At the 1989 Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, I presented a paper on the implications of the certification examination for the American archival profession developed by the newly-established Academy of Certified Archivists. I had been a proponent of the notion of individual certification of archivists, and I was a member of the SAA Council that approved the formation of the Academy. I was also among the initial group of archivists to be certified, and I ran (unsuccessfully) for President of the Academy in 1990. In the years since then, I have changed my position on certification, primarily because of what the Academy has not accomplished and due to the strengthening of graduate archival education. The following paper includes the original text of my optimistic 1989 assessment of certification with a new commentary on each section set apart in italics.

There should be no doubt here that I am sympathetic to the certification of individual archivists. I am publicly on record for supporting the process, both in some of my writings and by virtue of being on the Council that courageously, or foolishly, voted for certification. What may not be so clear, however, is why I and other members, supported and continue to support certification. I believe my reasons are relevant to what I see as the implications of the development and use of the certification examination and is the point where I wish to start my exploration of these implications.

To the best of my recollection it appears that the discussions about certification have tended to be couched too heavily in black and white terms, polarizing around some basic issues. Some have argued against certification, for example, by saying it is not as good as strengthening graduate archival education programs or, and more relevant to what is being considered at present, by contending that it is impossible to develop an examination process because we have an insufficient knowledge base. I hope you can follow what has happened here, the tendency to move too quickly to either-or scenarios. What has been lost is that individual certification is, or can be, merely part of a overall effort to strengthen the profession and the management of archival records. I have never argued, for example, that individual certification is all we should do, or that it is the best that we can do. Rather, I have consistently seen individual certification as merely the first step, by reason of historical accident and convenience, of a broad agenda of change that includes the possibility of institutional accreditation, development of more stringent standards, and the strengthening of archival education. There is no reason not to expect that certification, especially in the development of its examination, can be an impetus to improvement in these other crucial areas, unless the profession refuses to use it in this way.

There are some assumptions that must be made about the certification examination, which I want to focus on from this point forward, especially since it is not my task to describe the process by which the examination is being assembled and administered. What I am willing to assume is that an examination that reasonably tests archival knowledge, skills and attitudes can be developed. Another assumption that I wish to suggest, although I will qualify this somewhat, is that certification will be eventually adopted by a significant portion of archival employers and seen by practicing or prospective archivists as a desirable credential. Now, let's consider the implications of the certification examination.

The certification examination will help the profession to codify its core knowledge. There is no question that a basic knowledge is an essential component of any profession. This is the criterion that distinguishes one profession from another and is, as well, the feature that provides a profession that ability to negotiate its relative position and influence in society. Without question archivists have a diversity of views about their knowledge, ranging from low to high opinions and arguments for strengthening. In most basic archival functions there is a considerable amount of knowledge, that can be classified as both practice-based and theoretical. What the archival profession has seemed to lack, however, is some incentive to bring that knowledge into a more usable body of archival theory and practice.

Here it is instructive to step aside from a focus on the certification examination to look briefly at what "incentives" can do for the archival profession. Prior to the adoption of the USMARC AMC format, archival description was an archival function generally left up to individual repositories to determine how they would handle this work. Building onto a library bibliographic system, an achievement not gained easily or without considerable discussion and debate, has now led the profession to consider and to work hard to have common descriptive standards. All of this has occurred in a relatively short-time. It certainly makes me pause to think that what the AMC format has done for archival description, the compilation of a certification examination can do for archival knowledge in general. If it does not, the profession has bumbled a considerable opportunity to aid its meeting its mission.

If we can't develop an archival examination, how can we claim to be able to teach archival administration? If we can't form an examination, how can we claim to have a sufficient knowledge that can be the basis for professional positions distinct from librarians or historians of the professionals? If we can't develop an examination, why bother and why are we here?

My views about the utility and validity of developing an examination process for evaluating an individual's level of archival knowledge have not changed. However, while the Academy of Certified Archivists has put most of its energies into forming and administering an examination, there is little evidence that its work has influenced or broadened the knowledge of the discipline. It has not publicized very effectively the nature and extent of this knowledge, nor has the Academy sought to work with the educators or the SAA Committee on Education and Professional Development to seek ways to promote a deeper understanding of the extent and content of archival science.

The certification examination will promote the fuller development of graduate archival education programs. There will undoubtedly be some stirring about with this statement, because this is exactly the opposite of what has generally been argued. But I believe we need to look at some basic facts. Council asked the Committee on Education and Professional Development to develop a proposal that would allow the graduates of certain "entitled" programs to sit immediately for the examination; the Council has revised and sent to the newly-formed Academy of Certified Archivists a proposal for this to occur. This particular proposal suggests, that for the present, graduates of the three course sequence meeting the 1988 SAA graduate archival education guidelines be allowed to take the examination. After a few years, however, the requirements may be significantly strengthened to move beyond these guidelines. This provides an excellent tool for graduate archival educators to use to strengthen their programs, something we all assume they want to do.

This helps graduate education and the profession in a variety of ways. All that needs to be said here is that anyone who has read the 1988 guidelines must realize that the content outlined there cannot be met in two courses and a practicum. Recently, there have been proposals for full courses on basic archival functions, a recognition of the depth of the guidelines and the increasing sophistication of archival knowledge. Recently, I have had the opportunity to design a course in the history of record-keeping and archival administration and to design and teach a full course on archival appraisal. Both experiences have more than convinced me of the wealth of materials to work with and the necessity of teaching in this way. A program of half a dozen courses on archival topics is both necessary and possible.

Although the Academy eventually adopted the notion that graduates of archival education programs could sit immediately for the examination and also in 1993 endorsed the new SAA Masters of Archival Studies degree guidelines, there has been little that the Academy has contributed to strengthening graduate archival education. In fact, the Academy has continued to be seen as an alternative to the higher education of archivists, suggesting that the core of archival work is practice-based. Maygene Daniels, in a November 1992 essay in the ACA Newsletter, suggested this when she wrote that "Dedicated to a single purpose, certification of archivists, the Academy's activities are dictated by the examination cycle and the imperative requirement that certification be a significant measure of practice-based archival knowledge." Later considerations for offering their own workshops, sounding suspiciously like venues for studying for how to pass the examination, the Academy has not been an effective advocate for the education of archivists supporting theory, methodology, and practice. A Canadian commentator on the certification plan, John Smart, writing in the March 1992 Association of Canadian Archivists Bulletin also suggested this same mentality with this statement: "Certification raises some difficult questions for Canadian archivists. The American Academy requires at least a Bachelor of Arts Degree with three years work as a professional archivist for persons wishing to write their certification exam. No degree, no certification. We all know good archivists who have not been to university. There is also the issue of splitting the profession according to qualifications and deciding whether any particular background, qualification, or training is superior to any other." My view remains that archival science or administration (it makes little difference to me what terminology is used here to connote the body of knowledge) is a complex set of interdisciplinary principles and concepts needing to be applied to an increasingly complex environment of recordkeeping regimes and records creators. Some of this is gained from experience and practice, but much of it is gained from a solid educational foundation and a commitment to life-long via continuing education and reading in and reflecting on the scholarship of a number of relevant disciplines.

The certification examination will provide a measure of quality of education programs and repositories. This is definitely a long-term potential implication for the profession. Assuming that the examination moves from adequate to excellent, the passing or failing graduates of specific programs should tell us something about the quality of students being attracted to these programs and the profession. Anything we learn will be valuable since we know precious little about such things at this time, despite a half-century of educating individuals to work as archivists.

Why won't this also tell us something about the quality of archival repositories? Two recently published institutional self-studies have both attested to the need for programs to have "at least one person who possesses, through training and experience, professional competence in archives management." At the same time, we have not done very well in defining what an archivist is and who can fill an archival position. Obviously, certification is one potential measure. Why not say that each archival repository must have one certified archivist? To those who argue that certification does not equal competence, I can only respond that while being aware of the problem it is a greater problem of having no definition or criteria at all. It is only one more reason for the archival profession to back certification and to guarantee its success.

Here I have mixed sentiments. I have certainly changed my mind that we can use passing the certification examination as an evaluation of graduate archival education programs. I believe this for two reasons. Since the beginning of the Academy and its emphasis on the examination, there has been little effort between the Academy and the educators to have the examination reflect what is the state-of-the-art teaching about archival science and practice. Furthermore, an examination focused on practice is not likely to be a good evaluator of graduate education based on advancing practice. The role of a graduate archival educator is to change the discipline, strengthening its practice and knowledge, not to reflect current or traditional practice. If anything, the failure of graduates taking the certification examination might be the better indicator of the more substantial graduate archival education programs.

The concern of using the process of certification to place knowledgeable archivists in archival and historical records programs is a more complex problem for me. For many small, poorly funded programs, the hiring of a certified archivist could be a significant improvement, even at the most basic, rudimentary level of development of the examination. There would be at least the acceptance of a common language and some core principles and practices if such hirings occurred. However, it may be that certification can only function at this level, a sort of technician's rather than professional's position. Graduate archival education programs, at least the more comprehensive ones, may be moving away from placing their graduates in small historical societies, public libraries, historic sites, and the like in favor of placing graduates in larger programs, organizations such as corporations needing to develop institutional archives, and even in non-archival positions such as information policy officers and software engineering in order to ensure that the archival perspective is considered in the future development of recordkeeping systems.

The certification examination will promote activities in other key areas that strengthen the profession. Here, I am going beyond basic knowledge, to matters like ethics, standards, and publication of and access to textbooks and other literature that are essential to the well-being of the profession. All I am suggesting here is that the continual process of keeping the certificate examination up-to-date will help to identify such needs and, hopefully, lead to activities that intend to meet these needs. It is no secret, for example, that we still lack a decent, comprehensive single volume introductory textbook on archival administration. I hope one or more archivists will be prompted to rise to the occasion to produce that volume because of the need and growing market for basic courses that prepare individuals to sit for the examination. Just as importantly, the certification examination should lead to some more serious efforts to rectify the poor access that we presently have to archival literature.

Now you will notice that I did not add to the list of implications that the examination will make archivist feel better about being archivists. Bill Maher's suggestion, in his interesting essay on certification, that "in the end, the process may be more important as a means for the profession to improve its self-image from its public image" might be true--only time will tell--but it is hardly worth worrying about. Three years on Council and reflection on other issues have convinced me that we will always worry about such things and that this is a condition probably endemic to any profession.

Again, I have mixed sentiments about these earlier statements. I have backed away from the need for emphasizing the development of a "comprehensive single volume introductory textbook" in favor of more systematic research about archival practice and principles and more writing about archival issues for non-archivists. But this is a minor point. The problem has been that the Academy has not looked beyond the examination and re-certification to consider larger issues. Elizabeth Adkins, in the November 1995 ACA Newsletter, stated that it was time for the Academy to "move away from an almost single-minded focus on the certification exam." That sounds promising. But Adkins also stated that the leaders of the Academy "are now focusing on advocating the CA credential and communicating with our existing members." David Haury in the same issue of the newsletter also stressed the credentialism of certification. Other than helping the smallest and weakest archival programs (who might not be able to afford even certified archivists), it is difficult to see how the Academy will help a profession needing to deal with information technology, political issues, ethical dilemmas, and policy concerns.

The certification examination forces the archival profession to think about something different than the status-quo or lowest common denominator. For a very long time archivists have been extremely generous in their viewpoints regarding who can be an archivist, what kinds of institutions can function as archival repositories, and who can teach archives. The certification examination serves notice, I believe, that we are changing our minds about such things. Giving an examination suggests that the chaff will be separated from the wheat; in other words, that there are some criteria about who can practice as archivists and who should be hired to work as archivist. A glance at archival employment notices suggest such a wide-range of notions about what an archivist is and does and such poorly defined conceptions of archival knowledge, skills, and attitudes to allow almost anyone to meet such criteria. The certification examination suggests there is a difference between an archivist and a non-archivist, something we know should be there but something that we have not quite been willing to support and defend.

If anything the Academy of Certified Archivists has acted as if its main concern has been with getting as many certified as possible and keeping them certified. The re-certification plan as adopted makes it difficult for anyone not to be re-certified, and supporting comments about the plan betray a lowest common denominator viewpoint. Continued employment, attendance at a few conferences, and a modicum of professional activity will get anyone re-certified. There is no real stress on archival knowledge. An archivist is defined as someone who works in an archives or who is employed as an archivist not by what they know about archives.

The certification examination protects legally individual archivists, archival employers, and the archival profession. Again, Maher has suggested that there is concern about the legal implications of certification. A recent review of archival certification by a labor lawyer has suggested, on the other hand, that the archival profession has been "at risk" due to its lack of qualifications for employment of archivists. This does not suggest that we ought to discuss the possibility of lawsuits, but it appears that certification gives us a better ground for defending who we hire and how we evaluate their work.

I have not changed my views about this matter, but I remain concerned about what would be contested. Are we protecting a very low level of archival work or a true knowledge of archival science? Doing the former is not likely to advance the profession very far; in fact, it could hurt the continued development of an archival science with a focus on theory, methodology, and practice.

Finally, the adoption of certification, the development and use of the certification examination, and the formation of the Academy of Certified Archivists marks the end of one period of archival development and the beginning of another age. The American archival profession has been the beneficiary of significant milestones throughout its history: the founding of the first state archives in 1901, the start of the Conference of Archivists in 1909, the establishment of the National Archives in 1934 and the Society of American Archivists in 1936, and the release of the report of the SAA Committee on the Seventies in 1972. One archival commentator has called the 1980s the "age of archival analysis" by virtue of its emphasis on self-assessment and planning; indeed, perhaps the 1986 report of the SAA Goals and Priorities Taskforce is another one of those milestones. I also suggest, as well, that 1989, the year of the formation of ACA and the first certification examination, marks the end of the age of archival analysis and, perhaps, the beginning of the "age of archival action." It seems now we are ready to take some bolder steps. Personally, I hope that accreditation of graduate programs and archival institutions and stronger standards in all areas will be additional steps that we take in the 1990s.

I believe now that the 1989 formation of the Academy and the 1993 SAA endorsement of the Masters of Archival Studies guidelines together provide a benchmark delineating the separation of the discipline between technicians and professionals. I do not believe this is necessarily bad. What will continue to be a problem is the Academy's insistence that its credential is the pre-eminent one. It can only be pre-eminent if it based squarely on a comprehensive graduate education degree, and if it is promoted through an aggressive campaign in increasing public understanding of archives, ensuring that archives is part of information policy initiatives and implementations, and influencing information technology development and software engineering.