Historical scholars often adopt a solitary ethic, conceiving of their work as the product of a lonely and isolated individual toiling away in a dusty archive. In this article, we assess the validity of this ethic by examining the actual practice of archival research. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with practicing historical sociologists, we reveal that the solitary ethic is largely illusory, and that, instead, the archive is in fact a robustly social world. We identify two core sets of social relationships in the archive—relationships with the archivist and with the archival community—that shape the historical sociologist’s experience in the archive. We further show that historical sociologists mobilize these interactions to solve concrete research problems in the archive. We thus argue that the archive’s social character should be understood as a methodological opportunity for historical sociologists, allowing them to maximize and extend their research by inspiring creative research strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Indeed, some archivists affirmatively celebrate this aspect of their work; as Gauld (2017, 232) declares, “the profession needs to shout loudly, clearly, and without shame that archivists engage in privileging...The archivist as gatekeeper, as a privileger of the historical record and narrative, can and should still be applicable in the twenty-first century.” Of course, archivists hold a variety of intellectual positions and degrees of self-consciousness and professionalization, and adopt different stances towards their materials and the users seeking to access them (Lövblad 2003), which are also subject to important regional (e.g., Pederson 2003) and historical (e.g., Holmes 2006) variations.
Becher, Tony. 1989. Historians on history. Studies in Higher Education 14 (3): 263–273.
Becker, Howard. 1974. Art as collective action. American Sociological Review 39 (6): 767–776.
Becker, Howard. 1982. Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bloch, Marc. 1953. The historian’s craft. New York: Vintage Books.
Camic, Charles, Neil Gross, and Michele Lamont, eds. 2011. Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carr, Edward H. 1961. What is history? New York: MacMillan.
Childress, Clayton. 2017. Under the cover: The creation, production, and reception of a novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Clayman, Steven E., and Ann Reisner. 1998. Gatekeeping in action: Editorial conferences and assessments of newsworthiness. American Sociological Review 63 (2): 178–199.
Crane, Diana. 1987. The transformation of the avant-Garde: The New York art world, 1940–85. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Farge, Arlette. 2015. The allure of the archives. Trans. Thomas Scott-Railton. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1979. Small groups and culture creation: The idioculture of little league baseball teams. American Sociological Review 44: 733–745.
Gaddis, John Lewis. 2002. The landscape of history: How historians map the past. New York: Oxford University Press.
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gauld, Craig. 2017. Democratising or privileging: The democratisation of knowledge and the role of the archivist. Archival Science 17 (3): 227–245.
Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Greiffenhagen, Christian, Michael Mair, and Wes Sharrock. 2015. Methodological troubles as problems and phenomena: Ethnomethodology and the question of “method” in the social sciences. The British Journal of Sociology 66: 460–485.
Gross, Neil, and Crystal Fleming. 2011. Academic conferences and the making of philosophical knowledge. In Social knowledge in the making, eds. Charles Camic, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont, 151–180. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Guldi, Jo, and David Armitage. 2014. The history manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, John R. 1999. Culture of inquiry: From epistemology to discourse in sociohistorical research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, Donna. 2006. Passive keepers or active shapers: A comparative case study of four archival practitioners at the end of the nineteenth century. Archival Science 6 (3): 285–298.
Lachmann, Richard. 2013. What is historical sociology? New York: Polity Press.
Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How professors think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno, and Steven Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lewin, Kurt. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations 1: 143–153.
Lövblad, Håkan. 2003. Monk, knight or artist? The archivist as a straddler of a paradigm. Archival Science 3 (2): 131–155.
Mayrl, Damon, and Nicholas Hoover Wilson. 2020. What do historical sociologists do all day? Analytic architectures in historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology 120 (5): 1345–1394.
Mialet, Hélène. 2012. Hawking incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the anthropology of the knowing subject. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pederson, Ann E. 2003. Understanding ourselves and others: Australian archivists and temperament. Archival Science 3 (3): 223–274.
Peterson, David. 2015. All that is solid: Bench-building at the frontiers of two experimental sciences. American Sociological Review 80: 1201–1225.
Polanyi, Michael. 1962. Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Price, Derek J. de Solla. 1965. Little science, big science. New York: University Presses of California, Columbia, and Princeton.
Reed, Isaac. 2011. Interpretation and social knowledge: On the use of theory in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Skocpol, Theda, ed. 1984. Vision and method in historical sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, Anselm. 1978. A social world perspective. In Studies in Symbolic Interaction, ed. Norman K. Denzin, 119–128. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press.
Teplitskiy, Misha. 2016. Frame search and re-search: How quantitative sociological articles change during peer review. The American Sociologist 47: 264–288.
Unruh, David R. 1980. The nature of social worlds. Pacific Sociological Review 23: 271–296.
Weiss, Robert S. 1994. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.
We thank the historical sociologists who generously agreed to be interviewed about their research practices; and Clayton Childress, Brian Sargent, Anna Skarpelis, and the QS editors for helpful feedback on a previous draft.
This research was supported in part by a Fund for the Advancement of the Discipline Grant from the American Sociological Association.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Mayrl, D., Wilson, N.H. The Archive as a Social World. Qual Sociol 43, 407–426 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09462-z
- Historical methods
- Archival cultures