Enhancing Archival Practices: Adapting to Contemporary Collections and User Needs

1. MPLP: Adoption, Adaptation, and Misunderstanding Dennis Meissner Head of Collections Management Minnesota Historical Society University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

2. Part 1 Overview: Research, findings & recommendations University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

3. “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results” --Winston Churchill

4. The Problem • Archival processing does not keep pace with the growth of collections • Unprocessed backlogs continue to grow • Researchers denied access to collections • Our image with donors and resource allocators suffers University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

5. Hypotheses • Increasing breadth and scale of contemporary collections • Failure to revise processing benchmarks to deal with problem University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

6. Methodology • Literature review (70 sources) • Repository survey (100 responses) • Grant project survey (40 NHPRC files) • User survey (50 scholars) University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

7. Repository Survey Respondents University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

8. Findings • Processing benchmarks and practices are inappropriate to deal with problems posed by large contemporary collections • Ideal vs. necessary • Fixation on item level tasks • Preservation anxieties trump user needs University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

9. Survey: Arrangement Practice University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

10. Findings Description • Practice: • Weak commitment to online access • Little focus on item level • Warrant: • Describe all holdings, in general, before describing some in detail • Descriptive level follows arrangement level • Level varies from collection to collection University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

11. Survey: Descriptive Practice University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

12. Findings Conservation • Practice: Strong commitment to item level work • Warrant: Item-focused conservation prescriptions often contradict advice on arrangement and description University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

13. Survey: Conservation Practice University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

14. Findings Metrics • Literature: Range of 4 - 40 hours per cubic foot • However, a convincing body of experience coalesces at the high-productivity end: • Maher, 1982 (3.4 hours per cubic foot) • Haller, 1987 (3.8 hours per cubic foot) • Northeastern University Processing Manual (4-10 hours per cubic foot) • Grant Project Survey: 0.6 – 67 hours per cubic foot (Mode = 33 ; Mean = 9) • Survey of Archivists: 2 – 250 hours per cubic foot (Mode = 8 ; Mean = 14.8) University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

15. ProductivityExpectations (hours/cubic foot) University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

16. Recommendations General Principles for Change • Establish acceptable minimum level of work, and make it the benchmark • Don’t assume all collections, or all collection components, will be processed to same level University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

17. Recommendations • Arrangement • Description • Conservation • Productivity University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

18. Recommendations • Arrangement • In normal or typical situations, the physical arrangement of materials in archival groups and manuscript collections should not take place below the series level • Not all series andall files in a collection need to be arranged to the same level University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

19. Recommendations • Description • Since description represents arrangement: describe materials at a level of detail appropriate to that level of arrangement • Keep description brief and simple • Level of description should vary across collections, and across components within a collection University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

20. Recommendations • Conservation • Rely on storage area environmental controls to carry the conservation burden • Avoid wholesale refoldering • Avoid removing and replacing metal fasteners • Avoid photocopying items on poor paper • Don’t perform conservation tasks at a lower hierarchical level than you perform arrangement and description University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

21. Recommendations • Productivity • A processing archivist ought to be able to arrange and describe large twentieth century archival materials at an average rate of 4 hours per cubic foot University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

22. Part 2 What’s it all about—I mean really? University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

23. Getting better results • Results trump approaches and processes • Best results achieved through meaningful scaling and flexible approaches • Archival approaches provide an extensible model for working at scale • MPLP offers some value as a model University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

24. Key MPLP messages • It’s about results, not approaches • It’s about managing resources • It’s not about: • Cookie-cutter approaches • Some particular arrangement level or approach • Some particular description level or approach • Paper, clips, staples, and rubber bands • Refoldering/not refoldering • Reboxing/not reboxing • Mending, cleaning, photocopying, deacidifying • Whether we read all collection items University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

25. Key MPLP messages • Make user access paramount: Get most material available as quickly as possible in some usable form • Expend greatest effort on most deserving or needful materials • Establish an adequate, minimal level of work as the processing benchmark • Embrace flexibility: Novel approaches for novel problems • Don’t allow preservation anxieties to trump user access or good sense University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

26. A better model • Put the customer first: We preserve collections to provide access, not because they are groovy-cool • Expose hidden collections • Adjust practices to align with resources • Use archival approaches to achieve archival scale • Digitize, digitize, digitize (with the resources you save) University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

27. A better model • Establish good risk management models • Risk is unavoidable • Risk is amenable to being managed: • assess • mitigate • budget • respond University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

28. Old processing model Process driven University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

29. Old processing model Process driven Resource insensitive University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

30. Old processing model Process driven Resource insensitive Artisan quality University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

31. Old processing model Process driven Resource insensitive Artisan quality High unit cost University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

32. Old processing model Process driven Resource insensitive Artisan quality High unit cost Lengthy turnaround University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

33. Old processing model Process driven Resource insensitive Artisan quality High unit cost Lengthy turnaround Stable resources University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

34. New processing model University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

35. New processing model Audience driven University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

36. New processing model Audience driven Resource sensitive University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

37. New processing model • Audience driven • Resource sensitive • Production quality University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

38. New processing model Audience driven Resource sensitive Production quality Low unit cost University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

39. New processing model Audience driven Resource sensitive Production quality Low unit cost Rapid turnaround University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

40. New processing model Audience driven Resource sensitive Production quality Low unit cost Rapid turnaround Uncertain resources University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

41. Part 3 Beyond archives University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

42. Archival approaches produce big outcomes for Special Collections • Broad approach to leveraging our collective ability to provide access to research collections • Extensible to deal with novel problem spaces • Sustainable approaches, at meaningful scale, can result from seeing items as collections • Economic approaches are driving innovations in practice, among them digitization University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

43. Digitization offers biggest opportunities • Audience engagement • Opportunities for revenue and relevance • Adequate approaches yield exponential outputs • A problem space that archivists are addressing: • User needs and interests • Flexible approaches and procedures • Relaxed approach to “standards” and “best practice” • Novel solutions that are widely extensible University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

44. Minnesota Historical Society • Rethinking items as collections • Photographs (albums and loose images, as well) • Sheet music • Bound publications • Maps • Oral histories • Audio and moving image materials • Born-digital holdings University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

45. Photograph collections University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

46. Sheet music collections University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

47. Telephone directories University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

48. Born-digital holdings University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

49. Born-digital holdings University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

50. Born-digital holdings University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee