Classification systems and subject headings/controlled vocabulary terms will probably begin to make more sense when you see them "in action," i.e., when we begin to actually take a look at the records in the MCTC book catalog and at the subscription databases and begin to search for information on your topic. Remember that the classifying of a book (or other item) and and the assignment of subject terms to this book (or other item) is a SUBJECTIVE process determined by the cataloger (the name of the librarian who does this work or NOW whoever are indexers who work for the large commercial vendors of subscription databases). When a cataloger assigns a classification number to a book he/she is actually determining for you where this book is placed on the shelf and how you will view this book in relation to other books (or other resourcs) of "like" subject matter. NOTE: Where would you like to locate videos? All videos in one location or placed side by side with a book on the topic? Does it depend on how you will be using the video?
The matter of subject headings/controlled vocabulary terms is a somewhat controversial topic in libraries. They are determined by the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. and are offered as as a standard for libraries to follow. They often become "outdated' and do not reflect how people are really using information. One of our local librarians, Sanford Berman, formally a cataloger who worked for Hennepin County, has long been a advocate for changing these terms more quickly. For those students who are interested check out this link:
http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr517/02-03-wt2/projects/berman/
passions.htm
Additional document:
www.sanfordberman.org/headings/controversial.pdf
jj
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
i guess i'm not offended by catalogers being subjective - gatekeepers bug me, but catalogers aren't deciding "what is worthy and what is not" - they might be a hair presumptuous (like deciding how you will view the book in relation to similar information), but aren't they just trying to formally classify/control information, so as many people as possible can access it? I give them credit - it can be hard to rationalize & assign subject headings when some subjects and ideas can be so abstract. I'm curious as to if our Instructor is pro-Dewey or pro-LC? or what about librarians? are they generally indifferent? i'll most definitely check out Sanford Berman's website.
i think videos belong by other videos, because most videos were originally FILMED on celluloid - and FILM/MOVIES are a different medium. i guess whether they were recorded on DV, celluloid, whatever. it doesn't matter. even though there are book/film adaptations, or critical essays on films, the book-film/essay is an intepretation of the original source and i don't think it should be considered a "companion piece."
Most librarians of course are dedicated professionals which in interest in providing the easiest ways to retrieve information. Due to the sheer volume of information especially in large academic institutions, there is very little time to actually do what we call "original" cataloging, i.e.,depart from the suggested Library of Congress cataloging and assign original classification numbers and subject headings to an item which are possibly more appropriate to the local collection (libraries can do this if they wish). MCTC Library is unusual in that the librarians do assign "added value" to the original card to allow further access to the information in the individual book. MCTC has a large "alternative press" collection which sometimes are "one of a kind" items. Here especially are the challenges in originally cataloging these items.
The note on videos was to make you think about how especially students would/could use a video. If a video on Martin Luther King is placed next to a print biography of Martin Luther King, would not the student find this more useful, more convenient and more likely to use the video for a report than if that video were placed in a separate area in the library??
wow, stop the press! "Berman's Bag" did add a new angle to cataloging. perhaps the catalogers are oppressive - or is it typical dim witted, can't-keep-up bureaucratic bog-down? i actually read God Is Not Great. i suppose it was labeled "religion--controversial literature" because we live in a very cautiously creeping, passive aggressive christian police state. yeah...not suprised. it's "controversial" because it goes against the grain. not a few of the books in my collection were and maybe still are considered "controversial". i like those kinds of books, they mean a lot to me, and honestly the "controversial" label would only make me wanna read it even more. but that tag should be dropped because it automatically infers that the people who read those books are a dire threat to a delusional something that not honest christians - but christo-soulgreed-heads can't put their finger on - so they throw a scarlett letter on it. and yeah, the fact that there's transgender under-cataloging IS NO MISTAKE. anything that has anything to do with understanding sexuality is suppressed. a lot of the scum running the show can barely acknowledge any from of humanity that's not bourgeois cookie cutter ho-hum business as usual. it's sad, you'd never think there's so many sick, soul-limiting people with vested interests out there - people trying to block the road to other peoples' quest for knowledge and personal enlightenment - either by over simplifying a way of life to the point of crass trash mag heading cliche or just ignoring it. it's beyond insensitive, because it's TOTALLY deliberate.
With the different generation gaps, diverse cultures and different thinking mentalities, it's difficult to please everyone. I understand the need for standardization and control, but sometimes things get outdated and should be changed. The standard LC and Dewey system may not be broken but there may still be ways to improve it.
I believe to have a stander system makes live easy for us. We knew that everyone could drive different way to classified their need of libraries search, perhaps easer than LC and Dewey system, but it would make very complex if allow everyone for access. Since Dewey is older system, to be less confusion, why not keep only LC……
Consumer could provide feedback for who every is (owner) of those system and we could be improve in the future
By using antiquated and/or elite phrases as subject headings information is far less accessible to the average person.
Berman really does make sense.
"Intelligibility, Findability, Fairness"
For an institution charged with preserving and categorizing information for the masses what better goals could there be for someone organizing information?
I would have to agree that the categorizing something as controversial is quite subjective, being critical of a religion isn't that controversial in todays world.
On videos. Originally I thought it was strange to have them shelved with books, but if the goal is to organize by subject it is practical. It also seems more efficient because there is not a whole separate section of with it's own rules for categorization.
I wasn't able to open the first link, but I did read the "Berman's Bag" PDF regarding the "Controversial" tag applied to Hitchens's "God is Not Great". I agree with Mr. Berman that this categorization (mainly the fact that it was the ONLY access-point) is unfair to books with which much of our nation's population would find no controversy. At the very least, the book should have been given more than just one subject heading.
As far as videos are concerned, I was initially against the idea of shelving them with boos, but I realize that it was just a gut reaction. Now that I have gotten used to the idea, it seems to make quite a bit of sense. Though I would prefer to see only non-fiction videos shelved this way. Keep a separate section for fictional films and TV shows.
Post a Comment