Is It Feasible?
Library budgets are limited and many libraries are cutting back on the amount they spend on cataloguing. In an age of budget cut-backs, do the benefits of subject access to fiction justify the expense of providing it? According to Dr. James C. Macafferi, an Associate Professor of Clarion University School of Library Science, the benefits are indeed justifiable. He argues in an email interview that:
"The issue is whether or not we truly love our users. Cutter, Ranganathan, et al., show us why we should do this. Unfortunately, catalog managers have taken whatever savings have resulted from cataloging automation and invested them elsewhere in the library. It is, therefore, not a question of cost effectiveness but of values: do we wish to provide superior access to our collections or not? The theory for doing so is sound; the guidelines for implementing the theory are workable; all that is lacking is the leadership and the will." (February 2003)
Just how much time does it take to classify a work of fiction? And how can this be done? Studies have been performed to try to answer this question; the results of these studies may help us consider if enhanced subject access is actually feasible.
OCLC/Library of Congress Study
The first study was a joint initiative by the OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) and the Library of Congress in 1992. In 1993, the Library of Congress conducted its own study to determine if the additional work was a desirable addition to the classification of their catalogue. In this study, the results varied by cataloger. To catalogue twenty-five books took one cataloger 4.3 hours whilst another took 18.3 hours for the same amount of books. Based on their observations, they decided to continue cataloguing "at current levels"(DeZelar-Tiedman 204).
Hayes' Study
In 1992, Susan Hayes published the results of her study on the feasibility of subject access to fiction. The purpose of the study was to determine whether elements of fiction were "specific and discrete enough to serve as meaningful access points, and ... whether providing enhanced catalog access to fiction would take more time than a working subject cataloger could realistically spend"(Hayes 452). The results of the study suggested that the cataloguers could get enough information about the subject, genre and setting from the dust jackets and any introductory materials and that it could be done in a reasonable amount of time. Unlike the previous study where the estimated time varied wildly, in this study, one group was able to catalogue twenty-five books in 7.2 hours, whereas the other group was able to catalogue the same amount of books in 6.3 hours. Hayes determined that enhanced subject access to fiction was feasible.
DeZelar-Tiedman Study
Christine DeZelar-Tiedman published a study following the study done by Hayes in which she attempted to answer the question of whether the amount of information provided on the dust jackets of works of fiction was enough to adequately assign subject headings. She determined that topical headings were most often applied, followed by genre headings, settings, and finally, characters. Due to the nature of works of fiction, many topical headings were assigned as compared to other types of headings because a work of fiction will often have more than one theme. The cataloguers in her study took an average of 10 to 15 minutes to assign subject headings based on the dust jacket. Her conclusion was that although few libraries would be able to afford to have cataloguers read every piece of fiction in order to establish subject headings, the use of dust jackets can provide adequate subject access to works of fiction.