34. Introduction to Rare Book Librarianship

24-28 July 1995

For a description of this course, see above, no. 26. The first session of the course (17-21 July) is intended for professional librarians who have had no formal training in this field but whose duties now include the administration or care of rare book collections. This session of the course is open to all those with an interest in rare book librarianship, whether or not they are currently working in a library or have had formal training in the field.

1. How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: The pre-course readings provided a helpful overview of the subject. I was not able to obtain as many as I would have liked, however, due to photocopying costs and restricted access to some of the materials (especially those housed in Special Collections or reference areas of my university's library). 2: They were pertinent, but I would say a failure to read them would not have precluded participation. 3: Very. 4: Very good. 5: They were excellent. 6: Very useful. 7: Readings were very useful -- would have been helpful if we were urged more strongly to do the readings because they would provide a basic knowledge of the field -- something many people did not have. 8: Very useful. 9: I thought the pre-course readings were very useful. I especially enjoyed the articles on Blumberg and Jenkins. 10: I found them helpful for providing a framework for discussion and for introducing some of the current problems and trends in the field. 11: The reading list was very helpful. 12: Reading list was excellent, making the course almost superfluous. However, although most participants are librarians and able to find information, a detailed reading list on specific topics would have been useful takeaways!

2. Did your instructor prepare sufficiently to teach THIS course? Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful?

1: Instructor's preparation seemed adequate. The syllabus will be very useful in the future. 2: Yes. 3: Yes, but the last day show and tell of books should've occurred on the first day. 4: Yes. 5: Since I don't know what he's done in previous years, I can't very well answer. But he was prepared and never at a loss for words (and in an assortment of languages). 6: Yes. 7: Yes -- yes. 8: Yes. 9: DT is clearly an expert in his subject area. Materials were very appropriate. 10: I think the instructor was well prepared and I intend to consult the course materials more closely when I return home. 11: Had the appearance of being anecdotal and extemporaneous. Preparation, other than the syllabus, wasn't heavily evident. 12: Given my background, teaching by anecdote was effective. However, some students with less experience might have preferred a more structured approach and more hands-on work with rare books, eg, following a book from acquisition, description, and use (using appropriate bibliographies, &c.).

3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: I felt overwhelmed at times with some of the rapid-fire or obscure (to me) references, anecdotes, and acronyms that came at me in class. The freedom to interrupt and ask questions at appropriate moments was helpful in dealing with some of this. 2-3: Yes. 4: Could have been more rigorous and less rambling and, at times, less repetitive. 5: Yes. 6: Not quite. This was supposed to be a course for beginners in rare book librarianship, without previous experience. A simple, systematic approach -- ``these are the things you need to know'' -- would have been better than DT's rambling, anecdotal style (interesting though his anecdotes were) which presumed a lot of background information. 7-8: Yes. 9: Much of the content could be described as common-sense stuff. I thought DT did a very good job making this content interesting with anecdotes and examples. 10: I found the level appropriate to persons who, like me, are beginners in the rare book field. 11: Fine -- some examples were obscure to me, which made it difficult to follow, especially since the teaching approach was so anecdotally based. 12: Admittedly, I took the wrong course. For me, the level taught was too low, but that was my fault. However, DT is resourceful, entertaining, and engaging -- his digressions were well worth the price of admission.

4. If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: Our visit to Special Collections at UVa was a nice variation within the course itself. I would have liked to see more hands-on/physical examples (along with explanations) of the materials. More intensive, one-on-one time with the instructors would be helpful to allow novices to practice and would make the learning process more proactive. 2-4: Yes. 5: The field trip was OK. Mike Plunkett is not the most scintillating speaker. Also, we got to see virtually nothing of the Rare Book/Special Collections facilities. 6: Yes. 7: Very much so -- would like to have spent more time actually in Special Collections. 8: Yes, but I would have appreciated a tour of Special Collections, ie, follow the acquisition from cataloging on into the various departments, &c. 9: Our visit to Special Collections was indeed informative. DT did a good job associating this visit with his lecture by critiquing the current exhibit. 10: I found the trip to Special Collections helpful. I wish we had had more time to spend there. 11: Wish we could have spent more time in Special Collections. Enjoyed the information supplied by Michael Plunkett and found his talk very useful. Thank you! 12: Yes. More emphasis (or even an exploration of) the virtual library, special collections' home pages, scanned/digitized texts, &c., would be useless. Exploration of the non-traditional, please! More on political astuteness and lobbying within the current climate of fiscal restraint, too.

5. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description? Did the course in general meet your expectations?

1: I expected that the course would consist mainly of theory and discussion concerning rare books, &c. However, I still maintain that learning by doing or, at least learning by being allowed to intake and digest a variety of examples in appropriate contexts, is better over the long term. 2: Pretty much. I had expected it to be more concerned with method. 3: Yes, though too anecdotal. 4: Yes -- except in the depth of information. Our instructor seemed to forget at times that our section was supposed to be for those not responsible for special collections yet. 5: Yes. 6: In general, yes. 7: Did fit the description, but because many people in the course were practicing librarians, more practical, factual material would have helped. 8: Overall, yes. 9: Overall, I thought the course was excellent. 10: Yes to both questions. 11: Didn't know what to expect, but had hoped a more systematic approach had been implemented; perhaps I was in the wrong course for my expectations. (History of the Book might have been more what I needed to learn.) The course spoke in generalities which, although interesting, weren't the most helpful for answering my specific questions. 12: Yes. Again, I underestimated my background and experience. I would have liked to have examined more rare books in a particular institutional context.

6. What did you like best about the course?

1: I liked the exposure to the wide variety of people, theory, and options available in this field. Networking is encouraged, and that's a plus. It was very easy to maintain a high level of enthusiasm. 2: The sharing of accumulated experience of all participants. 3: Interaction. 4: Ideas/content/subject itself. Glimpse of possibilities. 5: The knowledge -- encyclopedic -- that DTlavishly displays. 6: I learned a lot from DT's experience and the experiences of some of the other students. 7: Combination of lecture and discussion (when discussion was guided). 8: Opportunity to meet and visit with fellow individuals in a like field. 9: I enjoyed best the readings. However, DT also proved to be a very entertaining lecturer. 10: I found the opportunity to meet and talk with others from diverse backgrounds and experience the best part of the course. My classmates work in a variety of institutional settings both here and abroad; hearing their problems and experiences was of great value. 11: The reading list and, better yet, the people I met during the course and learning about their backgrounds. 12: Meeting fellow students; contacts with other square pegs. Having the time to think about the profession, my institution, and my role/career in the field.

7. How could the course have been improved?

1: The course could be improved by more hands-on work with rare materials. Perhaps more teaching assistants, pictorials, worksheets (especially terminology), and audio/visual would help in the process of describing rare books/materials/processes to novice students in ways that would hold their attention and result in long-lasting knowledge. It needs to be more practical and hands-on! 3: More varied viewpoints -- not just DT's opinions. 4: More substantive. Some more actual materials discussed as examples. 5: DT needs to stay more focused. He needs to compile a list of ``leading questions'' of the type he gives in rapid fire during the lecture. These are very valuable. Also, fewer foreign phrases, less jargon, fewer dropped names and institutions would be good. 6: See no.3, above. 7: Discussions strayed too far from subjects at hand -- instructor could have done more to bring them back to the point. More factual material given earlier in the week -- then move to freer discussion. Best sessions were Wednesday-Friday. There were too many stories and personal anecdotes. 8: Perhaps a bit more hands-on and less theoretical approach, but no big deal. 9: DT began with a very open discussion format and only later became more structured in his presentations. I would suggest reversing this sequence; beginning with a structured format will afford students a better point of view for open discussion. 10: I think there could have been more discussion of some of the material we were assigned to read before coming to RBS. 11: Sticking to a more systematic approach. Hands-on or guided tour of Special Collections. 12: Less time sitting still and listening! Although questions and discussions were welcome, some of us like variety and appreciate specific activities. I wouldn't have minded preparing material on a subject and presenting it to the class.

8. Any final thoughts?

1: I would recommend reading some good how-to books on printing, bibliography, collation, &c., with regard to rare books to help get through the terminology, if the person is a novice. 3: Sitting on a hard seat is very tiring. 4: Offering reading lists from any (or all) courses to all students after they leave so they can read and/or plan ahead for attending the following year. Opening up evenings would allow more possibility of chatting with students from other courses. 5: Stay the hell out of UVa housing. And enjoy the coffee cake. 8: From what I've heard, perhaps the housing descriptions of Brown were not quite as accurate as possibly they could have been. Continue to make it very clear that Course 34 is not just necessarily for librarians -- I am not and it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. This is rather an intensive schedule -- I would personally have appreciated a mid-week afternoon shortened -- I got damn tired! 10: It was of great benefit to me to learn that the rare book professionals have many of the same concerns as archivists regarding access to primary materials, security, cooperative efforts, and integrating technology into their work. Settings such as RBS allow conversations to take place which help archivists and librarians (as well as practicing scholars) understand each other better. 11: Realize that discourse and an anecdotal approach are used. Very generalized in scope. Would it be possible to get the reading lists for other courses offered this year? I know I debated betweenattending three courses this same week and need the information offered in the other courses. Enjoyed the visit to the Etext Center -- fascinating! 12: Gender: Obviously the field does not suffer from a dearth of female practitioners or scholars. Why are so few of them invited to teach? There is too much of an old boy network about the program. Ethnicity: Not to be tiresomely politically correct, but: special collections and rare book libraries will survive only if they are able to respond to contemporary trends in scholarship and demographic realities. Without resorting to tokenism, RBS could better respond to the needs of young rare book and special collections librarians. A field trip (given the beauty of the region and the historical import of the area) would have been welcome. Money spent on receptions might have allowed for money to be spent renting a bus. Finally, congratulations on a marvelous school, excellent program, and attention to detail. The conviviality of almost everyone from RBS made the week a delight!

Number of respondents: 12

Percentages