The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
JDOC
66,1
28
Received 11 March 2009
Revised 8 June 2009
Accepted 29 June 2009
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 66 No. 1, 2010
pp. 28-45
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/00220411011016353
The information needs of UK
historic houses: mapping the
ground
Alan Brine
Library Services, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK, and
John Feather
Department of Information Science, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to concentrate on establishments that are known as the “built
heritage”, often described as “historic houses”. Many operate in a similar vein to small businesses and
often have a more diverse range of needs. In the UK historic houses form part of the tourism and
leisure market. Heritage encompasses a wide variety of establishments including historic houses,
historic gardens, heritage centres, town centres, countryside and museums.
Design/methodology/approach – A model was developed for the study to show the information
needs of historic houses and the information-seeking behaviour of those managing historic houses.
Data have been collected both via questionnaires to and interviews of those managing properties. The
collection of data focused on diversity of activities, information provision, use of information,
developments (including technology) and collaboration.
Findings – The conclusions discuss the management of information and the difficulties expressed
for those managing historic houses as discovered during the research. Properties need to be able to
make effective use of this to protect the heritage for future generations. Building on the empirical work
recommendations are made on policy making, education, audits, co-operation and technology to
improve the provision and management of information within the sector to support these
establishments.
Originality/value – The research represents the first study to investigate the existing situation of
historic houses and their information needs in the UK, to try and provide an overview of the sector and
information provision and how that might be improved.
Keywords Heritage, Information management
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The heritage sector has become a major economic force. The sector is diverse; it
includes historic townscapes and landscapes, archaeological sites and remains, and
standing buildings and monuments (Herbert, 1995). It is not confined to the UK. Indeed,
heritage tourism and the related activity of cultural tourism are a world-wide
phenomenon which was a characteristic development of the last quarter of the
twentieth century, partly because of increased leisure time and partly because of the
declining real cost of travel (McKercher and du Cros, 2002). It has been seen as a tool for
forging new kinds of national identity (Ashworth and Larkham, 1994), but is not
always an unmixed blessing to local or indigenous people despite the economic
benefits which it can bring (Boniface, 1994). In Britain, however, with its long and
relatively stable history, historic sites and buildings abound in both town and UK historic
countryside throughout the UK, many of them still in daily use. There were some 452 houses
million visits to historic attractions in 2001 (Central Statistical Office, 2003, pp. 228-9).
The broader context is that about 25 per cent of the adult workforce is engaged in
activities such as hotels, catering and hospitality, to which the tourism industry is
closely linked (Central Statistical Office, 2003, p. 80).
The most important buildings – in terms of architectural merit or historic interest – 29
are “listed” by English Heritage, CADW and Historic Scotland. English Heritage
currently has some 370,000 buildings on its list, although fewer than 10 per cent are in
Grades I and IIA which are reserved for buildings of exceptional importance (English
Heritage, 2004). There are some 27,000 listed buildings in Wales (about 2 per cent in
Grade I) (CADW, 2004), and about 46,000 in Scotland of which about 8 per cent are in
Category A as being of greatest importance (Historic Scotland, 2004).The Grade I and
Category A buildings include some major tourist attractions, some of which are still
occupied by their owners as well as being open to the public. The Historic Houses
Association, which represents this part of the sector, has some 1,500 members; the 350
member properties which are regularly open to the public attract some 12 million
visitors a year (Historic Houses Association, 2004a). Many other houses which are not
regularly open offer facilities for conferences, weddings and other events, or are open
by appointment (Historic House Venues, 2004). As a sector there is great diversity of
ownership and management.
These properties, which are businesses, need to be managed both as tourist
destinations and as historic buildings. This often includes the management not only of
the building itself, but also of surrounding landscapes and gardens (which may
themselves be of historical importance) and the contents and interior fabric. For a large
house – whatever the ownership status – this requires management like any other
business in terms of finance, human resources and the physical assets. There are added
complications, especially for properties still in private hands, such as the potential
impact of death duties on estates (Yale, 1990, pp. 185-90). There is also the over-riding
factor of the nature of the property; the business derived from it crucially depends on
its preservation in a recognisable and “authentic” form. This can be in conflict with
typical business objective of maximising profit, and has to be seen as one of the
constraints on management and long-term planning (Laws, 2001, pp. 82-85). In any
case it requires access to expertise and information on the physical preservation of
property and its contents as the core assets of the enterprise. Agencies such as English
Heritage, CADW and Historic Scotland, or the Department of Culture Media and Sport,
might be thought of as potential providers of information, but central information or
library services that help those responsible for individual properties to manage their
knowledge, are not necessarily available to those managing properties.

2. Hypotheses and methodology

The research sought to determine the information management issues in relation to
these properties, and, in particular, how information needs are identified and
addressed. The key question is:
How do the managers and owners of properties acquire and organise their information?
JDOC The research makes use of case studies of individual properties, in that part of the
66,1 heritage sector usually called as “historic houses” or “stately homes”. This is itself a
diverse domain that ranges from properties such as Chatsworth House (Chatsworth
Settlement Trustees, 2004), where the heritage establishment includes the house,
gardens and estate to much smaller “homes”, such as Newliston (Historic Houses
Association, 2004b). Those activities that take place on or around these types of
30 properties are the focus of the research.
The hypotheses are:
.
Historic houses are very diverse in their management, but despite this they have
common information needs.
.
The wide variety of activities taking place at historic houses means that they
have a wide range of information needs.
.
Historic houses appear not to have adequate internal information services to
ensure dissemination of information.
. Current information sources are not adequately fulfilling establishments’
information needs.
.
There is scope for collaboration and co-ordination in assuring and maintaining
the flow of information to historic houses.
.
There is scope for the improvement of information management within historic
houses.

To discover this, a literature review was undertaken, a representative sample of

properties surveyed and selected owners and managers interviewed.

3. Reviewing the literature

The literature review revealed little or no reference to research on the information
needs of heritage establishments. Historic houses are aware of the importance of
information:
We can provide a much better service using it (Interviewee C, 6 January 2004),
and use it to react to changes in the environment:
Gift aid is something that cropped up. We heard about it . . . and within a month we were
actually doing it (Interviewee C, 6 January 2004).
However not many do, as noted by a manager that:
Lots still thinking about it (Interviewee C, 6 January 2004).
The majority of those at historic houses however find the prospect much more difficult
and are:
Not really interested in the information as such, you’re interested in getting the job done and
the information aspect has to be got through (Interviewee A, 2 March 2004).
The research needed to discover this and so the following review was undertaken.
The literature on information seeking behaviour was examined to provide a
backdrop against which the activities of historic houses could be researched and
compared to existing models of need.
 The research anticipated that most establishments are unaware of and oblivious to UK historic
many of these stages due to the way that they access information or in how they adapt houses
to their own situation. A model relevant to information needs of establishments will not
necessarily need to feature all stages. The level of uncertainty may also be removed
and/or reduced considerably depending on the methods used within establishments to
support their activities. Importantly Ellis states:
. . . the detailed interrelation or interaction of the features in any individual information
31
seeking pattern will depend on the unique circumstances of the information seeking activities
of the person concerned at that particular point in time (Ellis, 1989, p.171-212).
We noted Wilson’s model of 1981 (Wilson, 1981, pp. 3-15) on the user’s need depending
on previous levels of satisfaction from information acquired previously, leading to a
sequence of activities that make demands on information systems and sources
resulting in either success or failure, and Wilson’s own later revisions, taking account
of newly developed theories of individual information seeking behaviour (Wilson,
1999, p. 257). It introduces intervening variables that could be role related or source
characteristics which are of import in the heritage sector as it is these that are most
likely to determine the seeking of information.
Uncertainty is an important factor, as the trigger for information seeking behaviour
is the initial perception of a gap in the knowledge which is sufficiently important to
require closing. This needs to be taken into account in any model which seeks to link
information needs and historic houses.
Another model which can usefully be adapted to map heritage sector owners’ and
managers’ patterns of information seeking is that proposed by Leckie et al. (1996,
pp. 161-193). Although not all aspects of it appropriate for this sector, it can be used to
describe the information needs of the managers of historic houses.
Consequently Figure 1 shows the model derived from the literature that might best
fit activities undertaken at historic houses. A number of stages are represented within
the model:
(1) the individual in context;
(2) tasks;
(3) gaps in knowledge;
(4) trusted source;
(5) personal and external sources;
(6) outcomes;
(7) reaffirmation of source;
(8) task remains.

At one level, there is little here which seems unique to the historic houses sector, but
closer examination reveals a number of special characteristics in its application. At the
first stage the manager or owner is working within their own specific context at their
own establishment; this relates to the immediate environment, including
organisational affiliations and social standing in the locality. The research noted
that although there are organisations available to offer support, in practice the tacit
information and knowledge (often tacit) held personally by the owner-manager may be
JDOC
66,1

32

Figure 1.
Model of information
needs of historic houses

the key factor. The background and experience of the individual responsible for the
property will substantially affect their approach to their information needs. “Gaps in
knowledge” represents the stage at which they discover that they do not have the
knowledge to deal with the problem for themselves and consequently this event reveals
that they do in fact have an information need.
The following stage reflects the fact that the needs of the individual might normally
be related to the task in hand, reflecting Leckie’s concept of the task-related problem.
Nevertheless, there are differences between the related tasks expected by Leckie and
those found at historic houses. Historic Houses have numerous special activities, as
discussed below, in Garrod and Fyall’s typology. The ethos in which properties work
where they are balancing the costs of access versus conservation, can mean that
activities may be more reactive at properties when problems arise rather than being
planned and managed with forethought.
For the fourth stage of the model a “Trusted source” has been introduced. This
reflects the need for a preferred source, as noted in the research of Krikelas, which the
individual is comfortable with and seeks when they require information and have a UK historic
task that requires completing (Krikelas, 1983, pp. 5-20). This sector shows patterns of houses
communication and socialisation which are important in knowledge-sharing and
communication, also based on the tacit knowledge of the individual’s experiences as
noted by Wagner-Dobler (2004).
The fifth stage of the model juxtaposes two elements that an owner or manager may
refer to in the search for a solution to the problem. The two elements are either 33
personal, where it is already known to the individual and is readily contacted directly
for information, or external where is not. A personal source, may, for example, be an
accountant, neighbour or colleague. The external element is typically a source known
by name or reputation, which in this sector might be, for example, the Historic Houses
Association.
The outcomes stage is introduced in this model, rather than using the success or
failure as suggested by Wilson’s model, and is preferred for this research as a question
mark must exist as to whether there has been a failure in information seeking or if
there are levels of success that could be achieved. It should be noted that an owner or
manager may accept a lower level of success, especially as they may not be aware of
what information could be available to them if they only stick to particular routes for
the acquisition of information. This is reflected in the subsequent arrow which is the
“reaffirmation of source”. If the trusted source achieves the desired result or is
reasonably close to the desired result then this reaffirms the individual’s faith in the
source, whether or not a better outcome may be possible. The other arrow reflects a
failure in the process of consulting their source, where the task still remains if the
information is not provided. The task may still remain to be completed; it may be
forgotten; or a new altered task remains if partial information is provided by the
source. The process then begins anew until the desired result is achieved.
This model has been developed to take account of the fact that they are perceived –
not least by their owners and managers – as being different organisations from a
“conventional” business. It is not unusual to find the owner running the establishment
with little support- suggesting analogies with owner-managed SMEs – And, unlike
SMEs not necessarily motivated by money and profit as ends in themselves. The
perceived need for independence, noted by Stanworth and Gray (1991), is different from
the need to pass on the property for future generations which motivates almost all
owners in this sector. The most important comment to make on the model that has
been devised is that it reflects the sector. The organisation in the sector and the tacit
knowledge of property owner/managers is reflected in the model in Figure 1. Owners
and managers are rarely consciously of running the establishment as a business and do
not see information management as a priority. Usually it is a part of their everyday
activity in preserving their lifestyle and/or the past. Consequently their decisions are
made based on their own background and surroundings, despite the wealth of
organisations that can help them. They follow what might be a pre-ordained pattern
that other generations may have taken before, without necessarily thinking about what
they are doing. Consequently their route to solving their information needs will follow
paths as described in the model.
In addition the literature review examined:
.
tourism;
.
heritage;
JDOC .
historic/country houses;
66,1 .
information needs;
.
information management in museums and SMEs; and
.
tacit knowledge.

Although the focus was primarily on the UK, some general literature from elsewhere
34 on tourism and heritage has also been utilised.
By reviewing the historical background of tourism and that of historic houses,
information on the environment in which heritage establishments operate has been
gathered. The literature reveals a growth in heritage tourism and the conflicts between
the conservation of historic houses as a link to the past, and operating a business which
can generate profits to maintain the fabric and contents of the property. Combining
these two aspects has emphasised the importance of the research.
The areas covered include a discussion on leisure, heritage and tourism as defined
by authors such as Hewison (1987) and Herbert (1995) and how this related to the
research on historic sites and buildings. The literature clarified why these
establishments are important to UK tourism. Mandler (1996) tells us that the historic
house has over a period of time become part of the national heritage that defines the
nation’s culture culminating in the Heritage Acts of 1980 and 1983. Data shows that in
1995 73 per cent of overseas visitors had been to a historic building and that since 1982
visits to historic properties had risen by 30 per cent (ETC Research and Intelligence,
2000, pp. 42-65). This gives us a sense of their importance to the economy and why they
need to be managed effectively. The review also helped to define the focus on historic
houses, and hence the parameters of the survey. Further aspects of the review looked at
the business operations of historic houses, reviewing the facilities and activities taking
place at properties that necessitate appropriate use of information resources. The
review found that a typical heritage attraction mission included conservation;
accessibility; education; relevance; recreation; financial; local community; and quality
(Garrod and Fyall, 2000, p. 692). It shows a broad canvas of activity that requires
considerable management. However no work looking at their information needs has
been done to support this, not even from the national bodies. Out of this a map of
activities was developed which formed the basis of the questionnaire and subsequent
interviews. It should be borne in mind that the diversity of activities uncovered in
producing this map are intended to be representative of the sector as a whole; any
individuals property will typically undertake only a subset of these activities.
Reviewing the literature on and produced by, the National Trust and English Heritage
has given some indication on how larger organisations can help to support the
information needs of owners and managers. Information needs in allied areas, focusing
on museums and SMEs, has provided insights into the style of information behaviour
that might be expected at heritage establishments.
Reviewing the literature on tacit knowledge provided some welcome insights that
added to the analysis of the data and the relative importance of tacit knowledge in the
information seeking behaviour of those running historic houses.

4. Surveying the sector

A postal questionnaire survey was undertaken to collect data from more than 1,000
properties across the sector. The method gave respondents confidence in the
anonymity of their responses, while also facilitating the widest coverage achievable UK historic
within the available resources. The same questionnaire was sent to all establishments houses
despite the fact that some are operationally independent of their parent organisations,
while others have to follow guidelines that are laid down by them.
The questionnaire was designed both to gather data as the basis of an overview of
the existing landscape. Further data were then collected through subsequent
interviews with selected respondents. The interviews were used to complement the 35
information collected from heritage organisations, by selecting a small number of
properties to interview from which qualitative data could be collected. A sample of
seven properties was selected on the basis of ensuring wide coverage of the UK and to
endeavour to include the key variables of:
. ownership;
.
location;
.
size; and
.
regional variation.

Consequently the properties chosen were:

.
located in England, Scotland and Wales to ensure regional variation;
.
were located in both urban and rural settings;
.
ranged from establishments with large visitor numbers in the order of 500,000 to
those with only hundreds of visitors annually; and
. owned by a variety of individuals and organisations including the National
Trust, English Heritage and private individuals.

The interviews took place in 2003-2005 in the setting of each historic house focusing on
the following aspects:
.
The individual and their situation.
.
How they use information and what for.
.
Plans and policies in place directing the work of the property.
. How information at the property is kept and accessed.
.
Whether there were any barriers to the use of information.
.
Whether there were plan to develop the use of information.

The interview method chosen was that of semi-structured interviews allowing the
researcher to be familiar with where the interview was headed without reference to the
questions at all times. The interviewees and their categories are:
.
Interviewee A: Owner, privately owned property with a small number of visitors
in Scotland.
.
Interviewee B: Owner, privately owned property with a small number of visitors
in England.
.
Interviewee C: Manager, privately owned property with a large number of
visitors in England.
JDOC .
Interviewee D: Custodians, property run by a heritage organisation with a large
66,1 number of visitors in England.
.
Interviewee E: Custodian, property run by a heritage organisation with a small
number of visitors in Wales.
.
Interviewee F: Manager, property run by a local authority with a medium number
of visitors in England.
36 .
Interviewee G: Custodian, property run by a heritage organisation with a large
number of visitors in England.

5. Survey data
A total of 548 questionnaires were sent to the managers, or their equivalent, at historic
houses and of these 201 (36.7 per cent) were returned. Historic houses are not evenly
distributed across the home countries and the English regions. The highest
concentration of properties is to be found in South-East England. Most of regions
yielded a return of between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of the questionnaires
distributed. Some areas generated slightly lower returns, including the South East,
South West and Wales, all with less than 30 per cent. The survey was divided into four
sections, these being: about yourself; about your establishment; about information in
your establishment; how you use information. The questions covered the nature of the
manager’s role; the nature of the work the property is involved with; organisations that
they regularly use to obtain information; what information was kept on site including
whether they have their own library; and whether they encountered difficulties with
the information they tried to obtain.

6. Issues arising from the survey data

The questionnaire survey that there is no clear understanding of how to use
information; what possible alternative sources are available in the UK; and how to
manage the information to the best effect for heritage establishments. The issues that
arose from the postal survey and from the interviews are:
. diversity of activities;
.
needs of the property managers;
.
adequacy of information;
. improvement in use of information; and
.
collaboration.

6.1 Diversity of activities

The survey confirmed that heritage establishments undertake a wide range of
activities, and have contacts with many different heritage bodies, often at the local
level. Some properties have dealings with as many as 29 organisations, while some
have none at all. The mean number of organisational contacts is 7.12, indicating
considerable reliance on others for information provision. Local organisations with
which establishments have a relationship, especially the local authorities, appear to
provide considerable support in the provision of information. The survey also
confirmed another finding derived from the literature review: a large proportion of the
information required was for the purposes of conservation and preservation. The
highest priority was a need for information to help the maintenance of properties. As UK historic
one owner put it in an interview: “maintenance was the main thing – the big thing” houses
(Interviewee A, 2 March 2004). Garrod and Fyall (2000) found that heritage property
managers placed conservation above all other aspects of their work. In this sector, this
requires specialist information. The large number of organisations contacted for
information, ranging from the Woodland Trust to the Heritage Lottery Fund, indicates
the complexity of historic property management. 37
Figure 2 provides a graphic representation of the range of activities that take place
at the establishments that were surveyed. Those most frequently reported were
conservation and visitor management, which were both selected by 71.6 per cent
(n ¼ 144) of the sample population. Conserving the heritage has to be the main priority
for properties. Managing visitors is a major activity if conservation is to be effective;
they have to be brought together if sites are to be protected for future generations as
they have an impact on the physical fabric of the establishment.
Staging events, maintaining gardens, educating the public and providing catering
facilities received results of 64.2 per cent (n ¼ 129), 62.2 per cent (n ¼ 125), 60.7 per
cent (n ¼ 122) and 49.3 per cent (n ¼ 99) respectively. These were the four next most
important activities at heritage establishments. It is indicative of an emerging trend,
attested in the literature, for historic properties to be more actively engaged in tourism.
Historic houses have a diverse range of activities indicated by the data collected, but all
others are secondary to the preservation of the historic fabric.

6.2 Information needs of the property managers

Figure 3 depicts aspects of work included in the daily work of the managers. The graph
clearly indicates that the major roles undertaken by property managers are customer
relations 79.2 per cent (n ¼ 156), marketing 70.2 per cent (n ¼ 139) and staffing 69.2
per cent (n ¼ 137). Beyond these roles there appears to be a second tier of roles that

Figure 2.
Activities at Heritage
establishments
JDOC
66,1

38

Figure 3.
Main areas of manager’s
work

form a part of a typical manager’s job. These are budgeting, education, liaison,
maintenance, security and strategic planning with 59.6 per cent (n ¼ 118), 48 per cent
(n ¼ 95), 57.1 per cent (n ¼ 113), 55.6 per cent (n ¼ 110), 55.1 per cent (n ¼ 109) and
52.5 per cent (n ¼ 104) respectively. Those roles carried out least were those that could
be described as specialist activities, these being grant aid, insurance and surveying
with 26.8 per cent (n ¼ 53), 25.8 per cent (n ¼ 51) and 11.1 per cent (n ¼ 22).
The “other” category accounted for a significant 28 per cent (n ¼ 56) of the
responses. Roles that arose from this included administration, conservation and day to
day management with eight responses each and event planning, publicity and research
with six, five and four responses respectively. There were 28 other activities that were
cited by establishments.
Respondents were asked about the sources they used for the information they use in
the course of their work. They were also asked to state whether they derived these from
national, regional or local sources. Use of local information dominated the responses in
nearly all categories. This indicates a degree of self-reliance and on easily accessible
their resources to hand rather than referring to other sources that could be helpful,
especially at a national level. One interviewee said that:
There is definitely a records place at Fort Cumberland and in Swindon, probably in London.
We have got a library (Interviewee D, 2 December 2004).
In fact this vague answer shows some confusion; the “records place” in Swindon is the
National Monument Record, the photographic archive of English Heritage, and that at
Fort Cumberland is the centre for much of English Heritage’s archaeological research
activities. This suggests that some managers are not even aware of what is available UK historic
through their own parent organisation, and that they are unable to make full use of the houses
facilities available to them.
There is a reluctance to embrace new technologies at some historic houses and use
them to improve their access to information. In one sense their fear is valid, as access to
the internet is only a first step. Consequent steps require that the user be familiar with
good search and retrieval skills to get the most benefit from the information available. 39
E-mail and internet was reported to be heavily used, but it was not clear why from the
responses to the questionnaire. During the subsequent interviews it became clear that
considerable information is available on the internet for some properties, especially those
with parent organisations such as English Heritage. However it is also clear that its use
is limited and some managers do not use the internet for the benefit of the property. Even
those that have managed to adapt to technologies are told us that they “are still very
attached to paper – masses, we do electronic and paper things every day” (Interviewee
D, 2 December 2004) and that “we are now using a lot of paper because we are printing
out things that are coming in by e-mail” (Interviewee G, 24 March 2004).
There are properties that have access to the internet but view it quite differently,
one owner said: “I haven’t learnt to use it yet” (Interviewee B, 7 February 2004).
Another stated: “Personally virtually none. If I want different information from the Net
then I would ask somebody to trawl around” (Interviewee C, 6 January 2004). To
complete this picture, an owner from Scotland also said, more tellingly in their case: “I
haven’t got to grips with the old internet. I want to know how to do it but not
necessarily do it. I see people spending hours getting into knots on the computer and
I’m quite wary of it” (Interviewee A, 2 March 2004).

6.3 Adequacy of information

Among the unexpected results from the survey was that some respondents indicated
that the information they had was too inaccurate, too costly, inaccessible or simply too
old or out-of-date to be useful. It was also noted from the questionnaires that analytical
data from the parent bodies or membership organisations to which they are linked (e.g.
English Heritage, National Trust, the Historic Houses Association and their equivalent
bodies in Wales and Scotland) would be welcomed. This might include market research
information on the sector, and also comparisons and benchmarking with similar sized
properties on their performance. Clearly there are needs that are not being met which
need to be identified so that solutions can be found.

6.4 Improvement in use of information

These examples suggest that the managers of properties are aware of the limited
amount of information that is available to them, possibly arising from the limitations of
the environment in which they work. Evidence from the interviews confirms that
managers are indeed aware of the problems, but feel that they have neither the time nor
the inclination to address them. Consequently they use a subset of the information
available to them in order to function within their means. When the activity they
undertake requires particular expertise and if they are already aware of where to go for
that expertise then their problem is solved. If not then they go to known contacts to get
what they need; one stated: “Needs someone special, but again its word of mouth and
asking around” (Interviewee B, 7 February 2004). This was confirmed by other owners
JDOC who also said that to solve a problem they would be: “speaking to friends” (Interviewee
66,1 A, 2 March 2004) and “[keeping] a good address book of tradesmen and services”
(Interviewee A, 2 March 2004).
A pattern begins to emerge here. Owners and managers refer to their own
knowledge, which is tried and tested, to solve problems and then speak to those either
in a similar position who may have the information that they need. As a result they
40 may record this for themselves as indicated in the quote above where they keep a good
address book. Traditional formal sources are not therefore the first place that they
would go should they require particular expertise. In fact one owner states: “It’s not the
sort of thing you can go to the Yellow Pages for because it’s fairly specialised.”
(Interviewee B, 7 February 2004). What is happening here is that the person
responsible for the property is using their trusted source derived from their own tacit
knowledge, sometimes built up over years. There is room for improvement in their
management and access to appropriate information to meet their needs.

6.5 Collaboration
Already quoted above is the number of organisations that property managers deal with
in the course of their activities; there are considerable variations, but on average
managers talk to more than seven organisations in the source of their work. Anecdotal
evidence that has arisen from the interviews indicates that although property managers
do talk to a number of organisations and even individuals, such as accountants, they do
not work with them to use information effectively. Unlike he information sector where
libraries and other agencies so often share resources and collaborate to achieve joint
objectives, there is no evidence that that is the case in the historic sites sector. There is
active competition between properties for visitors, events and other commercial services
and products. The larger properties will source material from the best source they can
find; smaller properties do not have these resources and are therefore at a disadvantage.
Collaboration between the larger organisations, such as English Heritage and the
National Trust, also appears to be limited. However meetings, even at a local level,
between historic houses with different ownership, appear to encounter some difficulties.
One custodian said: “I did use to work with English Heritage [. . .], but they were terribly
bureaucratic” (Interviewee G, 24 March 2004). This was to share information on
procedures but in the end petered out due to the nature of the meetings. Similarly another
attempt at sharing information was described in the following comment:
I used to go to meetings regularly with other museum practitioners in London, but I found
that was a problem as I come from such a large organisation I was being asked for
information . . . and I didn’t get much out of it (Interviewee G, 24 March 2004).
Collaboration is difficult in the sector, due to the different cultures of the properties
involved and the need for all participants to benefit from the process. These comments
from property managers indicate that local collaboration between properties belonging
to different organisations does not occur very often and can be problematic.

7. Conclusion
The study provided information to address the hypotheses described at the beginning
of this article. The following results are presented as being the most important to
support the hypotheses applied during the research.
 Networking by owners and managers historic houses should be noted as extremely UK historic
important. These networks, based within the social context of their local environment, houses
provide the basis of their information gathering activities. These networks have grown
up over lifetimes and sometimes generations; it is this that forms the tacit knowledge
they have drawn on. This knowledge that may also lead them to distrust more official
information.
Owners and managers of historic houses see preservation and maintenance of the 41
historic fabric as unequivocally the most important aspect of their work, followed by
their care for their visitors. Although there are other important factors such as finance
and legislation their focus is typically on the fabric of the property and educating
visitors. Although historic houses do have a long tail of differing “other” activities,
dependent on whether they have specialised activities relating to museums or other
attractions, they also share common activities for which they require information
including conservation, visitor management, maintenance, education and events.
Of the properties surveyed, 67 per cent belonged to an organisation that provided
information. There were 65 different specialist providers of information and support
quoted by historic houses. This indicates that properties do have a wide range of
information needs to ensure their smooth running. They also have a number of
organisations that they can turn to for support. However the high number of possible
sources may actually inhibit the best use of the available information resources. The
houses themselves are rich in historical information, related to the family and sometimes
the world at large. This can be a largely untapped source as very few properties have
developed an awareness of what they have and methods for storage and retrieval.
One of the key sources of information is the tacit knowledge of the person
responsible for the house. Those properties that are privately owned exhibit this
characteristic to a greater extent than properties run by English Heritage or the
National Trust, and defer to their trusted sources as mentioned in the model earlier in
this paper. However even at other properties those responsible rely on their tacit
knowledge as they are faced with a potentially overwhelming amount of information to
support their work. Their solution is often to make a phone call rather than use more
formal sources. Despite an awareness of the importance of information, a lack of time
and experience means that most rely on their own tacit knowledge rather than spend
valuable time developing their use of information systems and services, thus enabling
them to focus on protecting the historic fabric for future generations. In turn, this has a
bearing on their access to resources, a situation which may change in the future if ICTs
are more widely adopted in the sector.
Although many historic houses are now connected to the internet, usage is limited
and could be better developed; there are widely differing ways in which it is used by
each and the range of enquiries made.. The development of web sites is an area of
growth and expansion for properties. The busier properties, which have more visitors,
make more systematic use of the internet to solve problems; however there is no
substantial evidence that that this is being undertaken by trained information
professionals or even whether the staff undertaking this work have received some form
of information literacy training.
Overall the picture of information use at historic houses is one of inadequacy. The
situation is exacerbated by the amount of information and resources that are available.
Both English Heritage and the National Trust provide a large amount of information
JDOC that is accessible both to their own managed properties, and to others. This is one of
66,1 the strengths of the sector, but also one of its weaknesses. The information may be
available to solve any conceivable problem, but because there is so much information,
many do not know where to start. This is the case even among those who are a part of
those organisations and yet still have difficulty in making sense of the vast amount of
information available.
42 The sector is made up of both amateurs and professionals which exacerbates the
situation. Many property owners are fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, just
trying to ensure that the property passes successfully from one generation to the next.
They spend most of their time just living their lives, bringing up their children,
housekeeping and doing their work.. In addition they have a historic house that has been
passed from generation to generation that has its own special needs. They will rely on
their own tacit knowledge developed during their formative years and handed down
from their parents. Other properties, particularly those run by English Heritage and the
National Trust, have professionals available to support the properties. The managers
who are actually running these properties are not always heritage professionals, but they
have autonomy and do know where to go for the help they require, although there is a
large amount of information that can be difficult for them to make sense of when faced
with a specific problem. However they do have access to conservators and other
professionals that are not readily available to those looking after their own historic
homes, who may have to spend considerable time searching for a specialist.
Historic houses do not use information as a means of solving their problems, but
view obtaining it as an obstacle to be overcome. Many rely on their trusted sources that
have been relied on by themselves and generations that have preceded them. This
means family solicitors, accountants or land agents, and other families that they have
ties with through their own social networks. They typically place ma high value on
these trusted sources which in turn makes them use these rather than more formal
sources that may be available to them. Properties that are privately owned and run
have their own knowledge base and rely on their own tacit knowledge. Some develop
simple storage systems, such as a Rolodex, to store that knowledge as it is clear that
once a provider for a solution, including things taken for granted such as plumbing, is
found then it is highly prized. Experiences of obtaining information have been
disappointing on a few occasions as noted by the research, which may also in turn lead
those running historic houses to rely on their own “trusted sources” even further.
Despite all this, most of the information needs of the sector are thought to be met, as
the research participants overwhelmingly thought that they had all the information
that they required to run the property, although they still thought that that they could
use it better than they are. This leads to the conclusion that they are not aware of how
information can be managed and used more effectively or even what other information
may be available to them.
Collaboration is evident in the sector through many of the collaborative projects that
can be seen involving partners, largely as a result of the influence of the Heritage
Lottery Fund. This has resulted in a considerable number of new resources being made
available in the sector that are of use to the wider community. However many
properties are not aware of this collaboration and focus purely on the day to day
running of their properties. Awareness of information resources is not high and usage
is consequently low as a result in establishments.
8. Recommendations UK historic
It is already clear that improving the management of information in and for heritage houses
establishments is important. Strategies to achieve this need to be further developed but
will certainly include:
.
the better use of resources;
.
better organisation of resources; and
43
.
the use of information technology to enhance use of information.

To this end it will be important to ensure that individuals are trained in information
literacy and IT to a greater degree to enable them to sift through the vast amount of
information available. As in other sectors, the pervasiveness nature of the web should
not be assumed to make it easy for anyone to extract relevant information. Vastly
improved results could be obtained with a small amount of support and guidance.
There is evidence to suggest that some are aware of the need for specialist information
handling skills, yet they clearly did not know where to begin to get this help or support.
Some of the larger properties, with a wider range of activities and significant incomes,
do use information professionals, but these are few and far between and not always
appropriately used. Historic houses are to an extent aware that professionals are
available to supply and train people in the use of information. Some properties did ask
for help and support, but did not know where and how to obtain it. Some also claim to
appreciate the need for information skills, but have not had the opportunity to acquire
them or know where to go to get them. Further efforts in collaboration in the sector,
possibly driven by a large national body, such as English Heritage, could support
activities at regional levels that could help change this picture.
There is also, however, a need to develop information policies and strategies that
would underpin a more far-reaching vision to enable the effective use of information
resources for heritage establishments. This might include co-operation between
establishments on a national or regional level beyond that which already exists. This
would help to make their businesses more effective and efficient. This is an important
economic sector in which information provision and use is inadequate. Information
which is available is not sought or badly utilised; there is little sense of the need for
information among many key players; and there seems to be only a limited
understanding of how information can be used to develop and promote the business.
Devising a complex theoretical solution to the problem is unnecessary and fraught
with difficulties. The methods used to gain information by properties are simple and
the model described in the methodology shows the route used by most historic houses,
that of “trusted source”, which is the basis of their information seeking behaviour. The
sector is diverse and work occurs across many different areas and any possible
solution cannot be a panacea for all. However the problem is a generic one for historic
houses, they all suffer from poor information usage, and it will require tailored
solutions.

References
Ashworth, G.J. and Larkham, P.J. (1994), Building a New Heritage. Tourism, Culture and Identity
in the New Europe, Routledge, London.
JDOC Boniface, P. (1994), “Theme park Britain. Who benefits and who loses?”, in Fladmark, J. (Ed.),
Cultural Tourism, Donhead, London, pp. 101-9.
66,1
CADW (2004), information provided by telephone, available at: www.cadw.gov.wales (accessed
17 June 2004).
Central Statistical Office (2003), Social Trends, HMSO, London.
Chatsworth Settlement Trustees (2004), The Official Web site of the Chatsworth Estate, available
44 at: www.chatsworth-house.co.uk (accessed 19 April 2004).
Ellis, D. (1989), “A behavioural approach to information retrieval design”, Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 171-212.
English Heritage (2004), English Heritage, available at: www.english-heritage.org.uk (accessed
10 June 2004).
ETC Research and Intelligence (2000), The Heritage Monitor 2000, English Tourism Council,
London.
Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. (2000), “Managing heritage tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 682-707.
Herbert, D.T. (1995), “Heritage, tourism and society”, in Herbert, D.T. (Ed.), Heritage Places,
Leisure and Tourism, Mansell, London, pp. 1-20.
Hewison, R. (1987), The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline, Methuen, London.
Historic House Venues (2004), “Historic House Venues”, available at: www.historichousevenues.
com/ (accessed 10 June 2004).
Historic Houses Association (2004a), HHA, available at: www.hha.org.uk (accessed 10 June 2004).
Historic Houses Association (2004b), “Newliston, Kirkliston, West Lothian”, available at: www.
historichousevenues.com/prop_display.php4?&ContentID¼2233 (accessed 21 April 2004).
Historic Scotland (2004), Historic Scotland, available at: www.historic-scotland.gov.uk (accessed
10 June 2004).
Krikelas, J. (1983), “Information-seeking behaviour: patterns and concepts”, Drexel Library
Quarterly, No. 19, pp. 5-20.
Laws, E. (2001), “Management of cultural and heritage destinations”, in Drummond, S. and
Yeoman, I. (Eds), Quality Issues in Heritage Visitor Management, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, pp. 78-96.
Leckie, G.J., Pettigrew, K.E. and Sylvain, C. (1996), “Modeling the information seeking of
professionals: a general model derived from research on engineers, health care
professionals, and lawyers”, Library Quarterly, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 161-93.
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002), Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and
Cultural Heritage Management, Haworth, New York, NY.
Mandler, P. (1996), “Nationalising the country house”, in Hunter, M. (Ed.), Preserving the Past:
The Rise of Heritage in Modern Britain, Alan Sutton, Stroud, pp. 99-114.
Stanworth, J. and Gray, C. (Eds) (1991), Bolton 20 Years on: The Small Firm in the 1990s, Paul
Chapman Publishing Ltd, London.
Wagner-Dobler, R. (2004), “Tacit knowledge, knowledge management, library science – no
bridge between”, in Hobohm, H-C. (Ed.), Knowledge Management: Libraries and Librarians
Taking up the Challenge, IFLA Publications 108, K.G. Saur, München, pp. 39-46.
Wilson, T.D. (1981), “On user studies and information needs”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Wilson, T.D. (1999), “Models in information behaviour research”, Journal of Documentation, UK historic
Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 249-70.
Yale, P. (1990), Tourism in the UK, ELM Publications, Huntingdon.
houses

Further reading
Jervis, S. (2002), “The English country house library: an architectural history”, Library History,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 175-90. 45
Meadows, J. (2001), Understanding Information, K.G. Saur, München.
Purcell, M. (2002), “The country house library reassess’d: or, did the ‘country house library’ ever
really exist?”, Library History, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 157-74.

Corresponding author
John Feather can be contacted at: j.p.feather@lboro.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints