susan edwards - jolifantamlis.files.wordpress.com... · web viewtheodore schellenberg, former...

Susan Edwards, LIBR 256 – Spring 2011 Final Exam—May 15, 2011

Question #1

What is an archive? What does an archivist do? This presentation will explain basic principles

that guide the archival profession and point out the fundamental paradoxes of archival work.

These paradoxes include the dilemma of saving records while at the same time making decisions

not to save some records, of simultaneously preserving fragile documents while also allowing

people to handle them, and the dilemma of allowing records to be available publicly while also

honoring the right to privacy of the person/s who created the records. These paradoxes point to

the very reasons why we have archives—to preserve the past for the benefit of the future.

Archives collect unpublished documents created by people, families, and organizations for

several reasons: social (e.g., community organization records), personal (e.g., diaries and letters),

economic (ledger books, receipts), legal (e.g., contracts and court records), functional (e.g.,

architectural drawings), or symbolic (e.g., diplomas) reasons. These records need not be old to be

considered archival. For example, 21st-century e-mails may easily become part of an archives

today. Archivists usually acquire these documents when they are no longer useful to the creators.

Theodore Schellenberg, former assistant archivist for the National Archives, differentiated

between the primary value (the reason a record is created) and secondary value of records. For

example, Mark Twain may have written a letter to send news to a friend (primary value), but an

archive may acquire his letters for their evidence of Twain’s life and personality (secondary

value). Assessing secondary value helps archives identify records of “enduring value,” which

should thus be saved for future generations in an archives.

Susan Edwards, LIBR 256, Final Exam, May 15, 2011

The creator is key to archives. Archives don’t generally acquire individual documents one at a

time—they acquire sets of documents authored or accumulated by a creator. This relationship to

the creator is called provenance. Documents are organized by archivists into collections

according to their provenance, and are arranged in the same groupings (called fonds) and order

established by the person who created, collected, or maintained them. This principle of arranging

by fonds and original order assumes that the way we author, organize, and use documents

together reveals as much about who we are as humans, and as a society, as the information

contained in individual records (Abraham, 1999; Cook, 1998). This arrangement provides

context for understanding the content of the documents themselves. In order to help researchers

understand the context and scope of a collection, and find specific records, archivists create a

document called a finding aid that provides information about the creator and the collection,

describes the groupings, or series, within the collection, and provides an inventory.

Archivists cannot save everything—there is not enough space or time to make every record

created available in an archives. The process by which some records are deemed of “enduring

value” and others are jettisoned is called appraisal. It involves determining whether documents

have significant secondary value based on the content, context (provenance and the situation in

which they were created), and potential future usefulness to scholars and researchers. Appraisal

has nothing to do with monetary value. Each archival institution also limits what it will acquire

based on a collecting mission and policies that focus the scope of collecting on specific types of

documents, such as a subject area (e.g., labor archives, a single president’s documents), a

geographic area (e.g., Los Angeles business history), or a document type such as maps or audio

recordings. Archivists further prioritize their acquisitions by taking into consideration past

2


collecting history, gaps the archives may have in certain areas, and information from scholars

and creators that helps identify important records.

The power to decide which documents are saved for posterity is an important, and daunting, task

that archivists take seriously. Debates about appraisal theories are ongoing, and modern theories

have arisen in response to the increase in document production over the past 65 years as changes

in scholarship have widened the scope of what should be retained (not only documents by

important leaders, but those of ordinary people as well). Some archivists argue for working with

creators to identify archival records at the moment of creation. Others have proposed studying

the structure of organizations and the roles of creators within organizations as a method of

identifying archival documents (Cook, 1998). No appraisal theory is without issues, as we cannot

predict what will be of value to the future, decades or centuries from now. In a current battle

against the New York Public Library’s archival appraisal process, author Paul Brodeur is

demanding that the archives return documents he donated because the archivists had decided to

only keep one quarter of his papers (Barbaro, 2011). Public controversies like this over appraisal

policies can harm archives by turning away potential donors (who give money as well as

documents). Thus, being open about the appraisal process is important for archives, to ensure

that future donors, and the public, understand why some documents cannot be saved.

That archives can only benefit the public if the documents are made available and accessible to

users highlights the role of an archives within a democratic society. Historical, legal, and

financial records found in archives can be used to verify or dispute social and economic status,

including inheritance and ownership rights, social sovereignty, cultural history, etc. Control of an

3


archives can be a powerful tool. For example, during the ethnic war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in

the early 1990s, Bosnian archives, libraries, and museums were destroyed by Serbs in order to

remove evidence that Bosnians lived in the area—effectively erasing them from history (Supple,

2005). Making archives freely available to all provides a sense of accountability to citizens. This

concept comes out of archives’ French Revolution roots, when modern archives were established

by the government as a centralized repository to be accessible to every citizen. Today, the

principle that an archives should provide “open and equitable access” is written into the Code of

Ethics of the Society of American Archivists (SAA, 2005, §VI).

But making documents accessible has its dilemmas as well. Archivists must store records with

proper environmental controls to protect the materials, and with proper security to protect

collections from theft.1 While light and physical handling damage paper, archivists cannot justify

locking records away in a dark room forever. Instead, they allow users access, but create policies

to mitigate potential damage. Researchers must view documents in the archives’ reading room, a

secure space where documents can be brought from storage under supervision of an archivist. An

archivist provides orientation to the archives, tells users of any restrictions, and provides proper

handling guidelines. For example, users may be required to wear cotton gloves to protect

documents from oils on the skin. Modern technology has provided some means for skirting this

dilemma of access versus preservation, as digitized documents help preserve the original by

lessening physical handling, and provide access to more fragile records, which would otherwise

remain inaccessible (Dill, 2008). But digitization is costly and time consuming, and can

potentially be damaging to the original documents as well. Even the Library of Congress, which

1 And because an archives must keep a long view into the future, it must also prepare a disaster plan to protect against natural disasters and acts of war, which are unlikely over the short term, but over periods of centuries, can become certainties.

4


actively digitizes collections, estimates that only 10% its collection has been digitized (Hafner,

2007).

A reference archivist also helps researchers understand how archives operate, and helps them

work with primary materials and hone their research skills (Yakel & Torres, 2003). By

interviewing users about the purpose of their research, the archivist can better identify records

that would be of use. Understanding what the product of the user’s research will be also helps the

archivist identify possible legal issues that may arise with releasing records for publication or to

the press. The archivist’s obligation to provide access to the user must be balanced with

obligations to the creator. Many records in an archives are authored by creators who retain

copyright, or whose families may be harmed by information in the records. Records may also

contain personal information such as social security numbers or medical records. For this reason,

archives may restrict access to some collections for a defined number of years.

These days the job of the reference archivists is changing, as users expect to find archives online,

and to use contemporary Web 2.0 tools to interact with them (Hafner, 2007; Pearce-Moses &

Davis, 2006; Samouelian, 2009). Archivists are experimenting with web 2.0 tools, for example

by creating online knowledge bases using wikis, providing tagging as an alternate means of

searching (Daines & Nimer, 2009). And archivists continue to help remote users discover the un-

digitized records in the archives. Although the mode of access may be changing, archives are

still about people—through archives’ efforts we gain knowledge about our own identity, and

make connections to other people, past and present (Carr, 2000). It is an effort that requires

constant balance of the benefits to individual creators and those of the larger society.

5


Question #2

Two major issues facing archivists today are 1) managing the quantity of records being produced

and acquired, which has resulted in backlogs in processing, and 2) challenges unique to born-

digital records. Both issues force archives to re-examine practices and core archival principles.

Quantity of Records

Records production has increased exponentially since the mid-20th century, as information

technology allows more users to easily create records, and ideas about what an archives is has

shifted from a legal and administrative focus to a more socio-cultural focus, driven by historians,

interdisciplinary scholarship, and interest in public history (Cook, 1998; Cox, 2000). The result

is a backlog of unprocessed collections. Greene and Meissner point out that backlogs have been

an issue for 60 years, and argue that this is weakening the profession (2005). When documents

remain inaccessible, the public trust in archives is eroded. Further, that archivists have not come

together to improve the situation may point to lack of unity and leadership in the profession.

Archivists have tried to solve this problem at the appraisal stage, by simply acquiring less

material (Greene & Meissner, 2005). But this approach cannot keep up with demand. Traditional

practice assumes that spending time on detailed arrangement and description will save time for

future researchers. Yet, trying to anticipate the needs of future archivists may be futile, as needs

change over time and we cannot anticipate every possible future research need (Abraham, 1999).

Greene and Meissner’s suggestion, known as More Product, Less Processing (MPLP), advises

archivists to reduce processing time by adhering strictly to original order, arranging collections

only to series level, abandoning detailed description at the item level, and providing concise

6


collections descriptions and outlines (2005). Archivists should provide just enough context for

users to understand interrelationships between documents, their physical characteristics, and

intellectual content broadly. How much description is useful for researchers is a question that

remains to be answered, and which could perhaps be a focus of future research studies.

Archival preservation has also been affected by the backlog, as archivists can no longer take time

to remove metal fasteners, re-photocopy high-acid documents, or to re-folder documents.

Archivists must approach preservation globally, focusing on the building’s environmental

controls, and identifying materials requiring emergency treatment during processing. Again,

reducing processing time outweighs the need to give individual documents detailed attention.

Greene and Meissner argue that perceived preservation threats such as metal fasteners and acidic

paper, actually have low risks (2005). How decisions to forego such measures will affect the

longevity of documents remains to be seen; perhaps future research studies could investigate this

issue, and help archives prioritize preservation threats.

Another solution to the backlog is to make unprocessed collections available to users (Greene &

Meissner, 2005). The main problem is that collections include records with privacy, copyright, or

legal issues, or that are too fragile to handle at all. Guidelines can help identify collections

eligible for access without processing. For example, modern documents are more likely to have

legal and privacy restrictions (Abraham, 1999), and older collections can be scanned to identify

fragile media. Availability of unprocessed collections radically changes the relationship between

reference archivists and researchers. Reference interviews must provide special handling

instructions and education about legal issues, and archivists entrust researchers to identify

7


sensitive or fragile documents, and alert the archivist if such material is discovered. In addition,

researchers will require more access, and time, to find the documents they need.

Making unprocessed collections available to researchers may encourage collaboration between

archivists and researchers, and shift some responsibility for description to the user. As Abraham

points out, processing methods have changed over the generations, and they will change again

(1999). Recently, archives have utilized Web 2.0 tools to let users describe, tag, and transcribe

archival documents, and develop new finding aid models (Daines & Nimer, 2009; Day, 2011;

Samouelian, 2009). A “commons-based peer production” could help manage backlogs in

archives by allowing scholars to share online spaces for description with archivists (Samouelian,

2009). It is clear that, without serious adjustments to traditional archival practice, backlogs of

unprocessed collections will not go away. Archivists are feeling pressure for increased openness

(Byrd, 2001), and perhaps new technologies will provide the catalyst to help archives re-imagine

how they can best provide access to archival records in the future.

Born-Digital Documents

E-mail, Word and Excel documents, digital music, photographs, and video, Facebook posts, and

even Tweets (Library of Congress, 2010) are all examples of born-digital records preserved by an

archives. Archival principles still apply when handling these records—provenance and original

order are key to acquisition and description, and the double-edged sword of preservation and

access are also concerns. Born-digital records have special concerns because they require a

machine to access their content, and they can be easily deleted, altered, copied, or simply

become unavailable due to degraded media, or because the equipment to access them is obsolete.

8


Some believe the acquisition process for born-digital records should begin at the moment of

creation, since these records can be easily deleted or altered before they are ever handed over to

an archives. It is important for archivists and records managers to educate creators about proper

digital records management and develop policies and education programs to guide creators about

what records should be kept, how to safely store and backup records, and how to structure files

and author metadata to aid description and retrieval. In reality, most archivists receive such

material long after creation. While appraising born-digital materials an archivist must ask if she

can trust that the documents are authentic and unaltered. Archivists work with information

technology professionals to verify that the information is complete, unaltered, authentic, and that

it can be retrieved. Then, it is possible to automate physical acquisition these records with file

transfer protocols and automated indexing and metadata creation (Pearce-Moses & Davis, 2006).

Preservation is an ongoing problem for born-digital records, since formats and equipment change

quickly. While archives have developed several methods for born-digital preservation, each has

its drawbacks. For example, digital documents can be migrated to new storage media as old

formats become inaccessible; but each migration causes degradation of the original file and,

cumulated over decades, can render the document unreadable. The PDF/A format promises to be

accessible forever, but is only of use for text-based records. Archivists can also create paper

copies of digital records, but this merely retains the information and loses dynamic functionality

of the record. The preservation problem is far from resolved, especially with regard to non-

textual records and dynamic records, such as databases, video games, and websites. And because

preservation of born-digital materials requires copying, there are implications for copyright.

9


Thus, archivists need to understand these legal restrictions unique to born-digital records (Hirtle,

2003). Finally, disaster planning for digital records also requires a new approach—archivists

must work with technologists to combat computer viruses, the primary risk for digital records

(Pearce-Moses & Davis, 2006).

Born-digital documents can be easily made available online, where users can access them

remotely. Text-based records have the potential for full-text searching, giving researchers access

to retrieve documents on the item level. But scholars retrieving such results may not see the

forest for the trees because contextual information found in a traditional finding aid may be

overlooked. In addition, a reference interview with an archivist may not happen at all for remote

users, and scholars may miss out on knowledge that a professional can provide. Born-digital

records that are available online may also add to increased remote requests for reference advice

and digital images, requiring archives to reprioritize time spent with on-site versus remote

scholars. But some born-digital records cannot be available online because outdated equipment is

required for access, or because privacy and copyright issues require closer control. In these

cases, archives need to provide equipment on-site where scholars can access such records.

Physical space, technical support, and training materials may need to be developed to aid both

archivists and users.

Archivists working with born-digital material need to learn and follow new technologies, to

understand preservation and copyright issues, and be able to explore new ways of making these

materials accessible (Pearce-Moses & Davis, 2006). As the proportion of born-digital records is

sure to increase, these skills will become essential for archivists working in the digital age.

10


References

Abraham, T. (1999). Practical processing: Arrangement and description. Retrieved from University of Idaho Library website http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/special-collections/papers/arrange.htm

Barbaro, M. (2011, April 22). In elite library archives, a dispute over a trove. The New York Times.

Byrd, R. (2001). “One day…it will be otherwise:” Changing the Reputation and the Reality of Special Collections. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, 1(1), 163-174.

Carr, D. (2000). In the contexts of the possible: Libraries and museums as incendiary cultural institutions. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, 1(2), 117-134.

Cook, T. (1998). What is past is prologue: A history of archival ideas since 1898, and the future paradigm shift. Archivaria, 43,17-63.

Cox, R. J. (2000). The failure or future of American archival history: A somewhat unorthodox view. Libraries & Culture, 35(1), 141-154.

Day, Jessica. (2011, May 2). The New York Public Library uses crowdsourcing to update its archives. Retrieved from Crowdstation blog http://blog.ideascale.com/2011/05/02/the-new-york-public-library-uses-crowdsourcing-to-update-its-archives/

Daines, J. G & Nimer, C.L. (2009, May 18). Web 2.0 and archives. Retrieved from The Interactive Archivist blog http://interactivearchivist.archivists.org/

Dill, Emily. (2008). I'm not an archivist but I played one for a year: Lessons for librarians who step outside of their comfort zones. Indiana Libraries, 27(3), 15-17.

Greene, M.A., & Meissner, D. (2005). More product, less process: Revamping traditional archival processing. The American Archivist, 68, 208-263.

Hafner, K. (2007, March 10). History, digitized (and abridged). The New York Times.

Hirtle, P. B. (2003). Digital preservation and copyright. Copyright & Fair Use web site, Stanford University Libraries (November 2003). Reprinted in E-Business 5(2) (February, 2004), 58-64.

Library of Congress. (April 15, 2010). Twitter donates entire tweet archive to Library of Congress. Press release retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-081.html

11

http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-081.html

http://interactivearchivist.archivists.org/

http://blog.ideascale.com/2011/05/02/the-new-york-public-library-uses-crowdsourcing-to-update-its-archives/

http://blog.ideascale.com/2011/05/02/the-new-york-public-library-uses-crowdsourcing-to-update-its-archives/

http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/special-collections/papers/arrange.htm

http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/special-collections/papers/arrange.htm


Pearce-Moses, R. & Davis, S.E., eds. (2006). Proceedings from: New Skills for a Digital Era: A colloquium sponsored by National Archives and Records Administration, Society of American Archivists, and Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. Washington, D.C.

Peterson, T. H. (2007). Attitudes and access in the United States of America. Proceedings from: Japan-U.S. Archives Seminar.

The Society of American Archvists (2005). Code of ethics for archivists. Retrieved from http://www.archivists.org/governance/handbook/app_ethics.asp

Samouelian, M. (2009). Embracing Web 2.0: Archives and the newest generation of Web applications. The American Archivist, 72, 42-71.

Supple, Shannon. (2005). Memory Slain: Recovering cultural heritage in post-war Bosnia. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 1(2).

Yakel, E. & Torres, D.A. (2003). AI: Archival intelligence and user expertise. The American Archivist, 66, 51-78.

12

http://www.archivists.org/governance/handbook/app_ethics.asp