Dr. Boles, I’d first like to comment on your book, Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts. Our class is using this as a textbook, and I have to say, it’s the least painful reading material Dr. Baumann has assigned to us yet. I actually enjoy your writing!
My question has to do with de-accessioning. Have you had any experiences with deaccessioning collections in your archives? If so, were there any ramifications for deaccessioning material?
If “the purpose of archives is whatever a particular society of institution wishes”, then can there be such a thing as bad appraisal if that appraisal matches what the society or institution wishes? And, you quote Bruce Bruemmer as stating that “one can overanalyze anything and end with little actual documentation.” You wrote a whole book on appraisal–too much?
Hi Frank,
It is great that you are taking the time to talk about appraisal tonigt at the university of michigan. My question stems from work that myself and other staff in the university archives program has done this past year–and that is thinking about archiving blog content for the new mblog system at the um. I know that you don’t talk about blogs in your book but, I wonder iif you would say that you can appraise this type of content that may include anonymous posting, occasional removed postings and may be stripped of the original functionality provided by the system. Should archivists look at newer technologies such as ping back tracking and readership to measure the impact the blog has and therefore it’s significance?
Frank, Mark Greene is listening and I’m willing to forgive your waffling on use, if only because you’ve got enough people, much closer, beating you up pretty well. –Mark
any thoughts on when, if ever, the archivist might influence an existing mission statement/collections policy? it seems like a healthy stance for archives to remain open to fine-tuning their missions, albeit within certain parameters. this notion might provide an entry for theory into practice…any thoughts by Mr. Boles or other panel members are appreciated. thank you.
Bill, it’s proof of sound appraisal if you accept that sound appraisal is appraisal that supports important use (important as defined by your mission statement). Can you prove that other appraisal decisions wouldn’t have supported more use?–no. And I agree that a controlled experiment to that effect would be terrific, it just isn’t practical (who has room to keep all the stuff you’ve decided not to keep?). And can I prove that sound appraisal is in fact appraisal that supports important use?–no, but I say explicitly in the article (I think, it was a long time ago) that this is a first principle not susceptible to proof. And Elizabeth, thank you; I think your point is equally applicable to collecting repositories–certainly to mine; my university administrators want to see increasing use, specifically by undergraduates. –Mark
Erin (if you’re monitoring the blog–if not, whoever is), feel free to skip my immediately preceding message–the discussion on site has moved far from that topic. This was a great event. I hope you do more of them. –Mark
Bill, you want a way to measure whether we’ve appraised the most “important” stuff. I don’t think that’s a reasonable goal–important to whom? I argue we should measure whether we’ve appraised the most “useful” stuff. Again, I think we’re arguing about first principles. Margeret, yes, you can’t properly evaluate use w/out considering levels of intellectual access. Frank, yes of course use is relative to one’s repository and its mission. Hey, how did I get to be at the center of this? Can’t we go back to criticizing Frank? –Mark
Nicole Laflamme said,
March 8, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
This question is for Dr. Boles.
Dr. Boles, I’d first like to comment on your book, Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts. Our class is using this as a textbook, and I have to say, it’s the least painful reading material Dr. Baumann has assigned to us yet. I actually enjoy your writing!
My question has to do with de-accessioning. Have you had any experiences with deaccessioning collections in your archives? If so, were there any ramifications for deaccessioning material?
adp said,
March 8, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
SOUND!!!
Erin Matas said,
March 8, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
There seems to be trouble with the sound - try using headphones and turn the volume all the way up on you machine and also on your quicktime menu!
Let us know if it doesn’t work!
Erma said,
March 8, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
What would your advice be for a young archivist who is just starting out in the archives field? as far as appraisal goes …
nancy bartlett said,
March 8, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
If “the purpose of archives is whatever a particular society of institution wishes”, then can there be such a thing as bad appraisal if that appraisal matches what the society or institution wishes? And, you quote Bruce Bruemmer as stating that “one can overanalyze anything and end with little actual documentation.” You wrote a whole book on appraisal–too much?
Nancy Deromedi said,
March 8, 2006 @ 7:29 pm
Hi Frank,
It is great that you are taking the time to talk about appraisal tonigt at the university of michigan. My question stems from work that myself and other staff in the university archives program has done this past year–and that is thinking about archiving blog content for the new mblog system at the um. I know that you don’t talk about blogs in your book but, I wonder iif you would say that you can appraise this type of content that may include anonymous posting, occasional removed postings and may be stripped of the original functionality provided by the system. Should archivists look at newer technologies such as ping back tracking and readership to measure the impact the blog has and therefore it’s significance?
Mark Greene said,
March 8, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
Frank, Mark Greene is listening and I’m willing to forgive your waffling on use, if only because you’ve got enough people, much closer, beating you up pretty well. –Mark
adp said,
March 8, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
any thoughts on when, if ever, the archivist might influence an existing mission statement/collections policy? it seems like a healthy stance for archives to remain open to fine-tuning their missions, albeit within certain parameters. this notion might provide an entry for theory into practice…any thoughts by Mr. Boles or other panel members are appreciated. thank you.
Mark Greene said,
March 8, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
Bill, it’s proof of sound appraisal if you accept that sound appraisal is appraisal that supports important use (important as defined by your mission statement). Can you prove that other appraisal decisions wouldn’t have supported more use?–no. And I agree that a controlled experiment to that effect would be terrific, it just isn’t practical (who has room to keep all the stuff you’ve decided not to keep?). And can I prove that sound appraisal is in fact appraisal that supports important use?–no, but I say explicitly in the article (I think, it was a long time ago) that this is a first principle not susceptible to proof. And Elizabeth, thank you; I think your point is equally applicable to collecting repositories–certainly to mine; my university administrators want to see increasing use, specifically by undergraduates. –Mark
Mark Greene said,
March 8, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Erin (if you’re monitoring the blog–if not, whoever is), feel free to skip my immediately preceding message–the discussion on site has moved far from that topic. This was a great event. I hope you do more of them. –Mark
Mark Greene said,
March 8, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Bill, you want a way to measure whether we’ve appraised the most “important” stuff. I don’t think that’s a reasonable goal–important to whom? I argue we should measure whether we’ve appraised the most “useful” stuff. Again, I think we’re arguing about first principles. Margeret, yes, you can’t properly evaluate use w/out considering levels of intellectual access. Frank, yes of course use is relative to one’s repository and its mission. Hey, how did I get to be at the center of this? Can’t we go back to criticizing Frank? –Mark