{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/issues/20","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/saa-ts-dacs/dacs","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/issues/20/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/issues/20/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/issues/20/events","html_url":"https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/20","id":347925666,"node_id":"MDExOlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0MjA2NDAwMzk2","number":20,"title":"Revised Preface and Principles","user":{"login":"michelsd","id":36632225,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjM2NjMyMjI1","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/36632225?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd","html_url":"https://github.com/michelsd","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/michelsd/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":7,"created_at":"2018-08-06T13:32:56Z","updated_at":"2018-08-24T14:19:37Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"CONTRIBUTOR","pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pulls/20","html_url":"https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/20","diff_url":"https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/20.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/20.patch"},"body":"Dear Colleagues,\r\n \r\nSAA's Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard (TS-DACS) welcomes your comments on a proposal to revise the [Preface](https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/preface.md) and the [Statement of Principles](https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/statement_of_principles.md) in DACS. This proposal comes from TS-DACS and responds to preliminary community feedback in 2017-2018. It includes work undertaken by an experts group<sup>[1](#myfootnote1)</sup> convened at SAA’s annual meetings in 2016-2017 and the Lewis Walpole Library in Farmington, Connecticut in March 2017.\r\n\r\n## Chapters to change\r\n\r\n[Preface](https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/preface.md) and [Statement of Principles](https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/statement_of_principles.md)\r\n\r\n## Proposed change\r\n\r\nThis proposal aims to update the [Preface](https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/preface.md) and the [Statement of Principles](https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/statement_of_principles.md) in order to better align both with current archival theory and practice as well as the International Council on Archives (ICA) draft data model for archival description, Records in Contexts (RiC).<sup>[2](#myfootnote2)</sup> The preface revision is not hugely substantive but rather a reorganization and update of existing information. The revision to the Statement of Principles is total. \r\n \r\n## Justification for proposed change\r\n\r\nThere are two primary and equally important justifications for the revisions. First, the revision is proposed following a deep analysis of the current Statement of Principles (hereafter referred to as current principles) and the extent to which it represents archival values, theory and practice, and is teachable and clear. Second is the release of Records in Contexts and the desire by the technical subcommittee to bring DACS in better alignment with its underlying concepts and structure and, in turn, current archival theory that undergirds RiC. \r\n\r\n### Analysis of the current principles\r\n\r\nLeading up to the August 2016 annual meeting of SAA in Atlanta, members of TS-DACS analyzed the current principles, asking if they were they clear, teachable, and reflective of current archival values, theory, and practice. In addition to the technical subcommittee, a group of experts on archival description was called upon to read the principles closely and comment on their clarity, usability, and relevance. \r\n\r\nThrough this analysis, TS-DACS and the experts group found the principles confusing and difficult to teach. They also discovered that many ideas well-represented in literature on archives and archival description - providing maximum access to records, prioritizing users and use of records over preservation, building relationships with creators, using accessible language to document traditionally underrepresented communities, and documenting archival interventions and the role of archivists in shaping the historical record - were not present in the existing principles. The analysis indicated that the archival profession has an opportunity to refocus archival description on its ultimate purpose -- enabling users of archives to make sense of the past through records. \r\n\r\nA full accounting of the written documentation and analysis of the current principles at the SAA annual meeting in Atlanta in 2016 can be found [here](https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6OllzWqP_-nc3ZLLU13VnhTZEU).\r\n\r\n### Changing conceptual models for archival description\r\n\r\nShortly following, in September 2016, ICA’s Expert’s Group on Archival Description (EGAD) released the first version of a data model for archival description, Records in Contexts (RiC). The model attempts to account for complexity in records and record creation by allowing for a network of linked entities and relationships to represent archival description. This network representation goes beyond the widespread understanding and implementation of archival description as simple hierarchy.<sup>[3](#myfootnote3)</sup> The thinking underlying RiC expands understandings of the core archival concept of provenance and empowers archivists to document the complexity of record creation over time. \r\n\r\n## Creating revised principles\r\n\r\nTo address the limitations of the existing principles, TS-DACS led an effort to comprehensively revise them, convening a group of experts on archival description from a variety of institutional contexts for an in-person meeting.<sup>[4](#myfootnote4)</sup> This process resulted in 11 principles which reframed the existing 8 principles, combining related concepts, adding missing ideas, and in some cases removing obsolete or unnecessary principles. \r\n\r\n![principles crosswalk](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/36632225/43718610-27e9f616-9959-11e8-9adb-24f5abf91de5.png)\r\n\r\n## Call for comments and community feedback\r\n\r\n### Process\r\n\r\nTS-DACS put out a general call for comments on the revised principles in June 2017 and also reached out directly to leading thinkers, practitioners, and educators of archival description. All received feedback and commentary on feedback can be accessed [here](https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6OllzWqP_-nY1NoOTA1N1h3ZVk).\r\n\r\nAnalyzing feedback from 51 individuals and groups on 11 different principles proved challenging. The subcommittee created a series of worksheets to review the feedback for each principle as well as three broader, thematic categories: the role of descriptive principles, comparison of old to new principles, and the revision process itself. The worksheets synthesized community feedback into areas of agreement, disagreement, and misunderstanding and provided suggestions on how to address these concerns.\r\n\r\nTo answer general questions and clarify areas of clumsy communication, TS-DACS made minor revisions to the principles themselves.<sup>[5](#myfootnote5)</sup>\r\n\r\n### General themes\r\n\r\nA major theme throughout the feedback centered around matters of degree in descriptive practice: how many archival interventions should be documented and are certain activities more important to document than others? Community members wanted concrete guidance on when or why to add to a description and whether it was a matter of choice or rule. Archival description has always had to contend with these questions of degree, which is one of the reasons why local implementation and procedure manuals continue to be critical for repository compliance and consistency of practice. To address these concerns, TS-DACS further explicated the role of principles versus the role of rules versus archival assessment and judgement in the preface to DACS. \r\n\r\nSimilarly, the introduction of concepts such as bias, archival intervention, iteration, and transparency into the principles raised questions about what is required and what is enough. To these concerns, TS-DACS wants to reiterate and further highlight the set of required elements for single level description that DACS already provides,<sup>[6](#myfootnote6)</sup> which should continue to form the basis of archival description, whether it is an accession record, a collection level catalog record, a finding aid, a record for a digitized resource, or any other format. \r\n\r\nNumerous respondents were excited to see the central place of users in the principles. One person noted that Principle 2 was “just essential.” However, there was concern around a perceived narrowness of definition with both use and user, as some misunderstood “users are the fundamental reason for archives” to mean only external researchers. In the principles, the terms use and user are employed broadly. Each repository should explore and define the terms its own way. Depending on the context, use may be government accountability, genealogy, artistic endeavors, or historical research, among many others. A corporate archives will have a different set of users and uses for its records than a state government. Rather than provide a strict definition, TS-DACS added a statement on user-centered archival description in the preamble to the principles.\r\n\r\nMany respondents read the revised principles as aspirational rather than prescriptive. One respondent suggested that the revised principles are the _what_ and the _why_ of archival description, while the rules are the _how_. Overall, this shift away from the current principles as methodology to the revised principles as advocacy was understood as a positive one. Because they are value-driven, the revised principles represent where the community of archivists using DACS currently are and, more importantly, where they want to be. \r\n\r\n> This will impact how we appraise records, set processing priorities, write description, and make it public, e.g. considering how to provide minimal description in keeping with standards and ethics? The principle reinforces changes we feel a need to make anyway.\r\n> \r\n> We agree with the ethos of this principle (and the revised principles as a whole) and hope that it will signal a change towards a more service-oriented, user-centric way of doing archival work.<sup>[7](#myfootnote7)</sup>\r\n\r\n### Principle 4\r\n\r\nAs the chart above highlights, nearly all of the current principles were consolidated into revised Principle 4, which affirms that records often have multiple contexts of provenance, creation, maintenance and use. Much of the feedback focused on the concepts raised therein. Respondents to revised Principle 4 articulated that \"the four fundamental concepts\" provide an intellectually inclusive means for addressing basic ideas. They felt the assertion that archivists \"reveal\" and \"expose\" provides clarity, while the focus on creators and relationships, rather than hierarchy, was appreciated. One participant noted that this principle is the most useful statement she has ever seen to explain how archival description differs from bibliographic description.\r\n\r\nThe main criticism of the principle was the absence of the terms “provenance” or “original order.” As one respondent wrote:\r\n\r\n> The fundamental principle of respect des fonds is missing entirely. I understand that the application of the principle is being critically examined, but it is what distinguishes archives from libraries. I would also suggest that the other principle of original order be addressed in some way. I know that OO is also being re-examined, but to the extent that it exists, it is evidence of the context of the records, and shouldn’t be disrupted. As these principles stand, there is nothing the counsels an archivist not to rearrange the whole thing by subject (or even merge all the repository holdings into one big subject file).\r\n\r\nOther comments requested guidance and examples about how to identify aggregates and implement other aspects of the principle.\r\n\r\nIn response to this feedback, a discussion of provenance, original order, and guidance in determining aggregate groupings was added to the preamble to the principles. More detail and practical guidance will be provided in the upcoming revisions of the rules to implement the new principles.\r\n\r\n### Conclusion\r\n\r\nWhile some of the feedback was critical (which in return resulted in a stronger revision of the principles), there was widespread support for the revised principles. TS-DACS found that the community was ready for the revised principles as presented<sup>[8](#myfootnote8)</sup> and have already had four requests for citation in publishing. By adding a preamble to the principles to provide context, TS-DACS is ready to put forth a second version of the principles.\r\n\r\n## Impact of proposed change\r\n\r\nThe impact of the changes to the [Preface](https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/preface.md) and the [principles](https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/statement_of_principles.md) will, in the future, cascade throughout parts I and II of DACS. In order to bring description into better alignment with these new principles, TS-DACS foresees some existing elements currently designated as Optimum or Added Value becoming required. In particular, it is likely that elements supporting Principles 5 and 6 - the imperative that archivists document their interventions as part of archival description - will be elevated to required status. \r\n\r\nIn addition, new rules may need to be introduced to DACS to support the revised principles. Proposed element 8.2,<sup>[9](#myfootnote9)</sup> which requires a rights declaration for archival description, supports ideas in new Principle 8 which encourages archivists to make description machine-readable, machine-actionable, and easily disseminated.\r\n\r\nIt is expected that many, if not most, repositories will not be fully compliant with all of the principles at the time of their adoption. Many repositories, particularly small ones, are only now trying to meet existing standards, and may feel that the new principles present an even higher hurdle. These issues need not be a deterrent to the adoption of the new principles. A repository's descriptive policies and practices, like archival description itself, are developed iteratively. They are revisited and refined over time for many reasons: to meet changing needs of users, to adapt to staff and resource constraints, to utilize new technology, and to incorporate the evolving understanding of our profession. The principles can serve a powerful role in guiding changes to policy and practice by articulating the goals of and reasons for archival description.\r\n\r\nTS-DACS recognizes that changes from version to version of DACS have the potential to require an outlay of time and resources that may not be immediately available to all repositories. Beginning in 2018, DACS will be available under versioned releases; repositories may declare themselves compliant with a particular version of DACS as they work toward implementing the latest changes.\r\n\r\nThe flawed pursuit of perfectly described collections has contributed substantially to processing and description backlogs. Rather than adding to that burden, these principles empower archivists, whether they are managers and resource allocators or collection processors, to use their professional skills and judgment to make a greater volume of records more accessible for research. The principles and DACS as whole give structure for meeting attainable baseline requirements for descriptive records and then encouraging archivists to best decide how to spend their own time. For example, the new principles are very explicit that all holdings in the repository must have an archival description (Principle 9). This means that if the community (and council) decides to adopt these new principles, many repositories will have the opportunity to examine their own compliance with our national descriptive standard.\r\n\r\nWhile implementation strategies are beyond the scope of DACS, many such strategies aligned with the principles have emerged since the original publication of DACS. These strategies, including description at the time of acquisition, iterative processing approaches, and collection assessment, reappraisal and deaccessioning are discussed in archival literature. We believe that these principles are achievable and that very good advice already exists for archivists striving to meet them.<sup>[10](#myfootnote10)</sup>\r\n\r\nBy emphasizing the importance of describing all collections and transparency, the new principles facilitate resource advocacy, whether for professional archivists to create collection level description for all holdings or for changes within repositories towards more accessible forms of description. \r\n\r\nWe encourage repositories to consider the following strategies:\r\n\r\n- Prioritize the allocation of staff time and resources towards activities which best align with one or more of the principles.\r\n- When debating between possible approaches, select the one that most closely realizes the principles.\r\n- When evaluating and reporting on changes, use increased alignment with the principles as a means to demonstrate success.\r\n\r\nBy using the principles to guide incremental change, the repository knows that individual efforts will bring the repository closer into alignment with the wisdom of the profession.\r\n\r\nWe believe that these new principles make education around archival description clearer and easier to teach. Above all, we hope that the revised principles allow for more accessible and transparent archival description for users and uses of records.\r\n\r\n## How to submit feedback\r\n\r\nThere are two possible channels for proposing feedback.\r\n \r\n**Option 1 (preferred)**\r\n \r\nIf you have a GitHub account, you can comment on the proposed change here: https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/20. If you do not yet have a GitHub account, it is easy to create one.\r\n \r\nWe prefer this method because it is more transparent (comments are available to the world) and because it helps maintain the history of conversations around DACS changes.\r\n \r\n**Option 2 (also very welcome!)**\r\n \r\nSubmit your comments to the SAA website, here: http://www2.archivists.org/standards/DACS/revisions.\r\n \r\nThese comments will be forwarded to TS-DACS, but will not be immediately viewable by other SAA members. This method does not provide the same opportunity to engage in conversation about a change proposal as commenting in GitHub.\r\n \r\nWe will accept comments until **August 31, 2018**.\r\n \r\nInformation about the DACS change proposal and review process is available here: https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs#revision-process\r\n\r\n**Direct links**\r\n\r\n- Preface\r\n  - With tracked changes: https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/20/commits/0be2542f40262c109247322f07891753e42b46ae\r\n  - Without tracked changes: https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/preface.md\r\n- Statement of Principles\r\n   - With tracked changes: https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/20/commits/d704eacc68f4053b1a12d301aeb0ed8d9310404d\r\n   - Without tracked changes: https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/1fcf9c4ad2888384d2664bf998e1474b44d84697/statement_of_principles.md\r\n\r\n***\r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote1\">[1]</a>: **Current and former TS-DACS Members:** Maureen Callahan, Elise Dunham, Maristella Feustle, Matthew Gorham, Adriane Hanson, Adrien Hilton, Sue Luftschein, Dan Michelson, Kate Morris, Elena Perez-Lizano, Cassie Schmitt, Carrie Hintz (ex officio), Weatherly Stephan (ex officio); **Principle revision participants:** Hillel Arnold, Mary Caldera, Jillian Cuellar, Tamar Dougherty, Jarret Drake, Gretchen Gueguen, Regine Heberlein, Linda Hocking, Bill Landis, Dennis Meissner, Trevor Owens, Mario Ramirez, Daniel Santamaria, Audra Eagle Yun\r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote2\">[2]</a>: _Records in Contexts: A Conceptual Model for Archival Description_ (International Council on Archives, September 2016), Consultation Draft v0.1, https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/RiC-CM-0.1.pdf.\r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote3\">[3]</a>: _Records in Contexts_, 9.\r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote4\">[4]</a>: For perspectives on the meeting see Hillel Arnold: http://blog.rockarch.org/?p=1710 and a report submitted to Society of American Archivists Council: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aOV7IgH5WqVl-tXUswCJkZAML_A8SKjTZOB4_wGz35w/edit?usp=sharing. \r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote5\">[5]</a>: For instance, the SAA statement of ethics as well as industry adjacent statements were added as links to Principle 1; events was changed to activities in Principle 4 to better reflect current terminology; and the claim that archivists’ primary intellectual output is description was deleted in Principle 8.\r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote6\">[6]</a>: DACS element sets are described in Chapter 1. https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/blob/master/part_I/chapter_1.md \r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote7\">[7]</a>: Feedback on Revised Principles, June 2017.\r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote8\">[8]</a>: Of the 51 respondents to an online feedback form, 29 were submitted by individuals, 22 were submitted by a group. The average ranking by all respondents in response to the statement, “I / we support this new set of DACS principles and would like to see them adopted as part of DACS” on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the greatest support, was 7.1. On average the group rankings were higher than that of the individuals, 7.5 versus 6.8. Without knowing the number of participants in each group we can’t say for certain how many individuals this represents, but it points to an even greater number of respondents agreeing with the revised principles.\r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote9\">[9]</a>: https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/14.\r\n\r\n<a name=\"myfootnote10\">[10]</a>: See Daniel A. Santamaria, _Extensible Processing for Archives and Special Collections_ (Chicago: American Library Association, 2015); Christine Weideman, “Accessioning as Processing,” _The American Archivist_, 69, No. 2 (Fall/Winter 2006): 274-283; University of California Systemwide Libraries, “Guidelines for Efficient Archival Processing in the University of California Libraries (Version 3.2),” 2012, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1sw157j3; Harvard University Special Collections and Archives, “Joint Processing Guidelines,” https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/jointprocessingguidelines; Society of American Archivists, “Guidelines for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning,” 2017, https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/GuidelinesForReappraisalDeaccessioning_2017.pdf."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/issues/comments/415773259","html_url":"https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/pull/20#issuecomment-415773259","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/issues/20","id":415773259,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQxNTc3MzI1OQ==","user":{"login":"kellybolding","id":8289998,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjgyODk5OTg=","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/8289998?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding","html_url":"https://github.com/kellybolding","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kellybolding/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-08-24T14:19:37Z","updated_at":"2018-08-24T14:19:37Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"I strongly support the revised principles.\r\n\r\nThey promote a user-centered, iterative, values-forward approach to archival description that reflects the best of current archival practice. I appreciate that the combination of Principles 1, 7, 10, and 11 supports a reparative approach to (re)processing that seeks to address the erasure or mis-description of materials related to people from traditionally marginalized groups in the archives. I'm also particularly in support of Principle 6 and its focus on transparency. In the upcoming revisions of the DACS rules, I hope to see additional guidance on specific information and actions to document.\r\n\r\nMany thanks to TS-DACS for your thoughtful work on updating these principles."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"kellybolding"}}