u/TheBlizzardHero

The title is the question, but here's a more in-depth explanation:

Obviously, you don't need to be a part of a demographic to work on projects related to said demographic. For example, you don't need to be from Peoria, IL to write a finding aid about a collection created by someone from Peoria, IL. Institutional resources and scope also play a significant roll, as smaller institutions need staff who can fill a broader range of functions and thus cannot be restrictive. However, there does seem to be an unwritten (unspoken?) line about what level of management is considered acceptable for some demographic categories - specifically concerning race, gender, and sexuality. Small projects might be fine, but I rarely if ever see permanent archival positions that curate collections about demographics for those groups being filled by someone outside that demographic.

This is mostly pertinent to hiring, as a fair number of posted positions are explicitly about curating collections for some demographic, usually based on whatever the stated collection/collection development strategy is. Obviously positions associated with race, gender, and sexuality do not state that they're only looking for professionals that fit their respective demographics, but I do assume that that I and other similarly non-demographically related applicants would be immediately discriminated against if we were to apply and thus it would be a waste of time to apply. It's not all assumption however, looking at the people who fill these rolls (or comprise these institutions if the curation focus extends more broadly) tends to corroborate this assumption.

Of course, there is the obvious argument that these collections/collection management positions were specifically created to address a historic curation gap in which these specific demographics were not included in institutional holdings which similarly extends to historic hiring imbalances. Moreover, as an outsider, non-demographically inclined applicants would be doing a disservice by applying for such positions because it might take away an opportunity from another professional who does fit within the aforementioned demographic.

Clearly there's probably a spectrum of what people think is acceptable and because no institution operates the same - some might be discriminatory while others would be more open. However, I would appreciate some feedback from active professionals and other professionals wading through job applications. (Respectively,) for those positions concerning the management of race, gender, and sexuality collections, do you hire outside those specific demographics/do you apply for positions outside your own demographics?

Thanks in advance! I know this is a tough and dicey question, but I would greatly appreciate some insight. Also insert some joke about "things they don't teach you in library school" here.

I get it. The job market is awful right now due to an oversupply of professionals, political purges, and an under-investment in the field. Other people probably have (or have had) it worse. But I am genuinely having a rough time applying for jobs.

On paper I did everything right. I have four years of experience working with a range of cultural heritage repositories (primarily archives). I have a Master's degree in library science. I've demonstrated broader engagement with the field through research and other publications. I have knowledge and demonstrated skill in in-demand areas like digital curation, audiovisual curation, and others. If you sit me down in front of a board of archivists and ask me 100 questions about the field I can answer 95-100% of them.

However, it's still not enough. I was rejected by the library/information schools for pursuing further research (I get it, it was one of the worst years to apply on record, even then no one really wants more LIS doctorates). None of the jobs I've applied to since then have moved forward with me. I'm not even getting to the interview step for positions I'm overqualified for. There are institutions that have rejected my application that still have their position listed as open and looking for candidates.

The logical part of my brain says that everyone is having a horrible time, that other people are struggling and that I'm not unique. The irrational part of my brain is however taking it personally, that this field doesn't want me and me specifically in it. That I should just jump off a cliff and end it.

I know the standard "just pivot" is obvious, but I don't have any experience in (or significant knowledge about) libraries, DAM, and RM. Pivoting would mean starting over and throwing away almost a half-decade of work and probably trying to start with something entry level. Maybe if I had much more experience in-field I wouldn't have to start over, but no one wants a low-mid career professional in a field they don't have experience in. I'm also aware that I'm not the ideal candidate. I don't meet the demographic markers employers are typically looking-even if I'm a minority in the archival field. I have a number of disabilities that are hidden/minor that do have an impact but are not traditionally considered significant disabilities. The only way I stand out is with my skills and experience, which is clearly not working.

I honestly don't know what to do. I'm just too tired and don't have much to give anymore. How have you all managed (or have managed) the current career progression/job market cycle. Is there anything I should be doing differently short of doing blood sacrifice rituals to improve my chances of landing an interview?

I apologize for the downer but I really do need some help. Sorry.