“Inquiry paradigms define for enquirers what it is they are about, and what falls within and outside the boundaries of legitimate inquiry” (Guba and Lincoln 1994 pg 105). Guba and Lincoln offer three questions, the answers to which, they state, will summarize the basic beliefs that define the inquiry paradigm being used. The questions are related to ontology (what is the perceived nature of reality), epistemology (what is the perceived relationship between the knower and what can be known), and to methodology (how does an inquirer approach finding out what can be known); the authors propose that the ultimate question depends on the answer to the penultimate question, and the penultimate on the answer to the first. In adapting these questions and presenting them as a table, Pickard adds purpose (Pickard 2007, pg. 7). According to the characteristics for each of the methodologies (positivism, post-positivism and interpretivism), the current research fits most with the latter. At the same time, it is not an exact fit; the purpose is not just to understand or reconstruct but to interpret with a view to posing questions that may challenge practice; the ontological stance is relativist in the sense of believing in constructed multiple realities but also in the existence of a shared social reality (or experience).
The source and nature of the data to be used in research affects how the research is performed. Within the paradigms offered by Guba and Lincoln, the methodologies are “[modified] experimental and manipulative,” “dialogic and dialectical” (critical theory) and “hermeneutical and dialectical” (constructivism). Their analysis of the development of these methodologies demonstrates an overlap between critical theory and constructivism as both methodologies are “aimed at the reconstruction of previously held constructions” with the latter having broader assumptions about the
36 degree to which this reconstruction occurs during interaction between investigator and respondent (Guba and Lincoln 1994, pg. 112).
In the context of Guba and Lincoln’s analysis, then, this research has strong features of the methodologies of both critical theory and constructivism. The description of the interpretivist epistemological stance – which is that the investigation depends not on the engagement between the subject and the investigator, and are not an objective observation of things “as they really are” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994 pp 107 – 110) - that the results of the investigation are a product of the interaction between the subject and investigator” requires closer explanation in the context of this research, as the interaction is mediated via text (discussed below) rather than data newly-collected from individuals, which seems a more usual type of data. Meaning, or at least textual meaning, arguably is not finite, open to a single interpretation, but rather is generated by the author’s intention in writing, the text produced, and the engagement of the reader with the text (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2006).
Within an interpretivist paradigm, the research is qualitative and not quantitative, and uses, where appropriate, methodological practices from different areas of investigative endeavour. At the same time, it was a certainty that this research would not produce a graph or a chart, but rather a descriptive narrative – “Words! And lots of them” (Pickard, 2007, pg. 245)
Even if there are aspects or characteristics of interpretivism that are not obviously applicable to this research, fundamentally it is within this paradigm that the research lies. In characterizing the “trademarks” of an interpretative orientation, Patchirat includes openness (Patchirat 2004, pg. 378) and some of these at least are applicable to the current research work. This complexity and even “messiness” is
37 something that the research engaged with without necessarily resolving, for example, in the case of ambiguities.
Part of the aim of the work was to gain an understanding of the complexities of professional theory and practice in relation to neglected or excluded records and people, and also to gain an understanding of the (most influential) facets of the world of the liminal, excluded or neglected record. Much has been written within and without the profession on issues to do with exclusion and absence from the archives but “One can know many unrelated pieces of information, but understanding is achieved only when informational items are pieced together” (Kvanvig 2003, pg 192).
Part of the research was about achieving enough understanding of the separate factors which, it seems to the researcher when considering the question of exclusion and liminality, all are part of the circumstance and need to be considered if problematizing the situation and seeking change in practice. Seeking to understand the separate constituent elements will enable the researcher then to articulate the relationships between them, so that any issues that seem to require corrective action or resolution can be approached with a subtle and faceted understanding. To understand, rather than to know, does not lend itself to apprehension of individual facts or pieces of data - “understanding requires the grasping of explanatory and other coherence-making relationships in a large and comprehensive body of information” ((Kvanvig 2003, pg 192) and“[i]t has to cope with ambiguity, contradiction, missing information, and all the other messy features present in real-world information collections” (Bawden 2012 pg 148)
Qualitative research has been variously associated with examining “opinions, feelings and values….behaviour patterns” (in social sciences and anthropology respectively) (McMilan and Meyers 2000 pg. 123). Qualitative research seems often
38 to be associated with engagement with the personal responses of individuals or groups, and the methods associated with it are usually those that depend on direct collection (as in surveys) or apprehension (as in action research or ethnographic research) of the personal opinions and views of people.
In introducing qualitative research, in the Handbook to same, Denzin and Lincoln (1994, pg 109) describe the development, and the multi-faceted nature, of qualitative research which, during what they call the “blurred genres” stage of development, incorporated interpretative perspectives and led to the development of the researcher as bricoleur, “learning how to borrow from many different disciplines”.
The editors summarize the complex historical development of qualitative research, and the relationship between the humanities and social sciences, in that development. Using the methods of different modes of research is a way of trying to achieve a clear – or deep – understanding of the object of study, rather than claiming that some objective reality has been captured, or can be represented in an absolute and unambiguous way.
In discussing this approach, not as triangulation but as crystallization, the editors give an example of the depiction of a particular instance of racial tension, a depiction wherein the points of view, interpretation and experience of each different affected actor was represented. With regard to this research, the ultimate end is not to reflect a faceted reality or to articulate the “voice” of any particular actor in relation to any particular event, by means of this kind of crystalline interpretivism. Rather, the intention is to use the same approach to identify the variety of different locations in which these voices may be found, and how the professional information curator can engage with these presences.
39 2.2 Research design
As outlined in Chapter 1, the aims and objectives of this research focus on the theory that underlies and informs professional archival and recordkeeping practice, and on possible ways in which this theory could be further enriched for the benefit of professionals wishing to engage with less accessible people and records by an extended conceptualisation of “marginality”. The focus is essentially the implicit theoretical positions taken by information curators with regard to how marginality is conceptualised, and the refinements of and responses to these positions. The proposed outcome is also in the area of theory – that is, it is proposing enrichment of the theory upon which the profession bases its practice. The body of literature published for and by professional information curators was the main site for this debate, and where debate and refinement happened elsewhere – at conferences, for example – it is through the publications arising (if any) that they continue to be accessible. The foregrounding of the political neutrality or otherwise of the archives and the problematising of the profession’s engagement with marginalised groups were not matters that were of universal practical concern, unlike, for example, the advent of personal computers and the mutating multiplicity of new formats. The issues raised and sometimes profound changes to the professional paradigm were most usually presented in the literature as being prompted by literature rather than by practice; that is to say, authors such as Harris, Cook, Schwartz, Brothman, MacNeill or Hedstrom contextualise and build their arguments by referencing other authors, not practice or practical demands that they have encountered. Practice and practical demands may inform and refine the arguments; this too is done through text. The focus of this research was on aspects of the practice of information management, on what is done and what is not done by professional information
40 curators. To apprehend this would require either that practice be observed or that it be described in text. The thesis is aimed at questioning archival and records management theory in the Anglophone world, and not at individual practice, or practice in individual countries. To directly observe practice in enough institutions to provide that breadth of information would, for one person, be impractical. In addition, it would be, if exhaustive enough, potentially more work than it was worth. What is not being done by information curators is, for this research, almost more important than what is being done, and to explain or demonstrate an absence could not be done by direct observation and would have to be deduced from texts in any case (collection policy or retention schedules, for example).
2.3 Overview of texts used
The data used for the research, therefore, was already available, through the literature produced by information curators and, where necessary, from other professions touching on relevant subjects. The method used was a critical engagement with the texts produced by those proposing theoretical viewpoints and those responding to these proposals, including those responding through an account of some practical application of theories or philosophical viewpoints.
The literature exploited was that which focuses on what information curators present and theorise about themselves and their practice. There was some use also of the professional literature of related professions such as libraries and museums.
Given the suitability of a text-based approach to the topic and aims of this dissertation, the primary texts for the research (both as literature and as data) were drawn from the published literature of the archival and records management professions. In some specific and limited contexts, writings from outside the profession were also included. Primary texts were those through which the
41 deconstruction of archival theory was proposed and debated, those in which marginality was described or discussed, and in which responses to, or opportunities to engage with, marginality of some description were described (based on past experience or events) or proposed.
Secondary texts provided additional analysis; these were drawn from the wider world, that is, from outside the arena of professional information curation. They were texts that analysed issues relevant to the research questions, but were not necessarily focused on archives or records management environments but rather on the nature of particular aspects of these issues. These texts included orality in general, rather than specifically in the context of information curation, and similarly analysed issues of marginality and liminality in society, and the boundaries between the edges and the mainstream; of knowledge and power, rhetoric and the building of accepted narratives or stories based on evidence.
2.4 Methodological details
As mentioned above (2.2) some consideration was given to alternative methods of research (e.g., surveys/interviews) but these were rejected in favour of text-based research. From the earliest stages of the research, it seemed clear that at least some of the issues related to active and disadvantageous marginalisation had received sustained attention. In particular, the focus of attention had been on those instances where there was at least an aspect of injustice or inequality intrinsic to the marginalised state. What had received scant attention is what is identified in this research as the more quotidian or banal forms of marginalisation. Therefore the citations and references available through texts published in the professional journals were likely to require augmentation and in the initial stages of the research, the possible sources of this augmentation were unclear. Searches using the same
42 terms as were used in searching the professional literature were performed in academic publications related to libraries, museums and business, as well as other professions concerned with interpretation of social activity, such as anthropology and sociology. Any publication identified in searches through archives and records management professional publications that proposed a new or unexpected means for analysing or interpreting professional activity was examined for possible citations;
for example texts on performance or performativity, genre or speech-act theory. For a period of the research the list of material that had potential in terms of being relevant and informed was enormous, and its management in the context of the topic being addressed and the time available became important. At the same time, samples of available material from both academic and professional literature were read before particular lines of research were laid aside. This was done by selecting small number of the articles identified through the means described above, and reading them in order to get a sense of not just of the theme or questions of that article, but of the context in which the author placed their work. This process allowed achieving a sense of the discourse and interests of research in that particular area, and how much background research would be required in order to determine if further research in this area would answer the research questions of this thesis. The areas tested and laid aside in this manner are indicated in Section 7.2.
The reasons for rejection, where research value was initially perceived, were one of two. The topic was being recognised as being suitable for research projects in their own right, rather than supplementary to this one (such as deeper investigation into orality, oral traditions, and “marginal” orality such as gossip or rumour). Alternatively it was because it was recognised that material valuable as an introduction to what was for the researcher unfamiliar territory did not necessarily need to be presented in
43 the thesis. This material was predominantly, but not exclusively, published in journals that were not, in the main research, used, such as Journal of Popular Culture, Current Anthropology,and Journal of Peasant Studies (Appendix 1 lists these journals). Arguably, any one of these could contribute important insights into answering the research questions, but if the specialism (e.g., ethnography) was very unfamiliar to the researcher then further research in that area was unachievable within the limitations of time. In addition, the rejection of these potential lines of enquiry helped to formulate what kind of framework was likely to be most successfully applied: a framework that did not require the information curator to have any especial talents or personal interests other than in records (of any medium).
This, in general terms, was how material for both the literature review and the data was selected. More specifically, it was an iterative process based on keyword-searching through library databases and through the search engines used by the publishers of the relevant journals, such as Sage, Wiley, JSTOR as well as the searchable indices on the websites of the core professional journals (where available). As mentioned above, some texts on these topics – in particular, the critical evaluation of professional theory and the application of postmodernism – were already known through routine reading of professional publications (see Section 2.4.2 – 2.4.3, for an overview of key texts both for the literature review and those used as a source of data). There were two ways of exploiting these for further reading: one was to draw out load-bearing vocabulary to use as future search terms, and the other was to follow up citations from the bibliographies provided. Both of these methods were used.
44 2.4.1 Method of searching
A list of search terms was developed (see Appendix 2). Since some of the terms (such as margin* or archiv* or record) are so widely used in so wide a range of contexts, though a large number of results were often returned in searches, a percentage of these were not relevant and had to be excluded. In the very first stages of the research, the results being returned from searches on such words were thousands. The keywords were either encountered in texts (particularly as more recent articles specifically include a list of keywords) and re-used, or they emerged during the course of writing notes or developing the text and were adopted as keywords for searching.
Details of search results were exported to Ref Works and separately a spreadsheet collating bibliographic details was maintained. Where possible, the abstract was used to assess the relevance of the article, otherwise (where no abstract was available) the article was read. In the interests of managing the time available, no notes were taken where there was no relevance whatsoever. For material that was considered at some point to be relevant, notes were taken in separate documents.
These notes were more or less systematic but the level of detail included depended on the characteristics of the article (especially how relevant it was). The notes were also the opportunity for an initial reflection – often tentative and casually expressed – on the article and its likely influence on the research questions. Though some of these notes are hard-copy only, an electronically-created example is given in Appendix 3.
Chapter 1 referred to the passive form of marginality, that which is the point of difference between the characteristics of one group that differentiates it from another group, without that differentiation being either disadvantageous or judgemental. In
45 addition to these two types of marginality, there are people who wish to be on the margins. This preference is sometimes as a rejection of mores that are unacceptable to them, and sometimes because some will find the margins and boundaries much richer and more rewarding than mainstream society; not necessarily as a rejection, but because the liminal state is one that attracts them or because they feel that a greater understanding of the world in which they live can be achieved at a distance.
Taken as a whole, the material used was selected in order that the sources used be multivocal – “comprised of [sic] all accessible writings on a common…topic” that between them will “embody views or voices of a diverse set of authors (academics, practitioners…)” (Ogawa and Malen 1991 pg 265). At the same time, the emphasis is on texts produced by professionals and for professionals, and the development of professional theory and paradigms of practice. The views or experiences of people whose lives may be marginal, or the subject of exclusion or injustice are not reflected.
2.4.2 Identification and selection of texts
A number of authors draw attention to the important contribution that academics, researchers and commentators have made to opening up the definition of “archives”
A number of authors draw attention to the important contribution that academics, researchers and commentators have made to opening up the definition of “archives”