Many archival repositories have acquisition programs. These programs also work in collections that collect a little of everything, such as local history institutions that acquire primary source materials and published monographs and serials.
For institutional archives, selection and appraisal are also linked as archivists are dealing with ongoing series of records, such as open-ended runs of files in active organizations, rather than a finite body of material that a manuscript repository might solicit. In that respect, the acquisition and appraisal processes relate to the field of records management.
In any case, acquisition needs to be a conscious decision-making process, as processing, storing preservation, and providing access are labor-intensive and costly. Regardless of the source of the repositories’ records, archivists need to consider how to acquire records, why to acquire them, and what records they should collect.
Who Decides?
The major question is who has the responsibility to collect for the repository. Does it lie in the hands of the director, curator, archivist, faculty members, the board of trustees, or a committee? The answer depends on the institution.
Every repository needs clear lines about accepting materials and safeguarding its ability to return unwanted materials. For example, some repositories use receipt forms when a potential donor shows up and the person with authority is not present to vet the donation. The form indicates receipt of materials but explicitly states that the receipt is not a final agreement. These are also useful when time is needed to decide whether the gift is appropriate.
Archivists base decisions on the repository’s collection policy, which offers an opportunity to examine the institution’s purpose, the types of programs sponsored, and its priorities. Collecting policies are never etched in stone; they should change over time as the institution changes. They provide continuity over time for staff, administration, and donors.
The sheer abundance of modern records requires archivists to define specific criteria for collecting records. Adherence to a collection policy may cause repositories to turn down collections offered to them. However, not following a policy limits the ability to care for collections, by wasting valuable labor, storage, and funding resources.
Types of Repositories
The type of repository defines the framework for collecting. Most archives fall into one of three categories. Institutional archives have in-house archives that acquire and maintain the parent organization’s records, or those of inter-related organizations or subsidiary groups. For example, a diocese might preserve its organizational records, as well as those from any schools or hospitals it runs. Collecting archives collect material of a defined area, be it geographic, like a state historical society, or topical, such as the Schlesinger Library at Harvard that collects women’s history materials. Lastly, a combination archives is an institutional archives that collects more broadly in the manuscript area. For example, college and university archives often collect beyond official records of the university and its faculty.
These institutional scopes, and even collecting policies, tend to be broad and do not provide definitive answers on the pros and cons of a specific potential acquisition. Archivists tend to view materials in terms of format. For example, archivists consider correspondence, photographs, or annual reports as artifacts in themselves, not necessarily for the information they hold. Archivists describe materials in that manner; format terms are often noted in finding aids or descriptions of collections. However, the format terms only hint at what the documents might reveal.
Coherent Collections
Acquisition procedures allow repositories to increase the scope of their holdings. Most importantly, following acquisition and collection procedures ensures archival institutions will hold coherent, related groups of records of enduring value—rather than a collection of interesting but unrelated documents that may or may not be historically significant. Given that archival collections require so much labor, skill, and resources to preserve them, these policies help guarantee that the most appropriate and historically significant materials are safeguarded.
The blog was originally published on Lucidea's blog.
With shrinking resources and increasing demands, archivists cannot afford to view budgeting as an afterthought. A carefully developed budget is a strategic tool that connects an archives’ mission to its daily operations. It demonstrates accountability, supports advocacy efforts, and provides a framework for decision-making.
Archives often operate in environments defined by scarcity of space, staff, time, and funding. In these conditions, every decision carries weight. Without a plan, archives risk spreading their resources too thin, responding only to immediate crises, and missing opportunities for growth and impact. Strategic planning serves as a lifeline, providing archivists with a structured approach to prioritize, allocate resources, and communicate the value of their work to stakeholders.
Archivists have long recognized patterns of limited funding that shape their institutions, yet they have consistently responded with creativity, commitment, and innovation. Even when resources are scarce, archives continue to find ways to build and maintain essential infrastructure and strengthen public engagement. Each challenge underscores the importance of archivists’ labor and provides an opportunity to advocate for the central role archives play in their communities.
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.
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.
Archives often find themselves competing for limited resources within larger institutions. Universities prioritize teaching and research, nonprofits focus on programs and services, and corporations channel funds toward revenue-generating initiatives.