General thoughts

Just noting down my impressions as I read through it. Suggestions:

• include short introductory statement before table of contents
• this is sheer pedantry on my part but stylistically I prefer 15 years over "decade-and-a-half"
• personal archives have also been neglected because Jenkinson and Schellenberg dismissed them
• I like the section on Yeo and Taylor
• stating the obvious but your Issues section needs to be fleshed out
• Authenticity: I don't know if you're planning to talk about this but I would think that a discussion of provenance might be fitting as that is an integral concept in the art world too but with slightly different connotations (as far as I know)
• really like the discussion of impermanence

Hi Adena,

Thanks for your comments.

I like the idea of adding a quick overview/introductory paragraph before the table of contents. I will have to give some thought as to what to include in this section, but thank you for the suggestion.

I agree, 15 years sounds better.

Good point. Any idea of what to use as a source to explain that both Jenkinson and Schellenberg dismissed personal archives? I wondered if in your own research you might have come across a relevant source.

Thanks.

Yeah, the "Issues" section definitely still needs some major work.

Thanks for the reminder about providing at least a small discussion pertaining to provenance too! Based on your comment, I remembered reading Laura Millar's "Death of the Fonds" article which discusses provenance at length, including how it is used in museum studies and archaeology. I plan to incorporate some of her points on the topic when I get a chance.

Thanks again for the helpful comments and suggestions.

For the Jenkinson/Schellenberg element, I'd suggest skimming Fisher, Rob, “In Search of a Theory of Private Archives: The Foundational Writings of Jenkinson and Schellenberg Revisited,” Archivaria(67) (Spring 2009) or Pollard, Riva A., “The Appraisal of Personal Papers: A Critical Literature Review,” Archivaria(52) (Fall 2001)

Fisher tries to make it work which personally I don't agree with but he does deal very specifically with J and Sch's writings. Pollard focuses on appraisal but her literature review section is excellent.

I hope that helps!

That is very helpful. Thanks!