Hi all,
Having been out of the office since Thursday I’ve been
reading the various messages regarding accreditation etc which seem to have
sprung from my original email last week – the vast majority of which seem
to agree that there are just too many organisations trying to represent too few
people at the moment. This certainly chimes with my own thoughts –
as articulated during my paper at the Society of Archivist’s conference a
couple of weeks ago where I made the assertion (to a few raised eyebrows I
noted) that we are a “small and divided profession”.
I agree wholeheartedly with Sarah Wickham’s sentiments
regarding the common thread that binds (or at least should bind) archivists and
records managers and have written along such lines previously (‘Taking
the road less travelled by: the future of the archive and records management
profession in the digital age’, Journal of the Society of Archivists,
Vol 28, No.2, October 2007). The balance of duties may differ depending
on where the records that we deal with happen to appear on the ‘continuum’
(or lifecycle – lets not open up another can of worms!) but it is only a
difference in emphasis – not of aims, objectives and core professional
beliefs. In short, there is more that unites us than divides us and we
weaken this link at our peril.
I have no data to confirm this assertion but it seems to me
that both the major societies in question: the RMS and SOA reached a plateau in
terms of their membership, reach and influence some time ago – perhaps even
as long ago as 5-10 years ago. I have to admit that I have had more
direct involvement with the RMS than the SOA (of which I have never been a
member) but reckon it’s a fair bet that in terms of membership,
conference and event attendance will have showed only minor increase in recent
years and ditto their range of activities, public profile and influence. For
sure, numbers may have increased here and there but with the ever-growing
relevance of information and its management to individuals and organisations
you would have hoped to see a doubling (or thereabouts) of membership etc
during this time. Then of course there are the numerous other smaller
groups which represent even smaller, specialist minorities. I am not
denigrating the work of any of them, simply pointing out as others have before
that as a profession this means that there are too many worthy, yet small and
often overlooked affiliations which weaken our overall professional voice and identity.
Providing services and support for their members should only be part of the
work of such bodies – of equal importance should be raising the profile
of the profession, commenting on issues which fall within our professional area
of expertise and acting as a vocal and respected pressure group holding people
to account. I have commented
previously on our failings in this regard in relation to the personal data
crises that erupted last year and the fact that our profession seemed invisible
in the media when we should have had so much to say. Ditto ID cards,
social care records and the ‘Baby P case’, the Digitising Britain
report, the inevitable forthcoming reductions in administration and efficiency
agenda, the cultural legacy of the 2012 Olympics and so the list
continues. We should be making our professional voice heard as part of
the debate on all of these and many more in a way that we do not at
present. Perhaps a united, coordinated representative body reflecting all
aspects of the archive, records and information management professions might
just succeed where in the past we have failed.
I know previous contributors to this debate have all asked
how we can make progress down this track. Clearly much of the
responsibility for doing so rests in the hands of the executive bodies of both
the RMS and the SOA and then, to a lesser extent with the other bodies who
could and should be part of this. I appreciate that some moves are a foot
to do this with some of the smaller bodies but if this does not include the two
largest bodies in question: the RMS and the SOA then its impact will always be
muted and the opportunity lost. There appears to be a few different
versions of history coming forward here regarding who was or wasn’t
invited to join and when (you would rather hope that at least one chain of documentary
evidence existed which could clarify this!) but frankly it matters not.
We are where we are and hopefully it is not too late for this to be put back on
the agenda. Might one way forward be for the executive committees of both
organisations to actively consult their membership on this issue: perhaps by
way of a shared non-binding referendum, the results of which to be publicly
announced? I’m sure agreement as to the wording of the question regarding
whether members are in favour of a merger between the two bodies could be
agreed (if not, there really is no hope) and it would, at least, help to
demonstrate the level of commitment – if any – within the
professional community that both bodies serve to such plans and as such might
act as the springboard to further negotiations.
Regards
Steve
Bailey (in a personal capacity)
Senior
Adviser (Records Management)
JISC
infoNet
Northumbria
University
Room
303, Hadrian House
Higham
Place,
Tel:
07092 302850
Fax:
+ 44 (0) 191 243 8469
Web:
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk
Blog:
http://rmfuturewatch.blogspot.com/
Linkedin
profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/sjbailey
Twitter ID: @sjbailey