Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 18:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cataloging & Classification QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20
Acceptance and Viewpoint of IranianCatalogers Regarding RDA: The Case ofthe National Library and Archive of IranFatemeh Pazookia, Mohsen Haji Zeinolabedinib & SholehArastoopoorc
a Khorasan Branch, Iranian Library and Information ScienceAssociation (ILISA), Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iranb Agricultural Scientific Information & Documentation Center(ASIDC), Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iranc Regional Information Center for Science and Technology, Shiraz,Islamic Republic of IranPublished online: 30 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: Fatemeh Pazooki, Mohsen Haji Zeinolabedini & Sholeh Arastoopoor (2014)Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA: The Case of the NationalLibrary and Archive of Iran, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52:6-7, 640-659, DOI:10.1080/01639374.2014.900840
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.900840
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52:640–659, 2014Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 0163-9374 print / 1544-4554 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01639374.2014.900840
Acceptance and Viewpoint of IranianCatalogers Regarding RDA: The Case
of the National Library and Archive of Iran
FATEMEH PAZOOKIKhorasan Branch, Iranian Library and Information Science Association (ILISA), Tehran,
Islamic Republic of Iran
MOHSEN HAJI ZEINOLABEDINIAgricultural Scientific Information & Documentation Center (ASIDC), Tehran, Islamic
Republic of Iran
SHOLEH ARASTOOPOORRegional Information Center for Science and Technology, Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran
The general purpose of this study is to assess the amount of cat-alogers’ familiarity with Resource Description and Access (RDA)and their readiness for acceptance of these rules and the effect oftraining on this issue. The methodology of the presented researchis a survey study using a descriptive-analytic approach. In thisresearch, the familiarity of 49 catalogers, working for the Cata-loging In Publication (CIP) department at the National Libraryand Archive of Iran with RDA was monitored before and after atraining session through a questionnaire. It was specifically pre-pared for measuring catalogers’ familiarity with, and acceptanceof, RDA and also highlighting the self-identified and actual levels ofthis familiarity and acceptance. The results show that before train-ing, catalogers’ self-identified familiarity with RDA was higher thanthe average level. But after the training session, both self-identifiedand actual familiarity raised dramatically. Furthermore, the sig-nificant difference between the research population’s features andself-identified, actual familiarity and the rules’ acceptance rateamong catalogers was examined. In this study, it was confirmedthat there is a significant difference between self-stated and actual
© Fatemeh Pazooki, Mohsen Haji Zeinolabedini, and Sholeh ArastoopoorReceived November 2013; revised February 2014; accepted March 2014.Mohsen Haji Zeinolabedini is now at the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension
Organization, Tehran, Iran.Address correspondence to Fatemeh Pazooki. E-mail: [email protected]
640
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 641
familiarity of catalogers regarding RDA. According to the results,M.A. catalogers have a self-identified familiarity higher than B.A.catalogers. It was also confirmed that the actual familiarity of cata-logers with an M.A. degree before training is higher than catalogersholding a B.A.
KEYWORDS Resource Description and Access (RDA), NationalLibrary and Archive of Iran, NLAI, familiarity and acceptance,catalogers’ viewpoints
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important purposes of the library catalogs is to meet theusers’ needs. To this end, a great deal of effort has been made, includingestablishment and development of “RDA.” This standard includes a compre-hensive series of instructions and guidelines for cataloging (description andaccess) of almost every possible kind of content object. This set of ruleshas been developed by the International Federation of Library Associationsand Institutions (IFLA) and the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) as a substi-tute of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2).1 Theserules are to facilitate the description of, and access to, print and electronic re-sources based on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) along with recom-mendations from the International Cataloging Principles (ICP) of IFLA.2 RDAis independent from any content formats and standards such as MARC 21,Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), and also any representativeformats such as online public access catalogs (OPACs) or International Stan-dard Bibliographic Description (ISBD).3 As Tillett4 puts it, the representativeformats of ISBD, MARC 21, and Dublin Core are not among RDA’s instruc-tions and it has been mentioned in RDA’s attachment that organizations andinstitutions can use these standards voluntarily for the representation of theirinformation. The bulky amount of changes proposed through revising AACRled to dramatic changes in shape, purpose, and scope of the preceding rules,which were represented by the JSC in April 2005 and then resulted in thedevelopment of RDA.5
In other words, RDA has been developed based on the changing na-ture of the digital environment so as to raise the cataloging performance.These rules are consistent with AACR2. The capability of cataloging differ-ent resources, and the flexibility and capability of coincidence with differentsocieties are among other advantages of RDA.
It also seems that RDA will replace the Anglo-American cataloging rulesin Iranian libraries accordingly.6 Thus librarians need to be prepared. Yetit seems that the required information and training kits are not comprehen-sive, and sometimes they are not even available. So, how will our librarians,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
642 F. Pazooki et al.
working at the cataloging department, acquaint themselves with new condi-tions having imperfect information and facing abstract and complex conceptsrepresented in FRBR and RDA? Therefore, it is necessary for all librarians toprepare themselves to shift toward these changes first and then equip them-selves with the related knowledge to be able to absorb this change like otherchanges in library environments.
The National Library and Archive of Iran (NLAI) is one of the maincenters for the cataloging decisions in the country. The decisions for thecataloging rules’ change for all of Iranian libraries should be made in thislibrary. Hence, recognition of the catalogers’ viewpoint of this center aboutthis change and new rules is very important because they have a lot ofinfluence in each decision about this phenomenon.
The general purpose of this study is thus to identify the level of ac-ceptance and viewpoint of Iranian catalogers regarding RDA through train-ing sessions and workshops. Regarding the necessity of adapting to currentchanges in cataloging rules, studying catalogers’ views is considered one ofthe most important factors.
LITERATURE REVIEW
So far, much research has been done or is being done on RDA, but littleresearch has been done related to training of RDA and its impact on librarians’viewpoints. Here, we refer to some instances of such research.
Caesar and Dierk,7 in their article “Challenges for performance of RDAstandard: a German case study,” considered RDA as a replacement for Ger-man cataloging rules (RAK) and the AACR2 in 2011. Gadelrab8 in his researchhas referred to the necessity of librarians’ training for using RDA and has as-sessed the amount of their interest and information about new changes.Todd9 and Todd et al.10 have done research on the training of librarians inNew Zealand for RDA. Perhaps the most important research done in thisfield is the experiment done in 2010 by the American Library Associationwith the JSC.11 In this research, contemporaneous with the publication ofRDA at the Medical National Library in America, the Library of Congress, andthe National Agricultural Library, the trend of bibliographic records produc-tion using these rules and also users’ feedback and viewpoint have beenexperimented with and examined. The conclusions of these experiments arepublicized step by step through the JSC’s Web site. Following the researchdone by Todd, Stanton12 also reported activities done by the New ZealandNational Library related to applying RDA.
Iranian researchers have broadly followed their activities in this fieldcontemporaneously with the publication of FRBR and the first version ofRDA and research in this field is being developed rapidly. According to the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 643
researchers’ quests for finding the first materials written about RDA in Iran,it seems that Danesh, Afshar, and Noori’s article “RDA; a new standard fordescription and access to digital resources,” presented at “A new approach forinformation organization” congress, introduced this new standard to Iranianlibrarians.13
Taheri14 has analytically examined the functionality of RDA for the de-scription and organization of archival resources in his article. He has exam-ined the characteristics and supplies of the archival resources connected toRDA and has referred to appropriate core elements for the description ofarchival resources and their capabilities and weaknesses.
Moradi15 in her M.A. thesis, has identified the status of descriptive cat-aloging in digital libraries based on Anglo-American cataloging rules. Theresults of the research showed that the existing descriptive data in biblio-graphic records in Iranian digital libraries are not completely in accordancewith the Anglo-American rules. Examination of different bibliographic rela-tions in digital libraries records showed that two kinds of relations (equiv-alent and derivational) have been the most functional and on the otherhand, accompaniment and succession relations have been the least functionalrelations.
Taheri and Nooshinfard16 in their research with an analytic-critical ap-proach have assessed the ability and capability of RDA for dealing with thenew environment and media characteristics in addition to its impact on theknowledge organization process and analysis of the inner and the outerrelations represented through RDA.
Zerehsaz and Pazooki17 have examined catalogers’ viewpoints in threegreat libraries in Mashhad (Iran) on the application of RDA. The purpose ofthis research has been to assess the viewpoints and ideas of catalogers inthese libraries with regard to RDA.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study tried to answer two questions: (1) Is there a difference betweencatalogers’ familiarity with RDA regarding their demographic features? (2)Does a training session have any impact on catalogers’ actual familiarityand acceptance regarding RDA? To answer these questions the catalogersworking in the Cataloging In Publication (CIP) section at the NLAI weretaken as the research population and a sample of 49 was selected for datagathering through a questionnaire. The research questionnaire was designedafter the literature review and consultation with experts in five sections:
1. Demographic information2. Self-identified familiarity with RDA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
644 F. Pazooki et al.
TABLE 1 T -Test for Examination of Self-Identified Familiarity before and after Training
T -Test Amount Fd Significance Average (0–100) SD
Before training −1.09 49 .14 46.22 3.47After training .85 49 .015 51.72 2.97
3. Self-actual familiarity with RDA4. Level of RDA acceptance5. The librarian‘s point of view about library software in accordance with
using RDA
The questionnaire’s reliability based on the Cronbach’s alpha statistical co-efficient was 0.871 (see Table 1). Then the questionnaire was distributedbefore and after the training session. The second time, the questionnairewas meant to assess catalogers’ acceptance of RDA as well.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Of the respondents, 93.9% were female and 4.1% were male. Of the re-spondents, 59.1% had a B.A. degree and 38.8% had an M.A. degree. Also,12.2% were 29 and younger, 85.4% were 30–40 years old, and 2% wereover 50. Of the respondents, 20.4% had less than 5 years of working expe-rience, yet 57.1% had 6–15 years of experience and 14.3% had more than16 years. As for the occupation duration at the cataloging department, 34.7%were lower than 5 years, 44.6% were between 6–15 years, and 8.2% werebetween 16–30 years.
The hypotheses of this research and their results are discussed in thefollowing sections.
Self-identified Familiarity Level
Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the self-identified fa-miliarity level of catalogers with RDA before and after training.
In order to examine the self-identified familiarity level before training, auni-sample T -test18 was performed. The interesting point is the upper level ofself-identified familiarity after training. According to acquired data, it is clearthat the amount of self-identified familiarity after training is more than thisamount before training. It seems that catalogers have somehow expressedthat their information has increased after getting information about RDA(training). As for answering the first main question of this study, a dependentT -test was used and the results showed that there is a significant differencebetween catalogers’ familiarity before and after the training session (Table 2).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 645
TABLE 2 Dependent T -Test for Testing of Number 1 Hypothesis
SD
Difference of the PreviousAverage with the Next
AverageTest Significance
Level Fd T -Test Amount
.61 −.22 .00 49 −2.53
This significant difference shows that after these training sessions, cata-logers are a bit more certain of their information regarding RDA and able toanswer the questions in a more confident manner. Of course, it should benoted that the growth of actual familiarity average after training is more thanthe growth of self-identified familiarity after training.
Actual Familiarity Level
Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the actual familiaritylevel of catalogers with RDA.
In order to assess the actual familiarity level before training, a statisticalsign test was performed (Table 3). As Table 3 shows, the actual familiaritylevel of catalogers with RDA is lower than average (26.12 < 50) beforetraining. Yet with a uni-sample T -test, it becomes clear that the catalogers’actual familiarity with RDA is higher than average (86.12 > 50) after thetraining session.
Since this difference might have been stemmed from the training sessionand due to the distribution of the variable in this regard, a sign test wasperformed for analyzing the significance of this difference.
As Table 4 shows, the significance amount is less than 0.5, thus thetraining session has a positive impact on catalogers’ actual familiarity withRDA. Based on the calculated averages, not only their self-identified familiar-ity but also the actual familiarity of catalogers would increase considerably.This shows that training has an inevitable effect on catalogers’ familiarity
TABLE 3 Sign Test for Assessment of Actual Familiarity Level Before and After Training
NumberLess than
M
NumberEqualto M
NumberMore
than MTotal
Number MAverage(0–100) SD Significance
T -TestAmount Fd
Beforetraining
36 0 13 49 0 26.12 34.45 0
Aftertraining
86.12 21.68 0 11.66 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
646 F. Pazooki et al.
TABLE 4 Sign Test for Testing of the Second Hypothesis
Lessthan M
Equalto M
NumberMore than M
TotalNumber M
Difference of thePrevious Average with
the Next Average SD Significance
41 8 0 49 −.8 −.6 .37 0
with RDA. This finding would be of utmost essence when associated withthe catalogers’ level of acceptance regarding the new rules.
Status of Catalogers’ Preparedness for Acceptance of RDA
Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the status of catalogers’preparedness for acceptance of RDA.
As this variable was identified as having a normal distribution usingthe Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, a uni-sample T -test was used to assess RDA’slevel of acceptance among catalogers (Table 5).
The average amount of catalogers’ preparedness for accepting RDA ishigher than the average level (71.76 > 50). This result is considered importantand valuable because it shows that catalogers have a positive viewpointtoward new changes. This positive view would help not only throughoutthe training session but also during the assimilation of RDA in the NLAI.
In order to have a precise view of the research population and itspeculiar features, which might have some effect on the results, a couple ofother possibilities were tested.
Self-identied Familiarity Level of Librarians with DifferentDemographics
Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the self-identified fa-miliarity level of catalogers with RDA having different degrees, ages, andoccupation duration in the cataloging department before and after training.
To examine this hypothesis, we divided it into three parts, which arerepresented as follows.
TABLE 5 T -Test for Testing of the Third Hypothesis (Catalogers’ Preparedness for Accep-tance of RDA)
T -Test Amount Fd Significance Average (0–100) SD
12.96 49 0 71.76 11.75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 647
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SELF-IDENTIFIED FAMILIARITY LEVEL OF CATALOGERS
WITH DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL DEGREES BEFORE AND AFTER TRAINING
To this end, an independent T -test was conducted on two educational de-grees (M.A. and B.A.). As the significance amount in Table 6, which is lessthan .05, there is a significant difference between self-identified familiaritylevels of catalogers who have different educational degrees before the train-ing session. The self-identified familiarity level of M.A. catalogers is higherthan those who hold a B.A.
After the training session there is also a significant difference betweenself-identified familiarity levels of catalogers who hold different educationaldegrees. The self-identified familiarity level of M.A. catalogers is considerablyhigher than the level of catalogers with a B.A. This result shows that highereducational degrees increase the catalogers’ confidence regarding their infor-mation. On the other hand, the level of actual familiarity of M.A. catalogerswith RDA is also higher than B.A. catalogers’; therefore this finding is not tobe attributed to false self-confidence.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SELF-IDENTIFIED FAMILIARITY LEVEL
OF CATALOGERS WITH RDA HAVING DIFFERENT AGES BEFORE AND AFTER TRAINING
To examine the significance of the relation between the self-identified fa-miliarity level of catalogers with RDA having different ages before and aftertraining, two groups of subjects older than 30 years and younger than 30were considered. The results of the Mann Whitney U-test are presented inTable 7.
As the significance amount is less than .05 for both groups, the nullhypothesis is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference be-tween self-identified familiarity levels of catalogers with RDA having differentages before and after training.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SELF-IDENTIFIED FAMILIARITY LEVEL
OF CATALOGERS WITH RDA HAVING DIFFERENT LENGTHS OF PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT
IN THE CATALOGING DEPARTMENT BEFORE AND AFTER TRAINING
To examine the difference between the self-identified familiarity level ofcatalogers with RDA having different lengths of period of employment inthe cataloging department before and after training, three groups were con-sidered with different occupation durations: less than 5 years, 6–15 years,16–30 years. As the number of samples for some groups is low (representedin Table 7), a non-parametric test was used to examine differences betweengroups. As the variable is independent in the three groups, the Kruskal-Wallistest is used. The test results are represented in Table 8.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
TA
BLE
6In
dep
enden
tT
-Tes
tfo
rTes
ting
the
Diffe
rence
bet
wee
nth
eSe
lf-iden
tified
Fam
iliar
ityLe
vel
of
Cat
aloge
rsw
ithRD
AH
avin
gD
iffe
rent
Educa
tional
Deg
rees
Bef
ore
and
After
Tra
inin
g
Bef
ore
Tra
inin
gA
fter
Tra
inin
g
Deg
rees
Num
ber
Ave
rage
(0–1
00)
SDFd
T-T
est
Sign
ifica
nce
Ave
rage
(0–1
00)
SDU
Sign
ifica
nce
B.A
.29
38.7
920
.89
45–2
.42
.019
45.4
721
.32
171.
5.0
49M
.A.
1855
.21
25.1
59.2
16.7
2
648
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 649
TABLE 7 The Mann Whitney U-Test for Testing Differences between the Self-identifiedFamiliarity Level of Catalogers with RDA Having Different Ages Before and After Training
Age Range NumberRank
Average Sum Average SD U Significance
Beforetraining
Younger than 30 years 6 29 174 53.79 24.26 105 .48
Older than 30 years 43 24.44 1051 45.11 24.35After
trainingYounger than 30 years 6 24.17 145 55.88 13.33 124 .89
Older than 30 years 43 25.12 1080 51.09 21.66 s
According to the results represented in Table 8, the significance amountfor the Kruskal-Wallis test for all variables of self-identified familiarity levelsbefore and after training is more than .05. It means that there is no significantdifference between self-identified familiarity levels of catalogers with RDAhaving different occupation durations at the cataloging department of thenational library of Iran.
Actual Familiarity Level of Librarians with Different Demographics
Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the actual familiaritylevel of catalogers with RDA having different degrees, ages and occupationduration in the cataloging department before and after training.
To examine this hypothesis, we divided it into three parts, which arerepresented as follows.
TABLE 8 Rank Averages in Different Occupational Groups with Different Occupational Du-ration and Testing of Significant Difference between the Self-identified Familiarity Levels ofCatalogers with RDA Having Different Lengths of Period of Employment in the CatalogingDepartment of the National Library and Archive of Iran
ConcernedVariable
OccupationDuration atCataloging
RankAverage Test Information Amount
The self-identifiedfamiliaritybeforetraining
Less than 5 years
5–15 years15–30 years
19.44
22.1831.88
The Kruskal-Wallis testFreedom degree (Fd)Significance amount
3.22.2
The self-identifiedfamiliarityafter training
Less than 5 years
5–15 years15–30 years
18
24.1127.38
The Kruskal- Wallis testFreedom degree (Fd)Significance amount
3.12
.21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
650 F. Pazooki et al.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL FAMILIARITY LEVEL OF B.A.AND M.A. CATALOGERS WITH RDA WORKING AT THE NLAI BEFORE AND
AFTER TRAINING
To test the difference between the actual familiarity level of B.A. and M.A.catalogers with RDA before and after training, two educational degrees (M.A.and B.A.) were considered. According to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, thisvariable was not identified as normal for the two educational degrees. So,to test the above hypotheses, we used the Mann Whitney U-test. The testresults are represented in Table 9.
As the significance amount is more than .05 before training, the nullhypothesis is rejected. It means that there is a significant difference betweenthe actual familiarity level of B.A. and M.A. catalogers with RDA beforetraining. The average of actual familiarity level of M.A. catalogers is muchhigher than B.A. catalogers before training. But according to the significanceamount after training, there is no significant difference between the actualfamiliarity level of B.A. and M.A. catalogers with RDA after training. It shouldbe noted that in comparison to the similar hypothesis for self-identifiedfamiliarity (4.2), it was confirmed that there was no significant differencebetween the self-identified familiarity level of B.A. and M.A. catalogers withRDA before and after training. With respect to the actual familiarity, thereis no significant difference between B.A. and M.A. catalogers with RDA justafter training. This can show that on the one hand, training for each grouphas been similar and on the other hand, persons with different degrees havehad similar understanding.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL FAMILIARITY LEVEL OF CATALOGERS
WITH RDA HAVING DIFFERENT AGES WORKING AT THE NLAI BEFORE AND AFTER
TRAINING
To examine the significant difference between the actual familiarity levelof catalogers with RDA having different ages before and after training, twogroups of older than 30 years and younger than 30 years were considered.The results of the Mann Whitney U-test are represented in Table 10.
As the significance amount for two groups is more than .05, the nullhypothesis is not rejected. It means that there is no difference between theactual familiarity level of catalogers having different ages before and aftertraining.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL FAMILIARITY LEVEL OF CATALOGERS
WITH RDA HAVING DIFFERENT LENGTHS OF PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT
IN THE CATALOGING DEPARTMENT BEFORE AND AFTER TRAINING
To examine the difference between the actual familiarity level of catalogerswith RDA having different lengths of period of employment at the cataloging
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
TA
BLE
9M
ann
Whitn
eyU
-Tes
tfo
rTes
ting
Diffe
rence
sbet
wee
nRan
ksofM
.A.an
dB
.A.Cat
aloge
rs’A
nsw
ers
toth
eQ
ues
tions
Bef
ore
Tra
inin
g
Educa
tional
Deg
rees
Num
ber
Ran
kA
vera
geSu
mA
vera
ge(0
–100
)SD
USi
gnifi
cance
Bef
ore
trai
nin
gB
.A.
M.A
.29 18
18.0
933
.53
524.
560
3.5
8.28 50
21.7
233
.07
89.5
0
After
trai
nin
gB
.A.
M.A
.29 18
23.1
925
.31
672.
545
5.5
83.4
591
.11
25.6
712
.31
237.
5.5
6
651
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
TA
BLE
10
The
Man
nW
hitn
eyU
-Tes
tforTes
ting
Diffe
rence
sbet
wee
nA
nsw
erRan
ksofY
ounge
rth
an30
Yea
rsan
dO
lder
than
30Y
ears
Cat
aloge
rsB
efore
Tra
inin
g
Age
Ran
geN
um
ber
Ran
kA
vera
geSu
mA
vera
ge(0
–100
)SD
USi
gnifi
cance
Bef
ore
trai
nin
gY
ounge
rth
an30
year
s6
25.5
153
26.6
739
.32
126
.94
Old
erth
an30
year
s43
24.9
310
7226
.05
34.2
3
After
trai
nin
gY
ounge
rth
an30
year
s6
31.5
818
9.5
96.6
78.
1689
.5.2
3O
lder
than
30ye
ars
4324
.08
1035
.584
.65
22.6
1
652
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 653
TABLE 11 Rank Averages in Different Occupational Groups with Different Occupational Du-rations and Testing of Significant Difference between the Actual Familiarity Level of Catalogerswith RDA Having Different Occupation Duration at the Cataloging Department of the NationalLibrary and Archive of Iran
Concerned VariableOccupation Duration
at CatalogingRank
Average Test Information Amount
The actual familiaritybefore training
Less than 5 years 20.29 The Kruskal- Wallis testFreedom degree (Fd)Significance amount
3.192.2
5–15 years 21.5915–30 years 31.5
The actual familiarityafter training
Less than 5 years 19.24 The Kruskal- Wallis testFreedom degree (F-d)Significance amount
1.97
5–15 years 23.5715–30 years 25.13
department before and after training, three groups were considered withdifferent occupation durations: less than 5 years, 6–15 years, 16–30 years. Asthe number of samples for some groups is low (represented in Table 11),a non-parametric test was used to examine differences between groups. Asthe variable is independent at three groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test is used.The test results are presented in Table 11.
According to the results presented in Table 11, the significance amountfor the Kruskal- Wallis test for all variables of self-identified familiarity levelbefore and after training is more than .05. It means that there is no significantdifference between the actual familiarity levels of catalogers with RDA havingdifferent occupation durations at the cataloging department of the NLAI.
Catalogers’ Preparedness for Acceptance of RDA with DifferentDemographics
Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the status of catalogers’preparedness for acceptance of RDA, having different, degrees, ages, andoccupation duration in the cataloging department.
This hypothesis is divided into four parts, which are represented asfollows.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STATUS OF B.A. AND M.A. CATALOGERS’PREPAREDNESS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RDA
To test the difference between the preparedness status of B.A. and M.A.catalogers with RDA; two degrees were considered. According to theKolmogorov-Smirnov test, this variable was identified as normal for both
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
654 F. Pazooki et al.
TABLE 12 Independent T -Test to Test the Difference between the Statuses of B.A. and M.A.Catalogers’ Preparedness for Acceptance of RDA
Educational Average T -TestDegrees Number (0–100) SD Fd Amount Significance
B.A. 29 71.53 12.76 45 .075 .941M.A. 18 71.26 10.66
educational degrees. So, to test the above hypotheses, we used an indepen-dent T -test. The test results for equal variances are presented in Table 12.
As the significance amount is more than .05, the null hypothesis isnot rejected. It means that there is no difference between the status ofB.A. and M.A. catalogers’ preparedness for the acceptance of RDA. Theseresults in addition to the hypothesis 3.5 show that catalogers with differentages and degrees have a uniform mental approach toward change. Thisresult is important for managers and programmers because it facilitates theapplication of RDA.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STATUS OF CATALOGERS’ PREPAREDNESS
HAVING DIFFERENT AGES FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RDA
As the population of subjects in the range of 59–60 years old includes oneperson, this group does not have variance and for testing the differencebetween the status of catalogers’ preparedness having different ages for theacceptance of RDA the comparison of distributed age groups is impossible.Therefore, at first we integrate this group into 30–49-year-old subject groupsand then, as the population of 29 (and younger than 29)-year-old subjects isfew (six persons), we use the Mann Whitney U-test for testing this hypothesis.The test results are presented in Table 13.
As the significance amount is more than .05, the null hypothesis is notrejected. It means that there is no difference between the preparedness statusof catalogers younger than 30 and older than 30 years old for the acceptanceof RDA. The results of this part also confirm the results of 6.2.
TABLE 13 Mann Whitney U-Test for Testing the Difference between the PreparednessStatuses of Catalogers Younger than 30 and Older than 30 Years Old for the Acceptanceof RDA
Rank AverageAge Range Number Average Sum (0–100) SD U Significance
Younger than 30 years old 6 24.33 146 71.9 10.45 125 .917Older than 30 years old 43 25.09 1079 71.72 12.03
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 655
TABLE 14 Rank Averages for Different Levels of Occupation Duration and Testing of Signif-icant Difference between the Status of Catalogers’ Preparedness Having Different OccupationDuration for the Acceptance of RDA
Occupation Durationat Cataloging
RanksAverage Test Information Amount
Preparedness foracceptance
Less than 5 years 21.47 Crosscal-ValisFreedom degree (Fd)Significance amount
.622.73
Between 6–15 years 23.14Between 16–30 years 18
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STATUS OF CATALOGERS’ PREPAREDNESS
HAVING DIFFERENT OCCUPATION DURATIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RDA
As the number of samples for some groups is low (presented in Table 14),a non-parametric test was used to examine differences between the statusof catalogers’ preparedness having different occupation durations for theacceptance of RDA and therefore the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. Thetest results are presented in Table 14. According to the results presented inTable 14, there is no significant difference between the status of catalogers’preparedness having different occupation durations for the acceptance ofRDA.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
At first, catalogers were asked about the amount of their familiarity withRDA through closed questions (as optional questions in the Likert scale).Their answers were considered as self-identified familiarity (represented bythe concerned catalogers) in the description and analysis of the research re-sults. In the second stage, the extent of catalogers’ familiarity with RDA andthe related concepts were assessed basically through some open questions(descriptive questions with short answers) in order to assess their practi-cal familiarity. This step has been called “actual familiarity” (research resultsthrough open questions) in the description and analysis of the research re-sults. The notable point is the amount of catalogers’ self-identified and actualfamiliarity with RDA before the related training. As mentioned before, theamount of self-identified familiarity was more than average before training.It means that the catalogers believed that their familiarity with these ruleswere at a good level. But after answering the open questions about RDA andrelated concepts, it was established that the degree of their actual familiaritywith these rules is lower than average. We can analyze these results in dif-ferent forms, but it seems that some factors have had an impact, such as a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
656 F. Pazooki et al.
superficial introduction of these rules at conferences, discussion groups, Websites and specialized Weblogs, the lack of precise study by the catalogers, theinefficiency of the relevant training, and also an unjustified self-confidenceof these catalogers. In hypotheses 4 and 5, it was confirmed that there isa difference only between the self-identified and the actual familiarity levelof M.A. and B.A. catalogers. This result may be influenced by the effect ofthe high level of knowledge and self-confidence of M.A. catalogers. It wasalso confirmed that the actual familiarity of M.A. catalogers was more thanB.A. catalogers’ only before training, but after specialized training, there wasno difference and the average of the actual familiarity level of both groupswas more than the average level. This fact confirms the efficiency of thespecialized training.
According to the research results, the third hypothesis (i.e. “The cat-alogers’ preparedness level for the acceptance of RDA is lower than theaverage level”) was rejected and the results showed that catalogers’ pre-paredness for the acceptance of this change in the cataloging process is at ahigh level. This result matches the results of the research done by Zerehsazand Pazooki,19 Gadelrab,20 and Todd et al.21 and shows that training hasa positive effect on catalogers’ and librarians’ preparedness. The sixth hy-pothesis also shows that there is no significant difference between the statusof catalogers’ preparedness for the acceptance of RDA, having different de-grees, ages, and occupation durations at the cataloging department and allof the catalogers in any group have high preparedness for the acceptance ofthis change. This result may be in contrast with the general assumption thatthere is usually some kind of resistance against changes and confirms thatresistance against changes in the NLAI environment is less out and away.The above result can be important because it shows mental preparedness ofcatalogers at the NLAI (as the most important cataloging institute in Iran) forthe acceptance of change using traditional approaches.
The research results similar to those of the research carried out byZerehsaz and Pazooki,22 show that it is necessary to present enough trainingfor catalogers in order to allow them to take advantage of the software basedon new changes. The results also confirm the necessity of training beforethe assessment of catalogers’ viewpoints because according to the catalogers’answers, they consider training as the basic issue and their topmost priorityand this can show the importance of the specialized training before appli-cation of RDA attaching to Rasa. This shows the importance of training andday to day updating of catalogers’ information about RDA. By comparingthese question results with results related to the amount of self-identifiedfamiliarity before and after training, it seems that catalogers after gettingsome information about RDA realized that they needed more informationabout it. Some measures are effective for dealing with this issue, includingthe following.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 657
Mental Preparedness
It is necessary that NLAI catalogers be mentally prepared for this change inorder to be hopeful about the positive results of this change. The researchresults showed that catalogers are highly prepared for the acceptance of thischange and through efficient management, achieving these goals and theapplication of RDA is not impossible.
Precision in Cataloging and Control of Cataloged BibliographicRecords
As already mentioned before, the assumption is that by changing one’s ap-proach and by starting to apply the usage of RDA, there is a need for amoderate number of corrections surrounding previous records, which havebeen developed according to previous criteria.
This will only happen if the same old records have been reproducedusing the previous rules in a complete and correct manner. Otherwise, thecorrection of erroneous records will become too difficult. By carrying outtheir tasks carefully and flawlessly (i.e., cataloging sources), catalogers laythe foundation for a better acceptance of this change. Enforcing more con-trol policies can greatly aid this process. This issue is one of the necessitiesfor change, which is one of the main factors for linking catalogers to biblio-graphic records.
Updating Knowledge
Catalogers, as specialists, are always in need of updating their knowledge,so that they can have better reactions by relying on their familiarity andcomplete understanding of the conditions and requirements. The viewpointsof catalogers concerning the third question of the second questionnaire in-dicate that catalogers consider training and teaching to be very important.This discovery reveals the necessity of paying attention to teaching and theimprovement of the level of knowledge, as well as the mental prepared-ness of catalogers more than ever before. This instance of the suggestedmodel based on cataloging channels according to RDA, is very effective andinfluential when it comes to bibliographic records.
Having a Research-oriented Mentality
Only in the case when catalogers possess a curious and research-orientedmentality along with critical thinking will they be able to properly analyzenew knowledge and discoveries about changing the rules of cataloging andthe conditions for applying RDA. In addition, they will be able to provide
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
658 F. Pazooki et al.
the foundations for better planning and appropriate feedback. This idea,considering the analytical nature of the new rules, the necessity for moreprecision and thinking in texts for rules and patterns, gains more importance.Furthermore, since these rules are subject to changes and updates on aregular basis and require a constant provision of feedback to the JSC, thecritical thinking and research-oriented mentality of catalogers is in demandmore than ever before.
Suggestions for More Research
• Examination of catalogers’ operations through observation and receptionof feedback along with a practicable viewpoint toward RDA,
• Examination of catalogers’ operations based on RDA tentatively (as an ex-periment group) and comparison of the results based on different indices,
• Examination of the operational training (workshops or training short peri-ods) impact on cataloging based on RDA, and
• Examination of cost-effectiveness of changing cataloging approaches whencatalogers are creating bibliographic records.
NOTES
1. Sayyed Mehdi Taheri, “RDA Analytical investigation for description and access to archivesmaterials,” Ganjineh Asnad no. 20 (2010): 80–94.
2. Barbara Tillett, “What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model for the Bibliographic Universe,” Libraryof Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service (2004), http://www.loc.gov/cds/FRBR.html (accessed July 4,2012).
3. Chris Oliver, “Changing to RDA,” Feliciter 53, no. 7 (2007): 250–253.4. Barbara Tillett, “Cataloguing Codes and Conceptual Models: RDA and the Influence of FRBR
and other IFLA Initiatives,” presentation for Back to the Basics (Library of Congress, February 1, 2007).5. Barbara Tillett, “VIEncuentrointernacional de catalogadores,” Costa Rica: October 27, 2010,
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/RDA-PPT-Peru-CR-2010.ppt (accessed July 4, 2012).6. Khadijeh Moradi and Mohsen Haji Zeinolabedini, “RDA: A New Standard for Resource De-
scription and Access: A New Way to Cataloging in the 21st Century,” Ertebat Elmi 19, no. 1 (2011).7. Ingo Caesar and Dierk Eichel, “Challenges for the Implementation of Resource Description
and Access (RDA): Case Study Germany,” in the 17th annual BOBCATSSS symposium (Bobcatsss 2009),Porto (Portugal), January 28–30, 2009. (Unpublished) [Conference paper].
8. Mariam Gadelrab, “RDA in Art Collections Survey,” 2010, http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03377.html.
9. Chris Todd, “RDA in New Zealand,” International affaires: Tepunamatauranga o aotearoa,2010, http://ala12.scheduler.ala.org/files/ala12/RDA_New_Zealand_Slides.pdf.
10. Chris Todd, Charlotte Stretton, and Janess Stewart, ”RDA Training Needs Survey (NewZealand),” Presentation for National library of New Zealand (May, 2010).
11. Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, revised for publicrelease 2011, http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/source/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf(accessed June 30, 2012).
12. Chris Stanton, “Resource Description & Access (RDA) Update from the National Library”(2012), http://nznuccataloguing.pbworks.com/w/page/25781504/RDA%20updates%20from%20the%20National%20Library%20of%20New%20Zealand (accessed July 4, 2012).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Catalogers Regarding RDA 659
13. Farshid Danesh, Mina Afshar, “RDA: A New Standard for Digital Resources Access,” 2008,http://de.scientificcommons.org/23204029.
14. Taheri, “RDA Analytical.”15. Khadijeh Moradi, “Survey of Descriptive Elements in Bibliographical Records of Iranian Digital
Libraries Based on RDA Rules and Suggesting a Model for Using RDA.” MA thesis, Mashhad Payam NourUniversity (2010).
16. Sayyed Mehdi Taheri and Fatemeh Noushin Fard, “The Functionality of RDA in New Informa-tion Context,” LIS Pazhouheshnameh no. 1 (2011): 99–118.
17. Mohammad Zerehsaz and Fatemeh Pazooki, “Acceptance and Viewpoint of Iranian Cata-logers Regarding RDA: The Case of National Library and Archive of Iran,” Library and Informa-tion Sciences Journal no. 60 (2012), http://www.aqlibrary.org/index.php?module=TWArticles&file=index&func=view_pubarticles&did=1670&pid=5 (accessed September 24, 2012).
18. Prior to this test the normalized distribution of the variable was tested through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
19. Zerehsaz and Pazooki, “Acceptance and Viewpoint.”20. Gadelrab, “RDA in Art Collections Survey.”21. Todd, “RDA in New Zealand.”22. Zerehsaz and Pazooki, “Acceptance and Viewpoint.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flor
ida
Stat
e U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
15 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
