加拿大疾病:图书馆、档案馆和博物馆融合的伦理

Q2 Arts and Humanities Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2013-09-01 DOI:10.3172/JIE.22.2.66
Braden Cannon
{"title":"加拿大疾病:图书馆、档案馆和博物馆融合的伦理","authors":"Braden Cannon","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.66","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (or LAMs) into mono lithic institutions is not a particularly new idea. Although the Alliance of Libraries, Archives and Records Management (ALARM) published multiple studies on human resources in the information sector in the 1990s (1995), the literature on the subject really starts to build in the early 2000s with some of the most prominent examples of LAM convergence in Canada happening nearly ten years ago. Despite the fact that the convergence proposal has been a part of infor - mation management discourse for over a decade, we have not yet begun to feel the full effects of its introduction. As the pro-convergence movement grows, an antithetical movement has failed to emerge and the arguments for convergence have gone largely unanswered in a systematic manner. This absence of a unified critique is particularly worrisome because the implications of LAM convergence are so wide-reaching that even many of its proponents have not yet recognized its potential effects. These effects have the ability to vastly alter the fundamental principles of library, archives, and museum management and it is for this reason that a critical re-assessment of convergence is so urgently needed.The convergence movement is building momentum with several related movements and cannot be fully assessed without taking these developments into consideration. As more institutions ponder a convergence like that seen at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), for instance, business culture seeps further into an information sector built on concepts of public service. As business culture makes more headway into cultural and heritage institutions, top-down management models become more ingrained. It is for these reasons that LAM convergence is a potential threat to the professional principles of libraries, archives, and museums, a threat that runs counter to the best interests of both information workers and patrons of information institutions.This paper will provide a review of the arguments presented in support of convergence, demonstrate the fallacies in these arguments, show how the convergence model is both influenced by and influences the corporatization of the cultural sphere, and argue that convergence is a threat to the principles of libraries, archives, and museums that should be opposed with great deliberation.Before continuing, a definition of these principles is in order. Beginning with libraries, the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights (1996) succinctly defines the principles for \"all libraries\" as being devoted to equitable access to information regardless of background, provision of material regardless of the background of those contributing to its creation, challenging censorship, cooperation with \"all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgement of free expression\" and the provision of exhibit and meeting spaces on an equitable basis.For the principles of archives, the Association of Canadian Archivists (1999) has a Code of Ethics that clearly defines the principles of the profession as well as the application of those principles through core functions. In essence, the document states that \"[a]rchivists appraise, select, acquire, preserve, and make available for use archival records, ensuring their intellectual integrity and promoting responsible physical custodianship of these records, for the benefit of present users and future generations.\" The document continues: \"[a]rchivists carry out their duties according to accepted archival principles and practices, to the best of their abilities, making every effort to promote and maintain the highest possible standards of conduct.\"The American Association of Museums (2000) also has a well-defined Code of Ethics for museum practitioners, which defines the role of museums as \"collecting, preserving and interpreting the things of this world.\" The Code states that \"[i]t is incumbent on museums to be resources for humankind and in all their activities to foster an informed appreciation of the rich and diverse world we have inherited. …","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"66-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Canadian Disease: The Ethics of Library, Archives, and Museum Convergence\",\"authors\":\"Braden Cannon\",\"doi\":\"10.3172/JIE.22.2.66\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"IntroductionThe convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (or LAMs) into mono lithic institutions is not a particularly new idea. Although the Alliance of Libraries, Archives and Records Management (ALARM) published multiple studies on human resources in the information sector in the 1990s (1995), the literature on the subject really starts to build in the early 2000s with some of the most prominent examples of LAM convergence in Canada happening nearly ten years ago. Despite the fact that the convergence proposal has been a part of infor - mation management discourse for over a decade, we have not yet begun to feel the full effects of its introduction. As the pro-convergence movement grows, an antithetical movement has failed to emerge and the arguments for convergence have gone largely unanswered in a systematic manner. This absence of a unified critique is particularly worrisome because the implications of LAM convergence are so wide-reaching that even many of its proponents have not yet recognized its potential effects. These effects have the ability to vastly alter the fundamental principles of library, archives, and museum management and it is for this reason that a critical re-assessment of convergence is so urgently needed.The convergence movement is building momentum with several related movements and cannot be fully assessed without taking these developments into consideration. As more institutions ponder a convergence like that seen at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), for instance, business culture seeps further into an information sector built on concepts of public service. As business culture makes more headway into cultural and heritage institutions, top-down management models become more ingrained. It is for these reasons that LAM convergence is a potential threat to the professional principles of libraries, archives, and museums, a threat that runs counter to the best interests of both information workers and patrons of information institutions.This paper will provide a review of the arguments presented in support of convergence, demonstrate the fallacies in these arguments, show how the convergence model is both influenced by and influences the corporatization of the cultural sphere, and argue that convergence is a threat to the principles of libraries, archives, and museums that should be opposed with great deliberation.Before continuing, a definition of these principles is in order. Beginning with libraries, the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights (1996) succinctly defines the principles for \\\"all libraries\\\" as being devoted to equitable access to information regardless of background, provision of material regardless of the background of those contributing to its creation, challenging censorship, cooperation with \\\"all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgement of free expression\\\" and the provision of exhibit and meeting spaces on an equitable basis.For the principles of archives, the Association of Canadian Archivists (1999) has a Code of Ethics that clearly defines the principles of the profession as well as the application of those principles through core functions. In essence, the document states that \\\"[a]rchivists appraise, select, acquire, preserve, and make available for use archival records, ensuring their intellectual integrity and promoting responsible physical custodianship of these records, for the benefit of present users and future generations.\\\" The document continues: \\\"[a]rchivists carry out their duties according to accepted archival principles and practices, to the best of their abilities, making every effort to promote and maintain the highest possible standards of conduct.\\\"The American Association of Museums (2000) also has a well-defined Code of Ethics for museum practitioners, which defines the role of museums as \\\"collecting, preserving and interpreting the things of this world.\\\" The Code states that \\\"[i]t is incumbent on museums to be resources for humankind and in all their activities to foster an informed appreciation of the rich and diverse world we have inherited. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":39913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Information Ethics\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"66-89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Information Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.66\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.66","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

图书馆、档案馆和博物馆(或lam)融合成单一的机构并不是一个特别新的想法。虽然图书馆、档案和记录管理联盟(ALARM)在20世纪90年代(1995年)发表了多项关于信息部门人力资源的研究,但关于这一主题的文献真正开始建立是在21世纪初,加拿大LAM趋同的一些最突出的例子发生在近十年前。尽管十多年来,趋同建议一直是信息管理话语的一部分,但我们尚未开始感受到其引入的全部影响。随着支持趋同运动的发展,一场对立的运动未能出现,而趋同的争论在很大程度上以一种系统的方式没有得到回答。缺乏统一的批评尤其令人担忧,因为LAM趋同的影响是如此广泛,以至于它的许多支持者还没有认识到它的潜在影响。这些影响有能力极大地改变图书馆、档案馆和博物馆管理的基本原则,正是出于这个原因,迫切需要对趋同进行批判性的重新评估。趋同运动正在与若干相关运动一起形成势头,如果不考虑到这些事态发展,就无法对其进行充分评估。例如,随着越来越多的机构考虑像加拿大图书馆和档案馆(LAC)那样的融合,商业文化进一步渗透到建立在公共服务概念基础上的信息部门。随着商业文化在文化和遗产机构中取得越来越大的进展,自上而下的管理模式变得更加根深蒂固。正是由于这些原因,LAM趋同对图书馆、档案馆和博物馆的专业原则构成了潜在的威胁,这种威胁与信息工作者和信息机构顾客的最佳利益背道而驰。本文将回顾支持趋同的论点,论证这些论点中的谬误,展示趋同模式如何受到文化领域公司化的影响,并论证趋同是对图书馆、档案馆和博物馆原则的威胁,应该慎重反对。在继续之前,有必要对这些原则进行定义。从图书馆开始,美国图书馆协会的图书馆权利法案(1996年)简洁地定义了“所有图书馆”的原则,即致力于公平获取信息,而不考虑背景,提供材料,而不考虑那些为其创造做出贡献的人的背景,挑战审查制度,与“所有与抵制限制言论自由有关的个人和团体”合作,并在公平的基础上提供展览和会议空间。对于档案的原则,加拿大档案工作者协会(Association of Canadian Archivists, 1999)有一个道德规范,明确定义了该职业的原则以及这些原则通过核心职能的应用。从本质上讲,该文件指出,“为了当前用户和后代的利益,档案工作者评估、选择、获取、保存和提供档案记录,确保其知识完整性并促进对这些记录的负责任的实物保管。”文件继续写道:“档案管理员根据公认的档案原则和做法履行职责,尽其所能,尽一切努力促进和维持最高的行为标准。”美国博物馆协会(2000)也为博物馆从业人员制定了明确的道德准则,将博物馆的角色定义为“收集、保存和解释这个世界的事物”。《守则》指出:“博物馆有责任成为人类的资源,并在其所有活动中促进对我们所继承的丰富多样的世界的了解。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Canadian Disease: The Ethics of Library, Archives, and Museum Convergence
IntroductionThe convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (or LAMs) into mono lithic institutions is not a particularly new idea. Although the Alliance of Libraries, Archives and Records Management (ALARM) published multiple studies on human resources in the information sector in the 1990s (1995), the literature on the subject really starts to build in the early 2000s with some of the most prominent examples of LAM convergence in Canada happening nearly ten years ago. Despite the fact that the convergence proposal has been a part of infor - mation management discourse for over a decade, we have not yet begun to feel the full effects of its introduction. As the pro-convergence movement grows, an antithetical movement has failed to emerge and the arguments for convergence have gone largely unanswered in a systematic manner. This absence of a unified critique is particularly worrisome because the implications of LAM convergence are so wide-reaching that even many of its proponents have not yet recognized its potential effects. These effects have the ability to vastly alter the fundamental principles of library, archives, and museum management and it is for this reason that a critical re-assessment of convergence is so urgently needed.The convergence movement is building momentum with several related movements and cannot be fully assessed without taking these developments into consideration. As more institutions ponder a convergence like that seen at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), for instance, business culture seeps further into an information sector built on concepts of public service. As business culture makes more headway into cultural and heritage institutions, top-down management models become more ingrained. It is for these reasons that LAM convergence is a potential threat to the professional principles of libraries, archives, and museums, a threat that runs counter to the best interests of both information workers and patrons of information institutions.This paper will provide a review of the arguments presented in support of convergence, demonstrate the fallacies in these arguments, show how the convergence model is both influenced by and influences the corporatization of the cultural sphere, and argue that convergence is a threat to the principles of libraries, archives, and museums that should be opposed with great deliberation.Before continuing, a definition of these principles is in order. Beginning with libraries, the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights (1996) succinctly defines the principles for "all libraries" as being devoted to equitable access to information regardless of background, provision of material regardless of the background of those contributing to its creation, challenging censorship, cooperation with "all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgement of free expression" and the provision of exhibit and meeting spaces on an equitable basis.For the principles of archives, the Association of Canadian Archivists (1999) has a Code of Ethics that clearly defines the principles of the profession as well as the application of those principles through core functions. In essence, the document states that "[a]rchivists appraise, select, acquire, preserve, and make available for use archival records, ensuring their intellectual integrity and promoting responsible physical custodianship of these records, for the benefit of present users and future generations." The document continues: "[a]rchivists carry out their duties according to accepted archival principles and practices, to the best of their abilities, making every effort to promote and maintain the highest possible standards of conduct."The American Association of Museums (2000) also has a well-defined Code of Ethics for museum practitioners, which defines the role of museums as "collecting, preserving and interpreting the things of this world." The Code states that "[i]t is incumbent on museums to be resources for humankind and in all their activities to foster an informed appreciation of the rich and diverse world we have inherited. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Information Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diversity Matters: Economic Inequality and Policymaking During a Pandemic A Survival Guide to the Misinformation Age: Scientific Habits of Mind Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age Hate Crimes in Cyberspace We Believe the Children: A Moral Panic in the 1980s
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1