
With a new year before us we’re drawing upon insights shared by the OCLC Research Library Partners Metadata Managers Focus Group last year to consider how and where the impact of the pandemic on typical metadata workflows may have lasting effects. It is important to note that though these discussions happened in 2021, we continue to experience the pandemic, and adaptations will continue to evolve. While research libraries have each been on timetables that respond to local conditions and organizational policy, we’re all experiencing some degree of hybridity in our work, from the formats we’re describing, to the environments in which we work and communicate, and to descriptive workflows themselves.
Led by Roxanne Missingham of Australian National University, John Riemer of UCLA, and Melanie Wacker of Columbia University, the RLP Metadata Managers Focus Group met in June 2021 to consider together the impact of the changes brought about by remote working. The group discussed how they’ve managed changes, what they’ve learned through them, and which are likely (or hoped!) to stick and why. Metadata managers from 40 institutions across seven countries shared their observations and experiences, demonstrating both continuation of and evolution from the issues they and their staff have been working through since library spaces and services were initially disrupted in 2020.
Karen Smith-Yoshimura (now-retired RLP program officer who convened Focus Group meetings through November 2020) summarized key issues shared by metadata managers in discussions during early days of the pandemic in this blog post. In those 2020 Focus Group sessions, participants discussed navigating an abrupt shift to fully online library services and work, providing managerial support for working from home, adapting existing metadata work or finding projects that could be done remotely, and addressing skill and training gaps for new or adapted lines of work. These are now familiar issues which persisted to varying degrees from 2020 through 2021.
By now, library staff have returned in greater numbers to physical spaces and collections. Many have brought with them well-practiced flexibility, sharpened prioritization, and new and effective approaches to metadata workflows. There is an expectation that normal practices will be fundamentally changed based on these experiences. And while uncertainty continues to be a defining feature of current times, what is clear is that libraries are continuing to build their adaptive capacity. As part of the most recent round of discussions, metadata managers reflected upon the challenges and moments of innovation and success that can be carried into new modes of working. What follows are summaries of themes that surfaced through written accounts and virtual discussion of the Metadata Managers Focus Group in 2021.
Pandemic conditions have provided opportunities to be flexible in approaches to metadata work. Out of necessity, metadata managers have supported flexibility in work assignments which have accommodated staff being away from the library and most physical materials. They have redesigned workflows to adapt to remote work and to engage a broader range of staff. Metadata staff have in turn shown great flexibility in learning new skills and tools, applying both these as well as existing skills to new areas of responsibility, and redesigning workflows.
Acquiring and applying new technology-based skills has been important for remote metadata work, especially in batch and scripted approaches to metadata transformations and reconciliation, as has increasing facility with descriptive systems. In some cases, due to the importance of ensuring greater user access to digitally-available resources, entire units participated in e-resource cataloging and many engaged in cataloging “inside-out” collection content, such as that in institutional repositories or digitized special collections. While certainly of benefit to library users, this approach also benefited staff who were able to expand their skill sets and in ways that could persist in new hybrid work set-ups as well as be applied towards common team practices and goals. In other cases, metadata staff have brought MARC cataloging expertise to non-MARC workflows or language skills to new projects. Metadata managers frequently noted successful opportunities to apply skills and experience across previously siloed teams and workflows or to otherwise mobilize staff from multiple units for project-based work.
Flexibility — especially to learn new skills or use existing ones in new contexts — has been valued by both metadata staff and managers, and is something that many sought to continue even once they more consistently returned to physical spaces.
Projects and new workflows suited to remote work have involved ingenuity and proven valuable. Several metadata managers described scoped, project-based work designed to advance “back-burner” work and/or engage staff unable to continue with work requiring physical collections access. These projects often also benefited team cohesion in the absence of physical proximity by establishing shared purpose and milestones to tackle and achieve together. Many took time to address maintenance activities, such as assessing, remediating, and enriching metadata, including through database work, batch processes, authority work, linked data work, and reparative description initiatives.
Many metadata managers want to continue this shift to project-based maintenance work, with aspirations to retain time for these worthwhile activities, especially to ensure that library metadata is effective in connecting users to resources. Some have acknowledged the challenge of integrating maintenance work into other priority activities, and sought to establish clear policies and procedures for determining how and when to do so.
Throughout the pandemic, as they sought to provide continuity of access to resources for remote users, many libraries accelerated an existing shift to e-preferred collection development with attendant cataloging implications. The prevalence of electronic and digitized/digital resources has necessitated an evolution in cataloging practices that can be carried out in exclusively digital workflows and can require new or adapted skills. Metadata managers did acknowledge that a return to physical spaces also means a parallel return to cataloging what is now a backlog of physical acquisitions that had been paused during library closures. However, should “digital first” collecting continue to grow, metadata staff are likely to be well-positioned to keep effectively cataloging electronic resources and digital collections given the training and transition that many went through during the pandemic.
Managing hybridity, be it collections, worksites, or workflows, is becoming the norm. Even before the pandemic, research libraries had been managing hybrid collections of both physical and digital resources. With all that’s been tested and learned during the pandemic, metadata staff are now engaged in hybrid workflows and work patterns that are continuing at many institutions. During the extended period of library staff working primarily from home, some institutions permitted certain physical materials to be taken home for description. Some have since considered or implemented policies to support this as an ongoing work practice. Many refined approaches to cataloging physical materials without the item in hand, typically by using digital surrogates. Staff and managers have developed new procedures from what may have started as ad hoc approaches. “Split workflows” allow for resources to be described in part remotely and in part onsite, or by multiple staff members depending on availability and location.
These hybrid work patterns are likely to continue in some contexts, extending the benefits of flexibility and productivity that partially remote schedules can afford. While not feasible in all situations, hybrid approaches to work assignments and processes can also be a means of supporting equity amongst metadata staff. For example, staff who in pre-pandemic times may have had responsibilities exclusively dependent on physical proximity to collections could now have new or demonstrated experience that can continue to be applied to remote work. While the flexibility of hybrid work schedules may be welcomed by staff and managers alike, they require administrative and institutional support and aren’t necessarily successful for all roles and all staff. Hybrid work patterns also come with challenges to address, including but not limited to successfully facilitating virtual team meetings and implementing workplace communication tools that can be used by a blend of home and onsite workers. Related to this is the challenge of maintaining team cohesion and informal connections.
Despite the ongoing challenges caused by the pandemic, metadata managers shared opportunities and positive developments that have grown out of what was an initially abrupt shift away from library spaces and physical collections. Many of these resonate with findings in other recent summaries of pandemic experiences in libraries, including the OCLC Research briefing, New Model Library: Pandemic Effects and Library Directions. With staff and users returning to in-person work and services we are still managing how we adapt to ever-shifting work and life contexts. Though equipped with useful learnings from where we have been, persistent change can admittedly come with frustration and fatigue. The sensitivity that managers and staff have brought to supporting each others’ well-being is a skill worth honing and continuing as well. The discussion also emphasized the importance of working with vendors, publishers and bibliographic services to explore better workflows and higher quality records for sharing through catalogs. While “new” or “next” normal(s) continue to emerge out of still-evolving pandemic changes, the reflections and insights metadata managers can use to inform new directions for their teams are grounded in resiliency, care, agility, and creativity that will benefit staff and metadata work in all its hybridity.
The OCLC Research Library Partnership provides ongoing opportunities for staff at partner institutions to stay connected and engaged on, among other topics, metadata management developments, research, and services. The Metadata Management Interest Group email list is used to communicate updates, seek partner guidance, solicit volunteers, and inform interested staff of opportunities related to metadata – to subscribe, share your interest and contact information here. The Metadata Managers Focus Group is a transnational network that identifies, prioritizes, discusses, and synthesizes shared knowledge about metadata challenges and offers a long-standing and significant way for RLP members to impact metadata practices. Staff from all RLP institutions are invited to participate – please contact Kathryn Stine to express your interest in getting involved!
Great summary of where we are! But now is the time to review and redesign the metadata ecosystem. E.g. We don’t need to take and manage records for eResources at the local level. Many of us have bought into systems that have knowledge bases. These are supposed to service centralised search, discovery and access requirements. What prevents them from fulfilling this role is the metadata ecosystem, in particular the anachronistic restrictive metadata licencing. This prevents the sharing of records between proprietary systems. This condemns metadata stakeholders to an endless cycle of duplication. Expensive replication of ultimately siloed metadata. We need a model that ensures the creation, equitable sharing, enrichment and maintenance of metadata as a collaborative and inclusive programme.