Cataloging and Metadata Statement of Principles 

Introduction

The Inclusive and Reparative Description Work Group was charged with developing principles and practices for inclusive and reparative metadata work that will support VCU Libraries' efforts to provide equitable discovery and access to our resources. The results of this Work Group will inform current and future work on prioritizing respectful representation of underserved and underrepresented communities, and proactively identifying problematic metadata and recommending necessary changes.

Guiding principles¹

Metadata workers in Special Collections and Archives, Digital Libraries and Publishing, and Resource Acquisition and Metadata Services will apply the following principles to guide their descriptive work:

1. Cultural humility and growth - We focus on lifelong learning, understanding what we do and do not know, respecting the expertise of others, seeking out resources created by community members and experts, and acknowledging that sometimes our efforts are limited by biases in our socio-political landscape and the technologies we use.
2. Respect - While we acknowledge there is not always consensus on preferred terminology or best practices, we will do our best to create metadata that is respectful, centers the humanity of the communities and individuals being described, and will avoid description that minimizes historical and ongoing harm. What is considered respectful and inclusive terminology can shift over time, so accepted language in the past may no longer be considered appropriate, just as the language of today may not be appropriate to describe people, places, or concepts of the past. Additionally, we aim to correct instances where language used in legacy metadata never reflected the terminology used by marginalized communities. We will prioritize the privacy and safety of the individuals we seek to describe over access needs, and we will respect the right to be forgotten.
3. Thoughtful decision-making - Inclusive and reparative description takes time, thoughtful reflection, research, and flexibility. When describing people and cultures, different groups may have different needs and understandings. We will avoid rushed metadata creation and decision-making, which can lead to inaccurate, insufficient, or harmful description that hinders access to library resources and necessitates reparative work later.
4. Transparency - We commit to transparent communication, decision-making, and practices, including internal and external documentation, about when and why descriptive changes are made. Methods of documentation vary by department and may include version-control and/or records of metadata changes or revision histories. Transparency also includes being clear in description about what we know, what we don’t know, and what we are assuming.
5. Iteration - We understand inclusive and reparative description work as being inherently iterative in nature. Not only does inclusive and preferred language shift over time, but as description workers, we are always learning more. Beyond description itself, we acknowledge that our workflows and processes will need to be assessed and re-assessed over time. We understand metadata and resource description are not fixed in time: language changes, standards are updated, and user needs evolve.
6. Collaboration and consultation - ​​This work requires collaboration, reflection, commitment, and communication with institutional decision-makers to push for more inclusive policies. It involves reciprocity with the communities we serve, partnering with experts and professional organizations, and rethinking the structures we’ve long taken for granted. It also challenges us to confront our own biases and fully embrace the responsibility of contributing to cultural, historical, and human knowledge.
7. Honesty - We aim to be honest in our approach to what we can or cannot change, addressing harms done and those that continue to be done, how new technologies affect our work and ability to commit to these principles, and how limitations from our systems (e.g. content management systems, catalogs, etc.), institutions, funding, and donors can limit this work.

Feedback on Description of Library Resources

VCU Libraries welcomes feedback on description of library resources in the library catalog, archival finding aids, and/or digital collections in VCU's institutional repository, Scholars Compass. Feedback or suggestions for updating description may include:

• Typos or inaccuracies in names or places
• Harmful or outdated language in description
• Misleading or inaccurate description
• Not enough or inadequate description for locating a resource

Feedback may be submitted through our Library Description Feedback and Project Proposal Form.

_{¹ These principles were inspired by Yale University's Reparative Archival Description Working Group: Guiding Principles and the Cataloging Code of Ethics. ↩}