The discussion about interdisciplinary communication is an interesting one, but it is hardly as dire as some think.  Sociologists studying professions and professional structures have long acknowledged that professionals or experts tend to focus on their own narrow area of literature, often avoiding others that might be beneficial to their own work.  So, the problem within the records and information management professions is hardly a unique one.  The blinders that seem to inflict the work of archivists, records managers, historians, and others who use or manage records can be found in other disciplines as well.  The relatively recent focus within the academy on interdisciplinarity, for example, has proved difficult to institutionalize in meaningful ways because of such boundaries, some created by the obvious difficulties of individuals striving to remain current with their own fields.

I am not arguing that some of the problems discussed by Maarja Kursten, Rick Barry, and others are not serious or as frustrating as they have suggested.  These are serious problems (although when it comes to the scholarship of records and information management professionals, there may be problems far more serious – such as continuing weaknesses in research, over reliance on basic textbooks, and educational preparation of practitioners), but there may be a number of positive signs and potential solutions to these problems.

Sometimes, it is easy to overstate the degree of the problems.  For example, Maaja Kursten states, “ARM professionals are more likely to have some framework for understanding history than academic historians have for the technical aspects of archival or records management issues.”  She also states, “Why has it been so hard for me to get other historians interested in archives, records and information management?”  Actually, historians are increasingly engaged in writing about archives, records, and documentation, producing a remarkable array of scholarship that represents a must reading for archivists and records managers, ranging over all periods of times, cultures, and events.  While these scholars may not always use the same terminology, they have nevertheless enriched our understanding of records if we take the time to read what they have to say.  In fact, some historians, such as Roy Rosenzweig, are even reading our literature and debating with us about some of the most!
  fundamental aspects of digital preservation and the definition of records.  Reading the work of scholars such as Donna Merwick, Robert Darnton, Thomas Tanselle, Barbie Zelizer, JoAnne Yates,  and the list could go on . . . , is essential for records professionals.

Some of the problem here may be the dependence on listservs and conferences.  Maaja Kursten notes that there are “many pitfalls in posting on Listservs. . . .There seems to be something about Listservs and even more so about message boards that sometimes heightens "ritual opposition," jockeying for position, etc.”  She adds,  “Academic historians post all over the place but seem to shy away from engaging in discussions of archival issues and record keeping.”  Rick Barry, meanwhile described the problem with the turnout for the Association of Canadian Archivists annual meeting – “Many historians were invited, but almost none attended that conference to the great disappointment of the organizers.”  Chris Flynn, likewise, wants to see “historians at conferences? Yes. I personally would like to see a core of professional development seminars that are presented at the conferences that are more in line with required if you are going to claim to be a Records Manager.”  Again, these!
  are worthy goals, but they also suggest some lack of understanding of how these scholars gather and contribute to scholarship.  Historians and other scholars are pretty much locked in to their conferences, and they are also more focused on writing for publication, publishing in scholarly journals and monographs (and while there have been more opportunities for e-publishing, much of the scholarly communication remains traditional peer-review print outlets).  In other words, we can see the same barriers between records professionals and scholars as we face in our own records and information profession community.  There is little crossover between speakers at SAA and ARMA.  Archivists and records managers publish in their own journals and read them exclusively.  The same is true with the larger meta-community of individuals involved in the administration and care of records and information.  In other words, there is nothing insidious here, just some very entrenched behavior t!
 ypical of what professionals do.

None of what I have written is meant to provide an argument for what these individuals have observed, rightly so, to be a major problem facing records and information management professionals these days.  Rather, my intention is to focus on three possible solutions, bridges being built across the divide, to the separations existing within the records and information management community and the larger divisions between records and information professionals and scholars using the sources these professionals administer.

First, we need to build clearinghouses of both basic manuals of practice and interdisciplinary writings on archives, records, and information management.  Records professionals have discussed such clearinghouses for more than twenty years, but, to date, there has been little practical success in establishing them.  The Society of American Archivists has expanded both its publications program and the scope of its publications catalog to include a broad scope of research and writing about the nature of records, archives, and information management; at present, the SAA has over twenty publications projects in progress and it is adding other titles from other publishers at a rapid rate.  Included in its catalog are writings by historians and other scholars that extend far beyond the matter of the rudiments of practice.  This effort represents a departure from the publications programs and their catalogs of other professional associations, many of which have focused on a limited !
 array of publications and avoided some kinds of titles because of perceived sales potential.  To examine the publications catalog, refer to http://www.archivists.org/catalog/.  If you have an idea for a publication or a suggestion for a title that should be carried in its catalog, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Second, we need to find outlets where archivists and records managers can dialogue with each other, with the expectation that groups from both sides of the records and information management professions are reading.  The American Archivist seems to be read mostly by archivists, and records managers seem to read exclusively The Information Management Journal.  There are some serial publications that are read, however, by both groups, and the Records & Information Management Report, a serial technical report published ten times a year, seems to be one.  This publication, one I am now responsible for, continues to publish essays that can appeal to archivists, records managers, knowledge managers, and other information professionals.  It encourages essays (usually in the 8 to 9000 word length) that seek to cross disciplinary and professional barriers, and, as an extra bonus, it can publish quickly (usually within a few months) and pay a good honorarium to its authors.  Consider !
 this an invitation to submit articles to me for this publication.  Particularly needed are case studies concerning the origins, evolution, successes and failures, strengths and weaknesses, of archives, records and information management programs.  If you email me your idea, I will be happy to open up a discussion with you about the possibility of writing for this publication.  I might add that such writing, providing the opportunity for lengthier and more thoughtful explication, will have the greater influence on the information professions than the more informal discourse evident on most listservs.

Third, and finally, we need to design conferences that bring together archivists and other records professionals with the scholars who use the holdings of our programs.  I have been recently involved in beginning to design a conference that will invite key historians and archivists to dialogue about the meaning of archives in public memory and understanding.  This is still in very preliminary stages, so I really can’t say much more about the conference.  However, the idea behind it is to develop a venue for sustained indepth discourse about how archivists and historians (and other scholars) perceive archives and their use and meaning – exactly the kind of dialogue that is difficult to achieve at existing professional conferences that don’t always attract the right mix for such discussion or that conflict with academic, professional, and vacation schedules.  The long-term aims of this effort are to produce a publication, capturing in a permanent fashion the outcome of the dis!
 cussions and debates, and to interest various scholars and records professionals to pursue interesting lines of research that will benefit our understanding of records and information systems.


--
Richard J. Cox
Professor
Department of Library and Information Sciences
School of Information Sciences
University of Pittsburgh
Editor, Records & Information Management Report
Society of American Archivists Publications Editor
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Voice:  412-624-3245
FAX:    412-648-7001
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
homepage: http://www2.sis.pitt.edu/%7Ercox/

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