College and Research Libraries


Cataloging Problems and 
Research Libraries 

T h e following statements were presented to the Association of Research Libraries 
at their Chicago meeting, December 29, 1941, held in conjunction with the Midwinter 
Conference of the American Library Association. Miss Root is president of the 
Division of Cataloging and Classification of the A . L . A . and M r . M u m f o r d is chief 
of the Preparations Division of the N e w Y o r k Public Library. 

P A R T I 

TH E P R E L I M I N A R Y A M E R I C A N S E C O N D E D I T I O N of the A.L.A. Catalog Rules 
has been available for three months and 

has been diligently studied by individual 

catalogers, by catalog departments, and 

regional catalog groups, and by some ad-

ministrators and reference workers. T h a t 

study will continue and, of course, no one 

is prepared at this early date to make a 

final statement. It is possible, however, 

to see the present trend of opinion and 

it is that which I shall try briefly to 

present. A s you are aware, the situation 

is complicated by the fact that after re-

vision had been under way for some years 

and was nearing completion, it became 

for the first time very clear first to some 

administrators and then to a few cata-

logers that the problem of cataloging costs 

was extremely serious and that current 

cataloging theory and practice must be 

re-examined to see whether there were 

nonessential elements which could be 

eliminated. In our study then, we are 

not merely considering how successfully 

the code does what it set out to do, which 

was to expand the old rules to cover 

types of publications inadequately covered 

By M A R I O N M . R O O T 

in the 1908 edition and to record the 

best pre-1940 descriptive cataloging prac-

tice with sufficient fulness to meet at least 

the ordinary needs of the scholarly li-

brary. In the light of the pressing demand 

for economy, a demand made all the more 

urgent by our entry into the war, we are 

attempting also to discover those modifi-

cations in our cataloging practice which 

will result in lower processing cost with-

out great impairment in service. Those 

modifications once found must be in-

corporated in the code. 

Y o u will recall that the code is divided 

into two parts; the first dealing with 

entry and heading, the second with the 

description of the book (transcription of 

title, imprint, collation, notes). In regard 

to part one, it is the general opinion that 

in these days of cooperative cataloging 

and union catalogs, uniformity in choice 

of entry is well-nigh essential, though it 

is admitted that to avoid wholesale recata-

loging, minor variations in form of entry 

are permissible for libraries having large 

amounts of material already cataloged 

in a manner inconsistent with L . C . and 

A . L . A . rules. Most of the material in 

170 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



the code dealing with choice of entry and 

form of entry is regarded as satisfactory, 

though more detailed treatment is needed 

in a few cases and some unnecessary detail 

can be eliminated. Some rearrangement 

is desired but reconsideration is needed of 

surprisingly few points. 

In regard to part two, uniformity in 

the amount of descriptive detail to be in-

cluded on the catalog card is now generally 

recognized to be unnecessary if not in-

deed undesirable. T h e amount of detail 

will and should vary between one library 

and another and for different types of 

material within one library. N o general 

rules expressed in a few neat sentences 

can determine for libraries in general the 

point of equilibrium between increased 

cost and decreased usefulness. T h a t point 

is determined by the balance of many fac-

tors which vary with the institution. 

T h a t being the case, it is an open question 

u whether it is necessary or suitable for the 

A . L . A . to issue rules for descriptive cata-

loging at all. But, while the amount of 

detail may vary, there seems to be no 

good reason for individual decisions as 

to the language in which we shall record 

such detail as is to be included on our 

cards. Standardized notes, abbreviations, 

etc., are likely to mean a saving in time 

and so in cost. M a n y libraries, therefore, 

will welcome a manual of accepted prac-

tice, and L . C . practice would undoubtedly 

be preferred in view of the widespread 

use of L . C . cards. It has been suggested, 

therefore, that part two of the code be 

replaced by a manual of L . C . practice. 

Manual of L.C. Practice 

If w e are to have such a manual, 

whether issued by A . L . A . or by L . C . , 

should it contain the minimum amount of 

detail or approach the maximum which 

will be needed by the scholarly library? 

In the comments which have been received 

there is surprising unanimity on this point, 

catalogers and administrators alike stress-

ing the desirability of having fairly full 

rules available, to be applied with discre-

tion. One cataloger writes " T h e code 

should be as complete as it is possible for 

the committee to make it. Catalogers then 

can make definite decisions as to which of 

the rules and usage their libraries with the 

staff and funds at their disposal can afford 

to use, or which rules will supply the 

extent of fulness in cataloging which their 

type of library needs. T h e other rules 

may then be disregarded or used only 

when the need is definitely felt." O r as 

an administrator puts it " A great deal of 

the criticism of the code as being too de-

tailed and legalistic seems to be based upon 

the idea that every library will have to 

follow the rules in every detail. M y idea 

of the code is that the committee has 

labored to bring together and organize 

in a systematic manner cataloging rules, 

principles, and practices which already 

exist and are being followed in varying 

degrees by libraries of various sorts and 

sizes. T h e administrative problem of the 

extent of simplification of cataloging prac-

tices for various kinds of material is some-

thing which cannot be covered in a code 

but must be worked out primarily by the 

individual libraries. T h i s has been done 

by libraries working under the old code 

and the L . C . rules. It seems to me that 

it can be done even more easily and eco-

nomically now that the full rules have 

been put into a form which permits con-

venient consultation and annotation for a 

particular library's practice." M a y I 

emphasize the fact that there is no indi-

cation of an intention on the part of any 

library to adopt the second part of the 

MARCH, 1942 
16 7 



code, hook, line, and sinker, but the 
opinion has been expressed again and again 
that catalogers should have a knowledge 
of the full rules and simplify to meet the 
needs of the particular library; that sim-
plified rules are not needed, but that each 
library should work out its own abridg-
ment to meet its own particular needs. 
One cataloger goes so far as to add " I f 
a librarian feels that this plan is imprac-
ticable, what he needs is a new staff and 
not a new code." 

Decisions on Simplification 

T h e fact that decisions as to simplifica-
tion in descriptive cataloging must be made 
in a particular library on the basis of its 
particular needs, is generally recognized, 
but by whom are the decisions to be made? 
It would not be wise nor practical for 
catalogers to decide without regard to the 
needs of the reference and acquisition 
staffs. Most catalogers are convinced that 
a prerequisite to the solution of the cata-
loging problem is finding the answer to 
the question: For whose use and for what 
purpose is the catalog made ? 

For whom is your catalog made and 
what service is expected from it? D o you 
need to know from your catalog how many 
pages there are in a book? D o you need 

to know whether it contains maps, por-
traits, diagrams, or genealogical tables? 
W i l l your art department be satisfied with 
cards which do not mention the presence 
of colored illustrations? T h i s matter of 
simplification must be regarded as an ad-
ministrative problem to be worked out 
by administrative, reference, and catalog-
ing staffs together, in the closest coopera-
tion. M a y I, for the Division of Cata-
loging and Classification, express the hope 
that if conferences to this end have not 
already begun in your library, you will 
initiate them on your return. It is our 
conviction that only by such detailed study 
on the part of administrators, catalogers, 
and reference workers together, will any 
library be able to know its needs and to 
find a satisfactory answer to its cataloging 
problem. "Administrators" and "cata-
logers" in general can never reach a 
solution which will be satisfactory to all 
libraries, but a solution for each library, 
on the basis of its own peculiar needs, can 
be attained by its own staff working to-
gether in this way. Such conferences have 
already proved their worth in several in-
stitutions, as M r . M u m f o r d is about to 
tell you, and we are confident that you 
too will find in them the means of solving 
your cataloging problem. 

P A R T II 

T h e Executive Secretary has suggested 

that I report to you informally on some 

developments which have recently taken 

place at the Library of Congress and at 

the N e w Y o r k Public Library on the im-

L . Q U I N C Y M U M F O R D 

portant matter of cataloging rules and 

practice. 

T h e problem of cataloging cost was 

well stated by M r . Metcalf and D r . Os-

born in papers at the Boston Conference. 

172 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



Those of you who did not hear D r . Os-
born's paper, entitled " T h e Crisis in Cata-
loging," have probably read it in its 
printed form. It is not my intention to 
restate in detail the problem which they 
presented but to mention some steps which 
have been taken toward attacking that 
problem. 

First, a word about the Library of 
Congress. Miss Root has mentioned the 
amount of study which has been made 
on the new code by individuals and by 
regional catalogers' groups. In discus-
sions of these groups on the effects of the 
code on cataloging costs, the question has 
been asked: " W h a t is the attitude of the 
Library of Congress? Does it intend to 
simplify its rules and practices?" I should 
like to say that the Library of Congress 
is very keenly conscious of the high cost 
of cataloging and is eager to cooperate 
with other libraries in working towards a 
common solution. It has been faced for 
a long time with accumulated arrearages 
of unprocessed material and with the needs 
of outside libraries to obtain cards more 
promptly. T h e report of the librarians' 
committee and the resulting reorganization 
in the Processing Division have served to 
focus attention upon the necessity of find-
ing ways to increase production and to 
reduce costs in the cataloging process. 
T h e new A . L . A . code has provided a basis 
for the examination of present rules and 
practices. As Miss Root has suggested, it 
is not a matter which the cataloging di-
visions alone can settle. Since the cata-
loging policy of the library concerns vitally 
the reference and acquisition divisions, it 
becomes a general administrative problem. 
As a step towards a solution, in October, 
a questionnaire drawn up by the chief of 
the Descriptive Cataloging Division was 
submitted to the Acquisition and Refer-

ence Divisions in an effort to find out what 
cataloging information is essential to the 
proper performance of the respective func-
tions of these divisions. T h e questionnaire 
has been followed up by conferences and 
discussions with those in charge of the 
reference and acquisition work. T h e r e 
is no doubt that the Library of Congress 
is ready to make changes in its practices 
as far as its own needs will permit. N o 
final decisions have been made but the 
conferences and discussions indicate that 
considerable simplifications can be accom-
plished. 

At New York Public Library 

A t the N e w Y o r k Public Library, a 
thorough examination of the catalog and 
its use has been going on. Because of 
diminishing income, the library has felt 
the need for retrenchment to some extent 
in its processing activities. W i t h this 
necessity in mind, a committee was ap-
pointed early in the fall to study the situa-
tion and make recommendations. T h e 
committee has consisted of the chief of 
the preparation division, the chief cata-
loger, an assistant from the administrative 
office and one from the general reference 
service, and the chief of the largest subject 
division. T h i s committee has been meet-
ing once or twice a week during the fall 
in an effort to determine just what kind 
of information is most essential in the 
library's catalogs and what can be elimi-
nated with the least effect on the reference 
service and with appreciable savings in 
cost. For a number of years, efforts have 
been made there to effect some economy 
in cataloging by giving briefer treatment 
to certain types of material. For instance, 
directories and trade catalogs have been 
arranged in alphabetic files without formal 
cataloging; pamphlets of subject interest 

MARCH, 1942 
16 7 



only have been bound together and cata-
loged only under subject. It has been 
possible at times to group material to-
gether and to make a checklist only for 
it. In such cases, a statement is placed 
in the catalog showing that the library 
has the material and how to obtain it. 
T h e committee, now engaged in studying 
further ways of making economies, is seek-
ing to find, first, other types or forms of 
cataloging which can be reduced or elimi-
nated; and second, to find ways of short-
ening the cataloging operation on material 
which requires regular cataloging treat-
ment. T h e findings of the committee are 
still in a tentative stage but enough prog-
ress has been made to demonstrate the 
value of this kind of collaboration between 
the administrative, reference, and catalog-
ing staffs. It is believed that appreciable 
savings can be effected without detracting 
seriously from the value of the catalog. 

Informal Conference 

In order to provide a basis for agree-
ment on a simplified procedure which the 
Library of Congress might adopt and 
which might serve libraries throughout 
the country, late in November the De-
scriptive Cataloging Division in the Li-
brary of Congress sponsored an informal 
conference between representatives of 
Harvard University, the Columbia Uni-
versity Library School, the N e w Y o r k 
Public Library, and the Library of Con-
gress. Members of the group included 
expert catalogers, as well as members with 
reference and administrative experience. 
These representatives met for two days in 
N e w Y o r k and discussed cataloging prac-
tices which might be shortened or elimi-
nated. In every instance, the effect of 
such action upon the acquisition and ref-
erence work of libraries was considered. 

T h e results of this conference were highly 

gratifying. T h e group was almost in 

complete accord on points where simplifi-

cation can be made. 

Y o u may ask what are some of the 

changes which can be made and which 

will bring about savings. T i m e does not 

permit a detailed account of these points 

here, but I should like to make a general 

statement on the question. T h e general 

principles on which we have been proceed-

ing are: 

Possible Changes 

First: T o reduce as far as possible the 
recording of information which requires 
extensive research on the part of the cata-
loger. Lengthy searching to find the dates 
of birth and death and full name of a 
modern author where there is no conflict 
in the catalog is an example. Searching 
to establish the date of publication of an 
unimportant modern book would be an-
other example. It is likely that other 
libraries will be able to go further than the 
Library of Congress in reducing work of 
this kind since other libraries depend some-
what upon the research of the Library of 
Congress, and frequent reprinting of cards 
would be necessary if no research were 
done. I think, however, it may be possible 
for the Library of Congress to reduce 
substantially the amount of research. 

Second: T o shorten or omit entirely 
certain kinds of information in the tran-
scription of the title page. T i t l e s may be 
shortened and imprints simplified. 

T h i r d : T o eliminate as far as possible 
rules and practice which constitute debat-
able and time-consuming points for the 
cataloger. T h i s latter category applies 
particularly to collation and notes. It is 
hard to realize how much time goes into 
the recording of pagination and illustra-

174 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



tions under the present practice of the 

Library of Congress. T h e r e is no doubt 

that simple notations of these items will 

result in a considerable saving of time. 

Additional time and study is needed 

at the Library of Congress on these points, 

but, as I have indicated, it seems certain 

that some simplifications can be made. It 

is our belief that a simplified card which 

will serve the needs of the Library of 

Congress will be adequate for other librar-

ies. In fact, many libraries may be able 

to simplify their practices farther than 

the Library of Congress can do. W h e n 

specific details have become more settled, 
you will be informed of the changes which 
the Library of Congress proposes to make. 
In the meantime, as Miss Root has sug-
gested, it will be extremely helpful if 
individual librarians will confer with their 
acquisition, reference, and cataloging staffs 
and seek to determine what types of in-
formation are needed in the catalogs of 
their respective libraries. Such study is 
essential for the formulation of a policy 
in the individual library and will greatly 
assist the Library of Congress in modify-
ing its own practice. 

Way to the Future: Cooperative and Centralized Cataloging 

(Continued from page 162) 

separate unit coordinated with the co-
operative work there is subject to consid-
eration by representatives of cooperating 
libraries and of the Library of Congress. 
T h e Librarian of Congress has on several 
occasions expressed his interest in the ex-
tension of cooperative cataloging. 

Cooperative Work the Practical Solution 
of the Cataloging Problem 

T o sum up, the practical solution of 

the cataloging problem, assuming that the 

catalog is not to be abolished altogether 

as has been recently, perhaps not too se-

riously, proposed by some administrators, 
or reduced to a simple author list, lies in 
cooperative work. Cooperative cataloging 
should not confine itself to one particular 
method. Libraries should continue to 
make use of the cataloging product of the 
Library of Congress and amplify the scope 
of its work by some auxiliary form of 
either centralized or distributive coopera-
tion. If all libraries find the H . W . W i l -
son Company's product adequate, the 
Library of Congress could perhaps be 
relieved of the burden of supplying cards 
for the most popular books. 

MARCH, 1942 
16 7