Year: 1983
Type: article
Abstract: IN THE LAST ISSUE of Library Trendsdevoted to reference services (Winter 1964), Everett Moore identified the chief concerns of academic reference librarians as specialization or nonspecialization, centralization or decentralization.He referred specifically to the organization of reference services in a general reference room or subject-specialized divisions, separate government documents departments or integration of documents into the library's general collections, and establishment of separate undergraduate libraries.He also considered the possibility that growing specialization would induce changes in academic library service patterns, from general reader guidance to direct provision of information.'Nearly twenty years later there is a faintly archaic ring to some of this, but a little pondering suggests that key elements of the choices facing libraries then are still before us.Questions of subject specialization tend now to center on personnel rather than administrative structure, but delineation of the roles of the reference generalist and subject specialist is still an issue.The once spirited debate over separation or integration of documents collections seems to have languished, but i t is worth noting that automation makes integration of catalog access at least, if not collections, a more feasible course than it was when the argument began.Even more interesting is the reappearance, in the new context of online searching, of many of the questions about the separation or integration of specialized services that once characterized the documents controversy.
Author: Thelma Freides
Language: English
Subfield: Library and Information Sciences
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2118809242