ArchivesNext

Many people on Twitter were recently following along with the activities at the latest THATCamp, and are excited about the prospect of participating in something similar in Austin in conjunction with SAA. I asked Lisa Grimm, Assistant Archivist at the Drexel University College of Medicine, to serve as a guest blogger to explain what THATCamp is all about and why more archivists might want to attend:

Last week I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend THATCamp 2009 - the second-annual unconference for digital humanities practitioners. (I leave the term for the attendees deliberately vaguely defined, for they included a very useful cross-section of people - other archivists, librarians, historians, literature scholars and programmers). It was an incredibly thorough, thought-provoking yet streamlined experience and it offers some useful models I hope we can begin to emulate at SAA this year in Austin.

Read the rest of this entry »

Thanks to blog reader Holly Robertson, who posted the following comment in response to yesterday’s post about the need for support for programs at UTA:

This post contains some inaccuracies, and perhaps the best place to start is with some background information:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news-briefly-school-of-information-halts-library-archival-program-1.1646479

Last spring, the Kilgarlin Center for the Preservation of the Cultural Record lost federal funding from NEH this year (funding has supported the two conservation instructors since 1991). The Conservation Studies program is directly affected (and thus no students were accepted for the Fall 2009 semester), but the preservation administration and archives programs are still in place for Fall 2009.

At present, the Conservation Studies program is undergoing a review funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. They’re working with a range of sources to stabilize faculty lines. Additionally, they are moving into new labs integrated into the iSchool’s new facilities — for more information on the iSchool’s new home at 1616 Guadalupe, see:

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/1616/

The program review grant from Mellon has allowed the Center to document the import of the program to the nation, to investigate research collaborations, and to plan for an enhanced curriculum. I think that they would indeed appreciate professional and positive letters of support that point to the singular nature and importance of the Kilgarlin Center’s Conservation Studies program.

The School of Information has promised to post additional information as it is available:
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/about/news/

FYI: UTA is the University of Texas at Arlington, which is not where the Kilgarlin Center for the Preservation of the Cultural Record nor the parent School of Information is located. The proudly Austin campus is informally referred to as the UT Austin and formally as the University of Texas at Austin.

I followed up with Holly and confirmed that support for the Conservation Program is still needed. If you are interested, the best people to contact are Andrew Dillon (the Dean of the School for Information) and Steven Leslie (the Provost)–their contact information is in the previous post. As always, if anyone has further clarifications or information, please let us know. Thanks!

If you live in Austin or are going there for SAA, you might want to know about this resource put together by Rebecca Goldman:

Inspired by Terry’s post, I made a site to help archives-folk find free lodgings for professional events. If you have crash space to offer, you can add it using the form at http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=cjJuSXNYWXlyc1QxWEdEZVhhdlNhMmc6MA. If you’re looking for crash space, see the results of the form at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r2nIsXYyrsT1XGDeXavSa2g&output=html.

You can contact Rebecca (Rebecca.m.goldman [at] drexel.edu) if you have any suggestions for improving the site, or can think of a better way to host it.

A reader asked me to share the following information:

As you may know, preservation and conservation studies at the University of Texas at Austin School of Information Kilgarin Center are another potential casualty of the tough national economy. These programs contribute to our field on many levels. First and most obviously, they strengthen the UT archives education programs. The program delivers gifted and well rounded graduates who support the intellectual and information infrastructure of the nation, research, and education in archives, historical societies, and special collections nationwide. The program graduates help meet the needs of archives for expertise in conservation assessment and treatment, preservation management, and a wide range of areas of evaluation, risk management, and planning. They increase public knowledge of the importance of records and special collections. They publish, speak, and share key information with the public and archives on how to care for records of all sorts. And, this program accepted no new students for Fall 2009, because they could not guarantee that the students would be able to graduate from the program before it folded.

Closing this program, would mean a significant loss to archives, the preservation and conservation fields, and our information and records infrastructure nationwide. If you agree, positive and constructive blog responses focused on the contribution of UT preservation and conservation studies to archives and to cultural and information heritage, could be very useful. Of course, a flight of letters supporting the program’s continuation to UTA’s Provost and other parties involved in the decision making wouldn’t hurt either. Here are their contacts:

Steven W. Leslie, Ph.D., Executive Vice President and Provost, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, G1000, Austin, Texas 78712, Email: sleslie [at] mail.utexas.edu

Cc: William C. Powers, Jr., J.D., President, University of Texas at Austin, President’s Office, G3400, PO Box T, Austin, TX 78713, Email: president [at] po.utexas.edu;

Andrew P., Dillon, Ph.D., Dean, School of Information, University of Texas at Austin, School of Information, 1 University Station, D7000, Austin, TX 78712, Email: sdillon [at] ischool.utexas.edu;

Mary E. Cunningham-Kruppa, Director, Kilgarlin Center for Preservation of the Cultural Record, University of Texas at Austin, School of Information, 1 University Station, D7000, Austin, TX 78712, Email: e.cunnk [at] mail.utexas.edu

As anounced on the A&A listserv:

In February 2008, the Acquisition and Appraisal Section Steering Committee presented a proposal to develop guidelines for reappraisal and deaccessioning to the Standards Committee. With the support of the Standards Committee and Council, the section leadership is moving forward with the effort. Since these guidelines will have broad professional application, interested professionals from across SAA, not just those who are members of the Acquisition and Appraisal Section, are invited to participate directly in their development. If you are interested in working on the project, please plan to attend a preliminary planning meeting at the annual conference on Thursday, Aug. 13, 12-1:30. No obligation is implied by your attendance. If you cannot make the meeting in Austin but would still like to participate, contact Tara Laver, chair of the Acquisition and Appraisal Section, via email: tzachar[at]lsu.edu. The full proposal submitted to the Standards Committee can be downloaded at http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/acq-app/ReappraisalDeaccessioningGuidelinesProposal.pdf.

Yesterday after a discussion on Twitter, in which Gordon expressed his hope that a future SAA Annual Meeting would come to his hometown of Nashville, I posted a new poll: Where should SAA go next?” I picked some cities I’d like to go to, and added the usual “other” choice at the end, and asked people to pick their top three choices Here is the list:

Nashville, TN
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Chicago, IL
Boston, MA
Portland, OR
Vancouver, BC
Santa Fe, NM
Las Vegas, NV
Other–put in comments below

As of today, things are pretty even–except for poor Chicago, with only one vote. DC is also lagging behind. As I noted in the poll comments, the next two cities are DC and then Chicago (in 2010 and 2011). The next two years’ destinations have not been announced, and then we’re back in DC for 2014. (The poll should come up in the right-hand sidebar of the blog site. If it’s not there, click on the header section at the top of page to reload.)

Also in the poll comments section, SAA Council member Tom Hyry said that: “Just an FYI, SAA did a study a year or so ago to find cities that have conference hotels big enough to accommodate our annual meetings in the traditional fashion (i.e. the conference and most attendees staying in the same venue). It turns out that there just aren’t that many, maybe a couple dozen, and many mid-size cities don’t fit the bill. The main office is working on some communication that explains the process they take in selecting sites, most likely to be published in the next issue of Archival Outlook. Be on the lookout. ”

So, please vote in the poll, and add your choices for “other,” if needed in the comments on the poll. (Note that to see all the previous comments, you need to look for the teensy-tinsy “More Comments” link in white on the blue background of the last comment on the page.)

Another topic for discussion–how important is it to you to have all the conference events in the same hotel? If they could get two hotels that were within a couple of blocks of each other, would that be ok with you? (No idea if that’s feasible from SAA’s end with contracts, etc. Hope that will be addressed in the upcoming article.) (Oh, and, don’t know if there’s time, but if you have other questions about how conference sites are selected, go ahead and post them and maybe we can suggest they be answered in the “Archival Outlook” article too.)

The following somewhat rambling query came to me because I’m contributing a chapter on technology to a new book about archival advocacy. While I suspect that some aspects of this kind of interaction with users has been done through online surveys, I don’t think any institution has taken it to quite the level this person is envisioning. Here is the question:

Have archives used technology/communications to extend their “family” by asking directly for advice, in effect treating those who visit their websites or otherwise connect as members of an extended advisory board? What do you think of our services? What ideas do you have on how we might do better? What should we do next? What should we do if we had more resources? Do you want to be informed about our plans, our new services, etc? Perhaps give them some choices to rank, and so on, some way to indicate back to the repository that they are thinking about it as a program. I’m trying to think of how, perhaps in stages, to engage people with the program and its development, rather than to stop at its holdings and services. Perhaps some of those folks can become members (Friends), or part of the governance structure, or financial contributors, or just advocates out to others and in to decision makers.

If you know of any institutions that have asked for his kind of user feedback, I’d love to know about them. But also, what do you think about soliciting contributions from Web audiences (both 1.0 and 2.0, presumably) to inform program development?

I received the following announcement, which I’m posting here, verbatim, for your information:

We ask for your participation in the Declassification Policy Forum that
begins today (see: www.whitehouse.gov/open/blog). This interactive
conversation will be hosted on the OSTP Blog
(http://blog.ostp.gov/category/declass) by members of the Public
Interest Declassification Board. We ask you to post your
recommendations for revisions to the classification and declassification
policies found in Executive Order 12958, as amended, “Classified
National Security Information.” This a request of the National
Security Advisor in support of the ongoing review of the Order directed
by President Barack Obama on May 27, 2009.

The Declassification Policy Forum will be used to solicit
recommendations for revisions to the Order in four topical areas:
Declassification Policy (June 29 - July 1), a National Declassification
Center (July 2 - July 4), Classification Policy (July 5 - July 7), and
Technology Challenges and Opportunities (July 8 - July 10). Once
posted, each topic will be available for comments for three days. At
the conclusion of the third day, the comment function on the topic will
be turned off and the next topic will begin the following day. After
each topic closes, a concluding summary will be posted.

The Declassification Policy Forum will begin on Monday, June 29, 2009,
and will require registration to participate. Participants may make
suggestions or comments, vote on previous postings, and flag topics that
are off-topic. The Public Interest Declassification Board members look
forward to receiving thoughtful ideas and innovative suggestions that
will further the policy discussion and assist the Board in making
recommendations to the National Security Advisor.

In addition to the online discussion, the Board will also accept input
via email (PIDB@nara.gov), fax (202-357-5907), and US mail (Public
Interest Declassification Board, National Archives and Records
Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 100, Washington, DC
200408-0001).

Background

The Public Interest Declassification Board is an advisory committee
established by Congress in order to promote the fullest possible public
access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of
significant U.S. national security decisions and activities. The Board
is composed of nine individuals, five appointed by the President and
four by the Congressional leadership. Current Presidential appointees
include: Martin C. Faga (Acting Chair),
Herbert O. Briick, Ronald Radosh, Jennifer E. Sims, and Elizabeth
Rindskopf Parker. The Minority Leader of the House appointed Admiral
William O. Studeman, USN, (Ret.), the Majority Leader of the Senate
appointed Sanford J. Ungar, and the Speaker of the House appointed
Representative David E. Skaggs.

For more information see:
http://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb.

Don’t have time to write anything about these, but here are three things I think you’ll be interested in:

- Digital NZ’s new site “Make it Digital” looks fantastic. From their “About” page:

Make It Digital is a place for people who are interested in making content digital. New Zealand is a small place with big ideas, and we need to be creating and digitising more content - be it our pictures, our stories, our 3D creations, or our knowledge and culture. Need some advice, got a digitisation project, got some expertise to contribute? This is the place for you.

- Mark Matienzo has posted on SlideShare his presentation, “Archives & the Semantic Web,” which was described as “mind-blowing.” You have been warned.

- I know readers of this blog will have opinions about today’s post on the Northwest History blog by Larry Cebula, “”Lick This”: LOC, Flickr, and the Limits of Crowd Sourcing,” which characterizes the Library of Congress’ experience on Flickr as a “disappointment” in terms of “adding useful metadata to historical documents.” I certainly have some strong opinions about the author’s conclusions (as people who follow me on Twitter know!), and having heard several presentations by the LOC staff who work with this project, I certainly don’t think that they consider the user contributions they have received to be disappointing. The final report on the LOC pilot reported that they had updated 500 catalog records with information “provided by the Flickr community” (with 4,615 images posted at that time). (Does anyone know if there are more recent stats on the LOC blog?) Mr. Cebula’s argument seems to be that in the images he looked at he saw very little (or almost no) information that he considered valuable, and much he found utterly worthless. I think it is perhaps the volume of notes, tags, and comments that are not “useful” that he finds problematic. For many people, including me and I think many at LOC, this large volume of non-”useful” content is a sign of a high level of engagement from the Flickr community–the same level of engagement that also results in the many “useful” contributions they have received from Flickr’s community of “passionate amateurs.” I think it is the ratio of useful to non-useful that is disappointing to Mr. Cebula.

I am hoping to give this a reasoned and considered response in a future post or comment on the NW History blog, but wanted to point it out to you in case you want to go over and add your own opinions. He says that he will “pick up the topic of crowdsourcing again in a future post” and he will point towards some archives that he believes are doing it “correctly.” The implication is that LOC on Flickr is doing it incorrectly, isn’t it? I think many of you will have opinions about that!

In case you missed it, our National Archives has arrived on YouTube–their channel is usnationalarchives. They appear to have a nice selection of content, judging from their playlists, including a mixture of digitized archival footage and new content apparently created specifically for this purpose (including a series in which directors of Presidential libraries talk about their favorite things in their collections).

The makers of one of my favorite archives-related videos on YouTube have also added some new content. The University of Manitoba Archives and Special Collections has three instructional videos available on their channel, UMA-TV, about how to conduct research using their collections, including “Rare Research: How to Do Primary Research with Rare Documents.” And, if you haven’t yet seen it, I strongly suggest you check out “T.G. Hamilton’s Photos of Ectoplasm“–creepy archival content + spooky music = big success!

I’m sure Brett Lougheed, UM’s Digital Archivist, would be happy to answer any questions you post here about creating the videos and their YouTube experience. And please share your favorite archives channels too!