Useful Dialogue Report of the 'Archives and history' forum AHA Conference, University of Sydney, 10 July 1998 (Added 14 July 1998) Michael Piggott, National Archives of Australia Despite the cold of lecture theatre Latin 1 and competition from 4 other parallel sessions, 20-25 historians and archivists met at the University of Sydney last Friday to discuss issues of mutual concern. The seminar, part of the Australian Historical Association's (AHA) 1998 annual conference, was held at the instigation of the AHA and the National Archives of Australia (NAA). Lucy Taksa from the University of NSW Industrial Relations Research Centre chaired discussion and introduced the two speakers, Steve Stuckey and Hilary Golder. Steve Stuckey, an Assistant Director-General at the Archives and an archivist with a long-standing interest in the theory and practice of archival selection, spoke to a paper provocatively titled 'Destroying our history'. He explained some of the dilemmas, choices and challenges archivists face, introduced the key ideas underlining a new National Archives approach to selection (eg functional analysis and aims of retention), acknowledged past mistakes by the Archives in 'sentencing', and foreshadowed a new keenness to consult with researchers. Thus he noted the recent formation of an appraisal sub-committee within the NAA's Advisory Council, and circulated a 2-page document titled 'Deciding which records to keep for posterity' which he said would also shortly be posted on various archives and historians lists and sites for wider comment. Hilary Golder, a freelance historian who specialises in 19th century Australia but whose works include a short history of the National Archives, agreed with much of Steve's presentation. She accepted the necessity of reducing the bulk, the impossibility of predicting future research trends and that the all-pervasive electronic record requires new strategies. One of her particular concerns however was to claim for historians (all historians she stressed, not just those who pursue scholarly studies of the past within the academies, and including genealogists) a special insight over all other users of archives. This derived from their wide familiarity with other sources (eg the personal papers of Henry Parkes vis-a-vis the Colonial Secretary's records). Drawing on her experience as a member of the Archives Authority of NSW, Hilary also pleaded for retention of at least some documentation 'from below'. Otherwise, by comparison with the last century, she feared that the 20th century might come to be seen as a colourless bloodless era dominated by policy makers and precedent setters. Discussion ranged widely. Among the areas covered were the specifics of the NAA's disposal practices, appraisal and disposal proposals argued in the recently released Australian Law Reform Commission review of the federal Archives Act 1983, the loss of corporate memory within public sector agencies through downsizing and outsourcing, and the vexed issue of case files. Perhaps inevitably, the reason for low use of the materials which government archives currently do retain for posterity was also raised. Is the wrong material being kept? One factor put forward to explain this lack of use was the inadequacies of finding aids compiled by archivists, whereas it was suggested that guides outsourced to researchers would be better tailored to their needs. A second explanation was the limited appreciation of use primary sources from established academic historians who may have built reputations on use of secondary sources and the labours of research assistants. Examples of teachers at the University of Western Sydney and the University of Melbourne who have deliberately designed programs around the resources of nearby archives were seen as commendable exceptions. The dispersed locations of archival holdings was cited a third barrier. The use of the Internet, particularly digitised material such as photographs, broadened the discussion still further to embrace copyright, moral rights and contextuality. The kinds of historians who might advise on selection were also mentioned, as well as their employment prospects as in house historians and as contractors doing sentencing. Despite the numbers, the forum was an undoubted success. The good cross-section of academic, consultant and in-house historians, curators and archivists including several with strong history credentials, enriched the discussion. There was barely a hint of 'camps'; everyone shared and acknowledged much of common concern, not least increasing funding pressure and a new threat, encapsulated in Steve's reference to a recent One Nation assertion that there was no need for a State Archives in Queensland. In concluding, Lucy endorsed the role of historians in such dialogue. Among the many users for information, they were society's broadcasters and story-tellers. She also reminded people of an earlier forum of labour and business researchers and archivists in Sydney in October 1996, and joined Steve and Hilary in supporting suggestions for further conferences. There was general agreement that these should be held in each state and territory capital and organised with archivists and others in collaboration with the relevant peak history body. What do you think? Primary Source was established to promote dialogue between archivists and researchers, and so we are keen for the discussions initiated at the AHA conference to continue. If you have any comments on the forum or Michael's report, please forward them to at the address below and we will publish them in our COMMENT section.

THE PRIMARY SOURCE c/o discontents PO Box 140 Queanbeyan, NSW 2620 Ph: 02 62991043 Fax: 02 62329997 URL: http://www.discontents.com.au/primary/ Email: primary.source@discontents.com.au

Published by discontents. Edited by Tim Sherratt & Anne-Marie Condé Please send us your contributions, or your comments!