Comments relating to the patterns observed in the comparison matrix

It is evident from the above matrix (Table 4.1) that certain patterns can be observed that identify – inter alia – components, approaches and themes which are common to most of the initiatives reviewed. At the same time, there were also significant variations between corresponding initiatives. Certain initiatives also showed unique features that if, for instance, incorporated into other archival programmes and projects, could contribute to an improvement in best practice. These correlations are discussed below:

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, what became apparent from the initiatives reviewed was the wide variety of approaches to documenting the under-documented, creating community collections and related practices. Certain countries had a slant towards or ‘preference’ for a certain approach but, even in these, various frameworks or models are discernible. For example, although, in the United States, mainstream universities often initiate these programmes, there are also a fair number of enterprises established by independent community centres, institutes, charity organisations, amongst others, such as PIASA, and the HMCC. In the UK these initiatives most often manifest as community programmes, such as the Northamptonshire Black History project, the Scottish Jewish Archives and POSK. In addition, in the UK, some of these community projects have also recently morphed into online networks of community archives. On the other hand, Australia and Canada, with their strong cultural diversity ethos and government multicultural policies, have tended to find support in many mainstream institutions for such initiatives, including from their respective national archives. In South Africa, most of these initiatives are the result of the efforts of non-public institutions, such as the Nelson Mandela Foundation of Memory, SAHA, GALA, and the South African Jewish Board of Deputies archives.

There have also been a few programmes at mainstream institutions, such as Ghandi-Luthuli Documentation Centre at UKZN, initiatives at the Institutional Repository and Special Collections section of UJ, and limited initiatives at the NARS, especially in the form of oral history projects.

With regard to the programmes or projects initiated by the mainstream institutions, universities were the most visible in all the countries reviewed, especially in the US.

196

What was observed in the programmes and projects initiated by these institutions, is that physical custody of the materials is most often transferred to the university. A stewardship approach of custody is often sought to a degree, with community members and/or organisations assisting or participating in identifying relevant collections, and at times even assisting in other archiving issues, such as participatory organisation of the collections.

The initiatives that originated from mainstream universities also tended to have a broader collection policy, for instance, a national focus or a move to collect materials of various immigrant and ethnic groups instead of only one community. This may arguably be considered a positive feature, since it allows for – as noted by the various university websites reviewed – other uses for these collections, such as enhancing research into broader fields like comparative gender studies, immigrant and ethnic studies;

contributing to academic publications on related themes; and supporting the university’s curriculum. On the other hand, because these collections are relatively removed from the communities themselves, the users tend to be researchers and students and academics within the universities rather than community members themselves.

Another debatably constructive characteristic of these initiatives is that universities usually take responsibility for appraising, organising, preserving and making these collections accessible. Often communities and their organisations and individuals do not have the resources to take on these responsibilities themselves, and therefore may appreciate and even call for the assistance from these mainstream institutions. Archival collections at universities often have access to more financial resources through funding from their parent institutions and government. In addition, these archive departments usually have access to other resources, infrastructure and equipment such as ICTs to support these initiatives, including online retrieval capabilities, digitisation technologies, established websites, and so on. Furthermore, they also have qualified staff who are knowledgeable about archives and records management practices, including know-how of appraisal techniques, arrangement, creating appropriate finding aids, and preservation skills.

197

On the other hand, this may have an adverse affect, especially if these responsibilities are entirely taken on by the universities. As noted in chapter three, community input into archiving issues – or ‘participatory archiving’ – such as participatory appraisal, arrangement and description of collections – may enhance the legitimacy and overall understanding of these collections. Community participation in these is often recommended because community members probably have better insight into their own social structures and history, essential wisdom when appraising and arranging these collections. What was observed in the initiatives reviewed is that, at times, these university programmes have employed or used volunteers of the same cultural background, faith or ethnicity of the communities being documented, as a means to partially address the need for community participatory archiving.

Another feature observed in these university initiatives was that, even with those that did not embark on a formal partnership or collaborative agreement with communities, they often engaged in collaborative practices with other organisations or institutions involved in similar collecting efforts. The websites reviewed indicated that they would often cooperate with others with a view to indentifying gaps that needed to be filled and, equally important, to avoid overlap in collecting endeavours.

Other mainstream types of institutions sometimes involved in documenting the under-documented, included among the countries examined, were the national archival repositories. With reference to these, the reviewed websites of the various national archives revealed that, as with the university programmes, each of them also focused on a diversity of communities, thus enhancing the possibility of interdisciplinary research into fields such as comparative ethnic and immigrant studies, gender studies, refugee life and sociology. Another notable use of these records in these institutions is in the field of genealogy. However, as noted earlier, most of these records tend to be created by government departments and officials, and consequently research they generate may be biased, based mostly on records about these communities from the perspective of government. Efforts have been made to transform this narrative, especially with oral history projects, where stories of community members are recorded.

198

What was also observed with national archives initiatives, is that in the case of collections that are donated by community members and organisations, ownership of these materials is transferred to these respective national archives. However, unlike universities, a stewardship approach to custody is seldom sought. The national archives often take full custody, intellectual and physical, of the collections donated to them.

Community members and/or organisations have little involvement in these collections once they have been donated and transferred to the archives, with little or no participatory archiving. Attempts are, however, being made by some national archives to adopt more participatory approaches with communities, especially in the case of digital initiatives, such as the online ‘Your Archives’ project in the UK, where the public in general are invited to contribute their social memories and experiences to a participatory website. In addition, since most collections are physically transferred to a central location, which may be a distance from communities that have donated materials, this results in a situation resembling that of universities, where these collections become detached from the communities involved. Accordingly, users are rarely community members themselves, but more likely researchers and scholars.

In the case of independent community-based initiatives, such as those that reside solely with community organisations and centres, charity and non-profit organisations, historical societies, and so on, there is a trend to follow a strong stewardship approach to the safekeeping of their records. Even in instances where various community-based organisations transfer their records to a central independent community organisation, the websites reviewed revealed that community members and/or organisations continued to be actively involved, participating in identifying relevant collections, and assisting in other archiving issues, such as participatory appraisal, arrangement and description. In many cases, the donating community organisations had the final say in what access should be granted or restricted. Several of these independent initiatives form advisory boards which include representatives from the various community organisations that are generating and donating these records. These boards play an important role in determining the collection policy, the mission and the overall management of the archival programme. Often the original members of these advisory

199

boards are those who saw the need, and took the initiative, to set up these programmes and projects.

Independent community initiatives tend to have a narrower collection policy than mainstream programmes: they concentrate on materials pertaining only to their own cultural, immigrant or ethnic group, or have a local focus. Similarly, the staff, volunteers and members of the advisory boards are predominantly of the same cultural background, linguistic group, ethnicity, and/or faith of the communities being documented. As a result of their close relationship with their specific community individuals and organisations, the users of these collections are mostly community members and staff from the community-based organisations, especially when these initiatives are housed in community-type centres such as the reviewed example of the Hispanic Cultural Center in the US. This could mean that research is limited to, for instance, family and genealogical research. Independent initiatives that obtain a certain degree of status and prominence are, however, able to attract additional types of users, such as the Japanese Canadian National Museum, The American Jewish Archives, and the GALA Archives in South Africa, which also draw researchers, scholars and professional historians. The websites revealed that these more established, independent initiatives are also often involved in publications and contribute to research articles and journals, and even describe themselves as research centres.

The websites reviewed illustrated that, unlike mainstream initiatives, often independent initiatives do not have the resources to take on all the responsibilities associated with an archival programme, especially financial resources. Contrary to collections held at mainstream universities and government archives, which are funded by their parent institutions and government, these independent initiatives need to secure funding through a variety of sources, such as public and community donations, membership fees, foundations, and so on. In addition, these autonomous programmes and projects sometimes do not have the same level of access to other resources to support these initiatives, such as building and equipment infrastructures, ICTs, digitisation technologies, established websites, qualified staff with archives and records