Cresting toward the Sea Change

Gardner, Sue

doi:10.5860/lrts.56n2.64

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 63 publications

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%

“…Again, for brevity reasons, the history presented here primarily focuses on LCSH and its use in North American academic libraries. Finally, many others (more than I can cite) have written far more eloquently and specifically about critical KO histories (Tennis 2012;Adler and Tennis 2013;Olson 2000;Homan 2012;Poole 2017;Velez and Villa-Nicholas 2017;Wenzler 2019;Gardner 2021;Hudon 2010;Dobreski and Kwaśnik 2017;Martin 2021).…”

Section: Historymentioning

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

“…16 Another issue, especially as it applies to automatic indexing, is the fact that, as Gardner notes, controlled vocabularies such as the LCSH are too complicated and diverse in structure to be applied through semi--automatic means. 17 Although some open--source tools such as Data Fountains have made efforts to overcome this complexity, projects like it are the exception rather than the rule. These issues signify the difficulty with developing sophisticated semi--automatic metadata generation tools that have general applicability across a wide range of subject domains and format types.…”

Section: Text and Data Miningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first is scalability. Because of the quantity of information resources and the costly and time--consuming nature of manual metadata generation, 2 it is increasingly apparent that there simply are not enough information professionals available for satisfying the metadata--generation needs of the library community. Semi--automatic metadata generation, on the other hand, offers the promise of using high levels of computing power to manage large amounts of information resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%