Reading Response 3: Wendy Duff and Allyson Fox on Archival Reference

In Wendy Duff and Allyson Fox's 2006 article "'You're a guide rather than an expert': Archival reference from an archivist's point of view," the authors present a discussion of recommended approaches to the archival reference interview.  In this article, Duff and Fox discuss and analyze interviews with archivists of two archivists conducted about the subject of archival reference, a topic discussed very lightly in archival literature.

The subjects interviewed suggested that the traditional library reference interview, in which a librarian seeks to understanding both the context and the specificities of a patron's information need, is significant in the archival context and is often effective.  Archivists then refer the archival patron to the appropriate finding aid, database, or biography.  The subjects interviewed generally stated that, when suggesting a finding aid for an appropriate archival collection, decisions were generally made based on an intuitive knowledge based on the provenance of the collection and record functions.  When the decision was not intuitive, the archivists surveyed turned to online catalogs to help find related material.  Archivists also stated that, when faced with difficulty in recommending material, they would often consult other archivists or consult the records of previous reference transactions.

When asked about training, archivists stressed that on-the-job experience provided important preparation for effectively answering reference inquiries, both in the context of knowledge of use of collections and knowledge of the institution.  When asked about barriers to providing reference service, the subjects of the survey stated that time constraints in both in-person and remote transactions as well as poor finding aids were common issues.

Generally speaking, I find that this article provides an interesting overview and discussion of a variety of issues regarding archival reference.  Duff and Fox also provide insightful advice regarding the importance of clear finding aids and of on-the-job experience for a reference archivist.  However, I find that much of the discussion assumed that a majority of archival patrons visit an archives with broad research questions with the hope of gaining insight into a particular topic.  The patrons who contact or visit an archives looking for a specific document or piece of information are not significantly addressed in this study.  Thus, the authors paint a somewhat a biased picture of the role of the reference archivist and the type of activities he or she typically performs, as well as a somewhat biased picture of the needs of archival patrons in general.

Duff, Wendy, and Allyson Fox. 2006. "‘You're a guide rather than an expert’: Archival reference from an archivist's point of view." Journal of the Society of Archivists 27, no. 2: 129-153.

Reading Response 2: Geoffrey Yeo on Market Segmentation and Understanding Archives Users

Geoffrey Yeo’s 2005 article, "Understanding Users and Use: A Market Segmentation Approach," should be consider required reading for all working archivists and archival students.  In this article, Yeo uses a market segmentation approach, dividing up one’s customer base into separate groups based on similar characters and needs, and paints a picture of the diverse nature of archival patrons.  As Yeo writes, this approach "can help records managers and archivists to ensure that the records kept, or the systems by which access is provided, are appropriate to the users’ needs."

In this article, Yeo identifies values of records, common uses of records, and common types of patrons in archival repositories.  Yeo uses Schellenberg’s informational and evidential value and also adds a third type of value, the value of a record as an object or an artifact.  With regards to types of uses, Yeo defines categories of business use, cultural use, and accountability.  In regards to user types, Yeo categorizes prominent archives users as falling into one of the following groups: record creators, organizational employees, family members, occupational users, educational users, and self-driven users. 

Without using the space to describe the importance of each type of use and value to each type of patron, Yeo's scholarship demonstrates, generally speaking, that all identified values and uses are of notable interest to a significant portion of archival patrons.  These results are significant for archivists for many reasons.  Firstly, with regards to outreach, Yeo’s study can help the archivist understand what groups to best target when promoting archival use.  When looking to expand the user base of a repository, it is not wise to solely focus on external users and cultural uses.  Secondly, with regards to appraisal, archivists cannot afford to place emphasis on evidential value and de-emphasize informational value during the appraisal process.  Doing so will render an archival repository as being of diminished usefulness for many patrons.

Yeo, Geoffrey. "Understanding Users and Use: A Market Segmentation Approach." Journal of the Society of Archivists 26, no. 1 (April 2005): 25-53

Recent Happenings at the Archives

Over the last few days at the archives, I have spent some time working on reference questions and I have also put some of the finishing touches on the Ruth Engs finding aid. 

One patron I assisted asked for some information about the history of the Lilly Library.  The patron asked for a list of previous directors as well as some information about George A. Poole and C. Lindsay, two collectors of rare books and manuscripts whose collections were essential to the development of the Lilly collection.  Here is a brief biography of Poole from the Encyclopedia of Chicago.  Poole, who was born in Chicago, also served as a trustee on the boards of both the University of Chicago and the Newberry Library.  The Gutenberg Bible New Testament that is held at the Lilly Library came from the Poole Collection, as did many examples of early printing held at the Lilly Library that can be found in this guide.  The Ricketts collection, which also contains many of the Lilly's most treasured items, is documented here on the Lilly Library Manuscripts Collection site.

As for the Ruth Engs finding aid, I have spent some time adding detail to the scope and content note in order to best describe the organization and nature of the collection in a way that best communicates its structure and usefulness to the patron.  This step is one of the final steps in the processing of the collection, and it should be entirely complete relatively soon. 

I have also begun to plan and brainstorm for the outreach video I will be creating.  This video will be used to help persuade student groups to donate their records to the IU Archives.  Stay tuned for a forthcoming post that will describe the plans for the project in greater detail!

More Thoughts on Archival Reference

Last week, I had the opportunity to do some more work assisting with answering reference questions.  I always enjoy getting the chance to work on reference questions because it gives me the opportunity to learn a bit more about the history of the university and a little bit more about our collection.  The more reference questions one answers, the more one gets a grasp on which collections and resources are most useful for documenting which types of information.

I helped one patron last week who was writing a dissertation and needed to find some basic factual information about several employees, both faculty and staff, who worked at IU during the 1960's.  For some individuals, he had the full name and needed to know that person's full title and position at the university in a certain year so that he could properly describe and contextualize the person in the paper.  For other individuals, he had part of a name and needed the individual's full name and title.

In answering these types of questions, I used a variety of ready reference archival sources to find the information the patron needed.  One such resource is our collection of university bulletins and registers which contain, among many other things, an alphabetical listing of faculty members by department with corresponding information about individual faculty member titles.  Some departmental staff members are also included.  IU Phone books from the era can also provide similar information.  The phone book listings provide less detail about an individual's role or title at IU, but they include listings for more staff members than the bulletins and registers.

The IU Archives has also kept one-sheet biographical files on many faculty and prominent staff.  These sheets typically include some basic biographical information and provide a CV that documents the individual's career and accomplishments.  Finally, the archives also keeps clipping files on certain prominent faculty and affiliates.

I used all four of these sources in the process of helping this patron find the answers he needed about the individuals he is discussing in his research.  Working on this question helped develop my understanding of the collections and resources at the archives that are best suited to provide different levels of basic information about IU staff, administrators, and faculty from previous years.  These collections are essential to the running of a repository as they provide well-organized and easily accessible information that patrons often need.

"Hail to Old IU" Lyrics

This week, I helped a patron answer a question related to the writing of one of Indiana University's songs, "Hail to Old IU."  For those of you unfamiliar with the song, here is a link to an IU Athletics Department page that includes the lyrics to "Hail to Old IU," a short history about the writing of the song, and a recording of an IU Band performance of "Hail to Old IU."

This particular patron's question related to the verse "Gloriana Frangipana, E'er to her be true."  Specifically, the patron was looking for an explanation as to why the word "Frangipana" was included in the lyrics and if it had any special meaning or significance.

For starters, "Frangipana" is a misspelling/mispronunciation of "frangipani," a flower defined as "any of a genus (Plumeria) of shrubs or small trees of the dogbane family that are native to the American tropics and widely cultivated as ornamentals."  The changing of pronunciation was intended to make the word rhyme with "Indiana."

As to why this particular word was chosen, here is an IU Fast Facts page which provides an explanation.