Library Acquisirions: Pracrice and Theor),. Vol. 7, pp. 183- 189, 1983 0364-6408/83 $3.00 + .OO

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright @ 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd

ALA ANNUAL CONFERENCE, 1983

CATALOGING AND ACQUISITIONS: ARE THE BOUNDARIES STILL THERE?

A Report of the ALA/RTSD Pm-Order and Pre-Cataloging Bibliographic Searching Discussion Group, June 27, 1983

DAVE MEYER

Editorial Assistant

INTRODUCTION

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Marcia Anderson of Michigan State University, chair of the discussion group. Anderson introduced Robert Eckert of the University of California-Los Angeles, who will be the new chair of the group. She then went on to explain that there would be a second topic of discussion later in the meeting: production standards for bibliographic searching.

By way of introduction to the primary topic, Anderson pointed out that bibliographic searching in common practice is carried out in all departments of technical services. Moreover, all of these departments have different philosophies of searching that arise from their different needs. The methods of searching used currently are being greatly influenced by the recent automation of the cataloging, acquisitions, and serials check-in processes, as well as by the ultimate end of these combined systems-the on-line catalog. The multiplicity of these systems gives rise to several questions for technical service librarians. How should these automated systems interface? Should some “superstaff’ evolve, out of what are now several different departments, who will do everything rather than specialize in bibliographic searching for one department? What should be the guidelines for training such a staff?

Having raised these questions, Anderson introduced the panel of speakers: Caroline Early of the Acquisitions Department at George Washington University; Eckert, Acquisitions Division, UCLA; and Marcia King-Blandford of Copy Cataloging at the University of Notre Dame.

183

184 DAVE MEYER

Early’s remarks on the topic are given here in their entirety. Eckert’s and King-Blandford’s remarks, which were more extemporaneous, are presented in summary.

Caroline Early, George Washington University The Technical Services Division of the Gelman Library at George Washington University

consists of an acquisitions, a cataloging and a serials department. The Special Collections Division has its own copy cataloging unit for monographs. This means that we have seven distinct OCLC terminal user groups: monograph searchers, serials searchers, copy catalogers, retrospective conversion staff, the catalog maintenance unit, special collections copy cata- logers, and interlibrary loan clerks. OCLC training is, for the most part, decentralized among these various units. Name authority work is the responsibility of the Cataloging Department. With the exception of access point verification performed during original cataloging, most name and subject authority conflicts are noticed at the time of filing cards. Filing is the responsibility of all paraprofessionals in the Cataloging Department. Series authority verifica- tion is done by copy catalogers at the terminal.

In 1980, the Acquisitions Department received its own OCLC terminal. At that time the gift searching unit and order searching unit were combined, making what was felt to be the most effective use of terminal-using skill and bibliographic expertise. At approximately the same time, a newly initiated approval plan brought about a cataloging backlog of several months. This caused the Acquisitions Librarian some consternation since she was anxious to see the approval plan succeed in getting books to the shelves faster. To remedy the backlog, bibliographic searchers were upgraded a step in job classification, given a crash course in cataloging with copy, and set loose on the approval books, with the understanding that they would never touch a non-LC record, a series statement, or a call number. Searchers have consistently cataloged 60% of all approval books, sending 40% on to the copy cataloging unit.

In 1981, we were wrestling with extensive OCLC downtime and an administrative fiat to keep our terminals phosphorescing at all times. It was to the Acquisitions Department’s advantage to donate our terminal to the common good, to move all terminals to a neutral place (the shelf list area), and to schedule equitably among the competing user groups. Besides getting the noisy printer away from our work area and reducing the feeling of terminal ownership, this pooling of resources was an effort to facilitate the sharing of on-line searching lore and strategy.

Let me pause to reflect on our present situation before taking up the topic of the future, mentioning first the things that bother me. Forty percent of our approval books must be handled twice at the terminal. Even though we supply the OCLC number to the Cataloging Department, the books often need to be searched again. With searchers cataloging only one- third of their time, it is more difficult for them to retain the knowledge and skills required of them. Judging from the cursory training the searchers received when they first began to catalog, the original emphasis seems to have been on quick and less-than-immaculate cataloging. Given the difficulties of information retention, interdepartmental information sharing, our remoteness from the finished product and problems that end up in catalog maintenance, and the diversity of searchers’ duties, I might expect our accuracy rate to be lower than that of cataloging specialists. When searchers began to encounter more CIP records and when AACR2 was implemented, knowledge of the intricacies of descriptive cataloging was increasingly necessary, and the abbreviated training that searchers had received was no longer acceptable. Searchers now get more extensive training from the head of the OCLC unit in Cataloging, and more centralized training is one benefit of our arrangement.

Cataloging and Acquisitions 185

Also on the positive side of our current division of labor, more in-depth knowledge of the MARC record has led to a better understanding of searching problems, such as what

constitutes a different edition or a serial, how to search the OCLC database and how to retrieve records for more difficult types of materials such as art exhibition catalogs and conference proceedings. Since their job classification was raised, we no longer lose our best searchers to the Cataloging Department. The backlog is nonexistent, freeing other staff members for in-house retrospective conversion. Searchers enjoy the variety of their work, and more important, both departments can make flexible adjustments to the seasonal fluctuations of our workflow.

The Gelman Library is committed to working toward an on-line catalog that may evolve as an extension of our DataPhase circulation system. In the past, we experimented with an on-line transfer of OCLC records into DataPhase. The on-line transfer proved clumsy and unreliable, so we reverted to subscribing to OCLC tapes and loading them into DataPhase.

In May 1983, the Acquisitions Department was introduced to the DataPhase acquisitions system by consultants. In some respects the system is designed as a total processing package. An OCLC record is transferred on-line to the DataPhase bibliographic file. An acquisitions record is created from that file. When the book is received, an optically recognizable label is affixed to the book and a spine label can be produced at once. The latter feature is based on the assumption that someone in Acquisitions is going to pass judgment on the adequacy of the

call number. In the future with an on-line catalog, a simple wanding of the OCR label will change the book’s status from “in process” to “in the stacks.” Now that we have the book ordered, received, physically prepared and accessible in our database, one wonders when cataloging is expected to occur.

When we achieve an on-line catalog we can no longer recognize authority conflicts while filing cards. It might make sense to perform authority work for access points prior to the transfer of the OCLC record before the book is ordered. This means wasted effort for that percentage of books that will never be received. It could also make us uncomfortable when trying to close out a fiscal year in a hurry. When we’ve got money to spend, we can’t always wait for a cataloger to establish an entry. On-the other hand, we are looking ahead to a time when the acquisitions record for on-order material will be visible to the user of the on-line catalog. Its access points should be as retrievable as those of a cataloged item. Therefore, let us proceed with the assumption that records with verified entries will make up our on-order file of the future,

After receiving a book and clearing an invoice for payment, the staff member will be looking at a bibliographic record at a terminal. If that staff member were a copy cataloger, he or she could simultaneously clean up the descriptive cataloging, fill out a partial 300 field or contents note, and identify those records which would need professional attention or shelf- listing. The books could then be labelled and marked, and a once-over with a light-wand would make them ready for the shelf. The only awkward step would involve adding our holdings symbol to the OCLC database.

In some libraries it is not unusual for the acquisitions staff to provide precataloging information to catalogers only to see it rechecked and double-verified. That situation will become more inefficient when the acquisitions record is already present in an on-line catalog. Perhaps a longer sequence of decisions could be made while handling that record only once. The future for acquisitions includes increasing demands for accuracy which may threaten the speed we pride ourselves on now. More of our work will be done at terminals, and our clerks are rapidly being replaced by technicians and specialists. Our pre-order searchers will become verifiers-of bibliographic information, price and availability. Our copy catalogers will be

186 DAVE MEYER

handling invoices. Catalog maintenance may become an adjunct of public services, enabling it to be more responsive to problems of unfindable entries.

The boundaries between acquisitions and cataloging have been stretched at George Washington University, and what we may have compromised in job specialization, we have recaptured in timely cataloging of desirable materials and organizational flexibility. Those boundaries which exist now in many technical services divisions may not be there for long.

Robert Eckert, University of California-Los Angeles Eckert began his exuberant remarks on the topic with the admission that he has “a terrific

prejudice” against catalogers and their fear of sullying the catalog. He emphasized that in his Acquisitions Division, he has no other professionals but uses many students who, due to their heavy use of the automated system, “become technicians quickly.” His staff does all the pre- order and post-receipt searching for over $l,OOO,OOO worth of materials annually. He has broken down his searchers into language groups for greater efficiency. It is necessary that all English language titles be handled quickly. These comprise about 60,000 titles per year, of which $25,000 worth are approval plan materials. A control section puts approval books on display for three weeks to be examined by faculty to see what is wanted. The books are then processed, those with LC copy going straight through the system, those with member-input copy put in accession number order so they can circulate before final processing, and esoterica placed in a remote library annex in language groups. Copy catalogers process about 36,000 titles per year, and monographic catalogers do another 36,000 to 48,000 per year.

Eckert went on to describe the ORION integrated library system in operation at UCLA, of which the acquisitions system is only a part. The system is comprised of all archival tapes since 1967; the current in-process file, which contains all recently acquired materials up to three months after cataloging; the serials file, including all current and dead titles; and standing orders.

Returning to the topic of bibliographic searching, Eckert said that he discourages his staff from using the ISBN number, “a long, boring number of no use to anyone but publishers for taking inventory.” All bibliographic sources searched are entered on the computer along with the searcher’s identifier. His searchers do not search the public catalog at all, but all items are searched on ORION before ordering. Because of the way ORION is set up, it is necessary for all verification, including authority work, to be done at the Acquisitions level. “Don’t ask me what copy catalogers do.”

Eckert closed his remarks by reiterating that students can be trained to do the most detailed bibliographic searching. He did emphasize, however, that the cataloging unit must set all the standards and make final decisions as to matching cataloging records to the item in hand. Due to his “suspicions” about OCLC records, he is happy to let catalogers have that responsibility.

Questioned about the duplication of efforts between the cataloging and acquisitions units, Eckert replied that such duplication is made efficient by the low pay of student workers. As to how the cataloging unit responds to having such in-depth bibliographic searching done by the acquisitions staff, Eckert said that the copy catalogers, who are paraprofessionals, accept the searching given much better than the cataloging professionals. In general, however, there is no real problem.

Marcia King- Blandford, University of Notre Dame King-Blandford opened her remarks by describing the “almost textbook” procedures

followed in the past at Notre Dame concerning the delineation of duties for the acquisitions

Cataloging and Acquisitions 187

and cataloging units as to bibliographic searching. The acquisitions unit limited its searching efforts to avoiding duplication of orders, establishing availability, and determining, in the most cursory way, if any cataloging existed for the item. The addition of a series note on the order form, if it happened to be noticed, was as detailed as pre-order searching was likely to get. The cataloging unit searched approval plan books, club books, gifts, etc.-any items not searched prior to receipt. The quality of the searching by acquisitions staff differed from that done by the cataloging staff primarily because of the difference in philosophy between the two units. Cataloging was asking of Acquisitions, “What can you give us?” Acquisitions was concerned only with “What information do we need to order the book?” Because both units needed to do bibliographic searching to fulfill their needs, the OCLC terminals area “became a battlefield” of the warring philosophies.

King-Blandford said this situation is changing due to the library administration’s commit- ment to automation in the form of an integrated library system, and the concomitant revamping of the technical services units. The Cataloging Department is now made up of original cataloging, copy cataloging, and a database maintenance section. To have these

sections operate efficiently, Cataloging had a hand in the implementation of a new order request form that gives more information to Cataloging by way of Acquisitions searching. Procedures are being initiated that are able to transcend the old structures with a consequent “tearing down of the barriers.” The shifting of some personnel and the addition of new personnel have increased the shift towards an attitude of more cooperation.

Admittedly, King-Blandford continued, the administration’s move to revamp the technical services units was almost entirely cost-motivated. The revamping has led to a better understanding of the workflow, however, and has increased the willingness of the various units to provide what the others need. Interestingly, it is often the non-professionals who are

more aware of the total process than the professionals and who are much more willing to work as one unit.

The philosophies of the two departments remain at odds. King-Blandford concluded. Acquisitions continues to be concerned foremost with efficiency, while Cataloging is more “artistic” in its search for bibliographic data. She viewed the near future for the technical services units as a “struggle which will be filled with a lot of scars,” but which should in the end produce good results.

A discussion ensued from this talk concerning the methods of bibliographic searching in other libraries. Some do all in the cataloging unit, whether pre-order or post-receipt. Some still split the tasks between cataloging and acquisitions units. Still others do all in the acquisitions unit. One cataloging unit head, who said all orders in his library came through cataloging to be searched prior to being sent on to the acquisitions unit, stated, “We can’t afford to be artists in cataloging. Cataloging is a business every bit as much as acquisitions.”

A short presentation was made by Glenda Clark of the Acquisitions Department at Occidental College on production standards for bibliographic searching. Clark cited two factors as leading to the establishment of production standards for the searching done in her unit. The first was that the unit is in the midst of automating the ordering process. Second, the unit has experienced a 12% increase in the book-buying budget. Because there is more money to buy books and a deadline to meet in spending the money, production standards were established as a means to meet this deadline.

All personnel in the unit, professional and non-professional alike, do bibliographic searching. The bulk, however, is done by the two non-professionals since the professional can

IXX DAVE MEYER

only search as time permits. They have set a standard of 1,000 pre-order searches per month for the one non-professional who searches fulltime. So far, there has been little trouble in reaching this goal.

The Acquisitions Department maintains a constant dialogue with the cataloging unit to see what its needs are and how they can be better met by the pre-order searching. Production standards, then, are meant to be qualitative as well as quantitative.

Many comments were elicited by this presentation. It appeared that many of those in attendance have already initiated production standards at their institutions. Factors that tend to lessen the standards’ effectiveness in some libraries include unionization and long-time staff members. Newer staff members have an easier time dealing with high production standards because they are more aware of job security, and they do not have years of bad habits behind them. It was also noted that the complexity of the item searched (e.g., foreign language materials, items in a series) should be considered in setting the standards. One librarian noted that she was able to keep revising the standard upward because it was met with such ease. There seemed to be a general agreement that production standards are a definite need in bibliographic searching units, whether pre-order or post-receipt units.

At the meeting’s end, Robert Eckert took over as chair of the discussion group. Caroline Early was elected to serve as Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.