired subjects that have become so common in most other contemporary library journals. Marsha Mansell’s brilliant biographical article, “ The Banal Biblio­ grapher,” in the December 1978 issue is one of the best pieces of writing to appear in some time. Those who long for a return to the old-fashioned methods of library education will welcome such ar­ ticles as Wes Daniels’ fascinating satire of the case study method, “ Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Time,” in the November 1978 issue. Finally the revival of the library short story, as neglected in its own way as library poetry has been, with the publication in the October 1978 issue of the anonymous thriller “ A Terminal Ex­ perience,” marks another significant contribution to the field.

58

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

Although encouraged by the editors of Title Varies to resume publication under the same title, the Record's editors unfortunately elected to resume publication with volume 3, number 4 in October 1978 despite the lack of conclusive evidence that the earlier publica­ tion did indeed suspend publication with volume 3, number 3 in Sep­ tember 1910. Hopefully this decision will not come back to haunt them and they will be able to demonstrate eventually that indeed there was no earlier issue of volume 3, number 4. All in all the revival of this neglected title is a welcome addition to a literature that has grown stale and over specialized. The revision soon should be able to establish itself as solidly as it deserves to and, perhaps, will be able to avoid the decent obscurity to which its pre­ decessor fell prey. FOOTNOTES 1. Library Miscellany v .1, ft 1 - v.6, #3-4; August 1912-July/October 1919. Baroda, In­ dia. Contents in English, Gujarati, and Marathi. 2. The Librarian ’s Record v .l, #1 - v.3, #3; July 1908-September 1910? Irregular. No more issued? Kawkaskia, Illinois. 3. No record of holdings is shown in the Union List o f Serials. Issues are not to be found in the Library of Congress nor in most major research libraries. To date only scattered hold­ ings have been identified largely in small public libraries in the midwest and New England. 4. See his columns for January 27, 1909; June 30, 1909; August 18, 1909; and Septem­ ber 7, 1910. All but the August 18, 1910 column have been reprinted in The Librarian; Selec­ tions from the Column o f That Name edited by Jane B. Durnell and Norman D. Stevens. Metuchen, N.J., Scarecrow Press, 1976. 5. The Librarian ’s Record v .3, # 4 ; October 1978. Kaukauna, Wis­ consin. $6.00 annually.

Oscar Gustafsen: A Tragic Minor Figure of American Librarianship

Introduction Just as he created a library journal, so Edmund Lester Pearson created numerous characters for his column “ The Librarian.” Oscar Gustafsen was among the more endearing and lasting of those characters. This “ biography” is largely based on information de­ rived from that column but it has been generously supplemented by information derived from the archives of The Molesworth Institute designed to fill in gaps in Pearson’s data and to more accurately reflect contemporary library concerns and issues. It originally ap­ peared in The Journal o f Library History (15:183-7, 1980). * * * Next to Klas Linderfelt, Oscar Gustafsen is surely one of the most tragic figures of American librarianship. A brilliant bibliographer, library educator, and scholar, Gustafsen’s pro-German activities during World War I ruined his professional career and eventually led to his untimely death in 1922. The early promise that he had shown was never to be brought to fruition. Gustafsen was born in Göteborg, Sweden, on April 1, 1882, the son of Gustaf and Mary Gustafsen. His father was a professor of colonial history at the University of Göteborg and was noted for having established the first European program in Latin American studies. When Gustafsen was four years old his parents moved to Berlin, where his father became a professor of history at the Univer­ sity of Berlin. The fact that his mother ran away with a visiting American professor in 1894 had a profound effect on young Gustaf­ sen. It was to alter his mental and sexual proclivities. Prior to his mother’s departure, Gustafsen was an indifferent student in the typ­ ical German gymnasium. Subsequently he devoted himself to his 59

60

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

Oscar Gustafsen

Norman D. Stevens

61

studies and soon became an outstanding student. He worked closely with his father, who never remarried, especially in the preparation of a bibliography of the Aztecs. Gustafsen spent much of his time between 1896 and 1900 on that bibliography, which, unfortunately, was left unfinished at the untimely death of his father from pneu­ monia in the winter of 1900. That training led Gustafsen to become a devoted scholar and he was eventually to receive the Ph.D. from both Berlin (1898) and Gottingen (1902) as well as the B.L.S. (1905) and the Ph.D. (1908) from the Library School at Albany. He also was awarded an honor­ ary doctorate by Philander University in 1913. After receiving his degree from Göttingen in 1902, Gustafsen came to America in what was to be an unsuccessful search for his mother. He worked briefly as a page in the public libraries in St. Louis and Cincinnati before going on to the library school at Albany. He was an outstanding student in library school and grad­ uated at the top of his class. In 1906 he became the librarian, upon the retirement of Dorothy Cary, of the Ezra Beesly Free Public Library in Baxter, Massachu­ setts. With the strong support of the Board of Trustees he initiated many reforms and the Beesly Free Public Library soon became one of the most progressive public libraries in the United States. Its ac­ tivities were often featured, for example, in Edmund Lester Pear­ son’s column “ The Librarian” in The Boston Evening Transcript. Under Gustafsen’s brilliant leadership, in less than a year that library had introduced the card catalog, typewriters, deposit li­ braries, lectures, Sunday opening, a more scholarly collection, ref­ erence service, and the telephone. Gustafsen also founded the Bax­ ter Library Club and was its first president. Unfortunately he proved to be too progressive for the community, and in March of 1908, to their pleasure, he left. He was felt to be somewhat too serious and to lack humanity. It is also likely that his homosexuality, of which he made no secret, did not sit well with the residents of a small, con­ servative New England community. He was replaced temporarily by Dorothy Cary, but shortly thereafter his star pupil, Miss Letitia Van Remsen, was to take his place at Baxter. Gustafsen moved on to become an Instructor in Bibliography at Philander University Library School in Tennessee. Except for a brief span from September of 1908 through June of 1910 when he was state librarian at Muscaloosa, Alabama and president of the li­ brary school there, Gustafsen was to spend the rest of his profes­

62

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

sional career at Philander University. Upon his return in 1910 he became Head of the Philander University Library and Library School. Among his many accomplishments there were the introduc­ tion of the first library school course in time management, the intro­ duction of a sizable number of male students into the program, the establishment of an exchange program with the University of Baroda, and the development of a strong scholarship program for disabled and minority students. Gustafsen was active professionally throughout his career. He was a member of the Alabama State Library Commission-in 1909/ 1910. He was also a member of the American Library Association, the American Library Institute, and the Alabama, Massachusetts, New York, and Tennessee Library Associations. He served as VicePresident and Treasurer of the Tennessee Library Association in 1912/1913. He was also a member of the Kultur Verein, the Lovers of Irish Freedom, the Friends of Truth, and the True American’s Patriotic Circle. It is believed that he was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan, but no records exist to verify that belief. His paper delivered at the American Library Association’s con­ ference at Narragansett Pier, Rhode Island, in 1906 on “ Ancient Theories and Modern Ideals in Public Library Management” was proclaimed by Library Journal as the outstanding paper at that con­ ference. He was, as has been indicated, one of the first advocates of time and motion studies in libraries. The paper he delivered at the Aunt Matilda Library Club of Kaskaskia, Indiana in 1907 on “ How Librarians May Save 14 and 3/4 Seconds a Year” was a brilliant presentation of his theories. While he advocated the use of a simpli­ fied capital S in that paper, he was never a rabid follower of Dewey’s crusade for simplified spelling. He was, however, one of many library advocates of Esperanto. His other famous paper was “ The Public Library as the University of the People” that he deliv­ ered at the Baxter Library Club in 1908. Unfortunately none of his papers were published, perhaps owing to the fact that he always spoke extemporaneously, at length, and in a thick German accent that was virtually impossible to understand at times. He was, by all accounts, a boring speaker who often put his audience to sleep. Gustafsen was tall and pale. He wore gold spectacles and a black alpaca jacket at all times. His heavy German accent became more intense when he was angered or excited, as he often became when arguing over a fine point of bibliography. Above all Gustafsen was a bibliographer. He was a persistent ad-

Norman D. Stevens

63

vocate of, as he put it, “ a fuller, more gomprehensive, and aggurate bibliography.” His work on his father’s Aztec bibliography has al­ ready been mentioned. He also produced, as his dissertation at Göt­ tingen, A Contribution Toward a Bibliography o f the Domestic Cus­ toms o f the Red Ant. Following on the work he had started for his father, he began work on a Bibliography o f the Use o f Skates Among the Aztecs in 1910. On a sabbatical leave he went to New York in May of 1915 ostensibly to sail for Buenos Aires from whence he was to proceed by train to Santiago to work in the Biblioteca Na­ cional. Before sailing, he addressed the Kultur Verein in New York on American and English hypocrisy. He was never to reach Buenos Aires. To the dismay of his profes­ sional colleagues The New York Times of 15 December 1915 re­ ported that Professor Oscar Gustafsen had been arrested by federal agents outside a munitions factory in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He had been apprehended with explosives, fuses, and fulminate of mer­ cury. He also was reported to have had in his possession letters im­ plicating him in a plot to plant incendiary bombs on ships bound for Europe. He admitted to the charges and was at first held without bail. Subsequently, he was released on bail and returned briefly to Philander University where he was dismissed from the faculty without a hearing. After a brief trial in a federal court in New York in January 1916, Gustafsen was interred for the balance of the war at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia. He was active in promoting the ALA camp library there and attempted to work on a number of biblio­ graphic projects. His spirits and his health had been irreparably damaged and he never fully recovered from those tragic events. After his release in 1919 he went briefly to French Lick Springs for treatment, but in early 1920 returned to Baxter where he was to spend his remaining years. He was cared for by his old friends Dorothy Cary, herself quite old, and Letitia Van Remsen. He was considered to be little more than a character and was often taunted by the children. On 29 November 1922 he was snowballed by a group of boys and chased them in anger, only to be stricken by a heart attack which killed him instantly. He was buried in the town cemetery in Baxter. Despite his brilliance as a bibliographer and a scholar, Gustafsen never quite reached the fullness of his promise. He was fondly re­ membered by his colleagues and his students but soon was forgotten and remains only a minor figure of American librarianship.

New Measures of Library Efficiency

Introduction This paper was presented as part of a program on disjunctive li­ brarianship at the annual meeting of OHIONET in the fall of 1979. It has not previously been published. * * * Although, unfortunately, The Molesworth Institute’s expectations in regard to the full-scale reporting and utilization of umbrella statis­ tics as the sole true measure of library efficiency have not yet been fully realized, it has become increasingly clear over the past several years that there is a serious need for a whole new range of interim library statistics reflecting the true present goals and objectives of libraries. It is also increasingly clear that those statistics, unlike the ones previously kept by libraries, must be translated into measures of efficiency if they are to have any meaning. For too long libraries have kept a large body of statistics, which they have used as the basis for both internal and external reports, that, while they may be both extremely impressive and inordinately precise, really tell very little about a library, its efficiency, and how it compares with other libraries. A good deal of work in recent years by Altman, DeProspero, and others has concentrated on attempting to measure library efficiency and productivity; but, apart from the fact that there is seldom agreement on what items should be mea­ sured and how, that work has concentrated primarily on new ways of looking at the same old statistics. Yet over the past decade in particular the role of the library in society has been undergoing a substantial change. Libraries, and li­ brarians, no longer accept the passive view of the library as a ware­ house of knowledge, or even as just a purveyor of books, periodi­ cals, and other printed information. Service to all and sundry, the effective utilization of information in all forms and shapes, and the 65

66

Archives of Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

active and aggressive dispensation of information have become the hallmarks of the profession. In an attempt to seek an effective way of identifying new sets of library statistics and a new interim measure of library efficiency, the Director of The Molesworth Institute recently took a slight respite from his normal duties to contemplate and consider this issue. First a careful review was conducted of past and present national library surveys and statistical reporting mechanisms. That review shed very little light on the problem but did identify the little-known fact that the precision of present day library statistics, in terms of the exact number of items held by a library, can be traced to a nation­ wide library-by-library count conducted, under the auspices of Melvil Dui, on February 29, 1876 beginning precisely at noon. Next a careful examination of more recent work in the field was made but that work was dismissed largely because the mathematics and the terminology used were beyond the comprehension of the Di­ rector. Finally the data gathered from library annual reports in The Insti­ tute’s world-famous umbrella study were re-analyzed to see what use could be made of it. In order to make those figures more man­ ageable, a new approach was taken. All repetitive statistics were eliminated and only that data, or statistical reporting, that was unique to a particular report was selected for further study. Of the four mil­ lion annual reports examined from the time of the Alexandria Library through 1976, some one billion pieces of statistical informa­ tion were identified but ultimately, after a careful item-by-item analysis, somewhat less than 50,000 of those pieces of information proved to be unique. Although it seemed apparent that such measures as the quantity of chewing gum scraped from the underside of chairs and desks in the reading room as reported in the annual reports of the East Caraway Public Library for 1913 and 19141under the terms of a special grant from the Wrigley Foundation had certain flaws, it was also readily apparent that, to some degree, such measures shed far more light on the actual use of the library than did, for example, the statistics kept by that same library, and hundreds of others at that time, on the tem­ perature on an hourly basis at the circulation desk of the central li­ brary and each branch library. Considerable time, but not a great deal of effort, was then spent in trying to identify which of those kinds of unique statistics might be most useful if translated into a broader sphere. Not only the chewing

Norman D. Stevens

67

gum statistics previously mentioned but a wide range of others were examined with some care. Those included: the number of locusts eating papyri; the number of playing cards converted into catalog cards; the number of bums sleeping in the reading room; the number of strips of bacon left in books returned to the library; the number of windows washed; the quantity of wood burned to heat the library; and the number of pickled limes eaten in the children’s room. While all were interesting, and many at first seemed to hold some promise, it was concluded ultimately that most tended, of course, to reflect only local interests and concerns, or, at best, interests and concerns of the past. More recent unique statistics seemed, at first, to hold out greater promise. It was eventually realized, however, that such items as the number of signs and posters in the library, the number of donuts consumed at the library’s annual open house, the number of inde­ cent exposures, the number of exit alarms set off, and the amount of money collected in vending machines were as transitory as items from the past and of as little enduring value. Nevertheless it did seem that there were some elements of those kinds of statistics, old and new, that did tell a good deal more about the efficiency of a library than did the more traditional statistics of the number of books circulated or added to the collection. The identification of the particular items to be used did not pre­ sent any serious difficulties. It was considerably more complex to translate those figures into a meaningful measure of library efficien­ cy. Consequently a number of experimental studies were carried out in an effort to link appropriate items together to come up with mean­ ingful measures of library efficiency. Research on the subject con­ tinues but, at this time, it is possible to describe briefly one model that has been derived and has tentatively been selected as useful. That model is now being tested in the same libraries which partici­ pated in the umbrella study and will shortly be extended to others. The formula derived has largely been arrived at on an experimen­ tal basis involving a complex set of modelling techniques and an in­ volved series of mathematical formulas that it is not possible to pre­ sent or explain here. All of that data will be provided in the final report on the project which is scheduled to be published sometime in early 1980. Nevertheless the end result is a relatively simple formula to un­ derstand and apply. It simply adds two measures of library produc­ tivity (A and B) and divides them by two other measures of library

68

Archives o f Library Research from The Molesworth Institute

productivity similarly added together (C and D) to arrive at a library efficiency ratio. Those measures are: A = water consumption by staff and patrons translated into the number of gallons per twice the number of full-time staff (fte including student assistants and custodial staff) plus the number of registered borrowers divided by the number of hours open per year; B = number of pounds of garbage collected annually, minus the total accumulation of dust on the shelves on January 1, divided by the total square footage of the building; C = income derived from miscellaneous minor activities (trans­ lated into 1968 dollars using the Consumer Price Index) divided by the number of card catalog trays opened on an average daily basis; D = average daily noise levels measured in decibels for both staff and public areas (excluding holidays and the days pre­ ceding and succeeding holidays). The results of the application of that formula in five libraries for the academic year 1978/1979 is shown in Table One. Except for Library E, which is clearly an aberrant case, those figures speak for themselves. Perhaps the most intriguing result of the application of this formula is the extent to which the efficiency ratios derived allow for a simple and direct comparison of the libraries involved. Few formulas of such complex social organizations produce results that are so simple to interpret. Despite the neatness of the results, which tends to be confirmed in the tentative application of the formula in other libraries, we are not yet persuaded that this is indeed the one true measure of library effi­ ciency. Rather the director and the staff of The Molesworth Institute still feel that ultimately it will be the refinement of their work rela­ tive to the disappearance, exchange, and loss rates of umbrellas in libraries that will produce the true breakthrough in this area. The less direct relationship a set of statistics has to the immediate work of an organization, the more that set of statistics can tell us about the true efficiency of that organization. FOOTNOTES 1. See Edmund Lester Pearson’s column “ The Librarian” for March 31, 1915 in his The Librarian: Selections from the Column o f That Name (Scarecrow Press, 1976) p. 436-9.

cü O « VM S3 b J

rt M -û