 |
 |
This post by Tim Jerome may help you Nicola. Regards, Helen Hargest ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tim Jerrome <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019, 16:02 Subject: Results of research into offensive language in archival description To: <[log in to unmask]> Hi everyone, You may recall that several months ago I posted a survey on this list which sought to measure opinions on the issue of offensive language in archival description. Several participants expressed a desire to see the eventual results of my research, and as thanks for the excellent levels of participation from those on this list (120 respondents in total!) I have decided to post them here. As well as the survey, I undertook a review of literature and held three focus groups in different archival institutions. If there is one clear-cut result which has become evident during this research, it is the fact that the heritage sector is not yet ready to fully concur on a solution for potentially offensive terminology in archival description. This applies to a range of issues: whether the participatory approach is pragmatic, whether quotation marks around offensive words are appropriate, who should lead the profession’s response, and whether content warnings should be implemented. However, I stated at the outset that this work was to be more than a prevarication on the topic, and so I have decided upon the following guidelines for an archivist who is cataloguing collections containing offensive language relating to sexuality, mental health or lifestyle: 1. Do not make any alterations to the title field; specifically, do not replace offensive terminology or include quotation marks around the terminology. Either of these solutions intrudes upon the original language of the record creator and therefore damages the record’s integrity. There is no guarantee that changing title fields will decrease the offence caused, and it is more likely to result in confusion and anger amongst users who are trying to view a record which is being mis-represented by the archivist. It is, however, acceptable to change offensive terminology inputted by a previous archivist, so long as this terminology is not present on the item itself. A note of such changes should be made. 2. Include contextual information on the offensive terminology within the record’s description field. This fulfils an archivist’s role to educate, removes the possibility of misunderstanding the origin of the offensive term, and is visible to users. I would suggest a wording of: “We recognise that this catalogue entry contains terminology which could be considered offensive. The terminology exists within the original record and has been retained to inform users on viewpoints at the time. It in no way reflects the attitudes of the cataloguer or [Institution name]. For further information on the history of the terminology, please view the following sources: [Insert books, articles, websites etc].” Alternatively, use keyword indexing to automatically link catalogue records to a keyword record which contains information on the history of an offensive word. 3. Input alternative, less offensive terminology into the notes field to improve discoverability for researchers who may not be typing offensive words into the online catalogue. For example, for a record containing the word “lunatic”, type “mental illness” into the notes field. 4. In order to improve professional knowledge on these words and the communities they affect, strive to build a collective database of participatory knowledge which all heritage professionals can access. This database could be updated by those with the resources to undertake participatory work, therefore providing an option for those who are under-resourced. I would recommend that this database is hosted by the ARA, as they are a trusted voice on the issue of ethics. Furthermore, as they are not a repository in the same manner as the National Archives, they would not become entangled with issues in their own practice regarding offensive language. I fully understand that these guidelines will not be agreed upon by everyone in this list, and I would very much welcome further discussion and refinement of these suggestions. I also appreciate that user-focused research would also be beneficial to the development of these ideas. If you would like to know more about the methodology and results which resulted in these guidelines, please let me know. Best wishes, Tim Contact the list owner for assistance at [log in to unmask] For information about joining, leaving and suspending mail (eg during a holiday) see the list website at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=archives-nra Contact the list owner for assistance at [log in to unmask] For information about joining, leaving and suspending mail (eg during a holiday) see the list website at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=archives-nra