This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 10:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Society of ArchivistsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjsa20

Archives and museums—threat oropportunity?Matthew Jones aa Assistant Archivist, East Sussex Record Office , The Maltings,Castle Precinct , Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 IYT, UKPublished online: 15 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Matthew Jones (1997) Archives and museums—threat or opportunity?,Journal of the Society of Archivists, 18:1, 27-35, DOI: 10.1080/00379819709511810

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00379819709511810

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of the Society of Archivists, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1997 27

Archives and Museums—threat oropportunity?

MATTHEW JONES, formerly of Portsmouth City Museums and Records Service

Introduction

In recent years, a number of local authorities have brought archives, museums and avariety of other services together to form broad leisure, heritage and cultural direc-torates. In most cases, archive services have broken a long-standing relationship withthe clerk or solicitor's department. This relationship stems from the traditional roleof archive services in the custody of records created and maintained by localauthorities for legal and administrative purposes. In some cases, as in Portsmouth andGwynedd, archives and museums have been brought even closer together with thecreation of a joint service.

Can anyone deny that archives and museums have a great deal in common? In themuseum community, there is growing awareness of the common ground shared bymuseums, archives and other related services. In 1995, the Director of the WestMidlands Area Museum Service, Kathy Gee, published an article which explored theconcept of a 'heritage web'.1 She argued that museums which found themselves in avulnerable position should seek out new soul-mates. In her view, these services mayinclude archives, libraries, archaeology units, historic monuments and even botanicgardens. Kathy Gee identified 'common elements' of services included in the heritageweb, by the fact that they all:

(1) collect(2) record(3) preserve/conserve(4) provide public access(5) interpret.

Correspondence: Matthew Jones, Assistant Archivist, East Sussex Record Office, The Maltings, CastlePrecinct, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 IYT, UK.

0037-9816/97/010027-09 © 1997 Society of Archivists

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

28 M. Jones

There are, of course, important differences between the organisations in this model:the collection of evidence will relate to documents, objects, or the identification ofimportant sites; the 'record' function will relate to documentation, registering orcataloguing; conservation and preservation techniques will vary considerably betweendifferent organisations; public access will vary; and interpretation is a role especiallyimportant to museums. Kathy Gee recognises these important qualifications. How-ever, these points do limit the heritage web to an extremely theoretical model. Whenan organisational structure is developed to take account of the relationships visualisedin the heritage web, it is important to ensure that the structure is appropriate to thetask.

The heritage web was recognised in Oxfordshire by the County Museums andArchives Officer, Martyn Brown. He now heads the heritage section of the Depart-ment of Leisure and Arts which consists of Museums, Archives, the Centre forOxfordshire Studies, the Victoria County History, and Countryside Services.2 Thisexample shows how broadly the heritage web can be interpreted. The commonelements relate to these five services in different ways and to varying degrees.However, the heritage web does not attempt to tackle the issues raised by localauthority restructuring or the integration of archives and museums at service deliverylevel. This article will attempt to raise some of these issues which are so important tothe future of the archive profession.

The Local Authority

In April 1994, Portsmouth City Record Office was transferred from the Solicitor'sDepartment to the Leisure Service of the City Council and merged with theMuseums Service, consisting of the City Museum, the D-Day Museum, SouthseaCastle, the Natural History Museum (Cumberland House), and Charles Dickens'Birthplace Museum. Under a new Museums and Records Service, the posts of CityArchivist and Director of Museums were merged to create the unified position ofMuseums and Records Officer. This post was awarded to the former City Archivist,Sarah Quail.

To some traditional archivists, these developments raise important issues ofconcern. According to a commentator in the Society's Journal of 1993, the transferof archive services into leisure or heritage departments will lead to a loss of seniorarchive posts.3 This argument assumes that Borough and County Archivists will bereplaced by more generalised leisure and heritage 'supremos'. Clearly, the creation ofgeneralised posts may limit opportunities for archivists facing additional competitionfrom curators and other professionals. However, many archivists would compete verysuccessfully for these posts (and have done so). For many, it would widen theirexperience and may open up opportunities for advancement into the higher echelonsof local government. For example, in Gwynedd, the Archives Service has beenawarded responsibility for museums; beginning with Beaumaris Gaol in 1975, theLloyd George Museum in the 1980s and Bangor Museum in 1990. When the newArchives and Museums Service was fully established in the 1980s, the post of CountyArchivist was widened to County Archivist and Museums Officer. This post wasawarded to Gareth Williams in 1992. He currently holds a position as AssistantDirector for Culture in the County Council's Department of Education and Culture,with responsibility for archives, libraries, museums, the arts and cinemas. GarethWilliams now reports directly to the head of an important local authority depart-ment.4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Archives and Museums 29

For the Record Office in Portsmouth, the position of the City Archivist in a legaldepartment was not especially beneficial. The trend towards client-contractor rela-tionships in local government meant that the Record Office was hampered by itsexistence in a department with very limited disposable resources. Furthermore, theCity Archivist did not wield significant influence in this environment. Sarah Quailbelieves that Borough and County Archivists rarely achieve an important role in thehierarchy of local government by virtue of their traditional administrative expertise.In Portsmouth, Sarah Quail has achieved much greater influence in the LeisureService. As Museums and Records Officer, she now leads a service which achievedfull committee status on 1 April 1996 with the creation of the Heritage and CulturalServices Committee.5

It could be said that archive services remaining in the clerk or solicitor's depart-ment are in a position of greater security. One of the downsides to being part of aheritage or leisure department is, to some extent, the name. The term 'leisure' or'heritage' suggests to decision-makers in local government that these are legitimateareas for cutbacks when compared to housing, education and social services. Archivescan become typecast as a leisure pursuit rather than a vital function of localgovernment record-keeping and an important tool for historical research. This doesnot, however, argue against a move into leisure or heritage departments. It simplyserves as a warning. Archivists must ensure that decision-makers in their localauthority appreciate the role of the record office both in the administrative structureand in the wider community.

Management and staff

There are a number of potential difficulties in creating a joint service which mixesprofessionals of different backgrounds, training and experience. The obvious risk isthat a head of service may be tempted to further the cause of his or her ownprofessional interests. Newly-appointed joint managers may perceive that their ownservice has been undervalued in comparison to other services within their charge.Another potential difficulty is the stereotyping between members of related profes-sions. Archivists, curators and librarians often share a number of preconceived ideasof each other which are not always particularly flattering. In some local authorities,these issues have been tackled head on.

In Suffolk, the introduction of flexible team-working in the Department of Li-braries and Heritage has aimed to encourage managers to break down the stereo-types, and for professionals of different backgrounds to benefit from the experienceof others.6 For example, one experiment involved the cross-functional secondment ofthe Archives Service Manager to a library, whilst a Library Service Manager took herjob. The Director, Amanda Arrowsmith, also believes that the creation of opportuni-ties for staff to move into different areas of activity on secondment, or to broadentheir spheres of activity, is a good method of motivating them. Amanda Arrowsmithhas stressed the importance of ensuring that secondments are reversible. She acceptsthat some secondments can be disastrous and, on occasion, project teams have notbeen able to co-operate effectively with the mixture of specialists involved. However,she believes that the benefits of exploiting a wide range of expertise and stimulatingnew thinking amongst the staff make such experiments worthwhile.

However, the crucial question concerning multi-disciplinary structures is—do theywork? In an article of 1993, David Rimmer argued that services within multi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

30 M. Jones

disciplinary structures 'will lose the sense of direction, coherence and unity' whichguides separate units, and that without common goals, management skills 'will bedissipated in attempting to reconcile differing interests, centrifugal forces and dis-persed objectives.'7 However, the extent of these problems will depend on the peopleinvolved. Many multi-disciplinary structures operate very successfully if the appropri-ate management structures are in place, and if members of staff hold attitudes whichcontribute to harmony and co-operation rather than conflict and confrontation.However, here lies the danger of such ventures. If an integration results from acoercive and ill-considered local authority cost-cutting exercise, then it may result infailure without the full support of management and staff.

In Portsmouth, the key professional posts of Local History Officer and CollectionsManager for the integrated Museums and Records Service were awarded to twoformer archivists, Paul Raymond and Michael Gunton. They were selected for theirpersonal management skills rather than their professional training as archivists.However, there are inherent problems with the idea that an archivist is best placed tomanage a team of curators (or vice versa). The approach in Portsmouth relies on theability of the Local History Officer and Collections Manager to defer to the pro-fessional expertise of the curatorial staff where issues relate specifically to museummatters. Similarly, archival matters are only considered by archivists. Overall, it islargely a matter of personalities. However, it is the ultimate responsibility of seniormanagement to ensure that those appointed to supervise the practical elements ofintegration are suitable for the task.

In many cases, it is the archivist who assumes the leadership role in joint services.This is due, in part, to the nature of archive work which provides archivists with amuch clearer understanding of the internal workings of local government. In York,however, it is a curator who holds responsibility for the City Archives within the localauthority setting. In this example, the Director of the Castle Museum also holds aposition as Assistant Director of Leisure, responsible for a heritage department whichincludes two museums, an art gallery, and the City Archives. The City Archivist, RitaFreedman, believes that the Archives are a poor relation within this structure, withlittle option but to follow the museum lead. Although the Archives certainly have avoice, the overall direction of the department is largely determined by the museums.This has important implications. At present, the department is examining thepossibility of adopting integrated IT systems. The City Archivist now has theunenviable task of ensuring that the specific needs of the Archives are not ignored orforgotten.8

The collections

In Gwynedd, the creation of the Archives and Museums Service and the additionalresponsibilities leading from this have not been matched by significant additionalresources. This has meant that staff originally dedicated to the Archives Service havebecome increasingly occupied by museum work, at the expense of many archivaltasks. A similar picture has developed in Portsmouth. The archivists of the formerrecord office now fulfil management functions which encompass the work of theMuseums and Records Service as a whole. This has led to a severe backlog ofaccessioning and limited scope for cataloguing. The promotion of the two archivistshas not been countered with the resources to employ an additional archivist toconcentrate on basic archive work.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Archives and Museums 31

Other issues also arise in joint archive and museum services. For example, there isthe inevitable overlap between archives held by a museum and those of the recordoffice. In Portsmouth, the City Museum holds an unknown quantity of photographs,some of which duplicate items in the Record Office holdings. The intellectualunification of this archive material may be a useful project in the future. However,this would involve a considerable dedication of resources and it is not a worthwhileventure in the short to medium term. As far as access is concerned, a new documentimaging system, known as MOIRA, has been developed to provide access to allMuseum and Record Office holdings of photographs, postcards, prints, drawings andworks of art for the benefit of staff and visitors alike.

Other considerations relate to the differences in approach between archivists andcurators. Curators have little appreciation for the archival principle of provenance.Their focus of attention is upon items, principally objects, rather than the archivalfocus which seeks to treat single items as part of a larger whole. Along with thetheoretical principles of archive and museum work are the practical issues relating todifferences in accessioning procedures, numbering and referencing systems and soon. These are all valid in their own professional sphere. However, they ensure that anintegrated service must maintain two parallel and distinct management systems.

In relation to acquisition policies, curators are more inclined to collect ephemera,material which an archivist is more likely to throw away. More importantly, museumcurators are much less inclined to accept deposits on loan. Many objects are difficultand expensive to store by virtue of their physical size—Portsmouth has recentlyacquired a bus. Many objects are delicate and extremely valuable—depositors oftenattempt to secure long-term loan arrangements for their objects to avoid the cost ofinsurance. Objects may also be expensive to conserve and preserve. All of thesefactors make it imperative, in most cases, for the museum to establish full ownershipof deposits. It also emphasises the importance of having a clear demarcation betweenarchivists and curators when it comes to accepting archives and objects—each sidehas a number of practical and theoretical principles which are unique.

Public service

The integration of archives and museums can have important implications for thelevel and quality of public service. One of the benefits of co-locating related serviceson a single site is the convenience this provides for researchers. In particular,historical enquiries can be dealt with by a much broader range of expertise; it alsoavoids the duplication of effort. More importantly, it could be argued that there isconsiderable public confusion over the multitude of institutions available for histori-cal research. An integrated process of service delivery can be of considerable benefitin this respect. However, it is also fair to say that there are positive advantages tohaving a duplication of effort where public demand is particularly high. In Sheffield,Archives and Local Studies originally shared a single searchroom in the CentralLibrary, despite being two distinct departments. In 1989, the two departments werephysically separated and the Archives moved out of the Central Library into newpremises.9 With the duplication of certain family and local history resources, usersnow have an opportunity to visit one of two sites and have a greater chance ofsecuring a booking for a microfilm viewer. This example shows that a duplication ofeffort can result in better public service.

In Portsmouth, the principal effect of integration between the Record Office and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

32 M. Jones

Museums Service was the relocation of the searchroom into the City Museumbuilding nearby. The new searchroom was opened to the public in January 1995. Ingeneral, the service provided in the searchroom is much the same as it was beforeintegration. However, the most significant benefit has been the growth in visitornumbers; the searchroom visitor figures for 1995 showed a 24% increase on thefigures for 1994.10 Figures for 1996 show that the number of visitors is continuing togrow. The reasons for this are clear. Firstly, the relocation of the Record Officesearchroom forced the City Council to waive entry charges to the City Museum. Thiswas responsible for increasing visits to the City Museum by over 20,000 in the firstyear and had a knock-on effect for the searchroom. Secondly, the City Museum canjustly claim to have a much higher profile than the Record Office. Most people aremuch more aware of museums generally. In addition, the City Museum is housed inan impressive late-nineteenth century barracks close to the City Centre. Although theRecord Office building has shared the site, it is the City Museum which has alwaystaken pride of place. Thirdly, the pooling of resources has enabled more effectivepromotion and marketing of the joint service.

One of the problems in Portsmouth, however, relates to the issue of charges. Atpresent, the Records Service continues to charge £12 for a one-hour postal enquiry.In most cases, these are genealogical enquiries which could often be undertaken bythe researchers themselves. Among the museum community, charging members ofthe public for enquiries is more problematic. Many enquiries relate to specific objectsand cannot easily be answered by the layman. Also, the ethos of the museumprofession tends towards the provision of a free enquiry service. In Portsmouth, thesedistinctions have been maintained during the first three years of operation. Inconsequence, local history enquiries could be directed at either of the two sides of theservice, and face the prospect of paying £12 an hour or nothing at all, depending onwhere the enquiry has been passed. This is an issue which is to be dealt with in thecoming months with the creation of a joint enquiry service.

It is important to recognise that any integration of archive and museum services islikely to involve some compromises. In Portsmouth, all functions of the Record Officewere concentrated within a single building before the searchroom and staff officeswere relocated into the City Museum. This meant that all of the collections wereextremely close to the searchroom and the close proximity of staff offices meant thatan archivist was rarely far away. Since integration, the most regularly consultedrecords have been moved into a new strongroom, housed in a former public galleryimmediately below the new first-floor searchroom. For other records, staff must leavethe museum, cross a courtyard, and enter a series of doors to gain access to theholdings. For Portsmouth, this is a retrograde step. Archives which have remained inthe former record office building have a much longer journey to the searchroom andare exposed to greater risks from the outdoor environment, despite the variety oftransport devices available. However, it is fair to say that the new searchroom is muchless intimidating to casual visitors in its present location, as the rise in visitor numbersseems to show.

Outreach

The integration of archives and museums goes to the heart of a debate concerning therole of a local authority archivist. Some traditional archivists argue that archiveservices should not associate themselves too closely with heritage and leisure. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Archives and Museums 33

assumes that archives can never be relevant in the modern world and that to try tobe relevant is to endanger the archive community. One of the dangers is perceived bysome to be the shift from 'serious' academic work to the supposedly 'slight' brand ofpopular outreach.11

In a local government environment where local ratepayers are responsible forfunding archive services, there is perhaps a moral obligation to provide outreachevents and activities with wide popular appeal. More and more record offices areresponding to the challenge. A good example is West Sussex which has a dedicatedoutreach archivist. For local authority archives, popular outreach activities are asource of ammunition against the annual threat of financial cuts. Perhaps moreimportantly, they establish allies in the local community. Local politicians are oftenkeen to attend popular events and rarely miss an opportunity to be photographed onsuch occasions.

In Portsmouth, the archivists have always been keen to promote the record officewith a wide-ranging outreach programme. Integration with the Museums Service hasprovided a larger pool of staff and resources to expand this area of activity. In recentyears, this has included talks, workshops, local history fairs, theatrical productionsand community projects. Exhibitions at the City Museum now incorporate archivesalongside the objects to produce more authentic and visually appealing presentations.Integration has also enabled the appointment of a joint education officer—in the1995-1996 financial year, no less than 28,683 schoolchildren visited the CityMuseum and Records Service site.12

It is, of course, important not to take this approach to an extreme. Archive servicesmust not desert their role in the academic community or their record-keepingfunction in local government. Archives can probably never maintain a constantrise in visitor figures in the long term; it would be unwise to assume that this ispossible, given the constraints of local government resources. The difficulty isdeciding where to draw the line between the academic and administrative role,and providing a service more akin to a Disney theme-park. These issues areparticularly important to an archive service which faces the possibility of a mergerwith museums.

Conclusion

For Portsmouth City Record Office, integration with the Museums Service hasbrought many significant benefits. In particular, the profile of the Record Office hasbeen greatly enhanced both in the City Council and in the wider community. For thestaff, integration has provided an opportunity for exposure to new ideas and perspec-tives. The main financial benefits are the savings in central administrative costs andthe more flexible use of budgets. In addition, it is fair to say that integration hasreduced the duplication of effort—education services, marketing, publicity, exhibi-tions and other outreach activities are now undertaken jointly. There are also the newopportunities for funding from museum bodies. Both Portsmouth and Gwynedd havebenefited from grants awarded by Area Museum Councils.

A professional development is relevant here. In February 1996, the draft NationalArchives Policy was published by the National Archives Policy liaison Group. Thisbody represents the Archives Council Wales, the Association of County Archivists,the British Records Association, the Business Archives Council, the National Council

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

34 M. Jones

on Archives, and the Society of Archivists. It was accepted by a postal ballot followingthe Annual General Meeting in April 1996. Section 5.3 reads as follows:

The archival profession is a distinct profession with its own particular corpusof knowledge and expertise, yet it cannot operate in isolation from a widerange of related professions active in such fields as information manage-ment, education and the protection of the cultural heritage. The challengewhich it faces is to interact with those professions without losing its separateidentity. Where knowledge and expertise is common to a number of relatedprofessions (e.g. information technology) and where scarce resources can beused more effectively by sharing (e.g. premises), it makes sense for thearchival profession to participate fully in joint enterprises. However, thismust not be at the expense of the records and archives themselves, nor mustit compromise the basic tenets of archival theory and practice] the life cycleconcept and the principles of provenance and respect for original order.13

This statement recognises the value of joint services in certain circumstances, and theintegration in Portsmouth does not present any serious challenge to many of itsprinciples. The basic principles of archival theory and practice are followed and thearchives receive proper care and attention in storage that complies with BS5454 as faras possible.14 All sensible measures are taken to ensure that archives receive adequateconservation and preservation, within the limitations of staff and resources. However,it is fair to say that, although the archivists have not entirely lost their separateidentity, their role has become rather blurred. It is certainly desirable to have a veryclear demarcation between archivists and other professionals, if only by virtue of thevery specific nature of archive training.

So, what are the lessons for other record offices? It is important to stress that eachcase is different, but there are general conclusions to be made. First of all, theexperience of Portsmouth shows that integration with a related service should beavoided if the primary aim is to save money. If this is the primary aim, then the recordoffice may have to fight its corner and face the possibility of defeat, or accept thesituation and make the best of it. In the main, integration in Portsmouth has beensuccessful. The backlog in accessioning and cataloguing is a serious problem, but itis an issue which is more to do with the prioritisation of outreach than withintegration per se. However, success in Portsmouth does not prove that integration isnecessarily appropriate elsewhere. An integration for a large county record office isunlikely to be a sensible or realistic proposition, at least not at service delivery level.For example, Hampshire Record Office is an extremely large operation which isbetter served in complete physical independence. In 1993, Hampshire acquired a newpurpose-built record office—it was not designed for the inclusion of another service.

In Portsmouth, the financial strait-jacket of life as a stand-alone record office, therelatively small size of the office, the close physical proximity of the City Museum, theco-operation which already existed, and the onset of unitary status have all madeintegration an attractive and viable venture. There is a world of difference betweenthis situation and the position of other record offices across the country. Success inPortsmouth was achieved because of the willingness of management and staff to makethe process of integration work, whether or not they approved of integration inprinciple. In a large county record office, there is likely to be considerable oppositionto any plan to integrate with a related service unless, as in the case of Surrey,considerable resources are available for the construction of a new centre with enough

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Archives and Museums 35

space to accommodate distinct components. An integration which permits the cleardemarcation of service delivery and maintains the distinctions between differentprofessions is much more likely to succeed.

There are likely to be further co-operative ventures between archive services andsimilar institutions in the years ahead. Many benefits will accrue from these ventures,including opportunities for new resources and a much greater shared profile. Thereis much to be said for the sharing of appropriate premises and the co-operationbetween related services in a single leisure or heritage department of a local authority.Equally, there is much to be gained from co-operative projects between archivists,curators, librarians and other professionals, in areas such as exhibitions and publica-tions. However, it is important to stress the need for maintaining the distinctionsbetween archivists and other professions. Archivists should be justly proud of theirown specialist skills and knowledge, and not be drawn too readily into sacrificing thisidentity for the undoubted benefits of closer co-operation and integration.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my former tutor and lecturer on the UCL archives course,Elizabeth Shepherd, for her help and support in producing an MA report upon whichthis article is based.

I am particularly indebted to the management and staff at Portsmouth CityMuseums and Records Service, especially the following: Sarah Quail, Paul Raymond,Michael Gunton, David Evans, John Stedman, Katy Ball, Jan Hancock, JohnParkinson, Gail Richardson and Elizabeth Dunk. I am also grateful to AmandaArrowsmith (Suffolk), Carl Boardman and Martyn Brown (Oxon), Rita Freedman(York), Kathy Gee (West Midlands Area Museum Service), Hugh Hanley (Bucks),Oliver Harris (Croydon), Jane Kimber (Hammersmith and Fulham), NicholasKingsley (Birmingham), Chris Latimer (Walsall), David Mander (Hackney), StephenPrice (Bristol Museums), Tim Schadla-Hall (Leics), Kate Thompson (Herts),Margaret Turner (Sheffield), Christopher Whittick (East Sussex) and GarethWilliams (Gwynedd).

NOTES

1. K. Gee, "Wonder Web', Museums Journal (Mar 1995), p 19.2. Information supplied by Martyn Brown, County Museums and Archives Officer, Oxfordshire.3. Anon, 'Archives, heritage and leisure', JSA, vol 14 (1993), pp 109-110.4. Information supplied by Gareth Williams, County Archivist and Museums Officer, Gwynedd.5. Information supplied by Sarah Quail, City Museums and Records Officer, Portsmouth.6. M. Ashcroft (ed.), The heritage scenario in local government: creating new structures (Capital Information

Planning Ltd, Lincs, 1994), pp 35-12.7. D. Rimmer, 'Record office or local studies centre?', JSA, vol 13 (1992), pp 9-17.8. Information supplied by Rita Freedman, City Archivist, York.9. Information supplied by Margaret Turner, Group Manager, Libraries and Information Services,

Sheffield.10. Figures supplied by Michael Gunton, Collections Manager, Portsmouth.11. Anon, 'Archives, heritage and leisure'.12. Figures supplied by Jan Hancock, Education Officer, Portsmouth.13. National Archives Policy Liaison Group, An Archives Policy for the UK, (Feb 1996), p 23.14. British Standards Institution, BS54S4: Recommendations for the storage and exhibition of archival

documents (1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

28 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014