Anatomy of Context: A Framework Analysis for Archival Knowledge Organization Amelia Abreu The Information School, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington 98195 aabreu@u.washington.edu Abstract This study compares production of archival descriptions with production of bibliographic records and use of user tagging systems. Archivists' descriptions indicate the subject matter of the collection in a similar manner as bibliographic records, but also indicate the collection's provenance, attribute significance to the materials, and give the history of the collection in the archive and outside it. Furthermore, I look at the structure of archival description in comparison to subject cataloging and user tagging. Adapting Tennis' 2006 framework, I look at Work Processes, Discourse, Structural Components and Descriptive Structures associated with these practices. By analyzing archival description under a common measure with concurrent descriptive practice, this work will fill a knowledge gap that will assist linking data by subject, describing materials on the web, integrating archival measures in future descriptive schemes. Introduction Reflecting conference themes of exploring the effects of collective information creation and the future of the societal archive, this poster seeks to identify common parts of descriptive work process and examine the individual descriptive role in collective systems. I examine classificatory practice in archival practice, such definitions of form, guarantors of authenticity and validity and record grouping. To their contrast are measures in bibliographic description such as use of name and series authorities and definition of works and processes in user tagging, such as warrant and appropriateness in personal use. We can further investigate connections between structures by examining what role imposed discourses play in determining classification and descriptive process. Rationale While subject cataloging is an isolated act in the work of librarianship, archival method situates descriptive practice as a single step of the archival process. Recent archival literature suggests that search and access can be improved by increased transparency in description, comparative evaluation of the archival process and a full examination of the archivist's role (Erway and Schaffner, 2007). Clarifying intent, process, social context and representation is vital in maintaining the integrity of archival description, and in comparable descriptive practice. As far back as Schellenberg (1965), archivists have maintained that as documents and the processes employed to create them evolve and shift, descriptive techniques change in their meaning. Insights from across Information Science can inform this evolution, and provide mechanism and theory for reimagining archives in the information landscape. Studies on users such as Toms and Duff's (2002) suggest that they rely more on consistent cues than iteration of environment-discourse. Priss (2003) poses that associative measures of validity work congruously with formal structures, and that descriptive vocabularies should reflect such. The Personal Information Management movement can aid us in examining personal meaning in description (Jones and Teevan, 2007). Moreover, empirical analysis of user-generated descriptive data (Golder and Huberman, 2006) can help us to understand when tagging “works”. To undertake this comparative study I draw on Tennis' 2006 model, which "points to the nature of indexing as an authored, personal, situational, and referential act, where differences in discursive placement divide these...species", to represent archival work in clearer light amongst concurrent practice. Analysis of Description Tennis’ 2006 model analyzes standard practices of bibliographic cataloging in comparison with those in social tagging. Using his umbrella of criteria, I reworkedand expanded its facets to evaluate the previous analysis' applicability to archival description. I also examined recent work

on structures in Knowledge Organization (Cordiero and Slavic, 2002), and studies of knowledge organization in disparate environments (Day, 2001; Golder and Huberman, 2006; Soergel, 2001) for cognates of archival values of authenticity, provenance, and authority and possible structural connections. In order to better understand intentions and goals of the archival practice, I consulted instructive texts on archival description and management (Schellenberg, 1955, 1965; Gracy, 1977, Pederson, 1997) as well as broader studies of archival ecology, (Duranti, 1997; MacNeil, 2005).

Table 1. Work Processes

Taking into consideration these processes and their home environments, I wished to identify the components of these activities- some shared, some unique, in terms that would isolate the actions from their predominant discourse. The

rubric is the same as Tennis’s, which shows both “artifacts” and “interpretive concepts”. Work process Archival Description Subject cataloging Social tagging Analysis / Interpretation Process(es)

Appraisal and Arrangement, considering provenance, conditions of future use; making materials available

Identification of subject matter, considering future use by a user

Task management, identification of topics or subject matter, considering future use by the indexer

Significant Characteristic(s)

Whole collection -names (creator), Physical characteristics, content description, administrative history (provenance), arrangement, series

Whole work- topics, forms of knowledge, geographic areas, genre, etc.

Whole work or part of work- names, topics, genre, place in grouping, evaluation, relation to self, related to task

Document(s) Collections, records Books, web, etc: works

Web documents, ideas, not just works

Context(s) Reference query at archives; online searching

Reference desk queries; remote catalog access

On the Web

Worker Professional relationship with material

Professional relationship with material

Personal relationship with material

Tool(s) Handbooks, descriptive standards

LCSH, catalogs, logs

Tags, collections of tags

Representation(s) Finding aids for collections(uncontrolled, postcoordinate), metadata for reproductions (precoordinate)

Precoordinate, controlled subject headings

Tags (uncontrolled, postcoordinate)

Information System(s)

Finding aids on institutional web site; physical copies of finding aids (little unity across systems)

Catalog (and its purposes- supposed to be unitary across systems)

Social Tagging Systems (at its purposes- not unitary across systems)

User(s) Researchers, archival staff Catalog users (never really themselves because of professional mores)

Themselves, others (group?)

Purpose(s) Finding, collocation, institutional recordkeeping

Finding, collocation Management, sharing, interaction

Reflection(s) on the Process

Textbooks; Administrative notes; descriptive standards

Sauperl, UC report, and blogs

Blogs and talks

Table 2. Discourses of description

Altered significantly from the original, this table outlines components of archival discourse and the relations implicit in indexing work in subject cataloging and social tagging. Provenance and authenticity, which figure heavily in archival

discourse, in turn play a minor role in the discourse of subject cataloging and a greatly unexplored one in social tagging. In comparison, the established, unquestioned stance of catalogers draws out the intricacies of the archival method.

Discourse Archival Description Subject Cataloging Social Tagging Authority Institutional Institutional (local Personal

and national) Creator role Inherent Occult Confessed Application of principles Interpretive, determined

by institutional culture and adoption of standards

Generally routinized, shaped by the institution

Generally unroutinized, sense-making and social processes

Links between materials (intertextuality)

Record grouping, subject grouping, by date of accession-

LCSH, other books in catalogs, other titles, user logs, user reference interactions

Collection of tags, others’ tags, and other web pages in collection- explicit in interface

Scope Local/ professional discourse

Totalizing discourse Local discourse: social/group

Voice Authoritative, scholarly Authoritative, neutral Personal Percieved interpretation Objective and informed Objective and

informed Subjective and accountable

Projected audience Researchers Users Self and others like self

Manifestation of Provenance

Administrative note, collection title

“A luxury” Implicit

Table 3. Framework Components

In response to the changes made to the previous table, this table presents the archival discourse on the collection record alongside the parts and purpose of social tagging and subject cataloging.

Components Archival Description Subject Cataloging Social Tagging Purpose Intellectual control Fufill Cutter’s

objective #2 Share, organize, find again

Predication Finding aid fields, metadata fields

Subject headings lists in an OPAC

Tags, Profiles, popular tags and tag clouds

Function Establish authenticity; serve as institutional record

Find and Collocate (formal and intentional)

Share (social or accidental)

Context Archive, collections, researchers

Library, collections, users

The web

Format Paper, reproduced on web

OPAC Web document

Table 4. Structures of Description For further comparative analysis, I expanded Tennis’ characteristics framework to represent the three practices in terms more amicable to archival process. Like in the original, this framework can serve as the basis of comparative statements

on description and access. Structures of Description

Archival Description Subject Cataloging Social Tagging

Role of vocabulary Uniformity Comprehensiveness Ease in recall Vocabulary or terminology (warrant)

Institutional/ standards (RAD, DACS, EAD)

LOC’s warrant Personal information warrant

Format specific? Yes Yes Yes Implication of provenance

Record of custodianship

Not under normal circumstances

Relational (i.e.: “via:coryarchangel”)

Guidleines for narrative

Implicit, by example LCSH, AACR2 None

Degree of Control Institutional, personal Institutional Personal Uniformity of fields Not consistent Consistent Not consistent Levels of Hierarchy Varies with

arrangement Varies with precoordination

Not present

Purpose(s) Authentication, intellectual (vs. physical) control

Collocation and precision

Management and sharing

Perceived accuracy Accurate, objective Accurate, objective Associative Syndetic Structure Partial Partial None Type of Control Local policy and Local Policy and No policy

(policy?) descriptive standard LCSH policy Coordination of records

Mainly postcoordination

Precoordination, postcoordination

Varies, on individual level

Revisions: Work Process as Information Behavior After an initial inquiry using the unaltered Tennis framework, several areas emerged where the framework yielded sharp contrasts and like aspects, and others where the framework failed to reveal any substantial commonality or contrast. Bibliographic discourse on areas such as authority and scope intersect well with archival theory of diplomatics; likewise, Tennis’ framework for analyzing Structures in indexing accommodated the creation process of archival finding aids as akin to those of assigning tags and creating catalog records. I retained the key areas of the model analyzing discourse, framework components, and structures of description, with some topical changes made to better accommodate the range of work. The major revisions are in the work process area, where the archivist’s employment of provenance, trace analysis, and naming conventions simply did not fit. In examining work practices, several crucial threads became apparent for future consideration. In particular, the relationship between how the describer (whether archivist, cataloger, or citizen) viewed their work, and how they deployed directions revealed a complex set of questions. These casual, often crucial choices made in application make a difference in retrieval by users. Overall, social tagging, bibliographic description and archival description could logically be compared as work processes with many similar intentions and criss-crossing ideals. The Archival Distinction Archival work can benefit from further analysis and be examined for possible concurrences with contemporary and developing practices, and the memory processes occurrent in daily life can be better integrated into archival accession. For archivists, accessioning and curating new formats of materials in any consistent manner is a daunting task, especially without clear direction from a central source. For information science as a whole, judging archival description, subject indexing, and user tagging by a common yardstick can help to clarify the importance of future access in our current cultural products. An accurate understanding of this relationship can provide pragmatic theoretical assistance to the archival community Conclusion: Guiding public archival practice For information science as a whole, gaining a relative understanding of archival description is valuable for design and development. Moreover, comparative analysis of descriptive processes is a useful step in envisioning effective access to materials in the future. With much attention focused on harvesting legacy metadata (Erway and Schaffner, 2007) and incorporating user-generated description into authoritative records, a comprehensive understanding of intent and effect in application is necessary for facilitating interoperability between systems and sustainability for the future. Furthermore, ensuring the integrity of records for the future is important not just for cultural survival, but for the continual existence of some of our most ingrained and essential systems and those that take stock of the information processes employed in authoritative description (Piggot, 2006). Descriptive work processes are often arbitrary and personal, but their shared aspects are often striking. Negotiating these limitations is a challenge and a responsibility of academics and practitioners. Acknowledgements This work was made possible by support from the Graduate Opportunity and Minority Advancement Program at the University of Washington. The author would like to thank Joseph Tennis for suggesting that I take on this study and for his invaluable comments. References:

Day, R. (2001). Totality and representation: A history of knowledge management through European documentation, critical modernity, and post-Fordism. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52: 725-735 Duranti, L. (1998). Diplomatics : new uses for an old science. Lanham Md.: Scarecrow Press. Erway, R., and Schaffner J., (2007). Shifting Gears: Gearing Up to Get Into the Flow. Report produced by OCLC Programs and Research. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf. Golder, S. A., and Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science 32:198-208 Gracy, D. (1977). Archives & manuscripts, arrangement & description. Chicago: Society of American Archivists. Jones, W., & Teevan, J. (2007). Personal Information Management. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press Pederson, A., and Australian Society of Archivists. (1987). Keeping archives. Sydney: Australian Society of Archivists Inc. Piggot, M. (2007). Human behaviour and the making of records and archives. Archives and Social Studies 01, no. 0 (March). Retrieved January 27, 2008 from http://socialstudies.cartagena.es/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=42 Schellenberg, T. (1956). Modern archives principles and techniques. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. -.(1965). The management of archives. New York: Columbia University Press. Soergel, D. (2001) "The representation of Knowledge Organization Structure (KOS) data: a multiplicity of standards", [paper presented at] JCDL NKOS Workshop, VA, 2001. http://www.dsoergel.com/cv/B75.pdf Tennis, Joseph T. (2006). Social Tagging and the Next Steps for Indexing. January 1. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1726/ Toms, E.G., and Duff, W. (2002). "I spent 1 1/2 hours sifting through one large box....": diaries as information behavior of the archives user: lessons learned. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 14: 1232-1238.