Authority Control in the 21st Century: An Invitational Conference
Authority Control in the 21st Century: An Invitational Conference
Is authority control a neutral process creating order out of chaos? In this paper I suggest that it is not neutral, but rather the means of enforcing societal and cultural biases in library catalogues. However, I also suggest that a different conception of authority can help us ameliorate this situation.
What is authority? According to political scientist Kathleen Jones the traditional view of authority can be characterized as a command-obedience model. Authority and the authoritative act "construct order; they enforce obedience, conformity and acceptance; ..." (Jones, 191). This model fits authority control in library catalogues in which, ideally, entries in bibliographic records comply with headings in authority records. Authority control enforces the use of limited, standardized systems for representation of information. It polices the boundaries, keeping out unauthorized headings. It imposes uniformity, rejecting divergence and diversity.
Systems using authority control assume that a universal language is necessary to overcome the chaos of information for effective retrieval. I suggest that this assumption results in the exclusion of marginalized groups commonly disadvantaged in mainstream society. In assuming a universal language, we create systems that we assume are universal or, at least, can operate as such. However, all systems have limits which define them. Therefore, a universal system cannot be all-inclusive in coverage. It cannot cover all topics from all perspectives even though we try to apply it as though it did. The assumption that a system can be universal in coverage leads to problems in understanding why some topics and groups are excluded or marginalized.
Because of the generally accepted importance of subject access in online catalogues I am addressing the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) as the most used authority-controlled subject language in North America and is widely used around the world. The same concepts apply to any controlled vocabulary, to descriptive cataloguing and, with variations, to classification.
Critiques of LCSH treatment of marginalized groups and topics such as gender, race, nationality and sexuality are already plentiful (a partial list of critiques appears in the appendix to this paper). Accepting that representation of marginalized groups and topics is problematic in LCSH, I will attempt to question the underlying assumption of universality to better understand these problems with the goal of developing strategies for ameliorative change.
I will address this assumption of universality in the language of subject representation first in its influential historical manifestation of Charles Cutter's Rules for a Dictionary Catalog and then in its major contemporary manifestation of LCSH.
The assumed need for a universal language of subject representation is inherited from Cutter's Rules. Cutter begins by stating the objects of a library catalogue. The one that relates directly to subject authority control is:
2. To show what the library has ... (E) on a given subject (Cutter 1904, 12)
This object, the gathering or collocating function of the catalogue, gathers together materials with some commonality,in the case of LCSH, subject. Each element of commonality, or subject, is expressed in a uniform way by an authoritative subject entry and the subject entries are linked into a structure by cross-references.
Cutter supplies what amounts to a list of policies for the choice of entries:
Reasons For Choice
Among the several possible methods of attaining the objects, other things being equal, choose that entry:(1) That will probably be first looked under by the class of people who use the library
(Cutter 1904, 12 (emphasis added))
(2) That is consistent with other entries, so that one principle can cover all
(3) That will mass entries least in places where it is difficult to so arrange them that they can be readily found, as under names of nations and cities.
These three reasons focus on (1) the public, (2) a universal language, and (3) a structure which, in practice, is most notably a hierarchical syndetic structure. I will use these three reasons as a means of organizing this discussion of Cutter's Rules.
(1) The Public
Cutter's first reason for choice of an entry is democratic. The public is to be the arbiter of the language used in the catalogue.
The convenience of the public is always to be set before the case of the cataloger. In most cases they coincide. A plain rule without exceptions is not only easy for us to carry out, but easy for the public to understand and work by. But strict consistency in a rule and uniformity in its application sometimes lead to practices which clash with the public's habitual way of looking at things. When these habits are general and deeply rooted, it is unwise for the cataloger to ignore them, even if they demand a sacrifice of system and simplicity. (Cutter 1904, 6 (emphasis added))
The public, according to Cutter, is usually benefited by a lack of exceptions, but inconsistency in practice may be introduced if it conforms to "the public's habitual way of looking at things." The idea of allowing exceptions and inconsistency does not at first glance seem to endorse the rule of universality and its resultant rejection of diversity. However, the phrases "The convenience of the public" and "the public's habitual way of looking at things" give indications of a type of exclusivity. Cutter's use of the singular in these phrases indicates that Cutter is envisioning one public, "the public," with one convenience and one way of looking at the world. Cutter is envisioning a community of library users with a singular perspective and a singular way of seeking information. The convenience of this singular community is to be a cataloguer's primary consideration. All rules are subject to this singular community. Therefore, a universality is present in Cutter's view, but it is defined by "the public," a singular public.
If a universality is present then it implies that it is not diversity. What diversity is excluded if the universality represents the community? Drucilla Cornell, a feminist legal scholar, approaches the concept of community with skepticism.
This skepticism ... is based on the deep suspicion that lurking behind the ideal of community is a nostalgia for an integrated "organic wholeness" that inevitably excludes those who do not seem to fit into the community.Philosophically and politically, twentieth-century experience has presumably taught us that the appeal to community ineluctably slides into an appeal to totality, closure, and exclusion. (1992, 39)
The result, then, of a community in the singular is that it is not totally inclusive. It excludes those who do not fit, those who are somehow different. It results in what Alexis de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America described as the tyranny of the majority: the majority opinion is imposed on everyone, including all of the minorities.
In valorizing the convenience of "the public," Cutter did not actually valorize "the public." "The public" presented problems for Cutter. For example, he did not think "the public" teachable:
If the public could ever get as accustomed to the inversion of subject-names as they are to the inversion of personal names the rule would undoubtedly be very convenient; but it might be difficult to teach the rule. (Cutter 1904, 73)
He also found "the public" unpredictable:
When there is any decided usage (i. e., custom of the public to designate the subjects by one of the names rather than by the others) let it be followed; ... As is often the case in language, usage will be found not to follow any uniform course. (Cutter 1904, 74)
While maintaining the universality of "the public's" choice, Cutter recognizes that diversity exists and wishes rather wistfully for a way to educate "the public" to some uniform usage. He takes a paternalistic view toward "the public."
Things do not get simpler when considering the convenience of public usage. What if there is diffuse rather than general usage? What if there is a plurality rather than a majority? What if "the public" does not know what it wants? Cutter's answer is uniformity:
If usage manifests no preference for either name, we can not employ the two indifferently; we must choose one; ... (Cutter 1904, 74 (emphasis added))
The necessity of a universal language is again assumed. If "the public" is left to its own devices it would use the chaos of natural language. Adherence to rules comes to the rescue so that "the public" can be best served. Cutter comes back to the theme that consistency is important in fulfilling the convenience of "the public," even if "the public" has not chosen it.
The importance of deciding aright where any given subject shall be entered is in inverse proportion to the difficulty of decision. If there is no obvious principle to guide the cataloger, it is plain there will be no reason why the public should expect to find the entry under one heading rather than another, and therefore in regard to the public it matters not which is chosen. But it is better that such decisions should be made to conform when possible to some general system, as there is then more likelihood that they will be decided alike by different catalogers, and that a usage will grow up which the public will finally learn and profit by, as a usage has grown up in regard to the author-entry of French names containing De, Du, La, etc. (Cutter 1904, 66 (emphasis added))
Thus, if "the public" does not present one obvious viewpoint, one should be established, preferably parallel to other instances, and then urged upon "the public." According to Cutter, the choice of an entry must conform to something and cataloguers must conform to each other and to the choice.
Cutter was also suspicious of cataloguers,as here in relation to specific entry:
... there is a temptation to enter certain books doubly, once under the specific heading to satisfy the rule, and once under the class to satisfy the public. The dictionary principle does not forbid this. If room can be spared, the cataloger may put what he pleases under an extensive subject (a class), ... it must depend entirely upon the "judgment," i. e., the prepossessions and accidental associations, of the cataloger, and there will be an end to all uniformity, and probably the public will not be better satisfied, not understanding why they do not find class-entry in all cases. (Cutter 1904, 67 (emphasis added))
Here is some confusion about the convenience of "the public." According to this passage, "the public" is best satisfied by cataloguers following the rules even when those rules do not reflect "the public's" usage. Cataloguers, if tempted to enter a book in two places because "the public" will search that way, will actually inconvenience "the public" by being unpredictable. "The public" creates the problem in the first place by being unpredictable so the cataloguer must follow the rules prescribed by Cutter to give "the public" what is good for it, not necessarily what it wants.
The relationship between Cutter's view of subject cataloguing and the command-obedience model of authority is striking. It constructs an order that enforces obedience and conformity implemented by cataloguers in public catalogues.
(2) A Universal Language
For uniformity, Cutter assumes that we need a universal language to overcome the confusion of synonyms, near synonyms and opposites,we need, according to Cutter, authoritative headings:
... It sometimes happens that a different name is given to the same subject at different periods of its history. ... (Cutter 1904, 70 (emphasis added))168. Of two exactly synonymous names choose one and make a reference from the other. (Cutter 1904, 70 (emphasis added))
Sometimes the words are not exactly synonymous, but may be treated as synonymous:
170. In choosing between two names not exactly synonymous, consider whether there is difference enough to require separate entry; if not, treat them as synonymous. (Cutter 1904, 70)
Here two different subjects are treated as the same, but the name of only one of them is used. The other is obscured. It does not have its own identity. Someone must make a decision as to which name will be used to control the other.
Another reason different subjects may be treated together is because they are opposites:
171. Of two subjects exactly opposite choose one and refer from the other.
Ex. Temperance and Intemperance, Free Trade and Protection, Authority (in religion) and Private judgment. (Cutter 1904, p.71)
Again, the unnamed subject is obscured by the named subject. In each of these instances, however, something must be found to account for the hidden other. That something is the reference. Users are also directed to conform with the constructed order of the vocabulary as they obey the command to "see" or "use" another term.
To add another wrinkle to the problem of creating a universal language:
Some subjects have no name; they are spoken of only by a phrase or by several phrases not definite enough to be used as a heading. ... There are thousands of possible matters of investigation, some of which are from time to time discussed, but before the catalog can profitably follow its "specific" rule in regard to them they must attain a certain individuality as objects of inquiry, and be given some sort of name, otherwise we must assign them class-entry. (Cutter 1904, 67 (emphasis added))
Subjects that are nameless cannot be included in the universal language. Therefore, such subjects cannot be found through the catalogue. If they do not have a name they do not have an identity in the catalogue,they can be ignored.
Some topics, then, are marginalized in equivalence ("see" or USE) relationships while others are unnamed - excluded.
(3) A Hierarchical Structure
Cutter's rules for a universal language set up a vocabulary that includes or excludes subjects, defining what subjects are included in a relatively conservative manner. In addition to a vocabulary, a universal language also requires a morphology of sorts.
[The dictionary catalog's] subject-entries, individual, general, limited, extensive, thrown together without any logical arrangement, in most absurd proximity--Abscess followed by Absenteeism and that by Absolution, Club-foot next to Clubs, and Communion to Communism, while Bibliography and Literary history, Christianity and Theology, are separated by half the length of the catalogue--are a mass of utterly disconnected particles without any relation to one another, each useful in itself but only by itself. But by a well-devised network of cross-references the mob becomes an army, of which each part is capable of assisting many other parts. The effective force of the catalog is immensely increased. (Cutter 1904, 79)
The network that Cutter devises to arrange entries so that they may be easily found is a hierarchical structure linked by cross-references. Unlike the references that bring together synonyms or words treated as synonyms, these cross-references link subjects that are treated as different but have some relation to each other. It privileges hierarchical relationships over other relationships by instituting the concept of specificity in both the vocabulary and specific entry in its application.
The result is a highly structured language that is imposed on the world of recorded information. It is a language system that has been constructed along conventional lines with the result that the unconventional is not well served by it.
This concept of a universal, authoritative language system results in marginalization of the unconventional in LCSH, part of our inheritance from Cutter. Authority control makes LCSH a language for universal application. The convenience of "the public" makes it a mainstream vocabulary, excluding or marginalizing certain groups and topics. The work of critics has prompted improvements by the Library of Congress over the years. However, it is impossible to make LCSH perfectly inclusive because any controlled vocabulary is a closed system and any closed system excludes something. Therefore, I will not spend time on critiquing the existing LCSH, rather I will briefly show examples of the problems and move on to consider how we can devise strategies for ameliorative change both centrally and locally.
The examples I have chosen are obvious ones that show quickly how marginalization and exclusion happens. In the first example, "Man" is still used as a generic term for humanity representing the dominant member of a hierarchy, standing as the universal or norm. "Women" and "Men" are both narrower terms (NTs) to "Man." In this hierarchy, women are subordinate to man.
Man ...UF Human beings Humans Mankind BT Primates RT Anthropology Human-animal relationships SA headings beginning with the word Human NT Economic man Ethnology Human biology Human-plant relationships Men Persons Philosophical anthropology Women
My other two examples, "Women" and "Men," are more complex
Men ...UF Human males Males, Human BT Males Man RT Patriarchy NT Abused men Abusive men Aged men Bisexual men Brotherhoods Brothers Church work with men Cosmetics for men English literature--Men authors Gay men Grooming for men Heterosexual men Househusbands Husbands Jewish men Male nude Male prostitutes ...Women ...
UF Human females Woman [former heading] BT Females Man RT Misogyny SA subdivision Women under individual wars, e.g. World War, 1939-1945-- Women; also subdivision Relations with women under names of individual persons; and headings beginning with the word Women NT Abused women Aged women Architecture and women Aunts Bahai women Beauty contestants Bisexual women Buddhist women Christian women Church work with women Fascism and women Femmes fatales Gifted women Handicapped women Heroines Heterosexual women Hindu women HIV-positive women Homeless women Housewives Indian women Jaina women Jewish women Lesbians Libraries and women Married women Mass media and women Matriarchy Mentally ill women ... Prostitutes ...
Many of the terms listed as NTs under "Women" draw attention to the difference of women, to how women are the exceptions in our society. For example, if women are "gifted" they are exceptions to the masculine norm of gifted people in that there is a heading for "Gifted women," but no heading for "Gifted men." In a more sweeping application, there are no options for subdividing other topics by a free-floating subdivision for men. "Women" are exceptional topics in the context of war so there is the option of subdividing any given war by "--Women." Even more interesting is the subdivision "Relations with women" which may be added to headings for individuals. There is no parallel under "Men." I can only speculate on the reasons for this difference. It is not the case that no one has ever written a book on someone's relations with a man or men. More likely this anomaly reflects an acceptance of men as knowing subjects in our society and women as objects to be known. In the subdivision "Relations with women," women are the objects of primarily men's relationships. Other examples illustrate the view of women's normative role as objects. The general term "Prostitutes" is a NT under "Women" and the specific "Male prostitutes" is a NT under "Men." These and other examples reflect traditional societal views and their presence in LCSH illustrates that this standard is complicit in applying a patriarchal view as universal.
There are other interesting implications of the authority records for "Women" and "Men," but these few observations will suffice to indicate that LCSH reflects "the public" view in its mainstream male-as-normative practice, an example of the marginalizing possibilities of an authoritative language.
My previous examples illustrated marginalization of women in LCSH. A simple example of exclusion in LCSH is the lack of a heading for unpaid work. Even the United Nations has recognized that unpaid work, most of it by women, is an unacknowledged source of world productivity. Giving subject access to books on women's unpaid work is not possible. Searching for working women results in the reference:
Working womenUSE Women employees
which assumes that only paid work is work,other women's work is invisible. It is unnamed so it has no identity. It has no existence in the library catalogue. Even headings for conventional western views of unpaid women's work such as housework are slighted by references such as:
HouseworkUSE Home economics
Only the study of housework is identified, housework turned into an academic discipline. Housework as something still done primarily by women in most households is not recognized as work. There is no reference from "Work" to anything linked to housework. Only "Household workers" who are paid are acknowledged as workers and then the heading is "Domestics" (people who do a wider range of work and are identified here by an adjective indicating their place of work, not by what they do or even that they are people).
Above I quoted Drucilla Cornell's skepticism of the concept of community similar to Cutter's singular public. Cornell, however, does not stop at skepticism, but develops an interpretation, the philosophy of the limit, which includes strategies for improvement. In the philosophy of the limit, Cornell proposes that all systems have limits that exclude and/or marginalize. Replacing an old system with a new one changes the limit, but does not eliminate it. She suggests that a more useful approach is to make the limit permeable to allow the voices of those previously excluded or marginalized to speak within the system. To do so we need to find strategies for making the limit permeable. In this manner we are accepting the responsibility of approaching an ethical relationship with those who are marginalized and excluded. Cornell proposed her philosophy of the limit in a legal context, but I believe that this philosophy can be transferred to a bibliographic context where it has the potential to address problems of subject representation.
As professionals with expertise and responsibility in authority control we have some power to enact change. Therefore, to take the ethical stance proposed by Cornell we must devise strategies or techniques for making our authoritative vocabulary, here LCSH, permeable.
Kathleen Jones' interpretation of the concept of authority helps to understand how to develop these strategies. Jones sees authority and the authoritative act in the command/obedience model as disciplinary devices of sovereignty. "They construct order; they enforce obedience, conformity and acceptance; they silence opposition. Authority constructs rules with which to organize behavior, to master and control it, to fix it in its (proper) place." It establishes boundaries and closes down inquiry (Jones 1993, 191). The word "authority" derives from the Latin, augere, to augment. This etymology suggests an alternative to the command/obedience model. Authority may be interpreted as the augmentation of meaning through relationships: "authority as the relationship that founds the meaningfulness of a political community" (Jones 1993, 245). Such a view rejects sovereign authority, the singularity of identity, and the boundaries constructed by authority;
... reconceptualizing authority in a way that takes boundary transgression as fundamental and gives meaning,since an author/auctor is one who gives meaning,to it. This new practice of authority will become a practice of founding community not on identity politics but through diversity ..." (Jones 1993, 230-1)
Jones' "boundary transgression" is akin to Cornell's making the limit permeable. Jones calls her model "compassionate authority." It allows relationships across the boundary or limit of the system and these relationships enrich the meaning of the language. This model of authority does not mean that we need to throw out our present system. On the contrary, it means that we need to reconceptualize it as a permeable system.
Models from other professions can help us develop concrete strategies for ameliorative change. For example, Sally Helgeson's study of women managers suggests different management structures. Helgeson compared case studies of women managers to Henry Mintzberg's classic case studies of male managers. She found a different view of relationships and structure among the women managers in her study. Unlike the men in Mintzberg's study, they maintained a complex network of contacts. They had an "ecology" of leadership that considered the big picture to include society at large, even world peace. These women saw themselves in the centre of a web (not at the top of a pyramid) from which they fostered direct communication amongst members of the organization rather than what Jones would call a command/obedience model of authoritative control from the top. Helgeson's web is a potentially useful image for authority control.
This image of an interrelated structure, built around a strong central point and constructed of radials and orbs, quite naturally made me think of a spider's web,that delicate tracery, compounded of the need for survival and the impulse of art, whose purpose is to draw other creatures to it.The image of the web not only imbued the language of the women in the diary studies; it was also evident in the management structures they devised, and in the way they structured their meetings. (Helgeson1990, 46)
Since, the web structure allows for direct communication across the organization it is not necessary to obey the authoritative command, but rather diverse perspectives might augment the meaning of a subject heading. For example, there has been discussion in the context of online catalogues as to whether or not it is useful to users to go directly from references to bibliographic records. An option that goes further is to have more than one authoritative heading in an authority record. Technology to accomplish this change already exists. MultiLIS (now owned by DRA) was developed for bilingual environment in Quebec universities. In its authority records, an authoritative heading is in a MARC field 1XX as is conventional. However, it also has an equivalent heading in 9XX and reciprocal records can be generated on demand. The result for the user is that they can search either "horse" or "cheval" and retrieve the bibliographic records under both headings. The system is not limited to two equivalent headings and they do not need to be defined by language. Therefore, it would be possible to use the same system for multiple languages or synonyms or both. Technologically, then, a set of equivalent terms such as the following would be possible:
Aged
Elderly
Old people
Senior citizens
or
Adolescents
Teenagers
Youth
and equivalents in other languages. This type of solution has potential for coping with synonymous terms,avoiding the situation inherited from Cutter of one term being preferred over another. However, it does not address the syndetic structure imposed by Cutter and LCSH or the problem of unnamed concepts.
Other strategies are needed to open up our systems to less rigid relationships. Anna Yeatman proposes a "partnership model" of political representation that is useful in this context. She developed her model in a New Zealand context for a Maori community working with white doctors. The concerns of the community needed to be taken into consideration by the white doctors,the two groups had different expertise, but both were crucial to a productive result. A similar situation occurs between library professionals and library users. Professionals need to acknowledge the stated needs of users (happily, librarians seem to be more receptive than pakeha physicians). In this case the needs can be for different types of relationships that are named differently than in the controlled vocabulary. Some mechanism for accommodating these needs is required. An interface such as the Kids Catalog from CARL is a possible technology for accomplishing this accommodation. The Kids Catalog is an interface that allows local librarians to rename and/or redefine subjects in a local context. The icons on which users can click in the local interface are connected to MARC headings or boolean searches defined by the local librarians in response to user needs. Headings may be related in innovative ways and the system may be changed as user needs change. This type of accommodation does not change the basic MARC record, but it does allow permeability in the interface.
Another approach comes from Kathleen Iannello in her Decisions without hierarchy. She calls for consensus through empowerment, defining empowerment as "the ability to 'do' or accomplish something" (1992, 44). Her model puts the user in control of making connections. Librarians often feel a dis-ease with giving control over to users. I suggest that this discomfort is part of Cutter's legacy that mistrusts "the public." We fear that users will create chaos where we have established order. A preliminary step in giving some voice to users in establishing relationships is seen in Paul Kantor's development demonstrated in Rutgers' ANLI catalogue. It allows users to make connections between bibliographic records. These connections are not part of the authoritative subject file and are not even named. They are simply connections that allow one user to see which titles another user perceived to be related. For example, I can establish links among the books by Cornell, Jones, Helgeson, Yeatman and Iannello as all being useful in developing an ethical concept of authority control. This approach creates nonhierarchical linkages and, in addition, can gather material on unnamed subjects.
The assumption that a universal language is necessary is one that we have inherited and have often accepted in our practice as shown in my examples from LCSH. However, there are certainly practical means of pushing at the boundaries of LCSH. LCSH is not always hospitable to unconventional perspectives and, therefore, to marginalized groups of users. However, the Library of Congress (LC) should not be held responsible if individual libraries and groups of libraries fail to contextualize their cataloguing to the shapes of their collections and the needs of their users. Ameliorative changes need to come from both the LC and individual libraries because a universal language is not a viable option. Changes from LC can address egregious inequities in LCSH, but as LC changes the limits of the system it cannot create a system without limits. LC can improve, but ultimately libraries must take responsibility for service to their users. Which strategies will be ameliorative depends on local contexts. It depends on which marginalized and excluded groups need and want to make their voices heard. Solutions must be a combination of global improvements coming from LC and local strategies adapted to unique situations. In these ways we can approach an ethical relationship across the limits.
ANLI [Online catalog]. Telnet: rutcor.rutgers.edu; login: anli; password: anli
Cornell, Drucilla. (1992). The philosophy of the limit. New York: Routledge.
Helgesen, Sally. (1990). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.
Iannello, Kathleen P. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interventions in organization theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
Jones, Kathleen. (1993). Compassionate authority: Democracy and the representation of women. New York: Routledge.
Kantor, Paul B. (1993). The Adaptive Network Library Interface: A historical overview and interim report. Library Hi Tech 11(3)/issue 43: 81-92.
Yeatman, Anna. (1994). Postmodern revisionings of the political. New York: Routledge.
Alvarado, Rubén Urbizagástegui. (1994). Cataloging Pierre Bourdieu's books. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 19(1), 89-105.
Berman, Sanford. (1971). Man/woman/sex. In Prejudices and Antipathies (pp. 174-205). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Berman, Sanford. (1984). Out of the closet and into the catalog: Access to gay/lesbian library materials. In Alternative Library Literature 1982/1983 (pp.230-233). Phoenix, AR: Oryx Press.
Berman, Sanford. (1984a). Out of the kitchen--but not into the catalog. Technical Services Quarterly, 2, 167-71.
Berman, Sanford. (1987). The terrible truth about teenlit cataloging. Top of the News 43, 311-320.
Bethel, Kathleen E. (1994). Culture keepers: Cataloging the Afrocentric way. The Reference Librarian, 45/46, 221-240.
Bhasker, Usha. (1993). Languages of India: Cataloging issues. In Martin D. Joachim (Ed.), Languages of the World: Cataloging Issues and Problems (pp. 159-168). New York: Haworth Press.
Bryant, Eric. (1992, January). Campaigning against invisibility. Library Journal, 117, 62.
Choquette, Diane. (1984). The new religious movements research collections: A history and description of alternative subject cataloguing. Technical Services Quarterly, 2, 19-34.
Clack, Doris Hargrett. (1978). The adequacy of Library of Congress Subject Headings for Black literature resources. Library Resources and Technical Services, 22, 137-44.
Clack, Doris Hargrett. (1989). Collection access through subject headings. In Donnarae MacCann (Ed.)., Social Responsibility in Librarianship (pp. 53-80). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Dickinson, Elizabeth M. (1980). Report of the Racism and Sexism in Subject Analysis Subcommittee to the RTSD/CCS Subject Analysis Committee, Midwinter 1980. Chicago, IL: ALA, Resources and Technical Services Division.
Dickstein, Ruth. (1988). Women in LC's Terms: A Thesaurus of Library of Congress Subject Headings Relating to Women. Phoenix, AR: Oryx Press.
Gough, Cal, and Ellen Greenblatt. (1992, January). Services to gay and lesbian patrons: Examining the myths. Library Journal, 117, 59-63.
Greenblatt, Ellen. (1990). Homosexuality: The evolution of a concept in The Library of Congress Subject Headings. In Cal Gough and Ellent Greenblatt (Eds.), Gay and Lesbian Library Service (pp.75-101). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Hamdy, Nabil. (1980). Cataloging and classifying Arabic materials. In Mohammed M. Aman (Ed.), Cataloging and Classification of Non-western Material: Concerns, Issues and Practices (pp.268-296). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Harris, Jessica L. Milstead, & Doris H. Clack. (1979). Treatment of people and peoples in subject analysis. Library Resources and Technical Services, 23, 374-90.
Kisiedu, Christiana O. (1980). Cataloging and classifying non-western materials in Ghanaian libraries. In Mohammed M. Aman (Ed.), Cataloging and Classification of Non-western Material: Concerns, Issues and Practices (pp.31-73). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Lochhead, Ishbel. (1985). Bibliographic control of feminist literature. Catalogue and Index, 76/77, 10-15.
Marshall, Joan. (1972). LC labeling: An indictment. In Celeste West (Ed.), Revolting Librarians (pp.45-49). San Francisco, CA: Booklegger Press.
Marshall, Joan K. (1977). On Equal Terms: A Thesaurus for Nonsexist Indexing and Cataloging. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Mowery, Robert L. (1995). Subject cataloging of Chicano literature. Library Resources & Technical Services, 39(3), 229-37.
Mowery, Robert L. (1989) Women in literature: A study of Library of Congress subject cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 9, 89-99.
Nuckolls, Karen A. (1994). Subject access to diversity materials: the Library of Congress Subject Heading shortfall. The Reference Librarian, 45-46, 241-51.
Olson, Hope. (1991). Subject access to women's studies materials. In Bella Hass Weinberg (Ed.), Cataloging Heresy: Challenging the Standard Biblographic Product, Proceedings of the Congress for Librarians, February 18, 1991, with Additional Contributed Papers (pp.159-169.
Raaflaub, Yvonne. (1991). Problems of access to lesbian literature. RQ, 31, 19-23.
Rogers, Margaret N. (1993). Are we on equal terms yet? Subject headings concerning women in LCSH, 1975-1991. Library Resources & Technical Services, 37, 181-96.
Studwell, William E. (1990). Library of Congress Subject Headings: Philosophy, Practice, and Prospects. New York: Haworth Press.
Walter, Michael. (1993). Central Asian cataloging: problems and prospects. In Martin D. Joachim (Ed.), Languages of the World: Cataloging Issues and Problems (pp.149-157). New York: Haworth Press.
Wright, Kieth C., and Judith F. Davie. (1990). Organizing the library collection for accessibility: Integration of materials, appropriate subject headings, and the impact of technology. Chap. in Library Manager's Guide to Hiring and Serving Disabled Persons, (pp. 51-62). Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990.
Return to Proceedings Home Page
Advanced Search | Careers at OCLC | Feedback | Privacy Policy | ISO 9001 Certificate | ©2003 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. |