Administration, Management, and Finance

I Hope You Like the Book!

As an adjunct faculty member at Kent State University’s School of Library and Information Science, I start each semester by telling students in my Management class that, when I took this course back in the 80’s, the professor began by asking us “Who wants to be a manager?” Only a few of us tentatively raised our hands, fearing the wrath of our peers either because of our ambition or our foolishness at dreaming so big. Everyone else was there because it was a core class.

Undeterred, she assured everyone they’d learn something useful in the coming weeks, even if management wasn’t the specific career path they’d chosen. Now, I tell students they’d better all be raising their hands because times have changed and today, as professional librarians, they’ll no longer have the choice to opt out. They’ll all be managing something!

Staffing models and organizational charts have changed and are continuing to do so. Driven both by economic reality and modern service expectations, when libraries can fill open positions with MLIS librarians, they’re asking and requiring more professional work than ever before. “In today’s market,” I explain, “if I don’t need you to supervise people or manage a department or budget or facility, then I’m probably just going to hire a para-professional.” Finally, all hands go up!

Another sobering reality sinks in around the second class or so. “Between right now and when you start your first day as a manager,” I caution them, “this will probably be the only management education you’re going to get.” One class. Then, maybe a few years will go by. But, maybe not. In libraries around the country, recent grads are finding themselves in positions my contemporaries and I would have expected to spend years working into. Today’s managers are “newer” (I won’t say younger, since that’s not always the case) than ever before.

So, where do they turn to learn more? How can they find other opportunities to develop those management skills that are probably as distant as memories of grad school research papers? One option is to take themselves through a one-year, self-development course using “Be a Great Boss: One Year to Success.” Written for both brand new managers and ones who’ve not had a training opportunity for some time, my book will help them work at developing the understanding, skills and passion that great bosses need!

In most libraries, we send the bosses to training last, right? After we’re sure all our other staff members get the crucial, task or operational education they need to serve the customer? What director wouldn’t admit that her or his management staff, in large part, couldn’t use a refresher course that could get them all on the same, productive, effective page? For the cost of a copy of the book for each manager, entire leadership teams, from the newest to the most experienced members, can gain valuable training and development from the comfort of their own offices by completing this book.

Applicants, even those right out of library school, flock to management openings and present great educational backgrounds and high levels of energy. What many of them need is a little more training to go along with that. What most professionals need is on-going learning.

After all, we’re all going to be managing something, right?

Chris Oliver on RDA and the Future of Cataloging

I had a chance to interview Chris Oliver, author of ALA Editions Introducing RDA. Chris has been involved with RDA from its early stages, so I asked her about what this new cataloging standard could mean for catalogers and librarians in general.

Chris Rhodes: You’ve been a cataloger at McGill University for twenty years.  What about your work has changed in your time there?

Chris Oliver: It’s hard to imagine that I’m still in the same department, in the same library. So much has changed that it doesn’t feel at all like the same place! The first thing I had to learn when I began cataloguing at McGill was to write neatly and legibly. Cataloguing librarians were expected to write out bibliographic information on data forms and then we gave the forms to input operators who entered our data into our Canadian bibliographic database called UTLAS (a Canadian version of OCLC). We then proofread the printouts and annotated the printouts by hand with corrections. At that time, I was the Rare Books Cataloguing Librarian, and title pages of rare books have always been fun, lots of Latin and Greek, different ways that words were spelled during different eras. It was a challenge to make sure that my title page transcriptions made it successfully through this process. The day when we finally began to catalogue online was the happiest day of my career! Even though I have been here for twenty years, it has never gotten boring. It has been one big change after another. And it’s been a wonderful experience because of the great people with whom I work, including quite a number who were already at McGill when I began and who are still my colleagues today.

CR: Why a new cataloguing standard? 

CO: AACR2 has been a successful and widely used standard, and it’s taken us a long way. It was first published in 1978, more than thirty years ago. Jennifer Bowen, when she was the ALA representative on the Joint Steering Committee, used a photograph of a 1978 car in one of her presentations when explaining the need for a new cataloguing standard. Would you still want to be driving a 1978 car? In 1978, the card catalogue was the norm. We now operate in a digital, networked environment. We need a cataloguing standard that is designed for the environment in which our users engage in resource discovery.

CR: What does RDA offer, what were the limitations of AACR2 that we were bumping against?

CO: I’m going to quote RDA because I think these two sentences sum up the essence of what RDA has to offer: comprehensiveness, extensibility and adaptability:

RDA 0.3.1

A key element in the design of RDA is its alignment with the conceptual models for bibliographic and authority data developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). The FRBR and FRAD models provide RDA with an underlying framework that has the scope needed to support comprehensive coverage of all types of content and media, the flexibility and extensibility needed to accommodate newly emerging resource characteristics, and the adaptability needed for the data produced to function within a wide range of technological environments.

AACR2 had deep-seated structural problems that prevented extensibility, and could not “support the comprehensive coverage of all types of content and media.” Up to the 1990s, the amendment process had been sufficient in dealing with changes. By the mid-1990s, there was a proliferation of new publication practices, new electronic resources, new methods for scholarly and creative communication. New resources challenged cataloguers because the existing rules could not extend to describe new characteristics and new combinations of characteristics. For example, there were fundamental inconsistencies in the “class of material” concept and in the treatment of content and carrier aspects. New amendments could no longer be grafted onto the existing structure because of these inconsistencies.

One of the key features of RDA is its flexible and extensible framework for the description of traditional and new resources. RDA data is also designed to function both in current and future technological environments. RDA is a content standard, a standard that guides the recording of robust and useful data. It is not an encoding standard, nor is it tied to a particular encoding schema. It is also not a data presentation standard. Thus, it is adaptable for use in a wide range of environments, and it’s not necessarily for library use only. It has great potential.

CR: When you’ve spoken with colleagues (at conferences etc.), what are their biggest concerns?

CO: Among my Canadian colleagues, the biggest concern is training: the availability of training resources, the cost of training, having sufficient time to train oneself and one’s staff. It’s a challenge especially at a time when budgets are tight. We will have to rely on our tradition of resource-sharing, and use our associations and networks as a means of sharing training documents and training procedures. The Library of Congress and some of the other libraries involved in the U.S. Test are setting a great precedent by sharing their excellent resources with the whole cataloguing community.

A group of us from the Technical Services Interest Group of the Canadian Library Association conducted a survey on training needs this spring. One of the interesting findings was the increasing reliance on training delivered via the web. Webinars and web training were not great favourites, but, given the Canadian reality of a relatively sparse population spread over many square miles, training sessions and training documentation delivered via the web were recognized as being of vital component of RDA training.

CR: What originally attracted you to librarianship and cataloging?

CO: I came to librarianship by accident. I was asked to look after a library as a volunteer. I loved it, but I also felt frustrated because I had so many questions. I realized that there was more to librarianship than met the eye. When we moved back to Montreal, I jumped at the opportunity to go to library school. And then I was introduced to AACR2 – I was fascinated by the rules, by the interpretation and application of those rules, and also by the passionate debates that occurred in the cataloguing community. We certainly haven’t gotten any less passionate over time. Cataloguers still care deeply about their standards.

CR: What excites you about the coming years of this work?

The possibilities. The moment of implementation is exciting because we start on a new track. But there will be a lot of emphasis on continuity. Most of us will use RDA in the current environment of MARC 21 bibliographic and authority records. At the beginning, most of the records in our databases and catalogues will still be AACR2 records. We’ll continue to display our data using current online public access catalogues and/or discovery layers. But the exciting part starts to happen as we begin to travel along the new track, and as the volume of RDA data grows.

RDA data alone will not improve navigation and display because the data must be stored so that it maintains its granularity, and it must be used appropriately by well-designed search engines and search interfaces. RDA data is designed as data that can be read and interpreted by humans, but also as data that is machine actionable. The recording of clear, unambiguous data is a required first step in order to improve resource discovery. In the early days of RDA implementation, most RDA data will still be stored, searched and retrieved in traditional catalogues. But RDA data is also designed so that it can be stored and used in the web environment. It positions us to take advantage of the networked online environment, to make library data widely visible, discoverable and usable, and to improve resource discovery.

It will be very exciting to see what can be done with RDA data when it is fully utilized. There is great potential for improving the user’s experience of resource discovery, both in terms of navigation and retrieval and in terms of delivering meaningful displays of data.

CR: Do you have any advice for catalogers who are just beginning their careers?

Consider yourself at the beginning of a great career!

Welcome to!

I would like to welcome you to and our open-forum blog. It is my privilege to be the Publisher of both TechSource (subscriptions, e-learning, webinars, and workshops) and Editions (professional and reference books, both print and electronic). My team is part of a larger unit at the American Library Association called Publishing.

The dirty little secret is that I am not a librarian, but I know a great deal about what librarians do, what they think about, and what they are concerned about.  But I never know enough; I will never be close enough to the action because I do not work in a library. So my colleagues and I depend on you tell us what is going on and what you need for your professional development. And here is a chance for you to do just that.

Something that we in publishing share with librarians of all kinds is high anxiety about how quickly our work world is changing. I am old enough (the proverbial 39, thank you Mr. Benny) to remember when the art and science of putting a book together meant having a hand-written manuscript typed by two different people (in order to ensure that the material was correct), comparing the documents, creating a master with hand edits, and sending it off to the compositor—who made galleys. (And why did we call them galleys, anyway. A galley is a long metal tray that holds type ready for printing.)

The galleys would be edited, read by the author, edited and corrected again, and sent back to the author. Changes would be made again until we finally had page proofs, which were sent back to the author and then to a proof reader. Cover art had to be hand drawn; even charts, graphs, and other display elements were hand drawn—we had an art department with lighted tables, for goodness sake.  And permission letters were a horrible bore—they took forever to do and get back. Did I forget the index……done manually? Once the art was in place and the index readied the second set of page proofs were sent off to the author. Corrections always came back, no matter how often you explained that an author could not rewrite anything! Finally, everything was sent to the printer, who put the book under the camera to make film, to make plates....and on and on.

Well, the back and forth still goes on, and we still go to the printer (for how long, one wonders). But it is all so wonderfully different now; still a lot of work for both author and publisher, but our output is more than just a physical book. It can be a PDF of the book you can print yourself; but it also can be an e-bundle that allows you to read one of our books on your Kindle or iPad or whatever your favorite device happens to be.

And of course, this is part of our shared high anxiety: Will an actual book disappear? Some may remember a quaint little movie “84 Charing Cross Road” with Anne Bancroft and Anthony Hopkins from 1986—a movie that glorified and revered not only books, but old books. In it are great scenes from the proverbial musty book shop in the basement of a London building. The staff was totally devoted to and knowledgeable about books, great ones and little volumes of seemingly no consequence other than the fact that someone wanted to own them and read them. To have them. Librarians and publishers alike are anxiously asking if patrons will continue to want and to own books. And no one knows for sure.

Now I have to confess my second dirty little secret: I have owned a Kindle for over two years, and I love it. Not only do I love it, I take it everywhere. My non-publishing friends are scandalized. But you are a book publisher. No, I respond, I am a publisher and my world has changed greatly. I want librarians to own our books, courses, and newsletters, but I don’t care if they buy an actual book or something they load on their Sony Reader. Just tell us by your buying decisions that we are publishing correctly for you. What I really want to know is if our content is helping librarians be better librarians, which is what ALA Publishing in general and TechSource and Editions in particular are all about.

So, welcome again to our blog. We want to talk about anything that has to do with books, with publishing, with libraries, with technology…..come join the party.


P.S. Many of you may have heard that Barnes & Noble is for sale. Leonard Riggio, the founder, will probably lead a group of investors and take the chain private (again). It was not long ago that the entire industry was in fear and trepidation about the power and control that the super store chains would have on the book world.  Everyone fretted that one company, with over 700 stores, would so dominate the market. They indeed did change the landscape. There are very few independent stores around. In 2001, B & N’s total market capitalization was $2.2 billion while Amazon’s capitalization was $3.6 billion.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. B & N today is capitalized at $950 million while Amazon is currently at $55 billion. Who’s the monster now…….?

Syndicate content