Accepted on 05 Oct 2021
Submitted on 26 Jul 2021
During the summer of 2020, a multi-type library working group came together to define a structure for Virginia libraries to audit their collections for representation of diverse authors. This group was comprised of school librarians, academic librarians, and public librarians, as well as faculty members from Longwood University and Old Dominion University. The group enjoyed representation from the Virginia Library Association’s Librarians of Color Forum and the LGBQT+ Forum. The entire working group and their credentials are found in Appendix 1.
The working group collaborated on researching national existing practices and resources as well as defining the steps described in this document. Appendix 2 defines many of the resources.
Certainly, as the year passed, differing practices and views came to light nationally and altered the trajectory of this project, resulting in the recommendations presented here. Many thanks to all who contributed to the knowledge, conversation, and direction of the project.
Before engaging in any diversity audit planning, librarians should not only educate themselves about libraries, literature, and representation, but also reflect upon their own biases and attitudes. Without self-awareness and industry knowledge, the practices below will fall flat in effect and fail in shifting attitudes towards respect and valuation for all. Appendix 3 offers a small sampling of existing opportunities. It would be impossible to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date listing with new educational and reflective offerings arising daily. Many opportunities exist on the local level, such as within local municipal government and school administration, and on the state level, including Virginia universities, the Library of Virginia, and the Virginia Library Association. Please note that self-awareness and equity education is not a “one and done” activity and should be a regular part of professional development for every librarian.
Prior to auditing the current collection, libraries should establish best practice for collection development and cataloging for acquisition processes. Engaging in these practices will, hopefully, stem the tide of problematic or over-represented titles from being added to the collection. In short, libraries should establish a collection development policy and practice as quickly and thoughtfully as possible in order to 1) enrich the collections with breadth and depth of current representative authors; 2) better serve the public with such collection additions; and 3) select a start date in order to note the beginning of representative collection practices for future evaluation. The order of these activities is intended to support immediate correction, action, and discoverability but can be viewed as circular in nature. Does one address policy first? Cataloging? Ordering? Certainly, several of these steps can (and should) happen simultaneously when possible. The working group chose the order that follows in the interest of addressing newly acquired and soon-to-be acquired items for immediate action while policy issues, which can be substantially slower in application, are addressed.
Establish and use appropriate subject keywords for MARC Records of newly purchased materials. This is a challenging topic, as the field has not yet landed on accepted keywords, subject headings, etc.
Keyword selection: Best practice indicates that thoughtful and collaborative selection of an institution’s keywords be created and then systematically applied. Keyword selection should be conducted with representation from all member libraries of a catalog (for example, public libraries and academic libraries that share an integrated library system (ILS); school systems whose ILS serves elementary, middle, and high schools). If possible, include individuals of historically excluded populations in this collaboration. Appendix 4 suggests resources to develop possible keywords. Again, this topic is evolving so it is imperative that librarians conduct their own research.
Education and application: In order for keyword revisions to be effective tools for discovery as well as future data collection/evaluation, every cataloger must be educated and committed to the keyword set adopted. Library leaders should engage their catalogers in education and self-awareness practices described above as well as require commitment to the application of the new sets of keywords. Further, every ILS differs in how keywords are applied and thus education regarding this technical aspect is necessary. Vendors should provide education, tutorials, and/or written instructions for tagging records.
Example: While the Library of Congress still uses “illegal alien” as a subject heading, keyword tags could be added for “undocumented resident.”
To best embody Rudine Simms Bishop’s (1990) ideas of books as “windows, mirrors and sliding glass doors,” the following steps guide collection development. Appendix 5 presents a wealth of resources for identifying and evaluating resources.
Purchase Order Audits: Establish and utilize purchase order audits in order to ensure that collection additions are inclusive. The following questions are suggested:
The working group acknowledges that an audit process could/should be formalized for an institution, but again, in the interest of stemming the tide, this informal process can be applied immediately.
Collection Practices: Assuming that those selecting books for a collection are librarians, the practices below are no different than those already employed. However, the lens through which librarians deploy these practices should be informed by the education and self-awareness practices described in the first section.
If staff capacity allows, policy review should be conducted simultaneously with all of the prior activities. Certainly, policy additions and changes drive the values of the library and will require action by library leadership and boards. Policies establish priorities and command practice so it is imperative that libraries take on the development of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in their collection development policies. Policy review begins with the simple question: Does the policy reflect equality, diversity, and inclusion? If not,
Submit policy to the board for review and action. Policy examples can be found in Appendix 6. Librarians should conduct additional research for sample policies in light of the evolving nature of this topic.
Addressing the bias can be controversial but, if grounded in solid library best practice, is always defensible. In the spirit of addressing all perspectives and avoiding censorship, adherence to MUSTIE and CREW weeding practices (see Appendix 8 for definitions) are endorsed. Just because a book has been challenged or includes problematic language and/or illustrations, does not mean it should be weeded on that basis alone. Strategies for addressing these items will be presented later in this guidance.
If the policy review reveals that an update is required, follow institutional practices for adoption. Often, policy change practices are specified in an organization’s bylaws and should be led by the appropriate unit of leadership—director, dean, principal, etc. Such a change may require stakeholder communication and education in diversity, equity, and inclusion and may need to be preceded by educational opportunities and discussion by those stakeholders. Ideally, such education and exposure would happen prior to any policy presentation, noting that there is a possibility for resistance, negative attitudes, and conflict.
Public institutions are often led by majority population representatives and leaders must be prepared to discuss the necessity and value of a diverse and representative collection. Leaders must also be prepared to address any resulting conflict and resistance from its service population. A topic beyond the scope of this document, conflict communication strategies should be explored prior to introduction of policy discussions. However, libraries strive to present all perspectives and should consider adopting a statement that addresses “problematic” titles, programs, and exhibits that encourages civil discourse and exploration by the reader/attendee/viewer. Sample language is provided below:
{Library Name} values the freedom of expression and strives to represent all perspectives. If you find a book, program, or exhibit troubling, consider these questions:
{Library Name}’s director/dean/principal/librarian would be happy to discuss this with you. Please contact {Name} at {phone/email}.
Again, this statement should be collaboratively crafted and staff should be educated in the application of this statement.
There are a variety of strategies that can be adopted, based on the size, budget, and staff capacity of the institution.
Vendor Provided Audits: The prevalence of audits by vendors is growing. The information provided below is based on knowledge as of this publication date. Vendor audits algorithmically evaluate the collection based on metadata, providing a (hopefully) less biased view than audits conducted by hand.
Staff-Conducted Audits: Certainly, staff conducted audits require capacity and planning but are possible. A sample worksheet is included in Appendix 7.
As an institution that embraces democratization of information, it is critical that libraries engage in diverse, equitable, and inclusive practices. Librarians are called upon to provide trusted resources for both informational and personal consumption—resources that may be different for every member of their service population. Embracing Ranganathan’s Laws of Library Science (1931), particularly 2: Every reader, their book; 3. Every book, its reader, and 5. The library is a growing organism, the practices described here position the library as a trusted resource for all.
The additional file for this article can be found as follows:
AppendicesAppendix 1 to 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/valib.v65i1.622.s1