Describing prejudicial materials in special collections: the Rare Books & Manuscripts Section Controlled Vocabulary for Rare Materials Cataloguing

Describing prejudicial materials in special collections: the RBMS CVRMC Vocabulary

In this blogpost, freelance archivist Alex G Healey reflects on a Rare Books webinar and considers the implications for record-keepers.

It’s long been accepted that controlled vocabularies are not perfect. They favour dominant cultural perspectives, become outdated and can obscure certain themes, complicating rather than assisting research1[i]. Yet they are still a useful tool when navigating large quantities of information and application of controlled term access points remains a key action in catalogue creation. For some time, the information sector has been exploring ways to improve these useful but flawed tools, and using community generated or approved vocabularies has been recognised as good practice2[ii]. This blog is intended to raise awareness of developments which mirror some of the activities currently taking place in the archives sector, in a related discipline.

Earlier this year I attended the launch webinar for the CVRMC Controlled Vocabulary for Rare Materials Cataloguing from the Rare Books & Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). The CVRMC vocabulary brings together previous RBMS thesauri designed to describe different elements of special collections items (this includes, rare books and manuscript material, among other things). The updated linked data thesaurus offers terms for physical attributes such as binding and paper, provenance, recording evidence relating to printing and provenance and genre terms. It is the updated genre terms I’d like to draw attention to. Unlike subject terms, genre terms do not describe what a work is about, they describe what a work is. They allow categorization of works with similar characteristics or themes, for example advertisements, artists books or dramatic monologues.

The updated genre terms have incorporated terms identified by the Prejudicial Materials Working Group. Their remit was to ‘review, revise and generate new terminology useful for indexing works that are prejudicial in nature, or that are the byproduct of prejudicial or outright hateful systems and ideologies’ and to ‘critically review, revise and expand the structure of this area of the vocabulary’. This kind of work offers an example of the strategic, active work taking place in the library sector which aims to implement practices that mitigate the dominant ideologies which have historically influenced the creation of vocabularies.

As well as introducing a new series of genre terms specifically describing prejudicial works, generation of the vocabulary evidences a new method of practice. These terms were proactively generated to address a gap, rather than created responsively after cataloguer request. The vocabulary is not static and will continue to be updated. A webform is available which will remain open for suggestions from anyone to submit. Any proposed inclusions submitted will be subject to public review.

The group found this method of working had unanticipated impacts beyond the intended outcomes. It produced discussion around anti-oppressive practice and raised questions around cataloguing processes, including the selection and application of metadata. It questioned how library processes relate to concepts of welcoming and belonging within special collections and the wider world of library and information science. Speakers at the webinar posited that if we really value equity, diversity and inclusion in our profession and communities, we have to create an atmosphere where it can take root and flourish. This requires acknowledging and responding to the causes of contemporary and historic dysfunction and how they have impacted the tools we use.

Some of the comments stressed the benefits of viewing library and information science activities as humanistic activities. This echoed a discussion at the 2023 Digital Humanities conference which emphasized such activities are, at their root, humanities. We should not lose sight of the fact that activities in these fields, and in archives, are rooted in human experience and driven by human and societal needs. Whenever we frame a project or design a new process, we should always be mindful of how the work that we do will impact people or communities represented in the records or encountering them. We should invite and participate in discussion, be willing to take criticism on board, and explore how we might change things for the better. This can be challenging when the pressure to continually achieve more with less persists, and so designing cataloguing and other projects to include resourcing for meaningful consultation and discussion is vital.

For anyone interested in learning more about the new RBMS, the slides and the recording are available online. There are also a range of other specialist thesauri available to aid grouping and discoverability of certain content. These include Homosaurus, a linked data vocabulary of LGBTQ+ terms and the African Studies Thesaurus. The American Libraries Association has produced a list of supporting thesauri and vocabularies, though some are no longer available.

Guest blogs are welcome.  Please email diversityandinclusion@archives.org.uk.  We would also like to hear from you if you have found one of the Allies’ blogs helpful to your work.

[i] This 2024 blog article by Elizabeth Lhost from the Modern Endangered Archive Program at UCLA discusses the pros and cons of different types of vocabulary: https://meap.library.ucla.edu/about/news/focus-on-metadata-using-controlled-vocabularies-for-subject-terms/

[ii] Chilcott, A. (2019) “Towards protocols for describing racially offensive language in UK public archives”, Archival Science 19.