Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives, SPEC Kit 314 (November 2009)

Hackbart-Dean, Pam; Slomba, Elizabeth

74 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
collection. On site: While item level might be preferred, folder level provides enough information to base request for
relevant boxes.
Organization of the collection as it comes in the door, and whether item level would enhance access and be worth it.
One archivist imagines how he would locate materials in a collection, creating a pathway to the resources that is clear
to him. The nature of congressional papers suggests folder-level processing while congressional memorabilia require
item-level. In general, staff use their experience assisting researchers using particular collections to make such decisions,
keeping in mind that some researchers prefer to explore entire boxes.
Our goal is to provide a folder level description for completely processed collections however, if a collection contains
a large volume of similar materials (i.e., correspondence) a box level may be used if special objects, ledgers, or rare
materials, etc., are part of the collection or a donor has requested it, an item level may be used.
Our minimal level of description includes a collection description and container list at the folder level.
Processing level is guided by the organization of the material, format and size of the collections.
Processing policy.
Provide basic information such as bio note, scope and content note, and date range.
Researcher needs to be able to identify material of interest, at least to the box level, so that irrelevant material is not
retrieved.
Series and/or collection level, complete with a container list and perhaps an AMC record.
Series level seems to meet the needs of most researchers, particularly the experienced.
Size and diversity of material, or the lack of it, dictate the applicability of minimal description.
The basic level would be the accessioning of the collection that included an inventory at the box level.
The experience of the processor in the subject area will determine the extent of the description.
The functional ideal is to get researchers within 5–10 boxes of material they are seeking, though on a case-by-case
basis and depending on the type of material. Aim for achieving a kind of “sympathetic imagination” which will help
guide user to material.
The majority of time we process to the folder level. Only in cases where a collection is small or very valuable would we
process to the item level.
The minimal level of description is based on privacy, security, and preservation risk factors library policy and formats
found in collection.
The minimum level for moving image and audio collections is a title or a created title, year of creation, and subject
headings or a sentence describing the content.
The primary factor is size and uniformity—what is the lowest level at which we can convey the contents and the size
allows a reasonable expectation that the researcher will be able to locate a specific item or group of materials without
further guidance or description. Feedback from patrons or reference staff that existing description for a processed
collection is insufficient.
The researcher needs to know about the existence of the materials.
The size and content of the collection as well as its current/future anticipated use drives the minimal level.

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

Extracted Text (may have errors)

74 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
collection. On site: While item level might be preferred, folder level provides enough information to base request for
relevant boxes.
Organization of the collection as it comes in the door, and whether item level would enhance access and be worth it.
One archivist imagines how he would locate materials in a collection, creating a pathway to the resources that is clear
to him. The nature of congressional papers suggests folder-level processing while congressional memorabilia require
item-level. In general, staff use their experience assisting researchers using particular collections to make such decisions,
keeping in mind that some researchers prefer to explore entire boxes.
Our goal is to provide a folder level description for completely processed collections however, if a collection contains
a large volume of similar materials (i.e., correspondence) a box level may be used if special objects, ledgers, or rare
materials, etc., are part of the collection or a donor has requested it, an item level may be used.
Our minimal level of description includes a collection description and container list at the folder level.
Processing level is guided by the organization of the material, format and size of the collections.
Processing policy.
Provide basic information such as bio note, scope and content note, and date range.
Researcher needs to be able to identify material of interest, at least to the box level, so that irrelevant material is not
retrieved.
Series and/or collection level, complete with a container list and perhaps an AMC record.
Series level seems to meet the needs of most researchers, particularly the experienced.
Size and diversity of material, or the lack of it, dictate the applicability of minimal description.
The basic level would be the accessioning of the collection that included an inventory at the box level.
The experience of the processor in the subject area will determine the extent of the description.
The functional ideal is to get researchers within 5–10 boxes of material they are seeking, though on a case-by-case
basis and depending on the type of material. Aim for achieving a kind of “sympathetic imagination” which will help
guide user to material.
The majority of time we process to the folder level. Only in cases where a collection is small or very valuable would we
process to the item level.
The minimal level of description is based on privacy, security, and preservation risk factors library policy and formats
found in collection.
The minimum level for moving image and audio collections is a title or a created title, year of creation, and subject
headings or a sentence describing the content.
The primary factor is size and uniformity—what is the lowest level at which we can convey the contents and the size
allows a reasonable expectation that the researcher will be able to locate a specific item or group of materials without
further guidance or description. Feedback from patrons or reference staff that existing description for a processed
collection is insufficient.
The researcher needs to know about the existence of the materials.
The size and content of the collection as well as its current/future anticipated use drives the minimal level.

Help

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 73
specific items, and the presence of different types of materials, such as photographs, digital storage media, or multiple
drafts works.
Combination of past/ongoing discussions with researchers, often relating to format, subject matter keywords, and
descriptive information that would yield useful results by a search engine accrued experience of the processor in
question.
Curators determine processing level (i.e., Levels 1–3) prior to routing to processing.
Descriptions grow and develop over time and as collections are used, however, at a minimum a description must provide
a researcher with a basic understanding of the contents, context, formats, and date span of materials comprising a
collection or a portion of a collection. Enough for them to identify that it might be of interest and pertinent to their
research. What is difficult to factor in is the interpretive skills of the researcher—the more advanced researcher can
judge usefulness with less specifics than a beginner. So type of audience and availability of staff assistance have a role
in this decision as well.
Does a collection contain MIT administrative records (personal papers often have these hidden in collection) do we
have a gift agreement? Dates if possible.
Evaluate the “Scope and Content” of the source material at all levels and determine appropriate description level for
collection management (housing) and retrieval (access).
Folder level is the goal for the majority of our collections. Item level is rare and limited to valuable, small collections of
special importance. New accessions are given enough description so that collection content can be considered when
allocating resources for processing or assisting patrons with research/reference.
Folder-level or box-level inventory.
For the time being, there is no minimal level standard that I use. Either a manuscript or a manuscript collection is fully
processed or it is not. Patrons make arrangements with either the Curator of Manuscripts or the Assistant Curator of
Manuscripts to gain access to unprocessed material.
If a collection is largely homogeneous, we limit ourselves to a collection level description with folder level container lists.
More complex collections require series descriptions as well.
If the records are the administrative products of a specific program or particular office, they are left at the default level,
summary descriptions. This default level of description remains untouched unless we find other reasons to increase the
complexity or granularity of processing, heavy use, etc.
Importance of collection and anticipated use influence processing decisions.
Individual assessment by responsible archivist.
It is first based on the contents of the collection, then importance.
It is really a foolish enterprise to think we can understand researcher needs or that we can match their needs with
processing practices, other than in the broadest way, so we do not believe such “determination” is worth the time.
It’s mostly based on a guess at use and how much staff time we have available.
Minimal level of description will be able to provide a patron with an accurate account of holdings in a brief but succinct
manner.
Off site: For collections other than university records, the researcher usually needs to know to the item level in order
to request selected items. Folder or series level should provide enough information to base a decision to travel to

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 75
There needs to be enough information for a researcher to determine whether or not they should take a look at the
materials in the collection. We want to provide enough keyword terms in the descriptions as well as appropriate subject
tracings to help the researcher decide whether or not it is worthwhile to look at the materials. We don’t aim to do the
research for the researcher.
They can use them with relatively minimal descriptions, size of collection and its variety in terms of formats, time
span and subject matter covers all matter in determining whether they will need more description in order to use the
collection effectively. It’s a judgment call based in part on experience of researchers and reference archivists.
This decision is based on the contents of the collection. The more homogeneous the collection is, the more likely we are
to work at series level. We also consider whether there are significant materials that need to be highlighted at an item
level. Finally, we consider the likely users and how we anticipate that they might use the collection.
This is, of course, an art rather than a science. We have to make our best guess based on our own research experience,
our observation of researchers, and our knowledge of our collections. We also have to consider the resources we have
available and whether it is more important to provide some level of access to all of our collections or a more detailed
level of access to only a few collections.
Usually the content of the collection is the main factor in determining the processing level for researcher discoverability.
We have looked at the size of the collection and its content in determining the minimal level of description.
We apply the factors checked above.
We base our choices on the experience and comments of previous researchers.
We base this on professional judgment based on our experiences in working with researchers and collections, and it is
becoming a more and more important consideration in our description decisions.
We describe routinely at three levels: fonds, series, folder. Our primary users are graduate and undergraduate students
whose research must be done in a limited time period we provide detailed finding aids to assist them to pinpoint
material of interest and eliminate material from consideration.
We evaluate each collection based on past experience combined with whatever institutional decisions may affect the
materials and our own professional judgment. However, we are responsive to feedback on user needs from our public
services and curatorial staffs and will reprocess to meet these needs.
We evaluate how many resources it will take to arrange and describe at a certain level at the same time we ask what
is the potential research value to our primary users, or how important is the collection in documenting university history
and culture.
We generally use our collective wisdom and experience balanced against available resources and perceived usefulness.
We then try to refine this by observing how a collection is used and by asking readers what they find useful, what
recommendation they have for better exposing content, soliciting comments on and corrections to finding aids, etc.
We provide a minimal collection-level description based on DACS minimum requirements beyond that, it’s a
combination of instinct and educated guess. I’m not sure there are “rules” that can usefully be applied to answer this
question.
We review the collection and know how our users would likely need to have the collection described.
We try to put ourselves in the researcher’s position.

Previous Page Next Page

Page 7Survey Results click to expand contents

Page 123Representative Documents click to expand contents

Page 125Job Description of Processing Decision Maker click to expand contents

Page 129Job Descriptions of Processing Staff click to expand contents

Page 133Processing Policy click to expand contents

Page 137Processing Procedures Manuals click to expand contents

Page 143Processing Worksheets click to expand contents

Page 151Procedures for Prioritizing Processing click to expand contents

Page 155Collecting Processing Statistics click to expand contents

Page 159Sample Statistics Reports click to expand contents

Page 163Selected Resources click to expand contents

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

All section downloads (PDF) click to expand contents

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

loading

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources