Rethinking Representation: Indigenous Peoples and Contexts at the University of Alberta Libraries

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

Rethinking Representation:
Indigenous Peoples and Contexts at the University of
Alberta Libraries

Sharon Farnel, University of Alberta, Canada
Denise Koufogiannakis, University of Alberta, Canada
Sheila Laroque, University of Alberta, Canada
Ian Bigelow, University of Alberta, Canada
Anne Carr-Wiggin, University of Alberta, Canada
Debbie Feisst, University of Alberta, Canada
Kayla Lar-Son, University of Alberta, Canada

Abstract

Appropriate subject access and descriptive practices within library and information science are
social justice issues. Standards that are well established and commonly used in academic libraries
in Canada and elsewhere, including Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Library of
Congress Classification (LCC), continue to perpetuate colonial biases toward Indigenous peoples.
In the fall of 2016, the University of Alberta Libraries (UAL) established a Decolonizing Description
Working Group (DDWG) to investigate, define, and propose a plan of action for how descriptive
metadata practices could more accurately, appropriately, and respectfully represent Indigenous
peoples and contexts. The DDWG is currently beginning the implementation of recommendations
approved by UAL’s strategic leadership team. In this paper we describe the genesis of the DDWG
within the broader context of the libraries’ and the university’s responses to the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action; outline the group’s activities and
recommendations; and describe initial steps toward the implementation of those
recommendations, with a focus on engaging local Indigenous communities. We reflect on the
potential impact of revised descriptive practices in removing many of the barriers that Indigenous
communities and individuals face in finding and accessing library materials relevant to their

cultures and histories.

Keywords: cataloguing; decolonization; inclusive description; information ethics; metadata

Publication Type: research article

Introduction and Background

tate-sponsored apologies and Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) are a worldwide
phenomenon, as has been the experience of colonialism. It is important to contextualize
Canada’s TRC within this global phenomenon. As highlighted by Corntassel and Holder

(2008), there have been upwards of 24 truth commissions examining the situations of Indigenous
peoples globally. While one may assume a global phenomenon would be beneficial for Indigenous
people everywhere, outcomes have been varied and have not always been considered successful.
This is partly due to these reconciliation processes being tied to a state-sponsored structure. In
order for reconciliation processes to be truly authentic, there needs to be “not only a forgiveness

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

of the past but shared strategies for moving forward collectively to decolonize existing
relationships” (Corntassel & Holder, 2008, p. 469).

Alberta is home to many diverse Indigenous communities, including Blackfoot (Niitsítapi); Cree
(Nêhiyaw); Dene Tha’ (Dene); Dene Suliné (Chipewyan); Dunne-za (Beaver); Nakoda (Stoney);
Saulteaux (Anishinaabe); and the Tsuu T’ina, who are part of the Blackfoot Confederacy but are
historically from the north. There are 45 First Nations in three Treaty Areas (Treaties 6, 7, and
8) as well as other groups that have not signed treaties, such as the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation.
The most commonly spoken First Nations languages are Blackfoot, Cree (which has several

dialects but mainly Plains Cree; some Woods Cree is spoken in Alberta), Chipewyan, Dene,
Sarcee, and Stoney (Nakoda Sioux). Métis people live throughout the province, including in the
Métis Settlements. In Alberta the Indigenous languages spoken by Métis people include Cree and
Michif. Alberta is also home to many Inuit people, and many of them speak the traditional
language of Inuktitut. Of course, many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people live in urban areas

as well as in traditional communities.

It is within this global context of TRCs and state-led apologies, in what has become known by
some as the “Age of Apology” (Corntassel & Holder, 2008, p. 467), that Canadian institutions of
higher education find themselves responding to our TRC’s Calls to Action. The purpose of the
TRC was to investigate what happened in the Canadian Residential School system for Indigenous
children removed from their homes and placed into residential schools. Many of these schools
were government funded and church operated, with the intention of “civilizing” and assimilating
Indigenous children and eliminating Indigenous cultures (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of
Canada, 2015b). In this school setting, students were forbidden to speak their languages and
practice their cultures. All too many students suffered physical and sexual abuse at the hands of
school staff, and the death rate for Indigenous children in residential schools was substantially
higher than that for the general Canadian population (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of
Canada, 2015b). These schools began operating in the 19th century, and the last one did not
close until 1996. It should be noted that the Canadian TRC was not part of a state-sponsored
event, but rather a class-action lawsuit by survivors and the Independent Assessment Process
(IAP) that resulted from this legal action. In addition, institutions are now responding to Calls to
Action rather than recommendations. As outlined by Lightfoot (2015), one reason previous TRCs
have not been successful is that “There is no reexamination or reordering of the underlying

institutions and thought processes that made such atrocities possible in the first place” (p. 29).

The final report of the TRC of Canada, including 94 Calls to Action, was released in 2015. These
Calls to Action focus on the educational system, as it has contributed to the negative relationship
between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada, and on the ways that the educational
system can contribute to the work of reconciliation. In this paper we describe the genesis of the
Decolonizing Description Working Group (DDWG) of the University of Alberta Libraries (UAL),
whose purpose was to create more inclusive metadata practices. We describe the genesis of the
working group within the broader context of the libraries’ and the university’s response to the
Calls to Action of the TRC of Canada; outline the group’s activities and recommendations; and
describe initial steps toward the implementation of those recommendations, with a focus on
engaging local Indigenous communities. We reflect on the potential impact of revised descriptive
practices in removing many of the barriers that Indigenous communities and individuals face in
finding and accessing library materials relevant to their cultures and histories.

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

The University of Alberta Response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Post-secondary educational institutions figure large in the Calls to Action of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015a) for the important role they can, and must, play in
advancing reconciliation in Canada. The Calls to Action include protecting Indigenous languages,
providing appropriate curricula, and supporting Indigenous research. Universities Canada, a
nonprofit national organization that fosters collaboration among Canadian universities,
governments, and communities to address challenges in higher education, has set out a variety
of principles for Indigenous education, including recognizing the importance of the indigenization
of curricula through responsive academic programming, supporting programs, orientations, and
pedagogies; recognizing the value of promoting partnerships among educational and local
Indigenous communities; and continuing to maintain a collaborative and consultative process on
the specific needs of Indigenous students (Universities Canada, 2015). The University of Alberta
has expressed a commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous communities, and its strategic
plan, For the Public Good (University of Alberta, 2016), takes seriously the responsibility to
respond to the Calls to Action in the TRC report. The university has made a commitment to
develop “a thoughtful, respectful, meaningful, and sustainable response to the TRC report”
(University of Alberta, 2017). A significant step forward in honoring that commitment was taken
on June 1, 2017, when the university signed a memorandum of understanding with the National

Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (Turpin, 2017).

The University of Alberta Libraries’ Indigenous Initiatives

Libraries, as sites of learning in and of themselves as well as key units within post-secondary
institutions, have a responsibility and opportunity to contribute to reconciliation through
collaborations and partnerships but also, and perhaps more importantly, through their own
initiatives. UAL has had a long-standing commitment to working with Indigenous communities,
for example via the First Nations Information Connection, launched in 2007. Through this
collaboration, UAL has made connections with five First Nations colleges in Alberta: Old Sun
Community College (Siksika), Red Crow Community College (Kainai), Maskwacis Cultural College
(serving Ermineskin, Samson, Louis Bull, and Montana First Nations), University nuhelot’įne
thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills (serving Beaver Lake, Cold Lake, Frog Lake, Whitefish
Lake, Heart Lake, Kehewin, and Saddle Lake First Nations), and Yellowhead Tribal College
(serving Alexander, Alexis Nakota Sioux, O'Chiese, and Sunchild First Nations). Within the context
of the TRC Calls to Action, UAL has continued to focus on building relationships with Indigenous
students, staff, and the broader community through a variety of initiatives such as the Indigenous
Internship Program, Personal Librarian Program, and the First Nations Information Connection.
The Indigenous Internship Program provides an Indigenous student with employment in the
libraries while pursuing a master’s degree at the University of Alberta’s School of Library and
Information Studies (Carr-Wiggin, Ball, Lar-Son, & MacLeod, 2017). Through the Personal
Librarian Program (https://library.ualberta.ca/services/personal-librarian), all self-identified
first-year Aboriginal students have a personal librarian who can help them access the services
and resources the libraries offer in support of their academic success. The First Nations
Information Connection (http://fnic.sirsi.net) is a collaboration between the University of
Alberta Libraries, the five First Nations colleges mentioned previously, and two community
resource centers in Alberta and involves a shared catalog between the institutions and access to
electronic and web resources for students and faculty.

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,
https://library.ualberta.ca/services/personal-librarian
http://fnic.sirsi.net/

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

Aims

While UAL has a long history of engaging with Indigenous individuals and communities in
partnerships, service provision, and professional placements, we recognized that one
foundational aspect of our work had yet to be fully interrogated with regard to improving service
to our Indigenous users: our descriptive practices for all of our collections, including those
digitized locally. Like most large academic libraries in North America, UAL currently relies heavily
on Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Library of Congress Classification (LCC) for
subject access to both print and digital collections. While the use of LC standards comes with
many recognized advantages, it understandably causes challenges in terms of adequate and
appropriate representation of the Canadian context. It is vital that all of our users can see
themselves appropriately and respectfully represented in our metadata records. However, this
is not normally the case, especially with the use of standard vocabularies in describing Indigenous
peoples and contexts. In order to address this concern, in August 2016, UAL formed the
Decolonizing Description Working Group (DDWG) to investigate, define, and propose a plan of
action for how descriptive metadata practices could more accurately, appropriately, and
respectfully represent Indigenous peoples and contexts.

Literature Review

The focus of this literature review is on libraries, with some sources on museums or archives
where relevant. Resources examined include those that addressed both library catalogs and
digital collections as well as efforts in Canada, the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. This review
is meant to gather representative pieces discussing the challenges in describing Indigenous
peoples and contexts and the initiatives that have been undertaken to address those challenges.
This literature can be summarized in several overarching themes.

Descriptive Practices and Social Justice

Social justice has many definitions, but according to Morales, Knowles, and Bourg (2014) it is

a concept that encompasses more than representation and diversity, and is
generally understood to refer to the ability of all people to fully benefit from
social and economic progress and to participate equally in de mocratic
societies. In other words, social justice addresses power and privilege on a

structural level, as well as at the level of mere representation. (p. 440)

Freedom of information is a core component of social justice, as evidenced by Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948), which reads, “Everyone has the
right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.”

As Buchanan (2004) notes, information professionals have “the potential to adversely affect our
increasingly large and diverse clientele by failing to act responsively, fairly, timely, and
appropriately” (p. 620), and so it is perhaps not surprising that many in librarianship and allied
fields have been drawn to issues of social justice for some time (Higgins & Gregory, 2013; Samek,
2007). All aspects of librarianship have been addressed through the lens of social justice,
including collection development (Samek, 2007), information literacy (Higgins & Gregory, 2013),
user services (Cooke, 2016), cataloging and description (Roberto, 2008), and recruitment and

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

hiring within the profession (Bales, 2017; Morales, Knowles, & Bourg, 2014).

Appropriate subject access and descriptive practices are social justice issues, whereby accurate,
representative, and respectful subject access to Indigenous knowledge is a moral imperative for
libraries and other knowledge institutions (Lougheed, Moran, & Callison, 2015; Moulaison Sandy
& Bossaller, 2016; Moulaison Sandy & Bossaller, 2017). Moulaison Sandy and Bossaller (2017)
assess appropriate subject access to resources for, by, and about Indigenous peoples according
to the theory of cognitive justice, as championed by scholars such as Catherine Odora Hoppers
in education and John Burgess in library and information science (Burgess, 2015). Cognitive

justice respects all forms of knowledge and argues that they can and should coexist. According
to Burgess (quoted in Moulaison Sandy & Bossaller, 2017), a cognitively just approach to
information science

tends to reject the language of universal human rights as following an
unrealistic and particularly Western notion, and seeks to re place that
language with autonomy, dignity, and a ‘commons’ approach to cultural
authority...the object is...to promote healing and forgiveness by removing

the continued burden of colonialism and legacy thinking. (p. 132)

Enabling the expression of Indigenous worldviews through our descriptive practices and standards
is a step toward true reconciliation. Henderson (2000) feels that “one task of decolonization is
to replace the sameness of universality with the concepts of diversity, complementarities,
flexibility, and equity or fundamental fairness” (p. 267).

Our descriptive standards and practices are at the core of user services and can have a profound
impact on those users. Scholars and practitioners such as Olson (2000, 2002), Berman (1971,
2013), Roberto (2008), Drabinski (2013), and many others have shown us that these tools and
practices are not value-neutral. Indeed, “the way we categorize materials communicates our
biases and judgments to our users and limits the accessibility of information” (Baildon et al.,
2017), and so it is incumbent on institutions to critically examine the standards and practices

they employ in order to revise them in ways that “heal and redistribute the wealth of knowledge
in our libraries, archives, and museums” (Adler, 2016, p. 639). If institutions are committed to
social justice, then they must harness the organization and description of information resources
to activism, that is, “reject any notion of neutrality and actively seek ways to remedy the
inequities in access to and production of knowledge through categories developed in the guise

of a neutral, objective point of view” (Adler, 2016, p. 639).

Representation of Indigenous Peoples in Existing Metadata Standards and Practices

The challenges of describing Indigenous materials and contexts using existing, inadequate
schema are well documented in the information science literature (Cherry & Mukunda, 2015;
Chester, 2006; Kam, 2007; Lee, 2011; Martens, 2006; Littletree & Metoyer, 2015; Moulaison Sandy
& Bossaller, 2016; Parent, 2015; Rigby, 2015; Tomren, 2003; Turner, 2015; Villanueva, 2016).
While there may be general agreement on the problems with current systems, there are differing

views on the most effective and appropriate means of the addressing them. Kam (2007), Martens
(2006), Rigby (2015), and Villanueva (2016) argue that existing practices and tools can be revised
to better and more respectfully represent Indigenous peoples and contexts if there is willingness
to change. Others, such as Cherry and Mukunda (2015), Chester (2006), Lee (2011), Littletree
and Metoyer (2015), and Moulaison Sandy and Bossaller (2016), argue that completely new
practices based on Indigenous knowledge and worldviews are needed if meaningful change is to

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

occur.

A related and perhaps more important theme is the need for relationship building in the creation
of descriptive metadata in an Indigenous context. User-generated content can support reliable
subject access through the use of folksonomies, geographic information, or other content
provided by working with, and not just for, the communities that produce the knowledge
(Lougheed, Moran, & Callison, 2015; Moulaison Sandy & Bossaller, 2016; Doyle, Lawson, &
Dupont, 2015). A critical aspect of working with Indigenous communities is including those
communities in every stage of a project or initiative as true partners and collaborators. Social

justice and library work are about putting the needs and interests of the community at the heart
of the work. They are about engaging with local communities in meaningful and respectful
collaborations on an ongoing basis. And they are about “embracing equality and diversity, and
focusing on a needs-based service and targeting resources towards those who need them most”
(Vincent, 2012, p. 350).

The Decolonizing Description Working Group

The Working Group’s Process

The Decolonizing Description Working Group (DDWG) included UAL’s metadata coordinator,
cataloguing coordinator, a public service librarian, the coordinator of Indigenous initiatives, an
Indigenous intern (MLIS student), as well as the associate university librarian responsible for
bibliographic services. Over 10 months, the group explored the existing relevant literature,
focusing on practical implementations. An environmental scan was undertaken to discover similar
initiatives proposed or under way in institutions across Canada and to seek opportunities for
collaborations and partnerships. An analysis of metadata from the LC’s Integrated Library System
(ILS) and local digital/digitized collections was used to estimate the scope of work required to

enhance existing metadata and to revise workflows for metadata yet to be created.

Internal consultations

The DDWG consulted with organizations and individuals, both locally and elsewhere in Canada,
who have been active in initiatives related to appropriate representation of Indigenous peoples
and contexts. These conversations were designed to provide perspective on opportunities and
challenges in addressing this issue as well as to set the stage for potential future collaborations.
The group consulted internally with staff in the areas of cataloging, public service, archives, and
digital initiatives. Other University of Alberta stakeholders were kept apprised of DDWG activities
through informal channels, such as workshops and networking events at the university, as well
as informal conversations with faculty.

A small group of students and alumni, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, were consulted through
the use of an informal online survey. Potential survey participants were identified through an
informal social media posting. Once participants gave their approval to participate in the survey,
they were emailed a link to the survey. The survey participants were asked questions based on
their previous knowledge of the project/working group and their feelings/reactions to potentially
changing the LC subject headings that involved Aboriginal content. All of the participants but
one noted that they would be directly affected by changes to the LC subject headings, and they
indicated that they felt changing the LC subject headings was important for decolonization and
building reconciliation within UAL. One participant indicated that they were not directly affected
by the changing of LC subject headings, but they acknowledged that they knew other community

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

members would be affected, so the working group mattered to them.

External consultations

An in-depth conversation was held with colleagues from the University of British Columbia (UBC),
who have developed and applied several custom vocabularies, such as the First Nations House of
Learning (FNHL) Thesaurus and the adapted Brian Deer Classification for use in the Xwi7xwa
Library. At the Xwi7xwa Library, Indigenized knowledge organization is seen as key to effective
Indigenous information practices, instruction, and research throughout the university. The

Xwi7xwa Library’s catalog is integrated with the UBC Library catalog, the Xwi7xwa bibliographic
database having been mapped to MARC (machine-readable cataloguing) format. The Xwi7xwa
FNHL subject headings are recognized as an authorized thesaurus by the LC, and Xwi7xwa staff
worked at length with ILS vendors to incorporate the subject headings. Xwi7xwa staff are
interested in sharing their existing work with partners across the country. They had important
advice to offer to our group about community consultation, beginning with the work of Gene
Joseph, the first chief librarian of the Xwi7xwa Library, whose research and consultation

privileged Indigenous authority.

A similar conversation took place on June 6, 2017, with colleagues from the MAIN (Manitoba
Archival Information Network) LCSH Working Group (MAIN, 2013), which recommended changes
to LCSH to address representation of Indigenous peoples and contexts. The MAIN group consulted
extensively with Indigenous experts to inform their work in developing the modifications to
subject headings and offered valuable advice to the DDWG on this activity. In addition, they
offered insight into the process of developing a similar list for the Alberta and Northern contexts
relevant to UAL. Of note, the University of Manitoba has, to date, made one large change to
their practice, which is to add “Indigenous peoples” to relevant records.

Through informal discussions with Library & Archives Canada (LAC) colleagues and LAC
representatives on the CFLA Truth and Reconciliation Committee “Red Team,” which was
charged with examining descriptive practices, the DDWG learned that LAC is interested in
working collaboratively with communities and other organizations and institutions to revise the
Canadian Subject Headings (CSH). These are seen as next steps after the release of the CFLA
Truth and Reconciliation Committee report (Canadian Federation of Library Associations, 2017),
which occurred on April 24, 2017. The report’s recommendations include a call for libraries,
archives, and cultural memory institutions to decolonize access, including cataloging,
classification processes, and description. Specifically, the report recommends that libraries
acknowledge structural biases in existing systems of knowledge organization, make a
commitment to integrating Indigenous and mainstream knowledges, and engage with Indigenous
communities to integrate regionally relevant Indigenous knowledges into cataloging and
metadata.

Informal conversations with colleagues at Ryerson and Memorial University of Newfoundland also
demonstrated that many institutions are or have been pondering work of this nature and would
be interested in becoming part of any broader initiatives within Canada. From the various
conversations, it is clear that there are several activities happening in pockets across the country
and that the time may be right for coordinated efforts at the regional level, which could feed

into one or more national efforts.

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

Local Data Analysis

Within the descriptive metadata practices currently undertaken at UAL that would be impacted
by any change to descriptive terminology, there are two main groupings of content: (1) cataloging
records within the ILS and (2) metadata applied to the institutional repository, archives, and
locally digitized collections.

Cataloging records within the integrated library system

As resources are described for use in the ILS for the University of Alberta (UA) and other members
of the NEOS Library Consortium (comprised of government, health, college, and university
libraries that cooperate to share library resources, technology, collections, and people), the
majority of original cataloging (including LCSH assignment) is done with vendor support (BSLW,
OCLC, Proquest), and LCSH are applied based on the subject matter of the resource. Similarly,
UA staff will update headings to meet LCSH standards and for better subject coverage as other
record sets are added to the system, and they will perform ongoing maintenance within the ILS
to keep these headings up to date. Automated processes are also used by staff in Bibliographic
Services to maintain subject authorities in concert with Information Technology Services, but a
large portion of the work needed to keep authorities up to date is (or will be) managed through
authority vendors. It is also worth noting that other access points are used across NEOS, including

MeSH, RVM, CSH, and FAST.

Figure 1. Subject headings by count (ILS)

Based on numbers from June 2017, there are 5,374,506 titles in the UA database and 5,737,330
titles across NEOS (including UA). The distinction between the UA and NEOS is important because
LCSH terms, as controlled vocabulary, fall under authority control and as such are part of the
UA’s responsibility for maintenance across NEOS. Using the list of LCSH identified by the Manitoba
Archival Information Network (MAIN)–LCSH Working Group as a point of comparison, 62,459

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

records with terms matching those on MAIN’s “delete or replace” list were identified in UAL’s
ILS. More titles likely exist across NEOS member libraries that would add to this number.
Moreover, while the MAIN list provides an opportunity to sample impact, other terms could be
identified for consideration within the NEOS database as this project progresses. Looking at
records with these headings allowed us to examine current usage and think about the approach
and workflow for a similar project to substitute and/or remove terms within the UAL database.
From the 62,459 UAL records extracted based on the MAIN headings, 9,149 unique headings
associated with the titles were identified (not all of which might be considered problematic),

with the most common headings shown in Figure 1.

Metadata applied to the institutional repository, archives, and locally
digitized collections

UAL has substantial collections of locally digitized materials as well as UA and community-
generated content accessible through local repositories. These collections provide unique
challenges as well as opportunities to improve descriptive practices for materials by, about, and

for Indigenous peoples.

Two of the largest and most important locally digitized collections are the Peel’s Prairie
Provinces collection and the Sam Steele archive. As an archival collection, Sam Steele makes
limited use of subject headings; those that are used come from LCSH. Peel’s Prairie Provinces
makes substantial use of LCSH. Based on the MAIN LCSH Working Group’s heading list, just over
5,000 records were identified in Peel and Steele that had matching LCSH terms. Metadata for
these collections are normally created in-house, and we have flexible tools and workflows around
these metadata processes. Of note is the fact that Peel also makes use of additional vocabularies,
such as TGM (Thesaurus for Graphic Materials), RVM (Répertoire de vedettes-matière), and CSH

(Canadian Subject Headings).

UAL has been digitizing materials with the Internet Archive (IA) for some time, amassing
substantial collections, and will be shifting the majority of its digitization to IA in Spring 2018.

When digitizing collections held by UAL, IA uses metadata records from our ILS. For those
collections digitized by IA that do not make use of records from the ILS, existing consultation
services and policies provide UAL substantial control over the type and nature of metadata
applied.

As is common in archival practice, the UA Archives makes minimal use of subject headings in
their descriptive practices. For that reason, review and revision of any existing headings will be

straightforward, as vocabularies can be applied as per any UAL policies and procedures.

Perhaps the most complex local collections with respect to revisions to descriptive practices are
those within the institutional repository (ERA) and the newly launched multimedia repository
(ERA A+V). As is common in most institutional repositories, the metadata often come from a
variety of sources and conform to different standards. Within these repositories, descriptions
make use of LCSH and FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology), as well as user-
contributed subject keywords. Existing consultation services and policies provide a great deal of
control over the type and nature of the user-contributed metadata. Based on the MAIN LCSH
Working Group’s heading list, just over 1,200 records were identified in ERA and ERA A+V that

had matching LCSH terms.

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

Figure 2. Subject headings by count (local repositories)

Recommendations of the Working Group

The DDWG recommended the following broad actions be undertaken by UAL in order to model
new descriptive practices that will decolonize our existing systems and help the University of
Alberta build a university “committed to respectful relations with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit
peoples” by developing “a thoughtful, respectful, meaningful, and sustainable response to the
report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada” (University of Alberta, 2016, p.

10). The senior administrative team within the libraries accepted these recommendations.

1. That UAL collaborate with other groups and organizations across Canada
(Library and Archives Canada, the Canadian Federation of Library
Associations, regional groups, and other universities) to cooperatively
develop and incorporate revised subject headings that more accurately,
appropriately, and respectfully represent Indigenous peoples and
contexts and that can be seen as a model for change and widely
implemented.

2. That UAL take the lead on working with Indigenous communities and
partners to develop revised subject headings reflective of the Alberta and

appropriate Northern contexts.

3. In support of recommendation #2, that UAL engage an individual to

coordinate and conduct consultation and outreach, which is groundwork
critical to the success of this project. This outreach must occur before
developing or applying new subject headings. We anticipate the need for
a 1.0FTE temporary position for one year. This position would work
closely with metadata experts and others in UAL as needed to apply

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

information gathered into a descriptive schema that is appropriate for
the various Indigenous groups identified and into policies and workflows

that are sustainable.

4. That as the work of the first three recommendations reaches completion,
UAL retroactively apply revised subject headings to appropriate library
resources, including all categories covered in the previous section noting
UAL’s existing metadata descriptive practices, such as cataloging records
within the ILS, and to metadata applied to the institutional repository,

archives, and locally digitized collections. Going forward, the same
approved subject headings will be applied to new content added to library
resources, whether done by UAL staff or our cataloging vendors.

5. That UAL work with IA and HathiTrust to retroactively apply revised
subject headings as appropriate to UAL resources held in their

repositories.

These recommendations also took into account financial impacts, staffing and workflow impacts,
and policy impact. Risks were also considered when deciding whether to proceed with the
recommendations. By not proceeding, UAL runs the risk of alienating Indigenous user
communities, falling behind peer institutions in Canada, and missing a significant opportunity for
UAL to contribute to reconciliation in Canada. By proceeding without appropriate consultation,
UAL runs the risk of damaging important community relationships.

Implementation

As part of UAL’s Academic Librarian Residency Program, a recent MLIS graduate has been hired
to work on the recommendations of the working group. While reworking the metadata workflows
and standards used will be a key component of this project and her work, it cannot be done
without first consulting our partners, researchers, and stakeholders. One of the first steps in this

process will be to host a symposium called “Making Meaning.” The purpose of this symposium
will be not only to gather librarians to discuss a library problem, but also to hear from students
and researchers as well as those who work in our partner First Nations Colleges. This does not
limit any future consultations to only these partners, but rather respects and reflects where our
relationships have already been established; there will always be room for our circles to expand.
By gathering together, we will be able to not only have a more in-depth understanding of these
issues and some possible solutions to them, but also hear what people who use our libraries would
like to see as an outcome. It will also be possible to share the first steps of these processes with
other institutions that are considering such endeavors. The results of Making Meaning will also
provide us with a sense of where our partnerships can expand to reflect, as well as further,
community consultations that will become an ongoing part of the partnership process.

As a initial step in decolonizing the description of our collections, we plan to collaborate with
colleagues by adapting and making changes to two different collections that can be used as
“proof of concept”—updating both the Peel’s Prairie Provinces online database as well as a small
collection of print materials for the Aboriginal Teacher Education Program. Each of these
collections will include their own sets of opportunities and challenges, as different metadata
schemes, subject headings, new classification schemes, and knowledge and expertise is shared
and reassessed.

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

Building on our established relationships, and with Elder and community guidance, we will seek
to appropriately consult with communities across Alberta and, where we are able and the need
is expressed by communities, into the North. In building relationships and partnerships, we are
leaving space for other projects and initiatives that may arise that we have not considered as of
yet. It is not only important to understand which terminology is preferred, but also how the use
of incorrect terminology has created barriers. By stepping back as we meaningfully engage, we
are beginning to address ways that spaces and systems can be reimagined within the library and
the academy.

As part of the activities of the working group and, more importantly, the activities going forward,
we have sought out opportunities to share what we have learned to date and what we hope to
achieve with others in the library community, locally and beyond. We have been very encouraged
by the positive reception the initiative has received and energized by the conversations it has
prompted. We are growing our connections and expanding our network of individuals and
organizations interested in similar initiatives in their own regions and in working cooperatively.
Working in partnership with communities and colleagues is the means by which real change will

occur.

Potential Impacts

Revising our descriptive practices to more accurately, appropriately, and respectfully represent
Indigenous peoples and contexts will remove many of the barriers that Indigenous communities
and individuals have faced in working with established library standards and systems to find and
access materials relevant to their cultures and histories. Incorporating the worldviews and voices
of local Indigenous communities will allow UAL’s users to see themselves in the collections and
services. This is our responsibility as a library and a university. “Surely every institute of higher
learning owes its students a welcoming, beneficial environment where they feel respected and
recognized” (Aase, 2017, p. 154).

Working alongside local Indigenous communities will enhance institutional understanding of the
needs and interests of those communities and the challenges they face in engaging with the
collections and services. Developing and nurturing these relationships builds the trust needed for
truly collaborative and equal partnerships and will strengthen UAL’s ability to address other
challenges and opportunities together in meeting the university’s mission to uplift the whole
people.

The focus first and foremost must be on working with local communities to collaborate on
appropriate solutions to the longstanding challenges of descriptive metadata practices. However,
in connecting and cooperating with others across Canada who are engaged in similar projects,
the working group will contribute to a national movement that can lead to more effective change
through shareable workflows and tools. Balancing the need for localization with the imperative
for interoperability is a real challenge, one that can easily sideline initiatives of this nature. For
example, localized efforts coming together in a broad review and revision of Canadian Subject
Headings might provide opportunities for balancing these needs. Working together, we can find
ways of making this balance possible, allowing more communities to benefit. In addition, the
consultation processes that we make use of may be broadly applicable to others hoping to work

with local communities on similar initiatives.

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

Conclusion

The University of Alberta Libraries has just begun the work on this decolonizing description
initiative, and there is still much to be done. The practices we are seeking to change have
become institutionalized over time. Key to our process is developing and sustaining relationships,
building trust, and engaging in open and true consultation. All of these things take time if they
are to be done properly, and we are committed to ensuring our process is respectful and inclusive
of the Indigenous communities involved, leading to a new schema of description that accurately

represents them.

Ultimately, we are committed to this work because it reflects our principles as librarians,
committed to equity, diversity, and inclusiveness in library collections, services, and spaces. It
also speaks to the broader university mission of teaching, learning, and research in service of the
public good. It is one way in which we can unsettle our practices and contribute concretely to
reconciliation with the first peoples of Canada, to forging new relationships founded on mutual
respect and equal partnerships.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the many colleagues who shared their experiences and offered
their expertise throughout the early stages of this project: Christine Bone, Camille Callison
(University of Manitoba); Brett Lougheed (University of Winnipeg); Anne Doyle, Sarah Dupont,
Kim Lawson (University of British Columbia); Peggy Sue Ewanyshyn, Krista Jamieson, Leah
Vanderjagt (University of Alberta Libraries); Diane Beattie, Pierre Gamache (Library and Archives
Canada); Trina Grover (Ryerson University); and Heather Pretty (Memorial University of
Newfoundland).

References

Aase, L. (2017). There is no view from nowhere: User experience research at the Center of

Southwest Studies Library. Collection Management, 42(3/4), 139–158.

Adler, M. (2016). The case for taxonomic reparations. Knowledge Organization, 43(8), 630–640.

Baildon, M., Hamlin, D, Jankowski, C., Kauffman, R., Lanigan, J., Miller, M., … Willer, A. M.
(2017). Creating a social justice mindset: Diversity, inclusion, and social justice in the
Collections Directorate of the MIT Libraries. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/108771

Bales, S. (2017). Social justice and library work: A guide to theory and practice. Oxford:

Chandos Publishing.

Berman, S. (1971). Prejudices and antipathies: A tract on the LC subject heads concerning

people. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Berman, S. (2013). Not in my library!: "Berman's bag" columns from the Unabashed Librarian,

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/108771

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

2000-2013. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

Buchanan, E. A. (2004). Ethical considerations for the information professions. In R. A. Spinello
& H. T. Tavani (Eds.), Readings in cyberethics (pp. 613–624). Sudbury, MA: Jones &
Bartlett.

Burgess, J. (2015, March 4). ALISE Xchange: Cognitive justice [video file]. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/aDiBpof3b7U

Canadian Federation of Library Associations. (2017). Truth and reconciliation report and
recommendations. Retrieved from http://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/Truth-and-Reconciliation-Committee-Report-and-
Recommendations.pdf

Carr-Wiggin, A., Ball, T., Lar-Son, K., & MacLeod, L. (2017). Raising Indigenous librarians: A
Canadian internship story. Paper presented at IFLA WLIC 2017 in Wrocław, Poland.
Retrieved from http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1765

Cherry, A., & Mukunda, K. (2015). A case study in Indigenous classification: Revisiting and
reviving the Brian Deer Scheme. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(5/6), 548–

567.

Chester, G.G. (2006). Proposed tribal college cataloging systems: From isolation to association

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Cooke, N. A. (2016). Information services to diverse populations: Developing culturally
competent library professionals. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Corntassel, J., & Holder, C. (2008). Who’s sorry now? Government apologies, truth
commissions, and Indigenous self-determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and

Peru. Human Rights Review, 9(4), 465–489.

Doyle, A., Lawson, K., & Dupont, S. (2015). Indigenization of knowledge organization at the

Xwi7xwa Library. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 13(2), 107–134.

Drabinski, E. (2013). Queering the catalog: Queer theory and the politics of correction. Library

Quarterly, 83(2), 94–111.

Higgins, S., & Gregory, L. (2013). Information literacy and social justice: Radical professional
praxis. Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.

Henderson, J. Y. (2000). Ayukpachi: Empowering Aboriginal thought. In M. Battiste (ed.),
Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 248–278). Vancouver, British Columbia:

UBC Press.

Kam, D. V. (2007). Subject headings for Aboriginals: The power of naming. Art Documentation:

Bulletin of The Art Libraries Society of North America, 26(2), 18–22.

Lee, D. (2011). Indigenous knowledge organization: A study of concepts, terminology, structure
and (mostly) Indigenous voices. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library &
Information Practice & Research, 6(1). Retrieved from

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,
https://youtu.be/aDiBpof3b7U
http://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Truth-and-Reconciliation-Committee-Report-and-Recommendations.pdf
http://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Truth-and-Reconciliation-Committee-Report-and-Recommendations.pdf
http://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Truth-and-Reconciliation-Committee-Report-and-Recommendations.pdf
http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1765

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/1427/2089

Lightfoot, S. (2015). Settler-state apologies to indigenous peoples: A normative framework and
comparative assessment. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 2(1), 15–39.
Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/635816/summary

Littletree, S., & Metoyer, C. A. (2015). Knowledge organization from an Indigenous
perspective: The Mashantucket Pequot Thesaurus of American Indian Terminology

Project. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(5/6), 640–657.

Lougheed, B., Moran, R., & Callison, C. (2015). Reconciliation through description: Using
metadata to realize the vision of the National Research Centre for Truth and
Reconciliation. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(5-6), 596–614.

Manitoba Archival Information Network (MAIN). (2013). MAIN LCSH Working Group. Retrieved

from http://mbarchives.ca/MAIN_LCSH

Martens, M. (2006). Creating a supplemental thesaurus to LCSH for a specialized collection: The

experience of the National Indian Law Library. Law Library Journal, 98(2), 287–297.

Morales, M., Knowles, E. M., and Bourg, C. (2014). Diversity, social justice, and the future of

libraries. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(3), 439–451.

Moulaison Sandy, H., and Bossaller, J. (2016). The moral imperative of subject access to
Indigenous knowledge: Considerations and alternative paths. Paper presented at IFLA
World Library and Information Congress, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from
http://library.ifla.org/1327/

Moulaison Sandy, H., and Bossaller, J. (2017). Providing cognitively just subject access to
Indigenous knowledge through knowledge organization systems. Cataloging &

Classification Quarterly, 55(3), 129–152.

Olson, H. A. (2000). Difference, culture and change: The untapped potential of LCSH.

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29(1/2), 53–71.

Olson, H. A. (2002). The power to name: Locating the limits of subject representation in

libraries. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Parent, I. (2015). Knowledge systems for all. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(5/6),
703–706.

Rigby, C. (2015). Nunavut libraries online establish Inuit language bibliographic cataloging
standards: Promoting Indigenous language using a commercial ILS. Cataloging &

Classification Quarterly, 53(5/6), 615–639.

Roberto, K. (2008). Radical cataloguing: Essays at the front. London: McFarland & Company.

Samek, T. (2007). Librarianship and human rights: A twenty-first century guide. Oxford:
Chandos Publishing.

Tomren, H. (2003). Classification, bias, and American Indian materials. Unpublished paper.

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,
https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/1427/2089
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/635816/summary
http://mbarchives.ca/MAIN_LCSH
http://library.ifla.org/1327/

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

Retrieved from http://ailasacc.pbworks.com/f/BiasClassification2004.pdf

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015a). Calls to action. Retrieved from

http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015b) What we have learned: Principles of
truth and reconciliation. Retrieved from
http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Final%20Reports/Principles_English_Web.pdf

Turner, H. (2015). Decolonizing ethnographic documentation: A critical history of the early
museum catalogs at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. Cataloging

& Classification Quarterly, 53(5-6), 658–676.

Turpin, D. (2017, June 2). Partnership with National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. [Web
log comment]. Retrieved from https://blog.ualberta.ca/partnership-with-national-

centre-for-truth-and-reconciliation-60f6c37ebd3a

United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Universities Canada. (2015). Universities Canada principles on Indigenous education. Retrieved
from https://www.univcan.ca/media-room/media-releases/universities-canada-
principles-on-indigenous-education/

University of Alberta. (2017). Annual report, University of Alberta. Retrieved from
https://cloudfront.ualberta.ca/-/media/ualberta/reporting/annual-reports-and-
financial-statements/annual-report-20162017.pdf

University of Alberta. (2016). For the public good. Retrieved from
https://d1pbog36rugm0t.cloudfront.net/-/media/isp/final-

doc/12885institutionalstrategicplan33final.pdf

Villanueva, C. B. (2016). Classification and indexing of Philippine Indigenous materials with
emphasis on the Cordillera. Paper presented at IFLA World Library and Information
Congress, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from: http://library.ifla.org/1335/

Vincent, J. (2012). The role of public libraries in social justice. Prometheus, 30(3), 349–351.

Sharon Farnel (sharon.farnel@ualberta.ca) is Metadata Coordinator at the University of Alberta
Libraries and PhD candidate. She researches the development of a framework for designing and
applying culturally aware and appropriate metadata in digital libraries.

Denise Koufogiannakis (denise.koufogiannakis@ualberta.ca) is Associate University Librarian

responsible for Collection Strategies, Bibliographic Services, and Access Services at the University
of Alberta. She holds an MLIS from the University of Alberta, and a PhD in Information Studies
from Aberystwyth University.

Sheila Laroque (laroque@ualberta.ca) is an Academic Resident Librarian in Bibliographic
Services at the University of Alberta Libraries. Sheila is originally from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,
http://ailasacc.pbworks.com/f/BiasClassification2004.pdf
http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Final%20Reports/Principles_English_Web.pdf
https://blog.ualberta.ca/partnership-with-national-centre-for-truth-and-reconciliation-60f6c37ebd3a
https://blog.ualberta.ca/partnership-with-national-centre-for-truth-and-reconciliation-60f6c37ebd3a
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
https://www.univcan.ca/media-room/media-releases/universities-canada-principles-on-indigenous-education/
https://www.univcan.ca/media-room/media-releases/universities-canada-principles-on-indigenous-education/
https://cloudfront.ualberta.ca/-/media/ualberta/reporting/annual-reports-and-financial-statements/annual-report-20162017.pdf
https://cloudfront.ualberta.ca/-/media/ualberta/reporting/annual-reports-and-financial-statements/annual-report-20162017.pdf
https://d1pbog36rugm0t.cloudfront.net/-/media/isp/final-doc/12885institutionalstrategicplan33final.pdf
https://d1pbog36rugm0t.cloudfront.net/-/media/isp/final-doc/12885institutionalstrategicplan33final.pdf
http://library.ifla.org/1335/
mailto:sharon.farnel@ualberta.ca
mailto:denise.koufogiannakis@ualberta.ca
mailto:laroque@ualberta.ca

Rethinking Representation

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 2(3), 2018
ISSN 2574-3430, publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/

where she finished her BA at the University of Saskatchewan in 2010. She finished her MI from
the University of Toronto’s iSchool in 2016. She is happy to be in Edmonton; a city with more
than one professional sports team, but still back home in Treaty 6 territory.

Ian Bigelow (bigelow@ualberta.ca) is the Cataloguing Coordinator at the University of Alberta
Libraries and is currently a member of the Canadian Linked Data Initiative Metadata Working
Group and the PCC Task Group on URI in MARC.

Anne Carr-Wiggin (anne.carr-wiggin@ualberta.ca) is NEOS Manager, and coordinates Indigenous
initiatives at the University of Alberta Libraries. She also serves on the Guiding Council of RISE
(Reconciliation in Solidarity Edmonton) and is a team co-lead on the CFLA-FCAB Truth and
Reconciliation Committee.

Debbie Feisst (debbie.feisst@ualberta.ca) is Acting Head at the HT Coutts Education & Physical
Education Library, University of Alberta, where she specializes in Secondary Education and the
Faculty of Education’s Aboriginal Teacher Education Program (ATEP).

Kayla Lar-Son (verbicky@ualberta.ca) is a Métis student currently enrolled in the Master of
Library Studies, University of Alberta. Interested in issues of diversity, human rights, intellectual
freedom, social responsibility and libraries, and alternative forms of knowing, Kayla is part of
the de-colonizing description working group, which focuses on implementing the
recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission within the UofA Libraries. She is
also an Indigenous Intern in Rutherford Library, UofA, who works actively with Indigenous
students through library information sessions at the Aboriginal Student Services Center and
participates in Indigenous and diversity initiatives off-campus. She brings a treasured firsthand
perspective into the discussion of diversity, empowerment, and traditional knowledge.

http://publish.lib.umd.edu/IJIDI/,
mailto:bigelow@ualberta.ca
mailto:anne.carr-wiggin@ualberta.ca
mailto:debbie.feisst@ualberta.ca
file:///C:/Users/kkett/Downloads/verbicky@ualberta.ca

Introduction and Background
The University of Alberta Response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The University of Alberta Libraries’ Indigenous Initiatives

Aims
Literature Review
Descriptive Practices and Social Justice
Representation of Indigenous Peoples in Existing Metadata Standards and Practices

The Decolonizing Description Working Group
The Working Group’s Process
Internal consultations
External consultations

Local Data Analysis
Cataloging records within the integrated library system
Metadata applied to the institutional repository, archives, and locally digitized collections

Recommendations of the Working Group

Implementation
Potential Impacts
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References