Serials Cataloging, 1991-1996

Williams, James W.

doi:10.1300/j123v32n01_02

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In reviewing the results, I found that LISA provided the most relevant results; Google Scholar the greatest quantity; LISTA the highest quality; and LLISR provided only sporadic hits. Finally, I consulted several reading lists and bibliographies that focused on ethical, equitable, or critical cataloging (CritLib.org 2020; University of Cambridge Library 2019; Cook 2020; Snow 2020; Park n.d.), along with the citation lists of previously-conducted reviews (Kazuye Kimura 2018;Williams 1997;Skinner 2014;Gardner 2021;Starr Paiste 2003;Fagan 2010;Desale and Kumbhar 2013;Speller 2007;Homosaurus Editorial Board 2020;Martin 2021;Diao 2018;Sheetija Kathuria 2011;Dunsire 2018;Satija and Martinez-Avila 2017;Velez and Villa-Nicholas 2017;Hudon 2011; In order to properly evaluate the articles, I limited my review and the resulting database to English-language resources. The resulting items (~500) were either collected in full-text digital format, or requested via interlibrary loan.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critiquing the Machine

Watson

2023

tcb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Libraries are […] desiring machines that seek to collect everything for everyone for all time, making knowledge universally accessible through cataloging and classification schemes from which nothing escapes… Knowledge organization structures are also about power, the power to produce both order and excess… our catalogs and classification structures are themselves technologies of power, facilitating some ways of knowing and not others, representing certain ideological ways of seeing the world, and, crucially, not others.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critiquing the Machine

Watson

2023

tcb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In reviewing the results, I found that LISA provided the most relevant results; Google Scholar the greatest quantity; LISTA the highest quality; and LLISR provided only sporadic hits. Finally, I consulted several reading lists and bibliographies that focused on ethical, equitable, or critical cataloging (CritLib.org 2020; University of Cambridge Library 2019 ;Cook 2020;Snow 2020;Park n.d.), along with the citation lists of previously-conducted reviews (Kazuye Kimura 2018;Williams 1997;Skinner 2014;Gardner 2021;Starr Paiste 2003;Fagan 2010;Desale and Kumbhar 2013;Speller 2007;Homosaurus Editorial Board 2020;Martin 2021;Diao 2018;Sheetija Kathuria 2011;Dunsire 2018;Satija and Martinez-Avila 2017;Velez and Villa-Nicholas 2017;Hudon 2011;. The results of all of these queries were added to an open-source and open access Zotero database available at https://CritCat.org (Watson 2021a) and via the main Zotero website (Watson 2021b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

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

“…Velez, et al, 2013;L. Velez and Villa-Nicholas, 2017;Williams, 1997). The results of these queries were added to an open-source and open access Zotero database available at https://CritCat.org (Watson, 2021) and via the main Zotero Web site (Watson, 2021), and additional resources described below will be added after the publication of this paper.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handicapped has been cancelled: The terminology and logics of disability in cultural heritage institutions

Watson¹,

Beck²

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper originated from a collaborative effort between an academic and archivist and a cataloger to address the issues around the LCSH heading “Social disabilities.” In it, we examine various aspects and consequences resulting from the ways that galleries, libraries, archives, museums, and special collections (GLAMS) organize knowledge about disability and disabled users. We do this primarily through the lens of documentary analysis of cataloging and classification systems as this process, elsewhere called “the power to name” (Olson, 2002), as it is the basis for the operation of GLAMS. First, we will provide an outline and contextual information about the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the largest and most influential subject heading vocabulary system in the world. Next, we will examine the discourse around disability in library and information science via the results of a literature review. Next, we will examine the history, transformations, use, and meaning behind the LCSH heading “Social disabilities,” as an example of breakdown in terminology. Finally, and unique to the literature, we will propose an alternative hierarchy of terms for the Persons hierarchy in LCSH and discuss other methods that catalogers may use for organizing holdings about disability.

show abstract

Serials Cataloging, 1991-1996

Cited by 9 publications

References 58 publications

Critiquing the Machine

Critiquing the Machine

Advancing Equitable Cataloging

Handicapped has been cancelled: The terminology and logics of disability in cultural heritage institutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About