Making ‘slave ownership’ visible in the archival catalogue: findings from a pilot project

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Miriam Buncombe, J. Prest
{"title":"Making ‘slave ownership’ visible in the archival catalogue: findings from a pilot project","authors":"Miriam Buncombe, J. Prest","doi":"10.1080/23257962.2021.1985443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article outlines a pilot project aimed at making ‘slave ownership’ more visible in archival catalogues. The project began with the premise that it is incumbent upon academic communities and record-keepers to make known Britain’s slaving past and the ongoing legacies of that past as part of a drive to dismantle systemic (and often invisible) racism across the sector. Specifically, it explored different ways of cross-referencing the Legacies of British Slave-ownership database (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs//) with the Special Collections catalogue at the University of St Andrews with a view to updating the information provided in the latter. Six methods of identifying matches were trialled, each of which is presented and reflected upon here. Although some methods produced more matches than others, the collective results point towards the need for a multifaceted approach. Our findings also raise important questions about types of involvement in enslavement (direct/indirect), how different levels of certainty regarding the identity of certain individuals might be indicated in the record, and how collection-level and item-level descriptions might be updated. The project also highlights how our own assumptions about who is — and is not — likely to have ‘owned’ enslaved people can influence our very methods for uncovering those people.","PeriodicalId":42972,"journal":{"name":"Archives and Records-The Journal of the Archives and Records Association","volume":"42 1","pages":"228 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives and Records-The Journal of the Archives and Records Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2021.1985443","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article outlines a pilot project aimed at making ‘slave ownership’ more visible in archival catalogues. The project began with the premise that it is incumbent upon academic communities and record-keepers to make known Britain’s slaving past and the ongoing legacies of that past as part of a drive to dismantle systemic (and often invisible) racism across the sector. Specifically, it explored different ways of cross-referencing the Legacies of British Slave-ownership database (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs//) with the Special Collections catalogue at the University of St Andrews with a view to updating the information provided in the latter. Six methods of identifying matches were trialled, each of which is presented and reflected upon here. Although some methods produced more matches than others, the collective results point towards the need for a multifaceted approach. Our findings also raise important questions about types of involvement in enslavement (direct/indirect), how different levels of certainty regarding the identity of certain individuals might be indicated in the record, and how collection-level and item-level descriptions might be updated. The project also highlights how our own assumptions about who is — and is not — likely to have ‘owned’ enslaved people can influence our very methods for uncovering those people.
让“奴隶所有权”在档案目录中可见:一个试点项目的发现
本文概述了一个试点项目,旨在使“奴隶所有权”在档案目录中更加明显。这个项目开始的前提是,学术界和记录保持者有责任让人们了解英国的奴隶制历史,以及那段历史遗留下来的遗产,作为消除整个学术界系统性(通常是无形的)种族主义的一部分。具体而言,它探索了将英国奴隶所有权遗产数据库(https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs//)与圣安德鲁斯大学的特别馆藏目录交叉对照的不同方法,以期更新后者提供的信息。我们尝试了六种识别匹配的方法,在此逐一介绍和回顾。虽然有些方法比其他方法产生更多的匹配,但总体结果表明需要采取多方面的方法。我们的研究结果还提出了一些重要的问题,包括参与奴役的类型(直接/间接),关于某些个体身份的不同确定程度如何在记录中显示,以及如何更新收集级别和项目级别的描述。该项目还强调了我们自己对谁可能“拥有”或不可能“拥有”被奴役的人的假设如何影响我们揭露这些人的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信