Academic

A survey reported in 1969 of medical school and selected medical research libraries (survey size: 102 libraries; responding: 92 or 90%) showed thatthere was a strong trend toward divided catalogs. Specifically, 38 (41%) libraries reported dictionary card catalogs, while 54 (59%) libraries reported divided card catalogs. These figures included 12 new (established within 10 years of the study) libraries of which 1 (8%) reported a dictionary catalog and 11 (92%) reported a divided catalog. Further, of the 54 libraries reporting divided catalogs, 31 (57%) had changed to the divided catalog within the last 10 years.                       (Source)

        Ibid…. showed thatthe 54 libraries that reported divided catalogs reported the following methods of division:

                author-title/subject                           42 (77.8%) libraries

                name-title/subject                              7 (13.0%) libraries

                author/title/subject                              3 (5.6%) libraries

                other                                                  1 (1.9%) libraries

(Name-title catalog was defined to include persons and places as subject headings as well as as authors.)                      (Source)

        Ibid…. showed thatthe subject heading authority used by the 54 libraries with divided catalogs was as follows: MeSH, exclusively or in combination with LC subject headings (41 or 75.9% libraries); LC subject headings exclusively (9 or 16.7% libraries); and other (2 or 3.7% libraries).                      (Source)

A 1975 survey of North American medical school libraries concerning subject cataloging practices (survey size: 134 libraries; responding: 114 or 85%) showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 54 (69%) reported they used a guidecard to distinguish subject headings filed in the subject section of the catalog, while 24 (31%) reported they did not.                        (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 76 (97%) reported they did not file MeSH terms in the public catalog unless there were catalog cards for them, while 2 (3%) reported they filed all MeSH terms regardless of whether there were cards for that heading.                (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 14 (18%) reported that they distinguished between form and topical subheading guidecards in a physical way in the catalog, while 62 (79%) reported they did not, and 2 (3%) did not respond. Of those that did distinguish, the following methods were used: cut of tab on card (10 respondents), color of tab (8 respondents), and color of type (1 respondent).                  (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 65 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 18 (27.7%) reported that if language and geographic subheadings were combined with form subheadings the first filing term would be the language/geographic term (e.g., French—Dictionaries), while 47 (72.3%) reported that the order would be reversed.                      (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 62 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 56 (90.3%) reported that if language and geographic subheadings were combined with topical subheadings the first filing term would be the topical term followed by the language/geographic term (e.g., Manpower—France), while 6 (9.7%) reported that the order would be reversed.                    (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 56 (72%) respondents reported updating the subject catalog and authority file annually to correspond to the new MeSH, 20 (26%) reported “other,” and 2 (2%) did not respond.                       (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, the following methods were used to update the catalog (multiple responses allowed):

                56 (71.8%) reported “changing or shifting subject cards from the old headings to the new and pulling deleted MeSH terms”;

                8 (10.3%) reported “making no changes in the existing catalog but making cross references from old to new terms”;

                15 (19.2%) reported “other method”;

                2 (2.6%) gave no response.                     (Source)

A 1980 survey of law school libraries with collections in excess of 175,000 volumes (sample size: 50; responding: 37 or 70%) showed that24 libraries reported a divided catalog with authors and titles together and all subjects together, 8 reported a dictionary catalog, and 5 reported a divided catalog in 3 divisions with authors, titles, and subjects organized separately.                    (Source)

Special

A survey reported in 1969 of medical school and selected medical research libraries (survey size: 102 libraries; responding: 92 or 90%) showed thatthere was a strong trend toward divided catalogs. Specifically, 38 (41%) libraries reported dictionary card catalogs, while 54 (59%) libraries reported divided card catalogs. These figures included 12 new (established within 10 years of the study) libraries of which 1 (8%) reported a dictionary catalog and 11 (92%) reported a divided catalog. Further, of the 54 libraries reporting divided catalogs, 31 (57%) had changed to the divided catalog within the last 10 years.                       (Source)

        Ibid…. showed thatthe 54 libraries that reported divided catalogs reported the following methods of division:

                author-title/subject                           42 (77.8%) libraries

                name-title/subject                              7 (13.0%) libraries

                author/title/subject                              3 (5.6%) libraries

                other                                                  1 (1.9%) libraries

(Name-title catalog was defined to include persons and places as subject headings as well as as authors.)                      (Source)

        Ibid…. showed thatthe subject heading authority used by the 54 libraries with divided catalogs was as follows: MeSH, exclusively or in combination with LC subject headings (41 or 75.9% libraries); LC subject headings exclusively (9 or 16.7% libraries); and other (2 or 3.7% libraries).                      (Source)

A 1975 survey of North American medical school libraries concerning subject cataloging practices (survey size: 134 libraries; responding: 114 or 85%) showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 54 (69%) reported they used a guidecard to distinguish subject headings filed in the subject section of the catalog, while 24 (31%) reported they did not.                        (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 76 (97%) reported they did not file MeSH terms in the public catalog unless there were catalog cards for them, while 2 (3%) reported they filed all MeSH terms regardless of whether there were cards for that heading.                        (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 14 (18%) reported that they distinguished between form and topical subheading guidecards in a physical way in the catalog, while 62 (79%) reported they did not, and 2 (3%) did not respond. Of those that did distinguish, the following methods were used: cut of tab on card (10 respondents), color of tab (8 respondents), and color of type (1 respondent).                 (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 65 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 18 (27.7%) reported that if language and geographic subheadings were combined with form subheadings the first filing term would be the language/geographic term (e.g., French—Dictionaries), while 47 (72.3%) reported that the order would be reversed.                       (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 62 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 56 (90.3%) reported that if language and geographic subheadings were combined with topical subheadings the first filing term would be the topical term followed by the language/geographic term (e.g.. Manpower—France), while 6 (9.7%) reported that the order would be reversed.                     (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, 56 (72%) respondents reported updating the subject catalog and authority file annually to correspond to the new MeSH, 20 (26%) reported “other,” and 2 (2%) did not respond.                       (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 78 respondents who used MeSH as the primary authority for subject headings and who also had divided catalogs, the following methods were used to update the catalog (multiple responses allowed):

                56 (71.8%) reported “changing or shifting subject cards from the old headings to the new and pulling deleted MeSH terms”;

                8 (10.3%) reported “making no changes in the existing catalog but making cross references from old to new terms”;

                15 (19.2%) reported “other method”;

                2 (2.6%) gave no response.                    (Source)

A survey reported in 1975 of subject heading use in a wide range of law libraries selected from the 1972 edition of the American Association of Law Libraries Directory of Law Libraries (sample size: 256; responding: 204; usable: 200 or 78.1%) showed that101 (50.5%) respondents had a dictionary catalog, while 96 (48%) had a divided catalog. 3 (1.5%) respondents did not clearly state which kind of catalog they had.                        (Source)

A 1977 survey of U.S. law libraries over 10,000 volumes taken from the 1976 Directory of Law Libraries (sample size: 1,080; responding: 373 or 35%) showed that55% of the responding libraries reported owning a divided catalog, 43% reported owning a dictionary catalog, and 2% did not indicate either form. The “most common” divided catalog was a 2-way author/title and subject division, with only 6 respondents reporting a 3-way divided catalog.                        (Source)

A 1980 survey of law school libraries with collections in excess of 175,000 volumes (sample size: 50; responding: 37 or 70%) showed that24 libraries reported a divided catalog with authors and titles together and all subjects together, 8 reported a dictionary catalog, and 5 reported a divided catalog in 3 divisions with authors, titles, and subjects organized separately.                         (Source)

 

Dr. David Kohl

 "Libraries in the digital age are experiencing the most profound transformation since ancient Mesopotamian scribes first began gathering and organizing cuneiform tablets."

Go to top