Holly Fairhall posted a link to a youtube video of Stewart Lee eloquently explaining why university places and the arts should be government funded and the narrow minded thinking that motivates the decision makers. I haven't re-posted the link. You can access it on Holly's blog.
Lee's main point revolves around the belief that knowledge, learning and creativity are valuable for their own sake. He fears that the prospect of massive student debt will create a generation of people who appreciate education only for its money-making potential. Whether this is being done deliberately to rid most of Britain (all except Scotland) of independent thought or not, this is a chilling prospect. Personally, I love learning. Professionally, I need people who love to learn adn who appreciate the value of archives and of archivists. What will we do if people aren't encouraged to be interested in the world they live in?
November 16, 2010
November 15, 2010
Access and Accessibility
As a digital archivist I'm responsible for a lot of digital stuff. Records that I need to make available to the public. Preferably, this will happen in an on-line situation where multiple users can view the material from anywhere in the world. But “access”, it seems, is an ambiguous term. What do we aim to achieve when we set out to provide access? Are providing access and making our material accessible the same thing? I don't think so.
It's clear that access can be narrowly defined as "getting the stuff", whereas accessibility incorporates so much more. In order to make our collections accessible, we need to provide archival descriptions. That is, we must supply the means by which the records can be understood and appreciated in ways that allow users to make meaningful use of them. This is kind of a “well, duh” statement, and I was pleased to note that ISAD(G) clearly states that: “The purpose of archival description is to identify and explain the context and content of archival material in order to promote its accessibility.” Making records easily available (physically or electronically) is not the same as making them accessible.
RAD unpacks this a little by stating that archival description serves three specific aims: to provide access via retrievable descriptions; to promote understanding by documenting the content, context and structure of records; and to provide information relevant to establishing the authenticity of the records. I like these very much. Further on, RAD states that: “to ensure effective access to archival material, decisions related to description and the choice of access points should reflect the archivist’s obligation to all users.” This is great. An “all-user” focus demands that we think of different users – in-house, academic, genies, etc – and how we can meet all of their information needs.
DACS has a slightly different approach. For DACS the main purpose of archival description is “the creation of access tools that assist users in discovering desired records.” The foremost access tools DACS refers to are catalogues and inventories. So for DACS, archival descriptions lead to the creation of finding aids. This explanation of A&D emphasises discoverability and does not mention making the records understandable or meaningful to users. The rest of this section discusses different access points and how to incorporate them into your descriptions.
And what does all of this mean? It explains why providing access to the digital material is not enough. It also emphasises the importance of archival descriptions to the concept of access. Without context there is no understanding, and without understanding there is no meanngful use.
It's clear that access can be narrowly defined as "getting the stuff", whereas accessibility incorporates so much more. In order to make our collections accessible, we need to provide archival descriptions. That is, we must supply the means by which the records can be understood and appreciated in ways that allow users to make meaningful use of them. This is kind of a “well, duh” statement, and I was pleased to note that ISAD(G) clearly states that: “The purpose of archival description is to identify and explain the context and content of archival material in order to promote its accessibility.” Making records easily available (physically or electronically) is not the same as making them accessible.
RAD unpacks this a little by stating that archival description serves three specific aims: to provide access via retrievable descriptions; to promote understanding by documenting the content, context and structure of records; and to provide information relevant to establishing the authenticity of the records. I like these very much. Further on, RAD states that: “to ensure effective access to archival material, decisions related to description and the choice of access points should reflect the archivist’s obligation to all users.” This is great. An “all-user” focus demands that we think of different users – in-house, academic, genies, etc – and how we can meet all of their information needs.
DACS has a slightly different approach. For DACS the main purpose of archival description is “the creation of access tools that assist users in discovering desired records.” The foremost access tools DACS refers to are catalogues and inventories. So for DACS, archival descriptions lead to the creation of finding aids. This explanation of A&D emphasises discoverability and does not mention making the records understandable or meaningful to users. The rest of this section discusses different access points and how to incorporate them into your descriptions.
And what does all of this mean? It explains why providing access to the digital material is not enough. It also emphasises the importance of archival descriptions to the concept of access. Without context there is no understanding, and without understanding there is no meanngful use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)