SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 55
For a few recent collections, word had gotten around about the collections we heard from researchers about their
interest and processed the collection sooner.
Helped to set priorities.
If we know that patrons have identified a collection as being useful for research we will try to at least establish a
minimal level of processing to make use easier. These discussions may also determine the level to which processing is
done (series or folder).
Informal discussions with researchers who have contacted reference archivist.
Informally and very occasionally. May influence degree to which high use is anticipated, but this is not a major factor.
Informally through Research Services staff, who pass information to Technical Services. This often points to high use or
problematic collections, but don’t always influence policy. More formally, through finding aids usability studies which
help fine tune policy with respect to processing levels.
It may change the list of priorities.
Knowledge of potential use does factor into decisions processing of collections.
Occasionally, faculty or researchers will let us know that a certain collection would be useful in their research or teaching
and we either make the unprocessed collection available or bump it to the top of the priority list.
On occasion we move collections up in processing queue.
One scoring factor gives extra weight to collections recommended by staff historians. Have not asked outside patrons
for advice. One historian is currently surveying professional literature and their indexing terms to assist with priorities
scoring and collection development.
Public services staff informally discuss with users what success and what difficulties they have had in using our
collections as well as which unprocessed collections they would be interested in using. When making processing
decisions, we consider this input as part of our anticipation of what collections or parts of collections would be used if
processed or better processed.
RBSC: top faculty priorities are at the top of the acquisitions and processing list as well.
Request from a government official has moved a collection from a low to a high.
Researcher will use the collection again or the researcher has noted the value of collection for additional research and
scholarship by others. Discussions, along with size of collection, staff availability, lead to efforts to do processing work
on a collection, particularly if it has potential institutional priority as well.
Researchers are sometimes aware of collections before they are processed. If they express an interest in using the
collection for dissertation, thesis, article, or book research we try to move it forward in processing.
This happens fairly informally as researchers come to hear that we have a collection they are interested in, and want to
know how long it will be before they can have access. We try to take this into account when assigning priorities.
This is related to response to patron demand. We just acquired one collection where the researcher, a UCSB professor,
is publishing a book and there may be information in the collection which would influence the research. There is a tight
timeline for publication so we will work immediately on the areas of the collection most relevant to her research.
This usually happens in conjunction with curatorial and/or public services staff members. We try to be as responsive as
possible.
For a few recent collections, word had gotten around about the collections we heard from researchers about their
interest and processed the collection sooner.
Helped to set priorities.
If we know that patrons have identified a collection as being useful for research we will try to at least establish a
minimal level of processing to make use easier. These discussions may also determine the level to which processing is
done (series or folder).
Informal discussions with researchers who have contacted reference archivist.
Informally and very occasionally. May influence degree to which high use is anticipated, but this is not a major factor.
Informally through Research Services staff, who pass information to Technical Services. This often points to high use or
problematic collections, but don’t always influence policy. More formally, through finding aids usability studies which
help fine tune policy with respect to processing levels.
It may change the list of priorities.
Knowledge of potential use does factor into decisions processing of collections.
Occasionally, faculty or researchers will let us know that a certain collection would be useful in their research or teaching
and we either make the unprocessed collection available or bump it to the top of the priority list.
On occasion we move collections up in processing queue.
One scoring factor gives extra weight to collections recommended by staff historians. Have not asked outside patrons
for advice. One historian is currently surveying professional literature and their indexing terms to assist with priorities
scoring and collection development.
Public services staff informally discuss with users what success and what difficulties they have had in using our
collections as well as which unprocessed collections they would be interested in using. When making processing
decisions, we consider this input as part of our anticipation of what collections or parts of collections would be used if
processed or better processed.
RBSC: top faculty priorities are at the top of the acquisitions and processing list as well.
Request from a government official has moved a collection from a low to a high.
Researcher will use the collection again or the researcher has noted the value of collection for additional research and
scholarship by others. Discussions, along with size of collection, staff availability, lead to efforts to do processing work
on a collection, particularly if it has potential institutional priority as well.
Researchers are sometimes aware of collections before they are processed. If they express an interest in using the
collection for dissertation, thesis, article, or book research we try to move it forward in processing.
This happens fairly informally as researchers come to hear that we have a collection they are interested in, and want to
know how long it will be before they can have access. We try to take this into account when assigning priorities.
This is related to response to patron demand. We just acquired one collection where the researcher, a UCSB professor,
is publishing a book and there may be information in the collection which would influence the research. There is a tight
timeline for publication so we will work immediately on the areas of the collection most relevant to her research.
This usually happens in conjunction with curatorial and/or public services staff members. We try to be as responsive as
possible.
