Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0289691 = product of:
  0.0869073 = sum of:
    0.0869073 = sum of:
      0.053941444 = weight(_text_:librarians in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053941444 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.24745665 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.032965858 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032965858 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22

0.01078829 = product of:
  0.032364868 = sum of:
    0.032364868 = product of:
      0.064729735 = sum of:
        0.064729735 = weight(_text_:librarians in 5428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064729735 = score(doc=5428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.296948 = fieldWeight in 5428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Critiques of subject access standards in LIS literature have addressed biases of gender, sexuality, race, age, ability, ethnicity, language and religion as limits to the representation of diversity and to effective library service for diverse populations. The current study identifies and analyzes this literature as a basis for ameliorating systemic bias and to gather the existing literature for wider accessibility. The study analyzes five quantitative variables: standards discussed, categories of problems, marginalized groups and topics discussed, date, and basis of conclusions (research or experience). Textual analysis reveals that basic tenets of subject access-user-focused cataloguing, objectivity, and standardization-are problematized in the literature and may be the best starting point for future research. In practice, librarians can work to counteract systemic problems in the careful and equitable application of standards and their adaptation to local contexts.

0.01078829 = product of:
  0.032364868 = sum of:
    0.032364868 = product of:
      0.064729735 = sum of:
        0.064729735 = weight(_text_:librarians in 422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064729735 = score(doc=422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.296948 = fieldWeight in 422, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The changing role of libraries demands examination of the impact of the 21st century book market. Traditionally, public libraries have provided access to information in a physical form, but the purpose of the library has remained unchanged, that of providing access to information for all users. The increasing emphasis on electronic collections has led librarians to consider the issues involved with electronic sources. Changes in the book market, including globalization and the inclusion of the ebook affect libraries in many ways. This paper will examine the effect of globalization on the library and its relationship with publishers and publisher groups.

0.008990241 = product of:
  0.026970722 = sum of:
    0.026970722 = product of:
      0.053941444 = sum of:
        0.053941444 = weight(_text_:librarians in 2573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053941444 = score(doc=2573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.24745665 = fieldWeight in 2573, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The names we give things colour the ways we perceive them. Those in a position to name hold the power to construct others' perceptions and realities. This book looks at the pervasive naming of information that libraries undertake as a matter of course through representation of subjects. It examines the 19th century foundations, current standards, and canonical application of internationally used classification (Melvil Dewey and his decimal scheme) and subject headings (Charles Cutter and the Library of Congress Subject Headings). A feminist poststructural critique is used to reveal the presumption that these standards are universally applicable even though their marginalizations and exclusions are well-documented. The book will be of interest to librarians, information scholars and professionals, researchers interested in representation and the construction of meaning, and anyone who uses a library. TOC: Preface.- 1. Naming is Power.- 2. Armies, Railroads and Procrustean Beds.- 3. The Iterability of the Public and Efficiency.- 4. The Authority to Name.- 5. Ite/Arating Women.- 6. Toward Eccentric Techniques.- Notes.- Index.

0.008990241 = product of:
  0.026970722 = sum of:
    0.026970722 = product of:
      0.053941444 = sum of:
        0.053941444 = weight(_text_:librarians in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053941444 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.24745665 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The social and cultural influences on classification are evident in both the content and structure of classifications. In content, warrant, the basis on which content is determined, is most significant. Warrant is related to the purpose of the classification and has varied historically from the classical Greeks to the present. Warrant, whether it be what is written or published on a topic, what is taught, natural phenomena, or other factors is susceptible to all of the biases of the society that produces a classification. Biases of race, gender, orientation, geography, culture, language, and other factors are well-documented in relation to bibliographic classification. Bias occurs not only as a result of the warrant that determines content, but also as a result of classificatory structure. Classificatory structure may be culturally specific and the hierarchy typical of western classificatory structure can convey social influence through hierarchical force, ghettoization, and diasporization. Jesse Shera suggests the social importance of librarians and their role in classification. Combining Shera's theoretical stance with the historical/philosophical record and the empirical evidence of numerous studies in bibliographic classification, the link between society and classification is robust and of significance to the field of library and information science.

0.0076920334 = product of:
  0.0230761 = sum of:
    0.0230761 = product of:
      0.0461522 = sum of:
        0.0461522 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0461522 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0065931715 = product of:
  0.019779515 = sum of:
    0.019779515 = product of:
      0.03955903 = sum of:
        0.03955903 = weight(_text_:22 in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03955903 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik