• 검색어에 아래의 연산자를 사용하시면 더 정확한 검색결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.
  • 검색연산자
검색연산자 기능 검색시 예
() 우선순위가 가장 높은 연산자 예1) (나노 (기계 | machine))
공백 두 개의 검색어(식)을 모두 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (나노 기계)
예2) 나노 장영실
| 두 개의 검색어(식) 중 하나 이상 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (줄기세포 | 면역)
예2) 줄기세포 | 장영실
! NOT 이후에 있는 검색어가 포함된 문서는 제외 예1) (황금 !백금)
예2) !image
* 검색어의 *란에 0개 이상의 임의의 문자가 포함된 문서 검색 예) semi*
"" 따옴표 내의 구문과 완전히 일치하는 문서만 검색 예) "Transform and Quantization"
쳇봇 이모티콘
ScienceON 챗봇입니다.
궁금한 것은 저에게 물어봐주세요.

논문 상세정보

종합대학 도서관장서의 적정량기준 설정에 관한 고찰 -미국의 종합대학도서관기준을 중심으로

Problems in Quantification of Adequacy of Academic Library Collections -Critical Analysis of Standards for Academic Libraries in the U.S.-


Library standards have been the source of considerable controversy, whereas many problems are involved in developing stardard for university library collections. For evaluation purposes, standards should be precise, quantifiable and measurable. In the United States, however, standards for academic libraries are limited to qualitative statements and principles. Quantitative standards, when given, are ususally related to the number of population in the institution being served, or the prescribed quantitative objectives are often arbitrarily formulated by value judgements. The study in this paper attempts to explain the problems involved in developing quantitative standard for academic library collections. Two problems facing in the formulation of the optimal size of collection are identified. One is the theoretically faulty concept of adequacy of collection to meet the situations of diversity of university libraies, and the other is the difficulties in quantification and measurement, along with the lack of concept of adequacy of collection. However, quantification of adequate size of collection is proved to be useful on the pratical level, even though not valid theoretically. ACRL, Clapp/Jordan and Voigt developed formulas or models for setting the optimal size of a library collection for any particular university library. The main purpose of this study is the analysis of the above formulas. ACRL standard was drawn from obervation and analysis of statistcs in leading library collections. In academic field, this judgement appears to have been based on the assumption that a high-grade institution would be apt to have a good library collection. This study criticizes ACRL standard for its failure to include some determinants of measurements, and points out the limitations of the standard. In contrast. Clapp/Jordan developed a formula rather scientifically based upon bibliographical sources. This is similarly empirical but has the advantage of bringing into play the elements which make universities diverse in nature. Both ACRL and Clapp/Jordan formulas share two major defects. (1) the specific subject needs of the collection are not indiacted directly, and (2) percentage rate of growth is an indicator in measuring the potential utility of a collection. Thus both formulas failed to provide a basis for meaningful evaluation. Voigt further developed a model for determining acquisition rates for currently published materials based on bibliographic technique. Voigt model encourages experimentation with different programs and different allocations of input resources, designed to meet the needs of the library's particular population. Standard for university library collections can be formulated in terms of input(traditional indicator), or additionally, in terms of output(cost-effectiveness). Cost effectiveness is expressed as user satisfaction, ability to provide wanted materials within a reasonable time period. Thus simple quantitative method does not cover all the situations of diversity of university library collections, nor measures the effectiveness of collections. Valid standard could not be established without further research.

참고문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문의 참고문헌 없음

이 논문을 인용한 문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문을 인용한 문헌 없음


원문 PDF 다운로드

  • ScienceON :

원문 URL 링크

원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다. (원문복사서비스 안내 바로 가기)

상세조회 0건 원문조회 0건

DOI 인용 스타일