[Yulcat-l] "Culture wars" in cataloging

[Steven Arakawa]

 From the PCC list


Message-ID:  <6.2.1.2.2.20060524121342.0e152dd0 at postoffice8.mail.cornell.edu>
Date:         Wed, 24 May 2006 12:15:36 -0400
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST at loc.gov>
Sender: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <PCCLIST at loc.gov>
From: David Banush <dnb8 at CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: "Culture wars" in cataloging
Comments: To: PCCLIST at loc.gov
To: PCCLIST at sun8.LOC.GOV
Precedence: list

Status:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But how to do it?  Obviously (pace 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.

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.


David



David Banush
Head, Cataloging Services
Subject Specialist, Bibliography, Information and Library Science
Library Technical Services
Cornell University Library
110D Olin Library
Ithaca, NY 14853

Voice: (607) 254-8031
Fax: (607) 255-6110
dnb8 at cornell.edu
http://www.library.cornell.edu/tsweb/

----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog Dept. Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University.
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arakawa at yale.edu
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/yulcat-l/attachments/20060524/a3e76142/attachment.htm