讲座ppt-武汉大学图书馆.pptVIP

This prediction has not come to pass. Data from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) statistical surveys show essentially flat acquisition expenditures (Figure 2). Of the numbers given, serials （期刊） and monographs （图书） each constitute about half. Note, however, that both “monographs” and “serials” include digital as well as physical items. Therefore, as the proportion of digital items increases, the number of physical artifacts declines but the number of items to catalog remains steady. It is the ability to handle the digital items outside the traditional cataloging stream that has led some to question the wisdom of current practices (e.g., Calhoun6). * In their 1997 survey, Libby and Caudle determined that only 28% of academic libraries were outsourcing or had outsourced catalog operations. Furthermore, 52% of respondents had never considered outsourcing and did not anticipate that they would. Subsequent data are inconsistent. In 2005, Lam reported that 79% of libraries surveyed were outsourcing some catalog functions. And to that point, recently, at the University of Memphis, we contracted with Marcive to update and correct our authority records. On the other hand, in the Indiana University Report (2006) on the future of cataloging, only 3 of 14 libraries in the state responding were outsourcing catalog functions. * One way in which libraries adjust the average cost of catalogers is by having more original cataloging done by paraprofessionals. This practice was almost unknown in academic research libraries before about 1970, but is now nearly universal (Figure 3). By 1997 more than 80% of responding libraries were using paraprofessionals,10 and the accelerating trend indicates that virtually all libraries did after about 2000. This change has been fairly gradual, occurring over a period of some twenty years, and has met with some commentary but not much controversy or anxiety. * The likely reason is that staffing levels for catalog departments, taken from