Archives Found

For those interested in my continued internet-access welfare, today I’m at the Starbucks down the street from the hotel. I didn’t pay the $14.95 for today; I decided to make use of some free hours that I had on a Starbucks rewards card. We’ll see if I get tired of that quickly, I guess.

Yesterday’s Issues and Advocacy Roundtable was an interesting exchange of ideas and suggestions, and turned out to be more dynamic than I had anticipated. I’m glad that I decided to go. The meeting started with the suggestion of Kate Theimer and Peter Gunther for the group to choose one or two issues where the group can really make a difference and lead in the profession. Cindy Smolovik gave a short pitch for the Austin 2009 SAA conference, and then we were off to the races. One of the two early suggestions was to focus on sustainability– not only in professional practices, like physical resources and buildings, but also the sustainability of the archival field. The perennial discussion of the greying of the profession, happening at the administrative and upper levels in most fields, was a big topic of discussion. I hope to hear more about this in Austin, hopefully including more fresh ideas about how to educate and move newer archivists into fields of increasing responsibility before all of that hard-won knowledge walks out the door in retirement.

The other initial topic was health care for archivists who are in jobs that don’t provide benefits or security– project archivists, those at small local historical societies, etc. This discussion started slowly, but as the conversation segued into salary levels and hiring practices, it became apparent that this hits close to home for many archivists, mostly at the beginning of their careers. Of course salary is always going to be a hot topic, but I don’t think that anyone anticipated such a vehement discussion. Along the way, there was some talk about the accreditation proposal that was sent to SAA Council on Saturday, and will be discussed by Mark Greene with other information professionals at a meeting this fall. [Did anyone catch the name/purpose of that summit?]

By the close of the session, the somewhat- amorphous topic proposed was to focus on these issues of salary, healthcare, living wages for archivists. The steering committee (that includes yours truly) will be meeting again to discuss these thoughts and try to figure out how to wrap our collective arms around the various problems. I anticipate that I’ll be talking more about that here and elsewhere– feel free to add your thoughts, email me directly, or catch me at the conference.

I’m planning to talk about the sessions and my own thoughts/conclusions in a later post. Just as a precursor to that discussion, here’s where I’ve beeen and where I intend to go today. I went to Revealing Collections at the Web’s Surface (Zentall/Zinkham) this morning, and I’m planning to go to Digital Dilemmas: Dealing with Born-Digital Surrogate Audio and Visual Collections (Sacerdote/Frost) later today, and the Simmons alumni and Society of Southwest Archivists parties tonight. I hope to see/meet more new people this afternoon!

How can you tell that it’s time for the 72nd annual meeting? Well, the “picnic” posts on the A&A listserv by non-attending archivists is one way… and another is the appearance of the un-official SAA meeting wiki (thanks to Jeanne Kramer-Smyth). This year, Kate from Archives Next is taking a page from library bloggers and posting her anticipated SAA schedule. I think that’s a great idea, and I’ll do the same below– not for my (non-existent) groupies, but as a guideline for what I intend to talk about in future posts.

Aside: my longstanding vent about conference hotels is still in effect here. Pay-per-day wired-only internet access in guest rooms and hourly wireless rates in public areas? I’m not happy about this. I know it’s fairly standard, but it’s also ridiculous. At lower-cost hotels in this chain (Hilton), wireless access is free in guest rooms and public spaces.  Why do we accept this charge as a group? Can’t we plan to take our business somewhere else? Do each of us really want to pay an additional $14.95/day for internet access during this conference?

Further, it looks like vendors wanting to earn business from us have plastered their names on everything from water bottles to our special “Archivists 2008″ room key cards. Couldn’t that sponsorship have extended to something that’s less disposable and more useful like providing internet access to attendees?  All of this talk about “being green” and not providing tote bags this year is fine– but let’s continue to think of ways in which we can waste less resources and provide more benefit.

Maybe I’m the only one who is grumpy about this, though I’m guessing that some folks would say “Just don’t pay the fee, then.” That’s not the entire point– it’s more that I think we’ve adapted to the use of technology in collections and professional work– why not include access to the internet as part of the annual meeting about “R/evolution and Identities”? Perhaps being able to connect in real time would allow us to collaborate and coordinate more as a group.

< /end rant>

Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming.

I’ve already taken the Academy of Certified Archivists exam this morning, and now I’m taking a breather to look at the final schedule. The meetings that I would like to attend this afternoon include: either the Records Management Roundtable or the EAD Roundtable, and either Issues and Advocacy or the Metadata and Digital Object Roundtable, and perhaps the blogger meetup (if it’s still on for tonight). I’ll have to flip a coin between those sessions, as they occur during the same two blocks of time. If you see me in the halls or in the ballroom, stop me and say hello!

I’ve been busy with life over the past week or so, and have several half-finished blog posts (and even more ideas) waiting in the wings, but wanted to point out a few archives-related news items in the meantime.

Recalling a Mission to Capture an Era’s Misery

“Migrant Mother,” Dorothea Lange’s image of a weathered, grimy Depression-era woman in California surrounded by her children, is one of the most famous photographs of the 20th century, as is “Fleeing a Dust Storm,” Arthur Rothstein’s shot of a farmer and his two young sons in the Oklahoma Dust Bowl whipped by the wind, a shack in the background.

The politics and the photographers who shaped those images under the auspices of the federal Farm Security Administration come to life in “Documenting the Face of America: Roy Stryker and the F.S.A./O.W.I. Photographers,” an hourlong documentary on most PBS stations Monday night. The film shows how Mr. Stryker turned a small government agency’s New Deal project to document poverty into a visual anthology of thousands of images of American life in the 1930s and early ’40s that helped shape modern documentary photography; more than 160,000 are now at the Library of Congress.

Full article here.

Under ‘Kafkaesque’ Pressure, Heir to Kafka Papers May Yield Them

 Franz Kafka’s final wish before his death in 1924 — that his papers be burned — was famously defied by his friend, the writer Max Brod. The world got “The Trial,” “The Castle” and the adjective Kafkaesque; Mr. Brod got the papers.

When Mr. Brod fled to Tel Aviv from Prague on the last train out in 1939 as the Nazis rolled in, he had with him a suitcase full of Kafka’s documents.

Here, he took up with his secretary, and when he died in 1968, he bequeathed to her the remaining Kafka papers, as well as his own from a rich cultural career. For nearly 40 years, the secretary, Esther Hoffe, held the world of Kafka scholarship on tenterhooks, keeping the documents in her ground-floor apartment on Spinoza Street, some of them piled high on her desk (it was originally Mr. Brod’s), where she typed all day and took her meals.

The last time a scholar was permitted into the apartment was in the 1980s. Later, Ms. Hoffe sold the manuscript for “The Trial” for $2 million. No one knows what remains.

Full article here.

With regards to the Kafka papers, I’d like to open up a few fanciful questions: what value do you think the papers still hold? Obviously the creator did not wish them to be viewed or used by others. Further, the original order has possibly, perhaps probably been destroyed– no way to know for certain. Will it be possible to differentiate and delineate between papers created and used in different ways by Kafka, Brod, Hoffe, and possibly others?  Given the conditions, story, provenance, knowledge of these papers– how would you approach them? Understanding the wishes of the record creator: should the papers be preserved and opened to scholars at all?

Last Saturday, the world of bibliographic control lost a giant, and librarians everywhere lost a friend and mentor. Professor Allen Smith will be remembered by me as a gentle man of many talents, with a wicked sense of humor about the subjects he taught, and about life.

From the notification that was sent out to Simmons students, adjuncts, and alums:

In his life at Simmons, Allen’s contributions were many and his dedication was great. Allen joined the GSLIS faculty in 1978, served as Associate Dean from 2006 to 2007, and was recognized just this past spring for 30 years of service to the College. He lectured in reference, humanities, oral history, and computer programming, and was devoted to those he taught. To many of his students, the words “bibliographic control” will forever live on in their memories, despite the decades it has been since they sat in the seats of C101.

A man of many hats, Allen was a blacksmith (he put himself through graduate school shoeing horses), a folklorist, a librarian, an author, and an expert on the Appalachian dulcimer.

A former student has set up a wiki of Allen-related quotations, and others are swapping Allen stories on Facebook, through email, or by phone.

May all of us have such a huge impact on those we teach and serve.

The Civil War and Underground Railroad Museum in Philadelphia discovered what may be the missing third copy of the Confederate terms of surrender signed at Appomattox by Robert E. Lee in 1865. Where was it?

The Civil War & Underground Railroad Museum of Philadelphia has held the document since the early 20th century. It was pulled out of storage and re-evaluated as officials prepared for the museum’s shutdown Saturday ahead of its move to a new building.

Curator Andrew Coldren said he is certain that museum officials knew what they had when the document was donated but its significance was forgotten over time because of a lack of record keeping.

In a 1967 inventory, someone wrote “Copy??” in reference to the document.

Coldren said it had been glued to a cardboard backing and varnished, an apparent attempt to preserve it.

“Old photostat copies from the ’20s and ’30s are shiny like that, so this is why you’d think this is not a real document,” he said.

Coldren said museum officials examining the document recently noticed that the indentation of pens into the paper was visible. He said they also noticed that the ink on the document was darker and lighter in places, as would be expected with the pens used at the time. The lines on a photostat would be of consistent darkness.

Read the full AP article here.

Some quick thoughts:

This reminded me of the recent posts at Hanging Together and Archives Next addressing the topic “What are archives good for?” To play devil’s advocate for just a moment, what is the value of this document, particularly in it’s current state? Evidential? Informational? Intrinsic?

I’ve been reading Advocating Archives: An Introduction to Public Relations for Archivists (ed. Elsie Freeman Finch), and one of the first things that she talks about in her chapter (Talking to the Angel) is the different, overlapping roles that archivists play with researchers and each other. The three user models that she discusses include archivist as servant, gatekeeper, or partner. All of those have different values in various circumstances. However, I’m wondering if it’s time to think about a fourth, somewhat overlooked role: archivist as decider.

In the context of the article, which was published in 1994, appraisal doesn’t fit into the definition of gatekeeper because the models are geared towards reference functions and interactions with specific patrons. However, appraisal is a huge piece of any archival puzzle. Basically, if the collection is not processed or minimally accessible, does not have even a collection-level description, doesn’t have any digital representation– does it really exist from the perspective of the user? Because archivists spend much of their time making decisions that indirectly and directly affect future researchers, I don’t think that appraisal can be left out of the equation.

Here’s why: as we make more collections digitally available, we are directly affecting the reference experience of users who do not seek the help or guidance of an archivist. While some patrons will still contact the archives for assistance, many others will assume that “everything is online,” particularly if no disclaimer exists on the website to remind them otherwise. Therefore, the act of deciding to emphasize one collection of records through additional access, whether by processing, digitization or cataloging access points has a profound effect on the experience of the end user/patron.

I’ve spent some time recently thinking about the relationship between archivists and researchers, and particularly enjoyed two articles by Catherine Johnson/Wendy Duff  titled “Chatting Up the Archivist: Social Capital and the Archival Researcher,”  and “Accidentally Found on Purpose: Information-Seeking Behavior of Historians in Archives.”Depending on the focus of your collections and the types of researchers that you typically have (or seek), I’d like to hear whether others have found these to be interesting, too. While I don’t think that patrons are at the forefront of every appraisal decision, I think that exactly where they fit into a collection or digitization discussion could be interesting to discuss further.

Today marks my one year anniversary at this job, as well as the beginning of my second year of post-graduate, full-time employment as an archivist.

“I’d like to thank the academy… ”

Really, in a lot of ways, I’m so glad that I took the leap and moved across the country to take this position. While my responsibilities and job focus have shifted in many ways over the past twelve months, I’ve been able to take leadership roles in a number of situations that probably wouldn’t exist in a “lone arranger” position or a smaller repository. I think that my background, graduate school experience, and attitude have helped me to thrive here. Best of all, this is a great fit for me, and an ideal first archivist/records management position.

Happy anniversary to me!