[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Location of archives
Dear STAMAsters:
Some thoughts on the issues forwarded by Gavan:
a) "Archivists and records..remain in one place" - I agree. As a
researcher I've encountered records stored offsite due to lack of
onsite storage space, and it is frustrating - I think for both the
user and the archives public service staff. Having as many records
as possible in the same place as the research room and staff would
also work better if there are staff reductions, e.g. if you have to
lay off the van driver who retrieved the offsite materials.
b) "Archives should not be moved into libraries..." Some very basic
underlying principles are the same with archives and libraries -
acquisition and preservation of materials and making them
intellectually and physically accessible to users. There are
definite differences, to be sure, but in many, many instances there
are great opportunities for the two collections to complement and
strengthen each other. I've worked in a public library which has a
local history and genealogy collection/archives/manuscripts, in a
college library which includes an archives/special collections, and
now work in a geologic archive which is part of an earth science
library. In all these instances, I believe the collections are
complementary. The user can consult various published materials in
the "regular" libraries, and find circulating copies of many
published items which are also in the special collections. The
archive/special collections provide the manuscript/archive/rare
books/noncirculating copies of books, maps, etc. which complement and
enhance the library collections. While there are sometimes clientele
specific to the library or archives, having each collection readily
accessible for all clientele can only be a positive thing. In
addition, being near/with the library provides access to a variety of
research materials for use by archives staff in research related to
processing collections, and in support of other activities; such
items are likewise available to archives researchers. Here I'm
thinking of things such as long runs of standard biographical
resources, encyclopedias, industrial directories, and other kinds
of things an archive probably wouldn't normally buy for its inhouse
reference collection.
b) "Separating the Archivists and records can only lead to a
decrease..." YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
c) "...therefore Archives should not be housed within libraries" -
flawed logic, see above.
"..valid operational reasons..." - so vague you could drive a truck
through the holes. Seems to me that specific situations apply here,
rather than generalized rules. For example, if a library and
archives are in two places, and the library is already hurting for
space, both collections would be hurt if the archives was forced to
move into library space. If a new building is in the future, you
could very seriously consider having both collections in the same
building and should be able to accomodate the physical requirements of
each. If someone wants to move an archives out of a current setting
within a library - why? Who would benefit and who would suffer?
If it were the full moon and high tide, I would be tempted to
speculate that the issues forwarded by Gavan sound like salvos in a
battle between some librarians and archivists. But it's not, so I wont :) .
"Round up the usual disclaimers..."
Carol Edwards, Head
U.S. Geological Survey Field Records Library
MS 914, Box 25046, Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225-0046 USA
cedwards@denlib.cr.usgs.gov
phone: 1 303 236-1005
fax: 1 303 236-0015