Archival Processing at NYPL

This section addresses how archival guidelines, principles, and practices are implemented in the Archival Processing unit at the New York Public Library. We situate our work in the recommendations set forth by the DACS Statement of Principles, but have adapted certain local standards to conform to our unique policies and requirements. We have cited the specific DACS principles referenced in this section.

Table of Contents

Guiding Principles to a Holistic Approach

When processing a collection, keep in mind that each task is part of a continuum1 rather than a discrete activity. All processing activities are interrelated, informed by all prior actions, and influencing all subsequent decisions. Arrangement and description should be approached holistically, rather than as a checklist of tasks to be performed in a linear manner. Many processing activities can and should be performed simultaneously, rather than sequentially.

The Archival Processing unit works with archival collections belonging to the following curatorial divisions:

Since the Archival Processing unit performs central processing for various divisions within the Library, the collections contain an expansive array of formats and objects. Archivists should be flexible in their approach to processing, as every collection is unique and different. Processing is very often dictated by the material present in the collection. Many of the collections are often a hybrid of materials including Born-Digital, audio and moving image, photographs, and papers. It is important to treat all records equally, regardless of format or carrier type. Archival description privileges the intellectual content in context,2 meaning that the records should inform each other and can be an invaluable aid when writing archival description.

In addition to letting records do the storytelling, the other three fundamental concepts that work to constitute archival description are agents, activities, and the relationships between them.3 This is where provenance and original order become so essential in understanding the function of the records.

Archival description should also clearly state what the archivist knows about the collection, what they do not know, and exactly how they know it.4 Actions, such as physical rearrangement, must be documented and discoverable to the user so the context of the content is clear if the received order changes.5 Similarly, archival description should be a continuous intellectual endeavor that should be easy to use, re-use, and share.6

The Archival Processing unit follows the guidelines set forth in Describing Archives: A Content Standard DACS.

Efficient Processing

In the Archival Processing unit we subscribe to an efficient processing model, a method of archival processing that is rooted in the recommendations first introduced by Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner in their 2005 article “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,”7 and expanded upon by Daniel A. Santamaria in his 2015 book, Extensible Processing for Archives and Special Collections: Reducing Processing Backlogs,8 and in the University of California’s Guidelines for Efficient Archival Processing in the University of California Libraries.9 Efficient processing aims to expedite access to collection materials to users and take minimal time and steps to preserve and describe materials to promote use. Gaining basic physical and intellectual control also results in promoting a wider body of material to users, as well as investing an appropriate amount of time and resources to each collection. The idea of identifying a “golden minimum”10 of archival processing means performing the minimal amount of work in order to open the collection to researchers, resisting the temptation to handle materials at the item level, and assessing the appropriateness of work beyond this level of processing. “Good enough”11 processing can also equal quality processing. The archivist’s proficiency in collection analysis and decision making will lead them to determining what level of processing meets the “golden minimum” standard.

  1. DACS Principle 11 says that “Archival description is a continuous intellectual endeavor,” “Statement of Principles,” Describing Archives: A Content Standard, Version 2021.0.0.2 (Society of American Archivists’ Technical Subcommittee), https://saa-ts-dacs.github.io/dacs/04_statement_of_principles.html. ↩

  2. DACS Principle 3 states that “because archival description privileges intellectual content in context, descriptive rules apply equally to all records, regardless of format or carrier type.” Ibid, 3. ↩

  3. DACS Principle 4 states that “records, agents, activities, and the relationships between them are the four fundamental concepts that constitute archival description.” Ibid, 4. ↩

  4. DACS Principle 5 states that “Archival description must be clear about what archivists know, what they don’t know, and how they know it.” Ibid, 5. ↩

  5. DACS Principle 6 says that “Archivists must document and make discoverable the actions they take on records.” Ibid, 6. ↩

  6. DACS Principle 8 states that “Archival description should be easy to use, re-use, and share.” Ibid, 8. ↩

  7. Mark Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” The American Archivist 68, no. 2 (September 1, 2005): 208–63, doi:10.17723/aarc.68.2.c741823776k65863. ↩

  8. Daniel A. Santamaria, Extensible Processing for Archives and Special Collections: Reducing Processing Backlogs (Chicago: Neal-Schuman, an imprint of the American Library Association, 2015). ↩

  9. Kate Dundon et al., Guidelines for Efficient Archival Processing in the University of California Libraries (Version 4), May 1, 2020, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4b81g01z. ↩

  10. This concept was first introduced by Greene and Meissner within the context of their widely referenced article that is often colloquially referred to as “MPLP.” In defining the “golden minimum” they ask, “What is the least we can do to get the job done in a way that is adequate to user needs, now and in the future?” Mark Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” The American Archivist 68, no. 2 (September 1, 2005): 240, doi:10.17723/aarc.68.2.c741823776k65863. ↩

  11. Greene and Meissner suggest “that a sign of professional maturity would be for us to own up to the limitations we work under and accept that the golden minimum recommended here (or doing ‘good enough’ rather than insisting on perfection) is all we can realistically accomplish.” Ibid (255). ↩