Libraries and Archives

This picture was taken in Florida State University’s Strozier library. Two main categories in this library for sorting texts about history seemed to be “American History” and “World History.” This reveals a bias in the sorting, with American History getting its own classification and everything else presumably in “World History.” This puts more emphasis on “American” history, by somewhat implying that America is somehow separate from the rest of the world. It also calls into question what texts would go in which sections; there are some that would be clear, but there are probably quite a few texts that would fit well into either section. Further, what would count as “American?” Would this be limited to only the United States since it became “America,” or North America, or the Americas? Could this vary depending on who is classifying the text? The next time you visit your library, consider how even the most “objective” and “factual” classification is still telling you some information about the book. The way the text is sorted, at the very least, impacts what you are focusing on in the text, and if you even find the text, based on what you are looking for.

This is a screenshot of some of the possible “subject” tags that one can filter by under the search term “Angels in America” in the Florida State University online library system. Consider how these different “subject” tags have been assigned to the content, and how they may fit, or not fit, what is actually in the different media. Also consider how these tags might fit, or not fit, what users of the library are actually searching for. Have you ever been exploring your library and come across an item that, in your opinion, successfully or unsuccessfully fit its tags? Have you ever had trouble finding material that you wanted, because the parameters you needed to filter by weren’t even included in the tags as an option?

This is a screenshot of an artifact found on the “Florida State Traditions” website. Focus particularly on the title: “candid shot by Lake Bradford.” This is pretty much the only information that is given about this photograph at all on this website, beyond information such as rights and formatting. As such, it is the first thing a viewer sees before choosing to interact with this photograph further, and it is the first (and possibly only) thing a viewer learns about this photo at all. The phrasing, particularly the word “candid,” might assign meaning to the photo that may or may not have been inherent to the photo. In addition, it is possibly neglecting other aspects of the photograph that someone else might see as significant and search for. Look at the photo yourself, and pretend you are titling or captioning it for this archive; try to write a caption for it as objectively as possible in a couple of words. What do you focus on? How does that compare to the original caption?