Invisible Labor and Inclusive Metadata

Bringing Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Work Out of the Shadows

I pondered over how to title this post, as I have frequently reflected on the amount of labor that is required to create metadata in support of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) sector. In recent years, there’s been a profession-wide interest and increased advocacy towards EDI work or working with diverse collections as desirable skills and experiences for metadata workers in GLAM, which brings me to the question: How does one gain and demonstrate experience when EDI work continues to be framed as invisible labor or “extra” work in GLAM?

Knowledge of metadata standards and tools are considered competencies and essential skills for metadata workers in GLAM. While I cannot speak for the type of training expected for metadata work in galleries and museums, my own training and experience as a library cataloger and (former) archives metadata worker point to required formal and continuing education around metadata standards and encoding formats such as:

• Resource Description and Access (RDA)
• Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS)
• MARC21 (the current Machine-Readable Cataloging format for encoding items in library catalogs, which has been in place since the 1990s), and
• EAD (the XML-based encoding system used in archival finding aids, which was first introduced in the late 1990s).

Additionally, job descriptions continue to emphasize the knowledge of Library of Congress controlled vocabularies, primarily the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) thesaurus, which is an industry standard for preferred subject terms in GLAM. (The series article titled “Words Matter: Reconciling Museum Metadata with Wikidata” also addresses LCSH.)

A Gap in Library and Archives Education

Formal education programs such as Library and Information Studies (LIS) curricula pay little attention to preparing graduates for cataloging and metadata work. As LIS professor Daniel Joudrey notes (which is captured in this mini Twitter thread by librarian Violet Fox), 90% of ALA-accredited LIS schools required just one course in information organization, as of early 2020. 8% do not offer an information organization course, and just one LIS program requires two courses. The number of basic cataloging courses offered has dropped 16% from 2012 (50 out of 62 LIS programs) to 2020 (42 out of 62 LIS programs).

When formal education programs de-emphasize metadata skills for GLAM workers, the burden of on-the-job training falls on both metadata workers and employers alike.

When one is already faced with the burden of acquiring essential skills on the job, desirable skills such as EDI metadata experiences become an additional barrier for most information workers. To be clear, I don’t think this should be the case. Both metadata skills and EDI work experience should be considered mission-critical work in GLAM.

Understandably, not every GLAM worker may be interested in a career path in metadata, but exposure to metadata while providing experiences specific to EDI in formal LIS curricula could normalize these competencies as desirable skills in GLAM workers.

Prioritizing EDI in Metadata Work

Inclusive metadata becomes invisible labor in GLAMs when EDI is treated as “extra” work—work to be done outside of one’s documented job responsibilities. EDI is often considered an afterthought or a trending priority in GLAM, as documented in strategic plans or positional statements accompanying social justice movements. EDI work and initiatives are encouraged within committees or working groups limiting accomplishments to a checklist model that follows a once-and-done approach. In these situations, metadata workers may find themselves having to unlearn what were deemed “traditional” priorities in GLAMs (such as backlogs), or relearn to prioritize EDI work alongside backlogs, new initiatives, and other trends.

The first step to making EDI part of visible labor in GLAM is to prioritize related competencies, skills, and experiences as essential.

Encourage GLAM metadata workers to pursue training and continuing education opportunities in cultural concepts and competencies and consider it essential to their day-to-day work. Emphasize demonstrated EDI work experiences and knowledge of cultural concepts in job descriptions and hiring in GLAM. Continue to center the work as essential to the organization’s mission and not as temporary priorities or work done in a committee capacity. Give GLAM workers the agency to prioritize EDI work and acquire related skills so that labor towards making metadata equitable, diverse, and inclusive is documented and recognized as part of their regular work responsibilities and performance evaluation. Recognize those with marginalized lived experiences as possessing demonstrated experience in EDI; their expertise not only brings diverse perspectives to metadata work in GLAM but also makes the organization more representative of the greater society.

A Shift towards Inclusive Metadata

In recent years, GLAMs have turned a focus towards re-evaluating existing metadata through an EDI lens, using terminology such as critical cataloging, inclusive description, and reparative description, to name a few. (Caveat: my preferred terminology is inclusive metadata as I am focused on inclusion. This allows for disrupting the status quo in GLAM metadata from the onset instead of continuing with current practice and later addressing EDI in metadata with retrospective work.) GLAM workers may lack the agency or power to engage in inclusive metadata work if there is no empowerment or advocacy at their institution or organization.

As observed in labor and pay equity movements within GLAM, there is room for collective organizing and grassroots activism to make metadata more inclusive in the sector.

One such recent successful attempt was the movement within libraries to incorporate a local subject term of “undocumented immigrants” in place of LCSH “Illegal aliens.” The subject heading was officially removed in November 2021, but several libraries adopted a local term with inclusive language between 2016—when the intent to change the heading was first announced by the Library of Congress—and its implementation in late 2021. For additional details, including historical context and background, see the report from the American Library Association (ALA) Working Group on Alternatives to LCSH “Illegal aliens” and the press release from ALA in November 2021.

Inclusive metadata also requires certain status quo expectations to be disrupted. The profession continues to value controlled vocabularies as essential to GLAM metadata. While standardization allows for consistency in terminology used for knowledge organization and discoverability, current systems in GLAM (such as Library of Congress Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification) are not built to center inclusion. Additional invisible labor is required to make those systems inclusive retrospectively and often using a piecemeal approach.

Conclusion

In essence, current inclusive metadata practices in GLAM revolve around two invisible labor processes: EDI metadata work being considered as “extra” work and the need to set local priorities (including local subject terms) to work around controlled vocabularies that do not center inclusion. Addressing existing metadata through an EDI lens is necessary to reconcile decades of metadata practice emphasizing mainstream views in GLAM. These efforts must coexist alongside inclusive metadata practices to truly dismantle the status quo in GLAM.

Knowledge organization systems centering mainstream views must be reformed to be inclusive, thereby creating sustainable workflows for EDI in metadata work.

Centering EDI in GLAM collections and metadata can help to make diverse collections more accessible as well as make labor towards related efforts more visible. Inclusive metadata workflows centering EDI must not only repair harm but also disrupt the status quo in GLAMs. Framing EDI in metadata work as critical—and not adjacent—to organizational mission will create transparency and advocacy for essential labor in GLAM for broader public engagement.

——
The Metadata Learning and Unlearning series was originally published on Medium.com and edited by Sharon Mizota, Virginia Poundstone, and Garrett Graddy-Lovelace. This series raises questions and makes proposals for what metadata can do to advance a broader dialogue about diverse worldviews within open education and openGLAM realms.