The Archive as a Social World

Abstract

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.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Interview #15.

  2. 2.

    Interview #12.

  3. 3.

    Interview #42.

  4. 4.

    Interview #32.

  5. 5.

    Interview #58.

  6. 6.

    Interview #57.

  7. 7.

    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.

  8. 8.

    Interview #25.

  9. 9.

    Interview #23.

  10. 10.

    Interview #27.

  11. 11.

    Interview #56.

  12. 12.

    Interview #36.

  13. 13.

    Interview #9.

  14. 14.

    Interview #43.

  15. 15.

    Interview #59.

  16. 16.

    Interview #29.

  17. 17.

    Interview #34.

  18. 18.

    Interview #38.

  19. 19.

    Interview #36.

  20. 20.

    Interview #64.

  21. 21.

    Interview #65.

  22. 22.

    Interview #32.

  23. 23.

    Interview #64.

  24. 24.

    Interview #62.

  25. 25.

    Interview #1.

  26. 26.

    Interview #64.

  27. 27.

    Interview #21.

  28. 28.

    Interview #10.

  29. 29.

    Interview #26.

  30. 30.

    Interview #14.

  31. 31.

    Interview #65.

  32. 32.

    Interview #3.

  33. 33.

    Interview #45.

  34. 34.

    Interview #15.

  35. 35.

    Interview #63.

  36. 36.

    Interview #26.

  37. 37.

    Interview #34.

  38. 38.

    Interview #2.

  39. 39.

    Interview #67.

  40. 40.

    Interview #47.

  41. 41.

    Interview #40.

  42. 42.

    Interview #67.

  43. 43.

    Interview #34.

  44. 44.

    Interview #2.

  45. 45.

    Interview #23.

  46. 46.

    Interview #21.

  47. 47.

    Interview #36.

  48. 48.

    Interview #63.

  49. 49.

    Interview #26.

  50. 50.

    Interview #33.

  51. 51.

    Interview #57.

  52. 52.

    Interview #9.

  53. 53.

    Interview #48.

  54. 54.

    Interview #33.

  55. 55.

    Interview #34.

  56. 56.

    Interview #57.

  57. 57.

    Interview #29.

  58. 58.

    Interview #34.

  59. 59.

    Interview #18.

  60. 60.

    Interview #33.

  61. 61.

    Interview #40.

  62. 62.

    Interview #45.

  63. 63.

    Interview #65.

  64. 64.

    Interview #6.

  65. 65.

    Interview #22.

  66. 66.

    Interview #64.

  67. 67.

    Interview #21.

  68. 68.

    Interview #35.

  69. 69.

    Interview #67.

  70. 70.

    Interview #34.

  71. 71.

    Interview #36.

  72. 72.

    Interview #63.

References

  1. Becher, Tony. 1989. Historians on history. Studies in Higher Education 14 (3): 263–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker, Howard. 1974. Art as collective action. American Sociological Review 39 (6): 767–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, Howard. 1982. Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bloch, Marc. 1953. The historian’s craft. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Camic, Charles, Neil Gross, and Michele Lamont, eds. 2011. Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carr, Edward H. 1961. What is history? New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Childress, Clayton. 2017. Under the cover: The creation, production, and reception of a novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clayman, Steven E., and Ann Reisner. 1998. Gatekeeping in action: Editorial conferences and assessments of newsworthiness. American Sociological Review 63 (2): 178–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crane, Diana. 1987. The transformation of the avant-Garde: The New York art world, 1940–85. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Farge, Arlette. 2015. The allure of the archives. Trans. Thomas Scott-Railton. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  11. Fine, Gary Alan. 1979. Small groups and culture creation: The idioculture of little league baseball teams. American Sociological Review 44: 733–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gaddis, John Lewis. 2002. The landscape of history: How historians map the past. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gauld, Craig. 2017. Democratising or privileging: The democratisation of knowledge and the role of the archivist. Archival Science 17 (3): 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

  18. Guldi, Jo, and David Armitage. 2014. The history manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hall, John R. 1999. Culture of inquiry: From epistemology to discourse in sociohistorical research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lachmann, Richard. 2013. What is historical sociology? New York: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How professors think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Latour, Bruno, and Steven Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lewin, Kurt. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations 1: 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lövblad, Håkan. 2003. Monk, knight or artist? The archivist as a straddler of a paradigm. Archival Science 3 (2): 131–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mialet, Hélène. 2012. Hawking incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the anthropology of the knowing subject. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  28. Pederson, Ann E. 2003. Understanding ourselves and others: Australian archivists and temperament. Archival Science 3 (3): 223–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Peterson, David. 2015. All that is solid: Bench-building at the frontiers of two experimental sciences. American Sociological Review 80: 1201–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Polanyi, Michael. 1962. Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Price, Derek J. de Solla. 1965. Little science, big science. New York: University Presses of California, Columbia, and Princeton.

  32. Reed, Isaac. 2011. Interpretation and social knowledge: On the use of theory in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Skocpol, Theda, ed. 1984. Vision and method in historical sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Strauss, Anselm. 1978. A social world perspective. In Studies in Symbolic Interaction, ed. Norman K. Denzin, 119–128. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press.

  35. Teplitskiy, Misha. 2016. Frame search and re-search: How quantitative sociological articles change during peer review. The American Sociologist 47: 264–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Unruh, David R. 1980. The nature of social worlds. Pacific Sociological Review 23: 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Weiss, Robert S. 1994. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Funding

This research was supported in part by a Fund for the Advancement of the Discipline Grant from the American Sociological Association.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damon Mayrl.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Archives
  • Historical methods
  • Archivists
  • Archival cultures