Engaging Knowledge Diversity/Steps Towards Knowledge Equity

Resources

Knowledge Equity in Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums (GLAM)

Blanco Borelli, Melissa, and Olga Lucía Sorzano. 2021. “Performance Practices and the Conflict of Memory in Colombia: Working Towards a ‘Decolonial’ Digital Archive and Epistemological Justice.” Contemporary Theatre Review 31 (1–2): 172–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10486801.2021.1878511.

Blanco Borelli and Sorzano describe the creation of Corpografías, a digital archive that documents the practices of Afro and Indigenous Colombian communities and their roles in processes of memory, peace, and reconciliation in the Colombian Pacific. This archive uses a decolonial approach that centers Colombian Afro and Indigenous communities, which involves rethinking established knowledge and reconceptualizing how knowledge is produced. The goal is to meet the needs of these communities by serving as sites of memory, re-existence, and epistemological justice. The authors underscore the presence and contributions of Afro and Indigenous communities, noting their historical erasure from memory processes and testimonies of violence. Corpografías leverages digital archiving capabilities to record, distribute, and transform knowledge into new and hybrid forms. This approach allows for greater dissemination and acceptance of embodied ways of knowing, which are integral to the cultural and epistemological frameworks of these communities. The archive aims to collect and preserve these knowledges, aligning them with community identity and facilitating the creation of empowered narratives that counteract historical marginalization. Blanco Borelli and Sorzano argue that creating and collaborating through embodied practices opens safe spaces for communities to gather and engage in collective memory work. These spaces are crucial for establishing and reinforcing unity and community ties, fostering a sense of solidarity and shared purpose. The research underscores the importance of integrating art within memory studies and transitional justice, emphasizing the need for symbolic and epistemological justice. The archive not only documents past and present practices but also envisions a future where these communities can reclaim their histories and assert their epistemological agency.

Krmpotich, Cara. 2019. “The Senses in Museums: Knowledge Production, Democratization and Indigenization.” In The Routledge Handbook of Sensory Archaeology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315560175.

Krmpotich critiques how museums have prioritized sight over other senses, which limits the range of activities and experiences that can happen in museum spaces. As an alternative, she advocates for incorporating multisensoriality into the museum catalogue. This addition invites other ways of knowing and experiencing the world into museum spaces. Multisensoriality also aligns with the decolonization and indigenization of museums because it reasserts Indigenous connections to collections and approximates the feeling of the historic interactions between objects and humans, and the embodied experiences of people in the past. Krmpotich suggests that the most immediate form of incorporating sensorial qualities into museum catalogues would be to create fields for all senses, although she recognizes that museums will continue privileging certain senses over others in their pursuit of knowledge.

Leung, Sofia Y., and Jorge R. López-McKnight, eds. 2021. Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11969.001.0001.

This book contains a collection of works by Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) scholars who utilize Critical Race Theory (CRT) to question the foundational principles, values, and assumptions of Library and information Science and Studies (LIS) in the United States. The authors claim that LIS reinforces systems of power and privilege, employing inclusion and diversity to disguise a lack of actual racial progress and sustain a racial hierarchy where whiteness is dominant. This collection uses CRT to explore the concept of White Supremacy and ways for combating it. Also, this work aspires to establish this theory as a central philosophy that includes information organizations, governing bodies, and professional standards for the reconstruction of laws, regulations, and an entire system based on social justice projects that focus on changing the connection between race and power. The collection is divided in three parts. Part 1, titled Destroy White Supremacy, contains conceptual understandings and methodological approaches for advancing and applying CRT in LIS to confront and eventually dismantle White Supremacy. Part 2: Illuminate Erasure initiates the critical-cultural communication that can challenge LIS, calling for a shift in reality and the abolition of racial oppression through counter-storytelling. This part also addresses concerns of information access, scholarly communication, and exclusionary collection creation, with a focus on social justice in collection construction as acts of change and resistance. Part 3: Radical Collective Imaginations Toward Liberation explores collective imaginations of future possibilities and structural alterations in LIS that reject the colonial agenda of White Supremacy. The editors hope that this collection will inspire, empower and transform the oppressed, motivating them to rebuild the field and profession, giving the deserved representation and validation to all voices, and continuing the legacy of BIPOC as one of the most affected but resilient groups in the face of White Supremacy.

Patin, Beth, Melinda Sebastian, Jieun Yeon, Danielle Bertolini, and Alexandra Grimm. 2021. “Interrupting Epistemicide: A Practical Framework for Naming, Identifying, and Ending Epistemic Injustice in the Information Professions.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 72 (10): 1306–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24479.

Patin et al. investigate the idea of epistemicide to better understand and address how knowledge systems are systematically silenced or devalued, perpetuating epistemic injustices, and harming social justice movements. They argue that epistemicide occurs when epistemic injustices are persistent and collectively function as structured oppression of particular ways of knowing. The authors extend Fricker's framework of epistemic injustices by identifying four types: testimonial (prejudice leading to undervaluing a speaker's word), hermeneutical (gaps in collective interpretive resources disadvantaging some individuals), curricular (lack of resources to support epistemic growth), and participatory injustices (exclusion from participation in one's own epistemological development). These exacerbated injustices result in three forms of epistemological harms. The first harm happens at the individual level, causing a loss of confidence in the individual itself and hence losing knowledge, the second harm occurs at the communal level, with societal loss of learning opportunities of individual’s knowledge, and the third is disrupted knowledge transfer. This damage represents the implications of the previous two harms, because when individual knowledge is not generated, it does not reach the rest of society, impeding the transfer of this knowledge to future generations, who will be badly impacted. Patin et al. advocate for a significant adjustment in research objectives, stakeholder responsibilities, and academic structures to break the cycle of epistemicide and prevent future harm, thereby establishing a more inclusive and just epistemic landscape. To achieve this goal, the authors propose a multifaced approach. First, they encourage the use of citational justice, which is the practice of using citations to strengthen and elevate voices of marginalized scholars. Second, they underline the necessity of educating libraries and academic professionals on issues of oppression and race, creating diversity within committees and re-evaluating how to count the impact of community and service work. Lastly, they encourage a syllabi audit to integrate diverse resources that showcase a variety of perspectives in information science.

“Repatriation Handbook | Royal BC Museum and Archives.” n.d. Accessed July 6, 2022. https://royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/indigenous/repatriation-handbook.

This handbook, created by and for Indigenous people, provides practical information for Indigenous communities and museums to carry out processes of repatriation, which entails returning human remains and cultural objects from museums to Indigenous communities. This process is necessary because the collection of Indigenous heritage by museums was often unethical and illegal, so repatriation assists with the process of Indigenous healing from the past, preserving Indigenous cultures, and finding paths toward reconciliation. The handbook is divided in seven parts that guide the reader in the process of repatriation, from organizing and conducting research to working with museums in British Columbia and other parts of the world. The document concludes with ten appendices with resources for contacting museums, raising funds, organizing travels, and learning more about repatriation and archives.

Ruttenberg, Judy, Shawna Taylor, Micah Vandegrift, and Cynthia Hudson Vitale. 2022. “Accelerating Social Impact Research: Libraries at the Intersection of Openness and Community-Engaged Scholarship.” Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, June 30, 2022. https://doi.org/10.29242/report.asirjune2022.

Ruttenberg, Taylor, Vandegrift, and Hudson Vitale report the results of a six-month cohort program developed by the Association of Research Libraries to accelerate the adoption of open science principles among eight academic libraries in Canada and the United States. They argue that research libraries are well positioned to connect their expertise on open science with community-engaged scholarship to advance the social impact of research. The report illustrates how this connection was fostered as a result of several initiatives from the cohort members advocating for open and community-engaged activities at university-level policies, or for building, hosting, and enhancing infrastructure for supporting community engagement. These experiences lead the authors to conclude that there is a will in policy and local initiatives to address the socio-political challenges of promoting social change through academic research.

Sitzia, Emilie. 2018. “The Ignorant Art Museum: Beyond Meaning-Making.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 37 (1): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2017.1373710.

Sitzia revisits the ideas on education of French philosopher Jacques Rancière to explore how art museums can become pedagogical sites that allow the public to gain skills to generate further knowledge. The author advocates for the idea of the “ignorant art museum” (following Rancière’s book The Ignorant Schoolmaster), which would focus on knowledge production through the artworks by promoting learning actions such as observing, comparing, repeating, failing, trying, combining, and verifying. This approach transcends the traditional model of meaning-making in museums, which is centered on the value of the work of art rather than its impact on the learner. While Sitzia acknowledges that institutions like the Tate Modern, the Van Gogh Museum, and the Van Abbemuseum have initiatives promoting knowledge production, she concludes that these practices can be expanded in more radical ways by building community through digital technologies and not trying to control the knowledge created by visitors.

Tzouganatou, Angeliki. 2021. “On Complexity of GLAMs’ Digital Ecosystem: APIs as Change Makers for Opening up Knowledge.” In Culture and Computing. Design Thinking and Cultural Computing, edited by Matthias Rauterberg, 348–59. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77431-8_22.

Tzouganatou explores the possibilities and limitations of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for opening up cultural digital heritage in the GLAM sector. The author states that while GLAMs have developed several APIs to potentially create new modalities of participation, the public rarely uses them because of their high technical complexity. Therefore, APIs do not currently accomplish the goal of increasing access to GLAM collections, which shows a need for making the APIs more accessible and tracking how and by whom they are used. Despite these challenges, Tzouganatou recognizes that the potential of openness in the GLAM sector is immense, and that APIs can be part of this increase in access if they encourage meaningful public participation.

Knowledge Equity in Research Methodology and Sharing

Carlier, Aurélie, Hang Nguyen, Lidwien Hollanders, Nicole Basaraba, Sally Wyatt and Sharon Anyango. 2022. “UM Citation Guide: A Guide by FEM” https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/about-um/diversity-inclusivity/related-organisations/female-empowerment/publications-resources#:~:text=%C2%A0Download%20the-,Citation%20Guide,-FEM%20Year%20Report.

Carlier, Nguyen, Hollanders, Basaraba, Wyatt, and Anyango outline citational practices that can be used to make the work of women and other marginalized groups more visible. The authors discuss several commonly used citation styles and bring attention to the way norms around how to reference the author’s name (e.g., only including the author’s last name versus including the author’s first and last name) can obfuscate gender. The authors also bring up questions around the use of pronouns and suggest one solution to potential gender misattribution within academic writing is to include preferred pronouns in the full reference. Good citational practices are then outlined according to academic roles. For authors, these practices include reflecting on how cited sources were found and avoiding excessive self-citation. For students, this includes calling for more biographical information about the scholars of course readings, and for teachers, this includes selecting readings that enhance the visibility of women’s work. The authors encourage editors to establish balance in reviewers and caution peer reviewers against excessively promoting their own publications and instead suggest references that would strengthen the work, especially those by marginalized scholars. The authors conclude by reminding readers that choosing whom to cite has consequences for groups who have historically been marginalized from formal knowledge production.

Durham University. n.d. “Toolkits, Guides and Case Studies.” Accessed July 8, 2022. https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/institutes-and-centres/social-justice-community-action/toolkits/.

The Centre for Social Justice and Community Action at Durham University develops several guides and toolkits for developing community-based research projects. These documents focus on topics such as ethics, participatory research, and co-inquiry and were written for organizations interested in partnering with a university. The website contains guidelines dating as far back as 2011, and the most recent publications are from 2022, which include an illustrated guide to participatory research and a second edition of the ethical guidelines for community-based research first published in 2012.

Ghiso, María Paula, Gerald Campano, Emily R. Schwab, Dee Asaah, and Alicia Rusoja. 2019. “Mentoring in Research-Practice Partnerships: Toward Democratizing Expertise.” AERA Open 5 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419879448.

Ghiso et al. describe their approach to mentorship in a 9-year research-practice partnership (RPP) on educational equity. The authors state that the nature of community-based research entails rethinking the mentorship of graduate students because it requires developing skills that are not taught in their programs as well as addressing issues of power and labor in academia. The partnership reimagines mentorship through four priorities: universalizing who is an intellectual, cultivating community responsiveness, implementing collective structures and protocols, and constructing a shared vision. As this type of in-depth mentorship is an invisible intellectual and emotional labor, the authors conclude that it requires all members of the research team to work within and against academic hierarchies.

Mott, Carrie, and Daniel Cockayne. 2017. “Citation Matters: Mobilizing the Politics of Citation toward a Practice of ‘Conscientious Engagement.’” Gender, Place & Culture 24 (7): 954–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1339022.

Mott and Cockayne critique the practices of citation that legitimize and reproduce exclusion and discrimination in academic knowledge. Building on ideas about the politics of knowledge production, Mott and Cockayne state that citation is a technology of power in academic practices that can either reproduce or challenge which voices and types of knowledge are authoritative. Given how citations also reproduce academic disciplines and determine which voices are represented in intellectual conversations, the authors advocate for conscientious engagement in the politics of citation to resist hierarchies of knowledge production. Some suggestions for practicing conscientious engagement include citing more diverse scholars and publishing venues, discouraging the citation of particular sets of authors only, and valorizing collaboration and co-authorship in publishing practices.

Ramsaroop, Talisha. 2020. “Doing Ethical Community Research.” KM in the AM webinar, Knowledge Mobilization Unit, York University, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHMuyqSo2ms.

In this webinar, Ramsaroop traces the history of York University’s research within the Jane Finch community in Toronto and the creation of “The Principles for Doing Research in Jane Finch” document. Ramsaroop argues that researchers affiliated with York University approached their studies from a deficit perspective and a saviour complex standpoint. These research projects left Jane Finch residents feeling objectified and unable to access the data collected on them. As a result of persistent activism within the community, the Jane Finch Community Partnership was formed in 2016 with the goal of creating training resources for researchers, including a guiding document on the ethics of doing research in the community. “The Principles for Doing Research in Jane Finch” was created over the course of four years in close collaboration with community members; its aims were to increase the richness, credibility, and accuracy of research and reduce the emotional labor of community members. The document consists of seven principles: (1) respect for the Jane Finch community, (2) respect for community members, (3) concern for well-being, (4) commitment to justice, (5) accountability, (6) research outcomes, and (7) complaint process & risk. Fundamental to the principles is a commitment to gaining an in-depth understanding of the historical, economic, cultural, and social context of the community, recognizing community members as knowledge holders, and being transparent about all stages of the research process, especially research dissemination.

“Research 101 : A Manifesto for Ethical Research in the Downtown Eastside.” n.d. Accessed July 5, 2022. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubccommunityandpartnerspublicati/52387/items/1.0377565.

The Research 101 manifesto, co-authored by participants of a workshop on research and ethics in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES), provides guidelines to carry out respectful, useful, and ethical research in the DTES community. The four points they expect from researchers who want to work with the DTES community are: 1) researcher transparency on their positionality, motivation, and politics; 2) a community research ethics board that evaluates the research project according to principles of reciprocity, accessibility, and ongoing consent; 3) respectful treatment of community members, acknowledgment of their local expertise, and compensation for their work; 4) bringing the research back to the community in a meaningful and accessible way. These four principles are based on the idea of reciprocity to ensure that the research benefits the community first, and the scholars second.

Rowell, Lonnie, and Allan Feldman. 2019. “Knowledge Democracy and Action Research.” Educational Action Research 27 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1557456.

In this introduction to Educational Action Research’s special issue on knowledge democracy, Lonnie Rowell and Allan Feldman discuss the challenges and values of knowledge democracy to action research. Action research, particularly participatory action research, is predicated on the idea that research should be transformative for academic researchers and for participants within the knowledge production process. Knowledge democracy is foundational to action research. Rowell and Feldman assert knowledge democracy also poses challenges to action research such as tensions between the propositional form of scholarly communication and epistemological diversity and risks of co-optation and commodification. Drawing on Rajesh Tandon and Budd Hall, the editors outline three phenomena that intersect with knowledge democracy: (1) recognition of a diversity of epistemological perspectives, (2) affirmation that knowledge can be constructed and presented in multiple ways, and (3) understanding knowledge as a mechanism for creating a more just world. Lowell and Feldman conclude by emphasizing that the purpose of this special issue is not for action research to claim ownership of knowledge democracy or to commodify this concept, but rather to contribute to a much broader movement towards a more just and sustainable world.

Strnadová, Iva, Leanne Dowse, and Benjamin Garcia-Lee. 2022. “Doing Research Inclusively: Co-Production in Action,” May. https://apo.org.au/node/318294.

Strnadová, Dowse and Garcia-Lee provide practical guidance for individuals seeking to co-produce disability research. The authors begin by differentiating between academic researchers and co-researchers, whom they define as any person involved in knowledge co-production based outside of research institutions. Co-researchers can include people with disability, their families, and supporters and representatives of disability organizations. The authors trace the best practices and key questions for co-production across the six phases of research: (1) initiating, (2) planning, (3) doing, (4) sense making, (5) sharing, and (6) reflecting. For the planning phase, the authors argue that the academic researcher should not enter this phase with a fully formed research plan but should instead bring a flexible idea that can be negotiated and refined with co-researchers. Central to the planning phase is defining the roles of each researcher and deciding how decision making is going to be shared across the phases of the research project. In the sense-making stage, the authors emphasize the importance of discussing how accessible data analysis methods are to co-researchers and how these methods may be adapted. Across the six stages of the research process, the authors highlight the value of co-production in creating relevant, relatable, and credible disability research for broad audiences.

Knowledge Equity in Education

Bali, Maha. 2019. “Reimagining Digital Literacies from a Feminist Perspective in a Postcolonial Context.” Media and Communication 7 (2): 69–81. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1935.

Bali analyzes several notions of digital literacy and its application in education, focusing on a feminist approach to critical thinking when using digital technology in the postcolonial context of Egypt. She argues that digital literacy intersects with information and media literacies, and contains unique characteristics, such as knowledge of how data is collected by social media platforms and how search algorithms work, which pose concerns about privacy and online surveillance. These algorithms can be repressive for women and oppressed groups, affecting individual’s perspectives and political activities. As a result, it is critical to raise awareness about how and why information is created and disseminated online, as well as to cultivate compassion and empathy for others. Drawing on the feminist scholarship and her own teaching experience, Bali proposes a feminist approach to digital literacy. This approach involves teaching students to be critical users of digital tools while allowing them to develop their own paths to knowledge. It also seeks to break down the traditional hierarchy between teacher and student and explore the intersectionality of power and privilege, which entails diverse content choices to encourage students to critically think about social media, academic sources, and other aspects of their lives. Additionally, it integrates multiculturalism and social differences into media literacy studies. Bali highlights the challenges faced by women and minorities, emphasizing the need to study identities, empathy, bias, and equity. This strategy promotes empathy by increasing awareness of personal and systemic biases. Bali concludes by criticizing existing digital literacy models for their lack of practical applicability, advocating for a feminist approach to teaching digital literacy to better help female and minority students, and to build a more sympathetic and involved citizenry.

“Curriculum Bundles | Indigenizing Education.” n.d. Accessed July 5, 2022. https://indigenizinglearning.educ.ubc.ca/content/.

This website features Curriculum Bundles curated by Indigenous educators in British Columbia. Each of the bundles includes background information for teachers, recommendations for educating with humility, best practices for acknowledging sources, and approaches for involving community members in student learning. The Bundles have clear connections to the First People’s Principles of Learning, which emphasizes learning as a holistic, relational, experiential, and place-based process. Bundles cover a range of topics including Indigenous mathematical skills, the history of residential schools, lacrosse, modern Indigenous theatre, and traditional fishing and dipnetting. Each Bundle has a section dedicated to connecting the lesson to the British Columbia curriculum.

Gonye, Jairos, and Nathan Moyo. 2023. “Critical Digital Pedagogy and Indigenous Knowledges: Harnessing Technologies for Decoloniality in Higher Education Institutions of the Global South.” In Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education, 133–50. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781778290015.009.

Gonye and Moyo explore how critical digital pedagogy can be a liberatory tool that recognizes the importance of African Indigenous knowledge systems while challenging neoliberal epistemological hegemony. The authors challenge the common narrative in the Global South that just implementing digital technologies and online learning platforms will close the digital divide. They argue that digital hegemony, which stems from critical pedagogy, exposes the inadequacies of this narrative and the marginalization of Indigenous knowledges in higher education. In the case of Zimbabwe, the authors demonstrate how the use of digital technology in education tends to repeat the exclusionary practices of legitimized scientific/technological knowledge, continuing the marginalization of African Indigenous knowledge systems. Instead, they emphasize the importance of critical digital literacy, which challenges technology's seeming neutrality and supports decolonial digital pedagogy. Finally, Gonye and Moyo describe their focus on critical digital pedagogy, which advocates to draw from local theories, such as African critical race theory, to implement new knowledge and theories in digital technologies and online platforms, and challenge digital hegemony.

Hausburg, Taylor. 2020. “School-Community Collaboration: An Approach for Integrating and Democratizing Knowledge.” Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education 17. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1251601.

Hausburg discusses the difference between school-community engagement and school-community collaboration. Hausburg argues that school-community engagement involves developing students’ knowledge of or for their communities while school-community collaboration enables students to create knowledge with their communities. For school-community collaboration, knowledge exchange is bidirectional, and power is shared amongst students and community members. Drawing from personal experience as an instructor and from learning theory, Hausburg argues that school-community collaboration as opposed to school-community engagement challenges conceptions about whose knowledge is important and can be a mechanism for personal and social transformation.

Pratesi, Angela, Wendy Miller, and Elizabeth Sutton. 2019. “Democratizing Knowledge: Using Wikipedia for Inclusive Teaching and Research in Four Undergraduate Classes.” Radical Teacher 114 (July): 22–33. https://doi.org/10.5195/rt.2019.517.

Pratesi, Miller, and Sutton describe the outcomes of a student-led Wikipedia edit-a-thon organized as part of four courses to diversify content available online on Haitian art, nineteenth-century women, and women art educators. This project followed a radical pedagogy approach, a view on education that challenges the prevailing social order and actively constructs alternatives. In this case, it consisted in making students question their assumptions about knowledge production in art history, which tends to exclude underrepresented narratives, and empowering students to address these exclusions on Wikipedia. The authors conclude that edit-a-thon projects can raise awareness of how the politics of knowledge construction prevent certain topics or people from being present on Wikipedia due to a lack of secondary sources or the skewed demographics of Wikipedia editors.

Sengupta, Anasuya, and Brooke A. Ackerly. 2022. “Wikipedia Edit-A-Thons: Sites of Struggle, Resistance, and Responsibility.” PS: Political Science & Politics 55 (2): 434–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096521001220.

Sengupta and Ackerly discuss how Wikipedia edit-a-thons serve as educational experiences for students at privileged institutions to understand and challenge epistemic marginalization. They explore how knowledge from marginalized communities is often dismissed and how Wikipedia’s editorial norms, such as notability and reliable sources, contribute to this problem. Notability typically involves secondary sources which often exclude the histories and knowledge of marginalized groups that lack published representation. The authors believe it is crucial to identify and fix these gaps, missing pieces, and even outright mistakes in Wikipedia. They argue that Wikipedia itself needs to be more open and inclusive, welcoming all kinds of knowledge. They also emphasize the importance of learning by doing, as these edit-a-thons expose students to the real-world challenges of unequal representation in knowledge.

Initiatives and Organizations

“About Us — Glamcollective.” n.d. Accessed July 18, 2022. https://glamcollective.ca/About-Us.

Glam Collective is a collective of scholars that promotes collaborative projects in curatorial and artistic practice through digital technology, public art, and Indigenous theory and methodologies. As part of their work, members of the collective curated a three-part artist incubator and public art exhibition series titled Memory Keepers. The series brought together three groups of Indigenous artists to learn from each other’s knowledge of land, language, and cultural practices to develop visual arts installations that were exhibited in Montreal, Charlottetown, and Halifax after each incubator.

“FLAME.” n.d. Curated Futures. Accessed July 18, 2022. https://futures.clir.org/flame/.

Future Libraries, Archives, and Museums in Excavation (FLAME) is an eight-episode podcast series that discusses initiatives striving to decolonize GLAM institutions and increase access to collections pertaining to Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities. The topics covered in the podcast include the description of Indigenous collections, the legacy of colonialism in museums and libraries, the challenges of preserving BIPOC histories, and missing narratives in U.S. history. Through these conversations, the podcast team has identified two main themes: the reinterpretation of GLAM collections and the introduction of BIPOC narratives into the mainstream. The goals of the project are to offer suggestions for leadership in GLAM institutions, question the barriers to access archival collections, and encourage more dialogue between communities and institutions about the future of the collections housed in archives and museums.