In November 1990, the Commission contracted with Dan C. Hazen, Selector for Latin America, Spain, and Portugal at Harvard College Library, to conduct a study on the status of the production and bibliographic control of Latin American microfilms in the United States. The study addresses one of the issues raised by participants of a May 1990 planning meeting convened by the Commission in Zurich, Switzerland, where representatives of eight countries discussed the need for an internationally-compatible database capacity for preservation microfilm records.
The concern was that inadvertent duplication of filming of Latin American materials might occur as preservation activities increased during international preparations to celebrate the quincentenary of Spanish and Portuguese presence in the Americas.
In addition to providing specific information on the filming of Latin American materials, this final report also is expected to contribute to further development of international preservation strategies and to encourage similar reviews in other areas of common interest.
The Commission is distributing this report on a complimentary basis to its mailing lists.
Introduction
Background: Filming and Filmers
Background: Standards and Bibliographic Control
Project Objectives and Methodology
Conclusions and Recommendations
Appendix A: Major Microform Sets of Latin Americanist Emphasis
Appendix B: Summary Results of Sample Surveys Concerning Preservation Information
Appendix C: Text of Questionnaire; Survey Responses
Appendix D: Princeton Cataloging Record for a Collection of Ephemeral Materials (from RLIN)
Appendix E: Recent Latin Americanist Preservation Microfilming Projects Funded by Grants
The preservation of bibliographic resources has emerged as an increasingly compelling element within the more general preservation of our global cultural heritage. Preservation microfilming is expanding in scope and intensity throughout the world. International efforts to systematize microfilming activity have placed a premium on communication and exchange. Until these efforts become more mature, however, unintended duplication and uncoordinated preservation remain very real possibilities.
For many years, Latin Americanist preservation focused almost exclusively on institutions outside the region. While the base collections did not necessarily match those within Latin America, technical and financial capabilities enabled increasingly strong programs. During this initial phase, the concentration of activity minimized the possibility of either overlap or duplication.
This panorama is changing. A number of Latin American institutions, including the national libraries of Venezuela and Brazil, the University of Puerto Rico, and several Central Bank libraries, have actively engaged in preservation microfilming. Venezuela's National Library has been designated Latin America's Preservation and Conservation Core Program (PAC). At the same time, preservation microfilming within both North America and Europe is reaching unprecedented levels.
The prospect of more concerted preservation both within and outside of Latin America carries the related problem of ensuring efficiency. In the near term, avoiding duplication may be the most practicable aspect of "North South" coordination, though initiatives based on more active collaboration should gradually emerge. The Washington based Commission on Preservation and Access has therefore sponsored the present study. Its immediate objective is to provide general information that may minimize inadvertent filming duplication between the Americas. Over a longer term, these data should also help inform a Hemisphere-wide preservation strategy.
This report summarizes the current state of Latin Americanist microfilming activity in the United States and, to a lesser degree, in other world areas. After briefly reviewing the historical context of microfilm production and its bibliographic control, the report points out subject and format areas in which filming has been particularly extensive. It also suggests strengths and weaknesses of filming efforts to date and indicates the principal institutional and commercial sources of Latin Americanist microfilm. It enumerates and assesses the bibliographic sources most useful in locating Latin Americanist microfilm masters. The appendices incorporate various related but more specific information.[1]
North American libraries have for decades sought to acquire and preserve documentary resources through microfilming.[2] Scholars' microfilming initially focused on archives and reflected the superiority of photographic reproductions over manual transcriptions of original documents. Microfilming for preservation encompassed two early emphases. Newspapers are fragile, bulky, difficult to manage, and quick to disintegrate. Pioneer filming projects with North American newspapers prepared the way for complementary efforts involving foreign titles. Particularly rare materials likewise held microfilm appeal in terms of both preserving originals and facilitating access to the texts.
Latin Americanist microfilming has reflected the phases characteristic of microfilming as a whole. The library community began to address newspapers and some major serials at a rather early date. These efforts were supplemented by commercial projects, though the latter also pursued "made-up" sets of topical or subject orientation. One approach aspired to comprehensive film coverage of a discrete category of publications, such as census documents, statistical materials, or doctoral dissertations. Another was based on "special" library collections--though these were not necessarily the most comprehensive. A third model sought to replicate a definitive bibliography on microfilm. The possibilities were wide, and specific projects often combined these approaches.
North America's library community has become ever more attuned to the urgency of preservation, and in-house operations have expanded apace. Some institutions fairly consistently film fragile materials upon receipt. Similarly, some libraries routinely identify brittle or damaged materials returning from circulation as a basis for reformatting or repair. Most programs in either category encompass all library materials, thereby including Latin American resources as appropriate.
A number of cooperative preservation programs complement single-institution efforts. Film editions of major newspapers and foreign official gazettes have been created under the auspices of such cooperative programs as the Foreign Newspaper Microform Project.[3] While both the intensity of filming and the currency of film have varied over time, projects like these embody a collective commitment to preserve critical research materials.
More specialized cooperative endeavors also have arisen. The Latin American Microform Project AMP), created in the 1970s, has preserved serials, archival materials, and library holdings from both the United States and Latin America.[4] Its efforts have been financed by member dues and, in some cases, by outside grants as well.
Some libraries' preservation programs, while in the first instance addressing internal priorities, also have responded to more general needs. Princeton University and the Library of Congress, to cite two prominent examples, have aggressively sought to acquire, film, and market ephemeral materials from Latin America. Substantial amounts of primary research resources have thereby become available through efforts simultaneously addressing the challenges of collection development, preservation, and bibliographic control.
Government programs to enhance the nation's research capability and resources, programs by definition addressed to a general scholarly constituency, also have encompassed Latin Americanist materials. The Department of Education's Title II-C program has supported a number of retrospective conversion projects whereby library holdings formerly represented only in card catalogs have been added to online databases. The National Endowment for the Humanities has similarly supported retrospective conversion. Concerted, coordinated preservation projects appear logical follow-ups.
Both the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Department of Education also support preservation microfilming. The NEH has assumed a particularly high profile. These agencies have funded preservation projects at both individual Latin American collections and, increasingly, ad-hoc and longer-lived consortia.[5]
With government grants and library consortia ever more effectively addressing preservation needs for general holdings of brittle books and such specific categories as foreign official gazettes, commercial publishers have in many instances settled into their own filming niches. Commercially produced Latin Americanist film collections of mainstream, published monographs appear to be in relative decline. Ongoing topical projects continue to focus on census reports, development plans, and the like. Other commercial projects emphasize archival holdings, doctoral dissertations, special library collections, and similar materials available in a limited number of original copies.
Latin Americanist filming is no longer limited to the developed countries, but is increasingly common within Latin America as well. In some instances, the emergence of Latin American filmers, combined with the commercial potential of microfilm sales and increased sensitivity to copyright issues, has affected North American programs. For instance, several Latin American newspapers once filmed within the United States are now available only from Latin American sources. The Hoover Institution has curtailed its extensive filming program for major Cuban serials due to potential copyright complications.
Latin Americanist microfilm has evolved in tandem with micropublishing and preservation in general. The result is something of a hodgepodge of filming categories and emphases. The goals of commercial profit, cultural preservation, and acquisition of scarce or fragile materials in film format have at different times coincided and conflicted. Some trends, like an improved national and international institutional framework for preservation, bode well for future filming. Others, such as changing interpretations of copyright law, may complicate the way.
Library resources have been reformatted from paper bases to microfilm for more than fifty years. Neither film technology, nor filming standards, nor expectations for bibliographic control have remained constant. The imminent conversion of the National Register of Microform Masters to a machine-readable file, and the adoption of both bibliographic and archival standards for preservation negatives, promise a bright future. For the time being, however, the complexities of the past remain. The inconsistencies inherent in microform's past evolution compromise both the utility and the accessibility of some existing film.
Some of the first substantial efforts at Latin Americanist microfilming focused on archival materials. One fairly common scenario entailed a scholar procuring film that eventually found its way to the library. Much such film was considered of primarily local interest, and not necessarily reported to external sources. Moreover, this film was acquired for use rather than preservation: even where negatives were at hand, they were rarely housed in appropriate conditions.
The National Register of Microform Masters is the primary information source for North American film masters. NRMM began publication in 1965 (the volumes covering 1965 to 1975 were eventually published in combined form); the last printed volume covered 1983. However, NRMM reporting has been necessarily voluntary. hence inevitably incomplete. Moreover, NRMM has never pretended to comprehensive coverage: "The Register reports master microforms of foreign and domestic books, pamphlets, serials, and foreign doctoral dissertations but excludes technical reports, typescript translations, foreign or domestic archival manuscript collections, U.S. doctoral dissertations, and masters' theses. Newspapers are listed in a separate publication, Newspapers in Microform, and archival materials and manuscript collections are reported in the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections."[6] Standards for bibliographic description have not always been clear, and holdings information is often cursory or incomplete.
NRMM ceased to appear as a separate publication following the 1983 compilation. Subsequent information has been incorporated within the National Union Catalog on fiche--or perhaps more accessibly through the major online bibliographic utilities. Current printed compilations include the Bibliographic Guide to Microform Publications, initiated in 1984, which records microform acquisitions at the Library of Congress, New York Public Library, and University of Texas. The Guide to Microforms in Print, now published by K.G. Saur, lists currently available materials as reported by publishers and producers. A number of supplementary printed sources, including the journal Microform Review, provide more selective information.
These printed sources provide title-by-title data for a great number of microform materials. The nature of reporting agencies, changing standards for bibliographic description, and a voluntary bibliographic endeavor all affect their utility. Some reports reflect "ghost" films--despite convincing records, the printing masters are nowhere to be found. Yet the difficulties associated with bibliographic access to single preservation masters seem almost trivial next to those posed by some large collections. Many micropublishers, both commercial and library-based, provide finding guides only for these sets. Libraries initially perceived the problem as one of local bibliographic access: how might users be apprised of unanalyzed microfilm holdings potentially valuable to their research? The complementary issue of minimizing unnecessary duplication has since joined the question of user access.
One response to the dilemma of collection analysis is represented in Ann Niles's two volumes of printed indexes to about seventy major collections in microform.[7] In other instances, micropublishers themselves have attempted to provide bibliographic access--originally by preparing sets of catalog cards for each item in a collection. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) studied the question of analyzing microform collections and moved on to create an information base in its ARL Microform Project.[8] OCLC's Major Microform Project subsequently organized online cataloging efforts to create records systematically for a number of widely held collections. Related, grant-supported projects have, for instance, enabled the State University of New York at Buffalo to fully catalog titles from General Microfilm Corporation's "Latin American Documents" collection.
Most cataloging for North American library acquisitions, whether hardcopy or microform, is now performed online. Basic microform cataloging guidelines are largely in place, ensuring current and prospective bibliographic access via electronic means.[9] Once information from NRMM is converted to machine-readable form and added to the bibliographic utilities, both prospective filmers and researchers will enjoy access to the vast majority of usable film masters. As we will show, some gaps and difficulties will nonetheless persist.
Bibliographic control for older microform masters is sometimes problematic. The quality of film masters likewise varies. Some dated film masters may never have met archival standards. Other negative film has been either lost or destroyed. The fate of older film at one institution is by no means unique: "[the negative] was sometimes catalogued into the... general microfilm collection for public use (hence scratched negatives) or stuck away somewhere in the office recorded only (if at all) on the shelf list card of the hard copy...."[10]
The rather recent delineation of standards for microform masters, combined with enhanced preservation reporting capabilities on the major bibliographic utilities, enables high levels of film quality and bibliographic control for current preservation masters. Nonetheless, the emphases in film production, conventions for bibliographic control, and quality standards have all changed over time. This report will begin to relate these past shifts to emerging interests and needs in Latin Americanist preservation.
The following sections report on the project's three main aspects: (1) What has been filmed? Film lists prepared by micropublishers and libraries, as well as bibliographic compilations, have been analyzed in order to categorize Latin Americanist filming. (2) Where has filming taken place? The lists and bibliographies mentioned above, as well as responses to a questionnaire sent both to institutions reporting recent filming activity and to those regarded as significant for their Latin American holdings, have been used to identify the major sources of Latin Americanist microfilm. (3) What are the nature and extent of bibliographic control for microfilm? Samples from the major bibliographic tools for microfilm, in conjunction with questionnaire responses, have been analyzed in order to characterize Latin Americanist bibliographic control.
Latin Americanist microfilm incorporates a large and rapidly growing body of material and represents a variety of producers and sources. This section surveys film production in terms of types of producers, the biases introduced by economic considerations, and specific categories of materials. It concludes by suggesting some areas in which Latin Americanist filming remains incipient.
Latin Americanist microfilming has focused on a relatively few institutions and commercial firms. Library-based filming has emphasized individual monographs, separate serial nuns, and other specific sources. Libraries not surprisingly concentrate on materials in their own collections, so sharply defined endeavors are natural. Some recent library filming, while still emphasizing local holdings, has shifted toward ephemera and similar new categories of material.[11]
Commercial micropublishers more often focus on broader categories of material, occasionally supplemented by wholesale filming of special collections.[12] IDC (Inter Documentation Company), for instance, has filmed national development plans--from all countries and since 1969--as these plans are represented at eight North American and European libraries. While the resultant collections are not complete, they are more comprehensive than dependence on any single institution would permit. Or, to cite IDC again, the massive set entitled "CIDOC Collection: The History of Religiosity in Latin America ca. 1830-1970" began as a project at the CIDOC library in Cuemavaca, Mexico. It grew beyond a special collection filming enterprise by gradually incorporating more than twenty additional repositories. Microfilm collections informed by specific bibliographies (Research Publications' continuing set based on Sabin's Dictionary of Books Relating to America..., for instance) use a different starting point for a similarly broad-based approach.
Numerous film sets have entailed collaboration between micropublishers and libraries whereby special collections are preserved for the institution and marketed by the filmer. "Latin American Pamphlets from the Yale University Library, 1600-1900," for example, is a collection of 10,500 microfiche currently offered by University Publications of America. Sets in this category inevitably mirror the base collections. Where print holdings are strong, the microform sets can enhance both research and preservation. Film from weak collections, on the other hand, may only clutter the research and preservation panorama.
Finally, some commercial firms simply act as microform middlemen, ordering positive film from the original producers as they receive requests on the basis of their own, generally pricey lists.
Calculations of microfilm costs and benefits have always favored projects involving serials and sets. Bibliographic control is relatively simple, substantial quantities of deteriorating materials can be salvaged through a single filming decision, and the film can often be marketed with ease. Perhaps the major drawbacks are the difficulties in creating complete runs for filming and, for incomplete film sets, reporting and filling the gaps.
Microform collections corresponding to pre-existing bibliographies have carried somewhat similar appeal. If a bibliography reflects a single library collection, filming can be tightly focused. The existence of an external listing is often taken to obviate any need for bibliographic control beyond a simple concordance between film and base bibliography: the burden of creating online records is thus shifted to the holding libraries. Bibliography-based filming can also be pursued at a pace determined by the availability of materials and the level of demand.
Omnibus subject filming endeavors have been pursued by some commercial publishers. These broad-gauged projects came into vogue as North American higher education expanded through the 1950s and 1960s, and a host of new libraries had to build the retrospective collections that would support instruction and research. A changing academic market, problematic bibliographic control within the collections, improved capacities for resource sharing, and changing preservation perspectives may limit the prospects for this approach.
Library-based filming has recently moved in two directions. Research interests in popular culture and grassroots movements have encouraged collecting efforts focused on grey literature and ephemera. Such materials tend to be fragile as well as difficult to arrange and control: microfilm provides a possible solution.
As preservation and the brittle books problem have burst upon librarians' consciousness, the need to preserve masses of individual monographs has come to the fore in a process of potentially immense impact and scope. Preservation microfilming triggered by deterioration detected in the course of normal library operations provides a stream of topically undifferentiated master negatives. Grant-supported projects are likewise addressing the preservation of a broad range of research materials, in a process generally organized along broad subject categories and dispersed among many separate institutions.
The following list--by no means comprehensive--touches on those categories most useful in describing Latin Americanist microfilm.
1) Archival sources. Individually acquired film, of variable comprehensiveness and quality, is scattered fairly widely. Researchers continue to produce substantial amounts of microfilm for personal use, and part of this eventually finds its way to library collections. Such film is often available only in positive copies; its role in large-scale preservation appears limited.
More systematic filming has been conducted at major archives including Spain's Archivo de Indias, the National Archives of the United States, Britain's Foreign Office, and various Latin American repositories. Producers include official agencies and commercial filmers. The Library of Congress' Quincentenary Archival Survey Project is assessing photoreproduced documents (positives as well as negatives) from Spain covering the period 1492 to 1902, available in the United States and some dependencies. A published report is anticipated in the summer of 1991.[13] UNESCO undertook a relatively short-lived archival microfilming project in the 1950s.[14] By the time filming terminated in 1961, about two million pages of material had been preserved from Paraguay, Panama, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Barbados, Peru, and Chile. The Family History Library of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints conducts substantial and continuing filming in parish and other local Latin American archives. Some local and regional administrative archives (the Archivo de Parral in Mexico, for example) have likewise been filmed.
As the checkered provenance of microfilm from archives might suggest, bibliographic control can be problematic. The National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections affords some retrospective coverage for film in North America. Commercial film lists, finding aids available through filming agencies, and information within specific archives are essential additional sources.
2) Government documents and official publications.
a. Official gazettes. With encouragement from both the Seminar on the Acquisition of Latin American Library Materials (SALALM) and the Association of Research Libraries, the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library in the 1950s initiated a cooperative program to film official gazettes. Coverage gradually expanded to the entire world, though in some instances foreign efforts have supplanted North American filming. As with other serial-centered activities, missing issues can be problematic. Subnational gazettes have received only intermittent coverage, with those from Mexican states enjoying particular attention.
b. Statistical reports, population censuses, development plans, central bank reports. Commercial filmers, usually aspiring to worldwide coverage, have tackled various categories of hard-data publications. With the exception of Research Publications' "International Population Census Publications" collection, these sets are relatively recent in coverage. They vary considerably in comprehensiveness, in part reflecting the adequacy of the collection(s) upon which filming is based. Bibliographic control is often problematic, both in terms of forms of entry for government agency names and in terms of identifying, recording, and--eventually--filling gaps in the sets. As with other categories of microform documents, subnational materials are poorly represented. A large number of Latin American statistical serials remains to be preserved.
c. Administrative reports. Several institutions have pursued title-by-title filming of presidential messages and reports, as well as administrative serial documents. The Library of Congress has preserved many ministerial reports (memorias) over the years; the Latin American Microform Project is now engaged in a grant-supported effort, sited at the Library of Congress, to film all the memorias through 1959 that are available within the United States. Some Latin American countries have filmed report runs as well. Serial reports for administrative units below the ministry level, and those corresponding to subnational governments, are poorly represented on film.
d. Congressional documents. The New York Public Library has been the most significant film source for congressional documents and debates. The original publications tend to be voluminous, difficult to acquire, and clumsy to control. Microform is thus an attractive format, but many microform sets are incomplete. Holdings data are in some cases available only by inspecting the reels themselves: substantial research materials may consequently be lost as institutions incorrectly assume complete runs.[15] Subnational legislatures are fairly occasional phenomena within Latin America. Any corresponding documents are only sporadically available on film.
e. Laws and legal documents. Scattered films cover numerous legal compilations and individual laws, though neither patterns nor priorities are apparent. Bibliographic access to legal materials can be somewhat obscure.
f. Official publications of primarily cultural emphasis and interest. These materials, financed and/or printed by official agencies, are otherwise indistinguishable from mainstream commercial imprints. They are thus treated in the sections corresponding to general monographs and serials.
g. Subnational documents. Coverage is generally weak,.though a few areas of particular research interest or collecting strength--Mexican materials, some serial reports from Brazil-- are more fully represented on film.
h. International and regional organizations. The Organization of American States has for decades produced microform editions of its documents. Other international and regional organizations have only occasionally followed suit.
3) Serials. For the cost/benefit reasons already suggested, serials have been popular with filmers. Preservation microfilming has focused on serial titles of particular research value, very large (and preferably embrittled) runs, and some serial categories (like medical journals) of either special interest to specific institutions or perceived commercial value. For most disciplines, commercial filmers predominate as producers of serial microforms. Within Latin American Studies, however, the balance between library and commercial filmers appears much more even. Title listings for serial microforms are fairly readily accessible. However, gaps--and the longstanding lack of ready ways to identify and fill them--present serious and persistent problems.
4) Newspapers. Top-level newspapers are being filmed with some consistency. More than one title is available from such large countries as Mexico or Brazil, though only a single newspaper is available from many other nations. Initial filming dates vary widely. The principal sources of Latin American film include the Foreign Newspaper Microfilm Project, the Latin American Microform Project, the Library of Congress, and scattered--and occasionally duplicative--institutional projects. Specialized bibliographic control is available through Newspapers on Microform and Steven Charno's Latin American Newspapers in United States Libraries (for retrospective coverage), and in occasional lists distributed by the Library of Congress and the Center for Research Libraries.[16]
Several Latin American institutions, as well as some newspaper publishers, are considering filming projects--though only the most prominent titles are likely to be affected. Film produced in Brazil and Venezuela has already supplanted in-house production at the Library of Congress. Barter arrangements provide silver halide film for these producers, who cannot otherwise obtain raw film stock.[17]
5) Monographic materials. More and more monographs are being filmed, both through upgraded standard library preservation operations and through larger projects--many cooperative, many funded by outside grants--to preserve research resources. Non-duplicative, single-item filming assumes the gradual creation of a widely dispersed collection of preservation masters, with digital reformatting and electronic retrieval an eventual second step. The impact upon research of ultimately less complete local collections, in conjunction with a larger universe of master negatives at remote locations, is not entirely clear. Bibliographic access to individual preservation masters is currently provided through online bibliographic utilities; previous filming was most commonly reported to the National Register of Microform Masters. Bibliographic access to large sets is in many instances limited to printed finding aids.
6) Ephemera and grey literature. Latin Americanist research increasingly focuses on bottom-up analyses of social and political change. Popular culture provides a complementary focus. One result is growing library interest in materials once outside the collecting canon. The printed manifestations of grassroots groups are often fragile and physically insubstantial, and preservation may be necessary at the moment of receipt. Cost-effective bibliographic control poses another challenge. Several institution-based filming efforts, most notably at Princeton University though also at the Library of Congress ("Brazil's Popular Groups"; current projects with Mexican material), seek to acquire meaningful quantities of ephemera, organize them at the collection level, and preserve them on film. This type of approach is likely to expand, though its long-term viability may require new sources of financial support.
Bibliographic access to sets of ephemera is now most frequently provided via semi-archival, collection-level processing. Appendix D provides a sample record from Princeton University: item-level description is deliberately sacrificed in the interest of processing efficiency, while numerous access points are employed to meet user needs.
Research resources that support Latin Americanist scholarship might be characterized in terms of a matrix incorporating research demand, scarcity, fragility, preservation costs (including the cost of bibliographic control), and institutional location (in the United States or Latin America, in a major library or a small collection, in private or public hands, and so forth). Fleshing out this matrix will require the insights of librarians and scholars from both North and Latin America.
Results should suggest future filming priorities. For instance, newspapers are fragile, often retained at only a few institutions, amenable to low-cost bibliographic control, and of immense research value. North American cooperative microfilming can count the U.S. Newspaper project among its major accomplishments. A similar approach might likewise benefit Latin America.
Publications from the regions within most countries, to cite another category, are under-represented in foreign libraries and also in many of Latin America's national and university libraries. These materials provide information and perspectives increasingly important for scholarship. They tend to be scarce, and are often less durable than more mainstream publications. Bibliographic control may be expensive.
For a third example, various international and regional organizations have produced documentation that, while important for research, is both difficult to locate and in precarious condition. Bibliographic control may again be challenging.
The New York Public Library, the Benson Collection at the University of Texas, the Library of Congress, Princeton University, and Yale University have comprised a first tier of library-based Latin Americanist filmers. NYPL and LC sustain major preservation microfilming operations. Much of Texas's film has been produced through special projects and grants. The Latin American bibliographers at Princeton and Yale have enjoyed independent capabilities to sustain unit-based filming programs.
Cooperative microfilming programs are also important. The Latin American Microform Project (LAMP) has been the most prominent and durable filming consortium; the Foreign Newspaper Microform Project (FNMP) affords some complementary coverage. (Both projects are now based at the Center for Research Libraries.) LAMP's activities are determined within that group. FNMP has a more controlled agenda, though currency and thoroughness of coverage have varied through the years. The Intensive Cuban Collecting Group has more recently emerged as a voluntary consortium that seeks to collectively identify research resources that are then filmed by one of the members. Preservation masters remain in each filmer's collections, but information is shared and future access ensured. A June 1990 list thus reported 142 serial master negatives at seven institutions.
Both ad-hoc and pre-existing library consortia have attracted outside grants. Retrospective conversion was an original focus. With standard bibliographic records increasingly available online, and with "queuing date" fields which enable institutions to signal their prospective filming, solid bases are at hand for large-scale preservation. Appendix E records some of the major preservation microfilm projects recently funded or now under way. Other efforts are imminent.
A few commercial micropublishers have focused particularly on Latin American materials. Inter Documentation Company, Research Publications, General Microfilm Company, and University Publications of America have all produced Latin Americanist sets.[18] Other commercial filmers, including Chadwyck-Healey and University Microfilms, have produced collections (for instance of statistical materials or doctoral dissertations) that incorporate substantial amounts of Latin Americanist material. Some of these broad-gauged collections have been split into area- and country-specific sales units.
While a large number of institutions have engaged in at least sporadic microfilming, bibliographic sources suggest that only a few account for most available production. Responses to the survey prepared for this report likewise suggest a limited universe of effective sources. The New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, Yale University, Princeton University, and the Center for Research Libraries are among the institutions combining responsiveness with strong Latin Americanist microform holdings. As preservation programs become more widespread and effective, the number of efficient film sources should increase.
Film sources vary in terms of when film was produced and how master negatives have been stored. Significant amounts of film were produced before standards were defined. Many master negatives were until fairly recently held in inappropriate conditions. The practical consequence may be that precisely the same older film for which bibliographic access is often problematic is film that falls short of current preservation guidelines.
Bibliographic control is crucial, both at the minimalist level of avoiding subsequent duplication and as the basis for more assertive collaborative programs. Without adequate intellectual access, preservation masters are simply unusable.
Such general bibliographic sources as the National Register of Microform Masters, the Bibliographic Guide to Microform Publications, the National Union Catalog, the Guide to Microforms in Print, and Microform Review provide basic coverage for most microform materials. As we have seen, they do not adequately represent large microform collections. Additional print resources include Ann Niles's two volume An Index to Microform Collections, with its item-level listings of the titles incorporated within some seventy major microform sets; and Suzanne C. Dodson's Microform Research Collections: A Guide, which compiles a range of basic data for about 375 major collections.[19]
Bibliographic control for microform is rapidly transcending print resources. NRMM is now being converted to an electronic format--though the product will omit serials and materials in some languages and scripts. Current microfilming activity, particularly that supported by federal funds, almost universally entails the addition of bibliographic records for master negatives to the two major bibliographic utilities, OCLC and RLIN. (Tapes are normally cross-loaded between the utilities, though there are reports that technical tape-loading snags may affect, for instance, serial records provided to OCLC by RLIN.) Chadwyck-Healey has contracted with the Research Libraries Group to produce the RLIN Preservation Master File on CD-ROM. As NRMM is also acquired and loaded by RLIN, and thereby becomes part of the file reproduced on CD-ROM, this not-yet-produced resource should become increasingly valuable.
While online coverage will remain incomplete even following the current NRMM conversion, the number of machine-readable records will continue to grow. Nonetheless, the mechanics of online access to records for preservation masters will remain somewhat problematic. Cataloging conventions for microform materials remained in flux for some time following the adoption of AACR2.[20] The new rules varied from AACR1 in stipulating that microform cataloging reflect the microfilm itself, rather than the item that had been reformatted to film. Imprint information for the original was thus relegated to a note, while the place and date of publication reflected where and when the microfilm was produced. Both practice and prescription have more recently shifted to reflect the original imprint.
The practical effect of uncertain cataloging conventions is that machine-produced lists based on fixed-field codes for country or date of publication may be misleading. Keyword searching (author "Venezuela," for instance) for microform masters might mitigate these obstacles, but will not eliminate them. Similar coding anomalies and software limitations may affect searches based on other elements in the MARC format. Comprehensive, computer-generated lists of region-specific preservation masters are difficult to produce.
Finally, standards for holdings information remain incipient. Serials data can be compromised without such information, as can the utility of the original film. This is a major gap in the existing framework of standards, formats, and procedures for the bibliographic control of microforms.
Reviewing the general state of bibliographic control for microfilm provides necessary background for closer consideration of the sources that most adequately report Latin Americanist materials. The principal area-specific source is the Microfilming Projects Newsletter, which has been produced under SALALM auspices since about 1958.[21] MPN reports are collected on a voluntary basis: information is incomplete, and it may be inconsistent for any one institution over time. Furthermore, SALALM as of 1976 determined to omit commercial listings from MPM Film producers tend to report serials and sets rather than individual monograph titles. Finally, MPN reports are often prepared by Latin American bibliographers, rather than preservation or photoduplication units.
The project sought to identify the most important print sources for Latin Americanist reports by comparing listings for twenty-one author or title entries presumed significant for Latin American materials ("Argentina," "Caracas," "Garcia," "Revista," and so forth) in all available volumes of the National Register of Microform Masters, the Microfilming Projects Newsletter, Guide to Microforms in Print, and Bibliographic Guide to Microform Publications. NRMM included 1,726 listings (counting only clearly Latin American materials); MPN, 479; MIP 311; and BGM, 77. (Appendix B summarizes the results.) While the chronological coverage of these sources varies substantially--NRMM covers about twenty years of publishing, MIP only one-- this counting exercise demonstrates that the lists are not simply interchangeable. It does not, however, indicate whether the different sources are recording different materials, or merely repeating larger or smaller chunks of one another's information.
A second phase of analysis sought to determine whether a single print source (or RLIN, in this case) might incorporate all or virtually all of the Latin Americanist listings. Main entry listings for "Venezuela," "Caracas," and "Revista" were tallied for all the sources listed above. The results were summarized according to reporting sources and microform producers. (See Appendix B.)
These tallies suggest several tentative conclusions. The National Register of Microform Masters is the single most important source for film information. Its availability in electronic format should, in consequence, substantially ease the quest for information. The Microfilming Projects Newsletter follows in utility for Latin American resources. Microforms in Print emphasizes commercial film and appears the most useful printed source since the demise of NRMM. The Bibliographic Guide to Microfilms, finally, overwhelmingly emphasizes film produced by the New York Public Library and the Library of Congress. It provides little information beyond that available in other sources, though its format does allow subject access.
The samples for "Venezuela," "Caracas," and "Revista" all reveal a broad range of institutions engaged in microfilm work--albeit with the lion's share of production concentrated on only a few. The most important producers include the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, the University of Texas, and commercial firms including General Microfilm Company, Inter Documentation Company (IDC), Research Publications, and University Microfilms. Should this production pattern hold across the board, retrospective film acquisitions could reasonably focus on a few major suppliers.
The results of bibliographic comparisons are suggestive but neither complete nor altogether convincing. Many institutions have inconsistently reported their preservation activity. Since holdings statements are almost universally incomplete, preservation reports may be misleading. Some categories of materials--newspapers, archival holdings, collections of ephemeral materials--are omitted or consistently under-represented in the major printed sources. Finally, our survey of bibliographic tools does not address the degree to which preservation masters meet archival standards.
A questionnaire (Appendix C) was thus employed to gauge filming quality, activity, and reporting patterns from the viewpoint of film producers. The survey was tested on a small sample group and then sent to all libraries reporting Latin Americanist negative film to any of the bibliographic sources surveyed above, to commercial firms with known Latin Americanist projects, and to several major Latin American collections not otherwise indicating film activity.
Complete survey returns are not yet in hand. The preliminary results nonetheless substantiate that past preservation microfilming has focused on only a few locations. Many repositories reported either no previous film activity or only sporadic activity with little concern for film standards, archival storage, or complete bibliographic control.
Some institutions responded to our survey by reporting no preservation microfilming, despite having at some time announced projects in the Microfilming Projects Newsletter. It appears that anomalous organizational structures for producing, holding, and controlling microform account for many of these discrepancies. Bibliographers at several institutions have pursued filming projects within their units, in a pattern that remains in place at Yale and Princeton Universities. Such flexibility, in conjunction with appropriate facilities for producing, storing, and copying film masters, has encouraged some of the field's most significant preservation initiatives. In other circumstances, the film is, for practical purposes, useless.
Most survey responses indicate improving film quality, storage conditions, and bibliographic control over the years. Federally funded preservation projects demand high levels of film quality and bibliographic control, and these standards are becoming the norm. Holdings data, however, remain inconsistent.
Survey responses also confirm varied reporting patterns for master negatives. Most currently produced film is cataloged on OCLC or RLIN, though the fullest and most up-to-date holdings information is often available only through local databases or card files. Most library preservation departments have fairly consistently reported to NRMM. Films prepared by Latin American bibliographers have more often been reported only to MPN, or through internal lists and sales circulars. Increased centralization and standardization are nonetheless reflected in patterns of bibliographic access: the major bibliographic databases, OCLC and RLIN, now include at least summary records for the overwhelming bulk of preservation masters.
The following guide briefly summarizes these findings through a gross outline of Latin Americanist preservation activity up to the recent past. It links categories of resources in which significant preservation activity has occurred with the major sources of film and bibliographic tools. Anyone considering filming can reduce the chances for inadvertent duplication by consulting the institutions or sources listed:
Census documents: Research Publications; IDC.
Collections of
monographs and serials: See Appendix A.
Congressional debates: New York Public Library.
Cuban serials:
Intensive Cuban Collecting Group.
Ephemera and grey literature:
Princeton University Library; Library of Congress.
Government
organization manuals: Chadwyck-Healey.
Individual monographs:
Widely filmed; check by specific title.
Individual serials:
Widely filmed; check by specific title.
Ministerial reports:
Latin American Microform Project; Library of Congress.
Newspapers: Library of Congress; Center for Research Libraries. See
Newspapers in Microform and lists from the Center for
Research Libraries.
Official gazettes: Library of Congress; New
York Public Library; Kraus Thomson.
Statistical serials and
reports: Congressional Information Service; Chadwyck-Healey;
IDC.
The major producers of Latin Americanist master negatives are indicated in Appendix C. Prospective filmers should in all cases verify specific titles on RLIN (or OCLC) and in the National Register of Microform Masters and the Microfilming Projects Newsletter. RLlN's Preservation File, when released on CD-ROM and as NRMM online listings are included, will become the single most portable and comprehensive source.
Several more general statements can also be made on the basis of the surveys associated with this project:
Knowledge of Latin Americanist microfilming activity in the United States will substantially increase once NRMM is available online. Electronic products like the RLIN Preservation File on CD-ROM likewise promise improved access. However, the growing emphasis on microfilming ephemeral materials and grey literature will perpetuate a large body of preserved resources not accessible at the item level. Projects encompassing large special collection-type categories of materials are unlikely to disappear, however they may diminish. Avoiding all inadvertent duplication will remain a challenge, though it should become ever more reasonable to conclude that microfilm accessible only through extended searches is in effect inaccessible. Much film corresponding to these difficult records was produced before current standards were defined, and may thus be deficient in archival terms.
A large and rapidly expanding body of materials relevant to Latin American Studies is available on microform. As more major libraries develop preservation capabilities and programs, the number of individual items identified for preservation will inevitably increase. The panorama will become still richer as more Latin American institutions join in the preservation microfilming enterprise. The medium- and long-term prospects for cooperation are dazzling; the short-term need for coordination is clear.
A number of fairly specific suggestions may enhance the capabilities and coverage for Latin Americanist microfilm.
Additional copies are available for $5.00 from the above address. Orders must be prepaid, with checks made payable to "The Commission on Preservation and Access." Payment must be in U.S. funds. Please do not send cash.
COPYRIGHT 1991 by The Commission on Preservation and Access. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transcribed in any form without permission of the publisher Requests for reproduction for noncommercial purposes, including educational advancement, private study, or research will be granted. Full credit must be given to both the author(s) and The Commission on Preservation and Access.
The Commission on Preservation and Access was established in 1986 to foster and support collaboration among libraries and allied organizations in order to ensure the preservation of the published and documentary record in all formats and to provide enhanced access to scholarly information.
This publication has been submitted to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources to be made available in both microfiche and hardcopy.
![[CoOL]](/icons/sm_cool.gif){kind=icon}