Archival evaluation

The archival evaluation is the selection decision when taking over official documents in the archive and is therefore one of the central tasks of the archive work. In the evaluation, a decision is made between takeover and cassation . The archival work steps following the evaluation are order and description. The aim of the assessment is to determine whether it is archivable .

meaning

The evaluation is a sensitive and responsible task, since the selection of sources is the basis for historical research and historical knowledge of the next generations. In addition, the adoption of written material has a legally binding character, shows the traceability of administrative actions, reflects parts of the social life of the Sprengels (area of ​​responsibility) and politics - and can be supplemented in some cases by unofficial takeovers.

Consequences of improper evaluation: A complete delivery without separations often leads to redundancies with the result of an unmanageable flood of information and high follow-up costs. A wild cassation would result in loss of tradition.

A professional assessment therefore requires extensive knowledge of research issues, legal norms, and intensive knowledge of the structures and areas of responsibility of the registry creator.

Not as archival value befundene documents are as Kassanda singled out and are lost forever as sources.

Because archiving-technical points should decide on the creation of the archived material, the archives have the right to evaluate.

The fact that the assessment is of central importance is made clear, among other things, by the fact that the Association of German Archivists (VdA) has had an archive assessment working group since 2001. In addition, there is a permanent subcommittee at the Federal Conference of Local Archives (BKK) at the German Association of Cities and the Evaluation Forum for specific questions, in which questions relating to the formation of archives can be discussed and a lively exchange takes place.

preparation

Archival evaluation goes hand in hand with records management : regular contact with the departments is necessary in order to prevent ad hoc separations / takeovers and also to avoid idiosyncratic cashing by the departments. Careful planning is imperative, the existence of a documentation profile makes sense. Exact knowledge of the existing archive holdings, the previous delivery, gaps in delivery, etc. is also required.

Methods

An apparent examination of each individual file for its lasting value is very time-consuming. To increase efficiency, three different methods are common, which can be combined with one another:

Evaluation catalog

The individual filing plan items are evaluated according to formal and content-related criteria. It must be determined beforehand which administrative unit was significantly involved in the task and made the decision.

The assessment can be done from the desk. A check is only carried out at random on site. After the retention periods have expired, the documents can be destroyed directly by the department. A new offer will not take place.

This saves a lot of time for the office and archive.

List evaluation

This is an assessment decision based on the disposal list of the issuing body. A random file autopsy is still necessary.

Individual assessment, file autopsy

Each individual file is checked on site for its archivability.

criteria

The evaluation is based on formal and content-related criteria, which should be as objective as possible:

• Are the documents still provided with retention periods?
• Do the documents from the formation of the tradition fit into the respective archive (responsibility of the archive)?
• How high is the source value and the gain in knowledge (including the respective individual files) with regard to future user interest?
• Does the state of preservation allow archiving with any higher effort and follow-up costs?
• horizontal Vertical

The hierarchy of authorities is taken into account, that higher-level assigns tasks to subordinate bodies or that processing takes place at the same level, e.g. B. takes place several offices. It is determined at which point the highest informational value of the documents for individual tasks arises; The key questions here are: Who was involved? Who was in charge? How did the decision-making process go? Where can you find out most about the process? In this way, duplicate transfers can be avoided and the most detailed information can be determined.

• Informational value and evidence value according to Schellenberg

Informational value : Each document contains factual information about processes or facts; In the assessment, the question arises whether the information content represents added value compared to what is already known.

The evidence value provides information about administrative actions and allows the transparency of administrative structures and processes. This can be seen, for example, from the type of processing, notes, hierarchical classification, signatures, etc.

• Primary value and secondary value according to Schellenberg

The primary value measures the value of a document when used in the context of its creation purpose.

The secondary value measures the value of a document for other uses or types of use, e.g. B. as a source for historical research.

• When evaluating uniform mass files / documents that deal with individual cases, the selection can only be made on a random basis, but without reducing the informative value.

Conscious samples are e.g. B.

• The criteria here are a fixed selection of the first letters of the surname (D, O, T, M), which, if necessary, enable later longitudinal investigations
• A complete takeover of entire birth cohorts
• Archiving fewer sample cases
• Archiving of outstanding and prominent cases

From this, however, no exact conclusions can be drawn about the whole. There is also the risk of subjective selection.

Random samples

A random selection, for example by taking over every tenth file or a computer-aided selection, the so-called random procedure, most surely reflects the entirety and is therefore definitely representative.

When evaluating non-files e.g. For example, cards or photos, other evaluation criteria tailored to the type of document must be used. Digitally created documents, which are already evaluated in advance (keyword DMS) , also require other processes, as a technical component is added. The decisions and underlying criteria should be theoretically and logically comprehensible. This is done by creating an evaluation and cassation protocol .

Literature and Sources

• Hans-Jürgen Höötmann / Katharina Tiemann: Archival evaluation - attempt of a practical guide to the procedure in the case of segregation in the area of ​​factual files. In: Archive maintenance in Westphalia and Lippe. No. 52.2000. Pp. 1-11. ISSN  0171-4058 .
• Angelika Menne-Haritz : Archival evaluation: The process of reallocating closed written material to archive material ready for evaluation. In: Swiss History Journal . Vol. 51, 2001, pp. 448-460 ( [1] ).
• Katharina Tiemann: Evaluation and takeover of official records. In: Reimann, Norbert (Hrsg.): Practical archival studies. A guide for media and information services professionals. Specializing in archives. 2nd revised edition. Münster 2008. pp. 83-95. ISBN 978-3-87023-255-9 .
• A new position paper of the VDA working group “Archival Assessment” on the formation of tradition in the network from March 16, 2011. ( Online ). (Previously: Positions of the working group on archival evaluation in the VdA on archival tradition formation, 2004. )

Individual evidence

1. ↑ (according to ArchG NW2010 §2, Paragraph 6; also: Federal Archives Act §3)  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
2. ↑ Working group on archival evaluation
3. ↑ BKK
4. ↑ Forum rating
5. ↑ Axel Metz: Not every picture is worth a thousand words - A contribution to the evaluation of photo holdings (PDF; 255 kB) landesarchiv-bw.de. Retrieved September 8, 2012.
6. ↑ See also nestor, competence network for digital long-term archiving or z. B. Guide to authorities of the Federal Archives ( Memento of August 13, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF file; 591 kB; accessed on August 27, 2018).