Archives Found » Libraries

PAHR for the course?

the archivist — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:19:14 +0000

[sorry for the dreadful pun; I just couldn't restrain myself.]

This is an excerpt from a post that I’ve added to the (closed) course discussion board for LIS 2223: Archival Access, Advocacy, and Ethics. I’ve talked about PAHR before on the blog, but I think that it’s important to continue discussing and supporting this and other archival advocacy efforts.

PAHR is a bill, introduced in the House of Representatives, authorizing the Archivist of the United States to provide grant funding for preservation and records projects at the state level. Last summer at the SAA meeting in Austin, PAHR advocacy was a hot topic in many of the roundtables and several sessions.

While this site is somewhat outdated, you can read about the bill and funding allocation, as well as talking points, background information, and a list of sponsors by state.

Why is PAHR important? As discussed yesterday in class, funding is important to continuing the mission/vision of archives. Visibility and building a coalition of support may be even more important, and while the money that this bill provides will certainly be welcomed by the recipients; the lasting legacy of this particular could be laying the foundation for future support.
I’d like to encourage you to read the bill on the PAHR site and then tell me if you agree or disagree, and explain your position.

PAHR site: http://www.archivists.org/pahr/index.asp

GovTrack: H.R.2256

Library of Congress summary: H.R.2256

Some links that might be of interest:

SAA 2009 session #210: Money, Money, Money: Lessons from Successful Advocates for Archives Funding: http://saa.archivists.org/Scripts/4Disapi.dll/4DCGI/events/eventdetail.html?Action=Events_Detail&InvID_W=1254

Recent developments noted on ArchivesNext by Kathleen Roe (but not yet added to PAHR site): Truly fantastic news about PAHR

PAHR Facebook group

Blogging and digital conversation: ephemeral or “of enduring value”?

the archivist — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:55:14 +0000

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.

“The president should send you at birth a copy of the US Government Manual and a five string banjo. And we’d all be better off.”

the archivist — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:00:09 +0000

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.

Google, Open Content Alliance, and Microsoft: Unholy Un-trinity?

the archivist — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:55:57 +0000

The title of this recent New York Times article bugged:

Libraries Shun Deals to Place Books on Web.

Sounds like librarians are being selfish, right? We don’t want to share our books… you must come to our libraries .

Actually, the article is about the recent decision of the Boston Library Consortium and a few other big players making a decision not to share their information with for-profit orgs Google and Microsoft (which place restrictions on the materials), and instead working with the Open Content Alliance to digitize materials that are out of copyright. Being a happy library cardholder of several of the institutions mentioned, I would have access to the materials in any case, but as a librarian/information professional, I really like the idea that the information would be accessible to those not ordinarily served by the particular libraries.

While the books involved in the above projects are (to my knowledge) not archival materials, I wanted to note that I’m in favor of digitization projects that work to provide access while preserving the context of the collection.

For instance, the Boston Public Library has the books of John Adams, and they were recently on exhibit at the main branch in Copley Square. While I did stop by several times to look at the materials, I’ve been even more excited about the website, because I can read Adams’ notations at my leisure. One that I particularly enjoyed was his handwritten argument with Mary Wollstonecraft in the preface of An historical and moral view of the origin and progress of the French Revolution : and the effect it has produced in Europe:

“If Nature has no Father, no Creator, no Governor, and men are to perish, Inequality is a Right and it would be folly in him who posesses or can obtain an Advantage, to forego it.”

http://www.johnadamslibrary.org/book/?book=2257683Adams%20221.15&page=11

I love that the digitized collection allows one to search the transcriptions, but also examine Adams’ words on the page in his elegant scrawl. Furthermore, I like that the pages are within the context of the entire book, as well as grouped with his collection of books, thereby providing a basis for researchers to understand Adams’ notations as a whole.

I’ve veered a bit from my original intentions in this post, but here’s the point: I like access, and I like context. The three organizations listed in the title plan to provide some access to materials that in some cases were not previously available to a wider audience. That’s a good thing. However, I think that we need to be conscious of not only access, but also the delivery model that we use to serve up the information. If materials are available through Google Books, but the user still cannot access them, then are we really serving a greater audience?