Article Response for Lecture 7 - Naun

Naun, C. C. (2008). Objectivity and Subject Access in the Print Library. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43(2), 83-95.

                This article is extremely dense with practical and philosophical points about the nature of objectivity, the advantages and disadvantages of subject access, and print as compared to electronic resources. It has been my favorite article so far for this class. The author starts with the ideology behind libraries.  The reason libraries are a public good is because books and journals are expensive, and only become more so. This idea of giving every person access to information is a noble ideology, but “it is underwritten by logistics,” specifically those of the economic market. Objectivity is one of these core ideologies underwritten by logistics.

                Objective subject representation depends on our social values, and hopefully our social values place the library as an open realm of discourse where all subjects are equal. Often, however, these ideals are not enough to obtain objectivity. “An attempt to capture what a document is about requires a frame of reference that may encompass a host of interests, assumptions, and values.” Ideally, subject categories should always reflect the most commonly used term. Oftentimes, however, subject categories are changed to less offensive terms, even if these are not the most used term.

                This exception creates an environment of backhand censorship, where controversial subjects, which have a likelihood of causing offense, are often placed under hidden vocabulary, which most user don’t know the words to find, because they are not arriving at the subject with all the biases of the cataloger. Highly regulated subjects, can also be highly normalized. Things are shoved into preconceived boxes, until the boxes overflow to create new subject categories. After all, controlled vocabularies are exclusionary in nature, by choosing to use certain words over others.  How can such a choice not contain bias?

                Full text searching of electronic resources can remove subject and description interpretation and thus remove bias. However, natural language contains its own biases. In defense of print resources, subject classification can also remove bias. Competing views are normally shelved together, so the user has many options of viewpoints to look at. Correct indexing is by usage, not by preconception. However, librarians also are free to consider literary warrant in indexing, which is objectivity “in relationship to human discourse.” This seems rather flexible, and could be prone to misuse as well.

                If indexing is done in the most objective way by how users search, which users are considered? This is another potential level of bias. Users must be visualized as a “potentially diverse community of users” in order to avoid bias, and it is logistically impossible to poll or visualize every type of possible user. Finally, the author gives us a single common-sense solution to these difficult questions of impartiality and objectivity. “Impartiality does not demand infallibility so much as vigilance.” In other words, it’s impossible to be completely objective every time, but watching our own biases and checking them as much as possible, while being prepared to correct mistakes, can get us much further than just strict implementation of established rules.