Skip to main content

Post #4: Original Vs. Copy: What Do You Prefer?

 

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

Popular posts from this blog

Post #10: How Can We Promote Diversity and Cordialness In Archival Spaces?

  In the article What’s Wrong with Digital Stewardship: Evaluating the Organization of Digital Preservation Programs from Practitioners’ Perspectives (2020), a study conducted in 2018 unveiled certain issues that archival practitioners found to be hindering the staffing and efficiency of their program’s digital preservation methods. Amongst the thoughts expressed by the participants via interview were concerns about microaggressions, prejudice, and misogyny within their work environments. [1] Though incidents of misogynistic and prejudice behavior are found in a multitude of career pathways, many archives and special collection practitioners today push for diversity of staff within their work and research spaces. In one of these interviews, an anonymous participant pointed out a negative factor of the nature of tenure. The participant stated that due to the tenured status of the practitioner they work with, when they hear said staff member making misogynistic comments towards othe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Post #5: Fair Compensation: Procuring Well-Deserved Funding for the Employees of Archives and Special Collections

  Chela Scott Weber’s Research and Learning Agenda for Archives, Special, and Distinctive Collections in Research Libraries (2017) extensively explores options to improve the functions and quality of archives and special collections by placing attention on both the collections within these places as well as the skills that archivist, stakeholders, and others who work collections can offer to the public. [1] Weber also proclaims that to improve the innerworkings and missions of special collections and archives, diversity of the workforce as well as a push for accessibility and diverse collections must be prioritized. Weber argues that a blockade to drawing in more employees who want to instate these features is the reality of “soft money” funding: a highly unstable way to maintain employment of archivist and special collection staff. In this case, how can more concrete manners of pay be given to these employees? [2] From my knowledge, though this article was published in 2017, I w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Post #6: Being Attentive to Culturally-Sensitive Collections in Special Collection and Archival Spaces

  In Ellen M. Ryan’s Identifying Culturally Sensitive American Indian Material in a Non-tribal Institution (2014), the accessibility to the contents of a collection pertaining to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho found within the Special Collections and Archives of Idaho State University are called into question. This collection, the “J.A. Youngren Papers,” includes photographs of Shoshone-Bannock practices such as the “Sun Dance” (a ceremony of the Great Plains tribes) taken and acquired by the university in the early 20 th century without the consent of Shoshone-Bannock members. [1] In 2013, an undergraduate student and sun dancer tasked with processing and housing these photographs took note of the rituals captured within the photographs and the problematic nature of displaying these photographs online without the consent of tribal members. He thus brought this concern up to the Head of Special Collections of ISU and the photos were soon after ...
Post a Comment
Read more