Search results

In the decades since the founding of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) in 1938, the array of functions considered core to archival work have grown and evolved. In the early years of SAA, the profession was largely focused on issues of collection maintenance, heavily emphasizing preservation as the fundamental mission of the archivist. Yet, at this time, there were archivists calling on their colleagues to engage with audiences outside of the archival reading room. It was not until the social history movements in the 1970s, however, that discussions of outreach as a core function of the archivist's work took hold in the profession. From the 1970s and moving through to today, outreach and proactive engagement with external communities has moved from a peripheral activity of the archivist to one seen as essential to the overall success of an archival program. In this chapter, we examine the evolving discourse surrounding outreach and engagement activities by archivists, focusing on how outreach has been discussed in professional literature. We also explore ways in which this shift in professional perspective is reflected in the work done today by archivists at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the archives management practices and needs of corporations that do not employ professional archivists and propose strategies for helping corporations manage and preserve their archives.

An online survey was distributed to non-profit and for-profit corporations located in the XX area, USA.

The majority of surveyed corporations did not have archivists on staff and were not satisfied with their archives management practices. Many of them have unaddressed archives management needs and preferred no-cost or low-cost approaches to address those needs. Most surveyed corporations had digital archives but lacked knowledge about digital archiving. Free archiving resources and services provided by libraries/archives were dramatically less well known than commercial archiving resources and services.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is one of the very few empirical studies on corporate archives not under professional control. Findings from this study inspired thoughts on how archival education programs, professional associations, cultural heritage organizations and other relevant parties could help corporations better manage and preserve their archives.

This paper aims to identify through a systematic review the roles that archivists adopt in a changing archival landscape and to illustrate any similarities between the roles of archivist and librarians.

The systematic literature review approach was adopted for the purposes of this research. Specifically, peer-reviewed literature published in English between 2000 and 2015 was considered. The relevant papers were retrieved based on specific search terms run on related databases.

The analysis showed that the traditional roles of record-keeper and collection manager were still relevant, whereas new ones, namely, digital archivist, archivist as educator and dual archivist/librarian, started to prevail. The technological developments as well as the social and educational changes seemed to have affected the emergence of these new roles, whereas the need for collaboration and communication among archivists, librarians and researchers was evident in many roles, namely, archivist as educator, dual archivist/librarian and archivist as researcher.

This literature review explored the different roles that archivists adopt within their work context and not the archivists’ skills, duties and responsibilities.

The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a study carried out pertaining to the Malaysian archivists' knowledge and skills in managing electronic records (ER).

The main data collection has been gathered through survey questionnaires. Quantitative data were gathered from a total of 41 archivists at the National Archives of Malaysia.

The insufficiency of education and training received by the archivists contributed to the archivists' limited knowledge and skills to support their roles and responsibilities to manage ER. The archivists' limited knowledge and skills on ER management (ERM) prevented them from implementing the policies and standard procedures on ERM which was part of their main responsibilities.

This study would be useful in identifying the required knowledge and skills for the archivists and suitable education and training for them to acquire such knowledge and skills to manage ER.

This is the first study of its kind which deals with the archivists' competencies in managing ER in the Malaysian Government.

This paper aims to explore the varying ways in which academic archivists in the USA experience archives, how these experiences compare to those of academic librarians and how we can use these findings to improve communication and collaboration.

Using a phenomenographic research approach, academic archivists were interviewed and the transcripts were examined to develop categories reflecting varying experiences.

There are three different ways of experiencing archives: as organizational records, as archival enterprise and as connection. The connection category is a more complex way of experiencing archives as it incorporates the aspects of the other two categories as well as the awareness of archives connecting people to their histories.

This study is limited to academic archivists in the USA.

Understanding that there are different ways of experiencing archives means that information professionals should clarify their definitions of before beginning collaborative projects. Also, by understanding these varying experiences, information professions should be able to communicate and engage more fully with each other and their users in projects and programs that leverage archival collections.

This is the first study to use phenomenography to investigate archivists’ experiences of archives. This understanding of the lived experience of archivists, combined with understanding how librarians experience archives, should enable better communication and ultimately collaboration between the two professions.

This paper aims to explore the relationship between historiography and archival practices. It takes the new social history approach to history as a case study for examining how historians' changing theories and methods may affect solicitation, acquisition, appraisal, arrangement, description, reference, outreach, and other aspects of archival administration.

The paper presents a review of the archival and historical literature since the late 1970s.

The paper finds that many aspects of archival administration have been and continue to be affected by the new social history trend in historical scholarship. The paper suggests that archivists and archival educators be trained in historiography as a way to understand historians' craft and develop strong documentation strategies to anticipate future archival needs.

Because the paper is primarily a literature review, it does not test real‐life examples or case studies that would be useful in understanding the relationship between historians and archivists.

The paper includes implications for the development of archival administration and education strategies.

The paper draws from a range of literature to consider the impact of scholarly practices on professional archival work.

Explores why it is that archivists and records managers rarely discuss important aspects of the highest ranking record‐keeping job in any country. There are plenty of issues about what is or should be one of the most critical positions in any democratic society, whether at the national, state/provincial or local government level, worthy and in need of open discussion and debate within the professional community and more broadly in the public domain.

Using the controversial, ongoing case of President Bush's nomination of a new Archivist of the United States (historian Professor Allen Weinstein), this article focuses on some of the above issues.

Largely out of sight or earshot of the US public, US historians, archivists, librarians and information managers have united in community force to challenge President George W. Bush's nomination for the next Archivist of the United States. Discusses the possibilities of real or perceived political interference in the management of the nation's archives and especially ready public access to its Presidential records.

The dispute highlights changing thinking about what constitutes proper selection process and qualifications for national archivists that could stimulate professional debate world‐wide.

Public organizations are investing in e‐government development and e‐services to improve the interaction and services to the citizens. Archivists need to act more pro‐active to capture and manage records in order to be accessible both in the present and in the long‐term. Archivists need to understand the conceptual context and business processes in which the records are created. This study aims to focus on an ongoing process within a specific context, which may have direct, but also future implications for archivists' professional identity. Professional identity is understood as a sense of shared understandings and skills, experiences, common way of perceiving problems and their possible solutions. The study is meant to answer the overall research question and sub‐questions: What is the status of archivist professionals' positions and practice within public organizations? What organizational effect has the change from paper‐based to electronic record keeping had on archivists' professional positions and practice within organizations? How do archivists perceive themselves in their professional roles, i.e. identity? Are there any critical competence issues that need to be solved that are connected to new requirements in working methods related to electronic record keeping? and How do archivists define their skills and working performance?

The data presented and analyzed in this article are based on a literature review and an empirical study. The literature covers areas related to archivists' professional practice and future role. The empirical study is based on interviews with nine municipality archivists at nine different Swedish municipalities identified by the Swedish Association of Local Government and Regions as “good example” e‐government municipalities. All interviews were undertaken during January and March 2011.

The findings provide information on how archivists define their current and future professional role in relation to the organization and the development of information technology: the status of archivist professionals' positions and practice, for example, within public organizations. It explores the importance of strategic approaches to managing electronic records – from their creation throughout their whole existence, including long‐term preservation – and considers necessary changes to the professional image of archivists and the skills they need.

This article will be of interest to record keeping practitioners working in the shift to e‐government in local contexts and also to educators, as there appears to be a shift in the skills and knowledge required by those working in local government.

Archivists and Librarians are subjected to social stereotypes by those outside and within the field of library and information science. Many of these role descriptions come from within the LIS professions themselves; the differences between information responsibilities of Archivists and Librarians are not clearly defined. The purpose of this paper is to dispel myths of distinguishable differences in information role responsibilities of Archivists and Librarians.

A simple survey was developed and completed by Archivists and Librarians who volunteered to express, in their own words, up to three descriptions of what their information responsibilities are. Responses were recorded in the respondents' own words, and so, the responses were necessarily compared, reduced, and categorized into nine recognizable categories of synonymous and qualifying terms for comparison.

Results of the survey demonstrate that both Archivists and Librarians list access most often as their information responsibility. Similarly, preserve and process are listed as second and third, in reverse order; and collect and evaluate are listed fourth and fifth, in reverse order. Results indicate the major differences as Archivists naming collect more often, and Librarians listing teach more often.

Archivists and Librarians usually both receive their education and training in schools of library and information science. Other than collection types and patrons served, which vary significantly among libraries and archives themselves, this exploratory study indicates no major differences in personally expressed information responsibilities of those within the fields of practice, and debunks the misconceptions that Archivists and Librarians have distinct, observable differences in their approaches to information.

The PICCH research project contributes to opening a dialogue between cultural heritage archives and users. Hence, the users are identified and their information needs, the search strategies they apply and the search challenges they experience are uncovered.

A combination of questionnaires and interviews is used for collection of data. Questionnaire data were collected from users of three different audiovisual archives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two user groups: (1) scholars searching information for research projects and (2) archivists who perform their own scholarly work and search information on behalf of others.

The questionnaire results show that the archive users mainly have an academic background. Hence, scholars and archivists constitute the target group for in-depth interviews. The interviews reveal that their information needs are multi-faceted and match the information need typology by Ingwersen. The scholars mainly apply collection-specific search strategies but have in common primarily doing keyword searching, which they typically plan in advance. The archivists do less planning owing to their knowledge of the collections. All interviewees demonstrate domain knowledge, archival intelligence and artefactual literacy in their use and mastering of the archives. The search challenges they experience can be characterised as search system complexity challenges, material challenges and metadata challenges.

The paper provides a rare insight into the complexity of the search situation of cultural heritage archives, and the users’ multi-facetted information needs and hence contributes to the dialogue between the archives and the users.