12
Journal of the Society of Archivists, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1997 59 Preservation Policies and Strategies in British Archives and Record Offices: a survey PAUL EDEN and JOHN FEATHER, Loughborough University Introduction Since May 1996 the Department of Information and library Studies at Loughbor- ough University has been in engaged in a one-year research project entitled National Preservation Policy: policies and practices in archives, libraries and record offices funded by the British Library Research and Innovation Centre. Supported by the Society of Archivists, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (HMC) and the Na- tional Preservation Office (NPO), the project builds on previous research undertaken in the Department in 1993, 1 and forms part of a wider initiative concerned for the development of a national preservation strategy for the UK. The first part of the research included a questionnaire survey of nearly 300 archives and record offices, and interviews with archivists, conservators and librarians from selected organisations. A full account of the work will be published by the British Library later this year; this paper offers an overview of some of the main findings of the survey, supported by interviewees' comments. After outlining our research methodology and the response rates, we highlight managerial issues concerning organisational responsibility for preservation, written preservation policies, preser- vation strategies, financial resources, using statistical information for preservation planning purposes and assessing preservation and conservation priorities and options, before looking at related operational factors such as in-house conservation facilities, environmental control and the training of non-professional staff, reprographic staff and users in handling archival material. Correspondence: Paul Eden, Department of Information and Library Studies, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK. 0037-9816/97/010059-12 © 1997 Society of Archivists

Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

  • Upload
    john

  • View
    217

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

Journal of the Society of Archivists, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1997 59

Preservation Policies and Strategies inBritish Archives and Record Offices: asurvey

PAUL EDEN and JOHN FEATHER, Loughborough University

Introduction

Since May 1996 the Department of Information and library Studies at Loughbor-ough University has been in engaged in a one-year research project entitled NationalPreservation Policy: policies and practices in archives, libraries and record offices funded bythe British Library Research and Innovation Centre. Supported by the Society ofArchivists, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (HMC) and the Na-tional Preservation Office (NPO), the project builds on previous research undertakenin the Department in 1993,1 and forms part of a wider initiative concerned for thedevelopment of a national preservation strategy for the UK.

The first part of the research included a questionnaire survey of nearly 300 archivesand record offices, and interviews with archivists, conservators and librarians fromselected organisations. A full account of the work will be published by the BritishLibrary later this year; this paper offers an overview of some of the main findings ofthe survey, supported by interviewees' comments. After outlining our researchmethodology and the response rates, we highlight managerial issues concerningorganisational responsibility for preservation, written preservation policies, preser-vation strategies, financial resources, using statistical information for preservationplanning purposes and assessing preservation and conservation priorities and options,before looking at related operational factors such as in-house conservation facilities,environmental control and the training of non-professional staff, reprographic staffand users in handling archival material.

Correspondence: Paul Eden, Department of Information and Library Studies, Loughborough University,Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK.

0037-9816/97/010059-12 © 1997 Society of Archivists

Page 2: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

60 P. Eden & J. Feather

Methodology

In May 1996 a questionnaire—which was developed from a draft prepared by aWorking Party of the UK Preservation Administrators group (UKPA),2 and finalisedfollowing comments and suggestions from our own Advisory Group3—was sent to298 UK archives and record offices. These comprised all those listed in HMC'sRecord Repositories in Great Britain* together with a further 40 taken from the PublicRecord Office's list of 'approved places of deposit' for public records which were notincluded in the HMC list. In June, a second questionnaire was sent out to those whohad not responded to the initial mailing. The original mailing list was reduced to 290,as eight of those receiving a questionnaire gave good reasons for removing them fromthe list; their records were actually in the care of another archive on our list, (thebranch office had closed down; a new service was in the process of being establishedfollowing local government reorganisation but no appointments had been made andso on). The final list therefore consisted of 235 archives and record offices inEngland, 30 in Scotland, 18 in Wales, 2 in Northern Ireland, and 5 in the ChannelIslands and Isle of Man. We also subdivided it into five broad categories: localauthority archives5 (164), university archives (50), museum and gallery archives (33),national libraries and record offices (15) and others (28). For the purposes of ourresearch 'preservation' was denned as 'the managerial, financial and technical issuesinvolved in preserving archive materials in all formats—and/or their informationcontent—so as to maximise their useful life', while 'conservation' was defined as 'themaintenance and/or repair of individual items'. These definitions were included onthe questionnaire.

In addition to the questionnaire survey, 13 archives, record offices and libraries inthe UK6 were visited, and qualitative information obtained from semi-structuredinterviews with 25 archivists, conservators and librarians with responsibility forpreservation. These organisations were selected after discussion with our AdvisoryGroup. Interviews were carried out between June and August.

An analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data obtained was carried outusing a Filemaker Pro database and the Minitab statistical software programme,respectively. Any difficulties in interpreting responses were clarified whenever poss-ible with follow-up telephone calls. Being aware of the sensitive nature of much of theinformation given to us, both questionnaire respondents and interviewees wereassured that all information given to us would be treated in the strictest confidence.Our findings, including comments and opinions, are therefore reported anonymously.

Response rates

The questionnaire survey was very successful. A total of 200 questionnaires werecompleted and returned, giving a response rate of just under 69%. Tables 1 and 2show the returns summarised by country and category of organisation, indicating abroadly uniform response rate.

The authors are aware of the time and effort involved in completing questionnairesof this kind, and in being interviewed by researchers. We are therefore extremelygrateful to all those who have co-operated with us in this work which will, we believe,be of general significance to the profession.

Responsibility for preservation

As one archivist interviewed put it, preservation is a 'thread that runs through all ouractivities' influencing policy on issues as diverse as active conservation programmes,

Page 3: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

Preservation Policies and Strategies 61

TABLE 1. Questionnaire returns summarised by country

Country

EnglandScotlandWalesNorthern IrelandChannel Islands/IOM

Totals

Number ofquestionnaires sent out

235301825

290

Number ofquestionnaires returned

163201223

200

% response

696767

10060

69

photocopying, microfilming, storage materials, environmental control, staff training,cleaning contracts and document access rules. Not surprisingly, therefore, in answerto the question 'Who is responsible for preservation policy?' respondents almostinvariably named senior individuals such as the city, borough or county archivist, thelibrarian or the deputy or principal librarian (and in fact most questionnaires werecompleted by this individual), or groups such as the 'senior management group' or'the trustees'.

More interestingly perhaps, 26% (47 of the 183 who answered the question)mentioned their senior conservator or conservation officer as being at least partlyresponsible for preservation policy. Indeed, several interviewees noted that the pro-fessional status of conservators has improved considerably in recent years, and thatconservation is now managed much more professionally than it used to be. Forexample, one conservation officer described how in the past individual books wouldsimply be 'taken down to the bindery' on an ad hoc basis by curatorial staff whothought that it was time they were treated. Today, a far more structured approach iscommon, based on longer-term planning needs, and any decisions on individualitems are typically considered in the light of priorities which have been developed atorganisational level.

In view of the central importance of preservation, and the consequent need toadopt an holistic approach to its management, the increasing involvement of conser-vators in policy decisions is to be welcomed and consolidated. As one interviewee toldus, 'barriers between 'curators' and 'conservators' need to be removed', and 'moredialogue' needs to take place between them. Our overall impression, however, is thatthose barriers are indeed diminishing.

TABLE 2. Questionnaire returns summarisod by category of organisation

Number of Number ofOrganisations questionnaires sent out questionnaires returned % response

Local authority archivesUniversity archivesMuseum and gallery archivesNational libraries and record

officesOthers

Totals

164503315

28

290

116371910

18

200

71745867

64

69

Page 4: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

62 P. Eden &J. Feather

Written preservation policies and preservation strategies

The questionnaire had three questions on this topic:

• Do you have a written preservation policy?• If you do not have a preservation policy, do you have an existing preservation

strategy?• How successful do you consider your current preservation policy/strategy to be? (In

each case, respondents were asked to choose from 'very successful', 'successful' or'not successful'.)

Written preservation policies

A total of 32 respondents (16%), of which 19 were in local authority archives,reported a written preservation policy, while a further 51 (26%) said that theyintended formulating one within the next 18 months. Breaking these figures downinto our five categories we find that 16% of local authority archives, 14% of universityarchives (5), 50% of national libraries and record offices (5) and 11% of others (2)have written preservation policies. Only one museum and gallery archive (5%)reported a written policy. Many of these museum and gallery archives, such as thosein regimental museums, are very small, often with a single curator with no pro-fessional support. Over half of them (10, 53%), however, said that they intended toformulate such a policy within the next 18 months. Others intending to formulate apolicy included 22 local authority archives (19%), 14 university archives (38%), 3national libraries and record offices (30%) and 2 others (11%). Although we have noway of knowing from the questionnaires themselves why so many archives and recordoffices say that they intend to formulate a written policy, comments from intervieweessuggest that there is a growing need for them to demonstrate good managementpractice, which would include having such a policy, when applying for externalfunding from sources such as the National Lottery, or in the case of universities frommoney made available following the publication of the Follett Report.7

Several organisations included copies of their written preservation policies whenreturning their questionnaires. While space does not permit detailed discussion ofthem here (although we intend to analyse them elsewhere), a number of points canbe highlighted. The documents sent to us vary considerably in terms of both size(ranging from two or three pages to around 100 pages) and content. Typically,however, documents included a rationale of the need for a policy, an outline of itsscope, a statement of its priorities, and guidance and procedures for acquisition andselection, handling archival materials, copying, storage, conservation, exhibition anddisaster management. Some policies made reference to other internal documentsincluding staff training manuals, disaster control plans and policies on terms ofdeposit, acquisition and disposal, accession and withdrawal and access, and exter-nally-produced standards such HMC's Standards for Record Repositories,8 the Museumand Galleries Commission's Code of Practice on Archives,9 BS545410 and BS4971.11

In some organisations, however, the need for a written policy was not acknowl-edged. One respondent, for example, firmly stated that it was unnecessary: 'as will beclear, the sums available for document conservation [£5000] make the formulation ofa 'policy' unnecessary'. Others were not so direct, but there was evidence to suggestthree main reasons why such a view might be taken:

Page 5: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

Preservation Policies and Strategies 63

• preservation is so much a part of what archivists do that the need to formalise it isnot recognised;

• resources are so meagre that there is not much that can be done anyway;• in smaller offices with a small staff and relatively few users, it is allegedly easy to

'know what is going on'.

At worst, however, such views can lead to complacency and a misdirection oflimited—often severely limited—financial resources. In addition, making choices,establishing priorities and developing and meeting targets on the basis of a sound andcoherent written policy can demonstrate to parent organisations and the public (aswell as to the funding bodies already mentioned) the efficient and effective use ofresources.

Preservation strategies

Of the 167 organisations without a written preservation policy, 108 (65%) reportedan existing preservation strategy: 58 out of 96 local authority archives (60%), 21 outof 32 university archives (66%), 12 out of 18 museum and gallery archives (67%), 5national libraries and record offices (100%) and 12 out of 16 others (75%). As wehave stated, many of these intend to formalise their strategies into written policydocuments within the next 18 months.

Comments on the success of policies and strategies

A total of 84% of those with a written preservation policy (27 out of 32) thought thatit was 'very successful' or 'successful', while 80% (86 out of 108) of those with apreservation strategy thought that it was 'very successful' or 'successful'. Within ourcategories, 16 out of 19 local authority archives (84%), 4 out of 5 university archives(80%), 1 museum and gallery archive (100%), 5 national libraries and record offices(100%) and 1 out of 2 others (50%) with a written preservation policy thought thatit was 'very successful' or 'successful', while 48 out of 58 local authority archives(83%), 17 out of 21 university archives (81%), 10 out of 12 museum and galleryarchives (83%), 4 out of 5 national libraries and record offices (80%) and 7 out of12 others (58%) with a preservation strategy thought that it was 'very successful' or'successful'.

These apparently high levels of satisfaction, however, must be treated with somecaution. Not unexpectedly, additional comments from respondents suggest that theytook a realistic view of what they considered possible in their actual circumstances,rather than what they would like to be able to achieve given more resources. Thustypical comments from those who thought that their policy or strategy was 'verysuccessful' or 'successful' were 'by comparison with previous neglect', 'within budgetlimitations', 'finances limit the amount of conservation which can be done', 'concen-tration of resources on essentials', 'cleaning of materials requires more staff, 'themain problem is the huge backlog of work' and 'problems—100 year backlog'.

Similarly, whether or not a written policy or strategy is considered 'very successful'/'successful' or 'not successful' is a matter of subjective opinion, and comments fromthose who thought that their policies or strategies were 'not successful' were remark-ably similar to those who took the opposite view! These comments included: 'whathas been done has been done well and is successful ... but generally there is a lackof resources'; 'individual projects are successful, but total budget is insufficient to

Page 6: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

64 P. Eden &J. Feather

cope with total needs'; 'as successful as financial resources permit'. Nevertheless,although opinions as to what constitutes 'success' may vary, archivists would appearto be in general agreement that their current resources cannot hope to meet all thedemands made upon them, especially given so many years of past physical neglect oftheir collections. Perhaps the most succinct, and indeed poignant, remark, came fromthe county archivist who said 'the work is done steadily. There is no end to it'!

Financial resources

The questionnaire had two questions on this topic:

• What is your current annual expenditure on preservation/conservation?• What is the current total budget of your organisation?

A total of 148 respondents gave information on their current annual expenditure onpreservation and conservation, and 135 gave information on the current total budgetof their organisation, but before looking at their figures it must be pointed out thatas various criteria were used to arrive at them they are not directly comparable. Forexample, some included salaries while others did not; others included binding whileothers did not. Bearing this in mind, and excluding national archives and recordoffices, annual expenditure on preservation and conservation ranged from £0-£250 000 out of budgets of between £300 and £12 000 000. In several casespreservation and conservation expenditure was entirely, or almost entirely, derivedfrom grants or other external funding. One local authority archive's expenditure, forexample, included £20 000 for 'a grant-aided special project' while four universitieshad received between £58 000 and £255 000 of 'non-formula funding' for variousprojects including establishing a conservation workshop, an 'intensive' microfilmingproject, and binding.

There can be no doubt that obtaining external funding, either to supplementavailable organisational funding, or as an alternative to it, is essential for manyorganisations in the present economic and political climate, and this position isunlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is a position which is likely tobecome more common as budgets become tighter, and as more organisations bid forNational Lottery funding. Unfortunately, as one university archivist commented,funding bodies tend to favour proposals for spending money on a particular (usuallyhigh-profile) collection, an emphasis which can 'distort priorities', and mean thatimportant 'across the board work' suffers as a result.

Using statistical information for preservation planning purposes

Of the 158 organisations (79%) which reported keeping 'information on the use ofarchival material', 56 (35%) said they 'made use of it for preservation planningpurposes': 28 out of 94 local authority archives (30%), 13 out of 33 universityarchives (39%), 3 out of 11 museum and gallery archives (27%), 6 out of 8 nationallibraries and record offices (75%) and 6 out of 12 others (50%). Typical usesincluded 'to identify collections which are most used to help prioritise repackagingand conservation programmes', 'for performance indicators and security checks', 'formicrofilming programme', and 'cross-checking for mislaid documents'. The reasonsgiven for not keeping statistics were often similar to those given for considering awritten preservation policy unnecessary: 'with limited number of users any heavily

Page 7: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

Preservation Policies and Strategies 65

used documents are easily identified', 'we rely on general knowledge of use to makethese decisions at present'. One respondent, however, commented 'we have avoidedkeeping statistics so far as the extra bureaucracy involved outweighs advantagesgained'. Whilst these latter comments are understandable, keeping statistical infor-mation on use can both help to formulate written policy, and like the policy itself,demonstrate to parent organisations, funding bodies and the public the efficient andeffective use of resources: statistics on use were 'very useful' 'both in determiningpriorities and justifying them when necessary' one local authority archivist told us.Just as importantly they can help the archive or record office to argue cogently foradditional resources as the following comments from local authority archivists show:statistics on use were 'very useful' 'both in creating policies and getting staff, andstatistics on use 'helped to gain money for costly repairs'.

Preservation and conservation priorities and options

The questionnaire had two questions on this topic:

• What criteria are typically used to make decisions about appropriate conservationtreatments?

• Which of the following preservation/conservation options do you use? (respondentswere asked to choose as many as applicable from 'minimal repair' (for example,removing clips; flattening; placing in protective folders), 'boxing', 'surrogates' and'full conservation').

Deciding which items require conservation treatment

Given the financial constraints within which organisations must operate, prioritisingitems for conservation treatment is essential: quite simply, none has the resources toconserve all its damaged or fragile items. Not surprisingly, therefore, just over half ofour respondents (108, 54%) mentioned cost or the availability of funding as acriterion. Nearly three-quarters (141, 71%), however, mentioned the level of demandfor a particular item, underlining the more 'customer-oriented' approach taken byarchives and record offices which was also highlighted by several interviewees. Thevalue or importance of the item was cited by 122 respondents (61%), and factorsrelating to its condition or fragility by 72 (36%). Other criteria included theavailability or otherwise of another copy (which might or might not be a surrogate),the availability of appropriate skills or equipment and whether or not an item fittedinto an already established conservation programme. None of this implies thatarchivists and conservators typically use mechanistic criteria as the basis of theirdecision-making. What actually happens is a professional assessment of variousfactors such as frequency of use and the condition of the document balanced againstthe availability of funds and other resources.

Preservation and conservation options

Table 3 shows the four preservation and conservation options presented to respon-dents, summarised by category of organisation. A total of 82% have the option of fullconservation where appropriate, and further analysis of the data revealed that everyarchive had at least the option of 'minimal repair' or 'boxing'. Understandably,however, activity varied considerably according to resources, ranging from 'all itemsare screened for removal of metal, dirt, "nasties"; most then either boxed, sleeved in

Page 8: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

66 P. Eden & J. Feather

TABLE 3. Preservation/conservation options summarised by category of organisation

Organisations

Local authority archivesUniversity archivesMuseum and gallery archivesNational libraries and record

officesOthers

Totals

Organisationsusing

minimal repair%

111 (96)36 (97)17 (89)9(90)

16 (89)

189 (95)

Organisationsusing

boxing%

114(98)36 (97)17 (89)8(80)

16 (89)

191 (96)

Organisationsusing surrogates

%

80 (69)28 (76)

8(42)7(70)

4(22)

127 (64)

Organisationsusing

full conservation%

100 (86)32 (86)8(42)9(90)

14 (78)

163 (82)

Melinex or wrapped in acid-free tissue. Surrogates are being actively accumulatedas/when possible' to 'we tend to concentrate on minimal repairs, sending veryselected items for conservation' (both comments being from local authority archives).

Significantly, the key role played by surrogates was emphasised by respondents whoconsidered their preservation policies Very successful' or 'successful': 'use of mi-crofilm copies particularly important'; (local authority archive); 'use of microform/photocopies to save wear and tear on heavily used material, for example, parishregisters' (local authority archive); 'records now on microfilm/fiche format withemphasis on public self-help access' (national archive). Just as significantly, othersemphasised their key role by highlighting the fact that they would like to do more inthis area, but lack the funds or facilities to do so: 'high level of demand means thatmore resources [are] required for substitution by microform or digital imaging'; 'ourarea of difficulty would be in producing surrogates—no access/facility for mi-crofilming'; 'we are planning to apply for Lottery money to digitise our photographiccollection'; 'havfing] extensive use of surrogates would reduce demand for repairfacilities, but would itself require a major allocation of resources'. (All of thesecomments from local authority archives).

In-house conservation facilities

The questionnaire had two questions on this topic:

• Do you have in-house conservation facilities?• If [you do not have in-house conservation facilities], what other facilities do you

use?

A total of 102 organisations (51%) reported in-house conservation facilities: 67 localauthority archives (58%), 15 university archives (41%), 4 museum and galleryarchives (21%), 8 national libraries and record offices (80%) and 8 others (44%).Where further details were given, facilities ranged from 'very basic' (4 organisations)to 'fully equipped' workshops or 'all types of work' (83 organisations), with typicallyone or two professional conservators and conservation assistant(s) employed. In all 93organisations reported employing conservators. Often, in the case of local authority

Page 9: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

Preservation Policies and Strategies 67

archives, several offices shared conservation facilities situated at the main recordoffice.

Some 46 organisations reported using the conservation facilities provided by otherarchives and record offices within the public sector, including those in museums,universities and local authorities, while 34 used commercial bookbinders or conserva-tors, and 19 used independent conservators. Two reported using microfilm bureaux.Most of the organisations using these external services did not have their ownin-house facilities, but this was not always the case. One university archive, forexample, did 'all conservation [in-house] excluding bookbinding', while a museumarchive 'only uses the internal paper conservators to prepare material for display.Other work is sent to an outside conservator'. In addition, some less-skilled preser-vation and conservation work may be carried out by other archive or record officestaff as in one local authority archive where 'minimal repair is routinely carried outby non-conservation staff, as is much boxing'.

Environmental control

The questionnaire had six questions on this topic:

• Do you monitor temperature levels in your strongroom(s)?• Are you able to maintain temperature in your strongroom(s) in accordance with the

levels recommended in BS5454?• Do you monitor temperature levels in your searchroom(s)?• Do you monitor RH levels in your strongroom(s)?• Are you able to maintain RH in your strongroom(s) in accordance with the levels

recommended in BS5454?• Do you monitor RH levels in your searchroom(s)?

Tables 4 and 5 summarise responses to these questions by category of organisation.These raw data, however, need to be treated with caution. For instance, while nearlytwo-thirds of our respondents reported that they were able to maintain strongroomtemperature levels to BS5454 recommendations in their strongroom(s), with a similarnumber reporting being able to maintain recommended RH levels, it is certainly notthe case that all of them can maintain these levels at all times or in all strongroomareas. Additional comments on maintaining BS5454 levels included 'when tempera-ture/humidity control works (it only works for 2-3 days at a time)'; 'less stable ... inthose strongrooms without full air-conditioning'; 'temperature is less stable in onestrongroom in high temperatures'; 'there have been some fluctuations in extremeweather conditions'. Nevertheless, the figures are encouraging, and commentsshowed widespread awareness of the issues involved.

Training non-professional and reprographic staff in the handling of archivalmaterial

It is widely-recognised that preservation is a universal responsibility of each and everymember of staff, whatever his or her job. We found that 149 (85%) of the 176organisations with non-professional staff trained them 'in the handling of archivalmaterial' (24 reported having no such staff or did not answer the question): 94 outof 107 local authority archives (88%), 28 out of 31 university archives (90%), 9 outof 14 museum and gallery archives (64%), 9 out of 10 national libraries and recordoffices (90%) and 9 out of 14 others (64%). In addition, 96 out of 135 organisations

Page 10: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

68 P. Eden &J. Feather

TABLE 4. Temperature monitoring and control summarised by category of organisation

Organisations

Local authority archivesUniversity archivesMuseum and gallery archivesNational libraries and record

officesOthers

Totals

Organisationsmonitoringsearchroom

temperature levels%

41 (35)20 (54)4(21)5(50)

8(44)

78 (39)

Organisationsmonitoringstrongroom

temperature levels%

110(95)37 (100)14 (74)9 (90)

13 (72)

183 (92)

Organisations maintainingstrongroom temperature

levels to BS5454recommendations

%

77 (66)24 (65)8(42)8 (80)

9(50)

126 (63)

(71%) said that they trained their reprographic staff 'in the handling of archivalmaterial' (65 said that they had no such staff or did not answer the question): 55 outof 74 local authority archives (74%), 20 out of 27 university archives (74%), 5 outof 10 museum and gallery archives (50%), 8 out of 10 national libraries and recordoffices (80%) and 8 out of 14 others (57%). These latter figures are particularlydisappointing as the damage caused by photocopying archival material has long beenrecognised, and indeed was the subject of a 1992 survey conducted by the Society ofArchivists' Preservation and Conservation Group.12 Several of our interviewees'comments echoed the findings of this earlier report; yet increasing demand forphotocopying, which, although considered an 'income-generator' by senior managers,still constitutes a major preservation problem, placing serious physical strain onalready fragile material.

Training itself varied considerably between organisations, ranging from informaltraining, 'on-the-job instruction as and when necessary' (university archive) to'training videos on the handling of materials; on-site training; visits to other conser-vation facilities' (university archive), often carried out as part of an inductionprogramme. Several respondents pointed out that training sessions should never beseen as 'one-off or considered in isolation. 'Follow-up' sessions are essential, as is theneed not to assume that professional staff do not need reminding about careful

TABLE 5. Relative Humidity (RH) monitoring and control summarised by category of organisation

Organisations

Local authority archivesUniversity archivesMuseum and gallery archivesNational libraries and record

officesOthers

Totals

Organisationsmonitoring

searchroom RH levels(%)

34 (29)13 (35)4(21)5(50)

8(44)

64 (32)

Organisationsmonitoring

strongroom RH levels(%)

107 (92)34 (92)14 (74)9 (90)

12 (67)

176 (88)

Organisations maintainingstrongroom RH levels to

BS5454 recommendations(%)

77 (66)20 (54)

9(47)7 (70)

9(50)

122 (61)

Page 11: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

Preservation Policies and Strategies 69

handling once in a while. As one archivist interviewed said 'Professional staff may beaware of the principles, but can often "forget" to carry them out', a view which nodoubt would be echoed by the university archivist who held 'regular trainingworkshops for all staff from senior managers to cleaners'.

Training users in the handling of archival materials

Making users aware of preservation issues is at least as important as making staffaware of them. As several interviewees remarked, however, educating users isprobably more difficult for archives and record offices than it is for libraries. It wasput to us that most public library users, for example, know that their library has acollection of books and other materials such as videos and compact discs which theycan borrow, and a collection of reference materials which must not leave the library,all of which are clearly marked as such. Many people coming into archives and recordoffices on the other hand do not appreciate the organic nature of their collections, northe fact that most items are unique and therefore irreplaceable.

Thus, although 162 organisations (81.00%) reported that they provided 'instruc-tion or guidance for users in handling archive material' (103 local authority archives(89%), 30 university archives (81%), 12 museum and gallery archives (63%), 9national libraries and record offices (90%) and 8 others (44%)), it was disappointingto find that this activity was often ad hoc, or left to chance. Comments, for example,included 'we respond to bad practice', 'no problems noticed' and 'it is assumedresearchers follow [the library's] guidelines', while in many organisations, althoughguidelines are included on registration forms signed by users, apparently no attemptis made to draw attention to them.

Nevertheless, many respondents did report giving appropriate individual auralinstructions and advice whenever an item was issued: 'all users are given instructionparticular to documents as they use them', emphasising, as one county archivist putit, 'how old, fragile and important archive material is'. Such instructions may includedirections on the use of book-cushions or book-stands, pencils and Melinex fortracing. Comments such as 'verbal reminders when issuing are most effective withusers' emphasise the importance of individual instruction, but several respondentsemphasised the need, wherever possible, to take a multifaceted approach with writtenguidelines and verbal instructions being supplemented with close and constantsupervision, as exemplified by this comment: 'simple rules displayed at every seat inthe reading room; reading room staff advise and when necessary prompt readers'.

Several interviewees stressed that, as one of them put it, 'archives must start as theymean to go on', and not let their (often regular) users slip into bad habits. This,though, is not always easy. One questionnaire respondent, for example, describedhow 'some distinguished scholars ... seem incapable' of learning how to handlematerials properly (interestingly, this was reported by a local authority archivist, andnot one working in a university), while another archivist in a small record office spokeof the 'use of biros in searchroom by prominent individuals who staff are too nervousto tackle'. The prize for the best excuse, however, must surely go to the user who said'this does not apply to me. I am not just a family historian', a plea which will havemany resonances for those in local authority archives and record offices.

Summary and conclusions

Our findings, not surprisingly, highlight the fact that preservation is indeed a threadthat runs through all the activities of an archive or record office as is evidenced by

Page 12: Preservation policies and strategies in British archives and record offices: A survey

70 P. Eden & J. Feather

the seniority of those responsible for managing it. It is interesting to note, however,that very few organisations reported a written preservation policy, although a quartersaid that they intended formulating one within 18 months. Clearly, most respondentstook a realistic view of their situation, believing that their preservation policies orstrategies were successful given what could be achieved with (often severely) limitedresources, although just as clearly they would like to achieve far more, for example,by being able to deal with significant backlogs of conservation work, or improvingenvironmental monitoring and control. Given the importance of preservation it isessential that all staff and users are aware of what they can do themselves to minimisethe risk of damage when handling (often extremely fragile) unique documents. Wewould suggest, therefore, that, where this is not already done, training and awareness-raising needs to be carried out thoroughly and systematically, rather than simply leftto chance. Our findings were not wholly unexpected, but they offer a quantifiablebasis for understanding preservation policies and strategies in British archives andrecord offices. They thus provide a useful overview of the current situation as wemove further down the road towards developing a national preservation strategy.

NOTES1. John Feather, Graham Matthews & Paul Eden, Preservation Management. Policies and practices in

British libraries (Aldershot, Gower, 1996).2. UKPA is an ad hoc grouping called together by the British Library and the NPO. The working party

consisted of Dr Helen Forde, Head of Preservation Services, Public Record Office, Kate Walsham,Sub-Librarian (Collection Management), Glasgow University Library and John Feather.

3. The Advisory Group consists of Amanda Arrowsmith, Director of Libraries and Heritage, Suffolk CountyCouncil, Dr Mirjam Foot, Director of Collections and Preservation, British Library, Dr Helen Forde, Headof Preservation Services, Public Record Office, Dr John Hall, University Librarian, University of Durham,Stephanie Kenna, Research Analyst, British Library Research and Innovation Centre, Dr Chris Kitching,Secretary, Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Dr Vanessa Marshall, Director, National Preser-vation Office, Dr Ann Matheson, Keeper of Printed Books, National Library of Scotland and JonathanRhys-Lewis, Senior Conservator, Greater London Record Office.

4. Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Record Repositories in Great Britain: a geographicaldirectory (9th ed; 3rd impression (with revisions), London, HMSO, 1994).

5. We use the term 'local authority archives' to avoid lengthy repetition. It should be taken to includeboth archives and record offices, as well as other historical collections (such as local history collectionsheld in public libraries) which were included in our sources.

6. The following archives, record offices and libraries were visited: The Borthwick Institute of HistoricalResearch, The British Library, The Greater London Record Office, Gwynedd Archives Service, TheHampshire Record Office, The Isle of Wight County Record Office, The Leicestershire RecordOffice, The National Library of Scotland, The National Library of Wales, The Department ofManuscripts and Special Collections, Nottingham University, The Public Record Office, TheScottish Record Office, Special Collections, Southampton University library.

7. Joint Funding Councils' libraries Review Group, Report (Bristol, HEFCE, December 1993). (TheFollett Report.)

8. Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, A Standard for Record Repositories on Constitution andFinance Staff, Aquisition, Access (London, RCHM, 1990), reprinted in JSA vol 12 (1991), pp 114-22,

9. Museums and Galleries Commission, Code of Practice on Archives for Museums and Galleries in theUnited Kingdom (revised edition. London, Museums and Galleries Commission, 1996).

10. BS5454, Recommendations for Storage and Exhibition of Archival Documents (London, BSI, 1989).11. BS4971, Recommendations for Repair and Allied Processes for the Conservation of Documents, Part 2.

Archival Binding (London, BSI, 1980).12. Jerry Weber, 'Photocopiers—friend or foe? A survey by the Preservation Group of the Society of

Archivists', JSA, vol 14 (1993), pp 65-68.