- Email: [email protected]
Falling through the cracks: just how much “history” is history?
Pergamon Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 26 (2002) 97–106
Falling through the cracks: just how much “history” is history? David Hickey*, Shelley Arlen George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, P. O. Box 117001, Gainesville, FL 32611-7001, USA
Abstract As academic programs grow increasingly interdisciplinary, a library may fail to acquire some works of importance to a discipline, simply because the books have been classified in an area outside a selector’s purview. To gain a perspective on the issue of interdisciplinary gaps in the collection, the authors researched the case of American and British History. Book reviews published in four major history journals for 1978, 1988 and 1998 were examined, and a classification was assigned to each reviewed work per the LC classification scheme. The resulting data confirm that more than half of the works that historians generally consult tend to be outside the traditional “history” LC call numbers. While each institution is unique in its organization and collecting interests, various ways to resolve the issue are discussed. This kind of analysis could be used to justify funding for interdisciplinary purchases. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Collection management; Interdisciplinary; LC classes; History
1. Introduction The last quarter of the twentieth century has seen a growing trend toward interdisciplinarity among academic subjects. Scholarly inquiry that crosses disciplines has become the norm, rather than the exception. Academics and professionals outside academia now agree that cross-disciplinary research can be a pivotal means to achieve path-breaking ideas. Indeed, the interaction of two or more academic disciplines that are usually considered distinct can strengthen and refine those separate disciplines. The Dean of the Graduate School at University of Michigan actually predicted in 1999 that interdisciplinarity will
* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹1-352-392-4919; fax: ⫹1-352-392-8118. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Hickey). 1464-9055/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 4 6 4 - 9 0 5 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 2 8 - 2
98
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
become the connective tissue that makes it more sensible for the discrete disciplines themselves to exist. [1] Historians now routinely consult works in sociology and anthropology, and faculty in the English Department regularly mine the literary research potentials of Native American Studies or the American Civil War. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to accommodate in current academic library practices, specifically in ways in which libraries are arranged and library budgets are allocated. In fact the very organizational structure of libraries eschews the cross-disciplinary framework in favor of one based on the traditional “pure” disciplines. Library procedures and policies simply do not lend themselves well to dealing outside these “neat and discrete” categories. Library classification schemes must, by definition, assign specific works to specific categories; after all, each work is given only one call number. The standard methods of acquisitions funding and of assigning collection responsibilities within a library also conform to this strict classification scheme. Such practices can frustrate faculty and librarians in acquiring new imprints that cross the lines of strict academic disciplines. The field of history, that broad term defining humankind’s past, has always depended upon other disciplines. In this respect, it may indeed be considered a forerunner among academic disciplines in the interchange of ideas and methods across academic boundaries. Unlike some other disciplines, history depends more heavily on books than articles for the exchange of ideas. Book reviews in academic journals indicate materials and topics pertinent to a field at a particular moment in time. Scholars use these reviews to increase their awareness of new books published in their own and relevant fields. Given that the bibliometric technique of citation analysis is recognized as useful in quantifying the degree of communication of knowledge, history is a particularly apt choice as a focus for the analysis of book reviews in the study of book acquisition in libraries. Taking the field of history as a model to see how one discipline overlaps with other disciplines, the authors looked at works reviewed in four major history journals at ten-year intervals covering a span of thirty years, and determined the LC call number assigned to each work. The quantified results of this study indicate the high degree to which the field of history intersects with other disciplines, as well as those specific disciplines with which it tends to most overlap. These results lead to a discussion of challenges faced by a history bibliographer in keeping up with the literature in history as an interdisciplinary field. Also discussed are possible strategies for a collection manager in any field to catch relevant materials before they “fall through the cracks.”
2. Literature review Much has been written about the growing interdisciplinary nature of contemporary scholarship as a whole, though comparatively little has been written on the implications of cross-disciplinary research for building library collections. Most notable among the discussions of the impact of this “cross-breeding” on libraries is the Fall 1996 issue of Library Trends. [2] Some studies have looked for evidence of the importation of ideas from one field of study to another, as do the many citation analyses that appear in the literature, such as Chubin, Porter and Rossini’s article [3]. A few studies have concentrated on a particular field
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
99
or discipline. Searing, for instance, discussed the impact of interdisciplinarity on women’s studies [4], Hurd has studied the implications of interdisciplinarity in the sciences for the overall organization of the library [5], and Greaves on materials in education [6]. ALA published Selection of Library Materials in Applied and Interdisciplinary Fields, a work of practical guidance that focused on collecting materials in race and ethnic studies, the radical left and right, and women’s studies [7]. Pickoff analyzed ways to improve patron access to interdisciplinary materials [8]. In one of the more practical articles, Metz and Foltin addressed the issue of “lost” subjects, when no one takes responsibility for collection management in those areas [9]. Lindholm-Romantschuk’s Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Flow of Ideas Within and Among Disciplines [10] explores the communication of information between the social sciences and the humanities. She analyzed those university press books noted in the Choice annual lists of Outstanding Academic Books; her sample comes from the lists for every other year between 1971 and 1990. According to her study, the supposed boundaries between disciplines may be more permeable than previously thought. Developing maps of communication flow in the social sciences and humanities, she determined that there is a tendency for scholars in each of these major knowledge domains to communicate primarily with scholars in disciplines in their own group. When there is communication across these two main groups, it is generally from the social sciences to the humanities.
3. Case study: history book selection at the University of Florida Smathers Libraries While smaller libraries may delegate their selection functions to a carefully profiled approval plan or distribute the duties to a few individual librarians by broad subject areas (i.e., humanities, social sciences and sciences), the sheer magnitude of the selection endeavor in large academic libraries precludes any one or two individuals from assuming the huge responsibility of selecting all or even a major portion of library materials. Such libraries have numerous academic programs to serve and large book budgets that must be spent within designated deadlines. In research libraries like the University of Florida Smathers Libraries, the collection development function is generally distributed among the librarians according to individual expertise, with one person taking responsibility for the bibliographic and instructional needs of one or several academic departments. Library materials selection for a discipline such as history, having a great number of faculty and students engaged in research and a large worldwide publishing output, has been divided into portions by different regions and sub-topics such as Mediterranean history and history of science. In order to get access to the information regarding other disciplines, Smathers Libraries history selectors have had to develop new ways of operating within their own spheres of interest, as well as implement or reinforce work strategies such as fostering closer bibliographic ties with the selectors of coexisting disciplines. Thus when overall library book budgets were flush, there generally seemed to be no
100
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
problem in asking selectors in other disciplines to purchase materials that were officially under their provenance, but that had been requested by faculty members in the History Department. These requests were generally a pro forma matter. In the last few decades of tight budgets, however, when such negotiations among selectors have of necessity become more frequent, it has been inevitable that individual selectors have become more frugal and less broadly accommodating when called upon to buy materials for other departments. Faced with shrinking allocations, selectors have had to make hard decisions on which areas or sub-topics within a discipline are essential to purchase on their book funds, and which are marginal or no longer needed to support the academic programs. Smathers Libraries collection assignments and budget allocations are traditionally made according to LC class designation. In 1997–98 the American and British history budget had to be stretched quite a bit to meet the needs of the faculty at the University of Florida. The static budget and an increased publishing output were certainly primary factors in this dilemma. Of course other University of Florida collection managers were experiencing the same static budget and publishing torrent. As history selectors, we believed that much of the history selection dilemma could be tracked to the interdisciplinary nature of history. To determine the extent of this situation, we analyzed the titles purchased with the American and British history monograph funds that year to determine what percentage were classified outside the traditional “history” LC call numbers of C, D, E and F. That analysis revealed that 22% of the monographs were, according to call number designation, “non-history” titles. This figure, however, did not represent the true situation, because we had negotiated with other subject bibliographers to order a number of other “non-history” titles on their budgets—titles that would not be reflected in our analysis. We subsequently looked for a way to come up with a more realistic percentage of out-of-scope titles, one that potentially could be taken to the Smathers Libraries Director of Collection Management to appeal for a change in the way funding was allocated. The following study of American and British history book reviews reveals a much higher percentage—indeed a figure that is twice as great—and one which the authors view as more representative of how much history is actually “non-history.”
4. Methodology and findings Unlike Lindholm-Romantschuk’s study that focused on books reviewed in Choice, and then analyzed which journals reviewed those works, this study focuses on four specific historical journal titles. These journals were chosen for their authority, affiliation with a professional society, circulation figures, and the broad scope of the reviews. Two were chosen for their specific geographic emphases. Only book reviews pertaining to American or British history were included in the analysis. The assigned classification within the LC scheme was then determined for each title reviewed. The American Historical Review (AHR), published by the American Historical Association, reviews about 250 titles in each quarterly issue. These titles cover all branches and geographic areas of history from an American perspective. Offering a British perspective, History, The Journal of the Historical Association of England, is published three times a
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
101
Table 1 Percentage of non-history classification of books in review articles from three years of select history journals Journals
1978
1988
1998
Total
AHR History JAH Averages Per Year: JIH
60% 58% 47% 55% 75% non-History
57% 53% 57% 56% 76% non-History
55% 53% 53% 54% 71% non-History
57%* 55%* 52%* 55%* 74%*
*Percentages represent reviewed books classified outside the C, D, E, and F call numbers
year, and reviews from 36 to 95 titles per issue. Published by the Organization of American Historians, the quarterly Journal of American History (JAH) reviews about 100 works each issue, and these books are generally confined to the stated geographic region. The fourth journal selected for analysis, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History (JIH), is specifically a venue for book reviews of cross-disciplinary interest to historians. Almost every quarterly issue includes up to 45 reviews. JIH, while skewing the percentage of non-history to history titles in terms of LC classes, demonstrates unequivocally the importance to history of works in disciplines outside the field. In addition to choosing four different kinds of academic history journals, we looked at three different years of publication for each journal—1978, 1988 and 1998 —to determine if there had been some change in emphases over these three decades, a period that has seen the development of an overall academic trend toward interdisciplinarity. The authors identified call numbers of each work reviewed by checking the titles in OCLC™ and/or the Research Libraries Group Eureka™ bibliographic files to determine the classification assigned by LC. In history, the traditional classification is in the C, D, E and F classes, according to the LC Classification Schedule, with some assignments in the Z class for bibliographies: C: Auxiliary Sciences of History; D: History: General and Old World; E-F: History: America. The Preface of the D Schedule provides insight into what subjects are encompassed within a history class. It also notably gives a disclaimer for more specialized works of history, that is, interdisciplinary areas: “More specialized works.., however, are provided for in other classes, e.g., physical geography in GB, economic history in HC, artistic archaeology in N, and anthropology in GN” [11]. It was precisely these “more specialized works” in non-C, D, E and F classes that the authors sought to isolate. The data for the designated years gives the percentages of American and British history titles reviewed in the respective history journals that were classed outside those traditional history LC call numbers (Table 1). According to our study, the degree of interdisciplinarity in the field of history has remained fairly constant over the last three decades. No appreciable differences in the percentage of “non-history” review titles have occurred. The top two single non-history fields, according to our survey, are economics/business and sociology, comprising the entire H classification. After those areas, the field of philosophy/theology slightly led the field of political science in number of works reviewed. As far as the top non-history field is concerned, programs in business and labor history in many universities today typify this synthesis of economics/business and historical perspective (Table 2).
102
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
Table 2 Primary non-history fields for books reviewed in AHR, History and JAH (in descending frequency of appearance) Journal:
AHR
Subject fields outside history: their Library of Congress classes Far column: percent of books reviewed 1978, 1988 and 1999 that were in that class range 1. Economics/business: H–HJ 2. Sociology: HM–HZ 3. Philosophy/theology: B 4. Political science: J 5. Law: K 6. Literature: PN–PZ 7. Other non-C/D/E/F, including education and science
History
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Economics/business: H–HJ Philosophy/theology: B Sociology: HM–HZ Political science: J Other non-C/D/E/F, including law and literature
JAH
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Economics/business: H–HJ Sociology: HM–HZ Philosophy/theology: B Law: K Political science: J Literature: PN–PZ Other non-C/D/E/F including education and science
Total
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Economics/business: H–HJ Sociology: HM–HZ Philosophy/Theology: B Political science: J Other non/C/D/E/F such as law, literature, education
24% 20% 14% 12% 9% 8% 13% 100% 24% 19% 15% 14% 28% 100% 18% 16% 12% 9% 9% 8% 28% 100% 21% 17% 14% 12% 36% 100%
5. LC classifications and subject headings as interdisciplinary tools The 55% average figure the authors came up with in the sample of overall out-of-scope titles underscores the recommendation that history selectors should regularly peruse titles in a broader range of LC call numbers than the traditional C, D, E and F assignments that are strictly their responsibility. Even experienced history selectors, however, might not have time or inclination to engage in a rigorous oversight of other subject areas. Selectors must be creative in dealing with the difficulties of rigid classification assignments. One strategy that bibliographers sometimes use to track down titles of interest is the technique of searching by subject heading. Although a book is classified under only one call number, additional subjects can be reflected in assigned subject headings. White [12] has identified subject headings as one of a number of “markers” or character strings (words, phrases or numerals) in a bibliographic record. These markers, no matter whether words or phrases in titles, descriptors or call numbers, can reveal linkages between disciplines. The more certain markers reoccur, the greater the degree of blurred boundaries. An LC classi-
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
103
fication code, therefore, is one such marker, and it is augmented by yet another kind of marker, an LC subject heading. In searching catalogs and other databases, selectors must acquire a sense of what markers are appropriate for their collecting interests, not only subject headings but also key words and phrases. They also need to investigate markers in other disciplines for related areas of interest.
6. Possible strategies for “plugging the cracks”: achieving more effective interdisciplinary collection management While the nature of bibliographic work by individuals in assigned subjects encourages a “lone ranger” approach in selection, selectors must initiate communication and collaboration with colleagues responsible for related disciplines. Selectors should avoid falling into a sense of false security that someone else, whether through firm orders or approval plans, will purchase an important work. Numerous factors from low priority to lack of funding mitigate against this “assumed” automatic selection [13]. Virtually every bibliographer, however, has unwittingly made such assumptions at some time in his/her career. A bibliographer of religion, for example, may choose to purchase works only related to doctrinal theology, and thus pass on buying in such “religion” topics as early American Quakers or Puritan rivalries, even though they are commonly cataloged in the “B” classification of the LC scheme. The problem of interdisciplinary “cracks” in the collection can be alleviated by greater teamwork. For example, having regular meetings among selectors to discuss cross-disciplinary issues is a proven expedient. This teamwork could be a matter of forming work groups according to the larger, more encompassing areas of humanities, social sciences and sciences, or forming according to area studies, with humanities and social sciences selection duties subsumed within regional categories. Oversight responsibilities can be given to a specific selector or an interdisciplinary committee. For instance, a social sciences bibliographer could oversee the selectors of the disciplines associated with social sciences, and grant budgetary releases to purchase needed materials that overlap two or more of the disciplines. Collection managers could incorporate the sharing of approval plan notification slips into their regular book selection work styles. This is frequently done, but often only in a haphazard way. When this is done more rigorously, informal agreements can then be made with other selectors as necessary. These agreements, however, should be reiterated and reviewed periodically. Unfortunately, all too often this is reactive rather than proactive, occurring as it does after a gap has been spotted. The vendor actually could assign two or three relevant descriptors to the work, highlighting its cross-disciplinary nature, and send out duplicate slips for distribution among selectors. With vendors and libraries dependent now on online ordering and vendor-created databases, the flexibility to browse the databases greatly enhances interdisciplinary selection, and a selector need not depend so much on the paper slips, which are very limited in their distribution. To avoid gaps, collection management assignments can be made according to degree of interrelatedness. Lindholm-Romantschuk’s analysis of the review venues of Choice-selected books provides a study of the “intellectual territories” of disciplines. Regarding the role of
104
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
history in particular within the arts and sciences, she found that “history appears to be a central discipline, but a closer look reveals that the direction of flow is primarily into the discipline: it has inflow of information from all but two disciplines, dance and linguistics, but it has outflow only to religion [14]. The authors of the present study further conclude that history has inflow of information primarily from other social sciences, notably from economics/business and sociology. The most important key to dealing successfully with those cross-disciplinary items that “fall through the cracks” is the management of the materials budget. In a 1995 “Association of College and Research Libraries College Libraries Questionnaire on Allocation Formulas in Academic Libraries” [15], most respondents to the question of “identify the elements included in a budget allocation formula” pointed to the average cost of books in the particular academic field. Some other elements, specifically the number of FTE faculty, student credit hours and circulation statistics, were followed by number of courses taught within a discipline, average cost of books in general, and number of books published in the field. Whether one calculates the average costs of books in the field, or tallies the number of books published in that field, one has to base these numbers on statistics gathered through some mechanism, a classification scheme being one example. The high percentage of 55% in overall non-history titles in this study means a formal budget allocation certainly should not rely on numbers of titles annually published and listed by broad call number ranges or by “subjects,” as in the Bowker Annual [16] or in reports distributed by vendors [17]. A major question to consider is where do a field’s interdisciplinary prospects fit the kind of criteria on which such a budget is based? Part of the answer might be to allocate a portion of the budget to purchase interdisciplinary works that would be of interest to many academic fields; this would liberate selectors from the perceived rigid compartmentalization. If we posit the cases of economics, sociology, philosophy, political science and language/ literature becoming significantly cross-disciplinary, one can clearly see a viable strategy to “plug the interdisciplinary crack” involving the budget. Instead of isolating interdisciplinary purchases out of one so-named fund account, one could argue that if a significant number of titles are selected outside a particular field, general funds could be used to round out the whole collection. In this model, funding would no longer be by discipline per se, but would be allocated as one whole pot, or at least several supra-field pots, including perhaps one specifically for history-economics-sociology.
7. Conclusion Analysis as presented in this study of American and British history titles in areas outside the official LC classification-based history scope could be used just as well for other disciplines. With such ammunition additional funding for interdisciplinary purchases could be justified. Perhaps appropriate formal alliances among subject selectors as well could be facilitated. Practitioners in a field are most likely to consult the major scholarly journals of that field, and the reviews in these journals exert a great influence in determining what works gain attention and are invested with a measure of authority. This influence is not only in terms of
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
105
subject matter or “hot” areas of study, but also in terms of the methodologies and theoretical frameworks used. As Lindholm-Romantschuk has noted, the contents of these journals are excellent indicators of the intellectual direction of a discipline [18]. These insights into future research needs can help library bibliographers make better selection choices, and alert them to the need to coordinate closely with other bibliographers. This coordination effort can be for the purpose of sharing funds, assigning specific areas of cooperative collecting or supporting each other in the drive for additional funding. Overcoming traditional solitary work styles, bibliographers can work together in a more concerted effort to purchase interdisciplinary materials. In the process they may possibly mediate certain budgetary problems, and even attenuate the uncertainties resulting from what may have become a dysfunctional library organization. A quantitative analysis of the degree of cross-disciplinarity among certain disciplines can be a major tool in calling attention to and alleviating the problem of works “falling through the cracks.” This includes the need for a change in the way book budgets are allocated. Such an analysis and sharing of concerns among bibliographers, between bibliographers and library administrators, and between bibliographers and university constituents, are needed to get a viable discussion of interdisciplinary needs going. The resulting rounded perspective is essential for developing a strong, relevant and far-sighted academic library collection.
References [1] Lewis E. quoted in Rackham Alumni Magazine. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Rackham School of Graduate Studies (Fall), 1999:7. [2] Palmer CL, editor. Library Trends 1996;45:2. [3] Chubin DE, Porter AL, Rossini FA. Citation classics analysis: an approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1984;35:360 – 8. [4] Searing SE. How libraries cope with interdisciplinarity: the case of women’s studies. Issues in Integrative Studies 1992;10:7–25. [5] Hurd JM. Interdisciplinary research in the sciences: implications for library organization. College & Research Libraries 1992;53(4):283–97. [6] Greaves MA. Subject profiles and book selection for education libraries. Education Libraries Bulletin 1979;22(1):27–35. [7] Shapiro BJ, Whaley J, editors. Selection of library materials in applied and interdisciplinary fields. Chicago: American Library Association, 1987. [8] Pickoff H. Improving access to new interdisciplinary materials. Library Resources & Technical Services 1991;35(2):141–7. [9] Metz P, Foltin B. A social history of madness— or, who’s buying this round: anticipating and avoiding gaps in collection development. College & Research Libraries 1990;51(1)33–9. [10] Lindholm-Romanschuk Y. Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: the flow of ideas within and among disciplines. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. [11] Library of Congress Classification Schedule. 1966. [12] White HD. Literature retrieval for interdisciplinary syntheses (using DIALOG’s RANK command). Library Trends 1996;45(2):239 – 64. [13] Metz and Folton, 34, 38 –9. [14] Lindholm-Romantschuk, 102. [15] College Libraries Section, Association of College, and Research Libraries (ACRL), American Library Association. Allocation Formulas in Academic Libraries: CLIP Note # 22. Chicago: ACRL. 1995:19.
106
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
[16] American Book Title Production, 1996 –1998. Bowker Annual Library and Book Trade Almanac: 44th ed. New Providence, N J: R. R. Bowker, 1999:530. [17] New title output by subject: all presses (Trade, and UP Combined) FY 1998/1999. Yankee Book Peddler Library Services: http://www.ybp.com/comblc9899.htm (November 26,1999) [18] Lindholm-Romantschuk, 62.
Falling through the cracks: just how much “history” is history? David Hickey*, Shelley Arlen George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, P. O. Box 117001, Gainesville, FL 32611-7001, USA
Abstract As academic programs grow increasingly interdisciplinary, a library may fail to acquire some works of importance to a discipline, simply because the books have been classified in an area outside a selector’s purview. To gain a perspective on the issue of interdisciplinary gaps in the collection, the authors researched the case of American and British History. Book reviews published in four major history journals for 1978, 1988 and 1998 were examined, and a classification was assigned to each reviewed work per the LC classification scheme. The resulting data confirm that more than half of the works that historians generally consult tend to be outside the traditional “history” LC call numbers. While each institution is unique in its organization and collecting interests, various ways to resolve the issue are discussed. This kind of analysis could be used to justify funding for interdisciplinary purchases. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Collection management; Interdisciplinary; LC classes; History
1. Introduction The last quarter of the twentieth century has seen a growing trend toward interdisciplinarity among academic subjects. Scholarly inquiry that crosses disciplines has become the norm, rather than the exception. Academics and professionals outside academia now agree that cross-disciplinary research can be a pivotal means to achieve path-breaking ideas. Indeed, the interaction of two or more academic disciplines that are usually considered distinct can strengthen and refine those separate disciplines. The Dean of the Graduate School at University of Michigan actually predicted in 1999 that interdisciplinarity will
* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹1-352-392-4919; fax: ⫹1-352-392-8118. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Hickey). 1464-9055/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 4 6 4 - 9 0 5 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 2 8 - 2
98
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
become the connective tissue that makes it more sensible for the discrete disciplines themselves to exist. [1] Historians now routinely consult works in sociology and anthropology, and faculty in the English Department regularly mine the literary research potentials of Native American Studies or the American Civil War. Interdisciplinarity, however, is difficult to accommodate in current academic library practices, specifically in ways in which libraries are arranged and library budgets are allocated. In fact the very organizational structure of libraries eschews the cross-disciplinary framework in favor of one based on the traditional “pure” disciplines. Library procedures and policies simply do not lend themselves well to dealing outside these “neat and discrete” categories. Library classification schemes must, by definition, assign specific works to specific categories; after all, each work is given only one call number. The standard methods of acquisitions funding and of assigning collection responsibilities within a library also conform to this strict classification scheme. Such practices can frustrate faculty and librarians in acquiring new imprints that cross the lines of strict academic disciplines. The field of history, that broad term defining humankind’s past, has always depended upon other disciplines. In this respect, it may indeed be considered a forerunner among academic disciplines in the interchange of ideas and methods across academic boundaries. Unlike some other disciplines, history depends more heavily on books than articles for the exchange of ideas. Book reviews in academic journals indicate materials and topics pertinent to a field at a particular moment in time. Scholars use these reviews to increase their awareness of new books published in their own and relevant fields. Given that the bibliometric technique of citation analysis is recognized as useful in quantifying the degree of communication of knowledge, history is a particularly apt choice as a focus for the analysis of book reviews in the study of book acquisition in libraries. Taking the field of history as a model to see how one discipline overlaps with other disciplines, the authors looked at works reviewed in four major history journals at ten-year intervals covering a span of thirty years, and determined the LC call number assigned to each work. The quantified results of this study indicate the high degree to which the field of history intersects with other disciplines, as well as those specific disciplines with which it tends to most overlap. These results lead to a discussion of challenges faced by a history bibliographer in keeping up with the literature in history as an interdisciplinary field. Also discussed are possible strategies for a collection manager in any field to catch relevant materials before they “fall through the cracks.”
2. Literature review Much has been written about the growing interdisciplinary nature of contemporary scholarship as a whole, though comparatively little has been written on the implications of cross-disciplinary research for building library collections. Most notable among the discussions of the impact of this “cross-breeding” on libraries is the Fall 1996 issue of Library Trends. [2] Some studies have looked for evidence of the importation of ideas from one field of study to another, as do the many citation analyses that appear in the literature, such as Chubin, Porter and Rossini’s article [3]. A few studies have concentrated on a particular field
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
99
or discipline. Searing, for instance, discussed the impact of interdisciplinarity on women’s studies [4], Hurd has studied the implications of interdisciplinarity in the sciences for the overall organization of the library [5], and Greaves on materials in education [6]. ALA published Selection of Library Materials in Applied and Interdisciplinary Fields, a work of practical guidance that focused on collecting materials in race and ethnic studies, the radical left and right, and women’s studies [7]. Pickoff analyzed ways to improve patron access to interdisciplinary materials [8]. In one of the more practical articles, Metz and Foltin addressed the issue of “lost” subjects, when no one takes responsibility for collection management in those areas [9]. Lindholm-Romantschuk’s Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Flow of Ideas Within and Among Disciplines [10] explores the communication of information between the social sciences and the humanities. She analyzed those university press books noted in the Choice annual lists of Outstanding Academic Books; her sample comes from the lists for every other year between 1971 and 1990. According to her study, the supposed boundaries between disciplines may be more permeable than previously thought. Developing maps of communication flow in the social sciences and humanities, she determined that there is a tendency for scholars in each of these major knowledge domains to communicate primarily with scholars in disciplines in their own group. When there is communication across these two main groups, it is generally from the social sciences to the humanities.
3. Case study: history book selection at the University of Florida Smathers Libraries While smaller libraries may delegate their selection functions to a carefully profiled approval plan or distribute the duties to a few individual librarians by broad subject areas (i.e., humanities, social sciences and sciences), the sheer magnitude of the selection endeavor in large academic libraries precludes any one or two individuals from assuming the huge responsibility of selecting all or even a major portion of library materials. Such libraries have numerous academic programs to serve and large book budgets that must be spent within designated deadlines. In research libraries like the University of Florida Smathers Libraries, the collection development function is generally distributed among the librarians according to individual expertise, with one person taking responsibility for the bibliographic and instructional needs of one or several academic departments. Library materials selection for a discipline such as history, having a great number of faculty and students engaged in research and a large worldwide publishing output, has been divided into portions by different regions and sub-topics such as Mediterranean history and history of science. In order to get access to the information regarding other disciplines, Smathers Libraries history selectors have had to develop new ways of operating within their own spheres of interest, as well as implement or reinforce work strategies such as fostering closer bibliographic ties with the selectors of coexisting disciplines. Thus when overall library book budgets were flush, there generally seemed to be no
100
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
problem in asking selectors in other disciplines to purchase materials that were officially under their provenance, but that had been requested by faculty members in the History Department. These requests were generally a pro forma matter. In the last few decades of tight budgets, however, when such negotiations among selectors have of necessity become more frequent, it has been inevitable that individual selectors have become more frugal and less broadly accommodating when called upon to buy materials for other departments. Faced with shrinking allocations, selectors have had to make hard decisions on which areas or sub-topics within a discipline are essential to purchase on their book funds, and which are marginal or no longer needed to support the academic programs. Smathers Libraries collection assignments and budget allocations are traditionally made according to LC class designation. In 1997–98 the American and British history budget had to be stretched quite a bit to meet the needs of the faculty at the University of Florida. The static budget and an increased publishing output were certainly primary factors in this dilemma. Of course other University of Florida collection managers were experiencing the same static budget and publishing torrent. As history selectors, we believed that much of the history selection dilemma could be tracked to the interdisciplinary nature of history. To determine the extent of this situation, we analyzed the titles purchased with the American and British history monograph funds that year to determine what percentage were classified outside the traditional “history” LC call numbers of C, D, E and F. That analysis revealed that 22% of the monographs were, according to call number designation, “non-history” titles. This figure, however, did not represent the true situation, because we had negotiated with other subject bibliographers to order a number of other “non-history” titles on their budgets—titles that would not be reflected in our analysis. We subsequently looked for a way to come up with a more realistic percentage of out-of-scope titles, one that potentially could be taken to the Smathers Libraries Director of Collection Management to appeal for a change in the way funding was allocated. The following study of American and British history book reviews reveals a much higher percentage—indeed a figure that is twice as great—and one which the authors view as more representative of how much history is actually “non-history.”
4. Methodology and findings Unlike Lindholm-Romantschuk’s study that focused on books reviewed in Choice, and then analyzed which journals reviewed those works, this study focuses on four specific historical journal titles. These journals were chosen for their authority, affiliation with a professional society, circulation figures, and the broad scope of the reviews. Two were chosen for their specific geographic emphases. Only book reviews pertaining to American or British history were included in the analysis. The assigned classification within the LC scheme was then determined for each title reviewed. The American Historical Review (AHR), published by the American Historical Association, reviews about 250 titles in each quarterly issue. These titles cover all branches and geographic areas of history from an American perspective. Offering a British perspective, History, The Journal of the Historical Association of England, is published three times a
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
101
Table 1 Percentage of non-history classification of books in review articles from three years of select history journals Journals
1978
1988
1998
Total
AHR History JAH Averages Per Year: JIH
60% 58% 47% 55% 75% non-History
57% 53% 57% 56% 76% non-History
55% 53% 53% 54% 71% non-History
57%* 55%* 52%* 55%* 74%*
*Percentages represent reviewed books classified outside the C, D, E, and F call numbers
year, and reviews from 36 to 95 titles per issue. Published by the Organization of American Historians, the quarterly Journal of American History (JAH) reviews about 100 works each issue, and these books are generally confined to the stated geographic region. The fourth journal selected for analysis, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History (JIH), is specifically a venue for book reviews of cross-disciplinary interest to historians. Almost every quarterly issue includes up to 45 reviews. JIH, while skewing the percentage of non-history to history titles in terms of LC classes, demonstrates unequivocally the importance to history of works in disciplines outside the field. In addition to choosing four different kinds of academic history journals, we looked at three different years of publication for each journal—1978, 1988 and 1998 —to determine if there had been some change in emphases over these three decades, a period that has seen the development of an overall academic trend toward interdisciplinarity. The authors identified call numbers of each work reviewed by checking the titles in OCLC™ and/or the Research Libraries Group Eureka™ bibliographic files to determine the classification assigned by LC. In history, the traditional classification is in the C, D, E and F classes, according to the LC Classification Schedule, with some assignments in the Z class for bibliographies: C: Auxiliary Sciences of History; D: History: General and Old World; E-F: History: America. The Preface of the D Schedule provides insight into what subjects are encompassed within a history class. It also notably gives a disclaimer for more specialized works of history, that is, interdisciplinary areas: “More specialized works.., however, are provided for in other classes, e.g., physical geography in GB, economic history in HC, artistic archaeology in N, and anthropology in GN” [11]. It was precisely these “more specialized works” in non-C, D, E and F classes that the authors sought to isolate. The data for the designated years gives the percentages of American and British history titles reviewed in the respective history journals that were classed outside those traditional history LC call numbers (Table 1). According to our study, the degree of interdisciplinarity in the field of history has remained fairly constant over the last three decades. No appreciable differences in the percentage of “non-history” review titles have occurred. The top two single non-history fields, according to our survey, are economics/business and sociology, comprising the entire H classification. After those areas, the field of philosophy/theology slightly led the field of political science in number of works reviewed. As far as the top non-history field is concerned, programs in business and labor history in many universities today typify this synthesis of economics/business and historical perspective (Table 2).
102
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
Table 2 Primary non-history fields for books reviewed in AHR, History and JAH (in descending frequency of appearance) Journal:
AHR
Subject fields outside history: their Library of Congress classes Far column: percent of books reviewed 1978, 1988 and 1999 that were in that class range 1. Economics/business: H–HJ 2. Sociology: HM–HZ 3. Philosophy/theology: B 4. Political science: J 5. Law: K 6. Literature: PN–PZ 7. Other non-C/D/E/F, including education and science
History
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Economics/business: H–HJ Philosophy/theology: B Sociology: HM–HZ Political science: J Other non-C/D/E/F, including law and literature
JAH
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Economics/business: H–HJ Sociology: HM–HZ Philosophy/theology: B Law: K Political science: J Literature: PN–PZ Other non-C/D/E/F including education and science
Total
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Economics/business: H–HJ Sociology: HM–HZ Philosophy/Theology: B Political science: J Other non/C/D/E/F such as law, literature, education
24% 20% 14% 12% 9% 8% 13% 100% 24% 19% 15% 14% 28% 100% 18% 16% 12% 9% 9% 8% 28% 100% 21% 17% 14% 12% 36% 100%
5. LC classifications and subject headings as interdisciplinary tools The 55% average figure the authors came up with in the sample of overall out-of-scope titles underscores the recommendation that history selectors should regularly peruse titles in a broader range of LC call numbers than the traditional C, D, E and F assignments that are strictly their responsibility. Even experienced history selectors, however, might not have time or inclination to engage in a rigorous oversight of other subject areas. Selectors must be creative in dealing with the difficulties of rigid classification assignments. One strategy that bibliographers sometimes use to track down titles of interest is the technique of searching by subject heading. Although a book is classified under only one call number, additional subjects can be reflected in assigned subject headings. White [12] has identified subject headings as one of a number of “markers” or character strings (words, phrases or numerals) in a bibliographic record. These markers, no matter whether words or phrases in titles, descriptors or call numbers, can reveal linkages between disciplines. The more certain markers reoccur, the greater the degree of blurred boundaries. An LC classi-
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
103
fication code, therefore, is one such marker, and it is augmented by yet another kind of marker, an LC subject heading. In searching catalogs and other databases, selectors must acquire a sense of what markers are appropriate for their collecting interests, not only subject headings but also key words and phrases. They also need to investigate markers in other disciplines for related areas of interest.
6. Possible strategies for “plugging the cracks”: achieving more effective interdisciplinary collection management While the nature of bibliographic work by individuals in assigned subjects encourages a “lone ranger” approach in selection, selectors must initiate communication and collaboration with colleagues responsible for related disciplines. Selectors should avoid falling into a sense of false security that someone else, whether through firm orders or approval plans, will purchase an important work. Numerous factors from low priority to lack of funding mitigate against this “assumed” automatic selection [13]. Virtually every bibliographer, however, has unwittingly made such assumptions at some time in his/her career. A bibliographer of religion, for example, may choose to purchase works only related to doctrinal theology, and thus pass on buying in such “religion” topics as early American Quakers or Puritan rivalries, even though they are commonly cataloged in the “B” classification of the LC scheme. The problem of interdisciplinary “cracks” in the collection can be alleviated by greater teamwork. For example, having regular meetings among selectors to discuss cross-disciplinary issues is a proven expedient. This teamwork could be a matter of forming work groups according to the larger, more encompassing areas of humanities, social sciences and sciences, or forming according to area studies, with humanities and social sciences selection duties subsumed within regional categories. Oversight responsibilities can be given to a specific selector or an interdisciplinary committee. For instance, a social sciences bibliographer could oversee the selectors of the disciplines associated with social sciences, and grant budgetary releases to purchase needed materials that overlap two or more of the disciplines. Collection managers could incorporate the sharing of approval plan notification slips into their regular book selection work styles. This is frequently done, but often only in a haphazard way. When this is done more rigorously, informal agreements can then be made with other selectors as necessary. These agreements, however, should be reiterated and reviewed periodically. Unfortunately, all too often this is reactive rather than proactive, occurring as it does after a gap has been spotted. The vendor actually could assign two or three relevant descriptors to the work, highlighting its cross-disciplinary nature, and send out duplicate slips for distribution among selectors. With vendors and libraries dependent now on online ordering and vendor-created databases, the flexibility to browse the databases greatly enhances interdisciplinary selection, and a selector need not depend so much on the paper slips, which are very limited in their distribution. To avoid gaps, collection management assignments can be made according to degree of interrelatedness. Lindholm-Romantschuk’s analysis of the review venues of Choice-selected books provides a study of the “intellectual territories” of disciplines. Regarding the role of
104
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
history in particular within the arts and sciences, she found that “history appears to be a central discipline, but a closer look reveals that the direction of flow is primarily into the discipline: it has inflow of information from all but two disciplines, dance and linguistics, but it has outflow only to religion [14]. The authors of the present study further conclude that history has inflow of information primarily from other social sciences, notably from economics/business and sociology. The most important key to dealing successfully with those cross-disciplinary items that “fall through the cracks” is the management of the materials budget. In a 1995 “Association of College and Research Libraries College Libraries Questionnaire on Allocation Formulas in Academic Libraries” [15], most respondents to the question of “identify the elements included in a budget allocation formula” pointed to the average cost of books in the particular academic field. Some other elements, specifically the number of FTE faculty, student credit hours and circulation statistics, were followed by number of courses taught within a discipline, average cost of books in general, and number of books published in the field. Whether one calculates the average costs of books in the field, or tallies the number of books published in that field, one has to base these numbers on statistics gathered through some mechanism, a classification scheme being one example. The high percentage of 55% in overall non-history titles in this study means a formal budget allocation certainly should not rely on numbers of titles annually published and listed by broad call number ranges or by “subjects,” as in the Bowker Annual [16] or in reports distributed by vendors [17]. A major question to consider is where do a field’s interdisciplinary prospects fit the kind of criteria on which such a budget is based? Part of the answer might be to allocate a portion of the budget to purchase interdisciplinary works that would be of interest to many academic fields; this would liberate selectors from the perceived rigid compartmentalization. If we posit the cases of economics, sociology, philosophy, political science and language/ literature becoming significantly cross-disciplinary, one can clearly see a viable strategy to “plug the interdisciplinary crack” involving the budget. Instead of isolating interdisciplinary purchases out of one so-named fund account, one could argue that if a significant number of titles are selected outside a particular field, general funds could be used to round out the whole collection. In this model, funding would no longer be by discipline per se, but would be allocated as one whole pot, or at least several supra-field pots, including perhaps one specifically for history-economics-sociology.
7. Conclusion Analysis as presented in this study of American and British history titles in areas outside the official LC classification-based history scope could be used just as well for other disciplines. With such ammunition additional funding for interdisciplinary purchases could be justified. Perhaps appropriate formal alliances among subject selectors as well could be facilitated. Practitioners in a field are most likely to consult the major scholarly journals of that field, and the reviews in these journals exert a great influence in determining what works gain attention and are invested with a measure of authority. This influence is not only in terms of
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
105
subject matter or “hot” areas of study, but also in terms of the methodologies and theoretical frameworks used. As Lindholm-Romantschuk has noted, the contents of these journals are excellent indicators of the intellectual direction of a discipline [18]. These insights into future research needs can help library bibliographers make better selection choices, and alert them to the need to coordinate closely with other bibliographers. This coordination effort can be for the purpose of sharing funds, assigning specific areas of cooperative collecting or supporting each other in the drive for additional funding. Overcoming traditional solitary work styles, bibliographers can work together in a more concerted effort to purchase interdisciplinary materials. In the process they may possibly mediate certain budgetary problems, and even attenuate the uncertainties resulting from what may have become a dysfunctional library organization. A quantitative analysis of the degree of cross-disciplinarity among certain disciplines can be a major tool in calling attention to and alleviating the problem of works “falling through the cracks.” This includes the need for a change in the way book budgets are allocated. Such an analysis and sharing of concerns among bibliographers, between bibliographers and library administrators, and between bibliographers and university constituents, are needed to get a viable discussion of interdisciplinary needs going. The resulting rounded perspective is essential for developing a strong, relevant and far-sighted academic library collection.
References [1] Lewis E. quoted in Rackham Alumni Magazine. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Rackham School of Graduate Studies (Fall), 1999:7. [2] Palmer CL, editor. Library Trends 1996;45:2. [3] Chubin DE, Porter AL, Rossini FA. Citation classics analysis: an approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1984;35:360 – 8. [4] Searing SE. How libraries cope with interdisciplinarity: the case of women’s studies. Issues in Integrative Studies 1992;10:7–25. [5] Hurd JM. Interdisciplinary research in the sciences: implications for library organization. College & Research Libraries 1992;53(4):283–97. [6] Greaves MA. Subject profiles and book selection for education libraries. Education Libraries Bulletin 1979;22(1):27–35. [7] Shapiro BJ, Whaley J, editors. Selection of library materials in applied and interdisciplinary fields. Chicago: American Library Association, 1987. [8] Pickoff H. Improving access to new interdisciplinary materials. Library Resources & Technical Services 1991;35(2):141–7. [9] Metz P, Foltin B. A social history of madness— or, who’s buying this round: anticipating and avoiding gaps in collection development. College & Research Libraries 1990;51(1)33–9. [10] Lindholm-Romanschuk Y. Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: the flow of ideas within and among disciplines. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. [11] Library of Congress Classification Schedule. 1966. [12] White HD. Literature retrieval for interdisciplinary syntheses (using DIALOG’s RANK command). Library Trends 1996;45(2):239 – 64. [13] Metz and Folton, 34, 38 –9. [14] Lindholm-Romantschuk, 102. [15] College Libraries Section, Association of College, and Research Libraries (ACRL), American Library Association. Allocation Formulas in Academic Libraries: CLIP Note # 22. Chicago: ACRL. 1995:19.
106
D. Hickey, S. Arlen / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 97–106
[16] American Book Title Production, 1996 –1998. Bowker Annual Library and Book Trade Almanac: 44th ed. New Providence, N J: R. R. Bowker, 1999:530. [17] New title output by subject: all presses (Trade, and UP Combined) FY 1998/1999. Yankee Book Peddler Library Services: http://www.ybp.com/comblc9899.htm (November 26,1999) [18] Lindholm-Romantschuk, 62.