The role of blogs in professional discourse in the archival profession
Sounds like it should be the title of an article in The American Archivist, doesn’t it?
But, it isn’t. It’s the title of a blog post. Which means it will comparatively short, easy to read, available immediately, freely available to everyone on the Web, and has a supported system for public discussion as soon as I hit the “publish” button.
Back in the very early days of this blog, I wrote a post that asked whether or not there was an archivo-blogosphere (comparable to the robust biblioblogosphere created by librarians). I came to the conclusion that there was not. Recently, Heather (of the Archives Found blog) wrote on a comment on that old post asking if my opinion has changed. I think it has, although I would still say that our archivo-blogosphere is in its infancy. This post will explain why I’ve changed my opinion and will also address some comments made at another blog about the value of blogs for professional discourse.
Around the same time Heather raised her question, David Kemper (of The DIGTAL Archive blog) wrote a post called “How Blogs Can Save Your Career.” He said, in part:
As I walked down the bustling streets, I was caught in my thoughts, wondering how I have managed to stay current (more or less) despite being on contracts or, more recently, unemployed.
One word kept surfacing: blogs.
Seriously, if it were not for the many library and archives, Web 2.0, new media, digitization, digital preservation bloggers and social networkers on the Web, I would be far, far behind the curve.
It is thanks to those who, in the spirit of sharing, write and talk about their work, projects, ideas either daily, bi-weekly, weekly or monthly that I have been able to stay current in the field.
. . .
I believe in the power of blogs, their immediacy, their intimacy, and their uncanny ability to auto-generate communities, because I know I have benefited from them and learned from them. And continue to do so.
Again, around the same time, Lynne Thomas (of the Confessions of a Curator blog) asked her readers to share what they found most useful about blogs. Here are excerpts from some of the responses she got:
- I enjoy how blogs help you find information and pass information laterally instead of having it come down to you through filters. . . . Blogs really level the playing field when it comes to information literacy and can also at times help with technological literacy when certain blogs focus on tips and tricks, or act as pointers to those who know better.
- As a new blogger, I’m enjoying that same sense of “lateralness” [mentioned above] along with the opportunity to have a conversation in the context of a professional community, i.e. network and build relationships with other rare books/special collections librarians. Blogs are helping me to become more aware of “things” that are out there that I don’t always see mentioned on discussion lists.
- Certainly blogs lead to silos or echo-chambers or other unflattering architectural metaphors. But the low barrier to entry, embrace of comments, and other features makes me not-too worried about that. And every community, online or off-, needs to be aware of that possibility.I like blogs (and Facebook and IM and Twitter and all that wacky stuff) as a rolling conference. When I wanted to be a special collections librarian, I saw my far-flung colleagues once a year at the RBMS preconference. Now, I communicate with other librarians across the US (and to a small extent around the world) pretty much every day.
I think we are gathering a critical mass of archivists writing and reading blogs. By my count we now have over 25 blogs written by archivists or related records professionals (in English) that they use to share their own opinions or items of interest. I’m also aware of almost 50 blogs sponsored by archival institutions which share information about their work and collections. This blog now has over 300 subscribers in addition to the many regular readers who are not subscribed. I think we’ve seen some valuable discussion of professional issues among the comments on this blog, and I’m told that it generates even more conversations around the lunch tables of many archival institutions.
So, we have archivists writing blogs, reading blogs, commenting on blogs, and talking about blogs. Blogging is the subject of a seminar at the upcoming RBMS Pre-Conference and I’m participating in a panel discussion on blogs and other web 2.0 tools at the Manuscript Repositories Section meeting at SAA. To me, this looks like ample evidence that archivists are using blogs to talk about our profession among ourselves and with our public. Many of us are using it to meet our information needs.
So you may understand my surprise when I read in one of Geof Huth’s incredibly valuable posts about the Archives Leadership Institute (on The Anarchivist blog) that:
During the course of our wide ranging conversation, we found ourselves discussing the need for a more vibrant professional literature, and someone questioned the reliability of blogs and other new media, and the suitability of these to meet our informational needs.
After I comment I made threatening this person with physical violence (and admiring the picture of Tom Hyry–you’ll never get that in an American Archivist article, people!), there was clarification about what was meant by “suitability.”
- As one who was part of the conversation, one of my concerns about blogging and other new media (whatever it is in the future) is that few sign their real names. There are some times when the name “Anonymous” is okay, or whatever other name you would like to be that day. But, when we are discussing our profession, we should be proud of who we are and what we do. We should not leave the new or the uninitiated guessing.
- I think Rosemary has hit at least one nail right on the head. It is difficult to have a useful, citable professional conversation about issues when participants chose not to identify themselves. Part of leadership is being able to say what you think in a non-confrontational way, back it up with good reasoning, and then roll up your sleeves and work towards a compromise solution that moves whatever issue/organization you’re working on forward in measurable ways. That can’t happen when contributers to the dialog choose to remain anonymous, which in my mind is the antithesis of leadership.
So, the concern is with anonymity of bloggers and commentors. I have a feeling many of you readers, particularly the regular commentors, may have something to share about this and I look forward to reading your thoughts (whether you choose to formally identify yourself or not).
The subject of anonymity has come up here before–during the discussion of how SAA could be improved. In that conversation, I wrote:
. . . I have to say that I think the fear people have about publicly criticizing SAA (or the profession in general) is somewhat justified. It all depends on your work environment and what your professional goals are. If you work in a large government archives or in some academic settings, where being a “team player” is valued, having a reputation as an agitator may not be a good thing. Our profession is small. We don’t have many opportunities for professional activities. I think there is a common perception that the leadership of SAA can be rather clique-ish, and if you offend the wrong person in that clique you’ll never do anything with SAA. And that clique is pretty influential in other areas too—so other doors may be shut as well. I’m not saying that’s true, but I think some people believe it.
So, will publicly criticizing SAA cost you your next job? Probably not. It certainly won’t cost you any friends. It might even mean that some people admire you. But it might mean that you don’t get an opportunity for some kind of professional involvement, and that might be the difference between you or another candidate getting the job after that . . .
I think that expresses one reason why people may choose to make some comments anonymously. Back over on the Anarchivist comment thread, Jim Gerencser presents another reason:
You seem to be making the assumption that people choose to remain anonymous because they plan to say negative things and therefore want to hide behind their anonymity. But someone might choose anonymity because of their own working environment.
Maybe I’d want to post a comment referring to policies I disagree with at my own institution, and maybe I’m not in a position to change those policies. I want to provide a useful example of what NOT to do to my colleagues, but I can’t afford to share my name because my boss might not be very pleased with my airing of the institution’s dirty laundry.
I think it’s also possible that some people have concerns about their privacy on the web. Speaking for myself (or “Kate T.” as I’m known in some comments on other blogs), when I first started this blog I made a decision not to supply my full name. At the time I was not sure what the reaction to the blog would be and I think I had some valid privacy concerns. I identify myself as the author of this blog in many places now, including in messages to the archives listserv, on the unofficial SAA wiki, and I think in my bio for the web reviews I’ve written for American Archivist. I never considered this blog as anonymously authored; I chose to create a very small buffer for my privacy.
I have also observed that identifying oneself by initials (or one initial, as my friend “T” has often done on this blog) or by a nickname is something of a convention in the world of blogs. Many people may be using nicknames or initials not because they’re trying to hide something, but just because that’s the way it’s commonly done.
For the most part, I find myself agreeing with the observation Jim made in closing his comment over on Geof’s blog:
In the end, I’d just suggest that a good idea, though expressed anonymously, does not make it any less a good idea. Anonymously posted information can still have value, even if not conveniently citable and therefore “scholarly.”
I’d like to hear your views on the role of blogs in our professional discourse and the extent to which you think anonymous commentors (or authors) calls into question their suitability to meet our information needs.
Archival profession, Blogs | Kate T. | 
June 26, 2008 10:36 am
6 Comments
Other Links to this Post
-
Archives Found » Blogging and the archival profession — July 11, 2008 @ 8:18 am
-
Blogging Archivists « Curious Child’s Library Wanderings — July 17, 2008 @ 12:21 am
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By Librarchivist, June 26, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
I think another reason bloggers want to remain anonymous is the fear of not knowing where the line is. I for one know that there is a line, but I’m not sure where it is or what constitutes crossing it.
Now, if someone looked around, they’d figure out who I am.* And they’d know that when I talk about my archive situation, I try to be nice, but while I’m not really angry, the situation does not reflect well on MPOW. And I am not so familiar with the(ir) rules as to know when I’ve crossed the line. Make sense?
I also wonder how much the fear of putting personal information on the internet feeds anonymity. We know we’re not supposed to put our name or other identifying info online yet people post their names, where they work, and more that would make it easy to find them.
Personally, the only anonymous posts or comments that bother me are the unuseful ones. If you’re going to bother commenting, please have a point that contributes, don’t just comment to be first or to be cute, save it for lolcats.
*I am now going to start commenting using my blogging name, whereas the few times I”ve posted on blogs I used my first name. I’m going to try to post more to my blog, but I’ve said that before.
By walt crawford, June 26, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
I’m not an archivist–but among libr* bloggers (that is, those who identify themselves as within the library field), about 75% use their real names. And I would suggest that there are very few important blogs in the field that don’t have real, identifiable names behind them. There are also a few of us who are saying that blogs and other gray literature may be the more important literature of the field. (I wrote a mildly controversial essay on that point in my ejournal, Cites & Insights, which of course is also gray literature).
I tend to agree that pseudonymity/anonymity interfere with authority. It’s just harder to take someone seriously when they’re not using their real name. Useful posts are still useful posts, to be sure…but increasingly, transparency does count for something.
By jordon, June 26, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
I like to keep things semi-anonymous for privacy reasons and because whatever you say hangs there in perpetuity. In fact, even a simple reply like this was subject to multiple revisions. There’s a good book out about this called “The Future of Reputation” by Solove.
But I think a distinction should be drawn between anonymous commenters and anonymous bloggers. Like walt said, bloggers are by and large identifiable personalities, whether those are real or virtual. Commenters like me just keep the discussion going–we matter, but we matter less. So to register concern with the archival blogosphere because of a handful of anonymous commenters exaggerates the “problem” of anonymity, in so far as it is a problem.
By Gordon, August 8, 2008 @ 8:28 am
This is a really excellent topic. I’ve posted a link to this thread over at my own blog I recently started called the Posterity Project.
For me blogging is a way to stay connected to the archival profession. My career track started in archives but has since trended towards special libraries and information gathering. I enjoy what I’m doing now, but have wanted a way to keep my toes in the waters of the archival profession. Blogging seemed to be a great way to do that. Blogging stimulates my intellectual curiosity and keeps me connected to my peers in the field.
As for anonymity, bloggers have been compared to the pamphleteers of the Revolutionary era. Many chose pseudonyms, some of which were quite humorous. Ben Franklin had a knack for picking out the best pseudonyms… “Silence Dogood,” “Celia Shortface,” and “Humphrey Ploughjogger,” just to name a few. At one point I thought I might pick a clever pseudonym for my blog, but I ultimately decided against it. It’s a personal choice, but I just think being easliy identified gives a blog more credibility and accountability.