Sharing Cataloging Expertise: Options for Libraries to Share Their Skilled Catalogers with Other Libraries Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, (2010), v. 48, n. 6-7, pp. 525-540. ISSN: 0163-9374 (print) / 1544-4554 (online) DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2010.495694 http://www.tandfonline.com/ http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01639374.2010.495694 ©2010, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Sharing Cataloging Expertise: Options for Libraries to Share Their Skilled Catalogers with Other Libraries MAGDA EL-SHERBINI The Ohio State University Libraries, Columbus, Ohio, USA Library cooperation is a flexible concept that involves practically all aspects of library technical operations. Until recently, areas of cooperation have included mostly interlibrary borrowing and the union catalogs. Materials processing remains a domain of each individual library that maintains its own experts and uniquely skilled staff to process their own materials. This study raises the question of whether libraries can also share their cataloging expertise with other institutions. The five models presented here will demonstrate how libraries can leverage existing library expertise and reduce duplication of efforts, while at the same time enhancing cooperation among libraries and maintaining high cataloging standards that are a must in the new technology era. INTRODUCTION A recent article published by this author in collaboration with another author examined the current library practice of processing and delivering information. 1 The objectives of that article were to examine the mechanism for delivering and processing of bibliographic information and to propose alternative solutions. These alternative solutions were presented in the form of conceptual models. The current article is a continuation of that earlier reflection. In the earlier article, the authors looked at some typical ways in which libraries share bibliographic records. A brief study of the problem revealed that, for the most part, libraries engaged in traditional forms of cooperation and continued to rely on their Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), OCLC, and, in some cases, library consortia. The article concluded with the idea that “by eliminating the middle steps of creating, accessing, and retrieving information via intermediaries such as regional consortia, OCLC, and costly OPACs, libraries might realize substantial savings that could be diverted to enrich bibliographic records that form the foundation of the current bibliographic structure.” 2 Examining the status of cataloging and its many aspects in the dynamically changing technology environment is a work in progress. Cataloging as such can be described as the process of describing the information package following well-established guidelines and applies time-tested standards. Technological developments make that process easier, and frequently offer opportunities to review some assumptions and common practices. Although the terms “cooperative” and “sharing” are often used interchangeably in library literature, there is a slight difference between the two terms. According to the dictionary definition, the term “Cooperative” means “done with or working with others for a common purpose or benefit.” The term “cooperative cataloging” is a prime example from library literature. However, the term “sharing” means “To allow someone to use or enjoy something that one possesses.” 3 These are the concepts that are being explored in the current study. Library cooperation is a flexible concept that spans practically all aspects of library technical operations. Until recently, areas of cooperation have included mostly interlibrary borrowing and the union catalogs. Materials processing remains the domain of each individual library that maintains its own experts and uniquely skilled staff to process their own materials. Libraries continue to cooperate in processing their materials and making them available to each other through the OCLC database. This study raises the question of whether libraries can expand their services by sharing their cataloging expertise with other institutions. As library administrators continue to seek solutions to the budgetary restrictions facing them, and as the number of professional catalogers continues to decline, 4 libraries have an opportunity to expand the concept of cooperative cataloging, to include the idea of sharing their cataloger expertise with other institutions on a cooperative basis. The author of this article has put together some ideas about ways in which libraries can take advantage of their cataloging prowess and leverage their existing resources to further expand on the fundamental idea of cooperation in new ways. What is being proposed is a way for libraries to reduce the cataloging load of individual institutions, improve the quality of records, share cataloging resources, and bring the concept of cooperation to a new level. The models presented here might allow libraries to go beyond providing the current cataloging service to its institution. The proposed options call for the examination of the cataloging operations of libraries and suggest the possibility of creating a more comprehensive cooperative cataloging on a consortium level. A consortium might include multiple consortia, Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), school libraries or any type of library grouping. More specifically, ideas presented in these models are an attempt to raise awareness of the possibilities for libraries to eliminate redundancies and duplication in cataloging, share cataloging expertise among institutions, create new and enhanced levels of specialization in the cataloging community, improve the quality of records, reduce or eliminate local practice, and make cooperation a tool for long-term planning. These concepts are nothing more than a set of frameworks that can be applied directly, or adapted to satisfy the requirements of any existing or newly formed group or consortium. They may be used by large or small institutions, regional groups, or statewide networks, and may be suitable for academic, public, school, or special libraries. They share some common features, while each model introduces something unique. LITERATURE REVIEW Current literature is replete with articles that point out the flaws in current cataloging practice. In his article “Tomorrow Never Knows: The End of Cataloging” Danskin points out that cataloging needs to change in order to survive. 5 Marcum noted that the Library of Congress (LC) spends about forty-four million dollars on cataloging every year. She also raised the important question of costs that are involved in the creation of detailed catalog records, and this is likely to be an issue that will be discussed in the future. 6 Calhoun reported that the American research libraries spent about 239 million on technical services labor in 2004. 7 These figures identify one area in library processing that deserves some, and perhaps significant, changes. Cost is the one common factor in many of these deliberations. In a recent article “Columbia, Cornell Join Up,” the authors announced that the two large academic libraries at Columbia University in New York City and Cornell University in Ithaca, NY (2CUL) are collaborating on collection development and will begin with $385,000 from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. 8 They also announced that the second focus would be on cooperative acquisition, cataloging, and e-resource management. The 2CUL initiative is an example of sharing the budget and expertise in the processing of their libraries’ collections. Libraries tend to customize cataloging to satisfy their own customers and needs. Applying local practices to each institution’s records has an effect on sharing of bibliographic records not only in print formats, but also in non-book formats. Naun and Braxton addressed this issue in their “Developing Recommendations for Consortial Cataloging of Electronic Resources: Lessons Learned.” 9 They acknowledge that historical data and local practices that each library within the consortia applies can greatly affect the feasibility of migrating data and, as a consequence, can constrain future practice. One of the major problems facing libraries today is the shrinking of resources and reductions in budgets that support library operations. Cataloging is one of the most affected areas in the library. In a recent study, Riemer and Morgenroth underscored the growing importance and the value of cooperative cataloging in the library community. 10 Wolven discussed the current shared cataloging library model that is used by libraries, and discussed the need for new cataloging models that take into consideration the issues that are facing libraries. He proposed a simplified, cost-effective solution to cataloging that would be streamlined and more transparent to users. 11 What is behind this idea is the notion that cataloging can be outsourced, and performed outside the library, with limited adherence to existing standards. The proposed solution may be cost-effective in the short term, but it raises the question of what effect it will have on the user’s ability to identify and retrieve the item that is needed. Steinhagen, Hanson, and Moynahan’s article continues the main line of thought of their predecessors by focusing on the changes taking place in cataloging. 12 It addresses the golden era of the international cooperative cataloging in the 1970s and 1980s when libraries’ budgets were abundant and the publishing industry was supplying academic libraries with large numbers of titles in order for them to compete for the top spot among the ARL. The authors discussed how this golden era changed in the 1990s and early 2000s when budgets ceased to grow at the previous rates or decreased. At the same time, new developments and issues began to impact the cataloging world. New or changed cataloging rules were being introduced, in part to manage the new and increasingly complex formats, huge unmanaged backlogs continued to grow, and demand for more access gave rise to the blooming trend of outsourcing. The profession experienced a rising rate of retirements among skilled catalogers, as the Internet exploded on the information scene and the demand for access to online resources grew. In their discussion they emphasized that “library administrators should cultivate local cataloging expertise through on-the-job training and professional workshops for catalogers. In the longer run, administrators must recognize that outsourcing cataloging to vendors and/or utilities has its limitations, if fewer original catalogers are left to populate and refine the databases.” 13 They continued their discussion by emphasizing that “cooperative cataloging activities should continue so that all can benefit from the growth of international databases that will bring us closer to the dream of universal bibliographic control.” 14 They concluded by pointing out that there will be more changes in cataloging in the coming years, and that catalogers are accepting and welcoming these changes. Their skills will be needed not for bibliographic description, but in providing access to the intellectual content through controlled vocabulary and authority control. Three major reports have been issued in the last five years addressing the issues that affect cataloging, the future of the catalog, and cataloging in general. “On the Record: Report to the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control” 15 presents many statements about the need for more cooperation among libraries in producing bibliographic records. In their introduction to this report, the Working Group stated that “the future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and web based.” 16 They also “recognized that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future.” 17 This report is a “call to action” and is reviving the concept of cooperative cataloging and sharing of expertise. Libraries have to think beyond their walls and go beyond sharing bibliographic records through OCLC, but also sharing unique expertise among them. The University of California Libraries Bibliographic Services Task Force on “Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California” 18 offers a vision for improving access to materials and points to existing ideas or techniques, such as a centralized catalog for the whole system, or using OCLC as the single database for all University of California system bibliographic records. The report emphasizes the “need to centralize and/or better coordinate services and data, while maintaining appropriate local control, as a way of reducing effort and complexity and of redirecting resources to focus on improving the user experience.” 19 In 2006, Indiana University issued a white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University. 20 They provided an overview of current trends in libraries and technical services, and identified possible new roles for cataloging staff and strategies aimed at revitalizing cataloging operations at Indiana. The authors of this report viewed catalogers as key players in the era of scholarly communication and digital contents and stated that catalogers, like all librarians, “…must collaborate with other disciplines and within their own consortia and networks to be successful.” 21 Their first strategic direction in this report emphasized the need for cooperation between cataloging departments and other units within and outside the library boundaries. Small libraries or those libraries that do not meet the Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) minimum submission requirements have been creating NACO funnels to enable them to contribute records when they are not able to join the NACO program directly. These funnels facilitate cooperation in creating NACO records. In his paper, Larmore provided a step-by-step explanation of how a NACO funnel was established for four academic libraries and one state library in South Dakota. 22 Promoting collaboration and cooperation among libraries should be the foundation of long term planning for an effectively managed library. Libraries and consortia have been successful in implementing initiatives that benefited libraries in a number of ways. Some of these have been described in CIC’s “Cooperation among Research Libraries: The Committee on Institutional Cooperation.” 23 Recently launched cooperative projects include digitization of archives, institutional repositories, sharing of “born digital” collections, and many more. 24 Sources cited above are examples of ways in which librarians are beginning to search for solutions and alternatives to current practices that go beyond individual libraries, and suggest that new plans need to be developed for enhanced cooperation among libraries in areas that until now have been underrepresented. BACKGROUND Many libraries are currently selecting, acquiring, and cataloging their items individually. They are using the same mechanisms to describe each item. These mechanisms include the application of national cataloging standards, such as the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition Revised (AACR2Rev), the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Library of Congress Classification (LCC), the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and so on. Some if not all libraries are using vendor record services, such as OCLC PromptCat, Backstage Works for authority control, MARCIVE, and others for government documents. All of these libraries acquire materials in a variety of formats and languages. Some libraries are creating institutional repositories and digitizing their selected materials. In addition, they input and export their records to and from OCLC WorldCat. These examples illustrate similarities of services and activities that are used by most libraries (Figure 1). Although there are similarities in what libraries are acquiring, there are also substantial differences in what they are collecting based on their users and the community they serve. Every library has certain strengths and tends to focus their collection development in certain specific areas. For example, some libraries might focus on certain foreign languages, such as French and German, while others might focus on non-Roman languages. In other instances, libraries might focus on acquiring more materials in special formats, such as CD-ROM, DVD, microfilms, and so on. Regardless of how similar or different library collections are, each institution continues to work and operate independently from all others. The concept of sharing applies to sharing bibliographic records. Libraries continue to recruit and hire their own staff. They also continue to process their own materials. As libraries lose staff or eliminate positions, they lose cataloging and technical expertise in those areas. They usually attempt to solve the problem internally and do not look to other institutions for support. Other libraries feel no obligation to provide assistance in getting their neighbor’s collections cataloged. FIGURE 1 The Current Processing and Sharing of Bibliographic Records among Libraries. In today’s economy, libraries are facing even greater difficulties in recruiting catalogers and filling vacant positions. 25 Recent cuts in library budgets have a great impact on library services and personnel. 26 Even with the budget cuts and the problems in filling library positions, individual libraries continue to look at their problems as their own. Library administrations tend to justify the reasons for their growing backlogs by discussing staff shortages, lost positions, or lack of expertise to handle cataloging. The most popular and easiest option for libraries to consider is “outsourcing” their collection to a vendor. Although outsourcing continues to be a viable choice for some libraries, not every library is able to afford to use this option. Another option is to create brief bibliographic records that provide the users with the item title and perhaps its author. Some libraries have chosen not to catalog these items and backlogged them indefinitely. A good example of this situation is with the foreign language and special formats materials, where the library does not have either the expertise to read these languages and create a brief record, nor does their budget allow them to outsource them to a cataloging vendor. Since so many libraries are facing similar issues in the area of cataloging and materials processing, it is reasonable to envision opportunities for a sharing effort among libraries. It seems possible to establish sharing arrangements where these libraries could work together to reduce the workload for each other and overcome the shortage of staff and budget constrains. Each library could assume responsibility for one part of the overall cataloging burden that is now performed by each library and produce higher quality records while maintaining high cataloging standards. Models presented below offer potential answers to how this can be accomplished, and will illustrate some ideas for cooperative cataloging and sharing of expertise resources among libraries. In proposing these hypothetical models, it was necessary to make certain generalizations about the volume of materials acquired and processed by libraries. The figures used in the models are introduced for illustration purposes only, and should not be construed as actual. These are simply some basic assumptions that help in constructing the models:  Major libraries select, acquire, and process a substantial amount of identical materials, acquired from almost the same vendors.  All libraries catalog almost the same materials (original or copy).  There are numerous institutions and catalogers cataloging the same materials at approximately the same time.  Most major libraries process post cataloging authority control for the same records and by the same vendor.  All libraries acquire a percentage of materials that are unique to their own collections.  Some libraries maintain expertise in specific areas, such as foreign languages and special formats.  Some libraries are acquiring materials where they do not have expertise to process them.  Vendors and publishers will increasingly provide bibliographic records and contribute them to the OCLC database. MODELS FOR SHARING CATALOGING EXPERTISE Model 1 The first model focuses on the concept of making the best use of the existing cataloging expertise by sharing these resources among a group of libraries. In this scenario, each library will identify the specific strengths of its collection. A variety of criteria could be used, including subjects, languages, and formats. These divisions can be simple or more complex, as each library may choose to refine the broad categories and include specific strengths of collections. In some cases, library strength is accompanied by a corresponding strength in staff. To provide a brief illustration, library 1 could be cataloging all materials in all formats and subjects in Hebrew; library 2, cataloging materials in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK); library 3 could be cataloging materials in French, and so on (Figure 2). This model offers a number of advantages to prospective participating libraries. Elimination of redundancy may be the most important advantage. The proposed model eliminates the need for each library to maintain its own specialized catalogers, and at the same time eliminates the need to catalog the same items cataloged by their neighbors. This arrangement would eliminate duplication of efforts. A by-product of this may be a reduction in reliance on some vendor services, such as shelf ready and the OCLC PromptCat service. At this time, many libraries are receiving catalog records from vendors, and some continue to spend tremendous amounts of time fixing these records locally. If participating libraries work cooperatively and share their expertise with their neighbors, there will be no need to backlog materials or spend each library’s budget on the same products. This model has the potential to create mutual interest among these libraries to follow the same cataloging standards and eliminate each library’s local practice, and to move the library to a true cooperative sharing environment. FIGURE 2 Shared Cataloging Responsibility. Membership in a cooperative will entail participation in the Library of Congress Cooperative Cataloging Program (PCC) and all its components (Bibliographic Record Cooperative Program [BIBCO], NACO, Subject Authority Cooperative Program [SACO], and Cooperative Online Serials [CONSER]). The cooperative will continue to contribute records to the Library of Congress and OCLC. The important difference is that the records will be input into the OCLC WorldCat only once. This will help eliminate multiple records in the database. The cataloging library will be responsible for all authority work for the materials they are assigned to catalog. This includes sending the records for vendor authority control maintenance. Other advantages include enhancing the skills of professional catalogers. This will result in a higher quality of records produced by experienced catalogers. Other libraries will be able to adapt these records without any modification or change. The actual process will require long-range planning and a level of commitment from library management. Libraries will follow their acquisitions profiles. Some things will not change, as libraries will continue to order their materials as usual and pay for their acquisitions. Instead of receiving the materials directly, the materials will be sent directly from the vendor to the cataloging libraries. The cataloging libraries will catalog the materials in OCLC WorldCat as usual, set up holdings, and provide labels. The cataloging library will send cataloged materials back to the acquiring library already shelf ready. Parity is achieved when the volume of cataloging contributed to the cooperative by each institution is roughly equivalent to the volume of records obtained. Model 2 The first model presented discusses a cataloging cooperative based on the idea of the exchange of records among institutions that are similar in size and cataloging volume. In the following scenario, libraries will be able to maximize their own cataloging resources and expertise by providing specialized cataloging service to their partners for a small fee. This is not a contract-cataloging plan per se, but it allows libraries to share their expertise with other institutions. For example, a library that has experienced staff in cataloging of audiovisual (A/V) formats for example, would provide this service to other libraries that do not have A/V catalogers. In this scenario, the cataloging library will decide what service it can offer to other libraries. The assumption is that the cataloging library will maintain high cataloging quality and provide a service that will pay for itself. The cost of cataloging should not be based on profit, but only on cost recovery. Advantages of this model are similar to those in the first scenario. One important difference is the ability to obtain low-cost, professionally prepared cataloging records. As is the case in the first scenario, a sense of sharing and cooperation among the participating libraries is likely to increase. Shared goals and objectives makes this option a win-win situation for both the cataloging and the client libraries. The actual process will involve the following steps. Each library will identify the collection that needs to be cataloged. The cataloging library will catalog sample materials and estimate the cost. The cataloging library and the client library will write specifications of the project detailing all aspects, including the cost, the terms of completion, standards, items versus surrogate, and how the bibliographic records will be delivered. The cataloging library will be responsible for doing authority control work. The client library will obtain a bibliographic record that includes authority processing. Other details will have to be negotiated among the partner libraries. Model 3 The next model proposes a scaled-down version of models 1 and 2. This type of sharing may be more suitable for a smaller regional group, a county-wide library system, or a group of small academics. The benefits achieved here are the same, while the limited size of the sharing and relative proximity of the participating institutions might make this model a little less cumbersome and easier to implement. To make this plan work effectively, each library would need to agree to create an X number of catalog records for commonly ordered materials, such as those coming from approval plans. Each library would charge a fixed fee for each record created if that option is selected; otherwise, each library simply shares catalog records with its partners. Accounting should be rather simple, assuming a balance of records shared over time. A number of advantages can be derived from this plan. Cataloging costs shared by member institutions could result in substantial savings for each. The quality of records is likely to improve as cataloging volume decreases at each institution and catalogers can develop expertise in their areas. Since the plan is designed to include a small number of institutions, it is potentially fairly simple to implement and manage. Model 4 This model is designed to handle authority control workflows and related issues. Outsourcing authority maintenance means that periodically, each library sends new bibliographic records to a company for authority processing. The vendor notifies the library of updated headings. All libraries are using vendors to perform their authority control and each library pays for this processing. In this scenario, the option of centralizing authority control processing is introduced. The author also introduces the PCC funnel idea. This funnel allows libraries to work together as NACO reviewers and contributors. This would mean that when a library does not have the expertise to create NACO headings, it could funnel its processing workload to a library that is already a NACO participant. The same process can also apply to the other components of the PCC program, such as BIBCO, SACO, and CONSER. The obvious advantage of this scenario is that it reduces the burden of authority control by sharing the process among the participant libraries. It also reduces the burden of post authority control processing for those libraries that follow this practice. For example, libraries that participate in the cooperative authority control can distribute the fallouts (fallouts are defined as vendor reports that are delivered back to the library for the headings that did not have authority records or have problems that will require manual problem-solving) and the authority control among them. In most cases, libraries receive several reports of the fallouts. Due to shortages in staffing, these reports usually do not get processed. As a result, the wrong headings/no headings will remain in the system and will cause problems in retrieval. The cooperative authority control model will eliminate this problem and will assure the quality of headings in the online catalog. To implement this type of cooperative model, every library will continue to catalog as usual, using the OCLC database. All the participant libraries will perform post-cataloging authority control. This means that libraries do not need to search the OCLC Authority File to verify the heading when they are performing copy cataloging. They will verify the headings and perform all authority control work when they perform original cataloging. OCLC will collect all the new records periodically (e.g., monthly) by a symbol selected by the consortium and send these records to a vendor for authority processing. After processing the new records, the vendor will send the records back to the libraries (dividing them by library symbol, Figure 3). Alternately, the consortium can create a shared authority file that can be used by all member libraries. The vendor will also send the non-matched authority records in a form of reports to a designated library or libraries. Libraries will be responsible for problem-solving and creating new authority records, if needed. To create NACO, SACO, and BIBCO records, libraries can create a funnel among them and designate a library or libraries that would be responsible for reviewing other library’s records and contributing them to the PCC program. FIGURE 3 Shared Authority Control Processing. Model 5 Scenario 5 is an alternative to the preceding one. It proposes that OCLC performs the authority control processing (Figure 4). OCLC has the capability to centralize all authority maintenance. OCLC provides access to the National Authority File for names, subjects, and series. It also provides the interface for submitting names and series. When libraries perform authority control, they only process their own records. This means that the headings in their online catalog are assumed to be correct and matching the authorized headings in the OCLC authority control file. In most cases, libraries make changes to the headings locally instead of going back and correcting the heading in the OCLC authority file. FIGURE 4 OCLC Based Authority Control Model. OCLC also has a Quality Control Division that is responsible for making corrections to the headings and the bibliographic data. This includes merging records, adding missing data, creating new authority records, fixing tags, and so on. These revisions and updates are made to the master record in the OCLC database, and libraries might not be aware of these changes and corrections. As a result, libraries are making changes to their headings locally, and OCLC is making changes and updates to the master record. This mechanism produces redundancy in authority control processing by individual libraries and OCLC. Missing data and typographical errors make it difficult for users, including librarians, to identify, retrieve, and request items. Implementation of this model reduces redundancy in authority control processing between member libraries and OCLC. It helps assure consistency in the form of headings among all libraries and OCLC. Centralizing authority control at OCLC might reduce costs by distributing the costs among the participant libraries and OCLC. Having the same, correct records in both the OCLC database and the library catalogs will expedite searching. This is particularly important for interlibrary loan operations. SUMMARY Implementation of any of these models will require extensive planning, some internal restructuring, and a strong commitment to the idea of sharing and cooperation. It may also require an attitude shift, as libraries undertake the task of managing problems in innovative and more complex ways. The list of requirements for the implementation of any of the models described in this article will have to include several basic components. Each library will assume responsibility for certain functions. Libraries will identify each other’s strengths and make their acquisitions profiles known to other partner libraries. Based on these strengths, each library is assigned responsibility for cataloging a subject or format, according to their area of expertise. It is assumed that libraries in this scenario will follow the same cataloging standards (no local practice!). Each library creates records and submits them to OCLC. Libraries will need to identify their areas of cataloging expertise and be willing to share this expertise with the other institutions. Each library will build a cooperative cataloging team and commit to maintaining strength in their chosen area. A basic team may consist of one cataloger and 1–2 support staff. The size of this unit will be determined by the size of the cooperative and the volume of materials in the given area. Specific requirements and procedures will have to be articulated and developed for each individual scenario according to local needs and conditions. Tracking and routing mechanisms will need to be developed in each case. In the fee-based cataloging cooperative, special attention needs to be paid to financial matters and transfer of funds. In the scenario involving other consortia or vendors, terms and conditions will have to be negotiated to accommodate everyone. Other challenges and difficulties are likely to arise as the specific plans are being developed. Institutional cooperation and commitment is what will make these cooperatives a success. It may be difficult to coordinate policies and procedures, and this may call for the development of new management skills among library managers. Libraries are not using the same ILS systems, and that could be a problem, unless they all agree to redesign the architecture of their online systems. This could become a cost factor. It may also be difficult to maintain specialized cataloging staff. This will require commitment from participating libraries. These options did not exhaust all the possibilities that might be available. It is the author’s hope that more ideas and potential models will be generated in response to the thesis of this project. CONCLUSION These five models introduce an alternative way of looking at library sharing and cooperation. Ideas presented here may be an alternative to the current trends that look at outsourcing of cataloging as a way of the future. This article proposes viable models that offer solutions that will go a long way toward addressing the budget concerns of today’s library administrators. Solutions proposed here will foster a spirit of cooperation among libraries and reinvigorate the profession. Most importantly, they will allow libraries to remain in charge of the process, and will ensure the integrity of the library record that is based on universally accepted standards. The five models presented here offer a set of ideas. They are not completed roadmaps or plans that can be implemented without refinement. Ideas for cooperation in the area of cataloging presented here offer possible solutions to some libraries that are attempting to grapple with questions regarding the future of cataloging and the library catalog. NOTES 1. Magda El-Sherbini and Amanda Wilson, “New Strategies for Delivering Library Resources to Users: Rethinking the Mechanisms in which Libraries are Processing and Delivering Bibliographic Records,” The Journal of Academic Librarianships 33, no. 2 (March 2007): 228–242. 2. Ibid., 241. 3. Dictionaries, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ (accessed November 30, 2009). 4. Elizabeth N. Steinhagen, Mary Ellen Hanson, and Sharon A. Moynahan, “Quo Vadis, Cataloging?” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 44, no. 3–4 (2008): 271–280. 5. Alan Danskin, “Tomorrow Never Knows: the End of Cataloging?” IFLA Journal 33, no. 3 (2006): 205– 209. www.ifla.org/IV/ifla72/papers/102-Danskin-en.pdf (accessed November 30, 2009). 6. Deanna B. Marcum, “The Future of Cataloging,” Library Resources & Technical Services 50, no. 1 (2006): 5–9. 7. Karen Calhoun, “The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery Tools: Final Report,” prepared for the Library of Congress (March 2006). www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf (accessed November 30, 2009). 8. Norman Oder, Lynn Blumenstein, and Josh Hadro, “Columbia, Cornell Join Up,” Library Journal 134, no.18 (2009): 12. 9. Chew Chiat Naun and Susan M. Braxton, “Developing Recommendations for Consortia Cataloging of Electronic Resources: Lessons Learned,” Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 29, no. 3 (September 2005): 307–325. 10. John J. Riemer and Karen Morgenroth, “Hang Together or Hang Separately: The Cooperative Authority Work Component of NACO,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 17, no. 3–4 (1993): 127–161. 11. Robert Wolven, “In Search for a New Model,” Library Journal no. 133, (2008): 6–9. 12. Elizabeth N. Steinhagen, Mary Ellen Hanson, and Sharon A. Moynahan, “Quo Vadis, Cataloging?” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 44, no. 3–4 (2008): 271–280. 13. Ibid., 278. 14. Ibid. 15. On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (January 9, 2008). www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news-ontherecord-jan08.pdf (access November 30, 2009). 16. Ibid., 9. 17. Ibid. 18. University of California Bibliographic Services Task Force, “Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University: Final Report” (December 2005). www.libraries.universityofcalifornia. edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf (accessed November 30, 2009). 19. Ibid., 3. 20. A White Paper on the Future of Cataloging at Indiana University. January 15, 2006. Prepared by Jackie Byrd et al. www.iub.edu/˜libtserv/pub/Future of Cataloging White Paper.pdf (accessed November 30, 2009). 21. Ibid., 14. 22. Dustin P. Larmore, “A New Kid on the Block: The Start of a NACO Funnel Project and What is Needed to Start your Own,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2006): 75–81. 23. CIC Strategic Directions 2007–2010. www.cic.net/Libraries/NewsPub/StrategicDirections2007– 2010.sflb.ashx (accessed November 30, 2009). 24. Thomas W. Shaughnessy, “Cooperation Among Research Libraries: The Committee on Institutional Cooperation,” Journal of Library Administration 25, no. 2/3 (1998): 73. 25. Responses to Question: If you Think Libraries are Having Difficulty Recruiting and Filling Library Openings Today, What Do you Believe is the Primary Cause of the Difficulty? http://www.ischool. utexas.edu/˜rpollock/tla2009/why recruiting difficulties.pdf (accessed November 30, 2009). 26. The Impact of Budget Cuts on Colorado Academic Libraries. http://www.lrs.org/documents/ fastfacts/207 AcademicBudgetCuts.pdf (accessed November 30, 2009). Sharing Cataloging Expertise: Options for Libraries to Share Their Skilled Catalogers with Other Libraries INTRODUCTION LITERATURE REVIEW BACKGROUND MODELS FOR SHARING CATALOGING EXPERTISE SUMMARY CONCLUSION NOTES