Karen M. Drabenstott
Associate Professor
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092 USA
Voice: (734) 763-3581
Fax: (734) 764-2475
karen.drabenstott@umich.edu
New topic -- "Buckle Your Seatbelts: Changes Ahead in Technical Services"
Many thanks to Ned Fielden for moderating our latest discussion on the "Impact of Information Technology on the Research Process." Ned went to great lengths to ensure a successful discussion with frequent summaries and reactions. We are grateful for his efforts which certainly contributed to making this a productive discussion. Thanks again, Ned.
"Buckle Your Seatbelts: Changes Ahead in Technical Services" is our next topic. Texan Shirley Richardson, a native of Brownwood, Texas, will host our discussion. She completed her undergraduate work at Howard Payne University in Brownwood and taught English and art in junior- and senior-high school levels for five years before attending Texas Woman's University where she was awarded a master's degree in Library Science in 1971. Shirley has many years of experience working in cataloging and/or serials departments at the University of Texas at El Paso and the University of Houston libraries, among others, before coming to Angelo State University as Catalog Librarian in 1982.
As the only professional cataloger on Angelo State's staff, Shirley has the responsibility for all of the cataloging processes, as well as for the training of two paraprofessional staff members. Cataloging staff work with the OCLC online system and with a local NOTIS online catalog and adhere to current cataloging rules, standards, and practices. Staff are also planning to use Blackwell North America Company to provide the authority control that the catalog requires.
Please join us for a discussion on the "Changes Ahead in Technical Services."
Shirley Richardson
Catalog Librarian
Angelo State University
San Angelo, Texas 76909
Voice: (915) 942-2221
Fax: (915) 942-2198
Shirley.Richardson@mailserv.angelo.edu
In the quarter century since I entered the library profession as a neophyte cataloger, the entire area of technical services, including cataloging, has changed dramatically. At the same time, the position of the professional librarian in technical services has been in a state of flux, with increasing pressure from administrators and managers to lower costs and speed up processing of materials, often with decreased staff levels. The quality of cataloging, once commonly agreed upon as highly important to the library's ability to access its collection, has been called into question.
Not cataloging alone, but all areas of technical services are being affected by the pressure of rising costs and often stagnant, or even declining, budgets. As serial prices continue to rise, the acquisitions staff have less money to spend on books and other materials. The introduction of "outsourcing" of technical service functions has called the very nature of professionalism in the technical services into question. John Berry, Editor-in-Chief of Library Journal, referred to outsourcing, among other practices, as a "quick fix" in his August 1997 column, and complained that it "undermines longstanding principles of librarianship."
It has long been a principle that the organization and dissemination of information is at the core of librarianship. The technical services have promoted this function by providing bibliographic acquisition, access, and control for the libraries they served. Now questions are being asked about the very nature of technical service functions and their importance in an increasingly automated and electronically-oriented library.
These questions, and many more, are arising from all areas of the library profession as the increasing cost of providing electronic sources and equipment, as well as the skyrocketing costs of many library materials, bring greater pressure to bear upon administrators and managers. Some libraries have even gone to the extreme of outsourcing all of their technical services functions.
As an example, if libraries with Z39.50 capability can browse through the catalogs of other libraries and "borrow" catalog records to use in their own databases, is there a question of copyright and/or permission involved? If the "borrowing" library takes records from "donor" databases, does that mean that the "borrowing" library no longer needs to have professional cataloging or acquisitions librarians to check the validity or quality of the downloaded records?
I hope that we can discuss some of the examples (including horrible examples) over the next two weeks and get some idea of where librarians and library educators see technical services as heading, and why. Please feel free to jump in and relate your experiences or opinions (or both) concerning the drastic changes afoot in the library's "back rooms."
Ben Speller
North Carolina Central University
SLIS
Durham, USA
speller@nccu.edu
I will jump in with this question, "If accurate full cataloging for each item based on national/international rules and standards and is available in both print and electronic/on-line access, how many times does the item need to be cataloged again? How many professionally trained catalogers and acquisitions librarians need to verify the same item's validity and quality?"
I am of course not including local items and rare items.
The reality of electronic or digital information access and document delivery has magnified the issue of redundancy in collection building and maintenance.
Will knowledgeable funders tolerate increasing high cost for local processing and maintenance of processing backlogs?
Technical Services leaders are going to have to deal realistically with the issues of operational effectiveness and cost-efficiency. Library educators are going to have to insist on knowledge of national standards, validity, and accuracy in technical services but also insist on knowledge of management with increasing attention to project management, time management, and performance and productivity assessments.
I'll look forward to sharing ideas and experiences with all of you.
Bob Watson
Executive Director
Franklin Park Public Library District
10311 Grand Avenue
Franklin Park, IL 60131
(847) 455-6016
bwatson@linc.lib.il.us
I think Ben Spiller hit one of the points bang on with his observation that cataloging should be done, right, just once.
This is an old, old concept -- LC produced cards were (at least partly) intended to help the rest of us avoid cataloging costs. This, of course, implies that there is an organization which vets the result. LC, I'm afraid, doesn't seem to have adequate controls -- we've probably all seen some doozies come out of there.
Here's the math: two items cataloged per hour equals 16 per day, say maybe 12 per day really. This times, say 220 days per year, equals 2,640 items per year. Given, say, 60,000 books published in the U.S. per year gives us less than 25 catalogers. Making this one item cataloged per hour still gives us less than 50 catalogers doing original cataloging.
This said, there is probably just as much work (or more) to be done keeping tabs on ephemeral sources (like URLs) that beg for "full" cataloging and controlled vocabulary access.
Reality, of course, will lay somewhere between what exists now and the ideal, but rather closer to the ideal than the existing situation. And, importantly, as we move to automated environments there is more call for people who specialize in the backroom activities of hardware and software maintenance.
Diane M. Lewis
USGS Library
Reston, VA
DILEWIS@IGSRGLIB01.ER.USGS.GOV
Just wanted to add the mind-boggling number of items published in other countries, kits and regalia, maps, photographs, obscure serials, videos, tapes, globes, privately published and manuscript works to Bob's 60,000 count. These often need original cataloging. Thirty percent or more of the items our library receives have not been cataloged by ANYONE (and we're just one library). No one wants to be first to add this stuff to the union list, I think, because this stuff can be so time-consuming and difficult to identify, classify, and categorize.
Brenda Parris Sibley
Network Cataloger
Library Management Network
Brenda_LMN@lmn.lib.al.us
I've just subscribed but haven't seen any discussion today. I hope I can be forgiven for jumping in with my two cents without lurking a while first.
The future of library technical services is both exciting and scary. I love the internet, and I love the idea of moving to the PC for cataloging (we aren't quite there yet in my network). I will enjoy the more user-friendly PC, and I long for the day when I can launch into web documents from my work email (as I do at home) and even from library database records through the 856 field.
What scares me, though, is that our library databases may become like the tangled web of the internet, where keyword searching has us sorting through hundreds of irrelevant links to find what we want, and if it's something we've seen before, chances are we will never find it again unless we have bookmarked it.
Keyword searching has its purposes, but we shouldn't abandon subject searching. Our subject searching performs at its best only if authority work has been done, and too many libraries are sadly behind in this already.
Nor should we abandon the MARC record as it is now. Why simplify what has been developed over years and what is working well for us now?
Recently I was interviewed for a position in a corporate library that did not use MARC records, AACR2, or LCSH. I was glad that I did not get the position because I think that it would have meant compromising cataloging standards. They admitted they needed help in organizing materials, said there were problems finding what was needed through their keyword searches, and yet they wanted nothing more than new software and more keywords--they didn't want MARC, AACR2, and LCSH.
If we do let the quality of our cataloging decline, yes people will notice. They will become unable to find what they are needing, and as we often do in internet searches, will settle for something that isn't quite what they are looking for at the moment. But I think that it will be us, the catalogers, who will notice the most. If we walk into this, knowing better, our careers and our profession will suffer. Will cataloging even exist in such a future? Or would there simply be low-paid data entry people, inputting information in a haphazard manner and throwing in META tag-type keywords, applying no standards and achieving no consistency whatsoever.
I am excited about the future, but I do believe we need to carry into it all that we have learned in the past.
Shirley Richardson
Catalog Librarian
Angelo State University
San Angelo, Texas 76909
Voice: (915) 942-2221
Fax: (915) 942-2198
Shirley.Richardson@mailserv.angelo.edu
The response to this topic so far has been encouragingly varied. Ben Speller and Bob Watson have approached the subject from the managerial standpoint. Ben Speller asks, "How many times does the item need to be cataloged again?" Bob Watson uses a mathematical approach to figure out that if there were a central cataloging agency which dispensed accurate, standardized cataloging to every library, all of the books published in the U.S. each year could be cataloged by about 25 people.
While there is certainly validity to the concept that the same book should not have to be re-cataloged by every library that buys it, it is also a fact that not every library has access to the same bibliographic sources. Not every library uses the same subject headings, the same classification system, or even buys the same edition of a work. There are many local factors to be considered in cataloging, and, as Diane Lewis pointed out, there are many items for which cooperative cataloging is not yet available.
Brenda Sibley brought up an interesting point: "our library databases may become like the tangled web of the Internet, where keyword searching has us sorting through hundreds of irrelevant links to find what we want." Exactly. Without careful subject analysis, classification, authority work, etc., the information contained in a work may never be accessible. And without qualified staff in-house to evaluate the quality of cataloging and upgrade it as necessary, even cooperative cataloging will falter. Then too, there is original cataloging, which often takes more research time than Bob Watson's model suggests.
These factors also affect the other areas of technical services. Acquisitions and serials are also affected by form and choice of entry for publications, when they place orders, set up records, or check for duplicates. With the relative frequency of title changes among serials, it is even more important to have the ability to evaluate the necessary links among titles.
The introduction of automated technology to the technical services offers opportunities to streamline processes in all areas while perhaps improving access through the public catalogs. Perhaps some of our subscribers would like to relate their experiences in these areas.
Would any of our readers care to contribute their experiences/opinions? How has the changing role of technology affected your technical service areas.
Robert Bauchspies
oordinator@foxcroft.org
It is nice to see Shirley leading this discussion and provoking so many good questions. Having worked on both sides of the line, that of academic cataloging department(s) and technical services vendor, I offer my responses to Shirley's questions.
"Is it still important to provide accurate, full cataloging for each item?"
Yes, if the full cataloging contributes by and large toward accessing and making distinction to the item. People look for a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons. Content notes, signatures, etc. in the big scheme of things may prove helpful to a select few yet may make differences we are unable to measure.
"Do rules and standards really matter any more?"
Of course, but sometimes seemingly moreso for the sake of the rule rather than for what purpose the rule is designated for. Hence the danger of slipping into Freudian terminology in reference to behavioral traits of die-hard catalogers. Without rules and standards in today's complex environment in terms of data/knowledge organization, we would long have been awash in the babble. This remains a problem internationally as well as interculturally but intentions by and large are the same except for the occasional partisanship.
"With access to the Internet and the World Wide Web being provided by more libraries, is it necessary for libraries to continue to provide physical access to materials?"
The classic access vs. ownership debate which has been kicked around for several years now in library circles. There are no general rules here but implications of data integrity as well as collection costs and multiple usage remain. Physical access retains a value that IT provision may not be able to replace. If content is the focus and you can get over the property right hurdles and potential abuses, than why not IT-- the Internet II however or some form of internetwork which "filters" the commercial distractions and annoyances. (yes I have seen the latest to and fro on PACs-L re filter/censor distinctions...)
"Is cataloging important in the face of online web browsers?"
There isn't a browser yet that can compete with full level USMARC. In the context of search engines, the Internet in general remains predominantly keyword or key "object" and lay end users may not make much of opportunities to employ Boolean, fuzzy, qualified, nested or whatever other form of search strategem. Students however should have the need as well as should receive (and do) ample BI for such skills. Cataloging databases like OCLC are very powerful in the right hands. The flip side to this is essentially who needs the detail, who really cares about ISBD, AACR2 and all the conformity. As a senior cataloger and mentor years ago once told me, cataloging is a thankless job and you only get any attention when there is something wrong. People assume a lot in the catalogs they use and Internet IR is limited by data organization (lack thereof), low end interfaces, and a wash and wear public where expectations on results exceed the simplicity of their efforts.
"With most vendors now offering online ordering of materials, is it necessary to have a large acquisitions staff? Can the vendors 'pick up the slack?'"
Of course vendors "pick up the slack," but dare anyone be called a slacker. This is a big question and runs the scope of reengineering in library environments, new technologies and so on. Much administratively remains tied to cost/benefit determinations. Erroneous use of vendors can however, be more costly in the long run. Risk remains an element of change.
"Do we need to have professionally-trained librarians to acquire and catalog materials, or can we hire less expensive paraprofessionals? If so, who will be responsible for their guidance?"
Professionally trained librarians offer something to cataloging operations which is not inherent in support staff skill yet not to say it could not develop. This something is how the catalog, figures in the immediate and overall operations and mission of the library. Added to this would be the host of ethical issues and service references which librarians are familiar with. The question remains otherwise too general as the scope of cataloging ranges from hitting the return key to transliterating a hundred year old map and beyond. Think of paraprofessionals as the in-house outsource staff, increasingly doing Cataloging once the domain of the Cataloger, for less. It's ugly for those whose skills and credentials demand a certain equity but the product is what counts here. As to guidance few cataloging departments punt completely, and those that do, do so believing that whoever they outsource with, can be trusted (see above--risk remains and element of change) to maintain the quality.
"If the quality of cataloging databases declines, will anyone be left who will even notice? Or know the difference?"
Dissatisfaction breeds discontent, read change. You could however in a generation or so, create a sea of simpledoms, oblivious to the need for any detail about anything (kind of like the evening news) Who's noticing?
"Are technical services, once at the heart of library services, becoming obsolete? Or, are they in the process of becoming transformed, in the next few decades, into something that we might not recognize?"
Technical services is increasingly network oriented, electronically based and based on access. Subscription databases remain hot. Beware the trends of conglomeration though. Information privatization indeed helps spawn the deluge of new products, but more often it is the product itself rather than content which is so exclusive. Libraries across the land buy a lot of stuff they do not need, yet somehow got it figured that if it is on a CD-ROM it is better. Flash in the pan efficiency, increased interest retention, new manipulations of data etc, all have merit. Librarians and catalogers have little control over the web based publisher but software does.
"What does the future look like for the traditional technical services, and how might these areas change to meet the challenges of the future?"
I suppose a good question to ask the ABA. Books are not going anywhere for the immediate. Electronically free portability. Traditional tech services?--as long as there are books. The second part of your question--why obviously linked to what level of inclusivity the librarian hopes to state by tracking, cataloging and making accessible electronic resources, (those "free" as well as those purchased)
"How can we keep the quality of access up while trying to hold costs down?"
Buy intelligently and strategically oriented hardware, software and personnel.
"How can technology be used to achieve this goal?"
You answer this in asking the previous question. As an IT jock and closet Luddite, the sword, like this sentence is double edged. In an effort to save, promote and ensure, we execute. I would recommend Sherry Turkle of MIT for this thread among others.
For those of you who made it this far, thanks for reading and consider these final comments:
Technical services staff, especially the "professionals" are indignant over outsourcing or paraprofessional staffing of their responsibilities. Equally paraprofessionals are distraught over inequalities of pay per responsibility, let alone respect. Vendors long recognized the opportunities created by austerity measures colleges and universities have been put under due to changing demographics, increased technological impacts on institutions and their services and so on. We do risk a new Tower of Babel, but it is more linked to the substance of one individual than to the tongue or delivery. Those who labor in knowledge organization in the electronic age are just beginning to see the fragmentation when everyone has a voice and presence on the net. Is there a technological fix? I suppose it depends on what you are looking for or perhaps more the question, why.
William Arthur Liebi
Academic librarian
Stadt- und Universitaetsbibliothek Bern
CH-3000 Bern 7 Switzerland
Voice: +41 +31 320 32 259
Fax: +41 +31 320 32 99
liebi@stub.unibe.ch
The virtual library is not a substitute of the material library but a complement to it:
The access to the Internet and the World Wide Web does not eliminate the need for longer printed texts and non-book materials. Inventories of collections of such media kept in libraries will remain necessary; these inventories will be the basis for eventual future data presentation types and retrieval modes. But, because future developments are difficult to predict, I want to confine myself to the present state of librarianship.
Coherent Catalog
What can be said about inventories like catalogs:
Inconsistent Catalog
What could happen if a catalog is not logically coherent in itself and quality controlled?
As a general consequence, the work with the incoherent catalog would become less satisfactory and successful for patrons and librarians alike.
Crucial Question
What has been discussed, leads us back to our initial question:
Which level of cataloging rules, standards and quality control renders a large, integrated catalog enough consistent to use it easily and successfully?
Other questions depend on it. In trying to give answers, improving services should be the overruling goal.
Brenda Parris Sibley already proposed:
"Keyword searching has its purposes, but we shouldn't abandon subject searching. Our subject searching performs at its best only if authority work has been done [...].
Nor should we abandon the MARC record as it is now. Why simplify what has been developed over years and what is working well for us?"
Mary K. Chelton, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Management
Emporia State University
1200 Commercial
Emporia, KS 66801
Voice: (316) 341-5071
Fax: (316) 342-6391
cheltonm@esumail.emporia.edu
Marie Robertson
Cataloging Supervisor
BWI
marier@bwibooks.com
I am a new subscriber and read with great interest the debate about outsourcing. As a librarian I also wear two hats having worked in academic, public, and book-vendor environments.
In this discussion I will represent a vendor's perspective. Cataloging according to a consistent set of rules and standards are imperative to clean data maintenance. Whether you are supporting a library catalog or a file cabinet, the principles are the same. The first person a vendor hires for its outsource staff is a qualified librarian. To envision data entry clerks creating catalog records for your library is erroneous. As librarians are downsized in tech services they are becoming in demand in vendor environments in many areas, acquisitions, collection development and yes, cataloging.
Secondly, vendor services are customer driven. Tech services are incredibly expensive to maintain in libraries and for jobbers. Our clients are being strangled by a public demanding more services and paying less for them. Reasonably priced vendor services are the lifeline to preserve funds for other badly needed programs.
Thirdly, all libraries should maintain the quality checks for cataloging records that come form any source. LC, OCLC, etc. have bad hair days and make mistakes. Vendors use the best records they can get their hands on. (It's that librarian behind the scenes!) Their pricing derives from the production speed of their operations as well as the bulk buying of supplies. Libraries cannot compete with the efficiency achieved by a vendor's assembly line.
I have never seen a library that was not understaffed in tech services. Understaffing affects the time needed to put books on the shelves. A dependable vendor eases the pain in tech services by easing the backlog and by doing it your way.
Robert P. Holley
Director
Library and Information Science Program
106 Kresge Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
Voice: (734) 577-4021
Fax: (734) 577-7563
RHOLLEY@LISP.PURDY.WAYNE.EDU
As someone who helped implement the changes that have radically altered technical services, I have comments to make in three areas.
The concept of the library without walls has implications for bibliographic control. As users access our bibliographic finding tools through electronic connections, they are much more dependent upon the quality of the database than the on-site users who can talk to a reference librarian when they get frustrated. In fact, it is often not so much the quality of the individual bibliographic record that is most important but rather how these individual records are brought together in the bibliographic finding tool. I believe that many users still expect to have the online catalog meet two fundamental objectives: bring together like materials and separate unlike materials. If I want to find all the works by the author of the book that I just read, I shouldn't have to worry that she used five different forms of her name on her publications. If the author is John Smith, I shouldn't have to wade through thousands of items by the multiple John Smith's in the world.
I would also like to hear more discussion about the fact that the MARC record is nothing more than a formatted database record until someone provides software to make the record useable. Unlike the catalog with its fixed uniformity, different systems make different choices on how to search, arrange, and display these records. To give an obvious example, my library displays the Library of Congress Classification information while yours uses the Dewey Decimal Classification information. What you see today in any library may not be what you see tomorrow though the same MARC record is the source for both displays. I continue to believe that "the experts" should study how to best take advantage of the existing data in MARC records to provide the most useful retrieval tools.
To return to my initial point, how many of our users, however you wish to define the term, ever speak with a reference person? How many of them use our bibliographic finding tools, especially now that they can access them electronically? My heretical question then follows: Shouldn't we be concentrating our resources where they will help the greatest number of users?
I question the assumption made earlier in this discussion that a single catalog record can fit all situations unless this means that the record is content rich enough to meet all legitimate needs. The user expectations from the bibliographic finding tool in an academic library with 7,000,000 volumes are very different from those of a 7th grade student in a middle school library with 4,000 volumes. Once more, the real issues may not be at the level of the individual catalog record but in how they all fit together. Library of Congress Subject Headings depend upon a cross reference structure that works perfectly only at the Library of Congress. How does the 7th grader broaden and narrow his search or find related terms with LCSH in the library described above? Yet this library may depend upon LCSH for subject access.
I waffled above the sufficiency of a single catalog record since it might be possible to give enough multiple options in the same record to satisfy multiple users: four or more classification numbers (Dewey, LCC, UDC, SuDoc, etc.); three subject heading systems (LCSH, Sears, MESH, etc.). The access software could then choose whatever was most appropriate for the user, the library, or the consortium. But this super-record would be exceptionally costly to create. In the United States, librarians have traditionally looked to the Library of Congress and have expected it to enrich records with information that was not needed by its users; but the cataloging community understands that LC no longer has, if it ever did, the resources to meet this goal.
Even with what I have said above, this solution overlooks the issue of language and culture. The French speakers in Quebec and the Hispanic community in the United States cannot be expected to use English Library of Congress subject headings. Even British English, American English, and Australian English vary enough to cause vocabulary problems.
In reading a recent article on outsourcing the Journal of Academic Librarianship, I agreed with many of the reasons for not outsourcing. Much of the argument focused on local needs. But the advantages of keeping cataloging within the library has already been lost in many cases through what I would call "internal outsourcing." In many libraries, copy catalogers in a separate unit, perhaps with a supervisor without an MLIS degree, processed a high percentage of the materials as quickly as possible with as few changes as possible. Perhaps one or two original catalogers worked in another place with the difficult, local, or non-mainstream materials. Was it really much of a change to outsource cataloging in such a situation?
I don't have any easy answers to these issues. I accept the principle that having an item available even with a primitive record is better than having the item available at all. Perhaps most users will be satisfied with any five items on the topic found in the library or on the Internet. I worry, however, that we as librarians are shifting the burden to the user in those cases where more discrimination is needed. This additional quality control may no longer be a social cost to be borne by libraries/librarians. The successful scholar of the future may be the one who takes the time to wade through the 15,000 John Smith's in the same way that the successful scholar of other eras was the one who made the effort to visit physically multiple collections to find the "uncataloged" treasures.
Caroline Coughlin
SCILS
Rutgers
coughli@rci.rutgers.edu
I would appreciate hearing some comments on the Association of American Publisher's plan to encode their materials with DOI's (digital object indentifier) as reported in the September 22, 1997 New York Times, p D1+ ("Publishers Start Campaign for Protection on Internet" by Doreen Carvajal). As I read the article it seemed like a version of CIP at the term level.
Ben Speller
North Carolina Central University
SLIS
Durham NC USA
speller@nccu.edu
I see that Dr. Holley has moved from cataloging items to organization of information. Eventually we will move to development of dynamic systems that can handle the multi-dimensional situations that concern Dr. Holley. Our original problem was development of an electronic "card catalog."
I also see that Dr. Holley has moved us from correction of bibliographical records to enhancement of them to meet local situations. How about some re-engineering too?
In library school we are responding to the global cultural information environment by focus our attention on conceptualization of knowledge.
Thank you, Dr. Holley, for your insightful response.
John M. Cys
Catalog Librarian
Moffett Library
Midwestern State University
3410 Taft Blvd.
Wichita Falls, Texas 76308-2099
Voice: (940) 689-4175
fcysj@nexus.mwsu.edu
Marie Robertson stated, "Vendors use the best records they can get their hands on. (It's that librarian behind the scenes!) ... Libraries cannot compete with the efficiency achieved by a vendor's assembly line."
The "best records" will be those created by catalogers in the technical services departments of libraries (not just LC). Because original cataloging is often time-consuming, I cannot envision vendors doing it because it would drastically cut into efficiency and profit. Although I don' have hard statistics to back up my statement, I will maintain that an experienced copy cataloging team in a library is just as efficient as a "vendor's assembly line." Also an assembly line mentality often leads to a "ho-hum" attitude which makes it easier for errors to occur.
Shirley Richardson
Catalog Librarian
Angelo State University
San Angelo, Texas 76909
Voice: (915) 942-2221
Fax: (915) 942-2198
Shirley.Richardson@mailserv.angelo.edu
My thanks to all who have participated in this discussion so far. We have had some very good responses and some have raised other good questions.
I was intrigued by Dr. Robert Holley's concluding thought that "Perhaps most users will be satisfied with any five items on the topic found in the library or on the Internet ... the successful scholar of the future may be the one who takes the time to wade through the 15,000 John Smith's..." Certainly without careful cataloging and indexing, this could happen. But as Robert Bauchspies pointed out, concerning whether anyone will notice the decline in quality of cataloging,"You could however in a generation or so, create a sea of simpledoms, oblivious to the need for any detail about anything..." Do these thoughts not complement each other?
Marie Robertson, speaking from a vendor's perspective, commented that "as librarians are downsized in tech services they are becoming in demand in vendor environments ... libraries cannot compete with the efficiency achieved by a vendor's assembly line." I wonder, however, just how many librarians the present number of vendors can absorb.
Since vendors must be crucially aware of the "bottom line" at all times, it would seem likely that librarians will more likely be in supervisory positions, but that the basic work will generally be done by paraprofessionals and clerks. This is not to imply that paraprofessionals cannot do a good job of copy cataloging, but is the work of the paraprofessional copy cataloger in the employ of a vendor any better than that of his/her peer in a library cataloging department?
Perhaps there are better solutions than simply outsourcing a library's cataloging and other technical services.
I hope that this discussion will continue to bring forth challenging ideas concerning the future shape of the technical services in libraries.
Elaine Sanchez
Southwest Texas State University
San Marcos, Texas
es02@swt.edu
I've read the various postings and finally decided to throw in my 1-1/4 cents worth. It's a little long. I'm Head of Cataloging, and we still have an intact, fully functioning, fully appreciated (by administration) department with both professionals and classified staff. We're organized by format and function/area. What I write is as an academic librarian. I realize that other types of libraries have different needs, and different staff resources. We are fortunate to have staff and to have the recognized and understood requirements to provide the best access and description to, and security for, all our materials.
catalogers/classified staff do their own, our database management unit does global changes and subject authorities. We improve the cross-reference structure on authority records by adding and deleting references, often requested by our reference librarians. We provide standardized access points by retrospectively fixing headings used inconsistently, incorrectly, or which have changed in some regard. We have an excellent online authority database, which provides a strong, ever-changing with user needs, cross-referencing structure that allows collocation of access points. This is what catalogers do. It is a local function - vendors cannot interact with patrons and reference staff to improve access based on customer feedback.
classified staff in the various units create contents labels, acid-free strips for special collections materials, and our database management unit creates spine labels. The materials are our responsibility. How we identify them, both for patron use and for inventory control, affects their shelving and their security. We possibly could outsource spine labels for materials which require no special processing (books), but the unique labels we would still have to create locally. Vendors cannot supply the local labeling needs for all materials.
classified staff create the inventory of library materials, and provide the item database which allows materials to have a unique barcode number with which to circulate items. We add item notes to these records to document special materials contained in the item, which otherwise might be undocumented, and thus could be easily lost. This is a local function. A vendor could not easily perform this task.
We not only closely review original, we also review copy, and, to a lesser extent, LC copy. We are in charge of the quality of our database, and what we put in affects our customers access to materials. We provide standard full-level description for materials we acquire, and routinely enhance copy found on OCLC by upgrading to AACR2, adding access points that are useful in our collection, and relating records to materials previously cataloged. This is a local function, and vendors cannot do this.
We classify based on what is already existing in our collection, and anticipate change in classification, which always happens as knowledge expands and requires shifting of the organization of this knowledge. We provide the link between the two, so that patrons can more easily find all materials, whether classed together or separately. Our bibliographic database is excellent, and is a cohesive, relational database. That's what catalogers do, and it is done locally. A vendor can provide cataloging, but cannot relate it to materials already existing in the database. That is a local function.
Are these local cataloging functions worth the time and expense of having a local staff of fulltime catalogers/classified staff to perform them?
Yes, if the quality of the bibliographic, authority, and item databases is important to the library because it affects the effectiveness of a patron's search for his or her informational needs, the unique needs of the institution, and the security of materials.
As you probably surmised, I have no problem in supporting cataloging and the importance of its continuing existence. I am annoyed by the continual doubting of the necessity of the cataloging librarian and his/her function in the local institution. I am annoyed by the continuing debate over the cost-effectiveness of cataloging, and the efficiency of vendors in this area. Efficiency isn't the goal. The first goal of our library is effective (while also efficient) local organization of knowledge and access to information and resources. I'm sure any organization, even cataloging departments, can be streamlined, and made more cost-effective. We're working on that here, by using cross-departmental quality teams to analyze workflows and come up with better, quicker, more efficient workflows. However, we're not shortchanging the quality of our database, nor are we shortchanging our own roles as local creators, guardians, and enhancers of the databases and identifiers and securers of library resources. Our second goal is effective and efficient organization of knowledge and access to information and resources globally. This is, generally speaking for cataloging, OCLC and the records which we provide.
The future of cataloging and technical services lies not in questioning our roles, but in continuing what we do and continually streamline our processes to improve customer service and access. Our future lies in providing our own cataloging organization of knowledge for electronic and Internet resources. We have to learn and apply our knowledge in metadata, web indexing and search engine research and applications, analysis of retrieval needs for users of information technology (the last discussion in cristal-ed), in order to provide new, better organization of knowledge for these resources. We build on what we already know, and learn/create new and better ways to do them, while always looking for new methods and new structures. We don't throw away MARC - we use it, we keep it, but we also expand on it, create something new based on it, take a leap and envision something totally different, as times change and needs demand. Yet, we always need standards, so that what we create can be used everywhere, by everyone. That's what our future is.
Wow. Sorry. We all have a role to play, yes, vendors, too. Local cataloging is a core function, with local needs, and is vital to our past materials and future resources. Now, I won't get started on writing about outsourcing acquisitions/selection because that would get another 10 page document.
Ned Fielden
San Francisco State University
Reference/Instruction
1600 Holloway Ave.
J. Paul Leonard Library
San Francisco, CA 94132-4030
Voice: (415) 338-1454
fielden@sfsu.edu
Normally this list is too "mature" for this sort of thing, but it crossed my desk and timing is correct, and people may find it amusing. Include at your discretion, for a change of pace.
If you have never worked in library technical services, you may want to delete this now. Some great "insider" jokes.
Great Moments in the History of Technical Services
4362 B.C.
First evidence (from Scythia, modern day Crimea) of a four-wheeled book cart. Within two generations this design was adopted throughout Europe and Asia, replacing the more maneuverable, but much less stable two-wheeled book cart.
Spring, 3193 B.C.
First serial title attested: "Publications of the Royal Sumerian Academy."
Late summer, 3193 B.C.
First serial title change attested: to "Royal Sumerian Academy Publications."
537 B.C.
The National Library of Babylon, finally switching to papyrus, ceases maintaining its clay tablet shelflist, but is unable to discard it for nostalgic reasons. 2 years later, under siege by the Persians, the city finds a new use for the old tablets and manages to inflict severe losses on the besieging army by pelting them from the ramparts with large quantities of shelflist tablets.
43 B.C.
First attested use of an ISBN (for the special collector's edition of Caesar's Gallic Wars with an introduction by Marc Anthony): IXIVVIIXVIIIVIIIVIVII.
427 A.D.
The Library at Alexandria decides to contract out its annual weeding project; Vandal hordes are the lowest bidder.
June 21, 762 A.D.
Birthdate of St. Minutia, patron saint of cataloging. (illustration caption: "St. Minutia using a sword to split a hair")
1066 A.D.
William the Conqueror defeats his cousin Harold at the Battle of Hastings and imposes the Anglo-Norman Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed. (ANCR2) on his new subjects. 10 years later he commissions the first systematic catalog of selected regalia (the Domesday Boke).
August 5, 1782
Birthdate of the Werke brothers, Gesammelte ("Gus"), Samtliche ("Sam"), and Ausgewahlte ("Ossie").
1883-4
Cattlemen at the Bar and Drum Ranch, outside Lone Stack, South Dakota, develop the "barcode" brand as a way to keep track of individual animals in the herd.
Kathleen Koontz
Assistant Supervisor of Cataloging
BWI
kckoon@juno.com
Some misconceptions seem to exist about cataloging in a vendor environment. As a professional cataloger who works for a vendor I would like to take a moment to end these misconceptions.
Firstly, to address Shirley Richardson's statement "Since vendors must be crucially aware of the "bottom line" at all times, it would seem likely that librarians will more likely be in supervisory positions, but that the basic work will generally be done by paraprofessionals and clerks." In reality, the majority of catalogers who work for vendors hold ALA accredited MSLS degrees. All the paraprofessional catalogers that I know who work for vendors, have completed at least an introductory cataloging course and have received substantial on the job training.
True, like all businesses, vendor's must watch the "bottom line". However, a vendor's profitability and hence very existence is dependant upon it providing it's customers with quality service and products. In order to keep costs down while providing quality cataloging, the cataloging department must be efficient. A vendor can provide quality cataloging in one of several ways. Some vendors have their cataloging departments simply create quality generic MARC records and automate the process of editing the records to produce spine labels, etc. Other vendors use special software templates to expedite the cataloging of series and foreign language titles. Perhaps the biggest cost and time advantage that a vendor's cataloging department has over a library's cataloging department is that a single generic MARC is used many times.
A typical cataloging situation in a vendor environment is as follows. A new title arrives in the cataloging department. The cataloger searches the database to determine whether a full MARC record or a CIP record exists for that title. If a CIP record is found, the cataloger checks it for accuracy, corrects any errors, and fills in any missing information. The corrected record is then saved to the database. If no record exists, the cataloger creates a new record using a generic MARC record template. After the record is created, it is checked by another cataloger for tagging, spelling, and other possible mistakes. After being checked, the record is saved to the database. Once the new and corrected record is in the database, it can be edited an infinite number of times. If there are seven catalogers in the department, all seven can be creating records simultaneously which will later be used to produce labels and catalog cards or customized MARC records that will be sent to 20 or more different libraries. Each time a MARC record is used the cost of production drops.
As Shirley Richardson states "is the work of the paraprofessional copy cataloger in the employ of a vendor any better than that of his/her peer in a library cataloging department?" If the quality of cataloging is equal, why pay a professional or paraprofessional cataloger's salary when the library can get the same result less expensively from a vendor. To pay a person to duplicate the work which was accomplished elsewhere at less cost is not economically sound reasoning. Now before any one accuses me of wanting to do any with catalogers in libraries completely, let me state that this is not the case. I think every library that can afford it (keeping in mind that most school and small libraries are one person libraries) should have at least one professional cataloger who is responsible for cataloging locally produced or special materials and maintaining the catalog in terms of authority control, special local access needs, etc. As Elaine Sanchez said, "A vendor can provide cataloging, but cannot relate it to materials already existing in the database. That is a local function."
Like Elaine R. Sanchez, I am appalled that some people in the field of library science dismiss cataloging as unimportant. The purpose of cataloging is to organize knowledge and materials in order to make it readily available to the public being served. Without quality cataloging (regardless of the source), our libraries will soon resemble the current chaos and disorganization of the Internet.
Diane Nahl
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Studies
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Voice: (808) 956-5809
Fax: (808) 956-5835
My teaching and research focus on accessing records, using the cataloging. From this perspective, quality cataloging is essential, and needs to be assigned an expanded role to enable better retrieval. There could be an expansion in cataloging positions rather than a continued reduction, because we need to go further in creating quality cataloging (and indexing) for the networked environments that attract masses of novice and more experienced searchers. Some libraries are cataloging web sites and creating live links from within their online catalogs, and there are other cataloging-intensive projects starting up.
Perhaps the questions will become, what is quality cataloging today? and who is to define quality of records? catalogers alone, users, reference librarians? Some of the proposals for deeper subject analysis for book cataloging are very attractive from a retrieval perspective. Is retrieval considered in cost-benefit analyses described in this discussion?
Clare Dunkle
cdunkle@trinity.edu
Bob Watson wrote:
"There is an issue here which I'm afraid my poor, admittedly warped, mind just cannot puzzle out: what does "professionalism" mean in relationship to cataloging?
"It would seem, perhaps only on the surface, that a 'professional' can create a cataloging record that others can use, the assumption being that a 'professional' does his or her work with a high degree of quality and completeness. Yet, at the same time, there is a call for other 'professionals' to revise, or review, this work at every institution. These views of 'professional work' are, for me at least, in some conflict.
"The only answer I see to this would be that 'professional' does not so much describe a quality of work as it does status in a particular community. But this seems odd, too, for the consensus is that the goal of cataloging is to create more-or-less 'complete' records.
"So why not assign someone to do this, and be done with it?"
I was surprised to read this comment because so many of our institutions already do this. Many of us do not assign professionals to revise or review complete copy from the bibliographic utilities. By "professional" I mean MLS-holding librarians -- I do not know what "professional" means in Mr. Watson's note.
Paraprofessionals perform the tasks of revising or reviewing copy. These paraprofessionals, at least at my institution, search for the copy, download it, check it for obvious errors, make changes to fields which would affect searching in the OPAC, complete the copy holdings statement, barcode the book and attach an item record to the copy holdings statement, shelflist the item, and send it to labeling. The paraprofessionals only call on a professional for help if the call number is grossly inaccurate or there is some other baffling problem with the record.
We professionals, on the other hand, create new copy, assign call numbers and subject headings to incomplete copy, copy catalog materials such as Chinese for which we cannot hire paraprofessionals with language expertise, and work very hard on technological issues to make sure our library is taking advantage of the latest opportunities available to us. We plan for the future with our fellow librarians and colleagues outside the library. We pursue research which we hope benefits the profession.
If we do wind up spot-checking ordinary copy cataloging at any time, it is for the purpose of determining what gaps remain in the paraprofessionals' education so that we can provide additional training or rewrite procedures. In other words, if a professional reviews or revises complete copy, it is a review of our institution's paraprofessionals, not of the copy itself.
I do not believe that in my institution the distinction between professional and paraprofessional is one of status alone. It is a meaningful distinction based on skill level, education, and difficulty of work. I am sure that professionals from many other institutions could say the same.
I hope that those who share Mr. Watson's frustration with "professionals" will take the opportunity to review position descriptions and to educate themselves concerning the work flow of their technical services departments. They may find that they are chasing a phantom and that their professionals are not wasting time on paraprofessional work. Or, if they find a real problem, perhaps they will consider reassigning duties so that their professionals are freed from more routine clerical tasks and are able to perform duties which challenge them and provide greater benefit to the institution.
The opinions expressed are my own, although I would bet that a number of other professionals share them.
Shirley Richardson
Catalog Librarian
Angelo State University
San Angelo, Texas 76909
Voice: (915) 942-2221
Fax: (915) 942-2198
Shirley.Richardson@mailserv.angelo.edu
As we come toward the end of our discussion, I want to thank all who have contributed their ideas, opinions, and suggestions, and to encourage any who still have a thought to share with us to submit it. Some of the changes occurring in technical services are obvious, especially those linked to new technologies. Other changes are less obvious, such as adjustments to workflows to improve turnaround time.
Elaine Sanchez's excellent response illustrated what I consider the "classic" model of a cataloging department. This is possible so long as one has administrators and managers who agree upon the importance of these processes to the library's ultimately successful completion of its mission. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, especially when budget constraints come under consideration. However, budget or no budget, if standards for cataloging, indexing, authority, etc., are relaxed, the probability exists of a corrupted database which could become virtually unsearchable in time. This creates a dilemma for technical services staff and administrators alike: how to maintain the quality of the database while attempting to lower costs and improve turnaround time for materials.
Every library has different circumstances, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to these problems. Technical services staff must keep up with advances in technology which may allow them to cut costs and speed up the workflow; administrators must realize that a clean, well-organized database is crucial to the library's mission, although it will cost both time and money. Different combinations of techniques, technologies, and strategies will most likely be adopted by different libraries.
Bob Watson commented: "Yet, at the same time, there is a call for other "professionals" to revise, or review, this work at every institution... " There are a number of reasons for this, one being that different libraries emphasize different aspects of a cataloged work. There is also a large body of work which the Library of Congress never touches, and member cataloging varies in quality and execution of standards. In my own cataloging department, my paraprofessional staff handle all of the Library of Congress records and I take care of all of the member records and nonbook materials. I find considerable differences in the ways in which the various libraries interpret the rules, subject headings, and classification, and it is my responsibility to make sure that all of these records are "cut to fit" our database. As long as bibliographic utilities accept member input, it will be necessary to review these records. (And Library of Congress records aren't always "perfect" either.) It seems highly unlikely to me that a vendor could handle this sort of revision, since it is based upon local requirements and existing local records, and requires considerable judgment concerning local practices.
I have been looking at advertising material for different online systems, and it appears that all are now turning toward a Windows-based, web-oriented approach.
Before we leave our discussion topic, perhaps some who have had experience with these new online catalogs would like to discuss the effect which they have had upon their library's technical services area.
Again, thanks to all who have participated. I hope that this discussion has provided material of interest and use.
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|