Skip to Main Content

Ethical Description

This guide provides catalogers and metadata practitioners interested in ethical description with questions to consider, examples, and resources to incorporate into their metadata work.

Access Points: Subject Headings and Genre/Form Terms

A subject heading describes what an item in a library catalog is about. These headings provide library catalog users with a consistent way of retrieving all items on any given topic. Subject headings are normally selected from a controlled vocabulary, like the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Established and in use since 1898, this is an old vocabulary that often still reflects white supremacy, patriarchal culture, and other stereotypes. It is the catalogers’ responsibility to find and use subject terms that accurately describe an item broadly, but that do not reinforce harmful language.

Subject headings are found in the 6xx fields in a record, and are used to convey the “aboutness” of an item. The most commonly used include 600 (personal names), 610 (corporate names), 650 (topical terms), 651 (geographic names).  The 655 (genre/form) is used to convey what an item is, rather than what it is about. This section focuses on the 650, 651 (non-political jurisdictional names), 653 and 655 fields. The 600 field was covered in the Personal Names section, 610 was covered in the Corporate Bodies section and 651 using political jurisdictional names was touched on as an example in the corporate bodies section where it talks about contested names of geographic entities. Current practice at UCLA is to not use local headings as they are difficult to maintain and would also require a local extension in Alma that has not been configured, and less widely used subject fields are not being covered at this time. 

In order to determine what the most appropriate subject heading(s) are to use in the 6xx field(s), a cataloger should consider whether or not a term is offensive or otherwise problematic. If the term is offensive or problematic, is there an alternate heading that can be used that conveys the concept in a less offensive way? If not, consider other options, such as an alternative vocabulary, or suggesting a new subject heading or a change to an existing heading.

Catalogers base their work on the use of  Library of Congress terms (LC Subject Headings, LC Genre/Form Terms, LC Medium of Performance Thesaurus, LC Demographic Group Terms), but there are other commonly used controlled vocabularies and other specialized vocabularies that can be used. These include, the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), and the Homosaurus. A list of LC approved subject vocabularies and their source codes can be found here.

Topical Terms

Topical terms are the broadest of all the subject headings encompassing objects, academic subjects, occupations and anything else that doesn’t fit under one of the more specific headings, like personal name, geographic name, named event, etc. Topical terms can be problematic for any number of reasons including using gendered terms, not using person-first language, or naming events in ways that obscure harm. Despite all the work that has been done to update subject headings and make them more inclusive, such as changing “Slaves” to “Enslaved persons,” there are still a lot of headings to change or update. Headings can also be changed due to cultural or linguistic shifts, and the pace of making changes to headings, particularly LCSH, can be slow.

How might only using narrow subject headings affect discoverability? 

Catalogers are usually trained to apply the most narrow subject headings possible to a record, but when applied to people, this can have a marginalizing effect that can also limit discoverability. When applying a term consider how a narrower term impacts discoverability. For example, when cataloging a biography about Marie Curie, consider using the subject headings Women physicists and Physicists. That way researchers looking specifically for women physicists will find the resource, as well as someone who is looking for physicists in general. Otherwise the women and their accomplishments risk being missed by researchers who may not realize they need  to search with both terms. This could apply to terms that use gender, race, tribal, or other designations. 

  • Consider how a narrow term might limit discoverability if it’s being applied to a person.
  • Consider including both a broader and narrower term.

Non-English language headings, or English language headings from outside of the United States may be present in a record. Or it may have terms relating to cultures with which we might not be familiar. How could we approach these headings? One example could be to email SACO language funnel coordinators when unsure about an unfamiliar language.

We can be thoughtful when we create our records, and encourage our colleagues to be as well, but how should we handle subject headings in unfamiliar languages that are being added to records in OCLC? These subject headings are being generated and added to records in bulk and without knowledge of the language, we could have problematic terms without our knowledge.

What does maintenance look like for vocabularies other than LCSH?

When LCSH terms are changed, records in OCLC are updated to reflect the new term and our records will subsequently be updated too. Sometimes there is a delay in OCLC updating terms, but they are eventually corrected. 

  • What processes do we need in place to ensure that our terms from alternative vocabularies are being kept up to date? Information about how headings are controlled in WorldCat can be found here.
  • Are there tools that we could leverage to help with this?

Masking:

It is possible to retain a problematic subject heading in the catalog record so that it is still searchable as a term, and in place in case it is later updated, but mask that term so that a more appropriate one displays to the user. The original term will still appear For example, the California State University Libraries used masking to make “illegal immigrants” display as “undocumented immigrants.” Emory University has a webpage that details different aspects of the masking process. This could be complicated due to the Institution Zone (IZ) and Network Zone (NZ) in our discovery system, and it might need harmonization at the consortium level before any decisions can be made. This could also be a labor intensive process, and would require decision-making about when this might be appropriate.

Examples 

LC headings

Homosaurus headings

The UCLA Homosaurus Project is working to enhance records that contain the LCSH “sexual minorities” with narrower, more relevant terms from Homosaurus for better discoverability of these resources.

Geographic Names

For LCSH, Geographic name headings can fall into one of the following categories: (1) political jurisdictional names, which are established as name authority files, or (2) geographic names of non-jurisdictions, which fall under subject headings, and are established via the Subject Heading Manual Instruction sheet H 690. Headings for bodies that have a geographic scope, including man-made structures, are considered geographic headings, which include the following list: 

  • Administrative division of an area (e.g., conservation districts, sanitation districts, utility districts, water districts, etc.)
  • Astronomical objects or bodies (e.g., asteroids, comets, planets, stars, etc.)
  • Historic or current human settlements (e.g., communes, extinct cities, pueblos, refugee camps, etc.)
  • Infrastructure (e.g., bridges, canals, tunnels, streets, etc.)
  • Real estate (e.g., estates, farms, plantations, ranches, etc.)
  • Natural features (e.g., caves, deserts, seas, valleys, etc.)
  • Political jurisdictions (e.g., cities, countries, provinces, states, etc.)
  • Recreational areas (e.g., amusement parks, camps, esplanades, squares, etc.)
  • “When in doubt on how an entity should be coded, see Alphabetical List of Ambiguous Headings.”

(Please see Instruction sheets H 690 and H 810 (qualifiers of geographic headings) for further instruction on assigning geographic subject headings)

Sometimes naming geographic jurisdictions can be problematic, especially if borders or countries are contested by any particular group. If the heading does not appear in LCSH, and a proposal cannot be submitted (such as not having enough literary warrant), or the NAR is not valid for subject usage, applying a term from another vocabulary such as Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names or Wikidata, can allow a little more flexibility indicating the location.

The naming of jurisdictions can also change over time. For example, according to President Donald Trump’s executive order in January 2025, both Mount Denali and the Gulf of Mexico were changed to Mount McKinley and Gulf of America. However, in order to benefit users in the best possible way, it’s important to include older forms of the name in the record. Please see that OCLC record (1495130709) below has both the LCSH fields, as well as the Wikidata and the Getty’s Thesaurus of Geographic Names. 

Uncontrolled Subject Terms

Uncontrolled subject terms in the 653 field are terms that are not derived from standard subject heading/thesaurus-building conventions. In situations where there is no appropriate term to use, a cataloger can use the 653 field. According to the Library of Congress, the 653 field should only be used in instances where minimal level cataloging is needed for access to the work or the “controlled vocabulary does not adequately convey the essence of the work in hand.”   

The 653 field can be especially useful when a cataloger is avoiding the use of harmful subject terms or when a foreign language term has no direct English translation. This field can therefore be used when proposing new LC Subject Headings (see: Adding New Terms/Making Changes to Subjects section) and waiting for approval.

The UCLA Library Catalog includes the record of a rare book in Library Special Collections with a 653 field suggesting the new subject term Botany -- Philippines and its later inclusion as a subject term in the 650 field. See below:

Genre/Form

Genre/form terms are used to indicate what a specific resource is, rather than what it is about. Genre refers to a specific type of work or category, such as Detective and mystery fiction or Musical films. Form refers to physical characteristics or the way a resource is structured, such as Sonnets, Short stories, or Feature films. The most commonly used genre/form terms come from Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT), but other vocabularies (eg. Homosaurus) can be used as well.

As with the topical headings, there may be some questions about whether or not some LCGFT terms might be considered offensive. For example, could the term Ethnic films be considered othering? Could the term Blaxploitation films be considered problematic? Like LCSH, LCGFT has limitations, and in some cases, it might be wise to consult an alternative vocabulary. 

For example, Homosaurus also provides terms that can be used as a genre/form term, such as LGBTQ+ magazines, and a description/scope note that helps determine when to apply it. Additional guidance can be found here.

The Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) controlled vocabulary has terms for prejudicial works that may be useful, and the Music Library Association (MLA) has information about using specific terms to label derogatory works in Minstrelsy and Minstrel music.

Question to consider:

  • When using a potentially problematic genre/form term, are we doing a disservice to researchers by either including them or leaving them out?

Adding New Terms/Making Changes to Subjects

Adding new terms/changes to subjects

When attempting to assign a subject to a work, not all controlled vocabularies have appropriate terms for the work being described. In addition, vocabularies change over time as well, and may need to be updated to reflect current meaning. If a term doesn’t exist/or needs to be updated, it is possible to propose changes and additions to controlled vocabularies.

Questions to consider:

  • Is there enough literary warrant to propose a new heading?
  • Will the change/added heading assist in discovery of the material?
  • Would a local heading or specialized vocabulary fit better if the suggested change doesn’t follow the LC pattern or have enough literary warrant? Please keep in mind that using a local heading may not be sustainable in the long term, so if needed, it may be best to use an official non-LC vocabulary.

Proposing new terms and/or changes to Library of Congress vocabularies

The Library of Congress relies on proposals for new terms and changes to terms from the public to be included in the LC Controlled Vocabularies Unlike a NACO record, which can be created by anyone trained in NACO work, LC terms (which include Subject Headings, Genre/Form Terms, Medium of Performance Thesaurus, Children's Subject Headings, and Demographic Group Terms) must be submitted for approval through funnels or institutional subject heading coordinators. The funnel and/or coordinator then accesses the proposal system (ClassWeb), where they are then able to submit the suggested proposal. (A list of current funnels can be found here: https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/funnelsaco.html)

At UCLA, a Jira form is used to suggest headings that can be proposed (SACO Proposals for Library of Congress Subject Headings). This allows the people on the SACO proposal team to ensure that there is enough literary warrant, and that the LCSH guidelines and patterns are being followed before being submitted to the Library of Congress editorial department. It is important to know that any UCLA cataloger or librarian can fill out and recommend a Jira ticket for a subject heading proposal. If an appropriate heading is missing to describe a particular resource, we encourage users to create a ticket so that we can propose the heading or term. The Library of Congress relies on subject matter expertise to inform them of potentially missing headings and/or appropriate terms.

In order for a proposal to be approved, one must indicate literary warrant for the heading. This means that there must be a justification for usage of the term to describe the “aboutness” of the resource, and often that term must be used in the resource itself (unless following a particular LC pattern outlined in the Subject Headings Manual).

To improve the likelihood of a proposal being approved:

  • Cite the resource  in the first 670 work cat field of the form, and use any additional 670s indicating other examples of the terms being used. Wikipedia can be used, but is discouraged at the sole source of research. If used, it is recommended that other resources are cited in addition to Wikipedia. Detailed research should be done, and reputable sources should be cited.
  • Add 4XX fields for similar unauthorized terms to aid in discovery. Sometimes a problematic heading can be listed in a 4XX field.
  • Scope notes can be used to differentiate between other subject headings and can encourage the correct usage of the proposed term. Finding similar headings to the one being proposed can also be helpful in gaining approval from LC.
  • Indicate similar headings that are in the LC database, which can aid  in the justification of the new term. 

Once the proposal has been submitted to the Library of Congress, it can take up to 6 months to hear a decision about the term. In the meantime, the proposer may wish to attend either the Quarterly Subject Heading Editorial meeting to advocate for their proposal at the open forums. Sometimes it can be helpful for the staff to hear from users why a term should be added or corrected directly from the subject experts. In order to stay informed of meetings and LC updates, joining the listserv can be helpful.

When a decision is made about the term proposed, we’ll usually receive one of three options: 

  • Approved: the heading can be used and is now part of the LC authoritative database
  • Not approved: the editorial team decided that this heading isn’t useful or may not have enough literary warrant. It can be reedited and resubmitted if desired
  • Can be resubmitted: often in the Summary of Decisions documents, the reason for this decision is indicated, and once the issue is fixed, can be resubmitted within 90 days.

Proposing new terms and/or changes to non-LC specialized vocabularies

It is also possible to suggest new terms to non-LC specialized vocabularies. While Library of Congress terms are most commonly used, sometimes it isn’t always possible to propose a new term easily. If that is the case, proposing to another vocabulary may be an option.

Proposing a new term for Homosaurus, MeSH, or RBMS is fairly simple. For Homosaurus and MeSH, the user needs to fill out a feedback form with the heading suggestion and the OCLC number for the title where the heading will be used. For RBMS, an email can be sent to RBMS Controlled Vocabularies editors at vocabularies@rbms.info with the same information.

It is also possible to contribute to Getty vocabularies, such as the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names. Similar to the LC process, the Getty has criteria that needs to be met:

  1. they must be submitted by an authorized contributor (often institutions working in archives, special collections or art)

  2. must be within scope of the vocabularies

  3. must include the minimum information (which can be found in the Editorial Guidelines)

  4. must be submitted in the prescribed format (which is through the Getty Vocabulary Contribution Spreadsheets or the online Web form)

Another option for headings is to add Wikidata terms, by creating a new Wikidata item or updating a current Wikidata item. The Best Practices for Queer Metadata has recommendations on ethical considerations for working with Wikidata. 

While suggesting and updating non-LC vocabularies can give more options for subject headings, it is important to keep in mind that some of these vocabularies, such as RBMS and Wikidata are not automatically updated in OCLC so they may not be sustainable in the long term.

Classification Numbers

Assigning class numbers is often based on the LC classification system (LCC), which aligns with the subject headings, and thus can be problematic as well. While it is possible to recommend changes and propose new classification numbers, it is a little more complicated than subject headings because the new numbers have to fit within an existing set of letters and numbers to classify established headings. However, each cataloging institution can choose to assign their own call numbers based on departmental guidelines if they find that the class numbers in LCC are problematic. It can often be the choice of the cataloger in how they would like to assign call numbers based on the classification numbers. A cataloger may also choose to add an additional 050 in OCLC for other institutions to use as call numbers if they deem it necessary.

Proposing a new call number to LC is similar to that of proposing a new heading. You can contact your SACO funnel and/or subject heading coordinator, and they can help you to submit your proposal. Only one 670 is required, and as long as the classification is organized correctly, LC generally takes only a few months to approve the classification numbers.

Questions to consider:

  • Does your library use an established classification system such as the Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress that consists of inherent biases?
  • Is there another option for replacing problematic classification at your institution?

Archival Materials

The UCLA campus is home to various special collections archives including Library Special Collections (LSC) at the Charles E. Young Research Library, the Chicano Studies Research Center, and the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, among others. Primarily described via finding aids located on the Online Archive of California, collections are also represented in the UCLA Library Catalog through individual catalog records. 

Librarians and archivists within LSC wrote Toward Ethical and Inclusive Descriptive Practices and have implemented the practices described within. As a basis of their work, they use subject headings from LCSH and where possible, make sure that the subject headings in the finding aids match up with those used in the catalog record. 

The Japanese American Research Project collection of material about Japanese in the US (Yuji Ichioka Papers) serves as an example where the finding aid and the catalog do not match up. The finding aid indicates description updates as part of a 2019 Center for Primary Research and Training(CFPRT) Redescription Project. Euphemistic terms such as "internment" were updated to reflect preferred terminology outlined in the Power of Words Handbook from the Japanese American Citizens League. While the correct terminology is reflected in the catalog record, the finding aid retains the original subject headings (ex: Japanese Americans -- Evacuation and relocation, 1942-1945).