Inclusive Cataloging Guidelines

Access terms are one of a limited selection of fields in a finding aid that will also appear in the catalog record, and also provides a way in which to filter searches in the Archives Portal. For these reasons, it is crucial that these terms are respectful and accurate.1 This section provides resources and  guidelines for selecting access terms that are inclusive and ethical.2 For information on inclusive and reparative archival description, see the Inclusive Description and Style Guidelines section of this documentation.

Language and the words that communities and individuals use to describe themselves is continually evolving. Controlled vocabularies, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LSCH), are revised, corrected, and updated much more slowly, while systems of classification tend to remain static.3 There is a long history of information professionals challenging these standards, and successfully removing offensive, outdated, and racist terms from use.4 Therefore, it is critical that all cataloging work is performed with these inconsistencies and issues in mind. 

We recognize that certain authorized terms and RDA rules may be harmful and offensive to record creators, the individuals described in a collection, and researchers accessing a collection. In addition to being conscious of the language we use in our archival description, we also must choose access terms that do not cause harm. We encourage archivists to take care in selecting from the available controlled vocabularies, and to consult alternative sources when existing terms are inadequate.

The Archival Processing unit does not adhere to RDA rule 9.7 [MARC 375], which calls for the inclusion of gender to an agent record. This rule is not inclusive of gender non-binary and transgender individuals, and calls for catalogers to make assumptions about identities that may be fluid, or which an individual may not have chosen to disclose.5 We do follow the recommendations set forth by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), which states that catalogers should not record the RDA gender element [MARC 375], and that all existing MARC 375 should be deleted when editing an existing record.6 

When selecting authorized agents as a main entry, creator/contributor, or subject, always make sure the authorized term is an agent’s chosen name and that you are not deadnaming an individual just because an authority record has not been updated.7

When assigning subjects, take care in describing people in terms they would use to describe themselves. This is particularly important to consider if you are working on collections that describe BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ people, or any other group or individual that is not white, male, able-bodied, or heterosexual. LCSH centers the white, male, able-bodied, heterosexual person as the default, and adds terms associated with race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender to describe everyone else.8 The Archives for Black Lives in Philadelphia Anti-Racist Description Resources and Diversity Style Guide documents both offer guidance and suggestions on how to choose terminology that is respectful, compassionate, and anti-oppressive.

If you are creating access terms for a collection, and an appropriate authorized term does not exist, you should create a local alternative term rather than using one that may be harmful. Similarly, if you are processing additions to a legacy collection, always check to see if the access terms assigned to the collection are still accurate, and be sure to change or delete terms that are offensive or outdated. There are many alternative lists of controlled vocabularies and thesari to assist you in selecting more appropriate and accurate terms. For example, when working with LGBTQIA+ collections, we suggest consulting the Homosaurus.

  1. Emily Drabinski reminds us that “library knowledge organization systems of all kinds fail to accurately and respectfully organize library materials about social groups and identities that lack social and political power.”Emily Drabinski, “Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction,” The Library Quarterly 83, no. 2 (April 2013): 97, doi:10.1086/669547. ↩

  2. Drabinski also suggests that “subject headings, often cast by catalogers as a kind of pure, objective language, are not; where and when and by whom subject headings are used makes all the difference in terms of meaning.“ Ibid (95). ↩

  3. Emily Drabinski calls attention to the “permanency” of classification, while asserting that it is also necessary for providing access. She points out that library classifications “use the hegemonic language of the powerful: they reflect, produce, and reproduce hierarchies; they order sameness and difference and prevent the full representation of minority literatures.”Emily Drabinski, “Teaching the Radical Catalog,” in Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front, ed. K. R. Roberto (Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co, 2008), 198–205. ↩

  4. Much has been written on this topic, with a modern history dating back to the 1960s with the work of Sanford Berman, who consistently petitioned LC to change these offensive terms. His 1971 book, Prejudices and Antipathies, was one of the earliest efforts to interrogate LCSH and to appeal to other information professionals to do the same. Sanford Berman, Prejudices and Antipathies: A Tract on the LC Subject Heads Concerning People (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland and Co., 1993), https://www.sanfordberman.org/prejant.htm. ↩

  5. Amber Billey, Emily Drabinski, and K. R. Roberto, “What’s Gender Got to Do With It?  A Critique of RDA Rule 9.7,” University Libraries Faculty and Staff Publications, April 24, 2014, https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/libfacpub/19. ↩

  6. “Revised Report on Recording Gender in Personal Name Authority Records”, PCC Ad Hoc Task Group on Recording Gender in Personal Name Authority Records, 2022. https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/gender-in-NARs-revised-report.pdf. ↩

  7. Cailin Roles and Eamon Schlotterback, “DTA Style Guide,” Digital Transgender Archive, 2020, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qou1h4DLFQEZg4BIvXiEpGy_TI3rDnrJsPXCsRL-Ki8/edit?usp=sharing. ↩

  8. Melissa Adler refers to this as “identity-based exceptions to the rules.” Melissa Adler, Cruising the Library: Perversities in the Organization of Knowledge, First edition (New York: Fordham University Press, 2017). ↩