Society of American Archivists Annual Conference 2021

The annual Society of American Archivists conference was once again held in a digital format this year. Given my feeling of burnout, I attended with the hopes that it would help reignite my interest in archival work. Fortunately, the conference did not disappoint!

It was wonderful to see so many sessions that seemed to be focused on two general themes: reparative description and community archives. These are both topics that I have been interested in and wanting to learn more about, and given the number of sessions that addressed issues around both, I feel as though I walked away with a variety of perspectives. 

Samip Mallick presenting during the session ‘Community Archives Collaborative: Transforming Archival Work with Community-based Archives.’ The quote on his slide underscores the importance of archival records to communities, especially those that aren’t a part of dominant culture.

The sessions that I attended (both synchronously and asynchronously) that looked at the possibilities for inclusive metadata practices included: Instituting Sustainable Reparative Work from Where We Are; Language Matters: NARA and LAC Tackle Reparative Description; Temporal Ties: Addressing Harmful Pasts, Towards Imagining Just Futures; Foundations for Culturally Competent, Racially Conscious Metadata; and Making Product Less Problematic: Considerations of MPLP and Conscientious Description. The panelists in each session represented a range of different institutions - from government agencies to university libraries to small archives. It was helpful to find common threads throughout much of the discussion:

• Understanding your positionality (race, class, gender, nationality, disability status, etc) and how personal identity terms are not neutral are critical aspects to being mindful about this work, and also acknowledging that even with the best intentions it is very possible to perpetuate harm, especially if you belong to dominant identities

• Starting somewhere, even with small or basic steps like remedying collection-level description; progress over perfection

• Knowing that as archivists we often won’t know everything and need to reach out to subject experts, who are almost always members of the communities represented in and/or created by our collections

• Seeking community collaboration - not only around terms but also what priorities should be - can help archivists to be more strategic and create paths forward

• Embracing the reality that this work is iterative and that our workflows and resourcing (staff, time, etc) should take this into account; programs not projects so that the work is sustained rather than one-off

• Accepting that we may use technology to aid in speeding up some of this work - using a script to identify lists of problematic or harmful terms in finding aids, for example - but that redescription requires human intervention and judgment calls

• Accepting that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to redescription and reparative metadata work

• Approaching the work with an ethic of care and cultural humility

• Leaving notes on what was changed or amended for future users and archivists, considering if/when it is appropriate to retain previous harmful or erasing description

Sam Winn presenting during the session ‘Foundations for Culturally Competent, Racially Conscious Metadata.’ The slide provides reflections on the politics of naming.

Betts Coup presenting during the session ‘Making Product Less Problematic: Considerations of MPLP and Conscientious Description.’ The slide suggests that there should be normalization of not knowing and that learning and change should be key components to archival work.

I’m still mulling over all these ideas, and how care is so critical to a seemingly straightforward practice like description. That human-centered focus was a central theme to the sessions on community archives, as well. These sessions included: Temporal Ties: Addressing Harmful Pasts; Considering the Power of Naming Practices in Community-Based Archives; and Community Archives Collaborative: Transforming Archival Work with Community-based Archives. Some of my takeaways from these conversations:

• Many communities have grappled with symbolic annihilation from archives, which is when you and your community is not represented in mainstream collections; as a result these individuals and communities’ relationships with “traditional” repositories may be strained

• Community-based archives can provide an antidote to the traditional archival model in enabling folks to own their stories and history - in all its variation - outside those traditional repositories; self-determination, cultural sovereignty, and agency are key

• Some community-based archives may opt to adopt a post-custodial approach so that the owners/creators of the materials are able to retain the originals and the archive can then provide access to and unify materials digitally 

• Community-based archives serve to help people process generational trauma and heal, and also connect with previous generations and reclaim heritage; these archives can be a way of finding home and a way of continuing to keep the culture going

• Community is complicated! Marginalized communities aren’t a monolith, and it’s always important to take power dynamics into account with interactions; what is our relationship to power and how do we use it?

• Community-based and driven archives aren’t just about a repository collecting materials from a community but rather can and should be about disrupting existing power structures, including but not limited to training community archivists and providing them with free archival materials

• Depending on the nature of the organization, community-based archives may benefit non-hierarchical organizational structure and consensus based decision making

• Aside from simply amassing and providing access to materials, community-based archives can be uniquely positioned to activate their collections through collaborations

Joyce Gabiola and Gabrielle Garcia presenting during the session ‘ Temporal Ties: Addressing Harmful Pasts, Toward Imagining Just Futures.’ The slide reviews their framework for creating an inclusive environment at their organization.

Dominique Luster presenting during the session ‘Foundations for Culturally Competent, Racially Conscious Metadata.’ The slide asserts that archives are not neutral and that cultural competency is key in archival work.

I feel like so much of the work discussed during the sessions I attended critically looked at dismantling dehumanizing power structures in archives. The field has a long way to go in acknowledging and repairing the harm that has been done, often under the guise of neutrality and professionalism. It is heartening to see more folks working in the field centering human-centered archival work. 

Accessibility & Archives

One of the ways that I’ve been passing the time while being furloughed is attending workshops and webinars on topics of interest to me. Some of these have focused on technology in the field of image management and archives, and some have focused on decolonizing and creating racial equity in the GLAM field. I have also attended sessions focused on accessibility: Accessible Design for the NYC Digital Humanities (NYCDH) week and Reimagining Access: Inclusive Technology for Archives & Special Collections an IMLS funded symposium hosted by ArtCenter College of Design. This is one area of equity work which I haven’t spent as much time with, and both sessions were incredibly helpful.

THE NYCDH workshop focused on accessibility on the web. The presenter Heather Hill first provided some foundational information on accessibility more broadly, explained why folks in digital humanities should be concerned with this, then gave an overview of universal design and some of its limitations. Since no one approach to accessibility will be perfect for every individual, I really appreciated these takeaways:

• Remain flexible and adaptive

• Universal design is a process, not a goal

• We are trying to move in the right direction

Next, Hill covered basic concepts of accessible design in the web, including the structure and design, theme, and content of websites and digital experiences. We had the chance to learn about specifics, including the impact of proper heading and subheading usage for those using screenreaders, the importance of keyboard shortcuts for those navigating primarily by keyboard rather than a mouse, and how distracting features like automatic playing videos or audio can be distracting for some neurodivergent folks. 

The last portion of the workshop provided time for all the participants to test out a few of the accessibility tools that are available for evaluating websites: HTML CodeSniffer, WAVE, Tota11y, W3C HTML checker and CSS checker, and SortSite. My group took a look at the HTML CodeSniffer. It was overwhelming at first decoding the errors, warnings, and notices. After spending some time experimenting, it became clear how much helpful information the tool provides: it points to the location on the page that doesn’t align with the W3C recommendations for accessibility, it links to the specific W3C recommendation that’s being violated, and it provides the corresponding snippet of code for the offending issue. One of my graduate courses covered web accessibility for one lesson - which is hardly enough - and this workshop demonstrated to me how much more I have to learn. Fortunately, the presenter provided copies of her slides and additional resources so I can continue to dive into these issues.

The same day, the ArtCenter College of Design hosted its symposium on accessibility in archives and special collections. The first speaker, Joshua Halstead, discussed design logics and paradigms, and how the framing of disability matters. He discussed the established (medical, functional limitations, social, minority group) and emerging (critical disability theory, disability justice, political/relational model) approaches to disability and how these different models impact design. He looked at different approaches to disability and design - through the lens of universal design, adaptive design, inclusive design, and critical design - and asserted that there is the potential for disability design to extend beyond just the immediate and practical to positively impact everyone. His talk underscored the idea that there are no stable definitions or universals when thinking about disability, and that we need to take this into account when thinking about design.

The following discussion featured members of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) Accessibility and Disability Section: Michelle Ganz, Dr. Lydia Tang, and Sara White. They provided a history of SAA’s efforts in creating guidelines for accessibility and an overview of the revised document, which is much more expansive and inclusive in its definition of disabilities - including vision, movement, hearing, communication, interaction, and mental health disabilities. The new guidelines cover core values, effective communication, the physical environment, public services, exhibitions and public programming, workplace accessibility, and digital content. It was helpful to learn about specific examples of how recommendations were being implemented in real world scenarios - installing variable height desks and chairs in reading rooms, and using supporting audio via sound domes for exhibitions - in order to understand how practically drafted SAA’s guidelines are. I will definitely be spending more time with this document.

The last portion of the symposium I was able to attend was dedicated to perspectives from archivists, users and designers with a range of disabilities: Michelle Ganz, Dr. Jeffrey Swada, and Sara White. They shared with attendees their personal experiences navigating archives and libraries as researchers and as employees. Dr. Swada presented a series of videos of his screenreader reading several archival repository websites, digital portals, and finding aids. Through his discussion, he provided some invaluable tips on how to help tools like this one more clearly and effectively present digital information. It is common to see a focus on accessibility in this field on patrons, so it was a welcome addition to get the perspective of staff navigating accessibility issues, as well. Ganz and White talked about the ways in which their disabilities intersected with and impacted working with larger teams, and ways in which they and other disabled archivists have faced discrimination. While the field is making some progress, it’s clear that we have much work to do. And I’m so thankful for those who shared their lived experiences, so that we all might better understand how inaccessible archives and libraries often are so we can make necessary changes.

These sessions have been reminders of what I enjoy and care about working in archives and archives-adjacent positions, they’ve been helpful chances to find grounding and connection while I’m away from work. Ultimately, I want to connect folks with information that is useful and of interest to them, and accessibility is core to that. And critically, this work should be infused with an ethic of care. Learning about the experiences of other folks is one important step to that end. 

artEquity

The museum where I work has engaged with the artEquity team, and this group has provided diversity, equity, and inclusion recommendations based on their survey and analysis of the institution. As a part of this, their facilitators have been leading 2-day training sessions for interested staff. There have been several rounds of these sessions, given the necessary cap in attendees per session, and given the interest in these values at the museum. I was fortunate to attend one of these sessions this summer. 

A group of us gathered for both of the full-day sessions, and we were seated at tables with a group of staff from a variety of other departments. As a result, I had the chance to meet folks I had never met, or had only communicated with via email. This aspect of the sessions provided helpful perspective on just how many people work for the institution, and how many unique experiences there are in working at a large, historic museum like this one. While we all had common ground in working for the same employer, talking about inclusion demands a threshold of trust. The facilitators helped guide us through this process, albeit in an abbreviated time, so that we could (hopefully) have honest conversations at our tables and in the larger group. They established ground rules for us, so we could operate in a safe space - as much as this is possible in an institutional context where there are serious issues that we need to remedy.

The sessions were necessarily intense, as we were asked to dive deep into our identity then reflect on how that impacts day-to-day work and interactions. The entire first day helped unveil the aspects of our identity we often overlook or ignore, especially if we are a part of the dominant culture. We therefore discussed things like our gender pronouns and racial identity, and crucially, why we identify this way. The facilitators talked about social location identification within this, which include factors like: religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, gender, disability, age, citizenship, and immigration status. We were asked to consider one of these identities as a table, and then to consider how we individually identify. At the same time, we had to reckon with what identity within each of these social locations aligns with the dominant culture and therefore benefits from the status quo as it relates to access, resources, and structural power. 

Within the institutional context, we evaluated as a group the ways in which power manifests - from positional authority to power (to give or deny support) to influence (more informally). This turns on its head the idea many of us want to embrace - that issues like racism and sexism have to be addressed from the top down. Instead, we all need to recognize when and why we may actually wield more power than we might believe, and when we can leverage that to dismantle the current inequitable systems. It also forces us to face the reality that power often aligns and manifests - often unjustifiably so - along the dominant culture. While those of us in the room may not have created the dominant culture and existing paradigm, it has a negative impact on so many folks - those employed by the museum, those visiting the museum, and everyone in our community - and this is why we need to address all of it. Until we are all treated as humans - at the very least - and ideally as equals, then these discussions and this work must continue. 

Merging ideas about social location, identity, and power structures, the facilitators introduced us to various approaches individuals and organizations may take to difference. These include: exclusionary, colobrlind, multicultural, cultural competency, diversity, and social justice approaches. They noted that an organization may approach different identities in a different way, so our museum may embrace a diversity approach to gender, but a colorblind approach to race, for example. These approaches parallel the organizational stages of diversity and inclusion, which include the: exclusionary, “club,” compliance/token, affirmative action, re-defining/self-renewing, and inclusive organization. During one particularly powerful exercise, the facilitators placed large signs throughout the space with these approaches. We were then invited to move around the room to place ourselves where we felt our institution fell for various scenarios they presented. It was humbling to see where my colleagues placed themselves, and it spoke volumes about individuals’ lived experiences in the institution.

Given what a strong and deadly grip white supremacy culture has on our society, and indeed has on our museum, we spent some time reviewing qualities of it. The facilitators led us through the list of characteristics of white supremacy written by Tema Okun and Kenneth Jones, which include qualities like: perfectionism, defensiveness, quantity over quality, worship of the written word, only one right way, paternalism, either/or thinking, power hoarding, fear of open conflict, individualism, “I’m the only one,” progress is bigger and more, objectivity, and right to comfort. At our tables, we talked about the ways in which these characteristics show up in our daily work, and how we have internalized these behaviors. Fortunately, writings on these topics also include ways of interrupting it, which can provide an antidotes to harm. 

Communication plays a key role in equity and inclusion, so the facilitators provided us with resources on anti-bias language. These glossaries gave definitions for concepts like racism and colorism, colonialism and settler colonialism, and for ways people are identified like people of color, people with disabilities, and transgender. Importantly, the facilitators stressed that we always respect the ways in which others wish to be identified. Listening is important, especially to learn from others who they are and how they identify. It can be helpful to have a common vocabulary for discussions, and we also need to allow room for ongoing inquiry, shifting preferences over time, and complicated discourse.

Microagressions, conflict, and white fragility came up as related topics as we discussed communication. Though there has been pushback among some in our society against the idea of microagressions, it is crucial to recognize the harm they do in sending hostile, derogatory, and “othering” messages. The deeper message behind these comments betray themes like the myth of meritocracy or the assumption of criminal status. The facilitators stressed that conflict is a reality in this or any other type of work - it is a normal part of life, and that it is neither good nor bad. It can escalate, but if we are conscious of the situations, it is possible to both diffuse and address the source of conflict. White fragility factors into all of this, as it is defined by Dr. Robin DiAngelo, because it is “a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves.” White folks may therefore break down and act reactively if confronted with feedback on words or actions, or when people of color choose not to protect the feelings of white folks or share their stories with white folks. White fragility can lead to conflict and has the potential to derail important conversations. It is something that white folks like myself must identify, address, and work to dissolve both in ourselves and in those around us. 

When it came to putting all this into practice, the facilitators provided some foundational tenets to the work:

• Awareness - naming it

• Analysis - making meaning out of it

• Action - putting it into practice

• Accountability - to prevent cycles

• Grace - to build, not exclude, community

While not prescriptive, these principles help provide a framework for equity and inclusion work, or rather, for the work to dismantle the status quo. Through phrases as simple as “might I suggest another word you can use?” to actionable steps like developing a salary survey that addresses identities like race and gender, our work must be multi-faceted, transparent, democratic, and self-aware. We gathered both burning and big questions as a group to figure out next steps, both small and big. Hopefully, in having had some of these conversations together, we can hold each other accountable moving forward. And hopefully too, we can gather a critical mass to make meaningful change and hold the leadership to the goal of true equity. Only then will all staff, visitors, and everyone in our community experience life as they have a right to.