Archives Found

One of the more exasperating things about travel (and particularly holiday travel) is the dearth of time that I seem to have for sitting down and thinking (and then posting) about things that I want to discuss– and I’ve been doing a lot of traveling over the past few months.  Something that I’ve been thinking about in both a general, and more specific sense is the access and use of electronic records. I don’t have time to get into my own project and thoughts now, but I wanted to share a general article about the transfer of the Bush documents to NARA. The AP article really doesn’t get into the ingest process and anticipated entry into the ERA, but a I wanted to share a quick quote that I found to be really interesting:

 ”The electronic-records archives system may be able to take in a tremendous amount of e-mail and other records,” Brachfeld said. “But just because you ingest the data does not mean that people can locate, identify, recover and use the records they need.”

Full article from The Columbus Dispatch:  Bush’s electronic data a major archiving task

Hope everyone had a safe and lovely holiday break– and I’m hoping to be back on the blog more often once I make it home!

I think that Russell over at Records Junkie proposed something earlier this week that is probably of interest to some– the idea of creating “identity-based” interest groups through SAA. This could be a place where like-minded archivists meet up with other like-minded archivists around activities that they enjoy. I bet there are probably some folks that would be interested in this.

However, I’m not convinced that this should be facilitated or initiated through SAA. I know, for example, that there are knitting archivists that get together at the annual meeting. I think that the knitting GTG is a great idea, and I’d love to participate, but I don’t think that SAA needs to be involved. Same with other groups– why not spread the word using existing methods, whether that’s on A&A or elsewhere, and let nature take its course? Many of the groups proposed in the post already have a way to communicate (Archivists on Facebook, for example), or could figure out a way to get the word out to folks that might be interested. Additionally, notes advertising these specialized gatherings could be posted on the unofficial wiki, or on the physical bulletin board by registration (still useful for something).

Maybe I’m missing the point, and if so, I’d like to hear more. Strictly speaking for myself though, if I were looking for a group of like-minded people  to hang out with for non-professional reasons, whether religious-based, or ultimate-frisbee based, I probably wouldn’t be looking for it in my professional organization. Furthermore, I think I’d rather SAA focus their funds and expertise on our (collective) professional goals and interests instead of my personal ones.  I also agree with Mark over at thesecretmirror, whose post prompted me to write this one– I think that the potential exists for some privacy concerns.

I’m in Chicago this week, attending NEDCC’s Persistence of Memory conference, and I hope to share some thoughts about that soon, once I’ve digested things a bit.

Until then, a quick article about public records and a recent ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court from the Columbus Dispatch. A brief snippet:

Even deleted e-mail messages are public records if they deal with official business, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

In a unanimous ruling, justices ordered commissioners in Seneca County to scour their computer hard drives for e-mail messages requested by a Toledo newspaper last year that had been deleted.

The decision was a rare legal victory for public-records advocates in Ohio.

Full article- Deleted emails are still public records.

There are a lot of ways that an economic depression can affect archives, libraries, museums, and other cultural institutions. Many of these are detrimental to the work that we do– including cuts in funding for staff, programs, and projects, and I don’t wish to downplay the effects of those things. However, let’s think positively for a moment.

I think that this can also be seen as an opportunity for us to rediscover ourselves. One of the fundamental truths about being an archivist is that there is never enough time, money, space, or staff to accomplish everything that we would like to do. I think that’s probably true for museum staff and libraries, too. When we’re forced to consider how we spend our money, time, and resources, we’re appraising how we work and what we need most. This can bring us down to the most fundamental level: when was the last time you revisited your collection scope, policies, and mission statement? Do your recent/future/past accessions conform to your institutional goals? When was the last time that you revisited your policies, and do they still fit?

This can be a good opportunity to take a look at your backlog, your processing priorities, and your outreach plan for 2009. How much space do you have for future accessions, and what kind of plan will you have for processing? Which resources are used most often by researchers, and how does that information fit into your desired outreach and institutional mission? Have you objectively assessed your needs and wishes for the coming year?

Most importantly, how are you advocating for your collections? What are you doing to reach stakeholders inside and outside of your institution, and how do you plan to get or keep a seat at the table when decisions are made about funding? Even with reduced funding, how can you create and hold positive attention for your collection and your staff? Are you making a case for continued funding on a daily basis through both your work and your advocacy?

Not all of these things require money, but they do require planning and intention. Food for thought. Have you changed the way that you do business because of funding issues? Will you?

As a sort of side note to recent conversations in the archivo-blogosphere about preserving digital conversation, and the sometimes fleeting nature of born-digital materials, I’ve been following a few discussions about the nature of blogging and how that fits with the academic system. The question of whether blogs can be “worthwhile” and “academic” has been floating around out there for awhile– and I think has already been ably answered by many, so I won’t rehash that discussion. I believe that blogs can be not only a way to reach out to a wider audience, but also a great way for  students and other faculty, including librarians and archivists, to become better informed and engaged with the university community. Blogging and participating in reasoned, thoughtful discussion can provide the participants with a greater understanding of viewpoints and opinions that they might not have previously encountered. However, should publishing on academic blogs and other digital scholarship be part of the tenure-track discussion for librarians and archivists? Does building a website based on interpretation of primary source materials serve as an academic contribution? How should digital scholarship be evaluated, and can it be adequately compared with old-media contributions? Should it be?

Anonymity is something that critics decry as a problem with giving blogs and their contributors credibility– another is the lack of peer review. However, for those already following the outrage over the Annoyed Librarian, it might seem as though we’ve crossed both of those bridges already–the most recent issue of the “peer-reviewed” Journal of Access Services was entirely written by that same pseudonoymous blogger (though I’m not sure that’s the best example). Eric Schnell over at The Medium is the Message has posted recently about rethinking scholarship in academic librarianship and the need for us to redefine the understanding of scholarly communication to fit with changes in the profession– go take a look. Eric has some great links, including one on the Modern Language Association’s discussion of tenure requirements and this report (pdf) from the Ithaka Group that explores how (non-librarian) faculty are using digital scholarly resources.

So, why am I bringing all of this up? Well, if blogs and other digital media are considered to be scholarship of enduring value, how will all of this information be kept? Who will be storing it, and what will become the “authoritative” copy? How will it be accessed, now and in the future? What kind of architecture do we have as archivists and “keepers of memory”, as contributors, as bloggers, as users and consumers of information to ensure that digital scholarly contributions will be around and available for the long haul? I don’t have all of the answers, but I’d love to hear your thoughts.