Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How archival studies and knowledge management practitioners describe the value of research: assessing the “quiet” archivist persona

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archival Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The archivist persona is frequently described in terms of passive, introverted attributes, which are then viewed as contributing to critical concerns for the sector, such as a lack of visibility, perceived effectiveness, and funding. This study is the first to assess the archivist persona through a discourse analysis, examining the usage of words promoting value and positive benefits in archival studies publications. Titles and abstracts from research articles published in five prominent journals between 2015 and 2019 were analysed for a set of 57 words connoting value or valuable benefits, including terms such as “innovative”, “positive”, and “strategic.” An identical analysis of research articles published in five knowledge management (KM) publications over the same timeframe was also completed in order to provide a comparative dataset from an adjacent, yet more corporate-embedded information practice. The results demonstrate that archival studies researchers use value words to promote the benefits of their research, but do so at a significantly lower frequency and density when compared to KM. A qualitative analysis of the results shows that archivists leverage a passive lexicon to promote value and benefits, relying on generic adjectives and indirect claims, whereas the lexicon of KM communicates direct, actionable outcomes that more readily align with business stakeholders’ priorities. These findings suggest practical communications recommendations for the archives sector, which could enhance business stakeholders’ perceptions of archivists and the value of archival work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Ahmed S (2020) Archivy (n. ~ The discipline of archives) *: everything that’s already been said. Hazine http://hazine.info/archivy-sumayya-ahmed. Accessed 4 Jun. 2020

  • Andreeva T, Kianto A (2012) Does knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness and economic performance. J Knowl Manag 16(4):617–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock P (2004) Shedding light on knowledge management. HR Mag https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/Pages/0504covstory.aspx. Accessed 12 May 2020

  • Bartlett JA (2016) The value-added organization: beyond business as usual. Library Leadersh Manag 30(4):1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett CA (1996) McKinsey & Company: managing knowledge and learning. HBS 9–396-357. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A (2010) Strangely unfamiliar: ideas of the archive from outside the discipline. In: Hill J (ed) The future of archives and recordkeeping: a reader. Facet, Cambridge, pp 37–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero C (2002) Strategic planning as a prerequisite to strategic marketing action in libraries and information agencies. Acquis Libr 28:33–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain S (2012a) Quiet: the power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. Broadway Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain S (2012b) The power of introverts. TED https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts/transcript. Accessed 15 Jun. 2020

  • Caswell M (2016) “The archive” is not an archives: acknowledging the intellectual contributions of archival studies. Reconstruction, 16 (1). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7bn4v1fk. Accessed 23 Jun. 2020

  • Coakes E, Amar AD, Granados ML (2009) Knowledge management for the twenty-first century: a large comprehensive global survey emphasizes KM strategy. Eur and Mediterr Conf on Inf Syst. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229039807_Knowledge_management_for_the_twenty-first_century_A_large_comprehensive_global_survey_emphasizes_KM_strategy. Accessed 26 Jun. 2020

  • Cook T (2011) The archive(s) is a foreign country: historians, archivists, and the changing archival landscape. Am Arch 74(2):600–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox RJ (2005) Archives & archivists in the information age. Neal-Schuman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig BL (2000) Canadian archivists: what types of people are they? Archivaria 50:79–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Currall J, Moss M (2008) We are archivists, but are we OK? Rec Manag J 18(1):69–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkir K (2017) Knowledge management in theory and practice, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewar C, Hirt M, Keller S (2019) The mindsets and practices of excellent CEOs. McKinsey & Company https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-mindsets-and-practices-of-excellent-ceos. Accessed 1 Jun. 2020

  • Dionne M (2002) Marketing the archivist: the history of the society of American archivists’ task force on archives and society. In: Owens I (ed) Strategic marketing in library and information science. Haworth Press, Philadelphia, pp 175–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist Intelligence Unit (2005) Know how: managing knowledge for competitive advantage. http://graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/tata_knowhow_wp.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2020

  • Ezingeard J-N, Leigh S, Chandler-Wilde R (2000) Knowledge management at Ernst & Young UK: getting value through knowledge flows. Proc 21 Int Conf on Inf Syst: 807–822

  • Fleckner JA (2014) F. Gerald Ham: Jeremiah to the profession. Am Arch 77(2):377–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Force M (2009) Company history: corporate archives’ public outreach on fortune 100 company websites. Proven J Soc Georgia Arch 27(1):24–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Garaba F (2015) Dodos in the archives: rebranding the archival profession to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century within ESARBICA. Arch Rec 36(2):216–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld C (2017) Democratising or privileging: the democratisation of knowledge and the role of the archivist. Arch Sci 17:227–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld C (2018) The end of archival ideas? In: Brown C (ed) Archival futures. Facet, London, pp 137–154

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gee JP (2010) An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein MG (1997) The evolving role of in-house business archives: from tradition to flexibility. In: O’Toole J (ed) The records of American business. The Society of American Archivists, Chicago, pp 41–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene MA (2009) The power of archives: archivists’ values and value in the postmodern age. Am Arch 72(1):17–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Ham FG (1975) The archival edge. Am Arch 38(1):5–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Ham FG (1981) Archival strategies for the post-custodial era. Am Arch 44(3):207–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter G (2005) Meeting notes. Eighth annual meeting of the corporate archives forum, 18–20 May 2005 http://www.hunterinformation.com/CAF%202005.pdf. Accessed 2 Jun. 2020

  • Inkinen H (2016) Review of empirical research on knowledge management practices and firm performance. J Knowl Manag 20(2):230–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasimuddin SM (2006) Disciplinary roots of knowledge management: a theoretical review. Int J Organ Anal 14(2):171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimerson RC (1989) Redefining archival identity: meeting user needs in the information society. Am Arch 52(3):332–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni UR, Ravindran S, Freeze R (2006) A knowledge management success model: theoretical development and empirical validation. J Manag Inf Syst 23(3):309–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasewicz PC (2015) Forget the past? Or history matters? Selected academic perspectives on the strategic value of organizational pasts. Am Arch 78(1):59–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemieux VL (2010) The records-risk nexus: exploring the relationship between records and risk. Rec Manag J 20(2):199–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O, Jena AB (2019) Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study. BMJ 367:l6573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesser E, Prusak L (2004) Creating value with knowledge: insights from the IBM institute for business value. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levy SJ, Robles AG (1984) The image of archivists: resource allocators’ perceptions. Society of American Archivists Task Force on Archives and Society, The Society of American Archivists, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod J, Hare C (2006) How to manage records in the e-environment. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney PF (1997) Archival mythology and corporate reality: a potential powder keg. In: O’Toole J (ed) The records of American business. The Society of American Archivists, Chicago, pp 57–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousavizadeh M, Harden G, Ryan S, Windsor J (2015) Knowledge management and the creation of business value. J Comput Inf Syst 55(4):35–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver A, Daniel A (2015) The identity complex: the portrayal of archivists in film. Arch Issues 37(1):48–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson C (2016) Perceptions and understandings of archives in the digital age. Am Arch 79(2):339–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Pederson AE (2003) Understanding ourselves and others: Australian archivists and temperament. Arch Sci 3:223–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Procter M (2017) Protecting rights, asserting professional identity. Arch Rec 38(2):296–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray L, Shepherd E, Flinn A, Ander E, Laperdrix M (2013) Funding archive services in England and Wales: institutional realities and professional perceptions. Arch Rec 34(2):175–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe KD (2016) Why archives? Am Arch 79(1):6–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CR (1996) Personality types of archivists. Proven J Soc Georgia Arch 14(1):15–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk K (2011) Another world possible: radical archiving in the 21st Century. Progressive Librarian 36/37: 51–58. http://www.progressivelibrariansguild.org/PL/PL36_37/051.pdf. Accessed 8 Jun. 2020

  • Serenko A, Bontis N (2017) Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2017 update. J Knowl Manag 21(3):675–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Society of American Archivists (1985) Archivists’ resource allocators: the next step. The Society of American Archivists, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkers CH, Tijdink JK, Otte WM (2015) Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ 351:h6467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallot J-P (1996) Limited identities for a common identity: archivists in the twenty-first century. Archivaria 41:6–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Wang N, Cao J, Ye X (2016) The impact of intellectual capital–knowledge management strategy fit on firm performance. Manag Decis 54(8):1861–1885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weir C (1991) Selling yourself: outreach & promotion in the nottinghamshire archives office. J Soc Arch 12(1):15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson IE (1995) Strategies for communication. J Soc Arch 16(1):55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth K (1997) Advocating business archives. Soc Am Arch Bus Arch Newsl 2(August):12–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Yakel E (2000) Knowledge management: the archivist’s and record manager’s perspective. Inf Manag J 34(3):24–30

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research for this article was completed as a 2019-2020 MA student at the Department of Information Studies, University College London, UK. The author wishes to thank Elizabeth Lomas of UCL for her guidance in supervising this dissertation research, and Meri Duryan of UCL for helpful discussions related to knowledge management.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Studies, University College London, Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    Jennifer Y. Pearson

Authors
  1. Jennifer Y. Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This work was originally written by JYP as a dissertation for UCL’s Master’s in Archives and Records Management programme (2020).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Y. Pearson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pearson, J.Y. How archival studies and knowledge management practitioners describe the value of research: assessing the “quiet” archivist persona. Arch Sci 22, 95–112 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-021-09369-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-021-09369-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation