Liaising the Catalog: Collaborating Across Library Departments to Promote Successful Discoverability through Enhanced Cataloging

Tammie Busch, Debbie Campbell, Susan M. Howell, Mary S. Konkel, Dennis Krieb, Mingyan Li, Cathy Mayer, and Ross Taft*

Academic libraries are increasingly asked to articulate connections between the work of library staff and student success. This article discusses how a team of librarians participating in CARLI Counts, an immersive professional development program funded by a Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Grant through the Institute of Museum and Library Services, responded to the lack of research investigating the indirect impact of the work of technical services staff on student learning. An anonymous online survey distributed to library staff of the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (CARLI) member institutions explored the perceived value of enhanced cataloging in supporting student research. Survey results point to opportunities for communication and collaboration among technical services and public services librarians to improve understanding of enhanced catalog functionality and user needs.

Introduction

Bibliographic information contained in a MARC record enables library catalog users to find and identify resources when conducting research using the library catalog. Additional bibliographic information may provide more satisfactory results, as enhanced cataloging provides additional access points. When a student seeks assistance from reference and instruction librarians or staff in locating resources, the level of bibliographic information in a catalog record can impact the success of this interaction. A student’s ability to conduct a successful search affects the forward trajectory of their research and its outcome. If resources are described more comprehensively, the outcome is likely to yield greater success.

Due to staff reductions in technical services departments, catalogers may be discouraged from describing resources comprehensively or from enhancing catalog records: they are sometimes directed to create records that are “good enough.” What if all bibliographic records created by catalogers are only ever “good enough?” What impact might this have on library staff’s ability to help students find suitable resources for their research? Through a survey conducted in 2020, authors of this article explored how reference and instruction librarians and staff perceive the value of enhanced cataloging in identifying resources to support students’ curricular needs. Although the authors eventually hope to survey students’ perceptions of catalog records, such exploration was not initially feasible due to an ILS and discovery system migration and temporary institutional closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Literature Review

Jon R. Hufford published the results of a study that “determined the extent to which elements of a bibliographic record were consulted by reference staff members of three ARL libraries.”1 Hufford’s research demonstrated that reference staff members “generally consulted only a limited number of elements” in a bibliographic record.2 However, he also acknowledged that he did not know how comprehensive or enhanced these records were and, given local cataloging practices, it would be difficult to estimate the probability of each element within a record. Drawing on research from Peter Hernon and Charles McClure, Hufford also raised the question of the skill of surveyed reference staff in using bibliographic data. Hufford suggests that reference staff “may be neglecting their catalogs’ potential for enhancing the quality of service to patrons.”3 With the rapid evolution of library discovery systems come new methods for users to interact with a library’s catalog, as well as new methods for displaying enhanced bibliographic information. As a result, scholarship surrounding the importance of these enhanced records in the discovery process has revealed new opinions discussed below.

Subject Headings/Description

Historically, subject headings using controlled vocabularies have been the foundation of librarian search strategies. This was confirmed by William Schultz, Jr. and Lindsay Braddy in their 2015 survey of public services and technical services librarians.4 Additionally, Tina Gross, Arlene Taylor, and Daniel Joudrey found that even with summary and content data enrichment, the mean percentage of hits that would be lost in the absence of subject headings was 27 percent.5

Nevertheless, for a sole cataloger responsible for cataloging a wide range of resources across many subject areas and formats, finding suitable Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) can be challenging. In a study of dissertation cataloging practices in ARL academic libraries, Catherine Sasson found that subject information was included more often in notes or local or uncontrolled access points than with Library of Congress subject headings.6 This decline in the use of LCSH in dissertation cataloging was also reflected in the literature, which confirms the need to look beyond traditional controlled vocabulary when enhancing records.

Subject headings translate the “aboutness” of a resource, not of the creator. Researchers have found creator information to be a promising tool for providing better access to works by specific demographics.7, 8 The MARC 21 field 386 allows catalogers to record demographic terms for creators and contributors. Use of this field comes with some controversy, such as the risk of “othering” minorities due to the lack of available LCSH terminology, or limited search results if demographic information is not added comprehensively. Nevertheless, ethical and comprehensive application of this information could increase discovery for certain materials.

Circulation

In addition to increasing discovery, enhancements also have the potential to increase circulation. Mina Chercourt and Lauren Marshall looked at the impact of enhancing bibliographic records with table of contents in terms of circulation statistics.9 Their results suggest enhancing with table of contents does have a positive effect on circulation, especially in items cataloged prior to January 1, 2000, and those books that fall into the General Literature or American Literature subjects. As well as supporting the work of record enhancing, this study also suggests the need for collaborative work between cataloging librarians and reference librarians and staff.

Communication and Collaboration with Library Staff

The importance of collaboration between cataloging and reference librarians was highlighted in a report published by the Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) that looked at the impact of catalog data on end users’ experiences.10 It was discovered that in addition to addressing duplicate records and typographical errors, reference librarians want upgrades to brief records and added evaluative content such as table of contents, summaries or abstracts, and cover art.

Without these upgrades, brief records can impede the discovery of entire collections for some end users, a finding highlighted by Janelle Zetty.11 When reference staff at Edith Garland Dupre Library were having difficulty locating scores for music because of a lack of contents notes, they brought it to the attention of their cataloging department. Working together, reference and cataloging staff devised a workflow for enhancing records, resulting in an improved user experience.

However, Catherine Sassen, Rebecca Welch and Kathryn Loafman found that concerns with cataloging services are not always expressed by library staff outside of cataloging.12 Catalogers may need to request feedback from public services staff in order to improve services and increase visibility and value. The authors surveyed personnel in both the Public Services and Cataloging and Metadata Services departments at the University of North Texas to assess the perceived importance of various cataloging services. Their survey results help to highlight the misunderstanding in the profession at large regarding what catalogers actually do. For instance, in regard to authority control, public services staff indicated that adding birth and/or death dates to personal name headings was a low priority in terms of enhancements. However, they also indicated that grouping all works by the same author together in the catalog was a high priority. Catalogers likely understand that both relate to authority control, and could use this as an opportunity to inform public services staff of how authority control works and the role catalogers play in enhancing discovery and access for end users.

Returning to Sassen’s 2017 study on dissertation cataloging, she suggests that the decline in use of LCSH could be due to limited catalog staffing and recommends consulting with reference and IT staff to better understand patron information-seeking behavior prior to enhancing brief records.13 These consultations may help ensure the greatest impact of a cataloger’s work. Furthermore, decisions about the approach to cataloging dissertations should be shared with reference and instruction librarians so they can best serve library users.

Catalogers cannot work in a vacuum. Input from reference librarians and library staff is integral to ensuring the best discovery process for our end users and optimum use of our collections.

Background

The CARLI Counts Technical Services Team project was prompted by the CARLI Technical Services Committee (TSC). During the September 2019 TSC meeting, Committee discussion identified the need for promoting the value and importance of technical services departments in connection to student success. Via the library catalog, a professional cataloger provides the bridge between a student and library resources to enhance information discovery and research, thus supporting student success. To create this bridge, a cataloger must have proper training and understand bibliographic control in relation to cataloging and indexing. Therefore, TSC recognized the important guiding role professional catalogers play in providing training, development and implementation of best practices, and keeping abreast of the most updated cataloging standards. Yet, the Committee acknowledged a lack of data and research connecting the work of catalogers to student success.

At the November 2019 CARLI Annual Meeting, there was a call for participants to form a second cohort of CARLI Counts. CARLI Counts is an immersion program designed to prepare librarians to make effective use of research findings on the impact of academic libraries on student success for the twin purposes of service development and library advocacy. Upon learning of the opportunity, TSC members proposed the formulation of a technical services-focused team to explore the value and impact of cataloging on student success. With the support of CARLI staff, a multi-institutional team was formed consisting of librarians with expertise in cataloging, reference, and administration from five institutions. The team also incorporated program mentors and a CARLI staff liaison.

Methodology

An IRB-approved survey was drafted using Qualtrics Experience Management Software licensed by the University of Illinois Chicago (see appendix A). Quantitative data were gathered using multiple-choice questions, which were crafted by article coauthors to focus on catalog fields with enhanced cataloging potential. Where applicable, a Likert Scale was used to measure the level of agreement with statements provided as to how valuable participants perceived various parts of a bibliographic record. Qualitative data were elicited by providing participants with the opportunity to share comments and elaborate on answers. A pilot survey was distributed randomly in June 2020 to ten CARLI Counts mentors to respond and provide feedback. Responses were requested by July 2020. The authors also used the pilot study to test for internal consistency. Using Cronbach’s alpha, inter-rater reliability of the pilot survey was deemed highly consistent, based on an alpha of .9135. The pilot study was amended to incorporate minor changes based on feedback from CARLI Counts mentors. The final survey was released in October of 2020 with a closing deadline of December 2020. The focus for distribution was on CARLI member institutions and other Illinois academic libraries. Participation in the survey was solicited at the November 13, 2020, CARLI Annual Meeting and highlighted in the November 20, 2020 CARLI News, an e-newsletter sent to all 129 CARLI member institutions. The survey was disseminated to several academic library discussion lists in Illinois, including the Illinois Association of College & Research Libraries (IACRL). The authors also shared the survey within their professional networks and institutions.

There were 171 eligible survey respondents. The data were extracted from Qualtrics and tested using ANOVA and t-tests to test for statistical significance. Qualitative responses were reviewed individually by each of the authors to look for common trends, and observations were then further analyzed through discussion.

Data Analysis

The survey administered was designed to collect feedback from reference and/or instruction staff regarding the value of enhanced cataloging. Eligible respondents have experience providing reference and/or instructional services. By answering “yes” to the qualifying question, “Do you have experience in providing reference and/or instruction?” 171 respondents qualified and completed the survey. Among those, a little over half (52 percent) had cataloging experience. Most participants were professional librarians (89 percent) followed by paraprofessionals (10 percent), and one graduate student.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Table 1 lists the survey results for the question, “When selecting resources for a student, indicate the degree to which information in a catalog record is helpful.” The question was accompanied by a 4-point Likert Scale with assigned values: “0 = Not Useful at All,” “1= Somewhat Useful,” “2= Very Useful,” and “3= Essential.” Analysis of the feedback on selected fields of the catalog record revealed that the highest mean values were subject headings (2.60), summary/abstract (2.49), and table of contents (2.48) (see table 1).

Summary/Abstract

Librarians and paraprofessionals showed high variability when responding to the question: “In determining the suitability of a resource for a student, how often do you review the summary/abstract within a catalog record?” (see figure 1). Data reveals that librarians utilize the summary/abstract more often than paraprofessionals when assisting users.

There is a statistically significant difference (P=.003, effect size= .756) in perception between professional librarians and paraprofessionals regarding the importance of the abstract/summary (see table 2).

For those teaching information literacy, there was also variability according to the number of sessions taught (see figure 2).

Among these library professionals, statistical significance (P=.034, effect size= .23) of perception toward abstract/summary was also identified regarding information literacy teaching load (see table 3). Data reveals that librarians with greater teaching load utilize an abstract/summary more frequently when assisting users (see table 3).

Table of Contents

On the contrary, the responses to the question, “In determining the suitability of a resource for a student, how often do you review the information contained in the table of contents of a catalog record (such as chapters, soundtrack titles, conference paper titles)?” no statistical differences in perceptions were observed between library professionals and paraprofessionals (see table 4) or teaching load (see table 5)

Although the table of contents and summary/abstract have very similar mean values in aggregate, when broken down by job classification there is no statistically significant difference in perception between professional librarians and paraprofessionals regarding the importance of the table of contents. No statistical significance was revealed by the survey responses for summary/abstract, nor for table of contents in relation to years of academic experiences.

Filtering & Faceting

Regarding the feedback from the question “How often do you use filtering/faceting or an advanced search to narrow down search results when helping a student?” the researchers found library professionals who have been in the field longer tend to use the filtering/faceting function more often than those new to the profession. However, the P value .078 is only slightly higher than the established alpha value of .05 and therefore is not statistically significant (see figure 3 and table 6).

The way these fields are indexed in discovery layers could account for these differing perceptions in regard to the abstract/summary and the table of contents. Generally, the table of contents can be discovered with a title search, while the abstract/summary can only be retrieved by a keyword search. The effectiveness of the filtering/faceting also heavily depends on the design of the discovery system.

Feedback regarding specific cataloging fields was also collected from the survey, including biographical or historical data information (545 field), related resource information (76X-78X fields), and creator/contributor characteristics (386 field). In examining trends to include more creator/contributor demographic information in catalog records, most participants perceived this information as valuable (see figure 4).

Qualitative Data Analysis

From the survey results, respondents made valuable suggestions regarding cataloging enhancements. Some of these enhancements can be readily implemented by catalogers while others, such as the use of delimited content notes, are not yet operational due to limitations of discovery system local configurations. Others are simply beyond the scope of the catalog record.

Enhancement suggestions that can be implemented regularly include making sure catalog records include edition statements, which one study participant indicated as essential. In reference to table of contents, another participant stated that for “music materials this information is critical.” Respondents also stressed the importance of summaries/abstracts, age ranges, reading levels, and award winners for teacher education students.

There were a few cataloging enhancement suggestions that are challenging because of the constraints of out-of-the box discovery system configurations. Moving beyond the out-of-the-box configuration, a trained systems librarian is required to counter system limitations. Most bibliographic records contain publication information, which some respondents wanted as a searchable field. Such a field would have to be indexed by the discovery system to make it an access point.

Finally, some suggestions mirrored functionality seen in article databases or did not fall within the scope of the bibliographic record’s capability, such as the number of times a work is cited or the number of times an item is circulated. Other suggestions are not standard practice, such as having textbooks searchable by class name, but rather are addressed through localized system functionality. It was also suggested that there are implicit biases in the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Although subject heading bias is within the realm of the catalog record, it is beyond the scope of this article.

While some suggestions cannot be simply achieved by enhancing catalog records, they imply a greater need for communication. By communicating and closely collaborating with public services colleagues, catalogers can gain a greater understanding of what information is most valued and helpful. Through improving communication with discovery system vendors, technical services librarians can offer more effective suggestions and feedback on how to increase the usability of the information provided in catalog records. These collaborations will allow librarians and paraprofessionals to have a greater impact on student success.

Next Steps & Future Possibilities

Communication and Collaboration

Catalogers should first and foremost seek opportunities to communicate and collaborate with reference and instruction librarians. This dialog will provide technical services staff with meaningful insight into how public services colleagues use cataloging fields within a record to assist users with their research, further contributing to their institution’s mission and goals. In addition, this dialog will also equip reference staff with a better understanding of what fields go into a “complete” record, as well as potential enhancements that improve metadata and access. Our survey results indicate there is a fundamental divide between what reference staff would like to see included in a record in order to support user queries, and what is actually feasible to include due to limitations with the library’s discovery system. Intentional collaboration between cataloging and reference departments would allow for a more holistic understanding of the inherent limitations and possibilities for the catalog. Ultimately, this enables the library to better address user needs.

Collaboration between reference, instruction, and technical services departments should be tailored to the needs and capacity of the library and its staff. Based on our survey results, conversations with reference staff on the extent and limitations of catalog records may promote a more collaborative environment within the library. Interactive discussion could offer reference and technical services departments the opportunity to unpack specific examples of how the catalog is used locally. Ultimately, dialog between departments serves the goal of improving patron access to resources.

Communication and collaboration regarding cataloging fields should also include paraprofessional staff who, based on our survey results, indicate they use cataloging field enhancements differently. These conversations may improve their understanding of enhanced catalog records and aid cataloger’s judgment in prioritizing cataloging fields for enhancement. Furthermore, conversations and research with students should be pursued to collect data identifying which enhanced cataloging fields they find useful when independently searching the catalog.

Cataloging, Training and Discovery

Library staff should never lose sight of a basic cataloging tenet—we catalog for our users. In addition to communication and collaboration with public services colleagues, it is imperative that catalogers keep abreast of updates in cataloging fields and emerging standards in cataloging practice. Since cataloging is an organic and iterative process, professional catalogers should be having ongoing conversations with all cataloging staff, guiding training within their institutions and working toward developing best practices that will optimize the discovery experience.

Changes in institutional cataloging practices may take time and effort to effectively implement. Enhancing the catalog record with additional indexed access points might serve as an interim solution for improved discovery. Being able to search by publisher information is valuable to library users and staff alike, and our survey respondents concur. However, due to publisher name variations in bibliographic records, concatenation of this search is difficult. In addition, publisher name changes are not always reflected in authority records, so an authorized access point in a record alone would not solve this problem. For example, when Westminster Press merged with John Knox Press, their name became John Knox Westminster Press, which is not reflected in the Library of Congress authority record. OCLC attempted to address this issue with the Publisher Name Server research project, which resulted in WorldCat Publisher Pages.14 This prototype allowed users to select a major publisher and then explore its publication history as represented in the WorldCat database. This prototype may be the closest solution to the creation of authority records that reflect these important relationships. Unfortunately, this prototype was decommissioned in June of 2012 because the process could not be automated. Additionally, the RDA overriding principle of “take what you see and accept what you get” does not lend itself to standardization of publisher names with a keyword search.

Cataloging for users also requires familiarity with the mapping profiles and limitations of the library system from back end to public user interface. How is cataloging data being displayed to the user? Are there additional fields from default settings that can be turned on to display fields that will provide enhanced information? Catalogers and public services librarians should actively participate in the development of the library system by recommending functional improvements to vendors and championing those system enhancements that result in enhanced cataloging fields indexed for discovery and display.

The library catalog today is not your grandmother’s catalog. It has evolved into a launch pad for reference, research, acquisitions, data collection, biographical and demographic information, links to related works—and the list goes on. Enhanced cataloging is a critical component in discoverability of our library resources and ultimately our student’s success. Our research has provided an increased awareness of the value of enhanced cataloging and the professional staff needed to achieve it.

Limitations and Further Research

Geographic location limited the scope of our research to libraries in Illinois, most of which are using the same library services platform. As CARLI member libraries collectively migrated to the platform in June 2020, most respondents were new users of the system.

To further explore the impact of cataloging on student success, we suggest further research to explore student perceptions through surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Ethnographic research may be particularly helpful in answering questions such as, How are students using catalog records? What fields are students using? Why do they select particular resources?

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our CARLI colleagues for their participation in our survey. We also wish to thank CARLI staff for the training and support provided throughout the CARLI Counts Cohort 2 experience. Specifically, we are grateful to Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe and Anne Craig for providing feedback on the development of our survey and this article.

APPENDIX A—Survey Instrument

CARLI Counts TS Team Survey

Descriptive Information about the Survey Respondents

Q1 Do you have experience in providing reference and/or instructional services?

• □ Yes (1)
• □ No (respondents with this answer would leave the survey) (2)

Q2 Do you have cataloging experience?

• □ Yes (1)
• □ No (2)

Q3 What is the job classification of your position?

• □ Librarian (MLS/MLIS) (1)
• □ Paraprofessional (2)
• □ Graduate student worker (3)
• □ Student worker (4)

Q4 In a typical week during the academic semester, do your current library responsibilities include providing reference service or information literacy/instruction?

• □ Yes (1)
• □ No (respondents with this answer would leave the survey) (2)

Q5 In a typical week during the academic semester, how many hours are devoted to providing reference assistance, including desk, chat, phone, or by appointment?

• □ 0-4 hours (1)
• □ 5–10 hours (2)
• □ 11–14 hours (3)
• □ 15 or more hours (4)

Q6 In a typical week during the academic semester, how many information literacy/instruction classes do you teach, including in person and online?

• □ I do not teach information literacy/instruction classes (1)
• □ 1 class (2)
• □ 2 classes (3)
• □ 3 or more classes (4)

Q7 How long have you worked in an academic library?

• □ 0–4 years (1)
• □ 5–9 years (2)
• □ 10–14 years (3)
• □ 15–19 years (4)
• □ 20 years or more (5)

General Survey Questions

Q8 In determining the suitability of a resource for a student, how often do you review the summary/abstract within a catalog record?

• □ Never (1)
• □ Rarely (2)
• □ Often (3)
• □ Always (4)
• □ If you would like to provide more information, please click and leave your comments below: (5) ________________________________________________

Q9 In determining the suitability of a resource for a student, how often do you review the information contained in the table of contents of a catalog record (such as chapters, soundtrack titles, conference paper titles)?

• □ Never (1)
• □ Rarely (2)
• □ Often (3)
• □ Always (4)
• □ If you would like to provide more information, please click and leave your comments below: (5) ________________________________________________

Q10 How often do you use filtering/faceting or an advanced search to narrow down search results when helping a student?

• □ Never (1)
• □ Rarely (2)
• □ Often (3)
• □ Always (4)
• □ If you would like to provide more information, please click and leave your comments below: (5) ________________________________________________

Targeted Survey Questions

Q11 When selecting resources for a student, indicate the degree to which information in a catalog record is helpful.

	0=not useful at all (1)	1=somewhat useful (2)	2=very useful (3)	3=essential (4)
Variant titles (such as preferred/also known as, published in another country as, title on container) (1)
Supplementary content (such as a bibliography, appendix, discography, filmography, index, etc.) (2)
Summary/abstract (3)
Notes (such as history of work, details of conference/symposium, closed-captioning, target audience, reading level, Braille, other language tracks, dissertation information, system requirements for playback/access, etc.) (4)
Table of contents (such as chapters, soundtrack titles, conference paper titles) (5)
Local notes (such as retention, part of a specific donation, signed by author) (6)
Other authors (such as producers, directors, translators, narrators, cinematographers, costume designers, performers, actors, screenplay writers, musicians) (7)
Accompanying material (such as reader discussion guides, answer keys, test banks, supplements, booklets, maps, designs/plans, model key guides, etc.) (8)
Subject headings (such as Library of Congress, Library of Congress Children’s) (9)
Specific subject headings beyond Library of Congress (such as MeSH (National Library of Medicine) and subject headings in other languages) (10)
Statement of responsibility for creation/content with authors credentials & affiliations (11)
Genre of resource (such as mystery, romance, detective, cookbooks, graphic novels, animated movies, western, sci-fi, etc.) (12)
Genre Form of resource (such as large print, alphabet books, pop-up books, artists’ books, etc.) (13)
Related works (such as earlier, later, based on, translated from, contained in, etc.) (14)

Q12 Is there information you would add to a cataloging record to help students determine if a resource is useful? If yes, what information would you include?

Future Cataloging Record Enhancement

Q13 Questions 14–16 address the concept that creating cataloging records often requires complex decisions in order to provide complete and rich detail, which enhances the users’ ability for resource discovery. Cataloging is also an organic process, with national standards continuously updating new fields. The following are newer information fields that can now be added to cataloging records.

Q14 Would biographical or historical data information within a catalog record be useful in determining the suitability of a resource for a student? (MARC 545)

This is an example of the 545 field in a bibliographic record:

545 0 Randall Mason is Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning, former chair of the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, and Senior Fellow of PennPraxis at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Design. Max Page is Professor of Architecture and History and Director of the Historic Preservation Program at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.

• □ Strongly agree (1)
• □ Agree (2)
• □ Disagree (3)
• □ Strongly Disagree (4)
• □ No opinion (5)

Q15 Would related resource information within a catalog record be useful in determining the suitability of a resource for a student, especially if this information were hyperlinked? (MARC 76X-78X fields)

These are examples of 76x-78x fields in bibliographic records:

770 08 Supplement (work): Breslin, John. Banking law. First supplement to the third edition. Dublin, Ireland : Round Hall, Thomson Reuters, 2015.

773 08 Contained in: Austin, Alfred, 1835–1913. Poetry of the period. London: R. Bentley, 1870.

776 08 Online version: Garfinkel, Irwin. Feminization of poverty. Madison : University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1985.

• □ Strongly agree (1)
• □ Agree (2)
• □ Disagree (3)
• □ Strongly disagree (4)
• □ No opinion (5)

Q16 Would author demographic information within a catalog record would be useful in determining the suitability of a resource for a student? (MARC 386 field)

This is an example of the 386 field in a bibliographic record:

245 00 Eyes of desire: a deaf gay & lesbian reader / Raymond Luczak, editor.

386 Deaf; Gays; Americans

386 Deaf gays

• □ Strongly agree (1)
• □ Agree (2)
• □ Disagree (3)
• □ Strongly disagree (4)
• □ No opinion (5)

Q17 Is there anything else you would like to share with us in regard to enhanced cataloging information?

Notes

1. Jon R. Hufford, “Elements of the Bibliographic Record Used by Reference Staff Members at Three ARL Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries, 52, no. 1 (January 1991): 54–64, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_52_01_54

2. Hufford, “Elements of the Bibliographic Record.”

3. Ibid.

4. William N. Schultz, Jr., and Lindsay Braddy, “A Librarian-Centered Study of Perceptions of Subject Terms and Controlled Vocabulary,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55, no. 7–8 (2017): 456–66, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2017.1356781

5. Tina Gross, Arlene G. Taylor, and Daniel N. Joudrey, “Still a Lot to Lose: The Role of Controlled Vocabulary in Keyword Searching,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53, no. 1 (2015): 1–39, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.917447

6. Catherine Sassen. “Enhancing Bibliographic Access to Dissertations,” Technical Services Quarterly, 34, no. 1 (2017): 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2017.1238202

7. Eric Wiley and Angela Yon, “Applying Library of Congress Demographic Group Characteristics for Creators,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 57, no. 6 (2019): 349–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2019.1654054

8. Elizabeth Hobart, “Recording Creator Characteristics for Native American Authors: An Analysis of Bibliographic Records,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 58, no. 1 (2020): 59-75, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2019.1704333

9. Mina Chercourt and Lauren Marshall, “Making Keywords Work: Connecting Patrons to Resources through Enhanced Bibliographic Records, Technical Services Quarterly, 30, no. 3 (2013): 285–95, https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2013.785786

10. Karen Calhoun et al., Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want: An OCLC Report, (Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, Online Computer Library Catalog, Inc., 2009), https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/reports/onlinecatalogs/fullreport.pdf

11. Janelle Zetty, “Different Departments, Same Goals: Improving User Experience through Collaboration,” Codex: The Journal of the Louisiana Chapter of the ACRL, 4, no. 3 (2017): 82–9, https://journal.acrlla.org/index.php/codex/article/view/132/267

12. Catherine Sassen, Kathryn Loafman, and Rebecca Welch, “Assessment of Cataloging Services in an Academic Library,” Technical Services Quarterly 33, no. 1 (2016): 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2015.1093820

13. Sassen, “Enhancing Bibliographic Access to Dissertations.”

14. “WorldCat Publisher Pages,” OCLC Research, accessed February 26, 2022, https://www.oclc.org/research/activities/pubpages.html