Volume 30/No. 2 SPRING 2001

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL ARCHIVES CONFERENCE

ISSN 0738-9396

“On thewhole, I’drather bein Philadelphia”

� �4

MARAC�

The joint meeting of MACand MARAC in the Fall of2000 gave us new formatsfor continuing conversa-tions. In break-out sessionsand point-counterpointdebates, we joined ourheartland colleagues in dis-cussions of the material inour care, of our researchersand employers, of ourshared professional concernsand our common digitalfuture. Here are a select setof session abstracts fromCleveland.

Thanks to editor JeffersonMoak and contributorsMargaret Buzynski-Bays,Helen Conger, KarenFishman, MelissaGottwald, FredLautzenheiser, ChristineLutz, Lisa Mangiafico,Bonita Smith, TomSteman, and Pat Virgil.

Researchers’ & Archivists’ Summit

Moderator: Stephen Charter,Bowling Green State University.Speakers: Mark Tebeau, ClevelandState University; Barbara WaitkusBillings, Western Reserve HistoricalSociety; Dave Davis, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Charter opened with a typicalarchival problem: researchers whoneed answers yesterday, who can’tunderstand why full-text primarysources aren’t on the web, and whyfiles can’t be immediately emailed;researchers who just don’t under-stand. How, he asked panelists andaudience alike, can archivist andresearcher move toward a commonunderstanding? Tebeau suggested“profiling” researchers by their inter-ests and needs, noting that whilethey may be unable to describe it,most researchers can recognize whatis relevant. Because the referenceinterview can be painful, Tebeausaid, archivists need better mecha-nisms for using researchers’knowledge. For example, somemight help process unorganized col-lections.

With the casual comment thatdespite his use of online catalogs, heprefers the serendipitous anomaliesof old-fashioned cards, Tebeausparked a heated debate, from whichseveral salient points emerged. Theimportance of professional ethicsand psychological understandingcame up: archivists should reassurepatrons on confidentiality issues(who is researching what) andexplain the purpose of the referenceinterview (to help the researcher).The exit interview was suggested asan important tool for greater under-standing. Respect from historians forthe credentials and professionalismof archivists was mentioned. Finally,it was suggested that archivists stepinto the researcher’s role to experi-ence the ‘other’ side.

Billings began by asking if the samerules applied to all researchers all thetime. Her answer, yes and no: accessdoes vary according to researcher

and situation. In addition,researchers who make the effort todevelop relationships with archivistsfind it easier to negotiate necessaryexceptions. The role of fees and thedefinition of ‘reasonable’ under-scored the inequality amongresearchers that charging for servicecreates. What commercial newspa-pers and documentary crews caneasily afford may be beyond themeans of educators, students andindependent researchers. The audi-ence again contributed: fees generallygo back collection preservation; slid-ing fee scales help level the playingfield; and better funding, especiallyto state archives, could eliminatefees. Billings concluded by notingthat the huge increase in phone, fax,e-mail requests is frequently handledvia triage.

Davis affirmed that the reporter’s artis getting what is needed when it’sneeded. His approach — a phonecall followed by a letter — often paysoff with access to well-cared-for col-lections that may contain criticalnuggets of information or goldmines of solid stories. Discussionensued about ways the press canwork with and support archivists.Audience members suggested citingcollections and repositories properly,acknowledging use of photographs,consulting their own in-houselibraries first, thanking archivists (ormore importantly, their bosses), andproviding final copies to the archives.Though many researchers’ agreementstipulate the latter, archivists find itdifficult to enforce. Researchers mustbe reminded that returning copies oftheir work to source repositorieshelps to support collections by prov-ing their utility.

Session Abstracts — Fall 2000

SEE ABSTRACTS ON PAGE 5

�

5� �

XXX/2 �

Are All Researchers Created Equal?

Moderator: Frank Boles, ClarkeHistorical Library, Central MichiganUniversity. Speakers: Danna Bell-Russell, National Digital Library,Library of Congress; and John J.Treanor, Archdiocese of Chicago.

Answering the session title with a‘no,’ Bell-Russell indicated that eachinstitution must look at researchersthrough its own mission statement.The National Digital Library dealswith their own constituency beforehelping others, professional ethicsnotwithstanding. Treanor recast thequestion: are all researchers givenequal access? Treanor stated thatopen collections should be open toall. Further, he indicated that that ifhis superiors allowed someone accessto records that are closed for use(such as sacramental records), hewould quit.

The discussion moved to referencerequests. Are certain researcherstaken ahead of others, and how doesthat affect those passed by? Bell-Russell affirmed that a hierarchyexists. For example, donors’ requestsgenerally take precedence, possiblycreating the impression that otherpatrons suffer, especially those whohave never used an archives. Stafftime with researchers is thus limited,but may be made up made upthrough handouts, workshops, web-sites, and other resources.

Next came the questions of donor-approved access to collections anddefining ‘qualified’ researchers. Aftermuch debate, Treanor opined that aqualified researcher was anyone whowalked into his archives and askedan intelligent question. Bell-Russellagreed with the unfairness of arbi-trary donor approval, but pointedout that even the Library ofCongress restricts researchers by age.

The discussion shifted to differencesin handling requests by phone, mail,e-mail, and in person. Audiencemembers stated that the method ofcontact often influenced the amountof time and effort spent on a giverequest. Treanor held that otherissues, like cost, often lead to deny-ing long-distance requests for largeamounts of photocopying. Such adrain of resources on the archivesmay provide unequal access topatrons.

Electronic Epiphanies and ArchivalDescription

Speakers: Jill Tatem, Case WesternReserve University; Bradley Westbrook,University of California-San Diego;and Nicolas Maftei, Nicolas MafteiConsulting

Tatem advocated user-centered findingaids, based on the archivist’s observa-tions and the idea that most users —the “hunter-gatherers” — prefer infor-mal, easily accessible sources. Archivistsshould determine a researcher’s domainknowledge (understanding of topicsand sources); system knowledge (com-prehension of provenance, familiaritywith finding aids); and use frequency(previous visits). Challenges includedefining the initial question and modi-fying the scope as research progressesfrom information need through systemselection and orientation, data acquisi-tion, and ultimate use. Tatemsuggested that most users need a find-ing aid conducive to browsing,beginning with an overview andordered by sub-topic.

Westbrook spoke about relationaldatabases and Encoded ArchivalDescription (EAD). Finding aids forarchives and manuscript collectionsappear in both SGML and HTMLwith links to MARC records inUCSD’s library catalog. The positiveresults of such integrated systems arelower training costs, enhanced refer-ence service, authority control, data

standardization and portability, andvariable outputs such as statisticalreports, collection guides, and collec-tion abstracts. However, staff musthave database and programmingskills, software must be updated, andthe limited options for collectionarrangement/hierarchy must be con-sidered.

In How to Make Computers Do theEncoding! A Database Strategy for theAutomation of Finding Aids, Mafteidemonstrated an object orienteddatabase management system (usingGENCAT) which supports openhierarchical structures, automaticallyconverts MARC records toSGML/EAD encoded finding aids,and permits online search andretrieval. The system is turnkey, butexpensive.

Authenticity and Preservation ofElectronic Records: US-InterPARES

Moderator: Beth Yakel, University ofMichigan. Speakers: Fynnette Eaton,Smithsonian Institution; Ciaran Trace,University of California-Los Angeles;and Mark Giguere, NARA

Eaton related the history of Inter-PARES, its goals and mission, andthe four major research domains. Shedescribed the case study methodolo-gy in detail and discussed theconsiderable challenge of developingan internationally accepted set ofarchival terminology. Phil Eppardread Ciaran Trace’s paper on theUCLA’s data analysis team, whichhas conducted 16 studies analyzingelectronic document and data struc-ture in order to build a template forfuture analysis using conventionssuch as evidential, organizational andempiric information. The team’s goalis to describe the elements commonto all electronic records that areneeded to verify reliability andauthenticity.

ABSTRACTS FROM PAGE 4

SEE ABSTRACTS ON PAGE 6

6� �

MARAC�

Giguere, NARA’s administrator andcoordinator for the Inter-PARESproject, gave an overview of the studygroups. Drawing on his responsibilityfor assuring that the project’s endresults are usable in current archivalsystems, Giguere demonstrated howthe IDEF modeling system allowedInter-PARES to capture and analyzethe structure and processes of elec-tronic records systems.

Electronic Records: Access and Use

Moderator: Edward A. Galloway,Digital Research Library, University ofPittsburgh. Speakers: NancyDeromedi, Bentley Library, Universityof Michigan; Mark Salling, NorthernOhio Data and Information Service,Cleveland State University; VirginiaAinslie, Ainslie & Associates; and JackLicate, Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Deromedi described the Bentley’sfirst electronic acquisition, the JamesJ. Duderstadt collection, comprising14 linear feet of paper and 2500 dig-ital files. Maintaining originalformat and allowing online accessintroduced the staff to complexissues such as designing a compre-hensive system, searching andnavigating the collection, providingreference service, using digitalresearch tools, creating electronicinterfaces, and formulating practicesand policies. The questions of regis-tering on-line users and conveyingthe fact that the records are originaldocuments remain, but Deromediwelcomed the audience to visithttp://www.umich.edu/~bhl andexplore the collection.

Salling focused on GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), whichhe defined as software, hardware,data and people organized into adatabase system that captures, stores,retrieves, analyses and displays spa-tial data. More than a collection ofmaps, GIS is a way to create maps.

To illustrate, Salling pulled crimeinformation from the city police,locations of abandoned buildingsfrom the housing department andrecent property prices from therecorder’s office, then layered thedata onto a map of a Clevelandward, creating a graphical represen-tation that succinctly replaces pagesof narrative text and statistical tables.

Ainslie, a lobbyist for non-profits,medical institutions and Chambersof Commerce, discussed her use ifthe Federal Assistance Awards DataSystem. Elected officials rarely knowhow federal monies are distributed,according to Ainslie, so she draws onthe Data System as back up torequests for government funding.One example was her advocacy forthe City of Cleveland for bridgerehabilitation funds.

Licate, a historical geographer bytraining, suggested that speed ofaccess is perhaps the most significantissue in the using electronic records.Contrasting research he undertookin various Mexican archives with thealmost instantaneous access to elec-tronic information, Licate teased outa few caveats. Researchers must usethe same analytical and evaluativetechniques — appraising the source,accuracy, strengths and weaknessesof the data, and authenticating andverifying the records — with elec-tronic materials as they would withtextual documents.

Appraisal Approaches to ElectronicRecords

Moderator: Robert Horton, MinnesotaState Archives, Minnesota HistoricalSociety. Speakers: Cal Lee, Kansas StateHistorical Society; Gregory S. Hunter,Palmer School of Library andInformation Science, Long IslandUniversity; and Lee Stout, Penn StateUniversity Archives

Discussing meaningful ways to minethe layers of data generated by

research, Lee suggested that computer-assisted searching be personalizedthrough retrieval agents — smallinformation filtering programs thatreflect the needs and preferences ofeach researcher. Developed fromexisting software, such agents wouldutilize pattern matching, i.e. locatingand prioritizing documents based ona model of previously selected infor-mation.

Hunter explored appraisal strategyfor web sites through an overview ofcurrent practice, methods for deter-mining value and ways to handlechanging material to meet therequirements of archival preserva-tion. Hunter focused on determiningthe accountability risks of a site —how much exposure does an organi-zation risk in presenting material onits webpages. Though the website“snapshot” has become a commontool, Hunter suggested that it maybe inadequate for high profile web-sites with deep, controversial, heavilyinterlinked and/or rapidly changingcontent.

Stout described the work of theAmerican team of Inter-PARES, theinternational research project investi-gating methods of preserving theintegrity and reliability of electronicrecords over time. The AmericanTask Group has been exploringappraisal criteria and methods, Stoutnoted, with a critical emphasis onthe need to appraise agency func-tions rather than individual records.Another finding of the group centerson timing: archival considerationsshould be built into electronic sys-tems, as retrograde modificationsputs the integrity of the system atrisk.

ABSTRACTS FROM PAGE 5

SEE ABSTRACTS ON PAGE 7