I recently discovered that I suck at proofreading. At least I think I do. And the only way to stop sucking at something, is to practice it. A lot. But how do you practice something that you (obviously) don’t know how to do? You’ll need a method, guide or step-by-step plan of some sort. Here’s how I intend to do it from now on:

1) Leave it. If it’s my own text that needs proofreading, I’m going to leave it for a day or two (or more), and come back to it when it’s less fresh in my mind. Not always possible of course, but still a good rule.

2) Print it. On paper, that is. The environment might suffer some, but your text will benefit. Only reading it on a computer screen will normally not get you where you need to be – at least in terms of proofreading – you’re more likely to overlook errors. Be sure to do both though, as reading the text on different formats might let you spot different errors.

3) Read one sentence at a time. OUT LOUD. Then read it backwards. Look at every word. Cover the rest of the text with white sheets of paper to isolate the sentence you’re concentrating on. The point of this is to eliminate distracting typographical errors before you move on.

4) Read one paragraph at a time. Out loud. Concentrate on sentence structure, punctuation and grammatical errors.

5) Investigate. Are there words in the text that you don’t understand? Other facts that might be wrong? Find out.

6) Read through the whole text. Preferably out loud. Does the text make sense? Do the words make sense in the context they’re used in? (I tend to write the opposite of what I actually mean. Recently, I used the word static where it should have said dynamic, and I didn’t notice it until someone else pointed it out.) Should something be moved to somewhere else, elaborated on or simply deleted? Be aware though, when dealing with other people’s texts, that proofreading doesn’t necessarily mean changing the text to suit your own preferences. The fact that you don’t like a particular word, or a particular sentence structure, doesn’t make it wrong. You are not writing-god (and yes, this can be hard to accept).

7) Repeat. Go through steps 1-6 again. At least a couple of times. More if you want to be thorough. OK, no. 5 might not need repeating over and over again, but the others do.

TOOLS
You’ll need to use tools, both to proofread correctly and to optimize the text (if it’s your own). Here are some resources:

  • Google Translate. Doesn’t always get things right, but can be helpful all the same. I often translate back and forth a few times to try to make sure I’ve got it right. (This is probably only useful if you’re bi- og multilingual.)
  • Merriam Webster. English dictionary. Loaded with ads. (I only use this when my Google Translate-strategy fails me).
  • Norwegian dictionary. Mandatory for Norwegians. Will also provide you with the different inflections of each word, should you need it. (Now, I used Google Translate, Merriam Webster and the Norwegian dictionary to find the word inflection. I assume it’s fairly correct, but since I’m not sure, I should probably investigate further, as instructed by myself in no. 5 above. I’ll do it tomorrow. Or some other day. Or perhaps I’ll just wait until someone tells me it’s wrong. Which most likely will never happen.)
  • Korrekturavdelingen. Deals with Norwegian grammar and other textual stuff. Will tell you that what you thought was right, is actually wrong. Enjoy.
  • Store norske leksikon på nett. Encyclopedia in Norwegian. Very useful (for Norwegians). Also has a fun blog, Lille norske, and nice photos on the search page.

OTHER RESOURCES
I’ve used a few other internet resources to write this blog post, be sure to visit them as well:

Need more? Try googling «blog proofreading» or «amateur proofreading». You’ll find tons of resources. Help is out there…

THINK YOU’RE DONE?
«Read through your text several times, concentrating first on sentence structures, then word choice, then spelling, and finally punctuation. As the saying goes, if you look for trouble, you’re likely to find it.»


I utgave 3-2013 av Arkivråd skrev jeg en artikkel om «Den postmoderne utfordringen» for arkivene og arkivteorien, etter at dette var tema på arkivteoretisk kollokvium våren 2013.

Her er artikkelen i PDF (også tilgjengelig via nettsidene til NA).

Note that the photos used in the article (inside the PDF) are copyrighted, and not for reuse.


In a 2004-article I just finished reading, «What, If Anything, Is Records Management?» (available here), Chris Hurley makes some interesting observations that I thought I’d share, mostly because they’re amusing, but also because it’s interesting to notice that little seems to have changed in 10 years..

Hurley discusses how the way business is conducted has developed, and the implications this development has had on records management. He describes a scenario from his time at the State Electricity Commission (SEC) in the 1980s:

    «All the mail was received and opened before other officers of the SEC really got going in the morning. Mail was opened and classified by registry staff. This ensured that dealings in a transaction occurred not just on a file, but on the correct file. The classification was linked to disposal rules, so that the retention period of the documents was known throughout the transaction. Business was conducted on the file, with incoming correspondence, copies of outgoing letters, memoranda, minutes, and file notes all dutifully attached. [..] in a good registry they made sure that papers were properly attached to file by taking control of the stamps. No one was empowered to buy stamps except the registry. Only they could post a letter out. And this they would not do until the outgoing letter was presented with the file and a carbon file copy attached.»

(Empowered to post a letter out – wow!)

He continues:

    «The arrival of the PC altered everything. […] The PC enabled workers to be networked. The paper chains that glued an enterprise together could be replaced by linking workers electronically to each other into a virtual workplace. This has been done very badly.»

And finally:

    «The ‘user’ is an IT term for the worker at a PC in a network. They used to be called ’employees’ and they were bound, in numerous ways, to carry out corporate requirements for the management of business and compelled to conform to corporate requirements for the management of the associated documentation. When employees became users, their individual ability to carry out work in ways which suited them individually, unconstrained by any limits save the technical limits of the systems the corporation provided them with became boundless. IT professionals gloried in making systems as user friendly as possible – pushing onto ‘users’ more and more functionality to do corporate work in the ways that best suited them instead of the corporation.»

This is undoubtedly a valid point – still, 10 years later – however unnuanced it may be presented..


I’ve been reading Alison Jane Pickard’s «Research Methods in Information», a research methods handbook designed to guide all types of researchers in their research quests.

Although I’ve yet to make it even half way, I’ve finished the chapter on how to review literature in a structured and research oriented way, and I thought I’d try to sum it up, mostly for my own sake, however perhaps useful for others as well (hence blog post..). I bought my book at Tanum (Norway), but it’s also available via Amazon. This summary is based solely on the book’s second chapter, pages 25-38.

«Literature review» is given the following definition (p. 26):

    «A literature review is a written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study. […]» (Machi and McEvoy, 2009)

The literature review should consist of an introduction that informs your readers on what you have reviewed and why, after which you may say something about your methodology – how you engaged in the review process. The following discussion is the main part of the literature review, and this is where you formulate your own arguments. The conclusion then sums up your discussion. After your literature review, you can move on to the next stage in the research process: framing your research question, aims and objectives or hypothesis based on what you have discovered from within the published literature.

The literature review process consists of four separate steps:

1. Information seeking and retrieval:
You need to search for and scan different sources efficiently in order to establish a body of knowledge on the topic in question. The search should start quite widely and your findings should continuously guide your further searches. It’s possible that as you become more knowledgeable, the focus of the research may shift. Pickard stresses the importance of logging the searches you make, and their results, so that you don’t lose any of the information you find – undoubtedly sound advice.

2. Evaluation:
You need to judge the sources you find based on a number of criteria: the authority of the writer(s)/creator(s), the scope of the text and the text’s purpose, information that should be explicitly available to you. Be especially careful and critical when using information you find on the Internet.

3. Critical analysis:
In the critical analysis, you read with a purpose! The purpose is to inform your own arguments, and establish the background and justification for your own work. Pickard argues that any academic argument should have a claim (or conclusion), a reason (interpretation of data), evidence (data) to support the claim(s) and any qualifications of the claim(s).

A claim is the essence of an argument, the conclusion the writer intends to demonstrate by using the other components (reason, evidence and qualifications). Your review needs to establish how well a claim is supported. Be aware that a claim might be little more that the writer’s personal position. Most claims are qualified in some way, often by the use of words like «usually», «many», «most», «often» and «few». This shows that the writer has reflected on the limitations of his statements, and should normally be considered as enhancing the writer’s credibility. The reasons a writer gives for making a claim is the first building blocks of any argument. The claim cannot stand without reason(s), and there has to be a very clear link between the claim and the reason(s) for making the claim. Be aware of value-based reasons! To support the given reason(s), the writer must provide accurate and credible evidence in the form of empirical research data or qualitative statements. You need to examine the evidence critically to assess their credibility.

Pickard suggests marking the text as you read to identify the different elements, and then transferring the elements to a form, giving a schematic presentation of your findings. A claim can for example be identified in the text by underlining it, a reason by square brackets, evidence by placing an asterisk at either side of the evidence statement, and qualifiers by encircling them.

4. Research synthesis:
When the literature has undergone the critical analysis, you’re ready to synthesize the various concepts and evidence you have found into a structured piece of discursive prose that provides context and background on your topic area. Innovative research frameworks usually draw on literature from more than the core discipline of study.

Be aware that you are writing a literature review to establish the context of your research, to demonstrate your knowledge and to identify any gaps that may exist in the published literature. Essentially, this means that you are justifying the need for your research.




Was the Norwegian national archives established to form a national master narrative that enforced our separation from Denmark in 1814?

2536358399_c16896768f

I’ve just finished reading Stefan Berger’s recently published article «The role of national archives in constructing national master narratives in Europe» (Archival Science), where he «analyses the role of national archives for the construction of national master narratives.». The article is well worth the read, but on page 12, a little over midway through the text, I found a passage that gave me pause. Berger writes about how archives have a «legitimating and authenticating function», and that «considerable tensions developed between the truth-claims of archives and their obvious legitimatory function for nation-states.». He continues:

    «The importance attached to [the archives] was directly related to the importance of nation formation in the nineteenth-century Europe. Nation-states that came into being in the nineteenth century were often particularly quick in establishing national archives. Thus, for example, Norway achieved independence from Denmark in 1814, and the Norwegian national archives were set up in 1817.»

Now, our independence from Denmark in 1814 and the establishment of the national archives in 1817 are certainties, but the connection between the two is more doubtful. Such a connection might very well exist – however! – I haven’t been able to find this particular reason for the establishment of the Norwegian national archives in 1817 in any of the literature that I’ve read – which naturally was why I reacted to this statement in the first place – it seems to be more of an inference to support the overall theme of the article, than an actual, research-based fact. I might of course have missed some essential piece of information on this subject, but then again, perhaps not. Does anyone really know for sure?