Before becoming the operations manager, I had no idea what BISAC codes even were. I had no concept of “metadata,” and no concept of digital integrity or digital maintenance.

At Ooligan Press, a major benefit of training in the program is that you become educated—and subsequently interested—in various sectors within the bigger publishing industry. Most students, including myself, enter the program mostly interested in editing. To a layperson, editing sums up most of their prior knowledge about the publishing industry and what that career path entails. Only once you’re thrown into the deep end and experience the ebb and flow of book publishing within its confines do you begin to become aware of the various other specializations within the field.

I was no exception. Now that I’m about to graduate from the program, it’s pretty jarring to think about how much I’ve learned about metadata and BISAC codes (Book Industry Standards and Communications) within only a year of being the operations manager. My interest in BISAC codes is so strong that I’ve based my final research paper around the topic.

If you are unfamiliar with what metadata is, it is essentially “data about data.” In the book business, this usually means things like a book’s description, genre, page count, title and subtitle, and so on. These pieces of data tell a reader, publisher, or other interested party about the book—and these items are what I am referring to when I talk about metadata.

One particular facet of metadata that I have a great interest in are BISAC subject codes. Comparable to the famous Dewey decimal system used in many libraries, BISAC subject codes are the categorization method of choice used in the US book market; they communicate the genre and content of a book, providing a means for a publishing professional to identify a particular and often niche audience. Publishers will typically choose three to four BISAC codes from the official BISAC code list.

In an oversaturated market, finding a way to identify a target audience and attract their attention is an incredibly invaluable asset to staying in the business. However, a big challenge to BISAC codes’ accuracy is the lack of diverse life experience among the small body of people who make the BISAC classifications. At times, this can create an arguably prescriptive—rather than descriptive—method of categorization. I personally find myself frustrated at times with the ways publishers choose to advertise the genre of books that feature characters from particular identities.

Because of that frustration and the growth of my interest in data analysis, I decided that for my final research paper I would examine one example in which BISAC codes denote the identity of main characters—those of Latin, Southeast Asian, or queer identities specifically. To explore the possibility of prescriptive usage of BISAC codes, my research aims to examine sixty different children’s and YA books listed in the Diverse BookFinder database. I am currently working on comparing these classifications to their publisher-assigned BISAC codes. Using the results, I will then conduct an analysis of the frequency of codes denoting racial or sexual identity rather than subject matter.

At the time of writing this, I am still in the midst of editing and compiling the analysis portion of my paper. I hope it helps bring more awareness to elements of subjectivity and representation that concerns us publishing professionals.