首页> 外文会议>SLA annual conference >WHAT DO THEY HAVE THAT WE DON'T HAVE?: A COMPARISON OF INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLECTIONS IN INDEPENDENT LAW SCHOOL LIBRARIES
【24h】

WHAT DO THEY HAVE THAT WE DON'T HAVE?: A COMPARISON OF INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLECTIONS IN INDEPENDENT LAW SCHOOL LIBRARIES

机译:他们没有什么我们没有?:在独立法学图书馆中的跨学科收藏比较

获取原文

摘要

During the 2000 Special Libraries Association Conference, I presented a paper on the subject of interdisciplinary competency for academic law librarians. As part of my paper, I discussed the collection at California Western School of Law (CWSL), and presented statistics on the number of interdisciplinary materials held by the CWSL library. Based on a suggestion from an audience member, I decided to embark on a comparison study of the collections of libraries for other independent, ABA-accredited law schools. I studied the interdisciplinary collections of 11 other independent law school libraries, along with reexamining the collection at CWSL. I focused the study on independent law schools because, like CWSL, they are not affiliated with a larger university community. Unlike university-affiliated law schools, students at independent law schools do not have the same level of access to other university libraries with a more diverse collection. Therefore, the students would be more dependent on the collection housed at the law school's library. I selected the 11 other law schools from a list of approved law schools published on the American Bar Association's web site. I searched each of the library catalogs for these law schools, using the Library of Congress classification system. I then calculated the number of non-legal records (i.e., items with call numbers other than "K", "J", or "X") in each collection, and determined the estimated percentage of non-legal materials for each law library's collection. The findings of my analyses are detailed in the following paper. Generally, the percentages of non-legal materials in the collections were fairly close among the 12 schools, averaging at approximately 24 percent. The highest non-legal Library of Congress classification was "H" ("Social Sciences"), with "HV" ("Social Service, Welfare, Criminology") being the highest sub-classification in 9 of the 12 libraries studied.
机译:在2000年的特殊图书馆协会会议期间,我提出了一份关于学术法律师跨学科能力的主题的论文。作为我论文的一部分,我讨论了加州西部法律(CWSL)的收集,并提出了CWSL图书馆持有的跨学科材料数量的统计数据。根据观众成员的建议,我决定踏上对其他独立,ABA认可的法学院的图书馆收藏的比较研究。我研究了11个其他独立法学学校图书馆的跨学科系列,以及在CWSL的收集中重新审视收集。我专注于对独立法学院的研究,因为像CWSL一样,他们没有隶属于更大的大学社区。与大学附属法学院不同,独立法学院的学生与其他大学图书馆的学生没有相同的访问水平,具有更多样化的集合。因此,学生将更依赖于在法学院图书馆的收藏品。我从美国酒吧协会的网站上发表的批准的法学院列表中选择了11名其他法学院。我使用国会分类系统图书馆搜索了这些法学院的每个图书馆目录。然后,我计算了每个集合中的非法记录的数量(即,具有“k”,“j”或“x”)的呼叫号码的项目,并确定每个法律库的非合法材料的估计百分比收藏。我的分析结果详述了以下纸张。一般来说,收集中的非法律材料的百分比在12所学校相当密切地靠近,平均约24%。国会分类最高的非法律图书馆是“H”(“社会科学”),“HV”(“社会服务,福利,犯罪学”)是在研究的12个图书馆中的9个中的最高分类。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号