07 macro appraisal
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
SCHOOL OF LIBRARY, ARCHIVAL AND INFORMATION STUDIES
MACRO-APPRAISAL AND MULTI-YEAR DISPOSITION
PLAN AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF CANADA
SUBMITTED TO
TERRY EASTWOOD
ARST520: SELECTION AND ACQUISITION OF ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS
WEI LIU
April 7, 2007
Introduction
Macro-appraisal and the Multi-Year Disposition Plan become the
topics of this paper because they are Canadian-born theory and
methodology, and have been practiced largely in the Canadian context
at the federal level. It is thus useful to look into these topics in greater
depth in order to gain a better understanding of the Canadian
experience in archival appraisal.
This paper aims to examine the origin and development of the
theory and methodology of macro-appraisal, the strength and
weakness of the macro-appraisal model as revealed in practice, and
the Multi-Year Disposition Plan as the main vehicle for appraisal and
archival acquisition at the National Archives of Canada.
Macro-appraisal and the Multi-Year Disposition Plan have been
developed and implemented at the National Archives since the early
1990s, and are continually being refreshed and improved. The majority
of the discussion in this paper is based on the past publications of
those archivists at the National Archives, such as Terry Cook, Catherine
Bailey, Jean-Stephen Piché, Eldon Frost, Brian Beaven, etc., who have
been actively involved in the conceptual development of macro-
appraisal, and its practice.
Background
1
The beginning of the idea of macro-appraisal in the early 1990s
was closely related to the unsatisfactory situation of the acquisition of
historical government records at the National Archives of Canada.
Back to the late 19th century, the acquisition of historical
government records did not draw much attention from the then Public
Archives of Canada (PAC). This was partially due to the lack of interest
of the first Dominion Archivist, Douglas Brymner, in current
government records. This was also due to the slow growth of the
government in the early years after Confederation, and thus a lack of
need for altering existing records management procedures.1
The efforts to systematically manage and acquire government
records in Canada did not begin until 1889. That year the Post Office
started to face a specific problem of managing routine financial
records, and submitted a request to the Cabinet for a standard 5 years
retention period for these records. As a result, the first records
schedule in the Canadian government was issued, allowing for the
destruction of records having no value, and the longer retention of
records having more value.2
Since then, the use of records scheduling as a source of archival
acquisition has been gradually expanded to other departments of the
government. In December 1979, after months of surveys, research and
studies, Bryan Corbett and Eldon Frost completed their popularly
1 Jay Atherton, “The Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1879-1956,” Archivaria 8 (Summer 1979): 36.
2 Ibid., 38.
2
known “Corbett-Frost Report”, in which they examined the status of
the acquisition of government records at the PAC in the past one
hundred years, including the evaluation of the success and failure of
records scheduling as a means of archival acquisition.3
Corbett and Frost reported that, the PAC acquired approximately
16,700 feet of archivally significant textual records between 1872 and
1965, and an addition of 60,000 feet between 1965 and 1979. In 1969
alone 164 records schedules were processed, and over 37,000 feet
records were destroyed.4
Yet how many of these records were acquired in accordance with
records schedules? It was extrapolated that, for eleven major
departments,5 about 40 per cent were processed through the
applications of records schedules and the dormant storage facilities of
the PAC between 1965 and 1979. This was a substantial portion of the
total acquisition, and the report ascribed the success partially to the
passing of the Public Records Order (PRO) in 1966 and the Access
Directive in 1973.
However, while the scheduling system has worked fairly well in
terms of increasing the total acquisition, and disposing of large
quantities of paper case files, it has not assisted archivists in 3 See Bryan Corbett and Eldon Frost, “The Acquisition of Federal Government
Records: A Report on Records Management and Archival Acquisition,” Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-1984): 201-32, for an abridged version of this report.
4 Ibid., 202.5 Ibid., 202. These departments include Transport, Finance, National Research
Council, Labour, Energy, Mines and Resources, Environment, Agriculture, Secretary of State, Health and welfare, Immigration, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
3
identifying and preserving important archival records, nor has it helped
improve the overall quality of acquisitions. The reason for this was
articulated by Eldon Frost, in his 1991 essay entitled “A Weak Link in
the Chain: Records Scheduling as a Source of Archival Acquisition”.6
Frost says that, the purposes of having a records schedule are
twofold, given the fact that there are two parties involved. On the one
hand, the records creator needs the records schedule to permit timely
destruction of records when they no longer have values, thus free the
needed storage space. The records schedule should also help the
records creator to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. On
the other hand, the records schedule should assist the archivist in
identifying, acquiring and preserving archival records.7
According to Frost, such disparity between the dual purposes of
the records schedule is a “less readily understood, but more
fundamental, flaw in records scheduling as traditionally practiced.”8
Records creators have been generally concerned with the efficiency of
the scheduling process, such as the number of schedules approved,
the speed of approval, and the quantity of records scheduled. They
want loose, flexible disposition authority and maximum latitude for
actions in order to immediately solve the storage issues. It is little
wonder that the records manager naturally pays more attention to
6 Eldon Frost, “A Weak Link in the Chain: Records Scheduling as a Source of Archival Acquisition,” Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-1992): 78-86.
7 Ibid., 79.8 Ibid., 81.
4
textual records than non-textual records, as the storage of textual
records demands large physical space. By contrast, archivists are
increasingly cautious in making appraisal decisions, and therefore,
want precision of records description in schedules to help identify
important archival records. They would also want to make informed
appraisal decisions by examining records across all media, rather than
simply going through textual records, to avoid the duplication of
information.9
Prior to the early 1990s, the records scheduling process has been
conducted in a fairly conventional way. The initiative of submitting the
proposal for disposing of records lay with the institutions. Naturally,
they tended to schedule bulk case files first, leaving important policy
records and records in other media the last to be considered. The
National Archives participated in the scheduling processes in a very
passive mode, and appraised a vast amount of records in an isolated
state, without the knowledge of their functional and structural context
of creation. Consequently, despite the huge resources put into the
appraisal activities, poor appraisal decisions have been made, leading
to the acquisition of “a piecemeal and often fragmentary record”,10
Maps, plans, and records of other media were almost always acquired
by archivists through contacts with the specialists. No schedules
existed for electronic records. Moreover, the entire scheduling system
9 Ibid., 81.10 Bruce Wilson, “Systematic Appraisal of the Records of the Government of
Canada at the National Archives of Canada,” Archivaria 38 (Fall 1994): 218.
5
has been time-consuming, involving multiple rounds of appraisal
decisions. It has proved inefficient in addressing both archivists and
records creators’ needs, and created tensions with the government
institutions when their submitted schedules were rejected for
modification.11
Macro-Appraisal – Concepts and Theory
The pressing need for better appraisal practices at the National
Archives increased through the 1980s.12 In 1983, the access to
information and privacy legislation (ATIP) was passed, requiring that
personal information be collected only for the defined purposes, and be
destroyed once these purposes are served. Since then the National
Archives has assumed responsibilities in scheduling masses of
government records containing personal information. Later in 1987,
the National Archives of Canada Act was passed, with the provision to
empower the National Archivist with the sole authority to permit the
destruction of government records. The National Archives soon
became responsible for evaluating and scheduling the records of 156
federal departments and agencies covered by the Act, in addition to
those of “the federal judiciary, parliament, commissions of inquiry, and
other selected government institutions not covered by the Act.”13 The
11 Ibid., 219.12 John Roberts, “One Size Fits All? The Portability of Macro-Appraisal by a
Comparative Analysis of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand,” Archivaria 52 (Fall 2001): 49.
13 Wilson, “Systematic Appraisal,” 219.
6
extent of records of these bodies is over-whelming, and could not be
dealt with under the old system.
Responding to these pressures, Terry Cook first introduced the
idea of macro-appraisal in his 1991 RAMP study, with the purpose to
“offer guidelines for archivists for the appraisal of records containing
personal information”.14 This idea was further articulated in Cook’s
1992 seminal article “Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of
Archival Appraisal”.15 In this article, Cook attempts to outline the
conceptual underpinning of macro-appraisal - a theoretical societal
model, and to propose an approach to turn this model into the working
reality for archivists at the National Archives.
Generally speaking, appraisal theory explores “the sources or
influences upon which archivists base their decisions to assign ‘value’
or ‘significance’ or ‘importance’ to records”.16 Besides macro-appraisal,
there are mainly two schools of appraisal theories in the 20th century:
theories based on utilitarianism, and theories based on statism.17
Theories based on utilitarianism determine the archival value of
records by their current or anticipated use. These theories are mostly 14 Terry Cook, The Archival Appraisal of Records Containing Personal
Information: A RAMP Study with Guidelines (Paris, 1991), published by the International Council on Archives, UNESCO. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ramp/html/r9103e/r9103e00.htm. Last accessed: April 6, 2007..
15 Terry Cook, “Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal,” in Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992): 38-70.
16 National Archives of Canada, Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis (Part A: Concepts and Theory). Available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-management/007/007007-1035-e.html. Last accessed: April 6, 2007.
17 Roberts, “One Size Fits All?” 52.
7
advocated by the followers of T.R. Schellenberg. The prevalence of this
“pertinence” approach, as Terry Eastwood would characterize it, is
mainly because of “its captivation by the historical sensibility and the
close link between archival practice and historical scholarship” in North
America.18 However, in the attempts to determine the potential use of
records by future researchers, the archivist cannot avoid becoming “a
weathervane moved by the changing winds of historiography”, and
collecting the archival holdings that “too often [reflect] narrow
research interests rather than the broad spectrum of human
experience”.19
Developed by Sir Hilary Jenkinson and his followers, theories
based on statism instead determine the archival value of records by
the enduring values designated by the records creator. Jenkinson
believes that archivists should not appraise records because such an
activity inevitably involves subjective judgements, and in doing so, the
archivists’ role as the objective and passive custodian of archival
records would be greatly compromised. He sees the records creator as
the sole agent for the selection and destruction of his own records,
because “for an Administrative body to destroy what it no longer needs
is a matter entirely within its competence and an action which future
18 Terry Eastwood, “Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal.” In Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992): 82.
19 F. Gerald Ham, “The Archival Edge,” The American Archivist 38 (January 1975): 5-13.
8
ages...cannot possibly criticize as illegitimate or as affecting the status
of the remaining Archives”.20
How, then, would macro-appraisal determine the archival value
of records? And, how is it different from these traditional approaches?
Firstly, macro-appraisal objects to the neo-Jenkinsonian’s
opinion, and asserts that archivists are “society’s professional agents
appointed by law to form its collective memory”.21
Secondly, the Schellenbergian’s taxonomic approach assumes
that values are found in records, and seeks to find a logical and
consistent way to categorize such values (e.g., primary value,
secondary value, evidential value, informational value, intrinsic value,
and so on). The focus is always on the record itself, rather than on the
larger historical and social landscape. Macro-appraisal instead shifts
the focus from the record to its structural-functional context of
creation, from the end-product of the creation process to the process
itself, and from “matter” to “mind”, as Cook would put it.22 However,
legal, intrinsic or informational values are referred to at the stage of
micro-appraisal as additional appraisal considerations. Explicit
definitions of these values are given in the Macro-Appraisal and
Functional Analysis Guidelines.23 20 Hilary Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration, London: Percy Lund,
Humphries & Co., 1965: 149.21 National Archives of Canada, Appraisal Methodology, Part A.22 Cook, “Mind Over Matter,“ 47.23 National Archives of Canada, Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and
Functional Analysis (Part B: Guidelines for Performing an archival Appraisal on Government Records). Available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-management/007/007007-1041-e.html. Last accessed: April 6, 2007.
9
The macro-appraisal theory has a societal focus, so does the
“documentation strategy” proposed by Helen Samuels in the United
States, and the approach by German archivists, such as Hans Booms. It
is essentially based on the assumption that the source of archival
value comes from “theories of value of societal significance which
archivists bring to the records”.24 It is also based on the assumptions
that, government institutions are created and organized to meet the
contemporary societal requirements and needs, i.e., what society
values, and such societal value would likely exist in “the generic
attributes, interconnections, and points of special intersection or
conflict between creators of records...sociohistorical trends and
patterns...and the clients, customers, or citizens”.25 In another word,
the archival value of government records exists in their ability to
reflect the interplay between the government’s administrative
structure, its business functions, and the citizenry.
Cook articulates the rationale for these assumptions as follows.
He observes that, although it is impossible to determine the full
“reality” of society’s processes and functions, archivists can choose a
“slice-of-life” that most likely represents this “reality”. The key is to
conduct research on the means by which such “reality” is articulated,
such as “societal functions and structures, and the citizens who create
or generate and interact with both”. By identifying where the citizen
24 Cook, “Mind Over Matter,“ 41.25 Ibid., 40.
10
interacts with the state, archivists can determine where the best
documentary evidence will likely be found. He can then produce “the
sharpest and clearest insights into societal dynamics and issues”, 26
and thereby a better reflection of the “image” of the society. That is to
say, in the macro-appraisal model, archivists consider “the
mechanisms and locations (the how and where) of the image formation
– the controversial ‘hot-spots’ in the citizen-state interaction, the most
important structures, and the key functions”,27 as the basis to assign
archival values to government records. Accordingly, the overall goal of
macro-appraisal at the National Archives of Canada is to “choose
significant and sufficient recorded evidence from Offices of Primary
Interest”, and the recorded evidence should “most succinctly reflect, in
the best recording medium, the impact of the function or program on
Canadians and the public’s interaction with the function or program.”28
Macro-Appraisal Methodology and MYDP
The macro-appraisal methodology is the means to assist
archivists to identify the societal value of government records in the
working reality. It is a practical guideline for implementing the macro-
appraisal theory. Unlike the piecemeal and fragmented approach in the
past of the National Archives, the approach of the macro-appraisal
26 Ibid., 49.27 Ibid., 52.28 For the definition of Office of Primary Interest, see National Archives of
Canada, Appraisal Methodology, Part A.
11
methodology is a planned, systematic, top-down, function-centered
and research-based one.
Different from the traditional approach, which often concentrates
on appraising records “at the bottom”, the macro-appraisal
methodology emphasizes the top-down functional analysis. It starts
with the analysis of the operational purpose or broad societal function
of a government institution – the macro level. It then moves on to the
analysis of various administrative structures, sub-functions, and
business processes within the institution, and subsequently to the
analysis of the information systems that produce and organize records
in these processes. At the very end – the micro level, are records
themselves examined, and only in small samples, for the purposes of
verifying the macro-appraisal hypothesis, and identifying records of
other additional values. Such functional analysis does not simply seek
for the answer to “what is the function?”, but rather to “what is
valuable and what is not? what is worth remembering by society and
what is not? what should become archives and what should be
destroyed?”29 The purpose of this top-down approach is to assess the
capacity of institutions, branches, sectors, and offices to create records
of value in a global way, rather than dealing with records one by one.30
29 Terry Cook, “Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis: Documenting Governance Rather Than Government,” Journal of the Society of Archivists Vol. 25, No. 1 (2004): 6.
30 National Archives of Canada, Appraisal Methodology, Part B.
12
Research is yet another key element in the macro-appraisal
methodology. It is obvious that the success of the top-down functional
analysis relies largely on the completeness and sufficiency of
information regarding the background, functions, sub-functions,
business processes, activities and transactions, structures, and records
keeping systems of a specific institution. It requires extensive research
to gather this information, in order to form a macro-appraisal
hypothesis.
In Canada, the vehicle for carrying out macro-appraisal is called
the “Multi-Year Disposition Plan” (Hereinafter MYDP). The National
Archives seeks to negotiate a MYDP with each of some two hundred
government institutions. The goal of the MYDP is to establish a series
of agreements for the disposition of the records of each institution.
These agreements need to be signed by the specific institution and the
National Archivist. The final product of each MYDP is a disposition
authority with specific terms and conditions for the institution to
identify what is to be retained, and the date, condition, and technical
details of the transfer of archival records.
The production of a MYDP is an elaborative process, and involves
a number of players, complex agreements, extensive research, long
time frames, and intensive work.31
Given the resource constraints, the National Archives first has to
decide the priorities of the institutions to be appraised. Based on the 31 Wilson, “Systematic Appraisal,” 220.
13
importance of the institution within the government hierarchy, and the
breadth and diversity of its mandate and functions, the National
Archives established a series of four categories.32 In the first year of
the program, the National Archives started to work on all category one
institutions. Category two institutions were dealt with in the second
and third years. Category three institutions then followed in the fourth
year. However, category four institutions, with the least significance,
would only be considered if there is time and resource.
Appraisal for an MYDP, as discussed earlier, is a top-down,
research-based process, and involves long-time efforts of both the
archivist and the records analyst. There are generally five core steps in
such a process.
1. Researching to decide the complexity and relative importance of
sub-functions, programs, and activities within an institution;
2. Researching to pinpoint the structural site(s) – the Office(s) of
Primary Interest;
3. Researching to understand the nature and most focused sites of
citizen’s interaction with the function or program;
4. Forming of a macro-appraisal hypothesis of where the best
records are, what they globally and conceptually would be, etc.;
5. Testing or confirming the hypothesis by appraising functionally
selected files, and analyzing the possibility of duplication,
especially in the case of electronic records. 33
32 Other criteria may also be taken into consideration, such as the duplication of functions, the form of records, etc. See Wilson, Systematic Appraisal, 223.
33 Cook, “Governance,” 12.
14
The archivist and the records analyst each play a particular role
at the researching stages. The record analyst is generally responsible
for assembling information about the structure of records keeping
system of the institution, and about the past relations between the
institution and the National Archives.
This process of establishing a MYDP inevitably involves lots of
negotiation, proposals, and agreements. For example, when targets for
the first year appraisal are identified after initial research the archivist
and the records analyst need to work out a proposed MYDP for
discussion and agreement with the institution. After the completion of
all research, the records analyst works with the records manager of the
institution to prepare a submission describing the records. Based on
this submission, the archivist then drafts a written, formal appraisal,
and concludes with terms and conditions under which records are to be
retained and transferred. The archivist would then consult actual
records in order to verify his appraisal hypothesis.
Once the appraisal is completed, and agreements achieved, the
terms and conditions are formally signed off by the institution and
submitted to the National Archivist for the issuing of formal disposition
authority.34
34 For more detailed description on this process, see Wilson, Systematic Appraisal, 223-225.
15
The Strength and Weakness of the Macro-Appraisal Model
Macro-appraisal, as any other appraisal theories and strategies,
has its strength and weakness, which should be evaluated in particular
appraisal situations.
Shifting the focus from records to the structural and functional
context in which they are created, macro-appraisal provides a practical
means for archivists to deal with today’s large volumes of government
records. With just a few exceptions, where records are examined for
their legal, intrinsic, and informational values, the bulk of the records
will be appraised and disposed of on the basis of their context – the
function and significance of the area of the institution.
Jean-Stephen Piché, one of the first archivists at the National
Archives to experiment macro-appraisal, successfully applied the
methodology to tackle the mass of the real property management
records.35 The work was carried out, first, by defining how the
responsibilities for operations related to real property management
were shared among government departments, and then, by describing
patterns of information within departments that took these tasks.
Through the understanding of how the function was carried out
horizontally across government departments, duplication in the
records-creating process as well as in the archival holdings was
35 Jean-Stephen Piché, “Macro-Appraisal and the Duplication of Information: Federal Real Property Management Records,” Archivaria 39 (Spring 1995): 39-50.
16
identified. In his 1995 article, Piché says that, the macro-analysis of the
real property management program provides very good guidelines,
and helps to “refine archival value judgements that otherwise would be
very difficult to make by the traditional approach of appraising records
in isolation.”36 He also suggests that such an approach would perhaps
be applied to other functional areas that also have a multi-institutional
character, in order to deal with the problem of duplication of
information.
Catherine Bailey expresses similar opinions in her 1997 article
“From the Top Down: the Practices of Macro-Appraisal”. In this article,
she presents detailed analysis of four appraisals in the field of health
and social welfare where she has applied the macro-appraisal model.
In each case study the appraisal started with a macro-functional
analysis, and ended with a micro-appraisal. According to Bailey, the
macro-appraisal model provides “a sound theory and methodology for
the acquisition of a high quality archival record”, and results in
stronger disposition recommendation compared to the traditional
“taxonomic” methodology.37
Yet there are weaknesses of the macro-appraisal model revealed
by Bailey through her practices. Firstly, as explained earlier the
model’s dependence on extensive research is an important strength. It
is, however, at the same time a weakness, because such research
36 Ibid., 42.37 Catherine Bailey, “From the Top Down: The Practice of Macro-Appraisal,”
Archivaria 43 (Spring 1997): 122.
17
requires large amount of staff time and other resources. Sometimes, it
is very difficult to locate the background and supporting information.
There are also potential difficulties in coping with organizational
changes. Such changes often result in rapid and long-distance moves
of records that previously have been appraised and identified for
retention. Another attempt to give a comprehensive assessment of the
success and shortcomings of macro-appraisal and the disposition
process can be found in Bruce Wilson’s 1994 article.38
Moreover, although it has been largely accepted by archivists at
the National Archives that macro-appraisal provides a sound basis for
making more informed appraisal decisions, the vehicle for conveying
these decisions, Terms and Conditions in the MYDP, has not succeeded
in assisting the institution to answer the question: “what records are to
be retained, and what to be destroyed?” Often the institution
complains that Terms and Conditions in the MYDP are written in a
manner too abstract and technical to be applied for identifying archival
records. As a result, some appraisal decisions have not been translated
into a better acquisition. Since 2003, the National Archives has put
some efforts into rectifying such situation, and formed the Terms and
Conditions Work Group to carry out the task of revision. Some progress
has been made since then, and the feedback has been very
“favourable”.39
38 See Wilson, Systematic Appraisal, 225-30.39 Catherine Bailey, “Turning Macro-appraisal Decisions into Archival Holdings:
Crafting Function-based Terms and Conditions for the Transfer of Archival Records,”
18
Conclusions
Macro-appraisal is the “Canadian way” of carrying out archival
appraisal,40 and has now been developed and implemented at the
National Archives of Canada for over a decade. The macro-appraisal
theory is essentially a societal model, and assesses the archival values
of records through the analysis of both the functional and structural
context in which records are created, and the citizen-state interaction.
Many archivists at the National Archives of Canada have
attempted to implement macro-appraisal since its inception in the
early 1990s. Through their practices macro-appraisal has been
continually refreshed and improved. Most recent update was the re-
engineering of the government records disposition program at the
National Archives in 2002-2004, including an expanded framework of
accountability.41
Yet some archivists have doubt in the theoretical foundation of
macro-appraisal, and argue that there is nothing new in it at the
theoretical level. Brian Beaven interestingly states that, in developing
macro-appraisal, Cook simply “picked over, and grafted existing best
practices onto the more recent emphasis on seeing functional, records-
creating context as the first or primary consideration in locating
Archivaria 61 (Spring 2006): 147-79.40 Terry Cook, “Macroappraisal in Theory and Practice: Origins, Characteristics,
and Implementation in Canada, 1950-2000,” Archival Science 5 (2005): 101.41 Candace Loewen, “Accounting for Macroappraisal at Library and Archives
Canada: From Disposition to Acquisition and Accessibility,” Archival Science 5 (2005): 239-259.
19
archival value.”42 And, “of the ten standard characteristics of macro-
appraisal that Cook himself isolates, nine are strategic and
methodological, and are unconnected directly to the core reorientation
away from records ‘product’ towards functional activity and creational
contexts.”43 Beaven also finds ambiguities in the micro-appraisal stage
of the methodology, when traditional taxonomic approach is called
upon to determine various additional values of records. Although
Richard Brown would back it up with his famous “hermeneutic reading
of texts”, it seems that in reality archivists seldom tread this way.
Is macro-appraisal indeed a new theory? Answer to this question
is yet to be found!
Sources Consulted
Atherton, Jay. “The Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1879-1956.” Archivaria 8 (Summer 1979): 35-59.
Bailey, Catherine. “From the Top Down: The Practice of Macro-Appraisal.” Archivaria 43 (Spring 1997): 89-128.
________. “Turning Macro-appraisal Decisions into Archival Holdings: Crafting Function-based Terms and Conditions for the Transfer of Archival Records.” Archivaria 61 (Spring 2006): 147-79.
Beaven, Brian P.N. “Macro-Appraisal: From Theory to Practice.” Archivaria 48 (Winter 1999): 154-98.
Cook, Terry. The Archival Appraisal of Records Containing Personal Information: A RAMP Study with Guidelines (Paris, 1991). published by the International Council on Archives, UNESCO. Available at:
42 Brian P.N. Beaven, “Macro-Appraisal: From Theory to Practice,” Archivaria 48 (Winter 1999): 170.
43 Ibid., 171.
20
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ramp/html/r9103e/r9103e00.htm Last accessed: April 6, 2007.
________. “Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal.” in Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992): 38-70.
________. “Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis: Documenting Governance Rather Than Government.” Journal of the Society of Archivists Vol. 25, No. 1 (2004): 5-18.
________. “Macroappraisal in Theory and Practice: Origins, Characteristics, and Implementation in Canada, 1950-2000.” Archival Science 5 (2005): 101-61.
Corbett, Bryan and Eldon Frost. “The Acquisition of Federal Government Records: A Report on Records Management and Archival Acquisition.” Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-1984): 201-32.
Eastwood, Terry. “Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal.” In Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992): 71-89.
________. “Teaching and Learning about Macroappraisal.” Archival Science 5 (2005): 365-9.
Frost, Eldon. “A Weak Link in the Chain: Records Scheduling as a Source of Archival Acquisition.” Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-1992): 78-86.
Ham, F. Gerald. “The Archival Edge.” The American Archivist 38 (January 1975): 5-13.
Jenkinson, Hilary. A Manual of Archive Administration. London: Percy Lund, Humphries & Co., 1965.
Loewen, Candace. “Accounting for Macroappraisal at Library and Archives Canada: From Disposition to Acquisition and Accessibility.” Archival Science 5 (2005): 239-259.
National Archives of Canada. Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis (Part A: Concepts and Theory). Available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-
21
management/007/007007-1035-e.html. Last accessed: April 6, 2007.
________. Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis (Part B: Guidelines for Performing an archival Appraisal on Government Records). Available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-management/007/007007-1041-e.html. Last accessed: April 6, 2007.
Piché, Jean-Stephen. “Macro-Appraisal and the Duplication of Information: Federal Real Property Management Records.” Archivaria 39 (Spring 1995): 39-50.
Roberts, John. “One Size Fits All? The Portability of Macro-Appraisal by a Comparative Analysis of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand.” Archivaria 52 (Fall 2001): 47-68.
Wilson, Bruce. “Systematic Appraisal of the Records of the Government of Canada at the National Archives of Canada.” Archivaria 38 (Fall 1994): 218-31.
22