Historical Records as the Building Blocks in History - Assignment Example

Archival Studies affiliation Archival Studies Introduction Historical records for long have been referred as the building blocks in history. By saving them, the society helps in preserving the memories of the community. History has its importance go beyond the concepts that are known by few individuals. Saving few historical records is an important part of the public libraries services provision in the communities. The entire process of collection, maintaining and producing the accessibility of the historical records revolve around the cost of resources. Task 1 When creating a collection policy of the manuscript the following factors must be considered •Review of the mission, policies of the collection and the long-term goals of the manuscript repository •Decide who should be given the task of writing the policies that will govern the repository •Examine the current collection as well as looking for gaps and strong areas of the repository and the collections •Check and identify any other area that the repositories are collecting •Once the policies have been formulated, get it approved by the board of directors The policies that have been formulated will help in governing the collection process as well as the entire manuscript repositories. Without the collection policy, the entire process of collection tends to sway around without having the right policies that act as a guiding decision. If the plans are put in place to enable the growth of any historical repository, the policies will help it to get organized and look more valuable to several researchers. The policies can also be used as vital tools while the repository wants to deal with donors who are potential and who are willing to help it grow. Finally, the policies too can make work easier when drawing clear boundaries between three and two-dimensional items in the repository (Phillips, 1984). Task 2 Despite the fact that the two were the leading theorists of archives in the twentieth century, they had different opinions pertaining the subject of archival record appraisals. The two are always placed on two ends that are extremely opposite in terms of their theoretical views, their personalities, and ideas. In the process their differences are noted when Schellenberg dismisses Jenkinson’s idea as an old fossil and, on the other hand, Jenkinson responds by criticizing Schellenbergs ideas on selection as being dangerous. In their entire differences, the two are seen to be more divided when it comes to the nature and the purpose of the appraisal of archives. Jenkinson is portrayed as a custodian who is passive and desirous of keeping anything. On the other hand, Schellenberg is casted as an individual who is less in ideologies, interventionist who is more pragmatic and a father of the disposal schedule (Archivists, 2009). According to Schellenberg, there exist a distinct difference between records and archives. His understanding led to the conception of archives as a separate species of records. His archive definition was an attempt to narrow the previous definition that was seen to be too traditional through the emphasizing that the archives are precisely distinct since they have been adjudged worthy of permanent preservation for reasons other than those that were created for originally. On the other hand, according Jenkinson’s ideology, there are no such transformative and definitive points where records are said to turn into archives. He considers archives and records to be two synonymous things. According to Jenkinson, archives only exist when the current documents cease to be in use and therefore set aside to be preserved and adjudged worthy f kept safely. In addition, the tacit judgment of Jenkinson is part of the creator’s affairs, and the reason that lies behind its retention or destruction solely lies on the creator. On the other hand, Schellenberg idea tries to the process of selection basing on the record values for the perceived needs of the research of those other than the personal need of the creator (Tschan, 2002). Task 3 Documentation strategy in archives is the entire mechanism of planning to be used by archivists in the process of working through the landmines that are represented by the fact that all information that is recorded has some continuous value in them. The strategy of documenting archives was introduced first in the mid nineteen eighties. The documentation process is seen as a simple concept to be incorporated in the approaches of appraisals. However, in reality it was developed in alignment to the modern ways of documentation. As a result, the entire process of documentation has to be part of the archival appraisal theory despite the fact that some do prefer to simply describe it as a discussion that is new about concerns that are old. The documentation of archives has been the center of discussion in the profession of archives since its conception. This discussion has been generated from the misconceptions on the concepts of strategies used in documentation and because of the notions on what makes up archival appraisal theory. Several archivists do think that the concept was meant to overthrow the principles and techniques of other archival principles. Several other archivists tend to confuse the concept with other tools used in appraisals that are quite different such as surveys. Because of this preconceptions and misconceptions resulting from the knowledge and practice of the principals of archival appraisals, he archivists have failed to make many efforts aiming ta systematizing the principles into the foundation of archival theory. The misunderstanding on what entails the right mechanism, which is careful and systematic; to be used in the implementation of the documentation strategy makes it hard to implement it. The different approaches and views by different archivists prevent any attempt to implement the documentation strategies successful (Doylen, 2001). Task 4 Reappraisal raises questions, challenges and issues that are not addressed in the guidelines. The reappraisal is always performed systematically thus ensuring consistency, proper documentation, ethical and responsible practice. A significant part of the responsible and ethical reappraisal is the act of making actions transparent. The process of reappraisal is usually used in achieving the following objectives; it is used in the improvement of the overall access to materials, making split collections, assessing and prioritization of the backlogs. In addition, the reappraisals can be used in the correction of any fault in the appraisal at the time of the acquisition plays a vital role in assessing the strengths of collection and help in refining the focus of collection. The process of reappraisal has also been facing some setbacks in the process. Despite the fact that the process is seen as systematic, it is also seen to be time-consuming. The reappraisal process often can lead to missing in files collected in administrative information. It is seen to be due to diligence for collections that are neglected and recorded series (Cox, 1994). References Archivists, A. (2009). Code of Ethics for Archivists. Ethics, 2–3. Cox, R. (1994). Documentation Strategy and Archival Appraisal Principles: A Different Perspective. Archivaria, 38, 11–36. Doylen, M. (2001). Experiments in Deaccessioning: Archives and On-line Auctions. American Archivist, 64, 350–362. Phillips, F. (1984). Developing Collecting Policies for Manuscript Collections. American Archivist, 47, 30–42. Tschan, R. (2002). A Comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal. The American Archivist, 65, 176–195. Read More