Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 1

The Museum Librarian, Archivist, and Registrar: Converging Identities

Introduction

Museum librarians, archivists, and registrars are vital to the implementation of best

practices concerning gathering and retaining institutional memory. No formal literature exists on

the specific overlaps between librarian, archivist, and registration duties in a museum. These

gaps in the literature are most likely due to the fact that no institution is alike, therefore, duties

will differ from institution to institution. In this paper, I will examine the archival duties in an art

museum that are interpreted and conducted by registrars and librarians rather than trained

archivists. For this research, I will use the Birmingham Museum of Art (BMA) in Birmingham,

Alabama as a case study. The BMA currently employs multiple registrars and one librarian, but

there is no formal position of archivist at the institution. I will also clarify what types of

documentation lives in a museum archive versus the registration office and the library, evaluate

the literature around convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs), and discuss

educational discrepancies surrounding museum archival work.

Case Study: The Birmingham Museum of Art (BMA)

In Museum Registration Methods, a book that is colloquially referred to as the

“registration bible”, an entire chapter is dedicated to addressing procedures for maintaining and

building an institutional archive. In the opening remarks, Rice states that the similarities between

registrars and archivists may result in overlapping duties or a melding of positions in smaller

museums.1 I personally observed while working at the BMA that certain archival duties do

overlap between the registration office and the archive. While Rice draws on similarities in

1
Sarah Rice, “Basic Components of Institutional Archives,” in Kiser. Museum Registration Methods, 6th edition,
edited by John E. Simmons and Toni M. Kiser (Lanham, Maryland: American Alliance of Museums, 2020), 205.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 2

archiving and registration work, she makes great effort to distinguish between library holdings

and archival holdings, as often contents of a museum library and archive are held within the

same space. This is also a truism for the BMA in which the librarian appraises and manages the

archive. In the introduction to a chapter regarding art museum institutional archives in Art

Museum Libraries and Librarianship, Benedetti firmly states that the inclusion of the chapter in

this book should not be confused for a condolence by the authors for merging the jobs of

librarian and archivist together. She insinuates that the jobs of librarian and archivist are vastly

different and each title comes with an exorbitant amount of duties.2 Although this combination of

titles for librarian and archivist is not recommended, this type of position is not unusual for

museums, especially those of small to medium size.

I conducted an interview with the senior registrar, Suzanne Stephens, and the librarian,

Laura Woodard, to clarify the scope of collections that fall into the district of registration versus

the library. The goal of this investigation was to determine how decisions are made between the

offices concerning collection care, storage, appraisal, access, and management of collections as

well as to highlight gray areas within the current accessioning workflow that could lead to

confusion for staff. The information in this section was compiled from personal knowledge, the

interview, and scholarly literature.

History

The BMA has been growing exponentially in collections, staff, and programming,

particularly within the last decade. This has led to viewpoints and workflows surrounding a small

institution shifting to that of a medium-sized institution. This distinction is important to make as

employees of smaller institutions typically “wear many hats,” meaning job duties can often be

2
Joan M. Benedetti ed., Art Museum Libraries and Librarianship, (Lanham, Maryland, Toronto, and Plymouth, UK:
The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; Art Libraries Society of North America, 2007) 152.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 3

interdepartmental for one person. As an institution grows, job duties and titles are split to

accommodate fuller work loads. This distinction is also noteworthy considering how the position

of the librarian has shifted in the last decade at the BMA.

Prior to the hiring of a full-time librarian in the early 2000s, the library was staffed by

volunteers, mainly for cataloging and reshelving books. When a full-time librarian was hired, a

backlog of donor archives were appraised and housed by the librarian. Art museum archives are

typically seen as keeping the “institutional memory,” however, this was not the goal of the

librarian at the time. All efforts to retain institutional memory documentation was done and

housed by the registration department. The registration department primarily focused on

collecting board minutes and exhibition publications. The next librarian, working for

approximately two years in the mid-2010s, began the process of institutional memory gathering,

but was unable to fully manifest this goal. The position was vacant for three years due to budget

cuts before the current librarian filled the position. Working for a little over one year to date, the

current librarian has been processing the extravagant amount of backlog of library and archival

tasks accumulated through the years of vacancy, which includes some strategizing for the

establishment of an institutional memory retainment workflow.

Because the librarian at the BMA is in charge of typical librarian duties as well as

managing and maintaining archives, the concrete implementation of this transition of

institutional memory from the registration department to the archive is not a short term goal but

rather a long term goal. This is due to a laundry list of tasks that need more immediate attention.

Some steps have been taken by the librarian to capture institutional memory including collecting,

cataloging, and storing found BMA publications (including but not limited to exhibition catalogs,

gallery guides, newsletters, and news clippings), but because the act of retaining BMA
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 4

publications by staff members has been sporadic at best throughout the museum’s history,

recapturing some publications will be most likely impossible, making this task complicated and

problematic.

Issues

Oftentimes the distinction of what pieces of information live in the registration office

versus the library is difficult to determine because of the minute differences in what that

information contains. The registration office retains various types of files, but the information

specifically held in object files and collection files could be easily confused for archival material.

Object files keep legal ownership documentation, object specific research, conservation and

condition reports, and information regarding exhibitions and publications of the object.

Collection files contain broader collection information which most commonly regards donors,

scholarly surveys, and other information surrounding an entire subcollection (ex. Kress

collection, Hitt collection, Wedgwood collection, frame collection, cast-iron jewelry collection).

Archival files maintained by the librarian can also hold information regarding donors, but this

information is more general rather than object or collection specific. This can be ephemera,

general correspondence, and/or other nonspecific material. Also available through the library are

artist files. These files contain general information about artists represented in the museum but

do not reference specific museum objects.

The natural progression of housing information in relation to the art object is as follows:

most specific goes into object files, broadly specific goes into collection files, and nonspecific

goes into the archive. (It should be noted that this division does not occur on all donated papers,

as it is primarily concerned with larger quantities of papers.) This division, although efficient for

streamlined findability for registration and library staff who understand the filing system’s
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 5

nature, can be confusing for other users in and outside of the museum. For instance, information

about three major subcollections in the museum occupy space in both the registration office as

well as the archive: the Buten, Beeson, and Cargo collections. Researchers could make an

appointment with the registrar to view an object file for a work in one of these collections and be

unaware that there is more information available on a particular donor or artist in other files

elsewhere in the registration office or library. Also, those users unfamiliar with the museum’s

internal structure could be confused as to who they should contact for research assistance.3

Because information housed in object files is prioritized and separated from other

information, this leads to two areas of possible inefficiency. Firstly, donated papers must

essentially be processed twice, first by the registrar and then by the librarian. The registrar

initially goes through the donated papers to identify anything that is object specific, then the

librarian completes the appraisal process. Secondly, the original order of the donated papers is

disrupted. Information is separated from context, which could lead to misrepresentations of a

complete story.

According to the BMA senior registrar, there are no standards within the registration field

that guide museum staff to a particular filing system. Each museum has its own logical formation

of systems. Because of this non-standardization, variations among filing systems compared to the

BMA’s system is certain to occur. The use of institution specific systems is echoed in Museum

Registration Methods. Simmons and Kiser interject a paragraph from Simmons’ Museums: A

History in which he reiterates the senior registrar’s point: “[T]he arrangement of information in

3
It should be noted here that the senior registrar stated during the interview that the collection files would soon
incorporate finding aids, which is a direct influence of archival work. The collection files will soon be going through
an archival appraisal-like process by the assistant registrar where documents and files will be reorganized making
access easier and more logical.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 6

collection catalogs has never been standardized. Which files were kept and how they are

arranged has depended mostly on the ideas, philosophy, or whims of the curator or registrar...”4

Another inconsistency compared to professional organization recommendations occurs at

the BMA. The Society of American Archivists’ (SAA) museum archive guidelines recommend

that the archive act with an administrative focus, collecting fiscal reports, grant records, etc.5

Other than board minutes captured before digital interventions (from 1951 to approximately

2000) and a sporadic collection of annual reports kept by the registration department,

administrative archives are not managed or collected by registration or the library.

Administrative offices keep this information in department filing systems. Because the librarian

at the BMA is solely responsible for the library and archives, the reorganization of administrative

archives to this department does not find much ground for a transition. The reason this structure

is currently in place at the BMA is two fold. One, the archive is relatively small and no current

plan is in place to actively expand the archive to collect institutional memory. Two, budgetary

constraints currently restrict this role to one person. However, it is apparent based on the

interview with the BMA librarian that although the archive is small, it does take a great deal of

attention to manage. In order for a transition such as this to take place, a trained full time

archivist would be needed.

An inconsistency also presented in Art Museum Libraries and Librarianship compared to

BMA practices is that Bunting describes the “heart and sole” of the museum archive as the

exhibition records.6 She writes this essay as a solo librarian overseeing both archival and library

4
John E. Simmons and Toni M. Kiser, “Types of Records and FIles,” in Museum Registration Methods, 6th edition,
ed. by John E. Simmons and Toni M. Kiser (Lanham, Maryland: American Alliance of Museums, 2020), 163.
5
“Museum Archive Guidelines,” Society of American Archivists, endorsed August 2003,
https://www2.archivists.org/groups/museum-archives-section/museum-archives-guidelines#:~:text=A%20museum's
%20archives%20identifies%2C%20preserves,%2C%20photographic%2C%20and%20magnetic%20media.
6
Lynda Bunting, “Traces of Exhibitions at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles,” in Art Museum
Libraries and Librarianship, ed. by Joan M. Benedetti (Lanham, Maryland, Toronto, and Plymouth, UK: The
Scarecrow Press, Inc.; Art Libraries Society of North America, 2007), 157.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 7

duties. I point this out because of the vastly different system Bunting describes compared to the

exhibition files management and location at the BMA. Multiple rows of compact mobile filing

shelves are dedicated to housing the exhibition files, but they are housed in the registration

office. While Bunting describes this as librarian/archivist territory and infers that most

institutions implement the same logic, the registrars at the BMA consider the exhibition files

most appropriately placed in the registration office. This again reasserts the idea that

organizational systems of collection related files are left to the discretion of museum staff,

particularly registrars, where each museum has a specific system.

Analysis:

There is no formal paper written that clearly defines the overlaps between archive/library

practices and registration practices specifically; however, studies on the convergence of libraries,

archives, and museums (LAMs) as a whole is a well-researched topic. These studies look at the

similarities in functions of the institutions while acknowledging the distinct differences in

professional developments and missions. These studies are helpful when considering the

variations of disciplines that can exist within a museum and impact archival practices.

The adverse effect of considering these institutions’ similarities is that it in turn calls

attention to decades of professionalization as independent fields. Klimaszewski conducts a

literature review of LAMs convergence papers that is an informative overview of convergence

history. Critiquing Wendy Duff et al., who point to the common mission of all LAMs implying a

reason to converge, Klimaszewski argues that they disregard the immense differences between

the philosophies and practices of these institutions.7 This point is important to mention when
7
Cheryl Klimaszewski, “Lumping (and Splitting) LAMs: The Story of Grouping Libraries, Archives, and
Museums,” The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 39, no. 3-4 (2015): 355.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 8

considering how registration, library, and archival practices differ but are commonly seen in

many institutions as adjoining roles or containing similar goals for the institution, as at the BMA.

For example, these three types of institutions use similar terminology, but the meanings of the

terms can vary greatly. For instance, appraisal in archives is the act of determining which items

are valuable for the institution whereas in the museum context appraisal is used to define a

process of receiving a monetary fair market value that is assigned to an object, primarily for

insurance purposes and typically from an independent contractor. An interesting observation

made by Robinson, as another terminology example, is that museum staff in a converged

institution could not convey how much more time, depth, and research go into museum

cataloging practices when compared with the rapid nature of library cataloging practices.

Because of this issue, resources were allocated disproportionately to the museum and library in

regards to cataloging.8 Although the definition of cataloging is essentially the same for both

museums and libraries, the process of each discipline is vastly different.

Jones gives a brief overview of the transition in museum archival practice that shifted

from encompassing all archival material to separations of collection object specific material from

less specific material. Although the less specific material adds context to the object, registrars

focused on description and cataloging of the object, viewing archival information as secondary.

He cites the Belmont conference of 1979 as the origin of this idea of information organization.9

This split is still seen today in museums, as is the case for the BMA where archives are split from

collection and object files even when donations of documentation are from the same individual

or group. Jones spends the bulk of his article arguing for better collection description based

8
Helena Robinson, “Curating convergence: interpreting museum objects in integrated collecting institutions,”
Journal of Cultural Policy 24, no. 4 (2018): 527-528.
9
Michael Jones, “From catalogues to contextual networks: reconfiguring collection documentation in museums,”
Archives and Records 39, no. 1 (2018): 6-7.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 9

around relational connections to bring these collections into a more cohesive dialogue. While this

is a noble goal, with the limitations of budgetary constrictions and understaffing in the nonprofit

arena, particularly in the current economic crisis occurring due to the Covid-19 pandemic, this

goal is likely far distant in the future.

Jones critiques the idea of convergence of LAMs saying claims made by countless people

in convergence literature regarding user ease with a centralized, streamlined information finder

fails to actually bring user data to the argument. He also suggests that although a convergence

search might bring up particular connections otherwise unknown between libraries, archives, and

museums, the user still has to clarify if documents refer to an object without the use of

cross-references and relationships built in by staff.10

Education

Discussion of overlaps in the registration office and library/archive at the BMA led the

senior registrar to recall a new certificate program established at John Hopkins University which

addresses skills needed for new positions arising in registration departments and archives, that of

digital assets management and curation. The program focuses on cultural institutions and targets

collection managers, registrars, curators, museum archivists and museum librarians.11 Cocciolo

points out, however, how digital asset managers differ in practice and philosophy than archivists.

He highlights the tensions arising from these two positions working on similar projects within an

institution. The most relevant tension he points out related to this paper is the variation on how

files are created, retained, and used between the two positions. He discusses how archival files

10
Jones, “From catalogues to contextual networks,” 8.
11
“Certificate in Digital Curation: Program Overview,” John Hopkins University, accessed December 10, 2020,
https://advanced.jhu.edu/academics/certificates/digital-curation/.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 10

are meant to be accessed by the public while files kept in a digital asset management system can

only be accessed by staff, therefore, the digital files cannot replace the archive.12

Another program developing alongside digital assets management and curation is that of

cultural heritage information management. Choi discusses the implementation of an MLIS

program offering a concentration in this area. The competencies for the curriculum include

historical and contextual foundations of cultural heritage institutions and professions, resource

management and digital curation, information organization, information service provisions, and

digital technology.13 The goal of the program is to prepare students to work in a LAM converged

work place.14 Klimaszewski discusses how education around LAMs must shift in order to

accommodate the new digital landscape that begs for universal access, and each discipline

working within these institutions must adjust curriculum accordingly.15

Hider and Kennan focus attention on how a plethora of writings and strategies have come

into the literature about convergence, and implementation of those strategies is being seen in

professional practices, but despite these developments, higher education programs have largely

remained unchanged.16 Their survey also reveals that cross-publishing in museum studies and

library science scholarly journals is not a typical occurrence despite the push for LAM

convergence, although for this section, they only survey Australian journals. 17

Another interesting area pertaining to education is the clear demarcation for librarians

and archivists in terms of degrees needed for professional practice, but education requirements

12
Anthony Cocciolo, “When Archivists and Digital Asset Managers Collide: Tensions and Ways Forward,” The
American Archivist 79, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2016): 127.
13
Youngok Choi, “Developing a Specialization for LAM Convergence Using a Competency-Based Approach in an
LIS Graduate Curriculum,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 62, no. 2 (2020): 217.
14
Choi, “Developing a Specialization,” 226.
15
Klimaszewski, “Lumping (and Splitting) LAMs,” 354-355.
16
Philip Hider and Mary Anne Kennan, “How Far Apart Are L and M? The Institutional and Publishing Disconnects
between LIS and Museum Studies,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 61, no. 1 (2020):
49-50.
17
Hider and Kennan, “How Far Apart Are L and M?” 57-58.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 11

for museum registrars is a developing area. Many young professionals entering the museum field

currently obtain museum studies master’s degrees.18 The issue with this degree is its inability to

allow for a specific concentration. Courses pertaining to collection care and archival practices are

limited within the degree but are much needed for registration professional development. Many

seasoned registrars hold master’s degrees in art history or business administration, and museum

study degrees are not highly valued in the registration field.19 What is prioritized for registration

work is tangible, usable skills, particularly in regards to digital initiatives and archival practices.

Conclusions

Insights were revealed during the interview with the senior registrar and librarian at the

BMA pertaining to the variations of how museums implement organizational systems for

archival documentation. These variations are confirmed by literature reviewed on registration

and librarianship practices within a museum where overlapping duties are generally mentioned

but not specifically described. Many issues were discovered during my research, and these

unique variations attribute to why protocol cannot be resolved easily. Referring to convergence

LAM literature helps to illuminate the similarities and differences between librarian, archivist,

and registrar. Although convergence literature does not specifically address the overlaps between

these duties as it relates to archival material in an art museum context, the information it

provides supports the findings that similar processes in each discipline are completed in different

ways resulting in divergent outcomes. Based on the analysis pertaining to education for LAMs,

there is no one size fits all institutional training program. Discussion with the senior registrar and
18
The information stated here was gathered by this author during the hiring process for an entry level registrar
position at the BMA. The registrar in charge of finding qualified applicants stated that museum studies degrees are
“a dime a dozen.” With over 300 applicants and the majority of applicants holding museum studies master’s degrees,
the top three applicants held the following degrees/experience: 1) a photographer with no museum experience but an
abundance of digitization experience, 2) a librarian with an MLIS degree with some museum experience, and 3) a
non-degree applicant with 4+ years of museum registrar experience.
19
See previous note.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 12

librarian at the BMA along with the literature review concludes that museum registrars and

librarians must be prepared to take on archival duties. New educational programs dedicated to

the evolving role of archivists in the museum are beginning to be seen, although the current

programs are not enough to meet the demand from the professional field. Despite any issues or

discrepancies referenced in this paper, this author concludes that whether overlaps occur or not,

all these disciplinary applications are vital to the museum field’s implementation of archival

practices.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 13

Bibliography

Benedetti, Joan M. ed. Art Museum Libraries and Librarianship. Lanham, Maryland, Toronto,
and Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; Art Libraries Society of North America,
2007.

Bunting, Lynda. “Traces of Exhibitions at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles.” In
Art Museum Libraries and Librarianship, edited by Joan M. Benedetti, 156-159.
Lanham, Maryland, Toronto, and Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; Art
Libraries Society of North America, 2007.

“Certificate in Digital Curation: Program Overview.” John Hopkins University. Accessed

December 10, 2020. https://advanced.jhu.edu/academics/certificates/digital-curation/.

Choi, Youngok. “Developing a Specialization for LAM Convergence Using a

Competency-Based Approach in an LIS Graduate Curriculum.” Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science 62, no. 2 (2020): 212-227.

Cocciolo, Anthony. “When Archivists and Digital Asset Managers Collide: Tensions and Ways
Forward.” The American Archivist 79, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2016): 121-136.

Hider, Philip, and Mary Anne Kennan. “How Far Apart Are L and M? The Institutional and
Publishing Disconnects between LIS and Museum Studies.” Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science 61, no. 1 (2020): 48-63.

Jones, Michael. “From catalogues to contextual networks: reconfiguring collection

documentation in museums.” Archives and Records 39, no. 1 (2018): 4-20.

Klimaszewski, Cheryl. “Lumping (and Splitting) LAMs: The Story of Grouping Libraries,
Archives, and Museums.” The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 39,
no. 3-4 (2015): 350-367.

“Museum Archive Guidelines.” Society of American Archivists. Endorsed August 2003.

https://www2.archivists.org/groups/museum-archives-section/museum-archives-guideline
s#:~:text=A%20museum's%20archives%20identifies%2C%20preserves,%2C%20photog
raphic%2C%20and%20magnetic%20media.

Rice, Sarah. “Basic Components of Institutional Archives.” In Kiser. Museum Registration

Methods, 6th edition, edited by John E. Simmons and Toni M. Kiser, 205-214. Lanham,
Maryland: American Alliance of Museums, 2020.
Haley Rutledge LS 555: Intro to Archival Studies 14

Robinson, Helena. “Curating convergence: interpreting museum objects in integrated collecting

institutions.” Journal of Cultural Policy 24, no. 4 (2018): 520-538.

Simmons, John E. and Toni M. Kiser. “Types of Records and FIles.” In Museum Registration
Methods, 6th edition, edited by John E. Simmons and Toni M. Kiser, 162-167. Lanham,
Maryland: American Alliance of Museums, 2020.