College and Research Libraries


By J. P E R I A M D A N T O N 

Doctoral Study in Librarianship 

In the United States 

TH I R T Y YEARS A G O , in the 1928/29 ac-ademic year, the first program for 
doctoral study in librarianship was in-
augurated in the United States. It seems 
fitting that this anniversary be the oc-
casion for an examination of the current 
status of doctoral studies in the field, a 
review of present objectives and pro-
grams of the six schools now offering 
doctoral programs, and an inquiry into 
accomplishments to date. Since 1929, 129 
degrees have been awarded by five of 
these schools; the sixth has yet to award 
the degree. A seventh school starts a 
doctoral program this fall. 

For the first two decades of the thirty-
year period, the field of doctoral studies 
in librarianship was the exclusive prop-
erty of the Graduate Library School of 
the University of Chicago.1 T h e history 
of its establishment, early development, 

1See Lester Asheim, "The Graduate Library School 
of the University of Chicago," Illinois Libraries, 
X L (1958), 177-85; Bernard R. Berelson, " A d -
vanced Study and Research in Librarianship," in 
Berelson, ed., Education for Librarianship (Chi-
cago: A L A , 1949), pp. 207-35; Harriet E. Howe, 
" T w o Decades in Education for Librarianship," Li-
brary Quarterly, X I I (1942), 557-70; Frederick P. Kep-
pel, "The Carnegie Corporation and the Graduate Li-
brary School: A Historical Outline," Library Quarter-
ly,. I (19-31), 22-25; William M. Randall, "Louis R. 
Wilson and the Graduate Library School," Library 
Quarterly, X I I (1942), 645-50; Douglas Waples, " T h e 
Graduate Library School at Chicago," Library Quarter-
ly, I (1931), 26-36; Louis R. Wilson, "Development of 
a Program of Research in Library Science in the Grad-
uate School." Library Journal, L I X (1934), 742-46; 
Wilson, " T h e Objectives of the Graduate Library 
School in Extending the Frontiers of Librarianship," 
in New Frontiers in Librarianship (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago, Graduate Library School, 1940), pp. 
13-26. 

Dr. Danton is Dean, School of Li-
brarianship, University of California, 
Berkeley. This paper was presented be-
fore a meeting of the Association of 
American Library Schools, Washington, 
D. C., June 22, 1959. 

and—it may be said frankly—consider-
able difficulties of various kinds, has 
been fully described. It may be noted, 
however, that the Graduate Library 
School did not begin to come into its 
own and certainly did not win a measure 
of general professional support and rec-
ognition until after the appointment of 
Louis Round Wilson to the deanship in 
1932. Doctoral programs were begun at 
the Universities of Illinois and Michigan 
in 1948, at Columbia University in 1952, 
at the University of California in 1955, 
and at Western Reserve University in 
1956. A doctoral program has been ap-
proved at Rutgers University. Through 
June 1959, Chicago awarded eighty-nine 
degrees. This is more than twice as many 
as the forty degrees of all of the other 
schools combined. Consequently, the his-
tory and accomplishments of doctoral 
study in librarianship in this country 
are necessarily in large part the history 
of the Graduate Library School; the con-
tributions and activities of the other 
schools begin to be of importance only 
during the last decade. 

(A small number of doctoral disserta-
tions on subjects in librarianship have 
been written under other departments, 
such as history and education; Sidney 
Ditzion's "Arsenals of a Democratic Cul-
ture" [Teachers College, Columbia Uni-
versity], Howard McGaw's "Marginal 
Punched Cards—Their Use in College 
and University Libraries" [Teachers Col-
lege, Columbia University], and Eugene 
Wilson's "Pre-Professional Background 
of Students in the Library School" [Psy-
chology and Education, University of II-



linois] are well-known representative 
examples. As the over-all programs of 
the authors of such studies were in dis-
ciplines other than librarianship, they 
have not been included in the present 
paper.) 

T h e study is divided into seven parts: 
(1) An analysis of dissertations thus far 
presented, by institution and subject, 
and by period; (2) T h e present objec-
tives of the schools' doctoral programs; 
(3) T h e principal fields now embraced 
in these programs; (4) Factors prevent-
ing the schools from the fullest attain-
ment of their objectives; (5) T h e with-
drawal rate and the time factor; (6) 
Positions currently held by those who 
have received the doctorate at the sev-
eral schools; and (7) A consideration of 
the general contribution which doctoral 
study has made to the profession, to-
gether with an estimate of the ways in 
which and extent to which such study 
has not achieved its fullest potential. 

Q U A L I T A T I V E - Q U A N T I T A T I V E A N A L Y S I S 
O F D I S S E R T A T I O N S 

Table I classifies by institution and 
subject the 129 dissertations presented 
from 1930, when Chicago awarded its 
first degree, through June 1959. T h e 
classification used is, with one amplifica-
tion, that presented and agreed upon 
for research studies in librarianship at 
the January 26, 1959 meeting of the As-
sociation of American Library Schools. 
This classification was, in turn, largely 
based upon that used in the October 
1957 issue of Library Trends. (An alpha-
betical list, by author, of the 129 dis-
sertations will be found at the end of this 
article. 

It must be recognized, of course, that 
the assignment to subjects in Table I is 
probably not absolutely accurate; even 
an examination of all of the dissertations 
would very likely not make possible as-
signments of this kind in every case, in 
view of the fact that some dissertations 
might, with almost equal justification, 

be listed under two different subject 
headings. However, in the great majority 
of cases the dissertation title suggests 
quite clearly the subject and for our pur-
poses the picture presented by Table I is 
sufficiently accurate. 

T h e table presents some interesting 
contrasts. It may be noted, for example, 
that 47 (36 per cent) of the 129 disserta-
tions were written in the two fields of 
library history and history of books and 
printing and publishing. If we add to 
this the dissertations on other media of 
public communication, censorship, con-
tent analysis, and controls, the total is 
66 (51 per cent). At almost the other ex-
treme of the quantitative analysis it is 
rather surprising to find the showing of 
two subjects: reference, information, and 
advisory services; and cataloging, clas-
sification, and subject headings. These 
two are among the most formalized— 
and surely most important and funda-
mental—of our library activities, yet 
only 9 dissertations, or 7 per cent of the 
total number, were written in each. 
Other areas which attracted dissertation 
writers less frequently than might, per-
haps, have been expected, are organiza-
tion and administration, with 13 dis-
sertations or 10 per cent of the total; re-
sources, with 14 dissertations or about 11 
per cent; and personnel and education, 
with 9 dissertations or 7 per cent. 

Table II groups the dissertations ac-
cepted in three-year periods. T h e most 
striking fact revealed by the table is the 
enormously accelerated output of the 
most recent years. In the period 1957-59 
more dissertations were accepted (and 
degrees awarded) than in the first twelve 
years; more than 41 per cent of the total 
were produced during the past six years 
and one-quarter during the last three 
years. Should this order of increase con-
tinue, even at the present level, we might 
expect to have several hundred active 
graduates by the end of another ten 
years. 

436 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



T A B L E I : D O C T O R A L DISSERTATIONS IN LIBRARIANSHIP, 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 5 9 , BY SUBJECT AND SCHOOL 

SUBJECT Chicago Columbia Illinois Michigan W . Reserve SUB-TOTAL TOTAL 

I. Background, 
A. Philosophy, objectives, purposes 2 1 3 
B. History of libraries and librarians 

1. General and other countries 2 2 
2. United States 11 1 2 14 

C. History of books, printing, and publishing 
1. General and other countries 13 2 2 2 19 
2. United States 4 1 8 13 

D. Contemporary social setting: books and publishing; 
other media of public communication (communi-
cator, content, audience or users, adult reading, ef-
fect, controls, censorship) 11 1 3 15 66 

II. Organization and Administration 
A. External legal, policy, political, and financial con-

trols and support 10 10 
B. Internal organization, administration, manage-

ment analysis 2 2 
C. Interlibrary relations and organization 1 1 13 

III. Resources 
A. Acquisitions, selection policies and practice 4 2 6 
B. Survey of resources 4 1 5 
C. Evaluation of books and other library materials 3 1 4 
D. Bibliographic and storage centers 
E. Interlibrary lending; photoreproduction 15 

IV. Reader Services 
A. Reference and information services 2 1 3 
B. Reader guidance and advisory services 2 1 1 4 
C. (Other) adult education activities 1 1 
D. Circulation analysis 1 1 9 

V. Technical Processes; Documentation 
A. Cataloging 3, 1 4 
B. Classification 3 3 
C. Subject headings 2 2 
D. Centralized processing 
E. Indexing, abstracting, coding 1 1 
F. Machine methods of identification, storage, re-

trieval, distribution of materials 
G. Documentation 2 I 3 13 

VI. Personnel and Education 2 1 3 
A. Organization and administration of personnel 
B. In-service training 
C. Education of librarians 3 2 5 8 

VII. International, Comparative, and Foreign Librarianship 2 1 3 3 
VIII. Methods of Research ayid Evaluation; Standards, Surveys 1 1 2 2 

89 7 13 19 1 129 



As we have seen, a total of 129 de-
grees have been awarded during the thir-
ty-year period of our doctoral programs. 
This is an average of 4.3 a year. T o some, 
this number will seem pitifully small in 
relation to the money and effort—in-
stitutional and personal—expended. This 
may be so, but the fact is that the figure 
is not in unfavorable contrast with those 
for certain of the other newer profes-
sions, and even for some of the more 
specialized academic disciplines. In the 
thirty-year period 1926-1955 earned doc-
tors degrees were awarded as follows: 
architecture, 17; forestry, 164; journal-
ism, 38; meteorology, 85; public admin-
istration, 77; Russian, 57; social work, 
86; and veterinary medicine, 59. In the 
same period, the figure for librarianship 
was 93.2 

OBJECTIVES 

T h e objectives of the programs are, 
mutatis mutandis, the same as those of 
doctoral study in major American uni-
versities in other disciplines, especially, 
of course, the professional fields. This is 
not surprising—indeed, it is no doubt 
inevitable—in view of the fact that in-
auguration of the programs required ap-
proval of some kind of graduate council 
or committee having general jurisdiction 
over graduate studies in the several in-
stitutions. T h e one difference that may 
profitably be noted between the objec-
tives of doctoral programs in librarian-
ship on the one hand and those in such 
a purely "academic" field as history, for 
instance, on the other, is that the former 
are, in part at least, more oriented to-
ward the practical. Thus, " T h e . . . pro-
gram . . . and requirements for degrees 
[at Chicago] reflect the belief of its fac-
ulty that librarianship is a practical 
rather than a purely theoretic science; 
that is, that it aims, not at knowledge 
for its own sake, but at knowledge for 

2Mary Irwin (ed.), American Universities and Col-
leges (7th ed.; Washington, D. C.: American Council 
on Education, 1956), Table 4, p. 69. 

T A B L E II 

DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS IN LIBRARIANSHIP, 
1930-1959, BY THREE-YEAR PERIODS 

CUMULATIVE 
NUMBER OF PER CENT 

PERIOD DISSERTATIONS (ROUNDED) 

1930-1932 6 5 
1933-1935 9 11 
1936-1938 5 16 
1939-1941 11 24 
1942-1944 13 34 
1945-1947 13 44 
1948-1950 11 53 
1951-1953* 7 58 
1954-1956 21 75 
1957-1959 33 100 

T O T A L 129 

* First n o n - C h i c a g o degree, 1951. 

the sake of excellence in the functioning 
of libraries."3 

T h e objectives of the programs may 
be summarized as follows: (1) T o fur-
nish mature librarians, having scholarly 
ability and interest, with opportunity for 
advanced study and research in the li-
brary field; (2) T o develop in the stu-
dent (a) subject mastery and (b) com-
petence in research and investigation; 
(3) T o organize, conduct, and publish 
studies which will extend the bounds of 
knowledge in fields pertinent to the 
theory and practice of librarianship; 
and, through these means, (4) T o pro-
vide for the profession qualified re-
searchers and personnel for teaching and 
higher administrative positions. 

M A J O R FIELDS OF STUDY FOR THE 
D O C T O R A T E 

Although none of the schools has 
sponsored dissertations in all of the fields 
of Table I, it is probably safe to say 
that all are prepared to supervise dis-
sertations in any of them. N o school, at 
least, specifically excludes any area of 
professional study. At any given point 
in time a kind of natural limitation re-

3University of Chicago, Graduate Library School, 
Announcement, 1959-1960, p. 1. 

438 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



suiting from the special interests and 
competence of members of a faculty and 
the resulting advice and stimulus which 
students receive will, as a practical mat-
ter, tend to cause more dissertations to 
be written in some fields than in others, 
and no dissertations at all to be written 
in certain fields. "However," as one li-
brary school administrator notes, "with 
a fairly broad area representation 
throughout the faculty and a collection 
of research materials which has been de-
veloping for some three-quarters of a 
century, we feel that with the assistance 
of the qualified subject specialists out-
side the Library School we can permit 
a student to go into any area of librarian-
ship presently recognized."4 At Califor-
nia, the student "may specialize in col-
lege and university libraries, public li-
braries, bibliography, history of books 
and printing, history of libraries, or the 
library as a social institution." But, "al-
though most dissertations written for the 
. . . degree will fall within one or an-
other of these . . . fields, the designation 
of fields of specialization does not pre-
clude the writing of a dissertation which 
does not obviously fall in one field or 
another."5 

Among the special fields open to the 
student at Chicago are: public libraries, 
college and university libraries, library 
work with children and young people, 
bibliography and reference, bibliograph-
ical history, technical processes, and read-
ing and other media of communication.6 

An analysis of the dissertations thus 
far presented at Michigan reveals an 
equally broad range. 

T h e major fields at Columbia "include 
the fields of specialization of our senior 
faculty members who conduct our sem-
inars and serve as advisors to our doc-
toral students," and are: library re-

4Harold Lancour, in a letter to the author dated 
January 12, 1959. 

5University of California, School of Librarianship, 
Announcement, 1959-60, pp. 34, 36. 

8University of Chicago, Graduate Library School, 
op. cit., p. 9. 

sources; organization of materials for 
retrieval and use; public and school li-
brary services and use; organization and 
administration of libraries; personnel 
and training; historical evolution of li-
braries and of publication; contemporary 
setting of libraries as one of the media of 
public communication" and, in prospect, 
"comparative librarianship."7 This, too, 
is about as comprehensive a list as one 
could ask for and very well covers all of 
the areas set forth in T able I. 

It is clear, therefore, that the prospec-
tive doctoral student in librarianship 
does not lack for opportunity to pursue 
an investigation in virtually any field of 
our discipline. 

O B S T A C L E S A N D D E T E R R E N T S 

Without exception, the major prob-
lem cited is the inadequate number and 
amount of research grants, fellowships, 
and teaching assistantships for doctoral 
students; or its corollary, the difficulty of 
attracting sufficient numbers of very good 
students. "Corollary," because no one 
doubts that if the profession were able 
to offer fellowships of five thousand dol-
lars a year for each of three years to 
fifty outstanding students a year, we 
should not lack for a sufficient number 
of able applicants. W e should also, al-
most certainly, substantially reduce the 
present high attrition rate. A consider-
able number of students can probably fi-
nance their education at the doctoral 
level for a year or perhaps two years 
with some small financial assistance, of-
ten in the way of part-time employment. 
Beyond such a period, the problem tends 
to become an exceedingly difficult one, 
particularly for the most able and ma-
ture students, many of whom have fam-
ily obligations. T h e large majority of 
students do not have the means and the 
schools do not have sufficient fellowships 
in sufficiently large amounts for the fi-
nancial support of the latter part of the 

'Robert D. Leigh, in a letter to the author dated 
February 20, 1959. 

NO V EMBER 1959 439 



program, especially the extra year or 
more of full-time work necessary to write 
the dissertation. Having completed the 
course work, the student leaves with 
every intention of doing his research in 
his spare time; but, as a library em-
ployee, he lacks the long summer vaca-
tion that doctoral students in academic 
posts have and his library position, of-
ten administrative in nature, is of a 
type and importance to take up all his 
time, thought, and energy. 

Obviously, this situation adversely af-
fects both the students and the schools. 
Equally obviously, it works to the se-
rious disadvantage of the profession "in 
the field." " I have several faculty mem-
bers here," one library school dean has 
written, "who need financial assistance 
. . . work on their doctorates has been 
delayed or continued in interrupted 
fashion. Although we now have an in-
creasing number of scholarships for stu-
dents working on their first professional 
degree, there isn't positive help for the 
faculty member who wants to go off for 
a year or two of study to work toward 
a doctorate. Indeed, as far as I know, 
there is no earmarked substantial grant 
for Ph.D. work in librarianship."8 

T h e problem of financing the able 
doctoral student and the closely related 
problem, discussed hereafter, of reducing 
the average length of time required to 
earn the degree, appear to be virtually 
universal. At Columbia, for example, for 
graduate students in general, it is be-
lieved that one of the three major ob-
stacles to a legitimate acceleration (i.e., 
one not gained at the expense of qual-
ity) is " T h e student's need to work for 
money during or immediately after res-
idence."9 T h e Committee on Policies in 
Graduate Education of the Association 
of Graduate Schools canvassed thirty 

8Louis Shores, in a letter to the author dated May 7, 
1959. 

"Jacques Barzun, Graduate Study at Columbia; the 
Report of the Deem of the Graduate Faculties for 
1958 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 
p. 5. 

member institutions on the question, 
"What factors tend to prolong the proc-
ess of completing the degree require-
ments?" Summarizing the responses, the 
committee notes that, "the problem of fi-
nancing is most frequently mentioned as 
the major obstacle to more rapid prog-
ress in the training of Ph.D.'s."10 

Apparently there is not a single fel-
lowship anywhere set up exclusively for 
the doctoral student in librarianship. A 
possible alternative to attempts, thus far 
unsuccessful, to secure such fellowships 
may be suggested here. T h e schools, 
singly or in combination, might develop 
substantial and important research proj-
ects, secure financial support for such 
projects from foundations, and then seek 
or assign students to assist in the prosecu-
tion of these projects. In addition to 
furnishing financial help for the student, 
this approach should have the additional 
value of providing a more systematic 
attack on needed areas of investigation. 

Aside from the financial predicament, 
the general indifference of the practical, 
practicing librarian to problems of ac-
ademic research is undoubtedly an ad-
ditional factor in the matter of at-
tracting first-rate people to doctoral 
study. It is almost as true today as it was 
a quarter of a century ago that librarian-
ship offers little or no incentive or op-
portunity for the librarian to pursue re-
search. T h e number of libraries employ-
ing researchers on library problems can 
probably be counted on the fingers of 
two hands. As one public librarian puts 
it, " W e are still trying to help the re-
search worker in other fields without try-
ing to apply research methods in our 
solution of our own problems."11 There is 
almost no demand for the doctor's de-
gree from the public or special library 
and even less from the school library. 
And, while the college or university pres-

10Association of American Universities and Asso-
ciation of Graduate Schools, Journal of Proceedings 
and Addresses, L V I I (October 1956), 9. 

"Louis M. Nourse, in a letter to the author dated 
April 14, 1959. 

4 4 0 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



ident appears to be increasingly interest-
ed in head librarians with the doctorate, 
there is more than a little evidence to 
suggest that it is the presumed benefits 
of academic respectability and prestige, 
rather than either the content of the pro-
gram leading to the degree or the re-
search productivity which it should make 
possible, that underlie the interest. " T h e 
real pressure from the field," as one dean 
points out, "is for shorter and more prac-
tical training rather than for the care-
fully developed and integrated educa-
tion at the doctoral level."12 This judg-
ment is inferentially borne out by the 
opinions expressed by a number of the 
writer's recent correspondents. For ex-
ample, the librarian of a large public 
library suggests that, "from the point of 
view of librarians in the field . . . the 
doctoral programs in librarianship would 
be useful if subjects selected were of a 
more practical nature dealing with spe-
cific types of assignments such as registra-
tion procedure, loan desk work, statistics 
kept in libraries, simplification of rou-
tines, etc." T h e difficulty here, of course, 
is that very few dissertation topics could 
be developed at this level and in these 
areas which would pass muster with 
graduate faculties and councils. But we 
cannot argue with the public librarian 
who notes that "most [dissertation] top-
ics are of interest mainly to students and 
research people," and who cites by title, 
"examples of theses limited in subject 
or . . . too theoretical to be of much val-
ue to practicing librarians."13 

Nor can one suggest more than half 
a dozen "useful," or even reasonably 
pertinent, dissertations to him and to a 
colleague who writes, " I am aware that 
several . . . studies have been briefed or 
described in issues of the Library Quar-
terly, but I can honestly say that very 

12Asheim, in a letter to the author dated January 20, 
1959. 

13Emerson Greenaway, in a letter to the author 
dated May 6, 1959. 

few of them have had meaning for me 
as administrator of a large library sys-
tem."14 T h e histories of single librar-
ies, of minor publishing houses and 
booksellers; the development of school 
library legislation of a particular state; 
and early libraries and printing in coun-
tries of Asia—to cite actual cases—are 
representative of topics not likely to be 
pursued with much eagerness by the 
average "practitioner." 

Neither of those just quoted nor most 
of the others who speak to this point 
suggest that the primary purpose of the 
dissertation is to make a direct, practical 
contribution to librarianship, but the 
fact is that the nature of and require-
ments for this exercise are such that the 
documents produced have, with some 
notable exceptions, little or no relevancy 
to the work of the average practicing li-
brarian. As a result, his interest in doc-
toral study, of which the dissertation is 
the most tangible manifestation, is like-
ly to be lukewarm at best. 

W e do not, however, have to turn to 
the public library to find indifference 
to the fundamental values and impor-
tance of research in librarianship. Caro-
lyn Kay's study showed that, "In the 
selection of faculty members, directors 
appeared to place most emphasis on ad-
vanced degrees in library science, per-
sonality, and library experience. Demon-
strated research ability was ranked sixth 
in a list of seven qualifications, followed 
only by publications. T h e most impor-
tant factor in recommending faculty 
members for advancement in rank and/or 
salary, was the ability to work effectively 
with studejits. Interest in and ability to 
supervise research studies was ranked 
fifth, and number and quality of re-
search publications was ranked seventh 
in a group of seven factors."15 T h e rank-

"Harold L. Hamill, in a letter to the author dated 
May 11, 1959. 

"Carolyn Kay, "Research Training at the Master's 
Degree Level in A L A Accredited Schools, 1956," in 
Association of American Library Schools, Report of 
Meeting, January 26, 1959, p. 25. 

NO V EMBER 1959 441 



ings Kay's data reveal would undoubted-
ly be much different for the doctoral 
schools alone, but her findings cast a sad 
illumination on the climate of opinion 
in library education generally. Elsewhere 
Kay notes that, "If the research 'climate' 
in the library schools was not as favor-
able as might be desired, it may be hy-
pothesized that in the profession at large 
it is even less favorable for the develop-
ment of research. T h e support for re-
search on library problems has come al-
most altogether from the library schools 
themselves and from foundations, not 
from the profession. Not only does there 
appear to be lack of interest in the re-
search process, but little attention is 
given or little value attached to the re-
sults of research. Beyond disinterest, 
there seems at times to be ill-concealed 
disrespect, distrust or even open hostility 
toward the process, the results and those 
engaged in research."16 

T H E W I T H D R A W A L R A T E A N D T H E T I M E 
F A C T O R 

It seemed worthwhile to attempt to 
discover the ratio between the total num-
ber of students who have been in res-
idence for the degree at the several 
schools and the number who have ac-
tually been awarded it. T h e point of 
this inquiry is to determine whether a 
useful answer can be suggested to the 
question, "About how many student in-
dividuals who actually embark upon the 
program result in one graduate a year?" 
T h e figures that resulted from this as-
pect of the study are illuminating, and 
tend to support the academic cliche that 
" T h e woods are full of people who have 
completed their course work but have 
never finished their dissertations." T h e 
ratio between total students and those 
awarded the degree varies from 8:1 at 
Chicago to nearly 12:1 at Illinois. At 
Columbia there was "a grand total of 

leIbid., p. 29. 

sixty-three candidates for the degree from 
1952-59 of whom four resigned from or 
were removed from candidacy; six who 
have been awarded the . . . degree; and 
fifty-three who are at various stages 
of progress toward the degree. . . ,"17 
If one includes all of the sixty-three in-
dividuals mentioned above, and one sub-
sequent graduate, the Columbia ratio is 
9.1:1. Similarly, at Illinois there were 
153 student enrollments in the doctoral 
program in librarianship from 1948/49 
through 1958/59, with thirteen degrees 
awarded, a ratio of 11.9:1. Again, at 
Chicago, in the years 1950/51 through 
1957/58, a total of 152 students were reg-
istered in the Ph.D. program; during 
the same years nineteen students earned 
the degree, the resulting ratio being 
8:1. T h e foregoing figures point to an 
unmistakably high attrition rate and 
suggest that unless the causal factors— 
e.g., the lack of substantial fellowship 
aid—should change we shall have to con-
tinue to expect a small proportion of 
doctoral graduates in relation to the to-
tal numbers who begin study at this 
level. 

T h e situation in librarianship is, how-
ever, little if any different from that in 
other disciplines. While precise figures 
and comparative data are largely lack-
ing, it is clear enough that the at-
trition rate at the doctoral level is, in 
most fields, inordinately high.18 It may 
be noted in this connection that a num-
ber of universities, prompted by the 
Sputniks and American shortages of per-
sonnel with academic training at the 
highest level, have recently instituted 
measures of various kinds which may 
have the indirect result of reducing pres-
ent attrition rates. One of the common-
er of these methods involves a drastic 

"Leigh, in a letter to the author dated April 6, 
1959. 

18E.g., see Benjamin F. Wright, " T h e Ph.D. Stretch-
out and the Scholar-Teacher," in Arthur E. Traxler 
(ed.), Vital Issues in Education (Washington, D. C.: 
American Council on Education, 1957), pp. 140-51. 

442 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



reduction in the number of required 
courses and seminars. Another method 
is the setting of fixed time limits for 
certification for the degree and/or for 
the number of years allowed for com-
pletion of the dissertation after certifica-
tion. As a result, the student who knows 
for certain that he must complete his 
work within a given time, will, by and 
large, be more likely to do so, than if, 
as has been pretty much the case in the 
past, he can continue to be a candidate 
almost indefinitely.19 

T h e withdrawal rate obviously bears 
a close relationship to the length of time 
required to fulfill the requirements for 
the degree. That is, if this time averaged 
half of what it actually does more stu-
dents would have the intellectual, fi-
nancial, and physical stamina necessary 
to complete the program, including the 
dissertation. Precise figures on this point 
can never be determined, chiefly be-
cause of the great differences in the ways 
individual students pursue their doc-
toral studies. A very few are fortunate 
enough to be able, through fellowship 
aid or private financial means, to devote 
full time to their studies. T h e great 
majority, however, are obliged to seek 
gainful employment for at least some, 
-and probably most, of the time. Such 
employment may be minimal—ten to 
fifteen hours a week—during the years 
in residence. At the other extreme is 
the student who, throughout his academ-
ic labors, is obliged to spend half to 
three-quarters of his time earning money. 
T h e variations of the study-employment 
combination are almost infinite. None-
theless, some generalizations in the way 
of averages may be suggested. In our 
field, the length of time it takes a stu-

10E.g., see the report of the Committee on Policies 
in Graduate Education of the Association of Gradu-
ate Schools for 1958, recommending, among other 
things, "a limit on the length of time within which 
a candidate must finish [his work for the Ph.D.]." 
Reported in Association of American Universities 
and Association of Graduate Schools. Journal of Pro-
ceedings and Addresses, L I X (October 1958), 33. 

dent to get the degree appears to be 
around five or six years, the figures pro-
vided by Columbia, Illinois, and Mich-
igan being 4.8, 6.0, and 5.7 respectively. 

Here, again, the situation in librarian-
ship is not notably different from that in 
most other fields. Figures for Columbia 
University covering the period 1940-56 
show a departmental range, for the aver-
age number of years spent in earning the 
degree, of 5.3 for chemistry to 12.5 for 
Germanic languages. But for approx-
imately two-thirds of the thirty-three de-
partments for which data were com-
puted the average number of years var-
ies between 5.3 and 7.6.20 For a group of 
ninety-five who took all of their grad-
uate work at Ohio State University in 
1928 and 1939, the median number of 
years between admission to the Graduate 
School and award of the doctorate was 
6.4 and 6.5 respectively.21 

It is reported for the field of sociology 
"that there elapse on the average about 
7.6 years between a future sociologist's 
graduation from college and his receipt 
of the doctoral degree. . . . T h e average 
doctoral student in sociology, or in the 
social sciences in general, spends up to 
three years in graduate study and an ad-
ditional four to five years in other ac-
tivities such as teaching, before finally 
achieving the doctoral dissertation. For 
this and other reasons it is felt that 
there is a special need for more financial 
aid to students during the period before 
receipt of their doctoral degrees."22 One 
of the most thorough institutional stud-
ies covering this topic was conducted by 
Radcliffe. There it was found that the 
median number of years for the attain-
ment of the Ph.D. in the decade 1946-55 
was six. T h e report of the study notes 
that " T h e total period of postgraduate 

20Barzun, op. cit., pp. [22-23], 
21S. L. Pressey, "Some Data on the Doctorate," 

The Journal of Higher Education, X V (1944), 193. 
^Bernard N. Meltzer and Jerome G. Manis, "The 

Teaching of Sociology," in The Teaching of the Social 
Sciences in the United States (Paris: UNESCO, 
1954), p. 99. 

NO V EMBER 1959 443 



study for the doctorate varies from three 
to seventeen years." As is the case else-
where, "These years d o not, of course, 
represent time actually spent in resi-
dence . . . they represent the span of 
time from entry in the graduate school 
to the final granting of the doctorate. 
They often include years spent else-
where, frequently in working or teach-
ing . . . it has been impossible to deter-
mine the time spent by the candidates 
in actual work for the degree."23 Finally, 
and most comprehensive, are data com-
piled by the Committee on Policies in 
Graduate Education of the Association 
of Graduate Schools from thirty member 
institutions. T h e committee's figures 
show that " T h e average time in the hu-
manities [and] in the social sciences 
[was] five and a half years. . . ."24 

T h e data reported in the preceding 
paragraphs are not put forward to "jus-
tify" the length of time generally re-
quired for completion of the require-
ments for the doctoral degree in librar-
ianship, but simply to show that our 
situation in this regard is little, if any, 
different from that in most other (non-
scientific) academic disciplines. In the 
writer's view, a reduction in the time 
factor is highly desirable. 

P O S I T I O N S C U R R E N T L Y H E L D 

B Y D O C T O R A L G R A D U A T E S 

Table III presents data on the posi-
tions held, as of June 1959, by those 
who have been awarded the degree. T h e 
table provides several striking contrasts 
and a general picture which should be 
of some professional interest. Omitting 
for present purposes the eighteen indi-
viduals included in the last three cate-
gories, it may be seen that 60 (54 per 
cent) of the remaining 111 are now head 

^Radcliffe College, The Radcliffe Committee on 
Graduate Education for Women: The Radcliffe Ph.D. 
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19S6), 
p. 21. 

^Association of American Universities and Asso-
ciation of Graduate Schools. Journal of Proceedings 
and Addresses, L V I I (October 1956), 8. 

librarians. Similarly, 56, or half the to-
tal, are associated with academic librar-
ies, and 35 (31 per cent) have positions 
in library schools; altogether 91, or 82 
per cent, have an academic affiliation of 
some kind. At the other end of the scale, 
only 4 (3.6 per cent) are employed in 
public libraries, 5 (4.5 per cent) in 
special libraries, and a single individual 
is in the school library field. These data 
substantiate our general impression that 
the great majority of those continuing 
for the doctor's degree are, for one 
reason or another, oriented toward an 
academic career of some kind. It is prob-
ably a safe inference also, that employ-
ment opportunities for holders of the 
doctorate are far greater in academic 
institutions than elsewhere. Whether 
this is good or bad it may be left to 
others to determine. It may be suggested, 
however, that it might be to the general 
advantage of the profession to attempt 
to recruit doctoral students from and for 
the school and public library fields, es-
pecially, in greater numbers than has 
been the case up to the present. 

T h e data of Table III show that, for 
better or worse, the values and philos-
ophy of doctoral study are affecting 
the highest administrative positions in 
forty-one academic libraries (including 
half of the forty largest), and in more 
than one-third of our library schools. 
What, precisely, the influences are we 
cannot say. However, in the light of the 
objectives of the doctoral schools and 
the general standing of the parent insti-
tutions among American universities, it 
would be difficult to argue that the in-
fluence was not a beneficial one. In the 
same way, it seems safe to suggest that 
the thirty-five doctoral graduates asso-
ciated in some capacity with library 
schools—more than a quarter of the 
total full-time faculty of these schools— 
have influenced the work of the schools 
positively from the points of view of 
scholarship, research activity, and aca-
demic standards. 

444 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



T A B L E I I I 

P O S I T I O N S H E L D BY D O C T O R A L G R A D U A T E S , J U N E 1 9 5 9 

TYPE OF POSITION 

SCHOOL 

TOTAL TYPE OF POSITION 

Chicago Columbia Illinois Michigan 
Western 
Reserve 

TOTAL 

College and University 
Libraries 

Head 28 5 8 41 
Associate or Assistant 

Librarian; Administra-
tive Assistant 1 4 1 6 

Department Head 4 1 1 2 8 
Staff Member 1 1 

Library Schools 
Dean 9 1 10 
Faculty Member 16 I 3 4 1 25 

Public Libraries 
Head 2 2 
Department Head 2 2 

Special Libraries 
Head 2 3 5 

National Libraries 
Department Head 1 1 2 

State Libraries 1 1 2 
Government Libraries 

Head 1 1 
Staff Member 1 1 2 

School Libraries 
Head 1 1 

Miscellaneous 2 1* 3 
Non-Library Positions 6 6 
Retired 6 6 
Deceased 6 6 

Total 89 7 13 19 1 129 

* Assistant Parliamentary Librarian, Iran. 

These observations concern present 
positions only. It would presumably be 
possible to secure information on all 
of the positions of all doctoral graduates 
since they received their degrees. How-
ever, the labor involved in doing so 
seemed unjustified, chiefly because a ran-
dom sampling of the curriculum vitae of 
a score of individuals suggested that the 
results would be substantially the same 
as those just presented. In other words, 
there is no evidence to indicate that the 
kinds of positions formerly held by the 
graduates vary substantially from those 

. currently held. Indeed, some evidence 
to the contrary may be adduced. A tab-
ulation made by the writer in 1953 

NO V EMBER 1959 

showed that 19, or 29 per cent, of 65 (liv-
ing) graduates were associated with 
schools of librarianship. This percentage 
is not greatly different from today's 31 
per cent. 

Quid Valet? 

There remains the most important 
question, namely, that of the contribu-
tion which our doctoral studies have 
made to the profession. Obviously, no 
definitive answer is possible and very 
likely no two people would agree on an 
answer in any except the most general 
terms. However, in an attempt to secure 
judgments which might suggest at least 
the broad outlines of an answer, opinion 

4 4 5 



was solicited from two score library lead-
ers—strictly a "non-scientific" sample!— 
in the country. T h e group included the 
Librarian of Congress, the executive di-
rector of A L A , the director of its In-
ternational Relations Office, the execu-
tive secretary of its Library Education 
Division, who is also secretary of the 
Association's Committee on Accredita-
tion, the president of the Council on 
Library Resources, and six library school 
deans; the remainder was about equally 
divided between academic and public li-
brarians. Intentionally, none of those 
queried was affiliated with one of the 
doctoral schools. T h e replies to this in-
quiry were noteworthy in three respects. 

First, the spread of opinion was rather 
wide, ranging from high general praise 
of both the published product of doc-
toral studies and the other professional 
contributions of the graduates to a rela-
tively cool regard for the entire contri-
bution; what may be evaluated as gen-
erally positive and affirmative appraisal 
outranks the negative judgments in a 
ratio of about ten to one. Second, the 
general subject of the study seemed to 
be one of considerable and genuine in-
terest, inasmuch as many of the replies 
ran to a full typewritten page or more. 
In the third place, and almost paradoxi-
cally, several of those queried confessed 
to having almost no knowledge whatever 
of any of the work accomplished includ-
ing, specifically, the dissertations them-
selves. Thus one respondent, librarian 
of a large, rapidly growing university li-
brary, wrote, " I frankly know nothing 
about the current status of doctoral pro-
grams and nothing about the contribu-
tion they have made . . . I have asked 
myself whether in searching library lit-
erature, or in having it searched, in or-
der to puzzle out a . . . problem, or in 
order to prepare a speech or paper, I 
have ever read or even scanned a doc-
toral thesis in librarianship; I must con-
fess that I can't remember ever doing 

so. I have asked myself whether I know 
which of my colleagues running larger 
university libraries today possess such 
doctorates and whether those who do 
seem abler than those who don't; . . . 
off the top of my head my answer would 
only be imprecise. I have asked myself 
whether I have any idea what kinds of 
positions are currently held by the re-
cipients of doctorates . . . and whether 
they are held with distinction; it's quite 
clear I know nothing at all about this 
. . . I have asked myself whether the ar-
ticles or books I have read and found 
most compelling or influential have been 
written by people with doctorates or in 
pursuit of doctorates; I actually do not 
know." 

At the other extreme were a number 
of replies, chiefly from academic librari-
ans, indicating that the writers had fol-
lowed the development of doctoral study 
quite closely and were acquainted both 
with specific dissertations and with the 
careers and accomplishments of particu-
lar individuals. 

T h e question as to the over-all con-
tribution of our doctoral programs may 
be considered in at least two distinct 
ways: T h e direct contribution of the dis-
sertations, and what those who have 
earned the doctorate have done for the 
profession after they have gone into the 
field. 

Substantial difference of opinion as to 
what should be expected of the disser-
tation is apparent throughout our uni-
versities. On the one hand are those who 
believe that it can be only a preparation 
in methodology, scholarly attitudes, and 
the like, for future research productivity. 
On the other hand, are those who feel, 
no less strongly, that the dissertation it-
self can and should be a major and signif-
icant contribution to knowledge. Indeed 
the statements in graduate division an-
nouncements usually describe the stand-
ards for the dissertation in some such 
terms as these. A recent expression of 

446 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



this viewpoint suggests that "If the dis-
sertation is to have any value at all, 
there should be an all-out effort to make 
it a contribution to scholarship. T h e 
doctoral candidate should demonstrate 
a high order of ability to prosecute, with 
proper methodology, an intellectual 
problem in depth."2 5 Even so, most of 
those closely associated with doctoral 
study in this country freely admit that 
many dissertations, perhaps the majority 
of them, no matter how sound methodo-
logically, are not, in fact, genuinely sig-
nificant contributions to knowledge. 
While the general requirements for the 
dissertation are quite similar among the 
major universities, and while these re-
quirements remain highly constant, the 
actual nature of the individual docu-
ments produced depends to a large de-
gree upon departmental attitudes and 
standards, and particularly upon those 
of the special doctoral committees ap-
pointed to pass on the dissertations. 

T h e situation in librarianship is sub-
stantially the same as that in other fields. 
That is, we have produced a number of 
excellent dissertations and some less 
good; some have been genuinely impor-
tant contributions to learning and some, 
even though solid pieces of investigation, 
have contributed little of significance in 
extending the bounds of knowledge. An 
objective over-all evaluation would re-
quire the reading of all of the disserta-
tions by groups of experts and a synthe-
sis of their opinions. Such an evalua-
tion may be considered a practical im-
possibility. However, if one calls to mind 
the dissertations in librarianship which 
have won a general acceptance in the 
scholarly library world and in scholarly 
reviewing, one is inclined to hazard the 
judgment, however subjective, that the 
proportion which does constitute genu-
ine contributions to knowledge is prob-
ably as high as in most fields. Among 

"William W . Brickman, "Speed-Up of the Ph.D. 
Degree," School and Society, L X X X V I I (1959), 51-52. 

such dissertations one would mention 
Anders' " T h e Development of Public 
Library Service in the Southeastern Uni-
ted States, 1895-1950"; Butler's " A n In-
quiry into the Statement of Motives by 
Readers"; Condit's "Studies in Roman 
Printing Types of the Fifteenth Cen-
tury"; Dawson's " T h e Acquisitions and 
Cataloging of Research Libraries . . ."; 
Fussler's "Characteristics of Research 
Literature Used by Chemists and Physi-
cists in the United States"; Joeckel's 
" T h e Government of the American Pub-
lic Library"; Merritt's " T h e United 
States Government as Publisher"; Roth-
stein's " T h e Development of Reference 
Services in American Research Libraries 
. . . " ; Shera's "Foundations of the Public 
Library"; Swank's " T h e Organization of 
Library Materials for Research in Eng-
lish Literature"; Willoughby's " T h e 
Printing of the First Folio of Shake-
speare"; and Winger's "Regulations Re-
lating to the Book Trade in London 
from 1357 to 1586." This is assuredly far 
from an inclusive list; indeed, it consists 
simply of some of the studies with which 
the writer happens to be familiar. 

In another respect, our situation is 
not unlike that which obtains in other 
fields. Whatever the causes, it appears 
to be generally the fact that a large pro-
portion, and possibly a majority, of those 
who earn the doctorate do not, there-
after, achieve a major scholarly work. 
At Radcliffe, for example, it was found 
that 29 per cent of 318 of its Ph.D.'s 
had no publication record whatever and 
an additional 21 per cent were classified 
as "occasional" with one or two articles 
only.26 A graduate dean with almost 
twenty years of experience suggests "that 
the majority of Ph.D.'s do not produce 
a major piece of research after complet-
ing a doctoral thesis. . . ."27 

Whatever the facts elsewhere, it is cer-
2"Radcliffe College, of. cit., p. 41. 
"Theodore C. Blegen, "How Can Graduate Schools 

Increase the Supply of College Teachers?" Journal 
of Higher Education, X X X (1959), 131. 

NO V EMBER 1959 447 



tainly true that most of those who have 
earned the doctorate in librarianship 
have not subsequently produced re-
search, though many have written useful 
and even important contributions of var-
ious other kinds. There are, of course, 
exceptions to this generalization; one 
thinks, among others, of the names of 
Asheim, Berelson, Carnovsky, Joeckel, 
L. Martin, Merritt, R. R. Shaw, Shera, 
and Tauber. Almost all of the exceptions 
are of men who, for relatively long peri-
ods in their careers, have been associ-
ated with library schools. Here, the at-
mosphere, the traditions, the general 
climate of activity and, perhaps, the 
"publish or perish" requirement have 
provided both the opportunity and the 
incentive for scholarly productivity. 

In the opinion of a group of leaders 
in the profession, and in the writer's 
opinion also, the doctoral programs 
have made certain definite and direct 
contributions to the advancement of 
librarianship. These benefits and contri-
butions may be briefly summarized as 
follows: 

1. A respectable percentage of the dis-
sertations constitutes genuine contribu-
tions to learning and has significantly in-
creased our knowledge and understand-
ing. Even library practice has apparently 
been affected. " W e have borrowed cop-
ies [of dissertations] from time to time," 
one public librarian reports, "and have 
used some with considerable benefit 
. . . there were three or four specific 
points [in one dissertation] which we 
adopted and used with profit. . . ."2 8 
Another public librarian writes, "I can 
say with some assurance that many 
of us have learned to look more deep-
ly into our problems, basing deci-
sions upon whatever . . . research may 
be open to us."29 And a university li-
brarian offers this opinion: " W h e n I 
think of the theses by Rothstein on ref-

28John Hall Jacobs, in a letter to the author dated 
April 14, 1959. 

^Ralph Munn, in a letter to the author dated April 
24, 1959. 

erence history and by John Dawson on 
cataloging, I am sure that theses as a 
source can be overlooked only at consid-
erable risk."30 

T w o more items of evidence on this 
point seem worth reporting. " O n e of 
our divisions suggested that the A. M. 
McAnally dissertation, 'Characteristics 
of Materials Used in Research in United 
States History,' . . . and others which 
employ the same technique in other 
fields have proved useful. Irene Zimmer-
man's 'Latin American Periodicals of 
the Mid-Twentieth Century as Source 
Material for Research' . . . was helpful 
in preparing background material for 
Latin American seminars."31 "One staff 
member said that he had borrowed three 
dissertations to seek an answer to a prob-
lem he had to deal with and that two 
out of the three had 'pay dirt.' " 3 2 

2. T h e knowledge of investigation and 
of research methodology acquired in the 
programs for the degree has made it pos-
sible for some of the graduates to pro-
duce additional significant studies later 
on. 

3. T h e Ph.D.'s subject-matter mastery 
and knowledge of methods of inquiry 
have almost certainly beneficially affect-
ed the library schools, where, today, 
nearly one-third of all of the graduates 
hold positions. (Indirectly, also, the 
schools appear to have been benefited 
with respect to their status in the parent 
institution as a result of the increase in 
"academic respectability and prestige" of 
their faculties.) T o be sure, as many 
friends and critics of American higher 
education have repeatedly pointed out, 
possession of the Ph.D. is no guarantee 
whatever of the graduate's teaching com-
petence or ability to impart knowledge 
or to counsel and work harmoniously 
with students.33 T h e degree also, we may 

30Louis Kaplan, in a letter to the author dated 
March 31, 1959. 

31Harald Ostvold, in a letter to the author dated 
May 12, 1959. 

^Greenaway, letter cited. 
^E.g., see John W . Dykstra, "The Ph.D. Fetish," 

School and Society, L X X X V I (1958), 237-39. 

4 4 8 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



add, carries with it no assurance of the 
administrative ability and talents re-
quired in the top posts held by such a 
large proportion—54 per cent—of our 
own active doctoral graduates. Despite 
these truisms it seems hardly necessary 
to argue that the subject-matter mas-
tery of which successful completion of 
the doctoral program is surely some evi-
dence will bring definite plus values to 
both the teaching and the administra-
tive position. 

4. So far as the latter kind of post is 
concerned, whether in an academic li-
brary or in a library school, understand-
ing of the approach, attitude of mind, 
and research needs of other members 
of the academic community cannot help 
but make more fruitful, easy, and effec-
tive the librarian's work with them. 
Lacking this understanding it is difficult 
for the librarian to deal with members 
of the faculty in terms that are wholly 
satisfactory to the faculty. (It goes with-
out saying that this understanding has 
been gained and is possessed by a num-
ber of highly successful librarians whose 
doctoral study was in fields other than 
librarianship.) So much for an apologia 
pro vita sua. 

On the negative side, it is no less clear 
that the total contribution has fallen 
considerably short of achieving its fullest 
potential. Among the reasons, the fol-
lowing appear to be paramount: 

1. T h e relatively small number of 
graduates thus far produced. Although 
in this respect we appear to be no worse 
off, considering the length of the period 
involved and the total number of stu-
dents admitted to our doctoral programs, 
than many other disciplines, the fact 
remains that 129 is a minute fraction of 
the more than 31,000 full-time profes-
sional librarians—or even of the 6,600 
academic librarians—in the country.34 
(Of the 129, about a score have already 

34Wyllis E. Wright (ed.), American Library Annual 
and Book Trade Almanac, 1959 (New York: R. R. 
Bowker Company, cl958), p. 12. 

died, retired, or left the profession; 
nearly one-quarter received their de-
grees in 1957, 1958, or 1959—too recent-
ly to have produced much in the way 
of post-doctoral contribution.) 

2. More than half of the graduates are 
currently employed as chief administra-
tive librarians. T h e requirements of 
these posts and the climate of administra-
tive activity provide little time, oppor-
tunity, or incentive for the production 
of scholarly research, regardless of the 
other kinds of contribution which the 
doctoral graduate may make as an ad-
ministrative officer. 

3. Many, and very likely most, disser-
tations, highly specialized and often the-
oretical in nature, are of a kind which 
hold no interest for the librarian "in the 
field" and have no direct impact upon 
the work-a-day library world. T o say 
this is to criticize neither the dissertation 
nor the practicing librarian. 

4. At the same time, it seems probable 
that the profession at large has not taken 
as full advantage as it might have of 
the results of doctoral research. Whether 
this is because the activity cannot be 
sufficiently popularized, or because of a 
distrust of the activity, or because of an-
ti-intellectualism in the profession at 
large, or because of some other reason 
is far from clear. 

5. T h e highly limited number of li-
braries able, or at least prepared, to em-
ploy personnel for research on library 
problems. Even the university, now gen-
erally more or less eager to have a doc-
toral graduate as head librarian, does 
not employ men and women trained in 
methodology to study and investigate li-
brary problems scientifically. 

6. Programs for the doctorate and the 
resulting dissertations have possibly been 
insufficiently experimental. Because li-
brarianship is a relatively new field for 
doctoral work the schools have tended to 
copy the older disciplines. Especially re-
cently, there has been a pronounced 

NO V EMBER 1959 449 



emphasis on historical and bibliographi-
cal study, to the general neglect of such 
areas as the bibliographic control of re-
search materials, which might be less ob-
viously "scholarly" to graduate councils 
and dissertation committees. 

7. There has been insufficient accre-
tion of the results of doctoral research. 
Each student looks for a comprehendible 
and usually relatively small topic which 
he can exhaust in the limited time at 
his disposal. Generally speaking, the re-

sult is that we have a number of largely 
uncoordinated studies on relatively small 
aspects of the profession. Many of our 
problems most needing attention are far 
too complex for prosecution by an indi-
vidual. Time will, perhaps in part, take 
care of this difficulty; when we have 
had as long a history of research activity 
as, for example, English literature, the 
sum of a multitude of individual studies 
may provide us with a more nearly ade-
quate research literature. 

Doctoral Dissertations in Librarianship, 1930-1959 

A B B O T T , J O H N C U S H M A N . " R a y m o n d C a z a l -
lis D a v i s a n d the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n 
G e n e r a l L i b r a r y . " M i c h i g a n , 1957. 

A K E R S , SUSAN G R E Y . " R e l a t i o n B e t w e e n 
T h e o r y a n d P r a c t i c e o f C a t a l o g i n g : W i t h 
Special R e f e r e n c e t o Courses in C a t a l o g -
i n g in L i b r a r y S c h o o l s . " C h i c a g o , 1932. 

A L V A R E Z , R O B E R T S M Y T H . " Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f 
H e a d s o f L i b r a r i e s in Cities o f O v e r 10,-
000 P o p u l a t i o n i n the Seven N o r t h - C e n -
tral States." C h i c a g o , 1939. 

A N D E R S , M A R Y E D N A . " T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f 
P u b l i c L i b r a r y Service i n the Southeastern 
States, 1895-1950." C o l u m b i a , 1958. 

A R C H E R , H O R A C E R I C H A R D . " S o m e A s p e c t s 
o f the A c q u i s i t i o n P r o g r a m o f the U n i -
versity o f C h i c a g o l i b r a r y , 1892-1928." 
C h i c a g o , 1954. 

A S H E I M , L E S T E R E U G E N E . " F r o m B o o k t o 
F i l m : A C o m p a r a t i v e Analysis o f the 
C o n t e n t o f N o v e l s a n d the Films Based 
U p o n T h e m . " C h i c a g o , 1949. 

B A L D W I N , R U T H M A R I E . " A l e x a n d e r G i l , t h e 
E l d e r H i g h Master o f St. P a u l ' s S c h o o l : 
A n A p p r o a c h t o M i l t o n ' s I n t e l l e c t u a l D e -
v e l o p m e n t . " Illinois, 1955. 

B A R N E S , E U G E N E B U R D E T T E , J R . " T h e I n t e r -
n a t i o n a l E x c h a n g e o f K n o w l e d g e in W e s t -
e r n E u r o p e , 1680-1689." C h i c a g o , 1947. 

B E R E L S O N , B E R N A R D R E U B E N . " C o n t e n t E m -
phasis, R e c o g n i t i o n , a n d A g r e e m e n t : A n 
Analysis o f the R o l e o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n s 

in D e t e r m i n i n g P u b l i c O p i n i o n . " C h i -
c a g o , 1941. 

B I D L A C K , R U S S E L L E U G E N E . " U n i v e r s i t y o f 
M i c h i g a n G e n e r a l L i b r a r y : T h e H i s t o r y 
o f Its B e g i n n i n g s , 1837-1852." M i c h i g a n , 
1954. 

B O A Z , M A R T H A T E R O S S E . " A Q u a l i t a t i v e 
Analysis o f the C r i t i c i s m o f Best Sellers: 
A Study o f the R e v i e w s a n d R e v i e w e r s o f 
Best-Selling B o o k s f r o m 1944 t o 1953." 
M i c h i g a n , 1955. 

B O N K , W A L L A C E J O H N . " T h e P r i n t i n g , P u b -
lishing, a n d B o o k s e l l i n g A c t i v i t i e s o f J o h n 
P. S h e l d o n a n d H i s Associates in D e t r o i t , 
1817-1830." M i c h i g a n , 1956. 

B R A N S C O M B , L E W I S C A P E R S , J R . " A B i b l i o -
g r a p h i c a l Study o f Ernest C u s h i n g R i c h -
a r d s o n . " C h i c a g o , 1954. 

B R O D M A N , E S T E L L E . " T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f 
M e d i c a l B i b l i o g r a p h y . " C o l u m b i a , 1954. 

B U R K E , R E D M O N D A M B R O S E . " C o n t r o l o f 
R e a d i n g by the C a t h o l i c C h u r c h . " C h i -
c a g o , 1948. 

B U T L E R , H E L E N L O U I S E . " A n I n q u i r y I n t o 
the Statement o f M o t i v e s by R e a d e r s . " 
C h i c a g o , 1939. 

C A R N O V S K Y , L E O N . " T h e R e a d i n g N e e d s o f 
T y p i c a l S t u d e n t G r o u p s , W i t h Special A t -
t e n t i o n t o Factors C o n t r i b u t i n g to the 
Satisfaction o f R e a d i n g Interests." C h i -
c a g o , f 932. 

C A R T E R , M A R Y ( D U N C A N ) . " A S u r v e y o f 

450 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



M o n t r e a l L i b r a r y Facilities a n d a P r o -
p o s e d P l a n f o r a L i b r a r y System." Chi-
c a g o , 1942. 

C O N D I T , L E S T E R D A V I D . " S t u d i e s i n R o m a n 
P r i n t i n g T y p e s o f the F i f t e e n t h C e n t u r y . " 
C h i c a g o , 1931. 

C O N N O L L Y , R E V . B R E N D A N C Y R I L , S . J . " T h e 
R o o t s o f Jesuit L i b r a r i a n s h i p , 1540-1599." 
C h i c a g o , 1955. 

D A I L Y , J A Y E L W O O D . " T h e G r a m m a r o f S u b -
j e c t H e a d i n g s : A F o r m u l a t i o n o f R u l e s 
f o r S u b j e c t H e a d i n g Based o n a Syntacti-
cal a n d M o r p h o l o g i c a l Analysis o f the L i -
brary o f Congress L i s t . " C o l u m b i a , 1957. 

D A N T O N , J . P E R I A M . " T h e S e l e c t i o n o f B o o k s 
f o r C o l l e g e L i b r a r i e s : A n E x a m i n a t i o n o f 
C e r t a i n Factors W h i c h A f f e c t E x c e l l e n c e 
o f S e l e c t i o n . " C h i c a g o , 1935. 

D A V I E S , D A V I D W I L L I A M . " P l a c e o f t h e 
Elzeviers i n the Social H i s t o r y o f the 
S e v e n t e e n t h C e n t u r y . " C h i c a g o , 1948. 

D A W S O N , J O H N M I N T O N . " T h e A c q u i s i t i o n s 
a n d C a t a l o g i n g o f R e s e a r c h L i b r a r i e s : A 
Study R e l a t e d to the Possibilities f o r C e n -
tralized P r o c e s s i n g . " C h i c a g o , 1956. 

D E I L Y , R O B E R T H O W A R D . " P u b l i c L i b r a r y 
E x p e n d i t u r e s i n Cities o f O v e r 100,000 
P o p u l a t i o n in R e l a t i o n t o M u n i c i p a l E x -
p e n d i t u r e s a n d E c o n o m i c A b i l i t y . " Chi-
c a g o , 1941. 

D O U G L A S , R O B E R T R A Y M O N D . " T h e P e r s o n -
ality o f the L i b r a r i a n . " C h i c a g o , 1957. 

D Y K E , J A M E S P A R V I N . " T h e L i b r a r y - S c h o o l 
P l a c e m e n t E x a m i n a t i o n : A V a l i d a t i o n 
S t u d y . " Illinois, 1958. 

E A T O N , A N D R E W J A C K S O N . " C u r r e n t P o l i t i -
cal Science P u b l i c a t i o n s in Five C h i c a g o 
L i b r a r i e s : A Study o f C o v e r a g e , D u p l i c a -
t i o n , a n d O m i s s i o n . " C h i c a g o , 1945. 

E A T O N , T H E L M A . " W a n d e r i n g P r i n t e r s o f 
S p a i n a n d P o r t u g a l , 1473-1536." C h i c a g o , 
1948. 

E L L S W O R T H , R A L P H E U G E N E . " T h e D i s t r i b u -
t i o n o f B o o k s a n d M a g a z i n e s in Selected 
C o m m u n i t i e s . " C h i c a g o , 1937. 

E R I C K S O N , ERNEST W A L F R E D . " S i g n i f i c a n c e o f 
the Survey i n the D e v e l o p m e n t o f A m e r i -
can C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s . " 
Illinois, 1958. 

FOSTER, J E A N N E T T E H O W A R D . " A n E x p e r i -
m e n t i n Classifying F i c t i o n Based o n the 
Characteristics o f Its R e a d e r s . " C h i c a g o , 
1935. 

FUSSLER, H E R M A N H O W E . " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f 
the R e s e a r c h L i t e r a t u r e U s e d by Chemists 
a n d Physicists in the U n i t e d States." Chi-
c a g o , 1948. 

G L E A S O N , E L I Z A ( A T K I N S ) . " T h e G o v e r n -
m e n t a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f P u b l i c L i -
brary Service to N e g r o e s i n the S o u t h . " 
C h i c a g o , 1940. 

G O L D H O R , H E R B E R T . " T h e S e l e c t i o n o f E m -
p l o y e e s in L a r g e C i v i l Service a n d N o n -
C i v i l Service P u b l i c L i b r a r i e s . " C h i c a g o , 
1942. 

G R A D Y , M A R I O N B E H E T H L A N . " A C o m p a r i -
son o f M o t i o n Pictures a n d B o o k s as R e -
source M a t e r i a l s . " C h i c a g o , 1951. 

G R I B B I N , J O H N H A W K I N S . " R e l a t i o n s h i p i n 
the Patterns o f B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l D e v i c e s . " 
C h i c a g o , 1958. 

H A M M I T T , FRANCES E L E A N O R . " S c h o o l L i -
brary L e g i s l a t i o n i n I n d i a n a , I l l i n o i s , a n d 
W i s c o n s i n ; A H i s t o r i c a l S t u d y . " C h i c a g o , 
1948. 

H A R R I N G T O N , R E V . J O H N H E N R Y . " T h e P r o -
d u c t i o n a n d D i s t r i b u t i o n o f B o o k s i n 
W e s t e r n E u r o p e t o the Y e a r 1500." C o -
l u m b i a , 1956. 

H A R T I N , J O H N SYKES. " T h e S o u t h e a s t e r n 
U n i t e d States in the N o v e l T h r o u g h 1950: 
A B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l R e v i e w . " M i c h i g a n , 
1956. 

H A R V E Y , J O H N FREDERICK. " T h e C o n t e n t 
Characteristics o f Best-Selling N o v e l s . " 
C h i c a g o , 1949. 

H E N N E , FRANCES. " P r e c o n d i t i o n a l F a c t o r s 
A f f e c t i n g the R e a d i n g o f Y o u n g P e o p l e . " 
C h i c a g o , 1949. 

H E R D M A N , M A R G A R E T M A Y . " T h e P u b l i c L i -
brary i n D e p r e s s i o n . " C h i c a g o , 1941. 

H E R T E L , R O B E R T R U S S E L L . " T h e D e c l i n e o f 
the P a p e r b o u n d N o v e l i n A m e r i c a , 1890-
1910." I l l i n o i s , 1958. 

HEWLETT, LEROY. " J a m e s R i v i n g t o n , L o y a l -
ist P r i n t e r , P u b l i s h e r , a n d B o o k - S e l l e r o f 
the A m e r i c a n R e v o l u t i o n , 1724-1802: A 
B i o g r a p h i c a l - B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l S t u d y . " 
M i c h i g a n , 1958. 

H I N T Z , C A R L W I L L I A M E D M U N D . " I n t e r n a -
t i o n a l i s m a n d S c h o l a r s h i p : A C o m p a r a -
tive Study o f the R e s e a r c h L i t e r a t u r e U s e d 
b y A m e r i c a n , British, F r e n c h , a n d G e r -
m a n Botanists." C h i c a g o , 1952. 

NO V EMBER 1959 451 



H O D G S O N , J A M E S G O O D W I N . " T h e R u r a l 
R e a d i n g M a t t e r as S u p p l i e d b y L a n d -
G r a n t C o l l e g e s a n d L i b r a r i e s . " C h i c a g o , 
1946. 

H O P P , R A L P H H A R V E Y . " A S t u d y o f t h e 
P r o b l e m o f C o m p l e t e D o c u m e n t a t i o n i n 
Science a n d T e c h n o l o g y . " I l l i n o i s , 1956. 

J O E C K E L , C A R L E T O N B R U N S . " T h e G o v e r n -
m e n t o f the A m e r i c a n P u b l i c L i b r a r y . " 
C h i c a g o , 1934. 

J O H N S O N , R O B E R T K E L L O G G . " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 
o f L i b r a r i e s i n Selected H i g h e r M i l i t a r y 
E d u c a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n s i n the U n i t e d 
States." Illinois, 1957. 

J O N E S , V I R G I N I A L A C Y . " P r o b l e m s o f N e g r o 
P u b l i c H i g h - S c h o o l L i b r a r i e s in Selected 
S o u t h e r n C i t i e s . " C h i c a g o , 1945. 

K A S E R , D A V I D E D W I N . " M e s s r s . C a r e y 8c L e a 
o f P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1822-1838." M i c h i g a n , 
1956. 

K E L L E Y , G R A C E O S G O O D . " T h e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 
o f B o o k s in T e r m s o f Use W i t h S o m e R e -
g a r d t o the A d v a n t a g e s o f the S u b j e c t -
C a t a l o g . " C h i c a g o , 1934. 

K E N N E R L Y , S A R A H L A W . " C o n f e d e r a t e J u v e -
n i l e I m p r i n t s : C h i l d r e n ' s B o o k s a n d Pe-
r i o d i c a l s P u b l i s h e d in the C o n f e d e r a t e 
States o f A m e r i c a , 1861-1865." M i c h i g a n , 
1957. 

K N A P P , P A T R I C I A B R Y A N . " T h e R o l e o f t h e 
L i b r a r y of a G i v e n C o l l e g e i n I m p l e m e n t -
i n g the C o u r s e a n d N o n - C o u r s e O b j e c -
tives o f T h a t C o l l e g e . " C h i c a g o , 1957. 

K N O X , M A R G A R E T E N I D . " P r o f e s s i o n a l D e -
v e l o p m e n t o f R e f e r e n c e L i b r a r i a n s i n a 
U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y : A Case S t u d y . " Illi-
nois, 1957. 

K R A M E R , SIDNEY D A V I D . " S t o n e & K i m b a l l , 
1893-1897, a n d H e r b e r t S. S t o n e 8e C o m -
pany,. 1896-1905: Studies i n P u b l i s h i n g 
H i s t o r y . " C h i c a g o , 1938. 

K R O N I C K , D A V I D A B R A H A M . " T h e O r i g i n s 
a n d D e v e l o p m e n t o f the Scientific a n d 
T e c h n o l o g i c a l P e r i o d i c a l Press, 1665-
1790." C h i c a g o , 1956. 

K R U M M E L , D O N A L D W I L L I A M . " P h i l a d e l p h i a 
M u s i c E n g r a v i n g a n d P u b l i s h i n g , 1800-
1820: A Study i n B i b l i o g r a p h y a n d C u l -
tural H i s t o r y . " M i c h i g a n , 1958. 

K R U S E , P A U L R O B E R T . " T h e S t o r y o f t h e 
E n c y c l o p a e d i a B r i t a n n i c a , 1768-1943." 
C h i c a g o , 1958. 

K W E I , J O H N C H I H - P A I . " B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l a n d 
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o b l e m s A r i s i n g F r o m the 

I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f C h i n e s e B o o k s i n A m e r -
ican L i b r a r i e s . " C h i c a g o , 1931. 

L A N E , R O B E R T FREDERICK. " T h e P l a c e o f 
A m e r i c a n U n i v e r s i t y Presses i n P u b l i s h -
i n g . " C h i c a g o , 1939. 

L E W I S , B E N J A M I N M O R G A N . " A H i s t o r y a n d 
B i b l i o g r a p h y o f A m e r i c a n Magazines, 
1800-1810." M i c h i g a n , 1956. 

L I L L E Y , O L I V E R L . " T e r m i n o l o g y , F o r m , 
Specificity, a n d S y n d e t i c Structure o f Sub-
j e c t H e a d i n g s i n E n g f i s h L i t e r a t u r e . " C o -
l u m b i a , 1959. 

L I N D E R , L E R O Y H A R O L D . " T h e R i s e o f C u r -
r e n t C o m p l e t e N a t i o n a l B i b l i o g r a p h y in 
E n g l a n d , F r a n c e , G e r m a n y , a n d the U n i t -
e d States, 1564-1939." C h i c a g o , 1958. 

L O G S D O N , R I C H A R D H E N R Y . " T h e I n s t r u c -
tional L i t e r a t u r e o f S o c i o l o g y a n d the A d -
m i n i s t r a t i o n o f C o l l e g e L i b r a r y B o o k C o l -
l e c t i o n s . " C h i c a g o , 1942. 

L O W E L L , M I L D R E D H A W K S W O R T H . " I n d i a n a 
U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s , 1829-1942." C h i c a g o , 
1957. 

LOWRIE, JEAN. " E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l L i b r a r i e s : 
A Study o f the P r o g r a m in T e n Systems 
i n the A r e a s o f C u r r i c u l u m E n r i c h m e n t 
a n d R e a d i n g G u i d a n c e W i t h Emphasis o n 
t h e F o u r t h , F i f t h , a n d Sixth G r a d e s . " 
W e s t e r n R e s e r v e , 1959. 

M A C K , E D N A B A L L A R D . " T h e S c h o o l L i b r a r y ' s 
C o n t r i b u t i o n to the T o t a l E d u c a t i o n a l 
P r o g r a m o f the S c h o o l : A C o n t e n t A n a l y -
sis o f Selected P e r i o d i c a l s i n the F i e l d o f 
E d u c a t i o n . " M i c h i g a n , 1957-

M A D D O X , L U C Y J A N E . " T r e n d s a n d I s s u e s i n 
A m e r i c a n L i b r a r i a n s h i p as R e f l e c t e d in 
the Papers a n d P r o c e e d i n g s o f the A m e r i -
can L i b r a r y A s s o c i a t i o n , 1876-1885." M i c h -
i g a n , 1958. 

M A I Z E L L , R O B E R T E D W A R D . " I n f o r m a t i o n 
G a t h e r i n g Patterns a n d Creativity; A 
Study o f R e s e a r c h Chemists i n an I n d u s -
trial R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y . " C o l u m b i a , 
1957. 

M A R T I N , L O W E L L A R T H U R . " T h e D e s i r a b l e 
M i n i m u m Size o f P u b l i c L i b r a r y U n i t s . " 
C h i c a g o , 1945. 

M C A N A L L Y , A R T H U R M O N R O E . " C h a r a c t e r -
istics o f M a t e r i a l s U s e d i n R e s e a r c h i n 
U n i t e d States H i s t o r y . " C h i c a g o , 1951. 

M C C A R T H Y , S T E P H E N A N T H O N Y . " A m e r i c a 
i n the E i g h t e e n - E i g h t i e s : A B i b l i o g r a p h i -
cal Study o f I n t e l l e c t u a l a n d C u l t u r a l D e -
v e l o p m e n t . " C h i c a g o , 1941. 

452 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



M C C O Y , R A L P H E D W A R D . " B a n n e d i n B o s -
t o n . " Illinois, 1956. 

M C D I A R M I D , E R R E T T W E I R , J R . " C o n d i t i o n s 
A f f e c t i n g Use o f the C o l l e g e L i b r a r y . " 
Chicago, 1934. 

M C G U I R E , A L I C E B R O O K S . " D e v e l o p m e n t a l 
Values in Children's Literature." C h i c a g o , 
1958. 

M C M U L L E N , C H A R L E S H A Y N E S . " T h e A d m i n -
istration o f the University of C h i c a g o Li-
braries, 1892-1928." C h i c a g o , 1949. 

M C N E A L , A R C H I E L I D D E L L . " R u r a l R e a d i n g 
Interests: Needs R e l a t e d to A v a i l a b i l i t y . " 
C h i c a g o , 1951. 

M A C V E A N , D O N A L D S I D N E Y . " A S t u d y o f C u r -
r i c u l u m L a b o r a t o r i e s i n Midwestern 
T e a c h e r - T r a i n i n g Institutions." M i c h i g a n , 
1958. ... • 

M E R R I T T , L E R O Y C H A R L E S . " T h e U n i t e d 
States G o v e r n m e n t as P u b l i s h e r . " C h i c a g o , 
1942. 

M I L L E R , R O B E R T A L E X A N D E R . " C o s t A c c o u n t -
ing f o r Libraries: A T e c h n i q u e f o r D e -
t e r m i n i n g the L a b o r Costs of A c q u i s i t i o n 
a n d C a t a l o g i n g W o r k . " Chicago, 1936. 

M U L L E R , R O B E R T H A N S . " S o c i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n 
in Magazine Fiction a n d Its R e l a t i o n to 
the S o c i o - E c o n o m i c Status o f R e a d e r s . " 
Chicago, 1942. 

P E N A L O S A , F E R N A N D O . " M e x i c a n B o o k . I n -
dustry." C h i c a g o , 1956. 

P H E L P S , R O S E B E R N I C E . " T h e E f f e c t s o f O r -
ganizational Patterns o n R e f e r e n c e Serv-
ice i n T h r e e T y p i c a l M e t r o p o l i t a n Li-
braries: B o s t o n , St. L o u i s , a n d L o s A n -
geles." Chicago, 1943. 

P O S T E , L E S L I E I R L Y N . " T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f 
U. S. P r o t e c t i o n of Libraries a n d Archives 
in E u r o p e D u r i n g W o r l d W a r I I . " Chi-
cago, 1958. 

P O W E L L , B E N J A M I N E D W A R D . " T h e D e v e l o p -
m e n t o f Libraries i n Southern State U n i -
versities to 1920." Chicago, 1946. 

P O W E R S , SISTER M A R Y L U E L L A . " T h e C o n t r i -
b u t i o n of A m e r i c a n C a t h o l i c Publishers, 
1930-1942." C h i c a g o , 1945. 

P U R D Y , G E O R G E F L I N T . " P u b l i c L i b r a r y i n 
the M i d d l e W e s t . " Chicago, 1936. 

R E A G A N , A G N E S L Y T T O N . " A S t u d y o f C e r -
tain Factors in Institutions of H i g h e r Edu-
cation W h i c h I n f l u e n c e Students to Be-
c o m e L i b r a r i a n s . " Illinois, 1957. 

R E E D , L U L U R U T H . " A T e s t o f S t u d e n t s ' 

C o m p e t e n c e T o Use the L i b r a r y . " Chi-
cago, 1937. 

R O O D , H E L E N ( M A R T I N ) . " N a t i o n a l i s m i n 
Children's Literature." C h i c a g o , 1934. 

R O T H S T E I N , S A M U E L . " T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f 
R e f e r e n c e Services in A m e r i c a n Research 
Libraries, 1876-1950." Illinois, 1954. 

R U F F I N , M A R Y B E V E R L E Y . " T y p e s o f C a t a l o g 
K n o w l e d g e N e e d e d by N o n - C a t a l o g i n g 
Library P e r s o n n e l . " C h i c a g o , 1946. 

S A B I N E , J U L I A E L I Z A B E T H . " A n t e c e d e n t s o f 
the N e w a r k P u b l i c L i b r a r y . " C h i c a g o , 
1946. 

S C H I C K , F R A N K L E O P O L D . " T h e P a p e r b o u n d 
B o o k in A m e r i c a : T h e History of Paper-
backs and T h e i r E u r o p e a n A n t e c e d e n t s . " 
M i c h i g a n , 1957. 

S H A R I F Y , N A S S E R . " A C a t a l o g i n g C o d e f o r 
Persian Materials." C o l u m b i a , 1958. 

S H A W , R A L P H R O B E R T . " L i t e r a r y P r o p e r t y 
a n d the Scholar." C h i c a g o , 1950. 

S H A R M A , JAGDISH S A R A N . " M a h a t m a G a n d h i : 
A Descriptive B i b l i o g r a p h y . " M i c h i g a n , 
1954. 

S H E R A , JESSE H A U K . " F o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e 
P u b l i c Library: T h e Origins o f the Pub-
lic Library M o v e m e n t i n N e w E n g l a n d , 
1629-1855." C h i c a g o , 1944. 

S H U K L A , C H A M P A K L A L P R A N S H A N K A R . " A 
Study of the Publications o f the G o v e r n -
m e n t of I n d i a , with Special R e f e r e n c e to 
Serial P u b l i c a t i o n s . " M i c h i g a n , 1953. 

S M I T H , G E O R G E D O N A L D . " T h e N a t u r e o f 
Student R e a d i n g . " C h i c a g o , 1946. 

S M I T H , SIDNEY B U T L E R . " U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v -
e r n m e n t as B i b l i o g r a p h e r . " C h i c a g o , 1947. 

S P A I N , FRANCES ( L A N D E R ) . " L i b r a r i e s o f 
South C a r o l i n a : T h e i r Origins and Early 
History, 1700-1830." C h i c a g o , 1944. 

SPENCER, G L A D Y S . " T h e C h i c a g o P u b l i c L i -
brary: Origins a n d B a c k g r o u n d s . " Chi-
cago, 1939. 

S T A L L M A N , E S T H E R L A V E R N E . " P u b l i c - L i b r a r y 
Service to P u b l i c School C h i l d r e n : Its A d -
ministration in Large A m e r i c a n Cities." 
Chicago, 1942. 

S T A N F O R D , E D W A R D B A R R E T T . " L i b r a r y E x -
tension U n d e r the W P A : A n Appraisal o f 
an E x p e r i m e n t in Federal A i d . " C h i c a g o , 
1942. 

STEVENS, R O L L A N D E L W E L L . " T h e U s e o f L i -

brary Materials in D o c t o r a l Research: A 
(Continued on page 458) 

NO V EMBER 1959 453 



. 7 If fir* : 

Leadership begins with ideas. And ideas, 
if they are big enough, can unfreeze man 
and make him relevant and effective in 
turning back the largest threat he has 
ever known. 

It is self-evident that neither educa-
tion nor the library which is at its heart 

can undertake the total function of lead-
ership »in our time. But the job will cer-
tainly not be done without education. 
In dedicating this library, therefore, we 
also dedicate ourselves to the need for 
great conversions, to the need for a 
seed-bed of change. 

Doctoral Study for Librarianship 

(Continued from page 453) 

Study o f the Effect of Differences in R e -
search M e t h o d . " Illinois, 1951. 

S T I E G , L E W I S F R A N C I S . " A n I n t r o d u c t i o n t o 
P a l e o g r a p h y f o r L i b r a r i a n s . " C h i c a g o , 
1935. 

STOKES, K A T H A R I N E M . " B o o k R e s o u r c e s f o r 
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n : A Study T o w a r d the 
C o m p i l a t i o n o f a C o r e L i s t . " M i c h i g a n , 
f 959. 

S T O N E , J O H N P A U L . " R e g i o n a l U n i o n C a t a -
logs: A Study o f Services A c t u a l a n d Po-
tential." C h i c a g o , 1945. 

S W A N K , R A Y N A R D C O E . " T h e O r g a n i z a t i o n 
of Library Materials f o r Research i n Eng-
lish Literature." C h i c a g o , 1944. 

T A A M , C H E U K - W O O N . " T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f 
Chinese Libraries U n d e r the C h ' i n g Dy-
nasty, 1644-1911." C h i c a g o , 1933. 

T A U B E R , M A U R I C E F A L C O L M . " R e c l a s s i f i c a -
tion a n d R e c a t a l o g i n g in C o l l e g e a n d 
University Libraries." C h i c a g o , 1941. 

T R A C Y , W A R R E N F R A N C I S . " P u b l i c L i b r a r y 
a n d the C o u r t s . " C h i c a g o , 1958. 

T S I E N , T S U E N - H S U I N . " T h e P r e - P r i n t i n g R e c -
ords of C h i n a : A Study of the D e v e l o p -
m e n t of Early Chinese Inscriptions a n d 
B o o k s . " C h i c a g o , 1957. 

U P T O N , E L E A N O R S T U A R T . " A G u i d e t o 
Sources of Seventeenth-Century English 
History in Selected R e p o r t s of the R o y a l 
C o m m i s s i o n o n Historical M a n u s c r i p t s . " 
C h i c a g o , 1930. 

V A N H O E S E N , F L O R E N C E R U T H . " A n a l y s i s o f 
A d u l t R e f e r e n c e W o r k in P u b l i c Libraries 
as an A p p r o a c h to the C o n t e n t o f a R e f -
erence C o u r s e . " C h i c a g o , 1948. 

V A N M A L E , J O H N E D W A R D . " T h e S t a t e a s L i -

brarian: A Study of the C o - o r d i n a t i o n of 
Library Services in W i s c o n s i n . " C h i c a g o , 
1942. 

V A N N , S A R A H K A T H E R I N E . " E d u c a t i o n f o r L i -
brarianship, D e w e y to W i l l i a m s o n , 1887-
1923." C h i c a g o , 1959. 

VEIT, FRITZ. "State Supervision of P u b l i c Li-
braries: W i t h Special Emphasis o n the O r -
ganization a n d F u n c t i o n s o f State Library 
Extension A g e n c i e s . " Chicago, 1941. 

V I L L A L O N , A L B E R T O . " A n I n t r o d u c t i o n t o 
Latin A m e r i c a n Juridical B i b l i o g r a p h y . " 
M i c h i g a n , 1959. 

W E L L A R D , J A M E S H O W A R D . " B a s e s f o r a T h e -
ory of B o o k S e l e c t i o n . " C h i c a g o , 1935. 

W I L L I A M S , D O R O T H Y G W E N D O L Y N . " T r e a t -
m e n t o f the S e c o n d R o o s e v e l t Administra-
tion in T h r e e P o p u l a r Magazines." Chi-
cago, 1947. 

W I L L O U G H B Y , E D W I N E L I O T T . " T h e P r i n t i n g 
of the First F o l i o of Shakespeare." Chi-
cago, 1932. 

W I N G E R , H O W A R D W O O D R O W . " R e g u l a t i o n s 
R e l a t i n g to the B o o k T r a d e in L o n d o n 
F r o m 1357 t o 1586." Illinois, 1953. 

W u , K W A N G T S I N G . " S c h o l a r s h i p , B o o k P r o -
d u c t i o n , a n d Libraries i n C h i n a (618-
1 6 4 4 ) . " C h i c a g o , 1944. 

Y E N A W I N E , W A Y N E S T E W A R T . " T h e I n f l u e n c e 
o f Scholars o n Research L i b r a r y D e v e l o p -
m e n t at the University of I l l i n o i s . " Illi-
nois, 1955. 

ZIMMERMAN, IRENE. " L a t i n A m e r i c a n Peri-
odicals of the M i d - T w e n t i e t h Century as 
Source Materiaf f o r Research i n the H u -
manities a n d the Sociaf Sciences." M i c h i -
gan, 1956. 

4 5 8 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES