Library of Congress Subject Headings

Philosophy, Practice, and Prospects

William E Studwell, Ruth C Carter

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136579431
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Library & Information Science
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The first comprehensive theoretical treatise on Library of Congress subject headings, this important book provides an analysis of the Library of Congress subject heading system and its application. Library of Congress Subject Headings aims to help improve the clarity of the system, increase consistency and arrangement, increase the number of effective access points, facilitate the interaction of the system with the computer, and generally to make the Library of Congress subject heading system and its application of even greater value to the cataloger and the user. Practicing catalogers, library school personnel, advanced students, and any professional who is very knowledgeable about and seriously interested in Library of Congress subject headings will want to read this highly acclaimed volume.Author William Studwell includes theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical considerations based on 25 years of everyday practical cataloging and indexing work and the knowledge gained from theoretical research for the more than two dozen articles on subject cataloging that he has written in the last decade. He presents thought-provoking, often controversial material in three parts. The first section, "The System, " deals with the basic philosophical foundations of LC subject headings. Thirty-two "principles"--guidelines and suggestions are offered along with detailed explanations, examples, and their relationships to other principles.
The second section, "Application, " focuses on the matters of subject cataloging practice, or interpretation and application of LC subject headings. The third section, "The Future, " looks ahead to future issues relating to subject cataloging, such as the development of a theoretical subject heading code, the interface of LC subject headings with the computer, and some speculation as to the role and nature of LC subject headings in the years to come.

Chapter 1
The System:
Philosophy and Problems

The philosophy or theoretical principles of Library of Congress subject headings have never been comprehensively formulated or presented in print by the Library of Congress or by outside persons or organizations. Some theoretical aspects of LC subject headings have appeared in various publications, but such efforts have been scattered and very incomplete. Some specific suggestions to improve LC subject headings have been put forth but these again have been limited. And some overall descriptions of how the LC subject heading system works or is supposed to work have also been brought forth, but these competent publications have primarily focused on exposition of the present system instead of analysis and theory.

To fill this void, thirty-two principles relating to the LC subject heading system are offered below. There is no pretense that these principles, nor the fifteen principles in the section on the application of LC subject headings, in any way comprise all of the possible knowledge in the area. It is hoped, however, that the formulation of these principles will be a substantial first step towards the development of a comprehensive and widely-agreed upon set of principles.

PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SUBJECT HEADING SYSTEM (STRUCTURE, TERMINOLOGY, DOCUMENTATION, AND OTHER TOPICS)

A. General

1. The Library of Congress subject heading system, though far from perfect, is a work of collective, cumulative, and increasing genius; it should not be discarded in favor of less-established and unproven alternatives

The Library of Congress subject heading system has been in existence for nearly a century. During that time it has progressed from a small list for use by just the Library of Congress to a huge and complex system which is widely utilized around the English-speaking world and beyond (for example, in France and French Canada). No other system is as pervasive nor as dominant. The system has a large number of major and minor faults, but it would be quite unrealistic to expect perfection from any organism of this size and scope. Even geniuses like Bach, Beethoven, Mo7art, and Tchaikovsky did not always produce great works and the human body is a complex marvel of biological genius, yet it is riddled with imperfections. Similarly, the LC subject heading system, with all its flaws, is in this author's opinion, an overall entity of genius. As it continues to mature, the genius of LC's system becomes more and more apparent.¹

If some persons cannot concede that LC's subject heading system is a work of increasing genius, at least LC's premier international position as a tool for verbal subject access must be admitted. Other systems, such as PRECIS, have been offered as alternatives to LC, but LC should definitely not be discarded for three reasons. First, the other systems really have not proven themselves on a long-term basis and in a wide-scale environment. Second, LC is improving at an accelerating rate. Not every recent change by LC has been for the better, but as a whole there have been many improvements in structure, terminology, and specifity during the past decade or so. A substantial proportion of the improvements, of course, were influenced by the appearance of the computer. And third, the economic, administrative, intellectual, and psychological disadvantages of replacing the widely-used and long-established LC system would be enormous. Since no overwhelming evidence has been presented that any of the other systems would clearly and decidedly be superior, it is preferable to stay with what has worked in the past. Remember what Winston Churchill said about democracy, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”² The same applies to the Library of Congress' subject heading system. Although it has many shortcomings, it still is the best comprehensive, all-purpose system we have for verbal subject retrieval.

2. The Library of Congress cannot presume that problems of subject heading application are primarily a matter of the cataloger's experience, knowledge, and ability; LC must do their best to provide clear and consistent structure, terminology, and presentation of data (i.e., communication of subject heading information), and to provide sufficient detail and specificity for all reasonable needs

Over the years, it has been this author's observation that one of the flaws of the Library of Congress' subject heading system is a subtle yet perceptible tendency by LC to presume that shortcomings in the everyday use of the subject heading system are basically the fault of the subject cataloger whether at LC or elsewhere. (This frame of mind is a natural and understandable condition of a large and complex organization.) It would be of course ridiculous to claim that even the best-trained and most-talented subject catalogers do not make occasional incorrect or questionable subject cataloging decisions. But any deficiencies in the final product of the process, that is, the subject heading(s) made available to the library user, are potentially the shared responsibility of both system and cataloger. Sometimes the system is at fault, sometimes the cataloger, and sometimes both.

In any case, LC must strive to provide the most clearly understood and most usable system they can. And they should do so not only for the benefit of their own catalogers, but for the world as a whole. Whether the Library of Congress likes it or not, their system is very extensively applied by catalogers outside of LC. One of the clearer manifestations of this is the OCLC system which as of June 30, 1988, contained about 12,520,000 non-LC records, or about 70% of its total data base.³ Not all of these non-LC records used LC subject headings, but certainly a strong majority did. Therefore LC has a degree of obligation to serve the needs of those beyond their walls.⁴ The internationally utilized system must have logical and consistent structure and terminology, very clear communication of subject headings and their usage to the subject cataloger and library patron, and adequate detail and specificity. This goal will more easily be achieved if LC approaches the task with the presumption that any aspect of their subject heading system is potentially a problem for the cataloger or library user. Such self-criticism and analysis may go far in making a very good system into a considerably better system.

3. Consistency is the single most important characteristic in subject cataloging

While it is highly desirable that descriptive cataloging and subject cataloging be both clear and consistent, there is some difference of emphasis between descriptive cataloging on one hand and subject cataloging on the other. The most important consideration in descriptive cataloging is that the cataloging data be clearly understood by the library user. Except for name forms, consistency between bibliographical records is not as vital as clarity. In contrast, subject cataloging has to be more concerned with consistency than with absolute understandability or a consensus as to the precise form of headings. For example, whether the term “Biological chemistry” or the term “Biochemistry” is used is less important than the assurance that the concept of this discipline be consistently represented in the subject access system, and that the variant term leads by reference to the official term. Similarly, whether “Brazil--Economic conditions” or “Brazil--Economic conditions--History” is used for the economic history of that country is less important than the assurance that only one form for the concept is permitted by the system. The same situation also applies to “Universities and colleges” versus “Colleges and universities,” “West Germany” versus “Germany (West),” “Unesco” versus “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,” and numerous others.

Overall, consistency has to be the prime motivator of LC's subject heading system as well as the prime motivator for the interpretation and application of LC subject headings. Consistency is, along with collocation and understandability, one of the three goals of a subject access system. (These three goals greatly overlap and are somewhat conflicting.) Collocation is a fundamental byproduct of consistency and therefore is subordinate to consistency. And under-standability or clarity, which is also considerably influenced by consistency, is, as discussed above, less essential than consistency.

The supreme importance of consistency, furthermore, pertains to all aspects of LC's subject heading system, including structure, terminology, specificity, and presentation of data. If the theme of consistency is not at the forefront of our thinking about subject cataloging, and accordingly consistency is not pervasive or thoroughly evident throughout the subject cataloging process, the effectiveness of subject cataloging is most certainly reduced. In other words, the greater the degree of consistency (or predictability), the greater the effectiveness of subject access.

B. Structure

1. Structural elements in LC subject headings must be simple

“Structural element” is this author's designation for each individual part of an LC subject heading which is separated or potentially separable by a double dash (--). Subject headings without any double dashes contain only one structural element. There are two types of structural elements in LC subject headings, primary or initial structural elements and subordinate structural elements or subdivisions. Some persons may view this terminology as verbose, but the commonly used alternatives “Subject headings” and “Subdivisions” are quite unclear. Subject headings can be only one word or a long string of terms which includes subdivisions. The terminology must clearly separate the two differing functions.

Subordinate structural elements/subdivisions have received much attention from LC and cause relatively few problems. Primary structural elements/initial structural elements, in contrast, are more troublesome. In addition to difficulties that may be caused by questionable terminology or by poor presentation of data to the subject cataloger and library user, malting the structure of the primary structural element overly complex risks reduced subject access. As an illustration, “Lawyers” is a one word primary structural element expressing a single concept. When a second word is added to “Lawyers,” creating headings such as “Minority lawyers,” “Patent lawyers,” or “Women lawyers,” the primary structural element becomes more complex by expressing two concepts. A case could be made for handling these dual concept subjects as two separate single concept headings, that is, “Minorities” plus “Lawyers,” “Patents” plus “Lawyers,” and “Women” plus “Lawyers.” But since the three dual concept headings represent naturally occurring and common phenomena, and appear in the literature, the dual concept structure is preferable.

When a complex structure has even the slightest element of artificiality, unnaturalness, or strain to logic or language, however, a simpler structure should be favored. Any three concept headings should especially be seriously questioned, although not necessarily forbidden. Using the examples given above, headings such as “Minority patent lawyers,” “Jewish patent lawyers,” “Left-handed minority lawyers,” “Women patent lawyers,” and “Aged women lawyers” should definitely be avoided. Instead, a set of two headings, based on currently available headings, should be used for each of the occasions:

Patent lawyers

Minority lawyers

Patent lawyers

Lawyers, Jewish

Minority lawyers

Left- and right-handedness

Patent lawyers

Women lawyers

Women lawyers

Aged women

Even many two concept headings are questionable, for example, “Left-handed lawyers,” “Left-handed women,” “Left-handed aged,” and “Aged lawyers.” If there is any doubt at all about establishing a multiple-concept primary structural element, the simpler structure should prevail. As a whole, LC to their credit has tended to stay with simpler structure headings, with the exception of some inversions and subjects with the compound structures “[topic] and [topic],” “[topic] as [topic],” and “[topic] in [topic].” (Alternatives to these patterns will be offered below in B9.) Multiple-concept subjects have been established by LC with more frequency in recent years, however, and this trend should be viewed with caution. At the same time, they have of late tended to change some types of compound headings into simpler structural forms, for example, “Carbohydrate metabolism disorders” to “Carbohydrates--Metabolism--Disorders.”

2. Structural elements in LC subject headings must be consistent

In the ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
• Full Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The System: Philosophy and Problems
• Chapter 2: Application: Philosophy and Problems
• Chapter 3: The Future
• Bibliography
• Index