Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract This article starts from two observations about archival description. First, creating finding aids requires significant judgment and interpretation, and is therefore inevitably influenced by the positionalities—the perspectives, personal histories, and social identities—of the archivists. Second, finding aids occasionally call for revision, sometimes to fit a new data standard or reflect an evolving collection, but also to correct errors, reduce bias, and remove harmful language. In light of these observations, this article has two aims. First, it develops and presents a theoretical rationale for recording metadata about finding aids, including revision history and authorship, arguing for transparency about positionality as a response to recognizing the infeasibility of impartiality. Second, it presents the results of a survey of state archivists in the US, who were asked about their descriptive practices and their attitudes regarding disclosing their authorship of finding aids. Results of the survey reveal diverse practices, as well as some hesitation to embrace expressions of positionality in the context of description. The article closes with a discussion of options for conceptualizing metadata about finding aids and the professional role of archivists, concluding with two general recommendations.
Owen C. King (Wed,) studied this question.