In a 2001 article entitled “Analysis of Remote Reference Correspondence at a Large Academic Manuscripts Collection,” Kristin E. Martin analyzes nearly 600 pieces of correspondence between patrons and employees of the Southern Historical Collection and General and Literary Manuscripts (SHC) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 1995 to 1999.
In this article, Martin makes several insightful hypotheses about the impact on the rise of online archival content on the nature of patron interactions with archives. She states that, as archival online presence has grown, so has the popularity of the use of email as a means of contacting an archival repository. She also observes that patrons’ inquiries have become increasingly specific as more online content has been made available, and that patron bases have grown more diverse and more inclusive of recreational users. A quantitative analysis of the correspondence from this span supported all of Martin’s observations and hypotheses. Also, from 1995 to 1999 at this repository, the number of what Martin calls “personal users” doubled, while the number of non-personal users increased by 30%.
While these results are somewhat dated now, Martin’s scholarship is highly relevant for any archival repository interested in developing an increased web presence. This scholarship clearly shows that the process of answering reference inquiries can be modified to best adapt to changing patronage. Archivists must be sure that online documents contain the proper contextual information so that novice users can better evaluate and understand this content. Generally speaking, archivists also must devote more resources to the answering of reference inquiries, and the process of responding to email inquiries can be made more efficient by the development of a database which stores responses to older inquiries that can be revisited in the case of repeat or similar questions.
Kristin E. Martin, "Analysis of Remote Reference Correspondence at a Large Academic Manuscript Collection," The American Archivist, 64 (Spring/Summer 2001), 17-42.
No comments:
Post a Comment