User Advisory Group Minutes
Title:
User Advisory Group
Date of Meeting:
17 March 2015
Location:
The National Archives
Staff
Jeff James (JJ) - Chief Executive and Keeper
Caroline Ottaway-Searle (COS) – Director of Public Services and Human Resources
(Chair)
Valerie Johnson (VJ) - Interim Director of Research and Collections
Lee Oliver (LMO) - Head of Public Services Development
Nick Kingsley (NK) - Head of Archives Sector Development
Sarah Leggett (SL) – Marketing Manager
Gary Thorpe (GT) – Partnerships Manager
Jonathan Cates (JC) – Collections Information and Systems Manager
Kay Oakley (KO) - Customer Research Manager
Foluke Abiona (FA) – Customer Intelligence Manager
Emily McIntyre (EMc) - Customer Intelligence Officer
Joanna Robinson (JCR) - Customer Intelligence Assistant (Minutes)
Delegates
Kristina Bedford (KB) – Map Room Users
Nigel Browne-Davies (NBD) - Diversity and Inclusion
Martin Farr (MF) – Academic Users
Professor Grace Ioppolo (GI) – Academic Users
Jacqui Kirk (JK) – Independent Researchers
Howard Llewellyn (HL) – Diversity and Inclusion
Susan Moore (SM) – Map Room Users
Rosemary Morgan (RM) – Independent Researchers
Margaret O’Sullivan (MO’S) - County/External Archives
Anne Samson (AS) – Onsite Personal Interest Users
David Shiels (DS) - Early Careers Academic research
Graham Woolgar (GW) – Onsite Personal Interest Users
Apologies
Carol Beardmore (CB) – County/External Archives
Else Churchill (EC) - Family History Societies
Nell Darby (ND) – Online Users
Jo Pugh (JP) – Student Users
Page 1 of 9
Item
Action
1.
Minutes, Matters arising and general updates
1.1
COS welcomed delegates to the meeting. She welcomed NBD, the new Equality
and Diversity delegate, to his first UAG meeting.
1.2
(Item 2.10 12/14) GI asked if TNA’s Shakespeare Anniversary plans have been
confirmed.
COS advised that we hope to provide an update at the June UAG meeting.
1.3
HL asked if, following the London Probate Search rooms closure, the books could
be housed at TNA.
COS said we do not have an answer at the moment and will take this away.
COS
Post-meeting note: The records of Probate post-1858 are the responsibility of the
Probate Registry in line with the Senior Courts Act 1981, and therefore outside of
TNA’s remit.
1.4
(Item 2.7 12/15) GW asked if the publication date for the Royal Naval cards is still
July 2015, and if they will be hosted by TNA. He also asked if the boxes of cards
which had previously been missed for digitisation will be included in the launch.
COS confirmed the publication date is still due to be July 2015 and will be hosted
by TNA. We will confirm that the previously missed cards will be included nearer
the time.
Post-meeting note: We will give an update at the next meeting.
1.5
GI said that there is a dearth of academic users at TNA. She acknowledged that
TNA works with MA and PhD students, but suggests that other ways to engage
with academics are explored.
JJ said that this is something that is currently being focused on at TNA, and said
that VJ, the Interim Director of Research and Collections, would be joining the
meeting later on.
1.6
(Item 4.11 12/14) GW said even if there is no ‘user need’, advance information is
very desirable for those interested in forthcoming transfers. Referring to a User
Forum item (Item 4.3 01/14) concerning Record Transfer reports in which Julia
Stocken (Julia Jones) gave highlights of forthcoming transfers to TNA, GW said he
has asked frequently about expanding the available data on forthcoming transfers,
but received no answer. He said there must be plans about the number of
documents due to be transferred.
COS said it is different matter to inform attendees of highlights contained in the
Record Transfer report, to providing the level of information GW is requesting.
1.7
GW suggested there appeared to be a blank refusal to respond to his request
directly.
COS said it is not a blank refusal, however it is not an easy matter for us.
Page 2 of 9
COS
LMO said that making such forecast information available, which is not a
guarantee of transferral, could lead to unreasonable expectations of what will
actually be transferred.
GW said TNA could provide a percentage likelihood of transfers on the website,
and said TNA does have the scope of a year in which to do this.
COS said we will not be able to resolve this issue at this meeting.
GW requested this ‘blank refusal’ be minuted.
1.8
GW said that at the Extraordinary User Forum in February Richard Bateson had
asked questions regarding the transfer of ADM 358 and Royal Navy medal cards,
and all received the answer that the questions should be directed to the MoD. GW
said that the answer with regard to ADM 358 was unsatisfactory because Julia
Jones had announced the transfer in January 2014. If she was prepared to talk
about it then, why the reticence in February 2015?
LMO said if we had the records we would have stated this.
2.
New TNA Strategy for 2015-2019
2.1
JJ gave delegates an update on TNA’s new strategy. He said the strategy has
now received ministerial approval. However as we are subject to constraints
around the election period, plans will not be publicised in advance of May 2015.
2.2
JJ explained to delegates that the strategy is built around the four key TNA
audiences: the public; the government; the archival sector; and academia.
Public: JJ said that the responsibilities of COS’s Public Engagement directorate,
will take effect from 1 April. Although financial constraints will entail limitations, the
aim of the directorate is to concentrate on enhancing public experience. There will
be a focus on public programmes, including Shakespeare anniversary activities
and a continuation of popular FWW programmes. We will work on making the Kew
site more engaging and welcoming within the financial constraints. There will also
be events related to our key collections, for example the Magna Carta online
resource which we have worked on in partnership with Parliament.
Government: JJ said there has recently been an increasing level of interest from
the government in record administration. Our Information Management
Assessment (IMA) programme independently assesses the information
management systems of government departments. We perform a reassessment
approximately four to five years later. We have recently completed the first FCO
IMA reassessment. JJ said our strategy will continue to build on this work and
continue to hold government departments to account.
Archives sector: There are around 2,000 archives around the UK. TNA will work
on helping to refresh government strategy, and will be a strong advocate for the
archive sector. JJ clarified that TNA does not actually preside over the archival
sector, and does not have an ultimate authority over them. Although our ability to
influence is limited, we do exercise the responsibility we have to the sector, and
remind local authorities of their responsibilities.
Page 3 of 9
Academia: JJ said it is likely that the new Research and Collections directorate will
absorb other areas as its remit develops. The directorate under the interim director
VJ, is expected to begin to lead in a new direction. However, JJ said it is important
to recognise that there will be restraints because of the election, and any
permanent changes will be established after summer 2015.
JJ said that TNA is committed to its new digital focus and has a responsibility to
ensure the challenges of the Born Digital era are met. Our out-going Interim Chief
Technology Officer Rachel Murphy will be handing over part of her responsibilities
to Clem Brohier for technology, and part to Mary Gledhill, who has taken on cross
TNA responsibility for digital. JJ said that TNA has been accessioning digital
records since LOCOG and the Leveson enquiry and are confident in our ability to
accession digitally. We now need to increase the scale.
JJ also emphasised that TNA intends to build on our collaborations and
partnerships.
2.3
GI spoke about the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and its focus on the
concept of the ‘impact’ that academic research has on the world outside
academia. She asked if this is something that TNA is taking into account and
suggested that TNA focuses on this. She added that universities will be interested
in pursuing discussions along these lines with TNA.
JJ said that TNA works with the Institute of Historical Research (IHR) and Arts &
Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and that we are confident that we have an
extensive reach.
2.4
GW asked for more details about IMA.
JJ said that since 2008 we have worked with government department staff to
ensure they have the tools they need to deal with information management. We
produce an action plan which is reviewed every 6 to 12 months. We then reassess
the department every four of five years, as recently completed with FCO. We are
currently working with the DWP, and the next department will be the HO.
2.5
SM asked if TNA works with government agencies in the same way as
government departments, and if TNA can visit departments to check up on their
records.
JJ said we do have the responsibility to ensure the care of all government records,
though the traditional focus is on Whitehall.
NK said that there are a variety of relationships between agencies and
government departments.
2.6
MOS said there are currently issues around the Arts Council recommendations for
funding archives by giving them trust status. She asked what the minimum
requirements were for this to happen and said that such trusts are often proposed
at very short notice.
NK spoke about ‘In a spin’, TNA’s guidance on ‘spinning out’, the conversion of
heritage, and library and archives services to charitable trusts or community
management. He said TNA does not take a view as to which trusts are good or
not, as this will depend on the particular circumstances. However, we do want to
ensure key principles are taken into account, so that records are not at risk.
JJ advised delegates that circumstances are different in each situation. If archives
Page 4 of 9
are thinking about these matters, they should engage with TNA at an early stage
and have discussions with us so we can work together to help them fulfil their
obligations. In a trust, the public relationship remains between the local authority
and TNA. It is helpful to know that the records have protection.
JJ said if we feel an organisation is at risk we write to them to find out how we may
be able to help them. We are currently working with ACE about the ‘Memorandum
of understanding’ we have with them.
MOS said this should be more widely publicised as users need to be informed too.
NK said we have responses from people on the ground, and within archive
services who are aware of what our aims are.
2.7
COS suggested that someone from the Engagement team could come to speak to
delegates about this subject.
2.8
HL asked if archives apply for trust status so they are not liable to pay business
rate council tax.
NK said this is possible but these matters are changing, so this is less clear cut
that previously. He said if SM has a list of concerns she can let him know and he
will address them.
2.9
SM said that some archives are threatened with closure, but another problem is
that many have had to implement reduced hours. This can cause problems for
researching, as for example, if there are discrepancies with indexes, a researcher
needs to pay return visits simply to locate the document they are researching
resulting in repeatedly wasting time.
JJ said that unfortunately this is out of his control. The responsibility for these
arrangements lies with whoever is providing the service. He said he does not have
the authority to go in and demand changes. If, however, a service is accredited, or
the delivery has an impact on public records held on deposit, he may be able to
assert authority over how the accredited archive is providing their service. He said
that TNA has met with local archives, and we want them to stay local and
available. We try to help people make informed decisions.
JJ said he wants to help archives deploy their service, and is concerned when
access is compromised.
2.10
Separate, confidential minute.
3.
Separate confidential minute.
4.
Who Do You Think You Are Live (WDYTYA Live) update.
4.1
SL gave an update on this year’s ‘Who Do You Think You Are Live’ event in midApril. She said TNA has had stands at ‘WDYTYA Live’ events for several years on
and off, and returned last year. This year’s event will be held at Birmingham’s
NEC, which will allow TNA to engage with users in a different part of the country.
She said we anticipate the expansion of our audience as a consequence of
directly engaging with people outside the South East, in this three day intensive
event.
Page 5 of 9
FA
SL showed delegates the design of TNA’s stand, which will include a Welcome
Desk area. There will be a fixed team of ARK representatives who will attend each
day to give records advice on a ‘first come first served’ basis. Staff members will
also have iPads in order to be able to advise people ad hoc. The focus will be on
the First World War as this proved to be very popular last year, and we will be
based next to the IWM stand. We will also be working with the Find My Past team.
We will have a small seating area in which we will be able to provide advice ‘one
to many’ using a large screen.
4.2
SM asked if there will be any staff who would be able to advise those interested in
records accessed in the Map room.
SL said WDYTYA is focused on family history so this will not be something we will
be focusing on.
KB suggested that many people are interested in researching earlier family history
such as 16th century ancestors.
SL said this kind of research would be classed as more advanced family research
and WDYTYA is more generally focused on beginners and intermediate research.
4.3
SM requested that the next WDYTYA event TNA provides a section which makes
it clear that TNA does hold records which reach back before 1900.
SL said she understood SM’s point but reminded delegates that TNA staff will be
available to answer any enquires and not exclusively FWW.
5.
First World War 100 and crowd sourcing update.
5.1
SL gave delegates an update on the Operation War Diary project, for which TNA
is in partnership with IWM and Zooniverse. She said that since January 2014, over
12,000 volunteers (Citizen Historians) have signed up to the project, and that over
100,000 unique pages have been tagged to date.
SL also said that the project’s online community is regularly used by volunteers,
and that they have been active in answering each other’s questions.
5.2
GW asked what is actually being tagged.
SL said that most diary pages include details of date, time and place, with other
data (such as names or details of what the unit is doing) occurring in many of the
pages. She said that a group of academics has advised on deciding which
information is tagged, as it can be used in historical and statistical research. She
said that we have already learned a number of lessons about crowdsourcing that
we are sharing with other institutions considering embarking on this sort of activity.
6.
Delegate Submitted Items
6.1
Are non-technological aspects of Map Room service still a priority for TNA?
LMO said they are.
Page 6 of 9
6.2
KB said she feels that TNA’s emphasis on having ‘fewer barriers and more
technology’ is an unhelpful attitude in relation to medieval documents, as it is
important for researchers to be able to see the real document.
LMO said that there was a place for both technology and non-technology solutions
to providing access.
6.3
LMO advised delegates that USBs are not used by visitors or staff at TNA. He
said we are investigating the possibilities of Bring Your Own Device, so that users
will be able to capture an image digitally and take it away with them, whether that
image is taken of an original document, or one already digitised. He said that we
can’t currently supply a time frame for this but informed delegates that our Wi-Fi
network is part of our business plan.
6.4
LMO then spoke about the Discovery webinar which was held last month. He said
he was grateful to those UAG delegates who took part and gave us feedback. He
explained that one of the purposes of the webinar was to see if existing software
used by Education department was fit for our purpose; it was found that although
this works well for the Education department, it turned out not to be the best
system for our purposes. The next Discovery webinar, to be held on 7 April, will
use a different software package.
6.5
AS requested that TNA does not rely solely on webinars to impart advice in future.
LMO assured her that there will still be text guides.
6.6
HL asked if the response to the webinar was positive.
LMO said feedback was positive, and users thought we were taking a step in the
right direction. However, he said that we are aware that we still have a lot to learn.
He said we were encouraged by the numbers involved in the webinar, as about 70
people logged in to the session.
6.7
SM asked if there was information on where the webinar users logged in from.
LMO said we don’t have that information.
6.8
DS asked if it would be possible obtain document ordering history information
online.
LMO said this was complicated, as the DORIS system has no external access at
all at present. DORIS user accounts and order history are not currently integrated
into Discovery. LMO said that we are looking at ways to make closer links
between DORIS and Discovery.
6.9
HL asked if we will be publishing an aid to using Discovery.
LMO said we won’t be making hard copy guides as Discovery is constantly
evolving. We always update the guides on the website to ensure users get the
best and most up to date advice on how to use Discovery.
6.10
SM asked if it will be possible to next-day order after 5pm.
LMO said we are investigating this, but it cannot be guaranteed.
Page 7 of 9
6.11
LMO quoted from Emma Bayne’s previous response to GW’s query about result
sorting in Discovery. He said that this has been considered in the past and we
responded on 27 May 2014 as follows: ‘Having the sort preference on the
homepage or advanced search was investigated but was found to be confusing. It
doesn’t make sense to have it prior to the results page as seeing the results helps
users understand the sort options and what they do. We have considered this
feedback and we are comfortable with the decision to leave it on the search
results page.’
GW said LMO was quoting from Emma Bayne’s email, and said he is still unhappy
with our response.
RM suggested that new users may actually find it useful to see the unsorted
results.
LMO said we have been consistent with our reasons on this matter, and we will
not be taking this any further.
6.12
LMO spoke about a concern raised about “searching using * within brackets”. He
said that we had to change our search system, and unfortunately this functionality
is not part of the default package of the new software. We are investigating
whether this feature can be added.
6.13
GW spoke about the effects of “rooting” in Discovery. He said that rooting could be
achieved by other means, namely the use of the *. However, if rooting is to be
used it should be documented in Discovery Help.
6.14
GW requested an update about WO 416.
LMO said that MoD will be coming to review the records in light of our concerns.
6.15
SM said it is frustrating that Websense so often blocks perfectly good sites. She
said it is frustrating that lots of people don’t know that there is a possibility of
requesting the release of blocked sites. She suggested that there should be a
button which can be pressed which immediately notifies IT that a site should be
unblocked.
LMO said we don’t have the resources for this and that it takes time for IT to
process this unblocking, as sites have to be checked to ensure they are safe.
RM suggested that acceptable websites were listed as sites which should not be
blocked.
LMO said the internet grows exponentially and that there are lots of uncategorised
sites which we need to be cautious about. He explained that just because a site is
on a .ac domain, does not guarantee it is not a threat to our network.
RM asked if there could not be a daily evaluation of what sites are blocked and
need to be unblocked, by staff.
LMO said we do not have the resources to monitor like this.
COS said we could brainstorm about the most commonly used, unnecessarily
blocked sites.
AS said some sites she looks at from other institutions can’t come through an
open network.
Page 8 of 9
SM asked how the LFHC was able to give access to websites deemed unsuitable
by Websense.
LMO said LFHC have a different IT system to us, which is managed from Salt
Lake City. They have their own approach to network security. We have to take
measures to protect our network. He said he is fully aware of and understands the
frustration, but explained that if we opened everything up and something went
wrong there would be no network to use. He advised delegates that this system
applies to staff as well as public.
GW asked why staff don’t make requests for these sites to be unblocked.
LMO said sites are unblocked when requested by staff, as they are when
requested by users. He reiterated that we need to protect our network.
7.
Discovery Finding Archives – update on ARCHON closure
7.1
SM asked about the closure of Archon, and asked how the information can now
be accessed.
LMO said this information can be found in Discovery through ‘Find an Archive’.
7.2
JC explained that the Archon service was withdrawn on 18 March and confirmed
that all the information is now in Discovery.
JC said this has been trailed heavily since the launch of Discovery 2 with
information passed on to archives about where this information can be found. JC
said regular emails were sent out with this information, to archive organisations
and mailing lists such as Archives-NRA and Jisc network. He said we have been
passing this information on to make sure we reach as many people as possible.
7.3
SM said she finds it unsatisfactory that when making an advanced search if you
forget to tick ‘TNA only’ the county results come at the top. She suggested that it
would be more useful to have TNA results at the top and county results at the
bottom as TNA results are surely more relevant to most people’s searches.
JC said he believed this to be an assumption – different people may be searching
for different results, and not necessarily for TNA.
LMO advised that the left hand column can be used to refine results.
8.
Any other business.
Next meeting: Tuesday 16 June 2015, 12:00 – 14:30
Page 9 of 9