Keywords: A Small List of Big Questions

1.Throughout the keywords, what concepts go named and unnamed?

For example: Kelsie and Amery and I decided any keyword that's basically a synonym for "remote access" is unnecessary, because the entire archive is about remote access so that topic is assumed. Many keywords tell us more about what kind of remote access an item dives into, and we made sure to use those as keywords because they are meaning-rich and useful.

We considered what it means to overtly tag topics such as "queer" or "Black and disabled" because we want those to be easily findable, while topics like whiteness or heteronormativity go unlabeled (although I'm fairly certain there are not any items that specifically talk about what it means to be white and disabled, so in that way it makes sense not to name this since it doesn't come up as a distinct topic).

We also discussed the way the keywords as a whole assume certain things, such as keywords that assume an archive-user already knows a keyword is referencing something related to the United States. This often came up when a keyword is the name of a government entity, such as SSDI/SSI or Olmstead Quality of Life Survey. Currently we left these keywords as they are, which perhaps relies on the metadata (Location) for more context.

2. How much does an item need to discuss a topic in order for it to merit a keyword?

Is mentioning it enough? Where's our threshold for this? For example: an interview that briefly mentions Zoom in a list of other tools vs an interview that has several paragraphs discussing their use of Zoom. Each team member had different thresholds for this.

3. When do we use general terms vs specific terms?

A big question here was: Should top-level umbrella keywords (like Canada or disability arts) also apply to every item that contains a related keyword (like Toronto or accessible dance)? Should every archive item that's tagged with only a city/state also be tagged with the country name?

This requires a balance of specificity, relevance, and context. For example, in team discussions we favored smaller units (San Francisco) to larger units (United States). But we also emphasized using the keyword that is MOST RELEVANT to the item. For example, naming Ontario as a province because of its specific healthcare system discussed in an oral history makes "Ontario" a much more relevant keyword than "Canada" for this item. But we also want context, not assuming everyone accessing the archive would automatically know that Ontario is in Canada. 

For most instances, we ended up with this approach: using the specific word *plus* more general keywords for context.

4. Will we highlight the most relevant keywords?

Because our team decided to alphabetize the keywords on each item (to make it easier to scan for specific words) it may be difficult for users of the archive to tell which keywords are discussed the most in that item. This is partially addressed by the additional context provided in the About column.

5. When do we use the exact language from an item?

For the most part, Kelsie and Amery and I favored keywords that match the terminology the interviewees themselves used, although we made intentional exceptions for the purpose of linking several archive items together with the same keyword. For example, one oral history item uses the exact term "crip ingenuity" but we chose to use the keyword "disability knowledge" instead. This keyword expresses the same/similar concept, and is consistent across 7 items, linking them together thematically.

After the advisory board meeting we added a new column to the Items Log that describes the identity of the interviewee, and for that column we purposefully used the exact language from the transcripts.

6. What determines if a keyword stands alone vs adding "disability" to it as a modifier?

For example, we have "fashion" alone, but nightlife is "disability nightlife". I noticed this pattern as I made our final alphabetized list of all the keywords, so it was not part of our team discussions early on. It could be a future question for further refining the keywords as a whole. This relates to the first item in this list: what goes named and unnamed? Can we assume that every item addresses the topic of disability? Does removing disability as a modifier take away specificity?

There are also several keywords that have "disabled" as a modifier, instead of "disability". A general rule that Kelsie and I decided on during the clean up phase was to use "disabled" as a modifier for nouns referring to groups of people (disabled immigrants, disabled kids, disabled women of color) and "disability" as a modifier for almost everything else. There were 3 exceptions to this: disabled pleasure, disabled sex, and disabled tourism / disabled travel agency, where using "disability" as the modifier sounded odd.

7. How do we refer to time periods within the pandemic era?

The keywords don't currently differentiate between distinct periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the "lockdown" period or the current "COVID denial" era. There is too much geographic variation to create stable timeframes. It's all tagged as "COVID-19 pandemic era", meaning 2020 to present (2024).