Research in the Edited by Anne J Gilliland, Sue McKemmish and Andrew J Lau Archival Multiverse Research in the Archival Multiverse Research in the Archival Multiverse Edited by Anne J Gilliland, Sue McKemmish and Andrew J Lau Research in the Archival Multiverse © Copyright 2017 © Copyright of this collection in its entirety is held by the editors, Anne J. Gilliland, Sue McKemmish and Andrew J Lau. © Copyright of the individual chapters is held by the respective authors. All rights reserved. Apart from any uses permitted by Australia’s Copyright Act 1968, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the copyright owners. Inquiries should be directed to the publisher. Monash University Publishing Matheson Library and Information Services Building 40 Exhibition Walk Monash University Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia www.publishing.monash.edu Monash University Publishing brings to the world publications which advance the best traditions of humane and enlightened thought. Monash University Publishing titles pass through a rigorous process of independent peer review. www.publishing.monash.edu/books/ram-9781876924676.html Series: Social Informatics Series Editor-in-Chief: Sue McKemmish Design: Les Thomas Cover image: © Andrew J Lau National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Title: Research in the archival multiverse / edited by Anne Gilliland, Sue McKemmish, Andrew Lau. ISBN: 9781876924676 (paperback) Subjects: Archives. Archives--Philosophy. Archives--Administration. Archival resources. Other Creators/Contributors: McKemmish, Susan Marilyn, editor. Gilliland, Anne, editor. Lau, Andrew, editor. Dewey Number: 027 – v – C ON T E N T S P art I: I ntroductIon 1 Dedication: Archives and Indigenous Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Shannon Faulkhead and Kirsten Thorpe Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Anne J. Gilliland, Sue McKemmish and Andrew J Lau Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Chapter 1: Archival and Recordkeeping Traditions in the Multiverse and Their Importance for Researching Situations and Situating Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Anne J. Gilliland P art II: a rchIval I ntellectual c ontext and t heoretIcal F r ameworks 74 Chapter 2: The Archival Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Luciana Duranti and Giovanni Michetti Chapter 3: A History of Archival Ideas and Practice in China . . . 96 Zhiying Lian Chapter 4: Recordkeeping in the Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Sue McKemmish Chapter 5: Deciphering and Interpreting an Archival Fonds and Its Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Heather MacNeil Chapter 6: The Archival Multiverse and Eddies in the Spacetime Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Frank Upward R eseaRch in the a Rchival M ultiveRse – vi – Chapter 7: Archival Turns and Returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Eric Ketelaar Chapter 8: Memory Research / Archival Research . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Jeannette A. Bastian Chapter 9: When is a Record? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Amelia Acker Chapter 10: Beyond Pillars of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 Jamie A. Lee Chapter 11: Race and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 Kelvin L. White Chapter 12: Introducing Critical Race Theory to Archival Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 Anthony W. Dunbar Chapter 13: Without a Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .411 Anjali Arondekar P art III: o vervIews oF the a PPlIcatIon oF r esearch m ethods In a rchIval s tudIes 432 Chapter 14: Historical Case Studies of Pre-Modern European Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 Randolph C. Head Chapter 15: Respect My Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 Wendy Duff and Kate Cumming Chapter 16: Negotiated Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 Shannon Faulkhead Contents – vii – Chapter 17: Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Jenny Bunn Chapter 18: Looking at Archival Concepts and Practice in the Light of Speech Act Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Pekka Henttonen Chapter 19: Archival Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 Anneli Sundqvist Chapter 20: Archival IR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 Jonathan Furner and Anne J. Gilliland Chapter 21: The Use of Models and Modelling in Recordkeeping Research and Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 Hans Hofman Chapter 22: Capacities and Complexities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 Joanne Evans Chapter 23: Designing Expert Systems for Archival Evaluation and Processing of Computer-Mediated Communications . . . 686 Anne J. Gilliland P art Iv: r esearch c ase s tudIes 723 Chapter 24: Contemporary Archival Diplomatics as a Method of Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 Heather MacNeil Chapter 25: Exploring Social Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 Leisa Gibbons R eseaRch in the a Rchival M ultiveRse – viii – Chapter 26: Investigating Socio-cultural Aspects of the Implementation of an International Archival Descriptive Standard in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 Eunha (Anna) Youn Chapter 27: Bibliometric Analysis as a Tool in Understanding the Development of Archival Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . 811 Kimberly Anderson Chapter 28: Public Digital Records Management in the Ugandan Public Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844 David Luyombya Chapter 29: Documenting Communities of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . 868 Karen F. Gracy Chapter 30: Aboriginal Community Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900 Kirsten Thorpe Chapter 31: Examinations of Injustice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 Lorraine Dong, Joel A. Blanco-Rivera, Michelle Caswell and Joanna Steele Chapter 32: Examining Activism in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968 Joy R. Novak Chapter 33: Using Grounded Theory to Understand the Archival Needs of Geologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998 Sarah Ramdeen and Alex H. Poole Chapter 34: Applying Q Method to Archival Research . . . . . . . . 1028 Amber L. Cushing P art v: B Iogr aPhIcal n otes on c ontrIButors 1053 Part I Introduction – 2 – DE DICAT ION: A RCH I V E S A N D I N DIGE NOU S C OM M U N I T I E S Our Knowing Allison Boucher Krebs (September 8, 1951 – January 26, 2013) Shannon Faulkhead and Kirsten Thorpe Allison B. Krebs (1956–2013) was a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a Ph.D. student at the Information School at the University of Washington, and member of the Indigenous Information Research Group at the University of Washington, Chair of the Native American Archives Roundtable of the Society of American Archivists, and served on the Steering and Strategic Planning Committees of the Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries and Museums (ATALM). Allison was a visiting scholar at Monash University in Australia, a Documenting Endangered Languages Fellow of the National Science Foundation, and earned an MLS as a Knowledge River Scholar at the University of Arizona. She also graduated in the first class of women from Yale College. Her research centred on Indigenous knowledge ecology. 1 Every time an old man dies in Africa, it is as if a library has burnt down ( En Afrique, quand un vieillard meurt, c’est une bibliothèque qui brûle ). 2 A library was burnt down. On the 26 January 2013 we lost our dear friend, colleague and sister Ally. The incongruity of Ally leaving this world on Australia Day is not lost to us. This is a day of controversy and contradictions within Australia. On 1 This biography is how Ally described herself. Ally Krebs, “Native America’s Twenty- first-century Right to Know,” Archival Science, 12 no.2 (June 2012): 186. 2 A. Hampâté Bâ, “Amadou Hampâté Bâ,” African Studies Centre , http://www.ascleiden. nl/?q=content/webdossiers/amadou-hamp%C3%A2t%C3%A9–b%C3%A2] Dedication – 3 – 26 January 1788 the first fleet from Great Britain arriving on the shores of the Eora people at Sydney Cove heralded Australia as a colony of Great Britain. This beginning of Australia was also the beginning of the dislocation, massacres, policing, and decimation of the Indigenous peoples of Australia. The 1888 centenary Australia Day celebrations saw Indigenous leaders protest by boycotting the celebrations, the 1938 Australia Day was declared a Day of Mourning, and by the 1988 bicentenary, Australia Day was widely seen as Invasion Day with protests across Australia. Then 1992 saw Survival Day concerts become a part of Australia Day celebrations to celebrate our Ancestors and peoples’ achievements and survival. For many therefore, 26 January is a day of mixed emotions – sadness and pride, pain and joy, confusion and clarity, mourning and celebration. The news of Ally’s passing became tangled in with the emotions already being felt by us as Indigenous Australians. Whilst much of Australia did not know Ally, we did and the sadness and pain we felt can never be expressed. We had been in the process of collaborating on a chapter for this book titled ‘Archival Research and Indigenous Communities: Searching for the Root of Indigenous Research Frameworks’. The abstract of that unfinished article framed its contents: Indigenous peoples’ views, definitions and understandings of ‘archive’ are often different and more diverse than those emanating from trad- itionally based Western archival science. This difference has shown to provide significant contributions to the field’s literature and research; often these contributions are in response to improving Indigenous peoples’ interactions with archives. Despite these contributions, there is a dismissiveness of Indigenous research and engagement due to it being ‘difficult’, ‘problematic’ and ‘complex’. This chapter will endeavour to challenge this assumption by providing: examples of Indigenous archival research that is collaborative, reflective and outcome based; new insights into how Indigenous research ethics can benefit archival science; and through the discussion we will introduce key concepts and terms that have guided positive and transformative research in archives and recordkeeping with Indigenous people, such as consent, relationships, trust, participation, co-creator, co-ownership, and reciprocity. An outsider looking at the abstract might think this was going to be a theoretically dense chapter, but to be truthful we chose this topic – about which we are all passionate – to have some fun. Too often in our writings we R eseaRch in the a Rchival M ultiveRse – 4 – spend our time – and much of our word limit – explaining and redefining common concepts from our worldview. We saw this as an opportunity to write for fun, and fun we had. Writing, but not as much as we should have. With Ally in the USA ‘somewhere’ (that woman was always on the go), Kirsten in Sydney, and Shannon in Melbourne, our Skype calls were often loud and joyous. Kirsten’s mother Robin always knew the days when we would have the Skype calls with Ally, as the house filled with engaged conversations and lots of laughter. Rarely did the Skype conversations progress the chapter, although there were many vague promises to do something before our next meeting. What we did achieve was so much more. We provided advice to each other. We shared news. We solved problems – personal and professional. We shared the silly and the offensive. We lived each other’s hurts and joys. We cried. But we laughed so much more. Ally’s laugh ... how could you not miss that laugh? Ally’s passion outweighed her laugh though. Whilst each of us met Ally separately, we established a quick and strong bond as we shared the same passion about Indigenous engagement with archives and Indigenous knowledge held in archival repositories. We had a deep sense of respect and trust and mutual understanding. This passion was not just about practicalities either. Many of the conversations we had with Ally concerned the spiritual and emotional connections between Indigenous communities and records – these connections underpinned everything and had to be at the forefront of everything we did. Ally’s other archival passion was for the importance of archival collections being created and managed with respect to Indigenous protocols. Ally was part of the First Archivist Circle that, in 2006, issued the groundbreaking Protocols for Native American Archival Materials. 3 The Protocols articulate guidelines for the culturally responsive care of American Indian archival holdings in non- tribal repositories. A major aim of the Protocols is to stimulate a discussion amongst archivists, librarians and Native Americans on professional policy and practice that respect and acknowledge Indigenous rights and beliefs regarding those holdings. They help archivists to understand the living connection between people and records, and the obligations that need to be met to manage collections in ways that respect connection to place and community. When discussing the concept of “yarning in the archive” (discussed further below), Ally suggested: 3 First Archivist Circle. Protocols for Native American Archival Materials , 2007, http:// www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html. Dedication – 5 – Perhaps this is our title as well as the concept of an Indigenous archive, a sense of how an archive needs to be – that an archive needs to be a yarning, a conversation, with all the tacit protocols involved in a conversation between people, the respect in engagement that allows a conversation to continue over time, to be returned to, to grow and deepen, within a shared creative space. Yarning implicitly acknowledges the various contributors, embraces their contributions. It is by nature co-creative. Ally would speak of Indigenous engagement with archives with such vibrancy, discussing the need for archives to be illuminated and animated , whilst keeping a deep focus on the spiritual connections that need to be respected. She was also generous and respectful in her belief that many of the past injustices, and current inconsiderate practices within archives, with respect to Indigenous peoples can be reconciled with better acceptance of cultural understandings different to our own – always mixed in with a good dose of humour. An example of this humour was evidenced at the beginning of our unfinished chapter: ‘We suspect that it will be a much larger step than you believe.’ 4 Although this quote from Langford is referring to the next step in knowledge sharing and respect in archaeology, as Indigenous peoples we often feel that when non-Indigenous people are attempting to understand us, our ways, and how we operate, they move into that space with detached trepidation and (at times) resentment that their worldview is about to be turned on its head. That is not our intention with this chapter, but just in case we feel a disclaimer is necessary: Warning: Reading this chapter may be dangerous for your archival practitioner worldview. Ally was forever citing The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 and its associated mandates as providing important mechanisms for Indigenous peoples to assert and explore rights to the management of their heritage. It was rare that she did not ‘mention’ in conversation – if not pull out and hand around – the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Community Guide to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as something that we as archivists should be using as 4 R. Langford, “Our Heritage - Your Playground,” Australian Archaeology, 16 (1983): 6. R eseaRch in the a Rchival M ultiveRse – 6 – a guide to our practice. Best practice guidelines for ethical research with Indigenous communities also provide frameworks for engagement with Indigenous peoples and communities and assist Indigenous people in becoming active agents in matters relating to the management of their history and heritage. These mandates are important both in relation to the management of existing collections and of any archives created in the future. Indigenous people and communities are seeking greater input into research that is informed by them, and as a consequence, are actively involved in decisions about the management of records and data created during the research process. Within these contexts, Ally was a passionate advocate of the potential for archives to be created and managed with Indigenous people as key players in the archival process, not merely as subjects or ‘captives of the archives.’ 5 In a special issue of the journal Archival Science , “Keeping Cultures Alive: Archives and Indigenous Human Rights”, Ally explored recent initiatives in the archives, library and museum fields. In her paper, “Native America’s 21 st century right to know”, she reflected on the three decades that have passed since Native American studies and rights activist Vine Deloria Jr. first argued that Native Americans had “The Right to Know” about their past(s) and relevant materials held in libraries, archives and museums. Asserting that these rights were enshrined within the United States Federal Government’s treaty responsibilities, Deloria called for the establishment and funding of tribal libraries and archival services. Ally extensively researched two initiatives, funded – at least partially – by the US Federal Government. The first was the Institute of Museum and Library Service (IMLS) grants to Indian tribes scheme, and the second, the Fourth Museum, the off-site outreach component of the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. In line with her vision for the future, Ally placed these initiatives within a broader Indigenous knowledge ecology. She wrote passionately of the rights of Indigenous people to access and re-engage with historical materials held in archives. She also wrote poetically about the importance of these reconnections for communities and for reviving Indigenous knowledge systems that had been subjugated through cultural genocide: In fact, though, these Indigenous knowledge systems are infinitely patient, assuming a posture of dormancy, waiting for the proper 5 Henrietta Fourmile, “Who Owns the Past?: Aborigines as Captives of the Archives,” Aboriginal History 13 (1989): 1–8. Dedication – 7 – combination and events and agents to align to catalyse a dramatic and seemingly inexplicable change. They are ticking away within a half-life beyond the perception of those who deny their very existence. Their proximity infects those living around them as they restlessly animate their destiny with unperceived dimensions. 6 There is a deep sense of obligation that Indigenous people feel towards managing archives in appropriate ways that encompasses spiritual, emotional and physical connections to records. There is a network of rights and re- sponsibilities that exist within communities that are usually articulated in oral form: A responsibility and belief that seems to be shared by all Indigenous nations of Australia is the connection between the land and the people. This is both a physical and an emotional connection that relates to specific areas of land with stories and oral knowledge dating back thousands of years telling us of the responsibility of belonging to the land. These stories explain land boundaries and methods of caring for people and land, for flora and fauna, and for places of significance, such as cemeteries. The responsibility also includes caring for the oral stories necessary for land care and ownership. 7 These obligations and responsibilities to the care of records extend beyond the physical manifestation of the archive. They include obligations to respect and honour ancestors. The topic of spiritual care of records is one that we discussed frequently. It was akin to debriefing about the messages that we receive, especially when something is not quite right about a collection or record, or reminders when we are on track about what our work is really about (being caretakers). Some of these messages and reminders teach us that ancestors are still connected even though they are not physically here with us. During these discussions, we also discussed the metaphysical presence of multiple dimensions of time and how on earth this could be explained on paper. We did not solve this in the time we had together. Indigenous peoples have both rights to as well as responsibilities for Indigenous knowledge in all its manifestations. We have a seven 6 Krebs, “Native America’s Twenty-first-century Right to Know,” 186 7 Shannon Faulkhead and Jim Berg. Power and the Passion: Our Ancestors Return Hom , Melbourne, Victoria: Koorie Heritage Trust Inc., 2010, p. xvi. R eseaRch in the a Rchival M ultiveRse – 8 – generational perspective. We have seemingly infinite patience and per- severance that trusts in the animation of our knowledge systems for the sustenance of our peoples. We think strategically, taking seriously the responsibility for connecting the hearts and the minds of all our relations. We perceive the fragmented captives contained in collections, in archives, in recordings, and we will their return, countering willful cultural genocide with willful cultural sovereignty. We recognize that we each have gifts to engage. And we trust that collectively we can catalyze changes of form that others cannot even imagine, let alone will into being, for the well-being of all. 8 Ally looked to a future in which community driven, controlled and supported libraries, archives and museums will be reciprocally altered and reformed in meaningful and profound ways, eloquently arguing that it is for these Indigenous museums, libraries and archives to set the agenda: It is these Indigenous institutions, their founders, administrators, staff and communities that will be writing the next chapters of policies and procedures sourced from deep within the multi-verse of Indian Country. It is these institutions and their founding communities that live their protocols. It is these institutions that will struggle with integrity to align their policies and procedures with their ways of knowing. It is here, at the grassroots of Indian Country that the face of the information fields of libraries, archives and museums will be altered, shape shifting in meaningful ways in service of peoplehood, in service of a relational accountability built from ground up in a new sprouting of trust. 9 Ally concluded her paper in the special issue of Archival Science on Archives and Indigenous Human Rights with a series of challenging questions: The question then, for those of us who care, is: how do we support the work that needs to be done? How do we create space for conversations to take place, for dialogue to develop, for trust to grow? How do we learn to listen respectfully and reflect? How do we manage to keep from feeling threatened when some of the basic values that we hold self-evident are fundamentally challenged? 8 Krebs, “Native America’s Twenty-first-century Right to Know,” 187 9 Krebs, “Native America’s Twenty-first-century Right to Know,” 189. Dedication – 9 – What will it take to transform the information practices, policies and procedures around Indigenous information and knowledge held outside Indigenous communities? 10 In proposing a “short answer” to these questions, Ally wrote that it would “take time, respect, and patience from both sides of the divide”, and “open hearts and minds ready to search for win/win solutions located potentially outside the comfort zones of existing practice”, as well as “conversation, lots of it”. 11 Another question that we often engaged with was one that was posed in the Archival Education and Research Initiative (AERI)’s Pluralizing the Archival Curriculum Group’s influential article, “Educating for the Archival Multiverse” (of which Ally and Shannon were among the co-authors): How do we move from an archival universe dominated by one cultural paradigm to an archival multiverse; from a world constructed in terms of “the one” and “the other” to a world of multiple ways of knowing and practicing, of multiple narratives co-existing in one space? An important related question is How do we accept that there may be in- commensurable ontologies and epistemologies between communities that surface in differing cultural expressions and notions of cultural property and find ways to accept and work within that reality? 12 Being from different countries we often found similarities and differences between our homes. One of the similarities that we found was the worldview that everything is interconnected. While many peoples have the same or similar view, many of the systems adopted by Western knowledge systems are aimed at keeping everything neat and tidy. There is a failure to recognise that it is often in the messiness that amazing things are to be found – a bit like finding ‘just the right thing’ in an opportunity shop way down the bottom of a throw-out pile: We do not deny that community research partnerships are messy, complex and time consuming, but this experience can also make the research fun and beneficial on so many levels. One of the reasons for the perception of messiness is because there is not and cannot be a step- 10 Krebs, “Native America’s Twenty-first-century Right to Know,” 189. 11 Krebs, “Native America’s Twenty-first-century Right to Know,” 189. 12 The Archival Education and Research Institute (AERI) Pluralizing the Archival Curriculum Group (PACG), “Educating for the Archival Multiverse,” The American Archivist 74 (Spring/Summer 2011): 73. R eseaRch in the a Rchival M ultiveRse – 10 – by-step guidebook to community partnerships. Each one is different because each partnership is different. For research and community partnerships to succeed, confusion needs to be reflected on, and worked through, and the messiness understood. 13 Earlier we mentioned ‘yarning’: Academic conversation has barely begun to discuss formally the util- ization of yarning as a feasible method of conducting research among Aboriginal Peoples across Australia. However, Indigenous commun- ities have utilised yarning as a workable method to share, explore and learn for many previous generations and will continue to do so. 14 So often this term is viewed derogatorily as in ‘telling a yarn’ or fib. Yet for the many cultures, communities and families who engage in orality as their primary source of knowledge sharing, it is a vital way of life. Conversation, yarning and reflection about our work and our research has protected our sanity and provided an outlet for thoughts and ideas that were yet unformed or that we believe to be madness. Come into my kitchen And rest your feet and weary mind You can settle and I will listen ... You feel the pain and all the suffering You carry the load, for what? For nothing Get out of your head and into this world You can’t solve the problems, no, no At least not on your own Not on your own 15 For us it became an ongoing discussion, reflecting on our engagement with the archival profession and archival discourse. Connecting with other Indigenous people working in the field of archives and libraries is often a source of nourishment for us. Being able to share experiences and perspectives, 13 Karen Adams and Shannon Faulkhead, “This is Not a Guide to Indigenous Research Partnerships: But it Could Help,” Information, Communication & Society 15 no.7 (2012): 1017. 14 C. Dean, “A Yarning Place in Narrative Histories,” History of Education Review , 39 no.2, (2010): 6. 15 Tiddas, “Inside My Kitchen,” Inside My Kitchen – EP, Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd., 1992. Dedication – 11 – lessons learnt about projects and ways that we can build sustainable research and programs. Yarning is a recognised narrative research method that involves self- reflection and deep discussion about a particular issue. For this paper we specifically utilised collaborative yarning. Collaborative yarning in research involves exploring similar or different ideas in explaining con- cepts and this can lead to new information and understandings. 16 In a research setting, yarning is a way of making deep connections, estab- lishing relationships about ‘who’ you are and where you are from, and sharing ideas about the future in a culturally safe way: Yarning is conducive to an Indigenous way of doing things; its strength is in the cultural security that it creates for Indigenous people particip- ating in research. Yarning is a process that cuts across the formality of identity as a researcher and demands the human to human interaction where both are knowers and learners in the process. 17 As a research method, yarning provides a space for knowledge sharing and a relaxed forum for discussing deep issues of common interest to a group. The adoption and engagement of the “archival multiverse” as a concept is one that the three of us saw as a positive step forward. It felt as if for the first time the onus was removed from us to explain our worldview, and that it gave permission to everyone to explore his or her own. They were freed to explore the paradigms that have directed and/or restricted their archival perceptions. The archival multiverse not only enlarges the archival perception, it also allows multiple views of purpose, code and existence. Thus it allows for multiple views of archiving and is inclusive of various minority or underrepresented groups. There is another perspective of it that benefits our communities, however. It supports individual groups in achieving their particular needs – needs with which other groups may not be concerned, but which, in this inclusive world, are supported and recognised by all. At the same time, however, archival protocols created through consultative processes among groups or communities and that are culturally safe and respectful must also be practical and implementable. So we need to identify how best to achieve this. 16 Adams and Faulkhead, “This is not a Guide,” 1019. 17 D. Bessarab and B. Ng’andu, “Yarning as a Legitimate Method in Indigenous Research,” International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studie s, 3 no.1 (2010): 47.