Ambiguous Authorship and Uncertain Authenticity: A Cataloger's Dilemma

Abstract

Cataloging works whose authorship is unclear or whose authenticity is in question is a long-standing issue that presents a unique challenge to the cataloger. AACR2R provides detailed guidance for determining the main entry heading, and the Subject Cataloging Manual includes instructions for the use of subdivisions; however, they are of limited assistance when dealing with ambiguous works. This article looks at some recent works that have generated controversy in their respective disciplines, and discusses the ideological and ethical implications of cataloging decisions made for them. Suggestions for cataloging these uncommon but vexing works include using notes that reflect the principles stated in the "Library Bill of Rights," and rethinking our use of reference sources. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworth pressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>

Tongue-Tied by Authorities: Library of Congress Vocabularies and the Shakespeare Authorship Question

“…Referring to the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2), Brubaker points out that catalogers are obligated in cases of dubious or contested authorship to seek out acceptable reference sources that can provide documentary support for an authorial attribution, but that the rules are not explicit on what this would constitute. 34 She concludes that catalogers need to clarify for the user those cases in which there is controversy over authorship: "it is incumbent on us to create a bibliographic record that is as useful as possible by providing the name and subject access catalog users need to find materials, as well as providing the information they need to draw their own conclusions about the nature of a work". 35 Brubaker here is framing a pragmatist approach to indexing, emphasizing the needs of the user, as well as the user's autonomy in drawing their own conclusions over reference to universalizing conceptions of truth.…”

“…These terminologies are being developed for use in the Shakespeare Online Authorship Resources database (SOAR) which, since 2007, has indexed 8,400 articles and book chapters related to the SAQ. 34 Our proposals to update and introduce changes to LC NAF and LCSH concerning the authorship of the Shakespeare works (and discussion of their downstream effects) are premised on a theoretical foundation of philosophical realism, Deweyan pragmatism and social epistemology that emphasizes distinctions between reality and our beliefs about reality, skepticism towards knowledge claims and divergent interpretations within communities of inquiryas well as the ethical commitments of library catalogers towards those communities. We present these ideas in the hope that they will help improve access to this exciting field of inquiry and in turn invigorate Shakespeare studies.…”

No One Can Whistle a Symphony: Seeking a Catalogers’ Code of Ethics

“…In other situations, however, the guidelines do not prove adequate to the task. Brubaker (2002), Homan (2012), and bring up situations where there is no consensus. All three address instances where veracity, authorship, or scholarly integrity is controversial.…”

The Development and Future of the Cataloguing Code of Ethics

“…3 Bair, for example, notes that catalogers' "special skills and knowledge sets them apart from the profession of librarianship in general" 4 and Brubaker argues that "the decisions we make in cataloging … can have political and ideological implications." 5 The former division of the ALA dedicated to library technical services and collections (ALCTS -the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services) did publish a supplement to the ALA code of ethics in 1994, 6 but it was not intended to be a stand-alone document, nor was it updated after subsequent revisions to the ALA code. Bair attempted a draft cataloging code of ethics in a 2005 article, but no person or organization chose to further her work.…”