Specimens as Records: Scientific Practice and Recordkeeping in Natural History Research

Abstract

T h e A m e r i c a n A r c h i v i s t , V o l . 7 3 ( F a l l / W i n t e r 2 0 1 0 ) : 0 0 0 -0 0 0 463T h e A m e r i c a n A r c h i v i s t , V o l . 7 3 ( F a l l / W i n t e r 2 0 1 0 ) : 4 6 3 -4 8 2 Specimens as Records: Scientific Practice and Recordkeeping in Natural History Research Juan Ilerbaig A b s t r a c tFor the past two decades, scholars in archival science have begun to question traditional assumptions about the nature of the record. Drawing on theories from fields such as sociology, organization theory, and science studies, and on their own ethnographic studies, they propose more inclusive definitions and widening the contexts of analysis of record making and recordkeeping. This paper continues this critical consideration of the concept of record by examining the nature of nonprototypical records in the scientific world. The paper focuses on the system of specimens and field notes established by biologist Joseph Grinnell at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (University of California, Berkeley) as a means of examining several aspects of the nature of the scientific record: materiality, representation, and the triad evidence/memory/accountability. Focusing on the creation and management of these scientific records, the paper argues that further analyses of scientific record making and recordkeeping are bound to benefit both scientific work, which depends more and more on databases and archives, as well as archival science, which is becoming more relevant beyond its traditional realm of the legal/business/administrative world.

Destruction/reconstruction: preservation of archaeological and zoological research data

“…This conceptualization of data needs to be extended for archaeologists and zoologists because it limits the definition of data to information about phenomena. For archaeologists and zoologists, data includes the objects of study: the artifacts and specimen themselves (Ilerbaig, 2010). Hodder defined archaeological data as, "a set of dynamic, dialectical, unstable relations between objects, contexts, and interpretations" that involves both the physical world and our theories about it (Hodder & Hutson, 2003;Hodder, 1999, p. 84).…”

“…Both archaeology and zoology are disciplines that work with a mix of analog and digital data. While some objects can be digitized, and a great deal of contextual information is either captured digitally or digitized after the fact, researchers in both disciplines rely upon artifacts and specimens for much of their research (Greene, 2005;Ilerbaig, 2010;Kristiansen, 1996). In addition to these physical objects, both archaeologists and zoologists rely upon field notes (both analog and digital), hand drawings (analog), and photographs (digital) as a way to capture information that can be considered either as original data, contextual information, or both (Belton, 2009;Blair, 2004).…”

Practice theory: a new approach for archival and recordkeeping research

“…This second body of scholarship comprises ethnographic and historical studies on a variety of record creation and recordkeeping practices in contexts as diverse as radiology, zoology and neuroscience (Yakel, 2001;Shankar, 2004Shankar, , 2007Ilerbaig, 2010); law enforcement (Trace, 2002) and banking (Lemieux, 2001;Foscarini, 2012a); digital archives (Zhang, 2012); media fields such as film preservation (Gracy, 2007), as well as historical studies of the socially constructed nature of archival and recordkeeping practices and of the tools supporting them (Craig, 2002;Yakel, 2003;MacNeil, 2005MacNeil, , 2011MacNeil, , 2012. Due to the diverse empirical cases these studies have examined and the varying theoretical approaches they have championed, it is difficult to systematically build arguments based on their findings.…”

Data curation profiling of biocollections

“…In Molecular Biology, scientists usually study organisms with a short development period to track changes in controlled generations (Bouldin, Snelson, Farr, & Kimelman, 2014). Grinnell mandated a rigorous and standardized methodology of specie collection to represent the natural world in great detail to study evolution in action (Ilerbaig, 2010). The Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, established in 1908, allowed scientists to collect, label, and preserve specimens with field notes, field maps, and sometimes photographs, and through systematized processing creating an institutional collection that enables study beyond one individual or one team of scientists' lifetimes.…”