Research

Part I: The Challenge 

In the case of processing the Chapter #490, the original order seemed chaotic to a first time processor. Upon first look, the records were in folders and binders, however, one year could be mixed with other years in multiple folders. For example, Executive Board meeting minutes created in 1988 were found in two folders with other types of documents from another year. The entire collection seemed to have documents interwoven throughout them.

During the initial inventory it became clear that these records were created by many members of Chapter #490 and were possibly collected years after the records were created. Some folders labeled “Meeting Minutes 1975-1977”, included treasurer’s reports, and The Reporter. The dates of these documents went well beyond 1977. In some cases, it seemed a binder was initially created to hold two consecutive years of meeting minutes, but later on, other records from later periods were added.  I decided to keep the general chronological order the records were received as, and write a strong Scope and Content note for future researchers and archivists.

Part II: Literature

The nature of Chapter #490 collection reflected the nature of the collection examples provided by Meehan. Meehan challenges the concept of original order as the main framework in processing a personal collection. She introduces the idea that personal collections should be processed using original order as a conceptual framework. Meehan claims that original order is easy to interpret too narrowly and render practically irrelevant, especially in arranging and describing personal records. At first, I almost fell for this trap that original order implements when processing Chapter #490. It was daunting, believing that the order in which the folders came in would potentially stay that way, or I would have to reorganize the entire collection.

She introduces the idea that original order should be thought of as a conceptual framework. Conceptual framework is not necessarily on preserving the order of the records in which the creator maintained them; the idea adheres to the spirit behind the principle by facilitating a process aimed at explaining the context(s) within which the records were created, in the broadest sense. Essentially, Meehan’s conceptual framework encourages archivists to acknowledge that the process is really one of creating the relationships that give meaning to a body of records.

Part III: Conclusion

Conceptual framework challenges archivists to think not of what the records creator is doing, but how and why. Looking back at processing the Chapter #490 collection, I occasionally ran into pamphlets, correspondence, and other records that did not seem to be created by Chapter #490. These records pertained to Medicare and prescription drugs and were usually created by AARP national organization or New York legislation. These records alone gave me insight to what was most important to the members of Chapter #490 without reading the meeting minutes. As part of the MPLP technique, I did not fully read the records; instead, I took note of formats. The meeting minutes, for example, have the same format through majority of the chapter’s lifetime. These outlier records did not fit the regular formats I had been seeing; however, they filled a gap in my finding aid; what were the functions of Chapter #490? Meehan further drives my point that records show more than just what an organization was, but what purpose an organization had,

“Having a sense, on the one hand, of the forms and functions of the records in a given fond and, on the other hand, of the processes and intent behind the creator’s main activities makes it possible for the archivist to imagine the particular points of intersection between the record-keeping and personal business or creative processes of the creator ­– those points being when the actual records were likely created, accumulated, maintained, and/or used by the creator.”[1]

[1] Meehan 40