Objectivity

Another goal of the archivist is to strive for impartiality when presenting materials. The archive should be a space for researchers to visit and see within its holdings the component details of the stories they wish to uncover – not to have those stories told to them by the

archivist. The ideal archive’s categorization, labeling, and descriptions are free of the archivist’s judgement or interpretation.

It is no accident that the words “strive” and “ideal” are included above, considering the archivist is producing researchable knowledge for others (Bloom 286). Because the positionality of the WCA archivist is ultimately so greatly informed by their roles both as WPA and as an eventual researcher of the same archive they are creating, the strain on impartiality is significant. This is the double edge of Glenn and Enoch’s above purported strength of the archivist’s holistic view; when viewing the archive as a whole, the temptation to interpret trends is strong.

Researchers depend upon this impartiality, however, as they are aware of the interpretive missteps possible in a journey into the archive. This pressure can be as simple as the future WPA researcher’s need for direct, objective data unburdened by analysis (Glau 296), but the

implications can reach far deeper. It is impossible for the researcher to be truly free of agenda when reading through the archives, informed as we all are by biases and preconceptions (Gaillet “(Per)Forming Archival Research” 42). A similar caution to the reader to be aware of their own biases appears in Grant-Davie’s advice in coding data for research, because search objectives and selection biases make extracting truly “raw” data impossible (274). An archivist will recognize the challenge of even simply labeling a document or photo because deciding how to accurately describe its content is an unavoidably interpretive act. Simply put, the archive cannot always provide an answer to the question “What is this a picture of?’” and maintain objectivity

(Finnegan 120). This potential peril of interpretation broadens to include something as seemingly innocuous as engaging with typographical errors: no matter how well-reasoned, interpreting the intentions of a document’s authors is an inherently rhetorical act and should be undertaken with extreme care (Mailloux 586). Gaillet even cautions that archivists may make the simple error of indexing a name incorrectly in a digital archive, thus rendering the name of a key figure invisible unless the researcher has the notion to actively compensate for a potential typo (“The

Unexpected Find” 150). Finally, the implications of improper interpretative acts can be as significant as publishing the work and history of past WPAs without proper ethical

considerations for the scrutiny the publication may invite upon their legacies (McKee and Porter; Lamos). Thus, we see the potential for interpretive missteps within the act of researching the archive; therefore, in the act of curating of the archive’s holdings, archivists should not add to researchers’ burdens by inducing their own biases. While the lesson above may be that true objectivity is impossible, it is the archivist’s duty to strive for the best approximation possible.

Simultaneously, the primary goal of archival research is to ultimately support a new interpretation of historical artifacts, so the objectivity of the archive is also essential to primary research. Connors tells other researchers that archives “remain inert until interpreted,” and the historian must perform that interpretation to capitalize on the primary research value unique to the archives (18). Gaillet similarly affirms that archives are a valuable primary source for creating knowledge (“(Per)Forming Archival Research 39), a sentiment echoed by Belsey, who prefers to conduct primary readings before secondary in order to preserve the researcher’s interpretive agency (164-5). Belsey also advises that no single textual analysis can ever be the “exhaustive” or ultimate interpretive authority (169), a conclusion that resonates with Glenn and Enoch’s assessment that uncovering an “objective truth” or getting a reassembly of history

“exactly right” is impossible (“Invigorating Historiographic” 11). The presence of the objective archive is critical to maintaining this potential for primary research and interpretive agency, especially when considering the inevitability of subsequent readings of the same document. The archive must exist as an dispassionate space to make these repeated examinations possible without requiring researchers to rely upon the inherently interpretive and biased readings

performed by researchers before them. Ultimately, the local program archive should be the same experience for each visitor, leaving the difference to appear only in the works derived from it.

Isto Huvila establishes the strength of a digital archive as a means of decentralizing the work of archivists, which may mitigate archivist bias. While Huvila’s intended application is to unite physical artifacts that are geographically separated with a database of digitized surrogates, the author noted two strengths adaptable to the goals of a locally-maintained wiki archive system. Huvila specifically describes a wiki-based digital archive as being a user-participatory system that both decentralizes the archivists’ task, and provides more potential to contextualize the significance of a given artifact or topic page (24-25). Opening the act of composing a wiki- based archive’s content to a larger user base – one which Huvila takes care to indicate must itself be restricted to trusted editors – allows for greater linking of knowledge or context between artifacts. Interlinking has the potential to grow the depth of knowledge available to those participating in the archive as it proceeds with ongoing “iterations of continuous use,

development and evaluation with the aim of nurturing participation and evolving the archive” (Huvila 32). So long as standards for contribution and curation are established and maintained, the participatory nature of an archive shows promise as another check on any single contributor inadvertently injecting bias into artifact descriptions.

Wikis have a long-established trend of prioritizing objective communication over

interpretation by presenting details as-is. The ideally short and summative nature of a wiki article acts as resistance to narrative-building, which, as demonstrated above, is counterproductive to unbiased primary research. In addition, each artifact that enters an archive wiki without being attached to a specific research project is more likely to be presented as objectively as possible. While the researchers above are correct that there is folly in the idea that one can “purely” record material in the archive without the influence of bias or interpretation, the lack of a narrow, topic- specific analytical motive helps maintain the broadest possible usefulness of the materials. An archivist’s lack of specific need, or application to an overarching narrative, is key to this preservative effect.