14 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
created by private donors and university offices.”
Another discussed “stabilizing, migrating, describ-
ing, and maintaining born-digital collection materi-
als, the new frontier portending major changes in
the method and prioritizing of manuscript collec-
tions.” As for media obsolescence, one respondent
observed, “We lack the equipment to transfer or read
older forms of magnetic and electronic media.” Other
respondents noted that digitization placed demands
on already strained resources for archival activities.
Another challenge is the lack of paperwork related
to older collections, which makes it difficult to ascer-
tain the legal status of some of their collections. This
lack of legal paperwork also extends to limited or no
preliminary information about older unprocessed
collections. One respondent noted that the “lack of
information about collections in the backlog makes it
difficult to make processing priority decisions.”
Conclusion
The survey responses speak to the classic issues of
management: how to process collections efficiently but
yet adequately so that collections are usable with mini-
mal processing how to balance demands for more de-
scription and item-level cataloging (digitization) with
initiatives to make more collections available (“more
product, less processing”) and how to manage staff
effectively and to assess processing progress. From the
survey results it is clear that the respondents agree on
core principles for processing (such as what is a fully
processed collection, what makes a good processor,
and the challenges facing processors), but in practice
the application of these principles is tempered by in-
stitutional practices, traditions, and resources. Where
archivists tend to deviate from each other is in the ap-
plication of some standards (such as metrics, statistics,
and standardization of processing and description), in
the adoption of trends and new concepts in processing
(databases for access, MPLP) and in handling outside
demands (digitization, user needs). The application of
archival methods and theories may indeed be more art
than science. Archival managers and processing ar-
chivists must have the judgment and critical thinking
skills (and the freedom to apply them) as an essential
part of their tool sets in order to balance the various
competing critical factors in managing the processing
process.
Endnotes
1 Roe, Kathleen D. Arranging and Describing Archives
&Manuscripts. Chicago, IL: Society of American
Archivist, 2005: 11.
2 Greene, Mark A., and Dennis Meissner. “More
Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional
Archival Processing.” The American Archivist 68, no. 2
(Fall/Winter 2005): 240.
3 Slotkin, Helen W., and Karen T. Lynch. “An Analysis
of Processing Procedures: The Adaptable Approach.”
American Archivist 45, no. 2 (1982): 157.
4 Christine Weidman. “Accessioning as Processing.”
American Archivist 69 (Fall/Winter 2006): 275.
5 Hirtle, Peter B. “The Impact of Digitization on
Special Collection Libraries.” Fleur Cowles Flair
Symposium 2000, University of Texas, 3 November
2000, Austin, Texas.
6 Greene and Meissner, 253.
created by private donors and university offices.”
Another discussed “stabilizing, migrating, describ-
ing, and maintaining born-digital collection materi-
als, the new frontier portending major changes in
the method and prioritizing of manuscript collec-
tions.” As for media obsolescence, one respondent
observed, “We lack the equipment to transfer or read
older forms of magnetic and electronic media.” Other
respondents noted that digitization placed demands
on already strained resources for archival activities.
Another challenge is the lack of paperwork related
to older collections, which makes it difficult to ascer-
tain the legal status of some of their collections. This
lack of legal paperwork also extends to limited or no
preliminary information about older unprocessed
collections. One respondent noted that the “lack of
information about collections in the backlog makes it
difficult to make processing priority decisions.”
Conclusion
The survey responses speak to the classic issues of
management: how to process collections efficiently but
yet adequately so that collections are usable with mini-
mal processing how to balance demands for more de-
scription and item-level cataloging (digitization) with
initiatives to make more collections available (“more
product, less processing”) and how to manage staff
effectively and to assess processing progress. From the
survey results it is clear that the respondents agree on
core principles for processing (such as what is a fully
processed collection, what makes a good processor,
and the challenges facing processors), but in practice
the application of these principles is tempered by in-
stitutional practices, traditions, and resources. Where
archivists tend to deviate from each other is in the ap-
plication of some standards (such as metrics, statistics,
and standardization of processing and description), in
the adoption of trends and new concepts in processing
(databases for access, MPLP) and in handling outside
demands (digitization, user needs). The application of
archival methods and theories may indeed be more art
than science. Archival managers and processing ar-
chivists must have the judgment and critical thinking
skills (and the freedom to apply them) as an essential
part of their tool sets in order to balance the various
competing critical factors in managing the processing
process.
Endnotes
1 Roe, Kathleen D. Arranging and Describing Archives
&Manuscripts. Chicago, IL: Society of American
Archivist, 2005: 11.
2 Greene, Mark A., and Dennis Meissner. “More
Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional
Archival Processing.” The American Archivist 68, no. 2
(Fall/Winter 2005): 240.
3 Slotkin, Helen W., and Karen T. Lynch. “An Analysis
of Processing Procedures: The Adaptable Approach.”
American Archivist 45, no. 2 (1982): 157.
4 Christine Weidman. “Accessioning as Processing.”
American Archivist 69 (Fall/Winter 2006): 275.
5 Hirtle, Peter B. “The Impact of Digitization on
Special Collection Libraries.” Fleur Cowles Flair
Symposium 2000, University of Texas, 3 November
2000, Austin, Texas.
6 Greene and Meissner, 253.
