TNA academic strategy

This is slightly old news, but the UK National Archives has announced a new Academic Strategy. According to the June edition of RecordKeeping, “academic users comprise some 12% to 15%” of their total user numbers. This strikes me as a very small percentage, even allowing for the expectation that most of their users will be Genies. Where are the well-researched history books of the future, which I plan to read, going to come from if new and existing academics aren’t visiting the archives?

Ian E. Wilson new ICA president

The ICA Flying Reporters did this interview: http://www.kualalumpur2008.ica.org/fr/node/39730

I would like to thank the ICA Flying Reporters for their excellent coverage of the 16th ICA Congress. Their interviews and reports have allowed me to experience the event in a way hitherto unimagined.

Training the Archivist

The American listserv at the moment is revisiting the question of qualifications versus experience. While this is rehashing all the old theories and opinions re accreditation of courses, apprenticeships, etcetera, this is always, to me, an extremely interesting question to ask. I think everyone would agree that the practical side of archive work makes way more sense once you’ve been introduced to the history and theory of archival science. And vice versa. You need the hands-on experience and the theoretical knowledge. But how to get it, and get it in the right combination that allows you to have enough of both to make you attractive to employers…this is the question. Or is it the rub?

My institution is currently reviewing its organisational structure, as institutions have a habit of occasionally doing. Interestingly, they seem to also be reviewing the similarities and differences between professional recordkeeping staff and academics. This hearkens back to the time when archivists were simultaneously historians and were expected to publish scholarly articles on what they were cataloguing. Personally, I think it’s sad we don’t do this so much any more. After all, once you’ve finished cataloguing those 40 odd boxes of papers (or other) you are, at that point, the world’s expert on that material. It’s a shame we’re not given time and encouragement to turn this expert and in-depth knowledge into a paper that helps generate interest in the material and publicity for our institutions. I envy those archivists who still get to do this.

But, maybe this sort of academic reporting can make a come back via institutional blogs.

Wave if you love metadata

Last month I had dinner with some friends. One of them, half way through the meal, declared his animosity for metadata. I was stunned. Who hates metadata? He’s a scientist. Does this explain it? I don’t know. His feeling was that, what with free text searching, metadata is no longer necessary. And besides, he can’t be bothered filling in the elements required by what I took to be his company’s records management attempt to manage the electronic records he creates. Clearly, he was thinking in a narrow arena. The whole conversation was more than mildly upsetting.

The life cycle versus the continuum

I feel that I could know more about digital preservation. To help erode my ignorance, I take every opportunity to trawl the web in search of what other, more talented and better funded, people are doing in this area. There are many projects out there. In fact, the number is almost overwhelming and certainly confusing.

I've been struck by the number of projects that engage the life-cycle as a model for looking at the challenges of long-term digital preservation. At least, this seems to be the case in Europe and America. I'm a continuum person myself and I'm surprised at the lack of take-up of this alternative approach to the RM/Archive function, particularly in an electronic context.

The life-cycle model is unhelpful. The continuum model provides a more useful way of looking at the problem of digital preservation. Reasons for this include:

• it's no longer feasible to divide records creation, use and eventual destruction/retention into time-based stages managed by either records managers or archivists;
• as archivists we can't afford to wait until the end of the cycle to become involved, especially when talking about digital records; and
• the record keeping systems used to manage digital records needs to be conceived of and designed as part of a continual process by all interested parties.

This isn't a question of semantics, as some people think. It's about recognising that electronic/digital records have changed the way we conceptualise and do archival and records management work.