Abstract
This article investigates how an online forum for a participatory archive project can offer a platform for controlled power-sharing between archivists and participants. Additionally, it explains how participants affect the processes, structures, and end usability of the information resource they are invited to create, with a focus on representability and the ethical responsibility of archivists. This study takes its point of departure in a participatory online transcription project: Begravelser 1861–1912. The influence of participants is studied through observation of the communication between archivists and transcribers in an online discussion forum. Theoretical concepts of maximalist and minimalist participation are used to contextualize levels of user influence. The study uses a framework inspired by Community-based participatory research (CBPR) to analyze the communication. The results show how participants used the forum to gain influence in the project, and how several elements of CBPR—shared influence, mutual development, and mutual use—were manifested in the forum. The conclusion is that using a CBPR approach in participatory projects can produce synergetic effects of increased knowledge and enhanced archival responsibility in conjunction with sustainable participatory engagement.
Highlights
Archival Science (2020) 20:327–345‘Participation is about power sharing, and if this is structurally absent or systematically undermined, whatever is being called participation must be seen with the utmost skepticism, or labeled fraudulent’(Dahlgren 2013, pp. 28–29).A benevolent approach to user participation in archives, by way of various ‘participatory archives’ projects, is often framed as a way to counteract selectivity and bias in archival collections, archival descriptions, and finding aids (Light and Hyry 2002; Anderson and Allen 2009; Farley 2014; Eveleigh 2014)
Begravelser 1861–1912 was not expressly designed as a Community-based participatory research (CBPR) project, this study shows that it more or less followed the main principles of CBPR
Compared to many other studies on participatory-transcription projects, this article highlights the advantages of maximalist participation
Summary
‘Participation is about power sharing, and if this is structurally absent or systematically undermined, whatever is being called participation must be seen with the utmost skepticism, or labeled fraudulent’(Dahlgren 2013, pp. 28–29). This relationship adds a theoretical situatedness to participatory agency where a record with a more central role for a participant advocates more agency compared to records that are relevant in a more peripheral context, like for example research or education (Rolan 2017) While this model presents a carefully packaged argument for implementing archival involvement, other approaches to interaction between archivists and ‘the others’ are often less holistic when it comes to balancing the interests of participants against the need to secure archival custody. In relation to the Reggio Emilia, Rhizome, or similar models, community-based participatory research (CBPR) offers a structured framework for participatory work that highlights the mutual advantages of participation It ensures that collaboration benefits both parties without compromising the aims of the project or its prospects for success. The elements of this framework will be presented in more detail
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
