<html>
<body>
From the PCC list<br><br>
<br>
Message-ID:
<6.2.1.2.2.20060524121342.0e152dd0@postoffice8.mail.cornell.edu><br>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006
12:15:36 -0400<br>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov><br>
Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST@loc.gov><br>
From: David Banush <dnb8@CORNELL.EDU><br>
Subject: "Culture wars" in cataloging<br>
Comments: To: PCCLIST@loc.gov<br>
To: PCCLIST@sun8.LOC.GOV<br>
Precedence: list<br><br>
Status: <br><br>
All: I sent a slightly different version of this message to the PCC
Policy Committee earlier today. I've been asked to share it beyond
that group. Here it is.<br><br>
The flurry of messages on the various lists concerning LC's series
treatment decision has been an interesting look at the current (mental)
state of the profession. LC's announcement, coming on the heels of
a number of other significant developments --the reports from Karen
Calhoun, the University of California, and Indiana University, as well as
the merger of RLG and OCLC, have certainly brought a lot of heat, if not
always a great deal of light, to the ongoing discussion of the future of
cataloging and library catalogs. <br><br>
That two camps with widely divergent views exist is quite obvious. The
sharp reactions on both sides indicate to me that we are in the thick of
a major transition. We might think of this as a "culture
war" within cataloging, with each side trying to (re)claim the
purpose and nature of cataloging and catalogs for both present and
future. The more conservative forces, which seem to include many
front-line staff, are vigorously (sometimes stridently) defending the
status quo, or even the status quo ante; others, primarily managers and
administrators, are trying to move away from the old models toward
something very different. The challenge for folks in the latter
group is that they don't --indeed, can't--know exactly where all of this
will lead. A gulf of uncertainty created by the inherently
unknowable nature of this future has become patently evident these last
few weeks. That the uncertainty threatens many whose professional
identities and notions of worth hinge on the indefinite continuation of
the status quo accounts for much of the emotion surrounding the debates
here and elsewhere.<br><br>
To use an imperfect but illustrative analogy, cataloging today resembles
the welfare states of Europe. Like contemporary Germany or France, it is
marked by high labor costs and a high degree of regulation; is heavily
bureaucratized in the form of a vast array of professional groups and
institutional committees; and it has a rapidly aging population.
Its prospects for long-term growth in a very dynamic global information
economy are dim unless significant structural changes are made.
Like many political and business leaders in Europe, most library leaders
have identified the problems and know what needs to be done, at least
generally. But they also realize that for the most part, the staff
do not want change. Like life in the European welfare states, the
professional environment for catalogers has been comfortable and
secure. The rules of the trade may be elaborate and the bureaucracy
can be stifling, but mastery of both brings to many practitioners a
strong sense of satisfaction and the comfort of community. Indeed,
the community been especially valuable as a support for its members as
the pressure to become more efficient (and thus to re-evaluate the
need for traditional practices) has increased. To exchange
that existence for one filled with risk and uncertainty, even if the
status quo seems unsustainable, is not something the majority are
prepared to do. It is more appealing to resist the change and
insist on the importance of traditional values than to engage
thoughtfully in a discussion about the future. <br><br>
My unsolicited advice for the PoCo is not to fall into the trap of
arguing with the people most threatened by change. The debate is
surrounded by far too much emotion to be productive. Instead, I
think that the PCC leadership should think carefully about what kinds of
roles catalogers will have in the future. They need to gather
feedback, listen closely, and allow for open discussions to take
place. A genuine dialogue must occur; if the opinions are solicited
only to be ignored, the process will be nothing more than a cynical
facade, and it will most certainly backfire. If front-line
folks feel they are part of the planning process, they may be much less
likely to resist and much more likely to become engaged. We must
also remember that in looking to the future, the past must be honored and
respect. Traditional cataloging has served many library users well
for decades. The principles underlying those practices remain valid
today. We must be careful not to disparage those principles even as
we seek to move away from the old practices that hinder our ability to
respond to rapidly changing user expectations, that have higher
opportunity costs than value, or both. But we must also look
forward. Honoring the past does not mean living in it, nor does it
mean squandering opportunities for the future to placate the disgruntled
staff of the present. <br><br>
The statements from the ALA Executive Board about the LC series decision,
Thomas Mann's rebuttal of Karen Calhoun's report, the many, many messages
on AUTOCAT and other lists about both topics, and even Michael Gorman's
most recent column in American Libraries, bemoaning the state of library
education (he believes it's not traditional enough) strongly suggest that
moving away from the old practices is being met with fierce
resistance. It's obvious that library leaders who seek meaningful
changes in the way we work have their work cut out for them. What
is not so easy to see is how to bridge the gap between those who wish to
move to a different way of looking at cataloging and catalogs and those
who feel too threatened by change to consider reforms anything but heresy
or betrayal. If the PCC wishes to diffuse some of the heat
surrounding these issues--and I am hopeful it does--then PoCo needs to be
thinking very carefully about how it can help to bridge this gap. I
believe Joan Swanekamp has pointed out that the strategic plan calls for
PCC to assist catalogers in this time of transition. I think there
can be no issue of greater importance. <br><br>
But how to do it? Obviously (<i>pace</i> Hamlet) that is the
question, and unfortunately, no one has the definitive answer to
it. But perhaps there are few things that could be done now.
Holding open forums at the PCC membership meetings to gather the kind of
feedback I mention above are simple to do and would help community
members air their views. The discussions would need focus lest they
turn into rambling gripe sessions about the end of the world. The
community has people who could lead such discussions skillfully and
productively. PCC should also consider taking a more active role in
gathering real evidence to inform decisions about cataloging through
thorough and ongoing user studies. Anecdotal evidence alone
is not sufficient to justify continuing a given practice, but the debate
is filled with assertions that "our users rely on X to do their
work." A partnership with appropriate groups across specialty
lines would seem the most logical way to handle this. Having
examples of projects in member institutions where catalogers' skills are
being put to use outside of the traditional MARC/AARC2-based universe may
also help illustrate that there is indeed life after the card catalog,
ISBD punctuation, and series tracings, at least for those who want
it. <br><br>
I realize these are only a few suggestions, but I think if PCC is to
demonstrate a true leadership role, it will have to move beyond reaction
to change or mitigating the "damage" caused by changes in
practice. Thanks for your attention. <br><br>
<br>
David <br><br>
<br><br>
David Banush<br>
Head, Cataloging Services<br>
Subject Specialist, Bibliography, Information and Library Science<br>
Library Technical Services<br>
Cornell University Library<br>
110D Olin Library<br>
Ithaca, NY 14853<br><br>
Voice: (607) 254-8031<br>
Fax: (607) 255-6110<br>
dnb8@cornell.edu<br>
<a href="http://www.library.cornell.edu/tsweb/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.library.cornell.edu/tsweb/</a> <br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
----------------------------------------------------------<br>
Steven Arakawa <br>
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation<br>
Catalog Dept. Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University.<br>
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 <br>
(203)432-8286 steven.arakawa@yale.edu<br>
</body>
</html>