Posted by Nicole Hilder on October 28, 2016 at 12:36pm
HiWondering if people use the series system? Im looking at bringing a small collection under archival control. Items include a scrapbook from a mayors wife, minutes from a local community organisation from the turn of last century. I would like to use the series system but dont think having loads of single items series is very effective. I guess I could create "photographs" and "minutes" collections. I need to make it as simple as possible. Its been difficult to find practicle case studies, especially as Im no longer studying and dont have access to costly databases. Ive read Keeping Archives and Describing Archives in context but Im still a bit stuck.Would love to hear about how others went about it.Kind regardsNicole
You need to be a member of Archives Live to add comments!
A fundamental question to ask is whether there is reason to infer that the mayor's wife belonged to the community organization of which you have minutes - is she named as having been present at meetings or as having delivered apologies? If she was a member, then the next question to ask is whether she was the secretary and whether you have the organization's official minute books.
If you have the official minute books, then your small collection is a multiple provenance collection. Assuming that's the case, if you are using the series system, you want to create a description of the mayor's wife (context entity), create a description of the community organization (context entity), create a description of the scrapbook (record entity), create a description of the minutes (record entity), create a description of the collection as a whole (record entity); then link those entities in whatever ways are relevant to the realities of how the record entities were created and subsequently controlled (assuming you know the custodial history of this little collection - there may be other context entities with purely custodial roles that you also want to describe and link to).
There are three reasons for using the relational flexibility afforded by the series system. One is because it is more extensible than fonds focused or record group focused description - if you should, at some later time, receive more records relating to the community organization (but not to the Mayor's wife), simply describing those records and then linking them to your existing description of the community organization will bring the parts together - and you do it without breaking the bond the first part (i.e., the minutes you have now) have with the Mayor's wife.
Another reason for favouring the semantic and chronological specificity enabled by the 'series' approach is because, if your collection grows significantly or if you want to integrate your descriptive data with that being created by other archives, the collective data will not be a confusing 'hotch potch' which means searching functionality is hugely improved (fewer irrelevant or simply opaque hits and more ability to follow links between entities that were once really connected). This is hardly likely to be an issue for you in your small archive, but the foundations you lay now will have consequences for the future.
The final reason is because the primary objective of archival description is to make explicit - and bring to the attention of users - actual space-time specific relationships. Those relationships (traditionally thought of as provenance and documentary context) are fundamentally important for enabling record entities to be used as evidence - they serve many evidential purposes for users, but the most important is that they are needed for a user to make the decision whether a record entity is relevant to their topic of enquiry - relevance=an authentic relationship between the record at hand and whatever historical person, event, or whatever is of interest to the user.
If you have never read Peter Scott's 1966 article in which he critiqued the record group and introduced the series system, I'd recommend you take a look as it will give you a good idea of what the issues at stake are. It is only 11 pages long and in The American Archivist, vol 29, no. 4, available online at http://americanarchivist.org/doi/abs/10.17723/aarc.29.4.y8860542401....
Thanks for your responses! I’m the sole archivist where I work and am grateful to get some professional support (and was a bit nervous about posting). I was basing the example of “photographs” and “minutes” etc from an example from the ASA guide Describing Archives in Context. There is an example of a collecting archive where records are received too infrequently and are unrelated. The archive saw little justification in creating multiple single-item series to accommodate them. The archives the registered certain functions e.g. “political representation” and “abseiling administration” and linked them to the creator (p.13). In the same resource Adrian Cunningham mentions how Keeping Archives is “quite deficient in practical advise on how to implement the series system”. He goes on to ask “if you don’t have a series why would anyone bother to create a series description”? (p.71-73).
As Clive responded it might makes more sense to set up fonds (the record group system). I was just wondering if any other small collecting archives, particularly where most of their collection consists of a single items from a single creator/donor, used the series system. We only have about 20 items at the moment but obviously would like whatever system we set up to be extensible.
The software system we have is based in ISAD (G) and ISAAR - Civica's Spydus Archive module which has the ability to create a lot of links.
Yes, I’ve found that the PROV video and text is very useful in outlining what elements are needed in describing records too Máiréad. But not really in helping re structure in regards to pros and cons of using series v record group (as both would use the same elements). Perhaps our circumstance is relatively unique where we really only have a couple of donors who have given us more than one item.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond- as an aside I'd really like to hear more about the activities, problems, successes of all the wonderful archives in this group in general and would like to encourage anyone reading this to post about what their archive is up to :)
Regards
Nicole
Anna Blackman > Nicole HilderOctober 31, 2016 at 9:36am
Hi Nicole
I manage a large collecting archives collection, but whether your archives are large or small many of the issues are similar. As a collecting archives of long standing we use a group system to structure the arrangement and description of the archives. We have very few series of multiple provenance, and the series system was designed to deal with government records with complex provenance.
Firstly if you are using Spydus Archive module bear in mind it is designed with a group system structure. Our archive previously used an instance of this so I am familiar with the software. In our instance of Spydus the series records were very scant records with much fewer fields than the other descriptive records. If we were to have implemented a series system I think we would have needed to commission quite a lot of customisation to the software.
You can easily create one item collections/fonds/groups in this software, just remember to think about provenance carefully when you create the group. You may find that as time passes further material from the same provenance is acquired and can then be added to the existing group.
I would suggest that (to keep things simple) when you have only one item from a specific provenance that you only create one descriptive record for it. So the record is both collection and item if that makes sense.
I am also interested in exploring a series system. I did find a Public Records Office Victoria link very helpful. This excellent video is presented by experienced archivist Bruce Smith on learning the basic principles for organising a small archival collection.
I think you need to re-read Keeping Archives. Creating "photograph" and "minutes" collections risks separating records from their context and violating the basic principles of respect for provenance and respect for original order.
Small collections are unlikely to have records with multiple provenance, which is what the series system was designed for. There is a simple alternative, the Record Group system, and this is what I use at the Port Macquarie Historical Society. Each organisation or person whose archives we hold is allocated a unique 3 letter code to identify tier record group, e.g. SUR for the Surf Club, DUL for Roger Dulhunty. As their records are arranged into series, each series is allocated a series number, commencing at 1 within each record group. Then, as items forming a series are arranged into (hopefully) their original order (usually alphabetical or chronological), each item is allocated an item number, again commencing at 1 within each series. Thus each item has a unique identifier, e.g. SUR/3/45, which can be used to as a short citation and to label it.
For one-off items, we have an option to assign them to a generic record group, e.g. BUS for Business Records, with the next level down (usually for series) being used to identify the provenance, and the third level being used to identify the item.
This is all managed through an Access database, which can also be used for searching the collection.
Commitment to describing what is real is fundamental to the 'series' system - so forget about setting up collections of photographs and minutes. Instead think about the actual aggregation you received and its relationship with a custodian (or other provenance entity) and then, keeping the scrapbook and minutes within that aggregation, describe each in relation to their different provenance entities. Avoid creating aggregations (including series) for your own administrative convenience - that is what was wrong with Schellenberg's record groups, and why that approach to description was so widely rejected.
Replies
Hi again, Nicole.
A fundamental question to ask is whether there is reason to infer that the mayor's wife belonged to the community organization of which you have minutes - is she named as having been present at meetings or as having delivered apologies? If she was a member, then the next question to ask is whether she was the secretary and whether you have the organization's official minute books.
If you have the official minute books, then your small collection is a multiple provenance collection. Assuming that's the case, if you are using the series system, you want to create a description of the mayor's wife (context entity), create a description of the community organization (context entity), create a description of the scrapbook (record entity), create a description of the minutes (record entity), create a description of the collection as a whole (record entity); then link those entities in whatever ways are relevant to the realities of how the record entities were created and subsequently controlled (assuming you know the custodial history of this little collection - there may be other context entities with purely custodial roles that you also want to describe and link to).
There are three reasons for using the relational flexibility afforded by the series system. One is because it is more extensible than fonds focused or record group focused description - if you should, at some later time, receive more records relating to the community organization (but not to the Mayor's wife), simply describing those records and then linking them to your existing description of the community organization will bring the parts together - and you do it without breaking the bond the first part (i.e., the minutes you have now) have with the Mayor's wife.
Another reason for favouring the semantic and chronological specificity enabled by the 'series' approach is because, if your collection grows significantly or if you want to integrate your descriptive data with that being created by other archives, the collective data will not be a confusing 'hotch potch' which means searching functionality is hugely improved (fewer irrelevant or simply opaque hits and more ability to follow links between entities that were once really connected). This is hardly likely to be an issue for you in your small archive, but the foundations you lay now will have consequences for the future.
The final reason is because the primary objective of archival description is to make explicit - and bring to the attention of users - actual space-time specific relationships. Those relationships (traditionally thought of as provenance and documentary context) are fundamentally important for enabling record entities to be used as evidence - they serve many evidential purposes for users, but the most important is that they are needed for a user to make the decision whether a record entity is relevant to their topic of enquiry - relevance=an authentic relationship between the record at hand and whatever historical person, event, or whatever is of interest to the user.
If you have never read Peter Scott's 1966 article in which he critiqued the record group and introduced the series system, I'd recommend you take a look as it will give you a good idea of what the issues at stake are. It is only 11 pages long and in The American Archivist, vol 29, no. 4, available online at http://americanarchivist.org/doi/abs/10.17723/aarc.29.4.y8860542401....
Kind Regards,
Kay
Thanks for your responses! I’m the sole archivist where I work and am grateful to get some professional support (and was a bit nervous about posting). I was basing the example of “photographs” and “minutes” etc from an example from the ASA guide Describing Archives in Context. There is an example of a collecting archive where records are received too infrequently and are unrelated. The archive saw little justification in creating multiple single-item series to accommodate them. The archives the registered certain functions e.g. “political representation” and “abseiling administration” and linked them to the creator (p.13). In the same resource Adrian Cunningham mentions how Keeping Archives is “quite deficient in practical advise on how to implement the series system”. He goes on to ask “if you don’t have a series why would anyone bother to create a series description”? (p.71-73).
As Clive responded it might makes more sense to set up fonds (the record group system). I was just wondering if any other small collecting archives, particularly where most of their collection consists of a single items from a single creator/donor, used the series system. We only have about 20 items at the moment but obviously would like whatever system we set up to be extensible.
The software system we have is based in ISAD (G) and ISAAR - Civica's Spydus Archive module which has the ability to create a lot of links.
Yes, I’ve found that the PROV video and text is very useful in outlining what elements are needed in describing records too Máiréad. But not really in helping re structure in regards to pros and cons of using series v record group (as both would use the same elements). Perhaps our circumstance is relatively unique where we really only have a couple of donors who have given us more than one item.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond- as an aside I'd really like to hear more about the activities, problems, successes of all the wonderful archives in this group in general and would like to encourage anyone reading this to post about what their archive is up to :)
Regards
Nicole
Hi Nicole
I manage a large collecting archives collection, but whether your archives are large or small many of the issues are similar. As a collecting archives of long standing we use a group system to structure the arrangement and description of the archives. We have very few series of multiple provenance, and the series system was designed to deal with government records with complex provenance.
Firstly if you are using Spydus Archive module bear in mind it is designed with a group system structure. Our archive previously used an instance of this so I am familiar with the software. In our instance of Spydus the series records were very scant records with much fewer fields than the other descriptive records. If we were to have implemented a series system I think we would have needed to commission quite a lot of customisation to the software.
You can easily create one item collections/fonds/groups in this software, just remember to think about provenance carefully when you create the group. You may find that as time passes further material from the same provenance is acquired and can then be added to the existing group.
I would suggest that (to keep things simple) when you have only one item from a specific provenance that you only create one descriptive record for it. So the record is both collection and item if that makes sense.
Kind regards
Anna Blackman
Dear Nicole,
I am also interested in exploring a series system. I did find a Public Records Office Victoria link very helpful. This excellent video is presented by experienced archivist Bruce Smith on learning the basic principles for organising a small archival collection.
http://prov.vic.gov.au/community-programs/training/documenting-the-collection
Kind regards,
Máiréad
Dear Nicole,
I think you need to re-read Keeping Archives. Creating "photograph" and "minutes" collections risks separating records from their context and violating the basic principles of respect for provenance and respect for original order.
Small collections are unlikely to have records with multiple provenance, which is what the series system was designed for. There is a simple alternative, the Record Group system, and this is what I use at the Port Macquarie Historical Society. Each organisation or person whose archives we hold is allocated a unique 3 letter code to identify tier record group, e.g. SUR for the Surf Club, DUL for Roger Dulhunty. As their records are arranged into series, each series is allocated a series number, commencing at 1 within each record group. Then, as items forming a series are arranged into (hopefully) their original order (usually alphabetical or chronological), each item is allocated an item number, again commencing at 1 within each series. Thus each item has a unique identifier, e.g. SUR/3/45, which can be used to as a short citation and to label it.
For one-off items, we have an option to assign them to a generic record group, e.g. BUS for Business Records, with the next level down (usually for series) being used to identify the provenance, and the third level being used to identify the item.
This is all managed through an Access database, which can also be used for searching the collection.
Regards
Clive
Hi Nicole,
Commitment to describing what is real is fundamental to the 'series' system - so forget about setting up collections of photographs and minutes. Instead think about the actual aggregation you received and its relationship with a custodian (or other provenance entity) and then, keeping the scrapbook and minutes within that aggregation, describe each in relation to their different provenance entities. Avoid creating aggregations (including series) for your own administrative convenience - that is what was wrong with Schellenberg's record groups, and why that approach to description was so widely rejected.
All the best,
Kay