Wisdom in Education

Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 3

11-1-2015

Conceptualizing a Future for Classification

Risa M. Lumley California State University, San Bernardino Palm Desert, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie

Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons

Recommended Citation Lumley, Risa M. (2015) "Conceptualizing a Future for Library Classification," Wisdom in Education: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol5/iss2/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wisdom in Education by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Conceptualizing a Future for Library Classification

Abstract This paper traces the roots of the positivist epistemology of librarianship; its ideals of neutrality and access as they intersect in the classification and assignment of library subject headings; and the notion of the author as it relates to the creation of library authority files. By legitimizing their own professional neutrality, have wielded tremendous power over what collect as well as how those works are represented, but have done so with little self-reflection. The act of classifying works and assigning subject headings is not a neutral process. It is time for librarians to use new tools such as the RDA standards to hold academic libraries accountable for assessing their collections to ensure they represent the diversity of voices that comprise the full record and collective history of our culture.

Keywords Academic Libraries; ; Classification of ; nowledgeK Organization

Author Statement Risa M. Lumley is the at the Palm Desert Campus of California State University, San Bernardino and is pursuing a doctorate in Educational Leadership at CSUSB.

This article is available in Wisdom in Education: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol5/iss2/3 Lumley: Conceptualizing Library Classification

For years, the has been schemes. These access points have revered as a depository of objective traditionally included the title of the work, the knowledge that scientists and scholars had author, and the subject(s) of the work. captured in the structure of their language and According to the American Library preserved as manuscripts, books, articles, and Association, "Librarians have a professional other texts. These artifacts of knowledge were obligation to ensure that all library users have then coded and cataloged and put on shelves free and equal access to the entire range of in an organized manner alongside other library services, materials, and programs," manuscripts by other scholars and scientists (American Library Association, 2008). (Radford, 1992). The library was built on the However, equal access to library materials has belief in the existence of a scientifically- been impeded by bias in subject cataloging, derived and classifiable body of knowledge, both in major classification schemes such as and as keepers of the library, librarians have the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) historically derived much of their professional and in controlled subject vocabularies such as status from their adherence to, and the Library of Congress Subject Headings maintenance of, the positivist epistemology (LCSH), which “reflect the Eurocentric, male, (Bales & Engle, 2012; Harris, 1986). By Christian orientations of their originators as legitimizing their own professional neutrality, well as the time period in which they were librarians have wielded tremendous power constructed” (Tomren, 2003, p. 3). over what libraries collect and how those From the very beginning of their works are represented, but have done so with profession, librarians have relied upon little self-reflection. culturally reified experts and “tastemakers” to This paper will trace the roots of the assist in their decisions about what to collect positivist epistemology of librarianship, and and preserve and which books and journals to the ideals of neutrality and access as they buy. These decisions are inevitably biased, intersect in the classification and assignment based as they are on the judgments and of subject headings to the collection, and in interests of individual university faculty and the positivist notion of the author as it relates librarians and upon the publishing industry, to the creation of library authority files. The itself an elite corps, where males outnumber act of classifying works and assigning subject females among reviewers, reviewed, and headings cannot be a neutral process. And in published authors, and where white authors this postmodern era, it is time to resurrect the write 90% of the books reviewed in major author as more than a single access point in publications (Morales, Knowles & Bourg, the catalog. 2014). These conditions privilege some books The library profession in the United States and some users of them, while marginalizing has traditionally conceptualized the library’s others (Raber, 2003). That role in terms of two democratic ideals: access collections are hegemonic of the dominant and neutrality. “Ideally, the library has no discourse will be assumed in this paper. vested interest in the content of its materials” Pointing the way forward toward holding (Radford, 1992, p. 412); it simply facilitates academic libraries and librarians accountable access to texts, which enable scholars and for redressing this fact via the modification of students to build upon and add to the existing classification schemes is the purpose knowledge discovered by others in the of this exploration. manner of the scientific method. Yet The standards and practices of how librarians are not only responsible for knowledge is described and organized dictate selecting the items which make up the the ways in which resources in library library’s collection, but also for creating access collections are discovered and used (Morales, points to the collection via classification Knowles, & Bourg, 2014), and many theorists

1 Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2015 1 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 5 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 3

recognize that librarians have the potential to Not only is LCC ubiquitous in the United make progressive reforms to society (Raber, States where it originated, but its reach is now 2003), if they would only break free of the global. As libraries worldwide have begun “contradictory theoretical consciousness” and interacting with each other and sharing hegemonic norms that hold them back from resources online, the need for standardized doing so (Bales & Engle, 2012, p. 22). Louis cataloging practices has become necessary, Althusser (2009), in particular, felt that and the LCC has served as the framework. librarians had a “social and moral Librarians have responded to the need for responsibility” to challenge the hegemonic standardized cataloging practices by practices of the academic library, and to establishing cooperative consortia in which contribute to the creation of authentic cataloging departments from all over the knowledge and history, not simply the world contribute their records to, and take indoctrination of the canon (Bales & Engle, their records from, shared databases. An 2012). Librarians, he posited, offer a aspect of these standardized cataloging potentially progressive and transforming practices is the maintenance of authority service, but they do so in a context that control. derives from the preserves their self-interest and liberal identity idea that the names of people, places, things, within the capitalist hegemony, thus allowing and concepts are authorized, meaning they are them to dismiss the need for critical self- established in one particular form. In the examination” (Raber, 2003, p. 50). Academic United States, the primary organization for librarians, especially, face the paradox that maintaining cataloging standards with respect even as their collections support academic to authority control is the Library of freedom, they do so from hegemonic Congress, an institution of the U.S. perspectives (Bales & Engle, 2012). government funded by U.S. tax dollars. The Classification, together with indexing, Library of Congress is not only the research document description, and library that officially serves the United States assignment, form the basis of knowledge Congress, but is also regarded as the national organization (KO), and has been carried out library of the United States (Cole, 1994). It is in libraries for over a hundred years. the oldest federal cultural institution in the in turn supports United States, and now its authority over the (IR). However, the representation of knowledge is global. future for these both of these library The purpose of global classification functions is being challenged by digital becomes to represent things as they really are, technologies. A shift is taking place from free of cultural bias. To accomplish this, classification as ontology, in which everything however, it is necessary to regard documents is defined as it is, to a contemporary notion of as containers of information which can be classification as epistemology, in which analyzed and described neutrally and everything is interpreted as it could be (Mai, scientifically by following a rational and 2011). The challenge for libraries now is how systematic approach (Mai, 2011). Without they can contribute to the findability (IR) of even considering the global implications, the documents, given the availability of problems with this arrangement are evident. competing services such as Google, which The United States itself is a diverse nation allow users the flexibility of natural language within which diverse cultures exist, and when searching. one cultural institution sets itself up as the When discussing classification schemes authority over the classification and currently in use in academic libraries, one is representation of the world’s knowledge, it likely to be discussing the Library of Congress will reinforce the legitimacy of certain ways of Classification (LCC), or one of its variants. being and thinking, and subordinate or

2 https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol5/iss2/3 2 Lumley: Conceptualizing Library Classification

exclude others. Groups of peoples and ideas be seen as an example of what Michel that do not fall within the "norm" represented Foucault described as a site of struggle among by classification and subject standards are competing systems of discourse. marginalized, and this marginalization Foucault believed that it is through negatively impacts the ability of users to knowledge that the culture defines itself and successfully retrieve information on these improves the lives of its subjects. To topics (Tomren, 2003). Foucault, to be in the presence of knowledge The Subject Cataloging Manual of the is enough for us to absorb it, and in libraries Library of Congress exhorts librarians to much depends upon the serendipity of maintain their professional neutrality and to browsing in subject areas whose very “avoid assigning headings that label topics or arrangement of material is a source of new express personal value judgments regarding knowledge (Pierre, 2005). The nature of topics or materials” (Olson, 2000, p. 65). Foucault’s work was to question aspects of This, of course, is not possible, and library contemporary thought and behavior that are and information science researchers have commonly perceived as self-evident, natural grappled with the inevitability of bias in and unproblematic (Radford, 1992), which in assigning subject headings, at least since the the library would be the presumably neutral term “aboutness” was first described by classification, arrangement, and representation Robert Fairthorne (1969). Fairthorne of texts. Many other scholars from within distinguished between two types of aboutness: and without the library profession have also “extensional aboutness” which is inherent to accused librarians of hiding behind their the document, and is fixed and unchanging; presumed impartiality and strict adherence to and “intensional aboutness” which is inferred technical procedures, at the expense of from the document and is meaning-based and considerations of theory or praxis (Doherty, subject to interpretation. Intensional 2010; Kapitzke, 2003). Some have suggested aboutness implies a relationship between the that the technical rationalist outlook is inanimate resource and the user engaged with symptomatic of the profession’s inferiority its content. As a result, meaning is derived. complex (Doherty, 1998), or that this Since library users approach resources from democratic/positivist perspective that has various perspectives and with differing allowed the profession to legitimize itself has purposes, the interpretations and meanings required the library to deny the ways in which derived by different individuals from the same it has structured itself in relation to the social resource may vary greatly (Rondeau, 2014). and cultural structure of society (Harris, If a text does not have meaning, but 1986). instead, the reader creates meaning as the text Pierre Bourdieu wrote that, “The is read, then the reader’s response to the text existence of sanctified works and of a whole is the meaning of the text. Meaning, in this system of rules which define the sacramental sense, is generated when documents are used, approach assumes the existence of an and meaning is thus context and use institution whose function is not only to dependent (Mai, 2011). According to this transmit and make available but also to confer logic, a document does not have a subject, but legitimacy” (Bourdieu, 1973). Henry Giroux, is given a subject by the reader (Hjørland, speaking of a “notion of self-criticism that is 1992). Library classification has been essential to critical theory,” called into concerned, therefore, not with getting the question the objectivity that positivism subject out of the document, as much as it has encourages. Rather than proclaiming a been about creating the subject and positivist notion of neutrality, critical theory, expressing this interpretation in the indexing or praxis, Giroux felt one must openly take language. In this way, the can sides in the interest of struggling for a better

3 Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2015 3 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 5 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 3

world (Giroux, cited in Doherty, 1998). In language that scientists use to communicate response to Bourdieu, Giroux argued that by within their community of practice, K. J. “appearing to be an impartial and neutral Gergen states, “Practically speaking, we ‘transmitter’ of the benefits of a valued should not dispense with the tradition. At the culture, schools (and libraries) promote same time, there are inimical consequences inequality in the name of fairness and for both the human sciences and the societies objectivity” (Giroux, 1983, p. 267). they serve. Shared agreements are essentially In the spirit of Giroux, the issue of captivating. And in significant degree, the addressing the bias inherent in LC subject captivating gaze simultaneously constrains the cataloging has been the life’s work of the imagination and numbs the sensitivity to “radical librarian” Sanford Berman, who consequences” (Gergen, 2014, p. 7). These worked tirelessly to have the Library of scientific knowledge claims have traditionally Congress make revisions to offensive subject been reinforced by libraries, but a shift is now headings, such as YELLOW PERIL, taking place. Since searchers now often find MAMMIES, JEWISH QUESTION, and what they need using tools other than the many others (Tomren, 2003, p. 5). Berman library online public access catalog (OPAC), first wrote about the LC subject heading many libraries are at the point of ceasing to YELLOW PERIL in 1971, but it was not classify their books altogether (Hjørland, until 1989 that the heading’s use was finally 2012, p. 299). Individual library users’ cancelled by the Library of Congress (Berman, experiences of subject search failure, 2006). In addition to these acute confusion, and information overload have led manifestations of subject heading bias, to reduced reliance on the subject index and Berman and others have illuminated problems to increased use of alternate access points, of ghettoization, where subject headings such as title or natural language keyword gather and isolate a topic, rather than search (Hjørland, 2012). integrating it. One classic example is the In addition to their role in assisting users treatment of American Indian materials, with information retrieval, and libraries with which have been separated from mainstream knowledge organization, subject headings American culture by their Library of Congress have often been used by libraries for subject heading and relegated to the history assessment purposes. Traditionally academic section, as if they are only part of the past and libraries have measured the breadth of their have no contemporary culture (Tomren, 2003, collections by assessing the number of p. 3). Still other subject headings have caused volumes held in each subject area, for topics to be marginalized as outside of the instance, whether as measured against some accepted norm, such as the obsolete subject metric, there are adequate resources available heading for “WOMEN AS…” such as, in American History. The materials which “WOMEN AS PHYSICIANS” (Olson & comprise the library collection, however, do Schlegl, 1999, p. 239). Even after subject not exist independently of the people they headings are changed or eliminated from the were created by and are about (Moulaison, LCSH, they are not necessarily eliminated Dykas, & Budd, 2013). In response to Roland from libraries, unless and until those Barthes’ “Death of the Author,” Michel individual libraries commit resources toward Foucault (1984) famously asked, “What is an the retrospective cataloging of older materials. author?” in order to analyze the cultural What is scientific at any particular perception of an author. To Foucault, the historical juncture is determined by which author was “an iconic cultural phenomenon system is dominant, and not which system is used to bound, limit, and even impede the true (Radford, 1992). Viewing subject free perception of a work” (Foucault, cited in headings as the descriptive or interpretive Smiraglia, Lee, & Olson, 2011, p. 137), a

4 https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol5/iss2/3 4 Lumley: Conceptualizing Library Classification

viewpoint in alignment with traditional library person, the first name, and other information practice, which treats the author of a work as to differentiate that character string from merely as an access point in the catalog, others (Moulaison, Dykes & Budd, 2013) particularly in works of non-fiction. and/or through the limited information The Library of Congress Cataloging contained in the personal name authority (LCC) system has long reflected the record (e.g.: name; pseudonyms; dates; importance of author’s voice in works of language). literature by including subheadings such as: Just as assigning subject headings is Hispanic Americans—fiction; American fraught with inherent bias, the act of choosing poetry -- Jewish authors; American lesbians -- a single authorized heading to represent all the literary collections, and so on, while scholarly forms of a person’s name is often a difficult works of nonfiction, assumed to be objective and complex task. Many authors are known to and impartial, have not been classified in this have used a variety of nicknames, pen names, manner. There is currently no means for or other alternative names in the course of measuring whose voices are represented by their lifetime. The choice of authorized those works of American History which heading is especially difficult when some of comprise the library’s subject area, and those various names have controversial whether or not all of those works were political or social connotations, and when the written by authors with similar or diverse choice of authorizing one heading over backgrounds and perspectives. another may seem to endorse a particular To ensure that academic library political or social ideology. collections truly represent their stated The history of American librarianship commitments to diversity and social justice, reveals a profession that has consistently academic librarians must actively and overlooked its own contribution to the aggressively evaluate their existing collections imbalances of power and knowledge that in and redress gaps by collecting resources by turn contribute to the systemic exclusion of and about underrepresented groups, yet the certain groups of people from full means for evaluating academic library participation in capitalist social formations collections in this way are limited. Traditional (Raber, 2003). But in 2013, the Library of methods of evaluating academic library Congress adopted a new content standard for collections for diversity or multiculturalism Resource Description and Access (RDA), have relied upon either measuring the developed by the International Federation of collection against subject bibliographies Library Associations, which supplants created by scholars in the field of study, (AACR2), and allows for additional attributes and/or by analysis of the collection by subject to be added to personal name (author) heading. Both of these methods are subject authority records. These additional attributes to inherent bias, and further, each method include gender; place of birth; place of death; measures only the subject matter of the country; place of residence; affiliation; material, while ignoring the gender, ethnicity, address; language; field of activity; profession; or race of the author of the material. and biography/history. These additional Library classification systems, such as attributes have been touted in the library LCC, which historically relied upon the Anglo literature as assisting users with finding, American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) for identifying and contextualizing information, description, allowed people who were authors which they no doubt will. The ability to search or creators of works to be represented in only for history texts written by Hispanic women two ways: through personal name identifiers or by Native American gay men, would in library records which contained character provide a whole new level of contextuality for strings representing the last name of the today’s diverse student body. More

5 Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2015 5 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 5 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 3

importantly though, the ability to measure the the attributes themselves present numerous diversity of voice in academic library problems. For instance, among the personal collections so that these collections can be name attributes allowed by RDA is an made to be truly representative of the attribute for gender which has only two collective history and full record of our acceptable categories (male or female), thus culture from diverse perspectives would be reifying gender as a binary system. Not only invaluable for the library, and is this presumed dichotomy hostile to transformational for the profession. transgender individuals, but the implication of Although the RDA standard is still gender as immutable and fixed in time stands relatively new, a longitudinal study undertaken in opposition to frameworks of queer theory to measure which additional information was (Billey, Drabinski, & Roberto, 2014). Despite being added to personal name authority problems such as this, and many other as yet records in one small academic library unexplored and complex issues of consortium showed that gender and language representation, the RDA standard and the were most often the additional information personal name authority attributes may still added (Moulaison, Dykes & Budd, 2013). hold promise for libraries in assessing the One year after adopting the RDA standard, diversity of voice in their collections. almost eight percent of records evaluated had However, to visualize the transformative at least one additional attribute. Almost five potential of RDA, it is necessary to percent had two or more attributes added. understand the reasons for its development. The gender data showed that males Resource Description and Access (RDA) represented 80% (n = 34,515) of the authors was developed to replace library cataloging in the collections, and that English was the standards created prior to the digital age. language used when writing for publication in Unlike previous standards, RDA is designed 73% (n = 22,666) of the works. Because the for describing resources in both digital language field is repeatable, more than one environments and traditional library language may be supplied in a single authority collections. The significance of RDA is that it record. Although this study examined a can organize and shape bibliographical data relatively small academic library group, it is no effectively and prepare it for linked data surprise that academic library collections in applications in the . While the the United States are heavily skewed in favor current Web is a Web of linked documents, of males and writers who use English, and the Semantic Web is a Web of linked data, unrepresentative of international based on structured relationships. Current demographics in scholarship over time, and Web-based online library catalogs are simply definitely not representative of our electronic versions of card catalogs, where the increasingly diverse student body. elements are indexed and can be searched The RDA standard asks library catalogers online, but which still reside within the silo of to enter additional information into library the library. In contrast, the RDA standard authority records to describe people using a will allow the bibliographical database of the formal set of attributes, once again library catalog to link to data contained within introducing boundaries which include some databases created by other information people and marginalize or exclude others. communities (Yang & Lee, 2013). Asking librarians to make these judgments Not only will the library be able to share immediately raises complex issues of identity its resources through linked data, but it will and representation that threaten to perpetuate also be able to harvest data from other and exacerbate inequities of the past. Even databases, including potentially, those which briefly setting aside the problem of librarians allow authors and creators authority over the classifying authors’ personal characteristics, representation and expression of their own

6 https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol5/iss2/3 6 Lumley: Conceptualizing Library Classification

identities. It is in this space that A reader (pp. 86– 173). New York, NY: transformative action is possible. If libraries John Wiley & Sons. and authors agree that assessing library American Library Association. (2008). Library collections by the diversity of authors Bill of Rights: Interpretations. In represented is a valid step toward redressing Intellectual Freedom Manual (8th ed.). some of the institutional inequities of the past, Chicago, IL: ALA Editions. Retrieved the technological framework now exists to from begin exploring solutions. Repositories can http://www.ifmanual.org/part2section2 be designed which will allow authors and Bales, S. E., & Engle, L. S. (2012). The others to submit data to express their counterhegemonic academic librarian: a individual identities, from which libraries can call to action. Progressive Librarian, 40, 16– then harvest data to assess their 40. collections. In this way, RDA is paving a way Berman, S. (2006). Finding material on “those toward a richer, more contextual future for people” (and their concerns) in library library systems in regard to the way that catalogs. Multicultural Review, (June), 26–52. persons are included in searches along with Billey, A., Drabinski, E., & Roberto, K. R. resources. (2014). What’s gender got to do with it? A Librarians have for too long been critique of RDA 9.7. Cataloging & unreflective practitioners, afraid to confront Classification Quarterly, 52(4), 412–421. the consequences of their positivist http://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.8 epistemology and their technical rationalist 82465 attitudes. In order to legitimize themselves Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and their profession, they have not asked and social reproduction. In J. K. Karabel themselves who has benefited from their & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in actions; who has been harmed; and who has Education (pp. 487-511). New York, NY: been left out of the conversation entirely Oxford University Press. (Gergen, 2014). It is time for librarians, not Cole, J. Y. (1994). Capital libraries and librarians only to recognize the cultural ramifications of (pp. 377–381). Washington, DC: Library the ways that knowledge has been classified, of Congress. but to act upon this knowledge. By assessing Doherty, J. J. (1998). The academic librarian library collections by subject area, without and the hegemony of the canon. Journal of also considering the diversity of the authors Academic Librarianship, 24(5), 403–06. responsible for those works, libraries have Doherty, J. J. (2010). Towards self-reflection perpetuated a social injustice. If reflection in librarianship: What is praxis? In moves from issues of philosophic grounding Questioning library neutrality: Essays from to social utility (Gergen, 2014), it is time to Progressive Librarian (pp. 11–17). explore new possibilities afforded by the RDA Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press, LLC. standard and linked data to confront the Fairthorne, R. (1969). Content analysis, hegemony of the canon and to finally ensure specification, and control. Annual Review of that academic library collections represent the Information Science and Technology, 4, 73–109. collective history and full record of our Foucault, M., & Rabinow, P. (1984). The culture. Foucault reader. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. References Gergen, K. J. (2014). From mirroring to Althusser, L. (2009). Ideology and ideological world-making: Research as future state apparatuses (Notes towards an forming. Journal for the Theory of Social investigation). In The anthropology of the state: Behaviour, 45(3), 287-310. http://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12075

7 Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2015 7 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 5 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 3

Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction Olson, H. A., & Schlegl, R. (1999). Bias in and resistance in the new sociology of subject access standards: A content education: A critical analysis. Harvard analysis of the critical literature. Proceedings Educational Review, 53(3), 257–293. of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes Du http://doi.org/10.17763/haer.53.3.a67x4 Congrès Annuel de l’ACSI, 236–247. u33g7682734 Pierre, P. (2005). The academic library: a post- Harris, M. H. (1986). State class and cultural modern Lazarus? The Australian Library reproduction: toward a theory of library Journal, 54(2), 148–154. service in the United States. Advances in http://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2005.1 Librarianship, 14, 211–252. 0721742 Hjørland, B. (1992). The concept of "subject’ Raber, D. (2003). Librarians as organic in information science. Journal of intellectuals: A Gramscian approach to Documentation, 48(2), 172–200. blind spots and tunnel vision. The Library http://doi.org/10.1108/eb026895 Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, Hjørland, B. (2012). Is classification necessary 73(1), 33–53. after Google? Journal of Documentation, Radford, G. P. (1992). Positivism, Foucault, 68(3), 299–317. and the fantasia of the library: http://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211225 Conceptions of knowledge and the 557 modern library experience. The Library Kapitzke, C. (2003). : A Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, positivist epistemology and a politics of 62(4), 408–424. outformation. Educational Theory, 53(1), Rondeau, S. (2014). The life and times of 37–53. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741- aboutness: A review of the library and 5446.2003.00037.x information science literature. Evidence Mai, J. (2011). The modernity of classification. Based Library and Information Practice, 9(1), Journal of Documentation, 67(4), 710–730. 14–35. http://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111145 Smiraglia, R. P., Lee, H.-L., & Olson, H. A. 061 (2011). Epistemic presumptions of Morales, M., Knowles, E. C., & Bourg, C. authorship. In Proceedings of the 2011 (2014). Diversity, Social Justice, and the iConference (pp. 137–143). New York, NY, Future of Libraries. Portal: Libraries and the USA: ACM. Academy, 14(3), 439–451. http://doi.org/10.1145/1940761.1940780 http://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2014.0017 Tomren, H. (2003). Classification, bias, and Moulaison, H. L., Dykas, F., & Budd, J. M. American Indian materials (Unpublished (2013). The author and the person: A manuscript)Retrievedfrom Foucauldian reflection on the author in http://ailasacc.pbworks.com/f/BiasClassi knowledge organization systems. NASKO, fication2004.pdf 4(1), 138–147. Yang, S. Q., & Lee, Y. Y. (2013). Organizing http://doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v4i1.14654 bibliographical data with RDA: How far Olson, H. A. (2000). Difference, culture and have we stridden toward the semantic change: The untapped potential of LCSH. web? In New Directions in Information Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29(1-2), Organization 7, 3–27). Emerald Group. 53–71. http://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_04

8 https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol5/iss2/3 8 Lumley: Conceptualizing Library Classification

9 Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2015 9