• Figure out how Furman can create or improve upon our inclusive description statement for our digital collections. 
• Perform a comparative analysis on what they have in common and how they differ (placement, length, historical context, and LCSH disclaimers)
• Publish and promote online statements outlining these principles and goals as a way of holding our institution accountable, include guidelines for addressing racist description into procedures, workflows, or interventions

These areas can help us identify a variety of lexicon categories and maintain a focused approach to planning our audit. Groupings are broad in nature, meaning, that the concepts within each realm are not meant to be mutually inclusive or exclusive. Once recommendations made by the audit team are presented and approved, we can make better decisions on how to engage in “conscious editing” of records that were reviewed and flagged during this first phase.

1. Punzalan, R. L., & Caswell, M. (2016). Critical directions for archival approaches to social justice. The Library Quarterly, 86(1), 25-42.

• Identify vocabulary lists of harmful/sensitive/stereotypical language
• Reconceptualize archival concepts through this process (e.g., record, provenance, evidence, and neutrality) 
• Audit past harmful description practices
• Create thesauri with preferred terms, with a focus on our five areas of exploration 

• Create a communication plan that will inform our community and partners about our DEI auditing efforts and outcomes (e.g., via blog posts and social media). It will:
  • provide updates on progress
  • promote transparency on challenges encountered along the way
  • invite critical conversations about archival descriptions
  • Publicize Special Collections & Archives/Digital Collections Center-wide statement on harmful language in our archival descriptions to explain our level of awareness and approaches to adjust descriptive terminology
• Consult with the community from a place of respect to help identify preferred language
• Develop “preferred terminology guidelines” (Yale) in collaboration with community stakeholders
• Convene community discussion to convey our goals and desired outcomes, seek feedback, and offer ways of getting involved

• Create Project Documentation file, which will include:
  • • actual schedules and task allocations
    • audit checklists
    • meeting minutes
    • workflows for staff members to contribute with citations/notes and flag materials/collections documenting under-described populations of interest and to suggest ways to edit/update collection descriptions (Phase II) to make them more inclusive, accurate, and meaningful to users 
• Create procedures to provide guidance and parameters for individuals auditing collections 
• Create a DEIA audit toolkit for the public to use as a resource

• Create an Audit Summary Report that would highlight:
  • Auditing process overview
  • Key findings in the five areas of exploration
  • Recommendations for changes to be implemented for current and future archival practices, including

• • Creation/revisitation of policies, procedures, and everyday practices that would advance DEI
  • Creation/revisitation of public statements around our DEIA descriptive practices
  • Rethinking of outreach efforts in response to FU’s reckoning process
  • Rethinking of advocacy efforts to involve new stakeholders and users
  • Organization/Sponsorship of events to discuss findings with our community (talks, lunch and learn) to discuss audit findings and connect them to larger DEI dialogues. 
  • Scheduling of future iterative descriptive practices or audits