As the world becomes increasingly faster in pace and larger in scale, new technological advances are being developed to keep track of the grand amount of records, supplies, and movements that make modern Western life possible. Perhaps one of the most promising—and equally threatening—is radio frequency identification (RFID), which utilizes the basic principles of reception and transmission of radio waves with every smaller microchips to easily identify and monitor large numbers of items in a short amount of time. Such technology has already been adopted by entities such as the U.S. Department of Defense and Wal-Mart to track their inventories, thereby ensuring that theft, misplacement, or loss of goods either does not take place or can be found quickly if such an occurrence does happen. The promise of this technology for archival professionals is that the inventorying and tracking of large amounts of archival materials, especially those in large archival collections for which item-level listing may be impossible. While there are a number of questions as to the beneficence for archives, RFID technology could be in the near future the way that many large and medium archives track their archival collections in storage.
RFID is defined as “a generic term for a set of technologies that use radio frequency (RF) to communicate data (a central component of which is an identity—specifically, a unique number)” (Resource #1). RFID systems consist of three main parts: an RFID tag, a reader, and the software for the system. An RFID tag is a small microchip with a radio antenna; these chips have a memory capacity to store identification data about the item with which the tag is partnered. Such tags are “read” by individuals through radio communication with a reader—a device having an antenna, transmitter, receiver, microprocessor, and memory storage capability that can make a contactless communication with the antenna of RFID tags (a PDA is an example of a reader). There can be portable readers such as PDAs (for manual checks) or stationary readers (which look like external harddrives) that are positioned throughout a room, emitting a continuous flow of information from the tags to a computer. The software allows the reader to process the information received and stored from the tags in a manner and framework which will be understandable to humans (Resource #2).
There are three varieties of RFID tags: active, passive, and semi-active. Active tags contain a silicone chip with a basic radio communication system present (an antenna and receiver), as well as an “on-board power source” (most often a battery) which keeps the tag “active” in order to continually transmit data to a reader. The read distance for active tags can be 100 feet or more, depending on the design of the tag. This type of tag is perhaps the least acceptable for use in archives due to the presence of a power source which—in contact with papers—could pose a potential danger to paper-based archival items. All tags whose data is programmed by a reader are said to have been “created” by the reader; additionally, when a created tag has had its data associated with a particular item, the tag is said to be “commissioned” (Resource #3).
Passive tags are so labeled because they do not have batteries; rather, they receive power through their antenna from the reader and do not send information unless a reader’s signal activates the tag. Because there are no moving parts within this tag, they are expected to have very long life spans and capable of resistant extreme conditions. Experiments have shown passive tags can resist corrosion from chemicals and can function well even at temperatures as high as 400°F. Due to their endurance and inertness to materials, passive tags would serve as the most appropriate for use in archives (though their read distance is much shorter than active tags—anywhere from less than an inch to 30 feet). Semi-active tags use an on-board power supply to function for specialized purposes, while they can only transmit data by activation through the power of a reader. These tags can be read from a maximum distance of 100 feet (Resource #4).
RFID tags—like CDs—can be either read-only, write-once (R) or re-writable (RW). Read-only tags can have their memory programmed by the manufacturer or by the user once with the data for the item to be associated with each tag. While that is true in theory, in practice read-only tags can actually be re-programmed or re-written several times. Read-write tags (RW) can be read-write or reprogrammed anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 times (sometimes even more). These are the most expensive type of tag to make; they are also the least technologically secure, and as such are perhaps the least recommended for use in archives. In the future as the technology improves and production costs decrease, RW tags may become more of an option for archives (Resource #5).
RFID readers come in many variations, depending on the designer of the system and the uses for the system. Also known as “interrogators” (because they interrogate the information from the tags), readers are considered as the “central nervous system" of the RFID hardware (Resource #6). Readers operate within a “read zone,” the radius within which the radio transmitters of the tags can be picked up by a reader. The reader transmits AC power from its power source through the antenna to the tags, with the result being a transfer of data from the tags’ microprocessors. There are two types of readers based on their interface communication connections to a computer: 1) serial readers, which must be connected to computer’s serial port utilizing a cable; 2) network readers, which can communicate with a computer used both a cable and a wireless connection (network readers are almost identical to wireless network readers for standard network connections). Readers are further divided in to handheld and stationary readers. Stationary readers can be mounted on walls, doorways, or even moving objects (fork lifts, moving shelves, etc.) that are within the read zone; stationary readers are less expansive than portable readers typically, yet they need external antennas added. One version of a stationary reader is a RFID tag printer, which is capable of printing combination bar code/RFID tag labels. Portable readers, most commonly PDAs, contain internal antennas and can be passed over the items in a continuous motion—without line of sight to the tags. Portable readers can also exist in a similar form to those used in grocery stores to inventory stock. Portable readers’ effectiveness depends on their antenna signal strength, their battery life, and the size of memory (Resource #7).
Currently, RFID tags are used mainly for tracking and for inventorying. Tracking purposes include sub-dermal tagging (medical, child tracking, and animal tracking), security access cards, an anti-theft mechanism for merchandise in stores, marathons, airline baggage tags, and EZ-Pass and FasTrak road passes for cities like Chicago. Information about the item or person being tagged can be stored in the chip and retrieved through scanning. For inventorying, Wal-Mart, Target, and the U.S. Department of Defense are the first to use RFID tag inventories on a large scale. These organizations use RFID as a means of knowing where shipments are in-transit, rather than only knowing when they leave and arrive at their locations; thus, when inventories are being taken, they can include those items being shipped (Resource #8).
RFID systems have found their way actively into museums, and as a sideline into a number of libraries across America. An interactive science museum in San Francisco experimented with an RFID system labeled “eXspot” (due to the X-shaped readers positioned at exhibits) between 2002 and 2005. This museum used small cards or necklaces with embedded RFID tags which visitors could carry around and place on the stationary readers. The visitor’s RFID tag would relay pre-written exhibit information to a personal webpage for the visitor on the museum’s website; the purpose of the webpage is to provide the visitor with information on visited exhibits that they would enjoy exploring at will at home, with the ability to see photos of the exhibit items and show their family and friends. RFID is said to enhance the museum experience by allowing the individual to personalize their trip and learn what they want to learn, saving for later recall information and experiences that they would like to further investigate on their own. The Cleveland Museum of Art, one of the United States most prestigious art museums, will be using RFID technology in their exhibits in 2010 after a multi-year renovation project (Resource #9).
Libraries across the country have quickly become the most active users of RFID in the non-profit sector. California State University Library (Long Beach), UNLV Library, San Francisco Public Library, Berkeley (CA) Public Library, University of Connecticut libraries, New York Public Library, and North Canton (OH) Public Library are a few of the many libraries to be utilizing this new technology for inventorying shelved library books. Tags—replacing self-adhesive metal strips previously used in books—are placed in books checked out in pairs of 5-10 on radio frequency pads at the front desk. Inventories can be performed with portable readers shelf-by-shelf, saving time, money, and alerting librarians when books are out of place on a shelf. Robert Ferrari of California State University Library (Long Beach) states that “. . . ‘they had never performed an extensive inventory prior to having RFID. Now he inventories 5000 books per hour. The first time they did a partial inventory, Ferrari found 300 items they had recorded as lost or missing’” (Resource #10). UNLV Library estimated a savings of $40,000 for not having to replace about 500 materials previously believed to be lost.
RFID is now being discussed for use in archives, and has been implemented by records managers in various fields. The potential use for RFID in archives could be in placing passive RFID tags (the safest for use around archival materials) either on archival boxes or individual folders. This would enable archives to monitor through a reader the locations of various collections or folders from a collection within the storage area and reading room, as well as employee work area. The benefit would come in greatly reducing the chances of misplacing materials, misarranging collections, and ensuring that patrons and employees do not leave the archives with any collections or folders without permission. RFID readers can be set to alert someone when materials are being taken beyond a designated zone, or when certain rare or “high-level” materials are being used in locations where they should not be kept. Security, user records, and collection inventorying can all be improved with minimal intrusion to archival materials, especially since RFID does not require line-of-sight to read tags (useful for medium to large archives). As of yet, however, many archives—including the National Archives—are holding off utilizing RFID tags until the technology improves, security issues can be addressed successfully, and the cost-benefit of changing inventory systems can all be improved (Resource #11).
Records management benefits from RFID as “RIM professionals using RFID now have the ability to actually check files out—and back in—to users with no intermediation. They also can track and monitor files and records with extreme accuracy, not only within the room but throughout the entire facility” (Resource #12). A law firm dealing with patent law began an RFID system from Checkpoint Systems, Inc. in 1999 to manage its 12,000 files and growing, with the result of a great amount of time saved and legal research moving faster. Since records management deals with active materials, passive RFID tags would more immediately benefit RM rather than archives, at least until more archives-friendly adhesive labels and tags are developed. They would be especially beneficial for government record keepers, who are tasked with trying to keep track of lack numbers of records which are continually being utilized (Resource #13).
While RFID technology poses a huge benefit to archives, there are some serious difficulties to the implementation of the technology in archives. As with all new computer-based innovations, technological theft can be a potential hurdle as—theoretically—anyone with a reader and the right software can find where all the “rare” archival materials are located. Also in the realm of possibility is the ability of a person with a reader to re-program the RFID tags on archival boxes or folders. New protocols, algorithms, and codes are being instituted to protect this from happening, however the technology must catch up with the propensity for misuse of RFID before it can be feasible for archives to invest in it (Resource #14).
A second concern with RFID is the labels utilized for the tags: the adhesives of the tags could damage archival materials through off-gassing. Additionally, the labels’ adhesive could fail with time, or the labels could be pulled off of the archival boxes or folders accidentally. This concern could be solved by the implant of grain-sized RFID tags into acid-free folders and archival boxes, without the use of adhesive labels. Software upgrading can also be an issue, as many companies currently producing RFID tags have proprietary claims on them; several of these companies include 3M, Checkpoint Systems, Inc., and Virtua Library Services. Currently, standards devised by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to delineate communication between readers and tags have been implemented in order to form better interoperability with in-place computer platforms of organizations. Time and money to program the tags is another issue for archives and libraries that do not have the resources to begin and RFID system for their collections (Resource #15).
Some materials, such as metals and water, absorb or deflect radio waves (RF-absorbent or RF-opaque), giving incomplete or no readings for tagged files or boxes during the inventory or tracking of materials. This depends on the radio frequency of the tags. There are three types of radio frequency: low frequency (LF), high frequency (HF), and ultra high frequency (UHF). UHF gives the best transfer rate of data and largest read zone, while LF can transmit with better success. Older RFID tags could not be read well on items stacked two-to-three deep on shelves; while this issue has been solved greatly in recent years, there could still be the occasional non-read of tagged items that could be on archives’ shelves. RFID tags are thought to endure indefinitely (principally passive tags), yet there is no sure way of knowing how long these tags can last. Although RFID stands to be an excellent future option for use in archives, at present the technology is in its infancy (comparable to radio technology in the 1940s versus the 1990s). As technology rapidly advances, the reality is that by the mid 2010s, RFID could be in many large and medium-sized archives throughout the United States.
Resources
1) Radio Frequency Identification Technologies: A Workshop Summary. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004). Viewed on May 21, 2009, at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11189&page=R1.
2) Sandip Lahiri, RFID Sourcebook (New York: IBM, 2006), 3-17; Radio Frequency; Roy Want, RFID Explained: A Primer on Radio Frequency Identification Technologies (Morgan & Claypool, 2006), 7-9.
3) Lahiri, RFID Sourcebook, 3-17; Radio Frequency Identification Technologies.
4) Lahiri, RFID Sourcebook, 3-17, 52-53; Radio Frequency Identification Technologies.
5) Lahiri, RFID Sourcebook, 19-20, 50-51; Want, RFID Explained, 63-66.
6) Lahiri, RFID Sourcebook, 22; Radio Frequency Identification Technologies.
7) Lahiri, RFID Sourcebook, 22-29; Radio Frequency Identification Technologies.
8) Lahiri, RFID Sourcebook, 63-88; Want, RFID Explained, 4, 29-40.
9) “Advantages of RFID in Museum Setting.” NJE Consulting. Viewed at http://www.nje.ca/RFID_ Museum.htm; Silvia Filippini-Fantoni and Jonathan P. Bowen, “Mobile Multimedia: Reflections from Ten Years of Practice,” Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media, Loic Tallon and Kevin Walker, eds. (New York: AltaMira, 2008), 85-85, 135-139; Farhat Khan, “Museum Puts Tags on Stuffed Birds.” RFID Journal (Sept. 7, 2004).Viewed at http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/1110/1/; Wessel, Rhea. “RFID Helps Malaysian Museums Track Artifacts.” RFID Journal (June 22, 2007). Viewed at http://www.cbs.com.my/english/news/rfidjournal.pdf.
10) Laura Smart, “Making Sense of RFID,” Library Journal 129 (Fall 2004), 4-6. Viewed on EBSCO at http://search.ebscohost.com.; Diane Ward, “Radio Frequency Identification Systems for Libraries and Archives: An Introduction.” Library & Archival Security 18.2 (2003): 15-19. Viewed on EBSCO at http://search.ebscohost.com.
11) ACERA Meeting Minutes, 11/06/08,” Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives (Meeting NO. 7). Viewed at http://www.archives.gov/era/pdf/acera7-minutes-110608-final.pdf; Paul Brachfeld (Office of Inspector General), “Audit Memorandum 06-07, Evaluation of Management Control Program for FY 2005,” National Archives and Records Administration (December 21, 2005). Viewed at http://www.archives.gov/oig/
pdf/audit-report-06-07.pdf.
12) Michael J. Faber, “RFID: The Next Tool for Managing Records?” Information Management Journal 36.6 (Nov./Dec. 2002), 62. Viewed at EBSCO at http://search.ebscohost.com.
13) Faber, “RFID,” 62.
14) Lahiri, RFID Sourcebook, 108-109.
15) Ward, “Radio Frequency,” 15-19.
Showing posts with label archives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label archives. Show all posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Falsely-dated Lincoln Pardon, Archives, and the Public's Expectations
The past month of January 2011 has brought much pressure and bad spotlight upon the archival community with the announcement of the doctoring of a Lincoln military pardon date written on April 14, 1864, having changed it to April 14, 1865, the last day Lincoln was alive. The report from the Associated Press states that "[Thomas] Lowry's purported discovery was hailed by historians when he came forward in 1998. At the time, a Civil War expert with the Archives said Lowry had made 'a unique and substantial contribution to Lincoln research and to the study of the Civil War.' The National Archives gave the document prominent display, putting it on tour along with other important Lincoln documents" (Viewed on February 2, 2011, at http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/nation/2011/01/archives-historian-tampered-lincoln-pardon-0). Now, eventually an archivist spotted the change and investigated the document's date, but it took far too long, and the National Archives bought into Lowry's reason for changing the date without having done a through, historical check on the letter in the first place: they believed it to be a historically-significant document and used it as an attraction. Now, I'm not blaming the National Archives for anything except jumping the gun--going against the principles all young archivists are taught in graduate school--because they are a large organization. I blame Mr. Lowry, obviously. But that's not the point.
The point is that due to this fiasco, what brought good recognition to the NA for about 12 years has now brought a questioning public who already does not understand the concept of an archives, archival principles, or preservation of records and public access to public historical records. There are calls for higher security in archives (which archives can barely afford now, for many small to medium sized institutions), only those with high "academic credentials" to be allowed access to the records (though Mr. Lowry was a highly-respected history author, and would have been trusted at any archives), and greater protection of the records from too much use (already something people don't understand when you tell them a record is being protected and can't be used--they ask, "so why have it if no one can use it"). I personally have seen worse damages caused by patrons on historical records, including one page of an 1860s marriage record book ripped out by a person wanting to frame the marriage record of their ancestors on their wall at home (despite all the other families' records that were on that page and are gone now).
This incident will bring pressure to restrict records that are needed by all researchers--college students, amateurs, etc.--in order to keep them "safe." Yet, as with the War on Terror, we trade freedoms for safety. Archival liberty has been impinged upon by a historical terrorist. I ask, though, if this historical document was not concerning an important date in Lincoln's life--if it was now "'becomes one of many pardons that Lincoln signed'" (http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/nation/2011/01/archives-historian-tampered-lincoln-pardon-0), would anyone care or have notice? Would archivists trained to notice have noticed? Would the public care anything about security at archival institutions if this was not Abraham Lincoln's legacy with which had been toyed?
The sad part is that this incident shows how poorly the archives field has done in making itself known to the public about what it does and how it manages the records placed in its trust. The incident shows that people expect absolute protection by archivists of the public's historical records, but the public doesn't understand or doesn't wish to cooperate with archivists regarding bringing no pens into archives (or bringing cell phones with cameras in, for that matter). It puts greater strain on archivists' already limited resources, and makes the profession jumping about allowing the public to see records that it might have before this Lincoln pardon incident. You might disagree with me on how archives are viewed by the public, especially after the success of major programs like the American Memory project by NARA and the Chronicling America newspaper digitization project that genealogists love so much. However, when I tell people I'm an archivist, I get blank stares until I say, "It's working in museums, historical societies, preserving historical records and papers" that people go "Oh, that's cool," recognizing the concept vaguely, but not understanding why it matters or what it entails. But now when I say "archivist," I'll get, "Have you heard about that falsified Lincoln pardon."
The author of this blog participated in a Q&A live blog session January 27, 2011, with David S. Ferriero, the current Archivist of the United States, on the Washington Post's website. Reading the questions from the general public and his answers shows me the gap between the professional understanding of archivists and the professional expectations of the public. I asked him a question that makes me nervous as a young professional interested in a profession that is a little freer than most as far as personnel oversight (it's not the FBI or the Pentagon) and demands interacting with the public constantly using original, one-of-a-kind historic records. I asked: "Q: As both a historian and a young archival professional, I am wondering how much more restriction you will see being placed upon both researchers and archivists in reading room settings? Are additional cameras and biometrics the next step in archives for security?" The reply was rather uninspiring, and bothersome to me: "A: Security is an ongoing and continually changing process as we learn more about human nature and new tools at our disposal to ensure that the records are protected. Eternal vigilance is our mantra" (the transcript for this blog session can be found at http://live.washingtonpost.com/altered-lincoln-pardon.html). "Eternal vigilance"? "Learn[ing] more about human nature"? I think after thousands of years of studying human nature, we realize that people are going to serve their own selfish ends, and don't mind destroying historic items to do so. And "eternal vigilance" didn't stop the incident from happening in 1998.
The bottom line of this whole post: without the public's knowledge about our field, how can there be in increase in funding, program involvement, public history/archives internship opportunities for completion of Masters' degrees, support for preservation of county and state records, and so forth? With my experience in a county archives setting, I can tell you one of the first things to be said in a meeting with a county board of commissioners or similar body with the county archivist is this: are you protecting your records from having things like the Lowry incident from occurring? Why should archives be funded if incidents like the Lincoln pardon are all the news stories that the public remembers about an archives? What will be the impact on donor relations after such an incident? Archivists are busy enough as is, but there needs to be much more proactive involvement of archives in communities, so when these bad incidents happen the public understands better as to how such things can occur. It will protect us from losing public support, and in turn help better protect this country's historic records. We need to take better advantage of newspapers (weekly news articles from local archives, anyone?), television, internet video broadcasting (high school A/V students shooting short videos in archives as student projects and posting on the archives' YouTube page?), and blogs. The only way to beat bad press is with your own good press, and the public's support. We need more than "Eternal vigilance."
These are just some observations. Productive dialogue is welcome.
-Matthew, the Eclectic Archivist
The point is that due to this fiasco, what brought good recognition to the NA for about 12 years has now brought a questioning public who already does not understand the concept of an archives, archival principles, or preservation of records and public access to public historical records. There are calls for higher security in archives (which archives can barely afford now, for many small to medium sized institutions), only those with high "academic credentials" to be allowed access to the records (though Mr. Lowry was a highly-respected history author, and would have been trusted at any archives), and greater protection of the records from too much use (already something people don't understand when you tell them a record is being protected and can't be used--they ask, "so why have it if no one can use it"). I personally have seen worse damages caused by patrons on historical records, including one page of an 1860s marriage record book ripped out by a person wanting to frame the marriage record of their ancestors on their wall at home (despite all the other families' records that were on that page and are gone now).
This incident will bring pressure to restrict records that are needed by all researchers--college students, amateurs, etc.--in order to keep them "safe." Yet, as with the War on Terror, we trade freedoms for safety. Archival liberty has been impinged upon by a historical terrorist. I ask, though, if this historical document was not concerning an important date in Lincoln's life--if it was now "'becomes one of many pardons that Lincoln signed'" (http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/nation/2011/01/archives-historian-tampered-lincoln-pardon-0), would anyone care or have notice? Would archivists trained to notice have noticed? Would the public care anything about security at archival institutions if this was not Abraham Lincoln's legacy with which had been toyed?
The sad part is that this incident shows how poorly the archives field has done in making itself known to the public about what it does and how it manages the records placed in its trust. The incident shows that people expect absolute protection by archivists of the public's historical records, but the public doesn't understand or doesn't wish to cooperate with archivists regarding bringing no pens into archives (or bringing cell phones with cameras in, for that matter). It puts greater strain on archivists' already limited resources, and makes the profession jumping about allowing the public to see records that it might have before this Lincoln pardon incident. You might disagree with me on how archives are viewed by the public, especially after the success of major programs like the American Memory project by NARA and the Chronicling America newspaper digitization project that genealogists love so much. However, when I tell people I'm an archivist, I get blank stares until I say, "It's working in museums, historical societies, preserving historical records and papers" that people go "Oh, that's cool," recognizing the concept vaguely, but not understanding why it matters or what it entails. But now when I say "archivist," I'll get, "Have you heard about that falsified Lincoln pardon."
The author of this blog participated in a Q&A live blog session January 27, 2011, with David S. Ferriero, the current Archivist of the United States, on the Washington Post's website. Reading the questions from the general public and his answers shows me the gap between the professional understanding of archivists and the professional expectations of the public. I asked him a question that makes me nervous as a young professional interested in a profession that is a little freer than most as far as personnel oversight (it's not the FBI or the Pentagon) and demands interacting with the public constantly using original, one-of-a-kind historic records. I asked: "Q: As both a historian and a young archival professional, I am wondering how much more restriction you will see being placed upon both researchers and archivists in reading room settings? Are additional cameras and biometrics the next step in archives for security?" The reply was rather uninspiring, and bothersome to me: "A: Security is an ongoing and continually changing process as we learn more about human nature and new tools at our disposal to ensure that the records are protected. Eternal vigilance is our mantra" (the transcript for this blog session can be found at http://live.washingtonpost.com/altered-lincoln-pardon.html). "Eternal vigilance"? "Learn[ing] more about human nature"? I think after thousands of years of studying human nature, we realize that people are going to serve their own selfish ends, and don't mind destroying historic items to do so. And "eternal vigilance" didn't stop the incident from happening in 1998.
The bottom line of this whole post: without the public's knowledge about our field, how can there be in increase in funding, program involvement, public history/archives internship opportunities for completion of Masters' degrees, support for preservation of county and state records, and so forth? With my experience in a county archives setting, I can tell you one of the first things to be said in a meeting with a county board of commissioners or similar body with the county archivist is this: are you protecting your records from having things like the Lowry incident from occurring? Why should archives be funded if incidents like the Lincoln pardon are all the news stories that the public remembers about an archives? What will be the impact on donor relations after such an incident? Archivists are busy enough as is, but there needs to be much more proactive involvement of archives in communities, so when these bad incidents happen the public understands better as to how such things can occur. It will protect us from losing public support, and in turn help better protect this country's historic records. We need to take better advantage of newspapers (weekly news articles from local archives, anyone?), television, internet video broadcasting (high school A/V students shooting short videos in archives as student projects and posting on the archives' YouTube page?), and blogs. The only way to beat bad press is with your own good press, and the public's support. We need more than "Eternal vigilance."
These are just some observations. Productive dialogue is welcome.
-Matthew, the Eclectic Archivist
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Gap Between MLIS and MA in the Archival World
As a currently job-seeking archivist, I have during this past year become ever more increasingly aware of the gap between archivists who have MLIS degrees and those with M..A. degrees in public history or archival studies. This is not a new issue, nor one that most of you readers probably would be taken surprise by; yet it is an issue that is putting young professionals in a quandary and sitting on the outskirts of the job market. After attending a prominent archives conference in the Midwest this year, it became abundantly clear that those with MLIS degrees often are much better at cataloguing and access-related issues for archives, than they are at actual understanding of the historical subject matters in the materials they deal with on a daily basis.
Many MLIS archivists I encountered in workshops would be asking simple questions such as "how do you describe XYZ" in archival databases or encoded schema (such as ContentDM or EAD), and those leading the workshops often simply responded that you enter the description in the "Description" field or under the collection abstract. Some of the most basic archival procedures or descriptive standards often appear as complicated codices, needing precise slots to fill information in or else the archivist is lost. Now, I truly realize this to be a great generalization, and I mean no insult or questioning of the skills of those MLIS degrees whom have led the way in the archival profession. On the other hand, from my perspective as both a researcher and a young archivist, I believe much of the archival community has missed the mark in their field. What I mean is that, while many groups and organizations cannot afford to high a full-time qualified archivist, other institutions hiring archivists zero in on only the MLIS candidates; frequently this is due to their being a library within a university setting.
What we find is a large number of unemployed individuals with M.A.s in Public History or Archival Studies who cannot get work in the field, while those institutions seeking only an MLIS candidate are taking longer and longer to find archivists to fill their positions. A number of states with some of the best archival institutions in the nation also have few, MLIS archives programs: the state of Ohio, for example, only has one ALA-accredited school in Kent State University, making it hard for many interested in the archival profession to gain the "accepted degree" for archivists (though the state of Ohio also has some of the best history and public history programs in the country, many of these students still have to earn a MLIS from an institution to get in the field). What would an institution rather have: someone who does not have as much library experience but has a solid background in history, historical research, and practical experience processing and preserving archival collections, or an MLIS candidate who frequently only has a couple of archival classes and volunteer experience in a library archives setting? An example of the struggle many wanting to get a professional degree in archival studies are having was discussed a few years ago in an online forum at the Chronicle of Higher Education's website: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=32957.0
The fact of the matter is that archival materials, though they may contain items that are frequently encountered in library collections (i.e. audio recordings, books, etc.), are historical records, and the current prevailing trend of librarians falling library guidelines for processing historical collections makes it very difficult for historians to do research in a historiographical manner. Archival materials often do not follow logical historical categorizations unless the MLIS archivist has an extensive history background. Personally, I would prefer going to an archives for research and encountering a historian working as an archivist, with all the necessary archivist training, than an MLIS archivist. I feel that the disconnect between MLIS and M.A. professionals has and is creating a lost repository of records: as archivists fight over electronic descriptive standards and HTML/XML codings of finding aids, many users don't even understand the searching tools or division of materials used in these "archival online databases." Some of the findings aids I've encountered would take an actual archivist to understand. The result is a lot of unprocessed and undescribed archival materials sitting in backrooms where researchers don't even really know what's there, all the while archives are worried about keeping up with the current generation through Facebook and Twitter (though they have not yet solved how to save the information created for these online social networks).
I realize this again is very general. Archivists are not to blame for everything that is troubling archival materials in the United States. Budget cuts, board of directors' push for new programs, lack of supplies, and other such devices that distract archivists from their work have caused a lot of problems. Too much to do, too little time is the oft-cited mantra. But we need to buckle down and deal with what we have in our collections. The best outreach and donor relations are processed collections. This brings us back to the issue at the heart of this post: MLIS vs. M.A. Those archivists with history degrees bring professional connections to an archival repository that many MLIS professionals lack, and the more connection an archives has to professional historical organizations the more need for one's collections will be brought to the institution. Yes, online is the demand of the time; but even more so than instantaneous access should be the issue of general access. Archivists, we need to unite, regardless of the degree, to work together. As long as there continues to be a bias in favor of MLIS professionals in the archival community, the nation's records will continue to suffer.
-Matthew, the Eclectic Archivist
P.S. As a post script, since the initial writing of this post, I have gone to the darkside and am now in a MLIS program so I can compete better for an archives job. My one professor, who has worked in archives, made a very interesting statement to the class about cataloging. He said that cataloging archives is a whole other ballpark from standard AACR2R and MARC cataloging approaches, mainly because most archival collections are not an individual item themselves, unlike books or audio recordings. It takes a different mindset to process archives. You know I agree with him, which is the biggest reason I, as a historian, don't agree with this MLIS bias in archives. It's improving, and more institutions are recognizing the M.A. public history programs, but if you have the experience and training, that should be what matters in locating archival jobs.
Many MLIS archivists I encountered in workshops would be asking simple questions such as "how do you describe XYZ" in archival databases or encoded schema (such as ContentDM or EAD), and those leading the workshops often simply responded that you enter the description in the "Description" field or under the collection abstract. Some of the most basic archival procedures or descriptive standards often appear as complicated codices, needing precise slots to fill information in or else the archivist is lost. Now, I truly realize this to be a great generalization, and I mean no insult or questioning of the skills of those MLIS degrees whom have led the way in the archival profession. On the other hand, from my perspective as both a researcher and a young archivist, I believe much of the archival community has missed the mark in their field. What I mean is that, while many groups and organizations cannot afford to high a full-time qualified archivist, other institutions hiring archivists zero in on only the MLIS candidates; frequently this is due to their being a library within a university setting.
What we find is a large number of unemployed individuals with M.A.s in Public History or Archival Studies who cannot get work in the field, while those institutions seeking only an MLIS candidate are taking longer and longer to find archivists to fill their positions. A number of states with some of the best archival institutions in the nation also have few, MLIS archives programs: the state of Ohio, for example, only has one ALA-accredited school in Kent State University, making it hard for many interested in the archival profession to gain the "accepted degree" for archivists (though the state of Ohio also has some of the best history and public history programs in the country, many of these students still have to earn a MLIS from an institution to get in the field). What would an institution rather have: someone who does not have as much library experience but has a solid background in history, historical research, and practical experience processing and preserving archival collections, or an MLIS candidate who frequently only has a couple of archival classes and volunteer experience in a library archives setting? An example of the struggle many wanting to get a professional degree in archival studies are having was discussed a few years ago in an online forum at the Chronicle of Higher Education's website: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=32957.0
The fact of the matter is that archival materials, though they may contain items that are frequently encountered in library collections (i.e. audio recordings, books, etc.), are historical records, and the current prevailing trend of librarians falling library guidelines for processing historical collections makes it very difficult for historians to do research in a historiographical manner. Archival materials often do not follow logical historical categorizations unless the MLIS archivist has an extensive history background. Personally, I would prefer going to an archives for research and encountering a historian working as an archivist, with all the necessary archivist training, than an MLIS archivist. I feel that the disconnect between MLIS and M.A. professionals has and is creating a lost repository of records: as archivists fight over electronic descriptive standards and HTML/XML codings of finding aids, many users don't even understand the searching tools or division of materials used in these "archival online databases." Some of the findings aids I've encountered would take an actual archivist to understand. The result is a lot of unprocessed and undescribed archival materials sitting in backrooms where researchers don't even really know what's there, all the while archives are worried about keeping up with the current generation through Facebook and Twitter (though they have not yet solved how to save the information created for these online social networks).
I realize this again is very general. Archivists are not to blame for everything that is troubling archival materials in the United States. Budget cuts, board of directors' push for new programs, lack of supplies, and other such devices that distract archivists from their work have caused a lot of problems. Too much to do, too little time is the oft-cited mantra. But we need to buckle down and deal with what we have in our collections. The best outreach and donor relations are processed collections. This brings us back to the issue at the heart of this post: MLIS vs. M.A. Those archivists with history degrees bring professional connections to an archival repository that many MLIS professionals lack, and the more connection an archives has to professional historical organizations the more need for one's collections will be brought to the institution. Yes, online is the demand of the time; but even more so than instantaneous access should be the issue of general access. Archivists, we need to unite, regardless of the degree, to work together. As long as there continues to be a bias in favor of MLIS professionals in the archival community, the nation's records will continue to suffer.
-Matthew, the Eclectic Archivist
P.S. As a post script, since the initial writing of this post, I have gone to the darkside and am now in a MLIS program so I can compete better for an archives job. My one professor, who has worked in archives, made a very interesting statement to the class about cataloging. He said that cataloging archives is a whole other ballpark from standard AACR2R and MARC cataloging approaches, mainly because most archival collections are not an individual item themselves, unlike books or audio recordings. It takes a different mindset to process archives. You know I agree with him, which is the biggest reason I, as a historian, don't agree with this MLIS bias in archives. It's improving, and more institutions are recognizing the M.A. public history programs, but if you have the experience and training, that should be what matters in locating archival jobs.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Welcome to the Launch of Archivalpendium2.0
Welcome to the Launch of Archivalpendium2.0, a blog devoted to discussing the hot topics of the archival community, issues related to archives and researching in primary sources, and interactions between users and archives from the perspective of a young archivist/historical researcher. The hope of the author of this blog is that archivists will find the perspectives challenging and fresh, offering them insight into how users feel about the developments archives make in the public sector, whether it be online archival repositories or public education programs.
This blog will also attempt to review websites of archives and historical societies that hold some of America's most important, exciting, relevant, or unknown collections. There will be analysis of websites' interface, searching capabilities for archival material, presentation of online collections, and much more. This is not meant as a rant-and-rave outlet for a rebellious archivist. Rather, it will hopefully provide the archival community with a greater connection to what the younger generation of users needs and thinks about the services and programs provided by archives across the country. Please come visit again as the author brings you an "Archivalpendium" of all things archives 2.0 in the 21st century.
-Matthew, the Eclectic Archivist
This blog will also attempt to review websites of archives and historical societies that hold some of America's most important, exciting, relevant, or unknown collections. There will be analysis of websites' interface, searching capabilities for archival material, presentation of online collections, and much more. This is not meant as a rant-and-rave outlet for a rebellious archivist. Rather, it will hopefully provide the archival community with a greater connection to what the younger generation of users needs and thinks about the services and programs provided by archives across the country. Please come visit again as the author brings you an "Archivalpendium" of all things archives 2.0 in the 21st century.
-Matthew, the Eclectic Archivist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)