Near or at desk, 28.
j. Do you inspect carefully all books returned?
Affirmative, 18; negative, 8.
k. Is this inspection made when books are discharged or when shelved?
When discharged, 8; before shelved, 8; at both times, 3.
The most interesting thing brought out by this investigation is the fact that it has taken your committee two years to ascertain and tabulate the simple facts regarding methods of procedure, in a very limited number of institutions, in the performance of only two of the many operations that go to make up their current work. From this it may be imagined how long and difficult a task it would be to carry out a really comprehensive survey of all the work of all kinds of libraries as currently performed. And yet such a survey would appear to be a necessary preliminary to a study of the subject whose aims should be definite suggestions toward the improvement of this work in the direction of greater efficiency. It would seem, at present, a task beyond this committee's powers, although we may be prepared to take general advisory charge of such a work if others can be induced to undertake the details. Possibly some of the library schools may regard this as profitable employment for their students.
In the next place we are struck with the complete negative that our results place upon the general impression that the various details of modern library work are becoming—possibly even have already become—thoroughly standardized. No one thinks, of course, that everyone does everything alike; but we are apt to believe that there are now a few generally approved ways of doing each thing, and that each library selects from these the one that suits its own conditions and limitations. On the contrary, we seem to be in an era of free experiment. Nothing in the two sets of operations that we have studied—not even the existence and value of the operations themselves—would appear to be regarded as sacred. Everyone has his own methods and is apparently satisfied, either with them, or with his own ways of departing from them and groping after something better.
We cannot regard this as altogether desirable. Doubtless no one most efficient way of doing any of these things can be settled upon, so long as conditions differ, but we cannot believe that differences so fundamental and complexities so varied as those revealed in this report are due merely to differing conditions, and that each is the best in the place where it is practised. We must conclude, therefore, that many of our libraries are doing these particular things, and by inference others also, in wasteful, inefficient ways.
Having made a survey of the facts, the next step would be to inquire concerning all variations from a method selected as the simplest in each case—possibly accessioning as practised at Pratt Institute Free Library or the Public Library of the District of Columbia and the charging system at Pittsburgh or at East Orange, New Jersey. The cost of these variations in time and money and the skill necessary in carrying them out, should be ascertained and the practical value of each, if it has any, should be found. It may then be possible to select, for a library of a given type, a standard method of procedure, which will be, all things considered, the most efficient for it.
In regard to cost, the report of the sectional committee on the cost of cataloging, to be made at this conference, will doubtless throw some interesting light on the problem.