Associate Professor
Graduate Institute of Library, Information and Archival Studies National Chengchi University
Introduction
Archives require a greater knowledge of the needs of their users as well as a better understanding of how users interact with archival collections so as to meet the users’ need. In past, archival use studies frequently rely on two research methods, one is the investigative approach deploying questionnaires, field observation or interviewing, to ascertain users processes and perspectives on using archives, exploring users perceptions of their needs or useful archival materials (Cox, 1992; Cross, 1997; Duff & Johnson, 2002; Duff, Craig, & Cherry, 2004; Baruchson-Arbib & Bronstein, 2007；
Borteye & Maaseg, 2013; Chassanoff, 2013), while user viewpoint studies reflect user perceptual viewpoints, with study subject cohorts typically limited or exclusively limited to specified user groups. The other common research method is citation analysis, these rely on quantitative analysis for user related papers to understand the characteristics of archival material cited by academic researchers, exploring the archival types and nature of materials which are actually used by users and which have real efficacy (Elliott, 1981; Miller, 1986; Hitchcock, 1989; Beattie, 1990; Brubaker, 2005;
Lin, 2013), thus the citations may reveal archival taxonomies which make substantial contributions to academic researchers, but these studies do not reflect all of the users’ use characteristics for archival resources at archives.
For a comprehensive use analysis it is imperative to rely on archival collection access statistics and circulation data, this is particularly so for limited access collections which do not lend their accessions, as archival access records can faithfully reflect the access use characteristics of the archives. Therefore, this paper relies on a case study of Taiwan’s National Archives collection, to explore user registration records and
public access record circulation data, to discuss the group distribution of archival users, and ascertain use characteristics for the archival collections, thereby elucidating whether use volume corresponds with different theme collections, and which theme collections enjoy the highest use, along with which have inchoate potential to develop greater user volume. The study also deploys questionnaires and interview methods, with broadly distributed designed to elicit user archival research intentions and user satisfaction levels. This study not only emphasizes eliciting archival access statistical results, but also hopes to ascertain how users use the archives, their perceptive on archival services, and providing recommendations for improving the current status of the National Archives collections and services.
Methodology
This study relies on the Taiwan National Archives data from 2002-2014 for user registrations, access records and circulation data, focusing on the public access applications, and not including government agency archival access requests. This study used both questionnaire survey and interview to collect users’ opinions. The questionnaire was deployed by email, to a total cohort of 346 frequent archive users among university history department students and faculty in Taiwan. Since the respondents were required to have experience in accessing the Archives, replies from those indicating no experience in using the Archives were not included in the study, leaving a total of 29 valid questionnaires. Among the valid questionnaires, those users with use of the Taiwan National Archives within the past 3 years, and expressing a willingness to be interviewed, were selected for in-depth interviews, for a total of 12 respondents, so in accordance with the major outline of the interview. The replies were transcribed and categorized, and subjected to data interpretive statistical analysis along with the questionnaires.
Results
In accordance with the archival access and circulation data analysis and user investigation findings, the following results were made for the key archival use analysis characteristics and user viewpoints:
1. Gender and age distribution of archival users was not uniform, and
most users were locally situated: among archive users, the gender ratio favored males 3:1 ; age distribution focused between 20 to 40, for almost half of users. Users were mostly students and teachers, while users tended to be distributed more largely in northern Taiwan as their place of residence, and this may be related to the proximity of the Archives.
2. Archival use registrations and overall archival access volume have been rising year on year: archival access applications have increased from the early period of 2,000 per year to recent year’s consistent average of around 6,000, but the past two years have witnessed a considerable decline. Among prior year’s applications, only 2% have been denied access.
3. Circulation and archival use purposes are mostly for “academic research”, with most use centered on a few topics, primarily defense and trade: those applying for access for“academic research”, constituted 68.6% of applicants, followed by those seeking “historical evidence”. Archival use thematic distribution focused primarily on
“defense and retired veterans matters”, comprising some 45.17%
of all applications, followed by economic trade and transportation themes.
4. Archival accession themes tended toward a heavy concentration in defense and political topics much greater than expected, while available cultural and economic archives did not comport with user expectations: due to the disparities in archival theme length and numbers, the study used a comparative analysis of use perspectives, to determine archival volume and use rations, determining that much more than expected, the more frequently used archival resources were those focusing on defense, law and politics, while quite unexpectedly archive use was less for economics and trade, education, and culture, indicating that archival development is unbalanced and cannot satisfy user requirements.
5. User visits to archives were infrequent, while archive contents and convenience of access were important factors affecting willingness to use the archives: users visited archives primarily “once every two months” or “once every six months”, though during the study
use frequency was more common. Users were most concerned with robust archival resources and the comprehensiveness of the collections.
6. User expressed high satisfaction with archival resources, archival access services, and archival staff, but were relatively less satisfied with archive filing arrangements and the ease of transportation access to archives: users were not dissatisfied with archival secret limits, personal identification requirements, and hours of access open time; in terms of space and facilities, and overall impressions users expressed satisfaction, but felt that the distance of archival collections in suburbs required more shuttle bus access and greater online service measures.
7. Study respondents felt that the Archives were severely lacking in sufficient archival accessions in the areas of culture, technology, and healthcare/medicine, and there was almost no attention paid to archives regarding corporations or individuals archives, so users recommend first improving the Archives overall balanced thematic development. Respondents also felt that when using the Archives, their main frustration resulted from being unable to find archival materials and that the amount of archival contents available online was less than ideal, so they hope for greater access online and view full text online, thereby alleviating the inconvenience of having to visit the Archives in person to access materials.
Finally this study recommends that when appraising archives, a balanced approach to archival themes should be considered, avoiding over concentration of archival resources in only specific themes. Since the main users of the Archives are students and faculty, the Archives should encourage users to express their interest of archival contents and provide a personalized service, or promote archival information through academic channels and transmission. Additionally, archival users tend to be task oriented uses, with the need to access large numbers of archival accessions, and to complete their access in the shortest time as soon as possible, so the Archives should offer them professional reference services for consulting and instruct online finding-aided searches.
Reference
Adams, M. O. (2007). Analyzing archives and finding facts: use and users of digital data records. Archival Science, 7, 21-36.
Allen, G. G., & Tat, L. C. (1987). The development of an objective budget allocation procedure for academic library acquisitions. Libri, 37(3), 211-221.
Baruchson-Arbib, S., & Bronstein, J. (2007). Humanists as information users in the digital age: the case of Jewish studies scholars in Israel. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2269-2279.
Beattie, D. L. (1990). An archival user study: Researchers in the field of women's history. Archivaria, 29, 33-50.
Bertland, L. H. (1991). Circulation analysis as a tool for collection development. School Library Media Quarterly, 19(2), 90-97.
Borteye, E. M., & Porres Maaseg, M. (2013). User studies in archives: The case of the Manhyia Archives of the Institute of African Studies, Kumasi, Ghana. Archival Science, 13(1), 45-54.
Brubaker, J. (2005). Primary materials used by Illinois State history researchers.
Illinois Libraries, 85(3), 4-8.
Brunswick, J. R. (1991). A Survey of the Users of the Kent State University Archives. Unpublished Master Thesis. Kent State University.
Chang, H. S. (2002). Use Study on the Collection of Taipei National University of the Arts Library. Unpublished master’s thesis. Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan. [Text in Chinese]
Chapman, J., & Yakel, E. (2012). Data-driven management and interoperable metrics for special collections and archives user services. RBM : A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, 13(2), 129-151.
Chassanoff, A. (2013). Historians and the use of primary source materials in the digital age. American Archivist, 76(2), 458-480.
Conway, P. (1986). Facts and frameworks: an approach to studying the users of archives. American Archivist, 49(4), 393-408.
Cox, R. (1992). Researching archival reference as an information function:
observations on needs and opportunities. RQ, 31(3), 387-397.
Cross, J. E. (1997). Archival reference: State of art. The Reference Librarian,
56, 5-25.
Day, M., & Revill, D. (1995). Towards the active collection: The use of circulation analyses in collection evaluation. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 27(3), 149-157.
Duan, M. Y. (1998). Li yong guocheng de diao cha fen xi. Dang an guan li, 115, 28-29. [Text in Chinese]
Day, M., & Revill, D. (1995). Towards the active collection: The use of circulation analyses in collection evaluation. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 27(3), 149-157.
Dearstyne, B. W.（1997）Archival reference and outreach : Toward a new paradigm.The Reference Librarian,56,185-202.
Dobreva, M., O'Dwyer, A., & Feliciati, P. ed. (2012). User Studies for Digital Library Development. London: Facet Publishing.
Dowler, L. (1988). The role of use in defining archival practice and principles:
A research agenda for the availability and use of records. American Archivist, 51, 74-95.
Duff, W. M., & Johnson, C. A. (2002). Accidentally found on purpose:
information seeking behavior of historians in archives. The Library Quarterly, 72, 472-496.
Duff, W., Craig, B., & Cherry, J. (2004). Finding and using archival resources: A cross-Canada survey of historians studying Canadian history.
Archivaria, 58. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/
archivaria/article/view/12478/13591
Elliott, C. A. (1981). Citation patterns and documentation for the history of science: some methodological considerations. The American Archivist, 44(2), 31-142.
Finch, E. F. (1994). Advocating Archives: an Introduction to Public Relations for Archivists. Metuchen, N.J.: The Society of American Archivists and Scarecrow Press
Garmendia, J. (2002). User input in the development of online services: the PRO catalogue. Journal of the Society of Archivist, 23(1), 51-57.
Hitchcock, E. R. (1989). Materials used in the research of state history: A citation analysis of the 1986 Tennessee Historical Quarterly. Collection Building,10(1/2), 52-54.
Jenks, G. M. (1976). Circulation and its relationship in the book collection
and academic departments. Collection and Research Libraries, 37(2), 145-152.
Lin, C. M. (2013). The characteristics of the literature and archives cited on historical journals. University Library Journal, 17(1), 43-69. [Text in Chinese]
Lancaster, F. W. (1993). If You Want to Evaluate Your Library. (2nd ed).
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.
Miller, F. (1986). Use, appraisal and research: A case study of social history.
American Archivist, 49(4), 371-392.
National Archives Administration. (2015) Yi bai ling san nian guo jia dang an kai fang ying yong ban li qing xing bao gao. Retrieved from http://www.
archives.gov.tw/Publish.aspx?cnid=1464 [Text in Chinese]
Pugh, M. J. (2005). Providing Reference Services for Archives and Manuscripts. Chicago, IL: The Society of American Archivists.
Wang, K. (1998). Bei jng shi di xia tie dao zong gong si dan gan de li yong yu xin xi fu wu. Archives Science Study, 47, 71-72. [Text in Chinese]
Yakel, E. (2000). Thinking inside and outside the boxes: Archival reference services at the turn of the century. Archivaria, 49, 140-160.
Yakel, E., & Bost, L. L. (1994). Understanding administrative use and users in university archives. American Archivist, 57, 596-615.
Yan, Y. G. (1999). Guan yu dang an li yong lu, China Archives, 1999(10), 24-26. [Text in Chinese]
Zhang, R. (2009). Dang an li yong zhe de ji ben texing lüe xi. Hei Long Jiang Dag An, 2009(3), 6-7. [Text in Chinese]
Zhu, Z. S., & Zhang, H. M. (2000). Archives and the Teaching of History as Exemplified by the Use of Academia Historica's Current Holdings.
Bulletin of Academia Historica, 29, 257-297.