Genre/Form Access in Library Catalogs

A Survey on the Current State of LCGFT Usage

Colin Bitter and Yuji Tosaka

Colin Bitter (bitterc1@tcnj.edu) is Head of Cataloging and Metadata at The College of New Jersey. Yuji Tosaka (tosaka@tcnj.edu) is a Cataloging/Metadata Librarian at The College of New Jersey.

Manuscript submitted January 10, 2020; returned to authors for minor revisions February 19, 2020; revised manuscript submitted February 21, 2020; accepted for publication February 23, 2020.

This study provides analysis of a large online survey that was distributed to the cataloging community in 2018. The survey aimed to answer a number of important research questions to gain a general sense of the current state of Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT) usage. Findings include an overall broad acceptance of LCGFT, suggesting that the LCGFT project has been successfully embraced as a new controlled vocabulary; however, the adoption of the vocabulary remains uneven, especially between different types of institutions and different areas of the LCGFT vocabulary. Additionally, training points to a much-needed area for improvement as the survey found that the vast majority of non-users of LCGFT had never received vocabulary training. Survey results also suggest that retrospective LCGFT application, particularly using automated means, presents forthcoming challenges for librarians and library IT staff. Despite these limitations and challenges, survey results make it clear that LCGFT has become a widely accepted part of the bibliographic universe that helps to make genre and form information explicitly accessible to library users.

In 2007, the Library of Congress (LC) embarked on a multi-year effort to develop the Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT). The project’s principal aim was to generate a unified vocabulary of terms for the purpose of describing what a resource is rather than what it is about. During the first year of LCGFT, the only available terms were for moving image genre/forms; since then, the project has expanded significantly to include a variety of vocabulary areas, including artistic and visual works, cartographic materials, “general” materials, law materials, literature, music, non-musical sound recordings, and religious materials.1 As of this writing, there are over 2,000 authorized LCGFT headings.

Approximately one decade after the project’s inception, in 2018, there were 7.02 million LCGFT headings recorded in MARC field 655 in WorldCat.2 In light of the significant number of LCGFT headings found in the OCLC database, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the project has been widely accepted within the cataloging community, at least among OCLC member libraries. Indeed, the closest English language competitors were the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, at 2.43 million, and the Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama, Etc., at 1.88 million, both thesauri conceived long before LCGFT.3 Although the seven million LCGFT headings in MARC field 655 suggest high use within WorldCat, many questions remain as to the state of LCGFT within the cataloging community some ten years after the first set of terms became available. What is the current state of LCGFT implementation across the library community? What are the reasons for libraries using or not using LCGFT in their local catalogs? What are the prevailing perceptions of the relationships between LCGFT and LCSH, and what challenges have libraries faced when it comes to retrospective application?

The purpose of this paper is to provide analysis of an online survey developed by the authors with an eye toward identifying the current state of the field with regard to LCGFT. In the first study of its kind, the current paper makes significant contributions to the field, not least by providing relevant findings for a number of constituent groups within the library community. For catalogers and other technical services librarians, the study presents a broad overview of current practices and perceptions of LCGFT across peer institutions or other types of libraries. For those closely involved in setting cataloging policies, the study provides much-needed national data as to the perceived strengths and weaknesses of LCGFT plus its distribution and usage patterns. Lastly, for library administrators, the study illustrates areas of potential programming, staff support, and professional development that might be needed to allow the library community to better harness the potential of genre/form terms for improved resource discovery.

Historical Background and the Current State of the Literature

While LCSH has been traditionally assigned to describe the content of the work (aboutness), bringing out form and genre aspects of the work has been an important part of traditional cataloging practice for generations.4 Even within LCSH, some types of resources, including compilations and music materials, had genre and form terms assigned either as main headings or subdivisions. More recently, this practice was formally identified separately as form subdivisions in LCSH in 1999, coded in MARC field 650 subfield $v.5 Additionally, LC had announced its intention to develop separate genre/form headings in the mid-1990s. It was not until 2007, however, that LC initiated a comprehensive effort to fulfill this promise and start to develop the current LCGFT thesaurus.6 Ostrove had noted years earlier that a project of this potential magnitude and impact across multiple disciplines would need to be coordinated between LC and the library community at large.7 Indeed, since the LCGFT project has been broad and multi-disciplinary in scope, collaboration has become the rule rather than the exception in the development of the vocabulary, as policy specialists in LC formally collaborated with other outside organizations like the American Library Association (ALA), the American Association of Law Libraries, and the Music Library Association.8

Beyond cataloging practice, genre/form access has been addressed sporadically in the cataloging literature, although the topic has seen some increasing attention over time, as reflected in the development of a separate LCGFT thesaurus. This literature is expertly documented by Lee and Zhang’s 2013 article in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly—arguably the most important recent paper on the topic. The authors provided a comprehensive overview of the historical use of genre and form terms in multiple Anglo-American cataloging codes, emphasizing the disparity of treatment between earlier codes (e.g., Panizzi’s 91 Rules) and later ones (e.g., RDA). Tracing the existing literature on the evolution of genre-related rules, they delineated the cataloging community’s inability to adequately differentiate between the terms “genre” and “form.” Lee and Zhang also found that the community had historically not given suitable attention to genre, despite the “expanding role [that] genre plays in the current as well as future environments.” 9 Issues pertaining to improving genre and form access in specific subject areas and specialist communities, such as audiovisual cataloging, have been addressed by Yee and other authors.10

Writings focusing on the LCGFT thesaurus have been notably sparse in the cataloging literature—a rather surprising omission now that more than ten years have passed since LC started a project to develop a separate body of genre and form terms at the behest of the library community. Young and Mandelstam have discussed the development of the LCGFT thesaurus in general, including its potential benefits and applications.11 LCGFT development and application in specialist communities, such as music cataloging, have been addressed by Iseminger and others.12 Recently, Mullin has explored automated techniques for assigning LCGFT terms retrospectively by using LCSH terms in existing bibliographic records for music resources.13 While these works do help to place the utility and value of the LCGFT thesaurus in some context, what has been woefully lacking in the literature is empirical research exploring actual LCGFT implementation and usage in detail. Such evidence-based studies are critically needed to fill this knowledge deficit and add to the profession’s understanding of the use of LCGFT in ways that will help inform future conversations and decisions about promoting genre and form access for our users.

Research Method and Data

To collect data for exploring the study questions outlined in the introduction, the authors turned to the Qualtrics platform, a leading subscription software for conducting online surveys, to develop and distribute a national survey to the cataloging community in 2018. The survey instrument designed for this study had a total of forty-five questions, although the number of questions actually displayed for each survey participant was much smaller and variable according to responses given for certain questions. Most of the questions used in the current survey were multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions, although it also included a few open-ended questions designed to ask for more in-depth free text responses where appropriate. In many multiple-choice questions, respondents were asked to select all choices that applied, rather than select one exclusively for each question.

After Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for the current study, the authors disseminated invitation messages and reminders to the following six electronic discussion lists: 1) AUTOCAT, 2) MOUG-L (Music OCLC Users Group electronic discussion list), 3) OCLC-CAT, 4) OLAC-List (Online Audiovisual Catalogers electronic discussion list), 5) PCCLIST (Program for Cooperative Cataloging electronic discussion list), and 6) RDA-L. These lists were chosen for survey participant recruitment due to their fit with the authors’ research purpose and questions. Because they were all major mailing lists targeted at cataloging and metadata librarians, they were expected to provide access to the online pool of potential respondents who would be qualified to provide valid and useful professional responses relating to the use of the LCGFT vocabulary in library catalogs.

The survey remained open from May 25 to July 6, 2018. During the approximately five-week period, 576 people volunteered to start answering survey questions. Out of this initial pool of respondents, 441 people (76.6 percent) completed the survey all the way through to the last question. Since the questionnaire included a long list of often complicated questions, the low drop-off rate recorded in this survey seemed to illustrate the timeliness and relevance of the survey at a time when the cataloging community is still developing best practices for applying the LCGFT vocabulary in a fast-paced production environment.14

Respondents’ Profiles

Analysis of the survey data showed that a broad cross-section of the cataloging community was represented among respondents. With regard to their professional positions, the authors found that most respondents were currently involved in cataloging and metadata areas. Cataloging librarians were the largest group, amounting to 42.1 percent of the survey participants. Nearly 20 percent of our respondents (19.9 percent) reported themselves as cataloging department heads/managers. Those identifying themselves as metadata librarians accounted for 11.7 percent of the respondent population. The other smaller respondent groups were cataloging support staff (8.5 percent), library administrators, including technical services heads (7.2 percent), metadata department heads/managers (5.5 percent), and metadata support staff (1.0 percent). In general, while respondents self-selected themselves into the online survey sample, it was evident that their professional profiles clearly ensured that the data collected was valid and usable for the purpose of the current study.

Data about respondents’ institutional backgrounds are presented in figure 1. Those working in academic libraries accounted for slightly more than half of the respondents (53.9 percent). Approximately a quarter of the respondents—the second largest subgroup—were from public libraries (26.5 percent). The survey data also included smaller numbers of responses from those working in archives, museums, and special collections (5.3 percent), from government libraries, including national libraries (4.6 percent), from special/corporate libraries (3.0 percent), and from school libraries (1.6 percent). The distribution of survey participants across library types was significantly skewed toward academic libraries, which currently account for approximately 17 percent of the total librarian population in the United States.15 These results were hardly surprising to the authors. Because new initiatives in cataloging and metadata services have been often spearheaded in academic libraries, as has been the case recently with RDA and BIBFRAME testing, the over-representation of academic librarians in the respondent population appeared in most parts to be a logical outcome, suggesting that they have been much more active in keeping abreast of the development of new controlled vocabularies and were thus more interested in participating in the authors’ survey on LCGFT usage in library catalogs.16

The survey also asked the respondents about participation in any PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) programs: BIBCO (Monographic Bibliographic Record Cooperative Program), CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials Program), NACO (Name Authority Cooperative Program), and SACO (Subject Authority Cooperative Program). The PCC is an international cooperative effort aimed at providing high-quality shared cataloging and leading the cataloging and metadata community through specialized training and mentoring for its participants and non-members. The question about PCC activities was consequently included in the survey with an eye toward examining if participation in international cataloging initiatives influenced how different types of institutions have implemented the LCGFT vocabulary in their library catalogs (see discussion below). The survey data showed that respondents were split almost equally between PCC program participants and non-members (46.6 percent versus 53.4 percent). Among the PCC participants, nearly half (46.9 percent—21.8 percent of the respondents) were involved in a single program only, while the remainder (53.1 percent—24.7 percent of the respondents) participated in multiple PCC programs. A total of 13.2 percent of the PCC participants (6.1 percent of respondents) worked with three PCC programs, while nearly a quarter of the PCC participants (22.9 percent— 10.6 percent of respondents) participated in all four PCC programs. As was the case with the previously noted over-representation of academic librarians, the survey population was obviously skewed toward PCC program participants in light of the selective nature of these cooperative cataloging programs. This result was also almost anticipated, however, because it would be hardly surprising that the principle of following the latest PCC standards makes PCC participants much more attuned to incorporating new standard thesauri in their cataloging work and likewise much more willing to contribute to an online survey on a topic of likely interest to them.17

Findings and Analysis

Cataloging Practices

Following the preliminary questions regarding the respondents’ profiles, one principal section of the survey was designed to examine treatment and application of LCGFT terms in copy cataloging records. As the survey was conducted approximately ten years after LCGFT’s initial launch, it is almost certain that respondents involved in cataloging would have encountered the LCGFT vocabulary in their everyday work. An initial area of inquiry—treatment of pre-existing LCGFT terms—was of interest to the authors as it provides a basic framework on the current attitudes toward and perceptions of LCGFT. That is, since copy cataloging records that contain LCGFT terms do not require intensive cataloging effort (barring record errors), whether the respondents choose to retain them might provide basic information as to the perceived usefulness of the vocabulary. Of the 534 respondents, the survey found that only 7.5 percent deleted LCGFT headings in local catalogs, 5.6 percent retained LCGFT headings but suppressed them from display, and 86.9 percent kept LCGFT headings and displayed them in local catalogs (see figure 2).

While figure 2 shows a surface-level broad acceptance of the LCGFT vocabulary, cross-examining this question against the respondent profile provides a more nuanced view of the data. Dividing the respondents into three broad institutional groups brings out the greatest preference for LCGFT use in public libraries, academic libraries as a close second, and the least preference from a combined group of archives, museums, special collections, and special/corporate libraries (see figure 3).

The preference for LCGFT in public libraries seems to make sense given the type of materials collected and their historical application of subject and genre headings. For example, in Subject Heading Manual H 1790, there are “special provisions for increased subject access to fiction” covering the application of appropriate GSAFD form and genre heading(s) from the Guideline on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama, Etc., some of which are aimed at enhancing the ability of the “average public library user” to select recreational reading.18 Given the vast amounts of fiction and literature that public libraries hold (to say nothing of motion pictures and sound recordings), it seems perfectly reasonable to find increased rates of LCGFT retention reported by the public library respondents. Another possible interpretation of the data may be that this result was a reflection of public libraries being more limited in staff and cataloging knowledge/training and thus unable and/or unprepared to make any modifications to incoming copy records in their local catalogs.19

Of course, rates on the retention and display of the LCGFT vocabulary for copy records only paint part of the picture; obtaining the reasons behind the respondents’ answers was equally, if not more, critical. Of the 441 respondents answering this question, 84.6 percent indicated that their institutions displayed LCGFT terms in local catalogs because they described the “non-topical attributes” of resources, which seemed to illustrate the usefulness of the vocabulary in describing “is-ness,” as opposed to “aboutness,” that is not brought out by LCSH. A majority of the respondents also selected answers indicating LCGFT’s potential for filtering of search results and faceted searching (56.7 percent and 59.4 percent, respectively). Roughly one-third of the respondents’ institutions displayed LCGFT because LC will be implementing the thesaurus and because peer institutions have adopted LCGFT (32.4 percent and 30.2 percent, respectively).

In addition to the pre-constructed choices reported in Table 1, there was an option for “other,” prompting free text response. Though many of the free text responses provided alternate wordings or augmentations of the choices contained in table 1, there were also some unexpected themes. For example, many respondents pointed to time constraints, as seen below:

• “The less we have to modify the record, the better (time-wise).”
• “Lack of staff available to review and change records. Locally, records are more and more just accepted as is.”
• “LCGFT headings are helpful and it takes less time to keep than to delete.”

These responses highlight the fact that the LCGFT vocabulary likely will be integrated at many institutions via acclimation rather than conscious decision, as suggested above for public libraries. Copy catalogers simply do not have the time or have not undergone the requisite training to take appropriate action when it comes to genre/form headings. Alternatively, they are instructed to take no action, as other respondents revealed following the local protocol as the reason for retaining LCGFT headings:

• “Honestly, I do not know. It’s in the manual, so I follow it.”
• “I haven’t been told to delete them.”
• “It is consortium policy not to delete any headings when bringing in a record.”

In contrast to the treatment of existing genre/form terms, addition of LCGFT headings in copy records is a far more proactive task, requiring extended effort on the part of catalogers. With regard to this question, the survey showed that 78.4 percent of the respondents added LCGFT headings to all or some copy records (37.4 percent and 41.0 percent, respectively), as seen in figure 4.

The respondents whose institutions only added LCGFT headings for certain types of materials were further asked to specify the type of material in a follow-up question. The responses shed light onto varied practice regarding format/material type. As illustrated in Table 2, survey participants reported applying headings more often to motion pictures (64.9 percent), television programs (52.3 percent), literature (47.1 percent), sound recordings (46.6 percent), music (40.8 percent), and artistic/visual works (34.5 percent). Less preference was given to cartographic materials (23.0 percent), law materials (10.3 percent), and religious materials (4.6 percent). Additionally, 46.6 percent of the respondents applied LCGFT in copy records in one or more of the “general” areas of LCGFT (commemorative works, derivative works, discursive works, ephemera, illustrated works, informational works, instructional and educational works, recreational works, and tactile works).

In examining the non-use of LCGFT terms in copy cataloging (13.1 percent of respondents), the adequacy of other vocabularies (e.g., LCSH) was selected as a top reason (60.0 percent), followed by indexing and display issues (35.4 percent and 27.7 percent, respectively), as seen in table 3. Dissatisfaction with the LCGFT vocabulary was also reported as a reason for locally deleting or suppressing LCGFT headings for display by a small number of the respondents (7.7 percent).

For these non-users, the survey posed questions regarding implementation plans for the LCGFT vocabulary. Survey responses revealed that 5.9 percent had no implementation plan, while 12.5 percent planned to adopt the vocabulary locally in the future, with the remaining 51.6 percent still unsure. Those non-users who either replied “yes” or “unsure” about future LCGFT implementation (i.e., non-user potential adopters) were also asked to report when they planned to adopt the vocabulary; here the majority had no firm, fully worked out plan as 75.6 percent replied “not sure.” Of the remaining 24.4 percent who had a definite implementation schedule, most stated they will implement LCGFT when LC formally adopts the vocabulary (17.1 percent), while few specified a “later date” (7.3 percent). The reasons behind the implementation delay, as demonstrated in table 4, showed higher response levels for LCSH’s adequacy (40.5 percent), potential duplication with LCSH (35.1 percent), and indexing problems (29.7 percent). Other reasons for not implementing LCGFT included lack of time/funding for training (24.3 percent), lack of genre/form search mechanism (24.3 percent), no demonstrated benefit for LCGFT implementation (21.6 percent), potential conflicts with LCSH (21.6 percent), unsure of vocabulary stability (18.9 percent), display issues (18.9 percent), and dissatisfaction with LCGFT (10.8 percent).

For those few respondents without plans to adopt LCGFT (definite non-adopters) for copy cataloging, perhaps the most notable finding is that adequacy of LCSH (52.5 percent) was overtaken by “no demonstrated benefit to implementing the vocabulary” (69.6 percent) as their reason for no implementation, as seen in table 5. The disparity between the greatest and least responses (“no demonstrated benefit” and “not satisfied with LCGFT vocabulary,” respectively) can perhaps be explained by unfamiliarity with the vocabulary. That is, these respondents might have seen examples of the LCGFT vocabulary used within bibliographic records and public displays, but did not necessarily have comprehensive knowledge of the vocabulary’s goals and intended benefits and/or its terms and structure. This analysis is supported by data from a subsequent question asking the respondents whether they had received any formal LCGFT training; almost all definite non-adopters (95.7 percent) had not received any formal LCGFT training.

In contrast to the definite non-adopters, the survey also found a small group of “total adopters” (8.3 percent). These respondents either deleted or suppressed LCSH and instead displayed LCGFT alone when copy cataloging, abandoning the former vocabulary. Though few, the total adopters preferred LCGFT especially for motion pictures (60.0 percent), sound recordings (60.0 percent), music (54.2 percent), television programs (51.4 percent), and literature (51.4 percent). While this represents a very small minority of the respondents, it may be important to note that the group does signal professional anticipation of resultant vocabulary usage. For example, future use of LCGFT, and its compatibility with LCSH, are addressed in a 2017 white paper by a subcommittee of the ALCTS/CaMMS Subject Analysis Committee:

The role of form subdivisions, especially when they duplicate a genre/form term (in meaning if not in exact verbiage), is called into question. Even more significant are the entire areas of music and literature. For resources that are works of music or literature (not works about them), the preponderance of LCSH headings applied are not “subject” headings at all but rather headings that convey only form/genre, medium of performance, creator/contributor, audience, geographic, language and/or chronological characteristics. After these headings have been satisfactorily mapped to faceted terms and encoded in their proper designations, they ought to be removed entirely from bibliographic records. Moreover, in certain cases the corresponding LCSH authority records ought to be cancelled.20

Although the total adopters seem to have embraced these ideas early on, it is not surprising that their numbers were small in the authors’ survey data as LC still assigns LCSH in tandem with LCGFT.21

The survey also included a number of similar questions on the adoption of the LCGFT vocabulary in original cataloging to see if any significant differences could be found in LCGFT usage patterns between copy and original cataloging practice. The data are not reported in this paper because the responses showed much of the same patterns as those for copy cataloging. One notable exception that deserves highlighting here, however, was related to the question on reasons for implementation delay in original cataloging among the current non-users, as presented in table 6. Here, a far greater proportion of the respondents (56.3 percent) reported “lack of time/funds for training.” This result may suggest that insufficient training with the newer LCGFT thesaurus makes LCGFT application in original cataloging records more difficult for many catalogers than in handling copy cataloging records. With more than half of the respondents mentioning the training problem in original cataloging, this data clearly points to an important area for improvement within the cataloging community.

Retrospective LCGFT Application

Although deployment of a new vocabulary may indicate a certain level of change in cataloging practices, the true effectiveness of the said vocabulary cannot be fully realized until it is applied retrospectively to existing records within databases to avoid a “split file” situation (i.e., when the vocabulary is applied to new records while being omitted from eligible legacy records). To explore this question, the survey included questions regarding vendor-automated retrospective application of LCGFT headings in addition to manual application. The main finding is that manual application (enhancing individual records by applying LCGFT terms manually) was practiced more than automation (enhancing individual records using macros or updating groups of records in batch). It is clear that the calls for automated treatment have either not been developed or adopted by the majority of the cataloging community.22 Indeed, the only documented non-vendor system of automation is the OCLC Music Toolkit, a tool designed to assist music catalogers in applying LCGFT retrospectively using macros within OCLC Connexion Client.23

Regarding manual application of LCGFT in local catalogs, nearly half of the respondents (46.4 percent) have applied the LCGFT thesaurus in this fashion. Questioned about each vocabulary area, the respondents showed greatest preference for manual application for motion pictures (33.0 percent), television programs (29.5 percent), literature (28.8 percent), sound recordings (27.9 percent), and music (24.6 percent). Respondent profile was also significant here as public libraries adopted manual conversion workflows at greater rates (59.5 percent) than academic libraries (38.8 percent) and the combined group of archives, museums, and special/corporate libraries (37.0 percent), a result that paralleled the findings about types of institutions retaining and displaying LCGFT headings in local catalogs as reported earlier (see figure 3).

As for automated retrospective LCGFT application, the survey data found that only 10.2 percent of the respondents have instituted automated authority treatment to flip or retrospectively convert LCSH terms to LCGFT headings in their catalogs. This small group was also asked about how the automated processes were executed, as seen in table 7. The most common responses were “matching 6XX $a terms removed and replaced by LCGFT terms” (53.3 percent) and “6XX $v terms are retained and matching LCGFT terms are added” (46.7 percent), followed by “matching 6XX $a terms are retained and LCGFT terms are added” (26.7 percent) and “6XX $v terms are removed and matching LCGFT terms are added” (17.8 percent).

Some additional practices were reported in the free text responses, such as having GSAFD terms only—but not LCSH terms—converted for LCGFT additions, or using MarcEdit, a leading MARC data editing tool, to convert LCSH terms to LCGFT headings during batch record downloading—implying that their global update actions are at least partially homegrown.

Respondents were asked if they encountered difficulties with automated processes. More than one-third of the respondents (35.6 percent) reported that they had encountered problems. In a free text follow-up question, the vast majority of them expressed dismay with incorrect flipping of LCSH or GSAFD terms to LCGFT headings by vendors, in any number of ways. For example, multiple respondents reported that their vendor had incorrectly flipped certain LCSH headings on the mistaken assumption that they would eventually be transitioned to identical LCGFT terms. In another case, the vendor switched LCSH to LCGFT although the LCSH heading was correct as it was meant to be a topical heading in many records. Other respondents described syntax errors, especially regarding MARC fields, indicators, and subfield $2 values. One respondent noted: “Sometimes it [vendor conversion] flips the wrong things. Sometimes it deletes headings. Its [sic] just the usual thing when you have an automated system do large scale work like this.” While this is true, the prevalence of haphazard LCGFT application identified in the survey data might have been minimized if more cooperative efforts been established between vendors and libraries to test the conversion process and address potential conversion issues. Most importantly, these various inconsistencies revealed by vendor processes likely have resulted in additional institutional cleanup projects, which might discourage future retrospective application efforts, particularly for those institutions lacking the expertise or devices to execute such tasks in house.

Training

Identifying the degree to which training has influenced cataloger application of LCGFT was another goal of the survey. Training was an important area to include in the survey as various types of training represent the greatest level of educational participation on the part of both the trainer and trainee.24 That is, generally the trainer has to spend a great deal of time developing the session, while the trainee has to put forth effort to attend the session. Formal training can require additional effort on the part of the participant in locating monies needed to fund travel and the event itself (whether it is in the form of conference or workshop fees). Even the asynchronous webinar, which may certainly require less effort than attending a conference, can require a fair amount of time commitment by the participant. Further, evaluating the responses from this area of the survey gives a unified picture as to the effectiveness of professional distribution of communications regarding the new thesaurus. Here the survey data found that only 19.1 percent of respondents had received some type of formal training either at their institution or via an external event. Of those respondents who had received training, 33.3 percent had received funding from their institution.

Training appeared to influence local use and treatment of the LCGFT thesaurus. For example, nearly all respondents who had received some type of training kept and displayed LCGFT headings locally when doing copy cataloging (98.9 percent), while almost none had LCGFT headings suppressed from display in their local catalogs (1.1 percent). In contrast, the survey data showed that those respondents who had not received training were far more likely to suppress or delete LCGFT headings when copy cataloging (6.0 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively).

Lack of LCGFT training among these survey respondents reveals other consistent attitudes regarding non-adoption of LCGFT in both copy and original cataloging practices. These respondents showed preference for LCSH over LCGFT (50.0 percent in copy cataloging, 37.0 percent in original cataloging) in addition to stating that there was no benefit to implementing the vocabulary (72.7 percent in copy cataloging, 55.6 percent in original cataloging). Both of these responses were top choices among these “non-trainees” in questions regarding reasons for not implementing the LCGFT thesaurus in their cataloging workflows.

Perceptions on End User Effectiveness

As the overwhelming majority of respondents were employed in a cataloging-related capacity, it would have been difficult to gauge the effectiveness of LCGFT for end users. This being said, the survey was an opportunity to collect data regarding catalogers’ perceptions on end use. Because a new controlled vocabulary is developed to improve resource discovery and access for library users, its application by working catalogers should be directed largely by their professional judgment about its effectiveness for end users, rather than being dictated externally by new cataloging rules.

The survey attempted to measure perceived vocabulary effectiveness by querying the respondents about two primary constituencies: public services staff and end users. Here the survey data revealed a common trend between their perceptions with respect to both groups. First, the respondents were optimistic overall toward the effectiveness of the vocabulary. They reported that LCGFT would be very helpful (42.8 percent) or somewhat helpful (38.1 percent) to public services staff. The numbers were similar for perceptions about end users, with 45.4 percent reporting “very helpful,” and 40.0 percent reporting “somewhat helpful.” Secondly, follow-up questions queried the respondents about the direct feedback they had received from the two groups. It is notable that the actual feedback reported was mostly neutral from public services staff and end users (52.1 percent and 57.2 percent, respectively).

The respondents were then invited to describe feedback using free text response. The responses given seemed to highlight a few end-user issues for LCGFT usage in library catalogs. For example, several respondents commented on the importance of providing training for public services staff. At one institution, training sessions were held to demonstrate how to recognize and use the vocabulary. According to the respondent, this was received positively, and they noted that “[reference librarians and graduate student reference assistants] are enthusiastic about the genre headings in particular, such as graphic novels, fantasy literature, etc. But they also are really happy about being able to filter by form too.” Such training should not be limited to isolated professional interactions, however. Otherwise, one respondent noted, even if LCGFT demonstrations were well attended, “virtually everyone outside of cataloging” would be unable to keep them in mind and take advantage of the index a couple of years later.

Some respondents noted that public services staff had commented on issues created by split files. That is, newer records contain LCGFT headings, but older similar records do not. One respondent stated that, “[Public services staff] desire . . . that we can develop a way to retrospectively add useful LCGFT headings to our legacy database.” Another noted that, “We’ve decided not to make the genre index available at this time . . . as most of our 8 million records do not have genre terms, thus skewing search results.” These responses highlight a need for retrospective application of LCGFT to legacy cataloging data to better assist both public and technical services staff, as noted in a previous section.

Feedback from end users as reported in the free text responses was similar to that of public services staff, though some departures are worth noting. For example, some respondents reported end users’ confusion or dissatisfaction with the vocabulary. One specific example cited was the LCGFT heading Academic theses. “A small number of dissertation authors have asked why we use that term, which they think denigrates their work,” one respondent wrote. Particularly in light of the reported difference above between LCGFT’s perceived effectiveness and the actual feedback from public services staff and end users, these responses seemed to illustrate the need for further user education on genre/form headings, as well as more attention to exploring how to take full advantage of said headings within modern-day discovery systems. When better trained, end users may develop greater satisfaction with the catalog. Along this line, one respondent noted: “After I show them (on the Reference desk) how to search by subject (actually genre) ‘Film adaptations’ they are impressed.”

Discovery

As suggested above, while much has been done to create the proper infrastructure for LCGFT application by cataloging professionals, questions remain as to whether present-day discovery systems take full advantage of the vocabulary. The survey presented an opportunity to gauge the issues the respondents experienced with their local discovery systems regarding the LCGFT thesaurus. The authors found that indexing was of primary concern as LCGFT likely has limited usefulness unless a separate index is created for it, or, at minimum, unless it is incorporated with a pre-existing genre index. Approximately two-thirds of respondents (66.9 percent) reported that their discovery systems indexed LCGFT headings, while 15.3 percent noted that the thesaurus was not indexed in their local systems. Filtering this data based on institution type presented another significant data point; most notably, public library discovery systems appeared to lead the way when it came to indexing LCGFT (79.4 percent as opposed to 61.9 percent for the rest). The survey confirmed that indexability of LCGFT appeared to have an effect on whether the institution decided to apply and/or display the vocabulary. For those institutions deleting or suppressing LCGFT headings from copy records, only 18.2 percent had LCGFT indexed locally, while 73.8 percent of institutions that retained and displayed LCGFT headings in copy records also indexed the vocabulary.

Besides indexing issues, the respondents were also questioned about display in their local systems. The majority of the respondents (83.6 percent) used an OPAC or discovery system that displayed LCGFT headings. Simultaneously, a small portion of these respondents (8.4 percent) reported that they had experienced display problems with LCGFT. These respondents were invited to describe their display issue(s) using free text response. Common responses included the conflation of LCGFT with LCSH under the display label “subjects,” duplication of LCGFT and LCSH form subdivisions, inability to suppress sources of terms in subfield $2, and issues with creating links between bibliographic records to and from LCGFT headings. Regarding these issues, multiple respondents also highlighted the need for ongoing communications with vendors: “We need to educate the vendors more in the use, display and differences between LCGFT and LCSH.”

The ability to search by LCGFT terms and use them as facets was also an important question that the authors wanted to examine as these are two common ways to navigate bibliographic record data using genre/form headings. The survey showed that searching of LCGFT headings is a more widely available functionality than faceting, as more than half of the respondents (51.6 percent) reported this capability in their local systems. However, the authors found that many respondents (27.8 percent) were unsure as to whether their discovery systems enabled users to search based on LCGFT terms. Somewhat surprisingly, faceting was still not an available function at many institutions (35.6 percent) for LCGFT.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to provide analysis of an online survey developed by the authors and distributed to the cataloging community in 2018. The survey aimed to answer a number of important research questions to gain a general sense of the current state of LCGFT usage. The survey data helped to bring forth a series of findings that are relevant to catalogers, technical services staff, and the library community in general. As noted above in the section Cataloging Practices, the survey found an overall broad acceptance of the LCGFT vocabulary as the overwhelming majority of the respondents retained LCGFT headings in copy records loaded into their local catalogs. This finding suggests that the LCGFT project has been successfully embraced as a new controlled vocabulary for describing non-topical attributes of resources. As describing what a resource is rather than what it is about was an important initial goal of the project, the survey provides affirmation of LC’s efforts to develop a genre/form thesaurus separate from LCSH.25

While these findings are important in evaluating the thesaurus more than a decade after its inception, the overall adoption of the vocabulary remains uneven. As for institutional types, public libraries led in adopting the vocabulary. Regarding formats, clear preference was found for certain areas of LCGFT (e.g., literature, motion pictures, music, sound recordings, and television programs), a finding that appeared to indicate a need for further education and communication about less represented areas of LCGFT within the cataloging community. Training itself points to a much needed area for improvement as the survey found that the vast majority of non-adopters had never received training in LCGFT.

Furthermore, the survey results suggest that retrospective LCGFT application, particularly using automated means, also presents forthcoming challenges for librarians and library IT staff. Indeed, given the vast amount of legacy bibliographic data at present, one of the main sources of delay for institutions in presenting the vocabulary to the public was found to be the fear of the “split file.” Although the survey data highlighted the prevalence of manual treatment as the most common form of retrospective application, continuation of the existing practice seems untenable in light of the very legitimate concern about the impact of the “split file” issue on user discovery. That is, automation will need to supplant manual application as the split file is likely one of the most critical barriers to wider LCGFT usage. Additionally, the library community will need to continue to demand more of vendors involved in authority control as past automated retrospective application processes have often resulted in copious errors.

Another key survey finding is that interdepartmental communication within libraries will need to play a greater role in the forthcoming years with regard to end use of the LCGFT vocabulary. If the small number of “total adopters” presents the most logical path forward (i.e., abandoning LCSH in favor of LCGFT for describing certain types of resources), then public services librarians will face a large challenge in educating (or perhaps “recalibrating”) end users. Technical services librarians can spark the effort by collaborating with their colleagues in public services more effectively. Conversely, public services librarians can provide valuable advice to those in technical services regarding how to best present this new data and enable end users to make the most of the LCGFT vocabulary in modern discovery systems. The survey data also highlights the need for library administrators’ support for ongoing training, collaboration, and user education to allow both technical and public services librarians to facilitate genre/form access for improved end-user resource discovery.

While this paper makes a significant contribution to understanding the current state of LCGFT usage in the library community, the present study is not without limitations. In particular, although the survey was an efficient, convenient mechanism to collect relevant data from a large number of voluntary respondents quickly, reliance on voluntary survey participation potentially leads to underestimation of the issues and concerns that could have been reported by non-respondents, who might have differed in their characteristics and perspectives, among others, from the respondents. To overcome such potential limitations, it will be essential that follow-up studies be conducted to triangulate the present survey findings using other research methods, such as in-person, individual, or focus-group interviews with various subsets of cataloging professionals for more granular, qualitative analysis. Equally important as a logical follow-up to the current project might be a quantitative study regarding actual rates of LCGFT application within a large bibliographic database or several databases, as the present survey only examined self-reported perceptions on various aspects of the vocabulary. Retrospective application is another area that will need further examination in the coming years, particularly as more libraries migrate from traditional integrated library systems to newer library services platforms (LSPs). For example, does the new generation of LSPs, with far more advanced data remediation functionalities, offer new possibilities for more sophisticated treatment of genre-form headings for retrospective application? Studies will need to be conducted to determine best practices for applying LCGFT headings to legacy data in the evolving data environment. Finally, as the faceted vocabularies projects will only be fully realized with the more recent addition of the Library of Congress Medium of Performance Thesaurus (LCMPT) and the Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT), a comprehensive study of the three new LC vocabularies might be a further area ripe for analysis. While these questions represent fruitful ground for potential future studies, the survey results seem to make it abundantly clear that LCGFT has become a widely accepted part of the bibliographic universe that helps to make genre and form information explicitly accessible to library users.

References and Notes

1. Library of Congress, “Introduction to Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials,” www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCGFT/2019%20LCGFT%20intro.pdf.
2. Roy Tennant, “Ground Truthing [MARC field 655 second indicator 2],” http://roytennant.com/proto/groundtruthing/2018-01-6552.txt.
3. Tennant, “Ground Truthing.”
4. David P. Miller, “Out From Under: Form/Genre Access in LCSH,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 29, no. 1–2 (2000): 169–88.
5. Edward T. O’Neill et al., “Form Subdivisions: Their Identification and Use in LCSH,” Library Resources & Technical Services 45, no. 4 (2001): 187–97.
6. Library of Congress, “Report on the Moving Image Genre/Form Project,” www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/movimgenre.pdf.
7. Geraldine E. Ostrove, “Music Subject Cataloging and Form/Genre Implementation at the Library of Congress,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 32, no. 2 (2001): 91–106.
8. Janis L. Young and Yael Mandelstam, “It Takes a Village: Developing Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51, no. 1–3 (2013): 6–24.
9. Hur-Li Lee and Lei Zhang, “Tracing the Conceptions and Treatment of Genre in Anglo-American Cataloging,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51, no. 8 (2013): 891–912.
10. Martha M. Yee, “Two Genre and Form Lists for Moving Image and Broadcast Materials: A Comparison,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 31, no. 3–4 (2001): 237–95; Faye R. Leibowitz, “Form and Genre Headings in Serials Cataloging,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 20, no. 3 (1995): 19–41; Mary Dabney Wilson et al., “The Relationship between Subject Headings for Works of Fiction and Circulation in an Academic Library,” Library Collections, Aquisitions, & Technical Services 24 (2000): 459–65; Carrie Newsom et al., “Genre Terms for Chemistry and Engineering: Not Just for Literature Anymore,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 46, no. 4 (2008): 412–24.
11. Young and Mandelstam, “It Takes a Village.”
12. Beth Iseminger et al., “Faceted Vocabularies for Music: A New Era in Resource Discovery,” Notes 73, no. 3 (2017): 409–31; Mark McKnight, “Are We There Yet? Toward a Workable Controlled Vocabulary for Music,” Fontes Artis Musicae 59, no. 3 (2012): 286–92.
13. Casey A. Mullin, “An Amicable Divorce: Programmatic Derivation of Faceted Data from Library of Congress Subject Headings for Music,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 56, no. 7 (2018): 607–27.
14. Thomas A. Archer, “Response Rates to Expect from Web-Based Surveys and What to Do About It,” Journal of Extension 46, no. 3 (2008), www.joe.org/joe/2008june/rb3.php; Mirta Galesic, “Dropout on the Web: Effects of Interest and Burden Experienced during an Online Survey,” Journal of Official Statistics 22, no. 2 (2006): 313–28.
15. OCLC, “Global Library Statistics,” 2015, www.oclc.org/global-library-statistics.en.html.
16. Library of Congress, “Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA) Archives,” www.loc.gov/aba/rda/rda_test_archives.html; Robert M. Groves et al., “The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions on JSTOR,” Public Opinion Quarterly 68, no. 1 (2004): 2–31.
17. Groves et al., “The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions on JSTOR.”
18. Library of Congress, “Literature: Fiction H 1790,” Subject Headings Manual, 2015, www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H1790.pdf.
19. See, for example, Shawn D. Miska, “A Survey of Local Library Cataloging Tool and Resource Utilization,” Journal of Education for Library & Information Science 49, no. 2 (2008): 128–46.
20. Casey Mullin et al., “‘A Brave New (Faceted) World’: Towards Full Implementation of Library of Congress Faceted Vocabularies,” 2017, www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/PoCo-2017/BraveNewFacetedWorld-170713.pdf.
21. Library of Congress, “Assigning Genre/Form Terms,” 2016, www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCGFT/J110.pdf.
22. Mullin et al., “‘A Brave New (Faceted) World.’”
23. Mullin, “An Amicable Divorce.”
24. Yuji Tosaka and Jung-ran Park, “Continuing Education in New Standards and Technologies for the Organization of Data and Information: A Report on the Cataloging and Metadata Professional Development Survey,” Library Resources & Technical Services 62, no. 1 (2018): 4–15.
25. Library of Congress, “Introduction to Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials,” www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCGFT/2019%20LCGFT%20intro.pdf.

Appendix. LCGFT Survey Questions

Q1 Please indicate the nature of your institution

• Academic library
• Archives (go to Q3)
• Museum (go to Q3)
• Public library (go to Q3)
• School library (go to Q3)
• Special collections (go to Q3)
• Special/corporate library (go to Q3)
• Other (please specify) _________________________ (go to Q3)

Q2 Please indicate the primary type of your parent institution

• Doctoral/research university
• 4-year college/university (undergraduate focus—with or without master’s/professional programs)
• Community college
• Special focus academic institution (a high concentration of degrees in a single field or related fields, such as theology, medicine, art, music, design, law)
• Other (please specify) _________________________

Q3 Please indicate your job title (check all that apply)

• Library administrator (including technical services head)
• Cataloging department head/manager
• Metadata department head/manager
• Cataloging librarian
• Metadata librarian
• Paraprofessional—cataloging
• Paraprofessional—metadata
• Library student worker—cataloging
• Library student worker—metadata
• Other (please specify) _________________________

Q4 Please check the PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) programs that your institution participates in (check all that apply)

• BIBCO
• CONSER
• NACO
• SACO
• N/A

Q5 When you (hereafter including your staff/colleagues, or your library if applicable) are copy cataloging and see LCGFT terms in a record, you generally:

• Delete LCGFT headings in local catalogs
• Keep LCGFT headings locally but suppress display
• Keep LCGFT headings and display locally (go to Q11)

Q6 Please provide reasons for locally deleting or suppressing LCGFT headings for display (check all that apply)

• LCGFT terms are not indexed in local catalogs
• Display issues
• Not satisfied with LCGFT vocabulary
• Alternate controlled vocabularies (e.g., LCSH) are adequate for our catalogs
• Other (please specify) _________________________

Q7 If you currently delete or suppress LCGFT headings in copy records for display, do you plan to adopt the vocabulary locally in the future?

• Yes
• No (go to Q10)
• Not sure

Q8 When do you plan to implement LCGFT for copy records?

• When the Library of Congress formally adopts the vocabulary
• A later date (please specify) ____________________
• Not sure

Q9 Why has implementation been delayed for copy records at your institution? (check all that apply)

• Lack of time/funds for training (go to Q15)
• Unsure of the stability of the vocabulary (go to Q15)
• Potential duplication with LCSH (go to Q15)
• Potential conflicts with LCSH (go to Q15)
• Lack of search/retrieval mechanisms to help users find materials using genre/form terms (go to Q15)
• Display issues (go to Q15)
• No demonstrated benefit to implementing the vocabulary (go to Q15)
• LCGFT headings are not indexed in local catalogs (go to Q15)
• Not satisfied with LCGFT vocabulary (go to Q15)
• LCSH is adequate for our catalogs (go to Q15)
• Other (please specify) _________________________(go to Q15)

Q10 Please describe the reasons for not planning to implement the LCGFT vocabulary for copy records at your institution. (check all that apply)

• Lack of time/funds for training (go to Q15)
• Unsure of the stability of the vocabulary (go to Q15)
• Potential conflicts with LCSH (go to Q15)
• Legacy data issues (e.g., past records lack LCGFT, leading to a split file) (go to Q15)
• Lack of search/retrieval mechanisms to help users find materials using genre/form terms (go to Q15)
• Display issues (go to Q15)
• No demonstrated benefit to implementing the vocabulary (go to Q15)
• LCGFT headings are not indexed in local catalogs (go to Q15)
• Not satisfied with LCGFT vocabulary (go to Q15)
• LCSH is adequate for our catalogs (go to Q15)
• Other (please specify) __________________________ (go to Q15)

Q11 What are the main reasons for locally displaying LCGFT headings in copy records? (check all that apply)

• LCGFT headings describe non-topical attributes of resources
• Peer institutions have adopted the vocabulary
• LC will be implementing the vocabulary
• LCGFT headings support filtering results
• LCGFT headings support faceted searching
• Other (please specify) _________________________

Q12 Do you generally add LCGFT headings to copy records in addition to keeping and displaying them in local catalogs?

• Add applicable LCGFT headings regardless of format/material type (go to Q14)
• Add applicable LCGFT headings for certain types of materials
• No, we do not add LGGFT headings to copy records (go to Q14)

Q13 For which materials do you currently add LCGFT headings in copy records? (check all that apply)

• Artistic and visual works
• Cartographic materials
• Law materials
• Literature
• Motion pictures
• Music
• Religious materials
• Television programs
• Sound recordings
• Commemorative works
• Creative nonfiction
• Derivative works
• Discursive works
• Ephemera
• Illustrated works
• Informational works
• Instructional and educational works
• Recreational works
• Tactile works

Q14 Are there certain materials for which you locally display LCGFT headings only in copy records while deleting or suppressing LCSH altogether?

• Artistic and visual works
• Cartographic materials
• Law materials
• Literature
• Television programs
• Motion pictures
• Music
• Religious materials
• Sound recordings
• Commemorative works
• Creative nonfiction
• Derivative works
• Discursive works
• Ephemera
• Illustrated works
• Informational works
• Instructional and educational works
• Recreational works
• Tactile works
• No, we never delete or suppress LCSH in favor of LCGFT

Q15 When you are performing original cataloging, for which materials do you currently apply LCGFT headings?

• Artistic and visual works
• Cartographic materials
• Law materials
• Literature
• Motion pictures
• Music
• Religious materials
• Television programs
• Sound recordings
• Commemorative works
• Creative nonfiction
• Derivative works
• Discursive works
• Ephemera
• Illustrated works
• Informational works
• Instructional and educational works
• Recreational works
• Tactile works
• We do not apply LCGFT headings in any original cataloging (go to Q18)

Q16 At your institution, are there certain materials for which you apply LCGFT headings only for original cataloging while omitting LCSH altogether?

• Artistic and visual works
• Cartographic materials
• Law materials
• Literature
• Motion pictures
• Music
• Religious materials
• Television programs
• Sound recordings
• Commemorative works
• Creative nonfiction
• Derivative works
• Discursive works
• Ephemera
• Illustrated works
• Informational works
• Instructional and educational works
• Recreational works
• Tactile works
• No, there are no specific types of materials for which I apply LCGFT exclusively for original cataloging.

Q17 What are the main reasons you have adopted the LCGFT vocabulary for original cataloging?

• LCGFT headings describe non-topical attributes of resources (go to Q22)
• LCGFT headings are easier to apply than LCSH (go to Q22)
• Peer institutions have adopted the vocabulary (go to Q22)
• LC is adopting the vocabulary (go to Q22)
• LCGFT headings support filtering results (go to Q22)
• LCGFT headings support faceted searching (go to Q22)
• Other (please specify) __________________________ (go to Q22)

Q18 If you do not currently use LCGFT terms in original cataloging, do you plan to adopt the vocabulary in the future?

• Yes
• No (go to Q21)
• Not sure

Q19 When do you plan to implement LCGFT for original cataloging?

• When the Library of Congress formally adopts the vocabulary
• A later date (please specify) _____________________
• Not sure

Q20 Why has implementation been delayed for original cataloging at your institution? (check all that apply)

• Lack of time/funds for training (go to Q22)
• Unsure of the stability of the vocabulary (go to Q22)
• Potential conflicts with LCSH (go to Q22)
• Legacy data issues (past records lack LCGFT, leading to a split file) (go to Q22)
• Lack of search/retrieval mechanisms to help users find materials using genre/form terms (go to Q22)
• Display issues (go to Q22)
• No demonstrated benefit to implementing the vocabulary (go to Q22)
• LCGFT headings are not indexed in local catalogs (go to Q22)
• Not satisfied with LCGFT vocabulary (go to Q22)
• LCSH is adequate for our catalogs (go to Q22)
• Other (please specify) __________________________(go to Q22)

Q21 If you do not plan on adopting the LCGFT vocabulary for original cataloging, please describe the reasons for not implementing the vocabulary at your institution. (check all that apply)

• Lack of time/funds for training
• Unsure of the stability of the vocabulary
• Potential conflicts with LCSH
• Legacy data issues (e.g., past records lack LCGFT, leading to a split file)
• Lack of search/retrieval mechanisms to help users find materials using genre/form terms
• Display issues
• No demonstrated benefit to implementing the vocabulary
• LCGFT headings are not indexed in local catalogs
• Not satisfied with LCGFT vocabulary
• LCSH is adequate for our catalogs
• Other (please specify) _________________________

Q22 Please indicate how helpful each of the following resources have been for LCGFT training.

[Very helpful / Somewhat helpful / Neutral / Somewhat unhelpful / Very unhelpful / N/A]

• Materials at lc.gov
• Electronic mailing lists
• “Best practices” documentation (e.g., OLAC, MLA)
• Webinars
• Other (please describe)

Q23 Have you received formal LCGFT training, either locally or externally (at conferences or workshops, for example)?

• Yes
• No (go to Q25)

Q24 Has your institution funded formal LCGFT training, either locally or externally?

• Yes
• No

Q25 Has your institution used automated authority control vendor services to ‘flip’ or retrospectively convert LCSH terms to LCGFT headings?

• Yes
• No (go to Q29)

Q26 Which of the following best describes automated treatment of LCSH? (check all that apply)

• Matching 6XX $a terms (LCSH) are removed and replaced by LCGFT terms
• Matching 6XX $a terms (LCSH) are retained and LCGFT terms are added
• 6XX $v terms (LCSH) are retained and matching LCGFT terms are added
• 6XX $v terms (LCSH) are removed and matching LCGFT terms are added
• Other (please describe) ________________________

Q27 Have you encountered any difficulties with the automated processes?

• Yes
• No (go to Q29)

Q28 Please describe the difficulties encountered.

Q29 For which materials have you manually converted or added LCGFT headings in local catalog records?

• Artistic and visual works
• Cartographic materials
• Law materials
• Literature
• Motion pictures
• Music
• Religious materials
• Television programs
• Sound recordings
• Creative nonfiction
• Commemorative works
• Derivative works
• Discursive works
• Ephemera
• Illustrated works
• Informational works
• Instructional and educational works
• Recreational works
• Tactile works
• We have not manually converted or added LCGFT headings in local catalog records

Q30 Rate the degree to which you think LCGFT will help public services staff.

[Very helpful / Somewhat helpful / Neutral / Somewhat unhelpful / Very unhelpful / N/A]

Q31 At your institution, what has the feedback been from public services staff regarding LCGFT headings?

[Very positive / Somewhat positive / Neutral / Somewhat negative / Very negative / N/A]

N/A = (go to Q33)

Q32 Please describe the feedback, if any, you have received from public services staff.

Q33 Rate the degree to which you think LCGFT will help end users.

[Very helpful / Somewhat helpful / Neutral / Somewhat unhelpful / Very unhelpful / N/A]

Q34 At your institution, what has the feedback been from end users regarding LCGFT headings?

[Very positive / Somewhat positive / Neutral / Somewhat negative / Very negative / N/A]

N/A = (go to Q34)

Q35 Please describe the feedback, if any, you have received from end users.

Q36 Do you see the potential for any duplication (or conflicts) between LCSH and LCGFT?

• Yes
• No (go to Q38)
• Not sure (go to Q38)

Q37 Please specify the potential areas you see for duplication or conflicts between LCSH and LCGFT. (check all that apply)

• Conflation of topical and non-topical attributes of resources
• LCSH includes many headings and sub-divisions that are not about topical attributes
• LCSH describes facts about resources that are not subjects
• Misleading to users since many genre and form terms are found in LCSH strings
• LCSH form subdivisions duplicate LCGFT terms
• Other (please specify) __________________________

Q38 What is your preferred method of finding LCGFT headings when cataloging?

• Classification web
• lc.gov
• Personal lists
• Connexion
• Library of Congress LCGFT manual
• N/A (go to Q40)
• Other (please describe) ________________________

Q39 Based on your previous answer(s), how easy do you find it to navigate the LCGFT vocabulary using your preferred method of finding an LCGFT heading?

• Very easy
• Somewhat easy
• Neither easy nor difficult
• Somewhat difficult
• Very difficult

Q40 Does your OPAC or discovery system currently index LCGFT headings? (Please limit your answer to the primary product if your institution deploys more than one)

• Yes
• No
• Not sure

Q41 Does your OPAC or discovery system display LCGFT headings in bibliographic records?

• Yes
• No (go to Q44)
• Not sure (go to Q44)

Q42 Have you experienced any display problems with LCGFT headings in your OPAC or discovery system?

• Yes
• No (go to Q44)
• Not sure (go to Q44)

Q43 Please describe any display issues.

Q44 Does your OPAC or discovery system allow users to conduct basic or advanced searches using LCGFT headings?

• Yes
• No
• Not sure

Q45 Does your OPAC or discovery system currently display LCGFT headings via facets for filtering search results?

• Yes
• No
• Not sure