29.Project and Special Reports. The archival profession has advanced its practice through the convening of special task forces and the issuance of project reports. Many of these have become important benchmarks in the field’s knowledge, especially in the archival functions of appraisal and arrangement and description, as well as the management of electronic records. In this section, these reports are described, along with some of the spin-off publications resulting from these reports. In the interest of trying to provide an overview of the importance of these publications, not every result or other product is mentioned here. Close readings of the reports themselves will provide some of this additional information, and many of the other publications mentioned in this technical report will include citations to and discussions of these critically important reports.

30.Archivists have long seen archival arrangement and description as the linchpin of their work and responsibilities. For many years, a few key articles and handbooks guided practice in this area, the writings themselves reflecting practice by essentially codifying. Oliver W. Holmes, "Archival Arrangement - Five Different Operations at Five Different Levels," American Archivist 27 (January 1964): 21-41 has long been the classic description on concepts such as the record group and series, influencing other key projects such as Canadian Working Group on Archival Descriptive Standards, Toward Descriptive Standards (Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists, December 1985), the beginning document in the development of Canadian archival description standards, and the "Report of the Working Group on Standards for Archival Description," American Archivist 52 (Fall 1989): 440-61, the United States effort to develop descriptive standards to support the continuing use of US MARC-based descriptive standards (resulting in the useful handbook Victoria Irons Walch, Standards for Archival Description: A Handbook [Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1994]). The Committee on Finding Aids, Inventories and Registers: A Handbook of Techniques and Examples (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1976), the first non-serial publication by this association, continues to exert influence on the preparation of archival finding aids, including the recent Encoded Archival Description standard. This very brief, but quite influential, publication reflected the previous two decades of work by staff in the National Archives and the Library of Congress and it has been used by the more recent developers of standards for archival finding aids on the World Wide Web, known as Encoded Archival Description (EAD), the latter discussed in Daniel V. Pitti, “Encoded Archival Description: The Development of an Encoding Standard for Archival Finding Aids,” American Archivist 60 (Summer 1997): 268-283 (this article should be read along with the two special issues of this journal, Summer and Fall 1997, to get a sense of what EAD is, its purpose, and its use). These essays have been gathered into Encoded Archival Description: Context, Theory, and Case Studies, edited by Jackie Dooley and commenting on the context within which EAD was developed, the essentials of its structured approach to encoding finding aid data, and the role that EAD is meant to play in individual repositories and for the archival profession as a whole. The six case studies were written by archivists at Harvard University, the Library of Congress, the Minnesota Historical Society, the University of Vermont, the University of Virginia, and Yale University.

31.A truly international standard for archival description also emerged about the same time as the work on MARC-based American standards and the Canadian Rules for Archival Description (RAD), the former discussed in International Council on Archives, "Statement of Principles Regarding Archival Description," Archivaria 34 (Summer 1992): 8-16 and International Council on Archives, "ISAD(G): General International Standard Archival Description," Archivaria 34 (Summer 1992): 17-32. Other pioneering, and important, articles on various aspects of archival description include David A. Bearman and Richard H. Lytle, "The Power of the Principle of Provenance," Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-86): 14-27 and David A. Bearman, “Documenting Documentation,” Archivaria, 34 (1992): 33-49, reflecting Bearman’s important contributions to the discussions about descriptive standards, especially with his focus on the nature of records and how users of archival records access them; Lester J. Cappon, "Historical Manuscripts as Archives: Some Definitions and Their Applications," American Archivist 19 (April 1956): 101- 10, an early effort to argue that personal papers possess many of the same characteristics as organizational records; Megan Floyd Desnoyers, "When Is A Collection Processed?" Midwestern Archivist 7/1 (1982): 5-23, a unique effort to consider how to determine when a set of records have been fully described for the use by researchers; Paul Ericksen and Robert Shuster, "Beneficial Shocks: The Place of Processing-Cost Analysis in Archival Administration," American Archivist 58/1 (Winter 1995): 32-52, the most recent but also most comprehensive analysis of what it costs to perform archival arrangement and description; Max Evans, "Authority Control: An Alternative to the Record Group Concept," American Archivist 49/3 (Summer 1986): 249-261, an early exploration of the value of authority control in expediting systematic access to archival records; and Peter J. Scott, "The Record Group Concept: A Case for Abandonment, American Archivist 29 (October 1966): 493-504, an influential article on later archival theorists urging other means for arranging and describing records.

32.The appraisal of records has been another archival function in which a few key reports have played an extremely important role in formulating principles and procedures, although the impact on practice is only beginning to be examined. Clark A. Elliott, ed., Understanding Progress as Process: Documentation of the History of Post-War Science and Technology in the United States; Final Report of the Joint Committee on Archives of Science and Technology (Chicago: Distributed by the Society of American Archivists, 1983) is one of those benchmark publications on archival appraisal in that it opened the way for a new perspective on the challenges of appraising modern records. This report’s conclusions are still relevant, since this committee presented a comprehensive and long-range plan for transforming the way in which science and technology records are evaluated and ultimately appraised. The 1980s were a time of ferment within the archival community about how it viewed appraisal, leading to a number of important writings including Frank Boles and Julia Marks Young, "Exploring the Black Box: The Appraisal of University Administrative Records," American Archivist 48 (Spring 1985): 121-40, an interesting effort to create a decision making tree to guide appraisal; Hans Booms, "Society and the Formation of a Documentary Heritage," Archivaria 24 (Summer 1987): 69-107, a translation of a 1972 German article indicating that the complexity of modern recordkeeping systems was challenging archivists to develop new approaches; Terry Cook, "’Many are called but few are chosen’: Appraisal Guidelines for Sampling and Selecting Case Files," Archivaria 32 (Summer 1991): 25-50, a condensed version of his RAMP report on case file appraisal, stressing the range of possible methods to reduce such records as well as the need to be sensitive to social and other concerns in making appraisal decisions about such records; Judith E. Endelman, "Looking Backward to Plan for the Future: Collection Analysis for Manuscript Repositories," American Archivist 50 (Summer 1987): 340-55, an effort to describe how archivists could evaluate existing perceptions about their present holdings; and Michael Lutzker, "Max Weber and the Analysis of Modern Bureaucratic Organizations: Notes Toward a Theory of Appraisal," American Archivist 45 (Spring 1982): 119-30, one of the earliest articles drawing on the sociology and organizational management literature to reconsider archival appraisal.

33.A major aspect of the 1980s and following discussions about archival appraisal was the development of documentation strategies, functional analysis, and macro-appraisal approaches. I have provided a history of the evolution of these approaches in Richard J. Cox, "The Archival Documentation Strategy: A Brief Intellectual History, 1984-1994 and Practical Description." Janus no. 2 (1995): 76-93 and a fuller discussion about the documentation strategy model relates to traditional appraisal principles in Richard J. Cox, "The Documentation Strategy and Archival Appraisal Principles: A Different Perspective." Archivaria 38 (Fall 1994): 11-36. The most important writings on this topic include, Larry J. Hackman and Joan Warnow-Blewett, "The Documentation Strategy Process: A Model and A Case Study," American Archivist 50 (Winter 1987): 12-47 and Helen W. Samuels, "Who Controls the Past," American Archivist 49 (Spring 1986): 109-24, the former stressing the methodology and the latter introducing the concept. Many documentation planners point to the earlier writings of F. Gerald Ham as the source of re-thinking archival appraisal and the broader issue of documentation, best represented in his articles "The Archival Edge," American Archivist 38 (January 1975): 5-13 and "Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era," American Archivist 44 (Summer 1981): 207-16.

34.The changing attitudes about archival appraisal have brought testy debates as well, a stark reminder that basic manuals often do not capture such issues nor do they reflect changing notions of basic practice. For one example of such debates see Luciana Duranti, “The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory.” American Archivist 57 (Spring 1994): 328-344, with a response by Frank Boles and Mark A. Greene, “Et Tu Schellenberg? Thoughts on the Dagger of American Appraisal Theory.” American Archivist 59 (Summer1996): 298-310, dividing over the issue of appraisal theory and its use. Another example of such debates is Leonard Rapport, "No Grandfather Clause: Reappraising Accessioned Records," American Archivist 44 (Spring 1981): 143-50 with response by Karen Benedict, "Invitation to a Bonfire: Reappraisal and Deaccessioning of Records as Collection Management Tools in an Archives - A Reply to Leonard Rapport," American Archivist 47 (Winter 1984): 43-49, dividing over the issue of whether archivists should re-evaluate their holdings based on use. Out of all these debates and discussions, there have emerged some extremely practical models for archivists to use. Faye Phillips, "Developing Collecting Policies for Manuscript Collections," American Archivist 47 (Winter 1984): 30-42 provides levelheaded, straightforward advice about how to develop and what to include in an acquisitions policy.

35.The challenges of electronic records have been the hallmark of archival debate, discussion, and deliberations for the past decade and more, and this focus has benefited greatly from the work of a few special projects and the writings of a few individuals. Much of the initial attention to the challenges of electronic records was introduced in Committee on the Records of Government: Report (Washington, D.C., March 1985), sounding an alarm about the possible impending loss of much of these systems if new approaches and strategies were not developed. About the same time some records professionals were predicting that there might not even be an archival profession, such as Richard Kesner, "Automated Information Management: Is There a Role for the Archivist in the Office of the Future?" Archivaria 19 (Winter 1984-85): 162-72, while others – such as Hugh Taylor, "My Very Act and Deed: Some Reflections on the Role of Textual Records in the Conduct of Affairs," American Archivist 51 (Fall 1988): 457-469 – were trying to wrestle with the role of archives and archivists in the changing electronic age. Just five years later, things were still not looking up for the federal government, as reflected in the troubling U.S. House Committee on Government Operations, Taking a Byte Out of History: The Archival Preservation of Federal Computer Records (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990). These early developments can be seen in Terry Cook’s impressive analyses, "Electronic Records, Paper Minds: The Revolution in Information Management and Archives in the Post-Custodial and Post- Modernist Era," Archives and Manuscripts 22 (November 1994): 300-328 and "Easy to Byte, Harder to Chew: The Second Generation of Electronic Records Archives," Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-92): 202-216.

36.From the re-emphasis on electronic records has come a new interest in issues related to what constitutes a record, especially as developed as the result of two major research projects (located at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of British Columbia) described later in the research section of this technical report. Luciana Duranti, "Reliability and Authenticity: The Concepts and Their Implications," Archivaria 39 (Spring 1995): 5-10 is one effort to delineate what she sees as the critical aspects of a record. David A. Bearman, “Recordkeeping Systems,” Archivaria 36 (1993): 16-36 presents a concept of records as evidence, reflecting transactions and organizational functions. Another special issue on diplomatics also provided new evaluations of the importance of records, notably Elizabeth Yakel, “The Way Things Work: Procedures, Processes, and Organizational Records,” American Archivist, 59 (Fall 1996): 454-464.

37.To a somewhat lesser extent, but still constituting important new ways of thinking, archival reference began to be re-thought in the last two decades. One of the pioneers in trying to re-establish a new interest in the users of archives was Elsie Freeman and her article -- "In the Eye of the Beholder: Archives Administration from the User's Point of View," American Archivist 47 (Spring 1984): 111-23 – typical of her contributions from the early 1970s through the early 1990s. Another indication of the changing perceptions of archival reference during this period is evident in Mary Jo Pugh, "The Illusion of Omniscience: Subject Access and the Reference Archivist," American Archivist 45 (Winter 1982): 33-44, questioning the ways in which archivists have assumed they can find materials for researchers by relying primarily on personal knowledge of their holdings. One of the most important publications reflecting a sea change in opinion about archival reference and use is Paul Conway, "Facts and Frameworks: An Approach to Studying the Users of Archives," American Archivist 49 (Fall 1986): 393-407, presenting a sensible methodology for how to study users of archival records. However, the fact that so few user studies have appeared in the nearly two decades since suggests that while viewpoints have changed, practice and institutional infrastructure and priorities have not. Others followed the direction set by such authors, arguing for a renewed attention to understanding just what was occurring in the archives reference rooms, such as Bruce W. Dearstyne, "What Is the Use of Archives? A Challenge for the Profession," American Archivist 50 (Winter 1987): 76-87. Concerns about use and access have also led to a set of different issues about ethical matters in the archival field, typified in the writings by David E. Horn, "The Development of Ethics in Archival Practice," American Archivist 52 (Winter 1989): 64-71 and Elena S. Danielson, "The Ethics of Access," American Archivist 52 (Winter 1989): 52-62.

38.During the 1980s and since then other aspects of archival work were questioned, scrutinized, and, in some cases, reformulated. Some of these areas require much more work. Frank G. Burke, "Archival Cooperation," American Archivist 46 (Summer 1983): 293-305 summarizes a decade of re-evaluating the idea of cooperation between archival programs, but it is a topic needing considerable more effort especially in light of the rise of the Internet and World Wide Web. Are archivists really cooperating in substantial new ways, or are they simply developing more advanced means for communicating and networking? In general, the entire spectrum of ideas about the mission and identity of the archival profession was being scrutinized, as seen in writings such as Richard J. Cox, "Archivists and Professionalism in the United States Revisited: A Review Essay," Midwestern Archivist 15, no. 1 (1990): 5-15 and Larry J. Hackman, "A Perspective on American Archives," Public Historian 8 (Summer 1986): 5-23 and "Toward the Year 2000," Public Historian 8 (Summer 1986): 89-95. The nature of changing demographics have also renewed concerns about how well the archival profession reflects the general populace, as seen in Kathryn M. Neal, "The Importance of Being Diverse: The Archival Profession and Minority Recruitment," Archival Issues 21, no. 2 (1996): 145-158. All of these publications, including many others, stress that the archives field and its work is not static, but just as dynamic as the recordkeeping systems they administer.

39.One of the most substantial changes in how archivists go about their business has been represented by the digitization of the world. This is reflected in many ways, especially in a growing number of reports and studies about the selection of records and other materials for digitizing as well as how to maintain these digital holdings. Some examples of the new concerns can be seen in the following: Peter Graham, Intellectual Preservation: Electronic Preservation of the Third Kind, Commission on Preservation and Access, March 1994.

Dan Hazen, Jeffrey Horrell, Jan Merrill-Oldham, Selecting Research Collections for Digitization, Council on Library and Information Resources, August 1998; “The Preservation of Archival Materials," A Report of the Task Forces on Archival Selection to the Commission on Preservation and Access, April 1993; and Don Willis, A Hybrid Systems Approach to Preservation of Printed Materials, Commission on Preservation and Access, November 1992. Jeff Rothenberg, Avoiding Technological Quicksand: Finding a Viable Technical Foundation for Digital Preservation (Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, 1999) is a good example of these reports. Rothenberg writes an essay in which he argues there are no real solutions thus far for long-term maintenance of digital objects. He notes that standard approaches – such as printing on paper, utilizing standards, saving obsolete software and hardware, and migration – are too laborious and do not ensure the maintenance of records and other objects in their original form. Rothenberg stresses the need for using an “emulation strategy,” one that works “to emulate obsolete systems on future, unknown systems, so that a digital document’s original software can be run in the future despite being obsolete” (p. v). All of these reports should be read in conjunction with James M. O'Toole, "On the Idea of Permanence," American Archivist 52 (Winter 1989): 10-25, an interesting essay addressing the matter of how the idea of permanence (hence preservation) has changed substantially through the decades. The past decade of dealing with digital records and the Web have likely accelerated the changes in meaning. As these efforts suggest, these concerns have been extended by new research efforts.