in the new Library, the second being a running number. Much later, when the new shelving had at last been erec­ted, students unpacked the numbered boxes and loaded the contents on to the shelves.

Staff

The Music Librarian and two pan-time Library Assist­ants have, as it were, one foot in the Music School and the other in the General Library (serving the former and ultimately responsible to the latter). Participation and interaction with the School includes attending Faculty meetings, Music Library Advisory Committee meetings (infrequent), agreeing to house the School's Orchestral and Choral hire collections, extending the opening hours of the Library until 9 pm on Tuesdays during term, and offering library tours of groups of new students. In re­turn, enjoyable staff and student concerts are freely available!

Music has charms In the .final analysis, there is unanimous agreement by the Library and Lhc rest of the School of Music that 'the

Qualified staff in

building works'. This is despite the fact that the sound of some instruments and voices from the performances and practice studios upstairs penetrates the Library (espe­cially when their windows are open), being amplified by the resonating properties of the enclosed courtyard (vir­tually an amphitheatre). Whilst these strains of music create a pleasant backdrop to library work-more inter­esting and real than Muzak-library users intent on serious study or working on a composition could perhaps be distracted. In reality, no one seems to mind ... and the harp sounds particularly enchanting and mellifluous. Something new and vital, musically and architecturally, has been created here and it has helped to generate an harmonious, open atmosphere, in which the Music Li­brary plays its part.

References I. Charles Nalden. A History of the Conseroatorium of Music,

University of Auck/arid, 1888-1981. Auckland, Faculty of Music, University of Auckland, 1981.

2. Auckland Unviersity College Council Minutes, July 21, 1903, p.344.

New Zealand libraries 1975-1985 W. J. McELDOWNEY

This paper is a follow-up co my 'Qualified Staff in New Zealand Libraries 1951-1980', published in New Zea­land Libraries in June 1982 (v.42 pp. 154-57). In its turn, that paper was based on one by T. B. O'Neill and J.E. Traue, covering the years 1951-1967 and published in New Zealand Libraries in August 1968 (v.31 pp. 143-52). All three papers use information derived from suc­cessive issues of Who's Who in New Zealand Libraries, of which there are now nine (195 l , 1954/5, 1958, 1962, 1967, 1971 , 1975, 1980, and 1985). Although Wlw's Who is deficient as a source of information in that it depends for its coverage on varying degrees of willingness on the part of library staff members to provide information and varying degrees of insistence on the part of employers that information should be provided, it is nevertheless the most complete, readily available source of informa­tion about qualified staff working in New Zealand libra­ries, and trends revealed by the analysis of its fairly regularly published issues arc near enough to the full truth to provide useful leads.

The information given in the present paper is restric­ted, in the main, to the last three years of publication of Who's i\l'ho in New Zealand Libraries (1975, 1980, and 1985), and is designed to illustrate trends that have occurred over the last ten years or so. Those who wish to go back to the beginning will need to refer to the earlier papers.

NEW ZEALAND LIBRARIES, v. 45, no. 8, December 1987

The earlier papers divided the libraries which employed librarians into four groups: (1) Government, (2) Tertiary Education, (3) Public; and ( 4) Other (includ­ing non-Government special libraries, schools, and hos­pitals). It seemed LO me that this division was unsatisfac­tory in present circumstances, for the following reasons:

(a) The growth of special libraries means that their staffing habits should be examined separately and not buried under the two headings Government and Other. Furthermore, with the present upheaval in the public sector ic is becoming increasingly dif­ficult to hold the line between the two groups.

(b) University libraries should be examined sep­arately from other tertiary education libraries, since the two sub-groups have had different stafnng his­tories.

In the present paper, I have therefore divided libraries into six groups; (1 ) National (all parts of the National Library, the General Assembly (now Parliamentary) Library, and the National Archives), (2) University, (3) Other Tertiary, (4) Public, (5) Special, and (6) Other. Hospital libraries are now regarded as special libraries, unless they are within university library systems (in which case they arc placed under University).

In order to provide for continuity, Table I gives the overall totals under the original four headings. Table 2

169

I

ii

gives the same information, rearranged under the new six headings.

T he following definitions, assumptions, and caveats should be borne in mind in interpreting the tables :

(a) 'Diploma level' means 'Dip. or Cert. NZLS or Dip . Lib. (Victoria University) or equivalent'. 'Equivalent' includes FLA, ALA plus degree, and other overseas qualifications ac post-graduare level. NZLA/NZLS Cert. plus degree is noL included here.

(b) 'Certificate level' means ' NZLA/NZLS Cert. or equivalent' and includes overseas qualifications which are nor at post-graduate level.

(c) Where New Zealand qualifications are dealt with separately, this is indicated.

(d) Where a person holds more than one library q ualification, only the higher one is counted.

(e) Not included are persons without any libnu:y qualification and persons not working in libraries in New Zealand.

(f) Library school teachers arc included Lmdcr 'Other'.

Totals and rates of increase Tables 1 and 2, as is noted above, give the number of respondents at each level employed in each group of libraries, and in Table 3 the figures in Table 2 (revised groupings) are convened into percentages. Table 4 shows the percentage ra1e of increase (or decrease) in staffing in each group for the two five-year periods and for the whole ten years.

These tables show clearly the increasing importance of special library staffing ar the diploma level. In num­bers, diploma-level staff in these libraries increased from 33 to 109, an increase of 230.3% over the ten-year period; and in 1985 rhey accounted for 20. 7% of staff at this level in all New Zealand ljbraries, compared with 8.5% in 1975. In contrast , diploma-level staff in uni­versity libraries increased by 4.0% over the same period, and their share of the total fell from 32.1% to 24.7%. The libraries of other tertiary education institutions in­creased their staffing at rhis level quite substamially (by 133.3%), though their numbers (35 in 1985) are small by comparison.

Changes in diploma-level staffing are mainJy a reflec­tion of net recruiting. At the certificate level, they are just as much a result of the propensity of existing staff co undertake the certificate course and of the encourage­ment of employers for them to do so. In the case of university libraries, for instance, the increase of 43.3% over the ten years in cerrificate-level staffing probably does not indicate much of an increase in staffing levels. IL is interesting, however, to note that the increase in cer­tificate-level staffing in all libraries, at 75.2%, was more than double that of diploma-level staffing, at 35. l %. From more or less equal numbers in 1975 (diploma 390, certificate 408), the change to 527 and 715 in 1985 is quite dramatic and must raise questions abom a whole range of maners, including the control of professional standards in circumstances in which each person has one vote when questions of principle are debated.

170

Table 1: Quali fied librarians work ing in NZ libraries. Tota ls by type of library (orig ina l g roupings)

1975 1980 1985 Goven:m111u

Diploma level 129 133 170 Certificate level 115 146 160

Tet11ary Diploma level 140 151 165 Ccr1ificatc level 80 92 146

Public Diploma level n 100 113 Certificate level 16.5 199 322

Other Diploma level 23 48 79 Ccrtifici11e level 48 51 g7

A I/ libraries Diploma level 390 432 527 Certificutc level 408 488 715

Table 2: Qualified librarians working in NZ libraries. Totals by type of library (revised groupings)

1975 1980 1985 Na11011al

Diploma level 109 IOI 117 Certificate level 71 80 88

Umt•ersiry Diploma le\rel 125 126 130 Certificate level 60 51 86

Orher Tmrary Diploma level 15 ZS 35 Ccruficate level 20 41 60

P11blic Diplomn level 98 100 113 Cerulicalc lcvc::I 165 199 322

Spmal Diploma level 33 59 109 Certificate level 75 !OS 143

Or her Diploma level 10 21 23 Certificate level 17 12 16

A II Libra11es Diploma level 390 432 527 Ccnilicatc level 408 488 715

Table 3: Proportion (%) of each group in each type of library

1975 1980 1985 D1plo11111 level

National 27.9 23.4 22.2 Universi ty 32.1 29.2 24.7 Other Tcniary 3.8 5.8 6.6 Public 25. 1 23.1 21.4 Special 8.5 13.6 20.7 Other 2.6 4.9 4.4 All libraries 100.0 100.0 100.0

Crmjirate let:el National 17.4 16.4 12.! University 14.7 10.4 12.0 Other Tertiary 4.9 8.4 8.4 Publit 40.4 40.8 45.0 Spcci31 18.4 21.S 20.0 Other ·1.2 2.5 2.3 A.II librnries 100.0 100.0 100.0

NEW ZEALAND LIBRARIES, v. 4S, no.~, December 1987

Table 4: Rates of increase in staffing (Percentages)

'75-'80 '80-'85 'i5-'85 Diploma level

Nniional -7.3 15.8 7.3 University 0.8 3.2 4.0 Oihcr Tertiary 66.7 40.0 133.3 Public 2.0 13.0 15.3 Special 78.8 84.7 230.3 Other 110.0 9.5 130.0 All libraries 10.8 22.0 35.1

Cer11ficate level National 12.7 lO.O 23.9 University -15.0 68.6 43.3 Other Tertiary 105.0 46.3 200.0 Public 20.6 61.8 95.2 Spec ial 40.0 36.2 90.7 Other -29.4 33.3 -5.9 All libraries 19.6 46.5 75.2

All q11alified staff National 0 .6 13.3 13.9 Unwcrsiry -4.3 22.0 16.8 Other Tertiary 88.6 43.9 171.4 Public 13.7 45.S 6SA Special 51.9 53.7 133.3 Other 22.2 18.2 44.4 All hbraries 15.3 35.0 SS.6

Table 5: Staff in special libraries, sub-divided 1975 19110 1985

Diploma le-<!el GovernmenL 20 32 53 Other 13 27 56 T oial 33 59 109

Ctr11ficau level Go"emment 44 66 72 Other 31 39 7 1 Toi al 75 105 143

Table 6: Ratio of Certificate-level to Diploma-level staff (No. of Certificates -:-no. of Dip lomas)

1975 1980 1985 National .65 .79 .75 U ni,·crsicy .48 40 .66 Other Tertiary 1.33 1.64 1.71 Public 1.68 1.99 2.85 Special 2.27 1.78 1.31 Oiher 1.70 .57 .70 All libraries I .OS I. 13 1.36

Table 7: Proportion {%) of staff (who stated age) aged approximately 40+

1975 1980 1985 J)1ploma level

National 43.6 44.4 35.8 University 35.S 37. 1 48.7 Other Tertiary 60.0 52.0 45.7 Public 39.4 45.3 43.2 S~cial 48.4 27.6 34.3 Other 70.0 80.0 80.0 All libraries 42.0 42.3 43.6

Cl'rt1/icate level National 47.0 53. 1 -M.0 University 30.2 38.6 47.8 Other Tertiary 38.9 57.9 50.0 Public 35.0 38.0 38.8 Special 44.3 30.0 40.2 ()Lher 53.1 14.3 69.2 A II libraries 39.2 39.8 42.3

A. fl qualified staff National 44.9 -18. 1 39.2 Uni,·ersity 34.5 37.S 48.4 Other Teniary 48.5 55.6 48.4 1'\1blic 36.7 40.S 4 1.0 Specia l 45.5 29. J 37.6 Other 62.5 63.0 75.8 All libraries 40.6 .j 1.0 -12.9

NEW ZEALAND LIBRARIES, v. 45, no. 8, December 19!17

lo the conversion from the old groups (Table 1) to che revised ones (Table 2), the number of staff cransferred to the new SpeciaJ Libraries group shows an increasing pro­portion in non-Government libraries. T his is demonstra­ted by Table 5, which also indicates that staffing in Gov­ernment deparunem libraries has increased much more rapidly than scaffing in che national Libraries: 165.0% al diploma level and 63.6% at certificate level, compared with 7.3% and 23.9%. The special libraries group, as a whole, is also incercsLing because it is the onJy large group in which the increase in d iploma-level staffing ex­ceeded the increase ar the certificate level (Table 4). This presumably indicates increasing recognition on the pare of employers in this sector of the value of a post­graduate qualiJication.

The ba lance of staff, Diploma: Certificate

The balance of staffing between each level of qualifica­tion is shown in Table 6, where the number of certifi ­cace-level staff is d ivided by the number of diploma-level staff in each group. If the resulting index figure is below 1.0, this indicates that there are more diplomas than cer­tificates, and vice-versa.

This table shows C\VO major shifts: towards heavy dependence on certificate-level staffing in public libra­ries, and away from this situation in special libraries. ln both the national libraries and university libraries, diploma-level staffing remains dominanc , the bigger change in universicy libraries bringing the two groups c loser together.

It seems to me that the trend in public libraries is a matter for considerable concern. There has always been a higher proportion of certificate-level scaff in public than in other libraries, and this reflects quite naturally the volume of relatively routine, repetitive work in these libraries, but I have always thought that the value of fi rst-class library service to the community depended on public Libraries being under the control oflibrarians with the breadth of vision of a fu!Jy professional background. I have noted with disquiet the disappearance of diploma­level staff from libraries outside the main centres, and there has probably been a dilution of professional staffing withjn even the largest Libraries. Looking back at my 1982 paper, I note thac the ratio in public Libraries in 1951 was .58 and that, although it rose to 2.11 in 1967, it was back to 1.68 in 1975. The upward trend of the ratio now seems to be accelerating.

Changes in the earlier period were explained , or ex­cused, by reference to the growth of university libraries and their insatiable demands for professional staff, together with the Library School's problems in recruit­ing, but in the mid-1 980s these excuses do not ho ld water. Is it that local authorities are so unsympathetic to library service that they are not prepared to pay for diploma-holders? Or is there some kind of sclf­perperuating malaise that is cucting this group of libra­ries off from the rest? I would be pretty worried by these figures if I were in public library work.

At this point I should emphasise that this is a statistical exercise which considers overall trends . We all know that some diploma-holders do not have what it takes, and that some ccrtifi cace-holdcrs are among our best prof­essional people. Any system of management should accommodate such variations, but Lhe results of lcgil­imate flexibiliLy would not be statistically significant, in the way that the figures examined here are.

17 1

Age groupings Readers may remember Gerald Moore's record of his experiences as an accompanist and his story of the singer who hissed at him, at the start of a recital) ' Noc too fast', and then, after a pause,, 'Bue not too slow'. The staff of any institution should be nor roo old , but also not too young. What is the best balance? A wide spread, cer­tainly, to allow for graceful retirements and enthusiastic beginnings. Ideally, therefore, staff should be grouped in five- or ten-year cohorts of similar size. For general purposes, however, a reasonably good indicator of bow things stand is the distribution of staff on either side of a su itable mid-point, many years of vigorous activity tem­pered by experience; just below it, the really good people are feeling themselves ready co spread their wings, but still learning from their eiders.

Table 7 shows the proportion of the sraffin each group who, at the time that each issue of Who's Who was pub­lished, were aged 40 or more. It is not quite complete, since some people, for reasons best known to them­selves, chose not to divulge their ages. Withom having a good look at the people concerned, I would not be pre­pared to say that they were predominantly over 40, but this is very likely and should be taken into account in inlerprcting the rable.

The rapid development of special libraries is shown by the figures for that group. There was a big drop in the proportion of older staff, at both levels, between 1975 and 1980, followed by indications of consolidation be­lween 1980 and 1985, bm the impression, especially at Lhe diploma level, is still of a relatively young group of li brarians. More surprisingly, the staffs of the national libraries have become younger in the more recent period; this must surely be a good sign, and an indication that these libraries will become increasingly effective over the next ten years.

In contrast to these trends, the rapid ageing of uni­versity library staffs is a sign of the effects of severe controls on staffing levels. These libraries are going to

have great difficulty in finding experienced younger staff to fill senior positions when the older people drop off, as they will in increasing numbers.

The erratic changes in the cenificatc-level figures for 'Other' libraries will be due co the small size of the sample.

It is interesting to note that the proponion of certifi­cate-level staff aged 40+ is not very different from that of diploma-level staff.

Sex groupings In Table 8, the numbers in each group of libraries are divided into men and women , and in Table 9 these figures are convened into ratios of women to men. There are wide and interesting variations. At the diploma level, the staff of special libraries, besides being younger than average, are shown to be very strongly fema le; apart from the small 'Other' group, the nearest group is that of the national libraries (3.03 women to each man in the national libraries; 5 .41 in special libraries) . The rwo groups in which a nearer approach to equali ty in num­bers is achieved are universicy libraries (l.45) and public libraries (1.63). These two groups arc the ones in which I Lhink real staffing problems are revealed by several of the tables, but I would hesitate w regard equality in staffing numbers as a problem. It is more likely that re-

172

Table 8: Numbers of men and women on library staffs

1975 1980 1985 Diploma level

National Men 34 25 29 Women 75 76 88

University Men 54 55 53 Women 71 71 77

Other Tertiary Men 5 II 11 Women 10 14 24

Public Men 38 38 43 Women 60 62 70

Special i\,kn 9 9 17 Women 24 so 92

0 Lher Men I s s Women 9 16 18

All libraries Men 141 143 158 Women 249 289 369

Certificate level National M.cn 6 8 8

Women 65 72 80 Universiry Men 3 3 3

Women 57 48 83 Orher Teniary Men I

Women 20 41 59 Public Men 6 8 15

Women 159 191 307 Special Men 3 4 4

Women 72 101 139 Orhcr Men

Women 17 12 16

All libraries Men 18 23 31 Women 390 465 684

cruiting has increasingly attracted more women than men, and that libraries with younger staffs are therefore more likely to have a higher proportion of women .

By way of an aside , it has certainly been my observa­tion that app.licanLs for admission co the Diploma course have for some time inducted a lot more good women than good men, and so the kind of conclusion that I have drawn does no t seem to me to be surprising.

The continuing domination of the Certificate cou rses by women is shown very clearly by the tables, and it means that , taking all qualified staff together, the number of women has increased from .. J..Q2 to 5.57 for each man bet ween 1975 and 1985. This is not necessarily a bad thing but, coupled with the more rapid increase in numbers at the certificate level, it is likely to reinforce the public view of librarians as women (or girls) who are engaged in relatively low-level work, and this can have an unfortunate effect when, for example, salary scales for highly qualified senior staff (both men and women) are being negotiated.

The position of women in senior positions is of course not yet consolidated. In the 1982 paper there is a cable showing rhe number of men and women in professional posit.ions (Assistant Librarian and above) in university libraries, divided according to the seniority of the posi­tions held by them. Between 1980 and 1985 there was some movement of women into the second most senior grade (College Librarian/Deputy Librarian), but other­wise the situation did not change very much. ln 1985, women were

60 .4% of rhe total (59. l % in 1980) 16.7%) of Librarians (16.7% in 1980) 42.9%1 of College/Deputy Librarians (28.6% in 1980) 51 .3% of Associate/Senior Associate Librarians

(52.3% in 1980)

l'\EW ZEALAND t.IJlRARIES, v. 4S, no. 8, Oe;:ember 1987

Table 9: Proportion of women to men (No. of women + no. of men)

1975 1980 1985 Diploma level

Nntional 2.2 1 3.04 3.03 Univcrs1rv 1.31 1.29 1.45 Other Te~ary 2.00 1.27 2.18 Public 1.58 1.63 1.63 Special 2.67 5.56 5.41 Other 9.00 3.20 3.60 All libraries 1.77 2.02 2.34

Cm1ficau level Nauonal 10.83 9.00 10.00 University 19.00 16.00 27.67 Other Tertiary • 59.00 Public 26.50 23.88 20..17 Special 24.00 25.25 34.75 Other All libraries 21.67 20.22 22.06

All q11al1fied staff Nauonal 3.50 4.48 4.54 Univcr~ity 2.25 2.05 2.86 Other Tcrcia.ry 6.00 5.00 6.92 Public 4.98 5.50 6.50 Special !1.00 9.00 11 .00 Other 26.00 5.60 6.80 All libraries ·1.02 4.54 5.57

• all women: no men

69.0% of Assistant/Senior Librarians (68. 8% in 1980). I look forward to the day when all the percentages are very similar.

NZLA/NZLS Certificate and Degree An increasing number of library staff members under­taking the Certificate course have been graduates who, for one reason or another, have not entered the Diploma course. Although the Certificate course 1s noc designed for graduates, this has resulted in a blurring of the dis­unction (a blurring more apparent in opinion Lhan in fact ) between the two courses, with a potential for caus­ing serious problems in the settling of staffing matters such as salary scales and in the maintenance of high sLandards of librarianship.

In order to point up the significance of the changes that have occurred, I have gone back, in T able 10, to 1967, Lo add the figures for that year to those for 1975, 1980, and 1985. This table is one that uses the old four­fold division of libraries, and it is therefore not StTictly comparable with any of the other tables except Table 1, but this does not matter roo much, since the problem is one that faces the profession as a whole.

It will be seen that in 1967 the proporuon of Certifi­cate-holders who had degrees was 6. 1%. In 1975 ir was 8.6%, but by 1980 it was 17.2%, and by 1985 it was 22. 1%. An unknown number of these degrees wiU have

!llEW ZEALAND LTBRARIES, v. 45, no. 8, Dcc.,mbcr 1987

Table 10: NZLA/NZLS Certificate + degree

1967 1975 1980 1985 (a) Total wilh Cerriflw re

Government 84 11 2 142 154 Tertiary 39 73 86 140 Public 111 !SS 193 311 Other 12 45 49 83 All libraries 246 385 470 688

(b ) Cmificau + dcgru (included above)

Government I 13 28 37 Tertiary 9 11 22 46 Publk 4 5 23 50 Other I 4 8 19 All libraries 15 33 81 152

(c) % w11h degrees Government 1.2 11.6 19.7 24.0 Teniary 23.1 15. l 25.6 32.9 Public 3.6 3.2 JI. 9 16. 1 Other 8.5 8.9 16.3 22.9 All libraries 6. 1 8.6 17.2 22. I

been acquired after the gaining of the Certificate, but it is unlikely that such cases are a very high proportion.

There is no simple :inswer to this problem. Indeed, the first problem is to determine what the problem is, and I think that this is a case for lateral chinking. It may be, for instance, that it is an indication that the Diploma course should be expanded, in order to enhance its posi­tion as Lhe premier professional qualification ; and this, of course, would necessitate its being supported by becrer resources. Ir may be that, after that has been done, some thought should be given co the creation of a special Cer­tificaLe course designed deliberately for graduates who do not want LO cmcr Lhe higher professional levels. Whatever the answer is, the facts are pushing us cowards an anempc to find it.

New Zealand and foreign qualifications Finally, it is interesting to note that the proportion of library staff members (including New Zealanders who qualified overseas) who hold foreign qualifications re­mains fai rly constant. At the diploma level it was 13.1% in 1975, 12.3% in 1980, and 13.3% in 1985; at the certifi­cate level, 5 .6'% in 1975, 3.7% in 1980, and 3.8%in 1985.

In 1985, 70 foreign q ualifications at the diploma level included 13 from Australia, 31 from the United Kin­gdom, 13 from the United Stales, 6 from Canada, 6 from South Africa, and one from the Nelherlands. At the cer­tificate level, Lhe total of 27 was made up of 25 from the United Kingdom and 2 from the Netherlands.

173