Week V & VI:

Description & Access Tools

February 23, 2011
Description
(Hunter, Chapter Six)
 “Description is the process of establishing
admin and intellectual control over archival
holdings through the preparation of finding
aids”
 Administrative Control (Finding Aids)
◦ Give Location of Collection
◦ Identify the Source (or Provenance) of the
Collection
◦ Outline the General Contents of the
Collection
Intellectual Control (Finding Aids)
 Sketch the General Nature of a
Repository‟s Holdings
 Identify the General Contents of
Individual Collections
 Offer Researchers Detailed Info about
Individual Collections
 Summarize Information on a Specific
Topics Available in Several
Collections
Categories of Finding Aids
 Internal Control Tools
◦ Accession Worksheets
◦ Location Registers
◦ Checklists
 In-House Reference Aids
◦ Container Lists
◦ Catalogs
◦ Indexes
 External Reference Aids
◦ Calendars
◦ Inventories
◦ Guides
Finding Aids (Continued)
 Container List – box numbers, folder
numbers and folder titles
 Catalog – Not typical card catalog, not
primary finding aids, point to relevant
collections
 Indexes – Frequently online now
 Calendars – Archival artifacts, detailed item-
level descriptions of collections
 Inventory (Register) – Basic archival finding
aid…provide both content and context
Inventory
 Preface
 Introduction
 Biographical Sketch or Agency History
 Scope and Content Note
◦ Shows Strengths, Weaknesses, Gaps
 Series Description
 Container Listing
 Index or Item Listing
Five Characteristics of a Good
Finding Aid
 Intended for the Researcher
 Objective about the Collection
 Aware of the Needs of a Wide Variety of
Researchers (Current & Potential)
 Clear, Concise & Consistent (Simple???)
 Efficient
Providing Intellectual Access to
Archives (Mary J. Pugh)
 Arrangement
◦ Provenance & Original Order in Everyday Life
◦ Metadata is Implicit in the Physical Environment
◦ Where did you use it last?
◦ What were you doing when you had it last?
 Power of Provenance
◦ Chain of continuous custody from the action that
created the document to the user ensures
authenticity of evidence.
◦ No later hand has added, subtracted or moved
the evidence from the actions that created it.
Hierarchy of Control
 Archivists gain control over records by
identifying a conceptual hierarchy…
 First Three Levels (Physical Manifestations
that relate function & form)
◦ Document, File Unit & Series
 Next Levels (Intellectual Constructs that
are used to manage larger aggregates of
records)
◦ Record Group, Subgroup &
Collection
Description
 The farther removed users are from the
activities that created the records, the more they
need detailed information about the
circumstances under which the records were
created and the more they rely on archival
description and reference assistance.
Information seekers, whether archivists or
researchers, need information about the
functions, forms, and content of records.
 Description is meta-information
(information about information)
History of Descriptive Systems in
the United States…
 Handwritten index cards,
 Typed catalog cards and lists,
 Published guides,
 Inventories and registers produced by word
processing and database programs but used
in paper form,
 Stand-alone local database systems,
 National bibliographic database systems, and
 Web-based catalogs, inventories, and lists.
Audio-Visual Materials
 Description of audiovisual materials such as
photographs and sound tapes has been less
standardized than description of textual records.
If available, description was idiosyncratic,
consisting of item catalogs or lists.
 Most repositories now treat nontextual materials
as they treat textual materials, preserving
provenance, maintaining original order if it is
usable, describing them in inventories, and
indexing them in integrated access tools.
 Photographs are more likely to be described at
the item level than are other nontextual materials,
but within the context of a finding aid. Individual
photographs may be retained with the documents
to which they relate
Repository Web Sites
 Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress
◦ http://www.loc.gov
 National Archives and Records Administration
◦ http://www.archives.gov
 Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan
◦ http://www.umich.edu/~bhl/
 Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections
◦ http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/
 Manuscripts and Archives,Yale University
◦ http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa
Discussion Questions???
 On page 105, Mary Jo Pugh provides the quote,
"Archives do not store memory. They offer the
possibility to create memory." What does this
mean and why is it significant to her argument
about the duties of reference archivists?
 Pugh states “Providing information from holdings
will remain an important part of reference
services because most holdings will not be
available in digital form in the foreseeable future.”
Even though this was written in 2005 is this still a
true statement today?
More Product, Less Process
(Mark A. Greene & Dennis Meissner)
 Purpose & Methodology
 The Problems with Processing
◦ One 1998 Survey – 33% Backlogged material
◦ Another 1998 Survey – 13% had more than half
unprocessed (Congressional Collections)
◦ 2003/04 Survey – 34% More than half
unprocessed
◦ 60% have at least a third unprocessed
◦ Only 44% of repositories allow researchers
access to unprocessed collections
 Why does this problem exist???
Unwilling to Change
 Applying traditional approaches to a new
problem…
 No motivation to change…
 Profession awards a higher priority to
serving collections than constituents…
 Surveys have also shown that backlogs
upset donors and researchers…
New Set of Arrangement, Preservation
and Description Guidelines:
 Expedite getting collection materials into
the hands of the user
 Assure arrangement of materials
adequate to user needs
 Take minimal steps necessary to physically
preserve collection materials
 Describe materials sufficient to promote
use
Arrangement
 Arrangement to item level impractical and
having little utility
 Should concentrate on the series level
(not even the folder level)
 Strive for Simplicity!!!
 Weeding (getting rid of copies, invoices,
fragments, etc.) – pulls archivists back to
the item!!!
Description
 Archivists have abandoned item-level
description…
 Benchmark – substantial, multilayered,
descriptive finding aid
 “Inflexibility and tradition of slow, careful,
scholarly research and writing about every
collection or record group have come to haunt
us”
 Schellenberg advises guides, catalogs and
inventories and forego detailed descriptions
of individual record items
Finding Aids
 MARC Record may double as finding aid
 The Simpler the Better
 Not cling to one-size-fits-all finding aids???
 APPM (Archives, Personal Papers and
Manuscripts)
◦ Make parallels between library and archival
cataloging clearer…
Preservation
Frederic Millers‟s SAA Manual on Arrangement & Description:

Throughout the arrangement process, the work of weeding,

separation and conservation begun during accessioning should
continue. As archivists or clerical assistants go through series and
folders, they should discard duplicates and note any groups of
records of doubtful value. . . .This is also the time to determine which
individual documents will require special conservation treatment or
copying. Clippings, scrapbooks, and brittle or mold-damaged paper
should be removed for some type of corrective action. . . . Other
records might require only unfolding, cleaning, and the removal of
tape or metal fasteners such as rusting staples or paper clips…

Greene & Meissner write “an unconscionable fraction of our

limited and—all too often—declining processing resources are being
badly spent on this and other extremely labor intensive conservation
actions…”
Authors Findings…
 The archival literature has been
inconsistent and even schizophrenic about
defining the parameters of “processing.”
 2003/04 (in-depth e-mail survey of
processing archivists across the U.S.)
 To process 1 cubic foot of materials –
average was 14.8 hours (high 250, low 4)
 The most common response was 8 hours
 This is very close to previous surveys…
 Is this acceptable???
Their Three Main Points…
 We allow our pride in craft to get in the way of our
real objective: making materials accessible to users.
◦ Only 10% of users are concerned with the tidiness of
collections…
 We have placed preservation far ahead of access in
our priorities by establishing as “proper” the removal
of metal fasteners and complete refoldering.
 We have allowed techniques appropriate to a
different age to survive unchallenged in an era
dominated by collection materials that are profoundly
different in both volume and character.
◦ Our era where acquisitions comprise a huge amount of
frequently redundant material, in myriad forms, with no
inherent appeal apart from their informational content
Discussion Questions???
 If, as Greene and Meissner suggest, one only arranges,
describes, and preserves to a series level in most
collections, does this remove the professional-level of
work needed in archival practice? Can most functions
of archival processing be completed by a novice who
will never really acquire any more skill in processing if
they simply do the minimum? How would this
damage the archival world in a professional,
educational, and societal sense?
 Greene and Meissner state that unprocessed
collections should still be available to researchers. Do
you agree or disagree? Is there any sort of ethical
question in play here?
 Are archival backlogs as much of a problem as
Greene and Meissner view them? Should it be a
priority to prevent backlogs?
Discussion Questions???
 Greene and Meissner state that we must have a flexible process
of what it is to process collections (233). In this flexibility, how
would archivists being expected to know the „appropriate‟ level
of attention that they should devote to processing?
 If not re-foldering, removing fasteners, and copying acidic
newsprint onto acid free paper, what then does preservation
only to the series level as suggested by Greene and Meissner
actually entail?
 In promoting user-friendly practices in repositories, do you find
that Pugh's and Greene & Meissner's approaches complement
or contradict one another? In what ways?
 Greene and Meissner recommend putting access and
shortening processing ahead of preservation concerns. Is this
short sighted and what are the long range implications of
diluting the standard preservation precautions in favor of
becoming faster and processing material more quickly. Who
determines what has intrinsic value and should be completely
and thoroughly processed and what does not?
Access, Reference & Outreach
(Hunter, Chapter 9)
 Archival Records EXIST to be USED…
 Access is defined as the “right, opportunity, or
means of finding, using or approaching
documents and/or information”
 Access is the authority to obtain information
from or perform research using archival
materials
 Granting Access is NOT the same as
granting permission to duplicate
materials…
Access Traditions
 Historical Manuscript Tradition
◦ Library of Congress
◦ The donor or designee approves each application
for access
◦ The donor imposes an absolute restriction on
access (usually for a fixed period of time)
◦ Ultimate Preservation is viewed as MORE
IMPORTANT than quick access…
 Public Archives Tradition
◦ National Archives
◦ Records belong to the people and should have
access to them…
Public Archives Tradition
 Restrictions – “Necessary Evil”
◦ General restriction categories are established
◦ Archivists conduct a page-by-page review of
the records against these categories
(restricting records that fit each category)
◦ Time consuming but allows fast access to
most of the collection
Administering Access
 Equal Access
 Full Access
 Competing Rights
◦ Right to Know (want all information available)
◦ Right to Privacy (live free of unwanted publicity
or intrusion)
 Restrictions
◦ Completely Closed or Sealed
◦ Partially Closed or Restricted Due to Contents
◦ Restricted for Preservation or Security Reasons
Discussion Questions???
 When discussing “Equal Access,” Hunter puts forth
the following example: “An astrologer, considering
sending his son to North Fork, visited the archives to
examine the founding documents of the university. He
wanted to know if the stars were favorable for his
son‟s academic career at NFU” (211). He asks, “Is this
the kind of researcher that the university wishes to
encourage? If the records are open, should they be
open to everyone willing to abide by the rules and
regulations? Is it the archivist‟s responsibility to
determine the worthiness of a research request?”
 What advantages/disadvantages would an archival
facility have for accepting a “completely closed”
collection? For how long, on average, do these types
of collections remain “completely closed”?
Reference
 Providing Information
◦ Info about their holdings (part of the archivists
mission)
◦ Info from their holdings (mail, telephone, email
requests)
 Assisting with Research Visits
◦ Entrance Interview
◦ Reference Room Activities
◦ Exit Interview
Discussion Questions???
 On pages 216-217, Hunter says, "Contrary to popular
opinion, (the researcher of interpretation) no longer
is the major user of archives. Researchers of fact
now predominate (archival use) . . . They are looking
for specific information and they want to find it as
soon as possible." In light of this statement, what is
your opinion of Greene & Meissner's proposition for
changes to processing? Do you think that level of
processing would be efficient to helping a researcher
who is looking for a specific piece of information?
Why or why not?
 Is the increase in “fact” researchers due to the trend
of archives to work towards greater availability of
collections for researchers? Or is the increase in
“fact” researchers due to the Wikipedia society of
today?
Entrance Interview
 Confirm the identity of the researcher
 Determine the researcher‟s needs
 Discuss the exchange of researchers
information
 Explain the institution‟s rules and
regulations
 Explain the use of finding aids
 Explain fees
Reference Room Activities
 Researchers check all personal belongings
 Researchers sign a log book each day they
are in the reference room
 Researchers complete a call slip for each
collection or part of a collection
 Staff members retrieve requested material
 One staff member is always in the reference
room to watch researchers
 Researchers return the records to the
archives staff
 Researchers leave the reference room
Exit Interview
 Often not done or overlooked…
 Takes the form of a conversation…
 How valuable where the collections to you?
Did they contain what you thought they
would?
 How helpful were the finding aids?
 Did you encounter any problems?
 Was anything missing or out of order?
 How helpful were the staff members?
 Do you know of other repositories with
related collections?
Making Duplicates
 Question of Copyright???
 Is it for personal research?
 Published or unpublished?
 Paper or another format?
 Does the archivist make the copy?
 Does the researcher make the copy?
Outreach & Promotion
 Define your public?
 Typical Activities
◦ Exhibits
◦ Public Performances
◦ Newsletters
◦ Presenting at Meetings & Conferences
◦ Tours
◦ Newspaper Articles
◦ Radio or TV Appearances
◦ Website(s)
◦ In-House Receptions
Discuss Questions???
 In Hunter‟s discussion of outreach and
promotion, how easy is it to define one‟s publics?
How many different approaches and elements
should/could one use in implementation of
outreach programs? Can you have too many
options? Are certain outreach programs
better/more efficient than others?
 Hunter neglects to mention the use of the
Internet and the tools it offers in promoting
outreach. Blogs, websites, and social networking
sites like Facebook are all effective tools for
promoting archives. Is neglecting to mention
these effective tools of outreach a flaw in this
week‟s reading?