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

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2010 | | pagina 202