College and Research Libraries Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Other Special Collections Materials: Integration or Separation? William L. Joyce The management of special collections units in contemporary research libraries rarely offers such draconian choices as ''integration'' or ''separation'' of those units. Nonetheless, separate patterns of training and experience, variable procedures and conventions in handling materi- als, and different traditions need to be reviewed before developing administrative structures for special collections units. Factors such as changing patterns of research use, technological inno- vation, and scarcity of resources, however, appear to indicate that closer administrative ties among special collections units managing disparate materials are indeed at hand. Moreover, the proliferation of types of materials found in special collections, the growing awareness of the concept of "intrinsic value," and the importance of involving special collections staff in cooper- ative collection development programs point to the importance of identifying integrated man- agement structures for special collections departments. n considering the most appro- priate means of managing man- uscript holdings, as well as col- lections of rare books and other special collections materials, the choice is rarely as stark as the alternatives of '' inte- gration" or "separation." These terms conjure images rich in historical reso- nance, but somewhat remote in terms of library economy. Moreover, administra- tive alternatives are rarely so draconian or presented with such finality. And yet, given the current interest in how to orga- nize and manage special collections within a larger institutional framework, the relation of unpublished to published research materials is of more than passing interest. Very often, special collections are at least partially underwritten by restricted endowment funds that are no longer suf- ficient to cover the funds' original pur- poses. The parent library makes up the deficits, but there is a price for these spe- cial collections units to pay: administra- tive independence and autonomy. (It is worth observing that the phrase ''special collections" is an occasion for some mis- chief, in that the word "special" connotes exclusiveness and distinctiveness. Ironi- cally, this is the very result that adminis- trators often are seeking to avoid.) For those libraries that contain both published and unpublished research ma- terials, however, closer ties between them appear to be at hand. If indeed it is true that these units are being administratively combined, it would be well to consider first how they might be different by re- viewing separate traditions, conventions, and patterns of training and experience. Then, we might discuss some of those fac- tors that seem to indicate that those closer ties are at hand. Traditions, conventions, and patterns of training and experience among archivists, William L. Joyce is assistant director for rare books and manuscripts, New York Public Library, New York 10018. This paper was presented at the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section general program meeting at the 1983 ALA Annual Conference in Los Angeles. 442 I J manuscripts curators, and librarians ar- gue for separation and distinct profes- sional identities. This separateness is manifested in education and training, the handling and processing of collections, and research interests. Rare book librarians derive their profes- sional identity primarily from their mas- ters degrees in library science. Their de- grees, together with the identity nurtured by the American Library Association, pro- vide for those who chose rare books as their occupation a clear-cut professional purpose readily understood by most. By contrast, archivists come to their profes- sion from a variety of academic back- grounds, no one of which has been estab- lished as the principal avenue to professional success. Archivists do have a professional association, but the current president has selected as his theme '' ar- chivists and society'' in an effort to explain the work of archivists and their larger pur- poses to society generally. While there are several archival training programs, and the number is growing, archivists are still being trained as historians, public admin- istrators, and various other academic dis- ciplines, as well as librarians. Manuscripts curators initially were identified more with librarianship, espe- cially those who entered the field prior to World War II when many manuscript col- lections were handled primarily like col- lections of discrete items. More recently, as personal papers increasingly have taken the appearance and nature of insti- tutional records, the archival influence has become more apparent among cura- tors. Archivists have derived their principles and practices primarily from their Euro- pean colleagues who, in the nineteenth century, developed the ideas of prove- nance (material grouped by its office or or- igin) and respect des fonds (documents orga- nized according to their original filing order). These ideas find primary expres- sion in what the National Archives and Records Service calls "inventories" and the Library of Congress has termed "reg- isters." The primary purpose of these finding aids is to describe documents as a collective entity whose principal meaning Integration or Separation 443 and identity derive from the context in which they are found. From the middle of the nineteenth cen- tury, librarians have followed a different approach to organizing and cataloging the materials that they manage. Essentially, this consists of identifying a title, author and other essential characteristics and re- cording them on cards. In contrast to the work of archivists, librarians work with the individual items, and regard them as cultural artifacts designed to meet a spe- cific cultural purpose. Classification by subject is an important aspect of this activ- ity. Archivists view records as being part of a collective unity in which documents derive meaning from their context and must, therefore, be described collectively. The documents are arranged by their functional origins, not identified by their cultural purpose. As in most other respects, manuscripts curators hover uneasily between archi- vists and librarians, borrowing from both, but finding a comfortable place with nei- ther. Initially, manuscripts curators found their primary interest to be in the tech- niques of librarians, but lately, more have found archival techniques congenial, par- ticularly in light of the changing nature of manuscripts collections which have be- come more institutional as well as bulky. The research interests of rare book li- brarians have been traditionally in bibliog- raphy (both descriptive and analytical) and printing history, as well as the study of the book as a cultural artifact (its pur- pose, audience, and use). The biblio- graphical approach is primarily borrowed from British librarians, while the view of the book as a cultural artifact is associated principally with the interests of the An- nales school of historians who now domi- nate French higher education. By contrast, the research interests of ar- chivists have been focused on preparing administrative histories so that they can understand the contexts in which docu- ments were produced, as well as studying their signs, stamps, endorsements, mark- ings, and other physical attributes. Manu- scripts curators have been traditionally and characteristically found in both camps, with interest in both the codex 444 College & Research Libraries form of manuscripts as well as the docu- ment considered in and by itself. Rare book librarians have an advantage over archivists and manuscripts curators inasmuch as their activities are fully inte- grated into the core functions of libraries. While there are often problems in dealing with specific items and library procedures may develop some ''glitches,'' rare book.s can be readily integrated into the parent li- brary's collection development, acces- sioning, cataloging, conservation, and ref- erence services. Archival procedures do not find such ready adaptability. ~ccessio~g is done collectively, not by Item, while arrange- ment and description cannot be under- taken by the library technical staff without substantial retraining. While there rna~ be similarities between library and archival materials in terms of conservation and ref- erence services, there has been little re~­ ord of substantial archival involvement m the formulation of collection development policies in the nation's major researc~ li- braries. This is cause both for reflection about the overall relations between librari- ans and archivists and for concern that more progress has not been made in such a central aspect of library manageme~t. It is true that traditions and conventions have led to a complex set of relations be- tween librarians, archivists, and manu- scripts curators. In recent years, however, there also have been a number of factors that have conspired to lead to closer ties among these three groups. These factors are changing patterns of researc? use, technological change, and what rmght be directly, if somewhat ambiguously, de- scribed as ''administrative reality.'' A major change in the situatio~ of re- search libraries has been the changmg na- ture of research conducted in such reposi- tories. Research projects are more interdisciplinary, and scholars are using a wider range of sources, particularly for those topics related to social history. In t?e past scholars tended to select categones of s~urces that corresponded to their top- ics. Today, there is a wide-ranging interest in topics that combine social, intellectual, and other sources. Genealogical research has boomed in recent years. There also November 1984 has been a growth in public policy re- search, while diplomatic, political, and f cultural topics seem to have lead scholars • into broader, more eclectic fields of re- search. The major consequence of this trend to- wards broader research topics is that scholars need source information that is generic and not limited to particul~ docu- mentary or artifactual forms. SubJect ac- cess takes on proportionally greater im- portance, because scholars are not as likely to know such a broad ran~~ .of sources. It is, therefore, the responsibility of archivists, librarians, and curators to work together to develop means of getting more information about diverse research sources into the hands of scholars. A second factor that has narrowed the procedural differences among li~r~ian~, manuscripts curators, and archivists IS that of technological change. The recent nature of this change has confused the re- lation between information and the me- dium in which it is carried. Whether an ar- tifact is a book, microfilm, handwritten or typed document, or newer technol~gical product, it is distinguished from the info~­ mation it contains. For example, a vi- deodisc can carry both graphic images, text, and music. As one medium develops the capacity to carry different kinds o~ in- formation, such as the case of machme- readable records, there is increasing em- phasis on catalogin& the info~ma~ion, not necessarily the medmm carrymg It. This trend is likely to be reinforced by the MARC formats in which data elements and their relation to one another are ever more similar. The categories carrying in- formation in the MARC formats are be- coming broader and more ada~tive. The growing interest in and emphasis on sub- ject access will promote the further bre~­ down of the differences in formats. A cnh- cal factor in the continuing development of similar formats will be the formulation of adaptive and flexible authorities and thesauri that can be applied across for- mats. A third factor that is breaking down dif- ferences among librarians, archivists, and curators is administrative reality. In an age of scarcity, effective use of existing re- sources becomes more important, and du- plication of services must be reduced if not eliminated. To accomplish this, staff must be knowledgeable about collections in a variety of formats and media so that pat- terns of staffing achieve maximum flexibil- ity. Common catalogs and common pho- toduplication procedures can further reduce duplication of services, while com- mon priorities of preservation can pro- mote closer coordination among special collections units. Another factor that can lead to integra- tion of special collections units is that there has been a proliferation of materials in special collections beyond those of rare books, pamphlets, newspapers, and man- uscripts. Photographs and ephemera are the most prominent of these materials. Both are amenable to the application of ar- chival methods. The growing use of the concept of "in- trinsic value'' in determining preservation and conservation priorities is another means by which distinctions between ar- chivists and librarians are reduced. The concept applies equally to published and unpublished materials, and is important in extending the distinction between the medium and the information it carries. Li- brarians and archivists will work more closely in determining preservation priori- ties and in applying the concept of'' intrin- sic value." A final area about which archivists and rare book librarians should be equally con- Integration or Separation 445 cerned is collection development. Neither the RLG conspectus project nor the ARL project appear to incorporate effectively special collections materials, though cer- tainly interinstitutional collection devel- opment projects should do so. This is es- pecially true if library administrators are to make progress in integrating research col- lections units into the ongoing coopera- tive programs developed by research li- braries. When ascribing the attribute of being "separate" to any unit in any organiza- tional structure, there is an implication of, on the one hand, autonomy and indepen- dence, and, on the other, of isolation, lack of participation, and distance. Because they are no longer sufficiently funded, special collections units can no longer op- erate as duchies, principalities, or other autonomous and independent entities, if indeed they ever could. In order to reduce duplication of services and combat separa- tion and isolation, special collections units have been formed in many libraries con- taining rare books, manuscripts, and ar- chives. As special collections librarians, cura- tors, and archivists face changing patterns of research use, dramatic technological changes, and stark administrative reali- ties, it does indeed appear to be time to emphasize cooperative solutions to com- mon problems through integration of ser- vices and administrative structures. /