Sonderband 2. International Council on Archives. Dritte Europäische Archivkonferenz, Wien 11. bis 15. Mai 1993. Tagungsprotokolle (1996)

3. Session / Séance. Sharing of Experience and Exchange of Staff / Partage d’Expériences et Echange des Personnes - Huyda, Richard: Coordination Research in Archival Sience and Dissemination of Professional Information / Coordination de la recherche en archivistique et diffusion de l’information professionnelle (english 231 - français 251)

3. Session/Séance: Marcoux - Huyda, Coordinating Research in archivai Science

For some years now, in North America at least, we have been debating the nature of the archival profession itself. Is it a true science or a mere practice? Is there really a place in it for original inquiry and research? Does it not rather have its origins in the methodological juxtaposition of empirical procedures, and does it not simply evolve on the basis of successive borrowing from various disciplines?

Those writers1 who refuse to acknowledge the archival profession as having the characteristics of a true scientific discipline mainly stress its theoretical anaemia. They argue that it would in no way constitute a body of theoretical knowledge expressed in the form of universal laws; at most, it would be a compendium of sanctioned practice. They even feel that theory and archival practice are contradictory, since the former is based on organized thinking and experimentation, while the latter is merely an art acquired by aptitude and apprenticeship.

Without wishing to involve ourselves in this debate, we would like to offer the following comments, which will support the description that we will give later on of the forms and methods of research in archival science:

1. It is somewhat limitative to restrict science solely to the expression of laws or theories. This expression has also long been used to describe accumulated „expertise“ in a subject area as well as the „know-how“ that this expertise enables people to develop, or the rules and practices that underlie this expertise1 2.

2. Historically, various scientific disciplines of a purely theoretical or abstract nature have sprung to prominence in particular eras for reasons other than the mere building of knowledge. In the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci and Albert Durer took part in the development of the art of mathematics because they viewed it as an indispensable tool for carrying our artistic projects or engineering works3. The same Leonardo, moreover, totally disbelieved in the preeminently abstract quality of knowledge. Did he not say in effect that „All our knowledge proceeds from the senses“4.

3. The deductive method (statement of general laws verified by experimentation) is not the only generally accepted Scientific approach. Such eminent researchers Claude Bernard5 or Henri Poincaré6, who have reflected somewhat on the methodology of scientific research, have been able to restore its letters patent to induction. They have shown that, contrary to what was generally accepted, experimentation frequently preceded the expression of laws or rules. In fact, to reiterate the viewpoint of a fellow archivist, though theoretical

1 Such asRoberts, John W.: Archival theory: myth or banality? in: The American Archivist 53 (1990) n°

1, p. 110-120.

2 See: Le Grand Robert. Vol. 6. Paris 1983, p. 171-172.

3 See: Vénard, Marc: Les débuts du monde moderne (XVIe et XVIIe siècles). Vol. 5. Paris 1967, p. 140- 142.

4 Cited in M azz er i, Sylvia Alberti de: L’homme et son temps: Léonard de Vinci. Montréal 1987, p. 33.

5 In his Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale. Bruxelles 1965.

6 See: Science et méthode. Paris 1947, p. 159-160.

232