Richard Cox shares his thoughts on the future of archives

In preparing for my first posts of the new year, I asked some archivists I admire to contribute their thoughts on the greatest opportunity and the great challenge facing archivists today. Here is the first contribution, from fellow blogger, writer, and archival educator, Richard Cox:

Most Important Opportunity:

Asked about identifying the most critical challenge, I assume most archivists will reflect on a variety of matters concerning technology issues – and there are plenty of such challenges. Even the very identity of the archivist is wrapped up in the rapidly transforming technology issues. However, I believe the most critical challenge is that of archival ethics. Politicization, intellectual property, technology, economic swings, and a host of other matters are all threatening archivists with new temptations and new situations that they have never really faced before. Yet, most of our professional associations give ethics little more than lip service. They have ethics codes because that is what professions do, but there is little support for these codes and certainly no enforcement for them. Indeed, it is no secret that archivists are on their own when facing ethical dilemmas. Archivists will find this aspect of their work to be the most troublesome, and I predict that at some point in the near future there will be more writing about and conferences on ethical aspects of archival work than about issues such as metadata, digital preservation, and access. At the moment, archivists are left to their own devices about how to approach ethical issues, and while individual conscience and moral and religious predilections always will be important, it is nevertheless unsatisfactory that archival ethics are given short shrift by the profession (while the profession stays fixated on practical and mundane concerns). It is difficult for archivists to shift their attention to such matters, and it is often disconcerting for young archivists to have their often romantic notions of the field jolted by concerns with ethical conduct (or misconduct), the realities of the world. Grappling with the ethical issues of the field will encourage, no –force, archivists to rethink the essential features of their mission, their place in society, and their connection to the world. Given the immense scholarship, as well as popular media coverage, on the essence of archives and their importance, this seems like a good task to engage in.

What do you think of Richard’s ideas? There has been much discussion (here and elsewhere) of the issues regarding access to government information, but I don’t think I’ve seen archival ethics raised to this level of importance recently. Many thanks to Richard for taking the time from his busy schedule to contribute here.

We’ll have posts from other archival thinkers in the coming weeks, and if there’s someone you’d really like to hear from, let me know and I’ll try to get that person to contribute!

15 Comments

• 

  By Russell D. James, CA, January 9, 2009 @ 8:41 am

  Part of me agrees with what Dr. Cox says, but another part of me asks some questions: “why should archivists become involved in the policymaking and policy decisions of legitimately elected government officials?” “Are we concerned with ethics or with entrenching NARA archivists in the bureauracracy of government?” “Since when is the Archivist of the United States a policy making officer?” He has never been elected, only appointed.

  I’d like to hear more on the ethical perspective.

• 

  By Matt Gorzalski, January 9, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

  “Why should archivists become involved in the policy making and policy decisions of legitimately elected government officials?”

  I think that archivists, both governmental and non-governmental, should become involved with policy decisions of legitimately elected officials for the same reasons that institutional archivists (corporations, universities, etc.) should be involved with decision making within their institutions. Of course, it would apply only to decisions and policies affecting NARA, the archives profession, or access to government records. Dr. Cox gives an example of what happens when archivists take a passive approach to the profession, and the policy makers that influence archives: “government secrecy has increased to unprecedented levels and access to government records and information systems has declined; secret agreements for the reclassifying of previously opened records; ignoring any responsibility to the citizenry for the role of records and information in ensuring government accountability.” I believe that we cannot, as a profession, continue allowing these kinds of things to happen.

  Involvement in policy making is a way of advocating archives and having electing officials recognize the importance of accountability, information access. Without this involvement, archives are generally ignored or forgotten. This hurts the archival profession. The essence of the profession is preserving and providing access to records, and we cannot allow elected officials to create unreasonable policies restricting access to these records. Even though government officials are legitimately elected, that does not mean they will always act legitimate upon taking office, or respect existing records related laws. Executive Order 13233 is an example of increased access control of presidential records, which was in contradiction to the existing Presidential Records Act. Verne Harris has said that archives are politics, so these advocacy and ethical issues cannot be avoided. As archivists, I think we should be actively involved in the policy making decisions regarding records of the institutions we work for or our government, because we, as elected officials, have a responsibility to the public to preserve our country’s heritage and keep records creators accountable in a dangerous world. We cannot violate the public trust.

• 

  By Stan W., January 9, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

  Russell,

  The Archivist of the United States is responsible for setting policy within the National Archives, just as the heads of all Federal agencies are responsible for setting policies within their own agencies. He or she is also responsible for setting policy, rules, and guidelines about records management in the Federal government. This office has a policy component, mandated in its mission, both within NARA and the Federal government in general.

  As for “entrenching NARA archivists in the bureauracracy of government,” NARA is a government agency. It is part of the bureaucracy of government. It has responsibilities for government-wide records management that require its staff to work broadly with all other government agencies and the White House. This isn’t “entrenching”–it’s doing their jobs.

  The kinds of policies NARA establishes, and the extent to which these policies (as well as applicable laws) are enforced by NARA staff is under the direct control of the Archivist of the United States.

• 

  By Marcella, January 9, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

  “There has been much discussion (here and elsewhere) of the issues regarding access to government information, but I don’t think I’ve seen archival ethics raised to this level of importance recently.”

  But these issues of access, secrecy, privacy, etc.–at the heart they’re all related to our ethical professional responsibilities, aren’t they? I think Dr. Cox raises a very valid and interesting point by focusing on the broader issue of ethics for the profession because it does affect all these other concerns that have come up in the profession and publicly in the news. I’m fairly new at this, but I have worked in both museums and archives and have found the ethical implications of my work and of the administration of the institutions for whom I’ve worked extremely important and, at times, troubling. Devoting more thought and care to the subject in the coming year seems like a good idea to me.

• 

  By Ross Griffiths, January 9, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

  I agree that ensuring broad, long-term access to records residing in the National Archives will require changing the institutional culture of the Archives itself. I don’t know to what degree its compliance with the outgoing administration’s wishes was a result of willingness, tradition or legal mandate, but I fail to see how NARA can be an effective advocate for anything without first developing a stable dedication to its own mission and a significantly higher degree of political independence.

  I can’t help but to contrast NARA’s tepid position in the archives profession with the Library of Congress’ undisputed leadership for libraries. There are obvious differences in the two agencies; the most obvious being the sheer number of librarians and their corresponding professional organizations in comparison to the smaller archives field. LC however, has been a strong and consistent leader in librarianship since its earliest beginnings and has earned its position of power. If NARA played a more dynamic role in advancing critical archival issues such as education, training, funding or emerging technologies, perhaps it could increase its own profile along with that of the archives profession. This, in turn, might allow the agency to better steer conversations about the future of archives, to help forge a shared identity among the various archival disciplines and to cultivate political support upon which it could depend when tackling controversial endeavors (like saying “no” to a sitting president).

  I think power is as much about friends as it is enemies. To me, NARA should work harder to cultivate both. If nothing else, I would like to see an Archivist of the United States who will build the agency into a far more visible and relevant reference point for professional archivists and for the general public whose interests archives should support.

• 

  By Maarja Krusten, January 10, 2009 @ 9:56 am

  Ross, you raise some interesting points about the need to make friends as well as enemies. I’ll address some of them — and some of the issues raised by Richard Cox and other posters — as I have more time later today. Just a quick observation now.

  Since you compare the Library of Congress to the National Archives, I would just note two additional distinctions between LC and NARA. The Library of Congress is a library and focuses on publications, although it does have a manuscript division. Publications are written with the intent of being public. By contrast, government officials who write letters, memoranda, e-mail messages, briefing papers, internal studies, and the other records that comprise pre-decisional materials largely are writing for the recipient. So deciding how and when to make such materials available is much more challenging than handling publications. I recognize that you are focused more on the roles of the two institutions in providing guidance. But it is worth noting that difference in their basic collections, as it is the sort of thing which can affect cultural outlooks and internal risk management.

  Most importantly, the Library of Congress does not hold the pre-decisional records of the branch of government in which it resides (the legislative branch). NARA, by contrast, is responsible for preserving and making available portions of the permanent, pre-decisional records of the branch in which it resides (the executive branch. That includes the records of the President, his aides, and Cabinet departments and agencies.) That is a key distinction in assessing collection risk levels and risk mitigation.

• 

  By Ross Griffiths, January 10, 2009 @ 11:05 am

  In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m a former student of Dr. Cox and these topics were popular ones in classroom discussions as well as personal favorites of mine…

  I agree with your assessment. I sometimes think that archivists view NARA as a place to get a job but not necessarily as a leader in professional standards and practices. At the risk of exposing my own ignorance, I can’t really think of too many professional standards I’ve encountered that NARA clearly produced–which is absolutely not the case with libraries and LC. I’d like to see NARA be a forceful presence in advocating best practices and also provide more leadership in defining the profession. “This is what archivists do, this is who they are, these are some basic principals we all share.” Then, actually demonstrate those consistently within the organization itself.

  Of course, it’s a little unfair of me to put all of this pressure on NARA when it is professional organizations (ALA, for example) that often shape professional identity as well. I think that’s a whole other blog…

• 

  By Karen Weaver, January 10, 2009 @ 11:14 am

  …:Yet, most of our professional associations give ethics little more than lip service. They have ethics codes because that is what professions do, but there is little support for these codes and certainly no enforcement for them. Indeed, it is no secret that archivists are on their own when facing ethical dilemmas. Archivists will find this aspect of their work to be the most troublesome, and I predict that at some point in the near future there will be more writing about and conferences on ethical aspects of archival work than about issues such as metadata, digital preservation, and access.”

  Do you think that archival or library professionals do not also involve ethical decision making as well in “metadata, digital preservation, and access” issues ? This also demands ethical leadership as well -no? From my experience and education so far, it must as well in terms of leadership and decision making–perhaps many just forgot that it does…:-( ?

• 

  By Maarja Krusten, January 10, 2009 @ 2:07 pm

  Thanks for the good explanation and the disclosure, Ross. NARA’s position is complicated by the fact that it is an entity of the federal government. It has a role in both records management of current, active records within the Cabinet departments and agencies and archival intake and preservation of permanently valuable records. So its stakeholders are very different from those of libraries. Things work best for NARA if its stakeholders buy in to what NARA and records statutes require and have *affirmative* reasons for complying. Historians rarely focus on that and sometimes seem to struggle with the idea.

  As to the archival community as a whole, I sometimes wonder if NARA’s voice is muted because archivists themselves work in such different institutions. I know an archivist who worked at a donor-restricted repository where, according to what this individual once told me, positive information about the principal was made available to researchers while negative information tended not to see the light of day. If a donor or his or her family has the power to say, “don’t release it,” the archivist has to honor it. There is no judicial review in such cases.

  Some of the NARA administered Presidential Libraries are donor-restricted. Others hold material which is controlled statutorily. Even in the latter, the President has the right to exert communications privilege to block NARA from releasing information. It’s a Constitutional privilege.

  Compare the environment at a donor-restricted, family oriented private sector archives to the one in which my late sister worked. As a Supervisory Archivist, she was in charge of declassifying State Department records at NARA. She worked within the framework of the Executive Order for handling national security classified records. Not only do the family members of the people who created the original records have no say, they wouldn’t even be able to view the records the principals created and handled until the government declassified them. They have no place in the process and their wishes are not relevant. Instead, my sister worked with the government equity holders.

  Consider also that researchers use varying methods for gaining access to archival materials. Material to which the Freedom of Information Act applies offers the greatest tools to researchers. They can file a FOIA to access records. If denied by NARA, they can appeal the denial to the U.S. Archivist. If denied again, they can file a lawsuit. If that occurs, a judge has the right to look at the material and to determine whether it was improperly withheld from public disclosure or whether the restrictions fit with past application of FOIA exemptions. Judicial review plays an important role in FOIA controlled material, one that does not exist with all other archival materials.

  There is little commonality here, except “obey the controlling authority.” That may be an individual or a family (which sets donor restrictions) — people with a high degree of vested interest in how the creator of the records is protrayed. Or it may be a statute. You can’t argue, defer to the creator or the family of the creator, if material is controlled by statute. On the other hand, you can’t argue, apply public interest balancing tests and open the good along with the bad, if the family legally has the power to block disclosure. That institutions have such differing cultures and archivists operate in such differing work environments makes it difficult to define a broad archival ethos when it comes to public access.

  Perhaps that is one reason why discussions of public access on the Archives & Archivists Listserv and the Recmgmt-L are so muted. You sometimes see clues to other possible reasons, also, some related to personal political preferences of subscribers, some related to comfort or discomfort with hierarchies, some related to the difficulty of talking about the real world as opposed to the ideal world. In my experience, getting people to engage in useful debate about the human beings behind archival records has been difficult, much more so than I had anticipated.

• 

  By Maarja Krusten, January 10, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

  Clarification: I left out former in the sentence about communications privilege. It should have read, “Even in the latter, the former President has the right to exert communications privilege to block NARA from releasing information. It’s a Constitutional privilege.”

  I finally have time to add a few thoughts about the challenges of working with controversial. The law under which I screened Richard Nixon tapes as a NARA employee called for release of the “full truth” about the government abuses of power commonly known as Watergate. I knew, when I left NARA’s employ in January 1990, that some 200 hours of Waterate related information remained unreleased from Richard Nixon’s tapes. What option was available to me when the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries (John Fawcett) informed historian Stanley Kutler in a letter sent him in January 1992 that all “integral file segments” related to Watergate had been released and that Cabinet tapes would be released next, although not for some time?

  Did anyone at SAA know in January 1991 that Watergate conversations remained undisclosed by NARA. I very much doubt it. I certainly had no contact with SAA about the matter — or with anyone outside the federal government. Between my departure from NARA in January 1990 and my testimony in September 1992 in a lawsuit, I only talked about the existence of the records with my fellow federal employees. And I only testified about what I had said in 1989 during internal disputes at NARA over Nixon’s Watergate tapes in when Dr. Kutler filed a lawsuit in March 1992 and called me as a witness. Until then, I kept my mouth shut. Dr. Kutler’s lawsuit led NARA to admit that the 200 hours of Watergate existed. A settlement of the case in 1996 led to their release. What if Dr. Kutler had not filed a lawsuit?

  How many other archivists have found themselves in such positions? We’ll never know. What options are available to them? Not many.

  When Nixon’s lawyers implied during Kutler’s lawsuit that my supervisor had been biased against Nixon, I could not explain that in my view, not only was that not the case, Nixon’s lawyers may have been making such a charge because he may not have wanted point certain information to be released. (I wondered at the time if he was trading NARA’s archivists’ reputations for that of the former President.) I couldn’t discuss the content of unreleased tapes, including conversations which showed Nixon and chief of staff H. R. Haldeman talking about using the Secret Service to spy on Edward Kennedy. Or records about Nixon’s request that aides look at how many Jewish officials were employed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Or orders by Nixon to have the IRS audit the tax returns of Clark Clifford and other well-known opponents of the Vietnam War. Such materials are available to the public in 2009 but were undisclosed when I testified in 1992. You can’t discuss what you have seen or heard if it is not yet public, even if you would like to do so in defense of archivists’ reputations. It’s a position archivists are much more likely to find themselves in than librarians.

• 

  By Karen Weaver, January 10, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

  in follow up to my previous question above, Do you think that archival or library professionals do not also involve ethical decision making as well in “metadata, digital preservation, and access” issues ?

  here is also an upcoming example of ethics under the scope of information organization–it’s very much so as important and part of archival work too –metadata, digital preservation, access–

  Just an example of what I was trying to describe…I’ve never considered it otherwise
  people have all different perspectives. /kw

  “Center for Information Policy Research”

  Ethics of Information Organization Conference – upcoming May 2009 – Milwaukee WI

  http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ioethics.html

  “The Center for Information Policy Research (CIPR) was established in 1998, at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, School of Information Studies (UWM-SOIS)”

  “Information organization (IO), like other major functions of the information profession, faces many ethical challenges. In the IO literature, ethical concerns have been raised with regard to, for example, the role of national and international IO standards, providing subject access to information, deprofessionalization and outsourcing of IO, education of IO professionals, and the effects of globalization. These issues, and others like them, have serious implications for quality and equity in information access. The Center for Information Policy Research and the Information Organization Research Group at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee join in presenting this conference to address the ethics of information organization.”

  “The themes of the conference may include, but are not limited to, ethical aspects of and approaches to:”
  • The role of standards in IO
  • Subject access to information
  • Description and Metadata
  • Folksonomies and social tagging as IO
  • Day-to-day practice in IO
  • Professionalism and IO
  • Education for IO
  • Culture and IO
  • Economic, social and political factors in IO
  • International, multicultural and multilingual aspects of IO

  the website also has archived lecture of

  “See the Archived lecture page for CIPR’s November 30, 2007: ”
  Archives and Ethics:
  Reflections on Practice

  A one day conference focusing on ethical issues in archives and the archives profession, held at the UWM Libraries, UW-Milwaukee.

  Featuring:
  Verne Harris, Centre for Memory/Commemoration, Nelson Mandela Foundation

• 

  By Maarja Krusten, January 12, 2009 @ 3:55 am

  For Karen:

  I had hoped that Richard would look over the comments and post reactions. Since he has not done so to date, let me just offer a guess. When he writes about the fact that there is little discussion of ethical issues, he may mean that there are few forums where such issues are discussed in-depth in a way that offers practical guidance. I happen to agree with him there. Of course, archivists may find it very difficult if not impossible to discuss ethical challenges they have faced with their current employers. But what about archivists or former archivists who have moved on to other jobs? Even there, I only see a handful of people who discuss real life ethical challenges and how to resolve them. You are right that there have been forums where some of those people do touch on them.

  The quandary I describe above is one I’ve mentioned in other forums. People tend to fall silent when they do see me mention it. It may be that they have no answers. Or it may be that the fact that a former President was involved seems intimidating or indicative of an imbalance in power. Some people may be distracted in considering such questions because they can’t get rid of the filter of their own political leanings (that is, they look at Presidential records issues through the lens of which party they support). Whatever the reason, I’ve found the voices in forums such as the Archives & Archivists Listserv (and even more so Recmgmt-L) to be very muted when it comes to discussing real-life scenarios of the type I mentioned above.

• 

  By Karen Weaver, January 13, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

  Maarja: …”Of course, archivists may find it very difficult if not impossible to discuss ethical challenges they have faced with their current employers. But what about archivists or former archivists who have moved on to other jobs? Even there, I only see a handful of people who discuss real life ethical challenges and how to resolve them. You are right that there have been forums where some of those people do touch on them….”

  …”The quandary I describe above is one I’ve mentioned in other forums. People tend to fall silent when they do see me mention it. It may be that they have no answers….”

  Thx Maarja, you know, one of my earliest summer internships, along time ago now, was as a Roosevelt Archival Intern one summer in Hyde Park at the FDR Presidential Library– the experience which I carry with me among several other irreplaceable ones. It would make sense that young professionals whether in archives or libraries would or should learn most from their mentors, esp in the archive or library where they still have been known to nurture the next generation. But yes that is an ideal perhaps,
  not everyone is willing to take the interest or time to share and teach what they know, or what they want to infuse into the younger generation following them, but in my experiences, I can say that these professionals do exist.

  In terms of the other comments above, it’s not always appropriate for professionals to feel comfortable on certain public forums speaking out, yet at a certain point or in another type of venue, issues related to all professional education should be discussed openly without fear of repercussions. To me, this is the test of a professional. Ethical challenges exist not only to archivists, but is a mainstream everyday professional guide for most working special collections broadly speaking as well, and also in areas such as information access and organization. There are no sacred cows as they say, and we can probably apply similar thoughts to most professions today.

Other Links to this Post

1. Akten(-vernichtung) für Gerichte oder Geschichte? — January 31, 2009 @ 8:40 am

2. Akten(-vernichtung) für Gerichte oder für HistorikerInnen? — July 5, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment