For this assignment I viewed the video Corrective collecting: A practical, holistic, EDI-centered strategy for community archives, with Chela Scott Walker, Sr. Program Officer, OCLC Research Library Partnership interviewing Conor Casey, Head of Labor Archives of Washington. Casey was the founding archivist of Labor Archives of Washington, LAW, which is part of the special collections at the University of Washington Libraries Seattle campus, and has been directing it since it opened in 2010. LAW is a community archive that documents the history of unions and working people in the Pacific Northwest from 1882 to the present. The collection includes a broad range of records in a diverse range of formats, including born digital records, which are important for labor history and culture. The archives were initially crowd-funded by unions and private citizens from 2008-2015. LAW received state funding in 2015 which allowed them to expand their services, increasing outreach and allowing them to begin processing their backlog of records. To date they have fundraised $765,000.
In this interview, Casey explains that he hopes to present LAW as an example of backing up diversity, equity, and inclusion aspirations with action and accountability. LAW’s strategy has been “to create overlapping collecting, outreach, education, and access initiatives to build ongoing collaborations that will benefit all parties” (2021). The subheadings below are my takeaways from this video.
Corrective Collecting
The LAW collection was initially created from 2000 cubic feet of a legacy collection that was part of the University of Washington Special Collections. While this created a strong base for LAW, it heavily favored the labor history of European white male workers. Casey knew that it was important that their collection represented the diversity of the labor history of the region more fully. LAW’s approach is centered around DEI and addresses gaps in representation and documentation which Casey calls “corrective collecting”, which rejects the neutrality of archives and adopts the position of archivists as reparative activists. LAW addresses collection gaps and silences by proactively searching for records pertaining to the labor history of women, under-documented communities, BIPOC, and other historically marginalized workers. Corrective collecting makes their collections “more reflective of the full spectrum of workers in the region” (2021). They review their collections using community input to help identify gaps, and proactively fill those gaps by pushing out into local labor communities.
How this relates to INFO256
To quote Terry Cook, “we are what we keep” (2011, p.173), the archival record exteriorizes memory. Archives are not neutral storehouses of naturally accumulated records, rather they are fallible sites of bias that mirror the priorities of the archivists and institutions that house them. “Allowing the creator to determine ‘value’ privileges the powerful and the institutional in society over the private and the personal, corporations and governments over citizens and communities,” (Cook, p.177). Historically archives have favored the “haves”, those with the time and resources to save records become part of recorded history while those without the same resources become archival silences. This “symbolic annihilation” perpetuates the myth that the stories of marginalized groups don’t deserve to be heard (Caswell, Cifor, & Ramirez, 2016). If we allow these silences to continue, archives will remain biased centers whiteness and priviledge that marginalize large portions of society.
An archives of labor and union records is a good example of these “have-nots”, the David of the blue collar worker against the Goliath of big business and government policies. This particularly true for members of the labor community who are further marginalized by sex, race, sexual identity, and other factors. These are individuals and groups that often operate on the fringes of society and in many cases are deliberately silenced. As a result, many of these people are suspicious of government archives and other traditional archival institutions. The formation of a community archive focused on corrective collecting is the best solution to protect and center the voices that go unheard in traditional institutions because, “community archives can serve as powerful forces against symbolic annihilation by collecting a more inclusive community record” (Caswell, Cifor, & Ramirez, 2016, p. 55). In fact, “the creation of a community archives can be seen as a form of political protest—an attempt to seize the means by which history is written and correct or amend dominant stories about the past” (Caswell, Cifor, & Ramirez, 2016, p. 62).
Relationship Building
Historically archival relationships have been transactional, with a lack of ongoing relationship between and donor and archive. After an archives accessions a collection of records, they have no further need for the donor (until another record is donated). In this way, the relationship can mirror that of the colonial mindset, with the archives taking from the marginalized community and not giving anything back. In contrast, LAW attempts to build long-term relationships and collaborations with donors. While part of the reason they do this is because LAW feels like it is the ethical thing to do, Casey also explains that it is helpful to the archives. He describes these long-lasting relationships as self-reinforcing loop. When viewed holistically, collaboration helps with collection development, which helps with processing, which helps with fundraising, which helps with outreach, which helps with collection development and the circle continues. They also try to get diverse feedback about the content of their collections whenever possible in order to center the community’s voices, using their knowledge to identify gaps in the collection. Casey recognizes that LAW is not the authority here, they are facilitators and keepers of records, but the people who make the records hold the most knowledge.
How this relates to INFO256
Trust is imperative in a community archive. The creation of authentic long-lasting non-transactional relationships is the key to mutual trust, understanding, and collaboration that benefits all parties. When the archivists ask for help and input from stakeholders they are demonstrating that they respect and center community voices. By involving community members in all steps of the process, they become invested in the process and in the archives itself. “Archivists must not further marginalize the marginalized, we must resist the urge to speak for others, we must not romanticize them, (Carter, 2006, p.226). Instead of the traditional patriarchal relationship with document creator as passive donor and archivist and historian as intellectual interpreters, this model encourages community ownership and acknowledges that the most complete knowledge about a collection likely exists outside of the archives within its stakeholders. Research shows that community archives promote “community pride, citizenship, empowerment, and social inclusion” ((Caswell, Cifor, & Ramirez, 2016, p. 62).
Fostering Community
The LAW collaborates whenever possible, not only because it’s helpful for collection development, but also to be part of the labor community and to serve it. Rather than focusing on the typical archivist’s goal of “getting records into the institution”, Casey describes thinking of this more like the traditional librarian’s goal of serving their community. Rather than viewing themselves as outside of the community, bringing things into the archive, Casey says that LAW views themselves as being part of the labor community and as stewards protecting the community’s shared history from within. LAW also collaborates with many other institutions and organizations, spreading their reach and knowledge into other communities. This helps to create new relationships which increases LAW’s diversity and inclusion.
How this relates to INFO256
In order to gain trust, a community archives must be accountable to the community it serves. There should be no “about us without us”, when archives become part of the community rather than an outside party they break down the walls between institution and community, inviting everyone to participate and collaborate. However, the archives must still center the record-creators’ voices over their own, using the framework of cultural humility, “cultural competence implies that once can function with a thorough knowledge of the mores and beliefs of another culture; cultural humility acknowledges that it is impossible to be adequately knowledgeable about cultures other than one’s own” (Tai, 2021, p.6). While they are working as part of the community, the archivists should not position themselves as the authorities about the community. Collaboration increases transparency which leads to trust, sharing of resources, relationship building, and lengthens the archives reach into the larger community.
Democratizing Documentation
One of the LAW’s main goals is the protection of records, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the records are under their control. Some of the labor community has a long-standing mistrust of institutions and is reluctant to give their records away. LAW helps them to protect their records on their own terms. LAW also tries to increase access whenever possible by using language translations for finding aids, transcriptions and translations of oral histories, and bilingual exhibits.
How this relates to INFO256
“If archives are not created and kept, stories are, and will be forgotten” (Carter, 2006, p.222) and the archivist’s most elemental role is to protect archival records. While doing so in their own facility gives them more power to control preservation conditions, they have the ethical obligation to continue this work outside of their institution if they must. Access for all is another tenet of archival ethics, by translating finding aids, exhibits, and other archival literature, they ensure that the records are accessible to the widest possible audience. After all, “archives are our memories” (Schwartz & Cook, 2002, p.18).
References:
Cook, T. (2011). We are what we keep; we keep what we are: Archival appraisal past, present and future. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 32(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379816.2011.619688Links to an external site.
Carter, R. (2006). Of things said and unsaid: Power, archival silences, and power in silence. Archivaria, 61, 215–233.
Caswell, M., Cifor, M., & Ramirez, M. (2016). “To suddenly discover yourself existing”: Uncovering the impact of community archives. The American Archivist (2016) 79 (1): 56–81.
OCLCResearch. (2021, June 8). Corrective collecting: A practical, holistic, EDI-centered strategy for community archives. . Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j16A-rq5CMY
Schwartz, J. & Cook, T. (2002). Archives, records, and power: The making of modern memory. Archival Science, 2(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435628Links to an external site.
Tai, J. (2021). Cultural humility as a framework for anti-oppressive archival description. Radical Empathy in Archival Practice 3(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.24242/jclis.v3i2.120
Yakel, E. (2002). Listening to users. Archival Issues 26(2), 54-68.