Archival Appraisal, Acquisition, and the Challenge of Value
This paper examines key challenges in archival appraisal and acquisition across three interconnected discussions. The first addresses the difficulty of cataloguing large collections, arguing that volunteer labor offers a better solution than superficial processing shortcuts recommended by the "More Product, Less Process" framework. The second critiques NARA's shift toward digital records management, questioning whether the agency is acting in the public interest or its own convenience when assessing collection value. The third evaluates a peer's critique of a library science article, identifying weaknesses such as missing citations, absent direct quotations, and failure to connect findings to established selection frameworks like the six-step process outlined in archival appraisal course materials.
- Archival Appraisal and the Problem of Determining Value: Subjectivity of value in archival selection decisions
- Cataloguing Backlogs and the Case for Volunteer Labor: Volunteer labor proposed to address cataloguing overload
- NARA's Digital Shift and Questions of Collection Value: NARA digital transition and public interest concerns
- Peer Critique: Evaluating an Article Review in Library Science: Weaknesses identified in a peer's article critique
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each section builds logically on a shared theme — the subjectivity of archival value — connecting practical cataloguing problems to institutional policy and peer evaluation.
- The paper integrates course materials alongside external sources, demonstrating awareness of both theoretical frameworks and real-world applications in library science.
- The third section models critical peer review by identifying specific weaknesses (missing author attribution, lack of direct quotation, absent APA formatting) rather than offering vague commentary.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied critique: rather than simply summarizing sources, the writer consistently evaluates decisions and arguments against a normative standard — whether archivists are acting in the public interest, whether processing shortcuts compromise intellectual access, or whether a peer response meets academic conventions. This evaluative stance is sustained across all three parts.
Structure breakdown
Part 1 presents the central problem (cataloguing overload) and proposes a solution (volunteer labor). Part 2 shifts to a policy discussion, questioning NARA's motivations in transitioning to digital records. Part 3 functions as a peer critique, assessing another student's article review against library science learning outcomes and citation standards. Together the three parts form a cohesive multi-modal response to archival management challenges.
Archival Appraisal and the Problem of Determining Value
Archivists should try to collect records that have enduring value (Module #2: Archival Appraisal and Acquisition, n.d.). However, one problem is that value is subjective, and determining which records will have value — whether currently or in the future — is a difficult task. Not only does it require interacting with the public and gaining an understanding of what the public is likely to value, it requires knowing what records one has in the first place (Evans & Saponaro, 2012; Johnson, 2014). As the article by Somers (2017) shows, for a large library archive, there is simply not enough staff to go through all the records sufficiently. This means that indexing them is a slow process, which often leads donors and patrons to complain of delays in obtaining access to material that has been donated but not yet fully archived.
Additionally, Somers (2017) notes that archivists often take time to organize files in a more categorical way, even though one of the key concepts of archival arrangement is to maintain records in the order given to them by their creator (Archival Arrangement and Description, n.d.). In many cases, identifying the original order can be time-consuming, especially when the material obtained is disheveled — such as notes, letters, journals, and clippings. New recommendations from a paper titled "More Product, Less Process" urged librarians to move through materials more quickly: "Pointing out that as much as 80 percent of the archivists' time was spent 'refoldering,' the paper offered shortcuts that, it claimed, would make more collections available without sacrificing much in the way of intellectual accessibility" (Somers, 2017). However, these shortcuts come at the risk of losing a clear sense of what is truly in one's possession.
References
Archival Arrangement and Description. (n.d.). PowerPoint Presentation.
Evans, G. E., & Saponaro, M. Z. (2012). Collection management basics. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Johnson, P. (2014). The fundamentals of collection development and management. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Module #2: Archival Appraisal and Acquisition. (n.d.). Course Material, 1–22.
Somers, J. (2017). Keepers of the secrets. Retrieved from
Somers, M. (2017). NARA's draft strategic plan looks to leave paper records management in digital dust. Retrieved from https://federalnewsradio.com/management/2017/09/naras-draft-strategic-plan-leaves-pen-and-paper-records-management-in-digital-dust/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.