Evaluate Archivist candidates across 4 weighted areas: outcomes that landed, stakeholder facilitation, regulatory and policy command, and evidence and reporting. Outcomes that landed leads at 30%, so ask what collections they processed end to end: linear feet accessioned, backlog reduced, finding aids published in ArchivesSpace, digitisation batches delivered, or grant-funded projects completed. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
public sector communityarchivesdacs eaddigital preservationfinding aids
TL;DR
For outcomes that landed, look for evidence the candidate names specific collections with extent, processing level chosen, and published finding aids or digital objects a researcher can now retrieve. For stakeholder facilitation, look for evidence the candidate describes a donor or department negotiation where they secured records with clear terms on access restrictions and copyright.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Outcomes that landed
30% weight
Ask what collections they processed end to end: linear feet accessioned, backlog reduced, finding aids published in ArchivesSpace, digitisation batches delivered, or grant-funded projects completed on schedule.
Evidence to listen for
Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
States their own role rather than the department's
Gives measured reach or impact
Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; describes intent and process only.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.
3
Satisfactory
Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.
5
Excellent
Names specific collections with extent, processing level chosen, and published finding aids or digital objects a researcher can now retrieve.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they handle donors, records creators, and researchers: negotiating deeds of gift, chasing departments for transfers, running reading room reference interviews.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
Names the competing interests and the resolution method
Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
Treats every group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Describes a donor or department negotiation where they secured records with clear terms on access restrictions and copyright.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test command of DACS or ISAD(G), MARC and EAD encoding, retention schedules, plus copyright, GDPR or FOIA exemptions and restricted personnel or medical files.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
Knows where the discretion sits
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.
2
Needs Improvement
Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.
5
Excellent
Cites standards and statute precisely, explaining a restriction or takedown decision they made and the authority it rested on.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Look for how they tracked use and preservation: reading room and download statistics, fixity checks, PREMIS metadata, condition surveys, reporting to boards or funders like NHPRC.
Evidence to listen for
Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
Tracks whether the intervention worked
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.
2
Needs Improvement
Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.
3
Satisfactory
Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.
4
Very Good
Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.
5
Excellent
Reports concrete usage or preservation metrics and shows how those numbers changed processing priorities or secured funding.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Archivist
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
What is your experience with archiving systems?
02
What is your experience handling and preserving physical documents and artefacts?
03
How have you handled the organisation of large amounts of material in the past?
04
How do you handle the process of cataloguing and classifying materials?
05
Can you explain your understanding of metadata and its importance in archiving?
