When I
speak to classes on campus, I begin by pointing out the similarities between
archives & libraries: they are
both sources of information, are both service-oriented, and both maintain
collections so that they can be used for research. However, because archives hold unique materials that are
irreplaceable, they have developed special rules to prevent loss from theft or
damage, and providing access to the intellectual content is often complicated
and non-standard. Everyone
knows about libraries; in general, they are well supported and funded. Archives are usually isolated, unknown,
underfunded. Because they deal
with items that are usually widely published and distributed, libraries have
developed standards for providing access, reducing costs, and improving
efficiency through cooperative ventures like copy cataloging, forming
consortia, and interlibrary loan.
Because archival and manuscript materials are unique, original
cataloging must be done for every collection. Therefore, the benefits of cost savings and increased
efficiencies are not available to them.
Archivists are only recently attempting to develop standardized
practices for providing access. I
think a lot of this has to do with the fact that the earliest archivists were
historians who used the collections themselves and, convinced of the uniqueness
of their own materials, were not interested in providing access for other
researchers. The history
profession also could not have been more unlike the highly structured world of
librarianship, and this is the tradition out of which archival science arose. Accustomed
to the open practices of American librarians, patrons expect archives to be
open extended hours on nights and weekends, to be able to browse the stacks
freely, to photocopy items themselves, and to check out materials. They also do not expect to have to
check their bags and use pencils.
However, once it is explained to them that these rules have been
developed to protect unique and irreplaceable items, most are readily
cooperative. And they all
certainly understand about the underfunding and staff shortages that prevent
archives from being open 24/7. All this
being said, I constantly find that my MLS has been an invaluable
experience. After the four basic classes,
nearly all of my courses were concentrated in archives-related subjects. I can’t imagine dealing with the multitudinous
multifaceted formats and issues and concerns without the solid grounding I
received both through the coursework and internships. I still get my notebooks out when I have to tackle a new
problem or issue! Rebecca
Fitzgerald, CA Mt. St.
Mary’s Archives & Dept. of Special Collections Mt. St.
Mary’s College & Seminary Emmitsburg,
MD 301/447-5397 301/447-6868
(fax) rfitzger@msmary.edu -----Original
Message----- Hi all. I thought I'd
toss this one out to you since we've been without a discussion thread for a bit
and since I'm completely peeved at the moment. I had an
experience yesterday when someone--uninformed about libraries and
archives--asked me if archivists were a subset of librarians. As I
answered, "No, they are different." I was countered by two
librarians who chimed in and offered, "No, they're essentially the same
thing." As we were in a meeting, I was unable to call these
individuals on the comment, but . . . My question
for my fellow archivists out there is this: Do you see yourself distinct
from librarians? And (I'm certainly assuming so) how would you
counter that comment? Susan --- Othmer Library of Chemical History The views
expressed in this message are those of the author and not necessarily those of
the Chemical Heritage Foundation. |