LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  February 2017

BIBFRAME February 2017

Subject:

Re: Failure

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:28:51 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Jeff,

ARL gathers statistics from research and college libraries.[1] I no
longer have access to them (they're pay-walled), but it would be worth
looking at them if you do. Personal and anecdotal "evidence" is a start,
but I agree with Maurine that "[citation needed]".

I've done statistical studies for public libraries, since I had access
to data isn't behind a firewall, and there are interesting trends with
the balance between staff and technology if you have a good time-span of
data. It also can be shown that with technology, libraries are "doing
more with less", with "less" being humans. You can look not only at the
# of staff, but of output. This is obviously not a situation that is
unique to libraries - it's true in every industry. I was able to do
cost/return analyses pretty easily, albeit at a high level.

In terms of the work done, it would be hard to compare 1989 to today due
to major changes in the workflow - the greater availability of copy for
cataloging (both with the increase in WorldCat and vendor-provided data)
is a start. Better integration of local systems and sources of
cataloging also makes a difference. I imagine that cataloging modules
today create efficiencies that didn't exist in 1989. Did your library
still have a card catalog? Many did, because they hadn't finished
retrospective conversion. The turn-around with cards probably slowed
things down considerably.

What would be harder to show is how this affects quality and the user
experience. However, a quick EBSCO search shows that some folks in our
profession have addressed this, so there might be some good hints there.
Hopefully some of those address the loss of "MLS" staff and increase of
"para-professionals", and whether or not that affects quality. (I'm not
terribly hopeful that anyone has really good data on that, though. For
an information profession we have too little information about our
profession.)

kc
[1] http://publications.arl.org/ARL_Statistics

On 2/4/17 1:52 PM, Jeff Edmunds wrote:
> Hi Maurine,
> 
> Thanks for your post. The evidence I have to support that assertion is my
> own experience (27+ years at a large academic research library) and
> anecdotal evidence from colleagues (mostly here and at peer
> institutions--large university libraries).
> 
> When I began here in 1989 the Cataloging department had ~50 faculty and
> staff. Today we're down to ~30. What's more, many of those 30 (myself
> included) no longer actively catalog--as academic libraries have been spread
> ever thinner by new initiatives, many folks in all departments have been
> called upon to do other things (Web work, or managing e-resources, to cite
> but two examples).
> 
> Declining collections budgets have convinced some administrators that fewer
> catalogers are needed. We've lost positions to assessment and other newer
> areas as libraries struggle to redefine themselves when the go-to source for
> information remains Google and Wikipedia. We'll be losing two positions this
> year--one a senior cataloger with an international reputation--and we'll
> only be able to rehire one. The unfillable position is an original cataloger
> who catalogs materials for our Engineering and Mathematical and Physical
> Sciences Libraries--both of which support huge colleges at our university.
> 
> In the next 18 months, as a result of a voluntary retirement incentive
> program, my library will be hiring almost 3 dozen positions (student
> engagement, open education, etc.); only one will be coming to Cataloging.
> 
> Ironically, in the Internet age, libraries have more, not fewer, collections
> to manage. The need for quality metadata has never been greater. Which
> brings me back to my original point: one reason RDA and BIBFRAME will not
> enjoy the success or widespread adoption that AACR2 and MARC did is simply
> because they are unwieldy.
> 
> Jeff
> P.S. I have a close friend who has two children currently attending Hillsdale.
> 
>> This has been a highly informative thread for those of us not terribly
> well-versed in the BIBFRAME specifics as they currently stand.  Thanks for
> getting it started, Jeff!  I was hoping to see one point of clarification to
> your initial post, though, that I haven’t seen yet. Could you cite some of
> the evidence that supports your statement that “The most likely allies of
> LC in moving BIBFRAME forward--large academic or public libraries with
> experienced cataloging staff--are shifting resources AWAY from cataloging
> and into other areas (digital humanities, assessment, student engagement,
> open access, etc.).”? I would not be surprised if that is the case, but
> I’m not sure I’ve seen anything proving it.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Maurine McCourry, Ph.D.
> Technical Services Librarian
> Hillsdale College, Mossey Library
> [log in to unmask]
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager