Pre-Processing Overview (LTS Procedure #141)

Scope: The archivist and/or curators, in collaboration with processing staff, undertake a survey of the collection. Surveying the collection enables the archivist to develop a processing strategy and to identify potential difficulties in carrying it out. 

Contact: Technical Services Archivist, Freddy Loew

Unit: ATS / RMC

Date last updated: 3/11/2025

Date of next review:  March 2026

Contents:

Overview checklist

Discuss the collection with the curator and other staff as needed. Stay informed of collection management policies and focus areas. 

1. Directly examine the entirety of the collection. Be sure all boxes are accounted for. 
2. Review accession records and other documentation accompanying a collection. 
3. Review any pre-existing lists such as vendor lists or donor lists. 
4. Conduct background research in relevant biographical, bibliographical, and other information sources. 
5. Background research in national and international union catalogs and databases for related holdings. Add a note to the resource record for related materials at other institutions. 
6. If items appear to be missing from the collection, the archivist should check the accession file, as well as any inventories or other dealer or donor provided documentation that accompanied the collection. The archivist should also notify their supervisor and the curator, either of whom may have information about the apparently missing item(s). A “Missing Material” form will be created in AirTable. 

Pre-existing lists 

 Staff will frequently come across previously-created lists of some or all of the material in a collection, especially if a collection is being reprocessed. These lists may have been created by dealers, donors, or by library staff. A list may reflect the original order of the material, or it may reflect an arrangement imposed by those who created the list. The processing proposal should address whether and how to incorporate existing lists into the processing plan. 

When evaluating existing lists (and when creating a list), consider the following factors: 

• Bias of the creator of the list. Dealer’s lists often highlight especially notable names, subjects, or rare formats at the expense of equally important but less monetarily valuable material. Ideas about research value and assumptions about research methods change over time, and a list might reflect the values of another era, highlighting particular formats or subjects while playing down others. 

• Expertise of the creator of the list. Were they able to read all of the languages present in the collection? Did they have sufficient knowledge of the subject area or formats in the collection to recognize important names, files, or objects? Did they perform the initial processing that underlies the list in accordance with archival theory and principles? 

• Comprehensiveness. Does the list encompass all of the material present? Does it describe material at least at the box level? Does it include date spans? 

• Accuracy. Are the names and dates in the list correct? Are writings, subject files, etc. correctly identified? 

• Level of detail. Some inherited lists are extremely detailed at the item level, and the material may be more effectively described in the aggregate. 

• Standards and terminology. Is the data in the list sufficiently standard to support access through keyword searching? Does it contain jargon or abbreviations that would confuse researchers? 

• Confidential and sensitive information. Does it contain price notations, give detailed descriptions of restricted material, or contain personal details that must be redacted (e.g. Social Security numbers)? 

• Outdated, harmful, or otherwise problematic language: Does the language in the list adhere to local guidelines for creating inclusive archival description? 

Based on the archivist’s judgment of the existing list, considering the level of arrangement and description required for the collection, the list might be repurposed with only minor editing, or it might be discarded to create a new list, or some solution in between. If an existing description is repurposed, the finding aid should include a disclaimer about the degree to which the library verified the existing list against the material, and the degree to which the content has been standardized to facilitate access. 

Old Numbering Systems 

 The library occasionally acquires or decides to re-process collections that have been previously cataloged with a distinct numbering system. If the archivist/processor identifies such a numbering system in the course of surveying a collection, it is important to note this and consult with the Director of Technical Services, the Technical Services Archivist, the Accessioning Specialist, and/or the curator about its significance and current importance. 

Former call numbers are also recorded in the Processing Notes field of the finding aid, as well as on the Resource record. 

Examples: Gail and Stephen Rudin collections. All of them include a numbering system created by Rudin and kept as a note in the Scope and Contents field.