Archives Found

 This started as a response to Russell’s post on my previous musings, but I thought I’d share it here instead because it was getting a bit lengthy.

I agree that we have to figure out what being a professional archivist really means before we can make much progress. I don’t think that just promoting the certified archivist exam (at least in current form) is the solution, and from the lack of endorsement as the standard, it doesn’t seem that SAA does either. Nor do the current guidelines established by SAA for archival programs, apparently, because schools can choose whether or not their curriculum hews to those suggested standards without getting kicked off the list. There are many questions– what is an archivist, and how does one become an archivist are two of those.

I think that some people currently in the field may reluctant to start the discussion because they feel that they’ll end up on the “wrong” side of the answer– having the wrong degree, or being somehow differently qualified. It’s certainly a touchy subject, and one in which we all have a legitimate, vested interest. For people who are afraid of being marginalized, cast out from jobs, or otherwise forced to leave a field that they are already invested in, the current approach of “do nothing and hope for the best” makes sense. So does that same approach when it comes to burning bridges or fighting unnecessary battles, something that I think describes the feelings of many in the field. Why discuss this again, when it seems to come up every few years with no result except bad feelings between colleagues?

Lawyers go to an accredited law school and pass the bar exam in order to practice; doctors go to medical school, complete extensive training, and take exams as well. So do CPAs, nurses, and many other professionals. While archivists generally don’t make life-and-death decisions, can’t we look at CPA’s, for example, and decide whether or not we want to have a clear path by which one joins the field? Many other specialty professions, like actuaries, have laid out guidelines. By taking a series of exams, one moves up in the profession– and generally in salary. There is a standard and a plan for success. (I happened to choose actuaries for this example because it’s another profession where one might get a degree in math or engineering and then decide to change course.)

The current route to being an archivist can be one of confusion: does one set out for a history degree, or one in library science? What about museum science, or anthropology, or a subject related to the collections that one wishes to work with? By not defining this, we also make the profession one that people “fall into” because they have a graduate degree and no job to pay the bills, and “oh gee, that archivist gig just requires a master’s degree– I think I’ll apply. I do like libraries, after all.”

By saying that, I just alienated about a million people. Give me a second to finish that thought. I think it’s ok to choose to be an archivist for a second or third or fifth career– I’m not saying that if your first words weren’t “Give me original order or give me death!” that you should be doomed to a life on the patron side of the reference desk. I don’t think we need to kick people out of the tent in order to define what a professional archivist is, and how to get there. However, by doing nothing, we make it hard for employers to figure out who to hire (and what they’re really worth), and we make it more difficult for those who want to join the profession.

Can we (or really, our elected proxies at SAA) come up with two sets of guidelines: one for the person who wants to become an archivist and needs to know the proper path, and another for folks already in the profession (or career changers) that want to be assured that they have the same competencies and credentials as the former group?

It’s not going to come as a galloping shock to hear that there’s not an easy answer. Maybe if we work to solve the question of “what is an archivist?” and begin to better understand and appreciate (and advocate for!) the value that we bring to the table in our respective institutions, we can come closer to developing an answer. I don’t think that the question of accreditation will be solidly agreed upon or embraced until we know what the heck we’re trying to accredit in the first place.

Regarding the idea of archivists and advocacy, there are two main ideas rolling around in my head at the moment– and I’d like to share them here. This isn’t an exhaustive list, but it’s meant to provoke thought and other ideas.

The first thought is related to my post about the Issues and Advocacy roundtable at SAA, and to today’s post over at Archives Next. A friend posted this on Twitter ages ago, and I’ve been meaning to talk about it since then. The NYT article is titled “Girl Power at School, but not at the Office,” and I think that it mentions some of the same issues presented at I&A; namely the problems associated with not advocating for oneself, and being marginalized in the workplace, and to an extent, in the larger world. The Issues and Advocacy roundtable is attempting to address issues that were raised in the meeting, relating to this topic statement:

Our goal is to explore issues related to the financial and professional issues archivists and related information professionals face in trying to earn acceptable compensation, access to health care insurance, professional advancement and financial challenges while staying in the archival profession.

If you’re interested in this at all, check out the wiki, and think about volunteering to be part of a session proposal for next year’s SAA meeting.

The other main (related) issue that’s been jumping out at me is advocacy for the defining and professionalizing of the archives profession. I doubt that I was the only one out there who was reading (or listening to) Mark Greene’s plenary address and saying “Yes! We need to think about this!” I think that Mark was right on the money in many areas, and I think that he did a great job of putting words to some latent frustrations in the field. I think that the recent push for SAA accreditation is borne from some of that frustration, and I intend to discuss my thoughts on that some other time. (For background look here, here, here, and here, and if you’re still behind, look through past posts on the A&A list).

Some of my thoughts: we do need to do a better job, as a group, of defining what an archivist is, not just what an archivist does in order to move past “functionary” status. We need to actively work to gain power and agency for ourselves and our profession in order to professionalize the work that we do and elevate the status from optional to critical.

I think Mark hits it exactly right when he says,” When we seek resources, we cannot continue to behave as if we “deserve” resources and recognition because we are meritorious; that is we do good work.” This ties directly to the above article– why are we so quiet when it comes to advocating for ourselves and our collections? Do we really believe that we’ll get paid what we’re worth if we don’t speak up?

In fact, I think if we don’t speak up, we’re probably getting exactly what we deserve.

ETA: Mark Greene’s address can be found here (pdf)

 It’s been kind of a rough week here at ArchivesFound headquarters- but I plan to be back with a few new posts soon. For now, it’s Friday, thank goodness.

In celebration of an oft overlooked constituency, you can now translate your Google search into Pirate– just in time to celebrate Talk Like a Pirate Day!

(check out Google Blog for more updates)

Library of Congress Web archive of September 11, 2001

The September 11 Web Archive

Looking over my notes from SAA 2008, I’ve been struck by how many sessions that I wish that I could have attended. I know that I’m lucky to have been part of the 40% of SAA members that went to San Francisco, but I wish that I could have cloned myself and gone to additional sessions. To that end, I’ve been anxiously awaiting the notes of other bloggers for little crumbs of information about interesting-sounding sessions and meetings. Some of the sessions that I even attended didn’t have enough handouts, and I’m hoping to snag those by emailing individual presenters. Does it have to be this way?

Some of my thoughts on this: I know that SAA creates (audio) tapes of some sessions and section meetings that are then available for purchase. In theory, panelist handouts are also available through the 2008 meeting link, though my admittedly unscientific approach to clicking on every third one with a linked bio (hoping that those presenters had at least visited the site to add the bio) has not yielded any handout or PowerPoint results, even from Web 2.0 sessions. I’m fairly sure that I’m looking in the right place (links for this from SAA handout and the unofficial SAA wiki lead to the same page). What is a curious archivist to do?

My question is this: can’t we do more to increase access to all of the intellectual information shared at these conferences? There’s a wealth of knowledge that exists briefly in that place and time. Should we be doing more to capture and disseminate that information? Further, couldn’t we increase virtual access for those who cannot attend? Even if SAA decided to keep the information locked in a members-only area, finding a way to share all of this professional discourse could be huge for archivists, and a way for non-attending members to participate in the conversation.

I looked at a few similar groups to see what they’re doing in response to this same question– ALA, AASLH, AHA and RBMS. The answer: slightly more or less, but probably not enough in any case.  ALA has an official wiki for the 2008 meeting (warning: the link loads really slowly), and some independent blogging, but it doesn’t appear that they were much more successful in compiling speaker handouts this year. The ALA 2007 wiki does have a lot of slides, handouts, and podcasts posted, and is quite useful. ALA obviously has much more of a critical mass and a more active blogosphere, but still not as much activity as I expected. AASLH’s annual meeting is happening this week, and they have created an official blog with the intent of reaching folks that are not attending, but no wiki. Other than the official program, I did not find any information sharing from the AHA’s last two meetings (perhaps someone else has a link or it exists in the  members-only area of the site)? RBMS does not appear to have any information-sharing either, but I may have missed it through the ALA site (as it’s a pre-conference for ALA). Unfortunately, it does not appear that SAA is the only organization not helping members to share this type of information.

What can we do? I’d like to see a commitment from presenters, perhaps in partnership with SAA, to provide more information about their sessions. Session proposals are approved by the end of December (sometimes earlier) for the following August. Couldn’t there be an agreement by panelists to post their materials prior to (or immediately following) the meeting? Would it be possible to podcast or virtually broadcast some of the sessions? SAA and other organizations like Amigos and Solinet present webinars and virtual classrooms– couldn’t this be explored, perhaps for some fee, for those who cannot physically attend or would like to take part at a later date?

I’d love to see further ideas and suggestions regarding these access issues. I feel that SAA works hard to bring us some really great sessions and workshops– why not make the information available to a wider audience?

As I suspect many others are doing, I’m still trying to catch up on sleep and work backlog from my week in San Francisco. I’m hoping to post more about sessions and roundtables later, but for now,  some highlights from the Preservation Section meeting on Friday (8/29).

Announcements and Updates from consortiums and funding agencies:

Ann Russell, Executive Director, NEDCC, talked about their recent initiatives: dPlan, the online Preservation 101 course, and a digital preservation toolkit.  All of these tools could be useful for planning and understanding the scope of various collection-related issues, particularly at smaller and less-funded institutions.

Peter Wosh, SAA Publications director, spoke about a proposal for the development of a preservation manual in the same vein as the SAA Archival Fundamentals series.  There was some discussion regarding single author vs. multiple chapters/authors under a single editor, with the conclusion that either model would work for this type of manual. Contact Peter if you’re interested in working on this project. Additionally, a document that was originally intended for archivists looking at building/renovation projects is available in draft form/PDF on the SAA website. Link here.

Kathleen Williams, Executive Director, NHPRC, discussed the current funding situation. Basically, funding for NHPRC must be reauthorized every five years by Congress. It has been approved by the House, and was supposed to be introduced in the Senate sometime after Labor Day. However, being an election year, it’s possible that funding will fall under a continuing resolution (with the previous funding amount) in order to operate while everyone is out there on the stump. While I was looking for the above legislation, I found a bill introduced in the House to strike a commemorative coin for the 75th anniversary of NARA and NHPRC in 2010– HR. 6300. It’s interesting to realize how young our National Archives really is, particularly in comparison to those of other countries.

After all of the announcements, there was a panel titled “The Drive to Digitize,” which was followed by some discussion. My notes are a bit scratchy at this point, so I’m hoping that others will help fill in any gaps.

Thomas Clareson, PALINET:

-stated that priority to preserve that is driving digitization, and that he felt rumors of the demise of preservation funding in favor of digitization grants were exaggerated

-Trends helping cause: IMLS focusing more on preservation- possibly as a result of the 2005 Heritage Health Index; implementation money

- Concern: current (dormant) status of stabilization grants

-Best way to advocate for more funding is to use currently available $.  Use LoC list of preservation-friendly funding institutions, LSTA library state funding for preservation

Kaye Lanning Minchew, Troup County Archives, GA (funding recipient)

-Discussed digitization project originally slated for access purposes that turned into a preservation project.

Susan Malbin, IMLS:

-Talked about the custodianship of digital surrogates, post-grant project, and the importance of outlining future plans for these in the grantwriting process.

-Mentioned National Leadership & Laura Bush grants (deadline 12/15)

Kathleen Williams, NHPRC:

-Discussed drivers for dunding decisions

-Projects: preservation (archives and manuscripts) and documentary projects; trying to meet goals of preservation and access

-Make case that digitization needs to fall within preservation continuum, not vacuum

Joel Wurl, NEH:

-Digitization at core of institutional debate over preservation and access

-Anecdotally, digital funding has had some impact on preservation funding; not much increase in total agency funding

-Attempting to ensure future availability of resources> challenge: how to best harness interest/resources?

-Caution in thinking of granting agencies as drivers rather than listeners/facilitators