3. Results

3.1 Response rates

3.1.1 Institutions to be included

The initial brief was that the scope of the survey was to be the institutions funded by JISC's four constituent bodies:

• HEFCE: the Higher Education Funding Council for England
• SHEFC: the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council
• HEFCW: the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
• DENI: the Department of Education for Northern Ireland

Lists of the institutions funded by each of these bodies were obtained from their World Wide Web sites. The pilot study revealed that there were many other bodies, such as colleges, schools and institutes, associated in various ways with the institutions funded by the JISC bodies. Some of these were subsidiary institutions or component parts, while others had varying degrees of autonomy.

After discussion with the Archives Sub-Committee, it was agreed that in addition to the institutions on the funding bodies' lists, questionnaires would be sent directly to those colleges, schools and institutes of the universities of Cambridge, Oxford and London which were recorded in British Archives as having holdings of archives other than their own institutional archives. In addition, the notes issued with the questionnaire suggested that where an institution had two or more distinct and separately managed archival operations a separate return should be made for each; several bodies did this.

In many of the tables and figures in this report, results have been divided into two categories:

• FB HEIs: higher education institutions funded by the four funding bodies listed above, including separate returns from parts of these institutions and affiliated institutions.
• Other: other institutions related to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as noted in the preceding paragraph

Where a "Total" figure has been given, it is the result of a separate calculation with all institutions considered together. An average over the whole list will therefore not be the same as the average of the figures for each of the two categories calculated separately.

The numbers of potential and actual responses in each category were as follows:

3.2 Contents of the archives

3.2.1 Institutional archives

Many of the bodies in this last category, holding "archives other than institutional", also held institutional archives. As these are often stored, consulted and managed together with non-institutional archives, combined returns were generally received, although separate figures were provided for the extent and growth of archives of each type.

The following table summarises the institutional archives of 87 institutions that are included in the figures given later for cataloguing, storage, conservation and access.

3.2.2 Non-institutional archives

• Archives, personal papers and manuscripts, treated as collections
• Papers and manuscripts, not treated as collections

The intention was that the first of these would represent "archives" in the narrow sense of "fonds", defined in ISAD(G) (1994) as "The whole of the documents, regardless of form or medium, organically created and/or accumulated and used by a particular person, family, or corporate body in the course of that creator's activities and functions". The second was intended to record other primary and unpublished material managed together with the archives. In fact the distinction is not made in many institutions, so the figure for the number of "collections" or "fonds" is not meaningful. Five institutions reported having over 1000 collections, the largest number being 3551 collections, but this may represent many acquisitions of individual items or small groups rather than full collections of papers.

Because of the doubtful significance of the distinction between "collections" and "others", these two categories of non-institutional archives have been combined in the following table showing their extent and rate of growth.

The average growth of 17.8% in the past five years corresponds to a compound rate of growth of 3.3% per year, or a doubling in size every 21 years. The higher growth rate of "other" bodies is largely attributable to the small size of their holdings. Their average growth in absolute terms was less than that for FB HEIs.

 
Figure 1: Distribution of sizes of holding

3.2.3 Collecting policy

Fewer than half of the total number of institutions had such a policy, though some of those with no written policy said that one was in preparation. There is a statistically significant positive correlation between the presence of any professional staff (full or part time, permanent or temporary) and the existence of an acquisition and retention policy, as shown in Table 6. (c²=15.09 and the probability that this occurs by chance is 0.01%).

Table 7 shows that FB HEIs that received Non-Formula Funding are more likely to have an acquisition and retention policy than those that did not, although the correlation is not as strong as that for the existence of professional staff. (c²=5.7 and the probability that this occurs by chance is 1.7%).

3.3 Cataloguing and listing

3.3.1 Collection level cataloguing

 
Figure 2: Collection level cataloguing

There is a small positive correlation (r=0.21) between numbers of collections held and the percentage catalogued at collection level. This is expected, because institutions that have a large number of archival collections have more need to make a list or catalogue of the collections held. Those with a small number of collections may take that level for granted and concentrate on cataloguing at lower levels. On the other hand, some of the largest repositories do not use the collection level at all, cataloguing many items directly at lower levels.

Question 3.2: What form do these collection-level records take?

In Table 8 the columns headed "Average % ..." are averages of the percentages of collections catalogued according to each standard or style by those institutions that used them, e.g., a total of 3 institutions used SGML(EAD) for collection-level records, and had applied it to 42% of their collection-level records.

The standards and formats cover both content and structure, and are therefore not mutually exclusive. The percentage figures are subject to error, because despite the availability of "Local" and "Other" categories, some institutions attributed a standard or style to less than 100% of their records. The three institutions reporting the use of "Other" standards referred to AACR2, The International Federation of Film Archives, and HURIDOCS.

If we assume that the percentage of collections catalogued in any institution is proportional to the percentage of holdings catalogued, i.e. that overall priority has not been given to cataloguing either large or small collections, we can calculate the percentage of total national holdings catalogued in accordance with each standard. For each institution we calculate the following:

Extent of holdings x Percentage catalogued x Percentage of records conforming to standard

Totalling the figures given by this formula gives the figures in Table 9. The numbers of institutions shown in this table are in a few cases smaller than in Table 8, because some institutions did not provide information on the extent of their holdings and the percentage catalogued.

The data in the right-hand column of Table 9 is shown graphically in Figure 3. Some of the material available in HTML format results from archival records being loaded into a library catalogue which has a Web interface and therefore presents the data to users as HTML.

 
Figure 3: Standards and formats used for collection-level records

3.3.2 Lower-level cataloguing and listing

Standard archival practice is to organise a fonds hierarchically into series, files and items (possibly with other intermediate levels). The definition of each of these levels from ISAD(G) was given on page 2 of the notes sent with the questionnaire, and question 3.3 asked for the percentages of holdings catalogued at each level. It also asked about the percentages of holdings at each of these levels that had been indexed by names, places and subjects, and the percentage of items that had been calendared.

There were discrepancies in some answers to this question, which asked both for the percentage catalogued and the percentage uncatalogued at each level. The latter item was redundant; it remained from an earlier draft of the questionnaire when more than two options were presented. Some respondents provided responses to both, but they did not always add up to 100%. One reported 20% uncatalogued and 90% catalogued at the series level, while another reported 23% uncatalogued and 1% catalogued. For purposes of analysis, we have used only the figure for the percentage catalogued when one was given, ignoring the stated percentage uncatalogued. When only a percentage uncatalogued was given, we have used the difference between that and 100% as the amount catalogued.

Multiplying the extent of each institution's collections by the percentage it has catalogued at each level, and summing the results, gives the following table for the state of cataloguing of the collections overall:

Seven institutions had no cataloguing at any level. Two of these were unable to estimate the extent of their collections, and the total extent of the remaining five was 111 metres

A substantial number of institutions have no cataloguing at levels below collection, as may be seen from the following graphs:

 
Figure 4: Series level cataloguing

 
Figure 5: File level cataloguing

 
Figure 6: Item level cataloguing

 
Figure 7: Items calendared

3.3.3 Relationship between receipt of NFF, availability of professional staff and size of holdings on cataloguing at file and item levels

Cataloguing at file or item level is a measure of adequacy of cataloguing, as this allows an enquirer to request material at the level of the typical production unit. Institutions reported percentages catalogued at each of these levels, and the sum of these percentages has been taken as a measure of the extent of cataloguing. Figures presented in this way are not wholly comparable, because one institution may have catalogued the same block of material at both levels and have other material uncatalogued, while another may have catalogued some material at file level and other material at item level.

Those FB HEIs that received NFF have a greater proportion of their material catalogued at file or item level than those that did not receive this funding. The sums of the percentages catalogued at each of these levels have an average of 84/200 for those that received funding and 61/200 for those that did not. Figure 8 shows the proportions catalogued for each of the FB HEIs. The apparent difference is mainly due to the fact that 30 of the HEIs that did not receive NFF had figures of no more than 50/200, while only 8 of those that received NFF were as low as this. The differences in the means are, however, not statistically significant at a 95% confidence level according to a Wilcoxon two-sample test.

Comparable data is not available for the extent of cataloguing before the funding was provided, so we cannot draw any conclusions from these figures about the effect of funding on cataloguing.

 

Figure 8: Proportions catalogued for FB HEIs with and without NFF

Figure 9 shows a similar graph for all institutions, distinguishing those that have any professional staff (full or part time, permanent or temporary) from those that have none. The sums of the percentages catalogued at file and item levels have an average of 74/200 for those that have professional staff and 56/200 for those that have none. The differences are, however, again not statistically significant at a 95% confidence level according to a Wilcoxon two-sample test.

 

Figure 9: Proportions catalogued for all institutions with and without professional staff

 

Figure 10: Relationship between size of holdings and proportion catalogued at file or item level

There is no clear relationship between the extent of cataloguing and the size of holdings, although there are several points on the "holdings" axis, representing small holdings of less than 1,000 metres that have little or no cataloguing at these levels.

3.3.4 Standards and formats for lower-level catalogue records

"Number of institutions" is the number of institutions making all or some of their lists available in this way; "Average % of records in this form" is averaged over the number of institutions concerned. For example, 6 FB HEIs had catalogued records using MARC, covering on average 43% of their holdings.

Some archives commented that their "Local" style was "broadly compatible with", "corresponds closely to" or "takes account of" other standards such as MAD and ISAD(G).

3.3.5 Indexing by name, place and subject

3.3.5.1 Standards for names

The "Other" standards listed were as follows. Some institutions used more than one standard:

3.3.5.2 Standards for place names

The following standards were listed. Some are in use, use of others is planned.

3.3.5.3 Standards for subject access points

The following were listed:

*The three preceding lists of "standards" show some misunderstanding of, or lack of familiarity with, the documents quoted, because some of the items listed are not standards either for form or content of the terms they claim to be used for. None of AACR2, ISAAR(CPF), MARC or the NCA rules provides standards for subject indexing, for example.

3.3.6 Software

Software listed was as follows:

Some institutions mentioned that they used Web browsers such as Netscape, the editing tools included in Windows such as Notepad or WordPad, or just "word processing software". These have not been included in the above table, as they are likely to be widely used and not thought worth mentioning by most respondents. Some of the above packages are used for only parts of holdings, are being obtained but not in use, or are being discontinued.

3.3.7 Availability of holdings lists

"No." is the number of institutions making all or some of their lists available in this way;
"%" is the average percentage of holdings for which lists are available, averaged over the number of institutions concerned. For example, 40 FB HEIs had deposited collection-level lists at NRA or NRA(S), covering on average 67.2 of their collections.

Other ways in which information was made available included published directories in print form, CD-ROM or microform, contribution of records to library co-operative databases, and the generation of lists on demand by staff of the archive.

One respondent did not like the use of the term "lists of contents of collections" to cover catalogues and finding aids, but there is no evidence that this was misunderstood by anyone completing the questionnaires.

3.4 Storage

About 93% of archival material (82,450 metres out of a total of 88,451 metres) is stored either in a dedicated archival store or in a store shared with the library. It is not possible to separate these two categories clearly, because in many institutions a single store is used for archives and rare books or "special collections". Some respondents reported this as a dedicated store, while others reported it as shared with the library. The remaining 7% is in offices, workrooms, reading rooms, corridor cupboards, remote stores and elsewhere.

Those institutions that reported details of a dedicated store gave the information in Table 16, showing that stores are on average 87% full. One store was reported as 150% full, having 200 boxes stacked on the floor.

There is a small positive correlation between the size of holdings and the fullness of stores (r=0.135), but almost all the institutions with archives of over 1,000m have stores that are over 80% full, as shown in Figure 11.

 
Figure 11: Fullness of stores vs. extent of holdings

Question 4.3: Do you have a copy of the British Standard BS5454:1989 "Storage and exhibition of archival documents"?

Question 4.4: What percentage (by extent) of your holdings is stored in accommodation with the following features:

Question 4.5: How satisfactory is your storage accommodation overall? (Be guided by the requirements of BS5454)

Question 4.5: How satisfactory is your storage accommodation overall?

 
Figure 12: Aspects of storage accommodation - average assessments

Figure 12 shows that the storage environment is the aspect assessed as poorest, apart from multimedia storage, for which many institutions have no specific provision.

Question 4.5(b): What aspects most need improvement to make your storage comply with BS5454?

Figure 13 shows that the environment is also the aspect that is perceived as most in need of improvement to make the storage comply with BS5454.

3.5 Conservation

The percentages in Table 21 do not add up to exactly 100% because some of the responses did not do so.

Question 5.2: Are the figures in Table 21 based on an assessment by an archival conservator?

Question5.3: Has a condition survey been carried out?

Question5.4: Does your institution have its own facilities for archival conservation?

Question5.5: Does your institution use an external conservation service?

3.6 Staffing

The following table shows the number of staff posts in each category and the number of institutions in which they exist:

3.6.1 Professional archives staff

 
Figure 14: Numbers of institutions employing professional archival staff in 1992 and 1997

By adding sectors on these charts we can show that, for example, 54 institutions (42%) had no permanent professional staff five years ago, and that 50 institutions (39%) have no permanent professional staff now. 23 institutions (18%) had temporary staff in 1992 and 53 institutions (42%) have temporary staff now.

 
Figure 15: Numbers of institutions categorised by number of full-time equivalent professional archival staff

Of those institutions that had professional staff in 1992, 54 had only one full-time equivalent (f.t.e.) or less and 30 had more than one f.t.e. In 1997, 56 institutions had one f.t.e. or less, and 42 had more than one f.t.e.

3.6.2 Non-professional archives staff

 
Figure 16: Numbers of institutions employing non-professional archival staff in 1992 and 1997

Almost half of the institutions have no non-professional staff for archival work, and in 20% of institutions all the non-professional staff are on temporary appointments.

 
Figure 17: Numbers of institutions categorised by number of full-time equivalent non-professional archival staff

Most institutions that have non-professional staff have one f.t.e. or less. In 1997, 22 institutions (17%) had more than one non-professional staff post working on archives; this has increased from 12 institutions (9%) in 1992. One institution had nine temporary posts in 1997 and one has had ten permanent posts for the past five years.

3.6.3 Conservation staff

Out of the total of 128 institutions being analysed, 110 had no conservation staff in 1992 and 107 had no conservation staff in 1997. The numbers of institutions with different categories of conservation staff are shown in Table 27.

Seven institutions are shown in Table 27 as having more than two members of conservation staff; of these only two institutions have more than two staff on permanent appointments. The others have either all temporary conservators or one or two permanent plus three temporary each.

3.7 Staff accommodation

The figures given for staff accommodation are not all directly comparable, because in some cases these areas are also used for archive storage or as archive consultation areas used by readers. In some cases, too, they relate to the area occupied by a "special collections" section of a library, including archives, rare books, and other types of material.

Question 6.3: If there is a dedicated office for archives staff: (a) What is its floor area? (b) How many staff places are there?

The wide range from 99 m² per place down to 2 m² per place, is partly accounted for by some "offices" also accommodating some archival storage or readers' places

The figures for "Number of institutions responding" in Table 29, Table 31 and Table 34 are approximate, because some respondents gave only some of the items of information included in the tables.

Question 6.4: is there an archives workroom, separate from the office, for jobs such as sorting, listing, packing and minor repairs?

Question 6.5: If there is an archives workroom: (a) What is its floor area? (b) How many staff places are there?

Question 6.6: Do the archives staff share work areas and equipment with the library?

Many respondents pointed out that the archives staff were library staff, so that joint use of space and equipment by the two functions was inherent in the arrangements.

3.8 Reading room accommodation

Question 7.1: What percentage of the archival reading area is of each of the following types?

The percentages in Table 33 show the proportion of an institution's reading area of each type, averaged over the number of institutions that had any reading area of that type. For example, 31 FB HEIs had a dedicated archive reading room, and for those 31 institutions that room represented on average 91.5% of their reading space.

The distinctions between types of reading area are not clear-cut, so too much significance should not be read into the detailed figures in this table. Institutions that had "special collections" reading rooms or reading areas were sometimes uncertain as to which of the first three categories applied, and when staff used part of a reading room as an office or work area it was not easy to tell whether the fourth category applied.

Question 7.2: If you have a dedicated or designated archive reading room: (a) What is its floor area? (b) How many reader places are there?

Question 7.2c: What is the average area of working table surface per reader place?

Figure 19: Working table surface per reader place

Question 7.2d: On what percentage of days is the reading area full (all the places occupied simultaneously)?

 
Figure 20: Reading area occupation rates

3.9 Use: reader visits, enquiries and production units delivered

3.9.1 Reader visits

Question 7.3: How many reader visits are there to the archives each year?

Among the responses that did not give figures for visitor numbers were those from two new facilities that were not yet open or did not yet have a count of numbers. A check with the respondents confirmed that the two largest figures of 10,000 and 6,269 visits per year are the numbers of visits to dedicated archives facilities.

 
Figure 21: Numbers of reader visits per year

3.9.2 Enquiries

Question 7.4a: How many enquiries do you answer each year by phone, fax, letter or electronic mail?

In general, the institutions with larger holdings receive larger numbers of enquiries per year, as shown in Figure 23, but there is a wide range of scatter of an order of magnitude in each direction.

 
Figure 23: Relationship between extent of holdings and number of enquiries per year

Question 7.4b: How many "production units" do you deliver to users each year?

There is a positive relationship between the extent of holdings and the number of production units delivered per year, but again with a wide scatter, as shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Relationship between extent of holdings and number of production units delivered per year

3.10 Perceived priorities

These features are listed in order of importance for FB HEIs, by taking the mean score on each factor. These scores are shown graphically in Figure 26.

 
Figure 26: Factors limiting the use of archives, in order of importance for FB HEIs

Question 7.5b: What aspects most need improvement to make your archive more accessible and increase use?

 
Figure 27: Aspects most needing improvement to increase accessibility and use

3.11 Comments from respondents

3.11.1 Relating to the questionnaire

Several respondents commented that they are currently receiving many questionnaires; one said that they were coming at the rate of one per week, and that as a result it was not possible to allocate more than 10 minutes to completing each. Two of the people completing the pilot version of the present questionnaire said that it took 40 minutes and 3 hours respectively, the former time being possible only because information had been assembled for a previous questionnaire. The burden of responding to questionnaires is clearly a factor that will limit the quality of information collected.

Some said they found the questions "difficult to answer", "complex", or "very time-consuming", while others found some of the questions to be unanswerable by or irrelevant to small archives. Many archival holdings were treated as part of the "special collections" department of a library and it was not possible to separate out data relating specifically to archives. Some specialised types of material, such as photographic archives, had been catalogued and dealt with as museum objects, using different rules and principles.

Because of the above points, and shortage of time/staff/available statistics, figures were often estimated rather than measured, and some questions were left blank. Nevertheless, some respondents had obviously gone to considerable trouble to collect and record data as fully and accurately as possible.

Many commented that the figures they gave would be out-of-date shortly because of pending changes. Successful bids for outside funding would lead to more space or staff or better conservation, or staff numbers would soon drop from their present levels because they included several project-funded temporary posts.

Some commented on the great difference in conditions within their institution, with some material in "excellent new accommodation", but others in "very poor" buildings, sometimes unable to be upgraded, air-conditioned, etc., because of being a listed building.

3.11.2 Comments on funding

Smaller institutions need help to allow them to complete basic tasks, including staff for listing of holdings and finance for necessary but expensive conservation projects. Worries were expressed that project funding concentrates on special backlog projects and "glamorous digitisation projects" to the neglect of more routine work.

Return to table of contents

Go back to section 2: Methodology

Go on to section 4: Conclusions