F I I 1 1 [ ^ ^ ^ - ^ Volume 58 MM •^•^B_^k Number 1 Wm B B ^ T ^ Winter 1995 Ajiierican Archivist E\O.OrlON OF FEPEPAL PECDRP-KEEPIHG PROCEDURES The Society of American Archivists D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 The American Archivist Richard J. Cox, Editor, University of Pittsburgh Teresa M. Brinati, Managing Editor, Society of American Archivists Nancy Fleming, Copy Editor Mitchell Bjerke, Editorial Assistant Barbara L. Craig, Reviews Editor, University of Toronto EDITORIAL BOARD Terry Cook (1994-1997), National Archives of Canada Anne Gilliland-Swetland (1994-1997), University of Michigan Joan D. Krizack (1994-1995), Northeastern University Lawrence J. McCrank (1994-1996), Ferris State University Robert S. Martin (1994-1998), Louisiana State University James M. O'Toole (1994-1998), University of Massachusetts at Boston Victoria Irons Walch (1994-1996), Consultant Maxine Trost (1994-1995), University of Wyoming The Society of American Archivists PRESIDENT Maygene Daniels, National Gallery of Art VICE PRESIDENT Brenda Banks, Georgia Department of Archives and History TREASURER Lee Stout, Pennsylvania State University EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Susan E. Fox COUNCIL MEMBERS Karen Benedict (1993-1996), Consultant Susan E. Davis (1994-1997), State Historical Society of Wisconsin Luciana Duranti (1992-1995), University of British Columbia Timothy Ericson (1993-1996), University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Margaret L. Hedstrom (1992-1995), New York State Archives & Records Administration Steve Hensen (1994-1997), Duke University H. Thomas Hickerson (1993-1996), Cornell University Sharon Gibbs Thibodeau (1994-1997), National Archives and Records Administration Elizabeth Yakel (1992-1995), Student About the cover: Issues about the management of electronic records continue to vex both archivists and records managers. This cartoon appeared in the September 4, 1995, issue o/Federal Computer Week accompanying an editorial about the recent National Archives' electronic mail regulations and the apparent lack of e-mail management systems that would allow agencies not to have to print out electronic mail messages. This issue of the American Archivist carries several essays concerning the challenges of managing elec- tronic mail. (Illustration courtesy of Richard Tennant) D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 .The.American Archivist Volume 58 / Number 1 Forum / 4 From the Editor Easy Distinctions / 6 Richard J. Cox Presidential Address / Winter 1995 Expanding the Foundation / 10 Edie Hedlin Pease Award "No Documents—No Women's Archives / Anke Voss-Hubbard History": Mary Ritter Beard and the Early History of 16 Research Article Beneficial Shocks: The Place of Processing-Cost Analysis in Archival Administration / 32 Paul Ericksen and Robert Shuster ©The Society of American Archivists, 1995. All Rights Reserved. ISSN 0360-9081 D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 American Archivist / Winter 1995 Perspectives Legal Admissibility of Electronic Records as Evidence and Implications for Records Management / 54 Sara J. Piasecki Integrating Archival Management and the ARCHIVES Listserv in the Classroom: A Case Study / 66 Diana L. Shenk and Jackie R. Esposito International Scene Revolution in Records: A Strategy for Information Resources Management and Records Management / 74 Peter M. H. Waters and Henk Nagelhout From the Reviews Editor What's Ahead in Reviews / 84 Barbara L. Craig Review Article James M. O'Toole Toward a Usable Archival Past: Recent Studies in the History of Literacy (Works reviewed: Michael T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066- 1307; Brian Stock, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries; Rosamund McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word; Rosamund McKitterick, ed., The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe; Rosalind Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece; and William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy) / 86 D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 The Society of American Archivists SAA Council Meeting Minutes, 3-5 June 1994 / 100 SAA Council Meeting Minutes, 6 September 1994 / 107 SAA Council Meeting Minutes, 10 September 1994 / 112 Editorial Policy / 114 Postal Notice The following statement of ownership, management, and circulation was filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4369, Title 39, U.S. Code, on 29 September 1995, by Teresa M. Brinati, Managing Editor. The American Archivist is published quarterly by the Society of American Archivists, 600 S. Federal St., Suite 504, Chicago, Illinois 60605. The managing editor is Teresa M. Brinati. The owner is the Society of American Archivists, 600 S. Federal St., Suite 504, Chicago, Illinois 60605. There are no stockholders, bondholders, mortgages, or other security holders in the organization. The average number of copies of each issue printed during the preceding twelve months was 5,514; sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, and counters sales were 0; mail subscriptions to members and subscribers were 4,925; total paid circulation was 4,925; free distribution was 119; total distribution was 5,040; and 470 copies were for office use, leftover, or spoiled after printing. For the most recent issue (Summer 1994), total number of copies printed was 5,547; sales through dealers and carriers were 0; mail subscriptions to members and subscribers were 4,925; total paid circulation was 4,925; free distribution was 121; total distribution was 5,046 and 501 copies were for office use, leftover, or spoiled after printing. Subscription Information The American Archivist (ISSN 0360-9081) is published quarterly by the Society of American Archivists, 600 S. Federal, Suite 504, Chicago, Illinois 60605. Second class postage paid at Chicago, Illinois, and additional mailing office. Subscriptions: $85 a year to North American addresses, $100 a year to other addresses. Single copies are $25 for magazine copies and $30 for photocopies. Articles and related communications should be sent to Teresa M. Brinati, Managing Editor, Society of American Archivists, 600 S. Federal, Suite 504, Chicago, Illinois 60605. Telephone: (312) 922- 0140. Advertising correspondence, membership and subscription correspondence, and orders for back issues should be sent to SAA at the address above. Requests for permission to reprint an article should be sent in writing to SAA at the above address. Claims for issues not received must be received by SAA headquarters within four months of issue publication date for domestic subscribers and within six months for international subscribers. The American Archivist is available on 16 mm microfilm, 35 mm microfilm, and 105 mm microfiche from Univesity Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346. When an issue is out of stock, article and issue photocpies may also be obtained from UMI. The American Archivist is indexed in Library Literature and is abstracted in Historical Abstracts; book reviews are indexed in Book Reviews Index. @ The American Archivist is printed on an alkaline, acid-free printing paper manufactured with no groundwood pulp that meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute— Permanence of Paper, ANSI Z39.48-1992. Typesetting and printing of The American Archivist is done by Imperial Printing Company of St. Joseph, Michigan. The American Archivist and the Society of American Archivists assume no responsibility for statements made by contributors. ©The Society of American Archivists 1995. All rights reserved. Postmaster: send address changes to The American Archivist, 600 S. Federal, Suite 504, Chicago, Illinois 60605. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 American Archivist / Vol. 58 / Winter 1995 Appraisal and Oral Evidence To the editor: Luciana Duranti's otherwise excellent ar- ticle, "The Concept of Appraisal and Ar- chival Theory," (American Archivist, 57 [Spring 1994]: 328^14) has in it a glaring error. Duranti believes "that documents purposely created to provide evidence of oral actions must not be included in the societal archives: They do not constitute evidence but interpretation, and their inclu- sion among archival material would be an infringement of our historical accountabil- ity" (p. 343). To follow Duranti's direction to exclude all "documents purposely created to pro- vide evidence of oral actions" would im- poverish society, archives, and history by forcing archivists to throw out many criti- cally important documents such as: • all written minutes of meetings conducted orally. • all written memoranda of oral conver- sation, statements, or interviews, even court stenographers' typed transcrip- tion of legal testimony during trials. • all segments of written memoirs, bi- ographies, or autobiographies that are based on "oral actions." • all written diplomatic, legal, eco- nomic, social, and political reports or memoranda based solely on what one heard or said. Instead of prolonging the list of types of items Duranti would remove from the his- torical record, let's remember specific doc- uments from James Madison's notes on the U.S. Constitutional Convention to John Dean's and J. R. Haldeman's memoranda of conversations with President Richard M. Nixon. Surely, most archivists would agree that to not include such "documents pur- posely created to provide evidence of oral actions . . . among archival material would be an infringement of our historical ac- countability." ROBERT G. SHERER University Archivist Tulane University Reply from the author: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the letter of Robert G. Sherer. Mr. Sherer is absolutely correct in each and every one of his statements. I would never suggest that any of the examples he lists is not the direct competence of the archivist and should be removed "from the histori- cal record." I did not refer to those types of records when I made the statement quoted by Sherer. As a matter of fact, most of those records belong to one of the two most important diplomatic categories of records, the probative records. (See Luci- ana Duranti, "Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science. Part II," Archivaria 29 [Winter 1989-90]: 9.) The key to my intended meaning is the adverb "purposely," as opposed to "nat- urally." Minutes, memoranda, and similar reports of oral actions are generated in the natural course of affairs, not to provide a historical record for future researchers. In other words, they are needed for carrying D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Forum out whatever activities the creator intends to carry out. On the contrary, oral histories, for example, are purposefully generated for posterity, and therefore do not present the necessary characteristics of all archival documents. The latter is the type of docu- ment I was referring to in my statement. With all the above said, I wish to apol- ogize to Robert Sherer and all my readers for my overconcise writing style. Too often I leave my readers to wonder what I mean by one sentence or another, and to interpret individual words, when one more sentence or a few examples would have made read- ing so much more pleasant! I will make a better effort in the future. I also wish to thank Robert Sherer for having brought the issue to my attention, and for giving me the opportunity to clarify my statement, as I am certain that many people have been wondering about it. LUCIANA DURANTI Master of Archival Studies Program University of British Columbia MicroMARC and Importing/ Exporting To the editor: In her article, "Automating the Archives: A Case Study," (American Archivist 57 [Spring 1994] 364-73) Carole Prietto mis- represents the capabilities and functions of MicroMARC :amc. From its initial release in 1986, MicroMARC:amc has always had the capability to import and export US- MARC AMC records. This includes im- porting and exporting records to OCLC. There has never been a question with the ability of MicroMARC :amc to export re- cords, whether to OCLC or other MARC systems. The only question has been in what medium. Until a few years ago, OCLC required the records be sent on a 9- track tape. For MicroMARC:amc users who did not have the capability to generate a 9-track tape for export to OCLC, we pro- vided such a service. Today MicroMARC: amc users can easily transport their USMARC AMC records to OCLC, RLIN, and so on, via the Internet. FREDERICK L. HONHART Michigan State University Reply from the author Thank you for the comment concerning my article. Please note that in footnote number 13, I do note the fact that at the time I evaluated MicroMARC for use at Wash- ington University, "MicroMARC users had to copy completed records to a floppy disk and send them to Michigan State Uni- versity. At Michigan State, records were tape-loaded into OCLC via the university's mainframe. Both MicroMARC and Mina- ret have since added modules for importing and exporting MARC records." The larger point being made at that place in the article was that, as of 1991, MARC records cre- ated in either Minaret and MicroMARC re- quired some form of conversion routine before they could be loaded into OCLC. In both cases, that has since changed, as I also stated in footnote 13. I believe this ad- dresses your points concerning OCLC con- version and MicroMARC, but if it does not, I would appreciate hearing from you so that the record may be set straight. CAROLE PRIETTO Washington University in St. Louis With the exception of editing for con- formity of capitalization, punctuation, and citation style, letters to the Forum are published verbatim. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 American Archivist / Vol. 58 / Winter 1995 From the Editor Easy Distinctions HISTORICAL PRESERVATIONIST Hugh How- ard has written: "The world is full of easy distinctions.... a convenient one is be- tween the savers and the throwers."1 The essays in this issue of the American Archi- vist are also about easy distinctions in our own world: The champions of archives, versus those who are not advocates. The need to conduct research about basic ar- chival functions versus the need to manage potential damage against providing greater detail on the costs of maintaining our doc- umentary heritage. The growing use of electronic recordkeeping systems, moving against the tide of legal systems and archi- val practices still tied to a paper world. Ed- ucation in the classroom, versus "street smarts" acquired over the information highway. Archives and records manage- ment objectives, weighed against organi- zations' interest in meeting them and supporting such objectives. The notion of our present professional practice, con- trasted with the historical evolution of the field. Easy distinctions. The initial essay on the early develop- ment of women's archives is a good place to begin considering some easy distinctions in our own work. Anke Voss-Hubbard's history of the origins of the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College is more than a •Hugh Howard, The Preservationist's Progress: Architectural Adventures in Conserving Yesterday's Houses (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1991), 5. chronicle of the early formation of wom- en's archives in this country. It is also an interesting exploration of the value and challenge of archival history. In previous essays I have argued for the relevancy of archival history, as have others (including James O'Toole, who does so again in his essay in this issue), so there is no need to repeat the arguments here. Voss-Hubbard's article, however, is an insightful view into the tenuous foundations of such subject ar- chives, as well as our ability to go back and understand the origins of our pro- grams. At several points, Voss-Hubbard comments on Mary Beard's own lack of interest in or care for her records. I suspect that many archivists have made little pro- vision for their own papers, and that the future historians of our profession will face similar detective sleuthing. Does this strike anyone as peculiarly ironic, that the pre- servers of archival records are not admin- istering their own archives? For a long time archivists have operated as if arrangement and description were the primary functions of their work and re- sponsibility. While appraisal and reference or use have at times competed for priority, other forces—the extent of writings, efforts to develop standards, and the emphases of graduate and continuing education—have kept arrangement and description at the fore. The easy distinction here is that ar- rangement and description equal archival knowledge and practice, whereas other ac- tivities are merely diversions from such D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 From the Editor work. Yet, as Paul Ericksen and Robert Shuster convey in their essay, the supposed centrality of this function has not been ac- companied by serious efforts to analyze its costs and procedures. With the details of their study, Ericksen and Shuster con- firmed "that the resources we devoted to processing exceeded the value we placed on what we had accomplished." Is there another irony here, in that this function's importance as the primary user of archival resources has not been worthy of substan- tial study itself?2 For thirty years archivists and records managers have debated both the signifi- cance of electronic records and how to manage them. While this discussion has gone on, often generating more theoretical discourse rather than reflecting experience, our courts have slowly evolved to the point of treating electronic records as fundamen- tally different or distinct from paper re- cords. Sara J. Piasecki's essay on the legal admissibility of electronic records as evi- dence is a straightforward account of the evolution of law and legal decisions. While Piasecki sees many uncertainties in the di- rection our courts may be heading, leading to a certain "highly contentious legal fu- ture," her reading of the law and legisla- tion also identifies trends that force organizations, records managers, and ar- chivists to develop more effective pro- grams for ensuring the maintenance of electronic records systems. Although she does not write in this tone, it appears likely that the electronic technology sweeping through our organizations and society rep- resents more opportunity for strengthening records and archival management if we po- 2This topic is by no means alone in this regard. Every few months the ARCHIVES Listserv features a lengthy essay about user fees. I remember that many of the more recent comments were uttered at profes- sional conferences I attended twenty years ago. Yet, we do not have a single study, even a profile, of the prevailing use of fees in archival programs! sition ourselves with the right advice in our institutions. The easy distinction between electronic and paper recordkeeping sys- tems that has caused us to break our serv- ices and approaches so neatly between the two is nearing the end of its utility. Archivists have also long debated the relevance of practice and theory and meth- odology gained in graduate classrooms. Some of these debates are cooling, as grad- uate education enters a new realm of so- phistication and comprehensiveness. Yet, as the article by Diana Shenk and Jackie Esposito reveals, there remains a need and value in maintaining a strong and steady connection between training and education. Their discussion of the use of the AR- CHIVES Listserv outlines the potential of bringing the practical, daily work of the ar- chivist into the classroom, a value I cer- tainly see as I require my archives students to read and discuss this and other listservs. Questions remain about the use of the elec- tronic discussion vehicles. For example, Shenk and Esposito comment on the gen- eral lower quality of the resulting student papers; is this attributable to the listserv or is it more a reflection of what we should expect from a one-course introduction? In the program in which I teach, with a cluster of six courses, the quality of papers is high and the use of the Internet more sophisti- cated. Shenk and Esposito also point out that the use of the ARCHIVES Listserv provides "virtually unlimited access to the great archival minds in our profession." However, many leading archivists do not participate in the public discussions, at the same time that anyone (including nonar- chivists) can join and participate in the dis- cussions. (How are these sorted out?) And we must still ask if the best access to the best thinking about archival science is not in the print (or electronic) journals rather than in listservs. A gap in reality between aim and prac- tice is also often a problem for the purpose of organizational and governmental records D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 American Archivist / Winter 1995 management and archives programs. The contribution in this issue by Peter Waters and Henk Nagelhout about recent efforts by the National Archives of The Nether- lands offers ways to deal with these chal- lenges. Rather than trying to force proce- dures and policies that cut across the organizational grain, archivists and records managers are striving to determine and then meet the needs and wishes of the agency staff creating and maintaining the records. These European archivists also confirm the need, long accepted but seldom practiced, for identifying at an early stage of creation those records that are archival. Their approach also suggests what is hap- pening with our late twentieth-century in- stitutions, when they discuss the abandonment of uniform approaches in fa- vor of a greater diversity for records man- agement. James O'Toole's review essay on the history of literacy is an important contri- bution to our professional literature be- cause it shows, with no doubt, that there is a rich and vital scholarship with direct rel- evance to our own discipline. As he states, those who think they know all they need to know about our professional past from a quick reading of Posner and a few others are very sadly mistaken. Perhaps an easy distinction here is the irony that a profes- sion concerned with preserving historical records seems blissfully unaware both of its own past and of the need to preserve the records of its own institutions, leaders, and profession. If it has no other impact, O'Tooles's essay ought to convey the mes- sage that the burdens and challenges of the modern electronic age may not be far re- moved from our ancient predecessors' challenge of coping with the transition from orality to writing and from manu- script to printed texts. Although Edie Hedlin's essay on build- ing foundations appears first in this issue, as the Presidential Address, it is an appro- priate thought for concluding this introduc- tory editorial. My focus has been on easy distinctions, but Edie's emphasis is on hard ones. She argues—and does it well, in my opinion—for the need to build partnerships and professional infrastructure. She de- scribes, well again, how the problems we face are big and require coordinated ac- tions and new initiatives. The issues and concerns raised by the other authors in this American Archivist are exactly the kinds that could be tackled by the types of con- sortia, institutes, centers, and think-tanks Edie describes in her stirring call for new actions. It is the role of our presidents to paint the big picture and to point us toward brave new worlds. Generally, we forget what they have said or (and just as bad) we view their messages as historical docu- ments reflecting where we were at a par- ticular juncture. Edie Hedlin has given us a document that should not be shelved and forgotten. If we fail to heed this advice, society may shelve us and forget what we have to say. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.58.1.h915873284443778 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021