Metadata is structured data about data, information that facilitates the management and use of other information. The function of metadata is to provide your users with a standardized means for access to digitized materials. However, it is not enough to use just any metadata standard.
Resources which are encoded using open standards have a higher chance of remaining accessible after an extended period than resources encoded with proprietary standards. A metadata standard appropriate to the materials in hand and the intended end-users must be selected.
Taking Care in Creation
Metadata can identify the name of the work, who created it, who reformatted it, and other descriptive information. It can also provide unique identification and links to organizations, files, or databases that have more extensive descriptive metadata about the archival asset. Metadata is a critical component of digital resource development and use and is needed at all stages in the creation and management of archival resources.
Archivists should take as much care in the creation of the metadata as they do in the creation of the data itself. The time and effort expended in recording quality metadata are likely to save users much grief and to result in digital objects that are sustainable. In my experience, metadata is the most effective tool for managing and finding objects in the complex world of archives.
Choose Wisely
Choosing the most appropriate metadata standard is only the first step in building a valuable information resource. Unless the metadata elements or data structure are populated with the appropriate data values, the collections will be ineffectual, and users will not be able to find what they are looking for, even if it’s there. There is no one-stop-shop for the appropriate vocabulary tool for any given project. Instead, builders of information resources should select from the menu of vocabularies most appropriate for describing and providing access points to their particular collections.
Some Rules of Thumb
When determining which metadata schema to use, take into account the needs and search preferences of your users, and leverage existing institutional indices and finding aids as a basis for your metadata. There is no point in recreating the wheel when you have perfectly usable information readily available.
Base the metadata schema on the existing published schema closest to the institution’s needs; depending on your collections, the right scheme to use may be obvious. Adapt the schema to your needs by adding or omitting elements, but use the same name and definition of each element as in the published schema to avoid confusion. Granularity is important to consider. You can subdivide elements into the smallest sub-elements needed, with the knowledge that elements can always be merged later.
A set of compatible cataloging rules should always accompany the schema. For example, if the schema includes elements drawn from VRA Core—a data standard for the description of artworks and the images that document them—the corresponding rules from Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) should be followed.
Set up editorial and quality control procedures to ensure that the cataloging records conform to the rules, and test the schema and the rules thoroughly before it is too late to change them. Discover early in the project if the metadata displays correctly on the institution’s website and if users are satisfied with the records. You will also need to plan where to store the metadata: embedded within the image file, in a separate metadata database, or both.
As always, be prepared for change as time passes, and design systems accordingly. For example, more metadata elements or controlled vocabularies may need to be added as the collection expands. Remember to remain flexible!
Many Ways to Access
Unfortunately, no single system has yet been widely adopted for tracking ‘data about data’ in libraries, archives, and museums. The prudent course for archivists is to understand the current challenges, emerging principles, and best practices before implementing any particular metadata solution. Use your judgment about the collection, and your users, to determine the best way to enable access to your holdings.
The blog was originally published on Lucidea's blog.
No archives is an island. Especially in resource-constrained environments, collaboration through shared infrastructure provides a lifeline. Consortia models turn scarcity into opportunity by spreading costs and expertise across multiple archives. By pooling resources, institutions achieve more than they could alone.
Well-resourced institutions have developed archival best practices, including comprehensive finding aids, climate-controlled storage, and digital preservation systems. For small or resource-constrained archives, these standards can feel out of reach. The danger is that the profession’s ideals may discourage institutions from taking action, leaving records vulnerable. The solution lies in paring down practices and procedures without abandoning principles.
Many archives exist within environments of chronic underfunding. Community archives, small historical societies, or lone arrangers may work with little more than donated materials, a handful of volunteers, and minimal budgets.
However, these institutions remain vital, safeguarding the histories of communities often absent from mainstream narratives. Scarcity shapes their reality, yet it can still allow meaningful work.
Humanity produces more digital content than at any other point in history. Every click, message, and post contributes to an expanding universe of data that represents the cultural memory of our time. At the center of this transformation stand archivists, the professionals uniquely trained to ensure that memories survive in the future. However, even as the scale of the challenge grows, their voices risk being sidelined in public conversations about digital preservation.
In recent years, the concept of “slow librarianship” has emerged as a thoughtful response to the accelerating pace and pressures placed upon library professionals. Drawing inspiration from the broader slow movement, it emphasizes care, reflection, ethics, and people-centered work over speed and efficiency.
The archival profession is characterized by dedication to public memory, cultural preservation, and service. However, beneath this noble mission lies a troubling reality: the increasing reliance on gig and contract labor.
Written documents have long occupied a privileged position in archives as the most authoritative memory source. However, this excludes vast repositories of knowledge that reside outside the written word, especially within Indigenous communities, where memory is often preserved and transmitted through oral traditions, performance, storytelling, ceremony, and embodied practices.
Archival description is often treated as a neutral or technical task: summarizing contents, assigning subject headings, and organizing metadata for retrieval. However, description is actually far from neutral. It shapes how users interpret records, which narratives are centered, and whose voices are made visible or erased.
As the archival profession reckons with the legacies of colonialism, more institutions and practitioners are turning toward Indigenous and decolonial approaches that reframe traditional archival practice. Central to this shift is recognizing cultural protocols and community-defined rules governing how knowledge is created, shared, accessed, and preserved. Cultural protocols are foundational to ethical, respectful, and reciprocal relationships between archives and Indigenous communities.
In recent decades, Indigenous communities and archivists have challenged the dominant frameworks that have long shaped archival practice. Traditionally, Western archival models have prioritized state authority, institutional control, and the presumption of neutrality. These models often fail to reflect Indigenous worldviews, community needs, or the rights of Indigenous peoples over their records and heritage.
As archival practice shifts to meet the challenges of the digital age, the ethical use of born-digital materials has become one of the most pressing concerns for archivists. These materials—emails, websites, text messages, digital photographs, spreadsheets, social media posts, and more—are created and stored digitally from their inception.
The fundamental principles of archival preservation focus on the agents of deterioration, preventive conservation, and essential preservation strategies applied in archival settings.
The monetary appraisal of archives and manuscripts is a critical yet underexplored intersection of library science and financial valuation. This article addresses the persistent knowledge gap between archival assessment and fiscal valuation and provides an overview of the monetary appraisal process in the United States. It focuses on concluding the fair market value (FMV) of noncash charitable contributions, a process governed by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). By documenting practices and terminology, the article serves as a resource for archivists navigating the complexities of donor relations and institutional stewardship. It advocates for increased fiscal literacy within the archival profession, suggesting that an integrated understanding of market dynamics and stewardship costs is essential for the care and financial substantiation of collections.
Proper archival storage is one of the most critical aspects of archival preservation. In addition to housing collections in a dedicated archival storage room, using suitable storage materials and enclosures helps protect archival collections from environmental damage, physical wear, and chemical deterioration.
One of the core challenges archivists face is determining the appropriate description level for materials in their collections. From broad collection-level overviews to granular item-level details, descriptive hierarchies play a crucial role in conveying the context and structure of archival materials.
Description is a cornerstone of archival practice, providing the means for users and archivists to understand, access, and interpret materials.
Mixed-media archives, which contain physical and digital records, present unique challenges for archival arrangement. These collections require archivists to develop strategies that address the different needs of physical and digital materials while maintaining the collection’s coherence and accessibility.
Digital records have introduced new challenges to traditional archival arrangement practices. While the principles of original order and provenance remain relevant, the nature of digital materials requires archivists to adapt these principles to new formats and technologies.
Archival arrangement organizes and structures archival materials to ensure efficient management, access, and preservation.
Redaction in archival work—obscuring or removing sensitive information from records—has become a central concern in contemporary archival ethics. As archives increasingly acquire born-digital records and digitize historical collections for online access, archivists must grapple with data privacy, access, transparency, and potential harm.
Archives have traditionally focused on preserving historical records, ensuring access, and maintaining the integrity of collections. However, in the digital age, the moral responsibilities of archivists have grown more complex.
Archives have long been viewed as bastions of memory, preservation, and historical accountability. However, archivists must confront ethical questions in an era of digital surveillance, data harvesting, and global information flows.
As archival institutions evolve from custodians of information to facilitators of memory and meaning-making, emotional engagement has become a vital, though often overlooked, dimension of archival design.
Archival reading rooms have long been the centerpiece of public access to collections. They are where researchers engage with historical documents, where discovery becomes tangible, and where the institutional identity of an archives is most visibly embodied.
Archival discovery tools, such as catalogs, finding aids, search interfaces, and digital repositories, are often the first point of contact between users and collections. These tools serve as maps and compasses, guiding users through vast and often complex holdings.
Design thinking has become a widely adopted approach in fields ranging from technology to education, prized for emphasizing empathy, experimentation, and iterative problem-solving. For archives, traditionally shaped around internal workflows and professional conventions, design thinking presents an opportunity to reimagine outreach and engagement strategies from users’ perspectives.
As the archival profession embraces a broader commitment to accessibility and equity, it must consider how design choices affect neurodivergent archives users.
Transcription is a powerful tool in the effort to make archives more accessible. It transforms handwritten, printed, and audiovisual materials into searchable, readable, and usable text, extending the reach of archival collections to users who might otherwise face barriers to access.
As archives increasingly move into the digital realm, ensuring online accessibility has become a fundamental responsibility. For users who are blind, have low vision, or experience cognitive or motor disabilities, screen readers serve as a vital gateway to digital content. These tools translate onscreen text and interface elements into synthesized speech or Braille, allowing users to navigate websites, databases, and catalogs without relying on visual cues. However, for screen readers to function effectively, digital environments must be designed with intentionality and care. In archival settings, this may be overlooked.
Archives safeguard treasures, including objects like the founding documents of a nation and photographs of defining cultural moments. These holdings inspire a sense of connection to the past, and at the heart of that work are archivists whose expertise brings these collections to life.