Archival Appraisal in Germany: A Decade of Theory, Strategies, and Practices

Abstract

In October 2004, the archival appraisal working group of the Association of German Archivists (Verband deutscher Archivarinnen und Archivare) presented a position paper outlining the present status of the debate on appraisal within the Federal Republic of Germany. What follows is an overview of this discussion as background and context for the group’s position paper; an examination of the common ground between appraisal as practised in Germany and macroappraisal as developed in Canada; and a glimpse at the future directions of this discussion in Germany. The position paper is appended to this article.

Appendices

The paper was discussed in seven sessions between December 2001 and October 2004. Members of the working group during that time were: Hans Ammerich, Matthias Buchholz, Diether Degreif, Albrecht Ernst, Jochen Hecht, Annette Hennigs, Angela Keller-Kühne, Thekla Kluttig, Dorit-Maria Krenn, Robert Kretzschmar (chair), Margit Ksoll-Marcon, Edgar Lersch, Wolfgang Mährle, Wolfgang Müller, Andreas Pilger, Kathrin Pilger, Max Plassmann, Clemens Rehm, Katharina Tiemann, Jürgen Treffeisen, and Peter K. Weber. The German text is published with an introduction: Robert Kretzschmar, “Positionen des Arbeitskreises Archivische Bewertung im VdA – Verband deutscher Archivarinnen und Archivare zur archivischen überlieferungsbildung. Einführung und Textabdruck”, Der Archivar 58 (2005): 88–94.

Appendix A Position Paper of the Archival Appraisal Working Group of the Association of German Archivists (Verband deutscher Archivarinnen und Archivare), 15 October 2004

The paper was discussed in seven sessions between December 2001 and October 2004. Members of the working group during that time were: Hans Ammerich, Matthias Buchholz, Diether Degreif, Albrecht Ernst, Jochen Hecht, Annette Hennigs, Angela Keller-Kühne, Thekla Kluttig, Dorit-Maria Krenn, Robert Kretzschmar (chair), Margit Ksoll-Marcon, Edgar Lersch, Wolfgang Mährle, Wolfgang Müller, Andreas Pilger, Kathrin Pilger, Max Plassmann, Clemens Rehm, Katharina Tiemann, Jürgen Treffeisen, and Peter K. Weber. The German text is published with an introduction: Robert Kretzschmar, “Positionen des Arbeitskreises Archivische Bewertung im VdA – Verband deutscher Archivarinnen und Archivare zur archivischen überlieferungsbildung. Einführung und Textabdruck”, Der Archivar 58 (2005): 88–94.

Appraisal is the archival function which empowers archivists to transform operational records of political processes and social life into historical sources. As a result of the appraisal function, records are transformed to create an essential basis for historical research and the scope of future historical knowledge. A fundamental task of archives consists in the documentation of political processes and social life through records that were appraised as having enduring value. The benefits are the retrospective accountability of democratic institutions and historiographical reconstructions of times past.

Therefore archivists decide which records must be preserved and made permanently accessible for research and public use. In this position paper, the Association of German Archivists outlines basic principles of archival appraisal and the methodical parameters required for effective archival appraisal.

I. Basic Principles

• 1. Before a definitive decision about appraisal and especially prospective appraisal plans are made, the broader pursuit of documentation within the domain of provenances (creators of the records) must be specified. The documentation aims must be based on an in-depth analysis of the creation and the contents of the records, including reflection and evaluation of potential research possibilities. As such, it is recommended that an assessment be made of the relative significance of aspects of life in society and how these are reflected in the records being appraised: how important are they for society in their time?

• 2. The records should be appraised very soon after their creation. This is especially important when selecting particular instance-papers typical of their period from large numbers of case files.

• 3. Appraisal plans should be created with the participation of the creators of records.

• 4. Whenever possible, archivists should provide advice to records managers. This can occur by assisting in the creation of a filing plan of intermediate registries for the institution which will help records managers narrow down the mass of records for final selection by archivists. Active cooperation with registry creators is especially necessary when records managers introduce and develop electronic procedures for digitally produced records to ensure that archival requirements are being duly considered.

• 5. Given that redundancy in records does occur (especially in case files), interventions to streamline or separate the record into certain parts of the file with enduring value (e.g., the personal record sheet in a personal dossier) should be considered. Such interventions must, however, be documented.

• 6. As far as possible, archives from different organizations and different societal associations and government entities should consult with each other in case of overlap (duplication) or interconnections in order to optimize archival appraisal, and should also consider reciprocal interests while acknowledging different perspectives on what is important to preserve. This should become standard practice. Also, the discussion above about documentation aims (see 1 above) should involve archivists from all organizations and entities in society.

• 7. Cross-archival cooperative appraisal on the principle of the so-called vertical and horizontal appraisal has proven itself. However, it implies that a reliably structured collection of records exists. Destruction based on developed horizontal- vertical appraisal plans can be carried out with confidence only when the plans are acknowledged as binding by all parties involved, and scrupulously implemented by the concerned archives or records management units. The plans and their implementation must be reviewed regularly.

• 8. All personal files and documents of leading personalities are to be included.

• 9. Archival appraisals of government agencies’ records result in the preservation of records which represent only particular processes of administration from a certain point of view and therefore limited aspects of societal life overall. Therefore, when possible, archives should preserve highly significant documents (e.g., personal bequests) from other sources to complement their appraisal choices. Bearing in mind the benefits of cooperation in appraisal, archives from different organizations should collaborate to preserve significant records beyond their particular collection spheres and documentation policies. Sometimes, when the situation warrants it, oral history can be considered as a supplementary documentation strategy.

• 10. Cooperation with researchers and with public users should also be considered.

• 11. Each appraisal decision must be documented and at least generally justified.

II. Appraisal Procedures

• 1. For the appraisal of files, one can use the checklists developed by Robert Kretzschmar and Hans-Jürgen Höötmann/Katharina Tiemann: Robert Kretzschmar, “Spuren zukünftiger Vergangenheit. Archivische überlieferungsbildung im Jahr 2000 und die Möglichkeiten einer Beteiligung der Forschung”, in Der Archivar 53 (2000): 215–222; Hans Jürgen Höötmann/Katharina Tiemann, “Archivische Bewertung – Versuch eines praktischen Leitfadens zur Vorgehensweise bei Aussonderungen im Sachaktenbereich”, in Archivpflege in Westfalen und Lippe 52 (2000): 1–11.

• 2. Examples of records need to be consulted as appraisal plans are being developed. In fact, an examination of records may be essential when it comes to appraising individual files within appraisal plans and programs. Appraisal exclusively based on analysis of tasks and responsibilities without analysis of examples of records is just as inappropriate as a survey of each and every case file.

• 3. The more the administrative process of governing is formalized, the more it is suitable for the implementation of appraisal selection plans. Statistical random samples are especially suited to highly formalized procedures (e.g., in the inland revenue administration).

• 4. The higher up an agency or the sector of an institution is located, the less the contents of the records are uniform (as in case files) and the more detailed consultation of records is necessary. Therefore, appraisal plans based on the vertical–horizontal method as practised in Baden-Württemberg recommend that archivists consult in some detail the records of the top administration and management levels.

• 5. For organizations with many sectors it is recommended to start in the head office and then view the holdings in the regional and local agencies in context.

• 6. In the case of holdings from political parties, associations, and clubs, it is recommended to develop standards and even appraisal plans for certain types of records and documents, and then discuss them across archives. But, basically, consultation of individual records will confirm the archival appraisal of records of all such organizations, because it is known that guidelines for creating records are inconsistently applied by them. For this reason, appraisal standards and procedures must also be content-oriented. And special attention must be paid to the personal records of the functional heads of such organizations.

III. Appraisal of Large Quantities of Similar Case Files

• 1. There are three basic appraisal possibilities for large numbers of similar case files: take all; destroy all; or select some. Not until after defining the documentation aim (see I.1 above) can one of these three options be chosen, and, when necessary, as a next step, a certain procedure of selection be determined.

• 2. The various procedures of selection have strong and weak points. For a statistical random sample to be “representative,” only a random selection with random numbers can be considered. The quota should then be calculated each time. The higher the main unit, the smaller the quota. Electronic random selection is ideal for random sampling. In the case of certain archival appraisals, alphabetical selection across different holdings is especially appropriate for documenting families through time. However, one must consider that it offers also only a selection of family coherencies (e.g., change of name due to marriage). Before undertaking a sample collection of conventional records, especially before collecting a “representative” sample, one should check whether information of permanent value can be sufficiently guaranteed by preserving aggregated statistics.

• 3. Basically, selection plans for certain coded case files (e.g., personal files) should be implemented taking into account all specific differences between the various administrations.

• 4. Special groups of society should be particularly considered to ensure their sufficient and representative documentation in selection plans. Group biographies can be an important form of selection.

• 5. Also, one should always check whether time periods are a consideration in making appraisal decisions (e.g., the period on national socialism in Germany, 1933–1945).

• 6. The creation of catalogues of detailed selection criteria which are specific to certain administrations seems sensible for special cases. The administrations concerned should participate in the selection of special case files. Basically, one should check which repeat information is contained in parallel records created by different units within the administration and which records yield the best information. An agreement on selection criteria should be reached between archives. Possibilities of cooperation between archives for agreement on individual cases to be selected should be considered. In the same way, one should try to coordinate the archival appraisal of individual cases in a network of concerned archives so as to obtain “thorough descriptions” on individual persons in their different functions (e.g., municipal function, other governmental function) in different entities throughout society.

• 7. For holdings of case files that are archival, it is desirable to publish descriptions of the processes of their creation as well as their value as historical sources.

IV. Appraisal of Statistical Records

• 1. Whether statistics must be preserved, or rather the original material on which they are based, must be decided in each particular case. The source and the aims of the appraisal must be analysed and determined. In addition to the final statistical summary evaluations that are printed in most cases, the base data should be preserved rather than raw statistics and intermediate summary reports.

• 2. Analysis and description of the statistical function and office, as well as the process of creation of statistics, are essential to undertake as a basis for the archival appraisal decision.

• 3. Official statistics are significant when created according to scientific rules. A rule-of-thumb states that statistics are more significant the more attributes they have.

• 4. For long-time series, cut-off dates are recommended.

V. Appraisal of Electronic Records

• 1. The appraisal of electronic records is made in the functional context of their creation. The general principles for appraisal retain their validity.

• 2. Electronic records can be very heterogeneous (currently, e.g., electronic registries, statistics, geo-referenced and environmental information systems, systems for IT-supported processing, or Web sites). Besides an analysis of the contents, the appraisal must also take into consideration the functionality of the IT-processes to be able to take the necessary measures for permanent data retention and future manipulability.

• 3. In all cases, it is essential to protect the archival data quality of the (potential) holdings as soon as possible. This includes collecting and documenting the history of the creation of records as well as all metadata necessary for comprehension and for management of the technical data.

• 4. When updates of data are made as part of electronic procedures (e.g., procedures for regular statistical evaluations), it is sensible to preserve copies of these updates at specific points in time.

• 5. Electronic records are often created by specific IT-procedures which are found outside the jurisdiction of archives. The service for the systems is very often offered by central providers who␣then become partners with several archives. Early appraisal decisions which have been largely agreed upon by the concerned archives become, therefore, more significant than individual appraisal decisions.

VI. Appraisal of Audio-visual Records

• 1. The appraisal of audio-visual records is made in the functional context of their creation. The general principles of appraisal retain thereby their validity (e.g., the significance of outstanding persons and events).

• 2. For the appraisal of audio-visual records of television and radio stations as well as other commercial media producers, other criteria must be applied, in part, than for audio-visual media originating from other archival bodies such as governments, municipalities, religious communities, and political parties (see VI. 6–7 below).

• 3. Individual assessment is generally necessary for appraisal of audio-visual records, due to their specifications. When appraising radio and television productions with very stereotypical structures, individual assessments can be circumvented with the help of the procedures described in VI. 6–7 below.

• 4. The copyright and the user rights as well as provenance must be considered in the appraisal. Responsibility for preserving audio-visual records lies with the archives responsible for the owner of the rights. When the copyright and the user rights lie elsewhere, this might indicate a multiplication of records. (However, this does not apply, for example, to the audio-visual archival mandate to preserve the cultural heritage as practised by the German National Film Archives.)

• 5. Important aspects for the appraisal are the significance of the activity and the self-image of the production agency, the value of the information, the number of people reached by the production, the creative and technical quality, and the condition of preservation of the production.

• 6. The above-mentioned appraisal criteria can also apply in part to audio-visual records of television and radio stations as well as other commercial media producers. Additionally, the appraisal must be strongly oriented towards the analysis of the information and artistic quality, with some consideration given to creative diversity.

• 7. For the individual appraisal of productions the informational value of the content must be considered in the context of the complex production. The functional creation of each television station must be considered in the general context of media productions. The informational quality of the records can be correlated with classifiable types of production. The archival appraisal must preserve more when the variety and richness are greater; and a more rigorous selection must be made when stereotypical repetition is greater. In this sense, for instance, one can distinguish three groups of media productions:

  • a) Documentary representation of reality (such as original films, original sound in news reports, and newscasts) must be preserved because of the uniqueness of the event.

  • b) Fiction must be represented by selected examples for each category with special consideration given to the quality and variety of the creation.

  • c) A standardized selection (e.g., every twentieth production) must be made in the case of lectures, staged roundtables, and discussions. The same might also apply to interviews, game shows, counselling shows, staged “events” with repetitive character due to the merely informational function of the production and frequency of the creative form.