When I first approached the Archdiocesan Superintendent of Schools records at the Philadelphia Archdiocesan Historical Research Center (PAHRC), I was concerned to say the least. In fact, I was panicked. The collection, which documents the administrations of three superintendents spanning a period of thirty years, is all of 9.2 linear feet, which is small compared to most collections. One hopes that a collection of this size can be dealt with quickly. However, given that half of the collection consisted of loose, unsorted papers stuffed in document boxes and the other half processed by no less than 8 different LIS students at Villanova University in the 1960s, I assumed we would never meet our processing deadline. Little did I know upon the terror of first viewing the Superintendent records that it would be the first collection my partner and I completed processing in well under our 4 hours per linear foot limit. When all was said and done, MPLP processing allowed us to transform twenty-three boxes of disarrayed records into an accessible and usable collection at a swift processing speed of 2.6 hours per linear foot.
My biggest concern while processing this collection was how my partner and I could responsibly process 9 boxes of loose, unsorted records and somehow meaningfully interfile those records into the arrangement we imposed upon the collection. We did not have enough time to view every loose record individually. Item-level review is not a luxury afforded to MPLP processors! Therefore, we could not be entirely sure that we were spot-on with regard to chronology. We also realized early on that some of those unsorted records were bound to be interfiled within the wrong series, since we were not processing at item level. Bearing in mind Greene and Meissner’s principle of processing “good enough,” we allowed ourselves to become comfortable with the idea that a few records may be misplaced, which seemed well worth the sacrifice if it meant that the majority of those loose records would finally be given an intelligible arrangement and made accessible to researchers. When faced with a predicament such as this, it is important to remember that whatever has been done according to the MPLP methodology can be undone. Those potentially misplaced records would not be buried and lost forever and could very easily be repositioned according to a more refined arrangement at a future point in time!
MPLP is not a final solution. MPLP is a step in the right direction, though not without its imperfections and limitations. With MPLP, one should always assume slight imperfections, and collections that have been processed minimally should indeed be revisited and refined when more resources become available. While easily corrected imperfections are a real possibility of MPLP processing, access is an absolute certainty.