“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.

“Documenting the Spirit” Review

• Shuster, Robert. "Documenting the Spirit," American Archivist 45 (1982): 135-141.

Robert Shuster is archivist at Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center. In this article, Shuster contends that archivists of religious collections should work to document the enthusiasm that occurs in religious contexts. He notes that Gerald Ham pushed for archivists to select materials that would provide an accurate record of human experience. Shuster explains that enthusiasm is part of the record of human experience because it is part of the explanation for why people do the things that they do. Collecting these types of materials helps "create a true picture of the past."

Shuster points out that documenting enthusiasm is not an easy thing to do. Churches often have statistical information, and individuals often have personal papers, but these do not usually capture the essence of what Shuster is wanting. He contends that oral histories, folk art, music, and other such media would be appropriate sources for capturing a glimpse of enthusiasm, especially within a collection like his.

Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts Book Review

• 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.