The End of the Library World As We Know It

Well, no, hopefully not. But, the report "The Changing Nature of the Catalog and Its Integration with Other Discovery Tools," has put many in the cataloging community all a flutter. Commissioned by LC and written by Associate University Librarian Karen Calhoun of Cornell University, the report (which, I shamefully haven't had time to read yet) advocates cost-cutting and Googlization of library catalogs. Apparently, ditching LCSH is one of those cost-cutting suggestions. Thomas Mann, current LC reference librarian, former private detective, and all-around nerd heartthrob, argues in his critical review of the Calhoun report that ditching LCSH would seriously impact scholarly research. As writing about research is one of the things Mann does best, I tend to perk up my ears when he speaks.

According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgment or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model – and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.

Ba-pow!! What did I tell you? Thomas Mann, nerd heartthrob. I want to put a picture of him in my locker.

Now, I realize that I could be accused of a certain amount of self-interest here, but I assure you that isn't the case when I say that I'm standing by my Mann (har har). I can only imagine how cash-strapped LC is finding itself these days, so I certainly understand the temptation to cut corners, but LCSH is just not where to do it. Throw as many Google features as you like into the catalog, I'll be the first one to welcome it, but keyword searching just doesn't replace a standardized vocabulary developed over more than a century.

I know, I know. We’ve all heard the mantra at every conference for the last couple of years. "These wacky kids today don't care about good information. They'll settle for good enough information." But the bigger picture is that there are plenty of people using the catalog who don't want to settle, and they shouldn't have to. The catalog should be able to accommodate all of these searching styles, and, most importantly, it should nurture truly scholarly research, without which we, as a nation, are in really really big trouble.

Will all this bibliographic gloom and doom come to pass? Who knows. I’m hearing quite a few rumors about scary things going down at LC. Some of the rumors are just silly, some are shaping up to be true. I am reminded of a professor in library school, who was fond of pointing out that societies crumble and fall when their ability to produce information far outstrips their ability to access it. In these days of "dumbing down the catalog", drastic funding cuts to education and scholarship, and secrecy trumping open access in our archives and libraries, that little teaching point takes on a disturbing immediacy, doesn't it?

But, don’t worry. I’ll keep enriching subject access until they pry the red books out of my cold dead fingers. (Well, ironically enough, I mostly use the online version now, but that’s not the point.)