College and Research Libraries


treatment, though condensed, is not trivial 

or sketchy. 

A l t h o u g h prices are not generally noted, 

they are occasionally in the case of long 

and expensive sets. Bibliographies are 

listed in some cases; and in almost every 

case there is a final paragraph appraising 

the strengths or weaknesses of the library 

in the field being discussed.—Fremont 

Rider, Olin Library, Wesleyan Univer-

sity, Middletown, Conn. 

Report of a Survey of the University of 

Florida Library for the U n i v e r s i t y of 

Florida, F e b r u a r y - M a y , 1940, by a 

committee of L o u i s R . W i l s o n , C h a i r -

man, A . F . K u h l m a n , and G u y R . L y l e , 

on behalf of the A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y A s -

sociation. A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Associa-

tion, 1940. 120p. $2. ( M i m e o -

graphed) 

T H E FLORIDA U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y sur-
vey is one of three surveys of university 

libraries prepared and published recently 

under the auspices of the A m e r i c a n L i -

brary Association. A forerunner of these 

was Raney's The University Libraries, 

V o l u m e V I I of the U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o 

Survey ( 1 9 3 3 ) . O n e of the authors of 

the present volume, A . F . K u h l m a n , con-

tributed various chapters to the C h i c a g o 

survey. T h e other t w o authors, D e a n 

L o u i s R . W i l s o n and G u y R . L y l e w e r e 

associated w i t h Branscomb and D u n b a r in 

one of the other A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y A s -

sociation surveys, A Survey of the Uni-

versity of Georgia Library ( 1 9 3 8 ) . 1 T h e 

F l o r i d a survey is thus the w o r k of a com-

mittee of men w h o have already helped 

to set the pattern in this important new 

trend in university library administration. 

In its o w n words, 
1 T h e t h i r d A . L . A . s u r v e y is A Survey of the 

Indiana University Library by C o n e y - H e n k l e - P u r d y 
(1940). 

T h e committee has undertaken ( 1 ) to set 
the Library in the perspective of the history 
of the university, state, and region; (2) to 
discover ways and means of enabling it to 
improve its organization and administration 
as a part of the general administration of the 
university; (3) to formulate a plan of li-
brary development designed to promote the 
effectiveness of the university's general pro-
gram of instruction, research, and exten-
sion; and (4) to indicate means by which 
the library resources of the university may 
be more effectively related and integrated 
with the libraries of Florida, of the South-
east, and the nation. 

S t a r t i n g w i t h introductory chapters on the 

" H i s t o r y and B a c k g r o u n d " and the 

"Essentials of a L i b r a r y P r o g r a m in a 

State U n i v e r s i t y , " the survey takes up in 

order the government of the library, its 

integration on the campus, in Florida, and 

in the Southeast, financial support, use, 

administration and organization, holdings, 

personnel, and physical plant. C o n c l u -

sions and recommendations are presented 

in each section of the survey, and these are 

summarized in a final chapter of " R e c o m -

mendations." 

T h e committee f o l l o w e d the plan of 

stating general principles, describing the 

situation, and making recommendations in 

each section of the report. Standards w e r e 

indicated occasionally by the opinion of 

the committee alone, but more often by 

the familiar comparative method, w i t h 

data on other institutions and references 

to publications in point. In v i e w of the 

Florida U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y ' s many needs, 

the survey includes extensive detailed 

recommendations and requires some pains-

taking effort to read and digest. T o 

facilitate practical use, it w o u l d help if 

conclusions and recommendations w e r e 

sorted out and clearly labeled in each 

section, and if some of the t a b l e s — o f a 

total of t w e n t y - n i n e — w e r e eliminated or 

66 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



removed to appendices f o l l o w i n g the text. 

T h e report is practically a case book of 

university library problems. I t w i l l cer-

tainly be used extensively for many years 

by interested librarians and by the faculty 

and administration responsible for the de-

velopment of the University of Florida 

L i b r a r y . — P e y t o n Hurt, Williams Col-

lege, Williamstown, Mass. 

Report of a Survey of the University of 

Georgia Library for the University of 

Georgia, September-December, 1938. 

L o u i s R . W i l s o n , H a r v i e Branscomb, 

Ralph M . D u n b a r , and G u y R . L y l e , 

on behalf of the American L i b r a r y As-

sociation. American L i b r a r y Associa-

tion, 1939. 74p. $ 1 . ( M i m e o -

graphed) 

T H I S R E P O R T p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e 

first of three surveys of state university 

libraries conducted by the A m e r i c a n 

L i b r a r y Association during the last year. 

It is important as the report of a pioneer 

appraisal of a university library by an 

A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association committee 

and for its emphasis upon local problems 

and local needs as evaluative criteria. 

A library survey is rarely a research 

study. W i t h a program of action the end 

product of the survey, missionary zeal 

almost inevitably makes disinterested 

objectivity impossible, and perhaps, at the 

present stage of measurement in librarian-

ship, undesirable. T h e immediate func-

tion of an A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association 

survey is evaluation; the final objective 

a program of improvement. E v a l u a -

tion necessitates s t a n d a r d s — " m e a s u r i n g 

sticks." T h e standards most relevant in 

any library survey are local optima, in so far 

as they can be determined. T h e survey 

committee, under the chairmanship of 

D e a n W i l s o n , gave unusually careful at-

tention to the local scene—the regional 

and local environment of the university 

library. 

T h e committee, in effect, sought an-

swers to three questions: I. W h a t should 

be the contribution of the university 

library to the educational and research 

program of the University of G e o r g i a ? 

2. In w h a t specific respects is the univer-

sity library f a l l i n g short of optimum ful-

fillment of its obligations? 3. W h a t 

specific steps need to be taken to make 

university library service more consistent 

w i t h the library needs of the university? 

O f the three questions the first is the 

most difficult, particularly to an outside 

committee, and least adequately dealt 

with. A satisfactory answer can be 

evolved only over a period of years and 

by the staff of the university itself. 

Comparisons w i t h other universities and 

w i t h norms are useful chiefly as corrobora-

tive evidence and for "sales" purposes. 

W h i l e the committee recognized this 

limitation, it w a s forced by the lack of 

better measuring devices to seek answers 

to all three questions largely in terms of 

comparisons. 

T h e chief value of the report to other 

surveyors, as w e l l as to the University of 

Georgia, however, lies in its analysis of 

local needs in relation to local objectives. 

T h i s analysis involves a large element of 

subjective j u d g m e n t — o p i n i o n s of the 

committee, the faculty, and the student 

body. T h e resulting evaluation leaves 

little doubt in the mind of this reviewer 

as to its essential accuracy. Deficiencies 

w e r e not difficult to find. T h e same 

techniques w o u l d almost certainly result 

in less convincing conclusions if applied to 

a more highly developed library. 

T h e survey committee is to be com-

mended for a thorough and realistic re-

DECEMBER., 1940 67