I continue to believe that AACR2 implementation costs were much higher than they needed to be at many institutions because it was issued about 5 years too early--at the tail end of the era of the card catalog, just before many large institutions made the shift to online integrated systems. Updating headings and refiling cards, in my case at the University of Texas, was much more onerous than similar changes would have been in an online-only environment.
Again, in my opinion, we seem to be pushing for change prematurely. Instead of getting our ducks in a row, making sure we're clear on the direction we need to move in and that technology to support change in those directions is at least in the pipeline, emphasis has been on the urgency of change. It shouldn't be a challenge to articulate how going to a great deal of work and expense will make things better, i.e. allow us to work more efficiently and/or to provide better service. The benefits of adopting a new code should be both clear and exciting. "We've gone too far to turn back" doesn't do it for me. ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Miksa, Shawne [smi...@unt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Time and effort I've spent some time today reviewing my copy of this book --Research libraries and their implementation of AACR2 / edited by Judith Hopkins and John A. Edens. (Foundations in library and information science; v. 22). Greenwich, Conn. : Jai Press, 1986. ISBN 0-89232-641-7 Several long quotes follow so please bear with me. Specifically, I am relating quotes from just one chapter entitled “Implementing AACR2—defusing the sound and the fury: implementation of AACR2 at the University of California, Davis” by Kazuko M. Daily and Gregor A. Preston. All of the studies in this book contain interesting anecdotal evidence of the time and effort involved in implementing AACR2 in addition to details of implementation plans and challenges faced. Daily and Preston start their study with a “historical perspective” in order to relate how the University of California started their plans to deal with implementation of AACR2. A committee—the Alternative Catalog Evaluation Committee (ACE)-- was formed in 1978 and gave recommendations to the University Librarian in 1979. It was during this time that LC had decided to delay implementation one year until 1981, but the authors remarked that “…nobody on or outside the Committee felt that a one year reprieve gave us adequate time to gear up for what was inexorably coming in 1981” (p. 44). In Spring of 1980 the AACR2 Technical Implementation Committee (ATTIC) was formed and because of the lack of additional funding from the university the committee “opted for a lean implementation plan” (p. 46). [Keep in mind that this taking place as many libraries were dealing with issues surrounding card catalogs and new online systems. In California in particular, and relevant to this particular study, they were dealing with the 1978 passage of “Proposition 13” which had the effect (only one of many, if I understand correctly) of reducing funding for education, public libraries, etc. ] Here I am quoting some discussions on time and effort --Daily and Preston discuss the effects of AACR2 implementation on several different groups of staff--given by catalogers. Part II, Section F. Effects on Original Catalogers (selected excerpts), pgs. 59-60 “Professional catalogers spent a fair amount of time in learning to apply the new rules. This activity included state and regional conferences, in-house meetings, and personal study and application.” “The rules which occasioned the most discussion were contained in Chapters 21, 22, and 24 of AACR2. Rule 21.1B2, which explains when a work emanating from a corporate body should be entered under the corporate body and when under title, was particularly troublesome and confusing… (snip)…Rules relating to the form of personal and corporate names also took a good deal of time to master.” “Applying AACR2 in original cataloging was further complicated by the issuance of Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI’s) which, in effect, began revising the rules immediately. Thus, the notion that AACR2 is a set of fixed rules, which simply need to be learned by catalogers, is not true, although it may be a misconception shared by many non-technical services librarians….We started a file of LCRIs, arranged by file number, so that catalogers could check on place for the latest interpretation of the rule they were applying. We also held regular meetings to discuss the LCRIs as they were published in the LC Cataloging Service Bulletins.” “We kept no record of the actual amount of time professional catalogers expended as a result of learning new rules. There is no doubt it was considerable. After mastering AACR2, there was little extra work involved in cataloging an item under the new rules as compared to the old rules. As mention previously, the major difference was the need to ascertain whether a new heading conflicted with an already established heading.” Part 2, Section A. Impact on Cataloging (selected excerpts), pgs. 61- 62 “From the standpoint of those librarians who catalog or are in charge of cataloging and maintaining card catalogs, the adoption of AACR2 has not produced any recognizable advantages, but neither has it produced the disaster that had anticipated by some. We still persist in believing, though no longer with emotion, that AACR2 could have been postponed, until automation could provide us with on-line catalogs and a means of changing headings globally.” “…AACR2 has had to be interpreted and re-interpreted from the start. Those expecting a pristine, new code have been sadly disappointed. Notwithstanding the Paris Principles, if the new rules are more logical than the old, we assume that the new rules will be ultimately beneficial to the library user, but such benefits are difficult to measure.” “One positive aspect of the whole experience was that planning for and interpreting AACR2 required us, in effect, to review our existing procedures. The original cataloger had to re-study his knowledge and application of cataloging rules as a whole in order to apply AACR2 to new material. Supervisors and the Department Head had to dissect established routines and adapt some of them to AACR2 considerations. Implementing AACR2 resulted, in varying degrees, in a sort of re-education process of the staff.” Part 4, Conclusion (selected excerpts), pgs. 63 - 64 “If we had to do it all over again, there is little we would do differently, given the lack of addition funding for AACR2 implementation. With additional funds, we might have created a new unit which would have checked all headings on AACR2 copy prior to cataloging. This would have insured that all heading conflicts, personal and corporate, were identified and resolved. It also would have meant that both copycatalogers and original catalogers could have concentrated on cataloging without having to absorb the extra workload caused by AACR2.” “Although a lot of time was spent in committee meetings and planning sessions, this effort allowed us to plan strategies well in advance of D-Day and give us confidence in the changes we adopted.” “With the passage of time, we tend to forget that sound and the fury which accompanied our discussions of AACR2 implementation and the trepidation we felt as D-Day loomed ever closer. We are intellectually tougher for having undergone the experience. We’re ready when you are, AACR3!” _____ Again, all very interesting and I think pertinent to current discussions surrounding RDA development, testing, and possible implementation in the years to come. I would not suppose that any implementation is going to happen next year—mostly likely not for a few years—in which case it would prudent to start planning now on how to implement, or not. As I have said in previous postings (either here or on NGC4LIB), we don’t yet have enough data to make such decisions. In looking back at the context surrounding AACR2 implementation we can see that we obviously enjoy a vast technology communications advantage and the ability to exchange information almost instantaneously. However, funding training and implementation and the amount and length of individual time and effort each of us has to put into studying and learning a new way of cataloging is, in my opinion, unchanged. ************************************************************** Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Library and Information Sciences College of Information University of North Texas email: shawne.mi...@unt.edu http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101 **************************************************************
