Roundtable Discussion on Metadata for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 2022-01-25

Time: 2:00pm-3:00pm Eastern

Call-In Info:

Community Notes:

Samvera Code of Conduct and Anti-Harassment Policy:

Moderator(s)@Nora Zimmerman

Notetaker: @Anna Goslen


  • Julie Hardesty (Indiana University)

  • Anna Goslen (UNC-Chapel Hill)

  • Nora Zimmerman (Lafayette)

  • Meredith Hale (University of Tennessee)

  • Jen Young (Northwestern)

  • Julia Simic (U of Oregon)

  • Rebecca Pattillo (U of Louisville)

  • Sarah Seymore (UOregon)

  • Cara Key (Oregon State University)

  • Kate Lynch (Princeton University)

  • Heather Greer Klein (Samvera)

  • Brianna McLaughlin (Indiana University)

  • Kim Leaman (Princeton University)

  • Maggie Dickson (Duke University) 

  • Anna Craft (UNC Greensboro)

  • Annamarie Klose (Ohio State)

  • Rachel Jaffe (UC Santa Cruz)

  • Wen Nie Ng


  • Roundtable Discussion on Metadata for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

    • Julie Hardesty, Indiana University - IU Harmful Language Statement and reporting process

      • New, posted in September of 2021

      • Includes resources used to develop the statement

      • Provided on library’s website, in context of Digital Collections Services department

      • Links to a reporting form

        • A Qualtrics form - requires a URL for the relevant item

        • Other fields for additional details - optional

        • Can share email address, but not required

      • Statement is also linked in footer of IU Digital Collections site, as well as Image Collections Online site (this site will eventually be superseded by Digital Collections site). Planning to add link to Media Collections site and Archives Online sites as well.

      • Statement will not be linked in context of library catalog, IUCAT, at this time.

      • Also have a DCS Harmful Language Support manual on internal Confluence page (not publicly accessible). Get notice when something is reported in qualtrics, connected to Jira for taking action through automated ticketing.

      • DCS is serving as intermediary between users and collection managers

      • Have a plan to review the statement annually - DCS team will be responsible for the review. Would try to connect with other departments about possible areas of expansion (IUCAT, etc).

      • Link to brown bag that explains process in more detail:

    • Meredith Hale, University of Tennessee - Digital Library of Tennessee harmful language statement

      • DTLN statement:

      • Email to report would go to Meredith only for right now, as chair of committee

      • Digital Library of Tennessee committee page:

      • DPLA local site - - includes links to DPLA’s statement and DPLA’s reporting mechanism - have not yet received any reports via this avenue either

      • Shared via chat: list of statements on Cataloging Lab:

      • Since they are migrating, they have not tackled the issue of including it locally

      • Distinction between harmful description vs content - many participants have tried to address both in their statements. At Northwestern, they are creating 2 different statements.

      • At Duke, they released a statement in the fall, linked in many places. Curious that many of us have not had things reported yet. Valuable to talk and think through the workflow, so now the formalized workflow is in place, even if ends up being used mostly internally.

    • Kim Leaman and Kate Lynch, Princeton University - Formation of a dedicated working group to identify and address concerns with regard to Harmful Content in our Library Collections

      • Kim and Kate are members of Princeton’s Harmful Content Working Group

        • Spanning various stakeholders across library

        • Determine workflows for addressing harmful content

        • Three tasks

          • producing a Statement on Harmful content similar to that of the Library’s Statement on Language in Description

            • Statement on Language in Description:

          • Subgroup - recommendations for access mediation as harm reduction method for users who encounter harmful, distressing content

          • Subgroup - workflows and communication for staff who identify content during digitization, and for staff and users who identify such content for collections that have already been digitized

            • Documenting what is currently happening, streamline things to minimize duplication of work.

            • Often Digitization Studio is the first place where content can be assessed.

            • Think through discussing this with vendors doing digitization as well.

            • Communication recommendations so that when content is identified, there is a mechanism for staff and public users to report

            • Wanted to stress recommendations for training on cultural competence and general cultural awareness and empathy, to be continuously offered

          • Having a continuing, dedicated group for harmful content would be helpful, who can triage things to the correct places, iterate on this work

          • Q: Do the proposers of digitization ever provide info about the items to be digitized, such as that it includes harmful content? 

            • Working on incorporating this into workflow

          • Metadata assessment and conservation assessment as part of proposal, before reaching digitization

    • Open discussion

  • Next call: February 22nd, 2-3pm Eastern