Thank you Dwight! 
 
Your post shifted the focus of this debate and consequently prompted me to respond to the list. I would like to address three issues that need clarification.
 
Are there really advanced degrees in RIM?
What is the purpose of a scholarly journal and why is it important to the RIM practitioner?
Who should publish a scholarly journal and why?
 
Would you consider courses in information systems, information retrieval, organizational information management, human-computer interaction, digital preservation, information policy, information access, etc relevant to records management?  Currently, I am an Information Science PhD student with a records management research focus at the Palmer School of Library and Information Science, a doctoral program offered by Long Island University. Information science is a broad based discipline concerned with the analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval and dissemination of information in organizations. Members of this discipline also investigate how information systems, people, and organizations interact so that  information systems can be created, replaced, or improved. This advanced degree is not only very relevant to RIM, but it also provides the broad foundation necessary to understand what affects RIM and how.
 
A PhD degree allows a student to become an "expert" in a chosen subject such as records management partly through their coursework, but mostly through their research.  Additionally, a sound argument can be made that graduate level research affords a similar opportunity. As a student furthers his or her education, the program does not choose the focus of study, rather the student does. How? Quite simply, through their research focus. Consequently, a student can be enrolled in an information technology, informatics or information science program (just three examples) and become an "expert" in RIM from that perspective. 
  
My own research articles (all unpublished) are entirely records management related and written in publishable form; however, the focus, and perhaps the content of my articles would probably have to be “reworked” before submission to a “peripheral” scholarly journal. Why? The purpose of any scholarly journal is to further its own discipline, not that of RIM. Although my articles might be perfectly suited to a RIM audience, they might be only marginally relevant to a “peripheral” journal’s readership.
 
Although prior posts touched on my next point, there still seems to be a considerable amount of misunderstanding about the purpose of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Scholarly journals afford researchers the opportunity to collaborate within their specific disciplines by keeping abreast of their colleagues’ research. Researchers then ADD to that knowledge through their own original research, rather than reiterate what is already known. This is an extremely important point for two reasons. First, a collaborative environment fosters the interaction necessary to develop new theories, frameworks, models, etc. to hopefully advance the discipline and improve practice. Secondly, when RIM articles are submitted to “peripheral” journals, they add something to that discipline, and not directly to RIM. Discipline-specific journals promote innovation by centralizing the focus of a problem (or for that matter a solution), rather than dispersing it throughout “peripheral” journals as “reworked” content.
 
By now you are asking, how does the practitioner benefit from a scholarly journal? Again, this was addressed previously, but not understood by some list members in the correct context. Although the general practitioner might be interested in these articles, it is more likely they would be more interested in the contributions the research makes to improve their practice in the workplace. So even if the research articles "bore" the practitioner, he or she will certainly still benefit from them.
 
Advances in RIM knowledge ultimately affect “practice” which moves the entire discipline to the next level and thus touches everyone in the profession. This is done not through the reiteration of existing knowledge, but through the implementation of new practices originating from foresight, innovation, and most importantly collaboration. One researcher publishes an idea and later another researcher adds to it. The idea might still need further improvement, so yet another researcher takes up the cause (and so on) until innovation is achieved. And when that concept reaches maturity and solves a “practical problem,” another idea is pushed into the vanguard —most likely as a result of some challenge practitioners face in the workplace. Further, “new” RIM researchers (sometimes even from other disciplines) become “educated” and informed by reading the scholarly journal. They in turn also have the opportunity to present fresh ideas and innovations from their perspective to the RIM community through their own journal submissions. In this way, RIM researchers, as well as other researchers from related disciplines, at every level of expertise from student to seasoned professional are able to participate and contribute to RIM in a distributed environment as part of a collaborative effort to solve discipline-specific problems. Where is this type of research collaboration taking place in RIM today? 
 
Who can argue that retrieval in a digital world is not a central issue? How has records management theory and practice evolved to incorporate changes such as this into our discipline? Yes, I hear some of your responses already, but I ask “Is enough being done to move RIM as a discipline forward?” or will progress and innovation in our field occur in “peripheral” disciplines such as IT or informatics? There is an important distinction between research that seeks to understand the status quo and research that advances a discipline. Ask yourself, where is innovation taking place in RIM today and more importantly by whom? Does current RIM research foster collaborative, and by default, a stronger and more unified effort toward advancing the discipline? What better tool is there to disseminate RIM information to those most interested in advancing their discipline than a peer-reviewed scholarly journal?
 
Finally, doctors, lawyers, accountants, librarians, engineers, architects, nurses, teachers, archivists, and numerous other professions have peer reviewed scholarly journals to advance knowledge in their corresponding disciplines. These journals are affiliated with each profession’s respective associations and not their academic institutions. What is the very reason a professional organization exists, if not to advance its discipline? 
 
It is true that currently there are RIM journals being published; however, RIM practices differ worldwide and for this reason, a journal with a North American research focus is sorely needed. The publishing interval can be determined (and if necessary adjusted) based on the need and interest in such a journal in time increments such as quarterly or semi-annually. Further, in order to attract talented researchers, as well as editors and other volunteers, any RIM journal needs to be affiliated with an organization such as ARMA that could give it credibility.  The interest in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago for that matter, probably does not reflect the growing need for such a publication today. Who can deny the world of records management has changed dramatically and probably will continue to do so? There is no doubt that a scholarly peer reviewed journal would fill a gaping void in RIM. Based on this supposition alone, the chance that such a journal would be successful is not only apparent, but also imminent. 
 
Sofia Empel, MLIS
CRM Candidate
Provisional CA Candidate
PhD Student
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
Brookville, New York
 
 



List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]