College and Research Libraries M A R I A N N E C O O P E R Organizational Patterns of Academic Science Libraries New theories about how to organize academic collections have been developed in recent years, and many practitioners of these theories have distinguished themselves by advancing their ideas. While dis- cussing the pros and cons of various organizational possibilities, how- ever, such as centralization and decentralization, authors seem oc- casionally to have tended to focus primarily on their effects on the library as a whole rather than on the user. Also, while there appears to be agreement about the peculiarity and the cruciality of science and technology collections, papers devoted exclusively to examining their inherent problems are scarce. This paper therefore considers the following question: "Which forms of library organization can best serve the needs of the academic scientific community while remaining with- in the administrative and financial limitations of institutions of various sizes?" The information and viewpoints contained in the literature are used as a guide for formulating alternative answers. S I N C E THE 1 9 4 0 s there h a v e been many changes in the p a t t e r n of scientific research. A major f a c t o r has b e e n the availability o f federal funds for investi- gations to b e conducted on campuses. Consequently there are more people ( t e a c h i n g staff, students, and others) doing research and publishing their re- sults who n e e d information on what has b e e n and is being d o n e in their field. T h e boundaries of previously clearly de- lineated s u b j e c t areas a r e disappearing, and while specialization is growing, spe- cialized information needs cut across borders. Practitioners of experimental sciences ( s u c h as chemistry, physics, and biol- o g y ) often h a v e " p e c u l i a r " working and reading habits and consequently have Mrs. Cooper is a consultant to the American Institute of Physics Information Analysis and Retrieval Division and a doc- toral candidate in the Graduate School of Library Science at Columbia University. claimed special library requirements. W h i l e conducting an experiment they claim, regardless of hours of day or night, to need immediate access to ref- erence works and current periodicals as closely located to their laboratories as possible. Studies of users' habits h a v e also shown "that scientists and engineers spend a significant amount of their read- ing time reading in comparatively f e w journals, spend comparatively little time reading in the central libraries, and en- g a g e in undirective browsing to a con- siderable extent, b u t again in compara- tively f e w documents." 1 H I S T O R I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T O F O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L P A T T E R N S B e f o r e surveying briefly t h e general development of a c a d e m i c library organ- ization it is important to note that the term "organization" has two distinct 1 H. Marron, "Science Libraries—Consolidated/De- partmental?" Physics Today, XVI (July 1 9 6 3 ) , 3 4 - 3 9 . / 357 358 / College b- Research Libraries • September 1968 meanings. T h e first meaning is the divi- sion of work, or t h e unit of operation, often called a department. T h e second meaning is t h e system b y which these units are coordinated and controlled. This terminology is borrowed from the m a n a g e m e n t field. Although these meanings are not synonymous, the word "organization" is applied freely to both.2 According to a definition b y E . A. W i g h t 3 , t h e following six characteristics form t h e basis of division of work in the library profession today: ( 1 ) function (e.g., acquisition, c i r c u l a t i o n ) ; ( 2 ) ac- tivity (e.g., order, r e p a i r ) ; ( 3 ) clientele; ( 4 ) geography; ( 5 ) subjects; and ( 6 ) form of materials ( e . g . , maps, docu- m e n t s ) . T h e historical progression to- ward increased specialization in the or- ganization of collections is b y "function," followed by "form of material," and most recently b y " s u b j e c t . " T h e s e three or- ganizational patterns can b e character- ized as follows. F u n c t i o n a l organizations divide their labor among acquisition, cataloging, cir- culation, and r e f e r e n c e departments. Or- ganization by form of material is useful when there is a large increase in t h e types of materials to b e maintained, such as documents, serials, or maps. S u b j e c t departmentalization origi- nated in the so-called "seminar collec- tions." F a c u l t y members of single (usu- ally s c i e n c e ) departments placed their private collections in a convenient loca- tion in their building in order to assure close proximity of needed materials at all times. T h e size of these collections increased with time and the administra- tive problems b e c a m e obvious to all con- cerned. I t must b e noted that t h e de- velopment of subject departmental li- braries on the campus followed t h e path set b y the p u b l i c libraries. " S i n c e 1924, with t h e notable exception of Philadel- 2 A. M. McAnally, "Departments in University Li- braries," Library Trends, VII (January 1 9 5 9 ) , 4 4 8 - 6 4 . 3 E. A. Wight, "Research in Organization and Ad- ministration," Library Trends, VI (October 1 9 5 7 ) , 1 4 1 - 4 6 . phia, virtually every major p u b l i c library in this country has b e e n very largely or entirely a subject departmentalized li- brary." 4 I t must also be n o t e d that al- though t h e s e three patterns are distin- guishable, they did not develop in a vacuum independently of e a c h other. T h e y w e r e created out of necessity and often existed together within the same organization. Organization b y subject was an early attempt to provide b e t t e r services to the reader. T h e basic assumption was t h a t t h e closest proximity of materials to those who most n e e d e d them would in- crease t h e f r e q u e n c y of use o f materials. T h e rapid proliferation of subject de- partmental libraries, however, creates serious administrative problems. Coordi- nation, cooperation, and communication among t h e branches and with the main library b e c o m e increasingly difficult. T h e r e is, therefore, a basic conflict b e - tween t h e desires of the users and prac- tical administrative and financial consid- erations. A possible answer to the problems cre- ated by completely decentralized reader services is a form of centralization w h e r e a larger unit, sometimes called a divi- sion, is formed. T h i s can b e based on one c o m m o n characteristic, such as sub- ject, clientele, or geography. T h e remainder of this p a p e r will ex- amine, compare, and assess t h e pros and cons of t h e subject departmental and subject divisional patterns of organiza- tion with particular reference to t h e fields of science and technology. D E C E N T R A L I Z E D S U B J E C T D E P A R T M E N T A L ORGANIZATION D e c e n t r a l i z e d subject departmental organization is only feasible for large in- stitutions, since only they can afford to have library units serving one or two in- dividual specialized departments such as chemistry or physics. Typically t h e 4 R. E. Maizell, "The Subject Departmentalized Public Library," CRL XII (July 1 9 5 1 ) , 2 5 5 - 6 0 . Organizational Patterns of Academic Science Libraries / 359 branches are supported b y t h e central library, which is usually functional in its organization. Cataloging and the busi- ness aspects of acquisition are handled centrally. A notable exception is, of course, Harvard, where decentralization is so complete that "in 1955 at least 40 different cataloging centers with widely varying rules [were in existence]." 5 "This system of organization provides very satisfactory and probably effective service to upperclassmen, graduate stu- dents, and faculty. . . . T h e needs of the undergraduate [however], tend to b e overlooked."6 T h e characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, of this system can b e summarized as follows— Advantages: ( 1 ) close proximity of materials to greatest n u m b e r of poten- tial users; ( 2 ) possibility of twenty-four- hour-a-day access to facilities without se- rious threat to security; ( 3 ) possibility for providing individualized services by introducing certain special library tech- niques common in industry; and ( 4 ) b e t t e r over-all departmental participa- tion and increased interest in library af- fairs. Disadvantages: ( 1 ) duplication of materials; ( 2 ) duplication of records; ( 3 ) duplication of personnel; ( 4 ) over- all cost increase as a result of numbers 1, 2, and 3 above; ( 5 ) lack of effective administrative control—problems in co- ordination, cooperation, and communi- cation. T h e s e advantages and disadvantages are well recognized b y the two parties involved: the faculty on the one hand, and library administrators on the other. Strong feelings, both pro and con, have b e e n registered during two r e c e n t sur- veys in which opinions from m e m b e r s of both parties w e r e solicited b y the fac- 5 R. J. Hyman, "Harvard University Libraries Sys- tem Development: an Inductive Study" (unpublished p a p e r ) . 6 A. M. McAnally, "Organization of College and University Libraries," Library Trends, I (July 1 9 5 2 ) , 2 0 - 3 6 . ulties of the University of Cincinnati and Florida State University, independ- ently of each other. D . A. W e l l s , chair- man of the physics department at the University of Cincinnati, conducted a survey by sending out 126 question- naires to other physics department chair- men. I t was his purpose to determine the sentiment of his peers about decen- tralization and consolidation of science collections. His action was prompted b y plans to unify all science libraries at t h e University of Cincinnati and opposition to the move as registered b y the faculty. Findings of the survey have b e e n pub- licly summarized.7 T h e majority, eighty- four, of the respondents favored t h e b r a n c h system; seventeen had no strong commitments; and three argued for con- solidation. O n e of t h e most interesting opinions was expressed b y V i n c e n t E . Parker, chairman of the physics depart- m e n t at Louisiana State University. Most of the science materials at L S U had been recently moved to a n e w building and organized along t h e cen- tralized subject divisional plan, and Mr. Parker stated his and his colleagues' un- equivocal opposition to the arrangement. T h e science division at L S U , as dis- cussed by its head, M. M. H a n c h e y , 8 contains all science and technology ma- terials except government documents, which are part of the general docu- ments department. T h e r e also remained a separate chemistry library located in t h e chemistry building. H e r description of t h e division leaves one with t h e defi- nite impression that Dr. Parker's conten- tion to the contrary notwithstanding, the reorganization had been consented to and approved b y t h e entire faculty. N. O. Rush, director of libraries a t Florida State University, in a r e c e n t ar- ticle summarized t h e dilemma at his in- 7 D . A. Wells, "Individual Department Libraries vs. Consolidated Science Library," Physics Today, X I V ( M a y 1 9 6 1 ) , 4 0 - 4 1 . 8 M. M. Hanchey, "Science Division, Louisiana State Universitv Library," Louisiana Library Association Bulletin, XXV ( F a l l 1 9 6 2 ) , 107, 117. 360 / College b- Research Libraries • September 1968 stitution, their methods of attacking it, and the solutions chosen.9 I n order to de- termine whether t h e establishment of a geographically separate physics library was feasible, a separate committee of t h e faculty library committee was ap- pointed and charged with studying the problem and "making long range policy recommendations concerning divisional and departmental libraries." As part of t h e study, a survey was conducted in which letters and detailed mail questionnaires and data sheets were sent to 63 universities and col- leges throughout the United States, se- lected either on the basis of their pre- eminence in the educational or library fields or because their library problems might be comparable to those at F S U . In addition to describing the content of the questionnaire, excerpts from re- spondents in t h e library field are given. B a s e d on the preliminary studies, anal- ysis of returns, and the local situation, t h e following recommendations were m a d e : ( 1 ) A divisional natural science collection should b e established in the F S U Science C e n t e r Complex. ( 2 ) All functions and technical processes should b e centrally handled b y the main li- brary. ( 3 ) No further physical separa- tion of the collections should occur. I f one accepts the assumption that the raison de'etre of science and technology libraries is to serve scientists, it is ap- parent from the above that t h e depart- m e n t a l library system is the preferred c h o i c e of the patrons. Librarians, how- ever, while appreciating the needs, de- sires, and habits of the scientific users, must work within a framework of finan- cial and administrative limitations. C E N T R A L I Z E D S U B J E C T D I V I S I O N A L O R G A N I Z A T I O N — T H R E E V A R I A T I O N S O n e observer has stated: " T h e idea of organizing centralized university library 9 N. O. Rush, "Central vs. Departmental Libraries," Mountain Plains Library Quarterly, VII (Summer 1 9 6 2 ) , 3 - 9 . service along divisional subject lines, proposed in the 1930's, has been t h e greatest advance in university library service in the last twenty years." 1 0 Pres-^ ently there are three clearly distinguish- a b l e variations on this t h e m e : ( 1 ) ad- ministrative centralization; ( 2 ) com- plete geographic centralization; and ( 3 ) modified geographic centralization. Administrative centralization has b e e n recognized as an absolute necessity by large institutions organized along decen- tralized departmental lines. Often an as- sistant director for public services and/ or a division h e a d for such broad subject areas as science and technology has been installed to coordinate activities, enforce uniform policies, and decrease the span of command without necessitating phys- ical changes in t h e location of various collections. Instead of reporting directly to the director, the department heads are supervised b y the assistant director or division head, who then reports to the director. F u r t h e r strengthening of organ- izational lines ideally would consist of the following hierarchy: department head, division head, assistant or associ- ate director, and director. Complete geographic centralization b e c a m e the medium-sized university li- brary's vehicle for achieving the results produced b y the large university's dis- persed subject departmental system. W i t h the construction of many new li- brary buildings following W o r l d W a r I I , it b e c a m e possible to provide subject orientation along broad lines (e.g., sci- ence and technology) by classifying and clearly separating these divisions of hu- man knowledge within the confines of one physical unit. Variation in the or- ganization of functional units (acquisi- tion, cataloging, and circulation) is wide among institutions. A brief summary of the known advantages and disadvan- tages of t h e system follows. Advantages: (1) availability of 1 0 A. M. McAnally, "Coordinating the Departmental Library System," Library Quarterly, XXI (April 1 9 5 1 ) , 1 1 3 - 2 0 . Organizational Patterns of Academic Science Libraries / 361 pooled material resources, needed in view of the new specialized and over- lapping subject areas; ( 2 ) reduction in user's time in locating materials of the above mentioned areas; ( 3 ) feasibility of automation resulting in centralized record keeping and provision of new types of services; ( 4 ) b e t t e r utilization of professional staff due to reduction in clerical duties; ( 5 ) closer administrative control. Disadvantages: ( 1 ) loss of proximity of materials and users; ( 2 ) p r o b a b l e loss of widespread faculty involvement and interest in library affairs. It was the University of Colorado, un- der the direction of R a l p h Ellsworth, that first executed nearly complete ge- ographic centralization in 1940. Only materials pertaining to geology remained separate. T h e following quotation b y the director appraises the situation: As to the reaction to the centralization, my impression from discussion with various faculty members is that the advantages of centralization of materials, professional su- pervision and longer hours of opening for the divisional libraries are generally recog- nized as outweighing any disadvantages. . . . The only real disadvantage I can see is that occasionally it may be inconvenient for a [science or technology] faculty mem- ber to have to come to a central library. However, I feel that a sensible policy in regard to office or laboratory collections will provide materials which are frequently or constantly in use.11 T h e University of Nebraska, under F r a n k Lundy's direction, centralized its operations and organization in 1945. In many respects that institution has devel- oped subject divisional organization to its '"ultimate." T h e science and technol- ogy division is one of five divisions under t h e direct supervision of an assistant di- rector. T h e division comprises the fol- lowing sections: divisional reading room in the main library; principal branches (medicine—located off campus—and 1 1 E . H. Wilson, Letter to J. R. Blanchard of May 22, 1951, cited in footnote 1. a g r i c u l t u r e ) ; branches ( s u c h as chemis- try and g e o l o g y ) ; and laboratory librar- ies ( s u c h as physics and p h a r m a c y ) . All are dispersed on campus. I t b e c o m e s ob- vious from t h e above that although the basis of administration and service is subject matter, complete geographic centralization was not feasible. T h e cen- tral reading room and stack area can b e considered a storehouse of materials in general science and in overlapping fields of interest to a variety of specialists. Al- so, they provide general r e f e r e n c e and bibliographic services to the entire uni- versity community. W h i l e discussing the organizational pattern at Nebraska one must mention t h e introduction of t h e dual assignment concept, although it is an extension rath- er than a component of organization. 1 2 I n practice it means that t h e functions of selection, cataloging, classification, and servicing of materials are handled by the staffs of the several divisions, who are, ideally, subject specialists dividing their time among these operations. Mr. L u n d y believed that the advantages provided b y this system are manifold. T h e y include familiarity with t h e collec- tions, decrease in cataloging backlog, and consequently prompt availability of new materials resulting in goodwill and appreciation b y the faculty. Recruit- ment of new librarians also b e c o m e s eas- ier. As has already b e e n noted, the facul- ty's interest and involvement in library affairs is evident. Professor D . A. Wells's article 1 3 summarizing t h e results of his survey on decentralization and consoli- dation of science collections was pre- viously described. D e a n Jesse H. Shera of the school of library service at W e s t - ern Reserve University answered D r . W e l l s publicly. Publishing in the scien- tific magazine in which D r . Wells's arti- cle appeared, D e a n Shera argued for 1 2 F. A. Lundy, et al., "The Dual Assignment: Cata- loging and Reference; a Four Year Review of Cata- loging in the Divisional Plan," Library Resources and Technical Services, III (Summer 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 6 7 - 8 8 . 1 3 Wells, op. cit. 362 / College b- Research Libraries • September 1968 consolidation b y relating his points to those discussed b y proponents of decen- tralization in t h e survey. His counter- reasons are as follows: c o n v e n i e n c e for students, as opposed to considerations of f a c u l t y alone; i m p o r t a n c e of interdisci- plinary relationships; e c o n o m i c advan- tages; improved services and collections; a n d the possibility of automation. I t is his contention t h a t the above are com- ponents of n e w concepts in library serv- i c e that must b e recognized and under- stood b y t h e f a c u l t y . 1 4 T h e i m p o r t a n c e of faculty recognizing t h e n e w concepts in modern library s e r v i c e is well summarized b y N. N. Nicholson in the conclusion of h e r report on the "Centralization of S c i e n c e Li- braries at J o h n s Hopkins University." 1 5 [Centralization] will be successful . . . only if complete agreement is reached by facul- ty, university and library administration that it is the best way in which the greatest number can be effectively served . . . un- der reasonable financial expenditures. Modified g e o g r a p h i c centralization is t h e third variation on the t h e m e of sub- j e c t divisional organization. W i d e l y dis- p e r s e d s u b j e c t d e p a r t m e n t a l and highly centralized s u b j e c t divisional libraries are t h e two extremes of organizing b y s u b j e c t m a t t e r . Since t h e r e are no two identical situations and institutions, only c o m p a r a b l e ones, it is inevitable that a compromise solution, absorbing t h e b e s t of t h e two systems would e m e r g e . I t is always the local condition ( s u c h as his- tory, geography, and size of e n r o l l m e n t ) t h a t necessitates t h e s e variations and modifications. Starting in 1938, independently of b u t coinciding with t h e developments at the University of Colorado, B r o w n Universi- ty consolidated its s c i e n c e departmental 1 4 J. H. Shera, "How Much Is the Physicist's Inertia Worth?" Physics Today, XIV (August 1 9 6 1 ) , 4 2 - 4 3 . 1 5 N. N. Nicholson, "Centralization of Science Li- braries at Johns Hopkins University," in Rutgers University graduate school of library service, Studies in Library Administrative Problems ( N e w Bruns- wick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1 9 6 0 ) , p. 133-56. libraries. T h e biology, botany, and psy- chology collections m e r g e d and formed t h e B i o l o g i c a l Sciences division l o c a t e d in the B i o l o g i c a l L a b o r a t o r y . T h e astron- omy, chemistry, engineering, general sci- e n c e , geology, mathematics, and physics collections b e c a m e the Physical Sciences L i b r a r y l o c a t e d in the C h e m i c a l R e - search L a b o r a t o r y . T w o small laboratory collections r e m a i n e d separate, adminis- t e r e d and maintained by the division of w h i c h t h e y w e r e an integral part. T h e significance of Brown's decision lies in t h e f a c t t h a t they consolidated depart- m e n t a l libraries into two divisions lo- c a t e d outside the main library r a t h e r than moving all of them in t h e main li- b r a r y under one science and technology division. I n other words, local conditions w e r e right for partial b u t not c o m p l e t e centralization. C o r n e l l University, under the leader- ship of S t e p h e n M c C a r t h y , a c h i e v e d al- m o s t c o m p l e t e reorganization of its ad- ministration and services during the last t w e n t y years. S e p t e m b e r 1 9 6 6 m a r k e d t h e moving of t h e last outstanding sci- e n c e collection, zoology, into new quar- ters in order "to place [ i t ] in b e t t e r re- lationship to [its] current use." 1 6 W i t h this relocation all science and technol- ogy materials are arranged in the fol- lowing t h r e e large groups, each located in a different building: agriculture, in- cluding b i o l o g i c a l sciences; engineering; and physical sciences. M a t h e m a t i c s re- mains a d e p a r t m e n t a l library, while col- lections in geology, geography, and his- tory of s c i e n c e are housed in the gradu- ate r e s e a r c h library. T h i s graduate re- search library, which o p e n e d in 1961, and t h e undergraduate library, w h i c h o p e n e d in 1962, form the c e n t e r of all li- b r a r y activities. T h e m o v e m e n t toward consolidation is all the m o r e significant b e c a u s e it means integrating a state uni- versity's collection with t h a t of a private 1 8 S. A. McCarthy, "Centralization and Decentrali- zation at Cornell," in M. F. Tauber, ed., "Centraliza- tion and Decentralization in Academic Libraries: a Symposium," CRL, XXII (September 1 9 6 1 ) , 3 3 4 - 3 8 . Organizational Patterns of Academic Science Libraries / 363 institution. It is evident from the above that divisional organization at Cornell focuses on the reader by having both subject matter and clientele as the basis of service and administration. Cornell's great achievements are readily apparent if one studies the "Re- port of a Survey of the Libraries of Cor- nell University" prepared by L. R. Wil- son, R. B. Downs, and M. F. Tauber for the period of October 1947 to February 1948. According to the report there were thirty-seven separate units, including the university library and various depart- mental and laboratory collections, on the Ithaca campus on June 30, 1947. Coor- dination, cooperation, and communica- tion among them were nonexistent, as were central administrative control and planning. The surveyors recognized that some degree of decentralization is necessary and desirable to facilitate in- struction and research and in order to pro- vide the most useful library service. On the other hand, the multiplication of depart- mental collections too small to be staffed or serviced economically or which require an extensive duplication of books is unneces- sary and undesirable. As new building plans mature around the campus, it should be quite feasible to merge departmental li- braries in closely related fields into larger units, perhaps along broad divisional lines, such as biological sciences or physical sci- ences, especially if the teaching depart- ments they serve are contiguous.17 New buildings, indeed, were erected. All of the major physical units discussed above have either been newly con- structed or completely remodeled since 1950. The significance of Cornell's progress and accomplishments lies in the fact that by combining two organizational pat- terns (i.e., division based on subject and on clientele), it synthesized the kind of 1 1 L . R. Wilson, R. B. Downs, and M. F . Tauber, Report of a Survey of the Libraries of Cornell Uni- versity for the Library Board of Cornell University (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University. 1 9 4 8 ) , 202p. administrative organization that would assure the best service and the most con- ducive environment for its clientele. Centralized subject divisional organi- zations, then, appear to offer possibili- ties of satisfying the needs, desires, and habits of scientific users while simultan- eously remaining administratively and economically viable. This might be true for institutions of various sizes. C O N C L U S I O N The organizational patterns of science and technology libraries result from compromises between the needs of users, as they see them, and the practi- cal requirements of budgets and admin- istrative control, as seen by the librar- ians. Users such as those quoted above ap- pear to have strong preferences for some form of departmental libraries. An ex- pensive but effective compromise is ad- ministrative subject divisional centrali- zation. This pattern offers users the vari- ous advantages of having "their own" li- brary and offers the librarian, usually, the benefits of centralized acquisitions and cataloging and uniform policies. Duplicated records, personnel, and ma- terials are the major contributors to the high expense of maintaining the many libraries in this type of organization. Expenses and administrative problems can be significantly reduced with little decrease in convenience to the users by adopting the modified geographic-sub- ject-divisional pattern of organization. Several subjects that are closely related are served at one location that is physi- cally close to the departments involved. Examples could be an engineering, a physical sciences, and a biological sci- ences library. In special situations where all science buildings are near one another one might consider complete centralization of materials and services. If acceptable to the users, it could result in an ex- tremely economical operation. ••