ICA/SUV

Pulling ourselves together: the case for reuniting archival descriptive theory and practice

Victoria Peters
University of Glasgow

This article is based on a paper presented at the 2007 Annual Conference of the International Council on Archives Section on University and Research Institution Archives, University of Dundee, Scotland, August 16, 2007


Abstract

This article draws on the work of an Arts and Humanities Research Council funded project at the University of Glasgow, entitled 'Empowering the User: the Development of Flexible Archival Catalogues', to consider the impact of new technologies and recent theories of the nature of archives on archival descriptive practice in the UK. The article highlights recent theories on postmodernism and the nature of provenance, and examines how much influence these have had on archival descriptive practice in the UK. It argues that, although there are valuable examples of their influence, these are, as yet, isolated. Theory has been slow to percolate down to the practising archivist and have any effect on established cataloguing practice. The article also examines the impact of new technology. It argues that, although the benefits it has brought, such as the ability to share data and to reach much wider audiences, are considerable, technology in the UK has, for the most part, not been utilised to address the issues raised by the theorists. Practice and theory have largely developed separately. The article argues that it is time to pause and take stock of the rapid developments of the last decade and examine whether our finding aids are as effective as they might be. It suggests that now is the time to question our whole approach to archival description. To do this, it is essential that we draw theory and practice closer together so that each can inform and influence the other.

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to ask whether theory and practice have kept pace with each other with regard to archival description in the UK. There has been a lot of new theory in recent years on such things as the nature of the record and provenance whilst, at the same time, our finding aids have been transformed by new technology. I want to examine how much influence theory has had on practice and vice versa. Have we kept up to date with theory or have we instead been carried away by technology? These are questions which lie at the heart of a current Arts and Humanities Research Council funded project at Glasgow University entitled 'Empowering the user: the development of flexible archival catalogues'.

Influence of theory on practice

Let us consider, first, the question of how much influence theory has had on practice. To do this, I will look at archival theory, pick out two major topics from the literature and briefly examine how much influence these have had on how we construct our finding aids.

The first topic I want to look at is provenance. The principle of provenance has been one of the key principles underpinning archival descriptive practice since the nineteenth century. At that time, and up into the early twentieth century, provenance was articulated by European thinkers in the related concepts of respect des fonds1   and original order. 2   These concepts were devised to deal with inherited medieval and early modern records, ie closed series from defunct organisations, in other words records with a simple and stable administrative history. Records were assumed to have a single provenance and finding aids were constructed accordingly - the typical mono-hierarchical list we are all familiar with.

Over time, however, as modern records had to be dealt with, and organisational structures became more complex, ideas about provenance changed too. The most fundamental development came in the 1960s from Peter Scott in Australia, who recognised that this traditional assumption of a one-to one relationship between the record and its creating administration was no longer valid. He demonstrated that administrations, and therefore their record systems too, were no longer mono-hierarchical in structure but were ever-changing, complex dynamisms. He applied this insight very practically by developing the Australian series system which allowed the representation of multiple relationships between series and creators. As Terry Cook pointed out 3  , Scott shifted archival description from a static cataloguing mode to a dynamic system of multiple interrelationships.

In recent years, Scott's ideas have been developed further. It is now widely recognised that records can have multiple provenances, even parallel provenances, and that these provenances are not simply to be equated with records creators. Barbara Reed argued that records are inherently transactional in nature and that they have to be linked to doing something 4  . It is vital, therefore, to capture information about the transactions which resulted in the creation of the record, in order to give a full and meaningful explanation of that record's provenance.

Today's view of provenance represents a fundamental shift away from the nineteenth century European view which simply equated provenance with a single creator. How far, though, has this shift influenced our creation of finding aids? In Australia, of course, it has had a considerable influence. The series system allows the documentation of many different provenances including function and activity as well as creator 5  . Other countries too, are experimenting with the series system. The Archives of Ontario 6   and the Archives of Manitoba 7   in Canada have both tried it out to good effect recently and, here in the UK, we are currently trying it out at Glasgow University. Elsewhere in the UK, however, and in many other countries too, most finding aids are still the fixed, mono-hierarchical lists of the nineteenth century. These lists are just not suited to the problems of complex organisational structure and multiple and changing provenances which we face in the twenty first century.

There have been some steps in the right direction. The International Standard Archival Authority Record For Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families (ISAAR(CPF)) 8   and its accompaniment Encoded Archival Context (EAC) 9   are attempts to get practitioners to describe records creators separately from records, in order to allow for multiple creator provenance. Furthermore, this year has witnessed the release of the draft of a new international standard for describing functions 10  , which gives guidance for describing functions separately from records and records creators. Standards have, therefore, certainly taken note of theory and are moving in the right direction, but practical applications are lagging far behind. There has been little implementation of ISAAR(CPF), for example, in the UK. Obviously it is too early to expect implementations of the standard for functions before its full publication in 2008, but ISAAR(CPF) has been around since 1996 and appears to have largely been ignored. There are exceptions. The Leaders project at University College London 11  , and the GASHE 12   and NAHSTE 13   projects in Scotland, all experimented with linking separate authority records to their record descriptions, and The National Archives is making good progress with adding Name Authority Files to the National Register of Archives 14  . Some other repositories are compiling authority records, too 15  . The trouble is, though, that these are usually just seen as added extras, to stand alongside traditional lists. They have not really been integrated with other descriptive data very well. There appears to be general uncertainty about how best to use authority records. They certainly have not resulted in any fundamental changes in the way we catalogue. We are still a long way from representing multiple provenances adequately.

The second topic I want to look at is postmodernism. In 2001, Terry Cook wrote an article 16   in which he examined its implications for archival description. He argued that, far from being fashionable and incomprehensible nonsense, postmodernism should have real relevance for the archivist. Postmodernists believe that there is not one narrative in a series or collection of records, but many narratives, many stories, serving many purposes for many audiences, across time and space. Obviously this has implications for the way we create our finding aids. In order to allow these different narratives or stories to be unearthed we need to have finding aids that can represent the rich and multiple contexts of the records. The mono-hierarchical nineteenth century list just cannot do this. It can only represent one context or view of the record – that of the administrative creator. It effectively hides all other views and therefore all other stories. We are privileging one context or point of view over other, equally valid contexts or points of views. Postmodernism should encourage us away from this. It should encourage us to be more transparent. It should encourage us to construct finding aids that can reflect multiple and changing contexts. We need to view records not as static objects but instead as dynamic, active and ever-evolving. We need to produce descriptions that can be changed and updated to reflect these changing contexts. Cook pointed out that postmodernism had had little impact on the construction of finding aids in Canada. The adoption of the contextually rich Australian series system by Ontario Archives was one notable exception. This was just as true for the UK, and, six years later on, it still is. Most finding aids here are still the traditional static, mono-hierarchical list of the nineteenth century.

Those are just two topics that have been widely discussed and which should have a considerable influence on how we construct our finding aids. I think it is fair to say, however, that very little of all this theory has actually filtered down to affect descriptive practice. There is a real divergence of theory and practice. There are some examples of theory and practice running more in tandem, most notably, the Australian series system. In the UK, however, the divergence is much more apparent.

Influence of practice on theory

Now let us consider how much influence practice, and particularly technology, has had on theory. Technology has, of course, had a huge influence on descriptive practice. Every year, more and more finding aids are made available online. I do not want to denigrate this. I think it is a considerable achievement. We can now reach much wider audiences as well as share our data, both of which are vital, but I do think that technology has, for the most part, not been utilised to best advantage. Certainly in the UK, most online finding aids are just electronic versions of paper lists. We are simply reproducing what we have always had. Certainly, we have made the lists searchable but the underlying structure of the finding aids is exactly the same. Surely we should be using our imagination to exploit technology to provide really dynamic finding aids, ones that represent the multiple contexts already mentioned and which allow all sorts of interesting search and navigation possibilities. Technology offers us the opportunity to rethink the way we catalogue. We are no longer confined by a static arrangement of records on paper.

The very success of our online finding aids tends, however, to hold us back from experimenting with new ways of using technology. Now that we have so many different portals all offering essentially the same electronic versions of paper lists, it is very hard to break out of that mould. If we construct finding aids in radically different ways, then we run the risk of not being able to share our catalogue data with others. There is also the problem of legacy data. It has taken a great deal of time and effort to transform our paper lists into electronic versions, and that job is not nearly finished in many cases, so it would perhaps be anathema to many archivists to ask them to start all over again. These are very real problems, not to be taken lightly, but I do think that we need to be aware that the way we do things now is not the only possible way of doing things. We should not let current methodology stifle creative experiment.

Another thing that I believe may be stifling experiment in the UK is commercial software cataloguing packages. Again, I do not want to overstate the case. I think they do a very good job especially for those repositories with limited resources and little IT support, but the problem with such packages is that they tie the user in to a single solution and the user is not really in control of the structure or presentation of his/her data. Whilst this is fine for a short term solution - it gets finding aids out there on the web relatively simply - it does not allow for experimentation. Worse, I wonder whether it actually prevents us from thinking outside the box.

Another significant influence on practice has been the development of descriptive standards, which I have already touched on. Standards have, of course, been driven by technology since it was only when we began to want to share data electronically that the need for standards really arose. On the one hand, they have been hugely beneficial for enabling data exchange and consistency. On the other hand, I think there is a danger in the way we use them. Although the International Council on Archives (ICA) standards are designed to be permissive not prescriptive and never intended to be set in stone 17, the trouble is that they do tend to get set in stone by users. I would like to borrow the phrase 'from doctrine to dogma', coined by Heather MacNeil 18, to describe our attitude to standards. What was intended as a set of principles to guide us, very rapidly becomes enshrined by use as a set of immovable tenets. It becomes increasingly difficult to alter standards substantially or think of different ways to implement them because they have become so enshrined in use. I think we have reached the point now where our interpretation and implementation of standards may be holding us back. Although the General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)) 19, for example, states that it does not define output formats, most lists in the UK are broadly similar in appearance and we have fallen into the trap, I think, of associating standards with current outputs. It is easy to forget the underlying principles behind the standards and that we can still use these principles in all sorts of new ways, not just the old, familiar ones.

Another tendency is to allow practice to dictate the development of standards too much, rather than them having solid theoretical underpinnings. We now have four distinct descriptive standards: ISAD(G), ISAAR(CPF), the draft standard for describing functions and ISIAH 20, also in draft. The last three of these have evolved really as add-ons to ISAD(G). There has not yet, however, been any real thought about how these standards all fit together, as Chris Hurley recently pointed out in a comment posted to ICA-L, the list-serv of the International Council on Archives, on 12 July 2007. The four standards all have much in common and we need to stand back and think about them as a whole. We need to consciously apply a bit of theory now rather than letting the standards be entirely dictated by practice.

I would argue, therefore, that whilst technology and standards are both invaluable, they are, because of their very success, affecting our capacity to take on board and react to developments in theory. This, combined with a past lack of a research agenda in the UK, has led to a real divergence of theory and practice in this country.

What can we do?

I think first and foremost we need to be aware of this divergence of theory and practice, which I do not think we really are yet. We need to pause and take stock of the situation and consider the sort of points I have raised here. Then, at least, we will not be rushing along our current course blindfold. We also need somehow to encourage an environment of creativity and experimentation with our finding aids. It is unrealistic to leave it to busy practitioners to experiment in the ordinary course of their work - they simply do not have the time or the resources. On the other hand, I do not think we should leave it entirely to academics and PhD students. I certainly think we should be encouraging research in this country and it is good to see that the archive courses are very proactive now in doing this - it is an essential step in getting research and theory to be a recognised part of archival practice in the UK. I think, though, that we need to take it a stage further. What we need as well are projects carried out by practitioners that bring together both practice and research. Projects that apply theory in a practical way and that actually test different ways of constructing and presenting finding aids in real situations. Above all, projects that are seen by practitioners to be relevant to the profession.

Research project at Glasgow University

At Glasgow University we are carrying out a project that we hope is doing just this - a project that is bringing theory to bear on a practical situation. I will not go into the methodology too much - that is beyond the scope of this article - but I want to mention it both as an example of a practical research project and because the issues I have mentioned lie at the heart of it. It is called 'Empowering the User: the Development of Flexible Archival Catalogues' and it is an applied research project, funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) under its Resource Enhancement Scheme. We have funding for three years and are currently half way through. I am the researcher and Lesley Richmond is the principal investigator. It is important to stress that we are both archivists, ie practitioners, rather than academics. The aim of the project is to address many of the issues mentioned above. We want to try creating more dynamic and flexible finding aids. We want finding aids that can not only cope with complex records with multiple provenance, but that are also flexible enough to reveal different stories or narratives to different people at different times and are therefore responsive to individual users' needs.

The main way we are doing this is to borrow the Australian series system, which as has already been mentioned is the only descriptive system that currently takes account of developments in theory. We will be describing records at the level of the series and file only. We have abandoned the fonds. We are not grouping records in a static, hierarchical arrangement based on the fonds. Instead we are building up a set of independent series descriptions. In addition, we are building up a set of separate authority records for the records creators as well as separate descriptions of the functions and activities performed by the creators. These three types of data can then be linked together in lots of different ways to represent the complex relationships of records. The types of links that will be possible are illustrated in diagram 1. We are currently in the process of designing a bespoke system which will allow users to follow any of these links and navigate freely between the different data types. The result will be a really flexible system that can represent as many different provenances as necessary.

We are using one of our own collections, the House of Fraser Department Store Archive, as a test bed. The reason we have chosen this is because it is large and very complicated. Over time, some 200 stores have joined or left the House of Fraser Group and it has acquired at least nine separate store chains, which makes it a particularly challenging and complex collection to list. It is perfect therefore as a test bed. In addition, it is a very popular collection and the current finding aids we have for it are just not adequate. They are traditional mono-hierarchical lists and simply do not reflect the complex provenances of the records, so we really need to replace them.

We have two main objectives: firstly to carry out research into archival descriptive practice, and secondly, to create an actual, useful resource for our researchers. It is therefore very much a combination of theory and practice. The AHRC funding is allowing us to create a new resource for a collection that badly needs it and, at the same time, to test the application of the series system in this country, as well as implementing ISAAR(CPF), EAC and the draft standard for describing functions and, particularly importantly, investigating how the three different sets of descriptions interact. As well as the resource itself, we will be producing a report into all the issues that we have faced during the course of the project. We will therefore benefit ourselves by sorting out a very complex collection, but also pass on the results of our experience to others, which we hope will contribute to taking descriptive practice forwards in this country and getting us out of the nineteenth century.

It cannot be pretended that this combination of research and practice is not without its difficulties. It is quite a tall order to do so much within a relatively short space of time. On the one hand, we want to try as many new things as possible, but on the other we do have to produce a finished resource at the end of it. It is not speculative research - we are not allowed to fail! We have to produce something useful out of it. Despite this, however, the approach of combining research and practice is a good one. Our experience so far is positive - the project is allowing us to focus on issues that we would not have time for in the ordinary course of work. And the results are already beginning to feed back into our usual work. I would certainly encourage others to think of applying for funding for projects of this type. It is a very good way of drawing theory and practice back together, which is essential if we want to develop really effective finding aids.

Diagram 1. Relationships between data types

In addition to the links shown, each instance of a data type may have relationships with any number of other instances of the same data type, for example a series may have relationships with other series, or a company may have relationships with other companies.

Chart showing relationships between data types

Return to 2007 ICA/SUV Conference Papers



[1]  Respect des fonds is the idea that the archives of one agency should not be mixed with those of another.

[2]  Original order is the idea that the arrangement made by the creator should remain intact.

[3]  Terry Cook, "What is Past is Prologue: A History of Archival Ideas Since 1898, and the Future Paradigm Shift," Archivaria 43 (1997).

[4]  Barbara Reed, "Records," in Archives: Recordkeeping in Society, ed. Sue McKemmish, Michael Piggott, Barbara Reed and Frank Upward (Wagga Wagga, 2005), 102.

[5]  See, for example, Archives Investigator, the online catalogue of the New South Wales Government, which documents creators, functions and activities as well as other entities, http://investigator.records.nsw.gov.au/ (accessed October 20, 2007).

[6]   See the online database of the Archives of Ontario, http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/common/collections.htm (accessed October 20, 2007).

[7]   See the online database of the Hudson's Bay Company Archives at the Archives of Manitoba, http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/archives/keystone/index.html (accessed October 20, 2007).

[8]  "International Standard Archival Authority Record For Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families," International Council on Archives, http://www.ica.org/en/node/30230 (accessed October 20, 2007).

[9]  Encoded Archival Context, http://www.iath.virginia.edu/eac/ (accessed October 20, 2007).

[10]  "International Standard on Activities/Functions of Corporate Bodies," International Council on Archives, http://www.ica.org/en/node/831 (accessed October 20, 2007).

[11]  Linking EAD to Electronically Retrievable Sources, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leaders-project/index.htm (accessed October 20, 2007).

[12]   Gateway to Archives of Scottish Higher Education, http://www.gashe.ac.uk/ (accessed October 20, 2007).

[13]  Navigational Aids for the History of Science, Technology & the Environment, http://www.nahste.ac.uk/ (accessed October 20, 2007).

[14]  National Register of Archives, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/default.asp (accessed October 20, 2007).

[15]  Examples are the Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick and The Women's Library, London Metropolitan University.

[16]  Terry Cook, "Fashionable Nonsense or Professional Rebirth: Postmodernism and the Practice of Archives, " Archivaria 51 (2001).

[17]  The ICA has a regular programme of review and revision of its standards. The next revision of ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) is planned for the period 2008-2012.

[18]  Heather MacNeil, "The Finding Aid as Cultural Text" (paper presented at the Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute, University of Glasgow, July 3, 2007).

[19]  "General International Standard Archival Description," International Council on Archives, http://www.ica.org/en/node/30000 (accessed October 20, 2007).

[20]  "International Standard for Institutions with Archival Holdings (ISIAH) ," International Council on Archives, http://www.ica.org/en/2007/07/06/cbps-international-standard-institutions-archival-holdings-isiah-call-comments (accessed October 20, 2007).