Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Prioritising Inclusion and Equity in Information Literacy Scholarship: A Conversation with JIL and CIL Editors - Alison Hicks, Meg Westbury, Andrea Baer, Christopher Hollister, Merinda McLure & Jacqulyn Williams

Ad

Prioritising Inclusion and Equity in
Information Literacy Scholarship:
A Conversation with JIL and CIL Editors
Throughout ...

Ad

Prioritising Inclusion and Equity in
Information Literacy Scholarship:
A Conversation with JIL and CIL Editors
Journal of ...

Ad

Overview
● Inspiration for panel
● Theoretical framing
● Conversations across disciplines
● Journal of Information Literac...

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Check these out next

1 of 40 Ad
1 of 40 Ad

Prioritising Inclusion and Equity in Information Literacy Scholarship: A Conversation with JIL and CIL Editors - Alison Hicks, Meg Westbury, Andrea Baer, Christopher Hollister, Merinda McLure & Jacqulyn Williams

Download to read offline

Presented at LILAC 2022

Presented at LILAC 2022

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

More from IL Group (CILIP Information Literacy Group) (20)

Advertisement

Prioritising Inclusion and Equity in Information Literacy Scholarship: A Conversation with JIL and CIL Editors - Alison Hicks, Meg Westbury, Andrea Baer, Christopher Hollister, Merinda McLure & Jacqulyn Williams

  1. 1. Prioritising Inclusion and Equity in Information Literacy Scholarship: A Conversation with JIL and CIL Editors Throughout the session, please feel welcome to use this Padlet to share reflections and questions. 1
  2. 2. Prioritising Inclusion and Equity in Information Literacy Scholarship: A Conversation with JIL and CIL Editors Journal of Information Literacy (JIL) Alison Hicks, Meg Westbury Communications in Information Literacy (CIL) Andrea Baer, Christopher Hollister, Merinda McLure, Jacqulyn Williams 2 Photo by Zulian Firmansyah on Unsplash
  3. 3. Overview ● Inspiration for panel ● Theoretical framing ● Conversations across disciplines ● Journal of Information Literacy (JIL) ● Communications in Information Literacy (CIL) ● Discussion 3 Photo by Center for the Study of Europe, Boston University on Wikimedia Commons
  4. 4. Theoretical Framing 4
  5. 5. Infrastructure: Popular notions ● Unnoticed and enduring ● Examples: Bridges, roads, the Internet ● Enable the circulation of goods (Carse, 2016) 5 cc: squeaks2569 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/38478466@N06
  6. 6. Infrastructural theory ● Contingent ● Fragile ● Constituted of mundane practices and political decisions ● Value laden (Larkin, 2013) 6 cc: akahawkeyefan - https://www.flickr.com/photos/25578802@N0
  7. 7. Knowledge infrastructures ● Networks of people and artifacts that generate and maintain knowledge about the human and natural world ● Shape the possibilities of knowledge ● Examples: databases, taxonomies, scientific monitoring equipment (Edwards, 2010; Jensen & Morita, 2017) 7 cc: Ralf Appelt - https://www.flickr.com/photos/35723892@N00
  8. 8. Journals as knowledge infrastructures ● Journals shape the nature of, and access to, information through normative practices of submission, peer review citation and presentation ● Practices become ingrained and unquestioned, almost to the point of invisibility ● Social, cultural and political values are woven into such practices 8 Photo by Shubham Dhage on Unsplash
  9. 9. Epistemic injustices ● Journal practices are not neutral. They can perpetuate inequalities and marginalise voices ● These epistemic injustices are what we hope to unpick, challenge and start to redress ● How can we build better knowledge infrastructures? (Gray 2020) 9 Photo by Daniel Eledut on Unsplash
  10. 10. Conversations Across Disciplines 10
  11. 11. “Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors” ● Created by technical communications scholars ● Start of document underscores anti-racism and racism in relation to policy ○ Ibram X. Kendi’s definition of racism from How to be an Anti-Racist (Chapter 1) ○ the understanding that there is no neutral or non-racist position ● A living document, with sections that outline policies, processes, and practices for editors, reviewers, authors, allies/accomplices, and anyone involved in academic publishing 11 Photo by Tony Zhen on Unsplash
  12. 12. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy ● Kairos Overview and Policies ● Kairos’s Inclusivity Action Plan ○ Links to submission and peer review process ○ Anti-racist mentoring ○ Inclusive citation practices ○ Support of “Black linguistic justice and other cultural knowledge enactments” ■ Recognition “that perfection is part of a white supremacist agenda” ■ Recognition of “the plurality of styles” 12 Photo by Tony Zhen on Unsplash
  13. 13. Resources featured in Open Education Network: Anti-Racist Documents in Digital Publishing ● Ethical Framework for Library Publishing ○ targets library publishing, and covers variety of ethical issues concerning DEI, accessibility, and privacy ● C4DISC's Toolkits for Equity (Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communication) ○ Anti-Racism Toolkit for Allies ○ Anti-Racism Toolkit for Organizations ○ In progress: Toolkit for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color 13 Photo by Tony Zhen on Unsplash
  14. 14. Checklist for Evaluating DEI Practices of Journals (American University) ● Openness/transparency ● Inclusive practices ● Equitable practices ● DEI content Adapted from research by Charlotte Roh, Symphony Bruce, Amanda Click, and Rachel Borchardt. Covered by a CC BY-NC-SA license. 14 Photo by Tony Zhen on Unsplash
  15. 15. Promoting Diverse, Equitable, & Inclusive Publishing Practices at the University of Florida (Collins et al) ● Brief guide to DEI practices in scholarly publishing, includes examples and recommendations ● Geared toward journal staff, faculty and students at University of Florida, but serves as a useful outline for others 15 Photo by Tony Zhen on Unsplash
  16. 16. Initial Steps & Thinking: JIL 16
  17. 17. Inspirations Borchardt, R., Bruce, S., Click, A., & Roh, C. (2022). Are we walking the talk? A snapshot of how academic LIS journals are (or aren’t) enacting disciplinary values. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. 17
  18. 18. What we have done… PEOPLE CONTENT SYSTEMS 18 Photo by Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash; Photo by Diego PH on Unsplash; Photo by Sigmund on Unsplash
  19. 19. …but what we still have left to do PEOPLE CONTENT SYSTEMS 19 Photo by mauro mora on Unsplash; Photo by Skye Studios on Unsplash; Photo by Martin Adams on Unsplash
  20. 20. Initial Steps & Thinking: CIL 20
  21. 21. Origins… Prior experiences / impressions of LIS publishing ● Exclusive / elitist ● Paternalistic ● Dismissive ● Unresponsive / unempathetic Motivations for CIL ● No IL-focused journals ● Values driven (DEIJ) ● Community driven ● Open 21 Photo by Rawpixel (cropped) on Flickr
  22. 22. What we have done… People / transparency ● Statement of values ● Inclusive language ● Open call - Book Reviews Editor Content / policy ● Conflicts of values ● Name changes ● Peer review ● Theme issue "Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance” - Vernā Myers 22 Photo (cropped) by Ardian Lumi on Unsplash
  23. 23. What we are discussing… ● Accessibility ● Land acknowledgements ● Going deeper into race, social systems linked to power and privilege as opposed to diversity ● Using the “Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors” to guide our future discussions and work 23 Photo by Elliott Brown (cropped); transferred from Flickr by Oxyman to Wikimedia Commons
  24. 24. Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices Heuristic: An Opening for Further Exploration & Action 24 ● A call for us to critically (re)examine our policies, practices and potential effects ● An opening for productive reflection and dialogue, as we also consider context and resist the idea of universal fixes or prescriptions ○ Positionality statements: requiring them vs. presenting them as an option ○ Anonymous vs. de-anonymized peer review ○ Citation practices: How do we advocate for and implement more inclusive citation practices, while also resisting tokenism and acknowledging the underrepresentation of many voices in narrow areas of study?
  25. 25. What comes next… ● Inclusive citation practices: Developing written guidance for authors and reviewers ● Writing style: Conversations about what a diversity of writing styles and voices looks like, and how this might work along with APA style and other writing conventions ● Valuing and acknowledging the labor of reviewers and other journal contributors ● Increasing diversity of CIL community ● Ongoing conversation and action: A sustained practice and commitment 25 25 Photo (cropped) by Rod Long on Unsplash
  26. 26. Key Takeaways ● The system of scholarly publishing is biased, prejudicial, and exclusive ● JIL and CIL are in the early stages of their DEIJ work ● Attendee reflections and questions will help the editors of JIL and CIL to continue this critical work 26 Image by Lucs Blervaque on Flickr
  27. 27. Discussion 27
  28. 28. Reflections and questions Please reflect on questions/comments that would help to expand today's conversation. Please share questions/comments that: ● Would benefit the wider audience ● Can be presented briefly ● Can be addressed in the time remaining In preparation for discussion, please: ● Turn to your neighbour(s) ● Take 3 minutes to discuss together question(s)/comment(s) you are considering posing to the whole group ● Consider your question(s)/comment(s) in relation to the bullets on this slide and feel welcome to share them verbally or privately on the Padlet 28
  29. 29. Closing 29
  30. 30. References ● Anti-racist documents in digital publishing. (2022, January 21). Open Education Network. https://open.umn.edu/blog/anti-racist-documents-in-digital- publishing ● Association of College & Research Libraries. (2019). Open and equitable scholarly communications: Creating a more inclusive future. http://bit.ly/ACRLResecRA ● Borchardt, R., Bruce, S., Click, A., & Roh, C. (2022). Are we walking the talk? A snapshot of how academic LIS journals are (or aren’t) enacting disciplinary values. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2022/walking-the-talk/ 30
  31. 31. References ● Cagle, L. E., Eble, M. F., Gonzales, L., Johnson, M. A., Johnson, N. R., Jones, N. N., Lane, L., Mckoy, T., Moore, K. R., Reynoso, R., Rose, E. J., Patterson, G., Sánchez, F., Shivers-McNair, A., Simmons, M., Stone, E. M., Tham, J., Walton, R., & Williams, M. F. (2021). Anti-racist scholarly reviewing practices: A heuristic for editors, reviewers, and authors. https://tinyurl.com/reviewheuristic. ● Carse, A. (2016). Keyword: Infrastructure: How a humble French engineering term shaped the modern world. In P. Harvey, C. B. Jensen, & A. Morita (Eds.), Infrastructures and social complexity: A companion (pp. 29-39). Routledge. 31
  32. 32. References ● Checklist for evaluating DEI practices of journals. American University Digital Research Archive. https://audra.american.edu/islandora/object/auislandora%3A94969/datastream/ PDF/view ● Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communication (C4DISC). (2020). Antiracism toolkit for allies. https://c4disc.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/08/toolkits-for-equity_antiracism_allies.pdf ● Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communication (C4DISC). (n.d.). Antiracism toolkit for organizations. https://c4disc.pubpub.org/antiracism- toolkit-for-organizations 32
  33. 33. References ● Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communication (C4DISC). (forthcoming). Antiracism toolkit for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. https://c4disc.pubpub.org/antiracism-toolkit-for-black-indigenous-and-people- of-color ● Collins, P., Johnston, C., Torrens, H., & Stapleton, S. (n.d.). Promoting diverse, equitable, & inclusive publishing practices at the University of Florida. LibraryPress@UF. https://ufl.pb.unizin.org/deipublishing/ ● Edwards, P. N. (2010). A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. MIT Press. 33
  34. 34. References ● Gray, J. (2020). Infrastructural experiments and the politics of open access. In P. M. Eve & J. Gray (Eds.), Reassembling scholarly communications: Histories, infrastructures, and global politics of open access (pp. 251-263). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0026 ● Inclusivity Action Plan. (2021, May) Kairos PraxisWiki. https://praxis.technorhetoric.net/tiki- index.php?page=PraxisWiki%3A_%3AInclusivity+Action+Plan ● Jensen, C. B., & Morita, A. (2017). Introduction: Infrastructures as ontological experiments. Ethnos, 82(4), 615-626. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2015.1107607 34
  35. 35. References ● Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World. ● Larkin, B. (2013). The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 327-343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522 ● Library Publishing Coalition Ethical Framework Task Force. (2018). An ethical framework for library publishing, version 1.0. Educopia. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284316777 ● Overview and Policies. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/about.html 35
  36. 36. Attribution Andrea Baer, Alison Hicks, Christopher Hollister, Merinda McLure, Meg Westbury, Jacqulyn Williams. (2022, April 12). Prioritising Inclusion and Equity in Information Literacy Scholarship: A Panel Conversation with the Editors of Communications in Information Literacy (CIL) and the Journal of Information Literacy (JIL). LILAC 2022 Conference. https://www.lilacconference.com/lilac-2022 Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 36
  37. 37. Dr. Alison Hicks Programme Director of Library and Information Studies University College London Email: a.hicks@ucl.ac.uk Telephone: 020 7679 3370 Twitter: @alisonhicks0 Dr. Meg Westbury Academic Services Librarian University of Cambridge Email: mw528@cam.ac.uk Twitter: @MegWestbury 37
  38. 38. Dr. Jacqulyn Williams Head of Teaching, Learning, and Strategic Initiatives,VCUarts Qatar Email: jawilliams3@vcu.edu Mobile/Whatsapp: +974 4402 0579 linkedin.com/in/jacqulynwilliams Dr. Andrea Baer Public Services Librarian Rowan University Email: baera@rowan.edu Telephone: (856) 256-4975 38
  39. 39. Christopher Hollister Head of Scholarly Communication University at Buffalo Email: cvh2@buffalo.edu Merinda McLure Health & Human Sciences Librarian and Lead, Researcher Engagement Section University of Colorado Boulder Email: Merinda.Mclure@Colorado.edu Twitter: @MerindaMcLure 39
  40. 40. 40

Editor's Notes

  • Chris

  • Chris



  • Chris will provide a quick overview of the panel presentation and ask attendees to please hold comments and question for the discussion period. Talking points: Increasing discourse around DEIJ in scholarly publishing; this is something that we are doing with JIL and CIL.
    JIL and CIL editors
    Diversity Equity Inclusion Justice (DEIJ)
    Interrogate
    Reflect
    Make public
    Chris: Idea of editorial teams working together to consider possible intersections and divergences in our thoughts and practices as a means to explore DEIJ issues and practices more deeply and from different perspectives Commit to take action to interrogate, reflect, and make public to our stakeholder communities the values that guide the work we do and the goals to which we aspire.



  • To frame our discussion going forward, I want to position scholarly journals not as neutral purveyors of information, but as knowledge infrastructures that shape the presentation of knowledge and what we think of as the discipline of information literacy.
  • Meg: To help explain librarians’ practices, I turned to theories about infrastructure in Science & Technology studies. Popular conceptions of infrastructure posit it as an unnoticed and enduring substrate, such as bridges, roads or the Internet, enabling the circulation of goods and information. We all sort of understand infrastructure to be like this.
  • Meg: However, in Science & Technology Studies, infrastructure, though still considered a support system, is theorised as contingent, value laden, performative and remarkably fragile. In other words, phenomena that we take as invisibly supportive of modern life are seen to be constituted of a host of mundane practices and political decisions.
  • Meg: From this perspective, knowledge infrastructures are fluid networks of people and artifacts that generate and maintain knowledge about the human and natural worlds. Knowledge infrastructures thus shape the possibility of knowledge. Examples can include databases, taxonomies and scientific monitoring equipment.
  • Meg: The literature argues that to understand the performative effects of knowledge infrastructures, i.e., how they shape knowledge, we need to unpack the ‘boring’ decisions – all the care, values and politics – that go into designing and maintaining the system. In other words, people are not passive recipients of infrastructure but its productive actors.
  • Meg “We operate in an educational and academic system that is rooted in white supremacy and colonialism.” (Jess Haigh, 2021, p. 240)
    Gray (2020) ‘Infrastructural Experiments and the Politics of Open Access’ (CHAPTER FROM REASSEMBLING SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONS) : “As a contribution toward the study of the digital cultures, practices, and politics of open access, this chapter explores how scholarly communication infrastructures reflect, enact, and configure different ways of making research public. Such infrastructures are not simply neutral vehicles for the dissemination and communication of research. They are both substantive objects of social and cultural research and can serve as sites of public experimentation.6 Infrastructures shape who and what is assembled around research, as well as what is attended to. They play a concrete role in organizing and enabling different forms of knowledge, value, meaning, sociality, participation, and publicity around scholarly communication—including both “formal” outputs (e.g., books, articles) and “informal” spaces and channels within, across, and beyond research fields.”
    Ibid: “Previous research on knowledge and information infrastructures suggests how we might study the “ways in which our social, cultural and political values are braided into the wires, coded into the applications and built into the databases which are so much a part of our daily lives.”8 This includes through strategies of “infrastructural inversion” to bring the social, cultural and political background work involved in infrastructures into the foreground for analysis, critique, and intervention.9 Rather than thinking of infrastructures as “thing[s] stripped from use,” it has been suggested that they can be seen in terms of “relations.”10 In the case of infrastructures for open-access research, this can include ensembles of documents, software systems, metadata standards, editorial boards, and web technologies. Other scholars have suggested that for very large infrastructures that develop across multiple systems, sites and settings, it may be more appropriate to consider how they “grow” rather than just how they are “designed.”
  • Meg: In this section, I discuss the efforts of various academic publishing groups to interrogate the systemic injustices woven into their practices and which have been influential in our journals’ efforts to be diverse, equitable and inclusive. At the end of the presentation are links to each of documents and websites, and they’re well worth exploring in your own time.
  • Meg: This is one of the main statements that has been inspirational for our teams. This particular document has received a lot of attention in academic journal publishing across the disciplines for stating that the practices of reviewing submissions for possible inclusion in a journal can never be neutral and are always grounded in values that can, to a lesser or greater extent, perpetuate epistemic injustices. The authors lay out various guidelines and practices for anyone involved in publishing including inclusive citation practices, making the review process transparent, valuing the labour of the people involved in the review process, and prioritising inclusion on the makeup of editorial boards.


    Merinda
    -that CIL currently working with
    -has received a lot of attention in academic journal publishing across disciplines
    -makes sense authors are coming from tech comm - pay a lot of attention to language and related systems, power


  • Meg: The journal Kairos has also been influential for us, and it’s interesting, though not too surprising, that we see some of the most robust and eloquent expression of DEI initiatives in academic publishing coming from a journal explicitly focussed on rhetoric and expression. This journal has adopted the guidelines discussed in the previous slide and have developed a detailed Inclusive Editing and Reviewing policy and have various other interesting statements such as inclusive citation practices, and rejection of impact factors.

    Merinda -Also coming from a similar field as heuristic, so again we see conversation originating in this discipline
    -Have done a lot of work - inclusivity action plan very involved
    -They’ve also adopted heuristic -How might we commit to professional mentorship and supporting the development of
    -Can think of mentioning that Andrea will tell us more later

  • Meg: There are three other resources that I would like to highlight, though due to time constraints, I can’t dwell on them long. Firstly, in January of this year, the Open Education Network held a webinar on “Anti-Racist Documents in Digital Publishing,” which I highly recommend listening to. In the webinar, the presenters drew our attention to ‘An Ethical Framework for Library Publishing’ developed by the Library Publishing Coalition which has a huge number of DEI Recommendations. In addition, they recommended three ‘Equity Toolkits’ developed by the Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communication,’ including an ‘Anti-Racism Toolkit for Allies,’ an ‘Anti-Racism Toolkit for Organizations,’ and a ‘Toolkit for Black, Indigenous and People of Color.’

    Merinda
    -[presenting these as additional resources with not too much comment]
  • Meg: Secondly is American University’s checklist for evaluating the DEI practices of journals and includes criteria for openness and transparency, inclusive practices, equitable practices and DEI content generally. The document is intended mainly for that university but has a creative commons license.

    Merinda
    [mainly presenting what is on slide; note mainly intended for that uni but has a creative commons license
  • Meg: And finally, there is a short ebook by the University of Florida on ‘Promoting Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Publishing Practices,’ which is a brief guide to DEI practices in scholarly publishing, with many examples and recommendations. It’s a really useful outline of the important issues involved.

    Merinda
    LPC document targets library publishing, and covers variety of ethical issues concerning DEI, accessibility, and privacy.
  • Meg and Alison
  • Alison
  • Alison People: Authorship, Inclusive Language, Name Change, Peer Review. Focus on DEIJ in hiring (board members, copyeditors, peer reviewers)
    Content: Open data sharing, scholarly output; peer mentor scheme, special issues, open peer review
    Systems: Accessibility (file types, APA hyperlinking, data visualisation)
  • Alison People: Anti-racist professional development, Publons/CredIT
    Content: Non-performative DEI statement, diverse citation, transparent review process, Publishing and IL and DEIJ topics
    Systems: Sustainability, citation practices
  • Chris



  • [JW] At CIL, we are currently working from the value-centered approach that Chris spoke of and leveraging our individual and collective knowledge and interest in DEI as well as taking a collaborative approach by involving others in our personal and professional networks to guide, inform, and provide feedback about proposed policy changes and the development of new guidelines. For example, while Chris and other editorial team members have presented about CIL’s values-driven operations for years, the editorial team felt that the current scholarly, social, and political environments demanded that we articulate our values in a more visible way and draft a Statement of Values. These discussions, in fact, served as inspiration for the development of new policies for inclusive language, name change requests, and a conflicts of values statement. In addition, we have updated our Peer review guidelines. In the spirit of openness that guides CIL’s operations, manuscript reviewers are copied on the editorial decisions sent to authors, and have access to the blinded versions of all the reviews associated with those submissions. That said, the co- editors take seriously our responsibility to demonstrate an ethic of care on behalf of the authors and reserve the right to exclude or redact manuscript reviews that could be perceived as hurtful, paralyzing, and/or inappropriate.
    We continue to take a collaborative approach in terms of the topics we cover at CIL by regularly calling on our community of writers and scholars to assist us in creating and publishing thematic issues. In fact, our last thematic issue which was published in 2020 by Maria T. Accardi, Emily Drabinski, and Alana Kumbier and focused on critical information literacy and included contemporary questions of race and racism was hands down our most read thematic issue in the history of CIL.
    Lastly, and most recently, we discussed the whiteness of our editorial team, focusing on the need and the value of increasing the diversity of our team through a new Book Reviews Editor insofar as benefitting from diverse others’ perspective and their ability to help us extend our reach. As Meg shared earlier, “we are productive actors” and thus must act deliberately to recruit and diversify our team.
    —-------------------
    [Expanded notes] Included a Name change request policy to honor and respect the rights and identities of our authors. Specifically, we have committed to update all metadata, published content, and associated records under their control. We felt it was important to ensure that all authors felt supported, safe, and welcome and more importantly that they were recognized and properly accredited for their work.
    Refined our inclusive language statement…
    we solicited feedback from those in our network who pointed us to helpful resources including “Understanding Non-Binary People: How to be Respectful and Supportive,” as well as an excellent of inclusive language in written communication in a gender inclusive syllabi statement from Pitt University. These documents, coupled with feedback we solicited from experts
    Drafted a Conflicts of values statement (an extension of the Statement of Values statement) which reflects our commitment to hold ourselves and others accountable to the values of DEI in our practices and what we publish and create








  • [JW] Next, here are a few of the topics that we are currently discussing. About year ago, Portland State, which hosts CIL, asked us to consider the question, how might we as an independently published journal, make CIL publications accessible for our readers. Our discussions around the topic of land acknowledgements emanated from a manuscript that we received just a few months ago. This prompted us to discuss what are the challenges or questions that have been raised about the practice of including land acknowledgements in online scholarly publication and how can we act responsibility and ensure that acknowledgements are not performative, self-congratulatory, empty, and most importantly, do not contribute to colonial or further harmful ways of thinking about Indigenous people.
    As a result of these discussion, we were collectively even more comfortable with one another, and deeply trusted one another to allow ourselves to be vulnerable and move more deeply into discussions about race and social systems linked to power and privilege. Chris brought the heuristic to our team discussions to guide our work on the Statement of Values, and then later, Andrea Baer, who could not be with us today, and I sought to take the lead and use the heuristic to guide our discussions about future work and a more inclusive scholarly publishing environment for all.

    —--------------------
    Often such statements, as was the case with the LA included in a recent CIL manuscript submission, are tied to an author’s sense of personal and social responsibility toward DEIJ at their university and community. And, while this is a good thing, in our initial discussion of LA, it was pointed out that, based on the literature, we might want to consider how the inclusion of positionality statements could be useful to ensure the statement is meaningful and authentic. More on positionality statements a bit later. (Sobo, Lambert, and Lambert, 2021).
    Sobo, Lambert and Lambert 2021, scholars/authors argue for authors to include detail about how land passed from Indigenous to non-Indiginous control, that it articulates the obligation or some action to be taken to redress the harm, and that it includes the author’s positionality or reason for including the LA in the manuscript.








  • [JW] This document has been the most important catalyst for further conversations at CIL about inclusive editorial and publishing practices and future actions, and broadly speaking aligns with our values and goals, And while the heuristic is an accessible document, we have noted that it is somewhat prescriptive. We also recognize the contextual nature of any journal’s work and the importance of critical conversations about how we can approach making changes through dialogue in a thoughtful manner and with an ethic of care.
    A few topics that we have been discussing, thanks largely to the heuristic, include:
    the role of positionality statements. We have agreed that we prefer to make these optional, rather than required. While the heuristic states that positionality statements should be required, this assumes some privilege and some authors may not feel they can safely self-disclose certain information about their positionality.
    Anonymous vs. de-anonymized peer review: What are the benefits and the limitations of each approach, as good arguments can be made for the value of open peer review. Changing to this model would (or will) involve a considerable amount of planning and forethought.
    Citation practices: The heuristic makes the important point that citation is political and that citation practices reflect power structures and relationships, and often the privileging of some voices over others. The heuristic therefore recommends that:
    “Reviewers resist requiring the existing canon be cited and recognize that some canonical work may be purposefully uncited because of oppressive and harmful actions taken by those authors” and that
    “Reviewers and editors recommend relevant work by MMU scholars to authors.”
    This latter point may be difficult to do for some highly specialized topics. We are therefore looking to educate ourselves further about inclusive citation and recommendations that we can offer to both authors and reviewers. We will be drafting related language that supports reviewers and authors in engaging in more inclusive citation practices, while also acknowledging the challenges of this for some specialized topics. This sensitivity involves in part resisting tokenism (including someone in a citation list simply because of their perceived or actual positionality), and acknowledging the underrepresentation of many voices in narrow areas of study.

  • [JW] The bullets on the previous slide point toward many of our next steps. More specifically, our current and future actions include:
    developing written guidance for authors and reviewers on how to seek out a diversity of voices
    Further conversations about how to invite a diversity of writing styles and voices, and how this might work along with APA style and other writing conventions
    Further valuing and acknowledging the labor of reviewers and other journal contributors, through, for example, more formal acknowledgment and documentation of their service that can be used in their promotion dossier or other professional growth documentation as well as a form to gather feedback from authors and reviewers about their experiences with review process at CIL.
    And, finally how to further diversity the team and sustain and hold ourselves accountable to all of this important work.






  • [JW SAY] Scholarly publishing as a system is inherently biased, prejudicial, exclusive, and oppressive.
    Yet, we at JIL and CIL, are in the early stages of our work and are committed to contributing, through sustained, on-going “small discussions” as a way to make important changes in our practices and policies.

    And, we very much welcome your input, reflections. We want to work and learn from and with one another as we believe this will help us succeed in this critical work.


  • Then, take the first question from an audience member who….

  • [JW] Please take a moment to reflect on the first three bullet points which are listed to help us all expand today’s conversation.

    Now, please turn to your neighbor(s) and share a question you are considering posing during the Q&A.
    Take about 3 minutes to consider your question(s) in relation to the bullets on this slide.

    This exercise is intended to help everyone in today’s session to articulate questions that will help expand the conversation.
  • Chris, Jacqulyn, Merinda, Andrea

×