Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
館藏是圖書館的核心,根據使用者的需求進行館藏發展與管理一直是圖書館最重要的任務,要如何建立適當的館藏,端賴館藏政策的訂定及選書工作的進行。行政院新聞局於民國93年推動出版品分級制度,用意在於杜絕色情暴力等不良書刊戕害兒童及青少年,而公共圖書館服務的年齡層以兒童及青少年居多,在面對出版品分級制時,有必要建立好館藏選擇及管理的基本原則。本研究針對建立限制級出版品之館藏政策相關議題進行探討,以期使適當的讀者進行適當的閱讀,保障閱讀自由,充分發揮公共圖書館在日趨多元且變遷快速的資訊社會中的時代使命。 本研究以問卷調查法進行研究,以我國國立公共圖書館、直轄市立公共圖書館、縣(市)立公共圖書館及縣(市)文化局(中心)圖書館為調查對象,根據調查結果提出建議,以為公共圖書館擬定限制級出版品館藏政策及管理制度的參考依據。 研究結果如下: 一、國內多數公共圖書館未訂定限制級出版品館藏政策,其主要原因為缺乏經 費、空間及管理人力。 二、國內公共圖書館專責規劃全館館藏發展方向與目標之委員會或小組,其參 與人員除了專業館員外,亦包含各行政單位之主管等,缺乏館外專家學者 之共同參與,對圖書館規劃全館館藏發展方向與目標仍有所限制。 三、國內不同區域公共圖書館,多數認為訂定限制級出版品館藏政策或選書 政策,對於現行管理制度,有所助益或影響。 四、在圖書資料的選擇方面;國內多數公共圖書館由於經費少、人力不足,未 設置專門的選書委員會(或選書工作小組)負責選書;而圖書資料選擇業 務亦多數未委外,委外辦理之圖書館的圖書選擇主題,則完全由館方決 定;另外,書商書訊、暢銷書排行榜、好書推薦及讀者推薦,為選書人員 重要參考管道。 五、公共圖書館館藏發展政策或選書政策中沒有針對限制級出版品處理之相關 條文,在選書時較容易直接排除限制級出版品之購置,也較會因出版社未 將某書列為限制級出版,但仍有所爭議而不予購置。 六、當徵集資料內容出現購置與否的爭議時,多數公共圖書館是由管理階層決 定。然而,不論館藏發展政策或選書政策中有無針對限制級出版品處理之 相關條文,都不會「開放讀者討論」或「向評議團體諮詢」。 七、多數公共圖書館並未配合出版品分級辦法,將限制級出版品進行標示管 理;僅少數圖書館在館藏目錄中加註特別的辨識文字,便於讀者對象的限 定及館藏位置的查詢。另外,購置限制級出版品之圖書館於閱覽規定中, 明列「未滿十八歲之讀者不得借閱限制級出版品」的比例仍有待加強。 八、對於出版品分級後,未列限制級但仍有爭議之出版品的處理,均不會向評 議團體諮詢或開放讀者討論;而對於出版品分級之讀者意見,僅少數公共 圖書館,進行系統化記錄與管理。 九、國內不同區域公共圖書館實施出版品分級管理後,多數讀者表示支持圖書 館的作法,不過仍有增加抱怨的情形。
Collection is the core of a library. Developing and managing its collection on the basis of users’ need is always the most important mission of a library, and appropriate collection establishment relies on the constitution of collection policy and the progress of book selection. In 2004 the Government Information Office has brought into force the rating system of printed materials to put an end to unhealthy books involving in sex or violence that harm children and adolescents, who are the major users of public libraries. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the basic principles of collection development and management in face of the rating system of printed materials. The present research discusses the related issues of establishing collection policies on restricted publications, in order to have appropriate readers read appropriately, to protect reading freedom, and to do justice to public libraries that have contemporary vocations in the information society with growing diversity and rapid transitions. The present research conducted an investigation via questionnaires into our national, municipal and county public libraries as well as the libraries of municipal or county bureaus of culture. Suggestions based on the results of investigation are offered to public libraries, as the reference for the constitution of collection policies and management systems on restricted publications. Following are the results of research: 1.Most of our public libraries have not drawn a collection policy on restricted publications, due to the lack of budgets, space, and personnel. 2.The committees or crews taking specific responsibility to set the direction and goal of collection development in most of our public libraries consist of professional librarians and leaders of departments. The lack of participation of external professionals and scholars confines the direction and goal of collection development. 3.In different area of Taiwan, most of the public libraries consider that the establishment of a collection or selection policy on restricted publications benefits or influences on present management systems. 4.On the selection of printed materials: Most of our public libraries have not set up a specific committee or crew taking charge of book selection due to the lack of budgets and manpower. Most commissions of printed material selection are not given to external professionals; the topics for printed material selection are totally decided by libraries even they give the commissions to external professionals. Furthermore, advertisements from publishers, lists of best sellers, and recommendations by critics and readers are important references for book selection. 5.The collection development or book selection policies of public libraries do not include related stipulations on restricted publications, which makes restricted publications excluded directly from acquisitions and causes controversial publications, though not classified as restricted by their publishers, to be rejected. 6.When a controversy over the acquisition of gathered materials arises, the management has the say in most public libraries. However, whether the collection development or book selection policies include related stipulations on restricted publications or not, there is no “open discussion with readers” nor “consult with publication appraisal associations”. 7.Most public libraries have not cooperated on the publication rating measure as well as not labeled and managed the restricted publications. Only a few libraries have made particular notes in their catalogs for the convenience of restriction on readership and inquiry about locations. In addition, the proportion is far from satisfying that libraries with acquisitions of restricted publications have the stipulation “the patrons under 18 ages are prohibited from borrowing restricted (R-rated) books and materials” in their reading rules. 8.As for publications which are not classified as restricted under the rating system but still controversial, no public libraries consult with publication appraisal associations or discuss with readers. Only a few libraries systematically record and manage their readers’ comments on publication rating. 9.Most readers claim that they support the measures taken by libraries after the rating system of printed materials is carried into execution in our public libraries in different areas, although complaints are voiced.
檢查制度, 圖書分級制度, 限制級出版品, 爭議性出版品, 館藏發展政策, Censorship, The Rating system of Printed Materials, Restricted publication, Controversial Publication, Collection Development Policy