How Do We Keep From Getting Further Behind? A Case Study in the Application of Minimal-Level Description in the OSU Archives Elizabeth Nielsen Northwest Archivists, May 2008

Introduction OSU Case Study What is a Collection-Level Description? Workflow Preparation of CLDs Results Lessons Learned

Oregon State University Archives Institutional archives for OSU Manuscript collections, photographs, moving images, oral histories, and publications 4000 linear feet of paper records 2500 microfilm reels 460,000 photographs 6500 moving images

Status of Description ~ 900 collections total ~ 300 with finding aids in NWDA ~ 340 collections with no information available online (except perhaps a collection title and maybe a datespan)

Greene and Meissner (2005) = MPLP Validated what was already being practiced in some repositories.  All collections available to researchers regardless of level of processing.  Leave staples, paper clips, and (even) original folders in place.  Refrain from item-level description.

“What this means is that all collections should have collection-level intellectual control before any collection receives folder-level control.” Green and Meissner (2005)

Application of MPLP in OSU Archives Concentrate on collection-level intellectual control. In addition to addressing backlog of unprocessed and undescribed collections, we need to address new collections and incoming accessions in a timely manner. Otherwise they become part of the backlog. OSU Archives receives ~30 new collections per year (of ~100 accessions per year)

Case Study of 2006 New Collections Can we generate a collection-level finding aid for all new collections acquired in calendar year 2006 within 6-12 months of acquisition? What were the implications if we could not?  Increase staff capacity?  Accept fewer collections?

Collection-Level Description (CLD)? Description of the “collection”. No container list or inventory as part of EAD finding aid. EAD finding aid in NWDA. PDF (generated from xml file) on website. MARC catalog record in OSU Libraries catalog, Summit, and Worldcat.

Is CLD final or preliminary? FINAL = Collections will suffice with only CLD  One cubic foot or less  Uniformity of materials (subject and format)  Expanded beyond TINY collections for this project. Collections that will need more (eventually) = preliminary. These may have a preliminary box list available.

Workflow – Step 1 Accession Report prepared when materials received  Printed for central files and reference room guides.  Online in “New Accessions” page on website.  Selected ones submitted to Easy Access and highlighted on OSU Archives blog. Information about collection available online very quickly.

Workflow – Step 2 Create table (Excel) to track:  HIGH priority collections Natural resources Oregon Multicultural Archives Student experience at OSU  Preliminary or Final CLD  Target Date Within 6 months of acquisition for HIGH priority Within 12 months of acquisition for remainder

Workflow – Step 3 Sort list by target date. Work through list in order by target date with some “bouncing around”. Sample view of table.

Preparing CLDs Create finding aid as EAD instance. Review accession report(s) and central collection file. Determine bulk dates. Name authority review (LCNAF or DACS). Assign access points (lcsh and NWDA browsing terms). More diligent review of materials and refining of description if preparing a final CLD.

Review and Loading of CLDs Review by Archives’ staff (usually allow 2-3 working days). Review by cataloger of and elements. Revise and load to NWDA and Archives’ website. Cataloger extracts MARC records and loads to OSUL catalog, Summit, and WorldCat.

Time to Prepare CLDs 2-4 hours of analysis, review of materials, and encoding before staff review begins ~ half-hour for loading 3-10 working days (most about a week)

Results In 2006, received 26 new collections. Added 8 new collections received in 2005 that we wanted to get in NWDA as part of NWDA phase II grant. Total data set = 34 collections. Started the project late in the year (Sept 2006). For 2007, did first CLD in Aug; for 2008, in Apr.

Progress thru 15-month project. DateDonePercentage Jan % April % June % Oct % Dec %

Types of CLDs for 2006

Measures of Success Completed 32 of 34 finding aids by end of collections were determined to be high priority (target to complete within 6 months); 5 were done within this timeframe Of the 2 “leftovers”; one will be a final CLD and the other a full finding aid with

Lessons Learned “Distance description” is difficult. Assigning subject headings can be a roadblock. Advantages of 2-step description process. What about additions to existing collections? Sustainable  30 new collections in 2007; 14 high priority; as of early May, 13/30 (8/14 of high priority) are completed

Ongoing and Future Studies Applying similar methodology to the 300+ collections with no information online. Primary difference is additional time (2-8 hours) to prepare CLD. How many CLDs from OSU in NWDA?  Of 298 total; 154 (52%) are CLD 126 are FINAL 20 are preliminary with link to a container list 8 are preliminary with no container list

Thank you. Elizabeth Nielsen