Minutes of the ARMReN Management Board Meeting
6th December 2007 at 14.00
Present
Elizabeth Shepherd (Chair), Steve Bailey, Andrew Flinn, Elizabeth Danbury, Suzanne Keene, Lucy Lyons (Minutes), Geoff Pick, Javier Stanziola.
1. Welcome
ES welcomed those present, especially Javier Stanziola who had joined the Board during the project.
2. Apologies
Apologies were received from Louise Atherton, Louise Craven, Sarah Holsen, Sally MacDonald, Janet Percival, Ian Rowlands, Kelvin Smith, Caroline Williams, Geoffrey Yeo.
3. Minutes of the first meeting, 20th June 2006
Accepted without change. Most of the matters raised will be reported and discussed under the Agenda items to follow.
4. ARMReN activities report:
•Aims and objectives
ES asked for any additional information or issues raised to add to her report for AHRC.
Aim 1. Agreed that project had succeeded in providing space to focus on research issues, but not yet made the network enduring.
Aim 2. Agreed interaction was achieved but not in a fully interdisciplinary aspect. ED felt there was indirect progress, for example, Professor Kain, the geographer, who spoke at an IHR seminar, has been invited by Jonathan Pepler to become involved in a Cheshire County Council archives project.
Problems cited:
- Getting delegates from outside the archives and records discipline
- The network name, ARMReN, seemed to exclude people outside archives and records
- ARMReN had not overcome the feeling by museum professionals that archives were not their issue
- Professional archivists have shown limited interest in research issues
ES. pointed out that ARMReN’s purpose was to provide a space for discussion of research rather than details of professional service delivery.
Suggestions:
- SK. suggested working in conjunction with Museums Association to further promotion.
- ED. suggested organising a day to focus on museums and archives
- SB. professionals wanted to work out practical issues and focus on particular problems rather than just attending out of interest
- AF. cross-domain description may provide a point of focus
- JS. reported on a newly formed research coalition, of which MLA is part. It felt that enough talking has been done and is discussing what to do.
Actions:
- ES. has put in proposals for an expert round table and papers to ICA Congress for 2008 to foster interest in research in the discipline at international level
- GP. with support of NCA will organize a day on use of evidence-base for archives and records services.
- JS. will share information about the new research coalition as it becomes available.
•Website
The current website includes all the resources from the three research workshops, but the interactivity aspects need further development.
Problems cited:
- No portal or other single place to view research projects and collaborations: where should one look for information about research? At present, it is necessary to go to each separate university or national archives site and search.
- No workable shared space in which discussions could be held, nationally or internationally, about research issues.
- FARMER has a new website and ICA had set up a research data base but these are not currently populated or used fully: why?
- Greatest bulk of research in UK is in MA research theses, but these are generally not available in full text or abstracts, so the research is effectively lost.
Suggestions:
- SK. recommended that research students in the UK set up a JISC mailbase as a start
- SB. suggested approaching this as subject repositories instead of institutional ones
- SB. Warned not to predict needs, the industry is small enough to ask and then act on accurate information
- GP. Said links should be included to other university sites
Actions:
- SB. Will send ES links and information on repositories.
•Research Workshops
Targets of 20 delegates per workshop were exceeded.
There was a good response from speakers. Senior international academics were happy to come and speak. Programmes, papers, subjects and numbers of delegates were all good.
Problems cited:
- low level of cross disciplinary participation
- disappointed by quality of plenary discussion sessions. In thematic sessions, delegates were more interested in gaining information from speakers than discussing and developing ideas
- It had not been predicted so many young professionals would use the workshops for the purpose of professional development
Suggestions:
- SB. queried if it was a good idea to have open invitation workshops and suggested it might be better to have invited experts only
- SB. thought it would be useful to consider the model of witness seminars (20 witnesses, 30 delegates, and participative discussion).
SB. also suggested finding ways to continue discussion between seminars eg using a blog or structured online discussion space.
- SK. suggested setting questions to an expert panel, followed by audience discussion
•Archives and history seminars
Problems cited:
- useful seminars, including historians in the audiences but fairly small numbers attending overall
- advertising needed to be improved
Actions:
- ED will do more seminars in the Spring Term 2008
- BRA Journal Archives will publish all three papers
- Future papers will include modern literary archives and evidence
•Additional activities
ARMReN has also contributed to:
- 21st Century Curation public lectures at UCL, 2006 and 2007
- FARMER meeting focusing on research, including Prof Eric Ketelaar from University of Amsterdam and Prof Michael Moss from University of Glasgow
•Project management
Co-investigator Jacqui Spence left Aberystwyth and was not replaced.
ES. said that she had under-spent on the budget but is waiting for financial statement
Suggestions:
- SB. Suggested money should be spent on user needs analysis for virtual and shared spaces for research collaboration and information
Actions:
- SB. Will investigate who might be able to do this and suggest names
- SK. Will email ES with suggestions of names
•Dissemination
Suggestions:
- SK. asked for a paper about archives to be presented at Museums Association conference on 14th July 2008; also would see if an archivist could run a session at conference in October 2008; and invite archivists to a feedback workshop on her research project in February
- ED. suggested the formation of a wider research club to would aim to bring museum and archive academics, including research students, together
- AF. suggested we be proactive by putting papers into other disciplines’ conferences
Actions:
- ES. is writing journal article reporting on ARMReN project
- SK. will send ES details of the three events for advertising to archivists via archives-nra listserve.
5. Future actions: what next for ARMReN?
Aims:
1. Greater support for doctoral students and networks across disciplines.
- Problems of developing PhD student pool since ARM graduates want to work as archivists and see it as a profession not in academic terms. How can this be redressed?
2. acknowledged that bulk of research being done was by MA students and there is a need to disseminate what they are doing. This would be through the use of a
- digital repository
- by getting their research published
- 2nd national PhD conference to be held in 2008
3. Drafting a national research agenda, to examine national aspirations as an academic discipline. ES. has looked at Dutch national strategy as a model. It was agreed that this should not only be an academic agenda for FARMER, but should include practitioner research: how best to do this was unresolved.
- GP. saw problems in timescales. Delivery and supply in industry is immediate and academic research is long term. There is also a need for longitudinal studies.
4. Infrastructure issues include:
- recruiting more research students
- getting good research funded
5. Sharing research projects and using virtual spaces for better dissemination and communication. Funding to create such a space is a critical issue.
Suggestions:
- SB. pointed out that research is going on in the profession as well as in academic institutions and suggested approaching these for funding. All felt engagement with industry and links with commerce are extremely valid.
- AF. said funding was available for collaboration between public arts institutions and academic institutions, focussing on practice and delivery and resource enhancement.
- JS. was interested in how archives affect others (impact-based research), rather than archivists reflecting their own experience.
Actions:
- SB. will email ideas to ES.
- ES. will discuss possible collaborative doctoral award projects with GP.
6. A.O.B.
It was agreed that a great deal was learned and ARMReN had fostered positive collaboration and partnership
ED. thanked ES. and LL. for their work.
The meeting closed at 15.25.
4