1 of 18

Whose authority?

Applying a DEI Lens to

Traditional Descriptive Practice

Laura Daniels, Jackie Magagnosc, & Liz Parker

2 of 18

3 of 18

Positionality (who we are)

4 of 18

Forming the Inclusive Descriptive Practices Task Force (IDPTF)

Individual metadata professionals at Cornell Library were doing work in this area, but there was no central group or coordinated workflow

Cornell DIB (Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging) Council and the Equity & Empowerment Reading Group together with the Metadata Working Group hosted a screening of Change the Subject in January 2020

After the screening, the Critical Cataloging Group was formed by interested staff members to work to locally change the “illegal aliens” subject heading and to come up with a “Rapid Response Team” and workflow to change other problematic subject headings - Winter/Spring 2020

Murder of George Floyd - May 25, 2020

BLM protests - Spring/Summer 2020

A general call to examine our descriptive practices was sent out to the general CUL listserv by archivist Marcie Farwell; interested librarians/archivists came together first via email then via zoom and formed a group to draft a charge for a task force - Summer 2020

5 of 18

Forming the Inclusive Descriptive Practices Task Force (IDPTF)

Charge for IDPTF (initially called Ethical Metadata Practices Task Force) was written by what was informally called the “Coordinating Group” - June/July 2020

The charge was finished and submitted for approval to the Library Executive Group - August 2020

“Overview and Scope: Descriptive practice is never objective. While performed with the best intentions, metadata for CUL’s physical and digital materials are produced by humans with their own cultural backgrounds and competencies. This is not unique to CUL; library colleagues have long discussed the subjective nature of cataloging practice in terms of depth and accuracy of description, inclusion and exclusion of communities as well as linguistic barriers. Meanwhile, the materials we collect derive from diverse communities across the world and should serve diverse users in Ithaca and internationally.”

Anticipated deliverables for the IDPTF included: draft policy statement(s); create workflow(s) and coordinate them with stakeholders; and create action plans for remediating existing descriptions

General call to join newly named IDPTF went out to CUL listserv - October 2020

First tasks: identify facilitation process for meetings, create schedule of work, create definition for “inclusive description”

6 of 18

Defining inclusive description

Two definitions, one brief, public facing (below), and a longer, internal one.

“Inclusive descriptive practice explicitly acknowledges that description is not neutral. It is an iterative, intentional, person-driven process through which we strive to make well-considered decisions about the language to use when describing not just materials but the people and organizations who created or who are represented within them.”

7 of 18

Selection of subgroup areas and focuses

Started with brainstorming and a spreadsheet

Four working areas chosen:

  1. Language
  2. From Past Practice to Best Practice
  3. Subjects (changed to Controlled Vocabularies)
  4. Context Statements/Content Warning

Each member of the Task Force selected one or more subgroup to be part of

Each subgroup meets/met separately and formed own working norms and expectations

8 of 18

Language

Largely concerned with �non-English names and �non-Roman script languages

Video content created explaining transliteration/Romanization for South and Southeast Asian languages

9 of 18

From Past Practice to Best Practice

Identified guiding principles:

Transparency, Acknowledging Limitations, Care, Respect, Inclusiveness, Acknowledging Subjectivity

Three subsections with specific guidelines for implementation:

  • Archival Description
  • Bibliographic Description (including Name Authorities)
  • Digital Collections

10 of 18

Controlled Vocabularies

Develop strategies to promote inclusive practices in standard controlled vocabularies used by Cornell University Library, including local best practices for creating name authority records, application of subject headings, and taking action to address problematic language in extant controlled vocabularies.

Ongoing work, performed by members of this group along with any other interested staff members.

  • Application of Inclusive descriptive principles to "traditional" authority work, e.g. gender representation in names/agents, including trans and nonbinary persons.
  • Consultation with appropriate subject matter experts to counter our own inherent biases
  • Identify and explore controlled vocabularies to address areas not well represented in LCSH – e.g.: Homosaurus, AAT and propose application of these controlled vocabularies to supplement LCSH's inadequate treatment of topics outside of the unspoken norm of Christianity, maleness, whiteness, etc.
  • Creation of an LCSH "response team” to address reports of problematic controlled vocabulary terms.

11 of 18

Controlled Vocabularies

Work beyond initial plans

  • Draft a public facing statement on challenging terminology in the catalog
  • Develop a mechanism for patrons to report terminology they find problematic
  • Outreach to public facing librarians and staff to raise awareness of issues
  • Promote awareness in information literacy and other instruction sessions

12 of 18

Context Statements/Content Warning

Ensure a coordinated approach to the application of contextual statements for CUL's collections. In order to achieve this goal, the group will liaise with and maintain connections with other CUL groups tasked with creating contextual statements and keep apprised of emerging CUL policy.

  • Inventory existing contextual statements applied to CUL materials. Identify points of contact, such as collection stewards, and the granularity at which the statements are applied.
  • Identify essential components of contextual statements to guide library staff in evaluating existing statements and creating new ones.
  • Identify key stakeholder groups and draft criteria for evaluating the suitability of applying contextual statements to library content.

13 of 18

Crafting our Guiding Principles

Guiding principles:

Transparency, Acknowledging Limitations, Care, Respect, Inclusiveness, Acknowledging Subjectivity

The group drafted a document in which we defined each guiding principle

Each group member was then asked to solicit comments on the document from two Cornell Library workers who were not members of the IDPTF

Then, using a tool adapted for this purpose by Dianne Dietrich, all comments were logged, reviewed, and then incorporated (or not) into the final document

14 of 18

Crafting our Guiding Principles

Review Tool:

15 of 18

Subject proposals can be intimidating…

fake by Chaiwat Ginkaew from Noun Project

  1. The amount of research required
  2. Access to the proposal system
  3. Asserting that someone else got it wrong
  4. Asserting that you think you’re right
  5. Anticipating everyone seeing your rejected proposal in the LC Summary of Decisions
  6. More than one of the above
  7. Other

16 of 18

…and

You are not an imposter, and you are not alone.

17 of 18

Making Change

Together we have the will and tools to initiate change

18 of 18

Laura Daniels:

lew235@cornell.edu

Jackie Magagnosc:

jkm95@cornell.edu

Liz Parker:

eep63@cornell.edu