NeoArch

• Boles, Frank. Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts, Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2005.

Frank Boles's Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts assesses the often troubling and convoluted subject of archival selection. Boles believes that selection is a more accurate term than appraisal because it is more transparent about the fact that (gasp!) archivists sometimes have to determine to throw things away (all of you theologians can think of it as the archival version of passive reprobation.) Boles believes that archivists select because selection is a societal need, and archivists are the best trained professionals for selecting.

Boles surveys the history of theories on selection, and he notes that the waters are now muddied concerning what archivists should do in regard to selection. Several proposals have been offered. The english archivist, Hillary Jenkinson, proposed that archiving was almost purely an administrative activity. In essence, he advised that archivists keep rather than select. T. R. Schellenberg, the former NARA archivist, emphasized selecting materials with reference to secondary users. In other words, Schellenberg seems to have believed in archiving for the purpose of history and culture. Later, Gerald Ham contended that selection involved selecting records that document evidence of the human experience. Most archivists since the 1970s have found some position between Schellenberg and Jenkinson. A practical school developed that was more Schellenbergian. It tried to build a better framework for selection, but it lacked the focus on documenting cultural history. Several other movements and tools (New Paradigm, Macro Appraisal, Functional Analysis, Risk Management, AS 4390) leaned more toward the Jenkensonian model in downplaying cultural history and secondary users because their proponents believed that archives are just records. Other archivists have countered that some records (ie. Constitution, Declaration of Independence) have symbolic value and are culturally important.

Boles proposes several broad principles for selection that can apply, in some measure, to any archives. First, archivists may select for a variety of goals as befits the institution. Second, selection can occur at any time. An archivist can participate in the creation of records, or save them from being destroyed. Finally, both the context (ie. Jenkinson) and content (ie. Schellenberg) of records matter. The purposes of the institution or repository will determine how to balance these factors.

Boles contends that selection should be based on an archives's mission. He notes that there are basically two types of repositories, each of which has different missions. Institutional archives exist to document the life and work of an institution. Collecting repository documents records dealing within a certain predefined subject area. Often, especially in educational settings, these two functions are combined. Both types of institutions often have broad mandates, and both should have collecting policies that govern the types of records they collect. Boles discusses the ways that records management, records schedules, records continuums, and functional analysis apply to archives and noted that strengths and weaknesses of each.

Boles argues that the taxonomy for selection on the micro-appraisal level falls into three broad categories: value of information, cost, and political implications. Boles fully describes many factors involved in assessing each of these categories.

Boles describes a six step model for selection that included defining goals and understanding the scope of the repository's collections; determining the types of records that are "out there"; prioritizing materials to acquire; defining the functions and documentary levels to acquire; selecting records based upon the above steps; periodic updating of the selection model (at least every five years). Finally, Boles offers arguments for why non-textual formats should be given equal consideration in selection despite their attendant difficulties.

Forget about Reader’s Digest’s Word Power. You can now increase your vocabulary through the online OED emailing you a word of the day. Today’s word is twelve-incher. I didn’t even know that was a word, but I think I could have figured out what it meant. Apparently O. Henry was the first to use it in print.

• Benedict, Karen, editor. Ethics and the Archival Profession: Introduction and Case Studies, Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2003.

The Society of American Archivists's Ethics and the Archival Profession is a an explanation of the 1992 revision of their "Code of Ethics for Archivists." The 2005 revision of this document is available from the SAA website. The code governs the ethical conduct of archivists, and the SAA's original code was the first ethical code developed for archivists. Karen Benedict strives, in this work, to make a firm distinction between ethical and professional principles. Ethical principals are the moral obligations incumbent upon a practicioner of a profession. Issues of professional conduct are generally issues regarding how an archivist relates to patrons, other archives, and his or her institution of employment. Benedict notes that both the 1980 and 1992 versions of the code include items that deal with the ethical and the professional. In my opinion, the 2005 revision of the code appears to be more narrowly focused upon the ethical obligations of the profession.

Benedict outlines several practical areas that ethics affects within institutions. She notes that the code recommends that institutions avoid competition. This recommendation raises several questions pertaining to how archivists practically do this. Another area of practical concern is donor relations. This is of concern because relating to donors often touches upon legal issues (right to privacy, taxes, intellectual property) and ethical issues (access, confidentiality, and authenticity.) Other practical areas for ethics include professional benchmarks regarding issues such as staffing and budget. These issues determine how well archives can preserve collections.

Benedict also points out that there are distinctions between laws and ethics. Occasionally, these two come into conflict. Archivists may be required by law to do what is professionally unethical. Likewise, in striving to be ethical, they may be required to break the law. Benedict recommends that in such circumstances, archivists much act in accord with conscience with full understanding of the potential consequences for their actions. The main areas of legality that archivists generally have to reckon with are issues of privacy rights and property rights. Privacy rights can affect restiricting materials or selecting collections. Property rights can affect areas such as theft. Archivists should be aware of the laws that govern these areas and should assure their donors that they are aware of the legal obligations in these areas.

The remainder of Benedict's work provides a variety of helpful case studies that touch upon every area of the 1992 revision of the code. Benedict provides several helpful appendices, one of which includes the 1992 revision of the "Code of Ethics for Archivists." Although many of the sections of the code have now changed, the issues addressed in this book are of enduring value. Although many of the case studies no longer apply to the newly released code, they still serve as helpful guides to appropriate professional conduct for archivists.

Some days are easier to be a Gamecock fan than others. Today is a good example. The University of South Carolina Fighting Gamecocks scratched the Kentucky Wildcats from the SEC tournament. For those who do not know the significance of this event, it is the first time in history (that’s right, in history) that the Kentucky Wildcats have lost in the semi-finals of the SEC tourney. When you’re a Gamecock fan living in Big Blue country, you have to savor these moments. Go Cocks!

For those intereseted in fopacs (ie. folksonomic OPACs) check out a working example in the University of Pennsylvania’s library catalog. If anyone knows of another good example of a fopac, please feel free to leave a link to it in a comment.

My administrator had a great idea recently. He wanted to be able to discuss important books and ideas with the staff, and yet he did not want to overly tax our time. So, he enlisted the help of a bright, active patron to write brief book reviews and present ideas that our staff could discuss a couple of times a month. Since he started this activity, we have discussed such books as Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat and Oliver O’Donovan’s Common Objects of Love and discussed the potential impact they could have on our library. He recently had the patron, Matt Crawford, research the concept of Library 2.0 for the staff. Some of our staff were very familiar with the concept, and others were not. I thought Matt did a pretty good job of presenting the idea, so I asked his permission to publish his piece on my blog. So, if you would like to read a patron’s summary of Library 2.0, you can download it at the link below.

Library 2.0: A Summary of What’s Been Said So Far

• Tibbo, Helen R. and Lokman I. Meho. "Finding Finding Aids on the World Wide Web," American Archivist 64 (2001): 61-77.

This article surveys the findability of archival finding aids on the World Wide Web. The authors note that multiple standards (MARC-AMC, EAD) have been developed for placing finding aids on the web in some form or fashion. They point out that many believe that mounting finding aids on the web makes them inherently more findable. This belief is common despite the fact that the various search engines on the web use a variety of different algorithims and methods of indexing. The authors wanted to test whether or not this was actually the case.

To test the findability of web based finding aids, the authors searched among nearly two-thousand archives listed on the University of Idaho Special Collections site. To be included in the project, an archive had to have at least 4 complete HTML finding aids mounted on the web. The finding aids had to have the minimum requirements for finding aids listed in Frederic Miller's Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts. The author's finally selected a sample group of 25 institutions. They also selected six popular search engines with which to run their test. The authors tested each engine to see how it would find specific finding aids using either keywords or specific strings. They also tested to see if their results would improve if they searched multiple search engines. The researchers offer several sets of statistics on searching. Their findings are probably a bit dated by now, though. At the time of the writing of the article, they referred to Google as one of the lesser known search engines. However, their suggestions for how to improve searching are probably still valid. I would be interested to see how this same test would perform today, especially now that search engines like Google have the ability to find XML based finding aids such as EAD.

The Family Man Librarian has a post with interesting insights on the subject of folksonomic OPACs (or fopacs as I like to call them). I think he is correct when he says,

After thinking about this further, I am wondering if I’m pursuing this from a logical point of view as an “either/or” situation. (Taxonomies or folksonomies.) Instead I think it is really, or will really be, a “both/and” situation.

If libraries move toward incorporating folksonomies into their OPACs, it probably should not be used to replace the traditional taxonomies that librarians have created to categorize books. One reason is because library OPACs differ from web-based applications such as Tim Spalding’s LibraryThing. (By the way, Spalding’s comments in the Family Man Librarian’s post are worth reading. I really hope someone takes him up on it.) OPACs differ primarily in the way that books are cataloged. They cataloging data initially comes into the OPAC through catalogers, not users. With LibraryThing, every book gets a tag because users provide them when they load their records. If libraries were to scrap cataloging classification data (which I could never see happening) then the possibility exists that some books would not get tagged because a user never looked for the book. What I am saying is that if libraries ever really design fully functional fopacs, the folksonomic part of the OPAC will have to act merely as a supplement to traditional cataloging classifications. It must. Otherwise, not every book will have the classification data it needs.

I would be interested to see a fopac that not only incorporated Tim Spalding’s LibraryThing data, but that also added to it. I don’t know if this could ever happen, because the data in LibraryThing is dependent upon user accounts, and libraries, especially academic libraries, constantly purge accounts. But if it could, if an entire movement of libraries could participate in such a venture, then I believe libraries would see an extremely useful supplement to their traditional data. Likewise, I think the data that library patrons could provide would be a nice supplement to the data LibraryThing already has. LibraryThing only improves the more people use it.

In my opinion, considering the use of folksonomies in OPACs does not mean that the traditional classification data that libraries have is not good. It’s great. It’s irreplaceable. It stems from the work of generations of librarians who have been dedicated to helping patrons find the materials they need. But it is also able to be improved. If not, why issue periodic updates to the Dewey and LC classifications? The very fact that classifications undergo “tweaking” means that we know they can be improved. So if they can be improved, why not supplement them? Would it be possible for libraries to have an OPAC that recognizes what librarians call things and what patrons call things? I hope so. What would happen if we put traditional cataloging data, LibraryThing, and a highly visual OPAC in a blender? Probably something special. It’s just my opinion, but I think if both types of data could be incorporated and added to an OPAC with a powerful interactive visual interface, like AquaBrowser, we would see a fopac that every patron could fall in love with.

• O'Light, Michelle and Tom Hry. "Colophons and Annotations: New Directions for the Finding Aid," American Archivist 65 (2002): 216-230.

In this article, the authors address the problem of subjectivity within finding aids. Finding aids by nature are subjective. When archivists create finding aids, a process of selection takes place during which certain important contextual information is left omitted. Likewise, the items included in the finding aid only present one person's view of what is important within it. The authors note that postmodern theory, which stresses relativism and subjectivity, has already been applied to the field of archives in a variety of ways. The theory affected acquisition by making archivists focus on collecting the papers of under-documented groups. It also affected description by forcing archivists to recognize that even in striving to maintain original order, they still use well-developed social constructs for ordering materials. Archival standards actually even help to mask the problem by lending "an aura of objectivity to our descriptions."

Although several responses to the problem have been suggested, these authors contend that adding colophons to finding aids could alleviate the problem. A colophon is a note that occurs at the end of a text and describes how the text was created. Within a colophon, the creator could describe information such as his or her education level and how he or she ordered the papers. Likewise, the use of annotations could allow either the creator or patrons to highlight or describe items within a collection. This could take place in text or electronically.

Ouch. That’s all one can say after reading Gene Wojciechowski’s latest article. Ouch.