The annual meeting of the Committee on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) took place Thursday, March 25, 1993, in the Santa Anita Rooms A and B of the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles. Maureen Donovan, CEAL Chairperson, called the plenary session to order at 9:00 a.m.

Ms. Donovan noted that for the previous two days the Subcommittee on Japanese held a workshop. She also noted that another group had taken a very interesting tour of the Los Angeles Public Library the day before (Wednesday, March 24). The tour was organized by Dorothy Wong, and all who went enjoyed it.

Ms. Donovan mentioned that the past year was quite an exciting one for many of the members. There were a number of conferences, gatherings, and transitions in many libraries. Some outstanding people in the field have retired. Don Shively retired last summer, and a report on his career written by Yuki Ishimatsu was published in the CEAL Bulletin. Dick Howard and Warren Tsuneishi both retired at the Library of Congress, leaving major vacancies in the Asian Division there. Within days of Warren's retirement, members were wondering what was happening there, with the reports of the plan to interfile the Asian Collection. It was Ms. Donovan's understanding at the time of the CEAL meeting that this was no longer being considered as a possibility. Readers of eastlib, CEAL's listserver, will note that Ms. Donovan talked to Deanna Marcum (Director, Public Services and Collections Management I, Library of Congress), who is one of the people in charge of making that decision, and was reassured that it was no longer being actively considered. There is, nevertheless, still some concern that it may be reactivated as an option, but Ms. Donovan had no further information from Library of Congress. She requested that if any of the members had more information, they should let her know. CEAL could then possibly take some action; but at this time it does not seem necessary.

Next, Ms. Donovan reported on the CEAL Executive Group meeting held the previous evening. First of all, she thanked the retiring members of the Executive Group for their service. This is the year that the group of subcommittee chairs decided to continue for an extra year, so that CEAL would be in compliance with its procedures, and elect all subcommittee chairs at the same time. As a result, many of these people have served four years instead of the traditional three years, and they have done an outstanding job. Also, Tony Ma is stepping down from the Executive Group. Ms. Donovan thanked all of the retiring members: Wang Chi, Mihoko Miki, Yong Kyu Choo, Nelson Chou, and Tony Ma.

Ms. Donovan announced the results of the election for new members of the executive group. The new members are: Chinese Subcommittee Chair, Tai-loi Ma; Japanese Subcommittee Chair, Eizaburo Okuzumi; Korean Subcommittee Chair, Yoon-whan Choe; Library Technology Subcommittee Chair, Hideyuki Morimoto; Technical Processing Subcommittee Chair, Charles Wu; and the new Member of the Executive Group, Anna U.

Also at the Executive Group meeting, Tsuen-hsuin Tsien (University of Chicago, Retired) and Ed Martinique presented a proposal to change the title of the Bulletin to "Bulletin on East Asian Libraries," and to change the name of our organization from Committee on East Asian Libraries to "Society of East Asian Libraries." During the discussion, the Executive group decided that they would prefer "Society for East Asian Libraries." The Executive Group decided to put this out for a mail ballot to be conducted soon after the AAS conference. Ms. Donovan would mail the ballots, they would be returned and then counted by some of the members of the Executive Group who will gather at the 1993 American Library Association (ALA) summer meeting in New Orleans. Ms. Donovan had already been thinking about the nomination process for the next election. She realized that CEAL is now becoming a "society," and the size of the group and the number of activities it is involved in is a lot for one person to manage; to have only one officer for this kind of organization. So she proposed, and the Executive Group agreed to put another item on the ballot: The addition of a Secretary and Treasurer to the officers of CEAL. In addition, the Chairperson would be elected one year prior to assuming office, and would serve during that year as an additional committee officer; as a Vice-chair/Chair-elect. Another issue discussed was the position for faculty representatives on our Committee. It has not had faculty representatives for a very long time. Ms. Donovan therefore removed the clause calling for faculty representatives in the proposed new version to be presented on the ballot. One of the members mentioned that we are at variance with CEAL procedures in that we are not electing two Executive Group members every time, and it seemed that that stipulation might be too rigid. It was also deleted from the proposed new version. Ms Donovan read the original phrasing and the proposed phrasing. She noted that members will receive both versions on the ballot that they will be receiving soon.


I. The original phrasing (note: "Committee" will be changed to "Society" throughout the document if that change is approved):

Article IV. Organization
Section 1. Committee

(b) The Committee's officers shall be the Chairperson, Chairpersons of subcommittees, and members elected directly to the Executive Group (see below); a Committee Editor appointed by the Chairperson with the approval of the Executive Group; and Faculty appointments to the Executive Group. With the exception of the Committee Editor and faculty appointments, all officers of the Committee shall be nominated and elected in accordance with procedures set forth in articles V and VI below.

Article IV - Organization
Section 2. Executive Group

(a) The Executive Group shall consist of the following voting members: A Chairperson, Chairpersons of Subcommittees, and six librarian members, two of whom shall be replaced each year. Members without vote on the Executive Group shall include the Committee Editor and three faculty members, one each to be nominated by the China and Inner-Asia Council, the Northeast Asia Council, and the Board of Directors of the Association for Asian Studies, Inc. Faculty members shall serve as members of the Executive Group for terms not to exceed three years.

II. The proposed phrasing:

Article 4 - Organization
Section 1. Committee

(a) The Committee's officers shall be the Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, Chairpersons of Subcommittees, members elected directly to the Executive Group (see below), and a Committee Editor appointed by the Chairperson with the approval of the Executive Group. With the exception of the Committee Editor, all officers of the Committee shall be nominated and elected in accordance with procedures set forth in articles V and VI below. The Chairperson is elected one year prior to assuming office, and serves as a committee officer (Vice-chair/Chair-elect) during that year.

Article 4. Organization
Section 2. Executive Group

The Executive Group shall consist of the following voting members: A Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, Chairpersons of subcommittees, and six librarian members. The Committee Editor serves as a member without vote on the Executive Group. The Vice-chair/Chair-elect serves as a voting member one year prior to assuming office.


After reading the proposed changes, Ms. Donovan took some questions from those present. Frank Shulman (Maryland) asked if faculty should be excluded from participation. Should this be re-considered? Ms. Donovan replied that she personally would like to see increased interaction and participation with the faculty in AAS, but thought that we are at variance with existing procedures in terms of these people having this kind of voting membership on the Executive Group. This situation has existed for quite a long time now. She would like to see increased efforts toward connection and dialogue with faculty. This year we have a panel of librarians and scholars, and we should continue to explore that type of avenue for working together with our teaching faculty colleagues in AAS. All of us realize the importance of that, but at the same time, this mechanism has been dropped by the other side, by CIAC (China and Inner Asia Council), NEAC (Northeast Asia Council) and AAS. They are no longer sending us these designated representatives, but our procedures are still there. Faculty members could be elected, or come to our meetings. All that is possible. Ms. Donovan noted that we have just changed the laws to put them into agreement with practice, and that these issues would be voted on separately. If members want to only change the name of the organization and not change the procedures, we could do that. That would be fine too. There will be three separate votes on these clauses.

Another member asked if other names were considered for the organization, such as "East Asian Librarians Association," and wondered if the relationship with AAS was considered. Ms. Donovan replied that various names were tossed around the table the previous night, but she would not say that they spent a long time investigating the possibilities. As far as the relationship with AAS, the minute she received the proposal about ten days previously, she called AAS and verified that our name makes absolutely no difference to them, and that now as a committee of AAS we have exactly the same standing as the Association of Teachers of Japanese or any of the other affiliated organizations, of which there are quite a number. AAS would like to know of our change, and we have to keep copies of revised procedures on file with them, but they will be happy enough if we change. Ms. Donovan asked if members would like to discuss the name change now, or what forum they would prefer for the discussion. She said that the reason for this proposal from Dr. Tsuen-hsuin Tsien was that he's the guest editor of no. 100 of Bulletin, and he thought that it would be a good time to change. That is what precipitated this, and why we have moved quickly to put the ballot out on it. She said that If there is a feeling that we need more time to consider, or if members would like to see a write-in, that is possible. She wondered how a discussion on the possible name changes could be conducted. Warren Tsuneishi (Library of Congress, retired) suggested indicating various possible names on the ballot. Frank Shulman suggested setting a date up to which members could submit possible names, then the ballot would be sent out with those names for people to vote on them. Ms. Donovan proposed that the date should be Sunday, March 28 1993 (at the end of the conference). She wanted to receive suggested names at the AAS message board. She offered to accept any proposals through Sunday. Eugene Wu (Harvard) said there is no reason to rush to meet the deadline of the 100th issue of Bulletin. We should take time to carefully consider the proposed names. There should be a write-in. Ms Donovan asked what Mr. Wu would consider a reasonable amount of time for considering a name change. He replied that three months would be reasonable. Ms. Donovan noted that a three month period would mean that we would not be able to convene a group to count the ballots. Mr. Wu suggested that it could be done by a mail ballot. Ms. Donovan replied that according to the procedures, a ballot count must be carried out by the Executive Group (not just one person may count). One member asked for a description of the nature of the organization. Ms. Donovan noted that the objectives of CEAL are printed as a part of the procedures. She read the objectives:

"The objectives of the Committee shall be:

A. To serve as a faculty/librarians' forum for the discussion of East Asian library problems of common concern.

B. To formulate programs for the development of East Asian library resources, bibliographic controls, and access.

C. To improve inter-library and international cooperation in East Asian library development and services."

Ms. Donovan suggested taking a poll on the issue. She pointed out that it would be the Chair after the next one that will benefit from any additional help in running the organization. This was one of her concerns with bringing the issue to a quick resolution. She wanted to get a sense of the group as a whole. She asked how many people would like to move ahead with this, and do a ballot expeditiously, versus how many would like to wait and think about this for some extended period of time, and bring it back next year, and possibly come to a decision to revise this. She pointed out that the Executive Group also felt that there are many other parts of the procedures that need revision; if one went with a more careful, long-term examination then we could thoroughly revise all of the procedures. That is why Ms. Donovan presented the two possibilities. She thinks that there is positive and negative on both sides, but she wanted to get a sense from the members of which way they would like to go. A poll was taken on the following issue: Should a list of proposed new names for the organization go out within the next few weeks, and be voted on this summer, for adoption at that time?

Results: 29 for a quick ballot; a large majority against.

Ms. Donovan said that there were definitely more against. So the name change proposal was delayed. We will spend a year collecting input, carefully consider it, and bring it up for discussion again next year.

Next, Ms. Donovan polled members about changes in the procedures regarding officers. The question was: who would like to see a ballot go out in the next few weeks to change the procedures to add new officers to the Executive Group? The ballot would be counted in the summer, so that the next election would include Secretary and Treasurer elections, and the following time the incoming Chair would be elected a year earlier than taking office. The poll was taken.

Results: a majority voted to send out the ballot for the officers right away.

Eugene Wu then asked if it requires a revision of the by-laws to add officers. Ms. Donovan replied yes. Is it possible to send out the ballot and add officers at the same time? Ms. Donovan replied that we will be revising the by-laws by a vote with a mail ballot. Only one ballot will go out; that will be to add officers. The name change will not be sent out for ballot this year. That will be considered again next year. We are amending the procedures this summer, so that next winter when we have a ballot, it will include nominations for two new officers; Secretary and Treasurer. Ms. Donovan said that she did not understand Mr. Wu's question. Mr. Wu stated that his concern is that all of the officers of CEAL were elected under provisions of the by-laws. So if we are to elect new officers, we must revise and have the members approve the by-laws first. Ms. Donovan replied that we will be doing that. That is why we will be doing the mail ballot in the next few weeks. We will count those mail ballots at the ALA meeting this summer, and announce the results in issue no. 99 of CEAL Bulletin to be published in July (the June issue). If it passes, it would be a revision to the procedures. (Our by-laws are called "procedures," by the way.) No ballot will be sent out at this time regarding the name change. Another member stated that it is important to distribute draft revised by-laws to the membership first, and then to ask for a vote. Ms. Donovan agreed, and pointed out that we are planning to use that procedure in looking at the procedure (the by-laws) as a whole. She noted that the Executive Group will be discussing that Saturday morning, because they are planning to revise the procedures as a whole. As far as the additional officers go, though, if we do not do a mail ballot right away it would mean that not the next, but the following Chair would have the additional help of a secretary and a treasurer. According to the current procedures, under Article VII - Amendments, it says:

Section 1."Amendments to the procedures may be proposed: (a) By the Executive Group; or (b) By means of a petition signed by ten percent of the membership in good standing and with voting rights.
Section 2. Amendments shall be effective immediately upon adoption unless the amendment itself provides otherwise, and shall be published in the CEAL Bulletin. Amendments to the CEAL procedures shall be submitted to a vote by mail ballot by all members in good standing with voting rights, and shall be approved and adopted with a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast."

Ms. Donovan thinks that we are acting within the procedures. The Executive Group decided the previous night to put these things out to a mail ballot, and to change only this part at this time. This would then get us into having two additional officers: somebody to handle the checks, somebody to handle the mailing list, to maintain the organization, and keep it moving ahead. Otherwise, Ms. Donovan noted that she is worried about getting nominations to take on a job where there is only one officer for a big organization. She said that doesn't affect her at all; her term will be over. She is thinking of the next person. It could take five years or so to get this through. She was on the last task force that revised the procedures, and she knows what is involved. She thought, "ok, we will just slowly move ahead," but then she thought "but there is another possibility." We can just make this change now. We can have additional people doing some work, and keep the organization healthy. Then we can still revise everything, have a standing committee, and have people really examine all the issues, and all that; but at least there would be two more people, somebody who would be in charge of recording the checks and doing all the paperwork with AAS, helping to do some of the handouts and agendas, and all that. If the sentiment is that it should be just one person, then the members have a chance to vote against this proposal.

At this point, Bill McCloy (Washington) made a suggestion regarding faculty participation. Since Maureen read the procedural definition of what CEAL is all about, one aspect of which includes faculty/librarian forum, and since one of the proposed name changes is East Asian Librarians' Association, and since there is a proposal to remove the formal appointments for faculty representatives to the board, Mr. McCloy suggested that we think carefully about what our relationship to faculty is, both in terms of thinking of the name change, and of any further review of the procedures, which Ms. Donovan indicated there may be. He suggested that it is a point we should consider carefully, because it could impact on something more short term like our name change, which may come before a more thorough review. Ms. Donovan replied that it was a good point, but stated that she does not think we are changing the faculty representation; in fact we do not have faculty representation, at least as far as she knew.

Ms. Donovan announced that the Executive Group approved the re-appointment of Ed Martinique (North Carolina) as Committee Editor, and she thinks that he has been doing a great job, and we are all grateful to him. Ju-yen Teng (Arizona) has finished his term as Chair of the Task Force on CEAL Statistics. The Executive Group decided the night before that there is a need for a continuing effort to collect and publish our statistics. Ed will continue to be active in that area, in compiling and setting up the statistics for publication, but a task force will be in charge of developing a mailing list, and following up with the libraries that do not respond the first time, and doing the other work. Ms. Donovan then asked for volunteers to serve on the task force for CEAL statistics. She asked volunteers to let her know by Saturday morning (March 27, 1993). The Executive Group will meet again at that time, and she wanted to be able to report then about any volunteers.

Ms. Donovan reported that CEAL finances are in good shape, and that we have a balance of $10,801.00. This year we have increased the publication schedule, because there will be another edition of our CEAL Directory, and we will publish a special issue of the CEAL Bulletin, number 100, that will be greatly expanded from the normal size. The Executive Group discussed possible fund raising, and Ms. Donovan requested that if anyone has any ideas for foundations or other support, please let her know. We do not want to have advertising in this issue because we want it to be a very special kind of publication; but we would like to get some funds underwriting the increased printing and mailing costs, and also editing, word processing, and so forth. Some fairly small donations would be enough.

Ms. Donovan then introduced Ed Martinique, who gave his editor's report. Ed thanked Maureen and the CEAL membership. First, he discussed the current situation with Bulletin number 100. As of Tuesday (March 23), Dr. Tsien had received 18 replies to the 83 to 85 letters that were sent out requesting contributions to the issues. The list of contributors was made up of former CEAL chairs and subcommittee chairs, people who have made significant contributions to the East Asian library world in North America, and scholars interested in library development who come from all parts of the world. Dr. Tsien sent out the letters late last year, and those interested should feel welcome to contribute an article. Dr. Tsien asked for a 2,400 word article, in the CEAL Bulletin format, four pages. The topics he suggested that he would consider include studies of East Asian book resources, memoirs of personal life concerning events or organizations, discussions of library problems, policies, or procedures, or comments and suggestions on CEAL activities, and or the Bulletin. It is a very wide scope. As of the beginning of March, Dr. Tsien had received 10 affirmative replies, 2 maybes, and 3 negatives. One article has already been received, edited, and sent to Dr. Tsien for further editing. Dr. Tsien suggested that we create an editorial committee for the commemorative issue made up of the CEAL Chair (Maureen Donovan), Dr. Tsien (the Guest Editor), Ed Martinique, and the three area editors.

The second topic discussed by Mr. Martinique was the CEAL Bulletin Index of issues 1-100. He was happy to say that there is a very definite schedule for that publication. The creation of entries and the format of the index will be completed by October, when issue number 100 comes out. At that time he will send the index to Mrs. Hermsmeier (British Columbia), who has agreed to edit the text. She will return the text with her corrections, suggestions, etc. to Mr. Martinique in January, when he will make up a camera ready copy of it as Bulletin no. 101. With the publication of the Index, he noted that the microfilm file of the Bulletin will become more valuable. It opens areas of excellent material, dealing with library history from the 1960s on. He suggested that those who work in an institution that provides instruction in library science and information studies might want to see that their library acquires this wonderful resource.

The last topic was the changes in the area editorship position. With the upcoming June issue, number 99, Ju-yen Teng will take over the China area editorship from Lily Kecskes (Freer Gallery). This change is part of a new policy of having a person serve as area editor for a three-year period only, after which the editorship position is taken up by someone else. Finally, Mr. Martinique requested that contributors please adhere as closely as possible to the scheduled deadlines for each issue: January 1 for the February issue, May 1 for the June issue, and September 1 for the October issue. This will help keep issues more timely, and hopefully more error-free.

The subcommittee chairs then announced the agendas for their upcoming meetings. Next, Ms. Donovan introduced the Task Force Reports. She noted that these task forces were set up last year on the recommendation of the National Coordinating Committee on Japanese Library Resources (NCCJLR). She first asked Kristina Troost (Duke) to report on the Task Force on Inter-library Loan (ILL).

Ms. Troost said that her committee was formed out of the national planning meetings that were held at the Hoover Institute a year and a half ago. The Committee decided that ILL concerns all of us, not just those interested in Japanese language materials, so NCCJLR asked CEAL to form a task force on ILL. The goals of the Committee are to improve ILL. She noted that most librarians encounter problems with ILL, such as unclear citations, complaints from faculty about the speed of ILL, and about restrictions on number of volumes and length of check-out, etc. There are problems from every point of view, and the Committee is going to look for ways of addressing those problems. Ms. Troost introduced the members of the Committee. She noted that they are volunteers who are very hard working. In alphabetical order, they are: Tim Connor (Harvard), who manages the ILL department at Harvard-Yenching, and did an ILL survey a number of years ago; Diane Perushek (Tennessee, Knoxville), formerly of Cornell, now at a library without much of an East Asian collection, but still with seven Japanese Studies faculty and a certain number of Chinese Studies faculty, so she sees ILL from several different points of view, such as managing ILL and supporting the needs of faculty without research collections; Eiji Yutani (UC San Diego) who always asks the important questions, he keeps the Committee seeing the forest for the trees, he wants to make sure that the Committee works very hard to improve ILL; Peter Zhou (Iowa), who is full of good ideas and has worked very hard on the Committee. There are also two advisory Committee members, Jaia Barrett (ARL), and Maxine Reneker (RLG), they make sure that the Committee doesn't "re-invent the wheel," but that we operate within the larger library contexts that bind us all. The Committee has worked on four different projects this year. The Japan Foundation is sending out a survey to faculty members. This is to update their directory, that many of the members have probably used. They have graciously consented to allow the Committee to put several pages of questions into their questionnaire so that we can find out what faculty want, what their problems are, what they are using, how they approach ILL, what databases they would like to gain access to, etc. Ms. Troost also did a small questionnaire over the Internet to faculty members who are on a listserver, to see what they were doing and how they used the Internet to access materials at other schools. She will also send a questionnaire out to ILL departments at schools that have no East Asian collections, to find out how they handle requests from their faculty members for East Asian language materials. The final part of the Committee's job, that they have spent a lot of time working on, is a questionnaire that all the members will receive shortly. It is not short, and part of it will require some counting on the librarians' part. It is a one-time thing. Ms. Troost noted that she hopes librarians will take the time to go to their ILL offices, or to consult statistics on ILL. There are many people out there who want to know how much is going on. The only way to answer that question is by providing some statistics. The Committee would very much appreciate it if the librarians would make the effort to find the statistics. There are also some much more straightforward questions that should not take much time, such as a list of major problems, and ways of addressing them, which you are asked to chose from, indicating which one you think is the best choice. If librarians go through this and circle or rank them, it shouldn't take much time. While the questionnaire will look long, and may seem daunting, part of it is straightforward, and part of it is a little long. Ms. Troost made a strong request that librarians fill it out, and send it back so that the Committee can actually do something to improve ILL for our patrons.

Next, Sharon Domier reported on the Task Force on Librarian Recruitment and Training. She began by introducing the Task Force members. They are Cathy Chiu (UC Santa Barbara), Joy Kim (USC), Lynn Kutsukake (Toronto), and the Committee's senior advisor, Nelson Chou (Rutgers). The Task Force was initiated last year as a result of the Hoover Conference, and its charge was to consider whether it would be appropriate for CEAL to establish a standing subcommittee on the recruitment and training of East Asian librarians. This is a difficult question, with a lot of different angles. In the last year, the Committee has been looking at various angles. The Committee has initially decided to set aside the question of recruitment. Instead the focus will be on the best way to facilitate continuing education. During the next year, the Committee will be doing a number of pilot projects in that regard. These will be reported in the CEAL Bulletin, and the eastlib listserver. Negotiations are going on with the new head of the Committee on Library Technology (Hideyuki Morimoto) to put on a workshop next spring. Details will be worked out later, but it will be a hands-on workshop looking at computer technology, particularly involving the vernacular. This is something we all would like to see, and it is a test to see how it works out, and how it appeals to members, and a way to get feedback so that the approach can be refined, and the Task Force can try different things. Ms. Domier noted that she knows continuing education is important to members, and that the Task Force would like to hear from members. The goal of the Task Force is not to compete with the standing subcommittees. It does not intend to replace or supplant workshops put on by standing subcommittees. The Task Force would like to do the leg work; to keep lists of funding possibilities, perhaps search for computer loans, and things like that. In this way, the experts in those areas will find it easier to share their information with CEAL members.

After some announcements regarding later meetings at the conference and a short break, Ms. Donovan re-convened the CEAL plenary session. Rhoads Murphey (Editor, AAS Monographs and Reference Series) made a presentation about the AAS Monograph Series. He noted that he had sent a letter to members about a month previously, concerning the revival of the Monograph Series, which had been neglected for some time, and that his group is looking for submissions of manuscripts and other materials that could be put out in the Research Aids section of the Monograph Series. Mr. Murphey noted that the books now have a new face, and are comparable to books put out by university presses, in physical appearance and quality. For some years they had worked with the Arizona Press, and the books they did for the Monograph Series were not impressive in their physical appearance; in their type and manufacture, and they were not very effectively promoted. The Monograph Series has decided to break with them and publish it themselves. In these days of high tech, you can be your own publisher, and set your own quality standards. The Monograph Series uses the same kind of referee system that any scholarly press does, the difference is that this press can move a manuscript from submission to acceptance, rejection, or suggestions for changes much more quickly than other presses. Mr. Murphey tries to do this in a month or so. This is not always possible, but close to it. Once accepted, it can be moved into revision and bound books in less than half the time. The books can then be sold for a great deal less than other presses can do. They are also happy to consider manuscripts that might have limited sales, because they are not there to make money, they are there to provide a service to the profession. If they publish some titles that do not completely recover their costs, they believe that it will be made up by other titles which do. This makes it possible for them to be more adventurous than university presses, who commonly won't consider a title if they don't think that there is a sufficient market for it. Finally, the Monograph Series pays royalties, probably at a more generous rate (they haven't agreed on this yet) than university presses pay. Also they are interested in doing reprints of items members might think there is a market for. Mr. Murphey asked for suggestions of titles that CEAL members think may have a significant demand for reprint editions. The other aspect of the Monograph Series is the Reference Series; bibliographies, dictionaries, and other such materials, which they are also eager to consider, and to do. Please send questions to Mr. Murphey at AAS.

Ms. Donovan noted that she had entitled the second half of the plenary session "Getting Ready for the Future: East Asian Collections and Strategic Planning." The ARL studies that CEAL is participating in have a lot to do with this topic, and the other topics she asked members to report on are related to planning ahead and adapting to a changing environment. In CEAL's work with ARL, last year we were left with the task of choosing one country, either c, j, or k, for ARL to focus on. Ms. Donovan was happy to report that we were able to avoid that horrible choice. Instead all three countries are being studied in depth. In fact, the Korean survey was done by Yoon-whan Choe (Washington) and was held in Washington D.C., and it serves the purpose of a study of the situation facing Korean libraries quite well. Yasuko Matsudo (Michigan) has headed up the Task Force on Japanese Materials, and they have completed their report, the Chinese Materials task force has work well under way, and is progressing. Ms. Donovan remarked that the one part that had little progress was the part assigned to her, which is an overall picture of East Asian collections in general. However, she did produce a list of statistics, which she distributed to members (entitled "East Asian Collections in North America: 1964-1992 CEAL Composite Data"). She asked members to look over the list and think about it. There are many different perspectives on changes depending on the size of the collections as depicted on the list. Ms. Donovan said that she would like to hear from anyone interested about their perspectives on changes and trends. The Executive Group will also be studying this, and will be making suggestions about other uses for CEAL statistics. She hopes for as broad a participation as possible. She then introduced Jutta Reed-Scott (ARL) to give an update on ARL activities.

Ms. Reed-Scott thanked the group and said that she was delighted to have a chance to come back. She stated that ARL views its foreign acquisition project as one of the most comprehensive strategic planning efforts that have been undertaken to address the needs for foreign acquisitions. To recap her presentation at the 1992 CEAL meeting, it is a three-year project that ARL is undertaking, funded by the Andrew W. Melon Foundation, focusing on three areas: trying to identify needs and priorities for foreign acquisition viewed from the research libraries community, dealing with the scholarly community to see how their needs for foreign information are being addressed or not addressed, and third developing strategies to help us meet both the needs as they have been identified by the research library community and equally important, by the scholarly community. There is an underlying theme of seeking additional funding to support foreign acquisitions. There are three phases to the study. First is looking at what the needs are. To answer that question, ARL worked with all the major foreign area groups, and Ms. Reed-Scott was delighted to acknowledge the wonderful support from CEAL to help look at all the major world areas, for Asia including East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, and also Europe, and the rest of the world. But for this meeting Ms. Scott-Reed focused on issues relating to East Asian collections. Part of the initial assessment is to look at collecting trends, publishing trends, and shifts in research and collecting patterns. This is the general overview. Then we move to a more in-depth needs assessment which focuses on specific countries. For each of the countries, ARL seeks foreign area-studies bibliographers to undertake the study. It is in all instances a cooperative effort. The goal is to have an in-depth assessment of acquisitions for a specific country, resource sharing models for the country, and to come up with specific action and funding proposals to address the needs that have been identified. Ms. Reed-Scott was delighted that the report of the ARL Foreign Acquisitions Project for Japanese Materials has been completed, and she acknowledged the work of everyone on that task force, but especially the work of the Chair, Yasuko Matsudo. She was also delighted that there is a group working on Chinese and Korean materials, and out of those studies she thinks we will get a very good sense of the acquisition needs for these three areas. The second phase of the project relates to building bridges to the scholarly community. We all realize the enormous transitions that research libraries face, but to be successful in moving to a new way of building and accessing collections electronically, it is essential that we have the support of the scholarly community. Ms. Scott-Reed highlighted two efforts. First, the work of ARL with the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Midwest Center, one of the major scholarly organizations, to open a dialogue between area bibliographers and scholars. To that end, two sessions were scheduled, one at the University of Chicago, and the other at Harvard, just last November. The purpose of both was to bring scholars and area bibliographers from all parts of the world together. Ms. Reed-Scott noted that several of the CEAL members had participated. The meetings were not intended to find solutions, but to identify problem areas, and to see if participants agreed on what the key problems are. These problems included the issue of bibliographic access to foreign acquisitions, the difficulty of identifying ephemera and gray literature, problems of access to newspapers and government documents, and insufficient funding to support scholars' needs. A theme that emerged from the meetings was that of increased cooperation between research libraries, and increased resource sharing, that takes advantage of the opportunities that information technologies provide. The third and essential phase of the project is to find solutions. It is to look at ways of expanding and strengthening resource-sharing, and to look for increased funding. A key step is in this phase is the establishment by the American Association of Universities of a special task force, the AAU Acquisition and Distribution of Foreign Language and Area Studies Materials Task Force. This task force brings together university administrators. It is chaired by the dean of the graduate school at the University of Michigan. It brings together the directors of national resource centers, library directors, and scholars. The task force is charged to look at three broad areas. First, to build on the work being done by the different foreign area library groups, then to look at priorities for foreign area materials from a national perspective, and to develop models for collection and distribution of foreign materials, and to develop the needed funding strategies. So far the group has met once. In the meeting, the group recognized the importance of educating scholars on campuses. If libraries are facilitating electronic access, educating the scholarly community about the implications of that change is crucial. The group also considered the organizational and economic implications of a move toward a national resource-sharing model. It considered the implications for individual libraries. There are many questions in the area of resource-sharing. We have all struggled with these for a long time, and they are not easy to resolve. The task force also considered the strategies to be used to implement formal resource-sharing agreements. This includes organizational requirements and economic implications. They considered what kind of support would be available for value-added services, such as providing access to other institutions for materials. They considered where the support would come from, and how it would be allocated. Ms. Reed-Scott noted that for the most part she could not report on solutions to these problems. The timetable for the AAU task force is to have a preliminary report this October, and to complete the work next Spring, so she hopes to be able to report on solutions by then. In conclusion, from the perspective of ARL, we have seen growing interest in the area of foreign acquisitions. To underscore this fact, the directors of the National Resource Centers are meeting next week and library issues are a key part of their agenda. This is the first time that we have been able to focus attention on libraries in that group. There is interest in the scholarly community and the library community, and Ms. Reed-Scott expressed hope that out of all of these efforts will come some solutions. She once again acknowledged the outstanding support of CEAL, and said that much of what has been accomplished could not have been done without the help of Maureen and all the members of CEAL.

Next Ms. Donovan asked the chairs of the two task forces and Yoon-Whan Choe (Washington) to give brief progress reports. Yasuko Matsudo (Michigan) reported on the work of the ARL Japanese Materials Task Force. She first thanked the individuals who had helped the task force a great deal in carrying out their task: Jutta Reed-Scott for her kind guidance, Maureen Donovan for her encouragement, and for the information she provided to get the work started. She also thanked all of the Task Force members: Toshiyuki Aoki (Harvard), Tsuneharu Gonnami (British Columbia), Hideo Kaneko (Yale), Sachie Noguchi (Pittsburgh), and Eiji Yutani (UC San Diego). She gave special thanks to Mr. Wan, the Head of the Asian Library at the University of Michigan for his generous administrative support, which helped a great deal in carrying out the task. After getting involved in the Task Force, Ms. Matsudo belatedly realized that being a Task Force Chair is a costly business. It costs not only time, but also it costs the library which supports one's work. She expressed appreciation for Mr. Wan's strong support from the very beginning to the end. The charge of the Task Force is to assess the current Japanese collections in North America, determine priorities, and also offer some proposals and recommendations to address the problems mentioned earlier by the project director, Jutta Reed-Scott. In the beginning, the Task Force reviewed quite a few previous reports and studies on the same issues, including the report of the nine task forces of the Hoover Institute National Planning Team. Those reports were all very helpful, but the Task Force decided to gather some new information, and also to follow up some of the information in the previous reports, particularly the report of the nine task forces. In order to gather new information, the Task Force focused its study on three things:

1) ARL's Vendor Survey. ARL's Foreign Acquisition Project developed a well-designed vendor questionnaire, addressed to our foreign vendors. This questionnaire is meant to collect data on acquisitions by research libraries in North America, and on trends in publishing and pricing of foreign materials. The Task Force decided to utilize this vendor questionnaire for the Japanese vendors, and devised a Japanese version of it. It's a lengthy questionnaire. It has two parts: books and serials. Those two parts are further divided into three sections: trends in sales, trends in pricing, and trends in publishing. The books part has 36 questions, and the serials part has 34 questions. We added one question to each, so altogether there were 72 questions. The vendors were very cooperative. They were selected by using a preliminary survey of vendors used by major research collections in North America. This survey was sent out to fourteen libraries which hold more than 100,000 volumes of Japanese materials. Four vendors were selected as a result of the survey, to which questionnaires were sent. Very interesting results came from the vendor's perspective.

2) Analysis of RLG Conspectus. The Task Force analyzed the Conspectus and tried to come up with a national profile of Japanese collections represented in the Conspectus. Eighteen academic institutions participated in the Conspectus. We also gained new information in the Conspectus.

3) Bibliographer Questionnaire. The Task Force developed a bibliographer questionnaire concerning several issues, such as serials, government documents, electronic resources, acquisitions and budget, collecting patterns, and underdeveloped areas. There were some legitimate complaints from librarians who felt that there was not enough time allowed to answer the questions, but Ms. Matsudo expressed her appreciation for all of the input, which was extremely important and helpful in substantiating the discussion of the Task Force. The questionnaire was sent out to forty-five libraries holding more than 10,000 volumes of Japanese materials. By early January when the Report was written, the Task Force had received thirty-five responses, for a return rate of 77%.

An important component of the Report is the overview of Japanese studies and Japanese collections in North America, which provides background information. The final section is proposals and recommendations for strengthening areas which the Task Force determined were priorities: serials, local government publications and regional documentation, electronic resources, social sciences, and newspaper backfiles. Ms. Matsudo did not go into detail about the summaries and proposals, etc., but she discussed the distribution of the report as she had been asked by some of the members about this. A copy was sent to the Task Force's funding agencies, including the Japan/US Friendship Commission, and the Japan Foundation's Center for Global Partnership. Copies were also sent to some of the committees of ARL, Amy Heinrich (Chair of the NCC), who will distribute it among the NCC's members, and Ed Martinique, who confirmed that it will be published in the next CEAL Bulletin. Ms. Matsudo noted that while the report is out, it is not the end, it is just the beginning. In conclusion, she pointed out that there is limited time and resources, so we need to think about the best way to address these issues and to accomplish the task. She expects wider participation by all the librarians concerned, and stronger leadership from NCC to achieve our goals.

Tai-loi Ma (Chicago) then gave a progress report on the Chinese Materials Task Force. The Task Force was formed last Fall, with Min-chih Chou (Washington), Anna U (Toronto), Chi Wang (LC), and Maureen Donovan (Ohio State) as members. The Task Force is assigned the following tasks: 1) To review previous assessments of Chinese collections in US and Canadian research libraries. The Task Force hopes to finish this part by May. 2) To determine the methodology for describing and measuring major Chinese research collections, and to provide a detailed profile of collection strengths and weaknesses at the national level. This will be the main part of the work. A survey will be prepared and sent to the larger collections and some of the smaller ones. 3) To determine needs and priorities for Chinese materials, including a better understanding of relative needs for publications of various formats and disciplines. This will also be covered by the survey. The Task Force plans to send out the survey by June, and hopes to receive replies by August. 4) To assess the impact of information technologies for improving access to Chinese materials. They would like to include access to Chinese materials outside the US and Canada, namely China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. 5) To develop an active plan with specific national acquisition targets based on the above analysis. The final report should be ready at next year's CEAL meeting. Unlike the Japanese Task Force, the Chinese Task Force did not have much previous work to rely on, but they are quite confident that they will have a comprehensive report ready next year in Boston with the support and cooperation of all the CEAL members. Mr. Ma asked for contributions of insights and ideas from everyone. He said that CEAL members could contact any of the Task Force members.

Yoon-whan Choe (Washington) then reported on her survey of Korean collections ("The Condition of the Korean Collections in the U.S. Libraries")that was presented at the Korean librarians' meeting in Washington D.C. last fall. Ms. Choe noted that she would give a summary report of her paper. The US/Korea Conference was held in October last year at the Library of Congress. The data for the paper was gathered mainly from four sources: 1) the CEAL survey, 2) Dr. Tsien's "The Current Status of East Asian Collections in American Libraries, 1974-1975," 3) Han'guk ch'ulp'an yongam 4) Ms. Choe's own survey. Ms. Choe sent out questionnaires to 31 libraries identified as possessing some Korean materials, and she received about 28 responses. As of 1991, there were 10 libraries with Korean collections of over 10,000 volumes. LC leads the list, and then Harvard, University of Washington, UC Berkeley, Hawaii, Columbia, other university libraries, and New York Public Library. Most of the US libraries with medium to large size collections are university libraries. Across the board, Korean collections have experienced a healthy growth since 1950, when they began to collect Korean language materials in the Library of Congress. Between 1980 and 1991, Korean collections grew 83 percent. During the same period, the East Asia collection as a whole grew about 30 percent. Despite these robust growth figures, it is an uphill struggle for many Korean collections to try not to slide back. There are several reasons for this: 1) Expansion of the Korean Studies field in the US has resulted in a greater demand for Korean materials. 2) New materials keep coming on the market in unprecedented abundance. 3) Books cost more. 4) The library budget is getting tighter all the time. In the two decades between 1970 and 1990, the annual publication of periodicals in South Korea jumped about 600 percent, and new titles as much 858 percent. Add to this the re-issues of a wide range of old historical texts, and increasingly accessible North Korean materials, and you begin to realize that the growth figures of Korean collections in the US are not as impressive as they appear. And of course, there is the rising cost of books to consider. The average Korean book was 720 won in 1970, 3,504 won in 1980, and 5,932 won in 1990. Although there are no reliable budget figures available, we may safely assume that few if any Korean collections have the financial resources to keep pace with such a sharp rise in both demand and cost. There is a gap between surging acquisition needs and lagging fiscal support, and the gap is widening. The solution Ms. Choe proposes in her paper is simple in concept; that all Korean libraries in North America accept inter-dependence as the basic premise of their operation, and jointly develop a structure of regional and national cooperation for the purpose of acquisition and utilization of materials. The idea is not new. It has long been a standard practice among many libraries to share materials already in their collections through the ILL system, and recently the national databases. A logical extension of the principle underlying this practice demands that all of the libraries participating in the ILL system coordinate their acquisition activities as well. It goes without saying that not all materials are suitable for such a system. Most periodicals and frequently circulated titles need to be on the shelf for immediate use, and must be acquired by individual libraries. But there is a long list of expensive and infrequently used titles which a library can forego without causing undue inconvenience to its users, as long as these materials are available within the system. Coordinated acquisition of these titles will go a long way in eliminating costly duplication. Once in place, the consortium will serve as a powerful instrument for the promotion of Korean libraries in North Korea. In a time of shrinking budgets, the continued vitality of Korean libraries depends to a significant degree on our ability to attract outside funds. A consortium is ideally situated to approach potential donors with an authoritative assessment of the overall needs of Korean libraries in this country. In the remainder of Ms. Choe's paper, she discussed access and personnel in Korean collections in the US. A prerequisite for a nationwide system of cooperative acquisition is a nationwide system of shared access to the acquired materials. The obvious way to maximize resource-sharing among Korean libraries would be the full utilization of the two national databases, OCLC and RLIN. But this does not eliminate the time-consuming tasks of sorting, cataloging, and inputting of an enormous amount of data. A survey of eleven leading Korean collections in the US shows approximately 84 percent of the materials have been cataloged, but only 45 percent of the cataloged materials are on-line. This slow progress in on-line cataloging is mainly caused by a manpower shortage. At present, the staffing of Korean libraries and, for that matter, East Asian libraries in general, is far from adequate, which should surprise no one, given the level of resources devoted to personnel. Between 1980 and 1991, the combined holdings of all East Asian libraries in the US grew 30 percent, whereas FTEs grew only 9 percent. The story is much the same with Korean libraries. Among the top Korean collections, one library does not have a professional librarian, one has a para-professional librarian for the Korean collection, and three have professional librarians partly devoted to the management of the Korean collection. Five collections have full-time professionals devoted to the Korean collection.

The next speaker was James Cheng (UCLA), who gave a report on the Task Force on Strategic Planning in the University of California System East Asian Collections, which has been meeting for some time, but continues to make progress. Mr. Cheng noted that his report is based on a document that was faxed from UC San Diego (UCSD) to UC Los Angeles (UCLA) the day before by George Soete, who is chairing the Task Force. At the University of California (UC) system-wide East Asian librarians meeting last August at UC Irvine, George Soete, who is the Associate University Librarian for Collection Development at UCSD representing the Collection Development Committee (CDC) for the system, suggested that the Task Force be appointed to do strategic planning for East Asian collections in the UC system in conjunction with colleagues at the Hoover Institution and the University of Southern California (USC). Six members joined the task force chaired by Mr. Soete (who is involved in the ARL management training workshops); there were three East Asian Librarians, and three Assistant University Librarians for collection development in the system. The members of the Task Force are Jean Han (UC Berkeley), David Farro (UC Berkeley), Carl Lo (UC San Diego), George Soete (UC San Diego), Karin Wittenborg (UCLA), and James Cheng. The Task Force met on October 15, 1992 after one of the CDC meetings in San Fransisco. Mr. Cheng briefly outline the philosophy of strategic planning, and the process. He also shared some of the visions that have already been developed. Strategic planning is simply a way of planning for change. It is less important that East Asian librarians do strategic planning by the book than that they come up with an effective plan. Strategic planning differs from long-range planning in the willingness of the participants to re-think the way they are organized, or the way they operate in response to changes. In brief outline, the strategic planning process involves the following five steps: 1) A survey of the external environment. External environment is defined as publishing trends, scholarly trends, research programs, programs on one's campus, and changing budgetary support on each of the campuses. 2) A survey of the organization's internal environment. The internal environment is the environment within the organization; support from the administration, sufficiency of resources, staffing situation, policies, and regulations. 3) Development of an ideal future scenario in response to external and internal environmental changes. 4) Development of realistic goals and objectives (i.e. goal setting). 5) Implementation of change, and the establishment of new programs. At the October 15th meeting, the six members of the Task Force agreed upon four areas: 1) Program and user groups. The Task Force identified the individual programs at the individual UC campuses; some are new, some old, some specific in nature, and some quite general and comprehensive. The user groups include undergraduates and graduates, and the Task Force looked into these groups and the differences between them. 2) Collection resources. Taken as a whole, the UC has built a tremendous East Asian vernacular language collection. Some collections are quite large, others small. Some are quite old, others young. The Task Force looked at the nature of these collections, and ways to pool them together, to better support the clientele. The importance of balancing ownership and access will increase as collection budgets continue to decline, and ILL will become a more and more important service. The Task Force recognized that the libraries need to focus on reducing duplication, and on building cooperative arrangements and programs, both within the UC system, outside the system, within California, and also nationally and internationally. 3) Human resources. The Task Force would like the East Asian staff to get more into the mainstream, to participate more actively in the mainstream of library activities, especially in a totally automated environment. As with staff in other areas, there are needs to use staff development to build on strengths in subject knowledge, automated technology, and management skills. 4) Technical resources. The Task Force noted that the various campuses have used different kinds of automation systems. It looked into how to network these different local systems to form a unified system so that the resources of the nine campuses in the system could be shared. 5) Vision plan. Mr. Soete pointed out that in strategic planning, what we are doing is not important. What is important is what we would like to do in the future. It is not important whether we can do it in the future or not, but what we would like to do. The Task Force came up with some visions. These visions are divided into four categories. After the visions are set, the goals can be set. After the goals are set, procedures can be established to achieve these goals.

I. Visions: Collections. In five years, the Task Force would like to see: Current collecting is fully responsive to the needs of all UC scholars studying East Asia. The UC collections considered as a whole reflect a virtual microcosm of East Asia in coverage. Programs and Collection Strength have been inventoried. East Asian collections that need to be strengthened to meet university needs have been identified, along with a plan for strengthening them. Librarians have access to an updatable on-line inventory of collection strengths. Comprehensive coordinated development policies are in place, and are being implemented. The essential core has been identified for each of the nine campuses, and sharing takes place principally in non-core areas. Collection centers have been established, and designated to specific campuses to eliminate unnecessary duplication. Collections are also coordinated with other libraries. A long-term preservation plan for UC East Asian materials has been developed, and all rare and valuable materials have been identified, and given proper treatment and location.

II. Visions: Services. In five years, the Task Force would like to see: System-wide standards ensure responsible inter-library delivery of documents and information. Users can page materials among campuses electronically. Items within UC are delivered electronically within minutes, and physically within hours. Alternative resources, such as commercial systems, are also used to access materials not owned within the consortium. Network resources are available in our library facilities, and remotely. Library buildings are well-equipped to operate in the network environment. Cooperative reference services among the campuses are in place, including electronic inquiries. Bibliographic instruction programs are comprehensive, meeting the needs of new users and those who have continuing research and study needs.

III. Visions: Bibliographic Control and Processing. In five years, the Task Force would like to see: Users of East Asian collections are able to locate materials in an on-line bibliography. Records for UC CJK holdings are available in CJK vernacular characters. All current acquisitions undergo streamlined processing. The only older materials being processed are from decreasing backlogs and retrospective conversion projects. Virtually all processing is done electronically. The libraries have organized to process cooperatively in order to minimize duplication of processing efforts. Centralized processing has been piloted and implemented where appropriate. A comprehensive cooperative retrospective conversion plan is in place, with areas of concentration assigned for the various processing units within the UC system to avoid duplication of effort. There is full electronic access to all of the East Asian serials, both current and backfiles throughout the consortium. Acquisitions functions in all libraries are automated, and the libraries have electronic access to each other's on-order files.

IV. Management Frontiers. In five years, the Task Force would like to see: All East Asian library staff have been trained in core competency areas, and are functioning efficiently and effectively in their areas of language and subject specialization, with special focus on electronic resources and in-depth knowledge of publishing in East Asia. Staff have received management training in areas such as communication skills, managing change, and time management. Staff are functioning successfully in teams both within and among libraries. The appropriate staff have been trained in how to apply for grants, and the consortium has a successful track record of joint grant applications. Mr. Cheng noted that one decision coming out of this meeting was that
UC Berkeley, UCLA, and Stanford got Title 6 funding from the Department of Education for acquisition of foreign serials. Beginning this year, the entire UC system will present a joint proposal for funding under the acquisition of foreign serials program, instead of each campus presenting proposals separately. The East Asian library programs have successfully integrated their needs and aspirations into those of the individual libraries in the consortium, mainstreaming East Asian library collections into the main library operations.

These are the visions developed by the Task Force. The Task Force is planning to circulate this document among all East Asian Library colleagues within the system, and colleagues at Hoover and USC for their comments. The document will also be circulated among the members of the CDC in library councils within the system, and also among the library administration. The Task Force is planning to have two town hall meetings. In order to cut travel expenses, one town hall meeting will be held in northern California for UC Berkeley, UC Davis, Santa Cruz, San Fransisco, and Stanford. The other meeting will be held in southern California for UC Santa Barbara, UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Riverside, UC Irvine, and USC. After the two town hall meetings are held, the Task Force will take the comments and input of our colleagues, and then all of the documentation will be reviewed during the forthcoming system-wide East Asian librarians' meeting scheduled for this Fall at UC Berkeley. The Task Force was also planning to meet the day after the CEAL plenary session.

The next presentation was by Choong Nam Yoon (Harvard). Mr. Yoon noted that he was asked to make this presentation by Key P. Yang, Head of the Korean Section at the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress received a grant from the Korea Foundation in 1990 to create a separate Korea Section in the Asian Division. One of the major cultural activities of the Section was to organize and sponsor a conference on the state of Korean Studies in the United States. The conference was held at the Library of Congress, October 8-10, 1992, on the theme, "Enhancing Korean Studies: Scholarship and the Libraries." Over one hundred librarians and scholars from the United States and Korea attended the conference, and it was very successful. The conference was important for several reasons. First, it was the first opportunity for both scholars and librarians to discuss and explore their inter-dependant relationship and needs. Second, the meeting was also unique, because most of the papers presented were not of the academic variety, but rather were in the form of proposals that might be funded at different institutions by various donors. On the first day three background papers were presented to provide general information on the issues and problems of Korean Studies. They were: "An Assessment of Korean Studies," by Donald Clark of Trinity University, "Perceptions and the Early Presentations of Korean Culture in the United States," by Jahyun Kim Haboush of the University of Illinois, and the last paper was "A Survey of Korean Collections," by Ms. Yoon-whan Choe of the University of Washington. Throughout the conference, there was general recognition that Korea should be considered in the new context of US/Korea relations, and in the broad context of East Asian Studies, because of its inherent relationship to the region, and also because of the increasing demand for Korean Studies in the United States. A variety of problems were discussed, including Asian Korean Studies specialists, the posture of new scholars on Korea, the lack of sufficient information about Korean Studies, and the lack of a popular image of Korean culture in the United States. On the second day of the conference, the participants split into two groups, scholars and librarians. The librarians included most of the Korean CEAL members, all of the Korean staff at the Library of Congress, and four other Korean librarians. Altogether, this group presented a total of ten papers. Based on the group's discussion, the group reached a consensus on the following eight proposals: 1) Compilation of a guide to the Korean collections in Korea, with the objective of providing the necessary information for Western scholars to pursue the study of various aspects of Korean culture and society. This project is to be managed by the Korean Library Association. 2) Compilation of a similar guide to Korean collections in the United States. It has a similar purpose to the previous proposal, and is to be compiled by Yoon-whan Choe. 3) Annual workshops of Korean Studies librarians, to be held prior to the annual AAS meetings for information sharing. This proposal is to be arranged by the Subcommittee on Korean Materials of CEAL. 4) The arrangement of a Korea/US bi-national conference on Korean librarianship for the sharing of information, and the discussion of important issues. This conference is to be arranged by the Korean Library Association, and the Korea Section of the Asian Division of the Library of Congress. Each year the Korean government assigns a cultural topic to the year, and this year was proclaimed the "year of the book." The Korean Library Association is planning to hold the second bi-national conference in Korea this year to celebrate this occasion. 5) Cooperative acquisition of local histories of Korea for the purpose of shared acquisitions between the following cooperating East coast libraries: Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Princeton, and the New York Public Library. South Korea will be divided into five divisions, and each library will take one division. The grant for this project has already been submitted to the Korean Research Foundation, and the libraries are awaiting its decision. 6) The cooperative acquisition of the North Korean translation of "Yijo Sillok" the record of the Yi Dynasty. The participating libraries are the University of Washington, UC Berkeley, and USC. 7) Retrospective conversion of a major Korean collection, with the objective of making a large number of records available in the national database. Mr. Yoon announced that the Korean Section of the Harvard-Yenching Library received a $100,000 grant from the Korea Foundation for this project. 8) A pilot study on Korean MARC, with the objective of working toward compatibility between USMARC and Korean MARC, to facilitate the exchange of bibliographic databases in Korea and the United States. This project is to be undertaken by OCLC and the National Central Library of Korea. Mr. Yoon expressed the hope that the above proposals will be a great aid to the development of Korean Studies in the United States, and he looks forward to their accomplishment in the near future.

Cathy Chiu was the final speaker. She reported on the survey results on bibliographic instruction (BI) for East Asian Studies. She expressed thanks to those who took time to fill out the survey. Ms. Chiu especially appreciated those who wrote letters describing the situation in their libraries, and giving their opinions. The letters were very encouraging and helpful. She has compiled an eight page report with some very useful charts and tables, but because of time restrictions, she did not go into detail. However, she reported the results briefly. Unlike collection development or cataloging, there exists very little cooperative effort for BI within the East Asian Studies community. East Asian librarians work in an isolated environment in terms of implementing BI programs. More than half of the academic East Asian collections currently offer BI programs, but the rest of the collections do not have BI programs for differing reasons (see the Ms. Chiu's handout). The majority of the collections offer instruction on an individual, tailor-made basis. The question is, can the instruction be more efficient and systematized, while reaching more users with a minimum staff. For those libraries that provide BI service, the topics (see the handout) are rated high in planning, but low in practice, so Ms. Chiu has grouped these separately. Local on-line catalogs and subject indexes are among the most highly rated BI topics, and are conducted by most libraries, however instruction on bibliography is highly rated, even though few East Asian collections have offered it. This may be because bibliographic courses require the most preparation time and expertise. Current resources are not adequate to support them. On the contrary, the card catalog rates low, but has been taught most often in practice. The current trend to automate East Asian collections has created a common perception that the card catalog will be abandoned, but in reality, many libraries are still relying on card catalogs for locating East Asian materials. The majority of libraries are in favor of the format of course-integrated BI, or single lectures in both practice and future planning. Some also like formal BI courses, because a formal course provides more in-depth instruction, and it in turn is better for facilitating successful research. Formal in-depth BI courses are taught more by teaching faculty than by librarians. Although one cannot conclude from this survey sample that there is a clear division of labor, where the teaching faculty teach research methods, and the librarians teach library skills, there is a clear indication of a new trend where a full time faculty member with a joint appointment in the library, or vice-versa, is assigned to conduct BI. The collections which offer BI and those which do not disagree on the importance of BI programs. The ones with BI give more weight to it than those without it. However, they agree with each other in most other areas, such as topics and formats. The two groups agree to the highest extent with regard to the idea of a BI clearinghouse. The rating in favor of this is 73 percent for those with BI, and 71 percent for those without it. Most of them will support this idea with action. Many respondents expressed interest in establishing a systematized BI program even though some of them already have BI in place. More than half of the academic East Asian collections represented in this survey have BI programs. Knowledge of what has been done and what works will help East Asian librarians in developing successful BI programs in a more effective and efficient manor. Ms. Chiu recommended the establishment of a standing committee in CEAL. One of its responsibilities would be to oversee the establishment of a BI career house for East Asian studies.