10 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
respondents (36%) indicated that rare books and rare
serials were cataloged in another department or unit
within the library, usually cataloging or technical
services. Only five respondents indicated that manu-
scripts and archival materials were processed outside
of special collections/archives.
Definition of Processing Terms
According to Slotkin and Lynch’s article, “An Analysis
of Processing Procedures,” a collection is “processed”
whenever it can be used productively for research.3
In practice, manuscript and archives processors have
developed different definitions for “fully processed,”
“minimally processed,” or “unprocessed” collections.
The majority of respondents agreed that “unpro-
cessed” implied accession records only and some-
times an inventory list. However, definitions of “fully
processed” and “minimally processed” range wildly
among archivists. “Fully processed” was commonly
defined as materials arranged and described to the
folder/item level, all hardware (staples, paperclips,
etc.) removed, and materials rehoused in acid-free
folders and boxes. Fully processed collections may
also include such descriptive items as a full MARC
and/or MARC21 compliant record, an electronic find-
ing aid (commonly EAD encoded), and a full descrip-
tive finding aid (sometimes DACS compliant).A ma-
jority of respondents defined “minimally processed”
as a collection having a brief inventory or box list,
perhaps a brief MARC record and/or brief finding aid,
and some rough organization. Some characterized
this as a collection described to the folder level (folder
titles) and reboxed in appropriate housing. It appeared
that some institutions’ “minimally processed” met
the standards of other institutions’ “fully processed.”
Supplementary terms used for minimal processing in-
cluded: accession processed, preliminary processing,
proactively processing, and pre-processing.
Some respondents indicated that their institutions
had several different levels of processing beyond the
terms in the survey. Others indicated that they treat-
ed “minimally processed” collections as “prelimi-
nary processed” collections, with the expectation of
processing the collection more fully in the future.
And finally, a minority of institutions rejects formal
processing categories in order to retain some flexibil-
ity in processing. One respondent declared, “We do
not use formal definitions we know categories when
we see them.”
Access to unprocessed collections
Sixty-nine respondents (92%) allow researchers to
have access to minimally or unprocessed collections.
One respondent clarified, “We don’t ‘advertise’ un-
processed or minimally processed collections, but if a
research question leads to the location of such materi-
als, we do not, generally, restrict access unless there is
some legal reason to do so.” Another stated, “Decisions
are made on a case-by-case basis.”
Decision Makers
The majority of responding libraries (70 or 93%) in-
dicated that the archivist and/or department or unit
head in special collections/archives has primary re-
sponsibility for developing processing policies, setting
priorities, and managing activities. Just under half
include librarians and other professionals in decision
making and 18 take a team approach. At a small num-
ber of institutions, support staff have some responsi-
bility for developing policies and setting priorities,
but more often they are responsible for overseeing the
work of other staff.
Respondents were asked to estimate the percent-
age of time spent on these activities by up to three
key staff members. Developing policies and setting
priorities each account for only about 5% of staff time
managing activities account for about 25% the most
time (50% to 75%) is spent on “other duties.”
Setting Priorities
When asked what factors were considered in setting
priorities for processing manuscript and archival col-
lections, all but two respondents selected anticipated
high-use of the collections and 80% ranked it as one of
the three most important factors. The other two high-
est ranked factors were response to patron demand
and institutional priorities. While the size of the col-
lection is considered by a majority of respondents, only
21% ranked it as one of the most important factors.
Interestingly, the least important factors considered
respondents (36%) indicated that rare books and rare
serials were cataloged in another department or unit
within the library, usually cataloging or technical
services. Only five respondents indicated that manu-
scripts and archival materials were processed outside
of special collections/archives.
Definition of Processing Terms
According to Slotkin and Lynch’s article, “An Analysis
of Processing Procedures,” a collection is “processed”
whenever it can be used productively for research.3
In practice, manuscript and archives processors have
developed different definitions for “fully processed,”
“minimally processed,” or “unprocessed” collections.
The majority of respondents agreed that “unpro-
cessed” implied accession records only and some-
times an inventory list. However, definitions of “fully
processed” and “minimally processed” range wildly
among archivists. “Fully processed” was commonly
defined as materials arranged and described to the
folder/item level, all hardware (staples, paperclips,
etc.) removed, and materials rehoused in acid-free
folders and boxes. Fully processed collections may
also include such descriptive items as a full MARC
and/or MARC21 compliant record, an electronic find-
ing aid (commonly EAD encoded), and a full descrip-
tive finding aid (sometimes DACS compliant).A ma-
jority of respondents defined “minimally processed”
as a collection having a brief inventory or box list,
perhaps a brief MARC record and/or brief finding aid,
and some rough organization. Some characterized
this as a collection described to the folder level (folder
titles) and reboxed in appropriate housing. It appeared
that some institutions’ “minimally processed” met
the standards of other institutions’ “fully processed.”
Supplementary terms used for minimal processing in-
cluded: accession processed, preliminary processing,
proactively processing, and pre-processing.
Some respondents indicated that their institutions
had several different levels of processing beyond the
terms in the survey. Others indicated that they treat-
ed “minimally processed” collections as “prelimi-
nary processed” collections, with the expectation of
processing the collection more fully in the future.
And finally, a minority of institutions rejects formal
processing categories in order to retain some flexibil-
ity in processing. One respondent declared, “We do
not use formal definitions we know categories when
we see them.”
Access to unprocessed collections
Sixty-nine respondents (92%) allow researchers to
have access to minimally or unprocessed collections.
One respondent clarified, “We don’t ‘advertise’ un-
processed or minimally processed collections, but if a
research question leads to the location of such materi-
als, we do not, generally, restrict access unless there is
some legal reason to do so.” Another stated, “Decisions
are made on a case-by-case basis.”
Decision Makers
The majority of responding libraries (70 or 93%) in-
dicated that the archivist and/or department or unit
head in special collections/archives has primary re-
sponsibility for developing processing policies, setting
priorities, and managing activities. Just under half
include librarians and other professionals in decision
making and 18 take a team approach. At a small num-
ber of institutions, support staff have some responsi-
bility for developing policies and setting priorities,
but more often they are responsible for overseeing the
work of other staff.
Respondents were asked to estimate the percent-
age of time spent on these activities by up to three
key staff members. Developing policies and setting
priorities each account for only about 5% of staff time
managing activities account for about 25% the most
time (50% to 75%) is spent on “other duties.”
Setting Priorities
When asked what factors were considered in setting
priorities for processing manuscript and archival col-
lections, all but two respondents selected anticipated
high-use of the collections and 80% ranked it as one of
the three most important factors. The other two high-
est ranked factors were response to patron demand
and institutional priorities. While the size of the col-
lection is considered by a majority of respondents, only
21% ranked it as one of the most important factors.
Interestingly, the least important factors considered
