Asserting Catalogers’ Place in the “Value of Libraries” Conversation

Abstract

Catalogers have a unique challenge to overcome in demonstrating the value of their services: the better they are at performing their work—making collections accessible and enabling user discovery—the more invisible their efforts are to users and administrators. Catalogers must participate more actively in the broader discussion and demonstration of library value undertaken by their colleagues, but to do so requires a framework and a common vocabulary shared by non-catalogers.

KEYWORDS:

• value of cataloging
• value of libraries
• metadata
• Linked Data
• cataloging research

Notes

¹Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control, Final Report of the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control, Submitted to the Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group (Washington, DC: ALA Annual Conference, June 18, 2010), http://connect.ala.org/files/7981/costvaluetaskforcereport2010_06_18_pdf_77542.pdf

²Council of the American Library Association, “Resolution Declaring and Promoting 2010 as the Year of Cataloging Research” (ALA, January 17, 2010), 1, http://www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/governance/council/council_documents/2010mw_concil_docus/cd34_catalogingresea.pdf

³Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control, Final Report of the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control, 2.

⁴Some recent examples include: Claire Creaser and Valérie Spezi, Working Together: Evolving Value for Academic Libraries (Loughborough University, June 2012), http://libraryvalue.wordpress.com/report/; Carol Tenopir, “Beyond Usage: Measuring Library Outcomes and Value,” Library Management 33, nos. 1/2 (2012): 5–13, doi:10.1108/01435121211203275; Danuta A. Nitecki and Eileen G. Abels, “Exploring the Cause and Effect of Library Value,” Performance Measurement and Metrics 14, no. 1 (2013): 17–24; J. Stephen Town and Martha Kyrillidou, “Developing a Values Scorecard,” Performance Measurement and Metrics 14, no. 1 (2013): 7–16.

⁵Megan Oakleaf, The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2010), http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf

⁶Alvin M. Schrader and Michael R. Brundin, National Statistical and Values Profile of Canadian Libraries: Report to CLA Executive Council (Canadian Library Association, 2012), http://www.cla.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Advocacy&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID =13783. The authors selected this CLA report because it partly addresses academic libraries in Canada, whereas the Canadian Association of Research Libraries has not, to date, produced a report on the value of academic libraries.

⁷Research Information Network and Research Libraries UK, The Value of Libraries for Research and Researchers: a RIN and RLUK report (London: Research Information Network, 2011), http://www.rluk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Value-of-Libraries-report.pdf.

⁸Oakleaf, The Value of Academic Libraries, 11; Schrader and Brundin, National Statistical and Values Profile of Canadian Libraries, 1; Research Information Network and Research Libraries UK, The Value of Libraries for Research and Researchers, 8.

⁹OCLC's Perceptions of Libraries oft-repeated finding that the vast majority of American information seekers begin information searches on search engines and not library websites, is one of the statistics pointed to as critical evidence of the need for libraries to adapt to user expectations. Online Computer Library Center, Inc. OCLC, Perceptions of Libraries, 2010: Context and Community (Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2011), 33, http://www.oclc.org/reports/2010perceptions/2010perceptions_all.pdf.

¹⁰Oakleaf, The Value of Academic Libraries, 11.

¹¹Research Information Network and Research Libraries UK, The Value of Libraries for Research and Researchers, 14.

¹²Ibid., 11.

¹³Ibid.

¹⁴Schrader and Brundin, National Statistical and Values Profile of Canadian Libraries, 8.

¹⁵Oakleaf, The Value of Academic Libraries, 22.

¹⁶Town and Kyrillidou suggest that the catalog is an intangible meta-asset developed to add value to tangible or physical assets of the library such as the collections, environments, and services. Although meta-assets represent a significant part of the overall value of academic libraries, due to the challenges in assessing their value, they are often left out of discussions of library value assessment. Town and Kyrillidou, “Developing a Values Scorecard,” 13.

¹⁷ALCTS, “Value of Cataloging Librarians,” Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, June 13, 2006, http://www.ala.org/alcts/resources/org/cat/catlibvalue

¹⁸Sheila Intner, “Cataloger PR: Is that an Oxymoron?” Technicalities 32, no. 3 (May/June, 2012), 12.

¹⁹Themes such as the value of cataloging and advocacy messaging appear from time to time on the AutoCat mailing list and on cataloging blogs. For a selection of informal publications, see the following sources: James Weinheimer, “Respecting the Value of Cataloguing (#176281),” Mailing list message, AutoCat (January 4, 2013); Lynne Dyer, “The Role of the Cataloguer in the 21st Century,” High Visibility Cataloguing, http://highvisibilitycataloguing.wordpress.com/professional-positive-advocacy/the-role-of-the-cataloguer-in-the-21st-century/ (accessed February 13, 2013); Claire Sewell, “CIG 2012—The Value of Cataloguing (Part Two),” Librarian in Training, September 16, 2012, http://www.librarianintraining.com/2012/09/cig-value-of-cataloguing-part-two.html; Rachel Playforth, “The Value of Cataloguing: CILIP Cataloguing and Indexing Group Conference 2012,” The Toast in the Machine, http://playforth.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-value-of-cataloguing-cilip-cataloguing-and-indexing-group-conference-2012/ (accessed January 18, 2014).

²⁰“News,” ALCTS Newsletter Online (ANO) 20, no. 4 (December 2009), http://www.ala.org/alcts/ano/v20/n4/nws/alcts#1

²¹Jimmie Lundgren, “2010, Year of Cataloging Research in Review,” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Online) 37, no. 5 (July 2011): 36–40; Library of Congress. Working Group on Bibliographic Control, “On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, January 9, 2008,” http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf.

²²Erin Stalberg and Christopher Cronin, “Assessing the Cost and Value of Bibliographic Control,” Library Resources & Technical Services 55, no. 3 (July 2011): 124–137.

²³Randy Roeder, “A Year of Cataloging Research,” Library Resources & Technical Services 54, no. 1 (2010): 2–3.

²⁴Daniel CannCasciato, “An Essay on Cataloging,” Library Philosophy and Practice (November 2010), http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/∼mbolin/cann-c4.htm.

²⁵Shawne D. Miksa, “You Need My Metadata: Demonstrating the Value of Library Cataloging,” Journal of Library Metadata 8, no. 1 (2008): 23–36.

²⁶Allyson Carlyle, “Invited Editorial: Announcing 2010, Year of Cataloging Research,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 47, no. 8 (2009): 687–690.

²⁷Marsha Starr Paiste, “Defining and Achieving Quality in Cataloging in Academic Libraries: A Literature Review,” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 27, no. 3 (2003): 327–338.

²⁸Melissa De Fino and Jianrong Wang, “Counting Cataloging: Moving Beyond Statistics to Measure the Value of Cataloging,” LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal 22, no. 1 (March 2012): 1–9.

²⁹Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control, Final Report of the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control.

³⁰Ibid., 5.

³¹Ibid., 6.

³²Ibid., 2.

³³Ibid., 7.

³⁴Ibid.

³⁵Ibid., 8.

³⁶Ibid., 8–9.

³⁷Ibid., 10.

³⁸Ibid., 11.

³⁹Research Information Network and Research Libraries UK, The Value of Libraries for Research and Researchers, 20.

⁴⁰Ibid., 16.

⁴¹Ibid., 25.

⁴²Ibid., 63.

⁴³Tony Horava, “Challenges and Possibilities for Collection Management in a Digital Age,” Library Resources & Technical Services 54, no. 3 (2012): 146.

⁴⁴Tina Gross, Arlene G. Taylor, and Daniel N. Joudrey, “Still a Lot to Lose: The Role of Controlled Vocabulary in Keyword Searching,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2015): 30.

⁴⁵Getaneh Alemu, Brett Stevens, Penny Ross, and Jane Chandler, “Linked Data for Libraries: Benefits of a Conceptual Shift from Library-Specific Record Structures to RDF-based Data Models,” New Library World 113, nos. 11/12 (2012): 549–570. doi: 10.1108/03074801211282920

⁴⁶W3C Incubator Group, “Library Linked Data Incubator Group Final Report,” October 25, 2011, http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-20111025/

⁴⁷Angela Kroeger, “The Road to BIBFRAME: The Evolution of the Idea of Bibliographic Transition into a Post-MARC Future,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51, no. 8 (2013): 877.

⁴⁸Lorcan Dempsey, Constance Malpas, and Brian Lavoie, “Collection Directions: The Evolution of Library Collections and Collecting,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 14, no. 3 (July 2014): 412.

⁴⁹Emmanuelle Bermès, “Enabling Your Catalogue for the Semantic Web,” in Catalogue 2.0: The Future of the Library Catalogue, ed. Sally Chambers (Chicago: American Library Association, 2013), 117–142.

⁵⁰Gordon Dunsire and Mirna Willer, “Initiatives to Make Standard Library Metadata Models and Structures Available to the Semantic Web” (paper presented at the World Library and Information Congress: 76th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Gothenburg, Sweden, August 10–15, 2010), 12. http://conference.ifla.org/past-wlic/2010/149-dunsire-en.pdf.

⁵¹Nature Publishing Group, “Linked Data Platform,” Nature.com Developers, http://www.nature.com/developers/documentation/linked-data-platform/ (accessed June 3, 2014).

⁵²Lynne C. Howarth, “FRBR and Linked Data: Connecting FRBR and Linked Data,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 50, nos. 5–7 (2012): 769, 773.

⁵³Bibliothèque nationale de France, “About Data.bnf.fr,” http://data.bnf.fr/about (accessed January 2, 2015).

⁵⁴Philip Evan Schreur, “The Academy Unbound: Linked Data as Revolution,” Library Resources & Technical Services 56, no. 4 (October 2012): 232.

⁵⁵Gildas Illien, “Are You Ready to Dive In? A Case for Open Data in National Libraries” (paper presented at the World Library and Information Congress: 78th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, August 11–17, 2012), 7, http://conference.ifla.org/past-wlic/2012/181-illien-en.pdf

⁵⁶Stanford University Libraries. SPIRL 2013 Prizes, http://library.stanford.edu/projects/stanford-prize-innovation-research-libraries-spirl/2013-prizes (accessed January 2, 2015).

⁵⁷Eric Lease Morgan, “Use and Understand: The Inclusion of Services against Texts in Library Catalogs and ‘Discovery Systems,’” Library Hi Tech 30, no. 1 (2012): 35–59. doi: 10.1108/07378831211213201

⁵⁸Michelle Alexopoulos and Jon Cohen, “Volumes of Evidence: Examining Technical Change in the Last Century through a New Lens,” Canadian Journal of Economics 44, no. 2 (May 2011): 413–50, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5982.2011.01639.x

⁵⁹Anne C. Elguindi and Alayne Mundt Sandler, “The ILS as Outreach: Cataloging Campus Partner Collections,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51, nos. 1–3 (2013): 291–310, doi:10.1080/01639374.2012.722589; Anne Marie Taber and Mary Jane Conger, “Relevance Recognized: Value-Added Cataloging for Departmental and Digital Collections,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 48, nos. 6–7 (2010): 585–601.

⁶⁰Mac Nelson, “The Cello Music Cataloger as Program Builder,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 48, nos. 6/7 (2010): 634–644.

⁶¹Carolyn J. McCallum and Bobbie L. Collins, “Enhancing the Information Literacy Classroom Experience: A Cataloger and a Reference Librarian Team up to Deliver Library Instruction,” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 35, no. 1 (2011): 10–18.