Cataloging PeopleA critical response to the treatment of queer identities in

library cataloging standards and practices

#GSISC16

Amber BilleyMetadata LibrarianColumbia University Libraries@justbilley

Matthew HaugenRare Book Cataloger

Columbia University Libraries@matthaion

“Lousy cataloging may also lower the library’s credibility and even turn off potential users. E.g., the library might have a number of gay novels and plays, but the gay or interested non-gay reader who finds no GAYS--FICTION or GAYS--DRAMA in the catalog probably won’t be able to reach those novels & plays. And won’t think too highly of the library itself, possibly concluding that the place either hadn’t bought any gay stuff or was deliberately concealing it.”

--Sanford “Sandy” Berman, 1974

Sandy Berman, radical cataloger

“Lousy Cataloging”

The Issue● Library catalogers are now being asked to describe people

○ Creators and Contributors○ Audiences

● Resource Description and Access (RDA): ○ Attributes of Persons, Families, Corporate Bodies

● Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT): ○ Controlled vocabulary for demographic group names

This is a shift in cataloging practiceBefore:The goal was to record information about people enough to identify and disambiguate their name from other names in the catalog; as well as collocate works by the same author under a single preferred name.

Demographic and biographical information was only generally recorded as notes

After:RDA follows FRAD model for authority records. FRAD outlines User Tasks:

● Find● Identify● Contextualize● Justify

New contextual attributes added to authority and bibliographic records to support the User Tasks.

New Rules: RDA Chapter 9 ● Identifying Persons:

○ Name of the Person○ Date Associated with the Person○ Title of the Person○ Fuller Form of Name○ Other Designation Associated with

the Person○ Gender○ Place of Birth○ Place of Death○ Country Associated with the Person

● It goes on…○ Place of Residence, Etc. ○ Address of the Person○ Affiliation○ Language of the Person○ Field of Activity of the Person○ Profession or Occupation○ Biographical information○ Identifier for the Person

RDA 9.7: Gender (2014)9.7.1.3 Recording Gender

Record the gender of the person using an appropriate term from the following list:

female

male

not known

If none of the terms listed is appropriate or sufficiently specific, record an appropriate term or phrase.

EXAMPLE

intersex

transsexual woman

RDA 9.7: Gender (2016)9.7.1.1 Scope

Gender is the gender with which a person identifies.9.7.1.2 Sources of Information

Take information on gender from any source.

9.7.1.3 Recording GenderRecord the gender of the person, using an appropriate term in a language preferred by the agency creating the data. Select a term from a standard list, if available.Record gender as a separate element. Gender is not recorded as part of an access point.

Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT) Controlled Vocabulary“The development of LCDGT is necessitated by two circumstances: the genre/form project and the growing popularity of faceted displays and searching” (May 2015)

Contextualizing resources: Demographic characteristics as attributes of works, expressions, manifestations, items

● Creator/Contributor Characteristics: Resources by members of a group; self-identification

● Audience Characteristics: Resources for members of a group; explicit or implicit indication

LCDGT: Gender & Sexual Orientation10 Categories: Age, Educational level, Occupation/field of activity, Ethnic/cultural, Gender, Language, Medical/psychological/Disability, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Social

Gender terms: Females, Gender minorities, Males, Transgender people, Transsexuals, Transvestites

Sexual orientation terms: Bisexuals, Gays, Heterosexuals, Sexual minorities

Some terms have two categories:

Gender + Orientation: Gay men, LesbiansGender + Age: Boys, Girls, Men, Women, etc.

Some do not:

Social: Brothers, Mothers, Widows, etc.Occupation: Kings, Queens, Nuns, Monks, etc.

Lesbian Poetry: An AnthologySubject-only approach:

● English poetry--Lesbian authors (LCSH)

Faceted approach:

● Language: eng (iso 639-2)● Genre: Poetry (LCGFT)● Form: Text (RDA Content)● Subject: --● Intended audience: --● Creator/contributor characteristics: Lesbians (LCDGT)

2 BIG Problems

PROBLEM #1 Tension between access and queer identity

● Fixing what is always in flux

● Belonging vs. distinction

● Lack of self-description and ownership of terminology

● Challenge the categories and terminology

PROBLEM #2Catalogers are not (queer) subject experts

● Catalogers have to make do with limited public information about people

● Controlled Vocabularies may not match an individual’s self-labeling

● Legacy cataloging practices and assumptions persist out of inertia

● Queer resources and creators are not always what they seem

Solutions

Solutions: a Bermanian Approach“The problem is not one of access to material on the Inuit, for instance, but rather of what kind of access: i.e. via their own name or what somebody else has laid on them? Hopefully, most library users ... will only need to jump this access hurdle once. Afterwards they'll know that "Eskimo items are listed under Inuit.... and that very awareness may be worth a lot."

-Sandy Berman, 1981

Sandy Berman, radical cataloger

Solutions● Only record when necessary and confirmed by self-identification. Don’t make

assumptions on names/appearances/pronouns. ● Reduce barriers to contribution

○ Crowd-sourced data ○ Author questionnaires○ NACO wiki

● Form a LGBTQ NACO/SACO/BIBCO Funnel● Adopt/support alternative vocabularies and standards

○ Develop a queer linked data ontology - The Homosaurus!○ GLBT-RT list of controlled vocabularies and classification schemes

● Leverage linked data to supply contextual information from other sources

Changing the Standards: Be a pain in the ass!LCSH or LCDGT: Add/Revise/Delete a term, or its scope notes, cross-references, or categories

● Library of Congress Subject Authority Cooperative (SACO) members and funnels can make proposals.

● Proposals are reviewed by Library of Congress Policy and Standards Division● Reviewed terms posted for comment before being approved or rejected.

RDA: Major revisions generated by RDA Steering Committee (RSC) and its constituents:

● USA: ALA’s Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA)● Canada: Canadian Committee on Cataloguing● Other national bodies and RSC-appointed Working Groups● Public comment periods at most steps of this process● Separate process for minor “fast-track” and examples changes.

Thanks!Any questions?

@justbilley @matthaion