Greene, Mark A., and Dennis Meissner. “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing.” American Archivist 68, no. 2 (2005): 208– 263. http://archivists.metapress.com/content/c741823776k65863/fulltext.pdf
Today is a staff professional development day at the Brandel Library where we are free to research a topic of our choice. I’m embracing the opportunity by reading the paradigm shifting work “More Product, Less Process” by Greene and Meissner as well as some reflections/responses to it.
A Paradigm Shift
Overall, this article was a well argued case for massive changes in the way archivists manage manuscript collections that relies on several major shifts thinking. What was perhaps most striking – especially at the beginning – was the raw data. Examples of the “shocking” raw data:
- 34% of archives have more than half of their holdings as “unprocessed” and 60% have at least a third unprocessed.
- The time and cost of current processing practices (in terms of cubic feet processed) was staggering – as was the variation between institutions. Between $200 and $500 a foot taking between and priocessing times ranging between 67 hours per cubic foot to a low of 1.5 hours per cubic foot.
To a relative outsider, that data is shocking and seemingly troubling high!
Another thing that impressed me as a “outside” was how many of the practices, especially in terms of arrangement and preservation, were not definitively shown to have any real effect on preservation or use. At one point the authors refer to conservation practices, ones that varied widely between institutions, as “a disjointed and rather haphazard dedication to certain rituals” and I think their point as well as religious language is wonderfully appropriate.
When writing about why archivists haven’t changed practice to address these dire problems, the authors reason that
As a profession we give higher priority, in practice, to serving the perceived needs of our collection than to serving the demonstrable needs of our constituents.” (p.2)
This feels like one of the major paradigm shifts that influences every part of the library – how will <blank> meet the needs of the patrons, users, or constituents – where the <blank> could be MARC records, mobile websites, library facebook pages, number of outlets, etc. It actually seems almost comical (or sad) how often this question must be asked to change practice.
[Let me offer this aside as a parenthetical remark. As an information profession, it seems reasonable to assume that sometime librarians and archivists must dedicate time and resources to things that don’t have a direct impact on the immediate experience of patrons or users but that nevertheless must be pursued because it simply needs to be done. For example, I’m thinking about Archon and applying LC subject headings to the collection. I simply don’t know how many users would see this as essential, but I’m still considering it because I think it might ultimately be in the best interest of all users. But I’m still considering that question – which seems to be the point of it! Aside complete.]
Another major paradigm shift was in the turn toward metrics and objective data. The article asked basic questions like – “what is the cost of processing collections to certain standards? how does this compare between institutions?” – before asking the larger, meta-question – “are archives scared to ask this question or scared of the answer?” But, the article argues forcefully, in the era of shrinking (or at least not growing!) resources and massive backlogs, archives must start to ask themselves these hard questions.
The actual call to change was interesting and compelling and I hope to read responses and reactions to it this afternoon. However, while the conclusions don’t apply directly to me in technical services, the issues addresses as well as the paradigm shifting questions are very much applicable.
Overall, I thought this was a wonderful article that seemed both revolutionary as well as perfectly natural. As a young person just beginning in the field of library and information science, I’m firmly convinced that the questions and standards this article considers are the crucial questions and that many of their conclusions are the right conclusions for this period.
More reactions to follow.
