The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
80 <strong>The</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cali<strong>for</strong>nia</strong> <strong>Libraries</strong><br />
the library system; and<br />
• to serve as a meeting place <strong>for</strong> faculty and students.<br />
In a few cases, <strong>of</strong> course, departmental reading rooms become<br />
branch libraries, some <strong>of</strong> which grow to impressive proportions. Beyond<br />
the scope outlined above, however, diseconomies <strong>of</strong>ten begin to<br />
occur, and scholarship suffers as well. <strong>The</strong> convenience <strong>of</strong> branch<br />
libraries is beyond doubt (at least <strong>for</strong> the users in that discipline<br />
who are housed nearby), but there is considerable evidence that a<br />
decentralized system may hamper rather than help research--including<br />
research in those disciplines with branches. In the study <strong>of</strong> Syracuse<br />
and Ohio State previously cited,<br />
even when a branch was provided, the materials relevant to the<br />
branch's stated scope <strong>of</strong> subject coverage were widely dispersed<br />
throughout the system. <strong>The</strong> poor match observed among<br />
users, materials, and branches was particularly evident among<br />
the sciences. All but five <strong>of</strong> the 24 researchers interviewed<br />
from the sciences had access to a branch library associated<br />
with their disciplines. Nonetheless, all <strong>of</strong> those sampled had<br />
to consult a minimum <strong>of</strong> four different locations to achieve<br />
full exposure to documents <strong>of</strong> interest, and in many cases<br />
their materials were scattered among up to 12 different<br />
locations. 2<br />
Dougherty and Blomquist found in addition that there was no significant<br />
difference in the percentage <strong>of</strong> relevant documents to which<br />
researchers were exposed whether they had a branch library or not.<br />
Following their actual use patterns, those with a branch were exposed<br />
to 82.6 percent <strong>of</strong> the relevant documents, and those without a branch<br />
to 83.4 percent. <strong>The</strong>y concluded that there was no evidence to support<br />
"the belief that branch libraries provide greater physical access to<br />
relevant materials," despite "the proprietary feeling faculty have toward<br />
their branch libraries," and that "the concentration <strong>of</strong> relevant<br />
materials through decentralization may not significantly improve the<br />
user's access to potentially relevant materials." 3<br />
2 Dougherty and Blomquist, p. 77.<br />
3 Dougherty and Blomquist, pp. 77-78.