that, in designing a curriculum of archival education, "there is always the risk
of demanding and doing too little or presenting exaggerated pretensions."9
Hilary Jenkinson expressed his agreement with both by writing: "I become
more and more convinced that the apparent complexity of our jack-of-all-trades
profession...can be resolved quite simply if we attach ourselves firmly to a few
primary and unchanging essentials."10 Indeed, it was not until 1975 that the
idea of broadening the horizon of the records professionals by bringing into their
education areas of knowledge not traditionally associated with their work came
to the forefront of a debate on the complete archivist. Gordon Dodds wrote: "The
compleat archivist raids areas of knowledge and skills far beyond the traditionally
allotted confines. Survival plainly encourages this."11 Among these areas, Dodds
listed computer science and management. Although at the time few understood
how revolutionary this statement was, its fruits can easily be seen in the content
and organization of the archival programs that began developing in North
America in the following decade.12
Modern concepts
Today these programs are extremely varied. Bastian and Yakel have categorized
them in 1) programs aiming at developing archival appreciation, 2) programs
on "information studies" integrating records knowledge in the curriculum,
3) archives tracks within programs in allied disciplines, such as history or
librarianship, 4) interdisciplinary programs, and 5) autonomous records
programs.13 Yet, the debate about the education needed by records professionals
is intensifying and its resolution does not seem to be near. The reason is that such
debate is multifaceted and new dichotomies are joining the old ones. Archivists
have discussed for years whether archival education should be delivered in the
context of the historical disciplines or the information disciplines, and whether,
in light of the complexity of the knowledge required by medieval records and by
digital records, it would be appropriate to form two professionals with different
educational background preserving medieval and modern records on the one
hand and managing contemporary records throughout their life cycle on the
other. The former debate has found some sort of response in the variety of
programs offered, some in the context of historical or philological sciences and
some in the context of library or information sciences; and the latter has been
silenced by external factors—such as lack of financial, human or knowledge
resources—in favour of maintaining the unity of the records profession.
The most recent debates are more complex, in that they do not dispute the
knowledge coverage of programs of education for information professionals
but their philosophy, approach, depth, relationship with non allied disciplines
PROFESSIONALITEIT
9 Eugenio Casanova, Archivistica (Siena: Lazzeri, 1928), 468.
10 Sir Hilary Jenkinson, "Roots," Selected Writings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson, eds. Roger Ellis and Peter Walne
(Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 1980), 372.
11 Gordon Dodds, "The Compleat Archivist," Archivaria 1 (Winter 1975-76): 81.
12 The development of the discussion about the ideal content of such programs carried out by leading edu
cators from 1975 to our days can be followed by reading the very basic bibliography that concludes this
article.
13 Rather that using the authors terminology, which would have required long quotations to explain the
meaning of the various categories, I have directly used terminology expressing my interpretation of what
the authors say. See Jeannette A. Bastian and Elisabeth Yakel, "Towards the Development of an Archival
Core Curriculum: The United States and Canada," Archival Science 6, 2 (2006): 133-150.
200
