Information Access Open Forum Session
January 30, 2001 3:00-4:30
This all staff session was held to solicit staff input concerning the Information Access organizational restructuring efforts. The Coordinator for Information Access outlined program areas that will be developed within this service unit. Questions noted below were posed to 6 groups. Staff suggestions and comments are briefly noted below.
1. Should Special Collections have their own cataloging personnel?
What are the positives/negatives of having Special Collections cataloging separate? What are the positives/negatives of having SPECIAL COLLECTIONS integrated?
Summaries:
Group 1
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS separate: Positive Expertise in special formats (many formats, specialized notes, etc.). Physical handling and security issues. Faster processing (higher vol.) Subject expertise. Catalogers will have greater understanding if patron needs. Negative Staffing needs. Communication issues. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS catalogers are also part-time reference. Keeping up with cataloging issues and developments. Workspace.
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS integration: Positive Consistency of cataloging approaches easier to keep up with cataloging issues (network). Better communication. Negative Fewer materials processed for SPECIAL COLLECTIONS. Number of staff to take care of both. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS cataloging remains a low priority. Lack of expertise in SPECIAL COLLECTIONS formats. Security issues and materials handling. Increase in time spent on electronic and database clean up.
Group 2
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS separate: Positive Better understanding of why materials go to SPECIAL COLLECTIONS and importance of collection in general. Less disruptive to "regular" processing work flow. (SPECIAL COLLECTIONS materials require separate processing.) SPECIAL COLLECTIONS processors would be closer to materials destination/collection. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS already integrates staff into desk duty this would out more people in the desk rotation. Negative Separate SPECIAL COLLECTIONS cataloging may lead to differences in cataloging policies. It contributes to isolation of special collection. ? Problems with fast cat of DLC2, etc.?
Group 3
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS separate: Positive SPECIAL COLLECTIONS would love their own cataloging personnel and they should have their own. Negative - Currently SPECIAL COLLECTIONS stands "in line" to get their materials cataloged. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS had different and unique formats (not modern materials). 7,000 items are backlogged. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS items are time consuming and difficult. Security issues for materials in Acquisitions/Cataloging Dept.
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS integrated: Positive SPECIAL COLLECTIONS understands their users better. All in one secured location. If SPECIAL COLLECTIONS has their own communication might be better (going down instead of up). Cataloger able to develop subject expertise in SPECIAL COLLECTIONS areas. EAD done when finding aid is done. Negative Need more staff if SPECIAL COLLECTIONS took over the book cataloging. Lack of communication. Funding for additional personnel - not in the budget. Past-integrated plans havent worked. Space.
*Idea Integrate all original cataloging in one central place could be in SPECIAL COLLECTIONS. When things are slow in one area but heavy in another. Better use of staff time.
2. What is the role of government documents if integrated with cataloging? Do you see these duties completely separate or somehow working with database maintenance/cataloging? Explain.
Group 1
Now original cataloging, QC in OPAC, government documents, Non-DLC materials cataloging.
Future metadata, XML and other schemas, collaboration with other areas.*Metadata creation/surrogate creation. Place in database for access.
Positive for integration original cataloging of non-marcive, similar record
Maintenance for serial holdings.
Question remains how to handle quality control of records?
Acquisitions or CAT could physically process materials. No perceived as distinct separate dept. Database maintenance most often without holdings records.
Reclassification.
Negatives for integration Not feasible to attempt authority control for government documents.
More control if centralized processing. Need to analyze effect of migration to e-formats on workflow.
Government documents now: LAIII (vacant) LAII (Treva) processing, Mark processes Texas Documents,
Students withdrawals and transfer.
Even if integrated Need full time processing person. LAIII job dependent on Level cataloging attention given the record.
Considerations Gov. review of our sdoc depository arrangement.
How LAII will work with newly evolving collection development person and/or Reference person.
Bindery who will be responsible for bindery decision?
Record review how it meshes with model record for other materials or does it matter?
Group 2
Cataloging area currently catalog serial government documents, doing bindery of sdocs, URL maintenance.
Sdocs area process own continuations and withdrawals, own electronic Holdings, delete temporary bibliographic records, handles updates and transmittals, submit
Sdoc duplicate lists to regional library (Texas Tech) for submission to TX State Library and other depository libraries to obtain items they might be able to use for their own collections.
*Continue to "outsource" to cataloging serials, bindery and URL maintenance.
Group 3
Question. 1 - Difficult to switch between sdocs and cataloging. Call number classification system is different. Records are somewhat difficult. More apt t to change.
Question. 2 Maintenance has more potential for integration, but still different.