A school association that I am a part of has a student colloquium every year. I was super excited about this. Imagine, students and professors getting together, sharing ideas, moving archival studies forward, pushing their own limits.
We had a meeting in december where we discussed possible themes. I remember the one proposed being a mouthful, and not quite as snappy as it could be. I made a suggestion at the time which, to me, sounded like a better idea (it was Impact: Archival practices and society). Now a few weeks go by and emails are sent out saying the theme is being 'fine tuned' and this is what they come up with: A Variety of Archival Practices and Shifting Achival Paradigms. Now to me, this says: a bunch of stuff being done at a bunch of different times. Basically it says nothing. It's embarrassing.
So, thinking it's no big deal if I remind them of my proposed theme, or at least its structure (ie. choice word with subheading) I write to the group. All too quickly it starts what I can only describe as a shit storm, about work not being appreciated, about disrespect, about bad timing, about this and about that.
I'm thinking, dudes, I didn't question the effort you put into this lame title, I'm questioning whether or not this title is inspiring, or at the very least, saying something. Emails go back and forth and only one other person agreed with me. Hello fish out of water!
The thing that bugs me is that this colloquium has so much potential of saying something, but these guys are setting such low standards (perfectly exemplified by their speakers list -- professor at UQAM, really?).
There's part of me that think this lack of creativity on the part of the organizers is a symptom of a larger problem that is the lack of leadership in archival studies. These people have such an awesome opportunity to say something, but they don't. They are conservativeness personified.
I said something in one email like "wouldn't a colloquium titled Archives and Politics be cool and inspiring!?" and the response I got was 'nobody would want to speak at a colloquium with that topic'. I don't know if i'm more upset about this response, or the fact that it might be true.
I am really trying to find the compassion in this situation, to let go, and not get caught up in who's right and who's wrong, but it's really hard.
Comparing the conference to the one in Toronto is another thing. They are in their third year (we are in our forth) and they have a much more dynamic and exciting format and topic.
Thinking about this stuff is depressing. Thinking about wanting to change things is depressing. Thinking about the status quo is depressing.
I would like to think about taking over for next year, but I think i'm a lone soldier and no-one would support me in my journey...
1 comment:
If you want change, you gotta do it yourself. I've been at my new job for two weeks and during the interview, I was told that I'd be given a long rope to discover the position's potential. However, when I try to do it "my way," a colleague of mine would call out what she would've done. (Can't really blame her, she's a real pro at what she does.) But the dynamic between us and our respective bosses are different, so her lecturing dampens my spirits a little.
Anyway, I think criticizing the group after the fact probably hit a nerve especially if you weren't actively involved in the planning process. I think they took your comments personally, especially considering it was a volunteer gig for all of them and admin work is really very time consuming.
So let this one slide. On the office politics continuum, this was next to nothing (a 10 would probably be, like, the Khmer Rouge). Academia is known for its insular attitudes. Feel better!
Post a Comment