are the best books the most read?

Are the Best Books the Most Read?Author(s): Herbert GoldhorSource: The Library Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Oct., 1959), pp. 251-255Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4304927 .

Accessed: 21/06/2014 10:38

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 188.72.127.112 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:38:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4304927?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


ARE THE BEST BOOKS THE MOST READ?

HERBERT GOLDHOR

rT HE literature of librarianship con- tains frequent references to the appropriate basis for book selec-

tion-shall it be the demand for certain titles, or shall it be their value, either as literature or as sources of authentic information?' Most libraries in practice probably take both demand and value into consideration. But in the context of these two approaches to book selection, the question arises: Are the best books the books most read? To answer this question, the Evansville, Indiana, Public Library in 1958 undertook the investigation here reported.2

The Evansville Public Library and Vanderburgh County Public Library serve a population of 160,000 (1950 Census), through a central library, ten branches, and a bookmobile, with a book stock (as of the end of 1958) of 291,502 volumes. Of these, 139,220 (48 per cent) are children's books and 152,282 (52 per cent) adult. It is estimated that at least half the total adult book stock is in the central library building and that all adult books have been reviewed and examined for discard at least once in the last five years.

PROCEDURE

For the purposes of this study, only adult hard-cover books, classified in the Dewey Decimal numbers 612-613.9, were considered. Included were such subjects as physiology, digestion, repro- duction, hygiene, food in health, rest and

exercise, and genetics. A total of 741 copies of 317 titles were so identified, and they constitute what is here called the "gross sample." The "value" of these books was estimated by checking a number of book-reviewing periodicals, to see whether or not they were reviewed and to note unfavorable reviewer's re- actions when indicated. The resulting data were compressed into three value categories: A, for a title with three or more favorable reviews; B, for a title with one or two favorable reviews; and C, for a title with no reviews or no favorable reviews. The intent was to place in the A group books well and widely reviewed and especially appropriate for public library use; in the B group, books not widely reviewed or not particularly appropriate for public library use; and in the C group, those books which were either not reviewed, not favorably reviewed, or considered inappropriate for public library use. Books published in 1958 and in the library's collection were excluded from the gross sample, since they had only a minimal chance of ap- pearing in the book-reviewing tools used.

Six main tools were consulted: the Book Review Digest (1905-58), the Standard Catalog for Public Libraries (1934, 1939, 1944, 1949 eds. and supple- ments), the Standard Catalog for High School Libraries (1947, 1952, and 1957 eds.), the Booklist (1904-56), the American Journal of Public Health (1927-58), and Hawkins' Scientific, Medical, and Technical Books (1st and 2d eds.). A limited run (in no case more than six years) was available of Techni- cal Book Review Index, New Technical

IFor example, see Leon Carnovsky, "Commu- nity Analysis and the Practice of Book Selection," in L. R. Wilson (ed.), The Practice of Book Selec- tion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), pp. 20-39.

2 With the assistance of Mrs. Genevieve Jain.

251



252 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY

Books, of the New York Public Library, and the United States Quarterly Book Review. These, however, listed so few titles in the gross sample that the results were not used.

It may be of interest to record some of the data on the use in this present study of several book-evaluation tools in checking a given library's collection. This method is different from the tradi- tional procedure for evaluating a book collection, viz., picking a standard list of books and ascertaining how many of its titles are held. Such a procedure

ignores books on the shelves but not on the list used for checking (except by implication); some of these books may be as good as (or even better than) some on the list.

Of 317 titles analyzed, 24 per cent were not located in any of the nine tools used; 20 per cent were found in only one; 17 per cent in two; 16 per cent in three; 13 per cent in four; 7 per cent in five; and 1 per cent each in six, seven, and eight of the lists. No title was found in all nine. The Book Review Digest listed 173; the Booklist, 143; the Stand- ard Catalog for Public Libraries, 129; the American Journal of Public Health, 107; the Standard Catalog for High School Libraries, 40; the Hawkins list

(lst ed.), 38, (2d ed.), 25; and Tech- nical Book Review Index (1952-58), 18.

FINDINGS

Of the 317 titles, 120 (38 per cent) were found to be in the A-value category, 120 (38 per cent) in the B group, and 77 (24 per cent) in the C group. No information is available on how many other titles (and of what "value") had previously been in the library's book collection but had been withdrawn and dis- carded by 1958. Even so, the titles on hand had been published between 1901

and 1957. The distribution of these titles by date of publication and by value category is shown in Table 1. The higher total is occasioned by the fact that in this table different editions of the same title are counted separately, while the total of 317 titles includes a unit count for each of 27 titles which are represented by more than one edition. It would appear from Table 1 that this library has managed to retain a larger proportion of the more valuable books published before 1940 (and have pre- sumably been tested in use) than it has purchased of those published since 1951.

These 317 titles were represented by 741 copies, a mean of 2.3 copies per title, a median of 3.3, a mode of 1, and a range

TABLE I

CLASSIFICATION OF TITLES IN GROSS SAMPLE BY YEAR OF PUBLICATION AND BY VALUE CATEGORY

VALUE CATEGORY

YEARS TOTAL A B C No. of Titles No. of Titles No. of Titles No. of Titles

1901-40........ 128 (100%) 60 (47%) 44 (34%) 24 (19%) 1941-50... 117 (100%) 56 (48%) 40 (34%) 21 (18%) 1951-57-.I...t0 (100%) 35 (32%) 42 (38%) 33 (30%)

Total ...... 355 (100%) 151 (42%) 126 (36%) 78 (22%)

Per Cent of Value Categoiy

1901-40 ........ 36 40 35 31 1941-50 .... 33 37 32 27 1951-57... 31 23 33 42

Total ...... 100 100 100 1GO



ARE THE BEST BOOKS THE MOST READ? 253

of 1-23 copies per title. These 741 copies were distributed by value as follows: in the A category, 50 per cent; in the B group, 32 per cent; and in C, 18 per cent. It is clear, from the data in Table 2, that the library has tended to dupli- cate the better books more often than those in the C-value category, particularly in the case of older titles. Thus 50 per cent of all titles in the A group have been duplicated in the collection, while only 36 per cent of the B titles and 30 per cent of the C titles were provided in more than one copy. The distribution

of copies by year of acquisition corre- sponds closely to the data in Table 2.

The total known circulation of these books was recorded from available information. This consisted of the loans noted on the book cards (in this library a summary figure of loans is typed on a new book card when an earlier card is filled up and must be replaced) and the date-due slips currently in these books. Since 1953, transaction card charging has been used in increasingly more agen- cies of this library, but a stroke record of circulation by year is kept on the date-due slip. Undoubtedly, some error is incorporated in the resulting data, but there is no reason to believe that the error distributes itself in any systematic

way. Even so, not all the books could be found in the two months in which this study was made; and in some cases when the books were found, the circulation record was obviously incomplete or in- accurate. In all, 160 books were excluded from the circulation count.

In the case of the 39 titles, all copies of which were excluded from the gross sample, 28 per cent were in the A category, 49 per cent in BS, and 23 per cent in C. Of all 160 copies excluded, 53 per cent were in the A group, 30 per cent in B, and 17 per cent in C. The remaining 581

copies of 278 titles which were available for analysis both by circulation and by value constitute the net sample.

The total known circulation of all books in the net sample, from 1918 (when the oldest of these books was first loaned) to the end of 1958, was 10,389. Distribution of the circulation figure is shown in Table 3. The differences in average circulation per title of the books in the three value groups is greater than can be accounted for by chance alone (P < .01)Y3 But the differences in the average circulation per copy and in the yearly average circulation per copy are not significant.

TABLE 2

CLASSIFICATION OF COPIES IN GROSS SAMPLE BY YEAR

OF PUBLICATION AND BY VALUE CATEGORY

VA LU CATEGORY YEARS TOTAL A B C

No. of Copies No. of Copies No. of Copies No. of Copies

1901-40...... 220 (100%) 122 (55%) 68 (31%) 30 (14%) 1941-50........ 262 (100%) 151 (58%) 83 (31%) 28 (11%) 1951-57 ........ 259 (100%) 100 (38%) 82 (32%) 77 (30%)

Total ...... 741 (100%) 373 (50%) 233 (32%) 135 (18%)

Per Cent of Value Category

1901-40........ 30 33 29 22 1941-50 .... 35 40 36 21 1951-57 . ........... 35 27 5 57

Total ...... 100 100 100 100

'Using the chi-square test with five degrees of freedom.



TABLE 3

CIRCULATION ANALYSIS OF NET SAMPLE, BY VALUE CATEGORY

VALUE CATEGORY

ITEM TOTAL A B C

1. Total circulation ........ 10,389 (100%) 5,846 (56%) 3,213 (31%) 1,325 (13%) 2. No. of titles. 278 (100%) 109 (39%) 102 (37%) 67 (24%) 3. Average circulation per

title ................... 37 (100%) 54 (146%) 32 (86%) 20 (54%) 4. No. of copies ............ 581 (100%) 292 (50%) 185 (32%) 104 (18%) 5. Average circulation per

copy ................... 18 (100%) 20 (111%) 17 (94%) 13 (72%) 6. Total no. of years all

copies were available for circulation ............. 6,806 (100%) 3,507 (51%) 2,292 (34%) 1,007 (15%)

7. Yearly average circulation percopy ............. 1.5(100%) 1.7(113%) 1.4(93%) 1.3(87%

TABLE 4

CIRCULATION ANALYSIS OF NET SAMPLE, BY VALUE CATEGORY,

IN FIRST FIVE YEARS AFTER ACQUISITION

VALUE CATEGORY

ITEM TOTAL A B C

1. Total circulation ........... 5,415 (100%) 2,990 (55%) 1,570(29%) 855 (16%) 2. No. of titles ............... 229 (100%) 97 (42%) 80 (35%) 52 (23%) 3. Average circulation per title . . 24 (100%) 31 (129%) 20 (84%) 16 (67%) 4. No. of copies............... 422 (100%) 217 (52%) 132 (31%) 73 (17%) 5. Average circulation per copy. 13 (100%) 14 (108%) 12 (92%) 12 (92%) 6. Total no. of years all copies

were available for circulation. 2,130 (100%) 1,100 (52%) 665 (31%) 365 (17%) 7. Yearly average circulation per

copy ..................... 2.5 (100%) 2.7 (108%) 2.4 (96%) 2.3 (92%)

TABLE 5


OF TITLES REPRESENTED BY ONLY ONE COPY

VALUE CATEGORY

ITEM TOTAL A B C

1. Total circulation ........... 3,709 (100%) 1 621 (44%) 1,387 (37%) 701 (19% 2. No. of titles ............... 168 (100%) 54 (32%) 69 (41%) 45 (27%) 3. Average circulation per title . 22 (100%) 30 (136%) 20 (92%) 16 (73%) 4. Total no. of years all copies

were available for circulation 2,736 (100%) 1 ,020 (37%) 1,113 (41%) 603 (22%) 5. Yearly average circulation per

copy ..................... 1.4 (100%) 1.6 (114%) 1.2 (86%) 1.2 (86%)

TABLE 6


OF TIThES REPRESENTED BY Two OR MORE COPIES

VALUE CATEGORY

ITEm TOTAL A B C

1. Total circulation . 6,670 (100%) 4,220 (63%) 1,830 (28%) 620 (9%) 2 No. of titles .............. 109 (100%) 55 (51%) 33 (30%) 21 (19%) 3. Average circulation per title 61 (100%) 77 (126%) 56 (92%) 30 (49%) 4. No. of copies .............. 413 (100%) 238 (58%) 116 (28%) 59 (14%) 5. Average circulation per copy 16 (100%) 18 (112%) 16 (100%) 10 (62%) 6. Total no. of years all copies

were available for circulation 4,070 (100%) 2,487 (61%) 1,179 (29%) 404 (10%) 7. Yearly average circulation

per copy ................ 1.6 (100%) 1.7 (106%) 1.6 (100%) 1.5 (94%)



ARE THE BEST BOOKS THE MOST READ? 255

Are the better books more read (per title) because they are newer or because there are more copies of them? To answer this, two further analyses were made. Table 4 shows the data on the circulation of books in the first 5 years after they were acquired; this includes no book published or acquired after 1954. Librarians know that new books are read more often than old books, and Table 4 bears this out; in the first 5 years after their acquisition the books represented in Table 4 accounted for 52 per cent of all the circulation of the net sample (51 per cent in the case of A- value books, 49 per cent in B-value books, and 64 per cent in C-value books). The differences between the average circulation per title of the books in the three value categories in Table 4 are not statistically significant, nor, of course, are the differences in average circulation per copy or in yearly average circulation. It would appear that in the first 5 years after acquisition the best books are not necessarily the most read.

Table 5 shows the results of analyzing the circulation data for those books in the net sample of which only one copy was available. The differences in the average circulation per title (or copy) for books in the different value categories are not statistically significant, nor are those in the yearly average circulation. On a single-copy basis and over a long period of time, the better books are not necessarily read more often than the poorer ones.

Table 6 shows the results of a similar analysis of data for books in the net sample which are represented by more than one copy. The differences in the average circulation per title of those books in the three value categories are larger than can be accounted for by sampling error (P < .001), but again this is not true of the differences in the

average circulation per copy or in the yearly average circulation per copy. The 109 titles represented in Table 6 accounted for 64 per cent of the circulation of all 278 titles in the net sample; only half the A-value titles had been duplicated, but they accounted for 72 per cent of the circulation of all A-value titles. Similarly, 32 per cent of the B- value titles were duplicated, but their use was 57 per cent of the circulation of all B-value titles; 31 per cent of the C-value titles were duplicated, and their use was 47 per cent of the circulation of all C-value titles.

CONCLUSION

It would appear from the data available in this study that the best books are not necessarily the most widely read. If libraries buy good books and poor books in equal quantities, they will be read in approximately equal numbers.4 It is to the credit of this library that, in fact, it has more of the better books (and more copies of the better titles), and therefore in net balance more of the better books are borrowed in this subject area than is true of the poorer books. But the conclusion of this study is that there is in fact a real basis for the value theory of book selection and that it is not likely that public library patrons will differentiate the better from the poorer books or read the former significantly more often than the latter.

'This conclusion is supported by a study made in 1947 of 182 titles in the field of parent education, in the Urbana (Ill.) Free Library. It was found that the annual average circulation per book of those titles listed in the Standard Catalog for Pub- lic Libraries or in any of four special bibliographies was greater-but not significantly so-than the circulation of titles in the library but not so listed (see Iris Caraway, "Evaluation of Public Library Non-Fiction Book Collections with Special Refer- ence to the Books for Parents in the Urbana Free Library" [University of Illinois Library School, unpublished report, June, 1948], pp. 33-37).



are the best books the most read?

Documents