Intellectual Access to Archives: I

64 The American Archivist / Winter 1980 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/43/1/64/2048208/aarc_43_1_31031523737j16n7.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 Intellectual Access to Archives: I. Provenance and Content Indexing Methods of Subject Retrieval RICHARD H. LYTLE Introduction AVAILABILITY OF COMPUTERS ENCOUR- ing access to archives. The first method, AGES visions of sophisticated informa- the Provenance or P Method, is the tion retrieval systems for archives. The traditional method of archival re- visions include national on-line subject trieval, based on principles of archives retrieval systems using controlled vo- administration and reference practices cabularies and the latest searching of archivists. Subject retrieval in the P techniques. But the visions are shat- Method proceeds by linking subject tered by the paucity and poor quality queries with provenance information of subject access information about ar- contained in administrative histories chives: there is little to computerize^ or biographies, thereby producing and what exists is unimpressive when leads to files which are searched by us- subjected to the rigors of computer ing their internal structures. Informa- manipulation. Moreover, compiling tion in the pure or theoretically de- subject access information about ar- fined P Method derives only from what chives can be a very expensive process is known about the file—the activities of with uncertain benefits. The chal- the creating person or organization and lenge, then, is to design for archives in- the structure or organizing principles formation retrieval systems which are of the file itself. The second method, both powerful in subject retrieval and the Content Indexing or CI Method, cost effective. derives from librarianship but has been System design should be founded applied extensively to manuscript col- upon careful analysis of the character- lections, and, to a limited extent, to ar- istics of subject retrieval in archives chives. Subject retrieval in the CI and upon experimental testing of re- Method matches subject queries with trieval systems. The major purpose of terms from an index or catalog. In the this article is to contribute to subject pure CI Method, information is retrieval system design by describing gleaned by an indexer who examines two methods of gaining subject access the records; as the CI Method usually to archives. These methods are theo- is practiced in manuscript collections retically distinct, but in practice can oc- and archives, provenance-related in- cur as complementary means of gain- formation is not considered in index- Intellectual Access to Archives: Subject Retrieval 65 ing. Although P and CI Methods do exist indicates, defining the components of as pure types in practice, often they occur as the archives system is no simple task. complementary approaches within a given The body of materials included in Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/43/1/64/2048208/aarc_43_1_31031523737j16n7.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 repository. The theoretical distinction is im- the system may be defined in part by portant for analysis, especially for reduction the characteristics of the materials of method characteristics to a form suitable themselves. The distinction between for quantitative study. archives and manuscript collections is The Provenance and Content In- becoming less important with the trend dexing Methods are described below. to apply archival techniques of control A companion article forthcoming in well beyond the archives of govern- the American Archivist1 reports an ex- ment or other institutions; certainly all perimental evaluation of the two meth- materials subject to control by archival ods. techniques should be included in the archives system, without reference to Definition of the Archives System traditional definitions. Moreover, the The following discussion is struc- archives system should include active tured according to the principles of records of government and other insti- systems analysis, including definition tutions as well as non-current records of the system and its components or selected for archival preservation; the subsystems, requirements on the sys- traditional dichotomy of retrieval pro- tem, and responses of the system. The visions for current and archival rec- object of the analysis is the totality of ords makes little sense in the modern archives and manuscript collections in era of records and information man- the United States; precisely which ma- agement. terials are included in the system is The materials in the archives system part of the problem, not a given. Data, may be distinguished from materials in admittedly inadequate, are derived other systems. Books, for example, are from the archives administration liter- included in the bibliographic system ature, the writer's experience, and and are properly distinguished from from the experiment and data analysis archives by their focused subject con- reported later. The purpose of the tent and their multiple copy distribu- analysis is more to take first proce- tion. Some materials, trade literature dural steps than to present results. collections, for example, and perhaps The archives system is made up of some manuscript collections, are not so (1) the body of materials contained in easily classified. These materials de- the system, (2) the users who make de- serve special attention in information mands on the materials, (3) the finding system design.2 aids used to access the materials, and Definition of materials in the ar- (4) those responsible for servicing the chives system may be achieved in part materials. As the following discussion by identifying the system's body of ' This article, and the subsequent one reporting experimental results, are based on my doctoral dissertation. See Richard H. Lytle, "Subject Retrieval in Archives: A Comparison of the Provenance and Content Indexing Methods" (Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, 1979). My advisor, Dagobert Soergel, was a major influence on this work. Also, my intellectual debt to Richard Berner extends well beyond the cited references. 2 For details on trade literature, see Irene Travis, "Trade Literature at the National Museum of History and Technology," Special Libraries 70 (1979): 272—80. Trade literature is an excellent example of material which presents real problems for system definition. 66 The American Archivist/ Winter 1980 users. Although there are specialized kept mostly for security reasons, and users who present demands for certain archivists have seldom analyzed the in- kinds of materials, there are many formation to describe users and their Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/43/1/64/2048208/aarc_43_1_31031523737j16n7.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 users who ask questions which cross demands on the archives system. traditionally defined boundaries. A Some data have been gathered for common body of users constitutes the analysis, and a few institutions report primary reason for regarding archives regularly on their users. The National and manuscript collections as one sys- Archives has made at least one use tem. Moreover, active records should study,3 and the University of Illinois be included in the archives system be- Archives, for example, gives user sta- cause many users make demands which tistics in its annual report. But there cross this traditional boundary as well. are no synthetic studies, and virtually Two final components of the system nothing on the topic appears in the ar- are the finding aids used to access ma- chives administration literature. Gath- terials in the archives system, and per- ering and synthesizing existing data is sons who provide reference assistance. itself a major research task, and it is The term finding aid ordinarily is used likely that existing data would be in- only in archives (traditionally defined), adequate for cross-institutional stud- but for present purposes it is used for ies. What follows, then, is a very im- all access devices in the system, includ- pressionistic commentary based on ing card indexes for manuscript collec- experience, conversations, and years tions as well as administrative histories devoted to reading colleagues' annual and inventories for archives. Refer- reports. ence staff may include archivists and Genealogists probably have numeri- other information service personnel. cal superiority and item-use superior- Definition of the archives system, ity, although they may not consume a then, must be accomplished as a first corresponding proportion of refer- step for information storage and re- ence staff time. Service to record crea- trieval systems planning; failure to do tors—usually administrators—proba- so will undermine thinking about in- bly comes next, although this category formation systems for archives and is appropriate mostly to archives tra- manuscript collections. System defini- ditionally defined. Scholars probably tion is especially critical for effective come next, and within that group it is planning of a national information sys- presumed that historians predomi- tem. nate. Biographers rank high. A last category of user is the casual user, which might include everyone from a Requirements on the System chance walk-in to college undergradu- 1. Who are the Users? Most archives ates making a pass through the ar- require that clients register and give chives on an assignment. In recent some information about their

Load more