Contributors (including Creators) and Ethical Description
Catalogers and the choices they make about which contributors to name or not name, which contributors receive authorized access points, how to address name changes, especially those for LGBTQ+ creators, and more, will have an impact not just on search and discovery, but also on the (in)visibility of works by historically underrepresented or marginalized contributors. In describing resources, catalogers may include contributors in the statement of responsibility, publication fields, in access point fields, as well as in various note fields, and many of these decisions rely on cataloger judgment. It’s also important for catalogers to be wary of making assumptions about the identities of creators and contributors (see resources below for information on ethical implications of using the 386 field, for example). Depending on time, expertise, and level of training, catalogers may represent contributor information in a variety of ways, such as through different combinations of transcribed fields, note fields, and (authorized) access point fields. Contributors for a resource can range from a single author to collaborations among multiple writers, editors, illustrators, photographers, musicians, performers, cartographers, organizations, artists, curators, and many more. How these contributors show up in the metadata (for example, bibliographic or archival description records), or if at all, can greatly impact discovery of these resources.
Questions to Consider
- When recording contributors, how do the decisions we make to add contributors to or omit contributors from a record - decisions based on practice, time, capacity, and/or departmental priorities - impact discovery and access to works, particularly works by historically underrepresented or marginalized communities?
- How might we use all relevant areas of description (such as 2XX, 3XX, 5XX [link to Notes guidelines], and 7XX MARC fields for bibliographic cataloging) to represent contributors, regardless of authorization and training level?
- What is the impact of our decisions regarding which contributors receive access points?
- Are we incorporating the ethical codes from specific communities into our decisions about recording contributors (e.g., Zine Librarians Code of Ethics)?
- If truncating statements of responsibility in a bibliographic record, do we include fuller notes about contributions in other areas of a bibliographic record?
- Are we including relator terms for contributors in access point fields that accurately reflect their contributions?
- When deciding whether to record attributes of contributors in a bibliographic record, are we considering impact around contributor privacy and safety? Are we making any assumptions about contributor characteristics? If we choose to record contributor attributes, are we using language used or preferred by the contributors?
Example #1: Revising a bibliographic record and finding aid
Revising a bibliographic record and finding aid to make visible contributions by women
This example shows the cataloger engaging in metadata remediation for an archival collection, which is described in both a MARC record and in a finding aid. Originally, the title of this collection did not mention contributors to the collection in full. Changing the finding aid title from "William Roscoe Papers" to "William Roscoe and Jane Griffies Roscoe Collection" will support better discovery of materials by Jane Griffies Roscoe in a collection previously described as being only her husband’s.
Example #2: Using NACO training to create access points
Using NACO training to create access points for contributors from underrepresented communities
This example shows a record created by a NACO-trained cataloger and the use of access points to provide discovery and access to a resource created by a community underrepresented in the library’s collections. In creating this record, the cataloger, after investigating the language of the resource, consulted external sources beyond the item in hand, including visiting a listed website for more information. The NACO-trained cataloger also made the decision to create or enhance authorized access points for all contributors, including them in the 7XX MARC fields with appropriate relator terms as applicable; extensive research into these access points involved communicating with the Six Nations Iroquois Cultural Center during the enhancement of its name authority record, and reaching out to colleagues with relevant expertise during the creation of new authority records. In total, the cataloger created 7 new authorized access points - 2 personal names, 4 corporate bodies, and 1 title.
Example #3 : Using local access points
Highlighting contributors using both local and authorized access points
This example shows a record created by a cataloger without NACO training who wanted to show the equal contributions of all three co-directors of a film, but where only two of the three directors had established name authority headings. By creating a local access point in the bibliographic record, along with the appropriate relator term, the cataloger was able to feature the equal contributions of all three filmmakers. And in UC Library Search, this local heading provides access to this filmmaker's works similar to that of the two filmmakers with authorized name headings.
Example #4: Considering use of 386
Considering use of 386 in describing contributors in bibliographic description
This example shows the use of the MARC field 386 Creator/Contributor Characteristics. See Willey and Yon’s "Applying Library of Congress Demographic Group Characteristics for Creators" for an example of how to embed ethical considerations in the decision to record the 386 field. See also ethical considerations around contributor identity and privacy related to recording 386 fields:
- Hobart, Elizabeth. "Recording Creator Characteristics for Native American Authors: An Analysis of Bibliographic Records." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 58, no. 1 (2020): 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2019.1704333
- Hobart, Elizabeth. "Cataloging gender diverse authors: The MARC field 386, gender identity and privacy." Journal of Information Ethics 31, no. 2 (2022): 48-56. https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/resources/a5380ca6-9570-4879-acdb-cca15c2f8c35
Resources
This non-exhaustive list contains documentation by various metadata communities that address the description of contributors related to resources.
- Music Library Association: Music Library Association Best Practices for Music Cataloging Using RDA and MARC21 (2017)
This link opens in a new window
Access via Original RDA Toolkit - Zine Librarians Code of Ethics (2015)Authors: Heidy Berthoud, Joshua Barton, Jeremy Brett, Lisa Darms, Violet Fox, Jenna Freedman, Jennifer LaSuprema Hecker, Lillian Karabaic, Rhonda Kauffman, Kelly McElroy, Milo Miller, Honor Moody, Jude Vachon, Madeline Veitch, Celina Williams, and Kelly Wooten
