New Tool for Archivists

I mentioned earlier that the Archivist’s Toolkit had been released. Tomorrow, the Archon Project is scheduled to release version 1.10 of Archon. I played with version 1. It was easy to install and a very powerful tool. The digital library function was particularly promising. I noticed a couple of bugs in version 1 while testing it, so I didn’t put it into production. I am fairly certain that these bugs will be remedied in this latest release, and I cannot wait until I get the time to install and test it. All the folks at UIUC who were involved in this project need to be congratulated for their vision and vigor because they brought such a project into being. What an interesting and exciting time it is to be an archivist!

Arranging & Describing Archives & Manuscripts Book Review

• Roe, Kathleen D . Arranging & Describing Archives & Manuscripts, Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2005.

Kathleen Roe’s Arranging & Describing Archives & Manuscripts is part of the Society of American Archivists’ Archival Fundamentals Series II. It replaces Frederic Miller’s book of the same title. Both are extremely valuable books, and in my opinion, they complement one another. Miller’s book reads more like a manual. It is very thorough, and I have reviewed it already. Roe’s contribution is an easier read and seems in many places to be carefully, thoughtfully worded. Take, for example, her description of the task of arrangement. “To accomplish [description], the archivist must first arrange records, that is, identify the intellectual pattern existing in the materials, then make sure their physical organization reflects that pattern” (7-8, emphasis mine). I wish someone had described it to me that way when I first began working in archives. That description is nearly perfect and exceptionally graceful. In short, Roe’s work reads more like an introduction to arrangement and description than Miller’s work.

The book begins with an overview of what archives and description (A&D) is and how it relates to other tasks the archivist undertakes like appraisal, preservation, and reference. It then has a chapter on the core concepts for A&D, a chapter that summarizes how A&D practices have developed over time, and a chapter on the practice of A&D The latter chapter makes up the bulk of the book. In the core concepts chapter, Roe does a good job of distinguishing archives from related institutions like libraries and museums. Likewise, she emphasizes strongly that description should begin at the highest level.

Chapter three is essentially a historical overview of A&D practice, especially in the U. S. and Canada. She briefly details the development of standards like MARC, APPM, EAD, DACS, RAD, and ISAD(G). The final chapter examines A&D practice. Although it does not read as manual-like as Miller’s work, Roe provides a solid foundation for thinking through the entire process of A&D, from accessioning to developing finding aids.

The one subject that I wish Roe would have treated more thoroughly is how to implement standardization within one’s collections. I suppose that thorough discussions of implementing EAD and DACS are more appropriate for extended works rather than introductions, but I was hoping for more from this book in that area.

While reading this work, I often found myself thinking, “she just answered a question I have been thinking about for some time.” This entire work contains excellent and well-placed insets with pertinent examples to the subject being discussed. Additionally, Roe offers several appendices that give extended examples and case studies. The case studies prove especially helpful in providing practical advice for dealing with rather difficult arrangement decisions. All in all, I would recommend this book highly, especially to novice archivists.

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.

“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.

“User Interaction with Electronic Finding Aids in a Controlled Setting,” Review

• Prom, Christopher. “User Interaction with Electronic Finding Aids in a Controlled Setting,” American Archivist 67 (2004): 234-268.

This article presents the results of tests that were conducted by the archives at the University of Illinois to determine how different types of potential patrons interact with various types of electronic finding aids. Prom describes the methodology used for the tests. The tests used a variety of types of participants. Some had used archives before. Some were archival novices. Some had computer experience but no archives experience. Some had archives experience, but little computer experience. The tests had a good mix of people that probably fairly represent the types of patrons an archivist would encounter. The participants were tested to see if they could find specific information at several types of sites. Some sites used searchable EAD, but others used non searchable EAD, HTML, or PDF.

There were several points in the article in which I was particularly interested. First, Prom’s findings
regarding PDF were that most participants did not like it. Not surprisingly, they felt that it was bulky and it took a long time to search. Second, search interfaces should be fairly simple and straightforward, and they should “avoid archival terminology.” Those participants who had either computer or archival experience were most successful and used the least amount of time to find what they needed. Clear mapping and browsing functions often helped searchers find what they need more efficiently than a search box. Prom also notes that users often use browser functions like CTRL+F to find the data for which they are searching. He suggests that archivists probably should not do anything that will cause this feature not to work (ie. like dividing the finding aid up into multiple pages) , unless they have a complex search system in place that can more than make up for it.

“Picking Our Text” Review

• MacNeil, Heather. "Picking Our Text: Archival Description, Authenticity, and the Archivist as Editor," The American Archivist 68 (2005): 264-278.

In this article, Heather MacNeil examines the issue of authenticity as related to archival description. She admittedly writes from a postmodern perspective, and she intends to reexamine an area that has largely been ignored. She argues that more work should be done examining the relationship between description and authenticity. She says that textual criticism offers a parallel for what the archivist often does in describing a collection, because both textual critics and archivists are trying, as much as possible, to describe an authentic representation of an original body of work.

She says that comparing textual criticism and description could mean several things. First, she contends that archivists should be up front about the nature of their work by admitting that they play an influential role on the way that later researchers interpret a collection. Second, she contends that finding aids are socio-historical texts, and that the changes that take place in them shape the way that researchers understand a collection. Third, she suggests that archivists should be open, in some way, to showing the various iterations of the text of a finding aid over time. This can be attained, largely, through the use of annotations, although one does not want to overuse them. She ends by noting that further exploration of this topic needs to be pursued.

Describing Archives: A Content Standard Book Review

• Describing Archives: A Content Standard. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2004.

Sitting down to read Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) falls somewhere between reading Chicago Manual of Style and stereo instructions on the enjoyment level (despite its length, I prefer to read the former.) DACS is a replacement standard for the Society of American Archivists' Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts. DACS was designed to be a descriptive standard that can be used within various types of systems for recording descriptive data, and the authors of DACS go to great lengths to stress the standard's independence from the systems that output descriptions. An archivist can use DACS within EAD, MARC 21, or various in-house systems for storing data about collections. The book has three sections that treat how to describe materials, creators, and names. DACS avoids the problem of not providing more than five levels of arrangement and description by requiring that "an information system employ some means of linking ogether the various levels of description." The standard does not, however, provide instructions for description at the item level or lower. DACS notes that the variety of types of materials prevents providing rules for description at that level.

DACS provides a brief overview of the principles that undergird it. These principles highlight issues such as the uniqueness of archival materials, respect des fonds, the difference between arrangement and description, the nature of description, and the necessity of describing the creators of archival materials. As stated above, DACS strives to be independent of any type of access tool. DACS does encourage, however, the creation of access points within whatever tool the archivist uses to store the data. In other words, by supplying archivists with a standard way of presenting necessary descriptive data such as names, places, subjects, documentary forms, occupations, and functions, DACS creates access points for finding resources in much the same way that judicious use of the Library of Congress Subject Headings creates access points for finding books.

The code is structured in such a way as to prevent redundancy and to make sure that the content of each element is mutually exclusive. Because output standards vary, DACS does not require a specific order for elements that one includes in a description. One helpful provision that DACS makes is that it often suggests where information to supply for a certain element can be contained. For example, it may say something like, "Take the information from other descriptions of archival materials," or "Derive the information from the materials themselves and repository policy." These locations are not always intuitive when one is processing collections. DACS also provides other types of useful information like how to determine what the appropriate title for a collection is. Finally, DACS is also helpful because it allows for a good deal of leaway in how one describes records. DACS recognizes that collections, materials, funds, practices, and capabilities vary greatly from institution to institution. Additionally, archivists differ in the way they describe collections. Rather than supplying a wooden standard that falls into disuse, DACS offers archivists a tool that can be appropriated in developing in-house description policies that in turn bring consistency to descriptive practices.

“Organizing Archival Records: A Practical Method of Arrangement and Description for Small Archives,” Book Review

• Carmicheal, David W. Organizing Archival Records: A Practical Method of Arrangement and Description for Small Archives, 2nd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004. 

David Carmicheal's Organizing Archival Records is one of the best guides available for aiding archivists of small institutions in processing their collections. The book is simple, short, and practical. Carmichael not only describes the process for arranging and describing collections in this work, he also provides practical helps such as case studies and exercises that flesh out exactly what he is describing. Additionally, the book contains a CD-ROM that includes a database system that a small archives can use to manage its collections. This book provides a solid basis for training new workers in archives on how to process collections, and because of its brevity and lack of technical jargon, even a new worker should be able to read it within the span of an afternoon. If a new archivist of a small collection consumes this book and Yakel's Starting an Archives, he or she will be well prepared to set up and run their archives in an acceptable fashion.

Carmichael divides the book into three sections that deal with the purpose of organization, the levels of organization, and the steps of organization. In short, Carmichael says that the purpose of organizing collections within an archives is to help researchers find the answers to their questions. He notes that archival materials cannot be arranged and described in the same way as books because they were not created like books, they need more security than books, they are generally more complex in subject matter than books. Thus, organization for archives is much more different than it is for books, although the purpose for organizing both types of materials is similar.

Carmichael divides the levels of arrangement into four categories: record group, series, file unit, and item. He adequately describes each category, and he offers fairly detailed instructions for how to determine the boundaries of series within a collection. He notes that archivists typically discover series within a collection rather than creating them. He stresses the need for distinguishing between archives and manuscript collections. For him, the main distinction between the two lies in who created the materials. If an institution produced the records, then they are archives. If they were papers created or accumulated by an individual, they are manuscripts. While this distinction is a bit simplistic, Carmicheal's point works extremely well in the type of small archives one might find at a church or a historical society. He also briefly explains the basic steps of accessioning materials.

Carmichael divides archival processing into twelve basic steps that one could adjust to fit almost any small archival institution. The steps are well thought out, and provide a thorough workflow for processing. The processing workflow begins with assigning a number to the collection. After this, the archivist researchers the collection and complementary materials to discover such things as who created the collection, when it was created, and what types of materials it contains, and what subjects it addresses. The archivist uses this information to name the collection and to produce initial paperwork that describes the collection in a basic manner. The archivist progressively works through the collection to a greater and greated degree, determining what series are in the collection and how the files are organized. At the end of the process Carmichael describes, the archivist has fully processed the collection, created a brief usable finding aid, labeled and shelved the collection, and created a catalog entry.

“Encoded Archival Description: Are Finding Aids Boundary Spanners or Barriers for Users?” Review

• Yakel, Elizabeth. "Encoded Archival Description: Are Finding Aids Boundary Spanners or Barriers for Users?" Journal of Archival Organization 2 (2004): 63-77.

This article addresses the usability of the Encoded Archival Description (EAD) standard for archival finding aids. Yakel points out that most of the attention on EAD has been on its development as a standard. While EAD is a good format for storing information about collections, Yakel asks whether it makes collections somewhat transparent to users. More specifically, she asks if EAD acts as a barrier or boundary spanner for patrons using archival collections. To determine the usability of EAD for patrons, Yakel set up a usability test using six subjects who were asked to find certain types of information within the finding aids of the Historic Pittsburgh Finding Aids at the University of Pittsburgh. The subjects used in this test were graduate students in information science, although not in archival science, so they would probably be more informed about the general concepts of information retrieval than average patrons.

In essence, the results of the findability test were not good. The subjects tested had several problems in using EAD finding aids to find specific information. Many of the tasks that the subjects found difficult would probably have been less difficult had the site used some commonly accepted principles of web usability. Unfamiliar archival terms and unsophisticated search habits also complicated finding the required information. However, the subjects were able to find some of the information they needed. Ultimately, Yakel found that EAD finding aids ultimately act as both barriers and boundary spanners.

Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts Book Review

• Miller, Fredric M. Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts, Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1990.

Fredric Miller's Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts is a manual for explaining archival processing. Miller intended the manual to describe processing rather than prescribe policies and practices for individual repositories. He intended it to be useful for novices. He begins the manual by noting that archives are not libraries, and that the two types of institutions differ in several ways. The physical makeup of archives generally consists of records rather than books. Records are created gradually, in a rather unintentional manner (compared to books), and have no common classification scheme. Although there are parallels between an archivist's tools of arrangement and description and a librarian's tools of arrangement and description, the two differ fundamentally. Archivists arrange records according to provenance (external order according to creator) and strive to maintain the original order (internal order) of the records.

In processing, archivists must determine the origins and structure of records. They must understand what types of activities the records document, determine the types of informational content they contain, assess their physical characteristics, and explain their relationship to other records in the repositiory.

Although this manual covers both archives and manuscripts, one must understand that there are fundamental differences between these two. Records generally come from one source, while manuscripts come from many sources. A manuscript collection contains artificial collections and individual documents. Archives are generally described on a collection level, while manuscripts are not. Archives are generally larger in volume than manuscript collections. Archives are usually self indexing according to provenance, whereas many manuscript collections are not. There are similarities, however. Both types of repositories contain some records, have common types of usage, and need integrated systems.

Miller contends that four principles govern processing: provenance, original order, collection description, and levels of control. Miller provides a helpful timeline of the creation of these principles and their application to archives and manuscripts. He notes that the concept of levels of control is an American contribution to archival science. When Miller speaks of levels of control, he is referring to the concept, popularized by Oliver Wendell Holmes, that records can be devided into several levels for description. Generally, the levels are called record group, series, files, and folders. He also points out that the concept of provenance is generally identified with the record creator. This concept is helpful because it discourages archivists from using arbitrary subject arrangements, and it makes organization of records easier.

Miller discusses accessioning by pointing out that it often begins by correctly identifying the provenance of records. The archivist should be involved in the boxing and labeling of records prior to their being transported to an archives. The archivist is responsible for ensuring the integrity of records in their travel. He or she should use transfer forms and accession forms to document this process. The archvist should prepare a general description of contents and list any separated materials on a separation sheet. The archivist should also examine the contents for record groups and series, weeding, restrictions, and odd or difficult to preserve formats. A preliminary listing, which often consists of a box listing, should be prepared. This step is often more difficult for manuscripts than archives.

Miller urges that in establishing priorities for how to proceed in arranging and describing collections, the archivist should consider the "mission, resources, and clientele of the repository." The archivist should also assess the facilities to make sure that they are adequate for processing collections. Additionally, he or she should take the lead in administering processing by setting forth a plan for the processing of set of records or manuscripts that the staff processes. Miller discusses the various levels of control one uses in arranging records within a repository. He notes that there are very real differences between arrangement by provenance and by filing structure. The former should represent the intellectual arrangement of records, while the latter often represents the physical arrangement of records. He notes that repositories often have physical divisions of records into such categories as archives and manuscripts. Withing each of these categories, the archivist intellectually arranges the records according to provenance, physically arranges the records according to the filing structure (often developing lists of functional records series to assist in this task), and arranges the physical file units in accordance with original order.

Miller concludes his work by discussing the various types of information, tools, and standards that are used to create properly describe archival collections. These sections are probably the most dated sections of the book, because the advent of standards such as DACS and EAD has somewhat supplanted discussions of APPM and USMARC AMC. This is probably the reason that the SAA replaced Miller's book, as good as it is, with Kathleen Roe's work of the same title.