Archival Issues Journal of the
Midwest Archives Conference
Volume 33, Number 1, 2011
CONTENTS “More Access, Less Backlog”: How the Kansas Historical Society Got Its Groove Back Matt Gorzalski and Marcella Wiget Separated at Appraisal: Maintaining the Archival Bond Between Archives Collections and Museum Objects Katie Rudolph Not Just Sheet Music: Describing Print and Manuscript Music in Archives and Special Collections Adriana P. Cuervo and Eric Harbeson Let Me Recount the Ways: Documenting the Poetry Community in Washington, D.C. A Case Study Jennifer King
PUBLICATION REVIEWS ISSN 10674993 Archival Issues
Journal of the Midwest Archives Conference
Volume 33, Number 1, 2011
CONTENTS
“More Access, Less Backlog”: How the Kansas Historical Society Got Its Groove Back Matt Gorzalski and Marcella Wiget...... 7
Separated at Appraisal: Maintaining the Archival Bond Between Archives Collections and Museum Objects Katie Rudolph...... 25
Not Just Sheet Music: Describing Print and Manuscript Music in Archives and Special Collections Adriana P. Cuervo and Eric Harbeson...... 41
Let Me Recount the Ways: Documenting the Poetry Community in Washington, D.C. A Case Study Jennifer King...... 57 2 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
publication reviews
Web 2.0 Tools and Strategies for Archives and Local History Collections reviewed by Nicole Garrett...... 69
Preserving Archives & Manuscripts, second edition reviewed by Sara J. Holmes...... 71
Leading and Managing Archives and Records Programs: Strategies for Success reviewed by Erik Nordberg...... 73
The Ethical Archivist reviewed by Ryan Speer...... 76
Special Issue of Journal of Information Ethics: Archival Ethics: New Views, Spring 2010, no. 1 reviewed by Christopher J. Prom...... 78
Contesting Archives: Finding Women in the Sources reviewed by Alison Stankrauff...... 80
Articles and reviews in this issue were submitted in 2010 and accepted in 2010 and 2011. ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 3
EDITORIAL POLICY
Archival Issues, a semiannual journal published by the Midwest Archives Conference since 1975, is concerned with the issues and problems confronting the contemporary archivist. The Editorial Board welcomes submissions related to current archival prac- tice and theory, to archival history, and to aspects of related professions of interest to archivists (such as records management and conservation management). We encourage diversity among topics and points of view. We will consider for publication submissions of a wide range of materials, including research articles, case studies, review essays, proceedings of seminars, and opinion pieces. Manuscripts are blind reviewed by the Editorial Board; its decisions concerning submissions are final. Decisions on manuscripts generally will be made within six weeks of submission, and will include a summary of reviewers’ comments. The Editorial Board uses the current edition of The Chicago Manual of Style as the standard for style, including endnote format. Please send manuscripts (and inquiries) to Chair William Maher. Submissions are accepted as hard copy (double spaced, including endnotes; 1-inch margins; 10-point or larger type), or electronically (Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or .rtf files) via E-mail attachment or CD-Rom.
Publication Reviews
Archival Issues reviews books, proceedings, Web publications, and other materials of direct relevance or interest to archival practitioners. Publishers should send review copies to Publication Reviews Editor Jennifer Thomas. Please direct suggestions for books, proceedings, Web publications, other materials for review, and offers to review publications to the publication reviews editor.
Subscriptions
Subscriptions to Archival Issues are a part of membership in the Midwest Archives Conference; there is no separate subscription-only rate. Membership, which also includes four issues of MAC Newsletter and reduced registration fees for MAC’s two yearly meetings, is $30 per year for individuals and $60 per year for institutions. See http://www.midwestarchives.org/page/membershiptypes for more information about memberships. Members outside of North America may elect to have the journal and newsletter mailed first class rather than bulk mail, at additional cost. Single issues of the journal are available at $15, plus $1 shipping and handling. Please direct inquiries regarding membership and purchase of journal copies to Greg Brooks, Administrative Services Liaison, Midwest Archives Conference, 4440 PGA Boulevard, Suite 600. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, E-mail: membership@ midwestarchives.org. 4 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Advertising
Display advertisements in black ink are accepted at the following rates: full page, $250; 1/2 page, $150; 1/4 page, $75; 1/8 page, $50. These rates are discounted 20 percent for a one-volume (two-issue) commitment. Ads supplied via E-mail or on disk are preferred; camera-ready black and white acceptable. No bleed pages. Archival Issues is pleased to consider exchange ads with other archival publications and with publications of other organizations that may be of interest to our readers. MAC offers advertisers several easy and effective ways to market products, services, and announcements. These outlets include its newsletter, journal, annual meeting pro- gram, and Web site. For all advertising rates, please contact the MAC Vendor Coordi- nator Shari Christy, 33 N. Grand Avenue, Fairborn, OH 45324; phone: 937-879-7241; [email protected]. All invoices for advertising are handled by the vendor coordinator. Payment is due within 30 days of receipt of invoice. For information concerning exhibits and sponsorships during the annual meeting, please contact MAC Vendor Coordinator Shari Christy, 33 N. Grand Avenue, Fairborn, OH 45324; phone: 937-879-7241; [email protected].
Awards
A panel of three archivists independent of the journal’s Editorial Board presents the Margaret Cross Norton and New Author awards for articles appearing in a two-year (four-issue) cycle. The Norton Award was established in 1985 to honor Margaret Cross Norton, a legendary pioneer in the American archival profession and the first state archivist of Illinois. The award recognizes the author of what is judged to be the best article in the previous two years of Archival Issues and consists of a certificate and $250. The New Author award was instituted in 1993 to recognize superior writing by previously unpublished archivists, and may be awarded to practicing archivists who have not had article-length writings published in professional journals, or to students in an archival education program. Up to two awards may be presented in a single cycle.
Margaret Cross Norton Award The winner of the Margaret Cross Norton Award, given to the author of the best article published by any author in volumes 31 and 32, was Morna Gerrard for her article, “Hear Them Roar: Challenge and Collaborations in Putting the Georgia Women’s Movement Oral History Project on the Web” in volume 31:1. Gerrard prepares readers well for the surprises and many challenges encountered in placing oral history interviews on-line. Her numerous insights may help you avoid having this golden opportunity to enhance access become your nightmare instead. ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 5
New Author Award For the New Author Award, which recognizes superior writing by previously unpub- lished archivists, the committee chose Valerie Harris, for her article, “How Can I Help You?: Becoming User-Centered in Special Collections,” in volume 32:2. Harris reminds archivists to take into consideration user feedback and expectations and provides a useful model of how systematically to do so. She reports the findings of a survey of 148 users of the University of Illinois at Chicago Special Collections and University Archives Department. This study is a good reminder that we should not assume our users share our priorities and we should formally ask for their opinions. 6 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
William Maher (2007–2009, 2009–2011) Pamela Hackbart-Dean (2008-2010, 2010– Chair 2012) University Archivist Director, Special Collections Research Center University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Morris Library Room 19 Library Southern Illinois University Carbondale 1408 West Gregory 605 Agriculture Dr. (MC 6632) Urbana, IL 61801 Carbondale, IL 62901-4329 Phone: 217-333-0798 Phone: 618-453-1452 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Mary Ellen Ducey (2009–2011) Ben Primer (2007–2009, 2009–2011) University Archivist, Associate Professor Associate University Librarian for Rare University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries Books and Special Collections 29 Love Library Princeton University Library Lincoln, NE 68588-4100 1 Washington Road E-mail: [email protected] Princeton, NJ 08544-2098 Phone: 402-472-5076 Phone: 609-258-3242 E-mail: [email protected] Jackie R. Esposito (2007–2009, 2010–2012) University Archivist Jennifer Thomas (2005–2007, 2007–2009, Penn State University 2009–2011) 122 Paterno Library Book Review Editor University Park, PA 16802 Archivist Phone: 814-863-3791 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum E-mail: [email protected] Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Avenue Barbara Floyd (2008–2010, 2010–2012) Cleveland, OH 44115 Director, Ward M. Canaday Center Phone: 216-515-1942 for Special Collections E-mail: [email protected] The University of Toledo 2801 W. Bancroft Toledo, OH 43606 Phone: 419-530-2170 E-mail: [email protected] Cynthia A. Ghering (2009–2011) Director, University Archives & Historical Collections Michigan State University 101 Conrad Hall East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: 517-355-2330 E-mail: [email protected]
© Midwest Archives Conference, 2011 All Rights Reserved “More Access, Less Backlog”: How the Kansas Historical Society Got Its Groove Back
By Matt Gorzalski and Marcella Wiget
Abstract: In 2008, the Kansas Historical Society (KHS) began a National Histori- cal Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) grant-funded project to survey its archival and manuscript holdings using More Product, Less Process (MPLP) as its processing method. In the midst of layoffs of permanent staff, the three project archi- vists accomplished everything the grant required and more, including the reappraisal of government records. This article describes the process the archivists used and a survey of the professional and permanent staff in the KHS State Library and Archives Division to discover how effective they have found the new processing procedures so far. While some reservations remain, staff generally have found MPLP to be of great benefit in finding the materials they need.
Introduction
In May 2008, the Kansas Historical Society (KHS) State Library and Archives Division was awarded a National Historical and Public Records Commission (NHPRC) basic processing grant, “More Access, Less Backlog: Implementing Basic Processing at the Kansas Historical Society,” to hire three project archivists to process the agency’s backlog of unpublished textual materials. They were to use Mark Greene’s and Dennis Meissner’s More Product, Less Process (MPLP) principles. The project’s broad goal was to create high-level descriptive content for all government records series and manuscript collections and input that information into a homegrown collections management database system called Dartzilla. The project archivists also reappraised state archives series and manuscript collections to further alleviate the backlog and developed new minimal processing guidelines as a standard to be followed by the agency once the project was completed. Since Greene and Meissner’s article “More Product, Less Process: Pragmatically Revamping Archival Processing Approaches” was published in 2005, several articles and conference presentations have described implementing MPLP standards at 8 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 various institutions.1 The majority of these applications proved to be successful, but no project that the authors are aware of has equaled in scale processing a backlog that made up nearly the entirety of the agency’s holdings, accrued since 1875 when the Kansas Historical Society was founded. Also, few projects have described in detail the differences that minimal processing has had on providing access to backlogged records, both for reference staff and researchers. The project archivists surveyed KHS State Archives and Library administrators, archivists, reference, and accessioning staff using the new Dartzilla database to assess how MPLP standards have impacted access and reference.2 This article discusses the minimal processing project at the Kansas Historical Society, describes the survey given to staff members, and reflects upon the strengths and weaknesses of minimal processing, as well as the impact these standards have had on providing access to Kansas government and manuscript collections.
Literature Review
Archivists have long advocated for new approaches to cope with the magnitude of modern records. Several articles analyzing the costs and time commitments to arrangement and description have presented troubling conclusions and have been used to argue in favor of rethinking archival processing.3 A 2003 white paper warned of the dangers of “hidden collections,” declaring that backlogs hinder access to collections, research potential is limited, unprocessed records are at greater risk of being lost or stolen, and donor relations suffer.4 Discussion concerning archival processing increased after “More Product, Less Process” was published in 2005. Greene and Meissner contended that traditional processing methods fail when applied to modern collections and challenged archivists to consider minimal descriptive standards.5 Because MPLP challenges the way archivists think about processing, it is not without its critics. Some have argued that it is not appropriate for personal papers and manuscripts because they are “as unique as their creator,” and, thus, minimal description will overlook the “proverbial ‘smoking gun’ cherished by researchers.”6 While a proponent of minimal processing, Thomas Hyry laments that it puts a greater burden of discovery on researchers, requires reference staff to retrieve more boxes, potentially loses “diamonds in the rough,” and creates challenges for later digitization projects.7 Tiah Edmunson-Morton believes that minimal description hinders reference services, is of no use to off-site researchers, and ultimately leaves researchers dissatisfied. Donor relations may also suffer if donors witness treasured collections receiving what they consider minimal attention.8 Recently, Carl Van Ness has thoroughly critiqued the methodology of Greene’s and Meissner’s MPLP survey, and Chris Prom discussed how institutional processing policy cannot be correlated with large backlogs, an argument also touched upon by Van Ness.9 Despite the criticism, most publications and conference presentations describe successful applications of minimal processing in eliminating backlogged collections.10 In “More for Less in Archives,” Hyry discusses Yale University’s minimal standards and processing in the Center for Information on American records, a 16-linear foot collection, in a total of 320 minutes, or 20 minutes per linear foot.11 Michael Strom “more access, less backlog” 9 at Texas Christian University discussed how the 893-foot Jim Wright Collection was arranged and described in an average of 45 minutes per foot, noting that “It is hard to overstate the positive effects that making substantial progress with the Wright Papers has had.”12 At the University of Montana, three thousand linear feet of backlog was processed at two hours per foot, and it is now assumed that all collections will be minimally described and likely receive no further attention.13 Similarly, Colleen McFarland presented how MPLP changed her life, providing access to a 3,500-linear foot backlog at a rate of 1.5 to 2.5 hours per foot. McFarland acknowledged that she “would have been a much less effective archivist without minimal processing.”14 Reference services may not be as adversely affected by the MPLP approach to processing as some have expected. In analyzing a widely distributed American Heritage Center survey, Mark Greene found that users ranked “putting more resources into basic descriptions for all collections, even though some of those collections may never have more detailed inventories written for them” as more highly desired than detailed arrangement and description. He also found that the majority of researchers favor less detailed inventories for more access, and that they are confident in their abilities to find information in collections that are not well organized.15 Edmunson-Morton’s Northwest Archivist Processing Initiative (NWAPI) survey found that the majority of researchers are more inclined to skim until they find something of potential value, thus ignoring the bulk of description that archivists labor over.16 These surveys indicate that researchers are most concerned with quicker access to collections instead of robust description. Anne Foster, also involved with the NWAPI, reported a noticeable increase in usage as a result of MPLP, including many collections that never before had been used.17 Minimal processing, therefore, appears to be more of an aid than a hindrance for researchers.
Development of the KHS Backlog
An overview of the Kansas Historical Society’s history and recordkeeping systems is beneficial to understanding the backlog’s magnitude. The Society was established in 1875 and began serving as the state archives in 1905. The transfer of records from agencies to the archives was done on a voluntary basis until 1987, when the records management program was established. In 1992, a state records center was opened to house non-current agency records scheduled for long-term but not necessarily archival retention. The state archives currently holds approximately 35,000 cubic feet of records and over 17,000 rolls of microfilm. The Society began collecting manuscripts as early as 1877, which now total around 9,600 cubic feet and about 2,800 microfilm rolls. The majority of the holdings have been hidden from public view, particularly those acquired in the recent past. Prior to the development of Dartzilla, staff and researchers were subject to using a plethora of confusing and inconsistent inventories, databases, and catalogs, while many records had no description at all.18 The state archives had few complete finding aids and relied heavily on the institutional knowledge of staff. Government archivists—no more than two until 1983—concentrated on reference, acquisition and basic arrangement of new records, and limited records management 10 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 work, rather than on describing existing holdings. In preparing to move to a new facility in 1994–1995, staff members created a “quick and dirty” series-level Microsoft Access database to record provenance, locations, series titles, dates, quantities, restrictions, and container types for state archives records.19 Although this database was intended to be used strictly as a moving aid, the archives inventory (called Arcinvy by staff) developed into a reference tool due to the lack of any other information on state archives holdings. It was not available to researchers. Of the 6,442 series entries, approximately 95% did not have descriptive information. Manuscript collections also lacked description and were hidden from public view. Manuscripts staff, as was common in the nineteenth century, created a card catalog of individual items within collections by author and subject. When this kind of detailed cataloging became overwhelming for the small staff (one archivist 1936–1957, two 1957–1985), description was created at the series and later the collection level. Beginning in 1977, narrative finding aids were created for larger and more significant collections, but because of staffing limitations only selected collections were described. No single resource existed showing a complete list of manuscript holdings, as content information could appear in catalogs (paper or electronic), Web pages, specific collection databases, electronic documents, paper finding aids, or nowhere. In 1999, the society joined with other Topeka libraries and formed ATLAS, a shared Web-based on-line public access catalog. Since 1995, machine-readable cataloging (MARC) records have been prepared for some cataloged manuscript collections and state archives records, mostly those on microfilm. To date, almost 1,100 records have been created for unique material, but this represents less than 10 percent of total holdings. As the Internet evolved, staff began converting text-based finding aids and MARC records to hypertext markup language (HTML) pages. Although the society has not used encoded archival description (EAD), new finding aids are organized using templates in accordance with EAD principles. If processors wish to create a spreadsheet or database for more detailed information, it is usually only accessible to staff, if staff are even aware such a resource exists. In 2003, budgetary shortfalls forced the society to lay off approximately 10 percent of its staff. Because budgets have not been restored to pre-2003 levels and have declined in terms of actual appropriations for salaries, many other positions within the division have remained unfilled as people have left. One of these is a full-time processing archivist. Archivists formerly concentrating on arrangement and description have had to assume other tasks as positions have remained vacant. Four staff members from the division were laid off in the spring of 2009, including an additional processing archivist. These vacancies and reassignments have hampered staff’s ability to arrange and describe the archival materials that the agency holds. These circumstances over the years have produced a backlog of 32,583 cubic feet and 17,720 rolls of microfilm for state archives; and 3,628 cubic feet and 873 microfilm rolls for manuscripts. “more access, less backlog” 11
The Historical Society Project
In September 2008, the state archives and library staff hired three archivists to eliminate the backlog. Their tasks were to create high-level descriptive content; assign subject headings; confirm any restrictions on use or access; and verify and correct dates, quantities, and provenance at the series level for state archives records and at the collection level for manuscripts, whether on paper or on microfilm. The project archivists also created brief agency histories and agency-level abstract notes for state archives materials, noted series or collections for reappraisal, matched retention schedules to archival series where possible, flagged records needing preservation treatment, and developed a work flow and procedures model that ensures future accessions can be processed promptly without accumulating backlogs. Because of the accumulation of materials and ambition of the project, it was determined that 45 minutes per series or collection was the appropriate amount of time needed to describe the entire backlog in the 20 months requested in the grant. The archivists were to focus only on series or collections of one cubic foot or greater. No physical arrangement was undertaken; records were described as they were found, even if in complete disarray.20 Photograph, audio-visual, and map collections were considered to be beyond the scope of the project and not included in the grant. Describing large government series of several hundred or thousand cubic feet was usually accomplished within the allotted 45 minutes due to the standardized nature of these series, such as grant, licensing, or case files. Most unprocessed manuscript collections did not extend more than a few cubic feet. Project staff typically noted three types of information in a descriptive note: purpose of materials, kinds of materials, and existing arrangement, if any were easily detected. For eclectic series such as subject or correspondence files, and for manuscript collections, the archivists also noted broad topics that were the focus of the materials. Because descriptions were created at a rate quicker than anticipated, time was available for tasks of lower priority or those not necessarily outlined in the grant. They found space for records in the initial stages of accessioning that had never made it to the shelves and were able to discover boxes that, in some cases, had been missing for years. Records backlogged at the State Records Center (SRC) that had not been transferred to the archives because of space issues were added to existing series or, if new materials, described and given unique location identifiers to indicate they remained at the SRC. More detailed attention was given to oversize records, describing individual volumes and map folders smaller than the one-cubic foot parameter set by the Historical Society for the project. Manuscript collections considered processed but having no descriptive information available electronically, such as in the ATLAS catalog or on the KHS Web site, were also described. The project staff added basic information to the database about audio-visual and library collections, usually only a series or collection title and locations, so that the database could account for the occupied shelf space. Electronic records were not formally addressed in the grant, and the project archivists encountered them only on an irregular basis. Although the more recent and hidden accessions were created during an era where office computers were in widespread use, the vast majority of the records transferred remained paper-based. The electronic 12 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 records that project staff did encounter were typically digital photographs or text documents on compact or floppy discs, and were nearly always only a small portion of a larger series that was predominately paper. These mixed-media series or collections, therefore, contained descriptions largely based on the paper records, with a brief mention indicating electronic files were included. The project archivists did not attempt to read information on the discs, but were usually able to determine the content by disc labels or consulting accessioning paperwork and records retention schedules. The State Archives and Library is currently working on the Kansas Enterprise Electronic Preservation (KEEP) project to address future accessions of born-digital records, which is based on the National Archives Electronic Records Archive (ERA). All descriptive information was entered into the homegrown collections management database Dartzilla. The grant initially discussed using Archon21 because division staff felt that its functionality could be well integrated into the archive’s descriptive and database practices. At the same time, division staff were also planning on linking Archon’s functionality with Kansas Memory, the Historical Society’s digital collections Web site.22 As new content is scanned and posted on Kansas Memory, staff wanted a corresponding, searchable Dartzilla record to be created automatically, complete with the scanning metadata and description. This proved to be difficult using Archon, and it was decided that a better approach would be to create an in-house database that would ensure linkage between it and the Kansas Memory site. Division staff conferred with Chris Prom during the initial database design phase. Like Archon and Archivist Toolkit, Dartzilla was designed with the ability to describe records at any level of a typical finding aid hierarchy, automatically create and export EAD and MARC records, incorporate accessioning information, import information from existing databases, provide appraisal information, manage locations, and incorporate digitized records from a given series—in other words, provide a one- stop resource for all collections management needs. As of this writing, not all of the database’s features are functional, but they remain the long-term goals for Dartzilla. There is little concern over Dartzilla’s sustainability among staff, as the interface is easy to navigate and input data; anyone familiar with Archon or Archivist Toolkit will not have difficulties using Dartzilla. The database administrator and programmer on-staff also are largely unconcerned, due to using widely based technologies and programs (such as hypertext preprocessor, PHP). Any new employee familiar with these technologies would be able to understand the program after spending some time working with the code base.23
Reappraisal
A significant component of the project concerned reappraising archival records.24 The archivists matched series in the archives with scheduled records series, a process that had never been systematic even after the State Records Center opened in the early 1990s. Because of subsequent retention changes, a general lack of knowledge about contents found in series at the State Archives, and human error, the archivists found many series in the archives that were scheduled for destruction. Series in need “more access, less backlog” 13 of reappraisal that either had no matching retention schedule, or were scheduled for archival retention, required more discussion with the Division Director and Assistant Director, as well as the State Records Manager. The project archivists attended State Records Board meetings where the records and retention schedules were further discussed, resulting in many changes in retention.
Project Results
By the end of the project, the archivists had worked with over 7,100 archival series and 2,700 manuscript collections. They added or edited existing description to over seven thousand archival series and 2,300 manuscript collections, and created roughly eight hundred new series-level archives records and one hundred collection-level manuscript collection records in Dartzilla. They added almost 30,000 subject headings to state archives records and over 6,500 to manuscript collections. Over 1,800 duplicative database records were merged into single series or collections,25 and preservation notes of various priorities were added on almost 750 records. Out of a total government records holdings of approximately 35,000 cubic feet, the archivists also reappraised and deaccessioned over two thousand cubic feet. By the end of the project, the archivists had effectively looked at and described almost every government series and manuscript collection in the Historical Society’s unpublished holdings, a feat that had not been managed previously.
Staff Survey
To better understand the success or failure of minimal processing in revealing “hidden” records, the archivists surveyed 10 State Archives and Library Division staff members.26 The questions focused on how MPLP has helped or hindered access to the holdings. Two of the participants were administrative staff with backgrounds in either manuscript or government archives, one was a full-time archivist, four were reference staff, and three were acquisition staff. The project archivists were not included in the survey. These individuals were chosen because they have begun using Dartzilla as an accessioning and reference tool, and thus, can critique the high-level descriptions created. Because of their positions and responsibilities within the division, not all participants could answer the questions to the same extent, as some were more administrative. Collectively, the staff discussed descriptions for government records more so than manuscript collections, both in their appreciation over finding materials and in their concerns over implementing new processing procedures. The authors acknowledge that the survey is limited in scope because the public interface is not yet operational, so researchers’ opinions about the record’s accessibility remain unknown. Overall, the results were positive. The staff found the new description to be helpful and a drastic improvement over previously used reference tools. Ninety percent of the respondents said that the added information was sufficient to find the records they 14 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 were looking for, especially when asked how it compared with the existing databases and reference tools (Figure 1).
90 80 70 60 50 Percentage of 40 Respondents
30 20 10 0 Yes No Cannot Say Not Applicable
Figure 1. Has minimal description been sufficient in locating records?
Similarly, around 73 percent indicated that using Dartzilla has been very helpful for daily tasks such as reference and accessioning (Figure 2). As one respondent put it, “The previous iteration of the archives database that included only series titles (and those titles often being quite vague) required physical examination of many records that had no relevance to a request. While folder lists would be ideal and may even be required to identify specific pieces of information in the archives, the series descriptions certainly aid in limiting searches.” Another respondent wrote, “I am now confident that the series title and description is accurate—not just a ‘guess’ as we were preparing to move to this building.” “more access, less backlog” 15
80 70 60 50 Percentage of Respondents 40 30 20 10 0 Helpful Somewhat Neutral Not Not at all Helpful Helpful Helpful
Figure 2. Percentage of respondents regarding the degree to which MPLP was helpful in staff’s daily work.
Staff were also positive about keyword searching, not available in Arcinvy or other previous databases, saying that such searches provide a list of results on “what exists as well as what we have on a specific topic” from a single search. The ability to link topics between disparate governmental agency materials, and between manuscript collections and agency records, is a new boon for staff and researchers alike. There generally remains a desire for more detailed information at lower-content levels, such as folder lists found in a traditional finding aid. One individual wrote that although accessibility is greater, “it still can be quite challenging to identify the proverbial needles in the haystack of such a large aggregation of materials . . . while the series descriptions will contribute significantly to reducing the research needed to identify the pertinent records, the lack of more detailed finding aids will still force agency personnel to examine a significant quantity of material to find the specific information desired.” Nonetheless, the resulting increase in reference requests can help prioritize which series or collections receive more detailed description. One staff member understood that “You always wish for more but given the scope of the project and the lack of access before the project, the chances of finding relevant state archives materials has increased dramatically.” Only 50 percent indicated the new description led to the use of materials not typically requested by users (Figure 3). 16 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
50 45 40 35 30 25 Percentage of 20 Respondents 15 10 5 0 Yes No Cannot Say Not Applicable
Figure 3. Percentage of staff who have used new series or collections.
This number is expected to increase as reference staff answer agency requests for their own records with a greater success than before the grant; it will, in all likelihood, continue to increase as members of the public gain access to the database. Other criticisms from staff concerned database functionality issues that continue to be improved by the information technology staff, some of which were resolved after this survey was created. Surveyed staff were asked if the Historical Society had previous plans to eliminate the backlog; in other words, if such a task would have been possible prior to the influence of “More Product, Less Process.” Twenty percent responded “no” while 60 percent could not say for certain (Figure 4). “more access, less backlog” 17
60
50
40
30 Percentage of Respondents 20
10
0 Yes No Cannot Say Not Applicable
Figure 4. If not for basic processing grants, were there any alternative plans for processing the backlog?
Only one individual indicated a less ambitious project might have been implemented in order to address portions of the backlog. Another respondent summed up the situation succinctly: “It seems very unlikely that a comprehensive backlog processing project would have been implemented. Considering the current fiscal crisis, it seems quite probable that the backlog would have remained unaddressed for the foreseeable future in the absence of NHPRC funding.” Another staff member noted that the June 2009 layoffs would have eliminated any hope of dealing with the backlog had the project not already started. These responses speak to the significance of the MPLP approach in offering a framework for providing access to large quantities of records. Had minimal processing not become more acceptable to the archival profession, accepted enough that the NHPRC began offering grant lines for basic processing projects, the Kansas Historical Society’s backlog would not only have remained overwhelming but would have continued growing. Archives staff were also questioned concerning their ability to describe new manuscript accessions and state records transfers upon the project’s conclusion and the project archivists consequently leaving. Only 22 percent responded positively, while 66 percent could not say for certain, and 11 percent said “no” (Figure 5). 18 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
70
60
50
40 Percentage of Respondents 30
20
10
0 Yes No Cannot Say Not Applicable
Figure 5. Degree of staff confidence in being able to maintain new minimal de- scriptive standards and prevent the backlog from reappearing.
Respondents overwhelmingly noted that a professional archivist devoted to arrangement and description needed to remain on staff. Unfortunately, one of the two remaining processing archivists was let go during the June 2009 layoffs; the possibility of filling this position and the effects of this absence remain to be seen. Staff members also stated that records officers at state agencies needed to be better trained in how to prepare record transfers and apply the appropriate retention schedules. Staff fear that if the processing archivist position remains unfilled, the work will again “pile up” and the backlog once again will increase. The basic processing guidelines created by the project archivists are intended to give direction to acquisition staff and ideally prevent the backlog from growing again. Acquisitions staff has already taken on more descriptive duties, particularly for manuscript collections, though description of government records continues to lag behind. Recently, stricter adherence to the records retention schedules during state records transfers at both the archives and the transferring agency already have mitigated potential backlog problems. Matching a state records schedule transfer with the corresponding Dartzilla series is now easier, allowing staff to avoid unidentified “miscellaneous” accessions that once plagued the archives, as well as giving them easier access to the description in both the retention schedules and Dartzilla. “more access, less backlog” 19
Opportunities and Lessons Learned
The project at the Kansas Historical Society provides insight into unexpected benefits and opportunities coming out of using MPLP and working on a project of this scale, as well as lessons that could be of use to other institutions planning similar projects. One opportunity concerned internal public relations among all branches of the KHS. Archives staff presented the project at an all-staff meeting, providing them with the chance to remind other agency branches what the archives does, educate them about the importance of clearing out the backlog and what it means for the Society’s own records, and demonstrating what the staff accomplished during the course of this work. This project demonstrates the necessity for committed staff at all levels. Grant staff accomplished everything outlined within the NHPRC grant parameters, as well as additional tasks, largely because they were dedicated staff not distracted with the numerous responsibilities that typically fall upon permanent staff. The project archivists were given discretion to make on-the-spot decisions as needed, and they helped guide how the work of the project was completed. In the midst of other large-scale projects such as the KEEP electronic records project and the KHS Web site redesign, grant staff maintained regular access to and the full support of the State Archives and Library Division administration. Weekly meetings were held for most of the grant period, allowing the project archivists to present issues and concerns they could not resolve on their own and giving them input into the managerial decision-making process. However, information technology staff were not dedicated to this project, instead involved in major agency-wide projects such as overhauling the agency’s entire Web site. As a result, Dartzilla’s full functionality remains incomplete and the public interface has yet to be developed at the time of this writing.27 For a project of this magnitude, it is important to have all involved staff as dedicated as possible to ensure full completion of a project within the designated timeframe. As procedures changed during the course of the project, project staff’s descriptive practices became better developed and standardized, and particular pieces of information were more consistently added, such as retention schedule identifications. Consequently, agency and manuscript collections surveyed during the project’s early stages are not as well described as later materials. Some solutions involved revisiting particular series or manuscripts on an ad hoc basis when something new arose in those materials, and when project staff had time. This option may not exist for other institutions attempting similar projects on this scale. The key here was flexibility; no project, no matter how well thought out in advance, is finished without the occasional unexpected pitfall. In such situations, archivists have to face less than perfection and accept that they will not be able to fix everything. This project makes evident that MPLP is not a perfect process, nor that it ever can be. Despite the positive feedback and the work accomplished, problems and concerns remain. These include missing boxes, misfiled materials, accessions in extreme physical disarray—meaning they remain less accessible than they could be—and records with serious preservation needs. Many of these problems were unknown before the project began, thus providing unanticipated obstacles for the grant staff. These concerns provided both a lesson and an opportunity for the KHS: because of this project, those 20 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 problems are now concrete and quantified. When looking for volunteer or intern projects and when applying for future grants, Archives and Library staff can use this information to their advantage. Another solution to ensure that future accretions do not become hidden, government records specifically, is to focus on better records management practices and a stricter adherence to retention schedules. Since the project began, archival staff have continually worked to increase training efforts at state agencies and to streamline procedures, the results of which have been generally positive, though this effort remains on an ad hoc basis when time and other priorities permit. Archives staff have stopped simply accepting boxes from agencies—a practice that existed largely because the government archivist had no time to check what he or she was receiving—and started ensuring that appropriate records go to the State Records Center or come to the State Archives. The archives assistant has streamlined the records transfer process considerably, ensuring that records do not clutter unused corners of the stacks but go onto the shelves immediately, and that when they come to the archives they are already arranged. The backlog project provided the archives staff with the opportunity to look at all aspects of the transfer and descriptive processes and allowed them to change practices that no longer worked. A potential sustainability issue may reflect a disadvantage unique to the Kansas Historical Society’s situation, or one that may become more common as these types of grant-supported projects are performed. As the project archivists have moved on, a wealth of knowledge about the holdings and institutional memory has left with them. This concern is compounded by the current staffing and budget situation at the KHS; due to the lack of staff and the all-encompassing nature of this project, the project staff quickly became subject experts in the archives’ holdings. Nonetheless, institutional memory is inevitably lost when staff move on. The true test for this project will continue to be administered as both staff and public users refine and search descriptions in the database created by the project staff. If their descriptions and notes are robust enough—even if they are brief—that individuals are able to find the materials they need, then the project will have passed muster.
Conclusion
The completion of the basic processing project was a major step for the Kansas Historical Society in gaining true intellectual and physical control over its archival holdings. Given the recent reduction in staff and an uncertain future, the “More Product, Less Process” approach has provided the society with a means to operate within extremely limited resources. The project has resulted in the best access the State Archives and Library Division has ever had to its holdings, leaving it with a new collections management database system unlike any predecessor, one that already provides descriptive information for all state archives series and manuscript collections. When Dartzilla becomes available publicly, it will provide researchers with a search tool unlike any that the Historical Society has been able to offer before, increasing government transparency and availability of all collections in the archives. Problems “more access, less backlog” 21 that remain with archival and manuscript materials are now concrete and have been categorized with the information that the project archivists gathered, thereby giving the division staff better leverage when prioritizing what steps to take next with their collections. Institutions struggling with a similar situation will hopefully be able to refer to the Kansas Historical Society project as a guide for planning and executing a large-scale descriptive initiative. In a time when records are produced in larger quantities and users expect quicker and more efficient access than ever before, perhaps minimal description can not be considered ideal. One respondent provided insight that likely reflects the state of mind of many archivists who have experimented with the MPLP approach: “It is a trade off . . . more information helps me identify specific records a patron is researching. However, I am not opposed to giving the patron direction and letting them search the records or collections. It seems to me the question is, do you put more time into detailed information or record general information? With the current situation, I think less work is best.” A minimal processing approach has given the Society the best control it has ever had over its holdings, the results of which have already profoundly helped staff and, consequently, researchers.28
About the Authors: Matt Gorzalski received his Masters in Library Science from the University of Pittsburgh in 2008. From September 2008 until March 2010 he worked as a project archivist in the State Archives and Library Division of the Kansas Historical Society. Currently, he is archivist at the History Center in Diboll, Texas.
Marcella Wiget received her M.A. in History from Colorado State University in 2006. Upon graduation, she worked as curator of collections for the Reno County Historical Society in Hutchinson, Kansas until December 2007; in 2008, she worked as assistant archivist for the Bessemer Historical Society before joining the Kansas Historical Society as a project archivist on the same grant as Matt. She remains at the KHS, now working on another NHPRC-funded project to describe the Menninger Archives.
notes
1. Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” American Archivist 68 (2005): 208–263. 2. The Kansas State Historical Society recently changed its name to the Kansas Historical Society, and the Library and Archives Division changed its name to the State Library and Archives. 3. See Terry Abraham, Stephen E. Balzarini, and Anne Frantilla, “What is Backlog is Prologue: A Measurement of Archival Processing,” American Archivist 48 (1985): 31–44; Megan Floyd Desnoyers, “When is a Collection Processed?” The Midwestern Archivist 7 (1982): 5–25; Paul Ericksen and Robert Shuster, “Beneficial Shocks: The Place of Processing-Cost Analysis in Archival Administration,” American Archivist 58 (1995): 32–52; Uli Haler, “Variations in the Processing Rates on the Magnuson and Jackson Senatorial Papers,” American Archivist 50 (1987): 100–109; Karen Temple Lynch and Thomas E. Lynch, “Rates of Processing Manuscripts and Archives,” The Midwestern Archivist 7 (1982): 25–34; William J. Maher, “The Importance of Financial Analysis of Archival Programs,” The Midwestern Archivist 3 (1978): 3–24; William J. Maher, “Measurement and Analysis of Processing Costs in Academic Archives,” College and Research Libraries 43 (1982): 59–67; Helen W. Slotkin 22 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
and Karen T. Lynch, “An Analysis of Processing Procedures: The Adaptable Approach,” American Archivist 45 (1982): 155–163; and Michael J. Sullivan, “Budgeting For Archival Processing,” American Archivist 43:2 (1980): 209–211. 4. Barbara M. Jones, Nicole Bouche, Pat Bozeman, L. Gayle Cooper, Elaine Engst, Jain Fletcher, Jane Gillis, Julie Grob, Steven Hensen, Tom Hyry, Margaret Kimball, Deborah J. Leslie, Elizabeth Lilker, George Miles, Christopher Prom, and Henry Raine, “Hidden Collections, Scholarly Barriers: Creating Access to Unprocessed Special Collections Materials in North America’s Research Libraries,” 6 June 2003,
were created in MS Access. Archives Inventory (a staff and reference version), Manuscripts Inventory, numerous microfilm databases, databases for Genealogical Society of Utah film of specific counties’ records, accessioning databases, and other related programs and tables will become obsolete as this information is imported into the new collections management system. 19. Manuscript collections did not have such a database. 20. In many instances, the project archivists benefited because of previous arrangement work that had been completed. 21. http://www.archon.org. 22. http://www.kansasmemory.org. 23. Christine Desmuke, E-mail to authors, 20 September 2010. She also noted that the agency has made a commitment to custom programming, indicating that at least one programmer needs to remain on staff. 24. While project and permanent staff noted manuscript collections in need of reappraisal, these collections were not formally re-evaluated within the timeframe of the grant. 25. Duplicative series entries in the database in need of merging were caused by staff confusion over vague series titles and by importing skeletal entries from multiple databases. 26. The survey was created using http://www.surveymonkey.com. For a listing of the questions asked and the results, please see Appendix 1 at the end of this article. 27. The Historical Society was awarded a time extension on the grant, extending it beyond May 2010 to December 2010. 28. The authors of this article would like to thank the National Historic Public Records Commission for the funding for this project, and Patricia Michaelis, Mathew Veatch, and Robert Knecht for permission to write this article and for their guidance throughout this project. They would also like to thank the reviewers for their comments.
Appendix 1—Basic Processing Backlog Survey Questions
1. How has the high-level description at the series level for government records and the collection level for manuscripts helped or hindered you in your work? Would you prefer to have more detailed information (e.g., folder lists)? Very helpful: 72.7% Somewhat helpful: 18.2% Neutral: 9.1% Not helpful: 0% Not at all helpful: 0%
2. Are state records and manuscript collections easier to find and more accessible as a result of More Product, Less Process (MPLP) description? Very accessible: 60% Somewhat accessible: 40% Neutral: 0% Not accessible: 0% Not at all accessible: 0%
3. Are you using series or collections you have not regularly used before? Yes: 50% No: 10% Cannot say: 20% Not applicable: 20% 24 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Appendix 1 – continued
4. Has the information (series or collection titles, agency information, subject headings, key words) the archivists added been sufficient for finding what you are looking for? Yes: 90% No: 0% Cannot say: 10% Not applicable: 0%
5. How has Dartzilla improved reference and/or general searching, compared to using the existing databases (e.g. ARCINVY)? Greatly improved: 90% Somewhat improved: 10% Neutral: 0% Not improved: 0% Not at all improved: 0%
6. Had the NHPRC not offered a grant line in basic processing projects, were there any alternate plans for processing the backlog? Yes: 0% No: 20% Cannot say: 60% Not applicable: 20%
7. Have the procedures staff have put into place in the past year worked so far? (Do you think staff will be able to keep processing new materials as they are acces- sioned with the procedures this grant project has set up?) Yes: 22.2% No: 1 1.1% Cannot say: 66.7% Not applicable: 0%
8. What do you think are the next steps after this grant project is over? [open-ended text question] Separated at Appraisal: Maintaining the Archival Bond Between Archives Collections and Museum Objects By Katie Rudolph
Abstract: Although archives may consider three-dimensional objects as being outside their purview, many archivists are confronted with the task of appraising collec- tions that contain both records and artifacts. A case study performed at the Wisconsin Historical Society examined the ways in which an archives managed the appraisal and processing of an archives collection that contained artifacts. Concepts from studies of material culture and the documentation strategy, as well as the notion of the archival bond, are discussed. Ways for archivists to maintain the bonds between records and objects in their collections are suggested.
Introduction
An image in an archives preservation book shows two boots placed alongside paper records inside an archives case file (Figure 1). The caption proclaims that these three-dimensional items are not compatible partners with paper.1 Although the caption is meant to be understood in the context of preservation and intended to denounce unsound storage practices, it also communicates how archivists are challenged by three-dimensional objects when it comes to appraisal. Three-dimensional man-made objects, often referred to in archives as artifacts2 or realia,3 can be damaging to surrounding material due to their shape, size, or physical composition. Out of practical preservation concerns, archivists find themselves unable to retain artifacts in Figure 1. Photograph from Pre- the archives and sometimes transfer them serving Archives and Manuscripts to different organizational departments or by Mary Lynn Ritzenhaler, page institutions. Ritzenhaler states, “separate filing 111. Used with permission. 26 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 and cross-reference systems should be developed for bulky and potentially damaging three-dimensional items—pressed flowers, campaign buttons, medals, locks of hair, cased photographs—that are deemed worthy of retention.”4 But how does an archives determine which artifacts are deemed worthy of retention? While it is suggested in archival literature that the concept of the record is independent of format and could indeed be an artifact, records are commonly understood as being text, images, and sound fixed to such formats as paper, film, tape, and disk. A record is defined as data or information that has been fixed to a medium; possesses content, context, and structure; and serves the purpose of extending human memory or demonstrating accountability.5 In archives, the term “artifact” is typically used to differentiate a man-made physical object that is three-dimensional from one that is two-dimensional, such as paper. Richard Pearce-Moses’ A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology sees artifacts as “records that document a design or function.”6 While Pearce-Moses also states that “An artifact may serve as a record if it is preserved to bolster human memory or to demonstrate accountability,”7 it will be argued that there are two challenges that prevent artifacts from being fully integrated into the archival record. Firstly, archives typically do not possess the environment, supplies, and space suitable to properly preserve artifacts. Secondly, because a three- dimensional object’s content, context, and structure may not be as easily determinable as traditional formats of archival records, archivists are at a loss for applying appraisal theories to artifacts. Despite these shortfalls, archivists are still confronted with the challenge of appraising collections that contain both records and artifacts. This raises many questions that generally have not been addressed in archival literature. What do archives do when collections contain both records and artifacts? To examine this issue, a case study was conducted at the Wisconsin Historical Society (hereafter referred to as WHS) Archives and Museum in Madison, Wisconsin. This study examined the Krzyzanowski Family Papers, 1886–2003,8 which was accessioned to the Archives in 2004. This collection documents the Krzyzanowski family, a family that moved to Wisconsin from Russian Poland during the 1890s. Much of the collection pertains largely to Estelle Krzyzanowski Schulze, a beauty salon owner and manager in the Milwaukee area from the 1920s until the 1950s. The collection contains many business and personal papers, correspondence, photographs, and scrapbooks documenting Estelle’s professional and personal life. Estelle’s correspondence and diary pertain to her troubled relationship with Reinhardt Schulze whom she married, separated from, divorced, and then later remarried a few days prior to his death. Also included in the collection are four artifact items: Reinhardt Schulze’s World War I Red Cross badge, personal hygiene kit, sewing kit, and Estelle Krzyzanowski Schulze’s beautician’s case. According to the scope and content note found in the collection’s register, the collection not only documents Estelle’s personal and professional life, but also the larger subject areas of daily life for 1930s working- class women, working-class beauty shops, and beauty culture in general.9 The case study will examine how the WHS Archives appraised and processed a collection that contained artifacts. The purpose of the study is to develop a better understanding of how an archives copes with artifacts and why these approaches are taken. Concepts from studies of material culture and the documentation strategy, separated at appraisal 27 as well as the notion of the archival bond, call for a reexamination of these current archival practices with regard to three-dimensional objects. The goal of the paper is to show that artifacts play a vital role in documenting not only design and function, but also biography and history. This being so, ways for archivists to maintain the bonds between records and artifacts in their collections will be suggested.
Literature Review
Little has been said about objects in archives. The appraisal of artifacts has not been discussed in archival literature in the same way that textual, visual, and audio records have. Deirdre Scaggs recognizes that most of archival discourse excludes non-textual materials and claims that graduate archival programs do not equip archivists to manage media outside of what is not text based.10 While Elisabeth Kaplan and Jeffrey Mifflin suggest that archivists apply concepts of visual literacy to the appraisal of visual media, a call has not been made for archivists to increase their knowledge of concepts from material culture studies in order to appraise artifacts. Ian Woodward defines material culture as “any material object (e.g. shoes, cup, pen) or network of material objects (e.g. house, car, shopping mall) that people perceive, touch, use and handle, carry out social activities within, use or contemplate.”11 Material culture studies examine the mutual relationships between people and objects. As Woodward writes, “In particular, studies of material culture are concerned with what uses people put objects to and what objects do for, and to people.”12 The use and creation of objects and language are often considered two of the most unique expressions of human capacity. However, while language has been studied extensively, objects and their relationship to people have been examined far less. As late as the 1960s, the study of material culture was limited to archaeologists who analyzed materials from past human societies and to museum professionals who documented cultural artifacts.13 Woodward sees contemporary material culture as having three fundamental principles. Firstly, material culture studies is now interdisciplinary in nature, as it utilizes the perspectives of many disciplines (such as sociology, anthropology, and political economics) to interpret objects. No discipline is given authority and no object has a single interpretation.14 In addition to its interdisciplinary nature, material culture studies relies on two other fundamentals—firstly, that objects are important for culture and society because they hold meaning, and secondly, that this meaning can change over time.15 Material culture studies recognize artifacts as an integral part of documenting people. Christopher Tilley posits that the main purpose of material culture studies is to understand the relationship between subjects and objects.16 Tilley sees the material culture studies concept of objectification as a way of understanding this relationship and getting over the delineation that exists between human and non-human realms. He states: Through making, using, exchanging, consuming, interacting and living with things, people make themselves in the process. The object world is thus absolutely central to an understanding of the identities of individual person and societies.17 28 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Using concepts from material culture studies, one learns to view objects as a medium through which people come to make and know themselves. Richard Pearce- Moses’ A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology regards artifacts as having the ability to act as records that “document a design or function,”18 and this view is perhaps representative of the limits that archives put on artifacts’ abilities to document biography and history. Using this perspective, when artifacts are “read,” they visually communicate what materials and techniques were used to make the objects (design) and what the objects were used for (function). For example, examining an ancient Oneota pot, one can observe that it was constructed from clay, shaped by hand, and used as a container. Using a material culture studies perspective, archaeologists see the same Oneota pot as a way to get a clearer picture of the Oneota people and their daily life. Archaeology is a discipline devoted to strengthening the understanding of the collective human past through the study of physical remains left behind. Archivists perhaps believe that, similar to archeologists, historians and researchers accomplish a comparable understanding of the collective human past studying archival records. What is in question, however, is whether or not archivists are looking beyond their own institutions and traditional archival record formats for the documentary record. Helen Samuels has made a call for the use of documentation strategy, “a form of analysis that promotes the coordination of the activities of many separate archives.”19 Samuels suggests that this coordination will help archivists to realize that they manage only a portion of the documentary record and that other information is available in forms traditionally not cared for by archival institutions.20 Samuels argues that traditional appraisal methods have been problematic because they have emphasized form over substance, preferring paper records to other formats.21 Other cultural institutions such as libraries and museums (and even beyond) hold the artwork, architecture, music, objects, and published materials that create a richer documentary record. The concept of the archival bond, which Pearce-Moses defines as “the interrelationships between a record and other records resulting from the same activity,” 22 backs up Samuels’ claim that many forms create the documentary record. It is suggested that the archival bond be extended to apply to the relationship between records and objects. Luciana Duranti provides compelling reasons why records should be kept together by suggesting the concept of the archival bond, that is, “the network of relationships that each record has with the records belonging in the same aggregation.”23 Duranti declares that the archival bond determines the meaning of the record. The archival bond stresses that records should be valued for their relationship with other records rather than just their existence as autonomous entities. Because of the type of symbiosis that occurs between records, item-level selection is unacceptable, as it obliterates the archival bond and destroys the possibility for any remaining records to be considered records at all.24 Duranti suggests that the archival bond is originary, necessary, and determined. The archival bond is originary because it is created when a record is created. It is necessary because a document can only be classified as a record if it acquires an archival bond. separated at appraisal 29
The archival bond is determined because it is “qualified by the function of the record in the documentary aggregation in which it belongs.”25 When artifacts and more traditional types of archival records are aggregated together, they exhibit the traits of the archival bond. The archival bond between records and objects is indeed originary. Records and objects are used alongside one another and are oftentimes created together. The archival bond is an essential part of the record because it is an “expression of the development of the activity in which the document participates, rather than of the act that the document embodies . . . because it contains within itself the direction of the cause-effect relationship.”26 To illustrate the importance of this relationship, one should look at how art historians examine the personal papers and correspondence of an artist that chronologically align with the creation of a particular work of art. The connections present between an artist’s artwork and her papers reveal information useful for interpreting artwork and determining biographical history. Might researchers in archives also find it useful to compare a record creator’s documents and artifacts in order to interpret history and biography? The archival bond between records and artifacts is indeed necessary and determined because without it, objects would exist in a vacuum without an ability to provide information about history or biography. It is true that sometimes artifacts are studied and admired for simply their design or function, but it can be argued that by valuing objects for just these two facets sells them short on the story they have to tell about history, culture, and their past owners.
Case Study
The case study was conducted at the Archives and Museum Divisions of Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) in Madison, Wisconsin. WHS is a state agency as well as a private membership organization. It is the oldest historical society in the United States that has received continuous public funding. According to the WHS Web site, “By statute it [WHS] is charged with collecting, advancing, and disseminating knowledge of Wisconsin and of the trans-Allegheny West.”27 The mission of the WHS is similar to that of other state historical societies which house archives, library, and museum divisions under one umbrella. Providing service to the community is a large component of the Wisconsin Historical Society’s work. According to its mission statement, “The Society engages the public with the excitement of discovery, inspires people with new perspectives on the past, and illuminates the relevance of history in our lives today.”28 The collecting mission of the Wisconsin Historical Society Archives has concentrated on materials related to Wisconsin, be they materials about Wisconsin, from Wisconsin, or created by a Wisconsinite. Additionally, conscious efforts have been made to collect materials that document the issues of labor, social action, and mass communications. Materials are largely donated to the institution. Kyle Krause, Collections Analysis and Control archivist, and Scott Roller, Museum Collections manager, were interviewed to better understand what occurs when archival collections containing artifacts are appraised. The Krzyzanowski Family Papers, 30 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
1886–2003 was used as an example of an archives collection that contains both records and objects. This collection documents a family that emigrated from Russian Poland to Wisconsin during the 1890s. Much of the collection, however, pertains largely to Estelle Krzyzanowski Schulze, the oldest of the eight Krzyzanowski children, owner of the Estelle Schulze Beaute Studio, and manager of several other beauty shops in the Milwaukee area from the 1920s until the 1950s. The collection was accessioned to the Archives in 2004. According to the collection’s ArCat record, it is 2.6 cubic feet (5 archives boxes and 1 flat box).29 The collection vividly documents Estelle’s career through a series that includes photographs of her activities at various Milwaukee beauty shops, licenses, taxes, advertising calendars, business cards, a scrapbook, and even personal injury claim paperwork. Estelle was served with papers for performing a permanent wave on a customer which resulted in “burns upon the top of the head and back of the head, which caused her great suffering and distress.”30 The collection also documents Estelle’s marriage, separation, and divorce to Reinhardt Schulze. Correspondence and a diary chronicle Estelle’s stormy relationship with Reinhardt, an alcoholic and abusive World War I veteran. Estelle tells of the many secrets of her relationship with Reinhardt in her diary. She explains how she had to keep her marriage to Reinhardt concealed until 1920 (they married in 1917) because he was an heir to a $20,000 fortune, providing he stayed a bachelor until that date. Estelle discusses the compensation Reinhardt received from the government, claiming he fell out of an airplane during World War I. She talks about the challenges she faced being a single mother, including her lack of financial support from Reinhardt and his estrangement from their daughter, Dorothea.31 Objects originally contained in the Krzyzanowski Family Papers included Reinhardt Schulze’s metal Red Cross badge, personal hygiene kit, and sewing kit, which were all used during his service in World War I. Estelle Krzyzanowski Schulze’s beautician’s case, beauty shop cape, and powder puff set were also part of the collection. The beautician’s case is a large wooden box with printing that reads: Gabrieleen Permanent Waves Company Incorporated, Chicago, USA The World’s Largest Manufacturers of Permanent Waving Equipment and Supplies. Inside the case is a trove of beautician’s supplies, including non-electrical hair irons, hairpins, clips, barrettes, and a 1948–1949 Estelle Schulze Beaute Studio promotional calendar with a cartoon pin-up illustration, similar to the collection of calendars found within the series documenting Estelle’s career. The beauty shop cape is pink plastic with a black and white “Moulin Rouge” design dating from the 1950s. The powder puff set is pink with a printed handle that reads “Estelle Schulze Beaute Shop.” An informational interview was conducted with Collections Analysis and Control Archivist Kyle Krause at the Wisconsin Historical Society Archives Division. Mr. Krause began with an explanation of processing. The first step in processing is performing a first pass through the collection. Different formats, mediums, and artifacts requiring preservation and storage dissimilar to paper records are then moved from the collection. Photographs, films, and sound recordings are considered intellectually within the archival collection, but are removed from the paper records and housed in the Visual and Sound Archives due to their unique preservation needs. In the case of separated at appraisal 31 the Krzyzanowski Family Papers, 415 photographs and 555 negatives were moved to the Archives Visual Materials Holdings.32 If material parsed from this first pass during processing appears to be “intellectually divorced”33 from the collection or exists in a format unsuitable for preservation at the Archives, a separation is made. The Wisconsin Historical Society defines a separation as “material of value that has no intellectual relationship to a collection, or is better suited for another collection or institution, such as the Museum or a local historical society.34 Any artifacts that have been separated will not remain intellectually within the Archives Division. This is dissimilar to materials moved to the Visual and Sound Archives. Documentation of their movement to the Visual and Sound Archives appears in finding aids and ArCat records. A Separation Record is completed for separations.35 The Separation Record includes the Accession/Call Number, title, and donor name of the source collection. The record then indicates if the item or items in question were separated during accessioning or during processing. A recommendation for the transfer location, a description of the material, and a choice of where the material should be returned appear on the Separation Record, as shown below:
The material described below has no substantive relationship to the source collection or is more appropriate to another collection and has been separated to:
[ ] SHSW Library [ ] UW Archives [ ] UW Library System [ ] SHSW Museum [ ] Visual/Sound Archives [ ] Other
Description of material:
If this material is not wanted: [ ] Dispose of as you see fit [ ] Return to staff member named below for: [ ] Other:36
All six artifact items from the Krzyzanowski collection (World War I Red Cross badge, personal hygiene kit, sewing kit, beautician’s case, beauty shop cape, and powder puff set) became candidates for museum separations. The Wisconsin Historical Society defines museum separations as consisting of “material that is related to the manuscript collection, but [is] more appropriate for the Museum’s collection.”37 According to Scott Roller, the WHS Museum Collections manager consulted, before the museum separation process is initiated and paperwork begins, it is highly desirable for the archivist to first confer with a museum curator about the materials in question. If a museum separation is then agreed upon, WHS policy mandates that all separations to the Museum be accompanied by a copy of the Deed of Gift as well as the Separation Record. This is to ensure that provenance is maintained. It also provides supporting evidence that material has a significant connection to the archival collection from which it is being separated. The WHS suggests that the archivist send “any material that will 32 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 help the Museum identify, date, and otherwise help them decide whether or not to keep the item in their collection, such as a copy of the RLIN bib record, the relevant portion of the register, or pertinent correspondence with a donor.”38 The Archives keeps a copy of the Separation Record in the collection’s case file, which often includes other information about the collection, including its catalog record, finding aid, Deed of Gift, obituaries, and other pertinent background information. Once the separated items from the Krzyzanowski Family Papers were within the temporary custody of the Museum, a Temporary Deposit Receipt and temporary deposit number were issued for each item. This reflects the “limbo”39 stage that the items are in when they have not been formally accepted into the permanent collection of the Museum Division. The WHS Museum Collections Committee then reviews each item further and generally accepts objects with Wisconsin provenance, meaning that the object was used or made in Wisconsin or by a Wisconsinite. In the past, however, the Museum did more genre collecting. Mr. Roller recounted that the Museum once built a collection of 256 typewriters (many not produced in Wisconsin) because the typewriter was invented in Milwaukee by Christopher Latham Sholes. The Museum now collects Wisconsin-focused items, with much of the collection developed from museum separations made by the Archives Division.40 The Museum currently does not have a written collecting plan.41 Upon appraisal and review from the WHS Museum Collections Committee, the museum did not wish to accept the World War I Red Cross badge, personal hygiene kit, sewing kit, and beautician’s case. The items were returned to their depositor, the WHS Archives Division. The Archives then had to decide what to do with the items next. One option was to transfer them to another institution, such as a national or specialty museum where the object would fit well within the institution’s collection. The Archives instead decided to keep and store the objects in a box together.42 The Museum retained and subsequently accessioned the beauty shop cape and powder puff set. A Record of Transfer was completed.43 This record contains the item’s accession number, the date the record was issued, and the original source of the object, including the organization or individual’s name and mailing address and the name of the institution and collection from which the objects were transferred. The objects are listed individually with a short description, followed by the name of the source collection and its call number. For example, the objects from the Krzyzanowski Family Papers, are listed as: 1. Beauty shop cape, pink plastic, black and white “Moulin Rouge”’ design, 1950–1960 WHS Archives #Mss 990 2. Powder puff, pink, “Estelle Schulze Beaute Shop,” in case WHS Archives #Mss 990. This description is followed by a statement that reads, “The State Historical Society of Wisconsin has received and hereby accepts the above described object(s) of property into the permanent collection of the Museum Division.”44 Both the Museum Division and the transferring division (in the case of the Krzyzanowski Family Papers, the WHS Archives Division) retain a copy of the Record of Transfer. For the Archives Division, the Record of Transfer is sometimes the sole record that indicates the Museum has accepted the separated object and assigned it a permanent separated at appraisal 33 collection accession number. The Record of Transfer is kept in the collection case files in the Archives staff area. Mention of this record is generally not made in publicly accessible finding aids and catalog records. In the case of the Krzyzanowski Family Papers, the collection’s register and catalog record do not disclose information about the transfer of objects from the Archives to the Museum. Mr. Krause mentioned that in recent years the Archives Division has discussed how catalog records and finding aids could link archives collections with separated museum objects. The concern, however, is that presenting the linkage to the public in finding aids could puzzle patrons who may wrongly infer that the objects are within the custody of the Archives.45 For the Museum Division, catalog records alert curatorial staff to the fact that an item has archival records associated with it by including a note with the WHS Archives accession number in the “Object History/Context” field.46 Unlike the Archives’ registers, the Museum catalog database is not directly accessible to the public. The Museum, however, has established a Wisconsin Historical Museum Online Collection, which is publicly accessible. Each record contains a digital image of the object and information including Object ID, Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) Object Term, Detailed Description, and Object History taken from the Museum’s two hundred thousand catalog database records.47
Findings
In general, the Wisconsin Historical Society Archives separates artifacts from the largely text-based record collections they were appraised with. This is done for preservation reasons and for rationale relating to the appropriateness of the objects to other collections. Sometimes separations are made to remove objects that are considered “intellectually divorced” from the Archives collection. Objects are often separated to the WHS Museum. The artifacts from the Krzyzanowski Family Papers, 1886–2003 were transferred to the Museum. The Museum Collections Committee reviewed the items in relation to their collecting policy, which favors artifacts with strong Wisconsin provenance. This collecting policy differs from the collecting policy of the Archives, which not only includes Wisconsin-related collections, but also national collections related to the topics of social action, labor, and mass communications. As mentioned previously, the Museum chose to accession the beauty shop cape and powder puff set; the World War I Red Cross badge, personal hygiene kit, sewing kit, and beautician’s case were declined and returned to the Archives. According to the March 16, 2004 Museum Collections Committee meeting minutes, the Committee “finally agreed that since the history of Estelle Schulze is so well documented in the archival collection it was important to keep at least some three-dimensional representation of her shop and decided to accept one or more of the powder puffs with her shop’s name on them . . .”48 The Museum Collection Committee meeting minutes also document the Committee’s comparison of the Estelle Krzyzanowski Schulze beauty shop materials with the Museum’s collection of items from Crisella’s Beauty Shop, a salon operated in Blanchardville, Wisconsin during the 1930s. According to the Museum’s internal 34 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 database, the beauty shop cape with the “Moulin Rouge” design was accepted because it was “Used at Estelle Schulze Beaute Studio and/or Schuster’s Beauty Salon in Milwaukee, WI.”49 Evidence that the beauty shop cape and powder puff set were once part of the Krzyzanowski Family Papers is available in the Record of Transfer kept in the collection case files held by the processing archivist in the Archives staff area. The Record of Transfer includes the museum objects’ accession numbers. With these numbers, a patron is able to contact the Museum for access to the objects. The World War I Red Cross badge, personal hygiene kit, sewing kit, and beautician’s case are now housed together in Box 6 of the Krzyzanowski Family Papers. Mr. Krause explained that when the Museum rejects museum separations, the Archives oftentimes incorporate these artifacts into the archival collection if they feel it adds substantively to the historical record.50 Viewing the items firsthand, it was observed that they did not contain any markings which clearly distinguished them as having a Wisconsin focus, unlike the powder puff set. While viewing the artifacts at the Archives, it seemed apparent that keeping artifacts with the original collection was not an everyday occurrence. Other patrons and even archives staff seemed curious and surprised that a beautician’s case was part of the Archives’ collection.
Discussion
The WHS Archives separate objects from archives collections and generally prefer to transfer them to the WHS Museum. Format dictates this appraisal decision, as objects are viewed as being within the preservation purview of the Museum. In the case of the Krzyzanowski Family Papers, two of the six objects were accessioned to the Museum while the remaining objects were accessioned to the Archives. It is pertinent to ask what implications these separations have for the documentary record of Estelle Krzyzanowski Schulze’s career. To consider what ramifications separations have on the documentary record, it is important to examine what objects mean to archival records and other objects. With Estelle’s papers, one learns about her career through financial records, sales contracts, loan information, and personal injury claims. These records document how Estelle operated her business. The beautician’s case, beauty shop cape, and powder puff set were tools that Estelle used during her career. They illustrate how she worked, but also how she managed operations at her shop. The objects tell about the services Estelle provided and how they were performed. Looking through the beauty case, one learns about the way in which Estelle curled, permed, cut, and styled hair. The “Moulin Rouge” cape reveals the glamorous aesthetic of Estelle’s working-class beauty shop. The powder puff set, with “Estelle Schulze Beaute Shop” printed on the puff’s handle, reveals the different ways in which Estelle advertised and branded her business. Duranti theorizes that the archival bond recognizes the influences documents make on other documents and illustrates the cause and effect relationship between them. This theory can be applied beyond traditional records to objects. In the Krzyzanowski collection, Estelle’s records (insurance forms, sales contracts, loan paperwork) and her separated at appraisal 35 tools were integral parts of her business. It would have been difficult to run her business without both records and objects (tools). In a sense, documents and objects shaped each other. An example of the interaction can be found in the personal injury claim mentioned earlier. Because Estelle performed a permanent wave using chemicals that burned a woman’s scalp, personal injury claim records were generated. The archival bond between Estelle’s records and her tools is present, and there is historical value in preserving the records, the artifacts, and their connections. But did the museum separations from the Krzyzanowski Family Papers destroy the archival bond? One could say yes because item-level selection was performed and now Estelle’s career artifacts reside in two places. One could also argue, however, that it did not because the archival bond is upheld by the Record of Transfer, residing in the collection’s case files, that indicates what items were separated and where they are currently housed. Is a Record of Transfer able to uphold the archival bond? The Record of Transfer accurately describes and documents that a powder puff set and beauty shop cape were separated from the Krzyzanowski Family Papers at the WHS Archives and transferred to the WHS Museum. The Record of Transfer, however, does not explain why two objects were chosen while four were not, and perhaps it should not have to disclose that information. As a patron viewing the Krzyzanowski Family Papers register, one is left to wonder why two objects are at the Museum while the four other objects remain part of the archives collection as “artifacts.” The separation causes a division between Estelle’s career artifacts, making a patron speculate why some of Estelle’s beauty shop tools are at the Museum and some are at the Archives. Is the beautician’s case more central to the archives collection? Or are the beauty salon cape and powder puff more important to the collection and, thus, receive special preservation and exhibition at the Museum? These speculations cause one to look at value at the item level. This is in opposition to the archival bond, which sees that the value of records comes from their aggregation with other records. Also at odds with the concept of the archival bond is the level of accessibility to the Record of Transfer. Although this record can be viewed by patrons if requested, there is no indication of its existence in the collection’s finding aid or catalog record. It is, therefore, rather unlikely that a patron will request information about museum transfers unless they possess knowledge of appraisal and accessioning processes in archives and museums. The archival bond can be retained through archival description that equally weights separated objects with their source archival collection. The first step in this process is getting archives to realize the value that artifacts can have. By using concepts associated with material culture studies, it is possible to see how objects are valuable “records” and do more than provide evidence of design and function,” but rather document the biographies of people and the histories of societies. For example, objects from the Krzyzanowski collection are the tools from which Estelle Krzyzanowski Schulze built a business that supported her and her daughter following a troubling separation and divorce from Reinhardt Schulze. These tools also document the societal beauty craze that began to blossom in the 1920s, which perhaps can be attributed to peacetime 36 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 affluence, increased leisure time, the production of consumer goods, cinema culture, and the inclination to feminize the boyish fashion looks of the era. Concepts associated with the documentation strategy are applicable to the appraisal of archives collections containing artifacts. By using the documentary strategy, an understanding evolves that the documentary record is not limited to textual records and one institution. Cooperation and communication between institutions and even record creators creates a fuller documentary record by ensuring that an adequate amount of information about a person, population, or subject has been collected and dispersed.51 Description of archival and museum holdings should clearly link the documentary record. Already, some institutions are making strides towards producing description that connects museum objects with archival collections. For example, the Ohio Historical Society’s catalog records now illustrate the link between archival records and related museum objects in their “Notes” field,52 thanks to a grant-funded project that allowed for paper collection management records to be integrated into machine-readable cataloging (MARC) records. The project, Connecting Ohio’s History, seeks to create linkages between the Ohio Historical Society’s objects, records, and people. The use of digital technologies in archives records and finding aids will improve the documentary record link between archives and other institutions. The use of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and the utilization of hypertext links will allow for finding aids to connect a patron instantly to other institutions where another part of the documentary record is found. For instance, in the Krzyzanowski Family Papers, an on-line finding aid could alert patrons to the presence of a separated object at the WHS Museum with a note stating, “See the Wisconsin Historical Museum for museum objects related to the Krzyzanowski Family Papers.” This note could contain a hypertext link that would connect the patron to the Wisconsin Historical Museum Digital Collection where a digital image of the object and accompanying object metadata could be viewed. This course of action is dependent on the growth of the Museum Digital Collection as it creates records at the item level. Likewise, the Museum Digital Collection would also have an opportunity to link its objects to the archives collections from which they were separated. Kyle Krause mentioned that the Archives have discussed ways to make patrons aware of transferred museum objects through finding aids, but mentioned that they saw potential for patrons to be confused that the objects were available at the Archives instead of the Museum. That is a valid concern. Perhaps digital finding aids can do a better job not only of connecting the Archives to the Museum collection, but also helping to visually delineate that they are two separate entities with differing collections.
Conclusion
Artifact appraisal in archives has not been discussed nor developed sufficiently in archival literature. Institutions are confronted with collections that contain both traditional archival records and artifacts, but lack appraisal concepts to deal with them. As the case study shows, museums often become the custodians of objects separated separated at appraisal 37 from archives collections. An understanding of material culture studies concepts, documentation strategy, and the archival bond seem key to developing future object appraisal practices. This understanding will help archivists realize the value that three-dimensional objects have in documenting not only design and function, but also biography and history. Additionally, archival description can help to clearly link the documentary record by connecting objects to the archives collections from which they were separated. It is proposed that clearly defined linkages between objects and archival collections uphold archival bond by re-emphasizing the records’ original aggregation. In the future, perhaps digital technology in the form of EAD finding aids utilizing hypertext links will connect patrons with disparate institutions who are supporting essentially the same documentary record. By further developing archival appraisal practices that recognize the value of artifacts, objects will still be transferred to museums. After all, museums specialize in the preservation and study of three-dimensional objects. It is up to archivists, however, to recognize the connection of objects to traditional archival records and to make this relationship known in archival description. By acknowledging the bond between objects and traditional archival records, patrons will be supplied with a much fuller view of the historical record.
About the Author: Katie Rudolph is the Special Collections photo archivist for the Pikes Peak Library District in Colorado Springs, Colorado. She has an M.A. in Library and Information Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. She has held posi- tions at the University of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Historical Society, and Wisconsin Public Television.
notes
1. Mary Lynn Ritzenhaler, Preserving Archives and Manuscripts (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2003): 111. 2. Richard Pearce-Moses, “Artifact,” Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology (Society of American Archivists, 2005),
8. Krzyzanowski Family, Krzyzanowski Family Papers, 1886–2003, Wisconsin Historical Society Archives, Madison, WI. 9. Register, Krzyzanowski Family Papers, 1886-2003, Wisconsin Historical Society Archives, Madison, WI. 10. Deirdre A. Scaggs, “The Appraisal of Amateur Photography,” Records & Information Management Report 20:2 (February 2004): 2. 11. Ian Woodward, Understanding Material Culture (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2007): 14. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., 19. 14. Ibid., 27. 15. Ibid., 28. 16. Christopher Tilley, “Objectification,” Handbook of Material Culture, ed. Christopher Tilley, Webb Keane, Susanne Kuechler-Fogden, Mike Rowlands, and Patricia Spyer (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2006): 61. 17. Ibid. 18. Pearce-Moses, “Artifact,” Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology,
48. Museum Collections Committee, Wisconsin Historical Society, Museum Division, “Meeting Minutes,” March 16, 2004. 49. Roller,
Abstract: The professional literature on archives and music librarianship in the United States only tangentially addresses the management of music archival records. Archives and special collections libraries often find print and manuscript music amongst their holdings, even if they are not music-specific repositories. Because printed music material is a proxy for the work and not the work itself, adequate description of these materials may require more granularity than archivists customarily provide. Existing standards for archival description require more work before they will describe music as easily as they describe text. The article offers descriptive examples for typical manifestations of musical works.
Introduction
The professional literature on archives and music librarianship in the United States only tangentially addresses the management of music archival records. Archives and special collections libraries collect the papers and records of composers, performers, scholars, and professional musical organizations and yet, the archivist or librarian faced with acquiring, arranging, describing, and preserving these materials has little published help in overcoming the unique descriptive problems music presents. The music library community faced similar descriptive issues, and developed a significant body of literature that addresses the inherent descriptive and access needs of printed and manuscript music, yet very little has permeated through to the archives community. The development of such guidelines and best practices for describing and providing access to print and manuscript music materials in archives will enable archivists to be better stewards of an important segment of our cultural heritage. Archives and special collections libraries often find print and manuscript music amongst their holdings, even if they are not music-specific repositories. A university archives may, for example, have papers of a retired faculty member who happened to 42 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 be a composer, or a historical society might hold the records of the town’s municipal band. Finding sections of extraneous materials within a collection or repository is a common occurrence, and when faced with the task of providing access to these, the archivist with little or no knowledge of music may find the choosing of meaningful descriptive terminology to be very difficult. In this article, we examine the nature of descriptive practice for print and manuscript music materials within current archives literature, and offer descriptive examples for typical manifestations of musical works. In doing so, we hope to create awareness of the special descriptive needs of music materials, to provide examples for future use, and to demonstrate the need for further work in this area. Unlike textual materials, description of the music materials does not constitute a description of the work itself, but rather description of surrogates. Music is intangible: the sound waves it comprises cannot themselves be put into acid-free boxes. Any printed or manuscript music materials held by archives are proxies for the actual music. In addition to printed music materials (ultimately, nothing more than instructions for cre- ation of the sound waves), such proxies may include sound recordings1 (reproductions of the sound waves created in one performance) and even music instruments (tools for creating the sound waves).2 But since these materials are not the music itself, they are an incomplete picture of a work. While an archivist may describe a score to a given work, she is still not describing the music directly. Though this may seem a trifle, it is relevant to the information-seeking process: the manuscript of a book can be read and fully comprehended by anyone with knowledge of the relevant language, can be described using the text itself, and can be scanned and searched using full text searching. Even among trained musicians, the ability to fully “hear” a musical work by observing a score varies considerably. The music notation cannot itself be used to describe the work in any useful way. Though progress is being made in this area,3 even digitized music cannot yet reliably be searched in its native written language (music notation). The problem is compounded when describing re- corded music, instruments, and other music materials. The metadata and descriptive terms that the archivist attaches to the material are still the only effective means by which music materials may be searched.
Descriptive Practice of Music Archival Materials: A Review of the Literature
Music catalogers in libraries can count on a myriad of resources on the description of music materials4 that span from localized practice to the latest developments on resource description for metadata standards, but these focus on the efficiency and widespread adoption of machine-readable cataloging (MARC) for describing their holdings. Archivists, on the other hand, do not have the breadth of specialized literature that can aid in the description of printed and manuscript music materials, let alone rely on the descriptions created at other repositories. They can, however, start by correctly identifying the types of materials held in their collections and assigning more specific terms than just “sheet music.” not just sheet music 43
Where does the archival profession stand and how has the literature in this subject documented best practices for managing and providing access to music collections? While there are a few articles that address particular concerns of music collections in an archival setting, the existing archives and music librarianship literature does not adequately support the work of archivists and music librarians that are working with these types of materials. The existing literature can be divided, roughly, into four broad categories: collection descriptions, project-based reports, archival theory and practice, and music-specific explorations of archival practice. Oftentimes there is overlap between two categories: a project-based report that also announces a newly created digital archive, for example. The most useful category for this article, music- specific theory and practice, had by far the least significant coverage. Unsurprisingly, the majority of articles studying music archives are collection de- scriptions, where a repository might announce a “newly opened” collection, describing its contents, its potential for wide impact on scholarship, and very often placing the collection in the context of the creator’s life and works. Although these articles are common in both library and archival literature and often are important in generating scholarly interest in the creator of the collection, they are rarely useful in addressing the descriptive process beyond identifying the location of an archivist who might have dealt with similar problems. Project-based reports and case studies, illustrating specific ventures undertaken by different institutions, can be more useful in that they are more likely to describe specific tools or techniques used. They report on specific projects carried out by the institution (digitization, preservation treatment, etc.) and how the archivist or librarian overseeing the project addressed problems and solved unforeseen obstacles to the project’s completion. The articles in the third category, introduction to archival theory and practice, are written as introductory pieces that outline these core issues for nonpractitioners. Heather MacNeil’s article in Fontes Artis Musicae5 takes a closer look at archival description, starting out by defining the concepts of provenance, respect des fonds, and original order before delving into the particulars of subject indexing and archival description. Although it is archival in nature, it is written for an audience of librarians, and spends more time explaining concepts that archivists already understand, than it does exploring the complexities of describing and providing access to music collections. Studies in the final category, exploration of archival problems in the context of a music collection, are the most valuable for the purposes of this project—these articles discuss the archival enterprise (appraisal, arrangement and description, preservation, and access) for music and performing arts collections, with an audience of archivists in mind. Richard Smiraglia’s influential book on music cataloging6 is, so far, the only work in our literature search that is relevant to description of print and manuscript music in archives. In this book, he crosswalks music cataloging best practices to con- tent standards such as the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2) and Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (APPM). The latter is, by far, the most comprehensive work on the description of music materials; however, Smira- glia’s discussion of archival materials is limited to collection-level description, and so is more useful to librarians writing MARC records that point to collections than it is for archivists writing finding aids for those collections. The literature in archives 44 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 management, when combined with writings on music librarianship, is not enough to guide a non-expert in the process of acquiring, arranging, describing, and preserving music materials, and much remains to be done. The dearth of published discussion has a direct impact on the ability of music archives to provide access to their materials. Published discourse fuels the drive to develop technologies for the description and access of specialized archival materials; conversely, lack of discussion either masks a need, or creates a perception that such tools are not needed. It is, of course, expected that new tools would be developed first for mainstream collections (records, personal papers, etc.), since they are typically the low-hanging fruit and have the largest user base. Meanwhile, support for more complicated and problematic niche groups lags behind, as is the case with music and performing arts materials. Lack of specialized standards affects the development of metadata standards, which has a corresponding impact on both preservation efforts and repositories’ ability to provide description that is well matched with the materi- als. Better descriptive standards and practices for music materials will help archivists provide better care for their collections and likely will lead to increased scholarly interest in the materials.
Describing Printed and Manuscript Music
The problem of managing music materials begins with the difficulties in defining them. Music collections have been defined by Judith Brimmer as “records of the dif- ferent stages of musical composition prior to publication, although they are commonly defined simply by their format—music written by hand, not printed.”7 This definition is too limiting, since many pre-publication manuscripts are printed (especially, though not exclusively, music written since the advent of computer engraving software), and post- publication materials may, at times, form an important part of a musician’s manuscript collection. Music collections include all materials—paper-based, electronic records, recordings, and artifacts such as musical instruments—that share the same provenance and that document the creator’s music-making activities. These can be the papers of composers, performers, teachers, scholars, professional organizations, and advocacy groups, whose day-to-day activities focus on the creation, performance, or production of music in any genre. In addition to printed and manuscript music, materials such as ephemera, concert programs, business records, photographs, correspondence, official records, etc. contextualize the music-making activities of such persons or organizations, and provide a snapshot of their relationship to others and their profession as a whole. Print music, chiefly written in musical notation, forms the core of music collections. These may be published editions, printed, or handwritten music from any point in the composition and publication process, from composers’ sketches and manuscript frag- ments to pre-publication proofs. Even within a given work, scores may vary consider- ably, so it is crucial for the user to be able to identify what type of score is available, since they are not interchangeable and serve completely different purposes. Examples of the kinds of scores one might find include: not just sheet music 45
• Full scores: all the individual instrument’s parts are printed together on the same page, • Miniature scores: full scores, reduced in size for study purposes, • Condensed scores: written such that the important melodic and harmonic elements are condensed into two or three staves, often with important instrumental cues, • Piano scores: similar to condensed scores, but where the work is arranged for piano with a view toward playability, • Vocal scores: all vocal and choral parts on a page, often with piano accompani- ment, and • Instrumental parts: an instrumentalist’s part, normally without any other instru- ments’ parts present. In addition, creators of music materials are rarely just composers: they may be per- formers and educators, contractors, publicists, theorists, or musicologists, and often perform many roles within music and the allied arts. Besides printed music, these creators’ records might contain articles concerning music, programs and publicity materials, and other related materials. It is not uncommon to find fragments, sketches, or engraved music among these supporting materials. The nature of music materials, especially print materials, means that they may require more granularity in their description than what archivists generally provide. In cases where multiple scores and sets of parts exist, and each of those versions needs to be retained, it is not uncommon for a finding aid to require item-level description merely to keep the different scores separate. The nature of the medium is such that the kinds of searching that might be conducted, and the kinds of research being conducted, may be quite different from comparable research in text materials. One important difference between music and textual materi- als, for example, is the ease with which unpublished works can be widely distributed without ever being published. It is not uncommon for musical works to be performed publicly or recorded commercially without being published. For example, motion picture music frequently remains unpublished. Because of this, it is likely more often the case with music than with text searches that a researcher will be seeking an unpublished work by name. When a specific title is sought, discovery will be made easier when the titles are listed in the finding aid than if they are lumped together in a folder with other works with no title access. Another reason music materials may, in some cases, deserve more granularity in description is that they are used in ways that sometimes differ from common text uses, and some of these uses may not be obvious to those outside the music field. Aside from history and criticism, scholars use music archives to research the compositional process, performance practice, and notation used by the creator of the records. The materials may be used to create critical editions of works, or even to recreate scores that have been destroyed or lost. In other cases, the researcher also may be a performer who may need to perform the work, or even create a new arrangement of the original work for instruments other than those for which the work was originally scored. The diverse user group that relies on archival music materials makes catering to their individual needs a formidable challenge. 46 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
These additional uses may affect collection management throughout the process, especially in the appraisal and description. When multiple, different, printed versions of a work are available, it is not enough merely to retain the full orchestra score, even if the other versions of the score contain no additional information, because the require- ments of a performance might include all of the different forms of a score. It should be said, however, that the lack of new information in other score forms should not be taken for granted: it is not uncommon for instrumental parts and piano vocal scores to have markings not present in the full score. This information might shed light on the inten- tions of the conductor (sometimes the composer herself) in performing a work, which might otherwise be absent from a published version, as well as historical performance practice, where certain accommodations were made in order to meet stylistic trends. Adequate description of music often requires, at the very least, title access to works, especially works for which the copy of the work is complete. However, nearly as important, from the researcher’s point of view, is knowledge of what forms of the score are present. A researcher wishing to perform a work will not find a composer’s sketches useful. The piano-vocal score to an opera will not be useful for performance if the researcher wishes to use an orchestra. As a result of the need to keep different versions of a score, parts, and other print versions of a work, housing multiple works in one folder becomes a recipe for confu- sion. Separating works and keeping them in separate folders creates, if not an item-level description, de facto description, at least at the work level. Local practice will vary, of course, as will the needs of each individual fonds, but the benefits to the researcher in the finer level of detail and better-quality metadata provided are immeasurable. It is important to clarify that describing a collection at the item level is a decision that should be made in accordance with the repository’s policies. The notion of treating music materials differently, of investing the extra time and money into finer levels of description, may alarm many archivists, but the value of item-level description to the user remains undiminished.
Examples of Different Music Materials
The following excerpts from the Herbert L. Clarke Music and Personal Papers8 help illustrate different manifestations of printed and manuscript music in a composer’s papers. Aside from being a gifted performer and internationally recognized cornetist, Herbert L. Clarke also had a successful career as a composer and conductor. His works for cornet or trumpet solo are still played today, and his writings and technical exercises for aspiring trumpet and cornet players are a rite of passage in a performer’s training process. These examples illustrate the differences between a full score, a conductor’s score, instrumen- tal parts, and a piano score, which are most commonly found in libraries and archives.
Full Score This is the full-score manuscript of Herbert L. Clarke’s “Memories: My Story of Life” (Image 1). The main characteristic of a full score is the presence of all of the instru- ments’ lines on the same sheet of paper. The names of the instruments are normally not just sheet music 47
Image 1—Full Manuscript Score of Memoirs: My Story of Life, Herbert L. Clarke Mu- sic and Personal Papers, RS 12/9/54, Sousa Archives and Center for American Music, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. spelled out on the left-hand side at the beginning of the work, with abbreviated names on subsequent pages. In the compositional timeline, full scores normally appear toward the end, being the most complete written account of the work. However, they are typi- cally created prior to generating individual instruments’ parts. While this example is a 48 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Image 2—Conductor’s Manuscript Score of Memoirs: My Story of Life, Herbert L. Clarke Music and Personal Papers, RS 12/9/54, Sousa Archives and Center for American Music, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. not just sheet music 49 full score for symphonic band, the same principles apply for different ensembles, from a string quartet to a full orchestra: all of the instruments’ lines will appear on the page.
Condensed Score Sometimes the full score can be difficult to handle on a small conductor’s podium. Turning pages can be unwieldy and can even become a hazard to the performance if they fall off the stand mid-performance. In these cases, conductors and band directors often rely on the condensed or conductor’s score—a smaller version of the musical work, where the leading melodic lines and the instruments in charge of these are writ- ten down for ready reference. In this example of the same Clarke piece, there are small annotations at the beginning of major sections, indicating what instrument or group of instruments is taking the lead at that time (Image 2).
Instrumental Parts In works for ensembles of performers, these are the individual sheets of paper that each performer uses to perform their specific part of the work. This example shows the part for the B-flat cornet for Clarke’s “Memoirs” (Image 3). Instrumental parts usually indicate what instrument or instruments they are written for at the top of the page. In some cases, there may be more than one part for each class of instrument. In the case of symphonic bands, for example, when there are multiple clarinetists, it is not uncommon to find several clarinet parts numbered according to their position (e.g. Clarinet I, Clarinet II, Clarinet III, etc); sometimes, each will have individual parts; other times, all three will be printed together. Even for the smaller groups (like piano- vocal duets), the part at hand will indicate for what instrument it is written.
Piano Score Piano scores are scores of ensemble works reduced to a piano part for rehearsal or performance purposes. This usually occurs for solo concertos, choruses, or operas, where rehearsals with the full orchestra are at a premium and the singers need to hear the accompaniment in order to learn their parts. This example is from another work by Herbert L. Clarke, titled “The Three Aces,” a cornet trio composed for the three most famous cornetists of the time, Del Staigers, Frank Simon, and Walter Smith (Im- age 4). The music starts with the piano, as noted by the key signature and ligature in the first measure. In the second staff, there is an indication of where the soloist starts. Piano scores are usually smaller in size, so that they can fit comfortably at the piano, but large enough for the performers to be able to read the music.
Describing Different Music Materials It is clear that all of these examples serve different purposes in the area of music performance. While it is not within the scope of this paper, it is worth mentioning the fact that there are many other uses for manuscript and printed music; therefore, the need for accurate description of such materials is something that the archivist should bear in mind during the arrangement and description process. It is crucial to be able to discern if the music is an instrumental part, a piano score, or a full score, since these are not always interchangeable with one another. A trumpet student might not find 50 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Image 3—Instrumental Part of Memoirs: My Story of Life, Herbert L. Clarke Music and Personal Papers, RS 12/9/54, Sousa Archives and Center for American Music, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. not just sheet music 51
Image 4—Original Piano Manuscript Score of The Three Aces, Herbert L. Clarke Music and Personal Papers, RS 12/9/54, Sousa Archives and Center for American Music, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 52 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 much practical use for the full score of Clarke’s “The Three Aces” if she wants music to hand to an accompanist, whereas the piano score would be useless if the student were studying the orchestration of the work. It is important to clearly identify such information in the finding aid, or at least be able to convey to the user this information in a reference transaction. One method for succinctly making this information known, as will be discussed later, is to designate a series of abbreviations either at the collection level or, prefer- ably, at the institutional level to be used in the finding aid to indicate different kinds of scores. In such cases, a key to these abbreviations should be included in the finding aid to assist the researcher. This method is used at the Sousa Archives and Center for American Music, the repository for the Clarke examples, as follows: Box 55 Folder 4: “My Story of Life” (FS, CS, P), 2A25, 1936 Composer/Arranger: Clarke This information tells the researcher that the archives holdings include a full score, a conductor’s score, and instrumental parts for Clarke’s 1936 work, “My Story of Life,” identified by the abbreviations FS, CS, and P in parenthesis next to the title. The number 2A25 refers to an internal arrangement structure devised by the creator and preserved in the descriptive information to maintain the original order. In addition, it can sometimes be necessary to identify the version of the work present. Composers sometimes produce many versions of the same work (Anton Bruckner was notorious for this) and in such cases, the researcher needs to know which version or versions are available. Because this information is frequently most easily obtained upon transfer of a collection, it is best to include this information (if known) in a finding aid, rather than waiting until a researcher calls to inquire.
Adapting Current Standards
More work is required before existing standards will support description of music as easily as they describe text. In the library community, the longtime standards for description, the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2) and, more recently, Resource Description and Access (RDA), typically encoded using the MARC metadata schema, do a very plausible job at providing collection-level description for music collections. But these standards are not designed, nor suitable, for the creation of container lists and finding aids.Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS), when combined with the Encoded Archival Description (EAD) schema, is clearly better suited to the task of archival description, but seems best designed for textual materials. Additional standards—most likely as an addendum to DACS—are needed before it will be as easily applicable to music as to text. Including basic information, such as the existence of a full score or parts, in a finding aid will save the researcher trouble and time and can be done with relatively little extra effort on the part of the archivist, though here is another case where existing archival practice may need adjustment to allow for music. While DACS prescribes that all ab- breviations be spelled out when possible, a standardized set of abbreviations, indicating not just sheet music 53 which form of a score is present, would allow more information to be conveyed more easily.9 Furthermore, while DACS addresses general archival description, rules gov- erning supplied titles can be applied to naming music materials: “when supplying title information, compose a brief title that uniquely identifies the material, normally consisting of a name segment, a term indicating the nature of the unit being described, and optionally a topical segment as instructed in the following rules.”10 This should open the door for the archivist to utilize the correct and most appropriate terminology and controlled vocabularies to describe the material at hand. Even if print or manuscript music is described at the series or collection level, the use of correct terminology will make a difference to the users. Terminology in the description of music can vary by person, region, and circumstance. In some cases, “sheet music” is used as a catch-all phrase to refer to any printed music materials, whether they are published or unpublished, full orchestra scores or lead sheets. In other cases, the term “sheet music” refers to a particular variety of published printed music epitomized by the sheet music distributed during the Tin Pan Alley years: unbound individual songs, normally with piano, guitar, and/or ukulele accompaniment, and often with elaborate and beautiful covers. Because of this variation in terminology, the development of a thesaurus of music description would be invaluable. The best extant thesauri for this purpose are the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), but both are intended for broader use and so do not achieve a level of detail that would be useful here. Among many possible benefits, the creation of such a thesaurus could facilitate the creation of standardized abbreviations. In other cases, existing standards are more than adequate to the task and may certainly be used. Aside from traditional bibliographic data, such as author name and publication information, music-specific metadata often are useful in helping the researcher to identify the required material. Such metadata may include catalogue numbers (such as the Köchel catalogue for Mozart), phase of composition (i.e., “blue period”), instrumentation and voicing, and the work’s key. Current library content standards and best practices for the description of music materials would be appropri- ate, because catalogers and metadata librarians have relied on these to overcome the obstacles posed by multiple representations of the same work. DACS and EAD support this quite easily, as do AACR2 and RDA; however, this information often takes more time and research to provide and can reasonably be omitted. The companion standards suggested in DACS are a good place to start, especially the International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives (IASA) Cataloguing Rules11 and the Music Library Association’s Music Classification Systems.12
Conclusion
Description of print and manuscript music materials in archives and special collec- tions libraries poses an interesting challenge, since these are fundamentally different from other materials collected by these types of repositories. There are no clear de- scriptive guidelines for describing archival music materials and little has been done to 54 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 crosswalk music cataloging practices to current archival descriptive standards. With the changing landscape of bibliographic and archival description (e.g., development and deployment of RDF and its implications for libraries and archives, or the application of DACS to nontraditional archival holdings), more attention should be devoted to how these standards are shaping the descriptive needs of distinct materials. Unfortunately, the description of music materials draws from non-music standards, and it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. This article has addressed the most common occurrences of print and manuscript music in archives, but these largely focus on concert (or “classical”) music. The myriad of formats found in other genres is worth exploring in a separate study. In the case of jazz and popular music, one might also find lead sheets (a single line of music with chords to guide the musician’s improvisations) or chord charts. If the creator spent time outside the western tradition, then the field expands even further, perhaps to include such things as ethnographic notes, lead sheets, or tablatures. Print and manuscript music outside the western concert music tradition is another underrepresented area in the existing literature, and shifting the discussion to focus on other musical traditions would be beneficial. In the case of printed and manuscript music, the lack of subject expertise poses an additional barrier when describing music materials that oftentimes make their way into nonspecialized repositories (college and university archives and historical societies, to name a few). Recruiting volunteer help from the community might help the non-expert archivist. For example, there are local chapters of music sororities and fraternities that usually carry out volunteer projects with local organizations. Subject expertise, in many cases, is something that can be easily recruited, although it will require some creativity from the archivist in charge. In addition, music materials often require a more detailed description than non- musical materials, sometimes to the item level, which might seem contrary to recent developments in archival practice, especially the “more product, less processing” (MPLP) guidelines proposed by Meissner and Greene.13 Unfortunately, primary users of these materials rely on the granularity of the description to identify the adequate source, making MPLP guidelines less adequate. The same applies to print and/or manuscript music series of institutional records (such as publishing companies and professional organizations), where the need for detail warrants the extra time and resources invested in an adequate description. Tools and guidelines are needed that nonspecialists can implement in order to provide a better service both to the collections and the users. However it is done, such descriptive standards for music and performing arts collections would allow more repositories to provide greater use and increased traffic to these collections, which would ultimately generate interest, support, and further use of the collections.
About the Authors: Adriana P. Cuervo is assistant archivist for music and fine arts at the Sousa Archives and Center for American Music at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She holds a master’s degree in library and information science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a bachelor’s degree in Music not just sheet music 55
History from the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá, Colombia. Her research interests focus on the acquisition, arrangement, description, and preservation of music and performing arts materials in archives and special collections.
Eric Harbeson is the music special collections librarian at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He holds master’s degrees in music history (Cleveland State University, 2004) and library and information science (University of Illinois, 2008), as well as a bachelor’s degree in percussion performance (The College of Wooster, 1995). In ad- dition to the present topic, his research interests include the application of intellectual property law to libraries and archives.
notes
1. The numerous formats in which sound recordings may present themselves is in itself highly prob- lematic for archives, but this is outside the scope of this study. For our purposes, sound recordings are considered together as one aspect of a musical work. 2. This study only concerns itself with music materials that consist of music notation (whether in print or electronic). While outside of the scope of this study, further work is needed to examine descrip- tion of other music materials, such as recorded sound and music instruments. 3. cf. various XML encoding schemes such as the Music Encoding Initiative at the University of Virginia, and the MusicXML schema developed by Recordare, LLC. 4. See, for example, Richard Smiraglia, Describing Music Materials: A Manual for Descriptive Cataloging for Printed and Recorded Music, Music Videos, and Archival Music Collections for use with AACR2 and APPM (Lake Crystal, MN: Soldier Creek Press, 1997); Jay Weitz, Music Coding and Tagging: MARC Content Designation for Scores and Sound Recordings (Lake Crystal, MN: Soldier Creek Press, 1990); Jay Weitz, Cataloger’s Judgment Music Cataloging Questions and Answers from the Music OCLC Users Group Newsletter (Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, 2003); or Cataloging Sheet Music: Guidelines for Use with AACR2 and the MARC Format, Music Library Association Technical Reports 28, ed. Lois Schultz and Sara Shaw (Lanham, MD: Scare- crow Press, 2003). 5. Heather MacNeil, “Subject Access to Archival Fonds: Balancing Provenance and Pertinence,” Fontes Artis Musicae 43:3 (1996): 242–258. 6. Smiraglia, Describing Music Materials. 7. Judith Brimmer, “Providing a National Resource: The Management of Music Manuscripts in the UK,” Journal of the Society of Archivists 26:2 (2005): 216. 8. The finding aid for the Clarke Papers is available at:
Abstract: In 2006, the Special Collections Research Center at The George Washing- ton University launched a project to collect the papers of Washington, D.C. area poets for the Washington Writers’ Archive (WWA). The goal of the WWA is to discover and explore the ways individual writers’ personal papers and their literary organizations’ records intersect to tell the story of the Washington literary community. As the work began, a tension between the inclusive nature of a community history and the exclusive nature of a literary collection became evident. This case study describes and analyzes the tasks associated with collecting the historical record of a literary community.
Introduction
This case study documents the efforts of the Special Collections Research Center at The George Washington University to collect the history of the Washington, D.C. poetry community. The goal of the Washington Writers’ Archive (WWA)1 project, begun in 2006, is to collect the poetry produced by a diverse mix of artists, as well as preserve the historical record of the interactions among the individual artists and the organizations comprising this artistic community. Initial attempts to establish this collection, starting in 1984, had only limited success. The role of the Special Collections Research Center in the WWA resulted, in part, from an analysis of the previous effort.2 The D.C. poetry community is diffuse and difficult to define. The WWA project is further complicated by the tension that exists between collecting literary materials and collecting the history of a community. The often exclusive nature of a literary collection can be at odds with the inclusive nature of a community history collection. “Community histories or community archives are the grassroots activities of documenting, recording and exploring community heritage in which community participation, control and ownership of the project is essential. . . . [D]irection should come from within the community itself.”3 Literary collections, on the other hand, often 58 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 seek to acquire writers with established scholarly significance. Library and Archives Canada, for example, “tended not to collect experimental or younger writers before they had proven their value. After all, to be nationally significant, a writer must be well known and well established. Such an unadventurous acquisition strategy is not unusual.”4 Special Collections had to address these issues in selecting a collecting approach for the Washington Writers’ Archive.
Literature Review
One of the most important concepts emerging from archival theory and literature in the last half century is the role of the archivist as an active pursuer of materials. In a speech at the Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting in 1970, historian Howard Zinn “reproached archivists and manuscripts curators for neglecting to collect the records and papers of significant groups in society . . . outside mainstream American culture. He urged the keepers of records to become ‘activists’ and to repair the imbalance in their holdings promptly and thoroughly.”5 F. Gerald Ham and other archivists agreed with Zinn. “Our most important and intellectually demanding task as archivists is to make an informed selection of information that will provide the future with a representative record of human experience in our time.”6 Gould P. Colman chastised archivists for focusing on preserving government records while neglecting cultural records. “One could argue that the present generation of archivists and manuscript curators has a responsibility to redress the balance.”7 According to Ham, the archives profession was woefully unprepared. “With a few notable exceptions, there is no realization that our present data gathering methods are inadequate or that our fundamental problem is the lack of imaginative acquisition guidelines or comprehensive collecting strategies at all levels of archival activity.”8 Ham was echoed by other archivists, such as Riva A. Pollard. “The determination of what is to become part of the permanent historical record—who and what we will document, and which materials best do so—is arguably the most important and central aspect of the archivist’s work.”9 As archivists began to address the challenge of preserving broader categories of human experience, questions about how this could be accomplished led to discussions of methodologies. “If archivists want to document the everyday lives of ordinary people, where are they to begin? What selection criteria should be used, and how should they be developed? If archivists are to fulfill their mission[,] ‘to ensure the identification, preservation, and use of records of enduring value,’ they need the necessary tools.”10 Throughout the transformative decade of the 1980s, archivists designed, tested, revised, discarded, employed, and wrote about many tools, including collection assessment, written collection development policies, inter-institutional cooperation, creating historical documentation, and finally, the involvement of the records creators. Jutta Reed-Scott and Faye Phillips applied library collection principles to archives development. “Both urge archivists to write out a policy based on an analysis of the collection, a systematic plan for acquisitions, and coordination with—or at the very least, awareness of—the collecting plans of other repositories.”11 let me recount the ways 59
In order to meet Zinn’s challenge, archivists had to reach out to the communities they were attempting to document. This necessarily required more interaction with records creators in order to gain support and trust. These outreach strategies called for differing levels of interaction. Andrea Hinding described the role of the active archivist. “This new stance requires manuscript curators . . . to conceive of collecting as an intellectual activity, as the conscious, systematic documentation of some aspect of culture or experience. In order to document a phenomenon properly . . . the curator must understand it fully—define it in all its complexity. . . . In order to select the representative and the significant, the curator must also necessarily understand the ‘whole’ or ‘universe’ from which he or she is preserving a part.”12 The importance of archivists knowing the community in order to collect its records was also emphasized by a number of other authors, including Brian Keough, who wrote about the efforts of the University at Albany, State University of New York, to document under-documented groups in western New York. These efforts lasted more than 20 years, and he noted methods that proved effective, including maintaining close contact with those in the community, remaining patient, and using an advisory board composed of key leaders to guide the archivist to important resources.13 Working with the South Asian diasporic community in Los Angeles, Katie Shilton and Ramesh Srinivasan built upon the ideas of Hinding and Keough, concerning the importance of actively entering the community and inviting the community members and records creators to join in appraisal decisions: Re-envisioning archival principles of appraisal . . . to actively incor- porate participation from traditionally marginalized communities will not only allow these communities to preserve empowered narratives, it will allow archivists to move towards the long-debated, and still unreal- ized, goal of representative collections. A key component within this shift will be to expand appraisal . . . into tools designed to respect the knowledge systems embedded within community contexts. This may allow archivists to not only create representative archives, but also to move beyond objectification and aid understanding of local knowledge and marginalized narratives.14 This participatory model includes a broad role for the records creators until, ultimately, the archivists assume custody, preserve, and provide access to these records in a repository. If the goal is to document the whole of society, personal papers are essential, and collecting them presents different challenges from collecting government or corporate records. “There is an intimacy in the personal archive not present in the collective, corporate, formalized record-keeping system. These intimate elements are reflected not only in the content and organization of personal records, but come into play in the archivist’s direct interaction with the creator/donor during appraisal, acquisition, and subsequent management of personal archives.”15 Collecting literary papers adds yet another layer of complexity. Within the personal papers of literary figures, it is customary to consider aspects of literary significance. “Archivists need to pursue a broad range of material in order to render the full dynamics of the literary scene, its archival record, and the scholarly analysis of that record.”16 The University at Buffalo, 60 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
State University of New York, Poetry Collection development policy states that its goal is “to collect first editions of books of poetry published in English beginning in 1900 without prejudice. To collect without prejudice means to collect books and recordings of poetry in all forms and contemporary traditions/schools, from all various communities of poets and from all English speaking countries.”17 When Library and Archives Canada departed from their policy to accept the personal papers of a writer who was not yet a national literary figure, Amy Tector supported the decision, which “created a new point of reference to a writer who had not been part of the larger shared Canadian past.”18 At The George Washington University, the Washington Writers’ Archive staff began with the concept that the community understands itself and the archivists understand collecting, preserving, and providing access to records of enduring value. The project’s collection development strategy began with the Jenkinsonian-influenced model of “The Creator as Selector; The Archivist as Keeper,”19 although this methodology was quickly adapted to meet WWA needs. The records creators were asked to provide expertise on what should be included in an archives in order to document their community. This follows the participatory model of empowering the community to produce an authentic narrative. The expertise of the archivists was employed both to actively pursue these records and, based on an understanding of research needs, to develop appraisal guidelines for selecting specific records worthy of inclusion. Finally, the archivists applied arrangement and description standards to formalize the material’s place in the institution.
Washington Writers’ Archive, 1984–1987
The Washington Writers’ Archive story began in January 1984 when local poet and performance artist Chasen Gaver wrote to Howard Gillette, Director of the Center for Washington Area Studies at The George Washington University (GW).20 Gaver described a project he had conceived with E. Ethelbert Miller, local poet and Director of the Afro-American Center at Howard University. Their project encouraged local writers to save manuscript drafts as well as correspondence and memorabilia and to deposit these documents at a local repository. They specifically wanted to attract writers who “have focused their work on issues of concern to residents of Washington.”21 Since Gaver had connections to GW, including several collaborations with GW Dance Professor Maida Withers and poetry readings sponsored by GW student groups, he approached GW as a potential repository. In his letter, Gaver expressed his belief that his work was appropriate for inclusion at the Gelman Library, and proposed to serve as an ambassador to the writers’ community of which he was a member. In response to Gaver’s letter, Howard Gillette sent a memo to David McAleavey, Associate Professor in GW’s English Department, stating that he had already spoken to Gaver, Miller, and David Zeidberg, head of Special Collections, and that all three had endorsed the project and suggested Special Collections as the repository. In his dual role as a professor in the English Department and as a local poet, McAleavey assumed a leadership role during the formation of the WWA. let me recount the ways 61
In November 1985, McAleavey sent a form letter to local scholars explaining the concept of the WWA, asking them to participate on an Advisory Committee, and calling a meeting on December 6, 1985, of a Washington Metropolitan Area community-based group to build an archival collection. In the letter, McAleavey described the WWA as follows: The purpose of the Archive is twofold: to be a repository for materials which would indicate in depth the breadth of the local writing “scene,” and to promote the active use of those materials by sponsoring public events and encouraging publications dealing with local writing. The actual acceptance and care of the materials will be handled by Special Collections, but the Advisory Committee is envisaged as an area-wide organization whose responsibilities are to recommend the collection of certain particularly important materials and to promote the fullest possible use of the Archive. To achieve those ends, and to signal to the entire community that this is not being conceived as a GW program as much as a community program, I am taking the liberty of designing a committee large enough to include representatives from all the area Consortium universities, numerous literary organizations, and private citizens with particularly keen interests in the history and growth of Washington literary life.22 This concept of a regional repository is important because the Washington area, as understood in the literary community, includes parts of Maryland and Virginia. McAleavey believed that to build a robust regional archive, it was essential to prevent the project from becoming too closely identified with GW. To this end, the Advisory Committee members represented a variety of local colleges, universities, libraries, writing organizations, and individual interest groups and all were encouraged to donate personally and to approach organizations of which they were members.23 The Advisory Committee was also asked to provide a list of potential donors for Special Collections staff to contact. Twenty-five years later, it is no longer clear why an Advisory Committee was chosen as the main agency for collection building. In a 2009 interview, McAleavey did not remember any interaction with Special Collections staff, and he believed that the Advisory Committee was assigned an active role in collection development to offset the Special Collections staff’s lack of subject expertise in literary collecting.24 In July 1986, McAleavey sent a memo to members of the Advisory Committee, informing them that he had convened an Executive Committee, a subset of the Advisory Committee, to discuss the collection development policy drafted by Special Collections staff members Claire McDonald and Sharon Galperin. Surviving documents do not indicate that the head of Special Collections approved the policy. The first draft, dated June 1986, granted the Advisory Committee the power to make collection decisions. In this draft, the committee was seen as an autonomous group of scholars expected to define criteria such as the number of publications or readings for inclusion in the project. In his memo accompanying the policy, McAleavey made clear that the Gelman Library was to retain control of the archives and to make the final decisions about inclusion in the WWA. The final draft of the collection development policy, dated July 1986, gave 62 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Special Collections the authority to make collection decisions, although the Advisory Committee would comment on the acceptability of any proposed contribution, based on committee-established guidelines.25 In the July 1986 memo, McAleavey used language regarding the work of the Advisory Committee that foreshadowed its demise. “Any individual who would like to see this organization be more structured should step forward with their ideas. For the moment, I think we can continue to function in an ‘ad hoc’ way.”26 The documents from the early WWA effort provide no evidence that the Executive Committee created a list of donors or that the Advisory Committee met again or that the Special Collections staff made the quarterly reports called for in the July memo. Although the WWA remained essentially dormant, Special Collections acquired several literary collections during the intervening years. It does not appear that these collections were received as a result of the work of the Advisory Committee, but rather from Special Collections being approached by individuals.
Washington Writers’ Archive, 2006–the Present
In 2006, the WWA was revived, thanks to the efforts of another local poet and a new head of Special Collections. Grace Cavalieri is a local poet, playwright, publisher, and the host of the Internet radio program The Poet and the Poem at the Library of Congress. She had been a member of the original Advisory Committee and an early contributor to the WWA. Special Collections holds the recordings of The Poet and the Poem at the Library of Congress program,27 Cavalieri’s personal papers, and a complete run of the publications from her local small press, Bunny and the Crocodile Press. In 2006, Cavalieri approached Cathy Eisenhower, the collection development librarian for literature, about donating a large collection of published poetry. Eisenhower accepted the books and approached Steven Mandeville-Gamble, department head of Special Collections, to ask if Special Collections wanted the books written by local authors and published by local presses. Mandeville-Gamble accepted these materials as part of the book collection that complements the manuscripts held by Special Collections. Having been approached by a local poet interested in helping to develop the literary archives of a vibrant poetry community, a community firmly engaged in shared activities such as reading series and local publishing, and having just accepted a substantial collection of local poetry publications, Mandeville-Gamble approached the archivist responsible for curating the Washingtoniana28 collection to discuss launching a new active collecting phase for the WWA with the local poetry community in D.C. Special Collections did not have a relationship with the writing community in D.C. and approached Cavalieri as a community insider, the same strategy suggested by Gaver in his original letter to Gillette. Due to her commitment to collecting and preserving works of local authors, her history of support for the WWA, and her understanding of the nature of special collections, Cavalieri proved an excellent choice. Fortunately, she was eager to become an ambassador and she contributed substantially to the success of the project. Cavalieri has been a member of the Washington community of writers for more than 30 years, and through her work as a published author, teacher, publisher, let me recount the ways 63 and host of a radio program, she has met and befriended most of the poetry community. She provided introductions to D.C. authors and her involvement legitimized the project in the eyes of the writing community. Michael Basinski, curator of the Poetry Collection at the University at Buffalo State University of New York, has written about the strategy of using a community insider for collecting manuscripts and published works from the Underground Poetry scene in the United States. His argument is appropriate to any insular and underrepresented community. Basinski identified the difficulties of collecting in movements that may be hard to track, are constantly shifting, and may be suspicious of authority. He advocated collecting locally to foster an intimacy with the culture being collected.29 Special Collections wrote a flexible collection policy based on involving the community rather than on literary significance. This policy stated that Special Collections seeks materials that have scholarly and research value, as defined in consultation with The George Washington University faculty. These materials include “individual papers of local area authors as well as organizational records of local presses, writing clubs, performance spaces, etc. which document the economic, political, social, and cultural history of the literary communities in the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Washington Area.”30 This policy committed Special Collections to building a community-centric collection. The Poetry Collection at Buffalo also applied an expansive collecting strategy for underground poetry. “Our collection is a collection of the camera eye. Everything in the scene is captured.”31 Curator Basinski also encouraged a flexible collection development policy, which “dissolves conservative convention in the realm of collecting,” and allows the process to become inventive, unbridled, and free-floating.32 For the WWA, Special Collections imposed just one hard border: the collection is limited to artists and organizations in the Washington Metropolitan Area. In addition to talking with individual poets, the archivist worked to create a presence in the poetry community as a whole. One effective outreach activity has been attendance at poetry readings. This strategy proved most valuable with groups such as avant-garde and spoken word poets because much of their work is spontaneous and unrecorded. Although these underrepresented groups can be hard to find and contact, it is somewhat easier in D.C. because the community is small and the poets have personal as well as professional relationships. The archivist also met with poets and discussed the WWA at the 2008 “Split This Rock Poetry Festival,” organized by the group, D.C. Poets Against the War, and presented a paper as part of a panel, titled “Vaulting into History.” This panel discussed the use of archival repositories to collect and preserve both poetry and political discourse and served as another avenue to introduce the WWA to the poetry community and to attract donors. As a way to showcase the poetry collections and to celebrate D.C. poets who had donated material to the WWA, Special Collections hosted a poetry reading, “Voices from the City” in September 2008. The eight invited presenters represented genres from mainstream to spoken word. Some of these poets served as teachers and mentors to other poets in the community, and others edited literary journals, organized reading series, and published other local poets. The fact that the poets at this event all knew 64 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 each other augurs well for efforts to create a collection that shares the inclusive story of a community of poets who interact artistically and personally. Special Collections recently received a collection from one of the poets who attended this event and negotiations continue with another. The newest initiatives involve using Web 2.0 tools to reach the Washington writing community for donations as well as the research community to promote the use of these resources.33 Special Collections joined the Facebook group “Washington Poetry” and posts links to departmental events and blog entries that promote the unique WWA content and discuss how researchers have used these records.34 Special Collections also uses Libguides, a platform to create on-line research guides. Special Collections staff contributed data about primary resource for more than 50 Libguides and designed a separate guide for the WWA that describes existing collections and includes links to local poetry readings and other events in D.C. In this way, the Libguide serves the GW research community, as well as the D.C. poetry community, as a tool for sharing information and promoting the WWA project.35
Discussion
During the 1984 effort, the WWA advisory board represented multiple local repositories. This may have led the poetry community to conclude that there was no single repository associated with the project that could answer their questions. In the present effort, the responsibility for building the collection clearly belongs to the GW Special Collections Research Center. The WWA is more likely now to be seen by the poetry community as the authoritative repository, especially as the collection develops and grows. The most effective strategy Special Collections retained from the 1984 initiative was the use of a community insider. Relying on one ambassador, however, may ultimately result in missed opportunities to expand the collection. At some point, for example, Cavalieri may no longer be willing or able to maintain her current level of involvement. One possible solution is to expand the number of ambassadors. Special Collections staff is already doing this, in effect, when they ask donors and potential donors to suggest other poets to contact. Another way to expand the role of the community members in collection building would be to recreate an advisory board. The past advisory board was composed of representatives of local academic repositories and a few local poets. In addition, the first advisory board had the authority to make selection decisions. Consequently, the community of artists was not very involved in collection building. A future advisory board should be made up of poets invited to assist with collection building using their unique knowledge of the community. Such an advisory board would be in the best position to provide information about the type of documentary evidence necessary to create an archives representative of the entire D.C. poetry community. The WWA collection development policy is flexible enough to allow for a truly comprehensive community history. Current collection development efforts include contacting local poets, attending reading series, and hosting events in library space. let me recount the ways 65
After four years of collecting with this broad policy, the archivist realized the need for more detailed direction in order to document the poetry community’s multiple genres, ethnic communities, and variety of documentary production. Such direction should begin with a comprehensive survey of the community as well as a survey of the existing collection. The community profile and collection survey will help the archivist to understand what documentation gaps exist and to ensure that the collection represents the entire poetry community, not just those most vocal and visible. In addition to multiple genres and ethnic diversity, the WWA collection should include record types that represent the full variety of documents produced by the D.C. poetry community. The importance of collecting all record types has been recognized by the Archive for New Poetry, Mandeville Special Collections Library, University of California, San Diego. “The Archive’s focus on documenting experimental work, including public performances and collaborative efforts, has led to extensive collecting beyond published poems.” Sound recordings, personal papers, and editorial files “provide evidence of editorial and writing processes, of publishing and scholarship, and of personal connections among these writers. In doing so, the Archive also documents in broader context the poetic movements that, through their works, these writers, editors, and scholars have defined.”36 At GW, staff would like to move beyond using Web 2.0 tools simply as a means to alert researchers and members of the community of the WWA’s existence and toward using these tools to help build the collection. So far, this has proved an elusive goal because social networking sites are highly dynamic, requiring a high level of time commitment, and innovative approaches related to collection building have yet to be fully imagined and explored.
Conclusion
The renewed WWA initiative began at a time of relative calm in the department. Four years later, the department is less settled and staff attention is shifting to other tasks such as implementing a new collection management system and building new collecting areas. The 1984 WWA effort may have failed because nobody took responsibility for maintaining the momentum of the project after the initial enthusiasm ran its course. Without an ongoing administrative commitment to the project and the designation of one archivist as responsible for its development, the WWA may again be in danger of stalling. The work by staff and the community to build the literary archives has attracted researchers and already enriched the exploration of Washington, D.C. history. For the collection to continue to grow, the enthusiasm felt by the community and the staff must be sustained from the top down and focused through imaginative collecting policies and inclusive outreach initiatives.
About the Author: Jennifer King is the manuscripts librarian and WWA archi- vist in the Special Collections Research Center at The George Washington University. Prior to this appointment, she served for five years as the archivist for the Community 66 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Archives of the Arlington County, Virginia Public Library. She holds an M.L.S. from the University of Michigan and a B.A. from Brandeis University.
notes
1. Initially, the name of the WWA was the Washington Writing Archive. It is unclear when the name became the Washington Writers’ Archive. 2. Special Collections Research Center will be referred to in this paper as Special Collections. 3. Andrew Flinn, “Community Histories, Community Archives: Some Opportunities and Challenges,” Journal of the Society of Archivists 28:2 (2007): 153. 4. Amy Tector, “The Almost Accidental Archive and its Impact on Literary Subjects and Canonicity,” Journal of Canadian Studies 40:2 (2006): 99. 5. Andrea Hinding, “Toward Documentation: New Collecting Strategies in the 1980s,” in Options for the 80s: Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Conference held in Minneapolis, MN (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1981): 531–532. 6. F. Gerald Ham, “The Archival Edge,” American Archivist 38:1 (1975): 5. 7. Gould P. Colman, “The Forum,” American Archivist 36:3 (1973): 484. 8. F. Gerald Ham, “The Archival Edge,” 7. 9. Riva A. Pollard, “The Appraisal of Personal Papers: A Critical Literature Review,” Archivaria 52 (2001): 149. 10. Judith E. Endelman, “Looking Backward to Plan the Future: Collection Analysis for Manuscript Repositories,” American Archivist 50:3 (1987): 341. 11. Terry Abraham, “Collection Policy or Documentation Strategy: Theory and Practice,” American Archivist 54:1 (1991): 45. 12. Andrea Hinding, “Toward Documentation: New Collecting Strategies in the 1980s,” 535. 13. Brian Keough, “Documenting Diversity: Developing Special Collections of Underdocumented Groups,” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 26:3 (2002): 241–251. 14. Katie Shilton and Ramesh Srinivasan, “Participatory Appraisal and Arrangement for Multicultural Archival Collections,” Archivaria 63 (2007): 90–91. 15. Catherine Hobbs, “The Character of Personal Archives: Reflections on the Value of Records of Individuals,” Archivaria 52 (2001): 127. 16. Catherine Hobbs, “New Approaches to Canadian Literary Archives,” Journal of Canadian Studies 40:2 (2006): 112. 17. The Collection Policy of the Poetry Collection. University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. 18. Amy Tector, “The Almost Accidental Archive and its Impact on Literary Subjects and Canonicity,” 106. 19. F. Gerald Ham, Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts (Chicago, IL: Society of American Archivists, 1993): 9. 20. The Center for Washington Area Studies (CWAS) is a multi-disciplinary university-wide research center whose purpose is to encourage, promote, and engage in research related to Washington, D.C. 21. Chasen Gaver to Professor Howard Gillette, 20 January 1984, Washington Writers’ Archive donor file, Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 22. David McAleavey to Friends, November 1985, Washington Writers’ Archive donor file, Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 23. In the original description of the WWA, the Advisory Committee was designed to consist of 21 individuals. GW members included those from the Center for Washington Area Studies, GW English Department, and the head of Special Collections. The other members represented the following repositories: Georgetown University, Howard University, American University, The Catholic University of America, the University of Maryland, George Mason University, the University of the District of Columbia, D.C. Public Library, the Library of Congress, the Folger Shakespeare Library, The Poetry Committee of Greater Washington, The Writer’s Center in Bethesda, and interested individuals affiliated with independent presses and those interested in local literature. Documents let me recount the ways 67
were found in the Archive donor file, Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 24. McAleavey suggested that the Advisory Committee might have been an attempt to mirror an advisory committee started by O. B. Hardison when he directed the Folger Shakespeare Library. The Folger organized a poetry reading series and Hardison decided to bring together representatives from all the local universities to make shared decisions on poet participants in an attempt to complement, rather than compete with, each other’s reading series. David McAleavey, interview by the author, 28 July 2009. 25. These guidelines are not elucidated in this document and could not be discovered. Washington Writing Archive Collection, Collection Development Policy, DRAFT, 7 July 1986, Washington Writers’ Archive donor file, Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 26. McAleavey to All Members of the Advisory Committee for the Washington Writing Archives, 15 July 1986. Washington Writers’ Archive donor file, Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 27. Distinguishing features of The Poet and The Poem at the Library of Congress, which first aired on WPFW-FM radio in Washington, D.C., are the poets’ discussions of craft and sources of inspiration. Since 1977, more than two thousand poets have been interviewed and presented to a national audience. 28. The Washingtoniana collection preserves material relating to the historical and cultural, social, and political aspects of the District of Columbia. These historical materials date from the eighteenth century to the present, with the bulk of the records dating from the twentieth century. The literary and cultural collections extend to the present day. 29. Michael Basinski, “Underground Poetry, Collecting Poetry, and the Librarian,” The Acquisitions Librarian 14:27 (2002): 17–25. 30. Collection Development Policy Statement, Special Collections—Literary Studies, October 2007, Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library, The George Washington University, Wash- ington, D.C. 31. Michael Basinski, “Underground Poetry, Collecting Poetry, and the Librarian,” 23. 32. Ibid., 22–23. 33. At the WebWise 2009 Conference, the ECHO Lake Aquarium and Science Center presented Voices for the Lake, their initiative to use Web 2.0 technology in support of a conservation and educational project. The project uses social networking sites such as Facebook and YouTube to raise awareness and build community and stewardship of Lake Champlain. http://www.echovermont.org/ourmission/ vfl.html. This presentation inspired new efforts within GW’s Special Collections to exploit these technologies to reach constituencies that are increasingly on-line, including the D.C. poetry community. 34. Special Collections posted a blog entry promoting the work of two local poets in gathering the history of the houses in the District of Columbia where writers lived either while writing or as children. The product of these two years of historical research is a Web site that Special Collections helped promote to a wider audience through its blog. 35. Gelman Library Research Guides, “Washington Area Writers,” George Washington University,
Web 2.0 Tools and Strategies for Archives and Local History Collections. By Kate Theimer. New York, NY: Neil-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 2010. 246 pp. Index. Soft- cover. $79.95.
Archivists’ primary responsibilities have always been preserving materials and providing access. In today’s digital age, this commitment to access requires a Web presence that connects archival resources to users. Kate Theimer’s book, Web 2.0 Tools and Strategies for Archives and Local History Collections, is an informative and approachable resource for novices as well as experts. Theimer arranges her book as a “how to” manual. She covers blogs, podcasts, image sharing sites (Flickr), video sharing sites (YouTube, Vimeo), microblogging (Twit- ter), wikis, social networking sites (Facebook), mashups, widgets, chat, and Second Life. In each chapter, a concept is presented and defined. She then provides a general description of the tool and how it can be used at your institution. The descriptions are followed by examples of archivists’ successful implementations of these technologies and interviews about their experiences. Theimer also includes screen shots of the example sites; however, these are blurry black and white photographs that include text and are, thus, not very effective. Starting with familiar concepts, the examples show creative and “out of the box” ways to use the different tools. She concludes with a step-by-step plan for implementation. For instance, in her chapter on blogs, she begins with defining blogs as “Web documents (usually a unique Web site) created by software that allows material to be published on a Web site in the same manner as log—or diary—entries are written in a journal” (p. 33). She then covers the four main types of blogs that archivists imple- ment: institutional blogs (used as a general outreach tool; typically for press releases); processing blogs (used to chronicle the processing of a large collection from start to finish); archival content blogs (used to highlight archival resources, such as documents, photos, or any item from an archival collection); and blogs that support traditional archival functions (e.g., tracking reference requests or cataloging collections). After the blog formats are explained, Theimer gives examples of institutions using the different options. One of the most creative was Theimer’s example for a blog sup- porting traditional archival functions, UMarmot, created by the Special Collections and University Archives at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst. Their blog is used as a catalog; each collection has a short description with tags and user-generated comments. If a finding aid is available, then there is a link to a PDF version. As Theimer says, this a great way to publicize collections without technical expertise (p. 52). Using blogging software also makes collections searchable through Google. The author concludes with seven tips when considering blogging (p. 55): • Study other blogs to get ideas • Have a voice and a point of view • Remember to write posts that the public will understand and find appealing (avoid archival jargon—or, if you use it, take the time to explain it) • Get a spam filter, if necessary • Post regularly and respond to comments 70 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
• Remember that your blog can evolve • Don’t be afraid to ask other bloggers for advice All of these are key points for anyone, whether novice or pro. One of the main points Theimer emphasizes throughout the book is to create a plan prior to implementation. Set goals for Web 2.0 success and have a method for preserving the work. As someone who is very comfortable using Web 2.0 tools, this reader had never considered planning. In hindsight, it makes a lot of sense; archivists should be preserving their work as well as those of others. Additionally, setting clear goals makes Web 2.0 implementation much more manageable and allows for tracking progress. Although Theimer covers nearly all Web 2.0 tools, she also stresses the need to pick the tools that are useful to an institution; instead of dabbling in everything, select a few tools that are manageable. Additionally, Theimer gives her opinion on the popularity and usefulness of each tool covered. For example, although she covers Second Life, she concedes that its popularity has diminished. Evaluating popularity is vital in deciding which tools to learn and use. Because archivists want to interact with the public, they need to be where the public is. In conclusion, Theimer’s book offers archivists a great manual for implementing Web 2.0. Her step-by-step style is easily accessible, and the examples give even an experienced professional new uses for standard tools. Connecting the public to resources is such a rewarding part of the archivist’s job. Gaining fans, followers, friends, and personal connections is an instantaneous way to see how the public values archival repositories.
Nicole Garrett College Archivist Stockwell-Mudd Libraries Albion College PUBLICATION REVIEWS 71
Preserving Archives & Manuscripts, second edition. By Mary Lynn Ritzenthaler. Chicago, IL: Society of American Archivists, 2010. 521 pp. Eight appendices (includ- ing glossary and bibliography), index. Softcover. $63.00. $45.00 for SAA members.
Preservation in an archival setting requires an in-depth knowledge of numerous for- mats, physical conditions, and media. In order to develop a fully formed preservation program, one must operate at a systematic level in which large collections as a whole can be assessed, while still being able to recognize and understand the processes of deterioration at the individual level—such as being able to understand why one type of paper degrades differently from another, or how to identify the difference between polyester and acetate films. Compounding these difficulties is the basic fiscal prob- lem many archives face: they do not have the funding to support keeping a fulltime specialist in-house to oversee these intricate problems. Rather, most institutions rely on staff with multiple responsibilities, who do not necessarily have advanced training in preservation itself. This book, Preserving Archives & Manuscripts, can be of value to those newly in- troduced to the topic, as well as to those who already have a good foundation of basic preservation knowledge. It will serve as a reference to guide one through the details of conducting an assessment of how to manage collection environments, media and formats within collections, and institutional policies and procedures. Likewise, it will help determine strategies for fitting preservation into the institution’s organizational policy, so that preservation awareness exists at all levels within the institution. This is the third Society of American Archivists publication on preservation by Mary Lynn Ritzenthaler, the director of the Document Conservation Division of the National Archives and Records Administration. Her publications reflect the change in attitudes towards preservation activities within archives over the last 30 years as it has evolved from single-item treatment to a more holistic and systematic view. The first book Ritzenthaler penned in 1983 was largely procedural and treatment based, while the second book, the original edition of Preserving Archives & Manu- scripts, published in 1993, merged conservation with preservation management. In the current second edition, the book has been revised to include electronic records, although the emphasis clearly remains on paper-based materials and more traditional formats. Like the first edition, the second edition is arranged in 10 chapters with an addi- tional eight appendices. The first half of the book deals more broadly with archival collections and preservation, including how to implement a preservation program, the physical nature of archival materials, causes of deterioration, and creating a proper environment. The sixth and seventh chapters become increasingly more targeted to certain types of records or media and their handling, storage, and processing. The re- maining chapters start to pull everything together to show some potential end results of a well-executed preservation plan—full integration of preservation measures in day-to-day procedures; dealing with contaminated, mold-, or water-damaged records; issues regarding copying and reformatting; and approaches to single-item treatment for those records requiring advanced care. The appendices provide not just a glossary and bibliography of selected readings, but an excellently illustrated guide to basic preservation procedures, and lists for supplies 72 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 and equipment, information sources, conservation centers, and funding sources. The revisions are most extensive in the expansion of the chapter on copying and reformat- ting, but electronic records are mentioned only briefly in the book. As in the rest of the book, the emphasis is on handling and planning for the use of original records. Those seeking information on the preservation of digital records themselves will need to look to other sources. Preservation in archives is a series of balancing acts—budget restrictions, time limits, access versus preservation, and competing institutional priorities—that can all make executing preservation policy in an institution seem like walking through a minefield. While no single reference book can cover all possible instances that may prove problematic, Ritzenthaler makes an excellent source for how to deal with the physical issues most commonly found in archives. A well-executed preservation pro- gram will be implemented in all stages of work within an archives and must also be subjected to ongoing reviews. Risk assessment is not a static process, and Ritzenthaler stresses that reviews need to be done actively. Perhaps the greatest improvement in this new edition is simply the format. The original edition, like other titles in the first Archival Fundamentals series, was laid out in two columns, as commonly found in textbooks, a style that for some may seem unduly ponderous to read. It is amazing how more easily readable the new edition is simply by going to a single-page format, even when reading passages that remained unchanged. For those on a budget and already owning the first edition, there may be little incentive to buy a new edition, unless you are similarly put off by the layout of the old, as the revisions are not extensive and the information is still as valid. For those needing a basic reference for establishing and continuing preservation assessments and surveys, and for information on the basic physical needs of most archival formats, this is a book best kept at hand.
Sara J. Holmes Supervisory Preservation Specialist National Archives at St. Louis PUBLICATION REVIEWS 73
Leading and Managing Archives and Records Programs: Strategies for Success, ed. Bruce W. Dearstyne. London: Facet Publishing, 2008. 347 pp. Bibliography. Softcover. $75.00.
This publication comes at a very good time. The field of archives and records manage- ment is experiencing a changing of the guard as many long-serving leaders and program managers are transitioning into retirement. Mid-career professionals are accepting the challenge of moving into administrative positions within their own institutions or seeking new opportunities as leaders in other institutions or in nonarchival settings. How these individuals will perform is not only informed by their education and expe- rience, but also by their ability to develop leadership skills in management positions. This edited volume helps to address a significant lack of management literature in our discipline. Bruce Dearstyne is in a perfect position to address the issues at hand: formerly of the New York State Archives and continuing as a professor at the University of Maryland, this volume is a good follow-up to his Leadership and Administration of Successful Archival Programs (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001). Structurally, the volume comprises 15 chapters. Dearstyne opens with an essay that sets the stage for the remaining pieces: “Leadership is not something that resides solely at the top; in fact, people at just about any level in the program can play a leadership role” (p. 2). Dearstyne recognizes leadership as an additional set of skills to be acquired and honed by archivists and records managers. And it is not an easy balancing act: A common pattern, particularly in small- to modest-sized programs, is the lack of clear delineation of roles. Individuals find the need to do some of the more complex work themselves, to carry out some day-to- day management functions, and also to act as the leader in keeping the program fresh, resilient and moving (p. 15). Add to this the increasing pace of technological change (particularly in records management), dwindling budgets, and ongoing challenges for relevance in institutional structures, and professionals in our fields must be prepared to provide leadership and become more deliberately involved in management structures. The central portion of the book contains 12 essays that explore the personal experi- ences of archivist-managers and archivist-leaders in varying settings. The authors are from a range of backgrounds and institutions. Chapters by Eugenia Brumm, Diane Carlisle, Carol Choksy, Philip Mooney, and Peter Emmerson provide personal case studies from the arena of corporate archivists and records managers. Additional essays provide perspectives from college and university archives (Leon Stout), multi-program facilities (James Fogerty), and government archives and records programs (Gregory Sanford and Tanya Marshall in Vermont, Christine Ward in New York, and Kelvin Smith in the United Kingdom). These essays include a wide variety of content. Some are pieces of institutional his- tory, following the evolution of specific programs through significant paradigm shifts. Others read more like autobiographies, first-hand accounts of the growth of individuals from line archivists or records processors to unit heads and leaders in their field. The strength of many of the essays lies in the personal nature of the narrative—these are people who have travelled the bumpy road of leadership. Most share success stories, 74 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011 but many also reveal errors in judgment and mistakes in strategy so that the reader may benefit. Two chapters stood out for this reader. Edie Hedlin, retired director of the Smithson- ian Institution Archives and past president of SAA, shares lessons from her 35-year career. Her six primary points of attention are worth repeating: support your parent institution, define and carefully articulate your mission, seek and work with allies to advance your program, develop careful plans and set priorities, focus on staff produc- tivity, and evaluate your own leadership or management style (p. 163). Hedlin outlines differences between good managers and good leaders (clarified by several authors in this collection) and insists that good program heads are the product of time, experi- ence, and lessons learned. Mark Greene, past president of both the Midwest Archives Conference and Soci- ety of American Archivists, speaks from his experience moving between leadership positions at several institutions. Change can be difficult anywhere, but there are many helpful tools one can utilize to assuage those difficulties, including consistent vision and mission statements, realistic strategic planning, and performance parameters and rewards that inspire staff. Although the profession has seen success in developing good managers, Greene feels that archivists and records managers are reluctant to assume leadership roles (p. 157). This may be partly the result of personality types, but it is also a shortcoming of graduate archival programs and institutions that do not provide the support, mentoring, and continuing education needed to develop leadership skills. Dearstyne closes with two additional essays. The first summarizes comments across the collection of essays. It is difficult for such a synopsis to avoid numeric lists of traits and behaviors, but the chapter rises above its bullet points to identify key concepts and take-aways for the reader. He revisits the differences between management and leadership in organizations. Leaders rise above short-term operational needs to trans- form institutions into effective and forward-thinking operations. Leadership is also about assembling a high-quality team, earning their trust, and providing realistic tasks and motivation for success. Here, Dearstyne also presents three models for develop- ing strong archives and records management programs and key areas where strong leadership is critical. The final chapter identifies areas for future concern and attention. Not surprisingly, the author recognizes that digital technologies will continue to present planning chal- lenges for archival managers and leaders. He also identifies a need for institutions to strengthen metrics against which management of archival programs may be defined and measured. Dearstyne calls upon archivists, records managers, professional associa- tions, and educators to put more energy into integrating management and leadership practices into all aspects of their work. Rounding out the volume is an annotated list of sources for further reading. Dearstyne provides his own short lists of useful titles in the archives/records field, management books in related fields, and helpful books on leadership and program development, as well as specialized titles on organizational change and strategic planning. In conjunction with the list of references that accompanies each individual essay, this bibliography provides an invaluable guide to a large array of management literature. PUBLICATION REVIEWS 75
Leading and Managing Archives and Records Programs is a good general read for anyone in an allied information profession. And it is not just a matter of the records management crowd reading the records management essays and the manuscript archi- vists sticking to the essays written by manuscript archivists. It may be a challenge for readers in the public and nonprofit sector to bring an open mind to some approaches from the for-profit business world. Yet, regardless of background or current employ- ment, it is easy to find inspiration and value in the numerous examples and personal stories of these authors. Book stores and bestsellers lists are filled with dozens of titles on management and leadership, and it can be difficult to determine where to start. It is refreshing to see one volume specifically geared toward these topics in the disciplines of archives and records management.
Erik Nordberg University Archivist Michigan Technological University Archives and Copper Country Historical Collections 76 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
The Ethical Archivist. By Elena S. Danielson. Chicago, IL: Society of American Ar- chivists, 2010. 440 pp. Softcover. $49.00.
This is the latest in a distinguished series of publications on archival ethics from Elena Danielson, the archivist emerita of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. It is not a purely prescriptive or theoretical work, although Danielson does offer a formal model for evaluating ethical issues involving the combination of “principles derived deductively from [ethical] codes with patterns obtained inductively from a wide range of specific examples” (p. 11) that take the form of case studies included throughout the book. In addition to the case studies, a series of programmatic questions appears at the end of each chapter. The reader’s consultation of both the real-life examples and the leading questions provided by the author should encourage informed reflection and, subsequently, the creation of local policies based on specific circumstances. Such an analytical framework has obvious utility for archives and records professionals at- tempting to navigate the American legal environment (in which records-related legisla- tion is usually created without archival repositories in mind, and where there is little archives-specific guidance available). Danielson makes some welcome contributions to archival practice, and also offers fodder for conversation and controversy by boldly emphasizing the politicization of archival materials. All archivists will benefit from the thoughtful and well-presented didactic material found in The Ethical Archivist, a typically competent showing from the Society of American Archivists press. In the introduction, Danielson carefully defines “ethics” as it is used in this work, dis- tinguishing between ethics as a moral philosophy and ethics as a professional practice. Here, the focus is on the latter usage, and archivists are encouraged to “make proper choices in accordance with the highest standards of the profession and simultaneously in accordance with certain moral obligations to society” (p. 2). The development of an ethical framework specifically for and about archivists would surely make for good collections and happy relations with donors and patrons, but funders and outside observers are also in focus. As envisioned in this work, the development of ethical guidelines is also a means to elevate the archivist’s role in society and foster an “ethical autonomy” for archivists similar to that enjoyed by lawyers, doctors, and engineers, in which one’s “professional identity transcends the demands of a specific office or job” (p. 5). Danielson argues that the unique nature of archival materials generates a correspondingly unique set of archival ethical considerations. Action based on sound archival ethics can serve the profession internally and can also bring recognition to archivists who serve the common good by hosting controversial materials. Danielson emphasizes the political uses of archives, even going so far as to provide examples of “societies that needed to have the official narrative corrected by the archives” (p. 21). Most of the case studies in the text, however, deal with more prosaic problems and situations. The book is inclusive in its coverage of topics germane to archival ethics, and the practical examples in the case studies greatly assist the consideration of abstract issues. Danielson includes chapters on: existing ethical codes, their commonalities, and the debate over their adjudication; the responsible acquisition of archival materials, including sections on payment for collections and the confirmation of a repository’s legal authority to collect certain materials; the ethics of disposing of records, whether PUBLICATION REVIEWS 77 by sale, destruction, or gift; equitable access, with considerable attention to the digital environment; archives and privacy, including a survey of the legal environment in the U.S.; records authenticity and the related need for vigilance on the part of archivists; and the proper treatment of displaced archives, the superb treatment of which belies the author’s notable experience with such materials at the Hoover Institution. Also included is an extensive, stand-alone case study covering the archives of the medical school at the University of California–San Francisco, and their experience in accession- ing and providing access to confidential papers leaked from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. The chapter on the tobacco papers is a strong addition to the book, covering as it does the responsibilities and trials of archivists who chose to subvert authority through the release of sensitive archival materials. However, the provision of access to con- troversial archival materials is only the first part of the process of politicization. For the records to have the desired impact, it is also necessary to interpret and popularize them. A more detailed discussion of subversive deployments of specific archival fonds (at least beyond a single case study) would be welcome, especially given the prospect held out in the introduction of professional gains to be realized through the political agency of archives and archivists. The case of the tobacco papers inspires, but there are few ready parallels. This particular example also underemphasizes the role of researchers, publishers, and the news media in popularizing the records in question. The archivist’s dependence on the patron to interpret and publicize the record calls into question the ultimate value of an archivist’s willingness to offer up controversial materials. The experience of WikiLeaks founder and spokesperson Julian Assange, for instance, raises the distinct possibility that most among us, without the protection and encouragement of friends in high places, might find negligible rewards in using archival records releases to challenge entrenched political and economic power struc- tures. Considering Elena Danielson’s lengthy career at Hoover, and that institution’s close ties to partisan private donors (chiefly the Richard Mellon Scaife foundations), a more nuanced consideration of the archivist’s role in the pointedly ideological use of archival materials would have been welcome, and could have added considerable value to an already impressive publication.
Ryan Speer Digital Collections Archivist Georgia Institute of Technology Archives and Records Management 78 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Special Issue of Journal of Information Ethics: Archival Ethics: New Views, Spring 2010, no. 1, ed. Richard Cox. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. 2010. 196 pp. Softcover. $30.
Richard Cox has been one of the most prolific and controversial of archival authors and educators. In this slim volume, he presents the work of his students regarding the ethical questions that suffuse archival work. The volume grew from a course on archival access, advocacy, and ethics that Cox teaches at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Information, and its tone might best be described as exploratory. Each essay is thought provoking, but the conclu- sions are tentative and not necessarily supported by extensive research typical of a peer-reviewed publication. Each essay includes a helpful overview of the literature for the specific incident or issue that it covers, as well as a description and analysis of the issues raised. Cox’s introductory essay articulates his desire to see ethical issues addressed more systematically both within the profession (i.e., the Society of American Archi- vists) and in archival education. He begins by recounting his involvement in several controversies, most notably his criticism of the National Archives (NARA) and the Society of American Archivists (SAA) during the so-called Anthony Clark-Office of Presidential Libraries case. The case concerned attempts by Clark, a private researcher, to identify and gain access to NARA’s administrative records regarding the establishment and management of presidential libraries. SAA Council briefly considered the case but did not censure or publicly criticize NARA. This case and several others led Cox to argue that the main issue confronting archivists in the present and future is not technology but leadership and ethics. The remainder of the volume (aside from a closing essay by David Wallace) con- sists of case studies that follow a common format: one of Cox’s recent students de- scribes a particular incident regarding access to or the administration of records. In the light of ethical codes or imperatives, the student then dissects or critiques a) the actions of the organizations or individuals involved and/or b) the utility and efficacy of the codes or professional practices that bear upon the specific issues confronted in the incident. Notable essays include Nora Devlin’s description and analysis of Julie Herrada’s experiences in acquiring the papers of the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski) for the Uni- versity of Michigan’s Labadie Collection. Devlin shows not only how Herrada was guided by ethical codes in acquiring this material as an example of political radical- ism, but also how she used the controversy to positive effect in advocating for and educating others about archives. Similarly, the essay by Elizabeth Amber Livingston concerning access to Martin Heidegger’s papers and manuscripts provides a subtle and well-researched account of severe access restrictions, amounting to an embargo, placed on use of the materials by the philosopher’s son. It clearly demonstrates how the absence of an impartial access policy can harm the reputation of an institution and impede scholarly understanding. Other essays treat issues like the repatriation and digitization of Native American materials, film restoration, the secret archives in the Archdiocese of Boston, the PUBLICATION REVIEWS 79 sale of digitized images, and the administration of public policy by the National Archives and Records Administration. Power emerges as a common theme. The authors argue either explicitly or implicitly that those who control information and access bear particular responsibility to exercise control in a way that benefits society as a whole, not only the institution that they serve. It is a difficult issue; as one of Cox’s students remarked to him, “you are talking to us about losing our job before we have even gotten one” (p. 25). While each article highlights a thorny case that is interesting in its own right, many of the essays exhibit the limitations inherent to short-term student projects: they could have benefitted from additional research and closer editing. An article concerning the repatriation of certain Native American artifacts does not include a basic description of the essential facts concerning the return of the items. Similarly, a few of the articles criticize SAA Council and/or specific archivists for their actions (or inaction) in particular cases, but lack balance or a full description of the facts in the case. These essays do not contain enough analysis of countervailing perspec- tives to allow the reader to make an independent judgment concerning the cases. Nevertheless, all of the authors show that ethics is not a topic that can be taught or understood by simply reciting a list of dos or don’ts; it must be developed as a series of actions in the messy circumstances of daily life. The concluding essay by David Wallace reinforces this point by situating archival ethics within the theoreti- cal framework of professionalization. After analyzing how other professions have developed and revised their ethical codes, Wallace argues that the archival profes- sion should not take easy comfort in the promulgation of a universal code of ethics. While normative codes have value (if properly developed and defined), they should not limit an individual’s ability to grow into a moral being in the light of specific cases and learned experience, and their emphasis on minimizing legal risk can, in fact, impede that growth. This volume is highly recommended to all archivists. It shows that archival ethics are best taught and learned not by inculcating a set of imperatives in a classroom but by helping individuals study and analyze specific cases in which people have used archives to either advance or retard knowledge, understanding, and justice.
Christopher J. Prom Assistant University Archivist University of Illinois Archives 80 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011
Contesting Archives: Finding Women in the Sources, ed. Nupur Chaudhuri, Sherry J. Katz, and Mary Elizabeth Perry. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2010. 248 pp. Softcover. $25.00.
There is a compelling discussion going on in the book, Contesting Archives: Finding Women in the Sources, edited by Nupur Chaudhuri, Sherry J. Katz, and Mary Eliza- beth Perry. The discussion centers around challenging the assumption that archives are neutral spaces, that archives are simply repositories of information. Further, it connects the difficulties of finding women’s voices, texts, and narratives in archives through time and across cultures, with the discussion of archives as arenas where the records that are kept are weighted in power and meaning. The volume begins with an acute foreword by Antoinette Burton, author of works that examine the role of women and empire and how these appear—or do not—in archives and historical records. Burton introduces the various contributors to Con- testing Archives to us, who, in total, offer an examination that is global in scope and diverse in voice. The case is made in this book that archives are, in effect, disputed territories where decisions are made about whose voices are heard—and whose are left unheard—for posterity. Women have, across cultures and across time, come out the losers in this equation. The contributors to this book have put forth methods, through their own research and findings, of how to discover and locate women’s voices in archives, as well as hopeful evidence of creating repositories of women’s history. The book is divided into three sections: “Locating Women in Official Documents,” “Integrating Varied Sources Found Inside and Outside Official Archives,” and “Creating Women’s History Archives.” The essays discuss women’s records from many points of view: that of a Muslim slave in Early Modern Spain, migrant workers in nineteenth- century Tunis, African-Americans and Mexicans of different eras, industrial workers in communist Poland, and women of Qajar Iran, colonial India, socialist Mozambique, and twentieth-century America. The section “Locating Women in Official Documents” helps to flesh out the ways in which researchers can—albeit with some effort—find women in historical records. Women’s voices can be heard by reading “against the grain”: by reading official docu- ments for the “subtexts and silences” where women’s history can be discovered. By examining an Inquisition document in the Spanish Archivo Historico Nacional, author Mary Elizabeth Perry reconstructs the life of a Muslim slave woman. Perry digs into the legal commentary to give life and voice to this particular woman, and thus, other women like her. Through criminal proceedings, Julia Clancy-Smith finds the story of an Italian migrant worker in nineteenth-century Tunisia, filling in the woman’s silences and those of other women like her, who previously did not have a recognized voice. Similarly, Kali Nicole Gross and Daniel Haworth use their contributions to the book to share the stories of other nameless women lost to time. These authors do much to assert that women across cultures and eras are not heard until circumstances occur that force their lives under an eye of scrutiny, and the official records that are the re- sult help to place women within the wider discussion of social structures, mores, and relationships. Further, women found in official records—those who are outside the PUBLICATION REVIEWS 81 social norm: those convicted of crimes, orphans, noncitizens, etc.—tend to challenge standard historical narratives and women’s roles in those narratives. In the second section, “Integrating Varied Sources Found Inside and Outside Of- ficial Archives,” the authors explore the method of “researching around” the records themselves in order to reconstruct and interpret women’s lives. Authors Lisa Sousa, Sherry J. Katz, Malgorzata Fidelis, Ula Taylor, and Nupur Chaudhuri examine women’s networks, “community feminism,” and their contributions to nation building and political upheaval through the pictorial and glyphic records of indigenous peoples, writings for propagandist and radical organizations, oral histories, and personal papers. Additionally, Mansoureh Ettehadieh, Elham Malekzadeh, Maryam Ameli-Rezaei, and Janet Afary examine the ways in which urban middle- and upper-class women in Qajar Iran found agency within rather cloistered lives. In the final section, “Creating Women’s History Archives,” the creation of records by non-elite women is examined in full. Joanne Goodwin discusses archives that docu- ment women of all social strata in late twentieth-century Las Vegas. These archives have been instrumental in documenting women workers’ records. Kathleen Sheldon makes the case for the recent inclusion of women in socialist Mozambique through oral histories that show the central role that women have played in the formation of modern Mozambique. Both authors help to put power behind the notion of the importance of creating women’s archives and provide some very strong examples of such repositories. Contesting Archives: Finding Women in the Sources covers crucial territory—mak- ing sure that women’s voices are heard throughout the historical record, and thus, are rewritten into history. Finally, Contesting Archives helps to assert that women’s history is a vital part of the wider historical record and identifies ways in which to locate and document that history.
Alison Stankrauff Archivist and Assistant Librarian Indiana University–South Bend Midwest Archives Conference 4440 PGA Boulevard, Suite 600 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410