Processes of selection are challenging for any archive project, particularly one which contains records of individuals who are still currently employed at and serving  in some capacity actively within the institution/organization the project characterizes. NUWPArc prioritizes the "everyday" materials of a writing program, and the majority of our holdings consist of instructor syllabi. Our second largest category is memoranda (memos) and third largest is meeting minutes. Syllabi and Memos present the biggest challenge to selection in the project since they contain both fascinating, useful, and important information—and information that some might deem sensitive. We used our best judgment in selecting materials in our public records that balance transparency with privacy. We consulted with as many of the original authors as possible, and if we were not sure we would have permission to share a record, we held on making it public.

Our selection processes are perhaps best described this way: every "everyday" document can tell us something, so we are going to include everything we have that we have permission and consent to include. We have included records that some visitors might not consider to be valuable or important; however, when viewed in context of the program overall, they begin to add dimension to our understanding of program development over the last 50 years, and we believe every everyday document has something to say. This is why we have also included records that may not have changed much from year to year (i.e., boilerplates or handbooks); some things, even if minor, did change... and we think it is interesting to consider why.

That said, there were a few public selection considerations we want to point out to explain why we have not added certain types of documents to our public records:

Why include:

• Some docs didn’t change much from year to year but interesting to see what did and wonder why

Did not include (public selection considerations): 

• Scholarship/Published articles. People have printed and saved published articles, and we had some in our original seven boxes of acquired materials. These could have been readings; we don’t know... but don’t want to infringe on copyright by reproducing any published articles without permission that may live behind paywalls or belong (rights wise) to publishers.
• Emails. We have approximately 50 emails in our private holdings, but emails present a particular challenge to our ethics of selection in wanting to include every record we can. We don’t want to make any emails public without permission from both sender and recipient. These fall into a different category than memos or correspondences that are shared more broadly or publicly; emails typically exist under the assumption of privacy, so we want to be careful what we select to include in our Correspondence category. 
• Class observations. We are not able to receive permissions from both observed/observer, and the person being observed is important to consider. Will not include without consent of both observer/observed, and will not include redacted versions. We maintain a running list of people we would need permission from to include certain files; we note if they are not reachable or are deceased. If someone is living and not reachable, we err on the side of caution and do not include in our public records.
• Student writing, including portfolio evaluations. We have student writing and survey feedback; however, we will not violate FERPA or put any student data at risk for misuse. We are continuing to have conversations with Northeastern's Office of the General Counsel, and we do have the option to make portions of our holdings accessible only to designated writing program administrator groups. The decision to ingest any student writing into a private section of NUWPArc resides with program WPAs.
• Highly sensitive information or research data of unclear origins. We have many interesting records with content for which IRB is not clear, so we err on the side of caution here, too, and opt not to select for inclusion when we do not know the IRB status of materials generated through research. There are also records that contain interesting content, but they also list social security numbers (this used to be a common practice). We opt not to include even redacted versions of files that contained SS numbers originally.
• Totally unreadable scans. We did include some digitized records where text is faint but still legible.
• “Students who should have been in” whatever course— placement is fraught. We have selected out files that speak to specific student placement cases.

Some records in the NUWPArc collection contain redactions of personal or identifying information either because it was requested when we obtained permission to include the record in our public collections or because we determined it was sensitive information (like phone numbers and addresses) that don't need to be made public if they are still actively in use. If you notice that there is sensitive information we may have missed in our redaction procedures, please contact us at nuwparc@gmail.com and we will correct this.

Our team used two primary tools for redaction procedures to ensure the information was actually removed from the documents rather than simply being "covered up."

• Adobe: See Redacting with Acrobat
• Wondershare: See PDF Element

Redaction using either tool does alter the original documents, and this is a preservation consideration. However, inherent in the processes of digital archiving, records undergo transformation. We determined it was of greater importance to protect sensitive information and privacy and to respect permissions and contributor requests when preparing files for public viewing. We have the original files preserved without redaction on our back-end organizational systems that are accessible only to project administrators.

Classification applies what we call "classificatory force" in categorizing and labeling genres and determining tags that constitute the collection's metadata. Substantial thought has gone into the categories (genres/document types) and tagging system for records in our collection, and it has undergone several revisions over the years. Our initial classification system had 44 genres (document types); as of April 2023, it has 33 genres.

Some original categories (early in project development) were used as catch-alls, and these categories saw the most re-structuring. In the initial list of categories provided in Legacy Documentation and Work Summaries, many records were called "guidelines," for example, that were procedural or policy enforcement documents that were actually requirements. We also saw categories like "letters" containing records that were better suited to other genres given their purposes and uses. The original "outlines" and "prompts" categories were re-classified into "assignments."

Many generic determinations and classifications in early implementation were made based on knowledge of situated learning contexts that only extended so far (our awareness of genres and use in situated learning contexts developed and evolved alongside the project). The original classification procedures were conducted by RAs who had not taught in a classroom setting, so it was likely challenging to recognize certain use categories in contexts that were not familiar. This is the importance of situatedness (rhetorical situation) in classification. Much like our students, we can struggle to identify a rhetorical situation if we have not had prior experience or exposure to it/if we do not understand how a document might be used in a localized setting or situated context. As our knowledge and experience grew, our classification system became more refined and we were able to re-categorize and re-distribute records across new categories that more closely attended to use in writing program contexts.

The current list of document types/genres is:

1. Assessments
2. Assignments
3. Blank Forms
4. Checklists
5. Committee Descriptions
6. Concept Maps
7. Correspondence
8. Course Descriptions
9. Data
10. Ephemera
11. Figures
12. Floorplans
13. Flyers
14. Guides
15. Handbooks
16. Job Descriptions
17. Learning Goals
18. Meeting Minutes
19. Memos
20. Outlines
21. Presentations
22. Procedures
23. Program Evaluations
24. Proposals
25. Publications
26. Recommendations
27. Reports
28. Rubrics
29. Statements
30. Surveys
31. Syllabi
32. Templates
33. Workshops

In the future, we will add a category for Transcriptions.

We have revised a controlled vocabulary for tagging to more closely attend to important distinctions between genres (what a record "is") versus content tags (what a record is "about"). This list of tags is based on the VBGP Model and the conceptual foundations developed as part of the NUWPArc Conceptual Design Framework (CDF).

The content tags for records that follow the CDF and complement procedures outlined in our Updated Ingest Notes are:

1. Course Design
2. Curriculum
3. Enrollment
4. First-Year Writing
5. Graduate Students
6. Grammar
7. Labor
8. Language
9. Learning Environment
10. Measurement
11. Methods
12. Middler-Year Writing
13. Outcomes
14. Pedagogy
15. Peer Review
16. Performance
17. Placement
18. Policy
19. Professional Development
20. Proficiency
21. Program Administration
22. Program Development
23. Program Reform
24. Programming
25. Reflection
26. Research
27. Retention
28. Technology
29. Text Use
30. Writing Classrooms
31. Writing Center
32. Writing in the Disciplines
33. Writing Practice
34. Writing Process
35. Writing Program

We acquired the "original seven" boxes of writing program documents from a previously locked filing cabinet and have received permission to incorporate these records into our holdings (not all of which are or will be made public; see "Selection"). We also acquire files from writing program faculty, staff, and students who opt-in to contribute to our collection. We coordinate with Writing Program Directors and Assistant Directors and with the Director/AD of the Writing Center to acquire new records each academic year. We have also acquired records through contact with former program administrators who have retained documents and files from their tenure in the department. Recently, we received a shipment of files directly from Richard Bullock, the first Writing Program Coordinator, who mailed us paper records that we are now working to digitize, organize, and eventually ingest. Some of our acquisitions are duplicates or copies of records we have in our collection, but we include them if they include unique features such as annotations or handwritten notes.

The Writing Program collects instructor syllabi each semester, and part of our ongoing effort is to coordinate with Writing Program Administrators (WPAs) to incorporate NUWPArc procedures into administrative and managerial writing program processes so as to streamline acquisition/ingest procedures as we acquire new records.

We have provided opt-in/opt-in redacted/opt-out forms to current and previous Writing Program instructors in coordination with WPAs when collecting syllabi each term. We have worked with program administrators to develop and include a "Retroactive Consent Form" into future acquisitions of syllabi that the Writing Program collects and retains each academic year. We are working to develop a form design that allows us to more easily transfer form entry data into our ingest spreadsheets to improve procedural efficiencies as the NUWPArc project develops. Other permissions are acquired by direct communication with authors/creators of materials that are selected for public holdings.

We manage NUWPArc using a tripartite platform structure (See CDF):

1. The WordPress (User Interface) website is what you see when you access wparchive.northeastern.edu to visit the NUWPArc collection. The WordPress theme enables the CERES Toolkit which is linked directly to the Digital Repository Service (DRS) to display and browse materials. The User Interface is hosted by Northeastern University Libraries.
2. The Digital Repository Service (DRS) at Northeastern University hosts the digital objects in the archive collection. This is where the collection’s metadata is stored when digital objects are “ingested” (i.e., incorporated) into the collection. The DRS stores record metadata and enables us to link directly to each record with its data intact.
3. The Google Drive (G-Drive) is for organizing collection objects prior to ingest to the DRS. Files in the G-Drive are arranged to facilitate DRS processes. This is also where WPAs can store documentation for both the DRS and WordPress platforms.

Each platform requires its own procedural tools and has its own attending processes (conceptual and practical). NUWPArc requires occupation of several roles simultaneously (researcher, manager, designer) that all have their own labor considerations. In addition to the general tools provided on this page, we also utilized the following applications to organize, design, and develop NUWPArc.

WordPress

• Canva - design for graphic elements; used for all logos and visuals
• YouTube - hosts oral histories as unlisted on NUWPArc channel (only accessible via embedding on the NUWPArc site or if direct links are shared)
• Clipchamp - video editing
• Accessibility and usability checkers - free online to check color contrast (AA/AAA ratings) for graphics and text
  • See notes on design in the next section for more

DRS

• Smartsheet - project management software to bridge G-Drive and DRS ingest procedures and to efficiently add metadata to new acquisition records
• Microsoft Excel - used for basic spreadsheet preparation (alternatively, Google Sheets; also used for record counts)
• OpenRefine - used to clean up any "messy" spreadsheets

G-Drive

• Wondershare PDF - used for redaction, PDF editing, OCR (alternatively, Adobe)
• Google Docs (included in Drive) - used for composing administrative guides and project documentation

Please review Updated Ingest Notes for more information on ingest procedures. These procedures are subject to change/evolve along with the project as the Northeastern University Digital Scholarship group updates its procedures.

Understanding differences between critical design approaches and how/when/where to apply them has guided the development of NUWPArc as a tool for public use—not just for use by a particular disciplinary audience or discourse community. NUWPArc was designed with multiple users and audiences in mind, so an inclusive design approach was applied to WordPress design and platform development. 

Inclusive design looks for ways to include more people and situations to a design; as Adobe describes, it is “the practice of going up the mountain … even if the result only gets us a few steps up the trail at a time”; all users are taken into account including typically excluded perspectives so more diversity is represented in the design process. Inclusive design privileges a user experience (UX) perspective because it originates in a framework for designing digital products and recognizes limitations of digital product design.

In designing this platform, we attend to understandings of accessibility and usability as differentiated but related considerations:

• accessibility: Refers to a user’s ability to open and engage with materials
• usability: Refers to a user’s ability to not only access and open materials but to do something with them; the ease with which a user might execute tasks once materials are accessed; variable depending first upon accessibility, then upon a user’s specific needs 
  • NUWPArc instantiates complex usability as part of an open system where tasks may require leaving our site to be completed. Complex usability means that designers have less control over user's actions, and we have built in multiple pathways for accessing information  and have provided opportunities to leave our platform in order to continue working with any materials/resources a user chooses.