Hello!
In this first post, I’d like to give a bit of background about my proposal, and the logic guiding which tools, software, and research I’ve chosen to discuss in the posts to follow.
SIP AIP DIP Anxiety
My project developed out of pitches submitted by two archives engaged in recent efforts to strengthen (and simplify) their born-digital workflows, Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM) Hamm and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (SRGM). As a performing arts venue and an art museum, these two institutions operate on similar cycles of exhibitions/performances, during which high-value institutional records are created regularly by programming and curatorial staff. For both, institutional email preservation was highlighted as an area in need of attention. Like many of their contemporaries, only informal or very broad record retention policies exist for email, and internal education about organization hasn’t been consistent. Although both have similar goals for realistic incorporation of email into record management schedules, and options for access, they each offer very different examples of accounts and staff management. This suggested an opportunity to consider a cross-organization framework for email archiving.
The Case Studies
In 2010, SRGM launched the Panza Collection Initiative, a research project conducted by curators and conservators aimed at preserving artworks from the 1960s and 1970s. Born-digital records produced during Phase I, which ended in 2013, are currently being archived by a Pratt Institute Graduate fellow, Jenny Korns. Together with Assistant Archivist Tali Han, we have begun to review material produced during this time through a combination of digital forensics and in-person interviews with staff from the original research team. This revealed two cases of email to consider: PST files of full accounts sent to the archive after a staff consultant transitioned to a new project, and then separately, related messages produced during this period by individuals on the Panza team who are still active at SRGM and retain an open account. Previous suggestions for email preservation at SRGM state that the best option is to wait until staff depart the institution, but a central question in this proposal considers whether collecting records after the close of a performance/exhibition is more effective, a time when key figures and correspondence may be more readily recalled.
At BAM, the IT department has worked since the mid 2000s to automate email archiving for all staff through continual backups to cloud storage (without restrictions on which accounts were copied, or options for weeding). This setup was less of a step toward preservation, and more of a solution for temporarily caching emails for staff to access after scheduled dumps of their inbox to free up space. After an unsustainable buildup of data, IT staff made a recent decision to switch to email management software available through Office 365. I am working now with BAM Processing Archivist, Evelyn Shunaman, to consider recommendations during this transition for account rules that will facilitate small steps in early appraisal, such as defining key correspondents versus non-work related correspondents. PST accounts of high-level staff are currently waiting to be transferred to the archives, and the email of a recently retired executive holds particular significance for permanent retention.
Hands On vs. Hands Off
In addition to a lot of reading, my introduction to this project over the past weeks has entailed meeting with other archivists to discuss their experiences and approaches to email. Generally, it seems that if email is part of a records retention schedule, processing is not a step that is actively pursued for a number of reasons.
- budget constraints: who has time?
- restricted access for the next 20 years: not a priority!
- digital dilemma: SO much data. easier to save everything.
- privacy
- …the list continues!
In the most recent release of SAA’s Trends in Archives Practice series, Geof Huth discusses the necessity of addressing archival issues at the point of creation. He suggests that in the digital era, rather than perform the role of a passive collector, archivists must proactively embed themselves in projects to document digital recordkeeping systems and ensure that archival records can be later identified and easily preserved. For email, processing an account exposes the range of records produced during a staff’s lifetime at an institution, and can assist with suggestions for broad appraisal, and later, a local processing guide. This in mind, I was lucky to have an ePADD workshop coincide with the start of the fellowship. My upcoming posts will describe what is has been like, so far, to review an account with ePADD, and how I plan to use these findings to consider what can be implemented at the creation stage.
-Katie