ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 168 / C&RL News ■ March 2002 College & Research Libraries news We are all reference librarians Using communication to employ a philosophy of access for catalogers by Amy L. Carver W hat makes a good cataloger? This is a topic that has been discussed at great length am ong librarians on the AUT electronic list and in the literature. A theme that has emerged from these discussions is the n eed for catalogers to be responsive to patron needs and expectations regarding ac­ cess in the catalog. This them e seems very straightforward and logical, yet many cata­ logers remain more focused on the rules and national standards than on access, to the det­ riment of library patrons. In my time as a catalog librarian, first at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law and now at Montana State University (MSU)— Bozeman, I have begun to develop a phi­ losophy o f cataloging that may best be ar­ ticulated as “w e are all reference librarians.” Catalogers serve as reference librarians for other library staff w hen questions or concerns about the library catalog arise. Maintaining a high-quality catalog indirectly serves patrons. Christian Boissonnas has been quoted as saying that for catalogers, “absence of relevance to users is harmful.”1 The work of catalogers appears not to have a direct impact on pa­ trons; however, a quality catalog is the library’s most important reference tool and effective reference depends upon it.2 If access points are incorrect or incomplete, library materials become essentially impossible to find. OC C ata lo g e rs a t the reference desk Catalogers often do not interact directly with ApTa trons and thereby miss valuable lessons about how patrons use the catalog and the collection. How do w e give catalogers that sense o f relevance to users? The first way that comes to mind is to have the cataloger w ork the reference desk. This can be a very valu­ able way to use a cataloger’s know ledge of the collection and may help in building good working relationships with reference librar­ ians. There are many possible positive results that may occur with such an arrangement. The reference librarians learn more about the classification scheme used in the library, sub­ ject headings, or MARC field indexing and the integrated library system’s capabilities. The catalogers learn the weaknesses of the cata­ log and that patrons search for materials very differently from themselves. The arrangement provides an opportunity for librarians to point out errors in the online catalog directly to the catalogers.3 In addition, the working relation­ ships betw een the reference librarians and the cataloger may improve. There are possible negatives as well. The catalogers will likely have less time to devote to their cataloging duties. Catalogers may not enjoy the public interaction of the reference desk, and if the assignment is not voluntary About t he au th o r A m y L Carver is cataloging team leader a t M ontana State University-Bozeman, e-mail: acarver@montana.edu mailto:acarver@montana.edu C&RL News ■ March 2 0 0 2 / 169 it would be “counterproductive and demor­ alizing to force ‘square pegs into round holes.’”1 Do the positives outweigh the pos­ sible negatives? The answer to this question will vary from library to library, although this approach does work quite well in many situ­ ations. What do you do if such an arrange­ ment is not desirable or feasible in your li­ brary? C o m m u n ic a t io n is k e y Communication and sharing expertise are critical to achieving the fundamental mission of the library and providing patrons access to information and library materials. Open lines of communication between catalogers and reference librarians are essential to capitalize fully on this mission. One very effective way to improve communication is to open refer­ ence meetings to catalogers and other tech­ nical services librarians, and to open techni­ cal services meetings to reference librarians. Many of the topics covered in each arena are of interest to the other librarians. When I began working at the MSU Librar­ ies, I was given the opportunity to attend the reference team meetings. I took advantage of this opportunity and have found it very help­ ful in building working relationships with the individual reference librarians. My attendance at these meetings showed the reference li­ brarians that I was interested in the concerns that they raised, allowed me to be on hand to answer questions regarding the online cata­ log, and gave me great insight into what they felt were the prime concerns of patrons. This has enabled me to capitalize on the excellent relationship between reference and catalog­ ing that existed before my arrival. One change that I was instrumental in ini­ tiating was including a reference representa­ tive at the technical services meetings. When making decisions in our technical services meetings about such things as the wording of local notes or the most useful subdivisions to use, having a reference librarian on hand is dramatically faster and provides us with valuable insight into how our patrons are using the catalog. This insight is critical in providing “relevance to users.” In both cases, the decision-making pro­ cess is more clearly articulated and is less of a mystery to the other side. There is less sur­ prise and the feelings that decisions and/or O n e v e r y e f fe c t iv e w a y to im p ro v e c o m m u n ic a tio n is t o o p e n re fe re n c e m e e tin g s to c a t a lo g e r s a n d o th e r t e c h n ic a l s e r v ic e s lib ra ria n s , a n d to o p e n te c h n ic a l s e rv ic e s m e e tin g s t o re fe re n c e lib ra ria n s . changes are being forced upon the other group are lessened. By involving the refer­ ence librarians in the discussion from the beginning it is less likely that there will be ideas suggested that are not feasible from the cataloging and integrated library system stand­ point. Nothing is more frustrating for refer­ ence librarians than expending a consider­ able amount o f time and energy on how to handle a new resource or on the need for a new location code in the catalog, only to have the catalogers say it is not possible. Often the result of such a scenario is resentment on both sides. Sometimes there may be feelings that the catalogers just do not want to do the work, but that may not be the case at all. The inte­ grated library system software may not allow what is being proposed. Or the change may be physically possible, but in order for it to occur, the proposal must go through an ap­ proval process, particularly in the situation of a shared catalog. The catalogers have an in- depth understanding of the data in the cata­ log and the database structure of the inte­ grated library system. With early involvement and a mutually respectful dialogue much frus­ tration can be avoided.5 When discussing what and how information displays in the OPAC it is essential for the catalogers to work closely with the reference librarians. Another communication tool implemented successfully at the MSU Libraries was the cre­ ation of a forum on our staff Intranet where errors, problems, or questions about the online catalog can be posted. The postings are automatically e-mailed to catalogers for action. This allows the reference librarians to post a message when they find something of concern. Reference librarians do not have to leave the reference desk or remember the problem at the end of their shifts in order to 170 / C&RL News ■ March 2002 report their concern. When the item is re­ solved, a message is posted to inform refer­ ence that the problem has been resolved. Most problems are resolved the same day, or within a day or two for more complex problems. Communication can be aided by focusing on the strengths that the catalogers and ref­ erence librarians possess. It may appear at times that catalogers and reference librarians speak different languages because the duties each performs daily vary widely.6 It is impor­ tant to keep in mind that some of the traits that cause frustration are also the traits that can make each librarian very good at his or her job. Attention to excruciating detail is one ex­ ample. Catalogers are expected to pay atten­ tion to the smallest details, such as punctua­ tion and spacing in the bibliographic records. Many reference librarians see the bigger pic­ ture and often find problem records in the catalog or see how a single change can have far-reaching access implications. By relying on the expertise of reference colleagues and trusting them to find areas that need improve­ ment, catalogers can focus on the details. The reference librarians, in turn, need to trust cata­ logers to code the bibliographic records cor­ rectly so that the con'ect information will dis­ play as desired in the OPAC. A good cataloger will be able to translate the rules, will know the limitations of the li­ brary software package in use, and should share this information with the reference librarians. Conversely, reference librarians have daily con­ tact with the patrons using the public catalog and should be given the opportunity to dis­ cuss it and the needs of the patrons openly. It is critical to understand what the other side does in order to assist in achieving common goals.7 The p a t ro n 's p e rs p e c tiv e What do patrons think when looking at the OPAC display? Are all notes critical for pa­ trons to see? Not all information that is con­ tained in a MARC bibliographic record is re­ ally needed by the public most of the time. Some elements, such as frequency, are more useful for staff in terms of tracking and record keeping. That is not to say that catalogers should not create full and complete biblio­ graphic records, but rather that there needs to be discussion between reference and cata­ loging teams and individuals in determining what fields are displayed to the public and in what order. Should the URL follow the title field in the OPAC? How will library patrons be best able to find and utilize the information presented? These questions require input from reference librarians in order for the library to best serve patrons. If territorial feelings are allowed, the patrons will not be served. As a cataloger, I may feel that when I create an original biblio­ graphic record, I have included the most criti­ cal and helpful information and that all of that information should be given to the patrons in the online catalog. Reference librarians may see patrons confused and overwhelmed by the complete bibliographic record and want the default display for the catalog to be a pared down version that is more straightforward and concise. This situation is likely to cause dis­ sension between catalogers and reference li­ brarians. With communication and agreement that the patron’s needs are the primary con­ cern, the result will be a more user-friendly and understandable online catalog. When both reference librarians and cata­ logers focus on serving patrons by commu­ nicating and working together the benefits are great. What makes a good cataloger? It is advis­ able for reference librarians to consider this question and share their answers with the catalogers with whom they work. Both par­ ties will benefit and so will the patrons. N otes 1. Kim Clarke, “Technical Services: the OTHER Reader Service,” Library Collections, Acquisitions & T echnical Services 24 (2000) p. 501-502. 2. Dilys E. Morris and Gregory Wool, “Cata­ loging: Librarianship’s Best Bargain,” Library J o u r n a l Ju n e 15, 1999, p. 44-46. 3. Bonnie E. Johnson, “Crossing the Line: A Cataloger goes Public,” The R eferen ce Li­ bra r ia n 59 (1997) p. 147-153. 4. Ibid. 5. Sharon L. Walbridge, “New Partnerships Within the Library,” J o u r n a l o f L ib rary A d­ m inistration 15 no. 2 (1991) p. 61-72. 6. Elizabeth Futas, “Current Issues in Ref­ erence and Adult Services,” RQ 28 (Winter 1988) p. 141-145. 7. Ibid. ■