Upcoming e-forum on communication between public and technical services

This was just posted on AUTOCAT. Given the need for communication, let’s hope that professionals from technical services and front-line services participate. I think this is a great first step in beginning the conversation and bridging the divide between front-line and backroom services.

The information, with registration form is below:
Please mark your calendars and share with anyone who might be interested!

Please join us for an e-forum discussion. It’s free and open to everyone!
Registration information is at the end of the message.

“The Art of Conversation: Improving Communication between Technical
Services and Public Services”
November 18 – November 20, 2009
Moderated by Sarah Simpson and Keri Cascio

How do you communicate with other departments at your institution? Is
your day filled with a flurry of emails, or do you hear the crickets
chirping? Sarah Simpson, Technical Services Manager at the Tulsa
City-County Library, and Keri Cascio, Branch Manager at the St. Louis
City-County Library District, will moderate a discussion about sharing
information between departments and creating points of contact. The
Tulsa City-County Library Tech Services department set up a Help Desk to open their lines of communication. What have you done at your institution?

To register:

Go to: http://lists.ala.org/sympa, click on ALCTS (spelled out) under the ALA Division heading, then choose alcts-eforum@ala.org
 (mailto: alcts-eforum@ala.org).   A login and password are required to
register. Instructions for obtaining a login and password may be found
on the list homepage. Participation is free and open to anyone..

The Catalogue IS an RA tool: Annual RA Training Day

In November, our Readers’ Services Team will be holding our annual Ra training day. As usual, it is an introductory training for new staff, or for readers’ advisors in the library who either need a refresher or haven’t yet attended a formal RA training. New this year, we’ll also include a handful of staff from our regional libraries, exposing them to RA work in the library.

Last year, I blogged about this as it was the first ever RA training that included a catalogue component. As you know, I am a BIG advocate of using the catalogue for readers’ advisory services and that yes, it is indeed an RA tool.

Last year, my presentation was a bare-bones introduction to this concept, with a total of 15 minutes to present on the catalogue. But this year, even though I’ve been allotted a larger time-slot, I’m finding that my presentation is longer than the new 45 minutes I’ve been given.

Because it’s an introduction and a training course for RA’s, I’m attempting to find a balance between ideas and concepts, and hands-on, useful information regarding readers’ advisory services in the catalogue. I’m taking a lot of this information from my APLA presentation this past Spring, but tailoring it into how these ideas are actually practiced within our library system.

While I want to go in to social catalogues, enriched content and examples of what other libraries are doing to enhance readers’ advisory work, I have to remind myself that these professionals need practical information on how to analyze a bib record and bring out information that will assist them in searching for appeals and read-a-likes using structured searches based on subject headings and genres. As important, I need to expose them to all of the collaborative work that goes on between front-line RAs and backroom RAs (cataloguers). This includes the creation of new genres, reading lists and links from a bib record to our readers’ blog (currently a proposed collaborative idea).

In addition to this, I want to explore why the catalogue has not traditionally been considered an RA tool (ex. The card catalogue) and how it has been evolving into an RA tool through collaboration, enhanced cataloguing practices, the emergence of social catalogues and vendor products such as NoveList Select.

After the training session (November 9th), I will post my finalized slides, along with my thoughts on how the presentation went.

I’m also interested to hear if any of you host RA training days at your libraries and if a catalogue component is included – and why or why not.

A Digital Branch: Your Next Generation Library Catalogue

Like many of you, I follow what David Lee King has to say. His ideas on digital branches, what they are and their capabilities excite me. However, where David promotes a digital branch through a library website, I believe that a library’s digital branch should be delivered through the library catalogue.

While my copy of Library Technology Reports’ September issue “Building the Digital Branch: Guidelines for Transforming your Library Website” is still on order (and I’m anxiously awaiting its arrival!), I did see David’s recent article in American Libraries (October 2009 pg 43).

The Digital Branch: Website vs. Catalogue
Reading David Lee King’s article has resulted in my brain buzzing with dreams of next generation catalogues as the library’s digital branch. While his work focuses on library websites, I see next generation catalogue software that can extract the information from our library’s website and display it in the catalogue. The information can be sorted by facets, too. So, if patrons want to explore local programs, book clubs or events, all they have to do is search one place – the catalogue. And, once they find the program in a results page that looks similar to a bibliographic record, a list of holdings can be attached that reflect the topic of the program. If they find one item particularly useful, they can tag it, provide a review or comment on the item. Perhaps they can even download the information onto their phone, or send it to a friend.

Considerations for Building a Digital Branch
It is with this type of technology in mind that I see the library catalogue becoming the home of the digital library branch. Next generation catalogues are progressing toward a space that builds community. In David’s article, he emphasizes three points that are necessary to building a digital branch. They are:

1. To carefully document who the branch will be serving;
2. To determine what services those people desire; and
3. To determine what we are capable of providing based on budgets and technological capabilities.

An “In-House” Divide

With RDA on the horizon and next generation catalogues actively attempting to include technological trends to fulfill patrons’ needs, should we continue to separate our resources, creating yet another divide? Are we asking patrons’ to belong to two communities within the same library (or to flip flop back and forth between two online sources?) While in the past it has been the physical branch vs. the catalogue, we are creating a divide between the website (a digital branch) and the library catalogue (a digital branch).

I continue to eagerly read the tech trends for library websites, especially those focusing on websites that build a community. But when I read them, I am applying them to library catalogues and their potential.

Many professionals have stressed that information on the website shouldn’t be included in the catalogue. Library catalogues have their function and the website, yet another function. We seem to be breaking down the silos in other areas of librarianship, so my question is why can’t we work on pushing the limits and redefining the expectations and abilities of library catalogues?

Just because library catalogues have traditionally been considered an inventory that provides access to a library’s holdings, should it always remain just an inventory? Or, can it also become the digital branch that reaches out to our patrons and forms a community?

Bibliographic Control Alphabet Soup: AACR to RDA and Evolution of MARC

For those of you who attended, or weren’t able to attend, the slides are now available from yesterday’s NISO webinar: Bibliographic Control Alphabet Soup: AACR to RDA and Evolution of MARC

Cataloguing Potpourri

A couple of interesting items for discussion have come across various listservs lately. So, while many of you may have seen the following items, I thought I’d post them for those who haven’t.

Article of Interest
After losing users in catalogs, libraries find better search software
This is an article by Marc Parry in the Chronicle of High Education.
Here’s a sampling of what’s discussed:

The problem is that traditional online library catalogs don’t tend to order search results by ranked relevance, and they can befuddle users with clunky interfaces…

…That’s changing because of two technology trends. First, a growing number of universities are shelling out serious money for sophisticated software that makes exploring their collections more like the easy-to-filter experience you might find in an online Sears catalog.

Second, Virginia and several other colleges, including Villanova University and the University of Rochester, are producing free open-source programs that tackle the same problems with no licensing fees.

A key feature of this software genre is that it helps you make sense of data through “faceted” searching, common when you shop online for a new jacket or a stereo system. Say you type in “Susan B. Anthony.” The new system will ask if you want books by her or about her, said Susan L. Gibbons, vice provost and dean of Rochester’s River Campus Libraries. Users can also sort by media type, language, and date.

Discussion Paper addressing the subject access treatment for cooking and cookbooks
This came across several listservs, but as they are asking for feedback, I’m reposting the announcement in its entirety.

In response to a long-standing and generally recognized need to modernize the subject headings treatment for cooking and cookbooks, the ABA Policy and Standards Division (PSD) of the Library of Congress is in the initial planning stages of a project to revise the headings used in this area. A discussion paper has been posted. Tentative decisions have been made about some aspects of the project; for other aspects, various options are under consideration and no decisions have yet been made. PSD invites public comment on the plans described in the discussion paper.

In recognition of public interest in this topic and of the enormous number of subject heading revisions involved, as well as the volume of materials affected by this policy decision, comment is encouraged. Interested parties are invited to send comments on these plans to Libby Dechman at edec@loc.gov. The deadline for comment is December 1, 2009.

Cataloguing Braille Books for Children

Parents love to read to their children. Even before a child can read, we share stories through board books which introduce them to stories and word recognition. But what happens when your child is blind, or has a visual impairment?

Our library has recently been introduced to a collection of books through Seedlings. They take picture books and add a Braille overlay onto the existing text. This collection is new to our library, and will be new to our cataloguing department. A new collection code has to be created, a decision on where the items should be shelved has to be made, and access points need to be considered.

While I can create access points and a precedent for cataloguing these items (as most of you can as well), I’m hoping to hear from some of you because this is a relatively new collection for libraries. Do any of you have these books in your collections? If so, what type of cataloguing issues have you encountered? What type of feedback have you received?

I’m interested in how these items display in the catalogue. If they are treated as a separate collection, have you used a form field ($h) in your 245 tag? Have you continued to use the standard subject headings for picture books?

What makes a good cataloguer?

This is a bit of a follow-up from my last post, I can’t replace my cataloguer with another cataloguer?

So, let’s forget the training or education for a minute. Let’s even forget reasons for why we want trained cataloguers or how to catalogue *cheaply* but still maintain quality records. When it gets right down to it, what characteristics, skills or traits make a good cataloguer? We’ve all met cataloguers that have library or library tech degrees that weren’t the best cataloguers. Why? What sets apart a good cataloguer from a not so good cataloguer? What makes a great cataloguer?

This was Heather’s comment from my last post:

I’m coming a bit late to the table (for which, apologies) but I’d like to add some comments from a UK perspective.
To start with, most of our library schools teach little or no cataloguing. Therefore we cannot make the assumption that a qualified librarian is able to catalogue. They may have learnt a little bit of theory on “knowledge management” and/or done a few paper exercises, but they will nearly always need training in AACR/RDA, MARC and classification (and the principles on which these rest). When cataloguing isn’t part of the professional skill-set, it makes it very difficult to make the case that a cataloguer should be professionally qualified.
At the same time, the sector is shrinking – there are very few cataloguers in the profession (especially in public libraries) and even fewer in the job market. And in any case we are increasingly required to save money by recruiting on non-professional grades so we are not going to attract experienced staff.
So, faced with candidates who are neither skilled nor experienced – how do I identify the ones who would be good at cataloguing?
Anyone who applies for a cataloguing job will express a deep interest and passion for cataloguing, even when this isn’t really the case and what they want is any job that will pay the bills. (No blame – in their position I’d do the same). Putting aside the ones who shoot themselves in the foot by telling me that they catalogue by Dewey, or make other unforced errors, I am thrown back on trying to recognise the character and kind of mind that will be able to assimilate and practise cataloguing.
Accuracy and consistency are usually cited as the qualities a good cataloguer needs, but I have too often seen these tip over into pedantry and inflexibility (and a very slow work-rate). Common sense and good judgement are just as important. Noone is going to make a good cataloguer who isn’t a catalogue user. I have a theory that linguists make good cataloguers because they are analytical and good at expression, but I can’t prove it.
Has anyone got the answer?

Heather’s comment really got me thinking about this, and I’d like to know what the rest of you think. What do you look for when you’re hiring a cataloguer? Is it all about training or education? What do you think makes a good cataloguer? Has the rapid growth in technology and changes in cataloguing (in the recent past and in the near future) changed the qualifications and qualities you look for in a cataloguer?

Here are some things to consider:
• Level of Education
• Type of Education - Do individuals educated in music, math or languages make successful cataloguers?
• Personal Qualities - Should cataloguers be creative? Well-read? Curious? Well-rounded?

Here are some past posts of mine that may interest you. Some are more closely related than others to the topic discussed above, but I feel that they all have some relevance. I welcome other posts or comments that can be shared with everyone!

**Focus Group: The Results (Includes a wish list of criteria that librarians look for when hiring into the profession)
Creativity? In Cataloguing?
Pride and the Cataloguer
Librarianship can be a struggle when it’s your second career
Quality v. Quantity

I Can’t Replace my Cataloguer with another Cataloguer?!

I dread the day one of my senior cataloguers will approach me telling me they are retiring. I often joke that no one can retire until I do, with a date close to (shudder) 2040. Unfortunately, that means that a handful of my staff will have to work into their 90s and 100s.

If you haven’t had to face a retirement or a new hire in the past few years, your cataloguing department most likely runs like a well-oiled machine. You have senior cataloguers and mid-career cataloguers who know their subjects, they are intimately familiar with cataloguing rules and the quality of the records they produce is excellent. Moreover, you don’t have to worry about errors in cataloguing or access issues because they are trained cataloguers who know their field. Because of the reliability of your staff, you can oversee the procedures to improve access, decrease backlogs and, on the whole, focus on the improvement of cataloguing and the library catalogue at your library.

But, what happens when one of your cataloguers retires?

The best case scenario is that you get to hire a new cataloguer, and preferably one with some experience. But, in reality, budget cuts, lack of available candidates and a management team or board that doesn’t understand the value of the cataloguing staff may put you in a situation where you are hiring a non-cataloguer to catalogue. For the most part, the bottom dollar is what ultimately dictates the decision.

What do you do?

This is an extreme, worse case scenario. Whenever possible, fight for your cataloguers and stress, through statistics, cost analysis and available literature, the reason why a trained professional should be valued. I firmly believe that if you want a tooth pulled, you go to a dentist. If you need to get a massage, you go to a certified masseuse and, if you want your items catalogued properly, you hire a cataloguer. Cataloguers are like accountants. Most people can do math, many are even good at it, but would you trust them over a certified accountant? On the whole, not bloody likely. Like basic accounting, copy cataloguing might not be too difficult for an untrained cataloguer, but when rules need to be interpreted or problems need to be solved, you need a professional. With the ever increasing introduction of new formats and genres, as well as changes in cataloguing practices and the surge of remote, online users, hiring professional cataloguers is more important than ever. I believe that to not hire a professional likely costs the institution more in the long run, and any initial cost saving benefits are lost as a result of poor access to collections, increased backlogs and lack of overall efficiency.

J. McRee Elrod (Mac) posted a list on AUTOCAT several weeks ago that I think is useful if you are faced with tight budgets and a lack of trained professionals. Here’s the disclaimer from Mac when I asked him if I could post this: “…please note they are not suggested best practices. They are measures of desperation…”

The easiest ways to save money are:

1) Get a good cataloguing module. TLC’s ITS is easier for a clerical
person to understand than the newer Bibliofile. It has Z39.50
searching.

2) Use free Z30.50 records.

3) Use LCC or DDC (adding Cutters) as found. Don’t second guess.
Some older material may have out-of-date DDC numbers, but most
materials will be new with current numbers.

4) Change DLC 490 0 to 490 1 and copy into 830, without checking SARs.
Only revise 830s if a patron says series are separated in the
catalogue. Even LC has separated series entries in their catalogue
due to typos. Most search by what is on the item.

5) Accept entries (100/110/6XX/700/710) as found. Only revise if a
patron says entries are separated. Most of the material you acquire
will be the only work by a particular author,

6) Use integrating resource practice for serials, i.e., current title
and publisher in 245 and 260; past titles in 247; past publishers in
503 (obsolete though it be); as opposed to confusing to patrons
successive entry.

Aboriginal Peoples in Canada – LAC’s Canadian Subject Headings Announcement

August 2009 – Announcement from Library and Archives Canada (LAC)

Library and Archives Canada (LAC) initiated a review in 2007 of the terminology used in Canadian Subject Headings (CSH) to identify Aboriginal peoples in Canada. A LAC proposal to change these headings was posted on several discussion lists for comment. To recap, the proposal was to change the existing headings “Indians of North America” to “First Nations”, “Native peoples” to “Aboriginal peoples” and headings for individual peoples such as “Sarcee Indians” to simply “Sarcee”.

The feedback we have received since then from some 35 institutions or individuals indicates a recognition of the inadequacies and outdatedness of many of the existing headings. However, some users of CSH expressed concern about systems difficulties for them when Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and CSH terms differ for the same concepts, as they would if LAC were to go ahead with the proposed changes. There was also some concern raised about the choice of the proposed new headings, and a lack of consensus on better terminology.

LAC has studied the feedback to the proposal thoroughly, and also consulted with the editors of LCSH and RVM as to future directions in those lists, considering that terminology differs in Canada and the United States. Based on these factors, LAC has decided not to go ahead for now with the changes as proposed. We will instead make a start by considering changing headings for specific Aboriginal peoples on a case by case basis, to see what we can do to improve access. We would be pleased to hear specific suggestions for terminology changes in line with this direction.

Since the overall problems with subject headings for Aboriginal peoples remain, LAC is not closing the file on this question. However, we believe the modest approach outlined above will serve to make a start at improving access in the short run.

This anouncement, released by David Farris of LAC, made the rounds on the listservs early last week. If you belong to AUTOCAT, in particular, there was quite a bit of discussion on this post.

I was disappointed with LAC’s statement, hoping that all of Canada would have the national library to look to for direction. But I’m hopeful for the future. In the meantime, our own library has taken this project on and, to our way of thinking, improved access to our First Nation/Aboriginal Peoples collections. This is the content from my post on AUTOCAT with respect to LAC’s announcement:

Several years ago, we changed our SH’s to reflect the needs of our local community, and, in general, the Canadian public. When we proposed our changes, I sent the information to LAC and while they were very interested, they weren’t ready at that time to take any steps. I believe going ahead with these changes may have labeled us “Radical Cataloguers” but we had to decide whether it was better to continue using inaccurate terms created by the US, or Canadian terms that more appropriately represent our unique culture and Peoples.

As with any heading, I think labeling is tricky as self-identifying terms change over time. However, we felt that if our national library was not in a position to make the change, we are. We’re the first library in Canada to do this. Crazy? Maybe, but better to take a step in the right direction, make mistakes and learn from them. At least our communities see that we are trying and are very appreciative.

If you want to take a look at the terms we have now implemented and are using (and my thoughts on the topic),check out these posts:
Native Peoples v. Indigenous Peoples v. Aboriginals…are any of the terms really any good?

Indigenous Peopls v. Native Peoples Cataloguing Guidelines
**As a follow-up to this article, we have now implemented the use of First Nations in our catalogue

Indigenous and Aboriginal Peoples Resources

And, if you want to see the use of these terms in action, you can search Halifax Public Libraries’ catalogue.

An article of interest

If you follow the blog In the Library with the Leadpipe, then you’ve seen the recent article We’re Gonna Geek This Mother Out. It’s an interesting piece and worth reading even if you don’t agree with what Mr. Singer writes.

Mr. Singer performs two searches at the end of his article as supporting evidence for his position. I urge you to try these searches in the Queens Borough Public Library Catalogue (which uses AquaBrowser). The searches and results are far more successful and allow for some “discovery” if you use the word cloud (specifically for the Olive Kitteridge search).