1 / 16

392G - Management of Preservation Programs Spring 2008

392G - Management of Preservation Programs Spring 2008. Class 4 *Preservation Policy (wrap-up) *Selection Models. Example Preservation Policies and Plans. University of Colorado at Boulder NEH/ARL Preservation Planning Program Final Report. August 1990. Columbia University

moira
Télécharger la présentation

392G - Management of Preservation Programs Spring 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 392G - Management of Preservation ProgramsSpring 2008 Class 4 *Preservation Policy (wrap-up) *Selection Models

  2. Example Preservation Policies and Plans University of Colorado at Boulder NEH/ARL Preservation Planning Program Final Report. August 1990. Columbia University http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/services/preservation/policies.html

  3. Selection for Preservation From Banks/Pilette (ch. 12, Selection for Preservation. Carolyn Harris) • Difficulty of determining what collection items will be needed in the future. Scholarship responds to intellectual discourse and disciplinary trends over time. Materials little used today may be used in innovative ways by future scholars. What to do?!

  4. Assumptions • No one institution can afford to preservation everything in its collection. • Priorities must be set among collections, based on the quality of the collections and the vulnerability of materials to loss. • Not every item needs to be preserved. • Ultimately, the decision to preserve must be made on an item-by-item basis. Each item deteriorates at an individual rate depending on its physical composition and use.

  5. The large scale of preservation issues usually requires that priorities for preservation action be based on considering entire collections. (Do we agree? What do we mean by entire collections?) • Collections as a whole are made of individual items, thus policies and procedures for treating the individual items will be based on the physical condition of the item rather than on the quality of the work. (Do we agree?) • The preservation decision should link to collection development policy.

  6. Identification for Preservation Most often a by-product of other library processes. This approach often identifies materials that are currently used. Ways to Identify: • Condition and Use • Condition and Library Processing • Condition at Shelf • Collection and Condition • Scholarly Review • Vulnerability to Loss or Deterioration • Value or Uniqueness

  7. Decision-Making: “Reselection” • Defining “reselection” • Many institutions’ policies dictate that treatment for items that can be done quickly and relatively inexpensively without consultation with collection development. • Overarching collection development policies, created in consultation with preservation staff, can in many cases obviate the need for direct consultation with bibliographers.

  8. For brittle materials and those with artifactual value, a “reselection” decision must be made, which involves decision-making by collection development. The same applies for de-accession and collection transfer decisions. • Reselection involves selectors, bibliographers, subject specialists or curators--those responsible for the development and maintenance of the collection.

  9. Re-selection Information • What is the relation of the item to the collection? • Do other accessible copies exist through cooperative arrangements, in the geographic area, or through ILL? • Has the item has been preserved elsewhere (e.g. microfilm)? • Are replacements (reprint, facsimile, microform) available commercially? The information gathering process can require extensive bibliographic inquiry.

  10. Item-level Preservation Options Based on the information gathered, there are various preservation options: • Treat (repair, treatment, commercial rebind) • Reformat • Replace • Send back to stacks (“planned deterioriation”) with or without protective enclosure • De-accession/relocate • Some combination of the above

  11. Collection Level Decision Making • “Great Collections” - Maintain the integrity of the broader intellectual value of whole subject areas regardless of use patterns. Collections may be significant because they meet local academic or community research priorities or because they meet national and international needs.

  12. Research Libraries Group Conspectus (review handouts) • Past, Current, or Projected Future Use of Collection • History of Provenance of Collection • Publications or Bibliographies Based on Collection • Quality and Extent of Bibliographic Control • Available Funding

  13. Media of the Materials in the Collection • Cooperative Responsibilities of the Institution • Faculty Review of Collections • Condition and Vulnerability of the Materials in the Collection • Materials Preserved Elsewhere • Subject of Collection

  14. Collection-level Preservation Strategies • Clean Sweep/Vacuum Cleaner Approach, e.g. microfilming • Condition at Shelf (use all item-level preservation options) • Sholarly Review (defining most important titles for preservation)

  15. Institutional or Federal (or other) Responsibility? • Atkinson and Child articles

  16. Preservation Assessment From Karen Brown article: • General Assessments (understanding all factors that affect collection health) • Collection Condition Survey (statistical study) • Item-level Survey (predict item-level treatment costs, collection priorities, mechanisms of deterioration)

More Related