RAO News
SAA's Reference, Access and Outreach Section Newsletter
Fall 2000, Issue 2
Table of Contents:
No Archival Activity is an Island
by
William A. Richards, CA
University Librarian
Georgia College & State University
As archivists/information professionals/historians, we generally are fond of neat, discrete categories and organizational clarity. They are essential to what we do. Even our professional organization has carefully defined sections and groups, with the implication that their respective activities and interests are more or less discrete. Nothing, of course, could be farther from the truth. Without effective and appropriate archival acquisition work, there is little point in outreach programs and little need for access. Conversely, collections that are inaccessible and poorly publicized are a waste of precious resources. Since many archival repositories are part of a larger organization, appropriate and effective outreach activities that help support the mission of the larger organization are crucial to the fiscal health of archival programs.
So what does eBay have to do with the relatedness of all things archival? A recent experience we had at my repository helped remind our staff and me how much our archival responsibilities relate to each other. We were also reminded how easy it is in our profession to find ourselves in a public relations nightmare.
Before I go any further with this anecdote, let me say that I know that eBay is hardly the preferred source for acquisition of archival materials. Nevertheless, up for auction on eBay recently was a manuscript item, a letter that related directly to one of our major collections. We couldn't just let it slip away. We placed a bid on the item and waited for the outcome. One thing seemed odd about this letter. It was addressed to the editor of a distinguished journal published by a well-known liberal arts college. We let the eBay bidding process run its course. In the meantime, we did some investigating. In one of our vertical files we discovered a photocopy of the letter sent to us by the manuscript curator of the college in 1993. The photocopy had a property stamp of the college's library on it. We called the college library and explained the situation.
It turned out that the letter was indeed the property of the college, and it had been stolen--along with a number of other manuscript items--within the last year or so. At this point we tried to notify eBay that we had reason to believe that one of their sellers was auctioning off hot property. Eventually we succeeded in communicating with an actual person at eBay, and the item was withdrawn from auction. More importantly, the college successfully recovered its property, or at least the letter up for auction. College authorities also notified the police and launched an investigation. Now unless the library and college administration are very lucky, the campus and community news media will eventually get wind of this theft. I'm sure you can imagine the dreadful headlines.
The moral of this story? I believe that we as archivists must be ever mindful that the myriad function of our archival programs is integrally related, and that we put our programs and professional credibility at risk when we forget this principal. Without effective security, archival materials are at greater risk of being lost; without careful acquisition work, an acquisition coup could turn out to be a PR calamity, damaging future donor relations and possibly program funding. Then again, these challenges are what make our work so rewarding.
Moving Image Technology Update
by
Ted Ryan
Coca-Cola Archives
At a recent AMIA (Association of Moving Image Archivist) conference, there was much speculation on the amount of moving image material held in archives and the vast quantities of new footage being created every day. Moving Images material (film and video) is particularly difficult for archivist to catalog and provide reference due to its visual nature. New technologies may solve some of these problems.
Moving image cataloging technology involves three separate processes, and in some cases three different applications. In this issue we will explore some of the software's used to capture and identify the film or video image.
Over the past five years several softwares have been developed which will both create a low quality (MPEG-1 or streaming) digital file and will detect scene changes within the video. Most of these software's will create a visual digital "storyboard" of the video by grabbing an image from the beginning of each scene change and matching it to the time code of the digital signal. Recent advances in the software extract close caption or teletext and can even utilize speech detection software. This information is all linked offering a frame-accurate index providing non-linear access to any portion of the digitized footage. Metadata can be added while the logging is in process to provide additional user defined information.
These various descriptive captures form an index that can be output to a variety of video environments or databases. Most of these software's were created for the television and film industries, and thus lack the controlled vocabulary required for archive use relying instead on hierarchical structure and drop down menus. Any archivist perusing this avenue will need to work closely with the vendor to bring the software up to the rigid standards required for archives and libraries.
The leading vendors in the field of video logging software, all of which I have reviewed for potential use at The Coca-Cola Company Archives are Virage, Mediasite, e-motion, and Artesia. All four of these vendors offer the same basic scheme of video to digital file with associated storyboards. Mediasite and Artesia are the most "archive friendly" regarding metadata, while Virage and e-motion provide the easiest IS platform and are the easiest to customize. All five companies now boast a substantial list of customers.
by
Paul Eisloeffel
A recent thread on the Archives & Archivists Listserv served as a reminder that the children of Clio, the Muse of History, don't always get along. The thread concerned a long-standing and simmering issue that most often rankles and frustrates us archivists: the interrelationship of archives and museums.
The two sibling professions have grown up apart and have embraced traditions that have further exaggerated their inherent differences. Yet members of both professions, better connected today thanks largely to the Internet, gaze at each other across the rift with increased frequency and wonder why they cannot reconcile.
Countless colleagues in small institutions are responsible for both artifacts and archival materials. In larger institutions the benefits of archivists and museum curators working together for the good of the institutional mission are obvious. With the available technologies such as Universal MARC and off-the-rack collection management softwares, graduate level courses, seminars and graduate programs, it seems even more ludicrous that a common ground is so hard to discover.
Yet hard to discover it remains, if the recent Archives & Archivists Listserv thread is any indication. Fellow archivists spent the better part of a week bemoaning the state of the art. Both sides voiced opinions. Words and phrases like "tension, "thinking. . . that paper collections don't take special knowledge. . . ", traditional curators tend to treat records as lesser and therefore badly," and "two different traditions," were used to define the relationship (or lack thereof) between archives and museums. Several theories and case studies were offered, but all seemed to boil down to this (in my view): Too few, on both sides of the rift, understand the differences and recognize and exploit the similarities.
Why this continues is the result of many factors. Cross-training in graduate programs and through professional organizations is still not equal to the need; professional literature on the issue (on both sides) is virtually non-existent; many smaller institutions tend to hire according to how they perceive their collections' focus rather than taking an all-encompassing approach; and larger shops segregate collections management functions into separate departments. Add to these the various accreditation and certification standards of each profession that essentially ignore the existence of the other and you have a recipe for perpetuating the rift.
The differences in the two professions are indeed real--although many believe, as I do, that they are not irreconcilable and need not hinder mutual understanding, cooperation, even integration. From the foundation of collections management practices (in the museum world, the individual artifact is key; in the archives, it's the collection), to cataloging and description, to use and access, there are aspects significant to each profession that the other would do well to understand.
Access serves to illustrate this point. In this function, the typical approaches of museums and archives are particularly dissimilar. In a museum, public access is most often accomplished through exhibits. The topic, the items included that illustrate that topic and the interpretation of those items are all determined by staff members. The resulting package is compact, selective and visually interesting to a target audience.
An archive on the other hand, is much more populous in its access methodology. Setting aside for a moment any restrictions to access dictated by law, donor agreements or condition, an open-to-the public archives provides its materials without bias, selection or interpretation to whomever may want them. The access is controlled only in the sense that the condition of access are designed to physically protect the materials. The individual user is free to select the topic, the resources, and to draw his or her own conclusions. In this sense, an archives is more akin to a library than to a museum, although the holdings of an archives are revered for their value as artifacts (a la museum) as well as for their content (as with library material).
There are aspects of archival management that can and do undermine this "available-to-all" scenario. Specifically, every time an archivist makes a collection development or appraisal decision, weeds items in the course of processing, and creates a surrogate description of archival materials, her or she is exercising judgement with which others may not agree. All of these functions, fundamental as they are to archives collections management, are subjective, editorial activities that have a decidedly significant impact on both what is available to the user and how the user approaches the resource. It is for these reasons that it is especially important for the practicing archivist to understand the mission and scope of the archives, to be aware of the wants and needs of its clientele, and above all to possess a grasp of the historical and cultural context in which the archives' collections exist.
In the matter of reconciling the children of Clio, we have a long way to go. The differences are there, but they need not obstruct our pursuit of our shared objectives of collecting, keeping and providing access to materials of cultural and historic significance. As one Listserv message read, "After all, isn't the main goal to preserve the information?"
Besides sharing some lucid and revealing opinions, the Listserv thread proves one thing: this issue hits many of us where we live. Seeking the common ground is an endeavor yet in its infancy, but the dialog between archives and museums is bound to get stronger. Hopefully, more professionals including instructors will become involved. Our future could witness collection curators versed in both archives and museum methodology, and working together, regardless of material format, for the good of a common mission.
Present: Shari Christy,Chair; Jim Cross, Anne Salter, RAO section members.
The meeting came to order at 8:08 a.m.
Shari Christy, chair, introduced the officers who were present and reviewed the agenda for the meeting. She asked the members to think about where they wanted to go from here with RAO.
Next year's chair will be Mary Cordato. She was not able to attend the meeting.
Two new steering committee members were elected. They are Katherine Burger Johnson and Anne Salter.
Anne Salter, newsletter editor requested assistance from the members in contributing to the newsletter. Volunteers are needed to help write articles in several areas. Interested members should contact Anne at anne.salter@library.gatech.edu.
Short presentations were given by Danna Bell-Russell and Susan McElrath and Tom Frusciano.
Dana Bell-Russell and Susan McElrath proposed a session relating to promoting archives and their programs for SAA 2001. They submitted a formal proposal to the meeting. The title of their paper is Reaching Out and Reaching In: Advocacy for Archivists. The presenters would be Susan McElrath, National Anthropological Archives with a paper entitled "Archives Week: What Can we Do for You?; Ira Galtmam, American Express Corporate Archives with a paper entitled "Reaching Your Internal Patrons" and Robert Sink, New York Public Library with a paper entitled "Archivists as Lobbyists.
Tom Frusciano, Rutgers University Libraries gave a presentation on "Electron New Jersey Project." The project began in 1997 and has been very successful in providing teachers a web site including training and classroom instruction information on the history of New Jersey. Patterning the project after the LC's American Memory, the New Jersey Project began with topics in key subject areas. The project has expanded to include 6 subject areas. Currently they are working to include New Jersey in the Revolution, the Civil War, and WWII. The project allows special collections materials to be applied in a broad way. Students and teachers can access materials, email messages to one another in a discussion group, and engage in responses. The project fulfills the mission of the Rutgers special collections to serve the public. Several grants have been awarded to help the project. A second grant assisted in expanding the topics. Teachers enjoy combining technology with primary sources.
Tom also mentioned a new journal that he is editing, Journal of Archival Organization. It is to be released in the Spring of 2001. Interested persons should contact Tom. A sheet was provided giving information about the journal. Contact RCCarter@nauticom.net for a brochure on how to prepare submissions.
Shari Christy discussed the results of RAO survey. The survey was compiled in 1999 at the SAA meeting in Pittsburgh. She went over in detail the answers to the survey questions. The survey indicated that members want to be more focused in their activities. The majority felt RAO should definitely continue. Shari Christy opened up the floor for group discussion so that all members could participate. Members suggested having break out sessions, speakers with topics evolving from the discussions, what reference tools are out there and how to search them, what can RAO produce as a section (e.g. brochure), top 10 reference sites, use email to communicate more between members. The group discussion resulted in several key suggestions to be followed up:
Create an annotated bibliography of web sites and update it periodically; run a column in the newsletter featuring sources; be more pro-active with SAA by developing a basic user survey.
The SAA liaison who attended the meeting, Jane Kenamore, suggested that after Oct. 1 RAO look at the web site for SAA and see the new set of goals and objects. Shari Christy felt producing something was a good idea but keeping the structure flexible was also important. More people should get involved. Another suggestion was made to have an RAO web page. Chris P. from the University of Illinois volunteered to host the RAO web page. Promoting National Archives Week was also discussed.
Several members were interested in getting a program for the 2001 program that would be a workshop on how to use sources for teachers. Involving a teacher who works with National History Day was suggested as a possible speaker.
The session proposal was approved by the members.
The discussion ended with a number of key issues to address for RAO.
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
The session proposal was approved by the members.
Two new steering committee members were elected at the SAAmeeting in Denver. They are Katherine Burger Johnson and Anne Salter. ,Katherine is Associate Archivist, University Archives and Records Center; Archivist/Curator-Kornhauser Health Sciences Library; Affiliated Faculty-Women's Studies Department, University of Louisville. Anne is Head of the Archives and Special Collections, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Mary Cordato, Chair
Director of the Library & Archives, American Bible Society
mcordato@americanbible.org
Katherine Burger Johnson
Associate Archivist, University Archives and Records Center
Archivist/Curator Kornhauser Health Sciences Library
University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky.
Kbjohnson@louisville.edu
David Farrell, Curator
Bancroft Library, History of Science and Technology
Dfarrell@library.berkeley.edu
Antonia Mattheou, Huntington Town Archivist
Huntington, New York
Amattheou@town.huntington.ny.us
Anne A. Salter, Head- Archives and Special Collections
Georgia Institute of Technology
anne.salter@library.gatech.edu
Letter from Incoming Chair Mary Cordato
Dear RAO Colleagues,
What--another year gone by! Impossible! But alas, here we are preparing for SAA again, this time out yonder in the Rocky Mountains.
First, I would like to thank Shari, the members of this year's steering committee and our newsletter editors for their efforts in making 1999-2000 a productive one for RAO. A number of interesting ideas have surfaced and hopefully we will build upon them over the next year.
Shari will be distributing the results of her survey at the Denver meeting. I'm looking forward to hearing from all of you with your own feedback. As incoming chair, I intend to take all of your suggestions very seriously. Your thoughts and comments are important. Whether you see yourself in a "reference," "access" or "outreach" role or a combination of all three, we need to address those issues and changes that are impacting our profession and how we conduct our work as archivists.
If you have anything you would like to share, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Cordato, Ph.D.
Director, Library & Archives
American Bible Society
Dear Colleagues:
If you're like me, this past year has just flown by! 2000 has been an exciting time for SAA and the Reference, Access, and Outreach Section. A number of RAO related sessions were found at the SAA Annual meeting in Denver. I hope many of you were able to attend both the section meeting and some of the related sessions. The annual meeting is a good time to get together to share ideas!
The survey completed by members last year in Pittsburgh and then discussed at this year's meeting proves that the RAO section DOES serve a purpose for its members and for SAA. I'm very glad to hear that. The section meeting illustrated that RAO is a dynamic group with lots of ideas and enthusiasm! Everyone should feel free to put forth their ideas or suggestions to the new chair, Mary Cordato, or to any Steering Committee member. The section is only as good as what we make of it. The biggest thing that I struck me at the meeting is the great desire of the RAO members to become INVOLVED!
As I leave the position of RAO chair, I challenge each and every RAO section member to do just that! BECOME INVOLVED! IT'S YOUR SECTION!!! Become involved in helping Chris develop a RAO web page. Help Anne Salter with the newsletter by providing columns of interest to all RAO members. We all have items to share with others--be it within the RAO section or within your regional organization, all the way up to SAA!
Let's work together to make the RAO Section a leader in the areas of Reference, Access and Outreach for ALL archivists and records managers!
|
