The Participatory Archive: Designing a spectrum for participation and a new definition of the participatory archive.

Written as a research paper for my archival masters in 2016. Determined to come back to it in the future as a lot has been published in the last 3 years that is not reflected in this work.

ABSTRACT The literature addressing the participatory archive is littered with what appears to be synonymous terminology, multiple interpretations and understandings. By developing a spectrum for participatory behaviour and participation in archives a tentative definition is produced and tested with a case study.

Chapter 1: Introduction

The participatory archive has been a growing topic of debate throughout the last decade with a surge in definitions and models to put theory into practice. Although participatory elements have been implemented in existing institutions there is a drive to push the boundaries of the concept and to formulate future possibilities.

“You will never achieve a goal until you understand it, can articulate it,

and orient your work by that understanding.” (Eastwood, 2002: 69)

One of the difficulties in articulating this goal of the ‘participatory archive’ is that there is no one participatory archive but instead multiple archives, definitions and models. Through detailed analysis of the literature, with particular attention to the archival field, the intent of this research paper is to consolidate the definitions of the participatory archives and its accompanying lexicon by responding to Huvila’s call to “develop a model of different degrees of participation in archival contexts” (2011: para 4) and develop my own definition. This working definition must consequently be tested, while several examples will be drawn upon throughout the discussion, The Kate Sharpley Library and Archive (to be referred to henceforth as KSL) is explored to test my own definition.

My research aims to understand the participatory archive by answering these questions:

· What is a ‘participatory archive’ according to the literature?

· What is the range of participation in existing archives?

This research is structured around five chapters, after this introduction (chapter one), the investigation will continue with the Literature Review; an overview of the relevant literature and critiques (chapter two) leading to My Working Definition and Spectrum (chapter three). This will be tested in the Case Study (chapter four) and ultimately the Conclusion (chapter five).

Chapter 2: Literature Review

There is a growing demand for user-centred design in the archival sector following societal shifts towards a return of participatory culture (Iacovino, 2015: 262). These calls for greater involvement of the public in ‘memory institutions’ have often been in response to the lack of plurality in archival ‘voices’. Social inclusion is vital to a democratic society and a substantial body of archival literature has been produced over the last decade in support of this claim (Iacovino, 2010: 362).

A narrative is asserted, ignored or reframed in archival processes, that is inevitable. Not all truths are represented, not all stories told. Memory institutions have ignored experiences outside the history of the mainstream creating many “gaps within archives” (Shilton & Srinivasan 2007: 8). Archives have been created about rather than of people, and although this subject was debated in the 1970s little changed before the turn of the 21st Century (Shilton & Srinivasan 2007: 89).

This ‘gap’ in archival collections needs to be addressed in a time when people now constantly “create their own networks [and] collections” (Theimer, 2012: 6) consisting of information artefacts and material possessions. Theimer argues that archivists should work to “benefit” from this trend, however it is surely necessary to accommodate for, and adapt to, these changes before benefiting from them.

It is proposed here that this gap can be filled with a participatory shift in archival practice. Researchers with expertise about the content of collections have long been invited to aid in the understanding of contextual realities of the records. Participation in this respect is not a progressive concept, for example Jenkins proposed appraisal was best managed by creating organisations (Trace, 2010: 49), and practices continue to reflect such thought. This outsourcing of archival practices goes beyond fellow professionals, indeed many archival duties continue to be delegated to others following a longstanding tradition of volunteerism in private and public archives; it is certainly “nothing essentially new” (Theimer, 2013: para 56). However, this is a form of delegation, the following literature review will examine how participation differs, if indeed it does.

Pre-twentieth century participation was a part of everyday life (Shirky, 2010: 19); culture was essentially created and centered around shared experiences. There were relatively low barriers to artistic expression, strong support for creation and the sharing of creations. In this space informal exchanges of knowledge, buoyed by casual forms of tutorship, meant those with experience could pass along knowledge to novices (ibid). Participants invested in their contributions and peer review added value to the informational output. Social connections were created and encouraged by this culture.

As society became increasingly individualistic culture no longer relied on the relationships with like-minded communities once so integral to its formation. Culture became a sedentary part of life, enabled by screens; something viewed, passively appreciated or ignored. New media is changing the game. The world’s collective knowledge is being put to new uses, a globally interconnected online community is emerging, and this is only the beginning (Shirky, 2010). These technological and social landscapes aren’t replacing existing systems so much as restoring far older and more intimate kinds of human relationships. Reintroducing a participatory culture based on individuals not only consuming (materials and information) but also contributing and producing. There is a distinct overlap with Web 2.0 applications and the shift from individual expression to communal involvement, this interactivity is at the core of 2.0 movements often discussed in parallel with participatory archives.

Web 2.0 is a user-centred web of multi-sensory communication, not textual publications, it allows for dialogues instead of monologues (Verma, 2014: 146). 2.0 movements mirror this web and embrace the potential in new technologies but these are not inherent in 2.0 principles. What governs these movements is “being open to new ideas, flexible, user-centred, technology-friendly, and willing to take risks” (Theimer, 2008: para 2), these are the values that underline 2.0 and sister participatory movements. These values are “perhaps new, perhaps not” (ibid) or perhaps they are readapting participatory culture.

From these principles, ideas were formulated about how cultural institutions could mirror participatory practices and keep up with societal changes that have altered public expectations of memory institutions: museums, libraries and archives (Mulrenin, 2002 In Huvila, 2008: 28). Library and museum writings on participatory possibilities emerged ahead of archival papers, ‘library 2.0’ was a term coined by Casey on his LibraryCrunch blog (2005) and the ‘Participatory Museum’ and ‘Museum 2.0’ were developed by Nina Simon in her Museum 2.0 blog (2006). The key foundations for these participatory and 2.0 ideas underline the needs to get users involved in a bidirectional way.

Widespread access to digital tools worldwide is breaking down hierarchical models of governance and changing social interaction. There is greater opportunity to create, change, destroy, share and keep records, in all forms, however and wherever (Millar, 2014: 15). These are the modes of communication, the by-products of work, the process bound information that archivists have to come to terms with to preserve society’s documents for posterity, records that are “now directly in the hands of their creators” (ibid).

What the participatory archive attempts to respond to is this shift from traditional to 2.0, from individual to collective, from a “passive model of information consumption towards the active engagement of the public in creating new knowledge” (Shirky, 2010 Cited in Eveleigh et al., 2015: 18). Attempting to do so is not a unique goal per se, but an important one that must be negotiated within the archival realm. And if an archive, physical or intangible, is to meet these needs and reflect the society it is in (Cook, 1997: 30), it also needs to ‘shift’ and charge into the future.

The participatory archive is not around but about and of its users, in answering calls for equality it strives to fill the gaps of distorted narratives. It keeps up with and aims to set new trends for 2.0 capabilities while listening to the demands new and long standing users. The participatory archives will reinvent how society can best archive itself to keep up with changes in a “wired world” to charge not just into any future, but a “better future” (Cook, 2010).

2.1 Definitions in the literature

The evolving concept of the participatory archive is understood in different ways and described using different approaches, from theoretical to practical, academic to casual and from specific to overarching terminology. Definitions range from selective to total participation (Duranti and Franks, 2015: 261). The following discussion is based primarily on definitions from Theimer (2012)[i], Iacovino (2010)[ii], Huvila (2008)[iii], Yakel (2011)[iv] and supporting materials from Shilton and Srinivasan (2007). These have been chosen for this analysis as they are those most referenced in the surrounding literature and also credited with developing the concept (Duranti and Franks, 2015: 261–2).

The parameters in which the concept takes form cannot be assumed, while it may be defined immediately as an ‘archive’ (Huvila, 2008; Iacovino, 2010), describing it primarily as a ‘space’ (Yakel, 2011), ‘organisation, site or collection’ (Theimer, 2012) embraces the opportunity for the conceptual participatory archive to grow outside formal institutional settings. This untethers the archive from a physical location, allowing for the development in an “online environment” (Theimer, 2012).

This “new wrinkle” (Theimer, 2012: 13) of an interconnected web enables and increases the opportunities for the other elements of the participatory archive. It expands the reach of information, of knowledge networks and the involvement of participants in the archive. While Huvila discusses it as an important factor, Theimer’s definition is the only to explicitly involve an online dynamic. This is emphasised in her pioneering of the term ‘Archives 2.0’, a development of the participatory archive, which follows from fellow 2.0 movements intertwined with the web and its interactive nature.

This interactive nature is fundamental to every definition, while its inter-actors vary for each. The people are at the nexus of the participatory archive (Theimer, 2013: 37); their input is what enriches the understanding of the archival materials. However unlike the other definitions, there is clear separation between these “other” (Theimer, 2012) people and the professional archivists. These non-professional actors remain on the periphery, contributing knowledge and resources around the archive.

In stark opposition Huvila (2008) removes the role of the archivist, repositioning them as “managers [occupied with] technical maintenance” with no role in value judgements (2008: 24). This superficially echoes the idea of Jenkinsonian custodian; making users the sole agents for archival practices (Cook, 1997). Instead, the archivist-as-mediator is eliminated completely “in other words there would be no ‘archivist’” (Duranti and Franks, 2015: 261). However, it could be interpreted that, these user-agents are the archivists of their own archive, therefore removing the professional archivist and decentralising curation creates a multitude of archivists participating together to contextualise the “entire archival process” (Huvila, 2008).

This shift of control from professional archivist to user-participants is a critical element in both Huvila (2008) and Yakel’s (2011) definitions. Authority is shared between the archivist, in whatever role they play, and the other stakeholders. The participatory archive is built without a ‘professional’ and essentially without any one in charge. These definitions re-orientate archival practices from traditional hierarchical, with one creator and one provenance, to a co-operative archive.

This idea of co-operation is in every element of Yakel’s (2011) definition, it is also central to the discussions by Iacovino (2010) and Shilton and Srinivasan (2007). “[A]ll parties” (Iacovino, 2010) have their needs and rights acknowledged. Such a model that recognises record subjects as co-creators demands a considerable re-thinking of archival tools and processes; acquisition and privacy policies would have to accommodate for rights accorded to the subject of the record. This concept is built on a model of equal partnership between community and archival institution “co-negotiat[ing]” (Yakel, 2011) rights of records, to arrange, describe and interpret them together. This framework is particularly concerned with marginalised communities and building representative archives (Shilton and Srinivasan, 2007: 91). The collaboration between archive and community re-articulates archival practices to reflect the “new realities of the range of contributors to the record’s formation” (Iacovino, 2015: 8) not only in records but in the practices and processes inherent in their creation, use and authorship. It allows participants “to speak, not be spoken for” (Shilton and Srinivasan, 2007: 95).

At each level of participation, from contributed knowledge and resources (Theimer, 2008) to collaborative and co-operative development (Iacovino, 2010; Shilton and Srinivasan, 2007; Yakel, 2011) to “radical user orientation” (Huvila, 2008) invites a wide range of critiques. The renegotiation of long-standing professional practices shakes the pillars on which archives are built upon. The validity of the institution and its trustworthiness has an uncertain future.

2.2 Critiques of Participatory Archives: The four five ‘A’s

Eveleigh et al. discusses the main general critiques of contributed content and participatory archives under four headings: accuracy, authenticity, authority and accessibility (2015, 210–228). I build on this discussion and also include ‘attendance’. This last title is used to encompass problems with engaging participants and the unreliable nature of unpaid work.

2.2.1 Accuracy and Authenticity

There is a tension inherent in the desire to share access and promote usage and the “instinct to control context and authenticity” (Eveleigh et al, 2015: 212), Huvila questions the reliability of a participatory archive due to collective control (2008: 31), or the lack of hierarchical control. An unbroken line of provenance for a record goes a long way in determining its authenticity (Williams, 2015: 372), and the opportunity for editing fellow participants’ submissions “can cast doubt on provenance, leading some to potentially question the authenticity of the records” (Ibid). This can lead to the loss of important contextual information and unpredictable results which make risk management difficult.

“These types of systems undermine the archives’ control … threaten[ing] the traditional role of an archives as a trusted third party that protects the authenticity of records” (Duff et al, 2010; Cited in Eveleigh, 2012: 5). However trustworthiness of documents has long been debated since diplomatics (Duranti and Franks, 2015: 477), it is not a new development. New technologies and attitudes must form to accommodate for the influx in contributions from a wide range of participants.

2.2.2 Authority

“How much authority [are] we as archivists… willing to share”? (Yakel, 2011b:258)

Huvila similarly suggests that authority is personified by the archivist (2008), this authority is intertwined with the organisation’s reputation and accountability and is essential in building a trustworthy archive. The participatory archive actively and consciously redefines and re-negotiates authority, this leads to less fixed or defined roles which become a cause for concern.

Participants may find it easier to engage with and trust some level of authority. The archivist as intermediary or moderator “lessens the filtering and verification burden on research user” (Eveleigh, 2012: 5) and participant. A hierarchy can provide security for participants, a administrator to solve disagreements, to take control of managerial decisions. Strict guidelines and clearly defined structure can encourage those who have little or no experience in an archival environment. Contribution is easy and the participant has little responsibility for the future outcome or repercussions.

2.2.3 Accessibility

The participatory archive is problematic for participants who disagree with wide-open access, “looser boundaries” (Theimer, 2013b: 39) provide little security for delicate or personal information. Privacy concerns can be motivated by corporations protecting their stakeholders, but also by traditions that respect intellectual ownership of materials. In New Zealand Maori ‘taonga’ knowledge passes through generations, it is based on an understanding of collective ownership of both tangible and intangible artefacts. When ‘taonga’ is misused this tradition is disrespected even if a record is otherwise under creative commons copyright. These opposing value systems can be problematic for memory institutions (Hakiwai, 2006: 410).

As well as promoting open-access for users the participatory archive has a low level barrier for participants. From low level contribution to higher levels of collaborative organisation the archive is continually changing due to participation. Interfaces, tags, descriptions, catalogues and finding tools; each of these components restrict or enable access, guiding research one way or another. Yakel questions the ability of a participatory archive to manage such distributed contributors (2011b: 258), a lack of consistency, in the form of uncontrolled vocabulary or a lack of standardisation could render information unfindable and incoherent.

2.2.4 Attendance

Archival work can be monotonous, or even a “rather repetitive” for participants (Moran, 2016: para 18) this is reflected in the majority of participants who stay for a short duration. For members who have continually participated over longer periods commitment to the archive is secondary to other priorities, tasks are completed in “stolen time” (Moran, ibid).

In a comparative study, Benkler (2002) found volunteers (not just in archives) to be motivated for a range of reasons; monetary (by gaining experience for future employment), hedonic intrinsic, or social reasons (Cited in; Evans, 2007: 398). If an institution lacks authority, authenticity and a reputation it cannot provide valuable experience and hedonic intrinsic motivation is often contingent on set work tasks (Krausert, 2009: 17). The participant must be highly self-motivated if no tasks are demanded from them.

The danger in low attendance is that participatory archives are dependent on participants, remaining reliant on engagement without recompense could be a detriment to the continuation of archival projects and risks the future of the organisation and its assets. This is unstable and unreliable compared to traditional archives in which staff is contractually obliged and remunerated.

Chapter 3: Discussion

3.1 Critiques of Present Examples

Elements of the participatory archive are flourishing, it is more unusual to find examples of archives that have no interaction with its users whatsoever (Theimer, 2013). This interaction is often expressed by a general enthusiasm for social media, however the use of these tools is not particularly transformative (Ibekewe-SanJuan, 2015: 250). Participation is limited to comments and feedback on existing and purposefully curated collections, such as user-tagging, caption competitions, commenting on digitised materials and crowd-sourced contributions to be contextualised later by researchers (The World-Tree Project, 2016). Input is also limited to minor corrections of public descriptions or external information that does not affect the record or its original metadata. The changes in practices linger on the “periphery” (Eveleigh et al, 2015: 16), participation remains situated around the archive. As beneficial as annotations, tags, comments and reviews can be they are not the way to cultivate a participatory archive (Palmer, 2009).

‘Your Archives’ by the UK National Archives or similar legacy projects (Theimer, 2013: 20–22) welcome opinions and resources, these contributions can be knowledge, time or funding based, as is the case for crowd-funded projects. These examples progress from supplementary information given around the archive and the institutions have more points of entry for participation. Comments are taken into consideration in decision making, for instance in acquisition and destruction lists, or blogs dedicated to soliciting public input on reforming processes (Theimer, 2013: 30). Direct requests can also affect the archive’s repository, as in the case of digitisation-on-demand (Stadsarchief, 2016). Many collections are created “based on suggestions and submissions… [and] solicitation of metadata” (Duranti and Franks, 2015: 261).

Open source, or free-form article wiki platforms can increase the participant’s autonomy where, by uploading files, information can be generated, edited, documented and annotated by a community of practitioners. There is a shift in perspective, these participatory tools are of benefit to the institution, but practices are orientated towards participants and their relationship to the archive and its records. Nevertheless they continue to be reliant on the archive’s existing catalogue and finding aids (Eveleigh et al, 2015: 16), in an archive designed, managed and maintained by an “expert” (Schnapp, 2008). The archive is under professional control, their “authoritative voice” remains intact (Palmer, 2009) ultimately deciding which contributions to allow or ignore.

Similarly, despite addressing the need to co-negotiate authority in her definition, Yakel’s example of the Polar Bear Expedition Archive (Krause & Yakel, 2007) seperates the participants from original records, the information is mediated by professional archivists. This separation of participants from the professionals and from processes restricts the level of collaboration within the archive.

In a more open approach the Trust and Technology and Who am I? projects centre their focus on the wellbeing and autonomy of all participants, including record subjects and involving communities. Partnerships between researches, archivists and the community are respectful and carefully negotiated, all voices contribute to the overall outcomes (Evans et al., 2015: 249- 352). These principles compliment Iacovino and Shilton & Srinivasan’s definitions catered towards marginalised communities, by recognising that records have multiple creators, provenances, ownership and users, and realising that they should be documented as such.

Participants are “the designers of their own systems” (Shilton & Srinisavan, 2007: 96) at least in terms of arrangement and description. What is essential is that these systems are cooperatively designed and co-produced resonating with the communities involved. They continue to adapt and revise these designs and definitions as the community itself changes over time. This archive is not static; it is as dynamic as its participants. Yet, in practice, the methods used in the South Asian Web revert back to around the archive; identifying topics and connections using social tagging, descriptions and commentaries (2007: 99–100)

Allowing participants to edit actual records captures richer descriptions and links between records, it accelerates the process of updating the archive (Huvila, 2008: 26), and it remains more relevant to current participants. With the Monash University Archive and the Koorie (Victorian Australian Indigenous people) Archiving System communities and individuals worked “collaboratively as equal partners… to bring together and make accessible records” (Iacovino, 2015: 36). As well as creating a peer-produced and peer-reviewed archive through methods of co-collection and co-creation, the archives pioneered a model for institutions to co-negotiate rights of records, to arrange, describe and interpret them together (ibid). However management is still segregated from participatory functions. These more radical initiatives continue to be stunted and constrained by the reality of traditional practices trusted by institutions as discussed in the critiques in the previous chapter.

The problem with these examples is that ‘participatory’ is being used to describe a huge breadth of perspectives without clear distinctions between a crowd-sourced tagging project and a collaborative, co-created community archive. While these components provide widespread and accepted aspects of participatory archiving (Duranti and Franks, 2015: 261), using the participatory archive as an umbrella term makes it more difficult to distinguish what it really is. Rather than elucidating any comprehensive concept, the examples show how the term ‘participatory archive’ is used to describe how any “organisation, site or collection” (Theimer, 2012: 9) can be more participant friendly.

The definitions and archival literature surrounding the notion of a participatory archive, is “littered with a plethora of ill-defined and loosely applied buzzwords” (Eveliegh, 2015: 21) that refer to any interaction with users. What adds to the confusion is not the overlap of definitions, but rather in conflating and equating the multiple ‘buzzwords’ when these terms are not necessarily synonymous. The danger of associating so many meanings is that it all becomes meaningless. If a participatory archive can be so many things, if it can be anything, it is a useless model to aspire to. To answer to these issues and fill the gap in the literature as recognised by Huvila’s call to develop a model of degrees of participation in archives (2011: para 4) this research will develop a spectrum of participation based on the elements in these examples to create an analytical tool to distinguish levels of participation in different archives.

3.2 Designing a Spectrum

The input of participation has been arranged from ‘selective’ to ‘total’[v]. The selective end of the spectrum relates to casual, momentary encounters whose contributions are not always indepth or good quality. On the ‘total’ end, there are deeper levels of involvement and highly invested participants, participation is an open-ended and socially inclusive collaborative act (Eveliegh, 2015: 19). The participant is committed in some respect to the archive.

If participation is the act, then the participant is the actor. However according to Huvila all interaction with users is inherently intertwined with participation (2008: 19) therefore all users of an archive are participants. However by separating the terms with regards to active and passive participation a distinction can be made between user and participant: this spectrum is active, passive users are not yet on the spectrum. They ‘use’ the archive, and their presence is fundamental, but not every user is a participant, although they have the potential to become one.

According to Eveleigh et al the crowd is positioned at the casual end of the participation spectrum and community involvement is placed at the other end (2015: 79). As is the case with participatory culture, a community may be pre-existing, or may take form within the archives (Iacovino, 2010: 362). Using this information crowd participation, as recognised in the examples by crowd sourcing and participation around the archive, these contributive efforts can be places on the ‘selective’ end of the spectrum. Community involvement is collaborative in nature, as shown by the Koorie Archiving System (Iacovino, 2015), and can be placed towards the ‘total’ end.

To develop this further the transition from contributive to collaboration must be addressed. In this vain Theimer tackles the term ‘engagement’ (2013b: 9), which emerges from examples of participatory archives as a key element; for users to become participants they must feel “connected to the archives” (2013: 34). This connection is an investment in the process, and is vital to the progression of participation (Owens, 2016: 269). In engaging participants shallow momentary contribution develops into invested archival participation, the goal of participation shifts from being beneficial to the institution to one that focuses on the needs of the participants.

So where does the participatory archive belong on this scale?

3.2.1 From Collaboratory to Participatory

The archives explored above begin to develop systems of peer-production in collaborative projects with communities, these allow non-professionals to co-operatively create and negotiate the rights of records. In participatory archive this collaboration is increased to levels of management within the archive therefore removing all barriers between non-professionals and every archival process.

This aims to address the power imbalance between professional archivist and participant. In the Who am I? Project archival policy makers and fellow professionals are described as “power holders” (Evans et al., 2015). This power in the archive is recognised in the examples, definitions and critiques as the authority of the archivist and archival institution. Changing the current participant/archival authority dichotomy requires a radical rethinking of the tenets of power in the archive. Through co-operative, horizontal organisation the archive can (re)distribute power throughout the participants striving to create an archive “of, by, for the people” (Evans, 2007). Huvila (2008) proposes to remove this imbalance of power by removing the archivist, I argue that there is use for the archivist’s knowledge of archival processes and practices within this concept, however these expertise are valued in equal measure to the expertise of fellow participants.

As Yakel (2011) and Iacovino (2010) argue in their definitions, the principles of co-ownership, co-creation and co-negotiation hope to address the power inherent in control over the records and decisions made about them, welcoming dispute and discussion (Eveleigh et al, 2015: 222) to actively re-negotiate decisions and rights to ensure they remain relevant to the participants. The transition from collaboratory to participatory is the transition from hierarchical governance to horizontal, leaderless organisation. This is supported by a network of peer-production and validated by peer-review which can already take root in community projects.

This complete dispersal of power throughout the entire archival process changes the dynamic between archival professional and the participants. As in Huvila’s concept participants not only contribute to a framework (where the professional archivist would ultimately remain in control), but participate in the actual management of archives (Erde, 2014: 79). However I suggest, through the archivist’s redefined role as participant and facilitator, equally distributed power is possible even if the archivist remains. The archivist can add to the knowledge of archival processes, laws and rights in a co-designed archive, but as an equal participant.

According to this spectrum a participatory archive is:

A peer-produced space facilitating the contribution of co-created, co-owned information and resources that are co-managed and where power and authority is shared.

3.3 Implications of This Definition: Processes, Practices and the Archivists Role

By involving participants in every level through co-operation, the autonomy of each creator and record subject is respected (Evans et al., 2015: 352). Participants have direct access to the records (Huvila, 2008: 26), and can also participate in the co-design of the platform on which the archive is built, and co-manage the archival processes from appraisal to preservation. A collaborative approach to appraisal allows the values of records to be assessed as the community understands them (Shilton and Srinivasan, 2007: 93), hence peer production during all archival processes should yield similar results in decision making practices. This co-management extends to the outreach conducted by the archives to encourage future participants and contributions. All information about, linking and surrounding the records is co-owned creating a greater sense of investment in and responsibility towards the archives (Erde, 2014: 87) and increasing rights for participants and record subjects (Iacovino, 2010: 354).

The archive must have low level barriers to access to enable participation. Open-access has been criticised for its lack of control, however, a lack of hierarchical command does not mean there cannot be control or authority, only that it is shared equally and cooperatively decided upon. To increase investment in the archives professionals must cede control to fellow participants (Owens, 2016). As authority and power is dispersed credentials can introduced, participants in the Polar Bear Expedition archive “respected the need for documentation to make an authorized change” (Krause & Yakel, 2007: 298). Participation in some processes requires a profile account, while lower risk contribution and outreach can remain anonymous. The material is peer-reviewed which induces self-regulation by working on an understanding that information is “a non-rival commodity that becomes more valuable the more people use it” (Evans, 2007: 396). Provenance and multi-provenance could also be protected by keeping a log of activity and ownership on the platform, open source versioning and history versioning (Wikipedia, 2016) can aid in tracking the creation and participation in records.

Archivists must work to break down the hierarchies between them and non-professional participants, creating a greater sense of ownership and responsibility among participants (Erde, 2014: 87). As a fellow participant the archivist’s professional role is renegotiated, away from a mechanistic leadership and hierarchically determined goals towards an emphasis on facilitation and dispersed community coordination (Eveleigh, 2012: 6).

In traditional archival systems the archivist is the disinterested gatekeeper maintaining the position of authority (Eveleigh, 2012: 5), this developed into a mediatory role, a development that has been referred to as a paradigm shift (Williams, 2015: 374) but this mediator also continues conserve the authority of the archivist (Palmer, 2009: para 22), the archive is also still vulnerable to allegations of censorship when the archivist is in this role (Eveleigh et al discussing Yakel, 2015: 221). In my definition the archivist is a facilitator.

Facilitate in its simplest form means to make easier (Oxford dictionary). The archivist is a participant on equal terms as the others, however unlike a mediator a facilitator does not advise nor direct or head the discussion (Eveleigh et al, 2015: 222). Instead the facilitator is involved in the process, encouraging fellow participants to resolve issues amongst themselves rather than deciding for them, reflecting back comments of fellow participants to ensure that all viewpoints are heard and understood.

By facilitating the archivist aims to make participation easier. The role is to encourage participation, outreach to potential future participants, calls for sub narratives, create spaces for “communities of practice” where individuals learn and contribute to the practices of their ‘communities’ (Wenger, 2001 In Palmer 2009: para 25). While archivists can participate, it is not obligatory in every case, the archive is not limited by its reliance on the professional archivist’s participation, the archivist trusts fellow participants, sharing practical knowledge to encourage the building of the archive (Bailey, 2008 Cited in Erde, 2014: 88) reintroducing participatory culture philosophies of tutorship.

The belief in the value of the participatory archive is not enough, a ‘build it and they will come’ approach is misguided (Palmer, 2009: para 24). Participants need to be engaged (Theimer, 2013) or invested, and potentially invited and encouraged to participate, bearing in mind that not everyone wants nor needs to participate, and indeed targeting groups as “marginalised” can further their marginalisation (Schwartz and Cook, 2002: 31). Society is not inherently equal and fair, there are mainstream opinions and by reflecting these an archive inadequately represents minorities, without distorting narratives the archives provides a space for those who wish to be included and remembered (Shilton and Srinivasan, 2007: 89).

Chapter 4: Case Study: The Kate Sharpley Library and Archive

The KSL is a national anarchist library and archive stemming from the ‘Anarchist Centre’ set up in 1979 in Brixton. It is named after Kate Sharpley an anti-war activist during WWI who had been often overlooked by official historians (KSL online). After moving between different squats in the UK, the collection was moved in 1991 to Barry Pateman’s private home, in 1999 both he and the collection relocated to North California. The KSL is a distributed project; while it physical collection is now in California, other essential activities, such as publishing, continue in the ‘European branch’ (West, 2007: 130) and has an international base of participants.

The anarchist history of the KSL is key to its development and its continually growing collection. All the work is voluntary and the format for participation is informal and relaxed. The individuals that become involved do so because they can and are interested and invested (Moran, 2016b).

The KSL holds many parallels to the Occupy Wall Street archives which also developed from a horizontal and leaderless political movement. Occupy is a non-hierarchal community of practice in which participation is open to all. While the KSL is a mainly material based physical archive the Occupy movement, while embodied by physical sites of occupation, was supported and driven by online media (Erde, 2014: 77). Both archives were initiated by members of the movements and intend to collect and manage the materials relating to their respective movements. The Occupy archives provide suitable support for an analysis of the KSL. This research is complimented by an open un-structured interview with Jessica Moran[vi].

4.2 Placing the KSL on the Spectrum

Throughout the KSL’s archival management there appears an imbalance between practice and theory, particularly in appraisal; “in theory everyone is allowed [to participate in archival decisions]… what happens in practice is there are one or two people” (Moran, 2016b). Although participation is invited and encouraged the end result still depends on a few people.

This is down to two key features of the KSL: a small core team who have continually participated for over a decade and the materials have a single physical location. Higher levels of collaboration naturally gravitate towards those who are “familiar with the collection” (Moran, 2016b) and those geographically close. However the group is collectively managed in the sense that each participant chooses “what they can do and where their interests lie” (ibid). This includes newer participants that contribute at a lower level. In terms of geography, while some forms of participation transcend these barriers they are limited by the lack of online presence. Although it is not a requirement of a participatory archive to be online, being offline does build obstacles for participation. However, unlike the example of the Occupy archives (Erde, 2014: 81) although a selected few determine the fate of the records at the KSL “everyone is happy to let that person[s] be the decision maker” (Moran, 2016b).

New records and materials are appraised according to their relevance to the anarchist movement. While the group adheres strictly to this selection process there is no official collection policy. Any material that lies in a grey area is discussed and collectively decided upon, this ‘collective’ reaches beyond the physical boundaries of the archives. The informal collections policy is made in a statement in the bulletin; it invites all participants and would-be participants to be involved in the discussion. Once again in theory the KSL perpetuates a culture of co-appraisal, involving and collaborating with its own community to represent their understandings, however in practice the day-to-day appraisal and selection is carried out by a core team.

Although the participants are referred to as volunteers on the KSL website (2016), in Moran’s interview (2016b) and in other articles about the organisation following Evans (2007: 398) the individuals can be distinguished from volunteers as they choose their own hours and are personally invested in the project. The intellectual return from their investment is in the realising of a collective “desire to get [anarchist materials and philosophy] out there” (Moran, 2016b). Motivation here is normative intrinsic; the norms and values shared by the community are upheld in participation (Krausert, 2009: 17). However attendance is still problematic, while participation is flexible it is clear from the small number of long term participants that extended involvement has no equal return in investment. Nonetheless, however small a group, the archives are co-managed by participants.

Critiques about the lack of organisation in collaborative information are addressed in the KSL by using standardised cataloguing techniques. The organisation of the materials using archival tools, descriptions and catalogues are used to increase ease of access, “everyone is very conscious of wanting to make the material accessible” (Moran, 2016b). Well organised materials are not counterintuitive to anarchy, nor to non-hierarchical movements. Critics have accused the KSL of using centralised and governmental techniques in the Library and Archive such as ISBNs (West, 2007: 130), however they are an essential tools to provide proper access; they are “just useful principles to organise material around, and no one has yet had a problem with that” (Moran, 2016b). They may not be necessary to distribute materials within the movement but the goal is to have as wide a reach as possible (West, 2007: 130).

The most consistent output of distributed materials of the KSL is the peer produced bulletin. It is published in the firm belief that all information “should belong to everybody… nobody should have control over it” (Moran, 2016b), this philosophy is mirrored in the classification of materials; donations have no restrictions applied to their access. The participatory ideal that information is understood as an “unrivaled commodity” (Evans, 2007: 396) is in line with the anarchist ethos. The bulletin, newsletter and publications produced by the KSL answers Palmer’s critique of ‘build it and they will come’ (2009: para 24). This outreach encourages the reuse of materials and an active participation in records and information management, and while preservation is a key element, materials are also archived for contemporary use and research.

“In a sense this history belongs to us, not the academics” (Moran, 2016b)

The KSL aims to keep anarchism active, not just an academic exercise (Moran, 2016b). They are fundamentally ‘anarchivists’, it is vital that the materials remain with anarchists themselves. By navigating the archive as an anarchist project the records stay contextualised while the materials might be geographically displaced. Participants are “involved in the project because it is anarchist” (Moran, 2016b) and to remain accessible to a wider non-academic audience the information must be understandable and un-intimidating. This was a major concern for the Occupy Archives when they were finally consolidated by institutional archives (Erde, 2014: 85). The KSL makes a conscious effort to eliminate the archivist as gatekeeper, and remove the barriers caused by knowledge specific access. It doesn’t discourage the professionals from participation but ensures that those outside the traditional research sphere have an equal ability to access information.

Accessibility is essential for participatory archives, it is a key component in the underlying philosophy of the archives and must be upheld by participators to support continuing open access. The KSL embraces this philosophy by getting the word out there, inviting new members to participate in the information, to understand and learn about the anarchist movement and particularly for fellow anarchists to be able to access and use their own materials. The KSL manages “the voices of all those distributed curators” (Yakel, 2011: 258) through a network of peer support and review which allocates authority according to appropriate skills and level of commitment, tasks are naturally delegated to participants according to skillsets (Moran, 2016b).

The archivists’ skillset remains relevant; they are “rescuing” (Goodway, 2008: para 8) previously unknown members of the anarchist movement from disappearance by actively searching for new materials and new voices. The professional archivist has equal an amount of authority as other participants, this authority is negotiated in terms of the amount of involvement an individual has in the archive, the level of commitment and resources (in whatever form) they can contribute.

This is exemplified by the archives location: although the KSL archives are situated at the home of Pateman and Moran in California, they are viewed and understood as co-owned. They, as participants, offered their particular resources –space and shelter– to preserve the records but have no greater authority over their management than another, referring to themselves as temporary caretakers who will eventually pass on this responsibility. In theory the records are co-owned, in reality they are legally owned by Pateman and Moran. Perhaps an element of co-operative ownership in the holdings themselves would accentuate the philosophy of the co-owned archive in practice.

Chapter 5: Conclusions

The participatory archive builds on a model of community archives, where the community is open to such horizontal organisational practices. The philosophy of shared information, open access and participatory management is ingrained from the creation of the archives. This element of open access is frequently referred to and with new open source technology[vii] this is more important than ever and needs to be addressed. It is clearly a fundamental concept for KSL and a yet is a key critique of participation and contributed content in archives. It is dealt with in this discussion but perhaps needs to be explicitly addressed in the definition. As the participatory archive is a co-designed project it does not lend itself as a model to existing institutions, ‘total’ participation is not readily adaptable, it is unclear whether all of these elements could successfully be implemented in an existing archives. The examples seem to suggest that it would not be.

The model itself is successful in determining that the KSL archive lies on the boundary of ‘collaborative’ and ‘participatory’, authority is co-negotiated and shared according to group decisions. However because of its small size and the physical offline collection, an environment is created in which the elements of participatory archives that are often criticised, as discussed in chapter 2.2, are not aggravated within a core group and intermittent participants.

The spectrum is helpful for distinguishing levels of participation in different archives, yet doesn’t allow for ‘skipping of steps’ which is possible. For example crowd sourcing techniques are not used in the KSL because of its limited online presence and it has a close knit community base which means participants are familiar with others involved and with the contributors. Nonetheless it fulfills other stages of criteria; it focuses on the participants and on how the archive can serve them rather than how they can best be utilised for the archive’s benefit. The anarchist community is involved throughout the archival processes to ensure the future of the records remain understood in their context. There is an environment of peer production in the bulletin and other publications which lend to archival processes such as the informal collections policy. However, much like the other examples in the literature, while the KSL theoretically distributes power and equally shares authority, in reality day-to-day practices do not reflect this and are reliant on a select few decision makers.

The principle aim of this paper was to understand the terminology and language used in the literature surrounding the participatory archive and through detailed discussion this was achieved in the form of the participation spectrum. While the spectrum requires adjustment and critical redevelopment, it provide a basis from which participatory practices in archives can be placed in relation to those in fellow archival institutions.

[i] A participatory archive is “An organisation, site or collection in which people other than the archive professionals contribute knowledge or resources resulting in increased [appreciation and] understanding about archival materials [and archives], usually in an online environment” (Theimer, 2012). [contains the updated definition referenced as Theimer (2013)b]

[ii] A participatory archive is “one that acknowledges all parties to a transaction as immediate parties — co-creators — with negotiated rights and responsibilities in relation to ownership, access and privacy” (Iacovino, 2010).

[iii] A participatory archive is “An archive implementing decentralised curation, radical user orientation and contextualisation of both records and the entire archival process” (Huvila, 2008).

[iv] A participatory archive is “A space where information is co-represented, credibility norms co-established, knowledge co-created, authority co-negotiated, and control is shared” (Yakel, 2011 In Duranti and Franks, 2015: 261).

[v] These are taken from the description of participatory archives in Duranti and Franks (2015: 261–2).

[vi] Jessica Moran is a main participator in the Kate Sharpley Archives, she agreed to be interviewed for this research.

[vii] Open source is changing the world: https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source

Bibliography

Cook, T. (1997). What is past is prologue: a history of archival ideas since 1898, and the future paradigm shift. Archivaria, 17–63.

Cook, T. (2001). Archival science and postmodernism: new formulations for old concepts. Archival science, 1(1), 3–24.

Schwartz, J. M., & Cook, T. (2002). Archives, records, and power: the making of modern memory. Archival science, 2(1–2), 1–19.

Duranti, L. and Franks, P. (2015) Encyclopedia of Archival Science. Rowman & Littlefield.

Eastwood, T. (2002). Reflections on the goal of archival appraisal in democratic societies. Archivaria, 1(54).

Erde, J (2014) Constructing archives of the Occupy movement In Archives and Records, Volume 35, Number 2, Page 77

Evans, M. (2007). Archives of the People, by the People, for the People. The American Archivist, 70(2), 387–400.

Evans, J., McKemmish, S., Daniels, E., & McCarthy, G. (2015). Self-determination and archival autonomy: Advocating activism. Archival Science, 15(4), 337–368.

Eveleigh, A. (2012, August). Welcoming the world: an exploration of participatory archives. In International Council of Archives Congress.

Eveleigh, A., Flinn, A, & Shepherd, E. (2015). Crowding out the Archivist? Implications of online user participation for archival theory and practice. Doctoral Thesis, Doctoral thesis, UCL (University College London).

Goodway, D. (2008) The Kate Sharpley Library. Anarchist Studies, 16(1), 91.

Hakiwai, A (2006) Mäori Taonga — Mäori Identity. Chp In Hoffman, B. T. (2006). Art and cultural heritage: law, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press.

Huvila, Itso (2008) Participatory archive: towards decentralised curation, radical user orientation, and broader contextualisation of records management. Archival Science Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 15–36

Huvila, I (2015) The unbearable lightness of participating? Revisiting the discourses of ‘participation’ in archival literature. Journal of Documentation, Volume 71, Number 2, Page 358–386

Iacovino, L. (2015). Shaping and reshaping cultural identity and memory: Maximising human rights through a participatory archive. Archives and Manuscripts, 43(1), 29–41.

Iacovino, L. (2010). Rethinking archival, ethical and legal frameworks for records of Indigenous Australian communities: A participant relationship model of rights and responsibilities. Archival Science, 10(4), 353–372.

Ibekwe-Sanjuan, F., & Ménard, E. (2015). Preface: Archives, Libraries, and Museums in the Era of the Participatory Social Web. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 39(3), 245–250.

Krause, M., & Yakel, E. (2007). Interaction in virtual archives: the polar bear expedition digital collections next generation finding aid. The American Archivist, 70(2), 282–314.

Krausert, A. (2009). Performance Management for Different Employee Groups. Springer Science & Business Media.

Owens, T. (2013). Making Crowdsourcing Compatible with the Missions and Values of Cultural Heritage Organisations, In Ridge, M. Crowdsourcing Our Cultural Heritage. p. 269–281. Routledge.

Palmer, J. (2009). Archives 2.0: if we build it, will they come?. Ariadne, (60).

Shilton, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2007). Participatory Appraisal and Arrangement for Multicultural Archival Collections. Archivaria, 63(63) pp. 87–101

Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators. Penguin.

Schnapp, J. (2008). Animating the archive. First Monday, 13(8).

Trace, C. B. (2010). On or off the record? Notions of value in the archive. Currents of Archival Thinking, edited by TerryEastwood, and HeatherMacNeil, 47–68.

Verma, M. K., & Verma, M. K. (2014). Web 2.0 Tools and Their Use in Libraries. In National Conference Of Agricultural Librarians & User Community (NCALUC-2014) On Agricultural Information Management In Digital Era. Raipur: Indra Gandhi KrishiVishwavidhyala (pp. 146–150).

West, J. (2007). An Interview with Three Members of the Kate Sharpley Library. Serials Review, 33(2), 129–131.

Williams, A. (2015). Participation, Collaboration, and Community Building in Digital Repositories/Participation, collaboration et développement communautaire dans les dépôts numériques. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 39(3), 368–376.

Yakel, E. (2011b). Who represents the past? Archives, records, and the social web. Controlling the past: documenting society and institutions. Essays in honor of Helen Willa Samuels. Society of American Archivists, Chicago, 257–278.

Online Resources

Cook, T. (2010) Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Next Generation of Canadian Archivists. Reflections and Prospects. ACA Conference Closing Plenary Address: Into the Future (revised to reflect text as delivered): http://archivists.ca/sites/default/files/Attachments/Communications_attachments/cook_closing_plenary.pdf [Accessed 30/05/2016].

Huvila, I. (2011) What is a participatory archive? For real(?) Isto Huvila’s blog.: http://www.istohuvila.se/what-participatory-archive-real [Accessed 30/05/2016].

KSL Online (2016): http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/ [Accessed 12/06/2016]

Library Crunch (2005) Working Towards a Definition of Library 2.0.: http://www.librarycrunch.com/2005/10/working_towards_a_definition_o.html [Accessed 30/05/2016].

Millar, L. (2014) What is the Role of the Archivist in Documenting Society in a Society that is Increasingly Documenting Itself? Presentation to KVAN, Gouda, The Netherlands: http://www.archiefateliers.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Laura-Millar-What-is-the-role-of-an-archivist-in-documenting-society-in-a-society-that-is-increasingly-documenting-itself_-KVAN-speech-20141029.pdf [Accessed 30/05/2016].

Moran, J. (2016) To Spead the Revolution: anarchist archives and libraries. Kate Sharpley Online. [Accessed 14/06/2016]

Open Source: What is Open Source: https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source [Accessed 31/05/2016].

Oxford Dictionaries: Facilitate (2016): http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/facilitate [Accessed 14/06/2016]

Simon, N. (2010): The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0.: http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/ [Accessed 30/05/2016].

Stadsarchief Amsterdam (2016) https://www.amsterdam.nl/stadsarchief/archief/ [Accessed 14/06/2016].

Theimer, K. (2013) The Future of Archives is Participatory: Archives as Platform, or A New Mission for Archives. ArchivesNext: http://archivesnext.com/?p=3700 [Accessed 30/05/2016].

Theimer, K. (2013)b Participatory Archives: Something Old, Something New. Keynote address for the Spring 2012 Midwest Archives Conference meeting: http://www.slideshare.net/ktheimer/theimer-participatory-archives-mac-keynote [Accessed 30/05/2016].

Theimer, K. (2008) Archives 2.0? ArchivesNext: http://archivesnext.com/?cat=6 [Accessed 30/05/2016].

The World-Tree Project (2016) How to contribute: http://www.worldtreeproject.org/how-to-contribute [Accessed 31/05/2016].

Wikipedia Page History (2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_history [Accessed 14/06/2016]