Metadata for diversity: Identification and implications of potential access points for diverse library resources.

Fran Prather

Rachel, I. C., & Schoonmaker, S. (2020). Metadata for diversity: Identification and implications of

potential access points for diverse library resources. Journal of Documentation, 76(1), 173-196. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2019-0003.

Summary:

This article begins with the premise that diversity is one of the core values of American librarianship and that libraries must promote diverse materials and advocate for diverse communities. After a literature review that begins with the seminal "Windows and Mirrors" premise of Bishop (1990), the authors present their research and findings on the challenges of using metadata to tag resources for diversity. Diversity in this case included "baskets":  gender, occupation, geographic region, audience, age, race, ethnicity, cultural identity, indigeneity, gender identity, LGBTQIA+, and disability. Specific problems included content creators and whether or not the creator themselves wanted to be identified by these elements and the lack of a a way to specify these areas in MARC records. Also of concern is a recognition that these baskets do not allow for nuances in intersectional relationships. Noted in these elements were also specifically American social practices and ethnocentrism, which cloud tags and may further the "othering" of marginalized communities. Of major concern was the lack of specificity in disability and indigeneity, which almost erased mention of these populations, further marginalizing large groups of already minoritized communities. The authors suggest that "any access points to describe diverse reading materials needs to consider support for self-identification, impermanent and flexible metadata, and intentional and explicit positionality" (p.192). 

Analysis/Reaction:

This research is timely and welcome. As a high school librarian who has worked to diversify my school's collection, I have been quite frustrated by attempts to acquire new materials, perform a diversity analysis of the collection, and with how to tag materials so that patrons can locate them by as possible keywords as available. The idea of crowdsourcing the tagging to allow for flexible metadata is intriguing in a school library; is the student population trustworthy in this regard? After all, we have books on the Holocaust that have been physically vandalized with swastikas - do we want to open tagging to students online? How does a librarian manage the tagging?- One of my own concerns is how to promote diversity without furthering stereotypes or "othering," a concern shared by the authors of this article as needing further research.  

Metadata For Image Collections

Casso, Gillian

Metadata For Image Collections

Woodward, E. e. (2014). Metadata for image collections.  American Libraries, 45(6), 42-44.

Summary:  This article talks about digitizing materials and making them accessible on the Internet. While making these resources available to the public makes patrons happy and makes the library even more visible to the community it can also be a burden to library staff. Many of these resources haven’t been properly prepared and the quantity of these images becomes more important than the quality of the descriptive metadata. If the item is minimally described or the if it is tagged inappropriately then that makes the item difficult to find in search results. Minimally described images are easier and faster to upload, but when each item is unique then an item level description is more desirable.  Before any launch of a large collection low-level descriptive standards should be in place before the collection is launched online.

Evaluation: I believe that in an online environment materials should be tagged and described in the most comprehensive way possible. This makes each item fast to find. If an item is tagged in a way that I wouldn’t logically think of it being tagged then I won’t be able to find it, unless I just happen to chance upon it. Items that have little or no descriptive metadata aren’t useful to anyone because they won’t be found. Items must be described adequately if they are to be useful to those looking for them. The library that I work at recently digitized a photography collection and unfortunately the only easy way to find the collection is if a patron knows the exact name of the collection. This makes it difficult to find for our patrons. It is unlikely that a patron will just happen to come across the collection.