Previous - Next
Archival appraisal of records of international organisations
Marilla B Guptil
INTRODUCTION
Control of records production is of universal concern, as is the capacity to reduce the resulting volume through comprehensive disposition programmes. However, the appraisal of records and utilisation of an appropriate methodology of selection for their disposition is one of the most difficult of archival functions because it is neither automatic nor systematic; rather, it is intellectually-taxing, time-consuming and, varyingly subjective. The major objective of this study, therefore, is to provide guidelines by which to lessen the arbitrariness of appraisal and to increase its systematisation through precautionary measures requiring close co-ordination between records management and archival functions. These objectives are expressed through the medium of the appraisal of records of international organisations: what has been preserved and why, and what ought to be preserved and why.
Structurally, the study first explores appraisal criteria in terms of values that affect the preservation and disposal of records. Although developed toward the study's beginning and, therefore, outside the conclusion, they actually form part of the guidelines. There are two reasons for their placement and broad treatment. First is the futility of establishing guidelines to fit each organisation. It is true that to some degree, there is similarity in records of international organisations because of their common institutional nature and purpose. All of these bodies, in one way or another, deliberate; make recommendations and resolutions; initiate studies; receive and consider reports; supervise and monitor the execution of agreements; give technical assistance; dispense advice; and maintain contacts with other United Nations entities, Member States, non-governmental and private organisations, and external experts. However, because of variance in the mission and administrative hierarchy of each organisation, such differences are also reflected in the records produced. Therefore, development of general guidelines that are adaptable to specific situations is the only viable means of presentation. Second, the positioning of general criteria as background to description of the appraisal experience within these organisations prevents the perimeters of experience from limiting those of the criteria. General inactivity in the field of appraisal, discovered during the course of the survey, would certainly have circumscribed the exposition of value standards.
Methodology of records selection is next treated as a complement to appraisal criteria, as it is the vehicle for records disposition according to established values. Such discussion also demonstrates the effect of arrangement and classification systems on selection.
A description of appraisal practices, based on questionnaires and on-site visits, follows. Both the issues of value and selection are involved, but another dimension appears. Status, resources, and authority of records offices may affect the results of appraisal, where exercised, almost as much as its methodology. For this reason the study's conclusions and guidelines touch on what seems, at first, to be peripheral to the main subject.
However, because such topics are secondary they are treated only as they relate to the appraisal process and not in their entirety.
6. GUIDELINES
The study of records appraisal in international organisations shows that appraisal is not a singular exercise, but a continuous process affecting the entire life-cycle of records. It has also been demonstrated that records systems and the presence of absence of information on provenance affect records selection. These premises lead to conclusions that have been supported by actual appraisal experience: that is, the need for a total records programme in which records management and archival functions are joined. It is only logical that if appraisal is a constant factor in the life-cycle of records, controls over them should be equally enduring. If the contents and arrangement or classification of dossiers affect the quality of how and what is preserved as archival, then attention to such matters ought to precede selection.
Elements that appear external to appraisal, such as the placement of the records office in he organisation's bureaucracy and its functions, staffing and authority, bear directly on the completeness and quality of records to be appraised, the ability to arrive at well-considered and justifiable decisions, and the probability of their implementation. Appraisal should be judged by results, rather than by methodology alone. Meaningful appraisal cannot occur without adequate resources and the records themselves, for appraisal technique, by itself, ensures neither.
The following guidelines present maximum goals. For organisations where the very establishment of an Archives unit has been repeatedly denied, they may appear as a "wish list", and for others, there may be protracted difficulties before they are even partially achieved. The unfortunate facts are that office reorganisations and authority directives require approval from top administrators, and co-operation from records-creating offices cannot always be mandated, much less enforced. Nevertheless, these goals should be sought, even if their attainment is piecemeal, for the appraisal experience of international organisations amply demonstrates the effect of their absence.
Resources
6.1 Placement of the Records Office in the Organisation
Records offices should be removed from administrative services and placed at par with other of the organisation's information services so as to position them at a sufficiently high level in the organisation to ensure proper recognition, authority, independence and adequacy of resources, including the ability to attract personnel experienced in archives and records management. Not only would such a move end the eclipse of the records office and its needs by the housekeeping services, but it would cause a shift in status. Administrators in substantive offices with whom co-operation is necessary would be more approachable and receptive to personnel considered as equals rather than warehouse managers.
6.2 Delineation of Functions : Registry, Records Management and Archives
Records management should be incorporated into the archival function within an archives and records management office. Registries can operate separately within this office or as an appendage to records management, but should continue to manage current records within their purview.
Records management should oversee all current records by devising classification and filing schemes appropriate to each administrative unit excepting records integrated into a registry; review files management procedures to ensure that all records enter the system, whether it is a registry, decentralised non-registry or a combination of the two; inventory all current and semi-current records of the organisation so that appraisal decisions are based on consideration of all the organisation's records; draft retention schedules based on inventories and primary records values in consultation with records-creating offices; and monitor the disposal of records lacking secondary value.
Archives officers should have final authority over the disposition programme, thereby ruling on retention schedules proposed by records managers and administrators; overseeing accession standards in terms of the quality of information provided by records transferring offices; and reappraising records transferred to the Archives unit on the basis of continuing value, or because they were prematurely judged to have enduring value.
6.3 Direction of the Archives and Records Management Office
The Archives and Records Management Office should be headed by an archivist who is familiar with records management. Consideration of records management and archives functions leads logically to this conclusion. After satisfying the organisation's operating needs, records are reduced in volume, and those with continuing value are deposited in an archives. Records managers and archivists contribute to this progression in different ways and at opposite ends of the records' life-cycle. Records management is "concerned with achieving economy and efficiency in the creation, use and maintenance, and disposition of records". Through the efforts of records managers, archivists are presented with coherently arranged records, inventories of the organisation's holdings and information on primary records value, so that they can assign long-term value and thus determine the longevity of records. The activities of both functions should be closely co-ordinated, as one is built on the other, but because archivists define archives and exercise custodial responsibility over them, the archival function should take precedence.
6.4 Education and Training
Archivists recruited by international organisations should have an academic degree in history or other social sciences and broad archives experience, to insure knowledge of historical methodology and trends on which to base judgments concerning evidential and informational values. Determination of evidential values requires research experience and analytical ability for the conduct of in the organisation, office authorities and interrelationships that devolve upon the records they produce and, subsequently, allows the isolation of records that depict the plans, policies, procedures and programmes of the organisation. A background in history is particularly relevant to assessment of informational value, as it is necessary to be familiar with documentation that is currently available for research and imagine what sources might later be valuable. An archivist cannot define historiographical trends with certainty, and there is always the chance that future generations will find fault with judgments. However, the impossibility of forecasting only underscores the need for professionals well-trained in history and archives who will sometimes err, but will come closer to target than those without this background. More important than content knowledge is familiarity with historical methodology and "empathy" for research, for expertise in all research fields is impossible.
At the paraprofessional, or in UN parlance, the general service level, proper recruitment and training is important, as the quality of codification and filing is essential to the reliability of registry systems. It has been observed that messengers and clerical staff are often transferred to registry offices and that there is a need to devise a technique of personnel selection in order to determine "aptitude, analytical judgment, cognitive ability, assessment of files problems and their solution, and manual dexterity (where applicable)" in prospective staff. To fail to do so means continued apprehension about the integrity of file titles, codes and contents.
6.5 Authority
6.5.1 Public Relations
In order to gain co-operation from offices in terms of files management, timely transfer of records and information needed to analyse them, records offices should continously demonstrate to others, especially those at high levels where reorganisation and budgetary decisions are made, that their services are professional and impact heavily on the organisation.
Bureaucratic influence usually requires the backing of authority, preferably in written form. But influence is enhanced when authority-by-fiat is augmented by general recognition of the value of services to be offered. The ability to streamline the flow of paper and remove the non-essential, rationalism records management, remove non-current records for the release of office space, provide reference service from the intermediate storage area and maintain a research facility, should be advertised. General distribution of an annual report or pamphlet in which statistics on metres of records transferred, office space released, loans furnished and reference request handled, would be far more effective than generalities about intended programmes or services. However, demonstrable service and benefits are most effective in gaining the co-operation of administrators whose primary interests are neither records management nor archives.
6.5.2 Written Authority
While amiable relations with administrators are essential, they are not reliable, for staffing is never permanent, and co-operative situations shift with personnel changes; therefore, the responsibilities and relationships of records and operating offices should be institutionalised in an official regulation. Such regulation should minimally incorporate the following points.
6.5.3 Definition of Records and Staff Responsibilities
Records should be defined as all recorded information, regardless of physical form, created or received in the course of the organisation's business. They should be claimed specifically as the property of the organisation. To eliminate loopholes, removal of records from the organisation's premises by any staff member, during employment or upon separation, should be expressly prohibited. Further, "staff member" should be defined to include all personnel, including the chief executive officer.
6.5.4 Responsibilities of the Records Office
Records offices should be charged with files management, the conduct of periodic records surveys, establishment of retention schedules based on survey inventories, implementation of the mandatory transfer of records from operating offices to intermediate storage and authority over records disposition under its archives component. The date of transfer should be set at three to five years after creation or, in special cases requiring extensions, upon mutual agreement between the parties in order to prevent accumulations outside records office control.
6.5.5 Responsibilities of the Operating Offices
Operating offices should be charged with the timely transfer of semi-current records per schedules agreed upon by both parties unless the need for exception can be demonstrated, and disposal of records should be clearly prohibited without the express approval of the records office. Further, the appointment of records liaison personnel, at least at the division level, should be required.
The above guidelines are closely interconnected, as the existence of a liaison officer would obviate lack of control over non-current records that tend to sit indefinitely in operating offices. Such an officer would provide a locus of responsibility and contact for records officers as well as serve as a source of information about the Length of time records are needed to discharge obligations of the organisation and of records profiles needed for appraisal.
Records Surveys and Inventories
6.6 Because records should be appraised in relation to other records of the organisation, it is axiomatic that all records be accounted for in an inventory resulting from a records survey. Surveys should be conducted even in organisations where it appears that records are covered by a registry because of the existence in offices of strays from the system due to negligence, or hoarding of documentation for convenience or reference purposes.
All records, produced at every level of the organisation, current and non-current, should be identified. Excepting registries, for which there are file plans, identification should be at the series level, for this represents the lowest common denominator of similarity and is the preferable level at which records should be analysed and retention periods applied. Because it will be the foundation for a general disposition programme, the survey should gather the following basic information for each series: the office of origin, including the sub-division that produced the records; a series description consisting of a series title, identification of major record types, content and inclusive dates; measurement and estimate of annual accumulation; arrangement, if not under an established registry system; location; current usage; relationship to other records; access restrictions; and recommendations for retention. Above all, descriptive vagueness should be avoided, as it dilutes information upon which the disposition programme is based. The office of origin should be prevailed upon to supply accurate and complete information. Slipshod information should be rejected, as it ultimately undermines the appraisal process. The inventory, together with records samples, should be a basis for records analysis and retention schedules.
Appraisal
6.7 Records Systems
Arrangement and classification patterns should be refined in order to clarify differences among records. Appraisal and selection of records in non-registries depends largely on the presence of information on provenance and separation of series organically formed as a result of office functions and activities. Analyses based on these considerations determine evidential and information values that are further qualified by factors of uniqueness, concentration of information and other measurements of value enumerated in section 3.2. Therefore, records reflecting similar activity, subject or format should be grouped together and their mergence avoided. The more precise the series, the more easy to identify it, judge its value and effect its proper disposition.
The absence of conveniently available information on provenance
in registries and the need to conduct appraisal at the
dossier or subject code level calls for a different type of
specificity, whereby subject codes should be manipulated to
effect distinctions, where possible, between the substantive and
facilitative, and between policy and operational matters. Under
the common subject "Fellowships", for example, records
codified as "Programme Evaluation" pertain to policy
matters having long-term value, while those filed under
"Individual Fellowships" or "Inter-Agency
Co-ordination" relate to short-term operational matters
concerning administrative details of programme execution.
Similarly, under "Aid to Africa", records filed as
"Background Information" and "Distribution of
Equipment", respectively, reflect substantive and
facilitative differences. Attention to such distinctions reduces
mixtures of records having long and short-term value within
files. Although the dossier level of appraisal differs from the
series level approach in non-registries, the effect of refining
distinctions is the same: easier evaluation and disposition.
6.8 Filing to Effect Separation
Differences in appraisal of non-registry systems have been explained as, on one hand, judgments concerning the "total organic accumulation of an office" through the selection of whole series, and on the other, selection of "dossiers within certain classes (series)"; further, selection of individual dossiers in the former case is considered a violation of "organic character and archival integrity of the series", whereas the latter requires weeding of dossiers within series. However, screening, or stripping within files in untenable in both systems because of cost in staff and time, as well as sacrifice in uniformity and objectivity of selection. Therefore, records whose short-term value can be predetermined should be separated from those with continuing value, and those with no value beyond immediate usage should be kept out of the system altogether. Such a measure, is, in effect, preventive screening.
When in the life-cycle of records this occurs determines by whom it is done. The notion that administrators should control the burgeoning of records through excision of the non-essential is not new. But the benefit of winnowing records of the non-valuable in the early part of their life is offset by the conversion of administrators into de facto archivists because archives are formed from the residuary of administrative disposals. In fact, current acceptance of appraisal as an archival function has thrust decisions on how to reduce non-current records upon archivists, and the ability to lessen bulk without a commensurate reduction in value rests largely on the degree to which records with value and those without are intermingled. Authorship of the ILO's appraisal plan, described in section 5.5.2.2., shows clearly that records evaluation and selection were considered within the archival function, as does the Archives Committee's determination of retention periods for specific ILO activities. But the application of retention periods to dossiers containing record items of mixed value caused the Committee to advocate the preservation of entire files on the basis of one or more valuable items. Thus the inability to strip individual dossiers of acknowledged ephemera was one of the plan's stumbling blocks.
There is an alternative method which combines the better elements of both administrative and archival appraisal, namely, the ability to separate records having temporary value into collateral dossiers at the time of filing for later disposal, but under the direction of records offices. Records office authority distinguishes this system from administrative appraisal: the timing of separation differentiates it from the ILO plan. To effect early separation, broad classes of subjects and record types lacking long-term value should be listed under themes reflecting major office functions or subject matter series. Examples of major functions and subject matter series are buildings management, purchase and transportation, printing and reproduction, conferences and others of similar character. Subsidiary to these classes should be enumerated specific transactions, subjects and record types. Under conferences and meetings, for example, programme schedules, invitation lists, agendas and the like would be listed as temporary and eligible for separate. Where records produced by an office are generally of this genre, or where they concentrate under certain registry themes, this separation cannot occur. Its merits are limited to mixed records, such as correspondence files, and for this reason, it is particularly adaptable to the registry system.
However, the technique of excluding the more transitory of short-term records, those having only immediate value or no value at all, applies to all systems. IAEA's "through mail", already mentioned, defines documentation of a transitory nature, and items earmarked as "papiers de corbeille" by French archivists include duplicate copies, items routed to wrong offices and on which no action is taken, invitations, rough drafts and the like. Peripheral materials discussed in section 3.2.2.7 can be added to this category.
These several preventive measures cannot create a pristine system in which each record that enters has enduring value. In registry systems, documents produced by lower-ranked operational offices will be mixed with those coming from above when the functions and activities of several converge and their records are filed in common. The existence of all kinds of records cannot be envisaged in order to categorise them in advance according to desired longevity, for records creation is not totally predictable and there are different durations of short-term value. At least, pre-screening blocks the most non-essential and obviously short-term items from entering the body of records that is to endure.
6.9 Extant Records
Unfortunately, refinements in arrangement, classification and filing cannot be applied retroactively to records that already exist. To recapitulate, record of international organisations consist of centralized or decentralised registries and decentralised non-registries. Many of their characteristics are in opposition. Central registries are unitary systems that arrange records by subject so that organic cohesion exists within files whose contents are mixtures of varying provenance and retention values. Consequently, appraisal occurs at the file level on the basis of informational value. Evidence of the organisation, is derived from contextual information rather than the way in which records were created and maintained. Conversely, non-registries are decentralised systems in which records have organic cohesion as series arising out of commonality of subject, activity or format, to which office of origin and retention values can be ascribed. As a result, they are appraised for evidential and informational value at the series level. Decentralised registries combine elements of each. They are unitary within their frame of reference and should therefore be appraised at the file level according to informational value. However, the fact of their decentralisation means that records can be identified by source, not at the lowest administrative level as in non-registries, but intermediately, at the divisional level, for example. With these distinctions in mind, records in decentralised non-registries are most receptive to evaluation because of the ability to identify them by series and source.
The appraisal of records in a centralised registry is most difficult because the weeding process that it necessitates is not totally objective, and the unreliability of file content involves risk in selections for disposal. Such caveats do not require that registries be kept in toto. Easily segregable administrative records with obvious short-term value should be disposed. These are generally concentrated under major themes or sub-themes relating to administrative matters, such as those described in section 6.8. In decentralised registries, such records are located in those registry components that cover administrative units of the organisation, Some administrative records are common to all institutional areas, including substantive offices and functions, and where they can be identified and separated, they should be culled for disposal. Because of the volume of administrative records and the space released by their elimination, such undertakings are usually worth the minimal effort that they require.
Lists of disposed file titles should be maintained so that, in combination with the files preserved, there is a complete picture of all that was once in the registry. They also serve as precedents for future disposals. Further selection of files whose value is not so clearly short-term is not worth the time and effort.
6.10 Sampling
The survey of records generated by international organisations revealed the existence of case files maintained either within or parallel to registries. Because they are bulky, and it is not usually necessary to keep all the information they collectively contain, reduction in their volume is particularly desirable.
Partial retention, or sampling, provides an alternative to total retention or destruction. Technique depends on the appraisal of records to be sampled and the reasons for their preservation, but the several procedures possible fall under one of two sampling methods: selective or statistical. In selective sampling, records are chosen for their significance. This is a subjective judgment, and results are more biased than the sample proceeding from statistical sampling, which is systematic and objective. No matter what the method, records should be both voluminous and homogenous.
Consequently, sampling is especially adaptable to case files, which are "homogeneous in general form, in the procedures they represent, and in the areas of activity in which they deal", despite the different subject of each file.
The interjection of sampling into an appraisal study is not to suggest that it is a means of avoiding appraisal decisions; rather, such judgments must precede sampling applications. If records have high concentrations of value, or are purely administrative or facilitative, it is purposeless to sample them. Instead, it should be viewed as an option in records disposition especially adaptable to records dissimilar to those already described in registry or non-registry systems.
6.11 Conclusion
It is highly doubtful that a systematic and objective method of appraisal will ever be devised, given the uniqueness of each institution and its records, the impossibility of forecasting all future research needs relativity of records values and dependency of records selection on arrangement and classification systems.
Also in question is the feasibility of making all determinations of value at the file level. The worth of appraisal is linked to its purpose, which is the reduction of records in order to release space, lessen maintenance costs and render those that remain more manageable for research. Appraisal decisions cannot be black and white, so that records having any value are saved and those having no value are destroyed. Rather, records should have sufficient value to justify their continued preservation. If then, as in the case of central registries, only records having short-term value can be safely disposed and appraisal beyond this level involves risk with limited results, why continue an exercise that fails to pay both in intellectual and economic terms?
Therefore, it should be recognised that appraisal is not a single episode in the life-cycle of records and that what enters the records system is as important as what leaves it. Early planning for records maintenance and disposition, and incorporation of responsibility for these records management activities into the archival function, will help to achieve such goals.