Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

Sweetser, Michelle; Orchard, Alexandra A. A.

doi:10.17723/aarc-82-02-18

ABSTRACT

Traditionally, archival description remained distinct from bibliographic description due to differences in material format, usage, and professional traditions. However, archival descriptive standards and practice have undergone numerous changes in recent years. This evolution is in part due to the advent of MARC and its adoption by the academic archives community. How much influence has the use of MARC and overall bibliographic description had on academic archival description as well as on the collaboration between traditional catalogers and archivists? To address this question, this article presents the findings of a landscape survey of the Association of Research Libraries members' descriptive practices surrounding MARC records, linked and embedded metadata, and authority records. Survey responses indicate that archival descriptive work remains concentrated in the archival domain, with archivists creating description as one component of job responsibilities at most institutions. Descriptive work—including MARC record creation—has not been passed off to cataloging colleagues despite their longer professional experience with the standard even though the OPAC is the most commonly cited archival information system available to respondents. Decisions about appropriate levels of description, standards to be employed, workflows, and other factors related to archival description do not appear to rely on external buy-in or approval in most repositories, and descriptive practices employ a mix of standards from both the archival and bibliographic traditions. These and other findings provide a baseline understanding of current archival descriptive practices and workflows, enhancing our ability to improve archival description and therefore findability and access to archival materials.

Description, Cataloging, Encoded Archival Description (EAD), Metadata

Archival descriptive standards and praxis have undergone numerous changes in recent years. To understand the current archival descriptive landscape including the assignment of responsibility for bibliographic and archival cataloging, as well as the relationship between archivists and catalogers, and technical services departments and archival units, we examined past descriptive practices and crafted a survey to document and analyze current practices. Given that the creation of MARC^¹ records has become increasingly common within academic archival repositories in the thirty-five years since its adoption,^² we questioned whether workflows remain split between cataloging and archival units, or if archivists frequently find themselves in the role of cataloger, with or without experience in that role. By understanding the evolution of archival descriptive standards, the archival profession's use of bibliographic standards, and the historic relationships between archivists and catalogers, we hope to shed light on how a bifurcation of responsibilities emerged. Through a survey of the current descriptive landscape, the profession can come to better understand prevailing descriptive workflows and what effect those workflows have on how archival materials are described. These data provide insights into what standards are currently in use and to what extent, and how this adoption of standards and workflows impacts profession-wide efforts to increase findability and accessibility of archival materials.

Literature Review

To understand the current archival description landscape, it is necessary to review how modern archival description began and evolved alongside bibliographic description.

Archival Description: 1970s to Present

With the development of the MARC AMC (Machine Readable Cataloging Archives and Manuscripts Control) standard, the archival profession added a new tool to increase discoverability of archival materials. While imperfect in its representation of archival hierarchy and relationships, its structure conformed enough to traditional archival description that many repositories chose to implement the MARC AMC standard, thus enabling representation of archival collections alongside library materials in library catalogs and bringing together the realms of archival and bibliographic description.

Archival collections^³ represent unique accumulations of material; generally speaking, each exists as a single instance and no collection at any other repository can be described in exactly the same manner. This emphasis on uniqueness both in terms of the materials' description and as a primary source has limited the archival profession's ability to standardize both archival description and structures. Emphasizing context and hierarchy, archival description begins at the collection level and iterates down to the lowest level necessary (e.g., series, subseries, folder, item) as determined by the archivist. Archival description may include item-level description; though this is less common in modern archival descriptive practices, it continues to exist within legacy finding aids created over decades by predecessors and may be employed when describing some small, specialized, digitized, or born-digital collections. This hierarchical descriptive practice can provide significant benefit by drawing attention to the multitude of items that comprise an archival collection.^⁴ The finding aid, combining a narrative with details on creator(s), scope, and contents as well as a box and folder list, reflected the profession's notion of archival description prior to the advent of bibliographic standards, the Internet, and digitization efforts.^⁵ Over time, the profession has come to embrace a broader definition of description as an ongoing process that centers around the notion of control. The Working Group on Standards for Archival Description proposed in 1989 that “archival description is the process of capturing, collating, analyzing, and organizing any information that serves to identify, manage, locate, and interpret the holdings of archival institutions and explain the contexts and records systems from which those holdings were selected.”^⁶

In contrast, bibliographic description typically employed by catalogers^⁷ describes a single item at a single level. It focuses on the item as artifact rather than providing additional contextual information as done by archival description, lending bibliographic records a standardization, both in description and structure. This standardization makes bibliographic records reusable by other institutions, often with only minimal changes.

By the early 1970s, MARC had become the US national standard for bibliographic data transmission; catalogers had more than a decade of implementation experience before MARC AMC was approved in 1983 and published by the Library of Congress in 1984. Prior to the adoption of the MARC AMC standard, archival repositories operated in an extremely siloed and insular world. As archivists, like their library colleagues, came to embrace the sharing of descriptive information through technological means, they realized that standards and collaboration would be required if descriptive data was to be shared and reused.^⁸ Idiosyncratic local practices could no longer be the norm, and the profession began to look outside of individual repositories to establish acceptable practices. With no archival organization poised to lead the development of archival description standards, “[National Information Systems Task Force] NISTF^⁹ concluded that the best way to pursue archival descriptive standards was through an adaptation of MARC cataloging and that active participation in that process might yield a satisfactory result over which archivists could maintain some measure of control.”^¹⁰ It was at this point that “archival descriptive work should no longer be considered completely different from other cataloging practices.”^¹¹ While description of archival materials had previously resided squarely in the purview of the archivist,^¹² those at institutions with independent cataloging departments could, after the adoption of MARC AMC, draw upon the related MARC expertise of colleagues within the institution, forming new relationships, collaborations, and workflows for bibliographic description of archival materials.

Through a succession of National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants, the Society of American Archivists (SAA) from 1985 to 1989 offered numerous workshops, presentations, and publications on the MARC AMC format, training individuals from more than 140 repositories throughout the United States in the format. MARC AMC adoption was further advanced by the National Historic Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC)–funded government records projects run through the Research Libraries Group (RLG) and resulting in publications that provided examples and recommendations for the use of the format. At the same time, NHPRC funding of the Working Group on Standards for Archival Description (WGSAD) led to increased systematization in standards development and approval.^¹³ As the WGSAD wrote in the introduction to a fall 1989 report in a special section of American Archivist, “The unthinkable happened. Archivists, struggling to absorb the unfamiliar notions and language of MARC, began talking to librarians and other information professionals for whom standards of one kind or another were part of their vocabulary.”^¹⁴

These grant-funded activities ushered in the adoption of the MARC AMC standard. Within nine years of its approval, 57.1% (80) of academic archives responding to a survey on its use reported using MARC AMC.^¹⁵ At the time, the majority (60%) were doing this descriptive work collaboratively, with 35% reporting archivists working individually, and 5% reporting catalogers working by themselves.^¹⁶ Retrospective cataloging projects providing initial opportunities for archivists and catalogers to work together met with mixed results: successful collaborations between units as well as challenges are documented in the literature. Mark A. Vargas and Janet Padway called attention to the need for clear definition of job responsibilities and the importance of ongoing communication.^¹⁷ Given the intricacies of cataloging rules and cataloging systems, archivists who previously relied on the finding aid or inventory as a primary mode of archival description and found themselves tasked with cataloging responsibilities frequently required crash-courses in cataloging and opportunities for consistent hands-on use of those cataloging skills.^¹⁸ Pointing to these differences in education and training, Susan Hamburger suggested, “The project manager needs to ask if the processing archivists can learn and correctly apply cataloging principles, if book catalogers can adapt their knowledge and skills to encoding collections rather than single items . . .”^¹⁹ In other words, questions emerged in the 1980s and 1990s about the degree to which archivists and catalogers should remain specialists with their own domain knowledge and specializations, and, as a result, workflows for bibliographic cataloging of archival materials varied from institution to institution.

Historically, a division of cataloging labor accrued a number of benefits, including efficiencies.^²⁰ Individuals assigned cataloging responsibility who dedicated time exclusively to that role become more experienced at and productive in those tasks.^²¹ Catalogers in many institutions were thus assigned areas of specialization, reinforcing expertise and increasing efficiency in their particular areas of knowledge. Over time, this relegated archival cataloging to the periphery because bibliographic catalogers prioritized materials that were quick to process and reflected more familiar rules and formats. As Padway explains, “Nontraditional and ephemeral materials, archival collections, and materials in foreign languages and in unusual formats will wait—sometimes for years—to be processed after the English-language monographs and serials.”^²² Unlike their library colleagues in cataloging or interlibrary loan departments, archivists employing MARC AMC did not amass the same efficiencies of copy cataloging, thus requiring more human resources to complete original cataloging for each collection; some institutions chose to prioritize other work.^²³ Some early adopters saw increased use of collections after cataloging projects,^²⁴ while others did not,^²⁵ calling into question the return on the investment of time and resources. To this day, one can find repositories that have not created MARC records for all of their archival collections, investing descriptive resources for some collections, but not all.

A division of labor for bibliographic and archival cataloging also reflected the structural arrangement and positioning of the archives within parent institutions.^²⁶ In many institutions, archives have been a peripheral part of library operations, physically located in the same building or organizationally under the same operational division, but considered intellectually separate, foreign, and difficult to understand, the realm of a specialist. Archivists were further cut off intellectually from much of the rest of the library due to their own distinct practices, which embraced the creation of bibliographic records well after traditional library catalogers did so.^²⁷ Given the inherent differences between the professions and the entrenched separation often found in libraries at academic institutions, some institutions continued to operate parallel descriptive units; others passed responsibilities for MARC description from archival units to cataloging units, building on the expertise the catalogers had developed. For these and other reasons, an array of localized approaches emerged and responsibility for bibliographic cataloging of archival materials came to reside in a variety of units.^²⁸ The trend, however, appears to be moving toward bringing the two together physically or organizationally. Geoff Brown and Kathryn Harvey credit a shared physical location as essential to their project's success at Dalhousie University.^²⁹ Carol Ou, Katherine Rankin, and Cyndi Shein describe the creation of a technical services department focused on archival description and collection management within special collections and archival units at the University of Nevada–Las Vegas in 2014, noting that while their responsibility was to improve access to and discovery of archival collections, their success also depended upon collaboration with a more traditional and broadly focused cataloging team within the library's Discovery Services Department.^³⁰

Archival versus Bibliographic Description

Concurrent with the adoption of MARC AMC, Steven Hensen's Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A Cataloging Manual for Archival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manuscript Libraries (APPM) brought rules for data content standardization to the archival profession in 1983. APPM was the archival answer to Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2), chapter 4, published in 1978, which provided instructions for cataloging manuscript materials. AACR2 reconciled many of the contradictions in AACR, adopted in 1967.^³¹ As described by Steven Hensen, AACR2, chapter 4, remained insufficient in its handling of archival description due to

[. . .] a failure to distinguish sufficiently between the bibliographic nature and requirements of published and unpublished materials. [Which] was, in turn, related to some general misunderstandings regarding the nature of archival description. These were reflected most particularly in the failure to place the proper emphasis on the needs of collection or series level description, or to recognize that archival description was not “static” in the same way that bibliographic description was.^³²

Major issues with AACR2 rectified by APPM included legitimizing the finding aid as a source for bibliographic description, providing description instructions, and improving provisions for collection-level description and the inherent recognition of contextual importance.^³³

MARC AMC cataloging projects undertaken during this period underscored the limitations of MARC AMC in representing archival collections and confirmed that “catalog records are not as representative of archival materials as the traditional documentation created by archivists.”^³⁴ Even as archives began creating bibliographic records, the preferred method for describing archival materials was and remains the finding aid^³⁵ (developed entirely within the purview of the archivist and prior to the advent of technologies that allowed for its sharing and delivery online), due to its ability to represent hierarchical relationships. As the Internet matured and archivists realized that they could increase the public's awareness of collections by placing finding aids online, a new data structure emerged in the form of Encoded Archival Description (EAD).^³⁶ The 1998 release of EAD Version 1.0 provided a standard organized around the finding aid's intellectual structure designed for online availability and aggregated to facilitate search and discovery across repositories. EAD's standardization and online delivery were envisioned as having the potential to enhance the discoverability of archival materials as MARC records and union catalogs had for library materials, but in an archival rather than a bibliographic structure.^³⁷ Essentially, EAD would be to finding aids what MARC was to a title card in a card catalog.

EAD has proven successful for providing a machine-readable structure paralleling the hierarchical nature of archival description, but it has not enjoyed widespread adoption. Barriers to EAD adoption are well documented throughout the literature.^³⁸ Some challenges, such as the lack of browsers able to display EAD without first converting to HTML, have been resolved, but other obstacles persist, including a lack of staff, development of workflows for encoding and online delivery, budgetary resources, and a desire to edit and revise legacy finding aids to bring them into compliance with DACS or other modern-day standards. However, EAD implementation has been wholesale in some repositories, generating increased opportunities for collaboration as well as theoretical and practical projects involving both catalogers and archivists working to crosswalk data between systems representing the bibliographic and archival (this will be discussed further). Despite these collaborations, actual EAD creation (unlike MARC) is generally limited to archivists.^³⁹

DACS and RDA—Combining Content and Structural Standards

As archivists and catalogers continued to apply and refine their own structural standards,^⁴⁰ content standards progressed. The 2004 release of Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS), expanded to include authority description in 2013, provided archivists with an up-to-date descriptive standard designed to work in multiple outputs, including EAD. DACS accommodates both single and multilevel description as required; combinations of its twenty-five elements fulfill required, optimum, and added-value levels of description. Individual DACS-formatted elements inserted into EAD's structural elements create an output that can be searched in a structured way. As archivists began to transition from APPM to DACS, catalogers faced their own shift in content standards with the 2010 publication of AACR2's successor, Resource Description and Access (RDA). The progression in description from AACR2 to RDA brought major changes for catalogers, but for archivists who were already familiar with bibliographic standards, the changes were minor as DACS already included them.^⁴¹

With descriptive responsibilities situated in both archives and cataloging units, each with their own professional standards and frames of reference, institutions faced choices about how to catalog their materials, and the flexibility of the standard allowed for a variety of local practices. The same records could be cataloged following AACR2 or APPM conventions, using DACS or RDA standards, with each institution making the choice based on local practices and influences. Despite the similarities between DACS and RDA, many institutions used one or both of the standards in their day-to-day work, depending on who was creating the description, the output tool or framework for sharing, and local practices and preferences. For example, some academic institutions implemented DACS within their finding aid systems, but described the same materials using RDA within MARC-based systems such as the library's online public access catalog (OPAC).^⁴² Others chose to use DACS within both systems. As of 2014, DACS appeared to be the preferred content standard for description of archival materials, with 75.9% of respondents in a survey conducted by Karen Gracy and Frank Lambert reporting use of DACS for archival description.^⁴³ While Gracy and Lambert inquired about respondents' awareness of RDA and whether discussions had taken place within repositories about its implementation, the survey did not capture data on actual use of RDA or the potential for use of both RDA and DACS in different forms of archival description within a single institution (e.g., RDA in catalog records and DACS in finding aids). A reported 26.2% indicated that their repositories were considering updating their information systems for RDA. This update could possibly have been to accommodate a move away from DACS in favor of RDA, the adoption of RDA in place of AACR2, or a combination of factors. Regardless, while RDA may be selected as the single standard to describe all materials within the institution, this is perhaps more likely to occur in institutions where “library catalogers have the responsibility of creating bibliographic records at the collection level for archival materials”^⁴⁴ (emphasis added).

EAC-CPF—Archival Authority Records and Control

Traditional archival description did not separate authority control from the description of the archival material. Archival material is unique, as are its creators and subjects, therefore, archival practice precluded the creation and reuse of an authority record. However, this does not mean that authority content was not included in finding aids, it only indicates that authority information was not necessarily controlled, tracked, and reused as in bibliographic cataloging. This lack of control prevented interoperability between repositories (and collections within the same repository), inhibiting collection discovery through related persons and corporate bodies; findability that collections with authority records enjoyed. Lisa Weber describes the intermingling of creator and collection information in MARC AMC records, and the difficulty of modifying existing authority formats for archives' use.^⁴⁵ Similarly, David Bearman laments that traditional controlled vocabularies (e.g., the Library of Congress Name Authority file) are not diverse enough for archival materials.^⁴⁶

Alexander Thurman attributes the particular importance of authority description within the archival profession to the central principle of provenance, as well as the “compelling reasons to separate and formalize the collection and maintenance of this type of information.”^⁴⁷ Not until 2011, however, did the archival profession have an internal data structure standard to address authority records, Encoded Archival Context for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC-CPF), and not until DACS's second edition in 2013 did an authority content standard arise. Like EAD, EAC-CPF is hierarchical and has a nested structure for recording and capturing authority description. Initially, content standard guidelines referred to RDA, but a revision of DACS heeded Pitti's suggestion and separated authority from bibliographic control, providing an archives-specific content standard for authorities. Used together, EAC-CPF's and DACS's authority content standards would allow for reuse of authority records, linking relationships between authority and collection records, as well as archivists' professional capabilities to create the system Pitti had described in 2001.^⁴⁸

In contrast, authority control and bibliographic description have long been separated within the cataloging realm whereby a single record (i.e., an agent such as a personal name) serves as the authority record. This single authority record is reused thereafter, referenced in each bibliographic record of which it is the creator or subject. This process provides numerous benefits. Internally, it centralizes editing and updating work within the authority record only, improving efficiency and eliminating multiple records for the same agent. For users, Jinfang Niu notes that cataloging and its associated systems allow one to find all related content internally and across repositories through collocation and disambiguation by providing each agent a unique ID.^⁴⁹ Bibliographic cataloging practices and tools have developed to support authority work done in this manner. Archival collection management software, however, does not yet offer this support: “Until recently, archival collection management systems did not include functionality for any kind of structured authority metadata—and certainly not the export or sharing of these kinds of records.”^⁵⁰ Gracy and Lambert's 2014 study, which found only 5.1% (n = 16) of respondents used EAC-CPF, backs up this notion.^⁵¹

The ongoing inaccessibility (statistically) of materials described solely with archival structural standards (i.e., EAD and EAC-CPF) has undoubtedly helped drive the archival profession's continued desire to make materials discoverable in multiple systems (e.g., library systems with a larger user base). This often results in archivists and catalogers working together, commonly crosswalking data between siloed systems.

Using Multiple Standards to Increase Discoverability

Increasing numbers of institutions are moving to collection management tools like ArchivesSpace, which exports records in multiple bibliographic and archival description standards. As digitized and born-digital materials become more commonplace in archival and information systems, both archivists and catalogers must consider and reconcile the creation, capture, and transmission of metadata about those objects within their own spheres of influence (library catalogs and discovery layers versus digital, preservation, and finding aid repositories). Conversations about how to crosswalk and share description between systems and standards are an important part of the current professional dialogue.

Cross-community sharing of metadata is increasingly important to the profession, as attested by the multitude of crosswalking projects being undertaken. Cory Nimer and J. Gordon Daines suggest, “Perhaps by developing modular standards with a common core that allows for sharing of information, as well as extensions to meet the needs of different user communities we would be able to meet both goals.”^⁵² One such common discovery tool being adopted widely is ArchivesSpace, which, at the time of this writing,^⁵³ has over 400 members and additional use by nonmember institutions. ArchivesSpace provides collection management, discovery, and access functionalities as well as library and archival description standards for both collections (MARC, EAD) and authorities (EAC-CPF). One natural area for collaboration between archivists and catalogers is in the crosswalking between EAD and MARC schemas from the system. While each standard provides for description of archival materials, it is done at different levels, for different purposes, with different strengths, making them “not interchangeable.”^⁵⁴ Among MARC's positive attributes are its ability to provide both an overview of the collection and “serendipitous connection between users and materials via the catalog.”^⁵⁵ In contrast, EAD “creates a surrogate that is the equivalent of a model replica of the materials. The user can see the material as a whole, as well as get an in-depth glimpse into the structure and complexity of the material.”^⁵⁶ As a result of separate bibliographic and archival information platforms and a desire to facilitate discovery possibilities, institutions frequently create both types of records for a single collection, “[achieving] two goals: it uses existing mechanisms to facilitate creator, title, subject and keyword searches of archival holdings; and it also increases the profile of archival holdings, in particular amongst an academic population that might not normally consider archival resources.”^⁵⁷ Ou, Rankin, and Shein describe using ArchivesSpace in the development of workflows to crosswalk metadata from the system to MARC records. They stress how ArchivesSpace improved the efficiency in their work and helped to create collaborations between the Discovery Services and Special Collections Technical Services Departments with future partnerships expected.^⁵⁸ Collaborations such as these draw upon individual areas of expertise, assign clear responsibilities in alignment with that expertise, and result in less duplication of effort.^⁵⁹ Other benefits of the collaboration are increasing awareness of authority control and controlled vocabularies, appreciation of archival materials and description, and “the opportunity to set standards, bridge differences in descriptive schemes, and build a base from which it is possible to work toward increasingly sophisticated delivery of information resources.”^⁶⁰ As ArchivesSpace's adoption continues to expand, the number of projects bringing together archivists and catalogers from different parts of the organization are likely to increase.

As born-digital materials and digitized archival materials become more the norm, archival description must accommodate digital files. Whereas MARC and EAD records act as descriptive surrogates for the archival collections, digital files require additional description using a metadata schema (e.g., Dublin Core) linked or embedded within the file to meet digital preservation needs. This is additional work, which has led to a trend of integrating non-MARC metadata duties into the workload of traditional catalogers; digital projects represent a large portion of these kinds of work. A 2008 survey of members of four cataloging discussion lists by Marielle Veve and Melanie Feltner-Reichert found that “most of the endeavors to integrate non-MARC metadata duties into the work-flow of traditional catalogers at US academic institutions began in or after 2004, mainly prompted by an increasing number of digitized resources to catalog and an increasing demand by patrons for virtual access to library collections, rather than because of a decreasing number in print resources to catalog, as many believe.”^⁶¹ At that time, Veve and Feltner-Reichert found that “the trend in most US academic institutions that have integrated non-MARC metadata duties into the workflow of catalogers is to have five or fewer catalogers working with non-MARC metadata, most of them dedicating 20% or less of their time to the task.”^⁶² Catalogers primarily engaged with descriptive metadata, mirroring their expertise in describing materials, and most commonly employed the Dublin Core schema when not using MARC.

Where Archives Are Now

As Gracy and Lambert note, “The latest wave in archival description also attempts to bring several standards into alignment to increase interoperability among archives, libraries, and museums, thus requiring archivists to have some familiarity with standards that may formerly have been considered inapplicable to archives.”^⁶³ But how are descriptive standards being applied within archival repositories? And who is responsible for that work? As recently as 2014, archivists reportedly “feel considerable trepidation in their abilities to implement most standards, except for DACS. Thus, while many new standards are coming to fruition in the archival profession, the greatest challenge may be to help archivists learn about them and become confident in their application.”^⁶⁴ To control for a certain amount of variability in organizational structure and adoption of standards, this study seeks to establish baseline data about archival descriptive practices within academic institutions.

Methodology

Initial decisions on collection methodology, sample (size, type, contact method), and survey instrument development impacted both the data obtained and its interpretability.

Survey Development

The case studies in the literature review revealed limited data about current archival descriptive practices and responsibilities. To understand the broad landscape relative to current archival descriptive practices and to better inform subsequent research projects, a methodology that provided for collecting data from a large number of participants with minimal investment of time and other expenses was desired. Therefore, using an online survey distributed over email was the natural choice for data collection.

Sample

All repositories holding archival materials and affiliated with a college or university listed as members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in September 2017 were considered for participation in the survey. ARL member institutions serving broader national audiences (e.g., Library of Congress, Smithsonian), organizational members (Center for Research Libraries), and state or public library audiences (e.g., Boston Public Library) were not included (9 of 123 institutions).

Recognizing that descriptive practices can—and often do—vary from repository to repository on campuses with multiple archival repositories, we visited the webpage of the library of each ARL member institution to identify individual units holding archival materials within the larger institution. Given the variety of organizational structures and names used to describe archival and special collections work, we considered for inclusion any unit listed on the member organization library's website that also appeared to hold archival materials (even if it appeared that archival services were but a small part of its mission). We defined archival materials as unique, one-ofa-kind resources (in any format) generally unavailable elsewhere; repositories whose “archival” collections consist entirely of reproductions created as convenience copies for the research community of an individual campus were not included.

Through this website review and analysis, we identified 211 individual repositories for inclusion in the survey. Generally speaking, we distributed surveys to the heads of individual repositories, though in several cases, we emailed a general department or reference inquiry email address when contact information was obscured on the website or when who had leadership responsibilities within the unit was unclear. As websites often do not make apparent the distribution of cataloging responsibilities within each repository, the email invitation asked recipients to forward the survey to the staff member in their repositories most familiar with archival description and/or archival cataloging in their place of employment.

Survey invitations were successfully distributed via email to 207 individuals using Qualtrics on January 8, 2018 (4 emails bounced in the first distribution; 2 emails were duplicated, and 2 emails failed), with follow-up reminder emails sent on January 22, 2018. As we had no budget, we offered no compensation. The survey had a 28% response rate, with a total of 58 surveys completed by the survey close date of February 9, 2018.

Survey Instrument

We developed a 50-question survey instrument to gather data about staffing arrangements and workflows archival repositories employ in their cataloging practices, the education and background of those who complete cataloging work, the types of descriptive output being generated at each institution, and practitioners' satisfaction with the workflows employed at their institutions. Respondents initially provided informed consent, and the remaining questions were grouped into 5 categories: background on descriptive practices, MARC records, embedded metadata, linked metadata, and authority records. Questions were primarily a mixture of multiple-choice, open-ended, and Likert-type scale, along with several that allowed for rank ordering. The survey instrument is included in Appendix A.

Findings

As one of the main purposes of this study was to better understand the relationship between archival and cataloging units in cataloging archival materials, we designed the survey to capture basic demographic information about those units at responding institutions and to collect data about descriptive practices and workflows for archival materials. We hoped to be able to examine relationships between the size of unit, the location of the cataloging work within the repository, and choices of standards and workflows. Unfortunately, the number of responses coupled with the wide variety of answer options employed yielded results too small for appropriate statistical analysis and tests (e.g., chi-square tests). Nonetheless, the survey provides baseline data on the current state of descriptive practices in ARL academic institutions.

Demographics and Background

The size of archival departments within responding institutions ranged greatly, from .1 FTE to 25 FTEs, as illustrated in Figure 1. A staff of 7 FTEs was the most commonly reported (12.7%, or 7 responses), with staffing levels of 2 and 9 FTEs following with 6 responses each (10.9%).

FIGURE 1.

View large Download slide

Number of FTEs employed within institutions' archival departments

Similarly, the size of cataloging or technical services departments within responding institutions varied significantly, ranging from staffs of 0 FTE to a staff of 64 (see Figure 2). Five respondents (9.6%) reported that their cataloging or technical services departments had no FTEs. These respondents may have been thinking only of FTEs within their units rather than more broadly throughout their institutions. Staffing sizes of 1 FTE and 5 FTEs were also reported with the same frequency of 5 responses each (9.6%).

FIGURE 2.

View large Download slide

Number of FTEs within institutions' cataloging or technical services departments

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the vast majority of respondents (n = 50, or 89.3%) were positioned within an archives or special collections unit, versus technical services (7.1%). Archival descriptive work is only one part of the job duties of many respondents, with most devoting less than half of their time to it (73.2%, see Table 1). While nearly a quarter spend less than 10% of their time on descriptive work (23.2%), 10.7% devote more than 75% of their time to descriptive work, indicating some institutions may concentrate descriptive responsibilities.

Table 1.

Portion of Time Devoted to Doing Archival Description Work (n = 56)

View large

Of the 56 job titles supplied, 48 were unique. The following appeared more than once in survey responses: archivist (4), associate archivist (2), director (3), and head of archival processing (3). Participants' job titles reflect specialization as well as a combination of duties in one role, including titles such as “head, access and outreach services,” “director of special collections, archives and preservation,” “head, special collections and archival and metadata librarian,” “senior archivist/records manager,” and “director/university archivist.”

As illustrated in Table 2, respondents received training related to their archival descriptive work through a combination of sources, with graduate-level courses (81.8%), SAA/ACA workshops or webinars (74.5%), and workshops or webinars offered by regional archival associations (72.7%) most commonly cited. Just over half of respondents (56.4%) received peer-to-peer training within their institutions. That a majority of respondents' received archival description training from national and regional archival associations may be an early demographic indicator that archivists, rather than librarians, perform the majority of archival description work or that individuals doing the work more closely identify and affiliate with archival professional organizations.

Table 2.

Archival Descriptive Training Received (Select All that Apply) (n = 55)

View large

Thirteen individuals completing the survey hold Academy of Certified Archivists' certification, and 10 hold a Digital Archives Specialist Certificate; 47.6% of respondents hold no certifications. No one reported holding SAA's Arrangement and Description certificate, which likely reflects its relatively recent establishment (2016).

Background on Descriptive Practices

To understand the basic landscape of tools and resources available for description, we posed several questions to place descriptive practices and decision-making in the context of available technical systems and workflows.

When asked “What type of archival information system does your institution have right now?,” the most commonly cited system (see Table 3) was an “online public access catalog (OPAC),” with 50 out of 57 respondents (87.7%) selecting this option. This is not surprising given the historical importance of MARC records in archival description as explained in the literature review. An archival management system such as ArchivesSpace, Archivists' Toolkit, or Archon was selected by 46 out of 57 respondents (80.7%), followed by 32 reporting a “digital collection management system (such as CONTENTdm)” (56.1%). Use of databases was reported by 28 respondents (49.1%), with 17 reporting access to a content management system (29.8%). A small number of respondents listed other information systems, including Excel sheets, a homegrown EAD portal, Archive-It, the Museum System, and Access to Memory (AtoM), each with 1 response. Thus, while the majority of institutions still rely upon bibliographic catalogs for archival access, newer, archives-specific systems are quickly gaining momentum. Most institutions using archival data management systems (91.3%) employ them in tandem with an OPAC, with the remaining 4 institutions utilizing them as their sole access system. This is notable because only 6 (10.5% of n = 57) of institutions use a single access system.

Table 3.

Types of Archival Information Systems at Institutions (Select All that Apply) (n = 57)

View large

Archival description appears to primarily occur within the unit of the individual responding to the survey. Of the 57 responses to the question “Please indicate which types of archival description your department creates in-house,” 55 (96.5%) generate finding aids or inventories, 42 (73.7%) generate collection-level MARC records, and 33 (57.9%) generate item-level metadata records (Table 4). Four respondents (7.0%) indicated that they generate series-level (or below) MARC records within their departments; the same number (n = 4, or 7.0%) create linked data within their departments.

Table 4.

Type of Archival Description Created In-House (Select All that Apply) (n = 57)

View large

The most common forms of archival description provided by other departments or cooperating institutions are item-level metadata records (41.5%) and collection-level MARC records (39.6%) (see Table 5). Over a quarter of respondents (28.3%) reported that no other departments or cooperating institutions provide archival description, and nearly a quarter (24.5%) indicated that another department or cooperating institution prepares finding aids or inventories. While initially these results seem to point to a lack of archival departmental involvement in description creation, comparing types of archival description created within the department with types of archival description provided by other departments in the institution or cooperating institutions reveals collaboration. For departments creating item-level metadata (n = 33), nearly one-third (n = 11) also have item-level metadata provided by an outside department or institution. Similarly, for those departments creating finding aids (n = 55), 20% also have finding aids provided externally.

Table 5.

Types of Archival Description Provided by Other Departments within Your Institution or Cooperating Institutions (Select All that Apply) (n = 53)

View large

Those responding were primarily situated in departments that have the authority to directly post descriptive information without approval or validation. When asked “Does another department in your institution review or approve archival descriptive information prior to its public release (via the library catalog, online image repository, etc.?,” 71.9% (41 of n = 57) said no. Only 28.1% reported that another department in their institutions reviews or approves archival descriptive information prior to its public release.

A related question asked, “Who in your institution is responsible for making decisions about appropriate levels of description, standards to be employed, workflows and other factors related to archival description?,” and asked respondents to select all responses that applied. A number of scenarios emerged, heavily weighted to a focus on responsibility solely within the realm of the archives staff (see Table 6). The most commonly selected scenario assigned responsibility to the general archives staff (36.8%), followed by 26.3% selecting archives staff with technical services or cataloging-specific responsibilities, and 14% reporting a shared responsibility between generalist and specialized archives staff.

Table 6.

Who Makes Decisions about Levels of Description, Standards, Workflows, and Other Archival Description Factors? (Select All that Apply) (n = 57)

View large

MARC Record Creation

The vast majority of respondents (78.9%) indicated that their institutions, a consortial partner, or a vendor creates MARC records for all archival collections held by their departments, again in line with current research. But 21.2% (11 respondents) have not created MARC records for all of their archival collections. Those who do not create MARC records for all collections were asked how their departments determine which collections receive records; responses varied. One indicated that they are currently working to create MARC records for collections (“We are working on creating records for all collections”); another reported a deliberate move away from MARC cataloging (“We actually no longer add MARC records, because currently they aren't worth the return on investment”); and a third reported a need to develop a workflow for MARC record creation in light of a move to ArchivesSpace (“At one point in the past we created MARC records for processed collection [once we had a finding aid]; then we switched to MARC records for all collections with or without a finding aid but we didn't get that far. Now, we are in Aspace [sic] and have not implemented any workflows for MARC record creation. This is to be developed in the future.”). One repository leaves the decision about creating a MARC record up to the archivist responsible for that particular collecting area, and another repository appears to only create MARC records for its rare book collections.

Respondents who create MARC records for all archival collections were then asked about the tools or systems they use (see Table 7). One respondent uses ArchivesSpace exclusively (2%), and 7 (14%) exclusively use OCLC Connexion, while 84% of respondents use more than one tool or system in creating MARC records, with a total of 18 different combinations of tools and systems reported, suggesting that most institutions are crosswalking data between information systems. Despite advances with new systems that automatically generate MARC records from archival description, the data reveal that most respondents still engage in a multistep and multi-tool/multisystem workflow to generate MARC records. The tools and systems included in workflow combinations receiving more than 1 response are reported in Table 7.

Table 7.

Tools and Systems Used to Create MARC Records (Select All that Apply) (n = 50)

View large

Respondents employ a number of combinations of data content standards in preparing MARC records as well. The most commonly cited combination of standards employed by respondents were RDA and DACS (31.4%), followed by the combination of AACR2, RDA, and DACS (23.5%). Just under 10% of respondents use RDA exclusively, and only 1 (2%) reported using DACS exclusively. This suggests that the descriptive standards employed for MARC encoding at repositories today are being selected from both the library and archival traditions. Interestingly, 47.1% of responding institutions employ AACR2, which DACS replaced in 2004, it is the only standard in use at 2 institutions (3.9%) (see Table 8). Repositories reporting AACR2 usage may be actively creating records in that standard. Or perhaps respondents prepare new MARC records following more recently adopted standards but continue to maintain legacy MARC records originally created following AACR2.

Table 8.

Data Content Standard(s) Used to Prepare MARC Records (Select All that Apply) (n = 51)

View large

At repositories that create MARC records for all collections, 98% (n = 50) load them into union catalogs such as OCLC; only 1 respondent does not do so. After creating OCLC records, 59.6% of respondents edit MARC records both locally and in OCLC; 25.5% only edit them locally; and 14.9% only edit them in union catalogs thereafter. While institutions commonly update finding aids due to accruals and deaccessions, it is less common to update bibliographic records. That 100% of respondents who include their MARC records in union catalogs also update these MARC collection records in some capacity reveals that archival description practice is standard in this area of MARC record creation for archival materials.

Respondents were asked to describe their workflows for the creation of MARC records by dragging and dropping a series of tasks in order, yielding 45 different workflows from 52 respondents. Those workflows receiving more than 1 response are reported in Figure 3. Interestingly, 88.5% of all responses begin with the task “Archivist creates finding aid.” An overwhelming majority of respondents (65.4%) include a cataloger at some point in the process, but 34.6% of respondents do not include a cataloger at all.

FIGURE 3.

View large Download slide

MARC record workflows

Generally speaking, respondents appear to be satisfied with their work-flows for MARC record creation, with 25% (n = 13) responding that they strongly agree, and 48.1% (n = 25) somewhat agreeing that “I am satisfied with the current workflow for creating catalog records at my institution.” However, nearly 1 in 5 (19.2%) somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed. When given the opportunity to provide information about their ideal workflows, the most common responses (29.3%) featured a desire to use ArchivesSpace as part of their MARC workflow (n = 12) and the ability to directly export and/or import between systems (n = 12). Other desired improvements included increased automation or efficiency (n = 11), increased participation by archivists (n = 7), and increased collaboration (n = 6). It is also important to note that 22% (n = 9) of respondents reported that their workflows are fine as is.^⁶⁷

Embedded Metadata

More than half, 57.9% (n = 57), of respondents create item-level metadata within their departments, 41.5% (n = 53) report item-level metadata creation by another department in the institution or by a cooperating institution, and 10 institutions (17.2%) create item-level metadata records by both processes. Given that item-level metadata creation can take a number of forms, we inquired about 2 common forms of item-level metadata: embedded and linked. Slightly over three-quarters (75.9%) of respondents revealed that their institutions do not create embedded item-level metadata records for objects held in their department. The 14 participants who indicated that their institutions do create embedded item-level metadata records were then asked to list the tools or systems used in their creation. Ten of the 14 participants responded, providing a list of 14 tools employed at their institutions. Table 9 lists 9 unique tools and systems, but only 3, ArchivesSpace, Adobe Bridge, and Fedora, are used by more than 1 institution.

Table 9.

Tools and Systems Used to Create Embedded Item-Level Metadata Records (Write-in) (n = 14)^⁶⁸

Tools and Systems Used to Create Embedded Item-Level Metadata Records (Write-in) (n = 14)68

View large

Next, respondents were tasked with creating their embedded item-level metadata records workflow by dragging and dropping a series of tasks in order. Eleven respondents answered, resulting in 7 unique workflows. Five of these workflows are unique to their institutions, but 2 work-flows^⁶⁹ have 2 and 4 users respectively. The only difference between the two workflows used by multiple institutions is that one adds higher-level (i.e., collection-level, series-level, etc.) embedded metadata to each individual record (n = 4), whereas the other (n = 2) does not. Indeed, the majority of respondents (81.8%) add higher level (i.e., collection-level, series-level, etc.) embedded metadata to their records (there does not appear to be a correlation between tool/system and not adding higher-level metadata). And while catalogers feature in about a third (36.4%) of the respondents' workflows, catalogers and archivists collaborate in only 1 workflow (9.1%).

Workflow satisfaction ranged from somewhat disagree (n = 1), ambivalence (neither agree nor disagree) (n = 5), to somewhat agree (n = 5). When given the opportunity to provide their ideal workflows,^⁷⁰ 8 respondents provided comments. Suggestions for improvements included enhancing systems integration, completing tasks in bulk, and providing archivists with more involvement like obtaining permissions to the preservation storage area in D-Space, and, as 1 respondent said, “allowing the archivists to QC the metadata at some point in the workflow.”

Linked Metadata Records

Only about a quarter of respondents (25.9%) affirmed that their institutions create linked item-level metadata for digital objects (n = 58), and 14 respondents reported that they create embedded item-level metadata records. Eight institutions (13.8%) create both linked and embedded item-level metadata.^⁷¹ These participants were then asked to list the tools or systems used during the creation of linked metadata records; as seen in Table 10, 9 respondents provided a list of 13 tools, 9 of which were unique. Mirroring the popularity of tools used in the creation of embedded metadata data records described above, ArchivesSpace is the most popular choice (5). Fedora is a close second (3).

Table 10.

Tools and Systems Used to Create Linked Item-Level Metadata Records (Write-in) (n = 13)^⁷²

Tools and Systems Used to Create Linked Item-Level Metadata Records (Write-in) (n = 13)72

View large

Thirteen respondents described their workflows for creating linked item-level metadata, revealing 11 unique workflows and that 3 (23.1%) of these institutions follow the same workflow. Despite the variations, similarities exist between the workflows. At 11 of the 13 institutions, an archivist or cataloger creates a linked meta-data file and adds item-level meta-data for each record. Additionally, at 10 of these institutions, this is the initial step.^⁷³ In the 2 work-flows that do not use this task, spreadsheets that include higher-level information (i.e., higher-level hierarchical description like collection/series) are merged with Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) records instead. Some of the other workflows use spreadsheets and METS records because unique IDs are not used.

Archivists play a large role in linked metadata workflows, participating in 84.6% of them, and they are the lone participants in 61.5%. While this shows that the most likely scenario is archivist-only workflows, it reveals that collaboration between archivists and catalogers is more prevalent (23.1%) than cataloger-only workflows (15.4%).

All the workflow respondents went on to indicate their satisfaction with their current workflows for creating metadata records at their institutions, which ranged from somewhat disagreeing (n = 1), to strongly agreeing (n = 3, or 23.1%). The majority of respondents were neutral (“neither agree nor disagree”) (53.8%). When asked to describe their ideal workflows,^⁷⁴ only 8 respondents left comments, half lamenting the amount of manual effort or wanting the ability to automate, with 1 stating, “Overall this works. The biggest issue is that it is currently a very manual processing (alot [sic] of cutting and pasting of data.).” Only 1 commenter was entirely fine with the current workflow, stating, “as it is.”

Authority Records

The majority of respondents (69.0%, n = 58), create archival authority records in some way: within their own departments (29.3%), in another department within the organization (12.1%), or both (27.6%).^⁷⁵ When asked what authority descriptive standard(s) are used to create these records, the majority selected RDA and/or DACS (see Table 11), which is unsurprising given that these are the most recently adopted professional standards.

Table 11.

Authority Descriptive Standards Used to Create Archival Authority Records (Select All that Apply) (n = 61)

View large

Respondents were asked to describe their workflows for creating archival authority records from the steps provided. The 36 respondents reported 23 unique workflows. Interestingly, of these 23 unique workflows, 91.3% began with either the archivist or cataloger checking to see if the authority record already existed.^⁷⁶ The 2 workflows that did not start with this step began with “Archivist creates authority record following institution's preferred data standard.”

Half of the workflows reveal archivist and cataloger collaboration. Both archivists and catalogers complete the step of checking the appropriate thesauri/controlled vocabulary to see if the authority record already existed in 10 (43.5%) of the 23 unique workflows.^⁷⁷ The step did not provide a means of specifying if different staff members reviewed corresponding thesauri/controlled vocabularies, as one would assume. Of the remaining workflows without collaboration, a third are only archivists, and a sixth are only catalogers.

The majority of respondents (59.5%) strongly or somewhat agreed that they are satisfied with their workflows, versus (18.9%) who strongly or somewhat disagreed and 8 (21.6%) who were neutral. This was reflected when respondents (n =24) were asked to provide their ideal workflows, with 25% (6) indicating that they are happy with what they are currently using, and 38% (9) wanting to add EAC-CPF as part of their workflows.

The survey also asked about archival authority record usage. The majority of respondents (86.2%) affirmed that authority records are used in their institutions' archival descriptions. When asked what types of archival descriptive records include authority records, the most frequent choices were finding aids or inventories and collection-level MARC records (see Table 12).

Table 12.

Archival Descriptive Records that Use Authority Records (Select All that Apply) (n = 49)

View large

Respondents were then asked to select the types of archival authorities and controlled vocabularies used in their archival description records. As indicated in Table 13, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) are most frequently used for describing authority records.

Table 13.

Archival Authorities and Controlled Vocabularies Used at Institutions (n = 48)

View large

For those institutions that do not use authority records in their archival descriptions, the reasons included lack of staff, “systems limitations,” and general lack of understanding as to why these records are not created. In terms of satisfaction with the decision not to include authority records in their archival descriptions, 7 rated their satisfaction with that decision, ranging from neither agree nor disagree (2), to somewhat disagree (3), to strongly disagree (2).

Conclusion

Given the number of response options provided for each question combined with the total number of survey responses, multivariable data analysis was not possible with the data set and instead primarily limited to descriptive analysis. This was a significant limitation of the study, and increasing the survey population and therefore generating a larger pool of responses might have elucidated relationships between some variables (e.g., size of archival staff and adoption of certain descriptive standards). However, expanding the survey size would have necessitated increasing options for some questions to account for the broader variation in cataloging practices that nonacademic organizations employ, thus distributing the responses among more possibilities, and counteracting the focus of the survey on academic institutions.

Generally speaking, according to the survey results, archival descriptive work remains concentrated in the archival domain, with archivists creating description as one component of job responsibilities at most institutions. Descriptive work—including MARC record creation—has not been passed off to cataloging colleagues despite their longer experience with the standards even though the OPAC is the most commonly cited archival information system available to respondents. Decisions about appropriate levels of description, standards to be employed, workflows, and other factors related to archival description do not appear to rely on external buy-in or approval in most repositories, implying that institutions view archivists as capable of controlling their own descriptive destinies and that archival professionals have developed the skills and expertise to engage in this work. Descriptive practices employ a mix of standards from both the archival and bibliographic traditions, suggesting that archivists are familiar with the standards adopted and maintained outside the archival profession. This is unsurprising given that descriptive practices such as embedded and linked metadata are comparatively new, as are the digital materials that they are intended to support.

Most workflows related to the various kinds of archival description that might be employed at a repository feature very little collaboration with traditional catalogers and instead remain traditionally siloed, although the research points to a desire for additional partnership in the MARC record workflow. Based on the data, this is understandable given that the MARC record creation work-flow comprises both traditionally archival and bibliographic tools and systems. In contrast, authority control work is ripe with collaboration. Given that standards for authority control emerging from the archival tradition are still relatively young, it seems likely that archivists may find themselves in positions of reliance on colleagues who are more familiar and have more experience with this aspect of descriptive work.

As descriptive standards change frequently and most archivists engaged in descriptive work received their training through graduate-level courses, SAA/ACA, and regional archival association workshops or webinars, the profession must continue to develop and make available educational offerings focused on descriptive practices. While definite progress has been made, continued work is still needed. Trainings that focus on archival description within finding aids and collection-level MARC records, the descriptive tools most commonly employed at responding institutions, are likely to find the widest audience and generate the most potential collaboration.

Areas for Future Research

This study's findings indicate several areas for future research. Additional research should use an alternate format for some questions to enable multivariate data analysis. For example, rather than providing open-text response fields, provide a finite list of numbers or number ranges.

Given the increasing popularity of archival data management systems like ArchivesSpace (currently at 408 members), it will be interesting to see if the institutions using these systems in conjunction with OPACS (80.7%) or as their sole access systems (7%) increases. On one hand, this seems unlikely given the long history of MARC's entanglement with archival description and access. However, MARC record workflows are still lengthy and involve multiple tools, whereas systems like ArchivesSpace enable efficiency (and potentially easier collaboration) with a single tool for both description and access. At the very least, increased usage and ongoing programmatic improvements with these systems should improve the MARC record workflow.

Very few reports have been made of EAD adoption or implementation rates across the profession since the emergence of collection management tools such as ArchivesSpace that facilitate its creation. Additionally, as digital collections (born and digitized) continue to increase, it is likely that so will embedded and linked metadata, ensuring material preservation and discoverability. These two areas of description—collection management tools and digital metadata—should be further reviewed in the future, particularly as to the interaction and shared responsibilities between archivists and catalogers.

Similarly, this study revealed that most archives use authority records, with many creating their own given the uniqueness of archival materials, most often employing an LOC standard, with a few using the EAC-CPF standard. Given the relative newness of EAC-CPF and sharing services like SNAC, this is not surprising. However, with the rise of tools like ArchivesSpace providing public collection access and authority management, archival authority record creation is likely to be an area of growth. As archivists continue to create their own authority records, the desire and need to share these records and make them reusable (i.e., the use of EAC-CPF standard for interoperability) will increase. This presents possibilities for research including software/tool usage, standards, and cross-collaboration.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

View large Download slide

Michelle Sweetser is the head librarian in the Center for Archival Collections at Bowling Green State University. Previously, she held the position of university archivist at Marquette University in Milwaukee. Sweetser earned her AB from Dartmouth College (anthropology) and an MSI from the University of Michigan. Her research interests include archival description, the use of technology to improve workflows, and the impact of caregiving upon the archival profession.

View large Download slide

Alexandra A. A. Orchard, CA, is the former technical and metadata archivist at the Walter P. Reuther Library, Archives of Labor and Urban Affairs at Wayne State University and the former chair of the Archival Issues Editorial Board. Orchard received her MLIS and Archival Administration Certificate from Wayne State University, as well as the Digital Archives Specialist Certificate from SAA. She has a background in English, art, and computer science. Orchard's research interests include archival theory, description, technologies, and women. She has presented at SAA, MAC, and the Michigan Archival Association. She currently resides in Portland, Oregon.

Appendix A: Survey Instrument

The survey is displayed as given to survey participants. The discrepancies in survey question numbering versus ordering are due to difficulties reordering questions using the Qualtrics survey software.

1. I agree to participate.

○ Yes
○ No > End of Survey

Demographic Questions

2. How many individuals (FTE) are employed within the archival department in your institution?

3. How many of the individuals (FTE) employed in the archival department of your institution do archival descriptive work?

4. How many individuals (FTE) are employed within the cataloging or technical services department of your institution?

5. How many of the individuals (FTE) employed within the cataloging or technical services department of your institution perform archival descriptive work?

6. What is your job title?

7. Please indicate all of the degrees you hold:

○ High school diploma / GED
○ Associate
○ Bachelor's
○ Master's in Library Science / Information Science or similar
○ Other master's degree
○ PhD
○ JD
○ Other (please specify): __________________________________________

8. Please indicate all of the certifications you hold:

○ Arrangement and Description Certification (SAA)
○ Digital Archives Specialist Certificate (SAA)
○ Academy of Certified Archivists (Certified Archivists)
○ Institute of Certified Records Managers (Certified Records Manager)
○ Project Management Institute
○ Other (please specify): __________________________________________
○ None

9. What is the primary function/role of the department of which you are a part?

○ Archives or Special Collections
○ Technical Services
○ Information Technology
○ Other (please specify): __________________________________________

12. What portion of your time is devoted to doing archival descriptive work?

○ Less than 10%
○ 11–25%
○ 26–50%
○ 51–75%
○ More than 75%

13. What training have you participated in relative to the archival descriptive work in which you engage (select all that apply)?

○ Graduate-level course
○ SAA/ACA workshops or webinars
○ Workshops or webinars offered by a regional archival association
○ Workshops or webinars offered by a state or provincial library or archival association
○ Workshops or webinars offered by ALA/CLA
○ Peer-to-peer training within your institution
○ Other (please specify): __________________________________________

Background on Descriptive Practices

17. What type of archival information system does your institution have right now (select all that apply)?

○ Online public access catalog (OPAC)
○ Content management system (such as Drupal)
○ Digital collection management system (such as CONTENTdm)
○ Archival data management system (e.g., ArchivesSpace, Archivists' Toolkit, Archon)
○ Database (such as FileMaker Pro, Access, etc.)
○ Other type of information system (please describe): _________________

56. Who creates archival description for materials held in your department (select all that apply)?

○ Staff in my department
○ Staff in another department in my organization
○ Staff outside my organization (we have a cooperative arrangement, work with a vendor, etc.)

19. Please indicate which types of archival description your department creates in-house (select all that apply):

○ Finding aids or inventories (in any format, e.g., MS Word, MS Excel, PDF, HTML, EAD, etc.)
○ Collection-level MARC records
○ Series-level (or below) MARC records
○ Item-level metadata records
○ Linked data
○ Other (please describe): _________________________________________
○ None

23. Please indicate which types of archival description are provided by other departments in your institution or cooperating institutions (select all that apply):

○ Finding aids or inventories (in any format, e.g., MS Word, MS Excel, PDF, HTML, EAD, etc.)
○ Collection-level MARC records
○ Series-level (or below) MARC records
○ Item-level metadata records
○ Linked data
○ Other (please describe): _________________________________________
○ None

24. Does another department in your institution review or approve archival descriptive information prior to its public release (via the library catalog, online image repository, etc.)?

○ Yes
○ No
○ Other (please describe): _________________________________________

25. Who in your institution is responsible for making decisions about appropriate levels of description standards to be employed, workflows and other factors related to archival description (select all that apply):

○ Technical services or cataloging staff (external department)
○ Archives staff (general)
○ Archives staff with technical services or cataloging-specific responsibilities
○ Other (please describe): _________________________________________

MARC Records