Debate #1
Recently on the Archives & Archivists (A&A) listserv there has been much discussion about reappraisal and deaccessioning of materials. I wrote an article a few years back with Carol Ellis of the USA Archives in Mobile for Provenance about a project we worked on doing some deaccessioning and a second appraisal. But deaccessioning and second appraisals are just reappraisals of materials. Deaccessioning takes this reappraisal another step, though, by giving action to theoretical decisions.
What caught my interest tonight was a news article that came across my desktop a few minutes ago. It caught my attention because it brings to light another area of appraisal, though I'm not sure which of two it could be. The story is that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has worked out a deal with the Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly the INS) to preserve and make available alien registration files from post-1944. These files, known collectively as A-files, contain a wealth of information about immigrants: birth date and place, immigration place and date, marriage scrolls, residences, and much more. They are a treasure trove for anyone with ancestors who immigrated here after World War II. Surprisingly, the files even contain records of mail order brides!
What makes the decision unique is that under federal retention guidelines, these files were slated for destruction after 75 years, or beginning this year. But NARA put a hold on the destruction and now the files will become available later this year in Kansas City and, for immigrants to California (primarily Chinese), in San Bruno, California. The files made available will be for those immigrants who were born at least 100 years ago (before 1909). In five years, another batch of files, for those immigrants born between 1909-1914) will be made available. AP Press reports say that the first batch will be over twenty million records.
Why is this important for archivists? Because it is either a first appraisal of records that have met their retention requirements under records management rules, as they pass from semi-active to inactive status, or it is a reconsideration of a previous appraisal decision, or a reappraisal. If it is the first, then this means that there are very astute people at NARA who are paying attention to the records of other government agencies. If it is the latter case, then that means that someone at NARA is forward looking and knows what will be historically valuable in the future and that person (or persons) worked hard to stop a scheduled destruction. Either way, it is a good service to the American people.
Debate #2
This also brings another recent A&A list argument to bear on discussion of this case. To wit, would a person with just a library science, business, or public administration education be able to foresee the historical importance of these records to researchers (presumably genealogists at first and then later on 20th century historians)? Is there enough emphasis in archival graduate education programs in library schools to train up-and-coming archivists about what may or may not be historically important in the future?
My take on this is mixed. For purposes of full disclosure, I am trained as both an historian (MA) and a librarian (MLIS). I learned about appraisal of materials for historical research potential in my MA program and absolutely nothing about appraisal in my MLIS program (it was very description-centered). But I honestly don't know what other programs teach in regard to appraisal and whether it is taught from an historians' viewpoint in library schools. The argument of an historical education or a library science education hinges, I believe, on the appraisal issue - can a library science graduate adequately appraise a record group or manuscript collection to see its potential use by future researchers? I don't have an answer, but this great move by NARA to keep the A-files makes me hope the history vs. library science debate continues strongly in the future. I guess one way to decide whether the reappraisal or first appraisal of this particular case by NARA archivists fits and how it fits into this debate is to find out whether the NARA archivists who made the decision were trained as historians or library scientists. That will add some much-needed fuel to the fire of one side of the argument, anyway.
Regardless, whether this was a first appraisal or a reappraisal, it was the best move by NARA that I think has been made in many, many years, though I wonder why they did not extend the 72-year rule they have for census records to the A-files? Maybe privacy concerns matter more because of the nature of the records in the A-files versus the basic information found in census records.
Sadly, though, and disappointing, is the fact that there are no records of illegal immigrants in these files. A stronger immigration policy could change that for future releases of A-files.
Let the "To Deaccession or Not" and "History vs. Library Science" debates continue, please!
Posts
You Suck, Jon Stewart
3 hours ago
5 comments:
Rather than phrasing it the way you did (can someone with just a library science degree...), perhaps you should also ask the question of whether someone with just a history degree has the skillset necessary to be an archivist. There are a lot of questions on the A&A listserv from people with MAs who don't have a clue about arrangement abd description, not to mention retention scheduling or how to conduct a proper reference interview. The issue goes both ways.
Appraisal is the most difficult and important responsibility that archivists do, which is why it is essential that good MLIS programs teach it. I find it very odd that your MLIS program did not teach appraisal. Was it an archives track or a regular library degree? I have doubts that from a historian prospective, they teach students how to identify records series of archival value.
I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh and took a 15 week course on appraisal. Based on what I have heard, I would say that the top archives programs teach appraisal as a priority and simple archives tracks or specializations would teach appraisal in a week or two. You cannot teach appraisal in a week or two. That difference gives a sense of how important appraisal is to focused archives programs. We read an abundance of literature on the topic, learned about all appraisal theories, and completed a semester-long project in which we analyzed and critiqued a repository's appraisal policy (or lackthereof). The point of the project was to see all of the problems that are associated with a completed misunderstanding of appraisal: shelves of worthless records; records that have nothing to do with your institution, repository, or even region; a large backlog due to accepting too many sub-par records; and a lack of users resulting from a confused, unfocused collecting policy. How can archivists expect to attract an audience when your selection and appraisal practices runs the gamut?
If you want to eliminate the backlog, reappraise! I think archivists will be amazed at what they find. There was an article in (I think) Archival Issues where the Wisconsin State Archives undertook a reappraisal project and found that 1/3 of their holdings were not archival. I am working on a partial reappraisal project at the Kansas State Historical Society and we are in the process of deaccessioning hundreds of cubic feet of records that just aren't archival. Actually doing reappraisal has been more helpful for me in a few ways than simply reading about it. The literature provided me with a strong foundation in appraisal theory, but after viewing numerous series of transactional records, case files, and the like, I became more aware of the types of records that are good candidates for reappraisal. When you work in a state archives and are really only saving 10-15% of the government's record output, these types of records simply are not going to be a part of that.
I believe that the argument for historical education vs. library educations hinges more on the fact that archivists still do not have a clear professional identity. For other focused professions such as accounting, teaching, biology, etc., it is pretty clear what educational path you need to take to have a career in these fields. Why isn't this the same way with archives? Why is it hard to accept that to be an archivist you need archival education?
I received an MIS degree with a specialization in Archives and Records Management from the University of Michigan. One of the courses I took in pursuing that degree was a semester-long course on appraisal. The course was taught by Margaret Hedstrom, who is a historian by training and an archivist by profession. However Prof. Hedstrom has a strong appreciation for the many, nuanced values that can be found in archival collections beyond the traditionally "historical". It is unfortunate that this course is not required for graduates of the program, because it was very valuable. A description of the course: SI 632 Appraisal of Archives.
As part of my MIS degree, I was required to take a "cognate" -- a graduate-level course through a department other than my own. I chose to take a research seminar in the history department, during which I was required to conduct historical research and analysis of primary sources, and I was exposed to the methods of a half-dozen history MA and PhD candidates, as well as the professor.
So, as someone with an MIS and no history degree, do I feel I am capable of appraising for historical value? Yes, I do. In my experience, most professional archivists who are currently in positions of conducting appraisal are also able to do so, regardless of their own pedagogical backgrounds.
A greater concern, to me, is not that archivists are capable of appraising for historical value, but that they are poorly equipped to appraise for research value in other fields, particularly the social and even the "hard" sciences. I would rather have someone with a "library" or "information" degree who has a non-expert familiarity with multiple types of research value doing appraisal than someone who only sees "Historical" (capital H intentional) value.
I don't think you need to be a historian or a librarian to be an archivist... I think you need to be an archivist to be an archivist. The fact that this debate continues shows the desperate need for archives-only masters degrees in the United States. How can the profession strengthen its identity without agreeing on how to educate its members?
There are more uses for archives than historical research, just as they are of value beyond the information contained in the documents themselves. A solid education in archival science should be all anyone needs.
Nicole is correct when she says "I don't think you need to be a historian or a librarian to be an archivist... I think you need to be an archivist to be an archivist. The fact that this debate continues shows the desperate need for archives-only masters degrees in the United States. How can the profession strengthen its identity without agreeing on how to educate its members?"
What archivists do is not history; it is not what historians do. The archivist profession developed out of the Public Archives Commission of the American Historical Association because archivists began to realize that what they do is not what historians do.
Post a Comment