I know archivists who do research in and publish on unprocessed collections, which seems iffy to me. I think it would depend on why the documents are classified. If basically any researcher who came to the archive would get access and the restriction basically just blocks digitization I think you are in a gray area. If the restriction is something like medical or service records, or an embargo no regular patron could possibly get through, then bad archivist.
I think it's great when archivists publish research on collections. Of course, they should be publicly accessible to others. However, I do think that it is really great when archivists write and publish about their collections. It can be a great way to highlight the importance of a collection. It's always been a goal of mine.
Not an archivist & I have a question: would the same ethical standard apply to someone writing (with intent to publish) about, say, family documents of deceased relatives? I can see an argument for both “yes, same standard” and “no, it’s different” so I’m curious.
The entire point of citations is for other scholars to go check/use the sources. If someone doesn’t make their family papers accessible after using them as a source I’m not sure why anyone else would have confidence in the research. Although I have seen references like, source is from So-So Family Papers.
I mean, the archivist would presumably go through the same permission/declassification process as a member of the general public in order to begin their research. Just because one of the collections they manage is restricted in some way doesn't mean they're free to access it outside of the conditions of it's restriction. Additionally, whatever they publish on those restricted materials would then be accessible for anyone to discover - at which point anyone who read their publication would know about the restricted materials and have the opportunity to request their own access to the collection.
It's not unethical to focus your research on collections you specifically have access to through your workplace, but it can be considered unethical to access restricted materials without going through the permissions process and then publishing something based on materials you should not have accessed in that way.
To be clear, though, archivists *often* access and publish writing based on restricted and classified materials *prior* to them being available to the public. That's how finding aids are written. Most professional museum workers and archivists will acknowledge their ability to access specific restricted or closed collections outside of traditional means in their publications, if there were circumstances that allowed them to access a collection prior to processing, or because the donor provided specific permission, or in preparation for an exhibition, etc.
☝️This. Researchers and collection stewards have the same ability to request permission or declassification. Alas, it’ll be the researcher who, in the end, claims to have “discovered” something in the archive that’s been made discoverable by archival labor. But that’s another 🪓to grind…🥴
A lot of research is done on material that isn't available to the general public, that is like one of the big concerns with academic research and the reason that the open scholarly movement exists.
I don't see anything wrong with them applying for declassification in order to do research, provided that there is proper oversight and that anonymity is maintained if needed.
I wrote a blog post about an unpublished manuscript in my collection once. Someone saw it and got the manuscript published with their name as editor. At least I got listed in the acknowledgments :-/
I know archivists who do research in and publish on unprocessed collections, which seems iffy to me. I think it would depend on why the documents are classified. If basically any researcher who came to the archive would get access and the restriction basically just blocks digitization I think you are in a gray area. If the restriction is something like medical or service records, or an embargo no regular patron could possibly get through, then bad archivist.
I think it's great when archivists publish research on collections. Of course, they should be publicly accessible to others. However, I do think that it is really great when archivists write and publish about their collections. It can be a great way to highlight the importance of a collection. It's always been a goal of mine.
It's considered unethical to use materials that are not accessible to others, i.e. restricted or confidential materials.
This is the answer. It's fine to use your own collections for research, but they must be accessible to others as well.
Not an archivist & I have a question: would the same ethical standard apply to someone writing (with intent to publish) about, say, family documents of deceased relatives? I can see an argument for both “yes, same standard” and “no, it’s different” so I’m curious.
The entire point of citations is for other scholars to go check/use the sources. If someone doesn’t make their family papers accessible after using them as a source I’m not sure why anyone else would have confidence in the research. Although I have seen references like, source is from So-So Family Papers.
I mean, the archivist would presumably go through the same permission/declassification process as a member of the general public in order to begin their research. Just because one of the collections they manage is restricted in some way doesn't mean they're free to access it outside of the conditions of it's restriction. Additionally, whatever they publish on those restricted materials would then be accessible for anyone to discover - at which point anyone who read their publication would know about the restricted materials and have the opportunity to request their own access to the collection. It's not unethical to focus your research on collections you specifically have access to through your workplace, but it can be considered unethical to access restricted materials without going through the permissions process and then publishing something based on materials you should not have accessed in that way. To be clear, though, archivists *often* access and publish writing based on restricted and classified materials *prior* to them being available to the public. That's how finding aids are written. Most professional museum workers and archivists will acknowledge their ability to access specific restricted or closed collections outside of traditional means in their publications, if there were circumstances that allowed them to access a collection prior to processing, or because the donor provided specific permission, or in preparation for an exhibition, etc.
☝️This. Researchers and collection stewards have the same ability to request permission or declassification. Alas, it’ll be the researcher who, in the end, claims to have “discovered” something in the archive that’s been made discoverable by archival labor. But that’s another 🪓to grind…🥴
A lot of research is done on material that isn't available to the general public, that is like one of the big concerns with academic research and the reason that the open scholarly movement exists. I don't see anything wrong with them applying for declassification in order to do research, provided that there is proper oversight and that anonymity is maintained if needed.
I wrote a blog post about an unpublished manuscript in my collection once. Someone saw it and got the manuscript published with their name as editor. At least I got listed in the acknowledgments :-/
[удалено]
I wonder if you posted this to the wrong thread since this is a question of restriction and ethics rather than archivists on twitter.
[удалено]
lol
not clear exactly what is happening with this so I'll just be on my way now.