This report examines archival finding-aid platforms, consortial systems, updating practices, description consistency, access platforms, search accuracy, researcher navigation problems, and staffing for finding-aid maintenance.
The report finds that finding-aid platforms are widely used and generally well regarded, but description quality and usability remain significant concerns. 23.08% of respondents are very satisfied with their archival finding-aid platform, and 42.31% are satisfied, for a combined positive rating of 65.39%.
Consortial infrastructure is common. 69.23% publish finding aids through a consortial platform such as ArchivesSpace or ArchiveGrid, while 19.23% do not and 3.85% are planning to join. Among research universities, 87.50% use a consortial platform.
Updating is often irregular. 46.15% say finding aids are updated or revised rarely, while only 19.23% report weekly updates and 19.23% monthly updates. This helps explain continuing concerns about legacy metadata and inconsistent description.
Description consistency is a weak point. Only 7.69% are very satisfied with consistency of archival description across collections, while 34.62% are dissatisfied. ArchivesSpace is the dominant access platform, used by 65.38%, followed by institutional digital repositories at 42.31%, Alma/ILS at 30.77%, discovery layers at 23.08%, and Aeon at 19.23%.
Researcher navigation problems are common. 57.69% say researchers sometimes report difficulty navigating finding aids, and 7.69% say this happens often. Staffing for maintenance is fragmented: only 26.92% have staff dedicated to updating finding aids, while 34.62% treat it as a shared responsibility and 30.77% have no dedicated staff.