Admittedly these are very simplistic definitions, but I believe they are accurate. And it is obvious from them that the essential common characteristic of all three types of institutions is that they a collection-based. The most obvious difference is that they collect different types of materials-libraries collect documents of various kinds (books, journal, maps, etc); archives collect documents of a specific kind (those containing a specific kind of evidence); and museums collect objects.

Yet we know from history that these distinctions have not always been evident. The earliest libraries known to history were in fact archives. What are often called "temple libraries" or "palace libraries" were in fact collections of texts (usually cuneiform tablets) that documented the official religious activities of the temple or the government transactions of the palace court. Later, collections of other kinds of texts were in fact called "museums," in that they were buildings dedicated to honoring the muses. The great library of Alexandria, for example, was in fact called the Museon, a temple to the muses. In practice, there was little practical differentiation between library, museum and archives until the early modern period, when the development of typographic printing resulted in a dramatic increase in the volume of texts available, and these were differentiated from the collection of objects, library from museum. The practice of separating official records from other kinds of documents also arose around the same time, developing from the rational bureaucratization of governments.

My point is simply that the distinction we now accept as common, between library, museum and archives, is a matter of convention. And that convention appears to be unraveling under the impact of networked digital information technology.

In the past two decades, libraries, museums and archives alike have begun to use digital information technology as a valuable tool to carry out the central work that each does. The most dramatic use of this technology, beginning almost forty years ago, has been to centralize some of the work that libraries do in organizing their collections, and simultaneously enhancing dramatically access to information about those collections. The work of bibliographic utilities like OCLC transformed not only the process of cataloging library collections, but also access to bibliographic information.

More recently, digital technology has enabled the creation of large-scale digital surrogate collections, which has again dramatically enhanced knowledge about, and access to, library collections. This has had an especially noteworthy effect on access to unique materials held in rare book, manuscript and special collections.

Archives have been slower to adopt the new technology, but in recent years, with the advent of the MARC AMC format for cataloging archival materials, bibliographic information about archival materials has been significantly increased. Recent development of the Encoded Archival Description format for archival finding aids has ushered in a new era of access to information about archival materials. And now archives have joined libraries in creating digital surrogates of some of the most important and/or popularly used records series.

Museums have been slower to adopt new technology, but they too have recently joined the procession. Museum information systems are now used to register and track collections. And museums too are now creating not only online exhibitions, but in fact digital representations of their collections, including even three dimensional objects.

With this increasing development of digital surrogate collections accessible through the World Wide Web, a transformation in the use of materials from library, archival and museum collections has occurred. People who formerly used such materials on-site in the respective institutions are now frequently (if not exclusively) consulting them online. Even more important, large numbers of individuals who heretofore made little or no use of these materials-who perhaps were even unaware of their existence-are now frequent users of the digital collections. And these new users do not care, and may not even be aware, whether the original materials are in a library, an archives, or a museum. The boundaries are indeed blurring.

If we step back from the discussion and take a different perspective, this development should not be surprising. David M. Levy has focused much of his career, first at Xerox PARC and now at the University of Washington I School, on trying to make sense of the document in the digital environment. In his recent book Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age, Levy notes that our traditional notion of a "document" is bound up with writing and paper. But now in the digital environment we are using the word "document" to refer to all kinds of other things, like text files, audio files, image files, even multimedia presentations and Web pages. The old concept of a document no longer makes sense. Levy goes on to assert that we need to define our notion of what a document is. "Doing so," he says, "requires looking at relevant technologies … in such a way that we aren't fixated on them, that we don't fetishize them. Most of all, it requires immersing ourselves in the social roles these technologies play." Levy then offers a simple but profound definition of documents. "They are, quite simply, talking things. They are bits of the material world - clay, stone, animal skin, plant fiber, sand - that we've imbued with the ability to speak."

Other writers go further. In his JASIS articles "What is a Document?" Michael Buckland describes the early debates among the European documentalists, the forerunners of information scientists, over the definition of a document. He recounts how the French librarian Suzanne Briet asserted that a document is "any physical or symbolic sign, preserved or recorded, intended to represent, to reconstruct, or to demonstrate a physical or conceptual phenomenon." Even an antelope could be construed as a document, Briet asserted. An antelope in the wild was not document; but once it had been captured and placed in a zoo, it could be a document because it then became evidence. This striking example seems especially relevant to me, since the universe of institutions served by IMLS includes those with living collections, like zoos, aquaria, and arboreta.

If one accepts the arguments of Briet and other documentalists, then the distinctions we have drawn between libraries and museums based on the kinds of things they collect, seem even more artificial. They are all ultimately documents.

I should add, in passing, that Levy does not accept this argument. He asserts that there is an important distinction between artifacts and documents in that the latter have been intentionally created to speak, whereas while artifacts (and antelopes) may indeed have interesting stories to tell, they were created for another purpose. I personally find his argument on this point unpersuasive.

And when we move from the physical to the digital world, it seems to me, the distinctions diminish even further. In the digital world, all of the objects that we can access via the Web have been imbued with the ability to speak. Whether the object in question is a text file, an audio file, an image file, or a web page-all have the ability to speak. They all carry a message of some significance. In converting them from physical to digital form, we have expressly delegated to them the ability to speak, undercutting Levy's reservation.

This leads, in my view, to the inescapable conclusion that, in the digital environment, the distinctions between libraries, museums and archives that we take for granted are in fact artificial. These distinctions are not conceptual; they are conventional. If our distinctions between library and museum and archives are based on the nature of the materials they collect, and if that nature is transubstantiated in the digital environment, then the distinctions cease to have meaning.

To be sure, there are real differences between libraries and museums and archives. But those differences, it seems to me, are matters of governance and funding and structure, organizational culture and professional practice, not matters of concept and function and social role. In the digital world, the boundaries between the types of institution do not merely blur-they disappear.

In 1930 Paul Tillich made the trenchant observation that "the boundary is the best place for acquiring knowledge." So what can we learn from our disappearing boundaries? What are the implications for the practice of the information professions? First and foremost, it seems to me, that we must anticipate a convergence, not only of terminology and practice, but also of values. We must, in short, learn from each other. At IMLS, we have a strong conviction that the primary characteristic that museums and libraries hold in common is that both are social agencies that support public education. Both are about the critical work of creating and supporting learners. Both institutions invite purposeful use and forge links to the world beyond their walls. They are both embedded in their communities and frequently acknowledged as trusted content and knowledge providers.

In conversations with both fields, IMLS has developed a long and impressive list of assets that museums and libraries bring to the growing national and international conception of 21st century society as a learning society-or a learning culture.

• Museums and libraries offer authenticity and authority. They offer real objects and artifacts, authentic and firsthand experiences and their authority is widely regarded as trustworthy. Both, for example, have long had rigorous protocols for collection building, enabling them to direct users to resources of quality and authenticity.
• Museums and libraries have a diverse and broad user base and the ability to work across all ages. Libraries especially, have built on a long history of free and equitable access, so that they stand as a core democratic institution with the capacity to meet the needs of everyone from new immigrants to preschool toddlers. Museums have developed an impressive history of educational programming within their collections, likewise sharing an expertise at building relationships between various consumer groups and the ideas inherent in their collections.
• As resources for lifelong learning, both institutions can facilitate learning for all ages and across time and place. They share an interest and ability to provide congregate spaces for intergenerational learning - among those few spaces where families can expect to learn together.
• They are effective knowledge navigators - skills and structures in place to provide access to information. The library profession especially has a large and well established infrastructure with a broad, shared understanding of organizational systems, devices and standards.
• Libraries and museums are centers for research and scholarship.
• They are both skillful teachers of learning skills: object-based or critical thinking skills that are so important in today's world of information overload. They are masters at facilitating inquiry-based learning - the kind of learning that is becoming more vital everyday in this new century.

What emerges from this list is a remarkable set of resources - well-trusted and well-positioned to become more essential and vital resources in meeting and responding to the needs of learners across a lifetime. This is a learning age-a knowledge age. Fueled by change at an unprecedented rate, we all must have access to information and learning and we are equally compelled to redefine the educational system that delivers that access.

So for us at IMLS, it is important for us to foster collaboration between museums and libraries. This is collaboration that is not so much a joined at the hip partnership, but a recognition of intersecting nodes of interest, activity and mission. Let me give you a few examples of the kinds of partnerships that we think are models for future development. They can be loosely grouped into two categories, the traditional and the technological.

In the first group are collaborative projects that extend the capacities of both partners to serve their communities. One splendid example is the partnership between the Houston Public Library and the Houston Children's Museum. With IMLS support, Houston PL established a branch library with the Children's Museum, provides the materials and the staff. Families using the museum can go directly from the excellent exhibits and unstructured educational experiences to a branch library collection developed specifically to support and extend those experiences. Books and other learning materials suitable for all ages can be used on site or checked out to take home. And it doesn't stop there. Directly adjacent to the "Tot Spot" is a parenting library, where parents can find materials and assistance to support their developing parenting skills.

There a similar collaborations in a number of communities. There is a branch of the Enoch Pratt Free Library in the Port Discovery Museum in Baltimore. There is a branch of the Hillsborough County Public Library in the Museum of Science and Industry in Tampa. Other examples can be found in Indianapolis and in Providence.

Each of these partnerships create synergies that dramatically increase the impact of both institutions in their communities.

On the technological side, there are even more outstanding examples, funded in part by the IMLS National Leadership Grants programs. One of the best known is the Colorado Digitization Project. Funded by IMLS and the Colorado State Library, this project adopts a statewide approach to enhancing access to materials that document local history. Libraries, museums of all types and all sizes, along with several archives, contribute materials that build a superb virtual collection of materials of all kinds and formats. The project provides rich interpretative information and assistance to teachers who actively use the collections in the classroom.

Another similar project is Connecticut History Online, a partnership between the University of Connecticut, the Connecticut Historical Society, and Mystic Seaport. The project was developed from the ground up to support teaching in the classroom. Teachers have been actively involved in electing materials and developing lesson plans. The impact of the resources and services on the teacher in the classroom is phenomenal.

Last fall IMLS hosted a conference in Washington on the 21st Century Learner. That event was focused on exploring partnerships in communities that can enhance the support for the free-choice, independent learner. Almost 400 participants braved the vicissitudes of post 9/11 travel to come. It was an amazing experience. We heard many inspiring stories of local efforts, some funded by IMLS, some not. I left the conference with a sense of an approaching critical mass. I believe that collaboration is emerging as the strategy of the 21st century. It is aligned with how we are thinking about our communities as "holistic" environments, as social ecosystems in which we are part of an integrated whole. At IMLS we are proud of what we contribute to fostering the growth of the collaborative spirit, and we are committed to continuing that good work.

About IMLS  |  IMLS News  |  Apply for Grants and Awards
Publications, Conferences & Resources  |  A Closer Look

HOME  |  CONTACT IMLS  |  SEARCH  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SITE MAP
ADOBE ACROBAT READER

Questions, comments, or problems? Contact IMLS via email imlsinfo@imls.gov or call (202) 606-8536.