BIBCO Core Record Study: Final Report
Prepared for the PCC Policy Committee
By David Banush,
Cornell University Library
June 11, 2001
Executive summary
I. Executive summary
- 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.
- Recommendations.
A full report, including recommendations, has been forwarded to
the PCC Steering Committee for consideration as they prepare the
agenda for this November's PCC Policy Committee meeting at the
Library of Congress. In this report, the recommendations are arranged
into three distinct groups. Each group of recommendations offers
different degrees of possible change to the BIBCO program. The
recommended changes are intended to assist in making the program
more attractive to both present and potential members, as well
as more relevant to the changing needs of the library community
in the medium and long terms.
II. Background, rationale, and significance
of the study
The BIBCO core record was intended to provide cataloging at an acceptable
level of quality and detail while also increasing both the speed of cataloging
and the pool of usable copy. Few libraries, however, have used the core
record in their original cataloging. The vast majority of BIBCO participants
continue to contribute mostly or exclusively full-level records. In LC's
fiscal year 2000, only about one-third of BIBCO contributions were core
records. In the current fiscal year (as of May 2001), the level of core
contributions has actually dropped to about 27% of total output.
No quantitative or qualitative research has yet investigated the possible
reasons underlying the cataloging community's response to the concept
of the core record. To explore some of the reasons behind the low use
of core, David Banush of C ornell University proposed a study on catalogers'
attitudes toward the BIBCO core record. He developed a research proposal
and submitted it to the PCC Policy Committee in November 2000. The Committee
subsequently endorsed the proposal, with revisions. (The text of the final
proposal is available online at the BIBCO home
page. The study moved from proposal to reality in January 2001, after
the project was generously funded by Sarah Thomas, University Librarian
at Cornell.
The study had the following goals:
- To explore working catalogers' attitudes toward the core record
- To explore cataloging managers' attitudes toward the core record
- To examine both groups' understanding of the issue of cataloging
quality
- To help identify strengths and weaknesses in the current PCC strategies
for promoting BIBCO membership and core record creation.
- 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 outlined the following objectives:
- Identify an appropriate pool of candidates for interviews.
- Engage the services of a consultant to assist in the design of the
interview scripts.
- Conduct in-depth telephone interviews with approximately 20 catalogers
and 20 cataloging managers from BIBCO institutions.
- Collect and analyze the resulting data and write a report of the
findings, with the consultant's assistance.
- Present the findings and a list of specific action items to the PCC
Policy Committee
- Disseminate the findings through publication in the professional
literature.
- Prepare the groundwork for further qualitative or quantitative investigation
of cataloger attitudes and core records.
The consultant employed for this project was Diane Cellentani of Marketing
Backup, a research-consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio. A professional
researcher with over 20 years of experience in feedback research, Ms.
Cellentani has conducted over 250 focus group and interview research
projects on library issues. She holds an MBA in marketing. Her previous
clients include Cornell University Library and OCLC.
III. Methodology
The methodology used was a series of in-depth telephone interviews with
20 working catalogers and 20 cataloging managers from BIBCO institutions.
For the purposes of this study, managers were defined as those having
primary responsibility for decisions relating to BIBCO in their institutions.
Those interviewed were recruited via invitation on PCC listservs, with
an additional follow-up invitation going out to BIBCO liaisons. All potential
participants subsequently received a short questionnaire for screening
purposes. The screening questionnaire was developed in consultation with
members of the Policy Committee.
Recruiting and screening began February 14, 2001; the process was complete
by March 15. In total, there were 47 volunteers. In some cases, there
were multiple volunteers from several institutions; in those instances,
the first person in each category (cataloger or manager) reached by telephone
was included in the survey. The final group of 40 was drawn from 29 institutions,
representing 70% of BIBCO libraries. Interviews began on March 19 and
were complete March 29.
Each interviewee was asked a series of prepared questions designed to
gather the required feedback. The questionnaire was developed in consultation
with members of the Policy Committee, and was pre-tested with several
volunteers before being finalized. Interview sessions were flexible,
allowing further probing of responses where appropriate. The length of
the interviews ranged from 15 to 70 minutes. Interviewees' identities
and responses have been kept strictly confidential.
Diane Cellentani, the consultant, assisted in the developing the structure
of the questionnaire. Her firm, Marketing Backup, conducted the interviews.
Marketing Backup also prepared an initial analysis of the data and submitted
a preliminary report on the results. That report has been further analyzed;
it serves as the basis for this document.
Telephone interviews were chosen because they are one of several demonstrated
methods to collect reflective, in-depth information about a specific
topic. While other methods of gathering this type of data (in-person
interviews, focus groups) offered advantages for research of this nature,
the logistics and expense of planning and scheduling focus groups rendered
those methods impractical for this study. Phone interviews provided many
of the advantages of other methods while also permitting a more flexible
timetable and a practical means of reaching a widely dispersed population.
This was a qualitative study. Statistically representative, quantitative
data could have been gathered through other techniques, most notably
survey research. However, the limited range of possible responses in
that kind of survey would not have provided 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 have been considerably greater than
telephone interviews, and the cost of such a survey significantly higher.
The choice of front-line catalogers and cataloging managers enabled
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 provided insights into the
differences between working catalogers and their supervisors. These comparisons
should assist the Policy Committee in its planning and decision-making.
The concentration on current BIBCO participants permitted a more narrowly
focused exploration of why institutions already committed to the program
have failed to utilize the core guidelines more frequently. The insights
gathered from this group will 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.
IV. Survey findings
Participants' profiles
As noted above, participants came from 29 of the 42 current BIBCO institutions.
The institutions represented were:
Arizona State University, Brigham Young University, Cleveland Public
Library, Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University,
Joint Forces Staff College, National Agricultural Library, National Library
of Medicine, Northwestern University, New York University, Oberlin College,
Princeton University, Queens Borough Public Library, St. Louis University
Law Library, Stanford University, UC Berkeley, UCLA, University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Chicago, University of Colorado,
University of Dayton, University of Florida-Gainesville, University of
Maryland, University of New Mexico, University of Texas-Austin, University
of Wisconsin-Madison, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University
21 (72.5%) of these institutions contribute at least some core records;
8 (27.5%) do not. These figures closely parallel the overall BIBCO production
profile for the current fiscal year, in which 30 of 42 institutions (71%)
have contributed at least some core records. Of those that do contribute,
several (e.g., Yale, Brigham Young, Colorado) produce very small numbers
of core records.
The length of time these institutions have been BIBCO members ranged
from 1 year to the program's onset (6 years). The average length of participation
was 3.4 years.
Catalogers' seniority ranged from 3 to 25 years; the average was 13.5
years. Their length of time as BIBCO contributors ranged from just over
5 years (recorded as 5 years) to 1 year. The average length of time as
contributor was just over 3 years.
There appears to be no clear correlation between catalogers' seniority
and their attitudes toward the core record. Neither were there any manifest
differences between the attitudes of catalogers or managers working in
longer-term BIBCO member institutions and those who have joined more
recently.
General comments
In general, the results 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.
Satisfaction with Core Records
Overall satisfaction
Respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with core
records on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very satisfied to very
dissatisfied. Managers reported a much higher degree of satisfaction
than did catalogers. 18 of the 20 managers (90%), and 12 of the 20 catalogers
(60%), report being very satisfied or satisfied with core records. 2
managers (10%) and 5 catalogers (25%) reported being neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied, while 3 catalogers (15%) indicated they were either
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with core records overall.
Yet the complete picture is more complicated than the figures alone
would suggest. Respondents were asked an open-ended follow-up question
in which they elaborated on the reasons for their response. In the open-ended
responses, 30% felt that core records did not provide sufficient access,
22.5% felt that core did not yield any time savings, and 10% felt that
core was simply not as good as full. Indeed, even among catalogers and
managers who reported being at least satisfied overall, there was skepticism
or reluctance expressed about core records.
Selected comments:
- "My problem is, I don't want to change because I feel more is better."--
Manager, very satisfied overall
- "The records have all the information that is needed. I appreciate
the authority work that is done."--Manager, very satisfied overall
- "I don't find time savings."--Cataloger, very satisfied overall
- "Catalogers say creating core doesn't save significant time."--Manager,
very satisfied overall
- "I'm not certain that [core records] are allowing appropriate access."--Manager,
satisfied overall
- "We do not create core records. We use core records. The quality
is generally good [with core] ... main problem is that records don't
include as much subject analysis as we would like."--Manager, satisfied
overall
- "The [core records] I have used did not have to be modified ... We have
not begun creating core records ourselves ... It is only just a little
more work to do full instead of core."--Cataloger, satisfied overall
Satisfaction with Specific Features of Core
Records
Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with the following
features of core records:
- Quality of core records created by other libraries
- Timeliness of new core records in bibliographic utilities
- Time savings for performing copy cataloging
- Time savings for performing original cataloging
- Usefulness of core records to end-users
- Adequacy of training and documentation for core record creation
70% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied
with the quality of records created by others. 60% stated that they were
at least satisfied with the time savings for copy cataloging, and nearly
as many (57%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the time savings
for original cataloging.
Managers were more likely to be very satisfied than catalogers with
quality of records produced by other libraries (35% versus 10%), time
savings for copy cataloging (45% versus 20%), and usefulness of records
to end users (35% versus 25%). On the other hand, catalogers were more
likely than managers to be very satisfied with the time savings for original
cataloging (25% versus 10%). However, as many catalogers were either
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the time savings involved for
original cataloging as were very satisfied. Only 10% of managers were
dissatisfied with the time savings, and none were very dissatisfied.
Nearly a third of catalogers were dissatisfied with the adequacy of
training and documentation, over twice the number of managers giving
that response. 55% of both catalogers and managers felt they could not
report their levels of satisfaction with timeliness of records in the
utilities, suggesting either that they have little opportunity to assess
the timeliness of the records, or that there are insufficient numbers
of records on which to base an assessment.
Those who were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with any feature of
core records were asked why. The largest number of dissatisfied responses
had to do with training and documentation. Most respondents felt that
the training emphasized the selling points for using core and spent too
little time on what a core record is and how it differs from a full record.
Some respondents felt the approval process was too long, while others
mentioned that the documentation needed to be more complete.
Defining quality bibliographic records
One of the principal issues surrounding the use of core records has
been the issue of quality. Among the goals of BIBCO has been to encourage
cataloging professionals to consider quality from a user's perspective.
The program has sought to balance timeliness and cost-effectiveness with
reasonable access, and to move away from a view of quality that adheres
narrowly to the rules of bibliographic description. The more expansive
view of quality has not, however, been widely accepted, and there have
often been questions raised about the quality of core records.
To get a better sense of what managers and catalogers in BIBCO libraries
view as a quality record, participants were asked to give their definition
of a quality bibliographic record. The interviewer provided no prompts
on this question; respondents were free to name any elements they found
necessary for a quality record.
The two major points that emerged were accurate description and sufficiency
of access points. Managers were slightly more concerned with the appropriateness
of subject analysis than other elements of the description. 85% of managers
and 75% of catalogers felt that succinct, pertinent subject headings
were an essential trait of a quality record -- the highest number for
any given characteristic. Overall, catalogers were more concerned with
the fullness of records. 60% of catalogers (but 45% of managers) felt
that a quality record must contain all appropriate access points, including
subjects, series, and added entries.
The results suggest that managers were more concerned than catalogers
with general accuracy of description. 50% of catalogers and 70% of managers
noted that the record must match the item in hand or otherwise accurately
describe it. However, absolute accuracy of description was more important
to catalogers than to managers. 7 catalogers (35%) noted that a quality
record must contain no typographical or ISBD punctuation errors; no managers
mentioned that characteristic. A majority of both catalogers and managers
(50% and 60%, respectively) noted that a quality record must follow national
descriptive standards (i.e., AACR2R, LCRIs).
Authority work was the third most frequently mentioned element of a
quality record; 50% of managers and 40% of catalogers noted that completed
authority work was an essential trait. Interestingly, however, only 20%
of managers and 25% of catalogers cited having completed authority work
as a benefit of core records.
No managers or catalogers in this survey mentioned either timeliness
or cost-effectiveness as elements of a quality record. Indeed, the responses
suggest that adherence to the rules remains the central concern for both
managers and working catalogers in BIBCO libraries. The more expansive
view of quality promoted in BIBCO training has yet to gain significant
support in the professional cataloging community.
Use of core records in cataloging
Original cataloging
Despite noting a high overall satisfaction rate with core records, only
about 22% of respondents almost always perform original cataloging at
the core level. Nearly twice that number (40%) almost never catalog at
the core level. Most respondents only cataloged monographs at the core
level, though a few did handle other formats, notably videotapes.
Respondents were asked why they did or did not use core in their original
cataloging. Among those who reported almost always using core, several
mentioned that library policy guided their decisions. In those institutions
where the choice between core and full was left completely to the cataloger,
use of core was far less common. Many participants noted that certain
categories of materials or formats were excluded by institutional policy
from core-level cataloging, thus hindering their use of it. Other barriers
to further use of core included reaction of public services colleagues
and the perception that core hinders access to end-users (despite the
finding that 70% of interviewees also said they were satisfied or very
satisfied with the usefulness of core records to end users.) The perceived
lack of time savings was also cited by a number of participants. Some
selected comments:
- "Our directive from above was to use core. My manager told us to
catalog at core level."--Cataloger, almost always creating core.
- "We catalog less than a quarter of our work at core level. We don't
catalog at core level if we do not feel comfortable or unsure when
we need to add the authority record for a series, when the material
is ephemeral [or] when we catalog non-book formats . . . "-- Manager, sometimes
creating core.
- "I perform original cataloging for 2 major subject areas: music and
Latin American studies . . . we need the best access to this material." --
Cataloger, almost never creating core
- "At this particular library, we have not gotten complete buy-in from
public services . . . we need to convince public services."--Manager, almost
never creating core.
- "After training, people couldn't see that much difference between
core and full . . . we were not convinced to use core cataloging."--Manager,
almost never creating core.
Copy cataloging
Most of the respondents accept core records as they find them: only
a handful (10%) report making changes to them. 95% of managers and 80%
of catalogers reported that they accept core records without change.
60% of respondents reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the
time savings of core for copy cataloging, and 70% said they were very
satisfied or satisfied with the quality of core records created by others.
These findings stand in stark contrast to the use of core records for
original cataloging.
When asked what changes they made to core records they encountered,
most respondents noted that they added notes (504s and 505s, as well
as 500s), additional 7XXs, and additional 6XXs. Others added or modified
series statements to reflect local practices.
Future directions, enhancements, and changes
to BIBCO
In an open-ended question, respondents were asked what they would recommend
for PCC and BIBCO to encourage broader acceptance of core level bibliographic
records and to increase BIBCO contributions and membership. There was
no clear consensus on specific changes or strategies, with the exception
of training and documentation. 60% of respondents felt that training
and supporting materials for the program were unsatisfactory. Others
suggested educating librarians about core and BIBCO through better training
and outreach, especially at the state and local levels. 30% noted that
support from the utilities, especially OCLC, as well as from LC, was
lacking. 35% cited the need for further studies on time savings and quality
of BIBCO records, while 10% noted that outreach to public services is
insufficient. Some selected comments:
- "De-emphasize core . . . Good leadership hasn't existed for BIBCO. There
needs to be more money . . . to further strategic goals of documentation,
training, meetings, and the website . . . BIBCO should have a presence
at any professional group." -- Cataloger.
- "To improve BIBCO, we need better documentation and a forum for ongoing
Qs & As for participants. I want an A-Z manual on everything for
BIBCO."--Cataloger.
- "Give higher OCLC cataloging credit to those who create PCC core
or full records." -- Manager.
- "We should get paid for OCLC credit when we catalog at PCC [level].
It is frustrating when a library creates an acquisition record and
they get credit . . . [Libraries] need more training at local areas . . ." -- Cataloger.
- "Create records only once on our local systems and load them nationally.
Why do we have to re-input into OCLC? Also, we need to make it easier
to change records on OCLC." -- Cataloger.
- "A lot more libraries would accept core if pricing breaks were available
for creating core records." -- Cataloger.
- "Promote at the local level . . . Perhaps have more meetings at [state]
conventions . . . There is a perception that BIBCO is an elitist group."--Manager.
- "Major failure is not sharing among OCLC and RLIN . . . PCC should work
with [library] directors. They need top-down support for core." -- Manager
- "PCC could also get visibility from LC. Anytime LC can mention core
level it would be beneficial. If core is associated with LC, it would
enhance the image of core." -- Manager.
V. Conclusions
The responses suggest decidedly ambivalent attitudes toward core records.
While many respondents indicated general satisfaction with core, and
were mostly satisfied with specific features of the records, the open-ended
comments revealed considerable uneasiness about the creation of core
records and the support mechanisms (training, documentation, utilities'
cooperation) underlying the BIBCO program. Clearly, the program's emphasis
on cataloger judgment remains problematic for many participants. The "more,
better, faster" message has not been well-received, particularly by front-line
catalogers, and even many managers remain skeptical that the cost-benefit
analysis comes out in favor of core records.
It is hoped that the study's results and the recommendations that follow
will provide the PCC Policy Committee with useful information with which
to proceed as its members plan for the future of the BIBCO program
VI. Recommendations.
A full report, including recommendations, has been forwarded to the
PCC Steering Committee for consideration as they prepare the agenda for
this November's PCC Policy Committee meeting at the Library of Congress.
In this report, the recommendations are arranged into three distinct
groups. Each group of recommendations offers different degrees of possible
change to the BIBCO program. The recommended changes are intended to
assist in making the program more attractive to both present and potential
members, as well as more relevant to the changing needs of the library
community in the medium and long terms.
|