Overview

The approach this chapter takes to applying diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles to name authority records is to follow an ethics of care approach as proposed by Violet B. Fox and Kelly Swickard. We encourage readers to consider their responsibility to the people being described in name authority and other metadata records and to approach the act of creating metadata about people with empathy and respect. This care-based approach aligns with the values expressed in the American Library Association (ALA) in its Code of Ethics. Fox and Swickard note that point three of the code, to protect “each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality,” can be extended to those we describe as well as those we serve directly in our institutions. This extension lines up well with the code’s ninth point, which affirms “the inherent dignity and rights of every person,” including those described in name authority records and elsewhere.

This chapter will refer to name authorities, as this is where much name work is done, but its advice is applicable to any situation where a person’s name is used in any kind of metadata, including non-MARC name elements used for access points and faceting. In addition, much of the advice is broadly applicable to metadata about people beyond their names, especially the need to treat those we describe with empathy and respect. (For more about names in uncontrolled fields and inclusivity in metadata in general, see Chapter 1.) Finally, some of the advice presented herein may conflict with the Program for Cooperative Cataloging’s (PCC) Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) guidelines.^[1] When creating local name authorities or working with names outside of authority records, this chapter’s guidance may be followed as is. When creating authority records for NACO, we advise that catalogers consult PCC guidelines to ensure their records conform to NACO requirements.

General considerations

One question to keep in mind when considering what information to include in a name authority record is: Could this harm the person I’m identifying? Whenever the answer to that question is “yes,” the best approach is to omit the information. Considerations of discoverability, completeness, or other library values don’t outweigh the need not to harm the people we seek to highlight through our work. The people we describe when creating or updating name authority records (NARs) are real people, not a set of descriptors collected into an authority record. Treat them with the same empathy and respect all people are due.

For NACO contributors, it is also important to keep in mind the PCC’s Guiding Principles for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for Metadata Creation and the Cataloguing Code of Ethics endorsed by the PCC.^[2] The principles in both documents are good general guidelines for non-NACO metadata creators as well.

Privacy

Birth dates

Jennifer M. Martin notes that including birth dates in NARs poses serious privacy risks for living people by revealing personally identifiable information that could be used for identity theft. Also, birth dates reveal a person’s age, which could have negative professional consequences or cause discomfort for the person described.^[3] To address these concerns, Martin recommends using date of birth as a disambiguator for living people only if it is obtained directly from the subject of the NAR. Martin further recommends that the subject be made aware that the date’s inclusion in the NAR will make their birth date publicly accessible in a way that will be hard to undo. Providing them with this information allows the subject to make an informed decision about whether or not to grant permission.^[4] If necessary, a note may be recorded in the record’s 667 field indicating the rationale for excluding birth dates from a record.^[5] See Figure 2.1 for an example.

Pseudonymous and anonymous creators

Another area where privacy considerations must be taken into consideration is with pseudonymous and anonymous creators. Creators may choose, for a variety of professional, personal, and safety reasons, to publish under one or more pseudonyms, to use only part of their name, or to omit their name entirely. This desire to separate public and private identities can run afoul of authority work. In “Identity Theft: How Authority Control Undermines Women’s Agency,” Michelle M. Kazmer discusses the cases of Agatha Mallowman, who published under her own name, her famous pseudonym: Agatha Christie, and as Mary Westmacott. Mallowman wished for her various public identities to remain separate. However, the work of the United States Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress, made the link between Westmacott and Mallowman’s other identities public. Another author Kazmer discusses is Columbia University professor Carolyn Heilbrun, who published under the pseudonym Amanda Cross to avoid damaging her academic career. Despite her wishes, the link between her two identities was made public via an LCNAF record.^[6]

Heilbrun is not alone in protecting her identity to avoid the risk of real-world harm. Many zine authors use pseudonyms to explore intimate personal topics without exposing themselves to negative personal or professional repercussions.^[7] Likewise, one early twentieth-century author used the pseudonyms Jennie June, Earl Lind, and Ralph Werther to protect her identity when publishing Autobiography of an Androgyne, 1918, and The Female-impersonators, 1922. June was a trans-feminine person who had sex with men. Under the laws of the time, much of what June described in both books was illegal. Under the Comstock Act, even the publication of the books themselves was of questionable legality. Had June’s identity been disclosed, as Mallowman’s and Heilbrun’s were, she could have faced criminal charges, violence, social isolation, and harassment.^[8] While it is not currently illegal to be transgender or engage in homosexual relationships in the United States, it is still not always safe for people to disclose these parts of themselves publicly. Creators in other countries, including thirteen that still criminalize transgender existence, may face the same degree of criminal, social, and economic risk as June would have should their identities be disclosed.^[9]

To better protect a creator’s privacy, Fox and Swickard recommend contacting a creator whenever including information that might infringe on their privacy. They also recommend including a MARC 667 Nonpublic General Note field indicating a creator has requested that additional information not be added to their authority record. Since MARC does not have a way to fully secure sensitive information, it’s important to word such notes in a way that will not reveal the information the creator seeks to keep private.^[10] Figure 2.2 shows an example of how such a note might be entered:

Additionally, if you find a record with a privacy note, it’s important to honor it, even if you don’t know the specifics of why the note was added.

Gender

Issues surrounding gender present another area where protecting an author’s privacy is important. This is especially true for transgender authors who may not wish to have their gender identity made public and who may be put at risk if it is disclosed. Kelly Thompson found that the 375 field was sometimes used in ways that might out people who were not public about their transgender identity and that 670 Source Data Found fields were also used in ways that could out transgender people.^[11]

Guidance on how to handle the optional MARC 375 Gender field has been in flux over the past several years. The guidance in the original Resource Description and Access (RDA) version, in section 9.7, recommended recording gender as “female,” “male,” or “not known,” with the option of using alternative terms like “intersex” or “transsexual woman” if the above options were not “appropriate or sufficiently specific.” This guidance places intersex and transgender people explicitly outside the normal, acceptable gender terms and received various critiques after its publication.^[12] In 2016, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) Ad Hoc Task Group on Gender in Name Authority Records issued a report offering revised guidance on recording gender for individuals who don’t fit the Western cisgender binary.^[13] Kalani Adolpho noted that this report introduced its own problems, including that it was rooted in “Western-centric, cisnormative understandings of gender that deny gender diverse people both agency over our own identities and decision-making power over the frameworks that seek to include us.”^[14]

In 2022, the PCC Ad Hoc Task Group on Recording Gender in Personal Name Authority Records issued a revised report with clear and easy-to-follow guidance:

Do not record the RDA gender element (MARC 375) in personal name authority records. Delete existing 375 fields when editing a record for any other reason.^[15]

It is our recommendation that catalogers follow the above guidance.

Names of transgender people

Just as the recording of gender can pose privacy and safety concerns for transgender individuals, so too can the handling of names. Many people change their name one or more times as part of their transition and may not wish to have their prior name(s) publicly known. Also, a trans individual’s name may differ from their legal name. Where possible, it is advisable to contact a creator for permission to include any names in an NAR beyond those they publish under. In cases where you are unable to determine a creator’s wishes, the Trans Metadata Collective recommends the following principles:

Someone’s full body of work should be accessible using their current name. Former names that they have previously published under should be used as little as possible and kept private. Former names that the author has not published under should not be included.^[16]

Married women’s names

In older publications and NARs, married women’s names may appear as their husband’s name with the title “Mrs.,” such as “Mrs. Frederic S. Goodwin.” See Figure 2.3 for an example of such an authority record.

In such cases, consult additional resources to find the person’s first name. It may not always be possible to satisfactorily identify someone, but when it is possible, it adds an additional route of discovery and access. When a married woman’s real name is known, use that form in the 100 field and record the married form of her name in a 400 field, as in Figure 2.4.

Non-English names

When working with a name from a language other than English, it’s important to be cognizant of the culture from which the name originates. Differences in language, script, orthography, culture, and naming practices can present difficulties in accurately recording an individual’s name.

Romanizing names in Non-Latin scripts

When working with names normally written with non-Latin scripts, it’s important to approach the work of transcription carefully. Arastoopoor and Ahmadinasab note fifteen sources of possible inconsistencies when Romanizing Persian personal and corporate names. Dagher and Soufi note numerous challenges to Romanizing Arabic names, including a common lack of clear vowel markers, dialect-dependent pronunciation, and complications presented by compound names. Regardless of the specific language or writing system, difficulties are likely to arise when Romanizing any names recorded in non-Latin scripts.

To ensure the most accurate Romanization, we recommend:

• Use a person’s transcription of their own name when available.
• Consult with someone knowledgeable in the language and culture you are working with.
• Familiarize yourself with the linguistic and cultural issues that could lead to a less-than-ideal translation.

One caveat that must be noted when working with NACO records is that the preferred version of the name used in the 100 field must conform to the ALA-LC Romanization Tables, which may conflict with the above guidance. However, alternative transliterations may be added as variant access points in the 400 field, as shown in Figure 2.5.

Cultural considerations

Every culture has its own naming conventions. In some cases, these might be close to Anglo-American naming conventions. In others, there can be numerous differences. A catalog of naming conventions across the cultures and languages of the world would require its own dedicated book. The following will highlight some broader issues that may occur across cultural groups. Consult a member of the community a name comes from, or a qualified expert, or research that community to gain familiarity with the naming conventions of a specific language and people. Style guides may also offer guidance on various naming conventions. The MLA Handbook briefly covers English and non-English names in Chapter 2. Sections 2.71 to 2.86 cover personal names.^[17] Sections 2.87 and 2.88 cover corporate names. The Chicago Manual of Style covers personal and corporate names in Chapter 8.^[18]

In some cases it may be important to link NARs to related names and places. Catherine Amey quotes Te Aue Davis, Tipene O’Regan, and John Wilson’s “Ngā Tohu Pumahara: The Survey Pegs of the Past: Understanding Māori Place Names,” which notes that the meaning of many Māori names “can only be understood through their connection to other names and places.”^[19] When working in MARC, such connections can be made in various fields. Associated groups may be recorded in the 373 field. Family information can be recorded in the 376 field. Associated places may be recorded in the 370 field.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we covered various areas of concern when creating name authority records or otherwise working with names in metadata and steps that can be taken to make sure we treat those we describe with dignity and respect. The chapter covered ways to protect the privacy of the people we describe, including by omitting a living person’s birth date from NARs when possible, not outing pseudonymous or anonymous authors, and not recording gender in NARs. The chapter also covered approaches to handling names for transgender people, married women who may be known by their husband’s name, and general approaches to handling non-English names.