Steven D. Whitaker wrote:

>I do not have an issue with the Univ of Denver trying to hire an
experienced RIM Mgr. with a CRM and a graduate degree for $50K.
However, their expectations are unrealistic if they want talent, work
ethic, and the credentials they seek for the dollars they offer.   Maybe
they can get an archivist or a "professional student" for that type of
money.<


Reading this, I get the distinct impression that Steven is of the
opinion that records managers are an entirely different or higher order
of records professionals than archivists.

Maybe Steven would care to consider that archivists, at least here in
Canada, are educated in the entirety of the records life cycle/continuum
through what has in the last decade or so become the Canadian industry
standard, the MAS (Master of Archival Studies) degree, or an equivalent
combination of experience and education.  Therefore, many Canadian
Archivists can operate equally effectively in either classic RM or
archives roles.  Furthermore, in a number of forward-looking Canadian
records programs the distinction between these anachronistic concepts
(i.e. between RM and archives) is beginning to blur, with the focus
being simply on the management of records and information from
information management system design phase onwards (in particular, some
Ontario university records programs are making real inroads here, and
there are other examples, as well).  The trend in American archival
education seems, at least to this observer, to be moving in the
direction of the MAS model.  Many Canadian Records Managers by contrast,
as well those in the U.S., have until relatively recently generally
"fallen" into the RM profession, with various academic credentials
(often times community college certificates/diplomas in records
management in Canada), rather than acquiring a comprehensive RIM
education obtained at the graduate level.  This lack of formal education
has, among various other reasons, helped to perpetuate the erroneous
notion of records management as business function and archives as solely
cultural function (as reflected, I believe, in Steven's comments).  Not
to pick on records managers, it should be noted that a good portion of
American archivists and more than a few Canadian practitioners, many
with academic backgrounds in the field of history rather than RIM, are
equally responsible for embracing and perpetuating the dichotomy between
RM and archives.

The reality of the situation is that the divide between archives and
records management in North America is an artificial construct resulting
largely from the efforts of the U.S. national archives in the 1940's to
deal with a deluge of government records and information.  These efforts
yielded a division of labour approach to the management of recorded
information that came to be adopted throughout North America:  "records
administration" (in the parlance of the day) was conceived as a
"business" function concerned with efficiency in the creation and
management of recorded information and "archives administration" was a
predominantly "cultural" function, concerned mainly with the
"historical" value of records (this is, of course, a gross
oversimplification and anyone interested in a detailed discussion of
this issue is referred to the writer's:  "Archivy Ad Portas: The
Archives-Records Management Paradigm Re-Visited in the Electronic
Information Age", Archivaria 47 (Spring 1999), pp. 66-84).  It seems to
me that in the 21st century the notion of separate records professions
is an anachronism highly detrimental to all records professionals.
Among a litany of negative effects, it splits scarce resources and
engenders confusion about the nature of recorded information, and how
best to manage and preserve it.

I personally look forward to the inevitable amalgamation or synthesis of
the two records professions in North America ("records management" and
"archival science/administration"), and the empowerment that will flow
naturally from the evolution of a truly comprehensive conception of, and
approach to, recorded information management. As our Australian
colleagues so eloquently put it, "records is records".  The sooner North
American records mangers, and archivists, clue into this fact, the
better off we'll all be.

Best regards

Dan Zelenyj
Coordinator, Archival Services
City of Vaughan
tel: (905) 832-2281 ext 3129
fax: (905) 303-2538
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
www.vaughan.ca







__________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail, including any attachment(s), may be confidential and is intended solely for the attention and information of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete the original transmission from your computer, including any attachment(s). Any unauthorized distribution, disclosure or copying of this message and attachment(s) by anyone other than the recipient is strictly prohibited.

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance