Archivist and polymaths. Blog 3

 

The reading by Elizabeth Yankel has made me think about two topics that have been on my mind since the beginning of the course. The first one, which refers to the work of archivists and the limits of their profession. The second one, which I have discussed in the previous blog, is related to "dead archives", the author's reflection on "What is a record?" has served as a way to ensure the validity and vitality of these repositories.

Regarding the issue of the scope of archival work, as we discussed in class on one occasion, the article goes on to detail the tasks that, in my opinion, are exclusive to archivists. These tasks range from the method of organizing collections, always seeking to make repositories as user-friendly as possible. Hence, the context of information needs, and context of primary sources is taken into consideration.

On the other hand, the author contributes a fundamental element to this discussion, one that has inspired me to choose the title of this blog. Beyond administrative and organizational functions, the researcher emphasizes the dimension of the archivist's "Knowledge." According to the definition of Dauport and Prusak, knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, context information, and expert insight, which leads her to call the archivist a "Scholarly colleague" of the researcher.

I absolutely love this expression. In my personal experience, it is completely true. The archivist is not limited to the passive role of moving documents back and forth for researchers; on the contrary, they are also researchers. The material knowledge that archivists have about the sources can contribute to the researcher's work in evaluating and understanding them. The four roles of the archivist as a translator, knowledge broker, boundary spanner, and gardener, to use the terminology of the article, turn the archivist (over the years) into a true "renaissance man," whose contribution to the conclusions a researcher can reach is vital, if mutual understanding is fluid.

Secondly, when the author revisits the concept of a "record," she sheds new light on the function and validity of "dead archives." As a result of this relationship between archivist and researcher, the record is not a passive container of 'content' but active processes of the record-keeping system that created the record. In this way, the recirculation, reclassification, or better understanding of the production context of a document can make old documents continue to provide "new" information. In this sense, we must recognize the advantages that digitization brings to the validity and circulation of repositories among a larger number of researchers.