I hoped this book would be a good introduction to archiving for a layperson--but it was not. It looked like it would be interesting for a professional in the field, but don't have the expertise to judge. ( )

Ridener's book is definitely a concise history, but it is definitely not in the vain of a 'short introduction.' Much to the contrary, it is a dense exploration of some very critical topics in the fields of library science, history, and of the humanities more generally. This volume would be a good addition to the reading lists for methods courses in the humanities or for advanced graduates just starting to use archives during a Master's thesis or at the beginning of the dissertation stage. ( )

I've long been fascinated with historiography, and as such felt that reading a book on archival theory would add to my thinking on the subject. The standards of selection and the problems of processing information for archive is rather fascinating from a historical perspective. Unfortunately for me, I'm much too much a novice for this book.

Ridener's book is dense with information, chronicling and dissecting archival theory concisely (as stated in the title) but said conciseness is not necessarily beneficial to my noobie self. I enjoyed reading about the theories but had difficulty fully processing the information. That being said, I do think that this book is wonderful for those interested in and familiar with the subject, and I think that further research and a re-read is in my future. ( )

This book is precisely what it claims to be: a concise history of archival theory. Ridener focuses on appraisal theory as representative of the greater philosophical changes in the perception and function of archivists. He identifies four paradigms within archival history that he focuses on: the Dutch Manual, Jenkinson, Shellenberg, and the contemporary paradigm that he calls the "Questioning" paradigm and associates with postmodernism. For each paradigm Ridener goes in depth with the context they were created in, their implications, and their relation to the larger academic trends of their times. The book is quite good at what it does, and provides a good background on archival theory. It's most problematic aspect is that it skips and homogenizes a lot of the more recent theories - everything past Schellenberg is a bit of a muddle. Overall pretty informative, though. ( )

I hestiate to review this title, I received it as part of Library Thing's Early Reviewer Program. The title and blurb sounded interesting so I went in for the lottery to "win" a copy. Since I received a copy through this program, my obligation in return is to write a few coherent words about it after reading. My hesitation stems from that while a portion of my graduate degree includes the word Archive, I am not sure if I possess the tools to make an informed decision and properly give this book its due.

Yet, this I can say: I believe it is yet another book suffering from an unfortunate subtitle. If one were to believe it, within its mere 184 pages, one would expect to find a comprehensive and comprehensible look at archival theory in general. Cox argues that this is a good introductory text on the major theories (Reading Archives: Archival Theory), yet I hesitate. While the major schools are mentioned to some depth, I am frustrated that no other voices or localities are heard. Furthermore, I felt that while some key aspects of the theories were expressed in detail (p 52, Jenkinson's definition of archives), this reader was left with a gloss of the material that felt dimmed and incomplete.

Each theory is organized into its own chapter and for the most part left in isolation there. I found it difficult to build upon and to compare and contrast the evolution of the theories, despite Ridener's assertion that "at almost every turn, one can contrast the two theories" (p 69). While I'm sure the material is there in order to perform this analysis, I believe it is disjointed and lacking a focus in its portrayal. Furthermore I found the strict chronological path restricting, though I'm not entirely sure why. I am thankful that Ridener makes a strong point that it is technological change that has driven most of the changes in Archival Theory over the years, as that is the largest challenge facing Archivists today.

It is the final 18 pages, consisting of the whole Conclusion, which I found to be the most tightly written and comprehensive of all the included text. It is here that Ridener concisely lays out the theories and (to the limited degree afforded by the length) contrasting view points. Additionally, there are views here which are not touched upon elsewhere in the text and I would have liked to see these points expanded after receiving a strong basis of the theories from which they spring. It is these examples which form the strongest evidence to the evolution of this new Questioning Method and the challenges modern Archivists face in an age of yet more rapid technological change.

So is this a good introductory text to Archival Theory as Cox has suggested? I believe yes, when supplemented with other readings and discussion. In isolation, it cannot stand on its own. ( )