double fault: a critique of "a planning process for public libraries"

Double Fault: A Critique of "A Planning Process for Public Libraries"Author(s): Patrick WilliamsSource: The Library Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1983), pp. 448-455Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4307663 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheLibrary Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:21:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4307663?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


DOUBLE FAULT: A CRITIQUE OF A PLANNING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC

LIBRARIES

Patrick Williams'

A Planning Process for Public Libraries does not propose one complete and inte- grated planning process but two defective processes. The defects of the document are obscured by its confusion and lack of logic. The prescriptions offered by the document cannot yield an intelligent plan.

Early in 1980, ALA published A Planning Process for Public Libraries for the Public Library Association. A Planning Process is the long-awaited replacement for Minimum Standards for Public Library Systems 1966. The new document is designed to supplant uniform standards; it is supposed to enable community libraries to set their own standards through a planning process involving extensive investigation and analysis of local factors and extensive cooperation between community groups and library professionals.

Since its publication, A Planning Process has been promoted and discussed at meetings held all over the country. Many libraries have used the document to plan their futures; every issue of Public Libraries notes that more and more libraries are "beginning the Planning Process" [1, pp. 61-62].2 The much discussed and much used document has not, however, received much critical analysis. It has been accepted pretty much the way the public library community customarily accepts official statements, with enthusiasm and no questions.

The purpose for this essay is to demonstrate that A Planning Process has serious defects. Any planning group that attempts to create a com- prehensive plan in accordance with the document will be defeated by the document itself. Planning can be successfully done without the docu-

[Library Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 448-4551 ? 1983 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

0024-25 19/83/5304-0004$0 1.00

448

1. Graduate Library School, University of Chicago, 1100 East Fifty-seventh Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637.

2. See [2], as well as other issues of Public Libraries; a regular feature on A Planning Process is published quarterly.



PLANNING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC; LIBRARIES 449

ment; and, of course, the document can be used for purposes other than planning. But any planning group that faithfully follows the document's prescriptions will produce a plan that is incoherent.

In general terms, the defects of the document are these. It prescribes not one complete and coherent planning process, but two separate processes, both incomplete and quite inconsistent with one another. Obscure prose and bad organization help to conceal the incoherence of the document's prescriptions. The remainder of this essay identifies the defects in detail.

At first glance, A Planning Process seems bulky: 304 letter-size pages. However, this bulk is somewhat misleading. Cursory inspection reveals that the document consists of an "Introduction and Overview," followed by 3 parts of varying length: a preliminary part I entitled "Preparing to Plan," a central part II entitled "The Planning Process," and an auxiliary part III entitled "Collecting and Using Data." The 3 parts are followed by appendixes. The bulk of the document is mainly constituted by part III and the appendixes (pp. 89-304). The material on those pages is not an integral part of the process prescribed by the document. The appendixes are ancillary; and part III, which consists primarily of sample survey instruments, is likewise ancillary. There is no need to argue this, for it is obvious, and the document specifically states that part III "is not a part of the planning process itself" [3, p. 5]. Thus, the introduction and overview together with parts I and II actually constitute the planning process presented by the document.

The introduction and overview contains predictable and appropriate statements on the need for and the benefits of planning. In addition, summaries of the succeeding parts of the document are provided. Some of the summaries may prompt misgivings; but it is premature to raise serious questions at this point. One cannot be sure that the summaries are faithful to the full texts that follow.

Part I follows the introduction and overview. Part I deals with three important matters. First, it deals with the planning committee. It provides suggestions for selecting individuals to serve, for organizing the committee, for holding meetings, and so on. The direction and counsel are reasonable. Next, part I deals with the matter of "Tailoring the Process to the Library." On these pages, general advice is given for adapting the planning process to libraries of various sizes and circum- stances. Nothing said on these pages raises any serious questions. Finally, part I deals with the matter of "Information for Planning." General suggestions are given for selecting sources of information, such as surveys. Suggestions for organizing and presenting data are also given.



450 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

That is all there is to part I. It occupies a mere 20 pages of text. It deals entirely with appropriate preliminaries. Nothing in it is objectionable in any serious way. Its contents, however, are essentially incidental and deal with matters preliminary to the planning task itself.

This brings us to part II, which is the core of the whole document, its intellectual center. Its importance is clear from its title, "The Planning Process." This is actually what the entire document purports to be, a planning process. The quality of the document as a whole depends on it, but it is part II that is incoherent.

Part II begins with chapter 5 entitled "Community Library Needs" by which the authors mean community needs that a library might meet. An intelligent discussion of such needs clearly requires that certain community needs be distinguished that are the special concern of libraries. Libraries cannot undertake to meet community needs in general. Librar- ies cannot even undertake to meet community information needs in general. Some community information needs are met by the telephone company, the postal service, and so on. What is required in advance of any attempt to assess community information needs that a library might meet is a statement that identifies the kinds of information needs that are a community library's special concern. Such a statement is a statement that defines the library's purpose.

On the first 2 pages of chapter 5, the authors attempt to guide an assessment of community information needs without the help of a statement that distinguishes information needs that are relevant for library planners. Then, abruptly, and without preliminaries that call attention to the importance of the step, the authors define the library's purpose: "The ultimate purpose of any library is to meet the information needs of its community" [3, p. 41]. The definition is followed by 2 pages of clarification.

First, information is defined. "The term information, as used here, includes all knowledge, ideas, facts, and imaginative works of the mind which have been communicated, recorded, published and/or distributed formally or informally in any format" [3, p. 41]. Then the authors define needs: "things which a human being should have to function effectively" [3, p. 41]. Next the authors identify certain types of information that "every individual needs." "General background information which provides an understanding of self and others, of own and other environments, historical and cultural roots, life styles past and present, the elements of knowledge and other background information; Specific or subect area information which is related to interests or activities requiring information; and "Coping" information needed to make decisions and solve problems in everyday life" [3, p. 41]. Needs for such information are very extensive. It is obvious that a community library cannot meet them all. So the authors' next step is to indicate some sources of such information.



PLANNING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES 451

These sources the authors list as: "Observation, own thinking; intelrper- sonal contacts (with friends, neighbors or relatives, with authorities, with professionals); the media; print and non-print materials" [3, p. 42]. The relevant sources for library planners are interpersonal contacts and print and nonprint materials.

Thus, another necessary distinction is provided; and it is possible to formulate a detailed statement of purpose. The statement might read as follows: The purpose for the community library is to meet needs for general background, subject area and coping information that can be met through interpersonal contacts in libraries and through the print and nonprint materials that a library can provide. The authors do not explicitly define the purpose for the community library that way, but one must assume they intend such a definition; for the proposals for assessing community needs that take up the remainder of the chapter are limited to assessing needs for background, subject, and coping information of the kind the definition identifies.

So, by the end of chapter 5, the authors have provided a definition of purpose and proposals for assessing local needs related to it. A logical next step is to prescribe an inventory of services and resources the library has for meeting the needs identified. This is the step the authors call for in chapter 6 entitled "Current Library Services and Resources."

Once a planning group has conducted the prescribed inventory, it seems clear that the next step is to deal with the gaps between needs, on the one hand, and services and resources, on the other. Presumably there are needs that exist that are not being met. The obvious next step is to deal with them in some way. First, deficiencies should be clearly specified so there is consensus on their identity. Then, if planners judge that all deficiencies can be corrected, they may move on to the next stage of the plan. If, however, all deficiencies cannot be corrected, planners must deal with that problem. In order to do so, planners must develop a scale of urgency that enables them to arrange unmet or inadequately met needs in the order of urgency. That order can then be reflected in priorities assigned to corrective action.

Thus, it seems clear that after the inventory of library services and resources prescribed by chapter 6, the next step is to deal with deficiencies in relation to needs. That step should be provided for in chapter 7. Helpful proposals might include criteria for distinguishing more urgent needs from those less urgent and suggestions for establishing consequent priorities.

Chapter 7 prescribes something quite different. The title of the chapter is "The Role of the Library in the Community." In this chapter the authors elicit a new definition of purpose that cannot be reconciled with the definition provided earlier and effectively cancels it.

Chapter 7 opens with the following paragraph: "Once the planning




committee has looked at the information needs of the community and the extent to which the library seems capable of meeting them, it is ready to begin to look forward to what the library should be doing. The next step is to determine the role that the library should play in its community" [3, p. 52]. The opening statement that summarizes progress up to the moment makes no mention of the fact that the purpose for the community library has been established. The same sentence also sug- gests that planners do not yet know what "the library should be doing." Yet it seems clear that planners should know that they should be looking forward to meeting certain local needs for background, subject, and coping information. What other "role" could the library have?

The second paragraph reads as follows: "The definition of role is critical to the planning process, since it forms the basis for everything that comes later. It is not a broad mission statement so much as an action statement that describes in global terms what the library is going to do during the planning period to meet the needs of its community. The goals and objectives which detail exactly what the library plans to do stem from it" [3, p. 52]. That paragraph is confusing. If role definition is "the basis for everything that comes later," what was the point of the definition of purpose, assessment of needs, and the inventory of services and resources? Should not those planning stages form the basis for everything that comes later? And, if role definition "describes in global terms what the library is going to do . . . to meet the needs of its community," should not that role definition refer to local needs already identified? If so, why should the statement be in "global terms?" Or will a role definition refer to some different needs as yet unidentified and unassessed?

There is no clarification. The next paragraph merely says that planners may get help in formulating a role statement from a certain Public Library Association document.

The next 2 paragraphs are very perplexing; they read, in part, as follows: "The committee must then analyze the library's current services. Who does the library now actually serve? ... Then it must examine the current library role in relation to the community environment, and identify information needs of residents" [3, pp. 52-53]. The document seems to be calling for a repetition of steps already prescribed in chapters 5 and 6 but in a different order.

Then in the next paragraph, it begins to be clear what is going on. Ostensibly, the authors are still trying to provide assistance in formulating a role statement. But what they actually do is provide a new set of categories that are usable only for a redefinition of purpose. The second planning process referred to earlier in this essay begins at this point.

At the end of the paragraph quoted last, the authors state: "Histori- cally, libraries have provided communities with: Culture, Education,




Information, Recreation. Looked at in another way a public library provides a community with: Information services, Materials, Program- ming, Out-of-library services. Defined population subgroups which must be considered as targets in library planning may include: Children, Young Adults, Adults, Senior Citizens, Special Groups, Non-users" [3, p. 53]. The neutral terms ("historically," "looked at in another way") that introduce the categories that follow cannot conceal the fact that those categories are appropriate only for a redefinition of purpose. That redefinition would read as follows: The purpose for a community library is to meet the needs of members (children, young adults, adults, and so on) for culture, education, information, and recreation by providing information services, materials, programming, and out-of-library services. The new categories take the place of those used in chapter 5. Background, subject, and coping information are replaced by culture, education, information, and recreation. Interpersonal contacts, print, and nonprint materials are replaced by information services, materials, programming, and out-of-library services.

After providing the new categories-culture, education, information, recreation, and the others-the authors direct planners to use the new categories to determine service priorities that will be presented in a role statement. The recommended procedure is very simple to say the least. Points are assigned to the various categories by planning-committee members. The point-allocation exercise and an accompanying discussion will produce "a single role statement for the library" [3, p. 53].

Thus, a planning group might produce a role statement like the following: The library will provide information and education for community members through programming and materials. The problem with any role statement produced in accordance with recommended procedures is that it can have no clear connection with previous stages of the planning process. The process prescribed in chapters 5 and 6 en- visioned the providing of background, subject, and coping information in response to identified community needs. Now, in chapter 7, planners are told to decide if the role of the library should be to provide information, education, culture, or recreation. How are the new categories related to the old and to the needs identified in relation to them? Should a library provide education in response to a need for coping information or subject information? Or, if a role statement gives priority to information, does that mean background, subject, or coping information? Also, what is the relationship of the point-allocation exercise to the community needs identified with the help of chapter 5?

The authors make no attempt to clarify any of this. Immediately after recommending the point-allocation exercise, the authors provide five examples of role statements. These are very curious statements. All are so general or obvious that no significant planning effort would be




needed to produce them. There are no references to identified needs for background, subject, or coping information. Even more curious is the fact that four of the five examples introduce an entirely new factor, public demand. Four state that the library will provide "most-wanted" materials and services.

Nothing in the document prior to this point has prepared readers for this new factor. No comments from the authors relate demand to community needs for background, subject, or coping information, or any needs for that matter. What the authors seem to be doing with the examples is legitimizing decisions by library planners to institute demand-oriented programs. The authors do this by the simple device of including the demand factor in model role statements.

This offhand and misplaced treatment of the matter of public demand confirms again the confused and divided character of the document. The matter of public demand should have been discussed in chapter 5 where the matter of purpose was considered. Public demand is a factor that must be taken into account when public agencies establish and formulate their purposes.

Chapter 5 states that the ultimate purpose of the library is to meet the information needs of the community. That principle has two important implications related to public demand. One, whenever public demand coincides with the information needs of the community, the library responds to public demand by meeting information needs. In such cases the distinction between demands and needs is not critical. Two, whenever public demand does not coincide with the information needs of the community, information needs take precedence. Otherwise it is pointless to assert that the ultimate purpose of the library is to meet information needs.

When public demand does not coincide with information needs, problems may arise. Planners may need guidance related to such problems. Chapter 5 should have offered the following. (i) It is important for planners to be well informed about, and sympathetic to, public demand. (ii) Because demand and need may not coincide, those responsible for the library are also responsible for deciding when that is the case. (iii) The same people must decide when meeting demands not coincidental with needs impairs the library's ability to pursue its purpose. (iv) Political problems may result from resisting public demand, problems requiring political solutions. Planning to meet public demand requires at least the foregoing discussion. Chapter 7 does not discuss demand at all.

By the end of chapter 7 one can identify the two planning processes the document prescribes. One, begun in chapters 5 and 6, prescribes a plan for meeting information needs. This process is incomplete. The factor of public demand is ignored. No prescriptions are offered for




determining priorities among needs or for formulating goals and objectives related to needs. The second process begins with chapter 7. A new statement of purpose is elicited that employs undefined and overlapping categories. A simplistic method for establishing priorities is recommended. Planners are led by examples to commit the library to meeting public demand. The document offers no common ground for the two processes it prescribes. There is no discussion of the relationship of purpose to role, no discussion of the relationship of demand (or other role components) to information needs.

The chapters of part II that follow chapter 7 are all contaminated by it. Chaper 8 deals with "Goals, Objectives and Priorities"; chapters 9 and 10 with the matter of reaching goals and objectives; the final chapter, 11, deals with the incidental topic of "Management Data." These chapters all belong to the second planning process begun in chapter 7; their surface rationality is tainted by the confusion and illogic of chapter 7.

Chapter 8 is explicit concerning the source from which goals and objectives are derived. "The role defined for the library or system determines the approach to be used in goal setting.... Using the role statement as a basis, planners must define broad service goals" [3, pp. 60-61]. Objectives are, of course, derived from goals; and priorities order predetermined goals and objectives. Goals, objectives, and priorities determine subsequent strategies and action. Chapters 8 through 11 amplify the confusion created by chapter 7.

A Planning Process is an important official document; it has been widely distributed and promoted. Many public libraries around the country have used the document to guide their efforts to develop standards and programs. But it seems clear that, if libraries using A Planning Process do develop useful and valuable standards and programs, they will do so in spite of the document, not because of it. The logical flaws are grievous and fundamental. The public library community has no cred- itable official position on standards for library service or the planning of library programs. A replacement for A Planning Process will eventually be created. The public library community should insist that the replacement meet decent standards of clarity and logic.

REFERENCES

1. "More News of Public Libraries Planning." Public Libraries 21 (Summer 1982): 61-62. 2. Lynch, Mary Jo. "Who's Using A Planning Process for Public Libraries." Public Libranres 20

(Fall 1981): 85-86. 3. Palmour, Vernon E.; Bellassi, Marcia C.; and DeWath, Nancy V. A Planning Process for

Public Libraries. Chicago: American Library Association, 1980.



double fault: a critique of "a planning process for public libraries"

Documents