Archival Science

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 1–25 | Cite as

Archival representation

  • Elizabeth Yakel


This paper defines and discusses archival representation and its role in archival practice. Archival representation refers to both the processes of arrangement and description and is viewed as a fluid, evolving, and socially constructed practice. The paper analyzes organizational and descriptive schemas, tools, and systems as a means of uncovering representational practices. In conclusion the paper argues that the term ‘archival representation’ more precisely captures the actual work of archivists in (re)ordering, interpreting, creating surrogates, and designing architectures for representational systems.

Key words

archival arrangement and description archival cataloging archival practice archival processing finding aids 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Egyptian author, unknown (Invocation at the beginning of the University of Michigan Kelsey Museum of Ancient and Mediaeval Archaeology Archives Finding Aid).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donald Norman,The Design of Everyday Things (New York: Doubleday, 1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elin K. Jacob and Debora Shaw, “Sociocognitive Perspectives on Representation.”ARIST 33 (1998), p. 146.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brien Brothman, “Orders of Value: Probing the Theoretical Terms of Archival Practice.”Archivaria 32 (Summer 1991), p. 85.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    John Roberts, “Archival Theory: Much Ado About Shelving.”American Archivist 50/1 (Winter 1987), pp. 66–74.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Terry Cook, “Fashionable Nonsense or Professional Rebirth: Postmodernism and the Practice of Archives.”Archivaria 51, p. 32. Cook is quoting Stuart Sim'sDerrida and the End of History in this Passage. Other articles who have questioned archival narratives and texts, although not particularly in the area of archival representation are: Brien Brothman, “The Pasts that Archives Keep: Memory, History, and the Preservation of Archival Records.”Archivaria 51 (Spring 2001), pp. 48–80 and Eric Ketelaar, “Archivalisation and Archiving.”Archives and Manuscripts 27/2 (May 1999), pp. 54–61.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leonard Rapport, “No Grandfather Clause: Reappraising Accessioned Records.”American Archivist 44/2 (Spring 1981), pp. 143–150.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Judith Endelman, “Looking Backward to Plan for the Future: Collection Analysis for Manuscript Repositories.”American Archivist 50/3 (Summer 1987), pp. 340–355.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dennis Meissner, “First Things First: Reengineering Finding Aids for Implementation of EAD.”American Archivist 60/4 (Fall 1997), pp. 372–387. See also: Patricia Cloud, “RLIN, AMC, and Retrospective Conversion: A Case Study”, pp. 125–134.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richard Berner's,Archival Theory and Practice in the United States (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1983) is the closest thing there is to a history of archival representation in the United States. His work presents a very detailed factual account that is invaluable in understanding the variety of access tools employed. However, Berner's work lacks a sociological or anthropological dimension although the elements of such an analysis are mentioned by Berner.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wendy M. Duff and Verne Harris, “Stories and Names: Archival Description as Narrating Records and Constructing Meanings.”Archival Science 2/3–4 (2002), pp. 263–285 and Michelle Light and Tom Hyry, “Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid.”American Archivist 65/2 (Fall/Winter 2002), pp. 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eric Ketelaar, “Tacit Narratives: The Meaning of Archives.”Archival Science 1, pp. 131–141.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henry James Collection, Houghton Library Harvard University. URL: [Accessed January 2001]. This reference is no longer on-line.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ketelaar, “Tacit Narratives”, p. 139.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See Margaret Hedstrom, “Descriptive Practices for Electronic Records: Deciding What is Essential and Imaging What is Possible.”Archivaria 36 (Autumn 1993), pp. 53–63 and Wendy Duff, “Will Metadata Replace Archival Description? A Commentary.”Archivaria 39 (Spring 1995), pp. 33–38.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    This idea is derived from Stephen R. Barley, “Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observation of CT scanners and the social order of radiology Departments.”Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (1986), pp. 78–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anthony Giddens,The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1984). The ideas of structuring or structuration originated with Giddens. The idea is that community members (in this case archivists) create processes and artifacts (practice) that contain embedded meanings within and for that community. Change in practice can be deliberate or inadvertent as members work to maintain both the processes and artifacts as well as the community in which these are embedded.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hanne Albrechtsen and Elin K. Jacob, “The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library.”Library Trends 47/2 (Fall 1998), p. 293.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chris Hurley, “The Making and the Keeping of Records: (1) What are Finding Aids For?”Archives and Manuscripts 26/1 (May 1998), pp. 71–72.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    David A. Wallace, “Archiving Metadata Forum: Report from the Recordkeeping Metadata Working Meeting, June 2000.”Archival Science 1/3 (2001), p. 255.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosalind McKittrick,Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peter Burke,A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2000), pp. 81–115.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eviatar Zerubavel,The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p. 5.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Leigh Star,Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), p. 266.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nicholas B. Dirks, “Colonial Histories and Native Informants: Biography of an Archive”, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer (eds.),Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia (Philadelphia, POA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    TheCatholic Archives Newsletter ran stories in January and July 1982 documenting the use of archives in the redrafting of constitutions.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sr. Mary Clarita Hudson, C.PP.S. and Sr. Mary Linus Bax, C.PP.S., [Salem Heights Archives]Archival Policies and Procedures, 8th printing (Dayton, OH: Sisters of the Precious Blood, 1992, pages unnumbered).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    James M. O'Toole, “What's Different about Religious Archives?”Midwestern Archivist IX/2 (1984), pp. 94–95.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Finding Aid for the Ford Motor Company Archives, n.d, Henry Ford Museum and Green-field Village Research Center, Dearborn, Michigan. For more information on the adoption of Library Bureau technologies by American businesses and the intricacies of the filing system itself see Gerri Lynn Flanzraich,The Role of the Library Bureau and Gaylord Brothers in the Development of Library Technology, 1876–1930, Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University 1990, pp. 364–375. Dissertation Abstracts International DAI, 52, no. 02A (1990): 0330.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barbara Kwasnik, “How a personal document's intended use of purpose affects its classification in an office.”ACM SIGIR Forum 23/1–2 (Fall 1988/Winter 1989), pp. 207–210. Tom Malone, “How do People Organize their Desks: Implications for the Design of Office Information Systems.”ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 1/1 (January 1983), pp. 99–112.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brothman, “Orders of Value”, p. 84.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star,Sorting things Out: Classification and its Consequences (Cambridge, MA, 1999), p. 82.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    The difficulty of transcending time and space in reference mediations is also treated in Elizabeth Yakel, “Thinking inside and outside the boxes: Archival Reference Services at the Millennium”.Archivaria 49 (2000). Brien Brothman, “Memory, History, and the Preservation of Records” (p. 79) also makes this point when he discusses the difference between simple access and access over time and the need for archivists to transcentd both physical and intellectual barriers to accomplish this.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Expert archival researchers are able to understand this critical link between artifact and surrogate. For a more detailed discussion of the importance of this ability see, Elizabeth Yakel and Deborah A. Torres, “AI: Archival Intelligence and User Expertise”.American Archivist (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J.C. Fitzpatrick,Notes on the Care, Cataloging, Calendaring and Arranging of Manuscripts (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1928), p. 4.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    The Houghton Library,Manuscripts and Drawings: A Handlist of Finding Aids with a List of Published Guides (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1985), p. 5. Hereafter cited as theHandlist. Also available on-line at URL: msdept/handlist.html#listGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    The Houghton Library,, p. 5.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    The Houghton Library,, p. 5.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    J.C. Fitzpatrick,Notes on the Care, Cataloging, Calendaring and Arranging of Manuscripts, p. 4.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Duff and Harris, “Stories and Names”, p. 272.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roy Dikeman Chapin Finding Aid, n.d., Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Michigan Historical Collections Staff, Roy Dikeman Chapin Finding Aid, n.d., Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roy D. Chapin Finding Aid [EAD encoded version], Bentley Historical Library, Available URL: text&subview=outline&id-umich-bhl-851435 (Last checked 3/12/02).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    For other examples and illustrations of earlier access tools from the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan see Ruth B. Bordin and Robert M. Warner,The Modern Manuscript Library (New York: Scarecrow, 1966).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Library Catalogue, 1852, Box 15 [formerly v. 233], Alexander Winchell Papers, 1833–1891. Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Leonard A. Coombs, Alexander Winchell Finding Aid, June 1992, Bentely Historical Library, University of Michigan: i.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Alexandar Winchell Collection Twenty-seven Sample Entries, March 22, 1940. Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Leonard A. Coombs, Alexander Winchell Finding Aid, June 1992, Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. The EAD encoded version of the finding aid is available at subview=outline&id=umich-bhl-86321 (Last checked 3/12/02).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Don H. Buske, “The Historical Archives of the Chancery of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati”.Ohio Archivist (Spring 1997), p. 3.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Steven L. Hensen, “The Evolution of Archival Description”.American Archivist 60/3 (Summer 1997), pp. 284–296.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Richard C. Berner, “Manuscript Catalogs and Other Finding Aids: What are their Relationships?”American Archivist 34/4 (October 1971), pp 367–372.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nicholson Baker, “Discards”.New Yorker April 4, 1994, pp. 64–86.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Leah Ollman, “Relics of the material age”.Art in America 88/11 (November 2000), pp. 134–139.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Richard J. Cox, Jane Greenberg, and Cynthia Porter, “Access Denied: The Discarding of Library History”.American Libraries (April 1998), pp. 57–61.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    The Houghton Library,Handlist, p. 18.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Richard C. Berner, “Manuscript Catalogs and Other Finding Aids: What are their Relationships?”American Archivist 34/1 (October 1971), pp. 367–372.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    The hypothesis that archival finding aids are both access and collection management tools will not be discussed in detail here.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Steve Hensen,Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts, 2nd edition (Chicago: SAA, 1992).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    I differentiate between the Australian records continuum and the archival continuum. By archival continuum I mean to focus on the archival administrative activities and functions vis à vis records. This does not mean only activities that occur once the records are transferred into the physical archives or even into a distributed custody arrangement.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kenneth W. Duckett,Modern Manuscripts: A Practical Manual for their Management, Care, and Use (Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History, 1975), p. 136.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Richard J. Cox, “Archvial Anchorites: Building Public Memory in the Era of the Culture Wars”.Multicultural Review (June 1998), p. 59. See also Tom Nesmith, “Still Fuzzy, But More Accurate: Some Thoughts on the ‘Ghosts’ of Archival Theory”.Archivaria 47 (Spring 1999).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ketelaar, “Tacit Narratives”, p. 140.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Thomas Powers, Avra Michelson, Brian Williams, and Mike Brostoff, Rensis Likert, Finding Aid, Bentley Historical Library, 1975–1995.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Light and Hyry, “Colophons and Annotations”, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hoover Institution, Register of the Trotsky Collection, 1917–1980. Available URL: View;cs=default; ts=default (Last checked 3/12/02).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Meissner, “First Things First”, passim. Meissner discusses the need to reengineer finding aids because encoders were spending time synthesizing and looking for information. Encoders for the Historic Pittsburgh Project at the University of Pittsburgh also did a substantial amount of data manipulation and in some cases made very far-reaching assumptions about the intent of the author of the finding aid.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hoover Institution, Register of the Trotsky Collection, 1917–1980. Available URL: View;cs=default; ts=defaultGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    One example is P. Pecchiai, “Le carte de fondo ‘Corsica’ nell'Archivio vaticano”.Archivio storico di Corsica 9/4 (1933), pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    To view examples of what was considered the ‘state of the art’ or best practice in the mid-1970's, see the Society of American Archivists, Committee on Finding Aids,Inventories and Registers: A Handbook of Techniques and Examples: A Report of the Committee on Finding Aids (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1976).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Duff and Harris, “Stories and Names”, p. 267.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bowker and Star,Sorting Things Out, pp. 107–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Yakel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of InformationUniversity of MichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations