Module 6: Ethics, Diversity and Access Within Information Organization

LIS 5043: Organization of Information

Dr. Manika Lamba

Introduction

As you have no doubt determined at this point, the topic of “information organization” is very broad based and contains multiple, complex, but interrelated facets. To this point we have been looking specifically at users, systems, and bibliographic and subject representation of objects. We have also stretched our thinking some to include the role that artifacts might play in how we organize our own knowledge spaces, such as the use of lists, the hierarchies we have on our cell phones or computers, calendars, etc. We have even thought through whether or not we are a “lumper” or a “splitter”.

An essential aspect of information organization that we have not specifically addressed is that when we design systems, when we create representations, we should always strive to provide ethical access to everyone. Providing ethical access is more than making information available to a wide audience. It is concerned with designing systems that can be used and are useful to everyone, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, race, or ability. It is also concerned with representing information and knowledge in a sensitive and all inclusive manner.

In this module, we are going to learn more about some of the underlying topics of both designing systems that are accessible to everyone and the issues of ethical representation.

Overview

Universal Design
- Designing systems that can be used and are useful for everyone
Ethical Representation
- Choices catalogers make
- Ethical subject representation
- Standards that are based on understanding of users and how users interact with library catalog and catalog records

Excerpts from ALA Code of Ethics

Adopted June 28, 1997, by the ALA Council; amended January 22, 2008

Ethical dilemmas occur when values are in conflict. The American Library Association Code of Ethics states the values to which we are committed, and embodies the ethical responsibilities of the profession in this changing information environment.
We significantly influence or control the selection, organization, preservation, and dissemination of information. In a political system grounded in an informed citizenry, we are members of a profession explicitly committed to intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information. We have a special obligation to ensure the free flow of information and ideas to present and future generations.
We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.
We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.

First, if we take a look at these excerpts from the ALA Code of Ethics, the principles that guide us as organizers and providers of information can be distilled to:

We should consult the Code of Ethics and its principles if ethical dilemmas occur that conflict with our values
Because we have significant control or influence on the resources we provide access to, it is our obligation to ensure equitable, unbiased, and accurate access to those materials
We should guard against all forms of censorship, including our own (intentional or non-intentional)

When designing systems (web pages, digital libraries, OPACs, interfaces, etc.) we need to be aware of good design, but also design that makes it possible for all users to usefully access our systems. Universal design uses not just principles of good design, but also understanding of how disabled individuals interact with and use systems. Equitable access can also mean providing resources and signage that can be useful by people with disabilities, the aged, or the youngest of our users.

When we create representations of information and knowledge resources, we have to always keep the user in mind. Choosing appropriate attributes to represent for our audience is only one aspect of ethical representation. We also have to be mindful and sensitive to users’ age, gender, ethnicity, and race when creating records that help users access our collections.

ALCTS Supplement

Developed by the ALCTS Task Force on Professional Ethics; adopted by the ALCTS Board of Directors, Midwinter Meeting, February 7, 1994

Guidelines for ALCTS Members to Supplement the American Library Association Code of Ethics, 1994
The following guidelines are to assist ALCTS members in the interpretation and application of the ALA Code of Ethics as it applies to issues of concern to ALCTS.
Within the context of the institution’s missions and programs and the needs of the user populations served by the library an ALCTS member:
- strives to develop a collection of materials within collection policies and priorities;
- strives to provide broad and unbiased access to information;
- strives to preserve and conserve the materials in the library in accordance with established priorities and programs;
develops resource sharing programs to extend and enhance the information sources available to library users;

ALCTS Supplement (Cont.)

promotes the development and application of standards and professional guidelines;
establishes a secure and safe environment for staff and users;
fosters and promotes fair, ethical and legal trade and business practices; maintains equitable treatment and confidentiality in competitive relations and manuscript and grant reviews;
supports and abides by any contractual agreements made by the library or its home institution in regard to the provision of or access to information resources, acquisition of services, and financial arrangements.

Section 508

Summary of Section 508 Standards

- General - Technical Standards - Software applications and operating systems - Web-based intranet and internet information and systems - Telecommunication products - Video and multimedia products - Self contained, closed products - Desktop and portable computers - Functional Performance Criteria - Information, Documentation, and Support

Appendix A

E101.1 Purpose. These Revised 508 Standards, which consist of 508 Chapters 1 and 2 (Appendix A), along with Chapters 3 through 7 (Appendix C), contain scoping and technical requirements for information and communication technology (ICT) to ensure accessibility and usability by individuals with disabilities. Compliance with these standards is mandatory for Federal agencies subject to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d)

Appendixes B and C

C101.1 Purpose. These Revised 255 Guidelines, which consist of 255 Chapters 1 and 2 (Appendix B), along with Chapters 3 through 7 (Appendix C), contain scoping and technical requirements for the design, development, and fabrication of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, content, and support documentation and services, to ensure accessibility and usability by individuals with disabilities. These Revised 255 Guidelines are to be applied to the extent required by regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission under Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 255).

Appendix C (Cont.)

601.1 Scope. The technical requirements in Chapter 6 shall apply to ICT support documentation and services where required by 508 Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), 255 Chapter 2 (Scoping Requirements), and where otherwise referenced in any other chapter of the Revised 508 Standards or Revised 255 Guidelines.
602 Support Documentation
- 602.1 General. Documentation that supports the use of ICT shall conform to 602.
- 602.2 Accessibility and Compatibility Features. Documentation shall list and explain how to use the accessibility and compatibility features required by Chapters 4 and 5. Documentation shall include accessibility features that are built-in and accessibility features that provide compatibility with assistive technology.
- 602.3 Electronic Support Documentation. Documentation in electronic format, including Web-based self-service support, shall conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements in WCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see 702.10.1).
- 602.4 Alternate Formats for Non-Electronic Support Documentation. Where support documentation is only provided in non-electronic formats, alternate formats usable by individuals with disabilities shall be provided upon request.

Ethical Representation

Choices catalogers make
Ethical subject representation
Standards that are based on understanding of users and how users interact with library catalog and catalog records

The other broad topic related to Ethics, Diversity, and Access in Information Organization is related to ethical representation. Catalogers, or those who create representations, should be mindful and sensitive to the information uses of all users, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, race, and ability. However, our systems, standards, and representation tools are not always developed with this principle in mind.

Many of the choices catalogers make can enable or hinder access to information. Here are a few issues you will learn more about in the Readings (be sure to refer to the Readings List document for citations for the articles to read AND to the Canvas site for articles the groups will use for the Module 10 Class Discussion:

Designing representation or metadata schema that are user appropriate

FRBR studies you explored earlier and how we are reconstructing bibliographic cataloging code (AACR2) into RDA
Digital libraries designed for specific user groups, specific disciplines, etc. and how these can be designed for access by all users

Subject headings that are ethical using appropriate terms for ethnicity and culture; - age-appropriate subject terms;

headings that encompass all gender choices; - headings that are sensitive to individuals with disabilities

Biases in LoC Subject Headings

Language vocabularies do not include every langauge
LOC does not represent marginalized groups of people
Descriptive practices have been based on systems and standards ingrained with white supremacy, misogyny, and homophobia
Much of this descriptive work contains insensitive, outdated, or inappropriate language that reflects the harmful biases built into descriptive systems
From POV - white, male, christian, heterosexual, cisgender
Historical bias, unconscious bias, combination of purposeful and unpurposeful bias
Homosaurus term

One of the core challenges in library and information science is that existing language vocabularies and classification systems fail to encompass all languages, particularly those of marginalized or underrepresented communities. These vocabularies often exclude the languages, terminologies, and experiences of many groups, resulting in incomplete and inaccurate representation of knowledge and culture. For instance, the Library of Congress (LOC), a dominant classification system, has historically failed to adequately represent marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, Indigenous cultures, and other minority experiences. This omission perpetuates structural exclusion in how knowledge is categorized and accessed.

The root of this problem lies in the fact that cataloging and descriptive practices have long been based on systems and standards ingrained with white supremacy, misogyny, and homophobia. These systems were created from a narrow, exclusionary perspective, which means that many cataloging practices still carry forward these harmful biases. As a result, much of the language used in cataloging is outdated, insensitive, and inappropriate. It reflects the harmful biases built into the system, including terms and categorizations that may have been acceptable at the time but are now recognized as offensive, particularly in relation to race, gender, and sexuality.

Furthermore, these classification systems were created from the dominant perspective of white, male, Christian, heterosexual, and cisgender individuals, leading to the privileging of certain viewpoints while others are marginalized or erased. This results in a combination of both intentional and unintentional bias, where some exclusions or misrepresentations were consciously designed, while others occurred out of ignorance or lack of awareness. Recognizing this combination of purposeful and unconscious bias is key to understanding how deeply entrenched these issues are.

In response to these limitations, alternative vocabularies such as the Homosaurus (https://homosaurus.org/) have been developed. The Homosaurus is an LGBTQ+ focused vocabulary tool designed to offer more inclusive and appropriate terminology for describing LGBTQ+ topics. It counters the historical biases found in traditional systems, offering a path forward for more inclusive cataloging practices. Ultimately, addressing these biases and adopting more inclusive tools is essential for creating a more equitable and accurate system of knowledge classification in libraries and archives.

Bias Hiding in Your Library

The ‘straight white American man’ assumption

Without gender, race or geographic qualifications, “Astronauts” can be assumed to mean white American men in terms of library subjects

In library classification and subject cataloging, there is often an implicit assumption of the “straight white American man” as the default or normative identity. This bias is especially evident when library subjects or categories lack specific qualifications related to gender, race, or geography.

For example, when the subject “Astronauts” is used without further clarification, the assumption may be that it refers primarily to white American men, despite the fact that astronauts come from a variety of racial, gender, and national backgrounds. This reflects a broader issue in library systems where the dominant identity is assumed unless otherwise specified, which erases the diversity and contributions of individuals who do not fit that narrow mold.

Recognizing and addressing these hidden biases is crucial for creating more accurate and inclusive library descriptions and classifications that reflect the diversity of human experience.

Bias Hiding in Your Library

Nurses were divided equitably for both Male and Female
Under Prostitutes, there was only “Male prostitute” SH, revealing the generic assumption that most prostitutes are female

Official Library of Congress subject headings for three professions traditionally perceived as female. Amanda Ros. CC BY

Beginning of Change

Two influential works that played a significant role in addressing bias in library classification systems are shown on this slide. The first is Sandy Berman’s 1971 work, “Prejudices and Antipathies: A Tract on the LC Subject Heads Concerning People,” which critically examines the Library of Congress subject headings, pointing out their inherent biases and the marginalization of certain groups. Berman’s analysis was a pivotal moment in recognizing how subject headings reflected societal prejudices, including racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, and it advocated for more inclusive and accurate cataloging practices.

The second work featured is the 1972 anthology “Revolting Librarians,” edited by Celeste West and Elizabeth Katz. This collection of essays was part of the larger radical librarianship movement that called for transformative change in libraries, particularly around issues of social justice and representation. The book challenges traditional library practices, including the role of librarians as gatekeepers of knowledge and the perpetuation of biases within cataloging systems.

These works represent the early stages of change in library science, where critical theory, feminist theory, and other movements began to question and push back against the biased systems that shaped library classification. They laid the groundwork for ongoing efforts to make library systems more inclusive and to reflect diverse identities and experiences, ultimately influencing subsequent scholars and movements, such as Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory, in the field of library science.

Critical Theory

Feminist Theory; Social Influences - Hope Olson (1990s-present)
Critical Race Theory - Jonathan Furner (2000s)
“Three Decades Since Prejudice and Antipathies: A Study of Changes in the Library of Congress Subject Headings” - Steven Knowlton
Queer Theory - Emily Drabinski (2010s) [Currently President of the American Library Association (ALA)]

There has been a growing movement toward addressing these biases in cataloging practices. The integration of critical theory into library science has led to important changes in how subjects are classified. Feminist theory, driven by scholars like Hope Olson since the 1990s, has brought attention to social influences on classification, while Critical Race Theory, advanced by Jonathan Furner in the 2000s, has examined how race is represented in these systems. Steven Knowlton’s study, “Three Decades Since Prejudice and Antipathies: A Study of Changes in the Library of Congress Subject Headings,” also reflects on the progress made in removing prejudiced language.

More recently, Emily Drabinski, an advocate of Queer Theory and past president of the American Library Association (ALA), has pushed for changes to ensure the LGBTQ+ community is represented fairly and accurately. These shifts in theory and practice demonstrate the ongoing effort to address and correct biases hidden in library classification systems.

Representation in LOC

Absence/Incomplete

LQBTIQA+
Gender
Racial categories
- races have been named by dominant group (white)
Indigenous People
- broad and inaccurate subject term
Western bias

We have now seen that how the representation in the Library of Congress (LOC) subject headings for various groups are either absent or incompletely represented in these systems. For example, subject headings related to LGBTQIA+ communities are often limited or missing, failing to reflect the full spectrum of sexual and gender diversity. Similarly, gender categories themselves are often inadequate, lacking the nuance needed to represent non-binary, transgender, and other gender-diverse identities.

In terms of racial categories, the LOC subject headings have historically been created and named by the dominant group—typically white, Western classifiers—which results in biased and reductive representations of race. Categories for racial and ethnic groups are often shaped by these external perspectives rather than the groups themselves. This is particularly problematic for Indigenous peoples, where subject terms are often overly broad or inaccurate, homogenizing a vast diversity of cultures, languages, and histories under a single, Western-biased term.

The slide emphasizes that these gaps and inaccuracies perpetuate a Western bias in library cataloging systems, privileging Western norms and viewpoints while erasing or misrepresenting the experiences and knowledge of marginalized groups. This lack of comprehensive representation highlights the need for ongoing efforts to update and revise these classification systems to be more inclusive and accurate.

Some Positive Changes in LOC SH

Ethnicity

In late 1970s, “Afro-Americans” replaced “Negroes”
This was in turn replaced by “African Americans” or “Blacks” in 2000

Medical Condition

In 2001, “People with mental disabilities” replaced “Mentally handicapped” and “Retarded persons”

Gender

Gender identity is also an area where positive changes have been made
LGBT subjects have been distinguished and classed under “Sexual minorities” since 1972, rather than being under the subject “Sexual deviations”. “Sexual deviations” does not even exist as a subject heading anymore
In December, the Library of Congress changed the broader term from “sexual minorities” to simply “persons”

There have been some positive changes made in the Library of Congress (LOC) subject headings over time, particularly in the areas of ethnicity, medical conditions, and gender identity. These changes reflect evolving societal understanding and a move towards more inclusive and respectful language.

In terms of ethnicity, a significant shift occurred in the late 1970s when the term “Afro-Americans” replaced the outdated and offensive term “Negroes.” This was further updated in 2000 to “African Americans” or “Blacks”.

Regarding medical conditions, in 2001, LOC replaced the terms “Mentally handicapped” and “Retarded persons” with the more respectful and person-first language, “People with mental disabilities.” This change was important in reducing the stigma associated with outdated and pejorative language around disabilities.

The gender identity category has also seen positive changes. One of the earliest improvements was made in 1972 when LGBT subjects were reclassified under “Sexual minorities” instead of the derogatory “Sexual deviations,” a term that no longer exists in the LOC subject headings. More recently, in December, the Library of Congress made a further change by updating the broader term from “Sexual minorities” to the more neutral and inclusive “persons,” reflecting a continued effort to respect and affirm diverse identities.

These changes demonstrate that while the LOC classification system has had its flaws, it is gradually evolving to better reflect the diversity of our society.

Efforts by Library of Congress

The Library of Congress (LOC) has been making efforts to address and update the subject headings related to different terms. This slide demonstrates the LOC’s ongoing efforts to improve representation and accuracy in its cataloging system for Indigenous peoples, ensuring that these changes reflect both contemporary standards and the preferences of Indigenous communities themselves.

The LOC is committed to ensuring that Indigenous group names and classifications are accurately and respectfully represented in its subject heading system. This commitment is part of a broader initiative, titled “Evaluation of Headings for Indigenous Peoples,” which seeks to revise and improve how Indigenous groups are categorized, moving away from outdated, inaccurate, or broad terms that have historically dominated library systems.

As part of this effort, the LOC provides interim guidelines on how to handle subject and demographic term proposals for Indigenous groups. These guidelines aim to support more accurate and culturally sensitive classifications.

The LOC encourages feedback from the community through a feedback mechanism, enabling a participatory approach to updating subject headings.

Efforts by Library of Congress

Efforts by Libraries

Libraries are making efforts to redress this problematic history

Statement on Harmful Language in Cataloging and Archival Description by University of Virginia Library

They are actively removing the harmful language in their legacy records
They acknowledge that many LCSH headings are biased and harmful
They are supporting efforts underway throughout the profession to change these terms, and are also taking a localized approach to replacing some harmful and racist terms with acceptable local headings in their own catalog
When describing some archival collections, they include a brief note to patrons alerting them to harmful or pejorative language

Libraries are increasingly recognizing and addressing the problematic history embedded in cataloging and archival systems, particularly with respect to biased and harmful language. There are many libraries that are trying remove such subject terms in their local catalog.

A prime example of this is the University of Virginia Library’s Statement on Harmful Language in Cataloging and Archival Description, where they actively acknowledge the presence of biased and offensive terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and legacy records. In response, they have committed to removing such harmful language from their records, working to replace outdated, racist, and pejorative terms with more respectful and inclusive alternatives.

The University of Virginia Library, along with other institutions, is supporting broader efforts within the library profession to advocate for changes in LCSH terms. Simultaneously, they are taking a localized approach, adapting their own cataloging practices to replace harmful language with more acceptable local subject headings, ensuring that their catalog is more inclusive and reflective of modern standards.

In the case of archival collections, libraries are also taking care to alert patrons to potentially harmful or outdated language. They provide brief notes alongside some descriptions to inform users about the presence of such language, thereby acknowledging the historical context and fostering transparency. These efforts by libraries represent a critical step toward addressing past biases and creating more equitable and inclusive cataloging practices moving forward.

Efforts by Libraries

Taking the example of University of Virginia (UVA), you can also initiate the practice of making your library catalog more inclusive.

UVA is actively working to correct these issues through their Subject Access Enhancement Initiative. As part of this initiative, they are developing a reparative taxonomy that documents changes made to the catalog so far, making these revisions publicly available for transparency (with downloadable resources like the enhanced terms list).

To build understanding, the library engages with experts across various disciplines through a series of learning sessions. These sessions cover topics like the evolving language of slavery and race in American history, gender and sexuality, and Native American and Indigenous studies. This collaborative and educational approach helps to better inform the cataloging community and promotes a more inclusive and accurate representation of diverse subjects.

Additionally, the library encourages public participation in its efforts to improve cataloging practices. Patrons are invited to identify offensive terms in the online catalog, Virgo, and suggest more appropriate replacements. This crowdsourcing approach enables the library to continuously update and refine its subject headings, fostering a more inclusive and responsive catalog.