Tag Archives: cataloging

A Critical View of Metrics in EBLIP

Posted on by

by Donna Frederick
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

The Association of Library Collections and Technical Services, better known as ALCTS, is a division of the American Library Association. Approximately once a month ALCTS hosts an “eForum” which is a two day moderated email-based discussion. Current and pressing issues and concerns of librarians are often surfaced through these discussions. Some eForums demonstrate how online discussions can challenge our thinking and assumptions. While most of the threads are practical in nature and focus on mundane problems, the author of this post can generally uncover at least one valuable nugget which likely would not be discovered elsewhere.

The February 2016 ALCTS eForum was called “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata”. It was led by Lisa Robinson of Michigan State University and Stacie Traill of the University of Minnesota. Lisa and Stacie have provided a summary of the discussion which is referenced at the end of this post. The diversity of participants likely played a role in the wide range of points of view voiced. The “valuable nugget” of the month was about the assumptions we make when we apply traditional measures of effectiveness, productivity or efficiency to changed environments and the impact of making decisions based on the “evidence” derived from the application of those measures.

One of the discussions in the eForum was whether or not cataloguing and metadata creation are the same discipline. Participants generally agreed that both are unified by a shared theory of metadata. There was also agreement that the two are different in practice. Lisa Bodenheimer of Clemson University was able to bring clarity to the discussion when she stated that, “The need for different metrics and the use of different standards lead me to say, yes, metadata is a specialty distinct from cataloging.” The reality is that because the basic theory at the core of cataloging can and should be applied to all library metadata, technical services librarians often apply “tried and true metrics” to all forms of metadata creation whether it be traditional cataloging or creating records for one of the newer metadata containers. These measures often lead to conclusions about low productivity among traditional cataloguers which, if the difference in practice and the nature of the metrics used are well understood, are inaccurate. For example, some metadata creation processes involve taking 100s of traditional catalog records and, through a single action, convert them into new metadata records. Comparisons using a traditional metric is misleading in such a context. Neither the older or newer process is well-represented in the results seeing as the original cataloger may have needed to research topics or authors to create effective discovery metadata while the metadata librarian may have taken days or weeks to create a script or process which would process all of those records at once. The latter type of activity is not represented in existing cataloging metrics. Participants reported technical services decisions which were made based on data collected by applying metrics inappropriately.

While the eForum discussion of metrics appears to be most relevant to metadata and cataloging librarians, it demonstrates a concern for evidence based library and information practice. Metrics are used to extract the evidence upon which we make decisions. To measure something, we must understand what it is we are measuring and ensure that the tool for measurement is appropriate. When we make comparisons based on metrics, we also must understand the mechanics of the tool and critically evaluate both the appropriateness of its application and the results it produces. As the forum revealed, metrics are useful and powerful tools but differences in practice can make a particular metric inappropriate for use in seemingly related contexts and/or can result in misleading results. In the case of this eForum, the apparent conclusion is that the discipline needs an overhaul in the metrics it uses for measuring cataloguing and metadata work. Keeping this in mind, are there other areas of library work where changes over time and/or slight variations in practice have rendered our “tried and true” metrics less than useful as evidence?

References
Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (2016) “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata” [eForum archive] ALCTS eForum Archive. Dates of event: Tuesday, 2/16/2016 – Wednesday, 2/17/2016. Retrieved from: http://lists.ala.org/sympa 29 February 2016

Robinson, Lisa and Traill, Stacie (2016) “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata: eForum Summary” ALCTS News, features. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/alctsnews/features/e-forum-career 26 February 2016

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Research and navigating the changing cataloging environment

Posted on by

by Donna Frederick
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

The nature of a technological disruption is that it interrupts the continuity between past and present. Traditions and tried and true methods may lose their effectiveness or even begin to fail outright. In disrupted environments, practitioners may find themselves lacking both the theory and experience to feel confident in making decisions and taking action. As I meet with the Copy Cataloging Group at the University Library each week, I am reminded of this reality as cataloguers bring the cataloging conundrums they encounter to the meeting.

In the environment of traditional cataloguing, the mental model of a catalogue record is that of a flat and linear container for descriptive information. The cataloging process was well-supported by a set of relatively concrete cataloging rules. However, in today’s environment where the mental model is multidimensional and characterized by the expression of various relationships among resources and resource characteristics, the old “rules” simply aren’t relevant anymore. Conundrums soon begin to arise as it becomes apparent that we are attempting to create complex multidimensional metadata in the MARC metadata container which only accommodates flat, linear records. Further difficulty is added to the situation when it is realized that not only do the new “guidelines” for creating metadata fail to address many day-to-day challenges, but searches of listserv archives and the posting questions to these lists reveals that neither the “experts” nor librarianship in general have viable solutions for many of these problems either. So then, how does the practice of metadata creation avoid being mired by unanswered questions and seemingly unresolvable challenges?

Ultimately, those involved with what is sometimes called the “reinvention of cataloguing” need a solid base of theory upon which to make decisions. Up until recently, cataloguers have been struggling with the FRBR model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records), including the new RDA descriptive standard, and the concept of linked data. The gap between the conceptual models and the day to day practice of cataloguing is often experienced as being impossibly wide for many who have been trained in traditional cataloguing. Fortunately, IFLA (2015) has recently released their latest draft of the “Statement of International Cataloguing Principles” which will help bridge the existing gap by providing specific principles upon which decisions can be made. While the principles help to alleviate some of the abstraction created by the theoretical models, cataloguers face the day to day challenges of working in an “in-between land” where the theory and practice has begun to take root but the actual systems in which we create and use metadata is still largely based on concepts from the late 1960s. In addition to shifting our mental models, cataloguers are also charged with informing and sometimes re-educating other library workers about the morphing reality of the metadata. This metadata is central to many library processes ranging from discovery of and access to resources and information to functions such as acquisitions and interlibrary loan. Finding a way to effectively inform non-cataloguers about the new reality in a relevant and meaningful way remains one more challenge which has yet to be effectively addressed.

As I concluded a recent research project on the very topic of how to effectively communicate information about the new cataloging models and standards, I was reminded of the importance of research and evidence in professional practice. One measure of the effectiveness of training I was using in my study was to track changes in the volume and frequency of cataloguing questions asked over time. My hypothesis was that the introduction of training would lead to a reduction in questions but the reality was that a steady increase was observed. Puzzled by the results, I did an examination of the actual content of the questions to reveal an increasing complexity and thoughtfulness of questions over time. While in the past there were “cataloguing rules” which could be learned and mastered, in this new environment training didn’t actually lead to mastery. Instead training lead to a new and deeper level of understanding. The evidence suggests an ongoing learning process where the issue of mastery many not be relevant. Without purposely undertaking research and learning from the evidence, the nature of the impact of the disruption on the process of learning the new cataloguing models would likely not have been discovered. In fact, the lack of mastery and the ever-increasing number of questions would likely have been a source of frustration. This is a highly valuable finding both for the training of cataloguers and library staff in general and will inform the creation of positive and effective future learning experiences.

References
IFLA (2015). Statement of International Cataloguing Principles ICP Haag: International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Retrieved from: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2015_worldwide_review.pdf

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.