In this post, we will explore the profile of the doctoral institutions that reported having 2 layers in their organizational hierarchies.  Overall, 173 people respondents answered this question:

“Beginning with the highest level of administration in your specific library, (for example, the Director/ Dean/University Librarian level) record the reporting or organizational structure of your library in relation to your cataloging unit, including all “hierarchical” levels within the cataloging unit itself or any units that primarily report to cataloging.  Do not include any divisions, units, or departments that are not in a direct reporting line to cataloging or between the cataloging unit and the top level administration in your library. “

Of those respondents, 8 indicated they had two layers in their reporting structures.  This was the smallest doctoral institution group.


A two layer reporting structure broke down along these lines:

  • Library Director (often titled Dean, University Library, etc.)
  • Coordinator or Head of Unit and Catalogers or Subject Specialists


Profile of the Library

First, we will layout the general profile of the libraries reporting a 2 layer hierarchy.  This will cover such details as the institutional student FTE, library collection size, annual budget, library employee FTE, and whether it is part of a multi-library system.

Student FTE

Respondents to this category indicated that their institution had a student population between under 1,000 to  over 40,000 with the most popular response was less than 1,000.

Student FTE
less than 1,000 2
1,000-5,000 1
5,0001-10,000 1
10,001-15,000 0
15,0001-20,0000 1
20,001-25,000 1
25,001-30,000 1
30,001-40,000 0
40,000+ 1
Not known 0
Not reported 0
Total 8


Collection Size

Respondents indicated that their library’s collection size ranged between 10,001-100,000 volumes and 5,000,000 volumes, with  the top two responses indicating between 10,001 and 100,000 volumes and 1,000,001-5,000,000 volumes.

Collection Size
less than 10,000 volumes 0
10,001-100,000 volumes 3
100,001-500,000 volumes 2
500,001-1,000,000 volumes 0
1,000,001-5,000,000 volumes 3
5,000,000 + volumes 0
Not known 0
Not reported 0
Total 8


Annual Budget

Respondents indicated that the annual budget for their library ranged from less than $1,000,000 to $10,000,000, with half of the respondents indicating less than $1,000,000.

Annual budget
less than $1,000,000 4
$1,000,000 – $5,000,000 1
$5,000,001 – $10,000,000 1
$10,000,001 – $20,000,000 0
$20,000,000+ 0
Not known 2
Not reported 0
Total 8


Library Employee FTE

Respondents reported that their library was staffed between 1 and 100 employees, with the two most common response being 1-10 employee and 11-30 employees.

Total Employee FTE for Library
1-10 3
11-30 3
31-50 0
51-70 1
71-100 1
101-150 0
150+ 0
Not known 0
Not reported 0
Total 8


Multi-library system

Three-quarters of the 8 respondents in this category indicated that they were part of a multi-library system.  The number of libraries in the system ranged from 2 to over 10 libraries, with the two most commonly reported numbers being 2, 3 or 6 libraries in the system.

Multi-library System
no 2
2 2
3 1
4 0
5 0
6 2
7 0
8 0
9 0
10+ 1
Not known 0
Not reported 0
Total 8

Of those multi-library systems, there was a variety of cataloging unit support, but the most commonly reported number (3 respondents) indicated that 2 cataloging units supported the multi-library system.

Multi-Library w/cataloging units
None 2
1 0
2 3
3 2
4 0
5+ 1
Not known 0
Not reported 0
Total 8


Cataloging Unit Profile

Now, we’ll take a look at what a cataloging unit in a 2 layer hierarchy looks like. First, we’ll look at the name of the unit and the division it reports to.  Next, we’ll examine average employee FTE for the cataloging unit, as well as the faculty status of the professional cataloging employees, and the titles for those positions.  Following that, we will look at how often outsourcing is done and whether the unit helps out with the digital library or institutional repository. Finally, we will look at system that cataloging employee work with – such as the ILS, cataloging utility, and content management systems for the digital library and institutional repository.

Name of the Cataloging Unit

Seven of the eight respondents in this category reported a unit name, with the most reported name being “Technical Services” (2 respondents.)  One title was simply “Cataloger.” Additional titles included:

  • Cataloging and Metadata
  • Cataloging Dept.
  • Cataloging Services
  • Technical Processing Department

Name of the Division

Six of the eight respondents in this category replied that they reported directly to the dean or director of their library.  The other two respondents reported the following:

  • Information Resources Management and Support Services
  • Electronic Services

Cataloging Unit FTE

The cataloging units in a 2 layer hierarchy are often composed of an average of 3.7 employees, with 1.4 being a professional  level (defined in the survey as a “salaried employee whose position requires an MLS/MLIS or equivalent degree”), 1.4 para-professional employees (defined in the survey as a “salaried employee whose position does NOT require and MLS/MLIS or equivalent degree, although such a degree may be held by the employee in the position”), and 1 hourly employees (defined in the survey as “non-salaried, non-benefited position, usually paid by the hour, and whose position does NOT require an MLS/MLIS or equivalent degree, although such a degree may be held by the employee in the position”.

Average Cataloging Unit FTE
Professional 1.4
Para-professional 1.4
Hourly 1.0
Total 3.7


Faculty Status of Professional Cataloging Employees

When it came to determining the faculty status of the professional cataloging employees, there was a variety of responses. Below is the a breakdown of each time a status was indicated. Only 1 of the 8 respondents indicated mixed statuses, with two or more statuses reported.   They reported a mix of faculty and non-faculty professionals.

Faculty status of Professionals
Faculty, tenure-track 3
Faculty, non-tenure track 3
Non-faculty status, but with continuing appointment 2
Non-faculty status, no continuing appointment 0
Other 1
Not known 0
Not reported 0


Titles of Cataloging Unit Employees

Professional cataloging employees most often included the unit head. Apart from administrative titles, the most commonly reported title was “Cataloging Librarian.”  Additional titles included:

  • Associate Librarian
  • Authorities Specialist
  • Cataloger
  • Music/Special Materials Cataloger
  • Systems and Reference Librarian
  • Technical Services Coordinator
  • Technical Services Librarian


Para-professional catalog employees titles were reported by only three respondents.  Titles reported included:

  • Department Chief of Technical Processing
  • Library Assistant
  • Library Clerk
  • Library Technician


Hourly cataloging employee titles were only reported by two of the eight respondents.  Titles reported included:

  • Library Assistant
  • Library Cataloging Specialist
  • Library Specialist
  • Senior Library Specialist


The majority of respondents indicated that they did not outsource any work. The 2-layer hierarchy and 3-layer hierarchy groups were the only groupings that had a majority of respondents reporting no outsourcing work

Outsourced Tasks
Yes 2
No 4
Not known 0
Not reported 2
Total 8


Digital Library/Institutional Repository Work

Three respondents indicated that their unit did not provide a supporting role for the work of the Digital Library or the Institutional Repository in their library.  One respondent indicated a that they were “sort of” helping with that work and two respondents replied that they were providing support for the Digital Library or Institutional Repository.

Provide support for Digital Library or Institutional Repository?
Yes 2
No 3
Sort of 1
Not known 0
Not reported 2
Total 8

Systems/Tools Used


The most common used ILS for respondents reporting a 2 layer hierarchy was Sierra.

Integrated Library System (ILS)
Aleph 500 0
Alma 1
Evergreen 0
Horizon 0
Invenion –TIND 0
Kuali OLE 0
Millenium 0
Polaris 0
Sierra 3
Symphony 0
Virtua 0
Voyager 1
Worldshare Management Services 0
Other 1
Not known 0
Not reported 2
Total 8


Cataloging Utility

Connexion was the most commonly used cataloging utility.

Cataloging Utility
OCLC Connexion 6
Sky River 0
Other 0
Not known 0
Not reported 2
Total 8



Digital Library Content Management System

There was a fairly even spread of digital library content management systems, but the most reported CMS was CONTENTdm.

Content Management System for Digital Library
Collective Access
DSpcae 1
EPrints3 0
Fedora/Hydra 0
Fedora/Islandora 0
Greenstone 0
Omeka 0
Other 1
We don’t have a DL 0
Not known 0
Not reported 4
Total 8


Institutional Repository Content Management System

BePress DigitalCommons, D-Space, CONTENTdm, and “Other” were the most commonly used CMS’s for Institutional Repositories in this category.

Content Management System for Institutional Repository
BePress DigitalCommons 1
D-Space 1
Fedora Commons 0
Fedora/Hydra 0
Greenstone 0
Invenio 0
Opus 0
SimpleDL 0
SobekCM 0
Other 1
We don’t have an IR 0
Not known 0
Not reported 4
Total 8