Etično dovođenja haosa u red: “Etički kodeks katalogizatora/ica” i kritičko katalogiziranje

Uvod

Stručna zajednica katalogizatora/ica iz cijelog svi­jeta od 2021. godine ima svoj vlastiti etički kodeks, specifičan za tu struku, a od 2024. godine dostu­pan je i na bosanskom jeziku (CESC, 2024). U maju 2024. godine, Katedra za informacijske nau­ke Univerziteta u Sarajevu - Filozofskog fakulteta, u saradnji s Bibliotekom Univerziteta u Sarajevu, predstavila je bibliotečkoj zajednici i široj javnosti Bosne i Hercegovine i regiona Etički kodeks kata- logizatora/ica, ali i započela raspravu o kritičkom katalogiziranju, kao njegovom filozofskom okviru i potpokretu kritičkog bibliotekarstva koje zagovara za diverzitet, jednakost i inkluzivnost. Iako se radi o temi koja je postala naročito aktuelna u skorije vrijeme, o etičnom katalogiziranju pisalo se još če­trdesetih godina prošlog stoljeća; u prvom redu su to pionirski radovi D. B. Porter i F. L. Yocom, koje su problematizirale predmetne odrednice o crnačkoj zajednici u SAD. Nakon što je objavljena knjiga Prejudice and Antipathies S. Bermana 1971. godi­ne, sve se više o ovome istražuje, a od 2016. godine B. M. Watson bilježi veliki porast radova i članaka na ovu temu (Watson, 2021a). Ovaj je rad strukturi­ran tako da se u uvodnim poglavljima dekonstruiše neutralnost bibliotekarstva, biblioteke i kataloga i naglašava značaj etičnog katalogiziranja, zatim daje historijat istraživanja o etičnom, odnosno kritičkom katalogiziranju, a na kraju tematizira Etički kodeks katalogizatora/ica i njegov značaj za katalogizato- re/ice u Bosni i Hercegovini, ali i širem regionu.

Bibliotekari/ke: neutralni ili angažovani?

Bibliotekari/ke nisu puki posrednici između kori- snika/ca i zabilježenog znanja; oni imaju inherentno dominantnu, a ne neutralnu poziciju jer posjeduju dvije velike moći - moć organizovanja znanja, a time i smještanja izvora u informacijski univerzum, kao i moć imenovanja, kako to naziva H. A. Olson (2001). Budući moćni, oni imaju i veliku odgovor­nost, kao i brojne prilike da kritički sagledaju svo­ju profesiju, što nužno povlači i etično postupanje. Ove moći, kako navodi E. Drabinski u svom član­ku “What is Critical About Critical Librarianship?” “koristimo svakodnevno u svojoj praksi, dok opi­sujemo materijal koristeći kontrolirane rječnike, dodjeljujemo klasifikacijske oznake kako bismo knjige smjestili na police” (Drabinski, 2019: 50).

Introduction

The cataloging community worldwide has had its own ethical code, specific to their profession, since 2021, and as of 2024, it is also available in Bosnian (CESC, 2024). In May 2024, the Department of In- formation Sciences at the University of Sarajevo - Faculty of Philosophy, in collaboration with the University of Sarajevo Library, presented the Cata- loging Code of Ethics to the library community and the broader public of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region. They also initiated a discussion on crit- ical cataloging, as its philosophical framework and a sub-movement of critical librarianship, which ad- vocates for diversity, equity and inclusion. Although this topic has become particularly relevant in recent times, ethical cataloging has been discussed since the 1940s, with pioneering works by D. B. Porter and F. L. Yocom, who addressed the issue of sub- ject headings related to the Black community in the United States. After the publication of Prejudice and Antipathies by S. Berman in 1971, research in this area increased, and since 2016, B. M. Watson has noted a significant rise in works and articles on this subject (Watson, 2021a). This paper is struc- tured in such a way that the introductory chapters deconstruct the neutrality of librarianship, libraries, and catalogs, emphasizing the importance of ethical cataloging. It then provides a historical overview of research on ethical and critical cataloging, and final- ly, discusses the Cataloging Code of Ethics and its significance for catalogers in Bosnia and Herzego- vina, as well as the broader region.

Librarians: Neutral or Engaged?

Librarians are not mere intermediaries between us- ers and recorded knowledge; they inherently hold a dominant, rather than neutral position because they possess two significant powers: the power to organ- ize knowledge and, thereby, place sources in the in- formation universe, as well as the power to name, as H. A. Olson (2001) calls it. Being powerful, they also bear great responsibility, along with numerous opportunities to critically reflect on their profession, which inevitably entails ethical conduct. We use these powers, as E. Drabinski notes in her article “What is Critical About Critical Librarianship?”, “every day in our practice, as we describe material using controlled vocabularies, assign class numbers

92

Stoga M. J. Fox i A. Reece i smatraju da su krea- tori/ce alata poput OPAC-a, klasifikacijskih sistema i tezaurusa, te “oni koji te alate primjenjuju, poput katalogizatora/ica i klasifikatora/ica, podložni etič­kom odlučivanju i posljedično etičkim propustima, kako namjernim tako i nenamjernim” (Fox i Reece, 2012: 377), što nužno isključuje neutralnost. Stoga odluke koje bibliotečki i informacijski stručnjaci i stručnjakinje donose, kao i zadaci koje svakodnev­no obavljaju, imaju direktne političke i ideološke implikacije na društvo. Jasno da to sa sobom povla­či veliku profesionalnu i moralnu odgovornost, pa pitanje etike postaje pitanje same srži bibliotekar­stva kao etičke djelatnosti (IFLA, 2012: 1). Biblio- tekari/ke su svjesni odgovornosti koju imaju radeći u društvu i za društvo, pa su brojna bibliotečka i srodna udruženja u svijetu donijela svoje etičke ko­dekse, upravo kako bi mogli nastaviti da održava­ju vrijednosti svoga poziva te lični i profesionalni integritet. American Library Association (ALA) je još 1939. godine donio Etički kodeks bibliotekara/ ki koji je od tada nekoliko puta revidiran, posljednji put 2021. godine, no kodeksi su donošeni i na me­đunarodnom nivou, pa je IFLA 2012. godine obja­vila finalnu verziju svog. Ipak, sve je više glasova, uglavnom iz anglofonih kulturnih krugova, počelo kritizirati dostupne kodekse kao previše uopštene i bez jasnih uputa koje bi rasvijetlile konkretne pro­bleme s kojima se suočava jedna posebna vrsta bi- bliotekara/ki - katalogizator/ica.

Iako rad svih bibliotekara i bibliotekarki ima direk­tne implikacije na društvo u cjelini, katalogizatorov/ icin ima pogotovo, jer o njemu/njoj ovisi kako će neka informacija biti pohranjena, kako pretražena, te usljed toga i hoće li biti pronađena. Posebnost ka- talogizatora/ice, odnosno onih koji stručno obrađuju građu i koji upravljanju metapodacima u odnosu na druge bibliotekare/ke, jeste njihovo poslanstvo u or- ganizovanju informacija, to jeste, kako navodi A. M. Ferris, u “dovođenju haosa u red”, što se postiže na dva načina: bibliografskom kontrolom i slobodnim prosuđivanjem katalogizatora/ice (Ferris, 2008). Katalogizatori/ce svoj posao obavljaju oslanjajući se na standarde koje propisuje struka, ali oni su če­sto nedovoljni da vrijednosti i principi bibliotečke profesije, kao i oni jednakosti, diverziteta i inklu- zivnosti, odnosno socijalne pravde, budu dosljedno primijenjeni u njihovom svakodnevnom radu, dakle pri samostalnom prosuđivanju. Stoga je zajednica katalogizatora/ica počela zagovarati za svoj vlastiti, poseban etički kodeks, u čemu je i uspjela kada je nedavno, 2021. godine, objavljen prvi, kolaborativ- ni i od šire zajednice prihvaćen Etički kodeks ka-

Mirović

to place books on shelves” (Drabinski, 2019: 50). Thus, M. J. Fox and A. Reece argue that creators of tools such as OPAC, classification systems, and the- sauri, as well as “those who apply those tools, such as catalogers and indexers, are all subject to ethical decision-making and consequently to ethical lapses, both intentional and unintentional” (Fox and Reece, 2012: 377), which necessarily excludes neutrality. Therefore, the decisions made by library and infor- mation professionals, as well as the tasks they per- form daily, have direct political and ideological im- plications for society. This, of course, brings signif- icant professional and moral responsibility, making ethics a central concern of librarianship as an ethi- cal activity (IFLA, 2012: 1). Librarians are aware of the responsibility they bear by working within and for society, which is why many library and re- lated associations worldwide have adopted their own codes of ethics, to uphold the values of their profession and maintain personal and professional integrity. The American Library Association (ALA) adopted its Code of Ethics as early as 1939, which has since been revised several times, most recent- ly in 2021. However, codes have also been adopted at the international level, with IFLA publishing its final version in 2012. Yet, there are increasing voic- es, primarily from Anglophone cultural circles, that have begun criticizing the available codes as being too general and lacking clear guidelines that address the specific challenges faced by a particular group of librarians - catalogers.

Although the work of all librarians has direct impli- cations for society as a whole, the work of catalo- gers does so particularly, as it depends on them how information will be stored, how it will be searched, and consequently, whether it will be found. The uniqueness of catalogers, i.e., those who work with metadata, compared to other librarians, lies in their mission to organize information, which, as A. M. Ferris notes, is the act of “bringing order to chaos”, achieved in two ways: through bibliographic con- trol and through cataloger’s own judgment (Ferris, 2008). Catalogers carry out their work based on standards prescribed by the profession, but these are often insufficient to ensure that the values and principles of librarianship, such as equality, diversi- ty, and inclusivity, or social justice, are consistently applied in their everyday work, especially in their own judgment. Thus, the cataloging community be- gan advocating for its own, distinct ethical code, a goal realized when the first collaborative and widely accepted Cataloging Code of Ethics was published in 2021, developed by the Cataloging Ethics Steer-

93

BOSNIACA 2024; 29: 91-108

talogizatora/ica, koji je izradio Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee (CESC). Kodeks u svojim na­čelima ima na umu krajnje korisnike i korisnice, a zajednicu katalogizatora/ica podstiče da u svoj rad implementiraju principe jednakosti, diverziteta i in- kluzivnosti, navodeći da primjena standarda zaista jeste važna, ali i da standardi nisu neutralni - “svi standardi su pristrasni: pristupit ćemo im kritički i zalagati se da katalogizacija bude što inkluzivnija“ (CESC, 2021: 3). Akcenat koji je u Kodeksu stav­ljen na kritičko nije slučajan, naime, svekolika za­jednica katalogizatora/ica okupljenih oko njegove izrade odabrala je da njihov modus operandi u ka- talogiziranju bude upravo kritičko katalogiziranje, kao potpokret kritičkog bibliotekarstva, utkavši ga u sam tekst Kodeksa (CESC, 2021).

Biblioteka: neutralna ili politična?

Biblioteke su, kako u svojim počecima, tako i da­nas, osnivane u cilju ostvarenja vizije i misije svo­jih osnivača/ica. Prosvjetiteljska uloga, pogotovo javnih biblioteka, bila je izuzetno politična, kako to navodi T. J. Cridford, koji ukazuje na to da postoji diskrepancija između “teorijskog kategorizovanja biblioteka kao neutralnih mjesta i njihovog praktič­nog djelovanja kao mjesta društvene i kulturne pri­nude” (Cridford, 2019: 80). On smatra da su, kon­kretno na primjeru zapadnjačkih imperijalističkih projekata, biblioteke otvoreno poslužile kao alat za nametanje zapadnjačkih vrijednosti (tj. vrijednosti bijelaca, srednje klase, heteroseksualaca/ki, muška­raca i Zapadnjaka) osvojenim narodima (Cridford, 2019). Isto smatra i E. Drabinski, koja navodi da savremene biblioteke imaju isti svjetonazor te da svoje korijene vuku iz istih prosvjetiteljskih proje­kata kao i kolonijalni muzeji i zoološki vrtovi koji su prikupljali i izlagali životinje i predmete iz cijele Zemlje (Drabinski, 2019). O kompleksnosti dinami­ka moći u diseminaciji ideja u kontekstu javnih dr­žavnih biblioteka, kod nas poznatih i kao narodnih, pisao je i S. Lawson u svom članku “Public Librari- es and Knowledge Politics”, u kojem, između osta­log, navodi i dvojaku ulogu koju biblioteke imaju obezbjeđujući pristup znanju - emancipatorsku i indoktrinacijsku (Lawson, 2018). Naravno, iako je trenutno najviše literature i članaka objavljenih od strane anglofonih autora i autorica, ne može se reći da je dvojaka (ili dvolična) uloga prvenstveno jav­nih biblioteka u istovremenom povećanju pristupa znanju i obrazovanju s jedne strane, i širenju propa­gande vladajućih struktura, odnosno njihovih osni- vača/ica s druge, nešto svojstveno samo tom kultur­nom krugu. Slično kao i drugdje u svijetu, bibliote-

ing Committee (CESC). The Code, in its principles, has end-users in mind, encouraging the cataloging community to implement the principles of equality, diversity, and inclusivity in their work, stating that while the application of standards is indeed impor- tant, standards are not neutral: “all standards are bi- ased, we will approach them critically and advocate to make cataloguing more inclusive” (CESC, 2021: 3). The emphasis on critical cataloging in the Code is no coincidence; the entire community of cata- logers involved in its creation chose critical cata- loging, a sub-movement of critical librarianship, as their modus operandi in cataloging, embedding it into the very text of the Code (CESC, 2021).

Library: Neutral or Political?

Libraries, both in their early days and today, have been founded with the aim of realizing the vision and mission of their founders. The educational role, especially of public libraries, has been profound- ly political, as T. J. Cridford points out, there is a discrepancy between “theoretical construction of libraries as neutral and their practical application as sites of social and cultural coercion” (Cridford, 2019: 80). He argues that, particularly in the case of Western imperialist projects, libraries openly served as tools for imposing Western values (i.e., the values of white, middle-class, heterosexual, male, and Western individuals) onto colonized peo- ples (Cridford, 2019). E. Drabinski shares a similar perspective, stating that contemporary libraries up- hold the same worldview, and that they trace their roots to the same enlightenment projects as colonial museums and zoos, which collected and exhibited animals and artifacts from around the world (Drab- inski, 2019). The complexity of power dynamics in the dissemination of ideas within the context of pub- lic state libraries, known in our region as “narodne” (people’s) libraries, has also been discussed by S. Lawson in his article “Public Libraries and Knowl- edge Politics”. He highlights the dual role libraries play in providing access to knowledge - both eman- cipatory and indoctrinatory (Lawson, 2018).

While much of the current literature and articles are published by Anglophone authors, it cannot be said that this dual (or even two-faced) role, particularly of public libraries in simultaneous- ly increasing access to knowledge and education on the one hand, and spreading the propaganda of ruling structures (their founders) on the other, is something unique to that cultural sphere. Similar to other parts of the world, libraries in Bosnia and

94

ke, čiji se nastanak u Bosni i Hercegovini i vezuje za dolazak Osmanlija (Hajdarpašić et al., 2021), na ovim su prostorima, kao i druge javne ustanove kul­turnog, naučnog i obrazovnog karaktera, osnivane kako u cilju ostvarivanja prosvjetnih, privrednih i milosrdnih ciljeva svojih osnivača/ica, tako i u cilju diseminacije njihovih vjerskih i kulturnih vrijedno­sti. Upravo onda kada bibliotekari/ke, a pogotovo katalogizatori/ce, postanu svjesni ove stalne napeto­sti između dvojake uloge biblioteka, one emancipa- torske i one indoktrinacijske, to jeste kada postanu svjesni samih sebe i svog poslanja da emancipiraju ili indoktriniraju, da “olakšavaju pristup informaci­jama, ali i da budu čuvari / vratari” (Lawson, 2018: 3) koji taj pristup brane, da organizuju i uređuju bi­bliografski univerzum i imenuju pojave, čime nasta­ju brojne prilike za suočavanje s etičkim pitanjima unutar njihove profesije, oni postaju kritični prema samima sebi, standardima i pravilima svoje struke te prema svojim matičnim ustanovama.

Katalogiziranje: neutralno ili kritičko?

Kako navode K. Snow i A. Dunbar, “pokret unu­tar zajednice katalogizatora/ica nazvan kritičko katalogiziranje posljednjih je godina nastavio rad onih koji su doveli u pitanje katalogizacijski status quo” (Snow i Dunbar, 2022: 7). Oni smatraju da je kritičko katalogiziranje nastavak radikalnog kata- logiziranja, pokreta nastalog 2002. godinem koji je predvodio K. R. Roberto pokrenuvši RADCAT mailing listu¹ nakon rasprave o tome da li su politič­ke teme na AUTOCAT mailing listi² primjerene ili ne (Roberto, 2008). Radikalno katalogiziranje kao pokret, kako navode H. Lember et al., nije imalo namjeru biti subverzivno per se, već mu je namjera bila riješiti osnovne probleme koji otežavaju pristup informacijama (Lember et al., 2013), a naročito marginalizovanim skupinama. B. M. Watson navo­di da su ovi pokreti isprepleteni i postoje paralelno, te da njihovu periodizaciju ne treba shvatati stro­go, stoga što “još uvijek postoji niz katalogizatora/ ica koji sebe smatraju radikalnim katalogizatorima/ cama, a RADCAT mailing lista je još uvijek aktiv­na” (Watson, 2021a: 2). Ipak, za razliku od radi-

Mirović

Herzegovina, whose origins are tied to the arrival of the Ottomans (Hajdarpašić et al., 2021), as well as other public institutions of a cultural, scientific and educational nature, in these areas were estab- lished not only to fulfill the educational, econom- ic, and charitable goals of their founders but also to disseminate their religious and cultural values. It is precisely when librarians, especially catalogers, become aware of this ongoing tension between the dual role of libraries - the emancipatory and the in- doctrinatory - i.e. when they become conscious of their mission to either emancipate or indoctrinate, to act “as both facilitators of access to information but also as gatekeepers” (Lawson, 2018: 3) who control that access, to organize and arrange the bibliograph- ic universe and name phenomena, that numerous opportunities arise for confronting ethical questions within their profession, at that point, they become critical of themselves, of the standards and rules of their profession, and of their parent institutions.

Cataloging: Neutral or Critical?

As noted by K. Snow and A. Dunbar, “a movement in the library cataloging community called ‘critical cataloging’ has in recent years continued the work of those who have challenged the cataloging status quo” (Snow and Dunbar, 2022: 7). They view criti- cal cataloging as an extension of radical cataloging, a movement that began in 2002, led by K. R. Rob- erto, who initiated the RADCAT mailing list¹ after a debate on whether political topics were appropri- ate on the AUTOCAT mailing list² (Roberto, 2008). According to H. Lember et al., the radical cata- loging movement did not intend to be subversive per se, but aimed to resolve fundamental issues that hinder access to information (Lember et al., 2013), particularly for marginalized groups. B. M. Watson points out that these movements are intertwined and coexist, and their periodization should not be taken strictly since “there are still a number of catalogers that consider themselves radical catalogers and the RADCAT listserv is still active” (Watson, 2021a: 2). However, unlike radical cataloging, critical cat- aloging has a more theoretical orientation (Snow & Dunbar, 2022), offering a scholarly approach to the

¹RADCAT stands for Radical Cataloging, a mailing list dedicated to critical cataloging and discussions on ethical issues in library practi- ce, particularly in the context of cataloging. This mailing list brings together professionals, librarians, and researchers interested in issues of social justice, inclusivity, equality, and diversity in cataloging. You can subscribe to it via this link:https://listserv.uga.edu/scripts/ wa-UGA.exe?SUBED1=RADCAT&A=1.

²AUTOCAT is an international mailing list dedicated to topics related to cataloging and sclassification. You can subscribe to it by following this link:https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A0=AUTOCAT.

95

BOSNIACA 2024; 29: 91-108

kalnog katalogiziranja, kritičko ima više teorijsku orijentaciju (Snow i Dunbar, 2022) i daje moguć­nost znanstvenog pristupa problematici. Još jedna razlika leži u tome da kritičko katalogiziranje svoj filozofski okvir preuzima od kritičkog bibliotekar­stva (Watson, 2020), a ono svoj od kritičke teorije, čije su prakse, prema D. H. Ketchum, postale dije­lom brojnih profesija i djelatnosti, pa tako ono da­nas uključuje i kritičku pedagogiju, a dodirne tačke svih pokreta unutar ove teorije jesu želja za pro­pitivanjem vrijednosti i praksi unutar pedagogije, menadžmenta, bibliotekarstva i slično te mijenjanje svega onoga što doprinosi bilo kojoj vrsti nepravde (Schmehl Hines i Ketchum, 2020). Filozofski okvir unutar kojeg je određeni pokret smješten izuzetno je važan jer, kako to navodi J. M. Martin, autorica koja vrijednost služenja korisniku/ci prepoznaje kao jednu od najosnovnijih u katalogiziranju, vrijedno­sti profesije same po sebi nisu dovoljne za etički kodeks, potreban je i etički okvir unutar kojeg će one biti smještene (Martin, 2021), a koji bi trebao proizilaziti iz onog filozofskog. Ona navodi da su neki od najčešće teoretiziranih etičkih okvira, “kako uopšte, tako i u bibliotekarstvu, bili utilitarizam, kantovska deontologija, egoizam, prirodni zakon, etika pravednosti, feministička etika brige i pragma­tična etika” (Martin, 2021: 5). Iako su se dosadašnje rasprave o etici unutar oblasti organizacije znanja uglavnom oslanjale “na pretpostavljenu ‘etičnost’ koja se ne pridržava određenog filozofskog okvira, već [se oslanja na] osjećaj za ispravno i pogrešno koji nije rigorozno definisan” (Fox i Reece, 2012: 378), međunarodna je zajednica katalogizatora/ica okupljenih oko Etičkog kodeksa katalogizatora/ica odabrala da pristup njihovom radu bude kritičko ka- talogiziranje (CESC, 2021), te se može smatrati da je etički okvir ovog Kodeksa upravo kritička teori­ja, u čijoj je srži socijalna pravda. Posmatranje druš­tva kroz prizmu socijalne pravde, uz revizionistički etos i prihvatanje da nijedan sistem nije nepristrasan (Watson, 2020), zajednički je sadržilac radikalnih i kritičkih katalogizatora/ica.

Pored termina radikalno i kritičko, u literaturi se mogu susresti i termini inkluzivno i jednakoprav­no katalogiziranje koji se, kako navodi T. Perera, koriste naizmjenično u kontekstu uzimanja u obzir diverziteta, jednakosti i inkluzivnosti pri katalogi- ziranju i u radu na metapodacima (Perera, 2022). U principu, iako bi znak jednakosti mogao biti stav­ljen između svih ovih pojmova jer se oni preklapa­ju u mnogim stvarima, a razlikuju u detaljima, ne radi se o direktnim sinonimima. Također, sintagma kritičko katalogiziranje (CritCat) relativno je nova,

issue. Another distinction is that critical cataloging derives its philosophical framework from critical li- brarianship (Watson, 2020), which, in turn, draws from critical theory. According to D. H. Ketchum, critical theory practices have become part of nu- merous professions and fields, including critical pedagogy, and all movements within this theory share a common goal of questioning values and practices in fields such as pedagogy, management, and librarianship, aiming to change anything that contributes to any form of injustice (Schmehl Hines & Ketchum, 2020).

The philosophical framework within which a move- ment is situated is crucial because, as J. M. Mar- tin notes, the values of the profession alone are not enough for an ethical code; a corresponding ethical framework is needed (Martin, 2021), and it should stem from the philosophical one. She points out that some of the most theorized ethical frame- works, “both in general and in library science, are utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, egoism, natural law, justice ethics, the feminist ethic of care, and pragmatic ethics” (Martin, 2021: 5). While previous discussions of ethics in knowledge organization pri- marily relied on a presumed ‘ethicality’ not bound to a particular philosophical framework, but rather on a sense of right and wrong that was not rigorous- ly defined (Fox and Reece, 2012: 378), the interna- tional community of catalogers, gathered around the Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee, has chosen to take a critical cataloging approach (CESC, 2021). It can be considered that the ethical framework of this Code is indeed critical theory, with social jus- tice at its core. Viewing society through the lens of social justice, with a revisionist ethos and the ac- ceptance that no system is impartial (Watson, 2020), is a common denominator for both radical and crit- ical catalogers.

In addition to the terms radical and critical, the literature also mentions the terms inclusive and eq- uitable cataloging, which, as noted by T. Perera, are used interchangeably in the context of consid- ering diversity, equity, and inclusion in cataloging and metadata work (Perera, 2022). Although these terms overlap in many areas and differ in details, they are not direct synonyms. Furthermore, the phrase critical cataloging (CritCat) is relatively new, although it refers to practices deeply root- ed in the history of formal material processing in GLAM institutions, whether called alternative, rad- ical, reformative, or critical (Watson, 2023). Still, B. M. Watson rejects “tradition descended from Ancient Greek Aristotelian ‘virtue’ ethics” (Wat-

96

iako se odnosi na prakse koje su duboko ukorije­njene u historiju formalne obrade građe u GLAM institucijama, bilo da se one nazivaju alternativnim, radikalnim, reformativnim ili kritičkim (Watson, 2023). Pa ipak, B. M Watson odbacuje “filozofsku tradiciju koja potiče iz drevne grčke aristotelijan- ske etike ‘vrline’” (Watson, 2021a: 7) kao metodu na kojoj se trebaju graditi sistemi za organizaciju znanja u 21. stoljeću, te predlaže da se pojam etič­no zamijeni pojmom jednakopravno. Time bi se etičnost u katalogiziranju svela jedino na njen od­nos spram marginalizovanih grupa, no jasno je da ovaj pojam mora ostati širi i inkluzivniji, naprosto zbog činjenice da pri obradi građe dolazi do etičkih dvojbi i u drugim prilikama - vrijednosti katalogi- zatora/ica mogu biti stavljene na test, između osta­log, i u kontekstu pitanja bržeg obrađivanja građe u odnosu na detaljno (gdje etička napetost postoji već dosta dugo), zatim pitanja cijena softvera i alata za katalogiziranje, radnih uslova katalogizatora/ica i toga ko se može smatrati stručnjakom ili stručnja­kinjom u ovoj oblasti (Martin, 2021), zatim pitanja preopširnog opisivanja i navođenja nepotrebnih informacija, pristupačnosti građe, koherentnosti i kontinuiteta, korisnosti, održivosti i saradnje, kon- tekstualizovanja i historijskog sagledavanja, inte- roperabilnosti i standardizacije, hipertekstualnosti, kognitivne štednje korisnika/ca, te slobode (Ridi, 2013), pravljenja grešaka jer samo jedan pogrešan broj ili slovo mogu smanjiti korisnikov/korisnicin pristup informaciji, pisanje latinicom imena autora/ ica kojima to nije izvorno pismo (Bair, 2005), efika­snosti u odnosu na potpunost, kvalitete u odnosu na kvantitet, odlučnosti u donošenju odluka u odnosu na opsežno istraživanje teme, toga da li će se kata­logizirati prema standardima ili prilagoditi lokalnoj zajednici korisnika/ca (Caddy, 2018), ali i pitanja privatnosti i slično.

Iako se etično katalogiziranje ne svodi samo na problem predstavljanja marginalizovanih grupa u predmetnim odrednicama i klasifikacijskim siste­mima, ipak je najveći akcenat autora i autorica koji su objavljivali u ovoj oblasti bio upravo na tome, a naročito su se propitivale predmetne odrednice Kongresne biblioteke (Yon i Willey, 2022), koje su zajednici katalogizatora/ica zadavale i najviše etičkih briga jer su, kako to navodi E. Shoemaker, “alat čuven po svojim manjkavostima” (Shoemaker, 2015: 354). To da je teorija etičnog katalogiziranja primarno fokusirana na predmetne odrednice pri­mjećuju i K. Snow i A. Dunbar, pa navode da, “iako kritičko katalogiziranje može poslužiti (a i jeste) za ispitivanje kataloškog ekosistema uopšte, posljed-

Mirović

son, 2021a: 7) as insufficient method upon which knowledge organization systems should be built in this century and proposes replacing the term ethical with the term equitable. This would limit ethical- ity in cataloging solely to its relation to marginal- ized groups, but it is clear that this concept must remain broader and more inclusive. This is simply because, in metadata work, ethical dilemmas arise in other contexts as well. Catalogers’ values can be tested in contexts such as the balance between faster processing of materials versus detailed work (where ethical tension has existed for a long time), software costs, cataloging tool prices, catalogers’ working conditions, and determining who can be considered an expert in the field (Martin, 2021). Other issues include over-description and unneces- sary information, material accessibility, coherence and continuity, usefulness, sustainability, collabora- tion, contextualization and historical perspectives, interoperability and standardization, hypertextu- ality, cognitive load reduction for users, freedom (Ridi, 2013), making mistakes (since a single wrong number or letter can reduce user access to informa- tion), writing authors’ names in non-native scripts (Bair, 2005), efficiency versus completeness, quali- ty versus quantity, decisiveness in decision-making versus extensive research, cataloging according to standards or adapting to the local user community (Caddy, 2018), as well as privacy issues, and more. Although ethical cataloging does not boil down solely to the representation of marginalized groups in subject headings and classification systems, most authors who have published in this field have fo- cused on that very issue, particularly questioning the Library of Congress Subject Headings, LCSHs (Yon & Willey, 2022), which have posed the most ethical concerns for the cataloging community. As E. Shoemaker notes, these headings are “a known flawed tool” (Shoemaker, 2015: 354). The fact that ethical cataloging theory has primarily focused on subject headings is also noted by K. Snow and A. Dunbar, who state that “though critical cataloging certainly can be (and has been) used to examine the cataloging ecosystem generally, in recent years the focus of critical catalogers has been on identifying and (ideally) altering cataloging standards that cod- ify oppressive practices and offensive terminology and hierarchies, particularly within subject stand- ards such as LCSH, Library of Congress Classifi- cation (LCC), and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)” (Snow & Dunbar, 2022: 7). Moreover, the first published works that addressed ethics in cata- loging dealt precisely with the LCSHs.

97

BOSNIACA 2024; 29: 91-108

njih je godina fokus kritičkih katalogizatora/ica bio na identifikovanju i (idealno) mijenjanju kataloških standarda koji doprinose izrabljivačkim praksama, uvredljivoj terminologiji i hijerarhijskim odnosima, posebno unutar predmetnih standarda kao što su LCSH, Klasifikacija Kongresne biblioteke (KKB) i Deweyeva decimalna klasifikacija (DDK)” (Snow i Dunbar, 2022: 7). Štaviše, prvi objavljeni radovi koji su tematizirali etiku pri katalogiziranju ticali su se upravo predmetnih odrednica Kongresne biblioteke. Uzimajući u obzir navedeno, može se reći da je obećanje neutralnosti u kontekstu biblioteka, bibli- otekara/ki, pa tako i kataloga, bilo lažno; “u okviru ovih radikalnih promišljanja, ni biblioteke, kao ni katalozi se više ne mogu smatrati neutralnim ala­tima koji osnažuju one koji ih koriste” (Cridford, 2019: 68). Sličnog je stava i E. Drabinski koja navo­di da “kao alati kojim se uređuju stvari, naši su kata­lozi i klasifikacijski sistemi sušte tehnologije moći, olakšavaju neke načine spoznaje, nauštrb drugih i, što je najvažnije, predočavaju određene ideološke poglede na svijet, nauštrb drugih” (Drabinski, 2019: 50). Također, J. M. Martin navodi da je “neutralnost kao vrijednost veoma kritikovana jer ne vodi nepri- strasnom predstavljanju, već umjesto toga repro­ducira norme i štetne učinke dominantne kulture” (Martin, 2021: 4). Osim što se kritikuje, neutralnost praktično nije ni moguća jer, kako to tvrdi J. M. “svaka odluka ima etički učinak, a ti su učinci važni jer je katalogiziranje moćno” (Martin, 2021: 2), što je prepoznao i CESC odbacujući u Etičkom kodeksu katalogizator/ica neutralnost, stoga što “dodjelji­vanje klasifikacijskih oznaka i autorskih odrednica ima etičke posljedice i zahtijeva kritičko bibliote­karstvo” (CESC, 2019a: 17).

Historijat etičnog katalogiziranja

Iako je masovnije objavljivanje radova o potrebi za etičkim katalogiziranjem započelo s novim mi­lenijem, zajednica katalogizatora/ica se već skoro čitavo stoljeće bavi raspravama o etičkom predmet­nom označavanju upravo marginalizovanih grupa u sistemima organizacije znanja (Watson, 2021a). Historijat etičkog katalogiziranja započinje s već spomenutim pionirskim radovima D. B. Porter i F. L. Yocom koji su problematizirali predmetne odrednice o crnačkoj zajednici u SAD-u još 1940- ih godina, te knjigom Prejudice and Antipathies S. Bermana iz 1971. godine, jednom od najznačajni­jih knjiga u kojoj se kritikuju predmetne odrednice Kongresne biblioteke. Ova je knjiga snažno uticala na nadležne u Kongresnoj biblioteci te doprinijela brojnim pozitivnim promjenama - u toj mjeri da je

Considering the above, it can be said that the prom- ise of neutrality in the context of libraries, librari- ans, and catalogs has been a false one; “within these radical readings, library catalogues can no longer be viewed as neutral tools empowering their users” (Cridford, 2019: 68). E. Drabinski shares a similar view, stating that “as the tools that order things, our catalogs and classification structures are themselves technologies of power, facilitating some ways of knowing and not others, representing certain ide- ological ways of seeing the world, and, crucially, not others” (Drabinski, 2019: 50). Similarly, J. M. Martin notes that “neutrality as a value has also been heavily criticized for not leading to unbiased representation but instead reproducing the norms and harms of the dominant culture” (Martin, 2021: 4). Not only has neutrality been criticized, but it is practically impossible, as J. M. claims, “every deci- sion has an ethical impact, and those impacts matter because cataloging carries power” (Martin, 2021: 2), a fact recognized by the CESC, which rejects neutrality in the Cataloging Code of Ethics because “the assignment of classification and authorship has ethical ramifications and requires critical librarian- ship” (CESC, 2019a: 17).

History of Ethical Cataloging

Although the mass publication of works addressing the need for ethical cataloging began with the new millennium, the cataloging community has been en- gaging in discussions on ethical subject classifica- tion of marginalized groups in knowledge organiza- tion systems for nearly a century (Watson, 2021a). The history of ethical cataloging begins with the pioneering works of D. B. Porter and F. L. Yocom, who addressed the subject headings concerning the Black community in the U. S. in the 1940s, and with Sanford Berman’s 1971 book Prejudice and Antip- athies, one of the most significant works critiquing LCSHs. This book had a profound impact on those responsible at the Library of Congress, contribut- ing to numerous positive changes - so much that by 2022, S. Berman had documented over one hundred accepted revisions or proposals for revising subject headings (Berman, 2022). In article “Advancing Equitable Cataloging” (Watson, 2021a), B. M. Wat- son refers to these two periods - when the works of D. B. Porter and F. L. Yocom were published, along with S. Berman’s book - as the first and second waves of literature calling for better and more eth- ical cataloging. The third and fourth waves encom- pass the formation of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (within the Library of Congress) and

98

do 2022. godine S. Berman dokumentovao preko stotinu prihvaćenih revizija ili prijedloga za revi­ziju predmetnih odrednica (Berman, 2022). B. M. Watson u svom članku “Advancing Equitable Cata- loging” (Watson, 2021a) ova dva perioda - period kada su objavljeni radovi D. B. Porter i F. L. Yocom, te knjiga S. Bermana - smatra prvim i drugim tala- sima literature koja je pozivala na bolje i etičnije katalogiziranje. Treći i četvrti talas predstavljaju formiranje Programa za kooperativnu katalogizaci- ju (pri Kongresnoj biblioteci) i debakl iz 2016. go­dine u vezi s ilegalnim strancima (Watson, 2023), kada je Kongresna biblioteka pokušala da izmijeni predmetnu odrednicu ilegalni stranci (illegal ali- ens) u ne-građani ili imigracija bez dozvole, čemu su se usprotivili određeni predstavnici/e Kongresa (CESC, 2019f).

Pored ponuđene periodizacije literature o etičnom katalogiziranju, B. M. Watson održava i sveobu­hvatnu bazu podatka - CritCat.org (Watson, 2021b) s radovima iz oblasti etičnog, odnosno jednakoprav­nog katalogiziranja, koja je dostupna i u Zoterovoj bazi podataka (Watson, 2021c). Ova baza, s preko 600 unesenih radova, zajedno s bibliografijom rado­va iz oblasti etičkog katalogiziranja koju su koristile radne grupe pri izradi Etičkog kodeksa katalogiza- tora (CESC, [s.a.]b), predstavlja dobru istraživačku bazu iz oblasti etičnog / kritičkog / radikalnog / jed­nakopravnog katalogiziranja.

Snažan uticaj na pitanja o etičnom katalogizira- nju imao je i zbornik radova Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front urednika K. R. Robertoa, objav­ljen 2008. godine, u kojem su o historiji katalogi- zacije, egzistencijalnoj krizi u kojoj su se katalogi- zatori/ce našli jer su korisnici/e sve manje koristili katalog kao način dolaženja do informacija, a sve više internetske platforme, o predmetnim odredni­cama za queer zajednicu, katalogiziranju građe o američkim domorocima i domorotkinjama i sličnim temama pisali autori i autorice poput S. Bermana, E. Drabinski, T. Mann, D. CannCasciato i drugih. Pored ovog zbornika, između ostalih, važan temelj za etičan pristup katalogiziranju, pa posljedično i za razvoj Etičkog kodeksa katalogizatora/ica, pred­stavljaju knjiga H. A. Olson The power to name: Representation in library catalogs objavljena 2001. godine te članci C. Beghtol “Ethical decision-ma- king for knowledge representation and organizati- on systems for global use” objavljen 2005. i A. M. Ferris “The Ethics and Integrity of Cataloging” iz 2008. godine. U članku S. Bair “Toward a Code of Ethics for Cataloging” iz 2005. godine po prvi put je hrabro ponuđen jedan etički kodeks katalogizatora/

Mirović

the 2016 debacle concerning the term illegal aliens (Watson, 2023), when the Library of Congress at- tempted to change the subject heading illegal aliens to non-citizens or undocumented immigration, a proposal that certain members of Congress opposed (CESC, 2019f).

In addition to offering this periodization of literature on ethical cataloging, B. M. Watson also maintains a comprehensive database - CritCat.org (Watson, 2021b) - containing works on ethical and equita- ble cataloging, which is also available in the Zotero database (Watson, 2021c). This database, with over 600 entries, along with the bibliography of works on ethical cataloging used by working groups dur- ing the creation of the Cataloging Code of Ethics (CESC, [n.d.]b), provides an excellent research foundation in the fields of ethical, critical, radical, and equitable cataloging.

The 2008 anthology Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front, edited by K. R. Roberto, also had a sig- nificant influence on ethical cataloging discussions. In it, authors such as S. Berman, E. Drabinski, T. Mann, D. CannCasciato, and others, wrote about the history of cataloging, the existential crisis cata- logers faced as users increasingly turned to internet platforms rather than catalogs to find information, subject headings for the queer community, cata- loging materials on Native Americans, and simi- lar topics. In addition to this anthology, other key works that have shaped ethical cataloging and con- tributed to the development of the Cataloging Code of Ethics include H. A. Olson’s 2001 book The Pow- er to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs, C. Beghtol’s 2005 article “Ethical Decision-Making for Knowledge Representation and Organization Systems for Global Use”, and A. M. Ferris’s 2008 article “The Ethics and Integrity of Cataloging”. In S. Bair’s 2005 article “Toward a Code of Ethics for Cataloging”, she boldly proposed a first cataloging code of ethics, listing specific principles.

According to S. Bair, catalogers have the power to do much good or much harm globally by either greatly facilitating or hindering access; yet, she ar- gues, little has been written on the ethics of cata- loging. She examines the descriptive and normative aspects of ethically questionable cataloging issues through the lens of J. Moor’s justice-consequential- ist theory and J. J. Britz’s ideas on ethical issues re- lated to intellectual freedom (Bair, 2005). Based on this, S. Bair proposed her code “as a beginning step towards a code of ethics for cataloging” (Bair, 2005: 15), anticipating a future, more comprehensive, and

99

BOSNIACA 2024; 29: 91-108

ica, s taksativno navedenim načelima.

Prema S. Bair, katalogizatori/ce imaju mogućnost da učine mnogo dobra ili mnogo zla, to jeste da na globalnom nivou mnogo olakšaju ili mnogo našte- te, a ipak, kako ona tvrdi, malo je toga napisano o etici pri katalogiziranju; stoga ona kroz prizmu pravedno-konsekvencijalističke teorije J. Moor J. i ideja J. J. Britz o etičkim pitanjima vezanim za intelektualnu slobodu sagledava deskriptivni i normativni aspekt etički dvojbenih pitanja pri ka- talogiziranju (Bair, 2005). Na osnovu navedenog, autorica je u članku ponudila svoj kodeks kao “po­četni korak ka etičkom kodeksu katalogizatora/ ica” (Bair, 2005: 15) anticipirajući neki budući, sveobuhvatniji i možda kolaborativniji kodeks. I pored određenih kritika zajednice katalogizatora/ ica na račun ovog kodeksa, a zbog pretjerane spe­cifičnosti navedenih načela i beskompromisnosti, ovaj će članak biti jedan od najreferentnijih u ovoj oblasti i onaj s kojim će kasniji članci i kodeksi biti komparirani.

No, jedna od najvećih kritika na račun ovog kodek­sa bila je ta da je autorica zajednici katalogizatora/ ica praktičara/ki ponudila kodeks ne konsultujući se s njima. E. Shoemaker tvrdi da je saradnja srž bibliotekarstva, pa i katalogizacije (Shoemaker, 2015), te bi posljedično etički kodeks morao biti rezultat saradnje zajednice. Članak ove autorice z 2015. godine “No One Can Whistle a Symphony: Seeking a Catalogers’ Code of Ethics” pokrenuo je novu eru pisanja o etičnom katalogiziranju i već u svom naslovu podvlači potrebu međusobne sarad- nje zajednice. Objavljen je na kraju trećeg talasa radova iz oblasti etičnog katalogiziranja, prema klasifikaciji B. M. Watson, odnosno na pomolu če­tvrtog talasa, i predstavlja istinski kamen temeljac aktuelnog Etičkog kodeksa katalogizatora/ica. I u njemu je naglašena diskrepancija između velike odgovornosti onih koji stručno obrađuju građu i nedovoljnog usmjerenja kako da etično obavljaju svoj posao. Ono po čemu se ovaj članak izdvaja jeste to što je u njemu autorica direktno pozvala CaMMS (Cataloging and Metadata Management Section), ogranak ALCTS-a (Association for Li- brary Collections & Technical Service) pri ALA-i, da oformi radnu grupu koja će se pozabaviti izra­dom Etičkog kodeksa katalogizatora/ica, a koji će uzeti u obzir njihove konkretne poslovne dužnosti jer “moć kodiranja, opisivanja i klasificiranja in­formacijskih izvora nosi veliku odgovornost. A ta moć i naizgled tajnovita priroda našeg posla na­lažu eksplicitan etički kodeks” (Shoemaker, 2015: 355).

possibly more collaborative code. Despite some criticism from the cataloging community regarding this code, due to its overly specific principles and uncompromising nature, this article has become one of the most frequently referenced works in the field, and future articles and codes were compared to it.

One of the biggest criticisms of this code, howev- er, was that the author offered it to the cataloging community without consulting them. E. Shoemaker argues that collaboration is at the heart of librarian- ship, including cataloging (Shoemaker, 2015), and consequently, the ethical code must result from com- munity collaboration. Her 2015 article “No One Can Whistle a Symphony: Seeking a Catalogers’ Code of Ethics” initiated a new era of writing on ethical cat- aloging and, even in its title, highlights the need for community collaboration. Published at the end of the third wave of ethical cataloging literature, according to B. M. Watson’s classification, and at the dawn of the fourth wave, it is a true cornerstone of the current Cataloging Code of Ethics. The article emphasizes the discrepancy between the great responsibility of catalogers and indexers and the insufficient guidance on how to do their job ethically. What sets this article apart is that the author directly called on CaMMS (Cataloging and Metadata Management Section), a branch of ALCTS (Association for Library Collec- tions & Technical Service) within the ALA, to form a working group to develop a Cataloging Code of Ethics that takes into account specific professional duties of catalogers, as “the power to code, describe, and classify information resources is a tremendous responsibility. This power, and the seemingly clan- destine nature of our work justifies an explicit code of ethics” (Shoemaker, 2015: 355).

CESC’s Cataloging Code of Ethics from 2021

E. Shoemaker’s efforts to achieve this goal were truly successful. After her article, she, along with H. A. Olson, participated in the CaMMS forum or- ganized by the ALA in 2017: Power That Is Mor­al: Cataloging and Ethics. This forum sparked a discussion with catalogers about the community’s need for a document that would facilitate ethical de- cision-making. The following year, at the CaMMS forum titled Cooperatively Conscientious Cata- loging, the need for a code of ethics was discussed again (Chan et al., 2022), and the Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee (CESC) was formed. Its mem- bers represented three associations: ALA (USA), CILIP (UK), and CFLA-FCAB (Canada), which, since early 2019, began meeting and taking con-

100

CESC-ov Etički kodeks katalogizatora/ica iz 2021. godine

Napori E. Shoemaker na realizaciji ovog cilja zaista su bili uspješni. Nakon spomenutog članka, 2017. godine zajedno je s H. A. Olson učestvovala na fo­rumu CaMMS-a u organizaciji ALA-e: Power That Is Moral: Cataloging and Ethics. Na tom je forumu pokrenuta diskusija s katalogizatorima i katalogiza- toricama o potrebi zajednice za dokumentom koji će im olakšati donošenje etičkih odluka. Naredne godine, na CaMMS-ovom forumu pod nazivom Cooperatively Conscientious Cataloging ponovo se govorilo o potrebi za etičkim kodeksom (Chan et al., 2022) te je oformljen CESC-a (Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee), u čijem je sastavu šest članica, predstavnica tri udruženja ALA-e (SAD), CILIP-a (UK) i CFLA-FCAB-a (Kanada), koje su od početka 2019. godine počele sa sastancima i konkretnim koracima na izradi Kodeksa. Pregled njegovog nastanka i razvoja dale su same članice CESC-a u članku “The Development and Future of the Cataloguing Code of Ethics”, a važan mo- menat u historiji Kodeksa bio je poziv dobrovolj­cima i dobrovoljkama iz zajednice katalogizatora/ ica (koji je uslijedio odmah nakon osnivanja CESC- a) da se uključe u rad radnih grupa: Access Scope and Infrastructure Working Group, Authority Work Working Group, Classification Working Group, Re- source Discovery and Accessibility Working Group, Staffing/Work Conditions Working Group, Subject Headings/Controlled Vocabularies Working Group. Svaka radna grupa je istražila oblast za koju je bila zadužena i dostavila je izvještaj CESC-u sa svojim nalazima i preporukama, dostupnim na njihovoj zvaničnoj web-stranci, pa je tako Access Scope and Infrastructure Working Group (Grupa za djelokrug pristupa i infrastrukturu) trebala definisati načela koja omogućavaju pristup katalogiziranju, odno­sno opisivanju izvora, uzimajući u obzir raznovrsne društvene, kulturne i druge prepreke koje utiču na njega, kako bi se mogla mijenjati kataloška infra­struktura (CESC, 2019a). Authority Work Working Group (Grupa za rad na normativima) fokusirala se na “četiri konceptualne leće kroz koje bi se etička pitanja u katalogizaciji mogla sagledati: ulogu nor­mativnih podataka; identitet / autonomiju / vlasniš­tvo; privatnost i pristrasnost” (CESC, 2019b: 2). U izvještaju ove grupe naveden je primjer biblioteke koja se obratila izdavaču s molbom da im objasni šta znači prvi inicijal imena autorice, a izdavač im je uz njenu dozvolu pružio tu informaciju i upravo je jed­na od preporuka ove grupe bila da se živi autori/ca

Mirović

crete steps toward drafting the Code. A review of its development and progress was provided by CESC members in the article “The Development and Fu­ture of the Cataloguing Code of Ethics”. An impor- tant moment in the Code’s history was the call for volunteers from the cataloging community (which followed immediately after the establishment of the CESC) to join working groups: Access Scope and Infrastructure Working Group, Authority Work Working Group, Classification Working Group, Re- source Discovery and Accessibility Working Group, Staffing/Work Conditions Working Group, Subject Headings/Controlled Vocabularies Working Group.

Each working group researched the area for which it was responsible and submitted a report to the CESC with their findings and recommendations, availa- ble on their official website. For instance, the Ac- cess Scope and Infrastructure Working Group was tasked with defining principles that would allow ac- cess to cataloging and resource description, consid- ering various social, cultural, and other barriers that affect it, so that the cataloging infrastructure could be changed (CESC, 2019a). The Authority Work Working Group focused “four ‘conceptual lenses’ through which ethical issues in cataloging could be viewed: the role of authority data; identity / autono- my / ownership; privacy; and bias” (CESC, 2019b: 2). Their report includes an example of a library that contacted a publisher asking for clarification on the first initial of an author’s name. With the author’s permission, the publisher provided the informa- tion. One of the group’s recommendations was to contact living authors to determine to what extent they want information about themselves included in bibliographic records (e.g., whether to include their gender or date of birth) or allow them to request changes to their authority records (CESC, 2019b). The Classification Working Group dealt with bias in the Library of Congress Classification and the Dew- ey Decimal Classification, particularly in literature, history, and religion (CESC, 2019c). The Resource Discovery and Accessibility Working Group focused on ethical issues related to resource discovery ac- cessibility in descriptive cataloging (CESC, 2019d). Some key issues this group encountered concerned the Romanization of authority data and how it af- fects the discovery of non-Roman script resources, as well as issues related to classifying and assigning subject headings to phenomena concerning margin- alized communities, with a particular focus on LG- BTQI+ individuals (CESC, 2019d).

The Staffing/Work Conditions Working Group fo- cused on ethically questionable situations that may

101

BOSNIACA 2024; 29: 91-108

kontaktiraju kako bi se saznalo u kojem obimu žele da informacije o njima budu unesene u bibliograf­ske zapise (npr. da li uključiti njihov spol ili datum rođenja), odnosno da se ostavi mogućnost da zatra­že izmjene u svojim normativnim zapisima (CESC, 2019b). Classification Working Group (Grupa za klasifikaciju) bavila se pristrasnošću u klasifikaciji Kongresne biblioteke i u DDK-u, pogotovo u knji­ževnosti, historiji i religiji (CESC, 2019c), dok se Resource Discovery and Accessibility Working Gro- up (Grupa za pronalaženje izvora i dostupnost) ba­vila etičkim pitanjima u oblasti pristupačnosti otkri­vanja izvora u deskriptivnoj katalogizaciji (CESC, 2019d). Neki od ključnih problema na koje je ova grupa naišla ticali su se latiniziranja normativa te kako to može uticati na pronalaženje izvora koji nisu pisani latinicom, zatim pitanja klasificiranja i davanja predmetnih odrednica fenomenima koji se tiču marginalizovanih zajednica, s posebnim akcen­tom na LGBTQI+ osobe (CESC, 2019d).

Staffing/Work Conditions Working Group (Gru­pa za osoblje / uslove rada) fokusirala se na etič­ki upitne situacije do kojih može doći u kontekstu osoblja koje katalogizira ili uslova u kojima rade. Neki od navedenih problema, kada se radi o oso­blju, jesu očekivanja poslodavaca i poslodavateljki da stručnjaci/stručnjakinje i paraprofesionalci/para- profesionalke obavljaju posao na istom nivou, ali i važnost rukovanja materijalima koji su osjetljivi ili uvredljivi (CESC, 2019e). S druge strane, kada se radi o uslovima rada, u izvještaju se navodi da buka i nedostatak privatnosti mogu predstavljati kon­kretne probleme u radu katalogizatora/ica, za čije obavljanje je ključna koncentracija (CESC, 2019e). Zadatak Subject Headings/Controlled Vocabulari- es Working Group (Grupe za predmetne odredni­ce / kontrolirane rječnike) bio je prepoznati etič­ke probleme s kojima se susreću katalogizatori/ce kada klasificiranju građu i dodjeljuju joj predmetne odrednice. Na osnovu identifikovanih problema te preporuka za njihovo rješavanje koje su dale radne grupe, CESC je, nakon dva nacrta izvještaja koji su bili otvoreni za komentare i raspravu, 2021. godine objavio i finalnu verziju Kodeksa, bez trećeg dijela u kojem će biti navedene studije slučaja. Zajednica katalogizatora/ica konačno ispred sebe ima dugoo- čekivani dokument koji će joj pružiti smjernice u nošenju s etički upitnim situacijama.

Ipak, važnost postojanja jednog ovakvog dokumen­ta ne leži samo u pružanju smjernica, koje su u Ko­deksu ionako postavljene uopšteno. Shoemaker E. navodi da smisao etičkog kodeksa koji nalažu etički složena priroda katalogizacije i mistifikacija rada

arise regarding cataloging staff or the conditions in which they work. Some of the issues mentioned in- clude employer expectations for professionals and paraprofessionals to perform work at the same lev- el, as well as the importance of handling sensitive or offensive materials (CESC, 2019e). On the oth- er hand, regarding working conditions, the report mentions that noise and lack of privacy can pose concrete problems for catalogers, whose work re- quires concentration (CESC, 2019e). The task of the Subject Headings/Controlled Vocabularies Working Group was to identify ethical issues that catalogers encounter while indexing. Based on the identified problems and the recommendations for resolving them provided by the working groups, the CESC, after two drafts open for comments and discussion, published the final version of the Code in 2021, without the third part, which would include case studies. The cataloging community finally has a long-awaited document that will provide guidance for navigating ethically questionable situations.

However, the significance of such a document does not only lie in providing guidelines, which are, in any case, generally outlined in the Code. E. Shoemaker states that the purpose of a code of ethics, dictated by the ethically complex nature of cataloging and the mystification of the cataloger’s work, is not to prescribe solutions for every specific ethical prob­lem (Shoemaker, 2015) but to serve as a tool for cat- alogers to use in their own judgment to best respond to any arising situation. Therefore, the Code must serve three functions: 1) provide guidelines for eth- ical behavior, 2) the Code, in the form of a concrete document, would have greater legitimacy if backed by a professional organization or association, and 3) justify decisions to superiors and administration within their home institutions (Shoemaker, 2015). Similarly, if the process of bringing order to chaos, achieved through bibliographic control is regulated and governed by standards and rules, then the space in cataloging where ethics is applied through cata- logers’ own judgment (Fox & Reece, 2012) should also be regulated by a specific document. This doc- ument should also be supported by a professional organization, so that catalogers can consequently justify their decisions in cataloging. The process of bringing order to chaos through bibliographic con- trol and catalogers’ judgment, as described by A. M. Ferris, could thus be extended and represented through documents that regulate this area, as shown in the following diagram:

102

Mirović

katalogizatora/ica nije da diktira rješenja za svaki specifičan etički problem (Shoemaker, 2015), već da katalogizatoru/ici pri njegovom/njenom slobodnom prosuđivanju posluži kao alat na osnovu kojeg će na najbolji način moći odgovoriti na svaku nastalu situaciju. Stoga i funkcija kodeksa mora biti trojaka: 1) davanje smjernica za etično djelovanje, zatim 2) kodeks u obliku konkretnog dokumenta imao bi veći legitimitet ako bi iza njega stajala stručna organiza­cija, odnosno udruženje, kao i radi 3) opravdavanja odluka pretpostavljenim i administraciji unutar ma­tičnih ustanova (Shoemaker, 2015). Isto tako, ako je proces dovođenja haosa u red, koji se postiže putem bibliografske kontrole, regulisan standardima i pra­vilima, onda i onaj do kojeg se dolazi slobodnim prosuđivanjem katalogizatora/ice, kao prostor u ka- talogiziranju gdje se etika primjenjuje (Fox i Reece, 2012), treba na neki način biti regulisan, odnosno oblikovan određenim dokumentom. Taj dokument također treba podržati stručna organizacija, kako bi njime, posljedično, katalogizatori/ce mogli oprav­davati svoje odluke pri katalogiziranju. Postupak dovođenja haosa u red kroz bibliografsku kontrolu i prosuđivanjem katalogizatora/ica koji je opisala A. M. Ferris tako bi mogao biti proširen i predstavljen kroz dokumente koji tu oblast reguliraju, kao u slje­dećem dijagramu:

Slika 1. Dijagram načina dovođenja haosa u red s dokumentima kojih ih reguliraju, odnosno trebaju regulirati

Također, još jedna važna uloga zvaničnog etičkog kodeksa, koji R. Ridi definiše kao formaliziran skup pravila na koja se određena profesija oslanja u identificiranju etičkih principa, a koji su u skladu s njenim administrativnim i pravnim propisima (Ridi, 2013), jeste upravo da dozvoli kršenje tih istih pro­pisa, odnosno da u domeni bibliografske kontrole omogući kritičku primjenu standarda i pravila jer, kako navodi A. M. Ferris, stručnjak/inja u katalogi- ziranju zna da slijepo slijeđenje pravila nije uvijek

Picture 1. Diagram of the process of bringing order to chaos, with the documents that regulate or should regulate it

Additionally, another important role of an official code of ethics, which R. Ridi defines as a formal- ized set of rules that a profession relies on to identi- fy ethical principles in accordance with its adminis- trative and legal regulations (Ridi, 2013), is to allow for the violation of those same regulations. In the realm of bibliographic control, it enables the critical application of standards and rules because, as A. M. Ferris notes, a cataloging expert knows that blindly following the rules is not always the best approach (Ferris, 2008). Indeed, Article 4 of the Code states: “all standards are biased; we will approach them critically and advocate to make cataloguing more inclusive” (CESC, 2021: 3).

As for the future of the Code, CESC members hope that it will be officially supported by Canada and that it will be presented to IFLA as a joint effort of three professional organizations from three different countries. They hope that IFLA will then take over the coordination of future revisions to the Code, given its broader reach and influence (Chan, 2022). How the cataloging community will use this invalu- able resource remains to be seen, as it is up to them to affirm their relevance in the era of artificial intel- ligence. Although a recent CILIP report, The Impact of AI, Machine Learning, Automation and Robotics on The Information Professions, notes that artificial intelligence has the potential (though not uncontest- ed) to take over descriptive metadata work (CILIP, 2021), the Access Scope and Infrastructure Work- ing Group believes that machines will never be able to perform this work (CESC, 2019a). Independent judgment and ethical behavior have the potential to be key assets for future catalogers. Ethics is be- coming a very important area in preserving catalog integrity in the era of digital transformation and

103

BOSNIACA 2024; 29: 91-108

najbolji pristup (Ferris, 2008). I zaista, u članu 4. Kodeksa je navedeno: “svi su standardi pristrasni; pristupit ćemo im kritički i zalagati se da katalogi- zacija bude što inkluzivnija” (CESC, 2021: 3).

Što se budućnosti Kodeksa tiče, članice CESC-a se nadaju da će ga zvanično podržati Kanada, da će ga predstaviti IFLA-i kao zajednički napor tri stručne organizacije iz tri različite zemlje te da će potom IFLA preuzeti koordinaciju nad budućim izmjena­ma Kodeksa, s obzirom na njen veći doseg i uticaj (Chan, 2022). No, kako će zajednica katalogizato- ra/ica iskoristiti ovaj neprocjenjivo vrijedan resurs, ostaje da se vidi; napokon, na njima je da, u osvit doba vještačke inteligencije, potvrde svoju relevan- tnost. Iako se u recentnom izvještaju CILIP-a The Impact of AI, Machine Learning, Automation and Robotics on The Information Professions navodi da vještačka inteligencija ima potencijal (iako ne neos­poran) da preuzme rad na deskriptivnim metapoda- cima (CILIP, 2021), Access Scope and Infrastructu- re Working Group smatra da mašine to nikada neće moći obavljati (CESC, 2019a). Slobodno prosuđi­vanje i etično djelovanje imaju potencijal da budu ključni kapital u budućnosti katalogizatora/ica. Eti­ka postaje veoma važno područje u kontekstu oču­vanja integriteta kataloga u doba digitalne transfor­macije i upotrebe vještačke inteligencije, a za etiku je potreban čovjek, stoga ova pitanja postaju sve važnijom sferom interesovanja katalogizatora/ica, kako u svakodnevnom radu, tako i unutar oblasti organizacije znanja (Lee, 2023). Etički kodeks kata- logizatora/ica, naročito ako IFLA preuzme njegovu daljnju koordinaciju, mogao bi postati veoma važan dokument.

Neka etička pitanja u kontekstu normativne kon­trole u Bosni i Hercegovini

Već čitavu deceniju svjedočimo da je sa seman­tičkim webom došlo do promjene paradigme u bibliotekarstvu, naročito u katalogu. Tehnološki napredak koji je još ranije doveo do nastanka elek­tronske građe, kao i različitih formata za pohranu informacija, primorao je katalogizatore/ice da pri­lagode svoje alate i standarde novom kataloškom poretku. Stara pravila, poput ISBD-ova i AACR2, osmišljena da budu štampana na kartonskim karti­cama i umetana u fizički katalog, više nisu mogla odgovoriti na zahtjeve koje je pred njih postavljalo elektronsko okruženje, niti na najbolji način koristi­ti krajnjim korisnicima i korisnicama, naviknutim na sve i odmah virtualnog doba. Kako je unapre­đenje i očuvanje integriteta kataloga osnovna zada-

the use of artificial intelligence, and ethics requires human involvement. Therefore, these issues are be- coming an increasingly important area of interest for catalogers, both in their daily work and within the field of knowledge organization (Lee, 2023). The catalogers’ code of ethics, especially if IFLA takes over its further coordination, could become a very important document.

Some Ethical Issues in the Context of Authority Control in Bosnia and Herzegovina

For over a decade, we’ve witnessed a paradigm shift in librarianship with the advent of the semantic web, particularly in cataloging. Technological advance- ments that led to the creation of electronic resources and various formats for storing information have compelled catalogers to adapt their tools and stand- ards to this new cataloging order. The old rules, such as ISBDs and AACR2, designed to be printed on cardboard cards and inserted into physical cata- logs, could no longer meet the demands posed by the electronic environment, nor best serve end users accustomed to the have-it-all-and-have-it-now na­ture of the virtual age. Since the enhancement and preservation of the catalog’s integrity are funda- mental duties of catalogers (Ferris, 2008), librarians adapted to these changes by developing standards such as FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD, which were lat- er consolidated into IFLA’s LRM conceptual mod­el, which was subsequently aligned with the RDA model. Bosnia and Herzegovina, along with other countries in the COBISS cataloging system (Slove- nia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bulgaria), will soon face adaptation to the LRM conceptual model (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023). The Cataloging Code of Ethics, now available in Bos- nian (CESC, 2024), was translated just in time to assist catalogers from Bosnia and Herzegovina (and the region) in their forthcoming work. This task will not be easy, as FRAD and RDA, while bringing nu- merous positive and welcome changes, have also introduced certain ethical issues, especially in the context of linked data and authority control, now that the focus has shifted from merely identifying a person by name to describing the person more com- prehensively, including categories such as gender (Thompson, 2016).

Linked data are at the core of the IFLA LRM mod­el, making the significance of authority control for personal names even greater, “as authority data will play a key role in the network of linked data on which the model focuses” (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023: 36). However, unlike other countries in the COBISS

104

ća katalogizatora/ica (Ferris, 2008), bibliotekari/ke su se prilagodili ovim promjenama te razvili stan­darde poput FRBR-a, FRAD-a, FRSAD-a, koji su kasnije objedinjeni u IFLA-in LRM konceptualni model, koji je potom usklađen i s RDA modelom. Bosnu i Hercegovinu, kao i druge zemlje koje se nalaze u sistemu uzajamne katalogizacije COBISS (Slovenija, Srbija, Kosovo, Crna Gora, Makedoni­ja i Bugarska), ubrzo očekuje prilagodba na LRM konceptualni model (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023). Etič­ki kodeks katalogizatora/ica, koji je dostupan i na bosanskom jeziku (CESC, 2024), preveden je baš u pravi čas kako bi olakšao katalogizatorima i katalo- gizatoricama iz Bosne i Hercegovine (ali i regiona) rad koji im prestoji. Taj zadatak neće biti lak, jer su FRAD i RDA, uz brojne pozitivne i dobrodošle pro­mjene, donijeli i određene etičke probleme, pogoto­vo u kontekstu uvezanosti, tj. povezanih podataka (linked data), ali i normativne kontrole, sada kada je fokus pomjeren s pukog identificiranja osobe po imenu na opisivanje osobe kao takve, i to po raznim kategorijama, uključujući i spol (Thompson, 2016). Povezani podaci su srž IFLA LRM modela, pa sto­ga i značaj normativne kontrole ličnih imena postaje veći “jer će normativni podaci imati ključnu ulogu u mreži povezanih podataka na koje se model usred- sređuje” (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023: 36). No, za razli­ku od ostalih zemalja u sistemu COBISS, Bosna i Hercegovina i Makedonija još uvijek su u pripre­mnoj fazi što se tiče normativne kontrole ličnih ime­na (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023), te ih očekuje dodatni napor i u ovoj oblasti, a time i dodatne prilike da etičnost u njihovom slobodnom prosuđivanju bude stavljena na test. Od nemalog je značaja, na primjer, koje će ime biti korišteno kao pristupna tačka. Kako navodi A. Krajnc Vobovnik, u Sloveniji je za nor­mativnu pristupnu tačku odabrano ono ime pod ko­jim autor/ica najčešće objavljuje (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023), no možda bi se Bosna i Hercegovina mogla pomoći članom broj 2. navedenim u Kodeksu, u ko­jem se katalogizatori/ce obavezuju da će poštivati privatnost i preference svih onih koji su povezani s građom koju opisuju (CESC, 2021), odnosno prepo­ruku Authority Work Working Group da žive autore/ ice treba kontaktirati kako bi se saznalo u kojem obimu žele da informacije o njima budu unesene u bibliografske zapise (CESC, 2019b) te koji oblik svoga imena preferiraju. Također, katalogizatori/ce bi s posebnom pažnjom i opreznošću trebali unositi podatke poput jezika na kojem autori/ca objavljuju ili njihove nacionalnosti, s obzirom na to da su ove informacije na našem području posebno osjetljive.

Mirović

system, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia are still in the preparatory phase concerning the author- ity control of personal names (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023), which means they face additional effort in this area, along with more opportunities for their ethical judgment to be tested. For instance, it mat- ters greatly which name will be used as the access point. As A. Krajnc Vobovnik notes, in Slovenia, the name under which the author most frequently publishes was chosen as the authority access point (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023), but perhaps Bosnia and Herzegovina could draw upon Article 2 of the Code, which obliges catalogers to respect the privacy and preferences of all those associated with the material they describe (CESC, 2021), or the recommenda- tion from the Authority Work Working Group that living authors should be contacted to determine the extent to which they want information about them included in bibliographic records (CESC, 2019b), as well as preferred form of their name. Additional- ly, catalogers should exercise special caution when entering data such as the language in which the au- thor publishes or their nationality, given that this information is particularly sensitive in our region.

Conclusion

Considering the above, it is crucial that this work is carried out by skilled catalogers - especially bibliographers, whose job is “the most complex library task, requiring not only specialized library and information knowledge but also a broad general culture, a research spirit, perseverance, precision, consistency, dedication, and professional ethics” (Tuzlak, 2017: 32). They must genuinely desire to ethically bring order to chaos, be aware of their power and responsibility, and understand their role in the viewing of the bibliographic universe. Over the past twenty years, there has been an increase in published works on the topic of ethical cataloging, indicating that catalogers are indeed aware of their power and seek to balance it with professional eth- ics, critical thinking, and expertise, knowing they have a significant influence on society. It is precise- ly this professional ethics and ability for critical and independent judgment that set catalogers apart from the competition, which today includes publishers/ vendors who, in countries with developed publish- ing industries, perform basic cataloging (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023), as well as artificial intelligence, which even professional library organizations be- lieve could take over work on descriptive metada- ta (CILIP, 2021). Catalogers should recognize that working on authority data is something publishers

105

BOSNIACA 2024; 29: 91-108

Umjesto zaključka

Imajući u vidu rečeno, od velike je važnosti da ovaj posao obavljaju stručni katalogizatori/ce - a naročito bibliografi i bibliografkinje čiji je posao “najsloženiji bibliotečki posao koji, pored stručnog bibliotečkog i informacionog znanja, zahtijeva širo­ku opću kulturu, istraživački duh, istrajnost, preci­znost, dosljednost, predanost poslu i profesionalnu etiku” (Tuzlak, 2017: 32), a koji istinski žele etično dovoditi haos u red, koji su svjesni svojih moći i odgovornosti, te svoje uloge u tkanju bibliografskog univerzuma. U posljednjih je dvadeset godina doš­lo do povećanja objavljenih radova na temu etičnog katalogiziranja, što implicira da su katalogizatori/ce ipak svjesni svojih moći i da ih žele izbalansirati s profesionalnom etikom, kritičnošću i stručnošću, znajući da imaju veliki uticaj na društvo. Upravo su ta profesionalna etika i sposobnost kritičnog i slobodnog prosuđivanja vrijednosti koje izdvajaju katalogizatore/ice u odnosu na konkurenciju koju danas čine izdavači/dobavljači koji u zemljama s razvijenom izdavačkom produkcijom rade običnu katalogizaciju (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023), kao i vje- štačka inteligencija za koju čak i stručne bibliotečke organizacije smatraju da bi mogla preuzeti rad na deskriptivnim metapodacima (CILIP, 2021). Kata- logizatori/ice bi trebali da uvide da je rad na norma­tivnim podacima ono što izdavači ne mogu raditi, da su biblioteke te koje trajno čuvaju informacije i posjeduju historiju podataka o normativima (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023) te da vještačka inteligencija neće moći kritički i etično dovoditi haos u red jer, iako može slijediti programirane etičke smjernice, ne­dostaje joj sposobnost donošenja složenih etičkih odluka koje zahtijevaju slobodno prosuđivanje, naročito u slučajevima kada se pojavljuju konflikti između različitih etičkih principa, te u tome pronaći novu snagu da i dalje imaju preimućstvo u organiza­ciji i prenošenju zabilježenog znanja.

cannot do, that libraries are the ones that preserve information permanently and possess the historical data on authorities (Krajnc Vobovnik, 2023), and that artificial intelligence will not be able to ethical- ly and critically bring order to chaos; although it can follow programmed ethical guidelines, it lacks the ability to make complex ethical decisions that re- quire independent judgment, especially when con- flicts between different ethical principles arise. In this, catalogers should find new strength to continue having the advantage in organizing and transmitting recorded knowledge.

106

Mirović

Bibliografija / Bibliography

PvpQdO7chKY52IVC_u6VC6gIY1iQDc1y5e- fOi40U/edit.

CESC - Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee ([s. a.]a). Case Studies.https://sites.google.com/view/cata- loging-ethics/home/case-studies.

CESC - Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee ([s. a.] b). Cataloging Ethics Bibliography. https:// docs.google.com/document/d/1bHtghhSL54P- FlekIwnmHpF9O_2KR_GMq5GWIBgNLKDg/ edit?pli=1.

loging-ethics/home.

107

BOSNIACA 2024; 29: 91-108

api/core/bitstreams/bb629889-3883-4c7b-8a40- 37c02dc89146/content.

Lawson, S. (2018). Public Libraries and Knowledge Politics.http://eprints.rclis.org/32361/1/Law-

son2018-Public-Libraries-and-Knowledge-Poli- tics.pdf.

Roberto, K. R. (2008). Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front. Jefferson, N. C.; London: McFarland & Co.https://archive.org/details/radicalcata-

login0000unse/page/n8/mode/1up.

108