Is Cataloging a Dying Specialty?

As a fledgling librarian interested in cataloging, the question “Is cataloging a dying specialty?” is one I have reflected upon at length. My answer to that question, is simply "no." Like so many emphatic statements, though, this one comes with exceptions and explanations. However, let me expound upon my “no” with three points.

First, someone has to catalog all these new items being produced, regardless of their format, etc. - that work has to be done by a person somewhere along the way. Irrespective of how automated processes become, an “actual person” will have to sit down and examine the item being cataloged, and then put that metadata into whatever form of record is used at that time.

Second, from an art library perspective (and one that actively collects photography monographs) a great deal of art publishing is moving to a "self-published" model, meaning that these items are not widely held, and nor would they typically be collected by the Library of Congress, or any copyright deposit library, leaving them uncataloged. This leaves the cataloging to the library which acquired the work, namely an original cataloging record. The photographer David Bram talks about this some, and highlights this in his blog post:

Book Publishing.

Third, even if there are records for the item being cataloged, the cataloger might need to make changes to the record in order to comply with the rules for their library, or a differing edition of the item. Even changing a cataloging record requires a decent amount of knowledge about standards and formats for cataloging.

In the course of my work at the Carter, I have found a myriad of older items that either lack a cataloging record, or have outdated (pre-AACR2r) records. These items must have records created for them, or need to be updated on a need-based system to integrate them into the catalog.

Is cataloging a growing field, though? I would say no to that as well - but not one that is dying.