Tara Wink. Archival Collection Development Policies: A Study of their Content and Collaborative Aims. A Master's paper for the M.S. in L.S. degree. April, 2010. 58 pages. Advisor: Christopher Lee Collection development is an important aspect of archival theory and work; however, few studies have looked at collection development in practice. It has also been suggested that collection development policies and plans can help to limit competition by including discussions of collaborative agreements. This paper describes a study of online archival collection development policies to determine what these documents contain and whether or not collaboration and competition are discussed. This study searched the websites of 334 repositories’ to identify online collection development policies. Available policies were then coded using the 26 elements defined in Faye Phillips’ 1984 guidelines for archival collection development policies. Available discussions of collaboration within the policies were also coded. The results suggest that repositories are using a variety of materials when writing policies and collaborative agreements in policies are the exception rather than the rule. Headings: Archives. Collection development (Libraries) – Policy statements. Archives – United States. Appraisal of archival materials. Special libraries – Collection development Archival Collection Development Policies: A Study of their Content and Collaborative Aims by Tara Wink A Master's paper submitted to the faculty of the School of Information and Library Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Library Science. Chapel Hill, North Carolina April, 2010 Approved by: ___________________________ Advisor 1 Introduction Collection development is a concept established in the library world and adopted into the archival profession. Traditionally, the earliest archival collection development policies were written knowing that quality records were scarce and competition fierce (Ericson, 1991-1992). Policies were written with a “presumption of competition;” in other words, archivists were well aware that unique and influential collections were very limited and in order to get the best collections and make a name for their archive, they would have to be strong competitors (Ericson, 1991-1992, p. 68). The nature of archival collecting tended to be to amass as many of these influential collections as possible without regard to the archival profession as a whole, in order to bring prestige to the individual repository. The 1970’s and 1980’s saw the need to change this competitive way of thinking, tracts on the importance of archival collection development policies and the need to include discussions of collaboration in these policies were written (SAA Glossary, 2005). Because of advances in technology (the computer, printer, and copier) the number of collections available to archives increased, while the uniqueness of these collections decreased (Ericson, 1991-1992; Cox, 2002). It also became apparent to leading archivists that the existing collecting trends (the collect-it-all mentality) were expending too many resources and were generally harmful to the profession (Endelman, 1987). Archivists, accustomed to shortages in influential collections, were collecting too much. Generally, archivists were not closely appraising the records they were accepting into their 2 repositories; instead they were collecting records without first determining their future informational or historical value (Cox, 2002). This was partially due to the nature of collections and collecting prior to the information age in which we currently live (Ericson, 1991-92). Collections and records tended to contain much less ‘stuff’ prior to the two World Wars; contemporary records tend to be much larger and more abundant than those collected before the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (Ericson, 1991-92). Proponents of collection development policies argue that archivists need to spend more time creating systematic policies focused on appraisal and selection (Ericson, 1991-1992, Cox, 2002, Endelman, 1987). The trend toward overzealous collection resulted in large backlogs of unprocessed and inaccessible collections of potentially useless materials. Additionally, backlog collections are expensive; they take up valuable archival space and money, neither of which is typically abundant in archives. This collecting tendency is also dangerous because of the changing nature of material collected in the twenty-first century (Cox, 2002). While it was once feasible to purchase or accept a collection and then forget about it on a shelf, collections of today because of advances in technology tend to be much more volatile than those in the past. For example, data saved on old media, such as floppy disks, if ignored long enough might be inaccessible because the technology used to create it is no longer available. It is no longer possible to place these collections on a shelf and forget about them for many years; the technology to read some of the items contained in the collections changes or degrades so quickly that the collections need to be addressed at the time of accessioning or very shortly thereafter. The needs of these new record and collection types means that archivists need to make appraisal decisions much 3 earlier than they traditionally have (Cox, 2002). This means thinking proactively rather than reactively and making decisions about what will be accepted into an archive long before the items come into the repository through donors or private collectors (Cox, 2002). One of the main goals of collection development policies in archives is to focus a repository’s acquisitions and collecting on a limited scope rather than a broad ‘collect as much as possible’ mentality. The scope of the collection can fall into several categories but is usually defined by a creator, subject, location, or format (SAA Glossary, 2005). Other supporters (namely Phillips, 1984; Reed-Scott, 1984) of collection development policies for archives argue that policies can also limit competition among archives and encourage cooperation and collaboration. They believe this is accomplished through clearly defined collections for each archive; this creates a web of knowledge about each archives’ collection priorities. The argument follows that written, accessible collection development policies gives archivists knowledge about what other archives are collecting and gives archivists the ability to suggest donors take collections elsewhere if they do not fit into their repository; thus, reducing the fear of record destruction by donors because they cannot find a repository to take them (Ericson, 1991-1992). Ericson (1991-1992) also argues that cooperation and collaboration between archives and other similar institutions, such as museums and libraries could also help reduce duplication of information; limiting the amount of resources spent on similar items, as well as the overall workload. Ericson (1991-1992, p. 76) argues that these collaboration goals should be present in collection development policies in order to “fill gaps and avoid unnecessary duplication,” and help to “ensure that records with evidential and 4 informational value, but which are out of scope topically or geographically, end up in more appropriate repositories.” The literature suggests that written and accessible archival collection policies will help limit competition among archives but studies are needed to better understand this assertion (Phillips, 1984; Reed-Scott, 1984). Despite the intended benefits of collection development policies for archives, studies in the last decade have indicated that archivists have typically been slow to implement these plans (Sauer, 2001; Marshall, 2001). Most studies have simply explored the presence of collection development policies in archives and on the archives’ websites and these policies’ basic content to see if repositories are following suggested plans for developing policies (Sauer, 2001; Marshall, 2001). Are competition and collaboration really a concern voiced in the collection development policies of archives? In other words, do archivists include plans to encourage collaboration and discourage competition in their collection development policies as the literature promotes (Phillips, 1984; Reed-Scott, 1984; Endelman, 1987)? Or is limited competition and improved collaboration simply an ideal presented in the early literature of archival collection development policy planning? Finally, are these policies readily accessible, such as on archive’s websites, to possible donors or interested archivists? Literature Review This literature review will discuss both the influential founding articles (Phillips, 1984; Reed-Scott, 1984; Endelman, 1987) encouraging the creation of collection development policies and more recent articles and studies (Sauer, 2001; Marshall, 2001; Hyry et al., 2002; Boles, 1994) describing how these founding concepts are used in the contemporary archival profession. It will also discuss what some have labeled ”negative” 5 facets of collection development policies (Cox, 2002; Ericson 1991-92; Marshall, 2001) and how these aspects might limit collecting policies in archives. The review will discuss both conceptual articles about the importance, limits, advantages and disadvantages of collection development as well as empirical studies which demonstrate the practicality and issues of collection development