UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of archivists' perceptions of reference service Kiemele, Sandra 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A3 K53.pdf [ 7.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097993.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097993-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097993-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097993-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097993-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097993-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097993-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097993-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097993.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF ARCHIVISTS' PERCEPTIONS OF REFERENCE SERVICE by SANDRA KIEMELE BA., University of Lethbridge, 1986. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHIVAL STUDIES in THE FACULTY OF ARTS Administered by the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies and the Department of History We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1989 © Sandra Kiemele, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. -Department—of S The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT To identify the relationships between particular characteristics of archivists and their perceptions of users and reference service, data was collected from two surveys distributed to two survey populations of archivists. One survey asked archivists' own perceptions of reference service, the other asked archivists' perceptions of their colleagues' perceptions of reference service. Five hypotheses were developed, drawing upon models of reference process from the literature of library science and upon ideas expressed by authors of archival reference service literature. These hypotheses are that archivists' perceptions of reference service relate to 1) the type of repository with which archivists are most familiar, 2) the functions (e.g. arrangement and description) with which archivists are most familiar, 3) the forms of records (such as government records) with which archivists are most familiar, 4) the amount of time archivists have spent in reference service, and 5) the education level of archivists. The results suggest that the type of repository with which the archivist is most familiar relates to his or her perceptions of reference service. While the other categories also exhibited significant relationships, the overall analysis of the results of the other categories was less interesting than the results obtained from the category regarding the type of repository. Determining the existence of such relationships was the preliminary investigation upon which to base further research. The results of this study suggest that likely areas for further examination of this topic are the methods of reference service used in particular repositories. — ii — T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abstract ii List of Figures iv Acknowledgements v Introduction 1 Chapter One Literature Survey 3 Chapter Two Statement of Hypotheses 12 Chapter Three Instrument Design 17 Chapter Four Study Design and Execution 23 Chapter Five Findings and Results of Questionnaire "A" 27 Chapter Six Findings and Results of Questionnaire "B" 49 Chapter Seven Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research 65 Endnotes 76 Bibliography 79 Appendix A Questionnaire "A" 87 Appendix B Questionnaire "B" 100 Appendix C Codebook 113 Appendix D Table of Kendall Correlation Coefficients 123 Biographical Form 199 — iii — FIGURES Figure 1 - A Model of the Reference Process 10 — iv — ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all the archivists across Canada who responded to both questionnaires. Their comments and suggestions were gratefully appreciated. I would also like to thank Prof. Mary Sue Stephenson of the School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies at the University of British Columbia for all her help and assistance in the development of the questionnaires and in the interpretation of the data. Thanks are also due to my family for all their support which they unfailing showed throughout the production of the survey and the thesis. — v — INTRODUCTION Reference service — the act of assisting the user in the retrieval of information or documents — is one of the archival profession's most frequendy performed tasks. Surprisingly, it is one of the most neglected areas in archival literature. Perhaps archivists spend so much time doing it they have little opportunity to reflect on their relations with the public. Or perhaps they consider reference service in much the same way as invisible labour in the office: "the interpersonal and analytical skills that go into performing daily activities."1 In the office context "invisible labour" does not receive recognition or financial acknowledgement and while reference archivists can usually be assured recognition for their "invisible labour", they have not sufficiently investigated this element of their occupation, thus perpetuating its "invisibility". But as competition for funding becomes increasingly tight and repositories are judged by the standard of service they provide, it is crucial that archivists become more aware of the manner in which they relate to their users. Rather than allowing reference service to continue in its rather stereotypical role as a necessary by-product of the custodianship of records, archivists must integrate reference service into the larger archival system, and accord it equal theoretical consideration with acquisition and appraisal, arrangement and description. Naturally some, if not most, archivists might resent the suggestion that they do not consider reference service an integral part of their archival duties.2 After all, if you do it on a regular basis it becomes embedded in your daily activities. But there is a considerable difference between simply doing and understanding. Archivists may pride themselves on the service they give their users, and righdy so, but do they understand why they perform reference service the way they do? Do they perform it the same as their colleagues? And what do colleagues think of other archivists' work? Is the raison d'etre of reference service the retrieval of documents? Or is what occurs during the reference process significant? Recognizing the inherent "human-ness" of this entire process, how does that effect archivists' performance? And why is all of this important? These questions were asked as the outline of this study on reference service began to take shape. Not only were these questions largely unanswered in the literature reviewed, the precise definition of reference service was troubling. Reference service has become an awkward rubric under which issues regarding "use", copyright, restrictions, photocopying, security, and outreach are discussed.3 Instead of dealing tangentially with all these topics, this study concentrates on the heart of reference service ~ the personal assistance given by the archivist to the user during the process of determining and subsequently retrieving the needed information or documents. Because of the lack of studies or articles directly related to the interpersonal aspect of reference service, it was decided to conduct one survey questionnaire asking archivists' opinions about users and reference service and another distributed to a second group asking their perceptions of their colleagues' reference activities. As such, this study is exploratory: the ultimate objectives are to identify factors which may relate to archivists' attitudes and beliefs regarding users and reference service. Using an exploratory survey is the most suitable approach to a study of this kind since, as Earl Babbie states: They are essential whenever a researcher is breaking new ground, and they can almost always yield new insights into a topic of research.4 The results of the survey will perhaps represent a step toward the development of a theoretical foundation of reference service. — 2 — C H A P T E R O N E L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W If a name was to be given to the particular part of reference service of concern here it would be "the interview", or, more generally, the reference process. It is this area which has been analyzed least in archival literature. Indeed, since the interview is predicated on the personal interaction between the archivist and the user and the action is guided primarily by the individual archivist's common sense, George Chalou's assumption that "because reference service is an action function and because reference work is never quite done, seldom is there an opportunity for a reference staff to reflect on the nature of reference service,"5 seems quite accurate. In the literature written specifically about archival reference service, most authors offer practical advice rather than reasons why an action is performed or any explanations of a methodol-ogy. In her manual on reference and access, Sue Holbert devotes less than a half page to the interview which she places under the heading "research room procedures". Apart from acknowledging both entrance and exit interviews as techniques to improve service and generate greater client satisfaction, Holbert says little about what actually transpires when archivist and user meet: "Aside from the screening function, an interview upon arrival can give the reference staff insight into the researcher's interests and needs."6 Behind such common sense lies a host of complexities. Some form of communication is essential between the user and the archivist in most archives unless the user is so familiar with the repository he needs no assistance in locating material. Holbert's manual is designed to provide the uninitiated with guidelines for running a reference room Consequently, the interaction between the archivist and user remains an unknown quantity of individual personalities and factors influencing the behaviour of both parties which ultimately determines the success or failure of a user's visit. Yet in spite of its inherent intangibility, the process of the interview needs to be carefully examined. What happens during the interview? What is said and why? How do the participants act and react to one another? How does this affect the outcome? And why does this matter at all? — 3 — In his article simply entitled "Reference", George Chalou emphasizes the constant interac-tion between the archivist and user in order to fully exploit potentially useful records. He feels archivists should have a positive attitude when dealing with clients since they are providing a service. During the interview, the archivist should be a receptive listener and ask questions to probe deeper into the client's frequently muddled articulation of his question. He advises archivists to share their knowledge with the user, but not go overboard and turn the researcher's hand.7 Firm guidance in the appropriate direction should be enough. If a user insists on scouring tangential files — let him! As is the case in most service activities, the client is always right. While Chalou addresses the idea of the interaction between the user and archivist, he avoids probing the matter by simply stating: "Reference service is a dynamic, constantly changing relationship between researcher and archivist."8 If reference service is constantly changing in terms of the individuals involved and their objectives, there is certainly a foundation upon which archivists carry out the interview. It is disappointing that the authors on the subject have not explored that foundation. Since reference service has not been examined in greater detail, a methodology of the reference process has not been developed. Mary Jo Pugh concurs: Archivists have not analyzed the elements which comprise a success-ful reference interview and have not studied the processes of question negotiation in the archival setting. The archivist seeks to understand the full ramifications of the inquiry and tries to understand what the user really wants to know, which often differs dramatically from the initial question. The archivist also helps to refine the question in view of the sources and to conceptualize a search strategy.9 Archivists do all these things. Yet in order to provide more effective service for their users, archivists must probe their reference activities in greater detail in order to broaden their understanding of their role in the reference process. Pugh's article seems to be based on something more than just a cry for — 4 — better finding aids. By stating that "the archival system is predicated on interaction between the user and the archivists"10 Pugh implicitly supports the proposition that a methodology of a reference process can be developed. At the very least, her assertion that we have not sufficiently uncovered the details of the reference process suggests the need of a study of reference service to spark interest and motivate others to greater examination of the interpersonal dimensions of archival reference service. Although similar to Holbert in the "how to" approach to reference service, Robert Tissing, like Chalou, implies that the success of a user's visit to the archives hinges on the orientation interview. He defines the interview as "the basic means of obtaining essential information about the specific needs of the researcher which enables the archives staff to familiarize the researchers with the rules of the institution."11 The outcome of the interview consequently influences Chalou's "point of convergence"12 where archivist, user, and records come together in an information triumvirate. More importantly, Tissing offers an outline of the structure of the reference service interview. His article concludes with thirteen points which comprise a "Basic Guide for the Orientation Interview", a helpful, but skeletal, approach to dealing with clients. Some of his advice is rather basic: ensuring the registration card is filled out correctly and explaining when the archives closes are responsibilities most archivists would automatically recognize as fundamental in dealing with users. Less obvious points like identifying the type of research and determining the user's experience in archives are crucial elements of the interview which archivists may not recognize as being as important as they are. Nevertheless, the outline Tissing offers is only the beginning. To put meat on the bones of the reference interview archivists must look to their colleagues in the library profession who have already analyzed this phase of reference service. Theories and practices of reference service have been cultivated by librarians since the last century when Samuel Swett Green read "The Desirableness of Establishing Personal Intercourse and Relations Between Librarians and Readers in Popular Libraries" at the American Library Association — 5 — conference in 1876. This paper previewed the emergence of reference service in libraries, and Samuel Rothstein says, "as reference gained in acceptance, it correspondingly increased in sophistication."13 Concepts of reference service went from the vague impulse to provide service to users to ideas about how extensive and time consuming this service should be. From these ideas came a lesser known but very important article which appeared in 1897. In it, Eleanor Woodruff emphasized the personal assistance given to the reader by identifying and appreciating the most common problem in reference service: question identification. She herself noted "the ingenuity with which visitors to the reference room succeed in hiding their desires behind their questions."14 The crucial point about this article is that Woodruff went beyond identifying the problem to providing a remedy: increased interaction between the librarian and the user. By stating explicitly that the relations of the librarian to the public are as important as knowledge of reference materials, Woodruff addressed the core issue of reference service. Unfortunately, her article did not generate much discussion and close examination of this issue would not occur again until 1930. In that year James Wyer published Reference Work in which he told the librarian how to proceed through the reference interview. Rothstein acknowledges that while Wyer had nothing particularly original to say about the process, his instruction was predicated on common sense and practical advice based on experience,15 a methodology no doubt familiar to the archival community. This instruction was reiterated by Margaret Hutchins in "The Reference Interview" chapter of her 1944 text.16 Going beyond the confines of the library, Hutchins made use of the literature on interviewing techniques. From there other librarians expanded these ideas by using methods and ideas from psychology and sociology to characterize the relations between librarians and users. Discussions such as the impact of non-verbal communication and the role of libraries in mass communication and society in general occurred in the 1960s and 1970s inspiring theorists to challenge the traditional concepts of reference service.17 More recently articles have appeared reporting studies which examine the reference interview by videotaping the entire process. Others discuss guidelines in the evaluation of the reference interview. Still others analyze reference service — 6 — according to philosophies of problem solving and particular types of memory processes.18 All contribute to a broader understanding of how and why reference service is performed. A century of introspection has given librarians a firm grounding in the processes involved in reference service. Yet ideas about reference service continue to evolve, stimulated by new research techniques, experimentation in procedure, and challenges to existing theory. However, Rothstein also indicates that as librarians have diligently examined their own behaviour their users have been largely neglected. User identities, needs, and responses have been unexplored. Rothstein's article, however, was written eleven years ago. Subsequently, the number of user studies discussed in library literature has increased. The observation that library users' identies have not been investigated also suggests that the study of library reference service has taken a different approach from that suggested by archivists. A number of articles have appeared on archival user studies and a call went out in the winter-spring issue of The American Archivist for an American national agenda for the study of users and research use.19 Undoubtedly archivists know much more about their individual users than librarians, not only because of the nature of archival material, but the traditional problems in tracking information in archives makes close acquaintance with a client and his project necessary. The security measures taken by some repositories alone require the completion of a detailed registration form which indicates the user's purposes and objectives in using the archives. Now archivists are searching for ways to use the information they acquire to understand possible uses for material which, they often claim, will ultimately determine appraisal criteria as well as improve relations with users. Understanding users and use is only part of understanding our role in public service. Elsie T. Freeman examined reference service from the user's perspective and devised four misassumptions archivists have about reference service. The misassumptions are that: as a profession we are oriented toward users; we know who these users are; we understand the nature of research, and we provide adequate help in doing it.20 Suggesting a complete re-focussing of the profession's orientation from records to users, Freeman envisions an American agenda for accomplishing this task. Closer than her colleagues in acknowledging that the only way archivists can better understand and assist their users is by turning first to themselves and evaluating their own weaknesses in reference service, Freeman contributes significantly to the ideas which formed this study. Her list of misassumptions generated several questions posed in the survey. While Freeman concludes with suggestions about user studies, this study remains more concerned with the archivists' side of the desk, in particular archivists' perceptions of users and their role in reference service, and the factors affecting these perceptions. To that end, library literature is also a useful guide in constructing a framework of the reference interview on which to base further examination. Since librarians have written extensively about their own activities in reference service, archivists can learn from the library experience and apply their findings to archival situations. Librarians have studied in particular detail the design of models of the reference process. In their 1972 article Gerald Jahoda and Paul E. Olson discuss the evolution of different models of reference service. They assert that: Models of a process are representations of what is believed to take place: the steps in their proper sequence, the interaction among these steps, and other important aspects of the process...a model can be used by its designer to learn something new about the process.21 Since for the moment we are only dealing with what is thought to take place, a model of the reference interview provides an outline which can be either confirmed or refuted by research. The library construct can be easily adapted to archives because the fundamental interaction between individuals — 8 — is essentially the same. Even the definition of the reference process is similar. Most archivists would agree with Jahoda and Olson's definition: The reference process begins with the receipt of the question and ends when an answer is provided (which may be that there is no answer or that the answer must be obtained elsewhere).22 With modifications in terminology and technique and using a composite of the models presented by Jahoda and Olsen, a model of the archival reference interview is presented in Figure 1. While the objectives of the reference process are fundamentally the same for both librarians and archivists, archivists must probe deeper into the user's questions in order to fully appreciate the user's research. The process of refining the initial question and translating it into archival terms are vital elements of the archival reference process and it is through the interaction between the archivist and the user that the success of these elements depend. In a sense a model specifically for archives has already been constructed. Although his primary concern is the study of users, Paul Conway offers a framework which also illustrates the stages of reference service. Balancing the methodology representing reference service with the service objectives of quality, integrity, and value, Conway sees this framework as applicable to archival systems as a whole. From this perspective appraisal, acquisition, processing, description, reference, and outreach activities each flow one after the other and set the bounds for each successive process.23 By outlining the information archivists should be gathering to better understand their users, Conway also provides a method for the reference process. The objective of quality (in terms of a standard of service), combined with the methodology of documenting the reference process result in the acknowledgement of the kinds of information archivists should be conscious of gathering when they assist their users. — 9 — A MODEL OF THE REFERENCE PROCESS T H E U S E R N E E D F O R I N F O R M A T I O N Q U E S T I O N -I N F O R M A T I O N / M A T E R I A L S R E Q U E S T T H E A R C H I V I S T Q U E S T I O N R E C E I P T Q U E S T I O N C L A R I F I C A T I O N Q U E S T I O N T R A N S L A T I O N I N T O " A R C H I V A L T E R M S S E A R C H S T R A T E G Y F O R M U L A T I O N ( D E F I N I T I O N O F M O S T E F F I C I E N T A N D E F F E C T I V E M E T H O D O F I N F O R M A T I O N / M A T E R I A L S R E T R I E V A L ) I U S E R I N S T R U C T I O N G U I D A N C E B Y A R C H I V I S T D E T E R M I N A T I O N O F R E L E V A N C E T O S T U D Y B Y U S E R U S E R S A T I S F A C T I O N U S E R D I S S A T I S F A C T I O N I R E A S S E S S M E N T O F I N F O R M A T I O N N E E D : R E F O R M U L A T I O N O F S E A R C H S T R A T E G Y P R O C E S S R E S U M E S U S E R S A T I S F A C T I O N — 10 — At more complex levels, Quality involves understanding research capabilities and expectations for service...research strategies and problem-solving methods; and the nature and degree of satisfaction with the research process.24 Such a model should inspire archivists at least to think about their own techniques of reference service. Do archivists consider the points oudined in the model when dealing with the public? Combining Conway's three elements of 1) quality, 2) integrity, and 3) value, with a more explicit framework of the reference process will ultimately provide archivists with an awareness and understanding of not only their users, but of their own behaviour in reference service. Identifying archivists' perceptions of their users and their role in reference service and suggesting reasons for these beliefs is a step toward a comprehensive understanding of both sides of the desk. — 11 — C H A P T E R T W O S T A T E M E N T O F H Y P O T H E S E S In recognizing the lack of studies in not only reference service, but other activities as well, archivists can begin broadening the methods used in studying institutions, records, users, and ourselves. Embracing social science methodology does not signal a denial of the historiographical antecedents which contributed to the growth and development of Canadian archives, but acknowl-edges that the archival profession has much to learn from and contribute to the social sciences. As historians turn to social scientific methods in their analysis of the past, archivists, in planning for the future, must do likewise. As Roy G. Francis observes, "the task of science is to go beyond the data at hand."25 Previous examinations of reference service have not focused on the interaction between user and archivist, nor have they generated the types of data to which Francis refers. Francis also observes that "the goal of science is theory."26 While theobjective of this study is not the formulation of theory, the evolution of a specific theory for reference work within the general archival system is certainly an anticipated result of extensive research into the nature of reference service. Our traditional links to historical study have apparendy not afforded us much exposure to the development of theories made possible through social science research techniques. In constructing frameworks and testing ideas through social science investigations, archivists may be able to establish theories to explain their work. This "theory building" talk may sound unnecessarily esoteric, with little relevance to the "real world" of archives. In fact, as archivists struggle with concrete issues like descriptive standards and certifica-tion, it becomes apparent that what is required is a clearly articulated, fundamental theory of archival work. Most acknowledged professions have them: law, medicine, and librarianship to name a few. Indeed, the very issue of professionalization is tied to the existence of theory supporting the practices and ethics of the professional body. In The Human Side of Enterprise, Douglas MacGregor states: — 12 — The professional draws upon the knowledge of science and of his colleagues, and upon knowledge gained by personal experience. The degree to which he relies on the first two of these rather than the third is one of the way s in which the professional may be distinguished from the layman.27 The professionalization of archivists will not come through practice and experience alone, but through the application of those practices and experiences to the development of a comprehensive theory of archival work. It is necessary to organize the assorted objectives of this study into a coherent set in order to arrive at appropriate hypotheses. Given that the primary exercise of this study is to identify possible relationships between factors associated with archivists' perceptions of users and the archivist's role in reference service, how does this relate to the establishment of a theory? Roy G. Francis provides the answer when he defines theory as a "verifiable generalization of a high order which in some sense explains observed phenomena."28 Stating hypotheses and assumptions and adopting a framework of reference service support the existence of a practice of reference service observed in both literature and practice. These ideas are also supported by the writing of librarians, our closest kin in the practice of reference service. Edward A. Suchman concurs: To a large extent hypotheses are tentative predictions of expected relationships between variables developed from existing knowledge and theory.29 From these sources arise the assumptions and hypotheses which form this study. Formulating these hypotheses and assumptions made it necessary to return yet again to our colleagues in librarianship. Librarians have been more articulate about reference service than archivists. But why? The basic process is fundamentally the same, so why have archivists been apparently reluctant to express themselves on this issue while examining and discussing others in great detail? It is proposed that there are five fundamental areas in which archives and archivists are distinctive which seem to be quantifiable and likely to provide insights into the profession's — 13 — behaviour. Exploration of these areas provides a feasible course of study. In each case, assumptions are made in an effort to establish hypotheses. 1. The nature of the archival repository is related to archivists' perceptions of users and reference service. Since the repository is determined by the sponsoring agency, it is assumed that there may be a specific clientele demanding a specific standard of service. Does the type of repository with which archivists are most familiar affect the way in which they perceive users and their own role in reference service? When archivists address issues of standardization, a frequent explanation for the lack thereof is that repositories vary so greatly that common practice is not easily attained. Is this sentiment true of a standard of reference service as well? This hypothesis can be stated as such: the type of repository in which an archivist works is significantly related to his or her perceptions of users and reference service, with p < = .05 (p = probability. This equation means that at the significance level of .05, the probability of the association happening purely by chance is only five times or less out of a hundred. A significant level of p<= .05 is standard in social science research.). 2. The functions archivists perform from acquisition and appraisal to preservation and reference are unique and have traditionally been segmented into functional areas. The "division of labour" approach to archival systems is well illustrated in the literature which tends to focus on specific areas of the business rather than the totality of activities. Yet at the same time, archivists rarely perform one function but frequently engage in a number of activities in their career, not to mention their week. Do archivists who have worked primarily as arrangers and describers perceive users and reference service differently from administrators? Or is work experience related to perceptions at all? — 14 — This hypothesis can be stated as such: the types of archival functions archivists perform is significantly related to their perceptions of users and reference service, with p <= .05. 3. Does the nature of the document or the scope of materials in a repository, whether it be paper, canvas or celluloid, government records or personal papers, influence the manner in which archivists assist users in their search for it? Do archivists experienced with personal papers react to users differently from those concerned primarily with government records? This hypothesis can be stated as such: the types of records with which archivists' work is significantly related to their perceptions of users and reference service, with p <= .05. 4. An obvious consideration in examining reference service is the perceptions of archivists who have spent considerable time in reference service and consequendy have more experience. Is there a difference between archivists based on their amount of reference experience, or do archivists share common perceptions regardless of experience? This hypothesis can be stated as such: the amount of time archivists spend in reference service is significantly related to their perceptions of users and reference service, with p <= .05. 5. Finally, archivists have at least one quantifiable personal characteristic - their educa-tion. Given the absence of an educational standard for archivists, does the level of education or type of education archivists have attained relate to the beliefs they hold about users and reference service? This hypothesis can be stated as such: the types of education of archivists is signifi-cantly related to their perceptions of users and reference service, with p <= .05. — 15 — These five factors and the questions posed by each of them form the basic hypotheses of this study. The purpose here is to simply break ground in determining common or uncommon beliefs archivists hold about reference service while attempting to provide reasons for these beliefs. — 16 — C H A P T E R T H R E E I N S T R U M E N T DESIGN Edward A. Suchman writes: The design and execution of a research study is basically a problem in the practical application of the fundamental rules of scientific method to some specific research problem.30 Having addressed the "specific research problem" in terms of the foregoing assumptions and hypotheses, the way in which those hypotheses were translated into the research instrument must now be examined. The five hypotheses outlined in the previous chapter are the result of considerable refinement from the original ideas incorporated into the design of the survey questionnaire. Before discussing the final research tool it is useful to first trace the development of those ideas which ultimately resulted in the distributed questionnaire. To avoid confusion it is recommended that the reader refer to appendices A and B which contain questionnaires "A" and "B". Initially the study was characterized by three broad headings: 1. Archivists' characteristics. 2. Archivists' perceptions of users' characteristics. 3. Archivists' perceptions of their role in reference service. These were the guidelines used to determine the independent and dependent variables. The independent variables in this study are the archivist's characteristics: gender, age, education, and work experience. The initial purpose of this, the first section of the questionnaire (Part I: The Archivist), was to simply construct a profile of the archivist-respondent. By understanding the variety of backgrounds and experiences archivists have, it may be possible to try and relate these — 17 — experiences to their perceptions of reference service. The ranking questions were used in order to allow as many responses as possible rather than limit the respondent to a yes or no answer. The archivist's perceptions of the user constitutes the dependent variables and the questions reflecting these variables are found in Part II: The User. The ideas proposed in this section reflect an attempt to gauge the respondent's perceptions of their users' characteristics based upon the way they present themselves in the archives. The four factors which outline this section are: 1. The categorization of users' characteristics into a user group whether it be academic, general, professional, or institutional, as well as the manner in which the archivist identifies the client. 2. The identification of the information and material needs of the user which follows the archivist's understanding of the user's question. 3. The identification of particular research processes used by clients. 4. The suitability of a repository's information retrieval system (whatever its extent or precision) for users. Although the objective of this questionnaire is not to validate the use of archives by one group over another, questions about the categorization of users contribute to a comprehensive understand-ing of the way in which archivists relate to users. Archivists are being asked their perceptions of their users, based on the contention that the perception of the archivist ultimately influences his behaviour toward the user. Asking archivists their perceptions of their users is accompanied by questions about the best methods for determining their users' identities and Elsie Freeman provides two alternatives.31 While contending that archivists need to gather information about users systematically (the statistical identification of users, user requests, and frequency of use over time), Freeman feels that most archivists continue to identify users impressionistically (the identification of users by experience — 18 — gained through conversation and consultation with users over time). If we assume that archivists observe their users impressionistically and that most of them feel that scholarly researchers are their most frequent users, do scholars' appearances or behaviours influence the way they are regarded by archivists? Placed in the context of the initial exchange between the user and the archivist, these beliefs and what conditions them in the archivist's mind ultimately influences the success of a user's visit. Identifying what the user wants or needs from the archives as well as the amount of assistance necessary was the subject of the next series of questions. Archivists were asked to rank the kinds of requests users most frequently present to archivists which was followed by a series of questions about the most frequent content of those questions. Presuming that most users want information from records, and that their questions are primarily subject based might reflect the archivist's perception of the practice of reference service. Ensuing questions about the perceived level of assistance and the archivist's perception of the user's ability might reflect the archivist's degree of faith in the user or perhaps a lack of faith in the archival system at his repository. Addressing the question of users' research processes harkens back to Elsie Freeman whose third misassumption is based on archivists' understanding of how research is done.33 The various methods a user may employ in archival research methods are represented in the questions of Part UI of the questionnaires. These questions ask about the archivists' perceptions of how users do research. Responses to these questions may provide ideas about the relationship between the archivist and the user throughout the research process, as well as the value of finding aids or the "user friendliness" of the information retrieval system as a whole. The second series of questions involving the dependent variables is Part UJ: Reference Service. Based on the idea that archivists may perform reference service according to a particular technique or practice similar to their colleagues in librarianship, (but which, unlike librarians, they — 19 — have neglected to articulate), this section represents the reference process or interview, based on a model of reference service in archives. This framework, on page 10 and described in the literature survey, is based on models from library science. 1. The question formulation by the client and its receipt by the archivist forms the initial encounter between the user and the archivist. The user poses his request and the archivist, after listening receptively, responds according to her judgement. 2. The question is then clarified by the archivist. There is an adage which says "the user is always wrong"34 so in most cases the appropriate response of the archivist may be to repeat the question, giving the user an opportunity to modify his request or, if it seems clear, to reinforce it. At this time the archivist should also come to appreciate the user's project and understand the context in which the question was posed. 3. Once the request has been suitably refined, the archivist, consciously or unconsciously, redefines it in archival terms appropriate to the information retrieval system of the repository. In this way the archivist turns information requests into the language of the archives — record group, manuscript group, accession or fonds — mindful of the prove-nantial relationship between the materials in the repository. 4. During the search strategy formulation the archivist, familiar with the information retrieval system, determines the most appropriate method of locating the user's request The archivist reveals this method to the user which may involve instructing the client in using the system to locate the information himself or the archivist searching through authority files, indexes, and other finding aids for the client. This process, based on the archivist's judgment about the user's abilities, the question itself, and the suitability of the information retrieval system for users, can be as simple as recalling a particular box — 20 — or inventory or as extensive as consulting a number of finding aids to determine the most appropriate records. 5. The identification of suitable records for review may be accomplished by the user or the archivist, but most likely after consultation between the two. Once the appropriate records have been determined, they are physically retrieved by the archivist or an assistant 6. The final stage in this process occurs when the user recognizes the suitability of the records to his project. If the information they contain is pertinent, the user begins his examination of them. If it is not, the entire process starts over with the archivist attempting to further refine the initial question. Naturally, this may not always be the case and under certain circumstances the archivist may have to admit that the repository does not hold the records the user desires. Once the user has settled into his own research, the process is completed. From time to time the archivist will probably enquire about the progress of the project and new questions might arise which begin the process again, but the core of reference service has been accomplished in these initial tasks. All of the questions in Part III reflect some stage of the reference process as outlined above. Predicated on the idea that the interview is based on two major components, the one intellectual and the other interpersonal,35 these questions represent the ultimate distillation of those two components into a written description of the reference process. Identifying the elements which archivists perceive to be most important may reveal a sense of the attitudes archivists have toward the whole process and might relate to the model of the reference process as illustrated previously. — 2 1 — The questions about whether reference service is intimidating, stressful, enjoyable and so on should, it is hoped, suggest an archivist's perception about the nature of reference service in a particular repository. If archivists feel that reference service is frustrating, perhaps there is a link to their feelings about ineffective finding aids. Questions 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10 deal with the methods archivists use in conducting "the interview". Those questions ask about the way the archivist responds to and clarifies questions and the way in which the best search strategy is devised, which is referred to as the diagnosis. Question 3.10 was asked to determine which characteristics archivists feel are most desirable when retrieving information or records. The remaining questions about "user satisfaction" were once again aimed toward identifying how the archivist would carry out the process. It is hypothesized that most archivists, in one way or another, perform reference service according to the model outlined previously. Testing archivists' personal characteristics against the ideas of the user and reference service will potentially result in the identification of common beliefs and practices which will contribute to the foundation of a theory of reference service. Asking the questions as such compartmentalizes the reference process but also reinforces the idea that a pattern can and does exist. Evaluating the questions as a whole will perhaps offer a broader picture of archivists' perceptions of the entire reference process. Before outlining the results, it is necessary first to discuss the methods used in this study and the statistical tests used in the data analysis. — 22 — C H A P T E R F O U R S T U D Y DESIGN A N D E X E C U T I O N On Monday April 17, 1988, one hundred and fifty Canadian archivists were mailed a questionnaire. Seventy five were questioned about their own ideas of reference service (question-naire "A") while the remainder were asked their perceptions of their colleagues' work in the field (questionnaire "B"). Despite anticipated concerns about the length and reactions to this type of ques-tionnaire in general, the return rate for the "A" questionnaire was 77% (or 58 usable questionnaires out of 75) and 66% (or 50 usable questionnaires out of 75) for the "B" questionnaire. The archivists chosen to participate in the study were sampled from the professional membership category of the Association of Canadian Archivists Membership Directory, 1986 -1987. The Association defines professional members as: "anyone employed in the discipline and practice of archival science."36 The population of this study was thus limited to people who consider themselves to be professional archivists, rather than simply interested parties or volunteers who may be found in the general membership category. Therefore, the study population was approximately three hundred archivists from all parts of Canada and the United States who designated themselves "professional" under the guidelines of the Association of Canadian Archivists membership. A survey sample was taken of one hundred and fifty archivists using a random number table.37 Again using a random number table, this group of one hundred and fifty was then separated into the "A" and "B" categories. Once the survey sample was chosen each potential respondent was assigned an alpha-numeric code for the purposes of follow up and for use in the eventual data analysis. Unfortunately, there is no perfect research instrument and a potential limitation of this study is the length of the survey instrument. Despite concerns that the length of the questionnaire would discourage archivists from responding, the response rates which eventually resulted were large enough to test and establish legitimate statistical significance. It is possible that a shorter instrument — 23 — might have been more acceptable to an even greater number of archivists, thus yielding a higher response rate. In the introduction to the questionnaire, the deadline for return was set at one month after the initial mail out to provide enough time for postal delays and other unforeseeable occurrences. After that date a follow up letter was sent to those who had not yet returned their questionnaires. A second copy of the questionnaire was not sent. After this mail out only six (five "A" and one "B") completed questionnaires returned. The additional letter prompted some archivists to write explaining why they did not respond to the questionnaire of this kind. After waiting another month to ensure that the maximum number were in, the final toll was taken and the data was prepared for analysis. Immediately after the questionnaire was mailed out preparations for the data analysis using the statistical program SPSS:X began.38 This first involved translating the questions in the survey into a codebook which illustrated how the data was to be described (Appendix C). The codes devised were alpha-numeric combinations based on the questionnaire number, the question number in the survey and an abbreviation of the question itself. These codes are called variable names, the name used in SPSS :X. This variable name, representing the question, is made up of values, or the possible answers to that question. For example, in the question regarding gender, the variable name is ASEX11 and it has four possible values: 1, 2,77, and 88. One represents male, two represents female, seventy-seven represents the code for the "missing" category (in which no response is given), and eighty-eight represents the "unusable" category (in which the response is not usable). In addition to the "missing" and "unusable" categories there is a "not applicable" category (99) which includes responses the archivist felt did not pertain to his experience. The names given to the values are called value names. Once the questionnaires were returned, the process of coding each took place. Since the questionnaire was designed to provide the easiest and clearest method of answering for the respondent, it also resulted in a relatively simple coding process. Interpretations of the responses — 24 — were based on a previously established set of operational definitions for each possible response. In the case of the education question, a decision was made to re-categorize the responses by "collapsing" the data into fewer categories. Education was re-categorized into an hierarchy beginning with graduate studies and extending to participation in archival courses. In doing so, the responses were ordinally (ranked) related to each other, thus following the pattern of responses in the other questions. Once all the coding decisions had been made and the codes for each questionnaire input into the computer, a statistical procedure from the package for the social sciences (SPSS:X) was run. There are two basic types of statistical analyses, descriptive and inferential. Descriptive statistics "provide a general portrait of what is being studied" while inferential statistics "are used to assess differences between groups and the association between two or more variables".39 From these definitions it is obvious that the statistics of greatest utility in this study are inferential. An appropriate inferential statistical test for analyzing this type of data is the Kendall correlation coefficient test which uses the Kendall tau measure of association at the significance level of p = .05, a standard significance level used in social scientific research. The "p" stands for probability. The Kendall correlation coefficient test is a non-parametric test for ordinal (ranking) data which does not make assumptions about the distribution of the sample.40 Because of the possibility of ties occurring in the rank ordering of the questions in this survey, the Kendall test, rather than the Spearman correlation coefficient test, is the most suitable. The main objectives in the statistical analysis in this case were to test the significance and the strength of association (relationship) between two variables, the independent and the dependent. For each pair of variables (or each hypothesis) the SPSS:X program calculates a Kendall tau correlation coefficient. The possible range of values for this coefficient is +1.0 to -1.0 (0 = no relationships at all). It measures the strength of the association (relationship) between the two variables. — 25 — The statistical significance of the relationship is measured by determining the probability that the calculated association (relationship) between the two variables is the result of chance, as opposed to reflecting a valid (true) measure. Specifically, the test for significance is done in order to determine "the probability that a difference at least as large as the one observed would have arisen if the means are really equal."41 (This study uses a significance level of p = .05.) Using previously established tables,42 it is possible to determine if each hypothesis (relationship between a pair of independent and dependent variables) had achieved at least the stated minimum significance level, and thus could be accepted or rejected. Beyond this, because the sample was randomly selected, it is possible to generalize the results to the entire study population. Tables of the results of the Kendall correlation coefficient tests between variables for both questionnaires are included in Appendix D. _ 26 — C H A P T E R F I V E FINDINGS A N D R E S U L T S O F Q U E S T I O N N A I R E " A " Testing the data using the Kendall coefficient test explained in the previous chapter resulted in the calculation of the statistical coefficients upon which the results are based. The results of the tests from the "A" questionnaires will be discussed in this chapter. The following chapter with be an examination of the results of the "B" questionnaires. The results of the hypotheses will be discussed, first in the order in which the hypotheses and assumptions were presented in Chapter Two and, within the discussion of each hypothesis, under the categories "The User" and "Reference Service" which refer to Parts II and III of the questionnaires. Once the statistical results of the study have been examined, conclusions and recommendations will be formulated and discussed. Rather than include the numerical results of the tests in the text, the reader is referred to the variable pairs tested. The tables which detail the coefficient, the number of respon-dents, and the significance level are found in Appendix D. 1. The nature of the archival repository with which the archivist is most familiar is related to archivists' perceptions of reference service. That is to say, it is hypothesized that there is a statistically significant relationship between the type of archival repository with which the archivist is most familiar and perceptions of reference service. This hypothesis posed questions about whether the experience of a specific clientele affects archivists' performances of reference service and if repositories' mandates and holdings related to archivists' attitudes towards reference service. Although all aspects of these questions cannot be fully answered, the results obtained do offer some insight into the relationship between the type of institution an archivist is most familiar with and his perceptions of reference service. — 27 — Five of the original twelve categories of repositories were selected for analysis: aca-demic, business, federal government, historical association, and religious. The five categories chosen represent common types of archival repositories. In referring to the archivists who indicated that they had worked most frequendy in these repositories, the terms academic archivists, federal government archivists and so on have been used. In the discussions of the results that follow, the reader is provided with references to the specific variables tested, for example (ARP15A:AUS21G). This means that the independent variable is ARP15A (using the SPSS:X variable name). By looking in Ap-pendix D it can be determined from which questionnaire item this variable was derived. In this example it is item 1.5. The dependent variable is AUS21G, which Appendix D reveals to be derived from item 2.1 on the questionnaire. Therefore (ARP15 A: AUS21G) shows the test of the hypothesized relationship between this specific set of independent and dependent variables. In order to look at the quantitative results of the empirical test of this hypothesis, the reader should consult the displays of Kendall tau correlation coefficients, also in Appendix D. In this example, by consulting page 143 in Appendix D it can be seen that on the basis of 19 responses the two variables displayed a Kendall tau coefficient of -.3631 with a significance level of p = .035. This same procedure can be repeated for all the independent and dependent variables tested. Please note that the tables in Appendix D give the results for all the hypotheses tested for this study, but that those that could be accepted based on significance level and Kendall tau coefficient are in bold type. A. The User Testing the relationship between the dependent variable of the "category of user" presented in Part U and the independent variable of the type of repository an archivist — 28 — is most familiar with provides both expected and unexpected results. Archivists with experience in academic repositories perceived their users to be general and institutional users. (ARP15A: AUS21G; ARP15A: AUS21I). All results are at or below the .05 required to establish statistical significance. Archivists with experience in business repositories exhibited a significant relationship to the idea that most of their users are from the sponsoring institution (ARP15B: AUS21I) as did archivists experienced in religious archives (ARP15RE: AUS21I). This suggests first that the more specific the type of repository, the more specific the clientele. That academic, business, and religious archivists exhibit a statistically significant relationship with institutional users suggests a strong link between archival repositories and the sponsoring agency. Archivists will certainly recognize the archival repository's responsibility to its' sponsoring agency. That archivists from federal government and historical society repositories do not seem to identify with particular user groups is likely attributable to the broader scope and perhaps a more varied clientele of those institutions. An interesting point about these results is that the academic, not the federal government archivists identify more strongly with general users. It is also interesting that in the results obtained from this study, the academic archivists did not significantly relate to academic users. Perhaps this reflects an attempt on all sides to illustrate the truly varied nature of archives' users and not to identify too strongly with any particular group beyond those visible, supporting agencies. What this means for the archival system as a whole will be discussed in the conclusions. When asked question 2.7 about the sorts of questions users asked of archivists, academic archivists related to the statement: "(most users) want to know about the scope and nature of the repository, its policies and procedures, and regulations — 29 — governing the use of the material." (ARP 15A: AUW27R) This is to say that academic archivists showed a statistically significant relationship to the statement. This suggests that archivists in an academic setting see themselves as serving a clientele perhaps concerned with "how" the repository works as well as the gratification provided when a box of records is provided in the research room. Supporting this idea is the response given by federal government archivists. The results of the test between federal government archivists and the variable which suggests that most users want a specific item or document indicate that these archivists do not necessarily feel that users are only interested in a particular item. (ARP15GF: AUW27IT) These results are interesting in that they suggest archivists feel users are not only interested in receiving the appropriate material, but in other facets of the archives as well. When asked, in question 2.8, what users questions relate to, business archivists felt that their users' questions were based on particular subjects. (ARP15B: AUQ28S) Al-though these results are interesting in the sense that business archivists also felt their users wanted specific items, it is also understandable. Perhaps the users in these circum-stances are also the creators. Their familiarity with the information they require allows them to express themselves in subject terms which the archivist then translates into archival terms. How the user goes about finding the information he desires was the subject of questions 2.9 through 2.19. Academic and federal government archivists all related to the statement in 2.11 that most users "depend upon the archivist to suggest approaches to study of the records/archives and advise or consult them on their research." (ARP15A: AUP211AC) Remember, this is not what archivists see themselves doing, it is what they perceive their users asking of them. To speculate, while these results are perhaps understandable in the context of an academic repository where archivists might — 30 — (stereotypically) be more willing to "advise and consult" with researchers (especially scholarly ones), it must be considered that those same academic archivists, when tested with the dependent variable of academic researcher, expressed no statistically significant relationship with that particular user group. In other words, the academic archivists who responded to the questionnaire did not feel that a significant number of their users were academic users. Perhaps an explanation for this is that academic archivists feel their general, institutional, and student clientele are more reliant on the archivist through all facets of their research in the archives than perhaps their scholarly users, who do not actually form a significant part of their clientele. The responses of business and federal government archivists to question 2.11 suggests that a key element of reference service for users is the advice and consultation an archivist gives a user during his visit to the archives. This kind of role certainly elevates the archivist to a position far beyond that of a retrieval clerk and acknowledging that this level of service is possible paves the way for a restructuring or broadening of the activities involved in reference service. When all these tests were evaluated as a unit, the image that began to emerge was one in which the staff of specific repositories recognize different categories of users. There did appear a tendency, however, for archivists experienced in more specific repositories such as religious or business to relate to more specific users, such as institutional. While this may be one speculation, the suggestion of a broad user base in academic repositories disputes the idea that archivists may provide special treatment for specific user groups. If differences among repositories do not seem to be reason enough for a diversity of service, a standard practice of reference service, regardless of repository, may be possible. — 3 1 — B. Reference Service Question 3.1 provided respondents with a list of the most important elements of reference service. None of the results indicated relationships between archivists' experience in particular repositories and these variable. It is certainly surprising that none of the questions engendered significant relationships. Undoubtedly, the most interesting point about these results is not the types of repositories which expressed a strong relationship to the dependent variables, but the types of repositories which did not. The tests of significance for the archivists with experience in different repositories measured well above .05. A suggestion for these results may be that the respondent felt all of the factors listed were to be equally important. Question 3.5 asked the types of archivists if they feltreference service was intimidating, rewarding, frustrating, fun, or stressful and generated only one statistically significant relationship ~ that between the stressful category and the federal government archi-vists. (ARP15GF: AA355) This might be expected, perhaps, given the sheer volume of researchers with which a repository the size of the National Archives must cope. Yet it is a little surprising to find no significant measures for the other types of repositories. Despite their admission that helping the user can be stressful, the federal government archivists related to question 3.9: "in order to fully understand what the user wants, I must take the time to put the question in its proper context (i.e., understand the nature of the study, why the user thinks s/he will find the information in an archival repository, etc.)" (ARP15GF: AQC39). This question was asked to see if there is a relationship between the archivist and this fundamental of the reference interview. The results it produced would suggest that federal government archivists certainly feel that they ensure they have all information from a client before pursuing the question. — 32 — Regarding the outcome of the user' s visit to the archives, federal government archivists, despite their concern with context, related significantly to question 3.13: "the user is satisfied only when the information/materials s/he requested have been retrieved"(ARP15GF: AUS313). Again, the number of researchers in a federal reposi-tory may not leave much time for tangential pleasantries and the archivist caught in these circumstances may be under certain pressures to deliver the goods, so to speak. Their colleagues in academic repositories related negatively to question 3.16: "a large part of user satisfaction comes from knowing how and why an information retrieval system works." This means that the relationship between these two variables is negative. Therefore, academic archivists generally disagreed that users are satisfied if they know how an information retrieval systems works. Perhaps archivists are gener-ally more concerned with answering specific questions than in teaching users about the archives. What this may ultimately suggest is that despite our broad user base, and depending on the type of repository with which archivists are most familiar, archivists believe users may respond differently to the reference process. If the users federal government archivists encounter are only satisfied with the retrieval of specific materials, those archivists must look to the sort of service they personally provide and the repository' s system facilitates. Is there a "fast food" mentality at work, where placing your order results in a box appearing on your table? Given that many of the National Archives' users are genealogists, perhaps the material and information they need does not require the intensive interviewing that perhaps more detailed reference questions might. The size of the National Archives, too, may not be particularly conducive to personal contact between the archivist and the user. 2. The second hypothesis posed questions about whether the various archival functions affected the archivist's perceptions of users andreference service. Does the sort of work — 33 — one has done affect the way one defines one's role in reference service? To get a broad representation of archival activities, each function expressed in question 1.6 -acquisition and appraisal, administration, arrangement and description, conservation, reference service, and records management — was considered in the analysis. A. The User The responses to question 2.7 about users questions are interesting. Rather than archivists involved in reference service displaying a significant relationship to any one of the possible choices, archivists involved in conservation, records management, and administration displayed significant relationships to a number of them. Archivists involved with conservation functions related to the following ideas posed in question 2.7: "(most users) (1) want to leam how the information retrieval system works (AFN16C: AUW27IN); (2) want information about certain records/archives (AFN16C: AUW27A); and (3) want information which comes from certain records/archives" (AFN16C: AUW27F). Why archivists involved in conservation in particular? The answer to this lies in speculation. Each category in question 2.7 was found to be related to at least one of the categories of archivists. Archivists involved in records management related to the responses "(most users) want to know about the scope and nature of the repository, its policies and procedures, and regulations governing the use of the material" (AFN16RM: AUW27R). Those concerned with administration related to "(most users) want a specific item/ document" (AFN16AM: AUW27IT). Since all the choices provided in 2.7 generated statistically significant relationships with conservation, records management, and administration, it appears that most archivists believe users want all these kinds of information. To what degree they would prefer having a specific item over knowing — 34 — how the repository works is not known. This sort of information might be captured through detailed user studies. For present purposes, these results suggest that the role of the reference archivist is quite broad as those archivists familiar with the tasks involved will attest. If, indeed, users want to know about the repository, the records, as well as specific items, the archivist becomes educator, guide, and retrieval clerk all in one — a breed no doubt familiar to many. Question 2.8 offered a list of what archivists thought about their users' questions. Records management and conservation archivists related to the responses indicated in question 2.8. Records management archivists related to the ideas that most users asked subject based questions (AFN16RM: AUQ28T) and questions relating to a particular time period (AFN16RM: AUG28T). Conservation archivists also felt users' questions were about a particular time (AFN16C: AUQ28T). Why archivists in records manage-ment might perceive this can, perhaps, be attributed to the nature of records manage-ment and for whom the most retrieval is done ~ the creator. But once again, why conservation archivists exhibit this relationship is left to speculation. When confronted with the thought posed in question 2.12: "the archivist is the most important source of information to the user", archivists involved in arrangement and description (57 of the "A" questionnaire respondents) related to the opposite as indicated in the results of this test (AFN16AD: AIS212). This is a very interesting statement, not only because it suggests that archivists are aware that their activities (especially in the area of arrangement and description) influence the way other activities are performed, but because it also suggests that archivists display a certain confidence in their information retrieval systems. If they do not feel the archivist is the most important source of information, phaps the finding aids produced by these archivists are. Responding to question 2.15, the archivists involved in administration related to the idea that "the archivist is most useful as an intermediary between the records/archives and the user" (AFN16AM: AINT215). Admittedly, there are some problems in the interpretation of this question, the most obvious being the definition of intermediary. While slightly more archivists did agree that "if the user asks, the archivist should help interpret the documents...", this question should perhaps be disregarded because of the definition of "interpret" (3.4% or 2 respondents agreed strongly and 48.3% or 28 respondents agreed while a total of 46.5% or 27 respondents disagreed.). Perhaps respondents felt these activities to be extensions of their reference service functions; another step in the process of assisting the user. Questions 2.16 to 2.19 were asked to assess archivists' confidence in finding aids. Archivists involved in administration related to the idea presented in question 2.16 that "the quality of finding aids determines the extent to which the user depends on the archivist for assistance" (AFN16AM: AFAQ216). Agreement with this statement suggests that archivists are aware of the possibilities of good finding aids in reference service enhancing reference service. Reference archivists disagreed with question 2.17: "most finding aids are not particu-larly useful to the user without the intervention/assistance of the archivist" (AFN16RS: AAF217). Evidently, useful finding aids are being produced and being used by the clientele as well as the archivists. Once again, placing a greater reliance on reference tools like finding aids for the researcher's use contributes to the idea of enhancing the instructional role of the reference archivist in assisting users become more familiar with archival reference material. Perhaps gradually users will become more confident about their abilities in using archival reference material and will become more self-reliant in the reference room. — 36 — B. Reference Service Question 3.1 listed the most important elements of reference service. Administrators related to the idea that the most important element of reference service is "the personal assistance given to the user by the archivist before, during, and after the search for information or materials has been completed" (AFN16AM: ARS31PA). Conse-quently, the importance of this aspect of reference to users as well as archivists must not be underestimated. Despite the general expression of confidence in finding aids, the very personal interaction between user and archivist is vital to this part of our work. It is not surprising to learn that these administrators also feel that, in response to question 3.5, assisting the user can be rewarding, frustrating, and fun (AFN16AM: AA35R; AFN16AM: AA35FR; AFN16AM: AA35FU). Although these particular qualities once again reflect the personal nature of reference service and the possibilities of education in this service, the score of the correlation coefficient was not extremely high. This indicates that although relationships do exist, they are not significant. What actually goes on in the reference process also reflects the interpersonal relation-ship between archivist and user. Again, administrators related to the statement made in question 3.8: "asking questions which encourage the user to think through his/her information need is the most effective way of clarifying the user's initial question." (AFN16AM: AQU38) The method of communicating perhaps depends upon the personality of the archivist although this is not tested in the survey. Why administrators agreed with this question is left to speculation. Perhaps their experience in overseeing archival programs has made them aware of the importance of communication at all levels. — 37 — Reference service archivists agreed with the idea presented in question 3.9 that "in order to fully understand what the user wants, I must take the time to put the question in its proper context" (AFN16RS: AQC39). This follows the framework for reference service outlined previously. Administrators agreed with the statement in question 3.10: "once you have heard all the information about the user's need, you make a diagnosis and determine the "best" method for finding the information/materials" (AFN16AM: AQD3LD). Both these responses offer support for the proposed model of reference service. There seems to be a particular method archivists use in reference service, or at least they perceive one. In question 3.11, when asked to rank the "best" method of retrieval, arrangers and describers (AFN16AD: ARM311Q) and conservation (AFN16AD: ARM311Q) archi-vists both related to the idea that "the quickest/easiest" method was the "best" while the respondents concerned with records management indicated "the most accurate/effi-cient" (AFN16RM: ARM311A). This question was asked to identify part of the formulation of the search strategy — how the archivist decides which approach to finding information or materials is most appropriate for the user. To speculate, while the quickest and easiest method may be useful on certain occasions, the most accurate and efficient method is probably the most desirable. Together, these two elements might constitute the basis of deciding whether an inquiry can be answered by the user flipping through an inventory or the archivist searching his memory as well as finding aids for the user. Certainly, this is a very subjective process, dependent not only on the type of question but the archivist's judgment of the retrieval system and the researcher's ability to use it himself. Surprisingly, no categories of functions related significandy to the suggestion that the best method was the most satisfying for the user. The categories of function which — 38 — archivists did relate to, however, suggest that neither the archivist's nor the user's time should be spent in tangential discussions but in achieving the user's goal. How would "the most satisfying for the user" be defined anyway? Perhaps the quickest and most efficient is the most satisfying to the user. As far as user satisfaction is concerned, records management archivists agreed with the idea posed in question 3.13 that "the user is satisfied only when the information/ materials s/he requested have been retrieved" (AFN16RM: AUS313). Archivists involved in conservation however, agreed with question 3.14: "the user is satisfied if the archivist has tried his/her best to find the information/materials, even if to no avail" (AFN16C: AUS314). Perhaps the user appreciates the circumstances which exist in certain repositories and will repay the archivist's courtesy with understanding, al-though such an action is not supported in the results. In question 3.15, respondents involved with appraisal and acquisition related to the idea that "the user is satisfied if the archivist has displayed respect for his/her project and has taken his/her study seriously" (AFN16AA: AUS315). Statistically only appraisal and acquisition archivists related to this idea. The general public's somewhat nebulous understanding of what exactly an archives is means receiving serious and considerate attention from an archivist may be rewarding in itself, apart from the outcome of the visit. This is only speculation. Rather than conclude by offering a statement about how the functions archivists perform relate to their perceptions of reference service, it is perhaps more accurate to suggest that since archivists perform so many of these activities and, in effect, are involved with all of these functions (frequently at once), it is impossible (at least in the — 39 — context of this particular study) to establish clearly defined relationships between functions and perceptions. 3. In their work, archivists do not usually encounter one particular form of record. Instead, archivists deal with many different forms throughout their careers. This hypothesis asked whether the form of record the archivist is most familiar — government/ administrative records, graphic media, manuscripts/personal papers, and sound/mov-ing images will relate to the manner in which the archivist perceives users and reference service. A. The User When, in question 2.7, respondents were asked to rank the most frequent "user wants", manuscript archivists related to the idea that most users "want information about certain records/ archives" (AFM17M: AUW27A). To speculate on this response, since the in-formation in archival manuscripts is probably not as easily isolated as information in administrative records, users might be more interested in a cursory overview of the papers rather than an account of file titles. In this sense, the use of inventories describing the creator as well as the contents of the papers (for example, biographical note and scope and content note) are of more use than file listings, which, in other cases, are equally as important. When asked in question 2.7, graphic media archivists (AFM17GM: AUW27JT) and sound and moving image archivists (AFM17S: AUW27IT) both exhibited relation-ships to the user wanting a specific item or document. The response of the sound and moving image archivists, whose items might include cassette and video tapes as well as floppy and perhaps optical discs, is perhaps expected. Retrieval of discrete physical items like a 16mm film may be much easier than the retrieval of specific documents — 40 — from among the many in a series. These circumstances might also exist with the discrete nature of the records graphic media archivists encounter. In response to question 2.8 about what sorts of questions users ask, only archivists involved in government records indicated a significant relationship. Government records archivists felt that users asked questions about "a particular chronological time" (AFM17GR: AUQ28T). Reasons for such a response are left to speculation. The questions about the archivists' role in reference service and the use of finding aids produced no significant relationships. For example, the results from the test between government records archivists and question 2.13 yielded a very low correlation coef-ficient. These results suggest that perhaps various forms of records and archivists' ex-perience with them do not really influence archivists' perception of the sorts of users they encounter and the manner in which they assist them. The absence of statistically significant relationships between the forms of records with which archivists work and finding aids further suggests that finding aids vary as gready as the records about which they are produced. There may be a degree of standardization among the finding aids of various forms in terms of the kinds of information captured about the records, but to suggest standards beyond that may be premature. B. Reference Service Although the forms of records exhibited no significant relationships in question 3.1 regarding the most important elements of reference service, the remaining questions about assisting the user generated a considerable number of relationships. Government records archivists reflected confidence in the Reference Room when, in responding to question 3.5, they declared that assisting the user is not intimidating (AFM17GR: AA35I). Perhaps the experience and practice these archivists have — 41 — reduces any concerns about ineffective finding aids. Overwhelmingly, government records archivists also found assisting the user rewarding (AFM17GR: AA35R). Both government records archivists (AFM17GR: AA35FR) and graphic media archi-vists (AFM17GM:AA35FR) related to the idea that helping the user was frustrating. Despite the confidence exhibited by government records archivists when they agreed with the idea that assisting users was not intimidating, perhaps other problems such as lack of staff or institutional support contribute to feelings of frustration. Graphic media archivists (AFM17GM: AA35FU) and sound and moving image archivists (AFM17S: AA35FU) significandy related to the suggestion that assisting the user was fun. However, of the archivists surveyed, 94.6% indicated that this part of the job was, indeed, fun, while only 5.4% believed otherwise. Consequendy, to suggest that graphic media and sound and moving image archivists are the only ones who experience enjoyable reference service would be misleading. In question 3.5, only sound and moving image archivists significandy related to the idea that assisting the user was stressful (AFM17S:AA35S). This result appears to contra-dict the perception of special media being easily accessed and used. Simply because a videocassette tape may be a unique item does not necessarily mean it will be easy to access. Nor does it mean it will be easily used by the client. Consequently, the services of a patient archivist may be required by users just as often as those using textual records. When asked the questions about the conduct of the reference interview, government records archivists also showed significant relationships to the ideas about the way the interview is conducted. There is agreement among government records archivists with question 3.9 which states that "in order to fully understand what the user wants, I must — 42 — take the time to put the question in its proper context...." (AFM17GR: AQC39). This response, in conjunction with their agreement with the statement in question 3.10: "once you have heard all the information about the user's need, you make a diagnosis and determine the "best" method for finding the information/materials" (AFM17GR: AQD310) suggests that perhaps these archivists have a particular pattern they follow when dealing with users. Government records archivists also indicated a relationship to the idea in question 3.11 that the "best" method of information retrieval is the "most accurate/efficient" method (AFM17GR: ARM311A). As stated previously, government records archivists dis-played confidence in their performance of reference service. Perhaps their confidence in their reference work leads to a higher standard of information retrieval. Government records archivists showed a relationship to question 3.13: "the user is satisfied only when the information/materials s/he requested have been retrieved" (AFM17GR: AUS313). Perhaps these responses reflect the client rather than the archivist. The conclusion to be drawn from the discussion of the relationships between the forms of records and reference service is much the same as that between the types of functions and reference service. If it is difficult to suggest specific reasons why archivists perform reference service the way they do, what they do seems to be less affected by either the function they perform or the forms of records they are dealing with than by the dynamics of reference service itself. i The fourth hypothesis asked whether the amount of time archivists spent in reference service related to the way in which archivists perceived reference service. In the questions about which functions they performed, 25.9% ranked reference service as their most frequently performed task while 20.7% and 27.6% ranked reference service second and third respectively. This indicates that 74.2% of the archivists surveyed in the "A" questionnaire have regular experience with reference service. Consequently, the relationships displayed between archivists who have most often performed refer-ence service and their beliefs about reference service are quite insightful. A. The User Archivists who have spent time assisting users seem to realize the importance of gaining as much information about the client as possible in order to fully appreciate the project with which he or she is involved. This idea is amply supported by the results of question 2.4 concerning how archivists identify their users. Overwhelmingly, archi-vists rejected the idea that "I don't think it's important (which category a user falls into — professional, general, student etc) and don't try to find out" (AREF18: ACT24U). This suggests that archivists understand and appreciate the need for information about the user to ensure the success of the visit. That most users "want a specific item/document" is again made abundantly clear by archivists in reference service in the results to question 2.7 (AREF18: AUW27IT). Remember that a relationship was also expressed between this "user want" and archivists who, in the functions variables, indicated that they performed reference service frequendy. Since most archivists claimed that reference service was a part of their work day, this idea might also apply to most of the archivists surveyed. Once again we are faced with the situation encountered in the relationships about form and function — most of the archivists surveyed had experience with all forms and functions. These two factors - the strong disagreement with the idea that it is unimportant to determine the user's identity and that most users want a specific item or document — — 44 — are the only two regarding the user which engendered any relationships with archivists regularly performing reference service. The results of these two factors can be considered important, though. These two factors suggest that, first, there exists an assumption that it is important to identify and understand the user, presumably to satisfy his or her inquiry. As we have seen in the analysis of the other factors, understanding the user is accomplished through asking questions and determining which search strategy is most appropriate in a particular situation. It would seem that archivists recognize that part of the interview must be devoted to questions about the user and his or her purpose in coming to the archives in order for the archivist to locate information or materials the user requires. Secondly, understanding that most users simply want a particular item or document is perhaps the most practical idea to result from this survey. While archivists may hope that users take an interest in the repository's information retrieval system, realistically they appear to understand that most users want to be led to particular documents bearing on their research with as little complication as possible. This assumption is fundamental in reference service, and is perhaps one of the reasons why so many finding aids are file listings rather than descriptive inventories. File listings, while not particularly efficient to use, will likely lead a user to the precise document s/he seeks. B. Reference Service The results of the tests between the archivists' time spent in reference service and the reference process provided a limited number of significant relationships. In response to question 3.5, most felt that assisting the user was not intimidating (AREF18: AA35I), perhaps because their experience and the frequency of their practice of reference service has given them the confidence for dealing with a wide range of possible encounters. The results also suggested that archivists agreed that assisting the user was rewarding (AREF18: AA35R). There was also a strong relationship to the idea that assisting the user was also quite stressful (AREF18: AA35S). The results from question 3.11 about the "best" retrieval method proved interesting. There was support for the most accurate and efficient retrieval method as the best method as indicated in the results (AREF18: ARM311A). Accuracy and efficiency appear to be goals of reference service. The results of question 3.11 and the relationship between this group of archivists experienced in reference service and "the most novel and creative retrieval method" (AREF18: ARM31 IN) were unique among the results of this survey. While this factor did not register significant relationships in other tests, it is interesting that archivists experienced in reference service recognized that creativity in answering users' questions was not as ridiculous as it may have sounded to other respondents. Experienced reference archivists are probably more likely to explore other less obvious sources of information for users than less experienced archivists. Creative and unique approaches to a question enhance, rather than ridicule, the role of the archivist. On the basis of the results of this study, it would appear that the amount of time an archivist spends performing reference service does, to a certain extent, relate to their perceptions of reference service. However, this particular questionnaire does not adequately reveal why this is the case. 5. The final tests run were to determine relationships between education and archivists' perceptions of users and reference service. Initially, the test was run using the actual results found in the questionnaire. However, since there was no ordinal relationship involved in the data structure of that particular question, it was restructured manually to allow for an hierarchical list of education levels — the highest being a graduate degree — 46 — in archival studies followed by graduate degrees, undergraduate degrees, courses in archival studies and so on. A. The User In response to question 2.7, the respondents related negatively to the idea that most users "want information about certain records/archives" (ED14REV: AUW27A). Perhaps these archivists feel that users are only interested in the actual information to be found in the material. Litde else can be said about these respondents given these limited results. B. Reference Service In question 3.1 most of the respondents believed the most important element of reference service to be "the dissemination of information about the repository, its holdings, and regulations governing access and use" (ED14REV: ARS31IR). The idea that the dissemination of information about the archives is an important part of the reference process might suggest that each user requires the basic information about the repository (part of the educative function of reference service) apart from the special needs she may require during her visit. Recognition is vitally important in terms of developing a standard of reference service. The previous results suggest that archivists acknowledge that the initial dissemination of information about the repository is an important element in reference service. These archivists also indicated a negative relationship to the idea that another important part of reference service is "the physical retrieval of documents/items and making them available for use in a reading or search room". The actual retrieval of documents is perhaps such an obvious part of reference service that it has been overlooked in this — 47 — study. It is interesting that within the scope of this study the respondents do not feel the physical retrieval of documents is important. The only other relationships which were exhibited in these tests were found in questions 3.14 and 3.15 which concerned user satisfaction. The ideas which expressed significant relationships to archivists' education were that "the user is satisfied if the archivist has tried his/her best to find the information/ materials, even if to no avail" (ED14REV: AUS314) and that "the user is satisfied if the archivist has displayed respect for his/her project and has taken his/her study seriously" (ED14REV:AUS315). Both of these ideas are concerned with the other and suggest that, the personal interaction between the archivist and the user is important for the success of the user's visit. These results do not conclusively support such a statement, however. If the results of these tests are assessed together, the idea which arises is that while the education of archivists has displayed relationships with factors which ultimately indicate the use of a particular methodology of reference service, other factors like re-pository, forms, functions, and the amount of time spent in reference service indicate that as well. It is difficult to suggest specific reasons why archivists believe what they do regarding reference service in the context of their education. Perhaps an explanation for this is that despite various levels of education, the archival profession has existed mainly on-the-job experience and post-employment training. The results of the tests of the five hypotheses have generated some interesting results. Before the conclusions are discussed, the results of the tests of the five hypotheses posed for questionnaire "B" must be reported. — 48 — C H A P T E R SIX FINDINGS A N D R E S U L T S O F Q U E S T I O N N A I R E "B" There is a specific reason for asking archivists' perceptions of their colleagues in this survey. By comparing the responses of each questionnaire group it is possible to see the strengths as well as weaknesses of practice, and where there may be an agreement among archivists about their performance of reference service. If the results differed significantly it might suggest that perhaps a standard of practice has not, in fact, been reached, and that archivists must become more aware of what their colleagues are doing. To clarify, it must be remembered that the questions asked in Part I of the questionnaire "B" were identical to those asked in Part I of "A". Again, the questions asked and the archivists' responses to them are based on the basic hypotheses cited before, namely, that repositories, forms, functions, length of time spent in reference service, and education level, relate to archivists' perceptions of reference service, or in this case, archivists' perceptions of their colleagues' perceptions of reference service. With this in mind, the results from the tests run on the "B" questionnaires will be discussed. 1. In the analysis of the "A" questionnaire, the types of repositories archivists had worked in related to their perceptions of their users. Such is the case with the "B" questionnaire, suggesting that the standards of service provided by particular types of repositories might be studied in greater detail in order to form more detailed comparisons than is permitted within the scope of this study. A. The User When question 2.1 was presented to questionnaire "B" respondents, only academic archivists related negatively to the category of general users (ARP15A:AUS21G). This is interesting because the academic archivists in questionnaire "A" felt that general — 49 — users were among those they most frequently encountered. In previous discussion, the point was made that perhaps academic archivists, because of their institutional affiliation with scholarly researchers, are compensating for a stereotypically narrow view of the users of archives. Perhaps this also simply suggests that the scope of these particular archives' clientele is basically very broad and archivists should not be looking at how to service "special" users, but what level of service to provide which all users can find effective and helpful. In question 2.7, the "A" academic archivists related to the statement "most want to know about the scope and nature of the repository, its policies and procedures and regulations governing the use of material". The "B" academic archivists related to the statement that "most archivists believe most users want information about certain records/archives" (ARP15A: AUW27A). Rather than interpret this as a difference of opinion among these respondent-archivists about the very nature of their users' questions, it might be appropriate to consider the "B" response in particular as a reflection of the most basic questions users might ask. Certainly providing information about particular records or collections is basic to reference service and judging by the results, most archivists feel their colleagues encounter this kind of question frequently during the reference process. When asked question 2.11 regarding the various methods of using archives users employ, the "B" archivists representing federal government repositories related to the statement that "most archivists feel most users depend upon the archivist to instruct them in how to use the information retrieval system and perhaps to indicate appropriate finding aids to begin their search" (ARP15GF: AUP21II). These results are interesting since the "A" respondents in academic and federal government repositories felt that — 50 — "most users depend upon the archivist to suggest approaches to study of the records/ archives and advise or consult them on their research." While both of these are important parts of the reference process, it is interesting that "B" archivists believed that their colleagues felt that the education or instruction of users was more important than the consulting role the "A" archivists appeared to envision. Perhaps archivists in the federal government repository feel they have a greater opportunity for educating their users than other repositories. Lacking the descriptive bibliographic standards found in libraries make each visit to each archives a learning experience for users since different repositories may not describe their holdings in the same way. B. Reference Service A number of relationships appeared between the archivists and their perceptions of their colleagues' beliefs about the most important element of reference service. In question 3.1, business archivists significantly related to the idea that "the dissemination of information about and from records/archives through the use of an information retrieval system" (ARP15B: ARS31JJD) was felt by most archivists to be the most important phase in the reference process. Federal government archivists (ARP15GF: ARS31P) and religious archivists (ARP15RE: ARS31P) all indicated that they be-lieved their colleagues felt the most important part of reference service is "the physical retrieval of documents/items and making them available for use in a reading or search room". These results suggest that archivists with experience in a particular repository believe that a number of different elements constitute the most important in the reference process. Although there is no consensus, the responses that these archivists have given illustrate the belief that no specific element of reference service is more important or should take precedence over any other. There appears to be a recognition of the fact that there are many, equally important elements of reference service. — 51 — When, in question 3.5, archivists were asked if they felt their colleagues considered reference service to be stressful, academic archivists in questionnaire "B" were the only respondents who agreed (ARP15A: AA35S). In questionnaire "A", the federal govern-ment archivists believed that reference service was stressful. Categories such as intimidating, rewarding, frustrating, or fun, did not produce any significant relation-ships which perhaps suggests that the overriding feeling is one of stress in these particular repositories. This also suggests that archivists believe that their colleagues, and probably themselves, are under stress caused by any number of factors from too few staff to too many researchers. Federal government archivists related significantiy to the idea presented in question 3.8 that "most archivists feel that asking questions which encourage the user to think through his/her information need is the most effective way of clarifying the user's initial question" (ARP15GF: AQU38). Their counterparts in questionnaire "A" related to the suggestion that "in order to fully understand what the user wants, I must take the time to put the question in its proper context (i.e. understand the nature of the study, why the user thinks s/he will find the information in an archival repository, etc)." Both these questions describe some of the characteristics present in the reference process and the results suggests that apparently archivists agree that these particular elements are present during the interaction between archivist and user. That archivists would agree that their colleagues use these techniques when dealing with users provides more support for the idea that reference service is performed in a specific way. While the results of these questions do not provide conclusive evidence that all archivists adhere to these methods of assisting the user, they do suggest that a particular method of reference service is practiced. Perhaps archivists recognize that they must have a complete understanding of the user's question, not simply retrieve documents. — 52 — The variety of retrieval methods presented in question 3.11 yielded a number of significant relationships from the "B" respondents. None were exhibited by the "A" respondents. Religious archivists strongly related to the "quickest and easiest" (ARP15RE: ARM31 IQ) retrieval method as the one most archivists would think the "best" while their colleagues in the federal government repository related to "the most accurate and efficient" (ARP15GF: ARM311 A) and "the most satisfying for the user" (ARP15GF: ARM311S). What is interesting about all these observations is that the "B" respondents saw their colleagues identifying strongly with the types of retrieval methods described above while the "A" respondents exhibited no relationships with the responses in this question at all. Why such results occurred is left to speculation. Perhaps this question is closely tied to the actual manner in which archivists assist the user. Archivists may observe their colleagues offering the most convenient answer for themselves with less regard for the needs of their users; they may also observe some peculiar approaches to assisting users or solving their problems which might account for archivists relating to the novel and creative approaches. On the other hand, this might indicate the observation of unique, refreshing ways of helping users. Whatever these results mean, they suggest that archivists seem more likely to observe the use of innovative reference techniques in their colleagues than recognize them in themselves. Academic and federal government archivists once again figured prominendy in the results of the tests on questions 3.13 through 3.16 regarding the satisfaction of the user. The academic archivists in "B" negatively related to the idea that "most archivists feel the user is satisfied only when the information or materials s/he requested have been retrieved" (ARP15 A: AUS313). It is interesting that in the "A" questionnaire it was the federal government archivists who significandy related to this question about the satisfaction of users. On the other hand, "B" federal government archivists showed a significant relationship to the idea that "most archivists feel the user is satisfied if the archivist has displayed respect for his/her project and has taken his/her study seriously" (ARP15GF:AUS315). It was the academic archivists who agreed with this suggestion in questionnaire "A". This suggests that perhaps there are many similarities among the clientele of various repositories. The second hypothesis asked whether the different functions which archivists per-formed related to the way in which they perceived their users. The results obtained from the "B" respondents are just as interesting as those obtained from their colleagues. A. The User When questioned about what users exactly want when they come into an archives, archivists with experience in conservation (AFN16C: AUW27IN) agreed with the statement in question 2.7 that "most archivists believe most users want to learn how the information retrieval system works". Archivists with experience in appraisal and acquisition (AFN16AA: AUW27IN) and administration (AFN16AM: AUW27LN) related negatively to this idea. The questionnaire "B" respondents appear to disagree on whether or not their colleagues feel users are interested in learning how to use the information retrieval systems in a repository. Since none of these respondents claim expertise in reference service, why this is the case can only be speculated upon. In question 2.8, all of the types of questions users might ask established significant relationships with many of the categories of functions archivists perform. The results of the tests suggested that conservation archivists agree with the idea that most archi-vists believe questions related to particular subjects (AFN16C: AUQ28S), and persons and organizations (AFN16C: AUQ28P) are most frequently asked. Their colleagues in appraisal and acquisition related to questions regarding geographic area (AFN16AA: AUQ28G) and chronological time (AFN16AA: AUQ28T). In the responses in ques-tionnaire "A", only records management and conservation archivists felt that their colleagues believed questions about a particular subject and time period were most frequently asked. Perhaps this reflects the sentiment that users' questions are expansive in their scope and content. Administrators showed a significant relationship to the statement posed in question 2.12 that "most archivists think the archivist is the most important source of information to the user" (AFN16AM:AIS212). The "A" archivists who responded in the same man-ner were the arrangers and describers. Certainly under the circumstances existing in most archives, few would dispute this, although 33% of those responding to the "B" questionnaire disagreed with this statement. The presence of the archivist in the reference process is obviously basic to the nature of reference service. The extent to which the user is dependant on the archivist for searching and researching depends on the policies of the repository, and the personalities of the user and archivist, among other factors. The archivist becomes the greatest source of information when all other sources have been exhausted, when there are no other sources, or when the other sources fail. Perhaps these results tell us that archivists see their colleagues trying to be indispensable and the centre of the user's visit to the archives. In this case, it does not appear to matter how effective the information retrieval system is, if the archivist feels he or she is the vital link between the user and the records, this sentiment will be demonstrated in the archivist's manner toward the user and will be observed by the archivist's colleagues. B. Reference Service Of the elements of reference service identified in question 3.1, the results of the tests of appraisal and acquisition archivists showed a relationship to the element that "most — 55 — archivists feel the most important element of reference service is the dissemination of information about and from records /archives through the use of an information retrieval system" (AFN16AA: ARS31ID). Both conservation archivists (AFN16C: ARS31P) and arrangement and description archivists (AFN16AD: ARS3 IP) related to the idea that most archivists felt "the physical retrieval of documents/items and making them available for use in a reading or search room" was the most important part of reference. When asked in question 3.5 about how their colleagues felt when assisting the user, the "B" respondents were as unanimous in their agreement of various sentiments as their "A" counterparts. Conservation archivists significantly related to the idea that most archivists considered helping the user to be rewarding (AFN16C: AA35R) while appraisal and acquisition archivists related to the idea that reference service was frustrating (AFN16AA: AA35FR). The results of the tests of records management archivists suggest that these archivists related to the idea that their colleagues believed assisting the user was fun (AFN16RM: AA35FU) and stressful (AFN16RM: AA35S). All these categories, with the exception of stressful, generated results in the tests of the "A" questionnaire as well, strongly suggesting that reference service is not limited to particular sentiments, but encompasses many emotions. In question 3.8, the results of the tests of conservation archivists indicated that those archivists related to the idea that "most archivists feel that asking questions which encourage the user to think through his/her information need is the most effective way of clarifying the user's initial question" (AFN16C: AQU38). Why specifically conser-vation archivists related to this statement is not known. As mentioned before, conser-vation archivists, or those who designated conservation as part of their work routine, — 56 — form a large part of both survey groups, but alternatively, they did not list conservation as their primary (or even secondary) task. Question 3.11 about the "best" retrieval method generated a number of relationships between the dependent and independent variables tested. Conservation archivists (AFN16C: ARM3 HQ) felt that "the quickest and easiest" method of retrieval was used by most archivists. Conservation archivists also agreed that "the most accurate and efficient" retrieval method (AFN16C: ARM311A) was the best. In a display of agreement, appraisal and acquisition archivists (AFN16AA: ARM31 IS), arrangement and description archivists (AFN16AD: ARM311S), and records management archi-vists (AFN16RM: ARM311S) all related to the idea that the best method was "the most satisfying to the user". The diligence and respect an archivist shows for a user and his project translates into the way the information or records are retrieved. When asked, in questions 3.13 through 3.16, about the satisfaction of the user, conservation archivists agreed with the idea that their colleagues felt that "the user is satisfied if the archivist has tried his/her best to find the information/materials, even if to no avail" (AFN16C: AUS314). Conservation archivists in the "A" questionnaire expressed this same belief. This suggests that perhaps archivists believe users appreciate the conditions under which many archives operate. The circumstances in a particular repository coupled with the archivist's attention to the client's project should leave the user with the knowledge that the archivist tried, to the best his or her ability, to provide all information required for a particular question. In question 3.15 the results of the tests for both arrangement and description archivists (AFN16AD: AUS315) and reference service archivists (AFN16RS:AUS315) suggest that these respondents feel "most archivists feel the user is satisfied if the archivist has — 57 — displayed respect for his/ her project and has taken his/her study seriously." In the "A" questionnaire it was the acquisition and appraisal archivists who related to this idea. The personalized service which has characterized so much of reference service in archives in the past and the present could not have been maintained without the dedication of archivists to their users and their projects, whatever their level or sophistication. Inter-estingly, this is the only question to which the responses of reference service archivists exhibited statistical significance. 3. Do the various forms of records archivists have worked with relate to their perceptions of their colleagues' performance in reference service? This was the question posed in the third hypothesis. Based on the results of questionnaire "A", the answer to this appears to be no. A. The User In expressing their feelings about the ways in which their colleagues deal with users, the questionnaire "B" respondents tended to agree with the ideas presented in the questions of Part U of the questionnaire more often than their "A" counterparts. In question 2.7, government records archivists related to the ideas that most archivists believe most users "want to learn how the information retrieval system works" (AFM17GR:AUW27LN) as well as "want a specific item or document" (AFM17GR: AUW27IT). Graphic media archivists shared the government records archivists idea that most archivists feel users want to learn about the machinations of the information retrieval system (AFM7GM: AUW27IN) and that most users "want information which comes from records/archives" (AFM17GM: AUW27F). Manuscript archivists alone related to the idea that most users "want information about certain records/archives" (AFM17M: AUW27A). This suggests that archivists might feel there are many — 58 — approaches the client takes in his search for the information he requires for his project, just as the archivist has many responsibilities to the user throughout the reference process. In question 2.8, when asked what their colleagues felt users' questions relate to, sound and moving image archivists related to "a particular chronological time" (AFM17S: AUQ28T). Considering the relative recency of this form of archival material, perhaps these archivists feel this is one of the most suitable approach to accessing this material. When asked about the "most important source of information to the user" in question 2.12, the results of graphic media archivists (AFM17GM: AIS212) and manuscript archivists (AFM17M: AIS212) suggest both relate to the idea that most archivists believed the archivist is the most important information source to the user. Manuscript archivists also agreed with the idea in question 2.13 that most archivists felt "the archivist's attitude toward the user and his/her topic affect the user's research proc-esses" (AFM17M: AAA213). In question 2.15, the results of the tests suggest that government records archivists relate to the idea that "most archivists believe the archivist is most useful as an intermediary between the records/archives and the user" (AFM17GR: AINT215). These responses suggest the archivist plays an active role in the reference process, rather than a passive one, and that their colleagues perceive this occurring. B. Reference Service When asked in question 3.1 which elements of reference service are the most important, the results of the tests of "B" respondents demonstrated significant relationships with a number of elements. Their "A" counterparts exhibited no relationships. — 59 — Graphic media archivists (AFM17GM: ARS31PA) related to the idea that their colleagues believed "the personal assistance given to the user by the archivist before, during and after the search for information or materials has been completed" was the most important element of reference service. Perhaps the nature of the media these archivists and their colleagues would be most familiar with influenced their opinions about what constitutes the most important element of the reference process. The identification of the appropriate item required by the user might rely upon the steady communication between the archivist and user. Graphic media archivists also related to the idea that most archivists believed "the physical retrieval of documents /items and making them available for use in a reading or search room" was an important part of reference (AFM17GM: ARS31P). These archivists appear to support one of the very practical components of the reference process. Contrasting the above ideas, government records archivists related to the idea that their colleagues believed that "the dissemination of information about and from records/ archives through the use of an information retrieval system" was the most important factor in reference service (AFM17GR: ARS31ID). This idea perhaps reflects the nature of the documents with which these archivists are most familiar. Question 3.5 asked archivists about their perceptions of their colleagues feelings about assisting the user. The results of the tests of graphic media archivists related to the idea that most of these archivists did not find assisting the user particularly intimidating (AFM17GM: AA35I). While the responses in questionnaire "A" elicited relationships between all the possible responses ~ intimidating, rewarding, frustrating, fun, and stressful — the "B" respondents were less forthcoming in establishing relationships . — 60 — Perhaps this suggests that the respondents were not prepared to speak for their colleagues. Nevertheless, the belief of graphic media archivists who felt that reference service was not intimidating suggests confidence in the service these archivists provide. The steps taken in the reference process are illustrated in questions 3.8 to 3.10 and the results of the tests of sound and moving image archivists suggest that these archivists relate to the idea that "most archivists feel that asking questions which encourage the user to think through his/her information need is the most effective way of clarifying the user's initial question" (AFM17S:AQU38). Perhaps this indicates a more common sense approach to reference service than a specific process familiar only to sound and moving image archivists. Contrasting these results are the responses of the "A" archivists who related to the other two questions about the reference process (questions 3.9 and 3.10). In question 3.11 which asks the "best" method of retrieval, government records archivists related to the ideas that most archivists felt the "most accurate and efficient" (AFM17GR: ARM311 A) and the "most satisfying for the user" (AFM17GR: ARM31 IS) were the "best" methods. There can be no doubt that these methods of retrieval are the most effective, but retrieval is also certainly dependant on the attitudes reflected in questions 3.8 to 3.10 about reference processes. The results of this section appear to suggest that "B" archivists consider their colleagues exemplary in their relations with users, attentive to their needs, and appreciative of their projects. The real test of the success of reference service is measured in the largely intangible degree of satisfaction of the user. The "B" respondents were more generous in their beliefs about user satisfaction than their "A" colleagues. In question 3.14, both govern-ment records archivists (AFM17GR: AUS314) and manuscript archivists (AFM17M: — 61 — AUS314) felt that "most archivists feel the user is satisfied if the archivist has tried his/ her best to find the information /materials, even if to no avail". The "A" graphic media archivists-respondents felt "the user is satisfied only when the information /materials s/he requested have been retrieved". There are undoubtedly occasions when both are true, depending on the circumstances. Because so many respondents claimed experience in most or all of the categories such as government records or personal papers, the assessment of the results of the tests between the forms of records and archivists perceptions of reference service is difficult However, the results of the tests of the "B" questionnaires do suggest that particular methods of retrieval seem to relate to particular forms of records. 4. The fourth hypothesis asked whether the amount of time archivists have spent in reference service affected their performance of reference service. As in the results in the previous test groups, many archivists consider themselves experienced in reference service and there were only a few categories to which they exhibited relationships. A. The User Like their colleagues in questionnaire "A", the "B" respondents who considered themselves experienced in reference service responded negatively to the suggestion in question 2.4 that most archivists "don't think it's important and don't try to find out" to which category a user belongs (AREF18: ACT24U). This suggests that archivists who have worked in reference service are indeed very aware of the need to gather information about a researcher and his project in order to fully satisfy his information needs. The extremely personal rapport which develops between the archivist and user is instrumental to the success of a researcher's visit to the archives. And while archivists — 62 — must walk a fine line between excessively and often unnecessarily assisting their users and not helping enough, the very nature of reference service is personal interaction. The results of the tests of archivists experienced in reference service showed a significant relationship with the idea that most users perceive archival repositories as "record centres" (AREF18: AAR25RC). Perhaps these archivists feel their colleagues act more as the staff of a records centre than as archivists. When asked in question 2.7 about their perceptions of their colleagues' perceptions of what most users questions are about, the results of the tests of "B" archivists experienced in reference service related negatively to the idea that most archivists believe most users "want to know about the scope and nature of the repository, its policies and procedures, and regulations governing the use of materials" (AREF18: AUW27R). Their counterparts in the "A" questionnaire suggested that "most users want a specific item or document." While reference service would be an effective tool for educating users if users did indeed want information about the repository, the com-parison of in these two results perhaps reflects the reality of the situation rather than the desired encounter. Not all users want to be educated about the repository, just as not all will be satisfied with simply receiving documents on the desk. It appears that the reality of the situation is that archivists see many of their users requesting specific items rather than asking about the policies of the repository. B. Reference Service Question 3.11 concerned the archivists' perceptions of their colleagues' perceptions of the "best" retrieval method. The results of the tests of "B" archivists experienced in reference service indicated that most of these archivists felt "the quickest and easiest" retrieval method was the best (AREF18: ARM311Q). Their "A" counterparts in this — 63 — question felt that "the most accurate/ efficient" and "the most novel/creative" methods were the best. The observations of the "B" archivists suggest that they feel their colleagues might be less concerned about the accuracy of retrieval and the satisfaction of the user than the quickest way of retrieving the records. However, these categories are not exclusive of one another. The most satisfying retrieval method for the user may very well be the quickest and easiest. Of all the test results, these results are perhaps the most disturbing because of the two marked differences in the perceptions archivists have about the conduct of the retrieval of the material. Perhaps someone's speed and ease are another's accuracy and efficiency. 5. The remaining hypothesis is the education level of the archivist and the results of the "B" questionnaire were disappointing. Of all the questions asked, only one response yielded a statistically significant relationship. In question 2.7, these archivists related to the idea that most archivists believe most users "want information which comes from records/archives" (ED 14REV: AUW27F). No substantial observations can be made on the basis of these results. Considering the results produced by the "A" respondents it appears that overall the education level of archivists does not significantly relate to the manner in which they perceives their users or their role in reference service. While some relationships did appear between the education level and the respondents to the "A" questionnaire, the meaning of these relationships is left to speculation. — 64 — C H A P T E R S E V E N C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F O R F U R T H E R R E S E A R C H The main objective of this study was to identify elements which might relate to archivists' perceptions of their users and reference service. To assess individual archivist's perceptions as well as archivists' beliefs about their colleagues' perceptions of users and reference service, two questionnaires were distributed to seventy-five archivists each. The hypotheses for both question-naires are essentially the same. 1. The type of repository in which an archivist works is signifi-candy related to his or her perceptions of users and reference service, with p < = .05. 2. The types of archival functions archivists perform is signifi-cantly related to their perceptions of users and reference service, with p < = .05. 3. The types of records with which archivists' work is significandy related to their perceptions of users and reference service, with p < = .05. 4. The amount of time archivists spend in reference service is significantly related to their perceptions of users and reference service, with p < = .05. 5. The types and levels of education of archivists is significandy related to their perceptions of users and reference service, with p < = .05. While specific answers to specific questions relating to these hypotheses are possible, con-clusive generalizations about the factors relating to archivists' perceptions of reference service are more difficult, and perhaps in the context of this study, nearly impossible. It was not the intention of this study to provide firm explanations of the performance of reference service. — 65 — A study such as this one is limited in a number of ways. Limitations to a study are those factors or occurrences which may impede the collection of data and which must be discussed when reporting on the study. In this specific study there are several limitations. One limitation is the absence of a pilot or pre-test. A pre-test, administered to a sampling of archivists not included in the actual survey populations would provide suggestions and comments which may be useful in refining the question-naire. Any potential problems arising from questions would be dealt with before the actual study was undertaken. Throughout this study, numerous references are made to "archivists' perceptions". These references are generalizations made upon the analysis of the data collected from approximately 70% of 150 Canadian archivists sampled from the Association of Canadian Archivists' Membership Directory, 1986 -1987. These generalizations are, therefore, limited by the number of archivists responding to the survey. This is not to say that the results of this survey are invalid; on the contrary, the results are valid within the parameters of this specific study. However, the generalizations made in this study are inherently limited by the number of respondents. In addition to limitations found in this sort of study, a general point must be made about the use of surveys in examining reference service. Upon reflection, it is entirely possible that another method of collecting this sort of data is necessary. Specifically, personal interviews might be more appropriate. Many of the respondents chose to volunteer comments on some of the questions which indicates their concerns about reference service go far beyond the issues addressed in the question-naire. Discussing archivists' attitudes and perceptions with them personally would help clarify the findings of this study by providing a more detailed explanation of the reasons why particular archivists hold particular attitudes. The limitations specific to this survey include the length of the instrument itself which may have deterred some archivists from responding. Another limitation lies with the questions them-— 66 — selves. Some questions might be considered leading and the respondents may have felt there was a "right" answer which they endeavoured to provide. Of course there is no way of gauging whether this sort of second guessing occurred, but the possibility that it might have should be realized. With these limitations in mind, it is now possible to examine the results, first on a very broad level and then more specifically; to interpret the meaning of the data; and to discuss recommendations for further research. The results from the "A" questionnaire, beginning with the first hypothesis will be discussed followed by the "B" questionnaire results in the same order. The first hypothesis asked whether the type of repository in which an archivist had experience related to her perceptions of reference service. When all the tests for Part II were evaluated as a unit, the image that emerged was one in which the staff of specific repositories recognize different categories of users. There did appear a tendency, however, for archivists experienced in more specific repositories such as religious or business to relate to more specific users, such as institutional. While this may be one speculation, the suggestion of a broad user base in academic repositories disputes the idea that archivists may provide special treatment for specific user groups. If differences among repositories do not seem to be reason enough for a diversity of service, a standard practice of reference service, regardless of repository, may be possible. In summarizing the results of the tests of Part Ul, it becomes apparent that while archivists relate to a variety of user groups, the nature of the repository does appear to contribute to the man-ner in which users are assisted. For example, federal government archivists related to the ideas that reference service is stressful, that in order to understand what the user wants, his question must be put into proper context and that the user is satisfied only when the records have been retrieved. These appear to be common reactions to a form of reference service which suggests a somewhat thankless task fought with anxiety and culminating in researchers flipping gleefully through files retrieved — 67 — from the stacks. These respondents related to the idea that particular procedures (i.e. establishing the context of a user's inquiry) contributed to a user's successful visit to the Archives. The second hypothesis asked if the functions archivists have most experience with relate to their perceptions of reference service. The results from these tests are somewhat more difficult to assess as a unit since they are varied, as are the categories of functions. An example of this inexplicable diversity are the results to question 2.7 which saw archivists involved in conservation, records management, and administration relating to a number of choices provided in that question. Frankly, finding an explanation for these results is quite difficult Perhaps this suggests that function is not a particularly appropriate category with which to test archivists' perceptions of reference service. However, other results make interesting statements. Arrangement and description archivists related to the idea that archivists were the most important source of information to the user and administration and reference archivists disagreed with the statement that suggested finding aids were not particularly useful without the assistance of the archivist This suggests that these archivists recognize the value of finding aids as an integral part of reference service and have confidence in these tools despite the lack of standardization in their form and content. Various functions related to various concepts of reference service. The administrators came close to perceiving a pattern of reference service when they established relationships with the ideas that personal assistance is the most important part of reference service, that asking questions is an effective way of clarifying the user's initial questions, and that once you have all the necessary information about a user's question, you make a diagnosis and determine the best method for answering the question. All of the above are expressions of a pattern of reference service. Yet the other relationships are isolated and cannot be placed into a larger, more meaningful framework. — 68 — The third hypothesis asked whether the forms of records with which archivists have worked related to their perceptions of reference service. After viewing these results it cannot be said that form appears to relate significantly to the performance of reference service. Government records archivists established a number of significant relationships to particular questions and these results suggest that government records archivists experience numerous emotions during the performance of reference service. Their response that assisting the user was rewarding and frustrating yet not intimidating suggests a variety of users, as might be expected with such a broad category as government records. However, government records archivists also related to statements which suggest the per-formance of a particular kind of reference service. They believed that the archivist must take the time to put the user's questions into the context of his study which was ultimately followed by making a diagnosis about the search strategy. Government records archivists believed the best retrieval method to be the most accurate and efficient. They also believed that the user was satisfied only when information or materials was retrieved. Such a succession of significant relationships does bear discussion. Apart from suggesting a particular practice of reference service, these results also suggest that perhaps archivists involved in providing reference service to government records have had more experience or have been able to perfect their performance of reference more than archivists whose experience lies with other forms of records. This is not to suggest that archivists providing service to special media and manuscripts are not as accomplished as their colleagues, but they do appear to perceive a pattern of reference service. The results from the remaining hypotheses related to time spent in reference service and the education level of archivists were not sufficient to suggest that those characteristics related to the performance of reference service. Although statistically significant relationships were established among these independent and dependent variables, there were not enough to make generalizations about the performance of reference service. — 69 — The results obtained from the "B" questionnaires were somewhat different from those obtained from the "A" questionnaires, but some similarities can be seen. As in the "A" questionnaire, the first hypothesis related to the type of repository with which an archivist is most familiar. Although the results of their colleagues responding to the "A" ques-tionnaire suggested a particular pattern of reference service, the results of the "B" respondents cannot support this speculation. The only similarity among the responses regarding the type of user came from the academic archivists, who, like their "A" colleagues, felt their colleagues believed general users were their largest user group. Other than this statement, few results could suggest a strong relationship between repository and reference service. The second hypothesis asked whether the functions performed by archivists related to their perceptions of reference service. Once again, the results could not support this hypothesis, even though a number of significant relationships were established between the independent and depend-ent variables. If one speculation can be made from these responses, it is that the archivists involved in conservation, acquisition and appraisal, and records management perceived that their colleagues felt reference service was rewarding, frustrating, fun, and stressful. This suggests perhaps that the work of reference service is quite varied in terms of the service given, questions asked, and the reactions of the clients. While such variation will persist simply because of the nature of reference service, archivists must learn how to make users' visits less difficult on themselves. Indeed, many archivists responded that they felt users were not satisfied until the physical document had been placed before them. Since this is often not possible, it is necessary for archivists to deal with the reactions of patrons and not consider themselves to blame for an unsatisfied client. The third hypothesis asked about the relationship between the forms of records archivists work with and their perceptions of reference service. While the "A" results indicated that, at the very least, government records archivists do appear to perform reference service according to a particular — 70 — pattern, the results from the "B" questionnaires are more disjointed. Although more categories established significant relationships, these relationships do not appear to indicate anything when assessed in totality. Perhaps this is because the archivists were responding to questions about their colleagues beliefs, and not their own. Once again, the hypotheses regarding time spent in reference service and the education level of archivists did not establish enough significant relationships to allow generalizations to be made. From this analysis of the results, certain generalizations can be made, mainly about which categories appear to hold the most promise for ensuing study. Further study is certainly in order for the category based on the type of repository. A different method which might elicit more concrete ideas is the case study approach which would involve the detailed study of several repositories. Questions which could be answered from such a study might relate to the existence of common practices of reference service among similar repositories. Other questions include who is responsible for reference service? Is there a specific designated archivist or is it rotational among a number of staff members? Who is the first person a client encounters? Is there a reference or research room? How is it furnished? Is it conducive to the delivery of reference service? Is funding sufficient for staff, equipment, a publications program? What priority is refer-ence service given in the repository? Answers to these questions may indicate other reasons why archivists perform reference service the way they do and also explore whether there is an institutional "culture" regarding reference service. The category of the forms of records might also prove useful for further study. The government records archivists established a number of relationships which suggested the perform-ance of a particular pattern of reference service. Perhaps the most effective course of further study would be to interview archivists on the basis of the forms of records with which they are most familiar. — 71 — The forms of records (especially if they are government records of manuscripts) also relate to the type of repository. In this case, it may be possible to coordinate a study of both the repository and the form of records. A detailed study of the possible ways the forms of records might relate to reference service might also reveal ideas about other archival functions such as arrangement and description and con-servation which are linked to the form of the records. Throughout this study the point has been made that reference service is one of the most important parts of the archivist's job. But why is it so important? And is it any more important than arrangement and description or acquisition and appraisal? Reference service may be no more important than any other archival functions, but the place it occupies in the continuum of archival procedures is unique. Reference service brings together all the activities performed by archivists and provides the context for the performance of other archival procedures. Records and personal papers are not acquired for their intrinsic value alone; they are considered valuable for the information they contain which can only be exploited through use. When archivists appraise records they deliberate on the informational as well as other values of their materials. Records are arranged and described to provide guidelines and information for the use of the records. Conservation procedures are undertaken not only for the preservation of the physical manifestation of the information, but to ensure the completeness of the information which might be lost through physical deterioration. All of this is done so that people, for any number of reasons, can come to the archives in search of information and hopefully leave much the wiser for the experience. As early as 1939 movements were made toward the articulation of archival policy which emphasized use. Robert C. Binkley wrote: The public should learn to expect in the archives of its own community the same kind of reference service that its public library gives.... If we develop such a policy in the utilization of our public archives, we will not only find the voters willing to provide the buildings and to employ — 72 — the technicians needed to give these services, but we also find our people increasingly interested in private as well as public archives.43 Unfortunately, it appears that the public is still largely uninformed about archives and what archivists do. Even the individuals involved in funding archival programs do not appear to see the value of archives very clearly, perhaps because the use of archives in not widespread or visible enough. A report entided The Image of Archivists: Resource Allocators' Perceptions, was prepared for the Society of American Archivists in 1984. In it, the authors, Sidney Levy and Albeit Robles, state: Summarizing the situation, it may be said that it is one weighted with "niceness" - the archivists having the impotence of virtue, which is expected to be its own reward, leaving the allocators to address themselves to more serious concerns.44 To counteract this situation, Levy and Robles suggest that a higher profile of the archives is necessary: "the purposes, uses, and contributions of the archives have to be more vivid - more explicit, more concrete, and repeated in varied ways.'^ 'The logical starting point in raising the profile of the archives is with reference service. A thoughtful, comprehensive program of reference service and public programs is an effective beginning. The Levy Report certainly supports the idea that the use of archives is a repository's strongest selling point, not only for funding, but for heightening public awareness of a frequentiy misunderstood profession. If this is the case, then not only archivists but also employers must begin taking the role of reference service much more seriously when considering the pre- and post-appointment training and education of archivists and in defining their role in reference service. A comprehensive program of reference service established at the repository level is crucial for the effective use of material and the subsequent heightened profile of the archives in the perceptions of resource allocators. — 73 — As discussed previously, one of the most important ideas which arose in this study concerns the relationship between the repository and archivists' attitudes toward users and reference service. While defining the role of the reference archivist should transcend specific types of repositories, it is the ultimate responsibility of an archival repository to define the role of the reference archivist within the terms of its archival program. It has been suggested in this study that archivists follow particular steps in the reference process which include identifying the user, his need, and the most suitable way of obtaining the information requested. These steps have been learned through experience. That archivists have been this successful in serving their users without specific training is aclmirable. What archivists could accomplish with greater training, education in the area, and a clearer understanding of the possibilities of developing reference service might well be imagined. A column in a recent issue of New Scientist describes the malady of "information anxiety" which, according to the British author, is plaguing the United States: "This strain in the psychology of sufferers is the result of trying to cope with incredible masses of information that are useless even if they can be understood, which is unlikely anyway.'^ This problem, discussed humorously by an anonymous author known as "Ariadne" is closer to reality than it is comfortable to contemplate. The increased complexity of record generation and keeping by both individuals and organizations shows no signs of abating. In order to manage the information which will one day flood our repositories, entire archival programs must be re-examined in preparation for this onslaught. While other archival functions are important in the preparation of archival materials for use, it is reference service which is in the unique position of realizing the access to information. It is an archival function which will increase in importance, not subside. The primary objective of this study has been to test hypotheses based on perceptions of reference service with basic characteristics of archivists' experience. Attempts were made to draw generalizations from these results. An exploratory study of this nature can only be a foundation upon — 74 — which to further investigate. From the results it appears that studies examining the relationships between repositories and reference service might be the next step in realizing a more effective strategy for the performance of reference service. Archives and archivists can not afford the luxury of preserving archives solely for their intrinsic value. Archivists are accountable to not only their creating agencies but to the general public. Developing systems for more effective reference service is the first step toward lifting the veil of mystery which surrounds archives. The value and importance of archives deserves appreciation and understanding from all levels of society. Effective reference service is the initial strategy for accomplishing this enormous task. — 75 — E N D N O T E S 1. Bridget O'Connor, "The Automated Office", Administrative Management, November 1987:15. 2. Richard Lytle's archives system is made up of four components: "(1) the body of materials, (2) the users, (3) the finding aids, and (4) those responsible for serving the materials." While the role of the archivist is rather vague (what is exactly involved in servicing?) the entire system is predicated on use and providing means to that use. Richard Lytle, "Intellectual Access to Archives I", American Archivist 43 (Winter 1980):65. 3. Looking through the table of contents of Sue E. Holbert's Archives and Manuscripts: Reference and Access, (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1977), one gets the impression that reference is sort of a "catch all" for everything dealing with use. 4. Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1979), 51. 5. George Chalou, "Reference", Modern Archives Reader, Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch, eds. (Washington, D.C: National Archives and Records Service, 1984), 257. 6. Sue E. Holbert, Archives and Manuscripts: Reference and Access, (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1977), 13. 7. Chalou, "Reference", 257. 8. Ibid., 260. 9. Mary Jo Pugh, "The Illusion of Omniscience: Subject Access and the Reference Archivist", American Archivist 45 (Winter 1982): 39. 10. Ibid., 36. 11. Robert W. Tissing, Jr., "The Orientation Interview in Archival Research", American Archivist 47 (Spring 184): 173. 12. Chalou, 257. 13. Samuel Rothstein, "Across the Desk: 100 Years of Reference Encounters", Canadian Library Journal, (October 1977):392. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid., 392-393. 16. Margaret Hutchins, Introduction to Reference Work. (Chicago: American Library Association, 1944). 17. Ibid., p. 395. Bernard F. Vavrek, "The Emergence of New Reference", Journal of Education for Ubrarianship 10 (1969-1970):113. 18. Articles related to these fields include: Gillian Michell and Roma M. Harris, "Evaluating the Reference Interview: Some Factors Influencing Patrons and Professionals", RQ 27 (Fall 1987): 95-105; Marilyn Domas White, "Evaluation of the Reference Interview", RQ 25 (Fall 1985): 76-84; S.D. Neill, "The Reference Process and Certain Types of Memory: Semantic, Episodic, and Schematic", RQ 23 (Summer 1984): 417-423; and S.E. Neill, "The Reference Process and the Philosophy of Karl Popper", RQ 24 (Spring 1984): 309-319. 19. Paul Conway, "Facts and Frameworks: An Approach to Studying the Users of Archives", American Archivist 49 (Fall 1986): 393-407; Lawrence Dowler, "The Role of Use in Defining Archival — 76 — Practice and Principles: A Research Agenda for the Availability and Use of Records", American ArchivistSl (Winter and Spring 1988): 74-86. 20. Elsie T. Freeman, "In the Eye of the Beholder: Archives Administration from the User's Point of View", American Archivist47 (Spring 1984): 111. 21. Gerald Jahoda and Paul E. Olson, "Analyzing the Reference Process", RQ (Winter 1972): 148. 22. Ibid. 23. Paul Conway, "Facts and Frameworks: An Approach to Studying the Users of Archives", American Archivist 49 (Fall 1986): 398. 24. Ibid., 399. 25. Roy G. Francis, "The Nature of Scientific Research", in JohnT. Doby, ed.,An Introduction to Social Research, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967), 9. 26. Ibid. 27. Douglas MacGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960), 3. 28. Francis, "The Nature of Scientific Research", 12. 29. Edward A. Suchman, "The Principles of Research Design and Administration", in John T. Doby, ed., An Introduction to Social Research, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967), 310. 30. Ibid., 307. 31. Ibid., 112. 32. To fully understand the relationship implied by this term, please see Frank B. Evans, "The Archivist and the Academic Researcher: 'Stable Companionship'", American Archivist 26 (July 1963): 319-321. 33. Freeman, "In The Eye of the Beholder: Archives Administration for the User's Point of View": 114. 34. N. Josel, 'Ten Reference Commandments", RQ 11 (Winter 1971): 146. 35. Diana M. Thomas, Ann T. Hinckley, and Elizabeth R. Eisenbach, The Effective Reference Librarian, (New York: Academic Press, 1981), 98. 36. Association of Canadian Archivists Membership Directory, 1986-1987, 1. 37. The random number tables used were found in the appendices of Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1973). 38. SPSS, Inc., SPSS:X User's Guide, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1986). 39. Gerald R. Adams and Jay D. Schvaneveldt, Understanding Research Methods, (New York: Longman, 1985), 357. 40. John T. Roscoe, Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition. (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1975), 110-111, 440. 41. Marija J. Norusis, SPSS Introductory Guide: Basic Statistics and Operations. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1982), 47. 42. citation reads: Roscoe, 439 43. Robert C. Binkley, "Strategic Objectives in Archival Policy", The American Archivist! (July 1939): 163. — 77 — 44 Sidney J. Levy and Albert G. Robles, The Image of Archivists: Resource Allocators'Perceptions. Prepared for the SAA Task Force on Archives and Society. (Social Research, Inc.: 1984), in. 45. Ibid., iv. 46. "Ariadne", New Scientist (4 March 1989): 104. — 78 — B I B L I O G R A P H Y Adams, Gerald R. and Jay D. Schvaneveldt, Understanding Research Methods. New York: Longman, 1985. Anders, M.E., "Reference Service in Special Libraries", Library Trends 12 (January 1964): 390 - 404. Applegate, Howard L., Richard H. Brown, and Elsie E Frievogel, "Wider Use of Historical Records", American Archivist 40 (July 1977): 331 - 335. "The Archivists Code", American Archivist 18 (October 1955): 307 - 308. "Ariadne", New Scientist, 4 March 1989: 104. Association of Canadian Archivists, Association of Canadian Archivists Membership Directory, 1986-1987. Babbie, Earl R., The Practice of Social Research. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1979. , Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973. Balay, Robert and Christine Andrew, "Use of the Reference Service in a Large Academic Library", College and Research Libraries 36 (1975): 9 - 26. Beal, George M., Wimal Dissanayake, and Sumiye Konoshima, eds., Knowledge, Exchange, and Utilization. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986. Benson, Larry D. and H. Julene Butler, "Reference Philosophy vs. Service Reality", The Reference Librarian 12 (Spring/Summer 1985): 83 - 91. Berry, John W., "Academic Reference Departments and User Groups: A Preliminary Survey", The Reference Librarian 12 (Spring/ Summer 1985): 5 - 16. Binkley, Robert C, "Strategic Objectives in Archival Policy", American Archivist 2 (July 1939): 162-168. Birdsall, W.F., The American Archivists' Search for Professional Identity. University of Wisconsin: PhD thesis, 1973. , "The Two Sides of the Desk: The Archivist and the Historian, 1909 - 1935", American Archivist 38 (April 1975): 159- 173. Bishop, W.W., "The Theory of Reference Work", American Library Association Bulletin Vol IX (January - November 1915): 134 - 139. Blakely, Florence, "Perceiving Patterns of Reference Service: A Survey", RQ 11 (Fall 1971): 30 - 38. Borsa, Ivan, "The Expanding Archival Clientele in the Post World War II Period", Archivum 26 (1979): 119 - 126. Brauer, Carl M., "Researcher Evaluation of Reference Services", American Archivist 43 (Winter 1980): 77 -79. — 79 — Brichford, Maynard, "Scholarly Research and Archival Programs", Illinois Libraries 52 (February 1970): 150 - 153. Brooks, Philip C, "Archivists and their Colleagues: Common Denominators", American Archivist 14 (January 1951): 33 - 45. , Research in Archives: The Use of Unpublished Primary Sources. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. B rown, R. Allen, "The Public Records and the Historian", Journal of the Society of Archivists II (1960 -1964): 1-8. Brymner, Douglas, "Canadian Archives", Papers of the American Historical Association Vol III No II (1889): 151 - 163. Burke, Frank G., "The Future Course of Archival Theory in the United States", American Archivist 44 (Winter 1981): 40 -46. , "The Impact of the Specialist on Archives", Research and College Libraries 33 (1972): 312 - 317. Cappon, Lester J., "What, Then, Is There To Theorize About", American Archivist 45 (Winter 1982): 19 -25. Chalou, George, "Reference", Modern Archives Reader, Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch, eds. Washington: National Archives and Records Service, 1984. Cherwitz, Richard A., and James W. Hikins, Communication and Knowledge: An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1986. Childers, Thomas, "Managing the Quality of Reference/Information Service", The Library Quarterly 42 (April 1972): 212 - 217. , "The Test of Reference", Library Journal 105 (April 1980): 924 - 928. Cole, Dorothy, "Some Characteristics of Reference Work", College and Research Libraries 7 (January 1946): 45-51. Conway, Paul, "Facts and Frameworks: An Approach to Studying the Users of Archives", American Archivist 49 (Fall 1986): 393 - 407. Cook, Michael, Archives Administration. Folkestone, Kent: William Dawson and Sons, 1977. , The Management of Information From Archives. Aldershot, England: Gower, 1986. Cox, Richard J., "Bibliography and Reference for the Archivist", American Archivist 46 (Spring 1983): 185 - 187. Dearstyne, Bruce W., "What is the Use of Archives? A Challenge for the Profession", American Archivist 50 (Winter 1987):76 - 87. Delgado, David J., "The Archivist and Public Relations", American Archivist 30 (October 1967): 537 - 564. — 80 — Doby, John T., ed., Introduction to Social Research, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Dowler, Lawrence., "The Role of Use in Defining Archival Practice and Principles: A Research Agenda for the Availability and Use of Records", American Archivist 51 (Winter and Spring 1988): 74 - 86. Dragon, Andrea, "Marketing the Library", Wilson Library Bulletin 53 (March 1979): 498 - 502. Duchein, Michel, "Archives at the Service of the Administration, of the Researcher, and of the Private Citizen", Indian Archives 27 (July - December 1978): 1 - 13. Evans, Frank B., "The State Archivist and the Academic Researcher - Stable Companionship", American Archivist 26 (July 1963): 319 - 321. Fink, Arlene and Jacqueline Kosecoff, How to Conduct Surveys. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing, 1985. Francis, Roy G., "The Nature of Scientific Research", in John T. Doby, ed., An Introduction to Social Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Franklin, John Hope, "Archival Odyssey: Taking Students to the Sources", American Archivist 32 (October 1969): 375 - 381. Freeman, Elsie T., "In the Eye of the Beholder: Archives Administration from the User's Point of View", American Archivist 47 (Spring 1984): 111 - 123. Freivogel, Elsie Freeman, "Education Programs: Outreach as an Administrative Function", American Archivist 41 (April 1978): 147 - 153. Galvin, Thomas J., Problems in Reference Service. New York: R.R. Bowker, 1965. Ghosh, Pradyot Kumar, "Archives for Everybody", Indian Archives 28 (January - December 1979): 32 - 36. Goldhor, Herbert, An Introduction to Scientific Research in Librarianship. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science, 1972. Gothberg, Helen M., "Communication Patterns in Library Reference and Information Service", RQ (Fall 1973): 7 - 14. Gracy, David B. II, "Finding Aids Are Like Streakers", Georgia Archive (1973 0 1974): 30 - 47. Grogan, Denis, Practical Reference Work. London: Clive Bingley Ltd., 1979. Grosof, Miriam Schapiro and Hyman Sardy, A Research Primer for the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985. Halldorsson, E.A. and M.E. Murfin, "Performance of Professionals and Non-Professionals in the Reference Interview", College and Research Libraries 38 (1977): 385 - 395. Haller, Uli, "Processing for Access", American Archivist 48 (Fall 1985): 400 - 415. Holbert, Sue E., Archives and Manuscripts: Reference and Access. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1977. — 81 — Hull, Felix, "The Archivist and Society", Journal of the Society of Archivists 6 (April 1979): 125 - 130. Hutchins, Margaret, Introduction to Reference Work. Chicago: American Library Association, 1944. International Council on Archives, Dictionary of Archival Terminology, Peter Waene, ed. Munich: K.G. Saur, 1984. Jacobsen, Phebe R., " "The World Turned Upside Down": Reference Priorities and the State Archives", American Archivist 44 (Fall 1981): 341 - 345. Jahoda, Gerald and Paul E. Olson, "Analyzing the Reference Process", RQ (Winter 1972): 149 - 156. Jennerich, E.J. and E.Z. Jennerich, 'Teaching the Reference Interview", Journal of Education for Librarianship 17 (Fall 1976): 106- 111. Johnson, Nikki, "Further Thoughts on a Code of Practice", Journal of the Society of Archivists 8 (October 1986): 93 - 94. Jones, H.G., The Records of a Nation. New York: Atheneum, 1969. Jordan, Philip D., "The Scholar and the Archivist - A Partnership", American Archivist 31 (January 1968): 57 - 65. Josel, N., 'Ten Reference Commandments", RQ 11 (Winter 1971): 146 - 147. Joyce, William L., "Archivists and Research Use", American Archivist 47 (Spring 1984): 124 - 133. Kahn, Herman, "Some Comments on the Archival Vocation", American Archivist 34 (January 1971): 3 -12. Katz, William A., Introduction to Reference Work Vol II. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974. , Introduction to Reference Work Vol II. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987, reprinted from 1974. Lee, Sui H., ed.. Reference Service: A Perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: The Pierian Press, 1983. Leland, Waldo G., "The National Archives: A Programme", The American Historical Review 18 (October 1912): 1 - 28. Levy, Sidney J. and Albert G. Robles, The Image of Archivists: Resource Allocators' Perceptions. Prepared for the SAA Task Force on Archives and Society. Social Research, Inc.: 1984. Linderman, Winifred B., The Present Status and Future Prospects of Reference/Information Service. Chicago: American Library Association, 1967. Lytle, Richard H., "Intellectual Access to Archives: I. Provenance and Content Indexing Methods of Subject Retrieval", American Archivist 43 (Winter 1980): 64 - 75. McGregor, Douglas, The Human Side of Enterprise. New York. McGraw-Hill, 1960 "Evaluating the Reference Interview: Some Factors Influencing Patrons and Profession-als", RQ 27 (Fall 1987): 95 - 105. — 82 — Martyn, John and F. Wilfrid Lancaster, Investigative Methods in Library and Information Science: An Introduction. Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press, 1981. Muller, Feith and Fruin, Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives. New York: Wilson, 1940. Neill, S.D., "The Reference Process and Certain Types of Memory: Semantic, Episodic, and Schematic", RQ 23 (Summer 1984): 417 - 423. , "The Reference Process and the Philosophy of Karl Popper", RQ 24 (Spring 1985): 309 - 319. Norusis, Marija J., SPSS Introductory Guide: Basic Statistics and Operations. New York: MacGraw Hill, 1982. Norton, Margaret Cross, Norton on Archives. London: Feffer and Simons, 1975. O'Connor, Bridget, "The Automated Office", Administrative Management November 1987: 15. Ormsby, W.G., "Reference Service in the Public Archives of Canada", The American Archivist 25 (July 1962): 345 - 351. Papenfuse, Edward C, David C. Levine, and Charles E. Lee, "The Preservation and Uses of State and Local Records", The American Archivist 40 (July 1977): 325 - 329. Parker, Wyman W., "How Can the Archivist Aid the Researcher?", The American Archivist 16 (July 1953): 233 - 240. Peterson, Gary M. and Trudy Huskamp Peterson, Archives and Manuscripts: Law. Chicago: Society of American Archivists Basic Manual Series, 1985. Pinkett, Harold T., "American Archival Theory: The State of the Art", The American Archivist 44 (Summer 1981): 217-222. Posner, Ernst, Archives and the Public Interest: Selected Essays by Ernst Posner, Ken Munden, ed. Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1967. Powell, Ronald R., Basic Research Methods for Librarians. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing, 1985. Prasad, S.N., "The Liberalisation of Access and Use", Archivum 26 (1979): 137 - 144. Preston, Jean, "Problems in the Use of Manuscripts", The American Archivist 28 (July 1965): 367 - 379. Principe, L.S., "Everyman and Archives", Archivum 29 (1982): 135 - 142. Pugh, Mary Jo, "The Illusion of Omniscience: Subject Access and the Reference Archivist", The American Archivist 45 (Winter 1982): 33 - 44. Purdy, Virginia C, "Archivaphobia: Its Causes and Cures", Prologue 15 (Summer 1983): 115 - 119. Rader, Hannelore B., "Reference Services as a Teaching Function", Library Trends 29 (Summer 1980): 95 - 103. — 83 — Ralph, Elizabeth and Felix Hull, "The Development of Local Archive Service in England", Essays inMemory of Sir Hilary Jenkinson, Albeit E.J. Hollaender, ed. Chichester: Moore and Tillyer, 1962. Raymond, Andrew and James M. O'Toole, "Up From the Basement: Archives, History, and Public Administration", Georgia Archive 6 (Fall 1978): 18 - 32. Richards, Kenneth W., "The State Archivist and the Amateur Researcher", The American Archivist 26 (July 1963): 323 - 326. Rollins, Alfred B. Jr., "The Historian and the Archivist", The American Archivist 32 (October 1969): 369 -374. Roloff, Michael E., "Communication at the User-System Interface: A Review of Research", Library Research 1 (1979): 1 - 18. Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1975. Rothstein, Samuel, "Across the Desk: 100 Years of Reference Encounters", Canadian Library Journal (October 1977): 391 - 399. , "The Development of the Concept of Reference Service in American Libraries, 1850 -1900", The Library Quarterly 23 (January 1953): 1 - 15. , The Development of Reference Services in American Research Libraries. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1954. , "The Measurement and Evaluation of Reference Service", Library Trends 12 (1964): 456 - 472. , "Reference Service: The New Dimension in Librarianship", College and Research Libraries 22 (January 1981): 11-18. Rowland, A.R., ed., Reference Services. Hamden, Conn: Shoe String Press, 1964. Ruben, Brent D., "General System Theory", Interdisciplinary Approaches to Human Communication, Richard W. Budd and Brent D. Ruben, eds. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co Inc. 1979. Rundell, Walter Jr., "Relations Between Historical Researchers and Custodians of Source Materials", College and Research Libraries 29 (November 1968): 466 - 476. , 'To Serve Scholarship", The American Archivist 30 (October 1967): 547 - 555. Saffady, William, "Reference Service to Researchers in Archives", RQ 14 (Winter 1974): 139 - 144. Sahli, Nancy, "Finding Aids: A Multi-Media, Systems Perspective", The American Archivist 44 (Winter 1981): 15 - 20. Schellenberg, T.R., The Management of Archives. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. , Modern Archives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975, reprinted from 1956. — 84 — Schiller, Anita, "Reference Service: Instruction or Information", Library Quarterly 35 (1965): 52 - 60. Schlachter, Gail A„ ed., The Service Imperative for Libraries: Essays in Honour of Margaret E. Monroe. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1982. Shipton, Clifford, "College Archives and Academic Research", The American Archivist 21 (July 1964): 395 -400. Smith, Dwight L., "The Archivist and the Historians: First Cousins", Illinois Libraries 52 (February 1970): 176-181. Speakman, Mary N., "The User Talks Back", The American Archivist Al (Spring 1984): 164 - 171. SPSS, Inc., SPSS:X User's Guide. New York: McGraw HiU, 1986. Stevens, Rolland E., ed., University Archives. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1965. Steig, Margaret F., "The Information of Needs of Historians", College and Research Libraries 42 (November 1981): 549 - 560. Suchman, Edward A., "The Principles of Research Design and Administration", in John T. Doby, ed., An Introduction to Social Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Tai, Simon W., Social Science Statistics: Its Elements and Applications. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing, 1978. Taylor, Hugh A., Archival Services and the Concept of the User: A RAMP Study. Paris: UNESCO, 1984. Thomas, Diana M., Ann T. Hinckley, and Elizabeth R. Eisenbach, The Effective Reference Librarian. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Timings, E. Kenneth, "The Archivist and the Public", Journal of the Society of Archivists II (1960 - 1964): 179- 183. Tissing, Robert W. Jr., "The Orientation Interview in Archival Research", The American Archivist Al (Spring 1984): 173 - 178. Turnbaugh, Roy, "Living with a Guide", The American Archivist 46 (Fall 1983): 449 - 452. Vavrek, Bernard F., "The Emergence of New Reference", Journal of Education for Librarianship 10 (1969/ 70): 109- 115. , "A Theory of Reference Service", College and Research Libraries 29 (November 1968): 508 - 510. Whalen, Lucille, ed., "Reference Services in Archives" issue, The Reference Librarian 13 (Fall 1985/Winter 1985 - 1986). White, H.D., "Measurement at the Reference Desk", Drexel Library Quarterly 17 (1981): 3 - 35. White, Marilyn Domas, "Evaluation of the Reference Interview", RQ 25 (Fall 1985): 76 - 84. Whittaker, Kenneth, 'Towards a Theory for Reference and Information Service", Journal of Librarianship 9 (January 1977): 49 - 63. Wilson, Ian E., "Shortt and Doughty: The Cultural Role of the Public Archives of Canada, 1904 - 1935", Canadian Archivist 2 (1973): 4 - 25. Wilson, Patrick, Public Knowledge, Private Ignorance. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1977. Wurl, Joel, "Methodology as Outreach: A Public Mini-Course on Archival Principles and Techniques", The American Archivist 49 (Spring 1986): 184 - 186. Zeigler, Charles, "Archival Practices Survey", The American Archivist 38 (April 1975): 191 - 203. — 86 — PART I. THE ARCHIVIST OBJECT: To identify archivists' characteristics. DIRECTIONS: Please check the appropriate response(s). 1.1 Gender Male Female 1.2 Age Under 20 years 40 - 49 years 20 - 29 years 50 - 59 years 30 - 39 years Over 60 years 1.3 How many years have you been employed as a professional archivist? Under 1 year 10 - 19 years 2-4 years Over 20 years 5-9 years 1.4 Please indicate the level(s) of education you have achieved and the area(s) of specialization, if appropriate. College (please specify diploma/degree/program) University (please specify diploma/degree/program) Other work undertaken not leading to a degree/diploma (please specify) Other (please specify) — 88 — DIRECTIONS: For questions 1.5 to 1.7 please rank the following categories from 1 - x (1 indicating the most frequent, 2 the next frequent and so on). If you have not worked in a particular repository, performed certain archival function, or worked with certain forms of records/archives, please write NA in the space provided. 1.5 Please rank the following categories of repositories you have worked in during your career. Academic Business/Corporate Government - Federal Government - Local Government - Municipal Government - Provincial/Territorial Historical Association Hospital/Medical Rare Book/Manuscript Library Religious Thematic (please specify) Other (please specify) 1.6 Please rank the following archival functions you have performed during your career. Acquisition/Appraisal Administration/Management Conservation Public Service/Reference Service Records Management Other (please specify) — 89 — 1.7 Please rank the following forms of records/archives with which you have worked during your career. Govemment/Administration records Graphic Media (including architectural drawings, maps, plans, photographs, prints, drawings, and paintings) Manuscripts/Personal Papers Sound/Moving Images Other (please specify) 1.8 If you are presently employed in an archival repository, approximately what percentage of your time is spent in the performance of reference service? Please check the most appropriate response. 0% Less than 10% 11-25% 26 - 50% 51-75% 76 - 90% Over 90% 100% Not applicable — 90 — PART n. THE ARCHIVIST AND THE USER OBJECT: To identify archivists' perceptions of their users. 2.1 Please rank from 1 - x; (1 being the highest value, 2 the next highest and so on) the categories of users you feel most frequendy use an archival repository. If you do not think a particular category has ever used an archival repository, write NA in the space provided. Academic: eg., historians, anthropologists, sociologists, econo-mists, political scientists, musicians, and professors/instruc-tors in other areas of study. Includes graduate and post graduate students. General: The use of archives for avocational rather than vocational purposes or for the verification of a legal or fiscal right Examples of this user might be genealogists, amateur historians, coin collectors, and amateur photographers. Institutional: The use of archives by the body/individual which originally created them to verify policy and practice and to reaffirm legal and fiscal rights and responsibilities. Professional: eg., journalists, writers, lawyers, architects, engineers, film makers, photographers, contract researchers, teachers, etc. Student: The use of archives for educational purposes by individuals at any level. This excludes graduate and post graduate students. Other (please specify): DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number you feel most closely corresponds to your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. The numbers 0 - 4 indicate the following responses: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly disagree; and 0 = don't know. 2.2 I feel the most accurate method of determining a profile of users is systematic (the statistical identification of users, user requests, and frequency of use over time). SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 91 — I feel the most accurate method of determining a profile of users is impressionistic (the identification of users by experience gained through conversation and consultation with users over time). SA 1 A 2 DA 3 SDA 4 DK 0 I can usually tell which category of user a person is by: SA A DA SDA DK Grammar; vocabulary 1 2 3 4 0 Communication skills/style 1 2 3 4 0 Appearance 1 2 3 4 0 Preparedness of background material 1 2 3 4 0 Familiarity with using archives 1 2 3 4 0 Asking them 1 2 3 4 0 I don't think it's important and don't try to find out 1 2 3 4 0 I believe most users perceive archival repositories as: SA A DA SDA DK Libraries 1 2 3 4 0 Museums/Treasure houses 1 2 3 4 0 Record centres 1 2 3 4 0 Storehouse of the collective memory of an organization 1 2 3 4 0 Inaccessible, secret places 1 2 3 4 0 I believe that in reference service, most users perceive archivists as: SA A DA SDA DK Aloof and indifferent 1 2 3 4 0 Attentive 1 2 3 4 0 Eager to please 1 2 3 4 0 Patient 1 2 3 4 0 Professional 1 2 3 4 0 Indispensible 1 2 3 4 0 2.7 Please rank the following statements from 1 - x (1 being the most frequent, 2 the next frequent and so on) according to your perceptions of the most frequently asked questions. If you feel users do not ask any of these questions at all, write NA in the space provided. I feel most users: Want to know about the scope and nature of the repository, its policies and procedures, and regulations governing the use of material. Want to learn how the information retrieval system works. Want information about certain records/archives. Want information which comes from records/archives. Want a specific item/document. Other (please specify) 2.8 I feel most users' questions relate to: A particular subject. A particular person(s) or organization(s). A particular geographic area. A particular chronological time. Other (please specify) DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number you feel most closely corresponds to your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. 2.9 In terms of categories of questions in 2.7,1 think the category of question the user asks indicates the level of assistance s/he will need. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.10 I think it is up to the archivist to determine what the user really needs. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 93 — 2.11 Please rank the following from 1 - x (1 being the most frequently observed, 2 the next frequent, and so on) from the most frequent to the least frequent. If you feel users do not follow any of these particular processes, write NA in the space provided. I feel most users: Depend primarily upon the knowledge of the archivist to identify the information /material requested. Depend upon the archivist to instruct them in how to use the information retrieval system and perhaps to indicate appropri-ate finding aids to begin their search. Prefer to try and learn the system themselves and ask the archivist for assistance only when necessary. Depend upon the archivist to suggest approaches to study of the records /archives and advise or consult with them on their research. Other (please specify) DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number you feel corresponds most closely to your agreement or disagreement with the following statements, 2.12 I feel the archivist is the most important source of information to the user. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.13 I believe the archivist' attitude toward the use and his/her topic affect the user's research processes. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.14 I believe that if the user asks, the archivist should help interpret the documents once the potentially useful ones have been retrieved. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 94 — 2.15 I feel the archivist is most useful as an intermediary between the records/archives and the user. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.16 I feel the quality of finding aids determines the extent to which the user depends on the archivist for assistance. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.17 I feel that most finding aids are not particularly useful to the user without the intervention/ assistance of the archivist. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.18 I feel the less familiar an archivist is with the holdings of a repository the more inclined s/he would be to depend on finding aids for information retrieval. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.19 I feel the less familiar an archivist is with the holdings of a repository the more inclined s/he would be to depend on the expertise of his/her colleagues for advice and assistance. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 95 — P A R T m . THE ARCHIVIST AND REFERENCE SERVICE O B J E C T : To identify archivists' perceptions of their performance of reference service. 3.1 Please rank you opinion of the following statements from 1 - x (1 being the highest value, 2 the next highest, and so on). If you feel any of the statements do not apply, write NA in the space provided. I feel the most important element of reference service is: The personal assistance given to the user by the archivist before, during, and after the search for information or materi-als has been completed. The dissemination of information about the repository, its holdings, and regulations governing access and use. The dissemination of information about and from records/ archives through the use of an information retrieval system. The physical retrieval of documents/items and making them available for use in a reading or search room. Other (please specify) D I R E C T I O N S : Please circle the number you feel most closely corresponds to your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. 3.2 I believe the archivist must appear approachable and friendly when s/he is on the public service desk. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.3 I believe the placement of furniture (ie desks, chairs) is important in the public service area, in terms of putting the user at ease. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.4 I believe that asking the archivist for assistance can be an intimidating experience for users. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 96 — 3.5 I find that assisting the user is sometimes: SA A DA SDA DK Intimidating 1 2 3 4 0 Rewarding 1 2 3 4 0 Frustrating 1 2 3 4 0 Fun 1 2 3 4 0 Stressful 1 2 3 4 0 3.6 I feel the "body language" displayed by both the archivist and the user influences the development of the rapport between them. SA 1 A 2 DA 3 SDA 4 DK 0 3.7 I believe this rapport has a great deal of impact on the success of the user' s information search. SA 1 A 2 DA 3 SDA 4 DK 0 3.8 I believe that asking questions which encourage the user to think through his/her information need is the most effective way of clarifying the user's initial questions. SA 1 A 2 DA 3 SDA 4 DK 0 3.9 In order to fully understand what the user wants, I must take the time to put the question into its proper context (ie understand the nature of the study, why the user thinks s/he will find the information in an archival repository etc.). SA 1 A 2 DA 3 SDA 4 DK 0 3.10 Once you have heard all the information about the user's need, you make a diagnosis and determine the "best" method for finding the information/materials. SA 1 A 2 DA 3 SDA 4 DK 0 — 97 — 3.11 Please rank the following characteristics from 1 - x (1 being the highest value, 2 the next highest value and so on) which you feel constitute the "best" method for retrieving the information/materials: The quickest/easiest The most accurate/efficient The most satisfying for the user The most novel/creative Other (please specify) DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number you feel most closely corresponds to your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. 3.12 I feel the user should be included at every step in the retrieval process. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.13 The user is satisfied only when the information/materials s/he requested have been retrieved. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.14 I believe the user is satisfied if the archivist has tried his/her best to find the information/ materials, even if to no avail. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.15 I believe the user is satisfied if the archivist has displayed respect for his/her project and has taken his/her study seriously. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.16 I believe a large part of user satisfaction comes from knowing how and why an information retrieval system works. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 ( — 98 — COMMENTS: — 99 — PART I. THE ARCHIVIST OBJECT: To identify archivists' characteristics. DIRECTIONS: Please check the appropriate response(s). 1.1 Gender Male Female 1.2 Age Under 20 years 40 - 49 years 20 - 29 years 50 - 59 years 30 - 39 years Over 60 years 1.3 How many years have you been employed as a professional archivist? Under 1 year 10 -19 years 2 - 4 years Over 20 years 5 - 9 years 1.4 Please indicate the level(s) of education you have achieved and the area(s) of specialization, if appropriate. College (please specify diploma/degree/program) University (please specify diploma/degree/program) Other work undertaken not leading to a degree/diploma (please specify) Other (please specify) — 101 — DIRECTIONS: For questions 1.5 to 1.7 please rank the following categories from 1 - x (1 indicating the most frequent, 2 the next frequent and so on). If you have not worked in a particular repository, performed certain archival function, or worked with certain forms of records/archives, please write NA in the space provided. 1.5 Please rank the following categories of repositories you have worked in during your career. Academic Business/Corporate Government - Federal Government - Local Government - Municipal Government - Provincial/Territorial Historical Association Hospital/Medical Rare Book/Manuscript Library Religious Thematic (please specify) Other (please specify) 1.6 Please rank the following archival functions you have performed during your career. Acquisition/Appraisal Administration/Management Conservation Public Service/Reference Service Records Management Other (please specify) — 102 — 1.7 Please rank the following forms of records/archives with which you have worked during your career. Government/Administration records Graphic Media (including architectural drawings, maps, plans, photographs, prints, drawings, and paintings) Manuscripts/Personal Papers Sound/Moving Images Other (please specify) 1.8 If you are presendy employed in an archival repository, approximately what percentage of your time is spent in the performance of reference service? Please check the most appropriate response. 0% Less than 10% 11-25% 26 - 50% 51-75% 76 - 90% Over 90% 100% Not applicable — 103 — PART n. THE ARCHIVIST AND THE USER OBJECT: To identify archivists' perceptions of their users. In parts 2 and 3, YOU are asked to give YOUR opinion of what archivists generally believe or how most archivists perform in reference service. 2.1 Please rank from 1 - x; (1 being the highest value, 2 the next highest and so on) the categories of users YOU feel archivists most frequently encounter in an archival repository. If you do not think a particular category has ever used an archival repository, write NA in the space provided. Academic: eg., historians, anthropologists, sociologists, econo-mists, political scientists, musicians, and professors/instruc-tors in other areas of study. Includes graduate and post graduate students. General: The use of archives for avocational rather than vocational purposes or for the verification of a legal or fiscal right Examples of this user might be genealogists, amateur historians, coin collectors, and amateur photographers. Institutional: The use of archives by the bodyAndividual which originally created them to verify policy and practice and to reaffirm legal and fiscal rights and responsibilities. Professional: eg., journalists, writers, lawyers, architects, engineers, film makers, photographers, contract researchers, teachers, etc. Student: The use of archives for educational purposes by individuals at any level. This excludes graduate and post graduate students. Other (please specify): DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number YOU feel most closely corresponds to YOUR agreement or disagreement with the following statements. The numbers 0-4 indicate the following responses: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly disagree; and 0 = don't know. 2.2 Most archivists feel the most accurate method of determining a profile of users is systematic (the statistical identification of users, user requests, and frequency of use over time). SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 104 — Most archivists feel the most accurate method of determining a profile of users is impression-istic (the identification of users by experience gained through conversation and consultation with users over time). SA A DA SDA DK 1 , 2 3 4 0 Most archivists can usually tell which category of user a person is by: SA A DA SDA DK Grammar; vocabulary 1 2 3 4 0 Communication skills/style 1 2 3 4 0 Appearance 1 2 3 4 0 Preparedness of background material 1 2 3 4 0 Familiarity with using archives 1 2 3 4 0 Asking them 1 2 3 4 0 I don't think it's important and don't try to find out 1 2 3 4 0 Most archivists feel most users perceive archival repositories as: SA A DA SDA DK Libraries 1 2 3 4 0 Museums/Treasure houses 1 2 3 4 0 Record centres 1 2 3 4 0 Storehouse of the collective 1 2 3 4 0 memory of an organization Inaccessible, secret places 1 2 3 4 0 In reference service, most archivists feel most users perceive archivists as: SA A DA SDA DK Aloof and indifferent 1 2 3 4 0 Attentive 1 2 3 4 0 Eager to please 1 2 3 4 0 Patient 1 2 3 4 0 Professional 1 2 3 4 0 Indispensible 1 2 3 4 0 2.7 Please rank the following statements from 1 - x (1 being the most frequent, 2 the next frequent and so on) according to YOUR perceptions of the most frequently asked questions. If you feel users do not ask any of these questions at all, write NA in the space provided. Most archivists believe most users: Want to know about the scope and nature of the repository, its policies and procedures, and regulations governing the use of material. Want to learn how the information retrieval system works. Want information about certain records/archives. Want information which comes from records/archives. Want a specific item/document Other (please specify) 2.8 Most archivists believe most users' questions relate to: A particular subject. A particular person(s) or organization(s). A particular geographic area. A particular chronological time. Other (please specify) DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number YOU feel most closely corresponds to YOUR agreement or disagreement with the following statements. 2.9 In terms of categories of questions in 2.7, most archivists feel the category of question the user asks indicates the level of assistance s/he will need. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.10 Most archivists think it is up to them to determine what the user really needs. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.11 Please rank the following from 1 - x (1 being the most frequently observed, 2 the next frequent, and so on) from the most frequent to the least frequent. If you feel users do not follow any of these particular processes, write NA in the space provided. Most archivists feel most users: Depend primarily upon the knowledge of the archivist to identify the information /material requested. Depend upon the archivist to instruct them in how to use the information retrieval system and perhaps to indicate appropri-ate finding aids to begin their search. Prefer to try and learn the system themselves and ask the archivist for assistance only when necessary. Depend upon the archivist to suggest approaches to study of the records /archives and advise or consult with them on their research. Other (please specify) DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number YOU feel corresponds most closely to YOUR agreement or disagreement with the following statements, 2.12 Most archivists think the archivist is the most important source of information to the user. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.13 Most archivists think the archivist' attitude toward the use and his/her topic affect the user's research processes. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.14 Most archivists believe that if the user asks, the archivist should help interpret the documents once the potentially useful ones have been retrieved. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 107 — 2.15 Most archivists believe the archivist is most useful as an intermediary between the records/ archives and the user. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.16 Most archivists believe the quality of finding aids determines the extent to which the user depends on the archivist for assistance. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.17 Most archivists feel that most finding aids are not particularly useful to the user without the intervention/assistance of the archivist. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.18 Most archivists feel the less familiar an archivist is with the holdings of a repository the more inclined s/he would be to depend on finding aids for information retrieval. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 2.19 Most archivists feel the less familiar an archivist is with the holdings of a repository the more inclined s/he would be to depend on the expertise of his/her colleagues for advice and assistance. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 108 — PART HI. THE ARCHIVIST AND REFERENCE SERVICE OBJECT: To identify archivists' perceptions of their performance of reference service. 3.1 Please rank YOUR opinion of the following statements from 1 - x (1 being the highest value, 2 the next highest, and so on). If you feel any of the statements do not apply, write NA in the space provided. Most archivists feel the most important element of reference service is: The personal assistance given to the user by the archivist before, during, and after the search for information or materi-als has been completed. The dissemination of information about the repository, its holdings, and regulations governing access and use. The dissemination of information about and from records/ archives through the use of an information retrieval system. The physical retrieval of documents/items and making them available for use in a reading or search room. Other (please specify) DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number YOU feel most closely corresponds to YOUR agreement or disagreement with the following statements. 3.2 Most archivists feel that the archivist must appear approachable and friendly when s/he is on the public service desk. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.3 Most archivists feel the placement of furniture (ie desks, chairs) is important in the public service area, in terms of putting the user at ease. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.4 Most archivists believe that asking the archivist for assistance can be an intimidating experience for users. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 1 0 9 — 3.5 Most archivists find that assisting the user is sometimes: SA A DA SDA DK Intimidating 1 2 3 4 0 Rewarding 1 2 3 4 0 Frustrating 1 2 3 4 0 Fun 1 2 3 4 0 Stressful 1 2 3 4 0 3.6 Most archivists think the "body language" displayed by both the archivist and the user influences the development of the rapport between them. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.7 Most archivists think this rapport has a great deal of impact on the success of the user's information search. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.8 Most archivists feel that asking questions which encourage the user to think through his/her information need is the most effective way of clarifying the user's initial questions. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.9 In order to fully understand what the user wants, most archivists believe they must take the time to put the question into its proper context (ie understand the nature of the study, why the user thinks s/he will find the information in an archival repository etc.). SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.10 Once the archivist has heard all the information about the user's need, you make a diagnosis and determine the "best" method for finding the information/materials. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 — 110 — 3.11 Please rank the following characteristics from 1 - x (1 being the highest value, 2 the next highest value and so on) which most archivists believe constitute the "best" method for retrieving the information/materials: The quickest/easiest The most accurate/efficient The most satisfying for the user The most novel/creative Other (please specify) DIRECTIONS: Please circle the number YOU feel most closely corresponds to YOUR agreement or disagreement with the following statements. 3.12 Most archivists feel the user should be included at every step in the retrieval process. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.13 Most archivists feel the user is satisfied only when the information/materials s/he requested have been retrieved. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.14 Most archivists feel the user is satisfied if the archivist has tried his/her best to find the information/materials, even if to no avail. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.15 Most archivists feel the user is satisfied if the archivist has displayed respect for his/her project and has taken his/her study seriously. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 3.16 Most archivists feel a large part of user satisfaction comes from knowing how and why an information retrieval system works. SA A DA SDA DK 1 2 3 4 0 COMMENTS: — 1 1 2 — APPENDIX C I N T E R P R E T I V E DECISIONS F O R C O D I N G A. RANKING QUESTIONS 1. In parts 1,2, and 3, blanks should be considered not applicable. 2. Statements can be ranked with the same number if so indicated in the questionnaire. For example, if a respondent feels that two statements are equally important, both may be considered "1". 3. If statements are checked instead of ranked, consider all checks to be " 1" and the rest not applicable. 4. Other statements left blank should be considered not applicable. 5. If a statement has been ranked off the end of the scale (for example, using a rank of "8" if there are only 5 statements to be ranked), the last possible number is substituted for the non-existant number (the rank of "5" would be used instead of the "8"). B. CIRCLING QUESTIONS 1. Questions unanswered but clarified cannot be tabulated but must be considered missing. C. MISSING CATEGORIES 1. 77 - MISSING: The entire question has been left blank. 2. 88 - UNUSABLE: The respondent has answered the statement inappropriately. For example, circling both agree and disagree would constitute an unusable answer. 3. 99 - NOT APPLICABLE: Most commonly found in ranking questions, not applicable will be used when a blank has been left to indicate that no response is appropriate. It does not mean that the question has not been answered. D. EDUCATION QUESTION 1. The question about education should be interpreted as explicitly as possible (i.e., the coder should accept the responses as written). The response should be changed only if it is obviously in the wrong place (for example, an M.L.S. degree placed under other would be considered university). — 113 — variable name value ASEX11 1 2 77 88 AAGE12 1 2 3 4 5 6 77 88 AYRS13 1 2 3 4 5 77 88 AED14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 77 88 99 value name male female missing unusable - 20 years 20 - 29 years 30 - 39 years 0 - 49 years 50 - 59 years + 60 years missing unusable -1 year 2-4 years 5-9 years 10 -19 years + 20 years missing unusable college university course work other college, university college, course work college, other university, course work university, other course work, other college, university, course work university, course work, other course work, other, college other, college, university college, university, course work, other missing unusable not applicable — 114 — variable name value value name ARP15A 1 1/12 2 2/12 3 3/12 4 4/12 5 5/12 6 6/12 7 7/12 8 8/12 9 9/12 10 10/12 11 11/12 12 12/12 77 missing 88 unusable 99 not applicable ARP15B same as above ARP15GF same as above ARP15GL same as above ARP15GM same as above ARP15GP same as above ARP15HI same as above ARP15HO same as above ARP15RB same as above ARP15RE same as above ARP15TH same as above ARP 150 same as above AFN16AA 1 1/7 2 2/7 3 3/7 4 4/7 5 5/7 6 6/7 7 7/7 77 missing 88 unusable 99 not applicable — 115 — variable name value value name AFN16AM AFN16AD AFN16C AFN16RS AFN16RM AFN160 AFM17GR AFM17GM AFM17M AFM17S AFM170 AREF18 same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 5 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 77 88 99 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 missing unusable not applicable 0% -10% 11-25% 26 - 50% 51-75% 76 - 90% + 90% 100% missing unusable not applicable 116 — variable name value value name AUS21A AUS21G AUS21I AUS21P AUS21S AUS210 ASYS21 AIMP23 ACT24G ACT24C ACT24A ACT24P ACT24F ACT24AS ACT24U AAR25L 1 2 3 4 5 6 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 0 77 88 same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above 1/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 missing unusable not applicable strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree don't know missing unusable — 117 — variable name value value name AAR25M AAR25RC AAR25S AAR25I AAR26AL AAR26AT AAR26E AAR26PA AAR26PR AAR26I AUW27R AUW27IN AUW27A AUW27F AUW27IT AUW270 same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 5 6 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above 1/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 missing unusable not applicable — 118 — variable name value value name AUQ28S AUQ28P AUQ28G AUQ28T AUQ280 A AS 29 AUN210 AUP211A AUP211I AUP211L AUP211AC AUP2110 1 2 3 4 5 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 0 77 88 99 same as above 1 2 3 4 5 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 missing unusable not applicable strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree don't know missing unusable not applicable 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 missing unusable not applicable — 119 — variable name value value name AIS212 AAA213 AAI214 AINT215 AFAQ216 AAF217 ADF218 ADA219 ARS31PA ARS31R ARS31IR ARS31LD ARS31P ARS310 1 2 3 4 0 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 5 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree don't know missing unusable not applicable 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 missing unusable not applicable 120 — variable name value value name AFA32 AFP33 AUI34 AA35I AA35R AA35FR AA35FU AA35S ABL36 ABLI37 AQU38 AQC39 AQD310 ARM311Q ARM311A ARM311S 1 2 3 4 0 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 5 77 88 99 same as above same as above strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree don't know missing unusable not applicable 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 missing unusable not applicable — 121 — variable name value value name ARM311N ARM3110 AUS312 AUS313 AUS314 AUS315 AUS316 ED14REV same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 0 77 88 99 same as above same as above same as above same as above 1 2 3 4 5 6 77 88 99 strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree don't know missing unusable not applicable graduate degree in archival studies graduate degree(s) and courses/di-ploma in archival studies graduate degree(s) undergraduate degree(s) and courses/ diploma in archival studies undergraduate degree(s) courses/diploma in archival studies missing unusable not applicable — 1 2 2 — APPENDIX D T A B L E S O F K E N D A L L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S " A " and "B" Q U E S T I O N N A I R E S VALUE NAME CORRESPONDING QUESTIONS ASEX11 1.1 AAGE12 1.2 AYRS 1.3 AED14 (ED14REV) 1.4 ARP15A 1.5 ARP15B 1.5 ARP15GF 1.5 ARP15HI 1.5 ARP15RE 1.5 AFN16AA 1.6 AFN16AM 1.6 AFN16AD 1.6 AFN16C 1.6 AFN16RS 1.6 AFN16RM 1.6 AFM17GR 1.7 AFM17GM 1.7 AFM17M 1.7 AFM17S 1.7 AREF18 1.8 AUS21A 2.1 AUS21G 2.1 AUS21I 2.1 AIS21P 2.1 AUS21S 2.1 ASYS22 2.2 AIMP23 2.3 — 123 — VALUE NAME CORRESPONDING QUESTIONS ACT24G 2.4 ACT24C 2.4 ACT24A 2.4 ACT24P 2.4 ACT24F 2.4 ACT24AS 2.4 ACT24U 2.4 AAR25L 2.5 AAR25M 2.5 AAR25RC 2.5 AAR25S 2.5 AAR25I 2.5 AAR26AL 2.6 AAR26AT 2.6 AAR26E 2.6 AAR26PA 2.6 AAR26PR 2.6 AAR26I 2.6 AUW27R 2.7 AUW27IN 2.7 AUW27A 2.7 AUW27F 2.7 AUW27IT 2.7 AUQ28S 2.8 AUQ28P 2.8 AUQ28G 2.8 AUQ28T 2.8 AAS29 2.9 AUN210 2.10 AUP211A 2.11 AUP211I 2.11 AUP211L 2.11 AUP211AC 2.11 AIS212 2.12 AAA213 2.13 AAI214 2.14 AINT215 2.15 — 124 — VALUE NAME CORRESPONDING QUESTIONS AFAQ216 2.16 AAF217 2.17 ADF218 2.18 ADA219 2.19 ARS31PA 3.1 ARS31IR 3.1 ARS31LD 3.1 ARS31P 3.1 AFA32 3.2 AFP33 3.3 AUI34 3.4 AA35I 3.5 AA35R 3.5 AA35FR 3.5 AA35FU 3.5 AA35S 3.5 ABL36 3.6 ABLI37 3.7 AQU38 3.8 AQC39 3.9 AQD310 3.10 ARM311Q 3.11 ARM311A 3.11 ARM311S 3.11 ARM311N 3.11 AUI312 3.12 AUS313 3.13 AUS314 3.14 AUS315 3.15 AUS316 3.16 — 125 — E X P L A N A T I O N O F T A B L E S The value names appearing across the top of the columns indicate the independent variables. The value names appearing vertically down the sides of the columns indicate the dependent variables which were tested with the independent variables. The four digit decimated number is the actual Kendall correlation coefficient which measures how strongly the variables are related. If a "0" is given, no relationship exists. The number below the Kendall correlation coefficient prefaced by "N" indicates the number of cases which were tested. The number of cases refers to the number of respondents. The number below the number of cases is the level of significance of the Kendall correlation coefficient. To determine whether the coefficient is statistically significant, the p = .05 equation is used. The coefficient is considered statistically significant if it registers a significance level of .05 or less. The coefficients which appear in bold type are those which are discussed in the thesis. — 126 — QUESTIONNAIRE " A " Kendall Correlation Coefficients ARP15A AUS21A -.1777 AUW27R N(20) SIG.194 AUS21G -.3631 AUW27IN N(19) SIG .038 AUS21I .3850 AUW27A N(18) SIB .032 AUS21P -.1137 AUW27F N(18) SIG .294 AIS21S .5208 AUW27IT N(18) SIG .008 ASYS22 .0292 AUQ28S N(18) SIG .446 AIMP23 -.0882 AUQ28P N(19) SIG .337 ARP15A ARP15A .5270 AUQ28G .1031 N(16) N(15) SIG .011 SIG .339 -.3025 AUQ28T -.0252 N(15) N(18) SIG .102 SIG .457 -.1301 AUP211A .2251 N (19) N (20) SIG .266 SIG .138 .2071 AUP211I -.2452 N (20) N (18) SIB. 173 SIG. 132 -.1819 AIP211L -.3298 N (19) N (17) SIG .200 SIG .078 .1664 AUP211AC .3266 N (20) N (19) SIG .220 SIG .057 .0441 AIS212 .5005 N(18) N(20) SIG .423 SIG .010 — 127 — ARP15A AAA213 .3082 N(20) SIG .074 AINT215 .0849 N(20) SIG .342 ARS31PA .2845 N(20) SIG .086 ARS31IR .0851 N(19) SIG .341 ARS31ID -.0763 N(18) SIG .361 ARS31P -.1295 N(17) SIG .286 AA35I -.1277 N(19) SIG .277 ARP15A AA35R -.2774 N(20) SIG .103 AA35FR -.0687 N(19) SIG .375 AA35S .0000 N(19) SIG .500 AQU38 -.1849 N(20) SIG .200 AQC39 .0208 N(19) SIG .463 AQD310 -.0809 N(20) SIG .356 ARM311Q .0682 N(17) SIG .381 ARP15A ARM311A .3004 N(20) SIG .086 ARM311S .0990 N(17) SIG .330 ARM311N -.3626 N(14) SIG .079 AUS313 .3336 N(19) SIG .065 AUS314 .2642 N(20) SIG .105 AUS315 -.0784 N(20) SIG .358 AUS316 -.5299 N(20) SIG .006 — 128 — ARP15B ARP15B ARP15B AUS21A .2446 N(8) SIG .235 AUW27R -.0978 N(8) SIG .386 AUQ28G -.4444 N(6) SIG .142 AUS21G -.5262 N(8) SIG .058 AIW27IN .2003 N(8) SIG .277 AUQ28T -.4472 N(6) SIG.149 A U S 2 1 I . 8 0 1 0 N ( 8 ) S I G . 0 1 0 AUW27A .1669 N(8) SIG .316 AUP211A .4737 N(8) SIG .087 AUS21P -.2503 N(8) SIG .230 AUW27F .0000 N(8) SIG .500 AUP211I -.1185 N(8) SIG .372 AUS21S .0489 N(8) SIG .442 AUW27IT -.7368 N(8) SIG .017 AUP211L .2868 N(8) SIG .215 ASYS22 .3468 N(8) SIG.169 AUQ28S . 6 5 4 7 N ( 7 ) S I G . 0 4 7 AUP211AC -.7182 N(8) SIG .019 AIMP23 .1273 N(8) SIG .359 AUQ28P .0000 N(7) SIG .500 AIS212 .0000 N(8) SIG .500 — 129 — ARP15B ARP15B ARP15B AAA213 .1987 -.3158 N(8) SIG.182 AA35R N(8) SIG-ARM311A N(8) SIG .292 AINT215 -.2601 N(8) SIG .237 AA35FR -.0662 N(8) SIG .428 ARM311S -.1539 N(8) SIG .328 ARS31PA -.5008 N(8) SIG .076 AA35S .1579 N(8) SIG .325 ARM311N N(8) SIG-ARS31IR -.1001 N(8) SIG .385 AQU38 -.1185 N(8) SIG .372 AUS313 .1147 N(8) SIG .376 ARS31LD -.1879 N(7) SIG .302 AQC39 .0662 N(8) SIG .428 AUS314 .1669 N(8) SIG .316 ARS31P .0000 N(8) SIG .500 AQD210 -.3974 N(8) SIG .137 AUS315 -.1185 N(8) SIG .372 AA35I .2601 N(8) SIG .237 ARM311Q .2105 N(8) SIG .273 AUS316 .2935 N(8) SIG .193 — 130 — ARP15GF AUS21A .3379 N(18) SIG .061 AUS21G .2000 N(17) SIG.199 AUS21I .3278 N(18) SIG .064 AUS21P -.0331 N(18) SIG .439 AUS21S -.1959 N(18) SIG. 187 ASYS22 -.3373 N(17) SIG .071 AIMP23 .3717 N(17) SIG .051 ARP15GF AUW27R -.2843 N(17) SIG .110 AUW27IN -.0596 N(18) SIG .394 AUW27A .2123 N(18) SIG.158 AUW27F .1061 N(18) SIG .326 AUW27IT -.4518 N(18) SIG .019 AUQ28S .1440 N(17) SIG .273 AUQ28P -.1485 N(17) SIG .255 ARP15GF AUQ28G -.3038 N(16) SIG .098 AUQ28T .1994 N(16) SIG .202 AUP211A -.1849 N(18) SIG.198 AUP211I -.2444 N(18) SIG.136 AUP211L -.0698 N(18) SIG .376 AUP211AC .4352 N(19) SIG .022 AIS212 -.0985 N(18) SIG .331 — 131 — ARP15GF AAA213 .0000 N(18) SIG .500 AINT215 .3341 N(18) SIG .066 ARS31PA .0497 N(17) SIG .412 ARS31IR -.1297 N(17) SIG .278 ARS31ID .1321 N(17) SIG .276 ARS31P -.1074 N(18) SIG .321 AA35I -.1250 N(17) SIG .290 ARP15GF AA35R .0270 N(18) SIG .454 AA35FR -.2863 N(18) SIG .098 AA35S -.5045 N(18) SIG .010 AQU38 .0398 N(18) SIG .433 AQC39 .5149 N(17) SIG .017 AQD310 .1714 N(18) SIG .228 ARM311Q .0130 N(17) SIG .477 ARP15GF ARM311A -.0725 N(17) SIG .382 ARM311S -.1611 N(16) SIG .242 ARM311N .0708 N(15) SIG .387 AUS313 .4870 N(18) SIG .015 AUS314 .0714 N(18) SIG .378 AUS315 .0000 N(18) SIG .500 AUS316 -.0354 N(18) SIG .437 — 132 — ARP15HI ARP15HI ARP15HI AUS21A -.1185 N(7) SIG .369 AUW27R -.1721 N(7) SIG .311 AUQ28G -.3223 N(6) SIG .202 AUS21G .0000 N(7) SIG .500 AUW27IN -.2308 N(6) SIG .273 AUQ28T -.4454 N(6) SIG .126 AIS21I .1669 N(7) SIG .313 AUW27A -.3311 N(7) SIG. 184 AUP211A -.4292 N(7) SIG .113 AUS21P .1081 N(7) SIG .374 AUW27F -.2075 N(7) SIG .280 AUP211I .0662 N(7) SIG .429 AUS21S -.2868 N(7) SIG .206 AUW27IT -.5078 N(7) SIG .084 AUP211L -.1226 N(7) SIG .365 ASYS22 -.1226 N(7) SIG .365 AUQ28S .5630 N(7) SIG .063 AUP211AC .0556 N(7) SIG .436 AIMP23 -.2810 N(7) SIG .223 AUQ28P -.1782 N(6) SIG .323 AIS212 -.3311 N(7) SIG .184 — 133 — ARP15HI ARP 15 HI ARP 15 HI AA213 .2294 N(7) SIG .256 AA35R .0662 N(7) SIG .429 ARM311A .2649 N(7) SIG .236 AINT215 -.3066 -.0937 N(7) SIG .400 AA35FR N(7) SIG-ARM311S N(7) SIG .236 ARS31PA -.6131 N(7) SIG .042 AA35S .5620 N(7) SIG .063 ARM311N N(6) SIG-ARS31IR -.3311 N(7) SIG .184 AQU38 .0662 N(7) SIG .429 AUS313 .0662 N(7) SIG .429 ARS31ID .3244 N(7) SIG .170 AQC39 -.1451 N(7) SIG .347 AUS314 .0937 N(7) SIG .400 ARS31P .2782 N(7) SIG .209 AQD310 -.0937 N(7) SIG .400 AUS315 -.0937 N(7) SIG .400 AA35I -.5620 N(7) SIG .063 ARM311Q .3627 N(7) SIG .400 AUS316 .1185 N(7) SIG .369 — 134 — AUS21A AUS21G AUS21I AUS21P AUS21S ASYS22 AIMP23 ARP15RE .1622 N(8) SIG .318 -.3162 N(8) SIG.175 .5292 N(8) SIG .052 -.3922 N(8) SIG.129 -.1333 N(7) SIG .355 -.3450 N(7) SIG .174 .3785 N(8) SIG .135 AUW27R AUW27IN AUW27A AUW27F AUW27IT AUQ28S AUQ28P ARP15RE -.2505 N(7) SIG .240 .5394 N(6) SIG .103 .3932 N(8) SIG .116 -.3785 N(8) SIG.135 .1474 N(8) SIG .327 .0000 N(8) SIG .500 .0541 N(8) SIG .437 AUQ28G AUQ28T AUP211A AUP211I AUP211L ARP15RE .1667 N(8) SIG .310 .3922 N(8) SIG.129 .3785 N(8) SIG .135 -.5270 N(8) SIG .060 .2462 N(7) SIG .266 AUP211AC .1966 N(8) SIG .275 AIS212 .0572 N(8) SIG .434 — 135 — ARP15RE ARP 15 RE ARP15RE AAA213 .0572 N(8) SIG .434 AA35R .4260 N(8) SIG .116 ARM311A .0541 N(8) SIG .437 AINT215 .0654 N(8) SIG .425 AA35FR .0000 N(8) SIG .500 ARM311S .0000 N(8) SIG .500 ARS31PA .1715 N(8) SIG .309 AA35S -.4082 N(8) SIG.126 ARM311N .5774 N(6) SIG .075 ARS31IR -.2010 N(8) SIG .273 AQU38 .2673 N(8) SIG .227 AUS313 -.4216 N(7) SIG .135 ARS31ID .0481 N(8) SIG .441 AQC39 -.2673 N(8) SIG .227 AUS314 -.2673 N(8) SIG .227 ARS31P -.6030 N(7) SIG .053 AQD310 -.2673 N(8) SIG .227 AUS315 .2673 N(8) SIG .227 AA35I -.3430 N(8) SIG.159 ARM311Q -.4140 N(7) SIG .130 AUS316 .1622 N(8) SIG .318 — 136 — AFN16AA AUW27R .1137 N(48) SIG .177 AUW27LN .1245 N ( 4 9 ) SIG .152 AUW27A .0812 N(53) SIG .242 AUW27F -.0434 N(53) SIG .361 AUW27IT .1641 N(53) SIG .079 AUQ28S .1308 N(52) SIG .148 AUQ28P .0249 N(50) SIG .420 AFN16AA AUQ28G -.1371 N(46) SIG.138 AUQ28T .1321 N(47) SIG .148 AIS212 -.0505 N(53) SIG .337 AAA213 .0091 N(53) SIG .470 AINT215 -.1311 N(53) SIG .139 AFAQ216 -.0319 N(53) SIG .398 AAF217 -.1125 N(53) SIG .179 AFN16AA ADF218 -.0273 N(53) SIG .411 ADA219 .1038 N(53) SIG .200 ARS31PA .0440 N(52) SIG .357 ARS31IR .1760 N(52) SIG .067 ARS31ID -.0477 N(50) SIG .345 ARS31P -.0256 N(50) SIG .416 AA35I -.1617 N(51) SIG .091 — 137 — AFN16AA AFN16AA AFN16AA AA35R -.1728 N(53) SIG .085 ARM311Q .0823 N(50) SIG .255 AUS316 .0427 N(53) SIG .363 AA35FR .0033 N(53) SIG .489 ARM311A .0105 N(52) SIG .466 AA35FU -.0768 N(52) SIG .268 ARM311S .0864 N(49) SIG .241 AA35S .0247 N(53) SIG .418 ARM311N -.1739 N(44) SIG .098 AQU38 -.0585 N(53) SIG .320 AUS313 .2014 N(52) SIG .052 AQC39 .0643 N(52) SIG .303 AUS314 -.1792 N(53) SIG .072 AQD310 -.0188 N(53) SIG .439 AUS315 .2458 N(53) SIG .023 — 138 — AFN16AM AFN16AM AFN16AM AUW27R .1035 N(42) SIG .214 AUW27IN .1301 N(41) SIG.162 AUW27A .0651 N(45) SIG .300 AUW27F .1108 N(45) SIG.199 AUW27IT .2247 N(45) SIG .035 AUQ28P .0173 N(43) SIG .448 AUQ28G .1360 N(40) SIG .156 AUQ28T .0651 N(41) SIG .313 AIS212 .0498 N(45) SIG .349 AAA213 -.0436 N(45) SIG .369 AINT215 .2462 N(45) SIG .028 AAF217 .0219 N(45) SIG .433 ADF218 .0813 N(45) SIG .264 ADA219 -.2030 N(45) SIG .439 ARS31PA .2402 N(44) SIG .032 ARS31IR -.0494 N(44) SIG .347 ARS31ID -.1124 N(42) SIG .242 AA35I .1195 N(44) SIG .179 — 139 — AFN16AM AFN16AM AFN16AM AA35R .2901 N(45) SIG .016 AA35FR .2218 N(45) SIG .042 AA35FU .2576 N(45) SIG .026 AA35S .0153 N(45) SIG .453 AQU38 .2476 N(45) SIG .033 AQC39 .1018 N(45) SIG .222 AQD310 .2539 N(45) SIG .028 ARM311Q .0570 N(44) SIG .332 ARM311A .0310 N(45) SIG .408 ARM311S -.1688 N(43) SIG .095 ARJVI311N .1441 N(36) SIG .163 AUS313 -.0781 N(44) SIG .278 AUS314 -.0383 N(45) SIG .385 AUS315 -.0757 N(45) SIG .283 AUS316 -.1626 N(45) SIG .104 — 140 — AFN16AD AFN16AD AFN16AD AUW27R -.1003 N(51) SIG .207 AUW27IN .0786 N(52) SIG .259 AUW27A .0371 N(56) SIG .374 AUW27F .0770 N(57) SIG .263 AUW27IT .0771 N(56) SIG .254 AUQ28S .1686 N(56) SIG .086 AUQ28P -.0617 N(53) SIG .309 AUQ28G -.0687 N(49) SIG .293 AUQ28T .1193 N(53) SIG .171 AIS212 -.2420 N(57) SIG .021 AAA213 -.0119 N(57) SIG .460 AINT215 .1430 N(57) SIG.116 AFAQ216 .0686 N(57) SIG .287 AAF217 -.1145 N(57) SIG .172 ADF218 -.1697 N(57) SIG .078 ADA219 .0231 N(57) SIG .425 ARS31PA -.0903 N(56) SIG .224 ARS31IR .0629 N(55) SIG .295 ARS31ID .1652 N(53) SIG .083 ARS31P -.0910 N(52) SIG .227 AA35I -.0786 N(54) SIG .259 — 141 — AFN16AD APN16AD AFN16AD AA35R AA35FR AA35FU AA35S AQU38 AQC39 AQD310 .1380 ARM311Q .3422 AUS316 .1783 N (57) N (53) N (57) SIG .135 SIG .003 SIG .069 .0382 ARM311A .0045 N (56) N (56) SIG .375 SIG .486 .0052 ARM311S -.1413 N (55) N (52) SIG .483 SIG .124 -.0163 ARM311N .0203 N (56) N (45) SIG .446 SIG .441 -.0083 AUS313 -.0923 N (57) N (56) SIG .473 SIG .225 .1171 AUS314 .0059 N (56) N (57) SIG .171 SIG .480 .1580 AUS315 -.2080 N (57) N (57) SIG .099 SIG .432 — 142 — AFN16C AFN16C AFN16C AUW27R .0421 N(30) SIG .396 AUQ28G .1620 N(32) SIG .146 ADF218 .0516 N(35) SIG .365 AUW27IN .3127 N(32) SIG .018 AUQ28T .2658 N(33) SIG .040 ADA219 .0092 N(35) SIG .476 AUW27A .2521 N(35) SIG .041 AIS212 -.0927 N(35) SIG .265 ARS31PA .0401 N(34) SIG .394 AUS27F .2947 N(35) SIG .025 AAA213 .0026 N(35) SIG .493 ARS31IR -.0997 N(34) SIG .247 AUW27IT .1378 N(35) SIG .167 AINT215 .0924 N(35) SIG .269 ARS31LD .1704 N(32) SIG .131 AUQ28S -.0648 N(35) SIG .336 AFAQ216 .1304 N(35) SIG.198 ARS31P .1058 N(34) SIG .241 AUQ28P -.1963 N(34) SIG .095 AAF217 -.1188 N(35) SIG .213 AA35I .1421 N(34) SIG.169 — 143 — APN16C AFN16C AFN16C AA35R .2239 N(35) SIG .075 AA35FR .1199 N(35) SIG .209 AA35FU .1910 N(35) SIG .104 AA35S .0732 N(35) SIG .315 AQU38 .1844 N(35) SIG.115 AQC39 .1096 N(34) SIG .239 AQD310 -.1749 N(35) SIG .124 ARM311Q .2656 N(34) SIG .040 ARM311A .2252 N(35) SIG .069 ARM311S -.1348 N(35) SIG .180 ARM311N -.0441 N(29) SIG .396 AUS313 -.1057 N(34) SIG .242 AIS314 .2868 N(35) SIG .028 AIS315 .0237 N(35) SIG .438 AUS316 -.0837 N(35) SIG .291 APN16RS AUW27R .1776 N(51) SIG .067 AUW27IN .0144 N(52) SIG .451 AUW27A .1580 N(56) SIG .079 AUW27F .1603 N(56) SIG .088 AUW27IT -.0481 N(56) SIG .335 AUQ28S .0803 N(55) SIG .308 AUQ28P -.0490 N(53) SIG .341 AFN16RS AUQ28G -.0917 N(49) SIG .229 AUQ28T .1786 N(50) SIG .071 AIS212 -.1170 N(56) SIG.156 AAA213 -.0437 N(56) SIG .354 AINT215 -.0665 N(56) SIG .284 AFAQ216 -.0631 N(56) SIG .299 AAF217 -.1891 N (56) SIG .054 AFN16RS ADF218 -.0633 N(56) SIG .294 ADA219 .0984 N(56) SIG .204 ARS31PA .0248 N(55) SIG .416 ARS31IR .0293 N(56) SIG .398 ARS31ID -.0518 N(53) SIG .327 ARS31P .0649 N(52) SIG .290 AA35I -.0160 N(54) SIG .446 — 145 — APN16RS AFN16RS AFN16RS AA35R -.0643 N(56) SIG .299 ARM311Q .0858 N(53) SIG .238 AUS316 .0838 N(56) SIG .237 AA35FR .0521 N(56) SIG .326 ARM311A .1603 N(55) SIG .093 AA35FU .1209 N(55) SIG .158 ARM311S -.0826 N(52) SIG .243 AA35S .1200 N(56) SIG. 150 ARM311N -.1770 N(45) SIG .092 AQU38 -.0339 N(56) SIG .390 AUS313 -.0675 N(55) SIG .286 AQC39 .2045 N(55) SIG .045 AUS314 .1458 N(56) SIG .109 AQD310 .1606 N(56) SIG .090 AUS315 .1536 N(56) SIG .098 — 146 — AFN16RM AUW27R .2829 N(29) SIG .033 AUW27IN .0062 N(29) SIG .484 AUW27A .1884 N(30) SIG.106 AUW27F -.1470 N(31) SIG.173 AUW27IT -.0343 N(30) SIG .410 AUQ28S .2664 N(31) SIG .048 AUQ28P -.0590 N(28) SIG .360 AFN16RM AUQ28G -.0720 N(27) SIG .329 AUQ28T .3450 N(28) SIG .015 AIS212 -.0627 N(31) SIG .340 AAA213 -.0900 N(31) SIG .281 AINT215 .1590 N(31) SIG .156 AFAQ216 .1415 N(31) SIG.188 AAF217 .1017 N(31) SIG .260 AFN16RM ADF218 .0000 N(31) SIG .500 ADA219 .1355 N(31) SIG.193 ARS31PA .0252 N(30) SIG .435 ARS31IR -.0822 N(29) SIG .299 ARS31ID .0398 N(28) SIG .400 ARS31P .2097 N(27) SIG .097 AA35I -.1488 N(29) SIG .174 — 147 — AFN16RM AFN16RM APN16RM AA35R -.1275 N(31) SIG .215 AA35FR .0261 N(30) SIG .434 AA35FU -.1286 N(30) SIG.212 AA35S -.0264 N(30) SIG .434 AQU38 -.1597 N(31) SIG.159 AQC39 -.0326 N(31) SIG .419 AQD310 .1247 N(31) SIG.215 ARM311Q .1121 N(30) SIG .238 ARM311A .2995 N(31) SIG .029 ARM311S -.1287 N(29) SIG .206 ARM311N -.0060 N(24) SIG .487 AUS313 .2808 N(30) SIG .039 AUS314 .0854 N(31) SIG .293 AUS315 .1533 N(31) SIG.169 AUS316 .0618 N(31) SIG .345 — 148 — AFM17GR APM17GR APM17GR AUW27R .0871 N(40) SIG .269 AUQ28G -.1418 N(38) SIG.164 ADF218 -.0530 N(44) SIG .353 AUW27IN -.1933 N(40) SIG .043 AUQ28T .3279 N(39) SIG .012 ADA219 .1081 N(44) SIG .223 AUW27A .1088 N(44) SIG.210 AIS212 -.0851 N(44) SIG .269 ARS31PA .0039 N(43) SIG .489 AUW27F -.0697 N(44) SIG .311 AAA213 .0058 N(44) SIG .484 ARS31IR -.0917 N(43) SIG .252 AUW27IT -.1262 N(44) SIG .174 AINT215 .0199 N(44) SIG .444 ARS31ID -.0299 N(41) SIG .414 AUQ28S .1422 N(43) SIG. 162 AFAQ216 .0937 N(44) SIG .254 ARS31P .1996 N(41) SIG .076 AUQ28P .1463 N(41) SIG.157 AAF217 -.0236 N(44) SIG .434 AA35I -.2559 N(42) SIG .034 — 149 — AFM17GR AFM17GR AFM17GR AA35R -.3209 N(44) SIG .014 ARM311Q .1209 N(42) SIG .200 AUS316 .0632 N(44) SIG.326 AA35FR -.3670 N(44) SIG .004 ARM311A .2478 N (43) SIG .043 AA35FU -.1213 N(43) SIG. 199 ARM311S -.2076 N(41) SIG .071 AA35S -.2166 N(44) SIG .059 ARM311N -.0956 N(38) SIG .264 AQU38 -.1822 N(44) SIG .103 AUS313 .2705 N(43) SIG .029 AQC39 .2493 N(43) SIG .041 AUS314 .0723 N(44) SIG .307 AQD310 .2662 N(44) SIG .031 AUS315 .0553 N(44) SIG .349 — 150 — APM17GM AUW27R .0975 N(37) SIG .253 AUW27IN .1452 N(37) SIG .158 AUW27A -.0257 N(40) SIG .426 AUW27F .1133 N(40) SIG .221 AUW27IT .2638 N(40) SIG .030 AUQ28S .1609 N(39) SIG .142 AUQ28P -.2322 N(40) SIG .057 AFM17GM AUQ28G .0990 N(36) SIG .257 AUQ28T -.0118 N(37) SIG .468 AIS212 -.0136 N(40) SIG .462 AAA213 -.2172 N(40) SIG .067 AIMT215 .0557 N(40) SIG .349 AFAQ216 .0693 N(40) SIG .320 AAF217 -.1810 N (40) SIG .106 AFM17GM ADF218 .0294 N(40) SIG .420 ADA219 .0455 N(40) SIG .379 ARS31PA -.0406 N(40) SIG .388 ARS31IR .1966 N(40) SIG .078 ARS31ID -.1494 N(38) SIG .151 ARS31P -.0262 N(37) SIG .429 AA35I -.0947 N(40) SIG .255 — 151 — AFM17GM AFM17GM AFM17GM AA35R .1450 N(40) SIG.169 ARM311Q .0897 N(38) SIG .271 AUS316 .0266 N(40) SIG .427 AA35FR .2606 N(40) SIG .036 ARM311A -.0129 N(40) SIG .465 AA35FU .3401 N(40) SIG .011 ARM311S -.0998 N(38) SIG .246 AA35S .1600 N(40) SIG.135 ARM311N .2502 N(32) SIG .065 AQU38 .1109 N(40) SIG .229 AUS313 .0717 N(39) SIG .315 AQC39 .1488 N(40) SIG .156 AUS314 .0889 N(40) SIG .272 AQD310 -.0069 N(40) SIG .481 AUS315 -.0196 N(40) SIG .447 — 152 — AFM17M AUW27R -.0298 N(43) SIG .415 AUW27IN -.0132 N(44) SIG .461 AUW27A .2350 N(48) SIG .036 AUW27F -.0319 N(49) SIG .406 AUW27IT -.1210 N(48) SIG .175 AUQ28S -.0854 N(48) SIG.175 AUQ28P -.1285 N(45) SIG .178 AFM17M AUQ28G -.1368 N(41) SIG .170 AUQ28T -.1530 N(42) SIG .140 AIS212 -.0253 N(49) SIG .424 AAA213 .0500 N(49) SIG .353 AINT215 -.0532 N(49) SIG .344 AFAQ216 .0244 N(49) SIG .429 AAF217 -.2103 N(49) SIG .060 AFM17M ADF218 -.1997 N(49) SIG .068 ADA219 .0160 N(49) SIG .453 ARS31PA -.0425 N(48) SIG .373 ARS31IR -.1312 N(47) SIG.158 ARS31ID .0858 N(45) SIG .262 ARS31P -.0229 N(44) SIG .433 AA35I .0735 N(48) SIG .292 — 153 — AFM17M AFM17M AFM17M AA35R .1175 N (49) SIG.198 AA35FR .1325 N ( 4 8 ) SIG.160 AA35FU .0173 N(48) SIG .450 AA35S .0000 N(48) SIG .500 AQU38 .1182 N(49) SIG.195 AQC39 .0747 N(48) SIG .292 AQD310 .0906 N(49) SIG .252 ARM311Q .0203 N(46) SIG .442 ARM311A -.0685 N(49) SIG .307 ARM311S -.0243 N(45) SIG .430 ARM311N .0704 N(40) SIG .322 AUS313 -.0328 N(48) SIG .405 AUS314 .0971 N(49) SIG .235 AUS315 .1386 N(49) SIG.153 AUS316 -.1636 N(49) SIG.110 — 154 — AFM17S AUW27R .1796 N(22) SIG.175 AUW27IN .1039 N(21) SIG .292 AUW27A -.0062 N(23) SIG .487 AUW27F -.3012 N(23) SIG .059 AUW27IT .5016 N(23) SIG .003 AUQ28S .2589 N(23) SIG .090 AUQ28P -.3592 N(23) SIG .032 AFM17S AUQ28G .1069 N(22) SIG .293 AUQ28T .0141 N(22) SIG .471 AIS212 .0862 N(23) SIG .325 AAA213 -.0570 N(23) SIG .383 AINT215 -.0599 N(23) SIG .381 AFAQ216 -.0070 N(23) SIG .486 AAF217 .1319 N(23) SIG .251 AFM17S ADF218 .1346 N(23) SIG .243 ADA219 .0000 N(23) SIG .500 ARS31PA -.1786 N(23) SIG.173 ARS31IR .1257 N(23) SIG .248 ARS31LD -.1452 N(22) SIG .222 ARS31P .1934 N(22) SIG .154 AA35I -.6333 N(23) SIG .000 — 155 — AFM17S AFM17S AFM17S AA35R .0207 N(23) SIG .459 ARM311Q .0198 N(23) SIG .459 AUS316 -.1999 N(23) SIG.154 AA35FR -.1925 N(23) SIG.155 ARM311A -.0780 N(23) SIG .344 AA35FU .3646 N(23) SIG .032 ARM311S .1394 N(23) SIG .231 AA35S .4557 N(23) SIG .010 ARM311N .3212 N(19) SIG .073 AQU38 -.0697 N(23) SIG .361 AUS313 .2692 N(23) SIG .082 AQC39 -.0533 N(23) SIG .393 AUS314 -.0241 N(23) SIG .451 AQD310 -.1783 N(23) SIG .182 AUS315 .0700 N(23) SIG .363 — 156 — AREF18 ASYS22 -.0961 N(50) SIG .222 AIMP23 -.0012 N(51) SIG .496 ACT24G -.0502 N(48) SIG .347 ACT24C .0430 N(48) SIG .366 ACT24A -.0812 N(47) SIG .271 ACT24P .0132 N(49) SIG .458 ACT24F -.0360 N(48) SIG .388 AREF18 ACT24AS -.0395 N(48) SIG .380 ACT24U -.3242 N(48) SIG .005 AAR25L .0817 N(53) SIG .249 AAR25M -.1349 N(52) SIG.133 AAR25RC .0745 N(51) SIG .270 AAR25S .0356 N(51) SIG .383 AAR25I .1462 N(53) SIG.111 AREF18 AAR26AL -.0293 N(52) SIG .406 AAR26E .1507 N(50) SIG .112 AAR26PA -.0683 N(51) SIG .292 AAR26PR .1538 N(49) SIG .114 AAR26I .1404 N(51) SIG.124 AUW27R -.1986 N(48) SIG .Q55 AUW27IN .0899 N(49) SIG .231 — 157 — AREF18 AREF18 AREF18 AUW27A .0728 N(53) SIG .267 AIS212 .0640 N(53) SIG .298 AA35I -.2025 N(52) SIG .049 AUW27F .0703 N(53) SIG .286 AAA213 -.0289 N(53) SIG .407 AA35R .2351 N(53) SIG .033 AUW27IT .2436 N(53) SIG .019 AINT215 -.1850 N(53) SIG .065 AA35FR -.0453 N(53) SIG .354 AUQ28S -.1703 N(52) SIG .091 ARS31PA .0023 N(52) SIG .492 AA35FU -.1130 N(52) SIG.185 AUQ28P .0123 N(50) SIG .461 ARS31IR -.1485 N(52) SIG .106 AA35S -.3331 N(53) SIG .003 AUQ28G .0507 N(46) SIG .347 ARS31LD .1243 N(50) SIG .153 AQU38 -.1202 N(53) SIG.172 AUQ28T -.1286 N(47) SIG .160 ARS31P .0167 N(49) SIG .446 AQC39 -.0263 N(52) SIG .417 — 158 — AREF18 AREF18 AQD310 ARM311Q ARM311A ARM311S ARM311N AUS313 AUS314 .0873 AUS315 -.1656 N(53) N(53) SIG .243 SIG .092 -.0026 AUS316 -.0363 N (50) N (53) SIG .492 SIG .384 .2136 N(52) SIG .046 .0405 N(49) SIG .372 .2620 N(44) SIG .028 .0122 N(52) SIG .462 -.0810 N(53) SIG .257 — 159 — ED14REV AUS21A .0606 N(57) SIG .293 AUS21G .0300 N(55) SIG .397 AUS21I .0655 N(55) SIG .279 AUS21P -.0748 N(56) SIG .251 AUS21S -.1050 N(55) SIG .180 ACT24G .0174 N(51) SIG .443 ACT24C -.0190 N(51) SIG .443 ED14REV ACT24A -.0478 N(50) SIG .355 ACT24P -.0785 N(53) SIG .253 ACT24F -.0782 N(51) SIG .260 ACT24AS .0330 N(52) SIG .395 ACT24U -.1339 N(51) SIG .136 AUW27R .0879 N(52) SIG .228 AUW27IN -.1530 N(53) SIG .097 ED14REV AUW27A -.3154 N(57) SIG .002 AUW27F .0679 N(58) SIG .281 AUW27IT .0431 N(57) SIG .351 AUQ28S .0022 N(57) SIG .493 AUQ28P -.0188 N (54) SIG .438 AUQ28G .0097 N(50) SIG .468 AUQ28T -.1342 N(51) SIG .136 — 160 — ED14REV AAS29 -.2016 N(57) SIG .039 AUN210 .0134 N(57) SIG .453 AUP211A .0659 N(58) SIG .279 AUP211I -.0515 N(56) SIG .330 AUP211L -.0250 N(55) SIG .418 AUP211AC -.0173 N(57) SIG .262 AIS212 -.1379 N(58) SIG. 115 ED14REV AAA213 -.0867 N(58) SIG .228 AAI214 .0272 N(58) SIG .406 AINT215 .0313 N(58) SIG .393 ARS31PA .0889 N(57) SIG .221 ARS31IR .1903 N(56) SIG .047 ARS31LD -.0408 N(54) SIG .362 ARS31P -.3232 N(53) SIG .003 ED14REV AA35I .1099 N(55) SIG .175 AA35R -.0539 N(58) SIG .328 AA35FR .1334 N(57) SIG .124 AA35FU .0129 N(56) SIG .457 AA35S .0273 N(57) SIG .420 AQU38 -.1534 N(58) SIG .101 AQC39 .0826 N(57) SIG .245 — 161 — ED14REV ED14REV AQD310 -.1079 N(58) SIG.182 AUS315 .2185 N(58) SIG .032 ARM311Q -.0577 N(54) SIG.316 AUS316 .1063 N(58) SIG.181 ARM311A .0650 N(57) SIG .294 ARM311S -.0753 N(53) SIG .262 ARM311N .0935 N(46) SIG .240 AUS313 -.1611 N(57) SIG .088 AUS314 .2282 N(58) SIG .026 — 162 — Q U E S T I O N N A I R E "B" Kendall Correlation Coefficients ARP15A ARP15A ARP15A -.0883 N(10) SIG .380 AUW27R .2003 N(10) SIG .241 AUQ28G -.2111 N(10) SIG .243 -.5539 N(10) SIG .029 AUW27IN .4457 N(9) SIG .073 AUQ28T -.2165 N(9) SIG .260 .3636 N(10) SIG .105 AUW27A .5591 N(10) SIG .026 AUP211A .0323 N(10) SIG .456 -.1471 N(10) SIG .305 AUW27F -.5051 N(9) SIG .061 AUP211I .2121 N(10) SIG .234 -.1539 N(10) SIG .299 AUW27IT -.3671 N(10) SIG .097 AUP211L -.3825 N(10) SIG .092 -.2928 N(9) SIG .179 AUQ28S .3198 N(10) SIG .151 AUP211AC -.2648 N(10) SIG .179 -.2143 N(9) SIG .241 AUQ28P -.3939 N(10) SIG .088 AIS212 .1005 N(10) SIG .369 ARP15A ARP15A ARP15A AAA213 -.1306 N(10) SIG .337 AA35R -.4335 N(10) SIG .073 ARM311A -.3039 N(10) SIG.164 AINT215 .0000 N(10) SIG-AA35FR N(10) SIG .082 -.4222 ARM311S N(10) SIG .500 ARS31PA -.1515 N(10) SIG .301 AA35S -.5477 N(9) SIG .046 ARM311N .3814 N(7) SIG.167 ARS31IR .1212 N(10) SIG. 339 AQU38 .0726 N(10) SIG .405 AUS313 -.7011 N(9) SIG .012 ARS31ID .3030 N(10) SIG.148 AQC39 .2010 N(10) SIG .252 AUS314 .1005 N(10) SIG .369 ARS31P -.6364 N(10) SIG .014 AQD310 .0000 N(10) SIG .500 AUS315 .2901 N(10) SIG.175 AA35I -.0758 N(9) SIG .404 ARM311Q .0000 N(10) SIG .500 AUS316 -.0883 N(10) SIG .380 — 164 — ARP15B ARP15B ARP15B AUS21A .1429 N(8) SIG .332 AUW27R .0626 N(7) SIG .431 AUQ28G .0000 N(8) SIG .500 AUS21G -.2287 N(7) SIG .256 AUW27IN -.1945 N(7) SIG .296 AUQ28T .4550 N(8) SIG .081 AUS21I .0455 N(8) SIG .444 AUW27A .0000 N(8) SIG .500 AUP211A -.4880 N(8) SIG .073 AUS21P .0976 N(8) SIG .385 AUW27F -.1059 N(8) SIG .378 AUP211I -.1429 N(8) SIG .334 AUS21S .1396 N(8) SIG .336 AUW27IT .2381 N(8) SIG .238 AUP211L -.0648 N(7) SIG .429 ASYS22 .1029 N(8) SIG .379 AUQ28S .0825 N(8) SIG .407 AUP211AC .0476 N(8) SIG .443 AIMP23 .1365 N(8) SIG .338 AUQ28P -.5293 N(8) SIG .060 AIS212 -.2003 N(8) SIG .277 — 165 — ARP15B ARP15B APvP15B AAA213 -.3563 N(8) SIG .134 AA35R -.0563 N(8) SIG .436 ARM311A .3944 N(8) SIG .131 AINT215 .0976 N(8) SIG .385 AA35FR .0529 N(8) SIG .438 ARM311S .1429 N(8) SIG .332 ARS31PA -.6351 N(8) SIG .031 AAA35S .2254 N(8) SIG .261 ARM311N -.3299 N(8) SIG .175 ARS31IR -.3416 N(8) SIG. 154 AQU38 -.3299 N(8) SIG.175 AUS313 .0836 N(6) SIG .416 ARS31ID .6370 N(8) SIG .025 AQC39 .0000 N(8) SIG .500 AUS314 .4623 N(6) SIG. 122 ARS31P .3810 N(8) SIG.124 AQD310 .3299 N(8) SIG. 175 AUS315 .2774 N(6) SIG .250 AA35I -.2003 N(8) SIG .277 ARM311Q -.0825 N(8) SIG .407 AUS316 .1001 N(8) SIG .384 — 166 — ARP15GF ARP15GF ARP15GF AUS21A .1886 N(ll) SIG .256 AUW27R .2326 N(12) SIG .208 AUQ28G .0000 N(ll) SIG .500 AUS21G -.3264 N(ll) SIG. 127 AUW27IN -.2509 N(12) SIG.183 AUQ28T .3416 N(ll) SIG .122 AUS21I -.0913 N(ll) SIG .373 AUW27A .4352 N(12) SIG .060 AUP211A -.4216 N(ll) SIG .081 AUS21P .1384 N(ll) SIG .314 AUW27F .2010 N(12) SIG .244 AUP211I .5582 N(ll) SIG .035 AUS21S .3416 N(ll) SIG .122 AUW27IT -.0870 N(12) SIG .378 AUP211L .1861 N(ll) SIG .272 ASYS22 -.2485 N(12) SIG .183 AUQ28S -.1861 N(ll) SIG .272 AUP211AC .0988 N(ll) SIG .368 AIMP23 .1448 N(12) SIG .310 AUQ28P .1539 N(ll) SIG .304 AIS212 -.2390 N(ll) SIG .225 — 167 — ARP15GF ARP15GF ARP15GF AAA213 AINT215 ARS31PA ARS31IR ARS31ID ARS31P AA35I -.1861 N(ll) SIG .272 AA35R -.2548 N(12) SIG .199 ARM311A .6708 N(U) SIG .017 -.1818 N(12) SIG .264 AA35FR .2611 N(12) SIG.175 ARM311S .4939 N(ll) SIG .047 -.3333 N(10) SIG .137 AA35S -.0828 N(12) SIG .382 ARM311N -.5774 N(9) SIG .045 .0000 N(10) SIG .500 AQU38 .5222 N(12) SIG. 042 AUS313 .2712 N(ll) SIG.188 .0563 N(10) SIG .428 AQC39 -.2548 N(12) SIG.199 AUS314 .5071 N(10) SIG .050 .5534 N(9) SIG .053 AQD310 .2825 N(12) SIG.167 AUS315 -.5582 N(ll) SIG .035 .0821 N(12) SIG .382 ARM311Q .1539 N(ll) SIG .304 AUS316 -.2712 N(ll) SIG.188 — 168 — ARP15HI ARP15HI ARP15HI AUS21A .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUW27R -.8165 N(3) SIG.110 AUQ28T -.4000 N(4) SIG .222 AUS21G .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUW27IN .1826 N(4) SIG .359 AUP211A .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUS21I .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUW27A .2000 N(4) SIG .351 AUP211I .4000 N(4) SIG .222 AUS21P .1826 N(4) SIG .359 AUW27F .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUP211L N(4) SIG-AUS21S -.4000 N(4) SIG .222 AUW27IT .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUP211AC -.6708 N(4) SIG.110 ASYS22 .4000 N(4) SIG .222 AUQ28S .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AIS212 .7746 N(4) SIG .079 AIMP23 .4000 N(4) SIG .222 AUQ28P .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUQ28G .4000 N(4) SIG .222 — 169 — ARP15HI ARP15HI ARP15HI AAA213 .0000 N(4) SIG-AA35R N(4) SIG .222 .4000 ARM311A N(4) SIG .500 AINT215 .7746 N(4) SIG .079 AA35FR .5477 N(4) SIG .139 ARM311S .5000 N(3) SIG .240 ARS31PA 1.0000 N(4) SIG -AA35S N(4) SIG .359 .1826 ARM311N N(2) SIG .500 ARS31IR .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AQU38 .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUS313 .4000 N(4) SIG .222 ARS31LD .8000 N(4) SIG .063 AQC39 .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUS314 .0000 N(4) SIG .500 ARS31P -.6708 N(4) SIG.110 AQD310 .0000 N(4) SIG .500 AUS315 -.6708 N(4) SIG .110 AA35I .0000 N(4) SIG .500 ARM311Q -.5000 N(3) SIG .240 AUS316 .8000 N(4) SIG .063 — 170 — ARP15RE ARP15RE ARP15RE AUS21A .2182 N(9) SIG .238 AUW27R .5005 N(8) SIG .062 AUQ28G -.4734 N(9) SIG .069 AUS21G -.0385 N(9) SIG .451 AUW27IN -.5186 N(7) SIG .077 AUQ28T .1155 N(9) SIG .355 AUS21I -.4074 N(4) SIG .094 AUW27A -.1905 N(8) SIG .284 AUP211A .4200 N(9) SIG .090 AUS21P -.1964 N(9) SIG .269 AUW27F -.4303 N(9) SIG .089 AUP211I -.2152 N(9) SIG .250 AUS21S .2182 N(9) SIG .238 AUW27IT .3722 N(8) SIG.129 AUP211L -.1001 N(8) SIG .384 ASYS22 -.2309 N(9) SIG .229 AUQ28S -.2750 N(9) SIG. 194 AUP211AC -.0803 N(9) SIG .401 AIMP23 .2265 N(9) SIG .230 AUQ28P .4013 N(9) SIG.104 AIS212 -.1814 N(9) SIG .291 — 171 — ARP15RE ARP15RE ARP 15 RE AAA213 .1988 N(9) SIG .268 AA35R .0861 N(9) SIG .397 ARM311A .0000 N(9) SIG .500 AINT215 .0420 N(9) SIG .447 AA35FR .4234 N(9) SIG .086 ARM311S -.1429 N(9) SIG .320 ARS31PA .3629 N(9) SIG .136 AA35S -.2572 N(9) SIG.218 ARM311N -.5641 N(8) SIG .054 ARS31IR -.2593 N(9) SIG .203 AQU38 .0000 N(9) SIG .500 AUS313 .2152 N(9) SIG .250 ARS31ID -.3774 N(9) SIG.114 AQC39 -.3012 N(9) SIG.173 AUS314 .2981 N(9) SIG .177 ARS31P -.0430 .6039 N(9) SIG .027 AQD310 N(9) SIG-AUS315 N(9) SIG .446 AA35I -.1510 N(9) SIG .315 ARM311Q .7464 N(9) SIG .009 AUS316 -.3774 N(9) SIG .114 — 172 — AFN16AA AUW27R .0571 N(41) SIG .336 AUW27IN -.2850 N(40) SIG .017 AUW27A .1665 N(43) SIG.100 AUW27F .1050 N(44) SIG .214 AUW27IT -.0903 N(43) SIG .241 AUQ28S .1131 N(44) SIG .201 AUQ28P .0017 N(42) SIG .495 AFN16AA AUQ28G .2540 N(42) SIG .028 AUQ28T .3154 N(41) SIG .010 AIS212 -.1550 N(44) SIG.120 AAA213 -.1962 N(44) SIG .069 AINT215 -.1642 N(45) SIG .104 AFAQ216 .0105 N(45) SIG .468 AAF217 -.0971 N(44) SIG .226 AFN16AA ADF218 -.1837 N(44) SIG .084 ADA219 .0177 N(44) SIG .446 ARS31PA -.1923 N(43) SIG .072 ARS31IR -.1110 N(43) SIG .194 ARS31ED .2178 N(41) SIG .049 ARS31P .0130 N(41) SIG .461 AA35I -.1348 N(43) SIG.151 — 173 — AFN16AA AFN16AA AFN16AA AA35R -.0936 N(46) SIG .243 AA35FR -.2865 N(43) SIG .016 AA35FU -.1668 N(43) SIG.107 AA35S -.1954 N(43) SIG .071 AQU38 .1546 N(44) SIG.131 AQC39 .1597 N(44) SIG .123 AQD310 .1215 N(44) SIG. 185 ARM311Q -.2806 N(41) SIG .019 ARM311A .1281 N(42) SIG.182 ARM311S .2340 N(39) SIG .046 ARM311N .1721 N(33) SIG.137 AUS313 -.0116 N(40) SIG .467 AUS314 -.1188 N(41) SIG.192 AUS315 -.0875 N(42) SIG .262 AUS316 .0191 N(44) SIG .442 — 174 — AFN16AM AFN16AM AFN16AM AUW27R .1849 N(38) SIG .093 AUQ28G .1364 N(39) SIG.160 ADF218 .0185 N(41) SIG .447 AUW27IN -.3318 N(38) SIG .008 AUQ28T .0227 N(38) SIG .436 ADA219 .1925 N(41) SIG .081 AUW27A .0086 N(40) SIG .474 AIS212 .2331 N(41) SIG .044 ARS31PA -.1992 N(40) SIG .074 AUW27F -.0113 N(41) SIG .467 AAA213 -.0977 N(41) SIG .239 ARS31IR .0892 N(40) SIG .255 AUW27IT .0034 N(40) SIG .490 AINT215 -.0743 N(42) SIG .291 ARS31LD .1223 N(38) SIG. 186 AUQ28S -.1840 N(41) SIG .096 AFAQ216 -.0577 N(42) SIG .335 ARS31P .0641 N(38) SIG .322 AUQ28P .0798 N(39) SIG .284 AAF217 .0356 N(41) SIG .395 AA35I .0930 N(40) SIG .244 — 175 — APN16AM AA35R .0526 N(42) SIG .353 AA35FR .0019 N(40) SIG .494 AA35FU -.0137 N (40) SIG .461 AA35S .0055 N(40) SIG .484 AQU38 -.0059 N(41) SIG .484 AQC39 -.0957 N(41) SIG .253 AQD310 -.0323 N(41) SIG .409 AFN16AM ARM311Q -.1293 N(38) SIG.177 ARM311A .0563 N(39) SIG .349 ARM311S .1135 N(37) SIG .212 ARM311N -.2702 N(32) SIG .046 AUS313 .2092 N(37) SIG .072 AUS314 -.1649 N(38) SIG .121 AUS315 -.2089 N(39) SIG .072 AFN16AM AUS316 -.1008 N(41) SIG .229 — 176 — AFN16AD AFN16AD AFN16AD AUW27R -.1220 N(42) SIG .183 AUQ28G .0016 N(43) SIG .495 ADF218 .0231 N(45) SIG .432 AUW27IN .0717 N(41) SIG .296 AUQ28T -.0362 N(42) SIG .396 ADA219 .1373 N(45) SIG.150 AUW27A -.1526 N(44) SIG .121 AIS212 .1125 N(45) SIG .200 ARS31PA -.0228 N(44) SIG .432 AUW27F .1821 N(45) SIG .214 AAA213 .0556 N(45) SIG .339 ARS31IR -.0222 N(44) SIG .432 AUW27IT .1784 N(44) SIG .083 AINT215 -.0171 N(46) SIG .448 ARS31ID -.1091 N(42) SIG .207 AUQ28S -.0828 N(45) SIG .272 AFAQ216 .1190 N(46) SIG .185 ARS31P .2758 N(42) SIG .020 AUQ28P .1374 N(43) SIG.158 AAF217 .1033 N(45) SIG .214 AA35I -.1799 N(44) SIG .086 — 177 — AFN16AD AFN16AD APN16AD AA35R AA35FR AA35FU AA35S AQU38 AQC39 AQD310 .1816 ARM311Q .0777 AUS316 -.1166 N (46) N (42) N (45) SIG .091 SIG .284 SIG .188 -.0969 ARM311A .2150 N (44) N (43) SIG .235 SIG .066 .1189 ARM311S -.3076 N (44) N (40) SIG .190 SIG .014 -.1118 ARM311N .0473 N (44) N (34) SIG .201 SIG .382 .1482 AUS313 .2037 N (45) N (41) SIG. 143 SIG .074 .0275 AUS314 -.0362 N (45) N (42) SIG .422 SIG .396 -.0075 AUS315 .2362 N (45) N (43) SIG .478 SIG .044 — 178 — APN16C APN16C AFN16C AUW27R .2133 N(22) SIG .123 AUQ28G -.0059 N(23) SIG .487 ADF218 .1663 N(24) SIG.185 AUW27IN .2558 N(21) SIG .088 AUQ28T .2199 N(22) SIG.125 ADA219 .2448 N(24) SIG .088 AUW27A .0857 N(24) SIG .312 AIS212 -.1412 N(24) SIG .223 ARS31PA -.1041 N(24) SIG .290 AUW27F .0356 N(25) SIG .421 AAA213 .0321 N(24) SIG .432 ARS31IR -.2313 N(24) SIG .095 AUW27IT -.0096 N(24) SIG .478 AINT215 -.0585 N(25) SIG .372 ARS31ID -.0905 N(24) SIG .303 AUQ28S .3751 N(24) SIG .023 AFAQ216 .0545 N(25) SIG .379 ARS31P .4410 N(23) SIG .008 AUQ28P .3425 N(34) SIG .034 AAF217 -.2391 N(24) SIG .087 AA35I .0484 N(24) SIG .391 — 179 — AFN16C APN16C APN16C AA35R .3812 N(25) SIG .018 AA35FR .2074 N(24) SIG .130 AA35FU .2527 N(24) SIG .080 AA35S .0206 N(24) SIG .455 AQU38 .4190 N(24) SIG .011 AQC39 .1261 N(25) SIG .247 AQD310 .0080 N(25) SIG .483 ARM311Q .2960 N(22) SIG .057 ARM311A .3711 N(23) SIG .027 ARM311S -.2194 N(21) SIG.127 ARM311N -.1837 N(17) SIG .212 AUS313 .0775 N(24) SIG .336 AUS314 .3846 N(23) SIG .019 AUS315 .0130 N(24) SIG .473 AUS316 -.1694 N(24) SIG.172 AFN16RS AFN16RS AFN16RS AUW27R .1215 N(41) SIG.182 AUQ28G .1967 N(42) SIG .068 ADF218 -.1055 N(44) SIG .214 AUW27IN -.0266 N(40) SIG .420 AUQ28T -.0395 N(41) SIG .385 ADA219 .1330 N(44) SIG .155 AUW27A .2441 N(43) SIG .029 AIS212 -.1636 N(44) SIG.107 ARS31PA -.0718 N(43) SIG .292 AUW27F .1554 N(44) SIG .120 AAA213 -.0264 N(44) SIG .421 ARS31IR .0378 N(43) SIG .384 AUW27IT .0583 N(43) SIG .323 AINT215 .0852 N(45) SIG .256 ARS31ID .0016 N(41) SIG .495 AUQ28S .2015 N(44) SIG .067 AFAQ216 -.1546 N(45) SIG .119 ARS31P .1229 N(41) SIG .177 AUQ28P .1090 N(42) SIG .209 AAF217 -.1871 N(44) SIG .073 AA35I .1565 N(43) SIG .114 — 181 — AFN16RS AFN16RS AFN16RS AA35R .0839 N(45) SIG .266 AA35FR .0949 N(43) SIG .237 AA35FU .1342 N(43) SIG .157 AA35S .0814 N(43) SIG .268 AQU38 .0414 N(44) SIG .381 AQC39 .1052 N(44) SIG .221 AQD310 -.0398 N(44) SIG .384 ARM311Q -.0722 N(41) SIG .294 ARM311A .1740 N(42) SIG .107 ARM311S -.1078 N(39) SIG.218 ARM311N .2449 N(33) SIG .059 AUS313 -.1161 N(40) SIG .203 AUS314 -.1460 N(41) SIG .142 AUS315 .2773 N(42) SIG .022 AUS316 -.1623 N(44) SIG.106 — 182 — AFN16RM AUW27R -.0684 N(19) SIG .370 AUW27IN -.1431 N(18) SIG .245 AUW27A .0000 N(19) SIG .500 AUW27F .1624 N(19) SIG.215 AUW27IT .0563 N(19) SIG .390 AUQ28S -.1892 N(20) SIG .179 AUS28P .1730 N(19) SIG .207 AFN16RM AUQ28G -.2058 N(19) SIG.159 AUQ28T .0110 N(19) SIG .479 AIS212 .1599 N(20) SIG .219 AAA213 -.0192 N(20) SIG .463 AINT215 .2538 N(20) SIG.107 AFAQ216 .1289 N(20) SIG .260 AAF217 -.0749 N(20) SIG .353 AFN16RM ADF218 .2041 N(20) SIG .160 ADA219 -.2075 N(20) SIG .159 ARS31PA -.0524 N(20) SIG .398 ARS31IR .2166 N(20) SIG .136 ARS31ID .0309 N(19) SIG .438 ARS31P -.2182 N(20) SIG .135 AA35I -.2752 N(20) SIG .082 — 183 — AFN16RM AFN16RM AFN16RM AA35R AA35FR AA35FU AA35S AQU38 AQC39 AQD310 .1023 ARM311Q -.1373 AUS316 .0818 N (20) N (19) N (20) SIG .308 SIG .251 SIG .341 -.1435 ARM311A -.0935 N (20) N (19) SIG .236 SIG .330 .4068 ARM311S .3335 N (20) N (19) SIG .021 SIG .050 -.3856 ARM311N -.0296 N (20) N (17) SIG .026 SIG .448 -.1210 AUS313 .1817 N (20) N (19) SIG .280 SIG. 194 -.2222 AUS314 -.0231 N (20) N (20) SIG .142 SIG .454 .1788 AUS315 .2707 N (20) N (20) SIG .199 SIG .091 — 184 — AFM17GR AFM17GR APM17GR AUW27R .0515 N(32) SIG .373 AUW27IN .3531 N(30) SIG .014 AUW27A .0862 N(33) SIG .287 AUW27F -.0797 N(32) SIG .312 AUW27IT .2668 N(33) SIG .040 AUQ28S -.1337 N(32) SIG .212 AUQ28P .1033 N(32) SIG .260 AUQ28G .2289 N(32) SIG .077 AUQ28T -.0894 N(31) SIG .294 AIS212 .2515 N(32) SIG .056 AAA213 -.0104 N(32) SIG .475 AINT215 .2998 N(33) SIG .029 AFAQ216 .0425 N(33) SIG .396 AAF217 .1542 N(32) SIG .164 ADF218 .1606 N(32) SIG.162 ADA219 .0683 N(32) SIG .336 ARS31PA -.0691 N(31) SIG .335 ARS31IR -.2195 N(31) SIG .083 ARS31ID .2715 N(30) SIG .045 ARS31P -.0679 N(30) SIG .338 AA35I -.0648 N(32) SIG .340 — 185 — AFM17GR AFM17GR AFM17GR AA35R AA35FR AA35FU AA35S AQU38 AQC39 AQD310 .0299 ARM311Q -.0740 AUS316 -.0751 N (33) N (32) N (32) SIG .429 SIG .324 SIG .319 .0830 ARM311A -.3335 N (32) N (32) SIG .302 SIG .023 .1306 ARM311S .3023 N (32) N (30) SIG .210 SIG .032 -.0160 ARM311N -.0778 N (32) N (25) SIG .460 SIG .341 -.0453 AUS313 .2466 N(33) N(31) SIG .392 SIG .068 .0748 AUS314 -.4809 N (33) N (31) SIG .325 SIG .002 -.1767 AUS315 -.0197 N(33) N(32) SIG .139 SIG .452 — 1 8 6 — AFM17GM AFM17GM AFM17GM AUW27R -.0499 N(38) SIG .363 AUQ28G .1411 N(39) SIG.161 ADF218 -.0484 N(41) SIG .369 AUW27IN -.2573 N(37) SIG .036 AUQ28T .2332 N(38) SIG .055 ADA219 .0825 N(41) SIG .281 AUW27A -.1826 N(40) SIG .085 AIS212 -.3259 N(41) SIG .011 ARS31PA -.2578 N(41) SIG .034 AUW27F .3031 N(41) SIG .017 AAA213 -.0142 N(41) SIG .460 ARS31IR -.1262 N(41) SIG.180 AUW27IT .1195 N(40) SIG .190 AINT215 -.0337 N(42) SIG .406 ARS31ID .0566 N(39) SIG .343 AUQ28S .0400 N(41) SIG .391 AFAQ216 .0074 N(42) SIG .479 ARS31P .3334 N(39) SIG .009 AUQ28P .0785 N(39) SIG .295 AAF217 .1220 N(41) SIG .190 AA35I -.3086 N(40) SIG .014 — 187 — APM17GM AFM17GM APM17GM AA35R AA35FR AA35FU AA35S AQU38 AQC39 AQD310 .1002 ARM311Q -.1550 AUS316 .0127 N (42) N (38) N (41) SIG .244 SIG .142 SIG .464 -.1555 ARM311A .1427 N (40) N (39) SIG .138 SIG .173 -.1195 ARM311S .0999 N (40) N (36) SIG .203 SIG .252 -.0143 ARM311N .0553 N (40) N (31) SIG .460 SIG .373 .0425 AUS313 .2280 N (41) N (37) SIG .386 SIG .065 .1216 AUS314 -.1091 N (41) N (38) SIG .205 SIG .231 .1801 AUS315 .0076 N (41) N (39) SIG. 107 SIG .479 — 188 — APM17M AFM17M APM17M AUW27R .0443 N(38) SIG .379 AUQ28G .0228 N(38) SIG .438 ADF218 -.2547 N(40) SIG .040 AUW27IN .0131 N(37) SIG .464 AUQ28T .1943 N(37) SIG .096 ADA219 -.1039 N(40) SIG .234 AUW27A .2582 N(39) SIG .032 AIS212 .4789 N(40) SIG .001 ARS31PA -.2073 N(39) SIG .076 AUW27F -.1191 N(40) SIG .205 AAA213 .2382 N(40) SIG .052 ARS31IR .0224 N(39) SIG .437 AUW27IT -.1169 N(39) SIG .200 AINT215 -.1831 N(41) SIG .099 ARS31ID .0424 N(37) SIG .384 AUQ28S .2390 N(40) SIG .054 AFAQ216 -.0080 N(41) SIG .477 ARS31P .2199 N(37) SIG .066 AUQ28P -.0047 N(38) SIG .488 AAF217 -.3117 N(40) SIG .014 AA35I -.1515 N(39) SIG.142 — 189 — AFM17M AA35R -.1123 N(41) SIG .222 AA35FR -.1062 N(39) SIG .234 AA35FU .0090 N(39) SIG .475 AA35S -.0574 N(39) SIG .345 AQU38 -.0954 N(40) SIG .262 AQC39 .0345 N(40) SIG .409 AQD310 .0153 N(40) SIG .459 AFM17M ARM311Q -.1884 N(37) SIG .101 ARM311A .1490 N(38) SIG.166 ARM311S -.0488 N(35) SIG .375 ARM311N .1798 N(29) SIG .152 AUS313 -.0688 N (36) SIG .325 AUS314 .3226 N(37) SIG .016 AUS315 -.0258 N(38) SIG .433 AFM17M AUS316 -.0890 N(40) SIG .269 — 190 — AFM17S AFM17S AFM17S AUW27R .1985 N(25) SIG.132 AUQ28G .1885 N(27) SIG .138 ADF218 -.2629 N(29) SIG .062 AUW27IN -.0776 N(24) SIG .334 AUQ28T .4219 N(27) SIG .008 ADA219 .0975 N(29) SIG .284 AUW27A .2170 N(27) SIG .101 AIS212 -.2158 N(29) SIG ,102 ARS31PA -.3173 N(29) SIG .029 AUW27F .0149 N(28) SIG .466 AAA213 -.2178 N(29) SIG.101 ARS31IR -.1444 N(29) SIG.191 AUW27IT -.0274 N(27) SIG .435 AINT215 -.0161 N(29) SIG .462 ARS31ID .2319 N(28) SIG .080 AUQ28S .0095 N(29) SIG .478 AFAQ216 .0382 N(29) SIG .410 ARS31P .2566 N(27) SIG .067 AUQ28P -.0670 N(27) SIG .352 AAF217 -.0651 N(29) SIG .346 AA35I -.1501 N(28) SIG.184 — 191 — AFM17S AA35R .0284 N(29) SIG .434 AA35FR .0049 N(27) SIG .489 AA35FU .1865 N(28) SIG.139 AA35S .0292 N(28) SIG .433 AQU38 .2967 N(28) SIG .050 AQC39 .0048 N(28) SIG .489 AQD310 .2021 N(28) SIG. 125 AFM17S ARM311Q -.1823 N(26) SIG .150 ARM311A .1726 N(27) SIG .170 ARM311S .1157 N(25) SIG .259 ARM311N .1286 N(21) SIG .266 AUS313 .1608 N(25) SIG.195 AUS314 -.0846 N(26) SIG .322 AUS315 -.0377 N(26) SIG .421 AFM17S AUS316 -.2231 N(26) SIG .097 — 192 — AREF18 ASYS22 -.0452 N(45) SIG .360 AIMP23 -.0110 N(45) SIG .466 ACT24G -.0372 N(41) SIG .393 ACT24C -.1522 N(39) SIG .141 ACT24A -.2159 N(41) SIG .058 ACT24P -.0244 N(40) SIG .430 ACT24F .0537 N(40) SIG .347 AREF18 ACT24AS -.0892 N(43) SIG .260 ACT24U -.3310 N(36) SIG .015 AAR25L -.2173 N(41) SIG .054 AAR25M -.2561 N(40) SIG .032 AAR25RC .2471 N(41) SIG .035 AAR25S .0617 N(38) SIG .331 AAR25I -.0475 N(41) SIG .362 AREF18 AAR26AL -.0276 N(40) SIG .422 AAR26E .0107 N(40) SIG .469 AAR26PA .2086 N(40) SIG .066 AAR26PR -.0690 N(42) SIG .307 AAR26I .1192 N(41) SIG.186 AWU27R -.2374 N (42) SIG .037 AUW27IN -.0682 N(41) SIG .304 — 193 — AREF18 AUW27A .1140 N(44) SIG.188 AUW27F -.0179 N(45) SIG .446 AUW27IT .0826 N(44) SIG .258 AUQ28S -.0085 N(45) SIG .475 AUQ28P .0196 N(43) SIG .442 AUQ28G .1128 N(43) SIG. 195 AUQ28T .1560 N(42) SIG.122 AREF18 AIS212 -.0202 N(45) SIG .439 AAA213 .0620 N(45) SIG .318 AINT215 -.1234 N(46) SIG.170 ARS31PA -.0362 N(44) SIG .391 ARS31IR -.0369 N(44) SIG .387 ARS31LD .1406 N(42) SIG .141 ARS31P -.0110 N(42) SIG .467 AREF18 AA35I -.0481 N(44) SIG .355 AA35R -.1537 N(46) SIG.126 AA35FR -.1090 N(44) SIG .204 AA35FU -.0444 N(44) SIG .368 AA35S -.1067 N(44) SIG .208 AQU38 .0049 N(45) SIG .486 AQC39 .0049 N(45) SIG .486 — 194 — AREF18 AREF18 AQD310 .2037 N(45) SIG .066 ARM311Q .2465 N(42) SIG .033 ARM311A .0000 N(43) SIG .500 ARM311S .1861 N(40) SIG .089 ARM311N .0069 N(34) SIG .482 AUS313 -.0109 N(41) SIG .468 AUS314 .1508 N(42) SIG. 133 AUS315 -.0687 N(43) SIG .308 AUS316 .0877 N(45) SIG .250 — 195 — ED14REV AUS21A .0530 N(46) SIG .335 AUS21G .0487 N(44) SIG .351 AUS21I -.0092 N(45) SIG .470 AUS21P -.0324 N(45) SIG .399 AUS21S -.1682 N(46) SIG .088 ACT24G -.0615 N(42) SIG .325 ACT24C -.2145 N(41) SIG .060 ED14REV ACT24A .1739 N(42) SIG .100 ACT24P -.0523 N(41) SIG .350 ACT24F .0687 N(41) SIG .305 ACT24AS -.0928 N(44) SIG .249 ACT24U -.0529 N(37) SIG .360 AUW27R .0376 N(43) SIG .287 AUW27IN -.1291 N(42) SIG.161 ED14REV AUW27A .0497 N(45) SIG .348 AUW27F -.2201 N(46) SIG .046 AUW27IT -.1383 N(45) SIG .135 AUQ28S -.1099 N(46) SIG .204 AUQ28P .1067 N(44) SIG .211 AUQ28G .0402 N(44) SIG .378 AUQ28T .0933 N(43) SIG .241 — 196 — ED14REV ED14REV ED14REV AAS29 .0660 N(42) SIG .311 AAA213 .1406 N(46) SIG .139 AA35I -.0946 N(45) SIG .229 AUN210 -.0703 N(45) SIG .294 AAI214 .0153 N(45) SIG .452 AA35R .1520 N(47) SIG .125 AUP211A .0000 N(46) SIG .500 AINT215 .0281 N(47) SIG .413 AA35FR .0263 N(45) SIG .420 AUP211I .0134 N(44) SIG .459 ARS31PA .1067 N(45) SIG .204 AA35FU .0481 N(45) SIG .358 AUP211L .0326 N(41) SIG .406 ARS31IR .1452 N(45) SIG.125 AA35S .1484 N(45) SIG.125 AUP211AC .0267 N(45) SIG .416 ARS31ID -.1524 N(43) SIG.119 AQU38 .0016 N(46) SIG .495 AIS212 .0104 N(46) SIG .468 ARS31P -.0300 N(43) SIG .409 AQC39 .1742 N(46) SIG .098 — 197 — ED14REV AQD310 .0621 N(46) SIG .320 ARM311Q .0251 N(43) SIG .424 ARM311A -.0834 N(44) SIG .273 ARM311S -.0552 N(41) SIG .342 ARM311N .1015 N(35) SIG .253 AUS313 -.0280 N(42) SIG .418 AUS314 .0541 N(43) SIG .343 ED14REV AUS315 .1891 N(44) SIG .081 AUS316 -.0453 N(46) SIG .362 — 198 — 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097993/manifest

Comment

Related Items