IFLA

As of 22 April 2009 this website is 'frozen' in time — see the current IFLA websites

This old website and all of its content will stay on as archive – http://archive.ifla.org

IFLANET home - International Federation of Library Associations and InstitutionsAnnual ConferenceSearchContacts

62nd IFLA General Conference - Conference Proceedings - August 25-31, 1996

Cataloging Nonprint Resources in the United States and China: A Comparative Study of Organization and Access for Selected Electronic and Audiovisual Resources

Dr. Yan Ma
Project Director, Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Science
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

Mr. Steven J. Miller
Academic Librarian
The Golda Meir Library
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

and

Mr. Yan Quan Liu
Librarian--Objective,
The Golda Meir Library,
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee


ABSTRACT

This paper is a comparative study of organization and access for nine specific types of electronic and audiovisual resources in libraries in the United States and the People's Republic of China from a cataloging point of view. The paper presents comparative data on ownership, cataloging, and user access for nonprint resources in large libraries in the two countries. The data was obtained by means of a detailed survey of cataloging practices sent to representative libraries in both countries: an English-language version mailed to the one-hundred libraries with the largest collection size in the United States and a Chinese-language version mailed to the one-hundred libraries with the largest collection size in China. The response rate was approximately 40% from each country. Due to limited length requirements, this paper presents a concise overview of the more outstanding results of the survey in a very brief, primarily graphical form; greater detail will be given in the conference presentation and in future publications.

Audiovisual and especially electronic resources are growing in number and importance in libraries worldwide today. This paper presents the preliminary results of a survey conducted on current library practices of organization and access for nine specific types of electronic and audiovisual resources in the United States and the People's Republic of China from a cataloging point of view. Analysis of the survey data has yielded valuable comparative information about how large libraries in the two countries treat nonprint resources, including: how many of these resources they own; how many they catalog; what standards they use for bibliographic description, authority control, and subject analysis; and how they classify, shelve, and circulate them.


PAPER

Literature Review:

The past ten years of relevant English-language literature includes many publications that stress the importance of providing thorough and consistent cataloging for nonprint resources, as well as a number of practical, "how-to" cataloging manuals, but no survey of actual practice in the United States, with the exception of a handful of studies of much more limited scope and different focus than ours. The last surveys of broad and national scope were conducted and published in the late 1970's and early 1980's, before libraries began using CD-ROM's and remote-access computer files on a widespread basis. The relevant Chinese-language library literature during the past decade includes much discussion on the growth of catalog automation and the development of Chinese MARC and other cataloging standards, but very little on audiovisual or electronic resources cataloging. Thorough literature reviews in both languages have revealed no survey comparing American and Chinese libraries' cataloging of nonprint materials.

Methodology for the Comparative Study:

Specially designed questionnaires were sent to the one-hundred libraries with the largest collection size in both countries. "Survey," a social science research methodology, was used. Some questions were specially designed to gather data for cataloging standards and practices in China.

Questionnaire Design:

Two versions of the questionnaire were designed for the survey, one in English and one in Chinese, taking into special consideration sociocultural differences and varying library standards and practices in the two countries. Each questionnaire consisted of questions about library type, collection size, catalog, descriptive cataloging practice, subject analysis, classification, and user access for the following nine types of nonprint resources:

Computer Files:
Sound Recordings:
Visual Materials:
Computer Disks [floppy disks]
Compact Discs
Video Tapes [videocassettes]
CD-ROM's
Cassette Tapes
Video Discs
[laserdiscs] Electronic Files [e.g., Internet]
Vinyl Records
Motion Pictures [film reels]

Pretest of the Instruments:

In order to ensure the validity of the test instruments, pre-tests were conducted. Revision of the instruments was made based on the feedback from the pre-tests.

Population and Sampling: At the theoretical level, the population of interest consisted of any libraries whose collections contain audiovisual and electronic resources in the United States and China. The survey population was in fact limited to the one hundred libraries with the largest collection size in each country. The American Library Directory was used to select the one hundred libraries in the United States, and the China Society of Library Science was contacted for obtaining a list of libraries by collection size. Samples of Chinese libraries were based on that list.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The return rate of questionnaires from United States libraries was forty percent versus the return rate from Chinese libraries of forty-two percent. Multivariate analysis and multiple comparisons were made by means of the statistical tools of the Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel spreadsheet applications and the SAS system.

Survey Results:

Respondents:

A total of forty United States libraries and forty-two Chinese libraries responded to the survey. The following charts compare the percentage of respondents by type of library and by total collection size (i.e., number of total volumes held):

Type of Catalog:

The following chart illustrates the percentage of surveyed libraries which have different types of public catalogs, namely, online, card, and book catalogs in different combinations:

All but one of the surveyed United States libraries have an online catalog, and seventy-five percent of them have an online catalog exclusively, whereas only sixty-two percent of the Chinese libraries have an online catalog, and none of them have an online catalog exclusively.

Ownership and Cataloging of Nonprint Resources: The following set of charts give a rough overall comparative picture of the percentage of electronic and audiovisual resources owned by the American and Chinese libraries which responded to the survey:

Among those who own nonprint resources, the majority of libraries also catalog them, but a few do not. The following chart illustrates the percentage of libraries that catalog the nonprint resources that they own:

Authority Control:

Ninety-seven percent of the United States libraries reported that they use the Library of Congress Authority File when cataloging their nonprint resources, fifty percent exclusively and forty-seven percent in combination with a local authority file. Roughly thirty-six percent of the Chinese libraries reported that they use the National Library's authority file, forty-three percent a local authority file, and twenty-one percent no authority file at all.

Descriptive Cataloging:

On average, ninety-five percent of the United States Libraries reported that they use AACR2 for cataloging their nonprint resources, in contrast to only about ten percent of the Chinese libraries, while another thirty percent in China use local standards. An average of ninety percent of the both the United States and the Chinese libraries reported that they do full level cataloging (i.e., AACR2 Levels 2 or 3) for their nonprint resources.

Subject Headings and Classification:

Nearly all the United States libraries reported using Library of Congress Subject Headings for their nonprint resources; only two libraries said they use non-standardized subject headings for their CD-ROM's, electronic files, and films. Approximately 25 percent of the Chinese libraries reported that they apply national standardized subject heading lists when cataloging their nonprint resources, except for films and video discs; none reported using locally-devised subject headings; eight libraries reported that they do no subject analysis for these materials. Among the United States respondents who catalog their nonprint resources, approximately half reported that they use either the Library of Congress or Dewey classification systems for their computer disks, CD-ROM's, and video tapes, while an average of approximately seventy-five percent use LC or DDC for their compact discs, vinyl records, and sound cassettes. The majority of Chinese libraries reported that they use the Chinese National Classification system for their nonprint resources. Many libraries in both countries include a device in the call number that indicates the type of format, such as "COM", "CD", or "VID" in American libraries.

User Access: Approximately seventy-five percent of the United States libraries responded that they have closed stacks for their computer disks, records, laserdiscs, and films, whereas only about sixty percent have closed stacks for their compact discs, sound cassettes, and video tapes. The tradition in Chinese libraries is to have closed stacks for all resources, both print and nonprint; nevertheless, between five and ten percent (depending on the specific material type) of the Chinese libraries reported that they have open stacks for their nonprint materials. Over fifty percent of the United States libraries, most of them public, reported that they circulate their nonprint materials, especially their sound and video recordings. Almost all the Chinese libraries reported that they do not circulate their nonprint materials, with the exception of five to six libraries indicating that they do circulate their sound and video cassettes.

Preliminary Conclusions:

The majority of the surveyed United States libraries collect all nine types of nonprint resource, do full-level cataloging of them, and include them in their catalogs along with their print resources. Although most of the surveyed Chinese libraries collect relatively fewer of these resources, the majority do catalog those they own, with the exception of films. The Chinese libraries on average, however, perform less authority control and subject analysis for their nonprint materials, resulting in relatively poorer user access than in the American libraries. This is partially due to the fact that American libraries automated their cataloging systems earlier than those in China, and centralized, automated systems such as OCLC in the United States make a standardized database of authority files and subject headings more readily available to a large number of libraries. This brief paper represents only the "tip of the iceberg" of the survey results; more detailed reporting and analysis of the results will be given during the conference presentation and in future publications.