College and Research Libraries


By H A Z E L D E A N 

Siz,e of Cataloging Staffs in 
Academic Libraries 

ALTHOUGH some progress has been made • in studies of the cost of cataloging, 
there are not yet available any standard 
cost data for cataloging in college and uni-
versity libraries. T h e present trend toward 
estimating cost in units of time rather than 
money seems to offer a promising approach; 
but, meanwhile, the question has been 
raised as to whether some objective measure 
of efficiency can be found by examining the 
statistics which are ordinarily put into the 
annual reports of nearly every library. 

A recent textbook on college library ad-
ministration carries the statement that "the 
size of the technical staff will depend 
directly upon the number of new acquisi-
tions to be handled within a given period."1 

W h i l e the technical staff properly includes 
both the order and catalog departments in 
a library organized along conventional lines, 
it is the cataloging process which has re-
ceived marked attention in recent years be-
cause of its alleged disproportionate cost. 
T h e r e f o r e , if some normal or typical ratio 
between the number of yearly acquisitions 
and the size of the cataloging staff could 
be determined, it would be useful as a 
criterion in terms of statistical data easily 
available to the administrator who is inter-
ested in allocating his resources, usually 
scarce, to the best advantage. Assuming a 
fair degree of uniformity in organization 
and in the definition of cataloging, and a 
certain standardization of quality of cata-

1 Randall, W i l l i a m M . , and Goodrich, F . L . D . 
Principles of College Library Administration. 2nd ed. 
Chicago, American L i b r a r y Association, 1941, p. 140. 

loging in college and university libraries, 
it seems reasonable to try to ascertain w h a t 
the relation is between the size of the cata-
loging staff and the number of yearly ac-
cessions, in terms of volumes and titles. 

W i t h this purpose in mind, question-
naires were sent to the eighty or more col-
lege and university libraries which were 
listed in the current American Library 
Directory as having book collections of 
more than 150,000 volumes. I n addition 
to the data on the size of the cataloging 
staff and the number of annual accessions 
for the year 1943-44, information was 
sought on some other characteristics which 
were thought to have relation to the ratio 
between the above items. 

I t has often been stated that the cost of 
cataloging increases more than propor-
tionately with the size of the book collec-
tion. Substituting "size of cataloging 
staff" for "cost of cataloging," one would 
expect to find some significant relation be-
tween the number of persons on the cata-
loging staff and the number of volumes 
acquired within a given period. 

Aside f r o m the complexity which mere 
quantity of material brings, there may be 
a difference in the difficulty of the material 
to be cataloged in various libraries. T h i s 
may be due to the varying proportion of 
foreign books or special kinds of material 
which some libraries collect. T h e best 
quantitative measure of this qualitative difr 
ference seemed to be in the percentage of 
titles for which Library of Congress cards 

52 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



could be obtained. T h e time consumed in 
cataloging in the individual library depends 
on this aspect rather than on the actual dif-
ficulty of cataloging, which is a problem 
for the Library of Congress. T h e number 
of those books for which printed cards are 
not available, then, is a factor in measuring 
the difficulty of cataloging. 

Although not directly related to the main 
purpose of this investigation, the question 
of the size of the cataloging staff in rela-
tion to the size of the total staff is of some 
interest. Also, the balance between pro-
fessional and nonprofessional workers on 
the cataloging staff may be significant. 
Both of these items were included in the 
questionnaire. A more complete picture 
could have been obtained by including 
the acquisition department and thus getting 
the balance between the cataloging and the 
acquisition work, which together make up 
the technical processes of the library; but 
this will have to wait for another study. 

Some Lack of Uniformity Found 

Originally data were secured from some 
libraries smaller than the 150,000 volumes 
mentioned above. However, these were 
found to have only one or two persons on 
the cataloging staff, and they were not fully 
departmentalized; in one case, the other 
members of the staff assisted with the cata-
loging, but the more usual situation was 
found to be that in which the catalogers 
also did reference work and/or order work. 
D a t a from other libraries were not usable 
for various reasons. One library reported 
that it was engaged in a complete recatalog-
ing operation, and two others that their 
serials were cataloged by a separate depart-
ment which also checklisted and acces-
sioned. Another variation which led to the 
omissipn of the data from certain libraries 
involved the use of student assistants in the 
catalog department. A few librarians re-
ported considerable use of students in this 

way and decided that it would be mislead-
ing to omit them from the statistics. W h e n 
the ratios were determined, however, it 
was found that the average number of 
volumes per cataloger in these libraries was 
so much lower than the average in the 
other cases, that it seemed preferable to 
treat them separately. 

Forty-six Libraries Selected 

Of the sixty-two libraries replying to the 
questionnaire, forty-six were selected as 
showing enough uniformity in organization 
to allow statistical comparison. These 
libraries ranged in size from 170,000 vol-
umes to 1,800,000 volumes. In the follow-
ing tables the relation found between the 
size of the cataloging staff and the yearly 
number of accessions is expressed in terms 
of volumes or titles per member of the 
cataloging staff, as the case may be. 

TABLE I 

V o l u m e s a n d T i t l e s P r o c e s s e d A n n u a l l y 
( P e r C a t a l o g e r ) 

M e a s u r e 

V o l u m e s 

. T i t l e s 

( 3 * ) 
M e a s u r e A s R e p o r t e d 

( 0 

A s C o r r e c t 

( 2 ) 

. T i t l e s 

( 3 * ) 

M e a n 1548 1485 907 
M e d i a n 1500 1497 833 
R a n g e 608 to 3421 608 to 2471 419 to 1555 

* D a t a f r o m nineteen l i b r a r i e s . 

As reported, the number of volumes 
included all accessions, whether or not 
cataloged. Since some libraries do not regu-
larly catalog bound periodicals or govern-
ment publications, a correction was made 
for those libraries reporting a certain per-
centage of accessions not cataloged. (See 
Table I, Column 2.) 

New Titles 

From the cataloging point of view, the 
number of titles is more significant than 
the number of volumes; but, of the forty-

JANUARY, 1946 53 



six libraries reporting, only nineteen had 
available data on new titles. (See Table I, 
Column 3.) 

In order to discover whether the relation 
between the size of a library and the ratio 
between the size of the catalog department 
and the number of yearly accessions was 
significant, a scatter diagram was made, 
using the corrected data for volumes per 
cataloger in relation to the number of vol-
umes in the libraries. N o relationship of 
any significance was found between them. 
For example, the smallest library had 910 
volumes of yearly accessions per cataloger 
and the largest library, 1493, while both 
the lowest (608) and the highest (2471) 
number of volumes per cataloger occurred 
in libraries of over a million volumes. T h e 
limited data which were available for num-
ber of titles per cataloger revealed no 
greater evidence of significant relationship 
with the size of the library. I t seems ob-
vious that one must look elsewhere for the 
explanation of the wide variations in the 
figures. In general, the variations may be 
due to ( 1 ) differences in the nature of the 
material cataloged, as to subject and form, 
( 2 ) differences in cataloging rules used, 
( 3 ) differences in personnel or in the ad-
ministration and organization of personnel, 
or ( 4 ) differences in the number of items 
for which Library of Congress cards are 
available. 

Library of Congress Cards 

T h e percentage of titles for which Li-
brary of Congress cards were obtained 
might be expected to give a quantitative 
measure of the weight to be given to the 
differences ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) above, as well as 
being in itself a cause of variation in the 
number of volumes processed per cataloger. 
T h e two tables in the following column 
show a breakdown of the results of analyz-
ing these data. 

TABLE I I 

R e l a t i o n b e t w e e n L . C . C a r d s a n d C a t a l o g e r s ' 
T o t a l P r o d u c t i o n 

N u m b e r of A v e r a g e N u m b e r 
Percentage of L i b r a r i e s of Volumes 

L.C. cards R e p o r t i n g per Cataloger 
90 t o ICO 6 1855 
80 t o 89 9 1327 
70 t o 79 17 I 4 0 3 
60 t o 69 6 1 5 3 8 
50 t o 59 5 1905 
40 t o 49 1 700 
30 t o 39 1 1402 

T h e corresponding data for the nineteen 
libraries reporting on the number of new 
titles may be of interest. 

TABLE I I I 

R e l a t i o n b e t w e e n L . C . C a r d s a n d N u m b e r s of 
N e w T i t l e s C a t a l o g e d 

A v e r a g e 
N u m b e r of N u m b e r 

P e r c e n t a g e of L i b r a r i e s o f T i t l e s p e r 
L . C . C a r d s R e p o r t i n g C a t a l o g e r 
90 to 100 2 845 
80 to 89 5 799 
70 to 79 8 801 
60 to 69 2 1 1 5 8 
50 to 59 2 1 4 1 2 

T a b l e I I shows no significant relation 
between the percentage of L . C . cards ob-
tainable and the volumes per cataloger. 
T a b l e I I I shows some evidence of an in-
verse relation between the percentage of 
L.C. cards and the number of titles per 
cataloger. However, the number of li-
braries reporting on this item is too small 
to give the figures much validity. 

Professional Staff 

Omitting one library, the proportion of 
professional members of the catalog staffs 
ranged from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. 
N o f u r t h e r statistical work was done on 
this subject because it was recognized that 
in many parts of the country the difficulty 
of obtaining clerical assistants made the 
present situation abnormal in this respect. 
Ordinarily, one would expect to find a 

54 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



larger proportion of clerical or nonprofes-
sional workers in the catalog department. 

Comparison with Total Staff 

Some study was made of the data con-
cerning the balance between the size of the 
catalog staff and the total staff. Of course, 
a proper balance depends on a good many 
factors, such as the number of school and 
departmental libraries, centralization or de-
centralization of cataloging, etc. Since li-
braries in the professional schools, such as 
law and medicine, usually catalog their 
own collections, the data in this study are 
limited, in the main, to central and depart-
mental libraries. W i t h this limitation, the 
statistics submitted give a fairly accurate 
picture of the current situation. Some li-
braries reported that their total staff had 
decreased while the catalog staff had re-
mained constant. O n the other hand, 
some reported that the catalog staff had 
suffered more losses, relatively, than the 
other departments. One situation seems to 
offset the other. 

In the following table the size of the 
cataloging staff is shown as a percentage of 
the total staff. 

TABLE I V 

D i s t r i b u t i o n of C a t a l o g S t a f f to T o t a l Staff 

M e a n 28 p e r cent 

M e d i a n 27 " " 
M o d e 33 " " 
R a n g e 13 to 45 per cent 

T h e percentage figure occurring most often, 
as shown by the above table, was 33 per 
cent, the case in which the catalog staff was 
one-third of the total staff. T h e figures for 
total staff did not include the separate 
school or college libraries of the larger uni-
versities. An analysis of the statistics of 
the libraries arranged in order of size of 
book collection follows. 

TABLE V 

P e r c e n t a g e s of T o t a l S t a f f s on C a t a l o g i n g S t a f f s 
in L i b r a r i e s of V a r i o u s S i z e - G r o u p s 

A v e r a g e Size 
of C a t a l o g 

S i z e of N u m b e r Staff 
L i b r a r y o f ( i n p e r cent 

in V o l u m e s L i b r a r i e s of total s t a f f ) 
170,000-199,000 
200,000-299,999 
300,000-399,999 
400,000-499,999 
500,000-599,999 
600,000-699,999 
700,000-799,999 
800,000-899,999 
900,000-999,999 

1,000,000 and o v e r 

T h i s analysis shows that there is a tendency 
for the number of persons engaged in cata-
loging to increase more than proportion-
ately with the size of the library. I t may 
be that the rate of growth of the book 
collection increases as the library grows 
larger. T h i s would be true if the larger 
libraries were also the most rapidly grow-
ing libraries, relatively to their size. O r it 
may be that the complexities of organiza-
tion within the catalog department increase 
as the library grows larger. Again, it 
must be remembered that the statistics used 
in this investigation do not include all of 
the school and college libraries of the uni-
versities. 

Student Assistants 

T h e statistics of those libraries reporting 
a considerable use of student assistants 
seemed to confirm the opinion of many head 
catalogers that there may be no net gain 
from the use of this type of assistant in 
the catalog department. Unless their use 
is confined to alphabetizing cards and 
labeling books, the results of their work are 
apt to be unsatisfactory without such 
supervision by a professional member of 
the staff as to cancel any gain that might 
be made. Even if the help of the student 

7 25 p e r c ;en 

1 4 29 
M 11 

7 26 
U it 

5 25 
II 11 

5 27 
M 11 

1 40 
( ( a 

0 — 

2 33 
II 11 

1 34 
II 11 

4 27 
II a 

J A N U A R Y , 1946 55 



assistant is gratuitous so far as the annual 
budget of the department is concerned, the 
time spent by the professional worker in 
supervision may be out of proportion to the 
work accomplished by the student. H o w -
ever, if the students work on a half-time 
schedule and on a year-round basis, the net 
gain may be worth considering, particularly 
now when clerical help is both expensive 
and scarce. Twelv e libraries reported the 
use of student assistants in the catalog de-
partment to be the equivalent of one or 
more full-time person; but only seven of 
these gave the actual figures in equivalents 
of full-time.2 T h e following table there-
fore includes only seven libraries, ranging 
in size from 112,000 to 671,000 volumes. 

T A B L E V I 

A n n u a l P r o d u c t i o n p e r C a t a l o g e r in S e v e n 
L i b r a r i e s W h i c h M a k e C o n s i d e r a b l e U s e 

of S t u d e n t A s s i s t a n t s 

V o l u m e s p e r 
C a t a l o g e r ( C o r r e c t e d ) 

M e a s u r e 

M e a n 
M e d i a n 
R a n g e 

Summary 

I n c l u d i n g 
S t u d e n t s 

926 
884 

627 to 1480 

O m i t t i n g 
S t u d e n t s 

1821 
1 5 7 5 

1090 to 2400 

Summing up the results of the investiga-
tion in terms of averages we find that in the 
fiscal year 1943-44 the average ratio be-
tween the number of yearly accessions and 
the size of the catalog staff in forty-six 
college and university libraries was 1548 
volumes per cataloger; corrected for uncata-
loged material, 1485 volumes per cataloger. 
For nineteen of these libraries the ratio of 
yearly accessions in terms of titles was 907 
titles per cataloger. For seven other 
libraries the number of volumes per cata-
loger (corrected), including student as-

sistants, was 926, or, omitting students, 
1821. These latter figures compare un-
favorably with the ratios of the forty-six 
libraries not using students in considerable 
numbers. T h e size of the library and the 
percentage of titles for which L.C. cards 
were used had no significant relationship 
to the number of volumes or titles per cata-
loger. T h e average size of the catalog staff 
was 28 per cent of the total staff. In this 
case there was a significant relationship 
between the percentage figure and the size 
of the library, the percentage increasing in 
libraries over 600,000 volumes until the 
million mark was reached, and then de-
creasing. W i t h one exception, the per-
centage of professional catalogers on the 
cataloging staff varied from 50 per cent to 
100 per cent. 

An Example 

H o w large a cataloging staff will be 
needed by a library having 12,000 yearly 
accessions, all of which are to be cataloged ? 
T h e average ratio of volumes to catalogers 
being 1485 to 1, it will be found that ap-
proximately eight persons will be needed 
on the cataloging staff, of whom at least 
half will be professionals. Comparison 
with the table given in M a n n ' s textbook3 

may be of interest. In the latter, an annual 
output of 12,000 volumes requires nine 
catalogers, four of whom are professionals. 

Qualifying Factors 

Several factors may affect the size of the 
cataloging staff in relation to the annual 
accessions. If the proportion of new titles 
is large in comparison to the number of 
volumes, more than the average number of 
catalogers will be needed. In this connec-
tion it should be noted that the average 
ratio of titles to volumes was about one to 

J I f the report were made in terms of hours, f o r t y 3 M a n n , M a r g a r e t . Introduction to Cataloging and 
hours per week w a s considered the equivalent of one the Classification of Books. 2d ed. Chicago, A m e r i -
full-time person. can L i b r a r y Association, 1943. A p p e n d i x 2. 

56 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



two, or twice as many volumes as titles in 
the yearly accessions, the ratio increasing 
w i t h the size of the library. T h e larger 
libraries obviously acquire more serial 
publications t h a n the small ones. T h e 
number of duplicate catalogs is another im-
p o r t a n t factor to be taken into considera-
tion in deciding on the size of the catalog 
department. T h e more catalogs, the larger 
the staff required—all other things being 
equal. 

A l t h o u g h it was assumed at the begin-
ning of this study that the organization of 
the cataloging processes is fairly well stand-
ardized in college and university libraries, 
there are individual- differences of some de-
gree, and these would act as qualifying 
factors on the size of the staff. T h o s e li-
braries which have separate serial depart-
ments which do the cataloging as well as 
the checklisting, will not need as large 
catalog departments as they would other-
wise, although there may not be any net 
saving in cataloging time. O n the other 
hand, the catalog department which does 
accessioning and labeling will need more 
nonprofessional persons than one not han-
dling these processes. T h e s e are such ob-
vious considerations that one need not dwell 
on them. According to the findings of this 
investigation, the catalog department using 

considerable student help will need the 
equivalent of more persons t h a n one de-
pendent on full-time nonprofessional work-
ers. T h e question of centralization of 
cataloging will have to be considered in this 
connection also. Decentralization will 
mean fewer persons in the central catalog 
department, but may increase the total 
amount of time spent on cataloging through-
out the university. T h e factors of w o r k i n g 
time, hours per week, and vacations are 
probably so nearly u n i f o r m t h a t they may 
be disregarded in calculating the staff in 
this way. 

Aside f r o m these qualifications, w h a t 
factors have caused the w i d e variations in 
the number of volumes and titles per cata-
loger in the institutions studied? Is it pos-
sible that due to some cause, such as higher 
salaries, the climate, or mere chance, the 
more efficient catalogers are attracted to 
certain libraries? O r is it not more likely 
that it is due to more efficient methods and 
organization of the w o r k within the catalog 
department or to differences in the quality 
of the cataloging? A l t h o u g h implied in 
the above paragraphs, the answers to these 
questions are really outside the scope of this 
inquiry, but should receive some considera-
tion f r o m the librarians and head catalogers 
concerned. 

JANUARY, 1946 57