How Do We Keep From Getting Further Behind?

1. How Do We Keep From Getting Further Behind? A Case Study in the Application of Minimal-Level Description in the OSU Archives Elizabeth Nielsen Northwest Archivists, May 2008

2. Introduction • OSU Case Study • What is a Collection-Level Description? • Workflow • Preparation of CLDs • Results • Lessons Learned

3. Oregon State University Archives • Institutional archives for OSU • Manuscript collections, photographs, moving images, oral histories, and publications • 4000 linear feet of paper records • 2500 microfilm reels • 460,000 photographs • 6500 moving images

4. Status of Description • ~ 900 collections total • ~ 300 with finding aids in NWDA • ~ 340 collections with no information available online (except perhaps a collection title and maybe a datespan)

5. Greene and Meissner (2005) = MPLP • Validated what was already being practiced in some repositories. • All collections available to researchers regardless of level of processing. • Leave staples, paper clips, and (even) original folders in place. • Refrain from item-level description.

6. “What this means is that all collections should have collection-level intellectual control before any collection receives folder-level control.” Green and Meissner (2005)

7. Application of MPLP in OSU Archives • Concentrate on collection-level intellectual control. • In addition to addressing backlog of unprocessed and undescribed collections, we need to address new collections and incoming accessions in a timely manner. Otherwise they become part of the backlog. • OSU Archives receives ~30 new collections per year (of ~100 accessions per year)

8. Case Study of 2006 New Collections Can we generate a collection-level finding aid for all new collections acquired in calendar year 2006 within 6-12 months of acquisition? What were the implications if we could not? • Increase staff capacity? • Accept fewer collections?

9. Collection-Level Description (CLD)? • Description of the “collection”. • No container list or inventory as part of EAD finding aid. • EAD finding aid in NWDA. • PDF (generated from xml file) on website. • MARC catalog record in OSU Libraries catalog, Summit, and Worldcat.

13. Is CLD final or preliminary? • FINAL = Collections will suffice with only CLD • One cubic foot or less • Uniformity of materials (subject and format) • Expanded beyond TINY collections for this project. • Collections that will need more (eventually) = preliminary. These may have a preliminary box list available.

14. Workflow – Step 1 • Accession Report prepared when materials received • Printed for central files and reference room guides. • Online in “New Accessions” page on website. • Selected ones submitted to Easy Access and highlighted on OSU Archives blog. • Information about collection available online very quickly.

15. Workflow – Step 2 • Create table (Excel) to track: • HIGH priority collections • Natural resources • Oregon Multicultural Archives • Student experience at OSU • Preliminary or Final CLD • Target Date • Within 6 months of acquisition for HIGH priority • Within 12 months of acquisition for remainder

16. Workflow – Step 3 • Sort list by target date. • Work through list in order by target date with some “bouncing around”. • Sample view of table.

18. Preparing CLDs • Create finding aid as EAD instance. • Review accession report(s) and central collection file. • Determine bulk dates. • Name authority review (LCNAF or DACS). • Assign access points (lcsh and NWDA browsing terms). • More diligent review of materials and refining of description if preparing a final CLD.

19. Review and Loading of CLDs • Review by Archives’ staff (usually allow 2-3 working days). • Review by cataloger of <origination> and <controlaccess> elements. • Revise and load to NWDA and Archives’ website. • Cataloger extracts MARC records and loads to OSUL catalog, Summit, and WorldCat.

20. Time to Prepare CLDs • 2-4 hours of analysis, review of materials, and encoding before staff review begins • ~ half-hour for loading • 3-10 working days (most about a week)

21. Results • In 2006, received 26 new collections. • Added 8 new collections received in 2005 that we wanted to get in NWDA as part of NWDA phase II grant. • Total data set = 34 collections. • Started the project late in the year (Sept 2006). For 2007, did first CLD in Aug; for 2008, in Apr.

22. Progress thru 15-month project.

23. Types of CLDs for 2006

24. Measures of Success • Completed 32 of 34 finding aids by end of 2007. • 11 collections were determined to be high priority (target to complete within 6 months); 5 were done within this timeframe • Of the 2 “leftovers”; one will be a final CLD and the other a full finding aid with <dsc>

25. “Distance description” is difficult. Assigning subject headings can be a roadblock. Advantages of 2-step description process. What about additions to existing collections? Sustainable 30 new collections in 2007; 14 high priority; as of early May, 13/30 (8/14 of high priority) are completed Lessons Learned

26. Ongoing and Future Studies • Applying similar methodology to the 300+ collections with no information online. Primary difference is additional time (2-8 hours) to prepare CLD. • How many CLDs from OSU in NWDA? • Of 298 total; 154 (52%) are CLD • 126 are FINAL • 20 are preliminary with link to a container list • 8 are preliminary with no container list

27. Thank you. Elizabeth Nielsen Elizabeth.nielsen@oregonstate.edu 541.737.0543