Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Can the German Discussion on Appraisal Benefit from the International Discourse?

slightly shifted map of the world, curved towards the horizon at night in front of a sunrise or sunset on the horizon, on which the continents are represented by lights and interconnected by nodes of light

Or: Quo Vadis, Global Appraisal Discourse?

by Regina Fürsich

In an increasingly globalized world with its numerous interrelationships between different countries and societies on all levels of life, it is virtually impossible to maintain a categorical separation of international discourses in the long term; discursive interconnections arise naturally. Simultaneously, however, such connections can also be deliberately controlled and utilized. This is evident in miniature examining the German discussion on appraisal. German archival science has its own unique traditions, and the same applies to the discussion on appraisal. This discourse has long been followed on an international level, as evidenced, for example, by Regina Landwehr’s 1996 Canadian master’s thesis on the German archival system 1945–95, an issue of the international journal ‘Archival Science’ from 2003 (published in the Netherlands) on German  archival science, and Isabel Taylor’s English-language article on the German appraisal debate since the 1990s in an Australian archival journal from 2016, to name just three examples from three decades, all of which are available in open access. Conversely, German archivists are naturally also observing international developments. However, if we go beyond mere reception, the question arises as to the actual, concrete interconnection between the German and the international discourse: Do international topics and approaches in fact find their way into the German appraisal discussion, or is reception of international discussions left at a level of passive observation? How would active inclusion of the international discourse into its German counterpart have to be framed and structured in order to have real impact on appraisal practices and discussions in Germany?

The framework conditions for archival appraisal and, accordingly, the appraisal debate in Germany differ in several key respects from those in other international archival landscapes. Structures that are historically developed, such as German federalism, have a decisive influence not only on administrative organization and thus on the documents produced by this administration, but also on archival structures. Unlike in countries with a higher degree of centralization, in the German archival system, appraisal approaches that target overarching structures and therefore require a high degree of coordination and control can only be implemented based on voluntary cooperation between different archives, as there is no central authority with the power to issue compulsory directions in the archival system.

However, different historical developments in various countries not only shape the structures of archival systems, they also directly influence society’s expectations towards its culture of remembrance, which likewise play a role in appraisal decisions. Following Christian Keitel’s application of Aristotelian definitions of justice to archival appraisal, equity must be taken into account when producing socially just appraisal decisions by including national traumas into the decision-making process. Thus, historical context also has a decisive influence on appraisal, for example when Germany’s Nazi past requires a specific and potentially different approach to the according documents than is the case in other countries.

Finally, different legal frameworks also have a significant impact on archival appraisal. While the GDPR would at least allow for a European comparison, even within the EU, archival laws as sector-specific data protection laws differ so severely in some respects that the appraisal of person-related records, for example, must be approached in a fundamentally different way in some cases.

Despite these differing conditions, looking beyond national borders can give new impetus to the discussion on appraisal, as it offers potential for innovation and it can stimulate the further development of one’s own ways of thinking within the German context. The most striking example of this is certainly the German discussion on appraisal in the 1990s, since it was Angelika Menne-Haritz’s translation of the writings of the US-American archivist Theodore R. Schellenberg (who, in turn, had taken up the ideas of the German archivist Heinrich Otto Meisner) that sparked a discussion in German archival science which, despite its occasionally polemical nature, has had a decisive and lasting influence on German thinking about appraisal in its current form. Conversely, Hans Boom’s ideas on documentation profiles, which were based on archival practice in the GDR, were actively received in the US in the 1980s, and Marlene Meyer-Gebel noted as early as 1994 that there were definite similarities between Boom’s intentions for documentation profiles and US Documentation Strategy. The intertwining of German and international discourse then comes full circle when one considers that in 2001, Matthias Buchholz saw an opportunity arising from the end of the German debate of the 1990s about the evidence-based approach represented by Menne-Haritz and based on Schellenberg to bring documentation profiles back into focus in German discourse, which ultimately came to fruition in form of the BKK working aid for creating a documentation profile for municipal archives in 2008. If, according to these examples, the international and German appraisal discussions have already served as mutual sources of inspiration on several occasions in the past and can, therefore, undoubtedly influence each other, the question arises as to how the international appraisal discussion can and must be received against the background of the different framework conditions in order to actually make these influences productive. To this end, it is necessary to above all clarify how ‘productive’ is to be understood in relation to the appraisal debate and under what conditions productivity can be increased through the reception of international approaches.

Resources, Standards and Comparability

In light of increasing staff shortages and budget constraints, looking at international developments offers great potential for saving resources in the German appraisal discourse. Numerous examples from previous aspects of the discourse testify to parallel developments in Germany and internationally. Let us just quickly examine one example: There are definite similarities between the concept of horizontal and vertical appraisal as developed by the State Archives of Baden-Württemberg (LABW) in the 1990s on the one hand, and the results of the PIVOT project carried out at the same time by the Dutch Rijksarchiefdienst on the other hand, which in turn shares aspects with the macro-appraisal approach developed in Canada in the 1980s and 90s. Udo Schäfer noted this as early as 1997, and although the LABW did indeed take note of the developments in the PIVOT project, closer cooperation would certainly have significantly reduced the workload required to develop the various concepts. In order to make optimal use of resources, such parallel developments should be avoided by not only passively observing international developments, but rather by generating synergetic effects through active cross-border and cross-linguistic cooperations.

The effective implementation of cross-border cooperations requires common standards to bridge the aforementioned legal, administrative, archival, and historical differences. However, these common standards must meet two criteria: Firstly, they must standardize as much and as many aspects as possible to warrant international comparability. Secondly, they must be vague enough to accommodate the different conditions in different countries. Particularly when it comes to born-digital records, which currently pose ever-new challenges for archival appraisal, these two criteria – which in some respects are almost contradictory – can be reconciled surprisingly well, opening up particular potential in this area. Numerous international metadata standards such as EAD, Dublin Core, METS, etc. attest to this compatibility. If metadata standards are adhered to not only during archival cataloguing, but already during the production of records in public administration, archives can incorporate this metadata into their appraisal decisions and even base their appraisal decisions on it to a certain extent. In this respect, such standards also help to make the appraisal discussion comparable across borders.

However, harmonizing standards can not only help to facilitate cooperation and create a common basis for discussion across different frameworks, but also enable international benchmarking thanks to the comparability it creates. If the German discourse can be measured specifically against international appraisal strategies, this will form the basis for more pronounced self-reflection, which in turn can advance the discussion.

Exchange of Experiences and Early Warning Mechanisms

In some very topical aspects of the appraisal debate, other countries have a head start in terms of experience from which the German archival sector can learn. While many German appraisal strategies – though, of course, by no means all – still tend to take a bottom-up approach (“What is offered for transfer to the archives?”), many international models have preferred a top-down approach (“What should be archived?”) for decades already. In the field of digital records, the top-down approach is now also gaining greater prominence in Germany than before, as digital documents from document management systems or administrative IT-applications lend themselves to (partially) automated transfer on the basis of predefined appraisal decisions derived from the preservation objectives. Of course, a bottom-up model can also be chosen for the prospective evaluation of digital documents. And, of course, the experience gained from existing German top-down models can also be drawn on. However, given that a wealth of practical experience is already available at the international level, it seems once again a waste of resources not to take these experiences into account, especially when deciding upon one specific model. A similar picture emerges when considering the demand for participatory appraisal approaches, which has been repeatedly and increasingly voiced in the German debate. Here too, Germany has already gained some initial experience, but internationally, a wide variety of participatory appraisal approaches have been used and tested for much longer and in many more different forms and variations. The German debate on the involvement of concerned or interested parties, or broader sections of the population is heavily influenced by a long-standing understanding of the archival appraisal authority or sovereignty of the archivist. Looking at the experiences of other countries can help gain a different perspective on appraisal. Incorporating such new perspectives is what makes it possible in the first place to create the contingency that an open discourse requires. The aforementioned diverging framework conditions of international appraisal discussions can therefore also help to open up completely new and extend existing spaces of possibilities within the German context.

If we look beyond the narrow understanding of appraisal and consider a broader understanding of the formation of records and remembrance, international experiences can also serve as an early warning mechanism for the German discourse. Societies with a colonial past in particular have often failed for a long time to adequately represent indigenous population groups, which are often in the minority, in records and record-formation. In the recent past, therefore, there have been a number of initiatives (for example in Canada and Australia) that sought and continue to seek to retroactively remedy this underrepresentation of marginalized groups and prevent it in the future. The composition of the German population, which has been shaped by migration, especially immigration, for decades now, is increasingly shifting toward a similar pluralization of the majority society and minority groups, although in this case, the proportions are reversed compared to societies with a colonial past. The experiences of other countries with the representation of marginalized groups in their archives can help to avoid similar mistakes in Germany, to sensitize record-formation to the issue at an early stage, and to make greater use of existing tools such as the DOMiD e.V.’s documentation profile on migration.

Conclusion

In summary, it can be said that closer links between the German and international appraisal discourse offer considerable potential: context-sensitive reception and context-specific development can save resources even in the face of differing framework conditions. Even mere impulses can stimulate self-reflection on the formation of German records and archival collections, highlight possible future developments, and enrich the discourse with greater innovative potential through the expansion of contexts and the creation of positive contingencies. In addition, synergetic effects can be generated and utilised with the application of international standards, especially in view of the pressing global challenge of advancing digitalization. Global discursive links do not necessarily have to lead to interdependence, but it can instead be specifically controlled and adapted to the prevailing national traditions, thereby increasing the productivity of all of the discursive landscapes. It is up to the German appraisal debate to decide which suggestions will ultimately be adopted and implemented and how they can and must be applied and adapted to German conditions, but an informed decision on this can only be taken through active and conscious engagement with international issues and approaches.

Note: This article is based on an essay written as part of the course ‘Archival Preservation’ (led by Dr Irmgard Christa Becker) during archival traineeship.

Literature

Archival Science 3/4 (2003). URL: https://link.springer.com/journal/10502/volumes-and-issues/3-4 (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Buchholz, Matthias: Überlieferungsbildung bei massenhaft gleichförmigen Einzelfallakten im Spannungsverhältnis von Bewertungsdiskussion, Repräsentativität und Nutzungsperspektive. Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel von Sozialhilfeakten der oberbergischen Gemeinde Lindlar (Archivhefte, Bd. 35), Köln 2001.

Cook, Terry: Macroappraisal in Theory and Practice. Origins, Characteristics, and Implementation in Canada 1950–2000, in: Archival Science 5 (2005), S. 101–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-9010-2 (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Jonker, Agnes E. M.: Macroappraisal in the Netherlands. The First Teny Years 1991–2001, and Beyond, in: Archival Science 5 (2005), S. 203–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-9013-z (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Kefer, Tamara: Überlieferungsbildung. Grundlagen, Ziele und Methoden, in: MiRKO 1 (2016), S. 12–27. URL: https://www.ordensgemeinschaften.at/kultur/miko/miko1/beitraege/article/183.html (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Keitel, Christian: Gerechtigkeit in der Überlieferungsbildung, in: Hering, Rainer/Fischer, Ole (Hg.): Historische Gerechtigkeit. Geschichts- und archivwissenschaftliche Perspektiven (Veröffentlichungen des Landesarchivs Schleswig-Holstein, Bd. 124). Hamburg 2025, S. 301–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15460/hup.270.2112 (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Kretzschmar, Robert: Alles neu zu durchdenken? Archivische Bewertung im digitalen Zeitalter, in: Archivpflege in Westfalen-Lippe 80 (2014), S. 9–15. PURL: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:6:2-141281 (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Landwehr, Regina: The German Archival System 1945–1995. Thesis masch. UBC 1996. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0087115 (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Meyer-Gebel, Marlene: Die ‘Documentation Strategy‘ in den USA, in: Wettmann, Andrea (Hg.): Bilanz und Perspektiven archivischer Bewertung. Beiträge eines Archivwissenschaftlichen Kolloquiums (Veröffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg, Bd. 21). Marburg 1994, S. 147–157.

Rehm, Clemens: Kundenorientierung. Modewort oder Wesensmerkmal der Archive? Zur Transparenz und Partizipation bei der archivischen Überlieferungsbildung, in: Schadek, Hans (Hg.): Zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Das Dienstleistungsunternehmen Archiv auf dem Prüfstand der Benutzerorientierung. Vorträge des 61. Südwestdeutschen Archivtags am 26. Mai 2001 in Schaffhausen. Stuttgart 2002, S. 17–27. URL: https://www.landesarchiv-bw.de/sixcms/media.php/120/Zwischen_Anspruch_und_Wirklichkeit.pdf (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Schäfer, Udo: Ein Projekt zur vertikalen und horizontalen Bewertung, in: Kretzschmar, Robert (Hg.): Historische Überlieferung aus Verwaltungsunterlagen. Zur Praxis der archivischen Bewertung in Baden-Württemberg (Werkhefte der staatlichen Archivverwaltung Baden-Württemberg, Serie A, Bd. 7), Stuttgart 1997, S. 61–71. URL: https://www.landesarchiv-bw.de/sixcms/media.php/120/A7_Historische_Ueberlieferung_aus_Verwaltungsunterlagen_Text_Teil1.pdf (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Schellenberg, Theodore R.: Die Bewertung modernen Verwaltungsschriftguts. Übersetzt und hrsg. von Angelika Menne-Haritz (Veröffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg, Bd. 17). Marburg 1990.

Schneider, Julia: Die Zivilgesellschaft evaluiert die Überlieferungsbildung, in: Archivwelt. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58079/vq64 (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Taylor, Isabel: The German Appraisal Discussion since 1990. An Overview, in: Archives and Manuscripts 44/1 (2016), S. 14–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2015.1136226 (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Treffeisen, Jürgen: Zum aktuellen Stand der archivischen Bewertungsdiskussion in Deutschland. Entwicklungen, Trends und Perspektiven, in: Scrinium 70 (2016), S. 58–92. URL: https://www.voea.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Scrinium-Band-70-2016-1.pdf (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Treffeisen, Jürgen: Archivübergreifende Überlieferungsbildung in Deutschland. Die vertikale und horizontale Bewertung. URL: http://www.forum-bewertung.de/beitraege/1022.pdf (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).

Uhl, Bodo: Die Geschichte der Bewertungsdiskussion, in: Wettmann, Andrea (Hg.): Bilanz und Perspektiven archivischer Bewertung. Beiträge eines Archivwissenschaftlichen Kolloquiums (Veröffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg, Bd. 21). Marburg 1994, S. 11–35.

Yap, Ruud: Some Thoughts on Appraisal in the Digital Age, in: Archivpflege in Westfalen-Lippe 80 (2014), S. 15–20. PURL: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:6:2-141281 (letzter Zugriff: 16.01.2026).


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Regina Fürsich (27. Januar 2026). Can the German Discussion on Appraisal Benefit from the International Discourse? Archivwelt. Abgerufen am 17. April 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/15km2


Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.