Docstoc

bibliography

Document Sample
bibliography Powered By Docstoc
					  The Implementation of Automated Archival Description Systems,
        MARC AMC and EAD: An Annotated Bibliography
                                        Dan Cavanaugh 6/8/2011

                                                 INFO 522

I certify that:

This assignment is entirely my own work.
I have not quoted the words of any other person from a printed source or a website without indicating what has
been quoted and providing an appropriate citation.
I have not submitted this assignment to satisfy the requirements of any other course.

Signature____Dan Cavanaugh______________________
Date     _______6/8/2011_____________
Introduction and Scope
The following paper is a literature review and annotated bibliography that covers over twenty
years of research related to the implementation of MARC AMC (Machine-Reading Cataloging
Format for Archives and Manuscript Control or alternatively Archival and Manuscripts Control)
and EAD (Encoded Archival Description). Archivists and librarians have created a large body of
literature about these two descriptive systems. However, much of that literature falls outside this
assignment's requirement to only include scholarly articles containing original research. Like
other research topics related to archival theory and practice, much of the literature related to
automated description systems primarily consists of case studies, opinion pieces, and best-
practice guidelines.
The articles that I have identified and described in this paper span from 1988 to 2008. Some of
the most common topics covered in these works include the effect of systems implementation
practices on the use of MARC AMC and EAD, common obstacles to the implementation of these
systems, and the broader effect automated description has had on other aspects of archival work.
I am confident that the articles below represent a majority of the existing formal research articles
related to MARC AMC and EAD. I did not include the works below because they represented
particular debates or research trends. Rather they were included because they provide an overall
representation of the strengths, weakness, and gaps in the existing body of original research on
MARC AMC and EAD implementation in the United States.

Description
MARC AMC and EAD are the two most prominent automated systems for archival description
in the United States. The first of these systems, MARC AMC, was developed during the late
1970s and early 1980s. It is a modified version of the original MARC system that allows
archivists to create standardized electronic catalog records for archival and manuscript
collections. MARC AMC is characterized by many of the same features as MARC and MARC
AMC records can reside in the same bibliographic databases as regular MARC records. MARC
AMC is largely distinguished from MARC by the greater flexibility it provides in the description
of unique materials.
The second of these systems, EAD, was developed during the 1990s. It was initially designed as
a tool for creating machine-readable records that could contain a much wider range of
information than the existing MARC AMC records. After several years of development, EAD
emerged as a Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) that required archivists to
categorize and classify elements of their finding aid using predefined "tags". The tags made the
finding aids machine readable and promised to provide advanced searching and networking
options available to archivists.

Literature Review
Over the past thirty years, MARC AMC and EAD have together revolutionized archival
practices in the United States. Archivists and librarians during this period of time have
recognized the revolution happening around them and have tried to make sense of it through
observation and research. MARC AMC and EAD have been two of the most popular subjects in
archival literature and dozens of published case studies, manuals, opinion pieces, and research
articles have advanced professional discussions about them. For example, Lyn Martin, in her
review of MARC AMC-related literature found that between 1980 and 1993, a total of 92 works
on the implementation and use of MARC AMC had been published (Martin, 1994, p. 486).
While many works related to MARC AMC and EAD have been published, only a small sample
of these works contain original research. Much of the literature consists of case studies and
opinion pieces. It is not entirely clear why this is true and it would be outside the scope of this
paper to spend a great deal of time speculating about this trend, but it is likely that the lack of
original research does not stem from the particular characteristics of MARC AMC and EAD
studies. This trend seems to more likely reflect a broader trend within the archival community to
eschew formal research in favor of less formal opinion pieces and case studies.
The authors of the works below generally base their conclusions on surveys that have been sent
out to archivists or the users of archival collections. Although many of these authors seem to
have developed sound research methodologies, the validity of much of their research is
questionable because of the small size of their survey sample populations. For example, Sonia
Yaco's conclusions are based on a sample population of only 16 archivists and librarians (Yaco,
2008, 463). Similarly, Patricia Cloud's conclusions are based on the experiences of only 15
institutions (Cloud, 1988, 575).
A few of the authors use alternative research approaches. Rather than relying on surveys,
Xiaomu Zhou bases her conclusions about the usability of online EAD finding aids on an
analysis of finding aid and archival website search features. The parameters for this analysis
were constructed according to fundamental theories about information architecture on the
Internet (Zhou, 2007, 104-105). Meanwhile, Donald DeWitt supplemented surveys with an
analysis of archival job postings and announcements (DeWitt, 1991, 75).
By analyzing the publication dates of the sources in this annotated bibliography, it also becomes
clear that there is a significant chronological break between MARC AMC and EAD research.
Most of the research about the former system was published during the late 1980s and early
1990s, while most of the research about the later system was published during the 2000s.
There does not seem to be an easy explanation for this trend. However, it is clear that research
about MARC AMC did not end because it became obsolete. In most repositories MARC AMC
was not replaced by EAD and many well-funded institutions utilize both of these access tools
today. In fact, Lyn Martin's literature review suggests that research about MARC AMC began to
sharply decline in 1991 almost two years before the development of EAD began (Martin, 1994,
p.486). Perhaps the explosion of literature about MARC AMC that occurred during the late
1980s deterred many archivists from conducting further research about this topic during the mid-
1990s.
Despite the chronological break in the MARC AMC and EAD literature, there are three specific
research trends that bridge the two topics. One, examinations into the challenges and problems
associated with the implementation of automated description systems. Two, studies about the
usability of automated description systems and how this is related to systems implementation.
Three, research on the impact of systems implementation on broader trends and practices within
the archival profession.
Several of the works listed below examine the problems and challenges associated with the
implementation of automated description systems. The authors of these works seem to agree that
the most important obstacles to implementation are personnel and funding issues. For example,
in Patricia Cloud's early study about MARC AMC implementation, Cloud concluded that MARC
AMC conversion will likely rely on part-time workers and that staff turnover among this group
will likely hinder implementation (Cloud, 1988, 579) Almost twenty years later, Elizabeth Yakel
and Jihyun Kim discovered that lack of staff and access to IT resources hindered the
implementation of EAD at many repositories (Yakel and Kim, 2005, 147).
Some authors argue that other factors besides personnel and funding issues hinder the
implementation of automated description systems. Christopher Prom in 2002 acknowledged that
management and political issues were probably the greatest barriers to EAD implementation, but
he also noted that inadequate EAD software tools also hindered implementation (Prom, 2002,
274).
The usability of MARC AMC and EAD records and the implications of that usability on systems
implementation is another major theme in the literature. In 1993, Spindler and Pearce-Moses
argued that users have difficulty interpreting MARC AMC records and their difficulties stemmed
from the nature of the MARC AMC format (Spindler and Pearce-Moses, 1993). A few years
later Susan Malbin reexamined this argument and came to a slightly different conclusion. She
argued that patrons do indeed have difficulty using MARC AMC records, but their problems
stem not from the format of the record itself, but inconsistencies in how catalogers and archivists
use the MARC AMC standards to create the records (Mablin, 1998, 25).
A few of the works in the annotated bibliography examine the affect of EAD and MARC AMC
on broader trends within the archival profession. Donald DeWitt's 1991 study examines the
relationship between the adoption of MARC AMC, archival job opportunities, and archival
education. He concludes that although archivists with MARC AMC experience were in high
demand during the late 1980s, many archival education programs offered only limited
opportunities to gain such experience (DeWitt, 1991, 84). Meanwhile, Jennifer Marshall's 2002
study found that the adoption of EAD often prompts major changes in how institutions conduct
their daily operations (Marshall, 2002, 48).
While the sources that are listed in this paper's annotated bibliography offer some useful insights
about how MARC AMC and EAD have changed archival practice in the United States, as whole
they illustrate that there is a surprising dearth of original research on this subject. This lack of
original research makes it difficult to predict how future research about MARC AMC or EAD
will develop and what directions it may take.



Annotated Bibliography
Cloud, P.D. (1988). The cost of converting to MARC AMC: Some early observations.
Library Trends, 36(3), 573-583.
Abstract: "Reviews the experiences of 12 research libraries [AUTHOR'S NOTE: This abstract
is inaccurate, Cloud surveyed 15 research libraries] that participated from 1984-1986 in the
retrospective conversion of approximately 21,000 data records describing archival materials
using RLIN (Research Libraries Information Network). Factors affecting the amount of time
spent on the project – the integrity of finding aids and authority work – are discussed." (abstract
taken from ERIC database)
Annotation: This early study identifies factors that may affect the cost of converting finding aids
into the MARC AMC format. Using the results from a survey of fifteen 'pioneer repositories' in
MARC AMC conversion, Cloud concludes that many repositories will need to substantially
revise their existing finding aids to meet certain standards before they can convert the aids to
MARC. She also concludes that prior staff experience with the MARC format will affect the
success of conversion initiatives. Although the conclusions in this work are over twenty years
old and based on a very small sample population, it may nevertheless be useful to researchers
who want to gain a broader understanding of the history MARC AMC conversions in the United
States.
Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, the Library Trends is a refereed academic journal. At the
time of this article's publication, Patricia Cloud was the assistant university archivist at
Northwestern University Archives.
Method of Searching: Keywords

Database: File 1 in Dialog: ERIC

Search Strategy: Early in the project I decided to search for sources through the ERIC database
because I was familiar with the database and like some of its features (e.g. the ability to
specifically search for research articles with the document type prefix). Also, I thought that some
of the journals covered by ERIC may cover relevant topics for my project.

I first went to the Eric thesaurus to search for terms related to "MARC AMC" (although there
were several relevant terms for MARC alone). When I couldn’t find any closely related terms, I
thought it would be better to conduct a keyword search using the terms "MARC" and "AMC".
This strategy retrieved a list of 15 sources, one of which was the article in this citation.

Search Transcript:
s marc

          S1    1349   MARC


? s amc

          S3      29   AMC

? s s1 and s3

                1349   S1
                  29   S3
          S4      27   S1 AND S3
? t/s4/3/all




Czeck, R.L. (1998). Archival MARC records and finding aids in the context of end-user
subject access to archival collections. American Archivist, 61(2), 426-440.
Abstract: "This article discusses the findings of a study to determine the extent to which
archival MARC records represent chronological, geographical, personal, and corporate
information contained in corresponding finding aids to archival collection. A content analysis of
twenty finding aids to archival collections and their corresponding archival MARC records was
conducted. The data suggest that the level of representation in archival MARC records varies
depending on subject category. Geographical terms were the most likely to be represented,
followed by personal names, chronological terms, and lastly corporate names. Allowing for the
searching of full-text electronic finding aids would enable end users to benefit not only from the
subject information present at the collection level and in the abstract, but also from the areas in
finding aids that tend to get less MARC representation: scope/content notes,
historical/biographical information, series summaries, and container information." (original
abstract from the article)
Annotation: This article, which was published just as EAD began to be adopted by archivists,
asks important questions about the need for fully searchable finding aids. She argues that while
existing MARC AMC records may not contain as many access points as fully searchable finding
aids, in some cases they may be less burdensome to users. Although this work is over ten years
old, it is still a useful source because it is one of the few examples of original research that
discusses the comparative advantages and disadvantages MARC and EAD systems.
Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, American Archivist is a refereed academic journal. At the
time of this article's publication, Rita Czeck was an assistant professor and monographic
cataloger at the University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries.
Method of Searching: Keywords

Database: File 438 in Dialog: Library Literature and Information Science

Search Strategy: I decided to use the Library and Information Science database because I felt
that this database would most likely yield the best results. I came across this source when I began
experimenting with different combinations of keywords in Dialog to see what kinds of results
they would retrieve. This source was one of 7 sources that the search commands listed below
retrieved for me.

Search Transcript:
? s finding()aid?

                     964   FINDING
                    2240   AID?
          S4          63   FINDING()AID?
? s marc

           S5   1349   MARC


? s s4 and s5

                  63   S4
                1349   S5
           S6      7   S4 AND S5


? t s6/3/all


DeWitt, D.L. (1991). The impact of the MARC AMC format on archival education and
employment during the 1980s. The Midwestern Archivist, 16(2). 73-85.
Abstract: "During the 1980s, the development of the MARC AMC format allowed archives and
manuscript repositories to take advantage of automation on an unprecedented scale. A review of
archival position vacancies indicates the increasing extent to which knowledge of the MARC
AMC format became a criterion for unemployment in the 1980s and that employers tended to
prefer candidates with pre-appointment knowledge of the format. Most positions utilizing the
MARC AMC format were at colleges and universities. A survey of archival education programs
reveals that by the end of the decade these programs had made only a limited response in
providing training in the MARC AMC format. On-the-job training was the most frequently cited
source of training for successful candidates who came to a position with knowledge of the
MARC AMC format." (original abstract from the article)
Annotation: In this study, Donald Dewitt conducts three separate surveys to determine the
impact MARC AMC implementation has had on archival education and hiring practices (one is
of job opening announcements, another on MARC AMC education in archival studies, and final
one sent to archives with MARC conversion initiatives). Although this article is almost twenty
years old, Dewitt makes sound conclusions based on the data and researchers may find it to be a
useful source for a study on the role MARC AMC has had on the historical development of
archival practices.
Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, the Midwestern Archivist is a refereed academic journal.
Donald L. Dewitt is the former curator of the University of Oklahoma's Western History
Collections. He has published several books about archives and archival practice. A few of these
books discuss the use of digital technologies in archives and manuscript repositories.
Method of Searching: Keywords

Database: File 438 in Dialog: Library Literature and Information Science

Search Strategy: I decided to use the Library and Information Science database because I felt
that this database would most likely yield the best results. Before I accessed the database in
Dialog, I accessed it through the Hagerty Library website and searched the database thesaurus
for controlled vocabulary terms that I could use in Dialog. The only useful term that I found was
"MARC SYSTEMS". However, when I paired this term with the term "AMC" in Dialog, the
database retrieved many unhelpful articles. Then I thought it might be better to conduct a
keyword search using the terms "MARC", "archives and manuscript control", and its common
abbreviation “AMC” (as seen in the transcript below I used a proximity operator in archives and
manuscript control to prevent dialog from reading the "and" in this statement as a Boolean
operator . After entering these search terms into Dialog (see the transcript), the database retrieved
29 sources for me. This article is one of those sources.

Search Transcript:
? s marc

           S1    1349   MARC

? s amc

           S2      29   AMC

? s archives(2n)manuscripts()control

                 8015   ARCHIVES
                 1264   MANUSCRIPT
                 2428   CONTROL
           S3       2   ARCHIVES(2N)MANUSCRIPT()CONTROL

? s s2 or s3

                   29   S2
                    2   S3
           S4      31   S2 OR S3

? s s1 and s4

                 1349   S1
                   31   S4
           S6      29   S1 AND S4

? t s6/3,k/all




Malbin, S.L. (1998). Does AMC really mean "archives made confusing"?: Retesting patron
understanding. Technical Services Quarterly, 16(1), 15-32.

Abstract: "This article builds on an earlier study that found the MARC AMC format confusing
to users. To decide whether this stemmed from a lack of knowledge among users, or from the
records, this study surveyed two groups, only one of which was familiar with USMARC. The
results showed the level of user knowledge to be an issue, but only on some questions. On others,
the problem stemmed from the record. Implication: For distant retrieval work, MARC AMC
information must become more standardized. In addition, user education (including through help
screens) must be tailored to the problems of distant retrievers." (original abstract from article)
Annotation: This work builds on Spindler and Pearce Moses's earlier study (see the citation
below) about the usability of MARC AMC records. Malbin adopted their hypothesis that MARC
AMC records are too difficult to interpret for most users and her research confirms this assertion.
She further adds that inconsistencies in cataloging and record building, rather than the MARC
AMC format, may explain these difficulties. Overall, Malbin's research methodology is more
valid than Spindler and Pearce-Moses's. Thus, researchers should consult this source before they
access Spindler and Pearce-Moses's.
Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, the Technical Services Quarterly is a refereed academic
journal. At the time of this article's publication, Susan Malbin was a reference librarian and the
Coordinator of User Education at SUNY-Albany's Dewey Graduate Library. She currently
serves as the Director of Library and Archives at the American Jewish Historical Society.
Method of Searching: Keywords

Database: File 438 in Dialog: Library Literature and Information Science

Search Strategy: I decided to use the Library and Information Science database because I felt
that this database would most likely yield the best results. Before I accessed the database in
Dialog, I accessed it through the Hagerty Library website and searched the database thesaurus
for controlled vocabulary terms that I could use in Dialog. The only useful term that I found was
"MARC SYSTEMS". However, when I paired this term with the term "AMC" in Dialog, the
database retrieved many unhelpful articles. Then I thought it might be better to conduct a
keyword search using the terms "MARC", "archives and manuscript control", and its common
abbreviation “AMC” (as seen in the transcript below I used a proximity operator in archives and
manuscript control to prevent dialog from reading the "and" in this statement as a Boolean
operator . After entering these search terms into Dialog (see the transcript), the database retrieved
29 sources for me. This article is one of those sources.

Search Transcript:
? s marc

           S1   1349    MARC

? s amc

           S2      29   AMC

? s archives(2n)manuscripts()control

                8015    ARCHIVES
                1264    MANUSCRIPT
                2428    CONTROL
           S3      2    ARCHIVES(2N)MANUSCRIPT()CONTROL

? s s2 or s3
                   29   S2
                    2   S3
         S4        31   S2 OR S3

? s s1 and s4

                 1349   S1
                   31   S4
         S6        29   S1 AND S4

? t s6/3,k/all




Marshall, J.A. (2002). The impact of EAD adoption on archival programs: A pilot survey of
     early implementers. Journal of Archival Organization, 1(1), 35–55.

Abstract: "This article reports the results of a survey conducted to assess the impact that the
implementation of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has on archival programs. By gathering
data related to the funding, staffing, and evaluation of EAD programs and about institutional
goals for EAD implementation, this study explored how EAD has affected the operations of the
institutions which are utilizing it and the extent to which EAD has become a part of regular
repository functions." (original abstract from article)

Annotation: This source is an early look at how archivists have integrated EAD into the overall
management of their repositories. Using questionnaires, the author discovered that the few
repositories that were implementing EAD in the early 2000s devoted considerable resources to
this project. Also, many of them changed institutional policies to fully utilize the benefits of this
tool. While the study is still a valuable examination of the effects of EAD implementation, it is in
some ways incomplete. Conclusions are based, as the author recognizes, on responses from a
small sample of questionnaires and it does not look at whether the allocation of resources to
EAD implementation has had a negative effect on other operations at the repositories.

Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, the Journal of Archival Organization is a refereed
academic journal. At the time of publication, Jennifer Marshall was a doctoral candidate and
teaching fellow in the Department of Library and Information Science at the University of
Pittsburgh. Marshall is currently a professor in the School of Library and Information Science at
the University of South Carolina.

Method of Searching: Backward Citation Searching

Search Strategy: I felt that Elizabeth Yakel and Jihyun Kim’s article, “Adoption and Diffusion
of Encoded Archival Description” (see the annotated citation below) was an authoritative source
on the topic of EAD use and I wanted to see if there were any relevant sources listed in the
article’s endnotes. When I scanned the end notes I came across the Marshall article, which as far
as I could tell from the title could be a relevant source for this project. I recorded the citation
information for the Marshall article and accessed it online to ensure that it was indeed an
authoritative and useful source.
Martin, L.M. (1994). Viewing the field: a literature review and survey of the use of U.S.
MARC AMC in U.S. academic archives. American Archivist, 57(3), 482-497.

Abstract: "U.S. MARC AMC (Machine-Readable Cataloging for Archives and Manuscript
Control) has "come of age," taking its place in the mainstream of both archival and cataloging
thinking, theory, and practice. The meteoric rise in the use of MARC AMC is evident in the
statistics reported by the bibliographic utilities. The literature of MARC AMC, although
extensive, has not been reviewed since 1989 and does not systematically document the use of the
format in U.S. academic archives. This paper presents a review of that literature and reports the
results of a 1992 survey of 200 archivists, representing 200 academic archives in the United
States. These respondents were randomly selected from the Society of American Archivists'
1991 Directory of Individual Members; they cooperated in a survey examining the use of MARC
AMC for cataloging archival and manuscript collections. This paper profiles the institutional use
of MARC AMC, including the choice of a cataloging standard, such as Steven Hensen's
Archives, Personal Papers and Manuscripts, Second Edition (APPM, Second Edition) and
Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition, Revised (AACR2R), chapter 4. The paper
concludes with an admonition for archivists and traditional catalogers to work collaboratively to
catalog archival and manuscript collections." (original abstract from article)

Annotation: Although this article is almost twenty years old, this source is still relevant for
researchers who are interested in the historical development of MARC AMC. The first half of
the work provides readers with a comprehensive literature review that outlines the major
developments and debates associated with MARC AMC between 1977 and 1994. Meanwhile,
the second half of the work reports the results of a wide-ranging and well-constructed survey.
These results offer modern researchers with an accurate view of the state of MARC AMC use
and implementation during the mid-1990s.

Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, American Archivist is a refereed academic journal. At the
time of the publication of this article Lyn Martin was the senior assistant librarian and cataloger
at the State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill, New
York. Currently, she is the Special Collections librarian at the Willard Library in Evansville,
Indiana.

Method of Searching: Keywords

Database: File 438 in Dialog: Library Literature and Information Science

Search Strategy: I decided to use the Library and Information Science database because I felt
that this database would most likely yield the best results. Before I accessed the database in
Dialog, I accessed it through the Hagerty Library website and searched the database thesaurus
for controlled vocabulary terms that I could use in Dialog. The only useful term that I found was
"MARC SYSTEMS". However, when I paired this term with the term "AMC" in Dialog, the
database retrieved many unhelpful articles. Then I thought it might be better to conduct a
keyword search using the terms "MARC", "archives and manuscript control", and its common
abbreviation “AMC” (as seen in the transcript below I used a proximity operator in archives and
manuscript control to prevent dialog from reading the "and" in this statement as a Boolean
operator . After entering these search terms into Dialog (see the transcript), the database retrieved
29 sources for me. This article is one of those sources.

Search Transcript:
? s marc

           S1    1349   MARC

? s amc

           S2      29   AMC

? s archives(2n)manuscripts()control

                 8015   ARCHIVES
                 1264   MANUSCRIPT
                 2428   CONTROL
           S3       2   ARCHIVES(2N)MANUSCRIPT()CONTROL

? s s2 or s3

                   29   S2
                    2   S3
           S4      31   S2 OR S3

? s s1 and s4

                 1349   S1
                   31   S4
           S6      29   S1 AND S4

? t s6/3,k/all


Prom, C.J. (2002). The EAD Cookbook: a survey and usability study. American Archivist,
65(2), 257-275.

Abstract: "While EAD has been warmly embraced by larger archives and libraries, smaller
institutions have hesitated to implement the standard. The EAD Cookbook was developed to
encourage such acceptance. But does it provide an adequate tool to meet the archival profession's
descriptive needs? This paper addresses the question by reporting the results of a survey of
Cookbook users, reviewing literature related to the usability of archival on-line resources, and
evaluating the usability and retrievability of EAD finding aids created by institutions responding
to the survey. It includes specific usability recommendation and concludes with a recommended
approach for further work to simplify EAD encoding and improve display." (original abstract
from article)

Annotation: In this article, Christopher Prom evaluates the influence, effectiveness, and
usability of the EAD Cookbook, a collection of software tools that were designed to facilitate
EAD implementation. On the basis of a survey, a literature review, and an analysis of EAD
finding aids, Prom concludes that the EAD Cookbook is an effective, but limited aid. He also
argues that the limited success of the EAD Cookbook suggests that the main challenges to EAD
implementation may be political rather than technical in nature. With the recent emergence of
EAD markup applications like Archivists' Toolkit and Archon, which Prom advocated for at the
end of this article, the EAD Cookbook and its effectiveness are no longer major factors in
implementation. Nevertheless, Prom's study is still a useful resource for researchers who want to
improve their understanding of how the challenges and tools of EAD implementation have
evolved over the past ten years.

Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, American Archivist is a refereed academic journal.
Christopher Prom is the Assistant University Archivist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign and an Associate Professor of Library Administration. According to his webpage at
the University of Illinois, Prom has written extensively about EAD and is a part of the team that
designed Archon, open-source software that automatically publishes finding aids and encodes
them in EAD.

Method of Searching: Backward Citation Searching

Search Strategy: I felt that Elizabeth Yakel and Jihyun Kim’s article, “Adoption and Diffusion
of Encoded Archival Description” (see the annotated citation below) was an authoritative source
on the topic of EAD use and I wanted to see if there were any relevant sources listed in the
article’s endnotes. When I scanned the end notes I came across Prom's article, which as far as I
could tell from the title could be a relevant source for this project. I recorded the citation
information for the Prom article and accessed it online to ensure that it was indeed an
authoritative and useful source.



Roth, JM. (2001). Serving up EAD: An exploratory study on the deployment and
utilization of encoded archival description finding aids. American Archivist, 64(2), 214-237.

Abstract: "This study explores the current methods for deploying EAD finding aids to identify
the most promising practices being used, examines how much and what type of evaluation
archivists are gathering from end-users regarding deployment methods, identifies archivists'
perceptions regarding the use of EAD-encoded finding aids, and in general, attempts to further
the study of electronic access to archival collections. The focus on this paper is the current state
of deployment methods for EAD, including how long and what types of deployment methods are
being used, why they were selected, what changes, if any, are planned, and what types of
challenges are associated with them. The paper also focuses on archivists' perception of end-user
utilization of EAD and explores the evaluation upon which this perception is based, including
how and on what basis archivists formulate their perceptions." (original abstract from article)

Annotation: In this study, Roth examines a much wider range of issues associated with EAD
implementation, deployment, and use than any other researcher before or after him. The results
of a survey that Roth sent out to archivists suggested, among other things, that repositories used a
variety of implementation tools and that the speed at which finding aids were converted into
EAD format widely varied between institutions. Although Roth addresses a wide range of issues,
few of these issues are deeply analyzed and researchers should view this article as a good
introductory study about EAD implementation rather than a comprehensive source about any
particular topic related to it.

Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, American Archivist is a refereed academic journal. At the
time of the article's publication, James Roth was a master's student at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. This paper, his master's thesis was published in American Archivist after
the Society of American Archivists awarded it the Theodore Calvin Pease Award. Currently
(June 2011), Roth is the Deputy Director of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and
Museum.

Method of Searching: Controlled Vocabulary

Database: File 438 in Dialog: Library Literature and Information Science

Search Strategy: I decided to use the Library and Information Science database because I felt
that this database would most likely yield the best results. Before I accessed the database in
Dialog, I accessed it through the Hagerty Library website and searched the database thesaurus
for controlled vocabulary terms that I could use in Dialog. One controlled vocabulary term that
was particularly useful was “Encoded Archival Description (Document Type Description)”.
When I entered this term into Dialog (see search transcript below), Dialog retrieved 46 sources,
one of which was this article. I decided not to narrow the search any further in Dialog. I know
that most articles that deal with archival issues do not contain original research and I wanted to
cast a wider net to help me find non-research articles that would likely have citation references
for more relevant research articles.

Search Transcript:
? b 438

? e encoded archival description

Ref       Items Postings Index-term
E1            4        5 ENCODE
E2           80      111 ENCODED
E3            0        0 *ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION
E4           46       46 ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION (DOCUMENT TYPE DE
E5            3        6 ENCODER
E6            5        5 ENCODERS
E7            1        1 ENCODES
E8           67       69 ENCODING
E9            1        1 ENCODINGS
E10           1        1 ENCOMBRANT

Enter P or PAGE for more
? s e4

          S1       46    'ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION (DOCUMENT TYPE DE'

? t s1/3/all
Spindler, R.P. and Pearce-Moses, R. (1993). Does AMC mean "archives made confusing?
Patron understanding of USMARC AMC catalog records. American Archivist, 56(2), 330-
341.

Abstract: "Archivists create MARC AMC catalog records to enhance access and make
information about holdings more widely available, but they have not evaluated the effectiveness
of those descriptions for a diverse audience. Inclusion of MARC AMC descriptions in integrated
online catalogs and other factors have increased the difficulty of interpreting catalog records.
Studies of patron understanding of MARC AMC records are needed to validate or contradict our
assumptions that these descriptions are intelligible to our patrons. The integrated online catalog
environment at the Arizona State University Libraries is a test site for the formulation of a user
study to measure patron understanding of MARC AMC records." (original abstract from the
article)

Annotation: In this article, Spindler and Pearce-Moses contend that the current format of
MARC-AMC records is too complex for the average end-user to understand. While this is an
intriguing argument, it is based on relatively weak research. As Spindler and Pearce-Moses
explain, the survey on which this study is based was only given to a sample population of fifteen
users. Moreover, the authors only survey users for their responses to records created by only one
repository. Researchers should supplement this work with Susan Malbin's 1998 article about the
use of MARC records to gain a more authentic understanding about user interactions with
MARC AMC records.

Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, American Archivist is a refereed academic journal. At the
time of this article's publication, both Robert Spindler and Richard Pearce-Moses worked at the
Arizona State University Libraries. Spindler was the curator of manuscripts and Pearce-Moses
was the curator of photography.

Method of Searching: Keywords

Database: File 438 in Dialog: Library Literature and Information Science

Search Strategy: I decided to use the Library and Information Science database because I felt
that this database would most likely yield the best results. Before I accessed the database in
Dialog, I accessed it through the Hagerty Library website and searched the database thesaurus
for controlled vocabulary terms that I could use in Dialog. The only useful term that I found was
"MARC SYSTEMS". However, when I paired this term with the term "AMC" in Dialog, the
database retrieved many unhelpful articles. Then I thought it might be better to conduct a
keyword search using the terms "MARC", "archives and manuscript control", and its common
abbreviation “AMC” (as seen in the transcript below I used a proximity operator in archives and
manuscript control to prevent dialog from reading the "and" in this statement as a Boolean
operator . After entering these search terms into Dialog (see the transcript), the database retrieved
29 sources for me. This article is one of those sources.

Search Transcript:
? s marc
          S1     1349   MARC

? s amc

          S2       29   AMC

? s archives(2n)manuscripts()control

                 8015   ARCHIVES
                 1264   MANUSCRIPT
                 2428   CONTROL
          S3        2   ARCHIVES(2N)MANUSCRIPT()CONTROL

? s s2 or s3

                   29   S2
                    2   S3
          S4       31   S2 OR S3

? s s1 and s4

                 1349   S1
                   31   S4
          S6       29   S1 AND S4

? t s6/3,k/all




Yaco, S. (2008). It's complicated: Barriers to EAD implementation. American Archivist,
71(2), 456-475.

Abstract: "Eleven years after the release of Encoded Archival Description (EAD), archivists'
reactions to it range from wholehearted acceptance to outright rejection. In the middle of this
spectrum are archivists who decide to implement EAD, but encounter obstacles in doing so. This
paper reports the finding of a survey of sixteen such cases. It identifies barriers to
implementation such as lack of staff and a gap between the technology needed to publish EAD
and the skills of many archivists. It discusses solutions and recommends changing the emphasis
of EAD training, using server-friendly software, and engaging consultants to bolster archivists'
technology expertise." (original abstract from article)

Annotation: This article builds upon Yakel and Kim's earlier research on the challenges of EAD
implementation. Unlike their study (see the citation below), which largely focuses on how the
characteristics of archives (e.g. size and mission) affect EAD implementation, Yaco's study
attempts to focus on how specific decisions affect implementation. Based on a survey of sixteen
repositories, Yaco concludes that several specific factors including plans to revise finding aids
before converting them to EAD and flaws in existing software applications hinder EAD
implementation. While this article offers some intriguing interpretations, Yaco's conclusions do
not fundamentally differ from those of Yakel and Kim and are based on a much smaller survey
population. In light of these factors, Yaco's article should be viewed as a supplement, not a
replacement, for Yakel and Kim's study.
Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, American Archivist is a refereed academic journal. Sonia
Yaco is the Special Collections Librarian and University Archivist for the Patricia W. and J.
Douglas Perry Library at Old Dominion University. Prior to her acceptance of this position,
Yaco worked extensively with EAD finding aids and finding aid conversion as a reference
archivist at the Wisconsin Historical Society.

Method of Searching: Controlled Vocabulary

Database: File 438 in Dialog: Library Literature and Information Science

Search Strategy: I decided to use the Library and Information Science database because I felt
that this database would most likely yield the best results. Before I accessed the database in
Dialog, I accessed it through the Hagerty Library website and searched the database thesaurus
for controlled vocabulary terms that I could use in Dialog. One controlled vocabulary term that
was particularly useful was “Encoded Archival Description (Document Type Description)”.
When I entered this term into Dialog (see search transcript below), Dialog retrieved 46 sources,
one of which was this article. I decided not to narrow the search any further in Dialog. I know
that most articles that deal with archival issues do not contain original research and I wanted to
cast a wider net to help me find non-research articles that would likely have citation references
for more relevant research articles.

Search Transcript:
? b 438

? e encoded archival description

Ref       Items Postings Index-term
E1            4        5 ENCODE
E2           80      111 ENCODED
E3            0        0 *ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION
E4           46       46 ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION (DOCUMENT TYPE DE
E5            3        6 ENCODER
E6            5        5 ENCODERS
E7            1        1 ENCODES
E8           67       69 ENCODING
E9            1        1 ENCODINGS
E10           1        1 ENCOMBRANT

Enter P or PAGE for more
? s e4

          S1       46    'ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION (DOCUMENT TYPE DE'

? t s1/3/all


Yakel, E. and Kim, J. (2005). Adoption and diffusion of encoded archival description.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(13), 1427-1437.
Abstract: "In this article, findings from a study on the diffusion and adoption of Encoded
Archival Description (EAD) within the U.S. archival community are reported. Using E. M.
Rogers’ (1995) theory of the diffusion of innovations as a theoretical framework, the authors
surveyed 399 archives and manuscript repositories that sent participants to EAD workshops from
1993–2002. Their findings indicated that EAD diffusion and adoption are complex phenomena.
While the diffusion pattern mirrored that of Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), overall
adoption was slow. Only 42% of the survey respondents utilized EAD in their descriptive
programs. Critical factors inhibiting adoption include the small staff size of many repositories,
the lack of standardization in archival descriptive practices, a multiplicity of existing archival
access tools, insufficient institutional infrastructure, and difficulty in maintaining expertise."
(original abstract from article)

Annotation: Yakel and Kim’s work builds on and enriches previous studies about the
implementation of EAD. The results of a survey that was sent to almost 400 repositories, shows
that less than half of U.S. archives had, by 2005, adopted EAD. What distinguished this study
from previous ones is the depth of Yakel and Kim’s research. The authors used sound social
science research methods to explore a wide variety of factors that likely inhibit the adoption of
EAD including costs, institutional size, and the use of MARC AMD.

Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, the Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology is a refereed academic journal. At the time of publication, Elizabeth
Yakel was a professor in the School of Information at the University of Michigan. According to
her page on the University of Michigan website, Yakel has had years of experience working in
archives, has held important leadership positions in the Society of American Archivists, and has
published widely on many aspects of archival use and user services. Jihyun Kim was a doctoral
student in the School of Information at the University of Michigan at the time of the article’s
publication.

Method of Searching: Controlled Vocabulary

Database: File 438 in Dialog: Library Literature and Information Science

Search Strategy: I decided to use the Library and Information Science database because I felt
that this database would most likely yield the best results. Before I accessed the database in
Dialog, I accessed it through the Hagerty Library website and searched the database thesaurus
for controlled vocabulary terms that I could use in Dialog. One controlled vocabulary term that
was particularly useful was “Encoded Archival Description (Document Type Description)”.
When I entered this term into Dialog (see search transcript below), Dialog retrieved 46 sources,
one of which was this article. I decided not to narrow the search any further in Dialog. I know
that most articles that deal with archival issues do not contain original research and I wanted to
cast a wider net to help me find non-research articles that would likely have citation references
for more relevant research articles.

Search Transcript:
? b 438

? e encoded archival description
Ref       Items Postings Index-term
E1            4        5 ENCODE
E2           80      111 ENCODED
E3            0        0 *ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION
E4           46       46 ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION (DOCUMENT TYPE DE
E5            3        6 ENCODER
E6            5        5 ENCODERS
E7            1        1 ENCODES
E8           67       69 ENCODING
E9            1        1 ENCODINGS
E10           1        1 ENCOMBRANT

Enter P or PAGE for more
? s e4

          S1     46   'ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRIPTION (DOCUMENT TYPE DE'

? t s1/3/all


Zhou, X. (2007). Examining search functions of EAD finding aids web sites. Journal of
Archival Organization, 4(3-4), 99-118.


Abstract: "This article examined the search functions for all individual EAD Web sites listed on
the Library of Congress Web site in 2003. In particular, the type of search engine, search modes,
options for searching, search results display, search feedback, and other features of the search
systems were studied. The data analysis suggests that there have been some improvements for
EAD finding aids within Web sites, but also that problems persist. In addition, the functionality
of search systems on Web sites varied considerably and the advantages of EAD finding aids for
hierarchical searching have not been fully realized. The article also offers observations about
cooperative EAD projects, the issue of search queries, and the relationship between Google and
EAD Web sites." (original abstract from article)

Annotation: Unlike much of the other literature on implementing EAD, this article focuses on
the functionality of EAD finding aids within websites rather than the obstacles or reasons for
implementation. The research, based on an analysis of repository websites, suggests that
archivists are not giving as much attention to the online delivery of EAD finding aids as they are
to the initial encoding of these documents. There are few studies about the online delivery of
EAD finding, which makes this one a valuable resource for any researcher who wants to learn
more about this issue.

Authority: According to Ulrichsweb, the Journal of Archival Organization is a refereed
academic journal. At the time of publication, the author Xiaomu Zhou was a doctoral student at
the University of Michigan School of Information.. According to her page on the University of
Michigan website, Zhou is still a student at the University of Michigan. She has a background in
computer science and has published other articles related to archival work.

Method of Searching: Keywords
Database: File 1 in Dialog: ERIC

Search Strategy: Early in the project I decided to search for sources through the ERIC database
because I was familiar with the database and like some of its features (e.g. the ability to
specifically search for research articles with the document type prefix). Also, I thought that some
of the journals covered by ERIC may cover relevant topics for my project.

I first went to the Eric thesaurus to search for terms related to Encoded Archival Description.
When I couldn’t find any closely related terms, I thought it would be better to conduct a keyword
search using the term encoded()archival()description and its common abbreviation “EAD”. After
entering these search terms into Dialog (see the transcript), I then decided to take advantage of
the document type prefix and narrowed the search down further to show only research articles.
This strategy brought up a list of 7 sources, one of which was the article in this citation.

Search Transcript:
? s EAD

          S1         38   EAD

? s encoded()archival()description

                    500   ENCODED
                   1425   ARCHIVAL
                  35696   DESCRIPTION
          S2         24   ENCODED()ARCHIVAL()DESCRIPTION

? s s1 or s2

                     38   S1
                     24   S2
          S3         41   S1 OR S2

? s dt=research

          S4    352133    DT=RESEARCH

? s s3 and s4

                    41    S3
                352133    S4
          S5         7    S3 AND S4

? t s5/5/all



Conclusion/Personal Statement
Looking back on my experiences with this annotated bibliography, I probably didn't learn the
lessons that the designers of this assignment had intended for me to learn. I have already had
experience writing annotated bibliographies and literature reviews for other courses. Also, I
believe that while this assignment gave me some useful practice in searching for scholarly
articles, it did not teach me anything new about database searching that I had not already learned
from the other assignments in this course.
Although I may not have learned the intended lessons of this assignment, I did gain two
important things from it. One, I gained more confidence in my own ability to find journal articles
using databases. After employing a number of search strategies in Web of Science, Dialog, and
other databases, I am confident that the body of sources above, while small, represents at least a
majority of all the scholarly articles that contain original research about MARC AMC and EAD.
Before I began this course, I probably would have been uncertain about whether I had done all I
could to find the sources I needed at the end of a project like this.
Another thing that I gained from my experiences with this project was a better understanding
about research trends within the archival profession. I found that this assignment could be
frustrating at times because much of the literature in archival journals did not contain original
research. Interestingly, many case studies and opinion pieces note this problem, but only a
handful of the authors respond to their own calls for more original research in the field.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:25
posted:8/28/2012
language:English
pages:21