Theological cataloging as we know it today is a twentieth century phenomenon.  Prior to this century, topics were assigned to spaces, a legacy of the monastic libraries that had arranged books in cupboards or alcoves.  The less aesthetic steel stacks of the nineteenth century retained this same classification of spaces rather than of books.  Each book was placed on the shelf deemed appropriate, a decision typically made by the head librarian.  A card for each book was made designating its location by a Roman numeral for the stack, an Arabic numeral for the section, and a number for the shelf (ATLA proceedings. 1955: 33-34).

          A revolution was long overdue when Melville Dewey devised his system in 1876.  Theological libraries were slow to migrate to Dewey’s relative system for various reasons that parallel the discipline’s more recent belated entry into the world of automation. These include insufficient financial resources, isolation, and lack of advocacy by patrons whose expectations tend to be shaped more by tradition than innovation.  Adding to these inertia factors, shared by many theological institutions, was the low priority assigned to religion by the Library of Congress.  Several systems eventually evolved that were specifically designed for theological libraries and these competed successfully with the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress System for several decades.

          The earliest theological system to appear and the one most widely acclaimed was developed by Julia Pettee during the First World War.  Pettee was hired to reorganize the Union Theological Seminary Library in New York.  Her only experience in theological cataloging was acquired during the two previous summers when she was employed to classify the library collection at Rochester Theological Seminary. That experience gave her an understanding of the field and of the inadequacies of systems in use at that time. An account of her achievement is recorded in her own words in the proceedings of the ninth ATLA annual conference held in 1955, fifteen years after her retirement.  The speech is filled with enlightening and amusing anecdotes of successes, failures, and references to her acquaintances with personages such as Melville Dewey and Charles Cutter.  It is worth every theological cataloger’s effort to retrieve from their stacks the 1955 Proceedings and read her account as a testament to the courage and creativity of one individual’s pioneering effort to systematize the field of religion (ATLA proceedings. 1955: 33-34) (online version)

          In the 1920’s , the Library of Congress hired Theodore Mueller from the University of Chicago to develop subject headings in religion.  Prior to his employment, the Library of Congress distributed cards in the field of religion without subject headings (1947: 35).  The Library of Congress headings and Pettee’s subject headings were a tremendous aid to theological libraries, but standardization was not valued in the same way it is today. Catalogers were encouraged to adapt the classification scheme used by their institution and to add or alter subject headings to meet the needs of their particular institution.  Catholic and Judaica collections especially were not well served by Library of Congress headings, and systems were developed for each of these areas that could substitute or supplement LC headings.

          There has been a continual revision of all the systems used by theological libraries. From 1947 through the early sixties, discussions at ATLA’s annual conferences among catalogers focused on advantages and disadvantages of the different systems. The annual meetings provided a venue for sharing problems and solutions, as well as an opportunity to suggest enhancements directly to those responsible for maintaining and revising each of the systems.  Dr. Mueller from the Library of Congress was a speaker at the first annual meeting and his name appears often in subsequent proceedings, as do the names of his successors.  No one appears to have been offended by such discussions of the inadequacies of the systems.  They were viewed as works in progress that needed tinkering, depending on an institution’s nature and academic focus.  Catalogers were free to apply their expertise, biases, and eccentricities to a system, or as happened in a few cases, devise their own.

          Many seminaries today have parts of their collection that retain old classifications for which no current staff member is entirely cognizant of the logic employed by their creators. Expansions that were previously a source of pride, are now a puzzlement.  Most institutions have reclassified at least the newer parts of their collections to either Dewey or Library of Congress. Pettee’s system was abandoned by Union in 1976.  Of libraries that responded to ATLA surveys, twenty-three were using the Union System in 1976 and only eight in 1986 (1986 : 290).  A new generation of theological catalogers has emerged, with different realities to shape their values.  This chapter will address some of these realities and the opportunities that have only begun to evolve in an automated technological environment.

          Cooperation among theological catalogers received its greatest impetus with the establishment of the American Theological Library Association in 1946.  The first few decades had some notable disappointments though, despite the initiatives, leadership and sacrificial efforts of many of the members.  At the 1951 annual meeting, Leo T. Crismon acknowledged the difficulty he had in cataloging material from other denominations.  He provided a lengthy bibliography on the Baptists that included histories, biographies, statistics, and a classification breakdown for Dewey, Pettee’s Union, and the Library of Congress.  Crismon proposed that other denominations produce similar documents for the benefit of the ATLA membership (1951 : 28-34).  However, there is no evidence that documents were produced for other denominations.

          At the 1959 meeting, Ruth C. Eisenhart encouraged theological catalogers to contribute cataloging copy to the National Union Catalog.  She recognized the difficulties related to "how much rugged individualism still flourishes among our cataloging departments" (1959 :134).  Only a small number of ATLA catalogers contributed to the NUC due to many libraries’ inconsistencies in following ALA and LC standards.  At the 1963 meeting, it was recommended that NUC contributors assume responsibility for analyzing one or more important foreign monographic series and sending the copy promptly to the Library of Congress.  A questionnaire soliciting input from ATLA catalogers indicated an interest in additional cooperative agreements in which individual institutions would accept responsibility for cataloging a portion of denominational material, material needing analytics (festschriften), and foreign titles (1963 : 16).  At the 1970 meeting, a report summarizing the activity generated by these cooperative proposals described the seven preceding years as a period of inertia. Libraries submitting records to the National Union Catalog actually decreased in number (1970 : 46-50).

          The next decade experienced another disappointment. The idea to provide a machine readable database of cataloging for theological and denominational serial literature, and from this database, a union list of serials, ended with an eulogy at the 1980 conference (1980 : 52-53).  After several years of planning and the preparation of a grant proposal to the National Endowment for the Humanities, the plan was terminated when ATLA was refused membership in CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials).  At the time, CONSER was administered by the Library of Congress and consisted of an exclusive list of eight institutions.

          This somewhat disappointing history of ATLA cooperative initiatives entered a new and more promising phase with the introduction of computer technology into the cataloging environment.  Bibliographic utilities such as OCLC offered a more timely and accessible repository for shared cataloging copy than the NUC.  Rugged individualism became a dubious trait for catalogers who were encouraged, or pressured, into adopting national bibliographic standards by their administrators and peers. Discussions that shifted catalogers’ values from individualism to standardization began in the 1970’s. For those who had to sacrifice their local practices, including classification and subject analysis that functioned with more integrity in their collection than LC, the compensation has been easy access to cataloging copy for a substantial percentage of their acquisitions.

           Most theological catalogers were more than ready to make the transition to an automated environment long before their institutions made the required financial commitment.  Although automation has not resulted in a cataloger’s nirvana, there is little nostalgia for pre-automation days if conversations on Autocat, the Internet listserv for catalogers, reflects an accurate sampling of the profession’s historical memory.

          Another development which appears to be making almost as significant an impact on cooperative cataloging as automation did, is the recent applications of telecommunications and networking in libraries.  The Internet allows theological catalogers to plan and participate in cooperative projects with unprecedented ease. Proposals from the past, that were never executed or only partially fulfilled due to the difficulties of logistics, communication, and coordination among committee members, can now finally be implemented. More importantly, participation has been equalized since it can allow persons at even the smallest most remote library to interact with her/his colleagues across the continent.

          Unfortunately, the ideas for cooperative agreements from the past, and others still to be formulated, are in danger of being compromised.  Financial constraints leave administrators looking for ways to reduce the cost of cataloging material by streamlining the workflow.  The ubiquitous mantra of "more, faster, better, cheaper" has become a popular inducement to motivate administrators to consider alternative strategies for bibliographic control.  Outsourcing, minimal level cataloging, and key word access as an acceptable alternative to controlled subject analysis are being seriously discussed and implemented in some libraries. The rationale behind these strategies is that libraries could shift technical services staff to public services where their knowledge of database architecture enables them to make significant contributions.  Further, the argument is made that the rules governing the AACR2 bibliographic record and controlled subject headings are irrelevant in an on-line environment.

          It is ironic that at a time when technology and telecommunications are converging to enable catalogers to more easily produce a quality product, the support to allow the momentum to build is being eroded by the popularity of these cost-saving strategies. Catalogers are developing their own strategies for cooperative efforts to deal with the pressures to increase cataloging efficiency. Defenders of "jewel box" or perfectionist cataloging have either been converted to a more realistic position or have wisely gone underground. Considerable effort by catalogers across the nation, is being employed to develop standards for a "core bibliographic record."  Technical services listservs are keeping the "grass roots" catalogers abreast of decisions being made about the core record and have solicited input thus allowing a collective wisdom of the profession to have an influence on the final standards.

          A core record simplifies cataloging by eliminating or making optional some of the elements of a full record, and through a critical evaluation and weeding of the voluminous Library of Congress Rule Interpretations and other documentation that unnecessarily complicates the cataloging process. The expectation by those that conceived the core record is that it will enable more libraries to participate in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging, producing authority and bibliographic records, that like LC records, are accepted in most libraries without revision. The core record would also move United States’ libraries closer to international standards and the utopian goal of prompt record creation in the country of publication and the availability of these records electronically worldwide.

          The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) is the umbrella name for the newest manifestation of the national cooperative programs. The earlier phases of the programs were administered by the Library of Congress, who either acted as a coordinator of policy or established policy unilaterally (Thomas : 93). Membership in the programs were very selective and restricted to large institutions. Consequently ATLA was rejected from membership in CONSER when it applied in 1980. In contrast, the PCC "strives to be inclusive, inviting participation from a wide variety of libraries" (Thomas, p. 98).

          The advantages of a more diverse membership can most readily be illustrated by small special libraries with catalogers that possess expertise in a focused area of knowledge.  For example, seminaries may have easy access to their denominational offices, which enable them to create authoritative and documented corporate headings.  From denominational headquarters, there are generated a plethora of departments, divisions, and ad-hoc committees that are created, sometimes renamed, and then often cease to function.  Also, many denominations have a complicated history of splits and mergers that are best known and documented by their seminary libraries. Catalogers within the denominational libraries, therefore, find it much easier to create headings for these complicated histories than their peers outside the denomination. In addition, administrators are assured that denominational material will receive priority treatment by catalogers who have a vested interest in establishing headings before less informed catalogers create them.

          Names Authorities Cooperative Program (NACO), has been the first of the PCC programs to offer an alternative to institutional membership. Membership can also be organized around an interest group known as a funnel project.  Six catalogers from ATLA member institutions have recently volunteered to be the first participants in a theological funnel project. They were given NACO training by Judy Knop, the ATLA cataloger, in June of 1997.  These six catalogers will create authority records in OCLC that will be reviewed by their trainer for a period of time, until they have gained enough experience to work independently.  This kind of program would be impossible without the ability to field questions and answers through the Internet and without Internet access to the LC database and on-line documentation. The plan is to train additional catalogers each year, gradually building a core of ATLA NACO participants from each of the denominations.

          The benefits of a gradual escalation of ATLA participation in other PCC programs such as BIBCO and CONSER are numerous. A division of responsibility for monographic series not routinely cataloged by the Library of Congress could finally be organized among ATLA catalogers if funnel projects were extended to BIBCO. There might even be some publishers who would agree to send their new titles through priority mail directly to the library that has committed to cataloging the series. Other libraries that subscribe to the series would have access to quality cataloging copy as soon as they received the title, as well as assurance that all headings would be under authority control since this is a requirement for BIBCO participation.

          A well organized and productive BIBCO funnel project of ATLA catalogers would also have an option to coordinate agreed upon enhancements to the core record.  Theological libraries serve mostly graduate level students, who require consistent series information, notes, and often more than one subject heading which is all that a core record requires.  If a core record is lacking elements that libraries feel are important to their users, then local editing, perhaps repeated countless times, will minimize the value of the contribution to the national database. Therefore a reasonable argument exists for theological libraries to coordinate their enhancements while remaining within the guidelines for a core record.

          ATLA catalogers will have other opportunities to coordinate their efforts in the next few years.  An ATLA technical services Web Site, currently in the design stage, would be a convenient place to mount an updated version of Crimson’s denominational bibliography along with other denominational bibliographies.  The homepage would also be a good place to update members on problem serials such as periodical numbering peculiarities or publication delays.  The ATLA homepage is an accessible location to provide links to other web sites that would aid catalogers in their work. More important, it is the site in which theological catalogers can make a contribution to the wider cataloging community by providing documentation and subject knowledge unique to their discipline.

Technological Environment / by E. Crawford & Bill Hook

          There is a critical need for a prophet to help theological catalogers and their administrators navigate the frontiers of the information technology revolution. Hardware, software, and telecommunication options available by vendors that market to libraries provide an amazing array of desirable products. Complicating the choices are the practical considerations of cost and the knowledge that today’s wonders will soon be superseded by even more spectacular offerings, most probably at a lower price. Articles imparting sage advice on automating libraries quickly become dated.  Eventually in the midst of confusion, choices must be made, realizing that even carefully deliberated decisions on hardware and software purchases will not result in the mythical ideal system configuration.

          The ambiguities surrounding these choices are an indication of how much expectations have been moderated after three decades of exponential growth in library automation. The enthusiasm of the early years has been replaced by the realization that automation requires a larger share of the library’s budget, greater staff expertise, and more compromises in system performance than was initially recognized when it first appeared in libraries. Despite these sobering realities, computer automation remains a vital component of the contemporary library scene because it provides access to bibliographic data that represents a quantum leap beyond card catalog access. The focus is on technology that effortlessly searches vast archives and displays the results on a screen in a matter of seconds to patrons who may be clueless about the source of this miracle. Catalogers remain among the few who are aware of the architecture required for the miracle to happen; who have learned the mystical formula of MARC that maps the bibliographic data; who labor over subject headings and classification with missionary zeal; and who understand that the standards that govern their enterprise are worth preserving if chaos is to be controlled.

          The newest component of the miracle, the cataloger’s workstation, offers another challenge to the learning curve of catalogers. In exchange for the effort, to yet again adapt to a new working environment, catalogers gain easy access to an explosion of catalogs and databases on the Internet, and the ability to download these remote records into their local on-line system. The work of catalogers can be simplified and enhanced by this connection to a wealth of resources on an Internet accessible network. However, the extent to which the resources can be effectively used is related to a variety of factors. In order for the Cataloger’s Workstation to be truly an enhancement to productivity it must be:

1. a robust computer with more than standard CPU power and available RAM memory
2. connected to a stable and reliable network and Internet connection
3. equipped with well installed and easy to use software
4. capable of allowing flexibility in the way the cataloger chooses to use the software
5. supported by local technical support staff who understand the hardware, software and enough of the cataloging task to ensure the software is configured properly

        A Robust Computer: The essence of the cataloger’s workstation as a vision for easier and more productive cataloging, will be its ability to have multiple resources open simultaneously, and to use multi-tasking capability to search, cut and paste, import or export records in real time from one database to another. This will typically involve having several applications open at the same time, with connections to two (or more) remote databases while the local on-line system is updated dynamically.

          To do this will require a workstation with sufficient memory and processing power, and an operating system which will allow stable multi-tasking. Most probably this will require that a cataloger’s workstation will be newer and/or more powerful than those which may be sufficient for reference or other library staff computers. The specific hardware required for a robust cataloging workstation will vary with the local installation, and over time as networks and software evolve. A less than specific, but perhaps more useful definition of a "robust" system will be one which can reliably and smoothly allow the cataloger to move from one program to another, performing the tasks needed to productively use remote on-line tools, without being required to unexpectedly close applications and/or reboot the computer. This reliability may be achieved via a combination of CPU processing power, RAM memory availability, disk space and operating systems appropriate for a particular library’s OPAC and network.

          A Stable and Reliable Network: A stable network is more important than having the fastest, most up to date network, though certainly the bigger the "pipe" the more rapidly information can be reteived. However, it does not matter if the library has a "T3" connection to the Internet if it routinely crashes or if the campus backbone is so saturated that real throughput to Internet resources is slowed to a crawl.

          Lack of stability on the network often extends beyond the local campus network. If Internet traffic through your ISP (Internet Service Provider) is congested, reliable throughput to Internet resources may be unpredictable at best. Productive use of network resources (whether resources on the local campus network such as the library OPAC, or via the Internet) requires that they can be readily and reliably available when needed. The more critical the resource, the more important reliable access becomes.

          Well Installed Software: The cataloger should not be required to be a hardware or software guru. While it is to be expected that regularly using a particular program or set of programs will typically generate a certain amount of expertise and insights into the most effective way to use the program, there is a difference between an expert user of a program and the technical support expertise which is required to install and configure software, particularly in a network environment.

          In a networked environment, it is possible to make remote resources accessible as transparently as if they were installed on a local drive. Properly configured, resources available on the campus network, or even across the Internet, could become icons on the desktop for the cataloger to use as needed, with little attention needed as to whether it is a local or remote resource. If improperly or poorly configured though, conflicts between programs can arise, leading to routine system crashes or unreliable performance.

          Software which operates reliably on one type of network or computer, may not be reliable when installed on an older computer, or a different networking operating system. It is crucial that technical expertise is available to make the necessary software resources work reliably on the particular local network and computers in a given library.

          It should be recognized that often librarians have learned to be their own technical support for computers in theological seminaries which have a small library staff. In a networked environment this becomes increasingly inadequate. While it may indeed be the case that in some libraries the technical wizard is also the cataloger, it should not be expected that all catalogers will have the technical computer knowledge to install and configure the software they need to function productively.

          Flexibility of Use: Software designers package programs which they expect to fulfill the functions of the targeted users. But these users usually manage to individualize their workflow in ways that distinguish them from the original design expectations. While catalogers have become accustomed to adapting to the limitations and quirks imposed by software, it is important that the software not be so restrictive that individual user preferences for workflow cannot be accommodated.

          Keyboard macros to simplify input of frequently used keystrokes are one example of a software feature that some people love, and others never use. Some people use a mouse easily to highlight and to cut and paste text, while others prefer keystroke commands for the same function. Particularly in a multi-tasking environment, where multiple software programs will be used simultaneously, the ability to use keystroke or mouse functions seamlessly across programs is an important element of making the cataloger’s workstation most effective.

          Knowledgeable Local Technical Support: Whenever technology becomes an integral or crucial part of a task, it opens up new possibilities for productivity while at the same time increasing the complexity of what is required to maintain the day to day operating environment. Modern desktop computers are a prime example of this. The benefits of world-wide communication via the Internet are exciting and substantial. However, networking makes installation and configuration of software and hardware much more complex. Ideally, the technical support would come from a staff person who is not also expected to be productive in other areas beyond computers. If the initial computer installation and configuration can be done, and IF there is reliable and competent technical support available by phone, a well trained "high end user" may well be able to keep things running under normal conditions. But increasingly, expecting technical support to be provided by librarians is requiring them to spend more and more time as a computer technician, and less time being productive in their primary job responsibilities.

Reimagining the Profession / by E. Crawford

          It is apparent to many in the library profession that a paradigm shift of enormous proportions has transformed the expectations of the institutions they serve, and the patrons who utilize their resources. Library employees, scrambling to incorporate an expanded vocabulary and knowledge base, have perhaps understandably lagged behind in their efforts to redesign the organizational structure in their libraries. Moreover we have failed to rethink the library’s philosophical orientation in the new universe of knowledge. This final section will conceptualize the role of catalogers and their place in the institution in ways that would provide the most effective utilization of their professional expertise in the theological library of the 21st century.

           It is an unfortunate reality that the profession of the librarian does not receive the esteem (or the corresponding salary) that is enjoyed by other professions. Nevertheless, librarianship continues to attract capable and committed people both among its professional and support staff. Many of the employees in theological libraries have theological degrees, as well as or instead of library and information science degrees. This probably explains the results of a recent survey of ATLA librarians published in College and Research Libraries in which a majority of respondents approached their work as a form of ministry (Karp and Keck : 40). However their place in the institution’s hierarchy is often marginal, a fact which can affect their professional self-esteem. Furthermore, the large cost that libraries contribute to the overall institutional budget results in the perception by librarians that the library operation is viewed by administrators as a financial liability rather than the asset that it actually represents to the institution.

          Now superimpose this same dynamic of the library’s relationship to the institution onto the cataloging department’s relationship to the library. The cataloging department is usually located in an area hidden from public view. Their operational costs are a drain on the library budget. Backlogs often remain despite the technology that was purchased to aid the department in its work. Updates to the hardware and software are continually needed. An administrator may never have stated such facts explicitly, but the subliminal messages are communicated, perhaps by a lingering perusal of the backlog shelves as she/he passes through the department, or a sudden interest in out-sourcing articles in the library literature. Periodically, a discussion begins on Autocat, expressing the lack of appreciation afforded catalogers, finally expending itself after several days of venting. Although it may be comforting to know that one’s experiences are shared, participating in these collective cathartic exchanges, even as a silent reader, can be somewhat demoralizing. Yet many theological catalogers view their profession as a calling, and are understandably distressed when they discover that the service they provide is viewed by some as superfluous.

           So how does one begin to rethink the organizational structure and the philosophical orientation of libraries? The traditional areas of administration, public services, and technical services have been thought of as each requiring separable and distinctive skills. Even in very small libraries that may have only one or two employees who must divide their time among the different areas, they do so while maintaining an awareness of the distinct areas and the talents they must bring to each. Traditional ways of thinking about the organization are difficult to change, but the vocabulary and literature exists to help theological libraries re-envision themselves, and they have the distinct advantage of being able to create a vision consistent with theological themes. There should be less dissonance when applying terms such as "inclusiveness", "non-hierarchical", and "team management" in theological settings than to a corporate business culture or to a complex university library.

           Inclusiveness is a theological term that implies the breaking down of barriers and distinctions. It could be applied to catalogers as they engage in their cooperative endeavors, and as they assume collective responsibility for the global bibliographical database. The ultimate goal and the motivation for agreed upon international and national standards is for a single bibliographic record to be created for each item under bibliographic control. Each individual cataloger would, in effect, be working for every other library that purchases the identical item for which they provide original cataloging or authority work.

          This is not a new concept and is in fact the governing philosophy whose history began with the LC printed cards. The difference now is the greater sense of participation in this collective enterprise that comes with training in one or more of the national programs in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging. Even for catalogers who are not actively participating in a PCC program, the opportunity to contribute relatively painlessly through Internet connections to ATLA colleagues creates a new awareness of individual participation and responsibility to the collective enterprise. Through such activity, a theological cataloger has enlarged her/his mission considerably to serve a vast universe of potential patrons. Not only are they employees of their particular institution, but also members of a team bound by a common vision and standards, although not by physical, theological, or institutional concerns. Conceptualizing one’s role in a larger context can greatly enhance a cataloger’s self-esteem. Further, the unsung benefit for administrators to ponder is that while his/her cataloger may devote a portion of their time and energy to receive training and to contribute to cooperative endeavors, the administrator has meanwhile acquired hundreds of invisible employees whose contributions to her/his local bibliographic database is a gift almost without price.

          Libraries lend themselves easily to a hierarchical structure. In technical services, the many tasks necessary to bring an item from the point at which it is ordered, to its final destination in the collection, divide themselves easily into levels of complexity appropriate for different levels of expertise. However, the resentment and discord that too often develops between professional and non-professional personnel in the performance of these tasks are an embarrassment to an otherwise agreeable working environment. Non-professional staff, who are generally highly-educated and exceptionally competent, have been excluded in many institutions from performing certain tasks, regardless of experience and proven abilities. At its worst, a paternalistic attitude dominates which places non-professionals in a childlike relationship that is demoralizing.

           Hierarchical structures and the prejudices that were nurtured by them, probably functioned better in the traditional non-automated library. The card catalog resisted change, making every innovation a painful process. In such an environment, experience and a mastering of cataloging rules, guarded as a body of Gnostic knowledge, was all that was required to set the professional apart. In an automated environment, the Gnostic knowledge does not conveniently sit on a cataloger’s bookshelf. Parts of it are on the Internet or reside on a CD-ROM. A constantly changing working environment is a reality that catalogers must now accept, along with a learning curve that appears to stretch upward endlessly.

          In such an environment, any staff which a theological cataloger is fortunate enough to employ should be a partner in the challenging and rewarding struggle to fulfill the institutional and administrative expectations of his/her area. A wise cataloging professional must continually examine the working environment and the effects that administrative priorities, student and staff expertise, and automation have on the operation of the department. A judicious understanding of what to expect from an employee with a particular job description or classification must always be a consideration in assigning tasks. However, most support staff would prefer some variety and challenge in addition to the unavoidable tediousness of much that comprises the cataloging workflow. Responsibilities that were once the exclusive province of the cataloger might, with training and oversight, be passed on to staff, and some staff responsibilities diverted to students. The subject knowledge of theological students can be an especially valuable resource to exploit. For example, students who are trained to do copy cataloging are more likely to discover mistakes in spelling or classification because of their familiarity with the literature. Perhaps the most highly prized expertise to discover among student and staff employees is an aptitude for computers and the ability to provide the support that a larger library staff would often receive from a systems librarian or a network department.

          Once staff are considered partners rather than subordinates, adopting a team management model would appear to be an easy step. A team management model requires flexibility and open communication, two conditions that become vital in an environment characterized by constant change, as has been described in the above paragraphs. There is little in the literature on the establishment of the team management model in libraries, and virtually nothing on small libraries. In an article entitled "Structuring the Academic Library Organization of the Future," Margo Crist studied six libraries that were using some form of team management in libraries ranging from one hundred to several hundred employees. Her respondents’ reasons for adopting a team model were survival, a desire to "empower the staff," and "a need for more flexible organizational responses to the external change." (Crist : 56) The respondents articulated the following organizational changes that have occurred: "more collegial and collaborative approach to work," "more fluidity across organizational lines," "more openness to external stimulus," and "more open information flow." Crist concludes the article with three future scenarios: "Warmed Over, Top Down", "Same Game, New Faces" and "Library Heaven." (Crist : 63) Since the last scenario is the only desirable option and has been appropriately named for theological libraries, it is quoted here at length:

"The "Library Heaven" scenario suggests that the new models, while not creating a static organizational definition, do develop sufficient clarity to reinforce the sense of individual connection and of control that seems to evoke better performance. Creativity and innovation spring up throughout the organization and are seen as standard parts of each person’s job. Power is shared and negotiated around the central core of user needs, both present and future. Decision making has that same core. Decisions are made at points throughout the organization that tap the appropriate level of expertise; staff are constantly supported and trained in decision-making skills. Success in the new organization is judged and defined by and for the user. The campus values its library, but most of all, values its ever-changing nature!"

(Crist, 63-64)

          Many theological libraries employ so few employees that the team must include the entire library staff in order to have a sufficient number to qualify as a team. The cataloger and her/his staff, as members of the library team, would participate in decision making that is informed by input from the entire staff. This has the benefit of forcing the cataloger out of the comfortable isolation of the backroom. Cataloging rules, standards, and procedures will be subject to questions and challenges from staff outside the department. The cataloger should be ready to articulate a rational and persuasive argument of that which is worth preserving, but also be ready to adapt creatively when the only defense is "we’ve always done it this way."

          In an ideal setting, partisan or territorial concerns are neutralized, problem solving is enhanced by input from different perspectives, and a new culture is nurtured that is characterized by the need for continuing education, cross-training, and flexibility. The possibility then exists for the next phase to be implemented, that has at its core a philosophical orientation that accommodates the new universe of knowledge. This new universe of knowledge has an expanded vision of a library’s collection which includes physical material housed in the library as well as access to electronic resources worldwide. The parameters that define the collection and the services provided by the library have consequently become amorphous. Librarians need an expanded vision of their roles to accommodate this amorphous information environment. In this phase, relationships between the traditional areas of the library become so integrated that each employee participates in some way in both public services and in technical services. Departmental responsibilities are blurred and the organizational chart flattened. A cataloger’s expertise will continue to be necessary to supervise the cataloging workflow and to provide continuing education for the staff of additions and changes to cataloging documentation, as well as, to catalog the body of literature for which her/his institution has assumed responsibility in cooperative agreements with other ATLA institutions. Equally important will be the application of the cataloger’s expertise to other library operations and the sharing of this expertise with team members to enable them to more effectively function in their various roles throughout the library. The name for this phase will depend on the perspective of individual catalogers: "Theological Cataloger’s Nightmare" or "Theological Cataloger’s Heaven."

American Theological Library Association. Summary of Proceedings (Philadelphia, etc.: ATLA, 1955

Margo Crist, "Structuring the Academic Library Organization of the Future : Some New Paradigms." In Dynamic Library Organizations in a Changing Environment, Joan Giesecke, New York: Hawthorn Press, 1994, 47-65.

Rashelle S. Karp and Andrew J. Keck, "Theological Librarianship: Toward a Profile of a Profession." College & Research Libraries, January 1996, 40.

Sarah E. Thomas, "Quality in Bibliographic Control." Library Trends, Winter, 1996.