James M. O’Toole’s On
the Idea of Permanence examined archival topics such as archival language
and its importance, the discord of what “permanence” is in an archival sphere, the
shift from oral records to written records as well as the importance placed on
both forms of recording history, and several other important facets of the
archivist’s profession. Though I found these topics extremely enlightening and
vital, the topic that many of us can relate to is the idea of the original
document vs. a copy. In many archives, documents are digitized to allow more access
to certain documents while also safeguarding a document’s condition. As a
researcher myself, I like utilizing original documents for research, but I
understand that that can not always be arranged. Having said this, a quote that
O’Toole presents in the article struck me as important in analyzing the
research process and digitization of documents moving forward. This quote was
from the preservation researcher William J. Barrow, who stated that copies of
documents are never as gratifying as the original.[1] This quote made me think
about researchers (like myself) who have had more encounters with digital
records than original documents. Again, it is not always permissible to view an
original document for a variety of reasons, but will there be a greater desire
to view original documents in the future from young researchers, or will the
digitization of documents be the winning preference? I do believe that documents
should be more widely available for all researchers to utilize, but admittedly, I think that there are factors that can be differentiated between the process of
viewing a digital document vs. the original in a physical archive. Of course,
with the current COVID-19 pandemic, many avenues of in-person research will be
limited or unavailable for now, but the “digital vs. physical document” question
could be used to poll younger researchers to analyze research practices moving
forward.
[1] James M. O’Toole, On the Idea
of Permanence, American Archivist, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Winter,
1989), 17.
Comments
Post a Comment