Tag Archives: acquisitions

Appraisal & Acquisition Bibliography Project

The Acquisitions & Appraisal Section is developing a bibliography on appraisal and acquisition. This shared resource is intended to support archivists and other information professionals conducting research on appraisal, those interested in learning more about specific appraisal theories, and anyone looking for case studies about implementing appraisal and acquisitions strategies in specific contexts. The Acquisitions & Appraisal Section steering committee intends for this project to be iterative and encourages members to contribute and help this bibliography grow into a richer resource over time. Use of the SAA Acquisitions & Appraisal Section Bibliography is free and available in a Zotero Group Library. The bibliography is available here on Zotero.

The Zotero bibliography is an open group that anyone can join and add to. As this is a work in progress, please help the Acquisitions & Appraisal Section steering committee grow a more robust resource over time! Some guidelines for adding items to this Zotero bibliography are available here: https://goo.gl/CAzt7

Please don’t hesitate to send us feedback on the bibliography and how we can continue to improve it: appraisalsaa@gmail.com



Creating or expanding collection policy

Hi everyone,

As you may have heard, the A&A Best Practices Subcommittee recently produced a survey report on practices surrounding institutional collection development policy. The focus on policy writing is not over yet though, and the Best Practices Subcommittee is seeking your help in compiling a resource package to better equip archival staff with tools to create or update their workplace acquisition policy. Please get in touch with feedback on the survey (accessible here) and/or what resources would you find useful.

Questions to answer could include (and were also posted through our #appraisethis Twitter chat):

  • Do you think collection development or acquisition policies are necessary?
  • What are your initial thoughts or feedback after reading through the survey?
  • Do the survey results represent your institution accurately?
  • The data indicates many often have little influence on writing a policy, what would increase your ability to influence it more?
  • Do you think these kinds of policies should be easily available, such as on institutional websites?  Why or why not?
  • For those whose policies need revision before uploading, could the A&A section offer some assistance? In what form?
  • For those whose institution lack policies, what would help you get those written? Could the A&A section offer assistance to get that process jump-started?


Please write to Marcella Huggard (mdwiget@gmail.com) and Julie May (julie.ilene.may@gmail.com). Any contributions are most appreciated!


Policy Survey Report & June Chat

Two announcements from the A&A team focused around our recent policy survey project:

1.In the winter of last year, the Best Practices Subcommittee of the A&A Steering Committee gathered survey responses on institutional collection development policy work. A report on the survey is now available on the A&A microsite and contains a summary of results, aggregated data collected from survey answers, as well as anonymized individual responses.

Read the report: Collection Development Policy Survey.

The second phase of this project will be to create a resource package to help guide policy development. Subsequently, the Best Practices Subcommittee team is interested to hear what kinds of information would be useful for this resource.

2. This month, we’ll be dedicating our Third Thursday Twitter online chat to discuss the results of the survey and invite further feedback. Please note, that the date of this chat will be on June 22 (as a special “4th” Thursday) at the regular time, 4:00 PT/ 5:00 MT/   6:00 CT / 7:00 ET. Follow #appraisethis to join the chat.

While the report has been posted, the Twitter chat will frame open questions so folks can participate even if you don’t get the chance to read the document ahead of time! This chat is an opportunity to talk to others about the survey results, talk to the survey creators, and provide any further feedback about collection development policy-making.

If you are unable to join the chat but still want to provide feedback on this project, please contact the Best Practices Subcommittee Co-Chairs, Marcella Huggard (mdwiget@gmail.com) and Julie May (julie.ilene.may@gmail.com).

For further background information on the survey, check out this earlier post.

Repository Update: Women’s March on Denver

Written by Jamie Seemiller, Acquisitions Archivist, Denver Public Library, Western History and Genealogy Department

Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, WH2371

Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, WH2371

On Saturday January 21, 2017, over 100,000 people flooded the streets in downtown Denver to protest. The Women’s March on Denver was one of many marches across the country in collaboration with the Women’s March on Washington. The march took place at the door step of the Denver Public Library. As the Acquisitions Archivist in the Western History and Genealogy Department (WHG), I felt that this event gave us a unique opportunity to reach new donors and to preserve the history of the event.

On Sunday, we posted a donation call on the WHG Facebook page. The post reached 25,440 people and was shared 234 times within the next few weeks. We received over 250 emails that resulted in donations of over 1,200 digital photos/videos, 105 protest signs and 12 pieces of ephemera such as “pussy” hats, buttons, and artwork.

In an average year I have about 80 in person donor meetings and receive several hundred emails and phone requests, so this kind of response was exciting and overwhelming. While we normally review every potential donation in a staff acquisitions committee meeting, we decided to forgo our normal procedure. We felt it was more important to encourage “citizen archivists” and engage with the community.

During the collecting phase, I corresponded with donors by email, phone and in person. I strive to have every donor sign a gift form and to give me background about the items they were donating. In order to manage the flow of donors and materials coming into the library, we created two excel spreadsheets one for the physical materials and one for digital donations. We had a volunteer inventory the physical materials. Meanwhile, I documented the digital donations and downloaded them on our server. Each individual donation was placed in a folder with the donor’s name in order to track their provenance.

Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, WH2371

Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, WH2371

The next step was to appraise the collection. First, we decided to review any materials without a gift form. For the digital material, any donation without an gift form was removed from the collection. This amounted to 18 donations and 160 digital photos. For the protest signs, we decided to keep signs that had a unique message or design. We kept 8 of the 40 signs that did not have gift forms.

Next we discussed how we are going to provide access to the collection. We agreed that we would like to have every donor represented in the online collection. We decided that we can not keep everything, but by curating the donations one by one we can fully represent the event and the individual stories that brought people to the march. While appraising the digital material a metadata spreadsheet was created for import into our digital collections, and a priority list for digitization of the physical materials. Any videos selected will be available on YouTube. We plan to share the collection with the public with a program and exhibit in September and to have the digital materials online this summer.

Note: This piece was  originally shared as a Collection Highlight in the Society of Rocky Mountain Archivists Newsletter.

Third Thursday: Legal Challenges in Acquisitions & Appraisal

It’s time again for our monthly conversation series, Third Thursdays, held on Thursday, June 16, from 11:30am-1:30pm US Central Time! On the third Thursday of each month join us here on the Section blog for Third Thursdays Appraisal Conversations for lively and informative discussions on all this acquisitions and appraisal.

Our June conversation the legal challenges faced by archivists working on acquisitions and appraisal:

  • How do copyright concerns impact acquisitions and appraisal decisions at your institution? 
  • In what ways do approaches to intellectual property matters vary among born-digital and other archival formats and collection materials? 
  • How do you mediate privacy concerns with the public’s right to access information? 
  • What other legal challenges have you faced in the course of archival acquisitions and appraisal? 

Please help us make this a conversation that connects with your interests!

This asynchronous conversation is scheduled for Thursday, June 16th, from 11:30am-1:30pm US Central Standard TimeBring your questions, challenges, concerns, and thoughts about appraisal so that we can all learn from each other! If you can’t join us on that day and want to send us your thoughts in advance, you can do so here:  http://goo.gl/forms/NZgMs16G0y

Did you miss our May conversation? Read the wrap-up here.

We’ll also be tweeting about this–follow us on Twitter and chat with us all the time!

Thanks for participating!

-SAA Appraisal & Acquisition Steering Committee


Third Thursdays #1!

Welcome to the inaugural Third Thursdays Monthly Appraisal Conversation! With this regular conversation series, we hope to spark regular, continued discussion among section members and interested others about the fundamental archival action of appraisal.

The question this month was:Based on your current collecting/experience, what is your biggest appraisal challenge?

Thank you to those who already responded to our first question– and its not too late! Please read and join the conversation in the comments section below–we hope to keep the conversation moving throughout the day on February 18!


[Note: we did not require respondents to sign their name, so for the sake of clarity, unsigned comments are numbered.]

Laura Uglean Jackson, University of California, Irvine : “At this very moment, my biggest appraisal challenge is appraising thousands of electronic documents (mostly emails) from a former UCI Chancellor. What makes it difficult is that all of the emails were filed individually into an electronic records system known as ExFiles. I believe the system was built by campus IT. Nothing is organized into groups or series, and the system includes confidential records. Although nothing is organized, the files contain keywords and subject metadata (because ExFiles does not support full indexing). These keywords and subject headings are inconsistent as they have been entered by various students and staff over the course of many years.

The Chancellor’s Office and IT were both hesitant to give me access to the full system, despite my (and my boss’s) best efforts. I met with both units and was able to view the system. After seeing how the emails were described, I concluded that full access to the system would not be necessary. Rather, I could make appraisal decisions based on the metadata alone. IT was able to download metadata from all non-confidential files sent/received between 2005-2012- approximately 9200 files. I am now using software called Open Refine to review the metadata and make a decision to take or not. It’s quite the slog, but the good news is that I’ve reviewed 7000 emails without having to look at each one individually. The bad news is that I still have 2000 to review and it’s getting harder to make broad decisions because I’ve already reviewed the low-hanging fruit.

Archivist #1:It could probably be boiled down to managing donor expectations and communication. Dealing with donors who wait until the last minute to contact the archives thereby leaving no time for a proper appraisal. Managing their expectations of what type of information we need from them to understand the collection and do the appraisal, and the limits of what we can do for them and their records.

Archivist #2:I think my biggest appraisal challenge has been and continues to be doubt – I am no hoarder, but I constantly wonder, am I rejecting too much material? Am I still accepting too much? How do I choose which is more important historically? Because we have to make choices, and be able to back them up.

Archivist #3: “One of the appraisal challenges I had in my former position was accepting material that may already be in the repository. It was especially true for University Archives, but also a problem with the Manuscripts. Reviewing donor/collection files and the finding aid didn’t always give me a sense of what we held, especially for the larger collections more recent collections. In the past, additions were inventoried but that practice had long fallen off due to time. And speaking of time, there was often no time to check before I went to visit a donor. It always seemed safest and faster to accept what I wasn’t sure about and sift through later. However, we were always short-staffed and we were running out of space so just accepting it to sort through later wouldn’t be an option forever. Also, the archivist that processed the collection was usually the most familiar with the contents, but the processing archivist usually wasn’t the one who appraised the collection.

Archivist #4: “I found it difficult to appraise material from bereaved donors. Often I was contacted shortly after a husband, wife, mother or father passed away and then asked to deal with the papers or a collection. There was always pressure from interested parties to move quickly before the opportunity was lost or material was thrown away (e.g., library administration, the deceased’s colleagues that wanted the material available for research, & family/friends that wanted to be helpful). I think the donors often weren’t ready to decide on disposition of the material if it didn’t fit within our collecting policies and were overwhelmed at the amount of material they had to deal with so asked us to take everything, or find a more appropriate repository. Which isn’t a bad thing to do but I didn’t always have time to follow through in this manner with every donation and neither did the rest of the staff, it was generally not our policy though we made exceptions. They also didn’t want to hear that the materials their loved one collected may not be appropriate for any repository because the materials lacked enduring value.

Archivist #5: “My biggest challenge is convincing my donors that their records do in fact have value – and even more so in aggregate. Donors are more prone to item-level selection (focusing on what might be “the important documents”) vs. an understanding of the value of seeing a continuous set of records created in context.

Archivist #6: “I work at a small local history archive that also has a genealogy collection. I am not a genealogist and my biggest challenge is re-appraising our genealogy books, newsletters and periodicals with the end goal of substantially weeding this collection. This is particularly a challenge because I am not a subject expert.

Do one or more of these responses resonate with you? Do you have suggestions, comments, or experiences to share? Can you suggest an article, book, or other helpful resource? Tell us in the comments!



Managing Acquisitions and Appraisal in a Music Archive

Adriana Cuervo has served as Associate Director of The Institute of Jazz Studies (IJS) at Rutgers University – Newark since 2013. Before coming to New Jersey she worked at the Sousa Archives and Center for American Music at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Cuervo spoke with Section social media intern Lily Troia this past fall about her background, managing music and cultural heritage collections, and the nuances of appraisal and acquisition activity at the world’s foremost jazz archives and research library. Cuervo highlights strategies around copyright, the value of taking good notes, and the necessity of strong collection inventories. She also discusses acquisitions goals in relation to Rutgers’ on-going diversity initiatives and the Institute’s position within the New Jersey and broader jazz community.

Adriana Cuervo in the stacks the IJS

Adriana Cuervo in the stacks the IJS

Can you share a bit about the path that brought you to IJS?

I started as the Assistant Archivist for Music and Fine Arts at the Sousa Archives and Center for American Music at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I worked there for eight years. My role was collections work, arrangement, description, finding aids, and exhibits—a little bit of everything. The Sousa Archive is a small shop in a big university, so we did everything. Everyone did everything. It was not as though you only do preservation, or you only do arrangement and description. We did everything, and there were only two full-time people. We had graduate students and undergrads working with us, but the director and myself did the bulk of the work. It was a really interesting—I learned everything I know by just doing things . . . No one prepares you for things you are going to find when you open boxes: “Oh, what is that?? It’s moving!”

I came to the IJS in 2013. I was not looking for a job, but I saw the opening. It was in a music archives, and I thought, “Oh gosh, this is very rare, very random.” I had assumed whenever I left Illinois it would be to go to an archives with a broader collection scope, more traditional university archives/special collections. Since this was a music archives and a management position, I thought, “If this is not it, I don’t know what is.” It was a really appealing job because of the stature of the IJS within the jazz community, and because there is a lot of work to be done. The archives was built and sustained for over 30 years by very talented, well-known people who brought in amazing collections. That is the reason we are here today. However, once things came in the door, they moved onto the next big thing because big things were happening. We have a lot of collections work to do. We need to straighten out our holdings, and put them at a level with which I am comfortable, in terms of preservation and access.

In terms of my role in the IJS, I have four areas: I oversee the archives, and all archival operation is under my purview. I handle marketing and communications for the institute, which we are managing more strategically, focusing on engagement. Obviously the more time you have to put into things like social media, the more benefits you get, but I think for the amount of time I am able to put in, things are going well and improving. I identify, design, and oversee digital projects with our collections, and frequently partner with other departments, like our digital humanities librarian, Krista White. We are applying for a couple of grants to digitize different collections, and are putting our oral histories online. She does the technical side and we provide the jazz expertise, and the content to go online. We have also identified pockets of materials that are good candidates for digitization, taking into consideration fragility of the medium. We have a lot of tapes that smell like vinegar, and sound recording collections on obsolete media that are good candidates.

The fourth area, I work with Ed Berger, Special Projects Consultant, in the programs we offer—the jazz fellowships, the archival fellowships, and the research fellowships. I am getting to learn the administrative ropes of those programs with the understanding that I will take them over upon Ed’s retirement.

What role do you play in terms of acquisitions and appraisal at the IJS?

We do our appraisal in more of a group effort. We get offers of things on a daily basis. Everyone has the greatest jazz record collection, or all the books of so-and-so they want to donate. For potential archival materials we discuss as a group, and we weigh the pros and cons, asking essential questions like, where are the materials? We try not to acquire things unseen, which is a double-edged sword (or Russian roulette). We talk out all the scenarios, discussing questions of copyright.

How much do copyright concerns impact acquisitions decisions?

Ideally we would like to have the rights come to the institute with the materials, but we realize these are often performing musicians, and there are other people who have an economic interest in their work. It might not be feasible for them to transfer rights to this institute at this point, but we do make sure that the donors are aware that even though the copyright still resides with them, they need to make succession plans for that property. We are being super militant about clearing the rights question, especially since my and Elizabeth Surles’s (IJS archivist) arrival. We need to know who owns the rights to the materials, because people are going to want to make copies, want photographs for publication. There is nothing worse than having someone come in and find exactly what they need, and have to tell them, “Sorry, you can’t take it. You need to find the rights holder; I don’t know who it is. You’re on your own.” That is not how I would like to see us operate. We need to at least keep good files on the collections that we have. Eventually we will reach out to the donors’ heirs to see if they are willing to transfer rights.

For example, there’s a collection of photographs that the donor decided not to transfer copyright to the IJS, but we have a non-exclusive license to use his materials in research. The deed of gift specifies the resolution we can give to researchers, and allows us to use materials to promote the Institute. Anything in large format or high resolution would go through his licensing agency. That is a great model for us.

Since I came on I have been working to organize our collection files. Previously documentation was scattered—different people had different pieces of the acquisitions files. We have been putting them in one central place. We are old-fashioned. Every time we finish an acquisition we print out our emails and notes from phone conversations and put them in the file. You never know. It happened to me actually on the first acquisition I ever worked on!

Tell us about it. 

It was the Eddie Bert papers. He played trombone and died in 2012. He was a very well-known trombonist. He played with everyone and their sisters: Stan Kenton, Benny Goodman, Charles Mingus. He was in high demand. He played live, and also recorded for film scores. We got a call from one of his daughters who was the executor of his estate. She called when they were cleaning out his house and said she knew her father would have wanted his materials to come to the IJS. Bert had a long-standing relationship with our then- director Dan Morgenstern, so we acquired the materials from Connecticut—photographs, his instruments, etc. A deed of gift was signed. Then maybe in 2014, another family member called expressing discontent that Bert’s materials had been given to the IJS. We had been unaware there was any contention with the executor’s decision. It required some delicate negotiations. We got our counsel to weigh in, who determined the executor had acted in accordance to the law. But we wanted to reassure the upset family member, which took several sympathetic conversations, offering an open invitation for their family to come to the Institute whenever they wanted to see the materials, and that we would include them in any concerts or exhibits involving the collection. That was my first acquisition on the job; and, about a week into the job here at IJS. But, I did keep good notes!

So you worked to make the unhappy party a stakeholder in Bert’s donated legacy?

Definitely. You want to help someone come to a decision themselves that hopefully aligns with your goals, but you never want to antagonize them.

The IJS is known as the world’s largest and most comprehensive jazz archive. Considering jazz is such a massive topic, are there currently narrower areas of scope in which you are focusing new acquisitions? 

We are definitely the world’s largest and most comprehensive jazz archives, yes. I wouldn’t say we are narrowing our areas of scope, but what we are really working on is a complete collection inventory as compared to our 2010 list. Then we will assess what we have, and hopefully set up a collections map, breaking down by instrument, time period, musicians, etc. We might realize we don’t have enough, say jazz tuba. We do know that our collection strengths move past the 1950s and into the ‘60s a bit, but then decline. That is a more contemporary collection area we want to pursue, but many of those musicians are still living and performing. Over the years we have acquired various materials, like a huge amount of big band stock arrangements, and now we realize we have twelve collections with stock arrangements, so perhaps we could have steered these donors to go somewhere else? We cannot do that though, unless we know what we have. We are focused on really pinpointing those areas so we know how to fill the voids.

Will you deaccession any duplicates?

No, I think we will just chalk it up as a learning experience. That is one thing this collection-wide survey is helping us realize. There are a lot of photocopies in our archival boxes. People would randomly photocopy things and bring them to the Institute to donate, and they might be already archived in original form at the Library of Congress. We really do not need to be holding on to these in archival form, though they could be moved into the reference section. This survey is yielding those kinds of results, so we will be able to see the bigger picture once it is done to inform future acquisitions decisions.

Rutgers is among the nation’s most diverse universities, with an ongoing commitment to new initiatives aimed at continued improvements in this arena. How do the IJS, and its acquisition goals, fit into this mission?

Diversity is a big theme that runs through Rutgers – Newark and the Rutgers University Libraries. I think the Institute itself was founded in that same spirit: no one thinks jazz is worthy of serious study, so let’s do it. That has always been in the back of our minds. For example, we do not just collect the papers of famous people. That is an area I think is worth thinking about critically—the role of, say, K-12 music educators. These are the people that are at the grassroots of teaching and inspiring kids towards careers in music. These are the first lines where children get acquainted with jazz—wouldn’t it be nice to say we are representing that segment of the population in our jazz collections? That is something that needs more study, and requires us to get to know the players and the people.

We recently got a grant from the New Jersey Historical Commission to arrange and describe collections of four native New Jersey jazz musicians. One of them, Harry Leahy, a guitarist who was very well known in the local area, but was not, by any means, a big, touring name. But he really brought jazz to a lot of people in this state, and taught at Paterson University, Essex County College, and other local spots where a lot of the gigging musicians in the area got their education. He was really meaningful in the local scene, and as I put it in our grant, he is someone that really deserves the recognition, and to have his contributions documented for the future.

So yes, we are always thinking about diversity, always thinking that there are many, many points of view, and that the historical record should reflect all of those points of view.


Interview conducted and written by Lily Troia, Social Media Intern.