Starting in 2021, the Reparative Archival Description Working Group (RADWG), formerly the Reparative Archival Description Task Force, began compiling a lexicon of inappropriate and potentially harmful terms found in Harvard’s finding aids.
In a pilot audit, five terms were selected from the lexicon and queried across the Harvard ArchivesSpace sandbox via Python script. The terms were chosen to surface various issues in legacy description across Harvard repositories, from race- and gender-related terms to valorizing language, and the query results gave RADWG members the opportunity to work in small groups to implement inclusive and conscientious description and editing within their respective repositories. In the years following, RADWG members have queried ArchivesSpace for additional terms from the lexicon to identify further finding aids in need of reparative description.
While RADWG recognized there are other valid approaches to identify remediation priorities, the objective with this method was to extract a large set of finding aids that were candidates for reparative work. Some repositories may find a different approach more suitable for the needs of their collections and staff.
This case studies spreadsheet offers different examples of the many approaches taken by Harvard repositories to repair harmful terms and edit archival descriptions. One term may call for very different approaches depending on the context in which it is used and the record it describes. Considerations that may affect decisions when doing reparative description include:
- whether the harmful term was archivist-supplied, transcribed from the creator, or part of a formal title
- the historical context surrounding the term’s use at the time the records were created
- local practices aimed at meeting the needs of local staff and users
Reparative actions might include:
- evaluating the records to determine whether descriptive terms are accurate and precise
- thoughtfully researching alternative terminology options
- replacing archivist-supplied terms with more respectful, accurate, or up-to-date language
- adding contextual notes at the appropriate level(s) of description
RADWG recommends that repositories be as transparent as possible in this work to ensure that users and future staff understand why changes and reviews were made. The case studies spreadsheet should thus be seen as a report in an ongoing, iterative process, rather than a static record of completed work.