“Still describing to folder level, in most cases. But we’re not doing as much preservation photocopying.”
“The degree of minimal processing varies with each collection.”
“This varies with the collection. Some small collections might have item level description others may retain the
arrangement in which they were received and our description may use lists supplied by the dealer or donor.”
“This was being done well before Greene’s &Meissner’s article.”
“Traditionally a collection was considered processed when it was arranged into series and a folder-level inventory
created. However, due to the large backlog, we are redefining fully processed. Now, students are refoldering
the collection as arranged in the boxes, creating a box/folder inventory and writing a brief description of the
collection. We are spending little time physically arranging collections into series. We are still working on fully
implementing MPLP. The hard part is selling it to staff who are use to the traditional methods of processing. We
also need to create procedures to help implement MPLP. We are not following every recommendation outlined by
Greene and Meissner but variations that essentially achieve the same result. While we normally refolder due to the
condition of most folders, we no longer remove staples and other fasteners (with the exception of rubber bands)
unless they are rusty and presenting a preservation concern. We also rebox collections into the acid-free records
center boxes because our Collections Annex does not accept other types. As for description, we are creating
collection-level MARC records that include at least a scope and content note and some subject headings and
indicate the existence of a box/folder-level inventory when applicable.”
“Under serious discussion, this will be the approach of our next collections, but to date on the Online Archive of
California, our collections are processed to the box and folder level.”
“University Archives collections are being processed at the series level and other collecting areas are investigating
the same possibility.”
“Varies depending on collection size and content.”
“We adopted a flexible, four-level system that allows the unit head to determine the level required based on
expected use, access, and retrievability.”
“We are conducting a pilot project with minimal physical process, brief scope and content info, and basic folder
“We deem cataloging at a high level detail at the folder-level desirous so researchers will know exactly what is in
each folder. Both staff and researchers are able to use our collections more efficiently when detailed descriptions
are provided. We even include a book-like index at the end of each finding aid pointing researchers to particular
box numbers/folder numbers, and the index aids the researcher tremendously.”
“We have adopted the Greene/Meissner approach by creating access to all collections through the OPAC and
through the University Archives Web site. Adoption of the Greene/Meissner approach to processing is planned for
the near future.”
“We have adopted this mindset for our modern collections (20th century), but feel that the folder-level (or in
some cases, item-level) description is more appropriate for the bulk of collections, which date from the 19th
century. We also use the Greene-Meissner mindset when creating finding aids for collections that currently have
only a collection-level record in our card catalog. These finding aids do not contain information beyond the basics
(little to no biographical or scope note, container-level description, etc.)”
Previous Page Next Page