1. What is the problem? What assumptions are made (explicitly/implicitly)? What is the nature of the problem (e.g., knowledge void, theoretical conflict, etc.)? What is the justification for writing such an article? Is the topic significant?

The author argues that the history of the American archival profession is important to know about. Yet, little is know about it. Therefore, an article on this topic would be a significant contribution. The problem is a knowledge void. As for justification, the author offers: "It is vital that we know as much as possible about the development of the profession to aid out continued self-study, reevaluation, and progress…" (p. 31) and "The history of the American archival profession is, without question, an extremely important subject that requires our best and fullest attention." (p. 41). The topic appears to be significant.

2. What is the scope of the problem? What are the dimensions of the study? Are terms defined? Is there a logical or theoretical framework present? The scope of the problem is three fold, covering the known: 1) the archival profession (defined on page 34 and 39), 2) a time dimension (from late 19^th century to 1970's), and the unknown, 3) the history of the American archival profession. Terms are not well defined, even the author admits, "My definition of the archival profession…is broad" (p. 31). The framework is conceptual rather than theoretical.

3. What are the stated/unstated objectives or purposes? Is the study descriptive or comparative?

On page 31, the author states three multi-level objectives: [1] to examine the trends of research on the history of American archives, [2] to assess its strengthens and weaknesses, and [3] to suggest some areas for future research." The study is more than descriptive; it is analytical with the comparative statements.

4. What is the thesis or hypothesis? An implicit thesis is that the profession's history is important yet unknown, but more knowable upon reading this article.

5. What is the methodology? Critical inquiry or quantitative? Is it historical or scientific? Is there sufficient evidence to confirm or reject the thesis or hypothesis? Critical review of the literature combined with some historical methodology. There are 38 footnotes, many of which contain extensive citations, leading one to believe that there is enough evidence.

6. What are the major findings? The major contributions to a history of the profession are presented in chronological fashion decade by decade, starting with the pioneer essays of the 1920s. "Progress has been substantial since mid 1960's" (p. 38). Weaknesses discussed on page 40. Future work is laid out on page 40.

7. What are the implications of these findings? That one could write a history of the American archival profession.

8. Is the author asking for some specific action? What? Would you implement such changes?

Yes, the author wants students to understand "our professional past [which] will enable a clear focus on the proper professional priorities" (p. 41). Responsibility for implementation is up to the individual reader.

9. What needs to be done in the future? See 3-point list of page 40ff--first, state histories, then, studies of regional variations in archival repositories, and finally, a one-volume history of American archives.