On the Education of Archivists and Librarians
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
On the Education of Archivists and Librarians By JOHN C. COLSON University of Maryland NE of the most significant developments in education during the Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/31/2/167/2745285/aarc_31_2_gv11303g6328212g.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 past century has been the increase in variety and number of pro- O fessional schools attached to universities. Before about 1850 only three professions were dignified by having schools associated with univer- sities : theology, law, and medicine; and there were few schools for those disciplines. By 1950, however, the situation had changed radically. It was a poor university that did not boast a half-dozen or more professional schools; among the more common were those of education, engineering, law, commerce, industrial relations, nursing, medicine, librarianship, public administration, international relations, agriculture, and architec- ture. There were even such exotic examples as the School of Hotel Ad- ministration attached to Cornell. This proliferation of professional schools has been interpreted as something mean—the result of a drive for higher status among the groups not so dignified. It may also be in- terpreted as a result of the increasing specialization characteristic of our society. There is little indication that this specialization may be expected to decrease; indeed, the pressure for more professional schools will presumably continue. At least one university president has hinted, darkly: "Any university president could tell you—if he dared to speak frankly—of half a dozen proposals for the establishment of brand-new professional schools on his campus in a very short time."1 Whether all such schools prepare students for "professions" is largely a matter of semantics, but partly a matter of myth. The question revolves around the meaning of "profession," and the meaning varies according to the intent of the word's user. The meaning, however, is important for the problem of preparation for the profession.2 In any professional group it should be axiomatic that the nature of the profession must be defined before its members can develop a program of systematic preparation for professional practice. It is much simpler, however, to state an axiom than it is to define a profession. To define a thing is to name it, to set limits on it, to explain the meaning of it. Professions are not so susceptible to precise limitation. Thus it has come about that nearly every profession is engaged in a more or less persistent The author is assistant professor in the School of Library and Information Services, Uni- versity of Maryland, College Park, Md. His paper is essentially a response to the ideas set forth by H. G. Jones and T. R. Schellenberg in their papers appearing also in this issue of the American Archivist. 1 Ernest C. Colwell, "The Role of the Professional School in the University," in Education for Librarianship, p. 19 (Chicago, American Library Association, 1949). 2 I am deliberately avoiding those value-loaded terms "education" and "training." It has been my observation that their use commonly engenders much heat but little light in any discussion of preparation for a profession. VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1968 167 168 JOHN C. COLSON debate among its members, on two questions. The first is: How shall recruits to the profession be prepared for it? The second is: Where shall this preparation be obtained? From accountants to zoo keepers, wherever the winds of occupational status-seeking blow, they carry the sounds of vigorous disagreement about the best way to become "a pro- fessional." Much of this is a debate about shadows rather than a concern Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/31/2/167/2745285/aarc_31_2_gv11303g6328212g.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 with reality. The shadows, in almost every case, are the mystique of "professionalism," the magical authority of science, and the doctrinaire insistence upon the separateness of the profession. In the case of archivists the charge is fairly easy to support. In 1909 Waldo G. Leland told the First Conference of Archivists,3 "We must disabuse ourselves of the idea that anyone can be an archivist,"4 but still he wrote about preparing students for "archival work," rather than about education for a profession. By 1941 professionalism had advanced to the point where Solon J. Buck, in "The Training of American Archi- vists," wrote: "The body of knowledge that the archivist should have at his command . may for purposes of convenience be called archival science."5 It was a label of convenience, according to Buck, but immedi- ately thereafter he exalted archival work by calling it "an applied sci- ence . like medical science."6 The separateness of archivists received full expression in Ernst Posner's rhetorical question "What, Then, Is the American Archivist, This New Man?"7 H. G. Jones' "disturbing question" of 1966 was equally rhetorical: "Do we as archivists really constitute a profession?" His answer left no room for doubt; archivists are members of "a profession that stands second to none in its contribu- tions to man's broadening knowledge."8 To anyone who knows the history of librarianship all this has a dis- tressingly familiar sound. Librarians long have suffered the same pangs of doubt and insecurity about their status as "professionals," and they have devoted far more time and energy than have archivists (as yet) to rites of purification. Whether the effort has been worth it remains to be seen. There is a lurking suspicion that it has not, as demonstrated by the names of some new library schools such as the University of Mary- land School of Library and Information Services. We librarians are giving up on the definition of our craft as a science. The surrender is significant in more ways than one. We are giving up our efforts to be what we are not, and we are also giving up our separateness. We recog- nize the distinctive nature of our craft but also its interdependence with 3 In any occupational group it may be postulated that one of the first signs of professionalism is the holding of conferences. 4 American Historical Association, Annual Report . iCfOQ, p. 348 (Washington, 1911). r> American Archivist, 4:84-85 (Apr. 1941). eIbid., p. 85. 7 American Archivist, 20:3-11 (Jan. 1957). 8 "Archival Training in American Universities, 1938-66," read at a session of the Society of American Archivists, Atlanta, Ga., on Oct. 6, 1966. [A revision of that paper, updated to present the latest facts, is published in this issue of the American Archivist.—ED.] THE AMERICAN ARCHIVIST ARCHIVISTS AND LIBRARIANS 169 other disciplines. Historians, for example, cannot exist without librar- ians; librarians cannot exist without historians. (At this point it seems necessary to introduce a distinction which may not be generally appre- ciated, but which nevertheless seems valid and which is essential to my argument: a historian is a scholar who finds his evidence in documents— I exclude artifacts but include records which reproduce spoken mes- Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/31/2/167/2745285/aarc_31_2_gv11303g6328212g.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 sages—that were not created for the specific purposes of the historian. Thus, the word historian embraces many scholars who call themselves something else, such as sociologists, or literary critics.) Archivists are in the same relative position as librarians. Unfortu- nately, however, the two professions have not adequately perceived their essential similarity—at least, not in the United States. There would be no point in attempting to assess blame for this, but there are reasons for it. Librarians, confronted with the problem of gaining bibliographic con- trol over the deluge of published materials, have increasingly become less concerned with the problems of archivists. Archivists, on the other hand, are an emergent professional group, highly conscious of their separateness. Librarians, still not too sure of their professional status, sometimes are reluctant to admit archivists to the same status. Other reasons could be cited, but, for the purposes of this paper, only one is relevant: in their effort to establish the independence of their profession archivists have built a strong argument out of a misunderstanding of the nature of librarianship. They have repeatedly emphasized that archivists are different from librarians because archives are different from books. Solon J. Buck emphasized the official character of archives, but he also stressed their physical difference from books: While there are some obvious similarities between that job and the job of the librar- ian, there are important differences, most of which arise out of the differences in the character of the materials with which the two professions are concerned. The official or legal significance and organic character of archives constitute perhaps the primary difference between them, but the physical differences are also important.8 T. R. Schellenberg, too, has emphasized that archival material differs from publications in both its physical and substantive attributes.10 Too much has been made of these differences between archives and "library materials," i.e., books. Emphasis on them only obscures the misunderstanding of librarianship that has promoted the differentiation between archivists and librarians. That misunderstanding is the belief that a librarian is concerned solely with the custody of books. The belief is unfounded. The librarian is concerned with recorded information, in whatever form. His first concern is with its preservation, and this is the most easily accomplished. His more important concern a American Archivist, 4:84. 10 Schellenberg, "Archival Training in Library Schools," read at a session of the Society of American Archivists, Atlanta, Ga., on Oct. 6, 1966. [Dr. Schellenberg's paper is published in this issue of the American Archivist.—ED.] VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2, APRIL 1968 170 JOHN C.