Introduction

The act of archival processing involves the physical and intellectual arrangement of archival collections; the housing of materials for long term preservation; and the description of each collection’s content and historical significance. The goal of archival processing is to provide greater and more efficient access to staff, researchers, and library users. While the basis of this documentation is rooted in archival theory and practice, we have adapted certain guidelines to suit needs unique to the New York Public Library’s research divisions. It would never be possible to effectively arrange the various sections of this documentation sequentially, because the acts of arrangement and description are not discrete activities. The tasks, procedures, and information described here are intended to work in tandem to provide archivists with the tools, knowledge, and resources necessary to effectively process all collections received in the Special Collections Processing department of the New York Public Library. 

In the Archival Processing unit, we recognize that archival neutrality1 is a myth2 which has been dispelled countless times in our field. In doing this work, we must acknowledge our own biases and privileges,3 while actively striving to center and amplify the voices of those who are frequently silenced and oppressed.4 Similarly we must avoid proclaiming to be experts on the collections we process and accept the limitations of our own knowledge when describing someone else’s experiences.5 

We urge archivists to approach this work with empathy and care for the individuals who created the records,6 the communities we describe, and the users who will access and use the materials.7 We must always consider the ways in which our own experiences invariably influence our descriptive practices,8 and recognize that we must actively strive to identify and dismantle9 the structures that have historically privileged the narratives of those who inhabit spaces of power.10 In recent years, archivists and archival institutions have began to more actively interrogate our own racist histories, which has led to more frequent conversations around inclusive, anti-racist, and reparative description,11 all of which we support and continue to pursue.

We did not come to these ideas on our own, but through the works of many individuals writing on these topics in our field. We have compiled a reading list of the writings that we consulted, and also cited sources that we directly reference in this documentaton. We have incorporated the DACS Statement of Principles, and linked directly to the relevant guidelines. We also aimed to clarify a number of local standards regarding arrangement, description, and style. 

We are very committed to the consistent evolution of this documentation to assure it always addresses external conversations, as well as our own internal needs. We encourage users of this documentation to share your feedback and ask questions via our Suggestion Form. We consider this a living document, which will be revised, updated, and edited as policies evolve, technologies improve, and standards change. This documentation is intended as a guide to the principles that inform our work in the Archival Processing unit, but also as a reminder that this work is inherently collaborative, is continuously evolving, and that we do our best work when we listen to and learn from each other. 

  1. There are abundant examples of writings in both archival and library literature that refutes this dated claim. We have included many titles in our archival reading list, which we consulted frequently in writing this documentation. A major source of inspiration on this topic came from the book Knowledge Justice. In one essay from this book, Anastasia  Chiu,  Fobazi M. Ettarh, and Jennifer A. Ferretti write that “To argue for neutrality or objectivity as the framework for all library activities is to leave workers and institutions with the impossible task of providing a one-size-fits-all service to the public with subjective guidelines, which actually works to perpetuate harmful behavior.” Anastasia  Chiu,  Fobazi M. Ettarh, and Jennifer A. Ferretti, “Not the Shark, but the Water: How Neutrality and Vocational Awe Intertwine to Uphold White Supremacy,” in Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory, ed. Sofia Y. Leung and Jorge R. López-McKnight (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2021), 56. ↩

  2. Jessica Tai emphasizes how critical this is stating that “An archival practice undertaken within a framework of cultural humility entails actively denouncing archival neutrality, requiring the continual and visible disclosure of one’s own positionality. This involves acknowledging the ways such perspectives can shape archival practice, including archival description.” Jessica Tai, “Cultural Humility as a Framework for Anti-Oppressive Archival Description,” Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies (October 1, 2020): 3, https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/120. ↩

  3. In another essay from Knowledge Justice, Myrna E. Morales and Stacie Williams affirm that “Information isn’t neutral; it is created and shared by human individuals who remain imperfect and hold both implicitly and explicitly biased viewpoints.” Myrna E. Morales and Stacie Williams, “Moving toward Transformative Librarianship: Naming and Identifying Epistemic Supremacy,” in Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory, ed. Sofia Y. Leung and Jorge R. López-McKnight (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2021), 78. ↩

  4. Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor posit that “Archival labor, then is a means of taking responsibility, of caring for bodies of records, and most importantly, the bodies of those whose lives are implicated in them…Radical empathy is about recognizing our personal roles within power structures, dismantling oppressive structures (including, especially,  the structures we may personally benefit from), and rebuilding liberatory structures that serve us all.” Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor, “Revisiting a Feminist Ethics of Care in Archives: An Introductory Note,” Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies (June 11, 2021): 2, https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/162. ↩

  5. Jessica Tai suggests “Dismantling traditional conceptions of expertise requires flexibility and humility in being able to accept the limitations in serving as the authoritative voice on another’s experience.” Jessica Tai, “Cultural Humility as a Framework for Anti-Oppressive Archival Description,” Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies  (October 1, 2020): 6, https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/120. ↩

  6. Caswell and Cifor also clarify that “We do not ask archivists (or anyone else for that matter) from oppressed communities to empathize with their oppressors; one should not be tasked with empathizing with those who deny the validity of one’s own existence. Such a request puts an undue burden on and risks further harm to oppressed people. Instead, empathy must be taken in tandem with a power analysis in order to be radical.” Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor, “Revisiting a Feminist Ethics of Care in Archives: An Introductory Note,” Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies (June 11, 2021): 4, https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/162. ↩

  7. Caswell and Cifor also clarify that “We do not ask archivists (or anyone else for that matter) from oppressed communities to empathize with their oppressors; one should not be tasked with empathizing with those who deny the validity of one’s own existence. Such a request puts an undue burden on and risks further harm to oppressed people. Instead, empathy must be taken in tandem with a power analysis in order to be radical.” Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor, “Revisiting a Feminist Ethics of Care in Archives: An Introductory Note,” Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies (June 11, 2021): 4, https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/162. ↩

  8. Sam Winn reminds us “that true neutrality is an impossible aspiration, because we as archivists are individual practitioners called upon to distill the historic record through the inescapable lens of our personal worldviews. These unexamined paradigms shape our values, which determine what we collect, present, study, and name. Any ambitions we have of handling the historic record with fairness or equity must be shored up by continual self-examination, humility, and scholarly engagement.” Sam Winn, “The Hubris of Neutrality in Archives,” On Archivy, April 27, 2017, https://medium.com/on-archivy/the-hubris-of-neutrality-in-archives-8df6b523fe9f. ↩

  9. In a call for this dismantling, Michelle Caswell writes that “people create structures, people enable structures, and people can also disrupt and dismantle them. They must be actively committed to doing so, to intervening to dismantle those structures in concrete ways.” Michelle Caswell, “Teaching to Dismantle White Supremacy in Archives.” The Library Quarterly 87, no. 3 (July 2017): 225. https://doi.org/10.1086/692299. ↩

  10. Joyce Gabiola et al. remind us that “While archivists and archives hold power to determine which narratives are preserved in the historical record (and how), the hegemonic forces rooted in white supremacy inform and impact those decisions, which are embedded in our everyday thinking. So, in our quest to simply diversify and build inclusive collections and spaces, it is imperative that we are aware at all times of this power structure and proactively resist it,” Joyce Gabiola , Gracen Brilmyer, Michelle Caswell, and Jimmy Zavala. “‘It’s a Trap’: Complicating Representation in Community-Based Archives.” The American Archivist 85, no. 1 (March 1, 2022): 80. https://doi.org/10.17723/2327-9702-85.1.60. ↩

  11. Kimberly Christen and Jane Anderson recommend an archival practice which “is imagined and enacted in terms of relationality, positionality, and a framework that privileges restorative and reparative work that is decolonial in its logic and practice.” Kimberly Christen, and Jane Anderson. “Toward Slow Archives.” Archival Science 19, no. 2 (June 1, 2019): 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09307-x. ↩