e-Portfolio Home :: Competencies :: Vlasta Home

competency A

competency B

competency C

competency D

competency E

competency F

competency G

competency H

competency I

competency J

competency K

competency L

competency M

competency N

Statement of Competency F

In which I discuss the basic concepts and principles related to the creation, evaluation, selection, acquisition, preservation and organization of specific items or collections of information.

---

In Spring of 2007, I had an internship in the Special Collections and Archives (the Special Collections) of University of California Riverside (UCR). The main goal of the internship was to explore the various issues related to the processing of archival collections, the preservation of library material, and the public access and use of resources of the special collections. My EVIDENCE 1 to this competency is an internship log, developed as a web site, detailing weekly activities through the text and images: processing of the Anne McCaffrey Papers collection, the practices and techniques of repairing and conservation of library material in the Preservation Services Department of UCR libraries, and activities in a printshop. I learned a lot of other things, but one unintended issue encountered during the internship was a collection policy of the Special Collections.

The most intriguing thing about the Special Collections is the diversity of its collection. In addition to a number of illuminated manuscripts, rare and unusual books and prints, the Special Collections is the home of:

• The Eaton collection of science fiction book, journals, fanzines and other science fiction related ephemera;
• Archival collections of number of sci-fi writers (Anne McCaffrey Papers belong to this category);
• A collection of printing presses, printing equipment, type, and bookbinding tools;
• The Costo Library of the American Indian and the Costo Archive, including books, manuscripts, and ethnographical material;
• The Western Region Tuskegee Airmen Archives; and
• The University archives.

The printing presses and printing material was consigned to the care of Special Collections by Dr. Edward Petko, a private collector and donor to the University. All presses in the collection are in working order – from a common wooden press and Columbian iron press to an electric press. The Special Collections converted one of its rooms into a printshop and the Special Collections staff teaches printing classes which are part of the University curriculum. Only staff and student enrolled in the printing class are allowed in a printshop, but occasionally the Special Collections offers curatorial tours for the general public. Images of various presses, printshop and printing class could be seen on my Flickr account.

Not many people know about the printing presses and are surprised that a library would include such of objects in their collection. Inquires revealed that the Special Collections staff do not necessarily have much influence in a matter. The printing classes and keeping presses in working order was stipulated by the donation. Although the donation pays for the operation of the workshop and upkeep of the collection, it does not provide for the hours library staff spend dealing with the collection.

Apparently this is not such an unusual situation in the world of university libraries, archives or museums. Most of the record repositories like official county archives, corporate archives or similar institutions have their collection policies and scope of collections defined pretty much by the law. As shown in my EVIDENCE 2 to this competency, these policies define the purpose of the county archives, list laws that determine the scope of policies, define officers and county positions from which records will be collected, as well as the type of material that will be collected. They define the positions that are responsible for the retention of various materials and the ways of cooperation with the county archivist. Responsibilities and duties in record keeping and archival process are very much defined by the position in organizational hierarchy and the legal relevance of the records.

Oddly enough, the University Archives of UCR were established in Spring 2007, although the University was declared a general campus by act of the Regents in 1959. The University and the Special Collection were accumulating the archival material more by inertia than any formal set of policies. Until recently, the Special Collection did not have repository rules for archives, such as the rules which are EVIDENCE 2 to this competency, which would specify how to deal with the various materials.

Because the Special Collections are primarily a library, they do not have established ways of accessioning and cataloging non-printed material. The Rupert Costo Native American Collection, beside books and manuscripts, includes also a number of Native American ritual objects, tools and baskets. Although books and manuscripts are processed, the ethnographical objects are registered, but not cataloged. Therefore, there are no ways to search or discover these objects through the library catalog. As Native American studies are not a priority in the mission of the Special Collections, it is highly unlikely that the objects will be processed and accessible any time soon.

Unclear acquisition and collection policies present also a preservation problem. While the cost of providing for the preservation and maintaince of the collection of printing presses and the workshop is paid for by the donation, and therefore outside expertise could be provided, this is not necessarily so with other donations. While some UCR libraries have a central preservation department specialized for maintained and preservation of printed material, there are no such policies or resources for ethnographical artifacts. The focus of the Special Collection is on printed material in various forms, and their expertise and resources are focused on the preservation and organization of that type of materials. As it happens, the City of Riverside have a local museum, which has expertise in dealing with ethnographic material and a large, well-documented collection of baskets and other Native American artifacts. One wonders if it is possible for these two institutions to find a way to share the resources. The cooperation would probably benefit the both institutions, because the archival collections of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum on Citrus Industry duplicate and overlap with the collections of the Special Collections on that subject. Sometimes it is not possible to physically relocate collections, but with the digital technology it would be possible to make records about the items accessible through some kind of union catalog.

The Internet and digital technology offers a number of options to solve some of organizational, cataloging and access problems in repositories, but the unresolved property and copyright issues could interfere with these efforts. As I show in my EVIDENCE 3 to this competency, the reasoning and arguments to digitalize a particular collection often involves quite knowledge of copyright law for particular media as well as research on the subject. The cooperation between institutions that share similar collections but have a different expertise on the subject could be particularly beneficial in the case of a digitalization project.