Posted on

Reflections on the processing the Springer collection – Notes

Overview of the process

  1. Overview of the Springer Collection
    1. I’ve been working with a collection of black and white negatives donated to the Center for Railroad Photography and Art by Fred Springer.
    2. Fred Springer traveled through the United States and world taking pictures of trains, train workers, and other buildings and equipment.
    3. This collection is contained in 6 boxes and likely contains around 8,000 images.
    4. A particularly strong collection of steam trains and narrow gauge trains.
  2. Scanning
    1. Done by a Lake Forest College student workers.
    2. Overall, the quality of scans was pretty good.
    3. Some minimal cleanup (re-scanning blurring images, scanning “skipped” images)
  3. Metadata Creation/Entry
    1. Here is the metadata we are recording for each image:
      1. File Name (Identifier)
      2. Railroad Reporting Mark
      3. Railroad Name
      4. Description on Envelope
      5. Location (City)
      6. Location (State)
      7. Location (Country)
      8. Date Created (yyyy-mm-dd)
      9. Location (Mile Post)
      10. Original Extent (Physical Size of the Original)
      11. Original Format = black and white negative
      12. Type = Image
      13. Creator = Springer, Fred or
      14. Collection = Springer Collection
      15. Scanning Issues [to record technical issues with the scanning process; not for public display!]
    2. Our metadata standards really focused on transcribing existing metadata.
      1. I didn’t attempt to determine the location of a station or the type of train if that information didn’t exist on the envelope.
      2. I made some minimal corrections for obvious mistakes (spelling errors) but relied heavily on the original descriptions.
  4. Processing/Quality Control
    1. Make sure the digital file name correspond to the metadata.
    2. Preserve original order and context to the extent possible.

What I learned

  1. The importance of metadata in special collections.
    1. Metadata is context specific
      1. Railroad markings
      2. Mile post
      3. “Whyte notation” to classify wheel arrangement on steam locomotives
    2. Metadata should be context independent.
      1. Entering “standard” metadata fields for each item.
      2. Thinking about future (computerized) systems re-using and re-interpreting the data in interesting ways.
      3. Serials podcast daydream.
    3. Metadata creation balances current needs (user groups, uses, resources, staff expertise) and future needs (anticipates a larger world, metadata standardization for computerized processing, etc.)
  2. Effective processing requires conceptual and technical abilities.
    1. There really isn’t a distinction between the two.
    2. Hardware constraints (better equipment is better).
    3. It also requires self-reflection. Is this working? Is that scan good enough? Is that worth the time?
  3. The art of project management; there are advantages and disadvantages to dividing projects.
    1. Scanning and description were separate processes. Doing both together may have been faster…but it might not have been.
    2. The combined process (scanning and metadata) involved switching between many programs. Lots of opportunities for errors.
    3. The divided process created smaller “chunks” and more levels of accountability but also required duplicate labor (and physical processing)
    4. Also aware that Anne, for example, is managing many different projects and responsibilities simultaneously.
  4. More Product, Less Process (MPLP)
    1. A major archival philosophy in the last 10 years.
      1. Essentially, don’t hold all collections to the same “golden standard”
      2. Adequate processing and description is totally adequate – don’t think of it as “cutting corners”
    2. In my estimation, we followed the MPLP philosophy when processing this collection.
      1. The digital scans are of decent quality but were not done at the highest resolution possible. Publication would require re-scanning and editing.
      2. The metadata we created is good but isn’t comprehensive.
    3. Given the nature and size of this collection, the MPLP philosophy fits this collection perfectly. How could we justify a “more process less product” approach to this collection?
    4. However….I must confess that I still had some emotion pulls to abide by “the gold standard” of processing and description.

These lessons in metadata creation, effective processing, project management, and the “more product, less process” philosophy have made this internship a really rich experience for me.

Posted on

Review of “More Product, Less Process”

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.