LIS New Professionals Network

Thank you to Ned, Lex & Rachel for offering me the opportunity to write about cataloguing here. This piece is a response to the earlier Anatomy of a cataloger post but it is also a shameless plug for cataloguing, cataloguers and the High Visibility Cataloguing site that I helped to set up. 

Let’s just get this out of the way first: cataloguers have a bit of an image problem.  But, let’s face it, so have librarians and you’re here at LISNPN so we already know that you – my esteemed reader - can see past lazy stereotypes and tired old clichés, right? So let’s just move on…

I love solving problems. Each piece I catalog is a puzzle. I can use that talent  to help end users and my colleagues in reference @erinaleach

I love being a cataloguer but I can’t give you a catch-all description of what life is like as a cataloguer. There are as many types of cataloguer role as there are types of library: what is involved with vary with the size and nature of the collection, the types of materials acquired, the balance of in-house versus outsourced record creation, the software used. Cataloguing could mean dealing with books. Or serials. Or purely online resources.  Or institutional repositories. Or artefacts, teaching materials, [fill in the blank yourself]. I can tell you that cataloguing takes place in a constantly evolving environment, so cataloguers need to be adaptable, forward-thinking and, at the very least, not afraid of technology. 

…it’s never boring: the challenge of figuring out how to make things accessible/findable @slmcdanold

There are many job titles for what we do: cataloguer, metadata technician, bibliographic services librarians, technical services/acquisitions/collection description. There are also plenty of library roles which involve some cataloguing without being defined as a “cataloguer”: for example, subject specialist, dealing with a special collection or solo librarian-who-does-everything.

To get some ideas of why people love cataloguing, whether they are full-time cataloguers or just do cataloguing as part of their wider role, I asked on Twitter for people to complete the sentence “I love cataloguing because…”. The quotes throughout my post are just a handful of the many replies I received within a couple of hours. These short quotes paint a better picture of the heart and soul of cataloguing than I could ever do myself.

...because my precise yet creative descriptions facilitate discovery by stealth. Patron: ‘Wow! I didn’t even know that existed’ @angefitzpatrick

...because it makes me more familiar with the books & therefore with the library, which means I can answer readers’ queries better @lemurph 

...because I feel like the anatomist of a book, I discover internal  intricacies,  pin down inner meaning, & enhance findability @darklecat

If you want to find out more, I’d advise you to start with the comments on the Anatomy of cataloger post, where many eloquent and passionate cataloguers explain what they do and why they love it. For even more,  try the High Visibility Cataloguing site (or, for those of you on Twitter, try searching for the hashtag #hvcats). At High Visibility Cataloguing, we are planning more ways to explain what cataloguers do and give a better sense of what it means on a practical, day-to-day level to be a cataloguer. It would also be a good place for anyone interested in getting in touch with cataloguers, to ask questions and find out more.

… because information is power,  and I control the information ;) @evil_jen

...gives ability to be a well-rounded librarian:  we wear many hats,  cat[aloguing] is a good foundation @hippylibrarian

This post is 3rd in my series "Library Team Task Force", a description of roles performed by librarians (sometimes the same one!) so that we might come to a better understanding of what our colleagues do and so students might have more realistic ways to potentially decide which track to focus on.

Is there any position more dreaded than "cataloger"?  Not because they're scary, but because none of us really want to do it?  Because we don't really love LOC, Dewey, FRBR, AACR2, or ISBD?  Or any of the metadata standards?

I can't think of anyone I went to LIS school with who liked cataloging.  We all thought of it as a necessary evil.  I've had to do some cataloging, and I haven't changed my tune overmuch.  Copy cataloging is fine, but original cataloging?  Forget it.

To do cataloging, day in, day out, you have to be so meticulous it hurts.  And it will hurt...your eyes, if nothing else, but more likely your back and shoulders too, from leafing through all those aforementioned manuals and figuring out what metadata to use.  You have to be nit-picky about whether or not something belongs just slightly better elsewhere, and memorizing a basic Cutter table helps.

But, on the bright side, the cataloger is the road map to all things within the library.  Without them, we wouldn't be able to find anything.  As librarians, we're often taught to respect the call number, but we don't think too much about the people who put it there.  Catalogers are off in their own little nooks/rooms, with unprocessed, not-quite-alive materials, quietly going about their work with dignity and the calm knowledge that when they take a day off, the person who draws the short straw will be looking for items that can be copy-cataloged.

Catalogers are respected in an abstract way, I think, when they're thought of at all.  It's not a glamorous position, a high-visibility position, or one with a lot of change.  If you like a reliable, steady sort of work, then cataloging might just be for you.  Just don't let other librarians forget the important role that you play in getting materials to patrons!

This post is 2nd in my series "Library Team Task Force", a description of roles performed by librarians (sometimes the same one!) so that we might come to a better understanding of what our colleagues do and so students might have more realistic ways to potentially decide which track to focus on.

Quick: who do you go to when you walk into most libraries?  A reference librarian.  Chances are, they get more circulation questions than the circulation desk (especially if there happens to be a line at circulation), plus all the reference questions they field in person, and via telephone and email.

Reference librarians can get the reputation of the "cool librarian" because they're the ones who know where the Anarchist's Cookbook is, where you can find information about things like pornography industry statistics, and why men have nipples (hint: there's a book for that!); from the patron's point of view, the reference librarian can get you answers to questions you'd never ask another person, and show you how to get it yourself in case you don't want to ask why that itches next time (disclaimer: see a doctor, not a librarian, for any and all medical questions).  They boldly go where information lives, returning victorious with an answer in their hands.

Reference librarians also, in my experience, have a high rate of burnout.  Besides answering questions, they keep stats about all the work they do.  They have to be politically savvy, or should be, at any rate, and learn how to balance needs of "normal" patrons with needs of VIP patrons.  They need to learn about what exactly the First Amendment covers when it's a minor asking a question, or how to deal with someone who either as a joke or in earnest wants to know where to buy drugs or hire a prostitute.  Reference librarians face tremendous pressure from both outside and within the profession to provide information regardless of their personal feelings.  A classic example: should a reference librarian who also happens to be Catholic be required to assist a patron in finding a clinic that performs abortions?  Should a reference librarian who suspects a patron is severely depressed also help that patron find information about methods of suicide?  Ideally, these questions are answered in policies and the library director/manager is available to escalate the situation if needed.  Ideals don't always happen.

Reference librarians do what our lofty goals tell us is important: they match those who have information needs with information that meets those needs.  They see sides of enquiry that other types of librarians don't, but they also deal with sides of our patrons we might rather not meet.  It's a high calling, but the job can be stressful and, from what I've been told, sometimes disappointing because of patron attitudes toward scholarly work and repetitive questions about the location of the bathroom.  This job isn't for every personality, so ask yourself if you can deal with the types of "boring", "everyday" questions that make up a fair amount of reference work.