BIBCO OpCo Meeting May 4, 2001

>> View Agenda

BIBCO Core Record Study: Preliminary Report
By David Banush, Cornell University Library

Executive Summary - Background - Methodology - Findings

Executive summary

The BIBCO core record, while intended to provide cataloging at an acceptable level of quality and detail, with the intention of increasing the pool of usable copy, has been less widely implemented than initially hoped. The vast majority of BIBCO participants continue to contribute mostly or exclusively full-level records. David Banush of Cornell University has undertaken a qualitative study of cataloger and manager attitudes toward the core record, with the stated goal of assisting the PCC Policy Committee in its planning for and marketing of the BIBCO program.

The study consisted of in-depth telephone interviews with 20 catalogers and 20 managers from BIBCO institutions. Diane Cellentani of Marketing Backup conducted the interviews, which took place between March 19 and March 29, 2001. Diane tabulated the data and prepared a preliminary report on the findings. While the analysis of the results continues, the initial report suggests the following:

• Managers are happier with core than catalogers, and overall there is less reported dissatisfaction with core than anecdotal evidence and the BIBCO statistics and anecdotal evidence would suggest.
• Despite the reported levels of satisfaction, both catalogers and managers are divided about the benefits and problems of core. For example, respondents are torn over issue of whether use of core saves time in original cataloging. Nearly as many respondents were satisfied with the quality of core records as not, and many continue to feel that core provides inadequate access to materials.
• There is an interesting dichotomy between use of core in copy cataloging and in original cataloging. While most catalogers and managers are happy to find and use core records, far fewer are interested in creating them. Even among those who claim to be satisfied in general, as well as among those who are satisfied with particular aspects of the core concept, there exists a palpable unease with broader use of core records in original cataloging.
• Both catalogers and managers have a number of concerns about the program's implementation, marketing, and management. There is dissatisfaction with the utilities, particularly OCLC, and their handling of BIBCO records. Training and documentation are also seen as inadequate, and a number of participants question the current marketing strategy of the program.
• There remain misunderstandings and false perceptions about what the core guidelines actually require. A number of those interviewed, for example, believe that use of core prohibits more than one added entry or subject heading. This perception may be related to the dissatisfaction with training and documentation.

These findings will be further expanded in the final report submitted to the PCC Policy Committee. That report will also contain a list of recommendations to the Policy Committee for strengthening the BIBCO program.

I. Background, rationale, and significance of the study

[Back to top]

The BIBCO core record was intended to provide cataloging at an acceptable level of quality and detail, with the added goal of increasing the pool of usable copy. To date, however, the core record has been less widely implemented than initially hoped. The vast majority of BIBCO participants continue to contribute mostly or exclusively full-level records. In LC's fiscal year 2000, only about one-third of BIBCO contributions were core records. In the current fiscal year, the level of core contributions has dropped to about 27% of total output.

No quantitative or qualitative research has yet investigated the possible reasons underlying the cataloging community's response to the concept of the core record. To explore some of the issues surrounding the core concept, David Banush of Cornell University proposed a study on catalogers' attitudes toward the BIBCO core record. David developed a research proposal and submitted it to the PCC Policy Committee (PoCo) in November 2000. PoCo endorsed the proposal, with revisions. (The text of the final proposal is available online at the BIBCO home page). In January 2001, the study moved from proposal to reality, when it was generously funded by Sarah Thomas, University Librarian at Cornell.

The study has the following goals:

• To explore working catalogers' attitudes toward the core record
• To explore cataloging managers' attitudes toward the core record
• To examine both groups' understanding of the issue of cataloging quality
• To help identify strengths and weaknesses in the current PCC strategies for promoting BIBCO membership and core record creation.
• To provide the PCC Policy Committee a list of specific recommendations to address perceived weaknesses in the marketing of, and planning and training for, the BIBCO program.

To achieve these ends, the study outlined the following objectives:

• Identify an appropriate pool of candidates for interviews.
• Engage the services of a consultant to assist in the design of the interview scripts.
• Conduct in-depth telephone interviews with approximately 20 catalogers and 20 cataloging managers from BIBCO institutions.
• Collect and analyze the resulting data and write a report of the findings, with the consultant's assistance..
• Present the findings and a list of specific action items to the PCC Policy Committee
• Disseminate the findings through publication in the professional literature.
• Prepare the groundwork for further qualitative or quantitative investigation of cataloger attitudes and core records.

The consultant employed for this project was Diane Cellentani, a professional researcher with over 20 years' experience in feedback research who has conducted over 250 focus group and interview research projects on library issues. She holds an MBA in marketing and is the director of Marketing Backup, a research consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio. Her previous clients include Cornell University Library and OCLC.

[Back to top]

II. Methodology

The study consisted of in-depth telephone interviews with 20 working catalogers and 20 cataloging managers from BIBCO institutions. For the purposes of this project, managers were defined as those having primary responsibility for decisions relating to BIBCO in their institutions. Those interviewed were recruited via invitation on PCC listservs, with an additional follow-up invitation going out to BIBCO liaisons. All potential participants were subsequently screened via a short questionnaire. The screening questionnaire was developed in consultation with members of the Policy Committee.

Recruiting and screening began February 14, 2001, and was completed by March 15. In total, there were 47 volunteers from 31 BIBCO libraries, representing nearly 75% of the current participating institutions. In some cases, there were multiple volunteers from several institutions; in those instances, the first person in each category (cataloger or manager) reached by telephone was included. The final group was drawn from 29 institutions, representing 70% of BIBCO libraries. Interviews began on March 19 and were completed March 29.

Each interviewee was asked a series of prepared questions designed to gather the required feedback. The questionnaire had a mix of closed and open-ended questions. It was developed in consultation with members of the PoCo, and was pre-tested with several volunteers before being finalized. Interview sessions were flexible, allowing further probing of responses where appropriate. The length of the interviews ranged from 15 to 70 minutes. Interviewees' identities and responses have been kept strictly confidential.

Diane Cellentani, the consultant, assisted in developing the structure of the questionnaire. She conducted the interviews, did an initial analysis of the data, and has prepared a preliminary report of that analysis, which serves as the basis for this report. The transcribed interviews are being further analyzed. When the final analysis of the data is complete, a final report will be presented to the PCC Policy Committee. The final report will in turn serve as a basis for an article to be submitted to an appropriate journal for publication.

Telephone interviews were chosen because they are one of several demonstrated methods to collect reflective, in-depth information about a specific topic. While other methods of gathering this type of data (in-person interviews, focus groups) offered advantages for research of this nature, the logistics and expense of planning and scheduling focus groups rendered those methods impractical for this study. Phone interviews provided many of the advantages of other methods while also permitting a more flexible timetable and a practical means of reaching a widely dispersed population.

This is a qualitative study. Statistically representative, quantitative data could have been gathered through other techniques, most notably survey research. However, the limited range of possible responses in that kind of survey would not have provided the sort of open-ended feedback that could most optimally assist the PCC Policy Committee in assessing the current marketing of the BIBCO program and planning for its future. Moreover, the length of time required to plan, execute and analyze the results of a mailed survey would have been considerably greater than telephone interviews, and the cost of such a survey significantly higher.

The choice of front-line catalogers and cataloging managers enabled a clear focus on those library staff most closely involved in the process of setting cataloging policies and creating records. Comparing and contrasting the attitudes of these two key stakeholders has provided insights into the differences between working catalogers and their supervisors and will also assist the Policy Committee in its planning and decision-making.

The concentration on current BIBCO participants has permitted a more narrowly focused exploration of why institutions already committed to the program have failed to utilize the core guidelines more frequently. The insights gathered from this group could be used by the PCC Policy Committee to assess current approaches to BIBCO participation and encourage greater use of the core standard among these members, as well as address concerns of members regarding the perceived shortcomings of core records. The data gathered may also be valuable in planning efforts for the recruitment of additional participants to the program.

[Back to top]

III. Survey findings

Highlights of preliminary results

The information presented here is general. As the analysis progresses, there may be changes in some of the details offered below. This report focuses on the following areas: overall satisfaction with core, satisfaction with specific features of core records, use of core for original and copy cataloging, and suggested improvements for the BIBCO program.

Participants' profiles

As noted above, participants came from 29 of the 42 current BIBCO institutions. The institutions represented were:

Arizona State, Brigham Young, Cleveland Public, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Joint Forces Staff College, National Agricultural Library, National Library of Medicine, Northwestern, NYU, Oberlin, Princeton, Queens Borough Public, St. Louis University Law Library, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Chicago, University of Colorado, University of Dayton, University of Florida-Gainesville, University of Maryland, University of New Mexico, University of Texas-Austin, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Vanderbilt, and Yale.

21 (72.5%)of these institutions contribute at least some core records; 8 (27.5%) do not. This is closely follows the overall BIBCO production profile for the current fiscal year, in which 30 of 42 institutions (71%) have contributed at least some core records. Of those that do contribute, the ratio of core to full varies widely. Some libraries (e.g., Cornell) contribute large numbers of core records, while others (e.g., Yale, Brigham Young, Colorado) produce only very small numbers of core records. This mix is also reflected in the survey pool.

The length of time these institutions have been BIBCO members ranged from 1 year to the program's onset (6 years). The average length of participation was 3.4 years. This data is being used for further correlations, if any, between length of participation and perceptions.

Catalogers' seniority ranged from 3 to 25 years; the average was 13.5 years. Their length of time as BIBCO contributors ranged from just over 5 years (recorded as 5 years) to 1 year. The average length of time as contributor was just over 3 years. This data is also being examined for any correlation between attitudes and length of participation.

General comments

In general, the results suggest the following:

• Managers are happier with core than catalogers, and overall there is less reported dissatisfaction with core than anecdotal evidence and the BIBCO statistics and anecdotal evidence would suggest.
• Despite the reported levels of satisfaction, both catalogers and managers are divided about the benefits and problems of core. For example, respondents almost equally divided on the time savings resulting from core in original cataloging. Nearly as many respondents were satisfied with the quality of core records as not, and many feel that core provides inadequate access to materials.
• There is an interesting dichotomy between use of core in copy cataloging and original cataloging. While most catalogers and managers are happy to find and use core records, far fewer are interested in creating them. Even among those who claim to be satisfied in general, as well as among those who are satisfied with particular aspects of the core concept, there exists a palpable unease with broader use of core records in original cataloging.
• Both catalogers and managers have a number of concerns about the program's implementation, marketing, and management. There is dissatisfaction with the utilities, particularly OCLC, and their handling of BIBCO records. Training and documentation are also seen as inadequate, and a number of participants question the current marketing strategy of the program.
• There remain misunderstandings and false perceptions about what the core guidelines actually require. A number of those interviewed, for example, believe that use of core prohibits more than one added entry or subject heading. This perception may be related to the dissatisfaction with training and documentation.

Satisfaction wth core records

Overall Satisfaction

Respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with core records on a Likert scale, ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Managers reported a much higher degree of satisfaction than did catalogers. 18 of the 20 managers (90%), and 12 of the 20 catalogers (60%), report being very satisfied or satisfied with core records. 2 managers (10%) and 5 catalogers (25%) reported being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, while 3 catalogers (15%) indicated they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with core records overall.

Among the benefits of core records most frequently cited by both catalogers and managers: 15 participants (37.5%) mentioned that core provides sufficient access points, 11 (27.5%) felt that use of core saved time, 9 (22.5%) cited the benefit of completed authority work, and 8 (20%) felt that copy cataloging was simplified by core.

The satisfaction findings are complex, and there are numerous contradictions within them. Even as they report high levels of satisfaction, they also hold some decidedly ambiguous attitudes toward core records. Respondents were asked an open-ended follow-up question in which they elaborated on the reasons for their response. In the open-ended responses, 30% felt that core records did not provide sufficient access, 22.5% felt that core did not yield any time savings, and 10% felt that core was simply not as good as full. Indeed, even among catalogers and managers who reported being at least satisfied overall, there was skepticism or reluctance expressed about core records.

Selected comments:

• "My problem is, I don't want to change because I feel more is better."-- Manager, very satisfied overall
• "The records have all the information that is needed. I appreciate the authority work that is done."--Manager, very satisfied overall
• "I don't find time savings."--Cataloger, very satisfied overall
• "Catalogers say creating core doesn't save significant time."--Manager, very satisfied overall
• "I'm not certain that [core records] are allowing appropriate access."--Manager, satisfied overall
• "We do not create core records. We use core records. The quality is generally good [with core] . . . main problem is that records don't include as much subject analysis as we would like."--Manager, satisfied overall
• "The [core records] I have used did not have to be modified . . .We have not begun creating core records ourselves . . . It is only just a little more work to do full instead of core." -- Cataloger, satisfied overall

Satisfaction with Specific Features of Core Records

Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with the following features of core records:

• Quality of core records created by other libraries
• Timeliness of new core records in bibliographic utilities
• Time savings for performing copy cataloging
• Time savings for performing original cataloging
• Usefulness of core records to end-users
• Adequacy of training and documentation for core record creation

70% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of records created by others. 60% stated that they were at least satisfied with the time savings for copy cataloging, and nearly as many (57%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the time savings for original cataloging.

Managers were more likely to be very satisfied than catalogers with the quality of records produced by other libraries (35% versus 10%), time savings for copy cataloging (45% versus 20%), and usefulness of records to end users ( 35% versus 25%). On the other hand, catalogers were more likely than managers to be very satisfied with the time savings for original cataloging (25% versus 10%). However, as many catalogers were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the time savings involved for original cataloging as were very satisfied. Only 10% of managers were dissatisfied with the time savings, and none were very dissatisfied.

Nearly a third of catalogers were dissatisfied with the adequacy of training and documentation, over twice the number of managers giving that response. 55% of both catalogers and managers said they did not know their levels of satisfaction with timeliness of records in the utilities

Those who were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with any feature of core records were asked why. The largest number of dissatisfied responses had to do with training and documentation. Most respondents felt that the training over-emphasized the selling points for using core and spent too little time on what a core record is and how it differs from a full record. Some respondents felt the approval process was too long, while others mentioned that the documentation needed to be more complete.

Use of core records in cataloging

Original cataloging

Despite noting a high overall satisfaction rate with core records, only about 22% of respondents almost always perform original cataloging at the core level. 40% almost never catalog at the core level. Most respondents only cataloged monographs at the core level, though a few did handle other formats, notably videos.

Respondents were asked why they did or did not use core in their original cataloging. Among those who reported almost always using core, several mentioned that library policy guided their decisions. But policy hindered use of core as well: a number of repsondents noted that certain categories of materials or formats were excluded by institutional policy from core-level cataloging. In those institutions where the choice between core and full was left completely to the cataloger, use of core was far less common. Other barriers to further use of core included reaction of public services and the perception that core hinders access to end-users (despite the finding that 70% of interviewees also said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the usefulness of core records to end users.) The perceived lack of time savings was also noted by a number of participants. Some selected comments:

• "Our directive from above was to use core. My manager told us to catalog at core level."--Cataloger, almost always creating core.
• "We catalog less than a quarter of our work at core level. We don't catalog at core level if we do not feel comfortable or unsure when we need to add the authority record for a series, when the material is ephemeral [or] when we catalog non-book formats . . . " -- Manager, sometimes creating core.
• "I perform original cataloging for 2 major subject areas: music and Latin American studies . . . we need the best access to this material." -- Cataloger, almost never creating core
• "At this particular library, we have not gotten complete buy-in from public services . . . we need to convince public services."--Manager, almost never creating core.
• "After training, people couldn't see that much difference between core and full . . . we were not convinced to use core cataloging." -- Manager, almost never creating core.

Copy cataloging

Most of the respondents accept core records as is; only a handful (10%) report making changes to them. 95% of managers and 80% of catalogers reported that they accept core records without change. 60% of respondents reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the time savings of core for copy cataloging, and 70% said they were very satisfied or satisfied with the quality of core records created by others. This finding stands in stark contrast to the use of core records for original cataloging.

When asked what changes they made to core records they encountered, most respondents noted that they added notes (504s and 505s, as well as 500s), additional 7XXs, and additional 6XXs. Others added or modified series statements to reflect local practices.

Future directions, enhancements, and changes to BIBCO

In an open-ended question, respondents were asked what they would recommend for PCC and BIBCO to encourage broader acceptance of core level bibliographic records and increase BIBCO contributions and membership. There was no clear consensus on changes, with the exception of training and documentation, which was mentioned by 60% of respondents. Others suggested educating librarians about core and BIBCO through better training and outreach, especially at the state and local levels. 30% noted that support from the utilities, particularly OCLC, as well as from LC, was lacking. 35% cited the need for further studies on time savings and quality of BIBCO records, while 10% noted that outreach to public services is insufficient. Some selected comments:

• "De-emphasize core ... Good leadership hasn't existed for BIBCO. There needs to be more money ... to further strategic goals of documentation, training, meetings, and the website ... BIBCO should have a presence at any professional group. "--Cataloger.
• "To improve BIBCO, we need better documentation and a forum for ongoing Qs & As for participants. I want an A-Z manual on everything for BIBCO."--Cataloger.
• "Give higher OCLC cataloging credit to those who create PCC core or full records."--Manager.
• "We should get paid for OCLC credit when we catalog at PCC [level]. It is frustrating when a library creates an acquisition record and they get credit ... [Libraries] need more training at local areas ... "--Cataloger.
• "Create records only once on our local systems and load them nationally. Why do we have to re-input into OCLC? Also, we need to make it easier to change records on OCLC."--Cataloger.
• "A lot more libraries would accept core if pricing breaks were available for creating core records."--Cataloger.
• "Promote at the local level ... Perhaps have more meetings at [state] conventions ... There is a perception that BIBCO is an elitist group."--Manager.
• "Major failure is not sharing among OCLC and RLIN ... PCC should work with [library] directors. They need top-down support for core."--Manager
• "PCC could also get visibility from LC. Anytime LC can mention core level it would be beneficial. If core is associated with LC, it would enhance the image of core."--Manager.