Whilst not a passionate opponent of the re-naming of SMRs, and indeed
agreeing that those of us who store Heritage information will need to expand
our datasets beyond a narrow definition of Sites and Monuments I do wonder
if this is really a step we need to take at present. Three main objections
that occur to me:
1. At present as SMR Officer I can claim to be meeting the objectives of my
job description pretty well. I would like to think that we have a pretty
comprehensive database of the sites and monuments of Kent as known to date.
If my job description is retitled Historic Environment Information Record
officer or somesuch I move from a position where I can defend our record
fairly robustly to one where I have to acknowledge serious weaknesses.
Clearly this has ramifications both politically and in terms of the planned
future direction of the SMR. Whilst I would like in due course to see some
movement in the direction of HEIMS or whatever, I would rather it were
formally recognised by a change in name when we were nearer to acheiving the
record so described. I do agree, however, that this is a disucssion we need
to have at an early stage in this process.
2. The question of SMRs acheiving statutory status has already been raised.
Presumably this status would be awarded on the basis that SMRs have acheived
a stable place within the profession, that they contain reliable and
consistent data, that they fulfill their objectives as stated in their
titles consitently and generally have attained a certain level of
'maturity'. Are these criteria likely to be supported or contradicted by a
mass (and almost certainly inconsistent) name change at this juncture to a
form of words which very few 'ex-SMRs' will meet to a satisfactory level for
some time to come.
3. Historic Environment Information Record - just how long is this
particular piece of string? Sites & Monuments Record may be too tight a
definition of what we do but some of the alternatives are very woolly. A
HEIR officer or Cultural Resource manager could, after all, be expected to
store historical information to a level well beyond that maintained by SMRs
at present.
In general I wonder if a mass name change at this point will help or hinder
us in acheiving the reliability and consistency we seek. At a time when many
SMRs are in a state of flux due to the introduction of new software (in
particular Exegesis with all its attendant problems) and are already
stretched by resourcing problems do we really need the serious new injection
of confusion both inside and outside the profession that changing our names
must bring?
Paul Cuming
SMR Officer
Kent County Council
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|