Organoides de riñón derivados de células madre para entender la

The transition into a new type of technology for outreach is not new to the archive. Prior

to social media, archivists used several different tools to represent the archive. The first being the

finding aid, which in the context of archival science is a document containing detailed information

about a specific collection of papers or records within an archive that is used by researchers to

help determine whether a collection is useful to them.

Finding aids were the beginning of information discovery in archive institutions. Findings

aids are guides that provide a summary of the archive collection; this permits access to the

collection and provides the user and archivist with a range of information, for instance, collection

scope, types of materials, and inventory. The incorporation of finding aids as access points were

the beginning of how the archivist would administer outreach through technology. Like many

different new professional changes, the development of finding aids was not liked by all. For

example, Pugh (1956) discussed his displeasure with the notion of findings aids by arguing that

53

an archive. However, findings aids were readily adapted by the archive profession. There have

also been attempts to make archives more accessible by the addition of finding aids to archive

websites (Williamson, Vieira, & Williamson, 2015).

Incorporating finding aids into the archive brought forth a few different descriptive

standards that would be used to regulate the archive’s holdings. From MARC (MAchine Readable

Cataloging) to MARC AMC (MAchine Readable Cataloging Archive Manuscript Control), and

then later with the incorporation of the internet, EAD (Encoded Archival Description) have been

used at times to create a better means of access to patrons. Prom (2004) studied the usefulness of

online finding aids and suggested instead that the archivist is the main mediator between

collections and users in an online reference setting.

Access and interaction with users are at the forefront of questions continuously being

asked by the archival community. Archivists have been gradually trying out different means in

which access to collections and interactions with users can be achieved. This study’s purpose is

not to argue the proper way to distribute aids to users; rather the purpose is to provide a practical

output of how archivists can better understand the culture using social media, particularly as it

pertains to archives, which then, in turn, permits an additional way for archivists to reach their

users. Not in the same way that finding aids provide a means of access to materials, adding the

use of social media to the archive strengthens an access point or outreach that the archive is

currently doing. For example, Hager (2015) interviewed 23 archivists who used Facebook and 19

found the tool to be beneficial. The term ‘beneficial’ could mean different things to different

archives. In any case, using social media was not determined by Hager (2015) to be harmful to

archival practice.

There are arguments of the true purpose of social media, and questioning of the

54

archives to more users. On archival representation, Cox (2007) noted, “. . . we [archivists] also

represent what has not been saved, the individual archivist’s own interest in preserving something

of the past, the objectives of the original creators of documents, and society’s own sense and

value of history” (p.28). Social media data is being created now, and archivists need to have a

better sense of how users are interacting and perhaps might even want to access collections. On

the future of archives, Cox (2016) noted “[an] archivist’s focus should be on sharing their

expertise with others, even empowering others to function competently as archivists. This takes

into account the influence of the computer in building more complex documentary systems

requiring collaborative solutions and approaches” (p. 13). Having more on an understanding of

how archive institutions use social media is one way to build a more collaborative space.

Social media development research has been conducted from the qualitative viewpoint; for

instance, Chern Li, Wellington, Oliver, and Perkins (2015) conducted a survey of libraries and

archives and found that reasons for implementation of social media included the want of “access

to a larger audience,’’ ‘‘reaching new audiences,’’ ‘‘rapid form of communication,’’ ‘‘similar

organizations were using social media,’’ ‘‘low cost,’’ and ‘‘stakeholder engagement’’ (p. 387).

From a user perspective, Duff and Johnson (2002) identified four non-linear ways that historians

orientate themselves in an archive: use of finding aids, seeking known material, building

contextual knowledge, and identifying relevant material. These different perspectives when

combined can in part be fulfilled by social media, particularly communication and seeking known

material.

It is critical to remain objective when developing the idea of adding social media tools to

the archive. For example, Freeman (1985) spoke of the importance of archivists knowing their

users and how they use the archive’s holdings. In order for the archive to ‘know’ its users, more

55

critical for research of online behaviors to be conducted to ensure that observation biases are not

taking the place of sound data findings.

In addition, “customer input” is necessary for obtaining information from the community

about “our institution’s level of service and usefulness, and provides us with ammunition for local

support” (Freeman, 1985, p. 93). Freeman argued that with that information, the archivist can begin to build archival outreach programs. Thirty-one years later that statement can be used to

describe the need to learn about the effectiveness of social media as an outreach tool. In

accordance with Abraham Maslow’s law of the instrument, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only

tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail” (p.15). The shift to

incorporating social media into the archive seems to be the next step in service. For instance,

Chinery and Clemens (2016) proposed that improving access to collections through social media

was particularly important to reach marginalized and underrepresented groups. It is the level of

helpfulness that is contemplated. Stevenson (2013) found that archivists measured ‘helpfulness’ in

terms of their own archive and their own users. For instance, a small to medium-sized Wisconsin

institution found that social media was helpful by allowing them to reach more users. One

archivist noted, “If I get 10 likes on a post that I made, I consider that a job was well done. After

all, maybe I had two people physically enter the archive that day. The fact that at least some

additional people think about the archive for a few minutes is a plus to me” (Stevenson, 2013,

slide 10). Likewise, Kriesberg (2014) analyzed archives’ use of Twitter by conducting a

qualitative study and found that many archivists are using Twitter, but stated that a significant

amount of research was needed to dig deeper into the subject matter.

Social media is complex; it encompasses human behavior and interaction. The complexity

of human interaction results in the need for a deeper understanding of the foundational source, in

56

(1992) urged historical records professionals to learn more about how their users use archival

material and found that many users prefer informal information, as opposed to the more formal

finding aid. Social media is not only an informal way to distribute information but a media that

millions of people use. Allison-Burnell, Yakel, and Hauck (2011) noted that many digital

collections were created prior to the thorough understanding of user behavior, and thus, user

studies are more critical than ever to online success. Consequently, if archivists can grasp a better

understanding of user behavior and how to integrate social media into the archive, the profession

will be able to promote archival collections more effectively.