Baptist Research and Statistics

On Wednesday, May 31, I will be speaking at the ALABI meeting in Richmond, Virginia. I am involved in a section on Baptist Research and Statistics. Basically, I will be looking at the way researchers at my institution use Baptist statistics, and proposing a way that I think librarians, Lifeway, and the entire Southern Baptist Convention could work together to better preserve and make accessible our data. My proposal is just an idea that I had, and should in no way be construed as anything more than this. I would love for the convention to consider it, but it could be nothing more than one archivist's pipe dream. I will try to post a series that will better explain all this later, along with what I see as the advantages and disadvantages of my proposal.

As a service to those attending, I include the text that will appear in my Power Point presentation below. For the record, the section on connectors, mavens, and salesmen is taken from Malcom Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point.

• How researchers at SBTS use statistics
  • To answer cultural questions
  • To corroborate findings
  • To analyze worldview patterns
  • To analyze church health
  • For background information on a potential employer
• Statistical resources researchers use
  • Diaries, journals, serendipitous reading
  • Reports from Joshua Project and IMB
  • World Christian Database and CIA World Fact Book
  • Baptist newspapers
  • Baptist Minutes
  • Southern Baptist Directory Service
  • Baptist Quarterly Review
• What SBTS Researchers Want
  • The nearly impossible
  • Ease of access to Baptist statistics
  • Ease of access to non-Baptist statistics
  • Standardized data
• Difficulties for creating access
  • Acquisition Issues
    • Collecting minutes takes time and space
    • Who is responsible?
  • Preservation Issues
    • CD-ROMs
    • Proprietary formats
• An Answer
  • A web based solution for Baptist minutes
    • Multi-platform
    • Open Source
    • LAMP
    • Exports to multiple formats (XML, HTML, PDF, .txt, .doc)
  • Able to handle all types of minutes
    • All levels (Convention, State, Associational, Church)
    • All time periods (retrospective and prospective)
    • All data (statistics, reports, circular letters, queries, list of ministers)
  • A Convention wide effort
    • Promoted and underwritten by Lifeway
      • In conjunction with the research initiative
      • Lightning press printing of minutes
    • Able to be contributed to by people at every level
      • Spreads labor
      • Many eyes looking at it
• What can we do
  • Volunteer to help work on an answer
  • Talk to others about preservation and access problems
    • Connectors– unique people who connect us to everyone else
    • Mavens– those who accumulate knowledge
    • Salesmen– persuade people to accept new information

    Urge better statistic gathering practices

  • Make relationships with archivists from other denominations

The Difference between Archives and Manuscripts

Because I am a librarian, I believe that those who search should find. Someone was led to this site today after having used the search string "difference between archives and manuscripts."

I don't know who the searcher was, but if he or she feels kinda like Bono did back in 1987, (i.e. I still haven't found what I'm looking for,) then I have some good news.

Here are the glossary definitions that the Society of American Archivists provides for archives and manuscript. The differences there should be fairly obvious.

A Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers (The Society of American Archivists, 1992), edited by Lewis J. Bellardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo, defines archives as "The non-current records of an organization or institution preserved because of their continuing value." It also defines manuscript as "A handwritten or typed document."

The University of Maryland also describes the differences between archives and manuscripts in this FAQ.

Personally, I think that the difference between the two lies in who created the documents and why they were created. If documents were created by an organization, institution, business, agency, or individual for legal obligations or business transactions, they are archives. If they were created or collected by individuals or families for reasons other than these, they are manuscripts.

There is some ambiguity inherent in the way I view the distinction. For example, personal papers (i.e. a type of manuscript collection) often contain information about business transations such as land purchases, stocks, and investments. But these series within the overall collection are generally small portions of the overall collection and do not represent the character of the whole. Still, I think that evaluating the character and function of records generally yields a pretty clear distinction between these two types of collections.

A Modern Archives Reader Book Review

• Daniels, Maygene and Timothy Walch, editors. A Modern Archives Reader, Washington: National Archives and Records Administration, 1984.

A Modern Archives Reader is an archival science reader that was developed by the National Archives and Records Administration. It includes readings on archival history, records administration, appraisal, acquisition, arrangement, description, reference, public programs, and archival management. The work is now over twenty years old, but many of the articles are valuable, especially the articles written by Posner, Schellenberg, Ham, and Jenkinson. The chapter on arrangement includes two essays. In the first, Ernst Posner outlines developments that have happened in archives since the French Revolution. Posner notes that the French Revolution provided a centralized national archives, put the state in charge of records, and provided for the accessibility of records. Then he traces the development of archives administration, legislation, and the concept of respect des fonds. The second article on history provides Sir Hilary Jenkinson's reflections on being an archivist. Jenkinson stresses that archives come together naturally, are used for unintended reasons, have an important custodial history, and have the potential for helping anyone in the world.

The chapter on appraisal contains an article on appraisal by Schellenberg. In this article, he sets forth the several distinctions between primary and secondary values, and informational and evidential values. Schellenberg sees these distinctions as important to understanding archives. He supplies tests to apply for evidential and informational values. Leonard Rapport also offers an article that in some respects is a reassessment of Schellenberg's ideas. He argues that some accessions should be re-accessioned, and that sometimes this should occur to reduce bulk and to dispose of records that are not worthy of being kept. The acquisitions chapters offer advice on developing a collecting policy, developing collections, performing field work, and deed of gifts.

The chapter on arrangement offers articles by Schellenberg and Oliver Wendell Holmes on the levels of arrangement. While both chapters are detailed, Holmes offers instruction on even boxing, shelving, and labeling files. A chapter on organizing photographic collections also recommends that photographic collections be treated as collections, rather than individual items. It notes that there are (at least at the time the article was written) no standards for cataloging photographic collections. There are also sections dealing with finding aids, inventories, registries, and subject guides.

In the chapter of reference, Mary Jo Pugh contends for indexes within archives in order to provide adequate access points to collections that have a provenance based arrangement. Finally, Gerald Ham treats the processes at work in archival selection in an article entitled, The Archival Edge. He notes that many have criticized archivists for having a slipshod methodology when it comes to selection. Ham himself enquires why archivists document the experience of humanity so poorly. He offers five developments that force archivists to be more active: institutionalization, bulk, missing data, vulnerable records, and technology. For archivists to adjust to these changes and select materials well, Ham suggests that they must change their habits, be committed to developing national guidelines, allocate resources better to collect missing data, and actively engage in documenting culture.

“A Comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal” Review

 

• Tschan, Reto. "A Comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal," The American Archivist 65 (2002): 176-195.

The SAA awarded Reto Tschan the Theodore Calvin Pease Award in 2002 for this article. The article addresses the history of archival appraisal or selection. Tschan sets forth the respective selection theories of Jenkinson and Schellenberg. He says that Jenkinson stressed both authenticity and impartiality in archives largely through taking archivists out of the appraisal process. Jenkinson believed that the context of records was important and that any appraisal or selection of "valuable" records on the part of an archivist destroyed the context. He points out that Schellenberg's work was to be a rebuttal to Jenkinson's theories. Although Schellenberg stressed respect des fonds, he also contended that because modern records are bulky, some selection must take place. According to him, selecting the records to include in an archives takes place on the basis of secondary values. Archives are records that have enough secondary value to keep permanently.

Because bulky records were a problem, both Schellenberg and Jenkinson proposed solutions. Schellenberg believed that the archivist, in conjunction with records creators and other qualified consultants, should select which records are valuable enough to be retained. Jenkinson, on the other hand, believed that records creators should select which records are valuable enough to be retained while they are still in use. The archivist was a neutral party to the whole process.

Tschan points out that proponents later theories of appraisal, such as documentation strategy and functional analysis, tried to reject the theories of both Schellenberg and Jenkinson because they ultimately led to a narrow selection that does not provide sufficient documentation of society. Both of these strategies tried to somehow include society in the selection process. He notes that these theories still use Schellenberg's conception of value. Others have taken a "neo-Jenkinsonian" approach to records, wherein they agree to consult with records creators about what records should be created, but they do not select which records should be preserved. Tschan attributes the rise of Jenkinsonian theories in the U.S. to the rise of electronic formats. Some want to deal with these new formats by keeping in their contexts as much as possible. However, a post-custodial school has developed that wants to select electronic records that will be beneficial. This, of course, is closely tied to Schellenberg's value judgments.

Samuel Rutherford Quote of the Day

"I entreat you, Madam, let me have two lines from you concerning your present condition. I know ye are in grief and heaviness; and if it were not so, ye might be afraid, because then your way should not be so like the way that (our Lord said) leadeth to the New Jerusalem. Sure I am, if ye knew what were before you, or if ye saw but some glances of it, ye would with gladness swim through the present floods of sorrow, spreading forth your arms out of a desire to be at land."

–February 1, 1630 letter from S. R. to Lady Kenmure, after she had left his parish. 

Samuel Rutherford Quote of the Day

"What ye love more than Jesus, your husband, is an adulterous lover."

–January 15, 1629 letter to from S. R. to Lady Kenmure 
 

Keeping Archives Book Review

• Ellis, Judith, editor. Keeping Archives, 2nd edition. Port Melbourne: D. W. Thorpe and Society of Australian Archivists, 1993.

I admire things Australian. Crocodile Dundee. Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter. My sister, niece, and brother-in-law. Mel Gibson. Olivia Newton John. Keith Urban. All these are of Australian provenance. Actually, my sister and niece have an American provenance, but they are now dual citizens, and an unbroken custodial history verifies that their citizenship is authentic. Jenkinson would be proud…

Keeping Archives is a product of Australia, and the work was produced in conjunction with the Society of Australian Archivists. It is an archival manual that covers literally every area of archival theory. It is the second best one volume treatment of archives that I have seen, the best being William Maher's The Management of College and University Archives. I will admit, I am partial to Maher because he addresses the context within which I work. His work was the first work on archives that I read, and what I learned from it has served me well. I do wish the SAA would update that volume, but I digress. Like Maher's work, Keeping Archives is now a bit dated. It contains very little treatment about electronic records because in 1993, electronic records were not nearly the concern that they are now. Additionally, it does not treat EAD, Dublin Core, or other newer standards because they did not exist when this volume was published, but you can't blame the authors for not being prescient.

Despite being a product of Australia, it addresses archival theory in a way that is useful to archivists from other nationalities. Keeping Archives is unabashedly Jenkisonian in its approach to archives and recommends focusing on record series rather than record groups. Despite this fact, the chapter on appraisal and disposal recognizes a distinction between evidential and informational values in records, a distinction that is usually associated with Schellenberg's theories.

In my opinion, the most valuable contribution that this manual makes is its recommendations for constructing the various types of forms and paperwork that an archives needs in order to document its activities. Towards the end of nearly every chapter, the authors provide recommendations, requirements, and examples for constructing these types of documentation. Keeping Archives also has a number of case studies related to archival tasks such as arrangement and description. The book also includes a number of extremely helpful tables. For example, the chapter on finding aids describes the various types of finding aids that are available to archivists. If nothing else, these types of tables are valuable for training student workers about the correct terminology for the various types of finding aids that they create on a regular basis.

Another strength of the book is the chapter on getting organized. Basically, this chapter is a short treatment on managing archival repositories. The author addresses five broad areas that archivists need to manage: yourself, information needed, people, financial resources, and facilities. Particularly helpful are the author's suggestions for organizing yourself. She supplies information that is useful for helping archivists managing everything from time to projects to diet. I would recommend any archivist to at least inter-library loan Keeping Archives, if for no other reason than to read this short chapter on management. Keeping Archives is an extremely valuable book, and new archivists should probably purchase this book as soon as they consume Elizabeth Yakel's Starting an Archives and David Carmicheal's Organizing Archival Records.

“The EAD Cookbook: A Survey and Usability Study” Review

 

• Prom, Christopher. "The EAD Cookbook: A Survey and Usability Study," American Archivist 65 (2002): 257-275.

This article provides summary results of a survey and usability study of the EAD Cookbook, a guide designed to ease the implementation of the Encoded Archival Description standard for finding aids. Prom notes that many have questioned whether EAD is a viable option for archival institutions to use in producing finding aids because of the difficulties in implementing EAD creation. The EAD Cookbook was designed to help institutions use this standard, but Prom asks whether the cookbook itself is efficient and easy to use for archives. To determine this, Prom surveyed a number of individuals who had used the cookbook to create EAD finding aids at the institutions for which they work.

Prom surveyed individuals from institutions of various sizes. The result of Prom's survey highlighted several points. At the time of the survey, most of the respondents had not yet mounted their EAD finding aids on the internet. Many users had self-taught computer skills. Some felt that in order to use the cookbook, one had to have a pretty good handle on technology. Others felt that there were several bugs in it. Despite negative reaction by some respondents, others felt that the source was an invaluable tool to their EAD projects. Prom covers some basic points about the usability of EAD and the way people search. He supplies the results of a "Google test" to which he subjected finding aids from some of the institutions he surveyed. The results were less than to be desired on finding aids that had been modified in substantial ways that differed from the cookbook. He believes that the EAD Cookbook is an effective tool, but that more tools are needed for making EAD easier to implement.

“The Rise of Confidentiality” Review

• Cox, Dwayne. "The Rise of Confidentiality: State Courts on Access to Public Records During the Mid-twentieth Century," American Archivist 68 (2005): 313-322.

Dwayne Cox's article describes the gradual shift that occurred in American jurisprudence with regard to public records. This article was the second article on this topic that Cox has published in American Archivist. Prior to the late 1800s, America upheld the English common law tradition that stressed that access to public records was dependent upon demonstrating "a 'direct and tangible' interest in the information." American law shifted, though, as more and more people began to believe that access to these records was a right for citizens. As the push for access increased, more and more types of records were deemed confidential. Cox sets forth the history of legal cases regarding public records in the United States.

Several salient points emerge from Cox's article. The situation Cox describes seems to suggest that courts were more likely to say that businesses had a tangible interest than individuals. Of course, this would not be that surprising since businesses often have the extra money needed to pursue legal action. Cox notes that Kentucky was one of the most staunch adherents to the common law standard (It's just interesting to me because I live in Kentucky.) It also seems to me, from the article, that often the requirements for confidentiality were applied unevenly and often in defense of the government's interests, rather than the public's good, not that these two things have to be exclusive of one another. Finally, Cox notes that the laws that restrict access to records are often given names that stress the openness of records, which is a practice that he detests.

Samuel Rutherford Quote of the Day

"Build your nest upon no tree here; for ye see God hath sold the forest to death; and every tree whereupon we would rest is ready to be cut down, to the end we may fly and mount up, and build upon the Rock, and dwell in the holes of the Rock."

–January 15, 1629 letter to from S. R. to Lady Kenmure

The Samuel Rutherford Quote of the Day is a new feature here at NeoArch. I mentioned Rutherford in a post on Saturday, and I have decided to read at least one letter a day. The great thing about Rutherford's letters is that they are all quotable (if not all, at least the ones Andrew Bonar selected for publication.) Banner of Truth now publishes a nice hardback edition of these letters in addition to the abbreviated Puritan Paperback version that they have published for some time now. If you like the Rutherford quotes, get the book. There's tons more in it. I would link the book, but the hardback is so new that none of the bookstores I found have it listed yet.