So now we know that it technically can be done, but should it be
done?
I personally agree with Joyce’s earlier post. The UNC
symposium was certainly a thought-provoking and interesting day, with many
perspectives voiced about privacy and ethical issues surrounding the large
scale digitization of entire manuscript collections.
Most of the time, decisions about use and restrictions are
made at the collection level upon acquisition, as are our decisions about
processing priority. Most repositories discourage restrictions, or, at
the very least, try to put an end date on the restriction. Prior to EAD
online finding aids, most of us probably would not have given a second thought
as to whether restricted portions of a collection would be mentioned in the
container list of a finding aid.
During later processing – which is often when the EAD
finding aid is created – the processing archivist may discover individual
series or files that contain records that should be restricted for either
privacy or ethical issues (social security numbers, medical records, etc.) .
However, the fact that this material exists within the collection should
not be hidden from researchers. The EAD finding aid merely points to and
describes the collection, it does not display the collection. If personal
names need to be hidden for some reason, why not simply change the folder title
to something more generic ? And, use the appropriate EAD tag to offer information
about use or access restrictions – which may change in the future.
Having said that, I do think it’s important to be more
careful when digitizing entire collections and presenting them online. With
all of the talk about large scale digitization of manuscript collections, I’ve
noted that many take the position that large scale digitization is defined as
digitizing everything in the collection. As desirable as that may be, I
feel that there are certainly items/files within the collection that should not
be digitized. These will most probably be discovered and identified by
the processing archivist, who also creates the finding aid and, who, in my
opinion, should be making the “final cut” (appraisal) for full
digitization.
The beauty of having the digital files/digitized collection presented
online with, or as part of the EAD finding aid is that researchers know
immediately what is available online and what is not. And again,
should that material become unrestricted, the digital files can be integrated at
a later date, without changing the finding aid. I think it’s
also important for us to be realistic about workflow and resources and try to minimize
the effort required for additional encoding, later changes, and individual file
or item redaction in the finding aids.
Barbara D. Aikens
Chief, Collections Processing
Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
Ph: 202-633-7941
Mailing Address
Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
PO Box 37012
Victor Bldg., Suite 2200, MRC 937
Washington, DC 20013-7012
From: Encoded Archival
Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Custer, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ethical issues raised by EAD encoding
Michele, that makes perfect sense (and I completely overlooked
that since I’ve yet to use that attribute)!
So, since I’ve never used @audience, it would be easy for
me to use it exclusively for redactions (i.e. “internal”) if so
needed. However, if someone else is using “internal audience”
for something slightly different, I suppose that that wouldn’t be the
case. But that still leaves questions in regards to sharing EAD
records. Either way, though, I don’t think that it would permit you
to set an expiration date (unless I’m overlooking yet another general
attribute or simpler solution)?
As for the bigger picture, a processing archivist currently has
control over a finding aid that he/she authors. They are able to make the
decision about the level of identifiable granularity that they want to provide
(though these decisions are certainly not impartial, or always fully
considered), but there’s a question lingering about whether such a
decision – whether documented or not – will be upheld after
the collection starts to go online and/or if finding aids begin to incorporate
editable features (for example, by permitting researchers to add their
notes).
In the case of fully digitized collections, though, this is
simply not a question anymore, as there will be many items in the collection
that haven’t been fully looked at or comprehended before being made
accessible to many-more-than-before.
This is fascinating from a research/access point of view, but it
will inevitably produce new privacy issues (legal, ethical, and both) that will
need to be addressed. There is little denying, I’d contend, that a
search engine has the power to re-bestow currency, if only temporarily, to
outdated or even false information. And, in my opinion, that’s
certainly something that should be considered during this transition.
Mark
From: Encoded Archival
Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michele R Combs
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ethical issues raised by EAD encoding
Or
you could just use the “audience” attribute which is available for
all EAD elements. Surround the name in question with a PERSNAME element,
set the @AUDIENCE to INTERNAL, and make your publishing process create whatever
visible indication you want – a blank, a black bar, the word [name
redacted], whatever.
Michele
(be
green - don't print this email!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michele
Combs
Manuscripts Librarian
Special Collections Research Center
Syracuse
University Libraries
222 Waverly Ave.
Syracuse, NY 13244
315-443-2081
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Encoded Archival
Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Custer, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ethical issues raised by EAD encoding
This, of course, led me to wonder if EAD should have a redacted
tag (or attribute