In general DACS should include language affirming inclusive and thoughtful description

[sreller]

Link to relevant DACS principle

Principle 2. Users are the Fundamental Reason for Archival Description. Principle 10. Archivists must have a user-driven reason to enhance existing archival description.

Describe how DACS does not currently meet this principle

DACS should (perhaps in Overview of Archival Description) add language on considering a plurality of users generally in archival description. Language could discuss using active voice in archivist generated description and notes and considering whether description respectful of users and those invested in the record. Suggestions could include making sure institution-created description is assessed by outside communities; describing records in a way that supports the information-seeking needs of stakeholder communities including terminology that communities represented use to describe themselves; consider audience and the potential for harm when making decisions about whether to preserve problematic creator-supplied language.

DACS should point to additional resources for inclusive and thoughtful description such as alternative classification schemes, alternative cataloging schemes created by the subjects of the records being described when and if they are available, and cite them in a processing note or other part of the finding aid.

I expect that this will require a

• [ ] Minor change to DACS
• [x] Major change to DACS

Link(s) to any relevant part(s) of DACS

Overview of Archival Description

[kcdiehl]

TS-DACS Community Meet (4/16) feedback from Liz Beckman, Faith Charlton, Betts Coup, and Kristen Diehl:

1. A brief description of the problem you are trying to solve: Archives practitioners would like DACS to include more guidance and examples for writing inclusive and thoughtful description. This includes updating existing examples and language in the standard as well as adding new examples and guidance. To this end we recommend:

   • Revise DACS so that inclusive description is a routine part of archival description - inclusive and thoughtful description is the lens through which DACS should be written.
   • Note that this need isn’t specific to one section - pertains to several sections in DACS Parts 1 and 2.

2. The Principle(s) it connects to: Principle 1: Most literal about inclusive description. Principle 7: Doesn’t mention inclusive description in and of itself, but certainly speaks to representing communities, particularly those historically marginalized. Principles 2 & 10: User-centeredness and user-based reasons for enhancing description. Principle 11: Language changes, society changes, archival description is a continuous intellectual process. Framing our work as iterative and flexible allows us to be more responsive to feedback from users. Principle 4: Describing agents and recognizing changing identities. Seeking out new and varied sources for authority records.

3. One or several action items that could move the issue forward:

   • Review current DACS github tickets with the "Inclusive Description" tag, which often link to specific sections in need of review.
   • TS-DACS could form a new working group to revise the standard, perhaps in collaboration with the SAA Description Section. Such a project should prioritize working with groups that include folks from historically marginalized communities. Working with other SAA sections would promote consistency, reduce labor overlap/redundancy, and help break down existing silos.
   • Thinking about the DACS sections: Include citations for additional standards and thesauri, or point to the Description Section Inclusive Description Portal. Provide additional guidance for more narrative/qualitative elements such as Scope and Content and Biographical/Historical notes. Update and enhance the examples provided throughout the standard.

4. Blockers, if any:

   • The scope of the work. We recognize this level of update pertains to the entire standard - an indication of its importance.
   • Ensuring that a broader group of archivists can respond and be a part of this work.

[searcy]

Sharing observations from the TS-DACS Community Meeting Day 3 Activity (also included Faith and Sylvia):

Blockers and obstacles:

• The scope of this work is so large that is overwhelming. It could take forever to implement or possibly never finish.
• Who is involved in doing this work? The folks most impacted by the harm caused by inaccurate, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful description should be the ones driving the conversation. The lack of diversity in the profession, and the realities of the time and energy required to do professional service often results in those from dominant identities and institutions being involved.
• There are limits to what description (or re-description) alone can do; issues of curation, collection development policies, outreach, etc. are very relevant.

Probing questions:

• Why is this suddenly something we are talking about, and not something we've been doing all along?
• Why do we suddenly seem to care?
• Why should only some people be working on this?
• Who are we considering users (researchers, colleagues, communities represented in collections)?

15% Solution Ideas:

• Form a working group or task force with strict membership; pursue recruiting to include more diverse voices. Those with dominant identities should take on the administrative overhead of this work.
• Participants should be compensated for their work.
• Partner with existing sections that support the work on underrepresented individuals and communities; do pop-up session alongside existing meetings
• Provide a link to Description Section's inclusive description resources: https://www2.archivists.org/groups/description-section/inclusive-description
• Add guidance for how to apply a critical consciousness to newly created description (e.g., identifying gaps in the historical record in a Scope note, limit biographical information to contextual information about the collection at-hand)
• Update guidance on Appraisal Note to explain acquisition decisions and relationship to collecting areas (i.e., examples that go beyond weeding or materials appraised out of a collection). This is in the service of transparency.
• Identify opportunities for assessment and centering user experiences.

[lizbeckman]

Adding the 15% solutions from a second group that was part of the TS-DACS Community Meeting Day 3 Activity (myself, Kelin, and William): as interim measures, we could have user generated illustrations of DACS elements submitted to GitHub to diversify the examples presented, and (as someone in the group originally working on this ticket suggested, Betts, Faith, or Kristen), we could also link from DACS to Archives for Black Lives' Antiracist Description Resources, since it is an SAA approved standard.