1992•Lincoln (University of Nebraska)Open access

A Future for Documentary Editions: The Historical Documents Study

Ann Dexter Gordon

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

No one doubted the wisdom of gathering information about current use of historical sources when the National Historical Publications and Records Commission and the American Council of Learned Societies launched the Historical Documents Study two years ago. The Commission would learn more about the context for its own decisions to support projects that publish and preserve historical documents. True to its mission to lead and educate in matters of the nation's documentary heritage, the Commission would also inform other agencies and individuals responsible for similar decisions affecting historical sources and research. But a counterclaim disturbed the unanimity. Within and around the Commission an argument about the relative merits of granting funds to archivists or editors simmered and occasionally boiled over. Editing was under fire from archivists as an archaic way to preserve documents. The dispute worked its way into the conduct of the study itself, injecting an ulterior purpose of casting a definitive vote on the future of documentary editions at the Commission. History's chief lobbyist in Washington thought it her duty to make a case to the project director against further Commission support for editions. People routinely posed questions that staked out their own position in the argument; will the study succeed in showing that a) no one uses editions, or b) editorial scholarship is vital for knowledge and research? The advisory group, composed of representatives of the organizations authorized to appoint Commissioners, contained the same divisions.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

No one doubted the wisdom of gathering information about current use of historical sources when the National Historical Publications and Records Commission and the American Council of Learned Societies launched the Historical Documents Study two years ago. The Commission would learn more about the context for its own decisions to support projects that publish and preserve historical documents. True to its mission to lead and educate in matters of the nation's documentary heritage, the Commission would also inform other agencies and individuals responsible for similar decisions affecting historical sources and research. But a counterclaim disturbed the unanimity. Within and around the Commission an argument about the relative merits of granting funds to archivists or editors simmered and occasionally boiled over. Editing was under fire from archivists as an archaic way to preserve documents. The dispute worked its way into the conduct of the study itself, injecting an ulterior purpose of casting a definitive vote on the future of documentary editions at the Commission. History's chief lobbyist in Washington thought it her duty to make a case to the project director against further Commission support for editions. People routinely posed questions that staked out their own position in the argument; will the study succeed in showing that a) no one uses editions, or b) editorial scholarship is vital for knowledge and research? The advisory group, composed of representatives of the organizations authorized to appoint Commissioners, contained the same divisions.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

No one doubted the wisdom of gathering information about current use of historical sources when the National Historical Publications and Records Commission and the American Council of Learned Societies launched the Historical Documents Study two years ago. The Commission would learn more about the context for its own decisions to support projects that publish and preserve historical documents. True to its mission to lead and educate in matters of the nation's documentary heritage, the Commission would also inform other agencies and individuals responsible for similar decisions affecting historical sources and research. But a counterclaim disturbed the unanimity. Within and around the Commission an argument about the relative merits of granting funds to archivists or editors simmered and occasionally boiled over. Editing was under fire from archivists as an archaic way to preserve documents. The dispute worked its way into the conduct of the study itself, injecting an ulterior purpose of casting a definitive vote on the future of documentary editions at the Commission. History's chief lobbyist in Washington thought it her duty to make a case to the project director against further Commission support for editions. People routinely posed questions that staked out their own position in the argument; will the study succeed in showing that a) no one uses editions, or b) editorial scholarship is vital for knowledge and research? The advisory group, composed of representatives of the organizations authorized to appoint Commissioners, contained the same divisions.

Key concepts: Documentary evidence, History, Linguistics, Computer science, Archaeology, Philosophy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Future for Documentary Editions: The Historical Documents Study — Research Paper | ScholarLens