There is no question that technical services librarians who serve on the reference desk often come back with a great idea or two for improving entries in the catalog. Where the unfairness lies is that reference librarians are not expected to do the reverse. A better knowledge of cataloging would be a huge benefit to reference librarians and yet, while you see many technical services positions advertised that require evening and weekend hours on the reference desk, how many reference positions do you see advertised that require cataloging knowledge and experience? I am willing to bet that if you go to a library jobs site right now and check the first few reference position openings, you are unlikely to see even one that requires a contribution in technical services. It's a double standard. I suspect that this is the reason why many good catalogers will not apply for positions that require reference work.
I feel very strongly that the time I spend working at the reference desk answering the queries of library users makes me a far better cataloger. It puts me in direct contact with the needs, expectations, and complaints of library users in the catalog. I am then able to better formulate local cataloging policy moving forward to adapt to changing needs and expectations for searching. It’s a natural thing to have the expectation that the cataloger should work the reference desk - not only does it make us better catalogers, it also helps to put us front and center in the library at a time when stakeholders need to know what it is that catalogers do and why our professional skills are fundamental to libraries.
Why, then, are reference librarians not expected to be at least familiar with, or even do basic work with records in the catalog? It seems (as the quote points out) that this would make them better reference librarians. Their work in the catalog would allow them to better manipulate results and records in the catalog, give them more in-depth knowledge of what all is contained in a record, and give more constructive feedback to the catalogers on design and description of items. I think the answer to this question is two-fold.
It’s far easier for catalogers to work at the reference desk than for reference librarians to catalog. All librarians have training in reference work - it’s a requirement set forward by the ALA. We catalogers might not be quite as adept at reference work as librarians working in that area, but we do share a common skill set that allows all librarians to do reference work with a moderate level of proficiency. The same is simply not true of cataloging. Few library schools require students to take cataloging courses of any substance and so a reference librarian doing even basic cataloging work requires a fair amount of training - not just in standards, but also in local practice.
This highlights a second point - there is no basic requirement for people in library school to study cataloging in any meaningful way. I think here and there concepts are discussed in courses, but the typical library school student does not create cataloging records or gain practical experience in this area. I could go on at length about this, but I will save the majority of my thoughts for next week. In the meantime, what do you think a basic cataloging education should look like - one that all librarians share?
Maybe reference librarians are no longer a useful target. Try getting other kinds of librarians (e.g. ILL) to help out. For instance, ILL succeeds or fails based, in part, on cataloging. ILL folks see the MARC coding all the time and uncover all kinds of problems that need to be fixed. For a change, let's stop trying to woo reference librarians to cataloging. Besides, we need a new focus for the "How I convinced so and so...to cataloging series." Refs in Cat is all played out.
ReplyDeleteHi Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment! I understand your point, and perhaps I was a bit too particular about reference librarians. However, the overall point that I am trying to make is that while we all do have our specializations, we also are all librarians, and in this time of shrinking budgets and staff, perhaps we should lend a hand in other areas of the library. Not only does this help those other areas out, it also helps us to be more well-rounded as professionals.
I’ll talk more about this in my post next week, but thanks for your comment – and point taken!
Jason
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI initially started my working career as an advocate for specialties and having that sense of "job security" for knowing what you do so well that perhaps no one else could do your job. However, over time, I have modified my fervor for specialties and become more of an advocate for knowing a lot about something while also knowing a moderate amount about a variety of aspects that apply to the field you are in.
While not a librarian I do, however, work in a field that is comparable in comparison - education development - where databases and (donor) records are abundant. When I first began my current position I was floored by the amount of cross training that was emphasized in development. Honestly, I was a bit dismayed by the lack of focus. As time went on I began to see the advantage of knowing a little about what everyone in my department does as well as in the university I work at as a whole. When I sit down with a co-worker and learn more about what their day looks like, I am able to incorporate that knowledge into my own job. Not only do I gain a sense of appreciation for the tasks of another, I also further my knowledge of how different parts make a whole. When I attend a seminar at the university, I learn about how my work affects an entire organization. In this capacity I not only feel like a valuable and essential piece of the puzzle but I am able to reach beyond my desk, my computer and my projects to see the bigger picture.
This brings me to another point. Seeing the bigger picture! If you are in your own little microcosm, steadily working away in your cubicle or office but not connecting what you do to what Jim Bob, Billy Jean, and Ali Mae (all Arkansas names, for effect) do, you may just be missing the point of the eight plus hours you spend at your desk. And, more importantly, you may be ensuring that you will remain at that same desk for the entirety of your career. For, with a narrow focus, you will be hard pressed to advance to any level of seniority.
When you speak of catalogers having a working knowledge of reference work and vice versa I relate that to planned giving having a working knowledge of how gifts are processed and the gift services staff knowing how planned giving works. Instead of finding the experience of sharing and learning frightening, or perhaps threatening, a view of opportunity - for all involved parties - may take everyone a bit further. After all, we are all on the ladder and it helps if we know where the steps are and what they look like as we make the climb.