DISCUS THE SCHELLENBERG TAXONOMY OF VALUES IN APPRAISAL OF ARCHIVES I.

E PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY.
INTRODUCTION
T.R Schellenberg was a US archivist who worked in American archives and shortly after second
world war he also over whelmed by a huge influx of records which promoted him devise a
strategy of appraising records.
According to Bettington (208:20-21) T.R. Schellenberg was a US Archivist who advocated that
archivists needed to be involved in the selection of records of value to researchers.Bettington
says Schellenberg devised a system of values to assist archivists in making appraisal decisions.
Schellenberg explained that public archives have two types of values: a primary value to the
original agency and secondary value to other agencies and non users. Schellenberg’s taxonomy
of values have since become adopted as the appraisal frame work throughout the USA and in
other English speaking countries, including Australia. It is a theory herein referred as the
Schellenberg’s theory of values of records.
Where secondary values are categorized into two:
>Evidential values.
>Informational values.
According to Kent (2010) the Schellenberg theory which is often referred to as the traditional
theory focus on finding value in records, these values commonly expressed as primary and
secondary, with secondary values being divided into evidential and informational values. This
methodology which was propounded by Theodore Schellenberg places special emphasis on the
archivist’s responsibility for appraising records to identify secondary values, as his definition of
archives makes it clear: “These records of any public or private institution which are adjudged
working of permanent preservation for reference and secondary purposes.

Schellenberg’s theory of records values do have its own advantage which are listed by Jackie
(2008:20) are as follows:
>It is easy to implement.
>It helps to resolve immediate problems .
>It may be more closely managed , controlled and implemented by archives .
>It requires minimal involvement of personnel.
Although Schellenberg’s theory of records values has been popularized it had been critised by a
number of critics:

Jackie (2008:20-12) summerised the shortcomings of the Schellenberg’s theory as follows:

>It is reactive and proactive.

>It is in inefficient in the long run and lack of intergration with other records keeping practices .

>It may result to fragmentation of evidence and memory reduces the likehood of retaining full and

accurate records.

>It may fail to manage vital records vital records appropriately and manage migration of records

electronic records.

>It may result to wrong records sent to the archives.

Jackie (2008:20-21) says critics argue that the traditional approaches involving retrospective file-by-file
appraisal could not keep up with the demands of digital record keeping and the increasing dynamic
administrative structures, entities and work places in which records were generated and used.

Cox (2000) says archivists themselves have warned of the dangers of being too closely tied to the
academic market place with the ultimate result that archival holdings too often reflected narrow
research interests rather than the broad spectrum of human experience. Cox 2000 also says
Schellenberg’s theory left the historical user-oriented archivists unable to engage with non-historical
uses and users of records such as those in medicine, science, business, sociology and environmental
studies. While trying to predict future research trends, the archivist was neglecting to document the
wider society in which the record creators and institutions functioned.

Kent (2010) also says content-oriented appraisal cannot give a true or even representative image of
society. Archivists who support Hilary Jenkinson’s theory on the nature of archives assert that selection
by content to support research is in direct conflict with basic archival theory and the very nature of
archives. Finally, critics of traditional appraisal methodology assert that in the modern world of high
volume documentation and electronic records that exist as logical and not physical entities, archivists
can no longer hope to focus on the record and appraisal by content. This view is supported also by
Jackie (2008:20-21) when he says “The traditional approaches had worked fairly will in a paper-based
world, but the explosive growth in the volumes of records generated in the later decades of the
twentieth century, especially in conjuction with the widespread adoption of digital technology, gave rise
to a re-examination of these approaches.

Conclusion.

The author had defined Schellenberg’s theory of records values and went on to state some of
advantages of Schellenberg’s theory of primary and secondary records values which includes its easiness
to implement, helps in resolving immediate problems etcetera. However much effort have been made
trying point out the shortcomings of Schellenberg’s theory of records values and pointed out that
Schellenberg’s critics had offered the records functional theory which archivists argues is more of
macro-view of records than Schellenberg’s theory which argues majors on the micro-view of records.

Refferences.

1.wikipedia

2. Google scholar