From DLF Wiki
Revision as of 08:14, 18 September 2017 by Ruthtillman (talk | contribs) (Meeting minutes from 2017-09-15 meeting)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DLF WG on Labor in Digital Libraries, Archives and Museums

Contingency/Precarity Subgroup

Note-taker: Ruth Kitchin Tillman. Names redacted.

Determining purpose of the meeting[edit]

Creating a rough outline from which the statement/guidance/best practices could be written.

Working from: [[1]]


  • Proposal: MLA statement?
  • Or SAA statements, these are not uniformly are broken down into areas and do about a paragraph each.

Consider do we want to make 10 guidelines an upper number?

Timeline for comments ON OUTLINE:

  • Go to contingency/precarity group now?
  • Then go to entire group about 2 weeks before conference?
  • At the DLF Forum meeting: Deciding more about what groups we'd like to circulate it to for comment? What do we want to circulate it to for endorsement? Public call for comment?

Draft Outline[edit]



  • Encourage granting agencies to endorse/support these & encourage people to create these kinds of jobs/prioritize grants to these kinds of jobs.
  • [How do we write something in the context of knowing that grant recipients range from 1-person shops to enormous institutions and we don't want to prioritize only enormous/wealth institutions. What can we ask from the granting institution to provide as assurances for 1-person shops.]

Guiding principles/statements:

  • Grants as opportunities to ask for something that treats people well. (citing Implications of Archival Labor, maybe we recommend creating one healthy position vs. two underfunded one) Doing more than meets minimum.
  • From student collaborator's bill of rights, the acknowledgement that we're creating unequal positions (add something here about job security)
  • Graduate part/time vs. full-time. Paragraph on application and the need for consideration of what benefits the person taking the position? Consider area/availability/etc.

Acknowledgements to other statements?


Salary/Benefits/etc. (we should rename but compensation)

  • In context of lack of job security
  • Consideration of hours/full-time/prioritized over part-time esp multiple part-times. (considering whether you're looking for a grad student or professional)

Market rate (considered range) - area, compensation for comparable work in the institution, degree/education required (understanding of debt)

  • Planning for a raise and professional development.
  • Benefits: health is fundamental, but what other benefits do their colleagues have? Giving them similar equity to others in the department.
  • Acknowledging agency of person in fulfilling the grant's goals (e.g. focus, etc.)

Nature of Work

  • Recommendation for intellectual vs. just mechanical labor, asking what the person in the grant-funded position is supposed to get out of this--does it depend on the kind of position we're creating?
  • That grant-funded work shouldn't be used to cover regular duties/that regular duties which arise should be valued and funded institutionally.
  • Considering scope--DACS proposed principles talk about only accepting collections which can be made accessible in a reasonable amount of time. What does it look like for an institution to only take on grants when they can provide fundamentals like supervision and mentoring? [This may also tie to institutional capacity, but...]
  • Include information about whether this is a start-up project or something that the organization has done before. Give some insight to how much experience the organization has with this type of project.


Sometime a decision should be made if we cite what we read or what really influenced us?