The public records tradition realizes that government authorities are the creators and keepers of records, which takes place at all levels of government. There is also the assumption of public access and accountability—that records exist to be used by citizens.
Thus, archival records are not simply preserved for theoretical reasons but saved to be accessed by anyone who wishes to view them. The tradition is incorporated in the Constitution, such as requiring Congress to keep a journal.
One of the problematic aspects of tracking public records in the United States is that government archives have been slow to develop; thus, government records are frequently in nongovernmental repositories. For example, the National Archives was established in 1934, the New York City Municipal Archives in 1950, and the Philadelphia City Archives in 1952.
Many state archives have been in existence far longer, although this is not true in all states. County records are frequently in local historical societies where they are treated similarly to manuscripts and where there is a disconnect between the genealogical approach to managing the records and the county government agencies that produce records. In other words, government records are retained for evidence and public trust, but secondary research is often for other reasons.
Another element of government records is that there are three branches to most levels of government. As a result, government archives tend to focus on the executive branch agencies, and less on the legislative and judicial sides. As a result, the official ownership of records of the different branches is often complicated.
The Role of Records Management
The breadth of government records is daunting, as is the quantity of materials with which archivists must cope. As a result, most archives lean heavily on records management to identify records of enduring value. Performing records surveys, creating records retention schedules, and overseeing regular transfers to the archives are common ways to identify government records of enduring value and orchestrate their transfer to the archives. Despite the separation of fields, records management and archives rely on each other throughout the records lifecycle.
Retention schedules are usually established on the series level. This results in a bottom-up approach that can be unwieldy, especially with electronic records that often merge multiple traditional series. Strategies such as functional analysis were developed to inform better choices.
Functional Analysis
Functional analysis prioritizes appraisal and processing based on the importance of an office’s functions within an organization. A model of functions includes three levels: governmental functions (which are broad, such as law and order), agency functions (which functions are broken down further, such as courts administration and corrections), and business functions (which agency functions are more granular, such as parole within corrections).
Functional analysis can occur in stages. A preliminary investigation gathers background information on the organizational role, purpose, and critical factors. Next, an analysis of business activities identifies functions, activities, and transactions. Archivists and records managers can identify recordkeeping requirements, analyze existing systems, and identify strategies. Finally, they can further design and implement a recordkeeping system and perform a post-implementation review.
If information professionals can do this, they can control how the records are created, ensure they link directly to function, and determine retention, handling, and control. However, it is uncommon for archivists to be involved at the systems creation stage in most organizations. The stages are also similar to the stages of records management, but they occur at a higher level and are organization-based, not records-based.
Democracy in Action
Government archives are examples of democracy in action. They allow citizens to have access to records that affect their daily lives. In tandem with records managers, archivists bring order to chaos when preserving government records of enduring value.
The blog was originally published on Lucidea's blog.
Get Started
Looking for archival advising, records management, and historical research services? Click below to speak with an expert consultant.
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.