Search

This introduction defines critical archival studies and summarizes the articles including in the special issue.

The 2016 US Presidential elections may have presented the most prominent illustration of email and recordkeeping in public perception, but they offer only the most recent and public story of emails as records. This article offers an overview of the development of email as a government record in the USA, as well as the evolving archival perspectives on email and political accountability. Archivists have been contending with email for over 30 years, and from its earliest days in the US political usage, email has presented a complex array of recordkeeping and archival challenges, and we trace the changing archival perspectives and regulatory situations around email as a record in the USA over the past three decades. In this investigation, we explore questions about how and why officials create or destroy email, how email records are appraised, and whether or not preserved emails can be meaningfully accessed. In light of these questions, we argue that the archival tenet of accountability is tenuous at best in the face of the changing technological and political challenges presented by email as a record.

Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to delineate a number of factors unique to archives that problematize commonly accepted rhetoric in library and information studies (LIS). Methodology/approach This study reports on an analysis of several core concepts in archival studies (evidence, access, and power) and delineates how such concepts differ from dominant conceptions in the study of libraries. Findings Our research shows how archives call into question three dominant discursive tropes in LIS: the primacy of informational value (as opposed to evidential value in archives); universal access as a professional and ethical obligation; and the assumption that information institutions are universally benevolent. Although such tropes have been increasingly challenged by growing numbers of critical LIS scholars, we argue that they remain dominant discursive formations in LIS and reflect key areas of divergence that differentiate archives from libraries and distinguish the professional ethos of archivists and librarians. Originality/value This is the first chapter to delineate how archives differ from libraries in regard to human rights concerns and will spark discussion about such differences between the fields.

The 2013 Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memo on federally-funded research directed agencies with research and development budgets above $100 million to develop and release plans to increase and broaden access to research results, both published literature and data. The agency responses have generated discussion and interest but are yet to be analyzed and compared. In this paper, we examine how 19 federal agencies responded to the memo, written by John Holdren, on issues of scientific data and the extent of their compliance to the directives outlined in the memo. We present a varied picture of the readiness of federal science agencies to comply with the memo through a comparative analysis and close reading of the contents of these responses. While some agencies, particularly those with a long history of supporting and conducting science, scored well, other responses indicate that some agencies have only taken a few steps towards implementing policies that comply with the memo. These results are of interest to the data curation community as they reveal how different agencies across the federal government approach their responsibilities for research data management, and how new policies and requirements might continue to affect scientists and research communities.

This article seeks to raise consciousness within the field of archival studies in order to foster a generative discussion about how descriptive practices might be expanded, approached differently, or completely rethought. It brings together crosscutting theoretical issues and provides practical examples of mediation in order to mobilize these records in support of human rights work. It first problematizes the foundational archival precept of respect des fonds and its sub-principles of original order and provenance. It then analyzes the necessary transformation of institutional policies and standards in order to foster trust and transparency and identifies structural or system wide strategies for ameliorating past abuses.