[548] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Archival Function
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Engel,Kevin)
Mon Jun 22 11:10:19 1992
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 10:05:13 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: "Engel,Kevin" <ENGELK%GRIN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
One last belated comment on the statement that was made concerning the
archival function of libraries--that some library has to keep the material
"just in case" so that other libraries can provide the material "just in
time."
Most if not all libraries weed materials, of course; the weeding may be done
only sporadically and may not involve many items, but it does occur. When it
comes to weeded materials, it is my guess that a considerable
percentage of these libraries simply get rid of the materials and do not take
the time to check OCLC or other sources to determine whether that particular
battered book on nineteenth-century agricultural practices in Iowa, for
instance, is the only library copy left perhaps in the world. Because no
staff member has the time or for any one of a number of other legitimate
reasons, the book is withdrawn and simply discarded, sold, given away, etc.
The end result being that no other library may now be able to provide that
item/information "just in time."
The point is that if the archival function is truly one of the basic reasons
why libraries continue to exist, then relatively few of us are taking that
function very seriously. We may not weed very often, but I wonder whether we
hang onto all of our outdated items because of some conscious dedication to
the archival function or because weeding is too much of a pain and is often
an extra task that we do not have time for until some project looms and there
is no longer any choice. If being an archive is important, then a library
has a duty to spend the time and money necessary to truly be one. If we find,
after honest analysis, however, that the archival function is not a high
priority in a library's specific situation, then we must be honest with
ourselves and our budget and spend the dollars we have in a fashion that
makes the most sense in our situation. In other words, we need to purchase
and retain information in the formats and for the periods of time that the
great bulk of our users find most effective and useful.
It is my opinion that the majority of libraries today can no longer afford
to attempt to be all things to all people. That to attempt to excel in all
the traditional library functions (like being an archive) and all the new
functions (brought on by changes in technology and our society) with often
increasingly inadequate resources is self-defeating and just plain foolish.
If providing wide access to as many currently existing sources of
information as possible is a high priority, then purchasing and retaining
information "just in case" is a certain way for most libraries to end up not
meeting that goal. Reallocating scarce resources and focusing on a "just
in time" mode of operation though will at least give most of us a fighting
chance.
Kevin Engel
Grinnell College (Iowa)
engelk@grin.edu
