A Metadata Analysis of Anthropological Scholarship about Haiti and the Dominican Republic

Tess Kulstad González, Pauline Kulstad González, Zoe Grubbs et Hongyuan Zhang

⬇ Download PDF

Résumé (en traduction)

Cet article présente les résultats d’une analyse des métadonnées et du contenu des recherches anthropologiques consacrées à Haïti et à la République dominicaine et disponibles dans la base de données Anthropological Literature et dans le Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology. Cette analyse montre que les travaux anthropologiques sur Haïti et/ou la République dominicaine produits en Haïti et en République dominicaine sont moins représentés que les travaux publiés en dehors de l’île. En outre, notre analyse indique que les recherches portant sur les deux pays, ou prenant en considération des processus transnationaux et/ou interinsulaires, sont peu fréquentes. De plus, les travaux qui existent sont moins facilement repérables ou visibles que les recherches consacrées à chacun des deux pays pris séparément. Nous examinons ainsi la manière dont les bases de données contribuent à constituer une archive de la pensée anthropologique qui exclut les travaux issus du Sud global.

---

Introduction

On March 19, 2019, a group of 25 anthropologists gathered in Santo Domingo for a conference entitled “Island Anthropologies: Anthropological Knowledge Production in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.”^[1] This conference brought together a group of Haiti and Dominican Republic-focused anthropologists from the island and abroad to discuss a wide range of topics, including the history, present and future of anthropological knowledge production on the island and about the island. The conference was framed within three distinct, but interrelated, conceptual frameworks.^[2] The first, “Transnational Hispaniola,”^[3] proposes a new approach to the study of the island that focuses on the island as a whole and emphasizes the transnational ties that have characterized life on the island. Furthermore, this approach “resist[s] political exclusion, racism, anti-Haitian xenophobia, [and] gender discrimination.”^[4] With the second and third frameworks, “Decolonization” and “World Anthropologies,” the organizers sought to disrupt the historical hierarchies that have characterized anthropological knowledge production worldwide that have privileged white, male and Euro-American anthropological scholarship over what is produced by minoritized groups and in other regions of the world. The organizers sought to create a decolonized space of conversation in which a group of scholars of diverse backgrounds and perspectives could engage in scholarly discussion.^[5]

We expand on these efforts to facilitate a decolonized and transnational anthropology of Hispaniola by presenting findings of exploratory research that examined two key aspects in the knowledge production process about the island. First, we examine the degree to which island scholars have been given a voice within global anthropological discussions. Specifically, we examine the degree to which scholarship about the island, produced on the island, has been made accessible and discoverable in two sites of anthropological knowledge dissemination in the United States: Harvard University’s Anthropological Literature (AL) index and the Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology (JLACA). We selected Anthropological Literature because it is one of the most comprehensive anthropological indexes in existence.^[6] Furthermore, this index is housed in one of the most prestigious universities in the United States. We selected JLACA because it is the official journal of the Latin American and Caribbean section of the American Anthropological Association.

Research dissemination processes are key sites in the efforts to decolonize knowledge.^[7] Global knowledge dissemination processes are characterized by what Mills et al. call bibliometric coloniality.^[8] According to analysts of global knowledge production and dissemination processes, academics from the Global South have a more difficult time disseminating their work.^[9] Global knowledge dissemination processes are controlled by a group of organizations located in the Global North. These organizations own a small group of academic indexes that are used worldwide by researchers to search for and obtain information. These indexes have the power to validate and disseminate some knowledge over others by including scholarship published in certain journals over others. Prior research indicates that knowledge produced in the Global South has less visibility and discoverability in these indexes.^[10]

Second, we examine the degree to which island-wide and/or transnational approaches to the study of Hispaniola have been undertaken in anthropology. Conference participants advocated for more transnational approaches to research.^[11] The “Transnational Hispaniola” collective of scholars has advocated for island-wide and transnational scholarship approaches. Mayes and Jayaram^[12] contend that approaches to the study of Hispaniola have been characterized by a lack of inter-island and trans-island dialogue. In this study, we examine the degree to which this has been the case in anthropology.^[13]

This analysis focuses on metadata, or the terms used to organize, discover, and access library resources. Keywords, subject terms, author names, etc., are central to research. They can shape discoverability by highlighting some topics and obscuring others.^[14] Consequently, if we look at AL and JLACA’s metadata system, we can get a sense of the ways in which database managers and users conceptualize, organize and access scholarship about the island. The findings from our content and organizational analysis suggest that bibliometric coloniality has affected scholars of the island. Our analysis shows that anthropological knowledge about Haiti and/or the Dominican Republic, produced in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, is included less than scholarship published outside the island. In addition, our analysis indicates that research that pertains to both countries, or that considers transnational and/or inter-island processes has been infrequent. Furthermore, that which exists is not as discoverable or visible as research that focuses on each individual country.

In the next section, we describe the database and the journal we selected for our analysis. Subsequently, we detail the research methodology used. An analysis of the Anthropological Literature database and JLACA’s content presupposes an understanding of the processes used to organize database and journal content. We provide a brief overview of general library cataloging processes and those specific to AL and JLACA. Subsequently, we describe the research methodology and present our findings.

Cataloging processes

Cataloging is the process through which the items in the databases are organized. Broadly, cataloging involves designating access points, or bibliographic metadata, for users. Descriptive cataloging consists of assigning metadata such as author, title, publisher, etc.^[15] Content cataloging consists of designating metadata about the item’s subject matter.^[16] The librarian does not have to read every item that they catalog. Instead, they use an item’s title, back cover, table of contents, and/or any other apparent information to find the most specific heading(s) and/or subheading(s) possible. The number of subject headings and/or subheadings varies. The general rule is to designate a minimum of one and a maximum of ten terms. In practice, librarians usually assign six. Content cataloging can occur prior to an item’s arrival at a library. Publishers designate metadata themselves; however, this is not always the case.^[17]

To ensure that similar items are grouped together and categorized consistently across libraries, cataloguers use sets of controlled vocabulary. The most common across academic libraries in the U.S. is the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH).^[18] It has been revised multiple times since it was first published in 1914.^[19] As new subject matters emerge and/or change, terms vary. The latest print edition (2016) consists of 339,813 headings that span a wide range of disciplines, names, geographic terms, etc…^[20] Prior to the 1950s, Library of Congress catalogers were the only ones allowed to propose changes. Today, the Subject Authority Cooperative Program, a coalition of libraries, and the public can propose changes as well. The Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division of the LoC reviews and approves proposals.^[21] Some changes, like the 2014 request to eliminate the “Illegal Alien” subject term, have been controversial and politicized.^[22]

The process for cataloging journal articles, or indexing, consists of listing and organizing articles by different criteria. Researchers use metadata to locate resources. It is in a journal’s best interest to be included in the indexes their target readership uses most, to improve the journal impact factor. Inclusion in some subscription-based indexes, like Web of Knowledge, confer prestige and have become indicative of quality.^[23] However, as the use of free indexes increases, journals also use free ones, like Google Scholar, to increase their discoverability.^[24] Some indexes, such as PubMed, serve discipline-specific needs. Others, like JLACA, only contain their own articles.

The Databases: Anthropological Literature and the Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology

Anthropological Literature (AL), produced by the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, is one of the most comprehensive indexes in Anthropology. It contains all of Harvard’s Tozzer Library’s holdings, from 1866 until today, and indexes over 660 journals in over 50 languages, in all four fields of anthropology and other related fields. It is available digitally by subscription through EBSCOhost and Anthropological Index.^[25]

The Tozzer Library is the oldest anthropological library in the country.^[26] Its content has been shaped by the research interests of donors, researchers, professors, and curators. It also acquired material through exchange agreements with institutions around the world. Roland B. Dixon, its director from 1904-1936, started AL to catalog holdings.^[27] Its subject headings “reflected the primary interests of early twentieth century anthropologists.”^[28] and highlighted geographic headings, rather than cultural areas. Dixon’s system remained in use until the LCSH took its place in 1986 and added a supplemental list of headings.^[29]

The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology (JLACA), the official publication of the Latin American and Caribbean section of the American Anthropological Association, started in 1995. Its official title changed from the Journal of Latin American Anthropology (JLAA) to include the Caribbean in 2007. The journal is indexed and abstracted through multiple subscription-based services like AnthroSource, Scopus, Anthropological Literature, among others. The index is based on the keywords authors assign to their articles. They can choose to add 1-5 keywords.^[30]

Research methods

Our database analysis is based on a combination of statistical analysis, content analysis, and library research. First, we created a raw database of search results based on the following geographical search terms: Dominican Republic, Haiti, Dominican Republic AND Haiti, and Hispaniola. We applied the “Anywhere,” “Title,” “Keyword,” and “Abstract” search criteria available in JLACA’s Advanced Search option. The number of results per search are detailed in Table 1. The results of each of these separate searches were subsequently transferred to a Google Sheets spreadsheet through a process called scraping. We collected the following metadata from each result: Author(s), Title, Keywords, Subjects, Date of Publication, Funding Sources (when available), Search Criteria used, Journal Name (JLAA or JLACA), Volume and Issue Number. We used the spreadsheet “Sort Sheet By” function to identify duplicate results, which were later eliminated.

JLACA and Anthropological Literature Search Results by Country and by Island, as of August 30, 2019

Search Term	JLACA # of Results	AL # of Results
Haiti	41	544
Dominican Republic	25	493
Haiti AND Dominican Republic	16	28
Hispaniola	4	41

In AL, we searched for Haiti, Dominican Republic, Haiti AND Dominican Republic, Hispaniola using the “TX All Text Fields” option. We ordered the search results by “Date Oldest” using the sorting option on the Database Results page and downloaded the results as a CSV file. The results included Article/Journal/Book Title, the First Author First and Last Name, Year of Publication, Volume and Issue Number, and other items not necessary for our analysis. We added Additional Authors, Geographic Area of Focus, Place, Name, Language, and Type. Since AL utilizes both “Subject Term” and “Geographic Term” interchangeably, we merged both categories into “Subject Term” for the purposes of this analysis. Table 1 also indicates the number of results from the AL search. After creating both raw databases, we carried out content analysis of the entries. This process consisted of examining the metadata associated with each item and coding each entry to identify data patterns. We added memos or observations, when necessary.

Findings

The content analysis process revealed five different types of errors in the indexing process (see Table 2 for specific examples). Types 1 and 2 errors refer to results that were not about either country or the island. These results were excluded. Type 3 errors pertain to misprints and spelling errors. Type 4 errors involve articles about both countries yet were only assigned to one. Type 5 refer to instances when neither country is labeled. Type 6 refer to Dominican Republic-related articles that were assigned a Haiti subject/geographic term. Finally, Type 7, which we termed “bordering,” relates to indexing patterns that assigned entries to one country when the research is relevant to both. For instance, the example in Table 2 is about the natural history of the entire island. That is, about a species that lived before geopolitical divisions existed. However, Haiti is excluded from the metadata. Given the existence of Type 7 errors, we proceeded to recode Type 7 entries with the relevant temporal-geographical designation shown in Table 3. In other words, we recoded the entries according to the geographical area that was pertinent for the research item.^[31]

Types of Cataloging Errors in AL and JLACA, as of August 30, 2019

Error Type	Description	Resource	Examples
Type 1	Item irrelevant	JLACA (Anywhere)	Heidbrink, L., 2019. The Coercive Power of Debt: Migration and Deportation of Guatemalan Indigenous Youth. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 24(1), pp.263-281.
Type 2	Item about Dominica	AL	Baker, P., 1988. Ethnogenesis. The Case of the Dominica Caribs. América Indígena, 48(2), pp.377-401. || Subjects: Carib Indians -- Ethnic identity; Dominican Republic -- Native races; Indians of the West Indies -- Dominican Republic -- Ethnic identity
Type 3	Spelling error(s)	JLACA, AL	[From AL, error italicized:] Jimenez, A., 1978. En torno al craneo ciguayo descrtio por el Dr. Alejandro Llenas en 1890. (A propos du crâne ciguayo décrit par le Dr. AL en 1890). Boletin del Museo del Hombre Dominicano. Saint-Domingue, 7(10), pp.238-252. || Subjects: Dominican Republic -- Biological anthropology -- Skull
Type 4	Only one country noted	JLACA, AL	[From AL:] Horst, H.A. and Taylor, E.B., 2014. The role of mobile phones in the mediation of border crossings: A study of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 25(2), pp.155-170. || Subjects: \"Cell phones\", \"Ethnography\", \"Labor mobility\", Communication and technology\", \"Technology -- Social aspects -- Haiti\".
Type 5	Neither country labeled	AL	Martínez, S., 1999. From hidden hand to heavy hand: sugar, the state, and migrant labor in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Latin American Research Review, pp.57-84. || Subjects: \"West Indies -- Economic conditions\", \"Sugar -- West Indies -- Manufacture and refining\"; \"Migrant labor -- West Indies\"; \"State, The -- History
Type 6	D.R. article labeled as Haiti	AL	Norvell, D.G., 1969. Food marketing in an urban place in the Dominican Republic. Caribbean Studies, 9 (3), pp.104-110. || Subjects: Haiti -- Technology -- Urbanism
Type 7	Bordering	AL	Rímoli, Renato O. 1977. \"Una nueva especie de monos (Cebidae: Saimirinae: Saimiri) de la Hispaniola\". Cuadernos del CENDIA. v. 262, no. 1, 1977. p. 1-14. || Subjects: Archaeology -- Methods – Zooarchaeology; Dominican Republic -- Archaeology -- Fauna

Temporal-Geographical Codebook

Temporal Scope	DR (Eastern 2/3)	Haiti (Western 1/3)
Prehistory-1492	Hispaniola Pre-1492	Hispaniola Pre-1492
1492-1697	S.D., Spanish colony (1492-1697)	Santo Domingo, Spanish colony (1492-1697)
1697-1793	S.D., Spanish colony (1697-1795)	Saint Domingue, French colony (1697-1793)
1793-1795	S.D., Spanish colony (1697-1795)	Saint Domingue, British occupied (1793-1798)
1795-1798	S.D., French occupied (1795-1809)	Saint Domingue, British occupied (1793-1798)
1798-1804	S.D., French occupied (1795-1809)	Saint Domingue, French colony (1798-1804)
1804-1809	S.D., French occupied (1795-1809)	Republic of Haiti
1809-1821	S.D., Spanish colony (1809-1821)	Republic of Haiti
1821-1822	Republic of Spanish Haiti	Republic of Haiti
1822-1844	S.D., Haitian Occupied	Republic of Haiti
1844-1861	Shared D.R. (1844-1861)	Shared Republic of Haiti
1861-1865	S.D., Spain occupied	Republic of Haiti
1865-present	D.R. (1865-present)	Republic of Haiti

The JLACA analysis revealed significant patterns. A percentage frequency distribution of the number of search results by country revealed an imbalance in the numbers of publications per country and region. The fourth column shows that nearly half (49.17%) of JLACA’s search results are from South America. North American publications comprise 28.16% of the total. The proportion for Central America is much smaller, at 13.54%. The Caribbean region is in last place with 9.13%, of which Cuba figures more prominently, followed by Puerto Rico, and Haiti. JLACA’S top three countries of publication, in descending order, are Mexico, Brazil, and Peru. At the bottom of the list are the non-Spanish-speaking Caribbean islands, except Jamaica, which is in 18^th position.

Percentage Frequency Distribution and Rank of JLACA Search Results, by Country and Region, as of August 30, 2019

Country	Results (Abstract)	% of Total Results	% of Region
North America
Canada	7	0.69	2.44
United States	36	3.53	12.54
Mexico	244	23.95	85.02
Total	287	28.16	100.00
Central America
Belize	9	0.88	6.52
Costa Rica	5	0.49	3.62
El Salvador	26	2.55	18.84
Guatemala	59	5.79	42.75
Honduras	14	1.37	10.14
Nicaragua	20	1.96	14.49
Panama	5	0.49	3.62
Total	138	13.54	100.00
Caribbean
Antigua & Barbuda	0	0.00	0.00
Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina (Archipelago de San Andrés, Providencia y Santa Catalina)	0	0.00	0
Aruba	0	0.00	0.00
Bahamas	1	0.10	1.08
Barbados	3	0.29	3.23
Cayman Islands	0	0.00	0.00
Cuba	38	3.73	40.86
Dominica	0	0.00	0.00
Dominican Republic	6	0.59	6.45
Federal Dependencies of Venezuela (Dependencias Federales de Venezuela)	0	0.00	0.00
Grenada	0	0.00	0.00
Guadeloupe	0	0.00	0.00
Haiti	13	1.28	13.98
Jamaica	11	1.08	11.83
Martinique	0	0.00	0.00
Nueva Esparta (Venezuela)	0	0.00	0.00
Puerto Rico	14	1.37	15.05
Saint Barthelemy	0	0.00	0.00
St. Kitts & Nevis	0	0.00	0.00
St. Lucia	1	0.10	1.08
St. Vincent and the Grenadines	0	0.00	0.00
Trinidad & Tobago	5	0.49	5.38
Turks & Caicos	0	0.00	0.00
US Virgin Islands	0	0.00	0.00
Anguilla	0	0.00	0.00
Bonaire	0	0.00	0.00
British Virgin Islands	1	0.10	1.08
Curacao	0	0.00	0.00
Montserrat	0	0.00	0.00
Saba	0	0.00	0.00
Collectivity of Saint Martin (Collectivité de Saint-Martin)	0	0.00	0.00
St. Eustasius	0	0.00	0.00
Sint Maarten	0	0.00	0.00
Total	93	9.13	100.00
South America
Argentina	36	3.53	7.19
Bolivia	68	6.67	13.57
Brazil	143	14.03	28.54
Chile	23	2.26	4.59
Colombia	48	4.71	9.58
Ecuador	72	7.07	14.37
French Guiana	0	0.00	0.00
Guyana	3	0.29	0.60
Paraguay	8	0.79	1.60
Peru	78	7.65	15.57
Suriname	2	0.20	0.40
Uruguay	1	0.10	0.20
Venezuela	19	1.86	3.79
Falkland Islands	0	0.00	0.00
Total	501	49.17	100.00
Total search results	1,019	100.00

We conducted a similar analysis for the AL search results. As Table 5 indicates, 50.55% of the citations are about North America, mostly (61.71%) Mexico. South America follows in the regional ranking. Peru has the most results (26.88%), followed by Brazil (19.10%), making up nearly half (45.98%) of the South American totals. Central America and the Caribbean have 10.14% and 3.99%, respectively. Most Caribbean resources are about Cuba (21.77%), followed by Haiti (13.10%), the Dominican Republic (11.87%) and Puerto Rico (10.24%).

Percentage Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of Anthropological Literature Search Results by Country and Region, as of August 30, 2019

Country	Search Results	% of Total AL Search Results	% of Region
North America
Canada	5,257	5.05	10.00
United States	14,880	14.30	28.29
Mexico	32,459	31.20	61.71
Total	52,596	50.55	100.00
Central America
Belize	948	0.91	8.99
Costa Rica	993	0.95	9.41
El Salvador	378	0.36	3.58
Guatemala	5,545	5.33	52.57
Honduras	1,203	1.16	11.41
Nicaragua	563	0.54	5.34
Panama	917	0.88	8.69
Total	10,547	10.14	100.00
Caribbean
Antigua & Barbuda	7	0.01	0.17
Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina	1	0	0.02
Aruba	20	0.02	0.48
Bahamas	126	0.12	3.03
Barbados	126	0.12	3.03
Cayman Islands	14	0.01	0.34
Cuba	904	0.87	21.77
Dominica	72	0.07	1.73
Dominican Republic	493	0.47	11.87
Federal Dependencies of Venezuela (Dependencias Federales de Venezuela)	0	0.00	0.00
Grenada	71	0.07	1.71
Guadeloupe	69	0.07	1.66
Haiti	544	0.52	13.10
Jamaica	425	0.41	10.24
Martinique	98	0.09	2.36
Puerto Rico	446	0.43	10.74
Saint Barthelemy	12	0.01	0.29
St. Kitts & Nevis	10	0.01	0.24
St. Lucia	272	0.26	6.55
St. Vincent and the Grenadines	8	0.01	0.19
Trinidad & Tobago	109	0.10	2.63
Turks & Caicos	13	0.01	0.31
US Virgin Islands	29	0.03	0.70
Anguilla	9	0.01	0.22
Bonaire	4	0.00	0.10
British Virgin Islands	9	0.01	0.22
Curacao	23	0.02	0.55
Montserrat	141	0.14	3.40
Nueva Esparta (Venezuela)	1	0.00	0.02
Saba	87	0.08	2.10
Collectivity of Saint Martin (Collectivité de Saint-Martin)	3	0.00	0.07
Sint Eustatius	3	0.00	0.07
Sint Maarten	3	0.00	0.07
Total	4,152	3.99	100.00
South America
Argentina	5,483	5.27	14.92
Bolivia	2,069	1.99	5.63
Brazil	7,021	6.75	19.10
Chile	3,384	3.25	9.21
Colombia	3,328	3.20	9.06
Ecuador	2,102	2.02	5.72
French Guiana	145	0.14	0.39
Guyana	254	0.24	0.69
Paraguay	831	0.80	2.26
Peru	9,879	9.49	26.88
Suriname	217	0.21	0.59
Uruguay	478	0.46	1.30
Venezuela	1,542	1.48	4.20
Falkland Islands	18	0.02	0.05
Total	36,751	35.32	100.00
Total search results	104,046

Place of publication

A comparison of results per search term (Haiti and/or Dominican Republic, Hispaniola) indicates imbalances in terms of place of publication. If we consider place of publication (see Table 6) we can see that AL has more Haiti-related articles, published outside of Haiti. In turn, 63.29% of Dominican resources were published in the Dominican Republic. International journals are in the minority (36.71%). In contrast, most of the Haiti search results (80.33%) were published outside the country. This difference could suggest greater international interest in Haiti. It can also be the result of reduced interest in, and/or less access, to Haiti-produced scholarship. This question, however, requires further research and transcends the scope of this paper. An examination of island-wide research indicates that approximately three-fourths of the island-wide publications are published outside the island. This points to the absence of inter-island scholarly engagement, and/or reticence to engage island-wide matters within the island itself.

Percentage Frequency Distribution of AL Search Results by Place of Publication (Hispaniola/non-Hispaniola) as of August 30, 2019.

Search term	International	Haiti/D.R.	Total
Haiti	437 (80.33%)	107 (19.67%)	544 (100%)
D.R.	181 (36.71%)	312 (63.29%)	493 (100%)
Haiti & D.R.	21 (75%)	7 (25%)	28 (100%)
Hispaniola	30 (73.17%)	11 (26.83%)	41 (100%)

JLACA search results indicate similar patterns (see Table 7). The journal has published more articles about Haiti. Most of the Dominican Republic or Haiti search results are book reviews, 60% and 70.73%, respectively. In other words, there is little original research published about either country (10 articles for the DR, 9 for Haiti). JLACA, however, has almost twice as many book reviews about Haiti than the Dominican Republic. (5 for the Dominican Republic versus 29 for Haiti). The fact that there are more book reviews about Haiti suggests more scholarly interest in Haiti. Nonetheless, this question also requires further research.

D.R., Haiti, Hispaniola Search Results by Type of Publication for JLACA as of August 30, 2019.

Search Criteria	Book/Film Review	Original Research	Other	Total revised results
D.R.	15 (60%)	10 (40%)	0 (0%)	25 (100%)
Haiti	29 (70.73%)	9 (21.95%)	3 (7.32%)	41 (100%)
Haiti and D.R.	8 (47.06%)	9 (52.94%)	0 (0%)	17 (100%)
Hispaniola	3 (75%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	4 (100%)

Erasures

Our error analysis (see Table 2) points to a tendency to erase the Dominican Republic. We examined the frequency of Type 6 errors (cases in which either Haiti or the Dominican Republic citations were assigned the other country’s label) throughout AL search results.

The Dominican results included 2.83% of instances in which the articles were about Haiti. In turn, 14.36% of Haiti results were about the Dominican Republic. The examples below, the first from the Dominican search, the second, from the Haiti search, illustrate these observations:

Alvarez, José de Js. 1951 Studies on the A-B-O, M-N, and RH-HR blood factors in the Dominican Republic, with special reference to the problem of admixture American Journal of Physical Anthropology v. 9,. pp. 127-148. || Subject terms: Haiti -- Somatology -- Blood; Haiti -- Somatology -- Miscegenation; Somatology -- Miscegenation

Deive, Carlos Esteban 1974 Glosario de Afronegrismos en la Toponimia y Español hablado de Santo Domingo, Boletin. no 5, pp. 17-41 Santo Domingo. || Subject terms: Haiti -- Linguistics -- Place-names; Haiti -- Sociology – Race

As the bold texts highlight, catalogers assigned a Haiti label, even though the article was about the Dominican Republic. The inverse error, that is, a Haiti-related article with a Dominican label, was only identified once, as is indicated in the example below. In this instance, we believe the cataloger mistook Saint Domingue, the French colony on Hispaniola, with Santo Domingo, the Spanish one.

Geggus, David P. The slaves of British - occupied Saint Dominique: an analysis of the work forces of 197 absentee plantations, 1796 - 1797. Caribbean Studies. v. 18, no. 1-2, 1978. p. 5-41. || Subject terms: Dominican Republic -- Sociology -- Slavery; Dominican Republic -- Economic anthropology -- History; Dominican Republic -- Economic anthropology -- Agriculture

Erasing Shared Histories

The fourth pattern we identified erases shared sociocultural, political, economic, and historical ties between countries. Error Type 7 (see Table 2), the most frequent, refers to instances in which the country metadata is assigned according to where the research took place, not to whether the research is relevant to both countries. We found that 7.3% of all items in the AL Dominican searches had this error. Haiti’s results had 17.12% of entries. As mentioned, these designations assign shared knowledge to only one country.

Deagan, Kathleen. 2004. Reconsidering Taíno social dynamics after Spanish conquest: gender and class in culture contact studies. American antiquity Vol. 69, no. 4 , p. 597-626. || Subject terms: Culture contact; Taino Indians -- Social life and customs -- 1492-; Indians of the West Indies -- First contact with Europeans; En Bas Saline Site (Haiti); Spain -- Colonies -- West Indies

Veloz Maggiolo, Marcio. 1979. Notas sobre modelos de ocupación prehistórica en la isla de Santo Domingo Boletin. año 7, no. 12, 1979. p. 49-57. || Subject terms: Archaeology; Arawakan Indians -- Archaeology; Dominican Republic -- Archaeology

For example, Deagan’s article^[32] above, from the Haiti search, is based on archaeological excavations in Haiti and is categorized as such. Nonetheless, this research is also central to Dominican history. Thus, catalogers erased this knowledge from its historical domain. The tendency to link articles to broader geographic designations, while eschewing the other, was observed multiple times. For instance, Veloz-Maggiolo’s article^[33] above about the prehistoric population of the island of Hispaniola is germane to Haiti but was not categorized as such.

Type 4 errors, or the instances in which island-wide topics were not acknowledged, were not as common. Nonetheless, they still had a bordering effect. As Table 2 shows, the Dominican search had 14 items; Haiti had 4. As the examples below show, the only geographic association in Horst’s citation^[34] is a Haitian-related one even though the title states the article is about both countries. The error in Andrews’ article^[35] is more subtle. The subject terms includes both geographical designations, but it only assigns the “Cholera” term to Haiti, when the article is about how the epidemic affected the Dominican Republic. The article should include a “Cholera – Dominican” tag. Similarly, the “Emigration and immigration—Government policy” is not linked to Haiti, disassociating it from the process.

Horst, Heather A. 2014. The role of mobile phones in the mediation of border crossings: a study of Haiti and the Dominican Republic Australian journal of anthropology. ||Subject terms: Cell phones; Ethnography; Labor mobility; Communication and technology; Technology -- Social aspects – Haiti

Andrews, Kyrstin Mallon. 2018. Sinks for the press : cholera and the state performance of power at the Dominican border. Journal of Latin American and Caribbean anthropology volume 23, issue 2, pages 338-362. || Subject terms: Public health; Cholera – Haiti; Border crossing; Biosecurity Power (Social sciences); Dominican Republic -- Emigration and immigration -- Government policy

Finally, there are more publications about each individual country, rather than about both. As Table 8 indicates, JLACA has approximately three times the number of articles about single-country research (66 individual versus 21 island-wide). AL results indicate 15 times more citations about each country (1037 individual versus 69 island-wide).

Frequency Distribution of Search Results by Individual Country (D.R., Haiti) Versus Both (D.R. and Haiti, Hispaniola) in AL and JLACA, as of August 30, 2019.

Search term	AL	JLACA
Haiti	544	41
D.R.	493	25
Total individual	1037	66
Haiti AND D.R.	28	17
Hispaniola	41	4
Total island-wide	69	21

Contradictory Regional Classifications

The last pattern has to do with the way AL situates both countries within the region. Table 9, Column 1, is a compilation of the regional geographic subject terms used for both countries. Columns 2 and 3 indicate the frequency each term was assigned. As the examples below illustrate, the terms were applied inconsistently.

Veloz Maggiolo, Marcio 1982 Preservation of cultural properties in the Dominican Republic New World Conference on Rescue Archeology no. 1, 1982, p.72-80. || Subject terms: Archaeology; Dominican Republic -- Archaeology -- Cultural resource management; Latin America -- Archaeology -- Cultural resource management; America -- Archaeology -- Cultural resource management

Tavares, Julia 1978 Notas etnológicas sobre el cazabe. Boletín-Museo del Hombre Dominicano. año 7, no. 11, 1978. p. 147-176, ill. || Subject terms: Antilles -- Archaeology – Food; Dominican Republic -- Technology – Food

DeTemple, Jill. Haiti appeared at my church: faith-based organizations, transnational activism, and tourism in sustainable development. Urban anthropology Vol. 35, no. 2-3 (2006), p. 155-181 || Subject terms: Sustainable development -- Latin America; Missionaries -- Latin America; Religious institutions -- Latin America; Tourism -- Latin America; Christianity -- Latin America

Barba, Eugenio. 2009 Ange-animal : techniques perdues pour le spectateur. Ethnographie [L'Ethnographie] : revue de la Société d'ethnographie de Paris Vol. nouv. ed. , no. 4, p. 17-26. || Subject terms: Performance -- Haiti -- Port-au-Prince; Theater -- Caribbean Area

Frequency Distribution of Select Subject and Geographic Terms by Country and Island in Anthropological Literature, as of August 30, 2019

Search criteria	Dominican Republic	Haiti	Hispaniola
African diaspora	1	5	0
Afro-Americans	6	2	0
Afro-Caribbean	1	3	0
America	22	8	2
Antilles	3	7	1
Antilles, Greater	1	1	1
Caribbean	55	21	3
Caribbean area	54	17	3
Hispaniola	6	1	NA
Indians of Central America	3	0	0
Indians of North America	3	0	1
Latin America	5	3	0
West Indies	29	4	7

In the first example, the Dominican Republic is situated within Latin America and America. In the second and third, it is in Central America and the Antilles. The other examples show how Haiti is linked to Latin America in one, and the Caribbean in another. While both countries were situated within multiple geographic regions, the Dominican Republic was assigned a broader geographic term more than Haiti (Table 9, columns 2 and 3). For example, the “West Indies” subject term was associated with the Dominican Republic 29 times. Haiti was categorized four times. Below, the “West Indies” is included in the first example’s title but is not assigned.

A. Basu .… [et al.]. Morphology, serology, dermatoglyphics, and microevolution of some village populations in Haiti, West Indies. || Subject terms: Haiti -- Somatology – Heredity; Haiti -- Somatology -- Anthropometry

Discussion

The goals of this exploratory research project were twofold. First, we set out to establish whether scholarship published on the island of Hispaniola has been made accessible and discoverable on the global stage by being included in some of the most important sites of anthropological knowledge dissemination. Second, we looked at the degree to which inter-island research, that which pertains to both Haiti and the Dominican Republic, has been carried out historically. We analyzed the contents of Anthropological Literature, one of the most comprehensive indexes in Anthropology, based at Harvard University, and the Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, the official journal of the Latin American and Caribbean section of the American Anthropological Association. In addition, we analyzed the metadata used to determine the accessibility and discoverability of Haiti and Dominican Republic related research.

Regarding the first goal, our analysis of Harvard’s Anthropological Literature index shows that most of its Haiti-related content has been published outside the island. In other words, the data suggests that scholarship published about Haiti, in Haiti, is not making it into this important anthropological dissemination site. The reasons why this might be the case are difficult to establish given the data available. For instance, an in-depth analysis of AL’s history of policies and practices of inclusion in the index would be helpful to understand how and why certain publications are included over others. Similarly, having an understanding of the history of Harvard’s Anthropology Department’s engagement with Haiti would shed light into how faculty might have helped shape these collections. Furthermore, having a list of the publications from Haiti would give us a better sense of what is being left out of the index. However, other research suggests that the imbalance of the Haiti-research content could be the result of other factors. For one, scholarship output is tied to national wealth and the amount of money that governments invest in research.^[36] Therefore, the United States is going to publish more than a small and impoverished country like Haiti. Secondly, not only are there more social scientists in the United States than in Haiti, but also there are a number of Haitian scholars that have migrated to the United States. If they work in U.S. academic institutions, they have likely published in the United States, rather than in Haiti. Third, the fact that Anthropological Literature is in an English-speaking institution, and the island publications are in languages other than English, is also a likely reason for the imbalance.

Although these, and other factors, might be at play, we must also consider the broader colonial context within which these knowledge dissemination sites have developed. Anthropologists of knowledge like Harrison^[37] and Ntarangwi^[38] have described extensively how anthropology’s colonial roots have shaped the field’s trajectory. According to them, U.S. anthropology’s canon has been shaped by racism, sexism, Euroamerican-centrism and other forms of exclusion. This is why the field’s canon and practices are dominated by the theories of white, male scholars in Europe and the United States. The theories produced by minority groups in the United States and by scholars from the Global South have been excluded from dominant narratives because they are deemed to be of lower quality. In this overall context, anthropological knowledge dissemination sites like Anthropological Literature are also likely to reflect these broader patterns of exclusion.

Similarly, analysts of global production and dissemination of knowledge have identified systemic and structural factors that keep scholarship produced in the Global South from reaching sites of knowledge dissemination. According to Collyer,^[39] global knowledge production and dissemination takes place in an unequal terrain in which a small number of academic indexes in the U.S. and Europe “serve as gatekeepers of academic relevance, credibility, and quality.”^[40] These indexes favor scholarship published in journals in Europe and the United States over what is published in journals from the Global South in a process that Helena and Mzileni (2024) have called bibliometric coloniality. Journals from the Global South are excluded from central global knowledge dissemination sites such as Web of Knowledge or Web of Science because the journals are thought to be of lower quality^[41] or they do not meet the standards imposed by the administrators.^[42] If these global patterns of knowledge dissemination are applicable in the case of Anthropological Literature, then the lack of Haitian-published scholarship could also be the result of bibliometric coloniality.

In contrast to the Haitian-related content, most of the resources about the Dominican Republic have been published in the Dominican Republic. Why this is the case is difficult to establish given the data we have available. Once again, we would need to understand the processes and criteria of inclusion and the history of the Dominican collection to be able to explain its characteristics. We would also need to have information about publications coming out of the Dominican Republic to see what might be left out. However, although it might seem that Dominican scholarship is being included, we must emphasize that some of the Dominican-related scholarship is obscured within the database. The metadata analysis reveals a pattern of errors of classification (Dominican-related research classified as Haitian and ambiguity in regional classifications) that affect its discoverability and accessibility. In this sense, these cataloging errors also contribute to bibliometric coloniality.

The second general question of this research examined the degree to which transnational research has taken place on Hispaniola. Our metadata analysis reveals that publications that pertain to the entire island are in the minority in both Anthropological Literature and JLACA. In other words, our findings reveal a long-lasting pattern of conducting anthropological research in one country or the other, rarely in both. This confirms what Mayes and Jayaram^[43] have argued about the study of Hispaniola. The reasons why each country has been studied individually, rather than together, are difficult to establish with the data we have available. However, Jayaram et al.^[44] have suggested that the study of the island has been characterized by a research approach that Wimmer and Glick Schiller called methodological nationalism.^[45] That is, the common assumption that societies are confined within the boundaries of the nation-state. As a result, the transnational and migration processes are concealed or downplayed. Methodological nationalism was also evident in the indexing practices that labeled research that is pertinent to both countries as only belonging to one. These practices reify borders by erasing shared knowledge and the historical, sociocultural, and political and economic ties that exist between both countries.

The patterns we have identified have significant consequences. The decision to include a journal (or not), and which subject terms to assign, effectively legitimize scholarship and make it discoverable or invisible.^[46] In the case of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, these knowledge dissemination sites are silencing the voices of scholars on the island, especially those from Haiti. In the end, the most visible research about Haiti and the Dominican Republic is the work produced and indexed in the United States and Europe. As a result, scholarship produced in places like the U.S. and Europe circulates more and gets cited more and what is published in the Global South remains at the margins promoting “Euro-American epistemic hegemony.”^[47]

Decolonizing the anthropology of Hispaniola requires significant efforts. The research presented here offers insights into some of the less obvious areas that need work. By shedding light on these processes, it is our hope that we can facilitate the disentanglement of scholarship from its colonial past. It is imperative that United States anthropology work in ways that open paths for scholarship from other regions. It will take intentional efforts to increase anthropological conversations around the world, as well as shift the balance of the academic dissemination sites so that anthropologists, regardless of where they are from, can be heard. Scholars in the U.S. that work in places like Haiti have the responsibility to make sure that the material that is produced on the island circulates more and is made more visible and discoverable. It is imperative that we consciously decolonize our own scholarly practices by bringing in island voices into academic discussions about the island. In addition, we must work to highlight the scholarship produced on the island and the journals published in both countries. In this way, Haitians and Dominicans will have an opportunity to speak for themselves.

---

1. Jayaram, Kiran C., Tess Kulstad‐González, Luisa Rollins Castillo, and Nadège Nau. "Debating Decolonization in the Caribbean: Assessment and Polyvocal Response to Island Anthropologies Workshop (March 18–20, 2019)." The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 25, no. 3 (2020): 473-487. ↩︎

2. Ibid. ↩︎

3. Mayes, April J. and Kiran C. Jayaram. (2018) Transnational Hispaniola An Introduction. In: Mayes , A. J., & Jayaram, K. C. Transnational Hispaniola: New Directions in Haitian and Dominican Studies (April J. Mayes & Kiran C. Jayaram, Eds.; 1st ed.). University of Florida Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvx07bs1 ↩︎

4. Ibid, 2. ↩︎

5. Jayaram, Kiran C., Tess Kulstad‐González, Luisa Rollins Castillo, and Nadège Nau. "Debating Decolonization in the Caribbean: Assessment and Polyvocal Response to Island Anthropologies Workshop (March 18–20, 2019)." The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 25, no. 3 (2020): 473-487. ↩︎

6. “Anthropological Literature.” Harvard Library. Accessed October 13, 2022, https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/anthropological-literature. ↩︎

7. Savo Heleta and Pedro Mzileni. "Bibliometric coloniality in South Africa: Critical review of the indexes of accredited journals." Education as Change 28, no. 1 (2024): 1-26. ↩︎

8. David Mills, et al. "Who Counts? Ghanaian Academic Publishing and Global Science. Cape Town: African Minds. https://doi.org/10.47622/9781928502647. Cited in Heleta and Mzileni. ↩︎

9. See Heleta and Mzileni, "Bibliometric coloniality in South Africa: Critical review of the indexes of accredited journals," and Carmen Diana Deere, “The Practice of Latin American Studies: Dilemmas of Scholarly Communication.” In Lasa Forum, 49 (2018):7–23. ↩︎

10. Ibid. ↩︎

11. Jayaram, Kiran C., Tess Kulstad‐González, Luisa Rollins Castillo, and Nadège Nau. "Debating Decolonization in the Caribbean: Assessment and Polyvocal Response to Island Anthropologies Workshop (March 18–20, 2019)." The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 25, no. 3 (2020): 473-487. ↩︎

12. Mayes, April J. and Kiran C. Jayaram. (2018) Transnational Hispaniola An Introduction. In: Mayes , A. J., & Jayaram, K. C. Transnational Hispaniola: New Directions in Haitian and Dominican Studies (April J. Mayes & Kiran C. Jayaram, Eds.; 1st ed.). University of Florida Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvx07bs1 ↩︎

13. Ibid. ↩︎

14. Emily Drabinski, “Teaching the Radical Catalog.” In Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front, edited by K. R. Roberto and Sanford Berman. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, (2008): 198-205. ↩︎

15. Salman Haider, “Cataloging.” Librarianship Studies and Technology. Accessed October 13, 2022, https://www.librarianshipstudies.com/2015/05/cataloging.html. ↩︎

16. Janis L. Young and Daniel N. Joudrey., “Descriptive Cataloging,” Librarianship Studies and Technology. March 22, 2020, https://www.librarianshipstudies.com/2015/05/cataloging.html. ↩︎

17. Interview with author, 2018. ↩︎

18. Haider, “Cataloging.” ↩︎

19. “Library of Congress Subject Headings PDF Files,” Library of Congress. Accessed October 13, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCSH/. ↩︎

20. “Process for Adding and Revising Library of Congress Subject Headings | Cataloging and Acquisitions (Library of Congress),” Library of Congress, Accessed October 13, 2022. https://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/lcsh-process.html. ↩︎

21. Ibid. ↩︎

22. “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 03 (2016) - SACO - Program for Cooperative Cataloging (Library of Congress,” Library of Congress Accessed October 13, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-160321.html. ↩︎

23. Deere, “The Practice of Latin American Studies: Dilemmas of Scholarly Communication,” 7-23 ↩︎

24. “Quick Guide to Academic Journal Indexing: Top Index Types to Consider and Tips for Optimal Outcomes.” Scholastica, accessed October 13, 2022, https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/index-types-for-academic-journal/. ↩︎

25. “Anthropological Literature.” Harvard Library, accessed October 13, 2022, https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/anthropological-literature. ↩︎

26. Weeks, John M. 1987. “Data Base: Tozzer Library: A ‘National’ Library for Anthropology in the United States on JSTOR.” Current Anthropology 28 (1):. 12? Is this the right citation? ↩︎

27. Helen Quiqley, “Research Guides: Using the Anthropological Literature Database: Origins,” accessed October 13, 2022. https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=420132&p=2901444. ↩︎

28. Weeks, “Data Base,” 12. ↩︎

29. Quigley, “Research Guides.” ↩︎

30. “The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology,” The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology. October 17, 2022, https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/19354940/aims-and-scope/read-full-aims-and-scope. ↩︎

31. For background information see Frank Moya Pons, Historia de la República Dominicana. Editorial CSIC (CSIC Press, 2010); Jean Price-Mars, 2000. La República de Haití y la República dominicana: diversos aspectos de un problema histórico, geográfico y etnológico, (Sociedad Dominicana de Bibliófilos, 2000); and Daniel Patrick Geggus,“The British Occupation of Saint Domingue 1793-98,” (PhD diss., University of York, 1978), https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/14096/. ↩︎

32. Kathleen Deagan, “Reconsidering Taíno Social Dynamics after Spanish Conquest: Gender and Class in Culture Contact Studies.” American Antiquity 69, no. 4, (2004): 597–626. https://doi.org/10.2307/4128440. ↩︎

33. Marcio Veloz Maggiolo, “Notas sobre modelos de ocupación prehistórica en la Isla de Santo Domingo. (Notes Sur Les Modèles d’occupation Préhistorique Dans l’île de Saint-Domingue).” Boletin Del Museo Del Hombre Dominicano Saint-Domingue 8, no. 12 (1979): 49–57. ↩︎

34. Heather A. Horst and Erin B. Taylor, “The role of mobile phones in the mediation of border crossings: A study of Haiti and the Dominican Republic,” The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 25 (2014): 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/taja.12086 ↩︎

35. Kyrstin Mallon Andrews, “Sinks for the press : cholera and the state performance of power at the Dominican border,” Journal of Latin American and Caribbean anthropology volume 23, issue 2 (2018): 338-362. ↩︎

36. Alatas, Syed Farid. "Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences." Current sociology 51, no. 6 (2003): 599-613. ↩︎

37. Faye Venetia Harrison and Association of Black Anthropologists. Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further toward an Anthropology of Liberation. Third edition. (Association of Black Anthropologists, American Anthropological Association, 2010). ↩︎

38. Ntarangwi, M. (2010). Reversed gaze : an African ethnography of American anthropology. University of Illinois Press. ↩︎

39. Collyer, Fran M. "Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South." Current Sociology 66, no. 1 (2018): 56-73. ↩︎

40. Heleta and Mzileni, “Bibliometric Coloniality,” 1. ↩︎

41. See Heleta and Mzileni, “Bibliometric Coloniality”; Deere, “The Practice of Latin American Studies”; and Beigel, Fernanda. "Introduction: Current tensions and trends in the World Scientific System." Current sociology 62, no. 5 (2014): 617-625. ↩︎

42. Alatas, Syed Farid. "Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences." Current sociology 51, no. 6 (2003): 599-613. ↩︎

43. Mayes, April J. and Kiran C. Jayaram. (2018) Transnational Hispaniola An Introduction. In: Mayes , A. J., & Jayaram, K. C. Transnational Hispaniola: New Directions in Haitian and Dominican Studies (April J. Mayes & Kiran C. Jayaram, Eds.; 1st ed.). University of Florida Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvx07bs1 ↩︎

44. Jayaram, Kiran C., Tess Kulstad‐González, Luisa Rollins Castillo, and Nadège Nau. "Debating Decolonization in the Caribbean: Assessment and Polyvocal Response to Island Anthropologies Workshop (March 18–20, 2019)." The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 25, no. 3 (2020): 473-487. ↩︎

45. Wimmer, Andreas, and Nina Glick Schiller. "Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation–state building, migration and the social sciences." Global networks 2, no. 4 (2002): 301-334. ↩︎

46. Richard Harvey Brown and Beth Davis-Brown, “The Making of Memory: The Politics of Archives, Libraries and Museums in the Construction of National Consciousness.” History of the Human Sciences 11, no. 4 (1998): 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/095269519801100402. ↩︎

47. Heleta and Mzileni, “Bibliometric Coloniality,” 1. ↩︎