Shining Light on Labels in the Dark: Guidelines for Offensive Collections Materials

Abstract

The natural history collections community has made significant strides in the past decade in the digitization of their holdings. Digitization has made the data and corresponding images of collections publicly available to researchers, students, and the public. Data and images are served online by institutions’ local databases, and regional, national, and international aggregators. One challenging aspect in digitizing natural history collections is the presence of offensive language, such as racial slurs in collection and location data. We present findings from a community survey and analysis of data from relevant aggregators to assess the presence of and approach to offensive language in collections data. We also suggest initial guidelines for data warning statements and disclaimers and transcription guidelines to help preserve historical integrity of data while also supporting inclusive and safe workspaces. Please note that in writing about offensive terms found in natural history collections, we use and refer to offensive terms and include images of labels and documents to provide examples.

Moving On: Rethinking Practice and Transforming Data at the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge

“…The challenges encountered by museum staff attempting to historicize databases have been widely discussed in the last decade (Briscoe et al 2022;Chilcott 2019;Turner 2016aTurner , 2020 and reflect accurately those faced by MAA. As discussed above, the previously multi-vocal layers present on MAA's original catalogue cards were lost during MAA's initial data migration when unrelated data (technical, historical, museological) were clumped together into a few, unauthored fields.…”

“…18. See Antracoli et al (2020); Briscoe et al (2022), Chilcott (2019), Modest and Lelijveld (2018) and Clarissa Chew's Cultural Heritage Terminology Network, https://culturalheritageterminology.co.uk/ (accessed December 5, 2023).…”

“…Others have proposed various approaches to mitigate harm stemming from offensive and discriminatory language encountered within catalogues, while maintaining institutional transparency. These have largely focused on methods of contextualizing the records, rather than removing outdated language from the catalogue (Briscoe et al 2022;Chilcott 2019;Wright 2019). What is less often discussed is how old data can reduce Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals 20(1) access to collections by rendering them less searchable.…”

Building an inclusive botany: The “radicle” dream

“…While on the surface, digitizing specimens and the information stored within them increases accessibility, enabling more people to work and learn from these data, digitization also allows label data with sensitive information to be shared more widely. Sometimes, this sensitive (or sometimes offensive) information may be obvious, and institutions may choose to mask the information, only sharing it upon request or providing pop-up warnings to users prior to accessing the database (Briscoe et al, 2022). However, in scenarios where the information was included without permission, researchers may not realize it is sensitive, and because of a lack of inclusion from marginalized botanists, this information goes unprotected.…”