Archival Reference & Information Seeking Behaviors

In the last year or so, I have begun fielding research requests at work. Our archives serve as an important visual repository for and about the museum, as the “corporate memory [which is] preserved so that the parent institution can understand its history” (Pugh, 2008, p. 43). Staff ask for images, and I attempt to locate and make accessible via digital surrogates visual representations of subjects for which they are looking. These are extrinsically motivated, as research, publication, or exhibition projects often drive these requests (Pugh, 2008). 

Sometimes requests are straightforward - a known negative which depicts a specific museum collections object. If the negative or transparency can be found within the collection - either via the image number or object accession number - the material is usually easily digitized, and the file and corresponding descriptive metadata from the catalog card and/or negative sleeve can be shared with the requestor. Often, queries are much more vague and do not have specific images associated with them. Questions are open ended: “what images do you have that depict families visiting the museum in the 1950s” or “do you have any images of the museum gardens with flowers blooming?”

One such more general request came from the collection manager, conservation technician, and researcher of the Thorne Miniature Rooms at the museum. She emailed stating that looking for “all gallery and installation views” of the miniature rooms from their first installation to today. There was thus no defined right or wrong “answer,” and nearly any image could be useful. At first, I jumped in and attempted to locate as many images as I could alone. I performed a basic keyword search in our database, digitized several dozen contact sheets, and asked if I could be of further assistance. Only at this point did I start to understand how necessary ongoing conversation and an iterative approach to research is for more general requests like this one. This experience also taught me the value of following a more traditional reference process of query abstraction, query resolution, and query refinement (Pugh, 2008). 

There were some gaps in the digitized contact sheets that I’d provided, and this staff member inquired if I could search again. We ended up meeting face-to-face, and she explained more fully what these images were for (to inform future interpretation of the miniature rooms, including wall labels and the installation of the rooms), and specific types of images that would be especially helpful (visitors looking at the rooms, position of lights in and around the rooms, views above and behind the walls and ceiling where the rooms have been installed). This interaction helped provide greater context in the form of her individual needs: the research purpose, intended use, and her previous experience and preparation (Pugh, 2008). This conversation served to more fully develop the query abstraction initially posed in her first email communication.

Given the limitations of our information retrieval systems, it is challenging to formulate the general topic in the form of a textual query. However, when we pooled our knowledge, we were able to find more relevant images. I ended up teaching this staff member how to use our information systems, and we worked together to formulate new queries, use different search terms, search in different fields, and generally try different methods to find images. Our process evolved and changed organically as we gained new information, much as Pugh (2008) describes Bates’s theory of berrypicking. This staff member was able to bring to the table expertise about the topic, and I was able to leverage knowledge about our systems and organization of knowledge. Through this query resolution, I helped steer her to relevant images while she provided additional points of access.

It is unlikely that this research will ever be “finished,” given the complexity of her request and the challenges of our information systems. Our query refinement may therefore be ongoing. It was rewarding teaming up to tackle this investigation, and it has informed how I facilitate other research queries.

References:

Pugh, M. (2008). Providing reference services for archives & manuscripts. Chicago, Illinois: The Society of American Archivists. 

MASS Action Meetings 6 & 7

The two most recent sessions of MASS Action covered exhibitions and collections, and the ways in which museums can reconceive authority and ownership to create inclusion. While I don’t currently work in these roles, theses are the issues I am most familiar with and am most likely to be facing in the future. As such, I was eager to gain additional perspectives from peers here at the museum.

Chapter 6 in the toolkit is titled ‘Sharing Authority: Exhibition Case Studies,’ and it covers two exhibitions developed by the Oakland Museum of California. Somewhat different in formatting than the previous chapters, this reading focused specifically on Pacific Worlds and Oakland I want you to know… as a way of discussing broader topics about working with individuals outside museums. Helpfully, definitions were provided upfront about the spectrum of ways in which folks can work together:

• Contribution:  Visitors and community members “contribute” by advising, loaning something, writing a response, attending a single meeting/convening or answering interview questions. The internal team conceives of and drives the vision and goals for the project. Community voice may or may not be incorporated.

• Collaboration:  Community members and museum staff work together as a team, to develop ideas and share some decision-making. Community voice is visible in key moments of the project/exhibition.

• Co-creation:  Community members or artists are part of the key decision making. This could be creative direction, designing elements for the project/exhibition, creating an artwork, adding interpretation, producing a media experience, or designing a whole section—determining the “how” an exhibit experience is implemented. Co-creators play a role throughout the whole project/exhibition. Community voice is a key piece of the narrative and is visible throughout the whole project/exhibition (Lashaw & Orantes, 2017, pp. 106-107).

Each exhibition description included the ways in which aspects of the project demonstrated contribution, collaboration, and co-creation, and it highlighted both successes and ways in which there was room for improvement. I appreciated how much detail was provided about the steps that were taken to include the communities being represented - from forming project task forces to commissioning work. It’s much more clear the ramifications of this work when broader concepts are backed with concrete examples. The feedback gathered from the contributing communities also provided useful ways to evaluate the work, and it demonstrated the need for constant improvement. I found it encouraging to see how other institutions are working through this, learning as they go, and are embracing it in spite of the traditional model of curator and museum professional as expert. Examples offer us guidance and can help to show the field as a whole that there are alternatives.

Our session to cover this chapter began with a partner exercise, where we were working together to draw our ideal potluck. The facilitators requested we use methodology inspired by Pair Programming, wherein one individual verbally describes and the other expresses that via keyboard - or in this case marker and paper - execution. It was a challenging and interesting exercise for many reasons, and it was interesting to see how fluidly and comfortably my partner and I (seemed) to alternate between roles. I wonder if the stakes were higher if this might be more of a struggle to find balance between co-creation.

We then worked in groups to reflect on our networks, and how we might categorize them: contribution, collaboration, co-creation. Our group ended up interpreting the prompt to mean relationships we had within the museum. I ended up realizing how hard it was to determine the departments and staff we aligned with most closely in our department, as we are fielding requests across the institution on a daily basis. In the end, I settled on Publications, all curatorial departments, and Information Services as the most closely affiliated. I also recognized that some of the conflicts, misunderstandings, and misaligned expectations may result from the fact that we aren’t as intentional as we could be about how we define our roles and relationship. Many of the challenges we face result, in part, from an unclear and shifting power dynamic.

The stated goal of the session was to see both the small and big ways in which we can individually and collectively share authority in our work, and see ways in which new collaborations might unlock potential. I had never stopped to consider how much power influences day-to-day work with those outside our department, which makes it all the more clear that we need to be conscious and intentional with our relationships here and beyond the museum. In order to share authority, we need to understand the ways in which we are already exercising it.

Chapter 7 in the toolkit is titled ‘Collections: How We Hold the Stuff We Hold in Trust,’ and it covers the ways in which museums are founded in imperialist, colonialist, and racist collecting practices. After all, much of what encyclopedic museums “own” was likely stolen from those who originally created the items. This has happened in all the regions which western civilization has “conquered” - from the Americas to Africa and Asia. While collecting institutions today infrequently acknowledge this fact, it is important to note that silence makes LAMs complicit in these actions. Facing this reality, however difficult and open-ended it may be, would be one important step to reconciling the problematic history of our collections.

The chapter provided helpful ways of using collections data - when, where, how, and why these materials came to be at the museum - to visualize broader historical events. Some of these tools to conduct a power audit include Power Map, DataMaps, and census records. This helps to provide context in which we can place these items, and it helps show that there is a meta-story about acquisition behind those more sanitized stories we tell about the objects. This is provenance.

The reading also provided a definition of consent, based of the work RAINN has done: consent is grounded in communication, and it always needs to happen. What does this mean for museums? We must reach out to the communities represented in our collections, and we need to create dialogue to understand how they would change things. The chapter notes several times that communities should not be expected to be monolithic in their opinions, and that this is another challenge with which museums will need to grapple.

Components of collections management, care, and display that were addressed in the reading include ideas about access (who gets to see objects and why?) care and preservation, and acquisition and representation. Making sure that cultures are not being appropriated via interpretation, that the intent of the object is reflected in how it is accessed and displayed, and that communities can repatriate what is rightfully theirs are crucial aspects of this work. The chapter underscored the need for thoughtfulness when approaching any of these activities, and to giving voice to suppressed histories. As with the previous session, shared authority is an important component of all of this. As a field of professionals, we need to learn to ask more questions, listen to the responses, put into practice solutions which work for all parties, and accept feedback - both good and bad.

The session covering this chapter started with a partner exercise where we discussed collecting in our personal lives: what we previously collect, what we collect now, and what our family histories are with collecting. We struggled with what a “true” collection is, and what the overlap is between these items and more utilitarian objects. We also uncovered how our histories connect collecting with capitalistic and consumerist tendencies. Thinking about how this relates to collections in museums, there are definite ties in untangling what an object was intended for vs. how it is displayed and interpreted and the insatiable drive for most museums to acquire additional collections.

We then formed groups to discuss questions which came up as we were reading the chapter. As always, it was refreshing to gain a variety of perspectives, which were informed in part by our diverse roles in the museum. I discussed the lack of transparency about the work of bringing our institutional history to light - how often do staff research murky provenance, how and when is that information published, when will this information be reflected in interpretive text in the galleries? I want to see a task force, or perhaps a forum where this work can be discussed openly and honestly.

Our group also talked about how pride in the founding donors (primarily white, wealthy men) and their donated collections (which often have problematic histories) are still a prominent talking point when it comes to institutional history. Priorities and new acquisitions were topics also included in the discussion. In order to do the work of connecting with communities to be more inclusive in collections practices, it needs to be a priority and resources needed to be reallocated as such. Acquisitions play an important role in this, as they monopolize funding and staff time which might be better used elsewhere. This is especially true when it comes to providing access to materials which are rarely if ever put on display, and for which there is no real infrastructure in place to facilitate in-person access.

One question posed by another group was if the notion of collecting museums even has a place in today’s world. If nothing else, our work should become much more self-aware, and we should share authority and power. We need to more publicly acknowledge what we are as institutions, and the practices that have been in play, so that we can move forward in being more representative of and for all communities.

Lashaw, C. & Orantes, E. (2017) Sharing authority: Creating content and experiences. MASS Action Toolkit. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58fa685dff7c50f78be5f2b2/t/59dcdd27e5dd5b5a1b51d9d8/1507646780650/TOOLKIT_10_2017.pdf

Bivens, J., Garcia, B., Moore, P., trivedi, n., Wittman, A. (2017) Collections: How we hold the stuff we hold in trust. MASS Action Toolkit. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58fa685dff7c50f78be5f2b2/t/59dcdd27e5dd5b5a1b51d9d8/1507646780650/TOOLKIT_10_2017.pdf

IPI Photographic Processes Identification Workshop

Last week, I attended a 3-day workshop in identifying photographic prints at the Chicago History Museum. Developed by the Image Permanence Institute, this was an intensive and incredibly helpful opportunity. Two staff from IPI led the sessions - Jae and Alice - and each day alternated between lectures and hands-on activities. After each lecture, we were able to work with the teaching collection, walking through the methodology we were taught to properly identify the images. This really helped to reinforce the ideas presented, especially by working with a partner to talk through what we were seeing.

Our first day was dedicated to an overview of the development and challenges in creating photographic images. The framework for the rest of the workshop was also established via an introduction to a visual identification guide. This checklist helps establish a methodology to looking with the aim of identification, by inspecting: image content, primary support, image color and tone, image deterioration, surface sheen, image structure (continuous tone or patterned), and layer structure. These visual cues align with the content of Graphics Atlas, an online resource provided by IPI. This way of walking through prints, starting with overall observations and gradually working towards magnification, proved to be very helpful throughout the sessions. They also discussed the earliest processes from the 19th century. We covered photographs on rigid supports - Daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, and tintypes - in addition to silver based printed-out prints on paper - salted paper, albumen, collodion, and gelatin prints.

19th century processes

The next day was spent reviewing non-silver based printed-out prints on paper - carbon, cyanotype, and platinum prints. The rest of the session was spent moving forward into the 20th century, focusing primarily on the most common black and white print form of the century - the silver gelatin developed-out print. After learning about this highly variable print type, Jae and Alice introduced us to color photographic prints - autochrome, carbro, dye imbibition, chromogenic, silver dye bleach, and diffusion transfer prints. We rounded out the day by reviewing the non-photographic counterpart to all the processes we had learned up to this point - photomechanical prints. These included Woodburytypes, photogravures, rotogravures, collotypes, letterpress halftone prints, and offset lithography prints.

Comparing bronzing with an overexposed POP print with silver mirroring on a degrading DOP print.

20th century process: silver gelatin DOP

The last day moved us into the 21st century and digital printing technologies - inkjet, electrophotography, and dye diffusion thermal transfer prints. We put all our knew knowledge to work by working through the identification of ten prints, which ranged from the earliest to the most contemporary processes. It could have been overwhelming, but knowing the steps helped guide the process. And it was just as helpful to incorrectly identify prints, as Jae and Alice then provided us with additional help on how to get to the right answer. My partner and I went through several packets of prints, and we felt fairly confident by the end! We also had the opportunity to look at some of the photographic prints in the collection at the Chicago History Museum. It was nice to ground everything we had learned with these samples - these are the types of prints we are likely to encounter in the future, and may have to identify without the assistance of our IPI experts.

Teaching collection test!

I went into the experience hoping to gain some greater understanding of print images, and I was floored by how much content we covered, and how effective the instruction and format of active learning were. I still have much to learn, but I am so grateful for the opportunity to get this crash-course in photographic (and photomechanical) print identification.

Print viewing in archival storage at the Chicago History Museum

Early processes in CHM’s collection

A later process in CHM’s collection

Smithsonian tours

Last month, I traveled to Washington D.C. for the IS&T Archiving conference. I headed out a few days early in order to meet with a couple of archivists at the Smithsonian. My first stop was the Smithsonian Institutional Archives, and my second stop was the National Anthropological Archives.

I met with the photography archivist, Marguerite Roby, at the Institutional Archives, and it was incredibly helpful meeting with someone managing collections so similar to those I’m overseeing at the Art Institute of Chicago. We discussed issues we’re currently facing, and she provided suggestions based on similar challenges she’s encountered. She stressed finding an approach and sticking to it, for consistency it’s not about the perfect solution, rather one that will work in most situations and will produce repeatable results. She also encouraged our department to work collaboratively with other departments to learn more about our materials, and to foster institutional ownership of the collections.

She also provided the history of the Institutional Archives, whose complicated past mirrors our story. With institutional archives, especially photographic material, it seems as though the distinction between “working” and “archival” material is often hard to make. At AIC, this is reflected in the fact that the Imaging department, that which is currently making new documentation for the museum, is still tasked with managing all historical photographic documentation. At Smithsonian, progress has been made in the form of one centralized repository for all institutional documentation, but there is much work to be done to sort and catalog a legacy of inconsistent management. It was eye-opening hearing her thoughts about the unique challenges embedded within photographic institutional archives, which I’ve felt intuitively, but have never been able to pinpoint exactly.

Additionally, we talked shop about image records, metadata, information management systems and workflow, storage, and digitization. While Marguerite is dealing with a scale of material that far surpasses our collections, learning about the ways in which our day-to-day work is similar and differs gave me ideas on what we can improve. It confirmed areas where we’re on the right track, and areas that need more attention. We also toured the on-site storage in the Smithsonian Institutional Archives building in D.C. The majority of photographic material is located elsewhere, but I was grateful for the opportunity to take a look at some of their archival material. One item in particular, the custom slide cabinet and vertical viewing station, caught my eye.

It was wonderful discussing archives, and institutional archives in particular, with a professional with so much experience and knowledge.

Storage in the Institutional Archives office building

Slide storage and viewing cabinet

Custom housing for glass plate negatives

Material to-be-sorted from a departing Smithsonian staff member

The next day, I met with photograph archivist Gina Rappaport, who manages the National Anthropological Archives. Her office and storage are located in one of the off-site facilities outside Washington D.C. - one of the warehouse spaces I’ve long wanted to visit.

She told me about the Archives’ long history and how ownership and management as shifted over the decades. Paralleling the Institutional Archives, and our own, it’s interesting to learn how common a reality this is for archives - and it’s a reality which has a huge impact on archivists’ work. Uneven oversight results in piecing together puzzles and backtracking to revise work previously done. This is further complicated with Gina’s material, since there are so many different creators. Institutional archives can be considered mainly in terms of the institution itself as creator and subject, but more traditional collections like the National Anthropological Archives have unique creators and subjects.

We discussed physical and intellectual organization of the archives. She helped answer some of my questions about the utility of creating finding aids for our collection, and how to go about resolving physical reorganization which has resulted in a loss of information about material. These management issues made it clear how important it is to have trained archivists overseeing materials like these. While interpretation of collections is good, it can’t happen without measures in place which allow for the safe storage, retrieval, and care of these materials.

She led me on a tour of some of the photographic archives storage space in the building, as well as some of the general museum collections storage, primarily for the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. The building has been custom designed to maximize storage space, with 435,000 square feet dedicated to the collections. This includes rows upon rows of stationary and compact shelving units filled with historic negatives and prints. The photographic archives are beautifully housed, and Gina discussed their good fortune of having volunteers dedicated to making custom housing for unique or unstable materials. This includes floating mylar supports so researchers can look at original negatives without having to touch them. They also have extensive cold and frozen storage both on- and off-site, and a comprehensive digitization program.

These more traditional archives gave me a better sense of context about archives on the whole, and the ways in which our institutional archives fit in the larger field.

One small section of photographic archives storage for the National Anthropological Archives

Nitrate negatives, soon to be stored in freezers

Custom housing for glass plate negatives: mylar support to allow viewing and reduce handling

I’m incredibly thankful for the chance to spend so much time talking to these archivists, and for the opportunity to tour their facilities and see their collections. The field of cultural heritage is perpetually overworked and understaffed, so it’s a testament to the generosity of staff like Marguerite and Gina to take time out to meet with me. I learned so much from both of these visits, and I’ve made some valuable professional connections. I hope that I’ll be able to pay it forward in the future, especially once I have more formal archival training under my belt.

MASS Action, meeting 2

The second meeting to discuss MASS Action was framed by the second chapter in the toolkit - Moving Toward Internal Transformation: Awareness, Acceptance, Action. The reading reviewed the necessity of careful, attentive listening. It also underscored acknowledging that there are deep-rooted issues that all institutions need to face. Our session guides reminded us of the fact that we all bring different experiences and insights to the table when it comes to these conversations.

We started the gathering practicing listening. While this seems like it would be a relatively simple exercise, it can actually be a struggle. It’s not just about hearing, it’s about being engaged and open and not simply waiting for your turn to talk. We talked in pairs about awareness in any context. I talked about my shift in thinking when it came to cultural heritage institutions, from places about things to places for people. In this, I reflected on MLIS coursework that focused on asset-based frameworks when dealing with different communities (Montiel-Overall, Nuñez,& Reyes-Escudero, 2015). In being truly inclusive and equitable to all staff and visitors, we need to focus on strengths as a method for finding common ground. Reflecting on researching Chicago Housing Authority public housing residents as an information community, the strength of peer-to-peer dissemination of information and grassroots advocacy are two such strengths.

Next, we spoke in small groups about three issues with which museums must come to grips: colonialism, white privilege, and racism. These are all historical legacies which are reflected in all aspects of cultural heritage institutions: from hiring practices to school group visits. Groups had the choice which of these topics to focus on, and conversation was guided by prompts: personal experience, emotions tied to the topic, improving and fostering conversations about the topic in the institution. Each topic included a quote to provide context. Colonialism focused on the acquisition of collections from other countries (former colonies) and the impact of these materials, their display, and framing by the museum on visitors, especially for those with heritage from the source culture. Racism focused on how some institutional systems are gone (Jim Crow, redlining) but the remnants still remain in the form of history and practice, including in museums. White privilege focused on white as the perceived norm for culture, and how even implicit demand for assimilation by people of color is not equity. Our group chose to focus on the third topic.

One quote from activist and scholar Peggy McIntosh from her article White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, resonated throughout the discussion:

“White privilege is like a weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks . . . ; an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious . . . I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage . . . Whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow them to be more like us” (McIntosh, 1989).

The topic of privilege comes up fairly often in conversations, and I have experienced varied and emotional reactions in response. It often seems that blame and guilt come into play and white folks can become defensive and feel powerless as a result. For the sake of having meaningful, productive conversations, we need to broaden the conversation from immediate concerns of wealth and class to reflect on history. We need to be aware of how we have benefited from the system and how others have not. We also need to be conscious of how we go about attempting to eliminate this inherently broken system. Decisions should not be made on behalf of communities of color, communication and collaboration with all staff are key. This is the difference between intent and impact - it isn’t the thought that counts. At the same time, we have to keep in mind how much we all have to learn about one another. This is where listening comes in, and where the current monolithic voice frame is replaced with a more empathetic frame that allows for a variety of experience.

Each group reported on some high-level thoughts that came about as a result of their conversations. I was struck by how differently we all approached the same topics, which speaks to the need for all points of view. Our personal histories affect how we navigate issues like colonialism, racism, and white privilege, and we should use our unique stories to power change. We all make mistakes, but fear and hopelessness should not stand in the way of making progress. Hopefully these conversations will help our museum to start seeking out means - both small and big - by which we can dismantle the harmful systems on which the organization was founded.

McIntosh, P. (1989). White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, Peace and Freedom Magazine, 10-12.

Montiel-Overall, P., Nuñez, A. V., & Reyes-Escudero, V. (2015). Latinos in libraries, museums, and archives: cultural competence in action! an asset-based approach.