Harvard University homepage
HARVARD.EDU

Processing Practices

There are varying degrees of processing, ranging from the work that could be done in an optimal situation to the minimal amount of work necessary to make a collection accessible. Most processing work is a compromise between the two, and each repository will need to determine the most appropriate amount of work its staff should perform to make all collections both discoverable to and usable by its users. In some cases, effective accessioning practices will be able to incorporate enough arrangement and description for a user to successfully discover and use the collection. In other cases, for reasons including the original condition of the materials, user demand, repository priorities, and/or funding, collections will need to be more fully processed. 

Effective management of a processing program facilitates the use of efficient processing practices. All technical services staff  should have a good idea of the options available to them in terms of processing levels and the practices and expectations therein. Shared attitudes and outlooks are important to make an efficient processing program work. Transparency and communication within a repository will greatly facilitate some of the practices outlined below. 

The following general approaches are intended to be format-agnostic, and apply to all collections or portions of collections. More specific workflows for photographs, printed materials, audiovisual materials, artifacts, and born-digital content can be found in the various local processing manuals shared in the Processing Toolkit. The Born-Digital Content Description Guidelines were added to the Shared Descriptive Practices suite of resources in 2023.

Recommended Practices

Overall Approaches

  • A repository’s first priority should be to gain collection level control over all its holdings. Detailed processing work should wait until all holdings are minimally accessible.
  • There is not a “one size fits all” standard for arrangement, description, or preservation across all collections or even within collections. The amount of work required to achieve the golden minimum,  can vary from collection to collection, or series to series. 
  • Technical services staff  should weigh how much description, organization, or preservation is truly necessary and then flexibly apply the most appropriate techniques. Staff should assess costs and benefits of every processing action, and then find the most efficient way to achieve sufficient intellectual and physical control over the materials.
  • Always look for the golden minimum. For each collection, perform the minimum amount of work necessary to make a collection usable. Any work beyond the minimum should be justified.
  • Use archival appraisal at every step of the collection lifecycle.

Practices for Intellectual and Physical Arrangement

  • Intellectual arrangement should reflect context and function, and enable users to understand and navigate the finding aid.
  • Minimize physical arrangement or re-arrangement of files. The most efficient approach is to leave the folders in their original order.
  • Physical arrangement need not match intellectual arrangement. It is not necessary to bring all the folders that are part of a series together physically; the finding aid can be used to intellectually bring together related material stored in different containers.
  • Avoid handling material at the item level, particularly when it comes to arranging items within a folder or removing items from folders and placing them in other folders.

Practices for mitigating risk/working with restricted materials

  • Confirm the existence of a signed deed of gift and an accession record before performing processing work.
  • Assess risk to determine the appropriate level of review for restricted materials.
  • Proactively work with donors (or staff who work with donors) to identify restricted materials and reduce intake of materials that can not be accessed.
  • If a large number of materials in a collection are restricted, consider postponing processing the collection until a majority of collection materials are open for research.
  • Balance ethics of access with the ethics of protecting information that has legal, institutional, or donor-imposed restrictions, while ensuring all required restrictions are followed. 

Practices to increase access

  • Advocate for, develop, or revise reading room policies to account for use of unprocessed or efficiently processed material. Additionally, tracking use of collections and communicating with staff who work with users will demonstrate which collections are in high demand, if the level of description is not adequate for user needs, or if the materials are found to be at risk. 

Physical handling and preservation practices

  • Use existing folders as much as possible.
  • Avoid removing fasteners, unless clearly warranted by the presence of rust or if a fastener would present a hazard to the user or the material when handled. 
  • Approach preservation issues with holistic risk-assessment that considers the condition of the materials and the time and cost of performing preservation work, such as rehousing or removing fasteners. 

Descriptive practices

  • The level of description can vary within a collection. Some portions of a collection may warrant more detailed description, while others may not.
  • Repurpose donor-supplied information or existing descriptions when it accurately describes the material and meets standards for inclusive and conscientious description. If there are existing box lists or inventories that are serviceable and can be made available in electronic form, consider linking collection-level descriptions to those inventories.
  • Not every collection requires extensive historical/biographical notes; in many cases, a brief historical/biographical note will suffice. If extensive bibliographies of individuals or organizational histories already exist, refer to them, don’t duplicate them. Follow DACS guidance regarding the content of historical/biographical notes.
  • Use scope and content notes strategically. Consider describing collections in aggregate via a more extensive scope and content note over listing individual folder titles, with the aim of balancing time spent and level of access provided. Follow DACS guidance regarding the content of these notes.

For more information, see DACS.

Suggested Harvard-wide Standard Access Statements

Providing clear, user-friendly information regarding the conditions under which a collection may be accessed is essential to enabling its use. Because the HOLLIS record is often the first discovery point for users, the record for every collection should include a brief access statement in the MARC 506, which can be expanded upon in the finding aid within the Conditions Governing Access note.

In an effort to provide consistent information about access to collections across Harvard University libraries, a list of standard access statements recommended for use in the MARC 506 is provided below (in bold). These statements are designed to be specific enough to communicate to users what they need to know about access to the materials, but generic enough to be applied across repositories at Harvard University libraries for the sake of consistency. The statements are also designed to represent DACS elements 4.1 (required), 4.2, and 4.3. Information in brackets is intended to be completed with local or collection-specific information.

Statements for open collections

Open collections (base statement):
Collection is open for research.

Append additional statements below to the above open statement as needed (“mix-and-match”):

  • Off site/appointment required:
    Access requires advance notice; contact public services to request access or for more information: [contact info].
  • Some files restricted for a term:
    Some files [or Series #, etc] are closed [for XX years OR until 20XX] due to [the presence of restricted student/personal/health information OR university records OR donor-stipulated restrictions].
  • Audio-visual or electronic media:
    Access to [audio-visual or electronic] media is premised on the availability of requisite [equipment and/or software].
  • Fragile materials:
    Use of reproductions may be required for fragile materials.

Statements for closed collections

Closed pending processing:
Collection is closed pending archival processing to prepare it for access. Please contact public services to inquire about availability: [contact info].

Closed pending processing with possibility of access after content screening:
Collection is closed pending archival processing to prepare it for access. Access may be granted at the discretion of public services staff pending screening of requested materials. Please contact public services to inquire about availability: [contact info].

Closed for a term:
Collection is closed [for XX years or until 20XX] due to [the presence of restricted student/personal/health information OR university records OR donor-stipulated restrictions]. Contact public services for more information: [contact info].

Closed for a term with option of petitioning for access:
Collection is closed [for XX years or until 20XX] due to [the presence of restricted student/personal/health information OR university records OR donor-stipulated restrictions]. Access may be granted via a petition to the Institutional Review Board [or other permission-granting body, such as a department, office, or donor]. Contact public services for more information: [contact info].