331

Are We Coming Together? The

Archival Descriptive Landscape
and the Roles of Archivist
and Cataloger

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

ABSTRACT
Traditionally, archival description remained distinct from bibliographic description
due to differences in material format, usage, and professional traditions. However,
archival descriptive standards and practice have undergone numerous changes in
recent years. This evolution is in part due to the advent of MARC and its adoption by
the academic archives community. How much influence has the use of MARC and
overall bibliographic description had on academic archival description as well as on
the collaboration between traditional catalogers and archivists? To address this ques-
tion, this article presents the findings of a landscape survey of the Association of
Research Libraries members’ descriptive practices surrounding MARC records, linked
and embedded metadata, and authority records. Survey responses indicate that
archival descriptive work remains concentrated in the archival domain, with archi-
vists creating description as one component of job responsibilities at most institu-
tions. Descriptive work—including MARC record creation—has not been passed off to
cataloging colleagues despite their longer professional experience with the standard
even though the OPAC is the most commonly cited archival information system
available to respondents. Decisions about appropriate levels of description, standards
to be employed, workflows, and other factors related to archival description do not
appear to rely on external buy-in or approval in most repositories, and descriptive
practices employ a mix of standards from both the archival and bibliographic tradi-
tions. These and other findings provide a baseline understanding of current archival
descriptive practices and workflows, enhancing our ability to improve archival
description and therefore findability and access to archival materials.

© Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard.

KEY WORDS
Description, Cataloging, Encoded Archival Description (EAD), Metadata

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019 331–380

332 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

A rchival descriptive standards and praxis have undergone numerous changes

in recent years. To understand the current archival descriptive landscape
including the assignment of responsibility for bibliographic and archival cata-
loging, as well as the relationship between archivists and catalogers, and tech-
nical services departments and archival units, we examined past descriptive
practices and crafted a survey to document and analyze current practices. Given
that the creation of MARC1 records has become increasingly common within
academic archival repositories in the thirty-five years since its adoption,2 we

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

questioned whether workflows remain split between cataloging and archival
units, or if archivists frequently find themselves in the role of cataloger, with
or without experience in that role. By understanding the evolution of archival
descriptive standards, the archival profession’s use of bibliographic standards,
and the historic relationships between archivists and catalogers, we hope to
shed light on how a bifurcation of responsibilities emerged. Through a survey
of the current descriptive landscape, the profession can come to better under-
stand prevailing descriptive workflows and what effect those workflows have
on how archival materials are described. These data provide insights into what
standards are currently in use and to what extent, and how this adoption of
standards and workflows impacts profession-wide efforts to increase findability
and accessibility of archival materials.

Literature Review

To understand the current archival description landscape, it is neces-

sary to review how modern archival description began and evolved alongside
bibliographic description.

Archival Description: 1970s to Present

With the development of the MARC AMC (Machine Readable Cataloging

Archives and Manuscripts Control) standard, the archival profession added a
new tool to increase discoverability of archival materials. While imperfect in its
representation of archival hierarchy and relationships, its structure conformed
enough to traditional archival description that many repositories chose to
implement the MARC AMC standard, thus enabling representation of archival
collections alongside library materials in library catalogs and bringing together
the realms of archival and bibliographic description.
Archival collections3 represent unique accumulations of material; generally
speaking, each exists as a single instance and no collection at any other reposi-
tory can be described in exactly the same manner. This emphasis on uniqueness
both in terms of the materials’ description and as a primary source has limited

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 333
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

the archival profession’s ability to standardize both archival description and

structures. Emphasizing context and hierarchy, archival description begins at
the collection level and iterates down to the lowest level necessary (e.g., series,
subseries, folder, item) as determined by the archivist. Archival description may
include item-level description; though this is less common in modern archival
descriptive practices, it continues to exist within legacy finding aids created over
decades by predecessors and may be employed when describing some small,
specialized, digitized, or born-digital collections. This hierarchical descriptive

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

practice can provide significant benefit by drawing attention to the multitude of
items that comprise an archival collection.4 The finding aid, combining a narra-
tive with details on creator(s), scope, and contents as well as a box and folder
list, reflected the profession’s notion of archival description prior to the advent
of bibliographic standards, the Internet, and digitization efforts.5 Over time,
the profession has come to embrace a broader definition of description as an
ongoing process that centers around the notion of control. The Working Group
on Standards for Archival Description proposed in 1989 that “archival descrip-
tion is the process of capturing, collating, analyzing, and organizing any infor-
mation that serves to identify, manage, locate, and interpret the holdings of
archival institutions and explain the contexts and records systems from which
those holdings were selected.”6
In contrast, bibliographic description typically employed by catalogers7
describes a single item at a single level. It focuses on the item as artifact rather
than providing additional contextual information as done by archival descrip-
tion, lending bibliographic records a standardization, both in description and
structure. This standardization makes bibliographic records reusable by other
institutions, often with only minimal changes.
By the early 1970s, MARC had become the US national standard for
bibliographic data transmission; catalogers had more than a decade of imple-
mentation experience before MARC AMC was approved in 1983 and published
by the Library of Congress in 1984. Prior to the adoption of the MARC AMC stan-
dard, archival repositories operated in an extremely siloed and insular world.
As archivists, like their library colleagues, came to embrace the sharing of
descriptive information through technological means, they realized that stan-
dards and collaboration would be required if descriptive data was to be shared
and reused.8 Idiosyncratic local practices could no longer be the norm, and the
profession began to look outside of individual repositories to establish accept-
able practices. With no archival organization poised to lead the development
of archival description standards, “[National Information Systems Task Force]
NISTF9 concluded that the best way to pursue archival descriptive standards was
through an adaptation of MARC cataloging and that active participation in that
process might yield a satisfactory result over which archivists could maintain

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

334 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

some measure of control.”10 It was at this point that “archival descriptive work
should no longer be considered completely different from other cataloging prac-
tices.”11 While description of archival materials had previously resided squarely
in the purview of the archivist,12 those at institutions with independent cata-
loging departments could, after the adoption of MARC AMC, draw upon the
related MARC expertise of colleagues within the institution, forming new
relationships, collaborations, and workflows for bibliographic description of
archival materials.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Through a succession of National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
grants, the Society of American Archivists (SAA) from 1985 to 1989 offered
numerous workshops, presentations, and publications on the MARC AMC
format, training individuals from more than 140 repositories throughout the
United States in the format. MARC AMC adoption was further advanced by
the National Historic Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC)–funded
government records projects run through the Research Libraries Group (RLG)
and resulting in publications that provided examples and recommendations for
the use of the format. At the same time, NHPRC funding of the Working Group on
Standards for Archival Description (WGSAD) led to increased systematization in
standards development and approval.13 As the WGSAD wrote in the introduction
to a fall 1989 report in a special section of American Archivist, “The unthinkable
happened. Archivists, struggling to absorb the unfamiliar notions and language
of MARC, began talking to librarians and other information professionals for
whom standards of one kind or another were part of their vocabulary.”14
These grant-funded activities ushered in the adoption of the MARC AMC
standard. Within nine years of its approval, 57.1% (80) of academic archives
responding to a survey on its use reported using MARC AMC.15 At the time,
the majority (60%) were doing this descriptive work collaboratively, with 35%
reporting archivists working individually, and 5% reporting catalogers working
by themselves.16 Retrospective cataloging projects providing initial opportu-
nities for archivists and catalogers to work together met with mixed results:
successful collaborations between units as well as challenges are documented in
the literature. Mark A. Vargas and Janet Padway called attention to the need for
clear definition of job responsibilities and the importance of ongoing communi-
cation.17 Given the intricacies of cataloging rules and cataloging systems, archi-
vists who previously relied on the finding aid or inventory as a primary mode
of archival description and found themselves tasked with cataloging responsi-
bilities frequently required crash-courses in cataloging and opportunities for
consistent hands-on use of those cataloging skills.18 Pointing to these differences
in education and training, Susan Hamburger suggested, “The project manager
needs to ask if the processing archivists can learn and correctly apply cataloging
principles, if book catalogers can adapt their knowledge and skills to encoding

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 335
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

collections rather than single items . . .”19 In other words, questions emerged in
the 1980s and 1990s about the degree to which archivists and catalogers should
remain specialists with their own domain knowledge and specializations, and,
as a result, workflows for bibliographic cataloging of archival materials varied
from institution to institution.
Historically, a division of cataloging labor accrued a number of benefits,
including efficiencies.20 Individuals assigned cataloging responsibility who dedi-
cated time exclusively to that role become more experienced at and productive

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

in those tasks.21 Catalogers in many institutions were thus assigned areas of
specialization, reinforcing expertise and increasing efficiency in their partic-
ular areas of knowledge. Over time, this relegated archival cataloging to the
periphery because bibliographic catalogers prioritized materials that were quick
to process and reflected more familiar rules and formats. As Padway explains,
“Nontraditional and ephemeral materials, archival collections, and materials
in foreign languages and in unusual formats will wait—sometimes for years—
to be processed after the English-language monographs and serials.”22 Unlike
their library colleagues in cataloging or interlibrary loan departments, archi-
vists employing MARC AMC did not amass the same efficiencies of copy cata-
loging, thus requiring more human resources to complete original cataloging
for each collection; some institutions chose to prioritize other work.23 Some
early adopters saw increased use of collections after cataloging projects,24 while
others did not,25 calling into question the return on the investment of time and
resources. To this day, one can find repositories that have not created MARC
records for all of their archival collections, investing descriptive resources for
some collections, but not all.
A division of labor for bibliographic and archival cataloging also reflected
the structural arrangement and positioning of the archives within parent insti-
tutions.26 In many institutions, archives have been a peripheral part of library
operations, physically located in the same building or organizationally under
the same operational division, but considered intellectually separate, foreign,
and difficult to understand, the realm of a specialist. Archivists were further cut
off intellectually from much of the rest of the library due to their own distinct
practices, which embraced the creation of bibliographic records well after tradi-
tional library catalogers did so.27 Given the inherent differences between the
professions and the entrenched separation often found in libraries at academic
institutions, some institutions continued to operate parallel descriptive units;
others passed responsibilities for MARC description from archival units to cata-
loging units, building on the expertise the catalogers had developed. For these
and other reasons, an array of localized approaches emerged and responsibility
for bibliographic cataloging of archival materials came to reside in a variety
of units.28 The trend, however, appears to be moving toward bringing the two

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

336 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

together physically or organizationally. Geoff Brown and Kathryn Harvey credit

a shared physical location as essential to their project’s success at Dalhousie
University.29 Carol Ou, Katherine Rankin, and Cyndi Shein describe the creation
of a technical services department focused on archival description and collection
management within special collections and archival units at the University of
Nevada–Las Vegas in 2014, noting that while their responsibility was to improve
access to and discovery of archival collections, their success also depended upon
collaboration with a more traditional and broadly focused cataloging team

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

within the library’s Discovery Services Department.30

Archival versus Bibliographic Description

Concurrent with the adoption of MARC AMC, Steven Hensen’s Archives,

Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A Cataloging Manual for Archival Repositories,
Historical Societies, and Manuscript Libraries (APPM) brought rules for data content
standardization to the archival profession in 1983. APPM was the archival
answer to Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2), chapter 4,
published in 1978, which provided instructions for cataloging manuscript mate-
rials. AACR2 reconciled many of the contradictions in AACR, adopted in 1967.31
As described by Steven Hensen, AACR2, chapter 4, remained insufficient in its
handling of archival description due to

[. . .] a failure to distinguish sufficiently between the bibliographic nature and

requirements of published and unpublished materials. [Which] was, in turn,
related to some general misunderstandings regarding the nature of archival
description. These were reflected most particularly in the failure to place the
proper emphasis on the needs of collection or series level description, or to
recognize that archival description was not “static” in the same way that bib-
liographic description was.32

Major issues with AACR2 rectified by APPM included legitimizing the

finding aid as a source for bibliographic description, providing description
instructions, and improving provisions for collection-level description and the
inherent recognition of contextual importance.33
MARC AMC cataloging projects undertaken during this period underscored
the limitations of MARC AMC in representing archival collections and confirmed
that “catalog records are not as representative of archival materials as the tradi-
tional documentation created by archivists.”34 Even as archives began creating
bibliographic records, the preferred method for describing archival materials
was and remains the finding aid35 (developed entirely within the purview of the
archivist and prior to the advent of technologies that allowed for its sharing and
delivery online), due to its ability to represent hierarchical relationships. As the
Internet matured and archivists realized that they could increase the public’s

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 337
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

awareness of collections by placing finding aids online, a new data structure

emerged in the form of Encoded Archival Description (EAD).36 The 1998 release
of EAD Version 1.0 provided a standard organized around the finding aid’s intel-
lectual structure designed for online availability and aggregated to facilitate
search and discovery across repositories. EAD’s standardization and online
delivery were envisioned as having the potential to enhance the discoverability
of archival materials as MARC records and union catalogs had for library mate-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

rials, but in an archival rather than a bibliographic structure.37 Essentially, EAD
would be to finding aids what MARC was to a title card in a card catalog.
EAD has proven successful for providing a machine-readable structure
paralleling the hierarchical nature of archival description, but it has not
enjoyed widespread adoption. Barriers to EAD adoption are well documented
throughout the literature.38 Some challenges, such as the lack of browsers
able to display EAD without first converting to HTML, have been resolved, but
other obstacles persist, including a lack of staff, development of workflows for
encoding and online delivery, budgetary resources, and a desire to edit and
revise legacy finding aids to bring them into compliance with DACS or other
modern-day standards. However, EAD implementation has been wholesale in
some repositories, generating increased opportunities for collaboration as well
as theoretical and practical projects involving both catalogers and archivists
working to crosswalk data between systems representing the bibliographic and
archival (this will be discussed further). Despite these collaborations, actual EAD
creation (unlike MARC) is generally limited to archivists.39

DACS and RDA—Combining Content and Structural Standards

As archivists and catalogers continued to apply and refine their own struc-
tural standards,40 content standards progressed. The 2004 release of Describing
Archives: A Content Standard (DACS), expanded to include authority description
in 2013, provided archivists with an up-to-date descriptive standard designed
to work in multiple outputs, including EAD. DACS accommodates both single
and multilevel description as required; combinations of its twenty-five elements
fulfill required, optimum, and added-value levels of description. Individual DACS-
formatted elements inserted into EAD’s structural elements create an output
that can be searched in a structured way. As archivists began to transition from
APPM to DACS, catalogers faced their own shift in content standards with the
2010 publication of AACR2’s successor, Resource Description and Access (RDA). The
progression in description from AACR2 to RDA brought major changes for cata-
logers, but for archivists who were already familiar with bibliographic stan-
dards, the changes were minor as DACS already included them.41

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

338 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

With descriptive responsibilities situated in both archives and cataloging

units, each with their own professional standards and frames of reference, insti-
tutions faced choices about how to catalog their materials, and the flexibility
of the standard allowed for a variety of local practices. The same records could
be cataloged following AACR2 or APPM conventions, using DACS or RDA stan-
dards, with each institution making the choice based on local practices and
influences. Despite the similarities between DACS and RDA, many institutions
used one or both of the standards in their day-to-day work, depending on who

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

was creating the description, the output tool or framework for sharing, and
local practices and preferences. For example, some academic institutions imple-
mented DACS within their finding aid systems, but described the same mate-
rials using RDA within MARC-based systems such as the library’s online public
access catalog (OPAC).42 Others chose to use DACS within both systems. As of
2014, DACS appeared to be the preferred content standard for description of
archival materials, with 75.9% of respondents in a survey conducted by Karen
Gracy and Frank Lambert reporting use of DACS for archival description.43 While
Gracy and Lambert inquired about respondents’ awareness of RDA and whether
discussions had taken place within repositories about its implementation, the
survey did not capture data on actual use of RDA or the potential for use of both
RDA and DACS in different forms of archival description within a single insti-
tution (e.g., RDA in catalog records and DACS in finding aids). A reported 26.2%
indicated that their repositories were considering updating their information
systems for RDA. This update could possibly have been to accommodate a move
away from DACS in favor of RDA, the adoption of RDA in place of AACR2, or
a combination of factors. Regardless, while RDA may be selected as the single
standard to describe all materials within the institution, this is perhaps more
likely to occur in institutions where “library catalogers have the responsibility
of creating bibliographic records at the collection level for archival materials”44
(emphasis added).

EAC-CPF—Archival Authority Records and Control

Traditional archival description did not separate authority control from

the description of the archival material. Archival material is unique, as are its
creators and subjects, therefore, archival practice precluded the creation and
reuse of an authority record. However, this does not mean that authority content
was not included in finding aids, it only indicates that authority information
was not necessarily controlled, tracked, and reused as in bibliographic cata-
loging. This lack of control prevented interoperability between repositories (and
collections within the same repository), inhibiting collection discovery through
related persons and corporate bodies; findability that collections with authority

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 339
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

records enjoyed. Lisa Weber describes the intermingling of creator and collec-
tion information in MARC AMC records, and the difficulty of modifying existing
authority formats for archives’ use.45 Similarly, David Bearman laments that
traditional controlled vocabularies (e.g., the Library of Congress Name Authority
file) are not diverse enough for archival materials.46
Alexander Thurman attributes the particular importance of authority
description within the archival profession to the central principle of prove-
nance, as well as the “compelling reasons to separate and formalize the collec-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

tion and maintenance of this type of information.”47 Not until 2011, however,
did the archival profession have an internal data structure standard to address
authority records, Encoded Archival Context for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and
Families (EAC-CPF), and not until DACS’s second edition in 2013 did an authority
content standard arise. Like EAD, EAC-CPF is hierarchical and has a nested
structure for recording and capturing authority description. Initially, content
standard guidelines referred to RDA, but a revision of DACS heeded Pitti’s
suggestion and separated authority from bibliographic control, providing an
archives-specific content standard for authorities. Used together, EAC-CPF’s and
DACS’s authority content standards would allow for reuse of authority records,
linking relationships between authority and collection records, as well as archi-
vists’ professional capabilities to create the system Pitti had described in 2001.48
In contrast, authority control and bibliographic description have long been
separated within the cataloging realm whereby a single record (i.e., an agent
such as a personal name) serves as the authority record. This single authority
record is reused thereafter, referenced in each bibliographic record of which it
is the creator or subject. This process provides numerous benefits. Internally,
it centralizes editing and updating work within the authority record only,
improving efficiency and eliminating multiple records for the same agent. For
users, Jinfang Niu notes that cataloging and its associated systems allow one
to find all related content internally and across repositories through colloca-
tion and disambiguation by providing each agent a unique ID.49 Bibliographic
cataloging practices and tools have developed to support authority work done
in this manner. Archival collection management software, however, does not
yet offer this support: “Until recently, archival collection management systems
did not include functionality for any kind of structured authority metadata—
and certainly not the export or sharing of these kinds of records.”50 Gracy
and Lambert’s 2014 study, which found only 5.1% (n = 16) of respondents used
EAC-CPF, backs up this notion.51
The ongoing inaccessibility (statistically) of materials described solely with
archival structural standards (i.e., EAD and EAC-CPF) has undoubtedly helped
drive the archival profession’s continued desire to make materials discoverable
in multiple systems (e.g., library systems with a larger user base). This often

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

340 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

results in archivists and catalogers working together, commonly crosswalking

data between siloed systems.

Using Multiple Standards to Increase Discoverability

Increasing numbers of institutions are moving to collection management

tools like ArchivesSpace, which exports records in multiple bibliographic and

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

archival description standards. As digitized and born-digital materials become
more commonplace in archival and information systems, both archivists and
catalogers must consider and reconcile the creation, capture, and transmis-
sion of metadata about those objects within their own spheres of influence
(library catalogs and discovery layers versus digital, preservation, and finding
aid repositories). Conversations about how to crosswalk and share description
between systems and standards are an important part of the current profes-
sional dialogue.
Cross-community sharing of metadata is increasingly important to the
profession, as attested by the multitude of crosswalking projects being under-
taken. Cory Nimer and J. Gordon Daines suggest, “Perhaps by developing
modular standards with a common core that allows for sharing of informa-
tion, as well as extensions to meet the needs of different user communities we
would be able to meet both goals.”52 One such common discovery tool being
adopted widely is ArchivesSpace, which, at the time of this writing,53 has over
400 members and additional use by nonmember institutions. ArchivesSpace
provides collection management, discovery, and access functionalities as well
as library and archival description standards for both collections (MARC, EAD)
and authorities (EAC-CPF). One natural area for collaboration between archi-
vists and catalogers is in the crosswalking between EAD and MARC schemas
from the system. While each standard provides for description of archival
materials, it is done at different levels, for different purposes, with different
strengths, making them “not interchangeable.”54 Among MARC’s positive
attributes are its ability to provide both an overview of the collection and
“serendipitous connection between users and materials via the catalog.”55 In
contrast, EAD “creates a surrogate that is the equivalent of a model replica
of the materials. The user can see the material as a whole, as well as get
an in-depth glimpse into the structure and complexity of the material.”56 As
a result of separate bibliographic and archival information platforms and
a desire to facilitate discovery possibilities, institutions frequently create
both types of records for a single collection, “[achieving] two goals: it uses
existing mechanisms to facilitate creator, title, subject and keyword searches
of archival holdings; and it also increases the profile of archival holdings, in
particular amongst an academic population that might not normally consider

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 341
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

archival resources.”57 Ou, Rankin, and Shein describe using ArchivesSpace

in the development of workflows to crosswalk metadata from the system to
MARC records. They stress how ArchivesSpace improved the efficiency in their
work and helped to create collaborations between the Discovery Services and
Special Collections Technical Services Departments with future partnerships
expected.58 Collaborations such as these draw upon individual areas of exper-
tise, assign clear responsibilities in alignment with that expertise, and result
in less duplication of effort.59 Other benefits of the collaboration are increasing

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

awareness of authority control and controlled vocabularies, appreciation of
archival materials and description, and “the opportunity to set standards,
bridge differences in descriptive schemes, and build a base from which it is
possible to work toward increasingly sophisticated delivery of information
resources.”60 As ArchivesSpace’s adoption continues to expand, the number of
projects bringing together archivists and catalogers from different parts of the
organization are likely to increase.
As born-digital materials and digitized archival materials become more
the norm, archival description must accommodate digital files. Whereas MARC
and EAD records act as descriptive surrogates for the archival collections, digital
files require additional description using a metadata schema (e.g., Dublin Core)
linked or embedded within the file to meet digital preservation needs. This is
additional work, which has led to a trend of integrating non-MARC metadata
duties into the workload of traditional catalogers; digital projects represent a
large portion of these kinds of work. A 2008 survey of members of four cata-
loging discussion lists by Marielle Veve and Melanie Feltner-Reichert found that
“most of the endeavors to integrate non-MARC metadata duties into the work-
flow of traditional catalogers at US academic institutions began in or after 2004,
mainly prompted by an increasing number of digitized resources to catalog
and an increasing demand by patrons for virtual access to library collections,
rather than because of a decreasing number in print resources to catalog, as
many believe.”61 At that time, Veve and Feltner-Reichert found that “the trend in
most US academic institutions that have integrated non-MARC metadata duties
into the workflow of catalogers is to have five or fewer catalogers working with
non-MARC metadata, most of them dedicating 20% or less of their time to the
task.”62 Catalogers primarily engaged with descriptive metadata, mirroring their
expertise in describing materials, and most commonly employed the Dublin
Core schema when not using MARC.

Where Archives Are Now

As Gracy and Lambert note, “The latest wave in archival descrip-

tion also attempts to bring several standards into alignment to increase

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

342 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

interoperability among archives, libraries, and museums, thus requiring

archivists to have some familiarity with standards that may formerly have
been considered inapplicable to archives.”63 But how are descriptive standards
being applied within archival repositories? And who is responsible for that
work? As recently as 2014, archivists reportedly “feel considerable trepidation
in their abilities to implement most standards, except for DACS. Thus, while
many new standards are coming to fruition in the archival profession, the
greatest challenge may be to help archivists learn about them and become

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

confident in their application.”64 To control for a certain amount of variability
in organizational structure and adoption of standards, this study seeks to
establish baseline data about archival descriptive practices within academic
institutions.

Methodology

Initial decisions on collection methodology, sample (size, type, contact

method), and survey instrument development impacted both the data obtained
and its interpretability.

Survey Development

The case studies in the literature review revealed limited data about current
archival descriptive practices and responsibilities. To understand the broad
landscape relative to current archival descriptive practices and to better inform
subsequent research projects, a methodology that provided for collecting data
from a large number of participants with minimal investment of time and other
expenses was desired. Therefore, using an online survey distributed over email
was the natural choice for data collection.

Sample

All repositories holding archival materials and affiliated with a college or

university listed as members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in
September 2017 were considered for participation in the survey. ARL member
institutions serving broader national audiences (e.g., Library of Congress,
Smithsonian), organizational members (Center for Research Libraries), and state
or public library audiences (e.g., Boston Public Library) were not included (9 of
123 institutions).
Recognizing that descriptive practices can—and often do—vary from
repository to repository on campuses with multiple archival repositories, we

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 343
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

visited the webpage of the library of each ARL member institution to iden-
tify individual units holding archival materials within the larger institution.
Given the variety of organizational structures and names used to describe
archival and special collections work, we considered for inclusion any unit
listed on the member organization library’s website that also appeared to
hold archival materials (even if it appeared that archival services were but a
small part of its mission). We defined archival materials as unique, one-of-
a-kind resources (in any format) generally unavailable elsewhere; reposito-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

ries whose “archival” collections consist entirely of reproductions created as
convenience copies for the research community of an individual campus were
not included.
Through this website review and analysis, we identified 211 individual
repositories for inclusion in the survey. Generally speaking, we distributed
surveys to the heads of individual repositories, though in several cases, we
emailed a general department or reference inquiry email address when contact
information was obscured on the website or when who had leadership respon-
sibilities within the unit was unclear. As websites often do not make apparent
the distribution of cataloging responsibilities within each repository, the email
invitation asked recipients to forward the survey to the staff member in their
repositories most familiar with archival description and/or archival cataloging
in their place of employment.
Survey invitations were successfully distributed via email to 207 individ-
uals using Qualtrics on January 8, 2018 (4 emails bounced in the first distribu-
tion; 2 emails were duplicated, and 2 emails failed), with follow-up reminder
emails sent on January 22, 2018. As we had no budget, we offered no compensa-
tion. The survey had a 28% response rate, with a total of 58 surveys completed
by the survey close date of February 9, 2018.

Survey Instrument

We developed a 50-question survey instrument to gather data about

staffing arrangements and workflows archival repositories employ in their cata-
loging practices, the education and background of those who complete cata-
loging work, the types of descriptive output being generated at each institution,
and practitioners’ satisfaction with the workflows employed at their institu-
tions. Respondents initially provided informed consent, and the remaining
questions were grouped into 5 categories: background on descriptive practices,
MARC records, embedded metadata, linked metadata, and authority records.
Questions were primarily a mixture of multiple-choice, open-ended, and Likert-
type scale, along with several that allowed for rank ordering. The survey instru-
ment is included in Appendix A.

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

344 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Findings

As one of the main purposes of this study was to better understand the rela-
tionship between archival and cataloging units in cataloging archival materials,
we designed the survey to capture basic demographic information about those
units at responding institutions and to collect data about descriptive practices
and workflows for archival materials. We hoped to be able to examine relation-
ships between the size of unit, the location of the cataloging work within the

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

repository, and choices of standards and workflows. Unfortunately, the number
of responses coupled with the wide variety of answer options employed yielded
results too small for appropriate statistical analysis and tests (e.g., chi-square
tests). Nonetheless, the survey provides baseline data on the current state of
descriptive practices in ARL academic institutions.

Demographics and Background

The size of archival departments within responding institutions ranged

greatly, from .1 FTE to 25 FTEs, as illustrated in Figure 1. A staff of 7 FTEs was the
most commonly reported (12.7%, or 7 responses), with staffing levels of 2 and 9
FTEs following with 6 responses each (10.9%).
Similarly, the size of cataloging or technical services departments within
responding institutions varied significantly, ranging from staffs of 0 FTE to a
staff of 64 (see Figure 2). Five respondents (9.6%) reported that their cataloging or
technical services departments had no FTEs. These respondents may have been
thinking only of FTEs within their units rather than more broadly throughout

FIGURE 1. Number of FTEs employed within institutions’ archival departments

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 345
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

FIGURE 2. Number of FTEs within institutions’ cataloging or technical services departments

their institutions. Staffing sizes of 1 FTE and 5 FTEs were also reported with the
same frequency of 5 responses each (9.6%).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the vast majority of respondents (n = 50, or 89.3%)
were positioned within an archives or special collections unit, versus technical
services (7.1%). Archival descriptive work is only one part of the job duties of
many respondents, with most devoting less than half of their time to it (73.2%,
see Table 1). While nearly a quarter spend less than 10% of their time on descrip-
tive work (23.2%), 10.7% devote more than 75% of their time to descriptive work,
indicating some institutions may concentrate descriptive responsibilities.
Of the 56 job titles supplied, 48 were unique. The following appeared more
than once in survey responses: archivist (4), associate archivist (2), director (3),
and head of archival processing (3). Participants’ job titles reflect specialization as
well as a combination of duties in one role, including titles such as “head, access
and outreach services,” “director of special collections, archives and preserva-
tion,” “head, special collections and
archival and metadata librarian,” Table 1. Portion of Time Devoted to Doing
“senior archivist/records manager,” Archival Description Work (n = 56)
and “director/university archivist.”
Response Frequency (%)
As illustrated in Table 2,
Less than 10% 13 (23.2%)
respondents received training
11%–25% 15 (26.8%)
related to their archival descriptive
26%–50% 13 (23.2%)
work through a combination of
51%–75% 9 (16.1%)
sources, with graduate-level courses
More than 75% 6 (10.7%)
(81.8%), SAA/ACA workshops or

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

346 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Table 2. Archival Descriptive Training Received (Select All that Apply) (n = 55)

Response Frequency (%)

Graduate-level courses 45 (81.8%)

SAA/ACA workshops or webinars 41 (74.5%)
Workshops or webinars offered by a regional archival association 40 (72.7%)
Peer-to-peer training within your institution 31 (56.4%)
Workshops or webinars offered by a state or provincial library or 18 (32.7%)

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

archival association
Other 7 (12.7%)
Workshops or webinars offered by ALA/CLA 5 (9.1%)

webinars (74.5%), and workshops or webinars offered by regional archival associa-

tions (72.7%) most commonly cited. Just over half of respondents (56.4%) received
peer-to-peer training within their institutions. That a majority of respondents’
received archival description training from national and regional archival associa-
tions may be an early demographic indicator that archivists, rather than librarians,
perform the majority of archival description work or that individuals doing the
work more closely identify and affiliate with archival professional organizations.
Thirteen individuals completing the survey hold Academy of Certified
Archivists’ certification, and 10 hold a Digital Archives Specialist Certificate;
47.6% of respondents hold no certifications. No one reported holding SAA’s
Arrangement and Description certificate, which likely reflects its relatively
recent establishment (2016).

Background on Descriptive Practices

To understand the basic landscape of tools and resources available for

description, we posed several questions to place descriptive practices and deci-
sion-making in the context of available technical systems and workflows.
When asked “What type of archival information system does your insti-
tution have right now?,” the most commonly cited system (see Table 3) was
an “online public access catalog (OPAC),” with 50 out of 57 respondents (87.7%)
selecting this option. This is not surprising given the historical importance
of MARC records in archival description as explained in the literature review.
An archival management system such as ArchivesSpace, Archivists’ Toolkit, or
Archon was selected by 46 out of 57 respondents (80.7%), followed by 32 reporting
a “digital collection management system (such as CONTENTdm)” (56.1%). Use of
databases was reported by 28 respondents (49.1%), with 17 reporting access to
a content management system (29.8%). A small number of respondents listed
other information systems, including Excel sheets, a homegrown EAD portal,

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 347
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

Table 3. Types of Archival Information Systems at Institutions (Select All that Apply)
(n = 57)

Response Frequency (%)

Online public access catalog (OPAC) 50 (87.7%)

Archival data management system (e.g., ArchivesSpace, Archivists’ 46 (80.7%)
Toolkit, Archon)
Digital collection management system (such as CONTENTdm) 32 (56.1%)

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Database (such as FileMaker Pro, Access, etc.) 28 (49.1%)
Content management system (such as Drupal) 17 (29.8%)
Other 7 (12.3%)

Archive-It, the Museum System, and Access to Memory (AtoM), each with 1
response. Thus, while the majority of institutions still rely upon bibliographic
catalogs for archival access, newer, archives-specific systems are quickly gaining
momentum. Most institutions using archival data management systems (91.3%)
employ them in tandem with an OPAC, with the remaining 4 institutions
utilizing them as their sole access system. This is notable because only 6 (10.5%
of n = 57) of institutions use a single access system.
Archival description appears to primarily occur within the unit of the indi-
vidual responding to the survey. Of the 57 responses to the question “Please
indicate which types of archival description your department creates in-house,”
55 (96.5%) generate finding aids or inventories, 42 (73.7%) generate collec-
tion-level MARC records, and 33 (57.9%) generate item-level metadata records
(Table 4). Four respondents (7.0%) indicated that they generate series-level (or
below) MARC records within their departments; the same number (n = 4, or
7.0%) create linked data within their departments.
The most common forms of archival description provided by other depart-
ments or cooperating institutions are item-level metadata records (41.5%) and

Table 4. Type of Archival Description Created In-House (Select All that Apply) (n = 57)

Response Frequency (%)

Finding aids or inventories (in any format, e.g., MS Word, MS Excel, 55 (96.5%)
PDF, HTML, EAD, etc.)
Collection-level MARC records 42 (73.7%)
Item-level metadata records 33 (57.9%)
Series-level (or below) MARC records 4 (7.0%)
Linked data 4 (7.0%)
Other 5 (8.8%)
None 0 (0%)

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

348 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Table 5. Types of Archival Description Provided by Other Departments within Your

Institution or Cooperating Institutions (Select All that Apply) (n = 53)

Response Frequency (%)

Item-level metadata records 22 (41.5%)

Collection-level metadata records 21 (39.6%)
None 15 (28.3%)
Finding aids or inventories (in any format, e.g., MS Word, MS Excel, 13 (24.5%)

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

PDF, HTML, EAD, etc.)
Linked data 6 (11.3%)
Series-level (or below) MARC records 2 (3.8%)
Other 0 (0%)

collection-level MARC records (39.6%) (see Table 5). Over a quarter of respon-
dents (28.3%) reported that no other departments or cooperating institutions
provide archival description, and nearly a quarter (24.5%) indicated that another
department or cooperating institution prepares finding aids or inventories.
While initially these results seem to point to a lack of archival departmental
involvement in description creation, comparing types of archival description
created within the department with types of archival description provided by
other departments in the institution or cooperating institutions reveals collab-
oration. For departments creating item-level metadata (n = 33), nearly one-third
(n = 11) also have item-level metadata provided by an outside department or
institution. Similarly, for those departments creating finding aids (n = 55), 20%
also have finding aids provided externally.
Those responding were primarily situated in departments that have the
authority to directly post descriptive information without approval or vali-
dation. When asked “Does another department in your institution review or
approve archival descriptive information prior to its public release (via the
library catalog, online image repository, etc.?,” 71.9% (41 of n = 57) said no.
Only 28.1% reported that another department in their institutions reviews or
approves archival descriptive information prior to its public release.
A related question asked, “Who in your institution is responsible for
making decisions about appropriate levels of description, standards to be
employed, workflows and other factors related to archival description?,” and
asked respondents to select all responses that applied. A number of scenarios
emerged, heavily weighted to a focus on responsibility solely within the realm
of the archives staff (see Table 6). The most commonly selected scenario assigned
responsibility to the general archives staff (36.8%), followed by 26.3% selecting
archives staff with technical services or cataloging-specific responsibilities,
and 14% reporting a shared responsibility between generalist and specialized
archives staff.

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 349
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

Table 6. Who Makes Decisions about Levels of Description, Standards, Workflows, and
Other Archival Description Factors? (Select All that Apply) (n = 57)

Response Frequency (%)

Archives staff (general) 21 (36.8%)

Archives staff with technical services or cataloging-specific respon- 15 (26.3%)
sibilities
Archives staff (general) and archives staff with technical services or 8 (14%)
cataloging-specific responsibilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Technical services or cataloging staff (external department) and 4 (7%)
archives staff (general)
Archives staff (general) and other 2 (3.5%)
Other 2 (3.5%)
Technical services or cataloging staff (external department) and 2 (3.5%)
archives staff with technical services or cataloging-specific respon-
sibilities
Technical services or cataloging staff (external department), archives 1 (1.8%)
staff with technical services or cataloging-specific responsibilities,
and other
Technical services or cataloging staff (external department) and 1 (1.8%)
archives staff with technical services or cataloging-specific respon-
sibilities
Archives staff (general), archives staff with technical services or 1 (1.8%)
cataloging-specific responsibilities, and other

MARC Record Creation

The vast majority of respondents (78.9%) indicated that their institutions, a

consortial partner, or a vendor creates MARC records for all archival collections
held by their departments, again in line with current research. But 21.2% (11
respondents) have not created MARC records for all of their archival collections.
Those who do not create MARC records for all collections were asked how their
departments determine which collections receive records; responses varied. One
indicated that they are currently working to create MARC records for collections
(“We are working on creating records for all collections”); another reported a
deliberate move away from MARC cataloging (“We actually no longer add MARC
records, because currently they aren’t worth the return on investment”); and a
third reported a need to develop a workflow for MARC record creation in light
of a move to ArchivesSpace (“At one point in the past we created MARC records
for processed collection [once we had a finding aid]; then we switched to MARC
records for all collections with or without a finding aid but we didn’t get that
far. Now, we are in Aspace [sic] and have not implemented any workflows for
MARC record creation. This is to be developed in the future.”). One repository
leaves the decision about creating a MARC record up to the archivist responsible

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

350 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

for that particular collecting area, Table 7. Tools and Systems Used to Create
and another repository appears to MARC Records (Select All that Apply)
(n = 50)
only create MARC records for its
rare book collections. Response Frequency (%)
Respondents who create ILS65 33 (66%)
MARC records for all archival
OCLC Connexion 33 (66%)
collections were then asked about
ArchivesSpace 22 (44%)
the tools or systems they use (see

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

MarcEdit 16 (32%)
Table 7). One respondent uses
ArchivesSpace exclusively (2%), and
7 (14%) exclusively use OCLC Connexion, while 84% of respondents use more
than one tool or system in creating MARC records, with a total of 18 different
combinations of tools and systems reported, suggesting that most institutions
are crosswalking data between information systems. Despite advances with new
systems that automatically generate MARC records from archival description,
the data reveal that most respondents still engage in a multistep and multi-
tool/multisystem workflow to generate MARC records. The tools and systems
included in workflow combinations receiving more than 1 response are reported
in Table 7.
Respondents employ a number of combinations of data content standards
in preparing MARC records as well. The most commonly cited combination of
standards employed by respondents were RDA and DACS (31.4%), followed by
the combination of AACR2, RDA, and DACS (23.5%). Just under 10% of respon-
dents use RDA exclusively, and only 1 (2%) reported using DACS exclusively.
This suggests that the descriptive standards employed for MARC encoding at
repositories today are being selected from both the library and archival tradi-
tions. Interestingly, 47.1% of responding institutions employ AACR2, which
DACS replaced in 2004, it is the only standard in use at 2 institutions (3.9%) (see
Table 8). Repositories reporting AACR2 usage may be actively creating records in
that standard. Or perhaps respon-
dents prepare new MARC records Table 8. Data Content Standard(s) Used
following more recently adopted to Prepare MARC Records (Select All that
standards but continue to main- Apply) (n = 51)

tain legacy MARC records origi- Response Frequency (%)

nally created following AACR2.
DACS 39 (76.5%)
At repositories that create
RDA 38 (74.5%)
MARC records for all collections,
AACR2 24 (47.1%)
98% (n = 50) load them into union
I don’t know 3 (5.9%)
catalogs such as OCLC; only 1
DCRM 66
2 (3.9%)
respondent does not do so. After
RAD 2 (3.9%)
creating OCLC records, 59.6% of

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 351
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

respondents edit MARC records both locally and in OCLC; 25.5% only edit them
locally; and 14.9% only edit them in union catalogs thereafter. While institu-
tions commonly update finding aids due to accruals and deaccessions, it is less
common to update bibliographic records. That 100% of respondents who include
their MARC records in union catalogs also update these MARC collection records
in some capacity reveals that archival description practice is standard in this
area of MARC record creation for archival materials.
Respondents were asked to describe their workflows for the creation of

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

MARC records by dragging and dropping a series of tasks in order, yielding
45 different workflows from 52 respondents. Those workflows receiving more
than 1 response are reported in Figure 3. Interestingly, 88.5% of all responses
begin with the task “Archivist creates finding aid.” An overwhelming majority of
respondents (65.4%) include a cataloger at some point in the process, but 34.6%
of respondents do not include a cataloger at all.
Generally speaking, respondents appear to be satisfied with their work-
flows for MARC record creation, with 25% (n = 13) responding that they strongly
agree, and 48.1% (n = 25) somewhat agreeing that “I am satisfied with the
current workflow for creating catalog records at my institution.” However,
nearly 1 in 5 (19.2%) somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed. When given

FIGURE 3. MARC record workflows

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

352 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

the opportunity to provide information about their ideal workflows, the most
common responses (29.3%) featured a desire to use ArchivesSpace as part of
their MARC workflow (n = 12) and the ability to directly export and/or import
between systems (n = 12). Other desired improvements included increased auto-
mation or efficiency (n = 11), increased participation by archivists (n = 7), and
increased collaboration (n = 6). It is also important to note that 22% (n = 9) of
respondents reported that their workflows are fine as is.67

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Embedded Metadata

More than half, 57.9% (n = 57), of respondents create item-level metadata

within their departments, 41.5% (n = 53) report item-level metadata creation by
another department in the institution or by a cooperating institution, and 10
institutions (17.2%) create item-level metadata records by both processes. Given
that item-level metadata creation can take a number of forms, we inquired
about 2 common forms of item-level metadata: embedded and linked. Slightly
over three-quarters (75.9%) of respondents revealed that their institutions do
not create embedded item-level metadata records for objects held in their
department. The 14 participants who indicated that their institutions do create
embedded item-level metadata records were then asked to list the tools or
systems used in their creation. Ten of the 14 participants responded, providing
a list of 14 tools employed at their institutions. Table 9 lists 9 unique tools and
systems, but only 3, ArchivesSpace, Adobe Bridge, and Fedora, are used by more
than 1 institution.
Next, respondents were tasked with creating their embedded item-level
metadata records workflow by dragging and dropping a series of tasks in order.
Eleven respondents answered,
resulting in 7 unique workflows. Table 9. Tools and Systems Used to Create
Five of these workflows are unique Embedded Item-Level Metadata Records
(Write-in) (n = 14)68
to their institutions, but 2 work-
flows69 have 2 and 4 users respec- Response Frequency (%)
tively. The only difference between
Adobe Bridge 3 (21.4%)
the two workflows used by multiple
ArchivesSpace 3 (21.4%)
institutions is that one adds high-
Fedora 2 (14.3%)
er-level (i.e., collection-level, series-
AVCC 1 (7.1%)
level, etc.) embedded metadata
CONTENTdm 1 (7.1%)
to each individual record (n = 4),
Islandora 1 (7.1%)
whereas the other (n = 2) does not.
Indeed, the majority of respon- Luna 1 (7.1%)

dents (81.8%) add higher level (i.e., Photoshop 1 (7.1%)

collection-level, series-level, etc.) Spreadsheets 1 (7.1%)

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 353
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

embedded metadata to their records (there does not appear to be a correlation

between tool/system and not adding higher-level metadata). And while cata-
logers feature in about a third (36.4%) of the respondents’ workflows, catalogers
and archivists collaborate in only 1 workflow (9.1%).
Workflow satisfaction ranged from somewhat disagree (n = 1), ambivalence
(neither agree nor disagree) (n = 5), to somewhat agree (n = 5). When given
the opportunity to provide their ideal workflows,70 8 respondents provided
comments. Suggestions for improvements included enhancing systems integra-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

tion, completing tasks in bulk, and providing archivists with more involvement
like obtaining permissions to the preservation storage area in D-Space, and, as
1 respondent said, “allowing the archivists to QC the metadata at some point in
the workflow.”

Linked Metadata Records

Only about a quarter of respondents (25.9%) affirmed that their institu-

tions create linked item-level metadata for digital objects (n = 58), and 14 respon-
dents reported that they create embedded item-level metadata records. Eight
institutions (13.8%) create both linked and embedded item-level metadata.71
These participants were then asked to list the tools or systems used during
the creation of linked metadata records; as seen in Table 10, 9 respondents
provided a list of 13 tools, 9 of which were unique. Mirroring the popularity of
tools used in the creation of embedded metadata data records described above,
ArchivesSpace is the most popular choice (5). Fedora is a close second (3).
Thirteen respondents des­cribed their workflows for creating linked item-
level metadata, revealing 11 unique workflows and that 3 (23.1%) of these insti-
tutions follow the same workflow.
Despite the variations, similarities Table 10. Tools and Systems Used to Cre-
exist between the workflows. At 11 ate Linked Item-Level Metadata Records
of the 13 institutions, an archivist (Write-in) (n = 13)72

or cataloger creates a linked meta- Response Frequency (%)

data file and adds item-level meta-
ArchivesSpace 5 (38.5%)
data for each record. Additionally,
Fedora 3 (23.1%)
at 10 of these institutions, this is
Adobe Bridge 1 (7.7%)
the initial step.73 In the 2 work-
Excel 1 (7.7%)
flows that do not use this task,
Finding Aids 1 (7.7%)
spreadsheets that include high- Database
er-level information (i.e., high- Islandora 1 (7.7%)
er-level hierarchical description
Spreadsheets 1 (7.7%)
like collection/series) are merged (manual data
creation)
with Metadata Encoding and

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

354 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Transmission Standard (METS) records instead. Some of the other workflows use
spreadsheets and METS records because unique IDs are not used.
Archivists play a large role in linked metadata workflows, participating in
84.6% of them, and they are the lone participants in 61.5%. While this shows that
the most likely scenario is archivist-only workflows, it reveals that collaboration
between archivists and catalogers is more prevalent (23.1%) than cataloger-only
workflows (15.4%).
All the workflow respondents went on to indicate their satisfaction with

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

their current workflows for creating metadata records at their institutions,
which ranged from somewhat disagreeing (n = 1), to strongly agreeing (n = 3, or
23.1%). The majority of respondents were neutral (“neither agree nor disagree”)
(53.8%). When asked to describe their ideal workflows,74 only 8 respondents
left comments, half lamenting the amount of manual effort or wanting the
ability to automate, with 1 stating, “Overall this works. The biggest issue is
that it is currently a very manual processing (alot [sic] of cutting and pasting
of data.).” Only 1 commenter was entirely fine with the current workflow,
stating, “as it is.”

Authority Records

The majority of respondents (69.0%, n = 58), create archival authority

records in some way: within their own departments (29.3%), in another depart-
ment within the organization (12.1%), or both (27.6%).75 When asked what
authority descriptive standard(s) are used to create these records, the majority
selected RDA and/or DACS (see Table 11), which is unsurprising given that these
are the most recently adopted professional standards.
Respondents were asked to describe their workflows for creating archival
authority records from the steps provided. The 36 respondents reported 23
unique workflows. Interestingly, of these 23 unique workflows, 91.3% began
with either the archivist or cataloger checking to see if the authority record
already existed.76 The 2 workflows that did not start with this step began with
“Archivist creates authority record
following institution’s preferred Table 11. Authority Descriptive Standards
data standard.” Used to Create Archival Authority Records
Half of the workflows reveal (Select All that Apply) (n = 61)
archivist and cataloger collabora- Response Frequency (%)
tion. Both archivists and catalogers
RDA 25 (40.1%)
complete the step of checking the
DACS 24 (39.3%)
appropriate thesauri/controlled
AACR2 9 (14.8%)
vocabulary to see if the authority
RAD 3 (4.9%)
record already existed in 10 (43.5%)

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 355
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

of the 23 unique workflows.77 The step did not provide a means of specifying
if different staff members reviewed corresponding thesauri/controlled vocab-
ularies, as one would assume. Of the remaining workflows without collabora-
tion, a third are only archivists, and a sixth are only catalogers.
The majority of respondents (59.5%) strongly or somewhat agreed that they
are satisfied with their workflows, versus (18.9%) who strongly or somewhat
disagreed and 8 (21.6%) who were neutral. This was reflected when respondents

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

(n =24) were asked to provide their ideal workflows, with 25% (6) indicating that
they are happy with what they are currently using, and 38% (9) wanting to add
EAC-CPF as part of their workflows.
The survey also asked about archival authority record usage. The majority
of respondents (86.2%) affirmed that authority records are used in their insti-
tutions’ archival descriptions. When asked what types of archival descriptive
records include authority records, the most frequent choices were finding aids
or inventories and collection-level MARC records (see Table 12).
Respondents were then asked to select the types of archival authorities and
controlled vocabularies used in their archival description records. As indicated
in Table 13, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Library of Congress
Name Authority File (LCNAF) are most frequently used for describing authority
records.
For those institutions that do not use authority records in their archival
descriptions, the reasons included lack of staff, “systems limitations,” and
general lack of understanding as to why these records are not created. In
terms of satisfaction with the decision not to include authority records in their
archival descriptions, 7 rated their satisfaction with that decision, ranging from
neither agree nor disagree (2), to somewhat disagree (3), to strongly disagree (2).

Table 12. Archival Descriptive Records that Use Authority Records (Select All that
Apply) (n = 49)

Response Frequency (%)

Finding Aids or inventories (in any format, e.g., MS 47 (95.9%)

Word, MS Excel, PDF, HTML, EAD, etc.)
Collection-level MARC records 43 (87.8%)
Dublin Core records 12 (24.5%)
Series-level MARC records 4 (8.2%)
Linked Data 4 (8.2%)
Other (please describe) 4 (8.2%)
Institution also submits to NACO 1
ArchivesSpace records 1
Accession records 1
RAD descriptions in AtoM 1

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

356 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Table 13. Archival Authorities and Controlled Vocabularies Used at Institutions (n = 48)

Archival Authorities and Controlled Vocabularies Used Frequency (%)

LCSH 43 (89.6%)
LCNAF 40 (83.3%)
Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) 31 (64.6%)
Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) 17 (35.4%)
Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) 14 (29.2%)

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

In-house thesaurus 11 (22.9%)
EAC-CPF/International Standard Archival Authority Record for Cor- 7 (14.6%)
porate Bodies, Persons, and Families (ISAAR-CPF)
Other (please describe) 2 (4.2%)
Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT); Printing and 1
Publishing Evidence: A Thesaurus for Use in Rare Book and Special
Collections Cataloging (RBPUB) 1
Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) 0 (0.0%)

Conclusion

Given the number of response options provided for each question combined
with the total number of survey responses, multivariable data analysis was not
possible with the data set and instead primarily limited to descriptive analysis.
This was a significant limitation of the study, and increasing the survey popula-
tion and therefore generating a larger pool of responses might have elucidated
relationships between some variables (e.g., size of archival staff and adoption of
certain descriptive standards). However, expanding the survey size would have
necessitated increasing options for some questions to account for the broader
variation in cataloging practices that nonacademic organizations employ, thus
distributing the responses among more possibilities, and counteracting the
focus of the survey on academic institutions.
Generally speaking, according to the survey results, archival descriptive
work remains concentrated in the archival domain, with archivists creating
description as one component of job responsibilities at most institutions.
Descriptive work—including MARC record creation—has not been passed off to
cataloging colleagues despite their longer experience with the standards even
though the OPAC is the most commonly cited archival information system avail-
able to respondents. Decisions about appropriate levels of description, standards
to be employed, workflows, and other factors related to archival description do
not appear to rely on external buy-in or approval in most repositories, implying
that institutions view archivists as capable of controlling their own descriptive
destinies and that archival professionals have developed the skills and expertise
to engage in this work. Descriptive practices employ a mix of standards from

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 357
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

both the archival and bibliographic traditions, suggesting that archivists are
familiar with the standards adopted and maintained outside the archival profes-
sion. This is unsurprising given that descriptive practices such as embedded and
linked metadata are comparatively new, as are the digital materials that they
are intended to support.
Most workflows related to the various kinds of archival description that
might be employed at a repository feature very little collaboration with tradi-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

tional catalogers and instead remain traditionally siloed, although the research
points to a desire for additional partnership in the MARC record workflow. Based
on the data, this is understandable given that the MARC record creation work-
flow comprises both traditionally archival and bibliographic tools and systems.
In contrast, authority control work is ripe with collaboration. Given that stan-
dards for authority control emerging from the archival tradition are still rela-
tively young, it seems likely that archivists may find themselves in positions of
reliance on colleagues who are more familiar and have more experience with
this aspect of descriptive work.
As descriptive standards change frequently and most archivists engaged
in descriptive work received their training through graduate-level courses, SAA/
ACA, and regional archival association workshops or webinars, the profession
must continue to develop and make available educational offerings focused on
descriptive practices. While definite progress has been made, continued work is
still needed. Trainings that focus on archival description within finding aids and
collection-level MARC records, the descriptive tools most commonly employed
at responding institutions, are likely to find the widest audience and generate
the most potential collaboration.

Areas for Future Research

This study’s findings indicate several areas for future research. Additional
research should use an alternate format for some questions to enable multivar-
iate data analysis. For example, rather than providing open-text response fields,
provide a finite list of numbers or number ranges.
Given the increasing popularity of archival data management systems
like ArchivesSpace (currently at 408 members), it will be interesting to see if
the institutions using these systems in conjunction with OPACS (80.7%) or as
their sole access systems (7%) increases. On one hand, this seems unlikely given
the long history of MARC’s entanglement with archival description and access.
However, MARC record workflows are still lengthy and involve multiple tools,
whereas systems like ArchivesSpace enable efficiency (and potentially easier
collaboration) with a single tool for both description and access. At the very

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

358 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

least, increased usage and ongoing programmatic improvements with these

systems should improve the MARC record workflow.
Very few reports have been made of EAD adoption or implementation rates
across the profession since the emergence of collection management tools such
as ArchivesSpace that facilitate its creation. Additionally, as digital collections
(born and digitized) continue to increase, it is likely that so will embedded and
linked metadata, ensuring material preservation and discoverability. These two
areas of description—collection management tools and digital metadata—should

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

be further reviewed in the future, particularly as to the interaction and shared
responsibilities between archivists and catalogers.
Similarly, this study revealed that most archives use authority records,
with many creating their own given the uniqueness of archival materials, most
often employing an LOC standard, with a few using the EAC-CPF standard. Given
the relative newness of EAC-CPF and sharing services like SNAC, this is not
surprising. However, with the rise of tools like ArchivesSpace providing public
collection access and authority management, archival authority record creation
is likely to be an area of growth. As archivists continue to create their own
authority records, the desire and need to share these records and make them
reusable (i.e., the use of EAC-CPF standard for interoperability) will increase.
This presents possibilities for research including software/tool usage, standards,
and cross-collaboration.

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 359
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

Appendix A: Survey Instrument

The survey is displayed as given to survey participants. The discrepancies in survey ques-
tion numbering versus ordering are due to difficulties reordering questions using the
Qualtrics survey software.
1. I agree to participate.
❍❍ Yes
❍❍ No > End of Survey

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Demographic Questions
2. How many individuals (FTE) are employed within the archival department
in your institution?

3. How many of the individuals (FTE) employed in the archival department of

your institution do archival descriptive work?

4. How many individuals (FTE) are employed within the cataloging or techni-
cal services department of your institution?

5. How many of the individuals (FTE) employed within the cataloging or tech-
nical services department of your institution perform archival descriptive
work?

6. What is your job title?

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

360 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

7. Please indicate all of the degrees you hold:

❍❍ High school diploma / GED
❍❍ Associate
❍❍ Bachelor’s
❍❍ Master’s in Library Science / Information Science or similar
❍❍ Other master’s degree
❍❍ PhD

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

❍❍ JD
❍❍ Other (please specify): _ __________________________________________
8. Please indicate all of the certifications you hold:
❍❍ Arrangement and Description Certification (SAA)
❍❍ Digital Archives Specialist Certificate (SAA)
❍❍ Academy of Certified Archivists (Certified Archivists)
❍❍ Institute of Certified Records Managers (Certified Records Manager)
❍❍ Project Management Institute
❍❍ Other (please specify): _ __________________________________________
❍❍ None
9. What is the primary function/role of the department of which you are a
part?
❍❍ Archives or Special Collections
❍❍ Technical Services
❍❍ Information Technology
❍❍ Other (please specify): _ __________________________________________
12. What portion of your time is devoted to doing archival descriptive work?
❍❍ Less than 10%
❍❍ 11–25%
❍❍ 26–50%
❍❍ 51–75%
❍❍ More than 75%
13. What training have you participated in relative to the archival descriptive
work in which you engage (select all that apply)?
❍❍ Graduate-level course
❍❍ SAA/ACA workshops or webinars
❍❍ Workshops or webinars offered by a regional archival association
❍❍ Workshops or webinars offered by a state or provincial library or archi-
val association
❍❍ Workshops or webinars offered by ALA/CLA
❍❍ Peer-to-peer training within your institution
❍❍ Other (please specify): _ __________________________________________

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 361
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

Background on Descriptive Practices

17. What type of archival information system does your institution have right
now (select all that apply)?
❍❍ Online public access catalog (OPAC)
❍❍ Content management system (such as Drupal)
❍❍ Digital collection management system (such as CONTENTdm)
❍❍ Archival data management system (e.g., ArchivesSpace, Archivists’

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Toolkit, Archon)
❍❍ Database (such as FileMaker Pro, Access, etc.)
❍❍ Other type of information system (please describe): __________________
56. Who creates archival description for materials held in your department
(select all that apply)?
❍❍ Staff in my department
❍❍ Staff in another department in my organization
❍❍ Staff outside my organization (we have a cooperative arrangement,
work with a vendor, etc.)
19. Please indicate which types of archival description your department creates
in-house (select all that apply):
❍❍ Finding aids or inventories (in any format, e.g., MS Word, MS Excel, PDF,
HTML, EAD, etc.)
❍❍ Collection-level MARC records
❍❍ Series-level (or below) MARC records
❍❍ Item-level metadata records
❍❍ Linked data
❍❍ Other (please describe): __________________________________________
❍❍ None
23. Please indicate which types of archival description are provided by other
departments in your institution or cooperating institutions (select all that
apply):
❍❍ Finding aids or inventories (in any format, e.g., MS Word, MS Excel, PDF,
HTML, EAD, etc.)
❍❍ Collection-level MARC records
❍❍ Series-level (or below) MARC records
❍❍ Item-level metadata records
❍❍ Linked data
❍❍ Other (please describe): __________________________________________
❍❍ None

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

362 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

24. Does another department in your institution review or approve archival

descriptive information prior to its public release (via the library catalog,
online image repository, etc.)?
❍❍ Yes
❍❍ No
❍❍ Other (please describe): __________________________________________
25. Who in your institution is responsible for making decisions about appro-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

priate levels of description standards to be employed, workflows and other
factors related to archival description (select all that apply):
❍❍ Technical services or cataloging staff (external department)
❍❍ Archives staff (general)
❍❍ Archives staff with technical services or cataloging-specific
responsibilities
❍❍ Other (please describe): __________________________________________

MARC Records
Display only if Q19 and/or Q23 selected “Collection-level MARC records” and/or “Series-level
(or below) MARC records”:
27. Does your institution, a consortial partner, or a vendor create MARC records
for all archival collections held by your department?
❍❍ Yes
❍❍ No
Display only if Q27 select “NO”:
28. Please describe how your department determines which collections receive
MARC catalog records at your institution.

Display only if Q19 and/or Q23 selected “Collection-level MARC records” and/or “Series-level
(or below) MARC records”:
29. What tools or systems does your institution or description/cataloging pro-
vider use to create MARC records (select all that apply)?
❍❍ OCLC Connexion
❍❍ MarcEdit
❍❍ Sky River
❍❍ ArchivesSpace
❍❍ Archivists’ Toolkit
❍❍ ILS (Sierra, Voyager, Millenium, Horizon, Alma, etc.)

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 363
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

❍❍ Other (please describe): __________________________________________

Display only if Q19 and/or Q23 selected “Collection-level MARC records” and/or “Series-level
(or below) MARC records”:
30. Please describe the workflow for the creation of catalog (MARC) records
used by your institution (drag and drop only those activities that apply):

Items

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Archivist creates finding aid
Cataloger reviews finding aid
Archivist drafts MARC record
Cataloger drafts MARC record
Archivist shares draft MARC record with cataloger
Cataloger shares draft MARC record with archivist
Archivist suggests changes to draft
Cataloger suggests changes to draft
Archivist exports draft MARC record from an archival information system
Cataloger exports draft MARC record from an archival information system
Archivist edits draft MARC record, compiled into final MARC record
Cataloger edits draft MARC record, compiled into final MARC record
Archivist imports final MARC record into union catalog (e.g., OCLC)
Cataloger imports final MARC record into union catalog (e.g., OCLC)
Archivist imports final MARC record into local catalog
Cataloger imports final MARC record into local catalog
Display only if Q19 and/or Q23 selected “Collection-level MARC records” and/or “Series-level
(or below) MARC records”:
31. I am satisfied with the current workflow for creating catalog records at my
institution.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Display only if Q19 and/or Q23 selected “Collection-level MARC records” and/or “Series-level
(or below) MARC records”:
32. What data content standard does your institution employ in preparing
MARC records (select all that apply)?
❍❍ AACR2
❍❍ RDA
❍❍ DACS
❍❍ RAD
❍❍ I don’t know
❍❍ Other: (please describe) __________________________________________

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

364 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Display only if Q19 and/or Q23 selected “Collection-level MARC records” and/or “Series-level
(or below) MARC records”:

33. Are your MARC records loaded into union catalogs such as OCLC?
❍❍ Yes
❍❍ No
❍❍ I don’t know

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Display only if Q19 and/or Q23 selected “Collection-level MARC records” and/or “Series-level
(or below) MARC records”:

34. Where do you make changes to MARC records after creating OCLC records?
❍❍ Union catalogs (such as OCLC)
❍❍ Locally
❍❍ Both

Display only if Q19 and/or Q23 selected “Collection-level MARC records” and/or “Series-level
(or below) MARC records”:

35. Complete this sentence: my ideal workflow for creating MARC records at my
institution would be:

Display only if Q19 and Q23 did NOT select “Collection-level MARC records” and did NOT
select “Series-level (or below) MARC records”:

36. Please describe why your institution does not create MARC records for your
archival collections.

Display only if Q19 and Q23 did NOT select “Collection-level MARC records” and did NOT
select “Series-level (or below) MARC records”:

37. I am satisfied with the decision to not create MARC records at my institution.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 365
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

Embedded Metadata Records

38. Does your institution create embedded item-level metadata for objects held
by your department?
❍❍ Yes -> Q. 39
❍❍ No -> Q. 42
39. What tools or systems does your institution use to create embedded item-
level metadata records? Please write the name of the tools or systems in the

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

space below.

40. Please describe the workflow used by your institution for creation of embed-
ded item-level metadata records (drag and drop only those activities that
apply):

Items
Archivist bulk adds (or oversees student adding) higher-level (i.e., collec-
tion-level, series-level, etc.) embedded metadata to multiple records
Cataloger bulk adds (or oversees student adding) higher-level (i.e., collec-
tion-level, series-level, etc.) embedded metadata to multiple records
Archivist adds (or oversees student adding) embedded item-level metadata
to each individual record
Cataloger adds (or oversees student adding) embedded item-level metadata
to each individual record
Archivist QCs embedded metadata in each individual record
Cataloger QCs embedded metadata in each individual record
41. I am satisfied with the current workflow for creating embedded item-level
metadata records at my institution.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
42. Complete this sentence: my ideal workflow for creating embedded item-
level metadata records at my institution would be:

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

366 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Linked Metadata Records

61. Does your institution create linked item-level metadata for objects held by
your department?
❍❍ Yes -> Q. 62
❍❍ No -> Q. 65
62. What tools or systems does your institution use to create linked item-level
metadata records? Please write the name of the tools or systems in the

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

space below.

63. Please describe the workflow used by your institution for creation of linked
item-level metadata records (drag and drop only those activities that apply):

Items
Archivist creates (or oversees student creating) a linked (via same unique ID)
metadata file and adds item-level metadata for each record)
Cataloger creates (or oversees student creating) a linked (via same unique
ID) metadata file and adds item-level metadata for each record)
Archivist QCs individual linked metadata records
Cataloger QCs individual linked metadata records
Archivist exports all previously embedded metadata to a spreadsheet
(spreadsheet captures metadata for each item in collection/series/etc.)
Cataloger exports all previously embedded metadata to a spreadsheet
(spreadsheet captures metadata for each item in collection/series/etc.)
Archivist manually records (or oversees student recording) metadata for
each item in a spreadsheet (spreadsheet captures metadata for each item in
collection/series/etc.)
Cataloger manually records (or oversees student recording) metadata for
each item in a spreadsheet (spreadsheet captures metadata for each item in
collection/series/etc.)
Archivist QCs metadata spreadsheet
Cataloger QCs metadata spreadsheet
Archivist merges spreadsheet with output (e.g., METS record) from archival
information system for ingest into preservation/access system
Cataloger merges spreadsheet with output (e.g., METS record) from archival
information system for ingest into preservation/access system

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 367
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

64. I am satisfied with the current workflow for creating linked item-level
metadata records at my institution.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
65. Complete this sentence: my ideal workflow for creating linked item-level
metadata records at my institution would be:

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Authority Records
47. Are archival authority records created in your department or in a separate
department in your organization?
❍❍ In my department -> Q. 48
❍❍ In another department in my organization -> Q. 48
❍❍ Both of the above -> Q. 48
❍❍ My organization does not create authority records internally -> Q. 44
48. What authority descriptive standard does your institution use to create
archival authority records (Select all that apply)?
❍❍ RDA
❍❍ DACS
❍❍ RAD
❍❍ AACR2
❍❍ Other (please describe): __________________________________________
21. Please indicate which types of archival authorities your institution creates
in-house (Select all that apply)?
❍❍ EAC-CPF / ISAAR-CPF
❍❍ LCNAF
❍❍ VIAF
❍❍ ORCID
❍❍ LCSH
❍❍ AAT
❍❍ TGM
❍❍ In-house thesaurus
❍❍ Other (please describe): _______________
50. Please describe the process for the creation of authority records used by
your institution (drag and drop only those activities that apply):

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

368 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Items
Archivist checks appropriate thesauri/controlled vocabulary to see if
authority record already exists
Cataloger checks appropriate thesauri/controlled vocabulary to see if
authority record already exists
Archivist creates authority record following institution’s preferred data
standard

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Cataloger creates authority record following institution’s preferred data
standard
Archivist adds authority to institution’s in-house thesauri/controlled vocab-
ulary for reuse
Cataloger adds authority to institution’s in-house thesauri/controlled vocab-
ulary for reuse
Archivist hand codes authority record into EAC-CPF
Cataloger hand codes authority record into EAC-CPF
Archivist exports authority record from archival information system in
EAC-CPF
Cataloger exports authority record from archival information system in
EAC-CPF
Archivist imports EAC-CPF authority record into a shared system where it
can be reused by other institutions (e.g., SNAC)
Cataloger imports EAC-CPF authority record into a shared system where it
can be reused by other institutions (e.g., SNAC)
51. I am satisfied with the current workflow for creating authority records at
my institution.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
52. Complete this sentence: my ideal workflow for creating authority records at
my institution would be:

44. Does your institution currently use authority records in its archival
description?
❍❍ Yes -> Q. 45
❍❍ No -> Q. 57

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 369
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

45. What archival descriptive records does your institution include authority
records in (select all that apply)?
❍❍ Finding aids or inventories (in any format, e.g., MS Word, MS Excel, PDF,
HTML, EAD, etc.)
❍❍ Collection-level MARC records
❍❍ Series-level MARC records

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

❍❍ Dublin Core records
❍❍ Linked data
❍❍ Other (please describe): _______________

46. What archival authorities and controlled vocabularies does your institution
use (select all that apply)?
❍❍ EAC-CPF / ISAAR-CPF
❍❍ LCNAF
❍❍ VIAF
❍❍ ORCID
❍❍ LCSH
❍❍ AAT
❍❍ TGM
❍❍ In-house thesaurus
❍❍ Other (please describe): _______________

57. Please describe why your institution does not include authority records in
your archival collections.

58. I am satisfied with the decision to not include authority records in archival
description at my institution.
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

370 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

Appendix B: Sample

ARL institutions and units asked to participate in the survey

ARL Institution Individual Units Contacted (if Different from Library

System)

University of Alabama Libraries Hoole Special Collections

University at Albany, SUNY, Libraries M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections & Archives
University of Alberta Libraries Bruce Peel Special Collections & Archives

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

University of Arizona Libraries Special Collections
Arizona State University Libraries
Auburn University Libraries Special Collections and Archives
Boston College Libraries John J. Burns Library
Boston University Libraries Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center
Brigham Young University Library L. Tom Perry Special Collections
University of British Columbia Library Rare Books and Special Collections
University Archives
Brown University Library John Hay Library
University at Buffalo, SUNY, Libraries Special Collections: The Poetry Collection
Special Collections: University Archives
University of Calgary—Libraries and Cul- Archives and Special Collections
tural Resources
University of California, Berkeley Library Bancroft Library / University Archives
University of California, Davis Library Special Collections
University of California, Irvine Libraries Special Collections & Archives
UCLA Library Special Collections
University of California, Riverside Library Special Collections & University Archives
University of California, San Diego Library Special Collections & Archives
University of California, Santa Barbara Libraries Special Research Collections
Case Western Reserve University Libraries Special Collections
University of Chicago Library Special Collections Research Center
University of Cincinnati Libraries Archives and Rare Books Library
Gorno Memorial Musical Library
Winkler Center for the History of Health Professions
University of Colorado, Boulder Libraries Special Collections & Archives
Colorado State University Libraries Archives and Special Collections
Columbia University Libraries Rare Book & Manuscript Library
Fine Arts Library
University of Connecticut Libraries Dodd Research Center, Archives & Special Collections
Cornell University Library Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections
Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation & Archives
Medical Archives of the New York—Presbyterian Hospital /
Weill Cornell Medical Center
Dartmouth College Library Rauner Special Collections Library
University of Delaware Library Special Collections and Museums
Duke University Libraries David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 371
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

ARL Institution Individual Units Contacted (if Different from Library

System)

Emory University Libraries Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library
Woodruff Health Sciences Center Library
University of Florida Libraries Special & Area Studies Collections
Florida State University Libraries Special Collections Research Center
George Washington University Library Special Collections Research Center
Georgetown University Library Booth Family Center for Special Collections

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

University of Georgia Libraries Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library and University Archives
Richard Russell Library for Political Research and Studies
Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards
Collection
Georgia Institute of Technology Library Archives & Records Management
University of Guelph Library Archival & Special Collections
Harvard University Libraries Schlesinger Library
University Archives
Houghton Library
Baker Library Special Collections
Abraham Pollen Archives and Rare Book Library
Special Collections at Andover-Harvard Theological
Library
Arnold Arboretum Horticultural Library
Biblioteca Berenson
Botany Libraries Archives
Center for the History of Medicine
Loeb Music Library
Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
Fine Arts Library
Fung Library
Harvard Art Museum Archives & Special Collections
Harvard Film Archive
Harvard Forest Archives
Harvard Law School Historical & Special Collections
Harvard-Yenching Library
Loeb Design Library
Milman Parry Collection of Oral Literature
Monroe C. Gutman Library
Peabody Museum Archives
Robbins Library of Philosophy
Ruth and David Freiman Archives at Beth Israel Deacon-
ess Medical Center
Semitic Museum Archives
Theodore Roosevelt Collection
Tozzer Library
Ukrainian Institute Reference Library
Woodberry Poetry Room

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

372 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

ARL Institution Individual Units Contacted (if Different from Library

System)

University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Library Archives and Manuscripts Department

University of Houston Libraries Special Collections
Howard University Libraries Moorland Springarn Research Center
University of Illinois at Chicago Library Special Collections & University Archives
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Illinois Archives
Library
Rare Book & Manuscript Library

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Indiana University Libraries Bloomington University Archives
Archives of African American Music and Culture
Archives of Traditional Music
Black Film Center / Archive
Moving Image Archive
Kinsey Institute Library & Archives
Jerome Hall Law Library Archive
Lilly Library
Cook Music Library Special Collections
University of Iowa Libraries Special Collections
Iowa State University Library Special Collections & University Archives
Johns Hopkins University Libraries Special Collections
University of Kansas Libraries Kenneth Spencer Research Library
Kent State University Libraries Special Collections & Archives
University of Kentucky Libraries Special Collections Research Center
Bibliothèque de l’Université Laval
Louisiana State University Libraries Special Collections
University of Louisville Libraries Archives and Special Collections
McGill University Library Rare Books and Special Collections
University Archives
Osler Library of the History of Medicine
McMaster University Libraries Archives and Research Collections
University of Manitoba Libraries Archives and Special Collections
University of Maryland Libraries Special Collections and University Libraries
Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library—Special Collec-
tions
University of Massachusetts, Amherst Special Collections and University Libraries
Libraries
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Institute Archives and Special Collections
Libraries
University of Miami Libraries University Archives
Cuban Heritage Collection
Special Collections
University of Michigan Library Bentley Library
Special Collections Library
Michigan State University Libraries Special Collections Library
University Archives and Historical Collections

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 373
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

ARL Institution Individual Units Contacted (if Different from Library

System)

University of Minnesota Libraries Archives and Special Collections

University of Missouri–Columbia Libraries University Archives
University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries Archives and Special Collections
University of New Mexico Libraries Center for Southwest Research and Special Collections
New York University Libraries Avery Fisher Center
Fales Library & Special Collections

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Tamiment Library & Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives,
Collections & Research Services
Poly Archives and Special Collections
University Archives
Archives and Special Collections
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Louis Round Wilson Library for Special Collections
Libraries
North Carolina State University Libraries Special Collections Research Center
Northwestern University Library University Archives
McCormick Library of Special Collections
University of Notre Dame, Hesburgh Rare Books and Special Collections
Libraries
University of Notre Dame Archives
Ohio State University Libraries Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum
Byrd Polar Archives
Theatre Research Institute
Ohio Congressional Archives
Rare Books and Manuscripts Library
Albrecht Library
Hilandar Research Library
Charvat Collection of American Literature
University Archives
Ohio University Libraries Archives and Special Collections
University of Oklahoma Libraries Western History Collections
History of Science Collections
John and Mary Nichols Collection
Oklahoma State University Library Oklahoma Oral History Research Program
William E. Brock Memorial Center for Veterinary Health
Sciences Library
University Archives
University of Oregon Libraries Special Collections and University Archives
University of Ottawa Library Archives and Special Collections
University of Pennsylvania Libraries Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and
Manuscripts
University Archives and Record Center
Pennsylvania State University Libraries Special Collections Library
University of Pittsburgh Libraries Archives and Special Collections
Princeton University Library Rare Books and Special Collections

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

374 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

ARL Institution Individual Units Contacted (if Different from Library

System)

Purdue University Libraries The Virginia Kelly Karnes Archives and Special Collections
Research Center
Black Cultural Center Library
Queen’s University Library W. D. Jordan Rare Books and Special Collections
University Archives
Rice University Library Woodson Research Center Special Collections and

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Archives
University of Rochester Libraries Rare Books, Special Collections, and Preservation
Rutgers University Libraries Special Collections and University Archives
University of Saskatchewan Library University Archives and Special Collections
University of South Carolina Libraries South Caroliniana Library
Rare Books and Special Collections
University of Southern California Libraries Special Collections
ONE Archives
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale Special Collections Research Center
Library
Stony Brook University, SUNY, Libraries Special Collections and University Archives
Syracuse University Libraries Special Collections
Temple University Libraries Special Collections Research Center
Charles L. Blockson Afro-American Collection
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Librar- Special Collections
ies
University of Texas Libraries Briscoe Center for American History
The H. J. Lutcher Stark Center
Henry Ransom Center
Distinctive Collections
Texas A&M University Libraries Cushing Memorial Library and Archives
Texas Tech University Libraries Southwest Collections/Special Collections Library
University of Toronto Libraries University Archives (UTARMS)
Special Collections
Tulane University Library Hogan Jazz Archive
The Latin American Library
Louisiana Research Collection (LaRC)
Rare Books & Special Collections
University of Utah Library Special Collections
Aileen H. Clyde 20th Century Women’s Legacy Archive
Katherine W. Dumke Fine Arts & Architecture Library
Vanderbilt University Library Jean and Alexander Heard Library Special Collections &
University Archives
Television News Archive
University of Virginia Library Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections
Virginia Tech Libraries Special Collections
University of Washington Libraries Special Collections

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 375
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

ARL Institution Individual Units Contacted (if Different from Library

System)

Washington State University Libraries Manuscripts, Archives, & Special Collections

Washington University in St. Louis Librar- Special Collections
ies
University of Waterloo Library Special Collections and Archives
Musagetes Architecture Library
Wayne State University Libraries Reuther Library

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Special Collections
Western University Libraries Archives and Research Collections Centre
Music Library
University of Wisconsin–Madison Libraries Department of Special Collections
Curator/History of Health Sciences Librarian
Art Library
Mills Music Library
University Archives and Management Services
Yale University Library Manuscripts and Archives
Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscripts
York University Libraries Clara Thomas Archives and Special Collections

Notes
1
The MARC AMC format was scheduled to fully integrate into USMARC on March 3, 1996, as
explained by Kathryn P. Glennan, “Format Integration: The Final Phase,” MC Journal: The Journal
of Academic Media Librarianship 3 (1995): 1–31. Throughout this article, we primarily use “MARC,”
which encompasses both MARC and MARC AMC. We use “MARC AMC” for clarity when exclusively
referring to only the MARC AMC format.
2
Several sources point toward ongoing and increased use of MARC (initially MARC AMC) in the
archives profession. For example, in her 1994 article, Lyn Martin states that “MARC AMC has
indeed come of age and has entered the mainstream of archival and cataloging thinking, theory,
and practice.” But she also notes that in her survey, 57.1% of respondents (80 of 140) reported using
MARC, so the format still had untapped potential. Lyn M. Martin, “Viewing the Field: A Literature
Review and Survey of the Use of U.S. MARC AMC in U.S. Academic Archives,” American Archivist
57, no. 3 (1994): 495, https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm8. In their 1995 article,
Stielow, Hankins, and Jones pronounced, “with more than 500,000 records already logged MARC
has emerged as a standard for modern archival description.” Frederic Stielow, Rebecca Hankins, and
Venola Jones, “From Managerial Theory and Worksheets to Practical MARC AMC; Or, Dancing with
the Dinosaur at the Amistad,” American Archivist 58, no. 4 (1995): 466–67, https://doi.org/10.17723/
aarc.58.4.2h24853221046411. In their case study, Brown and Harvey explain their rationale behind
converting EAD to MARC21 records: to increase accessibility using their existing systems. Geoff
Brown and Kathryn Harvey, “Adding Archival Finding Aids to the Library Catalogue: Simple
Crosswalk or Data Traffic Jam?,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice
and Research 2, no. 2 (2007): 5, https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v2i2.298. Nimer and Daines
note that ArchiveGrid, OCLC’s international union catalog for archival material, is populated
using both EAD and MARC records. Cory L. Nimer and J. Gordon Daines III, “The Development and
Application of U.S. Descriptive Standards for Archives, Historical Manuscripts, and Rare Books,”
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 51, no. 5 (2013): 540, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2013.7643
73. In their study, Gracy and Lambert note, “The development and widespread adoption of APPM
and MARC AMC showed that the right combination of incentives could overcome predilections

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

376 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

for local practices and propel the archival profession toward acceptance of standardized methods
for such work.” Karen F. Gracy and Frank Lambert, “Who’s Ready to Surf the Next Wave? A Study
of Perceived Challenges to Implementing New and Revised Standards for Archival Description,”
American Archivist 77, no. 1 (2014): 100, https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.77.1.b241071w5r252612. Finally,
ArchivesSpace exports resource records in MARC XML format, proving its continued necessity;
for a discussion, see Carol Ou, Katherine L. Rankin, and Cyndi Shein, “Repurposing ArchivesSpace
Metadata for Original MARC Cataloging,” Journal of Library Metadata 17, no. 1 (2017): 19–36, https://
doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2017.1285143.
3
Throughout this paper, we use the term “archival collections” to represent both definitions in
A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology: “a group of materials with some unifying charac-

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

teristic” and “materials assembled by a person, organization, or repository from a variety of
sources; an artificial collection.” Richard Pearce-Moses, s.v. “Collection,” Glossary of Archival and
Records Terminology (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2005), https://www2.archivists.org/
glossary/terms/c/collection.
4
Lesley L. Parilla, Rebecca Morgan, and Christina Fidler, “Excavating Archival Description: From
Collection to Data Level,” Digital Library Perspectives 33, no. 3 (2017): 197–98, https://doi.org/10.1108/
DLP-11-2016-0043.
5
As quoted in the “Report of the Working Group on Standards for Archival Description,” the defi-
nition of “description” in A Basic Glossary or Archivists, Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers (July
1974) was limited to “the process of establishing intellectual control over holdings through the
preparation of finding aids.” Working Group on Standards for Archival Description, “Archival
Description Standards: Establishing a Process for Their Development and Implementation. Report
of the Working Group on Standards for Archival Description,” American Archivist 52, no. 4 (1989):
440, https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.52.4.qn5515l3671v1517.
6
Working Group on Standards for Archival Description, “Archival Description Standards,” 442.
7
We use “cataloger” also in its broadest form, “a librarian primarily responsible for preparing
bibliographic records to represent the items acquired by a library, including bibliographic descrip-
tion, subject analysis, and classification. Also refers to the librarian responsible for supervising
a cataloging department.” American Library Association, s.v. “Cataloger,” “Glossary of Technical
Services Terms” (2013), http://www.ala.org/alcts/about/advocacy/glossary. For the purposes of this
article, published materials such as books and serials are the common types of “items acquired by
a library,” whereas archival materials may be included, but are not the norm.
8
Susan E. Davis, “How Twenty-Five People Shook the Archival World: The Case of Descriptive
Standards,” Journal of Archival Organization 4, nos. 3–4 (2007): 43–62, https://doi.org/10.1300/
J201v04n03_04.
9
The Society of American Archivists established the National Information Systems Task Force
(NISTF) in 1977.
10
Susan E. Davis, “Descriptive Standards and the Archival Profession,” Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly 35, nos. 3–4 (2003): 300, https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v35n03_02.
11
Katherine M. Wisser, “Archival Cataloging and the Archival Sensibility,” RBM: A Journal of Rare
Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 12, no. 1 (2011): 36, https://doi.org/10.5860/rbm.12.1.345.
12
Here we use the term “archivist” in its broadest form, “an individual responsible for apprais-
ing, acquiring, arranging, describing, preserving, and providing access to records of enduring
value, according to the principles of provenance, original order, and collective control to protect
the materials’ authenticity and context.” Pearce-Moses, s.v. “Archivist,” Glossary of Archival and
Records Terminology, https://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/a/archivist. While individual repos-
itories and institutions represent this work with a range of job titles—including “curator,” “manu-
script curator,” “special collections librarian,” “manuscripts librarian,” “archives technician,” and
others—this article uses the term “archivist” as a broad umbrella encapsulating these individual
categories.
13
Davis, “Twenty-Five People Shook,” 48–49. The two publications are Nancy A. Sahli, MARC for
Archives and Manuscripts: The AMC Format (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1985), and Max J.
Evans and Lisa B. Weber, MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: A Compendium of Practice (Madison, WI:
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1985).
14
Working Group on Standards for Archival Description, “Archival Description Standards,” 432.

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 377
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

15
Martin, “Viewing the Field,” 489–90.
16
Martin, “Viewing the Field,” 492.
17
Mark A. Vargas and Janet Padway, “Catalog Them Again for the First Time,” Archival Issues 17, no.
1 (1992): 58.
18
Vargas and Padway, “Catalog Them Again,” 51; Susan Hamburger, “Life with Grant: Administering
Manuscripts Cataloging Grant Projects,” American Archivist 62, no. 1 (1999): 144–45, https://doi.
org/10.17723/aarc.62.1.3456p7nj20106u42.
19
Hamburger, “Life with Grant,” 133.
20
See Hamburger, “Life with Grant,” 135; Vargas and Padway, “Catalog Them Again,” 58; Margaret

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

F. Nichols, “The Cataloger and the Archivist Should Be Friends: or, Herding vs. Milking Special
Collections,” RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 12, no. 1 (2011): 29,
https://doi.org/10.5860/rbm.12.1.344.
21
Hamburger, “Life with Grant,” 147.
22
Vargas and Padway, “Catalog Them Again,” 51.
23
Stielow, Hankins, and Jones, “Dancing with the Dinosaur,” 467.
24
Hamburger, “Life with Grant,” 145.
25
Stielow, Hankins, and Jones, “Dancing with the Dinosaur,” 469.
26
Hamburger, “Life with Grant,” 137.
27
Vargas and Padway, “Catalog Them Again,” 50–53.
28
The bibliographic description of rare books is sometimes referred to “as a bridge” between archi-
val and bibliographic description. Wisser, “Archival Cataloging,” 38. While rare book bibliographic
description remains at the item level, like archival materials, rare books have a degree of unique-
ness, making their description difficult to standardize and causing the cataloger to turn to exter-
nal sources to provide additional context. Wisser, “Archival Cataloging,” 34–40. This results in
rare book bibliographic records that are unique but less reusable—recalling archival description.
Technical services archivists and rare books catalogers have been compared to the farmer and
the cowman, who “do their work using almost opposite mental processes, based on fundamental
differences in the nature of the materials they work with and the standards for processing those
materials.” Nichols, “The Cataloger and the Archivist Should Be Friends,” 25. These differences
stem from archival and bibliographic description evolving from separate traditions and theoret-
ical underpinnings.
29
Brown and Harvey, “Adding Archival Finding Aids,” 1.
30
Ou, Rankin, and Shein. “Repurposing ArchivesSpace Metadata,” 19–36.
31
Lois Mai Chan, Cataloging and Classification: An Introduction (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.,
2007), 57–59.
32
Steven L. Hensen, “Squaring the Circle: The Reformation of Archival Description in AACR2,”
Library Trends 36, no. 3 (1988): 543.
33
Hensen, “Squaring the Circle,” 547–49.
34
Katherine M. Wisser and Jennifer O’Brien Roper, “Maximizing Metadata: Exploring the EAD-MARC
Relationship,” Library Resources & Technical Services 47, no. 2 (2003): 72.
35
“Finding aid” here is meant to be any “tool that facilitates discovery of information within a
collection of records,” including calendars, guides, inventories, registers, and lists (Pearce-Moses,
s.v. “Finding Aid,” Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology, https://www2.archivists.org/
glossary/terms/f/finding-aid).
36
Julia Skinner, “Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings: A Review of the Literature,”
Journal of Library Metadata 14, no. 1 (2014): 54, https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2014.891892.
37
As Alexander Thurman points out, while union access to archival materials had been attempted
since the early 1960s through print resources like the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections
(NUCMC) and Chadwyck-Healy’s microfiche publication of the National Inventory of Documentary
Sources in the United States in the 1980s, neither delivered all of the descriptive content of the find-
ing aid or the power of full-text search. Alexander C. Thurman, “Metadata Standards for Archival
Control: An Introduction to EAD and EAC,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 40, nos. 3–4 (2005):
187, https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v40n03_09.

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

378 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

38
See, for example, Elizabeth Dow, “EAD and the Small Repository,” American Archivist 60, no. 4
(1997): 446–55, https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.60.4.83n2005k00n27411; Jill Tatem, “EAD: Obstacles
to Implementation, Opportunities for Understanding,” Archival Issues 23, no. 2 (1998): 155–69;
James M. Roth, “Serving Up EAD: An Exploratory Study on the Development and Utilization of
Encoded Archival Description Finding Aids,” American Archivist 64, no. 2 (2001): 214–37, https://doi.
org/10.17723/aarc.64.2.e687471v304k0u66; Elizabeth Yakel and Jihyun Kim, “Adoption and Diffusion
of Encoded Archival Description,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
56, no. 13 (2005): 1427–37, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20236; Sonia Yaco, “It’s Complicated: Barriers
to EAD Implementation,” American Archivist 71, no. 2 (2008): 456–75, https://doi.org/10.17723/
aarc.71.2.678t26623402p552; Michele Combs, Mark A. Matienzo, Merrilee Proffitt, and Lisa Spiro,

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Over, Under, Around, and Through: Getting Around Barriers to EAD Implementation (Dublin, OH: OCLC
Research, 2010), https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2010/2010-04.pdf.
39
For examples of EAD workflows with both archivists and catalogers, see Wisser and O’Brien
Roper, “Maximizing Metadata,” 71–76; Amy McCrory and Beth M. Russell, “Crosswalking EAD:
Collaboration in Archival Description,” Information Technology & Libraries 24, no. 3 (2005): 99–106,
https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v24i3.3371. Examples of EAD workflows without catalogers include
Peter Carini and Kelcy Shepherd, “The MARC Standard and Encoded Archival Description,”
Library Hi Tech 22, no. 1 (2004): 18–27, http://doi.org/10.1108/07378830410524468; Plato L. Smith
II, “Preparing Locally Encoded Electronic Finding Aid Inventories for Union Environments: A
Publishing Model for Encoded Archival Description,” Information Technology and Libraries 27, no. 2
(2008): 26–30, https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v27i2.3255.
40
The Library of Congress is currently in the process of transitioning from MARC to Bibframe 2.0;
see Library of Congress, “Bibframe Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/
faqs.
41
Cory Nimer, “RDA and Archives,” Journal of Archival Organization 8, nos. 3–4 (2010): 227–43, https://
doi.org/10.1080/15332748.2010.550799.
42
See Brigham Young University’s method for archival/manuscript collections: Nimer and Daines,
“U.S. Descriptive Standards,” 541–43.
43
Gracy and Lambert, “Surf the Next Wave?,” 108.
44
Gracy and Lambert, “Surf the Next Wave?,” 113.
45
Lisa B. Weber, “The ‘Other’ USMARC Formats: Authorities and Holdings. Do We Care to Be
Partners in this Dance, too?,” American Archivist 53, no. 1 (1990): 44–51, https://doi.org/10.17723/
aarc.53.1.e6p2l8vk66053095.
46
David Bearman, “Authority Control Issues and Prospects,” American Archivist 52, no. 3 (1989): 291,
https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.52.3.g562600um1063123.
47
Thurman, “Introduction to EAD and EAC,” 194.
48
Thurman, “Introduction to EAD and EAC,” 194–95.
49
Jinfang Niu, “Evolving Landscape in Name Authority Control,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly
51 (2013): 404, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.756843.
50
Katherine Crowe and Kevin Clair, “Developing a Tool for Publishing Linked Local Authority Data,”
Journal of Library Metadata 15, nos. 3–4 (2015): 232, https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2015.1099993.
51
Gracy and Lambert, “Surf the Next Wave?,” 111.
52
Nimer and Daines, “U.S. Descriptive Standards,” 547.
53
ArchivesSpace, “Who’s Using ArchivesSpace?” (July 09, 2019), https://archivesspace.org/community/
whos-using-archivesspace.
54
Wisser and O’Brien Roper, “Maximizing Metadata,” 74.
55
Wisser and O’Brien Roper, “Maximizing Metadata,” 75.
56
Wisser and O’Brien Roper, “Maximizing Metadata,” 75.
57
Brown and Harvey, “Adding Archival Finding Aids,” 6.
58
Ou, Rankin, and Shein, “Repurposing ArchivesSpace Metadata,” 26–27.
59
Wisser and O’Brien Roper, “Maximizing Metadata,” 71–76; McCrory and Russell, “Crosswalking
EAD,” 99–106.
60
McCrory and Russell, “Crosswalking EAD,” 105.

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

 Are We Coming Together? The Archival Descriptive Landscape 379
and the Roles of Archivist and Cataloger

61
Marielle Veve and Melanie Feltner-Reichert, “Integrating Non-MARC Metadata Duties into the
Workflow of Traditional Catalogers: A Survey of Trends and Perceptions among Catalogers in Four
Discussion Lists,” Technical Services Quarterly 27, no. 2 (2010): 206–7, https://doi.org/10.1080/07317130
903585477/10.1080/07317130903585477.
62
Veve and Feltner-Reichert, “Integrating Non-MARC Metadata Duties into the Workflow of
Traditional Catalogers,” 207.
63
Gracy and Lambert, “Surf the Next Wave?,” 103.
64
Gracy and Lambert, “Surf the Next Wave?,” 116.
65
Examples listed in the survey instrument were Sierra, Voyager, Millenium, Horizon, and Alma.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

66
While DCRM was not included in the list of prepopulated survey responses, 2 respondents noted
use of DCRM when selecting “other” in response to the survey question.
67
We created these categories based on the survey responses.
68
An additional response of “Sorry, I do not understand this question” is not included in the n,
because it is not a tool or system.
69
Workflow 1, with 2 respondents: 1. Archivist adds (or oversees student adding) embedded item-
level metadata to each individual record; 2. Archivist QCs embedded metadata in each individual
record. Workflow 2, with 4 respondents: 1. Archivist bulk adds (or oversees student adding) high-
er-level (i.e., collection-level, series-level, etc.) embedded metadata to multiple records; 2. Archivist
adds (or oversees student adding) embedded item-level metadata to each individual record; 3.
Archivist QCs embedded metadata in each individual record.
70
All respondents were directed to this question, regardless of whether their institutions create
embedded metadata records, but only those respondents whose institutions do so responded.
71
Institutions were included in this number if they responded affirmatively to both Q38 and Q61.
Q19 and Q23, which ask about the types of archival description created within the department
versus external to it, do not specify a particular type of item-level metadata. Some respondents
indicated their institutions create item-level metadata description in response to these broader
options in Q19 and Q23, but did not report their institutions as creating embedded or linked
metadata in the more specific Q38 and Q61.
72
An additional response of “I forget what the system is called” is not included in the n, because it
is not a tool or system.
73
The specific steps are “Archivist creates (or oversees student creating) a linked (via same unique
ID) metadata file and adds item-level metadata for each record” and “Cataloger creates (or over-
sees student creating) a linked (via same unique ID) metadata file and adds item-level metadata
for each record.”
74
All respondents were directed to this question, regardless of whether their institutions create
linked metadata records, but only those respondents whose institutions do so responded.
75
Question 47.
76
The specific tasks are “Archivist checks appropriate thesauri/controlled vocabulary to see if
authority record already exists” and “Cataloger checks appropriate thesauri/controlled vocabulary
to see if authority record already exists.”
77
The specific tasks are “Archivist checks appropriate thesauri/controlled vocabulary to see if
authority record already exists” and “Cataloger checks appropriate thesauri/controlled vocabulary
to see if authority record already exists.”

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019

380 Michelle Sweetser and Alexandra A. A. Orchard

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Michelle Sweetser is the head librarian in the Center for Archival Collections
at Bowling Green State University. Previously, she held the position of uni-
versity archivist at Marquette University in Milwaukee. Sweetser earned her
AB from Dartmouth College (anthropology) and an MSI from the University
of Michigan. Her research interests include archival description, the use of
technology to improve workflows, and the impact of caregiving upon the
archival profession.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/82/2/331/2459011/aarc-82-02-18.pdf by guest on 28 March 2025

Alexandra A. A. Orchard, CA, is the former technical and metadata archi-
vist at the Walter P. Reuther Library, Archives of Labor and Urban Affairs at
Wayne State University and the former chair of the Archival Issues Editorial
Board. Orchard received her MLIS and Archival Administration Certificate
from Wayne State University, as well as the Digital Archives Specialist
Certificate from SAA. She has a background in English, art, and computer
science. Orchard’s research interests include archival theory, description,
technologies, and women. She has presented at SAA, MAC, and the Michigan
Archival Association. She currently resides in Portland, Oregon.

The American Archivist Vol. 82, No. 2 Fall/Winter 2019