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
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.