Language Statement
This statement is intended to provide context on the language and terminology that can be found throughout this resource.
Editorial decisions relating to Mass Observation Project 1981-2019 have been made with great care, consideration and sensitivity. At AM our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion is embedded in everything we do. You can learn more about our policies on Diversity and Representation here.
Every effort has been taken to preserve the historic authenticity of the documents included in this collection. Due to the age and nature of this material, some items may reflect outdated, biased and offensive views, and terminology that we would no longer deem acceptable may be found within the digitised sources. This includes offensive language and othering stereotypes directed towards underrepresented communities. It may also include upsetting descriptions – and occasionally images – of graphic violence, which have been preserved for their historical significance.
As part of our commitment to ensuring the discoverability of primary sources within our collections, we are grateful to receive metadata from source archives which is then supplemented and enhanced by our editorial team. Please note, in some instances, metadata provided by the archive may have been created many years ago. AM may retain, replace or contextualise this metadata. We acknowledge that historic cataloguing processes may privilege the dominant narrative and undertake the following processes to ensure the metadata we publish is appropriate:
- Our editorial teams spend time conducting research and consulting with our expert editorial boards on how best to represent and describe the communities or marginalised groups who are present in our collections.
- Where possible, we consult individuals from communities who are discussed within our collections to ensure they are described in their preferred terms.
- We aim to have open conversations with archivists and scholars to understand more about how sources have been collected, stored, described and used for research.
- Where primary sources contain biased or offensive views, we commit to providing searching guides and contextual materials – such as essays, case studies, interviews and exhibitions – to help researchers find hidden voices where historic cataloguing practices may have unintentionally obscured them.
We may sometimes retain outdated terminology if it provides additional historical value to our metadata, for example in the title of a source or the name of an organisation. More information about the metadata fields that have been edited by AM can be found in the Notes on Metadata in the Nature and Scope. We welcome feedback on the language used in our sites and will use this feedback to implement specific changes and shape our use of language in future.
We believe that technology can play a positive role in redressing the imbalance of representation in historic materials such as these. Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) and Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software has been applied to these documents, enabling scholars to search the original text of the historic sources freely. The ability to search in this way can improve the discoverability of underrepresented narratives and help minimise historic or unintentional biases that could be present within metadata. When searching for marginalised groups or peoples within these sources, scholars should consider contemporaneous terms that may have been used to describe such groups during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. To find out more about how best to optimise and filter your results, visit the User Guide.
If you are interested in learning more about the editorial considerations that shaped the list of sources available in Mass Observation Project, please read the Selection Criteria.
We are committed to continually improving our editorial processes and welcome feedback on diversity and representation within our products. To contact us, please email support@amdigital.co.uk.
A note on self-identifying language
Since 2010, Observers have been able to provide additional information about their identities. This is available in the following metadata fields:
- Disability
- Disability (specified)
- Ethnicity
- Religion
- Religion (specified)
- Sexuality
- Sexuality (specified)
In the Ethnicity field and those fields marked ‘(specified)’, the Observer’s own self-identifying language is used. In some cases, this may include language and terminology that reflects outdated, biased and offensive views.
For more information on the metadata fields included in Mass Observation Project 1981-2019, please see the Nature and Scope.
This statement is intended to provide context on the language and terminology that can be found throughout this resource.
Editorial decisions relating to Mass Observation Project 1981-2019 have been made with great care, consideration and sensitivity. At AM our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion is embedded in everything we do. You can learn more about our policies on Diversity and Representation here.
Every effort has been taken to preserve the historic authenticity of the documents included in this collection. Due to the age and nature of this material, some items may reflect outdated, biased and offensive views, and terminology that we would no longer deem acceptable may be found within the digitised sources. This includes offensive language and othering stereotypes directed towards underrepresented communities. It may also include upsetting descriptions – and occasionally images – of graphic violence, which have been preserved for their historical significance.
As part of our commitment to ensuring the discoverability of primary sources within our collections, we are grateful to receive metadata from source archives which is then supplemented and enhanced by our editorial team. Please note, in some instances, metadata provided by the archive may have been created many years ago. AM may retain, replace or contextualise this metadata. We acknowledge that historic cataloguing processes may privilege the dominant narrative and undertake the following processes to ensure the metadata we publish is appropriate:
- Our editorial teams spend time conducting research and consulting with our expert editorial boards on how best to represent and describe the communities or marginalised groups who are present in our collections.
- Where possible, we consult individuals from communities who are discussed within our collections to ensure they are described in their preferred terms.
- We aim to have open conversations with archivists and scholars to understand more about how sources have been collected, stored, described and used for research.
- Where primary sources contain biased or offensive views, we commit to providing searching guides and contextual materials – such as essays, case studies, interviews and exhibitions – to help researchers find hidden voices where historic cataloguing practices may have unintentionally obscured them.
We may sometimes retain outdated terminology if it provides additional historical value to our metadata, for example in the title of a source or the name of an organisation. More information about the metadata fields that have been edited by AM can be found in the Notes on Metadata in the Nature and Scope. We welcome feedback on the language used in our sites and will use this feedback to implement specific changes and shape our use of language in future.
We believe that technology can play a positive role in redressing the imbalance of representation in historic materials such as these. Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) and Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software has been applied to these documents, enabling scholars to search the original text of the historic sources freely. The ability to search in this way can improve the discoverability of underrepresented narratives and help minimise historic or unintentional biases that could be present within metadata. When searching for marginalised groups or peoples within these sources, scholars should consider contemporaneous terms that may have been used to describe such groups during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. To find out more about how best to optimise and filter your results, visit the User Guide.
If you are interested in learning more about the editorial considerations that shaped the list of sources available in Mass Observation Project, please read the Selection Criteria.
We are committed to continually improving our editorial processes and welcome feedback on diversity and representation within our products. To contact us, please email support@amdigital.co.uk.
A note on self-identifying language
Since 2010, Observers have been able to provide additional information about their identities. This is available in the following metadata fields:
- Disability
- Disability (specified)
- Ethnicity
- Religion
- Religion (specified)
- Sexuality
- Sexuality (specified)
In the Ethnicity field and those fields marked ‘(specified)’, the Observer’s own self-identifying language is used. In some cases, this may include language and terminology that reflects outdated, biased and offensive views.
For more information on the metadata fields included in Mass Observation Project 1981-2019, please see the Nature and Scope.