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.