- Email: [email protected]
New guide to popular government publications: For libraries and home reference
Book reviews
371
publications to add to the reference shelf: National Party Conventions 1831-1976 and Inside Congress, 2nd ed. The heart of National Party Conventions is comprised of narrative descriptions of each party convention, including third parties, since 183 1. As part of these narratives, there are brief excerpts from the party platforms. In a subsequent section of the book, the key ballots from each convention are reprinted. National Party Conventions also contains an introductory essay on pre-convention politics (1789-1828), an historical overview of American party development, and a biographical directory of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Inside Congress is not as comprehensive or systematic as National Party Conventions. It’s simply a collection of reports on selected aspects of the legislative process. Not all of the essays are bound together by a common bond, but if there is an overriding theme, it has to do with the changing nature of the contemporary Congress. Inside Congress has 27 different reports, including topics such as sunset legislation, the legislative veto, committee rule changes, and the new ethics code. Of particular interest is an article evaluating the new congressional budget process, and a series of articles on members’ funds, benefits, and perquisites. Changes in the budget process are centered around the Congressional Budget Office’s forecasting and analysis, and the two budget committees’ resolutions that are intended to set government spending goals. In CQ’s usual dispassionate and balanced manner, the budgetary changes are examined in some detail, though the subject merits even greater coverage. The articles on congressional funds and benefits offer fascinating insights into the more private side of the legislative process. Everything from the members’ recording studios to their telephone allowances is covered in this part of the book. Since its coverage is somewhat selective, Inside Congress cannot be relied upon as one’s sole reference work on Congress. It does, however, till an important gap. Both National Party Conventions and Inside Congress are useful additions to the body of reference works on American national government. JEFFREY M. BERRY Assistant Professor Department of Political Science Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts 02155, U.S.A. New Guide to Popular Government Publications: For Libraries and Home Reference. By Walter L. Newsome. Littleton, Colo. Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1978. 370~. $18.50. ISBNO-87287-174-6. LC 7812412. Completely
rewritten
and revised, this new guide updates the 1972 edition by Linda C. Pohle, Publications: For Libraries and Home Use. Newsome continues Pohle’s basic format of serially listed annotated entries grouped by subject categories in alphabetical arrangement and adds some new useful features: a more extensive section on the acquisition of government publications containing useful instructions on ordering from GPO, a concise explanation of the role of federal depository libraries, a glossary of common government abbreviations and initialisms, and a guide to the citation elements used in the entries. Appendices list government audiovisual resources, selected agency publication catalogs, popular government publications available in commercial reprint and a directory of agencies distributing materials not sold by GPO. This guide not only is an improvement upon its previous edition, but also stands above its more expensive competitor, W. Philip Leidy’s A Popular Guide to Government Publications (4th ed.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. $25.00). Publication entries in Leidy’s volume do not have SuDoc classification numbers and prices. Current order information is also lacking. Newsome is aware of the problem of currency and the production of such book guides. In a brief note concerning editions he reminds the reader that his book can only be considered-as it is entitled-a guide, not an authoritative acquisitions tool. He suggests that, if one is in doubt about the availability of a publication, the best route is to contact the nearest depository library. This is good advice, especially since GPO announced on December 16, 1979, that it will no longer supply
A Guide to Popular Government
312
Book reviews
information regarding availability of non-GPO publications. It will instead instruct sales customers to contact their local public library for referral to the nearest federal depository collection. Newsome could have mentioned in describing GPO’s Sales Publications Reference File (PRF) that this extremely useful in-print list should be available at most depository libraries. Libraries of all sires can ill afford to ignore the resources of government publications. Newsome’s New Guide offers a fine introduction to the veritable feast of information so inexpensively offered to libraries and their patrons. Librarians and others involved in government document orientation programs should consider including this guide on their reading lists.
Government
PAULINE GUNTER Documents and Map Librarian Rasmuson Library University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, U.S.A.
Use of Government Publications by Social Scientists. By Peter Hemon. Norwood, Publishing Corporation, 1979. 173 p. $16.95. ISBN O-89391-024-4. LC 79-16144.
N.J.: Ablex
User studies in librarianship often suffer from an absence of generalizing power. When they appear as articles in journals, they are limited by space constraints. Rarely do they go beyond the confines of the writer’s library setting. Perhaps it requires monographic treatment to analyze and examine patterns of use and non-use adequately. In the work under review, a large enough sample of depository institutions and academic units was employed to permit meaningful data to emerge. The first in the projected “Libraries and Librarianship: An International Series,” the study is baaed on the author’s doctoral dissertation and was “designed to discover the reasons for the use and non-use of Federal, state, and municipal government publications by social scientists in college and university departments of economics, history, political science, and sociology” (p.2.). The rationale for selecting social scientists for the survey is given on the same page: “because govemments produce a vast amount of material relevant to their professional needs and because the social sciences, according to past surveys (discussed in Chapter 2), comprise the major user group for government publications.” What, then, are we to make of one of the author’s findings that an “overwhelming number of faculty members . . . believe that governmental agencies publish little or nothing of value to their immediate field” (p. 41)? The Hemon study is an explication of that dismal discovery and related problems. By way of a confirming digression, the reviewer has conducted his own very unscientific survey of the use/non-use of government publications by the students of those social scientists before they came to library school. For the ten years this writer has been teaching courses in federal, state/local and international documents he has identified those students whose undergraduate or graduate courses were in the areas that may broadly be subsumed by the phrase “social science” and has asked them if their courses involved research in the primary source materials produced by governments. With very, very few exceptions, the answers were in the negative; these included students with masters and doctoral degrees. The reason was simple and universal: their professors did not require them to use primary documentation. Some of the data in this study suggest that the professors did not wish to risk requiring of the student that research facility they themselves lacked. The author solidly employs the familiar trappings that a study of this kind requires to meet the demands of reliability and validity: randomization, questionnaires, interviewing, pretesting, chi square analysis, and the like. But when Hemon departs from the obligatory rigors of methodology and peppers the narrative with the “miscellaneous comments” of his respondents, revelationsmany of them appalling-abound. One sociologist confesses difficulty with the SuDocs classification system. Some professors express annoyance that they must search beyond the “public card catalog.” Hugely dismaying is the author’s discovery that “some of the infrequent users and non-users of government publications housed in the library appear satisfied with their limited access to information, even if that information may not be the most current and reliable” (p. SO). The social scientist who wished he had the time to take a course in government documents (p. 86) revealed, perhaps unwittingly, what must be boldly stated: many of the professors in Hemon’s
371
publications to add to the reference shelf: National Party Conventions 1831-1976 and Inside Congress, 2nd ed. The heart of National Party Conventions is comprised of narrative descriptions of each party convention, including third parties, since 183 1. As part of these narratives, there are brief excerpts from the party platforms. In a subsequent section of the book, the key ballots from each convention are reprinted. National Party Conventions also contains an introductory essay on pre-convention politics (1789-1828), an historical overview of American party development, and a biographical directory of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Inside Congress is not as comprehensive or systematic as National Party Conventions. It’s simply a collection of reports on selected aspects of the legislative process. Not all of the essays are bound together by a common bond, but if there is an overriding theme, it has to do with the changing nature of the contemporary Congress. Inside Congress has 27 different reports, including topics such as sunset legislation, the legislative veto, committee rule changes, and the new ethics code. Of particular interest is an article evaluating the new congressional budget process, and a series of articles on members’ funds, benefits, and perquisites. Changes in the budget process are centered around the Congressional Budget Office’s forecasting and analysis, and the two budget committees’ resolutions that are intended to set government spending goals. In CQ’s usual dispassionate and balanced manner, the budgetary changes are examined in some detail, though the subject merits even greater coverage. The articles on congressional funds and benefits offer fascinating insights into the more private side of the legislative process. Everything from the members’ recording studios to their telephone allowances is covered in this part of the book. Since its coverage is somewhat selective, Inside Congress cannot be relied upon as one’s sole reference work on Congress. It does, however, till an important gap. Both National Party Conventions and Inside Congress are useful additions to the body of reference works on American national government. JEFFREY M. BERRY Assistant Professor Department of Political Science Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts 02155, U.S.A. New Guide to Popular Government Publications: For Libraries and Home Reference. By Walter L. Newsome. Littleton, Colo. Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1978. 370~. $18.50. ISBNO-87287-174-6. LC 7812412. Completely
rewritten
and revised, this new guide updates the 1972 edition by Linda C. Pohle, Publications: For Libraries and Home Use. Newsome continues Pohle’s basic format of serially listed annotated entries grouped by subject categories in alphabetical arrangement and adds some new useful features: a more extensive section on the acquisition of government publications containing useful instructions on ordering from GPO, a concise explanation of the role of federal depository libraries, a glossary of common government abbreviations and initialisms, and a guide to the citation elements used in the entries. Appendices list government audiovisual resources, selected agency publication catalogs, popular government publications available in commercial reprint and a directory of agencies distributing materials not sold by GPO. This guide not only is an improvement upon its previous edition, but also stands above its more expensive competitor, W. Philip Leidy’s A Popular Guide to Government Publications (4th ed.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. $25.00). Publication entries in Leidy’s volume do not have SuDoc classification numbers and prices. Current order information is also lacking. Newsome is aware of the problem of currency and the production of such book guides. In a brief note concerning editions he reminds the reader that his book can only be considered-as it is entitled-a guide, not an authoritative acquisitions tool. He suggests that, if one is in doubt about the availability of a publication, the best route is to contact the nearest depository library. This is good advice, especially since GPO announced on December 16, 1979, that it will no longer supply
A Guide to Popular Government
312
Book reviews
information regarding availability of non-GPO publications. It will instead instruct sales customers to contact their local public library for referral to the nearest federal depository collection. Newsome could have mentioned in describing GPO’s Sales Publications Reference File (PRF) that this extremely useful in-print list should be available at most depository libraries. Libraries of all sires can ill afford to ignore the resources of government publications. Newsome’s New Guide offers a fine introduction to the veritable feast of information so inexpensively offered to libraries and their patrons. Librarians and others involved in government document orientation programs should consider including this guide on their reading lists.
Government
PAULINE GUNTER Documents and Map Librarian Rasmuson Library University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, U.S.A.
Use of Government Publications by Social Scientists. By Peter Hemon. Norwood, Publishing Corporation, 1979. 173 p. $16.95. ISBN O-89391-024-4. LC 79-16144.
N.J.: Ablex
User studies in librarianship often suffer from an absence of generalizing power. When they appear as articles in journals, they are limited by space constraints. Rarely do they go beyond the confines of the writer’s library setting. Perhaps it requires monographic treatment to analyze and examine patterns of use and non-use adequately. In the work under review, a large enough sample of depository institutions and academic units was employed to permit meaningful data to emerge. The first in the projected “Libraries and Librarianship: An International Series,” the study is baaed on the author’s doctoral dissertation and was “designed to discover the reasons for the use and non-use of Federal, state, and municipal government publications by social scientists in college and university departments of economics, history, political science, and sociology” (p.2.). The rationale for selecting social scientists for the survey is given on the same page: “because govemments produce a vast amount of material relevant to their professional needs and because the social sciences, according to past surveys (discussed in Chapter 2), comprise the major user group for government publications.” What, then, are we to make of one of the author’s findings that an “overwhelming number of faculty members . . . believe that governmental agencies publish little or nothing of value to their immediate field” (p. 41)? The Hemon study is an explication of that dismal discovery and related problems. By way of a confirming digression, the reviewer has conducted his own very unscientific survey of the use/non-use of government publications by the students of those social scientists before they came to library school. For the ten years this writer has been teaching courses in federal, state/local and international documents he has identified those students whose undergraduate or graduate courses were in the areas that may broadly be subsumed by the phrase “social science” and has asked them if their courses involved research in the primary source materials produced by governments. With very, very few exceptions, the answers were in the negative; these included students with masters and doctoral degrees. The reason was simple and universal: their professors did not require them to use primary documentation. Some of the data in this study suggest that the professors did not wish to risk requiring of the student that research facility they themselves lacked. The author solidly employs the familiar trappings that a study of this kind requires to meet the demands of reliability and validity: randomization, questionnaires, interviewing, pretesting, chi square analysis, and the like. But when Hemon departs from the obligatory rigors of methodology and peppers the narrative with the “miscellaneous comments” of his respondents, revelationsmany of them appalling-abound. One sociologist confesses difficulty with the SuDocs classification system. Some professors express annoyance that they must search beyond the “public card catalog.” Hugely dismaying is the author’s discovery that “some of the infrequent users and non-users of government publications housed in the library appear satisfied with their limited access to information, even if that information may not be the most current and reliable” (p. SO). The social scientist who wished he had the time to take a course in government documents (p. 86) revealed, perhaps unwittingly, what must be boldly stated: many of the professors in Hemon’s