Archival Science

, Volume 14, Issue 3–4, pp 307–322 | Cite as

Toward a survivor-centered approach to records documenting human rights abuse: lessons from community archives

Original Paper


This article proposes a theoretical framework for managing records documenting human rights abuse based on five key principles learned from community archives discourses: participation, shared stewardship, multiplicity, archival activism, and reflexivity. In shifting the focus of human rights archives to these core community-centric values, this paper proposes a survivor-centered approach to such records and argues that survivors should maintain control over the decision-making processes related to records documenting their abuse.


Human rights Community archives Stewardship Participation 


  1. Barriault M (2009) Archiving the queer and queering the archives: a case study of the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives (CLGA). In: Bastian J, Alexander B (eds) Community archives: the shaping of memory. Facet, London, pp 97–108Google Scholar
  2. Bastian J (2002) Taking custody, giving access: a postcustodial role for a new century. Archivaria 53:76–93Google Scholar
  3. Bastian J (2003) Owning memory: how a Caribbean community lost its archives and found its history. Libraries Unlimited, WestportGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastian J, Alexander B (2009) Introduction: communities and archives—a symbiotic relationship. In: Bastian J, Alexander B (eds) Community archives: the shaping of memory. Facet, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Caswell M (2010) Khmer Rouge archives: accountability, truth and memory in Cambodia. Arch Sci 10:25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caswell M (2012) SAADA and the community-based archives model: What’s a community—based archives anyway?” South Asian American Digital Archive, Accessed 18 Mar 2014
  7. Caswell M (2013a) Rethinking inalienability: trusting nongovernmental archives in transitional societies. Am Arch 76(1):113–134Google Scholar
  8. Caswell M (2013b) On pluralism: what religious pluralism can teach us about archival studies. Arch Sci 13:273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caswell M (2014a) Archiving the unspeakable: silence, memory, and the photographic record in Cambodia. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  10. Caswell M (2014b) Inventing new archival imaginaries: theoretical foundations for identity-based community archives. Identity palimpsests. Litwin Books, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook T (2013) Evidence, memory, identity, and community; four shifting archival paradigms. Arch Sci 13(2–3):95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crooke E (2010) The politics of community heritage: motivations, authority and control. Int J Herit Stud 16(1–2):16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel D (2010) Documenting the immigrant and ethnic experience in American archives. Am Arch 73(1):82–104Google Scholar
  14. Dunbar A (2006) Introducing critical race theory to archival discourse: getting the conversation started. Arch Sci 6:109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ea M, Sim S (2001) Victims and perpetrators?. Documentation Center of Cambodia, Phnom PenhGoogle Scholar
  16. Flinn A, Stevens M (2009) ‘It is nohmistri, wimekin history’. Telling our own story: independent and community archives in the UK, challenging and subverting the mainstream. In: Bastian J, Alexander B (eds) Community archives: the shaping of memory. Facet, London, pp 3–28Google Scholar
  17. Flinn A, Stevens M, Shepherd E (2009) Whose memories, whose archives? Independent community archives, autonomy and the mainstream. Arch Sci 9:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamson J (1995) Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma. Soc Probl 42(3):390–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris V (2005) Archives, politics, justice. In: Proctor M et al (eds) Political pressure and the archival record. Society of American Archivists, Chicago, pp 173–182Google Scholar
  20. Harris V (2011) A centering of memory. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute at Duke University. Accessed 4 Sept 2012
  21. Hastings E (2011) ‘No longer a silent victim of history:’ Repurposing the documents of Japanese American internment. Arch Sci 11:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Honigsberg PJ (2013) Filming detainees and other voices: The Witness to Guantanamo Project. The antonym of forgetting: global perspectives on human rights archives, 18 October 2013, UCLAGoogle Scholar
  23. Iacovino L (2010) Rethinking archival, ethical and legal frameworks for records of Indigenous Australian communities: a participant relationship model of rights. Arch Sci 10:353–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaplan E (2000) We are what we collect, we collect what we are: archives and the construction of identity. Am Arch 63:126–151Google Scholar
  25. Kelleher C (2013) Catching up: human rights archives and ethics through the lens of the University of Texas Libraries’ Human Rights Documentation Initiative. The Antonym of Forgetting: Global Perspectives on Human Rights Archives, 18 October 2013, UCLAGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelleher C, Sangwand T, Wood K, Kamuronsi Y (2010) The human rights documentation initiative at the University of Texas at Austin. New Rev Inf Netw 15:94–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ketelaar E (2002) Archival temples, archival prisons: modes of power and production. Arch Sci 2:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krause M, Yakel E (2007) Interaction in virtual archives: the polar bear expedition digital collections next generation finding aid. Am Arch 70(2):282–314Google Scholar
  29. Kumbier A (2012) Inventing history: the Watermelon Woman and archive activism. In: Bly L, Wooten K (eds) Make your own history: documenting feminist and queer activism in the 21st century. Litwin Books, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  30. Lau A (2013) Collecting experiences. PhD Thesis, University of California Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  31. Lau A, Gilliland A, Anderson K (2012) Naturalizing community engagement in information studies. Inf Commun Soc 15(7):991–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levi P (1989) The drowned and saved. Vintage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Mander D (2009) Special, local and about us: the development of community archives in Britain. In: Bastian J, Alexander B (eds) Community archives: the shaping of memory. Facet, London, pp 29–46Google Scholar
  34. McKemmish S, Faulkhead S, Russell L (2011) Distrust in the archive: reconciling records. Arch Sci 11:211–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Noriega C (2005) Preservation matters. Aztlan 30(1):1–20Google Scholar
  36. Paschild C (2012) Community archives and the limitations of identity: considering discursive impact on material needs. Am Arch 75(1):132–133Google Scholar
  37. Pluralizing the Archival Curriculum Group (2011) Educating for the archival multiverse. Am Arch 74(1):69–101Google Scholar
  38. Ramirez HNR (2006) A living archive of desire. In: Burton A (ed) Archive stories. Duke, Durham, pp 111–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rukesha P (2014) Genocide archive Rwanda. Talk at UCLA, 21 Feb 2014Google Scholar
  40. Shilton K, Srinivasan R (2007) Participatory appraisal and arrangement for multicultural archival collections. Archivaria 63:87–101Google Scholar
  41. Stevens M, Flinn A, Shepherd E (2010) New frameworks for community engagement in the archive sector: from handing over to handing on. Int J Herit Stud 16(1):59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stinnett G (2008) Archival landscape: archives and human rights. Prog Librarian 32:10–20Google Scholar
  43. Wakimoto D, Bruce C, Partridge H (2013) Archivist as activist: lessons from three queer community archives in California. Arch Sci 13(4):293–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waterton E, Smith L (2010) The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. Int J Herit Stud 16(1–2):4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Witness to Guantanamo Project (undated) Accessed 30 Mar 2014
  46. Wurl J (2005) Ethnicity as provenance: in search of values and principles for documenting the immigrant experience. Arch Issues 29(1):65–76Google Scholar
  47. X A, Campbell T, Stevens M (2009) Love and lubrication in the archives, or rukus!: a black queer archive for the United Kingdom. Archivaria 68:271–294Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information StudiesUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations