All,
If I may wade into this, as a cataloger of some experience and as a systems librarian, I have a few observations. Library systems people see a distinct difference between the information produced today and the "legacy data," i.e. the records produced 50 or 100 years ago. Their focus is on the records produced today and then we can deal with "the other stuff" in whatever we can.
Catalogers do not, and cannot, have such a distinction. They have the idea of "the records in the catalog," no matter when they were produced. One of the main reasons for this attitude is: each cataloger knows that even if they work their entire lives on a single catalog, they are contributing only a small percentage to the total records in the catalog. For example, let's say a cataloger works for 40 years in a catalog, making 2000 records a year (not a bad rate of original cataloging). That is only 80,000 records over an entire career.
They have seen that if you make earlier records unfindable (or different in some way) you are essentially stopping access to the majority of the collection. The introduction of AACR2 was a huge change that stopped the continuity of access in many ways, and catalogers who experienced that do not want to go through it again--that is, if there is any choice at all. The introduction of AACR2 harmed user access in many ways, since everybody had to search for two headings at least. Many catalogs still have AACR2 and pre-AACR2 headings mixed together. Of course, very few public users of catalogs understand this, and must be missing many valuable materials today. AACR2 was necessary, but had all kinds of consequences. Now they are discussing RDA, with who knows what consequences?
Also, I know at least that I have been on the receiving end of several "wonderful computerized experiments" that claimed they would eliminate much of the tedium of cataloging and make our work more efficient. These experiments rarely worked and in most of the cases, our work actually doubled or tripled. When these experiments don't work, who has to fix it? The cataloger. And their work fixing these disasters (sometimes verging on the Herculean) is almost always played down since it was "a wonderful computerized experiment" that failed and was an embarrassment to the library. I'm sure other catalogers have their own war stories. As a result, it should not be surprising that the cataloger mind is necessarily conservative and many shake their heads "no" to any suggestion of change. I used to be that way, but no longer.
As a systems librarian, I know at least some of the power of the new technologies. These technologies are very promising and exciting, but they still must be proven. The problem is, we can each undertake our own experiments (as many on this list have, and as I have at my current institution), which are highly laudable, but the only genuine solutions can be through cooperation, and I submit, a cooperation as has never been achieved before in the history of libraries (except for perhaps ISBD).
In my opinion, if the attitude is taken that traditional catalogers must either grab the moment or get swept away by the flood of change, (which may indeed happen) it will only wind up harming the users. Information does not organize itself and the task is complex.
It's a moment of major change, and such moments are always extremely difficult.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
> Not necessarily -- catalogers themselves are divided, and it's not
> necessarily as polar, for lack of a better term, as it may seem.
>
> Part of the issue is, from my point of view, that catalogers are not
> being involved in said changes -- administrators and systems folk are
> often treating catalogers as an afterthought.
>
> Deb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Deb Bergeron
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:41 AM
> To: NGC4LIB@
listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] As a Library 'decision maker'
>
> Jerri,
>
> So I take it the catalogers are on the 'no change is necessary' side.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Deb
>
> Jerri Swinehart wrote:
> > At 10:08 AM 9/14/2007, Deb Bergeron wrote:
> >> Aaron,
> >>
> >> Can you please elaborate on this point:
> >>
> >> I'll leave changing cataloging practice for the
> catalogers to hash
> >> out and hope they don't take too long, their
> window of opportunity
> >> is already closing.
> >>
> >> What do you mean? Sorry if this is a rudimentary question.
> >
> > Catalogers have had
> several rather tense conversations on
> > other listservs about the future of cataloging. The division seems to
> > fall (and correct me if I'm misreading posts)between those of us who
> > understand that change will come and it's better to participate and
> > those who say no change is necessary.
> >
> > It's really sort of a
> cultural war.
> >
> > Jerri Swinehart
> > MLIS
> > Library Assistant III
> > Oakland University
> > Kresge Library
> > Technical Services
> > Rochester, MI
> 48309-4484
> > swinehar_at_oakland.edu
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Deb Bergeron <mailto:bergeron_at_macalester.edu>
> CLIC <http://clic.edu>, System Administrator User Support
> 1619 Dayton Ave. Suite 204A, Saint Paul, MN 55104
>
> T: 651.644
> .3878 C:651-487-7609 F:651.644.6258
> bergeron_at_macalester.edu <mailto:bergeron_at_macalester.edu>
> http://clic.edu
Received on Mon Sep 17 2007 - 01:56:21 EDT