A comparison of two methods for studying emotional responses to archival work: Remote interviews and diaries

Introduction. This paper reports on the use of two research methods to gather data from archivists on their emotional responses to archives and to document the experiences and emotions of archivists. It also draws on comments from the eight archivists who participated in both studies. Method. The research involved semi-structured, hour-long virtual interviews; solicited diaries; and monthly check-ins and exit interviews with diary-keepers. Analysis. The research team read, analysed, and coded the diary and interview data, as well as the notes from the check-in and exit interviews. We subjected the data to line-by-line analysis and coding. Emerging themes and patterns were identified and categorized, and interrelationships were then determined in an iterative and reflexive manner. Results. The study identified four major distinctions between the two methods. First, the interviews provided deeper insights into significant events, while diaries reflected day-to-day documentation of micro-events and emotions. Second, the interview script focused on negative emotions, whereas diaries captured a broader range of emotions. Third, interviews provided a more distant temporal perspective on past events, while diaries were time-dependent,. Finally, power different imbalances were inherent within each methodological approach. Conclusion. The use of different methods provided different insights into the emotional responses to archives and their causes as well as creating a different experience for the interviewees and diary-keepers.