{"title":"建立补偿性描述框架","authors":"Stephanie M. Luke, Sharon Mizota","doi":"10.1007/s10502-024-09435-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article describes a study to understand how galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) in the United States are undertaking reparative description efforts. The study involved interviews with representatives from nineteen institutions that had published or presented on their implementation of reparative description between 2017 and 2020. The authors inquired about the nature of reparative description efforts at the institution, how the work was initiated and conducted, and the interviewees’ thoughts about its long-term sustainability at the organization. This article highlights findings from these interviews and the trends that emerged. One of the most significant discoveries was the difficulty GLAM workers reported in assessing the impact of reparative description work, an issue that many interviewees believed could negatively affect the trajectory and progress of the work in the future. Informed by the study’s findings, the authors developed a tool to assist institutions in evaluating and benchmarking their initiatives. The Maturity Model for Reparative Description (MMRD), describes and classifies reparative description work across eight evaluative categories. The authors offer the MMRD as a flexible model for institutions to adopt and adapt as a framework for assessing their reparative description work, measuring the progress of their initiatives, and planning and projecting areas of strategic growth.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46131,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","volume":"24 3","pages":"481 - 508"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Instituting a framework for reparative description\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie M. Luke, Sharon Mizota\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10502-024-09435-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This article describes a study to understand how galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) in the United States are undertaking reparative description efforts. The study involved interviews with representatives from nineteen institutions that had published or presented on their implementation of reparative description between 2017 and 2020. The authors inquired about the nature of reparative description efforts at the institution, how the work was initiated and conducted, and the interviewees’ thoughts about its long-term sustainability at the organization. This article highlights findings from these interviews and the trends that emerged. One of the most significant discoveries was the difficulty GLAM workers reported in assessing the impact of reparative description work, an issue that many interviewees believed could negatively affect the trajectory and progress of the work in the future. Informed by the study’s findings, the authors developed a tool to assist institutions in evaluating and benchmarking their initiatives. The Maturity Model for Reparative Description (MMRD), describes and classifies reparative description work across eight evaluative categories. The authors offer the MMRD as a flexible model for institutions to adopt and adapt as a framework for assessing their reparative description work, measuring the progress of their initiatives, and planning and projecting areas of strategic growth.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"481 - 508\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-024-09435-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-024-09435-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Instituting a framework for reparative description
This article describes a study to understand how galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) in the United States are undertaking reparative description efforts. The study involved interviews with representatives from nineteen institutions that had published or presented on their implementation of reparative description between 2017 and 2020. The authors inquired about the nature of reparative description efforts at the institution, how the work was initiated and conducted, and the interviewees’ thoughts about its long-term sustainability at the organization. This article highlights findings from these interviews and the trends that emerged. One of the most significant discoveries was the difficulty GLAM workers reported in assessing the impact of reparative description work, an issue that many interviewees believed could negatively affect the trajectory and progress of the work in the future. Informed by the study’s findings, the authors developed a tool to assist institutions in evaluating and benchmarking their initiatives. The Maturity Model for Reparative Description (MMRD), describes and classifies reparative description work across eight evaluative categories. The authors offer the MMRD as a flexible model for institutions to adopt and adapt as a framework for assessing their reparative description work, measuring the progress of their initiatives, and planning and projecting areas of strategic growth.
期刊介绍:
Archival Science promotes the development of archival science as an autonomous scientific discipline. The journal covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practice. Moreover, it investigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and data. It also seeks to promote the exchange and comparison of concepts, views and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the world.Archival Science''s approach is integrated, interdisciplinary, and intercultural. Its scope encompasses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context. To meet its objectives, the journal draws from scientific disciplines that deal with the function of records and the way they are created, preserved, and retrieved; the context in which information is generated, managed, and used; and the social and cultural environment of records creation at different times and places.Covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practiceInvestigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and dataPromotes the exchange and comparison of concepts, views, and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the worldAddresses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context