September 24, 2009
Anglo-Saxon treasure
What an amazing thing! Anglo-Saxon treasure has been found in Staffordshire. Samples from the hoard will be on display at the Birmingham Museum from tomorrow until October 13. Not a very large window of opportunity for people to organise a trip, but great that the chance is there. Pictures are available on flickr. Some of the items look a bit squished. All of them look amazing.
September 14, 2009
Review of the conference 2
As mentioned before, I felt that the conference favoured access over preservation. This actually mirrors a trend I’ve noticed in UK archivists – an inclination toward access as the sole, or most important, aim of archives. Without access, it’s asked, what is the point of saving anything at all? Thus outreach activities are seen as the most vital thing, overshadowing the other core archival functions of collecting, appraising, cataloguing/describing and preserving.
OK, it would be sacrilegious of me to deny the importance of access. But I think we need to put this back into context, especially in relation to digital material. It seems to me that we’re constantly informing people that digitisation should form part of a comprehensive preservation strategy. Yet, we don’t seem as proud of our preservation work as we do of the access that comes from it. But mainly, preservation allows access to happen and we should allocate it the bulk of our efforts.
If I can use this to lead onto another point, this fixation with access also limits the ways in which we define our profession. It was pointed out several times during the conference that archivists have a difficult time articulating the value of archival work. Peter Emmerson noted this in his opening speech, urging us to re-think why archives are important and to extend our concept of who benefits. I think that by focusing on access as our reason for being we limit the ways we can express our value to benefiting the small number of people who consciously use us. As Professor Jimerson pointed out, almost nobody will make a connection between archives and records managers and the document trail behind current events such as the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Yet our profession is responsible for good government records management, via TNA.
These are my preliminary thoughts.
OK, it would be sacrilegious of me to deny the importance of access. But I think we need to put this back into context, especially in relation to digital material. It seems to me that we’re constantly informing people that digitisation should form part of a comprehensive preservation strategy. Yet, we don’t seem as proud of our preservation work as we do of the access that comes from it. But mainly, preservation allows access to happen and we should allocate it the bulk of our efforts.
If I can use this to lead onto another point, this fixation with access also limits the ways in which we define our profession. It was pointed out several times during the conference that archivists have a difficult time articulating the value of archival work. Peter Emmerson noted this in his opening speech, urging us to re-think why archives are important and to extend our concept of who benefits. I think that by focusing on access as our reason for being we limit the ways we can express our value to benefiting the small number of people who consciously use us. As Professor Jimerson pointed out, almost nobody will make a connection between archives and records managers and the document trail behind current events such as the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Yet our profession is responsible for good government records management, via TNA.
These are my preliminary thoughts.
September 10, 2009
Review of the conference 1
So to continue with my impressions of the conference….
As already mentioned, I thought the three keynote speakers were very good. Peter Emmerson opened the proceedings with a clear message that the profession needs to re-think, well, how we think about the profession and come up with a new framework to support our work. He suggested that, here in the UK, archivists are interested in what we were doing, how we are doing it and who it is that does it, rather than why we are doing it and for whose benefit. He thinks we need to be more attuned to the outcomes and consequences of our jobs. He noted that his experience working in commonwealth countries highlighted a difference, internationally, in professional approaches. In Commonwealth countries they felt the need to explain the why in terms of the benefits offered to the organisation/government and benefits to the wider society. [I think this is why projects like Interpares are based in Canada, why the Australians came up with such a good RM Standard and function-based appraisal, and why more attention seems to be paid to records as evidence in other countries].
I hope I’ve summarised Peter’s talk correctly as I thought it a good one.
Randall Jimerson also gave an excellent talk. He spoke about the need for Archivists to realise that objectivity is a myth. From this realisation should come greater appreciation of our role (and power) as shapers of history and truth, and greater awareness that our activities should be carried out in an ethical way that supports social justice. It’s impossible to disagree with this. In fact, I hope this is something we’ve all already thought about. Although we’re all brought up on Jenkinson and Schellenberg, I think we’re equally influenced by the post-modernism that I would say has characterised most recent archival theory. And although I rarely feel very powerful, he’s right that we do have this power. It’s a pity that our funding and staffing resources don’t always allow us to fulfil our world-saving potential.
That’s all for now. I got other things to do.
As already mentioned, I thought the three keynote speakers were very good. Peter Emmerson opened the proceedings with a clear message that the profession needs to re-think, well, how we think about the profession and come up with a new framework to support our work. He suggested that, here in the UK, archivists are interested in what we were doing, how we are doing it and who it is that does it, rather than why we are doing it and for whose benefit. He thinks we need to be more attuned to the outcomes and consequences of our jobs. He noted that his experience working in commonwealth countries highlighted a difference, internationally, in professional approaches. In Commonwealth countries they felt the need to explain the why in terms of the benefits offered to the organisation/government and benefits to the wider society. [I think this is why projects like Interpares are based in Canada, why the Australians came up with such a good RM Standard and function-based appraisal, and why more attention seems to be paid to records as evidence in other countries].
I hope I’ve summarised Peter’s talk correctly as I thought it a good one.
Randall Jimerson also gave an excellent talk. He spoke about the need for Archivists to realise that objectivity is a myth. From this realisation should come greater appreciation of our role (and power) as shapers of history and truth, and greater awareness that our activities should be carried out in an ethical way that supports social justice. It’s impossible to disagree with this. In fact, I hope this is something we’ve all already thought about. Although we’re all brought up on Jenkinson and Schellenberg, I think we’re equally influenced by the post-modernism that I would say has characterised most recent archival theory. And although I rarely feel very powerful, he’s right that we do have this power. It’s a pity that our funding and staffing resources don’t always allow us to fulfil our world-saving potential.
That’s all for now. I got other things to do.
September 09, 2009
SoA Conference cont.
Looks like I'm alone in criticising the SoA conference this year. Anna Towlson from the LSE attended the first day. Her report is here. Chris Prom and Caroline Brown from the University of Dundee both thought the conference had a lot to impart. Their notes are here.
Chris Prom is visiting Briton from the University of Illinois. His personal blog has posts on sessions, and a lovely photo of Bath Abbey. His post on the Archives, Records and Artefacts blog indicates that much of the discussion around e-records (and the continuing preservation of these records??) took place in the RM themed talks. I admit I didn't go to any of these as they looked to be mostly theory and strategy rather than action (my reasoning being that I can get theory and strategy from the web). Maybe I was wrong about their content.
Caroline Brown was one of the speakers at the conference. She gave one of the round-ups at the end. I found her talk engaging and agreed with most of it, but was alarmed and dispirited by her use of a quote from Hugh Taylor identifying electronic media and records as a paradigm shift. What was dispiriting about this is that Hugh Taylor wrote it in 1987. Why, 22 years later, are we still seeing electronic records as something we need to get our heads around?
And where has the conference blog gone? The link on the SoA website disappeared immediately after the conference.
Chris Prom is visiting Briton from the University of Illinois. His personal blog has posts on sessions, and a lovely photo of Bath Abbey. His post on the Archives, Records and Artefacts blog indicates that much of the discussion around e-records (and the continuing preservation of these records??) took place in the RM themed talks. I admit I didn't go to any of these as they looked to be mostly theory and strategy rather than action (my reasoning being that I can get theory and strategy from the web). Maybe I was wrong about their content.
Caroline Brown was one of the speakers at the conference. She gave one of the round-ups at the end. I found her talk engaging and agreed with most of it, but was alarmed and dispirited by her use of a quote from Hugh Taylor identifying electronic media and records as a paradigm shift. What was dispiriting about this is that Hugh Taylor wrote it in 1987. Why, 22 years later, are we still seeing electronic records as something we need to get our heads around?
And where has the conference blog gone? The link on the SoA website disappeared immediately after the conference.
September 08, 2009
Conference report
What can I say about the SoA conference? It was a disappointment really. Too much emphasis on access and not enough attention paid to preservation. Too many indications that we're still not coping with, let alone embracing, many of the challenges and opportunities offered by digital records. The most striking thread running through the week was that archivists are cautious and fearful; that we lack confidence when dealing wiht new technology and researcher behaviour. I find this depressing.
But, there were some good bits:
But, there were some good bits:
- the opening speeches were all excellent and thought provoking;
- the Planets project, based at the British Library, looks like it's doing positive and useful stuff;
- Tim Padfield;
- the Southampton University's Non-Contact Surface Scanning Systems for the Retrieval and Protection of Archives Sound Recordings - brilliant; and
- the Victorian lantern show.
The conference gave me stuff to think about which I hope to make the subject of future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)