[Personal_archives] Arrangement discussion - random thoughts

[Farrell, Fred (DSS/MAS)]

First, I want to thank the organizers of and contributors to the discussion.  It is so rare to have the opportunity to step back and think about and analyse what we do on a daily basis.  One thought I come away with from the postings and readings is that we are presented with the spectrum of arrangement efforts, MPLP to documenting sites of creation.  The Hurley article has much food for thought but can be simplistically summed up by “original order is the most time efficient approach”.  Herein lays our quandary.  Much of what has stimulated arrangement thinking in the past is resources, which in turn dictates description and access.   This is a recurring theme because for much of archival history acquisition has outstripped the capacity to provide the “relative orderliness” that equates to access.  The problem this presents currently is that the forces of accountability, transparency, and distance access are combining to foist fatuous approaches like MPLP, which masquerades as access when it is barely accession control, as feasible solutions.  In times of stress it is so tempting to grab anything looking like a floatation device, but resist we must.
If Mackenzie King were to paraphrase Hurley, he might say original order if necessary but not necessarily original order.  When the green garbage bag is the predominant records transference device for personal papers, it is understandable we can lose sight of original order but we should still keep an eye open for it anyway.  The thoughts around arrangement at various levels, also presents some important ideas to ponder.  The whole shift from registries to files and packets holds much interest for its impact on access and points me toward more arrangement at lower levels but then I don’t need much to push me in that direction.

Fred

________________________________
From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Fisher, Robert [Robert.Fisher at bac-lac.gc.ca]
Sent: February 1, 2012 3:10 PM
To: personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: [Personal_archives] Arrangement discussion - random thoughts

I’m just getting caught up with the discussion!  Some thoughts come to mind reading the posts so far …

Heather -- I was very interested in the rules for ordering that were presented. I was particularly intrigued by the idea that to organize by physical form  imposes the least amount of subjectivity by the archivist. I never realized the intention behind this type of arrangement

-        I had never considered this angle either.  Archivists could arrange the fonds based on form without having to make decisions continually on where something belonged – arranging on autopilot.  I see this arrangement often in LAC fonds that were acquired in the past.  When we adopted RAD and corporate description in the late 1990s, we had a procedures manual with a chapter on arrangement.  It reversed Swift’s order of preference (though it made no reference to him).  If I recall correctly the 1998 manual recommended (1) Function or activity (2) subject or theme (3) form or type and (4) media.  So since training on the new system I have tended to view the form-based model as out-dated or “anti-original order”.  Recently I had some discussion with Mark Greene about the challenges of using MPLP for personal fonds.  He shared with me a paper done by Claudia Thompson who worked with him, showing how his institution adapted MPLP for personal fonds using a type of form-based model for series arrangement, i.e. using categories like autobiographical, communications, creations, collected material, and the like, including miscellaneous for anything leftover.  So adopting this type of arrangement was seen as a way of speeding up physical arrangement.  It immediately reminded me of the old PAC practice.

Jeremy -- Thus "original order" in personal archives is often a false construct, no matter how we try to define it.  We would be better served if we simply acknowledge this limitation, and perhaps rechristen the term "recent discernible order" (or something far more elegant).  "Original order" sounds powerful and authoritative, and I think it leads many archivists to believe that it truly exists in all fonds and accruals.  The truth is less ideal.
- This “false construct” of original order has hit me increasingly in recent years. The only level of arrangement that is natural or absolute in personal archives appears to be the fonds level, sometimes it seems that everything else is constructed by the archivist, with the possible exception of the file level.  It is rare that I find anything resembling a complete series structure in a personal fonds.  A few obvious series may be evident but most of the rest of the series are constructed, using the principles identified above (activity, subject, form).  Very rarely do I find series titles used by a creator that are appropriate for archival arrangement.  This being said, there are always bits and pieces of evident or “discernible original order” that can be used, but much of the fonds seems to elude any direct creator-based arrangement, and we must fall back on identifying and grouping like files using some form of those principles.

More random thoughts may follow!

Cheers,
Rob

____________________________
Rob Fisher
Senior Archivist, Social Archives
Bibliothèque et Archives Canada / Library and Archives Canada
550 boulevard de la Cité, Gatineau, QC
Canada  K1A 0N4
Téléphone / Telephone:  819-934-7392



The opinions expressed above are mine, and not those of my employer.