Intellectual foundations of library education

ht. Libr. Rev. (1976) 8, 3-2 1

Intellectual Foundations of Library Education

ANIS KHURSHID”

Any discussion on the subject of higher education, and more so that of professional education, of necessity, has to begin with these searching questions: education, for whom; and, for what purposes ? It is the answers to these very questions that help develop the curricula needed to prepare the type of people required for various jobs in libraries.

Library education, to be very exact, aims at preparing librarians to practice librarianship. But the word “librarian” itself is commonly used everywhere in the world to include all professional workers and also those performing professional jobs in a library irrespective of the fact as to whether they possess any professional qualification or not. A librarian, for example, may be the head of a library or even a professional worker, working against subordinate positions in a department or section under the librarian. They are all generally called librarians although some of such librarians may not even possess any degree/diploma/certificate necessary for the type of work they are called upon to do. They may not have degrees, etc. of even such library schools or training centres which are un-accredited for the purposes of training. Even so all of them are called librarians like those who are duly trained for the librarian’s jobs. Membership of professional associations is equally open to them everywhere. The American Library Association is also not an exception to this. As a result, the public image of librarians has suffered the most, more so, from those who are ill-prepared or not trained at all for the jobs they are doing in libraries.

The library schools, therefore, face a problem in imparting, through class-room instruction, a love for knowledge and books, to such trainees who happen to join the course not for any labour of love but for an easy- going profession with good salary and better working conditions-that is librarianship for them. They do not seem to have come across anything like bibliophilic spirit in librarians in their encounter with them and as such to them that spirit does not sound to be the keystone of the profession of librarianship.

* Chairman, School of Librarianship, Karachi University, Karachi, Pakistan.

4 A. KHURSHID

The second question brings up the objectives of library education itself. In the process of an inquiry to find an answer to this question many problems or uncertainties come to light. On the face of it, the purpose or objective of library education seems to be well-defined, i.e. “to prepare librarians for practising librarianship”. But the functions and practices of librarianship themselves are not governed by any accepted principle or philosophy. To J. Periam Danton,l therefore, library practices appear to be ‘cmeaningless”. This missing philosophical base thus renders it difficult to attain even the first objective of library education, ( i.e. “to make clear the principles according to which libraries function”, as defined by Keyes D. Metcalf and his associates.2 Viewed in the con- text of Jesse H. Shera’ss recent overview of the situation, library education, at advanced level, however, appears to be ahead of time.

Thus placed, the search for a philosophy still continues and the library literature over the years, seems to be groping in the darkness. To quote Shera* again “there is no substitute for wisdom and the best research in the world cannot compensate for its absence.” Library education without a philosophy is like a mission without a goal. It would, therefore, be expedient to look into the traces of the history to be able to lay hands at the root of the problem itself.

The etymological development of the word “library” (biblion meaning “book” and theke meaning “container” in Greek) takes us to the early days of our history when libraries were open for the “Few”. The caretaker view of librarianship was then quite dominant in our thinking. It was for this reason, perhaps that in traditional England the Librarian in charge of the printed books in the British Museum itself was called “keeper” until recently.

This custodial responsibility was, however, the result of the sanctity of scholarship and learning accessible only to the privileged few. In- cluded among them was the librarian who himself used to be a noted scholar, bookman and courtier. His selection to the post of librarian was a byproduct of his scholarship and nothing else. His elevated position with much of a watchdog responsibility brought with it the usual arro- gance of the time. So much so that Heinsius, the Keeper of the Library at Leyden, has been reported saying: “I no sooner come in the library but I bolt the door behind me excluding lust, ambition, avarice, and, in

1 J. Periam Danton (1934). Plea for a philosophy of librarianship. LiLrury Quart&, IV, 536.

s Keyes D. Metcalf et al. (1943). The Program of Instruction in Library Schools. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

3 Jesse H. Shera (1973). The aims and objects of graduate library education. Harold Barko (ed.) . Targetsfor Research in Library Education. Pp. 9-30. Chicago : American Library Association

4 Ibid., p. 13.

INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF LIBRARY EDUCATION 5

the very lap of eternity, amongst so many divine souls, I take my seat, with so lofty a spirit and sweet content that I pity all our great ones and rich men that know not this happiness.“1 A change is, however, evident from what Cassiodoruss (480-575) says in his manual of libraries: “Let us pray that those things that are closed to us be opened and let us in a manner be cut off from the pursuit of reading.” In the process of founding Italian Humanism, Petrarch (1304-74)) created a new ideal for a large public institution by donating his own book collection “for the comfort of the intelligent and noble people who may happen to take delight in such things.“3 The image of modern librarianship, however, fully emerged in the seventeenth century when the beau ide’al of librarians, Gabriel Naude (1600-53) was recognized, far and wide, by virtue of his work in librarianship alone. He was in a sense through and through a librarian and was recognized as such for the first time. To him, the librarian was a specialist in the sources of information and in the service of a broader and at the same time more intensive scholarship. For this, a librarian, like kings and poets, had to be born; he should take counsel with other librarians; he should read whatever was written; he should study the catalogues of libraries to improve .his knowledge of bibliography.4 Consequently, practical training became an important part of the vocation of a librarian5 and his work as such needed among other things but, more importantly, a kind of training and knowledge which was essentially rooted in “librarianship”. John Dury, an English librarian, and a critique of his contemporary librarians, on the other hand, characterizes a librarian, in his book, The Reformed Librarie-Keeper (1650) as “factor and trader for help to learning and a treasurer to keep them and a dispenser to apply them to use.“6

It was, however, in the nineteenth century that librarians began to speak of library science. Martin Schrettinger,T unhappy as he was, with the growing experiments in the techniques of library organization, pleads for the foundation of a genuine library science in order to dispel the chimaera of detailed techniques. As opposed to the pre-eminently practical Schrettinger, F. A. Ebert,s the theorizer, held to the ideals of

1 Raymond Irwin ( 1966). Librarianship. In Encyclopaedia of Librarianship. Thomas Landau (ed.). P. 249. London: Bowes and Bowes.

2 See Howard Woodrow Winger (1961). Aspects of librarianship. Library Qmrter&, XxX1, 32 l-35.

3 See Altied Hessel (1955). A History of Libraries. Translated by Reuben Peiss. P. 39. New Brunswick, N. J: Scarecrow Press.

4 Winger, op. cit. 5 Hess&, op. cit., p. 57. 6 Winger, op. cit. 7 Hessel, op. cit., p. 80. 8 Ibid., p. 81.

6 A. KHURSHID

the past century and demanded in his librarian a profound knowledge of history, with fair acquaintance of literary history, bibliography and basic disciplines; a neat and rapid handwriting; some knowledge of carpentry and ability to repair torn books. He was against the practice of librarianship as a part-time affair. But it appears that the orientation of knowledge of the time made it rather difficult to understand the rigorous demands on services in libraries on the part of the educated gentry from which library officials were usually recruited.

This, in brief, is the developmental process through which librarianship attains its present-day status. There are, however, three distinct stages of this development according to Jose Ortega y Gasset. The first stage, at the end of the Middle Ages, brings about socialization of the book. As a result, the production and acquisition of books assumed heroic proportion. The second stage, taking place in the nineteenth century, ends up in wider and easy accessibility of the book. Con- sequently, libraries and librarians also multiplied in number and with it the book, in the post-1850 period, at long last became a “public function” and even an essential “political organism”. The final and the third stage, beginning from 1934, changes the book finally and purpose- fully to a “living function”. No wonder, therefore, that Gasset wants his librarian to be a “master of the raging book . . . [and] a filter interposed between man and the torrent of books . . .“. Gasset further demands that he ought not do “. . . the simple administration of the things called book, but the adjustment, the setting to right of the vital function which is book”.

This is the story of the book from Zenodotus of Ephesus to Anthony Panizzi of the British Museum and from him to Melvil Dewey of Colum- bia University. The present-day master of the raging book was, at first, pre-eminently a bookman, a scholar and thereafter an innovator of many newer techiques but completely shrouded with them. The one-time library economy also changes its name to library science and presently seems to be well-poised for yet another change to library technology or at best to library engineering as a result of the growing accent on information retrieval methods in day-to-day work of a modern library. But the ad- vances from “economy” to “science” and with it to “engineering” are still short of a “philosophy” or “principle” to guide the doings of many things called librarianship.

While the search for a philosophy or principle was still in progress, formal courses in librarianship, even without a philosophical base to it, were introduced. At this turn of events, the library scene was also

1 Jose Ortegay Gasset (1961). The mission of the librarian. Translated by James Lewis and Ray Carpenter. Antioch Review, XXI, 133-54.


changing fast. The one-time bookman and scholar-librarian had already been subjected to many ups and downs. The decline of scholarship in him under the plethora of techniques had, however, been at the cost of his status, popularity and public image. But libraries were growing anyway with the spread of public education. Along with this development librarianship was emerging as a distinct vocation but within the conflicts of the scholarly traditions of the past and the explosion of knowledge and readers.

It was in the process of these changes, that library courses were introduced, for the first time in the universities. The first course of this kind was inaugurated by Karl Dziatzko of the Prussian Instructions fame in Gijttingen in 1886. The second course was organized by yet another celebrity, Melvil Dewey, a year later in 1887 in New York at Columbia University. The first course of this kind in the British Commonwealth of Nations was, however, started at one of the then Indian Universities (the Panjab) at L h a ore (now in Pakistan) in 1915 by an American Librarian, Asa Don Dickinson of the Best Book Series fame.

The German school and those that followed it in Europe, in keeping with their earlier traditions, continue to base library courses on auxiliary sciences, such as, palaeography and other such areas of scholarship which had their roots in librarianship. 1 The Ecole des Chartes in Paris (founded in 1821 for archival training outside the academic orbit of universities) is, perhaps, the extreme example of this type of European training. As against the accent on public libraries in the library courses of American schools, the German schools tailored themselves solely to suit the needs of scholarly libraries; so much so that training for popular libraries was neglected until 1939 when the Deutsche Volksbticherei- schule at Leipzig was established mainly for the purpose of training librarians for public libraries. The American library training, as de- signed by Dewey, on the other hand, was basically that of trade schools but within the confines of a university-filing, shelving, handwriting, typing and things of like nature overcrowded the American library school catalogues which, in the main, seemed to provide “the best obtainable advice, with specific suggestions on each of the hundreds of questions which arises from the time a library is decided to be desirable till it is in perfect working order . . .“.2 “The education needed”, so said Melvil Dewey in a recruiting talk to a group of college women, “is the best attainable; a college training, to begin with, if possible; the wider

1 Alfred Hessel, op. cit., Pp. 123-24. The text in these pages is based here on the translator’s materials.

2 See Robert B. Leigh (1950). Public Library in the U.S. P. 204. New York: Columbia University Press.

8 A. KHURSHID

reading and study in addition the better, for absolutely every item of information comes into play. It is specially important in most reference libraries to know German and French. . . . A general acquaintance with history and literature, specially English and American, with literary history is essential and at least something of the science is important. . . . We greatly prefer college-bred women in selecting new librarians.“1

Despite this matter of fact espousing with scholarship, the Columbia school “had a leaning to attach importance of professional work to manual labor of purely clerical nature, which had made the library work unattractive and distasteful.“z Even this type of trade school or “training of enlightened apprenticeship”,3 was not acceptable to Charles Poole who maintained that on-the-job training was sufficient for librarians. The British scene, largely affected by its empirical orientation of semi-apprentice system, sought a compromise between the German and American systems. The only graduate full-time library school until as late as 1946, was the School at the University College, London (founded in 1919). Such schools have increased in number over the years and some even award separate additional degrees in master of science in information studies/information science. The other courses, both undergraduate and post-graduate, taught at various polytechnic institutes are prescribed by the Library Association and the candidates are subjected to a national examination conducted and supervised by the association. Besides, degree courses at the level of B.A. and B.Sc. in library studies and on information science and also offered by a number of colleges and polytechnic institutes, etc. The subjects covered by the term librarianship, for these courses are wide and varied. With emphasis on practical aspects of librarianship, the Library Association courses, tend to encompass theoretical aspects of classification, largely drawn from logic and other related disciplines. While its course on the history of English literature was a subject of criticism in the past, the revised syllabus provides a series of alternative papers on the literature of various branches of knowledge, such as, agriculture, social science, etc. besides a host of courses on specialized branches of librarianship, such as, the library and the community, indexing, dissemination of information, the promotion of library use, the library and local history, international and comparative librarianship, etc. The University College, London school, on the other hand, groups library courses in its programme separately for the master of arts in library studies and master of science

1 See Lucile F. Fargo (1936). Preparation for School Library Work. P. 94. New York: Columbia University Press.

s Charles C. Williamson (1923). Training for Library Service. P. 3. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

s Keyes D. Metcalf et al. op. cit., p. 17.


in information studies. Such courses include historical and social studies in librarianship, regional studies in bibliography and librarianship, comparative studies in librarianship, communication studies, information science, storage, retrieval and dissemination, historical and analytical bibliography, classification and cataloguing studies, the study of reading, manuscript studies and management studies.

The growing pressure of the Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureau (ASLIB), as a matter of fact, was responsible for gradual changes leading to full-time graduate studies in the United Kingdom; so much so that the Library Association not only sponsored such courses in different graduate study centres of higher learning but also included post-graduate courses in its own programme. ASLIB also offers courses on special materials, library and information techniques and, mechanization. Courses leading to the degrees of M.Phil and Ph.D. have also been included in the curriculum of the University College, London. The Queen’s University of Belfast, the University of Strath- Clyde and University of Sheffield have also instituted a research programme, leading to the degree of Ph.D. CNAA research degree, leading to M.Phil, is also available by part-time study at Leeds Polytechnic.

These developments were taking place when knowledge and later, information explosion had resulted in unmanageable growth of library resources. To deal with the situation, use of many and varied techniques in library work became sine qua non. The details of technical routines as a result, it seems, have almost submerged the scholarly traditions of librarianship beneath them.

From Shera, to Danton and to Leon Carnovsky, however, each attributes the resulting professional crises, to the lack of a philosophy in librarianship. The Carnegie Corporation, which has done so much for the good of librarianship all over the world, was also concerned about this “lack of scholarship among the American Librarians.“1 The Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago, nicknamed as GLS, was founded in 1926 to find an answer to this problem, under a subsidy from the corporation. A number of surveys were also sponsored and financed by it. William Munthe’s survey of American Librarianship from European Angle (1939) was one of them. Two other studies in the area are currently in progress: University of Maryland Manpower Study, a section of which directly deals with library education; the second study, financed by Carnegie Corporation again is a “highly subjective inquiry into the sociological foundations of library education.“2

1 Ralph Mum (1936). Conditions and Trends in Education for Librarianship. P. 36. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

2 Jesse H. Shera, op. cit.

10 A. KHURSHID

In order to dispel the dilemma of a philosophy, the Graduate Library School, on its coming into being, pledged to orient its programme towards research bias with a view to probing the areas of philosophical base of librarianship as well. The founding of this school, however, met with criticism for its belief in “science of librarianship”. Amongst its critics was C. S. Thompson,1 who argued that “librarianship has won an honourable place for itself without particular attention to research. . . . It is incumbent upon librarians to be well-read persons and it would be a catastrophe leading to chaos if they were to engage in investigation.”

Danton,s on the other hand, asserts that philosophy is quite different from science. And therefore, “science of librarianship” cannot as such embody in it the philosophy of librarianship as well. He says “science deals fundamentally with acquisition of facts and data; the description of these data through definition, analysis, and classification, explanation of them by ascertainment of causes, evaluation and the formulation of laws. A philosophy, on the other hand, is interested in aims and functions, in purposes and meaning”.

The absence of such a philosophy has, however, affected the sociological foundation of librarianship itself; so much so that librarians are accorded the status of something inferior in society; their training is laughed at and their profession is taken as to be that of the social and educational rejects. Placed in this situation librarians have failed to work out a scientific framework for practical procedures, a code of professional unity, an apparatus for distinguishing duties and activities of several types of library workers, and finally a precise and clear statement defining the purposes of libraries and their own status and role in society.

Despite this obvious handicap, libraries have long existed and have been instrumental in the smooth working of modern democracy and also in inculcating the idea of harmony and understanding in readers through their book-oriented services. Even such controversial and emotional matters, as censorship, unrestricted accessibility to library resources, etc., are duly taken care of by librarians through the Bill of Rights-type of open declaration but their implicit faith in impersonal attitude in library work, even to-day, hinders any self-pronouncement on their part, about the good work in their trade-that is librarianship. Many librarians talk of the social function of libraries but differ widely among themselves about their duties and functions. Some believe in a passive role-in serving the readers when they ask for it, but others stand for an

1 C. S. Thompson (1931), (1932). D o we want a library science. Library Journal, LVI, 58 l-87,745-47 ; LVII, 680.

2 J. Periam Danton, op. cit., p. 535.


aggressive role of reaching to the readers, even outside the four walls of the library. As a result, perhaps, of this indecision as to their role, the library’s public tends to develop a lukewarm attitude towards the whole affair-from library down to its services and to its librarian. Not that society does not appreciate the value of libraries but people take them for granted as something to be proud of, like a beautiful school building or even a museum. They, however, treat them as nothing beyond an instrument of education, though it may be as indispensable as black- board, furniture, apparatus, etc.

Against this background the first attempt to devise a philosophy for librarianship was made by S. R. Ranganathanr in 193 1 when he devised his famous Five Laws of Library Science. The Laws are:

(1) Books are for us. (2) Every reader his book. (3) Every book its reader. (4) Save the time of the reader. (5) Library is a growing organism. From 1931 to date a number of changes have taken place even in

librarianship but Ranganathan’s “five laws” reveal only two conceptual changes, as pointed out by the author of the Laws himself in 1963 : “One is the generalization of the concept ‘Books’; this has been emphasized in recent years in the term c6Documentation”. The second change is the generalization of the term “Growth”z as well. The term “growing organism” in the fifth law was initially used in the sense of “child growth”, i.e. growth involving steady increase in overall size. But the concept initially did not recognize the existence of conserving library. For this reason, the original concept has now been enlarged by Ranganathan to include the concept of growth by replacement of constituents without increasing the over-all size.

In these Yaws”, to quote Sheras, “Ranganathan anunciated a philosophy of librarianship that harmonizes with the American concept of service. He has said in effect, that the function of the library, is to maximize the utility ofgraphic records for the benefit of society. Certainly there is nothing there that the American cannot either trust or respect”.

According to Danton ,4 however, the “five laws” do not attempt “to define the functions of library activity on any other basis than that of present-day good library service; the discussion is not an open-ended enquiry into the validity of functions and activities. Most of it is further

1 S. R. Ranganathan (1963). Five Laws of Library Science Bombay: Asia Publishing House. 2 Ibid. 3 Jesse H. Shera (1962). S. R. Ranganathan-one American view. Pakistan Library Review,

IV, 7. 4 J. Periam Danton, op. cit., p. 532.

12 A. KHURSHID

limited to public library work”. The problem, according to him, lies in the philosophy of the society itself. The individual lives a full life by participating in the institution of the society of which the library is one of the institutions. The library philosophy, according to him, should, therefore, begin from this point-whether it is essential to democracy; essential to government; essential to education?”

E. J. Reece,l on the other hand, looks into this problem by analysing the following components; the influence of books and libraries on the history of civilization; the social penetration of books, stressing the library’s unique position at the centre of the currents set up by economic, social, civic, cultural, vocational, recreational and leisure groups; the library and citizen; the psychology of readers; map of knowledge as a factor in developing the library collection. But even then he does not get any answer and hurries to conclude “perhaps they are not components of philosophy, perhaps they are too practical”.

They are, however, not too practical either. They are also not short of the components of a philosophy. The difficulty, however, lies in the fact that librarians by nature tend to avoid any controversy of a public nature that may arise out of any restatement of purposes as opposed to the ones inherited by them as part of their library culture. Or, they have become so destined to the legacy of the past heritage that they fear that any change in the status quo may result in the decline of the “art of librarianship” itself. The changes brought about by the establishment of the Columbia school, the introduction of the printed card service, the inauguration of the Graduate Library School, and more recently, the use of computers in library operations have already been creating many apprehensions. Even today, there are many Jasts and Pooles who may cry “Ah; the art of librarianship is dying” on seeing changes taking place in their profession.

The Ranganathan laws seem to have met the same fate. Danton’s criticism of their being based on good library service does not make them impractical either, since philosophical statement, of necessity, has to be based on certain normative ideals. His criticism of their relevance to the public library alone, also does not hold good either. The laws, according to Shera, are applicable to American library practice, although this may not be true in most of the libraries in India, limited as they are, in resources, both in terms of money and trained man-power. And when Shera speaks of American library practice, he does not refer to that of public libraries alone. However, the Ranganathan laws do not include anything in them which may define clearly and once for all, the place of a library in society-an essential component of a philosophy according

1 E. J. Reece (1936). Curriculum in Library Schools. New York: Columbia University Press.


to Danton and Reece. Now, how best this important function of the library can become an integral part of the Five Laws of Library Science. Could we say, “library, is an educational, scientific and cultural institution” taking the last three but one cognate words from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The word Yscientific” in it was added to the original name UNECO to place emphasis on the role of scientific humanism in the educational and cultural activities of this world organization, All the components of a philosophy, as pointed out by Reece, will thus be part of these Zu7ar.s if the five laws be enlarged to open with this addendum: “The library is an educational, scientific and cultural institution”. The name of the laws will thus change into Six Laws of Library Science. The relevance of culture to special libraries may, however, be questioned but even the activities of research institutions are directed to the advancement of culture and civilization in one way or the other and as such special libraries also contribute to their development and are very much cultural institutions.

A philosophy thus defined now brings us to the main question: What are the intellectual foundations of librarianship and for that matter library education. In identifying them, it would seem necessary to go back to the history of librarianship once again in order to isolate the attributes that may characterize a good library and make a good librarian. For, it is then we will be able to set out some criteria both for the profession and professional education. Jean-Baptiste Cotton Des Houssayes required in his librarian vast literary acquisitions, an exact and precise knowledge of arts and science, great facility of expression and exquisite politeness. To Cassiodorus, interpretation of knowledge, sound learning, and pursuit of reading and copying of books were essential traits of a librarian. Gabriel Naude believed that the librarian, like kings and poets, had to be born. A specialist in the sources of information and in the service of a broader and more intensive scholarship were amongst the qualities he desired in a librarian. To John Dury, a librarian was a factor, trader, treasurer, and dispenser of knowledge. F. A. Ebert, required in a librarian a profound knowledge of history, acquaintance with literary history, bibliography and basic disciplines; a neat and rapid handwriting; some knowledge of carpentry and, ability to repair books.

Viewed in this background, modern librarianship also seems to echo more or less the same sermons although a slight difference in their emphasis is discernible. Lament over the loss of scholarship is not un- common as a result of detailed techniques that have crept in the library profession. The professional literature of mid-1940s, as summarized in

14 A. KHURSHID

the Y&r’s work in Libruriunshi~,l points out the danger that scholarship may submerge beneath the details of these techniques and technical routines. J. H. Wellard stresses the need for acquaintance with books, readers and society as a whole. L. Warburton advocates the knowledge of modern literature and literature of sciences in a librarian. So also Reece who places more emphasis on knowledge of books than of techniques. Book appreciation, scholarly disposition, social mindedness, according to him, should, therefore, be sought in library school recruits. Carl White, on the other hand, emphasizes a bookman-oriented curriculum in library schools. Herman Henkle pleads for prescribing knowledge of history, sociology and psychology as prerequisites for entry in librarianship. John Dale Russell speaks of five qualities that should be required in a librarian: (1) citizenship; (2) scholarship; (3) administra- tive ability; (4) technical ability; (5) an acquaintance with all fields of knowledge and somewhat more specialized knowledge of several fields of general interest in addition to knowledge of research methods. Keeneys stresses importance of special sciences and citizenship in the library school curriculum with emphasis on substantial background of general scholarship. Joseph L. Wheeler lays stress on the need for basing library school curriculum on subjects of academic value. Raymond Irwin emphasizes the essential unity of librarianship, through a composite subject such as applied bibliography which according to him includes palaeography, service, book selection and cataloguing and classification.

Thus it becomes evident that in the face of the current library practices librarianship has emerged as an important branch of learning and, therefore, requires sound academic background for entry into this profession. The training has also been widely recognized as an important graduate study, but there are differing views over an agreed objective for such a training and the intellectual basis of it. Shera,s however, complains of “too much cheap help in the library” and the lack of intellectual structures in library work itself. Some of the reasons attri- buted by him to this state of affairs are inadequate monetary reward, predominance of females, over-emphasis on techniques and failure of the American Library Association to bring out scholarly publications. Thompson3 advocates the revival of booklore but cautions about a catastrophe if librarians were to engage in investigation. J. Christian Bay,* comparing librarianship with the medical profession, says “our

1 The Ear’s Work in Librarianshi& 1939-45 (1949). Vol. 12. J. H. P. Pafford (ed.). London: Library Association. Pp. 201-09.

2 Jesse H. Shera (1931). Handmaidens of the learned world. LibraryJournal, LVI, 21-3. s C. S. Thompson, op. cit. 4 J. Christian Bay (1931). Every serious voice deserves a hearing. Library Journal, LVI,

748-50.


work like that of medical men involves methods derived from philosophy, history, sociology (including education), linguistics and the inclusive sciences. . . . Our American forms of cataloging and classification of books in libraries constitute work of a rank equal to any other scientific study anywhere.”

Robert E. Rogers,1 on the other hand, emphasized the role of librarian to bring together the right book and the right reader. The lowering of intellectual standards, according to him, is the result of opening libraries to everyone. William Warner Bishop2 visualizes the role of the librarian as an escort introducing authors of books to those who seek knowledge and who seek God. In this process he may not contribute greatly to the sum of human knowledge, but his skills that make the book productive are nevertheless useful to human knowledge. Gasset, however, wants his librarian to become a master of books, a “doctor and hygienist of reading, a filter interposed between man and torrent of books”.3 Danton draws attention to a small but growing corpus of professional literature that is definitely scientific. Enumerative bibliography for example, is a scientific work in approach. To W. C. Berwick Sayers,” “a log of wood with a book at one end and a librarian at another would make a perfect library. . , . It is the personal element that the librarian brings into the library which gives it validity.”

Leon Carnovsky,6 also agrees that librarianship is an intellectual discipline, based, as it is, on certain operational activities which require a higher degree of judgement. “It is almost, though not quite literally true, that a librarian is made, not born. Their certain desirable qualities include ability to get along with people, a bookish interest, imagination and a mind that prefers organization and order to confusion and dis- order.” His selection should, therefore, depend, of necessity, first, upon a certain kind of personality, and, second, upon his possessing a certain kind of academic background. Metcalf and others,7 plead that the nature of library work is such “that a good background of both sciences and literature is of great value [to a librarian]. . . . It is not that, they say, a “librarian must know everything but that he must have a certain familiarity with many fields so that intelligent work may be done in almost any subject. And second, if the librarian has developed subject

1 Robert E. Rogers (1931). This bequest ofwings. LibraryJournal, LVI, 783-85. 2 William Warner Bishop (193 1). Men behind the books. LibraryJournal, LVI, 944. 3 Jose Ortegay Gasset, op. cit. 4 J. Periam Danton. Plea for a philosopy of librianship. Library Quarterly, IV, 538. s W. C. Berwick Sayers. Introduction. In Five Laws of Library Science. S. R. Raganathan.

First edition. P. 16. s Leon Carnovsky (1962). Preparation for the librarians profession. Library Qwrter&, XII,

406. 7 Keyes D. Metcalfetal., op. cit., pp. 14-19.

16 A. KHURSHID

knowledge in some special field it will prove useful . . .“. They further say, “librarianship takes its theoretical foundations from more than one discipline: from sociology for its institutional characteristics, from education for its cultural values, and from philosophy for its general theory of learning and knowledge that must give direction and meaning to its work”. The theoretical foundation of library science, they, therefore, conclude should be identified and worked into a course that “may give meaning and purpose to the whole curriculum”.

Speaking of the library science curriculum the Public Library Inquiry1 on the other hand, observes :

Some of the specialized library techniques are based upon prolonged intellectual training. But the intellectual training consists of acquaintance with the whole range of knowledge rather than the one or two fields of science or learning usually underlying other professions. Thus, it is frequently said that librarianship is a specialization in generalism . . . . It calls for prolonged training, possesses intellectual content, and involves complex judgement in applying general knowledge to specific uses.

Of the librarians, the Inquiry, further says that as a group “librarians have backgrounds, interest and temperaments, normal of persons en- gaged in the intellectual occupations”. On the basis of its finding, the Inquiry concludes that, “It is safe to say that the result will be in the direction of establishing library training on a level appropriate for an organized intellectual profession”.

The same Inquiry, however, points out the alarming fact that, “less than 3 of the present library personnel defined as professional have achieved the minimum formal education required for regular status in any of the organized learned professions and only 5 have met the minimum standard of preparation set by the librarians themselves for professional positions”.s

In 1963, Ralph Shaw, came out with an even more startling figure. According to him, 9Oo/0 of the time of professional librarians is spent on clerical or sub-professional routines. The failure to draw a line between professional and sub-professional, and sub-professional and clerical work, so desperately emphasized in the Williamson Reports and the reports that followed it has at long last submerged the encyclopeadic librarian of Lawrence Clark Powell,4 the bookman of Morrison Wilden-Hart5

1 Robert B. Leigh, op. cit., p, 190. 2 Ibid. s Charles C. Williamson, pa&n. 4 Lawrence Clark Powell (1959). The elements of a good librarian. Wilson Library Bulletin,

XXXIV, 42-46. 5 Morrison Wilden-Hart (1956). The librarian-technician or bookman. Library Association

Record, LVIII, 382-87.


and the scholar of Ralph Munnr beneath the detailed techniques for which fears have been expressed in the literature over the years. And under this dilemma and the pressure from the field for mere skilled trainees, the library schools had to deviate from the intellectual core in the library courses. So much so that the Library Journal posed this big question : Is there anything academic in library science ?s

To remedy this situation, a number of suggestions have been made in the professional literature. Some suggest articulation of related theoretical disciplines with the library curriculum. Yet, there are differing views about relevance or otherwise of such courses with librarianship. Sheras says it is “social epistemology” which, in his view, involves all fields of knowledge, the whole spectrum of man’s behaviour and the dissemination of knowledge through society. This is an essential component of library courses according to him. To Irwin, it is a group of subjects which he calls “applied bibliography”. The accent, in such a course, is on paleography, historical bibliography, materials, and, research, etc. Abraham Kaplan,4 on the other hand, calls “metasciences” as his ideal which includes such disciplines like, mathematics, logic, linguistics, semantics and theory of information, and maybe cyber- netics. To Ranganathan, it is “universe of knowledge” which is like a gamut drawing upon many disciplines but condensing them into one course in order to provide a general understanding and background of human knowledge. Metcalf and others have suggested inclusion of sociology, education and philosophy as a base for library education.

It may, however, sound that a library is something like everything for everyone and librarians may perhaps, be required to profess, what Bacon once did, that “every knowledge is mine”. Those who are moderate in their demands, they too, tend to expect their librarians to possess their own background knowledge in order to be able to solve their specific problems. However, two points emerge quite clearly. One, that a librarian should possess love for books, or in the words of Kaplan, “the love of ideas, the love of truth, or even the love of books”. But this would not require a creative scholarship in a librarian as desired by Bishop and Munn. Whether this requirement of love of books, etc. is to

1 Ralph Munn (1936). Conditions and Trends in Education for Librarianship. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

2 Six library school graduates discuss (1966). What is wrong with our library schools. Library Journal, XC, 1774.

3 Jesse H. Shera (1964). Introduction and welcome. In A. J. Goldwyn, et al. (ed.). Education of Science Information Personnel. Cleveland: Center for Documentation Research, School of Library Science. Western Reserve University [1965], p. 4; also Towards a new dimension for Iibrary education. Library &arter&v, LVII (1963), 313-18.

4 Abraham Kaplan (1964). The age of the symbol-a philosophy of library education. Library Quarterly, XXXIV, 301.

18 A. KHURSHID

be completed through library courses is yet another debatable point because library schools can perhaps make a better-educated man still better but cannot perhaps make him an educated man if he as a trainee lacks the appropriate background to be able to like and adore books and similar things. A librarian’s success would, therefore, very much depend on his being the kind of person, and equally on his having the kind of academic background, appropriate to the work of librarianship.

The question, however, still remains as to whether librarianship is everything for everyone and more appropriately a study in ‘cgeneralism” as Leigh calls it. Do we need to have a separate academic subject of its own as suggested by Shera, Irwin, Kaplan or Ranganathan. Or, should we prescribe a general but sound college education as a pre-requisite for entry into the profession. This point may, however, be kept in mind that books, ideas, information, and readers fall within the area of work of a librarian. He is essentially an important element or factor of the total communication system in a society. He is, more precisely, Marshall McLuhan’s medium although he himself may, perhaps, not agree with this. In any case, “Books are for use”, “Every book its reader”, and “Every reader his book”, are his ideals. To be able to reach them one has to adopt an aggressive role of interpretation and dissemination of knowledge to those who are in search or in need of them. This kind of work, however, requires lots of research in library work so that a librarian may be able to perform his duties efficiently, more effectively and, most importantly, avoid any loss of time to the seekers of knowledge.

In making books productive or easily accessible to readers, however, two important jobs are to be necessarily performed. Selection of the best books in keeping with the problems and needs of readers is fundamental. Then they should be organized in a way to provide direct and easy access to them. Now, the question: Can these functions be taught and are they intellectual? According to Carnovsky,l “a bookish sense to be applied in book selection is imperative; it is best achieved, though not solely, through college education. . . . If book selection is based on bookish sense, it is intellectual but mere acquaintance with book selection aids would not make it so.” Similarly organization of books, in two respects, involves intellectual work; one, the construction of the cataloguing code and classification systems; and the other, the judgement as to when codes and rules are not to be applied. But here again, mere knowledge of these codes and systems in itself would not make cataloguing and classification intellectual disciplines. Likewise, critical bibliography has long been a distinct intellectual discipline in this field. Rather, scholarship in librarianship had its root in this singular work of

1 Leon Carnovsky, ofi. cit., pp. 404-l 1.


immense research value to literature and learning. Enumerative bibliography based on authentication of documents, as in critical bibliography, is again the most solid scientific research work in the field of librarianship. Bibliographical control, therefore, constitutes an intellectual discipline. So does the history of libraries in the background of scholarship, popular education, communication. Psychology and sociology of reading type of courses in librarianship also require a good deal of research orientation. So much so that the theme of the INTAMEL Meeting, (1973, India) dealt with the problems of research in developing public library systems in metropolitan cities around the world. The library literature in this area has also considerably grown over the years. A good example of this is Herbert Goldhor’s book, An Introduction to Scientzjic Research in Librarianship (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, 1969).

The objective of library education, therefore, should primarily be that of promoting book culture, through those who are to receive education for library work because the foundation of librarianship itself rests on book culture and, therefore, any education to prepare for this purpose should develop its courses for and around this culture if librarians are to serve effectively their functions in society.

The grant of academic status to the profession is retarded by yet another confusion which prevails in our attitude, or more precisely, in our treatment and classification ofvarious jobs in libraries.

Over-emphasis on routine techniques seems to be the goal of librarianship. The library schools, therefore, cannot but help producing tech- nique-ridden librarians almost at all levels. The man-power crisis, of the late sixties, also resulted in a liberal admission policy. The result was that the trainee’s ability as a bookman or even as an educated man, capable of promoting book culture, was not taken into account in his selection. The absence of any certification apparatus to control entry to the profession is yet another factor which has added to the complexity of the problems.

These problems, however, according to Carnovsky,l can be solved by exercising strict control over the admission of students, because the success of a librarian depends on his being a certain kind of person and, his possessing a certain kind of academic background. The selection process should, therefore, be directed towards the candidate who has the qualities of bookish interest, imagination, and orderliness. He should also possess a general education (humanities, social sciences or natural sciences) of considerable breadth and quality. The third attribute according, to Carnovsky again, would be training in the field relevant

1 Leon Carnovsky, ibid.

20 A. KBURSHID

to the type of library which the candidate proposes to work in (for example, for work in a college library: college education, methods and materials of advanced study; for reference work: mastery of methods and material in the subject of candidate’s interest, etc.).

The next step which needs to be taken in this direction is the elimination of routine know-how type courses at graduate level in order to provide enough time in the programme for book-related courses based on theoretical principles. The routine know-how type of course, on the other hand, should be made a pre-requisite for admission to graduate courses. Those who do not fulfil this requirement should have to take these courses in summer on a non-credit basis.

As well, steps should be taken to define clearly the various cadres of library workers. Education for librarianship, according to D. D. Sudar,i should aim at producing scholars, educators and library theoreticians at the higher level. The second type of education which he calls “education for library science”, on the other hand, should produce senior and junior professionals, imaginative administrators and intelligent prac- titioners. The third level of training, which he groups under education for library service, should produce well-trained library workers, called library technicians. This level of training should be a terminal course at junior college level. But those who intend to go up, should be allowed admission at graduate level after fulfilling the requisite academic requirements.

The gap in general education at junior college level should be required to be made up by taking non-credit courses outside library school as discussed earlier. If need be, a certain age limit can be fixed for taking graduate courses after completing under-graduate requirements. The courses at these three-tier levels should, however, not be overlapping. In addition a certification examination at national level would provide a good apparatus for further elimination of inadequately- trained librarians from entry into the profession.

The statement of policy, on “library education and manpower”, adopted by the Council of American Library Education (June 30, 1970), on the other hand, groups library personnel into five categories and prescribes basic qualification for each category as below:

(1) Senior librarian/senior specialist Experience+ master’s degree

(2) Librarian/specialist master’s degree

(3) Library associate/associate specialist Bachelor’s

1 D. D. Sudar (1966). Emerging structure in librarianship. FeZkiter, XII, 5-13.

INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF LIl3RARY EDUCATION 21

degree with or without course work in library science

(4) Library technical assistant /technical assistant At least two years

of college education with or without elementary training in library science

(5) Clerk Business course

In the process of streamlining the core or foundation courses and in categorizing the library cadres, the library schools even instituted a sixth-year programme for advanced studies in an attempt to deal with the problems summed up above but the findings of Anna C. Hall,1 in 1969, point out that the practising librarians still place high priorities on detailed techniques and abilities to deal with related subject matters, and the library schools, on their part, continue to teach most of the factual information to the neglect of higher intellectual abilities and skills.

All told, the measures, suggested above, for restricting entry to the profession and for straightening the training programme, with an eye on scholarly disposition in it, may perhaps help remove uncertainties from our midst, the existence of which has been agitating our minds over the years as is evident from the professional literature of our time. Then, perhaps, the elements of scholarship in the library art, on the loss of which librarians have been lamenting, will again become an integral part of the library work thus making it possible for librarianship to come out of the deluge of detailed techniques. Intellect, scholarship and librarianship will go hand in hand thereby making libraries, more effectively, a living force for the “enrichment of mankind”, as is the goal of the Charter of the Book (1971) and also as an important apparatus of the total “communication process” of our society, as L. R. Wilson wanted them to be. The library, as a result, will no more be a place for exhibition of decoration pieces of civilization in our society but will turn into a busy market place of ideas, imaginations and things that make life beautiful and alluring. With all this, the librarian will emerge as a helpful “guide” of the past and an able ‘(escort” to the future. His job will then surely be considered intellectual, requiring, of course a training worthy of academic acceptance.

1 Anna C. Hall (1969). Selected Educational Objective for Public Service Librarians: rl Taxonomic Approach. Pittsburgh, Pa : University of Pittsburgh.

Documents

Intellectual foundations of library education