By J OH N J . LUND
The Cataloging Process in the
University Library: A Pro-
posal for Reorganisation zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Mr. Lund is librarian, Duke University
Library. usrpomlebYWVTPNJIHFDCBA
A
,IONG the recent developm ents in the
catalog and the cataloging process^
there are two that will undoubtedly be of
the greatest significance to those con cerned
with the organ ization and administration
of university
1
libraries. The one is the
division of the dictionary catalog into an
author-title catalog and a subject catalog;
2
the other, the division of the cataloging de-
partm ent into a descriptive catalogin g sec-
tion an d a subject cataloging section.
3
Neither of these, however, is properly a
division, but they represent, rather, the
resolution of the catalog and the cataloging
process into their original com ponen t
parts. Furthermore, although the two
developm ents have so far apparently been
independent of each other,
4
there is a very
close corresponden ce, on the one hand, be-
1
The univer sity library is here con sidered in its
fun ction as a scholarly referen ce and research li-
brary. This fun ction com prises ser vice to faculty
members, research workers, graduate students, and
to undergraduates in th eir advanced work in th eir
"major" field durin g the junior and senior years. The
other function of a university library, that of pro-
viding library service for the general education pr o-
gram of undergraduates during the freshman and
sophom ore year s an d part of the jun ior and sen ior
years, though certain ly no less important, is entirely
distinct from the for m er function an d properly re-
quires separate organization and adm in istration .
2
This division has recen tly been m ade at the Uni-
versity of Californ ia (1938 ), Duke University (1940 ),
the Un iversity of Pen n sylvan ia (1941), an d else-
where.
3
This division has been made, among other places,
at the New York Public Library and th e Library of
Congress.
4
There seem s to be no example as yet of th e two
occurring in any on e library.
tween the author-title catalog and the
descriptive cataloging section , an d on the
other hand, between the subject catalog
an d the subject cataloging section.
As to the division of the diction ary cata-
log, we m ight very well ask why it did not
begin earlier. For we have certainly been
aware that author-title and subject entries
were intended to serve en tirely differen t
purposes
5
—the former to locate books al-
ready identified by author or title and the
latter to identify books on particular sub-
jects—and sin ce it is just as useful to keep
unlike things apart as it is to keep like
things together, a priori logic would cer-
tainly favor the separation and place the
burden of proof on those who proposed
com bining the two.
6
And even as a mere
practical device for rem inding us of the
distinct function of the two types of en try
an d aiding us in adapting each to its own
0
Cf. Man n, Margaret. Introduction to the Cata-
loging and Classification of Books. Chicago, 1930,
p. 135 ff.; and Bishop, William War ner. Practical
Handbook of Modern Library Cataloging. 2nd ed.
Baltimore, 1924, p. 37 if.
6
It is n ot easy to deter m in e from the available
literature exactly when and why the dictionary for m
was adopted. On e explanation is that the dictionary
catalog did n ot evolve from the com bination of
separate author-title and alphabetical subject catalogs,
but rather that it developed from th e author-title
catalog alon e by th e gradual increase in title, in-
verted title, catchword, and other added entries—the
accom pan ying subject catalog in classified form then
disappearin g as it was superseded by th e subject en -
tries in the author-title catalog. Cf. Cutter, Charles
A. "Library Catalogs." Public Libraries in the
United States of Am erica . . . Special report, De-
partment of the Interior, Bureau of Education, pt. I.
Wash in gton , 1876, p. 526-622; also Heiss, Ruth M.
The Card Catalog in Libraries in the U.S. before
1876. (M.S. in L.S. th esis, U. of Illin ois, 1938),
P. 31-34.
212 xutsqponljigedaZXUTSRPONMLJIHGEDCBA
COLLEGE, AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES
particular purpose, the division would like-
wise seem justified. Furthermore, we have
seen that much of the talk about simplify-
ing and reducing the cost and complexity
of the dictionary catalog, without chang-
ing its basic form, has been of little avail.
Similarly, we might ask why our recog-
nition of the two distinctly different types
of work that make up the cataloging
process have not brought about their sepa-
ration before now. On the one hand,
there is the bibliographical description of
the book, with the making of the usual
author, title, and other added entry cards,
and on the other, the entirely different
process of examining the subject matter of
the book and determining the subject head-
ings and the classification number under
which it belongs.
7
It is not that we have
been unwilling to create additional depart-
ments or sections—in fact, it would seem
that nothing short of an active desire for
a new department could explain the setting
up, as is sometimes done, of a separate
department for classification, apart from
the regular catalog department where the
subject headings are assigned. At any
rate, with the division into descriptive
cataloging and subject cataloging we have
unquestionably made the first step in the
rationalization of the whole cataloging
process and are already further along than
all our general talk about reducing the cost
and complexity of cataloging could ever
bring us.
8
The next important development in the zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
7
The term s "descriptive cataloging" and "subject
cataloging" are used to designate these two func-
tions, as is don e at the Library of Congress. Euro-
pean librarians have always kept the two separate,
though they usually also separate the classification
of the books on the shelves, since with them the latter
is, often not a matter of subject classification at all.
/
8
iThe failure to separate the two types of work
has made it impossible to determ ine the professional
level of cataloging work and has likewise made it
difficult to state the essen tial qualifications and the
proper trainin g for a cataloger. For descriptive
cataloging and subject catalogin g each require their
own an swers to these question s.
JUNE, 1942
organization of the cataloging process will
come when the interdependence of the two
distinctions here mentioned is fully recog-
nized. The two divisions will then be
made in the same library and coordinated
so that the descriptive cataloging section
assumes the responsibility for the author-
title catalog and the subject cataloging
section for the subject catalog. But even
with this rationalization of the cataloging
process itself, we shall merely have laid
the foundation for the integration of this
process with the other library functions—
acquisition and service. For the descrip-
tive cataloging done by the cataloging
department cannot—in the interests of
good management—be separated from
the bibliographical work that must be done
in the course of ordering and accessioning
books, any more than—in the interests of
good service—the subject cataloging done
by the cataloging department can be sepa-
rated from the subject work done by the
reference staff, whether by means of the
catalog, bibliographies, or their own
knowledge. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Proposal for Reorganization of Functions
We come thus to a concrete proposal for
the reorganization of those library func-
tions included under the terms "technical
processes" and "reference service."
9
The
proposal is simply that the ordering, ac-
cessioning, and descriptive cataloging proc-
esses be organized as a unified division
and that subject cataloging and reference
service be likewise organized as a unified
division. Instead of creating an additional
department by the separation of descriptive
from subject cataloging, we shall thus have
greatly reduced the number of administra-
9
With the exception of circulation service, we have
taken into account all the major library fun ctions.
It must still be rem embered, of course, that we are
dealing with the university library on ly as a research
or scholarly library (see footnote i).
213
tive units and considerably simplified the
organization of the library. This simplifi-
cation, however, would be only one result
of the proposed reorganization—the real
justification rests on other considerations. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Bibliographical Work and Descriptive
Cataloging
The close con nection between the biblio-
graphical work done in the process of or-
derin g and the work that falls under the
head of descriptive cataloging is readily
apparent. Both involve the establishing
of the entry and the identification and
enum eration of the bibliographical and
physical characteristics of the book. Most
libraries have recogn ized this to the exten t
that they have attem pted to prevent dupli-
cation of this work by the order an d the
cataloging departments. These attem pts,
however, have not proved particularly suc-
cessful, and we still find the catalogers
verifying the inform ation secured by the
order department if it is passed on to them
or securing it anew if it is not passed on.
Obviously there would be nothing to be
lost and much to be gained by letting the
same group prepare the catalog cards for
a book for which they had already secured
the information needed to check an d order
it. The simplification of records that
would result would not be the least of the
benefits of com bining the two. Such a
unified bibliographical department would
have a subdivision for the clerical work
of writing orders, checking bills, accession -
ing, etc., and perhaps also a subdivision for
serial publication s, without affectin g its
essen tial unity.
On the other han d, the com bination of
subject cataloging an d reference work may
require some explanation. Once we recog-
nize two factors, however, the desirability
of combin ing the two is obvious. In the
first place, satisfactory subject cataloging
an d subject classification in a university
library can only be done by persons with
advanced academ ic training in the subjects
they deal with; likewise, satisfactory refer-
ence service in a un iversity library can only
be done by persons who have academ ic
training equal to those whom they serve.
And since no one person can be com peten t
in all or even very many fields, we have
tried and are still tryin g to build up a staff
of subject specialists in both the cataloging
an d the reference departments. The cost
of this duplication of what must neces-
sarily be high-salaried persons is un justifi-
able un der norm al conditions and will
becom e prohibitive in the period we are
now entering. Furtherm ore, within the
lim its of the staff of each department, it
is often impossible to secure coverage of
the entire range of subject fields. But by
com bining the two we shall have elimi-
nated this duplication an d shall have avail-
able twice the number of people to cover
the subject fields.
10
In the second place,
with the con tinual change in our subject
divisions and approaches, the subject cata-
log of any particular collection can no
longer be regarded as the final and com -
plete guide to the subject matter of the
collection—and certainly not to the sub-
ject material in other collections, which
the scholar cannot ign ore. The personal
knowledge and service of the reference
librarians and both general and special
bibliographies are taking places of at least
equal importance with the subject catalog.
And proper coordin ation of the three can
certainly best be secured by com bining
them in one administrative unit. In fact,
10
In ad dition to clerical help, each reference li-
brarian in char ge of a subject field or group m ay-
have one or more professional assistants or "under-
studies." In this way new referen ce librar ian s can
be train ed.
214 xutsqponljigedaZXUTSRPONMLJIHGEDCBA
COLLEGE, AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES
the need for closer cooperation between
the reference and cataloging departments
has been felt for some time and efforts
made to obtain it. Full combination of
the two, however, has only become pos-
sible with the separation of subject from
descriptive cataloging. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Two Divisions
In place of the usual order, cataloging,
and reference departments, we then have
two divisions—one of professional library
work in a technical sense, covering biblio-
graphical checking and descriptive catalog-
ing, and the other of professional library
work in an academic sense, covering subject
cataloging and reference service. Under
this organization the "processing" of a new
book would be carried out somewhat as
follows. Preparatory to placing the order,
the bibliographers—as we shall call the
assistants in the first division—will, as
usual, check the entry, title, and imprint
in order to identify the book and prevent
duplication, and will make a preliminary
card.
When the book is received, this card
will be revised as necessary to conform with
the book, collation added, and the title,
editor, and other added entries determined.
The distribution of books among the sev-
eral bibliographers may well be made by
language, or by form, rather than by sub-
ject.
The book is then taken over by the
reference librarian (or subject cataloger)
in whose particular subject field it falls.
The book is classified, subject headings
are assigned—subject to some centralized
revision—and the title entered in special
lists or checked in printed bibliographies
as the reference librarian sees fit. In the
course of the subject cataloging procedure
the reference librarians actually handle
and have an opportunity to familiarize
themselves with the books being added to
the library in their respective fields. This
is undoubtedly one of the greatest values
of the arrangement.
The book then goes to the stacks, the
cards are typed, traced, and filed—in the
author-title catalog under the supervision
of the bibliographers and in the subject
catalog under the supervision of the refer-
ence librarians.
11
Use of L.C. Cards
In this basic outline of the "processing"
of books there are several points that may
need amplification. There are also certain
possible variations and innovations that
merit consideration.
12
Take first, for ex-
ample, the question of using L.C. cards in
a university library. There is no doubt
that the information contained on L.C.
cards is very helpful in the descriptive
cataloging process and can save a good
deal of time. But it is certainly reasonable
to suppose that if university libraries had
been making these cards instead of the Li-
brary of Congress, they would have ar-
rived at a different form. And since
university libraries cannot get L.C. cards
for all their books, they are forced to
choose between using L.C. form for the
cards they make themselves and having
two different types of cards in their cata-
logs.
13
But perhaps we are worrying too
much about the form of descriptive catalog-
ing and perhaps consistency is the most zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
11
It may, of course, prove advisable, as is often
done now, to file a tem porary card in the author-title
catalog as soon as the book is received and the entry
established.
12
Some of these would be applicable to other forms
of organ ization than the one here proposed.
13
There is, of course, also the delay and expense
of ordering L.C. cards to be taken into accoun t. We
might have the benefit of the information on the
card without necessarily adoptin g the card itself by
sim ply using the depository catalog (as Harvard
does) or if a depository catalog is not available, order-
ing one L.C. card for each book at the tim e the book
itself is ordered. Another possibility would be for
publishers to supply inform ation for catalogin g alon g
with each book.
JUNE, 1942 usrpomlebYWVTPNJIHFDCBA
215
im portant con sideration . For descriptive
cataloging is, after all, only one step in the
cataloging process, even though the prim ary
step.
14
It is when we come to subject cataloging
that we meet the real difficulty. Here the
value of the subject headin gs and classifi-
cation num bers on L.C. cards is very
doubtful. For while it is possible to m ake
universal descriptive cataloging rules, it
is not possible to do the sam e satisfactorily
for subject cataloging. Subject cataloging,
including classification , cannot be done
once and for all like descriptive cataloging
but must be constantly changed and re-
vised to m eet changing approaches and
conceptions. Each library m ust face and
solve this problem in term s of its own
peculiar condition s and purposes and the
needs of its users—and also m ust be pre-
pared to revise and change the solution
continually.
15
Perhaps cen tralized subject
cataloging cannot even be satisfactory
within a library that has departmental
libraries and it should be left to each sepa-
rate un it. On e reason, undoubtedly, why
libraries have used the subject headings
on L.C. cards is that they have not had
subject catalogers com peten t to work out
their own system of subject headings. The
com bination of subject cataloging an d
reference work in one department should,
however, make this possible. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
Classification
The second point that needs special con-
sideration is classification and its place in
14
We must guard again st assuming that by solvin g
the problem of a descriptive cataloging code or of
centralized descriptive cataloging we have thereby
solved the cataloging problem. This is particularly
pertin ent now that we are con sider in g th e new A.L.A.
code an d proposals by the L.C. Experim ental Divi-
sion of Library Cooperation for a cen tralized card-
making bureau .
15
No one will den y that our lists of subject head-
ings and our classification sch emes are in need of
revision, if not com plete reworkin g.
the processing of a book. If the book could
be classified by the descriptive catalogers—
instead of the subject catalogers, as we
have proposed—we could make a further
im provem ent in the routine, for the des-
criptive catalogers could then file their
cards in the author-title catalog as soon as
the call num ber was added, before turning
the book over to the subject catalogers—
thus eliminating perhaps the need for a
temporary card.
16
At the same tim e they
could m ake, say, three or four extra cards
to be sen t along with the book, to which
the subject catalogers could add subject
headings before filing them in the subject
catalog. But to have classification done
by the descriptive catalogers would violate
the basic prin ciple by which we are pro-
posing to reorganize the processing opera-
tions, because separating from the subject
cataloging classifications would require
descriptive catalogers with the same subject
knowledge as the subject catalogers.
There is, however, one way in which
classification could be done by descriptive
catalogers with no special subject kn owl-
edge but it would mean either adopting
a schem e of subject classification so broad
that no particular academic kn owledge
would be required to classify a book by
it,
17
or else givin g up subject classification
on the shelves altogether and choosing
16
Tracings for added entries in the au th or-title
catalog could be pu t on the shelflist card by the
descriptive catalogers and then sent on to the subject
catalogers wh o would trace their subject entries on
it before it was filed in the shelflist.
17
This could very easily be wor ked out for the
departmen tal libraries of a univer sity library. The
descriptive catalogin g could be centralized in the
main library, just as the ordering is—the cards in the
un ion author-title catalog sim ply stamped "depart-
men tal libr ary" and filed, and then a certain num ber
of subject cards (also som e for the departm ental li-
brary author-title file) going with th e book to the
departmen tal librarian (who function s as the refer-
en ce librarian and subject cataloger in that field), an d
she would th en do her subject cataloging and shelf
arran ging as sh e saw best, in depen den t of the m ain
libr ary or other departmen tal libraries. (Such an
arran gem ent would parallel a nation al situation in
which descriptive catalogin g is don e by a central
agency, but subject cataloging left to each individual
libr ary.)
216 xutsqponljigedaZXUTSRPONMLJIHGEDCBA
COLLEGE, AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES