 We've got two presentations today. First off, Joanne Fitton, who I'll introduce in a minute, and then second, Kevin Wilson, who'll give the second presentation. So, Joanne is Deputy Director at the Library's Museums and Galleries at the University of Liverpool. She's been there since November 2022 and she leads heritage education and digital. She moved from University of Leeds where she was Associate Director of Special Collections and Galleries and she will talk about addressing the colonial legacies in the University of Liverpool's heritage collections. And Joanne, it's over to you. Thanks, James. Right, I'll just do my screen sharing. Hope you can see that now. Okay, I'll start then. So, today I'm going to outline some of the decolonisation activities happening at the University of Liverpool, specifically focusing on the collections-based work of special collections and archives and how that relates to the broader institutional context in which we operate. So, as James said, I'm Joanne Fitton, Deputy Director of Library's Museums and Galleries at Liverpool and I joined this team in November. And so most of the work that I'm describing is the hard work of my colleagues. And unfortunately, Robyn, who was meant to be presenting with me today, wasn't able to attend. I also want to acknowledge Jenny Hyam. Both of these individuals have been instrumental in much of the coordination of this work to date. So, see if my slide moves on. The University of Liverpool was founded in 1881 after the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. However, the history of Liverpool, its socioeconomic role as an imperial city port city, and indeed home of Confederate embassy during the American Civil War, clearly and directly has a legacy on our collections, not least in the sense that many of the foundation collections were gifted by benefactors whose family wealth was derived from such activity. Now, Liverpool is a city and as the university began to formally acknowledge this legacy in the 2000s. In 2006, the Centre for the Study of International Slavery was established at the university. And in 2007, the International Slavery Museum, part of National Museum's Liverpool, opened at the Albert Dock. Both have a local national and international profile in research education and outreach. It was in the late 2010s when the university, in common with other institutions, began receiving FOI requests around the link between the historical funding and the transatlantic slave trade, that the importance of the institutional archive in both researching and acknowledging these issues came to the fore. In 2020, the university heritage strategy was revised in light of world events and developments in the sector. And at this time, a university endowment was unlocked for the purposes of pursuing this work on a wider scale. An advisory board was founded, which is meeting three times a year, and it includes academics, professional services staff, external stakeholders, such as from National Museum's Liverpool and members of the community-based Liverpool Black History Group. Library's museums and galleries employed short-term posts to assess the collections in terms of their provenance and flag up areas of concern. It also facilitated a tangible partnership with the Centre for the Study of International Slavery. And community events have been held, initially focused on Toxteth and the L8, the historically black area of Liverpool, which is adjacent to the university campus. The idea behind these community events was to help determine institutional approaches whilst being mindful of the need to take a listening approach and to plan for ongoing collaboration in order to build trust. And two new posts have been funded to research the university's links to slavery and colonialism using the heritage collections. A three-year postdoc is currently starting in September and a two-year research assistant post will be targeted at the wider audience to get someone on staff with relevant knowledge and lived experience who may not have followed a traditional academic path. The role is likely to start in 2024 and part of that role will be to act as a bridge to the local community. All this activity is underpinned by our broad collections and this presentation focuses on the work which is going on in the library, specifically special collections and archives. The collections include manuscripts, medieval and modern, the university archive, deposited collections including literary and political archives, over 70,000 printed books from the 15th century to the present, plus Europe's largest cataloged collection of science fiction. So the library began to explore the approach to decolonisation in 2020. This was a period when decolonisation in heritage received more attention in national news as a result of the Black Lives Matter protest and Cambridge University published its initial report from the Legacies of Slavery Inquiry. At this stage, the library wanted to develop its departmental approach to the legacies of slavery and colonialism as present in the professional practices and collections. Colleagues established best practice by researching literature and publications and by speaking to other archivists in UK institutions. This was found to be exceptionally helpful to hear about work taking place elsewhere and to discuss common approaches and challenges. So the focus was on three strands, collections, partnerships and staff training. And I'll introduce a few work packages that have been integrated into daily workflows in relation to collections and partnerships. A lot of the great work being done has been done by my colleagues in special collections and archives, and museums and galleries, as well as independent researchers. So I'm just here reporting it. And you might say, you might hear me say, we, when I mean them. So I do want to acknowledge their efforts before I begin. So the first package to speak about is searching the archives catalogs for offensive or outdated language. Archival material is born out of the affairs of individuals, institutions, organizations and businesses. It captures the relationships and daily workings between people, their lives and their work. As such, archival material is of significant and personal importance to many. However, historical material contains language and illustrative depictions of people that are offensive and outdated. These instances may be racist, homophobic, sexist or ableist and more broadly, a significant part of the systematic marginalization of people throughout history. Therefore, the archivists at the University of Liverpool are currently working to identify offensive or outdated language that is used within the metadata on the dedicated archives catalog. The purpose of this work is not to remove all instances of historic discriminatory language from the resource descriptions. This would be unhelpful in the instances where the discriminatory language provides researchers with insight into the prejudices of that particular archive collection or its creators. And I'll say a little more on this, on when we would choose to retain or remove a term shortly. The approach to this work is very much influenced and directed by the work taking place in the University of Leeds Special Collections. And Robin spoke to one of the archivists there, Holly Smith, who shared their excellent work in this area. Firstly, the archivists are seeking to identify discriminatory language within the catalogue records. Our process for this involves using Curricitude's Inclusive Terminology Glossary to search for the offensive terms in the back end of our archives catalog system, EMU. Choose work, which was undertaken on behalf of National Library of Scotland, is very helpful and it's geared towards cultural heritage professionals. Although a fantastic resource, we recognise that this glossary is not a comprehensive nor a singular authority on this topic. Once we reach various milestones in the project, we will also be engaging with various academics and knowledgeable persons to ensure our approach is respectful and inclusive to all. But it's a very good solid starting document that is recommended and there's a link to it on this slide. We have a workflow to establish what we do with the offensive term. Archivists then decide to retain the term, change the term or remove the term. Retaining the term would be the preferred option when it is necessary for the term to be transcribed exactly as is in line with catalogue and standards. So for example, the title of a report. In this case, we would place the offensive term in speech marks and we would add a statement to the record to specifically identify the term and to let the reader know that it is required to accurately describe the material. Changing the term is the preferred option when the term is offensive. And although the purpose of the term is required, the exact term isn't necessary. So it can be substituted for an acceptable alternative term. The statement is added to the catalogue record to confirm this correction has taken place. I have an example of where we have done this coming up in just a moment. Lastly, removing the term is the preferred option when the term is genuinely not necessary or required for accurately describing the material. For example, previous catalogue has choice of words in the description field. In these cases, we would remove the term and add a statement to the catalogue record. All of these options include uploading and clarifying statement to be clear as to what we've done to the catalogue record. And we keep a screenshot of the previous record for preservation purposes. The archivists have searched for around 280 terms and have located around 20 instances where an intervention of this nature was required. Moving forward, we'll be turning our attention to the records for printed or published material held within special collections, broadening from language into offensive depictions and descriptions of persons within the material. So not present or immediately obvious within the catalogue records, as well as working with experts and knowledgeable persons to ensure our approach is well informed. This work informs the current catalogue in practice of archivists and it will carry on through daily workflows in the future. So here's an example of a term that we've changed. This is a record for one of our items. It's an album of 19th century paintings from China and the original record used the term costume, which is now considered to be an outdated and offensive term to describe the dress of communities of persons. So here we've substituted that term for traditional dress and we've added a statement in the description field to outline that we've edited the record. So moving on to a second piece of work has been our approach to the Sinti Romanic collections and special collections and archives holds a significant collection relating to Romani families in Nazi era Germany, many of whom were murdered in the Holocaust. Last summer, our special collections librarian acquired a grant from the University of Liverpool's diversity and equality team. With the help of research conducted by Professor Eve Rosenhoft, who is an expert in modern German history, the archivists carefully matched the subjects of the photographs, Sinti Roman names and the German names that they were forced to adopt by the ruling authorities that persecuted them. The funding was used to hire one of our project archivists to update 300 catalog records in line with the research conducted by Professor Rosenhoft. In November, we hosted some of the descendants of the survivors featured in the photographs from Germany. The visitors represented a wide group of descendants and were keen to see the photographs but also to discuss topics such as the ethics of the very nature of these photographs being taken in the first place and being housed in the university. The visit was extremely emotional for the visitors, several of whom are deeply impacted by intergenerational trauma. And one of the matters discussed were the steps that we had taken to enhance the biographical information in catalog records. At the request of the visitors, the catalog updates that we had made were removed because the living descendants felt that this was an open opportunity for persons with malicious intent to persecute the Sinti community further. We also deaccession several sensitive photographs immediately at the request of the descendants and we'll be working with them to identify further candidates for deaccession. So this particular example demonstrates the need for librarians, archivists, curators to provide time to really listen to persons whose histories are connected to our spaces and collections and to take the necessary steps to ensure that relationships are respectful and reciprocal. A third example is research into the slave trade. As Liverpool was the largest European port in the slave trade, determined by volume of slave trading ships that cleared via the docks, it's inevitable that our collections contain material that is related to the historic trade of enslaved persons. And further than this, material demonstrating the profit from goods that enslaved labor produced. We felt it was appropriate that researchers who have a specialism on the topic advised us on the exact nature of the material we hold and its significance with researchers in this field. We commissioned research to review archival and rare book and pamphlet holdings and for them to produce reports. And these have been shared with our advisory board. Moving forward, we'll be using this research to help us identify important candidates for conservation and deeper research. And we've already identified some important items which we'll hope to be conserved in the coming year. And we can also focus around these significant items and collections as part of exhibitions and events in the future. So with all these different activities, what is it that we are aiming for? We want to have a deeper understanding of the links to slavery and colonialism in the collections, thus supporting the university's broader efforts. And we want to properly contextualise offensive language in the catalogs. We want to have integrated equity and diversity in policies and our professional practice. And we want to be more transparent and challenge and have more transparent and challenging interpretations of material in exhibitions and events. And we think there is the opportunity for partnership, engagement and outreach with experts and persons connected to the collections. So it tends to be the nature of most complex activities. Most of the points on this slide represent both successes and challenges. The securing of high level institutional support, evidence by the requirement that we have to submit, a twice yearly report to the University's Heritage Arts and Culture Committee, chaired by one of our PVCs, has meant funding and profile for the work, but has also meant time and effort is required to manage expectations. Different stakeholders, both internal and external, have different ideas around the timeline and the focus of our work. And we're particularly concerned to communicate effectively with the community groups who feel they have waited a long time for acknowledgement and action from the university. Library staff working on these areas are generally undertaking tasks alongside their core role and may not be in a position to dedicate as much time to it as we would like. Even though we've found that everyone agrees in principle on the value of the work, managing it effectively may require convincing busy managers that the work is an institutional priority in order to achieve practical results. Although we've been able to link up with related projects, particularly in the museums, there is further work to be done in terms of joining up with the work on decolonisation of reading lists and the university's race equality charter to ensure a consistent message and effort. The collections and curatorial work outlined will continue and will inform the work of the two funded research posts. However, we are mindful of the need to be flexible in our approach as the direction the research takes could require us to respond in different ways. And it could bring to light collection areas to focus on, which we are not yet aware. Thank you. Thank you, Joanne, that was excellent. So we'll move on now to... Kevin Taylor, we'll take questions after. There's one going into Q&A already. Please do post them because it gives Kevin and Joanne time to look at them ahead of Kevin. Well, Kevin's going to be talking, but keep them coming. Kevin Wilson is seconded to be one of the assistant directors at LSE Library. His substantive role is academic liaison and collection development manager, and he's been with LSE since 2017. Haven't been at Goldsmiths and City before that. So he's presented a number of conferences and events. He's written book chapters and blog posts on diverse, inspiring library collections. And it's one of those that is the jumping off point for his talk to us this afternoon. So Kevin, over to you. Okay, hopefully you can see the slides, okay? So thanks very much for joining us, everyone. So I just wanted to kind of do a bit of a plug for the book that I wrote the chapter for. So this presentation is mainly based on the chapter that I contributed towards narrative expansions. It may be a book that you're familiar with. So this was a book that was published in December 2021 and it's edited by Jess Curley and Regina Reverett. And this chapter really just flashes out some of the ideas in that book chapter. But the book chapter will go into much more detail than this presentation. So narrative expansions really makes an important contribution to the discussion about decolonization in academic libraries. It doesn't just cover collections. It basically takes a holistic overview of all aspects of academic librarianships that includes recruitment and career progression, cataloging, classification, and information literacy but beyond that. It also takes an international perspective and it combines theory and practice. So it takes a really wide all-encompassing view of academic librarianship. If it's in your library, great. I hope it gives you a chance to think and reflect upon your processes and maybe think about ways that you can enact change in your institution. If not, please ask your acquisitions colleagues to buy a copy. I don't get royalties, but hopefully it will be a book that will kind of help you on your own journey. So the chapter that I'll be mostly focusing on is available in the LSE institutional repository and the link is on the screen, but hopefully one of the IRLUK colleagues maybe I'd share that in the chat. So in terms of the summary of what this presentation will cover, there's six main sections really. So the first will be the origins of the LSE as the Social Sciences Institution and basically how our founding principles and our original curriculum from 1896 have basically shaped how our collections have developed over the next century or so after that. Then I'll focus on a collection evaluation project we finished in 2018. And the purpose of that was to evaluate our collections, identify our strengths and our weaknesses and come out of recommendations for how we manage both aspects of that. I'll follow that up with a brief summary of some collections analysis work that I've done that looks at the geographical diversity of our collections. Previous presentations I've done have done this in much, much more detail, but I'll just do a kind of a light overview of the data from that. And then I'll kind of discuss some more philosophical questions maybe about library collections. So tackling ideas of objectivity and bias within collection development and ask whether collection development can truly be neutral. And the spoiler is it's probably not as neutral as we might initially think it might be. And then I'll do a bit of reflection on bias in reading lists across academic disciplines and then kind of think about what are the relationships between reading lists and library collections and really what is the relationship between the two because they both kind of feed off each other. And then lastly, I'll provide some practical recommendations that you might want to think about and you might want to investigate further. So just in terms of the history of LSE, I know most of these presentations always start with a bit of an overview of the institution, but the LSE was founded in 1895 by prominent members of the Fabian Society. So it's the names that you'll be familiar with. And really it was open to encourage original investigation and research into the economic and social sciences. And the original prospectus of which I've got some slides in a moment that lists nine main subjects that the LSE focused on at the time. And you'll see those listed. And the school's motto is to know the causes of things and its purpose is for the betterment of society. And that's really underpinned everything that the school has done in terms of teaching and research over the last century and more. And the Fabians were really keen on seeing the potential of the social sciences to transform society for the better. And I think that kind of driving principle has really shaped the way both the libraries operated but also the way that we developed our collections as well. So I'll just kind of go through a couple of slides. You won't be able to see these without squinting in a huge amount of detail, but this is the original prospectus from 1896 at the LSE. And this is available in the LSE Digital Library and it lists nine main subjects and basically the public lectures and the classes that are associated with those. And these nine subjects still form the core part of the LSE curriculum now. The names have changed somewhat, but economics, statistics, commerce, commercial geography, commercial history, commercial and industrial law, currency and banking, taxation and finance and political science. So this is all available online if you want to have a look in more detail. But I thought I'd just share some pictures in the slides here. Apologies if that's a bit small. And the library was formed one year later in 1896 and this is the original recommendation to the establishment of LSE library. And this I think came from a bitch as Webb was one of the co-authors, but what it does, it states the needs for the library of the serious study of political science and public administration because it was particularly felt by the school's founders that the rest of Western Europe and the US were way ahead of the UK in terms of the serious study of social and political science. And the formation of the LSE the previous year really drove the urgency for such a library that wouldn't just support the activities at the university, but would support basically the national debate and national research being undertaken into the social sciences. The trustee that the BLPES as we're also known as that came out this year as this kind of ran statement for what we're trying to achieve. So, in terms of our collections since ever since 1896, as I mentioned, we've kind of got that dual purpose of being both a national library for the social sciences but also as a working university library. And it's always been our slightly modest aim to be the world's greatest social sciences library. And the way our collections have developed has partly been through the connections of our founders and the generosity of individuals and organizations. And that really led the rapid development of our collections from basically a very much a starting point in 1896. We're lucky that because of the prominence and the reputation of our founders, they had connections across the world who enabled us to develop collections of an international scope quite quickly. And because we have that dual purpose as both a university library and a national library, I think we've really taken the onus that we should develop collections with breadth and depth but also that are very outward looking. Our collections also have an interdisciplinary aspect because the LSE curriculum in research has really been focused on interdisciplinary study. And the LSE has also taken that role in terms of driving and spearheading the study of the social sciences within the UK. But at the same time, I think we realized that despite active collection development efforts, a lot of collection development happens through that mixture of design but also that mixture of serendipity as well. Basically, it happens accidentally. We want to be a world-class international social sciences library with most diverse collections that we can develop. But at the same time circumstances, good fortune, just connections, knowing the right people are contributed just as much as the strategy. If you're really interested in a no-view of the LSE collections over the last 125 years, my predecessor, Graham Canfield, wrote a history of those collections and there is a link to it in the references but I'll make sure I share it in the chat afterwards. So that moves away from the history but much more kind of taking a slightly more kind of contemporary perspective now. So between 2016 and 18, we undertook a collection evaluation project and it's a project that we've spoken about at a couple of conferences, myself, Nana Talson, one of my colleagues and it was the first collection evaluation that we conducted at such a scale. Collection evaluations are work that you really have to undertake knowing what is ahead of you. It's usually a comprehensive project that takes several months, if not years but the purpose of this for us was to assess the value and significance of our collections. Those collections had been expanding at great speed for over 120 years and we'd never really kind of gotten a grip on what was in those collections or trying to look at it holistically or try to group our collections by theme. So we undertook that between 2016 and 18 and what we did was that we assessed our collections according to the subject matter of them, the quality, the research value. And we assigned one of four categories, them flagship heritage, current research and teaching and low priority. And this was really like an amendment from some of the well-known categories that have been used in collection assessments within the UK and beyond. And what we found out about our collections at the end of the evaluation is that our flagship collections, so they're the most important collections, the ones that have the greatest level of subject matter, quality and research value, the two collections really. The first is kind of that bigger holistic set of collections on 19th and 20th century British political and economic history. That includes women's equality and rights, LGBT plus equality and rights, peace and internationalism, Britain's relationship with the EU, the development of left-wing thinking and poverty and welfare. So that's quite a broad encompassing of all aspects of British political and economic history and social sciences. But also more broadly, the history of the social science, so particularly the schools archives and the papers associated with some of the prominent members of the school who contributed to the development of social sciences. So at that point, we could probably pan ourselves collectively on the back and be proud of the fact that we have acquired and developed these really extensive social sciences collections. But at the same time, we know what those strengths are, but we also realize that we had significant gaps in our collections, particularly in terms of the international social sciences. And really that our main focus is on a lot of domestic collections, but we could do more to look more externally as well. So another thing that we did after that was do a slightly more deep dive into our collections, just take a bit more of a look into them and have a look at what information we could find out about those collections and just how diverse they were. So we did some data analysis using our library management system. So we use ALMA by Xlibris. So I can talk about the work that we did from an ALMA perspective. Other library management systems are available and may have other functions that ALMA doesn't have or vice versa. So I'm sure with any LMS you'll be able to do some degree of data analysis, but it may differ from what ALMA can do. So we looked at data in ALMA to look at the geographical division of our collections, basically where are those titles published? Now the caveat to this and what we were fully aware of that we accept that this only tells us so much about the collections, where they're published. It doesn't tell you other things about, say, the authors of those titles and their backgrounds and so on. All we can find out is the publication, information and where those books are published. So even though that data is to some degree quite limited, it does give us a starting point to look at diversity and a point where we can kind of jump off and do a bit more qualitative analysis if we want to. So we looked to the division between titles published in the global north and the global south. And the big caveat I had here is that this is very contentious terminology. The definitions of the global south and global north have been debated and challenged and the boundaries are ever shifting and evolving. So what we did is that we used the Wikimedia classifications as part of observing the composition of our collections, but that is not us endorsing the Wikimedia definition nor a suggestion that they are the most correct ones. Now, according to the Wikimedia categorizations and if you search on Wikimedia, you'll be able to find out the exact division between the global south and the global north. But the global north comprises 65 countries, which are primarily Europe, North America and some of the countries in the Asian Pacific region. The global south comprises 182 countries. So that's mostly the remaining countries in the Asia-Pacific region. South and Latin America, Africa, the Arab states and a few in Europe. So that's really about a 75%, 25% breakdown between the global south and global north in terms of the countries of the world. So what we did is that we looked at our two main print collections at LSE and what we did, we obtained the data on where those titles were published and then had a look at what the breakdown between the global north and the global south was. And these were figures that were quite revealing. Maybe we should have expected those, but it kind of makes a real kind of stark breakdown. So in terms of the course collection, so the course collection is basically the teaching collection at LSE. So they are the short loan titles primarily used for teaching and those that are used on reading lists. What we found is just under 98.5% of those published in global north countries. So that is primarily the UK and US. And then we found just under 93% of those of the main collection. So they are broader social sciences titles, usually background on reading lists, but usually primarily used for research also published in the global north. So that is a huge, huge majority of titles from both collections published in the global north. So just focus on the course collection said it was just under 98.5% and of those about 95% are published just in the UK and US. So from our teaching collections, it is really primarily published in two countries. The other global north countries as a smallest representation is mostly Western Europe and North America. So Canada for example. Small number of course collection titles are published in the global south, but the majority of those published in India. India is actually the fourth largest country for course collection titles completely actually. But other global south countries are in the course collection titles like South Africa and China are very much a long way back. It's almost single figures of titles really. Out of the 182 global south countries, only 34 countries are actually in our teaching collections. The global south is generally better represented in the main collections. And that reflects its purpose as a wider research focused set of collections, but it's still as you can see heavily, heavily dominated by the global north. But what is interesting about the main collection, and I'll have some graphs to show you in a minute just to illustrate this. The main collection is actually much, much less dominated by just the UK and US. So even though it's still just shy of 93% in the global north, only about half of the main collection is actually published just in the UK or the US. That's quite a big fall from the course collection. So there's greater representation from say Western Europe, Canada and Australia, for instance. So our main collections have a lot of Western European languages, titles in the social sciences, for instance. In terms of the main collection again, India is the largest global south country, but there tends to be a slightly larger distribution of global south countries in our main collections. So 148 of the 182 global south collections, countries are represented in those collections. So that's, again, the numbers will, well, the numbers of countries only reveal so much about the diversity really, but there are many, many, many more global south countries represented in the main collections. So for instance, Latin and South America, countries are much, much better represented in the main collections than say Africa and Asia. And we thought about why this might be and we did have an active collecting policy for Latin and South America for many, many years. But I think because of the reciprocal relationship with historic, we've historically had with SOAS, we saw both libraries to sort of maintain specialist social sciences collections and avoid duplication and overlapping collections. So I think some of our weaknesses in Asia and Africa in particular, may just reflect the unofficial agreements we've held with SOAS. That doesn't mean that that's the reason just to maintain those weaknesses. I think there's definitely more we can do there, but that may explain some of the historical context why Africa and Asia is less well represented than South and Latin America, for instance. So in previous presentations I've done in this, I've often overwhelmed people with graphs, but I'll only include two this time. So in terms of the course collection titles, again, as I said before, it is 95 and a 98 and a half percent dominated by global North countries. And even then the UK and US make up about 95% of those collections. So you'll see after the UK and US in the course collection, it is a significant drop off after that. You can see, if you tilt your head to see the axis, you can see India in fourth place and then South Africa and China, quite a long way back, but otherwise it is dominated by the UK, US and some Western European countries. And then with the main collection, hopefully you'll see that graph kind of slightly flattens a bit more. So even though it is UK and US dominated, it isn't quite so stark. But again, the leading countries after that all tend to be Western Europe or global North countries and there are, India is still there from the global South and some of the South and Latin American countries. So even though with the main collection there is that kind of greater disbursement of countries, let's say, it is still primarily dominated by global North countries. So moving away from our kind of internal collection evaluations and so on, now I'm just gonna start thinking more about some of the more philosophical issues about collections really. And this is why I provocatively entitled it are library collections biased. I'm sure most people's immediate trigger response is no, but it's something that's worth delving into more. So librarians are generally reflecting on collection development strategies more and more now, particularly in terms of seeing whether they're compatible with their EDI goals or ambitions. Already for us, it's a chance for us to pause and reflect and think about the nature of our libraries and the values and significance of our collections, which I don't think we probably do enough. So sometimes we have to kind of pause and ask ourselves fairly uncomfortable questions. And some of the authors that I cite here kind of pose some of those questions and the references at the end will point to those authors' articles or books, but they're well worth reading. So Morales Nilsenborg kind of raised concerns about the decision-making process and collection development. And they really ask whether librarians truly make objective and representative decisions. The Quinn 2012 article talks about whether decision-making can be value-neutral and believes that that's a mythic concept. And Sadra and Borg argue that libraries basically have never been neutral repositories of knowledge. And what they do is just reflect the values and structures of their parent institution and that library collections have just historically developed in accordance with those values. So I think us as collection development librarians may get a little bit nervous now as we think about this and that we often believe that our collections have been developed by us to be fair and neutral, but that every collection is biased in one way or another. And I think accepting that is possibly the starting point to do something about it. So another thing I did in the chapter was really think about things like cognitive bias and how those biases kind of make their way into the decision-making process if we are doing this actively. So I was reading some of the work by Daniel Kahneman and some of the biases that he talks about are things like anchoring bias. And anchoring bias is an example in collection development of this would be if you have a collection development policy and you just rigidly stick to it and you follow that criteria to the letters like resources and that you're using the collection development policy as your crutch in that sense. Another cognitive bias might be status quo bias and that's where you basically you know the strengths of your library's collection and you just further develop those collections in accordance with those strengths rather than addressing the weaknesses. Then you have something like automation bias which is using data-driven models of selection because you just think that will address any biases but as I'll talk about in a moment there are definitely issues to consider there. And then something like selection bias is when it's almost the opposite of the status quo bias actually it's when you become aware of a weakness in your collections and then you basically give that a lot of magnitude and then you basically focus all your efforts on addressing the weaknesses. Well, as you probably might have thought with some of those cognitive biases they actually overlap and contradict each other. So what we probably need to think about is reflect on first how biases affect our decision-making and in our pursuit of developing what we perceive to be fair in neutral collections our decision-making actually may just reinforce the pre-existing inequalities that our collections embody. So what we might have to think about doing is becoming more proactive, more interventionist and ensure that marginalized and underrepresented groups gain more representation and prominence in our collections. And I mentioned a point at the bottom about the research and publishing ecosystem and for colleagues who work in this area of collections I think it's fairly clear that there are huge inequities in knowledge production and access to knowledge and that many of our libraries collections budgets and collections decisions are swallowed by a small number of publishers who really limit what we can have access to. So again, I think in terms of collection development we also have to be aware that the publishing the research and publishing ecosystem is stacked in the favor of certain people and there are groups and countries and publishers who are marginalized by that as well. So I just wanted to touch on a bit about the relationship between library collections and reading lists and reading lists themselves. I think everyone would probably agree that reading lists are a reflection and a representation of their curriculum. They shape how students learn and they shape how students understand subjects and at reading lists that comprise a narrow number of authors or a narrow range of perspectives will really impact how students learn or how students understand the topic. And much like with collections, people who develop reading lists may do so with the most benign of intentions. But reading lists themselves have authority and power and I don't think people think about this enough. So why are certain titles or individuals excluded and some are included? And that can't be a neutral process. The same biases that we talked about in terms of how collections develop may appear in how reading lists are created as well. And again, that reinforces preexisting inequalities. So there are examples and they'll be in the references as well, but also you'll read this more detail in the book about bias within reading lists and that's at discipline level, but also widely across the academic spectrum. So a couple of examples that I pointed out at discipline level is in the politics and international relations field. So the two articles cited there shows where marginalization happens at both gender and race. And politics and international relations is not alone in this. Basically most disciplines, I think there will be evidence to show that marginalization happens depending on certain demographics. The example I give here on African Studies from the Africa LSE blog was an exercise undertaken comparing the reading lists at African universities and non-African universities on African studies. And you wouldn't be surprised to hear that there was greater representation of African authors on the African reading lists about African studies than there are at non-African universities. So in the African universities, about 15% items on their reading lists were by African scholars. In the UK it was 2%. So a huge, huge difference. And a more recent article by Schuchan Burnham Pittman, which came out of UCL, I think looked at basically the science and the social sciences reading lists. So looking across the whole academic spectrum and they discovered basically an empirical basis for concerns about the reading lists and that they are dominated by white male Eurocentric authors. So it really happens across the academic spectrum and it wouldn't be fair to suggest it just happens within certain disciplines. Kind of in a broader context in terms of how universities operate, HE is much more globalized now. You know, our university side are very, very diverse now in the UK in particular. And there's movement of people across the world to study at UK universities. And that has an impact on our curricula. And people are rightly asking questions about our curricula and how representative it is of the university and the student body and whether those reading lists in a curricula reinforce inequalities and whether it advantages or disadvantages certain groups. Then we bring it kind of slightly back to full circle about library collections and reading lists and basically what the relationship is and that they have a symbiotic relationship in many ways, neither drives the other. They're kind of always working in a bit of a circular process. So we know that the main person of collection development is to support teaching and research. But equally many academic staff design a curricula and develop their reading lists based on what library collections comprise of. So if we work with academic departments and we look at reading lists and we make suggestions about how undiverse those reading lists are, the obvious retort will be is that while the collections are diverse. So to avoid those kind of discussions, I think it's really important for libraries to be ahead of the curve, not wait to be challenged about the diversity of our collections, but to reflect on our processes and think of ways to support greater diversity of reading lists and partner with academic staff where possible to shape the curricula. So I think there's a really big opportunity here for us to be proactive. So at the end of my chapter really, what I do is, and this will be the last part of the presentation, is to focus on some of the practical recommendations that libraries can follow. And if they're keen on engaging with deconolizing collections, some will be quick and simple, some will be more complex. You may pick and choose things here depending on what interests you and what time resources you have. So there's nine here, but I'll go through them pretty quickly. So the first one is basically actively commit to supporting EDI and collection development. It may not be enough to commit to a neutral approach to collection development. There's enough subjective bias in our decision-making that's just that neutrality is never achievable anyway, but also is neutrality even the ideal here. Does neutrality just reinforce some inequalities? Do we have to go further than being neutral? And do we have to be more assertive in addressing inequalities in our collections? But another way to support EDI is to work with EDI colleagues across institutions. Most universities will have an EDI office aligned with institutional strategies on EDI, for instance. Turns out I'm gonna fit for purpose collections policy. Collections policy, they provide us with guidance, strategic direction, but they are normally inflexible, unresponsive to change. There's one article I read that really kind of suggests that collections policies, they get written, they end up in the virtual drawer and only come out again 10 years later. The main thing is that collections policies are living dynamic documents that change when situations change. So at the LSE, we revised our collections policy in about 2019, I think, but we liaised with our EDI colleagues and we used an equality impact assessment framework to do that. So we were using the institutional tools that our EDI office had to do that and we took a pretty clean slate approach. We didn't just retain 90% and just add some things in. We took a real clean slate approach and we really thought about where did the current policy not promote equality? Where did it perhaps indirectly discriminate? So now what we do is place a lot more emphasis on supporting EDI and deconalization of the curricula in it and it's a much more balanced policy than the previous one. In terms of supporting staff to diversify reading lists, at the LSE, we don't have an institutional mandate on deconalizing or diversifying curricula. Very much happens at a departmental level. It's a bottom-up approach. And at LSE, we're ready and happy to support departments and we've done this already. So we've done it with public policy and law, I think, in terms of supporting those departments for their bottom-up initiatives. And then what we realized is that we talked about some of the data that we can provide and that's really a starting point, a jumping off point for them to do some more detailed analysis. But another good thing is not as much as the data, but really it's the connecting people across the school. So what we find is that we know departments are doing this work in isolation, but they don't know they're doing it in isolation. Or the teaching learning center may be able to support this work, but they don't know what's happening in departments. So in many ways as liaison librarians, one of our roles here might just be joining dots up across the institution. In terms of more practical sense, seeking out new publishers and suppliers, mostly in universities, we're purchasing material based on consortia frameworks and what that does, it risks squeezing out smaller publishers or academic publishers from outside of those frameworks. But what that means is that we're potentially neglecting global south scholarship and research. We're making sure it stays marginalized in our collections. So I think what we might need to do is to look at smaller scale specialist publishers and actively acquiring material from there. Even though there are potential challenges with that, so things like invoicing, cataloging, records, delivering and so on, but sometimes we may just have to swallow up those inconveniences in terms of making our collections more diverse and in order so that we can actively acquire from those smaller publishers. In terms of collaborative collection development, it's really important that we include more experiences and voices in our collection development work rather than it just being the sole preserve of a small number of librarians. We've probably tried doing this, tried to get more people involved in our collection development through patron driven acquisitions. I wouldn't treat that as the panacea to fix that problems really because what we're doing then is relying on systems to sort those issues out and they have their own sets of biases themselves. The good thing about having a collective approach to collection development is that you develop a sense of shared ownership in collections. So as I mentioned before, what we can do is collectively write collections policies and work with the working groups across the university to do that. In terms of improving discoverability and addressing bias, do we know enough about how library systems work and which biases are reflected in search results when somebody searches on an ebook platform or searches on the library catalog? There's a lot of research about gender and racial bias in search engines. It's the case of Tim McGevery, who's the Google researcher who was fired for exposing gender and racial bias in Google image results. And there's also suggestions that library systems may have their own biases towards minorities as well. There's a case of, if anyone's seen the change the subject, documentary is the case about the term illegal aliens in the Library of Congress as well. And that taking place in a very heightened political situation in the US and how change was basically impossible to achieve because Congress was incredibly intransigent about it. So I think librarians are taking matters into their own hands more being proactive in terms of addressing discoverability issues and bias. So these may be things like cultural sensitivity messages and so on. In terms of ring fencing collections for retention, generally libraries make retention issues based on quantitative data, but that just risks turning retention into a popularity contest really. What it risks doing is more niche specialist material will then be marginalized, but actually that has a lot of value. So I think you need to take a more balanced approach to retention. In some cases just ring fence certain collections if they're not held in other institutions, if they're rare, if they have a focus on a particular part of the world or a particular subject that isn't available elsewhere. So it's just taking that more balanced approach. Reviewing and assessing collections. So I talked a bit about the collection evaluation work that we've done at the LSE, but it's definitely worth thinking about whether that's applicable at your own institution. Doesn't have to be to a huge scale particularly, but I think getting a sense of what your collection strengths and weaknesses are and then developing the strategies that you might want to put in place to address those. And lastly, it's really us as colleagues working in this area to speak to each other and to share experiences and to inspire each other and give each other ideas for where to start because some of us work on projects in isolation. We don't necessarily know where to start them. We don't necessarily know what other people are doing. So it's important that we share our experiences through talks like this or other conferences. Well, we had on the decolonization JISC mail list that was a Google sheet go around where people could put on projects that working on. So at least you have a named contact for who you want to speak to going forward. So that's a lot of ideas. You won't need to do them all necessarily, but they're just things that you might want to think about and some practical ideas. If you do want to diversify your collections or kind of do outreach across your own institution. I think that's me. I'm glad I didn't time this because I think I ran much over. In terms of references, there's a few references here, but I wouldn't worry about seeing these in real time. Some of them are available in our race and diversity reading list, but I've also set up a Zotero group where you can access these references, but also they're all in the book chapter as well. So I think that's me. Ben. And thank you, Kevin. There you go, John as well. So we've got a good number of questions in. I'm going to take them from the top. So we're going to go back to Joanne's talk first off. Specific one for you. Are you keeping a separate record of which terms are removed or changed from archival records? It's not a separate record. It's in our collections management system. So we can pull reports off of what's been done there. Yeah. Great. Excellent. And then one for both of you, really. I mean, Joanne, you mentioned getting by in being a challenge. What strategies and approaches have you employed to help get people on board? And a lot of it is about building relationships with people. I think this isn't just a it's not just a library activity. It's not just a like and it's not just a project. Either this is a real pivoting of activity and changing of working practices that I think takes a lot of building trust with people and and helping people to adapt their work in practice as well. So I think we've still got a lot more work to do on that. You know, it's it's an iterative process, really, that we're going through. Kevin, anything to. Yeah, in terms of buying, I don't think buying the library level has been been much of a problem. I think we've been very much supported by the library, senior management and colleagues across the library. In terms of at school level, as I mentioned, LSE doesn't have a top down mandate on reviewing curricula or there isn't a drive to diversify the curricula across the board. But it's working with the departments that we know are doing this and it is very much a bottom up initiative. And we know there are say half a dozen departments who are doing this work. And really, it's the best that we can do to support them. And then hopefully that the good practice that develops then kind of just feeds across the school and then becomes almost like a school wide project from the bottom up. Excellent, John, another one for you and particularly for you. What support is available to staff for engaged in the work you're describing? They will encounter depictions and language that they find upsetting or thinking of this into in Romani collections. Situations and events are upsetting. It's from Keith Knuckles at Leicester. And he says, we've talked to this a bit at Leicester. Interest, see what others are doing. Yeah, I think it is really hard what we're tackling. And I think with the particular Romani work that's gone on, I know that the staff team have been supporting each other, thinking through, you know, talking about what they're seeing and reflecting on it, preparing themselves for some of these encounters that they're going to have and giving themselves time again to just get away from that space that they've been working in, go and get a coffee, debrief about what they're doing. So just giving each other time and acknowledging the emotional labor of the work as well. I think it has been our starting point. But I'm sure there are many people probably on the call as well that would have ideas. Excellent. James, if I... Yeah, go and go through, Kevin. I don't have an archive of some special collections in the background. But in terms of, say, exhibitions work that we've done recently, we recently, I think it may have been a centenary of Malinovsky's time at the LSE. Malinovsky is one of the originators of anthropology, as we know it now. But he has a fairly contested legacy, let's say, and in our exhibition on him, I think we were very upfront in suggesting, you know, his legacy at the LSE is not, you know, a hundred percent rosy picture, that there are challenges there. And I think... And then maybe archivist colleagues here from the LSE on the call. But I think we were very clear that, you know, there would be challenging topics that we're raising here. But it's our job to confront them and not pretend they don't exist. Yeah, I think with dealing with some of those really sensitive issues with communities, I think having relationships with people that have already got the trust of those communities, as well, is really important. And I think that being able to speak with people who are experts in particular areas or have got those community relationships has really helped the team in their approach to tackling some of those. Traumatic collections. I was particularly struck by a phrase you used a couple of times, which was experts and knowledgeable people and kind of widening out the sense of who has knowledge and expertise beyond just talking to our own academics. Another question, actually, this is about our academics. So it's a particular element for you, John, and then probably for both of you. So the question is, what is your experience of working with academic staff on this project? Do they recognize the importance of the skills that special collections staff bring to the table? I suppose we could widen that out, Kevin, to library staff in general. That's probably a whole webinar on that. But yeah, do you a quick bit on that? Well, I think I'd say that, yes, I think academics do appreciate what the library is doing in this area. I think how much they've been involved in some of those specifics in terms of how we've tackled the offensive language so far. I'm not sure of that, but it is something that we want to keep going back to. Through the advisory board that we've got. But I think for us, we're a small cog in much a bigger ecosystem of activity that's needed to go on around the university on this. And so I think it's all about collaboration and coordination, recognising each other's skills and knowledge across the university and understanding that all the stakeholders have got different kind of investment in this as well. Yeah, I think from our point of view, in terms of the departments that we supported with looking at their reading lists, usually the departments have approached us, because I think they've realised that we're able to provide the data about the reading list, at least based on what would allow them to be slightly ahead of if they'd done it manually. But again, it's waiting for departments to come to us because there isn't a school-wide mandate or you might be slightly worried that you're treading on toes. But I think what we hope is where we have a few examples of good practice that that just kind of starts a groundswell of kind of enthusiasm in it. But yeah, I think one thing that I always try to remember is that I have to always think slightly modestly about how much progress you can make because without a mandate your institution is only going to happen in incrementally. So we'll segue beauty from expertise within the university to a question about how can librarians from other sectors, e.g. corporate special libraries, law help with decolonisation efforts at academic libraries more generally? I mean, when I was looking at the discipline level issues about diversity and reading lists, actually law was one of the departments that jumped out is that there was a lot of actually research into law as a discipline that famously probably isn't very diverse. I mean, I suppose for universities, we're in a strong position because I think there is most of our institutions, there is some interest in the curriculum diversifying it. In terms of specialist libraries, I imagine that's the hardest challenge and I wouldn't know what to recommend really apart from start small and build on the successes that you have because inevitably it will be more difficult than making progress in an academic library. Do you have anything to add? Maybe there are still events coming to things like this being part of the conversation and helping with that collaborative effort. Really, I'm sure that in these different types of institutions that have got libraries, they'll still have their own challenges around EDI and there must be ways that the libraries can contribute to their organisations more broadly. Excellent. Kevin, one for you. And it's about have you done any research, critical analysis into the relation of diverse reading lists and impact with students and the attainment gap between Black Asian and marginalised ethnicities? So not me personally, but there is certainly an awareness at the LSE in terms of attainment gaps. And if I knew this question was coming, I would have looked up the exact strategy that the university is taking. I think it's called an inclusive action plan. I think that's what it's called. So apologies, my list, you just Google as I'm talking to you. But our teaching and learning centre have a project called the inclusive education action plan. And I think what that is looking at is basically how structures within a university advantage, you know, already advantage groups. That hasn't. So in many ways, the things that that's looking at are not necessarily kind of at our level just yet. But so it's looking at things like academic mentoring and inclusive pedagogy. So it doesn't quite come to library collections or reading lists at this point, but certainly there's scope for us to piggyback on to that to some extent. So I think there is a role for us there. But I think some of the issues about attainment gap and so on may need bigger structural changes first. But that isn't to say that we can't be involved somewhere. And if anybody does know of any research on reading less than attainment gap, then please, you know, post it in the chat. And then. Question from Gazelle, which says, is there a similar list available online regarding accessible words regarding inclusive terminology? Now, there was the link posted at the top. Um, I think was that to Carissa choose inclusive terminology glossary, which I'd mentioned. I'm I'm not sure. I don't know about others, but it might be something that our UK colleagues or other people on the call might know about. Yeah, again, one of the strong things about these webinars is the chance for everybody to chip in what they know. So if you do know, please stick it in the chat. Um, another question, which is about academic buy-in. And this is around reading lists, but I'd be interested, Joanne, around academic use of special collections as well. So the particular question is about, you know, is kind of the materials will go into making up reading less than the range of materials. And the question is, how have you approached buy-in from the academics? So they're reading lists have fundamentally changed rather than just adding a few diverse sources and non-essential texts. And I suppose the special collections version of that question is, you know, how has how has your work changed? Academic teaching as well as reflecting academic teaching, Joanne. So, yeah, Kevin, do you want to talk about diverse sources? And Joanne, I'll give you a little minute to. Yeah, it's a topic that would make me quite nervous in terms of approaching academics and directing them on how they should develop their reading list. I think I think one of the things I mentioned is is if whatever judgments we make about the diversity of reading lists, I think the inevitable answer is that, you know, you academics can only work with the materials you provide them with. So that's why I said it was really important for us to be proactive and stay ahead of those discussions really, and then trying to make efforts to make our collections more diverse before those discussions happen. I think we know there are certain disciplines where supporting more diverse reading lists is easier. It may be, you know, subjects like, you know, international relations or development studies and so on. So I think for us, it's it's probably getting a sense of how welcome our interventions might be, first of all. But I think it's really just looking for where those opportunities are to flag things up. So if we purchase new resources now, let's see, we're quite active in purchasing new primary sources or collections that have a more global perspective, just, you know, using those as a starting point to start a discussion and then saying, oh, well, maybe, you know, you might want to think about including these in your reading list or maybe there are some other sources you might want to include. So, you know, a Buena China shop approach is probably not going to work here, but I think it's just starting small, leveraging those wins and then having bigger discussions. But I think I think once academics see what you can do for them, I think there is certainly it's certainly a starting point to make progress. But yeah, generally, I get very nervous about the idea of telling academics what to do. And, Joanne, do you tell them what to do? Oh, all the time. No, I think there's real opportunity for partnership with researchers here. And we I think we are quite at the start of a journey here still, really. But we've got a real opportunity to make collections discoverable that might have been not prioritised in the past and to think about different relationships with different groups of researchers that might not even even know there was anything that would have been relevant to them in the past. I think it gives lots of opportunities for thinking about different modules that we could be teaching with curation of collections, interpretation, lots of student opportunities as well. So I think it it just opens up a new conversation, really. Yeah, that's true. So we're we're heading towards the end. There's no more questions. I've got one last question for both of you, which is we've talked about collaboration. And, yeah, and this is an RLUK webinar. So my question would be, what would the one collaborative sector thing be that you'd like to see happen to really push forward, decolonising the role of research libraries? First one of an answer, shout it. No, I mean, I mean, certainly, I think for the last, let's say five years, I think a lot of a lot of university libraries have done a lot of work in this area. I think what we found in the the number of conferences and events that have happened since maybe about 2018 is that there are a lot of libraries doing work in this area. And I mentioned about the the decolonisation just mail list and the Google sheet that we about as part of that. It's really how do we kind of bring it together in terms of as a a learning tool or something where we can we can collaborate together on, you know, pan institutional projects or just making sure that if one of us wants to do some work in a certain area, they know who to speak to to get some ideas. We're not we're not having to start some scratch each time. So I think it's probably a coordination issue more than, you know, we're all we're all starting from scratch, because I don't think we are. I think we are all working on projects and it's just how do we best kind of harness that? Collaboratively to then achieve greater results across institutions. But the enthusiasm is there and I think people are working on this. It's, as I said, it's probably more a coordination issue. Yeah, I think it's coordination and and also looking from outside ourselves as well. There's lots of different community groups and different sector groups that we can carry on learning from. Yeah, we're not in it by ourselves, are we? I think that's an excellent note to finish on.