Carlson, Clare, One Size Does Not Fit All: Exploring Email Archiving Workflows. A Master's paper for the M.S. in L.S. degree. May, 2020. 49 pages. Advisor: Cal Lee The purpose of this study is to examine email processing workflows of archivists at universities in the United States. Through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with seven archivists at six universities, this study explores the working practices and perspectives of archivists processing email collections. From selection and acquisition to access and discovery, participants shared their thoughts and experiences on email archiving at their institutions. With the assistance of qualitative coding software, I analyzed the latent and manifest content within the interview data. The goal of the study was not to determine standards and best practices for processing email. Rather, the study is intended to be a resource for archivists who are interested in learning how peers at other institutions are transforming the high volume of email data into accessible, significant records with documentary value. Headings: Digital preservation Electronic mail messages Electronic records Universities and colleges--Archives ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: EXPLORING EMAIL ARCHIVING WORKFLOWS by Clare Carlson A Master's paper submitted to the faculty of the School of Information and Library Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Library Science. Chapel Hill, North Carolina May, 2020 Approved by: _______________________ Cal Lee 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 Literature Review................................................................................................................ 6 A. Theories and Methods of Archival Appraisal ................................................... 7 B. Assessing the Value of Email as Form of Documentation............................... 9 C. Challenges and Opportunities of Sensitivity Review..................................... 11 D. Guidance and Case Studies on Processing Email Archives ........................... 13 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 16 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 17 A. Positionality / Researcher Role ................................................................ 18 B. Research Participants ..................................................................................... 19 C. Data Collection Methods ................................................................................. 20 D. Data Analysis Methods .................................................................................... 22 E. Research Quality and Ethical Considerations ............................................... 22 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 23 A. Participant Profiles .......................................................................................... 24 B. The Challenges of Selecting and Acquiring Email ....................................... 25 3 C. Email Processing Strategies ............................................................................ 29 D. Discovery and Access ....................................................................................... 35 F. Email Archiving: Where to Start .................................................................... 37 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 39 References ......................................................................................................................... 41 Appendix A. Recruitment Email Scripts .......................................................................... 45 Appendix B. Table of Participants .................................................................................... 46 Appendix C. Interview Guide ........................................................................................... 47 4 Introduction More email was sent than postal mail for the first time in 1996. Since that year, email has been the most predominant form of business correspondence (Stephens, 2007). In 2020, an estimated average of 306.4 billion emails will be sent every day, with the average office worker sending 40 work-related emails and receiving 90 of them each day (Guttman, 2018). Email is a significant form of documentation that presents several challenges to archivist working to preserve the medium. One the greatest challenges of email is that the medium’s high volume of data makes appraising content, reviewing sensitive information, and describing email collections an onerous process, even with the assistance of automated tools. The purpose of this study is to explore the email processing workflows of archivists at universities in the United States. Through in-depth, semi- structured interviews with a selection of archivists, I will conduct an exploratory study that provides detailed description of the working practices and perspectives of archivists processing email collections. This study surveys various activities in the email lifecycle, including selection, acquisition, processing, and discovery and access. The goal of the study is not to determine standards and best practices for email archiving. Rather, the study is intended be a resource for archivists who are interested in learning how peers at other institutions are transforming the high volume of email data into accessible, significant records with documentary value. None of the participants felt that they had “figured out” or perfected email archiving. The opposite was true. Participants acknowledged that they are continually learning about email archiving, revising 5 their workflows and, in some cases where no workflows exist, planning and implementing new policies and procedures. A key takeaway from this study is a single, perfect solution for email archiving does not exist. Archivists should explore and experiment with email archiving in ways that fit with the capabilities and needs of their institutions. 6 Literature Review The literature and accompanying theories reviewed in this section concentrate on archival appraisal and methods of processing born-digital materials, with particular emphasis on how these traditional and digital approaches apply to processing archival email collections. The literature review begins with theories and practices of archival appraisal, with discussions of traditional appraisal processes and how these practices have been updated and adapted for the massive amounts of data contained in born-digital materials such as email. The next component in the literature review delves into the value of email as form of correspondence and documentation. The literature in this section argues that email contains historical and public records that archivists must preserve. The third section shifts the discussion from appraising the value of email to reviewing content of email in order to determine risks. This section focuses on strategies for sensitivity review and the challenges of adhering to privacy regulations while also following government and institutional mandates to make email collections accessible. This section also contains literature how tools for appraisal and identifying sensitive information can also aid in the description and eventual discoverability of email collections. The final section of the literature review examines case studies published by various institutions that present their experiences processing email. This section illustrates how archivists are adapting theories and standard practices to fit the needs and capabilities of their institutions. 7 A. Theories and Methods of Archival Appraisal Appraisal in the context of archives has multiple meanings as it is a process done throughout the lifecycle of archival materials. The Society of American Archivists (SAA) glossary describes appraisal as “process of determining whether records and other materials have permanent (archival) value” (“Appraisal,” n.d.). The description notes that appraisal does not occur at one point but can occur “prior to donation and prior to physical transfer, at or after accessioning.” The SAA definition also states that “basis of appraisal decisions may include a number of factors, including the records' provenance and content, their authenticity and reliability, their order and completeness, their condition and costs to preserve them, and their intrinsic value” (“Appraisal,” n.d.). The SAA definition provides a broad overview of appraisal but it does not address the differences in appraisal methodologies in regards to digital versus analog media. Discussion on the application of traditional appraisal methodologies to new digital media began in the mid-to-late 1990s, notably with Philip C. Bantin’s (1998) article on electronic records management strategies. Bantin’s article responds to two conflicting ideologies of the time that were grappling with the impact of information technology on archival theory and practice. On one side of the