Print

Print


Hi All,

I am very much in agreement with Joe Kiegel.  

First, I'd like to dismiss the description of this discussion or the
state of the profession as a culture war.  I think it's simply the wrong
description.  This discussion is part of a continuing debate that's been
going on for MANY years, as Joe indicated.  The article, titled
something like, "The crisis in cataloging" was written back in the early
1950s.  The debate we have over where we're headed professionally is an
indication of health, vitality, and engagement.  It isn't a destructive
act of two opposing sides trying to exterminate the other.

As for the term conservative, I'd guess that fits me in the sense that
I'd rather have our professional agreement on an action before taking
that action.  Considering all the changes in cataloging that have taken
place over the past 10 years, I don't see how David Banush's
identification of one strong action - -  the reaction to LC's series
decision - - is a valid reason to call catalogers resists change.  We
don't.  It's simply this item of change that's being resisted.  David
suggests that the folks involved in at least causing a pause in LC's
implementation " did not seek to engage in discussion.  They sought to
reverse change, period."   Well, if the change is for the worse, and it
doesn't help us fulfill our professional goals to our patrons, and the
timeline is SO SHORT, what other option is there?   You've got to stop
the process before moving on to stage two, which is discussion.  ( Keep
in mind the goal to stop the implementation of LC's decision came with a
lot of dicsussion as well, both on the decision iteslf and the process
of how it was arrived at. )

David also wrote, "If even a fraction of the energies devoted to
denouncing LC's decision . . .  we might be in a much better place
today. "  Again, I disagree.  We're in a pretty good spot already. 
There is a dialog (this must count as part of it, yes?) and it will
continue. 

Lastly, I'm very tired of reading calls for "truly innovative" ways of
addressing anything.  I never know what that term meeans, but in
implementation it generally means a lessening of our ability to provide
a good catalog.  It also tends to lead towards the phrase that is
becoming more loathsome to me, "doing more with less".  We've got more
to do.  Why do we have to do it with less?  Why are we implicitly
accepting the idea that asking for more staffing and more technology is
somehow not innovative?  Or a fundamental way to implement whatever
innovative idea we've come up with?  One way to handle increased
cataloging demand is to put more people on the job!  Look at the growth
in systems and digital projects.  That's the way they made that happen. 
(Sometimes at a cost to cataloging staffing, of course.)

Well, good morning to you all.  Here on the west coast it's just after
7.  

Daniel


-------------
Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Library
400 E. University Way
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548
[log in to unmask]