I feel that I should add my tuppence worth as someone who has just
graduated from one of the 'usual' courses. We still need some sort of
historical input. The course I have just finished included a module, taught
by an historian, which focussed on the different sort of records which
researchers use for different subjects. This is important because the
family history boom has changed the nature of research. It is now being
carried out by untrained amateurs who do not have the luxury of an academic
supervisor and therefore need archivists to direct their research. The rise
of 'family history surgeries' is just one symptom of this. As archivists we
must be able to the records of other repositories, not just our own.
I feel that I should also wave the flag for paleaography. It is a common
cry to have it removed from the courses, but I for most archivists it
remains essential. There are few archives, even those that now only produce
electronic records which do not hold some early modern or mediaeval
records, and given that many users are unable to read them we must have
archivists who can assist them. If modern paleaography becomes only an
option on courses we are in danger of ghettoizing archivists who do not
have it into certain jobs. That has already happened with Latin. I was
offered my current job largely because I was the only candidate with
sufficient competence in Latin, and I have been present at one local
authority office where a reader has had to wait a day to have the help of
an archivist who could assist him with a Latin document. He was horrified.
I am not advocating that we should all know Latin, those days are gone, but
we should be careful that a knowledge of secretary and other early modern
hands do not go the same way. Making it an option will create a divide
between archivists who can only work in business, and those who can only
work in local authorities/specialists.
Having said that, the courses do need more on electronic systems, and the
implications behind them. Ideally this needs to come from IT specialists as
well as archivists, but that necessitates the cooperation which is not yet
taking place. It is also perhaps becoming more necessary to change to a
more North American/Australian format of thinking about archives and why we
do what we do, rather than just providing a how-to guide. The course
teachers are aware of this, and the current course is substantially
different from the course I took last year. Perhaps the most radical change
that the courses need is the abolition of the dissertation, which would
provide the opportunity to extend teaching by several months and cover
certain topics in greater depth.
Mike.

At 10:33 27/11/02 +0000, James King wrote:
> >Whilst thinking over the issues raised over the last few days I have
> >been trying to think through just how the archive profession can start
> >to change itself to start to meet some of the challenges and changes
> >that we all seem to agree lay ahead (even if we disagree as to their
> >implications). For me the answer seems logically to lay with the
> >professional qualification that most take as entry to the profession.
> >Is it time to take a step back and assess whether the whole nature of
> >the current courses on offer is adequate for what the profession
> >actually needs? Is the 'usual' route of history degree + 1 years
> >pre-course training + Masters necessarily the best method of preparing
> >new archivists? Are the right things being taught or should we
> >question the importance of some of the elements that have previously
> >been taken for granted such as 'the administrative history of Great
> >Britain'.
>
>There are probably many things that need changing on the courses.
>Palaeography, for instance, while still useful to many archivists, is far
>less important to our profession than once it was. However, I would
>suggest that administrative history is one of those areas that should
>still be taught. I think we would find that many of those little pieces of
>information that most of us have stored in our heads, which we probably
>use every day and therefore take for granted, would in actual fact not be
>there if we had no understanding of administrative history. And if it was
>no longer taught, then I am sure that future generations of archivists
>would find their jobs more difficult, possibly without knowing why! Like
>it or not (and personally, having come in via the 'usual route', I have no
>problem with it), a knowledge of history is still central to many archives.
>
>James
>
>James King
>Assistant Archivist
>Modern Records Centre
>University of Warwick
>Coventry
>CV4 7AL
>Tel: +44 (0) 24 7652 4493
>Fax: +44 (0) 24 7652 4211
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/

Mr. Michael Riordan
Assistant Archivist
St. John's and The Queen's Colleges, Oxford