Accounting for Disposition: A Comparative Case Study of Appraisal Documentation at the National Archives and Records Administration in the United States, Library and Archives Canada, and the National Archives of Australia

Society delegates responsibility for the selection and preservation of records of continuing value to archivists. In accepting this charge, the archival profession enters into a relationship with society in which ensuring public trust through accounting to society for the responsible management of records becomes essential. For archivists to maintain this public trust and to be accountable for appraisal, they must create, maintain, and provide access to documentation of how this process is carried out and of why particular disposition decisions are reached. Documentation that reflects that archivists have weighed relevant legislation, institutional policies, professional best practice, and societal values during the appraisal decision-making process enables archivists to demonstrate that they have arrived at responsible decisions in their selection of records for disposal or for continued retention in archives. Appraisal documentation serves as a safeguard which ensures that disposition of records occurs according to standard procedures and protects against the arbitrary and capricious destruction of records. This dissertation explores the relationship between appraisal documentation and archival accountability through a comparative case study of the units tasked with making disposition decisions at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in the United States, Library and Archives Canada (LAC), and the National Archives of Australia (NAA). The research developed detailed descriptions of how appraisal is documented at each of the host institutions. Using a content analysis of documentation and interviews with archivists at NARA, LAC, and NAA regarding the appraisal documentation produced by their respective institutions, the study also assessed archivists' views regarding what constitutes documentation of appraisal that is adequate to permit archivists to be held accountable for appraisal in government archives. This comparative analysis produced preliminary guidelines for accountable documentation of appraisal that serve as a starting point for future research related to archival accountability for this core professional function.

[1]  Sue McKemmish,et al.  Archival documents : providing accountability through recordkeeping , 1993 .

[2]  Mark A. Greene,et al.  Glossary of Archival And Records Terminology , 2005 .

[3]  Kevin P. Kearns,et al.  Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Public and Nonprofit Organizations , 1996 .

[4]  Eileen Welsome.  The plutonium files : America's secret medical experiments in the cold war , 2002 .

[5]  Hans Booms,et al.  Society and the Formation of a Documentary Heritage: Issues in the Appraisal of Archival Sources , 1987 .

[6]  James M. O'Toole.  Understanding archives and manuscripts , 1990 .

[7]  Transparency, Compliance, and Accountability: Developing a Knowledge Infrastructure for Macroappraisal at Library and Archives Canada , 2005 .

[8]  Ian E. Wilson.  The Fine Art of Destruction Revisited , 2000 .

[9]  A. Cunningham,et al.  Some Functions are More Equal than Others: The Development of a Macroappraisal Strategy for the National Archives of Australia , 2005 .

[10]  Randall C. Jimerson.  Embracing the Power of Archives , 2006 .

[11]  C. Robinson.  Records control and disposal using functional analysis , 1997 .

[12]  Jennifer A. Marshall,et al.  DOCUMENTATION STRATEGIES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?: RETHINKING INSTITUTIONAL PRIORITIES AND PROFESSIONAL LIMITATIONS , 1998 .

[13]  D. Mccoy.  The National Archives: America's Ministry Of Documents, 1934 1968 , 1978 .

[14]  Wendy Duff.  Harnessing the power of warrant , 2009 .

[15]  Anne Jervois Gilliland-Swetland.  Development of an expert assistant for archival appraisal of electronic communications: An exploratory study. , 1995 .

[16]  T. Oko.  Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. , 1992 .

[17]  Joan D. Krizack.  Documentation planning for the U.S. health care system , 1994 .

[18]  Barbara Craig,et al.  Archival Appraisal: Theory And Practice , 2004 .

[19]  Richard Mulgan,et al.  Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies , 2003 .

[20]  Robert P. Upchurch.  The Role of the Professional Society , 1973 .

[21]  R. Berner.  Archival Theory and Practice in the United States: A Historical Analysis , 1983 .

[22]  Ian E. Wilson,et al.  "A Noble Dream": The Origins of the Public Archives of Canada , 1982 .

[23]  T. Whorley.  The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Access and Control over Controversial Records , 2006 .

[24]  Stephen Twigge.  Public records, public consultation: the involvement of stakeholders in the selection of records at the Public Record Office, the United Kingdom National Archive.[] , 2003 .

[25]  R. Tschan.  A Comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal , 2007 .

[26]  “But am I Getting My Records?” Squaring the Circle with Terms and Conditions Expressed in Relation to Function and Activity , 2005 .

[27]  Edwin Black,et al.  Book Reviews: IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation , 2002 .

[28]  Mark A. Greene.  "The Surest Proof:" A Utilitarian Approach to Appraisal , 1998 .

[29]  Hilary Sir Jenkinson,et al.  A manual of archive administration , 1938 .

[30]  A. Theoharis,et al.  A culture of secrecy : the government versus the people's right to know , 1999 .

[31]  S. Chapman.  The Cigarette Papers , 1996 .

[32]  Robert J. Hayward.  "Working in Thin Air": Of Archives and the Deschênes Commission , 1988 .

[33]  Terry Abraham.  Collection Policy or Documentation Strategy: Theory and Practice , 2009 .

[34]  Ronald R. Powell,et al.  Basic Research Methods for Librarians , 1985 .

[35]  Mark A. Greene,et al.  Et Tu Schellenberg? Thoughts on the Dagger of American Appraisal Theory , 2009 .

[36]  C. Weideman.  A new map for field work : impact of collections analysis on the Bentley historical library , 2009 .

[37]  Helen Willa Samuels.  Improving our Disposition: Documentation Strategy , 1991 .

[38]  T. Houston.  The Cigarette Papers , 1996 .

[39]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[40]  Jean-Stéphen Piché.  Macro-Appraisal and Duplication of Information: Federal Real Property Management Records , 1995 .

[41]  Adrian Cunningham,et al.  Political Pressure and the Archival Record , 2007 .

[42]  Luciana Duranti,et al.  The concept of appraisal and archival theory , 2009 .

[43]  Carl Newton,et al.  Archives and the Public Good: Accountability and Records in Modern Society , 2004 .

[44]  Richard J. Cox,et al.  The Documentation Strategy and Archival Appraisal Principles: A Different Perspective , 1994 .

[45]  R. Stake.  The art of case study research , 1995 .

[46]  Catherine A. Bailey.  From the Top Down: The Practice of Macro-Appraisal , 1997 .

[47]  Helen Willa Samuels,et al.  Appraising the Records of Modern Science and Technology: A Guide , 1985 .

[48]  Thomas S. Blanton.  White House E-Mail: The Top Secret Computer Messages the Reagan-Bush White House Tried to Destroy , 1995 .

[49]  Bruce Gordon Wilson.  Systematic Appraisal of the Records of the Government of Canada at the National Archives of Canada , 1994 .

[50]  Peter B. Hirtle,et al.  Understanding Progress As Process: Documentation of the History of Post-War Science and Technology in the United States , 1983 .

[51]  Gordon Dodds.  COKER (ed.), Basic Manual Series: Archives and Manuscripts (BRICHFORD, Appraisal and Accessioning; GRACY, Arrangement and Description; HOLBERT, Reference and Access; WALCH, Security; FLECKNER, Surveys) , 1977 .

[52]  MARGARET J. DIXON.  Beyond Sampling: Returning to Macroappraisal for the Appraisal and Selection of Case Files , 2005 .