[DCRM-L] Hidden collections survey results

[Ann Myers]

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.

 

Thank you all for your participation in the survey and your continued
interest in this topic.

 

--Ann Myers

 

Ann Myers

Special Collections Cataloger

Morris Library Mail Code 6632

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

605 Agriculture Drive

Carbondale, IL 62901

618-453-1499

amyers at lib.siu.edu

 

Survey Methodology

 

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. 

 

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.

 

Survey Results

 

All of the correlations described below were calculated using Pearson's
correlation coefficient, significant at the 0.01 level.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100406/b3e416b5/attachment.htm