College and Research Libraries


catalogs, either in card form or in bibliog-

raphies, should be made by subject spe-

cialists to fit special needs. These catalogs 

should be compiled cooperatively after the 

needs are systematically determined. 

( 2 ) Subjective impressions of reference 

and circulation librarians should be given 

some consideration in determining catalog-

ing policies, but they should be critically 

appraised by administrators and catalogers. 

T o o many policies of an encyclopedic, 

bibliographical, or biographical nature 

have been introduced because of occa-

sional or supposedly potential demands. 

( 3 ) Classification is primarily a librar-

ian's device. A s such, the acceptance of 

one system, preferably one based on a liv-

ing collection of books, seems the effective 

procedure for the future. Both period 

cataloging and period classification should 

be systematically experimented with for se-

lection of the preferred form. 

( 4 ) W e cannot expect the program of 

cooperative and centralized cataloging and 

classification to be any more than empty 

words unless catalogers stop thinking of 

all sorts of reasons for not taking advan-

tage of it. 

By D A V I D J. H A Y K I N 

W a y to the Future: Cooperative and 

Centralized Cataloging 

Mr. Haykin is chief, Subject Cataloging 

Division, Library of Congress. 

T h e terms cooperative cataloging and 
centralized cataloging appear to be per-
fectly clear and unambiguous. A n exami-
nation of the literature, however, shows 
that they have a respectably long semantic 
history. T o begin with, the term "cata-
loging" itself did not always have the con-
notation now current in library literature. 
Until the last three or four decades, it 
meant, among other things, the prepara-
tion of lists of books on different subjects 
and of different kinds, as well as of so-
called universal catalogs, such as that of 
the International Institute of Bibliography 
in Brussels. In that sense it is, of course, 
synonymous with one of the present mean-

ings of the word "bibliography." A n ex-
amination of the Bibliography of Coopera-
tive Cataloguing by Torstein Jahr and 
Adam J. Strohm offers unmistakable evi-
dence on this point. A polemic engaged 
in as recently as the early 1930's by the 
then chairman of the A . L . A . Committee 
on Bibliography, Ernest Cushing Richard-
son, and officers of the Association on the 
scope of the work of that committee as 
against that of the Committee on Catalog-
ing, is further and more recent evidence 
on this point. For the purpose of the pres-
ent discussion, the term "catalog" will be 
used in its current, very restricted sense of 
a list of the books in a given collection or 
library, or in several such libraries, with-
out reference to limitations of subject or 
kind of book. 

156 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



Proceeding from this term, cooperative 

cataloging must refer to the production of 

the substance of a catalog by the joint 

effort of two or more libraries. T h i s does 

not imply that the actual work of prepar-

ing catalog entries must be done by the 

cooperating libraries. If two or more 

libraries provided the money for a common 

fund used in preparing entries which are 

to go into their several catalogs, the un-

dertaking could be properly described as 

cooperative cataloging. If the work were 

done at a central point it would be cen-

tralized and at the same time cooperative 

cataloging. 

Centralized cataloging need not be co-

operative. In one sense, the cataloging 

done in the main building of a public 

library system, for use there and in branch 

catalogs as well, is centralized, though not, 

strictly speaking, cooperative. Neither is 

the original and greater part of the cata-

loging of the Library of Congress coopera-

tive, although it is surely centralized, since 

it is done centrally and, through the Card 

Division of the library, is made available 

to thousands of libraries to be used in their 

catalogs. It is not cooperative, since it is 

done by one library primarily for its own 

use, the cost of it being borne by that 

library out of funds provided for the pur-

pose of preparing a catalog of its own col-

lections. T h e sale of its cards is simply 

a service of the Library of Congress. 

O u r primary concern is with coopera-

tive cataloging, its whys and wherefores, 

its methods and procedures, and, above all, 

its contribution in solving certain pressing 

problems of American libraries. W e 

shall, therefore, discuss the question of 

centralized versus other methods of cata-

loging cooperatively only insofar as it is 

involved in the choice of the best method 

to be adopted. 

Why the Interest in Cooperative 

Cataloging Persists 

W h y has the question of cooperative 
cataloging come to the fore again? Some-
thing—yes, something substantial—has al-
ready been achieved in that direction in 
the past ten years. W h y then, at this 
time, do we imply that it is the "way to 
the future" ? T h e answer to these ques-
tions rests on two considerations, a his-
torical one and a practical one. 

T h e practical aspect of the problem of 
cataloging rests on the fact that cataloging 
costs money, that, in fact, it takes a con-
siderable portion of a library's total in-
come. Fortunately or unfortunately, this 
aspect of cataloging is one which the ad-
ministrator understands and can compute 
in terms of dollars and cents. A s a basis 
for discussion on another occasion, it 
should be pointed out that the administra-
tion cannot compute the real cost of cata-
loging since he has no way of gauging the 
value of the product. In this regard, the 
cost of cataloging is, of course, closely 
bound up with the cost of reference work. 
Be that as it may, the total outlay of 
money for cataloging can be computed 
and, therefore, it is possible to determine 
the average cost per unit of the product, 
whether the latter be title cataloged, vol-
ume recorded in the library's catalog, card 
filed into it. In the face of a growing 
demand on the library for service, station-
ary, or relatively stationary income, and 
the impossibility of determining the cost 
of the intangible services which the library 
renders in providing information and 
guidance, it is obvious that the economics 
of the technical processes must be exam-
ined and ways found for doing the job at 
less cost, without perhaps sacrificing the 
quality, hence usefulness, of the product. 
Local economies may be effected by vari-

MARCH, 1942 15 7 



ous means which catalogers understand 
well and administrators perhaps not well 
enough. In the light of the great reduc-
tion in the cost of cataloging resulting 
from the use of Library of Congress cards, 
it is obvious that one of the solutions of 
the problem of cost lies in cooperative 
cataloging. 

In a country of the great size of ours, 
where the demand for certain books or 
classes of books arises simultaneously in 
different libraries, there is bound to be 
considerable duplication of book resources, 
the same work being acquired by many 
libraries at about the same time. In spite 
of all efforts which have been, or are likely 
to be, undertaken for a rational distribu-
tion of book resources in this country, 
duplication is likely to continue. T h i s sit-
uation points to cooperative cataloging as 
an obvious way to reduce cataloging costs. 

Historical Consideration 

T h e historical consideration, which has 
kept cooperative cataloging a live subject 
of discussion, is the progress made in the 
direction of cooperation during the past 
forty years. Library of Congress cata-
loging is not in the strict sense of the word 
cooperative. However, catalog cards pro-
duced by it have for forty years helped to 
reduce cataloging costs, maintained a high 
level of quality, helped secure agreement 
on cataloging rules and practices, and de-
veloped methods and standards for the 
distribution of cards which have been cen-
trally printed. This, as we shall see, in-
timately enters into the problem of co-
operative cataloging. It has, moreover, 
led to several card printing and distribu-
tion ventures, among them the most recent 
and important is the one entered upon 
by the H . W . Wilson Company which 
provides at a small, uniform price a com-

plete dictionary catalog set of cards for 
current books which stand high in popular 
demand. 

A more direct influence in keeping co-
operative cataloging in the foreground of 
library interest was the printing by the 
Library of Congress of catalog entries sup-
plied by other libraries. For other United 
States government libraries this was first 
done in 1 9 0 1 ; the arrangement was ex-
tended to other American libraries in 
1910. T h e preparation of these entries 
was cooperative in the fullest sense of the 
word, since each participating library did 
its work for the benefit of all. T h e Li-
brary of Congress paid the cost of a cer-
tain amount of necessary revision and 
coordination, as well as for the printing 
of the cards. 

T h e card printing activity of the Li-
brary of Congress, including the entries 
prepared by the Federal government li-
braries (forming the several so-called gov-
ernment series of the cards) and those 
prepared by the other American libraries 
(the so-called " A " series) provided public 
libraries with cards for nearly all their 
books. It did not satisfy the needs of col-
lege and university libraries to the same 
extent. A n investigation, carried out in 
1931 by Paul North Rice in behalf of the 
newly-formed Cooperative Cataloging 
Committee of the American Library Asso-
ciation, showed that the Library of Con-
gress satisfied 72 per cent of the need of 
some forty such libraries for cards for 
books in English and about a third for 
books in foreign languages. A s the result 
of the investigation a cooperative catalog-
ing project was initiated in 1932 by the 
committee with the aid of a subvention 
from the General Education Board. T h i s 
project covered new foreign books and 
monographs in certain scholarly series of 

158 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



publications largely in foreign languages. 
It continued under American Library As-
sociation auspices until July I, 1940. It 
was then taken over by the Library of 
Congress and six months later merged 
with the old cooperative work which em-
braced other than government libraries. 
It is being carried on vigorously at the 
present moment and in some of its aspects 
will serve as a forecast of things to come 
in the field of cooperative cataloging. 

Objectives and Methods 

A s brought out above, in the discussion 
of the persistence of the interest in coop-
erative cataloging, the paramount motive 
behind it is economic. It is resorted to 
and justified, properly so, I believe, be-
cause it makes it less costly to produce 
catalog entries. Its prime objective, there-
fore, is the reduction of the cost of cata-
loging. T h e r e are two other objectives 
to be pursued, one of them inevitable, the 
other highly desirable. T h e product of 
cooperation should maintain a high aver-
age of quality, approaching that of the 
best product of cataloging by an individ-
ual library. If cooperative cataloging re-
sults in cheaper, but inferior, entries, it is 
doomed to failure. T h e third objective 
is a negative one: cooperative cataloging 
must produce adequate catalog entries as 
quickly as they may be produced other-
wise. It should be noted here that the 
criticism leveled against the cataloging 
establishment of the Library of Congress 
has been on the score of the delays in the 
production of entries, rarely if ever be-
cause the entries themselves were inade-
quate or not high enough in quality. 

Bearing in mind these objectives, what 
conditions must be satisfied in order to 
carry out successfully a comprehensive 
undertaking in cooperative cataloging? 

These conditions depend upon the nature 
of the project. If the project is one in 
which the cooperators merely underwrite 
it, the work being carried out by a sepa-
rate central cataloging agency, by an 
auxiliary staff in an established cataloging 
department, or by a special staff housed 
in or near such a department, a satisfac-
tory product can be secured: (a) if the staff 
is made up of competent specialists, each 
possessing an adequate knowledge of cata-
loging rules and practices, of works of 
reference, of certain fields of subject mat-
ter, of two or three major languages, and, 
if possible, some of the less well-known 
languages; (b) if there is available for 
its use an adequate reference collection; 
(c) if provision is made for printing, stor-
age, and distribution of the cards. T h e 
quality of the product would be uniform 
since, in addition to staff and reference 
collection, all the catalogers would be un-
der the same direction and supervision. 

Prepared by Individual Libraries 

If, however, the project is one in which 

entries are prepared by individual libraries 

and revised and printed centrally, a some-

what different set of conditions must be 

met. In the first place, agreement on all 

points of rule and practice must be se-

cured. Each library must undertake only 

tasks to which its staff is capable of doing 

full justice, that is, for which its staff 

possesses the necessary cataloging knowl-

edge and ability, the necessary command 

of subject matter and languages, and for 

which its reference collection and consulta-

tive personnel are adequate. Each library 

must bear in mind that it is cataloging 

not for its own use alone, but for all co-

operative libraries. It must disregard 

local conditions, local needs, and local pol-

icies to that extent. T h i s experience at 

MARCH, 1942 
15 7 



the Library of Congress has shown to be 
very difficult to attain. T h e failure to 
satisfy this condition throws an undue bur-
den on the staff assigned to the task of 
revising and coordinating the product of 
many libraries. It leads to inconsistency 
and, consequently, to dissatisfaction on the 
part of the libraries using the cards. 

Whether the cataloging is done cen-
trally or not, there must be an adequate 
distribution of the load, the financial load 
in case of centralized cataloging, the work 
load where the actual work is done by the 
cooperating libraries. T h i s implies a di-
rect correspondence between the load and 
the benefits derived from the cooperative 
effort by the individual library. N o exact 
method for computing these benefits is, of 
course, possible. T h e number of entries 
which a given library buys during a given 
period, say one year, may be considered 
an adequate measure of the use made by 
that library of the product of cooperation. 
If the bookkeeping system used by the co-
operative enterprise does not provide data 
on the number of entries bought, then the 
money value of the purchases would serve 
as a measure. T o be sure, such a measure 
would be based upon a period preceding 
the current one, perhaps the preceding 
calendar year. Since no better measure 
can be secured and the same measure 
would be applied to all the cooperators, 
no serious injustice would result. W h a t 
would be more difficult to determine is the 
price for the product of the cooperative 
enterprise to be paid by libraries which are 
not members of it. T h i s need not be gone 
into at this stage of the discussion, how-
ever. T h e experience of the Cooperative 
Cataloging Committee project shows that 
some libraries, the larger and the most 
interested, do bear a disproportionate share 
of the load. If that cannot be avoided 

some method must be found to compensate 
the most active libraries on the basis of 
the ratio between their output and the 
benefits derived by them from the coopera-
tive work. 

Cooperative Classification 

In most libraries the classification of 
books forms an integral part of the cata-
loging process. In any case, it is an 
important element of the cost. For classi-
fying books covering the whole range of 
human knowledge, without the benefit of 
prior classification of the same works by 
another library, the cost may well average 
twenty-five cents a title. T h a t has, in 
fact, been the experience of the decimal 
classification project begun in 1930 by 
several hundred libraries under the aus-
pices of the American Library Association. 
T h i s project belongs to the category of 
centralized cooperation. It was originally 
underwritten by the libraries, but the 
work has been carried on at the Library 
of Congress by a staff of well-qualified 
assistants. Because it was able to carry 
out its full program of classification well 
within the amount of money provided by 
the cooperators, it must be considered a 
successful project in every way. In 1933 
it was taken over by the Library of Con-
gress and assigned to the Card Division, 
on the assumption that the presence of the 
decimal classification numbers on the 
printed catalog cards increased the sales 
of the cards to an amount which would 
justify the maintenance of the project out 
of Card Division funds. In 1934 it went 
to form a section of the Cooperative Cata-
loging and Classification Service and late 
in 1940 with the internal reorganization 
of the Library of Congress, it became a 
part of the newly-formed Subject Cata-
loging Division. 

160 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



T h e experience of this project has 
evolved methods appropriate to coopera-
tion in classification. It has made clear 
that, by its very nature, the work is 
limited both in scope and method. Since 
not all libraries use the same classification 
s3rstem, no one system would be useful to 
all libraries to the same extent for this 
reason alone. A l l libraries have stated or 
implied policies in classification which 
would nullify or reduce the value of co-
operative classification to many of them. 
Because the intellectual background and 
capacity of the classifier are directly re-
flected in the classifying he does, distribu-
tive cooperation in classification is out of 
the question; the work must be done cen-
trally. It must be done centrally also for 
the reason that consistency in the inter-
pretation of books and classification system 
requires it. Consistency can be achieved 
by the employment of a well-qualified staff 
all working under the same supervisory 
officer and by the maintenance of some 
kind of a shelflist. 

These considerations practically pre-
clude the coupling of cooperative clas-
sification with a distributive system of 
cooperative cataloging. ( I t is questionable 
whether cooperators could reach general 
agreement on a choice of classification sys-
tem or common classification policiep 
Revision and coordination of class num-
bers at a central point without the books 
is practically out of the question. If the 
cataloging is done centrally, however, 
classification can readily form a part of 
the process. 

Cooperative Cataloging in the Future 

If we gave the imagination free reign, 
we could envisage a state of things in 
which catalog entries were either prepared 
at the source, that is by the publishers, or 

at a central bureau to which all the ac-
quisitions of all cooperating libraries could 
be sent for cataloging. T h e bureau could 
have as competent a staff as any to be 
found in libraries at the present time. It 
would be large enough to include special-
ists in all fields of knowledge, linguists, 
expert catalogers. It could be housed so as 
to have ready access to adequate reference 
collections. It would, in short, be equipped 
to do cataloging accurate and adequate to 
all purposes. It would, however, be ex-
tremely unwieldy. It could not fully jus-
tify itself on economic grounds, since it 
would have to provide entries wanted by 
only two or three libraries, and the pro-
portion of such books to the whole would 
be great enough to make the unit cost of 
cards to all libraries high. T h e n , there is 
the fundamental consideration that many 
libraries could not participate in such a 
project because of existing controls on the 
use of their funds, controls which would 
be difficult to change or remove. Further-
more, it would deprive libraries of the use 
of their books pending cataloging, would 
add transportation costs to the cost of 
cataloging, and would involve the same 
delays and time losses which now occur in 
large libraries for various reasons. 

T h e best practical solution of the cata-
loging problem still is cooperation, not a 
particular form of cooperation, but a com-
bination of features of all. Lines of direc-
tion have already been drawn in this 
country which make it easier to realize a 
fairly comprehensive program of coopera-
tive cataloging. T h e r e is, for example, 
fairly complete agreement on rules of cata-
loging. Not by the fiat of a bureaucrat 
but by progressive, voluntary action, Amer-
ican libraries have achieved a large degree 
of uniformity in cataloging practices. 
T h e wide distribution of the catalog cards 

MARCH, 1942 
15 7 



of the Library of Congress has contributed 
in large measure to uniformity of practice, 
since libraries found it desirable to follow 
the lead of the Library of Congress in 
order to have all catalog entries in their 
own catalogs uniform. T h e printing by 
the Library of Congress of entries pre-
pared by other libraries was another, 
though less important, factor. A n d fi-
nally, the experience of the Library of 
Congress in centralized cataloging (for 
that is what its distribution of cards 
amounts to) and of the project initiated 
and sponsored by the Cooperative Catalog-
ing Committee in cooperative cataloging 
on a distributive basis, furnish a founda-
tion for an extension of cooperation in 
cataloging. 

L.C. Will Provide Entries 

T h e Library of Congress will continue 
to provide a large proportion of the entries 
for public libraries and an increasing pro-
portion for college, university, and special 
libraries. M a y we look forward to the 
day when the Library of Congress would 
supply complete dictionary catalog sets of 
cards with headings printed on them? 
T h i s would make it possible for libraries 
to get the cards into their catalogs with-
out having to add headings and revise 
them. 

A step in enlarging the program of co-
operative cataloging has recently been 
taken by the cooperative cataloging project 
of the Library of Congress which defi-
nitely points the way to the future. T h e 
libraries of universities having presses have 
been asked to supply entries for the output 
of their presses. T h i s is, in effect, catalog-
ing by publishers. W h i l e it is unlikely 
that commercial publishers would, or 
could, engage in cataloging, this arrange-
ment could be extended to all publishing 

agencies of institutions having libraries. 
T h i s would apply to state libraries in the 
case of state documents, to public libraries 
in the case of the publications of munici-
palities, libraries of societies and institu-
tions for their publications, particularly 
where analytical cataloging of their sev-
eral serial publications is concerned. 

Foreign publications, for want of which 
the Library of Congress does not have or 
does not prepare entries, could be cata-
loged as they are now on a cooperative 
basis. Machinery would have to be pro-
vided to secure the extension of the pro-
gram of cataloging for this category of 
books, particularly the analytical catalog-
ing of serial publications, and for the 
proper distribution of the cataloging load 
among the cooperating libraries. 

Extension of Distributive Work 

T o be sure, this extension of distribu-

tive work presupposes the willingness and 

ability of the Library of Congress to ex-

pand its facilities for the revision of entries 

and the printing and distribution of cards. 

Means would then have to be provided 

either by the Federal government or the 

libraries which would be the beneficiaries 

of the work. T h e work could probably 

be carried on elsewhere at a large library 

center. A staff could be provided and a 

reference collection would be available as 

well as at the Library of Congress. T h e 

Library of Congress, however, already 

maintains a large nucleus for this work 

and has the storage and distribution facil-

ities for large sales operations in this field. 

It seems inevitable, therefore, that the 

work be centered at the Library of Con-

gress. Whether this would mean an ex-

pansion of the cooperative cataloging 

facilities there or the establishment of a 

(Continued on page 175) 

162 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



tions under the present practice of the 

Library of Congress. T h e r e is no doubt 

that simple notations of these items will 

result in a considerable saving of time. 

Additional time and study is needed 

at the Library of Congress on these points, 

but, as I have indicated, it seems certain 

that some simplifications can be made. It 

is our belief that a simplified card which 

will serve the needs of the Library of 

Congress will be adequate for other librar-

ies. In fact, many libraries may be able 

to simplify their practices farther than 

the Library of Congress can do. W h e n 

specific details have become more settled, 
you will be informed of the changes which 
the Library of Congress proposes to make. 
In the meantime, as Miss Root has sug-
gested, it will be extremely helpful if 
individual librarians will confer with their 
acquisition, reference, and cataloging staffs 
and seek to determine what types of in-
formation are needed in the catalogs of 
their respective libraries. Such study is 
essential for the formulation of a policy 
in the individual library and will greatly 
assist the Library of Congress in modify-
ing its own practice. 

Way to the Future: Cooperative and Centralized Cataloging 

(Continued from page 162) 

separate unit coordinated with the co-
operative work there is subject to consid-
eration by representatives of cooperating 
libraries and of the Library of Congress. 
T h e Librarian of Congress has on several 
occasions expressed his interest in the ex-
tension of cooperative cataloging. 

Cooperative Work the Practical Solution 
of the Cataloging Problem 

T o sum up, the practical solution of 

the cataloging problem, assuming that the 

catalog is not to be abolished altogether 

as has been recently, perhaps not too se-

riously, proposed by some administrators, 
or reduced to a simple author list, lies in 
cooperative work. Cooperative cataloging 
should not confine itself to one particular 
method. Libraries should continue to 
make use of the cataloging product of the 
Library of Congress and amplify the scope 
of its work by some auxiliary form of 
either centralized or distributive coopera-
tion. If all libraries find the H . W . W i l -
son Company's product adequate, the 
Library of Congress could perhaps be 
relieved of the burden of supplying cards 
for the most popular books. 

MARCH, 1942 
16 7