Cataloger Attitudes Toward the Core Record

A Research Proposal

By David Banush
Martin P. Catherwood Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Email:dnb8@cornell.edu
Phone: 607-255-2719

I. Executive Summary
II. Project narrative
III. Methodology
IV. Plan of work

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging's BIBCO program, launched in 1995, has sought to greatly expand the pool of usable bibliographic records for copy cataloging. To this end, the program developed the core record standard as a vehicle for the rapid creation of catalog records that also upholds a standard of mutually acceptable quality. The core record, however, has been less widely implemented than the PCC founders had hoped, with the vast majority of BIBCO participants continuing to contribute full-level records. In LC's fiscal year 2000, for example, only about one-third of BIBCO contributions were core records. Moreover, persistent questions about the quality of core records, their utility, and the costs and benefits of BIBCO participation have hindered broader acceptance of the core standard. The study outlined here proposes to use in-depth interviews with front-line catalogers and cataloging managers to investigate some of the reasons behind the relatively low use of the core record. It is anticipated that the data gathered from this study will assist the PCC Policy Committee in its efforts to expand BIBCO participation as well as provide insight to the broader library community into cataloging professionals' attitudes toward the values promoted by the program.

II. Project narrative

Background, rationale, and significance

The cost of cataloging, in particular the issue of cataloging productivity, has perplexed libraries for decades. The rapid expansion of higher education in the decades immediately following World War II, along with the concomitant explosion of library budgets and scholarly publishing, quickly led to enormous backlogs of uncataloged materials in libraries around the nation. The development of the MARC standard in the late 1960s and the creation of bibliographic utilities in the 1970s and 80s greatly expanded the library community's ability to create and share bibliographic records. Yet cataloging productivity remained relatively stagnant. Concerns about the quality of catalog records, the desire to add perceived enhancements to copy, and a general reluctance to accept without alterations the work of colleagues led many libraries to spend scarce cataloging resources on the revision of existing copy rather than the creation of new records. Those items for which copy did not exist were then relegated to storage, in the hope that some other institution would eventually describe and classify the material. Backlogs thus remained stubbornly large or actually increased; even as many library acquisitions budgets contracted sharply in the 1980s and 90s.

Back to top

Though cooperative cataloging has existed in some form or another for over a century, the number and scope of cooperative efforts has been greatly facilitated by the development of the bibliographic utilities. While some long-running cooperative programs, such as NACO and CONSER, have been largely successful, others (e.g., the NCCP), have failed. The most recent of these large-scale cooperative efforts, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)'s BIBCO program, began in 1995. The PCC has as its mission the production and timely distribution of high-quality, dependable bibliographic records in a decentralized fashion. An umbrella organization, the PCC has administrative responsibility for NACO, CONSER, SACO and the newest component, BIBCO. At the heart of the BIBCO program lies the concept of the core record. This new form of cataloging is intended to be a middle ground of description and access, sufficiently complete for retrieval and identification of items, but without more elaborate notes and additional access points that would be permissible under current cataloging codes. The core record is distinct from minimal-level cataloging in that it includes all descriptive elements necessary for the identification of the item, a classification number from a recognized scheme, and, where appropriate, at least one subject heading from an authorized controlled vocabulary. Moreover, all name and traced series titles in a PCC core record must be supported by an authority record in the national file. While designed to be sufficient on its own, the core record is also intended as a baseline, not an upper limit; libraries with the resources or justification may, at their option, enhance the records to full-level.

In conjunction with the introduction and promotion of the core record, the BIBCO program has also sought to influence catalogers' attitudes by promoting a set of values which emphasize respect for catalogers' individual judgements and a focus on record quality from the users' perspective. BIBCO trainees are encouraged to think of cataloging not as an exercise in the attainment of descriptive perfection, but rather a means to provide timely access to materials that is sufficient for identification and retrieval. Trainers emphasize these values alongside their instructions about the creation of core records in an effort to foster a culture of mutual cooperation throughout the cataloging community.

The PCC has operated on the assumption that the creation of the core standard would catalyze two developments which, based on historical evidence, seem mutually exclusive: a more efficient means to produce records coupled with an mutually acceptable level of quality. The program has thus sought to "square the circle" of bibliographic control: increasing cataloger productivity in a time of constrained budgets and competing institutional needs while simultaneously ensuring that no library encountering a PCC core record would need to adjust it. In 1995, the BIBCO program's goal was to enlist 200 member libraries by 2000[1], with the aim of producing between 100,000 and 200,000 PCC records annually. In support of the PCC, Cornell University made an institutional commitment to the creation of PCC core records, and has been the largest contributor to date. In 1998, the Library of Congress announced that it too would use the core standard as the basis for its own cataloging. Despite this support and the program's ambitious plans, the PCC has yet to achieve its stated membership goals. While membership and members' contributions have both steadily increased, figures from FY 1999-2000 indicate the total number of BIBCO libraries (42) to be less than a quarter of the anticipated 200, with annual production of just under 60% of the 100,000 record total. Moreover, adoption of the core record has been at best reluctant: Of the approximately 64,000 PCC records produced to date in FY99-00, only about 35% were cataloged at the core level.

The numbers suggest at the least a resistance among both front-line catalogers and those setting institutional cataloging policies to embrace fully the values promoted by the Program. In addition, there is some (largely anecdotal) evidence to suggest that working catalogers and cataloging managers have not wholly accepted the BIBCO philosophy of cataloging. Informal discussions on the AUTOCAT listserv as well as in various professional forums have centered around the perceived inadequacies of the core record. Chief among these alleged shortcomings has been issues of record quality, the actual ratio of costs to benefits of BIBCO participation, and the adequacy of training and monitoring of PCC contributors.

In order to understand the reasons behind the tepid reception of the core record, research is clearly in order. Though a number of articles have appeared in the professional literature about core records,[2] they are largely of a descriptive nature, offering historical background about the origins of the BIBCO program, enunciation of its underlying goals, or arguments in favor of PCC membership and contributions. A very recent article (Czeck, Icenhower, and Kellsey, 2000) examines differences in access between full and core records, finding a statistically significant difference between the number of access points on core and full records. Other research in progress is examining the utility of the core record from the user's perspective. To date, however, no quantitative or qualitative research has investigated the possible reasons underlying the cataloging community's response to the concept of the core record.

To investigate these reasons, a qualitative research study is proposed. The study described below anticipates utilizing in-depth interviews to analyze working catalogers' and cataloging managers' views of the core record and the goals and values promoted by the PCC.

The goals of this proposed study are as follows:

1. To explore working catalogers' attitudes toward the core record
2. To explore cataloging managers' attitudes toward the core record
3. To examine both groups' understanding of the issue of cataloging quality
4. To help identify strengths and weaknesses in the current PCC strategies for promoting BIBCO membership and core record creation.
5. To provide the PCC Policy Committee a list of specific recommendations to address perceived weaknesses in the marketing of, and planning and training for, the BIBCO program.

To achieve these ends, the study proposes the following objectives:

1. Identify an appropriate pool of candidates for interviews.
2. Engage the services of a consultant to assist in the design of the interview scripts.
3. Conduct in-depth telephone interviews with approximately 20 catalogers and 20 cataloging managers from BIBCO institutions.
4. Collect and analyze the resulting data and write a report of the findings. The consultant would assist in the data analysis and preliminary report writing.
5. Present the findings and a list of specific action items to the PCC Policy Committee
6. Disseminate the findings through publication in the professional literature.
7. Prepare the groundwork for further qualitative or quantitative investigation of cataloger attitudes and core records.

The principal investigator is David Banush, Coordinator of Technical Services at the M.P. Catherwood Library, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University. The investigator has over ten years' experience in academic library technical service operations and is a current PCC participant. As both a working cataloger and cataloging manager, he is thus well acquainted with the issues surrounding the core record and its reception.

The consultant is Diane Cellentani, a professional researcher with over 20 years' experience in feedback research who has conducted over 250 focus group and interview research projects on library issues. She holds an MBA in marketing and is the director of Marketing Backup, a research consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio. Her previous clients include Cornell University Library and OCLC.

III. Methodology Back to top

The proposed methodology is a series of in-depth telephone interviews with 20 working catalogers and 20 cataloging managers from BIBCO institutions. Those interviewed will be recruited by the principal investigator via invitation on PCC listservs and further screened via a short questionnaire to ensure sufficient familiarity with the core record and the values of the BIBCO program. Recruiting will be conducted in consultation with appropriate members of the PCC Policy Committee. Upon selection, each interviewee will be asked a series of prepared questions designed to gather the required feedback, but interview sessions will be sufficiently flexible and open-ended to allow further probing of responses where appropriate. Interviews will last approximately 30 minutes, though no absolute time limit is anticipated. It is hoped that the interviews will present attitudes and beliefs which are unexpected or which have not been articulated fully in other forums. Interviewees' identities and responses will be kept strictly confidential; no one will be identified by name or institutional affiliation in the preliminary or final written reports.

A consultant will be employed to assist the principal investigator in the development of the interview questions, in conducting the interviews, and in analyzing the resulting data. Interviews will be tape recorded with the full knowledge and consent of the interviewees. The recordings will be transcribed and the transcriptions will be analyzed by the consultant and principal investigator. The consultant will then prepare a preliminary report of the data analysis. The principal investigator will review this report with the consultant and use it as the basis of the final report presented to the PCC Policy Committee. The principal investigator would then use the final report as a basis for an article to be submitted to an appropriate journal for publication.

Telephone interviews are one of several demonstrated methods to collect reflective, in-depth information about a specific topic. Other methods of gathering this type of data include in-person interviews and focus groups. Focus groups in particular have a number of advantages for research of this nature. Focus groups offer the ability to interview simultaneously a large group of people. The interpersonal dynamics of the group can also serve as an excellent catalyst for further discussion. The logistical difficulties and expense of planning and scheduling focus groups for a geographically disparate group, however, render that method impractical for a study of this nature. In-person interviews permit a level of intimacy that can facilitate a more honest and in-depth discussion of the issues, but also pose similar logistical difficulties. Telephone interviews offer many of the advantages of these methods while also permitting a more flexible timetable and a practical means of reaching a widely dispersed population.

The proposed method will produce neither statistically representative nor quantitative results. Statistically representative, quantitative data could be gathered through other techniques, most notably survey research. The necessarily limited range of possible responses in a survey would not, however, provide the sort of open-ended feedback that could most optimally assist the PCC Policy Committee in assessing the current marketing of the BIBCO program and planning for its future. Moreover, the length of time required to plan, execute and analyze the results of a mailed survey would be considerably greater than the method proposed, and the cost of such a survey would be significantly higher.

The choice of front-line catalogers and cataloging managers enables a clear focus on those library staff most closely involved in the process of setting cataloging policies and creating records. Comparing and contrasting the attitudes of these two key stakeholders will provide crucial insight into the differences, if any, between working catalogers and their supervisors and will also assist the Policy Committee in its planning and decision-making.

The concentration on current BIBCO participants will permit a more narrowly focused exploration of why institutions already committed to the program have failed to utilize the core standard more frequently. Insights gathered from catalogers and managers in BIBCO institutions could be used by the PCC Policy Committee to assess current approaches to BIBCO participation and encourage greater use of the core standard among these members, as well as address concerns of members regarding the perceived shortcomings of core records. The data gathered may also be valuable in planning efforts for the recruitment of additional participants to the program.

While a comparative study of current BIBCO participants and those institutions that have considered (and perhaps rejected) membership would yield potentially interesting results, an expansion beyond current participants would also add another layer of complexity to the design and execution of the study, and might complicate data analysis. Such an expansion may not, for instance, yield sufficient information about the apparent resistance to core records among those already committed to the program's goals and values. A focus on attitudes of catalogers and managers within institutions currently participating in BIBCO will permit a closer examination of current strategy while also assisting policymakers in recruiting new members and broadening acceptance of the core record.

IV. Plan of Work Back to top

The following table outlines the activities proposed, the personnel involved, and the anticipated timetable for the project:

The principal investigator will work with Diane Cellentani, the consultant, and selected PCC Policy Committee members to design the questionnaire used in the interviews. The consultant will conduct the interviews, and both she and the principal investigator will analyze the results. A professional researcher, the consultant has over 20 years of experience as a consultant and has worked on numerous library-related projects for such clients as Cornell University and OCLC.

20 working catalogers and 20 cataloging managers will be invited to participate in the study via solicitation on PCC lists. Potential interviewees will be selected in consultation with selected PCC Policy Committee members to ensure representation from institutions of varying size and type (i.e., public libraries, university libraries, etc.) Those responding to the solicitation will be further screened using a brief email questionnaire to ensure sufficient familiarity with the core record and BIBCO program. The screening questionnaire will be reviewed by selected PCC Policy Committee members before distribution to potential participants. Upon completion of the screening, interviews will be scheduled and conducted. The consultant will conduct and tape-record the interviews for transcription. The consultant is a neutral party with no stake in the BIBCO program and has considerable experience conducting interviews and facilitating focus groups and is thus well-positioned to assist in this project.

The principal investigator and consultant will review the transcriptions and conduct the analysis of the data obtained. The consultant will prepare a preliminary report of the findings to the principal investigator. The principal investigator will then review and revise the preliminary report for submission to the PCC Policy Committee.

Back to top

Footnotes

1. Cf. Thomas, 1996, 107.

2. See, inter alia, Thomas, 1996; Bowen, 1998; Calhoun and Boissonnas, 1998; Schuitema, 1998.

References

Bowen, Jennfier B. "Creating a Culture of Cooperation." Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 26.3 (1998), 73-85.

Calhoun, Karen S., and Christian M. Boissonnas. "BIBCO: A Winning Proposition for Library Users and Staff." Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, 22.3 (1998), 251-255.

Czech, Rita L., Elizabeth Icenhower and Charlene Kellsey. "PCC Core Records versus PCC Full Records: Differences in Access?" Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 29.3 (2000), 81-92.

Schuitema, Joan E. "Demystifying Core Records in Today's Changing Catalogs." Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 26.3 (1998), 57-71.

Thomas, Sarah E. "The Core Bibliographic Record and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging." Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 21.3/4 (1996): 91-108.