Daily Archives: 31/03/2012

Archival Research (or the pleasure and pitfalls of archives)

Doing archival research can cause a range of emotions – joy when you stumble upon something significant, excitement when you get something unexpected, but useful, irritation when there is much of what you don’t need, but little of what you do, or just not much of anything, to anger, when your camera runs out or you are pushed for time looking atuseful items. Uncatalogued items can be an annoyance too.

At the moment I am going through some papers from SOC’EM, none of which are catalgoued. This is not the archives fault – often they have a huge amount of work and little time or staff, or money to catalogue everything. The staff are always helpful and you get faced with box after box of sources, in which there could be anything. I am limited by my timeframe, in terms of SOC’EM as an organisation lasted for 10 years, 1972 – 1982, but I am only interested in the first four years at most. Many boxes have things from the late 1970s and early 1980s, which might be interesting, but you just have to skip over it.

One thing I am learning (and I have only scratched the surface with the records in the archives) is that SOC’EM seemed to have shifted its focus primarily away from issues more often associated with the environment, like pollution, anti-road protests and so forth, and from 1975 looked more towards historic building conservation. This, whilst important, falls outside my remit of ‘environmental’ activism. There are dozens of letters from the late 1970s, and dozens of records from the council’s planning office, concerning local buildings, either asking for them to be added to conservation lists or detailing which buildings are in danger.

Until I’ve anaylsed all the photos I’ve taken and looked at all the minutes of the meetings, I cannot say for certain that there was this shift and how far that happened but it is interesting how their focus shifts during the 1970s towards more civil and historic building conservation and less towards traditional environmental ideas like pollution. I would’ve thought that their interest in environmental issues would’ve increased over time, not waned. I don’t know either why they folded in 1982. They did charge membership fees and so they might have run out of money. This is, as yet, unclear. Hopefully when I’ve spoken to one of the key people involved with SOC’EM at least in the early days, things will become clear …