{"title":"档案元数据:修订历史和查找辅助工具的定位","authors":"Owen C. King","doi":"10.1007/s10502-024-09443-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article starts from two observations about archival description. First, creating finding aids requires significant judgment and interpretation, and is therefore inevitably influenced by the positionalities—the perspectives, personal histories, and social identities—of the archivists. Second, finding aids occasionally call for revision, sometimes to fit a new data standard or reflect an evolving collection, but also to correct errors, reduce bias, and remove harmful language. In light of these observations, this article has two aims. First, it develops and presents a theoretical rationale for recording metadata about finding aids, including revision history and authorship, arguing for transparency about positionality as a response to recognizing the infeasibility of impartiality. Second, it presents the results of a survey of state archivists in the US, who were asked about their descriptive practices and their attitudes regarding disclosing their authorship of finding aids. Results of the survey reveal diverse practices, as well as some hesitation to embrace expressions of positionality in the context of description. The article closes with a discussion of options for conceptualizing metadata about finding aids and the professional role of archivists, concluding with two general recommendations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46131,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10502-024-09443-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Archival meta-metadata: revision history and positionality of finding aids\",\"authors\":\"Owen C. King\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10502-024-09443-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This article starts from two observations about archival description. First, creating finding aids requires significant judgment and interpretation, and is therefore inevitably influenced by the positionalities—the perspectives, personal histories, and social identities—of the archivists. Second, finding aids occasionally call for revision, sometimes to fit a new data standard or reflect an evolving collection, but also to correct errors, reduce bias, and remove harmful language. In light of these observations, this article has two aims. First, it develops and presents a theoretical rationale for recording metadata about finding aids, including revision history and authorship, arguing for transparency about positionality as a response to recognizing the infeasibility of impartiality. Second, it presents the results of a survey of state archivists in the US, who were asked about their descriptive practices and their attitudes regarding disclosing their authorship of finding aids. Results of the survey reveal diverse practices, as well as some hesitation to embrace expressions of positionality in the context of description. The article closes with a discussion of options for conceptualizing metadata about finding aids and the professional role of archivists, concluding with two general recommendations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10502-024-09443-z.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-024-09443-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-024-09443-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Archival meta-metadata: revision history and positionality of finding aids
This article starts from two observations about archival description. First, creating finding aids requires significant judgment and interpretation, and is therefore inevitably influenced by the positionalities—the perspectives, personal histories, and social identities—of the archivists. Second, finding aids occasionally call for revision, sometimes to fit a new data standard or reflect an evolving collection, but also to correct errors, reduce bias, and remove harmful language. In light of these observations, this article has two aims. First, it develops and presents a theoretical rationale for recording metadata about finding aids, including revision history and authorship, arguing for transparency about positionality as a response to recognizing the infeasibility of impartiality. Second, it presents the results of a survey of state archivists in the US, who were asked about their descriptive practices and their attitudes regarding disclosing their authorship of finding aids. Results of the survey reveal diverse practices, as well as some hesitation to embrace expressions of positionality in the context of description. The article closes with a discussion of options for conceptualizing metadata about finding aids and the professional role of archivists, concluding with two general recommendations.
期刊介绍:
Archival Science promotes the development of archival science as an autonomous scientific discipline. The journal covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practice. Moreover, it investigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and data. It also seeks to promote the exchange and comparison of concepts, views and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the world.Archival Science''s approach is integrated, interdisciplinary, and intercultural. Its scope encompasses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context. To meet its objectives, the journal draws from scientific disciplines that deal with the function of records and the way they are created, preserved, and retrieved; the context in which information is generated, managed, and used; and the social and cultural environment of records creation at different times and places.Covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practiceInvestigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and dataPromotes the exchange and comparison of concepts, views, and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the worldAddresses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context