The Society of American Archives defines reappraisal as “the process of identifying materials that no longer merit preservation and that are candidates for deaccessioning”. Archivists continue to seek ways to accomplish responsible reappraisal and deaccessioning.
There are numerous articles, case studies, policies, and conference sessions on reappraisal and deaccessioning, yet despite the increasing amount of information, these practices remain controversial.
When is Reappraisal Appropriate?
Archivists may conduct reappraisal when the original appraisal was erroneous, the standards have changed since the collection was acquired, or the historical value of the material has changed over time. In my consulting practice, I’ve found that often no appraisal took place at the time of acquisition, especially when professional archivists didn’t manage the archives or when space wasn’t at a premium. No matter what the reason for conducting reappraisal, it should be systematic and nuanced, and is often expensive and time-consuming.
Can You Reappraise if You Never Appraised in the First Place?
Far too often what archivists have in their stacks was never appraised before acquisition, so using the term “reappraisal” is a misnomer. Reappraisal refers to appraising materials that are already part of a repository’s holdings, rather than something we are contemplating acquiring. Appraisal or reappraisal may occur at many stages in archival collections management, ranging from acquisition to accessioning to processing.
And in some cases, archivists take records they do not want in order to get materials that they do. When acquiring collections, sometimes what the donor considers archival-worthy may not be, but for the repository to receive the collection, they may have to take it all. Later, the archivist can prioritize processing to meaningful parts of the collection, while deciding later how to handle the more mediocre series.
Questions to Ask
In his oft-cited article, “No Grandfather Clause: Reappraising Accessioned Records,” archivist Leonard Rapport posits that reappraisal can be necessary, ethical, and appropriate. He poses a series of questions that archivists should ask when considering reappraising materials:
Would we acquire these materials if they were offered today?
Is there a reasonable expectation that anyone with a serious purpose will look for these records?
Will scholarship suffer if these records no longer exist?
Rapport implies that the purpose of reexamination is based more on issues of evidential value or the need to provide evidence of stewardship. Although he was talking about reappraising public records, consider applying the same ideas to papers, manuscripts, and other records.
A Counterargument
Archivist Karen Benedict counters Rapport’s arguments in the classic article, “Invitation to a Bonfire: Reappraisal and Deaccessioning of Records as Collection Management Tools in an Archives—A Reply to Leonard Rapport.” She urges that archivists should also consider these questions during reappraisal:
Is use a basis for reappraisal?
How effective is reappraisal in terms of expenditure of time and resources?
Why is a second decision any more accurate than the first?
How will donors react?
Proceed with Caution
No matter where you stand on reappraisal, remember that like anything else in archives, it should be done thoughtfully. Reappraisal requires a defined mission, a collecting policy, and appraisal guidelines. It shouldn’t be performed in an ad hoc or haphazard manner; it should be done systematically to ensure consistency, proper documentation, and ethical practice. Reappraisal requires transparency, accountability, and trust so that stakeholders may better understand archival practices. It may be performed when related records are examined as part of considering new acquisitions. A relative focus on controlling growth versus reducing current holdings should be a factor too.
Reappraisal is most appropriate when the original appraisal was deemed faulty or incomplete. Reappraisal doesn’t always lead to deaccessioning but is required as a first step towards the act of deaccessioning.
The blog was originally published on Lucidea's blog.
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 embody the principles of access, stewardship, and service. However, for some users, physical and digital archives remain challenging to navigate, use, or even enter. Barriers to archival access are often unintentional, stemming from outdated facilities, inaccessible technologies, or limited awareness of diverse user needs.
Reference services play a pivotal role in the archival field, acting as a bridge between users and the wealth of information in archival collections.
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.