College and Research Libraries By R I C H A R D B. H A R W E L L The Southeastern Interlibrary Research Facility COMBINED ACTION by six university li-braries in Georgia and Florida has resulted in the formation of the South- eastern Interlibrary Research Facility. SIRF is a positive expression of aware- ness of the problems library growth pre- sent to universities and a vigorous at- tempt to find a solution to those prob- lems in the libraries of the Southeast. Its first year was primarily an explora- tory operation supported by Emory Uni- versity, Florida State University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Southern Regional Education Board, and the universities of Florida, Georgia, and Miami. Working as the Georgia- Florida Committee for Planning Re- search Library Cooperation, it concen- trated on two pilot projects, the compi- lation and publication of A Union List of Serial Holdings in Chemistry and Al- lied Fields and of Research Resources in the Georgia-Florida Libraries of SIRF.1 SIRF was established by a memorandum of agreement jointly prepared in the early summer of 1955. Operation under the memorandum began in October; at the end of the month a work conference was held in Atlanta to introduce SIRF and its work to a wider group of south- eastern librarians. As a result of the conference, the work XA Union List of Serial Holdings in Chemistry is n o w out of print. Copies of Research Resources are available at $2.50 from the Southern Regional Educa- tion Board, 881 Peachtree S t r e e t , N . E . , A t l a n t a 9, Ga. Mr. Harwell, formerly director of the SIRF, is now head of the Publications Division, Virginia State Library. of SIRF was continued on an investi- gative basis with three immediate ob- jectives: a regional adaptation liberaliz- ing the provisions of the A L A inter- library loan code, exploration of the cost of a regional union list of serials and of the interest in publishing such a list as a regional cooperative project, and ex- ploration of the desirability of organiz- ing an association of southern research libraries. Work toward each of these ob- jectives is presently under way although no new members were added to SIRF at the conference. T h e establishment of the Southern Regional Education Board in 1948 cre- ated in the South a new and vital instru- ment for improving the educational re- sources of the region and for effective, positive channeling of the efforts to ex- pand those resources. In succeeding years functioning programs in veterinary medicine, psychology, nursing, statistics, mental health, city planning, and other subject areas have repeatedly demon- strated the efficacy of the board's ap- proach to regional problems. At an early meeting of the board, li- brary representatives were invited to meet with university administrators to discuss regional cooperation. But the South is a complex of smaller regions. Its states spread across an enormous area. Though the several states face many educational problems common to most or to all of them, no common de- nominator could be found to which the problem of increasing regional library resources could be related. In the rapid SEPTEMBER, 1956 381 library development in the South since 1930, a few southern libraries have achieved distinguished status, but, by and large, library resources have not de- veloped abreast of general educational expansion. Burgeoning enrollments and increased demands for trained subject specialists have created new graduate programs—even new schools—faster than adequate library resources could be collected for them. New programs have put added strains on university budgets so that impressively increased library budgets are still not large enough to sup- port these new areas of research as fully as desirable. Aware of the desirability of regional cooperation, aware of some measure of success in small area efforts within the region (at Atlanta, Durham, and Nash- ville), aware of marked success in other regions (the Midwest, the Rocky Moun- tain area, and the Pacific Northwest), representative librarians continued con- versations with the SREB in an effort to- ward a more concentrated offensive to- ward their goal. A 1952 proposal for a regional library came to nought, but it contained the essence of the idea which was later activated as the Georgia-Florida committee. This proposal suggested "that a group of southern universities be con- stituted as branches of a regional library. Each of these branches would be as- signed responsibility for designated sub- ject-matter fields. Each branch would then purchase extensively in its assigned field. . . . T h e basic holdings of a first- class university library would be avail- able at each branch. However, the ex- pensive specialized publications and the seldom-used works needed for advanced graduate research would not be need- lessly duplicated." It called for a central office which would be in effect a regional catalog and communications center. En- visioning the participation of twenty li- braries, it asked that each contribute $1,500 a year to operating cost and that each commit $10,000 a year to purchases in assigned specialties. Its proponents summarized the advantages by claiming that the program would "at a cost of $11,500 per year make available to each cooperating institution library facilities which could not be duplicated for $200,- 000 per year." Such a proposal, some thought, in- vaded the autonomy of individual insti- tutions. It committed a large portion of already strained budgets without, neces- sarily, local determination. But it was a positive step toward cooperative think- ing. Twenty libraries proved too many to bring together for concerted planning. In a profession whose tools are unitary in procedural demands the administra- tive officers have proved almost equally individualistic. Reducing the number to six research libraries in Georgia and Florida which already had practiced some informal cooperation, the planners tried again. Library and administrative representatives from Emory, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and the universities of Florida, Georgia, and Miami met with representatives of the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta in March, 1954. Optimism, enthusiasm, and a new sense of the practicality of cooperation pervaded the meeting. It was decided to make this group a formal committee to explore fully the possibilities of cooper- ation. A memorandum of agreement was devised. By the end of the summer it had been signed and, at a preliminary com- mittee meeting in July, Dean (now vice president) Harley Chandler of the Uni- versity of Florida had been elected chair- man, and Richard Harwell, then assist- ant librarian at Emory and executive secretary of SELA, had been chosen as executive secretary for the committee. Three major decisions were made at the very beginning of the work which, it was hoped, would enable the commit- 382 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES tee to avoid the stumbling blocks of pre- vious efforts. First, the committee itself was constituted equally of library and administrative representatives f r o m the institutions involved. It was recognized that in building collections libraries must be governed closely by local teach- ing needs. In order for the librarians to base plans o n future teaching needs there w o u l d have to be inter-university as well as interlibrary planning. It w o u l d be only o n the highest administra- tive levels that such planning c o u l d be effected. Second, the idea of a new re- gional catalog was rejected. Such a cata- log w o u l d be enormously expensive. However, as three of the libraries were already fully represented in the U n i o n Catalog of the Atlanta-Athens Area, it was determined to consider building that catalog as a regional control center. T h i r d , the idea of a central storage fa- cility was rejected f o r the foreseeable fu- ture. T h e libraries of this area d o not yet approach in size the libraries which f o r m e d the M I L C and, relatively young in terms of the period of rapid growth, have not accumulated large blocks of material of the kind which made the storage library in Chicago desirable. W o r k in the committee's o w n office began in October, 1954. T h e structure and aims of comparable projects were carefully studied. T h e positive advan- tages of cooperative acquisition pro- grams and of interlibrary use of materi- als were stressed. It was equally empha- sized that the project w o u l d have n o veto over local purchases but w o u l d provide an individual librarian with an argument to persuade faculty that re- quests for material already in the region be foreborne in favor of material new to the region. In successive meetings the committee retraced much of its thinking and decided in June to convert its or- ganization into a permanent establish- ment as the Southeastern Interlibrary Research Facility. As a corollary, it ap- proved in principle the merger of the U n i o n Catalog of the Atlanta-Athens Area with SIRF. A revised memoran- d u m of agreement was signed.2 " I n addi- tion to strengthening the regional re- sources," it declared, "such a program will relieve each individual library of the overwhelming responsibility of un- limited extension of its library resources by cooperatively providing resources." " T h e purposes of S I R F , " stated the memorandum, "shall be to implement inter-university and interlibrary plan- ning by coordination of information about research resources and acquisi- tions, and by making research materials in the region available as widely as pos- sible for the use of all the libraries." T h e functions of the Facility are outlined as: 1. T o serve as a communications center to expedite regional use of materials at its member libraries. a. T o compile and keep up to date, either on cards or as a distributed, printed list, a complete and accurate record of the serial holdings of member libraries. b. T o compile and keep up to date, either on cards or as a distributed, printed list, a complete and accu- rate record of the newspaper hold- ings of member libraries. c. T o maintain a record of regional re- sources by a union catalog. d. T o locate through bibliographies or correspondence with other centers materials outside the region when regional resources have been ex- hausted. 2. T o provide an index to individual li- brary and regional resources as an aid in planning both library and university development. 3. T o develop programs of deposit or other methods of non-duplication in areas similar to those worked out by the MILC for midwestern libraries. 4. T o formulate a program for the coor- dination of acquisitions. 2 E m o r y committed itself to support of S I R F through January, 1956, and to separate support of the union catalog through June, 1956. SEPTEMBER, 1956 383 5. T o act as an agent of the several li- braries, upon request, in negotiating gifts of materials and in making pos- sible joint ownership of materials. 6. T o act as an agent of the several li- braries, upon request, when they are jointly seeking foundation support. T o consider the extension of its proj- ect to a larger n u m b e r of southeastern libraries, S I R F conducted its work con- ference in October. Present in addition to SIRF's o w n personnel were represent- atives f r o m A l a b a m a Polytechnic Insti- tute, Clemson College, Duke University, the Joint University Libraries of Nash- ville, Louisiana State University, the Oak R i d g e Institute of Nuclear Studies, the U n i o n Catalog of the Atlanta-Athens area, and the universities of Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, T e n - nessee, and Virginia. Dr. R o b e r t B. Downs of the University of Illinois, Dr. Herman Fussier of the University of Chicago, Dr. J o h n E. Ivey, Jr., of the Southern Regional Education Board, and Mr. George A . Schwegmann of the National U n i o n Catalog of the Library of Congress were present as consultants. T h e work of the committee and the aims of S I R F were reviewed in consider- able detail. T h e Union List of Serials in Chemistry and the Research Resources were presented as evidence of the year's accomplishment. T h e m e m o r a n d u m of agreement was presented as evidence of a way of future accomplishment. T h e Union List and Research Resources re- peatedly pointed out b o t h lacunae in re- gional holdings and unwarranted dupli- cation of holdings. Imperfect documents resulting f r o m a pilot project with only a single field worker, they will neverthe- less prove useful. T h e chemistry list records holdings in the six Georgia and Florida libraries for 626 titles. O f these, 272 titles are held by only one library, 136 by two, 73 by three, 65 by four, 38 by five, and 42 by all six. T h e survey v o l u m e omits chemistry but covers (with varying emphasis according to the strength of the collections and the extent of graduate programs within the institutions) the rest of the library col- lections. It lists full holdings f o r 911 se- rial titles and mentions more than 1,400 periodicals (with at least o n e location) in its narrative sections. In b o o k ma- terials 753 specific titles (largely mul- tiple-volume sets and monumental works) are located and general areas of strength in the several libraries are indi- cated. In an editorial o n O c t o b e r 31, The Atlanta Journal praised the project and said in part: Six institutions in Georgia and Florida have figured out a way to solve the problem. It is needless for each institution to own all books, even valuable books, so they agreed that each would buy and house some. In this way, together they would own them all and would make them available to students in any of the cooperating institutions. . . The plan obviously is wise. It is hoped that other universities and colleges in the Southeast will see its wisdom and join in the program. T h a t the editorial makes S I R F appear as a working proposition prematurely does not alter the approval of the plan. T h e consultants at the work conference were equally approving and genuine in- terest was exhibited in the w h o l e proj- ect. But Emory's conditional commit- ment and the doubts about library co- operation which were revealed at the conference caused potential members to h o l d back pending the investigations into which the work of S I R F was redi- rected at the conference. T h e work of S I R F has moved slowly, more slowly than its advocates had hoped. But there is r o o m f o r much opti- mism. Many libraries of the Southeast have passed the p o i n t of being mere service institutions and are n o w full- fledged research libraries. Wise planning 384 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES can multiply their usefulness by making the collections at each library available to the whole region. If SIRF has not come u p with a definitive solution to the p r o b l e m of interlibrary cooperation, it has at least created a climate of think- ing in which cooperation is regarded as essential. Recent Developments in SIRF Since Mr. Harwell's article was written several events have taken place which have affected the development of SIRF. Emory University and the University of Georgia have withdrawn their memberships, and SIRF has regrouped as an organization of four institutions. Its new director, Graham Roberts, is now also a member of the staff of the Southern Regional Education Board and serves as library consultant to the other regional programs of the Board. The Atlanta-Athens Union Catalogue has been reorganized and is placing its emphasis on "community service" to the State of Georgia. For the present SIRF will not have the opportunity to develop this catalog as a regional research instrument. On a more positive side SIRF has assisted in the organization of an Association of Southeastern Research Libraries, which held its first meeting at Miami Beach on June 21, 1956, and has undertaken the compilation of a regional supplement to the Union List of Serials. Work on the supplement is ac- tively under way and several of the libraries participating have reported their holdings. The purposes and functions of SIRF re- main unchanged. It is as a focal point of regional interlibrary cooperation that SIRF has proved and will continue to prove its effectiveness. Cooperative programs seldom have an obstacle-free path to follow, and if an over-all view of the situation is taken, the future for regional interlibrary cooperation in the Southeast is a brighter one because of SIRF.—Graham Roberts. Appreciation of Service to Arthur T. Hamlin The following resolution was presented and adopted by acclamation at the ACRL membership meeting, University of Miami Cafeteria, during the Miami Beach Confer- ence: "Every organization hopes to find staff members who will do more than the contract calls for. In recent years, the Association of College and Reference Libraries has been especially fortunate in having as its Execu- tive Secretary, Arthur Hamlin. He brought to this job imagination, energy, and perse- verance. Those who watched his accomplish- ments knew that it would merely be a mat- ter of time before some other organization with greater opportunities would ask for his services. All of us know we were lucky to have him with us as long as we did. In return for giving us this outstanding serv- ice, Arthur Hamlin has long since received our thanks and our admiration. All we can add is our wishes for success in his new job and our pledge of cooperation with him in any projects which could use our resources and talent to help him in his new position. We know that he will work for the advance- ment of all libraries while he sets new standards of performance at Cincinnati." SEPTEMBER, 1956 385