Authority and objectivity in a time of transformative growth: The future of the library catalog

Abstract

The model the library catalog will base itself on for the future is being debated. It is argued that the current objectives of the catalog, as outlined by Charles Cutter, remain vital in the consideration of how to implement the catalog within the newer, networked technologies. The library catalog provides an authority and objectivity for library patrons that are useful and needed during this time of increased publication. The catalog itself will take various forms, but those forms should be guided by stated objectives.

Headnote

Abstract

Headnote

The model the library catalog will base itself on for the future is being debated. The author argues that the current objectives of the catalog, as outlined by Charles Cutter, remain vital in our consideration of how to implement the catalog within the newer, networked, technologies. The library catalog provides an authority and objectivity for our patrons that are useful and needed during this time of increased publication. The catalog itself will take various forms, but those forms should be guided by stated objectives.

Headnote

Keywords

Headnote

Catalolgues, Libraries, Internet, Quality control, Standards

In discussions of the future library catalog created on the Amazon.com model (Baruth, 2000), I should mention that I posted a book review on Amazon.com recently for a book I have never read, by an author whose works I have never read. In a time of dynamic change, when conferences are being held and papers being presented and published on a wide variety of cataloging topics, we do not need to throw away the singular characteristic of our catalog for the cachet of the moment. The library catalog is a useful tool. It is not bought and sold; retrieval on a patron's search is not biased intentionally according to advertising whims[1]. We give patrons a thought out, thorough, continually improving, mostly impartial, search tool. Implicit in that is an authority and authenticity that other mechanisms do not always have nor want[2]. In the following discussion of the catalog, I will emphasize what we will need to retain in our move forward. I write from the perspective of one working in an academic environment, but hope to address general issues for cataloging. We are in a time of transformation, but not of obsolescence nor of loss. The main characteristic in our cataloging future is growth - of patrons, of materials, of items cataloged, of formats, of standards, and of work contexts. Our stable qualities are authenticity and authority. We should retain them and promote them.

Background

The library catalog's objective has long been defined as some version of that as outlined by Cutter (1904). Paraphrased, they are:

(1) to enable a patron to find a known item by author, or title, or subject;

(2) to present to a patron what the library has (a non-specific search); and

(3) to assist the patron in the choice of a book.

While others (Seymour Lubetzky for example) have stated catalog objectives somewhat differently, the overall agreement remains intact. Library catalogs provide access as an attempt to fulfill at least the first two of Cutter's objectives and there is growing activity for the third objective.

The growth of electronic resources, networked resources, and online catalogs has brought with it a number of issues. The definition of patron has expanded considerably since Cutter's time. Indeed, the idea of the patron as a customer has become something of a debate. I will continue to use the term patron, however, as that signifies the non-paying aspect that is at the heart of academic and public libraries (with some exceptions). To many of us, we are very close to considering anyone, anywhere, a possible patron, if not an actual one. With distance education in the academic world, and the need to provide library services to very real patrons at sites geographically removed from the physical library, the expansion of the definition of a patron is not fanciful. It's an accreditation requirement for the institution.

The notion of what a library has has undergone significant debate over a number of years as well. Frequently, the library does not have anything except access to an electronic item, yet that form of access is much more tangible than that provided by means of the interlibrary loan service. A concrete demonstration of the difference is that we provide catalog access to remote resources, or at least we attempt to.

The last of Cutter's objectives, relating to the "book", is also much debated. While there has long been discussion on the concept of the book, or item, versus the work, it has been forced to a critical priority by the increased formats available from electronic publishing. just as microformats come in various flavors (fiche, film, card), so too do electronic resources. Are HTML, PDF, and PostScript formats all in need of separate catalog records? If they reside as a networked resource rather than on a CD, does that alter the question?

In the midst of these crucial discussions have come, with moderate frequency, claims for the imminent demise of cataloging and the cataloger. The slow to respond, antiquated, labor intensive work of cataloging is seen to be an obstacle to access. The cataloger himself or herself is drawn as a detail-obsessed, low production worker unable to address today's resources and changing environment. Even a conference meant to address the changing environment, such as the "Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium"[3] can be negatively critiqued as employing too slow a mechanism (the conference) to respond to a such a fluid environment.

As a practicing dinosaur, I take comfort in this quote:

As M.E. Coindreau pointed out to one of Europe's many literary conferences last summer, all but an elite now watch television ... the elite which still reads ... (Frohock, 1959).

This idea, from 1959, is similar in assumption to that which we are seeing for the age of networked resources: that the new medium replaces the old. That has been very rare. The printed book did not replace the written book, it only replaced the method of production. And, with today's networked resources, perhaps a more apt analogy is that of cellular communications and the hardwired telephone.

While the growth in electronic resources is stunning, I believe it is over emphasized. Can a growth of 10 million items per week be over emphasized?[4] I believe it can be and it has been. Keeping in mind the broad view of a patron, we should not overlook the fact that, for many people worldwide, it is incorrect to think of a great wave of technology sweeping over the world equally (Judt, 2000). Even within the USA, there are discrepancies in levels of patron access to, and need of, electronic resources. And, while the growth in the number of Internet users continues, the rate of growth has slowed substantially[5].

Within the previously stated cataloging environment are many signs that we look forward to a robust future. As practitioners, we are being called on to assist in solving issues from many areas of librarianship. Our prominence in the field is higher now than it has ever been. While the migration of many catalogers from cataloging to systems departments is not always beneficial, the overlap of catalogers with programming and computer systems networking skills signals a positive future. In addition, we are seeing growth in debates about communications standards (the MARC21 and XML debate for example), ongoing discussion of descriptive practices, and various methods for subject and genre access. In this last category, we are also finding expanded employment opportunities in business settings. While I might be somewhat vague on exactly what is wanted in a "Vocabulary resource manager", or "Knowledge engineer", so too are the position advertisements for those positions. The thesaurus building and taxonomy skills being called for are clearer. The salary ranges of $65,000-$100,000 are crystal clear.

These multiple areas of activity signify that the need for the service a catalog provides are still strong for our patrons. The form that catalog takes and the means by which we deliver it may be under debate, but the need for the fundamental service itself is not. The debate that is at the core of the future catalog appears to be one of replacement of an old method of communication (MARC21) by a new method (XML) or an integration of the two. A complementary discussion is also something of a perennial one - cataloging production in light of overwhelming publication. However, first we have the question of what sort of catalog model we will follow. Will we go to the Amazon.com model, or remain adherents of the library-based catalog? This is the main issue that I will address.

What model for a catalog?

The Amazon.com model of a catalog is wildly popular. Included in this model, for the purpose of this discussion, I also include Web directories or portals such as Yahoo!, GoTo, and About.com. While they are not identical in function, I include them together because they are frequently extolled for sharing similar virtues. They also share similar weaknesses: they are inconsistent mechanisms for access and follow idiosyncratic procedures to provide a service of some kind (unstated) to their users, or customers. For example, all of these portals provide broad categorizations, yet they do not provide the same ones. At both About.com and Yahoo! you can find a category called science, but not at GoTo. At About.com you can find, as subcategories under science, headings for astrology, UFOs/aliens, and paranormal phenomena. At Yahoo! there are subcategories of parapsychology, orgonomy, and Flat Earth Society, among others[6]. This sort of unevaluated categorization has been termed "perverse" by Kaminer (1999), and as a librarian and a cataloger I have to agree. The linking of these topics hierarchically leads one to believe that they are peers scientifically - that they are legitimate areas that are scientifically equal to physics, chemistry, and biology. The Library of Congress Subject Headings includes them as a hierarchical link under occultism.

The GoTo directory provides listings to sites based on an advertiser's payment. Thus, when I browsed under Health -> Men's Health, I found as the fourth item a link to a site providing information about anti-aging secrets. The site itself was only meant as a sales brochure for the item being sold - a book. The health value of this resource appears highly questionable. A browse a week later showed the same item as tenth on the list. The reason for the change in prominence is unclear, but must have something to do with the advertiser's payment.

Amazon.com itself, as I wrote earlier, allows for the posting of reviews. So I did. It was for a book I had not read (Do No Harm), by an author I had never heard of (Don J. Donaldson) [7]. I intentionally made an incorrect reference to a different author "Rob Grillet" in the review. During whatever process is followed at Amazon.com before a review is publicly posted, this error was apparently not proofed and certainly was not corrected. I then posted a review of a work by Alain Robbe-- Grillet and it, too, was accepted. However, I posted my review under the page for the French language edition of the book, which I had read in English translation.

The portal examples and the Amazon.com example all bring into question the ideas of authority and objectivity. The library catalog benefits from being exactly that - a tool provided by a library to its patrons for their benefit. Implied in that is the objectivity of the library, which varies somewhat from place to place, but which is reflected in the mission of the American Library Association as well as the implied objectivity as experienced by generations of patrons. The authoritative quality of the catalog similarly benefits from this type of coat-tail riding. The library and the librarians who work directly with the public are seen to be helpful, knowledgeable, and objective. (They are considered to have less flattering qualities as well.) Neither our librarians, nor our staff, nor our search tools are geared to lead our patrons in such a way as to provide income for the library (issues of funding requests and bond measures aside). We do not promote materials based on an advertiser's fee. Our catalogs are tools we provide and ones that we create to facilitate the use of our collections.

The library catalog is a collective and massive undertaking that provides many checks and balances that our patrons need. In addition to providing an authority and objectivity, it also provides a consistency across sites. The organizational structure of the catalog and the headings used are consistent across the nation and also internationally. This consistency has forced a de-facto peer-review process on us. The catalog is created according to known, published, standards. Catalog department staff undergo continuing education in various methods, most of them self-selected. We initiate quality control measures to assist us in evaluating what we have added to the catalog. We attend ongoing training sessions. We attend conferences. We belong to professional and quasi-professional discussion groups where we ask for assistance when we are stumped by an item needing to be added. In all, we attempt to learn, adapt, and apply standards in a mostly uniform fashion. We do not allow just anyone to post just anything within our catalog. While implementation of our catalog objectives will vary from place to place, the goals of each of our catalogs are very similar if not identical.

Another strength, lastly, is that the library exists. The library without walls is not needed. A library with walls and chairs and tangible resources and a trained staff are still needed and still wanted (Chepesiuk, 2000). They are not a liability, but a strength. Services from beyond the walls are certainly worthy, but not above all other matters. Libraries as places can be havens for those whose lives do not otherwise provide a learning or reading environment. The diversity of our patrons' experiences is far ranging.

Future of the catalog - growth of the consortia) catalog

The continued scaling down of the catalog retort is a fair certainty. This comes, unfortunately, at, time when we have begun to see the catalog record enriched beyond the limited past practices. More libraries than ever are contributing new descriptive and topical headings for patron retrieval. The days of the catalog record having just one subject heading were being left behind, yet with the advent of the core record and calls for continued increased production, it is likely that they will return. We will have more need than ever of enriched records, which will be produced in a different manner than they were in the past. That they are needed, that rich access is useful, is not a question. The addition of millions of publications to be searched calls for more detailed searching tools not less refined ones. The means for achieving richer access will necessitate an initial acceptance of the core or curtailed record, with enhancements to follow. The human cataloger is still vital to this process (Broccoli, 2000).

The growth of the consortial, or union, catalog can have a significant impact in this area. As more libraries are able to provide union catalogs for patrons, they will also have the opportunity to benefit from each other's enrichment processes. Certain libraries within each consortium could have a dedicated area of endeavor (adding genre terms, for example) which would then be mapped across to the union catalog for their patrons' benefit. Similarly, the core records, which will be enhanced, can be tagged so all libraries in the consortium will be able to make use of them. It is a matter of programming and agreement. The development of additional codes to indicate which type of enhancements have taken place (the addition of contents notes, or contents notes and subject headings, or contents notes and subject headings and genre terms, etc.) will need to done at least at the consortia) level. Then, libraries within the consortium will be better able to share their enhancements with member libraries. Bibliographic utilities that utilize the master record approach (OCLC, for example) might wish to assist libraries in providing enhanced access to the bibliographic utility's catalog. If not, consortia) projects will begin to distribute enhanced bibliographic records among consortia.

Implementation of the various types of cataloging, embedded in the resource or as surrogate bibliographic records, will vary somewhat and requires our reliance on vendors. The consortium has negotiating powers for implementation of catalog standards that the individual library does not. The trade-off is that the consortia) catalog is an expensive undertaking and not one that is easily migrated away from. The effectiveness of such lobbying will also vary. Catalogs today frequently take advantage of most, but not all, catalog structures and relationships. It is important to note, though, that the most common Web browsers are also not fully compliant with the latest HTML standards. Standards and their implementation will continue to be at some variance in the future, just as they are today.

Conclusion

The service provided by the catalog will not disappear. It will not be automated away. Patrons are not customers. They are in need of assistance now more than ever in negotiating their way through wave after wave of resources purporting to be information. By increasing our definition of the patron to fit the changing environments in which we encounter them (sometimes they never set foot in the library), we inform our decision as to how we want to proceed. The authority and objectivity of the library catalog and the library that houses it are worthy of emphasis in discussions about the catalog we wish to build in the future. While the catalog itself will continue to grow and implement enhanced functions (just as existing ones have over those of 15 years ago, or card catalogs did over book catalogs), we should model our future on our existing objectives. They remain vital. While the catalog's implementation will change in appearance, its long-stated objectives and goals remain useful as a concise strategic plan.

Footnote

Notes

Footnote

1 GoTo http://www.goto.com The directory structure under the topic: Health - Mens Health (http:ll www.goto.com/d/search/p/netscape/?Keywords = Mens+Health) retrieves results based on an advertiser's payment of some kind. For an overview (for advertisers, not patrons) see http:11 www.goto.com/d/about/advertisers/

2 The author wishes to acknowledge Hal Cain of the Joint Theological Library, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, for his having initiated the idea of authority in the context of the catalog.

3 http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/conference.html

Footnote

4 See Thomas, S.E. (2000), "The catalog as portal to the Internet". Paper contributed to the Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium. Available from the conference home page: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/ Her estimate that the Web is "increasing by 10 million pages weekly" appears in the first sentence of the section headed "Portals and catalogs".

5 Andrews, P. (2000), "Time to clear the Internet of pesky interference", Seattle Times, 24 September, article in the Personal Technology section: p. PTECH 3. In this article he states that estimates on Internet users have gone from 1 billion by 2000 down to 490 million users by 2002.

6 See Yahoo! http://www.yahoo.com

7 See Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com Search the title Do No Harm by the author Don J. Donaldson. Mine is the review from "a reader in Ellensburg, WA".

References

References

References

Baruth, B. (2000), "Is your catalog big enough to handle the Web?", American Libraries, Vol. 31 No. 8, August, pp. 56-60.

Broccoli, K. (2000), "Improving information retrieval with human indexing", Intranet Design Magazine,

22 September, viewed online at http:g idm.internet.com/features/humanindex-1.shtml Chepesiuk, R. (2000), "Dream in the desert: Alexandria's

library rises again", American Libraries, Vol. 31 No. 4, April, pp. 50-63. The article appears in an issue highlighting facilities for libraries.

Cutter, C.A. (1904), Rules for a Dictionary Catalog, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Frohock, W.M. (1959), "Introduction to Butor", Yale French

Studies, No. 24, pp, 54-61.

Judt, T. (2000), "The story of everything", New York Review of Books, 21 September, pp. 66-9.

Kaminer, W. (1999), Sleeping with Extra-terrestrials, Pantheon Books, New York, NY, p. 224.