Introduction

When dealing with historical events, there is no person better to describe them than the one who experienced them first hand. These primary sources can become excellent references when made available to the public and properly recorded, preserved, and archived. From casual, curious readers to academic writers and publishers, the inclusion of oral history in archival collections can enrich research endeavours for everyone.

Oral history is defined by the University of Toronto Libraries as “a method of inquiry that documents memories and personal experiences of past events through captured dialogue” (University of Toronto, n.d.). It gives a voice to those directly affected or involved in historical events to tell their stories in their own words and have them documented. For researchers, oral histories are primary sources that give context to their work (Oral History Association, 2009). In the context of library and information studies, oral histories are often useful to, and are stored in, archives. These oral histories may consist of audio or video recordings, either stored as digital files or in physical formats, such as tape cassettes or discs. In western contexts, it is an archives’ responsibility to preserve the oral histories that they acquire for future researchers, as well as making them accessible to all if given permission to share. Archivists can also contextualize oral histories within their collections to further broaden the scope of their records (University of Toronto, n.d.).

Oral history in the archival sphere has research value and enriches previous archival acquisitions, yet it has its own unique challenges relating to accessioning oral material. Because of the challenges oral history faces in archives, it is sometimes considered a less valuable asset compared to physical records, often being pushed aside as it can be a difficult and complex project to take on. In this chapter, we will discuss the context of oral history in archives, as well as describe issues such as acquisition policies, neutrality in archives, practical problems, and legal and ethical considerations that archives face when adding oral histories to their institutions. This chapter will also provide responses to these challenges.

Background and Current Context

Oral history in archives has a relatively recent history. One of its first appearances in the archival field was in 1948, when the first oral history archives was founded. Named the Oral History Research Office, this archives was established at Columbia University by Allan Nevins, a history professor, to preserve conducted interviews (Ruschiensky, 2017). Oral histories were mostly used to supplement already archived material by providing context, especially in relation to records of historical figures. In the 1970s, there was a substantial increase of interest in oral history, and by the end of the decade, there were over 1000 projects or centres dedicated to the field (Ruschiensky, 2017). The first use of Canadian oral history in an archiving context started in the summer of 1968, when the Archives Section of the Canadian Historical Association hosted a discussion of oral history. This discussion formed a committee of the Archives Section who created a symposium of oral history in the following year. This work resulted in the birth of the Canadian Aural/Oral History Association in 1974 which was based out of Simon Fraser University (Dick, 1977).

In the 1970s and through the 1980s, research into oral history was a frequent topic in archival literature (Swain, 2003). Archivists and researchers began looking at oral history collections through a more intersectional lens, and there was more emphasis placed on marginalized communities in archives such as women and people of colour (Webster, 2016). Gaps were beginning to be filled in collections due to the context that oral history provided to the records already in archival holdings. Adding oral history to archives during this period was exciting to those working in the field, but some had reservations. Fogerty (1983) argued that while oral history was being added to archives with enthusiasm, archivists were creating resources of “questionable value” (p.149) due to human memory being suspect, though he also mentioned that oral history was integral for twentieth century history. The Society of American Archivists (SAA) addressed this concern by collaborating with the Oral History Association (OHA) to release many updated policies, such as printing strengthened interview guidelines, as well as offering oral history workshops (Swain, 2003).

In contrast to the sudden increase in literature and study of the crossover of oral history into archives during these two decades, research came to a halt during the 1990s and beyond. Instead of looking into how and where oral history belongs in archival institutions, the research pivoted to how oral histories could be digitized and preserved, with more focus on sound archives as opposed to oral history on its own. This trend in oral history literature is still seen, with scholarship about the relationship between oral history and archives rarely being written about since the turn of the century. Instead, the focus is on electronic access of all digital archival materials (Swain, 2003). When looking at the literature of today, it seems that most new writings, as few as they may be, focus on case studies (many of which are from marginalized communities) and oral history projects in archives rather than the history and analysis of the relationship between the two (Webster, 2016).

In today’s context, oral history is seen as a practical way to give voice to marginalized voices that are often ignored (Boyd, 2022). When it comes to archiving oral history, there are specific steps that an archivist must take in order to efficiently document new acquisitions. Finding participants, deciding on format (audio vs. video recording) and genre (interview vs. storytelling), planning out objectives and parameters (Texas Historical Commission [THC], 2016), conducting interviews, processing files, creating transcripts (Yap & Barsaga, 2018) and finally publishing files are all vital steps to capturing oral histories. Oral histories are treated differently from other archival acquisitions, as they often go through different, multi-step preservation techniques. Some of these techniques include transcription of interviews for physical documentation, as well as digitization of sound recordings for ease of access. When acquired, they should have the proper legal documentation, such as consent forms, to ensure that any restrictions that may be applied to the material remain in place, and so that the dignity of the interviewee (also known as the subject or participant) remains intact, especially in cases of anonymity or publication restrictions (MacKay, 2006). It is also important to note that oral history is not strictly dealt with by information professionals, and is instead created and shared by a number of others including journalists, historians, storytellers, families and community members (OHA, 2019). Because there is no clear method in acquiring, evaluating and storing oral history, a number of challenges arise when deciding to add a collection to an archive.

Challenges

Despite the clear benefits of incorporating oral histories into archival collections, many scholars have noted that their true value is not recognized in the archival field (Weaver & Hernández, 2022; Yap & Barsaga, 2018; Tembe & Nsibirwa, 2022). Most of the issues in collecting oral histories discussed here stem from this stigma against them; because oral histories tell the experiences of ordinary, everyday people, they are dismissed as unreliable sources of information, full of subjective opinions, and thus, are biased (Swain, 2003). Before preservation is attempted, oral histories exist as stories and conversations, moments unconfined by a physical form. As an “intangible cultural manifestation” (Rylance, 2006, p.113), the ephemeral nature of oral histories leaves them easily susceptible to erasure (Rylance, 2006), but also speaks to the difficulties in acquiring, documenting, and preserving them compared to more easily-documented textual records.

Historically, archives and authority have been fundamentally bound together, with archives maintaining the truths of the past through official textual records published by the church or state (Millar, 2017). Even though we are far removed from ancient and medieval notions of archives, the profession still holds onto the notion that archives present an objective, factual telling of history through mainly textual records (Rylance, 2006). The lack of consideration for oral histories in archives creates further obstacles for archivists looking to collect them. In this section, we will identify and discuss the implications and nuances of these challenges. This section will discuss the phrasing of acquisition policies, changes in the archivist’s role, practical considerations, and the ethical and legal implications of oral history collecting endeavours.

Acquisition Policies

In theory, every record, no matter its format, content, or condition, is brought into archival care only if it meets the institution’s mandate. By ensuring that only records related to the mandate are collected, archives affirm the scope of their collections, making it clear to which institution donors should take their records, and at which archives researchers can access particular records (Millar, 2017). Every archive must follow its mandate to determine appraisal and acquisition processes in order to avoid stepping over its collecting boundaries and into another archive’s jurisdiction. Collecting too broadly could also take away from the archives’ purpose by introducing irrelevant holdings, creating a confusing collection for both staff and patrons.  Mandates, which are usually presented as short, general statements about the archive’s legal responsibility to its community (Millar, 2017), are expanded upon in the form of an acquisition policy. While variations exist, acquisition policies typically provide more concrete information on the record donation process, including the types of records collected, acceptable formats, and sometimes target communities or areas to focus collecting efforts (Millar, 2017).

While institutional archives might collect oral history records, it is not always made clear in their policy statements, nor are those policy statements always made available to the public. In Canada, if one is able to find an archive’s acquisition policy (which is not always linked on their public websites) the vague manner in which they are written is notable. In Canada, Montreal’s Concordia University Archives’ acquisition policy does not refer to any collected format at all, and only that they collect records created by “faculty, staff, students, alumni, and research centres, as well as all archives documenting the history of Concordia” (2013, p.1). The City of Edmonton Archives (CEA) provides a succinct explanation for the private records they collect, for example, stating that such materials “best [document] the people of Edmonton and what it’s like to live and work [there]” (CEA, 2020, p. 5), without further elaboration on particular formats, subjects, or donors of high priority. Similarly, The City of Vancouver Archives’ (CVA) policy provides more criteria for collecting private materials than the CEA or Concordia, but does not identify areas for growth in collections (CVA, 2019). The closest reference to oral histories is in the section on copying materials via digitization, where film and audio tapes are listed (CVA, 2019). The Provincial Archives of Alberta (PAA), Provincial Archives of Saskatchewan (PAS), and the Nova Scotia Archives (NSA) all embed their collecting guidelines into pages on their websites and offer little insight into the type of records they collect, beyond them representing the province in some regard (PAA, n.d.; PAS, n.d.; NSA, 2023).

Even the acquisition policies and descriptions for community and activist archives often do not mention oral histories in their collected material. In the Collections Policy for the Oseredok Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre, located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the acceptance of oral history records could be gleaned out of the inclusion of “audio-visual materials” in their archival collecting scope (Oseredok, 2023), but not more so than any other form of audiovisual record. The digital archives Rise Up! seeks to collect materials related to feminist activism in Canada in the late 20th century, but again, their Guidelines for Preparing Materials assumes that donated materials are mainly textual or visual in nature in its instructions for properly scanning documents (Rise Up!, n.d.); no guidelines for preparing audio recordings of any kind are given. Some community archives provide no acquisition policy, donation requirements, or guidelines for preparing records to the public. The Black Cultural Archives in the United Kingdom, for example, requires potential donors to contact them directly for this information (BCA, 2022).

The vague descriptions of private records in acquisition policies, while efficient in terms of casting a wide net of possible donations, gives donors ambiguous criteria for determining if their records, oral histories or otherwise, are a good fit for the archives. Since archives are known for collecting textual records, it may be assumed that textual records are what archives specifically seek. Considering how often the worth of oral histories is undervalued by archivists, future donors are not likely to see them as valuable sources of information if they are not explicitly mentioned in acquisition policies. It was noted by Webster (2016) that while establishing “rigorous acquisition methodologies” (p.259) in order to represent a wide range of voices is not a new suggestion, the archival literature does not provide many case studies on methods to use oral history to document historically excluded populations. This is also reflected in institutional archival policies, at least in publicly available ones, which often do not provide much, if any, information about their oral history collection practices at all. If the acquisition policy informs the actions and values of the archives, a lack of guidelines for collecting oral histories, or even failing to identify them as acceptable records within these policies would create issues in acquiring them.

Neutrality and Archives

The neutrality of archival institutions has historically been the shield that protects their role as unbiased stewards of history (Schwartz & Cook, 2002). Within this framework, archivists act solely as the keepers and caretakers of records. Records, usually official, paper documents of government or other authoritative bodies (Millar, 2017; Rylance, 2006), are considered valuable for their evidentiary function, acting as proof that historical events occurred in the way they describe (Rylance, 2006). Because of their direct ties to government and other prominent societal entities, institutional archives and their records hold power in controlling the collective historical memory (Schwartz & Cook, 2002; Rylance, 2006). However, by taking a neutral stance, archivists let the records speak for themselves, avoiding the responsibilities that come with such a position of authority.

Focusing collecting endeavours on oral histories proposes a number of challenges to this archival neutrality. First, oral histories are the products of human beings who have their own opinions and emotions, leading to the assumption that oral histories may be biased (Swain, 2003). The potentially biased views contained in oral history recordings may tell versions of history that conflict with the narratives the archives typically uphold. Including oral histories in archival collections would then harm the supposed objective neutrality of collections, potentially leaving room for subjective opinions and inaccurate accounts in archival spaces. The capacity for bias in oral histories may affect their level of evidentiary value and authority.

Second, oral histories are not created in the same way as most textual records. Even though they are tied to the specific events, people, and places they describe, oral histories are created after the fact (Tembe & Nsibirwa, 2022). Interviews and storytelling activities need to be captured before they can be archived. Unlike diaries or journals, without specific projects and other initiatives to document these important records, oral histories cannot be collected and are potentially left to be forgotten. This nature of oral histories prompts a more engaged role for archivists since collaboration with communities and efforts to record oral histories are needed to successfully add them to collections. In particular, addressing collection gaps with oral histories involves archivists stepping out of their neutral role and prioritizing specific communities over others. Arguments against archivists taking on active roles in creating oral histories, or any kind of record, say that in doing so, archivists are removing themselves from the protection of neutrality (Swain, 2003).

The idea that archives, archivists and archival records are neutral is problematic. Decolonial archival discourse has made apparent that the neutrality upheld by institutional archives enforces the narratives of colonial power structures that have systematically oppressed marginalized communities (McCracken & Hogan, 2021; Regal, 2022). Archival neutrality feeds the belief that the colonial perspective is universal and all other forms of thinking are either inferior or do not exist (Shilton & Srinivasan, 2007). Moreover, the purveyance of colonialism in archives also factors into the delegitimization of oral histories as historical sources of information since they are not in written form (Regal, 2022), which carries with it legitimacy and authority (Rylance, 2006). The authority and neutrality associated with archives has led to the pervasive misrepresentation, and, in some cases, the complete absence of communities within collections. To make amends to communities, and to better serve communities in the future, the archival field must renounce these attributes.

Even with movement to more participatory efforts between archivists and communities in recent years (McCracken & Hogan, 2021; Allard & Ferris, 2015), the archival field has attempted to operate from a neutral perspective for most of its existence. Ghaddar hints at the challenge in transitioning from this neutral viewpoint when she makes mention of resistance in the archival field to accepting Indigenous epistemologies (2016). While some archivists may embrace change better than others, old habits are hard to break. Moving away from traditional archival neutrality involves a complete reframing of what constitutes a record’s value and form. Within the literature for participatory archival practices, very little mention is made of the challenge in shifting from an impartial to an engaged archival approach; Shilton and Srinivasan (2007) provide a singular instance when they note of the time-consuming nature of participatory efforts in record appraisal and arrangement as well as the need for patience in these endeavours. What Fogerty calls an archivist’s “elitist bias” (1983, p.155) could be difficult to break away from; likewise, engaging with communities and collecting oral histories, especially those of everyday folk, may initially feel like an “unusual activity” (Fogerty, 1983, p.155). Even though archivists should let go of neutrality in order to avoid further disservice to cultural minorities in the archival community (Regal, 2022), it should be recognized that this transition process can be slow, potentially full of missteps, and self-reflexivity.

Practical Considerations

As with any archival acquisition endeavour, practical challenges can affect the incorporation of oral histories into collections. Since attempts to focus on acquiring and creating oral histories typically manifests as its own, larger project within the archives, or in collaboration with other organizations, they can become daunting undertakings that are taxing on an archives’ resources. While these projects are especially straining on the limited resources of smaller archives (Graham et al., 2021), the pressures of incorporating oral histories into acquisition practices for any archives requires considerations in terms of staffing, funding, and best practices in preserving the nature of oral histories.

First and foremost, there must be staff available to take on oral history projects; yet, backlogs in work are rampant in the archival field, which can limit the ability of staff to focus on new endeavours. There is a common sentiment in archives that there is no such thing as ‘catching up on work’, a joke which has been the subject of memes in the archival community (The Memeing Archivist, 2023). The amount of material coming into archival care, requiring processing, assessments for preservation, and digitization simply outweighs the number of staff in many archives (Weaver & Hernández, 2022). To exacerbate this issue, archives staff are continuously running into issues within current holdings throughout their daily work, such as finding records that are improperly stored, have been damaged, or have no inventory to make them more accessible to researchers. The disproportionate amount of archival work to the number of staff available means that tasks need to be triaged, with high-priority tasks such as emergency conservation or digitization of highly-requested records taking precedence over less time-sensitive work. Recording oral histories are arguably time-sensitive projects, since they are tied to the people who tell them. Even under proper storage conditions, living humans cannot be preserved indefinitely; yet oral history collections are not met with the same level of urgency as other projects (Weaver & Hernández, 2022), such as processing records awaiting appraisal, or digitizing materials already in archival care. Analog oral histories that need repair, better storage, or to be made available to researchers through digitization will be ignored unless they are determined to be high-priority. This situation becomes paradoxical because the usefulness of records to researchers increases the likelihood of them becoming the focus of archival projects, but if their value is not realized, neither will their usefulness to researchers (Tembe & Nsibirwa, 2022). If archives, whether large or small, are experiencing backlogs of unprocessed material (not to mention the number of records already in archival holdings that may need to be reprocessed), taking on oral history projects will further burden staff.

Archival concerns around staffing, backlogs, and unrealized projects are intertwined with budget restrictions. Archives operate like any other organization, and must consider the financial implications of an oral history project, as well as every other archival process (Millar, 2017). Both the limited number of staff and the increasing backlog of material can be caused by a lack of financial resources. If an archives is already experiencing issues in hiring staff due to limited funds, it is less likely they will be able to hire new staff to work on oral history projects. Archives receive basic funding from their parent institutions, donations or grants (Millar, 2017), but even these various avenues for financial support may not be enough to ensure every archival project or endeavour outside of the archives’ core processes is actualized.

Besides the obvious staffing concerns, archivists wishing to establish oral history collections will need to consider what resources are available to them, and, if it is not possible to work within their current budget, how to establish funding through other means. Grants are an excellent way for archives to focus on special projects, but they can be difficult to attain. The objectives of proposed projects must align with specific grant criteria, potentially limiting the scope of the oral histories collected. Grant application writing is highly valued skill, so much so that workshops and courses are available to develop the skills necessary to write one (Society of American Archivists, 2023). Competition from other heritage institutions, as well, affect the likelihood of one project being funded over another. Grants themselves cannot always be relied on either. Many archives in Canada experienced significant setbacks when Library and Archives Canada’s (LAC) National Archival Development Program (NADP) was cancelled in 2012, causing staff lay-offs and workflow to be postponed (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2013). The CVA, for example, expressed concern for completing upcoming projects without NADP funding (Gordon, 2012). As a result of inadequate funding, many archival projects, oral history or otherwise, are not actualized.

Once an archives gains the necessary funding and resources needed to start collecting oral histories, the time-consuming process of collection begins. Archivists looking to fill gaps in their collections with oral histories have two possible approaches: engage in outreach efforts to make their interest in collecting such records known, or by co-creating oral history records with consenting communities. The latter, despite being likely to generate more records since they are being intentionally created, is an intensive process (Yap & Barsaga, 2018).

The work of collecting these primary sources is not finished once video or audio files are published—the defining value of oral histories is their usability (THC, 2016), and, like any digital record, they must be maintained and updated to continue being useful to researchers. For archival records, specifically audiovisual records, an access and preservation copy are made of a single file. While each contains the same content, the intricacies of digitization influence the quality of the video or audio file, such as data compression (Schüller, 2009). Access copies are available for use by researchers, consisting of a lower quality, smaller file. Preservation copies offer the highest quality, and thus the largest file possible, and are intended for long-term storage. The implications of storing an access and preservation copy of the same file puts great strain on the never-ending endeavour of digital preservation initiatives. The cost of digital storage space is steep (Hamer, 2018) and the expense can quickly exhaust an archives’ digital storage budget.

The myriad of considerations and obstacles to creating, collecting and preserving oral histories stems from an absence of practical guidelines, leaving archivists in the dark in terms of determining best practices (Graham et al., 2021; Tembe & Nsibirwa, 2022). Incorporating oral histories into an archival collection, then, becomes an even more complicated task. Having no set standards on oral history collection and storage forces archivists to establish their own parameters, causing variations in processes between institutions. Such variations in practices could lead to further issues with legal and ethical implications.

Legal and Ethical Issues

As with any record containing personal information, issues of ethics and legal concerns come to light when collecting and creating oral histories. Consent is a foundational component of working with community members and manifests in every step of the oral history development process. Despite being necessary to ethically continue the project, consent cannot be coaxed out of communities by archivists eager to address collection gaps—whether community members give consent or refuse to participate, their decisions must be respected. Consent is not a legally binding agreement between archivists and participants, as participants have the right to back out of the project at any stage of its development. Even if a person agrees to have their oral histories collected, they may not wish for their stories to be made public. The content of their record could contain sensitive information that may spark legal trouble later on (MacKay, 2006), or other personal opinions they may not wish anyone else to know. Whether in the form of a signed agreement, such as release forms or restriction agreements (THC, 2016; Swain, 2003), or as a verbal acknowledgement recorded during the interview, the interviewee must give some acknowledgement of their consent for archivists to ethically and legally use their records.

Potential interviewees cannot give consent if they do not completely understand what they are participating in. In order to obtain the full consent of participants, archivists must understand every facet of their project themselves, from its objectives and procedures to the intended use of the records, as well as the implications of each step. The lack of standardization in the procedures of collecting oral histories then poses an ethical challenge as well as a practical one. If no standard guidelines for oral history projects exist across institutions, some ethical considerations may be overlooked, causing issues surrounding not only consent, but privacy and ownership as well. Archivists must do their best to ensure that community members are aware of the processes, intentions and implications of the project.

The ethical and legal use of oral histories is especially important when posting these primary sources onto the archives’ public websites. To keep up with the growing demand for digitally accessible archival records through online databases, repositories and other websites, oral histories, recorded today or decades ago, are more useful if made available online (Tembe & Nsibirwa, 2022). The current state of internet culture, when content is posted, circulated, altered by other users and then posted again, highlights the importance of protecting online oral history recordings from misuse. Publicly available digital records are just as susceptible to improper use as any other form of online content (Swain, 2003). Creating access to oral histories leads to further implications for respecting participants’ privacy and consent as well as the ownership and copyright of the records. For oral histories that are recorded through contemporary projects, creating and later accessing their legal agreements should be easily done if proper procedures were taken. Older recordings may have been made using less ethical practices, or were never intended to be in archival care at all (Mills, 2017); official statements of consent, restrictions of use and permissions may not be available for these records. More effort on the part of the archivist to track down permissions, either through locating written agreements, or, if possible and necessary, the actual subjects of interviews and storytellers, may need to be expended to make those records public. However, when it is harder to find the use permissions for oral history records, archivists are less willing to publish them (Mills, 2017).

Oral histories are intrinsically personal; as such, archivists must approach collecting these important histories and stories with empathy, cultural awareness and care (Schreiner & los Reyes, 2016). The relationship between the interviewer and interviewee is at the core of this concern; while archivists may preoccupy themselves with finding the right participants for the project, it is equally important, if not more, to select the right interviewers (THC, 2016). However, taking on such an approach may limit the scope of oral history collection endeavours and add more preparation to an already lengthy process (Shilton & Srinivasan, 2007). When working with cultural groups, an understanding of a given community’s customs, values, and other important characteristics will ensure a respectful exchange, but unless an archivist or interviewer is a member of the community, such valuable experience can be difficult to attain. As such, finding the right interviewer for interviewees, and even appropriate community participants for the project may be easier said than done.

Most of all, archivists looking to collect oral histories of specific cultural groups need to be aware of nuances that may exist within and between groups with regards to their views on knowledge, access, and ownership. Shilton and Srinivasan note that archivists engaging in participatory efforts with communities should appraise cultural records “as the community understands them” (2007, p.93), but not all cultures view preserving history and knowledge in the same way as the colonial framework commonly used in archives. Indigenous Knowledges of the Métis, First Nations and Inuit People in Canada, for example, contains some knowledge that is “gendered, family-based, clan-based, and/or owned by a specific Indigenous nation or people” (Callison et al., 2021, p.2), and cannot be shared outside of those groups. In some instances, Indigenous Knowledge is only considered so if it is kept within its originating community (Masuku & Pasipamire, 2014). Oyelude notes that most archival staff are not properly trained on managing Indigenous Knowledge (2023), which can lead to mishandling of such records and clashes when interacting with Indigenous communities. As archives and other heritage institutions have historically appropriated Indigenous Knowledge (Callison et al., 2021; Oyelude, 2023), archivists should consider their ethical responsibility to Indigenous donating communities (Regal, 2022; Callison et al., 2021) while acknowledging that the “colonial imprint” on archives cannot be erased (Ghaddar, 2016).

Above all, a community’s agency over their intangible cultural expressions must be honoured (Rylance, 2006). One of the greatest challenges of this work is the necessity for archivists to realize when it is appropriate to collect oral histories, when they should be supporting community archives, or when they should simply leave communities to manage their own resources. While undoubtedly important work, navigating the breadth of cultural diversity involved in oral history projects calls for a dedicated and thorough understanding of the beliefs, customs and values of participating communities. A one-size-fits-all approach to community engagement is unethical, yet the amount of background knowledge needed to prepare for such projects as creating oral histories of specific cultural groups must be recognized.

In order for archivists to fill collection gaps by focusing acquisition efforts on oral histories, they must have a comprehensive understanding of the processes of such a project, the potential ethical and legal implications, and obtain the cultural competence necessary to build an environment of trust and mutual respect between participating communities.

Responses

The issues that have been discussed in this chapter are often systemic and therefore will not be easily resolved. There must be a large change in how western societies, and the archives that have been created within them, place value on information in order to fully accept oral histories. The measures taken by each archives to expand beyond western ideals will be different in order to serve their communities as best they can, but we will present possible ideas that archives may adopt in relation to re-examining oral history.

Critical Examination

The first step to addressing oral histories in archives is to critically examine the current collection and the biases inherent within. Using this examination as a teaching tool in order to begin conversations about the absence of material (from certain cultures or types of records) in archives is an important step to critiquing archival practice and knowledge management as a whole. Oral histories often reflect the voices of marginalized peoples who have historically been considered invalid or unimportant. Keeping this in mind can help to discern what kind of material an archives prioritizes and can expose areas in which collections are lacking.

Many institutional archives were built with the help of wealthy white men who participated in colonial practices, subsequently influencing the development of the collection. An example of this is the University of Denver (DU) Library and Archives. The founder of the University was indirectly involved in the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864; an event that resulted in the deaths of over 100 members of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Nations in the Sand Creek area of Colorado (Bowers, Crowe & Keeran, 2017). The DU Library and Archives were critiqued for their lack of material about the local Indigenous communities, especially in part due to the University’s history in relation to this dreadful massacre (Bowers, Crowe & Keeran, 2017). They decided to begin addressing the lack of Indigenous and other minority voices (and oral histories) by using the collection and its inherent gaps as a tool to teach students about this history and the way that archives uphold hegemonic narratives. With the criteria of diversifying who is involved in the collecting, building meaningful relationships with the community, and following the recommendations of the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials (a Northern Arizona University based project created by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants) to develop a collection that holds materials produced by Indigenous Peoples, the DU Library and Archives worked to create a collection that was more representative of local Indigenous history. They began many initiatives, including building a regional captivity narrative collection and engaging with Native American students at DU in the archive, demonstrating their commitment to resolving the critiques of their institution (Bowers, Crowe & Keeran, 2017).

Bowers, Crowe and Keeran (2017) bring up an important point about not waiting for the “perfect” collection before starting conversations surrounding archival collections to incite change (p. 176). They acknowledge that accepting oral history and the cultures that build their knowledge around that method is a long and difficult process, as it requires larger cultural change. The work that needs to be done to start that change can begin now with actively and critically discussing the collection without being afraid to acknowledge problematic policies or processes in their own institution.

Revision of Acquisition Policies

Critique of the archives would most likely point to organizational shortcomings in the acquisition policies related to oral history gathering, processing, and maintenance. These policies should be updated to better inform employees and the public how archives plan to handle oral histories once they are collected. In order to properly represent student voices in university archive, Graham et al. (2021) acknowledge the importance of having a collection development policy that reflects the need to adapt documentation strategies and oral history interview practices to acquire materials from a broad and ephemeral student environment. Intentional policy is not only helpful for student bodies, but can be applied to any situation where documents are not being deliberately created. With a policy in place, archivists and community members will be able to confidently make decisions about the collection and maintenance of oral histories.

The Simon Fraser University Archives (SFUA), located in Burnaby, British Columbia, acknowledges oral histories as acceptable records in its Private Records Acquisition Policy, specifically in relation to collecting material from students, alumni, activism, as well as politics, politicians, and Vancouver’s music industry (SFUA, 2022). While it is good that oral histories are present in the policy, there is a lack of detail about how they would be obtained and handled. Some main points that the OHA (2019) suggests archives include in their oral history acquisition policies are: appraisal and accessioning, metadata and description, preservation methods, points of access, collaboration principles, and ownership and rights management. By outlining specific guidelines in these areas, archivists, donors, and community members clearly know what to expect when handling their oral histories and can encourage people to get involved. Acquisition policies also serve to address gaps in archival collections, specifically in regards to new and emerging communities (Millar, 2017). Archivists at larger institutions should work to revise acquisition policies to be more inclusive to these communities to ensure the recording of their oral histories before they are lost to time.

Community Engagement and Participatory Archival Practice

Community and individual involvement are crucial for oral history to be properly integrated in the archives. Jessica Wagner and Debbi Smith, librarians at Adelphi University in New York State, suggest that archives should take a more active approach to collection by participating in outreach programs, creating sharing strategies, and providing motivation for certain groups to create documents that they would not have necessarily done otherwise (Graham et al., 2021). Many archives have used these techniques and more in order to increase interaction with the people who create records. An example of this is calling potential (or previous) donors to see if they are interested in donating materials or participating in oral history projects (Weaver & Hernández, 2022). While an unexpected call from an archivist is not guaranteed to produce results, it does open the possibility for a direct line of communication with collaborators. Bias could be a limiting issue in this scenario, as archivists may only want to try to contact people they are comfortable with, or who they deem to be most important. If this is a technique that is being used by an archives, including guidelines in the acquisition policy for what kinds of calls to make, and to whom (broadly), would mitigate possible effects of bias.

The acquisition of materials has historically been done solely by archival staff, where they examine the materials, attach a description, and file it on a shelf (Millar, 2017). The Texas Tech University’s Southwest Collection/Special Collections Library (SWC) has developed ways to integrate donors and people who have connections to archival materials into the acquisition process. Interviewees are given a consent form to formalize the interviewee’s rights to the recorded interviews and transcripts. There is then the process of the interview itself, which could happen in person, over the phone, or virtually. The transcript is then filed with the consent form, and is reviewed for typographical and other errors. After it has been reviewed, the interviewee is involved once again to make sure that the transcription is correct and to solve any issues. Once this process is complete and has been approved by both parties, the transcripts are made available on the digital collections site (Weaver & Hernández, 2022). Having a policy surrounding the acquisition of oral histories has allowed the SWC to streamline their processes and integrate oral history into many aspects of the archival records, resulting in enriched context and metadata in the collection (Weaver & Hernández, 2022). While the SWC archives focused mostly on relationships with existing, mostly wealthy, white donors, Weaver and Hernández (2022) see the possibilities of applying these policies to building relationships with minority communities in order to disrupt the accepted, whitewashed history of Texas. Integrating marginalized voices into the acquisition policy would be another step that the SWC could take in order to de-emphasize white hegemony. To lessen the workload on current archival staff, the SWC created an acquisitions field representative position to take on this difficult work (Weaver & Hernández, 2022).

While it may not be possible for smaller archives to create a new, official position, temporary workers could be hired to conduct specific oral history projects. The Louise Noun–Mary Louise Smith Iowa Women’s Archive (based out of the University of Iowa Libraries) raised funds to hire an assistant archivist specifically to develop the African American Women in Iowa project (Mason, 2003). The position lasted four years, and was instrumental in the success of collecting records, including papers and oral histories. Once the assistant archivist left, the collecting for the project slowed significantly, as it took a lot of time and effort to form relationships with the people who provided the records (Mason, 2003). While temporary staff are not a long term solution, they can help to get a project started. Each archives will have to determine what their budget can handle, but these are models that other archives can use or adapt to fit their specific needs.

Another archives that deals with oral histories is the ArQuives in Toronto, a community archives established to reclaim and make the voices of the 2SLGBTQ+ community available to the public. The ArQuives not only focuses on textual records of prominent figures in the 2SLGBTQ+ community, but also specifically identifies oral histories “that document the experiences of 2SLGBTQ+ Canadians or which have been acquired as a part of the papers of individuals or organizations” (ArQuives, 2018, p. 4) as a main genre of collected audiovisual material. The difference in phrasing between the acquisition policies of institutional and community archives is apparent, and most likely generates different numbers of oral histories collected respectively.

While communities having power and agency over their own records by establishing their own archives is an ideal scenario, not all communities have the resources needed to do so. Issues such as budget constraints could be mitigated by partnering with an archives. This approach is not perfect and leads to further issues surrounding the community’s ownership of records, their agency over the narratives in the records, and other considerations for relationships characterized by power imbalances. Making specific mention of an archives’ efforts to collect oral histories is not as straightforward as simply stating it in their acquisition policies. Careful consideration of collection gaps and engaging with specific communities must be undertaken beforehand.

One very important consideration is to have the proper staff in order to be able to treat donors and participants in a respectful way, as the rights and wellbeing of participants in oral history projects is very important for including community members in archival processes (OHA, 2018). In order to do this properly, the interviewer’s cultural sensitivity and background needs to be considered carefully. The right interviewer should share a similar cultural background, locality, or other experience with the interviewee. Depending on the nature of the oral history project, it may be difficult to select an interviewer who has a shared or similar identity to participants. The bond between interviewer and interviewee is especially important in cases when traumatic events are discussed (McDonald et al., 2022). As well as when working with communities that have strong cultural identities, “cultural competence” (McDonald et al., 2022, p.128) on the part of the interviewer is necessary to ensure participants feel their experiences will be respected. While trust can be built between archivists and communities over time through outreach and participatory efforts (Schreiner & los Reyes, 2016), trust is more easily attained if participants can see themselves represented on the other side of the camera or audio recorder.

The inclusion of building meaningful, healthy relationships in acquisitions policies could also change the archival process to a more collaborative activity between archivist and donor or community member. Knowledge, rather than being created with supposed neutrally and then maintained by an archivist, could be co-created as the material is being arranged and described, which also leads to greater transparency in the archives and the democratization of archival processes (Weaver & Hernández, 2022). If archives are to achieve this democratization and be able to fill the gaps in archival collections, community involvement is the only way forward.

Archivist as Co-Creator

To truly focus on collecting oral histories, and to better represent the diverse communities they serve, archivists need to break away from neutrality and “complacent stewardship” (Graham et al., 2021, p. 46) and instead take on a more active role in creating oral history records. Archivists cannot completely rely on some act of happenstance, sending out the word and waiting on donors to graciously hand over their ready-made recordings. Some initiative, either through the archives itself or in partnership with other memory institutions organizations must be taken to establish oral history collection foci by identifying collection gaps in current holdings, conducting interviews with consenting community members, processing interviews as archival records, and lastly, making them available to researchers. By taking on the role of co-creators (Weaver & Hernández, 2022), archivists can more effectively gather oral histories that reflect their communities and enhance their collections.

Communities are continually evolving, and reevaluating and remaining critical of the scope of archival collections is a necessary task to ensure emerging or marginalized communities are represented in records (Millar, 2017). In recent years, there has been a shift in archival procedures to include more outreach efforts and participation from community members (McCracken & Hogan, 2021; Allard & Ferris, 2015). Such efforts involve archivists eschewing their former authoritative role in this interaction and instead placing more agency in the hands of participating communities; working collaboratively with donors and creators in this way not only allows for more accurate and comprehensive records arrangement and descriptions, but more representative collections (Shilton & Srinivasan, 2007). This shift can be seen through the rise in community archiving all over the world.

Community Archives

Community archives are widely implemented due to their potential to resolve many of the issues that archival oral history projects entail. Given that community members often interact with one another by speaking through informal interactions, community archives value oral history as a crucial source of information. Understanding this environment, and archiving in, rather than for the community itself, will give each community the agency to handle their own materials and histories in whatever way they wish.

Community archives are self-defined and can take on many forms. The idea is for the community to be the stewards of their own records since community members know the most about their own histories. This avoids putting them in the hands of an archivist or institution separate from the community (Allard & Ferris, 2015). Communities often do not have an archivist just waiting to start a project in the community, so it is common to partner with an institution in order to set up proper infrastructure and records management policies. An example of this is the partnership between the Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center and Muhlenberg College’s Special Collections and Archives in order to collect, preserve, and provide access to the Lehigh Valley LGBT Community Archive. This collection documents local and regional 2SLGBTQ+ life and activism. It includes publications, organizational records, personal papers, oral histories, and artifacts.

The Internet Archive is a non-profit, digital library that offers millions of free resources. The platform allows organizations to make their materials available on their platform, such as the oral histories of Japanese immigrants who lived in Sacramento and surrounding areas in the 1970s, made available by the Center for Sacramento History and the Issei Oral History Project Inc. (Center for Sacramento History, n.d.). These organizations have made many records available to the public through the Internet Archive platform, which allows anyone with an account to upload material (Internet Archive, 2023), which allows anyone with an account to upload material (Internet Archive, 2023). Unmediated uploads can cause issues such as adhering to standards and quality of digitization, among others. However, the accessible resource sharing and preservation offered by The Internet Archive enables community archives to make their history available to the public.

Another example of a community archives is Queens Memory, a program founded in 2010 that is co-administered by the Queens Public Library and Queens College Library. This project does have the backing of large institutions, which gives it many resources to accomplish its goals. Its aim is to share the experiences of the people living in the Queens borough of New York, with a goal to have all visiting residents feel represented by the collection (Queens Memory, 2019). Queens Memory engages with the community through a podcast, programming, and training, as well as other social media avenues, and they have collected over 600 oral histories through interviews with the public (Tummino et al., 2021, p. 2). A technique that Queens Memory has used to invite community involvement during programming about timely events is the roundtable discussion, which fosters natural, dynamic conversations between panelists, and in turn can encourage participation in the online chat from the viewers (Tummino et al., 2021, p. 6). They also use social media platforms to position themselves even closer to the public by having an account with Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly known as Twitter). From these examples, it is clear that Queens Memory prioritizes community engagement and is willing to go beyond the conventional interview when recording oral histories. Queens Memory staff put in the effort to do better with the stories of underrepresented people in their community by meeting them where they are, rather than expecting people to come to them, as often happens with traditional archives. If institutional archives look to achieve the same kind of community involvement in relation to oral history, they will need to make a stronger commitment to these outreach methods.

Beyond an Inclusive Tool

The main reason why so many archives claim to adopt the acquisition of oral history into their collections is to include marginalized and underrepresented peoples in the archives, to “fill the gaps” between the wealthy, white narratives that dominate collections (Bowers, Crowe & Keeran, 2017; Millar, 2017; Webster, 2016). This goal is imperative to dismantling white, patriarchal hegemony. It is also a very difficult task, often resulting in institutions touting their lofty goals of bringing marginalized peoples into the archives and including their cultures alongside the established collections.

While oral history has been widely adopted by many archives, their use remains within western ideas of knowledge and memory preservation. Boyd (2022) calls for a “re-assessment of oral history and its accepted role as a neutral bringer of cultural diversity” (p.20) to collections, which needs to be done in conjunction with different cultures’ knowledge practices. If this can be done, then oral history can be truly appreciated as being a source of knowledge that is fundamental cultural knowledge.

Conversely, oral histories may be found to be inherently antithetical to the archives itself. In Western thought, the positivist epistemological tradition states that there is an objective, proven truth. In turn, this has led to the idea that truth is worth preserving so it will not be forgotten by future generations. Oral history does not fit into this criterion and is highly subjective as it is based on individual people’s experiences. Certain forms of Indigenous Knowledge, including some oral histories in the form of stories, have protocols surrounding them, and they are not always meant to be shared or recorded (Hunt, 2016). Experiencing knowledge in this way emphasizes the many layers of human knowledge transmission that oral history provides.  Jessie and Darrell Loyer (2021) approach knowledge and memory through the concept of the Métis kitchen table talk, which involves speaking informally in the comfort of a home. It is a holistic conversation that does away with the power dynamic of an interview and allows everyone involved to have a voice. This highlights the importance of relationships in oral history creation and management.

Loyer and Loyer (2021) explore the idea of archives from an Indigenous perspective and conclude that archives can mean much more than a building where documents are held, such as an Elder (who would impart knowledge through oral history) or cultural objects that hold meaning such as beadwork. These are not written documents, yet they hold great value for the Indigenous communities that they come from (Regal, 2022). Moreover, Jessie Loyer (2021) makes an interesting point that there is not such a strong distinction when comparing libraries, archives and museums for Indigenous Peoples, which exemplifies the idea of removing conceptual (and maybe even physical in some cases) walls between the people and archival material. Looking back to earlier in this chapter, the Queens Memory project is an example of how an organization can encompass different areas of library, archives, and community at the same time in order to stay true to their goal of preserving people’s experiences.

Human as Archive

In trying to reconcile intangible materials with traditional archives, Dallas Hunt (2016) suggests adopting the concept of the felt archive. A felt archive offers “a narrative that appeals as a history that can be felt as well as intellectualized” (Hunt, 2016, p. 26), which is a concept that incorporates Indigenous Knowledges into methodological practices. These practices highlight and pay homage to the complex lived experiences of people affected by colonial conditions (Hunt, 2016), and do not ignore the relationship between the intellectual benefit of housing materials and the emotional aspects that go along with them. By adopting the ideas of the felt archive, traditional colonial archives are challenged at their core to rethink the relationship between archives, materials, and the people (or communities) that they serve. This rethinking of archival relationships allows for oral histories, even if they do not exist in a tangible form, to be seen as an important part of the collection.

If the idea of humanizing archives is taken literally, and oral histories are considered in their original form of spoken words, then humans can also be seen as archives (or libraries) themselves. Implementing this idea would create as many problems as it would solve and may seem impossible to incorporate into traditional archives, especially as many in the archival professionals seem reluctant to take on active social justice initiatives (Graham et al., 2021, p. 47). Despite this, even considering the expansion of what can be considered archival material can contribute to long-term goals of serving marginalized communities better. Big changes take time and often happen in small steps. As Hunt (2016) discusses, even if an archives does not fully decolonize, but adopts a meaningful “decolonial sensibility” to address the complex relationships with Indigenous Peoples (p. 27), it is still a step further than simply asking people for an interview and then filing it among the collection.

Conclusion

While the concept of adding oral history to existing archives is a practical solution to preservation of primary sources in theory, there are many nuances that must be considered to carefully accession them into collections. Looking into the relationship between oral history and archives has shown that there are not many policies in place in order to take proper care in acquiring and effectively dealing with oral history. There is a lack of careful consideration when obtaining sensitive information, and in deciding if and how that oral history can be shared in an ethical manner. This is crucial, especially when dealing with the histories of marginalized groups.

If archivists look outside the box of the neutrality of traditional archival processes and call upon the help of the communities whose histories are being archived, then these sensitive yet enriching collections could be released for research at a faster rate. Though complex in scope, oral histories deserve to be handled by archives with care, and the integrity of their voices protected. When oral history is cared for, it gives a voice to those who experienced the history firsthand, which in turn gives those who use archives a fuller understanding of the recorded lived experiences, further contextualizing the records they access.

Sources for Further Reading

Archivists Against. (N.d.). Archivists against history repeating itself. Wayback Machine/Internet Archive. 16 Jun. 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20240616124539/https://www.archivistsagainst.org/

This website is run by an informal collective of archivists and archival studies scholars who strive to disrupt oppression and incite change in archival practices. It provides actions to take against oppressive societal structures, scholarly readings on these topics, ways to participate in their cause, and links to other archival websites that exemplify archival projects working against oppression.

Boyd, N. A., & Roque Ramírez, H. N. (2012). Bodies of evidence: the practice of queer oral history. Oxford University Press.

This book provides scholarly insight into the methods used in 2SLGBTQ+ oral history practices. It addresses historical themes related to many cultural aspects of American life for 2SLGBTQ+ people from the 1950s to the 1990s, and how themes of oppressive silence, sexuality, intimacy, race, and social politics appear in queer oral history methodologies.

MacKay, N. (2006). Curating oral histories: From interview to archive. Taylor & Francis.

This book gives a great high-level understanding of the relationship between oral history and archival institutions. It goes in depth on preservation and storage of oral histories, ethical considerations, as well as modern challenges which include oral history on the internet.

Matusiak, K. K., Werling, S., Donovan, L., & Carlson, S. (2021). Rights metadata in a community archive: Implementing standardized rights statements. Journal of Library Metadata, 21(1/2), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2021.1955586.

This article talks about American copyright and ownership of archival materials found in community archives. This goes hand in hand with oral history rights and the questions that arise when dealing with rights assignment in archival acquisitions.

Oral History Association. (2019, October). Archiving oral history. https://oralhistory.org/archives-principles-and-best-practices-overview/.

These guidelines were developed as an addendum to the Oral History Association’s Principles and Best Practices. The guidelines deal more specifically with how oral histories could fit in archives, but also acknowledge that oral histories go far beyond the scope of archives and are dealt with by a diverse set of practitioners. It is a helpful document for providing context and suggestions for how archivists can go about integrating oral histories into their collections.

Ritchie, D. A. (2003). Doing oral history: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

This book, written by an oral history expert, contains explanations of guidelines set by the Oral History Association for creating and preserving oral history. While not explicitly about archives, it gives a lot of context that can be useful for building oral history policies.

Swain, Ellen. (2003). Oral history in the archives: Its documentary role in the twenty-first century. American Archivist 66(1), 139-158. https://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article/66/1/139/23919/Oral-History-in-the-Archives-Its-Documentary-Role.

Swain gives a comprehensive history on the placement of oral history in archives into the twenty-first century. The author also emphasizes the importance of ongoing research into the relationship between oral historians, librarians, and archivists, and stresses how they must continue a positive relationship in order keep oral history well preserved and easily accessible.

Texas Historical Commission. (2016). Fundamentals of oral history: Texas preservation guidelines. www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/ publications/OralHistory.pdf.

This document is full of detailed information on how to properly collect oral history. There are guidelines on how to find subjects for interviews, the proper interview etiquette as well as proper processing. It gives great examples on ethical issues that arise and examples of consent forms that can be used.

Viñales, A. (2018). Varones in the archive: A queer oral history analysis with two black Puerto Rican gay men. CENTRO Journal, 30(2), 162–181. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=IFME&u=anon~13320974&id=GALE|A557578967&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=ac56a3c4

This article is a good example of an oral history project. In order to give voice to underrepresented Queer Puerto Ricans, Viñales conducted oral history interviews with two gay Afro-Puerto Rican men. These oral histories are an interesting way to showcase multiple dialogues as well as provide a platform for queer people of colour to present their histories.

References

The ArQuives – Canada’s LGBTQ2+ Archives. (2018). Acquisition Policy [PDF]. https://arquives.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/A001_Acquisitions-Policy_V.01.pdf

Allard, D., & Ferris, S. (2015). Antiviolence and marginalized communities: Knowledge creation, community mobilization, and social justice through a participatory archiving approach. Library Trends, 64(2), 360–383. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0043

Black Cultural Archives (BCA). (2022). Collections. https://blackculturalarchives.org/collections

Bowers, J., Crowe, K., & Keeran, P. (2017). “If You Want the History of a White Man, You Go to the  Library”: Critiquing our legacy, addressing our library collections gaps. Collection Management, 42(3–4), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1329104

Boyd, J. (2022). Filling the “Gaps” in the representation of Australia’s cultural diversity: The multicultural imaginary of the NLA’s oral history collection. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 71(1), 4-26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2021.2016360

Callison, C., Ludbrook, A., Owen, V., & Nayyer, K. (2021). Engaging respectfully with Indigenous Knowledges: Copyright, customary law, and cultural memory institutions in Canada. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination & Preservation Studies, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.146

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). (2023). Heritage minister looks at restoring local archives program. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/heritage-minister-looks-at-restoring-local-archives-program-1.1415052

Center for Sacramento History. (N.d.). Issei Oral History Project. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/cshisseioralhistories

City of Edmonton Archives (CEA). (2020). Guiding principles [PDF]. https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/assets/city_archives/CoEAGuidingPrinciples.pdf?cb=1698005818

City of Vancouver Archives (CVA). (2019). Acquisition policy [PDF]. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/archives-aquisition-policy.pdf

Concordia University. (2013). Policy on the acquisition of archives [PDF]. https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/common/docs/policies/official-policies/SG-8.pdf

Dick, E. J. (1977). Oral history in Canada: An archivist’s commentary. Archivaria, 4, 34-42. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/10508

Fogerty, J. E. (1983). Filling the gap: Oral history in the archives. The American Archivist, 46(2), 148–157. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40292583

Ghaddar, J. (2016). The spectre in the archive: Truth, reconciliation, and Indigenous archival Memory. Archivaria, 82, 3-26. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13579

Gordon, H. (2012, May 24). National Archival Development Program elimination. AuthentiCity – The City of Vancouver Archives Blog. https://www.vancouverarchives.ca/2012/05/24/national-archival-development -program-elimination/

Graham, B., Baldivia, S., Cuthbertson, W., Leon, K., Monson, J., & Trask, J. (2021). Collecting first-generation voices in academic libraries and archives. College & Research Libraries, 82(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.1.44

Hamer, A. (2018). Ethics of archival practice: New considerations in the digital age. Archivaria, 85, 156-179. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13634

Hunt, D. (Ed.). (2016). Nikîkîwân: Contesting settler colonial archives through Indigenous oral history. Canadian Literature, 230-231, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.14288/cl.v0i230-1.187955

Internet Archive. (2023). About the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/about/

Loyer, J. & Loyer, D. (2021). Talking with my daughter about archives: Métis researchers and genealogy. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination & Preservation Studies, 5, 1–20. https://kula.uvic.ca/index.php/kula/article/view/140/260

MacKay, N. (2016). Curating oral histories: From interview to archive (2nd ed). Routledge.

Mason, K. M. (2003). Fostering diversity in archival collections: The Iowa women’s archives. Collection Management, 27(2), 23-31–31. https://doi.org/10.1300/J105v27n02_03

Masuku, M., & Pasipamire, N. (2014). Going against the grain: Questioning the role of archivists and librarians in the documentation and preservation of Indigenous Knowledge. ESARBICA Journal, 33, 117–130. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311403831_GOING_AGAINST_THE_GRAIN_QUESTIONING_THE_ROLE_OF_ARCHIVISTS_AND_LIBRARIANS_IN_THE_DOCUMENTATION_AND_PRESERVATION_OF_INDIGENOUS_KNOWLEDGE

McCabe, G. (2008). Mind, body, emotions and spirit: reaching to the ancestors for healing. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 21(2), 143–152.https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070802066847

McCracken, K., & Hogan, S. S. (2021). Residential school community archives: Spaces of trauma and community healing. Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies, 3(2). http://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/115

McDonald, M., Puddicombe, A., Weymouth, A., & Williams, A. (2022). Methods for collecting oral histories amidst a crisis. Serials Librarian, 81(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.1985685

Millar, L. A. (2017). Archives: Principles and practices. Facet Publishing.

Mills, A. (2017). Learning to listen: Archival sound recordings and Indigenous cultural and intellectual property. Archivaria, 83, 109-124. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13602

Nova Scotia Archives (NSA). (2023). Donating to the Archives. https://archives.novascotia.ca/donating-to-archives/

Oral History Association (OHA). (2009, October). Principles and best practices: Principles for oral history and best practices for oral history. https://oralhistory.org/about/principles-and-practices-revised-2009/

Oral History Association (OHA). (2018, October). OHA core principles. https://oralhistory.org/oha-core-principles/

Oral History Association (OHA). (2019, October). Archiving oral history. https://oralhistory.org/archives-principles-and-best-practices-overview/

Oseredok Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre (2023, March 10). Collections policy [PDF]. https://oseredok.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/COLLECTIONS- POLICY- Revision-2023.pdf

Oyelude, A. A. (2023). Indigenous knowledge preservation as a sign of respect for culture: concerns of libraries, archives and museums. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 36, 21. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.628

Provincial Archives of Alberta (PAA). (N.d.) We acquire. https://provincialarchives.alberta.ca/who-we-are/we-acquire

Provincial Archives of Saskatchewan (PAS). (N.d.) Frequently asked questions. https://www.saskarchives.com/donate-records/FAQs

Queens Memory. (2019). About us. https://queensmemory.org/about-us/

Regal, S. (2022). Preserving [spectral] knowledge: Indigeneity, haunting, and performing the embodied archive. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 41(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.17613/xn6r-at45

Rise Up! A digital Archive of Feminist Activism. (N.d.). Guidelines For Preparing Archival Materials [PDF]. https://riseuparchive.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/GUIDELINES.-REV.pdf

Ruschiensky, C. (2017). Meaning-making and memory-making in the archives: Oral History Interviews with Archives Donors. Archivaria, 84, 103-125. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13615

Rylance, K. (2006). Archives and the intangible. Archivaria, 62, 103–120. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12890

Schreiner, M., & los Reyes, C. de. (2016). Social practice artists in the archive: Collaborative strategies for documentation. Urban Library Journal, 22(2), 1–8. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/ulj/vol22/iss2/1

Schüller, D. (2009). Video archiving and the dilemma of data compression. International Preservation News, 47, 5–7.

Schwartz, J. M., & Cook, T. (2002). Archives, records, and power: The Making of modern memory. Archival Science, 2(1-2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435628

Shilton, K. & Srinivasan, R. (2007). Participatory appraisal and arrangement for multicultural archival collections. Archivaria, 63, 87-101. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13129

Simon Fraser University. (2022). Developing private records holdings at the SFU Archives: An acquisition strategy [PDF]. https://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/archives/PDFs/archives/Private_Records_Acq_Strat.pdf

Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2023). Grant proposal writing. Archivists.org. https://www2.archivists.org/prof-education/course-catalog/grant-proposal-writing

Swain, Ellen. (2003). Oral history in the archives: Its documentary role in the twenty-first century.  American Archivist, 66(1), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.66.1.9284q6r604858h40

The Memeing Archivist [@the_memeing_archivist]. (2023, October 7). Thanks to bersto3 #archives #archivistlife #archivistproblems [Photograph]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/CyFw8uYoJDK/

Tembe, M. M., & Nsibirwa, Z. (2022). Archiving the voices of the once voiceless: Strategies for digital preservation of oral history at the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Archives. ESARBICA Journal, 41(1), 141–158. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/esarjo/article/view/240099

Tummino, A. E., Wong, J., & Mondésir, O. (2021). Uplifting diverse and marginalized voices through community archives and public programming. Urban Library Journal, 27(2), 1-9. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/ulj/vol27/iss2/6

Texas Historical Commission [THC]. (2016). Fundamentals of oral history: Texas preservation guidelines [PDF]. https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/publications/OralHistory.pdf

University of Toronto Archives & Records Management Services (UTARMS). (N.d.). Oral history resources. University of Toronto. https://utarms.library.utoronto.ca/archives/oral-history-resources

Weaver, R.G., & Hernández, Z.R. (2022). Oral history, donor engagement, and the cocreation of knowledge in an academic archives. Archivaria (93), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.7202/1089687ar

Webster, J. W. (2016). “Filling the Gaps”: Oral histories and underdocumented populations in The American Archivist, 1938-2011. American Archivist, 79(2), 254–282. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/bb_pubs/1090/

Yap, J. M., & Barsaga, A. S. (2018). Building a timeless audiovisual collection: Libraries and archives as repositories of oral history. Library Management, 39(3), 188-199. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-05-2017-0049