Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting "Miksa, Shawne" <smi...@unt.edu>:

I've spent some time today reviewing my copy of this book --Research  
 libraries and their implementation of AACR2 / edited by Judith   
Hopkins and John A. Edens. (Foundations in library and information   
science; v. 22). Greenwich, Conn. : Jai Press, 1986.  ISBN   
0-89232-641-7

And I've just finished reading "Cataloging rules and principles: A  
critique of the A.L.A. rules for entry and a proposed design for their  
revision." by Seymour Lubetzky, 1953.

His final chapter is entitled "Q's & A's" -- today's FAQ. Two of the  
Q's have to do with cost: Cost of change, and Cost of cataloging.  
Lubetzky is confident that the new rules will indeed be  
cost-effective, although he admits that no such studies have been  
done. His arguments have to do with certain simplifications of  
decision-making.

But the most interesting statement he makes is about the need to go  
back and modify all entries in the catalog to conform to the new  
rules. He felt that such a wholesale change was not needed. This  
points out something that I haven't seen yet, which is an analysis of  
how RDA entries will/would fare mixed in with an AACR2 environment. I  
have no sense of what must change if we begin to add RDA data to our  
current databases. No, that's not it: not to our current databases,  
but mingled with our current data, albeit perhaps not in MARC21  
format. Can the AACR2 data itself be salvaged? How much of it? Where  
are the conflicts or problem areas?

I sympathize with Mac's assertion that we should not move to RDA until  
we have a carrier for the data. When we moved from ALA to AACR and to  
AACR2, we were able to provide our cataloging without a change of  
technology (they all were printed on cards). Today we don't have that  
option, and it is rather difficult to even consider creating RDA-based  
metadata without some idea of how to make it manifest. (Obviously,  
using the MARC record is a step backward, since it cannot accommodate  
key RDA concepts like FRBR entities and relationships.)

kc


Several long quotes follow so please bear with me.  Specifically, I   
am relating quotes from just one chapter entitled “Implementing   
AACR2—defusing the sound and the fury: implementation of AACR2 at   
the University of California, Davis” by Kazuko M. Daily and Gregor   
A. Preston.

All of the studies in this book contain interesting anecdotal   
evidence of the time and effort involved in implementing AACR2 in   
addition to details of implementation plans and challenges faced.

Daily and Preston start their study with a “historical perspective”   
in order to relate how the University of California started their   
plans to deal with implementation of AACR2. A committee—the   
Alternative Catalog Evaluation Committee (ACE)-- was formed in 1978   
and gave recommendations to the University Librarian in 1979. It was  
 during this time that LC had decided to delay implementation one   
year until 1981, but the authors remarked that “…nobody on or   
outside the Committee felt that a one year reprieve gave us adequate  
 time to gear up for what was inexorably coming in 1981” (p. 44).   
In  Spring of 1980 the AACR2 Technical Implementation Committee  
(ATTIC)  was formed and because of the lack of additional funding  
from the  university the committee “opted for a lean implementation  
plan” (p.  46).

[Keep in mind that this taking place as many libraries were dealing   
with issues surrounding card catalogs and new online systems. In   
California in particular, and relevant to this particular study,   
they were dealing with the 1978 passage of “Proposition 13” which   
had the effect (only one of many, if I understand correctly) of   
reducing funding for education, public libraries, etc. ]

Here I am quoting some discussions on time and effort --Daily and   
Preston discuss the effects of AACR2 implementation on several   
different groups of staff--given by catalogers.

Part II, Section F. Effects on Original Catalogers (selected   
excerpts), pgs. 59-60

“Professional catalogers spent a fair amount of time in learning to   
apply the new rules. This activity included state and regional   
conferences, in-house meetings, and personal study and application.”

“The rules which occasioned the most discussion were contained in   
Chapters 21, 22, and 24 of AACR2. Rule 21.1B2, which explains when a  
 work emanating from a corporate body should be entered under the   
corporate body and when under title, was particularly troublesome   
and confusing… (snip)…Rules relating to the form of personal and   
corporate names also took a good deal of time to master.”

“Applying AACR2 in original cataloging was further complicated by   
the issuance of Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI’s)   
which, in effect, began revising the rules immediately. Thus, the   
notion that AACR2 is a set of fixed rules, which simply need to be   
learned by catalogers, is not true, although it may be a   
misconception shared by many non-technical services librarians….We   
started a file of LCRIs, arranged by file number, so that catalogers  
 could check on place for the latest interpretation of the rule they  
 were applying. We also held regular meetings to discuss the LCRIs  
as  they were published in the LC Cataloging Service Bulletins.”

“We kept no record of the actual amount of time professional   
catalogers expended as a result of learning new rules. There is no   
doubt it was considerable. After mastering AACR2, there was little   
extra work involved in cataloging an item under the new rules as   
compared to the old rules. As mention previously, the major   
difference was the need to ascertain whether a new heading   
conflicted with an already established heading.”

Part 2, Section A. Impact on Cataloging (selected excerpts), pgs. 61- 62

“From the standpoint of those librarians who catalog or are in   
charge of cataloging and maintaining card catalogs, the adoption of   
AACR2 has not produced any recognizable advantages, but neither has   
it produced the disaster that had anticipated by some. We still   
persist in believing, though no longer with emotion, that AACR2   
could have been postponed, until automation could provide us with   
on-line catalogs and a means of changing headings globally.”

“…AACR2 has had to be interpreted and re-interpreted from the start.  
 Those expecting a pristine, new code have been sadly disappointed.   
Notwithstanding the Paris Principles, if the new rules are more   
logical than the old, we assume that the new rules will be   
ultimately beneficial to the library user, but such benefits are   
difficult to measure.”

“One positive aspect of the whole experience was that planning for   
and interpreting AACR2 required us, in effect, to review our   
existing procedures. The original cataloger had to re-study his   
knowledge and application of cataloging rules as a whole in order to  
 apply AACR2 to new material. Supervisors and the Department Head  
had  to dissect established routines and adapt some of them to AACR2  
 considerations. Implementing AACR2 resulted, in varying degrees, in  
 a sort of re-education process of the staff.”

Part 4, Conclusion (selected excerpts), pgs. 63 - 64

 “If we had to do it all over again, there is little we would do   
differently, given the lack of addition funding for AACR2   
implementation. With additional funds, we might have created a new   
unit which would have checked all headings on AACR2 copy prior to   
cataloging. This would have insured that all heading conflicts,   
personal and corporate, were identified and resolved. It also would   
have meant that both copycatalogers and original catalogers could   
have concentrated on cataloging without having to absorb the extra   
workload caused by AACR2.”

“Although a lot of time was spent in committee meetings and planning  
 sessions, this effort allowed us to plan strategies well in advance  
 of D-Day and give us confidence in the changes we adopted.”

“With the passage of time, we tend to forget that sound and the fury  
 which accompanied our discussions of AACR2 implementation and the   
trepidation we felt as D-Day loomed ever closer. We are   
intellectually tougher for having undergone the experience. We’re   
ready when you are, AACR3!”

_____
Again, all very interesting and I think pertinent to current   
discussions surrounding RDA development, testing, and possible   
implementation in the years to come. I would not suppose that any   
implementation is going to happen next year—mostly likely not for a   
few years—in which case it would prudent to start planning now on   
how to implement, or not. As I have said in previous postings   
(either here or on NGC4LIB), we don’t yet have enough data to make   
such decisions. In looking back at the context surrounding AACR2   
implementation we can see that we obviously enjoy a vast technology   
communications advantage and the ability to exchange information   
almost instantaneously. However, funding training and implementation  
 and the amount and length of individual time and effort each of us   
has to put into studying and learning a new way of cataloging is, in  
 my opinion, unchanged.

**************************************************************
Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Library and Information Sciences
College of Information
University of North Texas
email: shawne.mi...@unt.edu
http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
**************************************************************



--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet