I share Danielle's sentiments. Search engines such as Google are giving Web users extraordinary access, however imperfect, to huge amounts of useful information, and we would do ourselves few favours by playing down the importance and sophistication of this phenomenon -- especially as it is part of a cognate field, i.e. information retrieval. The fact that they tend to be commercial in nature may be unfortunate in some ways, but it doesn't detract from their effectiveness as IR tools. The anti-Google view is particularly ironic when one considers how expert cataloguers themselves nowadays make use of search engines, e.g. to research authors when creating authority records. 

 

Though I've no doubt that the disappearance of cataloguing from core curricula is not helping matters, it seems to me that this is more symptom than cause. Those responsible for downsizing and de-professionalising cataloguing departments may or may not have taken a cataloguing course in the 70s or 80s; even if they can remember much about it, and even if they can remember good things about it, they probably believe that the new information world requires new solutions. It is up to cataloguers and cataloguing professors to show that cataloguing still performs a critical role in various information-seeking contexts -- and to show not only MLS students, but the profession at large, and library administrators in particular, and preferably with hard empirical evidence and in-depth research. It is not sufficient to point out that catalogues can link the headings 'Mark Twain' and 'Samuel Clemens' -- what is the potential information gain by doing so? That is, how often might the library patron miss out on a useful item by or about Samuel Clemens if it weren't for such a reference? (A brief investigation on the LC catalogue suggests we might need to think of other examples.) 

 

By the way, having said all this, I'm still all for library associations requiring a cataloguing component in MLS (and equivalent) courses, and would be interested to know whether or not the ALCTS educational policy statement is ignored by the ALA Committee on Accreditation, given that the statement requires 'knowledge of cataloging tools and sources of bibliographic records and how to use them'? 

 

Philip Hider (Dr)

Senior Lecturer

School of Information Studies

Charles Sturt University

Australia


________________________________

From: Discussion List for issues related to cataloging & metadata education & training on behalf of Danielle Plumer
Sent: Sat 7/28/2007 1:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Martha Yee's comments on LIS education (fwd)



The text of Martha Yee's paper, for those not on AUTOCAT (like me), has been posted on the cataloging wiki at James Madison University as a word document. You can get it at http://tinyurl.com/2vcqvx

My major concern with Yee's paper, and with others like it, is that she doesn't seem willing to admit that the tools being used for automated indexing and classification of materials are extremely complex and the subject of massive investments in research and development. Google and Amazon's algorithms are much more than "word counting or counting the number of times users gain access to a particular URL," and the presence of these over-simplistic and indeed mistaken attacks makes me uninclined to give any of Yee's other arguments much credence.

Where automated systems really shine is with textually-rich materials, particularly full-text, an area with which library cataloging has not traditionally been concerned. Automated systems can do nothing with a physical object if it has not already been converted to digital form; instead, these systems rely on human-created surrogates (metadata) generated by publishers, authors, readers, and, yes, catalogers. I myself am convinced that more and more materials will be available digitally in the future, including not only new works but also products of retrospective conversion. It therefore seems common sense to me that cataloging needs to learn to use these new tools, and, therefore, that cataloging education needs to change to include more and different methods of information organization. I actually applaud organization of information courses that look at how supermarkets are organized!

Although neither a professor of cataloging nor a cataloger myself (or so I've been told, as I work primarily with non-MARC metadata), I have great respect for cataloging, and, indeed, I know folks at Google and Yahoo! who express continued respect for and appreciation of the work of catalogers. I think we all agree that we need more investments in cataloging and metadata creation, not fewer, although those investments will not and cannot be targeted at traditional cataloging, the way we've "always" done it. Yee and others would be much better equipped to argue against outsourcing and eliminating cataloging practices if they recognized that essential truth.

N.B. I'm a medievalist by training, so I have to point out that our "traditions" of cataloging have mostly been developed in a mere century of practice! I don't think that's quite enough time to show that they have "permanent" utility.

Danielle Cunniff Plumer, Ph.D., M.S.I.S.
Coordinator, Texas Heritage Digitization Initiative
Texas State Library and Archives Commission
512.463.5852 (phone) / 512.936.2306 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

+++Opinions expressed in this email are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, the Texas Heritage Digitization Initiative, or any other organization+++

-----Original Message-----

Arlene Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hi folks,

I sent the message below to AUTOCAT in response to Martha Yee's paper that
is soon to be published in American Libraries.

Mac Elrod responded: "Martha Yee is very correct that the lack of
cataloguing education is a major contributing factor to the decline of the
quality of bibliographic records in bibliographic utilities and in our
catalogues, and to the general lack of understanding of cataloguing among
non cataloguer librarians.  Considering the seriousness of the situation,
a little hyperbole does not seem out of place to me."

I don't think people reading American Libraries will see it as hyperbole.
Is our education really "a major contributing factor to the decline of the
quality of bibliographic records in bibliographic utilities and in our
catalogues, and to the general lack of understanding of cataloguing among
non cataloguer librarians"?  Am I right, or is he?  I'm trying to defend
you guys!  Help me out here!

Thanks, Arlene