2.2.5 Existing lists

The surveyor will frequently come across previously-created lists of some or all of the material in the collection. These lists may have been created by dealers, donors, or by an institutiuon that previously owned a collection.A list may reflect the original order of the material, or it may reflect an arrangement imposed by those who created the list. The processing proposal should address whether and how to incorporate existing lists into the processing plan.

When evaluating existing lists, consider the following factors:

Bias of the creator of the list. Dealer’s lists often highlight especially notable names, subjects, or rare formats at the expense of equally important but less monetarily valuable material. Ideas about research value and assumptions about research methods change over time, and a list might reflect the values of another era, highlighting particular formats or subjects while playing down others.
Expertise of the creator of the list. Were they able to read all of the languages present in the collection? Did they have sufficient knowledge of the subject area or formats in the collection to recognize important names, files, or objects? Did they perform the initial processing that underlies the list in accordance with archival theory and principles?
Comprehensiveness. Does the list encompass all of the material present? Does it describe material at least at the box level? Does it include date spans?
Accuracy. Are the names and dates in the list correct? Are writings, subject files, etc. correctly identified?
Level of detail. Some inherited lists are extremely detailed at the item level, and the material may be more effectively described in the aggregate.
Standards and terminology. Is the data in the list sufficiently standard to support access through keyword searching? Does it contain jargon or abbreviations that would confuse researchers?
Confidential and sensitive information. Does it contain price notations, give detailed descriptions of restricted material, or contain personal details that must be redacted (e.g. Social Security numbers)?
Outdated, harmful, or otherwise problematic language: Does the language in the list adhere to local guidelines for creating anti-oppresive archival description?

Based on the archivist’s judgment of the existing list, considering the level of arrangement and description required for the collection, the list might be repurposed with only minor editing, or it might be discarded in order to create a new list, or some solution in between. If an existing description is repurposed, the finding aid should include a disclaimer about the degree to which the library verified the existing list against the material, and the degree to which the content has been standardized to facilitate access.