College and Research Libraries 50th ~nniversary Feature- Yesterday's Heresy- Today' s Orthodoxy: An Essay on the Changing Face of Descriptive Cataloging Michael Gorman This article analyses four descriptive cataloging orthodoxies of the past-corporate authorship, uniform personal headings, the main entry, and the dominance of the card catalog-and con- tends that each has been overthrown, overtly or covertly. It contrasts the views of Cutter and Panizzi, mostly in the latter's favor, and alludes to the pronouncements of nineteenth and twentieth century luminaries and committees on the matters under discussion. The ways in which the MARC format has influenced descriptive cataloging, for good and ill, are also treated. The article closes with a plea for reason and the application of utilitarian principles. rthodoxy is my doxy; hetero- doxy is another man's doxy," said Bishop Warburton to Lord Sandwich. Descriptive catalog- ing, that pleasant backwater of human en- deavor, is as subject to the kind of situa- tional ethics that the eighteenth century divine had in mind as is any other area of human thought. The good bishop thought of opinions and dogmas in terms of the frailties of the flesh ("doxy: a loose wench ... sometimes: MISTRESS," Web- ster's Third New International Dictionary), which tells us a good deal about the Angli- can Church in the bad old days. I think it is as valid to think about orthodoxies and heresy in terms of chronology. In the last thirty years, we who are involved in de- scriptive cataloging have seen heresies be- come dogmas and wild speculations be- come received opinions. I, as have many others, have changed some of my opin- ions and have seen some other opinions move from the fringes to embodiment in the very codes that regulate the largest and most influential body of descriptive cataloging-that of the Anglo-American tradition. I seek in this essay to describe some of the changes that have occurred in descrip- tive cataloging of the Anglo-American tra- dition in the last fifty years. The most re- markable features of those changes are the way in which seemingly impregnable bas- tions of orthodoxy have been revealed to be as transient as sand castles and the way in which, on some occasions, the guard- ians of the descriptive cataloging estab- lishment (the national libraries, the library associations, IFLA, and the rest) have proved to be as nimble as adagio dancers in adapting to the accommodation of pre- Michael Connan is Dean of Library Services at California State University, Fresno, California 93740. This paper is a revised version of an essay which is part of a festschrift in honour of Peter Lewis, the recently retired Director-General of the Bibliographic Services Division of the British Library. The festschrift, Eating the Menus, edited by Ross Bourne, was published by the British Library in 1989. 626 viously abhorrent ideas. CORPORATE AUTHORSHIP Corporate authorship is as good a place to begin as any. The saintly and ingenious Sir Anthony Panizzi (the fons et origo of the Anglo-American cataloging tradition) re- jected all but the smallest smidgeon of cor- porate authorship in his ninety-one rules. It was Charles Ammi Cutter who began the whole farrago with his breezy observa- tion ''I think that the American practice of regarding bodies of men as the authors of their own journals, proceedings, etc. . . . is preferable to the German practice of dis- persing these works throughout the al- phabet ... " (Note the two kinds of chauvinism so characteristic of the pe- riod.) He went on, in his Rules for Descrip- tive Cataloging, to state that "bodies of men are to be considered to be the authors of works published in their name or by their authority.'' It is interesting to see that the robust "bodies of men" (redolent of Kipling at his most strenuous) are not flatly stated to be authors but are merely to . be considered to be such. However hedged his rule might have been, the fact remains that Cutter had begun to stir the witches' cauldron of corporate authorship. The nineteenth century, the time of the single author giants of descriptive catalog- ing, was succeeded (with almost uncanny chronological neatness) by the time of the corporate creation of the Anglo-American cataloging codes. Since the committees that were responsible for those codes were corporate entities, is it any wonder that they espoused the concept of corporate authorship? That could be accepted as mere human frailty. What is almost inex- cusable is the baroque indulgence with which they elaborated on the fundamen- tally silly idea. Cutter's "bodies of men" were succeeded by the Rube Goldberg elaborations of the distinctions between societies and institutions and the ultimate absurdities of (for example) rules for ob- servatories located outside municipalities and for institutions located in several places. As the years whirled down the al- leys of time (1908, 1937, 1941, 1949), the whole crazy structure of corporate author- ship became less and less stable. What Yesterday's Heresy 627 was needed was a dose of common sense to challenge the central idiocy of corporate authorship. Cometh the hour, cometh the man (or woman). It was the great Seymour Lu- betzky who dealt the first hammer blow. It was Eva Verona who finally demolished the whole thing. Lubetzky assailed the corporate complex and tried to introduce logic into the application of the idea of cor- porate authorship. The only problem was that the notion of a corporate body being ''chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic content'' of a work is, except in cer- tain narrow and infrequent cases, inher- ently implausible. Even Lubetzky's pow- erful mind was incapable of pulling off the trick of rationalizing the absurd. ''The notion of a corporate body be- ing 'chiefly responsible for the intel- lectual or artistic content' of a work is, except in certain narrow and infre- quent cases, inherently implausi- ble." In the Paris Principles of 1961, a work that emanated from a conference that was dominated by Lubetzkyan reformist ideas, we find reference to "entry under corporate body'' and provisions that are considerably less sweeping than they might appear to the casual reader. What this section of the Principles represents is a political compromise between the Anglo-American comprehensive view of corporate authorship and the much nar- rower provisions for corporate entry found in the descriptive cataloging codes of continental Europe. Corporate author- ship is not mentioned in the Principles, but entry under a corporate body is al- lowed in numerous cases. The idea be- hind the Principles was that they were to form the basis for international standard- ization and that the future codes that took them as their bases would be in conform- ity. Alas, the loo.seness of their wording, which was made necessary by the political compromises that made the Paris meeting 628 College & Research Libraries ''work,'' made it possible for new national codes to drive a coach and horses through the idea of international uniformity. No- where is this more apparent than in the use that was made of the section on corpo- rate entry. The first edition of the Anglo- American cataloging rules (AACR), in both its British and North American mani- festations, explicitly embraced the con- cept of corporate authorship while cl~­ ing to be based on the Paris Principl~) At more or less the same time, European codes were published which did exactly the opposite while also claiming to be based on those self-same principles. But 'twas a famous victory! The reaction was not long in coming. Seeing that the ambiguity of the Paris Prin- ciples had made it possible for national and international catalog4tg codes to remain far apart on a vital conceptual question, the IFLA Committee on Cataloguing en- couraged Eva Verona to do a study of cor- porate headings (published in 1975 as Cor- porate Headings: Their Use in Library Catalogues and National Bibliographies: A Comparative and Critical Study) which es- poused the Continental European idea that there is no such thing as a corporate author, though the limited use of corporate main entry headings in author catalogs may be justified. This distinction has the whiff of angels and pins that is characteris- tic of much of descriptive cataloging the- ory, but it did lead to an important theo- retical and practical change in the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (1978). For the first time since Panizzi, a major English language catalog- ing code abandoned the idea of corporate authorship and limited the application of corporate main entry to five (later six, see AACR2R, 1988) narrowly defined catego- ries of works that (in the careful, if slightly otherworldly, term used in the code) "em- anate" from corporate bodies. Thus it was that the orthodoxy of corpo- rate authorship was overthrown and the heretical "German practice" that Cutter decried reigned in its place. The ultimate irony is that one of the categories allowed main entry by AACR2 is probably the only true case of corporate authorship that has ever been. The provision to enter sound November 1989 and video recordings and other works cre- ated by a performing group under the name of the group seems to me to be a rec- ognition of a plain fact. That fact is that it is hard to dispute that, say, the Rolling Stones are the authors of sound recordings that contain songs that the group has writ- ten, performed, and produced. So, as cor- porate authors steal from the scene to be replaced by a few "emanators," modem society and technology have given us a type of material in which corporate au- thorship is indisputable. UNIFORM PERSONAL HEADINGS Charles Ammi Cutter was, in Paul Dunkin's phraseology, the Prophet upon whose dicta the Law of our cataloging codes was based. His most Mosaic utter- ance is to be found in his famous Objects of a dictionary catalog. Those few state- ments have been the cause of much that is good about the cataloging codes that took them unquestioningly as their basis. They have also been the cause of some persist- ent error and of some misunderstanding. I have never seen it pointed out that, for in- stance, the very first "object" makes little or no sense. It reads "To enable the reader to find a book of which . . . the author is known.'' The fact is, of course, that if one knows nothing of a book other than the name of its author, it will be impossible to locate that book with complete confi- dence. Even if, in such a case, one were to find only one entry in a catalog under the name of that author, how would one know with ontological certainty that that entry represented the only book in the world by that author? The first object should read ''to enable the reader to find a book of which . . . the author and some- thing else, preferably the title, is known." The most serious flaw in the Objects, however, lies not in the first but in the fourth. This reads "To show what the li- brary has by a given author." The way in which this object is to be achieved is stated to be "Author entry with the necessary ref- erences." In other words, the works of an author are to be gathered together under a standard heading in all cases-even when an author uses different forms of his or her name or when an author uses two or more different names. This ruling by the Prophet was among the most orthodox of the cata- loging orthodoxies for nearly a hundred years. It caused a great deal of mischief. Works identified with one name were, un- til comparatively recently, to be found un- der other names in catalogs and, in Ameri- can libraries at least-because of the infamous Cutter-Sanborn numbers-to be located on the shelves in a place other than that in which the average sensual library user would look for them. ''This orthodoxy-that all the works of a person should be collocated re- gardless of the inconvenience to the majority of library users-need never have happened." This orthodoxy-that all the works of a person should be collocated regardless of the inconvenience to the majority of li- brary users-need never have happened. That it did so is the product of two unfor- tunate happenings-neither of them, to my mind, the fault of the late C. A. Cutter. The first is that in this matter, as in so many others, we were following the wrong prophet. The pragmatism and in- tellect of Anthony Panizzi had come to a very different conclusion. In the forty-first of his ninety-one Rules for the Compilation of the Catalogue Panizzi stated, ''In the case of pseudonymous publications, the book to be catalogued under the author's feigned name . . . " and, in the forty-second rule, ''Assumed names . . . to be treated as real names." How much easier the life of the library user would have been had the cataloging profession followed the Halo- English prophet rather than the Ameri- can! All the works of the multinamed Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Creasey (not to mention Lauran Bosworth Paine, who is to pseudo- nyms what Argus was to eyes) would have been entered in the catalog and found on the shelves under the names by which those worthies wished them to be identified. "What of scholarship?" I hear the traditionalists cry. ''What of the need for the researcher to survey all the works Yesterday's Heresy 629 of an author in one place?" There are three answers to those questions. The first is that scholarship begins when the book is in hand and does not consist of or com- prise the arduous searching for materials that is imposed on the would-be scholar by ill-organized library catalogs. The sec- ond is that the rules of Panizzi were fol- lowed for many a long year in the British Museum's General Catalogue of Printed Books-a work that a number of scholars have found to be a boon rather than an im- pediment to scholarship. The third an- swer is best put in the form of an existen- tial question, "What is an author?" This latter question leads to the second error that I believe to have bedeviled the question of the entry of persons using two or more names. When Cutter referred to ''the works of an author'' we seem to have assumed that he meant "the works of a person.'' I have always maintained that one person can be two or more authors. There is a well-known story of Queen Vic- toria being so entranced by the first of the ''Alice'' books that she begged the Rever- end Dodgson to send her his next book as soon as it was issued. She was rewarded for her importunity, some six months later, by the receipt of a huge tome on symbolic logic or some such. This illus- trates that she may have been asking the right person but was certainly asking the wrong author. Supposing Cutter had meant that distinction all along? That is unlikely because his own Rules follow the old orthodoxy on this question. However, prophets have been known to misinter- pret their own prophecy and it could be that the Cutter who, shaman-like, promulgated the Objects was wiser than the less exalted Cutter who wrote his justly famous Rules. The Paris Principles were the last state- ment of the old orthodoxy on multiple names. They flatly prescribed a single uni- form heading for each person consisting of the name most frequently found in ''his [sic] works." The 1967 AACR prescribed a single heading for such persons but gave an alternative rule that allowed entry for each work to be under the name that the author used in manifestations of that work. This, though a tip of the hat to real- 630 College & Research Libraries ity, was of small utility in a time when standardization was rapidly moving from being an ideal to becoming a necessity. It was, after all, a scant year later that saw the beginnings of the MARC format and all the implications for cooperation that format represented. In 1978, AACR2 tried to wrestle with the problem anew. It re- vived the idea of a predominant name (thus consigning the works of the im- mensely serious Reverend Dodgson to the heading for the frivolous Lewis Carroll) but allowed as how, if no predominant name could be found, each work could be entered under the name found in its mani- festations. This was superior to the AACR version because it prescribed only one rule and because it allowed multiple headings for certain persons. It did, however, still strive for a single heading when one could be found and it left a large grey area in which catalogers could contend happily and unendingly about whether a name was or was not "predominant." The 1988 AACR2R has taken a completely different tack-one that signifies the end, stated or not, of the old Cutterian orthodoxy. For the first time, a code recognizes that one person may have two or more biblio- graphic identities. For example, the poet C. Day Lewis is one bibliographic identity and the mystery story writer Nicholas Blake another, despite the fact that, out- side their books, they were one and the same person. AACR2 also prescribes mul- tiple headings for "contemporary au- thors" (a phrase of seductive ambiguity that could return to haunt us). Thus we see that, in the 148 years since Panizzi's ninety-one rules, we have gone from his multiple entries for persons using differ- ent names to the iron orthodoxy of the standard heading for each person to a code (AACR2R) that embodies the Paniz- zian heresy as the new orthodoxy. MAIN ENTRY I have so far identified two areas, corpo- rate authorship and headings for persons using more than one name, in which, in my view, the good guys finally won and the unhelpful orthodoxies of the past have been swept away in favor of a more sensi- ble and user-oriented approach. The next November 1989 orthodoxy, that of the dreaded main en- try, still lingers on as, in the family of cata- logers, the mad uncle in the attic that ev- eryone wishes would go away but stays, in apparent good health, as an embarrass- ment to one and all. It has been pointed out, time after weary time, that the notion of the main entry-that is, a heading that is the chief access point and, thus, of more importance than the other "added" ac- cess points-is one that belongs to a long- gone era of library technology. The book catalog has, to the sadness of some, gone the way of the dinosaurs. Like them, it was too large and slow moving to survive in a changing world. One can see the at- tractions of the main entry in such a con- text. In the time of homemade catalog cards, the weary task of typing or writing the cards is ameliorated if all the informa- tion is given on only one card, the others being quasi-references. (When bad librari- ans die, they are sent to a special biblio- graphic hell in which they type and file catalog cards for all eternity.) However, the Library of Congress has been supply- ing printed cards for nigh on a century and such have been available from other sources for all of the last half of this cen- tury. Why then do we persist in the fool- ishness of the main entry, devoting 72 pages out of the 677 (over 10 percent) of AACR2R to this perfectly absurd topic? There are those, most notably Seymour Lubetzky, who base their support for main entry on philosophical grounds. There are those who drag in ancillary top- ics such as single-entry list~gs and, gawd help us, Cutter-Sanborn numbers (the only bibliographic feature more futile than the main entry). There are those who see the main entry heading as a useful orga- nizing device in classified catalogs, shelf lists, and the like. I find none of these ar- guments persuasive and am perfectly cer- tain that the main entry is a bibliographic ghost that haunts current and future ma- chine systems. The true reason why the orthodoxy of the main entry still prevails is that it is required by the MARC format. People used to write articles called ''Is the main entry dead?" The answer to that question is "Yes, but the MARC format has embalmed it." MARC is, essentially, a catalog card encoded for machine manip- ulation. This fact (disputed as it may be by revisionist historians) has had many sad consequences. One of them is that the hapless cataloger in the wanning years of the twentieth century still has to decide which access point she or he is to put in the "1)0(" field, and, therefore, needs those otherwise unnecessary seventy-two pages of the cataloging code. Is the situation hopeless? I think not. Committees and catalog code editors may continue-boats beating against the current-to affirm the importance of the main entry. The crushing weight of the MARC establishment may forbid the kind of reconstruction of MARC of which the abolition of main entry is but a part. Like the Austro-Hungarian empire, however, the glittering surface is but a shadow and the realities press ever inward. In many existing online catalogs and, I would sug- gest, in all online catalogs to be, there is no operational distinction between a main entry ''heading'' and added entry ''head- ings." Either will take the user directly, via a visible or invisible authority record, to the relevant bibliographic records. The online catalog is not content with the sub- version of the idea of the main entry. The user can get to the relevant authority rec- ord and on to relevant bibliographic rec- ords, as she or he can in an even halfway- decent online system, from not only any type of access point but also from any form of an access point. This simple fact sub- verts most of the bases of our cataloging codes and of the MARC record that so sed- ulously apes the conventions of those codes. In the real world of the electronic catalog, there is no practical difference be- tween main and added access points and there is no practical difference between an access point and a reference to that access point. This means that the whole of the second part of AACR2 is of only marginal relevance to the creation of records for on- line systems. It seems as though the old orthodoxy reigns, as though distinctions between kinds of access point and be- tween forms of access point really matter. In fact, the biggest heresy of all is trium- phant in all but the codes and the trap- pings of the cataloging establishment. Yesterday's Heresy 631 Ironically, bibliographic description, so long the poor relation of cataloging, has · proved to be the most stable and unques- tioned element of the cataloging process. At the same time, the assignment of head- ings, for so long the glamour area, has be- come more and more marginal, and this aspect of descriptive cataloging, which dominated all our codes up to AACR2, may be a small part of future cataloging codes. How are the mighty fallen! ''The assignment of headings, for so long the glamour area, has become more and more marginal, and this as- pect of descriptive cataloging, which dominated all our codes up to AACR2, may be a small part of future cataloging codes.'' How long will we go on pretending that the Emperor MARC II is fully clothed? It is hard to say; the ability of those involved in cataloging to ignore the patently obvious seems above the human norm, and the vested interests of the national libraries, the creators and peddlers of MARC-based systems, and of national cataloging com- mittees are both numerous and powerful. It does seem, however, that no human system can live indefinitely with the kind of internal contradiction represented by the forms of MARC and the cataloging codes on the one hand and the realities of online bibliographic access on the other. CARD CATALOGS When I began to work in libraries (when Anthony Eden was prime minister and Hampstead was still a borough and not just a state of mind), the form of the cata- log seemed immutable. The long history of the provision of catalog cards by the Li- brary of Congress had affected American libraries immeasurably and the provision of a similar service by the British National Bibliography was burgeoning. My first glimpse of the technology of cataloging was of an object that looked like an iron spinning wheel being wielded by our 632 College & Research Libraries head cataloger (who had, utterly irrele- vantly but to my fascination, been Piet Mondrian' s landlady during Hitler's war) so that it produced metal plates with cata- log records embossed on them. The good lady actually pecked out the entries letter by letter, a task that involved a lot of phys- ical exertion. My job was to be the under- strapper to another lady who produced, on another alarming looking and inky ma- chine, the requisite sets of catalog cards for the main and branch catalogs. The thing that struck me like a thunderbolt was how clever it was to produce a lot of standard entries and add the different headings rather than to type out each card in a set. I was at a very impressionable age but it still, more than three decades later, seems like a pretty good idea. The point of these autobiographical ramblings is not just to recall the dear dead days but to point out how utterly everything has changed about the physical form of our catalogs. The orthodoxy of the period was that the card catalog was the ne plus ultra of catalogs and that advances in technology, up to and including the MARC format, would be devoted to the speedier and more cost-effective production of those 3- by-5-inch cards. The only dissension that I can recall came from those who, rather than foreseeing new kinds of catalogs, predicted a future in which catalogs (and, indeed, libraries) would be irrelevant. I forget which particular kind of "patent double million magnifyin' gas microscope of hextra power'' was going to accomplish this great feat, but the paperless society boys were with us then as now. ''The card catalog orthodoxy has been completely demolished." The card catalog orthodoxy has been completely demolished. Planning to maintain a card catalog indefinitely in any but the tiniest libraries is the bibliographic equivalent of wearing spats. How could this have happened in such a relatively short time? The answer is, I think, two- fold. One is that the computer revolution November 1989 has transformed almost an the practical as- pects of life in the soi-disant First World. This is inescapable but easily confused by the easily confused. In our particular neck of the woods, many, including some li- brarians and almost all ''information sci- entists," are seduced by the transforma- tion of the practical aspects of life into a belief that the nature of things has changed. They believe that the fundamen- tals of librarianship are different when, of course, it is the means of carrying out our abiding mission that has changed. In the case of cataloging, we have always wanted to make our materials as accessi- ble as possible in as speedy a manner as could be. We have always wanted to cre- ate huge cooperative union catalogs (a concept as old, almost, as librarianship it- self). We have always wanted to share the burden of cataloging with others. We have always sought to standardize cataloging procedures. The century and a half of Anglo-American cataloging codes stands witness to the latter. What has changed is that we now have a technology that en- ables us to do the things for which we have hungered. The second reason for the overthrow of the card catalog is luck. In many ways we have blundered into the future. By and large, our fortune is' that schemes toward one end have, happily, ended up by producing another and better result. The most obvious example of this latter is the MARC format. Despite its many shortcomings and despite the fact that its true origin was the sustaining of the Library of Congress' immensely prof- itable card service and, in Britain, maxi- mizing the cost-efficiency of the produc- tion of the British National Bibliography and its cards, MARC has proved to be a mechanism that has made the creation and maintenance of online systems possi- ble. This is not to say that it would have been far better had we had a format that was rethought to deal with the necessities of computerized catalogs. It is merely to say that MARC, the only available system, proved, almost by accident, to be up to the · task. Another example of backing into the truth is the formation of the bibliographic networks-most notably the OCLC meganetwork-that were intended to pro- vide shared cataloging (mostly via the pro- vision of catalog cards) and have ended up being the providers of MARC tapes for lo- cal online catalogs; the providers of effec- tive interlibrary loan services; the poten- tial providers of CD-ROM catalogs and other high-tech wonders; and the only ef- fective and current union catalogs in the whole history of librarianship. In the fu- ture they will, no doubt, provide hitherto undreamed of service to automated li- braries (for example, direct connection to pr~·v te sector indexing and abstracting se ~ es for libraries with online systems). I app ud all these present and future good things, merely pausing to remark that those who see in this progress the ful- fillment of deep and prescient plans are surrendering to the human desire to be- lieve that those in authority have been vouchsafed some wisdom to which we cannot aspire. The truth is that most of what has been predicted about the future of the catalog has proved to be wrong and that most of the advances in the technol- ogy of the catalog have been the result of happenstance and the ability of a strategi- cally placed few to recognize an opportu- nity when it swims into their ken. THE FUTURE It is my view, then, that the orthodoxies about, inter alia, corporate authorship, the treatment of persons using two or more names as authors, the main entry, and the forms in which catalogs are pre- Yesterday's Heresy 633 sented to the library user have been over- thrown, either overtly or covertly. Does this mean that they have been replaced by new and equally foolish orthodoxies? I think not. It is my belief and my hope that we are in a time of realism in the field of cataloging-a time in which dogma and theory are being forced to yield place to the exigencies of the practice of librarian- ship in the electronic world of today. I am, in librarianship as in other aspects of life, a Benthamite. If one believes in the greatest happiness of the greatest number and ap- plies that belief to the wonderfully demo- cratic catalogs that modern technology has made possible, discussions of the ar- cana of cataloging become less and less relevant, if no less absorbing to the surviv- ing handful of cataloging mavens. Cutter famously wrote of the passing of the golden age of cataloging (in 1904). I do not believe that age has passed or, in fact, has yet been achieved. The age of the petty discussion of petty aspects of the lore of cataloging may well have passed, but the age of the creation and mainte- nance of catalogs that meet the needs of the mass of people-catalogs based on utility rather than dogma-has only just begun. O'Shaughnessy wrote . . . each age is a dream that is dying Or one that is coming to birth We can still be, in his famous words "the dreamers of dreams," as long as we re- member that the death of orthodoxy can lead to freedom and to a new and better world. REFERENCES 1. A. L.A. Cataloging Rules for Author and Title Entries, 2d ed., ed. Clara Beetle (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1949), 265p. 2. Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, prep. by American Library Association and others, general ed. C. Sumner Spalding, North American text (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1967}, 400p. 3. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2d ed., ed. Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler (Chicago: American Library Assn., Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn., 1978}, 620p. 4. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2d ed., ed. Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler, 1988 rev. (Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn.; London: Library Assn. Publishing; Chicago: American Library Assn., 1988}, 677p. 5. Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries, comp. by committees of American Library Assn. and (Brit- ish) Library Assn., American ed. (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1908), 88p. 6. Charles A. Cutter, Rules for a Dictionary Catalog, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1904), 173p. (Special report on public libraries, part II, U.S. Bureau of Education). 634 College & Research Libraries November 1989 7. Paul S. Dunkin, Cataloging USA (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1969), 159p. 8. Seymour Lubetzky, Cataloging Rules and Principles: A Critique of the ALA Rules for Entry and a Pro- posed Design for Their Revision (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1953), 65p. 9. Anthony Panizzi, Rules for the Compilation of the Catalogue. The catalogue of printed books in the British Museum, V.1 (London: British Museum, 1841). 10. [Paris Principles]. Statement of principles adopted at the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles, Paris, Oct. 1961, annot. ed., with commentary and examples by Eva Verona and others (London: IFLA Committee on Cataloguing, 1971). 11. Eva Verona, Corporate Headings: Their Use in Library Catalogues and National Bibliographies: A Compar- ative and Critical Study (London: IFLA Committee on Cataloguing, 1975). IN JANUARY 1990 COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES The Paradox of Public Service: Where Do We Draw the Line? by Rebecca R. Martin Reviving a Retrospective Conversion Project: Strategies to Complete the Task by Jay Lambrecht A Social History of Madness; or, Who's Buying This Round? Anticipating and Avoiding Gaps in Collection Development by Paul Metz and Bela Foltin The Representational Rights of Academic Librarians: Their Status as Managerial Employees and/or Supervisors under the National Labor Relations Act by Ronald L. Gilardi The Serial/Monograph Ratio in Research Libraries: Budgeting in Light of Citation Studies by Robin B. Devin and Martha Kellogg The Do-It-Yourself Move for a 1.5 Million-Volume Library by Pauline S. Bayne