world, his personal narrative of the expedition, will combine materials from the two
diaries and form a hybrid sort of scientific and popular work.
All of these genres here described are linked by generic intertextuality. As part of the
naturalists' field set, they help structure their fieldwork activities, from the practical
constraints of doing science in the field to the social expectations of their
counterparts, the specialists in the metropolis. All of these genres are also connected
by referential intertextuality, which is established in each and every of the three ways
examined by Christensen. First, the number assigned to each specimen collected
acts in the way of Christensen's intratextuality, connecting all the sections in the
different genres that deal with the same organism and allowing for the formation of
intertext. In fact, we could think of the specimen itself as working as a third text for
mediated intertextuality, serving as an external normative reference that can be
independently read and can help create meaning in a similar way to how regulatory
and legal texts do. Finally, each text uses, or is used by, other texts in the set, with
paraphrases or quotations allowing us to follow these links. This intertextuality is
established almost by design (complementary intertextuality), as the raison d'être of
each of the different genres is connected with their lying at different points in the
several axes that go from the private experience to the public dialogue, from the
faraway field to the scientific metropolis, and from the contact with the living
organism to its transformation into scientific knowledge.
This brings us to the functional intertextuality at work. The sequentiality inherent in
the set of field notes, catalogues, and diaries is due to those "genetic links" between
the different genres. Each of them plays a specific role in the process of turning
specimens and experiences from the field into natural history knowledge. In this
process, they interact with external genres such as the correspondence with
specialists and with other members of the expedition, and the publications from
other naturalists, and we may consider all of them to form the genre system of
Darwin's natural history fieldwork. The role that each one of these genres plays is
expressed in its formal characteristics as well as its location along the spatio/
temporal and social axes mentioned above. Each text responds to different
expectations and has different epistemological affordances. Beyond their sequential
combination, they are also differently combined by accumulation in the creation of
the final scientific deliverables, as they occupy different "places" in a final axis, the
one that goes from the popular to the more technically scientific publications
emerging from the voyage.
Conclusion
Genre analysis has been incorporated into organization and management studies
(Yates Orlikowski, 1992), computer supported cooperative work and information
systems (Christensen, 2016; 0sterlund, 2007; Spinuzzi, 2003), science and
technology studies (Bazerman, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992), and knowledge
organization (Andersen, 2015), among other research areas. Recently, archival and
information science scholars have started to show interest in RGS, some as a set of
tools to investigate specific records communities and situations (MacNeil, 2015;
McKenzie Davies, 2012), others as a set of concepts to drawn on in order to bring
new insights into one's own disciplinary framework (Foscarini 2012, 2015).
By looking at intertextual relationships in the archives, archivists can develop an
appreciation for the mechanisms involved in the choices made by record creators
and users, and unpack context as a situated construct. This perspective contrasts
with archival science's traditional approach to the documentary context. In this
respect, archival science has shown a relative rigidity that could be likened to a view
of portraiture that uses lighting, backdrops, and poses in an attempt to capture the
personality of a subject or the essence of an activity. The characters are well dressed
for the part, central texts or materials are present as symbols of the activity, and
perhaps the different phases of the activity are represented in different parts of the
composition, as if forming different vignettes. In contrast, like ethnographic
studies, the genre perspective takes a more candid approach to photography in
which people performing an activity are photographed without their knowledge
while going about their daily business, often making-do with ill-suited materials
that have outlived their functionality and acting in ways that may not be sanctioned
by official procedure or may deviate from the standard-setting norm.
In particular, a number of lessons can be learned from RGS that may help us
enhance our archival consideration of the documentary context. First of all, RGS
teaches us that context only exists when it is situated, as opposed to abstracted or
generalized. In a similar vein, records only exist when they are in use, that is, actively
participating in the production of work, the creation of knowledge, and the
construction of social relations and communities. Second, the descriptive approach
of RGS calls for a bottom-up recognition of genres, instead of their top-down
determination, which would be typical of the diplomatic approach. In other words,
genres are defined by their creators/users, not by relying on official designations or
prescriptive sets of properties. Furthermore, the application of the concept of
intertextuality within an RGS framework brings awareness of the non-sequentiality
(or relative sequentiality) of genres. That is, it allows us to see that routines are not
established once and forever, but are continuously created, recreated, and
transformed through participation in text-mediated interactions. The relative, or
imperfect, stabilization of genres depends on both the situation and the participants
in it. This contextual agency of records is not captured by diplomatics. In addition,
RGS's generic and intertextual perspective emphasizes the dynamic nature of
records practices (as manifested, for instance, in workarounds) and the emergence
of creative combinations of texts that work. Finally, the dynamism of intertextual
and intratextual relationships, as phenomena that are not guided by functional
necessity only, expands our understanding of the archival bond as stabilized-for-
now, negotiable, and boundless linkage. The bond among records is now conceived
as deriving from fluid, situated interactions among texts, people, and activities,
rather than dictated by a predictable set of business rules.
Given these considerations, is it still possible for archivists to distinguish between
records and context, to conceive them as discrete entities? Archival science has
always been interested in records-in-context, that is, the records and their
relationships as inseparable, mutually informing phenomena. RGS pushes the
boundaries of this connection by looking at the text (both written and oral) and the
context as co-constructing each other within culturally and socially specific
situations. Allowing for the inclusion of a more dynamic, dialogic and situated
perspective in the archival approach to record-context relationships appears in
archives in liquid times
190
fiorella foscarini and juan ilerbaig intertextuality in the archives
191
