College and Research Libraries


518 College & Research Libraries 

to which citation analysis has long been 
applied, Bulick examines the degree to 
which disciplines use their own literatures 
or borrow extensively from others. Those 
which rely heavily on endogenous litera-
tures are considered to be "analytical" 
disciplines whose paradigms, in Kuhn's 
sense, are well developed; those which 
borrow heavily from other fields are '' syn-
thetic'' and have less full and mature para-
digms. 

Using his measures this way, Bulick ar-
gues that economists' focused, or "ethno-
centric'' use of materials shows a degree 
of consensus on basic issues of theory and 
technique not matched by the other social 
sciences. Geography, with its notoriously 
unfavorable balance of trade with other 
disciplines, is ranked lowest on these 
measures, leaving sociology, anthropol-
ogy, and political science somewhere in 
between. 

Bulick' s discussion of the individual so-
cial sciences incorporates a skilled and in-
formed interleaving of the history both of 
the several disciplines themselves and of 
their treatment by the LC classification 
scheme. We too often think of the latter as 
received from above, but Bulick reminds 
us that in its developmental stages, LC 
was an emerging commentary on and at-
tempt to organize emerging disciplines. 

Bulick' s most interesting conclusion, 
based both on patterns of cross-
disciplinary use and on various measures 
of association which assess the conjoint 
reading between pairs of disciplines, is 
that the boundaries of the individual so-
cial sciences .may never become as clear as 
those of the physical sciences. But the so-
cial sciences as a whole, with their com-
munal interests in literatures within social 
science and its special cousin, history, 
may be blending into a unified social sci-
ence. 

This is not a perfect book. It is somewhat 
specialized, in that the structure of branch 
libraries at Pittsburgh necessarily ex-
cluded the sciences from consideration, 
and Bulick chooses not to discuss the hu-
manities. One might ask for more consid-
eration of use patterns between specific 
pairs of disciplines and of what this 
means. One can quibble with the misuse 

November 1984 

of the term "sociology of knowledge" or 
argue that the Bradford/Zip£ distribution 
t€lls us little of interest to librarians that a 
simple J-curve of use does not convey and 
that it does not merit the attention Bulick 
gives it. One can definitely become upset, 
as I imagine Bulick himself is, that an im-
portant table is mislabelled-readers 
should bring themselves to note in their li-
brary copies that the column headings of 
Table 6.23 should all slide one place to the 
right. 

Imperfect? Of course, and fascinating. 
The only serious flaw with this book is that 
we are ignoring it. Reviews have been few 
and only some 120 OCLC libraries have 
cataloged it. Either librarians are unsure 
that an understanding of the disciplines 
they serve has anything to say about how 
they should conduct their business, or 
there is something wrong with the system 
of gatekeepers that is supposed to help us 
sort out the big books from the little 
books.-Paul Metz, Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute. 

Career Profiles and Sex Discrimination in 
the Library Profession. Prepared by 
Kathleen Heim and Leigh S. Estabrook. 
Chicago: American Library Assn., 1983. 
82p. $15. LC 83-3838. ISBN 0-8389-3282-
7. 
Results of statistical surveys frequently 

pose more interesting questions than 
those which prompted the survey in the 
first place. Heim and Estabrook's project 
is no exception. The task that Heim, Esta-
brook, and the ALA Committee on the 
Status of Women in Librarianship 
(COSWL) set for themselves was a com-
prehensive career study of librarians, ex-
amining in particular the differences in 
status (salary, administrative responsibil-
ity, career advancement) between female 
and male members of the American Li-
brary Association. Career Profiles and Sex 
Discrimination reports the results of their 
research but, in a mere 46 pages of text, ac-
complishes much more. 

As principle investigators Heim and Es-
tabrook are quite explicit about the dual 
purpose and goal of their research, this 
study was designed not only to provide 
data useful for analyzing and evaluating 



the status of women within the library 
profession, but also, as the researchers 
state, to "contribute to the positive image 
of women in librarianship by virtue of the 
quality of the research.'' From the preface, 
where that statement appears, and contin-
uing throughout the work, the reader is 
constantly reminded of the difficulties fac-
ing women in our (numerically) female-
dominated profession. This study docu-
ments the "how" and "where" of 
gender-based differences in salary and 
status. It goes beyond that by anticipating 
the "why." 

Estabrook and Heim succeed admirably 
in fulfilling both goals set for the study. 
The research is comprehensive (within the 
stated limits of the population surveyed) 
and the methodology sound, but its great-
est strength is that it calls into question 
carefully nurtured assumptions about 
women and work. 

The monograph itself is deceptively 
simple. It's short, barely 41 pages of text. 
The language is clear and concise (inter-
pretation of the data doesn't require a tor-
tuous interpretation of the interpretation). 
Heim and Estabrook clearly want the 
results of their research to be accessible to 
the· widest possible concerned audience. 
They do not obscure their findings by add-
ing unnecessary embellishments or, as is 
so often the case in reports of survey re-
search, by "speaking in tongues," ad-
dressing only the initiated. 

The first two chapters introduce the 
study. Chapter One is a detailed literature 
review; it examines previous studies upon 
which the researchers drew and notes the 
areas of possible investigation that have 
been overlooked. The second chapter, 
"Methodology of the COSWL Study, 11 

describes at length the design of the ques-
tionnaire and introduces the population 
surveyed. The researchers are careful to 
point out that the population in question 
consists of members of the American Li-
brary Association and is therefore pre-
dominately female and predominately 
white. To its credit, the survey is not pre-
sented as a definitive portrait of librarian-
ship. 

The final questionnaire (included in the 
appendix) consisted of 37 questions cover-

Recent Publications 519 

ing four major areas: overall career pat-
tern, current or most recent job situation, 
educational background and professional 
involvement, personal and family data. 
The rationale for each section of the ques-
tionnaire is fully discussed allowing this 
chapter to be read both as a description of 
a completed project and as a model for fu-
ture research. It was particularly gratify..: 
ing to note that the section on personal 
and family data offered, along with the 
standard categories ''married, divorced, 
single, 11 the option "part of a long-term 
committed relationship.'' 

Chapter 3, "Analysis of Major Find-
ings," provides the heart of the study. 
Statistical tables accompany the narrative 
discussion of the findings. These findings, 
while interesting and important, serve 
mainly as tangible evidence of the exis-
tence of a situation many have long sus-
pected: significant differences in status 
and salary are found between women and 
men in the library profession. Even when 
the researchers controlled for personal, 
career, or professional variations, sex was 
found to be an important determinant of 
salary. 

As a member of the Committee on the 
Status of Women in Librarianship (though 
not serving on COSWL during this proj-
ect) and past-coordinator of the SRRT 
Feminist Task Force, I may appear to some 
as a less than impartial judge of a study of 
this nature. On the contrary, I believe that 
constant involvement in issues affecting 
women in librarianship has made me read 
more critically and accept less readily re-
search on these issues. Heim and Esta-
brook have completed a study that be-
longs on every library director's 
bookshelf, and should be required read-
ing in library school management courses. 
Apart from the information it gives us 
about ourselves, this study serves as 
model of conscientious, principled survey 
research. I recommend it highly for the 
questions it answers and the issues it 
raises.-Ellen Broidy, University of Califor-
nia, Irvine. 

Communicating Public Access to Govern-
ment Information: Proceedings of the 
Second Annual Library Government