Search results

Polytechnics in Nigeria are conventional institutions where academic board records are being managed in paper form. It has been observed that accessing these academic board records is difficult due to factors associated with the absence of preservation techniques and lack of clear-cut conservation practices. This study, therefore, aims to examine the preservation techniques and conservation practices adopted for the management of academic board records in polytechnics in South-West Nigeria.

This study adopted a qualitative method with the population comprising 54 records management personnel enumerated in the four selected polytechnics in South-West Nigeria. Triangulation method (questionnaire, interview and observation checklist) was used for data collection. The responses were analysed with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Findings revealed that photocopying, binding and use of insecticides were the most rated preservation techniques adopted. The security and shelving of academic board records to allow for free flow of air were the most available conservation practices, whereas staff training was not adequately available. The topmost rated constraints were non-challant attitude of personnel in-charge, insufficient funds and inadequate infrastructure.

This study concluded that preservation and conservation practices are vital in the management of academic board records in polytechnics in South-West Nigeria. For efficient and effective management of academic board records, modern-day preservation and conservation practices need to be adopted.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study how preservation and conservation practices adopted for the management of academic board records in Nigerian polytechnics.

Preservation activities have existed in libraries since the early days of librarianship, but these efforts were mostly decentralized and buried in the work of many different departments. Not until the 1970s did library organizations begin to add preservation to organizational charts on a departmental or middle management level, along with its new administrative costs. At that time, libraries were struggling with early efforts at automation and the many changes it would bring to their organizations. Preservation department functions, formerly decentralized from an administrative and budgetary standpoint under the headings of commercial binding, book repair, special collections, or circulation, were now identified as a budget line forced to compete for funds with newly formed library systems departments as well as other traditional library functions. This was particularly difficult given that a large portion of the costs of a comprehensive preservation department were new and additive (Fasana and Baker, 1992, p. 132), yet provided few immediately evident benefits. A burgeoning library systems unit could place libraries on the cutting edge of technology; automated card catalogs could improve productivity and efficiency for staff, and also provide for better patron access to collections. Needless to say, systems departments were much better funded than preservation units at this time.

Moving images represent a category of material which has historically received short shrift in most libraries and archives. Film, video, and now digital images form a significant part of many library and archival collections, however, and can be found in many formats and genres. Despite the ubiquity of such media in cultural institutions, the majority of libraries and archives owning collections of moving images have neglected these holdings—with the specific exception of those few archives devoted primarily to the care and preservation of moving images.

On August 26, 1971, OCLC introduced the online union catalog and shared cataloging system. During the 1970s, OCLC focused its efforts on creating and expanding the online cataloging system and telecommunications network. It added an online interlibrary loan system in 1979. In the 1980s, OCLC began adapting distributed computing and microcomputing technologies as its product and service lines expanded to some 60 offerings. The organization also began looking at ways to move beyond bibliography by furnishing information not only to library staffs, but also to library patrons. In the 1990s, OCLC launched a new core business in reference services. (Smith, 1998, pp. 251–252). Now, in the 21st century, OCLC is introducing tools, services and infrastructure to manage the life cycle of digital content in libraries.

This chapter identifies the five new roles that are critical to establishing and sustaining a knowledge preservation and curation practice. For each role, the authors describe fundamental responsibilities and competencies. Two of the roles support knowledge preservation, including business knowledge analyst and specialized knowledge preservationist. Three of the roles support knowledge curation including business interlocutor/translator, knowledge curator, and knowledge asset developer. Each role faces peculiar challenges in a dynamic and chaotic knowledge economy.

This chapter explores the traditional and evolving practice of preservation. Traditional preservation practices are traced throughout history. Current practice is described as a foundation from which to understand evolving practices. Traditional preservation has historically focused on tangible assets that take a tangible form we can all see and touch. The traditional practices are compared to the evolving practices of knowledge and intangible resources. The chapter examines why, what, how, when, where we preserve, and who preserves to understand the transition in progress today. The authors make the case that shifting the traditional focus from preserving for the past and evidentiary reasons to preserving for the future to support business challenges is crucial. The authors also tie the need to refocus on historical impediments and challenges to knowledge use and reuse in practical business environments.

RLG is a not-for-profit international alliance of about 160 members, including universities and colleges, national and public research libraries, archives, historical societies, museums, and independent research collections devoted to improving access to information that supports research and learning. Founded in 1974 as the Research Libraries Group by four visionary library directors from Columbia, Harvard and Yale universities and the New York Public Library, the consortium formed to allow research institutions to tackle tough challenges via collaborative action. Key issues were managing the transition from locally self-sufficient and independently comprehensive collections to a system of interdependencies that would preserve and enhance the capacity for research in all fields of knowledge and improving the ability to locate and retrieve relevant research resources (RLG, 1986). At its inception, four activity areas were identified for collaborative action: cooperative bibliographic control and access; effective mechanisms for sharing information and resources among member institutions; expanded and coordinated collection development efforts; and preservation of the collections, either in the original or surrogate format.