Bob Krawczyk, Former
Descriptive Standards Officer, Archives of Ontario
(A more in-depth explanation of the Archives of Ontario's
series system is now available as an article in the journal
Archivaria: Krawczyk, Bob. “Cross
Reference Heaven: The Abandonment of the Fonds as the Primary
Level of Arrangement for Ontario Government Records.”
Archivaria no. 48 (Fall 1999) pp.131-153)
return to top of page
Introduction
The Archives of Ontario (AO) recently decided to abandon
using fonds-level arrangement for our holdings of Ontario
government records in favour of an approach modelled on
the Australian series system. This document outlines the
history and rationale underlying the decision and describes
modifications which have been made to the Australian system.
It also addresses adjustments which the Archives will be
making in its application of RAD so that series-based arrangement
can be implemented. Finally, an implementation timeline
is provided, along with an example of a series description
linked to related authority records.
Within its holdings, the Archives of Ontario also has the
private records of many individuals, families, associations
and businesses relevant to Ontario society. We will continue
to arrange and describe these materials using a fonds-based
approach.
return to top of page
Past arrangement practices at the Archives of Ontario
The "RG" system
The evolution of arrangement practices at the Archives
of Ontario for government records is similar to that of
many North American institutions. Series were grouped into
"record groups" (RGs) corresponding approximately
to single creators, multiple creators over time, or groups
of similar creators. These creators most often were defined
at a ministerial or departmental level, although some independent
agencies were also given separate RGs. The assignment of
a unique RG number also was affected by researcher demand
for records and the frequency of administrative change within
creating bodies.
Like many other institutions, the AO experienced problems
with the RG system. Definitions of "record groups"
were arbitrary. The creation of record groups for subordinate
bodies such as agencies, boards and commissions was not
based on standardized criteria and was consequently haphazard.
Moreover, administrative change over time led to past arrangement
decisions frequently being revisited and modified.
The advent of "flexible
description"
In 1993 the Archives of Ontario's Standing Committee on
Intellectual Controls (SCIC) addressed the problem of administrative
change by introducing "flexible description" (really,
flexible arrangement). Archivists were given more flexibility
in the means of providing provenential information in their
paper-based government records inventories.
Since that time, archivists at the AO have created more
sophisticated routes of access to series descriptions within
government records inventories, although the inventories
themselves continue to be based largely on previously existing
record groups. Within an inventory for a department, ministry,
or ministries, cross references generally were provided
between the creating agency (usually a subordinate body
such as a branch or division) and the series created by
that agency. In this way, series could be linked provenentially
to more than one branch, if the name or function of the
branch changed over time. "Flexible description",
then, offered a form of multi-provenance arrangement for
series within the record group system.
At the same time, "flexible description" enabled
series descriptions for multi-provenance series to be placed,
if appropriate, in more than one inventory. In practice,
however, this was done only infrequently since series were
difficult to track when descriptions were updated, and there
were no guidelines on applying multiple placement. As well,
it was discovered that certain fonds-level descriptive elements
such as physical description became essentially meaningless
when series were placed in more than one fonds.
Currently, researchers visiting the Archives who wish to
access government records will find paper-based inventories,
normally based on a creating ministry but sometimes, due
to administrative change, on a broad functional theme such
as "tourism". These inventories contain detailed
descriptions of subordinate agencies (e.g., "Tourism
Industry Division") alongside breakdowns of various
functions represented by the records described in the inventory
(e.g., "tourism facilities development"). Both
listings are cross- referenced to individual series descriptions
and act as access points within the context of the inventory.
This system has some merit and has given archivists valuable
experience in analyzing functions as represented in series
and in reflecting the multi-provenance nature of records.
Nevertheless, it continues to reflect the absence of standards
in the definition of a record group (or of a fonds) and
does little to remedy past arrangement decisions. While
it leads researchers to records within a single
inventory on the basis of provenance and function, it does
not offer similar, systematic access across all our government
holdings. Moreover, since this system is not truly based
on a definition of creator or of fonds within the context
of the administration of the Ontario government, the application
of RAD is problematic at best. Finally, "flexible description"
can only work if it remains paper-based, with physical binders
holding "inventories" of related records in our
reading room. As the Archives began to examine automating
description, it became clear that our current system of
arrangement for government records could not be systematically
applied in an automated environment.
return to top of page
The rejection of the fonds approach
For the automation of government records description to
be successful, a much more rigorous approach to arrangement
was required. Two options were identified: arriving at and
applying a definition of "fonds" which would be
workable within the context of the Ontario government, and
adopting a series-based approach to government records.
In January 1997 a discussion paper was circulated to all
archivists. At subsequent meetings, they were unanimous
in supporting the adoption of a series-based approach to
arrangement. The Prototyping Team at the Archives, which
was then exploring options for a descriptive database of
all our holdings, was instructed to develop a test system
that would accommodate the new approach to government records.
By summer, it was clear that the series approach could be
accommodated within an electronic database environment.
In November 1997, the Archives' Operations Management Committee
approved use of the series system for the arrangement of
Ontario government records.
One of the reasons for the surprisingly rapid acceptance
of a series system by archivists and management was their
commitment to and growing sophistication at providing provenance
information over time for multi-provenance series, due to
the advent of flexible description. Archivists saw in the
series system a way to cope effectively with the constantly
changing structure of the Ontario government and the challenges
it poses to arrangement. As well, archivists were aware
of ongoing archival discussions about arrangement and the
definition of "fonds", and the problems which
arise with multi-provenance series.
In archival literature, statements noting the rapidity
of administrative change and the atypicality of current
administrative arrangements which have stopped conforming
to strictly hierarchical models are now commonplace. A large
body of archival writing discusses the definition of fonds
and the problems with multi-provenance series and notes
that these problems are becoming more challenging, rather
than less, in modern records creating environments (endnote
#1).
Two major issues typically are identified with a fonds-based
system of arrangement: the challenge of coming to a workable
definition of a "fonds creating body", and the
problems that arise when attempting to assign multi-provenance
series to predefined and exclusive fonds.
The trouble with definitions
of fonds
The most common model for defining a subordinate but independent
creator is that of Michel Duchein (see Archivaria 16,
Summer 1983, "Theoretical Principles and Practical
Problems of Respect des fonds in Archival Science").
Library and Archives Canada, which produced a report on
"Criteria for the Establishment of Fonds for the Records
of the Government of Canada" in 1995, relied heavily
upon Duchein's criteria. The report identifies the following
elements used to define a public sector fonds: a creator
must have "a legal identity", "an official
mandate", "a defined hierarchical position",
"a large degree of autonomy", "an organizational
structure", and "an independent record-keeping
system".
In the course of examining the creation, dissolution and
structure of agencies within the Ontario government, we
found not only that these criteria were difficult to apply
consistently, but that they were also overly conservative
about what could be considered a fonds-creating body. For
instance, some existing ministries of the Ontario government
have no enabling legislation, but rely on Acts that established
previous ministries which have since merged into new entities.
How can this be reconciled with the need for a "legal
identity"? The guidelines offer some indication of
how to proceed, but in the context of the Ontario government
they seemed to require too many exceptions or explanations
to be practicable.
At any rate, the criteria only attempted to answer a single
question: how does one determine which "subordinate"
corporate bodies may be safely considered as "fonds-creating"
bodies separate from their controlling agency. This is an
important question; however, it does not touch upon name
changes, function changes, the creation of new bodies, and
the dissolution of existing bodies as they occur over time.
Trying to apply these criteria can be frustrating: What
if there is no functional change but a name change? What
if there is a name change but no functional change? In these
cases and others, the question arises: is there one agency,
or two?
Moreover, the National Archives report distinguished between
a jurisdiction (function) that has been transferred between
two existing bodies, and a jurisdiction which has been transferred
from an "extinct" body to another body. It notes
that "If a new body is created to exercise the jurisdiction
of an existing body, but there is indisputable, total continuity
of jurisdiction between the two, there is then considered
to be only one fonds, the name of which simply changes"
(endnote #2). In other words, the archivist
has some latitude in determining the difference between
a name change or a new creator. However, the report offered
no definition of the terms "new", "extinct",
"jurisdiction", and "existing" in the
context of corporate bodies.
At the Archives of Ontario, it was decided that what was
needed was a clear, systematic way to distinguish between
name changes, functional changes, new bodies, and extinct
bodies as they are created and evolve over time. Not until
this was done could the relationships between creating bodies
be codified and presented to the public in such a way as
to provide context for the creation and subsequent use of
the records being described.
The trouble with multi-provenance
series
A fonds-based approach implicitly demands that series be
placed in mutually exclusive groupings. The definition of
a fonds for a corporate body is "the whole of the documents,
regardless of form or medium, automatically and organically
created and/or accumulated and used by a particular corporate
body in the course of that creator's activities or functions"
(endnote #3). This definition, emphasizing the "whole"
of the documents, poses significant difficulties for the
arrangement of multi-provenance series and conflicts with
various solutions that archivists have devised to place
multi-provenance series.
In most discussions of this problem, there is an implicit
assumption that the context of creation and custody of a
series is uniform to the series; that is, that a series
is created, used and transferred to the archives by a single
creator, and that the custodial history of one part of the
series will be the same as that of another part of the series.
This, we found, was an unwarranted assumption.
Through an analysis of our records, we discovered that
the opposite was true for series of records created over
time; indeed, the custodial history of separate accruals
to a series could be entirely different. In cases where
a function was transferred from one ministry to another,
records series were created and transferred to the Archives
by more than one ministry. Clearly, we were dealing with
single series which now contained records created and transferred
to the custody of the Archives by two different "creators".
Typically, the suggested solution is to move the record
series into the fonds of the most recent creator, based
on the idea that the series has now been integrated into
the fonds of the subsequent body. However, this severs from
the fonds of the earlier creator those records which it
created, accumulated and transferred to the archives. This
practice cannot be reconciled with the definition of "fonds".
A second approach, if the rules for defining a fonds-creating
body are loosely applied, might be to establish a fonds
for the subordinate administrative entity responsible for
the function (normally an administrative body such as a
division or a branch, which is responsible for a function,
is transferred between ministries); this, however, would
only serve to remove the series from both of the
Ministry fonds, and probably many from many other related
series as well.
A third option, but one that raises even more problems
than it solves, would be to place the series in both "fonds".
This further confuses the definition of fonds, and contradicts
the need to assign a series of records to only one fonds
arises out of the fonds-based approach which defines completely
separate groups of records which are then described as a
whole. In other words, it is adherence to a precise definition
of fonds, as it applies in the context of large, frequently
changing administrations, which prevents archivists from
representing the organic context of creation over time.
Although the series system sometimes comes under attack
for not adequately reflecting provenance, it is the fonds
system that has the greatest difficulty accounting for the
changing context of creation over time. The series system,
consisting of series descriptions linked to multiple agency
histories, can depict the relationship of a series to multiple
creators, thereby allowing a much more accurate, systematic
and flexible provision of provenance information in a finding
aid system.
return to top of page
Can the use of Rules for Archival Description
and the series system be reconciled?
The Archives of Ontario was one of the first major institutions
in Canada to officially adopt the use of RAD: and we continue
to support strongly its use for the description of archival
records. At the same time, since description necessarily
follows arrangement, any decision not to arrange
our government records at the fonds level logically precedes
a decision about the application of RAD to our holdings.
There is, in fact, surprisingly little conflict between
a series-based approach to the arrangement of government
records and the application of RAD. As there is no difference
between the first level of detail for a fonds and the first
level of detail for a series, all RAD elements which may
be used at the fonds level also apply at the series level.
Not providing fonds level descriptions does, however, mean
that some information must be repeated for each series.
As well, the title element will generally need to contain
creator information at the series level, as this will not
be implied by the fonds title.
Apart from the impact on series descriptions, the series
system requires two major departures from RAD: descriptions
of government records will contain no fonds level data,
and the administrative history element will be replaced
with a repeatable, multi-level "offices of origin"
field, connected to an authorities database containing administrative
histories. The implications of these two departures from
RAD are discussed below.
The weakness of fonds level
descriptive elements for records of larger corporate bodies
An analysis of fonds level descriptive elements for our
government records revealed that they were often of questionable
value to our researchers. Fonds level elements such as the
administrative history and scope and content note were frequently
used to outline administrative change and its effect on
the records. These explanations, which often seemed confusing
and belaboured in the context of a fonds level description,
will be handled more elegantly and simply within the series
system. Other fonds level elements were too general in nature
to be of much use. For example, access statements at the
fonds level normally are limited to an indication that the
records in the fonds are subject to Ontario's Freedom
of Information and Personal Privacy Act.
In contrast, more useful information detailing restrictions
applying to individual series of records can be found at
the series level. Similarly, fonds level physical descriptions
for government records were frequently too large to be meaningful
(e.g., ca. 2000 m. of textual records and other material).
The Archives concluded that the ease with which researchers
could gain access or insight into our holdings would not
be substantively impaired by abandoning fonds level description
for government records.
Does RAD support the implementation
of a series system?
Although RAD is predicated upon a system of arrangement
that begins with the fonds and moves to lower levels of
description, the systematic application of a number of existing
RAD rules over a large group of interrelated corporate bodies
lends itself to the application of a series-based system.
In particular, these are:
- Administrative histories and biographical sketches may
be displayed within the authority record rather than the
descriptive record if authority records and descriptive
records are directly linked within a descriptive system.
(Rule 1.7B, footnote).
- At the series level, multiple provenance access points
may be created for a creator whose name has changed. (Rule
21.3C).
- When creating authority records for corporate bodies,
cross references should be created between related but
independently entered corporate headings (Rule 26.3B1).
Furthermore, explanatory references are possible when
complex situations arise in this process (Rule 26.3C1).
The series system amounts to nothing more than an application
of existing RAD rules as they relate to the relationships
between authorities for corporate bodies, and between these
authorities and related series descriptions.
However, the application of some of the rules in Chapter
26 (References) will be altered. For instance, generic see
also references will be replaced with more specific
predecessor and successor references,
and references will also be allowed between agencies at
different levels of the same hierarchy.
return to top of page
A Modification of the Australian System
The system under development at the Archives of Ontario
will resemble the Australian system in many respects, most
notably by including a large database of agency histories.
These histories will be related to each other in successor,
predecessor, controlling, and subordinate relationships
over time in such a way as to record administrative change
systematically: this will allow for movement between related
records. The agency histories will be linked to series descriptions
in multiple, repeating relationships. Nevertheless, not
all facets of the Australian system have been adopted.
Our approach does not distinguish "organizations"
from "agencies". In the Australian system, an
organization is the highest level of government administration,
most commonly the Commonwealth of Australia. Agencies are
subordinate administrative bodies responsible for carrying
out specific functions or activities and are linked to organizations
in a "controlling" relationship. In the Ontario
context, the need to establish a similar "organization"
is not compelling: the only practical distinction between
various "controlling organizations" would be the
colonial predecessors of present-day Ontario. The Archives
of Ontario does hold records created in the pre-Confederation
period; there is, however, no imperative need to isolate
them within a database. Moreover, fact that records were
created by a pre-Confederation entity will be apparent to
the researcher through the forms of name for the authorized
heading of the agency. Consequently, in the Ontario database,
controlling agency has been redefined to resemble more closely
the definition that Canadian archivists may know as a "fonds-creating
body"; that is, an agency with sufficient independence
that it is not subordinately related to other agencies.
In a further modification of the Australian system, our
agencies' database will also act as an authorities' database
for Ontario government agencies. Agency descriptions will
contain headings created in accordance with Chapter 23 and
24 of RAD as well as references based upon Chapter 26. They
also will contain all the data elements required for an
International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate
Bodies, Persons and Families (ISAAR(CPF)). This will enable
the Archives potentially to share its authorities with other
institutions, using a sub-set of data elements found within
the Ontario database. Finally, the administrative history
element has been divided into two parts: a brief function
note which outlines the purpose of the agency being described,
and an administrative history, which captures elements of
the administrative history of the agency not accounted for
in other parts of the agency description.
return to top of page
Examples
Examples of series descriptions and related agency histories
follow. These examples consist of a single series description
(showing the operation of the "Office of Origin"
field), and two related agency histories. You can click
on either choice below, as all the example records are related
to each other.
These records exist only as HTML documents and illustrate
of our initial thoughts concerning an on-line system. Not
all data elements are shown for the agency histories or
the series descriptions.
Please note that not all potential links between agencies
and series descriptions are provided in the examples.
return to top of page
ENDNOTES
- For a discussion of the problems
inherent in the fonds-based approach to arrangement, see
Terry Cook, "The Concept of the Archival Fonds: Theory,
Description and Provenance in the Post Custodial Era"
in The Archival Fonds: from Theory to Practice
(Bureau of Canadian Archivists, Ottawa, 1992).
- Library and Archives Canada. Archives
and Government Records Branch. Criteria for the Establishment
of Fonds for the Records of the Government of Canada (Version
3.0). Ottawa: 15 May 1995.
- Definition from: Bureau of Canadian
Archivists. Planning Committee on Descriptive Standards.
Rules for Archival Description. Ottawa: BCA, 1998. Page
D4
|
