Re:
.."Because there is no universal mandate about
what must preserved and for what purpose (for example, an archivist's emphasis
on records that bear evidence vs. a librarian's emphasis on content that could
serve multiple purposes over time)..."
I would
just like to comment that while archivists are indeed interested in "records that bear
evidence" we are just as interested
in--and take into account during
appraisal-- records that serve a purpose beyond what their
originator intended--they do "serve multiple purposes over time." The identification and preservation of records
that meet these multiple puposes, I think, is just one of the shining
and wonderful things archivists do for posterity, and I personally am tired of
hearing how the expressed perception of archives and archivists implies that
what we do has limited value compared to a library (or a librarian) for that
matter.
I agree with Elizabeth
Fairfax that records serve a purpose beyond what their originators
intended; and in addition, there is another aspect to serving
multiple purposes over time. Over the last couple years I have
seen quite a few posts on this list that take a high-handed approach to
preservation of records, and place it second to user's needs (implied:
PRESENT users' needs). I think we need to keep overarching archival
criteria in place and have some understanding of the long-term use of
archival documentation. This doesn't mean only saving what is
"fashionable" to talk about now - look at a complete run of the American
Archivist and you will see that (as in any other area of human endeavor)
topics run in waves. People talk about something for 10 or 15 years and
then new topic trends come into play. We have a responsiblity to the
users of tomorrow (in the broadest sense), as well as whoever happens to be
trotting into the archives or hitting on the website to use our materials
today. There may be something we can't use today which will be invaluable
tomorrow.
An example (just to
pick one) is medically-related records which are totally off limits today
because of HIPPAA and so forth. I remember a fairly recent posting
which suggested that since we are here to "serve our users," these are useless
because "users" don't have access to them [right now]. My answer was that
these need to be saved regardless of what we think about utility in the
present. They are unique and have information that could be extremely
valuable, notwithstanding that they are closed at the moment. What a
short-sighted suggestion to get rid of them! I see this train of
thought again and again. I think we need to remember that things are not
always going to be as they are. Also, we are the institutional, and
societal, memory. Perhaps someone in the future can use the records in
ways we haven't yet thought of?? What a novel idea. Sometimes a
little more weight needs to go on the preservation side, whether or not the
documentation appears to be easy to use at the moment. This is where the
overarching archival criteria are necessary. Theory may not be interesting
to a lot of information professionals, but we need it to temper our tendencies
to go with the flow of the moment, and to provide a framework into which we
can put our decisions (in this case appraisal). Of course it can be
tweaked somewhat to fit individual circumstances, but I think at this
point there needs to be more longitudinal thinking. It has been
abandoned by the rest of society (each one of us take a look at our own
institution or organization), and it is important that we be able
to provide it by taking the long view. Our documentation will "serve
multiple purposes over time," and we, of all people, need to be less
myopic about this. Now I am jumping off the soapbox.
Have a great weekend!!
Fred
Lautzenheiser
Cleveland Clinic
Archives
tel:
216/444-2929
fax:
216/445-6868