Bibliographic instruction in university archives represents just one area where practices as well as standards continuously and consistently evolve, and where archivists have the incredible opportunity to make their visitors become stakeholders and supporters from a positive reference exchange. When searching for articles, I chose to focus on three difference approaches to reference and user outreach: those practitioners who employ new technologies such as chat reference and email correspondence to assist users, those authors who address the various time constraints placed upon archivists and how to effectively include bibliographic instruction within those other responsibilities and strictly theoretical articles with suggestions for practical implementation.
Like performing reference tasks in a library setting, reference archivists also serve as the most public face of the archival institution- much like reference librarians. These practitioners must work to create a positive user experience. Based on my reading and analysis of this literature, in concert with the readings and discussions from our Reference course, I believe archivists must employ Web 2.0 technologies to reach current and perspective users. We must make on-line finding aids, on-line collections and exhibits a top priority. In addition, we must seek more professional forums for current reference training in best practices as well as develop standards that specifically address the differences between archives and libraries.
A list of sources to get started:
Bell, Mary Margaret. “Managing reference E-mail in an archival setting.” College & Research Libraries News. Vol. 63. No 2 (February 2002): 99-101.
Bell shares her experiences as a university archivist working at the University of Louisville, an institution that utilizes advances made in email response programs. This article with its practical suggestions for interacting with patrons through email builds upon Duff’s article that analyzes email reference questions, as well as Martin’s central focus.
Dearstyne, Bruce W. “Archival Reference and Outreach: Toward a New Paradigm.” Reference Librarian. No. 56 (1997): 185-202.
This article explores the possible benefits of linking or forming a collaborative relationship between archivists and researchers. In Dearstyne’s view, this partnership will lead to the increased use of archival materials as well as offer archivists the opportunity to better understand what types of reference and outreach services researchers want. Furthermore, the author makes the compelling case for another facet of the archivist persona or reference department- that of researcher services.
Duff, Wendy and Allyson Fox. “‘You’re a Guide Rather than an Expert’: Archival Reference from an Archivist’s Point of View.’” Journal of the Society of Archivists. Vol. 27. No. 2 (October 2006): 129 – 153.
This source offers archival students and professionals a study from which we can better understand the barriers to implementing successful in person and remote reference interactions. The authors conclude from their findings that while in person reference allows archivists to teach users how to conduct research, virtual reference interactions compels the archivist to carry out investigations on the researcher’s behalf.
Duff, Wendy M. and Catherine A. Johnson. “A Virtual Expression of Need Analysis of E-mail Reference Questions.” American Archivist. Vol. 64 (Spring/Summer 2001): 43-60.
Exploring the types of questions users submit to archives through email correspondence the authors draw conclusions that support earlier studies of how users formulate reference requests. By better understanding how users formulate their questions practitioners can create systems that employ such reoccurring terminology. To draw more conclusive and far- reaching conclusions, the authors urge fellow practitioners to devise a study that analyzes all email reference inquires submitted to archival institutions to create a more complete picture of how users formulate queries.
Gracy II, David B. ‘Reference No Longer is a “P” Word: The Reference Archivist as Marketer.’ The Reference Librarian. No. 56 (1997): 171-184.
Shifting the role of reference archivist from personality based to a marketing based persona guides Gracy’s article and argument. He asserts that archivists must embrace three core tenants of marketing principles in order to remain relevant and solvent in modern times. Reference archivists must embody a customer- oriented focus, offer an exchange to achieve a common goal and finally, the practitioner must posses a clear understanding of his or her products. Despite its older publication date, Gracy offers increasingly relevant advice that archivists have been slow to implement.
Malbin, Susan L. “The Reference Interview in Archival Literature.” College and Research Libraries. (January 1997): 69-80.
Malbin examines why the archival literature fails to address the archival reference interview. Malbin’s suggestions that practitioners must focus on computer data retrieval to make the reference interview more successful in the future, and that archivists should seek out more professional training to feel more comfortable carrying out a reference interview offers those in the field sound advice for becoming more effective reference archivists.
Martin, Kristen E. “Analysis of Remote Reference Correspondence at a Large Academic
Manuscripts Collection.” American Archivist. Vol. 64 (Spring/Summer 2001): 17-42.
Based on her research, the author highlights several important trends: the use of email will continue to grow, remote users will use the Internet to refine their searches before visiting the archive and users will not provide sufficient information in their queries to yield a useful response. The author’s research based predictions leads her to assert the practical suggestion that archivists should implement researcher request or query forms to better solicit information, maintain a database of past queries to facilitate reference interactions and to add informational content to institutional websites to better aid the remote user.
Murray, Keeley. “The Future of Archival Reference: Services, Technology, and Trends.”
Journal for the Society of North Carolina Archivists. 7, no. 2 (Winter 2010): 26-40.
Murray’s analysis underscores the importance of evolving archivists’ role in the reference process and encouraging these practitioners, like librarians to become information managers and technology mediators to remain relevant in our information and technology driven culture. She concludes that as technology evolves archivists must implement such innovations such as web 2.0 tools like tagging and possibly wikis to remain relevant and to offer users a more dynamic experience.
O’Donnell, Frances. “Reference Services in an Academic Archives.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 26. No. 2 (March 2000):110-118.
Addressing librarians in academic institutions, O’Donnell’s article offers insight into the differences between providing reference services in an archive, as opposed to a library. However, her tone and central points reads more like a long complaint that librarians do not understand how archivists work or how much time answering reference queries takes.
Ruller, Thomas, J. “Open All Night: Using the Internet to Improve Access to Archives: A Case Study of the New York State Archives and Records Administration.” The Reference Librarian. No. 56 (1997): 161-170.
This article, though written in 1997, offers an important baseline for archivists to return to when contemplating the importance of a web presence. Ruller’s analysis of the New York State Archives and Records Administration implementation of Gopher services and the World Wide Web serves to remind practitioners of the possibilities and not the intimidating aspects of using the Internet to reach potential users at any time of day or night.
Salzmann, Katherine A. “‘Contact Us’: Archivists and Remote Users in the Digital Age.”
The Reference Librarian. No.85 (2004): 43-50.
By examining 100 university archive’s web pages the author concludes that although archivists are making efforts to have an on-line presence through digitized materials, on-line finding aids and other easily accessible content, these efforts remain in the early stages. Due to the increasing time constraints of all archival practitioners, a more stable and evolving web presence may provide one solution to assist users and remove the research onus from archivists.
Szary, Richard V. “Encoded Finding Aids as a Transforming Technology in Archival Reference Service. Journal of Internet Cataloging. Vol. 4. No. ¾ (2001): 187-197.
Emphasizing the effect of wide-spread implementation of encoded finding aids on archives, archivists and users, Szary concludes that there will be an increased standardization of finding aid information, the ability to search within and across finding aids, integration within the catalog, increased user self- sufficiency and staff productivity, as well as an increased need to educate users. These positive effects demand that archivists work to encoded their finding aids in order to dramatically improve reference services.
Underhill, Karen J. and Bruce Palmer. “Archival Content Anywhere@Anytime.” Internet Reference Services Quarterly. Vol. 7. No. ½ (2002): 19-30.
Departing from a narrow discussion of reference interactions, the authors share their experiences implementing a mass digitization project at Northern Arizona University. Unlike the theoretical or “can we do this approach” to making archival material widely accessible, this article highlights the positive effects of real action, while underscoring potential problems with such an open access model. Making archival objects available on-line with descriptive metadata will continue to effect the types of questions users ask of reference archivists.
Yakel, Elizabeth. “Thinking Inside and Outside the Boxes: Archival Reference Services at the Turn of the Century.” Archivaria. Vol. 49. (Spring 2000): 140-160.
This article argues that reference services should be seen as part of knowledge management. Archivists must evolve in their roles as information providers and becomes contributors in the process and pursuit of knowledge. Yakel builds upon Gracy’s idea of archivist as marketer, adding a second dimension to the role, that of knowledge seekers and those who aid those seeking knowledge. Her very theoretical based arguments leave room for a future case study or practical analysis after implementing Yakel’s notions of how reference archivists must evolve to suit the needs of the twenty-first century user.