Examination of Cataloging Assessment Values Using the Q Sort Method

Schomberg, Jessica

doi:10.1080/01639374.2015.1072864

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most unique euphuism was "differently-abled" (Copeland 2011), which is likely a reflection of the fact that there currently exists no appropriate disability subject cataloging vocabularies, tough there are a number of glossaries (Disabled People's Association of Singapore 2015; National Center on Disability and Journalism 2018) and one study on disability tags (MacKenzie Johnson and Forsythe 2019). In recent years however, disability has been discussed by a number of authors in LIS fields, most notably Schomberg (2014;Brilmeyer (2018a;2018b;, but includes others (Koford 2014;M. A. Adler, Huber, and Nix 2017;Robinson 2017;Hollich 2020;Dali and Caidi 2021, (various chapters)).…”

Section: Disability and Crip Komentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Equitable Cataloging

Watson

2021

nasko

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For nearly a century (1933 onwards), catalogers and others have engaged in discussions over the 'ethical' labeling of marginalized subjects in knowledge organization systems (KOS). In order to understand and contextualize contemporary conversations, I undertook a comprehensive review of this literature. The resulting project 1) synthesizes the broader history of these discussions, 2) examines its facets and subdomains, and 3) provides a foundation for the realignment of KO work towards social justice. To achieve these tasks, I replicated and expanded upon a now-unavailable database prepared by Hope A. Olson and Rose Schlegl in 1999. As this database suggests, the literature has expanded fivefold in the last two decades and taken a number of different directions. My analysis of these differences (here called KO 'subdomains') establishes a historiography of critical cataloging movements and a framework from which to understand them. It also demonstrates gaps in the literature, how contemporary authors have abandoned areas of early importance, and how certain subdomains have become nearly independent. Finally, my analysis indicates the insufficiency of a philosophical tradition descended from Ancient Greek Aristotelian “virtue” ethics as a method upon which to base twenty-first century KOS. Instead, I advance the concept of “equitable” knowledge organization and the realignment of KO work towards principals of social justice.

show abstract