Archives, Libraries and Museums in the Contemporary Society: Perspectives of the Professionals

Huvila, Isto

doi:10.9776/14032

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparable survey studies were also conducted with librarians and museum professionals in six European countries in total. The survey questionnaire was developed on the basis of earlier literature and enquired into archivists' perspectives and experiences of management, organization and preservation of collections, mediation and public engagement in contemporary archives, on the societal role (including Hedstrom and King, 2003;Usherwood et al, 2005;Lidman, 2012;Huvila, 2014) and participatory practices in archives, libraries and museums (including Kidd, 2011;Huvila, 2015b;Hvenegaard Rasmussen, 2015). The questionnaire was reviewed by members of a large international research team and both linguistically and culturally translated to Swedish and Norwegian.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regimes of participation: theorising participatory archives from the outset of archivists' views on archival institutions and user participation in Scandinavia

Huvila

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: In spite of the prominence of the notion of participatory archives, there is no consensus of what participation entails in archival contexts and a lack of theory to explain the mechanisms underpinning the diversity of views. Method: Norwegian and Swedish archivists were surveyed as a part of the international ALMPUB research project for their views on user participation and how these views relate to their understanding of the role and the raison d’être of archives and archival institutions. The survey findings were used as a basis for theory development. Analysis: The data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis and descriptive statistics. The results of the factor analysis theorised as subject positions relating to views pertaining to archival participation and the societal role of archival institutions. Results: The analysis shows that the professionals’ perceptions of the rationale and impact of participation and the societal role of archives and archival institutions forms clusters were interpreted as relating to regimes of participation. Conclusions: Drawing on the theorising of Boltanski and Thévenot, the alignments of the perceptions to archives’ raisons d’être and archival participation are explained in terms of four regimes of participation: 1) participation as an intrinsically valuable activity; 2) participation as a complement to professional work in the records continuum; 3) professional work as an auxiliary activity to participation of experts; and 4) participation as a means of producing additional value for archival institutions, i.e., arrangements of framing the justification and value of participation in, with and for archival institutions. It is, however, possible to imagine additional regimes that correspond with the social worlds of Boltanski and Thévenot not represented by them, including the inspired (participation as a source of inspiration) and domestic worlds (domiciliary participation), and the world by project (participatory project). The study suggests that inquiring into the justifications and regimes of worth attached to participation helps to refute simplistic assumptions of what participation entails and recognise the variety of participatory engagements and their diverging implications for different types of archival institutions and their diverse stakeholders.

show abstract