Bill R. wrote
<snip>That is the problem with archivists, their training does not prepare
them to predict the future. As a records manager I have that ability.
Researchers and historians will be researching the records I send to
archives...everything else will be either destroyed or in my sock
drawer.
>>How will an archivist argue with a historian when the above scenario
becomes a real possibility? How will a records manager argue with the
IT manager that we need a disposal program?<<
By the time the scenario above becomes reality, we will have no
historians or archivists. There will be laws that prevent anyone from
looking at my sock collection due the myriad laws protecting the privacy
of socks and the folks that might wear them.
[END excerpt]
I know the message was somewhat facetious, but let me address a couple of points. First of all, it's not a zero sum situation. I see a lot of points of intersection between the various functions you mentioned, which I believe are interdependent and often supportive of each other. (At least, I hope they often are supportive!)
Records managers deal with temporary and permanent records. Archivists primarily work with permanent records so they have a lot of knowledge of what those constitute. They may have less direct knowledge about temporary and ephemeral materials as they see fewer examples of it--but they know a lot about what isn't temporary, LOL. They also often work with historians and understand their research needs. But some archivists also have training that prepares them to "predict the future" to some extent. For example, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has, or used to have, rotational training programs. This includes an assignment in the appraisal unit.
When I worked at NARA (1976-1990), my primary assignment was with the Nixon tapes. But, during my two year training peirod as a young archivist--a long time ago!!-- I also went out to some federal agencies to help appraise their records.
On the other side, many records managers have strong history backgrounds, which they often augment with other academic or specialized training. (I don't have to remind you all of the recent certification debates, LOL). So I never assume they don't sympathize with or understand the needs of historians. I tend to look at them as my partners, actually. Their extra training and experience augments what I know, my extra training and experience augments what they know. Sounds like a team to me.
As for historians, they really are hard to stereotype! Some of them have clearly defined philosophical approaches, ranging from triumphalist to deconstructionist. Others do not. Some work in academe, others in governmental settings. There even are historians who work in corporate settings. Some historians have considerable intellectual independence, others work in environments where they are vulnerable to being viewed (fairly or not), as "court historians."
Some historical research has more of a public accountability element than other research. In such cases, the public really relies on records managers and archivists both to act impartially and with integrity. (That's one reason I think Listserv subscribers should think twice before getting embroiled in public debates on the Listserv that might reveal their strong biases or political views.)
Basically, I think historians' needs--and the laws (not just ones covering privacy) affecting the records they use--vary too greatly to categorize neatly. For example, a federal historian often works for internal customers, doing policy analysis, litigation support, providing a long term institutional perspective which helps the agency head and his management team craft sound policies and initiatives, etc. For him or her, it's not exactly a "privacy of socks" scenario, LOL.
Bill R. mentioned what will be destroyed. I find it interesting that NARA has been moving to a more flexible approach on mandatory destruction. It noted last year that "We will seek to change the statutory requirement for mandatory destruction of records and substitute a more flexible and less labor-intensive approach to meeting agency needs to keep some records longer than their NARA-approved disposition authorities (retention schedules) specify."
(see http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/strategic-directions-status-sept2004.html)
Also of interest is the discussion at Appendix D of NARA's paper at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/rm-redesign.html#appd . NARA notes that " Information is now considered an asset, not merely a byproduct of agency work. As such, agencies should be encouraged, not discouraged, to use corporate knowledge for as long as it is valuable."
Sorry to chime in on this so late, but it has been a very busy week and I finally got a breather this afternoon!
PS On another thread, I liked Larry Medina's recent comments about safeguarding family and vital personal records. Some good advice there!
A good weekend to you all,
Maarja
Maarja Krusten
GAO Historian
Office of Quality and
Continuous Improvement (QCI)
[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
