UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

SCHOOL OF LIBRARY, ARCHIVAL AND INFORMATION STUDIES

MACRO-APPRAISAL AND MULTI-YEAR DISPOSITION

PLAN AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF CANADA

SUBMITTED TO

TERRY EASTWOOD

ARST520: SELECTION AND ACQUISITION OF ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS

WEI LIU

April 7, 2007

Introduction

Macro-appraisal and the Multi-Year Disposition Plan become the

topics of this paper because they are Canadian-born theory and

methodology, and have been practiced largely in the Canadian context

at the federal level. It is thus useful to look into these topics in greater

depth in order to gain a better understanding of the Canadian

experience in archival appraisal.

This paper aims to examine the origin and development of the

theory and methodology of macro-appraisal, the strength and

weakness of the macro-appraisal model as revealed in practice, and

the Multi-Year Disposition Plan as the main vehicle for appraisal and

archival acquisition at the National Archives of Canada.

Macro-appraisal and the Multi-Year Disposition Plan have been

developed and implemented at the National Archives since the early

1990s, and are continually being refreshed and improved. The majority

of the discussion in this paper is based on the past publications of

those archivists at the National Archives, such as Terry Cook, Catherine

Bailey, Jean-Stephen Piché, Eldon Frost, Brian Beaven, etc., who have

been actively involved in the conceptual development of macro-

appraisal, and its practice.

Background

1

The beginning of the idea of macro-appraisal in the early 1990s

was closely related to the unsatisfactory situation of the acquisition of

historical government records at the National Archives of Canada.

Back to the late 19th century, the acquisition of historical

government records did not draw much attention from the then Public

Archives of Canada (PAC). This was partially due to the lack of interest

of the first Dominion Archivist, Douglas Brymner, in current

government records. This was also due to the slow growth of the

government in the early years after Confederation, and thus a lack of

need for altering existing records management procedures.1

The efforts to systematically manage and acquire government

records in Canada did not begin until 1889. That year the Post Office

started to face a specific problem of managing routine financial

records, and submitted a request to the Cabinet for a standard 5 years

retention period for these records. As a result, the first records

schedule in the Canadian government was issued, allowing for the

destruction of records having no value, and the longer retention of

records having more value.2

Since then, the use of records scheduling as a source of archival

acquisition has been gradually expanded to other departments of the

government. In December 1979, after months of surveys, research and

studies, Bryan Corbett and Eldon Frost completed their popularly

1 Jay Atherton, “The Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1879-1956,” Archivaria 8 (Summer 1979): 36.

2 Ibid., 38.

2

known “Corbett-Frost Report”, in which they examined the status of

the acquisition of government records at the PAC in the past one

hundred years, including the evaluation of the success and failure of

records scheduling as a means of archival acquisition.3

Corbett and Frost reported that, the PAC acquired approximately

16,700 feet of archivally significant textual records between 1872 and

1965, and an addition of 60,000 feet between 1965 and 1979. In 1969

alone 164 records schedules were processed, and over 37,000 feet

records were destroyed.4

Yet how many of these records were acquired in accordance with

records schedules? It was extrapolated that, for eleven major

departments,5 about 40 per cent were processed through the

applications of records schedules and the dormant storage facilities of

the PAC between 1965 and 1979. This was a substantial portion of the

total acquisition, and the report ascribed the success partially to the

passing of the Public Records Order (PRO) in 1966 and the Access

Directive in 1973.

However, while the scheduling system has worked fairly well in

terms of increasing the total acquisition, and disposing of large

quantities of paper case files, it has not assisted archivists in 3 See Bryan Corbett and Eldon Frost, “The Acquisition of Federal Government

Records: A Report on Records Management and Archival Acquisition,” Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-1984): 201-32, for an abridged version of this report.

4 Ibid., 202.5 Ibid., 202. These departments include Transport, Finance, National Research

Council, Labour, Energy, Mines and Resources, Environment, Agriculture, Secretary of State, Health and welfare, Immigration, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

3

identifying and preserving important archival records, nor has it helped

improve the overall quality of acquisitions. The reason for this was

articulated by Eldon Frost, in his 1991 essay entitled “A Weak Link in

the Chain: Records Scheduling as a Source of Archival Acquisition”.6

Frost says that, the purposes of having a records schedule are

twofold, given the fact that there are two parties involved. On the one

hand, the records creator needs the records schedule to permit timely

destruction of records when they no longer have values, thus free the

needed storage space. The records schedule should also help the

records creator to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. On

the other hand, the records schedule should assist the archivist in

identifying, acquiring and preserving archival records.7

According to Frost, such disparity between the dual purposes of

the records schedule is a “less readily understood, but more

fundamental, flaw in records scheduling as traditionally practiced.”8

Records creators have been generally concerned with the efficiency of

the scheduling process, such as the number of schedules approved,

the speed of approval, and the quantity of records scheduled. They

want loose, flexible disposition authority and maximum latitude for

actions in order to immediately solve the storage issues. It is little

wonder that the records manager naturally pays more attention to

6 Eldon Frost, “A Weak Link in the Chain: Records Scheduling as a Source of Archival Acquisition,” Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-1992): 78-86.

7 Ibid., 79.8 Ibid., 81.

4

textual records than non-textual records, as the storage of textual

records demands large physical space. By contrast, archivists are

increasingly cautious in making appraisal decisions, and therefore,

want precision of records description in schedules to help identify

important archival records. They would also want to make informed

appraisal decisions by examining records across all media, rather than

simply going through textual records, to avoid the duplication of

information.9

Prior to the early 1990s, the records scheduling process has been

conducted in a fairly conventional way. The initiative of submitting the

proposal for disposing of records lay with the institutions. Naturally,

they tended to schedule bulk case files first, leaving important policy

records and records in other media the last to be considered. The

National Archives participated in the scheduling processes in a very

passive mode, and appraised a vast amount of records in an isolated

state, without the knowledge of their functional and structural context

of creation. Consequently, despite the huge resources put into the

appraisal activities, poor appraisal decisions have been made, leading

to the acquisition of “a piecemeal and often fragmentary record”,10

Maps, plans, and records of other media were almost always acquired

by archivists through contacts with the specialists. No schedules

existed for electronic records. Moreover, the entire scheduling system

9 Ibid., 81.10 Bruce Wilson, “Systematic Appraisal of the Records of the Government of

Canada at the National Archives of Canada,” Archivaria 38 (Fall 1994): 218.

5

has been time-consuming, involving multiple rounds of appraisal

decisions. It has proved inefficient in addressing both archivists and

records creators’ needs, and created tensions with the government

institutions when their submitted schedules were rejected for

modification.11

Macro-Appraisal – Concepts and Theory

The pressing need for better appraisal practices at the National

Archives increased through the 1980s.12 In 1983, the access to

information and privacy legislation (ATIP) was passed, requiring that

personal information be collected only for the defined purposes, and be

destroyed once these purposes are served. Since then the National

Archives has assumed responsibilities in scheduling masses of

government records containing personal information. Later in 1987,

the National Archives of Canada Act was passed, with the provision to

empower the National Archivist with the sole authority to permit the

destruction of government records. The National Archives soon

became responsible for evaluating and scheduling the records of 156

federal departments and agencies covered by the Act, in addition to

those of “the federal judiciary, parliament, commissions of inquiry, and

other selected government institutions not covered by the Act.”13 The

11 Ibid., 219.12 John Roberts, “One Size Fits All? The Portability of Macro-Appraisal by a

Comparative Analysis of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand,” Archivaria 52 (Fall 2001): 49.

13 Wilson, “Systematic Appraisal,” 219.

6

extent of records of these bodies is over-whelming, and could not be

dealt with under the old system.

Responding to these pressures, Terry Cook first introduced the

idea of macro-appraisal in his 1991 RAMP study, with the purpose to

“offer guidelines for archivists for the appraisal of records containing

personal information”.14 This idea was further articulated in Cook’s

1992 seminal article “Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of

Archival Appraisal”.15 In this article, Cook attempts to outline the

conceptual underpinning of macro-appraisal - a theoretical societal

model, and to propose an approach to turn this model into the working

reality for archivists at the National Archives.

Generally speaking, appraisal theory explores “the sources or

influences upon which archivists base their decisions to assign ‘value’

or ‘significance’ or ‘importance’ to records”.16 Besides macro-appraisal,

there are mainly two schools of appraisal theories in the 20th century:

theories based on utilitarianism, and theories based on statism.17

Theories based on utilitarianism determine the archival value of

records by their current or anticipated use. These theories are mostly 14 Terry Cook, The Archival Appraisal of Records Containing Personal

Information: A RAMP Study with Guidelines (Paris, 1991), published by the International Council on Archives, UNESCO. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ramp/html/r9103e/r9103e00.htm. Last accessed: April 6, 2007..

15 Terry Cook, “Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal,” in Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992): 38-70.

16 National Archives of Canada, Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis (Part A: Concepts and Theory). Available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-management/007/007007-1035-e.html. Last accessed: April 6, 2007.

17 Roberts, “One Size Fits All?” 52.

7

advocated by the followers of T.R. Schellenberg. The prevalence of this

“pertinence” approach, as Terry Eastwood would characterize it, is

mainly because of “its captivation by the historical sensibility and the

close link between archival practice and historical scholarship” in North

America.18 However, in the attempts to determine the potential use of

records by future researchers, the archivist cannot avoid becoming “a

weathervane moved by the changing winds of historiography”, and

collecting the archival holdings that “too often [reflect] narrow

research interests rather than the broad spectrum of human

experience”.19

Developed by Sir Hilary Jenkinson and his followers, theories

based on statism instead determine the archival value of records by

the enduring values designated by the records creator. Jenkinson

believes that archivists should not appraise records because such an

activity inevitably involves subjective judgements, and in doing so, the

archivists’ role as the objective and passive custodian of archival

records would be greatly compromised. He sees the records creator as

the sole agent for the selection and destruction of his own records,

because “for an Administrative body to destroy what it no longer needs

is a matter entirely within its competence and an action which future

18 Terry Eastwood, “Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal.” In Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992): 82.

19 F. Gerald Ham, “The Archival Edge,” The American Archivist 38 (January 1975): 5-13.

8

ages...cannot possibly criticize as illegitimate or as affecting the status

of the remaining Archives”.20

How, then, would macro-appraisal determine the archival value

of records? And, how is it different from these traditional approaches?

Firstly, macro-appraisal objects to the neo-Jenkinsonian’s

opinion, and asserts that archivists are “society’s professional agents

appointed by law to form its collective memory”.21

Secondly, the Schellenbergian’s taxonomic approach assumes

that values are found in records, and seeks to find a logical and

consistent way to categorize such values (e.g., primary value,

secondary value, evidential value, informational value, intrinsic value,

and so on). The focus is always on the record itself, rather than on the

larger historical and social landscape. Macro-appraisal instead shifts

the focus from the record to its structural-functional context of

creation, from the end-product of the creation process to the process

itself, and from “matter” to “mind”, as Cook would put it.22 However,

legal, intrinsic or informational values are referred to at the stage of

micro-appraisal as additional appraisal considerations. Explicit

definitions of these values are given in the Macro-Appraisal and

Functional Analysis Guidelines.23 20 Hilary Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration, London: Percy Lund,

Humphries & Co., 1965: 149.21 National Archives of Canada, Appraisal Methodology, Part A.22 Cook, “Mind Over Matter,“ 47.23 National Archives of Canada, Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and

Functional Analysis (Part B: Guidelines for Performing an archival Appraisal on Government Records). Available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-management/007/007007-1041-e.html. Last accessed: April 6, 2007.

9

The macro-appraisal theory has a societal focus, so does the

“documentation strategy” proposed by Helen Samuels in the United

States, and the approach by German archivists, such as Hans Booms. It

is essentially based on the assumption that the source of archival

value comes from “theories of value of societal significance which

archivists bring to the records”.24 It is also based on the assumptions

that, government institutions are created and organized to meet the

contemporary societal requirements and needs, i.e., what society

values, and such societal value would likely exist in “the generic

attributes, interconnections, and points of special intersection or

conflict between creators of records...sociohistorical trends and

patterns...and the clients, customers, or citizens”.25 In another word,

the archival value of government records exists in their ability to

reflect the interplay between the government’s administrative

structure, its business functions, and the citizenry.

Cook articulates the rationale for these assumptions as follows.

He observes that, although it is impossible to determine the full

“reality” of society’s processes and functions, archivists can choose a

“slice-of-life” that most likely represents this “reality”. The key is to

conduct research on the means by which such “reality” is articulated,

such as “societal functions and structures, and the citizens who create

or generate and interact with both”. By identifying where the citizen

24 Cook, “Mind Over Matter,“ 41.25 Ibid., 40.

10

interacts with the state, archivists can determine where the best

documentary evidence will likely be found. He can then produce “the

sharpest and clearest insights into societal dynamics and issues”, 26

and thereby a better reflection of the “image” of the society. That is to

say, in the macro-appraisal model, archivists consider “the

mechanisms and locations (the how and where) of the image formation

– the controversial ‘hot-spots’ in the citizen-state interaction, the most

important structures, and the key functions”,27 as the basis to assign

archival values to government records. Accordingly, the overall goal of

macro-appraisal at the National Archives of Canada is to “choose

significant and sufficient recorded evidence from Offices of Primary

Interest”, and the recorded evidence should “most succinctly reflect, in

the best recording medium, the impact of the function or program on

Canadians and the public’s interaction with the function or program.”28

Macro-Appraisal Methodology and MYDP

The macro-appraisal methodology is the means to assist

archivists to identify the societal value of government records in the

working reality. It is a practical guideline for implementing the macro-

appraisal theory. Unlike the piecemeal and fragmented approach in the

past of the National Archives, the approach of the macro-appraisal

26 Ibid., 49.27 Ibid., 52.28 For the definition of Office of Primary Interest, see National Archives of

Canada, Appraisal Methodology, Part A.

11

methodology is a planned, systematic, top-down, function-centered

and research-based one.

Different from the traditional approach, which often concentrates

on appraising records “at the bottom”, the macro-appraisal

methodology emphasizes the top-down functional analysis. It starts

with the analysis of the operational purpose or broad societal function

of a government institution – the macro level. It then moves on to the

analysis of various administrative structures, sub-functions, and

business processes within the institution, and subsequently to the

analysis of the information systems that produce and organize records

in these processes. At the very end – the micro level, are records

themselves examined, and only in small samples, for the purposes of

verifying the macro-appraisal hypothesis, and identifying records of

other additional values. Such functional analysis does not simply seek

for the answer to “what is the function?”, but rather to “what is

valuable and what is not? what is worth remembering by society and

what is not? what should become archives and what should be

destroyed?”29 The purpose of this top-down approach is to assess the

capacity of institutions, branches, sectors, and offices to create records

of value in a global way, rather than dealing with records one by one.30

29 Terry Cook, “Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis: Documenting Governance Rather Than Government,” Journal of the Society of Archivists Vol. 25, No. 1 (2004): 6.

30 National Archives of Canada, Appraisal Methodology, Part B.

12

Research is yet another key element in the macro-appraisal

methodology. It is obvious that the success of the top-down functional

analysis relies largely on the completeness and sufficiency of

information regarding the background, functions, sub-functions,

business processes, activities and transactions, structures, and records

keeping systems of a specific institution. It requires extensive research

to gather this information, in order to form a macro-appraisal

hypothesis.

In Canada, the vehicle for carrying out macro-appraisal is called

the “Multi-Year Disposition Plan” (Hereinafter MYDP). The National

Archives seeks to negotiate a MYDP with each of some two hundred

government institutions. The goal of the MYDP is to establish a series

of agreements for the disposition of the records of each institution.

These agreements need to be signed by the specific institution and the

National Archivist. The final product of each MYDP is a disposition

authority with specific terms and conditions for the institution to

identify what is to be retained, and the date, condition, and technical

details of the transfer of archival records.

The production of a MYDP is an elaborative process, and involves

a number of players, complex agreements, extensive research, long

time frames, and intensive work.31

Given the resource constraints, the National Archives first has to

decide the priorities of the institutions to be appraised. Based on the 31 Wilson, “Systematic Appraisal,” 220.

13

importance of the institution within the government hierarchy, and the

breadth and diversity of its mandate and functions, the National

Archives established a series of four categories.32 In the first year of

the program, the National Archives started to work on all category one

institutions. Category two institutions were dealt with in the second

and third years. Category three institutions then followed in the fourth

year. However, category four institutions, with the least significance,

would only be considered if there is time and resource.

Appraisal for an MYDP, as discussed earlier, is a top-down,

research-based process, and involves long-time efforts of both the

archivist and the records analyst. There are generally five core steps in

such a process.

1. Researching to decide the complexity and relative importance of

sub-functions, programs, and activities within an institution;

2. Researching to pinpoint the structural site(s) – the Office(s) of

Primary Interest;

3. Researching to understand the nature and most focused sites of

citizen’s interaction with the function or program;

4. Forming of a macro-appraisal hypothesis of where the best

records are, what they globally and conceptually would be, etc.;

5. Testing or confirming the hypothesis by appraising functionally

selected files, and analyzing the possibility of duplication,

especially in the case of electronic records. 33

32 Other criteria may also be taken into consideration, such as the duplication of functions, the form of records, etc. See Wilson, Systematic Appraisal, 223.

33 Cook, “Governance,” 12.

14

The archivist and the records analyst each play a particular role

at the researching stages. The record analyst is generally responsible

for assembling information about the structure of records keeping

system of the institution, and about the past relations between the

institution and the National Archives.

This process of establishing a MYDP inevitably involves lots of

negotiation, proposals, and agreements. For example, when targets for

the first year appraisal are identified after initial research the archivist

and the records analyst need to work out a proposed MYDP for

discussion and agreement with the institution. After the completion of

all research, the records analyst works with the records manager of the

institution to prepare a submission describing the records. Based on

this submission, the archivist then drafts a written, formal appraisal,

and concludes with terms and conditions under which records are to be

retained and transferred. The archivist would then consult actual

records in order to verify his appraisal hypothesis.

Once the appraisal is completed, and agreements achieved, the

terms and conditions are formally signed off by the institution and

submitted to the National Archivist for the issuing of formal disposition

authority.34

34 For more detailed description on this process, see Wilson, Systematic Appraisal, 223-225.

15

The Strength and Weakness of the Macro-Appraisal Model

Macro-appraisal, as any other appraisal theories and strategies,

has its strength and weakness, which should be evaluated in particular

appraisal situations.

Shifting the focus from records to the structural and functional

context in which they are created, macro-appraisal provides a practical

means for archivists to deal with today’s large volumes of government

records. With just a few exceptions, where records are examined for

their legal, intrinsic, and informational values, the bulk of the records

will be appraised and disposed of on the basis of their context – the

function and significance of the area of the institution.

Jean-Stephen Piché, one of the first archivists at the National

Archives to experiment macro-appraisal, successfully applied the

methodology to tackle the mass of the real property management

records.35 The work was carried out, first, by defining how the

responsibilities for operations related to real property management

were shared among government departments, and then, by describing

patterns of information within departments that took these tasks.

Through the understanding of how the function was carried out

horizontally across government departments, duplication in the

records-creating process as well as in the archival holdings was

35 Jean-Stephen Piché, “Macro-Appraisal and the Duplication of Information: Federal Real Property Management Records,” Archivaria 39 (Spring 1995): 39-50.

16

identified. In his 1995 article, Piché says that, the macro-analysis of the

real property management program provides very good guidelines,

and helps to “refine archival value judgements that otherwise would be

very difficult to make by the traditional approach of appraising records

in isolation.”36 He also suggests that such an approach would perhaps

be applied to other functional areas that also have a multi-institutional

character, in order to deal with the problem of duplication of

information.

Catherine Bailey expresses similar opinions in her 1997 article

“From the Top Down: the Practices of Macro-Appraisal”. In this article,

she presents detailed analysis of four appraisals in the field of health

and social welfare where she has applied the macro-appraisal model.

In each case study the appraisal started with a macro-functional

analysis, and ended with a micro-appraisal. According to Bailey, the

macro-appraisal model provides “a sound theory and methodology for

the acquisition of a high quality archival record”, and results in

stronger disposition recommendation compared to the traditional

“taxonomic” methodology.37

Yet there are weaknesses of the macro-appraisal model revealed

by Bailey through her practices. Firstly, as explained earlier the

model’s dependence on extensive research is an important strength. It

is, however, at the same time a weakness, because such research

36 Ibid., 42.37 Catherine Bailey, “From the Top Down: The Practice of Macro-Appraisal,”

Archivaria 43 (Spring 1997): 122.

17

requires large amount of staff time and other resources. Sometimes, it

is very difficult to locate the background and supporting information.

There are also potential difficulties in coping with organizational

changes. Such changes often result in rapid and long-distance moves

of records that previously have been appraised and identified for

retention. Another attempt to give a comprehensive assessment of the

success and shortcomings of macro-appraisal and the disposition

process can be found in Bruce Wilson’s 1994 article.38

Moreover, although it has been largely accepted by archivists at

the National Archives that macro-appraisal provides a sound basis for

making more informed appraisal decisions, the vehicle for conveying

these decisions, Terms and Conditions in the MYDP, has not succeeded

in assisting the institution to answer the question: “what records are to

be retained, and what to be destroyed?” Often the institution

complains that Terms and Conditions in the MYDP are written in a

manner too abstract and technical to be applied for identifying archival

records. As a result, some appraisal decisions have not been translated

into a better acquisition. Since 2003, the National Archives has put

some efforts into rectifying such situation, and formed the Terms and

Conditions Work Group to carry out the task of revision. Some progress

has been made since then, and the feedback has been very

“favourable”.39

38 See Wilson, Systematic Appraisal, 225-30.39 Catherine Bailey, “Turning Macro-appraisal Decisions into Archival Holdings:

Crafting Function-based Terms and Conditions for the Transfer of Archival Records,”

18

Conclusions

Macro-appraisal is the “Canadian way” of carrying out archival

appraisal,40 and has now been developed and implemented at the

National Archives of Canada for over a decade. The macro-appraisal

theory is essentially a societal model, and assesses the archival values

of records through the analysis of both the functional and structural

context in which records are created, and the citizen-state interaction.

Many archivists at the National Archives of Canada have

attempted to implement macro-appraisal since its inception in the

early 1990s. Through their practices macro-appraisal has been

continually refreshed and improved. Most recent update was the re-

engineering of the government records disposition program at the

National Archives in 2002-2004, including an expanded framework of

accountability.41

Yet some archivists have doubt in the theoretical foundation of

macro-appraisal, and argue that there is nothing new in it at the

theoretical level. Brian Beaven interestingly states that, in developing

macro-appraisal, Cook simply “picked over, and grafted existing best

practices onto the more recent emphasis on seeing functional, records-

creating context as the first or primary consideration in locating

Archivaria 61 (Spring 2006): 147-79.40 Terry Cook, “Macroappraisal in Theory and Practice: Origins, Characteristics,

and Implementation in Canada, 1950-2000,” Archival Science 5 (2005): 101.41 Candace Loewen, “Accounting for Macroappraisal at Library and Archives

Canada: From Disposition to Acquisition and Accessibility,” Archival Science 5 (2005): 239-259.

19

archival value.”42 And, “of the ten standard characteristics of macro-

appraisal that Cook himself isolates, nine are strategic and

methodological, and are unconnected directly to the core reorientation

away from records ‘product’ towards functional activity and creational

contexts.”43 Beaven also finds ambiguities in the micro-appraisal stage

of the methodology, when traditional taxonomic approach is called

upon to determine various additional values of records. Although

Richard Brown would back it up with his famous “hermeneutic reading

of texts”, it seems that in reality archivists seldom tread this way.

Is macro-appraisal indeed a new theory? Answer to this question

is yet to be found!

Sources Consulted

Atherton, Jay. “The Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1879-1956.” Archivaria 8 (Summer 1979): 35-59.

Bailey, Catherine. “From the Top Down: The Practice of Macro-Appraisal.” Archivaria 43 (Spring 1997): 89-128.

________. “Turning Macro-appraisal Decisions into Archival Holdings: Crafting Function-based Terms and Conditions for the Transfer of Archival Records.” Archivaria 61 (Spring 2006): 147-79.

Beaven, Brian P.N. “Macro-Appraisal: From Theory to Practice.” Archivaria 48 (Winter 1999): 154-98.

Cook, Terry. The Archival Appraisal of Records Containing Personal Information: A RAMP Study with Guidelines (Paris, 1991). published by the International Council on Archives, UNESCO. Available at:

42 Brian P.N. Beaven, “Macro-Appraisal: From Theory to Practice,” Archivaria 48 (Winter 1999): 170.

43 Ibid., 171.

20

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ramp/html/r9103e/r9103e00.htm Last accessed: April 6, 2007.

________. “Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal.” in Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992): 38-70.

________. “Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis: Documenting Governance Rather Than Government.” Journal of the Society of Archivists Vol. 25, No. 1 (2004): 5-18.

________. “Macroappraisal in Theory and Practice: Origins, Characteristics, and Implementation in Canada, 1950-2000.” Archival Science 5 (2005): 101-61.

Corbett, Bryan and Eldon Frost. “The Acquisition of Federal Government Records: A Report on Records Management and Archival Acquisition.” Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-1984): 201-32.

Eastwood, Terry. “Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal.” In Barbara L. Craig, ed., The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992): 71-89.

________. “Teaching and Learning about Macroappraisal.” Archival Science 5 (2005): 365-9.

Frost, Eldon. “A Weak Link in the Chain: Records Scheduling as a Source of Archival Acquisition.” Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-1992): 78-86.

Ham, F. Gerald. “The Archival Edge.” The American Archivist 38 (January 1975): 5-13.

Jenkinson, Hilary. A Manual of Archive Administration. London: Percy Lund, Humphries & Co., 1965.

Loewen, Candace. “Accounting for Macroappraisal at Library and Archives Canada: From Disposition to Acquisition and Accessibility.” Archival Science 5 (2005): 239-259.

National Archives of Canada. Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis (Part A: Concepts and Theory). Available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-

21

management/007/007007-1035-e.html. Last accessed: April 6, 2007.

________. Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis (Part B: Guidelines for Performing an archival Appraisal on Government Records). Available at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/information-management/007/007007-1041-e.html. Last accessed: April 6, 2007.

Piché, Jean-Stephen. “Macro-Appraisal and the Duplication of Information: Federal Real Property Management Records.” Archivaria 39 (Spring 1995): 39-50.

Roberts, John. “One Size Fits All? The Portability of Macro-Appraisal by a Comparative Analysis of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand.” Archivaria 52 (Fall 2001): 47-68.

Wilson, Bruce. “Systematic Appraisal of the Records of the Government of Canada at the National Archives of Canada.” Archivaria 38 (Fall 1994): 218-31.

22