This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 14:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of ArchivalOrganizationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjao20

Metadata, Technology, andProcessing a Backlog in aUniversity Special CollectionsWilliam Jordan Patty aa Special Collections & Archives , George MasonUniversity Libraries ,Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: William Jordan Patty (2008) Metadata, Technology, and Processinga Backlog in a University Special Collections, Journal of Archival Organization, 6:1-2,102-120, DOI: 10.1080/15332740802237337

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332740802237337

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Metadata, Technology, and Processing aBacklog in a University Special Collections

William Jordan Patty

ABSTRACT. Writing about cataloging and reducing a backlog in thearchives of a special collections department is one thing, but actually estab-lishing a plan and executing it is another. This article describes catalogingand reducing a backlog in the archives of a special collections departmentas a project that involves multiple people, techniques, and perspectives. Asingle path to eliminating a backlog and providing access to collections doesnot exist, but many librarians and archivists have shared their experiencesand their thoughts on best practices. The emphasis on nonproprietary for-mats and central databases to establish control over collection metadata hasbecome the ultimate goal to handle backlog metadata. While this task mightseem insurmountable, both university and government Web sites offer freesoftware, locally adjustable computer programs, and guides to assist withcreating a foundation for electronic administrative control.

KEYWORDS. Metadata, Encoded Archival Description, EAD, machinereadable catalog records, MARC, special collections, processing,manuscripts

INTRODUCTION

I specialized in archives during library school at the University ofMaryland, and The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC,

William Jordan Patty, MLS, MA, is the Processing Archivist/Librarian at Spe-cial Collections & Archives, George Mason University Libraries.

Address correspondence to: William Jordan Patty, Special Collections &Archives, MS 2FL George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030 (E-mail wpatty@gmu.edu).

102

Journal of Archival Organization, Vol. 6(1–2), 2008Available online at http://jao.haworthpress.com

C© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1080/15332740802237337

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 103

hired me as a processing archivist shortly after I finished my degreein May 2005. The American Catholic History Center and UniversityArchives (ACUA) contains more than 10,000 linear feet of records witha concentration on twentieth century United States Catholic history. Inaddition to extensive university records and personal papers of professors,ACUA also holds the Records of the United States Catholic Conferenceof Bishops (USCCB) and personal papers of labor leaders and labororganizations. The connection between CUA and the labor movement canbe traced to faculty members such as Monsignor John A. Ryan, FatherWilliam Kerby, Bishop Francis Haas, and Monsignor George G. Higgins,all of whom personally knew labor leaders and, in the case of Haas andHiggins, supported labor causes throughout their professional careers.However, the collection policy of the newly established CUA Archivesdepartment in 1948 did not appear to include labor collections in its scope.Father Henry J. Browne, the first CUA archivist from 1948 until 1956,used the Terrance V. Powderly Papers and the John W. Hayes Papers forhis own dissertation research and decided the collection policy must alsoinclude material related to “American Catholic life.” The expansion ofthe collection policy allowed for further development of labor collections,including the Phillip Murray Papers in the 1950s and the Records of theCongress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the 1960s.1

After beginning my job as processing archivist I discovered that almostnone of the collections, even those with finding aids, had a machine read-able catalog (MARC) record. The MARC records for manuscript collec-tions that did exist described only the finding aids rather than the collection.To add to the confusion, the MARC 856 links to the online finding aids nolonger pointed to the correct uniform resource locators (URLs). A projectarchivist worked with the library cataloger to create those MARC recordsto provide complete access to five labor collections processed with fundsfrom a National Historical and Publications Records Commission (NH-PRC) grant in 2000–2001. The project archivist remained on staff full timeafter the grant and fully processed many other manuscript collections, butarchives staff decided to postpone cataloging those collections in MARCsince past miscommunication resulted in problematic online public accesscatalog (OPAC) and Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) records. Ibelieved cataloging all of the manuscript collections to be part of my jobas processing archivist even though my predecessor had focused almostexclusively on processing collections to the folder level.

A second issue existed with the organization of the special collectionsat CUA. In addition to ACUA, the special collections consist of the Rare

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

104 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

Books Department,2 the Oliveira Lima Library,3 and the Semitics/Instituteof Christian Oriental Research (ICOR) Library.4 However, the departmentsare not located in the same building, and there are no special collections cat-alogers. Each department independently handles its own cataloging, largelydue to the fundamental differences in the materials each contains. Evenif the CUA libraries possessed the funding for such a position, finding acataloger to handle such different collections would be a challenge in itself.

This case study examines how I undertook a nearly yearlong project tocatalog the entire manuscripts collection backlog in MARC format. Thecase study also examines how I largely worked as the sole archivist on theproject and worked closely with both the library systems department andthe cataloging department. This case study will discuss other projects tocatalog special collections since the application of the MARC format tomanuscripts and archives in the early 1980s and how the ACUA projectrelates to those previous projects.

BACKGROUND

Over the years, special collections archivists in United States collegesand universities struggled with providing access to their collections andproving that they are essential to the mission of higher education. Spe-cial collections departments hold rich documentation of university historyin archives, personal and organizational papers in manuscript collections,and landmark texts in rare book collections. Archivists, however, foundproviding access to collections difficult to accomplish because of the widevariety of materials typically housed in special collections departmentsand poor description techniques. The introduction of computer technologyover the past twenty years proved beneficial for archivists who have be-come more familiar with cataloging practices that had once been typicallyhandled by the technical services departments in the main campus libraries.Standards, especially in manuscripts collections, became an important partof describing collections. When MARC Archival and Manuscript Control(MARC AMC) records gained wider usage for special collections in the1980s, those special collections archivists usually worked with technicalservices to outline metadata required for adequate description, and tech-nical services staff handled the final catalog entry. The workflow beganto change with more advanced electronic description metadata used withdigital collections and Encoded Archival Description (EAD). Archivistsare now working with library computer systems offices as frequently as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 105

technical services, and they are handling more of the technical aspects andthe metadata within special collections departments. This gives archivistsgreater control over access to their material and relieves the burden placedon technical services departments.

By the 1980s, colleges and universities in particular were eager to opentheir special collections to researchers, so archivists began working withtechnical services departments to develop appropriate metadata to describetheir materials. For instance, they began cataloging rare books with enoughdescriptive metadata for researchers to find what they were looking forbut not so much description that the materials would be lost among toomany search results. When applying catalog rules to materials in specialcollections, one perfect method did not exist.5 Some methods were simplybetter than others, and special collection libraries determined appropriatemethods based on the complexity of the collections, the types of materials,and the time available for the work.

One of the issues with cataloging in departments other than technicalservices was the problem of inconsistent information if the MARC formatand AACR2 rules were not properly followed. However, the needs of aspecial collections library could be addressed more specifically when thespecial collections department rather than the central technical servicesoffice organized the metadata, especially since AACR2 proved to be prob-lematic when strictly used for manuscript and archival collections. In theend, library department communication on the implementation of MARCformat between the main technical services department and the special col-lections with regards to how metadata is organized had the most benefits.6

Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (APPM), published in1983, designated AACR2 metadata standards for special collections.APPM was also more suited for MARC, which provided special collec-tions with more flexibility to describe unique records with a variety offields. This allowed special collections staff to handle most of the workon establishing the records and leaving technical services responsible forediting and cleaning up the record to avoid work duplication.7 Since then,the implementation of EAD and Describing Archives: A Content Standard(DACS) complemented and supplanted those earlier standards.

In order to gain a better understanding of how these standards functionin a library setting, I enrolled in a technical services course in library schooland wrote a paper that examined case studies of university special collec-tions and electronic description techniques. The collections discussed inthe case studies generally contained manuscripts and rare books, and thecase studies presented different ways to approach the problem of metadata,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

106 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

including using off-site vendors to complete projects, using an in-housespecial collections cataloger, and in the more recent cases, collaboratingwith institutional technology librarians.

A review of this material is useful to place the ACUA project in context.In the early days of implementing the MARC format, some institutionsoutsourced cataloging projects. In order to help clear out the backlog,Texas A&M University decided to contract with Bibliographic ResourcesCenter of the AMIGOS Bibliographic Council in the spring of 1985. Aswas the case with my repository during the 1980s, the size of the TexasA&M special collections staff was too small to keep up with the materials,which limited access to the public.8

Even in the beginning of the project, problems with necessary informa-tion on the cards occurred. Many of the titles sent to AMIGOS could beeasily cataloged, but approximately one-quarter of the material requiredsome extra work. For some of that material, authority work could be doneahead of time by consulting different sources, but some of the materialwas designated as having immediate needs, so they were sent without thecompletion of local authority work. When the materials were returned fromAMIGOS, matching them together with the appropriate cards was difficultdue to the variety of metadata entries on the cards such as publishers, print-ing dates, and editions. The library also had to correct problems becauseAMIGOS was not familiar with local cataloging schemes. Another prob-lem with cataloging was the use of letters in the call numbers that TexasA&M did not use, so those records had to be edited, which led to more timespent per record than if the library would have notified AMIGOS of thespecific requirements.9 This demonstrated that costly special collectionscataloging projects could be problematic even with books, which did notbode well for archival and manuscript collections that contained even moreunique descriptive information.

At Wichita State University in 1988, special collections decided to workwith the technical services department on campus rather than outsource.The organization of metadata for the MARC format involved collabora-tion between the cataloging and special collections departments, and theapplication of the MARC format to the manuscript collections dramati-cally increased access to the public.10 The two departments determinedthat the best way would be to create the records on OCLC and then im-port them into the WSU online catalog, known as LUIS. The catalogingdepartment identified how using the MARC format for manuscripts woulddiffer from regular items, such as books, and what they should be pay-ing more attention to as far as metadata. Special collections aided in this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 107

process by explaining the access tools that were already available andthe kind of description those took into account. Often, the finding aids,or box inventories, were viewed as the best source of metadata for cat-aloging purposes. The special collections staff would be responsible forfinding this information to complete the metadata fields. Special collec-tions staff also assisted in developing subject headings that more accuratelydescribed the contents of the collection, which might not be describedwith subject headings catalogers usually used.11 Although placed in anadvisory role, the special collections had more input with regard to meta-data because they were dealing with a department on campus and not avendor.

In 1993, the University of Colorado special collections discovered thatthe automation and retroconversion of their materials would be beneficialnot only for access but for organization as well as for long-term planning.The catalog, both printed and electronic, is critical to the operation of aspecial collections since stacks are closed and accessible only by staff.The University of Colorado special collections department actually filledthe cataloging positions themselves by creating two positions, a catalogingsupervisor and a cataloger.12

Over the years, University of Colorado staff created the printed cardcatalog using acquisition slips with no authority files. The migration ofthat information into a metadata format posed problems because of pastpractices that allowed variations in subject and added entries. Former staffrelied on institutional memory to piece together the details of collections.This would not help with establishing good access points for searches.They viewed collection-level cataloging as a way to establish some controlover the collection first before turning to individual items. Project staffestablished control in three ways: physical, intellectual, and administrative.The cataloging supervisor handled the physical control because of theneed to intimately know how the stacks were organized. Some recordsin the special collections allowed for development of more access points,which might or might not have been useful as metadata. However, mostrecords contained only one access point for each title. Known as the FileSurvey, the process carried on for a long time and required additionalassistance from other staff members in special collections.13 Another stepwas the collection survey to describe every collection in the department.The staff chose appropriate metadata, such as the collection name, scope,size, arrangement, cataloging status, and provenance.14

During the entire process, arrangement greatly improved, making re-trieval and reshelving much easier. Documenting the process was just

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

108 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

as important for those who would come along later and decide that theyneeded to change the system. The future archivists would not face the sameproblems as the special collection catalogers did when they attempted todecipher the arrangement and description of items in the card catalog.In meetings with other departments about the automation process at theuniversity library, the special collections staff was prepared with specificinformation about access points and nonstandard classification require-ments that they were much more familiar with than if others from outsidethe department completed the work for them. In the end, the special col-lections developed their metadata for handling both the cataloged anduncataloged materials in their department.15 This example shows the ben-efits of a special collections department handling the metadata because ofthe opportunity for the establishment of good control after years of neglect.

Collection-level cataloging can be important for researchers becausethey may not know about a specific author or title but they may knowwhat they are looking for as a subject or information in other fields suchas genre and other subjects. In 1991, Cornell University’s French Rev-olution Collection took advantage of the possibilities of collection-levelcataloging and used metadata from a database they already had createdto design those records so that they could be searchable through the on-line catalog. They decided to use Research Library Information Networkarchival and manuscripts control (RLIN AMC) files and RLIN’s visualmaterials file (VIM) to design the collection-level records, which was veryuseful for backlogs of materials such as pamphlets and other ephemera.16

New tools such as the Archvists’ Toolkit17 improve on this idea by es-tablishing an internal way to track similar characteristics of numerouscollections.

What these experiences show is that archivists gradually became morecomfortable with handling more of the metadata in the records. Althoughthey had understood from the beginning the need to have different metadatathan the typical book record, there was a learning curve with the MARCformat that had to be considered before they could take more of the re-sponsibility. They also had to work with legacy metadata and databases.The special collections departments had not always been concerned withrigid standards like the technical services departments, but the electronicenvironment provided the chance to increase access and encourage thedevelopment of better standards nationwide.

As computer technology advanced through the 1990s, special collectionsstaff looked to utilize those tools to expand access to materials, particularlyindividual items. Digitization of items, such as books and photographs,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 109

increased and archivists emphasized metadata to organize the files.18 Aswith the implementation of the MARC format, contact between technicalservices and special collections existed with regard to digital projects, butspecial collections found they also required assistance from the computersystems staff. Special collections archivists also began serving as liaisonsbetween departments. MARC collaboration and record creation assists withfuture digital projects because some metadata will already be available andcontacts with other library departments will already have been made.19 Insome cases computer systems departments may not be involved. Softwareincreasingly includes tools to transform one metadata standard to another,such as MARC to EAD.20 A well-structured backlog MARC project createsa solid metadata foundation for future digital projects.21

In 1995, a project at Northern Arizona University Special Collectionsand Archives Department developed a project to digitize collections withsignificant research value. The special collections archivists contacted com-puter systems specialists on campus rather than the technical services de-partment. Once the computer hardware was set up, the special collectionsarchivists used MARC records for their basic metadata information andthat was converted into HTML for posting on Web sites for the individual,item-level image. So, the special collections department handled most ofthe work in-house, except for some of the support from the campus com-puter systems office.22 Even with substantial work completed, metadata,such as controlled vocabulary, may have to be adjusted later on for differ-ent projects.23 As with MARC in the 1980s, special collections are stillnegotiating what they can and cannot handle with regard to digitization.The main difference is the involvement of computer systems departmentsin addition to cataloging personnel from technical services.24

Working with the MARC records, though, can help considerably withpreparing for the other projects, such as EAD, because of the need to find aformat that can be applied to a wide range of materials and followed consis-tently. Unlike the MARC records, however, more assistance is needed fromthe library systems office rather than the technical services department.Even then, the special collections staff can complete a considerable amountof the markup language work and the development of metadata standards.25

Although special collections might want to use EAD by itself, it ismost useful when combined with the other descriptive practices previouslydescribed. EAD records can be linked to MARC records, expanding thesearch capabilities of collections. In addition, the EAD record might have alink to a digital item within the collection. Without a well-planned metadatascheme, however, this connection will be hard to design.26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

110 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

A shift took place in the handling of metadata as special collectionsdescription practices evolved from MARC to digitization and EAD, butspecial collections archivists remained involved with the appropriate useof metadata so that their materials would be adequately described. Theresponsibility for the actual creation moved back and forth between specialcollections staff and other departments within and outside the university astechnology changed. With the increased use of the MARC format, specialcollections archivists began to understand the importance of standardsto not only adequately describe the records but to increase the searchcapability, and this idea migrated to planning for digital image managementand EAD.

THE ACUA BACKLOG PROJECT

In the end, all of the projects required a great deal of collaborationand time. I could not immediately begin cataloging the backlog until Iworked at ACUA and understood what had already been accomplished asfar as collection description. The technical and computer aspects also hadto be recognized. Descriptions for many collections existed on the ACUAWeb site, and some of this information had been entered into an internalFileMaker Pro database. Ultimately, I argued for a full implementation ofthe catalog project as part of my contribution to a strategic plan meeting inMay 2006. Although I had already been working on completing templatesand style sheets for the workflow for creating MARC records, the meetingprovided an opportunity to present a structured plan.

Prior to the meeting, I contacted the cataloger in the main library inthe fall of 2005 to float the idea of cataloging the manuscript collections.I naively sent the cataloger a MARC template that I used at a previousuniversity special collections job. The difference was that the previousuniversity library staff included a special collections cataloger, and theestablished workflow required the archivist to send over only a Worddocument in MARC format to the cataloger. After sending my e-mailand attachment with a sample record, I soon realized this was not the samesituation at all. I decided the MARC record would be something for anothertime and began work on creating an in-house EAD project, which, little didI know, would become the basis for successfully creating a MARC recordworkflow as well.

Based on Extensible Markup Language (XML), archivists have usedEAD since the late 1990s. ACUA created EAD finding aids through a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 111

collaborative group for a few years but decided prior to my employmentthat they would try an in-house project since the free software programNoteTab proved reliable for smaller repositories such as ACUA and wasrecommended by the EAD Cookbook. EAD description functions similarto MARC with regard to basic descriptive levels such as creator, title, andsubject headings. Corresponding MARC fields such as 100, 245, and 600are embedded in EAD template elements.27

While attending an EAD Roundtable meeting at the Society of AmericanArchivists meeting in August 2005, the subject of a conversion program forEAD to MARC arose, and someone verified this would soon be available.After returning from the conference, I inquired about this on the EADlistserv, and, in fact, Terry Reese at Oregon State University created a freesoftware program, MARCEdit, that converted EAD to MARCXML.28 Notonly did the MARCEdit software function in a similar way to NoteTabusing XML files and XSLT stylesheets, but the software also used theMARCXML to create DAT files that could be uploaded into catalogingsoftware (see Figures 1 and 2).29

FIGURE 1. Editing a MARCXML Record with NoteTab

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

112 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

FIGURE 2. Converting a MARCXML Record to a DAT file

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 113

After understanding more about exactly what I was planning, the tech-nology librarian and the systems librarian at CUA met with me at thearchives to discuss how to structure the project. Instead of sending theDAT file to the cataloger, the systems librarian suggested that he try outsome sample records and work out the inevitable bugs with me beforesending them to the cataloger to upload to the CUA library OPAC andOCLC. For instance, I had not included the correct indicators for the sub-ject headings to identify Library of Congress Subject Headings. Indicatorsrequired adjustment on several other fields, and issues with the dates ex-isted in the MARC 008 field. Although I knew from a course in libraryschool and from previous work experience the importance of correct fieldindicators, I realized that I still had a lot to learn to format the MARCrecords correctly. Fortunately, while all of this was going on, CUA Li-braries hosted a MARC21 introduction workshop on the CUA campus,which I attended. The workshop greatly enhanced my understanding of theleader and 008 fields, which I had not learned about much at all in libraryschool.30

After updating the stylesheets for the MARCEdit program to includethe appropriate indicators and other metadata, the technology librarian no-tified the cataloger about the project. I sent the cataloger the same testrecords, and the cataloger uploaded the records to both the library OPACand OCLC. Although the 856 link to the online finding aids appeared onthe library OPAC, this was not the case for OCLC. Also, the OCLC recordindicated the collection was an Internet resource rather than an archivalresource as the primary material. The latter problem was particularly trou-bling because the records would not show up if a user was specificallysearching for archival material on a specific topic that the archives mighthold. After several back-and-forth e-mails with the cataloger, the problemstill existed. Finally, for some unexplained reason, one of the records Ie-mailed and that the cataloger uploaded on OCLC did not contain the pre-viously mentioned problems. The 856 link appeared, and the record iden-tified the collection as an archival resource first and an Internet resourcesecond.

After sending over more records, the cataloger asked if I could changesome of the codes in the leader and 008 fields. The knowledge I gained inthe MARC21 class helped me greatly with this, and I was able to fulfill thisrequest. The main problem I encountered was that the cataloger viewed therecord with Voyager cataloging software, to which I did not have access.I saw the record in only MARCXML and DAT code formats. However,after consulting several Web sites, such as the Library of Congress and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

114 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

information from the MARC21 workshop, I figured out where to make thespecified changes.31

As of this writing, 135 MARC records have been reviewed and up-loaded to the library OPAC and OCLC. The ACUA manuscripts consistsof approximately three hundred collections, and about one hundred ofthese are small manuscripts, meaning each collection contains one lin-ear foot or less of material. Fortunately, ACUA uses a FileMaker Prodatabase to keep track of collections. Many of the FileMaker Pro fieldsmap to MARC fields, so the student worker who assisted me created orentered data into fields in existing records then exported the records intoXML format. From there, the records are processed in batch format withMARCEdit.

The end result was not only a MARC record for every manuscriptcollection, but also the creation of a processing plan. As each collection wascataloged, notes were compiled that described the level of each collection.The description levels were also entered into the database. This was partof the project to create MARC records for each manuscript collectionprior to completely processing each one. Researchers can find out if ourrepository has a given collection through OCLC even if there is no findingaid or preliminary inventory, especially since some collections may neverhave a complete finding aid if material continues to be accessioned as“living” collections. The access to manuscript catalog records may be evenmore significant for researchers with the increasing availability of OCLC’sWorldCat.32

CONCLUSION

The creation of MARC records before fully processing a collectionmight not be the ideal practice, but ACUA already completed many pre-liminary inventories and collection descriptions for unprocessed collec-tions and made decisions about processing priorities resulting in fullyprocessed collections when available staff existed. So, a workflow forcreating MARC records for unprocessed collections fit in well with estab-lished in-house practice. In the most recent SAA manual on arrangementand description, Kathleen Roe advised creating a MARC record from“the fuller inventory or finding aid,” as did Frederic Miller in his manualwhen he described the MARC record as “an abstract of the core find-ing aid.” However, as Mark Greene and Dennis Meissner note in “MoreProduct, Less Process,” Roe suggested in an earlier guidelines manual for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 115

the New York Documentary Heritage Program that collection-level de-scription could be adequately produced from accession information anda brief survey of the materials.33 I decided that to create MARC recordsfor all of the manuscript collections would at least describe them on asimilar level for researcher access, and if a collection description changedafter additional processing, the MARC record could be updated in theOPAC and OCLC. Describing collections in MARC format also createda foundation for repurposing the MARC metadata for potential digitalprojects.34

That is not to say there were not advantages to begin the cataloging withcollections that already had finding aids. The initial focus on the creationof MARC records for those ACUA manuscript collections that alreadyhad finding aids reflected the thinking behind the project at Wichita StateUniversity, where metadata extraction relied on finding aids for description.The ACUA project also focused on those collections with finding aidsbecause of the access provided with the 856 field to link to the finding aidsfrom the MARC records in the OPAC and on WorldCat. Unlike the TexasA&M AMIGOS project of the early 1980s, outsourcing for the ACUAproject was not considered. The free software along with experience Igained from the EAD project, the MARC workshop, and the collaborationwith the CUA library allowed for an in-house project. The expense ofsending out the records would have almost certainly prevented the backlogproject from being pursued.

As with the University of Colorado project, the ACUA project resultedin the clarification of confusing collection titles. The title variations thatexisted at ACUA, such as “typescript” or “diary,” were consolidated underthe more standard archival terminology of “papers,” “records,” or “collec-tion” when the collections included more than one item. There were alsoincorrect titles or descriptions, such as a collection named for a man butthat was actually his wife’s papers. Many of the fields in the FileMakerPro database corresponded with MARC fields, but not all were exportedinto XML, such as the Related Materials field. The collection database wasmeant to include all information about a collection such as shelf locationand information about inventories, so the project included the comple-tion of this information about each manuscript collection. The project alsoeliminated the confusing Small manuscript (Smanu) designation, and thosecollections were assigned a numerical collection number that would ap-pear as part of the call number in the CUA OPAC. Unlike the Universityof Colorado position, I essentially made the cataloger position part of theprocessing archivist position at ACUA and used a student employee who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

116 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

had been working on EAD conversion to assist with the cataloging usinga template I modified with local adjustments.

Although ACUA holds many books and serials related to particularmanuscript collections, these were left uncataloged. For instance, re-searchers have used the CIO News to supplement their documentation whileusing the Records of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Holdingsin the Catholic University Archives, such as theses and dissertations, alsocover subject matter similar to many of the manuscript collections. Thislink between nonmanuscript material might be easier to make in the futureusing the Archivists’ Toolkit, which provides subject level access acrossall materials held in the archives. With manuscript collection records inMARC format, the records can be uploaded to Archvists’ Toolkit, alongwith collection-level periodical records or University Archives titles thatalready have MARC records as well. Even if an institution is not usingArchivists’ Toolkit, using software to create MARC records in MAR-CXML format can help format the metadata as a foundation for collectionmanagement software specifically created for archives to combine acces-sioning, processing, and finding aid creation.

Using software designed for archives to streamline MARC recordcreation meshes well with the most recent literature discussing imple-mentation of Greene/Meissner. In “Accessioning as Processing,” ChristineWeiderman argued the time, budget, and personnel constraints at academicinstitutions render folder-level processing difficult if not impossible tocomplete for every collection. As Weiderman noted, processing onlycertain parts of collections or having donors complete more informationabout the collection is crucial to saving time.35 I would argue that technol-ogy is just as important. Using technology for access can help overcomethese issues by using software such as NoteTab and MARCEdit that is freeand relatively easy to set up. In addition, creating records in MARCXMLallows them to be repurposed for EAD or uploaded into programs suchas Archivists’ Toolkit or ARCHON.36 In “Getting More for Less: Testinga New Processing Model at the University of Montana,” Donna E.McCrea presented strong evidence for the need to process collections toeliminate the backlog, including the creation of MARC records. However,the template her student assistant used was based on Microsoft Wordrather than another format that could potentially allow for repurposing.37

Although Word is a time-saving device in the short term, the long termvalue of creating records in a more transferable and nonproprietaryformat such as XML or MARC XML has become increasingly important,especially with especially with Archivists’ Toolkit and ARCHON that use

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 117

XML and databases. The challenge for archivists of providing access tospecial collections involves skills in both technical services and specialcollections librarianship. The methods of providing access to materialsin special collections departments have become more intertwined withadvances in technology as it has increased the options for informing thepublic about collections. At the same time, special collections continue toacquire materials that require description beyond what is typically used incataloging departments because of the wide variety of potential metadata.The changes in automation have also encouraged institutions to examinehow they can gain control over backlogs that had built up over the yearsbecause of inadequate systems to quickly catalog the materials.38

The amount of work archivists in special collections handle with re-gards to metadata varies depending on the institution, but there willprobably be the continuing need for outside consultation, especially asnew technologies emerge. The difference will be which other libraryor campus department is needed. Obviously the experience and num-ber of staff will affect this process. Issues of expense will always ex-ist, as well as creating metadata that enhances retrieval. Although spe-cial collections will always have the best interest of the materials,there are benefits to working with other departments on developingmetadata standards for repurposing metadata and working with digitalprojects.

The entire process of the ACUA backlog project from initial contactwith the cataloger to initiating a workflow for the cataloging of all of themanuscript collections lasted ten months. I had to consult not only with thelibrary cataloger, but also with the systems librarian and the technologylibrarian. Also, as with the case studies, the creation of a smooth workflowrequired months of ongoing work, discussion, and patience. Projects do notjust move by themselves once they begin; rather, they require constant su-pervision and correction along the way to be really successful. Perhaps justas important is that continuing education through conferences, workshops,literature, and Web sites is fundamentally important to project completion.Formal degree education is a good foundation, but by no means the fi-nal word on how to develop professionally.39 However, formal educationdid prepare me for periodically working alone and establishing contactsoutside of the archives and special collections. As I discovered, work en-vironments today, especially at the university level, often have more thanone archivist in special collections, but individual archivists can easily findthemselves in charge of projects because of time, knowledge skills, andadministrative structure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

118 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

NOTES

1. Joseph M. Turrini, “Catholic Social Action at Work: A Brief History of theLabor Collections at The Catholic University of America,” The American Archivist 67(Spring/Summer 2004): 130–151.

2. The formal name is the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections. Website available at http://libraries.cua.edu/rarecoll/index.html.

3. The Oliveira Lima Library functions as a department directly under theCUA Provost rather than the Director of the Libraries. Web site available athttp://libraries.cua.edu/limacoll/index.html.

4. The Semitics/ICOR Library primarily supports the Department of Semitic andEgyptian Languages and Literatures and its Institute of Christian Oriental Research.Web site available at http://libraries.cua.edu/semicoll/index.html.

5. Suzy Taraba, “Administering the Cataloging of Special Collections Materials,”Rare Books & Manuscripts Librarianship 7, no. 2 (1992): 90.

6. Sharon Moynahan, “Bringing in the Sheep: Using Insourcing to Access Depart-mental Resources,” Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 28, no. 4 (1999): 96, 100,103; Steven L. Hensen, Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A CatalogingManual for Archival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manuscript Libraries(Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1983), vol. 3.

7. Steven L. Hensen, “Archival Cataloging and the Internet: The Implications andImpact of EAD,” Journal of Internet Cataloging 4, nos. 3–4 (2001): 86.

8. Patrick H. Kellough and Christine E. Thompson, “Network/Library CooperativeCataloging: The AMIGOS-Texas A&M Experience,” Technicalities 7 (May 1987): 8.

9. Ibid., 8–10.10. Nancy Deyoe and Michael Kelly, “On Your Marc, Get Ready, Access: Pro-

viding Access to Manuscript Materials at Wichita State University,” in The Best forthe Patron: Proceedings of the Research Forum, Academic Library Section, MountainPlains Library Association (Emporia: State University Press, 1990), 60.

11. Ibid., 61.12. Emily Epstein, “Masters of All We Survey: Preparation for Cataloging Special

Collections,” Technical Services Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1995): 1–2.13. Ibid., 2–4, 7–9.14. Ibid., 9-1–2, 9–12.15. Ibid, 13–14.16. Margaret F. Nichols, “Finding the Forest Among the Trees: The Potential of

Collection-Level Cataloging,” Cataloging and Classification 23, no. 1 (1996): 56–57,59, 65.

17. Archivists’ Toolkit Project. Web site available at http://www.archiviststoolkit.org.

18. M. Winslow Lundy, “Use and Perception of the DRCB Core Standard,” LibraryResources and Technical Services 47, no. 1 (2003): 25.

19. Faye Phillips, “Managing the Special Collections Department in the DigitalWorld: A Case Study of Cooperation and Innovation,” OCLC Systems & Services 18,no. 1 (2002): 52, 54–56; Tatiana G. Barr, “Opening Up Special Collections to the Pub-lic: A Partnership Between Cataloging and the Special and Area Studies Collections

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

William Jordan Patty 119

Department at the University of Florida,” Technical Services Quarterly 21, no. 4 (2004)34–37, 39.

20. Aimee Fifarek, “Celebrating History and Innovation: The Louisiana PurchaseDigital Library Project at Louisiana State University,” OCLC Systems & Services 18,no. 4 (2002): 187, 191.

21. Michael Boock et al., “Getting Digitization Projects Done in a Medium-SizedAcademic Library: A Collaborative Effort Between Technical Services, Systems, Spe-cial Collections, and Collection Management” Technical Services Quarterly 20, no. 3(2003): 19–22, 24, 28, 30–31.

22. Susan Alden, “Digital Imaging on a Shoestring: A Primer for Librarians,”Information Technology and Libraries 15, no. 4 (1996), 248.

23. Bart Ragan, “Castles Made of Sand: Building Sustainable Digitized CollectionsUsing XML,” Computers in Libraries 23, no. 6 (2003): 10, 12, 63.

24. Peter B. Hirtle, “The Impact of Digitization on Special Collections in Libraries,”Libraries & Culture 37, no. 1 (2002), 49–51.

25. Leslie A. Morris, “Developing a Cooperative Intra-institutional Approachto EAD Implementation: The Harvard/Radcliffe Digital Finding Aids Project,” inEncoded Archival Description: Context, Theory, and Case Studies (Chicago: Societyof American Archivists, 1998), 110, 112–113, 115–116.

26. Steven L. Hensen, “Archival Cataloging and the Internet.”27. NoteTab Web site available at http://www.notetab.com; EAD Cookbook Web

site available at http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/ead/ead2002cookbook.html.28. MARCEdit Web site available at http://oregonstate.edu/∼reeset/marcedit/html;

MARCXML Web site available at http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/.29. “DAT files are data files, usually comma delimited, that contain data in ASCII

format. These files are able to be open in a variety of programs including MicrosoftWord and Microsoft Notepad,” Queensland Government Department of Educationand the Arts Web site, available at http://education.qld.gov.au/about/files/dat.html (Ac-cessed September 22, 2006).

30. Deborah Fritz of TMQ, Inc. taught the workshop and distributed a workbook“MARC21 in Your Library.” The MARC of Quality (TMQ) Web site is available athttp://www.marcofquality.com; Library of Congress Authorities Web site available athttp://authorities.loc.gov.

31. The Library of Congress MARC Standards Web site is available athttp://www.loc.gov/marc/.

32. For more on the creation of a processing plan and living collections, see PamHackbart-Dean and Christine De Catanzaro, “The Strongest Link: The Managementand Processing of Archival Collections,” Archival Issues 27, no. 2 (2002): 125–136;A basic version of WorldCat is now available without cost, and anyone can embed asearch box on their Web site or blog. WorldCat applications for Facebook, Firefox,and Google are also available. OCLC Web site available at http://www.worldcat.org/.Accessed November 7, 2006.

33. Kathleen Roe, Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts (Chicago:Society of American Archivists, 2005), 89; Frederic Miller, Arranging and DescribingArchives and Manuscripts (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1990), 116; MarkA. Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping TraditionalArchival Processing,” American Archivist 68, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2005), 248; During

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

120 JOURNAL OF ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION

the RLG Members Forum at the 2006 SAA conference, Tom Hyry discussed theGreene and Meissner article and noted that the creation of a workflow for the backlogthat can be completed by a student worker allows the full-time processing archivist toconcentrate on collections that require more intensive work. The panel discussions areavailable online at the RLG Web site at: http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page ID =20968 (Last accessed September 22, 2006.

34. Martin Kurth, David Ruddy, and Nathan Rupp, “Repurposing MARC Meta-data: Using Digital Project Experience to Develop a Metadata Management Design,”Library Hi Tech 22, no. 2 (2004): 153

35. Christine Weidman, “Accessioning as Processing,” The American Archivist 69(Fall/Winter 2006), 274–277.

36. The Archon Project Web site available at http://www.archon.org.37. Donna E. McCrea, “Getting More for Less: Testing a New Processing Model at

the University of Montana,” The American Archivist 69 (Fall/Winter 2006), 284–287.38. Beth M. Russell, “Looking for Someone Special: Special Collections Cat-

aloging, 1980–2000 and Beyond,” Library Resources and Technical Services47 no. 4 (2003), 149–150, 154, 156, 159. For further information on the ef-forts of the Association of Research Libraries to expose hidden collections, seehttp://www.arl.org/rtl/speccoll/hidden/.

39. To this effect, I enrolled as a noncredit student in the advanced catalogingcourse offered by the CUA Library School in the 2006 fall semester.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

56 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014