Search results

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

By one of those coincidences that seem to abound in academic life and are probably not coincidences at all, we have recently found ourselves, quite suddenly, in possession of a very great deal of information about the language barrier and about the information requirements of the social sciences. This is a consequence of two recent publications: the Sheffield report on two years of intensive work on the language barrier in an academic community and Bath University Library's INFROSS report. The former looks at the language barrier from the point of view of all disciplines, including the social sciences; the latter looks at the information requirements and problems of social scientists from a very comprehensive point of view and includes amongst the problems that of the language barrier. The two reports therefore complement one another very well, and in my paper this evening I propose to draw on both of them, in an attempt to look at the language barrier from the social scientist's point of view. I shall normally draw more heavily on the Sheffield report than that of Bath—mainly because it is the one with which I am most familiar—though when I came to look at possible solutions, the Bath findings will certainly carry a good deal of weight, as you will see.

It has often been said that a great part of the strength of Aslib lies in the fact that it brings together those whose experience has been gained in many widely differing fields but who have a common interest in the means by which information may be collected and disseminated to the greatest advantage. Lists of its members have, therefore, a more than ordinary value since they present, in miniature, a cross‐section of institutions and individuals who share this special interest.

Perhaps the marvel is that there should exist at all a department in a British official body at national level dedicated to the support of research into information needs and the problems of providing and operating library and information services. That it does exist may be regarded as the product of a typically British combination of conscious decision‐making and historical accident.

The papers in this issue were given at the 25th Annual Conference, held at Bristol University from 22nd to 25th September, 1950. Some 230 delegates from the British Isles, the Commonwealth and Europe were welcomed to dinner on Friday evening by Sir Philip Morris, C.B.E., M.A., Vice‐Chancellor of the University, and Lady Morris. No papers were given on Friday evening, Mr. J. E. Wright arranging an informal dance after dinner.

ALTHOUGH the first Public Libraries (Scotland) Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1853, it was not until 1899 that the Corporation of the City of Glasgow was empowered to establish and maintain public libraries throughout the city. Between 1876 and 1897 four attempts were made to secure public approval for the adoption of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, but when all these efforts proved unsuccessful, the Corporation decided in June, 1888 to include in a Local Bill for submission to Parliament, certain clauses conferring upon themselves the power to become a library authority. Promoted in 1899, the Bill became known as the Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, Libraries, etc.) Act 1899, and the library clauses passed through Parliament without opposition and received Royal Assent on 1st August, 1899. The powers conferred by this Local Act empowered the Corporation:

The task of the librarian is to achieve his library's objectives. A simplistic statement, perhaps, but it is rare that a library's objectives are defined in any terms other than the broadest—for example, ‘to meet the needs of its users’. In fact, the definition of objectives in any service organization is likely to be an iterative process, but the explicit commitment to users‘ needs (however mystical this concept may be) requires the librarian to examine users’ behaviour as a first step to determining policy. Since a complete state‐of‐the‐art in user behaviour would fill a substantial book, this survey is restricted to drawing together some threads of research of potential application in university libraries. Methodological problems are not discussed here, since these are adequately reviewed elsewhere.

ANDREW Carnegie stands apart from all other library benefactors. No other man has given so much, or given so widely, in the cause of library progress. Although the United Kingdom was not the main recipient of his bounty, it received from him, personally, about £12 million, and considerable sums, in addition, from the Trust which he founded. It might well be expected, therefore, that his name would always be in our minds and that we would remember him more kindly than any other library benefactor. But it is not so.