Little late here, but I passed the Academy of Certified Archivists (ACA) exam. This was the first time I'd taken a multiple choice exam in years--maybe since I took the GRE back in 2006.
Obviously I'm pleased, and taking the exam comes with several benefits:
1) The studying/preparation forced me to read through books and examine schools of thought I never previously considered. I was able to trace the genesis of the field of archives in the United States, in Europe post-French Revolution, and, thanks to Posner, read up ancient examples of archives (Sumerian clay tablets, Romans, and archives in medieval Europe).
2) I could see where the field is going. Literature and scholarly articles found in recent journals provide a sense of ongoing struggles and challenges in the field (budgets, digitization, outreach efforts, retention, etc.)
3) The letter from the ACA congratulating me on passing also came with my scores in each field, so I can see where I need to do some more work.
4) Let's not forget the most obvious thing: now that I've passed, once the check clears, I will be ACA-certified (officially beginning January 2014).
So, accompanied with the master's in history, the impending master's in library and information science, this is another notch in my belt. Only thing left is a PhD, but I will put that off for a few years.
Showing posts with label archivist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label archivist. Show all posts
Friday, September 20, 2013
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Reflecting on the Academy of Certified Archivists' (ACA) Exam
I first heard about the Academy of Certified Archivists (ACA) back around 2008 when I was working in the North Carolina Room (NCR) at the New Hanover County Public Library (NHCPL). I was completing work on my master's degree in history and applying for archivist jobs, but almost all of them wanted the same thing: an ALA-accredited MLS. It didn't matter how well I knew history or could conduct historical research or process archival collections--that ALA-accredited MLS was virtually mandatory.
However, some postings indicated that they would accept master's degrees "in a related" field with qualifying professional experience and ACA-certification. So, to become an archivist, it seemed there were two possibilities:
1) Go for the second master's degree in library science.
or
2) Take the ACA exam.
While the latter seemed helpful, it did not seem to weigh as heavily as the ALA-accredited MLS. Looking at the Handbook on the official website (www.certifiedarchivists.org), I could see that my understanding of both the history and scholarship of the field was lacking.
So finally, I decided to pursue the ALA-MSLIS.
And finally, after nearing completion on the ALA-MSLIS, I have (some) time to study and take the ACA exam.
Granted, I did not have as much time as others (guides suggest you need about at least 9 months to prepare, but a few years is nice too), and granted, I did not have a study group to work with, I do feel I had the following advantages:
1) Blogs/other online guides/resources at my disposal
2) By virtue of currently being in grad school and taking classes dealing with archival science, I was "studying"--even if I wasn't intentionally studying for the exam.
The only real con is that I could not devote all of my energies to the texts and I really could not fully anticipate what would be on the exam.
So what was my thought process? Well, I looked at the feedback from people who took the exam last year. Among the common gripes were that the questions were very tech-oriented and that they dealt with current readings and journals, vs. the established literature which everyone had used for preparation (because the handbook recommended said readings).
So, I based my preparation on their complaints--not really anticipating that, yes, maybe the test designers might, in turn, modify the exam--which they did.
So how did I do? I have no idea.
I felt good and bad about it. I know I got over 50% of the questions right, but I also feel that some of the questions were tricky, and I had to actually think hard for them. In such cases, it was not about taking information learned from the texts, but exercising judgment and ethics based on hypothetical scenarios. There were a few where training and literature as an archivist comes into conflict with training from other disciplines (in which I may have more experience), and I was torn on the answers. So 50% right, and 50% of the remaining 50% questions could go either way. I would say I scored a 72 with a +/- of 7.
"I KNOW this answer is right from prior experience working in museums and preservation practices, but that answer could be right according to archival practices..." So, just as there is professional conflict between historians, librarians, records managers, and archivists, so too was there conflict with my answers.
So, I don't know how I did. What I can say is that, yes, there is a pronounced emphasis on electronic records, digitization, and digital records, and the ACA is to be commended for taking such steps. The exam also included several questions tied to outreach and management of archives facilities (i.e. HR practices, training, funding, etc.). That was definitely my weak spot.
In any case, I will find out by the middle of September.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
MPLP: A Love Story
My first venture into the world of archives began in the summer (or late spring) of 2007. Preparing for an internship in the North Carolina Room/Local History Room/Special Collections Room (NCR) of the New Hanover County Public Library, I was tasked with processing a collection. But which collections would it be? My intern coordinator on campus and my supervisor in the NCR had their own ideas. One project was three to four boxes and would take under a month to complete. There was another collection however, which took up 60 file boxes...
Naturally, my superiors elected to assign me the latter--and I am glad they did. From start to finish, processing the collection took approximately 15 months. Along the way, I continued working through graduate school, studying for the comprehensive exam, foreign language exam, worked as a teaching assistant, and used the information found in the collection as the basis for my thesis ( http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncw/f/shahs2008-1.pdf).
The collection itself was fairly organized, but weeding, rehousing, and cataloging were required. The survey or appraisal process took approximately three weeks. After an initial survey of the collection (which left me feeling a bit overwhelmed), a second, shorter survey was conducted to develop a better sense of familiarity and grasp the context of the collection.
After creating a rough list for the contents of the collection, I proceeded to work box-by-box, beginning with organization and committees (minutes, annual reports, etc.) and then followed by the general collection, which was in alphabetical order. Initially, I tried to adhere to the key step for rehousing and archiving materials (remove corrosive elements like staples and paperclips and unfolding folded materials). After the second month, however, I realized that both the NCR's resources and my time would be better spent if I just focused on cleaning, organizing, and rehousing the records in acid-free folders and cataloging them in the blossoming finding aid.
As my mentor pointed out, the key was creating a usable finding aid and making the collection accessible to researchers. As an intern, I was putting in about 20 hours a week and could not dedicate more time than that, and if I wanted to finish the project and graduate on time, then I needed to focus on what was important: making the collection available. Later, while pursuing my master's in library and information science, I would learn that such practice was referred to a "More Product, Less Process" or MPLP. At the time, I just felt guilty--because it seemed like I was cutting corners to get the job done.
What should my priorities be? The first was to finish the project. That was paramount. While my internship effectively ended at the end of the summer of 2007 (at least in terms of receiving a grade), I had not finished the project, and I continued with the work through to the fall of 2008. It was my white whale and my albatross. The longer I worked on the project, arranging, rehousing and cataloging records and documents, the better my understanding of the organization grew, and I saw how it connected with the city, history, architecture, economics, and politics. After discussing the topic with my mentor and university faculty, I decided to make the collection the focal point of my thesis.
Suddenly, there were deadlines. If my graduation was tied to my thesis, and my thesis was tied to the collection, then the sooner I finished processing the collection, the sooner I could complete my thesis and graduate. While this did not impact the quality of processing the collection, it did force me to speed up the pace of processing and fine-tune the weeding, rehousing, and cataloging steps.
MPLP is pragmatic. It is a compromise which addresses two issues faced by archivists and records managers working in archives, museums, libraries, and special collections: the finite amount of time and money with which they have to work. MPLP is an answer to a field that is becoming increasingly stretched in terms of resources.
Some may view the use of this practice as an unholy compromise that invalidates the very practice or integrity of the archival field, but there are two qualities which come to mind: preservation of records and access to records. Both are vital, but within the field, it is acknowledged that NOTHING LASTS FOREVER. Molecules break down and materials will deteriorate and decay and information will be lost. Giving that information structure/organization and making it accessible, while ensuring that it remains well-preserved are key.
By September of 2008, I had completed work on the collection and the rough draft of the finding aid. Because of my familiarity with the collection, again, it proved to be central to my thesis, and much of the primary sources were drawn from reports, speeches, minutes, and letters, found in the DARE, Inc. Collection. My thesis was completed two months later and made available online in 2009. Since then, it's received over 1,200 views and has been cited by historians and referred to by city officials for planning and preservation purposes. Had I not followed practices of MPLP, then that knowledge would not have been made available.
Ultimately, the DARE, Inc. Collection, as an internship, and an experience in processing archives was excellent. I am reminded of how people described Stanley Kubrick as an obsessive perfectionist who was notorious for an insane number of shots and retakes to get that shot which best captured his vision. In response to his critics, Kubrick simply said that he put so much effort into it because he could not discern when he was loving a film too much or too little. It's about effort and dedication and seeing things through, but at some point, we all have to be satisfied with a final product and let go.
That said, I do look back on "my first" with some head-slapping. I wished I had used group and series level description when creating the finding aid. Something seemed amiss at the time, but chalk that down as a learning experience.
Naturally, my superiors elected to assign me the latter--and I am glad they did. From start to finish, processing the collection took approximately 15 months. Along the way, I continued working through graduate school, studying for the comprehensive exam, foreign language exam, worked as a teaching assistant, and used the information found in the collection as the basis for my thesis ( http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncw/f/shahs2008-1.pdf).
The collection itself was fairly organized, but weeding, rehousing, and cataloging were required. The survey or appraisal process took approximately three weeks. After an initial survey of the collection (which left me feeling a bit overwhelmed), a second, shorter survey was conducted to develop a better sense of familiarity and grasp the context of the collection.
 |
| When it arrived, the collection came in 60 boxes. |
 |
| Some boxes contained no clear organization. |
After creating a rough list for the contents of the collection, I proceeded to work box-by-box, beginning with organization and committees (minutes, annual reports, etc.) and then followed by the general collection, which was in alphabetical order. Initially, I tried to adhere to the key step for rehousing and archiving materials (remove corrosive elements like staples and paperclips and unfolding folded materials). After the second month, however, I realized that both the NCR's resources and my time would be better spent if I just focused on cleaning, organizing, and rehousing the records in acid-free folders and cataloging them in the blossoming finding aid.
As my mentor pointed out, the key was creating a usable finding aid and making the collection accessible to researchers. As an intern, I was putting in about 20 hours a week and could not dedicate more time than that, and if I wanted to finish the project and graduate on time, then I needed to focus on what was important: making the collection available. Later, while pursuing my master's in library and information science, I would learn that such practice was referred to a "More Product, Less Process" or MPLP. At the time, I just felt guilty--because it seemed like I was cutting corners to get the job done.
What should my priorities be? The first was to finish the project. That was paramount. While my internship effectively ended at the end of the summer of 2007 (at least in terms of receiving a grade), I had not finished the project, and I continued with the work through to the fall of 2008. It was my white whale and my albatross. The longer I worked on the project, arranging, rehousing and cataloging records and documents, the better my understanding of the organization grew, and I saw how it connected with the city, history, architecture, economics, and politics. After discussing the topic with my mentor and university faculty, I decided to make the collection the focal point of my thesis.
Suddenly, there were deadlines. If my graduation was tied to my thesis, and my thesis was tied to the collection, then the sooner I finished processing the collection, the sooner I could complete my thesis and graduate. While this did not impact the quality of processing the collection, it did force me to speed up the pace of processing and fine-tune the weeding, rehousing, and cataloging steps.
MPLP is pragmatic. It is a compromise which addresses two issues faced by archivists and records managers working in archives, museums, libraries, and special collections: the finite amount of time and money with which they have to work. MPLP is an answer to a field that is becoming increasingly stretched in terms of resources.
Some may view the use of this practice as an unholy compromise that invalidates the very practice or integrity of the archival field, but there are two qualities which come to mind: preservation of records and access to records. Both are vital, but within the field, it is acknowledged that NOTHING LASTS FOREVER. Molecules break down and materials will deteriorate and decay and information will be lost. Giving that information structure/organization and making it accessible, while ensuring that it remains well-preserved are key.
By September of 2008, I had completed work on the collection and the rough draft of the finding aid. Because of my familiarity with the collection, again, it proved to be central to my thesis, and much of the primary sources were drawn from reports, speeches, minutes, and letters, found in the DARE, Inc. Collection. My thesis was completed two months later and made available online in 2009. Since then, it's received over 1,200 views and has been cited by historians and referred to by city officials for planning and preservation purposes. Had I not followed practices of MPLP, then that knowledge would not have been made available.
Ultimately, the DARE, Inc. Collection, as an internship, and an experience in processing archives was excellent. I am reminded of how people described Stanley Kubrick as an obsessive perfectionist who was notorious for an insane number of shots and retakes to get that shot which best captured his vision. In response to his critics, Kubrick simply said that he put so much effort into it because he could not discern when he was loving a film too much or too little. It's about effort and dedication and seeing things through, but at some point, we all have to be satisfied with a final product and let go.
That said, I do look back on "my first" with some head-slapping. I wished I had used group and series level description when creating the finding aid. Something seemed amiss at the time, but chalk that down as a learning experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)