56 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
Topic of collection is the other important factor in processing priorities. It seems to us use by graduate students
and scholars in the humanities has dropped off, and after talking to some scholars, we feel this is in part due to
the perception that our collection is more 19th century focused and 20th century topics are more widespread now.
Therefore, 20th century collections in certain topic areas are getting higher processing priority than say, another
collection of Civil War letters.
User feedback has been invaluable. In one respect it’s good to know that our finding aids are no longer opaque, but
meeting user’s needs. Having adopted MPLP with vigor, it’s been enormously helpful to know that minimal description
is not only accepted but warmly and enthusiastically welcomed it not only validates our good work, but also works to
prod veteran staff who were/are resistant/skeptical. The best feedback is from users who have been friends of the RBML
for 20+ years. They welcome the positive changes and user-centered approach.
Usually rather general discussion with readers as to usefulness and completeness of finding aids and perceived
importance of collection this sometimes identifies related or similar materials that are less well processed — which may
move them higher in priority.
We are responsive if we can free someone up.
We do this informally and look to support the research efforts of our patrons whenever we can while still attaining other
departmental goals.
We have an active instruction program. As part of our planning for instruction activities we meet with faculty and ask
them their class requirement but also their research interests. Through this informal discussion we are able to identify
the needs of both the students and the researcher for access and processing priorities.
We have discussed especially with faculty researchers our backlogs and garnered their input. Unfortunately, our staff
size does not permit much leeway.
We have worked with potential collection users to determine what types of access and processing level will be most
beneficial to their use of the collection. We have enlisted volunteers who can help with identification of photographs
in order to improve collection access. We consider requests from faculty, staff, students, and outside scholars when
considering which collections to process next. Donations that pay for the processing of collections donated always help
move a collection to the top of the list.
We listen to the researchers’ comments, and try to incorporate them, along with other factors, into the decision-making
process for priorities.
When an unprocessed collection has received multiple inquiries for availability, we will process it sooner and to a finer
degree than other collections without known demand.
When possible, we give priority to collections when we learn from actual or potential researchers that they are needed
to support their work in our collections.
When such discussions have taken place they generally focus more on the issue of what types of access points will be
most useful to researchers. This does not affect priority of processing order, but does affect access point decisions and
sometimes processing level.