The purpose of the study described in this paper is to investigate end-user understanding of subdivided subject headings in their current form and in the form proposed by the first recommendation of the Library of Congress (LC) Subject Subdivisions Conference. The irnpetus for this study was a charge to the Subcommittee on the Order of LCSH Subdivisions by the Subject Analysis Committee of the American Library Association to respond to the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference that proposed standardizing the order of subject subdivisions. The authors composed self-administered questionnaires bearing subdivided subject headings in the "current" form and in the form proposed in the first recommendation of the LC conference. The authors recruited end users and professional catalogers to complete questionnaires that asked for the meaning of individual headings. The authors then compared end users' responses to catalogers' responses to determine end users' level of understanding of subdivided subject headings. An analysis of end-user interpretations demonstrated that end users interpreted the meaning of subject headings in the same manner as catalogers about 40% of the time for "current" forms of subject headings and about 32% of the time for"proposed" forms of subject headings. The paper concludes with specific recommendations about the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference and general recommendations about increasing end-user understanding of subdivided subject headings.
Differences between manifestations and near-equivalents that might be considered significant by catalog users are examined. Anglo-American cataloging practice concerning when to make a new record is examined. Definitions for manifestation, title manifestation, and near-equivalent are proposed. It is suggested that current practice leads to making too many separate records for near-equivalents. It is recommended that practice be changed so that near-equivalents are more often cataloged on the same record. Next, differences between manifestations and near-equivalents of moving-image works are examined, and their significance to users of moving-image works is assessed. It is suggested that true manifestations result when the continuity, i.e., visual aspect of the work, or the soundtrack, i.e., audio aspect of the work, or the textual aspect of the work actually differ, whether due to editing, the appending of new material, or the work of subsidiary authors creating subtitles, new music tracks, etc. Title manifestations can occur when the title or billing order differs without there being any underlying difference in continuity. Distribution information can differ without there being any underlying difference in continuity, creating a near-equivalent. Finally, physical variants or near-equivalents can occur when physical fornat differs without the involvement of subsidiary authors.
Team cataloging has been adopted by several academic libraries in recent years. With this system of organization, librarians and paraprfessionals work together in teams devoted to particular subject areas, languages, or formats. A summary of team organization used by eight academic libraries is presented. Telephone interviews with team members were conducted, and a survey to elicit perceptions of morale and productivity changes was distributed. Respondents perceived a slightly higher level of productivity with team cataloging. The findings on morale are inconclusive due to mixed responses.