While browsing through several journals in search of relatively recent articles written about processing in archives, I came across Robert S. Cox's article entitled "Maximal Processing, or, Archivist on a Pale Horse," as published in the
Journal of Archival Organization in 2010 (Vol. 8, Issue 2). For some reason this particular journal has thus far eluded my serious attention. I often find articles in SAA's
American Archivist and ACA's
Archivaria, but I'm definitely going to add this journal onto my repertoire of sources. It is a relatively new publication, the first volume of which debuted in 2002. From my initial browsing, it looks like the journal covers a lot of practical topics that may be really valuable for easily accessible professional advice on the job. I wonder how long my database access will prevail post-graduation! (Fingers crossed)
Anyhow, the article is a reactionary piece to the pervasively sited Greene and Meissner article "More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing," which started a bit of a revolution in processing theory and practice. For anyone unfamiliar, More Product, Less Process (MPLP) is a strategy by which archivists minimally process collections to maximize access by potential users. Levels of processing may vary, but collection level description is the standard absolute minimum, preferably accompanied by an inventory of folders. MPLP was largely embraced for its realistic answer to reducing unprocessed backlogs with respect to financial constraints and limited staffing. In his "Maximal Processing..." article, Cox argues for a modification of MPLP that he thinks more appropriately in line with archival ethics and long-term goals.
The article starts off with a metaphor aboutAlbert Pinkham Ryder's master paining,
The Race Track (Death on a Pale Horse), which features the grim reaper on horseback winding around a race track. This was an interesting approach by which to broach the subject; it helps align archival history with a visual metaphor and forces readers to think creatively from the outset--something that I believe is difficult when confronting MPLP with a critical lens, due to its widespread appeal. From this metaphor, Cox explains the symbolic meaning of the image in terms of "amnesiac" professional habits:
"...those of us who do not learn from the past are condemned to reinvent it, and we have driven ever onward, wielding our sharpest technologies as we visit and revisit a suite of seemingly irresolvable tensions at the core of our profession: tensions between technological innovation and technological gaps, between the desire for uniformity in standards and the need to accommodate diversity in our collections and researchers, the tension between our ideals and the realities of our resources." (pg. 135).
As the article progresses, it becomes apparent that Cox is warning archivists against following MPLP simply because it has become the current trend. Minimally processed collections across the board may be creating yet another inaccessible backlog of materials that require further processing in order to make materials accessible to users in a feasible manner. To combat this threat, Cox proposes his own strategy, deemed "maximal processing." A variation on rather than opposition to MPLP, maximal processing considers record collection context in the processing plan. It recognizes that description does not exist in a vacuum and because of this takes the full range of professional activities and responsibilities into account in deciding how best to process each individual collection.
In the section of the article entitled "Life on the Minimum," Cox explains the details of MPLP. He certainly does not criticize the rational behind it, but he does point out weak points including archivists' current tendency to perhaps go too far in foregoing rearrangement in the name of prudent economic and temporal judgment. He also touches upon recent trends to seek reduction in description costs, including crowd sourcing and "wikified" finding aids, in which archival users play a role in providing collection context. He does not explicitly point out why these tactics may not be the best choices (surely I could give an argument for either side), but his later emphasis on using sound professional judgment in descriptive practices leads me to believe that he is not a large proponent of user-generated metadata. However, Cox does mention Christine Weideman's (Yale University) strategy to inquire for description and potentially arrangement from donors, many of whom are often eager to discuss the contents of their collections (pg. 137). The section concludes with Cox's criticism that under MPLP, every collection is treated identically at a minimal level, which is essentially leading the profession to a loss of connection with products, services, and patrons.
In the next section, "Truth and Consequences," Cox analyzes the impact that minimal processing decisions will have on our ability to function as archivists in the traditional sense, as well as users' ability to connect with the materials which they seek. He weighs all of this in terms of external costs accrued through complex relationships on the practical, professional, ethical and social levels with other archivists, institution administrators and other coworkers, donors, researchers, the public, etc. According to Cox, minimal processing will cause strains for all of these relationships, thus increasing the external costs and equalizing or even tipping the scales on internal costs saved through minimal processing (more in, more out, less time, less staff). I thought that this was an incredibly insightful way to frame the processing dilemma. It is often difficult for me to itemize costs which are lack direct monetary value, however it is obvious that all of the aforementioned in total will have a serious affect. Minimal appraisal, a relatively hands-off management of privacy rights, reduced intellectual control resulting in difficulty providing reference assistance, preservation concerns going unresolved, reduced job satisfaction... the list goes on and on, but the sum total adds up to one serious potential hazard for the future of the profession.
Cox explains the various costs in detail, emphasizing that the effect will be an exponential one as time goes on. Some points that resonated with strength for me include his commentary on researchers' difficulty approaching a collection that is minimally described. I speak from experience when I say that an inconclusive collection level description is not always encouraging for the prospects of researchers to take the initiative to physically delve into the unknown depths of generalizedboxes. Though a collection itself may technically shed its status as "hidden" as soon as it is described at a basic level and launched on a repository's database, the contents themselves remain a mystery. Researchers, especially students (yes, I am generalizing here) frequently operate on a level of complacency. If a collection description fails to explicitly satisfy his or her research interests, it is highly probable that this collection will be passed over, even if it harbors potential. Furthermore, even when a basic inventory is created for a collection which is not rearranged into an intellectual order during archival processing, it may not satisfy the shift in historians' interests toward cultural moments and ideas and away from solid names or places which are more likely to appear in an archival inventory. "Thick description" is a potential solution to elucidate otherwise "hidden" themes, connections, and subject matter cover by collection materials, thus he supports this practice in maximal processing.
Cox brings up another great point in terms of archives as a marketing tool. When archivists themselves do not have an intimate knowledge of collections, it is difficult to effectively market holdings and services. We may be steering ourselves toward a profession where we are merely the point of access for information, rather than collection navigators and interpreters.
One more point that Cox brings up is something that I had not yet considered: the idea that researchers choose archives by way of geographic convenience and other personal interests outside of collections themselves. "Because research projects typically span geographical, conceptual, or personal borders, because we have such a rich, varies, and highly distributed historical record in the United States, and because researchers approach questions from any number of novel perspectives, most of us are, as archives, replaceable." The horror! But in all seriousness, Cox makes a good point. Our patron base operates on subjectivity and choice; we must work to make collections accessible and descriptively appealing in the interests of maintaining viability as active repositories.
The final section of the article, "Maximal Processing: The Model," describes Cox's ideal processing model in detail; from what I gather, his model mirrors the process he put in practice at his own institution, the University of Massachusetts. He begins similarly to MPLP, with a "phase one" survey method of all archival collections within his own repository, which proved effectively in raising use of a number of previously "hidden" collections; this is known as pre-description. Basic two paragraph abstracts are composed for each collection, and these descriptions (all EAD compatible) are launched into a searchable database. Post-survey, after all backlogs have been basically described, Cox suggests adjusting work flow to incorporate basic descriptions at the point of accession.
The "phase two" of maximal processing, which does not appear in MPLP, involves all collections being placed in a queue for full processing at the level ideal for each individual collection. Priorities for full processing are weighed by the archivist and may include donor relations, research interest, and exhibit or marketing potential. At this stage, processing involves appraisal, arrangement, and description (generally at folder level) pursued with respect to financial costs and professional interests. Cox believes that arrangement and description are key in making collections accessible for researchers. Furthermore, he does not lay out a definitive processing strategy, rather Cox urges archivists to use best judgment informed by academic training and archival experience. Subjective guidelines such as these are difficult to approach and may be interpreted differently depending upon the individual, but this is also the whole point. Archivists must individually weigh all priorities and abilities in assessment of processing goals on a collection by collection basis.
Cox sites a third step, "post-description," in which collection descriptions are continually reassessed for and dynamically changed as a result of changes in professional descriptive standards, technologies, and historical practice. This will not not always be a feasible option given the strain already placed on archivists' abilities to manage collection building, processing, and services, however it's something that needs to remain a possibility. Archives, history, and documentation formats are not static. The world is constantly in flux and development, and we as a profession must anticipate and react to changes in the name of archival duties and ethics.
In conclusion, Cox rehashes many of his points and offers a final commentary on lexicon: "The word
minimum is a clarion for our limitations and for what we cannot do;
maximum shines a light on the goals to which we aspire" (page 147). However poetic and idealistic, I appreciate Cox's metaphors and idealism. As a profession, we cannot expect to thrive unless we critically examine, fine tune, and attempt to perfect our practices to the best of our abilities in respect to finances, time, technology, and ethics. I have always been a proponent of the "nothing is black and white" perspective, and I believe that
maximum processing is also a reflection upon that theory. MPLP is not an end all approach to archives in the twenty-first century, but it remains a respected, effective method of processing toward a unified goal for access to which modifications informed by sound individual professional judgment may be added for a more dynamic and fruitful archival future.
