Page Comparison

...

In comparing data from previous submissions to the proposed method of counting by category, there are two concerns that arise for “manuscript” type category items:

1. “Manuscript” as value for Resource Type means something different from “Manuscript” in the Special Collections context. The “Manuscript” value is derived from values in the MARC Leader and 008. (See Alma User Interface - General Information > Searching in Alma). Correctly catalogued items with this Resource Type include unpublished dissertations and other materials that do not correspond to the kinds of materials that are counted as “Manuscript Units” by Special Collections and Archives experts.

2. “Manuscript Unit” subcategories from previous UCOP submissions, like “Personal manuscript units”, generally do not have item-level records in Alma that can be neatly counted by filtering by location, MARC field, or other values in existing physical item records.

As the examples below demonstrate, Irvine reported approximately 4,000 Manuscript Units in 2021-2022. But the Irvine’s item count for the Resource Type “Manuscript” is over 12,500. And the count for “Manuscript” items in Irvine’s Special Collections and Archives locations is only about 1,300.

...

1. Overall measurement issues. Counts of item records in Special Collections locations across the system are wholly inadequate.

   • Item records do not exist at all for some materials This is true at Bancroft Library and other Special Collections units in the UC Libraries.

   • Online Archive of California records are not accurately represented in Alma. At UC Irvine, for example, Alma does not have item records that correspond to representations there.

   • Item records do not correspond to meaningful, standard archival measurements that are in use nationally and internationally. ARL, for example, asks for Manuscript Units.

   • Item records for containers are flawed measurements, because they canrepresent vastly different quantities and types of materials - from a single piece of paper to a large container with thousands of documents.

   • Inaccurately coded records are an issue. For example, Berkeley Bancroft Technical Services notes that many Alma items for Special Collection manuscripts are currently miscoded as type “book.”

   • Resource type at the bibliographic level does not provide meaningful information. Manuscripts and archival materials are sometimes coded as “collections,” and sometimes as “manuscripts.” Still images can be both “pictures” and “other,” due to coding as projected vs. non-projected graphics. On many campuses, counts of items with resource type “Manuscript” mostly show individually-catalogued theses and dissertations.

2. Risk management issues. Counts of items cannot provide an accurate or useful picture of the value of materials for insurance purposes.

   • For UCOP stats, HOSC has provided MU measurements because the insurance unit values table describes manuscripts as "Personal Manuscripts," "UC Archival Manuscripts," and "Other Manuscripts" -- all this translates, to HOSC since at least the last decade+, as archival/manuscript collections, not individual manuscripts. https://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Unit_value_2021.pdf.

   • For some materials, there is an existing distinction between UC archival collections and personal papers or other collected manuscripts that is recorded at the item level—not at the bibliographic level. Valuations have in the past been tied to this information, so any changes to tracking it should be in coordination with UCOP Risk Management.

...