Traditional Stereotypes of Archives

Arlene Schmuland gave the composite image of the fictional archivists she studied as “a middle-aged, visually impaired person in badly chosen clothing,” an image she linked to a set of “specific character traits” associated with archivists.³ Key among these are intelligence, dedication, and isolation or social awkwardness. In terms of personality, Margaret Turner suggested the public imagines archivists as odd, introverted, and single.⁴ The lack of social interaction on the part of archivists may be seen both as a symbol and as a result of their devotion to their work. When associated with the work of history, their dedication may become heroic.⁵ On the other hand, archivists may be viewed as territorial, possessive of their collections, or condescending toward those seeking information.⁶

Intelligence is seen as another crucial trait for an archivist. Archivists are expected to be well educated and inquisitive and to enjoy cultural pursuits.⁷ Though portrayed as intelligent, many fictional archivists are depicted as lacking influence within their organizations, or as treated with less respect than their position might be expected to garner.⁸ In fact, a number of images of archivists suggest they are not quite worthy of respect. David Gracy wrote that the public perceives archivists as “permanently humped, moleish, aged creatures who shuffle musty documents in dust-filled stacks for a purpose uncertain.”⁹

Dust is the most widespread and common feature of the set of stereotypes associated with archival repositories.¹⁰ The image of dust may even transfer to the personage of the archivist, as the dust itself would rub off on her in her daily work.¹¹ In part, dust and dirt in archives help reinforce a sense of age and history.¹² Paul Duguid recounted a trip to the Portuguese archives in which each container he opened held “a fair portion of dust as old as the letters.”¹³ The images of dust and dirt also suggest that archives are seldom used. Schmuland noted one striking example in which the fictional archives of the East India Company were left to rot in piles in the damp basement of the East India House, accessed through a single door rusty from disuse.¹⁴ The dust and dark of basement archives may suggest other associations, such as that noted by Schmuland between archives and “death and the tomb.”¹⁵

Archives also bear a resemblance to other institutions. The link between archives and libraries is fairly obvious. Notable resemblances also exist between archives and shrines, temples, and even prisons.¹⁶ The out-of-the-way location of some archives, or the impressive architecture of others, combined with people's lack of knowledge about archives and the fact of closed stacks may lend a sense of intrigue. Levy and Robles wrote that to people who do not know much about archives, they may “sound grand but mysterious.”¹⁷

The contents of archives are most commonly understood to be papers of various kinds. The public may also think of archives in terms of less tangible holdings. In fiction writing, “archives,” both the records and the repository, are often “equated with history” and in certain instances, the records may be viewed as “history itself.”¹⁸ In particular, archives may represent history as secrets or truth. Karen Buckley found that “invariably, in popular culture, the archival record represents the truth and the truth represents power.”¹⁹

Many of the stereotypes about records speak to their value. Certainly, the most concerning stereotype about archival holdings is that they are useless, little better than trash, or, as one cartoonist put it, “a dump without seagulls.”²⁰ Fortunately, signs suggest that this is not the general view among the public. In a 2000 public opinion survey commissioned by the Australia State Records Authority of New South Wales, 90% of respondents thought archives are useful, 89% saw them as valuable, and 72% saw them as interesting.²¹

Stereotypes serve as explanatory systems, helping people to make sense of causes and effects and making categories understandable as a whole so people do not have to understand each individual member.²² In doing so, they draw on the features of a group that are most visible, familiar, or distinctive and may use stereotypes of other, similar groups in forming understandings of unfamiliar groups.²³ Viewed as explanatory systems, archival stereotypes illustrate that, like the libraries to which they are compared, archives keep information. In fact, they are often pictured as packed with information in the form of paper, either loose, bound, or corralled in boxes. More specifically, archives keep historical information. Age and dust are the most prominent indicators of this. Archivists may personify these traits through their intelligence and their age, both of which may be represented visually through the wearing of glasses. Dust also suggests that archives are seldom used, a suggestion backed up by the out-of-the-way locations of many archives. Once again, archivists may personify this through their lack of social interaction, a trait that can also be linked to their intelligence and dedication. Their passive nature and apparent dedication to work without wealth or influence explain why archivists and the institutions they oversee are unlikely to have much of either. ²⁴

Online Information Seeking and What It Means for Archives

The Internet has contributed to a range of changes in current society. A number of basic activities, from shopping to social interaction to work—“essentially everything that people do”—have shifted to online spaces.²⁵ In 2006, 75% of American adults used computers, and nearly as many, 73%, were Internet users.²⁶ By April 2012, 82% of American adults used the Internet, still behind the 95% of American teenagers who did so by July 2011.²⁷

One of the biggest changes brought about by the Internet was the introduction of the Web as a source of information. The Web is now the first place that many turn to fill an information need.²⁸ Online, a person can retrieve information from the other side of the world as easily as if it were located next door, making access “independent of location.”²⁹ And he or she can get online from just about anywhere. Rather than a visit to the local library, John Palfrey and Urs Gasser wrote, research for digital natives means a Google search and a visit to Wikipedia, and most prefer their information delivered digitally rather than in print.³⁰

Though these changes are society-wide and affect a number of institutions, they present unique challenges to archives. Archivists worry that such technologies will make archives and similar institutions obsolete. As Randall Jimerson wrote, archives may “become quaint anachronisms in a world of instant data communication, high technology, and rapid change.”³¹ In comparison to sleek databases and search engines that quickly produce digital results, print materials and the institutions that hold them may seem more than quaint and old-fashioned, they may become inconvenient enough for people to avoid altogether. Because of the time and effort required to digitize records, archivists generally agree that most archival holdings will never be digitized.³² The ease with which they can post their own materials online and the number of materials they have posted, however, may lead members of the public to believe the archival materials they want should be there as well. Taken to the extreme, some may question, as they have of libraries, whether archives are necessary at all because they believe that all information is online, or will be soon.³³

When archivists do post materials online, users may fail to recognize the hand of the archivist in the information they receive. Online researchers can “bypass” the archivist, locating and viewing finding aids and materials independently, and thus not realize the role the archivist continues to play as mediator between researchers and the materials they view.³⁴ Archivists and other information professionals are also concerned about whether researchers are able to identify reliable information, or if they care about information quality. Many Web users do not appear to care about the source of the information they access online or whether they can trust it.³⁵

In some ways, new information technologies, including but not limited to the Internet, may be promoting archives without the input or consent of archivists. Public use of the words “archive” and “archives” has increased in the last few decades.³⁶ In part, this is because the need for understandable names for new digital phenomena has led to the novel use of familiar words, among them “archive(s).” With increased use comes a certain amount of increased understanding; most people recognize, for instance, that archives deal with information or things considered old or valuable.³⁷ William Maher posited a corresponding increase in the value of archives, reflected in the eagerness of those outside the profession to apply the word to personal collections or databases.³⁸

Unfortunately, this creates somewhat of an identity crisis for archives. Archivists traditionally cite three possible definitions of “archives”: as the building or part of a building containing archival materials, as the records themselves, and as the institutions responsible for collecting, arranging, and preserving the records. In the past, those outside the profession used the term to refer to “any collection of documents that are old or of historical interest, regardless of how they are organized.”³⁹ Today, “archive(s)” can refer to backup data or data stored offline, the portion of a website containing older content, “virtually any collection of information,” and, in the case of “archive,” the action of transferring data to be stored offline.⁴⁰ Often, these new “archives” do not take into account provenance or the need for long-term, reliable access.⁴¹ Though clearly some of these new aspects correspond to traditional ones, they raise questions about what the key characteristics and most important functions of archives are perceived to be.

Methodology

Previous writings on Internet and computer technologies and the archival image suggest three main areas to examine for possible changes in perceptions of archives: expectations for access to information; definitions of archives and understandings of what they are and do; and the traditional archival stereotypes examined in previous studies of the archival image. I designed and conducted my survey with these in mind.⁴² The survey was organized into four sections. The first section collected basic demographic information. The second focused on respondents' understandings of the word “archive” and some of the influences on these understandings. The third section focused on perceptions of archives as physical spaces and institutions, of archival materials, and of archivists. The final section dealt with respondents' experience with technology and the Internet, as well as expectations regarding information. I developed an overall picture of respondents' understandings of and views on archives from the answers in the last three sections. I determined possible correlations between exposure to the Internet and computer technologies and perceptions of archives by cross-tabulating the amount of time respondents spend online, where they encounter the term “archive,” and, in certain cases, their expectations for information access and how they define the word “archive” with the results of questions from sections two and three.

The relative scarcity of surveys on the public opinion of archives and the different focus of my study led me to develop most of the questions based on readings on the image of archives and the Internet. These included questions on the definition respondents most often associate with archives, where they encounter archives most, and some of the written response questions. Where possible, survey questions drew on those in previous studies. For instance, the question asking respondents to select adjectives describing archives is similar to one in the telephone survey conducted for State Records, New South Wales.⁴³ However, I added options like “dusty” and “confusing” to the list of adjectives to test claims by other writers that archives are viewed as such.⁴⁴ Though Levy and Robles's study on the image of archivists was based on interviews with resource allocators rather than a structured survey, the results informed my choice of adjectives offered to respondents. Levy and Robles found that resource allocators view archivists as “well educated” and “as having full command of the contents and operation of their collections” and noted an expectation of traits such as intelligence, curiosity, management and organizational skills, patience, and attention to detail.⁴⁵ As in the multiple-choice question on adjectives describing archives, I included traits that I found in other writings on archivist stereotypes as well. With the exception of two traits, “resistance to change” and “possessiveness of collections,” I tried to avoid including traits that would be viewed as linked with negative stereotypes of archivists, such as social awkwardness, as I suspected that many respondents would be reluctant to apply such negative stereotypes, whether or not they subscribed to them. In these cases, I generally opted to include the opposites of such traits, in this case “social skills.”⁴⁶

I included short-answer questions to flesh out multiple-choice questions, give respondents an opportunity to use their own words to describe archives and archivists, and gauge respondents' understandings of the profession without the aid of prewritten multiple-choice selections. These responses provided qualitative data on people's views and understandings of archives. They were also coded based on a list of common themes and traits developed from an initial reading of the responses to allow for quantitative analysis of them. To do this, I read and assigned keywords to each response signifying the themes and traits it exhibited. For instance, I noted if a response referred to archival holdings in terms of information, data, or physical materials; included possible uses of archival materials; or used “archive” as a verb to describe archival processes as a whole rather than listing them individually (see Tables 7 through 9 for a complete list). To ensure consistency, I coded each response three separate times.

I distributed a sample survey to friends and acquaintances. Their feedback resulted in the rewording of some of the questions and multiple-choice options to be more clear and concise and the addition of answer options, such as “banking information/official documents,” for where people encounter the word “archive” most often.

I designed the survey for a population with minimal experience with archives and a great deal of familiarity with information technology. I received permission from the Western Washington University institutional review board to distribute the survey through the campus email system. I chose the Western community because members could generally be expected to fit my criteria for survey population and be easily and systematically reached for surveying.⁴⁷ I sent the survey out through the campus email system to a random sample selected by the Registrar's Office of 35% of the active population for spring term 2012, 4,790 potential respondents. To encourage email recipients to respond to the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to enter a drawing for one of two Amazon.com gift certificates after completing the survey. The survey received 413 full or partial responses, which is a response rate of 8.6%. A number were too incomplete to be useful, so I excluded them from analysis, which brought the number of responses down to 389 and the response rate to 8.1%.⁴⁸ All percentages cited here are for those who answered a given question.

Limitations

Though I hoped the prize incentive would encourage a more diverse group of respondents, some of the responses suggest that people who had previous experience with archives responded to the survey at a higher rate than those who did not have such experience. Just over 40% of respondents stated that they had visited an archives in person, and 53.2% stated they had visited an archives' website. Thus, survey responses were likely skewed toward those who had actual archival research experience and whose perceptions may have been colored by these experiences rather than, or in addition to, representations of archives from outside the profession.

While the population surveyed was largely made up of digital natives, and thus provided a good pool for testing for correlations between Internet usage and perceptions of archives, it did not represent the U.S. population as a whole. Overall, the population surveyed was younger, better educated, and likely, though the survey did not test for this, from less diverse backgrounds than the general U.S. population. The fact that most respondents were probably digital natives also limited the comparisons that could be made between those who did and did not spend time online.

Most of the questions asked respondents for their opinions; however, several asked respondents to self-report information like the amount of time spent online and where they encounter the word “archive” most often. Respondents may not always have been accurate in their answers to such questions. In some instances, responses either referred to or may have been influenced by experiences with recently developed information technologies other than the Internet.

Finally, though the number of responses was greater than in many other studies on perceptions of archives, many of the cross-tabulated results could not be determined to be statistically significant because of too few responses in one or more categories. Results with a confidence level of 95% (a P value less than 0.05) were considered statistically significant for this study. Responses for the multiple-choice questions contain a margin of error of no more than ±5.3%.

Experience with Technology

The majority of respondents reported being very comfortable with computer technology and the Internet. Most (60.2%) consider themselves “tech savvy,” while only 12.7% do not. Very few respondents (3%) reported spending less than 1 hour a day online, with the most (43.2%) reportedly spending 3 to 4 hours a day online, as shown in Table 1. Responses suggest time spent online has increased people's exposure to the word “archive” if not to actual archives. Over a third of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they encounter the word “archive” more often online than offline, and 22.6% agreed or strongly agreed that such online encounters play a significant role in shaping their understandings of archives (see Table 2).

Table 1. Hours Spent Online per Day

View Fullscreen

Table 2. Agreement with the Following Statements:

View Fullscreen

Expectations of Archives

Much of what archivists have noted about people's expectations for finding information online appears to hold true. Most respondents (58.9%) believe that all the information they need is already available online, and 55.8% believe it should be available. As far as these beliefs translating to expectations of archives, respondents generally expect an archives to post a website and digitized materials from its holdings online, though few expect an archives to post a Facebook page (see Table 2). While expectations of archives increase slightly among those who spend between 1 and 8 hours a day online, only those who spend less than 1 hour a day online show an appreciable difference in their expectations (see Figure 1).

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Accessibility

Responses suggest providing access to information or primary sources is viewed as one of the most important functions of archives. 43.5% of the descriptions of the services provided by archives and 18.1% of tasks attributed to archivists focus on the ultimate goal of providing access to materials. Respondents explained the role of archives and archivists in wording such as acquiring information, then finding “ways to organize this information so that it can be easily accessed by the public.”⁵⁰ Some also noted that archives do not maintain materials just for use in the present. For instance, one respondent wrote of the role of archivists as “preserving the past and the present for access in the future.”⁵¹

However, when judging how accessible archives actually are, respondents were divided. While only 11.7% selected “inaccessible” to describe archives, compared to 32.3% who selected “accessible,” more selected “secretive,” “mysterious,” or “confusing” than “welcoming” or “friendly” as can be seen in Table 3. Expectations for online access to information and selection of “accessible” as an adjective to describe archives may be related. Those who believe that they should be able to find all the information they need online selected “accessible” to describe archives less often than those who do not believe this, as illustrated in Figure 2; however, too few respondents in some of the categories made it difficult to determine whether these results are statistically significant.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Table 3. Adjectives Selected to Describe Archives (341 responses)

View Fullscreen

Of those who had visited an archives in person, 33.1% selected “accessible,” while 12.7% of this group selected “inaccessible.”⁵³ Hopefully, a trip to the archives would show researchers that archives are indeed accessible; however, these results suggest this may not be the case. The written responses illustrate some possible reasons for this. One of the respondents who had visited an archives and who selected “inaccessible” as an adjective, described archives as slow and noted that they are “useful but never as streamlined or efficient as I would like.”⁵⁴ Others may have had disappointing customer service experiences that led them to form a poor opinion of archives' accessibility. In response to the question on the role of the archivist, one respondent wrote, “What they do when they're not giving me dirty looks for touching their things, I'm not sure. I assume it's important, because I always seem to be keeping them from something they'd much rather be doing.”⁵⁵

The Value of Archives

Overall, respondents have a positive view of the value of archives. After “historical” and “organized,” which were the two most popular adjectives chosen to describe archives, the most-selected adjectives had to do with their value. Respondents generally characterized archives as “valuable,” “useful,” “important,” “interesting,” and “relevant.” Very few selected “useless” or “unimportant” (see Table 3).⁵⁶ In fact, 23 respondents (8.1%) referred to the value of the materials kept by archives as the reason for their preservation and use, writing, for instance, that archives contain “documents that are saved due to their importance.”⁵⁷

Beliefs about the availability of information online show a correlation with the selection of adjectives denoting value to describe archives. Those who believe all information should be readily available online selected “boring,” “unimportant,” and “useless” more often and “important,” “interesting,” “relevant,” “useful,” and “valuable” less often, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Percentages of Those Who Agreed with the Statement, “All the Information I Need Should Be Available Online,” by the Adjectives Relating to Value They Selected to Describe Archives⁵⁸

View Fullscreen

What Is an Archives?

As those outside the archival profession appropriate the word “archive,” it seems likely that people will think increasingly of archives in nontraditional senses. To determine whether this is the case, respondents were asked to choose which definition they most often associate with the term “archive.” All of the traditional definitions received more responses than those based on computer technology. The overwhelming majority chose “Documents or materials preserved for future use because of their public or historical value,” as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Definitions Associated with the Word “Archive” (389 responses)

View Fullscreen

Those who encounter the term while browsing online were most likely to select the definition of “archive” as a portion of a website, with 17.3%, nearly three times the rate of the next closest group, choosing this definition. This group also selected the other computer-technology-driven definitions at relatively high rates. However, even among this group, the most popular definition was “materials preserved for future use” (see Table 6).

Table 6. Definitions Associated with the Word “Archive” by Where Respondents Encounter the Word “Archive” Most Often⁵⁹

View Fullscreen

In terms of what archives and archivists do, respondents focused heavily on storage, preservation, organization, and accessibility. They most commonly associate providing access with archives, with 43.5% mentioning it in their descriptions, as can be seen in Table 7.

Table 7. Written Descriptions of Services Provided by Archives (276 responses)

View Fullscreen

Responses varied a little more in ascribing tasks to archivists, which included the organization of materials or information, the overall management of archives or the materials therein, helping researchers to locate and understand materials, providing general access to the contents of archives, acquiring materials for archives, preserving archival holdings, appraising potential holdings, storing materials, and describing holdings (see Table 8). Eleven respondents (3.9%) simply used “archive” as a verb to describe the activities of archivists.

Table 8. Written Descriptions of the Role of an Archivist (282 responses)

View Fullscreen

When asked about the materials kept by archives, 19.7% of respondents suggested that archives keep published sources such as books or periodicals that would be more appropriately held by a library (see Table 9). However, 52.1% listed the sorts of unique materials that archivists would consider within their purview, either in general terms such as records or documents, or specific types and content such as birth certificates or records pertaining to lawsuits. Forty-seven (16.5%) listed both archival and nonarchival materials.⁶⁰ Though the majority of respondents listed traditional, paper-based materials as examples of what archives keep, some listed other types of media. These include audio and video recordings, “servers with data in them,” databases, software, and “early computers/video games.”⁶¹

Table 9. Written Descriptions of Archives' Holdings (284 responses)

View Fullscreen

Archives Stereotypes

Responses did contain the archival stereotypes discussed earlier. However, while many respondents chose adjectives associated with archival stereotypes, these were less popular than “historical” and “organized” and, for the most part, those adjectives having to do with the value of archives, as can be seen in Table 3.⁶²

The traditional stereotypes were also evident in written responses. One respondent trying to explain the role of archivists wrote, “I don't know what they do in there honestly . . . be mysterious?”⁶³ Though only 2 respondents included “dust” in their descriptions, 113 included the age of archival materials, describing them as “old data/records/stuff” or even “medieval texts.”⁶⁴ One respondent wrote of the services provided by archives:

I imagine an older person, sitting at a desk doing a crossword puzzle in the sub-sub basement of an old building most don't know the use for. When you approach the desk, they hand you a torch without looking up and say something like, “3 doors down, first on the left. Oh, and don't disturb the bats.”⁶⁵

Another respondent imagined archives as similar to the warehouse pictured at the end of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, while yet another pictured “a big warehouse with many isles [sic] of alphabetized file cabinets.”⁶⁶

Where people encounter archives may be influencing the stereotypes they associate with them. The relationship was most clear among those who encounter archives in TV, movies, and fiction. This group selected adjectives associated with traditional stereotypes, such as “dark,” “mysterious,” “musty,” “old-fashioned,” and “quiet,” at the highest rates, as shown in Table 10. Fiction, either written or televised, may also have influenced respondents' understandings subconsciously. One respondent, who could not remember where he encountered the term “archive” most, wrote that the contents of archives are “mostly fantastic things, like obscure information that leads to solving a murder case or uncovering a villain's weakness.”⁶⁷

Table 10. Adjectives Chosen to Describe Archives by Where Respondents Encountered the Word “Archive” Most Often⁶⁸

View Fullscreen

Except for “old” and “forbidding,” those who encountered archives while conducting research selected adjectives associated with the traditional archival stereotypes at a lower rate than those who encountered archives in the entertainment media. They selected “friendly,” “welcoming,” and “high tech” more often by a small margin, but also selected “confusing” at the highest rate (see Figure 3). The fact that some of these stereotypes persist in this group suggests that archivists themselves may be inadvertently helping to promote them. For instance, one respondent described a trip to an archives in which the reference room was “spacious,” but the stacks were “super forboding [sic], dimly lit and extremely confusing.”⁶⁹

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Those who encountered “archive” most often online also seem divided. In comparison to the other two groups analyzed here, they selected adjectives associated with traditional archival stereotypes at median or lower rates. However, they also selected adjectives that might be linked to an alternate understanding of archives, such as “current,” “high tech,” or “welcoming,” at lower rates than either those who encounter “archive” most often in the media or while conducting research.⁷¹

Overall, archivists are viewed as organized, detail oriented, intelligent, knowledgeable about the collections in their care, and efficient (see Table 11). Most respondents (63.1%) selected “computer skills” as a trait archivists should possess, while only 7.1% selected “resistance to change,” making it the lowest-ranked trait. This may indicate that, for some at least, computers have become such an integral part of daily life that everyone, archivists included, is expected to be familiar with them on some level.⁷²

Table 11. Skills and Traits an Archivist Is Expected to Possess (339 responses)

View Fullscreen

The second and third least-selected traits of archivists, respectively, were a “sense of humor” (12.1%) and “social skills” (20.9%). One respondent even included the lack of social interaction in his explanation of the role of the archivist, writing that the archivist is the “person in charge of keeping track of everything in the archive, organizing it, and being lonely.”⁷³ Six of those who left comments noted that they selected traits they believe most archivists would possess or that would be helpful on the job, or that they know archivists vary in personality and skills. Like the resource allocators surveyed by Levy and Robles, respondents appear reluctant to classify archivists by what they know to be stereotypes.

Conclusions

Among the survey population, expectations for access to digital information followed a pattern very similar to that predicted by archivists, with increased expectations for being able both to find information in general and information and materials from archives online. The responses suggest that overall access to information is important to respondents and that they view providing access to the information in archives' care as central to their mission. Despite the focus on the role of archives and archivists in providing access to information resources, archives are not always viewed as accessible. Given the number of those who had visited an archives who selected “inaccessible,” and the fact that at least one respondent felt archivists were displeased that he was using the materials, archivists may need to be more cognizant of how they approach researchers. Though of concern when combined with unrealistic expectations, the focus on the role of archives in providing public access to materials may be seen as positive because it suggests a connection between archives and their communities and presumably that members of a community would want to use archives.

A link may also exist between these increased expectations and perceptions of accessibility and the value of archives. Though the small number of responses cannot confirm such a trend, the results suggest that those who believe they should be able to satisfy all their information needs online may not view archives as accessible. And though archives generally seem to be viewed as valuable, those who expect to satisfy all their information needs online may be less likely to agree.

Overall, the responses suggest that members of the Western community have a fairly realistic though very basic understanding of the mission and tasks of archives and archivists. Most respondents still think of archives in terms of their traditional definitions, and they described traditional tasks and materials. If the Internet is affecting this understanding, it seems more likely to cause a shift in focus between the multiple roles of archives, for instance, privileging certain tasks, like organizing materials and providing access to them, over others, rather than prompting outright misunderstanding of the profession. This is not surprising, as the new uses of “archive(s)” introduced by computer and Internet technology rely on traditional understandings of archives to explain and give them meaning.

The traditional imagery associated with the archival profession is also still clearly evident. Generally, this imagery is not the most important aspect of archives for respondents. Those who encounter archives most often in television, movies, and fiction appear most likely to subscribe to this imagery and are the only group who show a clear pattern in their choice of adjectives linked to traditional archival stereotypes.

Previous writings on the effects of information technology on archives assume a largely unchanging and homogeneous conception of archives. This posits a view of archives as mired in the past while other organizations advance with technology. In reality, while not viewed as cutting-edge by those surveyed, archives and archivists are not seen as completely separate from the contemporary world, relegated to some dusty basement where time stands still. Many expect them to participate in and adapt to the changes happening around them. The expectations for the posting of materials online reflect this, along with the belief that archivists should possess computer skills and the sorts of materials that some respondents believe archives preserve in their holdings.

Nor is the archival image homogeneous across the population. The results suggest the possibility of multiple images of archives affected by multiple influences. Though they present interrelated images, each place that people come in contact with archives suggests a slightly different view of them. Online encounters represent only one of these influences. Fictional portrayals of archives continue to play a discernible role in shaping respondents' perceptions of archives, often by perpetuating traditional stereotypes. At least in the population surveyed, research is another likely avenue to encounter archives. Personal experiences with archives help shape how people view them, fostering both positive and negative views, and both dispelling and confirming stereotypes.

While this survey helped shed some light on perceptions of archives, more extensive studies are needed to fully understand the impact that the Internet and broader advances in information technology are having and may have on the image and understanding of archives. Such studies could draw from a larger, more diverse sample pool and could include more in-depth questions to better assess respondents' views and understandings of archives and the factors that may be affecting them. A larger respondent pool in particular would increase the validity of the quantitative analysis. Differently designed or more in-depth questions and possibly even interviews could help clarify which responses were influenced by experience with the Internet, which were influenced by other recent advances in information technology (as may have been the case regarding some of the materials respondents believe archives hold, or respondents' expectations that archivists possess computer skills), and which were influenced by other factors.

Though the survey mainly focused on the Internet as a more manageable subcategory of the information technologies possibly affecting understandings of archives, it is likely that any shifts in perceptions are not attributable solely to the Internet but also to other recently developed technologies. As the technologies themselves overlap, it may be impossible to fully distinguish which are responsible for affecting certain perceptions. Information technology will continue to evolve, creating new opportunities and expectations and introducing members of the public to archives, or at least to conceptions of archives. In this climate, an understanding of both general perceptions of their profession and how these perceptions are formed and modified will be useful to archivists as they attempt to influence these perceptions, promote their institutions, and assist members of the public.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure