REPORT ON THE SOCIETY AND ARCHIVES SURVEY

1. Executive Summary
2. Purpose and Limitations of This Survey
3. Survey Findings
4. Good News Stories: Australia, Canada, Iceland, US

A. About this Survey

B. Good News Stories of Outreach to Society

C. Sample Responses to Question #10: Other general comments/examples

1. Executive Summary of Survey Results

I believe a statement that I overheard while at an archives that sums it up quite nicely. The individual looked around and stated "God, what are they keeping all of this old stuff for!" Hence the problem of preparing for the future and or saving the past. –Survey respondent

Archives and records centers are faced with extraordinary challenges from the massive, global growth in communication technologies and use of information in both old and new ways. The challenges go beyond traditional understandings of the skills and budgets needed for recordkeeping. Every country is experiencing huge increases in the volume of records produced for changing legal, operational and technological reasons - records that, if properly managed, can provide essential evidence of government operations, help to establish accountability and provide private organizations and individuals with useful information and research resources.

Many archives and records management professionals are concerned that new, dynamic recordkeeping practices and technologies are not understood outside their community. They see a growing gap between reality and the perceptions of both public policy officials and the public at large – reality in which each year the archives and records management community looses greater ground attempting to keep up with the rising pace of digital records creation. They fear that, without a change in public understanding and resources to meet skyrocketing demands, their continuing failure to cope will result in damaging losses of evidence of government operations and accountability and, therefore, of public confidence in government.

To help establish how widely these views are held, the author conducted a World Wide Web (WWW) survey internationally from the My Best Docs www.mybestdocs.com website between 6-11 November 2002. The Survey asked for respondents’ understandings of public perceptions of archives/records management centers and their staff. It sought to obtain an indication of perceptions and understandings of society at large and of public officials responsible for organizations that create most records and to discover how various professional disciplines view different strategies for improving those perceptions. The Survey was timed to coincide with an international meeting of national archivists and heads of related professional associations on the same subject. There were 671 respondents from all regions of the world - 96% from North America, Australasia and Europe, in that order. One quarter of all respondents also supplied additional comments. Reminder: Findings reflect views of respondents; thus the first three findings below indicate respondents' perceptions of society's perceptions, which may or may not reflect the actual situation. Still, knowing how professionals perceive society is in itself important.*

· Most people in society have either not yet formed an opinion of archives, records centers and the people who operate them or have a poor opinion. Similarly, most people have formed little or no opinion on the value of archives. Archivists and records managers have a divided view of the prospects for society changing in these respects.

· Where it is seen as having an opinion, society values records mainly for their genealogical, historical, cultural and secondary information and research content (ranked 1, 2, and 3 respectively) and much less for the loftier values that professionals typically consider of importance to civil society: protection of human rights; creating and maintaining public confidence in government; enabling government by the rule of law; and promoting democracy through public accountability of its officials.

· There is a “significant gap” between society’s understandings of the changing demands on archives/records centers and the reality of current demands.

· Main remedies for improving society's perception are seen as those involving the archives and records management community doing more advocating or speaking out and getting others to listen, and much less doing "market research", listening and learning about the perceptions and needs of society or improving direct public access to records or other services.

· Leaders of national, state, and local archives and professional associations, as well as some who make major use of records in their professions are seen as having the greatest leverage and potential to help make positive contributions in changing society’s perceptions. These same groups are also seen as needing to do much more to fulfill their potential.

· Elected officials and heads of departments that produce records are seen as generally lacking in understanding and support.

· Several “Good News Stories” are summarized in Section 4 of this report that highlight innovative approaches to outreach. In addition to building people’s understandings about records and recordkeeping, such innovations can also contribute to improved public expectations, policy formulation and legislation, and better use of records. No doubt, there are many other such stories that could and should be shared more broadly.

· Inasmuch as there is still almost a year before the next international meeting of national archivists and related heads of professional associations on this subject, a more sophisticated international study and/or country-based studies should be commissioned to provide further models of best practices and, in addition to anecdotal information, other timely information on strategies for improving public perceptions.

· Much remains to be done to understand society’s needs and to elevate society’s understanding of and support for archives and recordkeeping among senior archivists, records managers and users of records, especially journalists and the producers of records. These are actually longstanding problems, now exacerbated by new demands.

· Further work is needed on market research, advocacy, services and other strategies; but many strategies are open for action now.

· This subject is ripe with unrealized research opportunities, including by ARM organizations, students and others in universities and private sector research centers, especially in the IT field.

2. Purpose and Limitations of This Survey

The author’s purpose in conducting the Society & Archives Survey was to elicit views from archives and records management (ARM[ii]) professionals and others on the perceptions and understandings of society at large and those of public officials who are responsible for organizations that are the creators of most records; and to gain insights into strategies for improving those perceptions. Timing of the Survey was such as to provide broadly based professional feedback in time for the International Council on Archives (ICA)/International Conference of the Round Table on Archives (CITRA[iii]) meeting on the same subject with heads of the world's national archives, related professional associations and ICA sections and committees in Marseilles, 13-15 November 2002. A preliminary report was prepared for that purpose, especially for the participating national archivists had also requested a copy of the report. The Survey design was not bound by the CITRA agenda but was designed to provide insights into issues raised in the CITRA 2002 meeting announcement and planned for the 2003 meeting in South Africa, where the theme will be "Archives at the service of society as a whole".

Timing of the Survey was also related to renewed interest in the subject on the part of professionals in the archives and records management field as expressed in recent exchanges on professional discussion lists and as revealed in communications to the author following the Survey.

The Survey contained nine substantive questions (Q1-9), a place for other comments (Q10) and three demographic questions (Q11-13). There were 671 total respondents from all regions of the world as well as several from international organizations – 96% from North America, Australasia and Europe, in that order. One quarter of all respondents also supplied additional 'free-text' comments under Q10. To give this report a more human face and to reflect the richness of the individual responses, as distinct from a purely statistical approach to the Survey results, several of these comments have been inserted throughout the body of the report. They are indicated in offset, italicized and bolded paragraphs. They don’t always agree with the majority of respondents. Regrettably it was not possible to use all of these comments in the body of this report. “Other general comments/example” are further outlined in the discussion of Question 10. Quotations from sources other than Survey responses (as in the paragraph below) are shown in the same manner but are not italicized.

According to an announcement of the “XXXVIth International Round Table Conference on Archives (CITRA)” that appeared on a professional discussion list:

The theme of the Marseilles CITRA is "How does society perceive archives?" The CITRA programme will include a look at archives in contemporary societies – missions and challenges. This will include looking at discrepancies in the perception of archives: among the general public and among public authorities and archives’ producers; increasing demand: society’s demands and archival needs in new areas; strategies for promoting archives in government and among the general public: promotion and advocacy policies and information and communication policies; and promoting archives among users: cultural and educational actions and improvement of services for users.iv ]

Records professional - why do you assume that an archivist and a records manager are different? That's not what it is in the rest of the world, regardless of whether the situation exists in some parts or not.

Archives and RM are not the same and ought to be perceived differently. Lumping them together does neither any favours. [v]

In addition to the issues noted above, there are certainly imperfections with this particular Survey, as some reviewers and respondents and the author have noted. Some are the inherent difficulties one would anticipate in any international surveys: it must be completed by respondents with different native languages; the lack of standard definitions for common terms in different parts of the world even within the same profession; and different traditions for the administration of records and archives in different countries – to mention a few. This Survey surely suffers from all of those challenges and more. Due to the author's own work and travel schedule, the Survey was put together quickly in an attempt to have results returned, compiled and analyzed and a preliminary report written and distributed to CITRA members prior to the commencement of the CITRA meeting on 13 November. Had there been more time, the questions could have been better crafted. The author’s decision on whether to do such a survey or not came down to: is it better to undertake a survey such as this to explore strategies for improvements in what we do and to gain at least some initial findings on which to build future studies, or should we not seek professional feedback at all in an organized manner? Or is there something in between at, say, the national levels that would make more sense? The author believed it was better to undertake even an imperfect survey.

These questions give rise to similar reflections on the 2002 CITRA meeting agenda as reflected in list announcements and on the ICA website and the resulting 14 resolutions coming out of that meeting. While many of the resolutions revolved around administration and preservation of archives, some were more directly aimed at improving society’s perceptions of archives, including:

Encourage governments of countries in democratic transition to start or actively continue the process of liberalizing access to archives;

Considering the importance of raising awareness of the function of archives in society among young people, as future citizens,

Ask the national archives, in partnership with ministries responsible for education, to establish education programmes or services for schools;

Invite the ICA to organise an annual International Day on Archives, starting from 2004.

In another resolution, it states: “Furthermore, invite the Executive Committee of ICA to report on the progress achieved, at the XXXVIIth session of the CITRA in 2003.” The record of the meeting does not appear to reflect how ICA will gauge progress on these resolutions. Perhaps more usefully, the results of this Survey may give rise to questions about the 2003 CITRA agenda and how it might better prepare itself to debate these issues.

Some key questions (6, 7, 8) on strategies and potential/actual contributions to improving matters were designed to elicit the views of the respondents directly. However, other questions attempted to capture “perceptions of perceptions” – the perceptions of the professionals about the perceptions of society and records producers. While it is important to understand the views of professionals on society – especially if these views can later be compared with views offered directly by the public – we would much prefer to obtain a measure of those perceptions directly and separately in each country or jurisdiction. Going directly to the societies and record producing officials was certainly beyond the capability of this author and would likely require actions on the part of national, state/provincial or local archives, something that has been done at least by some state and local archives, as described in the “Good News Stories” section of the Survey Findings below and Annex B of this report and something worthy of the consideration by national and other state/provincial and local archives. A legitimate question to raise is whether the ARM professionals understanding of society's perceptions is correct or not. Could society have a very different set of perspectives than the ARM community believes? How would we know for sure?

Following are summaries of the results provided for each of the questions in the Survey. All Survey questions are discussed, each with a statement of Possible Responses, Purpose, Relevance to the CITRA agenda as noted in the meeting programme announcement, and Finding. Please note that the discussions of Survey Questions below are sometimes presented in a different order than they appeared in the Survey instrument. This is because they relate more logically to one another than in the order they appeared in the Survey instrument. Some are simple multiple-choice questions (Q1, 3, 4, 5). Others are multidimensional questions (Q2, 6, 7, 8). Thus, some are more amenable to using the whole array, while others are not. Also, in some of the shortest questions, it is simpler to list the results in a sentence or two than to copy the arrays. However, readers are invited to view the actual Survey statistical results, without interpretation, as well as the original Survey instrument that are accessible electronically at http://www.mybestdocs.com. (Note: Because not all respondents replied to every question, the totals will differ from question to question.)

My perception is that while many (but hardly all) recognise the need for archives and records centers, few of them feel the need to encourage their clients/general public about the significance of their organisation's archives/records centers.

See archives, etc. as money pits – no political return for money invested, not vote getters, etc.

A small, insular subset of society exists within public records organisations - if they don’t "perceive archives, records centers and the people who operate them" differently to society as a whole, then God help us all!! They must have differing perceptions due to the nature of their work, but they certainly need to disseminate their views widely, so the general populations understands the importance of good record keeping and doesn't think it means "filing"!

This section consolidates the responses to Questions 1, 3, 5 and 4, in that order.

Question 1: How do respondents think society PERCEIVES archives/records centers and the people who operate them in relation to the public’s needs?

· Possible Responses: “Very poorly”; “Poorly”; “Most people don’t have an opinion”; “Well”; “Very Well”.

· Purpose: to elicit professional views on society’s perspectives about archives and records management at the highest level of abstraction.

o “The CITRA programme will include a look at archives in contemporary societies - missions and challenges. This will include looking at discrepancies in the perception of archives: among the general public…”

· Finding: Most of society has either not yet formed an opinion of archives, records centers and the people who operate them or has a poor opinion.

I have worked in Records Management for over 10 years and most people I speak to have no idea or concept as to what that entails or its importance.

To this question, respondents believe overwhelmingly (70%) that society in general has formed little or no opinion of archives, records centers and the people who operate them. Reflecting one of the limitations on this kind of survey, one respondent added:

It is probably difficult to draw conclusions from an international survey, when conditions vary so much from country to country.

Surprisingly, however, responses to this question do not vary as much by the demographics of the respondents as one might expect, except by time in the workplace. Regionally, 72% of Australasian and the same percentage of North American respondents believe that society doesn’t have an opinion on the subject, while 65% of European respondents do. Where the numbers of the respondents by disciplinary groups are significant, there is also not much deviation by discipline: Archivists 71%; records managers 74%. Educators, students and other information professionals who came to this conclusion each registered 67%. Administrators and information technology professionals came in on this response lower – 63% and 60% respectively. Although the numbers are too small to be of statistical significance, all but one of the five historians (less than 1% of all respondents) and two of three journalists responding to the Survey also concluded that most people would have no opinion on Question 1. With the exception of students who registered the same percentage in this response as for total respondents (70%), the response seems to have been sensitive to the demographic related to length of time in the workplace: 1-5 years: 66%; 6-10 years: 68%; 11-20 years: 71%; and 21 or more years: 73%.

The remaining 30% of all respondents feel that society does have a perspective: 21% believe that society would answer “Very poorly” or “Poorly” to this question; whereas 9% believe society would answer “Well” or “Very well.” By discipline, 13-14% respectively of information technology professionals and other information managers chose one of those responses. Again with the exception of students (only one of 20 chose “Well” and none “Very well”), the percentage of respondents choosing those rankings successively declines from 12% for those in the field between 1-5 years to 7% for those in the field more than 21 years. One must ask: do the beliefs of the older members of the profession reflect wisdom or weariness? Or both?

In short, over 90% of all respondents believe that most people in society have no opinion or a poor opinion of archives/records centers[vi]. Some are clearly fed up with the issue but remain undiscouraged nevertheless:

As an archivist I am somewhat impatient with the profession's obsession with its image. In this country (UK) the Society of Archivists has under 2,000 members. It is a tiny and not very wealthy profession. The most important thing we can do is a professional job when called upon.

Question 3: Do you think society sees a greater need for changing its understanding of archival resources and issues?

· Possible Responses: “Strongly Disagree”; “Disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly Agree”

· Purpose: To gain insights as to society’s appreciation for actual archives (records) and for related archival issues.

o The CITRA programme will include…increasing demand: society’s demands and archival needs in new areas.

· Finding: Society sees little or no need for changing its understandings about archives/records[vii] or related issues.

In response to Question 3, respondents are divided. 55% believe that most people feel little or no great need for changing their understanding of archival resources or issues. This should not be surprising given that the prevailing belief among professionals is that society has no opinion to begin with. However, and somewhat encouragingly, 45% do believe that society has a desire for changing its understandings: 11% who feel that most people see the need for “Much greater understanding” and an additional 34% who feel that most people see the need for “Some better understanding.” We will return to these findings later in this section.

Question 5: Do you think that society sees a need to change its perception of archives/records centers and the people who operate them?

· Possible Responses: “Most people see no need for significant change”; “Some changes seen required”; “Substantial changes seen required”

· Purpose: Whereas Question 3 focused on actual records and recordkeeping issues, the purpose of this question was to gain insights as to society’s appreciation for the centers where records are preserved and maintained and for the people who carry out the work of those centers.

· Finding: Society sees little or no need for changing its understandings concerning archives/records centers.

In responses similar to those in Question 3, 65% of respondents to Question 5 indicate, “Most people see no need for significant change.” 21% feel that some change is seen as being required, while 14% feel that substantial changes are seen as required.

Question 4: Do you think there is a significant gap between society’s understanding of the changing demands on archives/records centers and reality?

· Possible Responses: “No significant gap”; “Some gap”; “A great gap”

· Purpose: While Question 3 focused on records and Question 5 on archives/records centers, Question 4 was intended to elicit views on the extent to which society is sensitive to the rapidly changing demands being placed on archives/records centers. Also, while Questions 1, 2, 3 and 5 asked for the respondents views on how society might answer the questions. Question 4 asked for the respondents own views.

o The CITRA programme will include a look at archives in contemporary societies - missions and challenges. This will include looking at discrepancies in the perception of archives:…increasing demand: society’s demands and archival needs in new areas.

· · Finding: There is a “significant gap” between society’s understandings of the changing demands on archives/records centers and the reality of current demands.

Electronic records in general and the access to WWW for posting metadata about records and in some cases the complete record is drastically changing perceptions and demands/use among most professions and the general public or individual user.

Even more striking than the responses to Question 3 concerning society’s views about archives and archival issues, Question 4 elicited, in their own opinions, 79% of respondents who feel there is “A great gap,” 18% “Some gap,” and 2% “No significant gap” in society’s understandings of changing demands and the reality of these changes.

From the responses to the questions in this section (Questions 1, 3, 5 and 4) it appears reasonable to conclude that:

· Much remains to be done to inform the public and elevate its understanding of, and support for archives and recordkeeping.

· Professionals practicing in the field of archives and records management have a divided view of the prospects for change in this respect.

This issue should constitute a significant concern for leaders of national, state/provincial and local government archives and records management organizations as well as for educators and professional associations. Moreover, the results of Question 3, where 45% of respondents say they do believe that society has a desire for changing its understandings, suggest that efforts should be undertaken to bring such changes about, including using strategies suggested by the responses to Questions 2, 6, 7 and 8, discussed below. Based on reactions to Question 9, similar conclusions may be drawn concerning the producers of records.

Question 2: How do respondents think society VALUES archives/records centers and the people who operate them in relation to the public’s needs?

· Possible Responses: 10 possible values were offered against which respondents were asked to choose: “Strongly Disagree”; “Disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly Agree”. An “Other” option was also offered to provide for values not included in the question.

· Purpose: To elicit specific understandings of society’s perceptions on the values of records.

o “The CITRA programme will include…looking at discrepancies in the perception of archives: increasing demand: society’s demands and archival needs in new areas.

§ Most of society has formed little or no opinion on the value of archives/records centers.

§ Where it is seen as having an opinion, society values records mainly for their genealogical, historical, cultural and secondary information and research content (ranked 1, 2, and 3 respectively) and much less so for the loftier values that professionals typically consider of importance to civil society: protection of human rights; creating and maintaining public confidence in government; enabling government by the rule of law; and promoting democracy through public accountability of its officials.

Again, a high percentage (85%) of respondents “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that in society there is generally no opinion on the subject of values for archives/records centers. However, when responding on other possible answers to that question, the following are the rankings of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” with the individual values:

Table 1: Society in general places these values on archives/records centers: Agree

Rank %/# Respondents Value Being Ranked

1. 93%/598 Genealogical research

2.[viii] 85%/557 Most people have no opinion on values

3. 88%/534 Enabling historical, heritage, and cultural activities

4. 76%/478 Other secondary information/research/historical purposes

(environmental, legal, medical, etc.)

5. 69%/432 Underpinning national/regional collective memory/identity

6. 61%/387 Support for government operations

7. 58%/365 Enabling democracy through public accountability of officials

8. 48%/303 Enabling government by the rule of law

9. 41%/258 Creating/maintaining public confidence in government

10. 38%/242 Protecting human rights

To the same question, the leading choices for those who “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” are:

Table 2: Society has no opinion on the value of archives/records centers: Disagree

From the above figures, one might reasonably conclude that the respondents believe that records are valued mainly for their information and research content and much less for their loftier values associated with civil society. This conclusion bears out the commentary in the statement of themes for the 2002 CITRA meeting on the ICA website, which states:

· They guarantee the sound functioning of public and private, administrative and commercial organisations

· They provide individuals and states with the evidence that enables them to justify their rights

· They enable citizens to exercise their right of access to official information and governments to account for their actions

· They preserve the memory of society by constituting the sources of its individual and collective history

Yet these essential functions are rarely perceived in their entirety, neither by the wider public nor by public authorities and records creators.

Respondents registered several other comments on values in the “Other general comments/examples” section:

Cannot hold publicly to account or detect deception without good records management (Henry McCandless, author of A Citizen's Guide to Public Accountability - www.accountabilitycircle.org)

Universities teach a lot of theory and not enough practicality, thus people aren't aware of the costs when there are no (or procedures not followed) records management programs established within the organization. Today's children are brought up in a throw away society and don't even know how long to keep their personal records and don't care. We need to change that attitude first.

Improvement Strategies

Question 6: How can improvements be made in society’s perceptions and the reality of archives/records centers and the people who operate them?

· Possible Responses: Nine improvement strategies were offered in response to this question and respondents were asked to rank each as: “None needed at all”; “Definitely some need”; “A very significant need”; “No Opinion/Neutral”.

· Purpose: to elicit views on strategies for improving society’s perceptions.

o “The CITRA programme will include…strategies for promoting archives in government and among the general public: promotion and advocacy policies and information and communication policies; and promoting archives among users: cultural and educational actions and improvement of services for users.”

· Finding: Main remedies for improving society's perception are seen as those involving the archives and records management community doing more advocating or speaking out and getting others to listen, and much less doing "market research", listening and learning about the perceptions and needs of society or improving direct public access to records or other services.

If we want to create awareness for good recordkeeping practices, and purport their value to the greater community. Then as information professionals/societies and organisations we need to lobby and ensure that all tertiary courses include a module/unit that creates awareness to best practice. Education is a must whether it is formal/informal.....

This question was one of the most important in the Survey as it aimed to get to the heart of specific strategies for improving the perceptions and the use of records. Thus, the responses to this question are given more attention here and hopefully will be elsewhere within the professional community. It should be pointed out that all of the strategies suggested in the Survey were seen as needed. If the response for “Definitely some need” and “A very significant need” are added together, even the lowest ranked strategy – targeted public opinion research – received 78% of the respondents’ votes. Still, there was a significant difference among the selections, which is more obvious when looking only at those who voted “A very significant need” for particular strategies. There the range is from a high of 88% to a low of 31%.

As noted earlier, most respondents believe that: society has not even formed an opinion on archives/records centers; and that there is a great gap in society’s understanding of changing demands. More than one in five believe that society’s perception is poor or very poor. Moreover, more than half of the respondents believe that society sees little need for reaching any greater understanding. It would thus appear that the main source of significant improvement in society’s perspectives would likely have to originate from within the ARM community – either directly or indirectly: funding of other specialists, e.g., survey firms, appealing to communities that rely upon records to do their work (journalists, historians, lawyers, jurists, auditors, genealogists) to help make the ARM case to the public. This conclusion gives heightened importance to considering potential strategies for improving society’s understandings by some combination of education, advocacy, improved services and research.

Rankings of several such strategies are shown below, reflecting where respondents assigned “A very significant need” and a combination of “A very significant need” and “Definitely some need” [ix].

“Definitely Some Need and

“Very Significant Need” “Very Significant Need”

Rank % Rank %

More Effective Communications 1 78 6 88

Greater promotion of how illegal or

questionable destruction of records has

jeopardized human rights, democratic

accountability, historical knowledge:

victims of Australian “Heiner case,”

ENRON employees’ pensions/Arthur

Andersen, Nixon audiotapes, etc.

Greater publication of plain-language 2 76 3 91

articles on archives/records management

issues in public media (newspapers,

popular magazines, radio/TV programs)

Greater presence of archivists/records 3 75 4 91

managers speaking in public forums

and at professional meetings outside of the

archives/records areas (e.g., associations

of attorneys, auditors, journalists, IT dir.)

Greater Advocacy

Greater promotion of how records have 4 73 5 90

been used in contemporary society for

important reasons, e.g., “Nazi Gold” projects

Targeted advocacy meetings with major 5 72 2 91

creators of records, e.g., officials, IT

directors, software vendors

Targeted advocacy and 6. 64 1 92

service promotion meetings with

major users of records, e.g.,

attorneys, auditors, journalist

Improved Services

Improving other services to users 7 54 7 88 of archives/records centers

Increasing direct access to records 8 46 8 87

on the World Wide Web

Public Opinion Research

Targeted public opinion research 9 31% 9 78

surveys and group meetings

In addition to rankings of individual strategies, the results also appear to cluster when grouped into major categories – More Effective Communications, Greater Advocacy, Improved Services, and Public Opinion Research – in that order of priority. When grouped together with those classified as “Definitely Some Need,” the picture changes somewhat but not dramatically except for two strategies that swap places:

Greater promotion of how illegal or questionable destruction of records has jeopardized human rights, democratic accountability, historical knowledge: eg., victims of Australian “Heiner case,” ENRON employees pensions/Arthur Andersen, Nixon audio tapes, etc

Targeted advocacy and service promotion meetings with major users of records, e.g., attorneys, auditors, journalist

This strategy goes from first sixth place to first place. It might be argued that the rankings on the basis of those classified as “Very Significant Need” reflect the strongest feelings respondents have about any given strategy. When combined with those classified as “Definitely Some Need”, the results may be a better reflection of the overall need for work in these areas.

Another way of looking at these results: the highest ranking strategies are largely on the ‘selling’ side – ARM speaking out, advocating its own positions and getting others to listen. By contrast, the lowest ranked strategies (whatever way they are counted) are those that call for ‘buying into’ society by listening in order to learn more about society’s needs and to improve related services. Lowest on the list of those characterized as a “Very Significant Need” (31%) is, “Targeted public opinion research surveys and group meetings.” This is basically market research. Second lowest is, “Increasing direct access to records on the World Wide Web.” This is noteworthy since so many governments have mandated ready e-government access to citizens; and because WWW-enabled records is so commonly recognized by professionals as being a high priority. How can e-government/e-archives mandates be effectively met in a timely fashion if many of the key players in making it happen rank it low relative to other priorities.

There are some noteworthy demographics-driven variances in responses to these strategies, including much higher rankings for direct Web access to records by IT professionals (100% of who say that this is a “Very Significant Need” or Definitely Some Need”) and 92% of other information management (IM) professionals, compared to 87% and 86% of archivists and records managers. IT professionals are often seen as dragging their feet on this issue. It would be oversimplifying to interpret this as IM and IT professionals simply favoring automation of any information. It may reflect a greater appreciations of user needs on the part of at least those other IM and IT professionals who completed the Survey. Could it be that it is the rank and file ARM professionals who are the ones lacking in understanding of those needs or dragging their feet? Could it be that the senior officials leading archives/records centers are more behind the movement toward e-government than their staff? Is the distance between the helm and the rudder of the ship of ARM much greater than we might have thought?

Similarly, archivists have ranked “Improving other services” lower than any other group, save students. Australasian respondents give considerably higher importance to service-related strategies than do respondents from other regions. Australasian and North American respondents give higher rankings to targeted public opinion research than do respondents from other regions. At least some Africans see the need for much greater attention to their special needs and for help from the more developed countries and ICA.

More international support is needed and the mainstreaming of records and archives management programmes in the development agenda. More help and focus is needed in Africa especially in the area of records management on the subject of managing electronic records. The ICA should do more in these areas. More support is needed to support archival training schools in Africa where resources are so few and books and journals are hard to find. The ICA and other organizations need to do much more.

These results should offer excellent grist for the professional discussion mills – in professional list discussions, in university research and classroom discussions, in continuing education programs, and hopefully in the research agenda of national, state/provincial and other institutional grant programs. More importantly than simply more discussion, they suggest meaningful action items for national, state/provincial and local government archivists and others committed to positive changes in society’s perceptions of archives.

Who Can Make a Difference? Who Is?

Question 7: What is the POTENTIAL for different categories of people to make contributions towards positive changes in society's perceptions?

· Possible Responses: Respondents were asked to rank each of 14 groups as: “No real potential”; “Some potential”; “Considerable potential”; “No Opinion/Neutral”

· Purpose: To gain opinions as to which groups are best positioned to make a positive difference in society perceptions.

o The CITRA programme will include…strategies for promoting archives in government and among the general public: promotion and advocacy policies and information and communication policies; and promoting archives among users: cultural and educational actions and improvement of services for users.

· Finding: Leaders of national, state and local archives and professional associations, as well as those who make major use of records in their professions are seen to have the greatest leverage and potential to help make positive contributions in changing society’s perceptions.

Fourteen groupings of professionals (half within the ARM community and half outside) were ranked by degree of potential each has for making positive contributions to changes in society’s perceptions. Very few respondents chose “No opinion” (2-3% for most cases) in response to this question. Following are the results when ranked by those with the highest percentage of “Considerable potential” responses, irrespective of whether they were inside or outside of the ARM community.

Respondents clearly believe that the burden of changing society’s perceptions rest mainly within the ARM community.

When the groups are divided by their relationship to the ARM community, the picture looks like Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5: ARM Groups with “Considerable Potential” for Making Contributions

Rank %/# Respondents Group being Ranked

1. 72%/476 Heads of state ARM organizations

2. 72%/475 Heads of national ARM organizations

3. 68%/443 Professional ARM associations

4. 66%/436 Heads of local government ARM organizations

5. 57%/375 Educators in university ARM programs

6. 54%/354 Individual ARM professionals

7 36%/237 Students in graduate ARM programs

Table 6: Non-ARM Groups with “Considerable Potential” for Making Contributions

I think that some writers, film and documentary makers and commentators have great potential to raise understandings about archives and records. William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, the science fiction writers, have raised issues relating to electronic archives amongst computer programmers and science fiction readers, both through their books and opinion pieces in magazines. Ken Burns and other documentary makers have used archives extensively in their programs. It may be time to get them to make programs about archives rather than with archives.

Politicians, lawmakers and top management of business.

We need to use public relations experts.

Private citizens who are not necessarily direct users of archives or records centers or part of the profession of archives or records management might have some potential to make contributions towards positive changes in society's perceptions of archives/records centers and the people who operate them.

Teachers at high school level should be made more aware of archive services through some kind of in-service opportunities and then they should be solicited to pass on the varied values of records and records institutions to their students.

Forget journalists, the few with any sense are far out-weighed by the headline grabbers who, if they use archives at all, can't understand what they are reading anyway.
It takes more than a ten second grab, or its print equivalent, to justify spending on all that "old stuff".

Question 8: For the same categories as in the preceding question, what is ACTUALLY the current level of contributions towards positive changes in society's perceptions?

· Possible Responses: Respondents were asked to rank each of 14 groups as: “None”; “Much more is needed”; “No opinion/Neutral”; “Enough to meet the need”; “Great contributions being made”

· Purpose: To gain opinions on the actual contributions that the same groups as noted in Q7 are making today.

· Finding: Virtually the same groups that are seen as having the greatest leverage and potential for making positive contributions towards changes in society’s perceptions are also those seen as needing to do much more to fulfill their potential.

I believe that agency heads, public officials, etc. view archives as more of a necessary evil, an annoyance, something that takes their time with no perceivable benefit, and a possible outlet for negative news about their activities. Not good.

There is a significant failing in the education of current government administrators (record creators) who are of the view as expressed to me by a senior executive in charge of billions of taxpayers' money that 'records/archives need to exist I guess -- but what's it to do with me?"

Respondents were asked to rank contributions of the same groupings as “None,” “Much more is needed,” “No opinion/neutral,” “Enough to meet the need,” and “Great contributions being made.” In the latter ranking, all of the groups are ranked less than 10%. Without respect to whether the groups are within or outside of the ARM community, those groups that had the highest percentage rankings under “Much more is needed,” are:

Tables 7 and 8 below show the highest graded groups who are seen to be actually making “Great contributions” and where “Much more is needed”.

No group is ranked by many respondents as actually making “Great contributions”. No group received as much as10% of respondents’ selections in that category. In response to the previous question (Q7) on potential for making contributions, genealogists ranked sixth among all 14 groups and fifth among the non-ARM groups who were seen to have “Considerable potential”. This perhaps suggests that a few people in these groups are making significant contributions. But for most, as seen in the following tables, much more is seen to be needed.

Respondents clearly feel that there is a close correspondence between the people with the greatest opportunities for making contributions and those for whom much more is needed. This may in part reflect that people often feel that the ones in a best position to do something about a problem are anyone but themselves. However, the bulk of the respondents being archivists and records managers also believe that much more is needed from their own group in this respect.

When the groups are divided by their relationship to the ARM community, the picture looks like Tables 9 and 10 below.

Rank %/# Respondents Group being Ranked

1. 63%/410 Heads of local government ARM organizations

2. 63%/407 Heads of state ARM organizations

3. 63%/407 Professional ARM associations

4. 61%/397 Heads of national ARM organizations

5. 57%/370 Individual ARM professionals

6. 55%/355 Educators in university ARM programs

7. 41%/267 Students in graduate ARM programs

Table 10: Non-ARM Groups with “Much More Needed” for Making Contributions

Generally, I think archival and records mgt professional organizations have not done enough to seek out and inform other communities about the value of records and records keeping. We have done a good job of talking to each other, but not so good at educating others outside our professional spheres. This is changing slightly in some corners. -- I am both an archivist and a records manager.

I think we, as archivists and records managers need to spend more time talking with our constituents. However, it is really up to those in administrative positions of power, e.g. campus president and deans, business CEO, etc., need to write letters of support for our programs to get records retention and disposition schedules implemented.

Summary of Findings on Who Can Make a Difference and Who Is?

There are some striking interpretations one can draw from the responses to Questions 7 and 8 on potential and actual contributions toward positive changes in society’s perceptions on archives/records centers. Firstly, keeping in mind that three-fourths of respondents were archivists and records managers, journalists constitute the only non-ARM group in the top five that respondents believe have the greatest potential for change. The other four in the top five with the strongest potential are archivists and records managers at the national, state and local levels and professional archives and records management associations. The same ARM groups noted above were also ranked in the top six under “Much more is needed” in terms of actual contributions. Only journalists and heads of organizations that produce records were ranked higher in this respect. Thus there is relatively great correspondence between the groups that are seen as having the greatest potential for making contributions and those who, for actual contributions, are ranked highest for “Much more is needed”.

It would appear that the more senior ARM professionals – national, state/provincial/local government archivists are seen as having greater access to the means of reaching the public. Some examples of how such professionals are doing that today are outlined in Section 4 below: Good News Stories. These cases suggest that there is considerable potential for such professionals to make a significant difference.

It is difficult to understand another set of statistics in this area: few people require trustworthy records and recordkeeping to do their jobs more than genealogists, historians, auditors, and lawyers (including jurists). Yet, these groups were ranked lowest in terms of both potential and actual contributions. Why are these groups not engaged more than apparently they are to help make greater contributions toward improvements in society’s understandings? Has the ARM community reached out adequately for their acknowledgment and assistance?

Question 9: Do you think elected public officials and their department heads in organizations that create public records perceive archives, records centers and the people who operate them in the same way as you have answered above for society as a whole?

· Possible Responses: “The same way as society as a whole”; “With some differences”; “With major differences”

· Purpose: To gain similar information about producers of records as in the previous eight questions regarding society.

o “This will include looking at discrepancies in the perception of archives:…among public authorities and archives’ producers”

· Finding: Respondents view elected officials and their department heads as generally lacking in understanding and support.

Rather than repeating each of the questions raised about society in general for the program departments that create records, this single question was asked in the interest of keeping the Survey to a reasonable completion time. To this question, aimed at gaining insights about the role of program departments that create the bulk of records and their leadership, and if respondents see program departments in the same way as they did society more generally, 90% of respondents indicate they feel the “same way” or the same but “with some differences”. 9% feel that there are major differences between society and the producers of records. Most respondents feel that society just doesn’t know enough about ARM to have a strong perception, but come down harder on the “records producers” groups. In 36% of the cases, respondents feel the same about program departments as they do about society more generally. By contrast, 55% feel that there are some differences between those two categories and 9% feel there are major differences. This finding should be viewed alongside the results for the previous two questions (Q7, Q8).

Of the 176 respondents who provided one or more write-in comments, this question (#9) received the greatest number of write-ins that were related to a specific Survey questions. These comments are included in the report and help to make greater sense of the above statistics. Below are some of the comments on this question:

May see archives and records centers as a dumping ground for the items they no longer want.

With all groups our users tend to perceive us only in relation to their exact needs - we bear the burden of publicizing our breadth to increase understanding, support and use.

In both public sector and private sector orgs, most line managers and workers don't necessarily perceive record-keeping negatively, but consider it extra work.

While they know the uses of records, they may not know what is involved in archives/records centers to care for and retain records.

Most officials & heads see archives & records centres & their staff as nothing more than a nuisance and a hindrance

Unfortunately, most of these entities do not see the importance. Only education (positive promotion) can bring about a change. It is possible, but it will take effort.

In my view, they have very little appreciation of the potential value of good records management to their organisations.

The record creators have unrealistic expectations of archivist, e.g. find information from the past immediately and present it in condensed form for a report but funds are not allocated for the proper housing of the records nor for the personal to process the records and/or do the required research.

Those who create records may recognise the importance of records management and archives but they will not put the resources needed to carry out programs that support control and preservation. Recognition of the problems of RM and Archives is largely reactive to some sort of "bad press" and then gratuitous until the bad press goes away.

Elected public officials usually ignore the archives until budget cutting time.

ARM professionals obviously lament the understanding and contributions of producers and other users of records. Yet, the ARM profession would not (cannot) exist in a vacuum without them? If, as it would appear, we believe that there is little help coming from these groups, we must also ask the question: who, then, can bring about any change in this area? It seems as though the ARM community itself must do a better job if there is to be positive change. If producers and other users were to become more sympathetic to recordkeeping, it could greatly enhance the ability of the ARM functions to receive the priority and resources needed to take on its growing challenges.

How might that happen? Perhaps answering for ourselves the following questions would show us some ways:

· Has the ARM community done enough to serve those groups as well as is feasible?

· Do ARM professionals project their role mainly as one that is mandated? If so, it should not be surprising that producers have little investment in recordkeeping.

· Do ARM professionals adequately demonstrate the many potential uses for legacy records in: assisting producers and other users of records in policy making; considering current issues that have been issues in the past; exercising risk management in the light of current scandals involving the improper accounting practices or manipulation or destruction of records; or for supporting knowledge management mandates of the user community?

Purpose: To allow for unstructured responses not otherwise provided for in the structured questions.

One quarter of all respondents (176) felt strongly enough to include free-text responses to Question 10 of the Survey covering all aspects of the Survey. All of the offerings in the general comments/examples section were valuable. In some cases, they augment the statistical information with examples. In others, they raise points that were not considered in the Survey. Given the large number of unstructured comments provided by respondents, it was not possible to include all of them in this report. Several such comments have been included throughout the report, but they represent only a sampling. See also the complete listing of “Other general comments/examples”. They may be also be found by going to the Survey Instrument with Summary of Survey Statistics, scrolling to Question 10, and clicking on “View.”

In the process of completing this Survey, some participants wrote about special initiatives using surveys of the public and the records producing organizations and other special public outreach programs. In addition, the author observed one that was raised on a professional discussion list, independent of this Survey. These are all excellent examples of possibilities for tackling society’s and records producers’ perceptions head on – not simply as one-off public relations gimmicks, but in ways that have considerable benefit to the public in a sustained way. Further background information on these stories is contained in Annex B:

· Survey of Records Producers. State Records (New South Wales) has had a long-standing record of innovation going back to the many years during John Cross’ time as CEO of the State Archives. David Roberts and others in State Records have carried on, and built upon, that tradition. In one initiative, Roberts commissioned qualitative research into the attitudes of 400 chief executives of NSW public sector bodies to records, recordkeeping and records management, including some exploration of their perceptions of State Records. Some of the results are outlined in Annex B. For those wishing to follow up on this research further, the executive summary will be posted on State Records website shortly.

Another recent initiative has been the publication by State Records, beginning April 2002,

VS is a non-technical, non-theoretical magazine that is aimed at local heritage groups and the public. It is a very slick, excellently edited magazine that anyone would be proud to have readily accessible to family and guests in their living room. It draws ones attention with first-class graphic design on the cover and internally; nevertheless, it includes quite substantive messages taken from archival resources and subtle, high-level advocacy of records and recordkeeping. Vital Signs presents a very upbeat and ‘trendy’ vision of archives and archivists that, in this author’s opinion, appropriately reflects an important role of modern archives and archivists and offers a model and meaningful way for reaching out.

Competing biographies of the 'Tasmanian' Hollywood actress Merle Oberon. Click on picture to link to VS Issue #3, Dec. 2002

The following information was included by one of the Survey respondents in the “Others” section of Question 8 (No other information was received on this case):

Others who have done a significant job of promoting use of archival records and thereby promoting archival collections generally has been the City of Montreal. With its recent project to refurbish the canals in the Lachine Canal and the other "urban development" projects that have taken place around the Canal, a tremendous amount of information is out there about its history -- particularly on-site, with commemorative plagues, and explanatory signage that gives indications of where the city has been and where it is going -- excellent model for the promotion of local history using a range of archival evidence.

Reykjavik Municipal Archives (RMA) have been conducting municipal surveys on regular basis using the Gallup International survey company to help determine how well the public knows what kind of service it provides. Surveys were commissioned in November 1998, November 2000 and were scheduled for November 2002, using similar questions and methods. Based on these surveys, actions were taken that have significantly increased public awareness of the RMA in subsequent surveys and increased visits on the part of the public to the RMA.

· USA: Vermont State Archives: Records of “Continuing issues.” The Vermont State Archives under the leadership of State Archivist Gregory Sanford, has been reaching out to the Vermont State Legislature, the media and the public at large with its “Current Issues” initiative with considerable success. The project and related website demonstrate the value and relevance of archival records to modern public policy issues. State legislators and journalists now routinely call upon the State Archives for information contained in archival records that may have strong current public-policy interest. As one measure of success, one senator has already introduced Senate Bill #2 (January 10, 2003) that was promoted by the State Archives and several house members were co-sponsoring the same bill.

Many archives place exhibits in their facilities for the benefit of staff and visitors. Often it is difficult to obtain the necessary public relations coverage for such exhibits to reach a broad spectrum of local society near those facilities. Edie Hedlin, Director of the Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA) has taken a somewhat different approach but collaborating with a high-profile organization, the Canadian Embassy, that draws many visitors to its exhibit rooms from throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area as well as international visitors. SIA is mounting a small exhibition in the Embassy gallery, using photographs taken by the Smithsonian's 4th Secretary, Charles D. Walcott. Dr. Walcott was a paleontologist and geologist who used photography to document land formations and various terrain. His scientific need for photography resulted in some sweeping panoramas of mountain ranges, including the Canadian Rockies. We will be mounting a small selection of his images to show the intersection of science and art, and of course the beauty of the Canadian Rockies.

The NEA has initiated an innovative program to reach out to ordinary citizens. Archives on the Road (AoR) is an opportunity for people to come to a site (library, historical or genealogical society, senior/youth center, county fair) with their archivable objects (family papers, scrap books, diaries, letters, photographs) and have professionals explain their historical value and what kind of options are available to care for their objects. Professionals will explain basic preservation/conservation techniques, what happens to materials that are donated to an institution, options for reformatting and optimal storage techniques.

With the exception of the last one, the above are examples that were brought to the attention of the author in connection with this Survey. There are undoubtedly many more such stories in many countries that demonstrate how organizations are measuring public sentiment about archives and recordkeeping and responding accordingly. The author would be grateful to receive additional actual success stories that suggest best-practice cases of outreach to society or the producers of records.

Some of these initiatives will likely stir (or re-stir) controversy, especially the two state/provincial-level examples from New South Wales and Vermont. In these cases, we see state/provincial-level archivists coming out of the archives and taking a much more visible role in their local societies. Not only that, but they are also facilitating the interpretation of archival records. Especially in the Continuing Issues program led by Gregory Sanford of Vermont, we see the archivist alerting public policy makers to the fact that several current issues indeed have noteworthy historical context that may be important to the present-day deliberations of legislators and other policy makers. And more. Since policy makers themselves are now increasingly relating legacy information to current debates, journalists are hearing about it and making both direct use of archival records and interviewing the State Archivist.

This more visible role is not a totally comfortable one for those experimenting with it. They are very aware of the fine line they must walk; yet they see the potential and the actuality of casting a whole new light in the public eye on records and the people who manage them. Archives and records centers are some of the cleanest facilities anywhere. Yet, a common adjective used in stereotypes of those places is “dusty”. Archivists and records managers are also often stereotyped as boring or timid people – little old ladies who work in those dusty places. Perhaps the characterization of the Jedi Archivist, Jocasta, as a “firebrand” is in part a sign of changing perceptions. The kind of outreaching being done by Sanford and Roberts and others like them is clearly something that is worthy of the greatest attention of all who see the need for greater societal awareness and appreciation of the potential of records, archivists and other recordkeepers.

Some professionals eschew the idea of archivists playing any interpretive role, saying that is the role for historians to play. Archivists should be totally disinterested (dispassionate) about records. Not everyone shares that view. The upcoming Association of Canadian Archivists will explore the archives/history relationship at its 2003 Annual Conference in Toronto, Ontario, 10-14 June 2003 where the conference theme is: "What's History Got To Do With It?" This conference should give rise to increased interest in these relationships, including the potential for archivists with the appropriate skills to make greater contributions to the understanding and appreciation of records on the part of the producers of records and society at large. This year, the Public Record Office is joining together with the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts to form the National Archives of England and Wales and the United Kingdom. It will hold records produced by government departments and will provide a range of services to both central and local government in the fields of records and archives. It is not clear from the early announcements of this organizational change to what extent it will have an impact on archives/history relationships.

Based on the cases outlined above, an additional finding that is not related to any question in the Survey is offered here:

Finding: Several “Good News Stories” that are summarized in Section 4 of this report highlight innovative approaches to outreach. In addition to building people’s understandings about records and recordkeeping, such innovations can also contribute to improved public expectations, policy formulation and legislation, and better use of records. No doubt, there are many other such stories of innovative approaches to outreach that could and should be shared more broadly. (The author invites viewers to send descriptions of such programs to rickbarry@aol.com.

While only 20 ARM students completed the Survey, the results offer some excellent opportunities for ARM educators to develop a research agenda from the findings of this Survey. Group discussions and individual and group projects might address questions such as:

· Why do students and educators differ in their responses on some questions from the larger family of professionals?

· What reasons might there be for older ARM professionals holding different views from their younger colleagues and are they important?

· Why does the ARM professional community differ on some issues from other groups – why, for example, do IT respondents seem to give greater importance to direct access to records than archivists and records managers?

· Are ARM professionals’ understandings of society and the producers of records accurate and fair? What needs to be done about that at each level: students, individual professionals, educators, professional associations, local, state/provincial and national archivist?

· Why is it (or is it really the case) that the principal users of records – journalists, historians, lawyers, jurists, auditors, legislators, genealogists and the producers of records – do so little to help promote the importance of records? How can they be encouraged to become better partners in elevating the importance of records and recordkeeping? What is the responsibility of archival educational programs to better prepare ARM professionals to tackle these issues?

· Why are the strategies for improving current understandings within society and among the producers of records ranked as they are? Does the ARM community have it right?

· Should ARM research be broadened to examine the working patterns of the producers of records, the perceptions and needs of the public and the implications for ARM of younger generations just entering the workplace and to be entering the workplace over the next decade?

· How might ARM graduate faculty and students be employed to provide even minimal input to other university programs – IT, law, auditing, journalism, history etc. – in ways that are geared specifically to those disciplines – to implant a better understanding of the importance of records to those fields and the need for greater partnerships between these groups and the ARM community.

· Is the apparent lack of understanding and support from the public and from the producers of records reflect the ever-changing skill mix (beyond core ARM studies) required of modern ARM professionals suggest the need to further augment post graduate programs with course offerings in public speaking, public relations and organization development? Should such offerings be required in post-graduate or continuing education programs, or in certification programs?

· What other “good news stories” offer best practice models for the ARM community? And do they suggest changes in the way students are taught and the skills needed for modern ARM student candidates, educators and practicing professionals? (Please send examples to rickbarry@aol.com.)

· What would we want to see differently in a similar survey as this one, 1, 5, 10 years hence?

Students might also be encouraged to use the Survey instrument, possibly augmented with other questions, to conduct more complete surveys of students in particular ARM programs and other programs: Information, technology and communications; information science, library, history, law, etc. Getting the best skilled and motivated students into the ARM field and challenging them continues to be a pivotal part of bringing about needed long-term changes. Archival education programs may not be able to absorb still another set of skills to include in their programs; but could they serve an important role by offering continuing education courses in organizational development, interviewing and public relation skills that are oriented toward the ARM professional? Couldn't the professional associations do more in the same fashion by providing such continuing education opportunities prior to and as part of annual conferences? Where else might the willing and interested professional turn to get assistance.

Individual businesses need to be encouraged to retain records, not simply as useful to themselves (which in itself need to be more widely encouraged, for example technical records for major infrastructure is of great importance to engineers/architects/ planners/environmentalists for the life of the structure and beyond, which may be upwards of 150 years) but also as part of the cultural heritage of the countries they are in.

In retrospect, the author regrets not having made a distinction in the disciplinary and other choices in the Survey, between public sector and business archivists and records managers. Since a significant reason for the Survey was to provide information for the November 2002 CITRA meeting, this important distinction was lost in the process. It now appears from Survey results that the ARM community, which certainly includes a great many business archivists and records managers, that the whole community is seriously lacking in public understanding and support in many areas. Indeed, it might well be hypothesized that society’s views and expectations about records are more influenced by what happens in the private sector than what happens in government archives and records centers. Today, especially, the public’s impressions of recordkeeping are becoming increasingly cynical, based on what it reads in the newspapers about the creative records retention (non-retention?) scheduling practices and their untimely destruction by high-profile companies. Such scandals as have surrounded Enron/Arthur Anderson, British American Tobacco (Australian Service), Prudential and others who have been accused of improper destruction of records – Coca-Cola, Union Bank of Switzerland, the Rose Law Firm – come to mind.

Good recordkeeping hasn’t gotten many headlines, but these stories do. They therefore have a great deal of impact on public perceptions not just about the people and companies involved, but also about the reliability of records and recordkeeping more generally – in whatever sector. Yet, business archives is a subject that is totally off the radar screens of most public sector archivists and records managers. Business archivists have long fought for more ‘air time’ in some professional archives associations and from time to time have threatened to break away to form their own professional society. In countries where there are strong whistleblower protection laws, public sector archivists can, as a last-ditch measure, exercise that option to protect their job status while avoiding instructions to do things that cut professional corners, are counter to best practice or ethics, or are patently illegal. Business archivists and records managers have less maneuvering room and basically face the options of resigning from their livelihood, getting fired or going along with dubious or worse practices.

Another lesson is that many private sector organizations have an even lower priority on recordkeeping than do public sector organizations that produce records. An example of this was drawn to my attention in a communication from a colleague not long ago.

I received a visit from the corporate vice president to whom I report. I was abruptly informed that "senior management" had determined that the Corporate Archives was NOT a "core business" of the company, and that management could see no value to the continuation of the Archives program, and my services would no longer be needed. I was instructed to maintain complete confidentiality of this executive decision until an announcement was approved for public distribution… Management has told me "Money/Cost is absolutely not the issue, but rather the undesirable precedent of senior management appearing to support programs and operations which are perceived by shareholders as unnecessary."

The author would like to say that this is the first time he has been informed of the demise of ARM programs. Unfortunately, it is not and other such stories have come to light in the private sector and in one case a university. The above communication is damning to say the least. Who are these shareholders of this very large multi-national corporation? They are, of course, private citizens representing a fairly broad cross section of Society. Public sector records do not escape the umbrella of an ill-informed public even when relating to the private sector. Even though they do not have jurisdiction in most cases over private sector records, national, state/provincial and local government archivists – and most certainly professional associations – should give very serious consideration to the positive roles they can play in speaking out both within the professional community and publicly on such cases as noted above to help gain greatly needed improved public understanding and to elevate public expectations and demands regarding recordkeeping, whether in the public, religious and academia, other non-profit or private sectors. There is much at stake here. Much is to be gained or lost; and this not the time for tunnel vision or ducking behind strictly interpreted mandates. Moreover, some of the recent private sector records and accounting scandals offer excellent opportunities for all professionals, managers of archives and professional associations to make the case for recordkeeping to the public, to legislators for improvements in recordkeeping laws, and to prosecutors and jurists in dealing rigorously with wanton abuses of inviolable records.

While there is still about a year before the next meeting of international meeting of national archivists and related heads of professional associations on this subject, a more sophisticated international study and/or country-based studies should be commissioned by the ICA or its member countries similar to one that was recently undertaken by Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA) on behalf of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press http://people-press.org/: What the World Thinks in 2002 How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America, released December 4, 2002 http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165. The Survey was completed by 38,000 people in 44 countries. (Unfortunately, no questions concerning the subject of this Survey were included in the Pew survey.) The report highlights the importance of global surveys:

To provide further models of best practices but, in addition to anecdotal information, other timely information on strategies for improving public perceptions.

In 44 national surveys, based on interviews with more than 38,000 people, we explore public views about the rapid pace of change in modern life; global interconnectedness through trade, foreign investment and immigration; and people's attitudes toward democracy and governance. The surveys' themes range from economic globalization and the reach of multinational corporations to terrorism and the U.S. response. The results illuminate international attitudes toward the United States and show where U.S. and foreign opinions align and collide.

Unlike this Survey that made use of pre-existing professional Internet discussion lists, the cost of conducting surveys at the international level would be quite high, because there is no simple list of ordinary people to contact in each country. It is thus necessary for survey firms to have a physical presence in each surveyed country. (PSRA contracted research firms and individuals in many countries to obtain such information.) For these reasons, such a survey would probably be cost-prohibitive for an organization such as ICA to undertake. However, ICA/CITRA could play a lead role in reaching agreement on a common survey instrument (or at least on certain core questions) and methodology for obtaining random and representative respondents. With this agreement, individual national archives could then sponsor country-specific surveys. The results could provide needed society-based information and help to guide national state/provincial/local archives initiatives; and, if enough countries undertook such research, the individual results could be rolled up statistically to provide a global picture. If a municipal archives organization can carry out such surveys using a prominent survey firm such as Gallup, as is being done periodically by the Reykjavik Municipal Archives, then it should be possible for other archives and professional associations to sponsor similar surveys at various levels of government. However, as is discussed in more detail below in Section VIII, Main Survey Findings, such research is low on the priority list for most respondents. “Targeted public opinion research surveys and group meetings” was one of nine strategy options listed under Survey Question 6: How can improvements be made in society’s perceptions and the reality of archives/records centers and the people who operate them? It was ranked last among nine strategic choices.

The ARM community in its many representations – individuals, professional associations, heads of archives and records centers – might do well to consider specific strategies for improving society’s perceptions and the realities of records and recordkeeping. A combination of strategies may be necessary that takes account of how society values or fails to value records (Q2), what strategies are most likely to succeed in an action sense (Q6), and how these can be realized through the ARM community itself and through appeal to the non-ARM community to help (Q7, 8, 9).

Despite the limitations of a survey such as this that are discussed in Annex A, hopefully the results will stimulate questions and discussion that will contribute in a positive way toward our better understanding of the societies and sub-societies we serve, as well as the producers of records, and lead to appropriate strategies that result in actions that will help to revitalize and sustain a high level of interest, support and understanding of the important role of records in society and the facilities and people who manage them.

· Further work is needed on market research, advocacy, services and other strategies; but many strategies are open for action now.

Many thank go to the 671 people felt strongly enough about this subject to complete the Society and Archives Survey that this report is based upon; and especially to the 176 respondents who took the added time to provide one or more comments at the end of the Survey. Colleagues who kindly reviewed the first drafts of the Survey were: Terry Cook (Canada); Albert Meijer (Netherlands); Chris Hurley and Mike Steemson (New Zealand); and David Wallace and Lisa Weber (US). Subsequent comments were also received from Bruce Dearstyne, Richard Cox (US) and Piers Cain (UK). The author thanks all of these colleagues for their generous assistance and constructive comments but takes full responsibility for the resulting Survey instrument and this report as it was necessary to make choices among the sometimes conflicting recommendations received. Despite the late date of the Survey, and the fact that in at least one region (Middle East) it had to be translated into another language, the responses demonstrate that professional are very interested in sharing their views on society’s and records producers’ perceptions and what can be done to strengthen those perceptions. International email received from colleagues about the Survey confirm that there is a strong felt need for this kind of dialogue.

This Survey was precipitated as noted above by the absence of discussion on any of the 8 international discussion lists that the author monitors. While the “image” of the archivist or records manager arises on Internet professional discussion lists from time to time[x], it is usually done in the context of the latest novel or movie and how badly it characterized the profession. Recently, for example, we had the case of the movie Star Wars: Episode II, in which the Jedi Archivist, Jocasta, is shown in a discussion with a “user” of the Jedi Archives:

…the Jedi Archivist: “a frail-looking creature, quite elderly...”, but “She was a firebrand, that weak facade hiding her strength and determination.” The Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi is trying to find a planet system called Kamino, that doesn't seem to show on any of the archive charts. Madame Jocasta Nu undertakes a search, but she has to conclude:

“I hate to say it, but it looks like the system you're searching for doesn't exist.” “That's impossible - perhaps the Archives are incomplete.” “The Archives are comprehensive and totally secure, my young Jedi,” came the imposing response, the Archivist stepping back from her familiarity with Obi-Wan and assuming again the demeanor of archive kingdom ruler. “One thing you may be absolutely sure of: If an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist.” The two stared at each other for a long moment, Obi-Wan taking note that there wasn't the slightest tremor of doubt in Jocasta Nu's declaration.[xi]

Typical list discussions of such cases, while in good fun, do not ordinarily result in serious deliberations. Eric Ketelaar’s 15 August 2002 keynote presentation to the Annual Conference of the Australian Society of Archivists (ASA) in Sydney, “Past Caring? What does Society Expect of Archivists?” was a departure. He used the Jedi Archivist as a metaphor for his presentation in which he concluded:

…the Jedi archivist affirms her role in the Jedi society. But these words also express what I believe our society expects of archivists. ‘Secure’ can mean (OED): free from care, PAST CARING, free from distrust. But also: in safe custody. And finally: confident in expectation, feeling certain of something in the future.

So, finally, What Society expects of Archivists is ensuring not only that records are created and managed as evidence to serve accountability and memory, but also that archives as storage memory are secured, so that society can be confident of the future.

The author first raised concerns about the absence of serious discussion of the issues surrounding the public perception of archives/records centers and the people who operate them in a keynote presentation “Transacting e-Business: is RM being passed by?”[xii] at the Records Management Association of Australia National Convention 2002 in Adelaide Australia, just a month after the ASA Conference. In early November, still seeing no discussion of this most important topic within the professional community, and discovering the availability of a free web survey instrument that would make it possible to widely solicit the views of professionals, the author decided to take on the initiative. It is unfortunate that time did not permit solicitation of feedback on the drafts from other international sources including in countries that do not have English as their principal language, and in developing countries.

A preliminary version of this report was transmitted by email to the ICA on 12 November 2002 for distribution to CITRA participants who had requested a copy, and for whatever additional use ICA might wish to make of it. Regrettably, the report was not distributed for background information at the meeting. Perhaps ICA will find it worthwhile to make use of the Survey results in time for its 2003 meeting in South Africa.

In recognition of the time and effort that the 671 professionals from every region of the world had invested in completing the Survey, and as the author has received numerous requests for copies of this report, it is also being published on www.mybestdocs.com to ensure ready access to the professional community at large. Comments on this report are welcomed. The report may be updated, or separate papers may be published as further reviews of the statistics are considered to reflect comments on the report. In addition, some 200 cross-tab tables have been produced from the Survey, in addition to multiple write-in comments from 176 respondents, all of which could not be addressed in this Report.

Demographic questions are important in any survey because their answers provide information on which to base cross tabulations to help gain a better understanding of what might appear to be large standard deviations in the responses to some questions that otherwise would be unexplained. Average results for a particular question may be meaningless if they mask wide differences at either end of the spectrum of the possible responses to the question. On the other hand, they also can be useful in demonstrating that the demographic in question doesn’t seem to have an important bearing on the results. The author considered including more such differentiating questions than ultimately were. In the interest of keeping the size of the Survey and time to complete it to a minimum, and to use the maximum number of questions for substantive questions, only 3 demographic questions (Q11, 12,13) were asked:

Twelve professional disciplinary selections were provided for principal professional work experience, in addition to an “Other” category. No Legislators, Attorneys or Genealogists completed the Survey. While there was representation from each of the other nine professional categories, 74% were Archivists and Records Managers.

The representation of the respondents by time in the workplace was quite evenly distributed with 56% having been in the workplace for 11 or more years, 41% less 10 or less years and respondents still completing their education 3%.

The Survey was completed by 671 people from every region of the world – 96% from N. America (55%), Australasia (22%) and Europe (19%). One stalwart Canadian chose to select “Other” for designating a regional affiliation, and marked “Canada” in the “Other comments” section for regional affiliation. Several other respondents indicated that they were not working in international organizations across regional boundaries.

The survey system used for this Survey was the Zoomerang system. It is a relatively easy and excellent system for design, distribution and use of surveys. It can be used through a website for any and all respondents or by email, sending the survey to a specific list of people. In this case, the Survey announcement was sent to 8 international ARM discussion lists and was forwarded to others. It has its drawbacks, especially in the free version (which ultimately did not work out for this Survey). However, it has many significant advantages, especially for the paying subscriber.

Some of the drawbacks were not apparent until after several hundred people had completed the Survey. One was that, when using the free service, the survey owner is allowed to see the results of only the first 50 respondents. Thus, the author found it necessary to make a payment to get the added features needed to write this report. This was entirely due to haste in reading the terms of usage that spell out which features are free and which require a paid subscription.

Considerable time and effort was lost initially because of several unusual Internet disconnects while constructing the survey over a dial-up connection. This resulted in losing the work done up to the time of the disconnect, because Zoomerang (at time of this usage) didn’t save any part of the survey design until it was fully completed. This happened, unusually, three times. Thus, it was necessary to begin the survey design all over again each time a disconnect occurred, in one case nearly at the end of the design process. The system apparently does not save work as the survey is being completed. This is a potential problem for those using dial-up Internet access. It is therefore wise to complete the survey questions off line in a wordprocessing, spreadsheet or other format before starting and quickly copy and paste questions and response choices during the design process. Using existing pull down response menus also speeds up the design process, but it is not always possible to use such standard response in a customized survey such as this.

Another limitation to the free version is that access to analytical tools is limited. Up-to-date details on both the “free” and “Z-PRO” (paid subscriber) accounts are available at www.zoomerang.com including information on how to build a survey. To use the system, one has to agree to consider taking the surveys of other Zoomerang users. This sounded formidable to the author at time of sign-up, but he went ahead anyway as there was no requirement to take any surveys. As it turned out, none were requested.

The system provides for various types of questions – multiple choice, button/pull-down menus, open text, etc. One other consideration for international surveys is that the system doesn’t provide a drop-down or other menu for selecting from a list of countries for use in gathering demographic information. It was therefore necessary in this Survey to use a much broader regional choice for demographic purposes – Africa, Asia/Pacific, Australasia, Caribbean, etc. The author thought it would have been preferable to be able to get that breakdown of responses by country, given the nature of this Survey. As it turned out, regional differences did not make a major difference in most key responses. Country-specific differences very possibly could have. On the other hand, country breakdowns would be useful only if there were sufficient responses from each country to make the results statistically significant. If one were to use a country breakdown, it would also create an enormous number of cross tabulations if they were to be done by each country. Thus, where country breakdowns are feasible, it would probably still be sensible to include regions as was done in this Survey.

Despite the fact that it was the author’s first attempt at using the system, Zoomerang was quite easy to use, and has excellent, graphical online HELP. Where questions or problems did arise, the Zoomerang online (email) Customer Service provided excellent service, both in content and response time. Moreover, at the time the author made use of it, Zoomerang had a responsible Privacy Policy. (As many websites do not, one should always read and understand, and question if necessary, a site’s Privacy Policy before using it.) Zoomerang does not use personally identifiable information (e.g., email address) without prior consent and, while the survey creator can examine individual survey responses if s/he chooses to do so (this author did not), the survey creator does not see the email address or other identifying information associated with the response unless a respondent chooses to include such information in an open text field, such as one respondent did in Question #10 in this Survey.

Below is additional background information concerning the "good news stories" discussed in Section 4 of the main report.

1. Australia State Records Authority of New South Wales ('State Records'): Survey of Records Producers

Hi Rick

I've just completed your survey -- congratulations on taking the initiative to do this with such tight time constraints.

I wanted to provide a little more background about something I mentioned in the survey, which is relevant to the topic.

My organisation has recently commissioned qualitative research into the attitudes of chief executives of NSW public sector bodies to records, recordkeeping and records management. There was also some exploration of their perceptions of State Records.

Because chief executives have specific obligations under our State records legislation and their commitment is clearly crucial to achieving good performance in recordkeeping and records management in their organizations and across the sector, we wanted to know more about their attitudes and perceptions, so that we can develop strategies to engage with them better.

The research was conducted by a market research firm using interviews and focus groups, and covered about 50 chief executives (out of a total of 400) from a sample of public sector bodies, including State Government agencies, public trading enterprises, local government bodies, universities and public health authorities. The bodies ranged from large departments with many thousands of staff to micro-agencies with only a few staff.

Unfortunately I can't give you much detail about the results of the research -- the researchers gave a presentation on the initial findings only on Wednesday and we don't expect a written report until the end of November. But some overall impressions may help:

******

Chief executives generally appreciate the value of recordkeeping in relation to accountability and the ability to track decisions, but also associate it with bureaucracy, burdensome regulation and traditional views of filing and archives=storage.

Some don't see the value of recordkeeping and/or don't connect it with core business.

There's an overall commitment to the need for recordkeeping, but it competes for other priorities and there's a lack of appreciation of real business benefits.

Most chief executives consider themselves committed to recordkeeping, but they want it all made easier and the value demonstrated.

They see their responsibilities in relation to recordkeeping as relating to enhanced organisational performance, rather than conformance with regulation.

Recordkeeping is seen as less important than finance, HR and PR, and is recognised as receiving less of chief executives' attention.

******

I'll be happy to share the results of the research when we them in a more definitive form. We will be sending a summary to the chief executives in any case, along with our proposed response, so we won't be keeping the results secret.

While we commissioned the research for good business reasons, we're excited about it professionally because we're not aware of a public records authority doing this before and believe that it will add to professional knowledge.

I hope this background might be of interest for what you're doing at CITRA.

With very best wishes

David

David Roberts
Director
State Records

State Records Authority of New South Wales ('State Records')
Phone (02) 8276 5654 Fax (02) 8276 5626
International: Phone +61 2 8276 5654 Fax +61 2 8276 5626
Postal address: PO Box R625 Royal Exchange SYDNEY NSW 1225 AUSTRALIA
World Wide Web: http://www.records.nsw.gov.au

I know you must be very busy finalising this and so apologise for giving you more information. Please ignore if you can't use it....

I focused in my email on our recent chief executives attitude research because it's very current and, as I noted, an exploration of new territory for us. Reading the exec summary of your report, though, prompted me to look at market research we commissioned in late 2000 on community perceptions of archives and of State Records and our collection. The findings on perceptions of archives might challenge some of the pessimistic views of archivists and records managers, as reported in your survey.

This was a telephone survey of a little over 300 adults, carefully sampled to provide a good cross-section of demographic sub-groups. For the question on perceptions of archives, which is probably the most relevant to your survey and the CITRA theme, respondents were read a list of adjectives, including positive and negative, that may describe government archives. They were asked to nominate the words they felt described archives in general.

Our market research firm commented: "State Records can use a confident communication style in the knowledge that the broad community sees archives in very positive ways. The main negative connotations to be countered are those of being old-fashioned, boring and inaccessible."

These and other results from that survey provided us with a basis for a renewed marketing effort that we started earlier this year to capture the community's imagination and build new audiences, focusing on a program of innovative exhibitions, events and a flagship magazine.

Finally, for amusement only, I enclose the text of my "Director's Letter" for the second (August) issue of the new magazine, which addressed the question of what society expects of archivists. I'll pop a hard copy in the post.

The following information was received by one of the Survey respondents in the “Others” section of Question 8 (No other information was received on this case):

Date: 11/8/02 4:15:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: svanbo@ismennt.is
To: RICKBARRY@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Hi Rick.

About the Reykjavik Municipal Archives: Archives for the City of Reykjavik. Authority for records management of the City and preserves the archival documents. Employees 7, funding in 2002 USD 364,000. Reykjavik is a City with 120,000 of the 270,000 inhabitants of Iceland.

I started with doing surveys of our services in the reading room. Since 1998 we do surveys on regular basis of how well the public knows what kind of service we provide. We did this in Nov. 1998, Nov. 2000 and will repeat it again next week, with the same question and method. We got the Gallup International survey company to do the survey for us and the sample rate is about 2000 with a response rate of about 1200. People from all around Iceland are asked if they know what kind of service the Reykjavik Municipal Archives provide. If they say yes, they are asked to specify what is the main service. Of course the answers are broken down by age, sex, demographic, work etc.

The result has been very interesting for us. In 1998 about 20% of the population from the whole country said yes to the question if they knew what kind of service the Reykjavik Municipal Archives provides. We were quite happy with this result. However, people were also asked to specify the service offered. Too many people mentioned the preservation task, with replies like "They keep old documents", "This is the place to find old book", "They keep the documents of the city".

We started with more outreach in beginning of 1999 based on what was lacking in the knowledge. In 1999 we had four exhibitions, opened a website with some other archives in Europe (see www.euarchives.org) explaining the richness of the collection and with scanned documents, we published a high quality book with other archives of Europe's cultural cities. We were frequent guests in the media all year, even in TV nightlife program!

The number of scholars visiting us stayed the same, but the visits of the public to get information increased. It was obvious that all our talk about right to access public information gave results.

The survey of Nov 2000 showed that we were on the right track. Now 25% more people from all over the country said they knew about our services. People started to be more to the point in the replies and indeed know more about the purpose of our work (not only preservation of documents, but to provide information for the citizens, you go there when you need information about your grades, about the history of the city, they have many interesting documents that you can look at, etc).

New were are eagerly waiting for the results of Nov. 2002, but the Gallup International Survey Company will do a survey for us Nov. 12-26.

We look at this as a way to see if we are on the right track in our work. Our duty is not only to preserve the information of the City of Reykjavik, but also to provide access to it to the citizens and to introduce the enormous work the city has been doing in the past.

Next exhibition will open Dec. 7th and be open until Feb. 2nd 2003. It will be about the wartime Reykjavik in the Second World War and the effect the arrival of the troops had on the city life. We will use city documents from the time, photographs of Reykjavik 1941-3, mainly from the American National Archives, wartime posters and war artifacts. All the texts of this exhibition will be both in Icelandic and English, as many tourists visit Iceland to observe Christmas and the New Year celebrations.

Vermont State Archivist, Gregory Sanford has communicated with the author on the Vermont State Archives “Continuing Issues” (CI) initiative the past year and recently in the context of the Society & Archives Survey. Professionals are familiar with the term “records of continuing value,” and its associated theory and practices. While this approach to recordkeeping is of growing interest to many professionals and institutions and formed the basis for the ISO 15489 International Standard on Records Management, the concepts would likely not be considered of much importance or interest to most lay persons. The Vermont State Archives, under the leadership of Gregory Sanford has coined the term “records of continuing issues” to catch the imagination of legislators, journalists and the general public and demonstrate the current value of archives from earlier times to contemporary public policy issues. A brief paper describing the project is accessible in the in the Guest Authors section of www.mybestdocs.com. Sanford supplied the below additional explanatory information on the Vermont State “continuing issues” project. Sanford supplied the following description of the CI program.

Rick: I had only a brief chance to review your initial summary, which you attached to an earlier e-mail. I think what you are attempting is absolutely fascinating. I attach some very superficial thoughts on my first read through of the draft.
Gregory
---------------

1. You begin your discussion by noting that society's perceptions of archives are, in truth, societies' perceptions. That is an essential point. Individual archives operate in different social settings, conditioned by different cultural experiences and assumptions. The response from an African archivist ("archives are seen as part of the agencies who limit access to information") nicely encapsulates that reality. Recognition of the different milieus in which we work underscores the truth that there is no single approach to changing perceptions. That is why your efforts to identify possible models from different social/cultural settings is important; it may ultimately provide a smorgasbord of choices from which the records community can select ideas that may work best within a particular environment.

2. Following up on that thought, my archives' efforts to enhance institutional and public perceptions are adapted to our realities. We are a public archives in a state whose population is smaller than more than a dozen cities in our country. We are in a state capital with a population of 8,000 where it is almost impossible not to physically encounter government officials, reporters, and lobbyists. We work for an elected constitutional officer whose entire staff numbers under fifty. In other words, our setting provides endless opportunities for personal contact with policy and opinion makers. This simplifies our efforts to enhance a positive perception of our work; we only need to identify key players and attempt to build some level of personal contact that illustrates how we can be of service. The simple decision to have lunch occasionally in the statehouse cafeteria--to be visible and accessible--can have important consequences. Or reading the morning paper, seeing who is involved in an emerging issue and, armed with the certainty that we do have a positive institutional role, sending that person a record or record-based information germane to the issue can slowly build toward understanding, if not support.

3. Changing perceptions is not the same as fighting perceptions. It can be more like those martial arts that incorporate and redirect an opposing force. As several survey responses note, archives are inextricably intertwined with "history" in popular perceptions. Even if we wanted to, we would be hard pressed to change that perception. In our case we developed "histories" of processes within our institution that were currently part of the public dialogue and that had persisted across time. That did not change--it may even have strengthened--perceptions that we had something to do with history, but it provided "history" in a form that was directly utilitarian to the institution. It also changed one aspect of role from passive (hoping a historian might use our records to create an institutional tool) to active (creating that tool ourselves, strengthening our "ownership" of that tool). That goes back to the first point of selecting a variety of tools with which to leverage change. Many archivists and records managers have correctly attempted to gain a place at the IT table by applying our principles and perspectives to our institutions' implementation of new information technologies. That presence changes perceptions. It makes sense having provided informed opinion on how our institution might do something, to also expend some effort on why it should care to do so.

4. Several responses expressed, or at least noted, our less than favorable perceptions of archivists, record managers, historians, genealogists, record creators, and institutional managers. What does it say about our own self-perceptions that, when given the opportunity to reflect on how we are perceived, to note our negative perceptions of others. I can think of no better expression of a barrier to changing how we are perceived than responding to the question of who we are with, "I am not him."

Rick: The Archives is seen as offering a long view to current issues. That is the good news. The bad news is that fine line where the archivist, not the Archives becomes the story. Because I am often quotable--occasionally to my embarrassment--the focus moves from the records to me. That makes me very uncomfortable. Yet I don't know how to avoid the problem because reporters need quotes from people for their stories; they will use the Web site and other information we provide, but ultimately the nature of their story telling needs a person saying something. They call me. Another interesting lesson/observation learned working with reporters: even those who use the Web site don't like to share its existence with other reporters—

or the public for that matter. Instead they treat it as their own privileged source they can use for their own advantage).

The use of the archivist, rather than the archives touches on a criticism I anticipate: whether continuing issues is more public history than archival management. Should archivists move from arranging and preserving records to publicly interpreting them (one reason we try to include source documents is to partially address this and to keep the focus on the records). I can live with that concern because I don't see the value in such distinctions, but my guess is that it will be raised.

Which, in turn, touches on a fascinating issue within your survey. Is the issue how the public, or even traditional research audiences, perceive archives, or is it how a few key leaders and public opinion observers/makers view archives? For all the effort we put into continuing issues activities (the effort embraces much more than the Web site), my estimate is that I effectively work with fewer than ten (out of 150) house members and perhaps two or three (out of 30) senators. I really only have contact with three or four staff members within the Governor's Office. With the news media we primarily work only with those Montpelier reporters who cover government.

While I believe there is a "tipping point" where that limited, but essential, use will lead to broader awareness of the archives, given resource limitations the key is develop a core of important players who routinely think of the archives. And addressing the public historian issue, the goal is to then use that core to enhance support for better recordkeeping (such as being asked to talk to new legislators or to committee clerks) and better resources, including better legal authorities.

To seek widely held positive public perceptions is important, but chimerical if that is the primary goal. If nothing else seeking positive "public" awareness is too undefined a goal. If, however, reporters mention the archives in their reports, or public figures note historical context provided by the archives, then general public awareness will be raised.

PS. Just got an e-mail informing me that the Snelling Center on Government will be using one of our educational exercises (an offshoot of continuing issues) as part of next weeks orientation for new legislators. So new legislators will receive two introductions to the Archives: one of our continuing issues exercises (on the nature of representation) and my luncheon address to them on the second day of orientation. I attach the exercise to give you a flavor of another aspect of continuing issues. The exercise usually is accompanied by documents from throughout Vermont history—including from the recent civil unions debate--that underscore the continuing tensions between representatives as delegates or trustees.

Rick,

I want to bring you up to date on a use of archives for outreach purposes that SIA will be engaging in. We're mounting a small exhibition in the gallery of the Canadian Embassy, using photographs taken by the Smithsonian's 4th Secretary, Charles D. Walcott. Dr. Walcott was a paleontologist and geologist who used photography to document land formations and various terrain. His scientific need for photography resulted in some sweeping panoramas of mountain ranges, including the Canadian Rockies. We will be mounting a small selection of his images to show the intersection of science and art, and of course the beauty of the Canadian Rockies. The embassy thinks this a fine example of the rich texture of relationships that bind our two countries, and an opportunity to highlight a prominent American (Walcott discovered the Burgess Shale, one of the great paleontological finds of all time) whose work centered largely in Canada (the Burgess Shale is in British Columbia, for instance).

The exhibition won't open until late February or early March, 2004, but we're excited about it at SIA. Hope this is useful information for your survey.

Cheers,
Edie

Another excellent example of outreach to society that was not submitted to the author but rather was posted to a professional discussion list is one that

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:46:43 -0800
From: Anthony Reed <Anthony_Reed@NPS.GOV>
Subject: New England Archivists - Archives on the Road - call for venues and volunteers

The New England Archivists (NEA) Outreach Committee is looking for a little assistance. As part of the regular schedule of programs and speaking engagements, we've recently added a program dubbed "Archives on the Road", a take on the PBS series, Antiques Roadshow.

For those unfamiliar with the concept (knowing, however, that similar programs take place across the country), here is a brief summary of how the program works:

Archives on the Road (AoR) is an opportunity for people to come to a site (library, historical or genealogical society, senior / youth center, county fair) with their archivable objects (family papers, scrap books, diaries, letters, photographs) and have professionals explain their historical value and what kind of options are available to care for their objects. At a series of tabletop stations, these professionals will explain basic preservation / conservation techniques, what happens to materials that are donated to an institution, options for reformatting and optimal storage techniques. Additionally, lists of resources for those interested in finding vendors, freelance archivists, researchers, and consultants are made available, and samples of "acid burn", rusty metal fasteners, and pressure-sensitive tape are on hand (always a crowd pleaser, especially those old-fashioned paper-clips!).

Occasionally, an NEA outreach committee member will provide a brief introductory talk on the uses of archival materials and their care and storage, depending on the crowd and the venue. Often, questions of digitizing family photographs, care of newspaper-clipping scrapbooks or
methods of displaying old photographs come up. The questions are usually very "Archives 101" and often folks come, perhaps not with questions, but more to show off precious family treasures, offering us a great opportunity to educate and advocate for the materials, and for the industry. (The main difference between PBS' "Roadshow" and "Archives on the Road" is that the
archivists will not provide monetary values for any objects. However, information is made available about archival appraisers in the area; archivists also explain how a collection is donated, and what kind of institutions could be interested in specific items.)

The primary purpose is to help people better understand how to care for their treasures and how archives and archivists can help them preserve those items. Brief descriptions of some previous AoR events are available at the NEA website:
http://www.lib.umb.edu/newengarch/aboutNEA/ctts/roadprev.html

How can you help:
The Outreach Committee is always looking for new venues for this program. If you are interested in participating in this program by volunteering your time and/or volunteering your institution to host an event (New England-area institutions are obviously our primary outreach target;
institutions outside the region will be considered on a case-by-case basis), please contact Committee Chair, Jessica Steytler, Congregational Library, 14 Beacon St., Boston MA 02145, (617) 523-0470 ext 234, fax: 617-523-0491, jsteytler@14beacon.org.

Thank you for your time,

Anthony Reed, Archivist / NEA Outreach Committee member
Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site
Brookline, Massachusetts

"The great use of a life is to spend it for something that outlasts it."
William James, 1842-1910

Other Comments and Examples

I have worked in Records Management for over 10 years and most people I speak to have no idea or concept as to what that entails or its importance.

Archives and RM are not the same and ought to be perceived differently. Lumping them together does neither any favours.

Interesting questions but, to be honest, "society" really doesn't think about archives or records management at all. Unless it touches them directly, (usually through genealogical research and/or donations to archival institutions) most people haven't a clue about what archives are or what archivists do. As for people who work in government institutions, they are not much better. Again, only if they have been told about the necessity of good records-keeping and the potential archival nature of the records they create will they be aware that archives even exist! In my personal opinion, far more work needs to be done to increase society's awareness of archives and records management and, in particular, the very important role that archives play in the management of information -- i.e. we should try to get away from the stereotypical image of archives as dusty basements and only concerned with "old" records. This is, however, more of a problem in North America. I think that Europeans have a greater awareness and appreciation of archival institutions simply because they have a greater sense of their own culture and history. I'm not sure what their perceptions of records management are, however. Good luck with the survey!

I am guessing about society as a whole and the various mentioned professions. The questions should be about my own perceptions, not my perceptions about other's perceptions.

The general public does not know what an archivist or records manager is and cares less. Among those who should know, such as public officials, I would guess that their knowledge and appreciation for our profession(s)is in proportion to their need to use the information we acquire, maintain, preserve, and make accessible. The best means of educating the public lies, I believe, with the media. The more positive exposure on TV, radio, and in print, the better. We do not do a good job of publicizing our successes. Our leaders in the information professions need to do a much better job of networking with other shapers of information and opinion. My university, for example, does not see a pressing need for having a records management program. If the SACs review of colleges and universities REQUIRED institutions of higher education to have records management and a depository or archives of some sort we would have regulations on our side. Why don't we work more with the ALA? Why do library schools have so few archival courses? Legislators are the other influential group to educate and woo. If information organizations would work together, we might be able to assert some clout. As it is, improvements and reforms are piece-meal. I have been a graduate student in library school for two and one half years while working in the archives of a small university almost full time. My efforts to establish a records management program for the university and to follow good archival practice were not appreciated by the Library Director or the university. I was forced out of the position and now I am a grant & proposal writer (at the university) until I finish my library degree, one course per semester. My experience leads me to believe archivists and records managers are largely unappreciated and ignored. I hope you will receive replies that make my observations a minority report.

It is difficult to talk about society as if it were a single person. In general most people are indifferent to archival/record storage functions

I have tracked since 1995 English language society's perception of archives as represented in fiction. There appears to be an increased understanding of the importance of archives as seen through the popular media (principally film and television). See http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~mattison/ficarch/index.htm

In my experience most people don't know what archives are and have no perception of them. Since in my opinion, most people don't know what archives are, they have no sense of the value of archives nor do they see a need to change a perception that generally does not exist.

Whereas the internet is clearly a good resource for closing that gap, it should not become merely a showcase for pretty stuff or telling stories, esp for archives. That is doing the work of researchers rather than making records accessible through on-line information about holdings.

I believe that archival organizations need to understand society and its needs in order to atrract more use/interest and therefore more positive perceptions. Maybe the reason why we're perceived badly, if at all, is because we aren't connecting to peoples' actual needs. Your questions are biased by a certain sense of it's society's fault Archives aren't highly valued. In my opinion, the lack is on both sides.

The need for and/or the status of archives/records management is not significantly questioned by those in positions of power. There continues to be a struggle to make them understand the importance of the archives/records management programs.

When people inquire about my job, the majority don't know what an archivist does. It's a foreign term to many.

I don't think the general public has much awareness at all of archives and their uses unless they see it brought up in the media or have personal, individual experience with a need for them. While I think the number of members of the public who are achieving that awareness is growing, I still don't believe it is widespread enough to be considered a part of one of the considerations of society as a whole. There doesn't seem to be that critical mass of awareness yet.

In my view, most Americans perceive archives as entirely neutral, conservative (literatally) and a reliable mirror of the status quo. They have absolutely no awareness of their political or legal significance.

I think archival world is poorly perceived as the contrary of "action man" by most people who do not know what they are talking about (this is enforced by litterature, cinema and media widely sprea. Those who know a litlle have respect and even some fear of archives ans archivists (they know all, they keep all our secrets, they have power over us, they are governement servants, etc. ...)
Most society NEED to weaken archives and archivists in order to get rid of controls in their action legal or illegal. Question od power, which have nothing to do with law or profesionnal deontology (sorry, I am a professional archivist without any illusions)

society doesn't react to anything unless it hits it in its face. Archives and records are mute instruments and those who care for them are passive. Records are not important until there is a need for them then they are valued and lamented if they have been destroyed.

Cannot hold publicly to account or detect deception without good records management (Henry McCandless, author of A Citizen's Guide to Public Accountability - www.accountabilitycircle.org)

Universities teach a lot of theory and not enough practicality, thus people aren't aware of the costs when there are no(or procedures not followed) records management programs established within the organization. Today's children are brought up in a throw away society and don't even know how long to keep their personal records and don't care. We need to change that attitude first.

3. Do you think society sees a greater need for changing its understanding of archival resources and issues?

The continued professional distrust by archivists of historians (which I as one who moved from academic research to archives have experienced in a mild form) is potentially extremely damaging. They should be our greatest allies - especially with history proving so attractive to television.

4. Do you think there is a significant gap between society’s understanding of the changing demands on ARM and reality?

Those who can close that gap are those who use archives and work in archives and RM. But this sort of work must reach the public via media that is widely used by the public. Otherwise we are preaching to the already converted which does nothing to close the gap. Whereas the internet is clearly a good resource for closing that gap, it should not become merely a showcase for pretty stuff or telling stories, esp for archives. That is doing the work of researchers rather than making records accessible through on-line information about holdings.

Archivists generally talk amongst themselves, speak to the already converted, in language that archivists understand, that is, we use jargon and exclude others through use of this language. We do not generally do a very good job at speaking to a wider audience, at selling the value of archives to the wider public. Partnerships with other professionals would go a long way to bridging gaps in understanding and value that we, as archivists, struggle with every day. In particular, partnerships with educators to produce tools or kits that expose children in primary and secondary schools to the value of history demonstrated through use of archival documentation of events that have meaning in their own lives - local, community. The Nazi gold example is good, at a higher level, but local connections are more tangible and stand a chance of touching more people in a memorable way. Children thus exposed will be more open as they get older to the notion of value/archives, they will have seen it first hand. But other partnerships are important as well, vis, with IT professionals in particular, with the software and hardware industries to address archival issues in electronic record keeping, standards, etc. We need to get out there.

I think public and government have different and sometimes conflicting needs when it comes to access and use of records. Electronic services to public are dictating policy without committment to an infrastructure to support these demands

electronic records in general and the access to WWW for posting metadata about records and in csome cases the complete record is drastically changing preceptions and demands / use among most professions and the general public or individual user.

More international support is needed and the mainstreaming of records and archives management programmes in the development agenda. More fohelp and focus is needed in Africa especially in the area of records management on the subject of managing electronic records. The ICA should do more in these areas. More support is needed to support archival training schools in Africa where resources are so few and books and journals are hard to find. The ICA and other organizations need to do much more.

7. How do you rank POTENTIAL for the following people to make contributions towards positive changes in society’s perceptions…?

Politicians, law makers and top management of business

we need to use public relations experts.

Government needs to make more money available to allow for proper care of archives. External resources immediately raise the profile of any service, and the threat of removal of these sources is a big threat. Once standards for storage have been met and adequate space has been found, principal day to day crises are removed. More time can then be spent on Advocacy, outreach and publicity.

individual businesses need to be encouraged to retain records, not simply as useful to themselves (which in itself need to be more widely encouraged, for example technical records for major infrastructure is of great importance to engineers/architects/planners/environmentalists for the life of the structure and beyond, which may be upwards of 150 years) but also as part of the cultural heritage of the countires they are in.

8. How do you rank how the following people ACTUALLY do today make contributions towards positive changes in society’s perceptions…?

others who have done a significant job of promoting use of archival records and thereby promoting archival collections generally has been the City of Montreal. With its recent project to refurbish the canals in the Lachine Canal and the other "urban development" projects that have taken place around the Canal, a tremendous amount of information is out there about its history -- particularly on-site, with commemorative plagues, and explanatory signage that gives indications of where the city has been and where it is going -- excellent model for the promotion of local history using a range of archival evidence.

I think we as archivists and records managers need to spend more time talking with our constitutents. However, it is really up to those in administrative positions of power, eg. campus president and deans, business ceo, etc., need to write letters of support for our programs to get records retention and disposition schedules implemented.

9. Do you think elected public officials and their dept. heads in organizations that create public records perceive archives, records centers and the people who operate them in the same way as you have answered above for society as a whole: Same, Some Differences, Major Differences (explain in #10)

May see archives and records centers as a dumping ground for the items they no longer want.

people involved in record making & keeping seldom seem to see themselves as others see us.

With all groups our users tend to perceive us only in relation to their exact needs - we bear the burder of publicizing our breadth to increase understanding, support and use.

In both public sector and private sector orgs, most line managers and workers don't necessarily perceive record-keeping negatively, but consider it extra work.

In strategic planning, systemic infrastructure support, organizational placement or access to senior management for archives and records. Even if records is placed in IT - management doesn't understand the concept of "content" management. Too much emphasis on point-in-time systems that eliminate or reduce access to older records, etc.

While they know the uses of records, they may not know what its involved in archives/records centers to care for and retain records.

For Q 9 - most officials & heads see archives & records centres & their staff as nothing more than a nusiance and a hindrance

Link to Q9: Obviously these officers would see the importance of records for the public organisations in their jurisdiction, for the rights of citizens and for the community (now and in the future). Unfortunately, most of these entities do not see the importance. Only education (positive promotion) can bring about a change. It is possible, but it will take effort.

In my view, they have very little appreciation of the potential value of good records management to their organisations.

there is a significant failing in the education of current government administrators (record creators) who are of the view as expressed to me by a senior executive in charge of billions of taxpayers' money that 'records/archives need to exist I guess -- but what's it do do with me?"

small, insular subset of society exists within public records organisations - if they dont "perceive archives, records centers and the people who operate them" differently to society as a whole, then God help us all!! They must have differing perceptions due to the nature of their work, but they certainly need to disseminate their views widely, so the general populations understands the importance of good record keeping and doesn't think it means "filing"!!

I think the general populace vaguely knows of our existance, but has never had to think about us in a concrete way. Information is kept, we have it, people can go there to retrieve it. Unfortunately, elected officials' level of knowledge and understanding seem the same. yet these are the very people upon whom many of us depend for funding. They mandate we exist, yet do not supply any concrete means for the work to be done. This is probably the most significant area of lack in any group.

See archives, etc. and money pits, no political return for money invested, not vote getters, etc.

Department heads who create the records that will eventually in up in the trash, records center, or archives need to work more closely with records management officers to ensure the proper disposition of records. Records management officers and archivists should be able to make final judgement calls on implementation of schedules. Here in the City of Los Angeles for example, department heads are solely in charge of determining what and what will not be sent to the records center and archives. I do not believe they should have this sole responsibility.

We used to have researchers. Now we have users and shoppers. And these users do not want to credit where they obtained the archival materials on which their work and products are based. No wonder it is difficult to obtain visibility for archives and advocate for core funding and infrastructure.

professional experience is as a holistic recordkeeping professional (cannot be pigeonholed as Archivist or Records Manager or even Business Analyst which is equally relevant)

For below, question 11, I have worked equally as an archivist and a historian. Most of my paid career has been as an archivist but I have been moving more and more to the historical side - DAA 1979, PhD 1990

Manuscripts librarian/archivist, with 10 years experience in this field; many more years experience as librarian.

Specification question 11: historian + archivist/educator.

Profession = archivist, records manager, information access and project development

This is based on the opinions of a society based on a reliance on oral history, that distrusts the written word -in other words the society in which this particular archive operates, not on the society that I come from. I work in a variety of fields, principally as an Archaeologist, but also as an archivist - which I am doing at present - also records management, clerical, library etc etc. My present position I have held for 4 months. A small archive, still trying to convince people that an archive is important and actually has a value - both to them personally and to society

I am also the Agency Records Officer. We have one official policy, with little support (budget/personnel - I am the only person in Records Management) for over 3000 employees statewide. Info Tech has not included me in any discussions, and we are scanning sensitive public records without a policy for file formats, proprietary issues, etc. As much as I want to increase awareness in the Agency, I have been thwarted by being told not to discuss the issues with any one in the Agency or outside the Agency, and to accept all paper records, without proper documentation. I trained over 170 records liaisons in the past two years, have set up a functional Records Center (~7000 cf), created standard operating procedures, included forms, etc., on the Agency Intranet. We were awarded the "Award of Achievement" by the State Archives in May 2001, and to date, the Agency Director has not accepted that award. We could have been selected last year for the Award of Achievement, but because the Director had not accepted the first one, the supervisor was "embarrassed" and did not submit the paperwork. I would have submitted the paperwork, had I known it was proper for the Records Officer to do so. However, when the Agency needed records for a Highway Patrol class action suit, I located all the information within twenty minutes for pick up. Does that tell you how people feel about Records? South Carolina, USA

Other General Comments

My replies are specific to South Africa, where we are emerging from a case where the National Archives was perceived to be an agent of the apartheid government. The archives service is struggling to regain credibility and is doing a pretty good job, though always room for improvement. It is probably difficult to draw conclusions from an international survey, when conditions vary so much from country to country.

I come from an African society, where archives are seen are part of the agencies who limit access to information. Except for reserachers and historian the average citizen is unware of what archives are and what the role of the arhivist is. Some even percieve national archives as part of the police as they are fortifies and security gurads posted at the gates throughout the day. national Archivists, please open your doors to the ordinary citizen.

Archives and RM are not the same and ought to be perceived differently. Lumping them together does neither any favours.

Understand that CITRA-members do see the world: can we assume their country (homeland) to profit considerably from their international meetings?

Feel the need to emphasize the record continuum: it is (current) records AND archives we are talking about.

Strongly support the notion that there is more than PUBLIC records and archives. (... No more ENRONs)

We really need to abandon the stereotype of archives and records being old, dusty files locked in a warehouse a la Indiana Jones. It's time for that stereotype to go and for records and information to be recognized as dynamic, not dead. I am a records manager and archivist for a Fortune 200 company.

I work in the United States where most people with the exception of genealogists and historians do not know what an archivist is or does.

I live in an area (Boston MA) rich in archives and historical assoc and sites. Usually when I say I am an archivist, people light up and find that very interesting. Also I have friends who work on OPen Meeting Laws and are concerned with open govt documents. so I believe my views are accuarate for an area like this. I suggest that the view of records mgt etc. varies a lot by geography.

I think that historians and geneologists have less clout in advocating for records/archives because they have an obvious vested interest. Elected officials; people from Secry of Stste office in US states, speaking on the subject would help. Librarians are of course good allies. Educators? legislators. I would like to see people who don't have an obvious interest in records/archives speak / do psa about them.

My experience in the last 3 years has been as a research assistant in a specialized field, women's history.

The majority of people do not think of archives at all until they have a very specific reason to do so. I think this leads to severe misconceptions about what archives are and what the role of archivists and records managers is.

I think in this hectic digital world there is no interest for somtehing so no trendy -records and archives

[i] © 2003, R. E. Barry. All rights reserved. This paper may not be reprinted without the author's written permission. Rick Barry, rickbarry@aol.com is Principal, Barry Associates. Biographical information may be found at www.mybestdocs.com under “About Rick”.

[ii] In some countries there is a tradition of clear separation of records management and archives functions, organizations and professional societies. In others, the two groups and functions are regarded as integral. In any case, any distinctions that might be made between these groups/functions would be missed in whatever perspectives society may have on either or both functions. The purpose of using the ‘ARM’ notation here is to ensure that neither group feels that they are excluded from this important discussion.

[iii] CITRA is a French acronym for: La Conférence internationale de la Table ronde des Archives.

[iv] The full announcement is accessible online at www.mybestdocs.com in the News & Media section. Further information will be found on the ICA website.

[v] Source: This is an example of a write-in comment from one of the 176 (of the total 671) respondents to the Society & Archives Survey who provided optional “Other comments/examples” in response to Question 10.

[vi] The Survey used the term “archives/records centers and the people who operate them” to incorporate facilities, services and related staff. For the remainder of this report, except in quoting the Survey questions and unless otherwise specified, the term “archives/records centers” will be used as shorthand for the longer expression.

[vii] For the remainder of this report, except in quoting the Survey questions or unless otherwise specified, the term ‘record’ is used to embrace the term ‘archive’.

[viii] This value ranks higher than the following one, even though it has a lower total percentage because more people responded gave some response to this value (655) than did for the next ranking value (534).

[ix] Rankings are shown by the percentage of responses, but they are actually ranked according to numbers of response, i.e., whereas different strategies may have the same total percentage as one another, on a percentage basis, ranking was sorted by numbers of respondents choosing the strategies.

[x] Between 29 November and 12 December 2002, there were 30 postings on the UK ARCHIVES-NRA professional discussion list on the topic of “archivists in fiction.”

[xi] Robert A. Salvatore, Star wars. Episode II. Attack of the clones, based on the story by George Lucas and the screenplay by George Lucas and Jonathan Hales (Ballantine books, New York 2002) 155-160, here p. 160. Quoted in “Past Caring? What does Society Expect of Archivists?” by Eric Ketelaar, keynote presentation to the Annual Conference of the Australian Society of Archivists 15 August 2002.

[xii] This presentation is accessible online at www.mybestdocs.com in the New Items and Recent Papers sections.

Perception	Yes (%)	Don’t know (%)	No (%)
Useful	90	9	1
Valuable	89	8	3
Interesting	72	11	17
Comprehensive	55	33	12
Rule-bound	49	31	20
Up to date	47	40	13
Efficient	43	42	15
Inaccessible	34	34	32
Exciting	33	17	50
Boring	25	14	61
Old fashioned	20	15	65
Irrelevant	11	12	77
Waste of money	8	16	76

January 29, 2003*