Update archivalProcessing.md

archivalProcessing/archivalProcessing.md

@@ -5,4 +5,29 @@ nav_order: 2
 has_children: true
 ---
 
-# Archival Processing
+# Archival Processing
+# Introduction
+
+This documentation was written to serve as a guide for archivists in the New York Public Library’s [Archival Processing](https://sites.google.com/nypl.org/specialcollections/special-collections-processing/archival-processing) unit, a division of the [Special Collections Processing](https://sites.google.com/nypl.org/specialcollections/special-collections-processing) department, to arrange, describe, preserve, and provide access to collections across all research divisions of the library. The act of archival processing involves the physical and intellectual arrangement of archival collections; the housing of materials for long term preservation; and the description of each collection’s content and historical significance. The goal of archival processing is to provide greater and more efficient access to staff, researchers, and library users. While the basis of this documentation is rooted in archival theory and practice, we have adapted certain guidelines to suit needs unique to the New York Public Library’s research divisions. It would never be possible to effectively arrange the various sections of this documentation sequentially, because the acts of arrangement and description are not discrete activities. The tasks, procedures, and information described here are intended to work in tandem to provide archivists with the tools, knowledge, and resources necessary to effectively process all collections received in the Special Collections Processing department of the New York Public Library. 
+
+In the Archival Processing unit, we recognize that archival neutrality[^1] is a myth[^2] which has been dispelled countless times in our field. In doing this work, we must acknowledge our own biases and privileges,[^3] while actively striving to center and amplify the voices of those who are frequently silenced and oppressed.[^4] Similarly we must avoid proclaiming to be experts on the collections we process and accept the limitations of our own knowledge when describing someone else’s experiences.[^5] 
+
+We urge archivists to approach this work with empathy and care for the individuals who created the records,[^6] the communities we describe, and the users who will access and use the materials.[^7] We must always consider the ways in which our own experiences invariably influence our descriptive practices,[^8] and recognize that we must actively strive to identify and dismantle[^9] the structures that have historically privileged the narratives of those who inhabit spaces of power.[^10] In recent years, archivists and archival institutions have began to more actively interrogate our own racist histories, which has led to more frequent conversations around inclusive, anti-racist, and reparative description,[^11] all of which we support and continue to pursue.
+
+We did not come to these ideas on our own, but through the works of many individuals writing on these topics in our field. We have compiled a [reading list](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WI9bAG8KKPd9Y8RFm4xYzAPRc_LLUKFg9uJXu_2ZCDE/edit#gid=439850663) of the writings that we consulted, and also cited sources that we directly reference in this manual. We have incorporated the [DACS Statement of Principles](https://saa-ts-dacs.github.io/dacs/04_statement_of_principles.html), and linked directly to the relevant guidelines. We also aimed to clarify a number of local standards regarding arrangement, description, and style. 
+
+We are very committed to the consistent evolution of this documentation to assure it always addresses external conversations, as well as our own internal needs. We encourage users of this documentation to share your feedback and ask questions via our [Suggestion Form](https://forms.gle/Kdnyxw2Md42qdimb6). We consider this a living document, which will be revised, updated, and edited as policies evolve, technologies improve, and standards change. This manual is intended as a guide to the principles that inform our work in the Archival Processing unit, but also as a reminder that this work is inherently collaborative, is continuously evolving, and that we do our best work when we listen to and learn from each other. 
+
+[1]: There are abundant examples of writings in both archival and library literature that refutes this dated claim. We have included many titles in our [archival reading list,](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WI9bAG8KKPd9Y8RFm4xYzAPRc_LLUKFg9uJXu_2ZCDE/edit#gid=439850663) which we consulted frequently in writing this documentation. A major source of inspiration on this topic came from the book [_Knowledge Justice_](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/knowledge-justice), which was released in the midst of us writing this manual. In one essay from this book, Anastasia  Chiu,  Fobazi M. Ettarh, and Jennifer A. Ferretti write that “To argue for neutrality or objectivity as the framework for all library activities is to leave workers and institutions with the impossible task of providing a one-size-fits-all service to the public with subjective guidelines, which actually works to perpetuate harmful behavior.” Anastasia  Chiu,  Fobazi M. Ettarh, and Jennifer A. Ferretti, “Not the Shark, but the Water: How Neutrality and Vocational Awe Intertwine to Uphold White Supremacy,” in _Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory_, ed. Sofia Y. Leung and Jorge R. López-McKnight (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2021), 56.
+
+[^2]: Jessica Tai emphasizes how critical this is stating that “An archival practice undertaken within a framework of cultural humility entails actively denouncing archival neutrality, requiring the continual and visible disclosure of one’s own positionality. This involves acknowledging the ways such perspectives can shape archival practice, including archival description.” Jessica Tai, “Cultural Humility as a Framework for Anti-Oppressive Archival Description,” _Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies_ (October 1, 2020): 3, <https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/120>.
+
+[^3]: In another essay from [_Knowledge Justice_](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/knowledge-justice), Myrna E. Morales and Stacie Williams affirm that “Information isn’t neutral; it is created and shared by human individuals who remain imperfect and hold both implicitly and explicitly biased viewpoints.” Myrna E. Morales and Stacie Williams, “Moving toward Transformative Librarianship: Naming and Identifying Epistemic Supremacy,” in _Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory_, ed. Sofia Y. Leung and Jorge R. López-McKnight (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2021), 78.
+
+[^4]: Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor posit that “Archival labor, then is a means of taking responsibility, of caring for bodies of records, and most importantly, the bodies of those whose lives are implicated in them…Radical empathy is about recognizing our personal roles within power structures, dismantling oppressive structures (including, especially,  the structures we may personally benefit from), and rebuilding liberatory structures that serve us all.” Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor, “Revisiting a Feminist Ethics of Care in Archives: An Introductory Note,” _Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies_ (June 11, 2021): 2, <https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/162>.
+
+[^5]: Jessica Tai suggests “Dismantling traditional conceptions of expertise requires flexibility and humility in being able to accept the limitations in serving as the authoritative voice on another’s experience.” Jessica Tai, “Cultural Humility as a Framework for Anti-Oppressive Archival Description,” _Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies_  (October 1, 2020): 6, <https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/120>.
+
+[^6]: Caswell and Cifor also clarify that “We do not ask archivists (or anyone else for that matter) from oppressed communities to empathize with their oppressors; one should not be tasked with empathizing with those who deny the validity of one’s own existence. Such a request puts an undue burden on and risks further harm to oppressed people. Instead, empathy must be taken in tandem with a power analysis in order to be radical.” Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor, “Revisiting a Feminist Ethics of Care in Archives: An Introductory Note,” _Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies_ (June 11, 2021): 4, <https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/162>.
+
+