Problems With the CSH and the Canadian Companion to Sears
Because changing classification numbers to suit your library collection is relatively easy, most libraries do not have a problem employing the FC class for Canadian history. As anyone experienced in subject analysis knows, it may be difficult to achieve consistent classification practice in a large collection, but this problem has nothing to do with the application of a class developed outside the Library of Congress.
Although the Canadian Companion to Sears and Canadian Subject Headings propose viable solutions to the problems inherent in the Library of Congress Subject Headings, they are not perfect, and outside circumstances increase the challenge faced by Canadian libraries in tailoring their subject headings to suit their patrons.
Copy Cataloguing
In 2004, Jean Weihs noted that many school library catalogues used Library of Congress Subject Headings rather than Sears. When she wondered why, a cataloguer from a commercial cataloguing company noted that it is less expensive and less time-consuming to copy-catalogue using LCSH, as most imported records use LCSH. The cataloguer also noted that she had never heard of a school librarian complaining about the use of LCSH instead of Sears, and she ventured a guess that many librarians do not know the difference between the two lists [11]. After contacting colleagues throughout North America, Weihs discovered that the cataloguer was correct: many librarians did not know the difference between Sears and LCSH; many librarians were also unaware that CIP data in most books also uses LCSH [12]. These problems have little to do with the librarians themselves, and seem to stem primarily from three sources:
- Libraries increasingly rely on copy cataloguing and/or commercial cataloguing services.
- Libraries employ a small number of cataloguing librarians, if any.
- LCSH is the most commonly used system found in catalogue records.
While our project is not about the use of Sears versus LCSH, Weihs’ study makes valuable points that apply to the application of the Canadian companions to LCSH and Sears.
Cataloguing librarians at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver Public Library, and the Vancouver School Board all rely on copy cataloguing. When a new item arrives for processing, library staff find an appropriate existing record and import it into their local system. Although many institutions, including UBC, seek records from Canadian sources, there are a limited number of contributing institutions to draw from. UBC has a strict policy of importing records from a select number of reliable institutions; if those libraries cannot contribute, UBC cataloguing librarians create original records [13].
All of the librarians we spoke with noted that using Canadian Subject Headings is left to the discretion of the cataloguer, so there are no written policies governing how and when CSH are used. The consensus is that a common-sense approach is preferred, and CSH are to be used when a LC subject heading “does not adequately represent Canadian topics” [14].
The reality of this situation is that, as Jean Weihs found, copy cataloguing, staff crunches, and the predominance of LCSH all limit the application of alternative subject heading systems. Two of the three librarians we interviewed noted that imported records containing inadequate Library of Congress subject headings will not be edited and given more appropriate Canadian Subject Headings. The exception is the Vancouver School Board, where librarians grant special attention to all Canadian books to assure the assignment of approrpriate subject headings. In our research we have found that careful and consistent application of CSH depends on many factors, including the ratio of cataloguing librarians to materials processed. VSB employs two cataloguing librarians and processes far fewer items than UBC and VPL [15].
Example:
The following item arrives in your cataloguing department:
Three Speeches on the Pacific Scandal, by Edward Blake
If you import the catalogue record for this book from the Library of Congress (like most other American libraries), the LC Subject Headings assigned to this work will be:
Canadian Pacific Railway Company. (LCSH)
Transcontinental Railway (Canada). (LCSH)
However, if you import the record from Library and Archives Canada, or from another institution in Canada, the CSH headings for this work will be:
Pacific Scandal, 1873. (CSH)
Railroads--Canada. (LCSH)
Canada--Politics and government--1867-1896. (LCSH)
If you adhere to the rule of keeping the subject headings you receive through copy cataloguing, your users will not find everything on a certain topic collocated under one subject heading. In other words, you may find yourself with a “split collection,” an issue that UBC grapples with [16].
Subject Heading Overlap
Occasionally a Canadian Subject Heading and a Library of Congress Subject Heading will overlap somewhat in coverage.
Example:
Consider the book The "Nations Within:" Aboriginal-State Relations in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand, by Augie Fleras and Jean Leonard Elliott. This work receives the Canadian Subject Heading Native peoples--Canada at Library and Archives Canada. The Library of Congress assigns the same work the LC Subject Heading Indigenous peoples--Canada.
Library and Archives Canada uses Native peoples--Canada for “works discussing collectively the three groups of Canadians of native or aboriginal ancestry recognized by the census: Indians, often referred to as First Nations, including both status and non-status Indians; Métis and the Inuit” [17].
The Library of Congress uses Indigenous peoples for “works on the aboriginal inhabitants either of colonial areas or of modern states where the aboriginal peoples are not in control of the government” [18].
The different subject headings seem to be used interchangeably despite the different shades of meaning. The CSH does not impose a concept of social or political status, while the LCSH does. Library and Archives Canada endorses the use of Native peoples--Canada instead of Indigenous peoples--Canada, creating a situation where a Canadian Subject Heading and a Library of Congress Subject Heading specifically overlap.
Subject Heading Conflict
A library catalogue may be “split” due to conflict between LC and Canadian subject headings that mean precisely the same thing. A troublesome example is the different ways LCSH and CSH deal with works about Canadian literature. LCSH practice emphasises the language of the work, resulting in the headings:
Canadian literature.
French-Canadian literature.
Recognizing that the language of a work does not determine its “Canadian-ness,” Library and Archives Canada prefers the Canadian Subject Headings:
Canadian literature (English).
Canadian literature (French).
Unless the catalogue has a highly-developed and well-maintained set of cross-references and “see also” links, unknowing users will not be able to locate the works filed under the different headings.
For an example of how Canadian Subject Headings use languages in headings, refer to our examples page.
Other Issues
Thanks to the English language spelling reform movement in the United States that was started by Noah Webster in the early 1800s and carried on by Melvil Dewey later that century, America has different spellings for such words as colour (color), theatre (theater), catalogue (catalog), and cheque (check). Even though Canadian Subject Headings are meant to reflect Canadian content and culture, topical headings in CSH conform to LCSH spelling conventions and use American spelling instead of Canadian spelling. Entries for headings with Canadian spellings are non-preferred and refer users to the heading with the American spelling.
Sometimes, words have a meaning or use in another country that differs from how it they are used in Canada. For example, in many nations, the words “premier” and “prime minister” are used interchangeably to refer to the executive official of the government, or the head of state. But in Canada a Premier is the head of a province and the Prime Minister is the head of the nation. Nevertheless, CSH continues to prefer Prime Ministers--Canada--Provinces instead of Premiers--Canada for works discussing collectively the Canadian provincial premiers. This is an example of CSH trying to follow LCSH as closely as possible, but providing an inadequate heading as a result.
|
