Recent work has stressed the importance of pluralism in archival education, practice, and research. By examining the promises and perils of pluralism as it has been constructed in another field—religion—this article analyzes, expands, and delineates the notion of archival pluralism in a way that helps form the conceptual foundation for further work on pluralistic approaches to archival education, theory and practice. More specifically, it argues that archival pluralism can learn from four basic principles of religious pluralism—energetic engagement, understanding, strengthened commitment, and dialog—while at the same time avoiding four major perils: claims of universality, inattention to power, silencing dissent, and collapsing of difference. First, this article presents a brief discourse analysis tracing the emergence and development of archival pluralism in the literature to date. Next, turning to how pluralism has been constructed in another field, this article gives a brief overview of conceptions of religious pluralism using the work of two of its most prominent American scholars as guideposts and then addresses the strengths and weaknesses of this conceptualization of pluralism in the religious sphere. Next, this article proposes how religious pluralism’s main principles and pitfalls can be adapted and applied in the realm of memory keeping in order to strengthen the conceptual framework for archival pluralism. It concludes by suggesting aspects of a research agenda for future work in archival pluralism.

This article reports the first stage of a research collaboration that is elaborating the multiple relationships between archives and social justice. Specifically, it is developing narrative frameworks and diagrammatic representations to identify, understand, illustrate, and deploy the actual and potential social justice impact of archives, archivists, and archival repositories. A discussion of the broader and historical social justice landscape culminates with a working conceptualization-framework of social justice followed by an examination of the many methods and modes by which social justice can be an object of research. This is followed by an examination of the rising presence of social justice as an explicit and accelerating concern in four key English language archival journals before offering a working articulation and approach to an archival—social justice framework. A discussion of understanding and measuring impact, with specific reference to the framework of impact that we have chosen to deploy, culminates with an analysis of the social justice impact of archives as evidenced through two exemplary case studies. This is followed by a summation of key findings and a discussion of future plans to expand this research. The overall objective of these efforts is targeted toward elucidating how archives can be cast as having both positive and negative social justice consequences and demonstrating how archival work can serve social justice goals.

Keeping Cultures Alive investigates the relationship between Indigenous human rights and the archives through an interdisciplinary and comparative lens, bringing together papers by Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts in Indigenous studies, human rights, law and archival science. It explores Indigenous human rights in an international context with particular reference to the implications of the international human rights agenda for current and future archival practice in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

This article highlights the extent to which international law has changed rapidly in recent years in relation to the rights of Indigenous peoples generally and in particular how this impacts upon the legal status of traditional knowledge and culture. It reviews the recognition of the unique legal status of Māori in Aotearoa and Aboriginal peoples in Canada in relation to self-determination and how their changing place within these nations are affecting the operations of museums, libraries, and archives as case studies, illustrating some of the key legal and practical challenges that now impinge upon the work of archivists and related professionals in many countries.

The collection, organization, and long-term preservation of resources are the raison d’etre of archives and archivists. The archival community, however, has largely neglected science data, assuming they were outside the bounds of their professional concerns. Scientists, on the other hand, increasingly recognize that they lack the skills and expertise needed to meet the demands being placed on them with regard to data curation and are seeking the help of “data archivists” and “data curators.” This represents a significant opportunity for archivists and archival scholars but one that can only be realized if they better understand the scientific context.

Building virtual archives and preservation curriculum laboratories centered around born-digital and digitized records is a collaborative project currently underway between Simmons College (US) and Mid-Sweden University. In this virtual environment, issues of trust are central to the process, in terms of the both archival curriculum and the collaborative education process itself. The article describes the project, the collaboration, and offers a range of scenarios that demonstrate how the laboratories work within curriculum.

By cultivating archives through successive activations, people and communities define their identities. In these activations, the meanings of archives are constructed and reconstructed. Archives are not a static artifact imbued with the record creator’s voice alone, but a dynamic process involving an infinite number of stakeholders over time and space. Thus, archives are never closed, but open into the future. Furthermore, digital archives are always in a state of becoming, being created and recreated by technologies of migration and reconstruction.

This article traces the history of the so-called Codrington Papers, created by the Caribbean governors of the late 17th century called Christopher Codrington, father and son. Their history as a collection, repositories which hold or have held them, ownership of the physical documents, to the factual information they contain, or to their interpretation is all contested within issues of race, colonialism, politics and intellectual authority.

Current records management methodologies and practices suffer from an inadequate understanding of the ‘human activity systems’ where records managers operate as ‘mediators’ between a number of complex and interacting factors. Although the records management and archival literature recognizes that managing the active life of the records is fundamental to their survival as meaningful evidence of activities, the context where the records are made, captured, used, and selectively retained is not explored in depth. In particular, the various standards, models, and functional requirement lists, which occupy a vast portion of that literature, especially in relation to electronic records, do not seem to be capable of framing records-related ‘problems’ in ways that account for their dynamic and multiform nature. This paper introduces the idea that alternative, ‘softer’ approaches to the analysis of organizational functions, structures, agents, and artifacts may usefully complement the ‘hard’, engineering-like approaches typically drawn on by information and records specialists. Three interrelated theoretical and methodological frameworks—namely, Soft Systems Methodology, Adaptive Structuration Theory, and Genre Theory—are discussed, with the purpose of highlighting their contributions to our understanding of the records context.

The Republic of Venice was renowned for gathering and preserving from very early on a huge and growing archive. This article analyses the ways in which records were created, stored, and ordered for both immediate and future use. The political system of Venice, at once aristocratic and republican, had an important impact on the production and preservation of large quantities of documents in unbound filze and bound registri. In turn, the volume of this paperwork required the development of strict criteria for the organization of the material. In particular, this article analyses how records were divided at the moment of production, thus enabling a pragmatic combination of chronological and thematic ordering criteria. The latter were reinforced by finding tools arranged by subject matter, in particular indexes inside each volume and more general indexes across several volumes, both known as rubriche. The article suggests that indexing must be seen as a historical process dependent on Venice’s political structures and tied to specific moments in the wider history of the Republic, respectively in the fifteenth, early sixteenth, and early seventeenth centuries. Finally, the article points to some unexpected interactions between political secrecy and indexing.