BIBCO Core Record Study: Executive Summary and Recommendations

extracted from the Final Report
prepared for the PCC Policy Committee by
David Banush Cornell University
June 11, 2001

Sections II-V of Final report not included in this version for
meeting PoCo Meeting, November 8-9, 2002

A. Findings

The BIBCO core record, while intended to provide cataloging at an acceptable level of quality and detail, with the intention of increasing the pool of usable copy, has been less widely implemented than initially hoped. The vast majority of BIBCO participants continue to contribute mostly or exclusively full-level records. David Banush of Cornell University undertook a qualitative study of cataloger and manager attitudes toward the core record, with the stated goal of assisting the PCC Policy Committee in its planning for and marketing of the BIBCO program.

The study consisted of in-depth telephone interviews with 20 catalogers and 20 managers from BIBCO institutions. Diane Cellentani of Marketing Backup conducted the interviews, which took place between March 19 and March 29, 2001. Marketing Backup tabulated the data and prepared a preliminary report on the findings. David Banush further analyzed the data for this report. The results of the analysis suggest the following:

• Managers are happier with core than catalogers, and overall there is less reported dissatisfaction with core than the BIBCO statistics and anecdotal evidence would suggest.
• Despite the reported levels of satisfaction, both catalogers and managers are divided about the benefits and problems of core. For example, respondents are almost equally divided on the time savings resulting from core in original cataloging. Nearly as many respondents were satisfied with the quality of core records as not, and many feel that core provides inadequate access to materials.
• The primary elements of a quality bibliographic record, as identified by the respondents, are all present in the core record. Both catalogers and managers define quality bibliographic records primarily in terms of adherence to rules and standards. A widely shared definition of quality from a user's perspective does not emerge in the survey results. Further, there is evidence that the more expansive view of quality promoted in BIBCO training--which includes the notions of timeliness and cost-effectiveness--has not been accepted by cataloging professionals.
• An interesting dichotomy exists between the use of core in copy cataloging and in original cataloging. While most catalogers and managers are happy to find and use core records, far fewer are interested in creating them. Even among those who claim to be satisfied in general, as well as among those who are satisfied with particular aspects of the core concept, there exists a palpable unease with broader use of core records in original cataloging.
• Both catalogers and managers have a number of concerns about the program's implementation, marketing, and management. Participants voice dissatisfaction with the utilities, particularly OCLC, and their handling of BIBCO records. Many believe training and documentation are inadequate, and a number of those surveyed question the current recruiting and publicity strategies of the program.
• Misunderstandings and false perceptions about what the core guidelines actually require continue to linger. A number of those interviewed, for example, believe that use of core prohibits more than one added entry or subject heading. Such perceptions may be related to the dissatisfaction with training and documentation.

B. Recommendations.

Recommendations for the Policy Committee's consideration are arranged into three distinct groups. Each group of recommendations offers different degrees of possible change to the BIBCO program. The first set is the most conservative, the second more evolutionary, and the third more transformative. Individual recommendations are not intended to be mutually exclusive; suggestions from any of the three groups could be adopted and implemented as the Policy Committee sees fit. Recommendations could also be implemented chronologically. There is, however, a logical structure to the recommendations, especially in the second and third groups. Some recommendations could be adopted quickly while the Committee and other stakeholders explore the others more fully. The changes outlined below should assist in making the program more attractive to both present and potential members, and more relevant to the changing needs of the library community in the medium and long terms.

Group 1: Conservative recommendations

The recommended changes below have their origins in the survey responses. They focus narrowly on the concerns most frequently raised by the participants, and they assume the retention of the current structure and goals of the program. The changes they outline are modest and achievable, and could, in whole or in part, be implemented with relative ease and rapidity. However, they would address largely short-term operational problems rather than longer-term challenges.

1a. Re-design BIBCO training and documentation to emphasize the mechanics of record creation
1b. Expand the publicity and outreach effort for BIBCO
1c. Support and publicize further research on BIBCO records
1d. Work with the utilities to remove barriers to record creation and exchange

Group 2: Evolutionary recommendations

The recommendations below have their origins in both the letter and spirit of the survey responses. Their focus, however, is more expansive and forward looking than the more conservative changes above, and they would not be limited entirely to the concerns most frequently raised by the survey participants. They also assume a measured evolution away from the current structures and emphases of the program. These changes could, in whole or in part, be implemented in the short- to medium-terms, and could be combined with other changes in whatever combination the Policy Committee felt were feasible. They would address some of the short-term challenges faced by the program.

2a. De-emphasize the core record in training, marketing, and practice
2b. Shift the program's emphasis from record creation to the use of cataloger judgment
2c. Rename the core and full records

Group 3: Transformative recommendations

The recommendations that follow are more forward looking than the evolutionary changes above. They extend beyond the concerns raised by the survey participants, and would address longer-term operational challenges rather than more immediate needs. These recommendations also assume some significant changes to the structure of the BIBCO program. The changes could be combined with those from the conservative or evolutionary groups in whatever combination the Policy Committee felt were feasible.

3a. Shift BIBCO's primary mission from product to service provision
3b. Make optional the record creation component of BIBCO
3c. Move to embrace non-AACR2, non-MARC metadata formats

Possible futures for the BIBCO program

The recommendations outlined here are arranged into three groups. Each group of recommendations offers different degrees of possible change to the BIBCO program. The first set is the most conservative, the second more evolutionary, and the third more transformative. Individual recommendations or groups of recommendations are not intended to be mutually exclusive; suggestions from any of the three groups could be adapted and implemented as the Policy Committee sees fit. Recommendations could also be implemented chronologically. There is, however, a logical structure to the recommendations, especially in the second and third groups. Some recommendations, especially in the first group, could be accepted quickly while the Committee and other stakeholders explore others more fully. It is hoped that the changes outlined below will assist in making the program more attractive to both present and potential members, and more relevant to the changing needs of the library community in the medium and long terms.

Group 1: Conservative recommendations

The recommended changes below have their origins in the survey responses. They focus narrowly on the concerns most frequently raised by the participants, and they assume the retention of the current structure and goals of the program. The changes they outline are modest and achievable, and could, in whole or in part, be implemented with relative ease and rapidity. They would, however, address largely short-term operational problems rather than longer-term challenges.

1a. Re-design BIBCO training and documentation to emphasize the mechanics of record creation

Emphasizing the exact requirements for core and full record creation in BIBCO training and documentation is a change that many front-line catalogers would welcome. Clarifying in plain language the differences between core and full records would address several of the complaints voiced by participants in the survey. The more evangelical material on the values of the program, as well as membership criteria, governance, and other administrative matters, should become clearly subordinate to the more practical issues of what elements constitute a BIBCO record. Documentation examples should show which fields to add to core to create full, rather than what fields to remove from full records to create core. The model would be closer to the CONSER Cataloging and Editing Guides than the current documentation. Although the revised BIBCO manual is moving in this direction, the Policy Committee should further encourage these changes.

Revisiting the training manuals and documentation would help shift the current emphasis from convincing managers of the program's benefits to assisting catalogers in their daily work. With more detailed, practical documentation, catalogers would feel more comfortable creating BIBCO records at either the core or full levels, and the pool of available records could increase.

1b. Expand the publicity and outreach effort for BIBCO

The number of current BIBCO members is far smaller than the PCC had originally project at this stage in the program's life. In addition, the number of libraries joining BIBCO has slowed considerably in recent years. Several survey respondents felt that the current outreach efforts were redundant or ineffective. A few labeled the program's recruitment strategies "elitist."

Many current and potential members of the program, especially working catalogers, may not regularly attend ALA meetings, but do attend state or regional conferences, or the meetings of such groups as SLA or ACRL. The program should work to ensure that representatives from BIBCO institutions offer presentations and accurate information about the program's purpose, mission, and values at such meetings wherever possible. Training opportunities could also be made available at such gatherings.

More informal outreach and exchange via listservs and other forums should also be encouraged. Rather than serve primarily as a vehicle for the dissemination of official announcements, the BIBCO listserv could be used to answer members' and non-members' questions about the program and its requirements. A new list could also be developed to serve this need.

Several participants in the study felt that tension between public services and technical services hindered further use of the core guidelines. Coordinated outreach to relevant public services groups such as RUSA about the benefits of the BIBCO program for end-users would assist in making the program more appealing for all information professionals.

1c. Support and publicize further research on BIBCO records

The Policy Committee could also raise the program's profile by encouraging more publications in the professional literature about BIBCO. Research articles showing the benefits of BIBCO participation would be especially welcome. While the Program has no funds of its own to support such research, assistance from the Program in finding external support should become a high priority. Of particular value would be studies showing cost benefits from the use of core records, end-user reaction to core records, and public service librarians' attitudes toward core records. Identifying a set of research needs, developing appropriate tools for their investigation, and assuring that time and funds be made available for research would permit more informed decision making on the part of the Policy Committee and other stakeholders. Assuming the results of such studies were favorable to the BIBCO program, such research could be used as support for program recruitment.

1d. Work with the utilities to remove barriers to record creation and exchange

A number of participants cited barriers from the utilities, particularly OCLC, as one of the perceived problems with the BIBCO program. The ability to load either full or core records directly from local systems without having to edit on OCLC, increased credits for BIBCO records, and the lack of sharing between OCLC and RLIN were among the more common complaints. Given the stated positions of RLG and OCLC, a renewed effort to share BIBCO records between them would probably not be worthwhile. However, the Policy Committee, through the Standing Committee on Automation and any other relevant groups, should continue to work with OCLC to ensure that changes to batch loading permit BIBCO records to overlay existing records without difficulty. Some participants also expressed concern with the level of OCLC credits for bibliographic contributions and with the lack of credits for authority contributions in both utilities. The Policy Committee may wish to explore further the potential relationship between utilities' credit structures and incentives for BIBCO participation.

Group 2: Evolutionary changes

The recommendations below have their origins in both the letter and spirit of the survey responses. Their focus, however, is more expansive and forward looking than the more conservative changes above, and they would not be limited entirely to the concerns most frequently raised by the survey participants. They also assume a measured evolution away from the current structures and emphases of the program. These changes could, in whole or in part, be implemented in the short- to medium-terms, and could be combined with other changes in whatever combination the Policy Committee felt were feasible. They would address some of the short-term challenges faced by the program, and would better position the program for more fundamental changes in the future.

2a. De-emphasize the core record in training, marketing, and practice

The program's current training and marketing efforts place the core record at the center of BIBCO. As a result, core and BIBCO have become synonymous to many cataloging professionals within (and perhaps outside of) the program. This survey has shown that there remains considerable doubt among current BIBCO managers and catalogers (but especially catalogers) that core records are sufficient for access, or that they are real time-savers in original cataloging. Moving beyond the emphasis on core may lower the resistance from working catalogers and enable more BIBCO record creation at whatever level the individual cataloger or institution feels is appropriate.

To de-emphasize the core record, training content should be revised to stress the essential elements of the core record first, moving along the continuum to full records. While the benefits of core records should be discussed, the optional nature of their use should be emphasized; no one should feel compelled by the BIBCO trainer or training materials to create core records primarily or exclusively. By eliminating the emphasis on core, the resistance to broader participation in the program may fade, and recruitment of new members may be easier.

2b. Shift the program's emphasis from records to the use of cataloger judgment

As a parallel to recommendation 2a above, under this alternative, BIBCO would shift its strategy away from record creation exclusively to a combination of record creation and the use of cataloger judgment. The heart of BIBCO would not longer be the core record, but catalogers' judgment. The requirements for creating (and differences between) core and full records would be presented as only part of the BIBCO package; equal emphasis would be given to the use of catalogers' individual judgment, in the context of institutional needs and policies. Training and documentation materials would reflect this revised emphasis.

2c. Rename the core and full records

As noted above, the core concept's central role within BIBCO has led to an equation of BIBCO and core in the minds of many catalogers and managers. Because a significant portion of the cataloging community surveyed sees core in a negative light, the program's goals have become more difficult to attain. In addition to the de-emphasis of core noted above, a change in nomenclature may also help to de-couple the linkage between core and BIBCO. Renaming the core concept to "BIBCO basic" or "BIBCO essential", and the full record to "BIBCO enhanced," while also re-focusing the program away from the core record, may further reduce resistance to the general concept of a briefer, more efficient bibliographic record with adequate access and authority-controlled headings.

Group 3: Transformative recommendations

The recommendations that follow are more forward looking than the evolutionary changes above. They extend beyond the concerns raised by the survey participants, and would address longer-term operational challenges rather than more immediate needs. These recommendations also assume some significant changes to the structure of the BIBCO program. The changes could be combined with those from the conservative or evolutionary groups in whatever combination the Policy Committee felt were feasible.

3a. Shift BIBCO's primary mission from product to service provision

The BIBCO program currently revolves around bibliographic record production in general and the core record in particular. Individual records (at whatever level), as well as the body of all available BIBCO records, are products. This recommendation suggests re-crafting and marketing BIBCO as a service. It logically extends recommendation 2b of the evolutionary group above. If the program's emphasis moves from record creation to cataloger judgment, the need to assist catalogers in developing good judgment would increase. Continuing education opportunities for catalogers are limited, and a large number of library and information studies programs have de-emphasized or even eliminated cataloging training in recent years. There is little evidence this trend will reverse soon. Yet there remains a perceived need, as reflected (indirectly) in the survey results, as well as in the activities of other professional groups (e.g., the Standing Committee on Training Task Group on Educational Needs of the Cataloging Community), for better cataloger training at all levels. While ALCTS could help to meet this need, BIBCO as a cooperative program is uniquely positioned to assist in cataloger training. Were such a strategy implemented, developing training materials, documentation, and workshops for continuing education ("services") would become the primary mission of BIBCO. Member institutions would share the responsibility for developing and delivering training modules for various topics, such as electronic resource cataloging and subject analysis. A distance learning model may be especially appropriate for the delivery of such training courses. The program's overall value to both managers and front-line catalogers would increase, and such services would be entirely consistent with the spirit of cooperation that is the foundation of the PCC.

3b. Make optional the record creation component of BIBCO

This proposal follows logically from the recommendation above as well as from recommendation 2b of the second (evolutionary) set of recommendations. In moving from a product-centered to a service-centered mission, the value of the training and support received as a program participant would become greater than the presence of BIBCO records as copy in the utilities. In addition, some evidence from the survey suggests that cataloging professionals do not view BIBCO records as significantly more valuable than other copy. While complete elimination of the BIBCO record is neither necessary nor politically palatable, the program should seriously consider making optional the requirement to produce BIBCO records as part of membership while devising new ways to contribute to the program as a whole.

3c. Move to embrace non-AACR2, non-MARC metadata formats

The primacy of AACR2 and MARC-based bibliographic records will likely abate as alternative metadata standards develop and become mainstream. As currently structured, the BIBCO program focuses exclusively on the production and distribution of AACR2/MARC records. Thus a growing body of emerging standards, mastery of which librarians will find essential, lies beyond the program's current reach. The need for and benefits of cooperation and training in this rapidly changing information landscape will not diminish, and may indeed become more acute. A BIBCO prepared to meet the challenges of developing professional judgment and standards in such an environment, while still able to provide training in more traditional methods of cataloging, would have significantly more long-term value than a program tied to those traditions alone.

The survey found some evidence that tension between public services and cataloging departments hindered further use of the core record. Clearly, building bridges between specializations within and across libraries would be a benefit to the community as a whole. New tools such as CORC extend the metadata creation process beyond the walls of cataloging departments. The emergence of such tools opens the possibility of further cooperation across traditional lines of responsibility. Properly positioned, BIBCO could not only help meet the training and shared metadata needs across library technical services operations, but for all information professionals. Embracing such a change will position the program to be essential for the library community as a whole well into the future.