The Future of Archives. Is it Worth Saving?

Zach Baker

LIS 60652 Foundation of Recordkeeping

Final Paper

12/11/20
 Introduction

Do not worry. I do not want to get rid of archives—quite the contrary. As will be

discussed, massive growth of archives will be needed in the decades and centuries to come. I do

not expect the growth that is needed will be matched, though. If recent history and the current

state of archives are any indications of their future, then we are in for troubled times. I do not

want to summarize the past, present, or future of archives too tightly. Doing so would be

ill-advised and most assuredly be wrong. What I can do is discuss what has happened and what is

happening of importance and, with those thoughts and ideas, attempt to hypothesize on the

possible future of archives in the US and even globally.

The title asks a straightforward question that is probably asked hundreds of times a day.

Is it worth saving? In the era of ‘big data,’ it seems every morsel of information one creates,

intentionally or otherwise, falls into the yes category. From knowing what I posted on social

media since the beginning of use to knowing what purchase I made two years ago, I can find it

all. I can still visit social media sites of those who died ten plus years ago. Rarely does anything

ever completely disappear from the internet. Just ask our current President who wishes he has

that kind of power. But it goes even further than a simple reminder of what I posted or bought

years ago. When I use my Kroger card, it records everything I purchased and uses that

information in future advertising specific to me. What else they are doing with this massive

amount of data is buried in the user agreement and little read shopping card contracts.

While many see this mass collection of data as problematic, some see the potential gain.

Millar states that “many archivists and digital experts suggest that with the unlimited capacity of

cloud computing systems and the tremendous potential for research into ‘big data,’ keeping

more- in theory, keeping all- is easier and potentially more fruitful than ever before” (Millar,
179). Though the other side, which Millar sides with, asks the most critical question. “How can

we know which bit of information is core evidence and which is just dross that clutters our hard

drives and our minds” (Millar, 179)? While Millar’s question seems like it should have an easy

answer, it takes time for that answer to surface. Time that archivists are already lacking.

The argument above is never simple, though. We witness the use of big data in research

worldwide and in all subjects, and it makes meaningful impacts on that research, but this

enormous mass of data is under the tutelage of the corporations that collect it. Some close off

access while others open portions of their collection to research and study. This brings up many

possible ethical dilemmas along with privacy issues. Let us not dive into that in this short paper.

The question is eventually asked: what is an archivist to do with such an amassed amount of data

of a single individual? Each company retains the data that each of its users creates, but everyone

is still creating much more than before, even though it may be taking up less space. Archives are

commonly seen by the populace as collections of tangible materials or records. This is changing,

but it is a slow and meticulous change that relies heavily on physical records. Online records

continue to grow every day, and with it, so does reach and access for users, but what happens

when that “save everything” attitude ends up on the doorstep of archivists? Is it all worth saving

then?

The Fonds

Millar states that keeping a collection whole is “not realistic” (Millar, 211). This is

understandable when one looks at the sheer volume of records that an individual creates. If we

factor in the wishes of the owners of the materials and the length of history of those records, it is

very difficult to keep a single collection together. I agree with Millar’s short point, but I do

understand the importance of the fonds in certain situations and foresee a future where an entire
life can be represented and presented in the records/data that was collected and created by/on an

individual throughout their life. Imagine an individual who grew up with social media and

actively participated in it throughout their whole life up to death. If everything that a person

created were to be collected and presented, then people hundreds of years from now would be

able to follow the daily rituals of many past people of the world. This is described and discussed

by Anne Gilliland, who sees this as an “opening up of new avenues for exploring how

individuals think about themselves as creators of records and manager of their memories and

documentary traces” (Gilliland, 202). Currently, everyone is their own archivist without training.

They are collecting and keeping without regard for if it is useful or not.

Who knows where this self-reflection will take an individual? I believe it will lead to

even more creation and even more extensive collections in the future. Collections that archivists

will have to sift through and find the “core evidence.” I am currently reading the second book in

a series that started with Ready Player One. In this series, an important character has passed, but

he amassed records of his life and interests that could fill the largest cloud repository. I bring this

up because the other characters in the story believed every piece to be of value. It was mentioned

that the collection was eight zettabytes. This amount is unimaginable for a collection of a single

person, but I digress. As the future unfolds, it seems that we are constantly creating more and

more records on ourselves, whether we know it or not. The idea of the fonds will slowly shrink

away as we continue to create and piece out collections to places where they can be of use. I do

not think the fonds will entirely die out. I think it will have a strong resurgence once there is

ample technology to fully archive whole digitally created collections.

 The Digital Beyond

The problems with digital preservation are many, and I am sure answers will be

developed quickly. One problem that has arisen is differing stories or multiple truths. Johns

Hopkins was, by all accounts, an abolitionist until a recent discovery in an 1850 census showing

that Johns Hopkins was a slave owner (Schuessler, 2020). This interesting archival find does not

specifically mean that Johns Hopkins was a racist. There is some evidence to the contrary, but

the story the university backed did not include this piece of information. Secrets can be hidden

no matter how much we know of a person. Any set of records always comes with an asterisk of

authenticity. The authenticity inherent in a collection is only authentic to the person who created

it. It is their view based on their own experience. It is rarely the whole story.

This is not a new truth. However, we must be careful in our duty to preserve. The

processes that we use today are not perfect, and with the growth of numbers of records, backlogs

grow larger, and processing becomes more difficult. Green and Meissner highlight this fact and

offer a couple of pushes to a new direction. A direction stressing that “we have to start doing

things differently if we hope to begin reducing backlogs and serving our patrons, resource

allocators, and donors better than we have done” (Green & Meissner, 255). This sentiment is

understandable as Green states, “our profession has been struggling with backlogs for at least

sixty years” and that by taking a “larger view” in processing collections, “we can anticipate real

progress in reducing our backlogs'' (Green & Meissner, 255). The actions truly needed are a bit

more drastic and important than described by Green &Meissner, though their recommendations

are excellent starting points. Creation is constantly growing, and inherent within this growth will

be the difficulty of processing collections when that point comes.

 The question must be asked, though; what happens if action is not taken and the problem

of backlogs only becomes even more compounded than ever before with larger collections being

donated? Will there be a time when records simply cannot be accepted, and droves of collections

are destined to rot in family homes? The potential outcomes of the future will become a reality as

time goes on. Archival processing may need to take the steps back as described by Green &

Meissner (2005) and look at the forest and not just the trees. This sentiment will create faster

processing but will not be as in-depth as the processing once was. It needs to be paired with open

access to researchers who can process collections at a more micro level.

This presents its own challenges. If open to researchers to process records, there will be

no cohesive singular process. Each researcher will process records differently unless a

standardization is adopted. Of course, this adoption would be difficult to achieve worldwide,

leaving each potential organization, country, and even institution with their own standards.

Therein lies the silver lining of the new digital—a potential for global standardization along with

in-depth connectivity of all archival institutions. A hive-mind dynamic is potentially what this

problem needs for it to be solved. We have not yet tried to attempt a universal standardization

yet, but as collections and digitization continue to be revolutionized and updated by new

technologies, there may be a time in the not too distant future where we see an attempt to

standardize. We may also be lucky enough to have even more help from technology than we

know now.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence through machine learning is at the forefront of almost every

profession. The hype involved is extremely high, but the realities are a bit lacking. However,

there is hope, and in the past few years, there have been motions in attempting to tie AI into the
archival profession. Rolan et al. (2019) sum it up succinctly, stating that “AI has arrived in our

field and it will produce profound changes in our working environments in the years to come.”

This is backed by four separate initiative case studies in Australia. Email management,

classification of records, retention and disposal decisions, and records management are just

several areas that AI is being implemented to streamline processes that would typically take

many worker hours and resources to complete (Rolan,2019).

These implementations were not seamless, nor were they easily done. For AI to be

applicable, it needed to be rethought with records and archives in mind. Tailoring it to this was a

big endeavor, but early results show a positive application and results. Of course, this is early and

requires more testing and even more comprehensive data. Other areas have also been opened to

AI, including data collection and annotation. This attempted collaboration is an attempt to curb

the problems in fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in AI. It is proposed by Jo &

Gebru that these problems can be weakened if not solved by the inclusion of archival data

collection methodologies. This interweaving of subjects hopes to strengthen areas where AI is

weak, such as inclusivity and consent, which are seen as strengths in the archival and library

fields (Jo & Gebru, 2019).

Another area that shows promise is that of AI and archival classifications. Shang et al.

have attempted, to some success, to apply advanced machine learning algorithms to systems of

archival classification. It proved that it could be done with enhancements to the accuracy, speed,

and efficiency of the classification process (Shang et al., 2019). With continued work and

application, the figures presented only hope to go up, strengthening the need for AI in

classifications saving precious worker hours to be used elsewhere.

 Conclusion

The future can hold anything, but from the above examples and problems faced, serious

development needs to be applied to the whole of archives. Dipping a toe in the pool to test the

water will only prolong the struggles of understaffed and backlogged archives. The potential life

preservers that are being created in advanced technology should be welcomed and rigorously

applied. Only then will the archive make headway on the constantly growing backlogs and other

problems faced.
 References

Gilliland, Anne. (2014). Conceptualizing 21st Century Archives. ALA Editions

Green, M & Meissner, D. (2005). More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival

Processing. The American Archivist. Vol. 68. (208-263). Accessed through

https://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article/68/2/208/24011/More-Product-

Less-Process-Revamping-Traditional

Jo, E. S., & Gebru, T. (2019). Lessons from Archives: Strategies for Collecting Sociocultural

Data in Machine Learning.

https://doi-org.proxy.library.kent.edu/10.1145/3351095.3372829

Millar, Laura. (2017). Archives; Principles and Practices. ALA Neal-Shuman.

Rolan, G., Humphries, G., Jeffrey, L., Samaras, E., Antsoupova, T., & Stuart, K. (2019). More

human than human? Artificial intelligence in the archive. Archives & Manuscripts, 47(2),

179–203. https://doi-org.proxy.library.kent.edu/10.1080/01576895.2018.1502088

Schuessler, Jennifer. (2020, December 9). Johns Hopkins Reveals That Its Founder Owned

Slaves. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/arts/johns-hopkins-slavery-abolitionist.html

Shang, E., Liu, X., Wang, H., Rong, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Research on the Application of

Artificial Intelligence and Distributed Parallel Computing in Archives Classification.

2019 IEEE 4th Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control

Conference (IAEAC), Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation

Control Conference (IAEAC), 2019 IEEE 4th, 1, 1267–1271.

https://doi-org.proxy.library.kent.edu/10.1109/IAEAC47372.2019.8997992