College and Research Libraries Born-Again Cataloging in the Online Networks Ruth Hafter Participation in an online network means that the work of individual libraries and their cata- logers becomes visible to, and utilized by, many other libraries. Network affiliated libraries and network quality control personnel thus become participants in evaluating each cataloger's work. Results of a 1983-84 case study of six academic libraries indicate that the shift from in- house to nationwide evaluation of catalogers' records creates enhanced status and influence for cataloging peer groups and provides both networks and individual libraries new opportunities to identify master catalogers by online inspection of their work. ne of the most important devel- opments affecting library and information agencies in the past decade has been the grow- ing reliance by individual libraries on the services of automated cooperative net- works, also known as bibliographic utili- ties. These utilities offer a range of prod- ucts designed to help libraries exploit the fact that work done at one institution can often be utilized by another library with little or no change being required. Since adherence to cataloging codes is a man- dated professional requirement, cata- logers everywhere are theoretically able to use each other's work. Thus, develop- ment of a huge online catalog, accessible to all member institutions, should result in a vast overall saving of catalogers' time without the dilution of quality inherent in most mass production activities. Network participation also creates new ways to evaluate quality. Access to the network's communal catalog makes an immense public record visible nationwide on every participating library's terminal. Because cataloging departments and/ or their individual catalogers attach identify- ihg codes to these records, it is possible for peers, managers, critics, and consultants to evaluate cataloging successes and fail- ures. This remarkable increase in the groups concerned with evaluating an indi- vidual library's product has received little attention in the library research literature despite the fact that sociologists and other social scientists have developed numer- ous case studies indicating that increased work visibility tends to lead to decreased professional status and loss of ability to maintain professional quality standards. 1 Therefore, as part of my doctoral research · at the University of California, I devel- oped a case study designed to explore how catalogers adapted to work in an on- line environment, how this shift affected their work assignments and professional status, and whether countervailing strate- gies had been developed by these library professionals to retain control over cata- loging standards and reinforce their pro- fessional authority. METHODOLOGY The case study was conducted . during 1983-84 and focused on sixty-eight in- depth interviews with catalogers, library administrators, and network quality con- trol personnel. In addition, I had an op- portunity to attend the OCLC network- sponsored Oglebay Conference on Qual- ity Control and was able to interview · Ruth Hafter is library director at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California 94928. This paper was presented at the ACRL Fourth National Conference in Baltimore, April 9-12, 1986. 360 many network-identified master cata- logers at that meeting. Six academic libraries were the sites for most of my interviews. One criterion for selecting these libraries was that they be- long to a · cataloging network (Online Computer Library Center [OCLC], Re- search Libraries Information Network [RUN], or Washington Library Network [WLN]). They were also required to have a budget over $1 million. This criterion was imposed in order to guarantee that they would have a cataloging department of sufficient size to be able to develop a sam- ple group or quote without danger of im- properly identifying one's source. Finally, geographic and financial con- siderations limited my research to a sam- ple located on the west coast of the United States. (Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley, University of Wash- ington, San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University). However, since librarianship is an occupation char- acterized by national norms, national net- works, and national job markets, this re- gional sample should still reflect current American practice. RESULTS In every library that I visited, the cata- logers, even the subject specialists, had extremely limited contact with students and with faculty. They tended to work alone in offices or in partitioned alcoves so . that they could devote intense attention to the literature that they were describing. Since most .of the catalogers interviewed were isolated from users, especially knowledgeable faculty members, their only sources for evaluating their catalog- ing work were the cataloging rules and the approval of other catalogers. In an isolated work environment net- work visibility can provide potential bene- fits for catalogers who feel proud of their work and seek to enlarge the audience that is able to appreciate it. Many cata- logers in the sample libraries, especially the three large research libraries, fall into this category. Thus Berkeley catalogers bemoan the fact that their initials are re- moved from the bibliographic record be- fore it is input into RUN. True, their qual- Born-Again Cataloging 361 ity work is still identified as a Berkeley product, but their individual contribu- tions to their institution's prestige will not be known to other catalogers. On the other hand, all of the catalogers that I interviewed were aware of the po- tential negative effects of visibility. They mentioned the growing number of library blacklists of institutions whose cataloging was deemed to be unacceptable. At some of the sample libraries, catalogers were aware of these lists. Department members even admitted to creating these lists. On balance, however, catalogers showed far more interest in the white lists developed by their departments-lists of libraries whose cataloging could be accepted with little or no revision or of libraries that were especially esteemed for some area of spe- cialized cataloging (e.g., music scores). Although catalogers interviewed had not actually compared their lists with col- leagues in other institutions, most felt confident that the same names would ap- pear on the majority of library white lists. Network quality-control personnel were also aware of and used white lists to ·create spin-off products. Because OCLC, its regional networks, and its cataloging advisory groups know where the high- quality cataloging departments are lo- cated, they were confident in, and capable of, assigning these departments the task of revising errors in the database. Project Enhance, inaugurated in December 1983, with its initial designation of twenty revis- ing libraries, is a direct offspring of net- work visibility, quality control, and evalu- ation. Both OCLC and WLN have compiled re- source lists of catalogers knowledgeable about cataloging rules and network proce- dures, and these lists are available to insti- tutions seeking expert consultants. Of course, the lists also provide the source from which new members of network ad- visory committees can be drawn. It is true that acknowledged nationwide cataloging experts existed in the library profession ptJor to networks. They were usually identified because of their rank (e.g., heads of cataloging departments of major research libraries), their articles in the library literature, or their membership 362 College & Research Libraries in important state or national cataloging committees. Network participation has added two new possibilities for nation- wide renown-participation in network committees and/or quality of cataloging prepared by the individual or the depart- ment that he/she represents. In some ways the first of the new possibilities is simply a variation on the old requirements for approval by the establishment. After all, being head of a catalog department, being selected to publish in refereed li- brary journals, or being appointed to na- tional committees is a function of the cata- loger's ability to meet the standards of the existing power structure of the library world. The second of the new paths to cat- aloging stardom, however, does not fit comfortably into the traditional mold. It stresses performance· and peer evaluation rather than administrative approval and political alliances. While this phenome- non is much too new to be realistically as- sessed, interviews with catalogers reveal a great interest in, and approval of, working peers, especially those that are associated with the networks. In fact, among the cat- alogers interviewed there appeared to be a high level of consensus that peer group representatives are worthy leaders who have publicly proved their high ethical standards by adhering to quality profes- sional cataloging standards, even when doing so sometimes becomes unpleasant. One cataloger at the Oglebay Conference saw things this way: Quality control is a lot like cleaning a cat box. It is expected-that is your fellow librarians ex- pect you to keep their data base clean. 2 But, of course, people who clean out cat litter boxes sometimes develop such strong aversions to their contents that they decide to get rid of the animals re- sponsible for producing the mess. Discus- sions with network quality-control per- sonnel indicate that master catalogers are characterized both by the high quality of their work and their tendency to report substandard cataloging done by others. In fact, error reporting is one way that OCLC regional networks identify resource peo- ple and potential members of their advi- sory groups. These networks analyze the July 1986 error reports sent to them, examine the documentation that accompanies the re- port in order to establish that the record is indeed in error, and develop files of indi- viduals dedicated to maintaining a "clean" database. The regional networks then review online the work produced by each cataloger, and if that work is ranked superior, the error-spotting catalogers will begin to be invited to participate in net- work committees. In time, this participa- tion will often lead to invitations to join nationwide cataloging advisory commit- tees. While this process is favorable for the er- ror reporter, what impact does it have on the individuals or departments that errors are assessed against? In general, in the sample libraries, some resentment at er- rors assigned the institution was ex- pressed and, in at least three of them, seri- ous effort was made to review the record and determine if substandard cataloging had actually occurred. It was only when speaking to network quality control personnel, however, that the rage of the embattled cataloger against whom errors were assessed could be dis- cerned. At all three networks, quality per- sonnel expressed some feelings of stress resulting from having to deal with librari- ans whose records allegedly contained er- rors. Some of the catalogers felt personally compelled to develop huge and thor- oughly indexed documentation justifying their innocence. If, despite these protests, their records were revised at the network office, they took personal affront at what they considered to be stains on . their pro- fessional record. In one of the networks, the strain of dealing with this small, · but outraged and vocal, constituency took a noticeable toll upon the entire quality con- trol staff. Network administrators became so concerned that they ordered that group members use some company time to take classes in biofeedback and thus relieve their stress. Unfortunately, this enlight- ened management strategy was not totally successful. Several biofeedback students experienced additional stress worrying that their bosses would monitor their bio- feedback performance and find them at fault for not having relaxed enough. Thus visibility doth make victims of us all! At another network, the chief reviser separated catalogers into two groups- ,, those that want to dance and those that want to fence." The dancers are willing to accept revisions for the sake of the consis- tency of the network database. The fencers, usually the more renowned cata- logers, are supremely confident of their own judgments and will contest every er- ror call. The network reviser (obviously a natural-born fencer) enjoys the contest, admires the combatants, and often makes mental notes that they possess the right stuff needed to become members of net- work committees. All of the network quality-control per- sonnel commented on what they consider to be a statistically insignificant but fasci- nating aberration-some catalogers, aware of the visibility and publicity that network participation creates, are deliber- ately using error reports to disparage the work of colleagues in other institutions. Instances of this type occur most often when there are competing cataloging de- partments, especially in institutions that have had traditional football rivalries with each other. In this case, technology has made it possible for a new form of the Su- per Bowl to be played on video screens by competing catalog departments. But, in general, maintaining standards is not a game to catalogers. It is serious and important work. One of the most striking impressions that emerges from re- viewing cataloging literature is the judg- mental and moral world view of cata- logers, especially in the area of standard setting and enforcement. Moreover, dur- ing the course of my interviews phrases like "lapses from grace," "worthy peers," and "born-again catalogers," ap- peared to form natural parts of the cata- loger's vocabulary-an in-group tone and use of language that an outsider would be more likely to associate with the ministry than with the technical experts catalogers pride themselves on being. Because they are engaged in protecting the purity of cataloging standards, the emerging subgroups of master catalogers · and cataloging peer groups appear to Born-Again Cataloging 363 have, quite unconsciously, cloaked them- selves in the mantle of the righteous. Like any group of the ''elect'' they are some- times disliked and resented, but no seri- ous collegial challenge to their right to dis- cover and assign error has yet emerged. In fact, network designation as resource con- sultants, as approved revisers (e.g., Proj- ect Enhance), as "buddies" for new or wayward cataloging departments, pro- vides new cataloging peer groups with na- tionwide influence, power, and prestige. This same combination of factors then makes it possible for those groups to pres- sure networks for the retention of stan- dards and the very detailed records so dear to catalogers' hearts. This enhanced status is, of course, be- stowed on a very small minority of cata- logers through network participation. The vast majority of these librarians are threat- ened by loss of jobs and the many depro- fessionalizing trends that standardized and routine network work processes cre- ate. Despite this, many catalogers ex- pressed more hope for the survival of their professional ideals as a result of the work of peer groups than through the contin- ued activities of their individual depart- ments. In two of the libraries, comment was made about networks providing a new op- portunity and a new forum to discuss standards. Moreover, as one San Fran- cisco State cataloger noted, "Networks might be worrisome · because they assign errors, but at least they have some interest in discovering them. Most libraries don't care anymore." In "The Professionalization of Every- one?" Wilensky points out that the opti- mal knowledge base for professionals is "neither too vague nor too precise, too broad or too narrow. ''3 Cataloging work may well fall into the too narrow and too precise category, which is susceptible to being broken into ever smaller compo- nents that can then be taught to workers with lesser skills. On the other hand, Wi- lensky also argues that many of us might construct a homemade book- case, few would forego a clergyman at the grave. The key difference is that the clergy's tasks and tools, unlike the carpenter's, belong 364 College & Research Libraries to the realm of the sacred-which reinforces a jurisdictional claim grounded in formal training and indoctrination. Occupations which suc- cessfully identify themselves with the sacred may achieve as much of a mandate by monop- oly as those that identify themselves with sci- ence.4 Thus he charts many paths used by occu- pational groups in their ascent to the peak of · professionalism. At present, there is certainly no evidence that catalogers are consciously trying to replace a diminished knowledge base with an expanded claim to moral superiority. Indeed, striving to- ward some abstract ideal has always char- acterized these professionals and turned them inward in a search for collegial ap- proval. But with the rise of designated master workers and knowledgeable peer July 1986 groups, catalogers appear to be develop- ing a breed of colleagues whose knowl- edge base is expanding to include an over- view of network systems and whose standard-setting influence is acknowl- edged by network personnel as well as by other catalogers. These workers could possibly develop into new hybrid cata- logers, possessing some measure of auto- mation expertise, political clout, and de- votion to traditional cataloging standards. If so, there is a chance that they are harbin- gers of the reprofessionalization of cata- loging. Thus, while the network has sowed the seeds for the deprofessionalization of cat- aloging, it has also reaped the crop of the new breed of born-again catalogers. REFERENCES 1. I. Zola and S. J. Miller, ''The Erosion of Medicine from Within,'' in The Professions and Their Prospects (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1972) p.153-72; Rose Laub Coser, "Insulation from Observability and Types of Social Conformity," American Social Review 26:28-39 (Fall,1961). 2. Ogle bay Institute on Quality Control, Proceedings (Dublin, Ohio: Pittsburgh Regional Library Cen- ter and OCLC, 1983), p.4. 3. Harold Wilensky, "The Professionalization of Everyone?" American Journal of Sociology 70:148 (Sept . 1964). 4. Ibid. p.139 .