integrating non-marc metadata duties into the workflow of traditional catalogers: a survey of trends...

This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 08:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technical Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsq20

Integrating Non-MARC Metadata Dutiesinto the Workflow of TraditionalCatalogers: A Survey of Trends andPerceptions among Catalogers in FourDiscussion ListsMarielle Veve MLIS a & Melanie Feltner-Reichert aa Hodges Library-University of Tennessee , Knoxville, TNPublished online: 15 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Marielle Veve MLIS & Melanie Feltner-Reichert (2010) Integrating Non-MARCMetadata Duties into the Workflow of Traditional Catalogers: A Survey of Trends and Perceptionsamong Catalogers in Four Discussion Lists, Technical Services Quarterly, 27:2, 194-213, DOI:10.1080/07317130903585477

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317130903585477

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07317130903585477

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317130903585477

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

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

Technical Services Quarterly, Vol. 27:194–213, 2010

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0731-7131 print/1555-3337 online

DOI: 10.1080/07317130903585477

Integrating Non-MARC Metadata Duties intothe Workflow of Traditional Catalogers:

A Survey of Trends and Perceptions amongCatalogers in Four Discussion Lists

MARIELLE VEVE and MELANIE FELTNER-REICHERTHodges Library-University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

While a growing body of literature addresses the integration of

non-MARC metadata duties into the workflow of traditional cat-

alogers, most of it consists of isolated case studies that describe

the integration experience at the local level. No study yet has cov-

ered the trends of non-MARC metadata integration in catalogers’

workflows on a large scale, much less the impact this integration

has had on catalogers. To address this gap in the literature, the

authors performed a survey in four cataloging discussion lists

to determine trends in the integration of non-MARC metadata

duties into the workflow of traditional catalogers in U.S. academic

libraries, the impact this implementation has had on them, plus

catalogers’ perceptions towards non-MARC metadata. The survey,

which was administered in August 2008, addresses aspects of non-

MARC metadata production such as local procedures, workflows,

schemas, tools, training, preconceptions, and the impact new re-

sponsibilities have had on the job performance and workload of

catalogers. Results of the survey are summarized and presented in

this article.

KEYWORDS Non-MARC metadata, catalogers’ workflow, US aca-

demic libraries, catalogers-attitudes, metadata, integration trends

A popular trend among U.S. academic libraries throughout the last decadehas involved integrating non-MARC metadata duties into the workload of

Received January 6, 2009; accepted February 23, 2009Address correspondence to Marielle Veve, MLIS, Assistant Professor, Cataloging &

Metadata Librarian, John C. Hodges Library, University of Tennessee, 1015 Volunteer Blvd.,Knoxville, TN 37996. E-mail: [email protected]

The authors thank Marie Garrett for her assistance in editing this paper.

194

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Integrating Metadata into Workflow of Catalogers 195

traditional catalogers. A significant number of case studies throughout thelibrary literature reflect this trend. For example, ‘‘since 1999 the CatalogingDepartment at Carnegie Mellon University Libraries has been significantlyaffected by involvement in a number of digital projects.’’1 For most of theseprojects, the staff in the cataloging department helped plan the digitizationprocess and provided ‘‘advice about mapping full MARC records to author,title, and subject indexes for metadata searching.’’2 In the case of Iowa StateUniversity, ‘‘metadata creation has been added to the job responsibilitiesof professional catalogers, [where they] supply subject headings and addedentries to metadata records.’’3 At the University of Utah’s Spencer S. EcclesHealth Sciences Library, technical services librarians have participated in thecreation of additional metadata elements for one of the non-MARC meta-data specifications used in their libraries: the Healthcare Learning ObjectMetadata. In addition, the ‘‘catalogers [they had already] trained in DublinCore have customized the Collaborative Digitization Project Metadata BestPractices to meet [the University of Utah Institutional Repository’s] specificneeds.’’4 Another case study at the University of Tennessee Libraries (UTL)reported that catalogers have been creating item-level Metadata Object De-scription Schema (MODS) records since 2007 for the digital surrogates theyreceive from the Digital Libraries Initiatives Department. In the UTL’s 2007case study, it was reported that ‘‘catalogers bring precision and speed tothe metadata production process, accelerating the whole cycle of digitalcollection creation.’’5

Even though these case studies document the non-MARC integrationexperience at some U.S. academic libraries, they do so only at the locallevel. Nothing has been written yet on the integration trends at a large scaleof non-MARC metadata into the workload of traditional catalogers, muchless the impact this integration has had on catalogers. To address this gapin the literature, the authors of this article sent a survey in August 2008 tofour cataloging discussion lists to determine the trends followed on a largescale by U.S. academic libraries to integrate non-MARC metadata duties intothe workload of traditional catalogers, how catalogers have been affectedby this implementation, and what opinions catalogers hold towards differentaspects of non-MARC metadata production.

METHODOLOGY

Through electronic lists related to cataloging and digital library topics, we dis-tributed an open invitation to participate in an online survey about catalogersworking with non-MARC metadata. To successfully target the desired popu-lation (traditional catalogers involved with non-MARC metadata productionin U.S. academic libraries), we decided to use the following electronic lists,which are the most frequently used by catalogers who use MARC and non-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

196 M. Veve and M. Feltner-Reichert

MARC schemas: the Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC) listserv, AUTO-CAT, OCLC-CAT, and the Digital Library Federation listservs. The surveyinvited participation from catalogers both with and without a Master’s degreein Library Science (MLS) who currently work with non-MARC metadata atany U.S. academic library. The open invitation provided a link directing theparticipant to the survey location. The survey consisted of 30 multiple-choicequestions, with some questions providing options to further explain answersif desired. To keep anonymity in all responses, the survey asked for no namesof individuals or institutions. To lower the risk of having the same individualsanswer the survey more than once, we programmed the survey collector toonly allow one survey response per computer. Also, to make sure onlycatalogers who work in academic libraries in the U.S. answered the survey,the first question asked if the participant currently works in a U.S. academiclibrary. The persons who answered no to this question were redirected to anexit page in the survey. We used Survey Monkey online software to performthese tasks, distribute the survey, and collect responses. The survey openedfrom August 7 to September 1, 2008. A reminder to participate was sent oneweek before closing through the listservs. The investigators grouped andsummarized the collected results. The full text of the survey is provided inthe Appendix.

FINDINGS

As of September 1, 2008, the online survey software collected and recordeda total of 211 responses. Sixty-nine percent of respondents (146 out of 211)were catalogers who hold an MLS, while the remaining 31 percent (65 outof 211) were catalogers without an MLS. Results of the survey were groupedby topic and summarized below by sections.

Integration of Non-MARC Metadata into Catalogers’

Workflow: Why & When

The first question in the survey asked catalogers for the reasons that promptedthe integration of non-MARC metadata duties into their workflow at theirinstitution. We allowed catalogers to choose as many answers as applied totheir particular situation. In addition, we gave catalogers the opportunity toprovide additional reasons to explain their institution’s motives for integratingnon-MARC duties into catalogers’ workloads. Most catalogers responded thatthe main factor prompting the integration of non-MARC at their institutionhas to do with an increased amount of non-print, digital resources to cat-alog (chosen by 60% of all catalogers). Forty-four percent reported that anincreased demand for virtual access to information by patrons promptedthe integration, 40% reported that the library’s desire to make best use of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 1 Reasons that Prompted Integration of Non-MARC Metadata into Catalogers’Workflows

ReasonsCatalogers with and

without MLS (%)

Decreased amount of print and other sources to catalog 18Increased amount of non-print sources to catalog

(e.g., digitized sources)60

Library wanted to make best use of catalogers’ expertise byassigning them metadata

40

Increased demand by patrons for virtual access to all types ofinformation

44

Other 20

catalogers’ expertise prompted the integration, and only 18% of all catalogersreported that a decreased amount of print and other resources was the reasonbehind their institution’s desire to integrate non-MARC duties into catalogers’workloads. For more details on the reasons that prompted integration seeTable 1.

As is reflected in Table 1, 20% of all catalogers (42 out of 211) providedreasons beyond those given in the multiple-choice answers that they believeprompted the integration of non-MARC metadata production at their insti-tutions. The reasons most commonly mentioned within this 20% were thatthe catalogers’ institution had opened an institutional repository, followedby the need for a quick way to organize ephemera collections, and the restof the library’s staff reluctance to perform these tasks.

The next question concerning integration of non-MARC metadata dutiesinto the workload of catalogers asked for an approximation of when thecatalogers’ institutions started the integration of non-MARC metadata dutiesinto the workflow of catalogers. Most catalogers (45%) responded that theirinstitution started the integration after year 2006; 25% reported that theintegration at their institution started between the year 2004 and 2006, and20% reported that it started between the years 2000 and 2003. Only 10%reported starting the integration of non-MARC metadata into the workflowof catalogers before the year 2000.

Workflow Issues

Catalogers were asked a couple of questions concerning non-MARC metadataworkflow issues. One of the questions asked catalogers to specify the num-ber of catalogers at their institution involved with non-MARC metadata duties.Most catalogers, 80%, responded that five or fewer catalogers at their institu-tion work with non-MARC metadata. Thirteen percent responded that 6 to 10catalogers have non-MARC metadata duties, 3% responded 11 to 14, and 4%responded that 15 or more catalogers work with non-MARC metadata duties.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Another question related to workflow issues asked catalogers how muchof their time is allocated to non-MARC metadata duties. MLS and non-MLScatalogers answered this question similarly. Most catalogers, 61%, respondedthey spend 20% or less of their time performing non-MARC metadata duties,21% responded that they allocate between 21 to 49% of their time to non-MARC metadata duties, and the remaining 18% reported that they spend 50%or more of their time on non-MARC metadata duties.

A third question related to workflow issues asked catalogers to specifyall the aspects of non-MARC metadata they work with. We allowed catalogersto choose as many types and aspects as they wanted. The survey revealedthat most of the catalogers work with descriptive metadata (92% of MLScatalogers and 93% of non-MLS catalogers). Less than half of the catalogersreported working with administrative metadata (48% of MLS and 42% of non-MLS catalogers). Structural metadata, or metadata to organize and displayobjects, was reported as the type of metadata least commonly used amongcatalogers (used only by 38% of MLS and 34% of non-MLS catalogers).The survey also revealed that involvement with planning and workflowissues of metadata is higher among MLS catalogers than among non-MLScatalogers (67% of MLS catalogers are involved with planning and workflowissues of non-MARC metadata versus 36% of non-MLS catalogers who areinvolved with this duty). The same phenomenon occurs with catalogerswho are involved with mapping of schemas. More MLS catalogers performthis duty than non-MLS catalogers (50% of MLS catalogers reported map-ping between schemas versus 29% of non-MLS catalogers). See details inTable 2.

The last question related to workflow issues asked catalogers to specifyall the types of materials for which they create non-MARC metadata. Mostcatalogers, 89%, reported that they create non-MARC metadata for digitizedresources (digital surrogates of print objects). Forty-seven percent of thecatalogers reported creating non-MARC metadata for digital-only resources(resources that exist only in digital form, e.g., Websites and electronic the-ses). Only a minority of catalogers reported creating non-MARC metadata todescribe physical, tangible objects (32%).

TABLE 2 Type of Involvement Catalogers have With Non-MARC Metadata

Type/Aspect

Catalogerswith MLS

(%)

Catalogerswithout MLS

(%)

Descriptive metadata 92 93Administrative metadata 48 42Structural metadata 38 34Planning and workflow aspects of metadata 67 36Mapping between schemas 50 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Participation: Volunteered vs. Required

The survey asked catalogers if they volunteered or were required to partic-ipate in the production of non-MARC metadata. More than a half reportedbeing required to participate (56% of MLS catalogers and 59% of non-MLScatalogers). The remainder reported volunteering for this duty (44% of MLScatalogers and 41% of non-MLS catalogers).

We asked catalogers who had volunteered for the new task more ques-tions about their reasons for volunteering. We allowed them to chooseas many answers as they considered proper. As Table 3 shows, the mainreason MLS catalogers volunteered to perform metadata duties was thatthey ‘‘wanted to be on the cutting edge of cataloging’’ (chosen by 75%of MLS catalogers who volunteered), followed by the reasons: they were‘‘curious about it’’ (56%) and they ‘‘wanted variety in their job duties’’ (55%).Among the non-MLS catalogers who volunteered, the main reasons givenfor volunteering to perform non-MARC metadata were that they ‘‘wantedvariety in their job duties’’ as well as that they ‘‘wanted to be on the cuttingedge of cataloging’’ (both answers chosen by 71% of non-MLS catalogerswho volunteered). The reason that followed was that they were ‘‘curiousabout it’’ (chosen by 63% of non-MLS catalogers who volunteered). The leastpopular reason among both types of catalogers to volunteer for non-MARCmetadata duties was that they ‘‘received a financial incentive’’ (only 3% ofMLS catalogers and 4% of non-MLS catalogers reported receiving a financialincentive to perform non-MARC metadata).

Training

When asked about the type of training received to produce non-MARCmetadata, answers varied among catalogers with and without MLS. MostMLS catalogers reported receiving training from sources outside their in-stitutions, through workshops and online courses (35%), followed by 33%who reported receiving training both inside and outside their institutions.Twenty-two percent of MLS catalogers reported receiving no training atall, and a minority of 10% reported receiving some type of training from

TABLE 3 Reasons Catalogers Volunteered to Perform Non-MARC Metadata Duties

Reasons

Catalogerswith MLS

(%)

Catalogerswithout MLS

(%)

Wanted variety in my job duties 55 71Wanted to be on the cutting edge of cataloging 75 71Wanted to secure my job in case things change in the future 43 46Was curious about it 56 63I received a financial incentive 3 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


inside their institutions. Forty-onepercent of the non-MLS catalogers reportedreceiving their non-MARC metadata training from inside their institutions,followed by 29% who received training from both inside and outside theirinstitutions. Fifteen percent of non-MLS catalogers reported receiving trainingfrom outside their institutions, while the remaining 15% reported no training.

Schemas Used

The survey asked catalogers to specify all the non-MARC schemas theycurrently use at their work. Fifty-two percent reported using only one non-MARC schema, 25% reported using two non-MARC schemas, 13% reportedusing three different schemas, and only 10% reported using four or moreschemas at their jobs. The non-MARC schema most often used by catalogerswas reported to be Dublin Core (used by 74% of MLS catalogers and 51%of non-MLS catalogers). Table 4 shows more schemas and their reportedusage percentages. Only 22% of all catalogers reported using other schemasbesides the ones mentioned in the multiple-choice answers, all of themlocally created, customized schemas. See Table 4 for details.

When asked if they think the non-MARC schemas they use provideenough detail to properly describe the sources they catalog, most catalogersagreed that their schemas provide enough detail, or granularity, to properlydescribe the information sources (reported by 70% of MLS catalogers and76% of non-MLS catalogers). The remaining 30% of MLS catalogers and 24%of non-MLS catalogers think the schemas used do not provide enough detailto describe the information sources.

Tools Used to Generate Metadata

We asked catalogers if they use any type of tool or software to generatemetadata. Most of the catalogers (84%) reported using a tool to generatemetadata; only 16% reported not using a tool at all. The 84% of catalogerswho reported using a tool were further asked which type of tool they use:

TABLE 4 Non-MARC Metadata Schemas Used by Catalogers

Non-MARC schemaCatalogers

with MLS (%)Catalogers

without MLS (%)

Dublin Core 74 51MODS 23 24EAD 31 14TEI 10 15VRA 13 12MARC-XML 22 19Other 22 22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


a commercial tool (such as ContentDM or DigiTool), an open-access tool(such as D-Space or Fedora), or a locally created tool. Most of the catalogerswho reported using a tool indicated they use commercial software (45%),followed by open-access software (22%), and a locally generated tool (17%).

In addition, the 84% of catalogers who reported using a tool were askedif they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the tool used. Most of these catalogerssaid they are ‘‘partially satisfied with their tool, but they would like to seesome adjustments to it’’ (76% of catalogers who use tools). Only 13% ofcatalogers who use tools to generate metadata reported being completelysatisfied with the tool; the remaining 11% who use tools reported not beingsatisfied with their metadata generating tool.

Furthermore, catalogers who answered being partially or completelydissatisfied with their tool were asked to specify the reasons behind theirdissatisfaction with their metadata generating tool. We allowed catalogers tochoose as many reasons as they wanted to explain their dissatisfaction. Inaddition, we provided the opportunity to give more reasons, besides the onesmentioned in the multiple-choice answers, to explain their dissatisfaction.The reason most commonly chosen among catalogers was that they did notlike their tool’s functionality (chosen by 69% of catalogers), followed by ‘‘thetool is not flexible enough, wishing it would be more customizable’’ (51%of catalogers). Figure 1 shows the percentages of the rest of the answers.

Eleven percent of the catalogers who reported being dissatisfied in someway with their metadata generating tool provided extra reasons for their

FIGURE 1. Reasons provided by catalogers for dissatisfaction with their metadata generationtool.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


dissatisfaction. Among these reasons were that their metadata tool ‘‘can notsupport authority records, has limited controlled vocabulary and authorizedheading functionality, requires a great deal of effort to customize, and lacksan authority module to refer users from non-preferred to preferred headingforms.’’ As seen, most of the extra reasons provided by catalogers for notbeing satisfied with their metadata generating tool had to do with authoritycontrol issues.

Authority Control

The survey asked catalogers if they are keeping any type of authority controlfor personal and corporate names mentioned in their non-MARC metadatarecords. Sixty-two percent of catalogers answered ‘‘yes,’’ and 38% answered‘‘no.’’ We asked catalogers who answered ‘‘yes’’ to this question how theykeep authority control for names in non-MARC metadata records. The ma-jority of catalogers who reported keeping authority control for names in themetadata records reported doing so by keeping manual track of the namesin a list (reported by 49% of catalogers who keep authority control). Theminority of catalogers who keep authority control (almost 5%) reported usinga system that automatically extracts names from XML (metadata) records.Figure 2 illustrates the rest of the approaches used by catalogers to keepauthority control for names found in their metadata records.

FIGURE 2. Ways catalogers keep authority control for names in non-MARC metadata.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


We also asked catalogers who reported not keeping any kind of author-ity control for names mentioned in their metadata records their reasons fornot keeping authority control. Most of these catalogers (35%) responded thatthe reason they do not keep authority control for names in metadata recordsis that they ‘‘want to, but do not know how to approach [authority control] innon-MARC metadata.’’ The minority of catalogers who do not keep authoritycontrol (17%) reported not keeping authority control for metadata recordsbecause they ‘‘do not need it.’’ Figure 3 illustrates the rest of the reasonsprovided by catalogers for not keeping authority control in metadata records.

Approaching Assistance and Help

Catalogers were asked to specify how they approach getting help when theyhave questions or need assistance with non-MARC metadata. The surveyrevealed that MLS catalogers seek assistance in a very different way fromnon-MLS catalogers. The majority of non-MLS catalogers (68%) reportedapproaching someone at their institution to answer questions or for otherassistance related to non-MARC metadata. Sixteen percent of these catalogersreported trying to figure out the answers themselves, followed by 14% whosaid they use electronic lists or blogs to get answers from colleagues at otherinstitutions. Only 2% of the non-MLS catalogers reported not searching foror needing any assistance.

FIGURE 3. Reasons catalogers do not keep authority control for names in non-MARCmetadata records.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


In contrast, MLS catalogers’ first choice when having questions or need-ing assistance in non-MARC metadata is to try to figure out the answersthemselves (reported by 43% of MLS catalogers). Thirty-one percent of MLScatalogers reported approaching someone at their institution to clarify ques-tions, 25% use electronic lists or blogs, and the remaining 1% reported notsearching for or needing any type of assistance.

Impact on Regular Cataloging Workflow

In the survey, catalogers were asked questions about how the integrationof non-MARC metadata duties into their regular workflow has affected theirother work duties. Most catalogers (76%) reported that the quality of theirother job duties was not affected by the integration of non-MARC metadataduties into their regular workflow, the remaining 24% reported the integra-tion of non-MARC metadata duties did affect the quality of their other workduties.

The second question concerning the impact of integrating non-MARCmetadata into catalogers’ regular workflow asked catalogers if they thinkthe amount of time allocated to non-MARC metadata duties in their jobdescriptions is enough, should be less, or should be more. MLS and non-MLScatalogers answered this question similarly. Most catalogers (66%) answeredthat they think the time they have allocated for non-MARC metadata dutiesis enough, 28% believe the time they have allocated for non-MARC metadataduties should be more, and the remaining 6% believe the time they haveallocated for non-MARC metadata duties should be less.

Attitudes and Perceptions towards Non-MARC Metadata

We asked catalogers about their opinions and attitudes toward differentaspects of non-MARC metadata. The first question in this group asked cat-alogers if they like having non-MARC metadata duties as part of their jobresponsibilities. Most catalogers (94% of MLS holders and 88% of non-MLSholders) responded that they like having non-MARC metadata duties. Onlya minority of catalogers (6% of MLS holders and 12% of non-MLS holders)reported not liking having non-MARC metadata duties as part of their jobs.

The second question concerning catalogers’ opinions towards non-MARCmetadata asked catalogers if they felt intimidated by this new responsibilityat first. Answers to this question varied among MLS and non-MLS catalogers.Most of the MLS catalogers (58%) reported not being intimidated by the newresponsibility versus 42% of MLS catalogers who reported feeling intimidated.Most of the non-MLS catalogers (59%) reported being intimidated by the newresponsibility, while a minority of non-MLS catalogers (41%) reported notbeing intimidated by the new responsibility.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


One question in the survey asked catalogers if they believe catalogingin non-MARC metadata should become a natural extension of catalogers’responsibilities or if it should be done by separate staff at their Digital Library/Center. Ninety percent of all catalogers answered that non-MARC metadata isa natural extension of catalogers’ responsibilities, only 6% believe it shouldbe done by separate staff at their Digital Library/Center, and the remaining4% believe it should not be done by any of these groups.

Catalogers were asked if they consider cataloging in non-MARC meta-data more difficult than cataloging in MARC. Most of the catalogers (45%)answered they do not believe cataloging in non-MARC metadata is moredifficult than cataloging in MARC. Thirty-seven percent of all catalogersbelieve cataloging in MARC and non-MARC metadata is about the same,while the remaining 18% believe cataloging in non-MARC metadata is moredifficult than cataloging in MARC.

As traditional cataloging is increasingly outsourced and other technicalservices duties are increasingly automated, we considered it important to askcatalogers if they think having non-MARC metadata skills will improve theirjob security in the future. MLS and non-MLS catalogers answered similarly.Most of the catalogers (81%) reported they believe having non-MARC meta-data skills will improve their job security in an uncertain future of outsourcingand automation. Fourteen percent believe having non-MARC metadata skillswill make no difference in their future job security, and a minority, 5%, donot believe having non-MARC metadata skills will improve their job security.

We asked catalogers if having non-MARC metadata duties as part oftheir job responsibilities makes them feel like a more valuable ‘‘asset’’ to theinstitution than before having metadata duties. Most of the catalogers (72%)answered yes to this question. Ten percent reported that having non-MARCmetadata duties as part of their job responsibilities does not make them feellike a more valuable asset, and 18% of catalogers reported that having non-MARC metadata duties in their job responsibilities makes no difference inthe way they feel about being an asset to the library.

In another question, we asked catalogers if they are satisfied with theworkflow for non-MARC metadata production at their institution as it is nowor if they would you like to see some adjustments to it. MLS and non-MLScatalogers answered this question similarly. Most catalogers (54%) answeredthat they are partially satisfied with the metadata workflow at their institution,25% reported that they are not satisfied with it, and the remaining 21%reported that they are satisfied.

Catalogers who reported being partially or not satisfied with the non-MARC metadata workflow at their institution were subsequently asked forthe reasons behind their dissatisfaction. We allowed catalogers to chooseas many reasons as applied to their situation, as well as to provide newones. Most of the catalogers who reported dissatisfaction (59%) said the mainreason for their dissatisfaction with the non-MARC metadata workflow at their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 4. Reasons provided by catalogers for dissatisfaction with non-MARC metadataworkflow at their institution.

institution is that it is not well organized. Fifty percent cited communicationissues, and 31% claimed they wish they had more input in the planning anddecision process of the metadata workflow. Figure 4 illustrates the rest ofthe reasons for dissatisfaction with local workflows.

As seen in Figure 4, 24% of catalogers who reported being partially ornot satisfied with their non-MARC metadata workflow provided additionalreasons for their dissatisfaction. Catalogers expressed a big concern aboutconsistency in entry practices and standards applied to non-MARC metadataat their institution. Other reasons mentioned by catalogers in this group wasthat they are not getting enough cooperation from other library departmentsand that the workflow for non-MARC metadata at their institution has tostop too frequently due to the lack of funds to support a constant, streamingworkflow.

CONCLUSION

According to the responses collected in this survey, most of the endeavorsto integrate non-MARC metadata duties into the workflow of traditionalcatalogers at U.S. academic libraries began in or after 2004, mainly prompted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


by an increasing number of digitized resources to catalog and an increasingdemand by patrons for virtual access to library collections, rather than be-cause of a decreasing number in print resources to catalog, as many believe.So far, the trend in most U.S. academic institutions that have integrated non-MARC metadata duties into the workflow of catalogers is to have five orfewer catalogers working with non-MARC metadata, most of them dedicating20% or less of their time to the task. The survey revealed that the type ofmetadata most catalogers work with is descriptive metadata, and the typeof metadata least commonly used among catalogers is structural metadata.This finding makes sense because most of the catalogers’ strength lies in de-scribing materials and not in programming issues. Also, more MLS catalogersreported being involved in the planning and workflow issues of non-MARCmetadata than non-MLS catalogers. Most catalogers reported creating non-MARC metadata for digitized resources (digital surrogates of print objects),than for digital-only resources, with a small minority reporting using non-MARC to describe physical, tangible objects. This fact indirectly indicatesthat even though non-MARC schemas may represent the currently preferredencoding language for describing non-tangible objects, non-MARC schemasstill fall behind MARC when chosen by catalogers to describe tangible objects.

Even though most of the catalogers in this survey reported being re-quired to participate in non-MARC metadata duties at their institutions, manyof them volunteered for the duty. Most of the catalogers who volunteeredwere motivated by a desire to be on the cutting edge of cataloging and bycuriosity. Not surprisingly, the least chosen reason catalogers volunteeredfor this duty was because they received a financial incentive. The surveyrevealed a difference in the training received by MLS catalogers and non-MLScatalogers for performing non-MARC metadata duties. Most MLS catalogersreceived training from sources outside their institutions, while most of thenon-MLS catalogers received training from inside their institutions. The non-MARC schema most often used by catalogers was Dublin Core, but the useof many other schemas was reported, including locally created, customizedschemas especially designed to meet the specific needs of the library col-lections. Most of the catalogers reported using a tool to generate metadata,and almost half reported using commercial software. However, even thoughmost catalogers use a tool to generate metadata, most of them reportedbeing partially or completely dissatisfied with it. The most common reasonsfor the dissatisfaction involved the tools’ functionality, inflexibility, and lackof customization options to meet local needs.

More than half of the catalogers surveyed reported keeping some typeof authority control for the personal and corporate names found in theirnon-MARC metadata records, mostly by keeping manual track of the namesin a list. Surprisingly, only a very few of the catalogers who keep authoritycontrol reported encoding authority data in an authority schema or using asystem to automatically extract names from XML records. On the other hand,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


catalogers who reported not keeping authority control for names found intheir non-MARC metadata records reported not doing so because they donot know how to approach authority control in non-MARC metadata, witha minority of these catalogers reporting not needing authority control. Thesurvey reflects that when catalogers have questions or need assistance innon-MARC metadata, MLS catalogers and non-MLS catalogers seek assistancein very different ways. Most of the non-MLS catalogers prefer to approachsomeone at their institution to answer their questions, while most of theMLS catalogers usually try first to figure out the answers themselves. Mostcatalogers reported that the time they have allocated for non-MARC metadataduties in their jobs is good enough and should not be less or more. Theyreport that the integration of non-MARC responsibilities into their regularworkflow did not affect the quality of their other job duties.

This survey revealed that, contrary to popular belief, most catalogersenjoy having non-MARC metadata duties as part of their job responsibilitiesand that, for the most part, there is no difference in the perceptions that MLSand non-MLS catalogers hold toward non-MARC metadata. This similarity ofperception is reflected in how most of the catalogers agreed that non-MARCmetadata is a natural extension of catalogers’ responsibilities and that havingnon-MARC metadata skills will improve their job security in an uncertainfuture as well as make them feel a more valuable asset to their institution thanbefore having metadata skills. The only non-MARC metadata issue where MLSand non-MLS catalogers held different perceptions is in the question aboutbeing intimidated at first by the new responsibility to provide non-MARCmetadata. Most of the non-MLS catalogers confessed they were intimidatedat first, while most MLS catalogers said they were not.

Finally, concerning workflow issues in non-MARC metadata production,a high percentage of catalogers (79%) reported being completely or par-tially dissatisfied with the non-MARC metadata workflow at their institutions,mainly due to the lack of organization and other communication issues. Cat-alogers reported they wish they had more input in the planning and decisionprocess of the workflow. Many of the catalogers who reported dissatisfactionwith their non-MARC metadata workflow showed a big concern with theinconsistency of practices and standards applied to organize information innon-MARC metadata.

NOTES

1. Terry Hurlbert and Linda L. Dujmic. ( July 2007). Cataloging department participation indigital initiatives. Technical Services Quarterly, 25(1), p. 20.

2. Ibid., 22.3. Jeanne M. K. Boydston and Joan M. Leysen. (2006). Observations on the catalogers’ role in

descriptive metadata creation in academic libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,

43(2), 11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


4. Joan M. Gregory, Alice I. Weber, and Shona R. Dippie. (Apr 2008). Innovative roles fortechnical services librarians: Extending our reach. Technical Services Quarterly, 25(4), 43.

5. Melanie Feltner-Reichert and Marielle Veve. (Nov 2007). Moving beyond MARC: Initiatingand embracing change in a traditional technical services department. Against the Grain,19(5), 28.

APPENDIX

Integrating Non-MARC Metadata Production into the

Duties of Traditional Catalogers: A National Survey of

Trends and Perceptions in Academic Libraries

General Trends

1) Are you a cataloger in a U.S. academic library who works with non-MARC metadata?a) Yes, with MLS degreeb) Yes, without MLS degreec) No, I’m not a cataloger (skips all questions and exit)

2) On average, how much of your time is allocated to perform non-MARCmetadata duties?a) 20 % or less of my timeb) 21% to 49% of my timec) 50% or more of my time

3) Did you volunteer or were you required to participate in the productionof non-MARC metadata?a) Volunteeredb) Required (skips to question 5)

4) If you volunteered to integrate non-MARC metadata into your duties,why did you decide to do so? Choose all that apply:a) Wanted variety in my job dutiesb) Wanted to be on the cutting edge of catalogingc) Wanted to secure my job in case things change in the futured) Was curious about ite) I received a financial incentive

5) Did you receive any type of training to produce non-MARC metadata?a) Yes, from my institutionb) Yes, from outside my institution (workshops, online courses)c) A mixture of bothd) No training at all

6) How many catalogers in your department (with and without MLS degree)are involved in non-MARC metadata duties?a) 5 or lessb) 6 to 10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


c) 11 to 14d) 15 or more

7) In which aspect of non-MARC metadata are you involved? Choose allthat apply:a) Metadata to describe and discover objects (descriptive metadata)b) Metadata to manage and access objects (administrative metadata)c) Metadata to organize and display objects (structural metadata)d) Planning/workflow aspects of metadata (ex. planning workflow,

choosing schemas to use, tools and best practices)e) Mapping from one schema to other schemas (ex. from MARC to

MODS or vice versa)8) Which non-MARC schema are you using? Choose all that apply:

a) Dublin Coreb) MODSc) EADd) TEIe) VRAf) MARC-XMLg) Other, please specify:

9) Do you think the non-MARC schemas you use provide enough detail todescribe information properly?a) Yesb) No

10) For which types of materials are you creating non-Marcmetadata? Chooseall that apply:a) Physical, tangible objects (such as print books, maps, etc.)b) Digitized sources (digital surrogates of print objects) (e.g., digitized

manuscripts/photos, JPEG images, images of scanned objects, etc.)c) Digital only sources (objects that only exist in digital format) (e.g.,

websites, electronic theses, etc.)11) Are you using any type of tool or software to generate metadata? For

example, a commercial tool (such as ContentDM or DigiTool), an openaccess tool (such as D-Space or Fedora), or any other locally createdtool.

Yes, a commercial softwareYes, a locally generated toolYes, a free open access softwareNone, we don’t use any tool to generate metadata (skips to question 15)

12) If you are using a tool or software to generate metadata, are you satisfiedwith it?a) Yes, I am completely satisfied with it (skips to question 15)b) I am partly satisfied with it, but would like to make some adjustmentsc) No, I am not satisfied with it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


13) If you are not satisfied or partially satisfied with the tool or software togenerate metadata in your institution, why aren’t you satisfied? Chooseall that apply:

Is not flexible enough, I wish it were more customizableDifficult to useOnly supports a limited number of metadata schemasSome aspects of its functionalityOther, please specify:

14) Are you keeping any type of authority control for personal and/orcorporate names mentioned in non-Marc metadata records?

YesNo (skips to question 17)

15) If yes, how are you keeping authority control for names?

Encode authority data in XML authority schemas (such as MADS, EAC)(skips to question 18)

Keep manual track of names in a list (skips to question 18)Use conversion tools to convert MARC authorities to other schemas

(skips to question 18)Use a system that automatically extracts names from XML records (skips

to question 18)Don’t know what we use or do (skips to question 18)

16) If not, why are you not keeping authority control for names?

Don’t need it in our situationIt is time consumingWant to, but don’t know how to approach itDon’t know

17) When you have questions or need assistance in non-MARC metadatahow do you approach it?

I approach someone in my institution who helps clarify questionsI use listservs or blogs to ask colleagues in other institutionsI try to figure it out myselfI don’t search for any assistance

18) Approximately when did your institution start to integrate non-MARCmetadata duties into the workflow of catalogers?a) Before the year 2000b) Between 2000–2003c) Between 2004–2006d) After 2006

19) Finally, which reasons do you think prompted the integration of non-MARC metadata production into the duties of catalogers in your institu-tion? Choose all that apply:a) Decreased amount of print and other sources to catalog

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


b) Increased amount of non-print sources to catalog (e.g., digitizedsources)

c) Library wanted to make best use of catalogers’ expertise by assigningthem metadata

d) Increased demand by patrons for virtual access to all types of infor-mation

e) Other, please specify:

Attitudes and Perceptions

20) Do you like having non-MARC metadata duties as part of your jobresponsibilities?a) Yesb) No

21) Were you intimidated at first by this new responsibility?

YesNo

22) Do you believe cataloging in non-MARC metadata should be a naturalextension of catalogers’ responsibilities or should be done by separatestaff in the Digital Library/Center?a) Is a natural extension of catalogers’ responsibilitiesb) Should be done by separate staff in the Digital Library/Centerc) None

23) Do you think cataloging in non-MARC metadata is more difficult thancataloging in MARC?

Yes, is more difficultNo, is not more difficult (skips to question 26)They are about the same

24) If yes, why do you think it is more difficult to catalog in non-MARCmetadata than in MARC?a) A higher level of technological background is neededb) Encoding information in metadata elements and sub-elements is more

complicated than putting information in MARC fields and delimitersc) Other, please explain:

25) As traditional cataloging is increasingly outsourced and other technicalservices duties are increasingly automated, do you think having non-MARC metadata skills will improve job security in the future?

YesNoIt will make no difference

26) Does having non-MARC metadata duties as part of your job responsi-bilities make you feel a more valuable ‘‘asset’’ than before having anymetadata duties?

Yes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


NoThere is no difference

27) Does the integration of non-MARC metadata duties into your regularworkflow affect the quality of your other work?

YesNo

28) Do you think the amount of time allocated to non-MARC metadata dutiesin your job description is:

EnoughShould be lessShould be more

29) Are you satisfied with the workflow for non-MARC metadata produc-tion in your institution as it is now or would you like to make someadjustments to it?

Yes, I am satisfied with it (skips to survey’s exit)I am partially satisfied with itNo, I am not satisfied with it

30) Why are you partially or not satisfied with the non-MARC workflow inyour institution? Choose all that apply:

I wish I had more input in the planning and decision processIt takes too long from the moment we create metadata to having it

displayed for usersWorkflow is not well organizedCommunication issuesWe don’t keep authority controlOther, please explain:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

53 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

integrating non-marc metadata duties into the workflow of traditional catalogers: a survey of trends...

Documents