Open Forum

 View Only
  • 1.  Archives vs Museums

    Posted 07-25-2016 01:10 PM

    Just wanted to have a discussion concerning employment in museum and archives. So I have worked/volunteered in the museum field for the past five years. Mostly as a part-time employee, but this past year got my first full-time gig. I also interned at a university archives one semester in college. Anyway, during that time I worked primary in museum collections. I have found archives and museums collections work very similar, obviously with archives bring more work in paper items. Yet, when I look at archival jobs openings, like on the SAA job site, the minimum qualifications almost always require graduate level MLS degree, even for like a temporary position. Whereas in museums, I have noticed a wide variety of college degrees like Museum Studies, History, Art History, etc., at varying degrees depending on the institution/position. I guess what I am saying is you rarely see entry level position at archives. Does anyone know why? Why couldn't someone be considered for archival employment if they museum collections experience? Just curious!

    ------------------------------
    Jakob Etrheim
    Collections Assistant
    Kandiyohi County Historical Society
    Willmar MN
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Archives vs Museums

    Posted 07-26-2016 09:14 AM

    Jakob, 

    As best I can tell at least 15 years ago there was a great schism in the field when both museums and archives increased their "professionalism" through more rigorous training in universities (not to suggest that either was unprofessional beforehand).  As you have noticed, archives want MLSs and museums are more MA-based. 

    More often than not you will have to decide which way to go, even though there are positions where you will act as archivist and curator.  If you have a greater passion for one or the other, you'll need to decide which degree program to go into to further your career. And because of that decision, you will have jobs simultaneously open and close for you. 

    There's no wrong way to go....but there is a choice to be made.  (This is sounding way more philosophical than I intended, I guess my coffee is kicking in). 

    Good luck!

    ------------------------------
    Carrie Bowers
    Museum Specialist
    National Museum of the Marine Corps
    Triangle VA



  • 3.  RE: Archives vs Museums

    Posted 07-26-2016 10:04 AM

    Hi

    In reply to part of your question, in fact museum collections care and intellectual property documentation is fundamentally different than archival care and intellectual processing. The differences can bend your mind, which is why you generally see professionals do one or the other. I have included an excerpt from the NPS museum handbook vol 2 on the topic (I was a writer for Vol 2 and parts of Vol 1) of documentation. Volume 1 can tell you about the handling and storage differences. 

    As far as the turn over rate in entry level jobs being higher in museums verses archives, I can only guess this has to do with the number of archival institutions verses museums, but perhaps  someone else may want to tackle that one. 

    ---------Excepts from Musuem Handbook Vol 2 Appendix D

    Cataloging by collection versus cataloging by object or lot

    Archival cataloging is fundamentally different from object cataloging. Object cataloging involves creating individual catalog records for each object or for each comparatively small lot of objects. Archival cataloging, however, involves cataloging an entire collection under a single catalog record, no matter how many documents it contains. A single archival collection can contain an infinite number of documents, and the documents themselves can cover an infinite number of projects. Lot-cataloged objects, on the other hand, relate to a single project and have the same name and provenience.
    Regardless of how many documents it contains, you should regard an archival collection as a single object. Assign a single catalog number to the collection as a whole.

    Object cataloging usually is done on an object-by-object basis, but archival cataloging should never be done on a document-by-document basis—unless a document is not part of a larger archival collection.
    Arrangement
    • An archival collection needs to be arranged in its proper order before you attempt to catalog it. You must complete this essential preliminary work before you can create a catalog record for the collection. You can’t take a single document off the shelf and catalog it and move on to the next document. You must approach the collection as a whole and process and arrange the entire collection. Then you will understand what is in it and how the documents fit together. This is true whether the collection contains thousands of documents or only a handful of documents.
    Multiple Accessions
    • A single archival collection may be composed of multiple accessions, while a museum object is always associated with only one accession. For example, one archival collection may be composed of ten accessions from a single original source. Even though there are ten accessions, catalog the collection with one catalog record and one catalog number. The reverse is true in object collections, however, because an accession containing ten objects can result in ten catalog records and ten catalog numbers.
    Classification versus Organization
    • You don’t classify archival collections in the same way you classify museum objects. For example, you wouldn’t classify an archival collection by time period and material of manufacture or by genus and species. Instead, you analyze how each collection is organized and identify its component parts, such as series and subseries. You then base your cataloging and description on the unique internal organization of the collection.
    Archives are managed on a collection-by-collection basis as opposed to a document-by-document basis for two reasons:

    First, a document that is part of a collection has context and meaning in a way that an individual document cannot. A collection of documents can:
    * reflect the development over time of historical themes and events
    * suggest cause and effect
    * show entire sequences of activities and thoughts
    * help to authenticate individual documents 
A single document is at best a snapshot, with little clear connection to what came before or after. 
Second, as a practical matter, it’s often impossible and usually unnecessary to describe each individual document in a collection. Some collections include thousands of documents. Attempting to describe each in the same detail that you would describe a three-dimensional museum object would be time-consuming and largely unnecessary. You can find individual documents more expediently in a well-organized collection than you can find individually cataloged item.



    https://www.nps.gov/museum/publications/MHII/mushbkII.html

     

    ------------------------------
    Jennifer A. Garey (Luksic-Kilman)
    Arts & Anthiquitues Inc
    Curator and Museum Consultant



  • 4.  RE: Archives vs Museums

    Posted 07-26-2016 04:34 PM
    Edited by Theresa Worden 07-26-2016 04:35 PM

    Jakob,

    It is true that the training in both museum and archival professional areas diverged a decade or two ago, as previously mentioned. Most of my colleagues currently working as archivists were hired as content specialists (MA), with the necessary technical and processing training in archive work gained through on-the-job training and professional development.

    Today archivists are educated through MLIS or public history programs, with tons of options for online/low-residency degrees and certificates. This education is specialized, with less "overlap" into the museum field than you might imagine. Describing archives (at the collection level) is quite different than cataloging museum collections (at the item-level). If you participate in any of the archivist listservs or check out emerging archivist blogs, you would note their lamentations about the increase in degree-granting programs creating too many graduates, putting pressure on existing positions and creating an environment where even unpaid internships have intense competition, in order to gain the necessary 1-3 years’ experience to move into entry-level jobs. 

    I was firmly planted right in the middle of collections management, as I was lucky enough to complete both an internship in a big museum and a processing internship in archives. Afterward, I worked in an archives for four years. I appreciate (and still use) my experience in archives, but ultimately I chose an MA in Museum Studies rather than competing with all the emerging archivists with up-to-the-minute digital archive training.

    ------------------------------
    Theresa Worden
    Program Coordinator, Grants and Museum on Main Street
    Maryland Humanities

    Baltimore, MD



  • 5.  RE: Archives vs Museums

    Posted 07-27-2016 02:01 PM

    Jakob,

    I think your observation about the qualifications for archives jobs is correct.  Within the last three decades graduate level programs for educating archivists have sprung up mainly, but not exclusively, in library schools.  Many archives are a part of libraries, especially in university settings.  Over these past decades the archives profession has identified a body of knowledge and skills for which the best foundation is graduate level training.  (The Academy of Certified Archivists and the Society of American Archivists have spelled out details about what the profession thinks archivists must know and be able to do.)  While there are many commonalities in the work of archives and museums, there are profound differences in how the work is accomplished.  Most archivists believe that graduate education in archives, along with hands-on work experience, is essential to professional level work.  

    ------------------------------
    John Fleckner
    Senior Archivist
    National Museum of American History



  • 6.  RE: Archives vs Museums

    Posted 07-28-2016 08:53 AM

    Another difference, which was an eye-opener for me when I attended my first-ever professional conference in the archival field more than 30 years ago, is captured in this story. I had an MA in material culture plus a certificate in museum studies, and as a curator my approach to the collection under my care had always been object-oriented, even though it was a massive collection of ephemera and photographs (almost entirely paper artifacts). In the museum world, the mantra in many mission statements is, "The XYZ museum exists to collect, preserve, and interpret..."  I went to my first session at the archival conference, and the speaker started out saying, "As archivists, we all know that our job is to collect, preserve, and make accessible..."  I'm not saying that one of those distinguishing activities (interpretation vs. accessibility) is more important than the other, and I firmly believe that curators and archivists with good training can do all four things. But it is a key difference.

    ------------------------------
    Deborah Smith
    Consultant Belfast Maine



  • 7.  RE: Archives vs Museums

    Posted 07-28-2016 09:43 AM

    Possessing both an MA in Museum Studies, and an MLIS with a concentration in archives, I can attest to the differences previously mentioned between the two fields, first hand.  For the past 24 years I have worked in the museum and exhibition field as registrar/collections manager spending many of those years as a contract registrar, and working with many different types of collections and projects.  Recently, I decided it was time to put my MLIS degree to use, but had to spend a great deal of time re-educating myself, and catching up on what is current in the archives field.  Needless to say, I spent many hours online, reading and interviewing archivists in the area to get updated.  Currently, I am working in a small contemporary art museum, and though there exist many similarities to museum collections management, archives work requires a very different approach.  Basic skill sets might overlap, including basic knowledge of databases, preservation, and storage organization, but they really do involve a different type of training.

    ------------------------------
    Stacey Savatsky
    Museum Consultant/Collections & Archives
    Atlanta GA



  • 8.  RE: Archives vs Museums

    Posted 08-03-2016 06:57 AM

    These are excellent responses to a good question. Though objects curation and archives management have not always been so separate and specialized, this has been the trend of late. I believe, however, this trend may change in the next generation.

    History museums and historical societies with mixed collections are eager to find ways of organizing and accessing their archival and artifact collections in a more holistic way. Of course, this has been happening--sometimes well and sometimes not--in small museums without specialized staff for many years. Archaeological collections--sometimes comprising a million objects from a single site--cannot always be catalogued at the object level and in many ways are more akin to archives in the way they are managed.

    Advances in information technology will soon allow us to seamlessly integrate our collections. This will be a boon to curators, historians, archeologists, and other researchers. When this happens, cross trained collections managers/curators/archivists will be in high demand. Oh, and archivists of the future need not be just managers of information--good archivists can also be interpreters of the data they manage, just as curators do.

    I encourage this type of holistic thinking and cross training. Right now, professionals with archives/museum credentials can find meaningful work in small to medium sized history museums. The big museums will catch up soon as the software and culture shifts.

    ------------------------------
    Andrew Masich
    President & CEO
    Senator John Heinz History Center
    Pittsburgh PA