1. Request to Vet A Workflow for Providing Access to Material of Undetermined Cultural Sensitivity Status 1 Scott Ziegler American Philosophical Society June 9, 2015

2. What To Expect from this (Very Fast) Talk ●Background about the APS and our history of collecting Native American-related material ●Brief introduction to our Protocols for the Treatment of Indigenous Materials ●Case study: using the Protocols for a Native American-related collection 2

3. Background: Collecting Material Related to Native Americans It all started with Thomas Jefferson. And it’s only got more complicated since then. 3

4. Protocols and Online Publishing “APS will follow these protocols in classifying materials and in honoring requests for viewing, reproduction of, or on-line publishing of indigenous materials that have been classified as either culturally sensitive or whose classification is yet undetermined.” APS Protocols for the Treatment of Indigenous Materials, Article 2, Section B (http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/protocols-for-indigenous-materials)http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/protocols-for-indigenous-materials 4

5. Putting our Practice Where our Policy Is; or, The Franz Boas Papers and Determining the Undetermined ●A little over 45,000 letters ●All of them digitized and in the Digital Library ●Their classification is yet undetermined. 5

6. Options, Options, Options Around 45,000 letters, some of which might be culturally sensitive. We could: 1.Keep all the letters restricted forever 2.Open all the letters immediately 3.Find a middle road a. Restrict every letter until we vet it for cultural sensitivity. 6

7. Vetting ~45,000 Letters: Where to Start? Option 1: Just start at the beginning o Letters are arranged alphabetically o We could just start with the A’s and end with the Z’s 7

8. Vetting ~45,000 Letters: Where to Start? Option 2: Let scholars tell us what they’d like to see o Not all of the items in the collection is of equal scholarly worth o The point of all of this is so people can use these items, let’s hear from those who use them 8

9. Decision Made! ●We’ll restrict every letter until it is vetted. ●We’ll vet what scholars want to see. ●Items that are not culturally sensitive will be publically available through the Digital Library. The only thing left to do is … All the work 9

10. The Work: 1.Provide access to everyone in our Reading Room. 2.Restrict (at least for now) access to everyone else. 3.Create a workflow to vet each item. 4.Explain all of this to everyone. 10

11. 1.Provide access to everyone in our Reading Room. a. Auto log-in via IP Address; b. User roles via Drupal; c. Mirror public finding aids with in-house versions with links to digitized items. 2.Restrict (at least for now) access to everyone else. 3.Create a workflow to vet each item. 4.Explain all of this to everyone. The Work: 11

12. 1.Provide access to everyone in our Reading Room. 2.Restrict (at least for now) access to everyone else. a. XACML restrictions at the collection-level b. XACML policy set to cascade to sub-collection and items via Islandora settings 3.Create a workflow to vet each item. 4.Explain all of this to everyone. The Work: 12

13. 1.Provide access to everyone in our Reading Room. 2.Restrict access (at least for now) to everyone else. 3.Create a workflow to vet each item. a. Find the closest in-house workflow b. Modify it as needed c. See next 7 slides 4.Explain all of this to everyone. The Work: 13

14. Workflow Contact Patron Request Comes In Contact Patron Head of Manuscripts Inspects Item Change Description/ Unrestrict Item Native American-related? CNAIR Change Description/ Unrestrict Item Culturally Sensitive? Proceed to Tribes Yes No Yes/Maybe No (Based on our Reference Request Workflow) 14

15. The Usual Way Links in Finding Aids Lead Directly to Items in the Digital Library 15

16. But For Restricted Content We’d Have ~45,000 Access Denied Links. 16

17. Between a Link and a Denied Page A Webform: ●A chance to explain what we’re doing ●A chance for users to identify what they’d like to see ●Automates the tracking (via URL key) of the item Info about why you’re seeing this form, and what info you should supply. jQuery popup for additional information and link to tutorial “This item has not yet been vetted for cultural sensitivity concerns” 17

18. Info From Form ●Patrons add name and contact information ●Form collects more information than the patron sees o PID of item taken from URL o Default settings for admin fields Date Submitted Item to Vet (auto-captured PID) Assigned to (Head of Mss, CNAIR staff) Needs more review: (yes/no) Item Cleared: (yes/no) Patron Contacted: (yes/no) 18

19. Clearing Item, Changing Links ●Remove XACML restriction at the item level ●Replace link to webform with link to item in Digital Library ●Send patron email with link 19

20. The Work: 1.Provide access to everyone in our Reading Room. 2.Restrict access (at least for now) to everyone else. 3.Create a workflow to vet each item. 4.Explain all of this to everyone. a. jQuery tooltips in finding aids with text and links; b. Tutorials; c. About pages; d. Boilerplate reference staff explanations 20

21. Where We Are Now ●Started all this in January 2015 ●As of early June, we’ve cleared just over 1,000 letters with this workflow ●(Others are cleared in bulk in anticipation to specific requests through this workflow) ●Setting the framework for other collections in the future 21

22. Request An Object be Vetted! Visit http://www.amphilsoc.org/library and follow the links to see the tutorials and notices.http://www.amphilsoc.org/library 22

23. Thank You! Scott Ziegler Web Development Library/Assistant Head of Technology American Philosophical Society sziegler@amphilsoc.org 23