Meeting Minutes - February 2010

Society of American Archivists

Committee on Education

Friday, February 19 – Sunday, February 21, 2010

Chicago, IL

Minutes

Education Chair Katie Salzmann called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm on Friday, February 19, 2010.  Present were Education Committee members Jennifer Johnson, Amy Cooper Cary, Amber Cushing, Julie Graham, Abigail Griner, Susan Irwin, Jeffrey Suchanek, and Helen Wong Smith; and SAA Education Director, Solveig De Sutter, and Education Coordinator, Veronica Parrish.

Salzmann welcomed everyone and members reviewed and approved the agenda without changes.

Education staff report ‑ De Sutter highlighted portions of the report including number of programs scheduled for FY ’10 and FY ’11, registration trends (participants register later and co-sponsors commit later), web seminars and workshops under development, and the DC10 pre-conference line-up.

Committee members were updated on a 20% shortfall in education revenues – due in large part to lower than expected attendance at pre-conference workshops.  Pre-conference workshops used to run unopposed and are now in competition with committee meetings.  Another factor contributing to the shortfall is the difficulty involved in guessing the number of half, one, or two-day workshops that co-sponsors will choose in certain months.  This year, co-sponsors chose more half-day and one-day workshops than forecast. 

Members discussed various ways of addressing this issue including splitting the pre-conference workshops off from the meeting and offering four to six workshops over two to three days in various parts of the country.  The discussion resulted in a recommendation to the SAA Council.

Recommendation

That the SAA Council approve moving committee meetings back to Tuesdays beginning with the 2011 Chicago meeting.

Pre-conference proposal update – Members were asked for feedback on the review process and how it could be enhanced.  This led into allocation of shepherds and auditors, and ACE category allocations.

Discussion about guidelines for writing a good proposal ensued, and it was suggested to develop training consisting of two parts 1) how to review a proposal, and 2) how to write a workshop proposal.

The development process of the “Rare Books for Archivists” workshop – initiated by the Records and Manuscript Section – came up and there was concern that sections and roundtables may see that process as another job for members who are already working full time. The Publication Board’s tradition of breakfast for authors was brought up as a good way to develop workshop authors.  Staff has encountered individuals who would be willing to develop a workshop but are not interested in teaching.

Workshops – Staff received a request for the “Understanding Digital Scanners” workshop offered for the first time in Austin as a pre-conference.  Because the evaluations indicated that it was way above everyone’s head and too technical it was never included in the workshop catalog.  The committee re-affirmed the decision to omit this workshop from the catalog and to concentrate on the “Introduction to Basic Imaging:  How to do a small digitization project” workshop. 

A general discussion about the continuing education program ensued and members asked why and when SAA cancels workshops.  Workshops are canceled when registration income does not reach breakeven on direct cost.  In some years there have been no cancellations and there’ve never been more than three cancellations per year. Successful collaboration with SHRABS and other entities was explained, and members volunteered to contact their local SHRAB about the possibility of offering SAA workshops.  De Sutter will provide talking points for these contacts.

Web Seminars ‑ The committee received an update on the web seminars currently in the works and was asked to re-evaluate the development list created the previous year.  Training for web seminar instructors was discussed at length because it’s the biggest obstacle our regular instructors face when asked to teach a web seminar.  A question arose about the usefulness of a “Train the Trainer” workshop that SAA might subsidize.  There was consensus that this might not be the best investment for SAA.  Our web seminars are offered once, and then they become available online on demand ‑ making some type of instruction/information about using this format more appropriate.

Members heard about the “Angel Project” for DC 2010” an attempt to offer a workshop, similar to “Lessons Learned from Pilgrim Baptist Church” to an underserved community in DC.  In order to make the workshop feasible, Instructors would be asked to donate their time to meet the needs of underserved communities.  The main challenge for staff is to find/reach the leaders who would provide access to this audience.  Everyone was very positive about this effort and a one-day “Understanding Archives” workshop was suggested.  Wong Smith related she has been able to reach out to underserved communities by doing church events, etc. and volunteered to make inquiries in the DC area and forward contact information to De Sutter.

“Implementing More Product Less Process” workshop audit review:

After auditing the workshop, the auditor felt strongly that the MPLP workshop violates the code of ethics for archivists – a concern that was voiced when the workshop was first proposed.  The auditor was especially concerned about the use of MPLP for congressional records/papers calling it reckless and recommended the workshop should be shortened to a half-day format by dropping the case studies. 

Questions for committee consideration included 1) Since SAA workshops are the “Gold Standard” in our profession and MPLP is not representative of best practices, will continuing to offer the workshop result in fewer people likely to attend SAA workshops?  2) What is the role of the Education Committee?  3) What actions should be taken:  Take the workshop off the list?  Go to roundtables and sections for a revision? Refer these issues to SAA Standards Committee and/or Committee on Ethics and Professional Conduct?

Ensuing discussion/considerations:

Put a disclaimer on the description that this is not an SAA standard?  2) Find a way to offer a counter voice and present several sides of the issue?  3) Show people there are several options for doing their job.  4) Many people have been doing accessioning at the folder level and are putting it on their web site for accessibility.  5) Ask for a revision?  6) MPLP is valid, and it’s up to the committee how an instructor teaches her/his class.  7) Different people might give you different answers as to what MPLP is.  8) Professional discussion is important - get a discussion going.  9) The workbook includes a slide that states MPLP is not appropriate for all situations.

Salzmann called for a conclusion to the discussion by asking for volunteers to join her on an MPLP subgroup ‑ Johnson, Graham, Wong-Smith, and Irwin responded.  The group will communicate via email and conference calls.  Next steps are 1) Three members will audit the workshop in April.  2) Review of the workbook and its description with an eye for suggested changes.  3) To provide evaluations from the previous workshop offerings for group review and to add a disclaimer to the description where appropriate.  4) To make new instructors aware of the committee’s concerns.  5) Group will meet via conference call to report on audits and to decide on appropriate action. 

Web seminars ‑ Delivery issues – after the last web seminar several individuals complained about having to use a phone and suggested that we switch to streaming video.  Staff explored options and came to the conclusion that there would be some complaints either way because some registrants would be unable to access streaming video due to fire walls. Cooper Cary commented that the current method is better than streaming video due to technology issues.

Re-evalutation of development list –

a) Understanding Selection & Appraisal of Electronic Records

b) Disaster Planning for Electronic Records

c) Implementing (advanced) website design, information architecture with Dreamweaver, web development.

d) User studies/surveys with a focus on assessment

e) Donor relations for ‘stuff’ and dollars’ (how to train your development officer)

e) Deed of gift, legal transfer of copyright

f) Metadata (intro and advanced)

g) Basic Preservation

h) Description of Non-Paper Physical Media (film).

Staff has been trying to get more web seminar developers including someone for Copyright.  Members commented that the difficulty may be that interpretation of the law changes. Other efforts include identifying other providers’ web seminars for possible inclusion in SAA’s education calendar.  BCR, for example was approached about partnering with us but the effort stalled when they were unwilling to allow a committee member to audit their web seminar to determine suitability for SAA members.  Another option, a Library of Congress program on theft would be available but SAA lacks the technical resources to link to LC and monitor who registers.  Members were asked to submit web seminar information if they felt something was worth looking into. 

Conversion of face-to-face Understanding Archives workshop to an online course – It’s been clear for some time that SAA should convert some of its face-to-face workshops to an online format and increase the number of web seminars in its schedule to stay competitive. Online courses would be considered a complement to face-to-face workshops.

De Sutter asked for committee feedback on the choice of the “Understanding Archives:  An Introduction to Archival Principles and Practices” workshop as the first topic to be converted. One potential conflict is the AASL online workshop called “The Basics of Archives.” After discussing different aspects and the potential of the format and topic ‑  consensus was that this is the type of program that would be taken by students and others who have not been to library school.  De Sutter was directed to go ahead with this topic.  In addition to the original instructors/developers – Polly Darnell, Anne Ostendarp, and Jamie Roth – Tim Ericson was suggested as a consultant and/or instructor.  

Electronic Records Summer Camp (ERSC) ‑ After hearing about the evolution of this 5-day intensive workshop, the survey results from past ERSC attendees, and a summary of her ERSC experience from one of the members who attended an ERSC offering, the committee discussed marketing this content not as a summer camp - but a program on IRODS.  Consensus emerged to offer this program contingent on developers/instructors agreement to rename the program and revise the description to clarify the iRODS, only, approach.  It was also suggested that SAA partner with a school to apply for an NHPRC grant for a basic “Electronic Records Summer Camp” that was in line with people’s expectations. 

Saturday, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm

August 2009 Open Forum ‑ Salzmann provided a recap of the Forum and its main points – accreditation, Directory of Archival Education, faculty trends, and student’s reactions to the directory. 

Amber Cushing’s survey results, gathered in preparation for proposed improvements to the Directory of Archival Education, were discussed. Members felt that the directory should include an FAQ for students adding questions that students should be asking but may not know about.  Cushing shared that most students were concerned about finding a position after graduating.  

Directory of Archival Education ‑ Salzmann shared the Education Directory subgroup report.  Education providers may choose to appear in the Directory via a premium listing (which includes such specific information as degrees offered, philosophy, facilities, faculty, practicums/internships/assistantships, research opportunities, course formats, and how courses correlate with GPAS) or a basic listing (which includes the program’s name, contact, degrees offered, course format, and URL). Education providers pay a fee for a premium listing; basic listings are free. They create their own listings and may update them as needed.  This is Phase One of the Drupal rollout. 

Phase Two – pending SAA Council budget approval – is a matrix that would enable prospective students to query up to three institutions side by side to provide easy comparison. 

Once we’ve ensured that all information migrated correctly, and that the existing education providers had a chance to update their listings and take advantage of the enhancements, staff will market the directory to schools that are not currently listed. A question came up on whether these listings would speak to diversity programming and/or meet the needs of underserved populations and members felt that every school would say they are culturally diverse. If cultural diversity is added to continuing education it would be ACE category six.

Marketing strategy discussion for Education Directory followed.  What do stakeholders want? Archival educators want to connect to the students; archival students are looking for the best ‘fit’ and one stop-shopping, information that can be easily compared, career information, tips on what to look for; archival and program administrators are looking for students, low charge and ease in administering information. Is there a way to interest employers? It might be helpful to employers because it would tell them more about what kind of programs new employees are coming from. It could also be helpful to schools to find out what competitive schools are offering and to look at others’ curriculum.  The matrix was deemed an excellent idea and it’s important to correlate with the GPAS. SAA’s goal is to become the clearing house everyone goes to for information on archival education and make GPAS a household word.  Increase the number of schools with a premium listing and list all archival education providers. Schools will be contacted via e-mail and the next tier could be career centers at schools, High School counselors, ALA, ASASLH and SHRABs.  If Alumni are excited about this, they might be interested in pushing their school to purchase a premium listing. Two members of the committee mentioned that their programs are based on GPAS. 

GPAS ‑ In accordance with the SAA Council directive to review and revise GPAW every five years, committee members went line by line through the guidelines to address diversity, ensure that language is relevant, that reference to information technology is up to date, and to question requirements.  Staff was directed to forward the revised document to the Archival Educators and the Committee on Diversity for feedback.

Members discussed ways to improve on interaction between Archival Educators and the Committee on Education.

Miscellaneous items discussed by the group were a handout “Find the Program That’s Right For You” that might be provided to students in a format that would include Admission, Academics, Extra-curricular (social), Career Assistance, Financial, Location and a ‘Just Before You Jump” section; and an Archives Web Tutorial that could be endorsed for a student conference session at the Chicago meeting.

SAA Council – Johnson addressed Education related issues in the SAA Strategic Plan starting with priority # 2, diversity with a desired outcome but no specific date as yet. She recommended consulting with allied organizations such as ALA and ARL to develop program models for consideration. De Sutter added that there wasn’t much time at the August meeting to cover this issue.

Surveys on electronic records issues – Johnson and committee members reviewed the preliminary results of an all-member survey conducted to determine members’ perceptions of their need for training in appraising, capturing, preserving, and providing access to electronic records, the results of a survey of all attendees of the Electronic Records Summer Camp (ERSC) offered from 2006 to 2009.  Griner presented the results of a recent SAA Congressional Papers Roundtable (CPR) survey measuring electronic records training needs among its members.  Cushing offered to assemble quantitative results of the SAA and CPR surveys and provide the report in time for the SAA Council Meeting in May.

Members spent considerable time discussing the direction that SAA’s education initiatives must take in order to comply with the Council’s mandate to “provide education and training to [SAA’s] members to ensure that they are aware of relevant standards and adopt appropriate practices for appraising, capturing, preserving, and providing access to electronic records.”  Although SAA currently addresses electronic records by offering 11 face-to-face workshops and three Web seminars (CDs and online/on-demand access available), with an additional Web seminar under development, the Committee believes that SAA should take a more systematic approach to meeting member needs in this area. 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the SAA Council appoint an Electronic Records Education Task Force, composed of three to five members, with knowledge and expertise in electronic records, adult education, and archival practice, to develop a detailed electronic records curriculum, with a report to the Committee on Education at its February/March 2011 meeting and implementation by staff in FY 2012. 

Diversity Charge and Committee Activities ‑ Discussion on format, content, planning of proposed web seminar series. Irwin suggested approaching the authors of the “Diversity Reader”.  Even though the book is not yet published they might be willing to teach a workshop. Cooper Cary was concerned about the web seminar format as appropriate for a diversity series though there may be some topics for which a single hit with a web seminar could be successful. She also mentioned committees sponsoring a session at the Annual Meeting on Diversity, including the definition of race, color, gender, and religion. Wong Smith felt ‘snap shots’ of dealing with diverse cultures would be appropriate for a web seminar. ADA is also appropriate because there is always someone responsible for ADA issues. De Sutter to keep Graham up to date regarding what she is able to determine re: ADA. 

Web 2.0 – Johnson reported she audited the Web 2.0 pre-conference workshop in Austin and asked the instructors about using Web 2.0 to reach out to underserved communities and/or if they were using these tools to communicate in other ways.  The response was no. Wong Smith gave an example of  Web 2.0 being used in Hawaii to communicate with underserved communities. This information was obtained by Wong Smith at a workshop she attended in Hawaii for using Web 2.0 for outreach. Cooper Cary talked about this also being done for the survivors of the holocaust.

Wong-Smith – to send the committee the diversity statement and matrix.

Adjournment at 12:02 PM.