Describing archival materials at too high a level is a problem just as common as describing them at too low a level. In many cases, the creator’s organizational system is lost. When we do not know if a group of records is a collection, series, folder or item, we have only two options: Describe the items, groups of items (files), or series. Or describe the collection only. Each option requires the archivist to consider what level is best to answer these questions:
- Does describing every item improve retrieval? Is all that extra work necessary to provide more useful information?
- If I describe my entire collection with one or two sentences, will I lose important distinctions between groups of records in my description?
The right answer is the lowest level that describes enough of the structure of the records, and the contents of the records, to enable a useful retrieval system.
Suppose your training collection contains two boxes. Divide a sheet of paper in four. In one of those four spaces, create a description of the records at a collection level. In another space, a series level. In another, a folder level and in the last an item level. Now think of what to describe at each level. For a training collection, you might describe the collection as containing project records created by X. Describe when you think the collection was created, the extent of the records, and a list of major subjects covered.
Now describe the series. Perhaps you decide to separate the materials into: Correspondence, Financial Records, Meetings and Photographs. Now try a folder description. This might be: Correspondence, Suppliers 2021 to 2022.
Now an item: a signed contract, or a photograph with a specific date and location. Now ask yourself, is there enough description to be able to retrieve useful records from this collection at each of these four levels? If not, try revising your level of description. You may need to use another level in order to provide the information you need at each description level.
Collection
The collection as a whole is a good level to begin with. You need to identify the creator and activity (e.g. the X Project), the general extent and the broad period it covers, and major subject or function covered. A good collection level should not try to include every subject found within the records. It should simply identify those records that fall into the collection and those that fall outside. It defines the limits of the collection.
Series
The next level down is series. A series should be based on the organizational system the creator used, e.g., meetings or files, or on a similar activity, function, format, or filing system. Records kept in separate files, by the same method, over many years, can be identified as a series. Meeting minutes kept together are a good example. Another example of a good series is the collection of files organized for a specific client, project, or product. You will often need to group records into different series when describing an archival collection. If a creator kept a series of annual accounts separate from other records, then it is logical to create a separate series for accounts.
If a series has been created by the creator it may be easier to describe records at the folder, rather than item level. Series levels help keep a record of hierarchy and help to keep you from repeating information in folders or series-level descriptions. For instance, the creator’s name is usually mentioned in the series rather than in each item.
Folders
A folder level description is often enough in small collections. Folders generally provide the best units of retrieval in many archives because they are the first place in which the archivist looks and the last place a user looks for records. A folder title will allow you to tell when the records are, and the creator’s name.
Be precise. “Various” or “old documents” or “Miscellaneous” should be replaced with an appropriate subject or activity. For example: “Volunteer schedules and attendance sheets, 2019 to 2020.”
Items
Sometimes a description at the item level will be useful to users. This happens when there is only one or two records of significance. It also happens when some records have individual significance or require individual control and could not be described by a folder level title alone.
You might describe an item when it has individual control over it because of:
- Its own significance (e.g. a photograph, map, sound recording, item of art, or a very important contract).
- It has a different creator or date.
If a number of the records do have their own significance, then the user is likely to find these records if they have been described at the folder level. For instance, you may have a photograph collection. The photographs have their own significance so they should be described at the item level. A series-level title for the collection may be “Photographs of X.”
When items need to be described separately and are not part of a folder, use a title at the item level. An item level description might include the name of the creator(s), title, description of the item, dates, extent (or size) and subjects. A single photograph would need to be identified in its own description separate from the series-level title. You don’t need to use an item level description for every item in a collection. This creates a massive inventory of descriptions, and could be impossible to maintain over time if the number of items is high (e.g. if you need to describe every invoice, every letter).
Once you have created a rough hierarchy for your collection you should go back and try to retrieve a few questions to determine if the levels are appropriate. For example, can I retrieve any meeting records? Do I have to look through every item to find those records? Can I locate the one photograph with a date and location? Do I need to describe every other photograph in the folder for users to find it? Are those levels of description appropriate for that group of records or should you look at using another level?