Why Less Process Sometimes Means Less Access

Greene, Mark A. and Dennis Meissner. 2005. "More Product, Less Process: Pragmatically Revamping Traditional Processing Approaches to Deal with Late 20th-Century Collection." American Archivist, 63.2 (Fall/Winter). Pre-print available online at: http://ahc.uwyo.edu/documents/faculty/greene/papers/Greene-Meissner.pdf

In "More Product, Less Process" Greene and Meissner suggest that the widespread backlog in archival processing is a function of archivists' reluctance to adapt their processing practices to the realities of contemporary archives, realities which include rising numbers of acquisitions and the increasingly large size of the average modern archival collection. Greene and Meissner rightly note that processing backlogs impede user access. To remedy this problem, they lay out a methodology of minimal processing, arguing that "it is time that we focused on what we absolutely need to do, instead of all the things that we might do in a world of unbounded resources" (2). In practical terms, for Greene and Meissner, this means reducing the level detail in arrangements and severely scaling back conservation practices such as refoldering, unfolding, cleaning, and removing metal fasteners.

Minimalism in processing, however, has its price. Below are three unintended consequences for access that might result from Greene and Meissner's approach:

Reducing the detail in arrangement and description penalizes researchers with fewer resources. That is, it effectively inhibits remote access since pared-down finding aids likely won't include enough information for a researcher to place a photoduplication request from a distance. This means that the collections would only really be accessible to those users with the funds and time for on-site research. Similarly, quick visits will be less productive since researchers will need to spend more time sorting through the material to find what they are looking for. However, as Greene and Meissner argue, making information accessible online should be a priority. A detailed finding aid does little good if researchers can't access its contents or don't know it exists.

Reducing the detail in arrangement and description means increasing the burden on an institution's public services department. Researchers will rely more and more on contact with public services staff to determine the contents of collections. If an institution does not increase its public services staff as it decreases the amount of processing it performs, then they will soon find their public services department overtaxed and researchers will continue to leave archives feeling frustrated.

Reducing conservation practices threatens access to the collections for future generations. Beth A. has already raised some important questions from a conservator's point of view about the wisdom of forgoing conservation practices like unfolding documents. If, for example, unfolding isn't done before the documents become brittle, then when a researcher attempts to unfold them in the future the documents may chip and tear, and significant portions of text may be lost. Similarly, the National Archives emphasizes the importance of judiciously deployed "holdings maintenance"--a set of "preservation actions that are designed to prolong the useful life of records and to reduce or defer the need for laboratory treatment by improving the physical storage environment." A backlog-free library will mean little if the collections material is compromised in the process. Shortcuts in preservation now may mean the need to engage in costly conservation treatments or impose access restrictions in the future.

Part of the value of Greene and Meissner's article is that it is intentionally provocative. [See for example their claim that "much of what passes for arrangement in processing work is really just overzealous housekeeping, writ large" (21).] Inevitably, the strategies we develop to cope with our increasing archival backlogs will have some drawbacks. Debating which consequences we can live with and which we cannot must be an important part of discussions in the fields of conservation, preservation managment, and archives.