Contents - Previous - Next

3. Studies held in and referred to by vocational institutions (appendices 1 and 2)

Answers to questions 1 and 2 indicate which studies are held by the library or teaching personnel of a given institution., while specifying those that are actually used and/or referred to (Appendix 1). The number of studies held and used for vocational purposes by the participants in our survey are listed below (out of 68⁴ RAMP studies available at the time of the survey):

As mentioned earlier, the responses provided by China and the U.S.A. (2) to questions 1 and 2 were not broken down by study and were therefore not tabulated. We were also unable to tabulate the instances in which studies are used but not held by the institution. At the Département d'histoire (Université Laval, Canada), 6 «outside» studies were referred to, in addition to the 21 reports held in their collection (out of 29). Our Moscow participant indicated 13 studies which his scientific personnel were only able to use through collections outside the institution.

If the above-mentioned data are tabulated by RAMP study category, it becomes evident that studies relating to policies and planning are not well represented in RAMP holdings and are not often referred to by training professionals, especially as regards studies relating to archives personnel, which are held by only 30% of our participants (21) and are used at a rate of 16%⁴. As for «other studies», we find they are held by 44% and used at a rate of 31%. The leaders in the «held/used» category are KETELAAR (PGI-85/WS/9) and RHOADS (PGI-83/WS/21), the latter being, along with COOK (PGI-82/WS/16), CRESPO/VIÑAS (PGI/84/WS/25) and CUNHA (PGI/88/WS/16), the overall leader with ratings of 67% («study held») and 65% («study used»).

Studies dealing with methods, norms and standards are held and used on a wider scale. Reference material relating to surveys and appraisal are held by 54% of our participants and are regularly referred to (47%). In many cases however, the studies most often cited deal with other archival functions. For example, BUCHANAN (PGI-88/WS/6), CRESPO/VIÑAS (PGI-84/WS/25), CUNHA (PGI-88/WS/16), DUCHEIN (PGI-83/WS/20), FRANZ (PGI-86/WS/18) and COOK (PGI-86/WS/15) are the most popular, with ratings of 67 to 71 % (held) and 50 to 60% (used); the first three deal with preservation and restoration, while the fourth and fifth tackle access and dissemination, and the sixth automation. Reports dealing with dissemination, access and reprography are not widely used (only 33%), but are held by an estimated 52% of those surveyed. Preservation and restoration studies score ratings between those of the two categories previously mentioned (52% «held» and 39% «used»). The HILDESHEIMER study is a special case, since it is the only member of its category (standards in arrangement and description), with ratings of 62% (study held) and 55 % (study used and/or refered to).

Studies dealing with archival training are held by 53% of those surveyed, and are used by 40%; these results, quite similar to those reported for the methods and standards category, are somewhat surprising, considering the vocational missions of the institutions surveyed. Within the archival training category, COOK (PGI-82/WS/16) is the leader, with ratings of 71% (study held) and 60% (study used).

When statistics were available, our participants indicated how often a study was in circulation during the past year (Question 5, Appendix 2). In tabulating the answers provided, we find in decreasing order: DUCHEIN (PGI-83/WS/20), COOK (PGI-86/WS/15), HULL (PGI-81/WS/26), EVANS/KETELAAR (PGI-83/WS/6), WALNE/MABBS (PGI-85/WS/32), CHARMAN (PGI-84/WS/26), ROPER (PGI-86/WS/16) and ROPER (PGI-89/WS/4).

Contents - Previous - Next