Archive for category Policy and Leadership

Submission Policy Recommendations

As I’ve been working with my Office of Intellectul Freedom and Lauterbur files over the past week, it occured to me that it would be a good time to update the recommendations section of this site, particularly the pages regarding submission policies that can be used for overall guidance or with donors.  As a result, I posted two new pages,  an E-records deposit policy and a Preservation/Access Plan, presented in tabular/downoadable format.

I plan to tweak each of these documents for use at the University of Illinois Archives, after I return from sabbatical.  The preservation/access plan is probably the more useful of the two, since I used it to provide a list of supported and preferred preservation formats, as well as open source that a repository can use to render the supported and preserved formats, with relatively little short or medium term risk to the files, based on a passive preservation strategy.

While using such policies would not substitute for an active preservation plan, based either on migration or emulation, using policies like these might be considered and essential first step toward building capacity for such a plan, and I do not think the supporting the software needed to implement it would be beyond the capacity of any archives, if you use a variant of my do-it yourself TDR.

No Comments

Transfer Guidelines

“What should I do to get the files ready for you?”  Any archivist knows that such a question, coming from a potential donor, is inherently problematic—especially if the archivist has not yet surveyed the records in question.  Records creators with good intentions can cause unwitting damage in reorganizing paper files.  Those with less transparent motives are tempted expunge records that that they feel could be misinterpreted or would cast them in a bad light.   Such possibilities are even more acute in the electronic realm, where mass deletions are only a click away.  When donor take matters into their own hands, the historical record is altered forever—notwithstanding the complete of heroic measures using forensic tools.

Nevertheless, donors are going to ask this question, and we need to be prepared to answer it.   This point was driven home to me when Patricia Whatley asked me to prepare some ‘simple’ advice ARMMS could give to a potential donor, prior to ARMMS assessing the e-records.  It seemed to me that any e-records program would need such a document to hand off to donors—if only to assist them in preparing for a complete records survey.   As a result, I’ve posted the results on my recommendation page. Feel free to use or modify it if you see fit.

It seemed to me the key point was to craft a document with two simple aims.  First, donor should  ‘do no harm’ if they follow the recommendations.  Second, the steps had to be simple enough for donors to understand and implement in a short period of time (several hours or less).  If you have any thoughts as to how the document can be improved, please let me know.

No Comments

Back from London


From Thames cruise view on Thames cruise

I have a few posts about e-records issues waiting in the wings, since I was gone all last week to the Fulbright Orientation in London and didn’t really have time to keep up with posting due to the sessions and events.  I won’t go into all of the details from the sessions–just a few general impressions.

First, I was very happy to see that there is a great deal of interest in electronic records issues among the other Fulbrighters (bios are here in PDF, 9.3 MB). The other Fulbright projects supply me a steady diet of ideas and or possible collaborations for my own work here.  I hate to pick out just a few since the group is extremely dynamic, but just to give you a flavor of the projects Fulbright has funded, I’ll discuss several.

Michael Trice, a graduate student in communication studies at the University of Texas, is working at the Center for Digital Citizenship to set up wikis for groups considered silent or underrepresented.  They will use these wikis and other digital media to document their experiences–my first question of course is, “how do we know this information will still be around in 50 years,” when in would really be interesting for research.  Another Fulbrighter, Vicki  Szabo, is an assistant professor of ancient and medieval history at Western Carolina University but trained as an archeaologist.  She is hoping to set up a database to assist in the identification of whale bones, to trace the earliest developments in whale hunting.  Marc Schollseberg, an Associate Professor of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon is focusing on sustainable design and community based participatory mapping (another issue near and dear to my heart since we are currently living without a car with 3 children–it actually is quite easy to do even here in our suburban village, Broughty Ferry.)  We also have a NYPD officer researching ways to investigate financial crimes, a graduate student in Royal College of Arts creating graphic desings for non-profit and charity social interventions, another investigating how protein misfolding can be prevented or reversed (a very important topic since misfolded proteins underly many diseases including Alzhiemers), and another looking at the changing definintions of property ownership and types of banks in the UK (many of which evolved from working class mutual aid associations I had investigated during my Ph.D research.)

Second, I feel humbled to be part of this group, which is composed of people with a huge amount of drive and vitality and who, quite honestly, left me feeling a bit out of my league.  I guess that’s why the most impressive part of the orientation for we was the panel discussion led by former Fulbrighters, in particular the remarks by Paul Berkman.  Paul encouraged us to be bold and reminded us that even if our projects seem small or we feel overwhelmed, we should aim high.  We should remember that we can make the world a better place.  But, it takes sustained effort in conjunction with our colleages inside or professions as well among those we wouldn’t immediately think to work with in other areas.

Paul made a bit impression on me since I’d be feeling quite frankly a little overwhelmed by the complexities of digital preservation and the need to read so many standards, learn about so many projects etc.  He reminded me that what archivists do is really, really important.  As I explained my project to others Fulbrighters, I began to see some of them understand why the keeping of records is important; it does give us both power and responsibility (putting on my Rand Jimerson hat for a second).  Paul encouraged us all to take real risks with our projects. Even if we end of looking silly or failing, the contacts we make will outlast the project, and set the stage for future work. I know it probably sounds trite when repeated here, but I really did find that the exposure to so many important projects and the wisdom of someone like Paul critical to re-convincing me that, as archivists, we can be leaders, not only in our profession, but in society as a whole.  Maybe the idea is naive, but it will be a lot more fun to shoot for the moon than to sit back and let others solve e-records problems in their own way, or complain incessantly about our low status and lack of respect among the general public or other IT professionals.

Tiger at London Zoo

London Zoo

Second, Linda, Andy, Grace, Molly and I had a great time exploring London after the formal orientation events were over.  Admittedly, I haven’t seen much of the world, but London is quite simply an amazing place for kids.  It really is wonderful to see their faces as the rode on the tube for the first time, saw Shakespeare acted out (when we toured the Globe, we say two songs in full dress rehearsal from Love’s Labour’s Lost), or just wandered through Bloomsbury.

Third, the British REALLY know how to do musuems and parks for kids.  We had noticed this before when visiting the Discovery Point and the Verdant Works in Dundee, but this trip really drove the point home.  The Science Musuem is filled with hands on interactive exhibits, particularly in the Launchpad.  They teach not only kids but also adults in a fun way–not just plop them in front of a meaningless video game or computer monitor.  The zoo is also, by far, the best I have ever seen for getting you close to animals, as you can see from the photo I posted.  (The only part that disappointed us a bit from the kids point of view was the British Musuem, the collections are incredible and well curated for adults.  But to me it seems they have put much more money into their huge courtyard centered around the old Library reading room than in thinking about how to encourage children to understand the collections or learn some history.  So if you come here with kids wait until that are at least 14 and/or can stand reading lost of long dense text to understand the significance of the objects on display.)  Aside from that, the kids just ate up the whole trip, and Linda and I hope so much we can take them back.

, ,

No Comments

“Sustaining the Future of Archives”

Another great talk this morning by Natalie Ceeney, Chief Exec of the National Archives, about the role that England’s National Archives is playing in shaping a vision and strategy for the archives sector in England.  Over last year, they developed a government policy/strategy for archives that will ulitmately get the stamp of approval from government.

As an American, it is a bit inconceivable for me to imagine that NARA would ever take such a strong leadership role in working to shape government policy and assist local archives as what TNA is doing.  NHPRC does this role to a certain extent, but its hand are tied so much by its anemic budget.  And it probably doesn’t match up well with the fact that associations tend to do this role in the US, given the fact our public sector is relatively speaking, smaller in GNP terms.

It is a bit of an open question for me, however, whether local archivists and archival user commuity ‘buys in’ to the vision Ceeney and TNA are setting, or how much they were consulted while putting together this plan.  Hope to explore that in side conversations.  However, there is no doubt that she has ear of many in govt. and has raised the profile or archives over the past severl years and that TNA is trying to reach out via projects described at the conference–more on that later:  Here are my edited notes from the her talk:

—-

In last 10 years, the world has changed immensely . . . pace of change for us has been so fast, none of us really can keep up with it all.  For example, ministry of justice wanted to know what was technology for archiving tweets.

High demands from users for digitization, People also assume they har a right to access of records; we also need to manage rccords from the point of creation.  And support local cultural agendas and authorities.

If national archives finds it hard to react w a staff of 700, we know that it will be hard at other agencies, there are partcicular issues around born-digital information, the volume is increasing radically.  Blogs, wikis, etc things can go through SO many iterations.  There is a surge of digital information that demands new skills.  Digital obsolesences is another issue, loss of information.  What is the record, lack of clarity when there are so many versions.

Other challenges—lack of key leadership (TNA vs TNLibrary.  It is a fragmented sector, 200 authorities, universities, etc.  TNA is 50% of profession’s employment in England  Other problems: There is a lack of clear clear progression through the profession.  Inequities of funding across the sector.

In short, here was a need for a new government policy. In 1999, the last plan, we pretty well did everything we said we would.  But the report did not work since it was not government policy, it was not ‘owned’ by government; it did not have government stamps on it or ministerial ownership.    Also, the workd changed too fast, Google, etc.

It took us longer to get current  strategy in place than with thought 6 month ‘educaton’ period to show government and ministers what archives actually do and why the are important.

Their approach—they wanted a policy that was an ‘enabler’–provide a vision, but not be presciptive.  Set a clear vision to that local methods can be used to meet a common goal.

Archives for the 21st century: Consultation Draft.  Recommendations: “Fewer, bigger, better”  meant, we need to work together, do things like work cross regions, share storage, to leverage scale., not close archives.    “Strengthening Leadership” This is to be achieved by merging professional associations and leadership.  “Skills”  Why is our profession too white and too middle class, what do we do to get a more vibrant workforce.  “Skills to manage digital archives”  Build skills, reconnect archives and records management.  It is unsustainable if we cannot merge records from the point of creation.  “Online Access”  digitized records and catalogs.  Working together, we have scale.  “Relevance of Archives to local community.

This is so important because of the economic crisis.  There is no money from national government.  How do we protect what we have?  TNA funding has been level for three years and will be for another three years.  We need to talk about why we matter, show that we generate benefits for the local community.

How does this policy get implemented?  Agenda has changed from growth and expansion.  The sector needs to go out and implement this role.  TNA wants to support you, but local archivists need to show to local authorities how they will implement the vision.  TNA will support them, give the message as to why archives matter.  Idea is to put a strategy forward and show why it is important, give advice, etc.  Mixture of top down strategy and bottom up pressure.

A lot of this is happening already—exploring Surrey’s past, Gloucestershire website, Connecting histories at Birmingham.  Examples like this across the UK.  Projects like these showcase why we matter.

TNA support:  Will work with MLA and progressional bodies to provided joined up leadership for the profession; initiatives to support digital preservation and digitization agendas.   Improving the assessment regime so that funding bodies can see results.  Raising the sector’s profile among decision makers.

Going forward we need to unite behind the strategy, we can help you by giving you tools you need, but we can’t get you more money.  Although we can show that we matter.

Questions:  “Archives are dead unless we reunite records management and archives”  Who is going to keep a twitter?  How are we going to record decisions appropriately.  Find case studies and embarrass leaders, talk about risk, show how they will lose their job if they don’t get their records under control.   Archives are in the best bargaining position when we can make people turn white.

From their point of view, this program is about enabling local decisions, but MLA and TNA leadership need to enable the best decision for the local environment by setting a common agenda behind which everyone can unit.

Ceeney’s guiding maxim, “If you don’t have a clear vision, someone is going to impose theirs on you.”   Example, if you don’t reunite archives and RM and actually work with records creators, they will develop their own ad hoc destruction policies.  Also recommends spending at least one day a week on advocacy and external relations to build your profile; it may seem to take away from core functions at first, but really, nothing is more essential.

Question: How will things look for our sector after anticipated conservative victory.  The party has not said exactly what it is going to do.  Tories have said they are going to abolish MLA.  TNA looks like it will survive.  Tories are talking about restructuring local government but no one really knows what this means.


2 Comments