This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 16 November 2014, At: 14:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cataloging & Classification QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

Collaborating Over the Centuries:Creating the What Middletown ReadDatabaseKatharine Leigh aa University Libraries, Ball State University , Muncie , Indiana , USAPublished online: 04 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Katharine Leigh (2013) Collaborating Over the Centuries: Creating theWhat Middletown Read Database, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51:1-3, 224-238, DOI:10.1080/01639374.2012.731678

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.731678

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51:224–237, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0163-9374 print / 1544-4554 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01639374.2012.731678

Collaborating Over the Centuries: Creatingthe What Middletown Read Database

KATHARINE LEIGHUniversity Libraries, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA

In 2003, library records from over a century ago were discoveredin the attic of the Muncie Public Library. This finding led to amulti-year collaboration between the Muncie Public Library, theCenter for Middletown Studies, and the University Libraries at BallState University to create the What Middletown Read database,http://bsu.edu/libraries/wmr/index.php. This article describes thecollaboration between various groups, focusing especially on therole of the Cataloging and Metadata Services unit at UniversityLibraries in the project, and ends with lessons learned and recom-mendations for cataloging units.

KEYWORDS descriptive cataloging, catalogers, metadata,archival materials, public libraries, college and university libraries

INTRODUCTION

Collaborating makes sense in today’s economy, where expectations oftenexceed resources. Collaboration may take many forms, the most commonbeing the sharing of personnel, space, and monetary resources. Opportuni-ties also exist to apply for grants that require collaborative work, such asthe National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Collaborative ResearchGrant. Collaborators share goals and work together to develop workflowsthat support their projects. As Liz Bishoff states, “Collaboration makes itpossible for every institution to capitalize on the professional traditions andexpertise of all.”1

Libraries are no strangers to collaboration. Public libraries often workwith other community groups to provide services and spaces for meetings.

Received February 2012; revised April 2012; accepted September 2012.Address correspondence to Katharine Leigh, University Libraries, Ball State University,

Muncie, IN 47306, USA. E-mail: kdleigh@bsu.edu

224

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Collaborating Over the Centuries 225

In academic libraries, librarians often serve as liaisons to non-library de-partments, work with faculty by providing classroom instruction, and selectresources that enhance the research produced across campus. Catalogers arealso very accustomed to collaboration; for example, many of them contributerecords to WorldCat.

The Cataloging and Metadata Services unit at Ball State University Li-braries began work on the What Middletown Read project in 2009. Theproject itself began in 2003, when library records from 1891–1902 werediscovered in the attic of the downtown Carnegie Library branch of theMuncie Public Library (in Muncie, Indiana) during its centennial renovation.The records included information about patrons, materials, and transactions.This led to a multi-year collaborative digital humanities project between theMuncie Public Library, the Center for Middletown Studies at Ball State Uni-versity, and the Ball State University Libraries. The result was the creation ofthe What Middletown Read database and search engine, which is availableat http://bsu.edu/libraries/wmr/index.php.

The purpose of this article is to examine how the various groups workedtogether to create the What Middletown Read database, focusing especiallyon the role of the Cataloging and Metadata Services unit. The Cataloging unitcollaborated with several other groups inside the library, on campus, andwithin the Muncie community. This article will also address the challengesthe Cataloging unit encountered, the lessons they learned about collabora-tion, and how other catalogers can bring their expertise and skills to theirown collaborations.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a growing body of literature on collaborations on digital projects be-tween librarians and humanists. Cunningham provided a definition of “digitalhumanities” projects and how librarians and faculty members can collaboratetogether to create them.2 She defined digital humanities as “projects that seekto create collections in the form of editions or archives with the purpose offorging new types of research facilitated by digital access to tools.”3 Collab-orations have become increasingly necessary because large digital projectscombine scholarship and technology, two complicated skill sets that are of-ten held by different personnel. “The library has primary documents andstaff with expertise in creating, maintaining and preserving digital content,as well as ensuring that the content meets the needs of its users. Scholars canprovide primary research and initiative in developing the sources to digitize,and will also be one of the largest user groups able to manipulate the contentfor scholarly discovery.”4 Cunningham discussed the three major challengesresearch libraries encounter: “First, the possibility, or at least the fear ofthe possibility, that electronic resources will replace print resources alto-gether, second, the problem of preservation of digital content, and third, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

226 K. Leigh

dissemination and management of access to digital resources.”5 Cunninghamconcluded by providing examples of successful collaborations.

Kretzschmar and Potter also maintained that humanists need to col-laborate with libraries because it is the only realistic option for long-termsustainability of digital humanities projects in the current financial environ-ment.6 There are two challenges that make long-term sustainability difficult:technology and media are constantly changing, and new financial and hu-man capital are continually needed. The authors discuss how these problemspresented themselves during the Linguistics Atlas Project at the University ofGeorgia. The library benefited from the collaboration because the human-ists were able to receive external funding, that was then used to purchaseserver equipment and software. The humanists benefited because the librarywas able to provide new technology and continuing resources to keep theproject going. The authors suggested that digital humanities projects plan forintegration with the library as a host for Web services and as the archival sitefor content.7

Siemens, Cunningham, Duff, and Warwick discussed the similarities anddifferences within and between members of the Digital Libraries and Dig-ital Humanities communities.8 The authors’ goal was to create knowledgefor the two communities, so that they can recognize the factors that leadto successful collaborations. The communities can then use or avoid certainfactors to increase the likelihood of success. To discover the factors, theauthors conducted interviews and surveyed members of both communities.Similarities between the two communities included understanding the needto work in teams to utilize expertise and skills, using e-mail and face-to-facemeetings as the primary way to communicate, frequently functioning with-out documentation on the structure and the responsibilities of the team, andoften encountering the same challenges. The challenges “included difficul-ties associated with scheduling and coordinating tasks, people, and otherresources, facilitating communication with geographically dispersed teammembers, even those within the same organization, and interpersonal issues,such as conflict resolution and different work rhythms.”9 A main differencebetween the groups is that librarians are generally more comfortable collab-orating than are humanists, who generally have little formal training in teamskills. The authors provide suggestions for how these two communities couldwork together, which include training in teamwork and greater communica-tion. Early in a project, communication should rely heavily on face-to-facediscussions, so that the two communities may get to know each other andbuild trust. After establishing guidelines for the project, the communities candecide their preferences on how to communicate in the future.

Catalogers and metadata librarians have skills that lend themselves wellto being a part of collaborations, including digital humanities projects. Chap-man discussed the various roles the metadata librarian can have in a researchlibrary, particularly the role metadata librarians play in collaboration.10 In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Collaborating Over the Centuries 227

addition to their role in creating metadata, metadata librarians play “a consul-tative role, requiring flexibility and negotiation as all parties design solutionsthat are mutually acceptable.”11 Metadata librarians work with other tech-nical services staff to develop procedures and documentation for metadatacreation for their projects.

Simser and Childs described how the Kansas State Digital Libraries Pro-gram enabled catalogers to show their expertise in organizing informationand creating metadata.12 After seeing the work catalogers at Kansas Stateperformed, she believed that “The ‘outside world’ will eventually recognizecatalogers’ expertise at organizing information and will see how this skillis desirable in the digital age. Catalogers have increasingly become famil-iar with new technologies, and taking part in initiatives will highlight thatknowledge.”13

This article is intended to expand on current research by focusingspecifically on catalogers and metadata specialists roles in digital humani-ties projects.

BACKGROUND

The discovery of the ledgers in Muncie, Indiana was important becauseof their uniqueness, both in extent and that they remained relatively in-tact over a hundred years; and also because Muncie had been researchedas part of the landmark sociological Middletown case studies. The extentof the ledgers was unique because of the amount of information recordedand the range of years covered. The library records included: a register ofnames and addresses of all the patrons who joined the library between 1875and 1902; two volumes of their accession catalog; and 25 notebooks thatrecorded the circulation transactions. The circulation transactions “coveredthe libraries lending from November 1891 to December 1902 with one gap;library staff likely destroyed the circulation records detailing transactionsbetween June 1892 and November 1894 in the wake of a local smallpox epi-demic.”14 In all, they contain information on approximately 6,300 borrowers,11,000 books, and 174,000 circulation transactions. “The only comparablearchive is that of the Sage Library in Osage, Iowa, which has been de-scribed by Christine Pawley in her groundbreaking Reading on the MiddleBorder: The Culture of Print in Late-Nineteenth Century Osage, Iowa, butthe Sage Library records are roughly a tenth the size of those discovered inMuncie.”15

It is amazing that the ledgers exist at all. Circulation records that dateback decades are often lost over time, while circulation records created inrecent decades are subject to privacy laws. Research was conducted beforework began on the project to determine that creating the What Middle-town Read database would not violate privacy laws. It was found that sincethe original materials were over 75 years old they could be used in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

228 K. Leigh

project,16 thus providing a valuable new resource to scholars in numerousdisciplines.

An additional reason the discovery of the ledgers was important wasdue to Muncie being one of the most studied small cities in the UnitedStates during the twentieth century. Robert and Helen Lynd published theirlandmark sociological case study Middletown: A Study in Modern AmericanCulture in 1929, and Middletown in Transition in 1937,17 both of whichexamined the city and residents of Muncie in great detail.18 The first studyfocused on the changes in a typical American city between 1890 and 1925.It included information on the role of the Muncie Public Library in thecommunity and the reading habits of the residents, but the sources for thecirculation figures that were used began in 1903.19 Since the study’s overallstarting point was 1890, the Lynds could have used the older ledgers hadthey known of their existence. Scholars in the present day can use the ledgerinformation located in the What Middletown Read database to build on thework that began with the Lynd’s research over 80 years ago.

THE COLLABORATION

After the ledgers were recovered from the attic of the Muncie Public Library,they were placed in unlabeled boxes and shelved. It was there that FrankFelsenstein, the Reed D. Voran Honors Distinguished Professor of Humani-ties and Professor of English at Ball State University, found the ledgers whenhe visited the library in search of materials for a book history class. Recog-nizing the ledgers’ value, he contacted the Center for Middletown Studiesand Ball State University Libraries. Together they proposed the creation ofa database that preserved the data found in the ledgers, and also includedsocioeconomic profiles of the patrons who checked out the materials overa century ago. The colleagues explained: “It will permit researchers to for-mulate queries and collect evidence on the circulation of particular books,the popularity of authors, genres, and topics, the reading habits of spe-cific subgroups, the reach of particular publishing houses, and even thephysical characteristics of the books themselves, to offer but a few exam-ples.”20 The purpose of the database was to bring the readers of Muncieto whoever was searching for them, whether it is scholars of various dis-ciplines or members of the community. A scholar could use the databaseto find out what married women checked out in 1892. A member of thecommunity could possibly find out what their great-grandfather read as achild.

The database would be freely available online, both to scholars andthe general public. Digital scans of the original circulation ledgers, the BookBorrowers Register, and the Accession Catalog would be available via linksto a digital collection. The project was awarded several grants to fund the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Collaborating Over the Centuries 229

building and population of the database, including a large CollaborativeResearch Grant from the NEH in 2009. The NEH grant included funding topublish a study based on the source materials.

The creation of the What Middletown Read database required peoplewith varying expertise and skills. The Muncie Public Library supplied theledgers and other supplementary documents and allowed them to be digi-tized. They also presented programming to the Muncie community on howto use the database once it was created. They were consulted as needed onthe project, but did not attend working meetings of the main group that cre-ated and populated the database. The collection of the data on the MunciePublic Library patrons and the entry of the circulation records were accom-plished by the Center for Middletown Studies. The patron and transactiondata was the first part of the data recording to get underway, and took aperiod of several years to complete.

In addition to the Center, several units from the University Libraries wereresponsible for parts of the project. The Archives and Special Collections unitworked with the Muncie Public Library on the digitization and preservationof the ledgers and other materials. They also provided research sources thatenhanced the information found in the ledgers, such as the 1900 UnitedStates Census and Muncie city directories that were used for creating the so-cioeconomic profiles of the patrons. The Metadata and Digital Initiatives unitperformed the actual digitizing of the ledgers and used those scans to pub-lish a collection in the University Libraries’ Digital Media Repository, availableat http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm4/collection.php?CISOROOT=/WMRead.21 The Li-brary and Information Technology unit supervised and provided support forthe Information Architect, who was responsible for designing the publicinterface and whose position was funded by the NEH grant. They alsohoused the server on which the database is located. Finally, the Cata-loging and Metadata Services unit was responsible for transcribing theentries in the Accession Catalog and enhancing the data on over 11,000records. The unit was charged with creating the descriptive metadata be-cause of their background in describing and providing access to bibliographicmaterials.

Communication between the groups involved in creating the databasewas accomplished with both face-to-face meetings and via e-mail. Represen-tatives from the various groups met frequently to discuss progress on theproject and to gather feedback on the development of the public interface.The meetings were held in Ball State University’s Bracken Library, since mostof the project personnel worked in the building. The meetings were usuallyheld once a month, but increased in frequency as the deadline approachedfor finishing the work on the NEH grant. There were also smaller meetingsbetween individuals and between groups about their specific responsibilities,held on an as-needed basis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

230 K. Leigh

CATALOGERS’ ROLE

The staff interface for the What Middletown Read database was mostly com-pleted by mid-fall 2009. By this time, the Center for Middletown Studies hadalready begun work on entering the patron and transaction records into thedatabase and the Information Architect was creating a system that wouldlink the patron, transaction, and bibliographic data together. The catalogershad input on the layout and design of the staff interface, which was used fortranscription and adding extra bibliographic information to the records. Thecatalogers’ main concerns were to have fields representing all the informa-tion that was recorded in the Accession Catalog and a design that facilitatedquick entry of the data. The catalogers worked from the digital scans of theledgers in lieu of working with the original materials. Copies of the digi-tal scans were recorded on CD-ROMs and distributed to the catalogers. Thishelped preserve the original materials and allowed multiple people to recordinformation from a single ledger at the same time.

The transcription of the original Accession Catalog proved to be an ex-tensive and complex undertaking. The Catalog consisted of two ledgers. Thefirst ledger contained 250 completed pages; the second ledger had 52 com-pleted pages. Both ledgers listed approximately 40 bibliographic entriesper page, for a total of over 11,000 bibliographic entries. The first ledger’sfields were: Date, Accession Number, Author and Title, Where Published(location of publisher), When (date of publication), Number of Volumes,Size, Pages, Binding, Of Whom Procured, and Cost (broken down by dol-lars, cents, pounds, shillings, pence). The second ledger had identical fields,in addition to a Publisher field (see Figure 1). The publisher was not reg-ularly recorded in the first ledger. When the publisher was recorded, theinformation appeared in several different fields.

In addition to the transcribed bibliographic data from the Accession Cat-alog, a separate section was added to the bibliographic record that includedstandardized and other data that would enhance searching, or what wascalled “authority data.” The transcribed data was not consistent enough tobe searchable without some enhancements. An example of this was in ledger1, page 167, Accession Number 8628. The entry had “Dickens, Chas_” listedas the author of David Copperfield. The information from the ledger wastranscribed and “Dickens, Charles, 1812–1870” was recorded in the authorfield of the standardized data section. The fields that were both transcribedand had standardized data were: Author, Title, Where Published, and Pub-lisher. To enhance searching further in the Middletown database, additionalfields were added to the standardized data that were not found in the origi-nal ledgers: Pen Name of the Author, Uniform Titles, Subject Headings, andContributors. Occasionally, Pen Names and Contributors were recorded inthe Author Field in the ledgers and were transcribed in the database record

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Collaborating Over the Centuries 231

FIGURE 1 Ledger 2, Page 4 (color figure available online).

but they were also recorded in the appropriate field in the standardized data.The standardized data was found in other sources, including the 1905 MunciePublic Library catalog,22 the Library of Congress (LC) Catalog, and WorldCat.The personal names recorded in the standardized data section were usuallybased on the LC Name Authority File; however, if the author’s pen name waslisted as the main entry in the LC Name Authority File, it was recorded in thePen Name field and the real name of the author was recorded in the Authorfield. The subjects that were recorded in the database were usually fromthe Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH); however, catalogers addedcustom subject headings if no suitable headings could be found in LCSH.The Publisher field in the standardized data was populated with informationfrom the 260 MARC (Machine Readable Cataloging) field in records found inthe Library of Congress Catalog or WorldCat (see Table 1).

In addition to creating bibliographic records, the catalogers advised themain group during the creation of the public interface. Because of their back-ground with the Accession Catalog and their familiarity with library catalogs,they were able to provide valuable feedback on searching and expectedfunctionality. The catalogers counseled the group as to fields that would beappropriate for the basic and advanced searches in the public interface. Forexample, the catalogers counseled against making the Number of Volumes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

232 K. Leigh

TABLE 1 Types of Information Found in a What Middletown Read Record

Fields in WMR Transcribed Standardized AddedRecords Information Information Information

Accession # XAccession Date X XAdditional Info X XAuthor X XBinding Type XCents XContributors X XDenomination XDiscard Date X XDollars XNature of Origin XNo. Pages XNo. Vols. XOf Whom Procured XPage # XPen Name(s) X XPence XPounds XPublisher X XShillings XSize XSubject Headings XTitle X XUniform Title X XWhen XWhere Published X X

field searchable. Sometimes the volumes were originally recorded as thenumber of volumes (e.g., “3 volumes total”), but other times it was recordedas the volume number (e.g., “this is the 3rd volume”). There was no way tofix the issue with the Number of Volumes field, since it was impossible toverify what the original intent of the recorder had been. Even though thefield cannot be searched, the information was recorded and can be foundby looking at the transcribed data (see Table 2).

The Cataloging team encountered several challenges while participatingin the collaboration. The first challenge was meeting the June 2010 deadlineset in the grant proposal for finishing the entry of the bibliographic data intothe database. The catalogers began entering data from the Accession Catalogin November 2009. The 2009 NEH grant proposal stated that UniversityLibraries would provide two catalogers to work on the project.23

Three people were initially assigned to record the data, with anotherperson responsible for quality control. The original goal was for each personto finish 4 pages a week. It quickly became apparent that this was notrealistic, as people were working 10 hours a week just to finish 1 page.After trying various methods to speed up the data entry, it was decidedthat several people would need to be added to the project. Eventually,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Collaborating Over the Centuries 233

TABLE 2 Bibliographic Fields Searchable in the Basic and Advanced Search

Basic Advanced

Author All Book FieldsTitle Accession Date (Standardized)Publisher Accession Date (Text)Where Published Accession NumberSubject(s) Additional Information

AuthorBinding TypeContributorsDate Published (Text)Discard Date (Standardized)Discard Date (Text)Ledger NumberNumber of PagesOrigin of AcquisitionPage #ProvenancePublisherSubject(s)TitleWhere Published

there were 11 people creating bibliographic records, each for approximately10 hours a week, over a 4-month period. The catalogers were ultimately ableto finish their portion of the project on time, but it took considerable timeand resources to complete.

The main reason the work took significantly longer to complete thanoriginally proposed was that transcribing the data in the Accession Catalogwas exceptionally difficult. Nineteenth-century handwriting is more formalthan what is taught today, and often the catalogers could not tell the differ-ence between the letters. Also, the entries were made by several differentpeople, which meant learning to interpret different sets of handwriting. Therewere also a variety of problems with the data in the ledgers. Accession num-bers were often skipped over or reused when originally recorded. To solvethe problem, a field was added that let the catalogers know that certain ac-cession numbers were in fact duplicates (instead of transcription errors madeby the catalogers).

The use of ditto marks throughout the Accession Catalog caused themost frustration to the catalogers. Ditto marks were used to save entry timeso the original recorder did not have to rewrite identical information mul-tiple times. Unfortunately, the ditto marks would frequently spill over intoentries where they did not belong. For example, this could lead to an entryincorrectly claiming Herman Melville was the author of Little Women ratherthan Louisa May Alcott. The catalogers faithfully transcribed the incorrectinformation, but also recorded the correct information in the authority data.This way the public interface displayed the correct data to the users of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

234 K. Leigh

database. The catalogers also encountered marks in the ledgers of indeter-minate type, which they had to classify as either errant pen marks or dittomarks. In these cases, the catalogers checked the data against other sources.“Detective work” consumed much of the catalogers’ time on this project,more even than the actual data entry.

It was sometimes a challenge for the catalogers to meet the expectationsof the other people involved in the collaboration. Initially, the project man-agers for What Middletown Read anticipated full and clear records for eachof the entries in the Accession Catalog, which would allow for the searchingof all the fields. The full extent of the problems with the bibliographic datawas not discovered until the catalogers began working with the ledgers.The problems with the data prevented being able to search every field, likeVolume. Even when the data was complete there were still limitations. Partway through the project, it was suggested that pen names of the authorsshould be searchable in the database, just as they are in most regular librarycatalogs. A field for Pen Names was ultimately added to the authority datasection, containing the most famous pseudonym of the author. This wasone of the many ways that the catalogers’ collective expertise helped to de-velop a robust and friendly database, which could meet the needs of seriousresearchers in a variety of disciplines.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

It is imperative that people with the expertise and skill sets needed arebrought into every project. The building and population of the What Middle-town Read database was successful because the right people were workingon it. All the groups involved had valuable skills, including the catalogers(whose expertise was in bibliographic description). They were able to as-semble a record that was searchable in the database, despite the challengespresented by the data itself. In particular, their expertise was helpful whendata was recorded in the wrong column. They also provided input on thepublic interface, which greatly enhanced its searchability (power) and userfriendliness (design). Others could have transcribed the bibliographic datafound in the Accession Catalog, but the catalogers’ expertise contributed tothe bibliographic description being complete, consistent, and accurate.

Frequent communication is also important to the overall success ofevery project. For the What Middletown Read project, there were face-to-face meetings with the larger group with representatives from the variousgroups working on the project. This was a good forum to bring issues tothe larger group for consideration. E-mail was also used as a means tocommunicate progress and questions for the groups. The catalogers workedclosely with the Information Architect, who designed both the staff andpublic interfaces. The Architect was very responsive; he would meet with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Collaborating Over the Centuries 235

the catalogers individually to observe their workflow, hear their suggestionsand concerns, and see specific problems they were having.

Continuity is also important to every project. Larger projects may takeyears to complete, and usually have a steep learning curve. Ideally, everyoneinvolved in long projects will know what they are getting into, and be therefrom beginning to end. The What Middletown Read database was fortunatein that many of the people were involved the entire time, including allof the catalogers. Experienced members of each group were able to buildrelationships, develop customized workflows, and spot minor inconsistenciesin the data.

Sufficient time to complete the work needs to be built into every project.With the Accession Catalog, some of the ledger pages had clearer handwrit-ing and more complete information. Looking at these pages, it would bedifficult to estimate the time it would take to create useable bibliographicrecords. The problems were not limited to the Accession Catalog, but werealso found in the transaction and patron data. Since projects often encounterobstacles, such as poor data and staff turnover, additional time should al-ways be built into a project. Ideally, a small test batch will also be completedfirst by those who will be working on the main project, both to spot po-tential issues and to create more reasonable deadlines. Prioritizing the mostimportant tasks can also alleviate stress caused by time pressures.

One should write thorough procedures before beginning any project,regardless of size. While there is frequently a lack of formal documentationguiding digital projects, the What Middletown Read project did have someformal documentation that outlined roles and responsibilities at the begin-ning due to the requirements of the NEH grant proposal, but there werestill issues that needed to be resolved. For example, the staff interface wasnot completed when the catalogers began their portion of the project. Sincedocumentation could not be finalized before the staff interface was com-pleted, the catalogers were sometimes unclear on what types of informationto record and how to record it. It would have helped the catalogers to havehad more documentation; they missed having rules to guide their actions,as the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) do fortraditional cataloging. Transcribing the data was also difficult for the cata-logers. They understood the importance of preserving the original data in theledgers; however, they were extremely uncomfortable recording informationthey felt to be inconsistent or simply “wrong.” Having the standardized datasection alleviated some of this angst, but more thorough and authoritativedocumentation would have been helpful.

Finally, when a collaborative project is complete, those involved shouldshare their experiences and advice with others. Articles should be writ-ten about their collaborations, to contribute to the greater understanding ofall that catalogers have to offer. Both individuals and groups that workedon What Middletown Read have published articles about their experiences,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

236 K. Leigh

focusing on various aspects of the project. Cataloging managers should alsolisten for opportunities for their units to participate in projects and be willingto promote their unit’s skills to library administration. The more projects thatcataloging units participate in, the more opportunities they will have to ad-vertise their skills and expertise. Additionally, sharing experiences is helpfulfor providing best practices and lessons learned for other libraries startingtheir own collaborative project.

The information contained in the What Middletown Read database isalready being used for further research. Scholars involved in the HumanitiesDigital Workshop at Washington University in St. Louis started using the dataavailable from the database to study which German novels in translation wereread in the United States in the late nineteenth century.24 The Workshop builtquery tools to search the Middletown data, including a word cloud interfacethat is a completely new way to search the information. Having scholarsbuild on the work of the database is one of the many outcomes the WhatMiddletown Read group hoped would grow out of the project.

The What Middletown Read project was a collaboration between theMuncie Public Library staff in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuriesand the people in the twenty-first century creating the online database, eventhough the two groups never met each other. Without the information theMuncie Public Library staff recorded in the original print ledgers, there wouldhave been no data to populate the online database. The What MiddletownRead group hopes that the information in the database continues to beuseful and accessible to all interested parties one hundred years from nowand beyond.

NOTES

1. Liz Bishoff, “The Collaboration Imperative,” Library Journal 129, no. 1 (2004): 34.2. Leigh Cunningham, “The Librarian as Digital Humanist: The Collaborative Role of the Research

Library in Digital Humanities Projects,” Faculty of Information Quarterly 2, no. 2 (2010): 1–11.3. Ibid., 3.4. Ibid., 4.5. Ibid., 5.6. William A. Kretzschmar, Jr. and William Gray Potter, “Library Collaboration with Large Digital

Humanities Projects,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 25, no. 4 (2010): 439–445.7. Ibid., 444.8. Lynne Siemens, Richard Cunningham, Wendy Duff, and Claire Warwick, “A Tale of Two Cities:

Implications of the Similarities and Differences in Collaborative Approaches within the Digital Librariesand Digital Humanities Communities,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 26, no. 3 (2011): 335–348.

9. Ibid., 340.10. John Chapman, “The Roles of the Metadata Librarian in a Research Library,” Library Resources

& Technical Services 51, no. 4 (2007): 279–285.11. Ibid., 281.12. Char Simser and Miriam Childs, “Revolutionary Relationships: Catalogers’ Liaison Role as Meta-

data Experts in the Creation of the K-State Digital Library,” The Serials Librarian 44, no. 3–4 (2003):223–228.

13. Ibid., 227.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Collaborating Over the Centuries 237

14. James J. Connolly, “What Middletown Read,” Inquire 1, no. 2 (2011), http://inquire.streetmag.org/articles/47 (accessed February 28, 2012).

15. Ibid.16. Indiana Code Title 5, Article 14, Chapter 3, Section 4 that a public record is confidential for

up to 75 years, http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title5/ar14/ch3.html (accessed April 30, 2012). TheMuncie Public Library ledgers used for the What Middletown Read project are all over 75 years old.

17. Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in American Culture (New York:Harcourt Brace & Co., 1929) and Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown in Transition: AStudy in Cultural Conflicts (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1937).

18. The authors referred to Muncie as Middletown because they considered it to be a typicalsmall American city and they hoped to preserve the privacy of the city’s residents. There is an actualMiddletown, Indiana but it was not the city studied.

19. Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in American Culture (San Diego,CA: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1957), 237.

20. James Connelly, Frank Felsenstein, and John Straw, “What Middletown Read: Print Culture andCosmopolitanism in an American Small City” (Project Narrative for NEH Collaborative Research Grant,2008), 12.

21. The Metadata and Digital Initiatives unit is responsible for creating, preserving, and describingdigital assets that are located in the University Libraries’ Digital Media Repository. The Cataloging andMetadata Services unit is responsible for original and copy cataloging of materials in the UniversityLibraries’ physical collections. They assist with creating metadata for digital collections as needed.

22. Catalogue of Books in the Muncie Public Library (Muncie, IN: Central Printing, 1905).23. Connelly, Felsenstein, and Straw, “What Middletown Read,” 18.24. “Reading What Middletown Read,” http://talus.artsci.wustl.edu/ballStatePresentation041812/

(accessed April 25, 2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

4:13

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14