The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0090-7324.htm
RSR
43,2
182
Received 21 July 2014
Revised 15 October 2014
Accepted 21 October 2014
Reference Services Review
Vol. 43 No. 2, 2015
pp. 182-198
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0090-7324
DOI 10.1108/RSR-07-2014-0025
Experiencing archives at
universities
Archivists, librarians, understanding, and
collaboration
Diana K. Wakimoto
University Libraries, California State University,
East Bay, Hayward, California, USA, and
Christine Susan Bruce
Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the varying ways in which academic archivists in the USA
experience archives, how these experiences compare to those of academic librarians and how we can use
these findings to improve communication and collaboration.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a phenomenographic research approach, academic
archivists were interviewed and the transcripts were examined to develop categories reflecting varying
experiences.
Findings – There are three different ways of experiencing archives: as organizational records, as
archival enterprise and as connection. The connection category is a more complex way of experiencing
archives as it incorporates the aspects of the other two categories as well as the awareness of archives
connecting people to their histories.
Research limitations/implications – This study is limited to academic archivists in the USA.
Practical implications – Understanding that there are different ways of experiencing archives
means that information professionals should clarify their definitions of before beginning collaborative
projects. Also, by understanding these varying experiences, information professions should be able to
communicate and engage more fully with each other and their users in projects and programs that
leverage archival collections.
Originality/value – This is the first study to use phenomenography to investigate archivists’
experiences of archives. This understanding of the lived experience of archivists, combined with
understanding how librarians experience archives, should enable better communication and ultimately
collaboration between the two professions.
Keywords Librarians, Universities, Collaboration, Communication, Phenomenography, Archivists
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Collaboration is one of the top trends in academic librarianship in the USA as noted by
the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), and is likely to be a growing
trend in other countries as well (ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, 2014).
While Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) is focusing on library
The authors would like to thank the study participants, and Tina Inzerilla and Clarence Maybee
who provided valuable feedback on the manuscript before submission.
participation in various initiatives and projects on campus that are external to the Experiencing
library, this trend can be broadened to include the possibility for further collaboration archives at
within many academic libraries between the librarians and archivists. Both librarians
and archivists are becoming more visible on university campuses and online via
universities
increased emphasis on public-facing activities (Purcell, 2012), making the present a
critical time for librarians and archivists to deepen understanding and communication
between their professions to best leverage expertise and resources to support and lead 183
new initiatives. Such initiatives typically include information literacy education (Carini,
2009; Johnson, 2006; Krause, 2010), digital projects such as institutional repositories and
digitizing unique, local collections (Clement et al., 2013; Kalfatovic et al., 2009), “big data”
initiatives including preservation of large data sets and digital humanities programs
(ACRL, 2014).
Librarians and archivists have collaborated on projects for many years, but with the
increased focus on digital resources and online access, increased importance of
information literacy recognized outside of the library and information science (LIS) field,
and re-emergence of interest in galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM)
(Clement et al., 2013; Given and McTavish, 2010; Purcell, 2012), clear communication
and collaboration among librarians and archivists takes on a new importance. While
archivists and librarians often have different education and training, there is also
obvious interest in understanding the other profession’s work reflected in the literature
(Dill, 2008; Manning and Silva, 2012; Morris, 2009). And, with many academic archives
physically co-located with university libraries, there is the potential to enable easier
collaboration among librarians and archivists for these various projects.
The increased emphasis on primary source materials in information literacy
instruction, which may include records from both university archives and special
collections, has increased the value of archives to students. This can be seen as part of
the continued interest in large-scale collaboration among the GLAM professions
(Clement et al., 2013; Given and McTavish, 2010). While much instruction takes place
in-person, allowing students to physically handle the primary sources, a second area of
collaboration, digitization, places collections online where a potentially wider audience
can view and use the primary sources (Clement et al., 2013). Digitizing collections,
including cooperation in the management of institutional repositories, and instruction
are presently the key ways in which archivists and librarians have come together to
provide joint resources and services. These new collaborative spaces bring challenges to
integrating the work of two professions with different perspectives on the role and work
of archives (Dill, 2008; Morris, 2009). The study presented in this paper is a preliminary
investigation into academic archivists’ collective experiences of archives to identify a
discrete number of experienced meanings of archives. This may enable archivists to
better communicate the ways in which they experience archives to their librarian
colleagues when working together.

Literature review
There is still a debate inside the archives profession, not to mention differing opinions
outside the profession, of what constitutes archives and the proper definition of
archives. This obviously can strain communication if every party involved is not using
the same definition of archives or does not realize that the other party may be using a
different definition. Even within A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology
RSR hosted by the Society of American Archivists, there are six separate definitions
43,2 including:
(1) materials created during business affairs and preserved due to enduring value;
(2) division responsible for maintaining valuable organizational records;
(3) organization that collects records;
184 (4) professional discipline;
(5) building that houses collections; and
(6) published collection of papers (Pearce-Moses, 2005).

Even within academic archives, – archives on a college or university campus, –

definitions may vary with some including special collections and records management
(Purcell, 2012), while other definitions do not. Within a long tradition of writing about
the archives and archivists (Gilliland-Swetland, 1991; Jimerson, 2009; Maher, 1998), the
discussion continues about the nature, meaning and function of archives as well as the
archival profession (Gray, 2008; Greene, 2013; Jimerson, 2013).
In addition to archivists studying the history and current status of their own
profession, researchers from other fields have also taken an interest in archives, their
meanings and the archives’ role in people’s lives (Crane, 2000; Josias, 2011; Schwartz,
2006). This interest in archives demonstrates the importance of archives in the minds of
scholars, although they may not all agree on definitions or meanings of archives. These
scholars and practitioners include librarians who are also grappling with experiences of
archives that are markedly different from their experiences working as librarians (Dill,
2008; Etheredge, 2012).
From this multidisciplinary body of work on the meaning and function of archives,
there is a gap in understanding how academic archivists, in their daily practice, view or
experience archives. There is a lack of empirical evidence of how academic archivists
experience archives in addition to the ongoing debates surrounding archives in the
literature. In many fields, there are phenomena which lack consensus – the
phenomenographic approach has been used in those cases, as it is here, to identify a
discrete number of experienced meanings – this discrete set of meanings, which together
represent the phenomenon (i.e. the archives as experienced) is based on empirical
research and is intended to provide an alternative way of understanding the
phenomenon, which is meaningful for practitioners because it is grounded in their
experience.

Methodology
The aim of this study is to reveal archivists’ experienced meanings of archives. This
study adopted phenomenography, a research approach typically used to study the
differences in people’s collective experiences of phenomena, including the LIS (Bruce,
1999; Edwards, 2007; Maybee, 2006; Maybee, et al., 2013; Yates et al., 2012a). Researchers
at the University of Gotenburg, Sweden, developed phenomenography in the 1970s.
Phenomenography adopts a second-order perspective, meaning that the researcher
describes the different way in which people experience a phenomenon and not the
phenomenon itself (Marton, 1981). Ference Marton, of the University of Gotenburg, has
continued to expand and clarify the use of phenomenography (Marton and Booth, 1997;
Marton, 2014). In the use of phenomenography in LIS, Bruce (1999) notes the
applicability of phenomenography in studying “experienced meaning of LIS elements” Experiencing
of which archives can be considered a part for this study. A considerable body of archives at
phenomenographic research has revealed that there are a “relatively limited” number of
ways in which people experience a phenomenon (Marton, 1981). Typically, a small
universities
sample size allows for the identification of categories describing the varied experiences
of a phenomenon (Bruce, 1997; Limberg, 2000), as previous studies by McMahon and
Bruce (2002) and Yates et al. (2009) have shown. Purposive selection of participants 185
enables finding variation in views and creating rich descriptions of these experiences
(Yates et al., 2012a).
Interpretative awareness is the means by which quality is maintained in
phenomenographic studies (Sandberg, 1997). The researcher must seek to minimize bias
and acknowledge her subjectivity in this interpretive research approach. This is
achieved through describing rather than explaining views, treating all the information
given in the interview as equally important and by not applying the researcher’s own
theories (Sandberg, 2005). Through description of the research process and transcript
excerpts to support analyses, the researcher also assures interpretative awareness for a
quality study (Partridge et al., 2010).

Participants and interview questions

The interviewees for this study were five individuals who identified as archivists, even
if their job title was librarian, and worked in academic archives. While there are many
different environments which house archives including: governments, corporations,
communities and non-profits, this research specifically focuses on archivists working in
academic archives on college and university campuses in the USA. These archives
contained collections of both university records and local history collections, and the
archivists were charged with preserving and providing access to these collections. The
archives in this study were located in the same building as the campus library and were
often closely related in terms of organizational structure. All interviewees had been
trained as archivists and participated in processing collections, assisting researchers
and often participating in outreach, such as creation of exhibits, collaborating with other
departments on campus and archival programming. The participants were volunteers
who indicated they would be willing to participate in the study based on recruitment via
listserv email. Piloting of interview questions was done via online surveys, and 52
participants completed the surveys. After revision to the interview questions, three
in-person interviews were conducted to further refine the questions prior to the five
interviews used in this study. It was important in the interviews to not provide
interviewees with any definition of archives to ensure they were not led in any particular
direction. Instead, they were encouraged to interpret the idea of archives in their own
way throughout the interviews to ensure that their experienced meanings were allowed
to appear.
The final interview questions were:
• Please describe your background and experience with archives.
• How would you describe archives?
• How would you describe an effective archives?

Follow up questions asked the interviewees for more detail or for clarification, as is the
standard practice in phenomenographic interviewing (Yates et al., 2012b). The five
RSR interviews used in this study were conducted by phone as the academic archivists were
43,2 located throughout the USA. The interviews lasted between 27 and 50 minutes and were
audio recorded and transcribed for coding.

Analysis of transcripts
After transcription, the transcripts were iteratively examined to develop categories of
186 description and to communicate the relationship between the categories in the outcome
space. Analysis involved detailed reading through the transcripts to become familiar
with them and seeking to understand similarity or variation in experiences of archives
being communicated (Bruce, 1997). Developing the categories involved establishing the
meanings associated with them and their awareness structures. The meaning aspect of
the categories describes the similarities and differences in the experienced meaning of
archives. The awareness structure is represented by a number of aspects:
• the focus of each category of description, those aspects that dominate the
interpretation of the meaning associated with archives;
• the thematic field, those aspects of awareness that are important, but are of
secondary importance in interpreting the meaning of archives; and
• dimensions of variation, those aspects of archives that are present in all
categories, but differ qualitatively or are interpreted differently across categories.

These aspects – meaning, awareness, thematic field and dimensions of variation – were
combined to create categories of description (Bruce, 1994; Yates et al., 2012b). These
categories describe collective experiences and are not used to classify individuals
(Marton, 1981), a feature which makes them an ideal communication tool. After
analyzing the categories of description, an outcome space was created; an outcome
space, often presented as an image, depicts the relationships among the categories and
any hierarchical relationships (Marton and Booth, 1997).

Results
This section describes the categories of description and outcome space that emerged
from the analysis. Table I shows a summary of the categories. The text following
describes the categories in greater detail and provides illustrative excerpts from the
interviews. Quotes from interviews are accompanied by an interview transcript number.
Three categories of description emerged from the analysis of the transcripts. These
three categories are as follows:
(1) Archives experienced as records documenting an institution or organization.
(2) Archives experienced as archival enterprise.
(3) Archives experienced as connection through collections.

These categories have different awareness structures, combining primary foci and
thematic fields, which are described in the following sections. Three dimensions of
variation emerged from the analysis, which are seen in all categories, but vary
qualitatively. These dimensions are: collection, digital and relationship to libraries.
As shown in Table I, the three categories describing the experiences of archives vary
in their meaning, awareness structures (focus and thematic field) and dimensions of
variation. In the first category – archives experienced as organizational records – the
 Awareness structure Dimensions of variation
Category Meaning: archives are [. . .] Focus Thematic field Collection Digital Relationship to libraries

Organizational records Records documenting
institution or organization
Archival enterprise Management (active practice)
Connection Connection through
collections
Mission and records
management
Archival duties (stewardship)
Connecting people with
history
Discoverability and Organizational records; special Coming issue to deal with; Work with on projects;
use collection separate; and book opportunity to work with other different holdings can
collection support departments support archives
Increase visibility of Evidence created in daily life; Challenge to address; possibility Some departments have
archives via use of unique; rare for increasing visibility of similar responsibilities
collection archives and possibility for
collaboration; do not
understand archives
Archival duties and Unique; connection to people in Important for access, visibility, Different holdings, but
larger context of past and marketing; not the same as often in same building
archives physical objects and work with librarians

archives
187

experiences of
archivists’
Categories of
Table I.
universities
archives at
Experiencing
RSR focus is on the type of documents held in the archives and the effective management of
43,2 these records. Access and use are of secondary consideration. In the second category –
archives experienced as archival enterprise – the focus is on the stewardship of
managing archives, which includes the many skills, processes and knowledge that
archivists need to effectively manage the archives. The third category – archives
experienced as connection – focuses on how archives connect people with their pasts in
188 the present. Everything is about connection. The qualitative differences seen in the
dimensions of variation – collections, digital and relationship to libraries – are
summarized in Table I and are detailed in the following sections.

Archives as organizational records

In this category, archives are experienced as the institution’s records and this definition
of what constitutes archives and archival records influences the focus of this category on
records management. The category centers around the organizational records – records
created by an organization or institution in the course of doing business – and the
processes and policies needed to run an efficient archives. As was noted by one archivist,
archives are “[…] the records of an institution or organization, much more, generally
much more bureaucratic” (5). These include “archives of the running of the university,
you’ve got Offices of the President, Provost, or Financial Aid or whatnot” (5). This is the
experienced meaning of the archives in the category portrayed in Table I.
The focus of this category is, therefore, records management. This is expressed in
terms of having a clear mission, policies and procedures to enable effective records
management. The awareness was on managing the records by having:
[…] a clear retention policy at all levels of the life of the record in question […] very nice,
standardized, consistent finding aid system […] just really effective physical arrangement (5).
In the thematic field of this category are the discoverability and use of archival records.
While not the primary focus, they are assigned importance and are, therefore,
represented as an essential part of the awareness structure. There are always “[…]
decisions made by an archivist who is creating and crafting this collection with a view
towards what will be useful in the future” (5). But before the collections can be useful and
actually used by researchers, they must be discoverable and that means that having
“very nice, standardized, consistent finding aid system” (5) is very important.
As in all the categories, the dimensions of variation included the idea of the archival
collection, digital technology and relationship of the archives to libraries. In
experiencing archives as organizational records, the archival collection was seen to
include only organizational records, with special collections considered separately. As
noted in the meaning of this experience of archives, records are seen as a very specific
quantity and “very much separate from manuscripts per se” (5). Special collections
included anything that was not specifically the records of the organization, including
personal manuscripts and family papers. Book collections were also seen as separate
from archives, but were able to support research in the archives.
Digital technology was seen as a looming issue to deal with, both in terms of digital
records and digitizing records, but also as an opportunity to work and collaborate with
other departments. Digital technology and digital records are seen as an issue to deal
with in the future: “I’ve been wary of starting to create an electronic archive before I
knew where it was going to be permanently” (5).
 In the relationship between libraries and archives, libraries were seen as differing Experiencing
from archives, but as potential partners for working on collaborative projects. Also, archives at
library collections could support the archives, providing more information for universities
researchers as “[…] having published materials to work with in conjunction can be
really valuable” (5) and via collaboration with digital projects, such as institutional
repositories.
189
Archives as archival enterprise
In this category, archives are experienced as an active practice focused on the
stewardship of the records. There is an emphasis on the many facets of knowledge
and practices that an academic archivist must be conversant with to properly care for
and make use of the records. This way of experiencing archives is a very engaged,
management process that “[…] involves active management and intervention and
description” (3).
The focus of this category is, therefore, on stewardship, which includes a number
of archival duties. These duties include the “[…] practice of preserving, arranging,
describing, and creating access to materials that have evidentiary value and are
created in daily life” (3). The focus can then be seen as “[…] a bigger umbrella for
describing all the functions, activities, and duties involved with stewarding archival
records” (3).
In the thematic field of this category is the idea of increasing the visibility of archives
via the use of the collections under the archivist’s care. Access to records is what comes
from the active and successful stewardship of records. As an example, one archivist
noted, “There’s no reason to maintain something just because it is old, it doesn’t
necessarily mean it’s useful” (2). The use of records is important to the archivist’s work
and to the visibility of the archives. Showcasing materials, via exhibits and
presentations, whether online or in person is seen as “a good way of making a connection
with the public” (3).
The dimensions of variation in this category are also directed toward the importance
of stewardship and management of records. Archival collections are viewed as evidence
created in daily life and the records are seen as “unique; they’re rare” (3). Digital
technology is seen as a challenge to address, especially in “dealing with new media types
or new technology” (3). However, online technologies and tools are seen as a possibility
for increasing the visibility of archives. For example, “to encourage use, like putting
them [collections and finding aids] up on my blog for the library” (2).
As with the other categories, in the relationship between archives and libraries,
archives are seen as differing from libraries (“I don’t do books; I do archives” [2]).
However, there is the potential for a collaborative relationship between the archives and
other departments that may have similar responsibilities. For example, “I have tried
bringing attention to archival enterprise by collaborating with people with different
titles with responsibilities very similar and parallel to that of an archivist” (3) and these
people do include librarians. However, librarians are seen as not understanding archives
in this category. There was a lament that “there was no understanding of what the word
[archives] really meant and what the duties and roles associated with an archivist
traditionally were” (2).
RSR Archives as connection
43,2 Connection is the primary nexus of meaning and focus of experiencing archives in this
category. Everything centers on the connection between people’s past and present
through the archives. Archives are, therefore, seen as being able to provide evidence of
the past, but more importantly provide meaning to people through connecting with their
pasts via the materials held in the archives. As noted by one archivist:
190 We can give these people a little bit clearer understanding of what happened to them and their
families. And we can, it’s a big help sometimes and a big comfort to know what was going on.
So that’s what I mean when it can bring something back to life this way. (1)
The focus of this category is on connection and being able to connect people with history
through the records and objects held in the archives. There is an excitement about the
connection between people and their history:
It’s about holding it in their hands; it’s about having something tangible to their past that
makes them excited, that makes them giggle. They love it. (4)
The larger awareness in the thematic field of this category is on the archival duties that
enable the connection between people and history and also the larger context of the
archives connecting with other departments and organizations through the work of the
archives. This comes through making archives that were “hidden” to the university
better known through “marketing and other things I was bringing that [the archives]
out” (4). This can be accomplished through working with other departments, as noted by
another archivist, “One of the things I’ve done in the past year is to work with the Office
of Undergraduate research developing a project that uses a collection” (2).
The three dimensions of variation also revolve around connection. Archival
collections are seen as unique and irreplaceable, providing a physical link to the past;
they are “all one of a kind. Even if we had digital copies of everything, which we don’t,
when we lose this, we lose it” (1). Digital technologies are seen as important for visibility,
marketing and access; however, digital surrogates are not seen as equivalent to or
replacements for the physical objects. Connection, which is central to this experience of
archives, is seen as more powerful in a physical interaction than digital interaction. As
an archivist said:
It’s great to digitize things, but as I have learned over the past couple of years with our alumni
[…] It’s not so much sitting and looking at it on a computer screen. It’s about touching the
material (4).
Archives are seen as different from libraries, but with the potential for a working
relationship between archives and libraries, as well as other departments, in service of
the goals of both the archives and library. As one archivist explained, “I distinguish
them from the library […]. We cannot replace the archives” (1). However, an archives “in
an academic setting works directly with alumni relations, media relations, marketing”
(4). While the distinction is clear, there are both current working relationships between
archives and other departments and there is the potential for more collaboration.

Outcome space
The outcome space graphically depicts the hierarchical relationship among the three
categories. As seen in Figure 1, the connection category is placed higher in the hierarchy
than the other two categories. This is because it encompasses the awareness of the
archival duties necessary for arranging, preserving and providing access to archives of Experiencing
the other two categories and also encompasses a more complex way of understanding archives at
archives, which is the connection of people to their history through the archives. The
organizational records category and the archival enterprise category are at the same
universities
level of the hierarchy as they do not overlap greatly in their meaning, awareness or
dimensions of variation and one cannot be said to be a more complex way of
understanding the archives than the other, but rather two different experiences 191
of archives-one focused on the organizational record and the other on management of
records and manuscripts.

Discussion
The results of this study show that academic archivists experience the archives in
multiple ways; in phenomenographic terms the “experienced meaning” of archives
varies. It is important to note that the experienced meaning of archives cannot be said to
result from the duties of the archivists interviewed. Instead, the varying experienced
meanings of archives show the differing foci that create meaning for the archivists
within their experiences of archives. While all the archivists may process collections or
assist researchers, some may find connecting people with archives as the focus of the
archives, while others may see stewardship of the record as their focus. This study
makes the experienced meanings explicit, via the categories of description, and reveals
in some detail the structure associated with that meaning in terms of focus, thematic
field and dimensions of variation. The primary contribution of this study to expanding
our knowledge base is the explication through the categories of description the range of
meanings ascribed to the archives that include varying orientations toward specific
aspects of the archives.
One of the exciting findings of this study is that while archives are quite obviously
experienced as different and separate from libraries, there was acknowledgement that
academic archives can work with other departments on campus, such as the library, in
mutually beneficial ways. This is a positive sign for academic archivists who would like
to develop more collaborative projects and programs and want to foster more interest in
GLAM collaboration. By such simple measures as sharing access to collections and
exhibit display areas, archivists and librarians have the ability to work together to
support the research and discovery needs of patrons. On a larger scale, archivists and
librarians could build upon digitization efforts of the past to more fully collaborate on
future digitization projects, institutional repositories and data preservation as these are
increasingly desired resources and services (ACRL, 2014). Academic archivists can use
the understanding that there are multiple ways to experience archives in their
collaborative projects, especially in information literacy instruction and digitization, to Figure 1.
Outcome space
showing the
hierarchical
relationship among
the categories
representing the
ways of experiencing
archives by academic
archivists
RSR ensure clear communication and acknowledge the differences in the way in which
43,2 project collaborators experience archives.

Comparisons with librarians’ experiences of archives

In an earlier study we explored librarians’ experiences of archives (Wakimoto and
Bruce, 2014). We are therefore now able, in the light of findings reported in this paper of
192 archivists’ experiences, to draw some comparison between the experiences of the two
professional groups. While the experiences of archivists and librarians of academic
archives do not fully overlap, there are commonalities that may help in creating a shared
vocabulary or at least an understanding of differences when collaborating. Table II
shows the categories identified for both groups, highlighting the most important aspects
of the categories to compare the experiences of librarians and archivists. Table II shows
that the authors’ previous study revealed three ways that academic librarians
experience archives:
(1) as collections to be preserved (protected collections category);
(2) as resources to be used (resources category); and
(3) as manifestations of politics (political category).

More detailed descriptions of the librarians’ experiences of archives can be found in the
authors’ previous study (2014). The table reveals there is some overlap between the
categories in terms of awareness structure, and the dimensions of variation (collections,
digital, relationship between libraries and archives). It is important to understand that
while some aspects are similar among the categories, the collective experiences of
archivists and librarians are not wholly identical; understanding and making explicit
these differences should lead to better communication.
The shared aspects of the categories include the preservation of unique, archival
collections along with their access and use. While the categories differ in their emphasis
on preservation and access, there is overlap among the experiences of librarians and
archivists (Table II). For example, use of archival collections is part of the awareness
structures in both archivist experiences (organizational records category) and librarian
categories (resources and protected collections). This may provide a common ground
from which to explore ways of increasing use of the collections while also protecting the
collections. All categories except the organizational records category explicitly focused
on the unique nature of the collections in the archives, which is something that may help
with marketing the use of collections by librarians and archivists. Table II also makes
clear that many of the categories show that digital collections are seen to increase
visibility and access to the archives, but simultaneously present opportunities and
challenges, which are explored in greater detail in a subsequent section of this
discussion. Also, while libraries are seen as different from archives, many categories
show that there is the possibility for collaboration and mutual support between the two
as can be seen in activities, such as information literacy instruction and digital projects.

Possible implications for information literacy instruction

As noted previously, both librarians and archivists are already involved with
information literacy instruction. Just as this research has shown that there are multiple
ways of experiencing archives; likewise, there are multiple ways of experiencing
information literacy (Bruce, 1997). As noted in both the archival enterprise category and
 Meaning: archives Awareness structure Collections experienced as Relationship between libraries and
Category experienced as [. . .] (focus) [. . .] Digital archives

Archivists
Organizational records Records Mission, records Organizational records Opportunity to work Library holdings can support
management, and use with other archives
departments
Archival enterprise Active practice Stewardship and increase Evidence, unique, rare Challenge, possible Sometimes similar responsibilities,
visibility and access increase visibility possible collaboration
Connection Connection through Connecting people and Unique connection to past Important for access Different holdings, can work with
collections archival duties and marketing, not librarians
the same as physical

Librarians
Protected collections Collections which are Protection balanced with Original, unique, valued Physical preferred; Different in terms of protecting
preserved and access need to protect collections
protected digital
Resources Resources to be used Access and use Unique and define archives Digital collections Should function similarly with
favored over emphasis on access
physical
Political Political Politics and context of Unique, need to understand Possible greater Different as archival collections
manifestations archives relationships between access, but can influence present and future
materials challenge as well

archives.
librarians
Table II.
193
universities
archives at
Experiencing

understandings of
experienced
archivists and
Comparison of
RSR in the connections category, the relationship between academic archives and academic
43,2 libraries has the possibility for collaboration and increasing the archives’ visibility. For
example, archivists and librarians can co-teach an information literacy session using
archival materials to ensure that students are presented with an in-depth treatment of
the materials as sources for research. This would provide more depth to the use of
archival materials as opposed to only using the materials for display purposes.
194 Archivists could also provide more direction to students on how to use finding aids for
discovering potential research materials as finding materials in archives is different
from searching the library catalog. Co-teaching information literacy sessions would
benefit the students as well as the librarians and archivists, as noted in previous
research by Krause (2010). Co-teaching would provide the opportunity for archivists to
learn teaching strategies from instructional librarians and librarians to learn more about
archives and archival work. Academic archivists can also introduce students to the
scholarly debates surrounding the use and meaning of archives providing a more
nuanced and interesting understanding of archives. While the organizational records
category does not as explicitly emphasize possibilities of collaboration between archives
and libraries, there is the acknowledgement that library collections can be useful to
archives researchers. This foundation can be used as a platform for discussion of
integrating more archival sources to support library information literacy sessions,
thereby creating a collaborative relationship benefiting archivists and librarians while
also providing more publicity for the archival collections held on campus in the archives.

Possible implications for digital project collaborations

The results of this research may also help archivists and librarians in the planning and
implementation of future digital projects. All three categories representing archivists’
experiences of archives view digital technologies and digital projects in the archives as
a mixed blessing. The archivists expressed some trepidation about how best to care for
and make use of digital records and digital tools or have seen others in their profession
who “are afraid to use the technologies” (4). However, as can be seen from the categories,
this also presents an opportunity for increasing the visibility and reach of the archives,
as one interviewee noted, “it [digitization] helps spread the information” (1) and an
avenue for collaborating with other departments on campus like alumni relations and
marketing. Academic archivists and librarians can use digital projects, such as the
creation or expansion of institutional repositories and digitizing local collections, as
chances to collaborate and integrate their resources and services to the benefit of the
users. This was noted by one interviewee who noted scans of school newspapers
connected with alumni who are excited to see documents from their time at the
university online. Extant literature shows that online presentations of collections are
blurring the lines between archives and libraries in the minds of the public (Clement
et al., 2013). However, discussions of differences and common interests could be valuable
in these online projects, allowing viewers a more nuanced interaction and
understanding of archives. Furthermore, archivists should actively engage with the
greater campus community by working with marketing and alumni relations
departments to promote these digital projects and find other ways of connecting with
the campus community.
Usefulness of phenomenography in studying experiences of archives Experiencing
While the possible implications for collaboration among academic archivists and archives at
librarians is the most practical applications of the results of this research project, the
results have also demonstrated the value of using phenomenography as a research
universities
approach to studying experiences of archives. To date, phenomenography has mostly
been used in information research to understand peoples’ experience of information
literacy or information use. This study has expanded that focus into understanding 195
variation in experience of a very different construct, “the archives”. Using
phenomenography has allowed for the description of varying collective ways of
experiencing archives by academic archivists. Furthermore, phenomenography may be
used to explore collective experiences of many facets of the archives, including
experiences of finding aids, the archives as place and archival research. Researchers and
archivists may find it beneficial to use phenomenography as a research approach when
trying to uncover varying ways of experiencing and understanding aspects and facets
of the archives.

Limitations and future research

This study is a preliminary investigation into the varying ways that academic
archivists experience archives and as such necessarily has limitations of scope. While
the sample size was sufficient for the needs of this phenomenographic study, a larger
study will need to be undertaken to explore if there are other ways that archivists
experience archives; including in a wider range of library and archival contexts.
Through a larger study, differences may or may not be revealed into how archivists’
experiences of archives may relate to the contexts of their work. Comparisons may be
possible, for example, between experiences of archives in academic setting, and
experiences of archives in other environments. Such a study may also allow for an
in-depth comparison of archivists’ experiences of archives with librarians’ collective
experiences of archives, which will be of great importance as more information
professionals look for ways of collaborating around projects involving archives.

Conclusion
Understanding that there are different ways of experiencing archives, and that these
variations should be made explicit in discussion, should help archivists and librarians
when continuing their collaborations or beginning new projects involving archival
collections. Furthermore, the uncovering of varying ways of experiencing archives may
assist with understanding the apparent fracturing of the discussion surrounding the
various meanings and purposes of archives, and the work that should be emphasized
using archival collections, at least in the context of the USA (Greene, 2013; Jimerson,
2013). Librarians and archivists have increasing opportunities for collaboration at
colleges and universities as seen by the trends affecting higher education today, and
understanding of varying experiences of archives should only strengthen these
collaborations through enabling clear communication.

References
Association of College & Research Libraries (2014), “Top trends in academic libraries: a review of
the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education”, College & Research
Libraries News, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 294-302.
RSR Bruce, C. (1994), “Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review”,
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 217-229.
43,2
Bruce, C. (1997), The Seven Faces of Information Literacy, Auslib Press, Adelaide.
Bruce, C. (1999), “Phenomenography: opening a new territory for library and information science
research”, New Review of Information and Library Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 31-48.
Carini, P. (2009), “Archivists as educators: integrating primary sources into the curriculum”,
196 Journal of Archival Organization, Vol. 7 Nos 1/2, pp. 41-50.
Clement, T., Hagenmaier, W. and Knies, J.L. (2013), “Toward a notion of the archive of the future:
impressions of practice by librarians, archivists, and digital humanities scholars”, Library
Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 112-130.
Crane, S.A. (2000), Collecting & Historical Consciousness in Early Nineteenth-Century Germany,
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Dill, E. (2008), “I’m not an archivist but I played one for a year: lessons for librarians who step
outside of their comfort zones”, Indiana Library, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 15-17.
Edwards, S. (2007), “Phenomenography: ‘follow the yellow brick road’!”, in Lipu, S.,
Williamson, K. and Lloyd, A. (Eds), Exploring Methods in Information Literacy Research,
Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, pp. 87-110.
Etheredge, S. (2012), “Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike libraries: academic law librarians enter
the world of archives”, AALL Spectrum, Vol. 16, pp. 18-20.
Gilliland-Swetland, L.J. (1991), “The provenance of a profession: the permanence of the public
archives and historical manuscripts traditions in American archival history”, American
Archivist, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 160-175.
Given, L.M. and McTavish, L. (2010), “What’s old is new again: the reconvergence of libraries,
archives, and museums in the digital age”, Library Quarterly, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
Gray, V. (2008), “‘Who’s that knocking on our door?’: archives, outreach and community”, Journal
of the Society of Archivists, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Greene, M.A. (2013), “A critique of social justice as an archival imperative: what is it we’re doing
that’s all that important?”, American Archivist, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 302-334.
Jimerson, R.C. (2009), Archives Power: Memory, Accountability, and Social Justice, Society of
American Archivists, Chicago, IL.
Jimerson, R.C. (2013), “Archivists and social responsibility: a response to Mark Greene”, American
Archivist, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 335-345.
Johnson, G. (2006), “Introducing undergraduate students to archives and special collections”,
College and Undergraduate Libraries, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 91-100.
Josias, A. (2011), “Toward an understanding of archives as a feature of collective memory”,
Archival Science, Vol. 11 Nos 1/2, pp. 95-112.
Kalfatovic, M.R., Kapsalis, E., Spiess, K.P., Camp, A. and Edson, M. (2009), “Smithsonian team
Flickr: a library, archives, and museums collaboration in Web 2.0 space”, Archival Science,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 267-277.
Krause, M.G. (2010), “’It makes history alive for them’: the role of archivists and special collections
librarians in instructing undergraduates”, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 401-411.
Limberg, L. (2000), “Phenomenography: a relational approach to research on information
needs, seeking and use”, The New Review of Information Behavior Research, Vol. 1,
pp. 51-67.
McMahon, C.A. and Bruce, C.S. (2002), “Information literacy needs of local staff in Experiencing
cross-cultural development projects”, Journal of International Development, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 113-127.
archives at
Maher, W.J. (1998), “Archives, archivists, and society”, American Archivist, Vol. 61, pp. 252-265.
universities
Manning, M. and Silva, J. (2012), “Dual archivist/librarians: balancing the benefits and
challenges of diverse responsibilities”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 73 No. 2,
pp. 164-181. 197
Marton, F. (1981), “Phenomenography: describing conceptions of the world around us”,
Instructional Science, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 177-200.
Marton, F. (2014), Necessary Conditions of Learning, Routledge, New York, NY.
Marton, F. and Booth, S. (1997), Learning and Awareness, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
Maybee, C. (2006), “Undergraduate perceptions of information use: the basis for creating
user-centered student information literacy instruction”, Journal of Academic Librarianship,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 79-85.
Maybee, C., Bruce, C.S., Lupton, M. and Rebmann, K. (2013), “Learning to use information:
informed learning in the undergraduate classroom”, Library and Information Science
Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 200-206.
Morris, S.L. (2009), “An introduction to archives for librarians”, Libraries Research
Publications Paper 103, available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_research/103
(accessed 2 July 2013).
Partridge, H., Edwards, S. and Thorpe, C. (2010), “Evidence-based practice: information
professionals’ experience of information literacy in the workplace”, in Lloyd, A. and
Talja, S. (Eds), Practising Information Literacy: Bringing Theories of Learning,
Practice and Information Literacy Together, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga,
pp. 274-297.
Pearce-Moses, R. (2005), “Archives”, available at: www.archivists.org/glossary (accessed 2
February 2014).
Purcell, A.D. (2012), Academic Archives: Managing the Next Generation of College and University
Archives, Records, and Special Collections, American Library Association, Chicago, IL.
Roe, K.D. (2005), Arranging & Describing Archives & Manuscripts, Society of American
Archivists, Chicago, IL.
Sandberg, J. (1997), “Are phenomenographic results reliable?”, Higher Education Research &
Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 203-212.
Sandberg, J. (2005), “How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 41-68.
Schwartz, J.M. (2006), “‘Having new eyes’: space of archives, landscapes of power”, Archivaria,
Vol. 61, pp. 1-25.
Wakimoto, D.K. and Bruce, C.S. (2014), “Academic librarians’ varying experiences of archives: a
phenomenographic study”, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 452-459.
Yates, C., Partridge, H.L. and Bruce, C.S. (2009), “Learning wellness: how ageing Australians
experience health information literacy”, Australian Library Journal, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 269-285.
Yates, C., Partridge, H. and Bruce, C. (2012a), “Exploring information experiences
through phenomenography”, Library and Information Research, Vol. 36 No. 112,
pp. 96-119.
RSR Yates, C., Stoodley, I.D., Partridge, H.L., Bruce, C.S., Cooper, H., Day, G. and Edwards, S.L. (2012b),
“Exploring health information use by older Australians within everyday life”, Library
43,2 Trends, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 460-478.

Further reading
Bruce, C. (2001), “Interpreting the scope of their literature reviews: significant differences in
198 research students’ concerns”, New Library World, Vol. 102 Nos 4/5, pp. 158-165.
Cameron, R.A. (2003), “NHPRC and promoting archives”, Journal of Educational Media & Library
Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 195-202.
Jimerson, R.C. (2014), “Archives and society: David B. Gracy II and the value of archives”,
Information and Culture: A Journal of History, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 34-53.

About the authors

Diana K. Wakimoto is the Online Literacy Librarian and Archivist at California State University,
East Bay. Her research interests include archival practice and theory, collaboration and fostering
reflective practice through teaching with technology. Diana K. Wakimoto is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: diana.wakimoto@csueastbay.edu
Christine Susan Bruce is a Professor in the Information Ecology Research Group of
Information Systems School at the Queensland University of Technology Australia. She is an
active information studies researcher with particular interests in information literacy, information
experiences and community information use. She has been conducting information science
research for 25 years. She also has active interests in higher education research, including
discipline-based teaching and learning and doctoral supervision.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.