<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>As you may recall, Melissa Hubbard and I recently conducted
a survey of rare book catalogers asking how you are handling your hidden
collections. Many of you have expressed interest in the results of the survey, and
so they appear at the end of this message. We are currently working on an
article which will include more detailed discussion of these results.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thank you all for your participation in the survey and your continued
interest in this topic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>--Ann Myers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Ann
Myers</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Special
Collections Cataloger</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Morris
Library Mail Code 6632</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Southern
Illinois University Carbondale</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>605
Agriculture Drive</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Carbondale,
IL 62901</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>618-453-1499</span><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a
href="mailto:amyers@lib.siu.edu">amyers@lib.siu.edu</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>Survey Methodology<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>In order to gauge the reaction of the rare book cataloging profession
to the hidden collections discourse, we issued a 24 question survey. The survey
focused primarily on the size of rare book collections and backlogs at
participants' institutions, whether participants follow the hidden collections
discourse, and whether changes in rare book cataloging practices have been made
at participants' institutions in response to the hidden collections discourse.
Participants were asked to describe any changes in cataloging practices at
their institutions in detail. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>We created a website for the survey and distributed the link
to the EXLIBRIS-L and DCRM-L listservs. The first page of the survey
invited responses from those “responsible for the creation and/or
administration of rare book cataloging policies.” The survey was
open for three weeks, and we received 96 usable responses.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>Survey Results<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>All of the correlations described below were calculated
using Pearson's correlation coefficient, significant at the 0.01 level.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Rare book backlogs are nearly universal. Almost 98% (97.8%)
of respondents reported a backlog at their institution. There is a positive
correlation between institutions with larger collections of cataloged rare
books and those with larger backlogs. There is also a positive correlation
between ARL members, larger backlogs, and larger cataloged collections.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The survey asked three questions designed to determine
whether the respondents follow the hidden collections discourse. Almost 69%
(68.9%) of respondents were aware of the work of the ARL Task Force on Special
Collections. More than 61% (61.5%) had read the <span style='color:black'>2003
White Paper “Hidden Collections, Scholarly Barriers,” and 72% had
read other professional literature or attended professional meetings about
hidden collections. There are positive correlations between those who are aware
of the ARL task force, those who have read the White Paper, and those who have
read other professional literature. Unsurprisingly, there is a positive
correlation between respondents from ARL institutions and those who are aware of
the ARL task force.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>More than 55% (55.2%) of
respondents have considered changes to rare book cataloging policies and
practices at their institutions as a result of the hidden collections
discourse; more than 51% (51.1%) reported that changes have been implemented.
There is a positive correlation between those who considered changes and those
who implemented them. ARL members and those who are aware of the ARL task force
are more likely to have considered changes, while those who have read other
professional literature about hidden collections are more likely to have
implemented changes. Institutions with more cataloged volumes and larger
backlogs are more likely to have implemented changes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Reasons given for not considering
changes to cataloging practices in response to the hidden collections discourse
include: (1) a small or nonexistent backlog; (2) having a plan for addressing
the backlog prior to the advent of the hidden collections discourse; (3) lack
of interest in change because the institution is already doing all it can to
address the backlog; (4) inability to change because of the special descriptive
needs of rare books; (5) lack of cooperation from other invested parties; (6)
lack of resources; and (7) institutional focus on archival resources, to the
detriment of rare book collections. The same reasons for not considering
changes were given when respondents were asked why their institutions had not
implemented changes to address rare book backlogs. Some respondents used this
answer field to note that the hidden collections discourse helped them explain
the need for changes to their administrators. Reasons for having considered but
not implented changes include: (1) lack of resources; (2) institutional lack of
interest in special collections and rare books; and (3) having plans for
currently unimplemented changes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Participants were asked to
describe recent attempts to address rare book backlogs. Limited-term
projects were the most common method reported, with 49% of respondents
describing a project. Almost 45% (44.8%) of respondents described changes in
formal rare book policies. More than 36% (36.5%) reported that resources had
been reallocated to rare book cataloging from other areas of the department or
library, but only 27.1% described the creation of new positions devoted to
cataloging rare books. More than 11% (11.5%) described various other methods of
addressing rare book backlogs. The correlation table shows that respondents
were likely to describe several methods of addressing the backlog at their
institution, or none at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Respondents described recent
changes to formal cataloging policies, including (1) greater acceptance of
existing cataloging copy; (2) varying fullness of records and/or implementation
of DCRM(B); (3) reduced processing, such as writing less information on flags;
(4) altered cataloging priorities; (5) allowing catalogers for a general
collection to catalog some rare materials; (6) allowing paraprofessionals to
catalog rare materials; (7) use of “inventory-level” records, with
the goal of upgrading all to DCRM(B) when time allows; (8) use of
collection-level records with some item-level access; (9) less supervisory
review of new records; and (10) discontinuation of the use of certain subject
headings. One respondent noted that the hidden collections initiative has
reduced the priority level of rare book cataloging at their institution, in
favor of archival processing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>When asked to describe any recent
projects designed to address rare book backlogs, some respondents described
projects designed to address a portion of the backlog, while some described
projects intended to eliminate the rare book backlog entirely. Some respondents
created temporary positions for backlog projects, and some of these were grant
funded. Some outsourced a portion of their cataloging to an agency. Several
respondents described multiple projects for addressing backlogs. One individual
wrote that their institution had applied for several grants for backlog
projects, but had not received any. That person speculated that grant awards
tend to go to larger institutions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>When asked to describe the
reallocation of resources from other parts of the department or institution to
rare book cataloging, most who responded stated that non- rare book catalogers have
been assigned to part-time cataloging work. These non-catalogers included
curators, archivists, catalogers for a general collection, paraprofessionals,
staff “freed” from other projects due to budget cuts, and student
workers. One respondent noted that the reallocation of staff time to rare book
cataloging requires professional catalogers to spend more time on training and
supervising. Several respondents described losing positions or other resources
due to recent budget cuts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Other recent changes in cataloging
practices described include: (1) Rare Book School training for those who have
been assigned to rare book cataloging responsibilities but have little
experience; (2) use of newer equipment; (3) more training sessions; (4) a
re-established relationship with the English Short Title Catalogue; (5)
retroconversion of catalog card records to MARC records; (6) “raised
awareness” of other descriptive standards, such as DACS; and (7) creation
of an endowment-funded position.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Almost 27% (26.9%) of respondents
had sought grant funding for methods of addressing rare book backlogs, and of
those, 70% were successful. There is a positive correlation between seeking and
receiving grant funding.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Respondents were asked to provide
quantitative data about increases in rare book cataloging due to any of the
changes they described. Several people were able to provide data documenting
significant increases. However, some described decreases in cataloging due to
reduced staffing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Almost 72% (71.7%) of respondents
believe that their institution's efforts to address backlogs have been
successful, and more than 65% (65.2%) believe that their institution's efforts
are sustainable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>More than 94% of respondents
(94.5%) report that their institution has made efforts to increase access to
non-rare book hidden collections, such as manuscript and other archival
collections.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>