Public Documents

Highlights

McClure, Hernon Book Challenged

United States Government Printing Office

September 1983

No. 63 (GP3.27.63)

Presenting a certificate to recognize 35 years of depository service by the North Texas State University

Library is Ed Ochs, right, manager of the GPO's

Dallas Bookstore as Edward R. Johnson, Library Di- rector, and Damron S. Dennis, Documents Librarian, look on.

NTSU DOCUMENTS LIBRARY

CELEBRATES 35TH YEAR

The Government documents department

of North Texas State University, located in Denton, Texas, is 35 years old. Mrs. Damron Dennis has been the librar- ian in charge of the depository since 1972. Miss Pauline Ward was the first documents

librarian, succeeded in 1953 by Mrs. Velma

Cathey. Before retiring in 1974. Mrs. Cathey

established many of the systems, including

cataloging of documents, which allow the de- partment to function efficiently and to pro- vide ready access to the Government materials.NTSU was designated a depository library

in March 1948. When Texas Women's University, then Texas State College for Women, dropped its depository status in 1947, North Texas State Teachers College, now NTSU, was able to conclude negotiations with Superintendent of Documents

Fred W. Cromwell and Representative Ed

Gossett (D.-Texas) to become a depository li- brary for the area. The library began receiv- ing documents in April 1948.

McClure, Charles R. and Hernon, Peter. Improving the Quality of Reference Service

for Government Publications. (ALA Studies

in Librarianship No. 10) Chicago, American

Library Association, 1983. Reviewed by LeRoy C. Schwarzkopf

The major findings on Government docu- ments referral services from this study were

presented in the April 1983 issue of Public Documents Highlights under the headline, "Documents Librarians Called Lax in Pro- viding Referral Services." However, this was

a summation of only one of six chapters of

this book. The first chapter presents the background

of the study, the methodology, a review of other unobstrusive testing of reference service, and a review of other research on access

to government information. The second chapter reports the accuracy

of answers to 20 questions, by question and

geographic region. The average was 37%

correct answers. The results are more

alarming when compared to previous studies of unobtrusive testing in general refer- ence situations, which report a 52% average. Questions are analyzed as to degree of

difficulty. Data are reported and analyzed on duration of the reference interview and

search, primary reason for incorrect or partially correct answer, accuracy by phone

and in-person, and percentage of first-con- tact answers. The third chapter reports and analyzes

the following institutional variables on re- sponse accuracy, delivery method, and type

of question: highest degree offered, volumes

held, library budget, number of depository items selected, number of documents staff, physical arrangement of the collection, and

organization for documents service. It con- cludes that none of these variables had statistical significance on the results. The fourth chapter presents results and

conclusions on referral, many of which were

previously reported in Public Documents

Highlights. Results are analyzed by institu- tional variables, type of questions, and infor- mation provider to whom referred. However,

the unsatisfactory results are less alarming

since the authors report that "general refer- ence staff [also] infrequently engage in re- ferral activity." (p. 89) Suggestions Offered The last two chapters, representing 55%

of the test (less appendices), go beyond the

factual presentation of the research results, and present suggestions for improving docu- ments reference service and the depository

library system based on review of the litera- ture and personal opinion.

Chapter five presents suggestions for im- proving reference service in three areas: In- tegration of documents service into the li- brary as a whole; improving individual

skills and competencies related to the refer- ence process; and "developing administrative strategies ... to provide the environ- ment that will encourage the exploitation of Government publications and assist in the

overall integration."

Although many of the suggestions are not new, they bear repeating. Of particular sig- nificance are the authors' arguments for a

broader interpretation of "integration"

beyond physical integration of materials. With improved technology, "bibliographic

integration" offers more rewards given the

greater availability of government publications in online data bases and improved bib- liographic control by the Federal Government, (p. 140) The last chapter discusses the implications of the following factors for improving

the depository library system: Number of publications entering the program; importance of performance standards; Guideline

for the Depository Library System; inspection

program; state plans; cost effectiveness of the program; and the program as an inter- (Continued on page 2)

Sarah T. Kadec, Director of Library Pro- grams Service since January 1983, has re- signed to accept a position with the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency. The an- nouncement was made at the Depository

Library Council meeting in Seattle in midSeptember.
Public Documents Highlights is circulat- ed regularly primarily for librarians of the Federal Depository Library Program, and

mailed at first class rates. Material for use in this publication should

be sent to the Editor, Public Documents

Highlights, c/o Superintendent of Docu- ments (SD), Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20401.

All submissions may be edited or con- densed for space consideration. Comments

are most welcome and may be printed if the sender is clearly identified. DANFORD L. SAWYER, JR. Public Printer of the United States MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Superintendent

of Documents

A Librarian Speaks Out

(Continued from page 1)

locking network. The authors are particularly critical of the Guidelines and the inspection program.

Validity Questioned

While I applaud this important, muchneeded contribution of scientific research to the field of documents librarianship where

little exists, I have serious reservations about the validity of some conclusions of a study which depends on a number of subjective factors. Are the questions representative? I have

doubts about several. Was the degree of difficulty fair to judge

the quality of reference service, or to make

a fair comparison with other studies? I think not.

"Micro l\/lania: You Have Information

But Wili Library Patrons Use It?"

(Editor's note: Since publication earlier this year of an article critical of documents librarian service, in- terest has been heightened. Not connected with that

article, but nonetheless appropos to the subject, is a speech presented at the New Jersey Government Documents Association. This article is taken from

that talk by Diane H. Smith, Head of Documents, The Pennsylvania State University. Because of its length, it will appear in three parts starting with this month's issue of Public Documents Highlights. Reader comments are encouraged.)

Today's libraries find themselves in the midst of a revolution in Government publishing and, as in many revolutions, the rea- sons for change have become fuzzy and in- termingled over time. Three trends stand out as major causes of

this publishing revolution:

First, Government publishing is in a state of flux and evolution; since 1789, politics and Government publishing have been closely intertwined. Second, there have been substantial devel- opments in printing technologies in the

recent past. Finally, we are in the burgeoning "Infor- mation Age," in which there is an insatiable need for more data; in response to this demand, more Federal information is availa- ble from a greater number of sources, both

private and public.

One outgrowth of the convergence of these three trends was the 1977 GPO policy

to distribute documents on microfiche. This

decision has resulted in a vast outcry over

the difficulties of documents on microfiche and of patron resistance.

I believe that the issuance of documents

on fiche has only brought to the forefront problems in document librarianship which were always there: Bibliographic access,

storage, reference, document awareness in administrators' minds, and distribution. I contend that the true cause of the resistance

to microfiche is not the medium but rather

the varying methods of distributing Govern- ment documents, the types of bibliographic

access and the quality of reference service. In order to survive this "micro mania," we must understand and be comfortable with the content and workings, as well as the formats, of our document collections. We

must be able to explain clearly to our users the various sources available to locate docu- ments and the resulting distribution patterns. Finally, we must maintain and instill a positive attitude toward microfiche in our

staff. To demonstrate how one can develop

these characteristics, I would like to touch

briefly on four essential facets of managing

a microform documents collection. None of these four principles are startling new concepts, but they are all characteristics which must be present in your library if you wish

to have a microform documents collection which is used by your patrons.

(To be continued in the next issue.)

THREE NEW DEPOSITORIES

Three more libraries have been designat- ed as depositories:

Norma Perkins Hagan Memorial Library,

Cumberland College, Williamsburg, KY;

Learning Resource Center, Uniformed

Services University of the Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD; and

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Library, Washington, D.C.

For unobstructive testing by students, the

questions do not appear as simple as they

would be if they were administered obstrusi- vely by library school professors. Validity of

test administration is suspect when one

group, the Northeast, outperforms the Southeast by the wide margin of 49% to 20%.

Is the assumption valid that accuracy of response to unobstructive questions is the major indicator of the quality of reference

service? I think now, especially when the major finding (repeated many times) is "that the individual library staff member is the single most significant factor affecting the quality of reference service." (Note: emphasis is the authors' (p. 111).) And the rec- ommended cure to correct this deficiency

"continuing education"—is conventional wisdom and opinion.

All depository libraries regardless of type

or designation should obtain the study and

use it to evaluate the quality of their refer- ence service. They should review the suggestions and recommendations, and apply those which are appropriate to their situation to improve services for their library's clientele and the public.

(Schwarzkopf was Government Documents Li- brarian at the University of Maryland from 1967

to 1983, in charge of a regional depository. He made frequent contributions to Documents to the People since 1972, and served as editor from

1978 to 1982. He has written major articles on

the history of the depository library program and

the role of regional depository libraries. In 1981, he received the fifth annual CIS/GODORT/ALA

Documents to the People Award.)

ON OUR

REFERENCE SHELVES

Biographical Directory of The American

Congress- Budget of The United States Congress and The Nation

Congressional Directory Congressional Quarterly Almanac

Congressional Quarterly Digest Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report

Congressional Record Index

Consliluiion of The United Slates County and City Data Book

Ehgesi of Public General Bills and Resolutions Education in The United Staics--

Suiistical Highlights

Hisiorical Statistics of The United Stales National Journal

National Register of Hisioric Places Occupational Outlook Handbook

State and Metropolitan Area Data Book

United Stales Code

United States Statutes a Zip Code Directory

U.S. GOVERNMENT

DOCUMENTS

DEFT

Third Floor Howard-Tilton Memorial Library Tulane Univereity

1001 Freret S»«l

The Documents Department of the Tulane University

Library has produced a new brochure. Shown here

are the front and back sides. The Department was

formed by merging the former Tulane Documents

Department with the Howard Memorial Library Collection (some of which dates as far back as 1884). The Department now receives more than 75 percent

of available items in both hard copy and micrgfiche. Government publications are listed in a separate

card catalog.