pedagogy and professionalism: an evaluation of trends and ... · archival education * 25 it...

Pedagogy and Professionalism: An Evaluation of Trends and

Choices Confronting Educators in the Archival Community

VERNON R. SMITH

Introduction

People who take up vocations that involve service to the public are continually faced with the most basic of questions: How may they best meet the needs of their clientele? Their answers to this question require constant evaluation and revision in the midst of an ever-changing society. Good teachers, for instance, scrutinize their teaching strategies and curriculum content to ensure that their students receive the most relevant education. Public historians must likewise assess their work to continue providing appropriate services to their clients. In the case of those working in the history-related field of archives, self-evaluation is as significant as ever, given recent developments in computer technology and the ways in which our society documents its past. In order to maintain a significant social role, archivists must continue to study closely the needs and methods of the users of their facilities, the researchers. Researchers are quite diverse, including historians, the members of many disciplines and professions which rely

VERNON R. SMITH, a former teacher, received his master's degree in history with an emphasis in public history at Cleveland State University in 1993. He is now an archivist for the Office of the National Archives, Textual Reference Division, National Archives and Records Administration. He was hired as part of NARA's Archivist Career Training Program, which includes two years of rotational assignment training throughout the agency. The author extends sincere gratitude to Dr. John Grabowski of the Western Reserve His- torical Society (Cleveland, Ohio) and Dr. James Borchert of the Cleveland State University for their critical input during the preparation of this essay. The same appreciation is ex- tended to Rev. Mark Fedor for his generous assistance, proofreading, and writing guidance.

23

The Public Historian, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Summer 1994) ? 1994 by the Regents of the University of California and

the National Council on Public History

Dow

nloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/tph/article-pdf/16/3/23/252974/3378498.pdf by guest on 16 M

ay 2020

24 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

upon archival documents, those individuals who study areas of personal interest, and many others. In the sphere of government, this concern has been underscored by President Clinton's executive order to the National Archives and other agencies in late summer 1993 to analyze and improve its customer service. Beyond the realm of government records, historical archives of all kinds around the country face the same need for improved customer service so they may continue to play a vibrant role in their communities.

The training and educational preparation of students for public historical fields, and specifically for work in archives, are directly related to this concern. Quite simply, sound training should create quality public servants. The preparation of archivists in American universities has been a major topic of debate recently within the archival community. The Society of American Archivists (SAA) is currently establishing standards for the education of archivists. The SAA's Committee on Education and Professional Development (CEPD) has in the last year issued two drafts of proposed standards for graduate education in Masters of Archival Studies programs (May 1993 and January 1994).

Archives exist to serve the users of their documents. Therefore, one would think that the CEPD would focus on the pedagogical question of how best to address student learning needs so that they may provide the public with quality archival service. Unfortunately, it is not clear that this most basic of educational questions has been the primary force in shaping the CEPD's proposal. Over the last decade, the world of archives has been caught up in a controversy concerning professionalism which has served to confuse the discussion of educational issues, especially the training of new archivists. This has caused archival educational development to lag behind other professional concerns. Society of American Archivists (SAA) newslet- ters from the last seven years focus heavily on the implementation of a certification and examination program. Until recently, however, the advanced development of educational models and programs to provide the training upon which such certification should be based has not occurred. Blueprints for graduate study in archives, such as the CEPD's 1993-94 drafts of guidelines, continue to be debated, whereas the certification exam has already been in place for several years. According to teaching practices and educational theory, such a lag in planning runs the potential danger of constructing narrowly conceived programs that "teach to the test." Given the situation, great care will be required to develop archival education that goes beyond mere test objectives so as to be broad-based, interdisciplinary, and integrative.

This essay explores several issues with such a goal in mind. To provide some background for the discussion, it begins with avery brief sketch of the historical development of archival education, emphasizing recent attention to professional concerns and its potential impact on training and public service. The discussion then reviews several proposed educational models.

Dow


ay 2020

ARCHIVAL EDUCATION * 25

It concludes with a recommendation for a historically oriented archival curriculum which serves as an alternative model to those which overempha- size professionalism. The suggested program is based upon an approach in which pedagogy outweighs professional concerns and which maintains a concept of broad and integrated archival education that is firmly anchored in the humanities.

The Background and Development of Archival Education'

At least as early as 1909, Waldo Gifford Leland initiated discussion concerning the education of archivists in America. He desired more than mere on-the-job training for archivists through the development of courses "given in our universities or in our library schools to prepare students for archival work."2 Since then, debate over the setting and correct formula of the practical versus theoretical preparation of archivists has continued without resolution.

The question of archival education largely lay fallow until the establishment of the National Archives in 1934, when archivists and historians saw the need for staff with appropriate training. The founding of the National Archives, a massive institution in comparison to the small historical associa- tions and societies of the day, prompted serious discussion of the need for systematic and standardized training for archivists.3 For the next several decades, an argument grew over whether the history department or the library school was the most appropriate setting for archival training. Samuel F. Bemis, chair of the first SAA Committee on Education and Training, believed that a historical education was most appropriate. Others, like the well-known archivist Margaret Cross Norton, proposed archival programs in library science emphasizing attention to records management, information science, and administration.4 None of these suggested programs were ever explicitly agreed upon and adopted by the SAA, however, as models for archival education.

Linked to this lack of consensus were controversial proposals, which emerged by the early 1950s, to make archivists into a more identifiable professional group. Debate grew over whether or not archival work should

1. This section is intended as a very brief overview of the background and early development of archival education. Much of it is based upon Jacqueline Goggin's article "That We Shall Truly Deserve the Title of 'Profession': The Training and Education of Archivists, 1930- 1960," The American Archivist 47 (Summer 1984), 243-54. See her article for a more in-depth treatment of this topic.

2. Terry Eastwood, "Nurturing Archival Education in the University," The American Archivist 51 (Summer 1988), 230-31; and Waldo Gifford Leland, "American Archival Prob- lems," inAnnual Report of the American Historical Associationfor the Year 1909 (Washington, 1911), 348.

3. Jacqueline Goggin, "That We Shall Truly Deserve the Title of 'Profession'," 245. 4. Ibid., 247-49.

Dow


ay 2020


be termed a "profession." Those in favor of calling archives a profession emphasized the need for entry-level certification in order to delineate community membership more clearly. In 1953, archivist Delores C. Renze proposed the creation of an "Institute of American Archivists" within the SAA to offer annual examinations and oversee the implementation of a certification process and rigorous standards for society membership. Her idea evoked negative responses from individuals throughout the archival community, some of whom were threatened by qualifications that they feared they could not meet.5 Hence, her plan was never implemented.

Jacqueline Goggin, Senior Manuscript Reference Librarian for the Li- brary of Congress, explains that by the 1960s and 1970s, archivists could not reach a consensus on education and certification. Goggin contends that archivists simply failed to resolve such major issues as whether training should emphasize the theoretical or the practical and whether the history department or the library school is the best educational setting and the controversy over individual certification and archival professionalism.6

With no real resolution of these issues by the SAA, Goggin claims that "the same ideas that were tried and found wanting in the 1940s and 1950s were once again resurrected in the 1960s and 1970s."'7 This lack of direction was reflected in the nature of American university programs for archival training. According to the SAA Education Directory of 1973, only twelve universities provided multi-course offerings related to archives, and none of these included more than four courses. Most programs offered only an introductory course and a practicum experience or independent research. Several provided an additional course or two involving more specific archival topics, a seminar, or independent research/thesis work. Besides these dozen schools, an additional 20 universities offered only a single introductory course in archives.8 Archival education in the United States by the early 1970s remained underdeveloped.

In 1977, an SAA committee addressing the issues of education and professional development approved very general guidelines for archival education. The committee called for a sequence of introductory and advanced graduate courses along with thesis/dissertation supervision for studies dealing directly with archives administration. It also suggested some on- the-job practical experience in order to give meaning to classroom work. These guidelines, however, were very broad and did not attempt to resolve other important questions: Should the SAA pursue a European model of training, involving a program dedicated only to archival technique, theory, and information science? Or should the program be set up in the form of a

5. Ibid., 251. 6. Ibid., 244. 7. Ibid., 253. 8. Society of American Archivists, Education Directory: Careers and Courses in Archival

Administration (Ann Arbor: Society of American Archivists, 1973), 8-28.

Dow


ay 2020


"minor" in either history or library science? Avoiding these issues, the guidelines did not ultimately specify any kind of graduate degree.9

In 1988, the SAA Committee on Education and Professional Develop- ment (CEPD) revised these guidelines, calling for an increased effort to define the nature of the education that individuals seeking to become an archivist should receive. By May 1993, the committee published its first detailed draft of new guidelines for the development of a curriculum for Masters of Archival Studies (MAS) programs.'o In response to the input of SAA members reviewing the proposal, a second draft was released in January 1994. It is currently undergoing further review, and the SAA's Standards Board is scheduled to submit its recommendation on the final document to Council for a vote during the summer of 1994." This process will determine whether or not the draft will be approved as an SAA standard.

The proposal provides the most specific attempt to date to outline standards for the form and nature of archival education. It calls for five basic components of training programs: the study of bodies of contextual knowledge, archival knowledge, and complementary knowledge, and work involving both a practicum experience and scholarly research. Although this draft is characterized by greater specificity with respect to educational content, it still leaves open the question of an MAS program's setting, claiming that it may be irhplemented "in a school of library and information science, department of history, a law school, or a school of business administration."'12 A survey of the arguments that have developed over the last nine years concerning the nature of vocational preparation will serve to clarify the context in which the authors were operating. The prevailing climate of professionalization has significantly influenced the parameters of the discussion which shaped the draft's contents.

Recent and Current Arguments Concerning Archival Education

By the 1980s, archival education became characterized by a three-course pattern still common today. This pattern is not necessarily tied to history, library science, or any other single discipline. It includes an introductory course of readings on archival theory and practice, a practicum experience,

9. Ruth W. Helmuth, "Education for American Archivists: A View from the Trenches," The American Archivist 44 (Fall 1981), 299-300.

10. Committee on Educational and Professional Development (CEPD) of the Society of American Archivists, "Draft: Guidelines for the Development of a Curriculum for a Master of Archival Studies," Archival Outlook: SAA Newsletter (May 1993).

11. Committee on Educational and Professional Development (CEPD) of the Society of American Archivists, "Revised Draft: Guidelines for the Development of a Curriculum for a Master of Archival Studies," Archival Outlook: SAA Newsletter (January 1994), 16-19, including eight-page insert of the draft proposal.

12. Ibid., 6 (of draft insert).

Dow


ay 2020


and an independent study course. Concern over the paltry preparation such a curriculum provided students quickly became subordinate to debate over the professional status of archivists. The 1980s brought a burst of activity in the SAA in favor of strengthening and defining archives as a "profession," a movement carrying its momentum into the present. This has been a response to the challenge facing archivists summarized by Richard J. Cox:

The changes in documentation of the late twentieth century demand that archivists fulfill new roles and develop new strategies. Documenting an event of 1975 is an exceedingly more complex process than documenting one of 1800 ... the very changes of modem society, primarily its reliance on technology, are making professions as such obsolete.13

Some archivists today may sense the encroachment of technology and its accompanying array of information specialists, scientists, and records managers who seem to threaten their livelihood. There appears to be an understandable reaction within the archival community to delineate professional boundaries as a means of self-preservation.

These professional concerns surrounding the explosion of information technology and the rise of specialists have driven recent discussions of the need to improve educational programs. Cox has emphasized, both in journal articles and in other public statements, the need to address the professional concerns of archivists. One of his themes is the need to define professional standards and shape the parameters of educational development. Cox, who applies sociological theories of professionalism in making his claims, argues that "the level of an occupation's professionalism is determined by the autonomy society grants it."'4 As of 1986, Cox claimed that a sign of weakness in professional autonomy was the fact that archivists did not control entry into their ranks. "It seems that virtually anyone can become a 'professional' archivist by simply declaring to be one." 5 The SAA created the certification process by the late 1980s as a result of this concern. It was a tangible attempt to identify the membership of the community of archivists and lend credence to their status as professionals. Cox has also made the related claim that archivists have virtually no control over archival education, since their programs are usually subordinate to history or library science programs.'6

According to Cox, this lack of professional autonomy is paralleled by a lack of a clear professional image:

If many archivists remain confused about whether they are historians, public historians, librarians, information specialists, records managers, or just archivists, how will the public know what to sanction about archivists?'7

13. Richard J. Cox, "Professionalism and Archivists in the United States," The American Archivist 49 (Summer 1986), 246.

14. Ibid., 233. 15. Ibid., 236. 16. Ibid., 235. 17. Ibid., 236.

Dow


ay 2020

ARCHIVAL EDUCATION n 29

He believes that the development of aprofessional archival culture has been retarded by the past reluctance of archivists to define and describe the nature of their work.18

Therefore, Cox and others continue to argue for the development of a systematized body of theory and knowledge to define and ground the profession through intellectual content. For instance, Susan Davis criticizes archives as "intellectually underdeveloped," in great need of shifting emphasis away from practice to theory.'9 Cox is likewise wary of developing archival education that is heavily job-oriented at the expense of creating a theoretical basis for practice and improved management skills.20 To Cox and Davis, advanced theory is needed to legitimate the profession. This line of argument appears as part of the rationale behind the CEPD's 1993-94 drafts for an MAS degree. Citing Richard Cox, the drafts claim that "the identity of a profession is founded on a body of knowledge belonging exclusively to it."21

William Joyce, another proponent of the cultivation of archival theory, claims that the study of documents, their sources, and theoretical concerns provides a powerful tool for the advancement of archives as a profession.

It is that, by virtue of their understanding of the sources they manage and their understanding of the institutions that generate those sources, archivists can offer an integrated view of historical records that is at the heart of information theory.22

He believes that such study and contributions to the development of information theory, in turn, will not only strengthen the intellectual foundation of archives, but that of all information professionals.23 For Joyce, it is important that distinctive theoretical knowledge coupled with a system of

18. Ibid., 237. 19. Susan E. Davis, "Archival Education, The Next Step," The Midwestern Archivist 14,

no. 1 (1989), 17. 20. Cox, "Professionalism and Archivists in the United States," 239-40. 21. CEPD, "Draft Guidelines," (May 1993), 6; and "Revised Draft," (January 1994), 5. For

those unfamiliar with archival theory, the following is an example. In discussing appraisal, or the process of deciding which documents to keep in an archives permanently, temporarily, or not at all, the famous archival theorist T.R. Schellenberg developed the distinction between the "evidential" and "informational" values contained in documents. Documents have evidential value, for instance, if they contain evidence of the organization and/or functioning of the individual, group, or body that produced them. Informational value, on the other hand, involves the substance contained in the records about persons, corporate bodies, things, problems, conditions, and the like, with which the creating individual, group, or organization dealt. Schellenberg then used these theoretical concepts as a basis to discuss the issues surrounding the critical decisions involved in keeping select documents in limited archival space while destroying the rest. Since Schellenberg's writing in 1956, archivists have applied, critiqued, and re-applied new understandings of these concepts as they engage in records appraisal. This is just one example of the archival theories to which those like Cox and Davis allude above. This example is taken from T.R. Schellenberg, "The Appraisal of Modern Public Records," in A Modern Archives Reader, ed. Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1984), 57-70.

22. William L. Joyce, "Archival Education: Two Fables," The American Archivist 51 (Winter and Spring 1988), 20.

23. Ibid.

Dow


ay 2020

30 m THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

standards and accreditation serve to develop a sense of professional community. Without this, archivists "risk falling prey to the claims of information scientists, historians, and others" who believe that their credentials, standards, and knowledge are appropriate to meet the needs of archivists.24

Cox summarizes the significance of what he views as the current "cycle of poverty" in archival theory. The lack of professional education standards perpetuates a system of poor education and training. This in turn weakens the development of archival theory and the establishment of stronger professional standards.25 Hence, the views of Cox, Davis, and Joyce all underscore the role of theoretical education (along with certification) in shoring up the professional identity of archivists.

In order to accomplish this, those who argue along these lines believe that the creation of independent master's degree programs in archives, not subordinate to programs in history, library science, or any other discipline, is necessary in establishing the professional autonomy of archives. Joyce believes this will help to define and create a structured "community of the competent."''26 William Orr, in studying archival training programs in Eu- rope, contends that American archivists should look overseas for such models of graduate programs. He claims that the "most valuable insight Europe can provide America is that autonomous, self-contained programs can and do thrive."27

Archivists need not look so far away for a model of an autonomous degree program. Terry Eastwood's program at the University of British Columbia, which dates to the early 1980s, requires two years of study. It includes a thesis and culminates in a Master of Archival Studies (MAS) degree. Program requirements include: (1) core archival studies courses (35% of total credits), (2) a thesis (25%), (3) electives (30%), (4) a graduate-level course in Canadian history (5%), and (5) a practicum experience (5%).28 In describing the program, Eastwood makes many of the same arguments as Cox and Joyce in favor of full master's level archival administration programs created to strengthen the educational foundation, theory, and public profile of archives.29

The University of British Columbia's program has provided a model for the SAA, and it is clear that the 1993-94 CEPD drafts for MAS program guidelines incorporate this language of programmatic autonomy. Although it claims that MAS programs may be constructed using the resources of history departments, library schools, departments of business administration, and other disciplines, the draft emphasizes the significance of the

24. Ibid., 19. 25. Cox, "Professionalism and Archivists in the United States," 236. 26. Joyce, "Archival Education, Two Fables," 22. 27. William J. Orr, "Archival Training in Europe," The American Archivist 44 (Winter

1981), 38. 28. Eastwood, "Nurturing Archival Education in the University," 240. 29. Ibid.

Dow


ay 2020


development of autonomous master's degree programs of archival education.30

Cox de-emphasizes traditional reliance upon the apprenticeship/practica in the education of professionals, preferring a focus on education as opposed to training, or on the thought processes behind the archival profession rather than on unthinking job activities:

This means that the practicum, one component of our education programs that has never been evaluated, might need to be scrapped or completely redefined as more emphasis is placed on archival theory and principles in order to prepare individuals to gain the requisite experience in their positions.31

He believes that apprenticeships are generally most useful for a limited range of archival activities that do not truly reflect the full variety of

responsibilities an archivist encounters. Also, they tend to perpetuate the standards and outlook of "old hands," limiting the opportunities for the development of new theories and methods. Hence, he suggests that practica must be discarded or totally reevaluated.

Ideally, Cox sees archival education as a forum for the discussion and creation of archival theory that encourages practicing archivists to ask why and not just how they administer historical materials. This theoretical framework is intended to support and guide the actual practice of the

profession. Without theory underlying educational standards, he contends that archivists may never be in a suitable bargaining position for more resources or influence, and may be incapable of dealing with the challenges of the modern information era.32

An Appraisal of Current Educational Trends

These ideas concerning professionalism, echoed by many besides Cox, Eastwood, Davis, Orr, and Joyce, constitute a dominant theme in journal literature and have been incorporated into the structure of the 1993-94 CEPD drafts for MAS programs, suggesting a direction for the future of archival education. Their underlying assumptions, however, should now be challenged and reexamined from the standpoint of humanistic education and the concerns of those disciplines allied to archives (history, public history, the social sciences, library and information science, etc.). Such allied disciplines offer an "outsider" perspective, given the archival community's attempt to distinguish itself professionally from them. Also, given the educational nature of this debate, a pedagogical perspective is

necessary in evaluating proposed archival training programs. These "out-

30. CEPD, "Draft: Guidelines," (May 1993), 2, 8; and "Revised Draft," (January 1994), 2, 6. 31. Richard J. Cox, "What are the Goals of the Archival Profession? Views from a Former

Council Member," Society of American Archivists Newsletter (November 1989), 17. 32. Cox, "Professionalism and Archivists in the United States," 244.

Dow


ay 2020

32 m THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

sider" viewpoints are offered in the hopes of addressing issues and stimulat- ing debate.

Educational development primarily motivated by the need to shore up professional identity presents a number of potential pitfalls. For instance, the push for certification in the 1980s resulted in a precarious development (briefly mentioned above) in which the SAA certification examination preceded any agreed-upon educational models. That certification came first is understandable, of course, since it is far easier to construct a test than it is to coordinate clear national guidelines that may be implemented in ex- tremely diverse university settings. Some believe that certification itself will help spark educational development. This may be true, but standard educational practices and methods of evaluation typically presuppose the exist- ence of learning objectives for any program that is developed. It is upon such objectives that an examination is based. The test-makers, however, lacked this basis as well as any educational consensus within the archival community. In order to construct the certification examination, they faced the task of defining a core of objectives that were deemed as absolutely necessary for one to enter the profession.

A potentially dangerous outcome of this situation is that the educational objectives targeted by the examination could be interpreted by those developing archival training as providing a model for the scope of educational goals for any new program. In other words, it is all too easy to construct a program that teaches to the test objectives only. Those developing educational programs for archives must take great care to provide training well beyond the limited parameters of such certification objectives or risk isolating archival education from other disciplines. "Purely archival" education focusing on information management (as will be argued more fully below) could sever the field of archives from its roots in the humanities, thus destroying its identity as a vocation.

Another potential pitfall facing educational development is overempha- sis on professional identity. Historians, public historians, librarians, information specialists, records managers, and others seem to be encroaching upon the traditional roles of archivists. The response to this and the recent explosion of information and technology has been a defensive, reactive, and inward-looking attempt to draw professional boundaries in the sand. This is somewhat understandable, but marking out turf with the tools of certification, standards, and archival theory runs counter to the proactive orientation required to envision, articulate, and achieve long-term goals for the archival community which, in the final analysis, may be its truly defining character- istics.

Hugh Taylor saw some of the changes coming to the field in 1977 and claimed that archivists should attempt to confront the challenges of the information field "from a position of strength and not as a desperate leap

Dow


ay 2020


onto the bandwagon" of the times, which he saw as information science.' In preparation for a changing society, he noted that archivists should recognize that their role may come to vary more than they are usually prepared to accept. Cautioning against what he described as the conservative nature of professionalization, he argued that archivists must be especially wary of a natural tendency to carve out an isolated professional "fiefdom," for such a move can undermine archivists' natural connections to historians, researchers, and other information preservers and users. In short, "we must learn to perceive more clearly, and articulate our interdependence with our professional neighbors."34

Emphasis upon this kind of general approach will serve archivists well in helping to define themselves while recognizing their connections to the humanities and information fields, both of which are integral parts of who they are and what they do. Virtually all archivists, including Richard Cox, agree that archives is a "history-based occupation"35 that is simultaneously documentary and information-oriented. The challenge for archivists is to articulate their identity in terms of their distinctive interrelationships with other professions and not merely to limit themselves to what is unique to their community alone.

According to this perspective, education should reflect the complex identity of archivists. Autonomous masters programs, however, run the risk of overly isolating students from the humanities and other topics relevant to archives. Unfortunately, the 1994 CEPD draft proposal for MAS programs reflects the recent tendency to carve out professional boundaries. By emphasizing "purely archival" topics, it outlines a program that in practice could significantly sever archival work from the humanities. Its curriculum calls for including the following five subject areas in coursework, serving as the core of an MAS degree program:"6

Contextual Knowledge * U.S. Organizational History * U.S. Legal System * U.S. Financial System

Archival Knowledge * The History of Archives, Archival Organization and Legislation, and

the Character of the Archival Profession * Records Management * Archival Science

33. Hugh A. Taylor, "The Discipline of History and the Education of the Archivist," The American Archivist 40 (October 1977), 397.

34. Ibid., 395-400. 35. Richard J. Cox, "Archivists and Public Historian in the United States," The Public

Historian 8 (Summer 1986), 45. 36. CEPD, "Revised Draft," (January 1994), 4.

Dow


ay 2020


Complementary Knowledge * Conservation * Library and Information Science * Management * Research Methods * History

Practicum

Scholarly Research

The language of this proposed curriculum reflects a heavy emphasis upon the study of institutional bureaucracy and information science/management, while making considerably less provision for broader linkages to the humanities. This program appears tailored to the study of corporate, government, and other institutional records of professional American society. These are clearly significant in terms of their reference value for current administrative concerns as well as for future historical use in understanding twentieth-century America. However, such a narrow emphasis may result in a skewed, incomplete, and inappropriately handled reservoir of this society's documentary heritage. The proposed program does not help students gain an appreciation of the resource needs and research strategies of members of the media, historians, sociologists, demographers, political scientists, anthropologists, and many other researchers who depend upon archives to study and analyze topics going beyond legal entities and bureaucracies. Students may not gain the background and sensitivity to collect, manage, and preserve materials related to a number of significant informal aspects of American society, including the arts, textual and material culture, social relationships, psychology, ethnicity, linguistics, nonverbal communi- cation, and popular/folk culture. Besides providing a background for preserving materials related directly to these areas, historical knowledge of these topics provides students with a broader humanistic context in which to understand the roles of institutions, bureaucracies, and even archives themselves.

From this perspective, the January 1994 draft of the MAS program is in need of drastic revision. The release of the May 1993 draft, which did not even include history as one of the subordinate elements of complementary knowledge, was followed by a review and comment process by SAA members which resulted in the revised January 1994 draft.37 The revisions of the first draft, however, did not alter its overall emphasis and sense of educational direction. History is the only field of the humanities represented, and it is placed among the areas of complementary knowledge which the draft

37. Ibid., 1.

Dow


ay 2020


presents as merely supplemental to archival knowledge.38 In short, the proposal does not reflect archives as the "history-based occupation" that most perceive it to be.

Another problem with the draft is its cursory attention to student research and writing. It lists scholarly research in the form of a single thesis paper as one of the requirements. It presents this only in the professional terms of establishing the habit "of thinking critically and rigorously about archival issues," giving students the "opportunity to offer an original contri- bution to the professional literature.""39 Although this is significant, the draft fails to appreciate research and writing as basic to the development of public servants. Students preparing for an archival career should be required to do extensive primary-source research and writing so as to become familiar with the methods and processes employed by those with whom they will be working in the field. The incorporation of graduate study in history, sociol- ogy, anthropology, linguistics, and other heavily research-based fields into archival programs will provide students with ample and diverse experience in documentary investigation and writing. A thorough understanding of scholarly activities will engender not only empathy for the endeavors of researchers, but also a concrete understanding of their objectives, tactics, and sources. To name just a few examples, such experience will be invalu- able in teaching young archivists to appraise documents, to provide reference services and create guides, to plan collection development, and to cultivate information sources and networks within their institutions and communities.

The CEPD recommendations also emphasize the development of autonomous MAS programs, which represent a distinct body of professional knowledge and scholarship. The draft's use of the language of autonomy and its insistence on the centrality of archival knowledge reflect the dominant concern over professionalism in recent discourse. Often the argument is made that the success of European education should underscore the importance of the creation of autonomous archival programs in the United States. It is beyond the scope of this essay to get into the complex issue of the European archives tradition, which is distinct from the American manu- scripts tradition. One should keep in mind, however, that the antiquity and documentary reservoir of Europe's past has reinforced the primacy of historical training in the European model. Traditionally, European scholar- archivists have needed multiple-language proficiency and strong history backgrounds while studying paleography, both Latin and vernacular scripts, diplomatics, chronology, sigillography or sphragistics, numismatics and other such specialties.40 In other words, the European tradition has included emphasis on the humanities and strong cross-disciplinary linkages by na-

38. Ibid., 2. 39. Ibid., 6. 40. Orr, "Archival Training in Europe," 28.

Dow


ay 2020


ture, whereas it is not so clear that American proposals for autonomous archival programs, such as the 1994 CEPD draft, take these connections into account.

Another problem for archival education in general and for the nature of the CEPD proposal in particular involves an over-emphasis, stemming from professional motivations, upon the development of an advanced body of theory. As discussed earlier, some proponents of the advancement of theory and the development of a body of archival knowledge argue that it is necessary in order to ground and legitimate the profession. Granted, the pursuit of critical, theoretical, and speculative endeavors in any field plays a very significant role. Problematic assumptions underlie this "professionalistic" approach to theory, however. For instance, there seems to be something intellectually suspect about developing theory for motives other than scholarly hypothesis, exploration, and an enlightened understanding of the world. Archival theorists must be careful to develop their ideas on the basis of genuine questioning and to avoid the artificial inflation of concepts so as to have something to hold up in defense of the intellectual content of the profession.41

Also, the recent tendency, which is implicit in the language of the CEPD drafts, to identify educational goals in terms of theory and the professional identity of the archival community (of which students, by definition, are not yet a part) relegates student learning needs to a position of secondary importance! It is widely believed, however, that the primary purposes of education are to address the needs of students and prepare them for their life choices. Archivists should therefore place fundamental emphasis upon how students learn and how best to educate them. Success in educating students through holistic programs will subsequently foster professional identity as a natural byproduct.

In short, the "professionalistic" approach to theory assumes that theoretical development is a necessary means to professional ends. This implies a certain a priori nature of theory to activity in the field. Such an assumption is not true, however, for theory does not precede activity. Rather, theory and induction develop organically, in conjunction with human experience. As people engage in various activities, they naturally ask questions about what they are doing, why they are doing it, what works or does not work, and what caused their actions and produced certain outcomes. This interaction between trial-and-error experience and hypothesizing represents the intimate connection between practice and theory. De-emphasizing the practical aspects of archival work, however, will damage this symbiotic relationship for students who should be constantly challenged to think about such relationships. To decrease or eliminate emphasis upon the practical nature

41. John W. Roberts, "Archival Theory: Much Ado About Shelving," The American Archivist 50 (Winter 1987), 66-76. In this article, Roberts argues that calls for the development of a body of archival theory may derive less from an objective need for more archival theory than from an emotional need on the part of an archival community seeking greater professional acceptance.

Dow


ay 2020


of archival work will undercut their ability to comprehend and conceptual- ize, let alone develop, archival theory.

Therefore, from a pedagogical point of view, archival educators should not follow Cox's suggestion that apprenticeship experiences be limited or eliminated. Fortunately, the 1994 CEPD draft for MAS programs does not follow Cox in this regard, calling for at least one practicum. If anything, this prescription represents an absolute minimum of field experience that should be required of students. If the resources of the university and the archival institutions with which it has relationships are sufficient, more internship experiences are ideal. In any given field, training components involving practical experience are absolutely necessary for preparation and success. Quite simply, one ultimately learns to be a carpenter by building a house as an apprentice! Analogously, the lawyer develops skills by grappling with case studies, the historian learns to do history by researching and analyzing primary-source materials, and the physician has field experiences, internships, and residencies as a part of both medical school and post- medical school training. Such examples could go on and on. Some of these learning activities may be very abstract while others are concrete. Yet they are all quite practical in nature, designed to impart skills. It is ironic that some archivists desire to strengthen their field as a profession by limiting internships. Such practical experiences are typically an integral part of the training of those entering nursing/medicine, law, social work, teaching, and many other professions.

Basic educational theory supports this kind of "hands-on," practical experience, for people learn best by doing and by trial and error.42 As early as 1938, theorist John Dewey developed the educational maxim that "there is one permanent frame of reference: namely, the organic connection between education and personal experience" and that quality educational systems should be based upon "some kind of empirical and experimental philosophy."43 How better to learn to be an archivist than actually to function within the archival setting while doing coursework? To do away with apprenticeships would eliminate one of the profession's potentially most effective educational tools. Granted, they may not always be terribly effective or well used, and any apprenticeship program of quality requires advisors who engage their students, question them, and cultivate the relationships between theory and practice. Archivists need to assume this responsibility themselves in order to foster quality education.

A Proposal for an Education Program

If practical experience is an integral part of an archival education program, what other elements should accompany it? In addressing the content

42. John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1938), 12-22.

43. Ibid., 12-13.

Dow


ay 2020


of educational programming, Francis Blouin appropriately sidesteps concerns over professional status:

I believe that discussions regarding the education and/or training of new professionals should not center on the problem of who or what we are (as a professional group), but rather on how we can best prepare men and women to make reasoned judgments when confronting problems in the administration of modem archives and manuscript libraries."

Blouin describes the archival training programs which have emerged in recent decades as displaying "an incredible variety."45 Some concentrate on the history of the field, draw on European practices, or teach the history of administration. Other programs are based upon the experience of a single institution. Some programs and their texts concentrate on a rules approach, while others identify more closely with library science and reject historical training. In short, there is obvious agreement that some sort of training is necessary to prepare an aspiring archivist, but there has been little general consensus as to what constitutes the best method to this end.46

Some of these educational models will be very helpful in designing an appropriate graduate archival program that takes pedagogy into account. However, one must first address the most basic question of all: What is the role of an archivist? In other words, for what are the students to be educated? Ruth Helmuth argues:

My definition of an archivist-or a manuscript curator... -is a respon- sible custodian of original source materials, whose work involves the acquisition, appraisal, arrangement, description, preservation, and reference use of such materials of all kinds, and concern with the whole cycle of records creation and disposal. I assume also that it will include the administration or supervision of any or all of those processes.47

This definition seems appropriate, although emphasis should be placed upon the significance of the archivist as a preserver of the culture's documentary heritage and facilitator of its historical memory. Archivists keep records in order that people may augment the understanding of their present experiences with those of generations past. Hence, the archivist's role is profoundly human and social in nature, even when carried out in the seemingly narrow confines of an institutional archives. Any proposed definition must therefore reflect the humanistic value, roles, and cross-disciplinary linkages of archives to their communities and institutions as they undertake the responsibility of preserving cultural or institutional heritage.

This linkage to the humanities will serve as the foundation for the development of an appropriate graduate program in archives. The recent emphasis upon the development of autonomous masters programs (in the

44. Francis X. Blouin, "The Relevance of the Case Method to Archival Education and Training," The American Archivist 41 (January 1978), 37.

45. Ibid. 46. Ibid. 47. Ruth W. Helmuth, "Education of American Archivists: A View from the Trenches,"

295-96.

Dow


ay 2020


sense of those outlined by Cox, Eastwood, Joyce, and the CEPD) does not feature meaningful and extensive connections with the humanities or social sciences and are therefore highly inappropriate. In addition, arguments like those of Nancy Peace and Nancy Fisher Chudacoff, claiming that archivists should be trained in library schools, are equally problematic. They are correct in contending that archivists should be careful not to separate themselves from their information management, librarian, and information scientist colleagues. Such ties are critical, especially in the information age.48 However, archival education should not be totally absorbed into the realm of the library school. The problem is similar to that of autonomous programs: the library school setting lacks strong connections to and requirements in history and the humanities, thus risking the separation of students from these archival foundations.

Such an emphasis upon history and the humanities appears out of step with current trends. Marilyn Pettit appropriately characterizes the quan- dary facing those with a propensity to promote liberal arts generalists:

Social demands for specialized skills weaken the demand for general skills. Following this trend to its logical conclusion, we might expect that archival management will continue its migration from the humanities, pausing only briefly in library and information science curricula, to lodge itself firmly in the computer science curriculum in a business school. Most archivists do not want to separate their vocation from history in order to become technocrats.49

Although this orientation involves a certain degree of struggle against strong professional currents, Pettit is correct in holding that the integrative and

broadly cultural nature of education in the liberal arts should remain as an avenue of developing archivists who are responsive to two sets of social needs. One set involves those of an "information age" society undergoing constant changes in computer technologies. The other includes the broad, humanistic needs involved in researching, preserving, and understanding one's culture through its long-term documentation. Accompanied by train-

ing in technical skills and theory, archival education grounded in graduate- level history must retain its vitality."

One appropriate avenue for this is the integration of archival education into existing public, or "applied/allied," history programs. Some public history programs have set in motion training for prospective archivists while at the same time preparing other students in the many public history professions. Allen Kovan believes that anxieties about public historians competing with archivists for entry-level positions (thus "deprofessional- izing" archives) are based upon misunderstandings. He contends that in the

job market, people with the best experience relative to the positions they

48. Nancy Peace and Nancy Fisher Chudacoff, "Archivists and Librarians: A Common Mission, A Common Education," The American Archivist 42 (October 1979), 456-58.

49. Marilyn H. Pettit, "Archivist-Historians: An Endangered Species?" Organization of American Historians Newsletter (February 1992), 11.

50. Ibid.

Dow


ay 2020

40 v THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

seek tend to get hired. Students trained in a sound archives program should have nothing to fear."5 Because of the potential public history possesses for grounding archival education in the humanities, these programs should be seen as a complement to existing ones, not as a threat. They can provide a source of education for young archivists from which the archival community may draw talented members. Indeed, the perceived threat of public historians is illusory, given the common knowledge that many current archivists hold graduate history degrees.

Tyler Walters argues that public history programs may be successful training grounds for archivists so long as they respect the field for the distinct vocation that it is. Any program must acknowledge the degree of unique education and training which archivists require that goes beyond the bounds of traditional history. This may be done by placing students in archival "tracks" of emphasis, involving required and elective courses that "cluster" together the most important elements of archival practice and theory.52

This notion of an archival track, although most logically implemented in a public history program, could also be used by graduate history departments that do not already have a public history program in place, depending upon the resources available to the university. Obviously, the history program must be in a position to develop a relationship with an interested archival institution desiring involvement in education and providing teachers. Also, it would be most beneficial to the student's career objectives if the history program would include in the degree title some kind of "archival" designation.

James O'Toole, assistant professor of history and director of the M.A. program in history and archival methods at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, has proposed a model for curriculum development outlining a means of "clustering" fundamental topics of archival content into courses.53 O'Toole's overall approach may be very useful to history programs working in conjunction with archival institutions to provide the courses necessary to go beyond traditional history standards and to meet the specific educational needs of aspiring archivists.

Paralleling parts of O'Toole's model, following is an outline of basic courses for an archival program. These courses cover topics purely related to the archival institution, and they should be combined with curriculum for a graduate degree in history so as to maintain the fundamental connection between archives and the humanities. O'Toole suggests seven clusters of courses, although fewer are suggested below. This is done in order to

51. Allen Kovan, "Helping Friends: Archives Training for Public Historians," The Ameri- can Archivist 51 (Summer 1988), 315.

52. Tyler Walters, "Possible Educations for Archivists: Integrating Graduate Archival Education with Public History Programs," The American Archivist 54 (Fall 1991), 490-91.

53. James M. O'Toole, "Curriculum Development in Archival Education: A Proposal," The American Archivist 53 (Summer 1990), 460-66.

Dow


ay 2020

ARCHIVAL EDUCATION m 41

maintain an appropriate balance between theoretical and practical training. The suggested program takes into consideration the financial concerns of today's students, many of whom struggle to afford an education. Because the field of archives is not a lucrative one, it is important to make the program an appropriate length so that prospective students will not be discouraged by potentially large debts.

The following should be included in an archival program: A course on archival theory and practice, including an introduction to

theory and practice, the history of archives, the development of archival theory, current ethical and legal issues, and an introduction to the practical basics of appraisal, arrangement, description, and reference.

A course on repositories, functions, records, and record formats, including a review of the current management of public records and archives, private manuscript collections and institutional archives, archival public programs and preservation, and a survey of the various records formats: machine-readable, micrographs, photographs, recordings, oral history, etc.

A course on management, including management principles and tech- niques, budgeting and personnel, facilities and program planning/development, and ethical/legal issues. In order to give students exposure to basic management issues, the program might be able to use an introductory management course from the university's public administration program or similar courses offered in other departments.

Two practica/apprenticeship experiences. Because of the significance of

practical experience in grounding course work, an ideal program would allow for at least two internships. One would be a general internship in which the student spends several weeks in each of an archives' functional areas, doing everything from routine boxing and accessioning to working through the stages of appraisal, arrangement, description, and reference. The second would be an internship focused on an area of archival work that piques the student's interest with administrative-level assignments. This is an ideal, and institutional resources and funds may not make two field

experiences possible. An alternative for one of the internships may be a substantial research paper, thesis, or project. In order to make the experien- tial learning process of internships fully effective, they should require an extensive final product or thesis that involves applications of theory to practice.

An elective option. Depending upon their background and interests, students may choose to take one of two courses: a course in basic computer skills appropriate to the needs of an archivist and offered through the university's computer science department, or a course providing in-depth conservation and preservation training. If the university has a library school, coursework in library science should also be included in the student's program.

This outline of archival courses is meant to complement a history master's degree, requiring approximately an additional semester of work.

Dow


ay 2020

42 s THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

(This will depend upon how programs are orchestrated by different universities.) It will provide students with the fundamentals of archival theory and practice, while containing their educational expenses.

Of the historical skills relevant to archival administration, each history program should include, at the very least, the following elements: (1) a course in methods of historical research, (2) a thesis or a major paper as a part of a research seminar, based heavily upon primary source materials, (3) several seminar courses in topics of student interest, emphasizing historio- graphical approaches and critical analysis, (4) considerable emphasis upon American history, literature, folklore, society, and culture, (5) several courses outside of the student's primary area of interest, encouraging the exploration of interdisciplinary topics, and (6) a curriculum plan that requires the student to take courses each semester involving research and writing.

Conclusion

The program suggested above is intended to emphasize the connection of archives to the humanities, which is vital to the identity of the vocation. It also de-emphasizes recent clamoring over professional concerns. Certifica- tion is in place and the momentum for defining professionalism within the archival community appears too overwhelming to stop. Therefore, it seems best when considering education to move past debate over the question of whether or not archives does,

indeed; constitute a profession. The archival

community's dominant voices seem to have placed in motion the institutional processes providing the answer. Most importantly, preoccupation with asserting professional boundaries must be put aside. Educationally, this serves to isolate the profession through the creation of autonomous programs with narrowly defined curriculum, as is illustrated in the 1993-94 CEPD proposals for MAS programs. Such preoccupation tends to limit archives to the realm of information management, separating the field from the humanistic roots that are so vital to the archivist's responsibility of caring for the society's documentary heritage.

Hugh Taylor's challenge (mentioned above) for archivists to make decisions from a position of strength, not weakness, is as relevant today as when he wrote. By replacing defensive anxieties about perceived weaknesses with the cultivation of vocational strengths, archivists may develop educational programs based upon pedagogical, not professional, concerns. Such programs will genuinely focus upon the needs of students, enhancing their education and strengthening their preparation to become quality archivists and public servants. This, in turn, will naturally foster the security and growth of the archival community as a byproduct. A proactive stance is required to meet the current challenges of societal change and blossoming information technology.

Dow


ay 2020

ARCHIVAL EDUCATION s 43

"Outsider" members of allied disciplines who are involved in public history, historical research, social science, library science, and other areas should view the recent developments on the "inside" of the archival community with concern. A drive toward a "purely archival" profession threatens to sever those linkages that have benefited all while providing the vocation with its very uniqueness. Humanists on the outside peering over the walls now going up around the profession recognize the importance of maintain- ing those vital gateways connecting archivists with their vocational neighbors. Hopefully, those on the inside will realize that the outsiders are not so much a threat as they are interested peers wishing to cultivate relations that are essential to the life of each of these communities. Just as the various allied disciplines use resources from archives, so may archivists draw upon the humanistic contributions of their allied peers and, by doing so, create a useful set of parameters for the definition of their vocation. Simultaneously, they will free themselves from the defensive trend to erect isolating and ultimately self-destructive professional barriers.

Dow


ay 2020