Reading Response Six: Oral History in the Archives

“Oral History in the Archives:  Its Documentary Role in the Twenty-first Century” by Ellen D. Swain analyzes the array of challenges in the creation, preservation, accessibility, and future of oral histories in the archival community.  Historically, Swain notes, oral histories have not been seen as a large component of the archival mission; not until the latter half of the twentieth century did a move toward creation and storage these histories begin.  With oral histories, should archivists act as collection developers, as creators of material meant directly for archival storage?  Swain presents both sides of the argument, and then chooses to discuss the problems of copyright and access that plague the medium.  Furthermore, tape and video recordings will eventually degrade in the best of environments, so a move to digitize oral history original carriers is now underway.  Swain argues oral histories have their place in archives and will only continue to serve as key evidentiary pieces to the historical puzzle in the future.  Archives must face down any inherent issues, create, and preserve these histories for cultural memory.

The article specifies that oral historians need the skills of both historians and archivists to properly understand the methods in creating a worthwhile historical document.  Issues include the best methods of storing the original audio and visual interviews, choices in transcription, and the demand of digitization of each as obsolescence and degradation threaten old recorded oral histories.  The digital transference of recorded histories is essential in the sound and paper records.  Fully searchable digital transcripts are the dream of every archivist and researcher; unfortunately, resources to create such a scenario are slim.  Technological leaps in voice recognition may allow for digital sound files to auto-transcribe the oral histories.  One can expect other technologies to come forth to increase accessibility of these one-of-a-kind records.  Another debate is whether oral histories belong in an archive or library; this debate seems unnecessary, as the accessibility and preservation of these unique histories is most important, not where they are housed.  One would hope the debate would rage over the best manners to preserve history, not who is able to claim it.

Swain, Ellen D. “Oral History in the Archives: Its Documentary Role in the Twenty-first Century.” American Archivist, Volume 66, No. 1, Spring/Summer 2003, pp. 139-158.

Reading Response Five: Institutional Repositories

“Institutional Repositories and the Institutional Repository: College and University Archives and Special Collections in an Era of Change,” by Elizabeth Yakel and others, encompasses the results of a 2006 study of the growing archival involvement in the digital institutional repository, or IR for short.  The authors were desirous to learn the involvement levels of library and archival staff, the types of documents (archival or not) kept in IRs, and the viability of institutional repositories as an archival tool in the expanding digital era.  Through a series of surveys and questionnaires, the authors discovered the number of IRs increasing on college and university campuses as archives play a part in their growth.  Yet archivists often do not serve as the technical experts but instead continue to serve traditional roles as preservation and appraisal experts.

Indiana University has two institutional repositories worth noting for archivists and scholars alike.  IUScholarWorks serves as a repository for academic and scholarly publications.  Faculty and advanced students are encouraged to house their work in this institutional repository.  The other large IR is the Archives of Institutional Memory, or AIM, which serves as an archival tool for a variety of documents from departments across campus.  The AIM is not meant to serve academia but instead the operations of the University, including bulletins, newsletters, and reports.  Each serves an important purpose in maintaining the contributions and history of IU.

The institutional repository is a new tool for archivists in the ever-changing document production environment.  Their existence has the potential for simplifying the preservation of reports born in a digital environment.  I learned during my internship that the Archives of Institutional Memory houses documents in PDF-A format in order to ensure continued accessibility far into the digital age.  Policies such as this allow for electronic work to be processed, preserved, and accessed as easily, if not more easily, than their paper counterparts.  The need for expansive institutional repositories will only increase over time, and one can imagine a 2010 study identical to this 2006 work would produce fascinating results in comparison.  Hopefully archivists will develop more skill in working in digital technologies, increasing their impact on the structure as well as the content of a growing part of their archives.

Yakel, Elizabeth, et al. “Institutional Repositories and the Institutional Repository: College and University Archives and Special Collections in an Era of Change.” American Archivist, Volume 71, No. 2, Fall/Winter 2008, pp. 323-349.

Reading Response Four: Meeting the Challenge of Contemporary Records

In her Presidential address to the Society of American Archivists in August of 1999, Luciana Duranti chose to speak to the fundamental roles of the archival profession in the face of debate of the changes surrounding archival practice. Duranti compares a number of publications and opinions, alike and unalike, in order to frame the opinion that archives, no matter the change in methodology and technology, hold true to their mission as repositories of cultural heritage. Archivists take on as many roles as needed to fulfill their duties: as an administrator, employee, and public contact, to name a few. Duranti states to do so requires the archivist to hold true to the values archives have possessed since the French Revolution: to maintain for the public those records necessary to keep for the posterity of generations to come.

Archivists are expected to undertake a tremendous amount of personal stake in the repositories in which they work. The archive will achieve as the archivist achieves—an archive operated by a staff devoted to upholding the best practices and performing at the highest levels will grow to become an important institution. These are high-level thoughts and ideals, and in a perfect world even the best archivist cannot great the best archive. The work is hard and the expectations day-to-day are often difficult to overcome. Yet, one can attempt to do so. Duranti hopes that by reminding the profession of their long history of honored historical maintenance, conservation, and preservation, its professional membership will be reinvigorated and rise once again to the challenges at hand today.

Duranti, Luciana. “Meeting the Challenge of Contemporary Records: Does it Require a Role Change for the Archivist,” American Archivist, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2000), pp. 7-14.

Reading Response Three: Appraisal of Personal Papers

Riva Pollard discusses the plight of personal papers in her article “The Appraisal of Personal Papers: A Critical Literature Review.” Pollard comments upon the lack of respect personal papers have received in the archival discussion over time, noting Hilary Jenkinson stated archives are intended to work with official documents and records. Historically, personal papers were not seen as an important segment of the archive. Due to their so-called biased origin, institutional archives may have been fearful inclusion of personal papers in their repository would go against their inherent mission. In more modern times, personal papers, including manuscripts, have become more commonplace in institutional repositories. However, collection development in this area is inconsistent and problematic; the appraisal of the personal material is rife with difficulty. With no specific interactions or functions relatable to well-known components of the institution, the archivist must process and appraise personal papers as with a brand new and often unique construct. Yet the basic procedures are the same: appraise with the intent to preserve for the posterity of the individual while simultaneously looking for research value.

The collection I am charged with processing during my internship is composed entirely of personal documents, including letters, research, essays, and manuscripts. In order to process this collection, I found myself confronting many of the problems and issues noted by Pollard. I was forced to build a plan from scratch after careful study of the entirety of the collection at large. The actions and functions performed by Professor Nugent are unique to his life. This is not to say that other history professors or writers do not perform the same tasks, but instead to note that Professor Nugent performed these tasks in a manner unique to him. Personal paper appraisal means attempting to understand the life the subject lead, choosing the most appropriate functions, and only then beginning the appraisal process. I believe to do otherwise will invite the potential of disorganization and misappropriation of information. This article is a great read for anyone called upon to process and appraise personal papers.

Pollard, Riva. “The Appraisal of Personal Papers: A Critical Literature Review.” Archivaria, No. 36, Autumn 1993, pp. 136-150.

Reading Response Two: How Goes It With Appraisal?

In his fall 1993 article, "How Goes it with Appraisal," Terry Eastwood evaluates the historical background, methodologies, patterns, and inherent complications involved in the archival appraisal process. Eastwood approaches appraisal from the point of view of one consumed with the manner in which archives are perceived by the population at large; he believes archives are seen as sources of information but not proprietors of historical evidence. "Archives," Eastwood states, "are a means of memory, not memory itself, because there is no communal memory without someone acting upon archives as public dialogue."

Appraisal is everywhere, not just in the archival profession. The act of appraising documents determines what memories are left intact. Over time, the interpretation of the memory, and of the appraisal itself, may change. Documents are assessed, or appraised, from the moment of their creation; the archivist or records manager determines the continuation or refutation of a document life cycle. What is the true value of a document? Is it in its uniqueness? Person(s) or place(s) of origination? Or is in the value to future researchers? Nearly everyone would agree decisions are made based on multiple facets, not any one factor. Though appraising a document is not often the end-all-be-all in determining the historical record, the very possibility it may be is a perplexing realization. As Eastwood comments, appraisal is both narrow contextually as well as broad in view. Appraisal is never meant to advance any idea, philosophy, or agenda. To do so would violate the ideals of freedom of information and preservation of the historical record. Furthermore, archivists should never be guilty of haphazardly documenting world memory. From the largest of historical events to the smallest of transactions, appraisal best practices should hold true.

Eastwood, Terry. “How Goes It with Appraisal?”Archivaria , No. 36, Autumn 1993, pp. 111-121.

Rallying Cry of Simplicity

I neglected to mention in my last blog that my processing plan was given the go-ahead with some alterations. I created a seventh series for journals and writing logs. Organizationally this makes sense to me, as those don't necessarily fit into correspondence. This change brought the total number of series in the collection to seven, with each possessing at minimum two sub-series each. At times, materials simply cannot be grouped under an established record group. Simplicity does not mean forcing a small number of series into existence; simplicity means the formulation of the best method for arrangement and use. Ideally researchers will visit this collection time and again, and my task remains to aid those future researchers by doing good work today.

While the series are now set, essentially in stone, I have chosen to tune up my sub-series as I move through the folders once more. The best example of a change is a sub-series of book and article reviews written by Professor Nugent. I chose to slot these under the series 'Other Work and Projects', as I felt it proper to definitively distinguish original published works researched and written from reviews written. Two sub-series exist within the 'Publications' series--monographs and articles and essays. Yet as I began in earnest to think about the the book and article reviews, I could not deny the facts at hand: 1. each is an original work by the creator of this collection, 2. each review is a published work. Therefore, I have chosen to move the sub-series 'Reviews' into the 'Publications' series. I have debated whether to split the book reviews from article reviews to create sub-groups within the sub-series. However, I believe that would be unnecessary. I want to create a functional and accessible system without making it convoluted. Simplicity, after all, is a decent rallying cry. I dare to believe I can accomplish that goal as I continue processing.

Being One With Frustration

One of the more frustrating aspects of processing this collection has been my own doing. I have previously mentioned the importance of keeping clear, full notes, so that during processing there is less confusion and back-tracking to be completed. Though I did make that adjustment mid-way through my survey of the accessions, I have once again found during processing that my notes just aren’t quite what one would hope. I know the exactness I expect is often difficult to attain; some folders leave only contextual clues, a hidden scrap of a note, or nothing to determine their contents. I don’t find this surprising, yet each time I come across the word “unknown series” in my notes, I grow slightly unsure why my past self chose to leave the decision-making to present self. The more full the entry, the more complete the title, name, and folder description, the more efficient processing later. This is obvious but accurate and a lesson not to forget when mired in Box 45 of your collection.

Sometimes appearances can be quite deceiving. Early, during my initial survey of the accessions, I came across a few names and associated them with a monograph written by Walter Nugent. The folder name and contents seemed to clearly discuss the main themes and topics in the book; yet, later on, I came across more correspondence between Nugent and these individuals, in regards to a much earlier article on the same general topic! Upon review, it became clear that my early assignment of those first folders was incorrect. Indeed, even the best of notes and best of intentions can still lead to a mistake. I am happy I was able to correct my mistake, though I remain weary that other mistakes may lurk in other areas.

Finally, I also find my ability to recognize relationships in folders and record groups has improved dramatically. Familiarization with the overall collection certainly is the primary reason. Secondarily, I believe I have continued to develop my sense of the structure of archival processing. When working with personal papers, such as I am with my collection, inferences became nearly second nature after a time. I am not certain a small collection could have taught me some of those skills this quickly. I certainly continue to learn much.