College and Research Libraries The Solicitation, Appraisal, and Acquisition of Faculty Papers Frederick L. Honhart This paper investigates the collection of faculty papers, one of the most intellectually signifi- cant types of manuscripts available to repositories today. It examines the criteria and methodol- ogy for determining which faculty member's papers to solicit and discusses the appraisal and acquisition of such papers and the problems associated with each activity. In order to obtain the data necessary for examination of the topic, a questionnaire was sent to college and university archives in the United States and Canada. This is the first time a survey on faculty papers has been conducted. The data gathered by the questionnaire are discussed and conclusions drawn. he collection of faculty papers should be considered essential by college and university ar- chivists. As Maynard Brich- ford has noted, faculty papers offer an in- sight into the history and operation of the institution, that otherwise may be lost by relying only on official administrative rec- ords. They (faculty papers) reveal professional inter- ests and opinions that frequently clarify matters mentioned in the official files of the president, deans or departments. Faculty papers relate a man's academic career to his total interests and constitute an important historical record. Per- sonal viewpoints expressed in private corre- spondence and documentation resulting from service on the faculty committees may provide a better basis for understanding the institution than a much larger volume of official records from the office of a governing board or an exec- utive officer. Without a broad range of faculty papers the formal official accounts of the college or university are often misleading or unintelli- gible.1 . Faculty papers also document an insti- tution's research activities. Academics have played a major role in the intellectual history and acculturation of society, but archivists have only recently attempted to systematically collect and preserve faculty records. 2 METHOD AND DEFINITION In order to obtain more comprehensive information on the definition of faculty papers and other related issues, a ques- tionnaire was sent to over fifty college and university archives in the United States and Canada, of which thirty-eight re- sponded. Only four of the respondents had a published statement defining what they considered the official records and property of the institution to be, and which were considered the private papers of faculty. In most instances, the archives having such statements were state sup- ported, thus protected by a public records act. Questionnaire respondents unani- mously agreed that records pertaining to administrative functions, but carried out by faculty, were official records, whereas papers such as research materials, student records, and curriculum materials were considered faculty property. Whatever le- gal claim the institution could make for Frederick L. Honhart is director, University Archives and Historical Collections, Michigan State University at East Lansing. 236 Solicitation, Appraisal, and Acquisition 237 property rights to this material, the sheer volume of it is reason enough to preclude such a position, let alone that of faculty re- action. A published statement defining what constitutes official college or univer- sity records would be advantageous to the archivist as well as faculty. Further, such definition could help archivists classify the arrival of official records in an orderly and systematic fashion, rather than the possibility of official records arriving at some later date in a collection of faculty papers.* CRITERIA Some type of criteria on which to base the decision to solicit papers should be de- termined that could measure their desir- ability and long-term value. While uni- form appraisal criteria might be desirable, the questionnaire clearly indicated that this was not the case, and the likelihood that such criteria would be adopted in the near future was small. Factors such as the age of the institution, its size, recognized areas of excellence, and others, all affect the appraisal criteria for faculty papers.t The most significant appraisal criteria is the judgment of the individual archivist, which automatically places subjective consideration into the situation. Even with these variables, the more systematic the approach, the better the collection of faculty papers will be. In 1971, Harley Holden, Harvard Uni- versity Archives, wrote that Harvard's policy was to solicit the papers of all ten- ured faculty. 3 Such policy has appeal, in that it relieves the archivist of deciding which faculty member to solicit, since the decision was made when tenure was granted. Also, tenured faculty would know that the archivist wanted their pa- pers. However, such a policy is practical only at colleges and universities where the accomplishments and reputations of their tenured faculty justify the preservation of their papers, and where the archives have sufficient staff and facilities to accommo- date a large volume of documents. Or, small institutions having prestigious fac- ulty who spend the majority of their aca- demic career at that institution may find it practical to implement a policy similar to that of the Harvard University Archives. However, most college and university ar- chives do not have the staff or facilities to collect papers from all of their tenured fac- ulty. Furthermore, it is doubtful that there are many institutions whose entire ten- ured faculty warrant the preservation of papers. In fact, Brichford has stated that approximately 90 percent of the signifi- cant work produced at colleges and uni- versities was done by 10 percent of the fac- ulty. Even a quota of 10 percent, if implemented, could impose an unaccept- able burden at a large institution's ar- chives . Thus, discrimination is necessary in the solicitation of faculty papers. 4 In the survey of current policies and practices for appraising and soliciting fac- ulty papers, three criteria were consist- ently cited for determining which faculty member's papers to solicit. One, national or international reputation in one's re- spective field, was foremost. This is also one of the easiest criteria to identify in an academic environment. One of the early faculty members at Michigan State Uni- versity was William J. Beal, whose re- search with corn hybrids established his worldwide reputation . Included in his pa- pers is a note from Charles Darwin com- plimenting Beal on his research and urg- ing him to continue his work. *The statement at Michigan State University by the Board of Trustees reads, " the records of the official activities of the University officers and offices are property of Michigan State University." The Board specifically noted faculty papers in its resolution creating the University Archives and the types of materials appropriate for it to collect. tFor example, Michigan State University, originally the Agricultural College of the State of Michi- gan, was founded in 1855 and served as an educational model for the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act, which established the basis for the federally supported land grant colleges in the United States. The Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections has a Land Grant Research Collection of manuscripts, primarily on microfilm, which specifically documents the land grant movement in the United States. 238 College & Research Libraries Unfortunately, not all faculty papers wor- thy of archival preservation are as easily identifiable as Beal's. 5 The second criterion for determining which faculty member's papers to solicit is a record of service with the institution and a contribution to its growth and develop- ment. John A. Hannah spent his entire ac- ademic career at Michigan State Univer- sity as a poultry specialist in the agriculture/cooperative extension depart- ment, and eventually as MSU' s president for twenty-seven years. While this is a somewhat atypical example, numerous faculty play similar roles in the evolution of their institutions. The third and final criterion cited by questionnaire respondents was an active role in the community. This is irrespective of the contributions faculty members made to the institution or their particular disciplines. A current faculty member at Michigan State University has been in- volved in state and national politics for more than two decades, including the for- mation of a recognized third party in Michigan. His papers have been solicited, and, hopefully, will be placed in the uni- versity archives. DETERMINING FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS Once the criteria for collecting faculty papers have been determined, then the qualifications of the faculty can be estab- lished. Whatever process is used for deter- mining faculty qualifications, certain ad- vantages and disadvantages become apparent. If the archivist determines the qualifications, they will be based on archi- val principles, professional judgment, and general experience. This procedure, however, makes the archivist solely re- sponsible for the decision-making pro- cess. Academic disciplines are becoming increasingly specialized and diverse, and the assumption that any one individual has the expertise and knowledge to prop- erly evaluate the contributions of all fac- ulty is highly presumptuous and erroneous.* A screening committee could provide May 1983 the intellectuai diversity and specializa- tions that archivists may lack. Further, committee decisions may help to protect the archivist from charges of bias in poten- tially politically sensitive decisions. For example, the Michigan State University Archives recently conducted an oral his- tory project in an attempt to document ar- eas of excellence in the university over the past twenty-five years. Ten faculty mem- bers were interviewed about a variety of subjects as part of the project. A commit- tee structure was used in deciding which faculty members to interview, as well as the choice of subject areas for discussion. In this case the committee approach was the most viable arrangement, both from the standpoint of subject expertise, as well as political implications of the project. An- other advantage or disadvantage, de- pending on one's point of view, of the committee structure, is that the members may also serve as unofficial field staff for the archives and their potential donors. The problems with the committee ap- proach, however, are fairly obvious: the process is cumbersome, committee mem- bers are not necessarily knowledgeable about archives and archival procedures, and they can be subjected to rivalries be- tween departments and disciplines. Interestingly, the overwhelming re- sponse to the survey (79 percent) was that the archivist or archive's staff should make the decisions about which faculty members to solicit for papers. The use of some informal committee structure is bound to increase, given the size and com- plexities of colleges and universities to- day, and shrinking, underfunded archival staff resources. The most desirable tech- nique depends on the archivist, repository resources and funding, availability of qualified people to serve on a solicitation committee, and the institution's internal policies. SOLICITATION The actual solicitation of faculty papers is generally similar to those methods used for obtaining other private papers and rec- *For example, Michigan State University has approximately 3,500 faculty members. Solicitation, Appraisal, and Acquisition 239 ords. However, there are a few problems specific to the acquisition of faculty pa- pers. Faculty, like the rest of American so- ciety, have been quite mobile in the past two decades, which makes it harder to de- termine when to solicit their papers. If ap- proached too early, the archives may be left with a fragmented set of papers when . a faculty member moves to another insti- tution. Yet, if the individual is not ap- proached until retirement, or later, the ar- chives may not receive any papers: they may have already been deposited at an- other institution(s), lost, or even destroyed.* The Michigan State Univer- sity Archives recently obtained the papers of a distinguished faculty member by go- ing through his trash baskets, because the faculty member had started to throw his papers away! All too often, an archivist hears about the disposal of such material only after the fact . Collectively, however, faculty generally tend to recognize the sig- nificance of their contributions, and the concomitant willingness to have them preserved in archival repositories . PROBLEMS AND CONSIDERATIONS IN COLLECTING FACULTY PAPERS Another problem associated with the collection of faculty papers is the likeli- hood of their being fragmented among several different repositories. Faculty mo- bility, allegiance to an alma mater or favor- ite institution, subject archives, and public service are just some of the rationale for scattering papers. Survey respondents were unanimously opposed to dividing faculty papers among several different re- positories. Many stated that they would be willing to return, or make copies of offi- cial records from other institutions. Oth- ers indicated that they would consider transferring papers if they believed they would be more appropriate at, or desired by, another repository . Any transfer would, of course, occur with the consent of the donor or the donor's family, and would have to be allowable under the pro- visions of the original deed of gift. All sur- vey respondents indicated that it was bet- ter to keep papers intact, whether they were maintained at what was thought to the most appropriate repository or not. Inevitably, many university archivists will be offered faculty papers without prior solicitation. Sometimes these are welcome additions to the collections, but in some instances they will not meet estab- lished appraisal criteria and will waste space and staff time. Yet, for any number of reasons, the archivist may accept the donation, even if with reluctance. The sta- tus of the contributor, pressure from ad- ministrative superiors, monetary contri- butions or the possibility thereof, from faculty members or heirs, are just a few reasons for accepting otherwise unsolic- ited papers. As with all papers, but espe- cially in cases such as these, the property rights and the right to dispose of materials in the collection must be secured. Defin- ing copyright status and determining re- strictions, if any, are also essential tasks for the archivist. Anytime a donor re- quests access and use restrictions for his papers, the repository must decide if the papers are valuable enough to warrant the problems such restrictions create. Once faculty papers have been given or promised to the college or university ar- chives, their assessment can take place. If the archivist has an opportunity to exam- ine the papers in situ, decisions can be made at that time resulting in fewer pa- pers being shipped to the archives. In gen- eral, faculty papers are similar to other twentieth century paper collections, but there are, however, certain other prob- lems which are peculiar to faculty papers. 6 The most obvious problem in this context is the publications produced by faculty. The archivist has several options when dealing with faculty publications, and it is apparent from the questionnaire that there is no uniform opinion regarding this *Henry Kissinger is a good example of just such an individual . His public papers while national security advisor and Secretary of State are held by NARS and the Library of Congress . Harvard is a likely depository for his faculty papers. 240 College & Research Libraries problem. The practice at any one reposi- tory is determined by the individual archi- vist, institution, and the specific charac- teristics of the publications. Faculty publications can be housed with individ- ual holdings, or they can become part of a general faculty publications collection. It is this author's opinion that, whenever possible, a bibliography of faculty publica- tions should be created, but the publica- tions should not be held in the archives. The primary advantage of this would be saving space, which in large archives hav- ing numerous collections can be signifi- cant. However, according to the survey, this practice is not a common one. In fact, many archives solicit faculty publications even in the absence of any other material from the faculty member being consid- ered.7 Professional papers and publications collected by faculty members, other than their own, are also common to faculty col- lections. These can usually be discarded after a bibliography is made unless they bear directly on the collection. An exam- ple of this is the early books about flight which were owned by Wilbur and Orville Wright, containing the Wrights' hand- written comments on the writers' state- ments. These notes indicate that the Wrights' ideas about flying developed earlier than their biographers had origi- nally thought. 8 Another factor to consider when dealing with the papers and publi- cations written by someone other than the faculty member, but contained within that faculty member's collection, is the copy- right status of unpublished manuscripts. Under current copyright law the creator of the material retains copyright until it is transferred to another individual, organi- zation, or to the public. Student papers and copies of unpublished papers re- viewed by the faculty member also fall into this category. Curriculum materials are also com- monly found in collections of faculty pa- pers. Only in the last two decades have there been detailed and documented pro- cedures at Michigan State University for the revision of curriculum. Faculty records on the subject are often far more detailed and comprehensive, and frequently dis- May 1983 cuss both intellectual and political reasons for curriculum changes. Also, for the ear- lier years of an institution these sources may be the only records, other than an- nouncements in the college catalog, of curriculum changes. Use of these records by people studying curriculum develop- ment has demonstrated their research po- tential. Student records, which are common to most faculty material, also present several problems and legal considerations. Class papers, grade books, correspondence, personal evaluations, and letters of rec- ommendation can all be found in faculty papers. These records are often quite ex- tensive in scope and content compared to the statistical types of student records maintained by the institution. For this rea- son the material has considerable research potential. 9 It also presents numerous ad- ministrative problems for the archivist: because of the changes in copyright law which were effected during 1978, student papers are now automatically copyrighted at the time of their creation. In addition to the various right to privacy and confiden- tiality statutes, as well as institutional poli- cies regarding access to student records, there is also the Buckley Amendment which limits access to evaluative materials such as grades or recommendations about the student. Student records in a collec- tion of faculty papers may be protected by copyright, university policies, the Buckley Amendment, or federal and state freedom of information statutes and right to pri- vacy laws. Needless to say, the archivist must be aware of all the legalities regard- ing the use and publication of such rec- ords, which can make the administration of these records extremely difficult for the archivist. Caution and professional judg- ment are absolutely vital. Documentary material, sometimes overlooked when faculty papers are re- quested, are the personal or nonprofes- sional papers and records of the individ- ual or his family. These may often pertain to the family or to special interests of the person, and may provide a different per- spective about the faculty member's his- tory. Besides providing a more compre- hensive view of the faculty member, Solicitation, Appraisal, and Acquisition 241 nonprofessional documents can reveal the academic's role in the institution, the non- academic environment, and correlations between the two. Faculty papers do not differ from other types of collections in that they will often contain nonmanuscript materials such as photographs, sound recordings, movie film, scrapbooks, and artifacts. These ma- terials involve problems in determining their value to a collection, as well as spe- cial storage and preservation consider- ations. CONCLUSION The inclusion of faculty papers in col- lege or university archives provides a vital and significant addition to the other rec- ords solicited and held by the repository. These papers enable the archives to fulfill their designated function in a more com- prehensive manner, reflecting a cross sec- tion of all university jobs, methods, and activities. These collections are often also of major intellectual value. Each archive needs to develop its own criteria for solic- iting and collecting faculty papers, consid- ering the repository's overall program, re- sponsibilities, resources, and goals. The highest priority for any college or univer- sity archive is the collection, preservation, and accessibility of the records and papers that document the institution's history. Faculty records are the index of human ex- changes and endeavors that cannot be gauged from the official reports and statis- tical evidence that so often are taken as the sole record of the college or university. REFERENCES 1. Maynard Brichford, "University Archives: Relationships with the Faculty," American Archivist 34, no .2:178 (April1971) . 2. For further discussion of faculty papers see Maynard Brichford, Scientific and Technological Documen- tation: Archival Evaluation and Processing of University Records Relating to Science and Technology (Champaign-Urbana: 1969); Maynard Brichford, "Academic Archives: Uberlieferungsbildung," American Archivist 43, no.4 :449-60 (Fall1980); J. Frank Cook, "The Archivist as Link between Scien- tist and Historian, " American Archivist 34, no.4:377-81 (Oct . 1971); Walter Rundell, "Personal Data from University Archives," American Archivist 34, no.2:183-88 (April1971); Jane Wolff, "Faculty Papers and Special Subject Repositories," American Archivist 44, no.4:346-51 (Fall1981). See also Isis 53: Part 1 (1962) which contains several articles on scientific and technological records. 3. Harley Holden, ''The Collecting of Faculty Papers,'' Harvard Library Bulletin 19:187-93 (April1971). The response to the questionnaire indicated that this continues to be Harvard's policy at this time . 4. Brichford, "University Archives," p.180. 5. Charles Darwin to William J. Beal, May 21, 1878; William J. Beal Papers, Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections. 6. For a general discussion of appraisal see Maynard Brichford, Archives and Manuscripts: Appraisal and Accessioning (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1977). 7. Author's survey of college and university archives. 8. Wright Brothers Collection; Archives and Special Collections, Wright State University . 9. For a further discussion of student records see Charles B. Elston, "University Student Records : Research Use, Privacy Rights and the Buckley Law," Midwestern Archivist 1:16-32 (Spring 1976). MACMILLAN: Outstanding new works En~cl~of Crime and Justice Editor in Chief: SANFORD H. KADISH, Uni- versity of California School of Law, Berkeley The first general reference work of its kind fea- tures 290 original articles on every aspect of crime and its control. Written by experts in criminal law, criminology, and related disciplines, the articles cover such top- ics as ~iolence in ~e family; the caus,es. of criminal behav10r; corrections; cnme prevention; terror- ism; juvenile justice; white collar crime; and many others. International in scope and interdisciplinary in design, the Encyclopedia includes cross refer- ences, bibliographies, a full index, and extensive legal citations. September 4 volumes 21 000 pages 0-02-918110-0 Prepublication price: $240.00 until October 311 1983; $300.00 thereafter The College Blue Book® 19th Edition September 5 volumes 0-02-695540-7 Prepublication price: $135.00 until October 311 1983; $175.00 thereafter The Macmillan Guide to Cottespondence Study Editor: WILLIAM BURGESS Prepared in cooperation with the National Home Study Council, here is the definitive guide to home smdy-in detailed profiles ofl73 colleges, univer- sities, and accredited trade, technical, and voca- tional schools offering courses in everything from accounting to yacht design. Index. June 450 pages 0-02-921550-1 $45.00 Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History Editor in Chief: RICHARD C. DAVIS Written by well-known historians and namral and social scientists, the 415 articles provide a balanced, authoritative source of information on such topics as woodland ecology, wildlife preservation, forest products, the forest industry, social life on the forest frontier, and influential groups and individ- uals. Separate articles cover the forests of each state and national park. Illustrated with 196 rare photographs, the Ency- clopedia includes cross references, bibliographies, appendixes of statutory materials, and an ind~x. July 2 volumes 800 pages1 illus. 0-02-907350-2 Prepublication price: $120.00 until October 311 1983; $150.00 thereafter Just P!!f?Jished The Historical Atlas of United States Co~essional Districts: 1789-1983 KENNETH C. MARTIS, West Virginia Uni- versity Original full- and half-page maps show boundaries of every district, accompanied by membership lists, for each Congress. The index identifies the districts and sessions served of every member of Congress. Large 17% x 13Y4 format . 352 pages1 illus. 0-02-920150-0 $150.00 Reference 1983 Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects Editor in Chief: ADOLF K. PLACZEK, emeri- tus, Columbia University " ... the most comprehensive and authoritative compilation of architectural biographies on the market today .... highly recommended ... " -Choice Outstanding Reference Source, 1982-A.LA. 4 volumes 2,760 pages, illus. 0-02-92500-5 $275.00 Encyclopedia of Educational Research Fifth Edition Editor in Chief: HAROLD E. MITZEL, The Pennsylvania State University "Welcome, indeed, is the first new edition in l3 years . .. Essential for undergraduate, graduate and professional collections."-Choice Outstanding Reference Source, 1982-A.L.A. 4 volumes 2,000 pages, illus. 0-02-900450-0$275.00 International Enqclo- pedia of Population Editor in Chief: JOHN A. ROSS, Columbia University "Recommended for academic and public li- braries." -Choice " . .. a marvelous achievement .. . ''--Family Planning Perspectives 2 volumes 760 pages, illus. 0-02-927430-3 $125.00 Biographical Dictionary of Dance BARBARA NAOMI COHEN-STRATYNER " .. . the most outstanding basic research tool in dance available."-Choice OU;tstanding Academic Book, 1982183-Choice A Dance Horizons Book 970 pages 0-02-870260-3 $75.00 The Macmillan Film Bibliography A Critical Guide to the Literature of the Motion Picture GEORGE A. REHRAUER, Rutgers University With the addition of a three-part index volume, this is the new, expanded edition ofRehrauer's Cinema Booklist, described as a "must purchase" by Amer- ican Reftrence Books Annual. 2 volumes 1,300 pages 0-02-696400-7 $120.00 Encyclopedia ofBioethics Two Volume Edition, Complete and Un- abridged Editor: WARREN T. REICH, Georgetown University The ALA Dartmouth Award-winner is now at a price every library can afford. "An outstanding reference work .... an extraordinary achievement." -Choice 2 volumes 1,933 pages 0-02-925910-X $125.00 ... and coming this Fall Bibliography ofBioethics "Indispensable for all academic and medicallibrar- ies."-Library Journal Vol. 9 Available September, 1983 Vol. 8 315 pages 0-02-933780-1 $60.00 MACMILLAN PUBLISIDNG COMPANY 200D BROWN STREET RIVERSIDE, NJ 08075 Publisher's prices subject to change without notice. ANNOUNCING ••• Wall Street's Corporate and Industry Research Reports - a major collection of over 6,000 comprehensive reports issued in 1982 by the research departments of more than 35 national security and investment firms. AVAILABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME: a fully indexed annual program that incorporates complete, detailed study and analysis of thousands of companies listed on major world exchanges. Compiled by leading economists and analysis, CIRR reflects Wall Street independent thinking, data, forecasts, in-depth analysis on large and small companies as well as on entire industries. Comparative data and projections allow for objective analysis of many companies within a single industry. CIRR. exclusively available at less than $1 per report, includes: * Financial Data * Corporate Studies * Economic Trends & Forecasts * New Technologies * Mergers and Acquisitions * Product Evaluations * Public & Private Corporations * Analysis of Legal Documents * Market Strategies * Foreign Competition * Regulatory Actions * Labor Relations, etc., etc. * Career Opportunities INQEX. •• a complete 500 page, hardbound index to the reports issued by important security and investment firms is available annually. Organized by individual corporation, by industry, and by security firm, the index is a complete bibliographic reference book for locating over6,000 Wall Street publications. 914-793-2100 TWX: 710-562-0119 Cable: Alperbooks For details and samples contact: JA micropublishing, Inc. 27 4 White Plains Road P.O. Box218 Eastchester, New Yorll10707