ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


June 1988 /  373

It must be emphasized that all collections and 
significant subcollections will be represented on 
LCS and O C L C  in cataloging records in the appro­
priate MARC format. The special collections auto­
mated finding aid is not intended to function as a 
library catalog, but more as an index. F or example, 
the traditional American library cataloging con­
cept of “main entry” will not be used. “Main entry” 
and “added entry” names will all be treated identi­
cally in the PERN field. (Names used as subjects 
will be put into separate fields.) The physical de­
scription fields will allow for expanded description 
of and access to both graphic items (such as an am- 
brotype) and support formats (such as a leather 
case). In this instance, both case and ambrotype 
would be described fully. Also, multiple sizes of 
posters for a film could be included in the same rec­
ord, but posters of each size would be individually 
retrievable. V ocabulary control will be m ain­
tained in many of the physical description fields.

As part of the planning process, the committee 
attempted to learn of current projects which would 
be instructive as models. A literature search was 
done. Database documentation proved informa­
tive from two photography collections: the Center 
for Creative Photography, University of Arizona, 
and the Photography Collection, The Humanities 
Research Center, University of Texas at Austin. A

review of museum-based data systems was also in­
formative, and the Smithsonian Institution was 
contacted for information regarding its in-house 
system. Various visual resources librarians and 
other special collection librarians were consulted.

Discussion of the STAR system was initiated 
with the Getty Center for the History of Art and the 
H um anities which has used STAR for several 
years. In addition, an early prototype of the data­
base was set up on Ingres at Ohio State.

Now that the plan for SCDB exists, the next step 
is to talk to vendors to determine whether or not 
any currently available software can implement it, 
before requests for funding can go forward. SCDB 
is still in the project definition stage and its final 
format is heavily dependent upon the software sys­
tem chosen. Topping the list of products under con­
sideration are BASIS, STAR, ARTIS and Ingres. 
W e seek the reaction of our colleagues to the brief 
description of SCDB in this article and would be 
most grateful to receive any comments or sugges­
tions for its improvement. Please send responses to 
Lucy Caswell, The Ohio State University, 242 
West 18th Ave., Columbus OH 43210-1107 (614) 
292-0538. W e would be especially interested to 
know about other libraries which have created au­
tomated finding aids.

Letter

BI for educators

To the Editor:
The piece by the Bibliographic Instruction for 

E d u ca to rs C o m m ittee of the EBSS section of 
A CRL (C &R L  News‚ April 1988, pp. 2 1 7 -2 3 ) is se­
riously flawed, especially in the “Reference tools” 
section. Despite the disclaimer that “Inclusion in 
this list by no means indicates endorsement of the 
quality of information provided by the source” (to 
which one might well respond, “W hy not?”), the 
first two books listed have drawn highly critical re­
views since 1968. These are the Gourman Reports 
on graduate and undergraduate programs (3rd and 
5th editions, respectively).

Librarians in charge of selecting reference books 
might be excused for having missed the reviews in 
Personnel and G uidance Journal (May 1968); Jo u r­
nal of the Association o f College Admissions C oun­
selors (June 1968), reprinted in the M iddle States 
Association Report (October 1968); the letter in the 
Journal of Education fo r Librarianship (Summer 
1970) ;  the full-page story in the C h ro n icle o f 
H igher Education (May 8 , 1 9 7 8 ,  as well as a letter, 
July 3, 1978, and another long story, February 15, 
1984); and the 17-page definitive article in C hange

magazine (November/December 1984). But it is 
less easy to excuse overlooking the 9-page article in 
RQ (Spring 1986).

If more need be said, a look at the new edition of 
Sheehy will disclose that the editors of that ALA 
publication declined to include the Gourman Re­
ports because of serious questions about the validity 
of the compilations. To hand out the Gourman Re­
ports in a public library to unsuspecting high school 
seniors is bad enough; to think of giving them to ac­
ademic administrators, as the Committee recom­
mends, is mind-numbing.

Perhaps one reason the Committee missed the 
recent critiques of Gourman’s books is explained by 
the fact that the “Bibliography” section of its report 
contains no title dated later than 1984.

The continuing uncritical use of the Gourman 
Reports calls into question standard library acqui­
sition procedures. When a title is ordered without 
the backing of a faculty member or librarian, or a 
reputable review, does it then just land on the 
shelves without further examination? Do any li­
braries judge such books by more than their covers? 
Once a title is established on a library’s shelves, are 
new editions ordered like a drug addict hungering 
for a new fix?— William R. Eshelm an, The Press at 
the Cam perdow n E lm , Wooster, Ohio.