Non-use of tools and resources is very closely tied to amount of outsourcing and/or copy cataloging and number of hours per week devoted to semi- or original cataloging. You can see the whole paper on my homepage at http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/documents/Miksa_CTR-NT_JELIS_49_2_2008.pdf
but here is a snippet (pages 134-136) with some more fun statistics:
"The majority (80%) do not utilize the centralized cataloging services of another library, while twenty (19%) do. Furthermore, seventy-nine (78%) say they do not provide cataloging services to other libraries, five (6%) do not, and sixteen (15%) responded does not apply. We found these responses varied with their responses to that question “Has your library entered into agreement with another library who assumes responsibility for your bibliographic services?” in which eighty-nine (88%) have not, nine (8.9%) chose does not apply, and three (3%) did have an agreement. When asked to give the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) dedicated to cataloging, an FTE is equal to 40 hours per week, 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 sixty-nine (66%) performed less than 10 hours a week, nineteen (18%) performed 11-20 hours per week, and only fifteen (16%) of the total participa!
nts performed between 21-40 hours per week."
(snip)
"Furthermore, most of the time is that is given to cataloging is spent copy cataloging... (snip) Within the libraries surveyed, most of the in-house cataloging (ranging from 71%-99%) is copy cataloging. In particular, copy cataloging accounts for 45% of cataloging within rural libraries, 71% within suburban libraries, and 71% within urban libraries. We should note that 23%, or nearly a quarter of the respondents, skipped this question."
"...outsourcing of records ranged fairly evenly from 0% to 90% across each type of library, with approximately 30% of those libraries reviewing records either before or after updating their catalog. A small percentage (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 information, or when mistakes were discovered, etc.). As with the question on copy cataloging, just under 30% of respondents skipped the question on outsourcing."
See Table 9 on page 139 for the "Use of classification tools".
**************************************************************
Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Library and Information Sciences
College of Information
University of North Texas
email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
**************************************************************
________________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan [bgsloan2_at_YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:13 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] The Dewey Dilemma
Shawne Miksa said:
"61 respondents (59%) responded with Not Applicable. I feel this gives a good idea of how DDC is or isn't understood, at least in this neck of the woods, but I would venture to say that a national survey would produce similiar findings."
Interesting. So a LOT of catalogers in the study NEVER use the DDC (20th, 21st, 22nd eds or WebDewey)? I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept that a majority of catalogers never use a tool that is designed specfically for their use.
Bernie Sloan
--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_UNT.EDU> wrote:
> From: Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_UNT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] The Dewey Dilemma
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 10:22 AM
> It is interesting--spent some time
> last night re-reading the Introductions to the 1st edition
> and the current 22nd edition of DDC.
>
> In the Preface of the 1st edition Dewey wrote "The system
> was devised for cataloguing and indexing purposes, but it
> was found on trial to be equally valuable for numbering and
> arranging books and pamphlets on the shelves." (Dewey, 1876,
> p3) He also says "The impossibility of making a
> satisfactory classification of all knowledge as preserved in
> books, has been appreciated from the first, and nothing of
> the kind attempted" and that "Theoretically, the division of
> every subject into just nine heads is absurd." (p.4)
>
> In the 22nd edition published in 2003 the DDC editors
> define classification and its purpose:
> "2.1 Classification provides a system
> for organizing knowledge. Classification may be used to
> organize knowledge represented in any form, e.g., books,
> documents, electronic resources.
> 2.2 Notation is the system of symbols
> used to represent the classes in a classification system. In
> the Dewey Decimal Classification, the notation is expressed
> in Arabic numerals. The notation gives both the unique
> meaning of the class and its relation to other classes.The
> notation provides a universal language to identify the class
> and related classes, regardless of the fact that different
> words or languages may be used to describe the classes."
> (DDC22, vol.1, p
>
> In reading through the entire Introduction there is not one
> mention of using the numbers for physical arrangement of the
> resources. The definition of Call number (Book number) is "a
> set of letters, numerals, or other symbols (in combination
> or alone) used by a library to identify a specific copy of a
> work. A call number may consist of the class number, book
> number, and other data such as date, volume number, copy
> number, and location symbol." (DDC22, vol. 1, p lxvi)
>
> Logically and realistically, we know that the built numbers
> assigned to resources are used for physical arrangement
> library. But, it is important to note the absence of any
> requirement to do so. This is what some libraries have done
> when moving to other ways of arranging, but I would contend
> their reasons for doing so are largely based on this
> misperception of how DDC works as a classification system as
> well as the following of the "tradition" of using the
> numbers for arrangement (i.e., this is how its always been
> done, no questions asked). This would be a very interesting
> study --a small one for an article, perhaps, or more
> detailed study for a dissertation.
>
> The book "Moving Beyond the Presentation Layer: content and
> context in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System"
> published in 2006 by Haworth Press (also as Cataloging and
> Classification Quarterly, volume 42, numbers 3/4), and
> edited by Joan S. Mitchell and Diane Vizine-Goetz, seeks to
> look beyond the "familiar linear notation sequence" and
> explore how it can be used in web environment. It's a great
> read--I highly recommend it, especially Karen Markey's
> article on use of classification in the online environment.
>
>
> In looking through several textbooks on classifying with
> DDC, the distinction between the classification number and
> the addition of a book number (sometimes called the cutter
> number or a "unique identifier") is the only real mention of
> any use for physical arrangement on the shelf. Without that
> addition then arrangement is quite difficult. I would be
> curious to know if libraries that no longer use DDC for
> shelving had been using the whole "book number" or just the
> classification number. I've often observed class numbers
> being randomly "lopped off" to make a shorter notation to
> fit on the spine. On one cringe-worthy occasion I found a
> number that didn't even exist in the schedules--someone had
> taken the original number and rounded it up.
>
> In the survey of catalogers in North Texas public libraries
> that I conducted in 2005-2006, I found that out of 104
> respondents (representing a 60% response rate) only 33 (32%)
> used DDC, 22nd edition, either daily, weekly, or
> occasionally; an average of 17 (16.5%) used the older 21st
> or 20th editions daily, weekly, or occasionally. At the same
> time, 18 (17%) accessed DDC online through WebDewey.
> 61 respondents (59%) responded with Not Applicable. I
> feel this gives a good idea of how DDC is or isn't
> understood, at least in this neck of the woods, but I would
> venture to say that a national survey would produce similiar
> findings. (Miksa, S. “A Survey of Local Library Cataloging
> Tool and Resource Utilization.” Journal of Education for
> Library and Information Science, vol. 49, no. 2, Spring
> 2008. )
>
>
> **************************************************************
> Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Library and Information Sciences
> College of Information
> University of North Texas
> email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
> http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
> office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
> **************************************************************
>
Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 16:20:38 EST