Comments:

2012-08-01 16:11:39 | anon id: 4666

I have considered this issue​more in the last week in an​efroft to really give it​fuller consideration, but it​still is not rising above a​certain level of meh for me.​If I did care, I would have​voted in the poll for the next​AOTUS to be someone who knows​how to run a large and complex​government organization first​(which I believe thereby​implies that they know a thing​or two about advocacy and​lobbying) with a solid​knowledge of issues related to​archives and/or history and​technology. The AOTUS​isn't keeping archivists​on the edge of their seats​with exciting new outreach,​access, preservation,​description, etc. archival​tools and methods that they​themselves are launching. The​AOTUS is there to lead a​federal agency, advocate for​that agency and its goals, set​priorities, provide a face and​voice at that level of​government and professional​colleagues, etc.The AOTUS​should not necessarily be a​former president of SAA or​another professional​organization because that​level of professional service​does not necessarily have​anything to do with an​individual's ability to​lead a complex government​agency. Sure, it sounds nice​that one of our people would​be in the position of AOTUS,​but SAA presidents-no matter​how successful or​admired-carry their own​political baggage (no matter​how SAA-centric or trivial).I​think when I was a younger,​slightly fresher faced​archivist I thought NARA would​provide resources and support​similar to what I was used to​my state historical​society/archives/library​providing (to varying degrees​by state): training for​archivists from throughout the​state (whether you worked for​a government entity or the​Brotherhood of Really​Important People); leadership​on cooperative description,​collection development,​digitization, etc.​projects/training;​coordinating issues of mutual​interest such as loaning​collections between​institutions; etc. I realize​that NARA's​responsibility is to act as a​custodian (and so much more)​for federal records, but I do​think that there could be more​sharing of the great things​NARA knows and is figuring out​how to do (and I'm not​just talking about the nth​presentation at a conference​about ERA).As I considered​these comments again,​I've wondered if I'm​expecting more from NARA: do​what degree to folks with an​interest in environmental,​land-use, etc. issues expect​the EPA to assist their​efrofts? Do museum​professionals look to the​Smithsonian? Yet the legal​profession takes cues from the​Dept. of Justice and the​SCOTUS, no? So the question​for me remains, what does NARA​mean to me as an archivist​(other than a place for former​students to find a job and​then find themselves in golden​handcuffs)?I return to the​practical: it is important to​me as a non-NARA archivist​that NARA be a well-run agency​and not provide any​embarrassments a la the​National Zoo's string of​animal deaths and the​Smithsonian's well-known​leadership turmoil of a few​years ago. Should I want more?​Probably. Can I expect more? I​can only hope the next AOTUS​will have a greater vision for​more from NARA.

2012-08-03 06:26:58 | anon id: 4742

in my note above, there​does seem to be a place for​using e2€œcitizen​archiviste2€9d to refer​to soemone who takes​responsibility for carrying​out archival functions for​records or papers that are​either their own personal​property or which are​currently not under the​custodianship of an archives​or archivist. As far as I can​tell, this is not the kind of​work volunteers would be doing​for the National Archives. In​a traditional physical​archives if you have​volunteers working on​transcribing records,​photocopying or scanning​materials, helping to identify​or date photographs, writing​supplementary materials for a​finding aid, or working on a​special project to make​materials more accessible, how​would you refer to them? I do​not think you would call them​a citizen archivist or even​a volunteer archivist. The​usual term to describe these​people is volunteers. If a​different, sexier term is​needed to bring attention and​increased value to these kinds​of contributions in an online​environment, I still contend​that we need to be conscious​about ensuring that there is a​clear distinction between the​work of volunteers and the​work of professionals. Again,​I don't think anyone​would say that soemone who​volunteers in a hospital is a ​citizen doctor because the​professional credentials and​expertise required to become a​doctor are so well known.​Unfortunately, as we know,​that is not the case for​archivists. The issue of​whether putting citizen in​front of it mitigates the​problem or not is matter of​personal perception, I think.​Your perception is that it​makes it clear that the person​is an amateur, and therefore​the distinction is clear. My​perception is that it implies​that the person is essentially​carrying out the same function​(as in citizen journalist )​but simply lacks the​credentials or formal job​title. My perception of the​term is that a citizen​archivist is essentially an​archivist who is acting on​their own initiative, without​any formal role. That's​how I perceive the term. I do​not see this as an opportunity​for education, but rather for​increasing confusion. I do not​think people will stop to pay​attention to a discussion of​what the difference is between​a citizen' and a ​professional archivist is.​They will see that soemone who​volunteers to make copies of​materials held by an archives​and then posts them on another​site is being called an​archivist, and they may come​away thinking that anyone who​preserves copies of original​materials is an archivist. All​of this discussion is really​academic, in a way. Unless Mr.​Ferriero is planning to launch​a major PR initiative to​attract more citizen​archivists, I don't​think the term will get much​publicity. But he did bring up​the question, so I thought it​was important to provide some​thoughtful dialogue (which all​of you have done). The book​I'm editing has an essay​from Elizabeth Yakel on the​changing role of archival​authority in the 2.0 world,​and so perhaps that is also in​my mind as well. I think​it's important, for a​host of reasons, to establish​and maintain the role of the​archivist as one of authority​not the only authority, not a​supreme or all-knowing​authority, but an authority.​Now this is wandering off into​a different topic, but that​may explain in part why​I'm more cautious about​establishing precedents for​granting perhaps too much​perceived authority to online​volunteers. They are valuable​contributors and can be​recognized as having authority​in their own areas of​expertise, but we must be​recognized as having authority​in the field of archives. But,​as I said previously, I think​a lot of this comes down to​how we each perceive the term,​and that will vary from person​to person. It does seem to be​a good starting point for a​discussion of professional​identity, however,​doesn't it?

Add your comment:

Permalink:

Create your own anonymous voting poll

Get paid for your OPINION