Building an Infrastructure for Archival Research

Abstract

This article chronicles the rapid expansion since 1990 of research within archival science and characterizes contemporary archival research culture. It examines the role and state of key factors that have led to the development of the existing research infrastructure, such as growth in doctoral education, forums for presenting and publishing research, the numbers and size of graduate archival education programs, availability of diverse funding for research, transdisciplinary and international research collaborations, and application of innovative research methods and tools appropriate for investigating increasingly complex and wide-ranging research questions. An Appendix articulates and names archival research methods, including those derived and adapted from other disciplines, with a view to adding to the ''literary warrant'' for archival research methods, promoting the rigorous application of research design and methods, and providing sources for the teaching of research methods for professional and research careers. The article concludes with recommendations about how to sustain and extend the emerging research front.

Another Wood Between the Worlds? Regimes of Worth and the Making of Meanings in the Work of Archivists

“…The earlier literature (e.g., Anthony, 2006) has established that the work of archivists is highly situated (as any work, Suchman, 1987), but the discussion of its situatedness have tended to focus on specific aspects of the work (e.g. appraisal or outreach, Shilton and Srinivasan, 2008;Theimer, 2011), histories of archival theory and work (e.g., Duchein, 1992;Cook, 1997) and direct proposals of its premises and future priorities (e.g., Gilliland and Mckemmish, 2004;Duranti, 1999) rather than analyses of its contemporary practical complexities. The present study is limited by the small and specific empirical material, which is insufficient for providing a broad overview of the current landscape of archival work, how archivists work or conceptualise the value and meaning of their work.…”

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

“…Calls for developing new research agendas and infrastructures for archival science (e.g. Gilliland & Mckemmish, 2004;McLeod, 2008), and for the reappraisal of the role of museums in the society (Genoways, 2006a) represent explicit attempts to enthral the future. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) published in 2009 a discussion guide, which describes a series of discussions between library and museum professionals on the future prospects of the institutions (Pastore, 2009).…”

La indeterminación de la traducción archivística

“…Por ejemplo, aunque la especificidad de la archivística reside básicamente en el hecho de que su objeto de interés es la información registrada en forma de documento, o de objeto asimilable a documento, así como la propiedad de evidencia a efectos de responsabilidad y memoria de estos documentos u objetos asimilables, los profesionales de la archivística se enfrentan a retos similares a aquellos que tienen los de la biblioteconomía o la museología a la hora de, digamos, pluralizar sus respectivos objetos sobre la Red, o para proporcionar continuidad a lo largo del tiempo a sus objetos digitales. Prueba de ello sería el creciente interés en, y el consiguiente desarrollo de, los estudios interdisciplinares 2 . Estos estudios, a mayor abundancia, no se enfocan exclusivamente sobre las tradicionales profesiones de la información, sino que de manera creciente implican a disciplinas muy diversas -desde la sociología y la filosofía hasta la gestión de empresas, pasando por el derecho, la lingüística, la antropología, la etnografía, las matemáticas, e incluso la literatura de ciencia ficción-con la esperanza de encontrar respuestas a los múltiples problemas derivados del entorno digital a partir del uso imaginativo de otros conceptos, procedimientos y técnicas.…”