Dodd, James Beaupr??

English

IDEALS @ Illinois

The Gap in Standards for Special Libraries

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository

The Gap in Standards for Special Libraries JAMES BEAUPRE DODD THEDIVERSITY THAT Cowgill and Havlik' discussed in 1972 in a pre- vious article on this topic in Library Trends remains the starting point of any consideration of uniformity or standardization of special libraries. The issue of standards for special libraries brings to mind the fable about the boy whose father gave him a bundle of switches to break. The lad learned that the switches could not be broken all at one time, but that they could easily be broken one at a time. Special libraries comprise such a large and heterogeneous group that no successful effort has been made to establish standards that would apply to all of them. Instead, efforts have been concentrated on developing standards for groups of special libraries. Other articles in this issue cover such more nearly homogene- ous subsets as hospital and medical libraries, libraries serving the insti- tutionalized, library services for the visually and hearing impaired, and special libraries within academic and public libraries. In 1979, Markuson and Woolls2 reported that the US.  library system consists of 12,000 special libraries-more than the combined total of 3000 academic libraries and 8307 public libraries. The exact mix of this multiverse of special libraries is not precisely known. However, two recent estimates give some indication of the distribution. In 1981, Dodd reported to the joint National Commission on Libraries and Information ScienceISpecial Libraries Association (NCLIS/SLA) Task Force on the Role of the Special Library in Nationwide Networks and James Beauprb Dodd is Head, Users Services Division, Price Gilbert Memorial Library, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. SUMMER 1982 85 JAMES DODD Cooperative Programs3 a tabulation made from the 1977 publication, Institutions Where SLA Members Are E r n p l ~ y e d . ~Dodd’s count showed 58 percent worked in for-profit organizations, 16 percent in academic libraries, 8 percent in government agencies, 7 percent in public libraries, and 7 percent in associations or other private nonprofit organizations. The remainder worked in school libraries, medical libraries or law libraries. The accuracy of this count is limited because: (1) the directory could list only those SLAmembers who gave their business addresses on the membership application or renewal form; (2) i t  is a listing of personnel, not libraries; and (3) the categories given were not mutually exclusive. For instance, some law libraries are in profit-making organi- zations, as are some medical libraries. At the same time, Ruth D. Rodri-guez, manager, Membership Department, Special Libraries Association, reported to the task force a simplified breakdown of the employment situations of the membership: 55 percent in corporate libraries, 22 percent in government or other social service libraries, 13 percent in academic (including school) libraries, and 10 percent in public libraries5 These tabulations indicate that a large percentage of special librar- ies are in profit-making organizations, mostly in business and industry. Because of the existence of these special libraries, the “divide and conquer” approach to standards for special libraries has not been entirely successful. Still valid is former SLA President Strable’s 1974 comments to NCLIS: A sizable proportion of special libraries spring from, and are very much a part of, the capitalistic system. And this is a system which emphasizes competition, individuality, privateness and other charac- teristics which are in opposition to commonality of goals and activi- ties. In addition, all special libraries, whether in the profit sector or not, have long followed traditions based on non-standardization, unalikeness, and uniqueness. Much has always been made of how well the special library eschews slavishness to the norms followed in other types of libraries, but rather chooses adaptation or the creation of new techniques in order to meet the special needs of special clien- teles. The universality of this tradition has never been measured or tested. But it is an ever-present and important element in the self image of special librarians.‘ A factor that Strable did not touch upon is that the private sector is not sensitive to pressures for accreditation or certification. There are no unions and no government regulations that are in a position to effect performance standards in a private library, and the library profession itself does not yet have the clout of enforcement that other professions such as medicine, accounting and law have. LIBRARY TRENDS 86 Specia 1 Libraries The innate resistance to conformity that Strable writes about is not the only difficulty in determining and applying standards to these special libraries. It is within this group that the greatest amount of all special library diversity is found. The sizes of the libraries range from the one-person operation to the massive libraries and library networks that are to be found in large corporations. Also, standards that might be meaningful for a chemical research organization would not necessarily be valid for a bank library, regardless of size. Efforts to establish standards applicable to all special libraries have been tangential in approach rather than direct frontal assaults on the problem. The most persistent efforts concern salaries. In 1982, the Special Libraries Association will conduct its seventh salary survey of its membership. The previous ones were reported in Special Libraries for the years 1959, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1976, and 1979.’ The purposes of the salary surveys were stated in the 1979 report, as follows: To obtain systematic accurate information about the salaries of spe-cial librarians and information personnel; to establish a data bank from which inquiries about salariescan be answered for members of the Special Libraries Association, for persons engaged in personnel and recruitment activities, and for persons planning special library careers; to enable SLA members to assess their own salaries in view of the numerous variables.’ To supplement the indepth triennial surveys, SLA has conducted interim updates in recent years by sending a smaller questionnaire to only 25 percent of the membership. The most recent update, published in October 1981, states the purpose of the survey to be “aneffort to assist special librarians in salary negotiations ....” It states further: “The results provide an overview of the salaries of special librarians and a measure of annual salary increases since the last ~urvey.”~ For the 1982 survey, the association staff, particularly Dr. Mary Frances A. Hoban, manager, Professional Development, is collaborat- ing with the SLA Statistics Committee, chaired by Beth G. Ansley, in order to use the survey to gather additional statistical information about the association and “to make it  a more valid document for wage and salary negotiations.” Ansley further reports that: “Members of the Sta- tistics Committee have met with professionals in the wage and salary field in order to obtain their expert, external view of what the survey should contain.”” SLA continues to make another, though less effective, effort to establish a minimum salary standard for special libraries. Since April 1974, the association has issued a leaflet entitled Employment Oppor -  SUMMER 1982 87 JAMES DODD tunities. It is: “issued monthly ...as a service to SLA members who are seeking positions and to employers who are seeking qualified special librarians ....Positions with starting salaries of $10,00O/year or more are listed in Employment Opportunities as ‘Professional Positions.’ Posi- tions with starting salaries less than $10,000/year or with non-professional requirements are listed as ‘other.’ ””The initial minimum salary designated “professional” in this leaflet was $9000. Some SLA members think that the $10,000 figure is too low. The most recent decision by the Board of Directors on this matter was in June 1980, when it did not act on a recommendation from the chapter cabinet that the figure be raised to $12,500.12 Cowgill and Havlik13 discussed the 1964 publication in Special Libraries of “Objectives and Standards for Special Librarie~.”’~ When that article was later reprinted in 1970 by SLA as a separate pamphlet, the title was shortened to “Objectives for Special Libraries,” and the “Appendix: Standard Specifications” was dropped. The deleted mate- rial was concerned only with physical standards for shelving, lighting and stack area arrangement, and had nothing to do with service or performance standards. The Special Libraries Association has continued to have a stan- dards committee under one name or another, and continues to be a voting member of the American National Standards Committee Z39. A brief recounting of the activities of the SLAcommittee will show that i t  has been fully occupied with problems other than performance and service standards. At the time the Cowgill and Havlik article was written in 1972, Cowgill was chairman of the Standards C~mmittee.’~ His untimely death shortly thereafter caused a brief hiatus in the work of that committee. Under the later leadership of Fred J. O’Hara (1973-75), Zoe Cosgrove (1975-77), Scott Kennedy (1977-78), LeRoy Linder (1978- 80), and Audrey Grosch (1980-82), the committee has been concerned with such issues as: surveys and statistics; projected manpower needs; a commonly accepted definition of special libraries; a system of classification and categorization of special libraries; job descriptions for exempt and nonexempt library employees; liaison with the National Center for Education Statistics; representation on the A M L A D ,  Library Organization and Manage- ment Section, Statistics Coordinating Committee; common bibliographic exchange format; AACR2; LIBRARY TRENDS 88 Specia 1 Libraries ANSI 239.7; and recommendations from the White House Conference on Library and Information Services.“ The SLA Standards Committee was renamed the Standards and Statistics Committee in 1976. In June 1978, the 1977-78 Board of Direc- tors of SLA acted to dissolve the Standards and Statistics Committee. One week later, the 1978-79 Board of Directors authorized the reestab- lishment of two committees: the Standards Committee and the Statistics Committee. The Statistics Committee has since been chaired by Scott Kennedy (1978-80) and by Beth G. Ansley (1980-82), and continues work on statistical concerns of the former Standards and Statistics Commit- tee.17 The makeup and the definition of the Standards Committee was most recently changed by action of the Board of Directors in October 1981: Standards Committee Five members appointed for overlapping terms of three years each. Members may be appointed as SLA representatives to otherorganiza-tions serving a similar purpose; or, as the President shall see fit, SLA representatives to such organizations may serve as ex officio members of the Committee for the terms of their appointments. Ex officio members shall participate fully in all the Committee’s activities. The Committee shall: (1) identify and disseminate to Association members existing and proposed standards for services, facilities, staffs and resources of special libraries and information centers; (2)review proposed standards and initiate ideas for new standards related to special libraries and information centers; and (3) serve as liaison between the Association and other organizations concerned with standards. The purpose of authorizing the ex officio members is to strengthen the relationships between SLA and organizations working in the field of standardization, especially ANSC B 9 .  Action by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in December 1981 threatens serious erosion of the educational requirements and salaries for federal librarians and information specialist^.'^ Any changes in these “Classification and Qualification Standards for Federal Library Informa tion Positions” would affect not only federal information per-sonnel, but may also be felt by special libraries in the private as well as other public sectors. Given the rapid changes in the information field, particularly technical advances, and the need for flexibility in profit-making organi- zations so that they can respond to changes in the marketplace and in the economy, i t  is unlikely that comprehensive standards of performance SUMMER 1982 89 JAMES DODD and service will ever be developed for business and industrial libraries. However, we can continue to write about and describe the successful ones. The lack of standardization pertains only to the internal operation of the organizations. Special libraries in the profit sector are increas- ingly aware of the need for external standardization so that they can interface with other libraries, particularly through networks. Investiga- tions by the NCLISISLA Task Force have revealed widespread partici- pation for libraries in profit-making organizations throughout OCLC and related and similar networks.20 Certainly, the lack of comprehensive performance standards has not been a hindrance to libraries in the profit sector in taking active and leading roles in the profession. References 1. Cowgill, Logan O., and Havlik, Robert J. “Standards for Special Libraries.” Library Trends 21(0ct. 1972):249-60. 2. See Markuson, Barbara E., and Woolls, Blanche, eds. Crztical Issues in Cooperative Library Development-Networks. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Pub-lic Instruction, Division of Instructional Media, 1979, p. 7. 3. Dodd to NCLISISLA Task Force, personal communication, 14 Jan. 1981. 4. Special Libraries Association. Special Libraries Directory: Institutions Where S L A  Members Are Employed. New York: SLA, 1977. 5. Rodriguez to NCLWSLA Task Force, personal communication, 14 Jan. 1981. 6. Strable, Edward G. “The Relationship and Involvement of the Special Library with the National Program: Paper of Amplification” (Paper presented to NCLIS, 1974), p. 2. ED 100 389. 7. “Special Libraries Association Personnel Survey, 1959.” Special Libraries 51(March 1960):153-57; “A Study of 1967 Annual Salaries of Members of the Special Libraries Association.” Special Libraries 58(April 1967):217-54; “SLA Salary Survey, 1970.” Special Libraries 61(JulyIAug. 1970):333-48; “SLA Salary Survey, 1973.” Special Libraries 64(Dec. 1973):594-628; “SLA Salary Survey, 1976.” Special Libraries 67(Dec. 1976):597-624; and “SLA Salary Survey, 1979.” Special Libraries 70(Dec. 1979):559-89. 8. “SLA Salary Survey, 1979,” p. 559. 9. “SLA 1981 Salary Survey Update.” Special Libraries 72(0ct. 1981):399. 10. Ansley to Dodd, personal communication, Jan. 1982. 11. Special Libraries Association. Employment Opportunities. Nov. 1981, p. [11. 12. . Board of Directors. “Minutes, Open Sessions, 6-7 June 1980.” Unpublished. 13. Cawgill and Havlik, “Standards for Special Libraries,” p. 254. 14. “Objectives and Standards for Special Libraires.” Special Libraries 55(Dec. 1964):672-80. 15. See Cowgill, Logan 0.“Reports of Standing Committees 1971172, Standards.” Special Libraries 63(Sept. 1972):428-29. 16. See: O’Hara, Fred J. “Reports of Standing Committees 1973174.’’ Special Libraries 65(Aug. 1974):393-94; . “Reports of Standing Committees 1974175.’’ Special Libraries 66(Sept. 1975):481; Cosgrove, Zoe L. “Reports of Standing Committees 1975176.’’Special Libraries 67(Sept. 1976):472; . “Reports of Standing Com- mittees 1975176: Standards and Statistics.” Special Libraries 68(Sept. 1977):354; Kennedy, LIBRARY TRENDS 90 Special Libraries Scott. “Reports of Standing Committees 1977/78: Standards and Statistics.” Special Libraries 69(Sept. 1978):393-94; Linder, LeRoy H. “Reports of Standing Committees 1978/79: Standards.” Special Libraries 7O(Sept. 1979):432; .“Reports of Stand-ing Committees 1979/80: Standards.” Special Libraries 71(Sept. 1980):442; and Grosch, Audrey N. “Reports of Standing Committees 1980/81: Standards,” p. 46. In SLA Annual Report, 1980-81. New York: SLA, 1982. 17. See: Kennedy, Scott. “Reports of Standing Committees 1978/79: Statistics.” Special Libraries 70(Sept. 1979):432-33; . “Reports of Standing Committees 1979/80: Statistics.” Special Libraries 71(Sept. 1980):442-43; and Ansley, Beth G. “Reports of Standing Committees 1980/81: Statistics,” p. 47. In SLA Annual Report, 1980-81. 18. Special Libraries Association. Board of Directors. “Minutes, Open Sessions, 29-30 October 1981.” Unpublished. 19. See: “Proposed Classification and Qualification Standards for Federal Library/ Information Positions.” ALA Washington Newsletter 33(21 Dec. 1981):Attachment 1;and “Proposed Federal Standards Devalue Library Education.” American Libraries 13(Feb. 1982): 134. 20. Robinson, Barbara M., and Berger, Patricia W., eds. Final Report of the NCLISISLA Task Force on the Role of the Special Library in Nationwide Networks and Cooperative Programs. New York: Special Libraries Association, 1982. SUMMER 1982 91 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

The Gap in Standards for Special Libraries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IDEALS @ Illinois

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository