Dear all,

Having been out of the office all day yesterday it has taken me a while
to go through the excellent range of contributions to this debate (and 
its off-shoots).

A very convinving case for appraisal has clearly been made but at the 
same time there appears to be recognition that we are not always clear 
what we actually mean by 'appraisal', why we do it, or how we do it.  
If it is the core skill we seem agreed that it is for our profession 
this would seem to indicate that there is room for further professional
exploration and debate in this area.  Suggestions as to how this might 
occur gratefully received....

I was particularly interested in Paul's observations that 
"appraisal is increasingly falling to the user, and it is our 
role to educate them"

and especially that
"the important thing is that people like us are here to train them in 
that, and that we try to get the tools we develop built into these 
systems"

This appears to me to be critical.  How many institution's retention 
schedules fully apply to the records held on their IT systems?  On the 
one hand in most modern organisations their most important functions 
have been included within specialist IT systems which control the entire
process (Finance systems, HR systems, student admission systems, even 
email for correspondence).  On the other hand we often have a retention 
schedule which sits in isolation to these systems. Moreover, the system
may have no means of automatically carrying out the actions defined in 
the schedule so effectively falls outside its scope.

This does not mean that we must all become programmers, but it does 
probably mean that archivists in the future must come into the 
profession with a higher degree of technical knowledge than is 
currently the case.

Whilst thinking over the issues raised over the last few days I have 
been trying to think through just how the archive profession can start 
to change itself to start to meet some of the challenges and changes 
that we all seem to agree lay ahead (even if we disagree as to their 
implications).  For me the answer seems logically to lay with the 
professional qualification that most take as entry to the profession.  
Is it time to take a step back and assess whether the whole nature of 
the current courses on offer is adequate for what the profession 
actually needs?  Is the 'usual' route of history degree + 1 years 
pre-course training + Masters necessarily the best method of preparing 
new archivists?  Are the right things being taught or should we 
question the importance of some of the elements that have previously 
been taken for granted such as 'the administrative history of Great 
Britain'?

Regards

Steve



On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:10:38 +0000 kate manning 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello Tom,
> 
> If we accept that not everything is worth keeping then we must accept that 
> some things are. It is therefore necessary to know how to identify what is 
> worth keeping and be able to account for why we have so identified it. Rick 
> has pointed out that "the appraisal job for governments, institutions and 
> persons may all have the same goal, but may require quite different 
> approaches, whether we are appraising on the importance of the person, 
> system, function or "collection"." One of my concerns is that we need 
> definable goals in appraisal and defendable methods in achieving these 
> goals. In the arena of public records and indeed, institutional records, 
> good governance and accountability are important issues addressed to some 
> extent by records management (ensuring that the right records are kept to 
> meet legal and regulatory requirements, including Data Protection and 
> Freedom of Information). But as Bruce has pointed out, scheduling is 
> different from appraisal. Scheduling will account for some of what comes 
> into the archives but not all. Appraisal is a larger concern: it has been 
> argued that it is less about what documents should be kept and more about 
> what functions and activities should be documented--which opens up the 
> broader questions and issues raised in the earlier quotations from Terry 
> Cook and Terry Eastwood. And of course, how you identify these functions and 
> activities (more of which anon). Bruce has also touched on the <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>defendable 
> methods<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> aspect of my concerns, the adequate documentation of our appraisal 
> decisions, which, I suggest, goes some way to addressing your 
> acknowledgement that <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>this is a process which should be fraught with the 
> realisation that we may be wrong, no matter how professional in our approach 
> we are.<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> At least with adequate documentation of our appraisal decisions, we 
> can show why we made the decisions we did.
> 
> I do think appraisal is the <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>overriding concern of the archivist<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> because 
> the choices we--or others--make about what is kept affects everything we do, 
> from arrangement and description to access and use. Electronic records are a 
> good example here, the issue that started this discussion. We know the 
> issues of concern with electronic records, we know that ensuring access over 
> time to these records will be time- and resource-consuming. It is obvious 
> therefore that the time and resources spent on these records, is spent on 
> the <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>right<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> records. Identifying those <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>right<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> records IS appraisal. The 
> process(es) we use to identify these records is another question and one I<RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK>m 
> sure, many people have strong views on. I am feeling my way in this area, 
> and have much to learn still, but for what it<RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK>s worth, I am very interested 
> in the macroappraisal model, founded on the idea that societal values should 
> be the basis of appraisal and that functional analysis (at the centre of 
> macroappraisal) is the tool/process which enables the archivist to identify 
> and reflect societal values in order to establish targets for documentation 
> through records acquisition. It<RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK>s a very interesting and rigorous process, 
> that I am still getting to grips with.
> 
> On your point about the justification of appraisal as serving the 
> <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>continuing interests of citizens of a democracy<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>, determining our success 
> in that (if, as you say, we accept this as a desirable goal, which I do) 
> will partly depend on our <LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK>defendable methods<RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK> and on how much society in 
> general understands (or cares) about what we do.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Kate
> 
> >From: "Townsend, Tom" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: "kate manning" <[log in to unmask]>,<[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: RE:appraisal
> >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:24:20 -0000
> >
> >Hello Kate
> >
> >Identifying the dross amongst the not-quite-dross is, in my opinion, the
> >more normal experience of most archivists. Even this is a process which
> >should be fraught with the realisation that we may be wrong, no matter
> >how professional in our approach we are. Perhaps even the humble
> >cheque-stub has its place in the many-roomed palace of archival heaven
> >(though I doubt it!).
> >To be honest, I don't think that you have yet made any case for
> >appraisal as the overriding concern of the archivist other than arguing
> >that somehow such a process will 'serve the continuing interests of
> >citizens of a democracy'.
> >How on earth are we to determine what will achieve that, even if we
> >accept that that may be a desirable goal? Does not our everyday
> >experience of regret for the lost documents of the past teach us that
> >the exigencies and imperatives of the Now rarely take into account the
> >needs (or even merely the desires) of the future? And that goes for
> >archival imperatives too!
> >Now, I'm not arguing that everything is worth keeping (15 years of
> >dealing with business records have shown me that, if nothing else) but I
> >am questioning just how it is we can be so sure that certain records
> >reflect the function and nature of their creator and not others.
> >Ultimately, isn't all that we are saying is that the dross reflects such
> >a common and obvious part of their creator's nature that there is never
> >any chance that we (Society) shall forget it?
> >Tom Townsend
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: kate manning [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent: 25 November 2002 17:02
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: More on MyLifeBits - and something else
> >
> >Hi Steve,
> >
> >I think the "why" of appraisal is critical. Why do we do it and why do
> >we
> >choose what we choose? We have moved a long way from the Jenkinsonian
> >view
> >that archivists should not appraise and are moving away from the purely
> >historical view that decisions about appraisal are justified as serving
> >the
> >needs of research into the past, to the view (at least in some places)
> >that
> >we are meeting some of the requirements of a modern, democratic society
> >by
> >carrying out appraisal. That is, we must clearly identify the records
> >that
> >are being created which document the functions and activities of the
> >creator
> >not only to help us understand the past but to meet accountability needs
> >and
> >more broadly to "document" our society (I am thinking here particularly
> >of
> >the macroappraisal model as practised in the National Archives of
> >Canada).
> >
> >Appraisal is much more than keeping the records that were kept to meet
> >legal
> >and regulatory requirements (simply accepting the records at the end of
> >the
> >records management process). I heard Terry Eastwood give a paper
> >('Archival
> >appraisal in democratic societies') at a conference dedicated to
> >appraisal
> >in Salamanca, Spain last month where he said that one of the questions
> >for
> >archivists in a democracy is how to "orient ourselves to determine from
> >among the vast volume of records produced in modern, technologically
> >adept
> >society those that will serve the continuing interests of citizens of a
> >democracy." And at the same conference, Terry Cook ('Macroappraisal and
> >Functional Analysis: The importance of Governance rather than
> >Government')said that when we appraise "We are deciding what is
> >remembered
> >and what is forgotten, who in society is visible and who remains
> >invisible,
> >who has a voice and who does not. In this act of creation, we must
> >remain
> >extraordinarily sensitive to the political and philosophical nature of
> >documents individually, of archives collectively, of archival functions,
> >of
> >archivists' personal bias, and most especially of archival appraisal,
> >for
> >that process defines the creators, functions, and activities to be
> >included
> >in archives, by defining, choosing, selecting which documents become
> >archives, and thus enjoy all subsequent archival processes (description,
> >
> >conservation, exhibition, reference, etc.), and, as starkly, and with
> >finality, which are destroyed, excluded from archives, forgotten from
> >memory." I think you are absolutely right when you say "Archivists will
> >find
> >themselves swimming against a pretty powerful current if the only
> >defence of
> >the importance of appraisal that we can muster is that it is what we as
> >archivists have always done!" But in order to do that, we have to
> >understand
> >ourselves why we appraise and what is our goal in appaisal.
> >
> >I think the not choosing is as important as the choosing. The argument
> >for
> >not choosing is not simply that you can't keep everything but that not
> >everything is worth keeping! Nicholson Baker's book "Double Fold" is a
> >prime
> >example of libraries and archives not making it clear why some things
> >are
> >not worth keeping. It's finding the gold amongst the dross.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Kate
> >
> > >Hi Kate,
> > >
> > >Some further thoughts in response to your email.
> > >
> > >are we not missing the point of what we do if we keep entire
> > > > systems rather than appraise
> > >
> > >My point exactly!  As I said in my first email, I see appraisal as
> > >*the* defining traditional core skill of the archive profession.  The
> > >issue is that whereas until now that skill has had an appeal born of
> > >necessity (ie we can't keep everything so what should we keep).  With
> > >the advent of MyLifeBits and more importantly the theory that lies
> > >behind it, that skill may nolonger be seen as being important.  The
> > >whole point of MyLifeBits is that we *can* keep everything and moreover
> > >that we *should* keep everything (please note I am merely explaining
> > >this view not condoning it) so why bother appraising?
> > >
> > >  Maybe the question we need to consider, before we think about our
> > >technical
> > > > abilities, is how and why do we appraise?
> > >
> > >The 'why' is, I'm sure, open to debate.  At its most fundamental level
> > >however it is hard to deny that it was originally born of necessity.
> > >In the paper world you simply could not keep everything.  Firstly
> > >because of the practical problems of storage and secondly because with
> > >manual finding aids it would take an age to find what you did want.  So
> > >we invented a methodology for weeding out the ephemera and identifying
> > >and preserving historically valuable material(evidence of decision
> > >making etc etc) which kept the volume manageable and avoided waste.  I
> > >can see no theoretical argument against keeping everything, it simply
> > >wasn't practically possible.  Now if you follow the MyLifeBits approach
> > >the whole underlying assumption on which our approach to appraisal is
> > >based has gone (or at least will go soon) ie  'we *can* keep everything
> > >so why not and focus our collective efforts on improving *access* to
> > >it'.  Archivists will find themselves swimming against a pretty
> > >powerful current if the only defence of the importance of appraisal
> > >that we can muster is that it is what we as archivists have
> > >always done!  So is it time for us to learn new skills, and if so,
> > >what??
> > >
> > >
> > >Thoughts?
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >
> > >Steve
> > >
> > >On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:02:46 +0000 kate manning
> > ><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > With regard to the developing discussion on the influence of
> >technology
> > >on
> > > > appraisal, are we not missing the point of what we do if we keep
> >entire
> > > > systems rather than appraise (even if this is time- and
> > >resource-consuming),
> > > > i.e. select the records that properly reflect the functions and
> > >activities
> > > > of the creator (government, institution or person) whatever the
> >format?
> > > > Maybe the question we need to consider, before we think about our
> > >technical
> > > > abilities, is how and why do we appraise? When we know what we need
> >to
> > >keep,
> > > > we can work towards the infrastructure necessary to keep it.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Kate Manning
> > > > Archives Department
> > > > University College Dublin
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 

----------------------
Steve Bailey, 
Records Manager
Joint Information Systems Committee
Tel: 07092 302850
Email: [log in to unmask]