During the 2022 MLA conference, the Cataloging and Metadata Committee and Public Services Committee co-sponsored “The Journey to Enlightenment Continues: Further Conversations Between Public and Technical Services Professionals.” Speakers and moderators for this session included Victoria Peters, Nara Newcomer, Sylvia Yang, Casey Mullin, Hermine Vermeij, Allison McClanahan, and Andrea Beckendorf.
Using the topics of search and discovery as guidelines, this virtual session covered six themes: Name-Titles for Works/Known Items, Genre/Form Terms, Medium of Performance Terms, Faceting, Communication/Collaboration, and Advocacy. For each theme, attendees were grouped into virtual rooms, where they shared experiences from their institutions, including feedback from working with different Integrated Library Systems (ILS) such as Alma, FOLIO, and Sirsi. Each ILS platform has limitations that directly affect discovery of the music items. Sometimes what has been transcribed in the bibliographic record by the cataloger may not be accurately reflected in the catalog’s discovery layer. For example, in FOLIO, the subject and genre terms in MARC fields 655 and 650 were not indexed, preventing users from locating items according to these terms. One of the attendees mentioned that their institution has developed an additional “homegrown” algorithm to collate terms, but it only affects faceted searching.
Discussion also included MARC field 382 (Medium of Performance, or MoP) and how these terms were reflected in the discovery layers. Attendees reported that in Alma, there is currently “authority control” for the 382, but it is non-functional; Alma looks at the field as a string, not as individual terms. Generally, when these terms are added by catalogers, they may not be usable in discovery depending on the ILS of the particular library. Overall feedback from the discussion was that 382s are being used and included, but some institutions’ discovery layers suppress the 382 (along with all non-300 3XX fields). Therefore, they are not useful to patrons. It is more beneficial when a catalog displays these terms in the discovery layers, enabling users more specific search options. Regarding implementation of discovery layers, attendees discussed several steps, such as initiating conversations within their individual libraries, especially if certain music formats were not displayed.
Often, public services staff are not aware of metadata they would like displayed since it is “hidden” in the MARC view. It’s important for technical services staff to be involved in display decisions since they know the transcribed individual fields for specific items better. One of the attendees suggested creating an MLA-wide repository of music-related Primo normalization rules so that members can share with each other. Attendees also agreed it may be beneficial for catalogers to work reference shifts to better understand user needs. Another suggestion was to host regular “search parties” for multiple staff to perform searches in the catalog and evaluate accuracy of results in order to advocate for effective improvements.
The main takeaway from this meeting was how both public and technical services librarians can hold informative conversations to improve advocacy for music item discovery. Our discussion shows that the library’s public interface catalog is not perfect. It is necessary to direct students to proper search limiters and teach them alternate ways of finding information, such as looking at a specific item’s publication platform and not relying entirely on the discovery layer. Students need to know that each discovery layer has flaws, and that is why they should consult with a librarian to learn more about alternate search techniques for effective research.
Submitted by Nurhak Tuncer
Photo credit: Agence Olloweb via Unsplash.com