Libraries, Archives, and Museums: Collaboration for the Future

Over the past few weeks I have come to recognize the similarities between libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs). Also referred to as cultural heritage institutions, LAMs conduct many of the same activities. The traditional activities of archives are collecting, preserving, arranging, describing, and providing access. Libraries and museums are also doing fundamentally the same activities, although using different terms such as cataloguing and curating. To what are these activities done? Well, libraries collect mainly published material, museums: objects, and archives: records. There is of course overlap, and also, exceptions. The differences in practice and terminology have evolved because of the differences in collections.

LAMs preserve and provide access to cultural heritage, which can be simply defined as information about culture. In a library, this is available in the form of a book (or other published material), while in archives and museums, information comes mainly from primary sources, which are evidence of culture. Kiersten Latham uses Michael Buckland’s informational typology to show that the materials in museums, archives, and libraries can all be considered “documents” (Latham 2012). She focuses on the experience of users and works backwards to show how the differences in physical form don’t matter that much (Latham 2012). This view is apparent in web portals that combine museum, library, and archives catalogs and resources. The argument is that most users don’t care which institution they get their information from; they just want an easy way to search and access all of it.

Today many people go online to find information, instead of traveling physically to a LAM. Libraries were first to take their services to the World Wide Web, and archives and museums have followed, with various degrees of success, and facing many stumbling blocks. Google is still the first (and many times only) source that people use though, and LAMs have a hard time attracting traffic. This is due in part to the comparatively small size and scope of their collections and also the relatively low public profile of many LAMs. Combining records or digital materials in one portal or website has the potential to attract more users. Collaboration between like institutions is made easier thanks to the development of many different standards, but these standards can also be a hindrance to collaboration between the three different types of institutions.

Elizabeth Shepherd and Rachael Pringle compared descriptive standards for museums and archives by mapping ISAD(G) (General International Standard Archival Description) to SPECTRUM: the UK Museum Documentation Standard (Shepherd & Pringle 2002). Shepherd and Pringle found that some of the differences between the two standards were simply due to choice of words (2002). Some units and elements are actually unique to the different professions and could not be mapped (Shepherd & Pringle 2002). Some required compromise, but altogether, the authors concluded that the standards have much in common (Shepherd & Pringle 2002).

The Morgan Library and Museum experienced difficulty in their attempt to integrate museum objects and library materials into the same catalog (Baca & O’Keefe 2009). In the end, the catalogs were successfully integrated using the MARC format, which allowed access to museum collections in Open WorldCat and saved the institution money (Baca & O’Keefe 2009). In practice, online integration has taken many different routes, with no one-size-fits-all solution. Libraries, archives, and museums are different categories of cultural heritage institutions that use different standards and practices, but there are also differences within each category, and institutions that are blended. This can be seen most prominently in museums, of which exist a wide variety of different kinds.

Technology has necessitated collaboration and provides an excellent opportunity to offer a higher quality of information alongside (or through) services like Google and Wikipedia. Beyond questions of missions and goals, practices, and standards, there are also more general issues present in collaboration, such as commitment and resources. All types of LAMs are constricted by limited resources and an ongoing struggle to remain relevant. The Internet is one way to reach more audiences and demonstrate value, beyond the physical museum building. In one survey, citizens of Detroit rated the Museum of African American History as highly valuable even though many also said they had never visited (Gurian 1999). Although general sentiment might be that LAMs are valuable, it is important to be able to demonstrate use to donors and funding agencies through methods such as webpage statistics.

When thinking of common practices in LAMs, it is often collection-related work that comes to mind first. But all LAMs participate in user and community based work such as fundraising, advocacy, and enrichment. Fundraising is important to many cultural heritage institutions, even those that charge admission (such as museums) or are part of larger institutions (such as academic libraries). Raising awareness and advocating for themselves and their users help LAMs build support for their missions and goals. These sorts of campaigns are important to ensure continued funding, especially for vulnerable government supported institutions like public libraries, which we discussed in class this week.

As I stated at the beginning of this blog post, cultural heritage institutions exist to provide access to information. Each institution specializes in its own type of collection, but many also provide an education beyond books, records, and objects. Cultural events, classes, and speakers are just some examples that come to mind. In America, many influential LAM founders did not envision institutions with limits. John Cotton Dana’s ideas are great examples of the ways that LAMs can collaborate and expand. He thought that museums should entertain, interest, and instruct both adults and children, lend out objects, raise public awareness, and most relevant to this discussion, “connect the work the museum may do, its objects, and all the activities of its staff, with all the resources of the public library” (Dana 2008, p. 141). In their mission to entertain, interest, and instruct the public in cultural heritage, LAMs should not limit themselves to traditional definitions and focus on their differences. Collaboration, and the expansion this allows (especially online), will extend the reach and influence of these institutions, allowing them to better accomplish their missions and also to ensure their own survival.

References

Dana, John Cotton. “The New Museum.” In Museum Origins. Genoways and Andrei, editors. 2008. 137-142.

Gurian, Elaine Heumann. “What is the object of this exercise? A meandering exploration of the many meanings of objects in museums.” Daedalus 128, no. 3 (1999). 163-183.

Latham, Kiersten F. “Museum object as document: Using Buckland’s information concepts to understand museum experiences.” Journal of Documentation 68, no. 1 (2012):45-71.

Shepherd, Elizabeth, and Rachael Pringle. “Mapping Descriptive Standards Across Domains: A Comparison of ISAD(G) and SPECTRUM.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 23, no. 1 (April 2002): 17-34.