Final answer:
Option 1,2.
Paper data collection is generally time-consuming and error-prone. While it can be cost-effective in specific scenarios, it is not as efficient as digital methods.
Step-by-step explanation:
Considering the aspects of archival research versus other research methods, we can evaluate the statements given about paper data collection.
Generally speaking, paper data collection is indeed time-consuming since it requires manual entry, organizing, and analysis compared to digital methods.
This trait is opposed to efficiency, thus making the statement that paper data collection is efficient less likely to be generally true.
Additionally, paper data collection is error-prone due to potential human errors during manual entry and difficulties in organizing qualitative data.
However, when considering cost, paper data collection can be cost-effective, particularly in contexts where technological resources are limited or when working with existing archival data that does not require new tools for data gathering.
Based on the information provided and the nature of archival research, statement 1) Paper data collection is time-consuming and 2) Paper data collection is error-prone are the accurate options.
Although statement 3) Paper data collection is cost-effective could be true in certain contexts, it is not the most widely applicable compared to the first two.
Statement 4) Paper data collection is efficient is incorrect, as efficiency is relative and generally, digital methods are more efficient in data handling than paper.
Therefore, the correct options in the final answer addressing which statements are generally true regarding paper data collection are: 1) Paper data collection is time-consuming and 2) Paper data collection is error-prone.