enhanced subject access in ohio public libraries

This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 08:00Publisher: 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

Enhanced Subject Access in OhioPublic LibrariesJeanne M. Piascik aa Graduate of the MLS Program, School of Library andInformation Science, Kent State UniversityPublished online: 13 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Jeanne M. Piascik (1993) Enhanced Subject Access in Ohio Public Libraries,Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 16:4, 77-91

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v16n04_05

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 whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out 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 &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v16n04_05

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Enhanced Subject Access in Ohio Public Libraries

Jeanne M. Piascik

ABSTRACT. This article remts the fmdines of a survev of heads of cataloging in Ohio public fibraries. The s&ey focused-on subject enhancements in automated cataloes. Results reveal that additional subject access points and more anGytica1 entries ranked as the most useful enhancements for patrons. l k s e enhancements were seen as less useful for technical services staff.

As automation becomes more sophisticated, the ability to maxi- mize the bibliographic record through enhanced subject access in- creases. The purpose of this research was to discover the extent and desirability of enhanced subject access in automated Ohio public libraries. Heads of cataloging of 45 public libraries with online catalogs were surveyed to determine which system features or cataloging enhancements are currently available or will soon be implemented, how important these features are thought to be for subject access by technical services staff and library patrons, and which factors have the most influence on decisions to acquire them. Thirty-two Libraries returned a questionnaire for a response rate of 71 percent.

Enhanced subjen access is the process of (1) altering biblio-

Jeanae M. Piascik is a recent graduate of the MLS pmgram at the School of Library and Information Science at Kent State University.

The author wishes to thank Ann Allan and all others who gave helpful advice during the writing of I h i s paper.

Mail Correspondence to: Jeanne M. Piascik, 374 Wood Street, Mansfield, OH 44903.

Cataloging 62 Clmsification Quarterly. Vol. 16(4) 1993 O 1993 by The Haworth Ress, Inc. All rights reserved 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

78 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

graphic records and/or (2) augmenting subject approaches through systems enhancements in automated catalogs in order to increase retrievability of library materials.

Why should enhanced subject access be a priority? As libraries shift their catalogs from cards to automated systems, and as com- puter capabilities increase, it becomes possible to add subject information to bibliographic records without unduly increasing the amount of storage sp& needed to contain the records. Further- more, previous studies have shown that subject searches are a major method of patron access to library materials. Improving subject access to the catalog will allow for greater searching capability and ultimately more effective utilization of library resources for both library panons and staff. Its development also has implications for shared cataloging, collection development, and resource sharing.

This research was conducted to determine the extent to which subject enhancement is employed in automated Ohio public libraries. Specifically, this project discovered how many libraries offer enhanced subject access, which ones intend to offer enhanced subject access in the near future, what methods they are or will be using, the methods they believe would provide effective access and thus would be desirable to have, and what factors have influenced or will influence their decisions.

Most literature concerning subject access, especially that dealing with online applications, has been produced in the last ten years. The two & subtopics covered are system design features and cataloging enhancements.' System design features that improve subject access include: subject heading, keyword, and Boolean searching; truncation; cross-references; lists of broader, narrower, or related terms; and searching/browsing by LC or Dewey classification number. Cataloging enhancements include adding analytic entries; contents or summary notes; subject headings for works of fiction; uncontrolled subject terms; and access points to minimal- level cataloging.

An important element of enhanced subject access is consider- ation of the characteristics of automated catalogs and their users. According to a user survey conducted by the Council of Library Resources, about 59 Dercent of users searched for subiect information in the catalog (fir those catalogs that allowed sukject access);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Jeanne M. Piascik 79

and the presence or absence of certain subject-related features was directly related to user ~atisfaction.~ In a survey conducted at the University of Houston, 54 percent of users report using subject searches always or frequently, and the most preferred catalog enhancements were (1) abiiity to combine subject terms; (2) use of a summary of a book's contents in the catalog record; and (3) ability to view a list of subject heading^.^

Cataloging enhancements include various methods for increasing the access to subject material. Enhancements such as adding chap- ter titles, abstracts, and contents notes have been implemented at Carnegie Mellon University, but the effect of these changes on retrieval has not yet been e~aluated.~ The primary value of an enhanced record might well be to provide access to parts of books.5

Systems enhancements include access to materials by classification number, keywords, and other methods. Markey's project added both the schedules and the terminology from the Dewey Decimal Classification in order to provide augmented access to the catalog records through subject terms and to provide new search strategies through the approach of classification numbes6

Implementing Library of Congress classification number browsing in a local system has also been described? In a study by Con- nell, the abiiity to search by keywords in subject fields was the best way to improve subject recall.8 An experimental type of system enhancement is the use of search trees, which are sets of paths which allow an online system to carry out an appropriate type of search?

For this survey, a list of suitable libraries was compiled from the 1991-92 edition of the American Library Directory. Criteria for selection included (a) being a public library in Ohio; (b) having an online (or other automated) catalog; and (c) having it available for both staff and public access. A further Limitation was that this list of automated libraries did not include any libraries that had obtained OPACs since the list was compiled, or those which had not included any automation information in their institution's description. A total of 45 libraries were eligible for inclusion in the research.

A questionnaire was mailed to the head of the cataloging depart- ment of each of the chosen libraries. (See Appendix A.) A cover letter described the purpose of the survey and assured that no an-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4


swer would be identified as originating with a particular individual or library. Completed questio~aires were analyzed to determine availability of and methods used to increase subject access.

A total of 32 libraries responded to the survey. Of these, 25 returned questionnaires that were used to compile results. The other seven were not included because the libraries involved did not yet have any form of electronic public access catalog, nor were they about to obtain one in the near future.

The first question, "How long has your library had an automated public catalog?" drew a wide range of responses. The oldest OPAC had been in place for eleven years, while the newest were scheduled to be implemented in 1992. Half of the libraries had acquired public access catalogs since 1988.

The second question of the survey was "What form does your catalog take?" All of the libraries included in the fmal results had (or will shortly have) online catalogs. No other form of catalog (CD-ROM, microcomputer) was reported.

"Which vendor supplied your automated system?" was the third question. Twelve different vendors of online systems were reported to have been used (an average of only two libraries per vendor!). The large number of different systems employed leads one to believe that there will be some variations in the kinds and number of features offered.

Question number 4 asked whether subject searching was possible on a library's online catalog. All libraries reported having subject searching capabilities.

The factors influencing the implementation of enhanced subject access were the subject of the fifth question. Respondents were asked to rank cost, requests from patrons or staff, availability, and references in professional literature as having "great," "some," "little," or "no" influence. Cost of implementation ranked as the most influential, followed closely by requests from staff and requests from patrons. Availability and mention in the literature were reported to have less of an impact on decisions. Other factors given include hardware requirements and compatibility, the features that a vendor is willing to offer, and the ease of implementing enhancements. These results are depicted in Table 1.

The sixth question asked whether a given f e w is currently

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Jeanne M . Piascik 81

Table 1

Hention in professional

where: Hean score is the average score computed using the scale Great=3, Some=2, Little=l, No=O

N is the number of libraries responding to this question

available, whether it will soon be available, and how important it is to subject searching. The fmt part of this question dealt with the current availability of system features. According to the responses received, subject heading searching was possible on every catalog. Following closely behind subject headings in popularity were searching and browsing by call number (when staff-only capability was included). Every feature was possessed by at least 16 of the responding libraries. These results are summarized in Table 2.

When the availability of cataloging enhancements was analyzed, contents or summary notes and subject headings for works of fiaion were the enhancements used by the most libraries. Comments on several of the questionnaires indicate that these are often available only for certain works, especially juvenile titles. Uncontrolled subject terms were employed by only seven of the responding libraries, making it the least available of all features or enhancements. In general, a greater average number of libraries possessed system features than employed cataloging enhancements. (See Table 3.)

Respondents were asked which system features and cataloging enhancements would be available in the near future. This question received a very low response, at least in part due to the fact that many of the libraries already had the features mentioned. In most cases, those that expect to obtain additional features have recently acquired online catalogs (within the last four years, when the date

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 2

I d

where: # is the number of libraries that selected this answer % is the percentage of libraries responding to this question that selected this answer


includes 5 cataloqs with staff'-only capability ** includes 4 with staff-only capability +*+ includes 1 with staff-only capability

Table 3

.I

Other

where: $ is the number of libraries that selected this answer $ is the percentage of libraries responding to this question that selected this answer


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4


was known). Virtually no one planned to employ cataloging enhancements not already used.

For the next question, survey participants rated the importance of a feature or enhancement to technical services staff as "extremely," "very," "somewhat," or "not" useful. The system features thought to be most valuable for members of the technical services staff were subject heading searching, followed closely by searching and browsing by call number, cross-references, and keyword searching. Most features had ratings that indicate they are "very" useful. It should be noted that all of the "not" responses came from a single questionnaire. Ratings derived from the responses of libraries that possess a given feature are shown in Table 4.

Cataloging enhancements (as might be expected) were rated as being considerably less valuable to technical services, generally being "somewhat" useful. Employment of uncontrolled subject terms was the sole enhancement to have a higher mean score than any system feature, but the low response rate for this particular item makes this f i p suspect. Furthermore, 50 percent of libraries responding to this question (including those that did not use them) rated uncontrolled subject terms as "not" useful. (See Table 5.)

The next question asked respondents to give their opinions of the importance of different system features and cataloging enhancements to library pafrons. Subject heading searching and keyword searching were rated as the system f e r n s most likely to be of use to library paaons. Again, most features rated as "very" useful or (almost) "exmmely" useful, with the exception of searchiig/browsing by call number, which were only "somewhat" useful to patrons. (See Table 6.)

Cataloging enhancements were thought to be considerably more useful to patrons than to technical services staff, generally rating as "very" useful. Analytic entries and adding access points to minimal-level cataloging were seen as the most helpful, with the others rating almost as highly. (See Table 7.)

The responses were further analyzed by library size in volumes. number of staff members, and population served. Results were con- sistent with those for all libraries considered together, with a few minor exceptions. While cost was a significant factor for all libraries, every library with more than one million volumes consid-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 4

i RELATIVE IMPORTANCE O F SYSTEM FEATURES T O TECHNICAL SERVICES STAFF

/ (Mean I Mean 1 N = ! Score score '

! corrected 1 I

Subiect heading searching 1 2 . 5 1 2.4 i 16 I

Browsing with Dewey or LC i 2 . 4 2.3 j 11 1 4 Searching by Dewey or LC 2 . 3 j 2.2 13

call number 1

Cross-references 2.0 1 2.2 1 I ?

1 Truncation : 2 . 0 I

where: Yean Score is the average score computed using the scale Extremely=J, Very.:. Sonewhatrl. Not20

Table 5

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE O F CATALOGING ENHANCEMENTS T O TECHNICAL SERVICES STAFF

Score score corrected

Uncontrolled subject terms 0.9 2 . 0

1 Adding access points to 1 1 . 8 i 1.6 1 s minimal-level cataloging I 1

of fiction I I

Analytic entries I I . 1.5 1 6

where: Mean Score is the average score computed using the scale Extremely-3. V e r y - ? . Somewhatrl. Yot=O

Conrents or summary notes

"corrected" means that only those resoonses from

1.1 1 1.0 1 1 1

libraries with catalogs possessing this fearure were included

1 Subject headings for works 1 0 . 9 1 0 . 9 1 9

N is rhe number of libraries responding to this question

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Jeanne M. Piascik

Table 6

where: Mean Score is the average score computed using the scale Extremelyrl. Very:?. Somewhat=l. Not-0

Table 7

I RELATIVE I H P O R T ~ C E OF CA-rAmGING E N H m c ~ t m r r s TO 1 ! LIBRARY PATRONS

Adding access points to 1 2.5 2 . 3 ; 8 rninimnl-level cataloginq

Analytic entries i 2 . 3 2 . 5 1 6

Uncontro!led subject terms 1.3 1 2 . 2 1 4

contents or summary notes 1 z . ~ i 2 . 0 1 1

, Subject heading; for works i 2.0 L O i of fiction

i Mean I Mean

I

where: Mean Score is the average score camputed using the scale Extremely=j. Very-'. Somewhar=L. Yot-0

N = I score I

"corrected" means that only those responses from libraries ,sith catalogs possessing this feature were included

Score corrected

Y is rhe number of libraries responding to this question

I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4


ered cost of implementation to have a "great" effect on potential implementation of enhanced subject access. Libraries serving a population of more than 100,000 were more likely than those serving smaller populations to rate cataloging enhancements as "not" useful to technical services librarians and as "extremely" useful to patrons.

The ability to search using subject headings is one of the most valuable of online catalog features and is also one of the most widely available. However, all of the features highlighted in this survey are useful to patrons, catalogers, or both. In general, features that enhance subject retrieval are thought to be of more use to pawns than to technical services staff, with the exception of call number searching1 browsing.

Although enhancements to the cataloging record are not as widely employed as system features, they were nonetheless rated as being very useful to patrons by those libraries that did use them. The enhancements rated most useful to patrons were adding subject access points and making analytic enhies. A possible mson why enhancements are not u W more often is that catalogen do not find them useful, and so believe that the additional time and cost would be uniustified. ., Since cost is a major factor in the decision to implement enhanced

subjea access, a library should attempt to acquire system featum it does not already have if that is possible and if it can m n a b l y afford to do so. Furthermore, cataloging enhancements that would be valuable to pairons should be seriously considered.

~unher research in this am might take several directions. 'Ihe same survey could be repeated in seveml years to discover if availability or attitudes have changed. Staff and pam,ns at the same library could be studied simultaneously to see if their perceptions differ. A Aerent group of libraries (academic, for example) could be surveyed to see how their answers compm. Also, a complete, accurate, and current list of the degree of automation pment in Ohio libraries should be compiled not only for its inherent value but for its usellness in conducting research. Fmally, this or a similar survey could be conducted over a larger geographical ami, with the possibility of effecting change in cataloging pradices.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Jeanne M. Piascik

NOTES

1. Elizabeth Carson, "OPACs: The User and Subject Access," Canadion Library Journal 42 (April 1985):67.

2 Robeit N. Broadus, "Online Catalogs and lheir Users," College ond Research Libraries 44 (November 1983):458467.

3. Carolyn 0. Frost, "Subject Searching in an Online Catalog," Informalton Technology ond Librories 6 (Match 1987):60-63.

4. Thomas J. Michalak, "An Experiment in Enhanciig Catalog Records at Came- gie Mellon University," Library Hi Tech 31. no.3 (1990):33-41.

5. Carol k Mandel, "Emiching the Library Catalog Record for Subject Access," Librarv Resourres ond Technical Services 29 (January 1985P5-15.

6. K- Markey. "SubjectS-hing ~xperienc& and Needs of Online Catalog Users: InwLications fa Litnnry Classiftcatio~" t i b r w Resources and Technical Services zb (January 1985):3431.

7. Jefky C Huestis, "Clusraing LC Classification Numbas in an Online Cata- log for Improved Bmwsability," Information Technology and Libraries 7 (Daemk 1988):381-393.

8. Tschera HarloKss Connell, "Techniques to lrnpmve Subject Retrieval in Online Catalogs: Flexible Access to Elanents in the Bibliographic Recod," Information Technology ond Librories 10 (June 1991):87-98.

9. Karen W e y Drabmaon and Diane V i G o e Q "Improving Subject seading in O n k Catalogs" Annuol Review of OCLC Research (July 1989-June 1990):4243.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

CATUOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

Appendix A: Questionnaire

a Subject Access in m t e d Cata10gS

1) How long has your library had an automated public catalog?

2) What form does your catalog take? (online, CD-ROM, ... )

3) which vendor supplied your automated system?

4 ) Is subject searching possible on your catalog?

- yes - NO

5 ) what factors, do you believe, would affect the decision to implement any form of enhanced subject access? D

ownl

oade

d by

[T

ulan

e U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

00 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


Great Some Little No Effect Effect Effect Effect

a) Requests from staff I I I b) Requests from patrons I I 1 ............................... C) Mention in professional

literature ............................... d) Availability of enhanced

records from outside sources I l l

e) Cost of implementation I I I ............................... f) Other (please describe) I I 1

6) Please indicate by checking the appropriate box whether a feature is currently available, and If not, whether it will be in the next 5 years, and how important you believe this feature is to subject searching. For the "Available noun column, use an "s" to indicate that a feature is available to staff only.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

APPENDIX A (continued)

Available n w 7

Yes no

Available in the near future?

Yea Wo When?

subject heading eearchlng I 1 I 1 1 1 I .......................................................................... Boolean searching I l l I l l I .......................................................................... Keyuord eearchinq I I 1 1 1 1 I .......................................................................... Truncntlon I I I I l l I .......................................................................... crone-reference~ I I I I l l I .......................................................................... Llste of broader or narrower related term I I 1 I I I I .......................................................................... Searching by Dewey or LC call number I 1 I 1 1 1 1

Anslytlc ontrles tor collectlone (of more than three works)

Content. or s w s r y notso .......................................................................... (riotion or nontiction) I I I I I I I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Jeanne M. Piascik

a Thin t o m o f eubject access Is/would be how Important t o technical s s r v l c e s s t a f f ?

Thle form o f subjec t accese l s lwould be how important t o l ibrary patrons?

I I I I l l I I I I .........................................................................

I I I I l l I 1 I I .........................................................................

I I I I l l I I I I ----.---.------------------------m----------------------m------.-----

P l m s a return t o : School o f Library and Information sc lanca Kent Stat. Unlvarslty b n t , OH 4 4 2 4 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:00

06

Oct

ober

201

4

enhanced subject access in ohio public libraries

Documents