482 American Archivist / Vol. 57 / Summer 1994 Research Article Viewing the Field: A Literature Review and Survey of the Use of U.S. MARC AMC in U.S. Academic Archives LYN M. MARTIN Abstract: U.S. MARC AMC (MAchine-Readable Cataloging for Archives and Manuscript Control) has "come of age," taking its place in the mainstream of both archival and cataloging thinking, theory, and practice. The meteoric rise in the use of MARC AMC is evident in the statistics reported by the bibliographic utilities. The literature of MARC AMC, although extensive, has not been reviewed since 1989 and does not systematically document the use of the format in U.S. academic archives. This paper presents a review of that literature and reports the results of a 1992 survey of 200 archivists, representing 200 academic archives in the United States. These respondents were randomly selected from the Society of American Archivists' 1991 Directory of Individual Members; they cooperated in a survey examining the use of MARC AMC for cataloging archival and manuscript collections. This paper profiles the institutional use of MARC AMC, including the choice of a cataloging standard, such as Steven Henson's Archives, Personal Papers and Manuscripts, Second Edition (APPM, Second Edition) and Anglo-American Catalog- ing Rules, Second Edition, Revised (AACR2R), chapter 4. The paper concludes with an admonition for archivists and traditional catalogers to work collaboratively to catalog archival and manuscript collections. About the author: Lyn Martin is currently senior assistant librarian and cataloger at the State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill, New York. She was previously senior assistant librarian and monographic cataloger (specializing in archival collections and rare books) at the University Libraries, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York. The research for this paper was conducted as part of a 1991-92 University at Albany Faculty Research Award Program grant. Selected results of this research were presented in June 1993 at the State University of New York Librarians Conference at Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Viewing the Field 483 U.S. MARC AMC (MACHINE-READABLE CATALOGING for Archives and Manuscript Control) has taken its place in the main- stream of both archival and cataloging thinking, theory, and practice. More than two decades have passed since the MARC Manuscripts format was introduced by the Library of Congress (LC) and implemented by the Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) in 1973. This paper presents a current review of the literature on MARC AMC and reports the results of a survey of its use in 200 U.S. academic archives. MARC AMC Comes of Age It has been a decade since the MARC AMC format was approved by the Ameri- can Library Association's (ALA's) Com- mittee on Representation in MAchine- Readable Form of Bibliographic Informa- tion (MARBI),1 and since Stephen L. Hen- son's Archives, Personal Papers and Manuscripts (APPM)2 was first published by LC. In addition, it has been ten years since OCLC and the Research Libraries Group's (RLG) Research Libraries Infor- mation Network (RLIN) implemented the MARC AMC format,3 and five years since Henson's Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A Cataloging Manual for Ar- chival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manuscript Libraries, Second Edition {APPM, Second Edition)4 was endorsed as •Working Group on Standards for Archival De- scription, "Archival Description Standards: Establish- ing a Process for Their Development and Implementation," American Archivist 52 (Fall 1989): 448. 2Stephen L. Henson, Archives, Personal Papers and Manuscripts (Washington, D.C.: Library of Con- gress, Cataloging Distribution Service, 1983). 'Working Group on Standards for Archival De- scription, "Archival Description Standards: Establish- ing a Process," 448. "Stephen L. Henson, Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A Cataloging Manual for Archival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manuscript Li- braries, Second Edition (Chicago: Society of Ameri- can Archivists, 1989). the standard for archival description by the Society of American Archivists (SAA) Council.5 Further, it has been nine years since Henson forecast The MARC Archival and Manu- scripts Control . . . format has the potential to change the lives of ar- chivists forever. The format provides a structure for description that is not only fully consistent with archival principles but also compatible with modern bibliographic description. Contemplating the possibilities for information sharing, automated un- ion catalogs, network building, and computerized management is enough to make most archivists positively giddy. Not since the development of the acid-free folder has news this good broken upon the archival hori- zon. With this new freedom, how- ever, there are new responsibilities.6 Henson's forecast has proven to be close to the mark. And, now, in the mid 1990s, the "giddiness" Henson forecast is past and the "responsibilities" he anticipated are all too real. MARC AMC has come of age, taking its place (for good or for ill) in the mainstream of archival and cataloging thinking, theory, and practice. There is no doubt that MARC AMC seems firmly entrenched and that it is being used with increasing regularity, particularly in academic environments in the United States. In 1988 Henson reported that OCLC and RLIN databases combined held "almost 150,000 catalog records for man- 5Working Group on Standards for Archival De- scription, "Archival Description Standards: Establish- ing a Process," 449. 'Stephen L. Henson, "The Use of Standards in the Application of the AMC Format," American Archi- vist 49 (Winter 1986): 32. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 484 American Archivist/ Summer 1994 uscript and archival materials."7 More re- cently, OCLC alone reported the inclusion of 174,468 MARC AMC records in its da- tabase,8 and RLG reported that the "RLIN AMC file is richer than ever," containing "more than 383,000 records."9 The Literature of MARC AMC Both archivists and catalogers have held extensive discussions and debates about MARC AMC over the past two decades, and a wealth of material about the format has been published. However, there has been precious little survey work regarding the actual use of the format. The literature of MARC AMC had been well docu- mented by the Working Group on Stan- dards for Archival Description,10 but the 1989 bibliography (published in American Archivist) has never been updated. There has been a flurry of activity in the archival and library cataloging literature about MARC AMC since Michael Cook's Ar- chives and the Computer11 was first pub- lished in 1980 and since the first five MARC AMC articles were published in 1984.12 'Stephen L. Henson, "Squaring the Circle: The Reformation of Archival Description in AACR2," Li- brary Trends 36: 3 (Winter 1988): 539. 8SUNY/OCLC Network, "Bibliographic Records in the [OCLC] Online Union Catalog by Source of Cataloging," Status Line no. 57 (April 1993): 3. 'Research Libraries Group, "RLIN AMC File Richer Than Ever," The Research Libraries Group News no. 31 (Spring 1993): 10. '"Working Group on Standards for Archival De- scription, "Archival Description Standards: Establish- ing a Process," 494—502. "Michael Cook, Archives and the Computer (Lon- don: Butterworths, 1980). 12See Thomas Elton Brown, "The Society of American Archivists Confronts the Computer," American Archivist 47 (Fall 1984): 366-82; Michael J. Fox, "The Wisconsin Machine-Readable Records Project," American Archivist Al (Fall 1984): 429-31; Richard H. Lytle, "An Analysis of the Work of the National Information System's Taskforce," American Archivist 47 (Fall 1984): 357-65; William J. Maher, "Administering Archival Automation: Development of an In-House System," American Archivist 47 (Fall Most publications were concentrated in the seven-year period from 1984 to 1991. During the four-year period from 1980 to 1983, publications about MARC AMC were scarce. No articles appeared during that period, although the first three mono- graphs on the format were introduced.13 It is interesting that the first (and sole) mas- ter's thesis on MARC AMC did not appear until 1991,M and that by 1992 (following the 1984-91 peak period), publications had dwindled further, to just one article.15 As of August 1993, no further works on the format had been published (see figure 1). The literature of MARC AMC addresses the full spectrum of issues related to the format. The history of MARC AMC is well documented by a large group of publications.16 An array of publications ad- 1984): 405-17; and Alan M. Tucker, "The RLIN Im- plementation of the MARC Archives and Manuscript Control Format," in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Confer- ence of The Association of College and Research Li- braries, edited by Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges (Chicago: Association of College and Re- search Libraries, 1984), 69-79. 13See Cook, Archives and the Computer; H. Tho- mas Hickerson, Archives and Manuscripts: An Intro- duction to Automated Access (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1981); and Henson, Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (1983). '"Sheila H. Martell, "Use of the MARC AMC For- mat by Archivists for Integration of Special Collec- tions' Holdings into Bibliographic Databases and Networks," M.S.L.S. thesis, University of North Car- olina at Chapel Hill, 1991. 15Joan Warnow-Blewett, "Work to Internationalize Access to the Archives and Manuscripts of Physics and Allied Sciences," American Archivist 53 (Sum- mer 1992): 484-89. "See David Bearman, Towards National Informa- tion Systems for Archives and Manuscript Reposito- ries: The National Information Systems Task Force (NISTF) Papers, 1981-1984 (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1987); Robert D. Bohanan, "Developments and Options in Archival Automa- tion," Journal of Educational Media and Library Sci- ences 25 (Autumn 1987): 1-21; Walt Crawford, MARC for Library Use: Understanding Integrated USMARC, Second Edition (Boston: G.K. Hall, 1989); Lytle, "An Analysis of the Work of the National In- formation System's Taskforce," 357-65; Martell, "Use of the MARC AMC Format"; Working Group on Standards for Archival Description, "Archival De- D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Viewing the Field 485 dresses the impact of the format on archi- val and cataloging education, theory, and practice.17 A host of publications considers "how-to" applications of MARC AMC, giving technical details and the implica- tions of format integration.18 Another scription Standards: Establishing a Process," 431— 537; and Working Group on Standards for Archival Description, "Standards for Archival Description," American Archivist 53 (Winter 1990): 22-108. "See David Bearman, "Archival and Bibliographic Information Networks," in Archives and Library Ad- ministration: Divergent Traditions and Common Con- cerns, edited by Lawrence J. McCrank (New York: Haworth, 1986), 99-110; Thomas Elton Brown, "The Society of American Archivists"; Cook, Archives and the Computer (1980 and 2nd ed.); Michael Cook, The Management of Information from Archives (Alder- shot: Gower, 1986); Michael Cook, "The Role of Computers in Archives," Information Development 5 (Winter 1990): 24-28; Patricia D. Cloud, "The Cost of Converting to MARC AMC: Some Early Obser- vations," Library Trends 35 (Winter 1988): 573-83; Donald L. DeWitt, "The Impact of the MARC AMC Format of Archival Education and Employment Dur- ing the 1980s," The Midwestern Archivist 16 (1991): 73-75; Anne J. Gilliland, "The Development of Automated Archival Systems: Planning and Manag- ing Change," Library Trends 36 (Winter 1988): 519- 37; Stephen E. Hannestad, "Clay Tablets to Micro Chips: The Evolution of Archival Practice into the Twenty-First Century," Library Hi Tech 9, no. 4 (1991): 75-96; Martell, "Use ofthe MARC AMC For- mat"; Richard V. Szary, "Information Systems for Libraries and Archives: Opportunity or Incompatibil- ity?" in Archives and Library Administration, edited by McCrank: 61-98; Sarah Tyacke, "Special Collec- tions in Research Libraries: Problems and Perspec- tives," Alexandria 2 (December 1990): 11-22; Lisa B. Weber, "Educating Archivists for Automation," Library Trends 36 (Winter 1988): 501-18; Working Group on Standards for Archival Description, "Stan- dards for Archival Description," and "Archival De- scription Standards: Establishing a Process." 18See William E. Brown, Jr. and Lofton Wilson, "The AMC Format: A Guide to the Implementation Process," Provenance 5 (Fall 1987): 27-36; Michael Cook, "The British Move Toward Standards of Ar- chival Description: The MAD Description Standard," American Archivist 53 (Winter 1990): 130-38; Mi- chael Cook, A MAD User Guide (Aldershot: Gower, 1989); Michael Cook and Kristina Gant, A Manual of Archival Description (London: Society of Archivists, 1985, 1986) 51; Michael Cook and Margaret Procter, A Manual of Archival DescriptionNew, 2nd Ed. (Al- dershot: Gower, 1989); Crawford, MARC for Library Use; Max J. Evans and Lisa B. Weber, MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: A Compendium of Prac- tice (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, group addresses the various MARC AMC- related cataloging standards.19 1985); Henson, Archives, Personal Papers and Man- uscripts (1983); Henson, Archives, Personal Papers and Manuscripts, (1989); Hickerson, Archives and Manuscripts"; Diana Madden "An Overview ofthe USMARC Archival and Manuscripts Control For- mat," S.A. Archives Journal 33 (1991): 47-59; Mar- ion Matters, Introduction to the USMARC Format for Archival and Manuscripts Control (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1990); Sally H. McCallum, "Format Integration: Handling the Additions and Subtractions," Information Technology and Libraries 9 (June 1990): 155-161; Frederic M. Miller, Arrang- ing and Describing Archives and Manuscripts (Chi- cago: Society of American Archivists, 1990); Katherine D. Morton, "The MARC Formats: An Overview," American Archivist 49 (Winter 1986): 21-30; Barbara Orbach, "So That Others May See: Tools for Cataloging Still Images," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11 nos. 3^t (1990): 163-91; Howard Pasternack, "Online Catalogs and the Ret- rospective Conversion of Special Collections," Rare Books & Manuscripts Librarianship 5, no. 2 (1990): 71-76; Nancy Ann Sahli, "Interpretation and Appli- cation of the AMC Format," American Archivist 49 (Winter 1986): 9-20; Nancy [Ann] Sahli, MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: The AMC Format (Chi- cago: Society of American Archivists, 1985); Richard P. Smiraglia, "New Promise for the Universal Con- trol of Recorded Knowledge," Cataloging & Classi- fication Quarterly 11, nos. 3-4 (1990): 1-15; David C. Sutton, "Full MARCs for Manuscripts," Cata- logue & Index nos. 96-97 (Spring-Summer 1990): 1- 4; and Lisa B. Weber, "Record Formatting: MARC AMC," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11, nos. 3-4(1990): 117-^3. "See David Bearman, "Description Standards: A Framework for Action," American Archivist 52 (Fall 1989): 514-19; Jean E. Dryden, "Dancing the Con- tinental: Archival Descriptive Standards in Canada," American Archivist 53 (Winter 1990): 106-8; Michael J. Fox, "Descriptive Cataloging for Archival Mate- rials," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11, nos. 3-4 (1990): 17-34; Henson, "Squaring the Circle," 539-52; Henson, "The Use of Standards in the Ap- plication ofthe AMC Format," 31-40; Marion Mat- ters, "Reconciling Sibling Rivalry in the AACR2 'Family': The Potential for Agreement on Rules for Archival Description of All Types of Materials," American Archivist 53 (Winter 1990): 76-93; Edward Swanson, "Choice and Form of Access Points Ac- cording to AACR2," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11, nos. 3-4 (1990): 35-61; Richard [V.] Szary, "Archival Description Standards: Scope and Criteria," American Archivist 52 (Fall 1989): 520-26; Sharon Gibbs Thibodeau, "Archival Arrangement and Description," in Managing Archives and Archi- val Institutions, edited by James Gregory Bradsher (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 67-77; D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 486 American Archivist/ Summer 1994 100-r N u m b e r o f P u b I c a t o n s 92 '80 '81 "82 "83 '84 "85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93* Total Year * partial year only Figure 1. Number of MARC AMC Publications by Year. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Viewing the Field 487 In addition 6 articles discuss the appli- cation of MARC AMC to specific material types;20 another group of 5 articles exam- ines issues related to authority control, sub- ject, and access;21 a larger group of 17 items addresses the impact of MARC AMC on the bibliographic utilities and net- works, as well as on local and stand-alone systems;22 and 2 articles describe technical Lisa B. Weber, "Archival Description Standards: Concepts, Principles, and Methodologies," American Archivist 52 (Fall 1989): 504-13. 20See James Corsaro, "Control of Cartographic Materials in Archives," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11, nos. 3^J (1990): 213-228; Linda J. Evans and Maureen O'Brien Will, MARC for Archi- val Visual Materials: A Compendium of Practice (Chicago: Chicago Historical Society, 1988); Janet Gertz and Leon J. Stout, "The MARC Archival and Manuscripts Format: A New Direction in Catalog- ing," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 9, no. 4 (1989): 5-25; Martha Hodges, "Using the MARC Format for Archives and Manuscripts Control to Cat- alog Published Microfilms of Manuscripts Collec- tions," Microform Review 18 (Winter 1989): 29-31, 34-35; David H. Thomas, "Cataloging Sound Re- cordings Using Archival Methods," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11, nos. 3^t (1990): 193- 212; Lisa B. Weber, "Describing Microforms and the MARC Formats," Archives and Museum Informatics 1 (Summer 1987): 9-13. 21See David Bearman, "Authority Control Issues and Prospects," American Archivist 52 (Summer 1989): 286-99; Marion Matters, "Authority Work for Transitional Catalogs," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11, nos. 3-4 (1990): 91-115; Richard P. Smiraglia, "Subject Access to Archival Materials Us- ing LCSH," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11, nos. 3-̂ 1 (1990): 63-90; Lisa B. Weber, "The 'Other' USMARC Formats: Authorities and Hold- ings: Do We Care to Be Partners in This Dance, Too?" American Archivist 53 (Winter 1990): 44-54; Helena Zinkham, Patricia Cloud, and Hope Mayo, "Providing Access by Form of Material, Genre, and Physical Characteristics: Benefits and Techniques," American Archivist 52 (Summer 1989): 300-19. 22See David Bearman, "Archival and Bibliographic Information Networks," Journal of Library Admin- istration 7, nos. 2-3 (Summer-Fall 1986): 99-110; David Bearman, "Archives and Manuscript Control with Bibliographic Utilities: Challenges and Oppor- tunities," American Archivist 52 (Winter 1989): 2 6 - 39; Michael Cook, Archives and Manuscripts Control: A MARC Format for Use with a Cooperative Online Database (Liverpool: Liverpool University, Archival Description Project, 1987); W. Theodore Diirr, "At the Creation: Chaos, Control, and Auto- mation—Commercial Software Development for Ar- and telecommunications issues and prob- lems related to the format.23 Although 9 articles do describe specific cataloging projects using MARC AMC,24 chives," Library Trends 36 (Winter 1988): 593-607; Matthew Benjamin Gilmore, "Increasing Access to Archival Records in Library Online Public Access Catalogs," Library Trends 36 (Winter 1988): 609-23; H. Thomas Hickerson, "Archival Information and the Role of the Bibliographic Networks," Library Trends 36 (Winter 1988): 553-71; H. Thomas Hickerson, "Standards for Archival Information Management Systems," American Archivist 53 (Winter 1990): 2 4 - 28; Frederick L. Honhart, "The Application of Mi- crocomputer-Based Local Systems with the MARC AMC Format," Library Trends 36: (Winter 1988): 585-92; Frederick L. Honhart, "MicroMARC:amc: A Case Study in the Development of an Automated Sys- tem," American Archivist 52 (Winter 1989): 80-86; Frederick L.] Honhart, "MicroMARCamc Version 2.11," OCLC Micro 6 (December 1990): 13; Maher, "Administering Archival Automation"; Lawrence J. McCrank, "The Impact of Automation: Integrating Archival and Bibliographic Systems," in Archives and Library Administration edited by McCrank: 61— 98; Kathleen D. Roe, "The Automation Odyssey: Li- brary and Archives System Design Considerations," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 11, nos. 3—4 (1990): 145-162; Kathleen D. Roe, "From Archival Gothic to MARC Modern: Building Common Data Structures," American Archivist 53 (Winter 1990): 56-66; Tucker "The RLIN Implementation"; David Weinberg, "Automation in the Archives: RLIN and the Archives and Manuscript Control Format," Prov- enance 4 (Fall 1986): 12-31; Ronald J. Zboray, "dBase III Plus and the MARC AMC Format: Prob- lems and Possibilities," American Archivist 50 (Spring 1987): 210-25. 23See Jill M. Tatem, "Beyond USMARC AMC: The Context of a Data Exchange Format," Midwest- ern Archivist 14 no. 1 (1989): 39^47; Sharon Gibbs Thibodeau, "External Technical Standards for Data Contents and Data Values: Prospects for Adoption by the Archival Community," American Archivist 53 (Winter 1990): 94-105. 24See James M. Bower, "One-Stop Shopping: RLIN as a Union Catalog for Research Collections at the Getty Center," Library Trends 37 (Fall 1988): 252-62; James G. Carson, "American Medical As- sociation's Historical Health Fraud and Alternative Medicine Collection: An Integrated Approach to Au- tomated Collection Description," American Archivist 54 (Spring 1991): 184-91; Patricia D. Cloud, "Fitting In: The Automation of the Archives at Northwestern University," Provenance 5 (Fall 1987): 14-26; Leon- ard A. Coombs, "A New Access System for the Vat- ican Archives," American Archivist 52 (Fall 1989): 538—46; Fox, "The Wisconsin Machine-Readable Project"; Richard W. Hite and Daniel Linke, "Teaming Up with Technology: Team Processing," D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 488 American Archivist/Summer 1994 none of them specifically records the extent of use of MARC AMC by U.S. academic archives, or the choice of cataloging stan- dard. Just one article, by Avra Michael- son,25 researches actual use of MARC AMC. Michaelson reports the findings of a survey of 40 repositories in 1987. Her sur- vey was, however, limited to 40 RLIN-re- porting repositories, excluding all other RLIN-reporting repositories and all OCLC- and Washington Library Network-report- ing repositories. Conditions may well have changed since that study was completed. Despite the increased use and accepta- bility of MARC AMC by archivists and catalogers alike, several questions remain: 1. Is anyone (or everyone?) actually cata- loging archival collections and manu- scripts using the format? 2. What AMC cataloging standard is em- ployed? 3. Why was a particular cataloging stan- dard chosen? This study supplies the missing informa- tion regarding the use of MARC AMC by U.S. academic archives and the choice of AMC cataloging standard. Methodology and Sample Questionnaire In January 1992, a questionnaire was mailed to 200 archivists at 200 different academic archives in the United States, randomly selected from the SAA's 1991 Midwestern Archivist 15, no. 2 (1990): 91-97; Wil- liam M. Holmes, Edie Hedlin, and Thomas E. Weir, "MARC and Life Cycle Tracking at the National Ar- chives: Project Final Report," American Archivist 49 (Summer 1986): 305-09; Curtis D. Jerde, "Technical Processing of Popular Music at Tulane University Li- brary's Hogan Jazz Archive: The Rockefeller Pro- ject," Technical Services Quarterly 4 (Summer 1989): 53-60; Warnow-Blewett, "Work to Internationalize Access to the Archives and Manu- scripts of Physics and the Allied Sciences." 25Avra Michaelson, "Description and Reference in the Age of Automation," American Archivist 50 (Spring 1987): 192-208. Directory of Individual Members.26 (See the appendix at the end of this article for a sample of this questionnaire.) The survey was intentionally designed to be simple and direct. It posed a select group of per- tinent questions regarding the actual use of MARC AMC to catalog archival and man- uscript collections, including questions re- garding the choice of cataloging standard; the choice of archival and manuscript cat- alogers; the training of archival and man- uscript catalogers; and the use of MARC AMC in bibliographic utilities, local auto- mated systems, and stand-alone, turnkey MARC AMC systems. Survey results were tabulated and per- centages were calculated and rounded to one decimal place. Initially, tables, ranking the responses for each survey question from greatest to smallest, were created. These tables were later amalgamated, in- corporating several smaller groupings into larger ones. Response to the survey was excellent: 140 of the 200 archivists (70%) responded. The random selection of the sample pop- ulation assisted in ensuring that the full range of academic archives (small to large) was incorporated in the study. To confirm that all sizes were represented, respondents were asked to list the approximate size of their respective collection, in either linear or cubic feet. The respondents reported col- lections in the full range of sizes. Of the 140 respondents, 105 (75%) described their collections as ranging from 25 to 61,000 linear feet; 30 (21.4%) described their col- lections as ranging from 60 to 75,000 cubic feet; and five (3.57%) reported that their archives were too newly created (and largely unsurveyed) to approximate the size. There was no correlation between the size of institution or the size of archival 26Society of American Archivists, 1991 Directory of Individual Members (Chicago: Society of Ameri- can Archivists, 1991). D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Viewing the Field 489 and manuscript holdings and the likelihood that the collections were cataloged using MARC AMC. Institutions using MARC AMC encompassed the full spectrum of in- stitutional and archival/manuscript hold- ings sizes. Respondents were also asked if their collections included manuscripts, in addition to archival materials. All 140 (100%) noted that their collections in- cluded both manuscript and archival col- lections. Expectations The study began with seven expectations regarding the use of MARC AMC in U.S. academic archives: Expectation 1: MARC AMC is used by the majority of U.S. academic archives. Based on the vast discussion of MARC AMC at archival- and library-related meet- ings and conferences and the considerable volume (and saturation) of the MARC AMC literature, it is expected that the use of MARC AMC has similarly reached the saturation point, with the majority of insti- tutions cataloging their archival and man- uscript collections using MARC AMC. Expectation 2: APPM, Second Edi- tion, is the cataloging standard of choice in use by the majority of U.S. academic archives. Based on SAA's support, the ver- whelmingly positive discussion in the lit- erature, and the obvious incorporation of archival practices in APPM, Second Edi- tion, it is expected that the vast majority of institutions would choose that standard. Expectation 3: The majority of U.S. academic archives enter MARC AMC re- cords into the OCLC database. Although the RLIN database holds the largest num- ber of MARC AMC records, a smaller number of institutions (i.e., the larger re- search institutions, which hold more exten- sive and complex collections) enter more records in RLIN. Expectation 4: The majority of U.S. academic archives enter their MARC AMC records in a local automated system (in ad- dition to a bibliographic utility), and these systems will vary widely. This expectation is based on the assumption that the entry of MARC AMC records parallels the entry of MARC records for traditional library formats, such as books and audiovisuals. Expectation 5: Some U.S. academic archives enter their MARC AMC records in a stand-alone, turnkey system, such as MicroMARCamc. Such turnkey systems, tailored to archival control requirements, boast a relatively low start-up cost and re- quire far less training to operate effec- tively, as compared to most library automation systems. Also, the detachment or loose affiliation of some academic ar- chives from the institution's library, com- bined with the incompatibility of archival data with library bibliographic data, makes turnkey systems an attractive choice. Expectation 6: In the majority of U.S. academic archives, archivists are primarily responsible for cataloging the archival and manuscript collections using MARC AMC. Based on the expectation that archivists were the primary catalogers, it is appropri- ate also to expect that the SAA workshops would be the training mode of choice. Expectation 7: The majority of those using MARC AMC have received some special training, primarily from SAA- sponsored workshops. MARC AMC is a complex format, requiring some instruction (even on the part of seasoned archivists and catalogers) to employ it effectively and fully. SAA has continually sponsored the majority of—and the most in-depth— MARC AMC instructional sessions. Results and Discussion Use of MARC AMC. The survey re- sults were interesting but, for the most part, not a surprise. The seven expectations proved to be close to the mark. A majority of the 140 respondents (80, or 57.1%) reported cataloging their collec- D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 490 American Archivist/Summer 1994 Table 1. Cataloging of Archival and Manuscript by U.S. Academic Archives Category MARC AMC (n = 140) Yes No Bibliographic Utility or Cataloging System (n = 80) OCLC RUN WLN Local system (OPAC) with bibliographic utility Bibliographic utility only Stand-alone, turnkey MARC AMC system only Stand-alone, turnkey system with bibliographic utility Local system only Local System (OPAC) (n = 54) NOTIS Institution's in-house system CARL III VTLS LIAS PALS multiLIS GEAC GLIS GEAC Advance Stand-Alone Turnkey MARC AMC System (n = 17) MicroMARC:amc 4th Dimension Brian Cole Associates Cuadra/Star Filemaker Pro GENCAT *+ .1 due to rounding. Collections Percentage 57.1 42.9 45.0 25.0 3.8 62.5 11.3 21.2 0.0 5.0 33.3 16.7 13.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 5.5 5.5 1.9 1.9 70.6* 5.9* 5.9* 5.9* 5.9* 5.9* Number 80 60 36 20 3 50 9 17 0 4 18 9 7 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 tions using MARC AMC (see table 1). The remainder (60, or 42.9%) reported that their collections were not cataloged at all; That is, records for their collections were not included in a bibliographic utility or in a library printed card or automated catalog. Of these 60 respondents, 48 (80%) listed reasons why they did not catalog the col- lections. Forty-three (71.7%) stated they did not have enough money, staff, or time to do so, and 5 (8.3%) reported that, al- though they were not presently cataloging their collections, they were planning to do so in the near future. All 80 respondents who stated they do use MARC AMC also reported that they catalog on line, using a bibliographic utility in combination with a local automated sys- tem, just a local automated system, or a stand-alone software package. Fifty-nine (73.8%) of the 80 reported cataloging on a bibliographic utility: 36 (45%) reported cataloging on OCLC; 20 (25%) reported cataloging on RLIN; and 3 (3.8%) reported D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Viewing the Field 491 Table 2. Cataloging Standard Employed Standard APPM, Second Edition AACR2R, Chapter 4 Combination of APPM and AACR2R Other institutional- or subject-specific DCRB, Second Edition by MARC AMC Users (n Percentage 62.5 22.5 27.5 15.0 0.0 = 80) Number 50 18 22 12 0 cataloging on WLN. Fifty (62.5%) re- ported cataloging on a bibliographic utility in conjunction with a local automated sys- tem; 9 (11.3%) reported cataloging only on a bibliographic utiltiy; and 17 (21.2%) re- ported that they cataloged on a stand-alone, turn-key system. Of the 80 respondents, the 54 (67.5%) who reported cataloging on a local system were asked to identify the system they used. Eighteen (33.3%) reported using NOTIS; 9 (16.7%) used an in-house sys- tem; 7 (13%) used CARL; 4 each (7.4%) used III, VTLS, or LIAS; 3 each (5.5%) used PALS or multiLIS; and 1 each (1.9%) used GEAC GLIS or GEAC Ad- vance. Three (5.3%) failed to respond to this question. The 17 respondents who reported cata- loging by only a stand-alone, turnkey sys- tem were also asked to specify the system they used. The vast majority (12, or 70.6%) reported using MicroMARC:amc. The re- maining 5 were evenly divided (1 each, or 5.9%) among 4th Dimension, Brian Cole Associates, Cuadra/Star, Filemaker Pro, and GENCAT. Choice of Descriptive Cataloging Standard. The cataloger using MARC AMC for archival and manuscript collec- tions has a choice of descriptive cataloging standards, including two primary choices: APPM, Second Edition, and Anglo-Ameri- can Cataloging Rules, Second Edition, Re- vised AACR2R, Chapter 4.27 As noted "Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler, eds., An- glo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 1988 rev. (Chicago: American Library Association, 1988). earlier, these choices have been hotly de- bated and discussed in depth in the litera- ture. The 80 respondents using MARC AMC to catalog their archival and manuscript collections were asked which archival cat- aloging standard they used and were given a choice of APPM, Second Edition; AACR2R, Chapter 4; LC's Descriptive Cat- aloging of Rare Books, Second Edition (DCRB, Second Edition);28 and "other." Respondents who selected the "other" cat- egory were asked to list the specific stan- dard they used. More than half (50 or 62.5%) were using APPM, Second Edition, and 18 (22.5%) were using AACR2R, Chapter 4 (see table 2). Twenty-two (27.5%) said they used a combination of APPM, Second Edition, and AACR2R, Chapter 4, noting specifically that they used the former for archival collections and the latter for manuscripts and manuscript collections. Twelve (15%) reported using "other" standards: 11 (91.7%) used an in- stitution-specific standard and 1 (8.3%) used a subject-specific (i.e., medical) stan- dard. No respondents reported using DCRB, Second Edition. The 80 respondents using MARC AMC were also asked to record their reasons for selecting a specific cataloging standard. Sixty-eight (85%) responded to the ques- 28Library of Congress, Office for Descriptive Cat- aloging Policy and Association of College and Re- search Libraries, Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Bibliographic Standards Committee, De- scriptive Cataloging of Rare Books, 2nd ed. (Wash- ington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service, 1991). D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 492 American Archivist/Summer 1994 Table 3. Collection Catalogers and Training Category Collection catalogers (n = 80) Archivists and catalogers working together Archivists solo Catalogers solo MARC AMC Training (n = 80) Yes No Type of Special Training (n = 58) SAA MARC AMC workshops RUN training sessions OCLC or OCLC network training sessions Institution in-house training sessions Graduate-level courses National Archives training sessions State historical societies workshops Combination of the above categories Percentage 60.0 35.0 5.0 72.5 27.5 51.7 24.1 17.2 17.2 13.8 10.3 3.4 41.4 Number 48 28 04 58 22 30 14 10 10 8 6 2 24 tion, and the responses centered on several key issues. Thirty-nine (48.8%) of the 68 commented that APPM, Second Edition, is " t h e " standard of choice for archival col- lections. One elaborated, saying, "AACR2R is like using a sledgehammer to do eye sur- gery." Thirty-one (38.8%) of the 68 attrib- uted their choice of APPM, Second Edition, to its being recommended by RLIN trainers, SAA, or other archivists; 4 (5%) said they chose it because it is more clearly presented than AA CR2R, Chapter 4; 4 others (5%) used AACR2R, Chapter 4, only as a supplement to APPM, Second Edition; and 2 (2.5%) reported having pre- vious experience with APPM, Second Edition. Twenty-four (30%) of the 68 said they used AACR2R, Chapter 4, for manuscripts and manuscript collections because it was " t h e " standard for manuscripts; 8 (10%) noted that OCLC trainers had recom- mended using AACR2R, Chapter 4, for ar- chival collections; another 8 (10%) noted that their cataloging department chose AACR2R, Chapter 4, as a standard for man- uscript and archival collections; and 3 (3.8%) said they did not know there was another standard. Archivist Versus Cataloger. Of the 80 respondents who used MARC AMC, the majority (48, or 60%) stated archivists and catalogers worked cooperatively to cat- alog the archival and manuscript collec- tions (see table 3). More than one-third (28, or 35%) reported that archivists cataloged the collections solo, contrasted with only 4 (5%) who said catalogers did the task alone. Nearly three-quarters (58, or 72.5%) of those who used MARC AMC also reported that the archivists and catalogers who cata- loged the collections had special MARC AMC cataloging training. Twenty-two (27.5%) said archivists and catalogers had no special training. The kind of training varied, and neither archivists nor catalogers were more likely to have had special training. Of the 58 respondents reporting special training, about half (30, or 51.7%) had at- tended SAA MARC AMC workshops; 14 (24.1%) had received RLIN training; 10 (17.2%) had received OCLC or OCLC net- work training; 10 (17.2%) had had in- house training; 8 (13.8%) reported taking D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Viewing the Field 493 graduate-level courses including MARC AMC training; 6 (10.3%) had attended Na- tional Archives workshops; and 2 (3.4%) had attended state historical society work- shops. Twenty-four (41.4%) of the 58 re- ported that their training had combined two or more of the alternatives. Respondent Comments. A free-text question gave respondents an opportunity to comment on the cataloging of archival collections. Of the 140 respon- dents, the vast majority (120, or 85.7%) did include free-text comments. These com- ments are perhaps the most intriguing and most telling portion of the survey, although they were not unexpected. Many were sim- ilar; select, representative categories and specific comments follow. • As might be expected, some (31, or 22.1%) of the 140 respondents in- cluded descriptions of the type and scope of their institution's archival and manuscript holdings. • A surprising number (65, or 46.4%) specifically noted "Archivists and catalogers should work together." Seventy (50%) offered specific details regarding how archivists, special col- lections staff, and catalogers work co- operatively at their institutions. • Of the 54 respondents who use MARC AMC in conjunction with a local system, 15 (27.9%) briefly de- scribed their local systems. Although such comments were expected, a few (3, or 5.6%) of the 54 focused on how well or how poorly MARC AMC re- cords survived in the specific local- system environments. • Some respondents used the opportu- nity to defend (or apologize for) their choice of a particular descriptive cat- alog standard. Two (2.5%) who re- ported using MARC AMC wrote, " I must use AACR2R, my on-line catalog won't accept AMC records"; one (1.3%) noted, "Our Cataloging De- partment made us use AACR2 and they wouldn't take no for an answer." • More than half (36, or 60%) of the 60 respondents who reported not catalog- ing their collections using MARC AMC provided very telling comments regarding why they were not or could not catalog their collections. These comments seem to say more about the less-than-positive status of many ar- chives and special collections within the larger context of their respective academic institutions than about the efficacy of MARC AMC. Represen- tative comments were, on one ex- treme, mundane: "We're very small—no need to catalog with MARC AMC"; "We're a new ar- chives—just getting started"; and "No cataloging yet—hope to in the future." On the other extreme were the not-quite sublime: "My institution bought software for a stand-alone sys- tem but failed to buy the hardware"; "We survive mostly with volun- teers—not enough people or time to catalog"; "Inventorying the collec- tions is a high priority—cataloging is not"; "Not enough money, time or staff to catalog"; "Our institution doesn't support the archives"; and "Formal training? Are you kidding? No money here for that!" Full Circle: Expectations and Confirmations The results of this study are not surpris- ing and, for the most part, they confirm the seven expectations listed earlier. Expectation 1: MARC AMC is used by the majority of U.S. academic archives. The survey results confirm this expecta- tion. A majority of academic institutions— 80 (57.1%) of the 140 total respondents— are using MARC AMC to catalog their D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 494 American Archivist / Summer 1994 archival and manuscript collections. How- ever, keeping in mind all the discussion and debate at archival and library confer- ences and in the MARC AMC literature, a higher percentage use of the format might have been expected. Comments garnered in the free-text sections of the survey also tend to confirm this expectation and to point toward even greater use of the MARC AMC in future. A need remains for greater education about the access and re- search benefits gained by using the format and by including MARC AMC records in national databases and local systems. Expectation 2: APPM, Second Edi- tion, is the cataloging standard of choice, in use by the majority of U.S. academic archives. The survey results also confirmed this expectation, with a majority (50, or 62.5%) of the 80 respondents who use MARC AMC reporting that the also use APPM, Second Edition. It was not surpris- ing to learn that nearly one-quarter (18, or 22.5%) of the 80 use AACR2R, Chapter 4, for manuscripts and manuscript collections, or that 22 (27.5%) of the 80 use a combi- nation of APPM, Second Edition, and AACR2R, Chapter 4. The fact that any re- spondents commented that their respective cataloging departments insisted on the use of AACR2R, Chapter 4, even for archival collections, is disappointing. The catalog- ing community clearly requires more edu- cation about the nature of archival collec- tions and about archival theory and practice. This finding also points out the need for (and the benefit of) having cata- logers and archivists work together to cat- alog archival and manuscript collections. Despite the fact that most institutions chose APPM, Second Edition as the cataloging standard, it would not be surprising to find that some institutions imposed an institu- tion-specific standard or that certain subject disciplines (such as medicine) chose a sub- ject-related standard. Expectation 3: The majority of U.S. academic archives enter MARC AMC re- cords into the OCLC database. The survey results did not clearly support this expec- tation. Of the 80 respondents who reported using MARC AMC, the greatest percent- age (36, or 45.0%)—although not the ma- jority—did report using OCLC. The next greatest percentage (20 or 25%) is using RLIN, and a small percentage (3 or 3.8%) is using WLN. Expectation 4: The majority of U.S. academic archives enter their MARC AMC records in a local automated system (in ad- dition to a bibliographic utility), and these systems will vary widely. The survey re- sults confirmed this expectation; all 80 re- spondents (100%) who reported using MARC AMC said they cataloged on line in some manner, using a bibliographic util- ity in combination with a local automated system, just a local automated system, or a stand-alone software package. Also as ex- pected, respondents who used a local sys- tem were using a wide range of systems, including NOTIS, CARL, III, VTLS, LIAS, PALS, multiLIS, GEAC GLIS, and GEAC Advance. Expectation 5: Some U.S. academic archives enter their MARC AMC records in a stand-alone, turnkey system, such as MicroMARCamc. This expectation was also confirmed; 17 (21.2%) of the 80 re- spondents who used MARC AMC cata- loged only on a stand-alone, turnkey system. MicroMARC:amc was the primary system of choice, and (also as expected) respondents who chose the stand-alone, turnkey systems did not routinely report their holdings to any bibliographic utility. It is disappointing that databases created with these systems have not been routinely in- corporated in the on-line cataloging of the home institution or in national bibliographic utilities. This possibility needs to be inves- tigated and developed further by the various library and archival systems vendors, as well as by the bibliographic utilities. Expectation 6: In the majority of U.S. academic archives, archivists are primarily D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Viewing the Field 495 responsible for cataloging the archival and manuscript collections using MARC AMC. Survey results regarding this expectation were surprising. The majority (48, or 60%) of the 80 respondents who reported using MARC AMC also reported that archivists and catalogers worked cooperatively to cat- alog the archival and manuscript collec- tions. A minority of respondents (28, or 35%) reported that only archivists (28, or 35%) or only catalogers (4, or 5%) cata- loged the collections. This result is both encouraging and exciting. As the use of MARC AMC continues to grow, and as more and more MARC AMC records ap- pear in local as well as in bibliographic utilities databases, it is imperative that ar- chivists and catalogers work together to en- sure that the most complete, accurate, and technically correct data and records are in- corporated to give the researcher the best means of access. With cataloger and archi- vist each having different areas of exper- tise, it is not unreasonable to consider collaborating, rather than demanding that one or the other compensate and provide records that are less than meaningful or less than accurate. Expectation 7: The majority of those using MARC AMC have received some spe- cial training, primarily from SAA-sponsored workshops. The survey results confirmed this expectation. Nearly three-quarters (58, or 72.5%) of the 80 respondents who use MARC AMC also reported that the archi- vists and catalogers who cataloged the col- lections had special MARC AMC training. Although the kind of training varied, the majority (30, or 51.7%) reported attendance at SAA AMC workshops. The wide range of opportunities for training proved grati- fying, with RLIN, OCLC, OCLC networks, the National Archives, and state historical societies offering workshops. It is interest- ing that some respondents (8, or 13.8%) had received specific training in MARC AMC in graduate-level library science, informa- tion science, or archival courses. Conclusion These results are a confirmation that the "giddiness" Henson wrote about in 1986 is over and that the "responsibilities" he mentioned29 are very real. It is the very real responsibility of archivists and catalogers alike to provide the most accurate and comprehensive access to academic archival and manuscript collections in order to ful- fill the needs of researchers. It is also the responsibility of archivists and catalogers to keep watch over the evolution of MARC AMC and to see that the format's propo- nents and reformers carefully take into ac- count the equally evolving needs of the practitioners and researchers who on a con- tinuing basis must deal with the format and the information it contains. MARC AMC has indeed come of age and has entered the mainstream of archival and cataloging thinking, theory, and prac- tice. Its potential is tremendous. However, with just over half of the 140 respondents to this survey (80, or 57.1%) using MARC AMC, it is clear that the format's potential has yet to be fully realized. It remains the responsibility of archivists and catalogers to make certain that MARC AMC does not fall short of this potential. In 1990 Lisa Weber speculated: "/n MARC for Library Use, Walt Crawford states that 'MARC is the single most im- portant factor in the growth of library au- tomation in the United States and other countries.'. . . While it is still too early to tell whether the MARC . . . format will have the same impact in the archival com- munity, it appears that some sort of revo- lution is in the making."30 Further, just two short years after his 1986 forecast, Henson more poignantly stated the following: 29Henson, "The Use of Standards in the Applica- tion of the AMC Format," 32. 30Weber, "Record Formatting: MARC AMC," 117. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 496 American Archivist / Summer 1994 Considering the many fundamen- tal differences between archives and libraries and between bibliographic and archival description, it is difficult to wonder why archivists would will- ingly subject themselves to the bib- liographic angst of reconciling their practices with A A C R 2 . . . . However, the pressures and dawning realization of the 'information age' made this position increasingly untenable. The mistake made along the way was to assume that the common element in archival materials and books lay in their form—that is, 'words on pages.' However, archives and man- uscripts are not basically biblio- graphic in nature and it was not until it was realized that the similarities between published and unpublished materials lay in their features as tools of information and research, that the benefit of their natural alliance could be exploited. The presence of thousands of APPM/AMC cataloging records in bibliographic networks is testimony to the truth of that alli- ance."31 MARC AMC is here to stay, and it is fully entrenched in archival theory and practice in the United States. The format's face may change over time, and its appli- cations may become broader as format in- tegration becomes a reality during the next few years—nonetheless, MARC AMC is here to stay. As a result, archivists and cat- alogers are obligated to continue to forge even stronger alliances. Working together, they must use and mold MARC AMC to their best advantage and to the format's greatest and fullest potential (that is, pro- viding full and accurate records for re- searchers across local, state, national, and international boundaries). MARC AMC also has no bounds; it has, instead, an inherent limitless and very pow- erful potential. If the traditional cataloging community, together with the archival communities, can continue to work colla- boratively to exploit the full potential of this format, they can provide researchers with more than they ever thought existed and they can begin to take the format into untried territory. But, our "forecasts" do not yet project that far, for that is the topic of another paper. "Henson, "Squaring the Circle," 551. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Viewing the Field 497 Appendix 1 Sample MARC AMC Cataloging Survey (Revised 1/30/92) 1. Approximately how large is your institution's archival and/or manuscript collections? (Specify linear or cubic feet.) Linear feet Cubic feet 2. Do your institution's collections include archival collections, manuscript collections, or both? Both archival and manuscript collections Archival collections only Manuscript collections only Other (specify: ) 3. Does your institution catalog its collections using the MARC AMC format on OCLC, RLIN, WLN, a local system (OPAC), or a stand-alone turnkey MARC AMC system? No, (Go to questions 7 and 8) Yes, on OCLC Yes, on RLIN Yes, on WLN Yes, on a local system (Specify: ) Yes, on a stand-alone turnkey system (Specify: ) 4. Which cataloging standard(s) is (are) used? APPM, Second Edition (Henson) AACR2R, Chapter 4 DCRB, Second Edition Other (Specify: ) 5. Briefly explain why the cataloging standard(s) listed in Question 4 was (were) chosen? 6. Who catalogs the collections? Archivists only Catalogers only Archivists and catalogers working together Other (Specify: ) 7. Did the archivists/catalogers receive special MARC AMC format training? No Yes (Specify source: ) 8. Other comments regarding cataloging of archival and manuscript collections using the MARC AMC format: 9. If you would like survey results prior to publication, please list your name and address or enclose a business card: D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.57.3.xu5345u722614jm 8 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021