Throughout the history of the world, there have continually been attempts made to record culture by people who saw the importance of preserving the knowledge of their own civilization. The degree and nature of this activity varied as did the people, and have ranged from simple cave paintings to more sophisticated systems of classification seen in ancient institutions. Cultural relevancies and temporal developments have always been deciding factors in determining the kinds of subjects compiled and the fashion they were catalogued. One thing that has remained a constant is the fundamental fact that the universe of knowledge is forever expanding, and must be preserved. Currently, examples are the growing fields of Genetics and Computer Technology.
Library catalogues have a very extensive history, and can be traced back to the libraries of Antiquity. In the 7th century B.C., important libraries in Mesopotamia had author and title catalogues that were posted on walls for user convenience. Callimachus, scholar and chief librarian of the Alexandrian Library in the 3rd century B.C. compiled a huge catalogue of the works contained there called the Pinakes. Catalogues have changed dramatically over the centuries, having appeared in many forms: from clay tablets, papyrus scrolls, printed books and cards, microform, to the online versions that are prevalent today.
Computers have changed library environments and given the process of information retrieval more avenues by allowing additional points of entry and quick changes in the system. However, they are quite expensive and with the economic realities affecting libraries today, keeping up with ever-changing technologies will be difficult. Coupled with the explosion in the publishing world, there is more and more out there to catalogue. From the mid-1800s to the present, there has been a preoccupation with the cost of cataloguing and it remains an underlying concern. The price of keeping track of and organizing the world of knowledge prompted Charles Jewett to create the idea of stereotyped plates, a series of preserved, mass-produced separate titles to be composed in adherence to a set of very strict rules (Jewett 1853,61). Although Charles Cutter feared for the loss of the art of cataloguing, he could see the economic advantages for libraries if they used the Library of Congress printed cards (Cutter 1904,65). Original cataloguing is time consuming and very expensive.
The last 150 years have seen changes in the ideological purpose and organization of library catalogues. They have gone from lists of books containing limited amounts of information, to globally-interconnected indexes with vast bibliographic potential. The passing of time has witnessed changes in cataloguing practices and technological evolutions, however, the proliferation of published knowledge and the cost of cataloguing are still problems to be dealt with. For libraries, one solution has been to use copy cataloguing. This essay will present some of the problems associated with using cataloguing copy, and the kinds of policies and procedures that must be developed in cataloguing departments concerning the evaluation and acceptance of taking records from a shared database.
Charles Jewett strongly believed that a national library was needed, which would oversee a collective catalogue for libraries across the United States. His dream was that it would become an international organization built on sharing and cooperation (Jewett 1853,52). It would permit scholars access to important books and manuscripts, show where intellectual disparities existed, and act as a facilitator for the progression of Knowledge (Jewett 1853,54). In Catalog it Once for All: A History of Cooperative Cataloguing in the United States Prior to 1967 (Before MARC), Barbara B. Tillett writes that:
One should not lose sight of a larger goal to provide our users with access to the bibliographic universe while inventorying the holdings of our libraries. Cooperatively creating catalogs was seen as a way to reach these goals (Tillett 1993,4).
It was in 1876 that many cooperative cataloguing enterprises began to appear, one of which was The Library Bureau, and it began to sell printed catalogue cards (Tillett 1993,5). The earliest issues of the Library Journal contained ALA discussions on the subject (Tillett 1993,6). Melvil Dewey proposed that the ALA lay down some guidelines for cooperative cataloguing, which all libraries could follow, possibly filtered through the Library of Congress (Tillett 1993,6). Certainly, catalogue rules devised by Cutter and Jewett were a fundamental component in successfully bringing the dream of a collective catalogue into fruition.
Over the next twenty-five years many ALA member libraries did enter into programs that shared cataloguing information, and in the 1890s, the Library of Congress ousted the Smithsonian Institute as national library, and took over the role of copyright depository. During the Depression and throughout the war years, materials were in short supply and very costly. Libraries began not only to share bibliographic information, but also library materials (Tillett 1993,8). Jewett's vision of an interlibrary loan system took hold, allowing users to find out where particular books were in the country and the opportunity to borrow the materials. By this time, the Library of Congress printed catalogue cards were on the market, and they changed the direction of cataloguing in a very meaningful way.
As budgets got tighter in the early 1970s, and space for library storage became limited, there was an escalation in shared purchases and interlibrary lending (Tillett 1993,8). This acceleration brought the problems still hampering library sharing today to the forefront, namely:
Interlibrary loans and collection development require bibliographic control for the identification and location of materials in the bibliographic universe. Bibliographic control in the form of traditional cataloging is expensive, so how can libraries provide bibliographic control at a reduced cost? (Tillet 1993,8).
The same issues that have plagued libraries since the 1800s are continuing concerns for library administrators. It may be just a pipe dream to allow users to have access to the bibliographic universe at their fingertips, but individual libraries must still contend with the hundreds or thousands of books and other materials that come within their own walls every year. To do original cataloguing for all of those materials is an extravagance that can no longer be financed, as libraries need to use their shrinking budgets in more creative ways. Copy cataloguing for most items is the answer to reducing the amount of cataloguing that must be done. In Developing New Roles for Paraprofessionals, Mary M. Rider states that:
Librarians and administrators have begun to emphasize the increasing need for higher levels of cataloging productivity to offset shrinking budgets and reduced staff at many institutions. Efforts are also being made to eliminate or reduce large backlogs of uncatalogued materials that have been accumulating in many larger libraries (Rider 1996,27).
Automation of library cataloguing departments became the way libraries could participate in sharing catalogue copy and to get rid of their backlogs (Smith 1994,1). Emerging from this transformation was the splintering of the library community, as the debate began between cataloguing quickly for user access, versus striving for a perfect record (Smith 1994,1). In Barbara B. Tillett's article, she brings out Andrew Osborn's theory that much of the problem comes from the critical nature of cataloguers viewing their colleagues' work habits (Tillett 1993,29). He goes on to say that they are also unable to bring themselves to accept the near-perfect records of the Library of Congress, feeling they must modify them to the point that original cataloguing has been the outcome (Tillett 1993,29). Backlogs have developed because librarians have not readily accepted records without extensively checking them first, thus, not meeting the needs of their users quickly enough (Rider 1996,27).
Original cataloguing is seen as the ultimate in the library world, and by many, to be practically free of mistakes because librarians with their MLS degrees do the lion's share of the work. How realistic is this theory when the majority of library school graduates have only a course or two in cataloguing, and must undergo a rigorous period of training to begin their careers? Paraprofessionals are given the same training (Rider 1996,29). The real differences occur in the types of training given and in the degree to which a cataloguer is diligent, dependable, and mindful of the results. A degree cannot distinguish the precision of an individual, nor their commitment to making user access their overall objective. These human inequalities cause the discrepancies seen in shared databases, whose only measure is the quality of the inputted data. Regardless, there has been a definitive move away from the ideology of the perfect database, to an emphasis on meeting the needs of users. To do this, libraries have employed the help of outside vendors (Rider 1996,27).
Cataloguing costs libraries a great deal of money. In order for copy cataloguing to become an efficient and unambiguous procedure, there needs to be more uniformity in adherence to the rules laid out in AACR2 and an agreement on which elements should receive the most concentration from cataloguers. A large part of the equation is in identifying the AACR2 rules that cause the most trouble through ambiguity and overelaboration (Inter 1989,23). Since much of the copy cataloguing is being done with paraprofessionals, clarification is extremely important -- they should not have to wade through some of the jargon in various sections of AACR2, jargon that reminds some of us of legal briefs. Traditionally, copy cataloguers have adapted the catalogue records that member libraries have contributed to utilities such as RLIN and OCLC (Rider 1996,26). Most cataloguing units maintain a list of libraries they prefer to take copy from, which the staff compiles according to their daily experience. Decisions are based on such things as incorporation of local practices, small number of errors, similar cataloguing practices, and how closely the copy comes to LC copy standards (McCue 1991,66). LC copy is considered preferable for most libraries, and is more often selected when there is a choice (Taylor 1988,296).
There are currently many ways to get copies of cataloguing records to use in a library database. Two, which are not recommended, are to download off the Internet, or from a local catalogue. There are also CD-ROM products available such as the Library of Congress's Bibliofile, WLN's Lasercat, and the National Library of Canada's Amicus. In addition, vendors or book jobbers like Yankee Book Peddle and Blackwell North America will sell books with the MARC records included. This is called 'ready cataloguing'. There are also bibliographic utilities that deal with database products, and include out of Ohio, OCLC; SLIMS for small special libraries; Western Library Network; and ISM (formally UTLAS). Both good and bad records can be found in all these sources. Yet, a comparative study done by McCue, Weiss, and Wilson found that LC copy was "relatively high in quality regardless of origin...the study showed that there was no significant difference between LC and the best of the RLIN member libraries" (McCue 1991,66,74).
It is not a simple matter to say that your library will buy cataloguing. There are many other concepts to identify and make decisions about, including deciding on a system that will "provide the best response rate for your library, and be at a price that can be afforded" (Taylor 1988,286). The other consideration is whether your library will give back records to the system for others to take advantage of. A variety of sources expect contribution and is a built-in requirement, however, it means extra time and extra work for the staff. Since a library is only a storage facility for materials without a catalogue, libraries need to give special attention to what goes into their databases. The quality of a catalogue is how both users and other libraries judge the caliber of a library's excellence. If a library presents an inferior, mediocre, and nonintegrated catalogue, the staff who work there are judged accordingly. Therefore, library administrators must be aware of all the possibilities and problems attached to each system.
There are several problems that can arise with using catalogue copy, and they include: errors in MARC coding; varying forms of entry; problems with punctuation; a deficiency regarding a local practice; typographical errors; insufficient call numbers; discrepancies that cause serious problems (i.e. authority control issues); the separation/integration of series or conferences (Taylor 1988,328); and if cataloguing in Canada, copy could contain American Subject Headings rather than Canadian (i.e. Eskimo instead of Inuit). Overall, authority control problems are a persistent concern. In addition, there are many records in databases that have seen a variety of cataloguing practices, and could be filled with rules and interpretations of rules that are no longer acceptable (Smith 1994,8). Therefore, a policy statement may require cataloguers to use the newest copy available, especially if it is LC, to take advantage of its updating system (Taylor 1988,332).
What cataloguers are looking for is the most appropriate record, using an exhaustive search process, while working independently. The goal is for them to recognize an appropriate record when they see it, and this is what takes experience. What every library wants are perfect records, but they often settle for a compromise of sorts. Nevertheless, copy cataloguing is here to stay and libraries must have a set of policies concerning the evaluation and acceptance of such records.
Libraries need to do some research before deciding upon which cataloguing network they will use, and that a periodic review of the service should be required, with changes made if needed. Asking other local libraries is a good place to start. Will the copy cataloguing be done with CD-ROM products that are very cost effective, or online to extract the most current records? When libraries join a cataloguing network, they should have a set of guidelines already developed to save time and money (Taylor 1988,334). For instance, a library must decide whether it will use unedited copy. If so, from which source or sources will it be accepted from. Will the library have a blanket policy of using LC copy without making any changes at all? It must also determine the procedures of handling copy cataloguing that must be corrected and made to integrate into the library's online catalogue. Since there is no point in using copied records if everything in them is going to be changed; it is more cost efficient to have areas of concentration -- which fields will be concentrated on and edited, and which may be eliminated altogether?
Identifying the fields in records that are commonly problematic usually involves changing access points and correcting errors (Taylor 1988,330). For example, it is true that depending on who has done the cataloguing, there will be more or less particular attention paid to certain fields. Since LC cataloguers have been trained to concentrate on the physical description and access points, and less on spacing, punctuation, and subject headings, their copy and corrections to other copy will reflect these tendencies (McCue 1991,71-75). In doing an analysis of catalogue copy in the OCLC and RLIN databases, Sheila S. Inter found that:
Twenty-five AACR2 rule errors occurred in descriptive headings in OCLC's records; 29 occurred in RLIN's. These errors related mainly to the choice of main entry versus added entries...this relatively large number of errors relating to headings exhibits a startling lack of understanding of AACR2 Chapters 21-25 among cataloguing experts (Inter 1989,12).
Training is an important element in the equation and time must be spent on figuring out the most useful components needed. One solution offered by Stephen S. Smith is that this training should involve a mentorship program, like the one used at the cataloguing department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library. Through the program, they eliminated a backlog during a period of staff cuts (Smith 1994,3). Smith believes that mentoring facilitates "the sharing and understanding of cataloguing policies, procedures, and functions among graduate students, and novice cataloguers" (Smith 1994,6). Inter also makes some interesting recommendations, including: training should be done by those who teach cataloguing; there should be a clarification of AACR2 rules that would help cataloguers better understand the elaborations and exceptions (this could be done in a training manual, given to each cataloguer); punctuation emphasized; and the encoding of the MARC fields stressed (Inter 1989,19-22).
Changing copy is time-consuming and must be checked. Who will do the checking, and have the authority to make changes? Who will decide when and how much work will be done online/offline? Procedures must be developed for how authority work will be done on the copied cataloguing (Taylor 1988,311). Regardless, there must be rules set out so that each cataloguer knows the preferences of the library in which they are working. Arlene Taylor has specified the following to be taken into consideration: how much experience a cataloguer has if changes are to be done online, since time means money, and the location and format of the local authority file, as well as LC's (Taylor 1988,311). In addition, cataloguers also need to know how to handle incomplete, inaccurate, or incorrect information on a record chosen for use. Training helps to focus cataloguers' attention on the most common mistakes, such as a missing 300 field or inaccurate edition statements; it should also make them understand why these changes are important, and how they affect the integration of the catalogue as a whole. Taylor recommends that training include a requirement to read a record thoroughly before any changes are made, concentrating on typographical errors (Taylor 1988,298). Policies should include whether to integrate new records by making old ones agree with them, and the possibility of leaving both unchanged by using see also references (Taylor 1988,331). All of these options impact on the quality of the catalogue and how a library's records will look and be perceived by other libraries using the network. They are, therefore, extremely important.
In Cataloguing with Copy: A Decision Maker's Manual, Arlene Taylor states that the next step is putting the policies in writing, using clear and specific points that can be referred to on a continual basis. This relieves a supervisor or trainer from giving detailed instructions repeatedly (Taylor 1988,334). And finally, a library's cataloguing unit needs to be supervised by experienced personnel to be successful (Taylor 1988,334).
Copy cataloguing is a very complicated issue that needs to be addressed by all libraries. It is here to stay and is bringing us closer to the possibility of international cooperation in cataloguing. If libraries can get used to sharing from databases within North America, then maybe the leap could be taken toward an international agreement of sorts. The days when very esoteric cataloguing was done are over, and cataloguers have to change their mindset and accept the impending changes that will come. New cataloguers must be trained with the expectation that more and more cooperative cataloguing will help to keep expenses down, as will the sharing of resources. Currently, the world is becoming interconnected, with globalization of information a reality. Networks like the Internet are bringing great opportunities for universal understanding and tolerance. Libraries should play a role by making information sources accessible in a very standard and concise fashion -- let us get the needed information out there, instead of complaining about the glory days. Copy cataloguing has inherent problems that need to be addressed, but there is nothing insurmountable in the proposition that if achieved, would be a real and tangible beginning for worldwide accessibility of information.
Related Papers
A Look Inside the Dewey Decimal System