Conservation documentation is the permanent record constructed to describe the conservation activities of examination, quantitative and qualitative testing, and treatment. In addition to written descriptions of activities, conservation documentation always includes any samples and images taken during examination, testing, and treatment. In the United States, the American Institute for Conservation of Artistic and Historic Works (AIC) Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice Article VII directs conservation professionals to create and preserve conservation documentation, stating, “The conservation professional shall document examination, scientific investigation, and treatment by creating permanent records and reports.”³

The purpose of conservation documentation can be summarized: establish condition of the artifact; support the care of cultural property; increase understanding of aesthetic, conceptual, and physical characteristics; and assist in the development of professional knowledge and understanding. Each component of conservation documentation is clearly defined in the commentary to the AIC Code of Ethics. The commentary section “Special Practices,” which deals with documentation, addresses exemptions from the minimum and recommended standard practices.⁴ This section is germane to conservation within a research library because it includes “minor remedial treatments” and “mass treatments,” both of which are common in library and archives conservation.

The dissemination of conservation documentation to the owners and custodians of cultural materials and the preservation of that documentation is an obligation of conservation professionals as specified in the AIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice.⁵ Conservation professionals working in institutions such as academic research libraries are advised in the Commentaries to the AIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice to work with archivists and record managers to develop policies and practices for the organization and permanent retention of conservation documentation. Such documentation should be part of the institutional archives.⁶

The author examined the conservation, preservation, museum studies, and library science literature to ascertain current practices and trends in the management and use of conservation documentation. The transition to digital formats for conservation documentation is a dominant subject in the recent literature. Literature reviewed on conservation documentation in research libraries focuses more on the practical application of documentation management.

The conservation community has adopted a very cautious approach to using digital conservation documentation formats. Only in 2008 did the AIC publish a guide for digital photography use in conservation documentation.⁷ The guide provides recommendations to assist conservators using digital photography as part of their conservation documentation process. The minimum accepted practice allows for the use of electronic documentation provided an established long-term preservation plan is in place.⁸ This plan should include at least two copies of the documentation in different locations, regular monitoring, migration, and conversion when needed to ensure preservation.

With the acceptance and widespread use of digital conservation documentation, cultural institutions (in particular museums) have been grappling with the issues of data management and access. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation sponsored meetings in New York (2006) and London (2007) and funded projects to investigate the complexities of managing conservation documentation in digital formats. Both meetings were recorded and edited transcriptions of the meetings were published by the Mellon Foundation.⁹ During the meetings, representatives from participating institutions described their use of digital formats for conservation documentation and institutional priorities on data management and access. While the participants embraced digital documentation systems, they disagreed and expressed concern about access to conservation documentation, especially legacy documentation (i.e., documentation that precedes digital documentation). Summaries of the meeting were published in the Getty Conservation Newsletter (2006) and Studies in Conservation (2007).¹⁰

Meeting participants raised concerns about possible misinterpretation of raw conservation data.¹¹ Some institutions proposed mediated access, while others (in particular museums based in the United Kingdom) supported full access to conservation information with the caveat that disclaimers be included to guide interpretation. For example, the general disclaimer from the British Museums’ collection database states,

The information in the records is made available in its entirety. Only prices paid, personal addresses and the names of some individual Museum staff have been withheld. The database is an inventory of the Museum’s collection and aims to record what is known about it. It is primarily designed to support curatorial and research work, and much of the text is specialised in nature and terminology.¹²

The participants in the meetings sponsored by the Mellon Foundation discussed the problem of integrating conservation documentation into collection management systems in museums.¹³ Participants expressed concern about the difficulty in accessing conservation data relevant to curatorial and research activities and a desire to have information easily accessible within the museum. Some museums, including the British Museum, have developed their own collection management systems that incorporate conservation data. Other solutions discussed at the meetings included developing crosswalks between collection management systems and conservation documentation systems and creating new conservation modules. During the 2006 meeting, a participant from the Philadelphia Museum of Art reported that attempts to develop standard modules for conservation documentation for the most popular collections management system, TMS: The Museum System (www.gallerysystems.com/collection-management), have failed because, in the vendor’s opinion, “there was no way a group of conservators would agree.”¹⁴

An outcome of the Mellon-sponsored meetings is the open-source application design and development project ConservationSpace (www.conservationspace.org/Home.html), also funded by the Mellon Foundation. The software being developed is intended to address the conservation community’s need for a shared solution to managing documentation. The design phase of the collaborative project began in 2009 with community design meetings. These design meetings informed the planning phase of the project, which is to be completed in 2012. The planning phase is a collaborative effort of eight institutional partners, all museums with the exception of Yale University Libraries, to develop the functional and technical requirements for the application. The final phase of the project (the build phase) will develop the application to be tested by the partners before distribution. The success of the ConservationSpace application will be contingent on the ability of the developers to integrate the complex and varied requirements and the model for application distribution and support.

The earlier literature concerning book conservation in research libraries rarely references conservation documentation. In Conservation of Library Materials, published in 1971, Cunha discusses the examination and recording information on “any work on important books (or paper).”¹⁵ In Library Conservation: Preservation in Perspective, the editors reprinted the AIC Codes of Ethics, which include a section on documentation.¹⁶ Banks provides four resources under the heading of documentation systems in his 1981 selected bibliography on conservation in research libraries.¹⁷ Two of these publications are short pieces by Buck in Museum News that define the documentation process and selected terminology for art conservation.¹⁸ The two other resources Banks lists are short reports on using standardized conservation documentation forms. The detailed documentation form described and reprinted by Hauser in 1974 was developed for fine art prints.¹⁹ Hauser encourages adapting the form to suit other collection requirements. The form reprinted and described by Vaisey in 1978 that was developed by the Society of Archivists working group is flexible and can be used with a variety of library and archival materials.²⁰

The omission of information about conservation documentation in most publications concerning preservation and conservation in libraries, such as Morrow’s Conservation Treatment Procedures and Kyle’s Library Materials Preservation Manual, is not surprising because the emphasis of these publications was on implementing and managing general collection conservation activities, which are usually perceived as not requiring conservation documentation.²¹ According to Appelbaum, in Conservation Treatment Methodology, books in circulating collections may have “no cultural value and little realistic probability of acquiring any,” and therefore they are not in the “province of conservators” unlike books with cultural, historical, or unique value.²² A defining characteristic of general collection conservation is the use of standard treatment types according to Baker in her 2004 study on conservation in research libraries.²³ Baker differentiates special collection conservation as requiring an individual treatment process that would necessitate conservation documentation.

Merrill-Oldham and Schrock also define general collections conservation as not requiring item-level conservation documentation.²⁴ While acknowledging that many techniques and materials used in general collections conservation also are used in special collection conservation, they assert that the “principles of minimal intervention, single standard of treatment, and item-level documentation that underlies the treatment of artifacts, however, are not applied in treating general collections. Instead maximizing the life and usability of the text at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time is the primary concern.”²⁵ This distinction between general and special collection also is found, although not stated explicitly, in DePew’s 1991 volume on library preservation.²⁶ The chapter “Binding and In-House Repair” contains no discussion of documentation, but does offer a disclaimer that the “techniques described here are not suitable for cleaning fragile paper or most works of art on paper”²⁷ In a subsequent chapter, DePew advises that conservators should provide a written report of examination with a treatment proposal before undertaking work, and written and photographic documentation upon completion of any conservation activities.

The author identified no studies documenting conservation documentation practices in research libraries and the subject was not addressed in Baker and Dube’s 2010 comprehensive study of book conservation practices in research libraries, which focused instead on methods, techniques, and materials.²⁸ Practical methods for producing and managing conservation documentation in research libraries are proposed in the literature concerning special collections conservation. Stewart promotes the storage of conservation documentation with the object whenever possible and further suggests attaching a written description of the treatment or references to the location of the full documentation to treated objects.²⁹

Other publications embrace digital technology and promote the use of databases to create and manage conservation documentation. Aleppo relates the history of conservation documentation at the National Archives of the United Kingdom and delineates the improved access to conservation documentation achieved through the use of a database first introduced in 1996.³⁰ The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) published a Systems and Procedures Exchange Center (SPEC) Kit in 1993 on the use of electronic management tools for preservation activities.³¹ The kit promotes using databases and other applications to streamline workflows, improve handling procedures, and share data. The kit includes descriptions of databases created to manage conservation information. In 1995, Henry described applications used at Stanford University in a wide variety of conservation activities and promoted the development of systems that allow for sharing of conservation information.³²

The use of the MARC record for conservation documentation was presented in a paper by Hinz and Gehnrich published in the 2006 Book and Paper Group Annual.³³ Hinz and Gehnrich promote the use of the MARC 21 field 583 in the bibliographic record as a practical method of managing conservation documentation. The authors attest to the ease of access to conservation documentation provided by the MARC 21 field 583 for curatorial as well as conservation staff, observing,

To our knowledge, this field [MARC 21 field 583] is not widely used by conservators, though it is quite possibly the most appropriate database because it embeds the treatment history in the bibliographic data, transparently linking conservation and curatorial agendas by locating all collection information in the same database.³⁴

No other case studies promoting use of the MARC 21 field 583 for conservation data was identified in the review of the literature.

Hinz and Gehnrich discuss the use of the MARC field 583 for conservation documentation at their institutions, the Hagley Museum and Library and the American Antiquarian Society.³⁵ They use the field as the sole record for conservation documentation. At the Hagley Museum and Library, the MARC 21 field 583 is used to document treatments, research past treatments, and to keep statistics on conservation activities. Use of the field at the American Antiquarian Society also includes recording conservation requests submitted by curatorial staff. To simplify entry, Hinz and Gehnrich define standard terminology and recommend periodically creating and retaining terminologies or treatment protocols through a library’s acquisition and cataloging department. Treatment protocols are updated with changes in practice, but they also are maintained as a historical record of practices as recommended by Appelbaum, who refers to treatment protocols as a “laboratory master report.”³⁶ The creation and retention of treatment protocols or laboratory master reports can be a substitute for a universal standard conservation terminology.

While Hinz and Gehnrich state “there is no predetermined conservation terminology in MARC,” the Preservation & Digitization Actions: Terminology for the MARC 21 Field 583 (PDA) provides a set of instructions and a standardized terminology that can be used for encoding conservation data.³⁷PDA was developed in 2004 in a joint effort by the Research Libraries Group (RLG), ARL, and the Library of Congress. Before the publication of PDA, the Standard Terminology for the MARC Actions Note Field was only standard for encoding preservation data into MARC 21 field 583.³⁸Standard Terminology for the MARC Actions Note Field was based on a list prepared in 1988 by the Preservation of Library Materials Section of the Resources and Technical Services Division of the American Library Association. The terminology is not formally part of the MARC 21 format documentation. PDA was developed to overcome perceived shortcomings in the Standard Terminology for the MARC Actions Note Field, especially the absence of terminology for digitization actions. In reference to Standard Terminology for the MARC Actions Note Field, the history section of the PDA states:

With the passage of time however, the list of preservation terminology has become outdated and the inability to record digital reformatting and digital transformation actions has become a hindrance.³⁹

PDA describes the attributes of the MARC 21 field 583, noting that the field is repeatable and can be used in both MARC holdings and bibliographic records. The document defines the use of a range of subfields. Of particular importance is the subfield $3 (Materials Specified). This subfield defines the part of an object described by a single bibliographic record to which the action in the MARC 21 field 583 pertains. This feature is particularly important for serials and multivolume monographs.

Recent interest in the MARC 21 field 583 for managing and sharing preservation data, especially in the context of cooperative preservation efforts, was evident at the 2011 American Library Association (ALA) Annual Conference. During the conference, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS) hosted a program titled “Have Metadata, Can Collaborate: Putting the MARC 21 583 Field to Use in Cooperative Preservation Efforts.” The program objectives were to educate participants in the application of PDA, introduce the potential of recorded data to “facilitate cooperative work at the local, regional, and national levels,” and to provide examples of local use.⁴⁰ The program presenters described the development and components of PDA and its application for encoding preservation data in MARC records. Presenters described the varied use of the MARC 21 field 583 for recording preservation and conservation actions, planned actions, and the potential uses of the field for recording survey data and linking directly to conservation databases and treatment images. In addition, a program presenter from the University of California Los Angeles reported on the potential for using the field for coordinating shared print repositories. Program presenters from the Schlesinger Library at Harvard University described the local modification of PDA and the use of macros to facilitate coding by noncatalogers.

The author designed a survey (see appendix) to capture data on current conservation documentation practices in academic research libraries and to explore the use of the MARC 21 field 583 for recording conservation documentation. The survey aimed to measure current and potential use of the MARC 21 field 583 for recording conservation data. The population surveyed consisted of the major stakeholders for creation and use of conservation documentation in academic research libraries: preservation, conservation, and special collections professional staff.

The author used the ARL 2006–7 preservation statistics (the last year these were collected) to identify a group of research libraries with established preservation programs.⁴⁹ Libraries without established preservation programs are not likely to engage in active conservation work or manage conservation documentation and were therefore excluded from the population. A library needed to employ a preservation administrator who dedicates a minimum of 50 percent of his or her time to preservation to qualify for inclusion in the population. To focus on academic research libraries, nonacademic ARL libraries were excluded from the population, thereby reducing the number of libraries in the population to 69.

To fully gauge the potential for using the MARC 21 field 583 for conservation documentation, the survey population included the professional staff in preservation, conservation, and special collections and rare books that might benefit the most from linking the conservation and bibliographic data. Archivists were excluded from the survey population because archival materials were out of the scope of the present research. Positions that indicated a nonprofessional role were excluded from the population. Job titles in the population suggested professional status and included head, director, administrator, librarian, chief, associate, conservator, and curator. The titles excluded from the population implied nonprofessional positions including assistant, specialist, and technician.

The author assembled a list of names and email addresses of 301 preservation, conservation, and special collections professionals using the library websites and reference services of the selected 69 ARL member academic libraries. After preliminary testing of the survey instrument by staff members at the author’s institution and ARL nonacademic research libraries, the author submitted the survey instrument and project method to the New York University Committee on Activities Involving Human Subjects. The project was approved and granted exempt status by the committee on April 18, 2011. The author launched the survey (see appendix) to the full (301) population on May 23, 2011, using the compiled name and email data that were entered into the online survey software Qualtric. Reminder email messages were sent on June 14 and June 20, 2011, using the survey software to population members who had not completed the survey. The survey was closed on July 22, 2011. Seventy (44 percent) of the 159 responses were recorded on the first day of the survey. Responses on the dates of the reminders were greater than all other dates except the survey launch date. Thirty-three (21 percent) responses were recorded on the date of the first reminder, and 20 (13 percent) were recorded on the day of the second reminder.

The survey was divided into three areas: demographics, conservation documentation practices, and the MARC 21 field 583. The demographic questions were constructed to confirm the survey population, designate groups by functional area (preservation, conservation, and special collections and rare books), and record education and managerial experience. These questions allowed for filtering responses by position type. This function is particularly important when ascertaining library practices. By filtering for the position (preservation administrator), the author was able to assume that the responses were from different libraries because libraries usually employ only one preservation administrator in contrast to positions such as conservator, preservation librarian, or special collection librarian. Data from preservation administrator responses were used to verify the sample data when applicable to library practices.

The questions concerning conservation documentation practices established the type and intensity of conservation work at the survey participant’s library as well as the current conservation documentation practices. If, while taking the survey, a respondent moved the cursor over the term conservation documentation, the software displayed the following definition taken from the AIC website: “The recording in a permanent format of information derived from conservation activities.”⁵⁰ This definition was provided for those survey participants who might not be familiar with how the conservation profession defines conservation documentation. The initial multiple-choice answers (yes, no, don’t know) to the conservation documentation questions were presented to measure both practices and awareness of practices. Additional questions querying current conservation documentation techniques list methods identified in the literature review.

To understand the current and potential use of the MARC 21 field 583, the participants were asked to report use of the field for all kinds of preservation data, including conservation documentation. Additional questions probed the type of data recorded (i.e., reformatting actions, conservation data) and the terminology used in the field. Participants who reported using the MARC 21 field 583 to record conservation data were asked if their library also maintains other systems for managing conservation data. Those respondents who reported that their library does not use the MARC 21 field 583 were asked to anticipate future use and their assessment of such potential use.

The final survey questions asked respondents if they were willing to participate in a follow-up interview. A number of survey participants initially agreed to participate in the follow-up interviews and were contacted via email. Twenty-five participants from 22 different libraries participated in follow-up interviews conducted in March and April 2012. These confidential and informal interviews investigated use and interest in encoding conservation data into the MARC 21 field 583 and preferred implementation methods. Additionally, the interviewees were asked about survey results regarding the perceived value of conservation documentation and issues regarding public access to conservation documentation.

Of the 301 surveys emailed, 131 respondents completed the survey in May, June, and July 2011. Ten respondents indicated that their positions were support staff and were subsequently removed, reducing the population to 291 and the responses to 121. Response rates for individual questions varied from the overall survey response rate of 42 percent because some questions were restricted based on previous answers and participants were allowed to bypass questions (except the initial consent question). The mean time for completing the survey was ten minutes.

The author intentionally chose the survey implementation method to define a fixed sample and to avoid the drawbacks of web-distributed surveys, such as an undefined response rate. While the response rate was high at 42 percent, responses may not accurately represent the perspective of the entire population; however, it can suggest general trends in practices and perceptions. The survey was self-selecting, as invited participants chose to respond and therefore may have special interest in the subject, possibly introducing sample bias and some skewing of the results.

The recent practice in the preservation field of using web-distributed surveys that request only one response per library encourages coordinated responses. The present research seeks to understand individual perceptions. To encourage participation and reduce coordinated responses, the email messages inviting participation in this survey explicitly stated that multiple people from each selected library would be asked to take the survey individually. Despite this statement, communications from participants indicate that some individuals attempted to coordinate responses. While clarification was given to those individuals who communicated with the author, the extent to which responses were collaborative rather than individual is not known.

The survey population was derived from data presented in the most recently published ARL preservation statistics data that was four years old at the time of the survey and is no longer maintained by ARL. Therefore some possible institutions may have been missed. The population was limited to preservation, conservation, and rare books and special collections professionals. Archivists and catalogers were excluded. This omission was intentional to limit the population and focus on professionals working with nonarchival special collections. The exclusion of catalogers from the survey population, in particular rare book catalogers doing descriptive bibliography, proved to be a missed opportunity to better understand the potential value of conservation documentation to the work of cataloging.

The survey was designed to be flexible to encourage participation. One flexible design element allowed participants to bypass questions. The results indicate that participants occasionally did skip questions. Providing “don’t know” and “does not apply” options consistently for all questions might have provided the same flexibility as allowing participants to skip questions.

At present, public access to conservation documentation is a complex and polarizing issue in the field of conservation. Two ideological camps, mediated and open access, were evident during the Mellon-sponsored meetings and in the phone interviews.⁵⁶ While both sides firmly believe that providing access to conservation documentation is an ethical responsibility, the type and form of the access is contentious. One interviewee who supports open access asserted that “information wants to be free,” and other interviewees communicated with the author their belief that conservation professionals should pursue opportunities to share documentation without (or with minimal) mediation or interpretation. The British Museum’s practice of presenting conservation documentation online through the museum’s collections database is representative of the minimally mediated approach. The opposing viewpoint expressed in phone interviews focuses on possible legal and security risks associated with the release of technical data. Another concern raised in a phone interview is that conservation documentation can read like a manual for treatment and that nontrained individuals could damage cultural property by attempting to replicate treatment. This concern is understandable because every conservator can testify to having to mitigate damage caused by misguided attempts by nonprofessionals to treat objects.

While caution is understandable in a field charged with the care of cultural property, promotion of conservation is crucial for the continued development of the profession. Outreach, which was a theme of the 2012 AIC annual meeting, involves not only education, events, and promotion, but also sharing data and engaging with other library professionals and library users.⁵⁷ While some risk is associated with making treatment procedures publically available, one could argue that this risk is already present in the numerous conservation books, articles, and web resources currently available. Furthermore, simple disclaimers can caution readers and direct them to additional resources. For example the British Museum’s website provides an example of such a disclaimer:

Information in the reports held on this database needs to be read with care. The reports were originally produced for internal purposes only, and were generally produced to address very specific issues. Much of the text is therefore specialized in nature and terminology. It has not been possible to check every record prior to its release; therefore there may be mistakes and omissions. The Museum does not endorse any of the equipment or products recorded here and it should be noted that any information about product formulations or health and safety advice given may no longer be current.⁵⁸

Baker’s chapter on conservation treatment of nineteenth century papers advises, “Lay persons are strongly discouraged from carrying out conservation treatments. For advice or treatment, s/he should contact a professional conservator (http://www.conservation-us.org).”⁵⁹ A number of the conservators interviewed expressed the belief that a move toward more openness is inevitable and, as professionals, the conservation community needs to be willing to share data and overcome fears of judgment that might follow such disclosure.

Recording current conservation documentation practices in academic research libraries was a primary goal of the survey. Survey data confirmed that conservation documentation is routinely generated for special collections and is used regularly by preservation, conservation, and special collections professional staff. Conservation documentation was perceived by the survey respondents as having value outside of the functions of conservation and preservation. The media used to capture conservation documentation were varied and included paper forms, electronic word processing files, image files, databases, and to a lesser extent the MARC record. According to phone interviewees, the management of conservation documentation in either analog or digital form is the responsibility of the conservator with little or no assistance from other library departments and personnel, with the exception of data recorded in the MARC record. Conservation documentation systems described were developed to meet the needs of specific types of collections, workflows, and staff preferences. The systems described by 22 of 25 phone interviewees were closed systems that did not link to any other collection databases.

In promoting the practice of utilizing the MARC 21 field 583 for recording and managing conservation data, Hinz and Gehnrich raised the question of the desirability of integrating conservation documentation into the collection database.⁶⁰ In addition to recording conservation documentation practices, the present study also examined the perceived appropriateness and implications of using the MARC 21 field 583 for conservation documentation in academic research libraries. While use of the MARC 21 field 583 for conservation data in ARL academic libraries was reported as low by survey respondents and phone interviewees, interest in recording conservation data in the field was substantial. Using the field to indicate (or directly link to) more comprehensive conservation documentation was preferred for special collection conservation documentation. This preference is understandable as linkage to descriptive data enhances the value of conservation documentation by bringing such data out of the isolation inherent in local systems. The open-source conservation documentation application currently under development, ConservationSpace, may facilitate this linkage and surmount obstacles presented by proprietary applications and existing workflows. The extent of access to conservation documentation remains controversial and will be determined by the willingness of individuals and institutions to set aside local concerns for the greater value inherent in the boarder exchange of information.