Switching from CODOC to LC

Question

For institutions that originally used CODOC, but have switched to LC or Dewey, did you freeze the CODOC collection and switch to LC/Dewey only for incoming materials, or did you do some kind of reclassification project? If the latter, how big was the collection and how long did it take you?

I do know of some specific examples, but would like to know of more.

Responses

McMaster University Library recently switched from CODOC to LC. There is still a "core" CODOC collection. Links with government publications information follow:

Main bibliographic services page -
http://library.mcmaster.ca/cat-coll/catacq.htm

The background report will be found at -
http://library.mcmaster.ca/cat-coll/govpubreport.pdf

and, our core collection list -
http://library.mcmaster.ca/cat-coll/gpintegration.htm

***************
In 1993, we made a decision to integrate our government publications collection in with the rest of materials received by the library. We had been coding our documents using a modified version of CODOC and we had been coding them for a separate catalogue which no longer exists. One of the reasons for integrating and for choosing to LC classify and catalogue our government publications was that it was becoming increasingly difficult for people to identify what was and what wasn't a government publication. With the privatization of some government bodies and the constant author name changes, we decided that it would be best to treat these materials the same way that we do others, ie., classify them by subject and provide full catalogue descriptions with LC subject headings. The only exception was Statistics Canada publications which we thought were suited to CODOC (we imbed the Statistics Canada catalogue number into the CODOC number that we use).

We began by classifying and cataloguing new monographs and new serials. We have done some reclassification of older materials that are in the CODOC collection. The "ideal" would be to have all of these materials reclassified, however, it is a very time
consuming project. So, even 13 years after the decision was made to integrate, we still have quite a few of our older government publications, both monographs and serials, in a separately housed, coded collection in our library. We no longer have a separate
catalogue of government publications, ie., everything is listed in our library catalogue (we use the Sirsi system).

In addition to integrating the collection, we also "mainstreamed" many of the processes for government publications. The former Government Publications Unit which did the acquisitions and coding of materials was disbanded and staff were integrated into our
Acquisitions Unit.

I know that there are both pros and cons to integration. It is difficult for those who prefer to have government publications in one area so that they can be browsed easily. But, with constant government author changes, this wasn't possible anyway.

***************
University of Western Ontario, Western Libraries, is in the final stages of a complete conversion to LC of a CODOC collection at The D.B.Weldon Library. The collection size is apx.120,000 items now, although it was much larger at the outset.

When we began the project in 2003, we knew from the catalogue that we had 62,500 monographs and 11,900 serial records, but we did not know how many items that represented. That made it difficult to estimate processing costs, even with accurate time studies. We planned to re-class the print collection only, and leave microfiche and microfilm in CODOC.

We started the project by limiting the scope of the collection to reduce the size before re-classification. For one year we transferred material to low use storage or the rare book collection, without changing the CODOC. If something was suitable for the general circulating collection, it was re-classed to LC and transferred to the stacks. Librarians selected material for transfer, and 4 casual assistants (students) working under the supervision of a Library Assistant Holdings Specialist, processed the location changes in a workroom in The D.B.Weldon Library. ARCC, our low use collection storage facility and rare book collection, is attached to this library. That was a big advantage for the project.

While the collection size was being pared down, cataloguers in Library Technical Services worked on creating a scheme, an LC Expansion for Canadian Government Publications. Under the direction of a cataloguer, two students applied the new LC Expansion tables to review files of the Canadian material, placing the new LC call numbers in the 095 field.

Re-labelling CODOC to LC began on site in January 2004 with a crew of 3 students and the Holdings Specialist. Beginning with Canada, at CA1, and continuing in CODOC sequence, the crew found the new LC call number in the 095 field. The students created new labels, applied, taped, and shifted the material to the new LC sequence. Within 24 hours, the Holdings Specialist would flip the 095 and the 099 fields in each bibliographic record, and the new call number would appear in the catalogue.

The conversion of Canadian documents took about 2 years to complete. For the UK, UN, US and other material we used existing LC call numbers when possible. The new LC arrangement of the collection is interesting and successful. Canadian and international statistics are grouped together for easy access.

***************
My sense is that the push to convert from CODOC to LC is driven far more by “Technical Services” than by “Public Services” motives. This is not surprising given the trend to shrink Tech Services in recent years – and CODOC specialists have been a prime target for cutting. But, the move away from CODOC has profound public service implications. I have yet to encounter a Government Documents specialist who felt the public is better served by a ‘merged’ collection.

The merged collections I have seen just don’t make sense. I have seen, for example, historical Canadian Sessional Papers sitting right next to Presidential Papers of the United States! While my goal is not to defend CODOC as the perfect system, there IS some logic in its jurisdictional approach – certainly from a ‘gov docs’ reference perspective. In my experience (20 years and counting), researchers want information by topic, yes – but when it comes to government information, they want it at a specific jurisdictional level. CODOC supports this approach.

The concerns raised by the DSP’s Gay Lepkey (potential problems with cataloguing and retention of DSP material in an integrated collection) are in my view just a symptom of the larger problem he hints at – the loss of “dedicated government documents librarian[s]” in academic libraries. It seems to me that the ‘dumbing down’ of our collections (by converting them to LC) has gone hand-in-hand with the devaluation of government information specialists and specialized reference services. And to make matters worse, losing consolidated government documents collections makes growing the next generation of gov docs specialists that much more difficult.

At Queen’s, we are fortunate to have government documents ‘partnered’ with maps, air photos, and our data service, under one administrative unit: Maps, Data, & Government Information Centre (MADGIC). There are several MADGIC units in academic libraries across the country, most with dedicated specialists. In my view, the synergies realized by this grouping of resources and expertise vastly improve public service.

I can’t change the fact that many Academic Libraries are moving down the LC path when it comes to government documents. I can, however, make a plea for the continued hiring and mentoring of dedicated government documents specialists in academic libraries. If you don't use it, you lose it.

***************
I suggest that there is a middle way on this question:

First, certain core government publications need to be kept together in order to be used effectively. These include parliamentary
records, annual reports, estimates, public accounts, sessional papers, statutes and regulations, census and most other Statistics Canada publications.

Most of these are serials, but monographic materials might form part of this core.

If they are kept together, there is also the chance that government information expertise can be developed and maintained.

On the other hand, monographs may in many cases be more accessible through LC classification. This appeared to be the case in my working situation, where there were duplicate monographs in the government publications section and in the main collections.
These included anthropological papers, geological surveys, environmental reports, etc. By and large, those copies in the main
stacks were more heavily used, though it may have been due to generally superior cataloguing, including LC subject headings,
and not just LC classification.

Not to be forgotten are the many government documents that are too fragile to survive in the main stacks. These might survive
quite nicely in a government publications department, where pamphlet boxes are standard equipment. Given LC classification,
the choices are shelving in the main stacks, along with regular monographs and serials (and where long term preservation is
out of the question), or vertical files. These fragile materials include not only leaflets of minor or transitory value, but in
some cases important policy documents, speeches, etc.

***************