Metadata Basics

We at UT Libraries define harmful language as description that contains disturbing or offensive phrasing. These descriptions can come directly from our library’s materials or can be written by staff. Some examples of harmful descriptions present in our collections are demeaning descriptions of minority people, intentional erasure of gendered and racial groups, and use of outdated terms. This concept is rooted in the belief that practices at cultural heritage institutions are not neutral and never have been, and so the presentation and description of collections reflect human biases. 

Harmful content includes collection materials that contain graphic, violent, or harmful language, visual, or audio content. Some examples in our collections are images of police brutality, videos of exhumations, or descriptions of sexual violence.

UT Libraries stewards a wide range of collections and there isn’t a one-size solution to addressing the presence of harmful language and content. Some examples of our approaches are presented in this guide, from case studies to a list of resources we actively use. These approaches are guided by current organizational values.  

We welcome feedback on any harmful language or content discovered while searching for or using materials in UT Libraries' collections. 

Reparative description, also variously described as critical cataloging or conscious description/cataloging, is a library and archival best practice focused on improving collection descriptions. As a practice, it addresses historic and contemporary inequities in library and archival description, including pejorative language, graphic content, and lack of community consultation. By updating descriptions to use current and community-focused content, materials can be more accessible to users, as well as containing more accurate information. The case study below provides an example of reparative description in action at UT Libraries. Further resources are also included at the bottom of the page in the "Descriptions" tab.

Alexander Architectural Archives (AAA): renaming women in architectural drawings

Due to 19th to mid-20th century naming conventions, women's names were often subsumed in documentation under that of their spouse, if recorded at all. These gaps in documentation caused women to be underrepresented in the archival record. In 2022, a pilot program was created by AAA staff to find unattributed female clients' names within architectural drawings and add them to their records (contributor and title field.) 

For more information, please check out the link below.

Some controlled vocabularies used by libraries and archives contain terminology that is outdated or pejorative. Their existence in library tools illustrate both changes in language over time, as well as the historic foundations in which they were made. While vocabularies may sometimes be revised to reflect those changes, as is happening with the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) relating to Indigenous peoples, other times professionals choose to use alternative vocabularies. The case study below provides an example of alternative vocabulary work at UT Libraries. Further resources are also included at the bottom of the page in the "Vocabularies" tab.

Pan-American Authorities: creating sustainable Spanish subject headings

PANA (Pan-American Authorities) project is a collaborative initiative between the University of Florida Libraries, the University of Texas at Austin Libraries, and the University of California San Diego Libraries to create and apply Spanish subject terms to digital collections. Finding a massive gap in Spanish language availability in common controlled vocabularies like LCSH, these institutions sought to utilize resources from Spanish-speaking countries instead, compiling translations into an online resource that is free and open to use. 

For more information, please check out the link below.

Harmful content can come in a variety of forms and relate to multiple kinds of subjects; as such, various strategies may need to be employed. The case study below describes an example of this comprehensive approach. It is also important to address the mental stress working with such materials may cause to staff and student workers. A guide addressing this topic is linked in the UT Resources section below. 

Human Rights Documentation Initiative: a comprehensive approach to addressing harmful content

The Human Rights Documentation Initiative (HRDI) preserves records of human rights struggles worldwide ranging from video testimonies of genocide and trafficking to radio broadcasts of civil war. This website offers a comprehensive approach to addressing harmful content and language through the use of curated image thumbnails, content warnings in object descriptions, and a bilingual platform. These actions help to minimize the possible harm caused to collection users without proper content warning and labeling and to preserve the dignity of those depicted. 

For more information, please check out the link below.

The following sources were used to create this page:

Caringola, L., Frisch, H., & Stranieri, M. (2021). Resources for creating inclusive and Conscious Archival Description. University of Maryland University Libraries: Research Guides. https://lib.guides.umd.edu/conscious-archival-description  

Conscious editing initiative. UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries. (n.d.). https://library.unc.edu/reckoning/conscious-editing-initiative/

DPLA. (n.d.). HARMFUL LANGUAGE STATEMENT DPLA’s statement on potentially harmful content. Black Womens’s Suffrage. https://blackwomenssuffrage.dp.la/harmful-language-statement

Harmful language in library resource descriptions. Michigan State University Libraries: LibGuides. (n.d.). https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/c.php?g=1201971&p=8789222

Yale University Library Research Guides: Reparative Archival Description Working Group: Home. Yale Library. (n.d.). https://guides.library.yale.edu/reparativearchivaldescription