General

A survey reported in 1972 of 50 depository libraries selected at random from the 1970 issue of the Monthly Catalog (36 or 72% responding) concerning subject access to government documents showed that19% of responding libraries compiled separate subject indexes or catalogs for their U.S. government documents.                  (Source)

A survey reported in 1982 of Canadian libraries selected from the CLA Directory and its supplement (sample size: 203; responding: 85; usable: 69 or 34.0%) concerning implementation of AACR 2 showed that, of the 53 libraries who adopted AACR 2, 77% reported they would interfile the AACR 2 entries in their old catalogs, 7 [%] reported they would freeze their catalogs, and 9% reported they would close their catalogs.                    (Source)

Academic

A 1959 study at the Flint College of the University of Michigan Library and the Flint Community Junior College Library involving the costs of a divided catalog (university catalog held 25,000 volumes and 79,000 cards; community college catalog held 29,000 volumes and 76,000 cards) showed that141 hours (49 hours to divide and 92 hours to revise) were required to rearrange the university dictionary catalog into author/title and subject sections, while 56 hours (32 hours to divide and 24 hours to revise) were required to rearrange the community college dictionary catalog into author/title and subject sections.                         (Source)

        Ibid…. showed that, based on filing 2,580 cards in the university catalog and 7,740 cards in the community college catalog, it was considerably cheaper to alphabetize, file, and revise in the divided catalog than in the dictionary catalog. Specifically, the total savings in time ranged between 39% for the community college and 45% for the university library.                     (Source)

A 1967 survey by the Institute of Higher Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, of innovative programs in libraries in academic institutions with liberal arts programs (sample size: 1,193; responding 781 or 65%) showed that308 (39%) of the libraries reported multimedia cards in their card catalogs, 193 (25%) have special catalogs for multimedia materials, and 170 (22%) reported using various media in programs of library instruction.                       (Source)

A 1967 study comparing a dictionary catalog at 1 university with a divided catalog (author/title and subject) at another university by using undergraduates to search entries showed that there was no statistically significant difference in average success rates between the 2 catalogs in subject searching or known-item searching.                   (Source)

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 includes persons and places as 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 1972 survey of chief library administrators in public comprehensive community colleges (population: 586; usable responses: 75.9% [no raw number given)) showed thatbooks and audiovisual materials were listed in a central coordinated or union catalog in 67.2% of the institutions.                  (Source)

A 1975 survey of North American medical school libraries concerning subject cataloging practices (survey size: 134 libraries; responding: 114 or 85%) showed that96 (84%) respondents reported a divided catalog, while 18 (16%) reported dictionary catalogs.                 (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 that, of 123 academic law libraries and 250 remaining law libraries, 98% of the academic law libraries and 66% of the remaining law libraries reported using the Anglo-American Cataloging rules, while 78% of the academic law libraries and 61% of the remaining law libraries reported using the ALA filing rules.                 (Source)

A 1979 survey of U.S. community college libraries selected from the 1978 Community, Junior and Technical College Directory (sample size: 98; responding: 52; usable: 48 or 48.98%) showed thatfor audiovisual materials:

                24 (50.0%) libraries did full cataloging and interfiled entries in the central catalog;

                  8 (16.7%) libraries did full cataloging but filed audiovisual entries in a separate catalog;

                  1 (2.1%) library did full cataloging and filed audiovisual entries in separate drawers of the central catalog;

                  6 (12.5%) libraries did full cataloging but filed audiovisual entries in a separate catalog in the AV center;

                  9 (18.8%) libraries did full cataloging and filed audiovisual entries both in the central catalog and in a separate catalog in the AV center.                         (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 includes persons and places as 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 that96 (84%) respondents reported a divided catalog, while 18 (16%) reported dictionary catalogs.                         (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)

        Ibid…. showed that, of 123 academic law libraries and 250 remaining law libraries, 98% of the academic law libraries and 66% of the remaining law libraries reported using the Anglo-American Cataloging rules, while 78% of the academic law libraries and 61% of the remaining law libraries reported using the ALA filing rules.                  (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