Referring archives as orphanages/hospices and performances, the main argument suggests that ethics codes of archives processes of consent and anonymization need to be reconsidered. The author highlights the role of archivists as mediators, operating liminal spaces (the archive) which gives way to the performance aspect and power of decisions made in the archival method. Recognizing this acknowledges that archival researchers need to pay attention to the weaknesses of standard anonymization, consent and access by mediating the issues that may arise. Promises made by anonymization are costly, all or nothing approaches hinder future research and limit the usefulness or matching the moral codes of the communities they are associated with. Since consent is difficult to obtain with the uncertainty of how archives might be used by others, the author points out the turn to participatory research which renegotiates the research process throughout the study. Lastly, the discussion on access covers issues on funding and ownership. Funding should hold researchers accountable to make all data collected publicly available, including field notes arguing that the destruction of data is an act of total ownership.
Analytic (Question)
Everyone can view this content
On