19.07.2013 Views

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)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!