College and Research Libraries By JAMES D. M A C K A View of the International Conference on Scientific Information "Change is inevitable." — B e n j a m i n Disraeli MOST IF NOT ALL who attended the International Conference on Sci- entific Information at Washington dur- ing November have now returned from that rarefied level of academic discourse, to take up again where they had left off. Yet probably not quite where they had left off. Any advancement of their thought may be taken as a measure of the loss to those who could not attend. T h e list of academic libraries represent- ed at the conference includes the Aus- tralian National University and the Uni- versity of the Witwatersrand. For the benefit of those academic librarians who could not be present, it might be useful to explain here, in a general way, the work of the ICSI. T o begin with, however, let us agree to the premises upon which the impor- tance of the conference to academic librarians seem to rest. First, that the production, distribution, classification, indexing, and use of scientific literature are intrinsic, and not extraneous, to the academic library. Second, that beneath the jargon of documentation lies the really exciting, but orderly, processes of evolution in librarianship. And third, that the scientists themselves, simply ig- noring the sacred cows of the library profession, are in fact asking some of the big questions. T h e problem before the ICSI, stated most simply, was the following: What Mr. Mack is Librarian, Lehigh Uni- versity. can government, industry, and the uni- versities d o about the exponential growth-rate of scientific literature? Now it is clear that if this growth-rate were linear, at, say one hundred thousand documents annually, there would not have been a conference at all. But be- cause the rate is exponential, and inex- orable, special problems have arisen re- quiring special modes of solution not readily available in the empirical tech- niques of traditionally trained librarians. As for the "big questions," two cen- tral areas of difficulty seem to have emerged from the week-long discussions: First, what is the fundamental nature of information as such? This kind of query, under the pressure of mathematical and semantic analysis, breaks up into subsidi- ary questions which only a first-rate lo- gician should try to handle. But it would appear that enough is already known about the problem to enable engineers to try out designs for electronic index- ing systems. This is highly tentative at the moment. But it leads directly to the second area of difficulty, namely, how does a scientist use new knowledge? Again there arises a group of related questions. How does a scientist produce information? What are the intellectual processes of reference work? Precisely what is the psychic relationship between one who asks and one who answers a reference question in science? And how, if at all, can that relationship be studied? If we knew, we should probably be train- ing librarians to take a more active, as JANUARY 1959 15 distinct from the normal passive, part in scientific research. At this point, a wit might say that the documentalists have discovered the human race. Perhaps so! Or it might— indeed can—be said that these big ques- tions are old ones. (They happen also to be unanswered ones.) In any event, it is more than conceivable not only that any sound answers will affect the work of reference librarians in the ways suggested above; but also they could easily involve, say, the overthrow of our traditional hierarchical classification schemes. At least in strictly limited areas, faceted classification seems to of- fer some possibility of relief. (Dr. Ran- ganathan was particularly persuasive: his influence abroad is not to be lightly ignored.) Again, if we knew more about users of scientific information, and more about knowledge itself, we might see changes in many of the media of scientific com- munication. It is evident that the pub- lishers of our journals, monographs, ab- stracting services, and compendia are all facing problems of enormous difficulty. A breakthrough in either or both of these questions might mean partial solu- tions in terms of increased effectiveness and reduction of the drudgery in liter- ature-search. From what has been said it may natu- rally be inferred that administrative changes, too, are to be expected. For if both personnel requirements and the materials with which we deal undergo even minute changes as the result of these investigations, we shall be com- pelled to alter both the type and the structure of our staffs and the ways in which we serve our clientele. And this will profoundly affect our financial problem. Now, what of the prospects? Just as surely as the ICSI followed the Royal Society Scientific Information Conference of 1948, there will be fur- ther conferences. Moreover, if one thing is clear, it is that the principal sponsors —governments and industries—will pres- ently begin to adopt policies and prac- tices based upon ideas generated at this conference. At this point, what began as an academic inquiry may end as a factor in a power situation; and the is- sues will be resolved in appropriate terms. It seemed apparent to this observer that academic librarians here and abroad have a vital stake in these proceedings, and that many areas of useful research were opened up by this conference. A few projects chosen at random would benefit greatly from the empirical knowl- edge we have to contribute: (1) If it be supposed, as indeed many do suppose, that the information resources of the world should be organized more ration- ally, what is the case for coordination as against cooperation? For centralized control as against coordination? (2) What attitudes about the whole prob- lem of bibliographic control in the sci- ences now prevail among (a) working scientists; (b) academic administrators; (c) professional librarians? (3) Solution of cost problems: e.g., what is the cost of maintaining a subject catalog; what are the commensurate values; is there a bet- ter way? (4) Experimental use of faceted classification in a limited area of science. (5) What are the advantages of the Dy- son system of chemical notation, as compared to those of other systems, (a) to chemists; (b) to librarians? (6) What does the asker of a scientific reference question really mean when he indicates satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the handling of a problem? (7) Investiga- tion of problems in interlibrary commu- nication. This is all developmental work in which, with no intention of sounding pious, I suggest we can afford to par- ticipate. I should add, if I may, that we cannot afford to stand apart. 16 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES