College and Research Libraries Letters To the Editor: The affiliation statement on the article, "The National Program to Microfilm Land- Grant Agricultural Documents," College & Research Libraries, November, 1980, failed to include the information that I was "formerly assistant reference librarian, New Mexico State University Library, Las Cruces" and project contact for that li- brary--;-not the entire Southwestern Land- Grant College Microreproduction Project.- Sarah A. Garrett, Records Management Su- pervisor, Gulf Oil Exploration & Produc- tion Co., Casper, Wyoming. To the Editor: Over the past few years I have wondered why books reviewed in C&RL were fre- quently sent to reviewers with absolutely no expertise in the subject of the book re- viewed. Latest horror is a review of the Li- brary Trends issue on "Library Consult- ing," in the September 1980 C&RL. An in- formed reviewer of this issue would be either a librarian deeply involved in con- sulting or one who uses consultants fre- quently. Instead, this review was assigned to Davie Laird, a nice lad totally unqual- ified on both scores, who seems to have found the Arizona desert a great generator of bile. He first grumps that this issue of Li- brary Trends is not unified like a book. This has been true of periodicals ever since I was a boy. Then he declaims (with the other fragment of his mind) "perhaps the main problem . . . is that the various au- ·thors obviously had quite different audi- ences in mind as they wrote." How in the name of the Chicago Office and all the other deities could a group of articles dis- cussing consultation on buildings, collection development, computerization, labor rela- tions, management, and staff development possibly have the same audience in mind? The articles, however, are all addressed to the same kind of need, discussing circum- stances that call for use of consultants, how to COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES select them, what you can expect from them, how to prepare for their arrival, how to work with them on the spot, and how to evaluate their results. How unified can you get in nine diverse articles? With Davie's opinion of the various arti- cles I will not quarrel since he is entitled even to his ignorant opinions. However, I must rescue one from his unevaluated list of "other topics~" Robert M. Hayes' article on consulting in computer applications, which in my opinion is brilliant, the best of the lot, on -a field where consultancy is in very bad shape indeed. Those of us who do con- sulting know that consultants are often very badly chosen and very badly used. This issue of Library Trends provides a central- ized source, for anyone who even thinks that he might need a consultant, of informa- tion that should help minimize the mistakes often made in choosing one.-Ellsworth Mason, Head, Special Collections Depart- ment, University of Colorado, Boulder. To the Editor: Dr. Mason's diatribe is a bit more pas- sionately hostile than I expected. I suppose I should address him as Little Ellie Mason, then the next time we meet in the schoolyard we can draw a line in the dirt and shout "I dare you ... " at each other. I will stick with my review as worded: a journal issue unified around one theme must be reviewed as if it were a book, not a journal issue. Also, if the "target reader" of this issue was (is) librarians who have little experience with consultants, it seems eminently appropriate that such a person provide the review. I have had limited ex- perience as a consultant and have used con- sultants sparingly. Unfortunately the con- sulting · issue of Library Trends did not speak to me clearly. The literature of this discipline can stand some additions.-W. David Laird, Librarian, University of Arizona, Tucson. I 249 250 I College & Research Libraries • May 1981 To the Editor: The September, 1980 C&RL includes a review of the ALA World Encyclopedia of Library and I nfonnation Services which re- fers to my article on censorship and intel- lectual freedom-among others-as "factual and well written." Naturally, I appreci- ate that, but I do not accept your reviewer's characterization of me as "definitely outside his field and .. beyond the range of his exper- tise" in having written a statement (to which he finds "serious objection," p.453) concerning the relationship of the Pauline Epistles and the modern "basic Christian attitude in favor of concealment and prud- ishness in regard to sexual matters, of veneration for asceticism and chastity." This is not the forum to dispute Mr. Peterson at length on the credibility of my statement- but I do resent his downgrading of my ex- pertise in this field. After a lifetime of research and study I spent several years in writing The Fear of the Word: Censorship and Sex, a 362-page volume published by Scarecrow Press in 1974. It included three chapters (27 pages) with nearly 200 footnotes and citations bear- ing on the point of view I expressed in the statement your reviewer quoted invidiously from my encyclopedia article. I wonder .if · the reviewer has read these chapters: how otherwise can he judge my expertise? As for the statement itself, in a time when the religious leader of a vast number of Christians, the current Pope, calls on husbands not to look with lust upon their own wives, it hardly seems worthwhile to belabor my point any further. My entire article was factuaL-Eli M. Oboler, Uni- versity Librarian, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Editor's note: The reviewer, Kenneth G. Peterson, elected not to reply. To the Editor: Harold Shill has written on a topic ("Open Stacks and Library Performance", C&RL, May 1980) with ramifications that reach far into the future of libraries and other information depositories. While many studies have been done, we know little about how scholars, and other users of in- formation, utilize their information sources. Planning the libraries of the future would be greatly helped by a clearer understand- ing of what happens, and why, when a closed stack collection is opened. Mr Shill has told us some of what occurred at his li- brary, he has speculated as to why, but the conclusions he has drawn are not supported by the evidence he has presented. Mr. Shill states in his abstract that "Direct shelf access ... contributed to an increase in library use and a decrease in cir- culation." The figures for nonreserve cir- culation excluding building loans show a de- crease for the two years before the stacks were opened. The rate of decrease acceler- ated during the first year of direct access and then dropped sharply during the last two years of the study. Building use in- creased the year before the stacks were opened and continued to increase thereaf- ter. No evidence shows that direct access "contributed" to these established trends. Enrollment increased by 37.89 percent through the period of the study. Mr. Shill says ". . . allowances for this change have been made in the analysis." He doesn't tell us what the allowances were or how they were made. The evidence presented leaves the reader with · no alternative but to ques- tion why Mr. Shill does not consider that the enrollment increase is at least partly re- sponsible for the increase in building use. His curious disclaimer that "This upsurge in building use cannot be attributed to the in- crease in enrollment ... given a simul- taneous decrease in circulation figures" is incomprehensible. Nothing in the study correlates these three elements. T~o extrapolations from Mr. Shill's data lead me to a different conclusion. The ratio of enrolled students to library use was 1:28.4 in 1973 and 1:23.9 in 197~a reduc- tion of more than fifteen percent. The 37.89 percent increase in enrollment compares with an increase in building use of only 15.97 percent. It seems to me that these data show a net decrease in library use. Words and terminology should not mis- lead the reader. In the abstract we read that ". . . book availability . . . improved significantly ... " while in the text we see, twice, the word "mild" describing the im- provement in book availability. The two words are not synonymous. Which is cor- rect, Mr. Shill? He refers to ". . . significantly increased library use in 1976 ... a year in which enroll- ment ... declined." He doesn't give us the comparable enrollment figures. Library use data show that the increase in 1976 from 1975 was 4.04 percent, while the increase in 1975 from 1974 was 3.26 percent. Does an increase in rate of less than one percent warrant the word "significantly"? When presenting data it is important to put all figures in the same form, and all tables should cover the same time periods. Enrollment figures are given for only the first and last years of the study. Table 3 gives percentage figures and the other tables use whole numbers. The reader is thus deprived of the data to make his own comparisons and analyses. Mr. Shill concludes that the study shows that " ... stacks can be opened· ... with significant benefits for individual patrons .... " The only benefit that can be adduced from the evidence presented is the improvement in book availability. However, even here, the results are inconclusive be- cause the data covers only three years of the study. Questions are raised because of the omis- sion of information. For example, what was the effect of direct access on the statistics of two significant indicators of collection use- the size and the use of the reserve book col- lection, and the number of books picked up by staff for reshelving? Exclusion of this data increases the possibility of inadequate and inappropriate interpretation of the figures that are given.-Ronald P. Naylor, librarian at large, Waxahachie, Texas. To the Editor: In order to distinguish the legitimate crit- icism in Ronald Naylor's letter from seve.ral misinterpretations of my findings, I am compelled to review the preparation of my article and the analysis of my .data. The data in "Open Stacks and Library Performance" are longitudinal and were ex- tracted after the study period from oper- ational records maintained consistently over time. Library use patterns, like analyses in other areas of social science inquiry, are susceptible to ex post facto statistical analy- sis. Obviously, this approach permits only Letters I 251 the use of pre-existing data, a limitation less frequently affecting sample surveys and ex- perimental studies. Data on books collected in the stacks had not been maintained dur- ing the study period and, therefore, could not be used in the present study. Data from a 1975 book delivery study were excluded be- cause the coding categories used that year were incompatible with those in the other three studies. In short, I have worked with- in the real limitations of operational data collected years before this study was con- ceived. This is stated clearly in my intro- ductory paragraphs. Naylor seems to imply that I am some- how at fault for failing to amass every con- ceivable datum concerning the opening of the stacks at West Virginia University's Main Library. In so assuming, he applies criteria appropriate for evaluating a pre- planned study to judge a retrospective analysis. In real-life situations, administra- tors seldom structure their decisions for the convenience of scholarly analysis. In this case, WVU' s library administration did not decide in 1972 or earlier that the stacks would be opened February 1976. This is a limitation inherent in historical analyses of organizational behavior. Rather than consid- er beyond the scope of statistical analysis past decisions for which the entire spectrum of relevant data is unavailable, however, we must carefully assemble available data, per- form necessary statistical operations, and present conclusions within the data param- eters. I have approached the open access question from this perspective. The article itself examines the impact upon three indicators of library perfor- mance-circulation, book availability and li- brary use-of a decision to open the stacks in one academic library building. Earlier studies assumed that open access would in- crease circulation and reduce book availabil- ity, while the question of building use was not addressed previously. Each of these possible relationships was stated as a hypothesis to be confirmed or rejected on the basis of available data. The hypothesis that circulation would in- crease after the stacks were opened was re- jected on the basis of Table 1 data. Naylor acknowledges that circulation declined throughout the study period, correctly not- 252 I College & Research Libraries • May 1981 ing that the decline was sharpest in the first year of direct access. His focus on rates of decline is spurious, however, since the hypothesis being tested is that circulation would increase if the stacks were opened. The continued decline in circulation clearly supports my conclusion. Additional com- putation shows that 46% of the 1973--78 cir- culation decline occurred in 1976, the first year of open stacks. This finding further strengthens my argument. The over- whelming evidence that circulation did not increase when the stacks were opened can- not be facilely dismissed by lumping cir- culation and building use together as "established trends." Given the weight of evidence supporting my conclusion, the verb "contributed" seems to appropriately describe this inverse correlation. The finding that book availability did not decline after the stacks were opened is as important as the circulation finding, since anticipated shelf disorder is the strongest managerial argument against direct access. The continued improvement in book deliv- ery two years after the stacks were opened is hardly "inconclusive," since a sharp de- cline in across-the-desk delivery success would be expected as patrons located a greater percentage of correctly-shelved books without staff assistance. This finding may also indicate a high level of patron search failure, though neither my original article nor Naylor's letter addresses that issue. Table 3 data were presented as per- centages rather than raw numbers to facili- tate interpretation; since the number of across-the-desk requests declined sharply (as expected) after the stacks were opened, the direction of this trend ("mild" is the correct and intended adjective) would not be readily apparent from the raw figures. Data in other tables could easily be con- verted to percentages and, therefore, be made consistent, by readers wishing to per- form statistical tests upon them. The one important and valid criticism in Naylor's letter is his assertion that enroll- ment has not been adequately controlled as a variable affecting library use, a point raised previously by P. Robert Paustian ("Letters," Nov. 1980). Given the data sup- plied, both men are correct, and I acknowl- . edge the point. A re-check of major refer- ence sources revealed some startling dis- parities in reported enrollment figures. The enrollment data in my article, which were evidently drawn from the World Almanac, were obsolete. Accurate enrollment figures, as supplied by our Office of Institutional Research, are 17,649 for spring 1973 and 20,025 for spring 1978. Using Naylor's ratio upon enrollment and building use figures for the six years examined, I find per capita visitation rates of 24.44, 23. 71, and 23.43 in the three years before the stacks were opened. The rates in the first three years of open access were 24. 22, 24.85 and 24. 98, re~pectively. Though these data are com- patible with my conclusion, they were not included in the article. This is a matter of oversight, however; there is l)othing con- spiratorial here. It is disturbing that Naylor could not de- liver this appropriate criticism without mis- representing other findings and indulging in innuendo. Several phrases ("curious dis- claimer," "Which is correct, Mr. Shill?" "Words and terminology should not mislead the reader," the smug injection of irony in the last sentence) are slick examples of ver- bal overkill which contribute nothing to scholarly dialogue.-Harold B. Shill, Head Librarian, Evansdale Library, West Virgin- ia University, Morgantown. To the Editor: I find it ironic that an issue devoted in part to the importance of library research (May 1980) contains an article as frivolous as Turner's "Femininity and the Librar- ian-Another Test." The author admits that his· findings are not generalizable. Even were they, I doubt that society's perception of the library profession would be changed by its awareness of test results concerning the sex-role orientation of librarians. I submit that our social image is in fact dependent on how well we provide the in- formation and service required by library users in accordance with our own profes- sional standards and ethics. The personal characteristics of librarians of interest to us therefore, should be in the areas of intellec- tual or moral or ethical development rather than in who might or might not be "athle- tic" (p. 237) . I fervently hope that in the "ongoing search for knowledge about the personality and characteristics of the library science stu- dent and the librarian" (p.241), not another study of this type is undertaken.-Charlotta Hensley, Head, Serials Department, Uni- versity of Colorado, Boulder. Editor's note: The author, Robert L. Tur- ner, elected not to reply. To the Editor: Thomas Gaughan's article on "Resume Essentials for the Academic Librarian" (C&RL, March 1980) could more accurately have been titled as "Resume Minima." What Gaughan . describes are the minimum elements which allow a resume to pass a preliminary checklist screening by a typical personnel librarian. However, there is a great difference between passing this initial screening and being seriously considered for the job. To get the job, one must convince the employer that one can succeed in perform- ing to a high degree the responsibilities attendant to the position available. Nothing gives assurance of future success like a _rec- ord of previous success, but nowhere in the items ranked by Gaughan and his colleagues can one find mention of an applicant's achievements, accomplishments or promise for the future. Offices "held" and degrees awarded do not necessarily relate directly to success on the job. Listing duties and re- sponsibilities gives virtually no clue as to how well those responsibilities were acquit- ted. Experience is passive-anyone can ac- quire some by reporting to work-but real achievements on the job reveal a successful worker. The persons cited as references will speak to a candidate's achievements, it is true, but Letters I 253 in today' s tight job market, the successful job seekers must do all they can to advance their searches for desired positions. This means that resumes must be tailored to the job being sought, giving the employer the best possible grounds to believe that the ap- plicant will succeed on the job. Thus the re- sume should list accomplishments in past and present positions, as well as publica- tions, degrees and professional activity. Guidelines for the construction of. such resumes and accompanying cover letters may be found in such books as Richard Lathrop's Who's Hiring Who. [Berkeley, Calif.: Ten Speed Press, 1977 .] Any librar- ian seeking work in today' s market should read this book first, and then begin the task of convincing prospective employers that the applicant can succeed in the position available, as well as meet minimum resume requirements.-Steve Marquardt, Assistant Director for Resources and Technical Ser- vices, Ohio University, Athens. Editor's note: The author, Thomas Gaughan, elected not to reply. To the Editor: In the September, 1980, issue of College & Research Libraries the article by David G. E. Sparks "Academic Librarianship: Pro- fessional Strivings and Political Realities" has an incomplete reference. Reference 58, p. 421, reads: Adeline Tallau, "Faculty Sta- tus and Library Governance," Library Jour- nal 99:1521-23 (June 1, 1974). It should read: Adeline Tallau and Benjamin R. Beede, "Faculty Status and Library Gover- nance," Library Journal99:1521-23 (June 1, 1914).-Mathilda O'Bryant, Head, Catalog- ing Department, University Libraries, Uni- versity of Notre Dame, Indiana. HElP YOUR PATRONS PREDICT THE ECONOMIC FUTURE ... with two new books from Facts On Fne· 0 WORLD ENERGY: THE FACTS AND THE FUTURE (From Euromonitor) Provides a .wide array of information on this important topic which will be equally useful to the layman or the energy executive. The structure of world energy during the last decade is examined, and likely developments in supply and demand (to the year 2000) are projected. There are chapters on the problems that will be faced by major countries, and chapters on the major fuels and the possible alternatives. Charts, diagrams, and 150 tables clarify the text of this volume essential for anyone interested in our energy future. $22 .50; paper; 300 pages; 6 x 8lf2. ISBN: 0-87I96-564-X. 0 A BffiLIOGRAPHY OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC FORECASTING -by Robert Fildes with David Dews and Syd Howell Lists over 4,000 items-journal articles, books, etc.-with material rele- vant to the selection of the best forecasting model for any problem. This is the only comprehensive bibliography of forecasting available, and will be an essential reference for consultants, academic researchers, managers, and management and business students, as well as businesses. For easy access each entry is marked with a key word chosen from some 500 topics of research. There is a main index, a quick index of the major categories used, and a glossary of terms used in the key words. $35.00; cloth, 424 pages. ISBN: 0-87196-555-0. FACTS ON FILE, INC. 460 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016