Something to Ponder: Subject Headings Ruin the Reader’s Experience

This past week I attended a lecture at Dalhousie University entitled “Spoiler Alert!: The rhetoric of the bibliographic record for works of fiction”, presented by Elisabeth Davies, the researcher-in-residence and part-time instructor at the School of Information Management.

To be completely honest, I did not agree with what Ms. Davies had to say, so in writing this post, please remember this. However, I do believe that she presents a position that is not hers alone and therefore, should be shared with the rest of the library community and, in particular, cataloguers. Her points are worthy of discussion, whether or not I agree.

Here is the abstract that accompanied the presentation:

“Bibliographic or catalogue records contain descriptions of individual items in a physical or digital library. Works of fiction are treated similarly to works of non-fiction in terms of description and subject access. But what is happening when description becomes exposition and significant plot developments or surprise endings are given away by the records? This research is about the messages conveyed by bibliographic records and the symbolic power of the librarians who create these records.”

Ms. Davies started out her presentation by saying that, when she picks up a book she’s been anticipating, if she makes the mistake of reading LC’s subject headings or the SH’s in our catalogues, her experience is ruined because we give away the entire story. As a result there is no reason to now read the book.

Do our subject headings ruin the story for readers? Yes, according to Ms. Davies, they do. And we should be asking ourselves, as cataloguers, why we are evaluating and analyzing rather than describing when we choose our subject headings.

She looked at several public libraries and examined their bib records. I’ve chosen two of the libraries that she examined and have provided the records for subject analysis below. I’m using her example of the book Rebecca, by Daphne Du Maurier.

Halifax Public Libraries (Nova Scotia)

London Public Library (Ontario)

While Halifax Public Libraries’ record doesn’t indicate “murder” in the subject headings, London’s does. According to Ms. Davies, that subject heading ruins the story and experience for the reader. With the enticing description in the 520 field often provided by publishers, the cataloguers ruin the suspense by giving away the story through their subject headings. In fact, she indicates that we “undo” what the publisher has done in tempting the reader to pick up the book.

One of the comments from the audience was, “how do we know who was murdered?”. That’s right – unless you’ve read the book, you don’t know. Of course, assumptions can be made, but how did the murder come about? What were the events that led to the murder and the resulting impact?

From an RA perspective is the “experience” that a reader has while reading the book ruined because of the subject headings? To that end, will the eventual addition of appeals terminology and user tags also ruin the reading and discovery experience?

There are a couple of other issues that need to be addressed by Ms. Davies’ theory:

1. If we are giving away the story through use of our headings, which headings can stay? For one reader, the mention of love stories as a genre in can give away the added surprise that this suspenseful story also has romance. Or, turn a reader off from reading the book. To another, the mention of murder ruins the plot. Do we remove all of our subject headings?

2. With the increasing amount of remote users, how do they find similar reads or books with elements that they enjoy without the use of subject headings? For example, if a reader liked Rebecca, they can use our subject headings to link to other materials that have the same headings, or combine them for additional exploration and discovery.

3. Do users of the catalogue really analyze the subject headings to the extent that it ruins the reading experience?

4. With the growth in popularity of user-generated information, including reviews and tags, are readers turning away from books because of “spoilers” included in our catalogues?

There is a solution, of course. We can remove all of our subject headings for fiction, and take a step back in time, to the way fiction used to be catalogued. We all remember stubby records that gave nothing away – a catalogue that enabled known item searching only. When Ms. Davies was asked how the removal of these headings would impact readers’ advisors and their ability to find similar reads, she indicated that librarians have resources outside of the catalogue to accomplish this task.

As an advocate for social catalogues and the increasing need to provide quick, easy and enhanced remote access, I fail to see how this is a step in the right direction. Remove access points and layers of discovery from the catalogue? Take the ability to search and discover like or related items away from users? Aren’t we turning the catalogue back into an inventory list? With the popularity of fiction in public libraries, will the only exploring in the catalogue be done in collections other than fiction?

Ms. Davies’ conclusion was that “Bibliographic records for works of fiction employ rhetoric to persuade catalogue users NOT [emphasis added] to read the works that records purport to represent”.

What do you think?

How users find the library catalogue

I have been doing a lot of reading lately on library catalogues and the future of the library catalogue as I write my book. With the amount of information that I’ve read, and the seemingly endless amount of literature on the subject, I fluctuate between extreme excitement for our future, frustration at the slow progression we’ve made and an overwhelming thankfulness that I am part of such an interesting, collegial and fascinating profession!

One of the most interesting ideas that I’ve been reading about and exploring is the idea that our catalogue isn’t a “destination spot”, rather it is found through a gateway, pointed out to an individual by a friend, colleague, application or some type of outside source. Fascinating.

While there will be, for the foreseeable future, individuals who have bookmarked our catalogue on their browser, there is an increasing amount of users who find us through RSS feeds, iPhone apps, friend recommendations or a social networking presence (such as Facebook). Of interest is how we are addressing this new form of access to our catalogue, in an environment of immediacy, brevity and short attention spans.

Recommended Readings
Always on: Libraries in a world of permanent connectivity by Lorcan Dempsey
Libraries on Move: Library Mobile Applications

What is professionalism?

In view of my last post – and the contradicting sentiments reflected in the comments, I thought I’d explore the concept of professionalism and professional conduct with the express purpose of how an attitude of superiority or arrogance can assist/impact professions and professionals. My last post centered on personal conduct and professionalism in how we handle our achievements, not the attitude or traits of any particular profession. This post continues with that theme.

However, rather than just my own opinion, I thought I’d also include some interesting thoughts and online articles about the subject. I’ve used some examples throughout various professions, including the medical profession, because they were mentioned in the comments. This is by no means an exhaustive list of ideas or thoughts, simply a quick look at what others are saying about professionalism from a variety of fields.

PROFESSIONALISM
Professionalism…How do I get one?

“So, what is professionalism if it’s not power lunches, golf, drinking with the boss, and business suits? A general, raw view of professionalism is, “a focused, accountable, confident, competent, motivation toward a particular goal, with respect for hierarchy and humanity, less the emotion.” What this means is that you leave out the outbursts and emotional thralls that accompany stressful situations and success. You maintain focus, with a sense of urgency, and accept responsibility on a path toward a specific goal. In the process, you maintain respect for your superiors, peers, and subordinates as well as respect them as human beings.”

Professionalism Initiative: The University of Kansas School of Medicine

This is an interesting article because it also lists the elements of professionalism. In one of its introductory passages, a bold and encouraging statement about what it is to be a professional is provided. The characteristics that are presented can be directly applied to our library professionals, if we choose to accept them.

“In addition to competence in their field, all medical professionals must strive to retain those humanistic qualities – integrity, respect, and compassion – that constitute the essence of professionalism. The core of professionalism thus includes altruism, accountability, excellence, duty, service, honor, integrity, and respect for others. These qualities apply to all aspects of the professional’s life, including the relationships between medical professionals, between specialties, and between professional organizations.”

Also, they directly address the attitude of arrogance in the medical profession:

“Arrogance – Arrogance is an offensive display of superiority and self-importance. Unfortunately, by their nature, medicine and science can foster arrogance in the medical professional. The training is long and arduous with a seemingly endless mass of knowledge, which at times feels impossible to master. Students of science are thus prone to assume an air of self-importance, having survived such an initiation. Arrogance destroys professionalism by reducing the individual’s ability to think for himself or herself, making empathy for others difficult and removing the checks and balances of self-doubt.”

Also of interest in this document is a section on descriptors of unprofessionalism [emphasis added], which includes a lack of effort toward self-improvement and adaptability as described below:

“Medicine and academic science demand continuous personal growth and improvement. Resistance or defensiveness in accepting criticism, remaining unaware of one’s own inadequacies, resisting changes, not accepting responsibility for errors or failure, being overly critical, being verbally abusive during times of stress and displaying arrogance are reflections of a poor professional attitude.”

Turgay Kivrak, a senior developer in Amsterdam recently blogged about arrogance as well in his post Arrogance, Humility and Software Development. I encourage anyone who is interested in the negative impact of arrogance to read this post.

Kivrak’s post appeared on the 23rd of January, but I was not aware of it until this morning. There is a similar theme to my post, Don’t Let it Go to Your Head. In particular:

The feeling you have when you see the greatness of your work and your thought should not lead to arrogance, you should be thankful to have that gift, keeping in mind that it is given to you to use in benefit of humans.

If you look at life, you can also easily see every extraordinary thing given to the human is supposed to be used in benefit of others and if he uses it for himself, like arrogance, he pays a lot for it. So, even if you are gifted, there is no excuse for being arrogant

Kivrak provides a list of additional resources on the topic:
Success, Arrogance, Rise and Fall
Humility
Extreme Humility

Don’t let it go to your head

You feel untouchable – everything is going well, opportunities are being presented to you and everyone knows it. STOP RIGHT THERE.

Everyone knows it? One of the most interesting lessons I’ve learned in my relatively short life is that nobody likes a braggart, an “I’m soooo busy” type of person that they are now too good for others. After all, they don’t have time now, do they, because they are so much in demand?

In one of my former jobs while attending graduate school, I was working as a legal assistant and office manager. The assumption by those who reigned over the office assistants found it challenging to believe we had ideas, thoughts, feelings or achievements and successes of our own. They were too busy expounding on their own worth and wealth of opportunities. There was also another set. The set that was happy in their lot as legal secretaries and none too pleased that I wasn’t. It was not a place, where, even among my own co-workers, stories of my successes were welcomed. Many times, this was not the result of jealousy, but a simple matter of angering very kind individuals that enjoyed their position who were put off by my distaste of the same position.

I never forgot the lessons I learned in that job. Today, I share my successes with those that care, not those who are trapped by close physical proximities (ie. uncontrolled circumstances) and have to pretend to care. I also know that, while I may be extremely excited about what I’m doing, there are always others doing more – and often doing it without the need for acknowledgement.

There are some truly amazing professionals (and we’ve all met someone like this) that have accomplished and contributed so much to our profession, and yet are the most humble and down-to-earth individuals we have ever known. They ask questions, understanding that they still have much to learn.

An attitude of superiority and contempt for others only takes you so far. At some point, the opportunities will run dry and no one will want to work with you. More importantly, no one who used to care will listen.

While I think all of us can reflect on moments when we were so excited by an event or opportunity that we ran around telling everyone and enjoyed the “big head” moment for a while, we can also remember taking a step back and feeling a little embarrassed by our behaviour – especially if it resulted in a “know it all” attitude resulting in hurt feelings.

I will never forget how very small I was made to feel at times in my former work as a legal secretary. Because I chose not to share the fact that I’d published or was earning an MLIS, those “know it alls” knew nothing at all.

Whether you’re a manager, co-worker or friend, it is important to remember that being humble is also a virtue. We are all, unfortunately, replaceable and, eventually, forgettable, whether or not we like to think so. If you are doing well in your career, there is no need to hide it, but there is a need to remember that it is how you deal with your successes that determines if you’re a professional.

Tim Spalding’s “What is Social Cataloguing?” Presentation

Tim Spalding, the founder of LibraryThing, presented at LIANZA this past October, 2009 in New Zealand. He has posted his presentation on YouTube in a series of 6, 9 minute videos.  The theme of his presentation? “What is social cataloging?” It’s great!

Video 1/6

Video 2/6

Video 3/6

Video 4/6

Video 5/6

Video 6/6

Access Your Library: Anytime, Anywhere

While many of you are enjoying ALA midwinter and the new product release announcements, I saw this one from LibraryThing that I just couldn’t ignore. Following their new release of Shelf Browse, they will soon be launching a product called Library Anywhere.

Library Anywhere promises:
•A mobile catalog for any library, up and running in minutes.
•Mobile web and apps for iPhone, Blackberry and Android.
•Cheaper than you’d guess.
•Search, place holds, and more.
•Showcase hours, branches, and events.
•No installation process.
•Works with 90% of current OPACs.
•Comes with an “accessible version” that provides a fully Section 508-compliant version of your existing catalog

Check out their blog posting, Library Anywhere, a mobile library for everyone for more information and a link to their ALA handout.

Thoughts on quality in bibliographic records

In the age old debate for cataloguers: “what is more important quality or quantity?”, very little is ever said about how we define quality.

What do we, as cataloguers, consider a “quality” or acceptable bibliographic record? Is it one without errors? Without any obsolete tags? One with uniform subject headings throughout, say, a series? One where all the punctuation between MARC fields is correct? Or, is a quality record a record any record that can be found or accessed?

In 2007, when I first started this blog, I wrote a post called Quality v. Quantity. At the time, I was convinced that quality demanded more than a “good enough” attitude. Recently, another blogger also wrote a very similar post, ironically enough also called Quality vs. Quantity.

My post, as well Ms. LeGrow’s neglects, I believe, what is at the heart of the matter. What do we define as a quality record and are there levels of quality based on circumstances and expertise? Unlike my views in 2007, I believe quality must be balanced with productivity, especially with the new technology (ie. “Did you mean…? feature) and increasing amounts of formats that we are put to cataloguing. My definition of quality has also changed. In an ideal world, our records would be perfect (of course, the definition of that, too, is debatable). However, I find I am more interested in access points and accessibility. With the change to RDA, I don’t believe a using a colon, rather than a semicolon will impact access, nor will the improper use of capital letters or additional tags within the record. However, cataloguers still focus heavily on these small editing issues – and debate this issue vehemently!

With the growing ability to harvest metadata from a variety of places, not just OCLC or local consortiums, at what point can we accept the work of others? After all, it is neither efficient nor acceptable, especially when harvesting large amount of metadata, to edit each individual record. Indeed, with the ability to download bib records for the most popular items in a library’s collection, if we accepted those records which we must assume are considered “quality” by the institution which created the record, wouldn’t we increase our cataloguing productivity?

And, thanks to Terry Reese, we can make mass editing changes with MarcEdit, to assist with uniformity for mass records too.

If most cataloguers believe his or her records are the best, when can we start accepting our colleagues’ records and really focus on the original cataloguing? Until we understand what we mean by quality, we can’t begin to address the issue of quantity vs. quantity.

Social Tagging in the Catalogue: You allow that?!

If you’ve been reading the latest American Libraries Direct, you’ve seen the article about the “hate speech” tag that has been assigned to a significant amount of works by Ann Coulter at Mount Prospect Public Library.

A patron, scrolling through a list of books by Ms. Coulter, discovered the books and complained:

“I don’t understand why the library is letting people make political statements on their site,” said Alaimo, a political conservative. “By not taking it off, the library is agreeing with it.”

Fortunately, as the article goes on to state, the library officials disagree with Mike Alaimo, the library patron who made the complaint.  Unfortunately, many other library officials reading this are nodding their heads in affirmation that it was only a matter of time a patron complained – after all, how can we “control” our catalogue and what goes in it if we allow users to generate their own tags and contribute to our catalogues. 

This is a heated discussion that often comes across AUTOCAT, with the most recent occurring over Sarah Palin’s new book and the tags “I can see Russia” and, if memory serves, “Sea of Pee”.

I’ve had a look at Mount Prospect’s catalogue and records.  Mount Prospect Public Library is using the discovery layer AquaBrowser. I am very familiar with this product because our library is just finishing the AB implementation process.  AB uses LibraryThing tags to populate the user tags in bib records.  This is a perk, because many libraries don’t have the population or patron usage to make tagging successful without an underlying foundation.

However, as tags are added by users, just like in LibraryThing, they are weighted by the amount of times they are used.  Absurd, ridiculous or inaccurate tags as considered by the general user (or us) will become buried as more and more users tag with similar or “better” tags.  In the end, those tags that aren’t useful will fall to the very bottom of the retrieval list as newer, more useful tags are added or reaffirmed.  This system only fails when there are very few tags, or the library makes the decision to display all tags associated with an item, rather than the top 5 – 10 – 15, and so on.  Is there a need to display more than 10 or 15 terms?  Usually, those terms in the top 10 are the most useful and most frequently used. 

AB also has an option for a “black list” that allows a library to build an index of terms that are not allowed.  There is an existing, standard list by many libraries using AB and each individual library can build upon or remove from that list as needed or desired.  As a result, socially unacceptable terms (as determined by each library) are barred from appearing in user tags and reviews.  However, tags that reflect public opinion, emotions, ideas or views should not.  After all, these are user tags, not access points created by the library – by professionals.  And, despite many professionals’ concerns, user tags are not inserted into our records, they merely sit “on top” like another layer of icing on cake.

Studies have shown that user tags result in a consensus of acceptable vocabulary created by users.  The masses outweigh the handful of individuals that tend to fall into the extremes – whether it is through individual point of views or a creative use of language to get around the black-listed words.

Steven Arakawa, Catalogue Librarian for Training and Documentation at Yale University made a good point on AUTOCAT when speaking about the controversial tags assigned to Sarah Palin’s new book:

“It’s to be expected that political and cultural friction works will generate tags that push the envelope of decorum and often do more harm than good for the position being advocated. And the official “tags” provided by catalogers can introduce objectivity and neutrality which is a positive contribution if sometimes bland, like network news.

But no one seems to have put in a good word for taggers’ specialist knowledge–as opposed to emotional connection–regarding many niche subjects, knowledge that might very well go beyond the general knowledge of the average cataloger.”

Reflecting on 2009

It’s easy to say that New Year’s resolutions are cliché, or that you don’t believe in them, but the truth is, most of us take this time between Christmas and the New Year to reflect on the past year, good things and bad, decisions we’ve made and what we’d like to see, do or change in the new year. It’s only natural to take this oddly suspended time where the old year feels like it’s over but the new one has not yet begun to start thinking about what we’d like to accomplish. For some, it’s cleaning that storage room you just haven’t gotten to yet, renovating the bathroom or painting the kitchen. For others, it’s a time to reflect on the passing of friends and an acknowledged effort that in the coming year, more time will be spent re-connecting with friends and loved ones. And, for others, it’s a time to think about what we want from our professions and what we would like to see in our careers.

Events this past year forced me to reflect on what I love about my profession, what I want out of it and where I’d be happiest. It was also a time to address where I fit in best and what area of the profession needs me most. I’m not so arrogant as to believe I’m not replaceable, but if you’re reading this, I’m assuming it’s because something I write strikes a chord in your own professional interests and you enjoy reading what I have to say. Well, at least I hope so!

When it comes right down to it, I love what I am doing – yesterday, today and (as far as I can tell) tomorrow. I wake up each morning looking forward to work, excited about the projects I’m working on and keenly interested in the new trends and ideas I see taking shape and discussed by many of you on a daily basis. I feel challenged, excited and immensely happy about where I am and what I’m doing. In the end, and perhaps this sounds a bit biblical, my work here is not yet done. Nor, do I hope, will it be “done” for a very long time. A wise mentor once told me that when we stop learning, we’re no longer working. I’d like to take that a step further and add that if you’re no longer excited about what you’re doing, that’s when you need to seek change.

Like many of you who work in the public library world, I believe we are all well aware that there aren’t enough active cataloguers contributing to our profession, pushing the limits and forging collaborative partnerships with frontline staff. While our academic colleagues are writing, researching and presenting, on the whole, we’re not – plain and simple.

On the heels of my recent reflection came an awakening of what makes me happy in this profession. It also made me take a hard look at what I want out of it and why. I think many of us face periods in our work where we are disillusioned, burned out or frustrated. But the question is: when do we move on and when do we decide that, despite the daily hardships, we know we are exactly where we want to be?

Overall, 2009 was a great year. For me, it was a year of growth in my profession – through professional opportunities, networking opportunities and new friendships. It also coincided with my 30th birthday, which to many may seem very young and others, well, perhaps, not so young. But it was momentous for me and also contributed to my reflective mood this year. The opportunities I was presented with and the opportunities I turned down have all helped me grow into the professional I want to be, and will likely impact my role in the profession for the foreseeable future.

I’m looking forward to 2010 and all that it has to offer. Will it be as rewarding? I hope so. As challenging? Certainly. I also hope it provides more opportunities to explore where library catalogues and our profession are heading, outside of RDA and FRBR and more in the realm of the everyday, nitty gritty side of cataloguing – but not necessarily on how we catalogue, but why we continue to catalogue and how we can improve each and every experience a patron has when he or she visits the library catalogue.

I’m looking forward to collaborating, sharing and growing partnerships in 2010 that take cataloguing from just a place where we find the library’s collection to a place that enhances RA work, reference, adult and children’s services. 2010 is a year to focus on how and why the library catalogue needs to become a place for our community – a place to socialize, personalize and enhance each individual’s experience with the library. And, a place for ourselves

Celebrating the Season in Collection Access

As promised, I thought I’d post a few pictures from our last “Glendale” potluck. Glendale, our location name, consists of Delivery, Collection Development, Collection Access and Processing. As part of our Collection Management team, we also invited our IT gang out to celebrate with us.

In February, we’ll all be relocating to our new Woodlawn Branch (Dartmouth, NS). It’s an exciting time, but not without a touch of sadness and nostalgia. There’s a lot of history and memories, so we wanted to make sure this was a special occasion. Famous for our potlucks throughout the library system (just another bonus of being a cataloguer), I thought I’d share the photos of the food and some of our staff with all of you.

Enjoy! And I hope for those of you who celebrate the season, enjoy your traditions, new and old!

KM, our Collection Access Manager checking out the goods

Even retired cataloguers came back to join in the festivities.

Part of our Glendale Gang

One more look at the spread before we all dig in!