Week 9: Asking the 5W’s of DeBary

I consider much of this process new to me, so the best approach is to experiment with different strategies to find the most effective way to work with the information that’s already given. While still working on the DeBary spreadsheet, I’ve laid a lot of groundwork when it comes to fixing up some of the formatting, like dates and subject headings. I firmly believe that the best practice is to work on keywords simultaneously, as they go hand in hand; it’s hard to do one without the other. As from previous weeks, I’m starting to get a better flow with the subjects by asking the 5W’s of who, what, where, when, and why as a guide and using what is already in the description. This applies to most categories, enhancing the searchability of artifacts by extracting more context from them.

The King and I play program - DeBary, 1974

To better understand these artifacts, I have started conducting more in-depth analyses of each. As I go along, I think one of the better ways for me to go about this process is to slow down and look at one collection at a time, focusing on its specific content. This includes trying to really find out what the items meant to the family, the patterns in which I see these artifacts, and what their significance is to the city of DeBary or Central Florida. Essentially, I’ve been asking a lot of questions because if I want to make the most out of correcting the spreadsheets, I have to be immersed in the collections and use my detective skills, aka research skills.

Of course, most of the information won’t be readily available, and I find that there are a lot of gaps that could potentially be filled in with the research, so a possible step will be some reaching out to people who might have more resources, like the DeBary Historical Society. I thought of them specifically because they helped me out a lot during the summer, and I’m glad that I have that connection for situations like this. 

Overall, this project continues to focus my attention on detail every time I look at it. Since it’s easy to overlook minor errors, it’s crucial for me to thoroughly read and process the input, as sometimes the formatting may be correct, but the content may not make sense. As I’m learning more about the collections, starting with Davis, I noticed that some of the years listed are 1905, which didn’t sound quite right for the given artifacts. Not only that, but I’ve been learning more about inputting dates in the spreadsheet and some of its quirks with the formatting. I’ve now settled all of that with extra help from the team, but 1905 was also a common date that the sheet would randomly input if the date were unknown.

Going forward, I plan to work on this spreadsheet as much as possible, while working with the RICHES digital archivist on any questions I will inevitably have. Soon enough, I hope my intern will start finishing up her collection for Greenwood. However, she might need some help with the descriptions first, as they are formatted explicitly into two paragraphs. Admittedly, I still struggle a little with my role as a lead, as my expectations are often higher. I’ve had a hard time expressing my concerns because I don’t want to come across as harsh, especially since she is volunteering her time. I’m constantly working on my communication skills, and this is just another aspect of that; I hope to make progress by the final evaluation.