Archives for the 21st century

Last Thursday AfL and the Centre for Metropolitan History arranged for 4 representatives from the TNA and some independent voices to discuss the new consultation polity document on Archives for the 21st Century. Seeing as how we’re already in the 21st century this document necessarily looks at where we are and what direction we should take in the coming decades. The key point to remember though, as Nick Kingsley says: “there is no new money”. Recent developments at the TNA re closures and staff reductions are evidence of this.

The discussion took place at the Institute for Historical Research at Senate House. It wasn’t particularly well attended I thought. The panel almost outnumbered the audience. But, this didn’t impede the discussion or Q&A session at the end.

Nick Kingsley opened the consultation with some background to the document, pointing out the joint involvement of the TNA and the MLA and pulling out the 5 key priorities it espouses. Then the 3 external panellists stated their take on the document, what they thought was strong about it and where it fell down. Unfortunately I’m a rubbish reporter and failed to note anybody’s name.

The first speaker was a user of community archives. She had concerns about archive services staying local, rather than having them merged and moved. She feared that in-depth knowledge of the collections and the local area would be lost. She also expressed fears about too much emphasis being put on digital access as this is not always an equitable solution. Some people don’t have computer access at home or are unable to use them because of disabilities. Moreover, electronic access is removed from archival assistance, should it be needed. There is also a risk that the quality of archival research will suffer if people are only able to, or bother to, access material that has been digitised and made available over the web.

I agree with her first point. It’s a strong contention among archivists, expressed in the document, that archives shape and inform people’s sense of identity at national, local and personal levels. We should therefore support community archives and aim to keep the knowledge and expertise of local staff. The TNA and the government should promote local archives.

Her other two points are bound up with the issue of electronic access to digitised material: the not-quite-so-equal access promised by digitisation programmes and the risk to quality archival research. For the first, although I agree that electronic access isn’t a perfectly equitable solution, it does allow greater access to material while supporting the preservation function of the archive (if, of course, done with appropriate and adequate planning and funding). So although it’s not a major thread in the document, I applaud the increased interest in digitisation and the inclusion of both catalogues and content in the TNA’s outlook. With regards to the quality of archival research, I argue that the risk of poor and incomplete research isn’t limited to the digital world. Where exactly does the responsibility of the archives and the archivist lie here? Archival finding aids should alert researchers to the existence of other sources and there should always be a way of asking staff. Lazy or incompetent researchers are not our responsibility.

The second panellist had an interest in national research. She pointed out that people want evidence and don’t care if it’s called archival, or local history, or library etc. Focusing on archival material loses the importance of other, non-archival, material. (from my notes I’m not sure what her point is here unless it’s to argue for a more encompassing view of research sources and a more realistic view of the actual make-up of library, local history and local archive services). She was also worried about people in the future wanting different things than present day researchers. She thought the draft document is missing the desperate need for leadership to raise awareness amongst the public, especially in the face of politicians. This can’t be done at the local level. She thought there is a good need for enforceable minimum requirements for an archival service in terms of staffing etc that the government should be made to provide.

I agree with all of that.

The third panellist works for a university. She thought the consultation document didn’t fulfil on the university involvement and their existence as both in-house repository and centres for research. She pointed out the lack of references to partnership opportunities in the area of digitisation and other research areas between libraries and IT. Overall she thought the document didn’t carry through on it’s exciting possibilities and made it look like the archive sector is in catch-up mode.

A Q&A session followed during which the following issues came up:

Possible need for new legislation
The fact that getting councils to work together is tricky
Deals with commercial digitisaiton firms can be tricky, particularly in the area of access
The vulnerability of smaller services/offices
The problem that local authorities don’t acknowledging the importance of records management
The problem of getting funding from local and national government
The question re how much support from the TNA can local authority archives expect? 4 advocacy? Nick Kingsley responded to this that the TNA is re-sorting its staff in this area to focus on areas highlighted in the draft.
That the document doesn’t really address the issue of diversityThe importance of training for the future of the profession

Changes to The National Archives

Last week TNA announced a set of proposed changes to their operations and public services. They need to cut costs and save money. Specifically, they want to save £4.2 million by the end of March 2010. A consultation period will last until September, followed by a detailed planning process to be finished by January 2010, allowing the plans to be implemented until March 2010.

Does TNA expect to save £4.2 million in three months? I’m not sure how reasonable or otherwise that is, but what happens after that? Presumably, staff now on reduced hours or in unemployment will be left where they are. The lawns will continue to grow a little longer and the windows to remain a little grubby. Money will still be saved.

The change most likely to generate public debate is the proposed closures to the reading rooms and the reduction of staff. A letter to The Times from Dr Nick Barratt on 4 July is evidence of this. As the comments show, the other hot topic, unsurprisingly, is that of digital versus tangible access. There's nothing like holding an original record but while open reading rooms at Kew allow access for Londoners and those who can visit, electronic access allows records to be used by a much wider audience.

The other striking question seems to be: how necessary is the knowledge of “expert staff” to the public’s understanding of public records? Dr Barrett’s letter states: “Specialist knowledge is gained over years of experience, not delivered through search engines and digital images, and the scandalous treatment of such important staff is nothing short of dumbing down.” I don’t disagree. I do, however, hope TNA’s finding aids are sufficiently well-written to provide the advice and information necessary for most of TNA’s visitors to access, interpret and use the records they’re interested in.

I hope the money saved will go toward such things as wages that stay in line with inflation and the writing down of specialist knowledge into sufficiently detailed finding aids.

No news

I've found nothing to blog about recently. Sigh. The "Archives for the 21st century consultation draft" is waiting to be read, and I'm all signed up for the Society Conference in Bristol next month. Maybe these will provide some fodder for thought and comment.