Exhibitions in special collections,rare book libraries and archives: Questions to ask ourselves

Abstract

The author addresses key questions that librarians, archivists, curators and administrators face when producing physical exhibitions in special collections, rare book libraries and archives. The author’s direct experience is complemented by data gathered through a pilot study she conducted in 2017 and is placed in the context of professional literature. The questions discussed focus mostly on physical exhibitions. While the context of this article is North American, the questions are also relevant to institutions in other countries. This article is especially of interest to new professionals, as an introduction to exhibition work, as well as to experienced professionals who want to reflect on their practices in comparison to those of other institutions.

Keywords

archives decision-making exhibition planning exhibitions library outreach and programming rare book libraries special collections

Introduction

Exhibitions are common in most special collections, rare book libraries and archives. Although patrons, administrators and colleagues generally expect to see exhibitions in these environments, there is not always a full understanding of how complex planning and setting up an exhibition can be. This article addresses some key issues that librarians, archivists, curators and administrators face when working on physical exhibitions in special collections, rare book libraries and archives. In this article, I rely on my direct experience, the data gathered through a pilot study, and existing professional literature. This article is especially of interest to new professionals, as an introduction to exhibition work, as well as to experienced professionals who want to reflect on their practices in comparison to those of other institutions.

I have 14 years of professional exhibition experience in North America, in both the private and academic sector. I started working on exhibitions when I was a doctoral student at the University of California, Los Angeles and assisted film producer and preservationist Rick Schmidlin in his exhibition work for Erich von Stroheim: A Life Discovered (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Los Angeles, January 21–April 17, 2005). Once I joined the faculty of the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, the students and I created an exhibition using materials from UBC Special Collections. The exhibition, Drippytown: Vancouver Life Through the Eyes of Independent Cartoonists (October 23, 2009–January 31, 2010), was a success and attracted local media attention. After I became the Director of Archives at the Stratford Festival in Stratford, Ontario, Canada (the premier classical repertory theatre in Canada, which opened in 1953), I initiated and coordinated the renovation of a 4000 square-feet exhibition space within the Archives and also created and managed a small museum in Downtown Stratford. Subsequently, as Director of the Cushing Memorial Library and Archives at Texas A&M University (College Station, Texas), I coordinated the work of curators and other units for over 10 large exhibitions and many small displays, as well as outside loans, including international ones (e.g. From Texas to Bastogne: Texas Aggies Go To War, Bastogne War Museum/Espace Quartier Latin, December 12, 2014–June 30, 2016). In my current role of Programming and Outreach Librarian at the Cushing Library, I focus on programming, strategic planning and working more closely with the local community; recently, Museum Studies student interns, other colleagues and I developed a collaborative exhibition with the Brazos Valley African American Museum in Bryan, Texas (January 19–March 30, 2019).

Having worked in different roles, I am able to look at exhibitions from different perspectives and understand conflicting needs. Commitment to exhibitions and public outreach is often met with funding restrictions, limited staffing and, at times, lack of administrative support. At the same time, public demand remains strong and tends to ask for diverse exhibition themes, types of exhibitions and forms of presentation. We find ourselves periodically reevaluating our approaches and goals, balancing conflicting demands and adjusting to new requests.

Why a study?

Throughout my career, I have been comparing the issues I personally faced with the issues faced by other professionals in the field. Conversations with colleagues at other institutions, professional committee work and the existing literature have revealed many similarities with my experience, as well as differences. As professionals who work on exhibitions in special collections, rare book libraries and archives, we feel the need to compare our own challenges and successes with those of other institutions, and we wish to know how our colleagues approach exhibition work. The call for papers for this themed issue of Alexandria on Library Exhibitions stated that ‘the issues of exhibiting in the library environment have not been sufficiently identified and studied’. This statement expresses our need to come together as professionals in order to create a more robust corpus of literature, as well as more intentional opportunities for communication. When opportunities to discuss our exhibition work in a structured manner arise, we feel supported. An example is the session held at the 2019 annual conference of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, a division of the American Library Association/ALA), which addressed exhibitions and loans.¹ The session had a high number of attendees, who were able to discuss and compare their practices. The discussion showed that different institutions face a wide variety of situations and that professionals often feel isolated in their work. Attendees were relieved to have the opportunity to talk to colleagues from institutions that varied in size, needs and geographical location.

Recognizing the need for comparative knowledge and discussion that exists in our line of work, in 2017 I set out to conduct a structured comparison and designed a small pilot study, titled ‘A Survey of Exhibition Practices in North American Special Collections, Rare Book Libraries, and Archives – A Pilot Study’, to look at the question of how North American special collections, rare book libraries and archives approach exhibitions. Additional questions of the study were: How are exhibition programs run? What are their main goals? Who is their audience? What current trends and new emerging approaches do these programs follow? What are the programs’ successes and challenges? What are the differences and similarities with museums?

I took a qualitative research approach and distributed a questionnaire to a purposeful sample of academic and nonacademic, public and private institutions, all with established exhibition programs. I wanted to provide a sense of how these programs operate in different environments, especially public universities of different sizes, as well as private universities, public libraries, private research institutions and private clubs. This small pilot qualitative study provided information that will serve as the basis for a larger and more encompassing future study. The pilot study did not aim at being comprehensive. The small sample represented only a limited number of practices and environments, but the results were rich and provided strong insight into how different types of institutions engage in exhibition work, and highlighted common approaches to exhibition work, as well as more innovative approaches. Upon reading the first draft of this article, Cathy Henderson, Associate Director for Education and Exhibitions at the Harry Ransom Center, commented on how it was useful ‘to see our program from a comparative viewpoint’ (Cathy Henderson, 10 July 2019, personal communication/email message to the author).

The questionnaire was structured in 17 sections, with a total of 73 questions. I approached 13 institutions and 9 replied. The majority of the units (five) that responded to the survey were part of public universities: Georgia State University Special Collections and Archives; the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Rare Books and Special Collections; the University of California, Los Angeles, Library Special Collections; the University of Utah, J. Willard Marriott Library, Special Collections Division; and the Harry Ransom Center, a research library and museum at The University of Texas at Austin. The other survey respondents were part of: a public library, Vancouver Public Library, Information Services-Special Collections; a religiously affiliated university, Santa Clara University, Archives and Special Collections; and two private institutions, The Grolier Club in New York City and the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles, located at The Getty Center.

These institutions are well-known in the United States and Canada, and even internationally, but it is useful to provide some context. The information listed in Tables 1 and 2 was collected at the time of the 2017 survey² and provides some detail in regard to the type of institution, geographical location, age and size of the unit, number of people involved in exhibitions and location/number of spaces used for exhibitions.

Table 1.

Public universities (information collected at the time of the survey, 2017).

Institution/unit	Geographical location	Years in existence	Staffing	Faculty/staff involved in exhibitions	Exhibition spaces
Georgia State University Special Collections and Archives	Atlanta, Georgia, USA	48 (46 in 2017)	12 full-time faculty and staff, as well as a few graduate student researchers, student workers and temporary staff	Archivist and Archives Assistant, with help from others, especially the library’s Marketing/Public Relations unit	First-floor Library North location dedicated to the Johnny Mercer Collection, and a gallery with rotating exhibitions on the eighth floor (Library South)
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Rare Books and Special Collections	Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada	Since 1960	7 members of the unit, plus 4 people from Technical Services (full- or part-time basis) and student assistants	On average, 3 people in the unit, with help from others	Main exhibition space in the reading room; Chung Collection adjacent dedicated space; other Library locations; at times, off-site
University of California, Los Angeles, Library Special Collections	Los Angeles, California, USA	Since 1950	35	5–10 at any given time	6 different locations; 1 in Special Collections and the other ones throughout 3 libraries
University of Utah, J. Willard Marriott Library, Special Collections Division	Salt Lake City, Utah, USA	Since 1967	8 full-time faculty; 20 full-time staff; and 25–30 part-time employees	There is a Library-wide exhibition committee. In Special Collections, 4 people coordinate exhibitions, with help from others.	Exhibition spaces exist on all five floors of the Library; on the Special Collections Floor there is a Gallery, as well as space in the reading room
Harry Ransom Center, The University of Texas at Austin	Austin, Texas, USA	62 years (60 in 2017)	79 full-time staff and 66 part-time staff	1, planning and scheduling; 3, preparation and installation	The first floor of the building (street level) is entirely occupied by a large open-plan space that is reconfigurable using portable walls

Table 2.

Private institutions and public libraries (information collected at the time of the survey, 2017).

Institution/unit	Type of institution	Geographical location	Years in existence	Staffing	Faculty/staff involved in exhibitions	Exhibition spaces
Getty Research Institute (GRI)	Private institution	Los Angeles, California, USA	Since 1982	Curatorial: circa 27; Special Collections Management: circa 23	2 full-time, with help from approximately another 35 across The Getty; GRI exhibitions are designed by Getty Museum designers	2 galleries
The Grolier Club	Private club	New York City, New York, USA	Since 1884	7 full-time, 5 part-time	Exhibitions Manager (loan logistics and installation); external curators (research and item selection). Additional help: Public Relations consultant, the Library staff (if using items from the Club’s collections) and volunteers	2 galleries, one on the ground floor and one on the second floor
Santa Clara University, Archives and Special Collections	Private, religiously affiliated university	Santa Clara, California, USA	Current department organized in 2008. Special Collections: 1851. University Archives: circa 1976	6 full-time permanent staff, plus part-time temporary staff and student assistants	1–3. Additional help from the Library’s Communications and Events Planning Coordinator, and outside conservators	An 1100 square-feet gallery, adjacent to the reading room
Vancouver Public Library, Information Services-Special Collections	Public library	Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada	24 (22 in 2017)	4 full-time and 1 part-time dedicated staff	2	Special Collections reading room

The universities vary in size. At the time of writing, total student enrollment was reported as follows (based on the institutions’ websites): Georgia State University: over 51,000; Santa Clara University: about 8700; University of British Columbia: about 65,000, with almost 55,000 at the Vancouver Campus; University of California, Los Angeles: about 45,000; the University of Utah: about 33,000; The University of Texas at Austin: about 52,000. In comparison, my own institution, Texas A&M University, has a total enrollment of over 69,000, with over 64,000 students at the College Station campus. As Table 1 shows, the level of staffing in each unit is not always commensurate to the enrollment numbers.

The Vancouver Public Library is the most visited public library per capita in Canada, with 21 locations and over six million visits in 2018 (Vancouver Public Library, 2018, p. 4). The Getty Research Institute was founded in 1982 and is located at The Getty Center; the Institute is one of four programs, with The J. Paul Getty Museum, the Getty Conservation Institute and the Getty Foundation; nearly two million people visit The Getty Center and The Getty Villa each year.³ The Grolier Club has about 800 members and its Library holds about 100,000 volumes, centered around the theme of ‘books about books’; it was founded in 1884 in New York, ‘to foster the study, collecting, and appreciation of books and works on paper, their art, history, production, and commerce’.⁴ These institutions operate successful exhibition programs and are an interesting counterpart to university units, with different structures, resources and funding.

There is a wealth of international literature about exhibitions, published by the art and museum fields. Professional and scholarly literature related to exhibitions in special collections, rare book libraries and archives is not as extensive, but there are resources available. A relatively recent North American example is the very practical Exhibits in Archives and Special Collections Libraries by Jessica Lacher-Feldman (2013). Freda Matassa published a handbook addressed to museums, libraries and archives (Matassa, 2014). Exhibitions are also discussed, within the context of outreach, in manuals about rare book libraries, special collections and archives (e.g. Berger, 2014; Cullingford, 2016; Hunter, 2003). I will address the literature in the context of each section of this article.

Recurring issues and themes emerging from my experience, the pilot study and the literature suggest the following questions:

Why do we produce exhibitions?

How do we engage with our audiences?

What are some of the components of a successful exhibition program, and what should we focus on when the budget is low?

What are the challenges of exhibition work?

How do we see our future?

By reflecting on these questions, we can tailor our efforts, be better prepared to explain why we do what we do and consider alternative approaches. These questions help us frame our day-to-day activities within the larger context of exhibiting in library and archival environments. The questions addressed in this article focus mostly on physical exhibitions. While the context of this article is North American, the questions are also relevant to institutions in other countries.

Why do we produce exhibitions?

A 2010 Association of Research Libraries SPEC Kit, reporting on a Special Collections Engagement survey, states that: ‘Exhibits are ubiquitous as a form of outreach’ (Berenbak et al., 2010, p. 11). Lindsey Smith writes that:

University archives and special collections are often called on to justify their own existence in the university system, and the potential increase in collection use that can occur as a result of effective public outreach is one way to do so. (2015, p. 4)

What is the reasoning behind exhibitions? In the context of museum literature, David Dean makes a distinction between commercial exhibitions and public service exhibitions (1996, p. 2). The latter category aims at ‘informing the public and changing attitudes and behaviors’ (Dean, 1996, p. 2). The exhibitions discussed in this article fall into the category of public service exhibitions. Dean further elaborates on the broader meaning of ‘museum exhibitions’ and states that they ‘have the mission to provide places for education and reflection’ (1996, p. 2). Besides supporting the institutional mission, museum exhibitions also promote community interest; provide ‘proof of responsible handling of collections’ (Dean, 1996, p. 2); and support the institution financially, since ‘donors…are more likely to give to museums with an active and popular exhibition schedule’ (Dean, 1996, p. 2). In the context of archives and special collections, Lacher-Feldman writes that ‘exhibitions clearly advance the missions of our parent institutions’ (2013, p. 8) and ‘we exhibit because we should [her emphasis] – because it allows us to advocate for our repository and ourselves’ (2013, p. 8). She adds that: ‘we exhibit to teach, to research, to reach out, to inform, to advocate, and to share…We exhibit to express gratitude to donors…We exhibit to celebrate milestones…’ (Lacher-Feldman, 2013, p. 8). Michael L Taylor reflects on the benefits that special collections exhibitions offer not only to the patrons but also, internally, to library staff, library collections and library operations (2018). Taylor writes that: ‘exhibitions offer many rewards besides their principal one of engaging and educating the public’ (2018, p. 122) and ‘they enhance knowledge across a broad spectrum that extends well beyond the visitor experience’ (2018, p. 132).

As Albert H Leisinger Jr points out, ‘an exhibits program should have an objective’ (1963, p. 77). The institutions that took part in my 2017 pilot study (‘A Survey of Exhibition Practices’) provided varied answers to the question: ‘What are the main goals of the exhibition program?’ I am reporting the answers below (unpublished data/written response to survey questions):

Georgia State University Special Collections and Archives: ‘For some time, it has just been there as ‘something nice to look at’ if people wander up to the 8th floor. Going forward, we hope to change that and make the space more purposeful by drawing people up to see the exhibits, to engage them more with the space and our collections’ (Christina Zamon, 14 April 2017, question 21).

The Getty Research Institute: ‘To promote our collections and to spur research on art historical subjects’ (Marcia Reed and Christina Aube, 19 May 2017, question 21).

The Grolier Club: To promote knowledge of and appreciation for book and print history, production and trade (as reported by Jennifer Sheehan, 13 April 2017, question 21).

Harry Ransom Center (The University of Texas at Austin): ‘The primary goals of the program are to develop exhibitions that: Make an intellectual contribution and provide a balance of concepts. Are innovative and demonstrate a standard of excellence. Have broad appeal for diverse, intergenerational audiences including school groups and families. Build community interest, understanding, and support. Showcase Ransom Center collections’ (Cathy Henderson, 14 April 2017, question 21).

Santa Clara University Archives and Special Collections: ‘To support student success, and as part of an overall marketing and donor development strategy’ (Nadia Nasr, 2 May 2017, question 21).

The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Rare Books and Special Collections: ‘To highlight RBSC materials that members of the UBC community and beyond might not know we have available; to engage with community members who are not familiar with RBSC in general; to provide students in the iSchool with a positive learning experience when they take on curation projects’ (Chelsea Shriver, Katherine Kalsbeek and Krisztina Laszlo, 20 April 2017, question 21).

University of California, Los Angeles, Library Special Collections: ‘To promote UCLA Library materials. In Special Collections, we are especially interested in contextualizing the content of archives and special collections materials, to promote interest among our constituents in their use’ (Genie Guerard and Octavio Olvera, 5 May 2017, question 21).

The University of Utah, J. Willard Marriott Library, Special Collections Division: ‘To highlight special collections and material use through intelligently constructed and beautifully designed presentations; to expand our communities of followers, researchers, and prospective donors; and to further the mission of the University Library’ (Todd Samuelson and Alison Conner, 24 April 2017, question 21).

Vancouver Public Library, Information Services, Special Collections: ‘To promote discovery of Special Collections’ diverse resources’ (Tim McMillan, 16 June 2017, question 21); ‘VPL Special Collections’ exhibits are, as much as possible, tied to the city’s cultural calendar’ (question 36).

The themes emerging from these answers include: highlighting and publicizing collections, promoting their use, reaching out to different communities and engaging visitors, providing context and interpretation, being innovative and promoting cultural discourse, promoting research and highlighting specific topics, supporting student success and donor development. The University of British Columbia’s remark about providing ‘students in the iSchool [Information School/School of Library, Archival and Information Studies] with a positive learning experience when they take on curation projects’ (Chelsea Shriver, Katherine Kalsbeek and Krisztina Laszlo, 20 April 2017, question 21) demonstrates how exhibitions can be used as a teaching and career-building tool that benefits students, an approach adopted by many (Traister, 2003, pp. 90–91), including myself. The answers listed above confirm the current trend of ‘opening up’ collections and services, putting users first; see, among others, Smith (2006), Traister (2003) and Dow Schull (2015).

How do we engage with our audiences?

All the survey participants reported that their exhibitions are free and open to the general public and discussed a variety of topics, audiences and attendance. Two institutions noted that their audience does not change according to the exhibition topic, while the majority of respondents indicated that different topics attract different kinds of visitors. The Vancouver Public Library noted that ‘the primary audience for Special Collections exhibits may vary according to theme. However, all exhibits are made with an awareness that they should be inviting and visually appealing to school-age children and their families’ (Tim McMillan, 16 June 2017, question 40). The participants reported varying degrees of average attendance; examples include ‘low’; 5000 per exhibition; and up to 150,000 in 5 months. The survey participants reported a number of exhibitions and displays per year ranging from 2 to 16.

The exhibition itself and the space it is housed in are the most immediate ways we engage with our audiences. How the space is designed, where exhibitions are located, how visible they are, how welcoming and accessible they are: space tells a story, is an indication of how valued the exhibition program is, and how it has evolved over time. How we enter the space is also important. Some spaces are open and inviting, but visitors generally have to comply with policies, such as ‘no food’, ‘no backpacks’ and so on. When exhibitions are housed in a special collections or archives reading room, requirements may be stricter (at times, even presenting an ID). It is very important to present these policies to visitors, especially new users, in a welcoming and nonthreatening way. The institutions that participated in the survey described multiple locations for their displays, generally a combination of one or two main exhibition spaces, as well as individual cases, or clusters of cases, placed in other parts of the building or in other buildings. The layouts discussed range from display cases inside the reading room to major gallery spaces. The University of California, Los Angeles, listed six different locations. The complexity of the exhibition set-up varies, and the number of people dedicated to exhibition work ranges from one to ten, with larger groups available to help, depending on the exhibition and the structure of the institution. For example, the Getty Research Institute reported that ‘exhibitions are designed by Getty Museum designers. We occasionally hire independent designers’ (Marcia Reed and Christina Aube, 19 May 2017, question 9). Those involved in exhibitions received on-the-job training, professional outside training or a combination.

Beyond the exhibition itself, there are different ways to engage with our audiences. One way is through programming and publicity; most commonly: exhibition openings, talks, screenings, events and activities aimed at different groups, guided tours, social media presence, marketing, press and other publicity. Online components, too, such as a companion digital exhibition, posting a video of the physical exhibition, posting the exhibition catalog and more. There is ample literature about programming around exhibitions (e.g. Macdonald et al., 2015), and all the survey participants reported various levels of activities. For example, the Getty Research Institute commented on the importance of their tours.

Exhibition catalogs are another way to engage visitors, as well as those who could not see the exhibition in person. Some institutions sell the catalogs, others distribute them free of cost and others have stopped producing catalogs or never produced them. Of the institutions that replied to my survey, Georgia State University, the University of California, Los Angeles, The University of Utah and the Vancouver Public Library indicated that they do not create exhibition catalogs. Santa Clara University reported that they create catalogs for some exhibitions and distribute them free of charge. The Harry Ransom Center reported that they ‘publish catalogues or companion book publications for select exhibitions, which are available for sale in our gift shop. Occasionally we produce keepsakes, which are generally distributed to exhibition visitors for free’ (Cathy Henderson, 14 April 2017, question 48). The Getty Research Institute, and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, indicated that they create catalogs for most exhibitions, but not all, and they sell them to the public. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, added that they had ‘been experimenting with providing printouts of the catalogue in the reading room for visiting patrons and having the catalogues available for digital download through the website, in order to allow greater access to the interpretive material at no cost’ (Chelsea Shriver, Katherine Kalsbeek and Krisztina Laszlo, 20 April 2017, question 48). The Grolier Club stated that each exhibition is associated with some sort of publication, which is sold to the general public (as reported by Jennifer Sheehan, 13 April 2017, question 48). Although different institutions, depending on their capacity and their main focus, take different approaches when it comes to catalogs, catalogs are still an important part of many exhibitions, and their importance is recognized by the profession. Since 1986, the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, a division of the American Library Association/ALA) has been administering the Katharine Kyes Leab and Daniel J. Leab American Book Prices Current Exhibition Awards (RBMS Exhibition Awards Committee, 2015). This award is considered very prestigious and is prized by administrators. Catalogs often become a scholarly tool and can have a life of their own as monographs; Herbert Sanborn and Nelson Burr write that

some catalogues are designed for study or to stimulate a wider knowledge of the subject of the exhibit. Such publications are an integral part of the exhibition and provide in fact another dimension to the effectiveness of the presentation, as they are designed to reach a potentially larger audience outside the exhibition hall. (1954, p. 265)

Unfortunately, though, not every institution can afford to produce catalogs, and, even when the funding is available, some administrators discourage catalog production because of the time and resources required.

Assessment is also a way to engage with audiences; some special collections, rare book libraries and archives are more involved than others. Literature on metrics and assessment in archives and special collections libraries addresses exhibitions. The Society of American Archivists (SAA) and ACRL/RBMS issued a standard for statistical measures and metrics for public services, which contains a section about exhibitions (SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force, 2018, pp. 51–57). The standard recommends to ‘count the number of individuals who visit a physical exhibition’ (SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force, 2018, p. 52) and also suggests ‘using a guestbook to solicit visitor contact information and comments’ (SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force, 2018, p. 52). This is what we currently do at the Cushing Library. The majority of the institutions that participated in my 2017 survey track attendance.

Many of us stop at tracking attendance numbers and collecting guestbook comments, but a true assessment of the impact of exhibitions on our audiences would require going beyond numbers. In the abstract to her chapter on visitor studies, Lee Davidson states that ‘Visitor studies is occupying an increasingly central space within museum practice and theory’ (2015, p. 503) and addresses the need ‘to expand the strategic role of visitor research by integrating it across a broad range of museum functions to demonstrate value, improve performance, and ensure overall organizational sustainability’ (2015, p. 503). The Harry Ransom Center showed a multifaceted approach:

As the budget permits and the value of doing so is merited, we conduct surveys and focus groups to test community interest in a proposed exhibition topic, to identify community response to exemplary content imagery, to test what the community thinks is a compelling exhibition title, etc. We ask visitors to complete exit interviews and occasionally will convene follow-up focus groups to tell us about their experiences visiting the exhibition. We also set goals for each exhibition that help us with internal planning: general attendance, donations, tour attendance, eNews signups, merchandise sales, and promotional YouTube views. We track these goals weekly through our Visitor Services department; a dashboard is shared with colleagues throughout the building each week. (Cathy Henderson, 14 April 2017, question 46)

This approach is valuable because it engages with the audience even during the planning stages. The other eight institutions that participated in my 2017 survey stated that they did not have formal exhibition assessment programs at the time. Three mentioned listening to informal feedback. Georgia State University wrote: ‘We are in the process of developing metrics and assessment tools for a variety of functions in Special Collections and assessment of our foot traffic to the gallery will be included’ (Christina Zamon, 14 April 2017, question 46). The Vancouver Public Library stated:

At present, the library is not measuring the impact of our exhibitions in either a quantitative or qualitative way. However, the development of the eighth floor as an experiential exhibit space and the associated recruitment of a new management position will. (Tim McMillan, 16 June 2017, question 46)

The Getty Research Institute mentioned having ‘visitor surveys in the past’ (Marcia Reed and Christina Aube, 19 May 2017, question 46). Similarly, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, mentioned conducting ‘a post-exhibition survey once, when we thought we would be writing an article about the exhibition (a multisite/collaborative display)’; they also mentioned measuring impact through the number of handouts taken by visitors, although they knew this number might not reflect actual viewings of the exhibition (Chelsea Shriver, Katherine Kalsbeek and Krisztina Laszlo, 20 April 2017, question 46).

In this article, because of space limitations, I will not focus on how exhibitions are developed and designed, and how the physical space is constructed. There is ample literature about these topics, and I hope to address elsewhere my own experience and the experience of those who participated in the survey. I will mention here, though, that accessibility has to be at the forefront of any exhibition, large or small, addressing different levels of knowledge, as well as various abilities (Charlton, 1998; Department of Justice, 2010; Serrell, 2015; Smithsonian Institution Accessibility Program, 1996). The content has to be diverse and inclusive, and relevant to a variety of audiences (Caldera and Neal, 2014; Gustina and Guinnee, 2017). We want everyone to feel welcome, and, in a way, at home (Hudson, 2018).

What are some of the components of a successful exhibition program, and what should we focus on when the budget is low?

What are the basic concerns that need to be addressed in every exhibition or display, no matter the budget amount? Making our exhibitions as accessible as possible, as discussed above, is essential. We might not be able to address every aspect of accessibility, but we need to do everything we can within our means, and advocate for larger efforts. All the survey participants showed understanding of and commitment to accessibility, with varying degrees of implementation and an acknowledgment that more needs to be done. Physical accessibility was addressed the most (including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act/ADA, accessible display cases, large-print labels, etc.), with an awareness, but lesser implementation, of cognitive and sensory accessibility issues.

The expertise of the team engaged in the exhibition is essential, as well as a focused approach. Research and selection are always key, independently from the size and complexity of the display or exhibition; we should convey a clear focus and a coherent narrative. Dedicating the necessary amount of time to exhibition work is also key: the people involved in exhibitions usually have other duties, including providing reference, teaching, processing and more. As discussed in the section above, the institutions that responded to the survey have varying numbers of people involved in exhibition work, in some cases (four) as their main job, in the other cases as one of many activities. It is very important that administrators acknowledge and support the effort that goes into exhibitions, and the overall workload should be assessed and balanced.

Clear communication and collaboration, internally and with other units, is essential and acknowledged by the literature and the survey participants. Another important component is communicating with the audience and properly advertising, through social media, the press, events and so on. Proper assessment, as discussed earlier, should also be a component.

Good exhibition planning is key to successful exhibitions. In the abstract of his chapter on project management for museum exhibitions, Dean writes that ‘exhibition planning is often serendipitous, disorganized, and reactive. If approached without clear focus, the outcomes are invariably less successful and often unsatisfying for both the staff and the audience’ (2015, p. 357). Lacher-Feldman (2013) and Dean (1996), among other authors, provide detailed planning instructions and models, covering the entire exhibition cycle. Having a calendar of exhibitions is very important, and even small displays should be planned ahead of time, although some flexibility is required. The institutions that participated in the 2017 survey have an exhibition calendar (at the time of the survey, one institution was in the process of developing a calendar). All institutions indicated that exhibitions are part of their regular outreach programming and are scheduled between 6 months and 5 years in advance; the Harry Ransom Center indicated that they generally schedule 3 years in advance, but they schedule 4 to 5 years in advance if a catalog or book is going to be produced.

Planning ahead enables the institution to secure funding. Funding may come from different sources, and institutions do not always have dedicated exhibition budgets. Five of the survey participants answered that they do not have a dedicated budget. Four institutions answered that they have dedicated budgets, although the full amount was not always disclosed, especially for the institutions with more resources available. The amounts disclosed varied from a few hundred dollars to several thousands.

To properly plan, as well as to make the most of the funding we have, it is important to know what everything costs. It is also important to look at different providers and compare prices. At the Cushing Library, I have developed a ‘budget reference sheet’, which lists expenses for recent exhibitions and is constantly updated. I would also encourage environmentally-friendly approaches, which are often less costly, too. For example, instead of using foam core for exhibitions labels, use heavy cardstock, which can be easily recycled. Or, for simple displays, paper placed inside plexiglass sign holders, which are sold in many different sizes. It is important to reuse supplies, when appropriate. For example, acid-free board used to support an item in an exhibition can be reused in another display, if still clean and strong. While some institutions invest considerable resources in exhibitions and related programming, others have limited budgets or do not feel the need to invest significant resources. The literature has long discussed how to achieve the best results even on a low budget (Bruder, 1959; Coplan, 1958; Lacher-Feldman, 2013), and the need to be good stewards of resources (e.g. Lacher-Feldman, 2013). I have worked with different budgets, and, like many of my colleagues, I have learned how to make everything look good even when resources are limited.

We should always exercise the highest degree of care when handling and displaying each item. A photograph that is curling up, a book whose text block is not properly supported, a uniform or performance dress that is wrinkled and poorly mounted: items displayed with limited care become damaged, but also take away from the content and look of the exhibition. Display cases need to be properly cleaned and maintained for the duration of the exhibition; proper care conveys respect for the items and the viewers. The Mona Lisa is protected by ‘especially transparent’ antiglare glass (Goppion, 2013), in a beautiful showcase. If this glass were dirty, the beauty of this masterpiece would shine a little less brightly…Even if we are not displaying the Mona Lisa in a high-tech case, we want to show the best of care.

There are many other aspects that make an exhibition program successful, but the few discussed above represent a good foundation: accessibility; having strong expertise and a clear vision; allocating the right amount of time; effective communication and collaboration; advertising and establishing a relationship with the audience; assessment; proper planning and budgeting; securing the necessary funding; and, of course, proper care and mounting of items. These aspects are relevant to all exhibitions, independently of size and complexity.

What are the challenges of exhibition work?

Physical exhibitions are extremely rewarding but can be very time-consuming. When embarking in a new project, we need to balance our efforts with the actual impact of the exhibition. The measure of success is contingent to the context, mission and size of the institution. Success at the Museum of Modern Art in New York may look very different from success in a small local historical museum. We need to set clear parameters and make sure that our efforts are time- and cost-effective, and that we know what we want to achieve. We generally aim at building complex and thoroughly researched exhibitions, but at times we may simply want to create ‘something nice to look at’ (Christina Zamon, 14 April 2017, question 21) or may need to construct a meaningful display with limited effort (Schmidt, 1965).

Even small displays or short-term exhibitions require time for basic research, design, preparation and installation, especially if more than one person is involved in the process. It might take just 1 or 2 hour to pull together a very simple display, if it is based on a subject we know well and it requires no exhibition labels to be produced. In many special collections and archives, small displays rotate throughout the year, and some institutions have multiple displays at the same time. Large and complex exhibitions require much greater effort. It can take a year, and usually longer, to research and plan a large exhibition. A large exhibition also requires marketing, publicity and programming activities on a large scale and may require fund-raising efforts. If a catalog and other printed materials are produced, this adds to the cost and the amount of time. Loans and collaborative exhibitions across institutions present another layer of complexity, as do international exhibitions.⁵

Some of the aspects of exhibition work that can be viewed as challenges include cost, time and effort, as well as preservation, security and other concerns; see, for example, Powers (1978). These factors often cross over multiple units; pressure and tight deadlines may generate tension at times. Exhibition catalogs, brochures and other printed materials require additional costs and invite additional scrutiny. As mentioned earlier, some administrators discourage the use of funding for catalogs. Another challenge of exhibition work that is often discussed is the fact that some administrators question or downplay the amount of effort that goes into exhibitions. Archivists and librarians who have faculty status sometimes do not receive proper recognition for exhibition work, when it comes to merit and promotion. Novara and Novara write that ‘Exhibits remain an undervalued form of scholarly communication for academic librarians, archivists, and curators’ (2017, p. 356).

Space is an important commodity in most institutions, and how to use the available space is an important decision. Nadia Nasr, Head of Archives and Special Collections, Santa Clara University, in answering the survey, brought up some interesting points with regard to their beautifully designed dedicated exhibition space. She discussed the struggle of balancing a full exhibition schedule with an increased demand for instruction:

while exhibits are a nice draw for the campus and local community, we are struggling to maintain a schedule of even two exhibits per year…Additionally, we are having more class visits (undergraduate) that use our collections and, honestly, I feel that we would be better served if the gallery could be repurposed for that kind of instruction. When we have class visits, we typically take the Reading Room offline for individual researchers. (Nadia Nasr, 2 May 2017, question 72)

In follow-up communications, in 2019, Nasr discussed the new approach they adopted: ‘we are in our pilot year using the gallery as a classroom space, though only during the academic year, when we most need a dedicated classroom…We have two major exhibitions lined up for the next two summers’ (Nadia Nasr, 29 January 2019, personal communication/email message to the author). Nasr describes a successful combination approach, in which the exhibition space is effectively used for both exhibitions and instruction, also in coordination with the reading room.

Although exhibition work presents some challenges, they can be overcome through consultation, flexibility, proper planning and communication. The benefits of a strong exhibition program will always outweigh the challenges. Exhibitions are a very effective way to communicate and connect with our audiences.

How do we see our future?

How do we see our future, in terms of our exhibition programs? When asked: ‘Are there areas in which your institution/unit would like to grow or strengthen the exhibition program?’ (question 29), the survey participants discussed different plans and goals, including:

Securing more space (Getty Research Institute).

Renovating the existing space (the Grolier Club; this has been completed).

Adopting additional technology, such as acquiring an interactive MagicBox (Georgia State University).

‘An increased investment in our online repository’ (Vancouver Public Library, Tim McMillan, 16 June 2017, question 29).

‘Increase student involvement in the curation of exhibits’ (Nadia Nasr, 2 May 2017, question 29).

Develop more collaborative exhibitions (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and University of California, Los Angeles).

Touring exhibitions elsewhere (Harry Ransom Center), including internationally (Getty Research Institute).

Exhibition programs at the survey institutions appear to be alive and well, and often expanding.

A view from the Cushing Library

Having presented some of the survey findings, I would like to discuss aspects of work at the Cushing Library.

My professional approach to exhibitions aims at highlighting collections and topics, inviting patrons in, forging connections with different communities, showcasing the institution itself and supporting diversity and inclusivity. I have worked in ‘hybrid’ environments, where the boundaries between archives, special collections, rare book libraries and museums often become blurred. While each environment has important distinctive needs, which have to be understood and supported, the commonalities are often what is showcased in exhibitions. In her article ‘Blurring the Boundaries’, Marcia Reed discusses ‘exhibition contexts in which library, archival, and museum collections have enjoyed notably positive encounters’ (2007, p. 45). Reed writes: ‘Is it in the library or the museum? For those of us who work in libraries, archives, or museums where collections occasionally overlap and cross over, this is a frequent question to which one could respond with another question: does it really matter?’ (2007, p. 45). What matters is engaging patrons and colleagues in positive and enriching experiences.

At the Cushing Library, exhibitions are free and open to the general public; we maintain a 3-year exhibition calendar for our large exhibitions. We have a major exhibition space on the second floor, as well as cases in the lobby, the classroom/meeting room and the reading room. Our assessment is mostly focused on tracking attendance numbers and collecting guestbook comments, but we plan to expand. We already address many accessibility issues, and we are working on a new set of accessibility guidelines for exhibitions.

Our most immediate audience is the campus community, including the families of the students and other campus visitors. But we also attract school visits from kindergarten through high school (K-12) and the general public. Our collaborative off-campus exhibitions and loans reach even broader communities. We have covered a wide range of topics through our exhibitions, including Shakespeare, Don Quixote, decorated papers, African American churches, World War I, LGBTQ+ literature, Texas A&M University history, Texas history and even Elvis Presley…Topics with a broad appeal, of course, attract the largest audiences. Our 2013 Deeper Than Swords exhibition framed the work of author George RR Martin ‘both biographically and culturally’ (Samuelson and Coker, 2013, p. 343) and featured impressive programming, including an HBO-sponsored advance screening of the first episode of season three of the television series Game of Thrones; the overall programming attracted more than 3000 visitors (Samuelson and Coker, 2013). Worlds Imagined: The Maps of Imaginary Places Collection (2017–2018) attracted more than 6000 visitors.

Our effort varies depending on the exhibition. For example, as part of a tribute to Women’s History Month, our Curator of Science Fiction and Fantasy installed a ‘Women of Game of Thrones’ display at the Cushing Library in 2019. We used one vertical case and featured figurines and other Game of Thrones merchandise from the George RR Martin collection. Most of the figurines were housed in the original box and required no mounting, and no printed labels or explanations were produced, since there was enough content to enable patrons to understand the display. It only took a couple of hours to pull this display together. Another Cushing Library 2019 display for Women’s History Month featured about 20 volumes representing women authors, with an international and multilingual focus. I personally put this display together, and it required several steps: requesting and gathering title suggestions from the curators, across multiple collections; reviewing titles; pulling the books and assessing them for preservation/conservation concerns; finalizing title selection; cleaning the display cases; deciding about book placement in the cases; gathering and adapting plexiglass book supports; writing and printing the labels (in this case, simply printed on copy paper and placed inside small plexiglass sign holders); and finally installing the exhibition. Although the display was quite simple, the full process took place over the course of 3 days. As mentioned earlier, large exhibitions require extensive effort, and so do loans and collaborative exhibitions, especially international ones. For example, the Cushing Library’s contribution to the 2014 collaborative exhibition From Texas to Bastogne: Texas Aggies Go War (Bastogne War Museum/Espace Quartier Latin) entailed international shipping costs, customs brokerage, an extended discussion of insurance needs and additional paperwork at the University level.

At the Cushing Library, the majority of faculty and staff has been trained on the job, with high standards. I am currently the dedicated outreach person for the unit, but faculty and staff members take the lead in different exhibitions and displays, and we also work with students and guest curators. We are part of a large and complex library system, and clear communication and collaboration is particularly important to us.

Funding comes from the unit’s budget, endowments and donors. As mentioned earlier, to properly plan it is important to know what everything costs, and I have developed a ‘budget reference sheet’, which lists expenses for recent exhibitions. We constantly update this sheet and include new items and costs as needed. For example, how much did it cost to print different catalogs? How much did we spend on printing labels (if we did not do this in-house)? How much did framing cost? What did we spend on conservation work (if outsourced)? This sheet has greatly helped to predict costs, so we can accurately budget. I favor environmentally-friendly approaches, which are often less costly (e.g. avoid foam core). Expenses differ depending on the needs of the exhibition and the institution, what can be done in-house, what needs to be outsourced and the geographical area we work in. Some areas are more expensive than others; it is important to compare prices and services. At times, printing banners and other graphics in a nearby smaller town can produce equally high-quality results, at a lower cost.

As discussed by Nadia Nasr at Santa Clara University, we also face challenges balancing our exhibition workload and our use of space. The Cushing Library is a beautiful 1930 building, which was fully renovated in the late 1990s; it used to house major exhibitions on both the first and second floor. We had come to install up to four major exhibitions per year on two floors (with up to eight large cases placed on the first floor), and most of us were constantly engaged in some aspect of exhibition work. We provide instruction to thousands of students, and we are a large and busy operation, with almost 12,000 visitors coming through the door each year. As much as I love and support exhibitions, it had become hard to find a balance. We were also looking for ways to make the lobby more inviting and less ‘intimidating’ to our students, and we needed a flexible event space as well. I proposed to restructure the first-floor lobby, limiting the exhibition cases to two, and making the second floor our main exhibition space. Since Fall 2017, the first-floor lobby houses rotating displays, but is mostly occupied by flexible seating, which students are enjoying, and which has been very functional for events. I have to say that my decision was controversial, and the lobby space is not as ‘elegant’ as it used to be: but it is still beautiful and serves our new goals well.

How do we see our future at the Cushing Library? We used to produce catalogs for each exhibition and distribute them free of cost, but we are starting to look at different models, such as producing brochures or online components instead of printed catalogs. We are further developing accessibility. We are always expanding our commitment to diversity and inclusivity, and our current exhibition is dedicated to ‘“The Stars Are Ours”: Infinite Diversities in Science Fiction and Fantasy’ (March 29–September 27, 2019). We are finalizing a comprehensive outreach strategic plan, which will complement and support our exhibition strategy. We are also strengthening collaboration with other institutions; for example, we have started to discuss a new LGBTQ+ exhibition that would involve colleagues and communities in Houston. We also hope to take a more structured approach to assessment.

The Cushing Library has a solid exhibition program and strong practices, with close attention to preservation and conservation concerns. We have good resources and in-house expertise. The areas we want to grow, such as accessibility and assessment, are similar to those indicated by the other institutions addressed through the survey. I am personally interested in developing more programming around exhibitions and expanding our community reach; I see our mission aligned with that of museums. The approach described by the Harry Ransom Center is one that we should explore at the Cushing Library: the approach is valuable because it engages with the audience even during the planning stages. It is very important to develop exhibitions that are of interest to a broader public and are not only based on topics decided in-house.

Conclusion

This article offered an overview of key issues related to physical exhibitions in special collections, rare book libraries and archives. Much more can be discussed, of course, but I hope this article provides its readers with an opportunity to reflect on practices and look at different approaches. It is very important to talk to colleagues and other institutions, and constantly learn from each other. The existing literature is also very valuable in supporting and improving our exhibition work. There is a strong community of people committed to exhibitions, and we should remember this any time we might feel overwhelmed by too many duties or deadlines. Our work is relevant to our audiences and gives positive visibility to our organizations. I hope this article also provides ideas and encouragement to young professionals who are just approaching exhibition work. I feel very lucky in my career and always wish to support those who are entering the profession.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank all the institutions and individuals who participated in her 2017 pilot study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

ACRL/RBMS (January 2012) Guidelines for Interlibrary and Exhibition Loan of Special Collections Materials. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries/Rare Books and Manuscripts Section. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/specialcollections (accessed 9 May 2019).

Berenbak

Putirskis

O’Gara

, et al. (2010) SPEC Kit 317, Special Collections Engagement, August 2010/Survey Results. Washington: Association of Research Libraries.

Berger

(2014) Rare Books and Special Collections. Chicago: Neal-Schuman/American Library Association.

Bruder

(1959) Review of Effective Library Exhibits: How to Prepare and Promote Good Displays, by Kate Copland, with an introduction by Gerald W Johnson. The Library Quarterly 29(4): 285–286.

Caldera

Neal

(eds) (2014) Through the Archival Looking Glass: A Reader on Diversity and Inclusion. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.

Charlton

(1998) Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chute

(2011) ‘What do you mean the museum went bankrupt?’: Lending artifacts to outside institutions. The American Archivist 74(1): 312–322.

Coplan

(1958) Effective Library Exhibits: How to Prepare and Promote Good Displays. New York: Oceana.

Cullingford

(2016) The Special Collections Handbook, 2nd ed. London: Facet.

10.

Davidson

(2015) Visitor studies: toward a culture of reflective practice and critical museology for the visitor-centered museum. In: Macdonald

Rees Leahy

McCarthy

, et al. (eds) The International Handbooks of Museum Studies, vol. 2: Museum Practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 503–528. Abstract available at: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118829059.wbihms222 (accessed 12 May 2019).

11.

Dean

(1996) Museum Exhibition: Theory and Practice. London, New York: Routledge.

12.

Dean

(2015) Planning for success: project management for museum exhibitions. In: Macdonald

Rees Leahy

McCarthy

, et al. (eds) The International Handbooks of Museum Studies, vol. 2: Museum Practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 357–378. Abstract available at: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118829059.wbihms216 (accessed 12 May 2019).

13.

Department of Justice (2010) 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Available at: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards.pdf (accessed 16 May 2019).

14.

Dow Schull

(2015) Archives Alive: Expanding Engagement with Public Library Archives and Special Collections. Chicago: ALA Editions.

15.

Goppion (2013) Musée du Louvre Salle des Etats, Showcase for ‘Mona Lisa’, Paris, France, 2004. Available at: http://www.goppion.com/installations/musee-du-louvre-monnalisa (accessed 2 May 2019).

16.

Gustina

Guinnee

(2017) Why social justice in the library? The case for shifting library policy, practice and culture toward radical inclusivity. Library Journal 142(10): 52–55.

17.

Hudson

(2018) A place called home: encounters with libraries. Alexandria: The Journal of National and International Library and Information Issues 28(1): 40–54.

18.

Hunter

(2003) Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 2nd ed. New York and London: Neal-Schuman.

19.

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)-Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (2004). Guidelines for Exhibition Loans. Den Haag: IFLA. Available at: https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/rare-books-and-manuscripts/guidelines-exhibition-loans/guidelines-exhibition-loans.pdf (accessed 10 May 2019).

20.

Lacher-Feldman

(2013) Exhibits in Archives and Special Collections Libraries. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.

21.

Leisinger

Jr (1963) The exhibit of documents. The American Archivist 26(1): 75–86.

22.

Macdonald

Rees Leahy

McCarthy

, et al. (eds) (2015) The International Handbooks of Museum Studies, vol. 2: Museum Practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

23.

Matassa

(2014) Organizing Exhibitions: A Handbook for Museums, Libraries and Archives. London: Facet.

24.

Novara

(2017) Exhibits as scholarship: strategies for acceptance, documentation, and evaluation in academic libraries. The American Archivist 80(2): 355–372.

25.

Powers

(1978) Why exhibit? The risks versus the benefits. The American Archivist 41(3): 297–306.

26.

RBMS Exhibition Awards Committee (2015) The Katharine Kyes Leab and Daniel J. Leab American Book Prices Current Exhibition Awards. Chicago: American Library Association. Available at: http://rbms.info/committees/exhibition_awards/ (accessed 12 May 2019).

27.

Reed

(2007) Blurring the boundaries: collaborative library and museum exhibitions in Los Angeles. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 8(1): 45–50. This issue of RBM was dedicated to the theme ‘Libraries, Archives, and Museums in the Twenty-First Century: Intersecting Missions, Converging Futures?’

28.

SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force on the Development of Standardized Statistical Measures for Public Services in Archival Repositories and Special Collections Libraries (2018) Standardized statistical measures and metrics for public services in archival repositories and special collections libraries. Chicago: Society of American Archivists and Association of College and Research Libraries/Rare Books and Manuscripts Section. Available at: https://www2.archivists.org/standards/standardized-statistical-measures-and-metrics-for-public-services-in-archival-repositories (accessed 13 May 2019).

29.

Samuelson

Coker

(2013) How we brought 3,000 people to the library…With the help of Mr. George R. R. Martin. College & Research Libraries News 74(7): 342–345 and 356.

30.

Sanborn

Burr

(July 1954) Exhibition catalogs. The American Archivist 17(3): 265–271.

31.

Serrell

(2015) Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach, 2nd ed. Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman and Littlefield.

32.

Schmidt

(1965) The rotating case display: an opportunity. The American Archivist 28(4): 521–525.

33.

Smith

(2015) Users and special collections: access and outreach awareness at the University of North Carolina’s Wilson Library. Master’s Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available at: https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:fc265f94-a03f-4973-8192-3879ed5f579e (accessed 1 May 2019).

34.

Smith

(2006) From ‘treasure room’ to ‘school room’: special collections and education. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 7(1): 31–39.

35.

Smithsonian Institution Accessibility Program (1996) Smithsonian guidelines for accessible exhibition design. Washington: Smithsonian Accessibility Program/National Museum of American History. Available at: https://www.si.edu/Accessibility/SGAED (accessed 14 May 2019).

36.

Taylor

(2018) Special collections exhibitions: How they pay dividends for your library. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage Fall 19(2): 121–132.

37.

Traister

(2003) Public services and outreach in rare book, manuscript, and special collections libraries. Library Trends 52(1): 87–108.

38.

Vancouver Public Library (2018) Annual report. Vancouver: Vancouver Public Library. Available at: https://www.vpl.ca/sites/vpl/public/VPLAnnualReport2018.pdf (accessed 17 July 2019).