What Should Archivists Stop Doing? [Response to question posed at ArchivesNext]

My colleague, Kate Theimer at ArchivesNext posed interesting questions earlier this week on her blog: "What should archives or archivists stop doing? What should we drop?" It's an interesting inquiry that takes a thoughtful response. It feeds into the heart of my own work as archivists and "information professionals." The following post includes most of the comment that I posted on the ArchivesNext blog and elaborates by using my work as an example.

Explaining the role of an archivist is a key to the success of our profession.
http://pinterest.com/melmannon/what-does-an-archivist-do-/

First, for those who are unclear about the role of the archivist, take a look at my 2011 post on "What is an Archivist?" from #AskArchivists day in June that year. To further clarify our role, I maintain a Pinterest board called "What does an archivist do?" that links to photos and articles that explain the diversity of archives.

...The best thing that an archivist can do for the profession is to get “archives fans.” I think that we all do a lot as archivists. I think that what we do is important. I think that we need to do a lot more and need more support to do it. We need to get buy-in from our communities. We need to show young people that what we do is awesome. We need to get young professionals to want to help us, either by becoming archivists or using their skills to help archivists. In addition to processing, digitization, etc. etc. we need to brush up on our public relations skills. We need to do more outreach and teaching. We can use others who specialize in these areas (people with MBAs etc.) to help us. We need to reach out to other professions that are similar to ours that may do a better job at certain things than we do. Cultural heritage professionals should help each other. Librarians, museum professionals, and archivists should share notes and expertise. While valuing our own skills is important and certification is lovely, I think we need to spend more time learning about the world beyond archives and adapting our work to collaborate with others to make our profession truly 21st century ready. What should archivists stop doing? I agree with most of the posts here. People want information to be accessible, easy to use and understandable. We should work harder to give them that and look beyond our own institutions to achieve that. Rather than closing up the profession and demanding certain skills, we should broaden our profession and appreciate skills that other professionals can bring to our work.

As a consultant, I have spent the past ten years trying to bring together archives, libraries and museums to share expertise. More recently, I have worked with individuals to show how the materials they have in their homes are important; to help them care for these materials; and to show them how to reach out to cultural heritage institutions to share resources. This September, I began working as a high school librarian / information specialist. To many, this shift may seem odd, but it really speaks directly to this question. In this capacity, I have introduced a school archives, I regularly exhibit displays about primary sources. I teach high school students and teachers how archives and published materials can be used to not only write a good research paper, but to get a better understanding of the world. When it comes right down to it, isn't that the main reason we keep archives? To better understand societies?

So what should we stop doing? I would rather reverse this and ask, what should we be doing? We should be doing everything that we already do and more. We should be reaching beyond our institutions' walls and beyond our profession to approach broader communities that can enhance our work and broaden our own perspectives. Only by being more open, approachable and interesting to the general population can we help people to realize just how important the work of an archivist is to everyone, in all societies. This will keep us relevant and will keep our work moving ahead. Caring for the overabundance of information in this age is beyond the work of the archivist. Collaboration is key.

 

One Versus Many and Other Semantics

When I walk into a consulting situation, I often find that my first task is to set up expectations about words. This is especially valuable to recognize in small institutions that handle diverse resources such as historical societies. (I was reminded of this recently and thought I'd quickly address it here until I move onto my consulting reports for the day.)

We all use a lot of jargon in the cultural heritage fields.

• Sometimes we use different words to mean the same things 
• ex. collection development policy versus collection management policy 
• Sometimes we use the same words to mean different things
• ex. label - most commonly used in archives for identifiers used for digital information or for applying descriptive words to materials such as photos. More commonly used in the museum field for descriptive information in exhibits
• Sometimes, what one group does automatically does not make sense to the other group until it is explained 
• ex. natural versus artificial collections in the archives field describe materials that come from the same creator versus materials, usually with a similar subject, that are brought together for perceived ease of use and are the arrangement is not based on provenance

I have found that often the biggest hurdle non archivists and archivists must overcome to communicate is the idea of one versus many, which is tied to the natural versus artificial collection jargon. Archivists try to add groups of materials to collections, rather than individual documents. (Though there are times when we will take in important individual records.) We care for many items arranged in smaller series and larger fonds (which are basically groups of series). We place groupings of papers in folders with inclusive names that we hope have been ascribed by the creator of the records. We try to adhere to any original order given to materials.

The curators with whom I have worked have tended to design their own groupings based around a subject rather than an original order. Incoming collections are sometimes broken up so that items can be placed in appropriate "artificial collections" based around subjects of interest to the local community. Individual materials within the group each get special attention. Individual documents might each have their own plastic enclosures, for example.

I highly recommend to clients that they try to stick with "natural collections" that reflect the thoughts of the people who created and originally organized their items. Working with groups affords materials the protection they need while also making our work faster, easier and cheaper. (No need for an enclosure around every item.) Practically speaking though, sometimes the subject arrangement works for ease of use and to accommodate small donations of items in a small museum / historical society setting.

When archivists and curators work together, we must understand and respect our differences. Cut through the jargon and explain the principles behind your thinking. I think it benefits everyone when all cultural heritage professionals can speak each other's languages and understand each others' methods.

"What Kind of Museum are We?" Peabody Essex Museum Tries to Mix Diverse Cultural Items

A magnifying glass to look at small details of a painting can also
be a fun element for a child at a museum. 

Yesterday I attended the exhibit "Golden: Dutch and Flemish Masterworks" at the Peabody Essex Museum with my young daughter. Let me begin by saying that we both had a great time. PEM always tries to play to diverse audiences. It was recognized a few years ago as one of the ten best art museums in the country for children. Beyond its special Art and Nature Center for kids, it lives up to its reputation for this age group by providing diverse ways to interact with exhibits. My seven year old was particularly thrilled with the idea of using a magnifying glass to see the details of the Dutch paintings and though I tweeted about my nervousness related to the use of magnifying glasses so close to paintings, I was impressed with the idea myself. I can continue to sing praises about the museum and this special exhibit, but that has been done all over the Internet. "Golden" has been praised by the New York Times. It certainly doesn't need my voice added to that. Instead, I want to focus on an anomaly in the exhibit that I think is indicative of the museum, archives, and library world(s) today.

Tucked in the corner of one of the last rooms of the exhibit we visited was a Dutch book from the 17th century. It called to me, but it seemed to attract few other people. And now, I wish that I had taken notes about it. I can not find any information on the Internet about its inclusion in the exhibit. I'm not even sure exactly what it was. My daughter was running toward paintings with flowers in them and I had to scurry on my way. But I keep thinking about this item. I wonder why it was there. The label copy in "Golden" was fabulous overall in that it provided much information about Dutch life, artists, and ideas. The interactive computer modules were also inspired. I learned so much about the time period, but the emphasis was clearly on placing paintings and furniture in context. Why was the book included here? What was it trying to tell me? How did it relate to the paintings? How did it help place them in context? What did it tell us about Dutch life during this period?

Short thought-provoking labels are inspiring. Sometimes less
detail is more.

My daughter and I take turns choosing what exhibits to see at a museum. After we visited "Golden" she chose "Eye Spy Playing with Perception." This exhibit is located in the same area of the museum as the kids center. It emphasized a teaching approach, asking questions about what we saw and encouraging a dialog with the exhibit. The exhibit showed art. Books were placed about to help us learn more about what we were seeing. Videos explained more. All these elements were woven to help us better understand what we viewed and to make the exhibit fun. To me, this exhibit encouraged more communication with the pieces it included than the Dutch exhibit. It was thought provoking in a way that the Dutch exhibit didn't always quite reach. It explained the interplay between arts and sciences. It explained the artists' influences. It used multiple media seamlessly. Nothing was stuck in a corner as a sort of afterthought because it was part of a "collection." Everything related to everything else. Short bursts of words invited us to think about these relationships, to maybe even discover something that the curator didn't point out to us directly. To be fair, the diversity of included objects encouraged that, but that is my point. The items we include in an exhibit should be diverse enough to create that kind of learning opportunity. The time of the idea of "high art" is over. There is no reason a fine art exhibit cannot be more all inclusive.

The camera captures this Campbell's soup can
made of spools of thread. The human eye does
not view these details unless we look into the
glass ball included by the artist.

As we left the museum, we were invited to take a survey. One question jumped out at me. It said something similar to, "What kind of museum do you think the Peabody Essex is?" This seemed key to how I viewed the work they were  doing and also key to the future of all museums. PEM is clearly an art museum. It is also a history museum with a special room devoted to New England Maritime Art and History. They also incorporate natural history in their kids' section....PEM is a pleasant mixture of diverse culture. Does their audience really care what kind of museum they are? Shouldn't museums of the future focus on inspiring and educating us through diverse cultural means? Why does a museum need to be one thing or another?

And I return to the strangeness of the book in the corner of the Dutch exhibit.... Museums, libraries and archives need to become more comfortable crossing into each other's spheres. Books, archives, art, and artifacts all relate and should do so seamlessly. Items made by people who are influenced by the world around them reflect society no matter what their format, but sometimes institutions falter when they try to make this point. We need to be clearer in our own minds about these relationships. Whether we are curators, archivists, or librarians we need to recognize that all of the actions and products of our lives and our environments can inform our knowledge about our past. Making these connections should be a central part of what a cultural heritage institution does.

Last year I wrote about the exhibit at the Museum of Our National Heritage called Jim Henson's Fantastical World. This exhibit creatively used archives and artifacts to illuminate its subject. I refer you back to my posting about it because more museums should be working this way in my opinion. Peabody Essex is on its way. I hope that they make it over the hump. I hope that is where their survey leads them.

Communication: The Value of the Give and Take

I began college as a communication major. One of the first things I learned as an introductory student is that communication involves back and forth dialogue, a give and take. If I speak to you and you do not respond back to me, we are not communicating. Communication, the back and forth, give and take, is very important in civilized society. For the purposes of this blog post, it is especially important to cultural heritage professionals and organizations that care to be successful in what they do. The give and take, smoothly flowing exchange of information, allows the conversation initiator to evaluate a reaction to what has been said and to adjust perceptions and activities accordingly. It seems like an easy concept, but the actual act of communicating to get intended results can often take a lot of concentrated effort.

As a writer, I often wonder how my writing is perceived. I worry if others enjoy what I've written, if they agree or disagree, or if my message has reached an audience at all. When I write a book and it sells, that gives me some sense of success. When I tweet or blog and someone starts following me, I get the same feeling that I'm doing something right. I know that someone finds at least my concept interesting, but it is rarer for me to get more helpful information than that to allow me to further evaluate what I've done. If someone takes the time to e-mail, that closes the communication loop and gives me direct feedback that can help me improve my writing and communication skills.

The challenge for institutions and individuals trying to communicate ideas is to encourage the feedback. How does a conversation initiator tell the receiver that a reply is appreciated and provide enough incentive for that receiver to accommodate the request? After all, replying to information we receive takes time and we have to (consciously or unconsciously) consider the act of replying worth our time.

For example, here's a not a- typical morning conversation with my six-year-old:
Me: "I bought a special snack that you can have after school today."
Daughter: No reply
Me: "I bought you a cookie at the bakery."
Daughter: No reply
Me: "Are you happy that I bought you a cookie?"
Daughter: "Yes"
Me (a wee bit aggravated): "How about a 'thanks for thinking of me mom'?"

On good mornings, the conversation may go like this:
Me: "I bought you a cookie at your favorite bakery. I bought the one with the colored sprinkles. You like the colored sprinkle one best don't you?"
Daughter: "Oh yes! Thank you mom!"

In the second conversation, I immediately offered all the information up front and ended with a question that invited reply. Because my daughter was excited from the start that the treat was a cookie from her favorite bakery and that I had considered her preferences in my decision about which cookie to buy, her excitement was ramped right out of the starting gate. It was worth it to her to reply to me, so that next time I was near the bakery I might again consider her and she'll again get what she likes. (She knows I'm a sucker for thanks and a kiss too!) In the first exchange, she was probably thinking whether or not the snack I bought was "special" for her or for me and then was considering what kind of cookie I got her. Rather than focusing on the conversational exchange, she was focusing on what she was getting out of this little arrangement I had set up. Notice too how much shorter the more successful conversation was. There was an immediate push pull. I gave information and asked a question. She answered.

Communication can be difficult one-to-one, like in the exchange with my daughter. It is much more difficult when it is one-to-many or many-to-many. Do you ever feel like you're jumping up and down shouting "look at me, look at me!" but you don't know to whom you are shouting? Do you ever look at all the entertainment and educational options that surround you and try to figure out how you can communicate to your potential audience that your institution is the one they should visit? The key to solving these issues is communication - not just the outreach from your institution, but devising means to get feedback.

The give and take allows you to change what you are doing. It shows your potential audience that you truly are considering their desires and feelings. It also makes individuals feel more empowered. Your organization becomes less stand-offish (a perception we all know that many have of us) and your approach is more personalized when you invite a response and user input. When I told my daughter that I thought she liked a certain kind of cookie best, it showed her that her opinion matters. I was less the bossy mommy and more the guiding mommy.

A few resources have come across my desk in the past few weeks to promote this idea of the give and take. Those wishing to pursue a give and take strategy should also consider that there are many ways to do it including one-to-one, to groups in person, through media, or on the Internet. Choose multiple strategies, but always make sure there is a way for users to give you feedback. Try to devise strategies that make them want to give you that feedback.

A few sources new to me:

Nina Simon's "The Participatory Museum" discusses multiple methods of encouraging feedback. Her handbook provides a great jumping point. You can pursue some of her suggestions or use her ideas to jog your own communication creativity.

Open Spaces: bringing new people to museums, libraries & archives through self-organised learning groups. http://bit.ly/bhJybw . This British program encourages institutions to create new programs that acknowledges an individual's desire and need for continuing education throughout their lives. It promotes the cultural heritage institution as a learning partner.

Meta Data games is an Internet based game for augmenting access to records http://www.tiltfactor.org/?page_id=1279: I am anxious to see how this pilot project by Dartmouth College progresses. Even more than libraries and museums, I think my beloved archives suffer from communication issues. (Maybe because people usually give me a blank stare when I tell them I'm an archivist, but if I say I'm a curator or librarian there is recognition in their eyes?) We have been working hard for decades now to provide more readily available access to archival materials. Archives are great communicative tools, giving us information and waiting for us to respond. Unfortunately, very few have access to archives and they sit on the shelves like a conversation waiting to happen. I think Dartmouth might help change that!

Do we need to find a term to replace “citizen archivist” and what is a "citizen archivist" anyway?

On Friday, archivist Kate Theimer posted on her ArchivesNext blog a post that she titled "Why we need to find a term to replace “citizen archivist.” The discussion relates to my earlier posting this week that discussed the need to think about our terminology and its evolution. [Blog Versus Diary: Just New Technology or a Whole New Way of Thinking?] Please see Kate's original post. I've pasted the response that I made on her site below:

I don’t find the use of the term “archivist” by non-professionals objectionable, but I think there is a need to raise awareness about exactly what a professional archivist does. I don’t think “citizen archivist” helps raise that awareness and I agree with Kate that the term muddies the waters. In my upcoming book “Cultural Heritage Collaborators: A Manual for Community Documentation” I discuss Cultural Heritage Collaborators as those working to preserve cultural heritage and the documentary record. This group includes professionals in the LAM and quasi-professionals who are required to care for records, but who may not be as concerned about the cultural nature of items. This group includes people such as some records managers and municipal clerks. I identify a final group that I call the Non-professionals. These are people who have some interest in records or history, but who may not have the training or background to properly care for archival materials. This includes volunteers, civic association secretaries, business administrators and the like. I would like to see the development of “sexier” terms to describe each collaborator, but I also want to see the emphasis on partnership heightened. (I’m lack of a better term than sexy on a Sunday afternoon, so please forgive me.) If we can come up with terms that balance the idea of needing professional expertise to care for records for posterity with the idea that records are important to everyone, I think it would be a great service to our profession and would make great strides toward more effective outreach. “Unmudding” our terminology, as I discussed on my ArchivesInfo blog earlier this week, can only help us and lead to better care of archives in general.