Chances are, the library catalogs you frequently consult have either recently undergone some interface modifications, or might be doing so in the near future. A 2008 survey of librarians revealed significant dissatisfaction with the available software options for integrated library systems that combine access and searching for electronic resources and materials catalogs. Many libraries are turning to open source projects, including Blacklight and VuFind, which will offer library users new ways of conducting searches and using the results.
But until your institutional library finds or creates the perfect library system interface, you are probably stuck with whatever they’ve currently got. Few integrated systems can easily meet the needs of both novice library users and advanced researchers, and there is significant disagreement about what search features will best help users access library collections. A recent Chronicle of Higher Education article, for instance, opens with an anecdote that is meant (I assume) to show how frustrating library systems can be for some users:
Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. So you might think that typing his name into Virgo, Virginia’s online library catalog, would start you off with a book about him. Jean A. Bauer tried it the other night. At the top of the results list were papers from a physics conference in Brazil. The problem is that traditional online library catalogs don’t tend to order search results by ranked relevance, and they can befuddle users with clunky interfaces. Bauer, a graduate student specializing in early American history, once had such a hard time finding materials that she titled a bibliography “Meager Fruits of an Ongoing Fight With Virgo.”
Now, I don’t doubt that students are sometimes perplexed by search interfaces. But until radically new systems are developed, students and researchers need to be taught how to use different kinds of databases and catalogs. Hence, what follows: a quick refresher lesson on how LOC subject headings are constructed and when and why it is useful to use them.
Two Kinds of Searches
Fundamentally, there are two kinds of searches: indexed searches and keyword searches. As I’m using these terms here, I’m not referring to the labels particular databases give these functions (which can vary), but rather to the way information is processed by the search interface.
- Indexed searches within a library catalog or bibliographic database rely upon descriptive subject terms that have been applied to the item by a human being. (The subject term”London” would pull up items about that city.)
- Keyword searches within a library catalog or bibliographic database typically search the item’s metadata (author, title, etc) for matching keyword terms. Such searches may also include the subject index terms. (The term “London” would pull up items published there as well as items classified under that as a subject heading.)
If you are searching for a unique word, an exact phrase, or a very precise topic of interest, keyword searching may be most useful. But if you are beginning a research project and are working with fairly general terms, keyword searching will probably bring up too many results to be helpful.
As in the example from the Chronicle article cited above, the default settings on many library systems are frequently set to run keyword searches with whatever name or term is entered into the search box. Although this will produce ample lists of results, they are not necessarily sorted or ranked in useful ways. Improving this is apparently the focus of much of the recent software design and development.
Understanding Library of Congress Subject Headings
Most academic libraries today (with a few notable exceptions) use the Library of Congress classification system for shelving print materials. At its core, this system is a map of knowledge areas. The Library of Congress system of Subject Headings allows specialized cataloging librarians to assign multiple, specialized descriptions to individual print items. Thus the LOC Subject Headings rely upon human knowledge.
Because subject headings have evolved over time, the LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) print reference set (4 red volumes) provided a guide to which terms were used for a given topic, and how relationships were defined between broad topics and narrower ones (example). This information can now be accessed online at LOC Authorities.
A few minutes spent browsing with terms of interest to your project will quickly demonstrate the logical rules by which LOC subject headings are created. (Search term, national subdivision, temporal subdivision, subtopic, etc.) For example:
Women poets, American
Women poets, American–19th century–Fiction.
Women poets, American–20th century.
Women poets, American–20th century–Biography.
Women poets, American–20th century–Interviews.
Women poets, American–Alcohol use
Women poets, American–Biography.
Women poets, American–Biography–Dictionaries.
Women poets, American–Correspondence.
Because subject headings were created by human beings, and applied to print materials by human beings, sometimes there are inconsistencies. Sometimes subject headings overlap; sometimes the distinctions seem obvious, and sometimes not. But time spent reviewing the many different ways to access information on a given topic will inevitably deepen and complicate your understanding of that topic.
Finding Subject Headings from Item Records
Most item records in online library catalogs provide links for the subject headings that have been applied to that item:
Jones, Jason B., 1971-
Title Lost causes : historical consciousness in Victorian literature / Jason B. Jones.
Publisher Columbus : Ohio State University Press, c2006.
LOCATION CALL # STATUS
ANDERSON/GENERAL COLL PR468.H57 J66 2006 IN LIBRARY
History in literature.
English literature — 19th century — History and criticism.
Literature and history — Great Britain — History — 19th century.
Keeping track of subject headings can be very useful if you are trying to develop a fairly complete bibliography on a particular topic (especially in a case like this, where the words history and literature can be combined in several different ways).
Mapping the Territory
For some topics, the LOC subject headings will be fairly limited. If you only read and write about digital technology, for instance, there won’t be as many headings as there are for Shakespeare. But using the subject headings is a great way to develop word maps of related terms. The more ways you can describe and conceptualize a research area, the richer your bibliography — and your research outcomes — will become.
Developing a research bibliography for a topic is one way to begin to map the field of knowledge to which you hope to contribute. Learning to use the LOC subject headings can be an important step in doing this.
(CC licensed image by flickr user aesop)
Do you still use library catalogs? Let us know in the comments!
8 Comments
Natalie,
This is a very in-depth article! I learned the LOC subject headings quickly when I was an undergrad, but I noticed most of my classmates never cracked it. I suspect most still haven’t! Luckily, we don’t have to depend solely on the library catalogue these days.
Students are all familiar with Google, so it’s good to get them using Google Scholar. This nifty Google portal searches books and articles from openly accessed databases. Better still, if a student accesses this service from campus, it will let you know if your university library has it.
Some universities are also experimenting with social tagging in the catalogue. That gives students another personalized search vector. The best example of this that I know of is the PennTags at the University of Pennsylvania.
Librarians are acutely aware that their old catalogues aren’t cutting it in the age of Google and they are working towards solutions. Expect big things to come in the next few years!
There be dragons in the Google Scholar metadata: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6698580.html?&rid=1105906703&source=title.
I never said it was perfect, Jason! But, yes, I too was shocked when I read that article.
Personally, I don’t use Google Scholar and would certainly never count on it for citations! But if we’re going to spend time teaching students to use their library catalogue or to build on the type of searching they already know, I’ll always opt for the second.
Another advantage of Google Scholar is that it gets students at small colleges thinking outside their smaller catalogues and thinking about all the information that is potentially out there on their topic.
I also encourage students to fact check in Google Books instead of Wikipedia. Although they all still seem to prefer the latter. It’s all about the path of least resistance, in the library catalogue and on the web.
Just a point of clarification (can you guess I’m a librarian?) The books in most academic libraries in the US are arranged on the shelves using the Library of Congress Classification system. This is a system that was designed to optimize the process of arranging books on shelves. The Library of Congress Subject Headings is actually a separate system that is designed to help libraries describe the contents of those books. A book will have one call number derived from the LC Classification System but can have multiple LC subject headings to describe that item. Knowing how to work the subject headings in a search is indeed a valuable skill; recognizing that the subject headings don’t map directly to shelf locations is also essential.
Thanks for catching my error, Stephen — I was drawing some material from course lecture notes in which I give a fuller account of the LOC, classifications, and subject headings — and inadvertently conflated them here. (Post now corrected.)
re: Google scholar — good for some kinds of searches and topics, not so good for others. The problem of too many results can easily overwhelm students. They need education on how to adjust the search and ranking parameters too. I find that working with the LOC subject headings can help students clarify and understand their topic before they get immersed in results; this can then help them better use resources like Google Scholar.
The biggest issue with Google Scholar is that it tends to frustrate students – they find what looks like good information, and then a link asking them to pay for the article. Most students never make the connection between the article they found there and the journals that their libraries provide them with for free.
There are also other issues that are frustrating about keyword searching, especially when it’s full-text – too many results, too little relevance – but I have a harder time getting those issues into students’ heads without sitting them down and showing them examples.
It’s good to build on what students know – but in the long run, we should be teaching them the best tools for the job.
I just had a chance to read this, but I want to make one note: some of the newer catalog interfaces available, such as Innovative’s Encore interface, have subject headings that aren’t a direct link to an index. Instead, clicking on the links take you to a keyword search of those terms.
As a result, I often suggest to students that they use those subject terms, whether they find them in the catalog or in an article database, to create lists of synonyms they can also try searching.
2 Trackbacks
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Alliant_Library: Good link here on living with the shortcomings of library catalogs: http://bit.ly/4SUt1...
[...] moved from using personal tags (folksonomy) to using a set of tags defined by the class to using Library of Congress subject headings. (For another take on how to teach tagging, see Bill Wolff’s Composing Spaces blog.) This [...]