Research Study Title: Reappraisal and Deaccessioning Practices in the United States and Canada 

Date of survey: March - April 2017

Principle Investigators: Marcella Huggard and Laura Uglean Jackson

Contacts: Marcella Huggard, University of Kansas, mhuggard@ku.edu and Laura Uglean Jackson, University of Northern Colorado, Laura.ugleanjackson@unco.edu



DESCRIPTION: 
This survey studied reappraisal and deaccessioning in archival repositories in the United States and Canada. 

The files deposited in KU ScholarWorks include:
 reappraisal_deaccessioning_practices_redacted_raw_survey_data: Raw data from the reappraisal and deaccessioning survey in a csv file
 - born_digital_deaccessioning_redacted_raw_data: Raw data from the follow-up survey on deaccessioning born digital materials
 - reappraisal_deaccessioning_practices_survey_questions and born_digital_deaccessioning_survey_questions: Survey questions from both surveys in text files
 - reappraisal_deaccessioning_survey_questions_formatted and born_digital_deaccessioning_follow_up_questions_formatted: 
Survey questions from both surveys in PDF
 format to enable a better review of the formatting

. 

Raw data was exported directly from the survey platform, Qualtrics. The principle investigators removed in both sets of raw data IP addresses, location latitude and longitude information, names, emails, and other contact information, and other identifying information to maintain anonymity of survey participants. They also deleted empty (blank) columns (for example, recipient email address) for improved formatting. If respondents included information that might have identified them in open-ended comments, the principle investigators removed only this information, placing [REDACTED FOR ANONYMITY] in its place, in order to preserve as much of the original comment as possible.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
: 
The objectives for this study were multifold:

 To learn how repositories conduct reappraisal and deaccessioning, including the processes involved
; To learn how common these practices are and which types of repositories reappraise or deaccession, and which do not; To better understand how the archives profession perceives reappraisal and deaccessioning; To learn why repositories reappraise or deaccession and why they do not; To better understand effects on donor relations.
 Additionally, the survey sought to generate quantitative data about transparency 
regarding deaccessioning decisions and disposition of deaccessioned materials. The 
survey asked about the existence of institutional reappraisal and deaccessioning policies; the 
impact of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) Guidelines, approved by SAA in 2012, and whether the existence of these guidelines has created an uptick in the practices of reappraisal and deaccessioning; and benefits and 
negative effects of reappraising and deaccessioning.   



SAMPLE AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES:
	
Survey design commenced in February 2017. The authors formulated mostly multiple choice questions with write-in options to reduce survey fatigue. The authors considered using Likert scales, but did not because doing so would have led to a very long survey due to the large number of objectives and options for multiple choice questions. After creating a first draft of the survey, the authors distributed it for review by 5 colleagues familiar with reappraisal and deaccessioning. Based on this feedback, questions were refined and the survey was finalized.
 

The survey ran from March 8-April 14, 2017. The target population was repositories in the United States and Canada, and due to the large sample size it was advertised widely. It was sent to the general Archives & Archivists listserv and the SAA Acquisition and Appraisal Section listserv. The authors posted the survey to distribution lists or social media pages, such as Facebook, for regional archival organizations to which they belonged, including the Midwest Archives Conference, Kansas City Area Archivists, Society of Rocky Mountain Archivists, and Society of California Archivists. One reminder was sent to each of these lists and organizations. The authors also asked SAA section chairs to post an announcement to their respective section distribution lists, but do not know to which groups it was posted. A link to the survey also appeared twice in SAA’s bi-weekly “In the Loop” email newsletter to the entire membership, on the New England Archivists’ and Northwest Archivists’ Facebook pages, and in the National Association for Goverment Archives and Records Administrators (NAGARA) LinkedIn Group. The authors extended the survey deadline a week after its original deadline to advertise through the Association of Canadian Archivists listserv to encourage more Canadian responses. The authors do not know exactly how many people or repositories the survey was sent to, but estimate approximately 6,000 based on approximate number of subscribers to the various channels. Respondents did not receive any compensation for completing the survey.

The authors administered the survey using the Qualtrics platform.  This platform allowed for skip and branch logic, so that respondents could bypass individual questions or entire sections depending on their answers to previous questions. The survey authors used both these options to reduce survey fatigue and ensure respondents only had to answer questions pertinent to their institutional practices.
 

While the survey received 489 responses, 149 respondents did not continue after the initial demographic questions, and another 17 surveys were completely blank. Three hundred and twenty-three surveys were submitted with most or all questions answered, a 66% completion rate. On average, participants took 32 minutes to complete the survey.  
	

SECOND SURVEY:
The authors sent a second survey to 13 participants who reported that their repositories reappraised and/or deaccessioned born digital material and gave their contact information. The purpose of this follow-up survey was to learn how institutions undertake the practice of reappraising and deaccessioning born digital materials, and confirm that the respondents understood the difference between weeding and deaccessioning. Twelve people responded to five questions. 



DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS:
Survey respondents came from a diverse background in geographic location, institutional type and size, and staffing and budgetary situation.  Most participants were from the United States, with 34 Canadian archivists responding. The number of Canadian participants was low likely because the survey was distributed to the ACA listserv only two weeks before it closed (the authors had asked a colleague to post it on their behalf, and it took longer than expected). Survey participants were anonymous unless they volunteered their contact information for possible follow-up questioning. While almost half the respondents were from academic institutions (138 responses, 42.8%), all levels of government were well-represented at 46 institutions, or 14% of total responses. Religious archives and public libraries each accounted for 8% of the responses (26 and 25 institutions respectively), and museum archives accounted for 22, or 7% of total responses.  Local historical societies or museums and corporate archives each had 15 responses (4%), and non-university research libraries, medical archives, and other types of archival institutions made up the rest of the respondents (12.7%).
	
Most Canadian responses were from Ontario (18 of the 34), and the top four states from which United States responses came were California (52), Massachusetts, Missouri, and Illinois (all with 18 responses each). There were no responses from a handful of states, Manitoba or Prince Edward Island, or Puerto Rico.