In a message dated 7/4/2005 5:20:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

> "This idea describes the recognition that many separate parts do in fact
> belong to a greater whole, as they all contribute to the same objective.  <
> snip>  one must realise that not all historians may be equally interested in 
> the preservation and
> conservation of the documents that support their work, relying on others to 
> do this.  Some PR might be necessary here to develop more cross-overs, or 
> 'boundary-runners'."

Excellent, point, Sue, thanks so much!  I believe that some PR indeed is 
necessary, in no small part because historians are more likely to have op ed 
pieces published in well known newspapers than are archivists and records managers. 
 Archival and RIM experts are more likely to publish in professional and 
technical publications than to catch the attention of general readers.  So it is 
important that historians use their public voices wisely and offer an accurate 
picture.  If they get things wrong, or skew a debate, it can create 
unnecessary distractions in the public arena.  Even within a discipline, such as 
history, communication can be difficult.

You would be surprised how even we historians can look at issues very 
differently, depending on where we sit.  For a glimpse, just look at the following 
which I excerpted from some exchanges I had with several historians on H-net in 
the spring of 2001.  The trigger was a complaint by a scholar that the 
National Archives' review and release of national security classified State 
Department records had slowed down.  This thread caught my eye as it was an area my 
sister thenn worked in. We often talked about some of the problems NARA faced.  
Look at the way this played out, any one of us might write an op ed, but the 
perspective would really vary.  I would be more likely to raise ARM issues than 
the other two scholars, as you can see in the way I shifted the thread at the 
end:

Maarja:  "Faced with increasing external mandates, NARA cannot wave a magic 
wand and easily re-allocate resources.  Nor can it escape . . . concern in the 
wake of the Wen Ho Lee controversy about Clinton-era "Openness Initiatives."  
In its strategic plan released in 1997, NARA noted: "Our resources are 
strained further by outside requirements.  All of us at NARA want to accelerate 
public release of Kennedy assassination documents, Nixon Administration tapes, and 
records subject to declassification orders.  We want to be advocates for the 
public interest in record material in general. But each new external mandate 
spreads thinner a staff that already has been reduced by Federal budget 
cutting."

Warren Kimball:  "My over ten years on the State Dept. Historical Advisory 
Committee leave me convinced that NARA -- as an organization and a bureaucracy, 
and despite the best and courageous efforts of some individuals within NARA -- 
is too weak, too timid, too unimaginative, too lacking in purpose and 
commitment, too hidebound and procedural, to be an effective force for 
declassification.  When the current Archivist of the U.S., John Carlin, took the post, many 
of us hoped that he would find "godfathers/mothers" in
Congress, prove to be an effective fundraiser, and -- as an FOB -- give NARA 
an infusion of courage and commitment.  That has not happened, nor is it 
likely to happen during the Bush administration."

Maarja:  "Before attacking NARA as an ineffective force for declassification, 
scholars need to recognize that the National Archives is not autonomous; in 
fact, there is no mythical, totally independent '[fourth]  branch' of 
government that can be totally committed to openness and public accountability.  But 
many critics act instead as if there is some kind of firewall around the agency 
which protects it from pressure from other government entities.  There is no 
such firewall.  To be useful, any criticism of NARA must take into account all 
the sources of pressure on the agency and look for ways to protect it, not 
tear down the agency."

Hayden Peake:  "Prof. KIMBALL could not be more accurate in his assessment 
and the KRUSTEN reply is a wonderful example of the bureaucratic thinking that 
makes him correct.  To argue that scholars have to understand or recognize 
NARA's position is the bureaucrat's response to avoid taking action.  It is NARA 
that needs to understand that its bureaucratic foot dragging is the problem.  I 
suspect I am not alone in the ability to cite specific examples where an 
agency has forwarded declassified documents to NARA and for reasons never 
explained, they remain unavailable to scholars years after their receipt.

There is no need to gain insight into NARA's problems, it is the solution to 
the scholars' problems that require attention.  The need is for NARA to act 
and make its records available without bureaucratic quibbling."

Maarja:  "How widespread is the effect of insularity and individual 
frustration on scholars' perspectives? Do academics view public employees (federal 
archivists and historians) as their allies or as their adversaries? If you view us 
as allies, but fling mud at the institutions we work for, what incentive is 
there for us to fight difficult public policy battles on your behalf? Rarely do 
I hear scholars write in-depth analyses about current public policy issues in 
archiving and record keeping. Yet NARA and federal employees face enormous 
challenges right now. "Is U.S. History Becoming History?," Jeffrey Benner asked 
in Wired.com on April 9, 2001. Benner noted, "The workings of government in 
the first decades of the information era have been poorly recorded, archiving 
experts say. Years of valuable public records may have already been lost, 
creating a gap in the country's historical record." 

The debate then shifted to the impact of electronic record keeping, with 
Eduard Mark joining the thread and Kimball and Peake tuning out.  George Lardner 
of the Washington Post later wrote an article which made public some of the 
factors which affected the work my sister did but which I did not mention as I 
debated Kimball and Peake in a public forum.  Lardner's piece is at 
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/05/wp051901.html - I include it here only for those of 
you interested in the screening and public release of government records.

Maarja

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