Author: Cheryl

New Issue: Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies

reposted from the A&A listserv:

The Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies is pleased to announce publication of Volume 2, Issue 5:

“Quidditch, Zombies, and the Cheese Club: A Case Study in Archiving Web Presence of Student Groups at New York University” by Aleksandr Gelfand.

Student organizations are a unique feature of university life whose records merit preservation. Since the mid-to-late 1990s, these records have been increasingly transitioning from analog format to a digital, web-based platform; a pattern that has only picked-up in the 2000s. This paper looks at a case study of the New York University Archives and its attempt to archive student organizations using the Archive-It service.

Download a copy of this open access article at the JCAS site.

The JCAS is a peer-reviewed, online, open access journal sponsored by the Yale University Library and New England Archivists (NEA). Follow the JCAS on Twitter and Facebook!

Lily Cristina Troia
Dean’s Fellow for Digital Media Outreach
MLIS Candidate ’16
Simmons School of Library and Information Science
612.516.6060
lily.troia@simmons.edu

Creating an Outline

As I mentioned last post, I am writing the third edition of AFS Reference and Access for Archives and Manuscripts. The first task was to create an outline. In general, I’ve always struggled with outlines. I like the idea – creating a coherent organization of content and research. In practice, it’s not my strength.

However, with this project it (so far) is working well. What helped tremendously is that I did not have to start from scratch. I began with the structure that Mary Jo Pugh used for the second edition. I knew I would not, nor should not, keep it exactly the same. My outline is definitely different, but using hers as a reference ensured that I did not miss any major topics.

Although I can’t share (sorry) the actual outline, it is organized into three major sections, chapters within each section, and topics within each chapter. When I reviewed it recently, I already see how I might reorganize a few parts, but I’m going to wait until I get to those chapters.

For the first time, I’m using an outline as guidance for writing. Especially, knowing exactly where to start when I sit down to write, as opposed to spending time thinking “hm, what should I write about today?” Granted, I’m not very far yet but psychologically, it gives me a good grounding. As I research and write, I have ideas not related to what I’m writing about. With the outline, it’s easy to look and identify where those ideas fit and make notes accordingly.

Lastly, it was a great way to create a schedule and deadlines. I can’t guarantee that I’ll meet them all (but am motivated to try!). Knowing that, for example, I plan to take one month to write a certain chapter, if I’m 2 weeks from the deadline but only have a few pages, I then know I need to either write more or refocus how I’m writing.

I know the outline will change and evolve as the project develops. I’m glad that I started this way. That’s not to say that creating an outline is the best for everyone or every project, but I’m grateful it was a requirement for this one.

Signing a Book Contract

For a more personal post, I signed my first book contract last week. It’s both thrilling and scary at the same time. Last year, I was invited to write the third edition of the Archival Fundamental Series Providing Reference and Access Services for Archives and Manuscripts. I was honored to be asked and am very excited to work with series editor Peter Wosh and Publications Editor Chris Prom.

While in library school, and even in my history PhD program, the idea of writing a book seemed to be what other people did. It wasn’t necessarily in my plans. After I finished my dissertation, there was a glimmer of that possibility. Having more or less finished a book in dissertation format, it seemed achievable. And now I have the chance!

I have to explain the thrilling and scary parts of this. It is thrilling because in the past few years, I realize how much I enjoy writing. Archival scholarship is interesting to me and I’m constantly impressed by books and articles I read. Authors dedicate an incredible amount of time to share their insights and practices. I was excited when Archivaria published my article a couple years ago. This will be much different than writing a dissertation, as I’m writing about what I know and do nearly every day and exploring published scholarship to add to my knowledge and ensure comprehensiveness. I love the archives world and am grateful I can contribute to scholarship.

The project is scary as well. I have a schedule and deadlines, and 300 pages to write. I have an outline and a good starting point, but it’s a bit overwhelming as well. I want to make sure that this is a usable manual for archivists at any level, any type of institution. I want it to be helpful. Plus, people will read it and use it. I had no delusions while writing my dissertation that few people other than my committee and my dear English professor friend (who corrected grammar and such) would read it. The AFS book has much more at stake. I have great support, both from SAA and colleagues.

This project is a welcome challenge, and I look forward to the process. And I will post more as I progress to share the difficulties, accomplishments, and any other thoughts. Writing is hard, but I’m up to the challenge!

New Issue: Practical Technology for Archives

Reposted from the A&A listserv:

We are pleased to announce the publication of Issue no.5 of Practical Technology for Archives.

http://practicaltechnologyforarchives.org

In this issue we have four excellent articles, one on using SwipeBox to present digitized materials, one about an alternative to 3D scanning, an article on CollectiveAccess, and another on low-budget large-scale digitization, which we hope you will find useful.

I you have an idea or proposal for Issue no.6, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

All the Best,

Randall Miles,
Managing Editor
Cornell University

 

 

Guest Post: Reviews Portal for The American Archivist

Thanks to Alexandra for this great information about The American Archivist‘s Reviews Portal!

Alexandra A. A. Orchard, CA
Technical and Metadata Archivist, Reuther Library, Wayne State University
Reviews Portal Coordinator

The SAA Reviews Portal (RP) houses The American Archivist Reviews and primarily focuses on providing reviews of new technologies and projects related to archives. The RP has additional features, including “Reviewed in The American Archivist” which provides access to reviews in previous issues of the journal as well as early access to reviews in the upcoming issue. “Written by Our Members” aims to provide a comprehensive list of monographs, articles, and reviews written by SAA members. Submissions are ongoing and can be made via the submission form. Additionally, the RP occasionally hosts special projects, such as the “What’s Your Favorite “American Archivist” Article?” in celebration of SAA’s seventy-fifth anniversary.

The RP began several years ago with the intent of expanding the reviews section of the journal to the web. Thus enabling the publication of more reviews, often focused on the intersection of archives and technology, the web, and increasingly mobile, but still ensuring peer-reviewed, professional content found in The American Archivist. Publishing reviews to the web enables a quicker turnaround time than those in the print journal, resulting in reviews posted as soon as they complete the peer review process. During the last three and a half years, over 30 reviews have been posted in the RP.

The submission process is straightforward, interested potential reviewers email the Reviews Portal Coordinator, who sends a response outlining the writing and review process. The reviewer then selects a deadline and an item for review, either a non-reviewed item from the “Archival Technologies and Resources” page or an off list suggestion for consideration. Once the draft is received, the Reviews Portal Coordinator and Reviews Editor peer-review the piece, and if necessary return the review to the author for changes. The editing phase typically lasts several weeks or longer, depending on time of year, the revisions needed, and the number of other reviews in progress.

After the final review is submitted, it is posted on the “Reviews” page and the item receives a “Reviewed” link on the “Archival Technologies and Resources” page. This page not only serves as a list of potential review topics, but as a curated list of tools and resources of use to archivists as well as (predominantly digital) projects using archival materials, and those with accompanying reviews have an additional layer of vetting and therefore usefulness to archivists. Finally the Reviews Portal Coordinator and SAA publicize the review.

Writing a review for the RP is valuable experience particularly for those new to the archival profession, including students, new professionals, archivists as well as those in related fields looking to start writing and publishing. The RP is also an excellent venue for more seasoned authors who are interested in learning and writing about newer technologies and those digital archives, projects, and exhibits making use of them. The “Archival Technologies and Resources” page is consistently updated, and will soon include new types of content for review. New voices are encouraged and welcome, so if you have ideas for content, are interested in reviewing a tool or resource, or both, please contact the Reviews Portal Coordinator!

 

Provenance: SNAP Special Issue

I’m pleased to share that the online SNAP Special Issue of Provenance is now available: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/.

In the nearly four years I’ve been Provenance Editor, I’ve had many conversations with authors and potential authors about the different facets of journal publishing. I contacted SAA’s SNAP (Students and New Archives Professionals) Roundtable, and they were enthusiastic about this opportunity. As students and new professionals learn the profession, they are exposed to numerous books and other literature. The publishing process can be daunting, and engaging new authors helps demystify the submission, peer-review, and editorial processes.

SNAP members participated in the submission and editing process from start to finish. This was an opportunity for SNAP members to be responsible for the content of an entire issue, including soliciting articles, being the peer-reviewers, and editing. I provided guidance and direction to the editors, Jennifer Welch coordinated with the guest Reviews Editor, and Erin Lawrimore served as Managing Editor, but the issue represents the voices of students and new professionals. Caitlin Wells and Roxanne Dunn did an excellent job as guest Editors. They worked extensively with authors, made decisions, and asked questions.

It was my pleasure to work with SNAP on this issue. I hope that this experience encourages these new authors and editors to continue to contribute to archival scholarship for years to come.

New Issue: JCAS

reposted from the A&A listserv:

I am pleased to share the recent publication of a special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies (JCAS) entitled, “Exploring the Eye of History-19th Century Photography and the Archives,” <http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol2/iss2/> produced with the symposium, “Exploring the Eye of History” held at the fall 2015 meeting of New England Archivists <http://www.newenglandarchivists.org/Fall-2015>.

The symposium provided attendees with new ways to experience nineteenth century photographs and encouraged archivists to make these materials more accessible to researchers and contemporary artists. For a review of the symposium happenings via the twitterverse, please direct your favorite web browser to a “storified” version of the proceedings at <https://storify.com/NEarchivists/nea-fall-2015-meeting>.

Articles in the special issue of JCAS include:

Jeffrey Mifflin, “Faded but Not Forgotten: Thinking about the Records and Relics of America’s Earliest Forays in Photography” <http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol2/iss2/1>

James A. Eason, “When Narrative Fails: Context and Physical Evidence as Means of Understanding the Northwest Boundary Survey Photographs of 1857–1862” <http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol2/iss2/2>

Nancy Austin, “The Half-Life & After-Life of New Media” <http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol2/iss2/3>

Melissa Banta and Elena Bulat, “Salted Paper Prints and The Harvard Class Albums” <http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol2/iss2/4>

The JCAS editorial board expresses its thanks to the contributors who submitted their work for peer review and publication as well as to the governing board of New England Archivists for its support and encouragement. Special thanks also goes to Gale Publishing for their generous sponsorship of the special issue of JCAS.

Very truly yours,
Matt

Matthew Daniel Mason, Ph.D.
Editor-at-Large, Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies
Immediate Past Chair, Visual Materials Section, Society of American Archivists
Archivist, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University
P.O. Box 208330
New Haven, CT  06520-8330
Telephone: (203) 432-1078
Fax: (203) 432-4047
E-mail: matthew.mason@yale.edu
Website: linkedin.com/in/matthewdanielmason

New Issue: Archive Journal

Archive Journal just released their fifth issue. They focus on “the use and theory of archives and special collections in higher education.” This journal is great because it is open access and also bridges traditional and interdisciplinary content.

The first feature is a Q&A about defining “radical archives.” One response notes it as “quite broadly, as any practice, record, documentation, or collection that challenges archival traditions or standards.” The archivists participating in this feature manage collections such as documenting Ferguson, transgender, DPLA, and others.

I was particularly interested in the introduction “Radical Archives” by Lisa Darms and Kate Eichhorn. I reviewed Eichhorn’s book The Archival Turn in Feminism: Outrage in Order for the upcoming issue of Provenance. It was a great book, and I appreciate the journal bringing in a non-archivist to guest edit the issue. We need to do more to truly be cross-disciplinary and this is one way to further engage researchers and scholars in our profession.

Other content includes a review of a Rare Book School course, teaching American archives internationally, cooking archives, and a review of CNI (Coalition for Networked Information) Annual Meeting.

I appreciate their efforts to not have a narrow focus on the archival profession. Hope you check it out!

Profile: VIEW, Journal of European Television History and Culture

Prompted by a question to include this journal on my list, I thought perhaps I’d start featuring various journals, especially the lesser-known ones. I hadn’t heard of this journal and as my bachelor’s degree was in media studies, the content is interesting to me.

Started in 2012, “Journal of European Television History and Culture is the first peer-reviewed, multi-media and open access e-journal in the field of European television history and culture. It offers an international platform for outstanding academic research and archival reflection on television as an important part of our European cultural heritage. With its interdisciplinary profile, the journal is open to many disciplinary perspectives on European television – including television history, media studies, media sociology, cultural studies and television studies.” (copied from the website)

I know little about European television, but because there’s a journal dedicated to it emphasizes that it’s an important initiative. A brief review of the articles shows that, as anticipated, they address similar issues found in the US. The first issue has the article “Why Digitise Historical Television?” discusses copyright, studying historical events through media, and that “old” programs “can still inform, educate, and entertain.” This issue also discusses television archives in France, Italy, and Romania.

Other issues discuss transnational television, post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, the BBC, Poland, Spain, (post)Socialist television, and other countries. One issue is dedicated to European television researchers. As we all know, understanding how our researchers use collections helps us with access, description, selection, and other facets of our duties. Issues also contain articles about types of television shows, collective memory, what happened “behind the scenes” and the television profession, specific stations, audience participation, and numerous others.

I only briefly reviewed the tables of contents of the issues and skimmed a few articles. I’m very impressed with the depth and breadth of the content provided in this great open-access journal. As it is written all in English, it will be a great resource for archivists writing about audiovisual digitization and should be recommended to researchers in history, media studies, communication, European studies, and others. We are moving to more global resources and research, and we can learn much from our colleagues across the ocean.

Thank you Erwin for sharing this journal!

Reminder: CFP Provenance Audiovisual Special Issue

Provenance recognizes the evolving needs within the profession and is working to address those changes when possible. For example, we published a special issue on advocacy in September 2013 (http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/).

Provenance would like to create a special issue dedicated to audiovisual archives and archivists. Despite two journals dedicated to archival audiovisual topics (http://www.iasa-web.org/iasa-journal and http://www.arsc-audio.org/journal.html), Provenance will take a different approach. What we propose is to create an issue where there may be written content, but the bulk of it would be original audio and visual “articles.” Submissions should be specifically about processes, procedures, projects, collecting, digitizing, providing access, or other aspects about managing audiovisual collections.

Following the model of innovative projects such as “More Podcast, Less Process,” we are seeking alternative means of disseminating research and ideas. Audio and video are powerful tools for demonstrating practices, projects, policies, or other content. We invite you to be creative in how you utilize these formats.

Proposals should be up to 750 words and include an abstract of the project, why an audiovisual/written format is ideal to present the topic, and the type/format of the proposed submission. As this is a new format for Provenance, proposals will be reviewed by the Editors for creativity, clarity of thesis/topic, and appropriateness to audiovisual formats. Editors will provide guidance and additional specifications to accepted authors to ensure a high-quality end product.

Suggested submissions include but are not limited to:

  • virtual tour or review of tool or procedure
  • podcasts
  • video tutorial
  • written article combined with audio or video or procedures

Submissions should not be:

  • recordings of conference presentations
  • entire oral histories or digitally reformatted materials

This will be published as an online-only issue, openly available to everyone, in fall of 2016. We recognize that because this process is new, we want to provide enough time for submission, review, and edits to produce an issue. The suggested timeline is as follows:

September 2015 – send out call for proposals
November 15, 2015 – proposals due
December 2015 – editors select proposals and notify all submitters
May 15, 2016 – deadline for final submissions
May-June 2016 – editorial review of submissions
July 2016 – minor revisions of submissions (if needed)
August 2016 – final review by authors/editors
September 2016 – published online (http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/)

Written submissions can be submitted via the online system: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/. Audiovisual submissions can be emailed or shared through Google Drive/Dropbox to the Editor at provenance@soga.org.

Formats:

  • Audio files should be in .mp3 format; video files in .mp4 format.
  • Contributors can also provide embed codes from YouTube, Kaltura, or others if his/her institution utilizes other platforms.
  • All submissions should include a transcript of the audio or video to increase discoverability.
  • No minimum nor maximum word length for traditional article submissions.
  • Consult with Editors for other options.

Written submissions should adhere to established guidelines: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/policies.html. Audiovisual submissions will not be peer-reviewed in the traditional sense. Because there are no standard guidelines for reviewing audiovisual content, the focus will be on quality of viewing and content. This process will be flexible and is subject to change.

Provenance looks forward to working with you!

Thank you,

Cheryl Oestreicher
Editor, Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists
provenance@soga.org

Heather Oswald
Associate Editor, Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists
hoswald@kennesaw.edu

Jennifer Welch
Reviews Editor, Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists
jwelch30@uthsc.edu