A Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization

Transcription

1 I A Survey of Loal Library Cataloging Tool and Resoure Utilization Shawne D. Miksa This stujy addresses lhl: support ofalaloging prol:dures by examining the loal ataloging environment of the North Texas publi libraries Ihrough lhe use of an online survy. In partiular, the sludy sought to disover the omprehensiveness ofataloging resoures and lools within tehnial servie departments and the level of utilization of these malerials by staff, both professional and paraprofessional. Data on use of partiular tools suh as ataloging rules, lassifiation shemes, anj subjet headings was olleted from libraries in an effort to understand how urrem:y and reliability of tools and resoures an~ determined and how oftell staffar trained or updated in thir us. Introdution The quality ontrol of all bibliographi reords, whether outsoured or original, is the responsibility of the atalogers who provide bibliographi ontrol for one or more libraries. This responsibility in turn greatly depends on the atalogers' knowledge of and expertise with the ataloging tools and resoures available to them. These resoures and tools are broadly defined as any devie or doument (print-based or eletroni) that assists in the reation of an original bibliographi reord or in the verifiation of bibliographi information in existing reords. This inludes input rules, metadata formats and standards, ataloging software and textbooks, ontinuing eduation programs/workshops, ataloger's Web-based "toolkits," et. The urrent relationship between ataloging eduation and ataloging pratie has been disussed at great length in the library and information siene arena, with a strong fous on the debate about the knowledge and skills expeted of new professional atalogers (i.e., how muh of both theory and pratie is learned in the lassroom versus how muh training is needed upon entering a new ataloging position). In addition, the issue of paraprofessionallnon-mls ataloging responsibilities has had an equal share of the debate, espeially as it pertains to the question of who is atually performing the ataloging in U.S. libraries. This paper will disuss some of the results of a 6-question survey' in whih partiipants were asked to give responses on what ataloging tools and resoures they used and how often they were used." This study did not J. of Eduation for Library and Information Siene, Vol. 9, No.-Spring ISSN: -6 Assoiation for library and Infonnation Siene Eduation

2 r. " ". en: '' - A Survey of Loal Library Cataloging Tool and Resoure Utilization 9 About the Author SIIml'lle D. Miksa is an assistant proressor in the Shool or Lihrary and lnrormalion Sienes allhe University or Norlh Texas (Shawnt'.Miksa@unl.du). Ms. reeil'ed /; aepred /; l' 'l'ised /. address the question of where atalog reords originate or the speifi amount and quality of ataloging training and eduation possessed by those who perform ataloging, nor did it look at qual ity ofatalog reords. The reality of the ataloging proess where ataloging tools and resoures are onerned must be observed. An arhitet an design a house with pen and paper, but a arpenter annot be expeted to build it without tools or materials. If we all upon libraries to "house" reorded human knowledge, then how strong are those who build the houses and what materials and tools do they use? This may be an overly simplisti analogy, but the questions remain fundamentally the same. How does one approah measuring and haraterizing this important step in the reation of the bibliographi artifats that omprise library atalogs? What types of tools and resoures are expeted to be found in a typial ataloging department? Against what standards are the use ofthese tools measured? If standards do not exist, how should they be developed and put into plae? This study addressed some of these issues by examining the loal ataloging environment of the North Texas publi libraries. In partiular, we wanted to disover how omprehensive ataloging resoures and tools found within the tehnial servie departments were and the level of utilization of these materials by staff, both professional and paraprofessional. In addition, how are urreny and reliability of the tools and resoures determined and how often are staff trained or updated in the use of these tools and resoures? We were also interested in how fators suh as budgetary and staff limitations affeted the availability of these tools and resoures within these libraries. Bakground and Context A review of publiations from a variety of library and information siene publiations, in partiular publiations entered on bibliographi ontrol and tehnial servies, did not reveal any studies that foused solely on the extent and utilization of tools and resoures in a tehnial servie department (ore soures ofthis review have been Weiss and Cartens and Kim-l). There have been surveys that hint at this utiliz.ation, suh as the study ommissioned by OCLC to assess "interest and needs for eduation and training of library workers and how widely these needs vary worldwide.") Data were olleted using ategories suh as inforll/ation soures or tools. librar.\' stwull/rds or pmties. pj'(~/essi{}nal pllhli({rions or professional assoiations. et. These are abstrat ategories at best and do not shed

3 Journal of Eduation for Library and Information Siene muh light on the atual tools and resoures about whih librarians should attain more familiarity and knowledge. The Cataloging Poliy and Support Offie at the Library ofcongress has a list of lltaloging tools lind doumentation but there is no indiation of how omprehensive the list is nor does it ategorize tools via the two fundamental areas of subjet ataloging and desriptive ataloging. The LC Cataloging Distribution Servie offers a omprehensive resoure for ataloging tools but gives no real indiation of how many or whih tools a typial library should aquire. The ALA's Assoiation of Library Colletions and Tehnial Servies (ALCTS) offers a variety ofdisussion groups and publiations on issues surrounding library ataloging pratie and eduation, but does not speifially address what tools and resoures should be diretly aessible to, or in diret possession of, a ataloger. Intner and Hill have edited several valuable books ataloging eduation and the profession as a whole (see lntner and Hil 6 ; Intner and HiIF; HillS) in whih information organization experts have offered opinions and studies on how to keep professionals from lowering their standards or beoming overwhelmed by the omplexity of information objets, standards and metadata shemes, et. In partiular, Joudrey 9 offers a survey of bibliographi ourses in forty-eight library shools in whih he breaks down the areas of bibliographi ontrol (e.g., subjet analysis, ataloging tehnology) and talks of the responsibilities, skills, qualities, and knowledge needed by atalogers. Survey Methodology The first step was to determine the ategories of tools and resoures to ensure a omprehensive survey and identify any ommon in-house praties in the ataloging departments that would impat aquisition and utilization of tools and resoures. In partiular we sought to: Identify the degree of professional and paraprofessional use of the tools and resoures. Identify the urrent state of outsouring of bibliographi reords and the elfet of outsouring on in-house utilization of these tools. Identify any bibliographi vendor benhmarks or standards that identify appropriate tools and resoures for a typial ataloging department. The partiipants of this study were pulled from the members list from the North Texas Regional Library System (NTRLS) and Northeast Texas Library System (NETLS). Library diretors were asked to omplete the survey themselves or pass it on to the person responsible forataloging in their library. [n the beginning the survey was limited to only NTRLS members (n =). After the results were olleted, a random ross-setion of eight libraries was seleted for follow-up interviews and/or site visits. These interviews allowed us to larify any prominent issues revealed by the surveys. -~, Ikl!Q_",_!'!'I!., UIIiI "'O"'_'.'lli--l!I!i!. II!III!;.UIIl!@II!lil!'tplil ~

4 A Survey of Loal Library Cataloging Tool and Resoure Utilization We also evaluated and verified results by presenting our findings to a fous group open to librarians and library administrators at the Texas Library Assoiation (TLA) Annual Conferene held in April in Austin, Texas. All surveys, interviews, and fous groups were anonymous. When surveying just the NTRLS group we reeived a 6% response rate and beause of that we deided to ontat libraries from NETLS to raise the total number of libraries ontated to approximately. In the end, we maintained the 6% response rate with libraries ompleting the survey. This paper presents results from a sub-setion of questions onerning six main ategories of tools and resoures. Desired Outomes Ideally, the results of this regional study should inform both ataloging eduators and ataloging pratitioners as well as serve as a resoure for ourse urriula in library shools and as a training tool for tehnial servie administrators. A omprehensive list would help to ensure a level of onsisteny in library ataloging aross the board as it relates to what tools and resoures are avai lable to atalogers and hopefully serve as a neessary benhmark for atalogers responsible for the quality ontrol of library atalogs. As well, the results of this survey should give library tehnial servies departments the initiative to perform self-evaluation of the resoures and tools used by their professional and paraprofessional staff. At the very least, this should make all those onerned, espeially library administrators and library atalogers, more aware of the minimal standards that support the effiieny and effetiveness of our ooperative library atalog systems. Data Results: General Information The respondents ( = () were grouped by type of library: rural ( =), suburban ( =9), and urban (/ =). General demographi information inluded gender (%- female, % male), library work experiene, urrent position, and level ofeduation. Work experiene ranged from less than six months to greater than years with 6% having between - years experiene, % between - years, and the remaining % with more than years. ~lble I shows the distribution ofurrent position and level ofeduation. Within the respondentsa (.%) possessed master's degrees from ALA aredited library shools. Library diretors aounted for (6%) of the total library positions desribed, but only (%) of those possesst~d a master's degree. One ataloger had a dotorate and one a master's, as did fourteen ( l ; professional staff and seven tehnial staff (6.%). The majority ofthose with master's degrees worked within suburban librar Ies.

5 Journal of Eduation for Library and Information Siene Table Distribution of Current Position and Level of Eduation. Current Position and Library Type Formal Library/Information Training or Certifiation Level Cataloging Rural=Suburban= Urban= Diretor Rural= Suburban= Urban= N/A Other Suburban= Paraprofessional Stoff Rural= Suburban= Assoiate Degree Dotorate MLS; ALA aredited shool Other: Stoff and workshop training; Certifiate fram a hurh-related library assoiation Assoiate Degree Bahelor's Degree High Shool or GED High Shool or GED; Bahelor's Degree; HS plus hrs ollege MLS; non ALA aredited shool MlS; ALA aredited shool N/A Othe,': County librarian, Grode III, hrs. toward bahelor's plus extensive library-related CE; Master's of eduation; Some ollege, no degree N/A MLS; ALA aredited shool BA in non-library/information training, urrently pursuing Master's degr'ee at ALA aredited shool Bahelor's Degree High Shool or GED Professional Stoff MLS; ALA aredited shool Rural= Suburban= Urban= Tehnial Servies Assoiate Degree Suburban=6 Urban= MLS; ALA aredited shool Total Respondents Cataloging Servies In order to get a sense of how muh ataloging is atually ompleted within the libraries we first asked what library automation system was used. The survey question itself listed 6 different systems, as well as allowing a hoie for 'homegrown' or 'other' if a partiular system was not listed. Table shows the systems lised in eah library, grouped by type of library. Nearly every library (9%) used a ataloging module within their automated systems. The.% of libraries that did not were mainly rurallibrarles. &I&%M. C

6 ..., -.''IIiIl....'"IIi'....'.el.... I.'.. '" _..."'?! _ iii' H II. IIIiI'Ii'....._"""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<>="'='''''''"'==''''-'~. I I...I ' "-""-... A Survey of Loal Library Cataloging Tool and Resoure Utilization The partiipants were asked a series of questions about the ataloging servies provided by their library. In partiular, we wanted to know if partiipants utilized entral ataloging servies of another library, performed their own work, andlor provided ataloging for other libraries. The majority of the libraries surveyed were Central or Main publi libraries (9%), Table library automation system by type of library (n= ). Type of Library Library Automation System Rural Athena Book Systems Bmdart Follett Software Company Library Corporation LRMS Genesis G 6 N/A Sogebrush (Spetrum) Sagebrush Tehnologies (Athena) SIRSI Cor'Pomtion 9 Unknown or Home-Grown Winnebago Software Suburban Book Systems Dynix ILS EOS International Epixteh, in. (NOTIS, Dynix, Horizon) Follett Software Company GIS Information Systems, In. Horizon 9 Innovative Inlerfoes, In Library Corpomtion Mandarin Library Automation ] Sogebrush (Spetr'um) Sagebrush Tehnologies (Atheno) SIRSI Corporation 9 Urban Dynix ILS GIS Infmmation Systems, In. Hor'izon Library Corporation N/A Sagebrush Tehnologies (Athena)._ =::- Total Respondents

7 Journal of Eduation for Library and Information Siene Table Cataloging Servies Utilized Distributed by Type of Library. Does your library utilize the entralized ataloging servies of another library? Type of Library N/A N/A No Rural Suburban Urban 6 Yes Rur-o I Suburban 9 Urban Total Respondents and the remaining (YYe) were either a branh library or systems offies. One of the main libraries funtioned as a ombined shool and publi library. Two respondents indiated /lor applialjle. The majority (%) do not utilize the entralized ataloging servies of another library, while (9%) do. Furthermore, 9 (%) say they do not provide ataloging servies to other libraries, :) (6%) do provide servies, and 6 (%) responded does /lot apply. We found these responses varied with their responses to the question "Has your library entered into agreement with another library who assumes responsibility for your bibliographi servies'?" in whih 9 (%) have not, 9 (.9%) hose does /lot apply, and (%) did have an agreement. When asked to give the numberof full-time equivalents (FTEs) dediated to ataloging (an FTE is equal to Table Average hours per week semi- or original ataloging. If your library performs its own semi-original or original ataloging, what are the average hours per week? N/A N/A Rural - hours per week - hour per week hours per week Less than hours week 9 Suburban - hours per week -- hour per week 6 -- hours per week Less thon hours week Urban -- hou r per week - hours per week l.ess than hours week

8 A Survey of Loal Library Cataloging Tool and Resoure Utilization Table Perentage of In-house Copy Cataloging. What perentage of your in-house ataloging is opy ataloging? Rural (n::::) Suburban (n=9) Urban (n=) ALL (n=) None (%) (%) (%) (%) % (%) (%) (%) (%) --% (%) (%) (%) (%) -% (%) (%) (%) (%).% (9%) (%) (9%) (%) -% 9 (6%) (%) (%) (9%) -99% 6 (9%) (6%) (%) (%) % (%) (%) (%) (%) skipped (%) (%) (%) (%) Total Respondents 9 hours per "veek) the answers we reeived were not usable but we did ask about the number of hours per week given to semi- or original ataloging and found that 69 (66iK) performed fewer than hours a week, J9 (%) performed II to hours per week, and only (6%) of the total partiipants performed to hours per week. Table shows this breakdown by type or library. When ompared with Table, and given that lhe majority of the respondents are library diretors in rural libraries who are generally responsible for all tasks within the library. Table shows that little time is given to atual ataloging duties eah week. Furthermore. most of the time is given to ataloging is spent opy ataloging, as demonstrated in Table. Within the libraries surveyed, most of the in-house alaloging (ranging Table 6 Perentage of Outsoured Reords. What perentage of your bibliographi reords are Rural Suburban Urban ALL outsoured? (n=) (n=9) (n::::) (n=) None 6 (9%) (%) (9%) (9%) % (6%) (%) (%) (%) -% (6%) (%) (%) (%) --% (%) (%) (%) (%) --% - (%) ( l Ya) (%) (%) -% (%) (%) (%) (%) -99% (%) (%) (%) 9 (9%) % (%) (%) (%) o (O%) skipped (%) (%) (%) (%) Total Respondents 9

9 6 Journal of Eduation for Library and Information Siene from % to 99%) is opy ataloging. In partiular, opy ataloging aounts for lji, ofataloging within rural libraries, % within suburban libraries, and % within urban libraries. We should note that %, or nearly a quarter of the respondents, skipped this question. In addition, outsouring of reords ranged fairly evenly from % to 9% aross eah type of library, with approximately % of those libraries reviewing reords either before or after updating their atalog. A small perentage (-%) speified they only sometimes reviewed reords before or after update for a variety of reasons (e.g., spot hek bibliographi reord vendor performane, add desription, all numbers, subjets, holdings information, or when mistakes were disovered, et.). As with the question on opy ataloging, just under % of respondents skipped the question on outsouring. Cataloging Tools and Resoures Eah respondent was asked to provide information about the extent of their use of speifi tools and resoures. Six ategories of these materials were given: Cataloging Rules, Subjet Headings, Classifiation, Cataloging Manuals, Supplementary Tools, and MARC Standards. Tables to show the olleted responses of all respondents for eah ategory. Fourteen (.%) respondents skipped this question onerning ataloging tools. Overall, (.6%) respondents used AACR (at the time ofthe survey only the updates were available) on a daily basis, 9 (%) on a weekly basis, (.6%) only oasionally, and one (.%) rarely. We found that just under % used Cataloger's Desktop at the time, with only % using it to aess AACR. We felt it neessary to list several editions of the Library of Congress Subjet Headings (LCSH) beause we suspeted that not many would have the latest edition available at the time. (See Table.) Within eah of the three types of libraries (rural, suburban, and urban) we found that the seven urban libraries used LCSH the least (only one used LCSH daily via Classifiation Web), whih is interesting beause eah one ategorized themselves as a main or entral library. The most ommon aess point to subjet headings aross all three types of libraries ourred indiretly through another institution or soure, suh as the Library ofcongress. Seventeen ( 6.<)(,) indiated weekly use and fourteen (.%) oasional use. Overall, I I (.6%) respondents skipped the question entirely, and on average 6 respondents (6 %) responded with /lot appliable. Publi libraries in the U.S. typially lassify with Dewey Deimal Classifiation (DDC) and we found onurrene with this fat in the survey, as seen in Table 9. Thirty-three respondents (%) used DOC, nd edition, either daily, weekly, or oasionally. However, we also found that an average of (6.%) used the older st or th editions daily, weekly, or oasionally. At the same time, (%) aessed DOC online through Web

10 Table Use of Cataloging Rules (n ). Cataloging Rules Daily Weekly Oasionally Rarely N/A Anglo-Amerian Cataloguing Rules, nd edition, 9 Revision-wi:h Update a Anglo-Amerian Catologuing Rules, nd edition, o o < \) Revision-with Update -+ Anglo-Amerion Cataloguing Rules, nd edition, Revision 6 Anglo-Amerian Cataloguing Rules, nd edition, 99 Revision 6 6 ed Anglo-Amerion Cataloguing Rules, nd edition, 9 Revision o 6 69 ' ed Conise AACR, 99 o 66 (} Conise AACR, 9 o 6 Q. Use AACR via Cataloger's Desktop (CD-ROM) o Use AACR via Cataloger's Desktop (Online). Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI) ; CD ALA Filing Rules Ul Library of Congress Filing Rules (skipped) CD Toto I Respondents 9 = o» (fl <: CD -< S o Q. IT ::J C ~ N' ::t ::J w -...J [' ~ I! ~ I; ~' "'t I' I~ i: " L

11 Table Use of Subjet Heading Tools (n = ). v.> (Xl Subjet Headings Daily Weekly Oasionally Rarely N/A < Library of Congress Subiet Headings, th edition, print 6 Library of Congress Subjet Headings, th edition, print 6 Q. Libmry of Congress Subjet Headings, 6th edition, print 6 6 Q, Library of Congress Subjet Headings, th edition, print 69 m Library of Congress Subjet Headings, th edition, print Library of Congress Subjet Headings, older than th edition, print Library of Congress Subjet Headings, online via Classifiation Web Library of Congress Subjet Headings, online via another institution or soure (e,g" Library of Congress) Subjet Cataloging Manual: Classifiation, st edition (99 base text and update) Subjet Cataloging Manual: Shelflisting, nd edition, (99) Subjet Cataloging Manual: Subjet Headings, th edition (996 edition with latest updates through, updates) Subjet Cataloging Manuals, via Cataloger's Desktop Free Floating Subdivisions: an alphabetial index (any edition) Sears Subjet Headings, th edition Sears Subjet Headings, th edition Sears Subjet Headings, 6th edition 66 Sears Subjet Headings, alder than 6th edition 6 Subjet Headings for Shool and Publi Libraries: an LCSH/Sears ompanion 6 (skipped) Total Respondents (/ -+ ' ::J Q, r a -< ::J ' ' -+ ' ::J CfJ (/ (D' ::J (/ CD

12 Table 9 Use of Classifiation Tools (n=). Classifiation Daily Weekly Library of Congr~ss Classifiation, print, various shedules nd editions Library of Congress Classifiation, online via Classifiation Web Library of Congress Classifiation, online via another soure LC Cutter tjble Cutter-Sanborn tables Regions and Countries Cutler Table Geographi Cuter Table for L:.S. states and f egion Dewey Deimal Classifiation, nd edition, print Dewey Deimal Classifiation, st edition, print Dewey Deimal Clossifiation, th edition, print Dewey Deimal Classifiation, via Web Dewey Dewey Deimal Classifiation, via onother soure or institution Dewey Deimal Classifiation, Abridged, th edition, print Dewey Deimal Classifiation, Abridged, th edition, print Dewey Deimol Classifiation, Abridged, th edition, print Dewey Deimal Classifiation, Abridged, via Web Dewey LCC or DOC workbooks, monuols, et. (skipped) Total Respondents ') '-' ') v

13 A Table Use of Cataloging Manuals (n= )..l:o> Cataloging manuals for various formats, etg. Daily CONSER Cataloging Manual ( or older edition) CONSER Editing Guide (99 edition only or with all updates through ) Integrating Resoures: a ataloging manual Other Serials/ontinuing resoures ataloging manuals, et. Desriptive Cataloging of Rare Books, nd edition (99) Other Rare book ataloging manuals Cartographi Materials, Revision Cartographi Materials, Revision, with Updates Map Cataloging Manual (99) Other Map ataloging manuals, et. Musi ataloging manuals Audio-Visual ataloging manuals Arhival Moving Images Materials: a ataloging manual, nd edition () Arhival Moving Imoges Materials: a ataloging manual via Cataloger's Desktop Motion piture and video reording ataloging manuals Rules and Too[s for Cataloging Internet Resoures () Cataloging Non-print and Internet Resoures () Other eletroni resoure ataloging manuals Grophi material ataloging manuals Other ato[oging manuals (skipped) Total Respondents Weekly OGGasionally Rarely N/A ' Q. ~ m Q -+ is" :) ' r ' -< :) Q 6' -+ o :) (/) (' :) ()

14 TobIe Use of Supplementary Tools (n= ). Supplemell~Clry Tools!Oaifiy Weekly Oasionally Rarely N/A Cata ioging withaacr and MARC ;\'\axwell's Guide to AACR l\t\axwell's Guide to Authority Work (Fritz) _C Authmities Database Other Authorities Database Authority ontrol tools or manuals of any kind Art and Arhiteture Thesaurus (AAT) ERIC Thesaurus Thesaurus for, Graphi Materials (99 print edition or updat,::d oniine '/ersion) Other thesa~ri World Fat Book (CIA) Ditionaries (biogrclphial, geographial, online, et.) Atlases (skipped) ' 9 Total Respondents 9 ') '" 9 '},J » en :;:: <D -< S o () Q. U a -< () -+ o ' o " Q. :J. AJ <D en <D =t N' -+ 6 :J I i, ft ~ J:>.

15 J::> tv Table Use of MARC Standards and Resoures (n =)_ MARC Tools BIBCO/CONSER MARC Reord Sets MARC Conise Formats MARC Format for- Bibliographi Dolo and Updates MARC Format for Authority Data and Updates MARC Format for Holdings Data and Updates MARC Format for Classifiation Data and Updates MARC Format for Community Information and Updates MARC Code List for Languages MARC Code List lor Countries MARC Code List lor Geographi Areas MARC Code Lists for Relators, Soures, Desription Conventions MARC Code List lor Organizations MARC Speifiations lor Reord Struture, Charater Sets, and Exhange Media All MARC standards via Cataloger's Desktop (online or CD-ROM) Understanding MARC Bibliographi (any edition, online or print) Understanding MARC Authority Reords (any edition, online or print) MARC Lite Bibliog raphi Format (online) MARC Manual, nd edition, 99 ArtMARC Sourebook (skipped) Total Respondents Daily ') oj Weekly 6 Oasionally 9 9 Rarely 6 6 N/A L a - S, m. () -+ :J ' r ' -< :J Q. " -+ a -+ is :J UJ () ai :J () CD

16 A Survey of Loal Library Cataloging Tool and Resoure Utilization Dewey. Again, on average 6 respondents (9%) responded with not afjpliubi We also wanted a sense of the use of various types ofataloging manuals. We simply listed as many titles as we ould find, regardless of format addressed within the manuals. At best, there are oasional (%) or rare ( C k) use of these resoures by the (%) respondents who answered the question. One again we see a high average (69%) of respondents responding with Jlo/lIfJplitlhleo Supplementary lool use has a similar range with authority tools and databases being one of the most used within this ategory. We inluded a series of questions onerning authority ontrol and found that (%) of the partiipants perform authority ontrol on name and subjet aess points, (!t,) did noi, and partiipanls ( l y) skipped the question altogether. Respondents also indiated that standard referene materials suh Table Use of MARC Bibliographi Format and Semi-original or Original Cataloging per Week (n= ). If your library performs its own semi-original or original ata MARC Format for loging, what are the average Bibliographi Data ALL hours per week? and Updates (n=) N/A o No Rarely Less than hours week Daily N/A No Oasionally 9 Weekly hours per week N/A No Oasionally Weekly - hour per week N/A 6 No._~oo o OasiollCilly Weekly o ~o = - - hours per week N/A No Rarely :-:-:-:- _. _. --' -, N/A N/A Total Respondents

17 Journal of Eduation for Library and Information Siene as ditionaries, as well as Fritz's manual on AACR and MARC, were used oasionally. Overall, there is very little daily or weekly use of materials related to MARC. This is partiularly interesting when taking into aount the earlier data on the extent of original or semi-original ataloging per week (see Tahie ). For example, a ombined total of 9 (%) respondents indiated their use of the MARC format for bibliographi reords, and in Table these responses are ross-referened with data on ataloging performed per week. Forty respondents (9%) indiated no use of MARC bibliographi format standard, despite performing some semi-original or original ataloging every week. One of the last areas that we surveyed dealt with how tools and resoures were ordered and updated as needed. Publishers, professional assoiations (e.g., ALA), Library of Congress, and vendors were the main soures for materials. Yearly sheduled updates or onsensus of staff or diretor were only indiated by I 9() of the respondents. Oasional updating was performed by only % of respondents. Other response inluded "attending larger library book sales" or "updates as provided by vendor." Summary and Conlusions The data given above is only a sub-set of a larger survey ofataloging tools and resoures distri buted among North Texas publ i libraries. The intent of the survey was not to address the question of where atalog reords originate or the speifi amount and quality ofataloging training and eduation possessed by those who perform ataloging, nor did the survey look at quality ofatalog reords. Several other fators, inluding atalogers' ommuniation with the overall ataloging ommunity, ontinuing eduation, and professional requirements, were also addressed. A more omprehensive report of the entire survey is presently in development. The results of this survey are not entirely unsurprising, even though they do represent only a small sample of publi libraries that are limited in both budget and staff. However, this study raises serious questions about the root auses for this low utilization. Are deisions to not use ataloging tools and resoures a refletion ofatalogers' satisfation that the ataloging produt provided is sound and of good quality'? Is it a refletion of there being very little knowledge (and thus, eduation) of tools and resoures, or of sound ataloging praties, in the first plae? Of partiular interest to us is what this says about how well ataloging eduators have prepared students to be atalogers. Partiipants indiated the major fators affeting availability of ataloging tools and resoures were budget limitations ( %) and staff limitations (6%), but 9 (%) also felt that they simply did not know enough about the tools and resoures (e.g., one person ommented "we are amazed at the resoures out there!") in the first plae. The most surprising finding, though, was that when asked if they felt "these limitations were detrimental to the servie provided to library patrons as far as providing them with a re

18 I "'-~-"'~"' ~>'='~-''-~._~~'-''--_. A Survey of Loal Library Cataloging Tool and Resoure Utilization liable atalog system" the overwhelming response (%) was that they did not. What does this mean when ompared with the urrent sramble to keep publi libraries on the radar as ontinuing viable publi resoures'? We also find a disturbing lak of partiipation in the area of professional ommuniation and the exhange of information. For instane, only (%) of our respondents subsribe to ALA-supported listservs and out of those that do only have master's degrees from ALA-aredited library and information siene programs. The one journal that 6% of the respondents subsribe to is Lihrary JourI/al, and only % subsribed to speializedjournals suh as Cataloging and ClossUi(/tion Quarterly and Lihrary Re,wures lind Tehnilil Servies. Call remarks that publi library atalogers are expeted to atively partiipate in professional ativities, as well as be leaders in the organization itself lo If novie and experiened atalogers alike do not make those efforts, or are not enouraged or required to do so, then it is hard to imagine our profession surviving the present information environment. Given the reent reommendations by the Library of Congress Working Group for the Future of Bibliographi Control regarding the need to "inrease the effiieny of bibliographi prodution and maintenane," we an see from this small set ofdata that a tendeny to not referene even the most basi ataloging tools and resoures has reperussions that need further study. J I This is espeially important if we want to evolve our praties to meet new information use and behavior needs.' ~ Furthermore, our findings should also lend themselves to the dialog surrounding the expetations of employers as it onerns desired ataloging skills, knowledge, and abilities. Shottlaender's study of job position desriptions within the University of California at San Diego and the variety of position funtions listed (e.g.. aptitude for omplex. analytial skills, reate authority reords, metadata standards, exerise reativity, et.) are basi skills that we ould reasonably expet to be demonstrated by atalogers in the C()lIrSt~ of using speifi tools and resou res or with in interations with institutions and agenies on a daily basis.. However, there is no professional requirement to use any of these materials, nor is there any standard by whih to hek to make sure they are being used properly beyond that of examining the quality of ataloging produts. Referenes and Notes I, ShawnL' D, Miksa. "A SUr\'ey of the Extent and Utilization of Catalogin,g: Tools and Resoures within Tehnial Servies in North Txas Publi Libraries." Proposal submilld and awarded an OCLC/ALISE Lihrary and Informalion Sien Researh Grant Program in ()(): "Survy InstnllllnJ." C(): -. hllp:llollrses.unj.edu/smiksa/doulllellls/t"l'r-nt_survy_j\'liksa_io.lan6.pdl (aessed February. X),! Funded in by an OCLCIALiSE Lihrary and Informalion Siene Researh Gran!. The aulhor would like to aknowledge and thank librarians inlhe North Texas area for their partiipalion in this study, In addition. a tremendnus debt of gralilude goes to Tohy Faher

19 6 Journal of Eduation for Library and Information Siene ami Harbara Shultz-Jones for their invaluable help in reating the survey. interviewing partiipants. and analyzing the data. :I. Amy K. Weiss and Timothy Carstens. 'The Year's Work in Calaloging. 999:' Libmry Re SOillres & Tedlllim/ Sen'ies, no. (): -.. Kyung-Sun Kim. "Reent Work in Cataloging and Cassillation, -," Lihmry Re SOl/re.l & f'/lllim/ Sen,ies, no. () 6- OR.. KaLherine Wilkie and Rogel Strouse, OCLC Lihrary hllinillg am/!.'dulilion Markel Needs Assessmenl Sil/llv. Custom report prepared for OCLC Institute. January.. hup:// (aessed February. m,). 6. Sheila Inlner and Janet Swanl-lill, ds. Reruiling, Edualing, and haining Caw/oging LihrariallS: SO/Fing Ihe ProlJlelll.l. (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, (9).. Sheila lntner and Janet Swanl-lilL ds. ClIra/oging: nil' Pn~!i'ssiona/lJt'I'elol'fIlellevele. (Westport. Conn: Greenwood Press. 99).. Janet Swan Hill, d. Eduation jijr Caw/oging and Ihe ()rg<lni~alion orin!ijl'lnlllio//: Pilfalls <I/Il/Ihe Pe//du/I/III. (New Yurk : Haworth. (). 9. Daniel N. Jourdrey. "A New Look at US Graduate Courses in Bibliographi Control." in!;i/l/({/ion.!jr Call/oging and Ihe (),gll//iwlio// o/in{rm//alion: Piljillls li/il/lhe Pel/du/lIfl, d. Janet Swan Hill (New York: Haworth, () J. Randolph Call. "Catalllg.er Competenies for Publi I,ihrarians," presllld at the ALCTS/CETRC Pre-onferene What he\' DOll 'I 'Ii'alt in Uhrurv Shool: CIII//pelen 'ii's, hi/i/ation, and ""lip/oyer h'.rpeciliiions j{jr a ClIrL'l'/' in Caw/oging, Catholi University llf Ameria. Washington. D.C.. June.. II, Library of Congress Working Group for the Future of Bibliographi Control. On lite Re ('{m/: Re/)()rl (~r nil' Ubrar.\' or Congress Workillg Grol/P jijr the FI/III,.e (d' Bibliographi Conlro!. (Washington. D.C.: Library of Congress. (). hup:// (aessed February. ).. Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Researh (eiber), b(!)j'iilion Behaviour " Ihe Researher or Ihe FIII//rl' (London: University College London. (), ht!p:// (aessed February, ().. Brian E.C. Shot!laender, "What They Dun'l Teah in Lihrary Shonl: Employers' Expelations for Cataloging Reruits." presented at the ALCTS/CETRC Pre-onfernee Whlll Jie\' Don ' TL'ah ill Libmr." Shool: COllpelellies, Ed//atiol/, allll Elllp/oyer L".I/Je/(Iliollsj('rll Career ill Ca/a/oging. Calholi University of Ameria. Washington. D.C., June..