Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 24 Jun 2021

Surveying as Unsettlement: The Protocols Alignment Survey at the University of Nevada, Reno

and
Page Range: 34 – 61
DOI: 10.17723/0360-9081-84.1.34
Save
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

This article describes a collections survey project undertaken by the staff of the University Libraries' Special Collections and University Archives Department at the University of Nevada, Reno, to begin the archives' alignment with the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials. The method devised to survey the collection is assessed for its validity and potential application to further survey work. The analysis of the Protocols alignment survey as a case study also offers insights about critical self-reflection and ways for non-Indigenous archivists to strive toward social justice and Protocols alignment using existing discovery and description frameworks as a starting point.

Keywords: Protocols for Native American Archival Materials ; Equity; Diversity; Collections management; Surveying; Settler colonial archives; Critical practice; Archival best practices; Indigenous Peoples; Ethnographic records; Stewardship

As archivists at a Morrill Act land-grant university, we recognize that our work depends on a complicated colonial history that, as Kaisha Esty notes, hinges on “a national acceptance of Native American erasure” that “was perpetuated at state and local levels.”1 We work, live, and provide archival services on and about land that was wrested from Indigenous Peoples—people most frequently represented in stewarded records as academically interesting subjects rather than as individuals and communities with sovereignty and agency.2 Archival professional standards and processes make it easy to prioritize simplicity and systematicity and national or international technical standards, the bulk of which have been developed in colonial contexts using what Kimberly Christen refers to as “Western histories and logics.”3 If archivists do not probe how we steward these materials and who they are for, we reinforce this colonial legacy ourselves.4 At the same time, as employees of an academic institution, we have de facto agreed to prioritize supporting academic scholarship and learning over other types of values and uses of the collections we steward.5 Working in a settler institution such as a land-grant university does not preclude us from beginning to act.6 The way forward is for us to find ways to do both within the constraints of the social, political, legal, and technical systems in which archivists work.

We believe a high-level collections survey based on the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials (PNAAM or Protocols) guidelines is a logical way to begin to parse out an archives' collections by or about Indigenous Peoples in preparation for further equity and social justice work.7 In addition to preparing the archives for further Protocols work, we hope that surveying for specific Tribes and cultural groups will assist Indigenous researchers and/or Tribal representatives to find materials more efficiently and accurately. We seek to transfer some of the burden of wading through the colonial recordkeeping apparatus to archives staff from Indigenous Peoples. Our goals are ultimately restorative access, discovery, and use that better serve Indigenous Peoples while continuing to serve non-Indigenous populations.

A description of our methods, what the survey revealed about our collections, and our assessment of how this project can inform Protocols alignment and restorative efforts follows. In addition to the how and why of doing this work, we aim to discuss our experiences as settler archivists while beginning the process of introspection and critique of archival practices in adopting PNAAM. Recommendations from the field for successful collaborations include “start small” and “be as genuine and authentic as possible.”8 Fear of failure and uncertainty about how to proceed cannot be excuses for inaction. Our project can serve as an example of how to systematically start to build infrastructure for restorative work and “unsettlement” in academic archives.

Terminology

The words chosen for use in this article are the result of extensive deliberation and the recognition that, in naming and talking about communities of which we are not a part and knowledge to which we are new, we are likely to get something wrong. The following is a list of terminology selected by the authors, and, where required, justification as to why the term was chosen.

  • Indigenous Peoples: Used to collectively refer to Indigenous Peoples from the area that is also called the United States with each word capitalized as recommended.9 “Indigenous Peoples” is used instead of “Native American,” as used in PNAAM, because we wish to discuss people without placing them in the framework of “America,” which is a separate concept from sovereign Indigenous nations.

  • Tribes: Refers to the political entities recognized by the United States government. On occasion, “Indigenous communities” is used rather than “Peoples” to indicate a specific community of Indigenous Peoples, such as communities that do not have federal recognition. The concept of Tribe as a political construct is insufficient by itself for the scope of the survey because, as María Montenegro writes, the federal recognition process for Tribes is “Rooted in colonial and western legal conceptions of evidence” and “fails to take into account the contexts, temporalities, histories, regional differences, cultures, and social organizations of the petitioning tribes.”10

  • Cultural group: Used to refer to a collective body of people who may have a shared cultural identity. Indigenous cultural groups have been broken apart, forcibly relocated, and merged into political entities recognized by the United States government. In some cases, “cultural groups” and “Tribes” refer to the same peoples. In other cases, Tribes may have multiple associated cultural groups, and cultural groups may have many associated Tribes. We developed our list of cultural groups through examination of Tribes' websites and sources used in the Native Land Digital project.11

  • Restorative access, discovery, and use: Simultaneously drawing on the concept of “restorative justice” with an eye toward decreasing barriers to many of the twenty-five Indigenous Research Projects described by Linda Tuhiwai Smith,12 restorative access, discovery, and use refer to access to archives and materials, the ability to find archives and materials, and the ability to meaningfully use archives and materials in a way that furthers Indigenous research or serves Indigenous Peoples by adopting archival practices and policies that support and enable these efforts.

  • Settler colonialism: A form of a colonial society in which colonizers become rooted in the colonized space rather than colonizing from afar. It is about transforming and permanently occupying space through domination and/or conquest, whether that be cultural, military, economic, or some other method.13 “Settler,” then, refers to populations that settled in the colonized space.

  • Settler archivists: Archivists who have or identify with settler ancestry.14 We use this term rather than “non-Indigenous archivists” because understanding our personal identities is an important part of Protocols alignment for our archives.

  • Unsettling: The personal process of recognizing and grappling with the uncomfortable realities of settler colonialism from a settler perspective, as described by sociologist Erich Steinman.15 We adopt this framework to describe the personal and professional growth of settler archivists or archivists working in settler institutions. This growth fosters a praxis oriented toward social justice and equity and a personal commitment to observing and understanding how a colonial framework has permeated our practices in academic archives.

Institutional Profile

The Special Collections and University Archives (SCUA) at the University of Nevada, Reno, is a land-grant archives and, as such, was founded in 1964 during the hundredth anniversary of Nevada's statehood and the state's intention to adopt the provisions of the Morrill Act. SCUA stewards over 3,400 archival collections in varied formats and has a geographic focus on the Great Basin. Collection strengths include the environment, mining, railroads, politics, literature, outdoor recreation, and Indigenous Peoples of the Great Basin. SCUA is administratively allied with the Jon Bilbao Basque Library, founded in the late 1960s, which focuses on the Basque diaspora and has a comprehensive goal of collecting all materials published in English about Basque people and culture. Together, these departments comprise the bulk of the unique collections at the University Libraries at the University of Nevada, Reno. Alliance with a community-focused archives and library fosters routine cross-cultural dialogue and attention to stakeholder needs among the staff in both units.

History of Collecting Indigenous Materials and the Colonial Framework of Discovery and Access

In the 1970s, SCUA leadership adopted a program to collect materials about Indigenous Peoples in the Great Basin.16 This was known as the “Great Basin Indians Collection.” Special Collections staff and cultural anthropologists who had studied Great Basin Indigenous Peoples formed an advisory board, created a list of regional Tribes, and identified collecting priorities that seem to have been based on geographic proximity to the university. The initial impulse was to purchase books and published materials. Over time, individuals donated manuscript, audiovisual, and photographic materials—many of which were the personal papers of members of this advisory board. Today, we steward over 160 archival collections with at least some content pertaining to Indigenous Peoples from across the region and the United States.

One of the first steps in facilitating discovery and use by Indigenous communities is to break the alignment of archival discovery systems with colonial recordkeeping. Most archival discovery systems are not community-, Tribe-, or Indigenous-centered and require Indigenous Peoples seeking their own cultural materials to rediscover them through colonial and settler frameworks. One of our largest and densest sets of materials pertaining to Indigenous Peoples is the Lorenzo Creel Papers. Lorenzo Creel was an agent with the US Indian Service and former superintendent of the Crow Agency Boarding School in Montana and the Indian Training School in Wadsworth, Nevada. This collection contains hundreds of letters between Creel and other colonial agents that include information on specific Tribes' cultural practices (as reported by Creel), “territory surveys” for what would become specific reservations, and irrigation and water access. However, as is typical of a collection of this size and processing principles of the past two decades, SCUA archivists processed and described the collection in aggregate. Consequently, aspects pertaining directly to individual Indigenous Peoples are subsumed under folders mostly titled “US Indian Service Correspondence,” which is then grouped by year. To research their Tribe's own history, Tribal researchers would have to sift through reports on unaffiliated Tribes. In the management and colonization of the land and Indigenous Peoples as a whole, the US Indian Service organized its records by year rather than by Tribe or cultural group, as this made the most sense in its management of Tribes and federal Tribal relationships. If we do not offer additional means of discovery and access to Tribal materials, we reinforce this colonial framework each time someone seeks access.

Urgency and Motivation for Project

In February of 2019, the director of the archives met with Indigenous researchers working on a decolonizing archaeology project (Our Ancestors' Walk of Sorrow) who asked how to find materials pertaining to their ancestors. The director found it necessary to explain that archivists grouped materials based on the source of the records—usually the fort or colony Indigenous Peoples had been sent to—or by the non-Indigenous person who recorded and studied their ancestors rather than by the name of the Tribe or ancestor themselves.17 This was dismaying to the group. The injustice and limitations of this scenario are not new. Linda Tuhiwai Smith has already observed that “the collective memory of imperialism has been perpetuated through the ways in which knowledge about Indigenous peoples was collected, classified and then represented back to the West, and then, through the eyes of the West, back to those who have been colonized.”18Principe de provenance and respect des fonds and our descriptive practices prioritize collection, classification, and representation for “the West” over other aspects of discovery and meaning, reinforcing intercultural trauma and requiring Indigenous Peoples to traverse colonial structures for information about themselves.19 Subjecting researchers to this process is unnecessary—archivists can maintain “traditional” discovery methods while also working toward restorative discovery and access practices.20

Based on the feedback at this meeting, it became clear that the most impactful and immediate action archives staff could take was to conduct a review of PNAAM and begin a survey of collections for Tribal and cultural affiliation so that Indigenous Peoples could find records about their own cultures. Cultural guidance, defined in this project as expertise provided about cultural needs, sensitivities, and protocols, is necessary for accurate identification of culturally sensitive materials. Existing staff do not have authority or expertise to provide this guidance, so the labor involved would either require project funding or be unpaid. As a department, we believe that requesting or compelling nonvolunteer, unpaid labor is unethical, and SCUA currently does not have extra funding for a project of this magnitude.21 Based on the small-scale feedback received from some Tribal officers, a baseline survey of collections by Tribe is at least a start to supporting restorative discovery that also lends itself to future collaboration and/or funding opportunities.22

Protocols and the Profession

PNAAM was developed collaboratively in a 2006 meeting of nineteen Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural stewards and cultural heritage workers known collectively as the First Archivists Circle.23 The document provides guidance for “culturally responsive care and use of American Indian archival material held by non-Tribal organizations.”24 In 2007, the Native American Archives Roundtable of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) submitted a request to SAA Council to endorse PNAAM. Then-president of SAA Mark Greene appointed a three-member task force (one of whom was a member of the First Archivists Circle) to evaluate the request and solicit SAA membership opinion on endorsement.25 At the conclusion of its work, the task force identified seven possible motions that SAA Council could take ranging from full endorsement to refusal to endorse without further action. The task force identified draft motions 2 and 3 as affirmative outcomes to the original request for endorsement. Both these motions endorsed the “spirit” of PNAAM, but not the language of PNAAM as written without further addition or alteration. SAA held a “heated” brown bag forum in 2008 about the task force's work.26

SAA Council elected not to endorse PNAAM and chose instead to appoint a Native American Protocols Forum Working Group, disbanded after its work concluded in 2012,27 and to create multiple session forums at the next three SAA Annual Meetings (2009, 2010, 2011).28 SAA Council awarded the 2012 Council Exemplary Service Award to the working group later that year for “forward[ing] professional discourse on a sensitive topic and help[ing] to keep a focus on diversity as a strategic priority” but again declined to endorse PNAAM.29 Six years passed before SAA formally endorsed PNAAM. In its endorsement statement, SAA Council recognized that earlier objections to PNAAM were “based in the language of cultural insensitivity and white supremacy” and expressed regret that Council did not act sooner.30 Between 2006 when PNAAM was first developed and 2018 when SAA finally endorsed PNAAM, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was developed (2007) and, after some delay, endorsed by the United States (2011).31 UNDRIP is highly relevant to the guidelines provided by PNAAM, particularly the stated right in Article 11 of Indigenous Peoples32 to maintain, protect, and develop the past, present, and future manifestations of their cultures.

The First Archivists Circle was composed primarily of Indigenous information professionals and scholars and four non-Indigenous archivists.33 The cultural make-up of the group is significant because PNAAM was developed in a setting where Indigenous perspectives and knowledge systems were centered but later was adopted as a professional standard by a predominantly white (and settler) professional body. SAA has endorsed no other externally developed, culturally focused standards.34

Once SAA Council endorsed PNAAM, SCUA had the additional backing of a formal professional standard to begin its alignment work, which decenters donors and non-Indigenous researchers by working toward inclusion and equity for Indigenous communities and in which the concept of unrestricted access is not a universal goal.35 While the literature discusses document-based archives36 founded with or by Indigenous communities,37 we found reports of academic archives not formally affiliated with a Tribe to be most useful for our project. Case studies or reports published by repositories of their response to PNAAM have mostly begun with a collections survey. Northern Arizona University, which is in long-term formal partnership with the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, previously produced reference guides to Diné and Zuni content in its collections.38 Idaho State University reported on its experiences working with Fort Hall to evaluate access and use restrictions for a small set of photographs.39 The University of Arizona recently completed a survey to assess the content of manuscript collections in relation to Arizona's Indigenous Peoples and two other groups (Zuni and Seri). The University of Arizona project opted to survey for ethnicity (similar to our category of “cultural group”), rather than federally recognized Tribe.40

Although similar in the anticipated outcome of creating stronger relationships with Indigenous Peoples in the area, our project differs from these examples in that the ultimate scope of the project will scale based on the results of our surveying process (i.e., the number of Indigenous communities identified by the survey) and the ways in which Indigenous communities choose or are able to collaborate with SCUA. A survey is a first step toward restoration and relationship-building.

We opted not to limit our survey to only Indigenous Peoples in Nevada because we assumed that surveyors would not fully know collection content. We already knew that collections contain materials pertaining to the Numu (Paiute), Newe (Shoshone), and Wašiw (Washoe), but we did not know to which specific communities or Tribes. Because the next stage in the Protocols alignment project involves reaching out to each Tribe or Indigenous community, we opted to focus on Tribal structures, rather than on cultural groups, to better align with existing repatriation and cultural review processes, as suggested in PNAAM.

Method

PNAAM, written as a guide not a set of prescriptive practices, recommends that “. . . best practices will need to be interpreted and applied by each collecting institution and community.”41 To determine what we could do locally, we analyzed PNAAM holistically to identify the principles, goals, and possible activities described in the document. PNAAM is organized into ten frameworks (see Appendix A), each of which has a general statement of principles and goals along with one set of guidelines for action for archives and libraries, and another set for Indigenous communities.

The guidelines are written in bullet-point form, and each bullet directly states one or more action to take along with discussion of why the action matters. We extracted discrete tasks and “facets” from each guideline statement for archives and libraries (see Appendix A). We determined activity types for each task to categorize individual tasks in such a way that they could coherently form individual projects or project stages (see Appendix A). The extracted facets provided another level of granularity to structure and focus SCUA's alignment efforts—each facet served to remind us of the “why” of a specific task.

By analyzing PNAAM for elements that we could turn into tasks from a project management perspective, we identified eighty-eight discrete tasks that archivists could perform to work toward alignment with PNAAM. Table 1 illustrates how we analyzed the first two bullet points for “Building Relationships of Mutual Respect” to identify tasks, facets, and activity types. Although the activity types are the same, the additional facet analysis underscores the varied ways in which the task or activity fits into the project. We performed the same type of analysis for the remainder of PNAAM.

Table 1. PNAAM Analysis
Table 1.

Of the tasks, frameworks, and activity types, we identified activity types as the most useful within the structure of the project. The interdependency of the activity types makes them convertible to project-management-like goals. For example, agreements come after the department director builds relationships and contacts within Indigenous communities. After reviewing these activities, we determined that a collection survey would be required to achieve most of the other activities. Therefore, we decided to start with a collection survey with the intent of prioritizing outreach and relationship-building once we identified concrete information to share with the Tribes. Although we, along with the third surveyor (Challen Wright), are chiefly responsible for this stage of our longer-term Protocols alignment project, SCUA staff collectively supports these efforts. Through individual conversations and staff meetings in early 2019, we know that SCUA staff as a group hopes that outreach and relationship-building will lead to grant or donor funding to enable the department to hire consultants with Indigenous expertise and authority for cultural review, which would in turn provide guidance on how to handle disposition, management, policies, and agreements.

Survey Design

To support the goal of producing something useful to share with Indigenous communities, surveyors assessed finding aids for Indigenous content and/or Tribal affiliations while assigning general categories of the types of materials. Surveyors did not attempt to interpret collection content, nor did we attempt to validate the actual sensitivity of collections with material types listed in PNAAM as potentially sensitive. Rather, the survey's main purpose was to generate a list of potentially relevant collections to share with individual Tribes or Indigenous communities. Surveyors could accomplish this without Indigenous cultural expertise or authority (all three reviewers identify as white and/or as having settler ancestry; one is also eligible for Tribal affiliation) and meet some of the stated needs from the February 2019 meeting with Indigenous researchers. The survey could serve as an overview for Tribes of what the archives might be stewarding.

Word Stem, Wildcard, and General Search

Staff surveyed SCUA archives and manuscript materials, a set of 3,451 collections, all of which we needed to search in a controlled manner. Photograph collections, many physically and intellectually separated from the manuscript collections in which they were received, were not included in this portion of the survey and will be addressed as a future step in the larger Protocols project.

Surveyors started by brainstorming a set of words to guide our searching (see Table 2). Knowing that significant variation in spelling existed, especially for Tribal names, surveyors decided to use truncation and, in one case, a wild-card search, to more accurately search our collections.

Table 2. Search Terms for Identifying Indigenous Content and Tribal Affiliations in SCUA Collections
Table 2.

These terms were a first step in framing the work. The second part, structuring how surveyors gathered data, included creating a form to use when searching each collection (see Appendix B). SCUA had used a web-based product called Airtable for past large-scale department projects.43 Because of our familiarity with the product as well as its adaptability, we began to construct a project base44 within Airtable, roughly equivalent to a relational database with multiple tables. The first table, titled “Collection Review,” serves as the main table in the survey and contains the form view used when surveying each collection. The next table, “Collections,” contains the data about each collection held in SCUA compiled using data already present in other department Airtable bases. We compiled the third table, “Material Type,” using PNAAM as a foundation. Each material type listed in PNAAM as an example of a kind of material that might be culturally sensitive was given an entry and tagged with a type, including records/documents/ephemera/grey literature/thesis dissertation; cartographic; recordings/transcripts; and images. We prepopulated the next table, “Tribes,” with Tribal names, cultural groups, locations, and contact information for Tribal entities.45 Our final table, “Notes on Methods,” gave the team a place to document decisions and changes made to the tables and forms during the survey process.

The “Collection Review” form, dynamically generated through the relational aspect of Airtable bases, ensured that the “Collections,” “Material Type,” and “Tribes” tables remained in sync. Having as much data prepopulated as possible made us less likely to miss collections, duplicate work, or introduce multiple entries for material types and Tribes. Another aspect of Airtable is the ability to create a kanban view within a given table. Developed in Japan as an inventory control system, kanban uses cards to track information within a workflow.46 Parts of a workflow are represented by different columns with individual cards moving from one column to the next as tasks are completed. We created a kanban view in the “Collections” tab that enabled us each to claim a collection for review. In this way, surveyors managed to avoid duplicative work and were able to track progress.

SCUA manages its collections and collection descriptions in ArchivesSpace.47 When conducting free text searches in the public view of a collection record, ArchivesSpace returns hits at the file level of the collection organization. This means that, in most collections, surveyors searched series and file levels, not the collection overview (administrative history, biographical notes, scope and content, etc.). Surveyors counted a collection as having content related to Indigenous Peoples if a search returned a hit for one of the search terms at any level. Although all our collections have records in ArchivesSpace, legacy data in Microsoft Word and Excel documents that have not been imported also exist. In addition to searching in ArchivesSpace, surveyors used the find function directly in the Word and Excel files to search for the designated terms.

Findings

Soon after beginning the survey, two of the surveyors realized that the search term “Washo•*” returned hits unrelated to the Wašiw Tribe, but instead related to Washoe County, the county in which Reno is located. When early survey results indicated a higher than expected return for Washo* content, we checked collection-level descriptions and discovered false positive results. Because of this, we needed a way to document these false positives. For example, one collection from a settler fraternal organization returned hits for both “Tribe” and “Washoe,” as this organization pretended to have a “Washoe Tribe” and a “Pocahontas Tribe.”48 Surveyors easily determined from the title and collection description that hits from this collection do not relate to an actual Tribe. We agreed to record each search term that returned a result regardless of whether it was related to a Tribal entity. Surveyors would then distinguish materials related to the Wašiw Tribe by using a dropdown option indicating the collection included Tribal material. Of the 150 results related to “Washo*,” 83 results were false positives. Additionally, of the 67 results that contained Tribal materials, only 32 related to the Wašiw people.

Another decision made after beginning the survey was how to document collections that contain information relating to Tribes when the free text search returns no results. Because of many of the department's legacy archival descriptive practices, folder titles do not always accurately describe the materials contained in them. For instance, single folder legacy collections had a title of “Records” or “Correspondence,” so searching just the folder listings would return no results. Upon reading the scope and content and historical sections of the finding aid, surveyors noticed search terms reflected in those sections that enabled us to mark the search term for that collection. Consequently, in the “Search terms used” field in the Airtable Collection Review record, surveyors recorded no results returned and the result from reading the finding aid. Of the 1,565 collections tagged with “no results returned” in the folder listing, surveyors tagged 46 records with additional search results and 11 as containing Indigenous materials.

Related to legacy practices, not all collection records include folder listings, nor do they have an inventory in Microsoft Word or Excel documents. In these cases, we created “n/a” as a search term option to document that no listing is available for this collection. In cases where a search term was found in the body of the resource record, surveyors followed the same practice as with “no results returned.” Of the 1,648 results, 16 records had additional search terms recorded. Of those, 7 were marked as containing Tribal materials. For complete results returned for each search term, see Table 3.

Table 3. Number of Results Returned by Search Term
Table 3.

Based on these results, we believe that an iterative process of database and form design is necessary for collection surveying. A secondary review revealed that the results required minimal data clean-up. The adjustments we made during the survey process and using Airtable allowed bulk edits in real time. This allowed for more time to analyze the data and less for normalizing each other's work.

The Data

One of the most impactful and surprising aspects of the survey results is the overall physical extent of the archives' collection that is implicated. Although we only identified 161 collections out of 3,451 (4.67%) that contain materials related to Indigenous Peoples, those 161 collections comprise approximately 4,145.05 linear feet (34.5%) of the archives' approximately 12,000-linear-foot collection (see Table 4). The discrepancy between linear feet and collection count is due to the historical practice in SCUA of treating accruals as new collections. As we work to reunite accruals with their fonds, the percent of collections with materials related to Indigenous Peoples will go up because past accruals (many without Indigenous content) will be condensed and reunited.

Table 4. Percent of Collections with Indigenous Content in Completed Surveys
Table 4.

Our data follow a long tail distribution. In the case of distributions of collections per Tribe (see Figure 2), most Tribes only had one collection with materials pertaining to them, whereas only one group (“Pa*ute, not otherwise specified”) had significantly more. Nearly half of the 161 collections are related to one Tribe. In Figure 3, the data follow the same pattern, with most Protocol material types having only one collection and one material type having many.

FIGURE 1.FIGURE 1.FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1. A “no results returned” example where, although a folder listing exists for the collection, the term does not appear in the folder titles. However, it does appear in the body of the finding aid.

Citation: The American Archivist 84, 1; 10.17723/0360-9081-84.1.34

FIGURE 2.FIGURE 2.FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2. Distribution of collections per Tribe or Indigenous community

Citation: The American Archivist 84, 1; 10.17723/0360-9081-84.1.34

FIGURE 3.FIGURE 3.FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3. Distribution of collections per material type listed in Protocols

Citation: The American Archivist 84, 1; 10.17723/0360-9081-84.1.34

Although SCUA's collections primarily focus on Indigenous Peoples in the western United States, surveyors discovered materials related to 73 Tribal groups from across the United States. Figures 4 and 5 show this distribution. In addition to the 73 Tribes in the United States, we also identified materials pertaining to 3 Indigenous Peoples outside of the United States: the Seri, the Mende, and the Nuer. For the purposes of this survey and the data represented in this section, we have not included these 3 groups in our analysis.

FIGURE 4.FIGURE 4.FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 4. Geographic distribution of Tribes and Indigenous communities identified in collections as based on mailing address of Tribal headquarters51

Citation: The American Archivist 84, 1; 10.17723/0360-9081-84.1.34

FIGURE 5.FIGURE 5.FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 5. Geographic distribution of cultural groups identified in the survey reflecting Indigenous home-lands rather than state political boundaries

Citation: The American Archivist 84, 1; 10.17723/0360-9081-84.1.34

What We Have Learned about Ourselves and the Collections

Taking a ground-up approach fostered in staff a space for self-reflection and learning. Being open to the project's unknown ultimate scope and scale and trusting in what the process would reveal allowed our limited knowledge and understanding to grow organically in a way that enabled us to internalize our expanding awareness and learn deeply from our work. This slow and exploratory process helped us navigate our positionality and enabled us to more easily increase our awareness of settler colonialism in archival practice.52

The survey process was a growth opportunity for both the surveyors and others in the department. Moments of collective pride joined moments of disappointment and sadness as we came to know more about the collections and their lack of discoverability by the people to whom they pertain. We keep in mind that no actions are neutral and that striving toward restorative practice is better than seeking to avoid disruption and recognition of our role as settler archivists in a land-grant university. We began the unsettling process and will continue grappling with it. Steinman refers to expressing intent, developing critical awareness, clearing our hearts and egos, and practicing discernment, patience, and restraint as aspects of his own unsettling work.53 We learned (critical awareness) that we inadvertently prioritized some researchers over others, and that, most frequently, our systems were designed for research by people who are not usually anthropologic subjects themselves. We understood how our professional principles are culturally bound. We learned that we care enough about rectifying our practice to converse continually as a group and to frequently confront our unsuccessful past efforts. We are beginning to become close friends with humility (clearing our hearts and egos). We learned we are resilient and determined and that small successes can feel inspiring enough to encourage us to continue to make progress (discernment and patience).

Future Plans

We have already been working with some Tribes on an ad hoc basis.54 These collaborations involve mutual trust and relationship-building, exchange of knowledge and expertise, digitization for the Tribes upon request, and the donation of more than 500 duplicate photographic prints of Indigenous Peoples back to the community they document. We would like to continue in this way, by working with all Tribes whose cultural materials we may hold to the extent we are legally able. To do so, the next phase of our project is to reach out to the remainder of the Tribes and Indigenous communities for whom we have identified unique materials. We created a webpage of information about this project, including lists of materials by Tribe that anyone can search.55 The data produced by surveying for PNAAM alignment will ensure that avenues exist for Indigenous-oriented access and discovery even though our “traditional” arrangement and descriptive practices still preserve colonial contexts.

Once the notification and outreach step has formally begun, the project will largely move forward based on how individual Tribes choose to proceed. We know that at least one Tribe would like to work with us to seek funding for cultural consultants who can advise us on future steps and on the sensitivity or proper care of their materials. However, not all Tribes may be interested in working with us to identify funding sources or advising us on care of their materials. Nor do we have extensive holdings for all Tribes. We also cannot be certain that we have identified all holdings containing Indigenous content because our method relied on assessing finding aids and inventories rather than on a physical review of the collections. Even if very few Tribes have interest, ability, or time to collaborate with us on the ultimate disposition and handling of these materials, we believe the survey process is still helpful and necessary in our efforts toward equity and restoration.

A survey like ours, which does not entail physical review, works well as a starting point for land-grant and other non-Indigenous archives seeking to begin alignment with PNAAM. This approach results in two crucial outcomes: first, to provide each Tribe with a list of collections that may have materials relevant to it and to discover a rough estimate of the quantity and kind of materials we have related to Indigenous Peoples. For the first purpose, identification at the collection level is sufficient. For the second purpose, identification to the folder level is better, but a rough idea at the collection level is a start. Surveying based on collection descriptions alone enabled us to survey quickly while also ensuring some degree of relevancy for a given Tribe. Second, this approach creates space for settler archivists to begin the process of unsettling. Engagement with the work of our predecessors requires a period of sustained introspection, an examination of the layers of practice and meaning inscribed in our discovery tools and administrative files, and the acceptance of responsibility for doing what we can to support restorative access, discovery, and use. Although settler archivists can do this work without Indigenous labor, it is, as we have seen through this project, still of value to Indigenous People and Tribes.

Appendix A: Framework, Facets, and Activity Types Derived from PNAAM

Appendix B: Airtable Survey Form

Collection # (single select; linked to “Collections” table)

Reviewer (dropdown)

  • Kim

  • Jessica

  • Challen

Search terms used (multiple select)

band, colony, fort, indian*, indigenous, native, pa*ute, reservation*, shoshon*, trib*, washo*

Places checked (multiple select)

ArchivesSpace, Off-line Inventory, Other

Includes Tribal material? (radio button)

  • Yes

  • No

  • Unclear

Includes unpublished Tribal material (radio button)

  • Yes

  • No

  • Unclear

Tribal affiliation (multiple select; linked to “Tribes” table)

Material types (multiple select; linked to “Materials Type” table)

personal or family (records); archaeological data; religious materials; ethnobotanical materials; genealogical data; general linguistic*; sacred sites or areas; religious sites or areas; village sites, territories, use areas; songs, chants; music; religious practice; healing, medicine; personal or family (AV or transcripts); oral histories; community histories; myths, folklore; religious or sacred objects; ceremonies; human remains; burials, funerals; archaeological objects; hospitals, churches, cemeteries, kivas, sacred places

Start year (number)

End year (number)

Currently restricted to any degree? (dropdown)

Yes, no, unclear

Rights owned by UNR? (dropdown)

Yes, no, unclear

Problematic description? (checkbox)

Prompt text: Check the box if the description could be rewritten to be more inclusive, to use more appropriate cultural or social terms, and/or other change that would improve alignment with equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Personal names included? (checkbox)

Prompt text: Check the box if the collection lists the names of people who are subjects of the records.

Needs subject heading review? (checkbox)

Prompt text: Check the box if subject headings appear to be incorrect or if major subjects are missing.

Notes (long text)

Notes

We acknowledge that the University of Nevada, Reno, is situated on the traditional homelands of the Numu (Northern Paiute), Wašiw (Washoe), Newe (Western Shoshone), and Nuwu (Southern Paiute) peoples. These lands continue to be a gathering place for Indigenous Peoples, and we recognize their deep connections to these places. We extend our appreciation for the opportunity to live and learn on their territory. —University of Nevada, Reno, land acknowledgment

1 Kaisha Esty, “Rutgers: A Land-Grant College in Native American History,” in Scarlet and Black: Slavery and Dispossession in Rutgers History, ed. Marisa J. Fuentes and Deborah Gray White (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2016), 150–59, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1k3s9r0.11.
2 The idea of archives as tools of settlement and colonization is uncontroversial in some fields and is becoming increasingly so in archival studies. For examples, see Melissa Adams-Campbell, Ashley Glassburn Falzetti, and Courtney Rivard, “Introduction: Indigeneity and the Work of Settler Archives,” Settler Colonial Studies 5, no. 2 (2015): 109–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2014.957256; Margaret M. Bruchac and Melissa Fawcett Tantaquidgeon Zobel, Savage Kin: Indigenous Informants and American Anthropologists (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2018); María Montenegro, “Unsettling Evidence: An Anticolonial Archival Approach/Reproach to Federal Recognition,” Archival Science 19, no. 2 (2019): 117–40, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502 -019-09309-9; Daniela Agostinho, “Archival Encounters: Rethinking Access and Care in Digital Colonial Archives,” Archival Science 19, no. 2 (2019): 141–65, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09312-0; Jane Anderson, “Indigenous Knowledge, Intellectual Property, Libraries and Archives: Crises of Access, Control and Future Utility,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 36, no. 2 (2005): 83–94, https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2005.10721250; and Paul Basu and Ferdinand De Jong, “Utopian Archives, Decolonial Affordances: Introduction to Special Issue,” Social Anthropology 24, no. 1 (2016): 5–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12281.
3 Kimberly Christen, “Relationships, Not Records: Digital Heritage and the Ethics of Sharing Indigenous Knowledge Online,” in The Routledge Companion to Media Studies and Digital Humanities, ed. Jentery Sayers (New York: Routledge, 2018), 403–12, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730479-42. For the inadequacy of Dublin Core in particular, see María Montenegro, “Subverting the Universality of Metadata Standards: The TK Labels as a Tool to Promote Indigenous Data Sovereignty,” Journal of Documentation 75, no. 4 (2019): 731–49, https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-08-2018-0124. There are also several key texts on the failings or complexities of classification and retrieval systems. See for example, Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences, Inside Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008); Safiya Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: Data Discrimination in the Age of Google (New York: New York University Press, 2018).
4 “A decolonial archival praxis begins from this understanding, that western colonialism, empire and race are much more pervasive aspects of our field than is usually considered. Indeed, they are inextricably enmeshed with all facets of how we think, talk and work in the field because they are defining features of modernity everywhere, including in neoliberal form today.” J. J. Ghaddar and Michelle Caswell, “‘To Go Beyond': Towards a Decolonial Archival Praxis,” Archival Science 19, no. 2 (2019): 71–85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09311-1.
5 Although the mission of the University Libraries at the University of Nevada, Reno does include “community engagement,” most of our mission and our day-to-day efforts focus on service to the campus community. University Libraries, University of Nevada, Reno, “About University Libraries,” https://library.unr.edu/about. This is consistent with the Association of College and Research Libraries' Standards for Libraries in Higher Education, which “are designed to guide academic libraries in advancing and sustaining their role as partners in educating students, achieving their institutions' missions, and positioning libraries as leaders in assessment and continuous improvement on their campuses.” The standards also note that “libraries must demonstrate their value and document their contributions to overall institutional effectiveness.” Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), “Standards for Libraries in Higher Education,” 2011, http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/standardslibraries, captured at https://perma.cc/6FS6-DEBR.
6 Morrill Act land-grant universities were founded with the funds raised through the sale of both ceded and unceded Indigenous lands and the active dispossession of Indigenous Peoples. Consequently, all Morrill Act land-grant universities are part of the colonization effort. See Robert Lee and Tristan Ahtone, “Land-Grab Universities,” High Country News, March 30, 2020, https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.4/indigenous-affairs-education-land-grab-universities, captured at https://perma.cc/L8TR-AYU5.
7 First Archivists Circle, Protocols for Native American Archival Materials (April 9, 2007), https://www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html, captured at https://perma.cc/UY5X-M8F7.
8 Interviewees 1 and 12 in Elizabeth Joffrion and Natalia Fernández, “Collaborations between Tribal and Nontribal Organizations: Suggested Best Practices for Sharing Expertise, Cultural Resources, and Knowledge,” American Archivist 78, no. 1 (2015): 192–237, https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081.78.1.192.
9 Gregory Younging, Elements of Indigenous Style: A Guide for Writing By and About Indigenous Peoples (Edmonton, AB: Brush Education, Inc., 2018).
10 María Montenegro, “Unsettling Evidence: An Anticolonial Archival Approach/Reproach to Federal Recognition,” Archival Science 19, no. 2 (2019): 117–40, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09309-9.
11 “NativeLand.Ca,” Native-land.ca—Our home on native land, https://native-land.ca.
12 Restorative justice can be described as “intervening on painful plotlines and exploring how to shift these plots, so that people's lives can move in more healing directions. . . . At its core, restorative justice is about co-existence: How can we make coexistence work—not when things are easy but when they are hard?” Denise Breton, “Decolonizing Restorative Justice,” in Unsettling Ourselves: Reflections and Resources for Deconstructing Colonial Mentality, ed. Unsettling Minnesota (Unsettling Minnesota, 2009), https://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/um_sourcebook_jan10_revision.pdf, captured at https://perma.cc/WEE3-FJLS. “Restorative justice” is a central concept in Kay Mathiesen's assessment of the warrant and mechanisms for why and how Indigenous Peoples have rights to traditional cultural expressions in archives. She notes that the principles of restitution and rehabilitation in a restorative approach can be fulfilled by creating “policies in our institutions that respect and protect Native Americans' right to cultural privacy.” Kay Mathiesen, “A Defense of Native Americans' Rights over Their Traditional Cultural Expressions,” American Archivist 75, no. 2 (2012): 480, https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.75.2.0073888331414314. Projects we hope may be directly aided by surveying and communication are Claiming; Remembering; Revitalizing and Regenerating; Reading, Writing, and Theory Making; Representing; Reframing; Returning; Naming; Protecting; Creating; Negotiating; Discovering the Beauty of Our Knowledge; and Sharing. Linda Tuhuwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd ed. (Dunedin, NZ: Otago University Press, 2012).
13 Lorenzo Veracini, “‘Settler Colonialism': Career of a Concept,” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 41, no. 2 (2013): 313–33, https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2013.768099; and Daiva Stasiulis and Nira Yuvak-Davis, Unsettling Settler Societies: Articulations of Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Class (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995).
14 Sarah Story uses this term throughout her thesis to describe herself and other archivists with settler ancestry: “For the reasons shared, I adhere to ‘settler archivist', not simply ‘archivist', as this identifier more accurately reflects my status, as well as my willingness to accept the responsibility to question and challenge colonialist mentality within the archival profession.” Sarah Story, “Offering Our Gifts, Partnering for Change: Decolonizing Experimentation in Winnipeg-Based Settler Archives” (master's thesis, Winnipeg, Manitoba, University of Manitoba/University of Winnipeg, 2017).
15 Described by Erich Steinman as both the “cognitive and emotional process of grappling with Indigenous sovereignty, one's miseducation and ignorance, guilt, one's own identity and relationship to place, and related uncomfortable topics” (p. 5) and a “disruptive, bounded and modest mode of action that, under covering norms of Indigenous leadership and relationality, functions to disorder or undermine predominating settler colonial conceptions, attachments and practices” (p. 7). Erich Steinman, “Unsettling as Agency: Unsettling Settler Colonialism Where You Are,” Settler Colonial Studies (2020): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2020.1807877.
16 Departmental administrative files.
17 Burns Paiute woman and doctoral student Diane Teeman led an archaeology field school as part of this same project. In the campus news story about this project, she is quoted as saying, “If you look at how archaeology was conducted in the past, you could read it as really exploitive of Indigenous people [sic] where archaeologists make their careers, they make money, and they sell books based on digging up other peoples' cultural heritage without their permission. That has been very painful.” Archivists run the risk of inheriting and/or perpetuating these problems and traumas in how we steward archaeology and anthropology records. Tony DeFilipo, “Field School Helps Bring Indigenous Perspective to Research,” Nevada Today (October 11, 2019), https://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2019/indigenous-field-school, captured at https://perma.cc/3LR6-MPNW.
18 Tuhuwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 1.
19 There is a growing body of work on the trauma Indigenous Peoples experience conducting research in colonial settings. See, for example Annita Hetoevhotohke'e Lucchesi, “Spirit-Based Research: A Tactic for Surviving Trauma in Decolonizing Research,” Journal of Indigenous Research 7, no. 1 (2019), https://doi.org/10.26077/k08n-3e16; Denise Lajimodiere, “A Healing Journey,” Wicazo Sa Review 27, no. 2 (2012): 5–19; Daniela Agostinho, “Archival Encounters: Rethinking Access and Care in Digital Colonial Archives,” Archival Science 19, no. 2 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09312-0.
20 Methods for dismantling alignment with colonial recordkeeping frameworks in the long run deserves further inquiry. Our primary goal here is simply to “do something” as a first step.
21 The authors wish to recognize the contributions of fellow surveyor Challen Wright and to thank him for his graciousness in supporting our efforts to write this article.
22 These goals are in alignment with several of the recommendations from Joffrion and Fernández's research on successful Tribal and nontribal collaborations. Joffrion and Fernández, “Collaborations between Tribal and Nontribal Organizations.”
23 First Archivists Circle, Protocols for Native American Archival Materials.
24 Karen J. Underhill, “Protocols for Native American Archival Materials,” RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 7, no. 2 (2006): 134–45, https://doi.org/10.5860/rbm.7.2.267.
25 Frank J. Boles, David George-Shongo, and Christine Weideman, “Report: Task Force to Review Protocols for Native American Archival Materials” (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2008), http://files.archivists.org/governance/taskforces/0208-NativeAmProtocols-IIIA.pdf, captured at https://perma.cc/PWP3-6BQD.
26 Native American Protocols Forum Working Group, “Native American Protocols Forum Annual Report: August 13, 2009, Annual Forum, Austin, Texas,” Society of American Archivists Council Meeting (Washington, DC: Society of American Archivists, February 2, 2010), http://www.archivists.org/council/Council0210/0210-V-I-NativeAmProtocolsForum.pdf, captured at https://perma.cc/5RQU-87D9.
27 Society of American Archivists Council, “Society of American Archivists Council Meeting Minutes” (Chicago, June 8, 2012), https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/0612Council%20Minutes.pdf, captured at https://perma.cc/5A8M-8B36.
28 Jennifer R. O'Neal, “Final Report: Native American Protocols Forum Working Group,” Society of American Archivists Council Meeting (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, January 25, 2012), https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/0112-V-I-NativeAmProtocolsForum.pdf, captured at https://perma.cc/5ST2-JTSG.
29 “Society of American Archivists Council Meeting Minutes August 6, 2012: San Diego, California” (August 6, 2012), https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/080612Minutes.pdf, captured at https://perma.cc/65HG-MT25.
30 “SAA Council Endorsement of Protocols for Native American Archival Materials” (Society of American Archivists, September 14, 2018), Society of American Archivists Council, https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-council-endorsement-of-protocols-for-native-american-archival-materials, captured at https://perma.cc/ZW3V-TNXG.
31 O'Neal, “Final Report: Native American Protocols Forum Working Group.” See also Office of the Special Representative for Global Intergovernmental Affairs, “Announcement of the US Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (US Department of State, January 12, 2011), https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/154782.pdf, captured at https://perma.cc/R6GP-JUFY.
32 United Nations General Assembly, “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” A/RES/61/295 § (2007), https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/RES/61/295, captured at https://perma.cc/T57T-AM5Q.
33 Underhill, “Protocols for Native American Archival Materials,” 134–45.
34 SAA lists external standards it has endorsed in its Standards Portal. The majority of external standards are developed and/or maintained by allied professional societies, nongovernmental organizations, or information technology consortia. “Standards Portal,” Society of American Archivists, https://www2.archivists.org/standards.
35 Decentering does not mean ignoring or failing to serve. Rather, it reflects that we have prioritized some researchers and individuals over others. A more balanced approach requires us to actively work toward serving groups, such as Indigenous communities, that have not been previously centered in our efforts.
36 “Document-based” is specified here to reflect that Indigenous communities preserve cultural heritage whether or not they have an archives that preserves documentary records.
37 Krista McCracken, “Community Archival Practice: Indigenous Grassroots Collaboration at the Shingwauk Residential Schools Centre,” American Archivist 78, no. 1 (2015): 181–91, https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081.78.1.181; Karuk Tribe et al., “Building Sípnuuk: A Digital Library, Archives, and Museum for Indigenous Peoples,” Collection Management 42, nos. 3–4 (2017): 294–316, https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1331870; John Bradley, Shannon Faulkhead, and Brent McKee, Decolonizing and Revitalizing Language through Animation: The Monash Country Line Archive, Sustainable Heritage Network, September 12, 2015, MP4 video, http://sustainableheritagenetwork.org/digital-heritage/decolonizing-and-revitalizing-language-through-animation-monash-country-line; Emerging Leaders Team B and American Indian Library Association, Tribal Libraries, Museums, Archives of United States, (2018), https://triballibraries.wordpress.com.
38 Jonathan Pringle, “Northern Arizona University's Cline Library and the Protocols,” Case Studies on Access Policies for Native American Archival Materials (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, April 2019), https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/Case_2_NAU_Cline_Library_and_Protocols.pdf, captured at https://perma.cc/BF4A-PF4Q; Sam Meier, “Research Guides: Indigenous Peoples in Special Collections and Archives” Northern Arizona University, https://libraryguides.nau.edu/c.php?g=759211&p=5444397.
39 Ellen M. Ryan, “Identifying Culturally Sensitive American Indian Material in a Non-Tribal Institution,” Case Studies in Archival Ethics (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2014).
40 See “Scope and Methods” in Verónica Reyes-Escudero and J. Wendel Cox, “Survey, Understanding, and Ethical Stewardship of Indigenous Collections: A Case Study,” Collection Management 42, nos. 3–4 (2017): 130–38, https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1336503.
41 First Archivists Circle, Protocols for Native American Archival Materials.
42 We thank Patrick Burtt for providing a list of additional Wašiw spellings. Wa-she-shu is a variant that appeared in our collections database.
43 Katherine Dirk and Jessica Maddox, “Archives and Airtable: Using Cloud-Based Tools for Archival Survey and Workflow Management,” Practical Technology for Archives 1, no. 9 (2018), https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/pta/vol1/iss9/1.
45 We used the Directory for Nevada Tribal Chairs and Environmental Directors, the United States 2010 Census, the Federal Register, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Leaders Directory, and Tribe websites to identify Great Basin Tribes, their recognition status, and cultural or political contacts for each Tribe.
46 Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “kanban,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kanban, captured at https://perma.cc/Q9G5-9BKN.
47 “Welcome to Special Collections Finding Aids,” University Libraries Special Collections Guides, https://archive.library.unr.edu/public.
48 Improved Order of Red Men, “Improved Order of Red Men Records” (Reno, NV, 1872–1900), Special Collections and University Archives, University of Nevada, Reno, https://archive.library.unr.edu/public/repositories/2/resources/351.
49 Pringle, “Northern Arizona University's Cline Library and the Protocols.”
50 Figure is based on the 114 collections listed in the subject area of “Indigenous Peoples of the Americans” and the 1,172 collections listed for the University of Arizona in Arizona Archives Online.
51 Note that the total number of Tribes shown in each state is higher than the number of Tribes discovered in the survey (84 rather than 73) as some Tribes are physically located in multiple states.
52 “Positionality” refers to the role researchers' individual social, cultural, and political identities and backgrounds may impact knowledge production—in this case, surveying archival materials for evidence that they may pertain to specific Tribes or Indigenous communities. Myrna Garcia, “Positionality,” in Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, ed. Sherwood Thompson (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2015).
53 Steinman, “Unsettling as Agency.”
54 We would like to acknowledge the graciousness of Herman Fillmore, Patrick Burtt, and Melissa Meza, who have traded knowledge with us and who have been tolerant of our status as learners.
55 The Special Collections and University Archives webpage for this project is available at https://library.unr.edu/locations-and-spaces/special-collections/protocols-alignment-project.
Copyright: © Kimberly Anderson and Jessica Maddox.
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.

A “no results returned” example where, although a folder listing exists for the collection, the term does not appear in the folder titles. However, it does appear in the body of the finding aid.

FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.

Distribution of collections per Tribe or Indigenous community

FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.

Distribution of collections per material type listed in Protocols

FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 4.

Geographic distribution of Tribes and Indigenous communities identified in collections as based on mailing address of Tribal headquarters51

FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 5.

Geographic distribution of cultural groups identified in the survey reflecting Indigenous home-lands rather than state political boundaries

Contributor Notes

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kimberly Anderson is the director of Special Collections at the University of Nevada, Reno. She earned her PhD in information studies and her MLIS with a specialization in archives from UCLA. She received a BA in humanities with a minor in anthropology from Northern Arizona University. Anderson has worked in university archives, special collections, graduate archival education, a rare books library, law libraries, and police records. She studies critical archival practice, its historical development in North America, and the means by which it is learned and adopted.

Jessica Maddox is the collections management archivist for the University of Nevada, Reno, Special Collections and University Archives Department. Her duties include creating accession and collection records for all legacy and new acquisitions as well as managing the physical storage space of the department. She received her MLIS from San Jose State University in 2015 and her bachelor of arts in history from the University of Nevada, Reno, in 2010.

  • Download PDF