College and Research Libraries


in library education. Indeed, his emphasis 
on "bibliography" (in however broad a 
sense) as the heart of the course at the U ni-
versity College School of Library, Archive 
and Information Studies will seem old-fash-
ioned even to many British librarians nowa-
days. 

Three papers are concerned with other 
aspects of Pafford's various interests. Pro-
fessor Arthur Brown's "The Growth of Lit-
erary Societies" is a fascinating account of 
these curious institutions, most of them 
founded in the eighteenth or nineteenth 
century. "The Editor and the Literary Text: 
Requirements and Opportunities" is an op-
portunity for Howard Brooks to write about 
a subject where Jack Pafford made notable 
contributions; indeed, a look at the list of 
publications which constitutes the ninth 
contribution to this anthology shows that 
a great many of his published articles are 
concerned with textual criticism. Lastly, 
Professor Wilmot writes about a thirteenth-
century illuminated manuscript which Jack 
Pafford acquired for the University of Lon-
don Library. 

Pafford is an excellent example of the li-
brarian-cum-humanistic scholar. It is doubt-
ful if bibliographies of librarians in the fu-
ture will resemble that of Jack Pafford at 
all. His writings are tributes to the range 
of his mind, and this collection of essays is 
a not unworthy tribute also. It is a pity that 
the book should be marred by a number of 
irritating misprints and some mistakes. The 
most glaring misprint, which could well be 
misleading to American readers, is on page 
14, where "the National Science Reference 
Library and the National Landing Library 
for Science and Invention" are mentioned; 
this should of course read "the National 
Reference Library of Science and Invention 
and the National Lending Library for Sci-
ence and Technology."-Maurice B. Line, 
University of Bath. 

User-Requirements in Identifying Desired 
Works in a Large Library. Ben-Ami 
Lipetz. New Haven: Yale University Li-
brary, 1970. 
In light of all that has been said for so 

many years about the needs of the user as 
a key element in cataloging, it seems 
strange that it is only now that we have a 

Recent Publications I 395 

careful and reliable, large-scale study of 
how the pah·ons of an academic library use 
the card catalog. This study of the use of 
the main card catalog of Yale University 
over a year's period of time is outstanding 
in terms of the care and detail which went 
into its planning and implementation and 
into the analysis of the data involved. 

Its main purpose was to examine "the 
question of how to design a computerized 
catalog for a very large library that can be 
expected to give the best possible perform-
ance." A second objective was to see 
"whether, and, if so, how, existing card cat-
alogs in very large libraries may be made 
more responsive to user requirements." Can 
a study of this kind be of primary value in 
planning computerized tools without being 
substantially supplemented by other kinds 
of studies of user needs? "One cannot cre-
ate an ideal tool of any sort on a rational 
basis ... without knowing a good deal 
about the purposes for which the tool is to 
be used, and about the manner in which 
the users interact with the tool. In the lit-
erature on libraries, there is a dearth of re-
liable information on the utilization of cata-
logs." So we have created card catalogs on 
a less than rational basis and have foisted 
upon the user a complex tool which must 
have by now materially affected the ways 
in which he attempts to define his needs. 
If we now ask him how he satisfied infor-
mation needs by the use of the card cata-
log, we are only asking him how he has 
adapted his needs to the tools we have 
made available to him. This may be analo-
gous to planning new transportation sys-
tems by conducting an automobile traffic 
survey. 

For the possible improvement of existing 
catalogs, the thirty major findings of this 
study are of unquestioned value. Those 
that may be briefly summarized here in-
clude: ( 1) 73 percent of the searches were 
for a known document (26 percent for a 
document that the user is already familiar 
with), 16 percent are subject searches, 6 
percent author searches, and 5 percent bib-
liographic searches; ( 2) many users look 
for known documents as an indirect way 
of conducting a subject search so that in to-
tal 56 percent of the searches were for a 
known document and 33 percent were sub-



396 I College & Research Libraries • September 1971 

ject searches; ( 3) 84 percent of the search-
es were successful, with author and subject 
searches being. equally successful in that 
the desired items. were identified in the cat-
alog; ( 4) of the sixteen searches in 100 
that were not successful, ten failed because 
the document was not listed in the catalog 
(one fifth of those were added to the cata-
log between the time of the user's search 
and the project follow-up search), five were 
for documents which were listed in the cat-
alog and could have been located with the 
clues available to the user, and one failed 
because the user had inadequate clues; and 
( 5) users can locate material despite in-
complete information or misspelled words, 
and can do so better than either of two 
computer algorithms tested. 

The most intriguing aspect of this report 
is the comment that "the interpretation of 
these results can vary greatly, depending 
on whether a librarian is more interested 
in expanding service or in conserving mon-
ey and labor." The only real conclusions 
that Lipetz draws are that arranging the 
cards within a subject heading. by date may 
be helpful; that more title-like entries 
would seem to be of value; that more 
should be done to acquire material prompt-
ly and in anticipation of need and to notify 
users of books that are on order or on hand 
but not yet cataloged; and that strong con-
sideration should be given to improved user 
orientation and user assistance. 

It will be of most interest to see how the 
Yale University Library finally interprets 
these results and what impact, if any, this 
study has on the existing card catalog at 
Yale and on the planning for a computer-
ized catalog.-N01man D. Stevens, Uni-
versity of Connecticut. 

The American College and American 
Culture. Socialization as a Function 
of Higher Education. Oscar Handlin 
and Mary F. Handlin. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill, 1970. 104p. 
This essay, written for the Carnegie 

Commission on Higher Education, "aims 
to clarify the history of the role of socializa-
tion as. a factor in the development of the 
college." This promise to add to the disci-
plined knowledge of the relationship of a 
particular institution to a specific societal 
function is an objective of great importance . 

A successful study of this sort would make 
a valuable contribution not only in its sub-
stantive conclusions but also in its useful-
ness as a model for similar investigations. 

The difficulties of the problem demand 
great capacity for its solution, and the au-
thors bring good credentials to their task. 
Handlin, director of the Charles Warren 
Center for Studies in American History at 
Harvard University, has long experience 
and a high reputation; his wife has fre-
quently worked with him on his research. 
The importance of the problem and the 
high aspirations of the a uthors promise a 
great deal. 

The result is an interesting and well-writ-
ten summary of the development of higher 
education as part of American life. Judged 
in terms of the goals set for it, however, it 
does not succeed. The failure was made in-
evitable by the Handlins' decision not to 
define socialization exactly. They simply de-
scribe it as a "nonreligious, nonvocational 
function . . . connected with the desire to 
adjust the individual to the society." If by 
socialization, the Handlins do not mean to 
include promotion of religion, preparation 
for an occupation, profit to the larger soci-
ety, or advancement of the graduate in so-
ciety or career, the reader is left to wonder 
just what they do mean, especially since 
much of the discussion concerns these very 
matters. 

If the study is not to be judged in terms 
of its stated goal, the reader must turn to 
the canons of historical investigation, to the 
nature of the evidence presented, and to his 
own perceptions of the subject as compared 
with the work in hand. The Handlins cite 
their sources in clumps, paragraph by para-
graph. The read er is often unsure which as-
sertions-and even quotations-are based 
on what sources. In a single paragraph, a 
number of quotations may appear without 
clear indication that their sources are sep-
arated by fifty years or more. Only the en-
cyclopedic specialist could judge authori-
tatively what proportion of the evidence the 
Handlins have gathered is relevant or 
whether their conclusions are valid, but 
even a reader with a nodding acquaintance 
with particular aspects of American educa-
tional history will find troubling omissions 
and will be likely to question some of the 
detailed assertions and some of the broad