By June Chow, Jennifer Douglas, Rebecka Sheffield 

In this post, we report participant contributions to a workshop we led at the 2024 ACA conference. The workshop engaged the conference’s theme of “future-proofing” by focusing on “archival debt,” a term coined to name the “problematic legacy issues” existing in archival institutions due to “past practices, policies, and strategies that prioritized the protection and validation of institutions over democratic access and responsible stewardship” (Cuellar 2023). Archival debt asks us to consider what resources are owed to records and people who have received less attention and care than they are due and how to pay down this debt. Building off Sheffield’s work on different sustainability models for community archives and Chow and Douglas’ research on archival consciousness in Vancouver’s Chinatown, the workshop explored the roles and responsibilities of mainstream archival institutions in the long-term viability of archives they have historically marginalized and neglected.  

A significant portion of the workshop engaged participants in a process of envisioning an equitable archival space where mainstream archives not only acknowledge past harms, but also work toward actively benefiting historically marginalized communities and their archives. Participants worked in breakout groups to reflect on a series of prompts and questions we provided with the aim of starting a “future-proofing” conversation about the ways mainstream archives bear responsibility for sustaining community archives and possibilities for providing support in a non-oppressive, non-extractive, and reciprocal manner. The prompts first asked participants to think about “where they are at,” reflecting on the concept of archival debt and how it resonates in relation to their experiences as archivists in and outside of institutions. Next, we engaged participants in a road mapping exercise, asking groups to identify actionable steps toward more equitable relationships and practices that could be taken immediately and in the longer term.  

Participants recorded their breakout room discussions in anonymous Google docs; their contributions are collated and summarized here by June Chow. We are grateful to workshop participants for sharing with us and with each other. We hope the ideas expressed below encourage further conversation and deeper reflection across the archival profession and contribute to significant and lasting change in institutional priorities and policies; with this in mind, we particularly hope this post is shared with and read by those in leadership positions and holding institutional and professional power.  

Where folks are at 

“How do we work toward slow processing when we face neoliberal austerity measures?” (Workshop participant)

How does the concept of “archival debt” resonate with you and your practices? 

Workshop participants experience archival debt through lack of documentation in decision-making and in lack of knowledge around holdings of community records through inadequate description work. Short-term and contract-based jobs make it difficult to be embedded in a community and in an institution. Top-down decision-making based on statistics and deliverables is not seen as being conducive to care work. Issues around ownership and access to community records are layered and complex, and require different considerations and processes. 

The processing archivist seems to bear the bulk of the burden of archival debt. Few individuals with archival training are hired into institutions; they find themselves unable to keep up with the policy side of archival work within their organizations. Participants want to help others understand and acknowledge archival debt as an active concept in order to effect change, for example, by linking the concept with archival silences/silencing, social responsibility, stewardship, accountability, and even litigation.  

What do equitable, non-extractive models/practices of community engagement and support (debt repayment) look like? What should they look like? 

Repayment of archival debt involves slowing down, planning and building for the longer-term, and being supported to spend time with/in community to build ongoing relationships. In such relationships, we explore people’s comfort level and openness for discussion, field diverse opinions, and enter into discussions with an open mindset, recognizing that there is no single solution to the problem, and instead commit to ongoing discussion. We ask appropriate questions of people who are historically under-represented or maliciously represented; we are open to participatory description, and report back to the community when their records are processed and made available. Smaller, community-based archives are recognized as having expertise and better-established relationships, but few resources to support others. Fair compensation can take the form of honoraria, payment (including for records instead of expecting donation of records from communities), and employment to ensure the representation and power of the community of interest within an institution and its staff.  

Debt repayment can also involve resource sharing; resources that institutions can share with communities include database access, interlibrary loans, copies of records acquired without consent, digitization and digital preservation, and access to records while returning originals. Institutions are encouraged to dissolve institutional barriers and to learn from those outside archives who are doing things well. Ultimately, debt repayment must be part of the ethos of the institution and not just paid occasionally.  

What stops archivists/institutions from doing better? 

Archivists are being asked to take on more than is possible for a profession to do. Care work in the archives involves emotional labour and a high level of responsibility. In addition to resource limitations in funding, staff, and time, archivists also lack training. They are unsure of where to start, worry about not doing it right, and are overwhelmed by trying to do it all (or to do it at all). They are not sure how to balance care work against so many different areas of their work, which can quickly make for an unmanageable workload if room isn’t made by taking some things away. 

Conversations are happening between peers, but it’s not where decisions are made. Within big institutions, individuals find it hard to have a say or to make things actionable. Institutions are governed by mandates, set priorities based on research and reference requests, and give buy-in to tangible projects and deliverables over processes that may have longer or undefined timelines. The ability to do better is limited by the lack of will on the part of the institution, political issues/barriers, neoliberalism, and access restrictions. 

While both individuals and institutions are limited by capacity, it is cautioned that capacity is sometimes a valid concern, but sometimes used as an excuse to cover over things that can actually be done. Capacity can be created to fix errors/issues, for example, by taking capacity away from mundane or unimportant tasks. 

Roadmap  

“How can professionals with more/the most privilege/institutional power be encouraged to take on this work?” (Workshop participant) 

Responsibilities 

Institutions have a responsibility to recognize that this work is important and connected to institutional EDI mandates. This helps institutions hold themselves publicly accountable, and accountable to community records. There must be buy-in from senior management but also managers at various levels to grant staff the liberties to do this work. Transparent decision-making processes and inclusion of this work in overarching, long-term plans are needed. 

Shared goals for addressing archival debt, increasing access, and fostering inclusivity will look different in one another’s work and approaches––from records management in local government to public archives and working with the public––given different responsibilities, tasks and priorities. Different institutions may be better at different things; your archive isn’t necessarily the right one to jump into a space to meet a community’s needs. We may be calling for the dissolution of “total archives” and the redrawing of lines of responsibility.

Everyone has a responsibility to bring awareness to some of the issues that need addressing. Archivists are responsible for advocating for budget and support for current and future archivists. There is always some social capital or institutional influence that can be leveraged. For example, pilot projects and their impacts can be leveraged to advocate for larger budget allocation. Every interaction in the reading room is about relationship building.  

As professionals and as human beings, we work in front-facing roles with substantial power, and have access to valuable professional networks. An acquisition declined at your institution does not preclude you from using your networks to re-direct it to another home so that it gets preserved. We are responsible for engaging critically with our own work and processes, being invested on a personal/community level, and educating and advocating with our supervisors so that they can bring the issues forward to their supervisors. 

Resources 

Institutional resources require reprioritizing and reallocating. Long-term, stable funding beyond pilot projects is needed: for example, allocating funding from operating budgets within higher education. Redistribution of wealth and skills towards community archives is needed overall, with learning from other sectors and their funding models. Even with budgetary constraints, very small actions with communities can have potentially big ROI. 

Among archivists as information professionals, information was identified as the easiest resource to share. There is value in demystifying archives for communities by going into communities and also inviting them into the archives. This includes articulating the value and benefits of archives, and ensuring a welcoming and accessible space through our word choices (e.g. “researcher”, “research facilities”) as well as architecture. 

Small community archives often don’t have the means to be part of professional associations to gain access to their networks and to be included in conversations. Sharing resource lists, tips, and success stories can offer a starting point. In particular, institutions have infrastructure to offer in support of digital preservation and access. Regardless of the type of resource, however, both institutions and individuals need to be comfortable in providing work and support to the community without receiving or claiming credit. Both pros and cons were seen in a workplace's offering of professional credits for community archives work. 

People 

Community archives must be included as active participants in larger conversations that involve them. Different relationships with communities beyond collecting must be explored, pursued and codified within trust agreements. In particular, communities want to be empowered and have the agency to “build their own tables” by defining success on their own terms and creating their own opportunities. It is, however, difficult to know how to avoid overuse and over-reliance on consultation with communities, particularly Indigenous communities. The time it takes to build relationships and to step outside of the archives to do this work is challenging to carve out, quantify in year-end reports, and justify to a manager. However, this may be the only way an archives is accessible to remote communities. Employees who are part of the community must be part of the work, to make sure that the community in question is getting just as much if not more than the archives out of the interaction. 

Many community records are being processed by contract workers, often with skill and cultural gaps, with little effort to recruit from the community. Contract, temporary, project-based, student and volunteer positions are the norm in the profession which undermines the sustainability required in care work. Relationships are personal; the burden of rebuilding relationships when staff move on falls disproportionately on communities. Possible solutions involve leaning more on paraprofessionals as colleagues versus assistants. Better off-boarding procedures for contractors can help with staff transitions, particularly through documentation as procedures vary across archival institutions. If we don’t document what we’re doing, it can be challenging to advocate for more resources and to bridge the work. 

Hiring practices are a huge issue in archival institutions in Canada, and symptoms of larger systemic problems of investment in the archives sector. Hiring equitably to create a diverse, representative staff in the archival field must move beyond tokenism to support and give voice to marginalized employees. 

Paying (y)our debt 

“GLAM can be a monster that yum-yum-yum will eat up all your joy and enthusiasm for the work and call it ‘good for you.’ So boundaries, boundaries, boundaries will ensure we can keep doing good work.” (Workshop participant) 

Tomorrow: 

Do some documentation, examine our daily procedures for what we are doing already that is working and has values alignment, and make the case for additional resources by aligning with emerging frameworks. 

Start using and give credit to the “archival debt” term, and talk about and share this bundle of issues. Recognize that we have this debt and have done harm. Admit past mistakes. Be more transparent about the work we do and don’t do, and the communities we haven’t documented. Fill descriptive gaps; add a title note to provide context to a user. 

Share and discuss with colleagues, share skills in the workplace, and identify potential community partners to begin relationship building. There may be value in looking back to see what relationships have been lost due to funding/staffing gaps. 

Mid-/Long-term: 

Start a network of like-minded archivists to provide support and share skills. Identify pilot projects. Start making community connections, spending time to support people where they’re at, and respect what they want and need instead of what we want and need. 

Build out a plan for how to engage and work with identified communities over time, including defining what engagement means and how you’ll measure success. 

Share skills back with communities through volunteering, talking about the work you do as an archivist. If you have job security, ask if you can use work hours to do work that benefits the community and aligns with the institution’s strategic plan. 

Call to action 

The concept of archival debt provides a useful lens for reflecting on the responsibilities mainstream archival institutions and the profession have toward individuals and communities they have historically ignored and/or excluded. The discussions we had during the ACA workshop suggest possibilities for providing support in a non-oppressive, non-extractive, and reciprocal manner, but only through further conversation and deeper reflection across the archival profession can we contribute to significant and lasting change in institutional priorities and policies. As these conversations and reflections take place, it is especially important to remember the role that institutional and professional power plays in the archival debt economy. Power is unevenly held, and for too long the field has relied on those with little professional or institutional power to bring change. It’s time now for those in leadership positions, with the influence that is needed to effect long-term change, to join in these conversations––to look at the debt our institutions and profession hold and begin the work to pay it down.  

Citation: Cuellar, Jillian; Eagle Yun, Audra; Meehan, Jennifer; and Tai, Jessica (2023) “Defining Archival Debt: Building New Futures for Archives,” Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies: Vol. 10, Article 8. Available at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol10/iss1/8 

Author bios

June Chow is an archivist (Vancouver/Toronto) with an award-winning practice in Chinese Canadian heritage. 

Jennifer Douglas is associate professor at the School of Information at the University of British Columbia, on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Musqueam people.  

Rebecka Sheffield is the Head of Special Collections & Archives at the University of Waterloo Library.