Is that really how you’d say that?

A Comparison of the Treatment of the Subject of Aboriginal Literacy in Canada in the Canadian Literacy Thesaurus and

Library of Congress Subject Headings

Kelly Sirett

ISI 5121 Subject Analysis of Information

Wednesday March 17, 2013

Professor Pam Armstrong

Sirett_5121 Page 2 of 14

ABSTRACT

Subject classification and analysis is what allows for that serendipitous moment of

finding an excellent book one shelf lower than the one you were looking for. Indexing

languages not only ensure consistency in the treatment of subject analysis, but also address the

treatment of synonyms and homonyms, create links between terms by indicating relationships,

and provide clarity through the use of scope notes and definitions. Through a comparison of

the treatment of the subject of Aboriginal peoples and literacy in Canada (Aboriginal literacy in

Canada) in the Library of Congress Subject Headings and the Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, this

essay seeks to evaluate the not only the strengths and weaknesses of these indexing languages,

but also illustrate the problematic treatment of the subject.

Sirett_5121 Page 3 of 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Overview of Library of Congress Subject Headings ........................................................................ 4

Overview of Canadian Literacy Thesaurus ...................................................................................... 5

Comparison ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Organizing Structure .................................................................................................................... 6

Entry Vocabulary .......................................................................................................................... 7

Preferred Terms ............................................................................................................................ 8

Hierarchical and Associative Relationships .................................................................................. 9

Granularity ................................................................................................................................. 10

Clarity ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Consistency ................................................................................................................................. 11

Currency ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Reference List ................................................................................................................................ 14

Sirett_5121 Page 4 of 14

INTRODUCTION

The use of subject analysis to classify resources according to subjects is certainly one of

the greatest accomplishments in field of librarianship. Subject classification provides

information seekers with a quick and effective way to find resources that would have otherwise

been hidden behind the titles of the work and the names of the author or publisher. Subject

classification is what allows for that serendipitous moment of finding an excellent book one

shelf lower than the one you were looking for, from a query performed in the library catalogue.

The development of indexing languages to ensure consistency in the treatment of

subject analysis has advanced this field even further. However, it is important to note that each

indexing language functions differently. In order to understand how indexing languages

function, I will compare the coverage and treatment of one subject area, specifically examining

the organizing structure, entry vocabulary, preferred terms, hierarchical and associative

relationships, granularity, clarity, consistency, and currency of two indexing languages—the

Canadian Literacy Thesaurus (CLT) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH).

Throughout this comparison, I will assess the strengths and shortcomings of these two indexing

languages in terms of their treatment of the subject area. Finally, in conclusion, I will offer

recommendations for how these systems could ameliorate any deficiencies, by harnessing their

own strengths and the opportunities possible in a collaborative, web environment.

OVERVIEW OF LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SUBJECT HEADINGS

The LCSH thesaurus has been extensively adopted by libraries internationally and has

served libraries and their patrons for well over the past century; making it “the most widely

Sirett_5121 Page 5 of 14

used indexing vocabulary in the world” (Chan, 2005, p. 416). The strengths of LCSH lie not only

in its widespread international adoption, its well-documented history and its support from the

Library of Congress, but also in its highly-established controlled vocabulary that covers all

subject areas, an emphasis on the user and usage, homograph and synonym control, and links

between terms (Chan, 2001; Chan, 2005). Even as we move to a digital environment, it is clear

to see that the strengths and value of LCSH are transferable to a new information retrieval

setting.

OVERVIEW OF CANADIAN LITERACY THESAURUS

The CLT, now in its third edition, is “a bilingual list of standardized vocabulary in the area

of adult literacy” (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-a). First published in 1992 by the Canadian

Literacy Thesaurus Coalition and in consultation with the national literacy community, the CLT

now contains 2097 terms in English and 2201 terms in French and is published exclusively online

(Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b). The CLT was created to provide information about topics

and terminology relating to the field of literacy in Canada and to offer a regional representation

of the country’s current practices and topics. Finally, the CLT aims to describe literacy both in

the context of its application and as a field of knowledge; “the areas covered include: literacy

assessment, literacy instruction and tutoring, literacy programming, literacy research, literacy

theory, and educational technology (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b).

COMPARISON

I have chosen to evaluate the treatment of the subject of Aboriginal peoples and literacy

in Canada, Aboriginal literacy in Canada, between the two indexing languages. This choice is

Sirett_5121 Page 6 of 14

based in part because of my passion for literacy and interest in how classification systems and

thesauri represent Aboriginal peoples, but also in response to a study administered and

published in 2011 by Deborah Lee, Indigenous Studies Portal Librarian and Team Leader at the

Murray Library at the University of Saskatchewan. Lee’s study, in part, sought to collect,

evaluate and examine individual’s outlooks on the “inaccuracy or inappropriateness of Library of

Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) to describe Aboriginal-related materials in a Canadian

context” (Lee, 2011, p. 2). Although, syntax in LCSH is hardly a new debate in the world of

Canadian subject classification, the results of Lee’s study certainly offer new insights on this

problem and the shortcomings of traditional subject classification more broadly—all of which

can offer information professionals further comprehension on how to best support and meet

the user’s needs.

Organizing Structure

LCSH is structured first by the main heading, which represents what the contents of the

resource or the form it takes; there are four general main heading categories: topical, form,

genre, and names (Chan, 2005). Main headings can then be subdivided, which narrows the

scope of the subject; subdivisions can be applied in four ways: topical, geographic,

chronological, and form (Chan, 2005). Furthermore, subdivisions may then be subdivided, but it

is worth mentioning that the order of the subdivisions greatly affects the meaning of the

heading. It is also important to note that, although this structure allows for more precise

applications of subject headings, it can be very difficult for users to fully comprehend the

subtleties of the structure, which can lead to problems in its application.

Sirett_5121 Page 7 of 14

Unlike LCSH, the CLT is structured only by main headings and does not allow for

subdivisions. According its website, CLT does not cover “proper names such as geographic

names, names of specific organizations, ethnic groups, etc.” as its emphasis is focussed on terms

related to literacy in Canada (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b).

Given the distinction between the structures of these two indexing languages, the

treatment of the subject of Aboriginal literacy in Canada was certainly represented differently.

In CLT, there is a heading for Aboriginal literacy, which is defined as “literacy programs designed

for and offered to aboriginal peoples” (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-c). Although it is not

possible to narrow this topic more specifically, this heading offers a substantive treatment of

the subject. In LCSH, looking for a term related to aboriginal literacy requires a different

process. First, because this indexing language is broader in its scope, I began by finding a

subject heading that relates to literacy (Literacy), then added a subdivision to represent

aboriginal peoples. When I browsed for the heading for Aboriginal peoples, I found a note to

use Indigenous peoples, where I then found a subdivision for Indigenous peoples—Canada, and

a note that the narrower term for this subject is Indians of North America—Canada. This

subdivision would then be added to main subject heading of Literacy.

Entry Vocabulary

When LCSH was first created, its main purpose was to classify the Library of Congress

collection; later, it developed into an indexing language used the world over to help classify the

resources found within other library collections (Chan, 2005). At that time, library collections

were accessed through manual catalogues, where the entry point was of great importance.

Although it was possible to associate relationships between subjects by listing them in the

Sirett_5121 Page 8 of 14

description, libraries were limited by the physical space of cards and card catalogues. With the

advancements of technology and the move to a digital format, libraries are no longer limited by

physical space, can link more easily between subjects, and can show relationships between

terms—all of which make determining the optimal entry point less critical.

Although both LCSH and CLT allow users to search for terms using keywords, they display

the terms in alphabetical order according to the first word in the term. This gives a significant

amount of importance to the entry point, which is the first letter of the first term of the subject.

To demonstrate this, I will refer to the term Aboriginal literacy, which exists in the CLT. When I

begin by searching Aboriginal, the term Aboriginal literacy appears fourth on the list of results.

However, if I search for the term literacy, Aboriginal literacy does not appear in the results.

Browsing the LSCH thesaurus (using LCSH terms) produces a similar result. It is possible,

however, to access these terms using the second word in the phrase in the case of the CLT—if

users choose to search by keyword, rather than search by alphabetical search. To me,

focussing on the first word entry point represents a shortcoming—retaining a functionality that

represents its previous physical limitations and does little to harness the ability of a digital

environment or simplify the user’s experience.

Preferred Terms

Preferred terms exist in both languages and in both are represented through the

identification of equivalent terms, with either a Use (U) note or a Use For note (UF). This was

demonstrated in LCSH when I browsed for the heading for Aboriginal peoples, I found a note to

use Indigenous peoples. Additionally, in CLT non-preferred terms appear italicized to denote

that they are not the preferred term; these are called non-descriptors. In CLT, Aboriginal

Sirett_5121 Page 9 of 14

literacy is preferred over the term Native literacy; this is identified on the list of results found

when I browsed for the term Native literacy, and is also noted through the use and use for

relationship identifiers within each heading.

Hierarchical and Associative Relationships

Both LSCH and CLT note hierarchical and associative relationships, which helps create a

link between similar terms. Hierarchical relationships are identified by linking to broader terms

(BT) & narrower terms (NT), while associative are identified by linking to related term (RT). The

hierarchical and associative relationship functions in both indexing languages were quite limited

as it related to my subject. In CLT, the record for Aboriginal literacy offered on a single broader

term (Literacy) and no narrower terms. This is not surprising given the scope of and size of the

CLT.

In the case of LCSH, the distinction between a number of hierarchical and associative

relationships led me from the term Aboriginal peoples to the term of Indians of North America—

Canada. Although these relationships were noted there were a limited number of definitions to

identify the distinction between these terms; I will discuss this problem further in my discussion

on clarity below. Additionally, only a single narrower term was provided for Indians of North

America—Canada: Cree Indians. Causing further confusion, the term Cree Indians was also

linked to the broader term of Algonquian Indians; although there was no relationship between

Algonquian Indians and Indians of North America—Canada.

The CLT exists in both French and English; however the terms from each of the languages

are exist on their own, separate from one another. The CLT explains that “the English and

French term banks were built independently of one another, to ensure that no language would

Sirett_5121 Page 10 of 14

become the dominant language of the Thesaurus” (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b). The

CLT does, however, associate the relationship between term and its French or English

equivalent, where it exists. For users this provides yet another reference point to relationships

between terms, while also representing the bilingual setting and structure of the CLT.

Granularity

Granularity refers to the level of detail provided in the indexing language. As mentioned

earlier, LCSH was originally created to provide subject classification for the Library of Congress

collection. Similarly, the CLT was developed and is updated based on the resources related

literacy practice in Canada. In both cases, the granularity of the indexing language is

determined by the diversity of its resources. Since LCSH is the largest indexing language in the

world, it is not surprising to find a greater level of granularity.

On the contrary, the smaller scope of and size of the CLT predicate a more limited level

of granularity. This limited granularity could limit the potential ability to apply the most precise

subject analysis of particular resources. For example, a resource that relates to both a specific

element of literacy in Aboriginal peoples, perhaps computer literacy, would require two subject

headings, Aboriginal literacy and computer literacy, rather than creating a term that

incorporates both terms and indicates greater specificity, such as Aboriginal computer literacy.

Finally, it is also worth mentioning that the structure of LCSH allows for a greater level of

granularity, due to the application of subdivisions.

Clarity

In both LCSH and CLT, clarity is established through the designation of the relationships

outlined above, through the use of scope notes, or by providing definitions of terms. Scope

Sirett_5121 Page 11 of 14

notes provide further clarification on how to apply a term, while definitions specify the meaning

of the term in reference to the thesaurus (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b). In my

experience with the terms outlined above, the CLT provided clarity on the terms through the

use of definitions; however, there were very few instances where definitions or scope notes

were provided in LCSH. For example, it was not clear to me why Indians of North America—

Canada is a narrower term for Indigenous peoples—Canada, as neither of these terms

contained definitions or scope notes. It is clear that the treatment of terms relating to

Aboriginal peoples in not only Canada, but in North America in LCSH carries a significant amount

of controversy and I would argue that the vagueness of the difference between these LCSH

terms does little to help resolve this problem.

Consistency

Consistency—in both form and structure—is another factor that helps determine the

efficacy of an indexing language. Chan claims that “at the Library of Congress, wherever

feasible, attempts are to maintain consistency in form and structure among analogous headings

through the use of recurring patterns” (Chan, 2005, p. 33). However, the attempt at

consistency in direct conflict with earlier claims by Cutter and Haykin, that general use in subject

headings should take precedence over consistency (Chan, 2005). Cutter refers to this as “the

convenience of the public”, while Haykin’s principle was called “the reader as a focus” (Chan,

2005). Generally speaking, both concepts refer to the notion that a subject heading should be

assigned so that it is most useful to the individual seeking the information seeker, not the

individual performing the subject analysis. Other than the inconsistencies outlined above

regarding a lack of relationship identifiers, scope notes, and definitions, both LCSH and CLT

Sirett_5121 Page 12 of 14

appeared to be consistent in structure and form. Again, given the smaller scope and size of the

CLT, I would imagine that it is likely to be more consistent than LCSH.

Currency

Currency, in the sense of an indexing language, refers to the reflection of how current

and up to date the terms in the language are. Although LCSH now exists as an indexing

language used in libraries internationally, it is essentially providing subject analysis for materials

for the national library of the United States and is often “criticized for showing a strong

American bias” (Chan, 2005). This bias has been diminished in part as other libraries and

individuals are able to contribute more to the development and maintenance of subject

headings.

However, in the treatment of terms relating to Aboriginal peoples, LCSH lacks significant

amount of currency. This bias is not merely American-centric, but often the out-dated terms

mirror the terminology of colonialism. In contrast, the terms found in the LTC appear to offer

not only a more appropriate reflection of their current usage, but also one that is more

representative of how the terms are embodied within the resources.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the assessment provided throughout this discussion and the indexing

language comparison above, I would like to conclude this discussing by providing a small

analysis of the treatment of Aboriginal-related subjects as it relates to this discussion. Please

note, this subject on its own requires considerable further research and warrants a discussion

much larger than the one presented in this discussion.

Sirett_5121 Page 13 of 14

Research has indicated that it is problematic to apply a “one-size-fits all”, as evidenced in

the heading Indians of North America, approach to the classification of terms relating to

Aboriginal peoples (Lee, 2011). Numerous recommendations have been made to resolve the

problem associated with a “one-size-fits all” model. One of these recommendations includes the

creation of a localized thesauri, an institution or organization specific thesauri, which reflects

the appropriate usage and breadth of detail needed to complete subject analysis of the

materials (Lee, 2011). One such example is the “B.C. First Nations Names Authority” (Lee,

2011). I would argue that this thesaurus, like many thesauri or indexing languages, provides an

excellent framework for subject classification, but also lacks the flexibility required to fully meet

the needs of the user or reflect the most current usage.

As previously mentioned, Cutter and Haykin both claimed that meeting the needs of the

user was of the utmost importance in subject analysis and classification. Many have since

criticized this view, noting that it might have actually been possible to better meet the needs of

the user group during that time as there were fewer users in general and less diversity between

these users (Chan, 2005). I agree that this statement is likely true as well. However, what is

being overlooked through this argument is that, with the development of a collaborative web

environment, we are actually more capable of meeting user’s needs—diverse and numerous as

they are—now more than ever before. In accordance with a number of projects and systems

that already exist, I would recommend that we continue to place the needs of the user at the

forefront of subject analysis, but rather than focussing strictly on the developing and maintain

indexing languages, focus also on the enhancing and creating tools that encourage users to

contribute and collaborate.

Sirett_5121 Page 14 of 14

REFERENCE LIST

Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, (n.d-a). Home page. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.thesaurusalpha.org/homeenglish.htm

Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, (n.d-b). About the thesaurus. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from

http://www.thesaurusalpha.org/about.htm

Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, (n.d-c). Aboriginal literacy. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.thesaurusalpha.org/mtw.exe?linkType=term&w=46&k=default&s=5&t=2&n=1&l=60

Chan, L. M. (2001) Exploiting LCSH, LCC, and DDC to retrieve networked resources: Issues and challenges. In Proceedings of the bicentennial conference on bibliographic control for the new millennium (pp. 159-178). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/chan_paper.html

Chan, L.M. (2005). Library of Congress subject headings: Principles and application. (4th ed.).

Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Lee, D. (2011). Indigenous Knowledge Organization: A Study of Concepts, Terminology,

Structure and (Mostly) Indigenous Voices. Partnership: The Canadian Journal Of Library And Information Practice And Research, 6(1). Retrieved from https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/1427