Archivists and family historians: Local authority record repositories and the family history user group

Journal of the Society of Archivists

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 61-74

  Boyns, Rosemary ^a  

^a Glamorgan Building   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033115863     PISSN: 00379816     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/003798199103730     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. This paper is based on a dissertation submitted for the Society of Archivists' Diploma in Archives Administration in December 1997.
2. Two surveys of record repositories included direct or indirect questions on family historians. The first was the survey of record repositories carried out by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts in 1984, which included a question on genealogists as a percentage of total readers - see Brian S. Smith, 'Record Repositories in 1984', JSA, vol 8 (1996) pp 1-16. The second was the survey by Heather Forbes published as Local Authority Archive Services 1992 (HMSO, 1993), which asked repositories to give numbers of different categories of users where possible. Apart from these two examples, where questions on family historians were part of wider enquiries, I have been unable to find any published research on the subject.
3. Two surveys of record repositories included direct or indirect questions on family historians. The first was the survey of record repositories carried out by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts in 1984, which included a question on genealogists as a percentage of total readers - see Brian S. Smith, 'Record Repositories in 1984', JSA, vol 8 (1996) pp 1-16. The second was the survey by Heather Forbes published as Local Authority Archive Services 1992 (HMSO, 1993), which asked repositories to give numbers of different categories of users where possible. Apart from these two examples, where questions on family historians were part of wider enquiries, I have been unable to find any published research on the subject.
4. John Davies, 'Report on the Annual Conference 1985', Archives, XVII, no 76, pp 41-42.
5. G. Herbert Fowler, The Care of County Muniments (London, 1928).
6. F. G. Emmison, Archives for All. The Essex Record Office, 1950-55 (Chelmsford, 1956), p 3.
7. J. H. Hodson, The Administration of Archives (Oxford, 1972).
8. Michael Cook, Archives Administration. A Manual for Intermediate and Smaller Organizations and Local Government (Folkestone, 1977).
9. Helen Forde and Rosemary Seton (eds.), Archivists and Researchers: Mutual Perceptions and Requirements (London 1994).
10. Alice Prochaska, contribution to the session on 'Problems of Understanding', in Forde and Seton, p 4.
11. Lesley Wynne-Davies, contribution to the session on 'Underfunding: Problems and Solutions', Forde and Seton, p 40.
12. Other types of repositories, of course, also attract family historians, sometimes in large numbers, but the survey was restricted to local authorities in England and Wales for a number of reasons, not least the need to keep it within manageable proportions.
13. I am very grateful to all those who completed and returned the questionnaire, many taking the trouble to write lengthy comments and include copies of leaflets and pro-forma letters to illustrate their replies. Details of the methodology of the survey, and a more detailed analysis of the results than can be given here, can be obtained from the author.
14. Most significantly, some repositories were unable to give figures for the calendar year, but gave figures for the financial year 1996-97; eight repositories were unable to give any user figure at all, while a small number were able to give only estimates. All figures given in response to the question were included in the calculations made, apart from a figure for one library-based repository, produced by electronic counter, which included all visits to the local studies library as well as the archive service; to have included this figure would have seriously distorted the analysis.
15. This compares with a mean of 50% family historians in the 57 repositories which were able to give figures on user profiles to the 1992 survey (Forbes, p 19). Direct comparison with the figures given in the report on the 1984 survey are difficult, but it appears that in slightly over half of the 75 local authority repositories responding to this survey, over 50% of searchers were genealogists (Smith, p 12).
16. Since the survey was made, at least one more repository has acquired the GRO indexes.
17. It is not only the initial purchase cost which has to be considered, but the cost of providing for use of the indexes in terms of microfiche readers, seats, and staff time. On the other hand, it is possible to recoup these costs by charging for use of the indexes.
18. The six repositories are: the Glamorgan Record Office and the West Glamorgan Archive Service, which charge for the use of any microform; the Carmarthenshire Archives Service, the Dudley Archives and Local History Service, and Wolverhampton Archives and Local Studies (which charge for the use of GRO indexes); and Liverpool Record Office and Local History Library, which has an advance booking fee of 50p for the use of microform.
19. From personal observation in a busy family history searchroom, it is not so much social class or level of education which affect customers' ability to use sources, as much as their willingness to listen and learn. However, users with serious literacy problems can present difficulties to searchroom staff. A lack of familiarity with alphabetical or numerical order, for example, can wreak havoc with self-service systems.
20. An article in a recent issue of JSA hints at frustration with this attitude. A plea for debate over appraisal policies remarks that, 'Archivists spend a lot of their time messing about with things like boxes, paper clips and office filing ...' (Michael Gasson, 'Business Archives: some principles and practices', JSA, vol 18 (1997), p 149.
21. Society of Archivists, Recommendations for British Local Government Archive Services, 1971, reprinted as Appendix A in Cook, p 202.
22. Patricia J. Methven, 'Performance measurement and standards', JSA, vol 11 (1990), p 84.
23. Local Government Act, 1972, chapter 70, section 224; Local Government (Wales) Act, 1994, chapter 19, section 60.
24. The Law of Property (Amendment) Act, 15 & 16 Geo. V chapter 5; The Public Records Act, 6 & 7 Eliz. II chapter 51; the Parochial Registers and Records Measure, 1978, No. 2.
25. The Local Government (Records) Act, 10 & 11 Eliz. II, c. 56.
26. 10 & 11 Eliz. II, chapter. 56, section 1.
27. Figures given in the 1992 survey of local authority archive services reveal that over half the services responding to the questionnaire were responsible to leisure/libraries departments (Forbes, Table 1, p 1).
28. Ann Pederson, 'User Education and Public Relations', in J. Ellis (ed.), Keeping Archives (Melbourne, 1993), p 306.
29. Ian Wilson, 'Strategies for Communication', JSA, vol 16 (1995), p 68.
30. National Council on Archives, An Archives Policy for the United Kingdom (London, 1996), p 3.
31. See, for example, the anonymous Comment, 'Archives, heritage and leisure', JSA, vol 14 (1993), p 110.