No. 16: How to Research a Rare Book
15-19 July 1996
|
No. 16: How to Research a Rare Book 15-19 July 1996 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Very useful. 2: Good for general sense; not crucial. 3: I would have liked more specific articles to read, but the preparation was excellent and it was wonderful to have the bibliographies. 5: If I knew then what I know now.... I wish I had spent more time with the pre-course readings. 6: Appropriate and useful. 7: The pre-course readings were helpful, but not critical. 8: Very. Wish I had had more time to consider the bibliography. 9: Very useful in introducing the topic of the course. 10: Gave us a good background from which to start or to refresh our memories in this area. Just the right amount  ie, manageable and locatable. |
|
2. Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)? 1: Yes syllabus is especially goodso good, in fact, that it deserves an index! 2: Oh yes! Very! 3: Yes. 4: Very useful. 5: DK's list is excellent, and I plan to keep it near me at the desk. 6: Very. 7: The syllabus is and will be crucial for me and my work. 8: EXTREMELY. 9: The course syllabus was well structured and complete to the point of representing a very good source for reference material for bibliographic searching. 10: Extremely usefulthe basis of the course! But will also be used as a basis for evaluating our collection needs. A goldmine of information. |
|
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes. 2: Absolutely I learned, but was never overwhelmed. 3-5: Yes. 6: Superb. 7-8: Yes. 9: The class consisted of a wonderful group of people bringing experience from a variety of fields of library work and enthusiasm in approaching the course searching assignments. 10: Yes. Covered not just strategies, sources, etc.but gave the opportunity to get into interesting bibliographical tangents. This course required one to think, participate, and learn. Bravo! |
|
4. If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: We visited Special Collections briefly, but they weren't really prepared to receive the class. Suggest a different arrangement next year perhaps a scheduled visit so they know we're coming, how many, when, etc. 2: Yesneed Special Collections to use the research materials! 3-9: Yes. 10: N/A. |
|
5. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations? 1-2: Yes. 3: Far exceeded my expectations. 4-5: Yes. 6: Yes, and my expectations were more than met. 7: Yes and yes. 8-9: Yes. 10: Yes on both counts. Covered the material well and gave me the theory and practical tips I hoped to find. I would recommend it highly. |
|
6. What did you like best about the course? 1: The instructor, the syllabus, and the students! 2: The searching itself. The discussion of problem sets. The lore. 3: Learning new reference sources such a Bibliography of American Imprints and international sources I had never worked with. Also the interaction with colleagues was outstanding. 4: I really liked the course because of the exposure to all of the different bibliographies and how helpful they will be in my work. 5: The camaraderie that developed over the course of the week. That, and the knowledge I picked up from working with these sources. 6: The breadth of the lectures and the stimulating discussions. 7: The instructor (his sense of humor). 8: Our instructor, absolutely a wonderful surprise. 9: The instructor and the students. 10: I actually enjoyed doing the problem sets (don't let DK know this)there was a sense of satisfaction in finding solutions and discussing them afterwards with fellow classmates. |
|
7. How could the course have been improved? 1: If possible, make the reference materials in the custody of Special Collections more easily available to students for consultation. Prepare a simple index for the syllabus. 2: More/better access, especially to Special Collections reference materials. 3: Fewer reference questions (just kidding). 5: N/A. 6: An inordinate amount of time had to be devoted to completing the exercises out of class time. I recommend shortening and focusing the exercises. 7: Couldn't. 8: Perhaps to be encouraged to bring our all-over-the-map theoretical questions with us, or more pointed attention to big questions (the kind you get to at the end of the last day). More time, of course. Database searching is very much within the scope of this course (maybe it wasn't always) and I hope that the whole enterprise of searching is supporting in its printed and electronic arms. I wasn't sure how to feel about e-searching within this course, maybe would have preferred it to cover (pristinely) printed sources only this is my own lack of experience, probably, which makes the choice difficult. 10: I suggest more organization of materials that are in Special Collections so that there is not so much paperwork, fuss, leaving of papers in lockers, etc. This was frustrating on the first day as we were moved back and forth, as if the staff didn't quite know what to do with us. Bringing books (when possible) up from storage to Clemons was a great idea. You don't want to spend too much time running around. |
|
8. Please comment at will on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, e.g. Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, Bookseller Night, tour of the Etext Center or Electronic Classroom, printing demonstrations, evening lectures, &c. 1: All three were interesting and thought-provoking. 2: K. Rendell was great. T. Tanselle was adequate. 3: They are always a highlight, especially the Malkin lectures. 4: The quality was perfect. The evening lectures were very informative. 6: Wonderful. I found them a great improvement over last year. 7: The quality was very high, the format perfect. Most enjoyable. 8: Sixty per cent great. 9: Good. Interesting. Enlightening. 10: Evening lectures were stimulating and a good focal point for later dinner/reception discussions. TT was a bit of a disappointment it really sounded like a report, with little life in it. Could have been more interesting. |
|
9. Any final thoughts? 1: The course is perhaps more useful for reference librarians than catalogers. 2: Take it! As a librarian, a researcher, and a collector, I found it immensely practical and useful. 3: Take it! 4: The instructor's knowledge, his great sense of humor, and the atmosphere in his class all helped us to learn more and to understand the importance of using the reference books. 5: Like the ads say just do it. DK is wonderful. I really enjoyed the course, and would recommend it highly. 6: DK is a national treasure (perhaps international). It was a privilege to be in his course. 7: I would highly recommend this course for anyone doing cataloging, reference, collection development, etc., for pre-1800 imprints. 9: I had a great time. 10: The group did not jell as a group until the week was almost over. This is because of the individual emphasis of the problem sets and that is fine. Nobody really wants to work in teams. However, perhaps a lunch or some type of ice breaker at the beginning of the course would ease things up a bit. |
|
Number of respondents: 10 |
|
|
|
There were ten students: seven were rare book librarians (70%), two were general librarians with some rare book duties (20%), and one was a teacher/professor (10%). |