Living in Fragments No Longer

Karen Trivette’s Bold Blueprint for Archives Arrangement

Karen Trivette’s doctoral dissertation, Designation by Design: Developing a Context-Preserving Standardized Method for Physical and Digital Archives Arrangement, is a welcome and innovative contribution to archival science. Soon to be named a Fellow of the Society of American Archivists at their August 2025 annual meeting, Trivette brings both scholarly depth and professional credibility to a challenge that has long lingered in archival practice: the lack of a standardized approach to archival arrangement. Her work shines a spotlight on this often under-emphasized function, elevating arrangement to the same level of importance as description. From the outset, the tone of the dissertation is both professional and warmly engaging; Trivette writes with the clarity of an experienced archivist and the enthusiasm of someone deeply committed to advancing the profession. The result is a dissertation that is simultaneously theoretical and practical, and this review will highlight its key contributions.

Building Theory around Archival Classification

One of the core theoretical contributions of Designation by Design is its development of archival theory around the concept of classification in arrangement. Trivette directly tackles what renowned archivist T. R. Schellenberg identified decades ago as a missing piece in our field: an “archival classification system akin to that of Dewey”. Librarians have Dewey and Library of Congress call numbers, but as Trivette notes, archivists have long lacked a comparably formalized, standardized approach to arranging records. Her

Trivette offers what we’ve been missing: a Dewey Decimal–level system for archives that actually respects context.

dissertation seizes this challenge and proposes a method to fill that void. She envisions a standardized arrangement scheme that functions much like a classification system, a kind of “Dewey Decimal System” for archives, to control and understand records in context. This is not classification in the narrow library sense of subject indexes, but rather a holistic framework to place records in relation to one another and preserve their context of creation. By foregrounding classification, Trivette builds new archival theory that treats arrangement as a deliberate intellectual endeavor, not just a mechanical task. In doing so, she aligns with archival tradition (honoring provenance and original order) while also extending it with fresh ideas. She emphasizes that a context-preserving, standardized arrangement is essential before we even get to

Arrangement isn’t just the archivist’s first task—it’s the one that makes all the others meaningful.

description, asking pointedly: how can we describe records meaningfully if we haven’t considered where they belong within a larger structure?. This theoretical stance is a powerful reminder that arrangement underpins discovery; after all, archivists create “finding” aids to help users find materials.

Engaging Archival Traditions (and Challenging Them)

Trivette’s work is deeply rooted in archival tradition, and she critically engages with longstanding principles and debates in our field. She revisits the venerable concepts of respect des fonds and original order, acknowledging their central place in archival arrangement. At the same time, she examines how these principles have been interpreted (and misinterpreted) over time. A fascinating aspect of the dissertation is its survey of historical and dissenting views on arrangement. Trivette provides a rich literature review that spans from early 20th-century archival theorists to recent scholars. For example, she highlights Waldo Gifford Leland’s early warning from 1912 that no library-style decimal or alphabetical scheme can be successfully applied to archives. Leland insisted that the administrative entity (the provenance/creator) must be the starting point for arrangement, an insight Trivette fully embraces. She also discusses the famous 1960s critiques of the record group concept by American archivists Frank Evans, Mario Fenyo, and Peter Scott. These “dissenting voices” questioned the limitations of rigid record groups and called for more nuanced schemes. Trivette does not shy away from these critiques – instead, she uses them to strengthen her own model. Her proposed method modifies the record group concept by accounting for changes in bureaucratic structures over time. In other words, she builds flexibility into her classification: archival arrangement should record how organizational hierarchies evolve, thus preserving context dynamically. This critical engagement with tradition shows Trivette’s approach is respectful but not reverential; she honors core archival principles while adapting them to contemporary needs (especially important in the digital era).

Analogies to Architecture and Information Design

One of the most innovative and delightful aspects of Trivette’s dissertation is her use of analogies from architecture and information design to reconceptualize archival arrangement. She draws surprising parallels between building an archive and building a structure. In Chapter 5, aptly titled “Building archival

Think architecture, not alchemy—Trivette builds arrangement on design principles as elegant as they are practical.

context as analogous to building an architectural structure,” Trivette explores how the principles of architectural design can inform archives arrangement. For instance, she invokes classical architect Vitruvius and the Renaissance art historian Vasari, noting, for example, Vasari’s dictum about keeping architectural orders distinct (Doric, Ionic, etc.) which mirrors the archivist’s need to maintain clear boundaries between bodies of records. The idea of “to create architecture is to put in order” (as Le Corbusier famously said) resonates throughout her work.

Trivette doesn’t stop at brick-and-mortar architecture. She also harnesses web design and information architecture as guiding metaphors. Just as a well-designed website has a clear information architecture (with hierarchical menus, “breadcrumbs” for navigation, and logical groupings), an archive can benefit from similar structuring. She references contemporary UX and design thinkers – Steve Krug’s Don’t Make Me Think, Christina Wodtke’s Information Architecture: Blueprints for the Web, Abby Covert’s How to Make Sense of Any Mess – extracting lessons on usability and structure. This multidisciplinary approach is refreshingly original. It’s almost an archivist’s version of borrowing from architects’ blueprints and web designers’ site maps. The result is a method of arrangement that Trivette describes as “natural, organic, and aligned with successful design principles” whether from building design or web design. These analogies not only make her theoretical framework more vivid, but they also underscore a key theme: arranging archives is both an art and a science. By blurring the lines between art, architecture, and archival science, Trivette gives us a new lens to look at an old problem. For practitioners, this cross-disciplinary insight is not just fun, it’s genuinely useful. It helps us explain arrangement to others (and to ourselves) in more tangible terms, like an architect designing a space or a designer organizing information for intuitive navigation.

Toward a Standardized Method – A Foundation for an International Standard

Perhaps the most significant practical implication of Trivette’s work is her call for a standardized method of archives arrangement that could serve as the foundation for an international standard. She explicitly frames her method as

If ISAD(G) gave us the grammar of description, Trivette’s method gives us the syntax of arrangement.

something archivists could universally adopt, much as we have internationally recognized standards for description (e.g. ISAD(G) or DACS). This is a bold proposition, effectively, she is suggesting it’s time for the archival community to develop a shared, global approach to how we classify and arrange archives. The dissertation makes a compelling case that such standardization is both necessary and achievable. By preserving “the structure, content, and context” of records in a controlled framework, her method ensures that an archive in one institution is arranged with the same underlying logic as an archive in another. This has huge implications for consistency and interoperability across repositories. It could improve user experience dramatically: researchers would no longer need to re-learn the “organizational logic” of each archives they visit, because collections would share a common arrangement philosophy. Trivette even likens the potential impact to that of library classification systems, a standardized arrangement could guide archivists in placing records “where they belong” relative to others, whether on shelves or in digital directories.

The dissertation’s empirical research reinforces this point. Trivette conducted surveys of archivists and archival users worldwide, and the results strongly support the desire for a standard model. An overwhelming 95% of archival professionals in her survey said they would benefit from a “practical, actionable model” for arrangement and classification. Likewise, 96% of researchers responded that they would find materials more easily if archival organizations

With just the right mix of tradition and innovation, this dissertation lays the groundwork for a global standard.

were more similar across different repositories. Such data lend weight to Trivette’s assertion that the time is ripe for a standardized arrangement method and that the community is hungry for it. Her dissertation, therefore, doesn’t just propose a theoretical model in a vacuum; it backs it up with evidence that this model could fulfill a real, felt need in the archival world.

Practical Demonstration with FIT-SUNY Archives

What makes Designation by Design especially useful is that Trivette doesn’t leave us with abstract recommendations. She demonstrates her method in practice using materials from the Fashion Institute of Technology–SUNY (where she has been an archivist). This case study is woven into the dissertation as a proof-of-concept, and it’s one of the highlights for practitioners reading the work. Trivette methodically applies her standardized arrangement scheme to the FIT-SUNY College Archives, showing how it works on the ground. She begins by establishing a classification of record groups for the college, numbered 0 through 15, each representing a major administrative or functional unit of the institution. For example, Record Group 1 encompasses the Board of Trustees records (the top decision-making body), Record Group 2 covers the Office of the President, Record Group 3 is Academic Affairs, and so on down through key functions like student services, finance, IT, and even the campus museum. This hierarchy is not arbitrary; it is consciously ordered by what Trivette calls the “empirical significance of their business activities” in the college’s operations. In other words, the arrangement reflects the real-world importance and relationships of the record creators, an elegant way to preserve context and convey it to users.

From these top-level record groups, Trivette shows how her system drills down into finer levels of arrangement. She provides examples of multi-generational hierarchies: for instance, within Academic Affairs (Record Group 3), there is a series 3.7 for the School of Art and Design, which further contains a sub-series 3.7.9 for the Fashion Design department, which further contains sub-sub-series for specific programs, and so on. One illustrative endpoint in this chain is 3.7.9.2.6.1 – Fashion Forecast fashion show, 2006, a sub-sub-sub-sub-series that demonstrates the depth of context captured (from the college, to a school, to a department, to a program, to a specific event). Importantly, Trivette doesn’t just impose this structure; she also connects it to tangible outputs. The dissertation includes photographs or figures of labeled boxes and folders following this scheme, as well as an arrangement workflow that any archivist could follow step-by-step. For example, one step involves consulting the institution’s website or site map to understand the organizational structure (a clever use of information architecture to guide physical arrangement). Another step advises

At last, an approach that lets records assert their context—rather than leaving it to archivists to guess.

surveying the records themselves to let the records “assert the context(s)” they contain, ensuring the arrangement reflects the material’s inherent relationships. By sharing these practical details, Trivette effectively turns her dissertation into a bit of a manual in its own right. Fellow archivists could take inspiration (if not the exact blueprint) from her FIT-SUNY case and adapt the method to their own repositories.

Usefulness and Originality for the Archival Community

In summary, Karen Trivette’s Designation by Design is a dissertation that brims with originality and utility for the archival community. It manages to be theoretical, grounding its approach in archival principles and even broader design theory, while never losing sight of practical application. The work builds on decades of archival thought but isn’t afraid to challenge old assumptions and propose a new path. The tone throughout is constructive and collegial; Trivette writes as one professional to others, acknowledging the collective challenges we face (backlogs, inconsistent practices, digital deluge) and offering a well-reasoned solution. There is a subtle optimism in her accessible prose; an infectious belief that yes, we can improve our methods and “live in fragments no longer,” to borrow a phrase she cites from E.M. Forster. By weaving in analogies

Living in fragments no longer? Thanks to Trivette’s method, we just might be on our way.

to architecture and information design, she also makes the subject matter engaging and relatable. Who knew that Vitruvius and website UX could both shed light on archival arrangement?

For archivists and information professionals, the dissertation is a treasure trove. It provides a compelling argument that implementing a standardized, context-preserving arrangement method will not only make our lives easier (through better control and reduced chaos) but will significantly enhance researchers’ success in finding information. The practicality of Trivette’s model means it could be tested and implemented incrementally, and her FIT-SUNY example serves as an encouraging model. Moreover, the vision of an international standard for arrangement that emerges from this work is inspiring. It suggests a future where we might have globally recognized guidelines for how to structure archives – a Rosetta Stone for archival organization that complements our descriptive standards. Given how well Trivette argues her case, one can easily imagine her method becoming the basis for further professional discussion, perhaps even a working group or pilot projects under the auspices of bodies like the International Council on Archives (ICA) or the International Standards Organization (ISO).

In conclusion, Designation by Design is useful, original, and forward-thinking. It challenges us to think about arrangement not as a perfunctory chore, but as a designed experience that connects records, context, and users. Trivette’s blend of archival rigor, historical insight, and design-oriented creativity makes this dissertation a must-read for anyone interested in improving archival practice. It’s the kind of work that not only advances archival theory but also gives practitioners something concrete to chew on (and try out). Don’t be surprised if you find yourself nodding along and even smiling at some analogies as you read it – and more importantly, don’t be surprised if in a few years we’re all talking about archival arrangement in the fresh terms that Karen Trivette has introduced. This dissertation truly builds a bridge between archival tradition and innovation, and it does so in a way that is eminently beneficial for the archival community at large.

Sources:

Trivette, Karen. Designation by Design: Developing a Context-Preserving Standardized Method for Physical and Digital Archives Arrangement. Doctoral Thesis, Alma Mater Europaea University (Maribor, Slovenia), 2024.