Potential risks, impacts and mitigations

Legal obligations relates to risks around any failure to fulfil legal obligations to the public on equal access and data privacy.

• Lack of knowledge
• Outdated knowledge
• Contravening the Equalities Act
• Breakdown of stakeholder relationships
• Discrimination lawsuits
• Disagreement about access to data

Lack of knowledge

Staff do not demonstrate a working knowledge or understanding of the Equalities Act 2010 and Equalities Act Provisions 2011 on protected characteristics as per the Public Sector Equality Duty 2011 (PSED). This lack of awareness has an impact on the handling of difficult and potentially upsetting conversations, on capacity to work in that environment effectively, and on interactions with the communities served.

Mitigations for risk

• Provide training on the contents of the Equality Act and how this is applied to their role, with access to resources to support this. Refer to and reiterate Public Sector Equality Duty 2011 at regular intervals to match with societal change and movements.
• Give access to updated case studies, written research, published pieces and HR best practice on the Equalities Act 2010. Facilitate links to professional networks offering support.

Outdated knowledge

Working knowledge by staff on equalities is out of date or invalid. By relying on this outdated knowledge, staff are unable to engage sensitively or confidently in potentially upsetting conversations, with potentially negative impacts on stakeholder relationships.

Mitigations for risk

• Regularly review equalities practice, and provide up-to-date Continued Professional Development (CPD) training and resources. Provide additional time within working hours to study or take part in training, and allocate budget for this time with the expectation that staff will keep their knowledge up to date through performance reviews and CPD targets.
• Regularly update reading lists and published sources for individual study and support.

Contravening the Equalities Act

Direct or indirect actions by staff, participants and users that are identified as prohibited conduct under the Equalities Act 2010. This can manifest (for example, but not exclusively) as verbally offensive words, the denial or erasure of identities, or the denials of access to services through abusive behaviour.

Mitigations for risk

• Provide training and support on the contents of the Equalities Act 2010 and how this is applied to all roles. Reiterate the Public Sector Equalities Duty at regular intervals to match societal change or movements.
• Take disciplinary action against any employee who is found to have committed an act of unlawful discrimination.
• Put security procedures in place, both for physical and online spaces, to remove and ban abusive people from situations to protect others. Be aware of the procedures to report hate crimes.

Breakdown of stakeholder relationships

Stakeholders are distressed when encountering difficult conversations and/or material, and believe it has been managed in a discriminatory manner. The organisation finds no discrimination has taken place, but trust and the wider relationship between organisation and individuals or groups is damaged. This has repercussions for work-based performance and interactions with the individuals and communities served.

Mitigations for risk

• Put procedures in place to raise concern via the line manager chain or to nominated officers who have been appointed to advise on questions of inclusion e.g. HR reps, inclusion champions, mental health first aiders, counsellors or mentors. Have robust complaints procedures in place to help resolve disputes, including access to mediators.
• Carry out consultation before communicating on histories that could be perceived as upsetting, to identify the likeliness of this risk occurring.
• Prepare for the scenario of a civil lawsuit in case of discrimination by a member of staff or public, in accordance with the Equalities Act. See also Legal Obligations, risk 5.
• Provide and undertake training on boundary setting for employees within Continued Professional Development.

Discrimination lawsuits

Civil lawsuits arise from discrimination in the use and/or access to archival material.

Mitigations for risk

• Regularly review equality practices and Continued Professional Development (CPD) to ensure it is up to date. Provide opportunities and resources, including time within working hours to study or take part in training. Allocate budget for this time with the expectation that staff will keep their knowledge up to date through performance reviews and CPD targets.
• Prepare for the scenario of a civil lawsuit in case of discrimination by member of staff or public in accordance with the Equalities Act.
• Regularly update reading lists and published sources for individual study and support, or signpost to external organisations that share this literature.
• Put procedures in place to raise concern via the line manager chain or to nominated officers who have been appointed to advise on questions of inclusion e.g. HR reps, inclusion champions, mental health first aiders, counsellors and mentors. Have robust complaints procedures in place to help resolve disputes, including access to mediators.
• A dedicated point of contact to support concerns around legal risks as they arise. Prepare in advance for instances of foreseeable or pending litigation.
• Disagreement about access to data

There is tension created between protecting personal data and providing access to information within the archive. Trust in the archive is challenged either by the sharing of personal data or the denial of access to information.

Mitigations for risk

• Communicate in advance how information shared with the archive may be used or accessed by the public. If and when appropriate, discuss Freedom of Information (FOI) implications and what General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) means in practice for archives.
• Regularly run and update data protection training for staff and stakeholders.
• Put specific protocols, such as the Caldicott Principles, in place on legal records, like medical records. These principles are covered in more detail in our Data Protection Toolkit for Archives.

Language relates to the risk of not understanding the meaning and implications of certain words, or using inaccurate/offensive language.  

• Staff uncertainty
• Barriers created by language
• Reclaimed language
• Acronyms and euphemisms
• Use of contested or upsetting language

Staff uncertainty

Staff do not know or use the accepted words, capitalisations, and grammar when writing or talking about ethnicity, sexuality, disabilities, gender identities or religions. This can appear careless, disrespectful or insensitive, or indicate out-of-date information on inclusion practice. This creates an immediate cognitive distance between those speaking and those who are being communicated to or about. The result is the breakdown of communication or the erosion of trust.

Mitigations for risk

There is no universally right language – different words mean different things to different people, but you can do the following:

• Regularly check in with participants on how they self-identify and acknowledge that identity isn’t static and peoples preferences can change.
• Provide access both online and in print copies of the Government style guide on ethnicity, the Government style guide on disability, and the Stonewall glossary of terms.
• Offer 1 to 1 support when discussions can take place and raise awareness with trained staff e.g. HR representatives, Inclusion Champions, Mental Health First Aiders, counsellors or mentors.
• Regularly review the defined terms to match societal changes and movements.

Barriers created by language

The language used creates barriers, which adds tension to exchanges between people. Examples can include when there is no direct translation outside of English, when English is used as a second language, or when nuances are applied to language such as active vs passive language (the terms ‘slave’ vs ‘enslaved’, for example).

Mitigations for risk

• Clearly acknowledge the issues with direct translation and nuance, and make staff aware on this risk.
• Regularly review the defined terms to match societal changes and movements, including the nuances of applied language.
• Refer to resources that may provide nuanced or independent translation.

Reclaimed language

The aim to address or condemn historic uses of offensive language in archival collections conflicts with how affected communities have reclaimed offensive words in modern times. Words can be reclaimed by communities and used for advocacy, creating a duality of usage, with both the ability to offend and also empower. Staff and participants lack confidence in words they can and can’t use. Terms are potentially perceived as offensive without the context of reclamation and this receives negative feedback as a result.

Mitigations for risk

• Regularly review the defined terms to match societal changes and movements.
• Clearly contextualise when/if the language being used is co-produced with communities as a reclaimed term.
• Prepare statements on inclusivity, such as ‘the use of the word then and now was discriminatory. We recognise though the right for communities to reclaim and re-use words for their own advocacy.’
• Create a procedure to record the last time that material was reviewed, allowing for a clear assessment of the time that has passed and any associated societal change. Refresh the record after each use.

Acronyms and euphemisms

Acronyms or euphemisms can obscure or omit identities. Amalgamations and euphemisms can be used to conflate diverse experiences and can make meanings and measurements unclear. A prominent example is the acronym ‘BAME’, standing for ‘Black Asian Minority Ethnic’, which combines the experiences of very diverse communities, from Black African to Gypsy Roma, and obscures the nuances and differences in experiences.

Mitigations for risk

• Provide clarity to staff and stakeholders on the use of acronyms and acknowledge that they are not inherently safe to use. Always define acronyms used and do not assume knowledge of their meaning.
• Be specific when communicating about and with specific communities, and discuss identities only when it is contextually relevant.
• Remove the use of acronyms to actively support service users in self-identifying in communication exchanges.

Use of contested or upsetting language

Contested, upsetting, or prejudicial language is used when communicating, and this divisive language creates access barriers.

Mitigations for risk

• Put procedures in place to raise concern to line managers or to nominated officers who have been appointed to advise on questions of inclusion e.g. HR representatives, Inclusion Champions, Mental Health First Aiders, counsellors or mentors. Establish robust complaints procedures to help resolve disputes, including providing access to mediators.
• Provide training and support on the contents of the Equalities Act 2010 and how this is applied to all roles. Reiterate the Public Sector Equalities Duty and re-run training at regular intervals in line with societal change or movements.
• Take disciplinary action against any employee who is found to have committed an act of unlawful discrimination.
• Create security procedures for physical and online spaces to remove and ban abusive people to protect others. Raise awareness of the procedures to report hate crimes.

Staff and audience wellbeing relates to the risk of actions having a negative impact on staff, audience and users’ wellbeing.

• Unsupportive work environment
• Lack of mental health support
• Known risks are not mitigated
• Psychological harm
• Staff affected by conversations with public
• Difficulty managing emotions
• Ongoing exposure to upsetting histories
• Inadequate data protection
• Hostile public reaction
• Lack of private spaces
• Upsetting imagery
• Profiling and unconscious bias
• Objectification of personal histories

Unsupportive work environment

Environment is unsupportive for engaging in potentially upsetting histories, and single members of staff are required to take part in upsetting conversations. Staff member feels overwhelmed, those participating do not feel they are able to engage deeply in content, situations escalate beyond the capacity of one staff member to manage. Performance and engagement breaks down or staff require unexpected time off as a result.

Mitigations for risk

• Make sure staff engage in pairs or groups when entering discussions. Provide access to a trained person (e.g. HR reps, Inclusion Champions, Mental Health First Aiders, Councillors, and Mentors) who can be reached out to for extra guidance and support.
• If working in a solo capacity, create distance between questions and responses, i.e. if working online ask for questions in advance or note that questions would be answered by a certain time, to allow space for seeking support or further research. If during an event, create question forms and ask the enquirer to write/share their question and contact information, and respond at a later date.

Lack of mental health support

Lack of effective managerial support on wellbeing and mental health in the workplace. In addition, there is a lack of awareness around the impact of working with potentially upsetting histories, and engaging in conversations around potentially upsetting histories with the public. Wellbeing and work performance suffers. See also Legal Obligations point 3 for related content.

Mitigations for risk

• Commit to an ongoing review and assessment of mental health and wellbeing support tools in the workplace to meet the needs of evolving conversations and content, with continued awareness training included as part of Continued Professional Development. Provide clear, accessible HR guidelines on mental health support.
• Put support in place from a mental health first aider or Manager, or an external professional wellbeing support provider.
• Put procedures in place that enable staff to raise concerns with their line manager, or with nominated officers who have been appointed to advise on questions of inclusion, e.g. HR reps, Inclusion Champions, Mental Health First Aiders, Councillors, Mentors. Implement robust complaints procedures to help resolve disputes – including access to mediators.

Known risks are not mitigated

A member of staff identifies a risk but doesn’t feel equipped, confident or secure to speak on the risk and it goes unmitigated.

Mitigations for risk

• Ensure clear communication channels are in place to identify risk and to assess them across multiple levels of seniority, with access to an independent nominated officer if impartiality is needed or wanted.
• Foster a working culture that encourages critical engagement and discourse, working towards continued improvement and positive change.

Psychological harm

Psychological harm to staff and participants during potentially upsetting or difficult communication centred on narratives from the archives, which required emotional labour. This leads to staff feeling unsafe or unable to perform their role for short or long periods of time.

Mitigations for risk

• Ensure barriers that prevent staff disclosing mental health and wellbeing issues with safety are identified and addressed by line management on an ongoing basis.
• Commit to an ongoing review and assessment of mental health and wellbeing support tools in the workplace to meet the needs of evolving conversations and content, with continued awareness training included as part of Continued Professional Development. Provide clear, accessible HR guidelines on mental health support.
• Write and share guidelines on how your service works towards positive learning environments and exchanges internally for staff and between staff and public. This should include the protection in place for staff and what action will be taken against unaccepted behaviours in person and online.

Staff affected by conversations with public

Upsetting histories effecting employees and staff by association. As representatives of the archive, staff are seen as contact points for the emotional responses to potentially upsetting histories, particularly if they act in a capacity as a consistent point of contact for users on an emotional journey. Employees and staff become distressed as a result of the archival content but users and the public’s response to the content.

Mitigations for risk

• Provide HR and managerial support in managing potentially upsetting or difficult conversations. Ensure access to current definitions and research on the topic. Maintain up to date sources of referral.
• Maintain clear security procedures on site for engagement in the workplace. Make sure security procedures are in place physically or online to remove abusive persons from situations to protect others, as well as awareness of procedures to report Hate Crimes.
• Commit to an ongoing review and assessment of mental health and wellbeing support tools in the workplace to meet the needs of evolving conversations and content, with continued awareness training included as part of Continued Professional Development. Provide clear, accessible HR guidelines on mental health support.
• Put support in place from a mental health first aider or Manager, or an external professional wellbeing support provider.

Difficulty managing emotions

Inconsistent confidence levels on inclusion work resulting in challenges between co-workers and stakeholders (across all levels) on best practice of communicating potentially upsetting histories. Managing emotions during these exchanges results in strain, emotional toil, or the potential for disagreement and risk of uncomfortable working environments.

Mitigations for risk

• Ensure all staff receive the same training on best practice around inclusion and diversity, and are required to reinvest in this training as Continued Professional Development.
• Managing emotions during best practice or the potential of having to correct others is framed within Continuous Professional Development (CPD) Training, including conflict resolution.
• Make sure best practice is communicated from most senior positions in organisation as well as sharing good practice undertaken by teams.

Ongoing exposure to upsetting histories

Ongoing exposure to potentially upsetting histories occurs for staff and participants, resulting in desensitisation to their impact. As the capacity to fully appreciate the emotional reaction to a collection decreases, the risk in using the archival collection increases due to possible reduced empathy.

Mitigations for risk

• Build a peer network or colleague support into the process to ensure, where possible, multiple viewpoints are present to identify potentially upsetting content.
• Continued Professional Development recognises the potential of desensitisation and reflects on training or references to identify this.
• Implement a rotation of duties and/or projects where possible, so that long term exposure to potentially upsetting histories is either interrupted or not continuous.
• Make sure time and space are provided for stakeholders to process the emotional impact from collections, and to recognise if any emotion is being supressed.

Inadequate data protection

Adequate protection is not considered for service users referenced within archival collections. Material is shared, reinterpreted or used by archival professionals that contains personal details of those still living or with family members still living. This causes distress. In addition, descendants may be directly affected by the archival choices made during communication.

Mitigations for risk

• Follow guidance in our Data Protection toolkit, including details of exemptions and responsibilities for archives with data protection laws.
• Consider in advance what can be shared legally, what can be licenced from the collection digitally, or what is allowed to go offsite physically. Communicate clearly and in advance to other staff and stakeholders.
• Discuss the archival material with colleagues or peer networks in advance, giving a wide scope of professional opinion responding to the contents.
• Consider the impact of using material in advance, as this will inform decisions around progression. Examples include outing an individual historical figure as LGBTQ, and/or having mental health challenges, and/or a criminal record. Take time and maintain sensitivity when considering if use has repercussions on living members of the community.
• Hostile public reaction

Possible escalations as a reaction to potentially upsetting histories. These escalations could result in physical harm to employees, staff and collections, or verbal abuse from staff or service users, leading to a suspension of service access. Demonstrations could potentially block access to collections or inhibit staff in their role and performance.

Mitigations for risk

• Ensure on site security procedures are clear about engagement in the workplace. Make sure security procedures are in place physically or online to remove abusive persons from situations in order to protect others. In addition, make sure there is an awareness of how to report Hate Crimes.
• Ensure ability to meet safety regulations for all onsite personnel

Lack of private spaces

Readers have emotional and/or physical reactions to potentially upsetting histories (such as end of life narratives or identity disclosure of individuals who may be living or have living family members) but are not supported by resources available, including physical space, to process reactions privately. For example, a member of staff, participant or service user requests a space for privacy during an emotional reaction, and the archive space does not offer this, resulting in additional distress.

Mitigations for risk

• Consider the service layout in advance. Consider also what resources are in place to support someone during, for example, experiences of grief or anger, and accommodate independent access to these resources.
• Think about how space is used, including how spaces could be reframed as quiet spaces, prayer space, or private space to facilitate periods of reflection or breast feeding, for example.

Upsetting imagery

Use of images relating to potentially upsetting histories in events, displays, marketing, lectures, presentations and online sharing could directly impact on the wellbeing of employees, staff and service users. The archival material becomes a barrier to access without clearly defined ethical consideration of its use. Safeguarding is compromised by communications around potentially upsetting histories.

Mitigations for risk

• Only show potentially upsetting images (identified by exploration of what a potentially upsetting history might be) if it’s essential or requested, and an appropriate content warning can be shared in advance.
• Support conversations with adequate referral sources for the employee to a relevant professional body or charity.
• Remember that safeguarding considers on site collection use and online collection use separately; recognise that each has distinct risks associated and mitigation needed.
• Ensure all images and their use are subject to ethical consideration first, with a clearly defined purpose.
• Provide clear notice on the content and context before the images are encountered.

Profiling and unconscious bias

Profiling, assumed identities and unconscious bias negatively impacting on or instigate uncomfortable and potentially upsetting communication in the workplace. Engagement, communication and work-based performance are compromised.

Mitigations for risk

• Do not objectify service users, staff, or persons to whom records relate, based only on elements of their identity. Focus communication less on person’s identities and more on themes, or moments in time.
• Define protocol on recognising and acting upon micro and macroaggressions in the workplace.
• Protect confidentiality of staff by non-disclosure of identity or personal information. Follow Data Protection guidance.
• Provide training and resources which highlight the risk of unconscious bias and the negative implication of stereotypes.
• Ensure continued access to updated resources and information that explicitly contains shared lived experience on this topic.

Objectification of personal histories

Service users, participants or staff offer information on personal trauma in response to collections which is then used to promote a project. (Seen for example in social media content or a publicised quote). This has the potential to alienate those involved; they feel objectified, reduce their wellbeing or re-traumatise.

Mitigations for risk

• Share only for a clear ethical purpose and with explicit consent provided.
• Safely destroy any unused responses or sharing that speaks of personal trauma that isn’t archived.
• Gather more than one staff member or a working group to consider material before use, to offer additional perspective.
• Protect confidentiality of all by non-disclosure of identity or personal information. Follow Data Protection guidance.
• Ensure a HR policy is in place to enable checking in with staff at all times to see if they feel comfortable with sharing information on personal trauma and/or lived-experience with public. Consider that adding authenticity creates a risk of emotional labour or feeling of exploitation in employees and staff.
• Notify participants about topics in advance of participation so informed decisions can be made about potential triggers and the emotional labour likely during exchange.
• If asking a staff member to talk about trauma, mitigate the situation by having a HR point of contact available, and be very clear that the individual can define their boundaries.

Staff diversity relates to the risk that staff do not have a sufficiently diverse set of knowledge and experiences to call upon to support work in dealing with, and communicating the nuances around, potentially upsetting histories.

• Lack of diversity
• Reliance on lived experience
• Difficulty displaying awareness of issues
• Trouble finding representation
• Historical anniversaries unacknowledged
• Misrepresentation of diversity
• Incompatible recruitment principles

Lack of diversity

Lack of diversity in the workforce. Without a variety of voices, lived experience that reflects modern Britain is detrimental in the service it can provide.

Mitigations for risk

• Actively recruit and disseminate opportunities beyond usual pool of applicants. Think about digital advertisement and use of recruitment bodies, connecting recruitment with the diversity of collections. A stated aim in recruitment should be to directly reflect the multi-cultural and intersectional life in the UK.
• Be empowered to use the Equalities Act Section 159 to rectify under-representation of certain communities within staff and participants to actively pursue positive action recruitment.
• For increased awareness, disseminate diversity statistics on your organisation’s employee and staff demographics – as far as they are declared, and maintaining anonymity.
• Be aware of and actively address skills shortages in your organisation. Pursue ways to increase digital capacity in the archive workforce, and explore apprenticeship schemes that look to diversify routes into archival profession.
• Explore routes to support diverse leaders and managers, to boost the impact of diversity at decision making levels.

Reliance on lived experience

Communication of potentially difficult and upsetting histories is based on, or relies on, a singular individual’s lived-experience and standpoint. This offers an unreliable narrative and can cause strain and distress to the individual whose experience is being used, resulting in them feeling objectified. As well as to those with relevant lived experience whose perspective differs feeling misrepresented.

Mitigations for risk

• Do not objectify service users, staff, or persons to whom records relate, based only on elements of their identity. Focus communication less on person’s identities and more on themes, or moments in time.
• Put a clear working statement in place, recognising the risk of objectification of employees and staff, and commit to ongoing CPD support for all.
• Ensure clear guidance is available to participants on the risk of objectification and how this has a practical effect in reading or having exchanges, particularly around potentially upsetting histories.
• Seek explicit consent when gathering, receiving or sharing stories related to lived experiences from staff and archival service users, or before they agree to participate in work requiring emotional labour.
• Protect confidentiality of staff by not disclosing identity or personal information. Follow Data Protection guidance.
• Provide equal levels of training across teams so multiple persons may be empowered to work with potentially upsetting histories, regardless of how they identify.

Difficulty displaying awareness of issues

Inability to communicate and demonstrate wider awareness of issues, and the institution’s relevancy in potentially upsetting narratives about marginalised experiences. Access to communities communicating openly about complicated narratives is compromised.

Mitigations for risk

• Actively recruit and disseminate opportunities beyond the usual pool of applicants. Think about digital advertisement and use of recruitment bodies, connecting recruitment with the diversity of collections. A stated aim in recruitment should be to directly reflect the multi-cultural and intersectional life in the UK.
• Create a panel of critical friends, representative of communities you wish to engage with, enable to them to make changes and remunerate them for their time and expertise.

Trouble finding representation

An inability to find representation (as employee, staff or visitor) in the institution. This can create alienation and boundaries to accessing the collections, strain communication, and instil feeling among staff of limited opportunities for progression.

Mitigations for risk

• Actively recruit and disseminate opportunities beyond the usual pool of applicants. Think about digital advertisement and use of recruitment bodies, connecting recruitment with the diversity of collections. A stated aim in recruitment should be to directly reflect the multi-cultural and intersectional life in the UK.
• Work with community leaders in equitable partnerships that provide channels of communication about concerns, and avenues for advice between your institution and marginalised communities.
• As an institution, acknowledge a duty of care to stakeholders and recognise that cultural differences impact on a sense of belonging.
• Explore routes to support diverse leaders and managers, to boost the impact of diversity at decision making levels.

Historical anniversaries unacknowledged

Practitioners and/or the institution miss or do not acknowledge historical anniversaries, religious or spiritual celebrations/ memorialisation, or other dates of significance to diverse communities, in content clearly accessible to the public. The organisation seems out of touch or disconnected from larger parts of society.

Mitigations for risk

• Create, regularly review and update FAQ documents on difficult and potentially upsetting histories and links to national or international calendar events.
• Have an assigned responsibility within your service for researching and updating a document of significant dates, and relevant material in the collection. Do not rely on individual responsibly or activism, instead have a role and budget in place to maintain responsibility.

Misrepresentation of diversity

Staff and participants feel exploited in the use of their likeness to promote an aspiration for diversity that doesn’t currently exist, directly effecting retention of diverse labour.

Mitigations for risk

• Time stamp or mark the date of images in publications.
• Where possible, reference the longevity of the project when representations of diversity are included in content/communications. Was this image taken on a long term or short-term project basis?
• Be aware of and avoid continuing historically disproportionate labour for marginalised groups working in non-diverse organisations, to promote inclusivity.
• Consider creative ways of promoting inclusion and belonging through art, design and language that doesn’t objectify individuals.

Incompatible recruitment principles

Recruitment principles directly affect institutional staff and stakeholder diversity. Use of freelance staff, short term contracts or finance systems in place result in a lack of diverse staff retention. This directly impacts institutional service provision and accessibility.

Mitigations for risk

• Consider finance systems in place and flexibility to maximise who can work with your institution. Consider also how this work is valued and remunerated. For example, can expenses be paid for interviews? Is you overall payment process simple, timely and easily understood?
• Monitor pay gaps between gender, race and other protected characteristics and the comparable impact, influence, power and stability that those from marginalised backgrounds have in your organisation, based on their contract type.
• Actively recruit and disseminate opportunities beyond the usual pool of applicants. Think about digital advertisement and use of recruitment bodies, connecting recruitment with the diversity of collections. A stated aim in recruitment should be to directly reflect the multi-cultural and intersectional life in the UK.
• Work with community leaders in equitable partnerships that allow channels of communication about concerns, and avenues for advice between your institution and marginalised communities.