2
ABSTRACT
In Fall, 2010, in the Music Library at the University of North Texas, a subgroup of the
full-time music catalogers were both participating in the US National RDA Test and overseeing
the cataloging of a large gift of scores. Student workers (graduate students in music or
librarianship) who had never cataloged before produced the records, using AACR2. The
librarians actively working on RDA checked their work. This project provided a treasure trove of
errors that suggest new catalogers will often produce RDA-compliant cataloging without ever
reading an RDA rule but by merely doing what makes sense to them intuitively.
3
Introduction
In the fall of 2010 in the Music Library at the University of North Texas, several factors
conspired to illuminate issues related to training catalogers for the new code Resource
Description and Access (RDA). A subgroup of the music catalogers were participating in the US
National Libraries’ RDA Test, and one of them, the author of this article, was at the same time
overseeing the cataloging of a large gift collection of scores, the Ben A. Brown Collection, using
the current code, Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2
nd
ed. (AACR2). During these months, on
email lists such as AUTOCAT, correspondents persistently bemoaned the foreseen cost and
difficulty of training catalogers to use RDA.
This confluence of circumstances produced the ideal situation for making a preliminary
determination of how easy it would be to train catalogers to use the new cataloging code. The
email lists kept the issue of training in the forefront of our minds. Our own experience in the
RDA Test gave an indication of what it was like for experienced catalogers to learn the code.
The large cataloging project that was going on at the same time and that was staffed chiefly by
people who had never cataloged before provided a treasure trove of errors from which it was
possible to deduce how readily new catalogers were apt to accept the new rules. This final point
is the focus of this article.
Literature Review
Cataloging teaching/training in general. The voluminous literature on teaching or
training of catalogers can be represented by two articles from the last decade that bring up the
4
most prominent issues treated at great length in other writings. Intner (2002) discussed the major
recurring issues, dividing them into three overarching themes: 1) the balance between theory and
practice, 2) the optimal division in a curriculum of courses covering book cataloging and those
covering the cataloging of everything else, and 3) the relative merits of formal courses and
nonacademic routes, such as on-the-job training and continuing education. She pointed out that
regardless of the teaching circumstance, it is always key to teach (or ask) why we do what we do,
not only the actions to be taken. Otherwise, students will be unable to handle situations that are
significantly different from the specific ones they have been taught. Intner’s “why” is not
answerable by “because this rule says so.” Rather, it is asking learners to explore the purposes or
principles that undergird the structure and handling of the bibliographic universe. These purposes
or principles will only coincidentally be the same as those underlying any specific set of
cataloging rules; exploring them is an attempt to discern the theory behind cataloging. In
addition, the learning of cataloging must be seen as a process that continues throughout the
cataloger’s professional life; one begins with formal courses, moves to on-the-job training, and
then keeps up-to-date with continuing education.
Hill (2004) provided a brief history of cataloging teaching or training, beginning before
the time of Melville Dewey, and moving to the situation that prevailed when her article was
written. In Part I of her article, which dealt chiefly with historical issues and with education for
cataloging in library schools, she observed that many teachers of cataloging have concluded it is
better to introduce students to applying principles and rules across formats, rather than to teach
separate courses about certain formats. Part II, generally about cataloging education/training
outside library school, ended with hopes and admonitions. The author observed that libraries
5
appeared at the time of writing to be at the start of a period of rapid evolution. As “AACR,
MARC, the ISBDs, and bibliographic networks led to the end of isolation of libraries one from
another, perhaps the next changes will break down the isolation of librarianship from the world
at large.” (p. 12) Because major changes in the field seem in large part to arise from and be based
on cataloging and bibliographic control, if we are to achieve this melding of libraries with the
rest of the world, we need librarians who understand cataloging, whether or not they themselves
catalog, and who can view changes in cataloging codes or practices in the context of the whole
field of librarianship, including its history and its goals. In short, Hill asserted, we need educated
librarians. Although modes of instruction may have changed or, in some cases, may have
become obsolete, education for cataloging is no more an obsolete concept than is education for
librarianship.
Training for RDA. The Intner (2002) and Hill (2004) articles are only the proverbial tip
of the iceberg of discussions of cataloging teaching/training in general. Far less has been written
about teaching RDA specifically, since the code is not even in general application yet.
Nevertheless, some informative articles have appeared. Hitchens and Symons (2009) have
provided a general introduction to ways to approach training on the new code. Their article
includes a brief review of writings from the time of the change from AACR to AACR2, showing
that the issues now are largely the same as then (for instance, concern with the proliferation of
non-book resources, a desire for greater internationalization and standardization, and a need to
adapt to new technological advances). Welsh (2011) summarized how catalog teaching is done at
University College London, namely, with a mix of theory and practice, incorporating RDA as an
alternative when possible. She pointed out that the crux of the issue of how to teach remains
