Social cataloging; social cataloger (chapter)

Chapter 5 Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger Shawne Miksa Abstract hi ng Purpose — This is an attempt to introduce proactive changes when creating and providing intellectual access in order to convince catalogers to become more social catalogers then they have ever been in the past. Pu bl is Approach — Through a brief review and analysis of relevant literature a definition of social cataloging and social cataloger is given. al d G ro up Findings — User contributed content to library catalogs affords informational professionals the opportunity to see directly the users’ perceptions of the usefulness and about-ness of information resources. This is a form of social cataloging especially from the perspective of the information professional seeking to organize information to support knowledge discovery and access. (C )E m er Implications — The user and the cataloger exercise their voice as to what the information resources are about, which in essence is interpreting the intentions of the creator of the resources, how the resource is related to other resources, and perhaps even how the resources can be, or have been, used. Depending on the type of library and information environment, the weight of the work may or may not fall equally on both user and cataloger. Originality/value — New definitions of social cataloging and social cataloguing are offered and are linked back to Jesse Shera’s idea of social epistemology. New Directions in Information Organization Library and Information Science, Volume 7, 91–106 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1876-0562/doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2013)0000007009 92 Shawne Miksa 5.1. Introduction (C )E m er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng Jesse Shera wrote in 1970 that ‘‘The librarian is at once historical, contemporary, and anticipatory’’ (p. 109). Our work takes us across many disciplines, time periods, and we have always sought to use best practices when working with an ever changing information landscape. Historically, cataloging librarians have sought to provide service through the careful construction of records representing the descriptive and subject features of information resources of all types so that people may find, identify, select, and obtain information. This is still a main objective but it is what we must anticipate that is the focus of this chapter. Shera believed a librarian could maximize his effectiveness and service to the public through an understanding of the cognitive processes of both the individual and society and in particular the influence knowledge can have on society. User information behavior studies are quite common in library and information sciences today and there is no question that studying the cognitive processes of users greatly informs our work. This is especially true in regards to how we organize information in library catalog systems although changes move slowly and not always with the greatest of ease or willingness on the part of catalogers. At times, it feels like the love of constructing records overshadows how we can make the records most useful for our clients. In the past few years we have seen an increase in the amount of usercontributed content in our catalog systems in the form of social tags and user commentary funneled directly into the catalog records. This new content affords us the opportunity to see directly the users’ perceptions of the usefulness and about-ness of information resources. From the perspective of the information professional seeking to organize information to support knowledge discovery and access we can call this a form of social cataloging. Social cataloging is defined in this chapter as the joint effort by users and catalogers to interweave individually or socially preferred access points in a library information system as a mode of discovery and access to the information resources held in the library’s collection. Both the user and the cataloger exercise their voice as to what the information resources are about, which in essence is interpreting the intentions of the creator of the resources, how the resource is related to other resources, and perhaps even how the resources can be, or have been, used. Depending on the type of library and information environment, the weight of the work may or may not fall equally on both user and cataloger. This new aspect of cataloging does present a bit of a conundrum. Social tagging systems, folksonomies, Web 2.0, and the like, have placed many information professionals in the position of having to counteract, and even Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger 93 er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng contradict their training when it comes to descriptive and subject cataloging. This is especially true for subject analysis and subject representation in library information systems. It is the success and popularity of websites such as LibraryThing, which practices its own form of social cataloging, that bring this shift into focus. Some portion of that success undoubtedly comes from the negative experiences that people have had when using library catalogs. People may think the records are poor, the search capabilities of the system are limited, call numbers are indecipherable, etc. However, it is a practice rooted in the very fundamental idea that the library collection needs an interface — the library catalog — and that librarians are the intermediaries between the catalog and the users, and especially between the tools used to search the catalog. It is a practice that is steadily being challenged by modern practices such as social tagging and the evolution of information organization standards and information retrieval systems. Thus, a proactive change to that practice is a logical action to take. Library catalogs are the communication devices that allow for this knowledge discovery and sharing to take place. Catalogers construct the representations of the graphic records of societies — the social transcript — and users search these representations in order to find something to satisfy their information needs. There is also some pride, and perhaps a sizeable chunk of romantic idealism, about a library. Cataloging, for many of us, is an extension of this romantic ideal. For example, take Mann’s (1943) description from nearly 70 years ago: (C )E m The cataloger y must dip into volume after volume, passing from one author to another and from one subject to another, making contacts with all minds of the world’s history and entering into the society of mental superiors and inferiors. Catalogers find their work a realm as large as the universe. (p. 1) Furthermore, she wrote that the cataloger should ‘‘ y adopt a neutral stance between the reader and his books, giving emphasis to what the author intended to describe rather than to his own views’’ (Mann, 1943, p. 2). However, the neutral stance is now taking a bit of a hit. In my experience, some people dislike library catalogs because they dislike other people having control over how things are organized and the knowledge structures used to convey that organization. (As if saying ‘‘It is my collection, and I want my organizational scheme.’’) In that case, they may create their own catalog, as in LibraryThing. Mann’s words, though, still carry some legitimacy because they illustrate the fundamental job that library catalogers should do — to enable the user to find what they need by taking the information resources in hand and 94 Shawne Miksa interpreting and representing the content so that it is useable by both the information system and the user. Now we have even better technology, allowing for a much broader spectrum of knowledge production and sharing and with this better technology we need updated practices. Social cataloging can help us to further incorporate that broader spectrum by interweaving other interpretations of information resources within our own systems, especially as it concerns how resources should be organized and used. It is the library catalog as a communication system, with the cataloger in the position of having to capture and represent many interpretations of resources, not just of the author-creator, but of the users as well. Forty years ago, Shera wrote Pu bl is hi ng The communication process is a duality of system and message, of that which is transmitted as well as the manner of its transmission. Therefore, the librarian must see his role in the communication process as being more than a link in a chain; he must also concern himself with the knowledge he communicates, and the importance of that knowledge both to the individual and the society. (Shera, 1972, p. 110) (C )E m er al d G ro up How then do we continue and maintain this communication process? As a potential new direction in information organization, an argument for social cataloging and social catalogers is presented here. This chapter starts with a discussion on the nature of social tagging and the intersection of the uncontrolled access points with controlled access points created through subject analysis. A summary of the characteristics of social tagging studies from 2006 to 2012 follows as a way to understand how and why social tags are created and used. It will conclude by presenting the argument that social epistemology, as defined by Shera, is the conceptual framework upon which this new practice of social cataloging should rest. 5.2. Background It is not a question of if or when user-generated content will show up in library catalogs. The drip-drip-drip of user tags trickling down into library catalogs has been getting louder and faster in the last few years. Social tags are already being incorporated into various library information systems either directly or indirectly (e.g., LibraryThing’s widget for importing tags into a catalog record, or catalogs that allows user to add tags and comments or ratings). It is hoped by many that including these tags would serve to enhance the effectiveness and value of systems to the spectrum of users. Spiteri (2012) effectively argues for the extension of Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger 95 the principle of user convenience in social discovery systems in support of cultural warrant.1 User assigned tags and reviews can help members of the library community connect with one another via shared interests and connections that may not be otherwise possible via the catalogue record that is created and controlled solely by the cataloguer. Social discovery systems can thus provide cataloguers with a way to interact, if indirectly, with users, since cataloger’s can observe usercreated metadata. (p. 212) (C )E m er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng Abbas (2010) contends that ‘‘ y the folksonomies that are developed as a result of the tagging activities of its users, represent a potential means to supplement knowledge organization systems’’ (p. 176). Abbas also feels that because the phenomena are so recent there is still much to learn about potential uses. Since the early 2000s there has been a substantial amount of research conducted on user contributed data such as tags and folksonomies. Many of the studies compare tagging and folksonomies to controlled vocabularies and classification systems respectively, as well the pros and cons of incorporating social tagging into information systems, especially library catalogs. I found these studies raised even more questions and issues in my mind: How will the potential of social tagging best be harnessed? How will social tagging and vocabulary control interact? How does the concept and practice of authority control butt up against its complete opposite? Furthermore, how can we deliberately lose control over a time-honored process of authority control? What is the overall effect of social tags on the catalog and how does it affect the cataloger’s work? Does it aid in subject cataloging and in particular subject analysis? How does it affect the catalog user? In order to explore any of these questions it is necessary to suspend use of the word ‘‘control’’ in terms of how the control is currently practiced in cataloging. Catalogers are trained to be objective when analyzing and assigning controlled terms to information resource records. This is also true when they perform the complicated process of governing the choice and form of subject terms and personal and corporate names. This practice is quite the opposite of the personal nature of social tagging. Most catalogers’ have been educated quite differently. We are trained to apply Haykin’s 1. As defined by Beghtol (2005): ‘‘Cultural warrant means that the personal and professional cultures of information seekers and information workers warrant the establishment of appropriate fields, terms, categories, or classes in a knowledge representation and organization system. Thus, cultural warrant provides the rationale and authority for decisions about what concepts and what relationships among them are appropriate for a particular system’’ (p. 904). 96 Shawne Miksa (C )E m er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng (1951) fundamental concept of ‘‘reader as the focus’’ (specifically he writes ‘‘the reader is the focus in all cataloging principles and practice’’) (p. 7) and adhere to Cutter’s (1904) objectives of the catalog, and the subsequent interpretations of those objectives. The cataloger’s own personal view is to be suspended in favor of reaching as broad an audience as possible, to allow the user to find what they need. Let the reader have her say; let the reader have a voice. The introduction of the Internet and the Web to our professional world has leveled the field in such a way that the librarian is not the sole voice, but simply one among the many. How does this happen? If we place social tagging within the process of subject analysis and subject representation then might we simply equate social tagging to the brainstorming of an indexer or classifier during the initial stages of the subject analysis process? (cf. Tennis, 2006; Voss, 2007). Subject analysis and subject representation has been the standard in cataloging for most of the 20th century and into the 21st. As is currently practiced, the subject analytical process starts with examining a resource for keywords or phrases that represent the intellectual content. These terms are then translated into the language used in a controlled vocabulary. If this process can be aided by social tags, then how do we best take advantage of them? Alternatively, could we say that social tags are another species of indexing language in and of itself? Are the users doing our job for us and, if so, how well are they doing it? Furthermore, how can information professionals formally trained to catalog curtail the control of assigning ‘‘sanctioned’’ terms? It is an interesting situation. It doesn’t necessarily mean relinquishing all control, just a part of it. At the same time we can justly ask if the popularity of social tagging comes simply from the need or desire for simplicity of words and phrases interpretation or ease of use/least effort, or perhaps even as result of lack of understanding of how a catalog record is created and organized? Is it born out of frustration of trying to understand and navigate an information system’s subject search mechanism, or can we assume it is simply a desire of the user to gloss over the details in favor of rapid scanning of keywords as a quicker end to the angst of an information need? Or, is it just a need to have an opinion? Is tagging a narcissistic act or an act of sharing knowledge? These are just question that I have found myself asking and that I feel are worthy of pursuing. A good many studies over the years, some of which will be discussed here, have focused on tags as a mechanism for sharing knowledge. For example, as stated above subject analysis involves identifying underlying concepts within a resource in the hopes of bringing together information resources of a similar subject matter, in addition to providing subject access for the user. How do these particular goals figure into the popularity of an individual, untrained user assigning their own terms to the resource (i.e., is this her Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger 97 goal?) We are not all the same; we all have different reasons for wanting to find information and will most likely use it in different ways. In many ways, we catalogers have clung too closely to our practices, which has consequences. Cutter (1904) wrote y strict consistency in a rule and uniformity in its application sometimes lead to practices which clash with the public’s habitual way of looking at things. When these habits are general and deeply rooted, it is unwise for the cataloger to ignore them, even if they demand a sacrifice of system and simplicity. (p. 6) hi ng A rethinking of the purpose and scope of cataloging, and in particular subject cataloging, is in order because the public’s way of looking at things has changed greatly, at least in this country and at this time, and especially as it relates to the social nature of the current information environment. Pu bl is 5.3. Review of Literature/Studies of User-Contributed Contents 2006–2012 (C )E m er al d G ro up The bulk of studies of folksonomies and social tagging and the effects on traditional information organization practices started to gain momentum around 2006. Pre-2006 studies were broader and tended to focus on bookmarking or what was then simply called user-generated or user-created content or classifications within information systems. For example, Beghtol’s (2003) article on naı̈ve or user-based classification systems is quite illuminating. The idea of user-generated content is not entirely new to the library and information science field. Since the mid-1990s there have been collaborative and socially oriented website available on the Web, most having started in the early 2000s (Abbas, 2010). Trant (2009) offers a comprehensive review of studies and their methodologies, mainly published between 2005 and 2007, in which she outlines three broad approaches: folksonomy itself (and the role of user tags in indexing and retrieval); tagging (and the behavior of users); and the nature of social tagging systems (as socio-technical frameworks) (pp. 1–2). What follows is an overview of some of the literature relevant to this discussion of social cataloging. 5.3.1. Phenomenon of Social Tagging and What to Call It Research specifically using terms such as ‘‘social tags’’ or ‘‘tagging’’ start around 2006 although tagging started showing up on websites earlier in the decade. Many of the studies look at the phenomenon alone, either from system perspective or the user’s and cataloger’s perspective. Comparatively, 98 Shawne Miksa (C )E m er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng the study of social tags and tagging is similar to how the cataloging community reacted to ‘‘websites’’ in the mid- to late-1990s. The first instinct is to ask ‘‘What is it?’’ and then study the attributes, dissecting it — like a frog in biology class — in order to identify how best to define it, to compare it to the type, or species, of information resources that were already known and then follow with studying how it is used by people and systems either together or separately. As with all new phenomena, after identification there is discussion of what to call it (i.e., ‘‘folksonomies,’’ social tagging, tags, etc.). Golder and Huberman (2006) wrote ‘‘a collaborative form y which has been given the name ‘tagging’ by its proponents, is gaining popularity on the Web’’ (p. 198). It is a practice ‘‘allowing anyone — especially consumers — to freely attach keywords or tags to content’’ (p. 198). Golder and Huberman go on to outline the types of tags they had found and to note the patterns of usage that tags are used for personal use rather than for all. Sen et al. (2006) point out that tagging vocabulary ‘‘emerge organically from the tags chosen by individual members’’ (p. 181). They suggest it may be ‘‘desirable to ‘steer’ a user community toward certain types of tags that are beneficial for the system or its users in some way’’ (p. 190). As noted earlier, a common approach was to compare folksonomies, collaborative tagging, social classification, and social indexing to traditional classification and indexing practices. Voss (2007) stated that ‘‘Tagging is referred to with several names y the basic principle is that end users do subject indexing instead of experts only, and the assigned tags are being shown immediately on the Web’’ (p. 2). Tennis (2006) defined social tagging as ‘‘ y a manifestation of indexing based in the open — yet very personal — Web’’ (p. 1). His comparison of indexing to social tagging showed that indexing is in an ‘‘incipient and under-nourished state’’ (p. 14). This comparison with a traditional subject cataloging process is characteristic of the studies following those that ask what is social tagging. 5.3.2. A Good Practice? Questions arise as to whether or not the new practice is a good practice, if it is accurate, more efficient, etc. Spiteri (2007) concluded that weaknesses of folksonomy tags included ‘‘ y potential for ambiguity, polysemy, synonymy, and basic level variation as well as the lack of consistent guidelines for choice and form’’ (p. 23). Other studies explored the possible uses of tagging and the possibility of replacing current practices, such as assigning subject headings. Yi and Chan (2008) sought to use LCSH to alleviate the ‘‘ambiguity and complexity caused by uncontrolled user-selected tags (folksonomy)’’ (p. 874). They concluded that ‘‘matching userproduced, uncontrolled vocabularies and controlled vocabularies holds Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger 99 great potential: collaborative or social tagging and professional indexing on the bases of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH can be thought of as two opposite indexing practices’’ (p. 897). Similarly, Rolla (2009) found that ‘‘a comparison of LibraryThing’s user tags and LCSH suggest that while user tags can enhance subject access to library collections, they cannot replace the valuable functions of controlled vocabulary like LCSH’’ (p. 182). On the other hand, Peterson (2008) felt that blending ‘‘Web 2.0 features into library databases may not be correct’’ (p. 4). 5.3.3. Systems Reconfigurations Cognitive Aspects and Information Behavior (C 5.3.4. )E m er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng Next, forays into reconfiguring information systems to take advantage of the interoperability of tags and controlled vocabulary come about, as well as studies looking at the general measuring and evaluation of the meaning of social tags and the usefulness of social tagging systems (cf. Lawson, 2009; Shiri, 2009). Shiri (2009), for example, categorized the features of social tagging system interfaces and found ‘‘an increased level of personal and collaborative interaction that influences the way people create, organize, share, tag and use resources on these sites’’ (p. 917). The increased collaboration detail has potential implications for catalog system interface redesign, and even further, enhancing catalog records to ensure more collaborative advantages for knowledge discovery. Lawson (2009) concluded that ‘‘ y there is enough objective tagging available on bibliographic-related websites such as Amazon and LibraryThing that librarians can use to provide enriched bibliographic records’’ (p. 580). Lawson feels adding tags to the system allows for new services and support for users. Currently, the research is focused on both the cognitive aspects and information behavior of users when using tags and/or subject headings for information retrieval as well as user motivations for using tags for retrieval or description (cf. Kipp & Campbell, 2010; McFadden & Weidenbenner, 2010) and more technical aspects such as semantic imitation, or semantically similar tags (Fu, Kannampallil, Kang, & He, 2010), and leveraging, or increasing user motivation to contribute tags (Spiteri, 2011). McFadden and Weidenbenner (2010) point out that y many libraries are beginning to see tagging as a viable means of harnessing the wisdom of crowds (i.e., users) to shed light on popular topics and resources and involve users in collaborative, socially networked ways of organizing and retrieving resources. (p. 57) 100 Shawne Miksa Additionally, the authors note that tagging is ‘‘user-empowering’’ and will attract users back to the library catalog (p. 58). People have long felt at the mercy of the catalog, or out of sync with it. There are also dimensions to social tags that provide food for thought when it comes to information behavior of the user. Two papers stand out in particular. First, Kipp and Campbell’s (2010) study of people searching a social bookmarking tool that specialized in academic articles found that while the participants used the tags in their search process, they also used controlled vocabularies to locate useful search terms and links to select resources by relevance. bl is hi ng This study examined the relationship between user tags and the process of resource discovery from the perspective of a traditional library reference interview in which the system was used, not by an end user, but by an information intermediary who try to find information on another’s behalf. (p. 252) (C )E m er al d G ro up Pu A fact of particular note is that tags reveal relationships that are not represented in traditional controlled vocabularies (e.g., tags that are taskrelated or the name of the tagger). The authors write that the ‘‘inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants’’ (Kipp & Campbell, 2010, p. 239). In terms of information behavior the study revealed that while participants had preferences for reducing an initial list of returns, or hits (e.g., adding terms, quick assessments, modify search based on results, scanning) they were willing to change their search behavior slightly based on number of results. There was evidence of uncertainty, frustration, pausing for longer periods of time, hovering, scrolling up and down, confused by differences between controlled vocabularies and tags. They state ‘‘It was fairly common for participants to use incorrect terminology to identify their use of terms when searching’’ (p. 249). For example, users may not see clicking on a subject hyperlink the same as searching using a subject term. The second study of note is one based on theories of cognitive science. Fu et al. (2010) ran ‘‘a controlled experiment in which they directly manipulated information goals and the availability of socials tags to study their effects of social tagging behavior’’ (p. 12:4) in order to understand if the semantics of the tags plays a critical role in tagging behavior. The study involved two groups of users, those who could and those that could not see tags created by others when using a social tagging system. In brief, the researchers confirmed the validity of their proposed model. They found that ‘‘social tags evoke a spontaneous tag-based topic inference process that primes the semantic interpretation of resource contents during exploratory search, and Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger 101 Quality Pu 5.3.5. bl is hi ng the semantic priming of existing tags in turn influences future tag choices’’ (p. 12:1). In other words, users tend to create similar tags when they can see the tags that have already been created, and users who are given no previously created tags tend to create more diverse tags that are not necessarily semantically similar. This is particularly interesting when considering the practice of copy cataloging versus original cataloging and the number, quality, and depth of assigned subject headings depending on what type of record creation is taking place.2 Spiteri (2011) found that user contributions to library catalogs were limited when compared to other social sites where social tagging is prevalent and that it is lack of motivation that causes this limitation. She posits that perhaps it is peoples’ outdated notions of the library catalog and catalogers that stands in the way and that research into user motivations is needed in order for librarians to make informed decisions about adding social applications to the catalog. (C )E m er al d G ro up Just as there have been questions as to the quality and usefulness of social tagging there have also been questions of the quality of cataloging practices when compared to user-contributed content. For example, Heymann and Garcia-Molina (2009) question subject heading assignment by experts and report that ‘‘ y many (about 50 percent) of the keywords in the controlled vocabulary are in the uncontrolled vocabulary, especially more annotated keywords’’ (p. 4). They suggest that when there is a disagreement then deferring to the user is the best course of action and that perhaps the experts have ‘‘picked the right keywords, but perhaps annotated them to the wrong books (from the users’ perspectives)’’ (p. 1). This may be difficult for many catalogers to even come around to, even agree with. As pointed out earlier, catalogers are trained to be objective when analyzing and assigning controlled terms to resources, which is exactly the opposite of how social tagging is used. The reader applies words and phrases that result out of their personal interaction and interpretation of a resource, and not necessarily with the broader audience in mind. The latter of which is exactly how most catalogers’ have been educated. Steele (2009), points out many of the same weaknesses of social tagging as Spiteri (2007), in that there is a lack of hierarchy, no guarantee of coverage, synonymy, polysemy (more than one meaning), user’s intent, etc., but nonetheless contends that ‘‘one of the most 2. Šauperl’s (2002) study of subject determination during the cataloging process touches on a similar issue and is highly recommended. 102 Shawne Miksa Pu bl 5.4. Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger is hi ng important reasons libraries should consider the use of tags is the benefits of evolution and growth y patrons are changing and are expecting to be able to participate and interact online’’ (p. 70). More importantly, Steele asks if that if tagging is here to stay will patrons be willing to keep it up or if it is all ‘‘just a fad’’ (p. 71).3 There is also the risk of ‘‘spagging,’’ or spam tagging, coming from users with unsuitable intentions (Arch, 2007, p. 81). This review of relevant literature pertaining to social tagging and library catalogs from 2006 to 2012 is selective and certainly not comprehensive. Reading Trant’s (2009) study, as well as the relevant chapter in Abbas’ (2010) book is suggested for a more thorough overview of the literature and history, as well as any subsequent literature reviews that are not addressed here. It serves mainly to provide an understanding of the current social information environment as viewed from the perspective of information organization in library catalogs. (C )E m er al d G ro up In this chapter I am defining social cataloging and social cataloger based on the emerging trends in practice that I have observed. Social cataloging, as previously stated in the introduction, is the joint effort by users and catalogers to interweave individually or socially preferred access points, which can be both subject-based and task-based, with traditional controlled vocabularies in a library information system for the purpose of highly relevant resource discovery as well as user-empowerment. Both the user and the cataloger exercise their voice as to how information resources are related within the system. A social cataloger is an information professional/librarian who is skilled in both expert-based and user-created vocabularies, who understands the motivations of users who tag information resources and how to incorporate this knowledge into an information system for subject representation and access. Of course, these definitions may be too pat and not at all broad or deep enough. They also suppose that the cataloger and the user both understand and can perform subject analysis fairly well. Agreeing on the ‘‘about-ness’’ of any information resource is fraught with difficulties. Wilson (1968) wrote in a chapter entitled ‘‘Subject and a Sense of Position’’ that 3. An interesting piece of data: In April 2012, I asked a librarian at a public library that uses a catalog system from BiblioCommons how many tags have been added to their records — in the last 12 months around 3000 tags had been assigned, but almost 100,000 ratings had been completed. Perhaps giving an opinion is much more interesting than assigning keywords. Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger 103 y a single reader, trying by different means to arrive at a precise statement of the subject of a writing, might find himself with not one but three or four different statements. And if several readers tried the several methods, we should not be surprised if the same method gave different results when used by different people. Estimates of dominance, hypotheses about intentions, ways of grouping the items mentioned, notions of unity, all of these are too clearly matters on which equally sensible and perspicacious men will disagree. And if they do disagree, who is to decide among them? (p. 89) Pu bl is hi ng This harkens back to an issue about control of subject headings and subject representation within a library catalog, and the idea of letting go of some of that control. Catalogers, and probably users too, tend to work in a state of uncertainty. This is not to say the point of exercising any type of control is useless, but rather there is most likely no one right answer.4 At best we can lay out as many options as seem sensible when it comes to organizing information for knowledge discovery and access in uncertain information environments. up 5.5. Social Epistemology and Social Cataloging d G ro There is a possibility for a good foundation in which to lay social cataloging if we look at it through the lens of social epistemology as proposed by Jesse Shera. Shera (1972) wrote that (C )E m er al The new discipline that is envisaged here (and for which, for want of a better name, Margaret Egan originated the phrase, social epistemology) should provide a framework for the investigation of the complex problem of the nature of the intellectual process in society — a study of the ways in which society as a whole achieves a perceptive relation to its total environment. (p. 112) He spoke of the ‘‘social fabric’’ and the production, flow, integration, and consumption of thought throughout that fabric. I would not assume that social information activities on the Internet and Web constitute the whole of the social fabric, but it is certainly a large part of it in this day and age, especially when it comes to the great value that we put on being able to discover, access, and share information. Shera believed there existed an ‘‘important affinity’’ between librarianship and social epistemology and that librarians (read ‘‘information professionals’’) should have a solid mastery over ‘‘the means of access to recorded knowledge’’ (p. 113). Forty years later this is, I believe, still solidly true. Of course, I am taking some interpretive 4. Charles Cutter perhaps says it best — ‘‘y the importance of deciding aright where any given subject shall be entered in is inverse proportion to the difficulty of decision’’ (1904, p. 66). 104 Shawne Miksa )E m References er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng license when it comes to Shera’s vision of social epistemology but when he wrote that ‘‘the value system of a culture exerts a strong influence upon the communication of knowledge within a society and the ways in which that society utilizes knowledge’’ (p. 131) it seems logical to apply it to the cataloger’s current need to shift focus and priorities when it comes to supporting that utilization. Many of the studies mentioned earlier present conclusions that provide evidence for using social epistemology as a framework for social cataloging, and I feel that many of these can be attributed to user motivation. Spiteri (2007) urges librarians to provide better motivation so that users will contribute content to library catalogs as much as they do social applications such as LibraryThing and Amazon’s encouraging user comments and ratings. This doesn’t mean we have to commercialize library catalogs but rather we can provide more and better access to the library collection as well as more communication between the users of the catalog. Fallis (2006) wrote that ‘‘social institutions such as schools and libraries need to be aware of how social and cultural factors affect people’s abilities to acquire knowledge’’ (p. 484). Tagging is a social process and the tags themselves are evidence of knowledge acquisition and sharing. We need to attempt to address some of these broader ideas in the hopes of outlining a clearer process for the cataloger to follow when creating and providing intellectual access. Ultimately, I think it will convince catalogers to become more social catalogers then they have ever been in the past. (C Abbas, J. (2010). Structures for organizing knowledge: Exploring taxonomies, ontologies, and other schema. New York, NY: Neal Schuman. Arch, X. (2007, February). Creating the academic library folksonomy: Putting social tagging to work at your institution. College & Research Library News, 68(2), 80–81. Beghtol, C. (2003). Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: Relationships between ‘‘professional’’ and ‘‘naı̈ve’’ classifications. Knowledge Organization, 30, 64–73. Beghtol, C. (2005). Ethical decision-making for knowledge representation and organization systems for global use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 56(9), 903–912. Cutter, C. A. (1904). Rules for a dictionary catalog. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Fallis, D. (2006). Social epistemology and information science. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 475–519). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Social Cataloging; Social Cataloger 105 (C )E m er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng Fu, W., Kannampallil, T., Kang, R., & He, J. (2010). Semantic imitation in social tagging. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17(3), 12:3–12:37. Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198–208. Haykin, D. J. (1951). Subject headings, a practical guide. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Heymann, P. & Garcia-Molina, H. (2009). Contrasting controlled vocabulary and tagging: Do experts choose the right names to label the wrong things? In R. A. Baeza-Yates, P. Boldi, B. Ribeiro-Neto & B. B. Cambazoglu (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on web search and web data mining (WSDM’09), Barcelona, Spain. (ACM, New York, NY). Retrieved from http:// ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/955/1/cvuv-lbrp.pdf Kipp, M. E. I., & Campbell, D. G. (2010). Searching with tags: Do tags help users find things? Knowledge Organization, 37(4), 239–255. Lawson, K. G. (2009). Mining social tagging data for enhanced subject access for readers and researchers. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 574–582. Mann, M. (1943). Introduction to cataloging and the classification of books (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: American Library Association. McFadden, S., & Weidenbenner, J. V. (2010). Collaborative tagging: Traditional cataloging meets the ‘‘Wisdom of Crowds’’. Serials Librarian, 58(1–4), 55–60. Peterson, E. (2008). Parallel systems: The coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy. Library Philosophy & Practice, 10(1), 1–5. Rolla, P. (2009). User tags versus subject headings: Can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3), 174–184. Šauperl, A. (2002). Subject determination during the cataloguing process. London: Scarecrow Press. Sen, S., Lam, S. K., Rashid, A. M., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Osterhouse, J., y Riedl, J. (2006). Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. Proceedings of the ACM 2006 conference on CSCW, Banff, Alberta, Canada (pp. 181–190). Retrieved from http://www.shilad.com/papers/tagging_cscw2006.pdf Shera, J. H. (1970). Sociological foundations of librarianship. Mumbai: Asia Publishing House. Shera, J. H. (1972). The foundations of education for librarianship. New York, NY: Becker and Hayes. Shiri, A. (2009). An examination of social tagging interface features and functionalities: An analytical comparison. Online Information Review, 33(5), 901–919. Spiteri, L. (2007). The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog. Information Technology & Libraries, 26(3), 13–25. Spiteri, L. F. (2011). Using social discovery systems to leverage user-generated metadata. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 37(4), 27–29. Spiteri, L. (2012). Social discovery tools: Extending the principle of user convenience. Journal of Documentation, 68(2), 206–217. Steele, T. (2009). The new cooperative cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 68–77. 106 Shawne Miksa (C )E m er al d G ro up Pu bl is hi ng Tennis, J. (2006). Social tagging and the next steps for indexing. In J. Furner & J. T. Tennis (Eds.), Advances in classification research, Vol. 17: Proceedings of the 17th ASIS&T SIG/CR classification research workshop, Austin, TX, November 4 (pp. 1–10). Retrieved from http://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/acro/ article/view/12493/10992 Trant, J. (2009). Studying social tagging and folksonomy: A review and framework. Journal of Digital Information North America, 10(1). Retrieved from http:// journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/269 Voss, J. (2007). Tagging, folksonomy, & company — Renaissance of manual indexing? Proceedings of the international symposium of information science (pp. 234–254). Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0701072v2 Wilson, P. (1968). Two kinds of power; An essay on bibliographical control. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Yi, K., & Chan, L. M. (2008). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: An exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 65(6), 872–900.