Introduction
The face of graduate archival education in the United States has changed greatly over the past decade. First, the Guidelines for the Development of a Curriculum for a Master of Archival Studies Degree [2] raised the basic standards by which graduate archival education programs were measured for a decade. Second, more graduate programs have hired full-time, tenure-track faculty; with some programs adding a second archival faculty member. Third, anecdotal reports claim that the number of students in graduate archival education programs is growing. It may just be reality that "graduate archival education is the primary means of entry into the profession."[3] Much research is needed in the area of graduate archival education, though, such as in the areas of faculty, curricula, and students. This research examines students who have enrolled in graduate archival education courses. The goal is to profile the next generation of archivists and to focus on issues, such as retention in the profession. Emphasizing students and examining their careers is important in building a stronger archival profession in the United States as well as understanding the process of professionalization within our profession. If our past is to have a future, our students are literally "the future of our past.
This paper reports on the findings of a survey of graduates in fifteen (15) graduate archival education programs in the United States. [4] Data are now being collected for a sixteenth school and will be included in the final article. Findings indicate that the new generation of archivists
Literature Review
Much has been written about graduate archival education, particularly in the areas of program development, [5] providing historical insights into the present or argue for new approaches to the teaching of archives and curricular content that largely analyze various curricular components or discuss appropriate subject matter. [6] Despite the proliferation of articles on these topics, comparatively little work has been done on students. Of the two surveys specifically of graduates of archival education programs, neither have been published. Megan Sniffin-Marinoff completed an initial survey in 1992. She polled 212 students who had taken the introductory archives management class at Simmons College in Boston between 1981 and 1991. She describes the typical student as single, white female, working full-time, taking classes part-time, after commuting from between 1/2 hour to an hour to class. This idealized student’s initial commitment to archives is more of an interest than a firm commitment and the student expects to work in a college or university archives. [7] Anne Gilliland-Swetland’s piece of survey research on a nation-wide scale was presented at a conference on graduate archival education in San Diego, California in 1996. [8] As a result, our understanding of students experience in graduate programs and in entering the profession is incomplete and spotty. As a result, the ability of the profession to mentor, incorporate, and establish viable continuing education programs for these individuals may be poor.
Methodology
In order to better assess the graduates of archival education programs, a survey methodology was selected for several reasons. First, a broad-based survey involving multiple graduate-level archival education programs would provide a large and comprehensive set of baseline data from which future research could build. Second, a large number of cross-sectional responses would create a valid size data set for descriptive purposes in order to create a profile. Finally, a larger number might make it possible to detect current trends.
The survey instrument took advantage of the previous work of Gilliland-Swetland and Sniffin-Marinoff. Several questions from each of their questionnaires were replicated. This was done in order to compare results and measure change over time. In addition, questions on salary, continuing education, and demographics were added. This resulted in a fairly lengthy five-page survey, although it was designed to be able to be filled out fairly quickly (except for a couple of questions such as publications which were largely left unanswered). (See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire.) Once developed, the survey was piloted on several students at the University of Pittsburgh to test for problems and to help estimate the time needed to complete the instrument. It was then revised and sent to all University of Pittsburgh graduates from 1998-1997 in the spring of 1998. Responses were examined and the instrument was further refined prior to expanding the study to other graduate archival education programs. The revised survey was sent to graduates of other archival education programs between October 1998 and July 1999.
Survey Administration
In expanding the survey, letters were sent to all archival educators in the Society of American Archivists’ (SAA) Directory of Archival Education Programs. An announcement was also posted on the Archival Education Roundtable listserv. As noted above, fourteen archival educators volunteered to participate representing 16 institutions. This discrepancy in numbers was unintentional. Rosary College, outside Chicago, has a dual Master’s program with Loyola and Patrick Quinn also teaches at Northwestern. Three methods were used to distribute the surveys. Most schools sent us addresses and we mailed the surveys directly to their graduates. Some institutions did not want to provide us with surveys despite assurances that they would be used for this purpose alone. In these cases, survey packets were created and sent to an educator who then sent the surveys to his or her students. In one case, the institution contacted students and asked them if they would agree to be surveyed. If they said yes, their addresses were forwarded to us and we mailed them surveys.
Population
Identifying the population to be surveyed was also problematic. The question of who constitutes an archives student arose. In the University of Pittsburgh survey, an archives student was defined as anyone who had taken three of the four archival courses which were: (1) Archives and Manuscripts Management, (2) Records and Information Resources Management, (3) Archival Appraisal, and (4) Arrangement, Description, and Reference. To identify this group, old class lists and simply counted and enrollments compared. Most of the other schools could apply a similar definition to isolate a core group of archives students. However, this was not the case for all. In two cases, only graduates who were still in the profession were surveyed and in one case archives students were identified by students who completed theses on archival topics. Admittedly, this does raise questions about the external validity of these data as well as the reliability. I report this here because as a profession with little research in this area it is important to understand the potential problems in data collection. I sincerely hope that both this study is replicated and that the data collection problems can be overcome. I used all these data, the other choice would have been to throw out several of the data sets.
Findings
General Response Information
The total number of surveys sent out was approximately 800. These elicited
a response of 342 surveys or a return rate of approximately 42 percent.
The return rate ranged from 100 percent to 29 percent among the participating
schools. This is in line with other mail surveys and provides a decent
number from which to draw conclusions. Of the respondents, 222 or 65 percent
stated that they were currently working as archivists or that at least
some archival functions were a part of their formal job responsibilities.
Except when specifically stated, findings reported pertain to this sample
of 222, those currently working as archivists. Of those archival graduates
173 were from predominantly library and information science programs and
45 from predominantly history programs.
Length of Time Since Graduation
In order to assess archival experience of individuals in the survey
sample, respondents were asked to indicate the year in which they graduated.
From this information, the length of time in the profession can be derived.
Among the archivists surveyed, the mean number of years since graduation
was six (6), the median time was four (4) years. History department graduates
had more experience (mean of 9 years, median of 8 years) than library and
information science graduates (mean of five years and median of four years).
Survey responses, though, ranged from 33 years to 0.
Age at Time of Graduation
My overall impression of archives students at the University of Michigan
and at the University of Pittsburgh has been that students are getting
younger. My fear was that this was a false observation, and in fact it
was I that was getting older. As a means of testing this assumption and
establish some base line data on age at graduation. The survey does indicate
that entry-level professionals are youthful; 85% of the sample was 30 or
younger at the time of graduation. This trend is most pronounced in library
and information science programs, where individuals 25 and under make up
25% of that group.
In-State versus Out-of-State Residency
Many of the schools surveyed show some preferential treatment to in-state
students in areas, such as tuition rates. Since many library schools draw
a very substantial proportion of in-state students, seeing if this was
also true for students in the archival track is also important because
of the impact it has on tuition revenues. Sniffin-Marinoff’s survey results
also indicated the local draw of programs. In the present survey, 72% of
the archivists attended a graduate school in their home state. In history
programs, 80% of the students were in-state and in LIS programs 69% were
in-state residents.
Time to Complete Program
The length of time to complete a graduate program can indicate many things, such as other work or family commitments, or financial obligations. This is also a determinant in how soon students enter the job market as professional archivists. Overall, 54% of the archivists attended graduate school on a full-time basis and 38% part-time. However, in history-based programs, only 31% of the students were full-time, as opposed to 40% of the LIS students.
This difference is even more pronounced when the length of time it took to finish the degree is analyzed. Only 14 % of the respondents finished the degree within a 3 terms, 34% had finished in 4 terms, 58% in 5 terms. However, 41% of master’s students were enrolled for 6 terms or longer. These numbers specifically exclude the Ph.D. students.
In the University of Pittsburgh data, some distinct sex differences emerged in the length of time to complete a graduate program. Therefore, I was anxious to test certain hypotheses against the entire data set. In the Pittsburgh data, women took significantly longer to complete the program than men. In this larger study, there were no negligible differences based on sex.
However, there were significant differences between history master’s students and LIS students in this area; 65% of the history graduate students took over two year to complete the graduate program, whereas approximately 60% of the LIS students complete the master’s degree in 5 terms or less.
Length of Time to Finish Degree (Percentages of History and LIS)
| History | LIS | Number | |
| 3 Terms | 15% | 14% | 29 |
| 4 Terms | 10% | 23% | 42 |
| 5 Terms | 10% | 29% | 51 |
| 6+ Terms | 65% | 34% | 83 |
| Total / Percent | 100% | 100% | |
| Number | 40 | 165 | 205 |
Feminization of the Profession
Over the years, surveys of the profession have documented a trend towards more women in the profession. Also, some of the major differences in areas, such as salary and professional participation, have been attributed to sex. A 1989 Society of American Archivists survey reported that the organization was 54.3 percent female. [9] The 1989 survey marked the first time that women comprised a majority of SAA members.
Respondents to the current survey were 66 percent female and 33 percent male, this percentage is virtually identical to the percentage of survey respondents currently working in archives (66% female and 32% male). In terms of graduate program affiliation, men outnumber women in history-based programs, while women outnumber men in LIS programs. However, women comprise 46 percent of history programs, while men only comprise 27 percent of archival students in LIS programs.
Percentages of Men and Women in History- and LIS-Based Archival Programs
|
|
|
|
| Men |
|
|
| Women | 19 (8%) | 127 (57%) |
| Total Number of Respondents | 41 | 173 |
Diversity in the Student Population
The recent emphasis on diversity in the profession and the report of
the task force on diversity provided the impetus to profile people of color
in graduate programs. In her presidential address, Brenda Banks cited the
Workforce
2000 report predicting that by the year 2000 29 percent of new entrants
to the workforce would be people of color. [10]
In her article on African-Americans in SAA, Kathryn Neal reports that,
at least among African-Americans, there has been little recruitment and
many individuals found the archival profession later in their academic
careers or as they began other careers. [11]
Among respondents to the present survey, 20 individuals identified themselves
as people of color. This amounts to 6 percent overall, although the individual
school totals varied greatly from zero to 9 percent.
Retention in the Profession
Building a stronger and better-educated profession depends on retaining graduates of archival education programs within the profession. Overall, the schools surveyed had a 60 percent retention rate at the time of the survey. Among the individual programs, however, retention rates ranged from 35% to 84%. There were no differences in retention according to sex.
Retention in the Archival Profession (by Sex)
| Men | Women | Number | |
| In Archives | 66% | 66% | 222 |
| Leave Archives | 34% | 34% | 111 |
| Total / Percent | 100% | 100% | |
| Number | 110 | 222 | 332 |
Among survey respondents, the mean number of years in the profession was 6, the median was 4. However, history-based archivists had more experience. The average number of years since graduation for history-based graduates was 9 (median 8, n=40) as opposed to a mean of five years professional experience for LIS graduates (median 4, n=164).
In the survey comments, the most frequently cited reason for leaving
the archival profession was poor salaries. Another was the lack of archival
jobs in the area in which they were living.
Salaries
Salary compensation for entry-level archival professionals is not good. Among those working in archives 53% accepted an initial position paying less than $25,000 per year; 88% received under $30,000 in yearly compensation in their first position.
The picture becomes very interesting when broken down by sex:
Entry Level Salary Ranges by Sex
| Salary Level | Men | Women | Total % | Number |
| Less than $25,000 / Year | 65% | 46% | 52.83 | 112 |
| $25,000 - 30,000 | 24% | 44% | 43.26 | 78 |
| $31,000 - 35,000 | 7% | 9% | 8.49 | 18 |
| $36,000 - 40,000 | 3% | 1% | 1.42 | 3 |
| Over $40,000 / Year | 1% | 0% | 0.47 | 1 |
| Total Number of Respondents | 71 | 141 | 212 |
An even starker difference occurs when examining the history versus library science programs:
Entry Level Salary Level by Program Affiliation
| Salary Level | History | LIS | Total % | Number |
| Less than $25,000 / Year | 71% | 47 % | 52 | 112 |
| $25,000 - 30,000 | 20% | 42% | 37 | 78 |
| $31,000 - 35,000 | 7% | 9% | 8.49 | 18 |
| $36,000 - 40,000 | 2% | 1% | 1.42 | 3 |
| Over $40,000 / Year | 1% | 1% | 0.47 | 1 |
| Percent Total | 100% | 100% | ||
| Total Number of Respondents | 45 | 166 | 211 |
The salary problems appear to flatten out as these archivists move along a career trajectory.
Current Salary Ranges by Sex
| Salary Level | Men | Women | Number |
| Less than $25,000 / Year | 14% | 18% | |
| $25,000 - 30,000 | 10% | 25% | |
| $31,000 - 35,000 | 15% | 17% | |
| $36,000 - 40,000 | 20% | 16% | |
| Over $40,000 | 37% | 21% | |
| Total Number of Respondents | 73 | 147 | 222 |
An even starker difference occurs when examining the history versus library science programs:
Current Salary Level by Program Affiliation
| Salary Level | History | LIS |
| Less than $25,000 / Year | 13% | 17% |
| $25,000 - 30,000 | 7% | 24% |
| $31,000 - 35,000 | 16% | 17% |
| $36,000 - 40,000 | 13% | 20% |
| Over $40,000 / Year | 49% | 20% |
| Percent Total | 100% | 100% |
| Total Number of Respondents | 45 | 166 |
Second Master’s Degrees
Another determinant of salary compensation may be possession of a second master’s degree. Overall 25% of respondents had two advanced degrees. Among history graduates, 15% possessed an MLS; among LIS graduates 21% possessed a second master’s degree; many of these were history subject master’s degrees. Overall 35% of the history graduates possess a second advanced degree. Men are also more likely (31% to 22%) than women to possess a second advanced degree.
Professional Memberships
Professional membership demonstrates allegiance and interest in the broader profession. Among the survey respondents, the Society of American Archivists is the most prevalent professional membership. This is followed by a couple of the regional archival organizations (particularly the Midwest Archives Conference and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference), and then by the American Library Association (ALA). Graduates also have memberships in a slew of what I categorized as specialized archival-related organizations ranging from the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) to the Oral History Associations. All together there are many more ALA members than members of the Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA).
Discussion
Recordkeeping and Independence
The discussion section generally focuses on findings, however, several
methodological factors deserve commentary at this time. Surveys like this
are difficult because it is difficult to define who is an "archives student."
Even once that has been done, it is difficult to locate addresses for those
individuals. What this indicates is that archival educators have to be
administrators as well as educators, unlike our colleagues in library,
information science, or history departments. This is made more difficult
by the fact that in most LIS schools, for example, the recordkeeping systems
are not designed to keep track of archives students (nor those in other
specializations). Part of the tracking problems comes from what I will
call a specialization mentality in schools of library and information science.
Specializations are loosely formed and often incoherent groups of courses
around some topic (e.g., information systems and technology, school media,
academic libraries, etc.). Therefore, the archives faculty create (or not)
separate recordkeeping systems to monitor their students progress. When
a faculty member leaves, that individually maintained recordkeeping system
is not always passed along to the next person. As long as recordkeeping
systems are tied to individuals and not institutionalized, this will be
a problem and a factor that undermines archival education. When we cannot
keep track of our own, how can we adequately educate, socialize, and mentor
the next generation of archivists?
Age at Time of Graduation
The youthful age of many graduates indicates that these individuals
are selecting archives as a first career. This contrasts with many senior
colleagues who fell into to archives in the 1960’s and 1970’s. While many
are not coming straight from an undergraduate degree and have some work
experience, this is usually not in a professional capacity. Also, in comparing
the University of Pittsburgh archives students to the entire population
of the Department of Library and Information Sciences, several factors
distinguish the archival students from their peers in the MLIS program.
A larger percentage of archival students (41%) begin the Master’s program
before the age of 25, compared with 21% of the general MLIS population.
In-State versus Out-of-State Residency
As in the Sniffin-Marinoff survey of Simmons, all programs draw students primarily (in some cases almost exclusively) from a "local" audience, by this I mean in-state residents. Part of this can be attributed to lower tuition rates. However, I think that it is also important to note here that achieving state residency varies greatly among surveyed archival programs. In Pennsylvania, becoming a resident is comparatively easy, as opposed to other states, such as Michigan, a reality that may contaminate this measure.
The local draw of our programs should inform recruitment efforts. I
would also like to say that there may be individual differences in individual
programs. For example, the Pitt data indicates that the archives students,
although primarily in-state students, are less likely to be drawn form
Pennsylvania than regular LIS students. This provides one of several distinct
differences among archival students in our program which we are trying
to use to our advantage.
Time to Complete Program
Length of time to complete a program can be viewed several different ways, as students who are very over-committed and doing several things and cannot concentrate on their studies fully, or that they are gaining valuable paraprofessional experience while studying. This requires more study.
There are several problems with this measure. First, the question asked about full-time study. Full-time at Pittsburgh is 9 credits or three classes. The Master’s degree is a 36 credit hour course of study generally consisting of 12 classes. This can be done in one calendar year (e.g., 3 terms with 4 classes each term). In our survey, technically one could be going full-time and yet not finish in one year.
Several factors may explain why it takes history graduates take so long to finish. First, thesis requirements are more prevalent in history programs and can also slow people down. However, some individuals may go out and get a professional position without technically finishing the thesis and work on the thesis while at t first job.
Another complicating factor may be that history programs do not offer
the full array of courses offered during the summer term that most LIS
programs do. Finally, another factor yet to be seen is the trend toward
two-year LIS programs.
Feminization of the Profession
These data indicate that the profession will become increasingly feminized in the future. This is the first set of data I have seen of a very unbalanced ratio between men, and women in the profession. The affects this will have on salaries, the number of jobs, and job status should be monitored closely in the coming years.
However, these data also provide another difference between archival
students and the general LIS population. For example, at the University
of Pittsburgh, the ratio of men to women is visibly different among archival
students than in the general MLIS population. The male to female ratio
is 45%/55% in the archives area. In the general MLIS population, men only
make up 23% of the population.
Diversity in the Student Population
These data indicate that diversity is an issue in the archival profession.
Few persons of color are being recruited into the profession and even fewer
are retained in the long term. Admittedly, we are doing little recruiting
overall for our programs. However, a massive effort is needed to literally
change the face of the profession.
Retention in the Profession
Overall a retention rate of 66% seems satisfactory. However, the number of respondents commenting on the fact that the lack of compensation forced them to leave the archival profession should give us pause. Are we losing some of our best younger archivists to related professions because of the salary scales? Should this be seen as spreading archival concepts or our loss of valuable talent needed to reinvent the profession in the 21st century?
One of the questions attempted to get at retention and job satisfaction
issues. This question asked why people selected the job they did, citing
location, salary, work hours, and other as reasons for selecting a job.
This was one of two questions that received few responses. This is unfortunate
because I have long suspected that some lower salaries could be explained
by individuals taking a specific job because they were geographically bound
to an area.
Salaries
Salary compensation for entry-level archival professionals is not good. However, there are clear differences among programs. Traditionally, SAA salary surveys have found distinct differences in compensation by sex. In an initial analysis of the University of Pittsburgh data, I found a similar trend; 75% of the women made under $25,000, as opposed to 25% of the men.
However, among the entire data set, women appear to begin their archival careers receiving equitable salaries (or even better) to their male peers. However, this appears to dissipate over time. This may be explained by men being more likely to have a second master’s degree.
Higher current salaries for history graduates stand in contrast to the
discrepancy between entry level salaries for history and LIS program graduates.
However, these higher current salaries may be explained by the larger number
of years that history-based archival graduates have been in the profession.
Should the current projections based on starting salary hold, LIS graduates
should outstrip history-based graduates when the LIS graduates reach an
equal number of years experience. Another factor here is the type of jobs.
This requires greater study and analysis.
Professional Memberships
The high percentage of SAA members is encouraging. This demonstrates interest and support of the larger profession. The number of graduates of archival education programs who are SAA members could also be a higher percentage than of other groups of archivists.
The high number of SAA members is in stark contrast to ARMA members.
Few of our graduates appear to be ARMA members, and in fact 10 times more
graduates claimed ALA membership. This seems problematic and requires more
study. Is this solely a cost issue, a reflection of the fact that few of
our graduates are strictly records managers, or does it reflect programmatic
benefits of SAA? SAA should think about how to harness this energy and
increasingly large constituency.
Conclusions
As noted at the beginning, the survey was long. These are selected findings on variables that have traditionally been the focus of previous surveys of the archival profession. Many conclusions as well as interpretations can be drawn from these data. Several of the methodological problems have been pointed out in order to help future survey researchers and current readers to assess these data. The present and traditional means of comparing and contrasting parts of the profession (male/female; history/LIS) may also not be the most appropriate for the future. Particularly in this survey, the number of LIS versus history-based archival graduates was unbalanced and the overall number of history-based graduates too small from which to draw firm conclusions.
The face of the archival profession is also changing. First, the profession is feminizing and perhaps feminizing more rapidly than in the past. Second, although increasing diversity is slow, it is a factor and is one requiring more attention. Third, professionals are young and entering archives as a first career in a very purposeful manner. Finally, professional affiliation with SAA was high, indicating that younger archivists are looking towards their national organization to fulfill their professional needs.
Graduates of archival education programs represent the future of the
profession. Their insights, attitudes, skills, and knowledge must sustain
the profession in the twenty-first century. Graduate programs, such as
ours, are only a first step for many. However, our programs appear to be
a stable base on which most are building careers and becoming members of
the larger profession.
Notes
1. This research partially funded by the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation.
2. Society of American Archivists, Guidelines for the Development of a Curriculum for a Master of Archival Studies Degree (hereafter MAS Guidelines), 1994. Available URL: http://www.archivists.org/education/masguide.html.
3. Society of American Archivists, MAS Guidelines. These guidelines state, “SAA believes that programs of the extent and nature outlined in these guidelines are the best form of pre-appointment professional education for archivists.” Available URL: http://www.archivists.org/education/masguide.html.
4. Participants included: Auburn University, Dominican (Rosary), Long Island University, Loyola University – Chicago, Northwestern, Simmons, State University of New York – Albany, University of Maryland, University of Massachusetts-Boston, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, University of Pittsburgh, University of Texas at Austin, University of Wisconsin – Madison, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, and Western Washington University.
5. Examples of the program development literature are: Paul Conway, "Archival Education and the Need for Full-Time Faculty," American Archivist 51 (Summer 1988): 254-265, Richard J. Cox, "The Masters of Archival Studies and American Education Standards: An Argument for the Continued Development of Graduate Archival Education in the United States," Archivaria 36 (Autumn 1993): 221-31, Terry Eastwood, "Nurturing Archival Education in the University," American Archivist 51 (Summer 1988): 228-251, Jacqueline Goggin, "'That We Shall Truly Deserve the Title of Profession': The Training and Education of Archivists, 1930-1960," American Archivist 47 (Summer 1984): 243-254 and Robert Sidney Martin, "The Development of Professional Education for Librarians and Archivists in the United States: A Comparative Essay," American Archivist 57 (Summer 1994): 544-558.
6. Among these studies are: Luciana Duranti, "The Archival Body of Knowledge: Archival Theory, Method, and Practice," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 34 (Winter 1993): 8-24, James M. O'Toole, "Curriculum Developments in Archival Education: A Proposal," American Archivist 53 (Summer 1990): 460-466, James M. O'Toole, "The Archival Curriculum: Where Are We Now?" Archival Issues 22, no. 2 (1997): 103-113, J. Michael Pemberton and Christine R. Nugent, "Information Studies: Emergent Field, Convergent Curriculum," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 36 (Spring 1995): 126-138, and Tyler O. Walters, "Rediscovering the Theoretical Base of Records Management and Its Implications for Graduate Education," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 36 (Spring 1995): 139-154.
7. Megan Sniffin Marinoff, “Looking Back: Student Populations in Graduate Archival Education Programs, 1982-1992,” paper originally presented at the Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting, Montreal Canada, 1992. Paper in possession of author.
8. Anne J. Gilliland-Swetland, “Trends in the
placement of graduates of archival education programs,” paper presented
at the Conference of Graduate Archival Educators and Researchers, San Diego,
California
August 27, 1996.
9. Paul Conway, “Membership Survey Results,” Archival Outlook (January 1992): 3.
10. Brenda Banks, “SAA Beyond the Year 2000,” Archival Outlook (November 1995): 3.
11. Kathryn M. Neal, "The Importance of Being
Diverse: The Archival Profession and Minority Recruitment," Archival Issues:
Journal of the Midwest Archives Conference 21/2 (1996): 145-158.
University of Pittsburgh, School of Information Sciences, Survey of Graduates of Archives / Records Specialization Programs
A. Graduation Information
1. What degree(s) did you receive from the University of _____________
MLS M.A. (specify area) _______ Post-Master's
Certificate
Ph.D. Other (Specify) __________
2. Do you have any other degrees beyond the baccalaureate from other institutions?
Yes No
3. If yes, is this degree a:
M.L.S. M.A.(specify area) ______ Ph.D. Other (please specify)______
4. Did you attend the University of _______________________ as a
Full time Student Part-time Student
5. How long did it take you to finish the program?
12 mos. (3 terms) 16 mos. (4 terms) 20 mos. (5 terms)
24 mos. or longer (6+ terms)
6. I was an (circle one): In-state student Out-of-state student
7. What year did you graduate? ________
B. Employment History
8. Prior to entering your graduate archival program, were you ever employed or did you ever volunteer or work as an intern in an archival or records management situation?
Yes No
If Employed:
9. Are you currently employed in an archives or records management program or in a position that you consider archival or records-related in nature?
Yes No
10. Please give your current position title ____________________________
11. Please give your current employing institution _____________________
12. Are you self-employed? (Circle one): Yes No
13. How many job offers did you receive in the 12 months after graduation? --___
14. How long did it take from beginning your job search to being offered the position you finally accepted?
1-3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months 10-12 months 13+ months
15. What was your starting salary (in US dollars) for your first professional position?
Below $25,000/year $25,000-30,000 $31,000-35,000
$36,000-40,000 Over $40,000/year
16. Was your first position (circle all that apply):
Permanent Temporary Grant-funded Volunteer
Other (please specify) _____________________
17. Was your first position: Full-time Part-time
18. Was the first position you took the kind of job you wanted?
Yes No
19. If no, did you take it for other reasons such as (circle all that apply):
Location Salary Work hours Other (please specify) ___________
20. How many archival positions have you had since graduation?
21. What is your most current salary?
Below $25,000/year $25,000-30,000 $31,000-35,000
$36,000-40,000 Over $40,000/year
22. Which setting best describes the type of institution in which you work?
Federal Government State Government
Local Government Historical Society
College or University Religious Organization
For-profit Corporation Non-profit Organization
Hospital Museum
Other (please specify) __________________
23. Do you supervise other professionals, paraprofessionals, or students?
Yes No
24. Do you have non-supervisory administrative responsibilities in such areas as planning, financial management, or policy development?
Yes No
If not employed?
25. If you are not currently employed, is this by choice?
Yes No
26. If no, how long have you been searching for an archival position?
1-3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months 10-12 months 13+ months
C. Continuing Education
27. Have you sought out continuing education since graduation?
Yes No
28. Do you find continuing education opportunities sufficient?
Yes No
29. In what areas do you search for continuing education offerings?
Administration/Management Oral History
Arrangement/Description/Descriptive Standards Appraisal
Electronic Records Reference/Access
Preservation/Conservation Public Programs/Advocacy
Other _______________
D. Professional Activities
30. To which professional organizations do you belong? (Circle all that apply)
SAA MAC MARAC ARMA NEA SSA
ICA ALA ASIS ACA(Canada) Others:
31. Do you or have you held any committee assignments in any of these organizations? (Circle all that apply)
SAA MAC MARAC ARMA NEA SSA
ICA ALA ASIS ACA (Canada) Others:
32. Have you been elected to any governing positions in any of these organizations? (Circle all that apply)
SAA MAC MARAC ARMA NEA SSA
ICA ALA ASIS ACA (Canada) Others:
33. Have you published any articles in the professional literature?
Yes No
34. If yes, how many? ________
Please provide the citations to these articles (use another sheet if
necessary):
35. Have you become a certified archivist? Yes No
36. Are you planning to become a certified archivist? Yes No
37. Have you become a certified records manager? Yes No
38. Are you planning to become a certified records manager? Yes
No
E. Demographic Information
39. Age at graduation:
1-25 26-30 31-35 35-40 41+
40. Sex: Male Female
41. Which racial category best describes yourself? (Circle one)
African-American/Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic White Non-Hispanic
42. Do you feel you have used your archival coursework in your position(s) since graduation?
Yes No
43. If yes, which of the skills or knowledge you acquired in school
have proven to be the most valuable to you and your employing institution?
(Please comment on the back of this sheet or on e-mail below).
Thank you very much for your time. Please return the completed
questionnaire in the self addressed stamped envelope to: Elizabeth Yakel,
University of Pittsburgh, School of Information Sciences, Department of
Library and Information Science, 135 N. Bellefield, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.