With regard to digital records in archives, there is a three-tiered approach to thinking about what needs to be preserved. Each of these three levels of usability represents a valid preservation goal, depending on why keeping organizational records is necessary.
Information, Please
The first level is providing information. At this level, the records must have sufficient usability to enable users to provide answers to questions and provide raw materials for research and reuse and a historical record of what took place.
Institutional memory is the most common requirement from a user perspective. They want records preserved so that they can find the information when needed and repurpose it if possible. It is also the easiest to satisfy because there is no need to worry about the authenticity and integrity of the information. Authenticity is assumed—when it is considered at all. Users are interested in knowing what version of a document is final, but that is more of an active than an inactive records management issue. The key demands are that the records be maintained in a format that meets user needs and that they are easily located when needed. These requirements may be satisfied by making sure that the files are viewable, searchable, and, in some cases, capable of being copied and reused in whole or in part.
There are several options for long-term retention in this scenario that will meet an organization’s needs because the records are being treated primarily as information assets, not as records with demonstrable authenticity and reliability. Organizations following this model are doing one of three things.
One is ignoring the question altogether, simply assuming the authenticity of their records without having the ability to demonstrate it. This may be a conscious, risk-based decision or simply ignorance of the risks they are taking.
Another is maintaining in hard copy those records necessary to satisfy legal, financial, or similar purposes where demonstration of authenticity is required. Unfortunately, it is increasingly unlikely that this is possible, except for the smallest organizations, since so much information is maintained only electronically.
Lastly, another is segregating out the small percentage of electronic records whose authenticity and integrity must be demonstrated for extended periods and handling most digital objects as information assets.
Authenticity, Reliability, Integrity, and Usability
The second level serves as the official legal record of activities. Records must have demonstrable authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability. The records support the ongoing operation of the organization, serve as the legal record of the transaction or a portion of it, and permit oversight and support accountability.
Usability Plus
The third level raises the bar because preserving a record’s usability as evidence requires more stringent procedures than maintaining its usability solely for informational purposes. In addition, preservation of a record’s authenticity, reliability, and integrity requires additional controls in the preservation process and may limit the preservation tactics that can be used or add to the cost and complexity.
The third level allows for the recreation of the transaction to check the validity of the results. To preserve records at this level will usually require maintaining the functionality of the original application or system. For example, functionality is critical for computer models, geographic information systems, or other applications where data manipulation is intrinsic to creating a record. In the case of a desktop application, archivists consider maintaining the original look and feel of the archival materials. Preserving how information was stored and displayed is a complex task, but it defines usability.
Building Upon Each Other
These levels of usability can build upon each other. For many organizations, the first level may be suitable—or, at the very least, achievable. Then, as the organization matures and the archival department becomes more skilled, they can aim to achieve higher levels if necessary.
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.
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.
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.
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.