A Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization

I A Survey of Local Library Cataloging

Tool and Resource Utilization

Shawne D. Miksa

This stuJy addresses lhl: support ofcalaloging procl:dures by examining the local cataloging environment of the North Texas public libraries Ihrough lhe use of an online survcy. In particular, the slUdy sought to discover the com­ prehensiveness of cataloging resources and lools within technical service de­ partments and the level of utilization of these malerials by staff, both professional and paraprofessional. Data on use of particular tools such as cataloging rules, classification schemes, anJ subject headings was collected from 103 libraries in an effort to understand how currem:y and reliability of tools and resources an~ determined and how oftell staff arc trained or updated in thcir usc.

Introduction The quality control of all bibliographic records, whether outsourced or original, is the responsibility of the catalogers who provide bibliographic control for one or more libraries. This responsibility in turn greatly de­ pends on the catalogers' knowledge of and expertise with the cataloging tools and resources available to them. These resources and tools are broadly defined as any device or document (print-based or electronic) that assists in the creation of an original bibliographic record or in the verifica­ tion of bibliographic information in existing records. This includes input rules, metadata formats and standards, cataloging software and textbooks, continuing education programs/workshops, cataloger's Web-based "toolkits," etc. The current relationship between cataloging education and cataloging practice has been discussed at great length in the library and information science arena, with a strong focus on the debate about the knowledge and skills expected of new professional catalogers (i.e., how much of both the­ ory and practice is learned in the classroom versus how much training is needed upon entering a new cataloging position). In addition, the issue of paraprofessionallnon-MLS cataloging responsibilities has had an equal share of the debate, especially as it pertains to the question of who is actually performing the cataloging in U.S. libraries. This paper will discuss some of the results of a 63-question survey' in which participants were asked to give responses on what cataloging tools and resources they used and how often they were used." This study did not 128

J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 49, No.2-Spring 2008 ISSN: 0748-5786 ©2008 Association for library and Infonnation Science Education

r.

7 "5 7".

en:

'5'

A Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization

129

About the Author SIIml'lle D. Miksa is an assistant proressor in the School or Lihrary and lnrorma­ lion Sciences allhe University or Norlh Texas (Shawnt'[email protected]). Ms. re­

ceil'ed 02/08; accepred 03/08; l'£'l'ised 04/08.

address the question of where catalog records originate or the specific amount and quality of cataloging training and education possessed by those who perform cataloging, nor did it look at qual ity of catalog records. The reality of the cataloging process where cataloging tools and re­ sources are concerned must be observed. An architect can design a house with pen and paper, but a carpenter cannot be expected to build it without tools or materials. If we call upon libraries to "house" recorded human knowledge, then how strong are those who build the houses and what mate­ rials and tools do they use? This may be an overly simplistic analogy, but the questions remain fundamentally the same. How does one approach measuring and characterizing this important step in the creation of the bib­ liographic artifacts that comprise library catalogs? What types of tools and resources are expected to be found in a typical cataloging department? Against what standards are the use of these tools measured? If standards do not exist, how should they be developed and put into place? This study addressed some of these issues by examining the local cata­ loging environment of the North Texas public libraries. In particular, we wanted to discover how comprehensive cataloging resources and tools found within the technical service departments were and the level of utili­ zation of these materials by staff, both professional and paraprofessional. In addition, how are currency and reliability of the tools and resources de­ termined and how often are staff trained or updated in the use of these tools and resources? We were also interested in how factors such as budgetary and staff limitations affected the availability of these tools and resources within these libraries.

Background and Context A review of publications from a variety of library and information science publications, in particular publications centered on bibliographic control and technical services, did not reveal any studies that focused solely on the extent and utilization of tools and resources in a technical service depart­ ment (core sources ofthis review have been Weiss and Cartens 3 and Kim-l). There have been surveys that hint at this utiliz.ation, such as the study commissioned by OCLC to assess "interest and needs for education and training of library workers and how widely these needs vary worldwide.") Data were collected using categories such as inforll/ation sources or tools. librar.\' stwull/rds or pmctices. pJ'(~/essi{}nal pllhlic({rions or professional associations. etc. These are abstract categories at best and do not shed

130

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science

much light on the actual tools and resources about which librarians should attain more familiarity and knowledge. The Cataloging Policy and Support Office at the Library of Congress has a list of clltaloging tools lind documentation but there is no indication of how comprehensive the list is nor does it categorize tools via the two funda­ mental areas of subject cataloging and descriptive cataloging. The LC Cat­ aloging Distribution Service offers a comprehensive resource for cataloging tools but gives no real indication of how many or which tools a typical library should acquire. The ALA's Association of Library Collec­ tions and Technical Services (ALCTS) offers a variety ofdiscussion groups and publications on issues surrounding library cataloging practice and edu­ cation, but does not specifically address what tools and resources should be directly accessible to, or in direct possession of, a cataloger. Intner and Hill have edited several valuable books 011 cataloging educa­ tion and the profession as a whole (see lntner and Hi1l 6 ; Intner and HiIF; HillS) in which information organization experts have offered opinions and studies on how to keep professionals from lowering their standards or be­ coming overwhelmed by the complexity of information objects, standards and metadata schemes, etc. In particular, Joud rey 9 offers a survey of biblio­ graphic courses in forty-eight library schools in which he breaks down the areas of bibliographic control (e.g., subject analysis, cataloging technol­ ogy) and talks of the responsibilities, skills, qualities, and knowledge needed by catalogers.

Survey Methodology The first step was to determine the categories of tools and resources to en­ sure a comprehensive survey and identify any common in-house practices in the cataloging departments that would impact acquisition and utilization of tools and resources. In particular we sought to: • Identify the degree of professional and paraprofessional use of the tools and resources. • Identify the current state of outsourcing of bibliographic records and the elfect of outsourcing on in-house utilization of these tools. • Identify any bibliographic vendor benchmarks or standards that

identify appropriate tools and resources for a typical cataloging

department.

The participants of this study were pulled from the members list from the North Texas Regional Library System (NTRLS) and Northeast Texas Li­ brary System (NETLS). Library directors were asked to complete the sur­ vey themselves or pass it on to the person responsible forcataloging in their library. [n the beginning the survey was limited to only NTRLS members (n = 73). After the results were collected, a random cross-section of eight li­ braries was selected for follow-up interviews and/or site visits. These inter­ views allowed us to clarify any prominent issues revealed by the surveys.

-~,_ _ Ikl!Q4_",_!'!'I!.,_ _ UIIiI44••"'O"'_'.' --1l!I4!i1!11.4• • •0 II l1li1

!III!;.UIIl!@II!lil!'tplil

~1

A Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization

131

We also evaluated and verified results by presenting our findings to a focus group open to librarians and library administrators at the Texas Library As­ sociation (TLA) Annual Conference held in April 2005 in Austin, Texas. All surveys, interviews, and focus groups were anonymous. When survey­ ing just the NTRLS group we received a 60% response rate and because of that we decided to contact libraries from NETLS to raise the total number of libraries contacted to approximately 170. In the end, we maintained the 60% response rate with 103 libraries completing the survey. This paper presents results from a sub-section of questions concerning six main cate­ gories of tools and resources.

Desired Outcomes Ideally, the results of this regional study should inform both cataloging ed­ ucators and cataloging practitioners as well as serve as a resource for course curricula in library schools and as a training tool for technical ser­ vice administrators. A comprehensive list would help to ensure a level of consistency in library cataloging across the board as it relates to what tools and resources are avai lable to catalogers and hopefully serve as a necessary benchmark for catalogers responsible for the quality control of library cata­ logs. As well, the results of this survey should give library technical services departments the initiative to perform self-evaluation of the resources and tools used by their professional and paraprofessional staff. At the very least, this should make all those concerned, especially library administra­ tors and library catalogers, more aware of the minimal standards that sup­ port the efficiency and effectiveness of our cooperative library catalog systems.

Data Results: General Information The respondents (11 = 1(3) were grouped by type of library: rural (11 = 55), suburban (11 = 39), and urban (1/ = 7). General demographic information in­ cluded gender (85%- female, 15% male), library work experience, current position, and level of education. Work experience ranged from less than six months to greater than 35 years with 76% having between 1-20 years expe­ rience, 21 % between 21-35 years, and the remaining 3% with more than 35 years. 1~lble I shows the distribution of current position and level of educa­ tion. Within the 103 respondentsA8 (47.5%) possessed master's degrees from ALA accredited library schools. Library directors accounted for 70 (67%) of the total library positions described, but only 25 (35%) of those pos­ sesst~d a master's degree. One cataloger had a doctorate and one a master's, as did fourteen (13 l ;0 professional staff and seven technical staff (6.7%). The majority of those with master's degrees worked within suburban librar­ Ies.

132

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science

Table 1 Distribution of Current Position and Level of Education. Current Position and Library Type

Formal Library/Information

Training or Certification Level

Cataloging

Associate Degree

Rural=2Suburban=2 Urban=2

Doctorate

2 1

MLS; ALA accredited school

1

Other: Stoff and workshop training; Certificate fram a church-related library association

Director

2

8

Associate Degree Rural=50 Suburban= 17 Bachelor's Degree Urban=2 High School or GED

13

18

High School or GED; Bachelor's Degree; HS plus 33 hrs college

1

MLS; non··ALA accredited school

1

MlS; ALA accredited school

25

N/A

1

Othe,': County librarian, Grode III, 33 hrs. toward bachelor's plus extensive library-related CE; Master's of education; Some college, no degree

3

N/A

N/A

Other

MLS; ALA accredited school

Suburban= 1

Paraprofessional Stoff Rural=2 Suburban= 1

BA in non-library/information training, currently pursuing Master's degr'ee at ALA accredited school Bachelor's Degree High School or GED

Professional Stoff

MLS; ALA accredited school

14

Technical Services

Associate Degree

Suburban=6 Urban=2

MLS; ALA accredited school

1

7

Rural= 1 Suburban= 12 Urban= 1

103

Total Respondents

Cataloging Services In order to get a sense of how much cataloging is actually completed within the libraries we first asked what library automation system was used. The survey question itself listed 160 different systems, as well as allowing a choice for 'homegrown' or 'other' if a particular system was not listed. Ta­ ble 2 shows the systems lIsed in each library, grouped by type of library. Nearly every library (90%) used a cataloging module within their auto­ mated systems. The 8.7% of libraries that did not were mainly rurallibrar­ les.

1£

&I&1%4M.

C

£

2

I... I ....

' . .,-.'111'IIiIl·II·.·IIIiI'Ii'. ··.' . "IIi'. . . iii. H

I

.'.. .el

.. . '"

I111'.·.·

........

......_"""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''="'='''''''"'==''''-'~.

_ 9"-""- ......

_

A Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization

"'?!

' . -.................-

133

The participants were asked a series of questions about the cataloging services provided by their library. In particular, we wanted to know if par­ ticipants utilized central cataloging services of another library, performed their own work, andlor provided cataloging for other libraries. The major­ ity of the libraries surveyed were Central or Main public libraries (95%), Table 2 library automation system by type of library (n= 103). Type of Library Rural

Library Automation System Athena Book Systems Bmdart Follett Software Company Library Corporation LRMS Genesis G3 N/A Sogebrush (Spectrum) Sagebrush Technologies (Athena) SIRSI Cor'Pomtion Unknown or Home-Grown Winnebago Software

Suburban

Book Systems Dynix ILS EOS International Epixtech, inc. (NOTIS, Dynix, Horizon) Follett Software Company

1 9 2

20 1 1 1

55 3 3 1 1 2 1

Horizon Library Corpomtion

9 4 1

Mandarin Library Automation

]

Sogebrush (Spectr'um) Sagebrush Technologies (Atheno) SIRSI Corporation Dynix ILS GIS Infmmation Systems, Inc.

1 7 3 39 1 1

1 1 N/A 2 Sagebrush Technologies (Athena) 1 ._---------=::-­ 7 103 Hor'izon

Library Corporation

Total Respondents

4

GIS Information Systems, Inc. Innovative Inlerfoces, Inc

Urban

1

8 1 6

134

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science

Table 3 Cataloging Services Utilized Distributed by Type of Library. Does your library utilize the centralized cataloging services of another library?

Type of Library

N/A

N/A

2

No

Rural

45

Suburban

30 6 10 9 1

Urban

Rur-o I

Yes

Suburban Urban

Total Respondents

103

and the remaining (YYe) were either a branch library or systems offices. One of the main libraries functioned as a combined school and public library. Two respondents indicated /lor applicalJle. The majority (80%) do not utilize the centralized cataloging services of another library, while 20 (19%) do. Furthermore, 79 (78%) say they do not provide cataloging services to other libraries, :) (6%) do provide services, and 16 (15%) responded does /lot apply. We found these responses varied with their responses to the question "Has your library entered into agree­ ment with another library who assumes responsibility for your biblio­ graphic services'?" in which 89 (88%) have not, 9 (8.9%) chose does /lot apply, and 3 (3%) did have an agreement. When asked to give the numberof full-time equivalents (FTEs) dedicated to cataloging (an FTE is equal to 40 Table 4 Average hours per week semi- or original cataloging.

If your library performs its own semi-original or original cataloging, what are the average hours per week?

N/A

N/A

Rural

1 1- 20 hours per week 21-30 hour per week 31·40 hours per week Less than 10 hours week

Suburban

11-20 hours per week 21--30 hour per week

31--40 hours per week Less thon 10 hours week Urban

2 11 3 2 39

8 6 2 23

21--30 hou r per week

1

31-40 hours per week

1 5

l.ess than 10 hours week

135

A Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization

Table 5 Percentage of In-house Copy Cataloging. What percentage of y our in-house cataloging is copy cataloging? None

10% 11--30% 31-50% 51.70% 71-80% 81-99% 100% skipped

Total Respondents

Rural (n::::55)

Suburban (n=39)

Urban (n=7)

ALL (n=103)

2 (4%) 1 (2%) 0(0%) 4 (7%) 5 (9%) 9 (16%) 16 (29%) 1 (2%) 17 (31%)

0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 10 (25%) 18 (46%) 2 (5%) 5 (13%)

0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 4 (57%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

2(2%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 5 (5%) 8 (8%) 20 (19%) 38 (37%) 3 (3%) 24 (23%)

55

39

7

103

hours per "veek) the answers we received were not usable but we did ask about the number of hours per week given to semi- or original cataloging and found that 69 (66iK) performed fewer than 10 hours a week, J 9 (18%) performed II to 20 hours per week, and only 15 (16%) of the total partici­ pants performed 21 to 40 hours per week. Table 4 shows this breakdown by type or library. When compared with Table 3, and given that lhe majority of the respon­ dents are library directors in rural libraries who are generally responsible for all tasks within the library. Table 4 shows that little time is given to ac­ tual cataloging duties each week. Furthermore. most of the time is given to cataloging is spent copy cataloging, as demonstrated in Table 5. Within the libraries surveyed, most of the in-house calaloging (ranging

Table 6 Percentage of Outsourced Records. What percentage of your bibliographic records are outsourced? None

10% 11 -30% 31--50% 51--70% 71-80% 81-99% 100% skipped

Total Respondents

Rural (n=55)

Suburban (n=39)

Urban (n::::7)

ALL (n=103)

16 (29%) 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 4 (7%) -4 (7%) 1 (2%) 3 (5%) 0(0%) 21 (38%)

12 (30%) 1 (3%) 0(0%) 3 (8%) 3 (8 lYa) 11 (28%) 5 (13%) 0(0%) 4 (10%)

2 (39%) 0(0%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 0(0%) 1 (14%) 0(0%) 1 (14%)

30 4 4 8 8 12 9 o 28

55

39

7

(29%) (4%) (4%) (8%) (8%) (11%) (9%) (O%) (27%)

103

136

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science

from 71 % to 99%) is copy cataloging. In particular, copy cataloging ac­ counts for 45 lJi, of cataloging within rural libraries, 71 % within suburban li­ braries, and 71 % within urban libraries. We should note that 23%, or nearly a quarter of the respondents, skipped this question. In addition, outsourcing of records ranged fairly evenly from 0% to 90% across each type of library, with approximately 30% of those libraries re­ viewing records either before or after updating their catalog. A small per­ centage (3-5%) specified they only sometimes reviewed records before or after update for a variety of reasons (e.g., spot check bibliographic record vendor performance, add description, call numbers, subjects, holdings in­ formation, or when mistakes were discovered, etc.). As with the question on copy cataloging, just under 30% of respondents skipped the question on outsourcing.

Cataloging Tools and Resources Each respondent was asked to provide information about the extent of their use of specific tools and resources. Six categories of these materials were given: Cataloging Rules, Subject Headings, Classification, Cataloging Manuals, Supplementary Tools, and MARC Standards. Tables 7 to 12 show the collected responses of all 103 respondents for each category. Fourteen (13.5%) respondents skipped this question concerning cata­ loging tools. Overall, 5 (5.6%) respondents used AACR2 (at the time of the survey only the 2004 updates were available) on a daily basis, 9 (10%) on a weekly basis, 13 (14.6%) only occasionally, and one (1.1%) rarely. We found that just under 10% used Cataloger's Desktop at the time, with only 4% using it to access AACR2. We felt it necessary to list several editions of the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) because we suspected that not many would have the latest edition available at the time. (See Table 8.) Within each of the three types of libraries (rural, suburban, and urban) we found that the seven urban libraries used LCSH the least (only one used LCSH daily via Classi­ fication Web), which is interesting because each one categorized them­ selves as a main or central library. The most common access point to subject headings across all three types of libraries occurred indirectly through another institution or source, such as the Library of Congress. Sev­ enteen ( 16.5

(Xl

Table 8 Use of Subject Heading Tools (n Subject Headings Library of Congress Subiect Headings, 28th edition, print Library of Congress Subject Headings, 27th edition, print Libmry of Congress Subject Headings, 26th edition, print Library of Congress Subject Headings, 25th edition, print Library of Congress Subject Headings, 24th edition, print Library of Congress Subject Headings, older than 24th edition, print Library of Congress Subject Headings, online via Classification Web Library of Congress Subject Headings, online via another institution or source (e,g" Library of Congress) Subject Cataloging Manual: Classification, 1st edition (1992 base text and 1995 update) Subject Cataloging Manual: Shelflisting, 2nd edition, (1995) Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings, 5th edition (1996 edition with latest updates through 2004, 2005 updates) Subject Cataloging Manuals, via Cataloger's Desktop Free·Floating Subdivisions: an alphabetical index (any edition) Sears Subject Headings, 18th edition Sears Subject Headings, 17th edition Sears Subject Headings, 16th edition Sears Subject Headings, alder than 16th edition Subject Headings for School and Public Libraries: an LCSH/Sears companion

= 103).

Daily

Weekly

Occasionally

Rarely

N/A

5

4 1

2

3 3 4 10 5 14

2 1 1

8

7 2 6 2 0 2 5 17

2 5

60 68 65 69 69 60 61 35

0

3

1

2

67

0 2

1 2

0 5

2 1

72

Q , cr a -