The online availability of massive amounts of digitized material creates a false sense of accomplishment when we find that one specific item that is useful to our research.
In the process, we miss serendipity and context.
A thread in praise of aggregates. 1/
In the process, we miss serendipity and context.
A thread in praise of aggregates. 1/
Each item in an archives is part of aggregations, i.e. "sets of records whose affinity results from their mode of creation, assembly, maintenance, or use by the record’s creator or whose unity was imposed during archival processing." 2/
dictionary.archivists.org/entry/aggregat…
dictionary.archivists.org/entry/aggregat…
Aggregations are parts of a hierarchical whole (fonds or record group).
Those who use physical archives and finding aids know that the goal of archival description is to reflect not only the content, but also the intricate relationships (context) among material. 3/
Those who use physical archives and finding aids know that the goal of archival description is to reflect not only the content, but also the intricate relationships (context) among material. 3/
Digital archives are good at providing access but 'bad' at providing context.
Usually what users find depends on keywords, filters & queries. Accurate results are usually the result of a knowledgeable/skilful user.
In the process, we might find the part, but lose the whole. 4/
Usually what users find depends on keywords, filters & queries. Accurate results are usually the result of a knowledgeable/skilful user.
In the process, we might find the part, but lose the whole. 4/
Archivists try to overcome this with metadata that provide links to other material and maybe a glimpse at hierarchical relationships.
However archival description that does a good job in positioning & contextualizing each item at the aggregate level is 'lost in translation'. 5/
However archival description that does a good job in positioning & contextualizing each item at the aggregate level is 'lost in translation'. 5/
We lose so much context when we only focus on one item--result of a query, but fail to understand its position among other items in a collection.
In the physical world, we could touch & comprehend this item inside a file, the file inside a box, the box as part of a group. 6/
In the physical world, we could touch & comprehend this item inside a file, the file inside a box, the box as part of a group. 6/
Along the way, we could also come across other serendipitous material that might spark something or might add another spin to our research. 7/
So what to do since accessing online digitized material has become a norm? [during the pandemic].
Firstly, do not 'read' items out of context. Know that they are part of something. Seek out what that something is. Think at the aggregate level! 8/
Firstly, do not 'read' items out of context. Know that they are part of something. Seek out what that something is. Think at the aggregate level! 8/
Secondly, see if there is an online finding aid for the collection that the item you are looking at belongs to. Read the digitized collection alongside its finding aid to understand the whole, and the hierarchy that links together all those seemingly isolated digitized items. 9/
Understanding the digitized collection alongside the finding aid will not only help you see the whole, but also help you see missing items that might have not been digitized. Don't forget that not digitization involves selection--not everything has been digitized! 10/
Finally, embrace the 'imperfection' of systems! That 'wrong' item you got back, maybe it still is relevant to your query. Sometimes serendipity works in mysterious ways! And it will also help you fine tune your research. 11/11
*Don't forget that *all* digitization involves selection.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
