12.4.1 Scientific Movement

The scientific movement is represented by two major models: industrial engineering, developed by F. W. Taylor, and Henry Fayol's universal model; this was later expanded by Gilbreths and Gantt techniques used for performance appraisal and award incentives.

(a) Engineering Model: Taylor (1880-1927)

(1) The industrial engineering model, also known as the scientific management theory, was influenced by the seventeenth century physical sciences' definition of mass, force, energy, and light, and that century's strong physical world viewpoint. It also reflects nineteenth century's. Protestant work ethic. The model is based on a mechanistic concept of organization focusing on efficiency of organizational operations. The term 'sci entific management', introduced by Brandais in 1910, emphasizes maximization of output with minimum waste and inefficiency. It focuses on engineering and psychological aspects of work, motion study, and the merit system (developed later into the performance-appraisal approach). The primary motivation device was an economic use of rewards.9

(2) The universal model, also known as the 'classical movement' or the traditional 'universalist' school, was introduced by Henry Fayol in Fran ce at the time of Taylor's experimentation in the United States. Instead of focusing on shop operations, it addressed the operations of the whole organization. Its philosophical approach was based on the concept of management as an entity by itself. It shared with Taylor's the same perception of workers as lazy employees, resisting work and requiring discipline and incentive for better performance. However, in contrast to Taylor's operationalism, Fayol considered management as an art, aiming at a search for an ideal structure for the whole organization and for fundamental principles governing its management.10

In this approach the focus is on understanding the needs and feelings of individual workers, the nature of interpersonal relations, and the role of an informal group. The goal of integrating workers with their working environment led to the emergence of personnel administration and staff participation in organization 's affairs. The movement is represented by Skinner's behavioral modification theory, Follett's sociological research, and Barnard's self-realization model.11

(b) Psychological Approach

In 1938 C. Barnard introduced the 'self-actualizing' model, which recommended creation of social groups on the job and democracy in the organization. He also developed the concept of contribution-satisfaction equilibrium between four inducements to work:

(1) material rewards,
(2) nonmaterial opportunities (e.g., distinction, prestige, power),
(3) quality of physical working conditions, and
(3) 'ideal benefactions' (e.g., pride or workmanship). His model had a significant impact on motivational theories developed later.12

This approach is loosely represented by general systems, decision theories and psychological models of individual behavior. Weber's theory of authority and Tay lor's focus on efficiency prompted an interest in applying similar theories to the organization viewed as a system.

(a) General Systems Model

General systems is really not so much a theory but rather a direction in contemporary philosophy of science, incorporating in one system the viewpoints of biological, physical, and behavioral sciences, mathematics, statistics, and computer science.

General systems developed a systematic approach to any problem-solving processes with in the total organization. It perceives the universe as one all-inclusive, integrated system. It stresses the importance of the interactions among all elements comprising that total system. Such an interaction draws from the environment and feeds back to it.

The organization as an open system is made of many subsystems. The model of general systems provides for merging its scientific approach with human relations, focusing on economico-technical rather than psycho-social aspects and on the us e of computers as tools.

(b) Decision Theory Models

This is an interdisciplinary approach, concentrating on decision-making processes perceived as common activity in all other management processes. It aims at a logical and rational process of analyzing decisions, weighing alternatives and their consequences. It prescribes how the decisions should be made and developed management information system (MIS). The system is based on mathematical models for predictions, techniques, governing controls for benefit analysis, game theory, planning, leadership, and motivation.

The model is a useful managerial technique to determine what and how to measure in a given system, in order to improve it by solving its problems. It is limited to economic issues; its primary usefulness is as a technique. It overemphasizes formal aspects of organization, neglecting the impact of individual worker, informal group, and intraorganizational conflicts.

(c) Psychological Model of Individual Behavior

Based on the personality theory, this model stresses the importance of informal standards compensating for weak accountability, low productivity, and poor work-oriented leadership in a bureaucratic system. It advocates job enlargement and assignment of responsibility for job performance to a group. Making a distinction between tasks and socio-emotional functions stimulated increased personal relationships between staff and administration and improves workers' satisfaction .

In this model, organization is considered a psychological tool for the individual's own development. Work becomes an equalizer of the factors affecting workers' job maturation. Unconscious motives affect decision-making processes but also explain irrational behavior.13

Each of the above theories identified some important aspects of management. The lack of a comprehensive model which would interrelate all these theori es may be at least in part rectified by viewing them in terms of the metalibrary approach. As already mentioned, the scientific models closely resemble the procedural approach. Likewise, the human-relation model relates to the environmental, contextual approach; and general-systems viewpoint reflects the conceptual, integrating approach.

12.5 Management of Library Resources14

Theories of library management provide coordination of various means toward the achi evement of the ends in acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of information. The choice and use of means constitute practical aspects of managing the library. The definitions of its ends are based on theoretical interpretations of an 'ideal' library's operations.

The theory of library management can be considered an extension of the philosophy of library information science. It designs the operations aimed at the accomplishment of set goals. Basic questions addressed in managing infor mation include:

(a) conceptual: how to relate work performance and environment to the analysis of operations, methods, and staff structure: What are we doing?

(b) contextual: how to analyze work environment (i.e., work load, standards, and types of work): Where is it done? Who does it? and

(c) procedural question of how to examine work performance and set control procedures and standards of performance: When is it done right? and How well it is done?

(a) conceptual planning, describing what one wants to do by setting goals and policies and forecasting their outcome,

(b) contextual design of organizational units and jobs, work flow, and vertical and horizontal hierarchy, and

(c) procedural coordination and development of cooperation among library units by directing and supervising actions toward required goals within established objectives and standards.

Library management focuses on cost-effectiveness. Its decisions are subject to external and internal pressures. Staff c ontrol is needed to maintain efficiency of service. Professional authority is based on the consensus.

The objectives of record management are to collect, organize, service, and administer graphic records and to encourage their utilization. It is done in the framework of alpha-beta-gamma relations, that is, anticipating patrons' needs (alpha), and acquiring and making available resources (gamma) within the subject concentration (beta) of the library. Social utility of graphic records is maximized , to paraphrase Shera, by knowledge management toward better understanding of reality.

12.5.1 Historical Background for Library Managerial Theory

Emerging concepts of managing information followed the development of management in general, but at a much slower pace. Librarianship possesses a sizable body of operational data, but lacks well-established theory. It often equates that which is analyzed with the recorded observations, ignoring epistemic questions.

Most library theories are pragmatic, rationalizing each individual technique to satisfy librarians' intellectual curiosity. Theories referring to library practice are illustrated by Joeckel's promotion of scientific management in library operations to study supply and demand for its services (Joeckel, 1932) and Lingam's discussion of relations between decision making and information needs by managers. Lingam developed a matrix that provides a logical framework for identifying what manager's information is needed (Lingam, 1984).

Parker argued that the traditional method of evaluating information projects is based on a return-on-investment model. Information economics addresses nonmonetary and long-range aspects of value to a company. Parker considered information as a foundation of competition for economic benefits based on various classes of risk and uncertainty (Parker, 1987).

Emery focused on library function, explaining its purposeful activity as means of recognition, collection, organ ization, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge (Emery, 1971).

Merikangas (1987) proposed a model for librarians' and users' cooperation in map making, by compiling bibliographies more directly reflecting the needs of patrons. Foster (1979) described a promotional outlook, viewing the library as a community service. Trenner (1987) concentrated on the definitions of the user-friendly computer.

For a long time, libraries were book-centered. They only recently refocused on the c ontents of information carriers, and most recently on the information per se. Presently, the capabilities for controlling and manipulating information are growing at an exponential rate which is much greater than that of the information explosion itself. The change was created by the introduction of computers and large-scale integration technology (networks).

Traditional library information-processing is storage-oriented rather than computer-bound, based on a notion that library problems do not require extensive processing of simultaneous equations, but storage of millions of bibliographic records.

The introduction of the memory chip in the early 1970s was a threshold for both the library and computers. Generally speaking, in the pre-1970 era computer technology was not applicable to libraries, except for specialized libraries, in which information handling was of narrow breath, but greater depth, and closer to the computation end of the computer-storage spectrum.

Thus lib raries had a very short time to assess the impact of computerization, while the potential of computers' application grew at an incredibly rapid rate. This created a significant managerial problem. There is now a new gap emerging between the information explosion and its management. This is a dramatic reversal in the history of librarianship. Now, the challenge is how to keep up with almost uncontrollable, fast-expanding information.

Nonlibrarians are aware of computer technology growth but not of the accompanying information explosion. All librarians are fully aware of the information explosion, but not yet fully conscious of the implication of the fast-expanding impact of computer on librarianship, often confusing the ways computer and human minds operate. The computer is a formula-driven machine, operating in an algorithmic mode. The human mind, on the other hand, utilizes a heuristic approach; this is a slower and less accurate method, but it addresses broader and much more complex issues. "Th e computer can manipulate and interpret data and ideas, and retrieve, sort, and analyze them as instructed. But only the human can decide what the computer ought to do and draw conclusions from the work performed by a computer."15

Until the 1930s all libraries were relatively small organizations, with a conservative and authoritarian style of management. They were characterized by slow changes, stressed replication of past successful practices in other libraries, and often disre garded the unique environments of each library. After 1937, the libraries caught up with general theories of management.

The scientific approach to management, between the 1930s and the 1950s, started with doctoral dissertations analyzing the cost of technical services and investigating effectiveness of new management techniques. The general focus was on activities rather than people.

The human-relations viewpoint, which began in the 1950s, stressed a democratic, participatory charac ter in library management and its dependence on committees and some staff involvement in decision processes. The success of this approach was weakened by external factors limiting library autonomy and resources, leading to staff cynicism about managerial motives.

12.5.2 Theory and Practice of Librarianship

(a) Relationships to Science

The librarian's expertise is different from, but supplementary to, that of a scientist. It provides not knowledge per se, but the recor ds containing its description, and it facilitated access to these records, replicating each discipline's topography in the classification of records. Whereas the scientist studies the content of records and the academician focuses on the teaching of that content, the librarian addresses the access to the document containing needed information for both the scholar and the teacher.

The practical interrelationships between the basic elements of metalibrarianship, alpha, beta, and gamma, are summari zed in the table below.

Each of these elements considered horizontally provides one of the three basic dimensions of the theoretical model: the relationships represented by alpha-beta-gamma considered at procedural, contextual, and conceptual levels. Viewed vertically, each element describes different aspects of library practice: the subject matter covered by library collection and its selection, preservation, and diffusion (beta), the library staff and patrons involved in the use of the library resources (alpha), and the procurement of library resources (gamma).

(b) Relationship to Research

Library research provides a link between the theory and practice of librarianship. It is usually defined as a systematic attempt to discover the modus operandi of a given phenomenon by observation, collection of pertinent data, and interpretation of relationships between them.17

The basic components of the research [Fig. 12-5] parallel those of metalibrarianship; they consist of the data representing the records studied (gamma) and their interpretation by the researchers (alpha) in terms of the type of research performed (beta). The results of the research are examined on the descriptive, environmental level (Cx), analyzed at the procedural, analytical level (Pd), and the conclusions formulated at the synthetic, conceptual level (Co).

The relationships between the components of research and their analyses determine the type of research (Hayes, 1987).

(a) Bibliographic research is descriptive, based on recorded (printed) data used as tools. It is employed in studies of a state of art or content analysis of a particular subject.

(b) Historical research utilizes analytical bibliography and relies on primary data evaluated in terms of their reliability and verification.

(c) Social research usually develops survey instruments used to determine behavior or trends as expressed by opinions on a given subject.

(d) Experimental research involves experiments that replicate rea lity for a study of relationships between variables within the universe of the research.

(e) Mathematical research develops models based on abstract data or generalizations for the identification and evaluation of similarities or differences within researched structures.

12.6 Conceptual Dimension of Metalibrary Management19

12.6.1 Metalibrary Model of Management

The model is based on a holistic system of management, considered as a synergetic process. The system is defined as a series of relationships between interacting, dynamic elements, organized togethe r as an integrated, goal-oriented whole.

Managing means arranging relations between energy producing things and events. The energy, in an Aristotelian sense, resides in certain configurations as a potential force. The change in these configurations may 'actualize' the latent or potential energy into an active force. Hence, properly matched events or data affect each other's internal relational structure. A series of such changes constitutes a process, an activity.

Each change introd uces a novelty, changing a familiar arrangement into new relations. This results in a tension (e.g., anticipation of an unknown) which in a metaphorical sense creates new energy, accounting for new changes.

Three energy-initiating changes here discussed are:

(1) Physical changes are manifested in work actually performed (e.g., book shelving).

(2) Psychological changes are evident in motivation and persuasion (e.g., rewards and punishments).

(3) Conceptual changes are ess ential in coordination of managerial activities (e.g., planning or decision-making). What is important in the nature of relations is the process of synergy, in which an aggregated action of different elements produces more effective or efficient results together than each could produce by itself.

The end objective of conceptual management is the creation of new process es; the end objective of supervisory management is the product of these processes.

12.6.2 Components of the System 20

The three main components of a library management system are the resources (gamma), the managerial functions of interrelating library goals with its resources (alpha), and the content of managerial action, its goals (beta). The total structure of the system is affected by planning (Co), organizing (Cx), and coordinating (Pd) each of these manag erial functions. It provides basic conceptual activities in managing the library system by changing various relations between library goals and its resources.

Each library system is developed within its own unique environment. Any changes in the internal, intrinsic relationships (between alpha-beta-gamma) or external, extrinsic interpretations (Pd-Cx-Co) affect the total system.

12.6.3 Intrinsic Relations

The goals of library management (beta) are defined in te rms of relationships between potential information contained in the recorded message (e.g., book) and the degree of satisfying patrons' needs for information.

Library goals are usually defined generically, allowing for adaptation to social changes. Goal displacement may be created by mixing library goals with means of achieving them (e.g., efficiency of operations at the expense of their effectiveness). Goal confusion may also be the result of formulating too broad goals (e.g., goals which lack direction) or goals unrelated to the mission of the parental institution, (e.g., collecting records which are of no interest to the library public).21

Managerial functions (alpha) involve planning of policies, development of operational procedures, and coordinating their behavior in an actual library environment. Planning is designed to implement library goals by relating the actual with the desirable library system, to identify the most appropriate services and to meet these go als and their methods.

Policies and procedures are developed in terms of available resources by setting goal-oriented priorities. Coordination of activities reflects the changing environment. It is pragmatic in its concentration on libraries' end-results.

Library resources (gamma) represent means available to the library in accomplishing its goals. They consist of human resources (staff and patrons), physical records (recorded meaning), and supporting facilities (from furniture to fin ancial support). Internal relationships within each resource are determined by the resource's own characteristics.

The three components are fully interrelated: the goals are influenced by the impact of library collections, the profile of its users, and the resulting level of dissemination. The planning is determined by the nature of the organization. It changes the structure of the organization by designing its future goals and by modifying or rearranging its goal's priorities. Processing library resources determines the value of the library itself by changing its utility and staff services. This change significantly impacts on the mission and planning of the library.

The total interrelationships between the above components of managerial functions are directly influenced by the library environment, such as geographical, political, cultural, and economic pressures on the content of collections and on the kind of services offered by the library. Hence no two libraries can be managed exactly the same way, even if their goals, functions, and resources were similar.

12.6.4 Three Kinds of Extrinsic Relations

(a) Procedural relations refer to library spatial organization. They determine the location of various components within the library and define the physical structure and boundaries of the library system (e.g., floor arrangement, staff assignments).

Their model is an efficiently run organization. It deals with the physical properties of the librar y codified in a formal system of rules and regulations that can be measured and experimented with. The procedural dimension is the most frequently researched subject.

(b) Contextual relations refer to temporal changes in the library system, defining the scope of library activities and determining library functions (e,g., processing library material, or answering reference questions). Its model is the duration of the activities and of the relationships between different acts in their context of adjusting, adapting, and coordinating library services to the constantly changing demands for them. Their major component is the human factor (management, staff and patrons), hence this dimension is of interest in psychological and sociological studies.

(c) Conceptual relations refer to spatio-temporal processes and services in fulfilling the overall mission of the library. They connect library structure with its functions, by relating them, through the planning process, to an ideal concept of what a library ought to be.

Their model is an ideal, hypothetical relationship between the other two elements. It creates pressures for continuous improvement. It is often a focus of historical, comparative, and philosophical research in librarianship, studying similarities and differences between systems developed at different times, in different environments and for different purposes.

12.6.5 Relationships among the Three Dimensions 22

Proceduralism of library structure (Pd) determines the quantitative aspects of library operations by concentrating on the size of the collection, technology, etc. Contextualism (Cx) represents coordination of library operations, expressed by temporal changes in services and collections; it evaluates the quality and effectiveness of library services, mediates conflicts, and balances contradictory pressures on the system.

Conceptualism (Co) represents a planning process of interrela ting the structural processes and temporal services in terms of the institutional goals. In a service-oriented library, the institution's goals will closely relate to expanded library services, with less pronounced technological development. In a highly specialized library, the goals of the institution will be inclined toward the structural aspects of library organization, providing highly advanced information technology, with much less emphasis on user services. Therefore the interrelationships among proce dural, contextual, and conceptual approaches in the library system determine the structure, temporary, and ideal character of the library.

None of the three dimensions by itself can fulfill the managerial requirements. A processing center concentrates exclusively on processing library materials; a contextual information agency focuses on specialized issues only, and a conceptual consulting agency offers advice but no service. It is the interrelationship among the engineering, servicing, and pla nning dimensions uniting them into one interdependent system, which makes the library a unique information discipline23

12.7 Summing Up

12.7.1 A comparison between Library Information Science, Library Management, and Metalibrarianship

The definitions of library information science, of meta-librarianship, and of library management illustrate the basic similarities and differences between these three interpretations of the field. The table below summarizes the relationships. [Fig. 12-6]

All three approaches are a part of the same overall discourse about data-information-knowledge transfer from the recorded messages to their recipients. Library information science stresses the theoretical aspects of the transfer activities, meta-librarianship focuses on the philosophical relationships, and library management concentrates on the efficiency and effectiveness of d-i-k transfer itself between the basic elements in these ac tivities.

Library information science is the subject of data-information-knowledge transfer research; metalibrarianship is the object of that research, the goal toward which all library management efforts are directed.

It is fashionable today, especially in graduate library schools, to consider information science as the primary subject of the discipline, relegating library science to one of its subdivisions. The distinction between the two branches is valid, but the suggested hierarchy is unnecessary, disregarding the conceptual and hist orical development of the field.

Information science emerged from library practice similarly to the medical sciences' emergence from medical practice. Both terms, 'medicine' and 'metalibrarianship', stand for meta-sciences; the former addresses preservation of human health, and the latter is dedicated to the preservation of records of human knowledge. Both are metatheories, studying basic relationships within their own disciplines. Medical and information sciences provide epistemological bases f or the practice of physicians and librarians, in hospitals and libraries as their primary locations. Medicine, in its dealing with the matters of life and death, gained societal recognition and a high prestige rating. Librarianship, dealing with the records of human understanding of life and death, still struggles for proper recognition.

12.7.2 Toward a Metalibrary Information Science

Neither information science nor metalibrarianship is the best name for the philosophical aspects of the redefined discipline of library information science. Each reflects a bias of emphasis, political to establish its scholarly credentials in information science, and cultural to preserve the library role in society in metalibrarianship. So, until a catchier sound-bite is popularized, the term 'metalibrary information science' (METALIS) is tentatively offered as a name for the philosophical bases of the library information science (LIS). METALIS suggests a unity between the library and informat ion-related fields, unified by intellectual processes in expanding the paradigms of the discipline whose basic concerns are the relationships between the recorded thoughts, their creators, recipients, and formats of expression.

The now-emerging eclectic science of information attempts to isolate the unique component of 'information' the presence or absence of which significantly affects various interpretations of reality. This as-yet-nebulous concept has already been adapted in business schools; it reinterprets theories in social sciences, adds intellectual meaning for the otherwise mechanical computerized processes, and commercializes many aspects of learning processes.

While library science focuses on physical records, information science that is related to librarianship concentrates on conceptual records, which emerge from their physical carriers.

By way of a summary for the argument presented in this book, the diagram Fig. 12-7 : Major Relationshi ps in Metalibrary Information Science, suggests a possible model for METALIS. It outlines the relationships between the root-metaphors of library science (alpha, beta, gamma), with the library-related information science's focus on d-i-k transfer. The relationships are analyzed at the primary empirical, environmental, and conceptual levels (Pd, Cx, Co).

As shown in the diagram, each primary component within METALIS (alpha, beta, gamma, data, information, and knowledge) is internally interre lated with all the other components (Fig. 12-7: internal relations). In addition, each cluster of relations, interpreted at the three levels, is interdependent. The process of acquiring new knowledge by the individual (the alpha-k axes) is threefold, reflecting the procedural, contextual, and conceptual relationships between the records involved and their content, relevant to the specific data-information-knowledge transfer. (Fig. 12-7: external relations)

In the present essay, the primary metalibrary relationships within library science (LS) are more fully developed than the corresponding metainformative relations within library related information science (IS). The reason is, of course, historical. The theories in library science were the precursors of the just-now-developing field of information science.

It is the assumption of this essay that in no matter which direction the discipline eventually takes, it will retain some basic chara cteristics, which define its meta-theory. Primary among them will be the analysis of the structure, order, and form of processes that facilitate the transfer of the requested content of recorded data, information, or knowledge to the individual inquirer.

Tentatively, the proposed metalibrary information science (METALIS) can be defined as a unique discipline which studies the principles (meta-informative) and practices (meta-library) determined by patterns of relationships between recorded d-i-k tr ansfer processes within specific alpha-beta-gamma root-metaphors settings, and synthesized at interrelated Pd-Cx-Co levels of analysis.

2.8 Appraisal of Metalibrarianship

12.8.1 Critique24

(a) In his "Apres Librarianship, Le Metalibrarianship; Comments on the philosophy of Joseph Nitecki" (1980) Bergen raises three objections to my model of metalibrarianship; two deal with infrastructure and one with a superstructure.

Knowledge, Berg en argues, is of a different genus than book and/or user. Hence, the three metaphors of proceduralism, contextualism, and conceptualism may not, Bergen maintains, actually exhaust all possible relationships between alpha-beta-gamma. Proceduralism and contextualism tend to be self-confirming, and hence proceduralism cannot be divorced from contextualism, since they are thesis and antithesis, metaphor and counter-metaphor.

He is also concerned about the complexity of my model; it appears to b e more a product of accretion than design. Popper's tripartite epistemology resembles mine: his material, physical world is similar to my 'generic book'; his mental, psychological world (observations, thoughts, and feelings) resembles my 'user'; and his abstract product of mind, the world of theories, myth, etc., is similar to my 'knowledge.' Popper's worlds of mental products and mine of knowledge are Bergen's main issues of disagreement.

Bergen feels that the modern trend is toward dualism (e. g., Chomsky's dyadic linguistic model). He is "suspicious of the notion that knowledge can endure independently of our minds and records . . . I see knowledge and other mental products, however abstract, as contingent rather than autonomous."25

His second objection refers to the self-fulfilling nature of my metaphors. Bergen quotes the Feyerabend notion that "hypotheses codify observation so decisively that they are ultimately self-confirming . . . hypotheses are models for, rathe r than models of, the phenomena they attempt to comprehend . . . Metaphoric thought is essentially analogical . . . some thing or event or process that is known and familiar is like . . . something that is unknown"; it has a heuristic value.26

Bergen maintains that the three metaphors do not embrace the totality of librarianship: while proceduralism and contextualism refer to the present, conceptualism refers to the future. As metaphor and counter-metaphors, proceduralism and contextualism cannot be separated and considered independently of psychological impact of alpha-beta-gamma.

Finally, he objects to the excessive complexity of my metalibrarianship and would prefer to reduce the relationships to the book and the user, and "would reorganize proceduralism, contextualism, and conceptualism into a more unified metaphoric tool in which proceduralism and contextualism interact closely as metaphor and counter-metaphor and in which the effectiveness of conceptualis m, as it looks to the future, is directly contingent upon the sophistication of that interaction." 27

Bergen also sees 'jerkiness' and 'disconnectedness' in my model, asking for 'tightening and synthesis'; "somehow . . . the center does not hold."28

He similarly criticizes me for introducing the three metaphors of proceduralism, contextualism, and conceptualism as means for structuring the relationships between alpha-beta-gamma. According to him, kn owledge cannot be a category apart from books and users; and my metaphor is not as metaphysical as I would like it to be, because it always is 'subject to empirical contamination.'

Bergen ties criticism of me with criticism of Wright. He identifies Curtis Wright as "an unabashed admirer of the unadulterated Platonic form in librarianship,"29 taking a metaphysical approach, detached from library practice.

Fairthorne, similarly to me -- according to Bergen --"express es his preference for a librarianship which is as detached from the substance of the world as are . . . removed abstractions that are the symbols of mathematics." 30

Bergen concludes his criticism by quoting a metaphor of Isaiah Berlin, "who developed the interesting distinction between the 'fox' or pluralist and the 'hedgehog' or the monist, [and he] would undoubtedly consider Nitecki as much of a fox as Aristotle." 31

Bergen comments suggest a p ossibility for another version of metalibrarianship. Notwithstanding his criticism of a specific essay of mine, he compares what he read with something he would like to see written instead. In my original essay I interpreted beta (identified there by a symbol 'K') metaphorically as the content of the message, an integrated part of the alpha-beta-gamma relationship. The relationship itself, interpreted metaphorically, aims not at a new concept of knowledge, but is formulated to understand its given meaning w ithin the context of the relationship between the carrier in which it is expressed and the way it is interpreted by the reader of the book.

Furthermore, my theory is not about the explanation of reality, but about validity in any such explanation. Hence, the knowledge in this equation is the content, or subject matter of a selected book, as perceived by its reader. It is not knowledge in abstraction. To avoid the misunderstanding, I have changed the labels in the basic relationships (in the ori ginal text 'B-U-K' designated the relationships between a generic book, its user or reader, and knowledge as the content of the book) to more general designations as beta (content of the message), alpha (an interpreter of the message), and gamma (carrier of the message), and I discussed the concept of knowledge in the context of d-i-k transfer.

(b) Fairthorne 32 compares his system of information retrieval with metalibrarianship and criticizes me for concentrating on one tr iad only instead of his twenty. By confounding under BOOK (gamma) his MESSAGE, CODE, and CHANNEL, I omitted his element SOURCE.

My triad is a confluent case of Fairthorne's triad (Nitecki, 1968). I consider KNOWLEDGE as the subject of the study of the library, while Fairthorne advocates a DISCOURSE. He distinguishes between being informed 'about' (the librarians' task) and 'by' a document (the author's and reader's task).

Both theories use the same strategy by describing two basical ly different phenomena. He focuses on 'signaling' in Shannon's sense. I stress a meaning expressed by relations between alpha-beta-gamma.

In my model, the concepts of alpha, beta, and gamma are purposefully primitive, undefined terms, since the subject of the study is not the study of any of them, but the relationships among them. Fairthorne searches for basic principles in minimal, analytic theory of information, "to find a smallest black box that we are inside of"; my interest is in the maxima l, synthetic theory of librarianship, studying relationships, to use Fairthorne's metaphor, among at least three different 'black boxes.'

We both agree that the subject matter of the generic book itself is not of primary concern in the theory of librarianship; however, I maintain that the relational aspect of the book's subject matter expands the relationships between the primitive terms, alpha and beta. The 'knowledge,' considered as relations known, enters the subject matter of philosophy of l ibrarianship as a content, beta, of the d-i-k transfer. In Fairthorne's model the subject matter of librarianship is a 'discourse.' He defined it as "an orderly communication of thoughts"; to me it is a study of how elements of the alpha-beta-gamma triad affect each other through discourse. His model is in the theory of librarianship --mine is about the theories of librarianship formulated in a philosophy of the discipline considered as a metalibrarianship.

In each of the models, the nature of librarianship is examined through lenses of different focal lengths.

12.8.2 Other Comments

Other writers who made some marginal comments on my model were less interested in the philosophical nuances of metalibrarianship than in its interpretative value for other aspects of librarianship.

(a) McInnis, 33 in his discussion of theoretical and conceptual foundations of library instruction, agrees with my premise that "there is no reason why librarian ship as a scientific discipline cannot build its own theory, based on . . . metaphorical models"34 He prefers Pepper's contextual root-metaphor framework over general systems theory in developing his own model and he endorses Wright's and my own belief that "librarianship must be metaphysical rather than scientific."35

(b) Engle, 36 in his short essay, endorses metaphysical and metaphorical interpretation of the nonphysical dimensions of l ibrarianship, illustrated by McInnis's bibliographic instruction strategy. He notes that what the patrons seek in the library "is something that can only be characterized metaphorically, although it is grounded in the physical" carriers.37 Thus a need arises for a philosophy of librarianship that offers "direction for the actions and decisions of daily work and the formulation of long-term goals and objectives."38 Engle discusses three specific dimensions of the role of librarian: as an intervenor, as a service agent, and as a tolerator of ambiguity, roughly resembling the contxtual, procedural, and conceptual dimensions of librarianship.

(c) Kao Cheng in her two books 39 introduced my theory of metalibrarianship to her Chinese readers. The concept of metalibrarianship is explained in terms of "Sino-Buddhistic branch of philosophy =- 'Wei-shis' or 'Consciousness-only,' or Vijada-nada'." 40

(d) Rosario Gassol d e Horowitz's 41 primary theme is library education in the Third World. In search of a theoretical framework for the discussion, she dedicated one part of her book to the broad review of philosophical issues pertinent to her theme.

In concluding her review. Horowitz referred to meta-librarianship, by saying that "the tridimensional concept of librarianship is a useful perspective in the achievement of professional integration. . . . [It] provides an adequate and flexible framework for the development of theory, research, and curriculum . . . [because it] is in tune with contemporary philosophy and with the multidisciplinary trends and conceptual reformulations . . . [addressing] effectively the merger of technologies."42

12.9 Epilogue

Humanity began with the discovery of communication in creating culture. Recognizing the ability to modify his environment, man began the technological revolution of remaking the universe. Overwhelm ed by his occasional successes and continuous failures, he started reflecting on the meaning of change and became a philosopher. He learned how to respect the wisdom of his predecessors, how to utilize knowledge in his day-to-day struggle, and how to shape the future by passing his experiences on to his successors. He started describing his experiences and recording his thoughts. The concept of the library emerged.

As the proverbial memory of mankind, library collection preserved the records of the past, disseminating their content to the inquisitive patrons and providing resources for inventing the future. As a discipline of learning, the library profession slowly emerged with its own theory of bibliographic reality. As a field of scholarship, library science developed a better knowledge map for guiding the researchers in their pursuit of understanding the universe. By developing procedures for handling the multiplicity of knowledge-records, the library speeded up the process.

First t he records of knowledge were acquired, preserved organized, and made available to the public. The reader read the manuscript, sharpening his vision and stimulating his curiosity. He began asking questions. And librarians started searching for the answers, by asking their own questions. The seeds were planted for the philosophy of librarianship. In the last hundred years or so, librarians have reflected on thousands of issues relevant to their profession. For the first time, they shifted their focus from the format of the recorded message to its essence. They called it information, but were unsure of its definition.

The time has come to reexamine the intellectual foundations of librarianship, to develop theories about it, and to build new models. One such effort is presented to the reader with an invitation to further extend the understanding of the knowledge transfer, crudely drafted in this book.

Before completing the intellectual journey, I related the theory of the knowledge transfe r to its possible practical application. I have provided illustrations for translating conceptual speculations to the empirical management of ideas, and specifically to the management of knowledge records.

The ancient idea of collecting instigated the growth of cultural resources. Constantly improving technology contributed to the efficient management of records. Librarianship, as a unique discipline, made the use of the records more effective.

The philosophy of librarianship will e ventually clarify the essence of librarianship by interrelating its many facets. The social role of librarianship is to maintain the custodianship of human memory. Its psychological responsibility is to protect the collective consciousness of mankind, by selecting the most representative records of both good and bad human efforts, which recorded the civilizations' accomplishments and failures.

But the foremost is the essence of librarianship, its mission to guide the user of recorded knowledge in grasping the meaning of the universe's environment, emanating from the ever-growing documentation of its progress.

Metalibrarianship was thus presented as a meta-library interpretation of relationships between receivers of recorded messages, their content, and format, interpreted at the physical, social, and humanistic levels. This was the theme of this book and is a hypothesis to be developed. I rest my case.

1. See for example my other essays that dis cuss more specific issues from the metalibrary viewpoint, such as: (a) the nega- tive impact of hypocrisy on librarianship, "The Predicament of Hypocrisy in Librarianship," in May/June 1983 of Catholic Library World , 54(10), 406-411; (b) the nature of austerity in library management, in "Creative Management in Austerity ," by J. F.Harvey, & P. Spyers-Duran (Eds.), Austerity Manage ment in Academic Libraries , 1984 (pp. 43- 61), Metuchen, N.J.: Th e Scarecrow Press.; (c) management and staff morale in "Decision-Making and Library Staff Morale: Three Dimensions of a Two-Sided Issue," Journal of Library Administration , (Summer 1984) 15(4), 59-78; (d) the role of common sense in management in: "In Search of Sense in Common Sense Management," Journal of Business Ethics , (1987), 6, 639-647; or (e) the impact of the changing information environment on the content of introductory courses in librar- ianship Selected Thematic Priorities in American Graduate Intro ductory Courses to Library and Information Science (Microfiche: ED331527), Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, 1991.

2. The discussion of general characteristics of management and their replication in a library is based on R. D. Stueart, and Barbara B. Moran (1987), Library Management , Littleton, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited (Third Editi on).

3. Stueart & Moran, 1987, p. 54, passim.

4. For a more detailed discussion of historical and theoretical aspects of managerial theories summarized here, see Stueart and Moran, 1987, op. cit., pp. 1-16.

5. Ibid., p. 1.

6. Examples listed here were cited in Stueart and Moran, op. cit.

7. Ibid.

8. Descriptions of the theories in this section are based on Stueart and Moran, op. cit., pp. 4-16.

9. The engineering model (1) assumes that workers are motivated by economic rewards and must be prompted to improve quantity and quality of work; (2) it is based on man-machine metaphor, resembling toady's human brain-computer analogies; (3) it is an experimental process (work experience is to be codified and each phase of work studied in detail), (4) it implemented work standards, us e of best tools, and reward for above average performance and initiative . Its contemporary express- ion is in the notion 'cheaper by a dozen,' use of the bonus system for performance above existing norms, and extensive use of planning and scheduling techniques.

10. Fayol's fourteen principles of management consisted of: (1) division of work (specialization), (2) authority (making responsibility commensurate with authority), (3) discipline, (4) unity of command (one boss), (5) unity of direction (one plan), (6) subordination of personal interests to general goals, (7) fair wages, (8) centralization (of supervisor's power), (9) scalar chain (horizontal and advisory in nature communication), (10) order (clear definition of roles and activities in the organization), (11) equity (justice with kindness), (12) stability (low turnover), (13) initiative (use of rewards as incentives), (14) esprit de corps (through communication). Fayol, Henry (1929), Industrial and General Admin istration . Geneva: International Management Institute, and Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management . New York: Pitman.

11. Mary Follett (1900s) studied the impact of workers' morale on their job performance. She considered management as a social process stressing the importance of direct contact with people and of reciprocity of invo lvement. Follett, M. P.( 1941), "Dynamic Administration; The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (e dited by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick). New York: Harper's.

12. Stueart, 1987, op.cit., p.12.

13. A good selection of readings on the topics discussed in this section was assembled by Person, Ruth J., ed., The Management Process ; A Selection of Readings for Librarians . Chicago, American Library Association, 1983.

14. Nitecki, J. Z. (Summer 1980). "Conceptual Dimension of Library Management." Journal of Library Administration , 1(2), 47-58.

15. Nitecki, J. Z. (Fall 1983). "Old Ghost in a New Body: Some Misconceptions about Information-Knowledge Relations and the Role of Computers in Academic Libraries". Research Strategies , 1(4), p. 152.

16. See also Nitecki, J. Z. (April, 1968). "Reflection of the Nature and Limits of Library Science." The Journal of Library History , Philosophy and Comparative Librarianship , 3(2), 103-119; and Nitecki, J. Z. (October, 1968-a) "Reply of Mr. Nitecki to Mr.Fairthorne." The Journal of Library History , Philosophy and Comparative Librarianship, 3(4), 369- 374.

17. For a succinct definition of the research on which those notes are based, see R. M. Hayes. Syllabus for Methods of Research Components , 1987 (mimeograph copy prepared for his graduate students).

18. This diagram is based on research components discussed in Hayes (1987), op. cit.

19. Nitecki, J. Z. (Summer 1980). "Conceptual Dimension of Library Management." Journal of Library Administration , 1(2), 47-58.

20. Ibid., p. 51.

21. There is a considerable terminological confusion in the lit- erature concerning some basic concepts. I interpret them here as follow: an aim is a direction of activities, a goal is a target aimed at; an object is the activity under consideration, and an end is a terminal point of those activities. Objectives describe the intentions, purposes, and reasons for action. Obligation is created by circumstances, compulsion, and binding promises; duty is something due because of the nature of a task, or an assignment 'x'. Responsib ility is the accountability for the fulfillment of the obligations and duties toward 'x'. Hence, 'X' is aimed at as a target (goal) or as a direction (aim); obligations reflect commitment to 'x'; duty the requirement of; and responsibility the account ability for fulfilling 'x'.

22. Nitecki, 1980, op. cit., p. 56.

23. For a discussion of metalibrary interpretation of ethical issues related to decision-m aking processes and staff morale see Nitecki, 1984, op. cit. In that essay the relationships between staff morale and decision-making are reviewed in terms of three variables, each providing different dimensions of those relations: (a) operational, conceptual policies, procedures, and rules; (2) ethical, contextual environment determined by mores of an institution, the individuals in it, and the groups they associate with; and (3) procedural, work envi ronment expressed by aggregated attitudes of staff toward administrative decisions (Nitecki, 1984, op. cit.,p. 61) .

24. The critique discussed in this section refers to the essays published before this book, hence the symbols referred to are changed. Some of the criticism might have been answered by the present version of the theory. Unanswered criticism, and any new questions that will be raised by some readers of this book, are passed on to the future researchers in the field.

25. Bergen, D. (1980). Apres Librarianship , Le Metalibrarianship : Comments on the Philosophy of Joseph Nitecki , p. 7.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., p. 13.

28. Ibid., p. 14.

29. Bergen, D. (1981). The Dialogue of Metaphysics and Empirics ; Librarianship as Platonic and Aristotelian . (Typescript for Charles H . Busha, ed. The Rise of Library Science Theory, p. 12.

30 Ibid., p. 13.

31. Bergen, 1980, op. cit., p. 14.

32. Fairthorne, R. A. (October 1968). "The Limits of Information Retrieval." Journal of Library History and Comparative Librarianship , 3, 364-369, and his October 1968 Repartee. The Journal of Library History , Philosophy and Comparative Librarianship , 3(4), 363.

33. McInnis, R. (1982)." Do Metaphors Make Good Sense in Teaching Research Strategy?" In C. Oberman, and Katina Strauch (eds). Theories of Bibliographic Education . (pp. 47-74). New York: R. R. Bowker.

34. Ibid., p. 47: quoted Nitecki, 1979).

35. Ibid., p. 55.

36. Engle, M. O. (1986)." Librarianship as Calling: The Philosophy of College Librarianship." The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 12(1), 30-32.

37. Ibid., p. 31.

38. Ibid., p. 30.

39. Kao, Chin-hs˙uueh (1985). T'u shu kuan ch'e hs'ueh chih yen chiu (A Study of Library Philosophy). Taipei, Taiwan: Shu P'eny Ch'u Pan Sh'e; and her 1989 book: Chiao se ting wei yu t'u shu kuan chik fa chan (Roles of the Library and Its development). Taipei: Shu p'engpan She.

40. Kao, 1985, op. cit., p. 288.

41. Horowitz, R. G. de (1988). Librarianship ; A Third World Perspective . New York: Greenwood Press.

42. Ibid., p. 113.