[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Access, categorical descriptors, roses and the internet



No blast incoming---

I think the points you make are well taken, and access, funding and
man-hours are all pertinent points in how the real world of both archives
and libraries work.  In addition, I think that in terms of on-line research,
the public and indeed for convenience sake, we are looking more toward the
use of categorical descriptors to provide access.  I also agree that the
need to provide access is a fundamental sticking point for archivists
because it is a professionally more difficult issue if one wants to maintain
the un-exclusionary intent of our descriptions, finding aids and reference
practices.  But this is the where the differences do crystallize, and the
standards for professional levels of activity and service within the
archival profession are constantly being put to the test.  How do we
maintain our professional standards and compromise to provide wider, if less
refined, access for the online community for example?  Our user base, if
expanded would surely affect our funding levels, respect among other
professionals, and a plethora of related issues, but how far should we
compromise?  I think that the development of EAD and other archive-friendly
access and descriptive tools suggest that we archivists still feel it is
necessary to keep that distinction because of the differences we know are
there, and that matter to skilled researchers and to the ---dare I say
it?--the truth (in its many cloaks) being "out there"!

Elizabeth Fairfax



Island County Records and Information Services
 e-mail to asefairax@co.island.wa.us

 Thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.

> ----------
> From:         Georgen Gilliam[SMTP:GeoGil@NGW.LIB.USU.EDU]
> Reply To:     Georgen Gilliam
> Sent:         Friday, July 20, 2001 8:11 AM
> To:   ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
> Subject:      Re: A rose by any other name?  I don't think so!
>
> I think the differences between librarians and archivists
> have been well covered here, and I definitely agree that
> librarians and archivists have a different level of analysis
> - record groups, series, etc. compared to libraries' (and
> museums') item level approach.
>
> However, I think that the gap between these fields is
> continually closing in some senses. Access to materials in
> archival repositories have historically required the
> archivist as a "gatekeeper." There didn't tend to be any
> cataloging, so you'd have to ask the archivist if you were
> looking for something. As that knowledge (or rather those
> knowledge-holders) have died, there has been an increase in
> using online databases to access archival materials, the
> tools traditionally used by librarians. And as financial
> resources dwindle, many libraries are increasingly using
> collection level cataloging. A collection level record for a
> book collection provides some access, and usually the
> creation of such a record by the librarian is accompanied by
> the intent to someday get the funding to do item-level
> cataloging, but who knows when or if.
>
> I've been an archivist, a manuscript curator, museum
> cataloger, and now I'm a librarian in a Special Collections
> dept. Over the years, I've met lots of people with librarian
> orientations working as archivists (one I worked with wanted
> the collections in alphabetical order!), and know that
> there's a big difference in the whole thought process
> involved about what to keep and how to handle it. But I also
> think that the differences are often accentuated to
> ourselves more as a matter of the process of establishing
> "archivists" as a separate profession than anything else.
> There are plenty of people we accept as "archivists" who
> have item level approaches generally, and plenty who use an
> item level approach situationally. Some photographic
> archives, for example, have a fully item level approach, and
> most archives receiving a collection of individual
> biographies would want access to be made on an item level to
> facilitate access.
>
> I guess I just hesitate to make definitive statements one
> way or another. I know that most repositories are motley
> collections of things, especially the small, local places
> that haven't had a "collecting policy" all that long. I
> think of the differences more as "tendencies," or even
> "goals." I am concerned that archivists who define
> themselves as _only_ dealing with record groups etc. might
> become inflexible on making the individual decisions that
> each collection needs to be made accessible.
>
> Ready to be blasted!
>
>
>
> Ms. Georgen Gilliam
> Special Materials Cataloger
> Utah State University Libraries
> geogil@ngw.lib.usu.edu
>
Island County Records and Information Services
 e-mail to asefairax@co.island.wa.us

 Thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>