Revisiting Archive CollectionsJon Newman & Len Reilly

For

Revisiting Archive Collections

Developing a methodology for capturing and incorporating new and hidden information into archive catalogues.

Context

User-generated content

National Agendas

ICT developments

Customer-focused culture

Professional cataloguing

standards

< ? >

National agendas Access, Inclusion, Cultural Diversity, ‘Relevance’ Community Engagement PIs/Standards

Current debate over Archive Self-assessment Funding

Customer-focused cultureAn expectation that individual voices are heard

& valued: feedback, consultation Citizen Journalism/Social Media

‘stories told from a position of first hand knowledge and partiality’

Reality television Public History

‘The democratisation of the academy’

ICT developments Web 2.0 Social Networking sites

blogs, chat rooms ‘wiki’ sites Folksonomies Review sites – restaurants, hotels, cinema, hospitals E-petitions

‘Crowdsourcing’ The ESP Game

Professional Cataloguing Standards ‘Provider capture’? Acknowledging the suppressed first-person

prefixes in catalogue description: ‘I think that this is…’ ‘I think the important features of this are…’

Backlogs v. Revisiting Comparison with museum standards

Current Archive Initiatives 1 Cataloguing projects using a cultural focus

TNA’s Caribbean Heritage project Birmingham’s ‘Connecting Histories’

Cataloguing projects using a community focus Tyne & Wear’s Swan Hunter cataloguing project ESRO’s ‘Letter in the Attic’ project Revisiting Archives Collections pilot

Community Archives and post-custodial relationships CAAP Commanet Community Archives portal

Current Archive Initiatives 2 ‘Wiki’ approaches to capturing user input

TNA’s wiki site http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk

‘challenging the traditional methods of authorship… and facilitat[ing] the ´democratisation´ of history.’

University of Michigan’s Polar Bear Expedition project ‘current online finding aids merely reproduc[e] paper

finding aids without taking advantage of their electronic environment.’

Current Archive Initiatives 3But, they are generally Isolated Pragmatic Project-Based Impermanent Unsustainable

Revisiting Archive Collections

Developing a methodology for capturing and incorporating new and hidden information into archive catalogues.

Theoretical and Practical issues

What are the wider goals? Improve description and catalogues; Make archivists sensitive to collections and

their users; Use UGC to engage new audiences; Present new information; Improve service to existing users?

Who are the potential contributors? How identify them; How reach them; On what terms do they wish to participate –

how deal with IPR, what is their preferred method of participation?

Which materials are most suited to this approach?

Poorly catalogued material; Un-catalogued material; Heavily used material; Underused material; Material likely to interest specific groups; Material likely to hold concealed

significances?

What categories of new data is likely to be generated and what further problems do these raise ?

Un-contentious corrections; More detail at item level (greater precision); Broader representation of research areas the

material would support; Associations or observational responses?

New association or observationMy tribe is Manyema, this is Waha. This reminds me of the cultural tradition where we come from (the same region but different tribes) of playfully mocking each other. For example at our funerals the Waha come and help but try to make us laugh by joking about what has happened, which is their way of being there for you. At weddings you have to pay them their due, acknowledging their presence in your life for good fortune.

Tanzanian woman’s response to a photograph in RGS collection.

What are the most appropriate and productive strategies for effectively generating user generated content?

Face-to-face: with which groups; with which records?

On-line: what technical environment; how reach contributors; what interface; how sustain?

What are the most effective strategies for capturing new data? Face to face:

forms completed individually; by partner/interviewer; audio or video recording?

On-line: technical environment; how reach contributors; what interface; how sustain?

What level of editing will the new data require?

Accept uncritically

Mediate

Authenticate?

How and where should the new data be incorporated in descriptions and finding aids?

What is the relationship between new data and descriptive standards;

What is the relationship between the new data and offices’ views n the status of their descriptions;

Should the location of data influenced by information retrieval strategy of groups;

Do we know enough about information retrieval strategies of users and potential users;

How do description page layout, headings etc. influence catalogues’ effectiveness?

What anxieties is this likely to generate in the profession and how are they best assuaged?

Challenges the single, neutral professional voice; Challenges principle of only describing and indexing

where the material is rich in information; Impact on precision and recall; Accommodating data, subjects or terminology that

may age (in terms of language or research interest)?

(How) can this approach be made persistent and sustainable? Can UGC be used universally or must it be targeted

to which collections using which focus groups to which potential user group;

Is the focus group approach applicable to all materials/groups/descriptions that would benefit;

How do we sustain the link between new data that lives outside ISAD(G) boundaries;

How do we sustain in the face of the changing research interests of future generations?

What are the most effective strategies for publishing and disseminating new descriptions and finding aids?

How publish and distribute new descriptions;

What is the best link between authoritative description and UGC

how does this work in paper and electronic contexts;

How do ISAD(G) and EAD support UGC;

How to market and promote new descriptions;

How evaluate the impact of user generated content?

Against the wider goals How do users treat the new data Could professional staff (or more of them

with more time) produce equally effective results?