Author: Dani Stompor

Donors and Users: Class Practicum

Due Date: July 17, 11:59pm

 

First, sign up for a Commons account. Then, add your contribution in the comments of this post!

Hypothetical scenario (please aim to write around 2-4 sentences):

You work at a local museum’s archive. A previous donor of collections is interested in donating new materials that are outside of their signed deed of gift. The materials are not particularly high value, nor do they fall within the typical scope of the archive. The individual in question is a recurring financial supporter of the museum.

What questions might you ask? Under what conditions might you accept or refuse the materials?

Commenting on other posts is not required but is encouraged!

Archives and the Law: Class Practicum

Due Date: July 17, 11:59pm

 

First, sign up for a Commons account. Then, add your contribution in the comments of this post!

Hypothetical scenario (please aim to write around 2-4 sentences):

One of the participants of an interview conducted by Alice Sardell as a part of her research in the 1990s is interested in publishing a portion of the recording in a documentary. The interview includes Sardell herself, the requester, and two other participants. No names or identifying information are spoken in the recording. Sardell gave QC the copyright to her materials when they were donated to the archive, but did not have participants sign releases of any kind at the time of recording.

How might you respond to this request? What additional information would you want from the requester? Would you attempt to reach out to the other participants, and if so how? If you don’t want to offer use of the recording, what other materials / support could you offer instead?

Commenting on other posts is not required but is encouraged!

Class Participation

Total points: 10

Participation will be evaluated on the following elements throughout the semester; performance in each category will be rated on a scale of 0-2, defined below.

Engagement and active participation:

Inadequate (0 points): Student never participates in class discussion; fails to respond to direct questions.
Developing (1 point): Few contributions to class discussions; seldom volunteers but responds to direct questions.
Accomplished (2 points): Proactively contributes to class discussion; asks questions and responds to direct questions.

Listening skills:

Inadequate (0 point): Does not listen when others talk; interrupts or makes inappropriate comments; does not listen carefully.
Developing (1 point): Mostly attentive when others present materials, perspectives, as indicated by comments that build on others’ remarks. Occasionally needs encouragement from instructor to refocus comment or comments are often nonresponsive to discussion.
Accomplished (2 points): Listens attentively when others present materials, perspectives, as indicated by comments that build on others’ remarks (i.e., the student hears what others say and contributes to the dialogue).

Quality and relevance of contributions to class:

Inadequate (0 points): Contributions are off-­‐topic or distract from discussion.
Developing (1 point): Comments are mostly insightful and constructive; mostly uses appropriate terminology. Occasionally comments are too general or irrelevant to the discussion.
Accomplished (2 points): Comments are always insightful and constructive; uses appropriate terminology. Comments balanced between general impressions, opinions, and specific, thoughtful criticisms or contributions.

Preparation:

Inadequate (0 points): Does not complete multiple reading assignments; many assignments missing, completed late, or containing significant errors.
Developing (1 point): Student has read and thought about the material before class; very few missing or late assignments.
Accomplished (2 points): Student is consistently well prepared having read and synthesized readings and completed/submitted all work on time; sometimes adds relevant information beyond the assigned reading.

Classroom conduct and respect for others:

Inadequate (0 points): Is often distracted and inattentive during discussions; may dominate conversation or lack courtesy when addressing others; interrupts others often; uses cell phone while others are speaking in discussion.
Developing (1 point): Demonstrates respect by avoiding cell phone and laptop use while others are speaking; makes eye contact; avoids personal attacks when disagreements arise.
Accomplished (2 points): Avoids cell phone/laptop use during discussion; makes eye contact; encourages others to share conflicting viewpoints; looks to learn from others’ experiences and backgrounds.

Verbiage for participation rubrics adapted from Columbia University and Southern Methodist University resources.

Assignment #5: Class Discussion Lead

Due: once, when assigned
Total points: 5

Each student will be responsible for leading one class discussion (due to class size, two students may be discussion leads at one time). You will need to carefully read all required readings for your assigned session and generate a few “focusing questions” to prompt and guide class discussion. Please consider the class session theme, how the readings interact with each other and the theme, and how these readings will apply to practicum/professional work.

In addition to “focusing questions,” it may be helpful to have highlighted a few selections from the readings that resonated with you or left you with questions.

By 7/7: please sign up to lead one discussion session here.

Assignment #6: Hypothes.is Annotations

Due: throughout the course, before class assigned
Total points: 10

Using the annotation tool Hypothes.is, you will engage with the required readings listed in the course schedule.

Hypothes.is FAQ
How to annotate
Troubleshooting

You are required to contribute at least one substantive comment and at least one thoughtful reply to a classmate’s comment on each week’s required reading(s) for full points. (Total of two comments, one original and one reply, each week).

Please use the Hypothes.is group invitation link to access highlights, notes, and discussions on the semester’s readings.

You have the option of utilizing ONE skip week with no penalty. You will still be required to complete the readings, but formal annotations (comments AND replies) will not be checked. If you are exercising this option, please comment “SKIP” on the reading’s associated page note with article information, or email me directly. No more than five students can skip one week’s readings at any point in order to preserve discussion opportunities for the rest of the class. If all skips are taken for any one week, I will comment “SKIPS CLOSED” on the page note.

Instruction on how to download and use the tool will happen in our first class session.

Assignment #4: EXTRA CREDIT Social Media Post

Due: 7/29
Total points: 2 additional points (optional)

Upload assignment here

Please generate one social media post regarding one of the following areas:

  • collection materials (spotlight material from the Alice Sardell papers)
  • archivist work (post about the work of appraisal, processing, arrangement/description)
  • this class
  • Queens College history more broadly
  • anything else that is related to archives

This post can take the form of:

  • Instagram post, story, or reel
  • Tumblr post
  • Tweet thread
  • TikTok
  • LinkedIn post
  • YouTube video
  • or more!

You can either draft these in-app and screenshot/screenrecord your draft and submit that, or you can provide video/image and caption in a word doc. Whichever is easier!

Please include a 200-500 word reflection.

Assignment #3: Access and Use Project

Due: 7/28 by midnight
Total points: 15

Upload assignment here

Write a 1200-2000 word proposal (2300-word absolute maximum not including title page/references) for one access and use initiative for the the Alice Sardell Papers or another Queens College Special Collections and Archives collection. You are free to be creative in your application of our learning objectives in Unit Four towards this initiative. You can do this project solo or with a partner. No groups larger than two people. If you prefer, you can submit an 8-10 minute video covering your intentions for this project instead. Regardless, you must include a reference list at the end of the paper / video with at least 4 sources.

Your project paper must include the following information:

  • Access initiative: describe your initiative.
    • Sample considerations: what do you want to do? which collection are you using? what do you need to implement the initiative? how do you want the initiative to work? who are the stakeholders?
    • please note: this is a proposal. you will not be expected to actually implement the initiative at this time.
  • Initiative analysis: evaluate and analyze your initiative in the contexts of Queens College and the larger professional archives field.
    • Sample considerations: why would this work here at QC? what is exciting about this idea? how does this foster access and use of SCA materials? what ideas from the professional literature can be used and expanded upon? what are some challenges or risks?
    • you must include some broader analysis of your initiative against the standards, histories, and/or current trends in the archives field. I am not expecting an enormous amount of research (this is a short paper), but you must examine your initiative in local and larger contexts.
  • Reflection: in the style of our previous practicum deliverables, think critically about access work itself and your experience doing it for this assignment.
    • Sample considerations: what was it like for you to do this kind of work? what are some roadblocks, either ones you encountered or ones you foresee? surprises? unknowns?

Assignment #2: Finding Aid Analysis

Due Date: 7/21

Total points: 20

SUBMIT ASSIGNMENT HERE

APA Format with reference list, as well as in-text citations or footnotes. Finding aids should be cited in reference list.

800-1300 word paper that analyzes and critiques two to three finding aids you locate online from different repositories, measuring them against professional standards. Cite the syllabus readings and any other relevant sources as part of your analysis and critique.

Some suggestions for guiding questions/ideas for exploring:

  • Evaluate the arrangements of your chosen finding aids, in isolation and in comparison with each other. What do they reveal about the content, context, and function of the records? Are they successful (and define how you are measuring success or failure) in communicating those ideas?
  • Do some close reading of scope and content note and/or admin or biographical history note, again in isolation or in comparison, at collection level or at different series/files level. Are these descriptions successful or useful for a researcher? Would you approach description in these finding aids differently? Is there too much description? Too little?
  • Review the subjects and access points. Again, are there too many? Too few? What do the application of the specific access points in your chosen finding aids reveal or obscure about the contents of the collection?
  • Is there archival transparency? For example: can you follow a clear path of ownership for the items in the collection? Is access and/or use of the collection prioritized or at least made clear? Go back to the scope and the bio. Is the archivist transparent about what they know and what they don’t know? Can you pick out clear examples of how to convey that?

And so on. These are only suggestions—this is a short paper and I’m not expecting you to answer all of these questions for every finding aid you choose to evaluate. It’s a very open-ended prompt!

Please note: the bulk of analysis should be about content, not about the database/website features. You can include observations about interfaces (is it easy or hard to access the database? is the search function robust?) but that should not be the bulk of your comments.

Please use standard finding aids in this paper (archival catalog records that utilize both description and intellectual organization/hierarchy, unlike a MARC record or a general digital items database), and please make sure all aids are available for me to view online. Do not choose records that are not recognizably finding aids (i.e. excel inventories, digital item databases, legacy paper collection guides at your workplace).

Need help finding finding aids? Try these tools:

If you want to use something that is not a recognizably standard finding aid (see above), or you are unsure whether the resource you want to use is a finding aid or not, please EMAIL ME before writing your paper.

Assignment #1: Appraisal report

Due Date: 7/15, 11:59pm
Total points: 5

SUBMIT HERE VIA DROPBOX

Please submit an appraisal report for SCA’s Alice Sardell Papers in the manner detailed in class. Below are the mandatory sections required in your appraisal report:

  • Background: Who is Alice Sardell? What did she work on? With whom did she work?
  • Methodology: How did we examine the materials? Did we talk with the donor (hint: in this case, no!)
  • Evaluation: Content
    • What format (tapes, papers, etc.?)
    • What kind of information was saved in the format
    • How the information was originally created/saved
    • How complete / intact is the information?
  • Evaluation: Structure
    • How were these records organized? When, and by whom? Was it changed?
    • What are the technical characteristics of the recordkeeping system for the records?
    • What are the technical characteristics of the records?
    • What is the volume of records? IE: how big is the collection?
    • How did primary users (think: Sardell) access & utilize these records?
  • Evaluation: Context
    • How do the records relate to each other?
    • How do the records relate to other records?
        • Records created by the same entities
        • Similar records in this or other repositories
    • Are there any relevant laws, regulations, or policies regarding these records (at the time of use, presently, in the future)?
    • Who has impacted or been impacted by these records in their lifespan?
  • Evaluation: Use
    • How will future (secondary) users use the records?
    • How has this repository’s users used similar records?
    • How did primary users use records?
  • Recommendation:
    • Are these materials archival?
    • Should SCA accession the materials?
  • Reflection (200-500 words)

See here for a template which you can choose to work from. Reference the inventory of the Sardell papers as needed.