- About Archives
- About SAA
- Careers
- Education
- Publications
- Advocacy
- Membership
Abstract: Archivists today make some of the most difficult ethical and legal decisions at the public service desk. It has always been a difficult process to balance the archivist's legal and ethical obligations to the researcher, to the donors of collections, and to the institution served and, furthermore, to factor in obligations to those who often are not even aware that archives hold materials that impact on their lives. Balancing equality of access for all patrons with institutional needs and requirements is at least as difficult. Despite sincere efforts to limit the acquisition of restricted material, many important and potentially useful collections are restricted. Indeed, some have never been used. Naturally, archivists would like to encourage the use of collections that reveal a wealth of information documenting social, economic, literary, and educational history.
Annotation: Becker addresses the ethical challenges of providing access while also being cognizant of privacy concerns, especially regarding third-party donors. He looks specifically at the SAA Code of Ethics, which calls for “weighing the need for openness against the need to respect privacy rights.” He calls for policies that will address privacy concerns and uses the Rutgers University Archives as his primary case study.
Abstract: None
Annotation: Danielson discusses the ethical challenges archivists face on a regular basis. She provides case studies and raises questions to consider in the event of specific scenarios. Chapters 4: Equitable Access, 6: Archives and Privacy, and 7: Authenticity and Forgery deal specifically with the ethical issues surrounding access to digital records. Danielson argues that cost and volume are the two main threats to access; archivists must assess those threats along with their ethical responsibilities of access, while being cognizant of the privacy and authenticity concerns inherent in digital archives.
Abstract: Using three contemporary feminist activist collections as case studies, this article challenges assumptions about digital archives and, more generally, digital collections. First, it challenges the widespread perception that so-called digital archives are necessarily democratizing. Second, it examines how archivists and special collections librarians may adopt new media platforms, often in surprising ways, even as they avoid the development of large-scale digitization projects. Finally, and most notably, this article makes a case for recognizing how archivists and special collections librarians may use new media platforms to open up access to collections that exceed the narrow scope of digitization projects. Here, what is foregrounded is not necessarily the limits of digital archives, but rather the limited way in which we continue to think about digital mandates in relation to archives.
Annotation: Eichhorn questions the notion that digitized archival collections are inherently democratic and are a cost-effective means of preservation. She focuses on three feminist collections, the traditional marginalization of which suggests a natural desire to increase access through ‘democratic’ digitization. Eichhorn argues that because digitization of entire collections is rarely, if ever, possible, individual items that are digitized lose the context of the collection as a whole. In the case of the Duke University zine collections and the Riot Grrrl Collection at New York University, a broader picture of feminism would be obscured taking this piecemeal approach. In the case of the Barnard College Zine Library, enhanced access to the actual zines was the preference, and resources were devoted to cataloging and tagging materials rather than broad scale digitization.
Abstract: A code of ethics is a statement of generally accepted standards for judgment and conduct that addresses responsibilities unique to a profession. In the 1970s, changing responsibilities and increased complexities for archivists created a need for a comprehensive code of ethics. A Society of American Archivists committee wrote a code, which was adopted by the Society. The author, who chaired that committee, compares the code with the statement written in 1955 for the National Archives and with the codes of similar professions. General adherence to the principles in day-to-day practice and continuing discussion of ethics will lead to reevaluation and revision of the code of ethics.
Annotation: This article includes a history of ethics in the archives profession and argues for the need for continual reevaluation and revision of codes of ethics to address the continually changing media. The author also recommends policies and procedures that ensure day-to-day compliance with ethical standards.
Abstract: None
Annotation: MacNeil discusses the archivist’s challenge of balancing the societal desire for access with the personal desire for privacy. While MacNeil does not deal specifically with digital records, the discussion of access and privacy is universal across paper and digital records. She addresses many of the privacy and access-related challenges that archivists may face and emphasizes the need for an ethical code, respect for humanity, and policies and procedures to justify decisions.
