Page History

Table of Contents

Statement of Purpose

When a record is first created, language and terms are used to title, describe, and categorize its contents, which are culturally and temporally situated. Once that record is accessioned into an archives, archivists inevitably must make decisions around further description, what language to use and how detailed to be, all of which stem from the archivist’s positionality–their experiences, language, and knowledge of the subject, not to mention the positionality of the archives as reflected in its mission, anticipated audiences, and systems parameters.¹

As archivists, it is our obligation to be mindful of how our work can either perpetuate or combat marginalization and erasure. We are committed to adhering to descriptive practices informed by empathy, respect, and transparency.² These style guidelines, as a product of this commitment, are intended to promote equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice. These are dynamic principles which naturally evolve over time. Policies informed by these principles must be responsive to such evolution, as well as to critical feedback from stakeholders. Therefore, these style guidelines are a living document intended to be modified and updated in an iterative process.

Language Guidelines

Describing Individuals and Identities

When the race, gender, sexual orientation, or other identity of a person is publicly recognized, identify them in the collection description accordingly. Use their preferred language and terminology. 

Capitalize the names of community and cultural groups. 

• Example: Capitalize Black, Indigenous, and Native when referring to people, as they are ethnic/cultural identities. However, lowercase white to avoid racist, white supremacist connotations.³

• Example: Use Deaf when referring to the Deaf community or Deaf culture.⁴ Deaf may be written in lowercase when referring to the condition. Likewise: Autistic community.⁵

Sometimes a person’s identities may be unknown or unclear. In the case of a living or recently deceased person, their identity may be intentionally private (not public) or may not be officially recognized. While it is important to promote visibility, it is also important to recognize and respect the individual’s right to privacy. For more information on how to approach such situations, see Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons guidelines. 

In all cases, do not assign identities to the person unless they are substantiated by credible, publicly available written evidence (found within or without the collection). It is essential to avoid misrepresentation and assumptions, even if it results in materials related to identity-based experiences not being clearly described as such.⁶

• Example: Do not describe a person found in a photograph as being of a particular racial or ethnic identity unless there is public documentary support for that conclusion. Appearance is not a reflection of an individual’s identity, background, or culture.

• Example: “Colbert was named dean for graduate students in 1999, becoming the first Black academic dean at MIT.¹” [Source of identification cited]

For historical figures, identity descriptors may be different from what is considered familiar or preferred today. If necessary for comprehension, you can provide context for these terms within the description. Always include external reference(s) to support any added contextualization. Potential avenues for understanding how to interpret historical or outmoded terminology are:

• Performing independent research. Tools like the Homosaurus International LGBTQ Linked Data Vocabulary are excellent resources for referencing both international and historical identity-focused language.

• Reaching out to scholars who have researched the person in question.

• Speaking with communities or organizations to which the person belonged.

When describing disability, use the Political/Relational Model of Disability as a framing rather than a moral or medical model.⁷ Language should not be used in a way that stigmatizes differences or perpetuates stereotypes and ableist assumptions. This includes avoiding terms like “impaired,” “confined,” or “suffered.” When possible, use the terms preferred by creators. While some individuals prefer person-first language, others may view it as ableist and prefer identity-first language. Refer to authoritative websites when choosing language, such as the National Center on Disability and Journalism’s Disability Language Style Guide, ADA National Network’s Guidelines for Writing About People With Disabilities, and Center for Disability Rights’ Disability Writing & Journalism Guidelines. Be particularly mindful about documenting disabilities, as it may constitute a breach of privacy when disclosing a person’s medical conditions.⁸

Refrain from using evaluative language when describing identities, actions, and beliefs. Evaluative language judges the character of a person or assigns qualities or traits to them or their work. This type of language can be denigrating or aggrandizing in nature. Such language reinforces harmful stereotypes and social structures. 

• Example of denigrating language: Describing a person who uses a wheelchair as “wheelchair-bound.”

• Alternative examples using empowering language: “wheelchair user” or “[someone who] uses a mobility aid.”

• Example of aggrandizing language from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tech Show Records, AC-0299: “The show was entirely composed, written, created, and produced by students at MIT, so the materials are a rich record and evidence of student humor, creativity, and accomplishment.”

• Alternative example using neutral language: “The show was entirely created and produced by students at MIT.”

Describing Contexts

Unambiguous, concise description helps clarify contexts and relationships. Clear description provides greater factual accuracy and accountability, particularly when describing actions and beliefs. Clarity can be developed through:

• Avoiding the passive writing voice and using the active voice instead. The active voice naturally conveys responsibility, accountability, and relationships more effectively than the passive voice. Occasionally, the passive voice is necessary to describe an action performed by an unknown agent.⁹ In most situations, however, the active voice is more appropriate.

• Avoiding euphemisms or softened terms for actions, events, beliefs, and ideas. Using accurate language clarifies actions and their significance, and is particularly important when describing difficult, distressing, or sensitive topics.¹⁰

When describing materials that contain harmful or offensive language or titles, never simply remove the original language. Doing so can contribute to underrepresentation of marginalized people and groups, and is counterproductive to the goals of transparency. 

The below guidance for handling harmful original language is sourced from the Archives for Black Lives in Philadelphia’s "Anti-Racist Description Resources":

In most cases, preserve but contextualize creator-sourced original description when it is an important context for understanding records. If you choose to maintain some or all harmful creator-based language, draw a distinction between the creator-supplied description and archivist-supplied description via quotation marks, processing information note, and/or Scope and Content note. Make a clear distinction between the institutional voice/archivist’s voice and the voice of the collection creator. 

In some circumstances it may be appropriate to fully replace offensive language. If you choose to take this approach, indicate in a Scope and Content note where replacements were made.

Other steps for handling harmful language include:

• Utilizing a collection- and (when applicable) series-level note recognizing that some language is outdated/offensive, explaining that creator-based language was or was not maintained and why you chose to maintain or not maintain it.¹¹

• Research how the community being described feels about certain terms, and weigh the use of terms that are harmful. Finding other institutions that have grappled with similar collections may help. Where possible, speak directly with creators/subjects who may be harmed by legacy description to determine whether the language should be maintained or changed. In some cases, this research may not be possible, and even when making informed decisions about terminology, it is still possible to do harm.¹²

• Adding a content warning statement at the applicable description levels (see Section IV) so users are aware of the offensive language’s nature and location.

Reading Level Guidelines

Inclusive archival description does not only focus on collection creators and subjects, but also on collection users themselves. Collection description that is written in a clear, straightforward style is more cognitively accessible for a diverse, global audience. Accessible description should aim for concise structure and grammar while remaining “complete and fully informative — not over-simplified, heavily edited, or censored.”¹³

For guidelines on writing accessible description, see the Reading Level Guidelines page.

Content Warning Guidelines

Another means for supporting inclusive collections access is through the use of content warnings. Content warnings are used to indicate the presence of potentially offensive or disturbing imagery, language, and topics within a collection. Researchers informed by the warning can then choose if and how they will approach the material in question.

For guidelines on formatting content warnings, see the Content Warning note page.

Footnotes

1. Anchor
   1. 1.

   Brilmyer, “Archival Assemblages.”

2. Anchor
   2 2

   Lellman et al., “Guidelines for Inclusive and Conscientious Description.”

3. Anchor
   3 3

   Laws, “Why We Capitalize ‘Black’ (and Not ‘White’).”; Lellman et al., “Guidelines.”

4. Anchor
   4 4

   “Community and Culture – Frequently Asked Questions.”

5. Anchor
   5 5

   Brown, “Autism FAQ.”

6. Anchor
   6 6

   “Race & Ethnicity Research Guide.”

7. Anchor
   7 7

   The Political/Relational Model is “a framing so that the problem of disability no longer resides in the minds or bodies of individuals but in built environments and social patterns that exclude or stigmatize particular kinds of bodies, minds, and ways of being.” Alison Kafer, Feminist, Queer, Crip.

8. Anchor
   8 8

   Sara White, “Crippling the Archives."

9. Anchor
   9 9

   “On Active and Passive Voice,” Merriam-Webster.

10. Anchor
    10 10

    Archives for Black Lives in Philadelphia, “Anti-Racist Description Resources."

11. Anchor
    11 11

    Ibid.
    

12. Anchor
    12 12

    Ibid.
    

13. Anchor
    13 13

    Andrew Pulrang, “Plain Language Writing."

Bibliography

Archives for Black Lives in Philadelphia, Anti-Racist Description Working Group. “Anti-Racist Description Resources,” October 2019. https://archivesforblacklives.files.wordpress.com/ 2019/10/ardr_final.pdf. 

Brilmyer, Gracen. “Archival Assemblages: Applying Disability Studies’ Political/Relational Model to Archival Description.” Archival Science 18, no. 2 (June 2018): 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-018-9287-6. 

Brown, Lydia X. Z. “Autism FAQ.” Autistic Hoya (blog). Accessed June 4, 2021. https://www.autistichoya.com/p/introduction-to-autism-faqs-of-autism.html. 

Columbia Journalism Review. “Why We Capitalize ‘Black’ (and Not ‘White’).” Accessed June 4, 2021. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php. 

Digital Transgender Archive. “Race & Ethnicity Research Guide.” Accessed June 3, 2021. https://www.digitaltransgenderarchive.net/learn/raceandethnicity. 

Kafer, Alison. Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press, 2013. http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.mit.edu/stable/j.ctt16gz79x. 

Laws, Mike. “Why We Capitalize ‘Black’ (and Not ‘White’).” Columbia Journalism Review, June 16, 2020. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php.

Lellman, Charlotte, et al. “Guidelines for Inclusive and Conscientious Description.” Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Boston, Mass. Center for the History of Medicine: Policies and Procedures Manual, May 2020. https://wiki.harvard.edu/confluence/display/hmschommanual/ Guidelines+for+Inclusive+and+Conscientious+Description. 

Merriam-Webster. “On Active and Passive Voice.” Accessed June 2, 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/active-vs-passive-voice-difference. 

National Association of the Deaf. “Community and Culture – Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.nad.org/resources/american-sign-language/ community-and-culture-frequently-asked-questions/. 

Pulrang, Andrew. “Plain Language Writing — An Essential Part Of Accessibility.” Forbes. October 22, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewpulrang/2020/10/22/ plain-language-writing---an-essential-part-of-accessibility/. 

White, Sara. “Crippling the Archives: Negotiating Notions of Disability in Appraisal and Arrangement and Description.” American Archivist 75, no. 1 (April 2012): 109–24. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.75.1.c53h4712017n4728.