Defining the undefinable: an analysis of definitions of community archives

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore definitions and notions of what a community archive is, and the tensions between different understandings of community archives. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a critical analysis of community archives definitions and understanding from researchers and practitioners across the wider heritage information sector. Findings Community archives are a growing area of interest for researchers because of the archives’ intrinsic link to the community and their provision of the evidence of it. While discussion often focuses on a paradigm of transformative purpose, existing definitions around community archives continue to be tenuous, reflecting different real or perceived types and practices and the perspective of the author and the sector they work within. Variations in definition can also occur because of differences in perspective around theory and practice, with many practitioner-based definitions intrinsically bound with the community they represent. This can result in community archives being defined as “alternative” based on mainstream practice or “political” based on theoretical purview, or “meeting the needs of community” by the community archivists themselves. Research limitations/implications The paper is conceptual and does not attempt to provide one definition that covers the perceived extent of community archives. It is part of work in progress on the nature of community archives and the impact such discourse may have on archival theory and practice. Originality/value This paper provides an overview of some of the key issues and themes impacting a definition of community archives, and in doing so works towards a broader understanding the nature of community archives. In most cases, the concept of “community” seems to provide a common definitive element and practitioner definitions focus on addressing the needs of self-defined community to a greater or lesser extent.

“Meaning in the present”: Understanding Sustainability for Digital Community Collections

“…Community archives develop around nuclei of shared identity, memory, and purpose-around localized histories and places, significant events, ethnicities and races, gender identities and sexual orientation, etc. (Welland and Cossham, 2019;Flinn et al, 2009;and others). Digital humanities collections, on the other hand, arise from the curatorial practices of scholars (Poole, 2017;Cooper and Rieger, 2018;Palmer, 2004) and take myriad forms, from digital archives and databases to interactive maps and multimedia monographs.…”

Historical inclusion and exclusion: New Zealand archives as primary resources for historical research

“…A key area for New Zealand is that of bi-culturalism and the representation of indigenous Māori, with government-funded archival institutions, potentially being viewed as “irredeemable colonial projects” (Finigan, 2020) when it comes to their representation of indigenous voices. These types of institutions can also be seen as having less of a “transforming role in terms of challenging the dominant modes of archival practice” than “alternative” or “other” collections such as community archives (Welland and Cossham, 2019, p. 618). As a consequence, the marketing historian may need to engage in reflexive practice to consider the purpose of the archival item’s narrative (Harper, 2014) and the “master narrative” provided with that item by the archival repository (Karabinos, 2015) to better understand the context around its creation and use.…”

“…Because of New Zealand’s history, both Archives New Zealand and the ATL operate in ways that can be considered mainstream or traditional in archival discourse. They “focus on the tangible (the physical place where the collection is stored) and the processes around the management of archival items to ensure continuum of care” (Welland and Cossham, 2019, p. 619). By doing this, they provide the public with opportunities to not only find material that supports their search but also to reflect on what they may find based on three key areas – its content, how it is described by the archival repository and its documented relationships with other archival items and groups.…”

“…In spite of this, individual and organizational records and archives have continued to play an important part in telling the nation’s story, and while much historical content is colonial in purview and predominantly tied to the concept of “England as the motherland”, New Zealand’s colonial roots have largely ensured a culture of written record-keeping. In spite of some (still regretted) losses of archives through neglect, ignorance or accident and ongoing questions around the lack of representation of marginalised groups, such as “non-dominant cultural, gender, religious, linguistic, ethnic, political and social identity groups” (Welland and Cossham, 2019, p. 618), New Zealand holds many miles of physical archives and terabytes of digital archives to do with individuals, groups, communities and organisations. This material not only opens opportunities for different types of historical research but also provides an extensive overview of the colonialisation process and colonial thinking, the keeping, breaking and ongoing discussion around the founding document Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and the continuing efforts by Māori to retain or regain their land, culture, language and history [1].…”

The functions of the National Archives of South Africa regarding universities’ records and archives

“…A study conducted by Welland and Cossham (2019) indicates a lack of uniform university records. These archives can be referred to as special collections of papers held in archives, but could benefit from space and treatment separate from other collections.…”