Introduction

Appraisal processes in archives are central to the selection and preservation of the authentic record of our society. Yet the appraisal process is subject to variable procedures and shrouded in mystery. Too little is known about how archivists perform appraisal and how the complex process of appraisal relates to the mission of the archive.

Purpose of the Study

Researcher Frank Boles, assisted by Julia Marks Young, studied archival appraisal practices across a variety of institution types twelve years ago. They found great variability in appraisal practice and speculated that this was caused by the diversity of institution types included in their study. This suggests the hypothesis that institutions of the same type, sharing a similar mission, might conduct appraisal in the same way, using similar appraisal processes and ranking appraisal elements similarly. This study proposes to test that hypothesis.

This study will advance the development of appraisal theory and provide the profession with more precise selection tools and methods by locating similarities and differences in appraisal practice within a group of institutions that share a similar mission. It will produce results that can be compared and contrasted with the 1987 study conducted by Boles and Young using a broader range of archival institution types with a wider variety of missions.

Research Questions

• How do archivists categorize the appraisal framework they use in the local history archive? Is there a predominant preference among appraisal models in current use?
• When mission statements are similar, what portions of the appraisal practice are the same and what portions are different among the study group of local history archives?
• Are there striking similarities and/or differences in how archival institutions which have a similar mission rank the importance of the Boles and Young appraisal modules and elements?
• What criteria do archivists use in assessing the value of records?
• Do archivists apply the criteria consistently?

Boles and Young found disparities in ranking and weighting among disparate institutions; we predict that local history archives will rank and weight in a similar fashion when they have similar missions.

Definitions

• Appraisal / Selection: the process of determining the value and thus the disposition of records based upon their current administrative, legal, and fiscal use; their evidential and informational value; their arrangement and condition; their intrinsic value; and their relationship to other records (Bellardo & Bellardo).
• Archivist: A professional educated, trained, experienced, and engaged in the administration of archival materials, including the following activities: appraisal and disposition, acquisition, preservation, arrangement and description, reference service, and outreach (Bellardo & Bellardo).
• Local History Archive: An archive specifically directed in its mission statement toward systematically collecting information concerning a specific geographic area.

Limitations of the Study

This study will first explore the total universe of local history archives, both public and private. From that point, it will identify only a small subset of local history archives that are similar to one another in funding source, mission, staffing, and alignment of selection practice. The study will have limited applicability to predict appraisal methods used outside the local history archive community. This study will not address other aspects of appraisal such as the values that archivists bring to the appraisal process, the values of the record creator, and the values of the user, nor will it address the organic nature of appraisal or explore the relationship of relevance to appraisal.

Significance of Study

Boles and Young found little commonality in appraisal processes when surveying a number of institution types. This study will determine whether similarities in the ranking and use of appraisal elements can be identified among institutions of a single type. If the same appraisal modules and elements are ranked consistently within the local history archive community, these appraisal modules and elements can be used to help archivists understand the nature of the records we choose to preserve information about ourselves, our society, and our culture. We can move forward to produce tools that will standardize and bring efficiencies to the appraisal process. This is significant because the number of records being produced today outstrips the ability of archivists to meet appraisal demands.

If the study produces results that indicate wide variability exists even among archivists and archival enterprise organizations which share similar missions, then this researcher would suggest that future research agendas (1) steer toward the examination of relevance to determine what criteria the archivist is employing in assessing the value of records in actual situations and (2) determine if there are situational patterns within and across archival institutions which affect the ways appraisal criteria are used.

Literature Review

One branch of archival theory views origin, function, and structure as more important than content, use, or importance. Luciana Duranti, current President of the Society of American Archivists represents this view. She studied, taught, and conducted research at the University of Rome and gained an appreciation for how classical and traditional archival concepts connect to Roman law. She explains that the concepts of perpetual memory and public faith are of key importance in understanding archival theory (Duranti, 1994).

The concept of archives is rooted in trustworthiness as conveyed in the words continuing, permanent, enduring, stable, lasting, uninterrupted, unbroken, and without a foreseeable end; in other words, perpetual. The words ad perpetuum or ad perpetuam rei memoriam were normally placed at the end of the salutation on Roman documents to convey the meaning that the documents were trustworthy and permanent. Public faith expresses the relationship between archives and society. Trustworthiness was conferred in part because the document was preserved in an archive. Under Roman law, not every entity could have an archive. This right was conferred to persons who held sovereign power in their own jurisdiction. Public faith as conveyed in the words genuine, guaranteed, free from suspicion, impartial, and reliable is linked today to the legal concepts of best evidence and warrant.

Other concepts from many cultures and traditions have enriched the multinational history of archival enterprise and helped to produce a set of appraisal characteristics that are widely used including (1) appraisal is not partial to any one type of user, (2) appraisal is objective or free from the influence of personal outlook, (3) appraisal is professional in that it is the responsibility of the archivist, and (4) appraisal is based on knowledge derived from analysis and is aimed at providing a complete picture of society.

The assignment of value in the appraisal process is viewed by some as an attack on traditional archival theory because it introduces partiality into the process and is in fact in direct conflict with classical archival theory. American archivists largely accept the practice of determining value; they have customized traditional archival theory to fit the unique cultural context that is American. American archival theory has been tempered with the need to assign value and control both costs and quantities, in other words, to deal with pragmatic and practical concerns (Boles, 1996). American archivists consider content, use, and importance along with origin, function, and structure in the appraisal process.

Development of Values in American Appraisal Theory

In the United States, the National Archives takes a leadership role in the development of archival thinking and action. The National Archives was not established until 1934 and most of the sixty four years between then and now have been devoted to molding practice. Those practices are now helping to shape archival theory.

A steady stream of National Archives staff members have written about appraisal. In 1940, Philip C. Brooks of the National Archives presented one of the earliest discussions of appraisal advocating the destruction of duplicates and offering a definition of "permanent value." His appraisal criteria included (1) value that the agency or person creating the record placed on them, (2) usefulness of the records for administrative history, and (3) historical value.

G. Philip Bauer, in 1944, proposed that costs should play a role in appraisal decision-making, and that it was proper to prioritize records based on projected uses of the information. His short list of criteria included: (1) the amount and character of the information within the records, (2) the convenience of their arrangement, and (3) the degree to which their textual substance is concentrated.

In the 1950s, Theodore R. Schellenberg advanced a new scheme which encompassed values through use. Primary values were those uses for which the records had been originally created. Three criteria established primary value: legal, fiscal, and administrative value. He believed that records reached archival status when the reason for their creation (use) expired. At that time, a secondary value takes precedence. Schellenberg divided secondary value into two parts: evidence in the historical sense (evidential value) determined by the position of each office in the organization, the function of the office, and the activities of the office; and informational value which centers on the importance of the record or information. In the Schellenberg scheme, importance criteria can be determined by examining uniqueness, concentration (form), and the number of different users served by the information. Schellenberg is said to have crafted his new and unique theory from English, Dutch, and German archivists and thinkers, customizing it to fit the new practical concerns of the American archivist (Kolsrud, 1992). Others do not view Schellenberg's work as a contribution to archival theory at all, and some regard Schellenberg's contributions, even today, as detrimental to and a betrayal of European archival theory (Duranti, 1994) which is centered more on authentication and primary value alone with no recognition of secondary value. Nevertheless, Theodore Schellenberg has had a definite impact on archival practice in the United States and has influenced the way archives of all types conduct appraisal by determining value through use.

From 1956 to 1970, appraisal work in America almost exclusively followed Schellenberg's work.

Maynard Brichford bravely produced a list of fundamentals for appraisal in the 1970s and these included (1) the characteristics of the records, (2) administrative values, (3) research values, and (4) archival values. F. Gerald Ham used his position in 1974-75 as President of the Society of American Archivists to direct attention to the important work of appraisal. He termed it selection and stated in his presidential address, (Ham, 1975):

Our most important and intellectually demanding task as archivists is to make an informed selection of information that will provide the future with a representative record of human experience in our time. But why must we do it so badly? (p.5)

Archivists took up Ham's challenge to improve and during the 1980s, a series of reports and examinations were produced including a study of collection management literature (Reed-Scott, 1984), the development of documentation strategies for interjurisdictional cooperation (Samuels, 1986), and suggestions for elements to include in collection policies (Phillips, 1984). This generation of archivists added the link between institutional policy and selection criteria and followed the theme of assigning values to the appraisal process.

Frank Boles and Julia Marks Young conducted their work in the 1980s. They conceived of appraisal as being composed of three values modules, each containing additional defining elements: (1) value of information, (2) costs of retention, and (3) policy implications of appraisal recommendation (Boles, 1991).

Most archivists in the United States have linked appraisal to value. One voice, that of David Bearman, a consultant and President of Archives and Museum Informatics, has taken exception to this theme. He calls into question this whole approach taken by the archival community to appraisal and finds no values in records at all. Bearman suggests that record creators retain control and responsibility for records over the long term while archivists simply guide the process (Bearman, 1995).

The Boles and Young Value Modules

The empirical examination that Boles and Young conducted in 1987 examined appraisal practice across five different types of institutions including college and university, governmental, religious, business, and manuscript archives.

They surveyed a large number of archivists at different institutions, determined common selection elements; developed a taxonomy composed of three value modules to interrelate the common elements; and developed a selection tool for a small subset of institutions to test.

Their test framework included a 41- page manual listing terms that defined the elements in each of their appraisal modules. Participants in their study were asked to use and evaluate this manual. They were asked to rank the importance of the elements within the modules as well as the three value modules.

From the very start of their study, Boles and Young had difficulty getting archivists to agree. During the pretest of the manual they found no agreement among archivists on the definition of the word appraisal and switched to using the term selection. This initial difficulty was an early predictor of the diversity of practice they uncovered within the archival community.

The investigators report findings in their book, Archival Appraisal. They report that the overall approach for their experiment worked well; however, they found, to use their words from the preface of the book, "The process of appraisal, we discovered, is one that gives up its secrets grudgingly." (p. viii)

Their goal was to improve the practice of selection among archivists and to share their archival selection methodology with others who might find the method applicable to other areas of information management. The investigators found that their method did not work as a universal selection tool. The data they collected suggested that institutional policy and mission influence the importance of selection criteria used. They reported that a "one size fits all" approach for making selection decisions did not seem to be practical given the diversity of practice. The method used in their study also illustrated that selection decisions resist numerical quantification. The numerical rankings assigned using the Boles and Young ranking methodology did not match the appraisal judgment of participating archivists and this was true at all sites tested. The disparity existed across institution types and even within institutions.

Although Boles and Young did not find the hoped for predictive appraisal tool, the discussion they provoked by the investigation was useful in extending dialogue and debate on how archivists conduct appraisal and the usefulness of tools that combine numerical schemes with fuzzy logic (Sink, 1990).

Methodology and Procedure

The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not the framework suggested by researchers Frank Boles and Julia Marks Young (1991) can be used to successfully determine similarities and differences in appraisal practice among archivists in one type of archive: the local history archive. The study will use a number of instruments and techniques to gather data, but will follow the methodology used by Boles and Young. The defining difference will be that only one type of archive will be studied in depth.

Part I of the study will canvas the entire population of local history archives. Part II of the study will focus on a small group of participants drawn from the overall population. This group will work with the Boles and Young selection methodology and create a written record of their work as they perform it. Part III of the study will gather interview data from the participants. Participants will also be asked to rank appraisal elements and modules before the study begins and at the end of the study.

Part I

A survey of the population of local history archives will be conducted to collect basic information that will be used as comparative data in this study. The population will be drawn from Archives, USA, published by Chadwyck-Healey. This source is the most comprehensive list of repositories and archival institutions that exists today. It contains listings for over 4,000 libraries and 100,000 special collections. Anticipated size of the population of local history archives in the United States is approximately 300 archives.

Each survey participant in the population will be asked to provide their written mission statement and to state whether or not they have a collection or selection policy. Demographic data collected will include size, funding sources and amount of funding, government affiliation if any, and professional staff size. Survey participants will be asked to characterize their appraisal practice by identifying a model that most closely resembles or typifies their practice or process. The choices given will describe three appraisal models, the Schellenberg model describing primary and secondary values; the Boles and Young model describing value of information, costs of retention, and policy implications; and the SARA model, produced recently by the New York State Archives and Records Administration, which focuses on tangible evidence and asks when the records were created, why they were created, what content is in the records, and who created the records. Participants will also be able to identify or describe other types of models they use.

Data from this survey will be assembled and used to illustrate how many local history archives have written mission statements and collecting policies and discern relationships that may exist between the variables. The variables are government affiliation, presence and size of professional staff, budget size and type of funding sources, and familiarity or affiliation with one of the three appraisal models described in the survey.

Part II

From this group of respondents, a smaller group will be identified as potential participants in the second portion of the research study that will examine appraisal practice in detail. Criteria for research participation will intentionally narrow the variables in the study to include employment of a professional staff member (archivist or librarian), municipal government / local history affiliation, and presence of a written selection policy and a written mission statement. This sample group will be composed of 10 to 15 institutions whose primary mission is concerned with local history, who are affiliated with local government as a source of funding, who are staffed with professional archivists, who have a written selection or collection management policy, and who are willing to take the time necessary to participate in the study.

The archivists participating in the study will use the three Boles and Young value modules with their accompanying manual and instructions for applying the appraisal methodology. One site will be used to test the manual and instructions for quantifying appraisal decision-making and ranking the value modules and elements. This trial run will help the investigator clarify instructions for the orientation portion of the study with the full set of participants.

Each qualified participant institution and all of their professional staff members will receive an orientation to the study and the processes being examined using the Boles and Young value modules and elements. They will use the method outlined in the manuals as a selection tool in the course of ordinary business for a period of eight weeks, recording questions and discussions that occur while using the methodology and instructions given in the manual. They will take a pre-test that will rank order the elements used in the modules and rank the modules themselves.

With the Boles and Young method, each archivist will quantify his/her decisions using a checklist of appraisal elements. The checklist is designed to standardize the decision making process. The study of how the process works is designed to find out how archivists reach their appraisal decisions. Comparisons of the data will indicate similarities and differences in how archivists make appraisal or selection decisions.

Part III

At the end of the eight-week period, the investigator will re-visit the archive to gather the data recorded by the staff and discuss the overall impression of the selection tool. The investigator will tape record the discussion, with permissions, to aid in the retention of the comments as the participants make them. The investigator will gather the participants' written record of appraisal results, the numeric tallies participants produced over the study period, and the interview comments. The qualitative interview data will provide supportive evidence in the study to compare with the quantitative data.

Participants will rank order the modules and elements in the modules in a post test at the end of the study. These results will be compared with the pre-test results to determine whether or not the archivists shifted opinions over the course of the study period. These results are not intended to imply any cause and effect relationship by themselves, but they gain importance when used in tandem with the interview data gathered.

Data tabulations will illustrate the following relationships:

What appraisal frameworks are currently identified as being models used in local history archives by what percentage of the respondents to the initial survey? How do archivists categorize the appraisal framework they use in the local history archive?

(Tabulations from the choices made in the original survey)

Where do appraisal or selection practices follow the same paths and where do they diverge within the local history archive communities that share the same mission? Are there striking similarities and differences in how archival institutions which have a similar mission rank the importance of the Boles and Young appraisal modules and criteria? When mission statements are similar, what portions of the appraisal practice are the same and what portions are different among the study group of local history archives?

(Gathered from data analysis of the three Boles and Young value modules and comparison of results between agencies to find patterns of sameness and differences)

How does the Boles and Young method work as an appraisal tool as discussed by the participants in the study? (Gathered through interviews with participants)

How does each participant rank the appraisal criteria variables in each module before and after using the method? (Gathered in the pre-test and post-test data and in the interviews)

The Boles and Young study shows great diversity and variability in appraisal practice across institution types. Does this study, which focuses on one type of archival institution, produce the same results or do the results show more or less consistency?

Can these results be traced to the common feature of similarity in mission in this study group? (Gathered through comparison of mission statements)

What criteria do archivists say they use in assessing the value of records? (Gathered through interviews with participants)

Do archivists believe that they apply the criteria consistently? (Gathered through interviews with participants)

Contributions to the Field

This study is important because it will further develop American appraisal theory and will at the same time move a step closer to producing a practical selection tool for local history archives that will add efficiency to the process. This tool, if successfully developed, could be used in formal education settings and at conferences and workshops to train students and archivists.

More information is needed in this area, because as Helen Willa Samuels, Head of Special Collections at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states, "Archivists are challenged to select a lasting record, but they lack techniques to support this decision-making" (Samuels, 1986). Samuel's proposes that this challenge is growing deeper because of the changing structure of modern institutions and the use of sophisticated technologies and new communication patterns that alter the nature of records. In other words, we know that only a portion of the documentation that is being created in its many forms can be kept; but we don't know how to efficiently determine which portion. This study will provide more information about how archivists reach this decision.

Some archivists feel strongly that archives exist to protect the rights of people and to preserve the records which depict the functions of institutions and the historical context in which we live (Schaeffer, 1992). Frank Burke, former Director of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, with his strong background in history, asks archivists to question themselves (1981):

What are the theoretical conceptions present in today's society that will color the acquisition or retention policies of archives, and how can archivists rise above their own social and intellectual environment in order to provide some assurance that they are not being interpretive in their eagerness to be objective? (p. 43)

In other words, Burke, like Duranti, recognizes that adding value to the appraisal / selection process can lead to loss of objectivity and adversely affect the process of appraisal. He urges us to examine how we appraise, select, and collect and suggests that we need to devise tools that will add objectivity to a value laden process. This study will add to this examination.

Research Timeline

Pre-test of questionnaire/Trial run test with Manual, Selection tool Checklist, Pre and Post Test, and Orientation material	February 1999	4 weeks
Readings	March 1999	4 weeks
Survey	April 1999	4 weeks
Screening	May 1999	4 weeks
Dissertation Proposal Presentation	June 1999
Invitation to Participate	June/July/August	8 weeks
Orientation for Participants	August/September/October	8 - 10 weeks
Study Period	October/November
Follow-Up Visits and Interviews	December/January/February	8 - 10 weeks
Data Review and Analysis	January-June	6 months
Conclusion of Research and Writing Dissertation	January - June 2000	6 months

Appendices

Initial Questionnaire (Draft Attached)

Participant Guidelines and Contract (Not shown)

Manuals and training orientation for implementing the Boles and Young value modules at a study site (Proposed to replicate Boles & Young-Not shown)

Ranking Checklist used as a pre and post test device (Draft Attached)

Interview Questions to gather qualitative data at the conclusion of the study (Draft Attached)

Questionnaire--To Be Mailed

1. Please identify your institution

Name
Physical Street Address
Mailing address if different
Name of person filling out the survey
Preferred email address for further contact
Telephone	Fax

2. Please categorize your institutional type:

Public local history institution

Other: ______________________________________________________________

Local municipal

Local county

Local special district

Regional

State

National

Other

Percentages and Source:

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

5. Does your institution have a written mission statement?

Yes

No

6. Please attach your mission statement if you have one or write it in this space.

7. What is the size of your professional staff? (Count both full and part time)

0 to 3 professionals

4 to 10 professionals

11 or more professionals

Pre and Post Test Ranking Checklists and Comparison Data

1. Please assign a rank order number to the following elements.

The largest number = the most important item to consider in appraisal/selection.

________Use (user interest; use limitations such as use restrictions, illegibility, understandability; legal value, administrative value; use by potential clients; use by current clients)

_______ Functional Characteristics (position in the organization, unit activities, original records purpose)

_______ Relationship to Other Documentation (Physical Qualities such as scarcity, original or preferred copy; format; and Intellectual Qualities such as Duplication of the record group, duplication in other repositories; and duplication within this repository)

3. Please assign a number to the following elements. The largest number = the most important item to consider in appraisal. You can use the numbers more than once.

_______ Authority concerns (appraisal decision fits within the overall framework of the institutional policies)

_______ Source concerns (influence, reputation, or authority of the records' source; this could be an individual or an entity)

_______Third Party concerns (external parties and their interest in the outcome of the appraisal decision; this could be individuals mentioned in the records and also other institutions)

_______ Internal Policy -Value of Information concerns (records are perceived as critical to the organization)

_______ Agreement concerns (acquisition will meet with agreement rather than controversy)

_______ Internal Policy - Cost justification (costs of retention are considered justifiable)

 

 

 

 

Follow Up Visit Interview Questions

 

1. How do you describe the appraisal/selection process you use to someone who is not familiar with archival enterprise?
2. What criteria do you normally use in assessing the value of records to your organization?
3. Do you apply the criteria consistently?
4. During the study, what deviations (if any) did you find in the way you performed appraisal within your work unit?
5. Are the three modules/categories of value you used in this study adequate to describe the total range of considerations that go into the appraisal/selection decision-making process? [The three categories used are Value of Information, Implications of the Selection Decision, and Costs of Retention.]
6. What module/category is the most difficult to rank and why?
7. Is this checklist/tool one that could help leverage appraisal knowledge?
8. Do you think that a universal appraisal methodology or process is possible to achieve in the archival community?
9. Do you think the method used in this study could be used for reappraisal of records at a later time?

Reference List

 

Return to Table of Contents

This page is created and maintained by Sue Soy ssoy@gslis.utexas.edu
Last Updated 12/11/98
© Copyright 1996 Susan K. Soy
Please feel free to copy and distribute freely for academic purposes with this notice and attribution.
All other rights reserved