The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Standardization, Objectivity, and User Focus: A Meta-Analysis of Subject Access Critiques
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Hope Olson and Rose Schlegl suggest that the comparative richness of subject heading critiques is directly related to their public aspect:”
From Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction (2013) · cites this paper as Olson and Schlegl 2001, 66
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- 10.1300/J104v10n03_08 · DOI
- Michael. Afolabi, 1992, International Classification, 19, 210
- 10.1300/J104v19n01_07 · DOI
- 10.1016/0020-7837(85)90016-0 · DOI
- Nwozo. Amankwe, 1972, Library Resources & Technical Services, 16
- Sanford. Berman, 1981, The Joy of cataloging: Essays, letters, reviews, and other explosions.
- Sanford. Berman, 1981, The Joy of cataloging: Essays, letters, reviews, and other explosions.
- Sanford. Berman, 1984, Technical Services Quarterly, 2
- Bethel Kathleen E., 1994, Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Academic Libraries: Multicultural Issues., 221
- Doris Hargrett Clack, 1989, Social Responsibility in Librarianship: Essays on Equality., 53
- Doris Hargrett Clack, 1994, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 19, 49, 10.1300/J104v19n02_04 · DOI
- Dick A. L., 1995, South African Journal of Library and Information Science, 63, 65
- Pat. Ensor, 1992, RQ, 31, 60
- Marielena. Fina, 1993, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 17
- Foskett A. C., 1971, Library Resources & Technical Services, 15
- Gerhard Kristin H, 1998, College & Research Libraries
- 10.1108/eb023231 · DOI
- Harris Jessica, 1979, Library Resources & Technical Services, 23
- Hildreth Charles R., 1995, Online catalog design models: Are we moving in the right direction: A report submitted to the Council on Library Resources August, 1995.
- 10.1300/J104v01n02_07 · DOI
- Huston Mary M, 1987, Research Strategies, 5
- Marshall Joan K., 1972, Revolting Librarians.
- Mowery Robert L., 1973, Library Resources & Technical Services, 17
- Norgard Barbara A, 1995, Advances in Librarianship, 17, 111, 10.1108/S0065-2830(1993)0000017007 · DOI
- Hope. Olson, 1992, Cataloging Heresy: Challenging the Standard Bibliographic Product: Proceedings of the Congress for Librarians, 159
- 10.1300/J104v09n04_08 · DOI
- Searing Susan E., 1986, Women's Collections: Libraries, Archives, and Consciousness., 3
- Bella Hass Weinberg, 1992, Cataloging Heresy: Challenging the Standard Bibliographic Product: Proceedings of the Congress for Librarians, 7
- Weinberg Bella Hass, 1992, Cataloging Heresy: Challenging the Standard Bibliographic Product: Proceedings of the Congress for Librarians, Feb. 18, 1991, St. John's University, Jamaica, New York.
- Steve. Wolf, 1972, Revolting Librarians.
- Thomas Yen-Ran Yeh, 1971, Library Resources & Technical Services, 15
- 10.1300/J120v22n47_09 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction
Drabinski, E. (2013) · The Library Quarterly · doi:10.1086/669547 · Cited by 224
Librarians’ Views on Critical Theories and Critical Practices
Schroeder, R., & Hollister, C. V. (2014) · Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian · doi:10.1080/01639269.2014.912104 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Olson, H. A., & Schlegl, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Venue
- Cataloging & Classification Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 61-80
- ISSN
- 0163-9374 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-4554
- OpenAlex
- W2060919269
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cataloging & Classification Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information Systems
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Administration
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Information Science and Libraries
- Keywords
- subject access, cataloging standards, objectivity, standardization, systemic bias, marginalized communities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Standardization, Objectivity, and User Focus: A Meta-Analysis of Subject Access Critiques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1300/j104v32n02_06
- The paper
- Olson, H. A., & Schlegl, R. (2001). Standardization, Objectivity, and User Focus: A Meta-Analysis of Subject Access Critiques. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1300/j104v32n02_06