Conference Agenda (All times are shown in Mountain Daylight Time (MDT) unless otherwise noted)

This paper reviews the concepts related to the digital reproduction of and access to cultural heritage items, often referred to as Digital Repatriation, Digital Restitution, or Digital Return. Using a scoping review and thematic analysis, we reviewed over 30 years of literature on this subject and review key themes that are important for students and scholars interested in cultural heritage informatics: the impact of historical and ongoing colonialism and imperialism; Access to cultural heritage through digital surrogacy; The return of power, control and authority to originating communities; and the importance of collaboration and partnership. This scoping review also documents this shift from the first uses of the term digital repatriation to the more critical concepts used today.

This paper explores the conceptual relationship between archives and canonization by amending Aleida Assmann’s cultural memory framework of Canon and Archive to consider ongoing debates in archival theory and practice. The process of canonization concerns the selection, value, and duration of cultural memory. The formation and function of archives are marked by processes of appraisal (record evaluation and selection), acquisition (record transfer), and preservation (record duration). Placing A. Assmann’s framework in conversation with the informational frameworks of de Fremery and Buckland, we observe how at any given time (a past/present context), records (documents) are selected (perception) because of their value in signaling memories and community histories (affordances) while serving as a durable medium for restabilizing identities (use) across time (a present/future context).

The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance provide essential guideposts for the stewardship of Indigenous data. To put CARE into practice in libraries and repositories, resources are needed to support implementation and integration into current research data services (RDS). This paper builds on case studies with scholars of Indigenous language and culture, articulating specific Indigenous research and data practices to help guide metadata work and other areas of responsibility in RDS. The cases surface the richness of relationships and the significance of accountability in the research process—demonstrating the “relational accountability” inherent in Indigenous research methods. Robust representation of relationality is essential to retaining integrity of context in metadata for Indigenous research data. We consider the practical implications of documenting relational context with current descriptive metadata approaches and challenges toward achieving CARE adherent metadata, which we argue is the backbone for broader application of CARE for Indigenous RDS.

This research proposes an ethical framework for engagement with the data collected by information institutions on and about their community members, part of a field better known as community informatics. As data collection becomes a key element of library and information patron services, it is crucial that workers have experience and training in dealing with the collection and handling of data related to their patrons. The PACT framework, which stands for Power, Access, Consent, and Trust, was developed and workshopped in LIS classrooms across three ALA-accredited programs and aims to prepare LIS students for the types of ongoing relationships and issues they will encounter working in an institutional setting. The framework is grounded in critical theory, and takes a participatory approach towards community informatics, as well as drawing on the Codes of Ethics of three major professional organizations for cultural heritage and information professionals

We report on the results of a content analysis of a random sample of tweets (n = 16, 480) about the January 6 insurrection published one year after the attacks. Drawing from research on social media memory, far right activism, and social memories in times of crises, we performed a deductive manual coding of the tweets. We found that roughly three of every ten Twitter users remembered the U.S. Capitol attack as an insurrection. Importantly, though, the insurrection frame was used by users who were in favor and against the attack. The other most frequent frames were censorship, used by people who aimed to discredit the idea that there had been an insurrection; treason, used by people across the political spectrum to claim that “the other side” had betrayed the republic; fear of other, employed by users who blamed “the others” for the insurrection and its aftermath; and accountability, used by people against the insurrection to call for the attackers to face justice and its leaders to be barred from holding public office. We also noticed that the different frames were not exclusive. Those who used the term “insurrection” frequently used others such as, accountability, censorship, treason, terrorism, and conspiracy.