Archives Found

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

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 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.

Back in the beginning of March, I talked about records relating to the JFK assassination that were kept by the Dallas DA at the time, Henry Wade, and not made available to the public. Somehow I missed the next twist to this story. Turns out that the DA’s office provided digital copies of the documents to the Dallas Morning News, which in turn, added those (apparently unsorted/non-indexed) documents to their website and invited readers to pour over them and post in their forums in a sort of treasure hunt.

I haven’t gone through the document pdfs myself, but according to several of the articles, many of the documents cited by the current DA as possibly new material were already included in the Warren Report files (accessible through NARA here). I’m much more interested in the way that the documents were provided and displayed online, and the implications of the way that they can/are accessed and used by readers of the paper.

Some related links:

My original post, which asked some questions about provenance and preservation: Dallas DA documents to be donated- but where?

Dallas Morning News story announcing the digitized groups of records and providing links to the pdf’s: Exclusive: Help us examine the lost JFK files

Dallas Morning News forum to discuss the documents

Related articles from the Dallas Morning News: Newly discovered JFK assassination items revealed, Dallas County DA’s office finds cache of JFK memorabilia, When DA spoke of JFK, he misspoke for Dallas

One of the things that I find myself thinking and talking about a lot is the future of archives, of the research process, and of the different levels of access that continue to evolve with the internet. I recently stumbled across the blog of Dan Cohen, and this post from April really grabbed me. Dan is talking about a discussion  at UNC-Chapel Hill where a group of historians shared their thoughts about research and digitizing the Southern Historical Collection. A snippet:

In other words, in the age of Google and advanced search tools and techniques, most historians just want to do their research they way they’ve always done it, by taking one letter out of the box at a time. One historian told of a critical moment in her archival work, when she noticed a single word in a letter that touched off the thought that became her first book.

So in Chapel Hill I was the pirate with the strange garb and ways of behaving, and this is a good lesson for all boosters of digital methods within the humanities. We need to recognize that the digital humanities represent a scary, rule-breaking, swashbuckling movement for many historians and other scholars. We must remember that these scholars have had—for generations and still in today’s graduate schools—a very clear path for how they do their work, publish, and get rewarded. Visit archive; do careful reading; find examples in documents; conceptualize and analyze; write monograph; get tenure.

Read the full post here.