Seeking a justification for the existence of libraries in the library literature is like pursuing a bibliographic will-o'-the-wisp. A rationale is often implied, even assumed, but it continues to be vague. One would expect every book on librarianship to contain one chapter on "philosophy," but authors tend instead to jump into long discourses on "service" without addressing the essential "why service" question. Others openly admit "There is no articulated philosophy of library science which is available for use by researchers confronting the major questions facing the discipline." 1
The fact that libraries prevail does not justify their existence. Their inability to rely upon a sound philosophical justification for their existence leaves them ill-prepared to establish goals and directions essential to meeting the needs of the changing society. Clarifying the role of libraries in society would provide the basis for a profession to truly serve its publics and to adjust effectively to a changing society. The following three principles seem to summarize the basic philosophy of an information-serving agency in our culture:
1. The primary purpose of libraries is to help guarantee equal and unrestricted access to information in our society.
2. The second purpose of libraries is to help develop the full potential of individuals in our society.
3. The third purpose of libraries is to expedite access to and transfer of information. 2
It is difficult to disagree with the notion that the foremost purpose of libraries is to help guarantee equal and unrestricted access to information in our society. David Dehler, a lawyer, has expressed what could be viewed as the basis for our existence when he wrote:
Now the right to information is a fundamental human right and therefore does involve considerations of principle. And therefore, although principle cannot dictate the precise policy to adopt, principle does require (1) that the problem of the right to information should be, at the policy level, among the priorities; (2) that a fundamental objective of the policy must be to make available to all persons true and complete information, i.e., the creation of an informed and sound public opinion; and (3) that in making available such information no distinction be made between the so-called elite, the establishment, the in in group, on the one hand, and the so-called ignorant, the poor, the disestablished, on the other. 3
Can libraries honestly claim that they do not emphasize service to the elite, the establishment, and the in-group? Surveys of public library users, for instance, indicate that they are college-educated, white, urban, and in white-collar occupations. By not recognizing the individual cognitive styles of their potential public, librarians limit library use largely to those individuals who are willing to access information through print sources. Acceptance of the notion that the role of libraries is to help guarantee equal and unrestricted access to information implies that libraries have a responsibility to make information, regardless of format or delivery system, available to all citizens of our society. Limiting access to information because of its format is nothing less than a covert form of censorship. Dorothy Broderick, in discussing the library's responsibility for organizing and providing knowledge for society, has said, "Note, the word is knowledge, not books, and the librarian who fails to use all media is narrowing the world he offers to his users."4
The concept of the supremacy of print must be replaced by the concept of the supremacy of information. Our society recognizes the power of information and may well reduce support for institutions that limit access to information by restricting the formats in which it is available. The public's growing awareness of alternatives to print was illustrated in a recent syndicated cartoon which showed a library user commenting to the librarian at a "service" desk:
NO VIDEOTAPES . . . NO CASSETTES . . . NO RECORDS . . . NO PRINTS OR PAINTINGS TO BE LOANED OUT . . . WHAT THE HECK KIND OF A LIBRARY IS THIS ANYWAY?
If the secondary purpose of libraries is to help develop the full potential of individuals in our society, then it is obvious that all formats of information must be made available to meet the variety of individual cognitive and enrichment styles represented by our diverse publics. Robert Gagne has emphasized that "no single medium is likely to have properties that make it best for all purposes."5 A responsible library should attempt to meet individual needs. Lester Asheim has summarized the library's charge in this way: " . . . the librarian has a role to play in identifying the most effective means for the dissemination of different kinds of messages to serve different purposes for different audiences."6
Finally, the third purpose of libraries is to expedite access to and transfer of information, irrespective of format. Expediting access relates to the acquisition, retention, and classification of information. Transfer of information includes such activities as referral and each aspect related to the dissemination of information from the source to the user. Size of image, sequencing of information, cognitive style are just three of hundreds of transfer factors which should concern librarians.
Libraries in America have entered an era of public accountability. Citizens, administrators, and politicians are demanding that libraries and other publicly supported institutions provide services that justify public investment. The inflation and reduced federal spending of the 1970s have resulted in diminished public funding, forcing many libraries into heightened competition with other agencies for shrinking resources. At the same time, results of a 1976 Gallup survey indicated that one third of Americans had either never used a library or had not visited one in the past decade, and half of our population had not used any library in the previous two years. A more recent study by Yankelovich, Skelly and White for the Book Industry Group showed "Slightly more than twenty six percent of the population use the library."
Why do so many Americans avoid libraries? Can it be because libraries are not providing what people desire and need? Library performance has always been difficult to measure, and they have tabulated quantitative statistics while desiring ways to truly estimate the real quality and impact of their services. They have compiled statistics on circulation, acquisitions, reference questions, and even the number of people entering and exiting their buildings, realizing that these numbers don't tell them what they really want to know, but needing some gauge for estimating their worth.
Perhaps more significantly, they have divided the public into two camps - "users" and "non-users" - and have tried to study how libraries relate to the lives of each. In many of these studies, they have learned that a library user tends also to be a "reader." In other words, users seek information and material for personal growth largely in print form. Both the 1975 and 1978 Gallup surveys corroborate this. Book loans and use of reference materials were the library services most frequently used by library users responding in the Gallup studies, while use of non-print resources such as films, recordings, and loan of art prints was considerably lower.
Interestingly, the Gallup polls showed library nonusers to be somewhat print-oriented also. While the most frequent reason for non-use of libraries in the 1975 Gallup study was lack of interest or need (35%) almost one third of the responses related specifically to print resources in the library. About thirty percent of these nonusers said they didn't use libraries because they didn't read, they had enough books at home, they preferred to purchase their own books, or felt they could satisfy their information needs outside the library through newspapers, magazines, and other media. Ironically, the 1978 Gallup study reported that seventy two percent of library users responding said they would be extremely, very, or slightly interested in borrowing films, records, and tapes, while sixty-one percent of all respondents (library users and nonusers) expressed an interest in these formats. 9
The reason that many library users and nonusers associate the library with print resources is directly related to the kinds of materials and services that many libraries offer. Don Roberts summarized his findings from a 1976 study: "My study last fall and in subsequent follow-up has proven that there is a strong disregard and lack of respect for non-print media in the profession." 10 This conclusion is not a fresh revelation for those who work closely with non-print. Many of us recognize that, with few exceptions, libraries are promoters of information predominantly in print format. This philosophy has been communicated to the public when national associations have promoted "The Right to Read" or "You Are What You Read" rather than "You Are What You Know," and when libraries have published listings in local newspapers of "New Books at the Library" rather than "New Materials at the Library." However, on a more subtle level, libraries express the same negative bias when they permit certain practices in relation to non-print services.
One of these practices is the failure to provide equal bibliographic and physical access for these services. Lack of equal bibliographic access is sometimes a result of failure to catalog non-print materials adequately, or segregating the print and non-print catalogs. Certain library policies can also have the effect of limiting physical access to these resources. Some libraries may enforce a policy which requires a separate borrower's card for non-print resources. Others may require stricter loan periods, fines, or fees for materials other than print, or impose age restrictions on use and circulation of non-print materials. Physical access may also be discouraged by locating non-print service areas in low visibility sections of the library and failing to publicize these locations. These examples will not change significantly as long as job ads read: Media person wanted with MLS from an accredited library school.
Some libraries feel they are really committed to non-print services, but this commitment is often for questionable reasons. In some cases, they introduce non-print services because it results in good public relations or because it is fashionable. However, when commitment does not accompany a new service, the service falters and is not developed to its full capacity.
Another motivation for developing non-print is that local, state, and federal monies have sometimes been available to fund special projects Again, this rationale expresses little or no commitment, and the serviced tends to be dropped when outside funding is eliminated. These programs may also falter when they are not accompanied by professionally prepared staff capable of creative program development. This means hiring non-print staff with more than one or two "media" courses from a library school.
Finally, many libraries, lacking the basic knowledge of the inherent communication properties of each medium and delivery system, view non-print services only as a means of increasing book circulation. This view was expressed in an article by a library educator who wrote, " . . . I think that media is used to best advantage when it serves as a catalyst to return children willingly to the world of print."'11
The bias toward print in libraries has been paralleled by a similar bias in library education,(l2,l3,l4) blatant in some instances, while subtle in many others. One of the subtle ways this bias can become evident is through terminology. For instance, the term "media," which includes all formats of communication, is used by some faculty only in reference to materials other than print. Similarly, information science is frequently equated with computers, rather than as a broader discipline concerned with the properties and behavior of information and its organization, dissemination, collection, storage, retrieval, interpretation, and use.
Occasionally, omissions in library education help to instill a bias toward print. Course syllabi, bibliographies, and handouts sometimes limit or omit references to non-print resources. Some faculty may reject student projects concerned with non-print. Faculty may spend class time discussing professional print associations, while making little or no reference to AECT, NAVA, ASIS, etc. Classes may be canceled for library conferences, but little encouragement may be provided for student attendance at information science or non-print conferences. Some reference and cataloging courses are still taught with little or no discussion of non-print information sources.
Some library school curricula demonstrate a print bias by covering all non-print in a separate course, rather than in an integrated curriculum of courses dealing with information in diverse formats. 15 In such programs, a large majority of course offerings may focus on print formats. Students may be advised to take one token non-print course but ten or eleven print-oriented courses for an MLS degree. Faculty advisors may communicate to students that non-print courses are valuable only for those planning to enter school media centers or pursue "media" librarianship as a career.
Sometimes library school offerings appear to include up-to-date course work in non-print but actually treat these topics cursorily. Pauline Wilson summarized this tendency in relation to information science curricula, which face problems somewhat similar to non-print in some library schools:
. . . in far too many schools - possibly even the majority - the information science component of the curriculum is merely cosmetic in nature, either a new name for an old course fluffed-out with updated language or a simple overview that constitutes little more than current awareness. 16
Ideally, there should be no discrimination between print, non-print, and computerized channels of information. Library educators should be preparing students to select, acquire, organize, disseminate, manage, and analyze all forms of information to meet the public's needs. Maybe Geddes was right when he titled an article, "AV: Too Important to Leave to the Library Schools."17
Ultimately, society is adversely affected when librarians and library schools limit the range of formats through which information can be obtained. The question is, why have library educators and librarians allowed themselves to disregard information in many formats that the public wants and would use?
The neglect of non-print in both libraries and library schools reflects the reluctance of the profession to adapt to the technological, informational ,informational and social changes of the past few decades. It is ironic that while our society has embraced these formats as vital and desirable elements of modern life, many librarians and library educators continue to view them as innovative and experimental. This perspective is understandable when we recall that libraries evolved alongside print technology. For decades, print was the sole vehicle for mass communication of ideas. As a result, print itself became an end in the eyes of many librarians rather than a means for human communication. When additional means of communication were developed which supplemented or substituted for the printed page, these were considered by many librarians to be deviations or frills.
An automobile executive once declared that his company was not in the business of selling cars, but selling transportation. A similar distinction can be made for libraries: They do not exist to provide books, but to provide information and enrichment. If library professionals could embrace this philosophy, libraries might begin to truly keep pace with society's needs. Information is too valuable in today's society for librarians not to recognize its value to library users. They must, as a profession, agree on the role of libraries in our society. With such an agreement, they could extend service to a wider spectrum of the public and take new pride in their profession.
l. John M. Christ, Toward a Philosophy of Educational Librarianship (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1972), p. 15.
2. Lynn Lundgaard, the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla. Discussion, July 8, 1981.
3. David Dehler, "The Right to Information," Revu de l'Uniuersite d'Ottawa 44 (October-December 1974), pp. 169-70.
4. Dorothy M. Broderick, "On Misplaced Devotion," School Library Journal 11 (January 15, 1965), p. 34.
5. Robert M. Gagne, "Media and the Learning Process," Presentation at the 1968 Division of Audiovisual Instruction Conference, Dallas.
6. Lester Asheim, "Introduction: Differentiating the Media," Library Quarterly 45 (January 1975), p. 3.
7. The Gallup Organization, The Role of Libraries in America (Frankfort, Ky.: Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives, 1975), p. 8.
8. "Book Industry Study Finds U. S. Still Is a Nation of Readers," Library Journal 103 (December 15, 1978), p. 2466.
9. The Gallup Organization, Book Reading and Library Usage: A Study of Habits and Perceptions (Princeton, N.J.: The Gallup Organization, Inc., 1978.)
10. Don Roberts, "'Printism' and Non-Print Censorship," Catholic Library World 48 (December 1976), p. 223.
11. James L. Thomas, "Turning Kids on to Print," Audiovisual Instruction 22 (September 1977), p. 34.
12. John W. Ellison, "Now Hear This! . . . A Potpourri of Reader Reaction to Ten of Library College Thought," Learning Today 10, (Winter 1977), pp. 4144.
13. Richard Palmer, "Interaction, Future Shock, ASIS and the Library Schools," in Information Politics. Proceedings of the ASIS 39th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, October 4-9, 1976.
14. Tefko Saracevic, "Information Science Education in the 1980's? A Blunt Offering for a Debate Coupled with Questions for Study and Recommendations." AS IS Management in the 1980's. Proceedings of the AS IS Annual Meeting, 1977, Vol. 14.
15. Karen Munday and John Ellison, "A Systematic Examination and Analysis of Non-Print Media Courses Taught in Library Schools, " Journal of Education for Librarianship 16 (Winter 1974), pp. 184-94.
16. Pauline Wilson, "Impeding Change in Library Education: Implications for Planning," Journal of Education for Librarianship 18 (Winter 1978), p. 161.
l7. George Geddes, "AV: Too Important to Leave to the Library Schools," Library Review) 28 (Spring 1979), pp. 14-18.