Challenging Traditional Notions of Archival Processing: An Academic Paper
 |
| copyright: The National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago |
Mark A. Greene
and Dennis Meissner introduced the concept of More Product, Less Process (MPLP) as a means of challenging traditional
notions of archival processing. MPLP made a number of suggestions on how
archives could deal with the persistent problem of collection backlogs while
ensuring that users get as much access to as much of their holdings as
possible. MPLP advocated that user access should be of chief importance and
that archives should provide as much of their materials in the least possible
time. The greatest archiving effort should be focused on those materials which
has the greatest demand. It should not be assumed that all collections will be
processed and described at the same level. Finally archivists should not allow
preservation anxieties to compromise any focus on user access and other
managerial values. Taking everything into account, MPLP is presented as a
user-driven, cost-effective and resource-saving way of operating an archive and
provides bench-mark ways of dealing with the persistent problems that archives
face. In keeping with the required focus of the exercise, this paper would
highlight some of the opinions I developed while reading the article More Application while Less Appreciation:
The Adopters and Antagonists of MPLP.
In looking at the various tenets of MPLP, it
is quite apparent that there is a focus on the user and on providing as much
access to them in the briefest possible time.
Greene and Meisnner asserts that MPLP represents a conceptual shift in
the way archivists will look at their jobs saying, “All in all, we still
believe that this general advice (MPLP) represents a rather profound change in
approach and perspective, at least in the domain of archival processing[1].” They also argue that archives need to be more
pragmatic in the way they approach their mandate of providing access and
preserving collections. I wholeheartedly agree with this stance. Archives
everywhere are facing increasingly difficult times where funding is becoming
more and more of a challenge. Furthermore, they need to continuously
demonstrate returns on investment (ROI) by showing how much users and
researchers they attract to their collections whether it be online or in-house
collections. Archives can no longer see themselves as the ‘gatekeepers’ of collections
where access is granted to a deserving few. Rather, their very survival depends
on capturing the interest of a wide cross section of users and not just from
the academic community. As such, the user-driven focus of MPLP directly
addresses this need.
MPLP
also advocates for less item-level description when dealing with collections
order to get them out faster to users. Greene and Meissner justify this stance
by contending that in various surveys, greater percentages of researchers have
favored lesser item-level collection description if it meant access to more
material[2]. This notion of processing
collections in keeping with user-demand and preference is also reflected by
Helena Zinkham. She sees use, value, and viability as effective criteria for
processing visual materials which bears a lot of similarities to MPLP. In
particular, her definition of use places a focus on who will use the material
and how frequently. I think this brings to bear the issue of where should
archives’ primary focus lie: on the processing and preservation of collections
or user need and demand. There can be no doubt that such a situation requires
archivists to perform a balancing act in order to meet both needs.
The arrangement of the collection, for instance in original order, is the
focus of one of our class discussions this week. In my opinion, arranging
collections in original order and allowing users to access is reflective of
MPLP’s advocacy of broader level description of some collections. On the other
hand, archivists must continue to acknowledge the inherent hierarchy in their
collections, in the accessioning and description of their holdings, based on
perceived user demand. Remedial processing and detailing can also be done on
collections that have high usability. In reading the MPLP article, I could not help
but recall what various lecturers had mentioned about the process behind the Historic Pittsburgh Project where there
was a greater focus on describing the collections at a series-level rather than
on each of the photographs. If memory serves me correct, one of the lecturers
acknowledged that this way of describing allowed them to process the collection
even faster. Likewise, digitization and digital technology in general seems to
have made it even more possible for archives to fulfill some of the tenets of
MPLP. Thus, in looking at a number of digital collections there seems to be a
general acknowledgement of the feasibility and pragmatism of the MPLP approach
to dealing with collections. There seems to be more of a focus on making the
material accessible, collection-level description, and minimal series-level
description.
In conclusion,
the MPLP article raised a number of points which I agree with since I believe
that archives can no longer afford to be introverted with regards to how they
make their material available to users. More so, the various tenets of MPLP are
being reflected in the criteria that various authors are putting forward on the
assessment of visual materials and other types. Though it may have its
opponents, the very economic climate that archives find themselves in warrants
some adoption of MPLP if archives want to remain relevant.
Bibliography
Meissner, Dennis, and Mark A. Greene. "More Application
while Less Appreciation: The Adopters and Antagonists of MPLP." Journal of Archival Organization 8, no. 3-4
(2010): 174-226.
Zinkham, Helena “Use, Value,
Viability: Criteria for Choosing Effective Processing Levels for Visual
Materials.” Library Congress, and
Photographs Div. (2007): 1–6.
[1] Meissner,
Dennis, and Mark A. Greene. "More Application while Less Appreciation: The
Adopters and Antagonists of MPLP." Journal
of Archival Organization 8, no. 3-4 (2010): 175.
[2] Meissner,
Dennis, and Mark A. Greene. "More Application while Less Appreciation: The
Adopters and Antagonists of MPLP." Journal
of Archival Organization 8, no. 3-4 (2010): 183.
Comments