ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries Class 8: Corporation research. Discuss the types of corporations, both public and private, listed and unlisted, and how to find information about them. Sources discussed are Moody’s M anuals, Standard & Poor’s C o rp oration R ecords, T h e Value L in e In ­ vestm en t Survey, and corporate reports. Also dis­ cuss the use of the card catalog and periodical and newspaper indexes for finding information on cor­ porations. Class 9: Information on industries. Discuss in­ fo rm a tio n on ind u stries in general and the commonly-used sources for locating this informa­ tion; U. S. Industrial O u tloo k, S ta n d a rd & P o o r ’s Industry Survey, industry analysis in T he Value L in e Investm en t Survey, and special issues of trade journals. Briefly discuss financial and industrial ra­ tios and the basic sources for locating these: Robert Morris A ssociates’ A n n u a l S ta te m e n t S tu d ies, Troy’s A lm a n a c o f Business i t Industrial F in an cial R atios, and Dun & Bradstreet’s Industry N orm s a n d K ey Business Ratios. Class 10: Course wrap-up. Discuss basic business and economic encyclopedias and dictionaries, computer database searches, and putting together the research paper. ■ ■ Degree of overlap in instructional collections: A reconsideration By Jeffry Larson H um anities B ib lio g ra p h er Yale University L ib ra r y Paul Mosher, in a recent contribution to the “Re­ search Forum” in C &R L N ew s, July/August 1985, pp. 3 36-38, describing “The nature and uses of the R LG verification studies,” reported findings that “library holdings of the many smaller R LG li­ braries … demonstrate … lower overlap rates than these very large collections” (p. 337). This is seen as advantageous for the smaller collections: “This large increase in coverage among the com­ bined holdings of smaller R LG libraries under­ scores the advantages of resource pooling to an even greater degree than among large institutions” (P . 337). It is not self-evident, however, why it is a virtue to have less overlap among smaller, instructional collections than among larger, research collec­ tions. Presumably the missions of research libraries differ at least as much among themselves, espe­ cially in the more recondite subfields, than do the curricula that are supported by instructional col­ lections; one would expect this to be true particu­ larly in the conservative disciplines involving a tra ­ ditional canon of texts, such as English or French literature. Under a rational allocation of resources, therefore, instructional collections should have higher, not lower, overlap rates than the very large collections. That this is not so requires explanation rather than self-congratulation. Perhaps the large re­ search collections are too similar, and greater ef­ forts should be made to assign different parts of the perimeter to different libraries. This has certainly been the thrust of the assignment of “Primary Col­ lecting Responsibilities” within RLG . But conversely, and more obviously, it would seem that the instructional collections are not simi- 486 / C&RL News RESEARCH FORUM O ctober 1985 / 487 lar enough. Several explanations, not mutually ex­ clusive, suggest themselves; none bespeak really valid collecting principles. Some of the variance may come from gaps in the ideal core collection, probably arising from fluctuations in financial sup­ port, especially in public institutions; these lacunae should be filled on a priority basis by use of some instrument such as B oo ks f o r C o lleg e L ib ra r ies and C h o ice . If works required for instructional pur­ poses are indeed lacking, patrons can hardly be ex­ pected to rely often on resource sharing, i .e ., inter- library loan, for anticipating, requesting, and then using borrowed material within the constraints of the normal curricular unit (9-15 weeks). It is for re­ search, where the use of materials can be planned, that one library’s collection can most effectively complement another’s. On the other hand, some of the dissimilarity be­ tween these smaller collections may be due to posi­ tive growths or appendages into areas that are not needed for instructional support. Typically, these come from particular research interests of senior faculty and tend to distort the balance of the collec­ tion as a whole (I remember in one collection I tended that the entire faculty allocation in one de­ partment was devoted regularly to dialectology, thanks to the power of one member and the apathy of his colleagues). W hile these eccentric and iso­ lated research appendages to an instructional col­ lection may be of some solace to the faculty mem­ bers who generated them, it is doubtful that they contribute much value to the overall collection, even the combined one of the similarly-sized in­ structional libraries whose overlap is being gauged. Precisely because of their specialized nature, these “spikes” rising out of the normal instructional col­ lection are not likely to be of interest to faculty at other similar institutions, who for their part have been devoting departmental allocations to their own individual research topics. Accordingly, the finding of less-than-expected overlap among instructional collections should give collection developers pause about what direc­ tion is to be pursued in strengthening these libraries whose purpose is support of their institution’s cur­ riculum. Reflections on ACRL’s first Research Clinic By Celia Wall R e fe r e n c e L ib ra r ia n M urray State University On July 8 more than 100 librarians gathered at the Americana-Congress Hotel to attend A C RL’s first national Research Clinic. Many of the librari­ ans were in Chicago for the 104th Annual Confer­ ence of the American Library Association. Some, like myself, had made the trip to Chicago solely to attend the half-day Clinic which was sponsored and organized by A C RL’s new Committee on Re­ search Development. The librarians, “first tim e” researchers, had been nominated by their library directors to attend the Clinic. The announcement of the Clinic had appeared in the April issue of C o lleg e & R esea rch L ib ra r ies N ew s in an article by Dorothy J. Ander­ son, chair of the Committee. The number of re­ sponses received had both surprised and pleased Clinic organizers. There appeared to be quite a number of academic librarians interested in re­ search. The Clinic was designed as one step in a plan “to stimulate superior research among academic li­ brarians.” The plan, as detailed in Anderson’s arti­ cle, was based on three beliefs: 1) Many astute library directors recognize re­ search as an opportunity to: • enhance the library’s status in the university and in the profession; • lift staff morale; and • investigate persistent problems scientifically. 2) Many bright academic librarians would enjoy doing research if they had: • administrative support (time, money, recog­ nition); • confidence in their ability; • help and training. 3) As an incentive to do quality research, poten­ tial researchers need training designed to diffuse fears, build confidence and to develop a research­ er’s mind-set and ability.1 The agenda for the day was an ambitious one and seemed to have been designed to provide enough basic information about the fundamentals of research to dispell some of the fears of first time researchers. 1Dorothy J. Anderson, “Stimulating Quality Re­ search: Starting with the Basics.” C &R L N ew s 46 (April 1985): 180-183. 488 / C &R L News Any one topic on the agenda could easily have served as the basis for a full workshop. Yet, thanks in large part to the speakers, the outline proved very effective. The program was divided into five logical steps: 1) developing a research mindset; 2) diagnosing the problem; 3) collecting data; 4) de­ signing research strategy; and 5) mobilizing re­ sources. Speakers limited their presentations to the basics. Much to their credit these experienced re­ searchers did not try to overwhelm the audience with the size of the problem or to impress with their own “ expertise” and knowledge. R ath er each seemed to be making a sincere effort to explain, ed­ ucate, and help alleviate fears. Sara Fine, professor of library and information science at the University of Pittsburgh, discussed some of the fears first-time researchers face, as well as some fears that will stay with the researcher long past the first effort. On the topic of one widely-held fear, the fear of statistics, Fine pointed out that the researcher must know how to in terp ret the statis­ tics, not necessarily how “to do” statistics— a very im portant distinction and one which gave this Clinic participant renewed hope that a previously- shelved research idea may be possible in the near future. Brian Nielson, head of the Reference D epart­ ment at Northwestern University, discussed topics of interest for researchers and suggested that librar­ ians not overlook the research potential of everyday problems and concerns in their own libraries. The researcher should look at these problems and con­ cerns not as his lib rary ’s alone but as universal problems and concerns of interest to many librari­ ans. Nielson briefly reviewed Metz’s five target ar­ eas of interest for research: 1) cost studies; 2) user studies; 3) collection studies; 4) relationships be­ tween the library administration and the univer­ sity administration; and 5) use studies. Mary Jo Lynch, director of ALA’s Office for R e­ earch, detailed five ways to gather data: 1) test­ ng; 2) observation; 3) surveys; 4) interviewing; and 5) content analysis. These five she explained in ome detail, discussing the pros and cons of each riefly. W . Boyd Rayward, dean of the Graduate L i­ rary School at the University of Chicago, pointed ut that the research project begins when one’s in­ erest is piqued by a problem or subject. W ith this ague problem in mind, the researcher then pro­ ceeds to search for relevant literature to help define he problem. Robert M . Hayes, dean of the Graduate School f Library and Information Science at the Univer­ ity of California, Los Angeles, spoke all too briefly n mobilizing resources for research. A researcher hould begin by defining available resources in erms of tim e, technical resources, and b ib lio­ graphic resources. For academic librarians the requirement and ressure to engage in research— and to report the esults of that research — seems to be increasing. The very fact that over 100 librarians turned out in C h icago for the first national Research C lin ic ould seem to lend credence to that supposition. The organization of this Clinic was a recognition n the part of A C RL that there is a need in the field or practicing librarians to receive training in the basic skills of research. The Clinic was an excellent tarting point. But it only whetted the appetite. As noted earlier, any one of the five topics on the Clinic agenda can easily be turned into a full work­ hop. L et us hope that the new Com mittee on R e­ earch Development will look at the tremendous response to the first Clinic as an indication that here should be more clinics that will expand on opics introduced at the first Clinic. T he interest is here! ■ ■ s i s b b o t v t o s o s t p r w o f s s s t t t AV cataloging update T he ALA Interdivisional Ad Hoc Committee on C atalogin g in P u b lication for AV M aterials is chaired by Robert Mead-Donaldson (Florida In ­ ternational University) and consists of representa­ tives from ALA divisions and the Library of Con­ gress. At the 1985 Annual Conference, Susan Vita (CIP Division, LC) reported on responses to an ex­ tensive microcomputer software study distributed earlier in the year. She received more than 200 re­ sponses, over half from academic libraries. The in­ tent of the survey was to determine how libraries catalog and use microsoftware and to evaluate in­ terest in C IP for these items. Responses indicate a strong desire for C IP in order to achieve standard­ ization, better utilization of staff and money, and faster processing. L C will conduct a pilot C IP project for m icro­ software (1,000 items) in 1986. Publishers will be drawn from those currently in the C IP program plus additional publishers identified in the survey. L C is now id e n tify in g n ecessary C IP m ic r o ­ software data elements and designing accompany­ ing information for participating publishers. LC expects to mount the M R D F format in early 1986. The Ad Hoc Com mittee will be actively involved in evaluating the success of the pilot project and will be reporting on this in the future. For further in form ation , con tact Peggy Johnson, Head of Technical Services, University of Minnesota, St. Paul Campus Central Librarv, 1984 Buford Ave­ nue, St. Paul, MN 55108. ■ ■