An Archival Update Robin L. Dale 26 October 2010 HBCU Library Alliance 4th Membership Meeting Looking Back, Moving Forward: HBCU Libraries Using Digital Technologies To Reach, Teach and Connect

“Reach, Teach, and Connect” for Archives Challenges for Archival Collections New(ish) Tools & Systems for Archival Collection Management Trends, emerging practices and processes According to a 1998 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) survey of special collections libraries, about 28 percent of manuscript collections are unprocessed, while 36 percent of graphic materials and 37 percent of audio materials have not been processed (Pantich 2001). Furthermore, the survey found that “the most frequent type of available access is through card catalog records or manual finding aids,” which suggests that researchers often must be physically present at special collections and archives to know what they hold (Pantich 2001, 8). Studies have shown that between 25 percent and 30 percent of researchers have not been able to use collections because they have not been processed (Greene and Meissner 2005, 211). As a result, stakeholders such as researchers and donors become frustrated. Indeed, in a much discussed article, Greene and Meissner report that “at 51% of repositories, researchers, donors, and/or resource allocators had become upset because of backlogs” Reducing archival backlogs fundamentally requires adopting more-efficient means of processing collections, but software can contribute to that efficiency and make it easier for archives to provide online access to archival descriptions. At many archives, information is scattered across several different digital and physical systems, resulting in duplication of effort and difficulty in locating needed information. For instance, one archive uses a hodgepodge of methods to manage its collections, including paper accession records; an Access database for collection-level status information; lists and databases for tracking statistics; hundreds of EAD finding aids; hundreds of paper control folders providing collection-level information, some of which is duplicated in Word files or in XML finding aids; and item-level descriptions of objects to be digitized in Excel spreadsheets In addition to the inefficiencies of using multiple systems to manage common data, Prom et al. (2007, 158-159) notes a correlation between using EAD and other descriptive standards with larger backlogs and slower processing speeds. (EAD is an XML-based standard for representing archival finding aids, which describe archival collections.) Some institutions simply lack the ability to produce EAD finding aids or MARC catalog records. As Prom et al. suggest, “Until creating an on-line finding aid and sharing it with appropriate content aggregators is as easy as using a word processor, the archival profession is unlikely to significantly improve access to the totality of records and papers stored in a repository”

Challenges for Archival Collections Finding Aids are valuable, but often at varying levels Finding aid creation was not necessarily integrated with any processing “tool” Collection information not fully integrated into ILS Access to digitized materials often not integrated with descriptive material finding aid, collection record, ILS record Archivists want a tool that is; Integrated Supports importing of Legacy data Enables ease of exporting data Provides web publishing capabilities Simple, yet powerful Rigorous, standards based Provides Collections management features Portable Aids in setting priorities for processing

New(ish) Tools & Systems for Archival Collection Management Both web-based & client/server Open Source and proprietary Differing technical skills & support req’d Different functionality Open Source options include Archivists’ Toolkit Archon ICA AtoM ArchivesSpace (upcoming)

Archivists’ Toolkit Client-server Current functionality Intended for “in-house processing” [archivists & librarians] accessioning and describing archival materials establishing names and subjects associated with archival materials (donors too) managing locations for the materials exporting EAD finding aids, MARCXML records, and METS, MODS and Dublin Core records Future functionality desires Support repository user/resource use information appraisal for archival materials expressing and managing rights information interoperability with user authentication systems Development ended September 2009

Archon Web-based Current functionality Development ended April 2010 Intended for “back office” and public use [general public, archivists & librarians] Create standards-compliant collection descriptions and full finding aids using web forms Track locations for containers or groups of containers. Edit descriptive information directly from an enhanced public interface by clicking the edit icon: . Export MARC and EAD records (for importation to other systems). List unprocessed collections Upload digital objects/electronic records or link archival descriptions to external URLs Public interface simultaneously search descriptions of archival materials, electronic records, and digital objects Development ended April 2010

ICA AtoM International Council on Archives Access to Memory – web-based Not as fully featured as AT or Archon International standards compliant Controlled vocabularies built in Generates EAD finding aids Supports OAI harvesting Can include digital images Being tested to be integrated with a digital repository

ArchivesSpace: the future? Mellon-funded project for a “next generation archives management tool (http://archivesspace.org/) Incorporate the best features of Archivists’ Toolkit and Archon Considerations for best of “back office” and end user functionality Consideration for system that will include digital images for users Strong commitment to importing 100% of info from legacy Archivists’ Toolkit and Archon data

Trends, Emerging Practices Rapid Capture: Mass Digitization of Special Collections In-house approaches Outsourcing solutions Hardware (scanners, cameras, and related materials handling and lighting equipment) Staffing (shifts and other factors that contribute to scale) Actual throughput Streamlining Photography & Scanning Scan-on-demand workflow in reading rooms Integration of patron-initiated scans with large-scale digitization and digital library workflow Recommendations for minimum levels of scanning and metadata Policies for hand-held cameras in reading rooms Report: Capture and Release: Digital Cameras in the Reading Room (http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-05.pdf)

Continuing Trends & Processes More Product, Less Process (MPLP or the Greene-Meissner approach) Integrated systems, fewer “Silos” “Hidden Collections” – work to expose, describe, leverage, utilize archival collections Collaborative approaches to make archives available in affordable, effective ways Slight paraphrase of meeting theme: Using Archival Collections and Digital Technologies To Reach, Teach and Connect

Questions? Thank you! Robin L. Dale Robin.Dale@LYRASIS.org (404) 592-4816