Archival Science

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 117–140 | Cite as

Room for archives? Use of archival materials in No Gun Ri research

  • Donghee Sinn
Original paper


Archivists have long tried to understand users from the viewpoint of their archival collections. Such an approach misses important perspectives about use in, and users of, archives; how they perform research and develop knowledge while using archives. This study aims to comprehend the use of archival materials in research from the users’ perspective. It attempts to understand users’ perceptions of the impact of archival collections on their research, how and when archival materials are involved in the research process and how much weight they grant those materials in support of their thesis, from an actual research topic, the No Gun Ri massacre. The case of the No Gun Ri incident provides a good example of how archival materials play a role in historical discussions and an opportunity to look at archival contributions. No Gun Ri researchers acknowledged that archival documents were essential source materials for details about the incident and a major player in stimulating controversies and, consequently, provided the impetus for further publications. General recordkeeping situations also provided a circumstantial context of the incident. However, No Gun Ri researchers agreed that oral history was the most valuable and influential evidence for their major ideas and used archival documents to provide hard facts about the details of oral history. There are some unique research patterns of No Gun Ri researchers identified in this study which are different from the typical assumptions of archivists.


User study Archival impact on historical research No Gun Ri massacre 


  1. Bateman RL (2002) No Gun Ri: a military history of the Korean war incident. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. Beattie DL (1989/1990) An archival user study: researchers in the field of women’s history. Archivaria 29:33–50Google Scholar
  3. Benedict K (1984) Invitation to a bonfire: reappraisal and deaccessioning of records as collection management tools in an archives—a reply to Leonard Rapport. Am Arch 47(1):43–49Google Scholar
  4. Brown WE, Yakel E (1996) Redefining the role of college and university archives in the information age. Am Arch 59(3):272–287Google Scholar
  5. Case DO (1991) The collection and use of information by some American historians: a study of motive and methods. Library Q 61(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choe S, Hanley C, Mendoza M (1999) War’s hidden chapter: Ex-GIs tell of killing Korean refugees. The Associated Press, September 29Google Scholar
  7. Conway P (1986a) Facts and frameworks: an approach to studying the users of archives. Am Arch 49:393–407Google Scholar
  8. Conway P (1986b) Research in presidential libraries: a user survey. Midwestern Arch 11(1):35–56Google Scholar
  9. Cox RJ, Samuels H (1988) The archivists’ first responsibility: a research agenda for the identification and retention of records of enduring value. Am Arch 51:28–42Google Scholar
  10. Dearstyne BW (1987) What is the use of archives? A challenge for the profession. Am Arch 50:76–87Google Scholar
  11. Dowler L (1988) The role of use in defining archival practice and principles: a research agenda for the availability and use of records. Am Arch 51:74–86Google Scholar
  12. Duff W, Johnson CA (2002) Accidentally found on purpose: information-seeking behavior of historians in archives. Library Q 72(4):472–496Google Scholar
  13. Duff W, Johnson CA (2003) Where is the list with all the names? Information-seeking behavior of genealogists. Am Arch 66:79–95Google Scholar
  14. Duff W, Craig B, Cherry C (2004) Historians’ use of archival sources: promises and pitfalls of the digital age. Public Hist 26(2):7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eighth US Army in Korea (July 26, 1950) Message. CNR: G 20578 KGP, 26 Jul 50, sub: Controlled Movement of All Refugees. In Records of U.S. Army Commands, Korean Military Advisory Group, Box 23, RG 338, NARAGoogle Scholar
  16. Eighth Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division (July 24, 1950) Communication Log. In Records of U.S. Army Commands, Cavalry Regiments 1940–1967, Box 42, RG 338, NARAGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliot CA (1981) Citation patterns and documentation for the history of science: some methodological considerations. Am Arch 44(2):131–142Google Scholar
  18. Freeman ET (1984) In the eye of the beholder: archives administration from the user’s point of view. Am Arch 47(2):110–123Google Scholar
  19. Galloway JL (2000) Doubts about a Korean ‘Massacre.’ U.S. News & World Report 128/21, May 29. Retrieved on February 12, 2010 from
  20. Goggin J (1986) The indirect approach: a study of scholarly users of black and women’s organizational records in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division. Midwestern Arch 11(1):57–67Google Scholar
  21. Grigg S (1987) A world of repositories, a world of records: redefining the scope of a national subject collection. Am Arch 48(3):286–295Google Scholar
  22. Jackson WJ (1997) The 80/20 archives: a study of use and its implications. Arch Issues 22(2):133–145Google Scholar
  23. Ketelaar E (2001) Tacit narratives: the meanings of archives. Arch Sci 1:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maher WJ (1986) The use of user studies. Midwestern Arch 11(1):15–26Google Scholar
  25. Miller F (1986) Use, appraisal, and research: a case study of social history. Am Arch 49:371–392Google Scholar
  26. Orbach BC (1991) The view from the researcher’s desk: historians’ perceptions of research and repositories. Am Arch 54:28–43Google Scholar
  27. Ruth JE (1988) Educating the reference archivist. Am Arch 51:266–276Google Scholar
  28. Speakman MN (1984) The user talks back. Am Arch 47(2):164–171Google Scholar
  29. Stevens M (1977) The historian and archival finding aids. GA Arch 5:64–74Google Scholar
  30. Stieg M (1981) The information needs of historians. Coll Res Lib 42:549–560Google Scholar
  31. Tibbo HR (2003) Primarily history in America: how US historians search for primary materials at the dawn of the digital age. Am Arch 66:9–50Google Scholar
  32. Twenty-Fifth Infantry Division (July 27, 1950) Memorandum. In AG Command Reports (War Diaries) 1949–1954, 25th Infantry Division History Jul 50, Entry 429, Box 3746, RG 407, NARAGoogle Scholar
  33. Weintraub K (1980) The humanistic scholar and the library. Libr Q 50:22–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yakel E (2004) Encoded archival description: are finding aids boundary spanners or barriers for users? J Arch Org 2(1–2):63–77Google Scholar
  35. Yakel E, Torres DA (2003) AI: archival intelligence and user expertise. Am Arch 66:51–78Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Studies, College of Computing and InformationUniversity at Albany (State University of New York)AlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations