buttlar.p65 Catalogers in Academic Libraries 311 Catalogers in Academic Libraries: Their Evolving and Expanding Roles Lois Buttlar and Rajinder Garcha Catalogers in academic libraries who belong to ALA’s Technical Ser­ vices Division were surveyed to determine if and how their job functions have changed over the past ten years. The 271 respondents indicated a change from print to electronic formats, involvement of nonprofession­ als in higher levels of cataloging, a trend toward outsourcing (particu­ larly, copy cataloging and foreign-language materials), and more cata­ loging of specialized items, audiovisual materials, and digital documents by professional librarians. The latter now use their expertise to edit prob­ lematic records, engage in managerial tasks, catalog and attempt au­ thority control of Internet resources, do Internet training or Web page design, and use HTML. More and more catalogers are involved in activi­ ties formerly in the domain of systems librarians (selecting and imple­ menting catalog products, database maintenance, etc.). he library catalog, now often merged with the concept of a database, has been at the fore­ front of technological innova­ tion in libraries. Automation definitely has decreased the amount of original catalog­ ing done in academic libraries, and there is agreement in the literature that tasks for­ merly assigned to professional catalogers have shifted downward to paraprofes­ sional support staff members.1–4 Much dis­ cussion has focused on what has been called the “deprofessionalization” of tech­ nical services and cataloging, with various attributions of cause.5–7 The commonplace nature of biblio­ graphic utilities, user-friendly OPACs, keyword searching, CD-ROM formats, and, more recently, outsourcing; and the increasing availability and popularity of the Internet have resulted in a multifac­ eted and evolving role for catalogers in academic libraries.8–11 Not only must cata­ logers learn standard general mark-up language (SGML) and hypertext mark-up language (HTML), but also new stan­ dards must be developed for the new multimedia delivery formats that are now available. According to Marsha Starr Paiste and June Mullins, “the cataloging position of the future is germinating now.”12 They said professional catalogers can expand their basic cataloging skills into nonconventional areas and develop skills as information access analysts, systems designers, telecommunications experts, or online analysts/technical resource managers. In a recent two-part article on the cataloger ’s workstation, which de- Lois Buttlar is a Professor in the School of Library and Information Science at Kent State University; e- mail: lbuttlar@kentvm.kent.edu. Rajinder Garcha is a Monograph Cataloger in the Carlson Library at the University of Toledo; e-mail: FAC3236@uoft01.utoledo.edu. 311 mailto:FAC3236@uoft01.utoledo.edu mailto:lbuttlar@kentvm.kent.edu 312 College & Research Libraries July 1998 TABLE 1 Distribution of Responding Catalogers by Library Size Size in Volumes f % Fewer than 100,000 36 13.6 100,000 to 499,999 91 34.3 500,000 to 999,999 33 12.5 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 51 19.2 More than 2,000,000 54 20.4 Total 265 100.0 scribes the transformation of cataloging, Roger Brisson emphasized the new de­ mands made on the cataloger in terms of computing knowledge and experience, in addition to cataloging knowledge and subject expertise.13 Ideally, he sees the cataloger’s role as mediator between com­ puting and cataloging activities. Other roles suggested in the literature include: contract negotiators, designers or managers of automated systems, resource allocators, writers, speakers, fundraisers, researchers, subject experts, collection managers, proposal writers, or telecom­ munications experts.14–16 According to Sheila B. Intner, the necessity for catalog­ ers and technical services librarians did not change but, rather, the requirements of the positions did.17,18 Comments such as these justify several questions, includ­ ing: � How do catalog librarians actually spend their time? � How have their roles changed since they became catalogers? � How many perform traditional cataloging functions, and how many, in­ stead, are involved with new roles that require more managerial skills or com­ puter and/or systems expertise? Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to deter­ mine the current job functions performed by catalogers in academic libraries and how these functions have changed over the past ten years in order to provide in­ formation of significance to library ad­ ministrators and library and information science educators. Literature Review Wendy Wood attempted to determine the changing role of catalogers at the Univer­ sity of Kansas.19 In a survey of fifteen pro­ fessional catalogers, she found that five were full-time supervisors and that four others supervised but also did some cata­ loging. She concluded that although the need for catalogers would not decrease, more and more catalogers would become primarily supervisors and/or managers of databases. Paiste and Mullins would agreed with this transition.20 Hong Xu compared and analyzed the job requirements and qualifications for catalogers and reference librarians in aca­ Ninety-six percent of the libraries represented in the survey had fully automated OPACs. demic libraries contained in job advertise­ ments between 1971 and 1990.21 He con­ cluded that catalog librarians had more management responsibilities than refer­ ence librarians did and that these respon­ sibilities steadily increased over the time period of the study. Jennifer A. Younger addressed the functions of professional librarians, par­ ticularly catalogers, in providing biblio­ graphic access services; and prescribed nine roles they should play.22 She called TABLE 2 Distribution of Libraries by Network Affiliation Network Affiliation f % OCLC 249 91.9 RLIN 52 19.3 WLN 7 2.6 Other 19 7.1 http:transition.20 http:Kansas.19 http:expertise.13 Catalogers in Academic Libraries 313 for a formal team approach with profes­ sionals and paraprofessionals working in a close relationship in cataloging. Urging catalogers to develop a broader perspec­ tive, she said that this does not mean abandoning cataloging rules in favor of indexing rules but, rather, adopting an awareness of how these rules work to­ gether to create an effective system of bib­ liographic access. Patricia A. Eskoz investigated the ex­ tent to which catalogers in academic li­ braries also are involved in activities typi­ cally labeled as public services.23 The majority of survey respondents were in­ volved, to some limited extent, in cross­ over activities such as reference and bib­ liographic instruction and/or collection development. In earlier surveys, Eskoz concluded that although catalogers’ tools and resources had changed, ba­ sic cataloging skills had not changed that much and “catalog departments are still recognizable as catalog depart­ ments and catalogers are still recogniz­ able as catalogers.”24 Methodology A list of sixty-seven traditional and emerging activities in which catalogers in academic libraries are involved was gleaned from the literature. These activi­ ties were incorporated into a question­ naire that was distributed to catalogers in academic libraries. The catalogers were identified via labels purchased from ALA showing the addresses of members of its Technical Services Division. The question­ naires then were mailed to a random sample of 500 catalogers; 271 useable re­ sponses were returned, for a response rate of 55 percent. Findings Femongaphic Infogmation The largest category of respondents (91, or 34.3%) worked in libraries with collec­ tions ranging from 100,000 to 499,999 vol­ umes; however, about 40 percent of the respondents worked in larger libraries TABLE 3 Status of Professional Staff Past 5–10 Years Number of Professional Staff f % Decreased 105 39.2 Increased 38 14.2 Remained 125 46.6 about the same Total 268 100.0 with collections of one million or more volumes (see table 1). Ninety-six percent of the libraries rep­ resented in the survey had fully auto­ mated OPACs. Most of these (249, or 91.9%) were affiliated with OCLC (see table 2). At 125 (46.6%) of the responding libraries, the number of professional cata­ loging staff members had remained about the same over the past five to ten years, and at 105 (39.2%) of them, the number had decreased (see table 3). The figures were almost parallel with regard to sup­ port staff, with the tendency for the num­ ber to remain the same in 123 (45.9%) of the libraries and to decrease in 112 (41.8%) of them (see table 4). At the time of the survey, having one professional staff member seemed to be a common pattern (85, or 31.6%), followed by an approxi­ mately equal number of libraries having from two (47, or 17.47%) to five (45, or 16.73%) catalogers with an MLS degree. In terms of clerical or support staff mem- TABLE 4 Status of Support/Clerical Staff in Past 5–10 Years Number of Support! Clerical Staff f % Decreased 112 41.8 Increased 33 12.3 Remained about 123 45.9 the same Total 268 100.0 http:services.23 314 College & Research Libraries July 1998 bers, cataloging units were likely to have slightly more nonprofes­ sionals, with one (57, or 21.35%) or two (51, or 19.1%) being most typical (see table 5). Primary Roles More than 70 percent of the cata­ logers (185) responded that the cataloger ’s primary role was that of creating bibliographic records, although 199 (75.1%) saw a trend toward involving nonprofession­ als in higher levels of cataloging. The majority (194, or 77%) agreed that the cataloging unit had expe­ rienced an increase in productiv­ ity because of automation and technological innovation and that their tools and resources had changed (203, or 78.7%). The most repeated response, indicated by 158 (58.5%), was the obvious change from print to electronic formats such as online materials, CD-ROMs, cataloger ’s desk­ top, the Web, or the Internet. Four (1.48%) of the respondents said they had moved to a Windows environment, nine (3.3%) indicated the use of OCLC, and ten (3.7%) others indicated that the computers and software they used had become much more sophisticated. Distribution of Cataloging Only seventy-three (27%) of the respon­ dents indicated that their libraries outsourced cataloging. Of those functions outsourced, copy cataloging (33, or 12.2%) and foreign-language materials catalog­ ing (30, or 11.1%) were by far the most popular (see table 6). Only four respon­ dents (1.5%) reported that cataloging positions had been eliminated at their institutions as a result of outsourcing, and thirty-two (12%) said that their cataloging units had experienced an in­ crease in productivity due to outsourcing. At eighty-six (32%) of the institutions, cataloging was distributed across depart­ ments or by subject discipline. Music, as TABLE 5 Distribution of Staff Members by Number and Level Number of Staff Level of Staff Professional Support/Clerical f % f % 0 1 2 3 4-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 >50 Total 4 1.49 11 4.12 85 31.60 57 21.35 47 17.47 51 19.10 40 14.87 22 8.24 45 16.73 39 14.61 36 13.38 42 15.73 7 2.60 21 7.87 0 0.00 8 3.00 5 1.86 9 3.37 0 0.00 3 1.12 0 0.00 2 .75 0 0.00 1 .37 0 0.00 1 .37 269 100.00 267 100.00 a subject discipline, was most likely to be cataloged in a special department, fol­ lowed by maps and archives/manu­ scripts (see table 7). Changing Trends Catalogers indicated activities they were performing in 1987, 1992, and 1997 (see table 8). It would appear that in 1997, more catalogers were handling disserta­ tions and theses than in 1987 (55.1% com­ pared to 50.9%), rare books/special col­ lections materials (51.1% compared to 40.8%), and government documents (53.4% compared to 47.3%). This probably is explained by the fact that professional librarians have taken on more cataloging of specialized items because some of the monograph and other types of materials now are processed by copy catalogers. The major changes over the ten-year time period are reflected in the increased number of individuals cataloging AV materials (66.7% in 1997 compared to 49.1% in 1987), digital documents (44.3% compared to 4.7%), and Internet resources (31.4% compared to 1.2%). Planning and conducting retrospective Catalogers in Academic Libraries 315 conversions of library card catalogs to online databases are activities in which professional catalogers are less involved now (25.4% and 37.5%, respectively) than they were ten years ago (40.2% and 45%, respectively). In 1997, catalogers were more likely to be using their professional expertise in editing problematic records (45.8% compared to 32.5%) or engaging in more managerial tasks such as writing contracts with vendors (12.9% compared to 6.5%), writing proposals (20.9% com­ pared to 13.6%), supervising support staff (78.1% compared to 66.5%), coordinating work of subordinates (69.1% compared to 56.2%), monitoring budgets (30.6% com­ pared to 25.4%), managing cataloging work flows (71.3% compared to 59.8%), evaluating cataloging personnel (63.4% compared to 55%), and training copy cata­ logers (55.5% compared to 46.2%). They also became increasingly instrumental in affecting policy because their number expanded with respect to designing cata­ loging policies and procedures (77.7% in 1997 compared to 58.6% in 1987) and de­ signing technical services policies/proce­ dures (46.2% compared to 31%). Although their involvement with the Internet was still very modest, there was a slow, but steady, increase in the num­ ber of catalogers who cataloged Internet resources (31.4% compared to 1.2%) or tried to maintain some authority control over Internet files (11.4% compared to 2.4%). Four respondents reported that they were involved in Web page design and two in Internet training for students. More and more catalogers were in­ volved in activities formerly in the do­ main of systems/automation librarians, such as selecting and implementing cata­ log products (64.4% in 1997 compared to 39.1% in 1987), developing specifications for microcomputer applications (14.1% compared to 5.4%), database mainte­ nance/bibliographic control (75.4% com­ pared to 43.5%), records management/ indexing (14.9% compared to 6.6%), man­ aging OPAC performance (20.6% com- TABLE 6 Distribution of Cataloging Functions Outsourced Function Outsourced f % Copy cataloging 33 Original cataloging 15 Serials cataloging 2 Nonprint cataloging 7 Special items cataloging 18 Foreign-language cataloging 30 Government documents 10 Retrospective conversion 6 Special projects 3 Microforms 3 Reclassification projects 2 Catalog records 2 Original scores 2 Other 3 12.2 5.6 0.7 2.6 6.7 11.1 3.7 2.2 1.1 1.1 .7 .7 .7 1.1 pared to 9%), managing network and lo­ cal interfaces (9.2% compared to 1.8%), managing systems and tool selection and evaluation (11.5% compared to 3.6%), managing systems implementation (12.6% compared to 4.8%), and applying database management software (13.4% compared to 4.8%). Additional activities responding catalogers added to the list included: e-mail and Internet training for students, Web page design, PC software installation and maintenance, CD-ROM network management, one-on-one fac­ ulty OPAC training, purchase and distri­ bution of AV hardware, management of satellite dish reception, coordination of TABLE 7 Distribution of Cataloging across Departments/Subjects Department f % Music 20 23.3 Maps 10 11.6 Archives/manuscripts 9 10.5 Rare books 5 5.8 Law 5 5.8 Nonprint 4 4.7 Other 9 10.5 316 College & Research Libraries July 1998 TABLE 8 Evolving Activities and Roles of Catalogers 1987–1997 1987 1992 1997 Activity f % f % f % Descriptive cataloging 157 92.4 203 92.3 240 90.9 Assign call numbers 153 90.5 201 91.4 244 92.4 Assign subject headings 153 90.5 200 90.9 246 93.2 Copy cataloging 121 71.6 155 70.5 180 68.2 Catalog non-English items 133 78.7 170 77.3 203 76.9 Catalog dissertations/theses 86 50.9 116 52.7 145 55.1 Catalog rare books/special collections 69 40.8 99 45.0 135 51.1 Catalog monographs 142 84.0 186 84.5 229 86.7 Catalog serials 90 53.6 127 58.0 151 57.4 Catalog digital documents 8 4.7 21 9.5 117 44.3 Catalog government documents 80 47.3 101 45.9 141 53.4 Catalog AV materials 83 49.1 135 61.4 176 66.7 Catalog Internet resources 2 1.2 2 0.9 83 31.4 Set local catalog standards 106 62.7 153 69.5 206 78.0 Authority control 130 76.9 175 79.5 221 83.7 Plan retrospective conversion 68 40.2 73 33.2 67 25.4 Conduct retrospective conversion 76 45.0 100 45.5 99 37.5 Edit problem records 55 32.5 91 41.6 121 45.8 Create bibliographic access system 22 13.1 34 15.6 33 12.6 Write contracts with vendors 11 6.5 23 10.5 34 12.9 Define library requirements 23 13.6 42 19.1 54 20.5 Cost out direct/indirect costs 19 11.2 26 11.9 36 13.7 Write RFPs 16 9.5 29 13.2 29 11.1 Write proposals 23 13.6 44 20.0 55 20.9 Design technical servervices policies 52 31.0 76 34.5 122 46.2 Select/implement catalog products 66 39.1 103 47.0 170 64.4 Bibliographic access department head 72 42.6 98 44.5 139 52.5 Manage technical services department 21 12.4 35 15.9 124 47.0 Supervise proffessional staff 52 30.8 73 33.2 85 32.1 Supervise support staff 109 66.5 162 73.3 207 78.1 Supervise student workers 87 51.5 112 50.7 132 49.8 Coordinate work of subordinates 95 56.2 140 63.3 183 69.1 Plan budgets 36 21.3 54 24.4 67 25.3 Monitor budgets 43 25.4 59 26.7 81 30.6 Manage cataloging work flows 101 59.8 138 62.4 189 71.3 teleconferences or videoconferences, and coordination of campus involve­ ment in multicampus integrated library system. In 1987, only 1.2 percent of the profes­ sional catalogers were using HTML; in 1997, 33.3 percent were. The one single activity that showed the greatest expan­ sion in terms of cataloger involvement was related to e-mail. Two hundred cata­ logers (76%) were involved in e-mail dis­ cussion groups in 1997, compared to five (3%) in 1987. With respect to crossover ac­ tivities, in 1987, 37.5 percent were in­ volved in reference desk work; in 1997, 47 percent reported that they were, and one reported doing reference work, but not having a reference desk assignment. Catalogers in Academic Libraries 317 TABLE 8 (cont.) Evolving Activities and Roles of Catalogers 1987–1997 1987 1992 1997 Activity f % f % f % Recruit/hire cataloging personnel 82 48.5 114 51.6 140 52.8 Evaluate cataloging personnel 93 55.0 130 58.8 168 63.4 Compile/maintain statistics 109 64.5 151 68.3 195 73.6 Train copy catalogers 78 46.2 118 53.4 147 55.5 Design cataloging policies/procedures 99 58.6 158 71.5 206 77.7 Design technical services 52 31.0 76 34.5 122 46.2 policies/procedures Participate in fund raising 4 2.4 7 3.2 12 4.6 Authority control Internet files 4 2.4 10 4.6 30 11.4 Develop special mainframe applications 8 4.8 15 6.9 12 4.6 Develop special microcomputer 9 5.4 22 10.0 17 14.1 applications Database development 30 18.0 48 22.0 72 27.5 Database maintenance/ 73 43.5 152 69.1 199 75.4 bibliographic control Expert system design/application 3 1.8 6 2.7 6 2.3 Records management/indexing 11 6.6 23 10.6 39 14.9 E-mail discussion groups 5 3.0 89 40.6 200 76.0 Manage OPAC performance 15 9.0 32 14.7 54 20.6 Manage network/local interfaces 3 1.8 15 6.9 24 9.2 Manage system/tool 6 3.6 14 6.4 30 11.5 selection/evaluation Manage systems implementation 8 4.8 19 8.7 33 12.6 Manage/coordinate LAN functions 1 0.6 6 2.7 12 4.6 Apply database management software 8 4.8 17 7.8 35 13.4 Design user interfaces 5 3.0 7 3.2 18 6.9 Write abstracts 2 1.2 3 1.4 4 1.5 Automated indexing 4 2.4 9 4.1 11 4.2 Thesaurus use and construction 3 1.8 3 1.4 6 2.3 Use SGML 2 1.2 1 0.5 12 4.6 Use HTML 2 1.2 2 0.9 88 33.3 Design integrated systems 4 2.4 8 3.7 11 4.2 Computer programming 8 4.8 8 3.7 12 4.6 Reference desk work 63 37.5 88 39.8 124 47.0 Collection development 55 32.5 90 40.5 126 47.5 Bibliographic instruction 42 24.9 56 25.3 84 31.7 About one-third were involved in collec­ tion development in 1987 as compared to 47.5 percent in 1997. The number of cata­ loging librarians involved in biblio­ graphic instruction rose from 24.9 percent in 1987 to 31.7 percent in 1997. Other open-ended comments indi­ cated that some catalogers served in con­ sulting roles to serials control or acquisi­ tions systems. It appears that automation has led to a blurring of the lines between the traditional bifurcated roles for tech­ nical service and public service librarians. Activities added to the list by respond­ ing catalogers included committee partici­ pation, including accreditation and col­ 318 College & Research Libraries July 1998 part of the work routine of more TABLE 9 than 90 percent of all survey re-Top Twenty-Five Activities Currently spondents, followed closely by Performed by Catalogers monograph cataloging (86.7%) and authority control work (221, Activity f % or 83.7%). The top twenty-five ac­1. Assign subject headings 246 2. Assign call numbers 244 3. Descriptive cataloging 240 4. Catalog monographs 229 5. Authority control 221 6. Supervise support staff 209 7. Set local catalog standards 206 8. Design cataloging 206 policies/procedures 9. Compile/maintain statistics 206 10. Catalog non-English items 203 11. E-mail discussion groups 200 12. Database maintenance/ 199 bibliographic control 13. Manage catalog work flows 189 14. Coordinate work of subordinates 183 15. Copy cataloging 180 16. Catalog AV materials 176 17. Evaluate cataloging personnel 168 18. Catalog serials 151 19. Train copy catalogers 147 20. Catalog dissertations/theses 145 21. Catalog government documents 141 22. Recruit/hire cataloging personnel 140 23. Bibliographic access 139 department head 24. Catalog rare books/spec. coll. 135 25. Supervise student workers 132 lege governance work; teaching library science courses and workshops; circula­ tion and/or stack maintenance; interli­ brary loan; preservation; library signage, displays, and exhibits; responsibility for bindery/repair unit; serials control; and service activities such as writing/editing the library newsletter, doing inventory, managing a gifts program, and research and publication. Despite their expanded role, catalog­ ers were still very much involved in the activities that had long been associated with their careers. For example, descrip­ tive cataloging and the assigning of call numbers and subject headings were still 93.2 tivities in which at least 50 percent 92.4 of all professional catalogers re­90.9 sponding were currently engaged 86.7 are presented in table 9. It is inter­83.7 esting to note that, despite the78.1 downgrading of former catalog­78.0 ing functions to nonprofessionals, 77.7 180 respondents (68.2%) were cur­ rently involved in copy catalog­77.7 76.9 ing. 76.0 Open-Ended Comments 75.4 An attempt to analyze and synthe­ size the open-ended comments71.3 solicited at the end of the ques­69.1 tionnaire proved to be both ex­68.2 tremely interesting and extremely 66.7 challenging. The diversity of atti­63.4 tudes and opinions, as well as the57.4 multifaceted aspects of the topics55.5 contributed to the difficulty of the 55.1 task, but some repeatedly occur­53.4 52.8 ring observations are categorized 52.5 as follows. Areas of greatest concensus. 51.1 Comments that reflected the great­ 49.8 est consensus definitely included those related to the observation that outsourcing and/or copy cataloging by support staff frees the catalogers to do more professional activities such as spe­ cial projects, foreign-language cataloging, more difficult original cataloging, serials management, policy writing, develop­ ment and maintenance of the library’s Web site, reference consultation and other noncataloging tasks, and learning to use “a flood of electronic products.” The three areas mentioned most frequently were management functions, participation in bibliographic instruction, and mainte­ nance and upgrading of the database. One respondent said: “Although cataloging departments are not disappearing, cata­ Catalogers in Academic Libraries 319 log librarians are spending more of their time managing the system and less time cataloging.” Impact of Internet. Several respon­ dents indicated that they were currently cataloging Internet resources on a selected basis. One mentioned participation in OCLC’s Internet project, and another was involved in the development of national standards for Internet cataloging. It ap­ pears from other references to the Inter­ net that it is consuming more and more of some catalogers’ time. One respondent indicated that she used information from the Internet in cataloging U.S. govern­ ment documents. Areas of concern. Some responding catalogers expressed concern that time and attention given to computer technol­ ogy and rapid cataloging at the expense of accurate cataloging, or that with the development of online systems in small- and medium-sized academic libraries, professional catalogers will become non­ existent, even though the need for their professional expertise will not disappear. One respondent said: “The quality of cata­ loging is lower because more cataloging is being done or handled by paraprofes­ sionals with less education and less in­ tellectual ability.” However, another re­ spondent claimed: We have high productivity because we have chosen to concentrate on the areas of records which affect re­ trieval and pay less attention to other areas. . . . Many librarians are obsessive about cataloging practice. They enter every field they can think of, double-check and triple- check authority records, and so slow down the whole cataloging process that high backlogs develop. This is a one way ticket to outsourcing. One must learn to balance thoroughness with practicality. Work carefully but establish priorities. A second area of concern was reflected in respondent comments related to new system responsibilities. Whether these were related to enhanced authority or bib­ liographic control or, as in one case, re­ sponsibility “for the automated system— all hardware in the building and all soft­ ware,” there was general agreement that the expectations for catalogers in terms of sophisticated knowledge of computer technology are increasing at a more rapid rate than is the necessary commensurate education and/or training. Finally, some catalogers’ feelings were represented by the following: “We are not Despite their expanded role, catalogers were still very much involved in the activities that had long been associated with their careers. recognized as we were twenty years ago, as performing valued work,” and in ref­ erence to library science students, the “majority of students do not want to take cataloging because they do not see how this relates to the job that they will be doing upon completion of the program.” In other words, library schools programs are not impressing on students the impor­ tance of building the library’s catalog in accessing and retrieving information. Future of cataloging in the academic library. Several comments addressed pre­ dictions related to the cataloger ’s role in the future. Some of these included: the trend for catalogers to seek new positions of employment working for commercial outsourcers; increased cross-training of catalog librarians to take on more noncataloging responsibilities (without, necessarily, additional monetary compen­ sation); an increased proportion of para­ professional to professional positions in cataloging units; a merger of cataloging units into broader technical services units (e.g., cataloging, acquisitions, and serials, along with computer technicians, merged into a Department of Automation and Bibliographic Control, or ABC Depart­ 320 College & Research Libraries July 1998 ment); a new expectation for new hires to also be systems librarians; involvement of cataloging professionals in more HTML/SGML activities, more Windows 95 applications, and more CD-ROM cata­ loging resources; and more cataloging/ imaging (scanning) of special collections materials to the library’s Web site. Conclusions It is quite apparent that professional cata­ logers no longer are defined merely on the basis of performing their traditional roles of original cataloging, authority work, and assigning call numbers and subjects. Rather, they are viewed as man­ agers, policymakers, upgraders of the da­ tabase, bibliographic instructors, collec­ tion development librarians, automation librarians, and more. Job sharing is on the rise, especially transfers from the techni­ cal services area to the public services area, adding to the decrease in catalog­ ing staff and increase in reference staff. This trend of job sharing has some posi­ tive aspects, including heightened job in­ terest among participants, better under­ standing between technical and public services, and more flexibility. However, sometimes combinations of duties have drawbacks as well, including lack of ex­ pertise and thus lack of quality and con­ sistency in multiple job functions. Per­ haps the term professional cataloger will have to be replaced by another term or title that would cover a variety of posi­ tion responsibilities carried on by the cata­ loger of the future. Notes 1. Hong Xu, “The Impact of Automation on Job Requirements and Qualifications for Cata­ logers and Reference Librarians in Academic Libraries,” Library Resources and Technical Services 40, no. 1 (Jan. 1996): 9–31. 2. Kenneth Furuta, “The Impact of Automation on Professional Catalogers,” Information Tech­ nology and Libraries 9, no. 3 (Sept. 1990): 242–52. 3. Carol Mandel, “Cooperative Cataloging: Models, Issues, Prospects,” in Advances in Li­ brarianship, ed. I.P. Godden. Vol. 16, 33–82 (San Diego: Academic Pr., 1992). 4. Cherryl Schauder, “Faster Than a Speeding Bullet: Cataloguing Education in the Age of Computers,” International Cataloguing & Bibliographic Control 19, no. 3 (July/Sept. 1990): 41–45. 5. Leigh Estabrook, “Productivity, Profit, and Libraries,” Library Journal 106 (July 1981): 1377– 80. 6. Furuta, “The Impact of Automation on Professional Catalogers.” 7. Michael A. Oliker, “The Deprofessionalization Story and the Future of Technical Services,” Illinois Libraries 72, no. 6 (Sept. 1990): 472–78. 8. Clare B. Dunkle, “Outsourcing the Catalog Department: A Meditation Inspired by the Business and Library Literature,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 22, no. 1 (Jan. 1996): 33–43. 9. Janis L. Johnston, “Outsourcing: New Name for an Old Practice,” Law Library Journal 88, no. 1 (winter 1996): 128–34. 10. Jennifer A. Younger, “The Role of Librarians in Bibliographic Access Services in the 1990’s,” Journal of Library Administration 15, nos. 1–2 (1991): 125–50. 11. Karen L. Horny, “Taking the Lead: Catalogers Can’t Be Wallflowers!” Technicalities 15, no. 5 (May 1995): 9–12. 12. Marsha Starr Paiste and June Mullins, “Job Enrichment for Catalogers,” College & Research Libraries News 51, no. 1 (Jan. 1990): 4–8. 13. Roger Brisson, “The Cataloger’s Workstation and the Continuing Transformation of Cata­ loging: Part II.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 20, no. 2 (1995): 89–104. 14. Barbara A. Winters, “Cataloging Outsourcing at Wright State University: Implications for Acquisitions Managers,” Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 18, no. 4 (winter 1994): 367–73. 15. Furuta, “The Impact of Automation on Professional Catalogers.” 16. Allen B. Veaner, “Librarians: The Next Generation,” Library Journal 109, no. 6 (Apr. 1984): 623–25, quoted in Miriam Tees, “New Roles for Library School Graduates,” Canadian Library Journal (Dec. 1986): 372. 17. Sheila B. Intner, “Reengineering, Outsourcing, Downsizing, and Perfect Timing,” Techni­ Catalogers in Academic Libraries 321 calities 13, no. 11 (Nov. 1993): 1,8. 18. ———, “The Re-professionalization of Cataloging,” Technicalities 13, no. 5 (May 1993): 6–8. 19. Wendy Wood, “The Changing Role of the Catalog Librarian: A Report of a Study at One Institution,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1991): 145–49. 20. Paiste and Mullins, “Job Enrichment for Catalogers.” 21. Xu, “The Impact of Automation on Job Requirements and Qualifications for Catalogers and Reference Librarians in Academic Libraries.” 22. Younger, “The Role of Librarians in Bibliographic Access Services in the 1990’s.” 23. Patricia A. Eskoz, “Catalog Librarians and Public Services—A Changing Role?” Library Resources & Technical Services 35, no. 1 (Jan. 1991): 76–86. 24. ———, “The Catalog Librarian—Change or Status Quo? Results of a Survey of Academic Libraries,” Library Resources & Technical Services 34, no. 3 (July 1990): 380–92.