SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 119
Additional Comments
22. Please enter any additional information regarding manuscript and archival collection processing
policies and practices in your unit/department/library that may assist the authors in accurately
analyzing the results of this survey. N=28
All processing decisions in any repository are based much more on local realities than on any other factors. Every
repository must determine its own policies and practices based on the local administrative structure, budgetary process,
staffing levels, and range and size of user demand.
Almost all of our processing is done by undergraduate or graduate students or by interns in graduate archives courses. It
is always necessary to assess the abilities of the students and their readiness for a particular processing project.
Charles Lee, former head of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, once noted that the essential
function of description was to “enumerate the attributes” of collections. Identifying those attributes, finding the proper
level of detail, and talented staff to record them is a terrific, continuing struggle, and one of the reasons that such
material has lagged in terms of description for access. Perhaps the only area where the need is more acute is in the area
of AV materials.
For further information, please contact the respective department head: University Archives: Christopher Hives,
University Archivist, chris.hives@ubc.ca Rare Books &Special Collections: Ralph Stanton, Head, ralph.stanton@ubc.ca.
I would say our processing prioritization and process itself is definitely not a science!
In 2008, the Kelvin Smith Library created the position of Archivist in Special Collections. At that time a number of
initiatives were begun, including those mentioned on p. 11 of this survey and an ongoing project to update in-house
processing procedures for non-book material. While we do not have documents to share outside the library, we would
like to share that the policies and practices of the department, developed over the course of 30 years, have been rooted
in the tradition of the Archival Fundamental Series, published by the Society of American Archivists. Because there
are many different types of materials and collections in the department a detailed description of our many and varied
processing project is not feasible for this study. May it suffice that rare and unique items are most likely to be described
at the item level collections of personal papers and institutional archives are most likely to be described at the folder
and series level all collections are described at the collection level. Lastly, Special Collections does not operate with a
back-log of unprocessed materials – processing donations of manuscript and non-book material is the first priority of the
Archivist in Special Collections. The department does not solicit donations nor is it obligated to accept donations that fall
outside its areas of specialization ensuring that this policy will remain practicable through time.
In 21 years at Penn, I can attest that the more online description available, the more use of manuscripts by researchers.
An exceedingly minimal level of description will get some researchers in but will leave uninformed many potential
researchers—researchers not searching the person for whom the collection is named but perhaps a correspondent in
that collection.
In adopting MPLP you absolutely need standardized policy and procedure. With tiered processing there’s no “one way”
to do it anymore. We do it four ways and sometimes get creative on the fly to meet the needs of our patron base and
of the unit. And, honestly, rip off the band aid. You can’t “ease into” MPLP. You need to embrace it, commit to it, and
mean it.
In general, we think the survey is nicely archival in outlook (not always the case). We had some problems with some
part of the the survey seeming to want answers based on having made decisions about what we always do with
certain types of materials or certain types of collections. We’ve really gotten away from that here, preferring triage
Additional Comments
22. Please enter any additional information regarding manuscript and archival collection processing
policies and practices in your unit/department/library that may assist the authors in accurately
analyzing the results of this survey. N=28
All processing decisions in any repository are based much more on local realities than on any other factors. Every
repository must determine its own policies and practices based on the local administrative structure, budgetary process,
staffing levels, and range and size of user demand.
Almost all of our processing is done by undergraduate or graduate students or by interns in graduate archives courses. It
is always necessary to assess the abilities of the students and their readiness for a particular processing project.
Charles Lee, former head of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, once noted that the essential
function of description was to “enumerate the attributes” of collections. Identifying those attributes, finding the proper
level of detail, and talented staff to record them is a terrific, continuing struggle, and one of the reasons that such
material has lagged in terms of description for access. Perhaps the only area where the need is more acute is in the area
of AV materials.
For further information, please contact the respective department head: University Archives: Christopher Hives,
University Archivist, chris.hives@ubc.ca Rare Books &Special Collections: Ralph Stanton, Head, ralph.stanton@ubc.ca.
I would say our processing prioritization and process itself is definitely not a science!
In 2008, the Kelvin Smith Library created the position of Archivist in Special Collections. At that time a number of
initiatives were begun, including those mentioned on p. 11 of this survey and an ongoing project to update in-house
processing procedures for non-book material. While we do not have documents to share outside the library, we would
like to share that the policies and practices of the department, developed over the course of 30 years, have been rooted
in the tradition of the Archival Fundamental Series, published by the Society of American Archivists. Because there
are many different types of materials and collections in the department a detailed description of our many and varied
processing project is not feasible for this study. May it suffice that rare and unique items are most likely to be described
at the item level collections of personal papers and institutional archives are most likely to be described at the folder
and series level all collections are described at the collection level. Lastly, Special Collections does not operate with a
back-log of unprocessed materials – processing donations of manuscript and non-book material is the first priority of the
Archivist in Special Collections. The department does not solicit donations nor is it obligated to accept donations that fall
outside its areas of specialization ensuring that this policy will remain practicable through time.
In 21 years at Penn, I can attest that the more online description available, the more use of manuscripts by researchers.
An exceedingly minimal level of description will get some researchers in but will leave uninformed many potential
researchers—researchers not searching the person for whom the collection is named but perhaps a correspondent in
that collection.
In adopting MPLP you absolutely need standardized policy and procedure. With tiered processing there’s no “one way”
to do it anymore. We do it four ways and sometimes get creative on the fly to meet the needs of our patron base and
of the unit. And, honestly, rip off the band aid. You can’t “ease into” MPLP. You need to embrace it, commit to it, and
mean it.
In general, we think the survey is nicely archival in outlook (not always the case). We had some problems with some
part of the the survey seeming to want answers based on having made decisions about what we always do with
certain types of materials or certain types of collections. We’ve really gotten away from that here, preferring triage
