Though I came to my internship at the Lilly with my fair share of archival processing experience, I continue to be vexed by the process of arrangement. I realize that this is a fundamental aspect of archival work—something not to be taken lightly within the profession at large. It isn’t that I don’t understand the basic principles. I just find it difficult to reconcile original order, respect de fonds, and provenance with decisive rearrangement of materials into series deemed logical by the archivist.
For this reason, I thought it may be helpful to read Jennifer Meehan’s article from the Spring/Summer 2009 edition of The American Archivist entitled “Making the Leap from Parts to Whole: Evidence and Inference in Archival Arrangement and Description.” Though I cannot say that I stepped away from the article with an entirely new revelation about archival arrangement and description, I can say that I gained an informed perspective that will help me remain aware of my actions and their results, both intended and unintended.
Meehan’s article seeks to characterize the archivist’s analytical approach when processing a collection and how this leads to understanding of a collection’s context and ultimately providing sufficient intellectual access for future users. Some of the significant ideas that the author brings up include external vs. internal arrangement, identifying record relationships, and continually stepping back to analyze decision-making to ensure adherence to archival principles—the exact manifestation of which will change depending upon the nature of each individual collection. She also suggests that archivists continually characterize records as evidence of real-world actions and consider what this evidence infers about their process of creation and general life as active records to garner a more thorough understanding of the content and context of physical collections.
Something I already practice in my places of work is Meehan’s “top down” approach to gathering contextual information about records. That is, an archivist should consider the records as a whole and seek contextual information about the creator(s) and processes of creation through donor files, biographical material, and any other generalized sources available. Solid, informed arrangement is not possible without a thorough understanding of the people and actions from whence documents were created. After general reading and research into a collection, an archivist should review the collection itself for content as well as further contextual details which may aid in arrangement and subsequent description. I found solace in Meehan’s admission that there is no conclusive way for an archivist to know he or she is arranging and describing a collection entirely “correctly”. Speculation is required, as unless arranging his or her own files, an archivist will not have been present at the point of record creation and cannot therefore know the whole story of a collection regardless of how thoroughly he or she researches and analyzes collection content.
Rather than worry over whether or not one's arrangement and description is right or wrong, an archivist should merely use what information is available and process each collection in adherence to archival principles and values. In terms of the archival principles and values of provenance and original order, Meehan states that archivists should think of them “less as guidelines to be followed in arrangement and description and more as a conceptual framework for understanding a body of records, highlighting the knowledge necessary to place and preserve records in context” (pg. 84). Furthermore, she offers a list of useful, though in some cases obvious, questions to consider when processing a collection (i.e. Who created the records, how and why? What specific function or activity do the records relate to? How were they used and transmitted over space and time?). Though this seems elementary, it is an excellent way to avoid getting lost in the details, as I so often do. The questions create a “cross examination” which should lead to a higher level of consistency in analysis within a single collection and between different collections which should progress into more accountable general decision making when processing.
These suggestions for greater accountability are offered on the level of the individual, institution/department, and the profession as a whole. Should this process of archival analysis and questioning be standardized on the professional level into generalized questions to guide analysis, individual archivists may feel more confident in decision making, and end users may find it easier to navigate various collections at various repositories since all would theoretically be created under the same general analytical process. This profession-wide standardization is not entirely likely, as subjective interpretation is inevitable by the individual. Meehan does, however, further suggest that it is important in the meantime to track one’s own decisions and make this information accessible to users. This is something that I definitely agree with, as it elucidates the actions of the archivist and offers researchers further insight into how to approach a collection to find desired information. I wonder, though, how electronic finding aids are affecting end-users’ ability to access and navigate collections. Surely mechanized word searching ability is streamlining this process to some extent. In any case, that’s something else for me to think about.
All in all, I found the article helpful in sorting out my own confusion since, as Meehan states, this confusion is in part inevitable. I like to know if I am doing something right or wrong. I like to feel confident in my decisions, but there are many gray areas in archival arrangement and description which often make this difficult. Surely it will grow easier as I grow as a professional and accumulate more experience. However, for now I will refer to Meehan’s suggested list of questions to guide my context and content analysis, and I will keep an open mind for the best possible way to approach each unique collection.
Amy
No comments:
Post a Comment