Ohio History Journal

Essay and Comment

OHIO NETWORK OF AMERICAN HISTORY

RESEARCH CENTERS: A PROPOSAL

A general characteristic of Americans has always been the overemphasis on quan-

tity and competition to the point of blurring a full consideration of the advantages

of quality and cooperation. The rapid changes of the twentieth century resulting

in the formation of a complex of ever-increasing interwoven relationships between

people and their institutions necessitates the redirection of traditional patterns of

behavior. The effect of the prevailing competitive mood on the historical profes-

sion, especially in Ohio, in the field of library and archives has been to encourage

major research centers--usually graduate universities, state and municipal histori-

cal societies, and private libraries--to operate as introspective units justifying their

existence solely on their own accomplishments rather than in terms of their role

in the overall historical collection process. This egocentric attitude must be aban-

doned or collections in the research institutions will become so proliferated by the

last quarter of this century that both quality of service and the possibility of coop-

eration between centers will be in jeopardy.

Ohio has the greatest need of the nation's large, industrial urban states to break

through the shibboleths of the past and devise an uniform statewide formula that

will insure the preservation of historically important materials within the state. The

key element making Ohio different from other states is the decentralization of its

population and educational centers. Rather than having the population polarized

in one or two areas, Ohio has six major metropolitan regions.¹ The political and

economic power bases in the state are also in these areas. Higher education in

Ohio reflects this division as the state has developed a series of twelve regional

state-supported schools, and all but Central State University are now offering grad-

uate degrees. Higher education is centered in the six major urban areas: nine of

the twelve schools are in the six metropolitan areas, and the four private graduate

universities--Case Western Reserve University, John Carroll University, Xavier

University, and University of Dayton--are located in large cities.

The growth of graduate programs has been developed on the local levels with-

out benefit of a statewide plan. Proliferation of advanced degree-granting institu-

tions is seen in the dramatic surge of history graduate programs from two Ph.D.

programs in 1960 to seven in 1970 and another two ready to begin in a year or

two, and in a similar rise in M.A. programs from eight in 1960 to sixteen today.²

Once again Ohio appears to have achieved a noble record of quantity without

building at least one graduate history program up to the quality level of such tra-

ditionally strong midwestern schools at the universities of Wisconsin, Michigan,

and Chicago.³ This emphasis on expansion of centers of higher education in Ohio

will have far-reaching consequences for history research centers. The presence of

1. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Akron in order of population.

2. The Ph.D. degree granting universities are: Akron, Case Western Reserve, Cincinnati, Kent

State, Miami, Ohio State, and Toledo. Two schools, Ohio University and Bowling Green State Uni-

versity have Regent approved programs about ready to begin. In addition to these nine schools, all of

which grant master's degrees, are six others that grant only the master's and not the Ph.D. degree:

Cleveland State, Dayton, John Carroll, Wright State, Xavier, and Youngstown State.

3. In the most recent rating of graduate schools by department, not one Ohio history department

placed in the top twenty schools, yet Ohio is fifth in the nation in population and fourth in wealth.

See American Council on Education, An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education (Washington,

D.C., 1966), 38-39.

• 1
 

Essay and Comment                                                          63

a growing, dynamic community of history scholars and graduate students will

require more library-archives materials, and also it will make increasing demands

on existing facilities. This demand will have to be met in a coordinated conscious

fashion, or collection and research centers will soon become independently ineffec-

tive due to overlapping programs and lack of necessary funds. To take advantage

of the existing regional divisions in the state, effort must be made to designate

areas of jurisdiction for the best use of facilities and materials.

For the purpose of providing a reference scale for this proposal for the Ohio

Network of American History Research Centers, I define the three aspects of a

"research center" as follows: (1) The "collecting area" is a combined archives-

library program that collections the four general areas of research materials--printed

materials, newspapers, special collections, and archives--with special attention to

nationwide coverage in secondary source materials and with a detailed regional

scope for original source materials within its multi-county Ohio district. (2) "Sep-

arate identity" indicates the research center as a separate unit within the parent

institution's organizational structure. For example, in the historical societies the

archives-library function might be a separate division while in the universities the

research center might be a part of the library or a unit reporting directly to the

vice-president for academic affairs. Physically, it should have its own area with

reading room, work space, offices, and stacks. (3) The "staff and budget" are the

personnel and money required to maintain a research center. To provide service

according to best professional standards, each center would need at least four on

its staff: an administrator with a M.A. or Ph.D. in American history, an archivist,

a librarian, and a clerk. The operating budget, used for salaries, supplies, equip-

ment, travel, and purchases, should total between $25,000 to $50,000 after the

research center is fully operative.

There are at present five American history research centers in Ohio that meet

the three requirements listed above: three historical societies, Cincinnati Historical

Society, Ohio Historical Society, and Western Reserve Historical Society; and two

topical repositories, the American Jewish Archives and the Rutherford B. Hayes

Library. The network I am proposing would consist of repositories that would col-

lect general Americana and specific state and local materials for all periods of

American and Ohio history, with representative collections in all fields. The two

topical repositories listed are of such a specialized nature that they would not be

dependent on the network, although they would be willing to cooperate on special

projects that might be of mutual interest.

Of the seven proposed regions of the network, three are now covered by the

existing historical societies. The other four do not now have any strong collecting

agency which is assuming responsibility for the region. Even though there are at

least one hundred academic, special, and public libraries that have reference ma-

terials on Ohio (usually books and local newspapers, and over fifty institutions

holding at least one major manuscripts collection), none of these institutions has

a separate research unit staffed with professional archivists and librarians for the

purpose of collecting materials on national and state history.

The Ohio Historical Society is charged by its charter to insure the preserva-

tion of Ohio's historical heritage, both the documentary record and the three di-

mensional object. Recognizing that four regions of the state have no active

collecting centers, the Society has the options of maintaining the status quo, of

centralizing all local and state materials (except for Cleveland and Cincinnati) in

• 2
 

64                                                                    OHIO HISTORY

Columbus, of setting up separate libraries in the four areas, or of working with

existing institutions to create new independent research centers where they are

needed. During the past three years since the idea for regional research centers

was first publicly discussed,⁴ I have had a number of meetings with members of

the academic community, librarians, archivists, and administrators concerning the

proposal and its implementation. On the basis of these conversations and after

considerable field travel in Ohio, my conclusion is that the option of working

within existing centers to form a federation of institutions is the best way to meet

Ohio's history collection and research needs.

The underlying assumption for this plan is that unless a specified number of

research centers are selected and mutually supported, the growing number of grad-

uate programs in history will generate twenty or thirty collection centers, mostly in

universities, that will compete in the collection of primary source material. None of

these new centers could be expected to reach the point independently of building

their "area," "identity," or staff and budget to the level needed to sustain a quality

program. At the present time, no university in Ohio has sponsored a program in

archives-library that demonstrates a full commitment to the research center idea.⁵

Now is the time, in my opinion, to select one institution in each of the four regions

lacking a center that will win approval of the other three. Further, in the three

active regions, every effort should be made to encourage Case Western Reserve Uni-

versity, Cleveland State University, and John Carroll University to cooperate with

the Western Reserve Historical Society; for Ohio State University to continue its

agreement of 1956 with the Ohio Historical Society not to collect "material relating

primarily to Ohio"; and for the University of Cincinnati, Miami University, and

Xavier University to help the Cincinnati Historical Society begin comprehensive

collecting of twentieth century materials. All these graduate schools that are neigh-

bors of the three historical societies should be represented on the board of trustees

and on advisory committees so that they play a positive role in making policies for

the library-archives programs of the research centers.

In Ohio, a research center, I believe, needs to be part of a metropolitan or state

historical society, or part of a university complex that offers graduate degrees in

history and related disciplines. In short, it must be part of a parent institution

sharing in its prestige and financial resources to adequately support the endeavor.

Further, it must be identified in that region as the official repository so that the

other institutions in the region will not have competing programs, but rather will

cooperate in building up the one regional center. Obviously the network members

will have no punitive means of preventing other repositories from developing com-

peting collections. However, under a smoothly running network, any non-network

member would operate in a number of key areas at a disadvantage relative to the

network members.

 

4. In a speech by the author to the Ohio Academy of History in April 1967. For a summary of

the speech, see the Ohio Historical Society, Echoes, June 7, 1967. [2].

5. Two universities have recently made commendable starts. The University of Akron library has

supported the flourishing "Archives of the History of American Psychology" and a university archives.

If it would set up a regional history collection for central northeast Ohio and combine the three

research sections into one unit as the "Social Science Research Center" under one professional archiv-

ist, it would reach research center scope. Bowling Green State University has recently forged ahead

under the leadership of history professor Richard Wright to form the "Great Lakes-Northwest Ohio

Research Center." The program has the active support of the administration and several depart-

ments. The directions this center might take will be seen as collecting activities get underway.

• 3
 

A prime reason for constructing a network at this time is that there is an accel- erated interest in local materials. The influence of behaviorism, particularly from sociology and political science, has led to new directions in historical methodology. Much more emphasis is being placed on testing long-held generalizations about local situations and on the development of urban and ethnic-group studies atten- dant to this movement. Since Ohio has six large metropolitan areas that can be used as models for urban research, the pressing need for a cooperative network becomes all the more apparent. Historians and social scientists need broader and varied types of source materials--county and municipal records, oral history tran- scripts, machine readable data, maps and photographs, public opinion surveys-to do research employing the newer techniques. The proposed network would pro- vide the facilities to develop the expertise necessary to supply these research materials and to furnish a base so that such an expansion would be possible on a statewide scale. The network should be implemented in 1970 by bringing together the three his- torical societies and four state universities. In two of the four potential regions the choice of repositories is clear. In southeast Ohio only Ohio University has the fa- cilities to properly develop a research center. Ohio University should immediately consider setting up within the library an "Appalachia Research Center" to pull together existing information collecting programs with support from Federal and

• 4
 

66                                                                OHIO HISTORY

university sources. Similarly, in the central southwest region Wright State Univer-

sity, as a new school, has the opportunity to build a Social Science Research

Center within its area.⁶ The other two potential regions, northwest Ohio and cen-

tral northeast Ohio, are alike in that each has a pair of large, well established

universities which offer history graduate degrees. The ideal arrangement would be

for jointly-sponsored research centers to be established either at Bowling Green

State University or the University of Toledo in region four, and at Kent State

University or the University of Akron in region two.

The thrust of the network will be to administer collecting programs of local

materials within the geographical districts. The Ohio Historical Society would be

the headquarters of the network with statewide responsibility for coordinating in-

formation, providing consultative service, and administering special-project monies.

In addition, the Ohio Historical Society would have a local collecting function in

central Ohio. The result would be a statewide three-layer hierarchy composed of

one statewide coordinating agency, seven local collecting repositories, and a num-

ber of small repositories within each region. The network will have as its goal the

systematic collection, cataloging, and referencing of all historically important

materials, in whatever form, for the entire state. The network, in my opinion,

should be set up from the start with centers designated in all seven regions. This

means that one repository should be selected in each of the four regions lacking

a center as soon as possible. The head administrator at each institution should be

the official representative although he could appoint one of his staff to represent

the institution in the network.

The legal basis for the network should be a simple contract agreement pledg-

ing each institution to meet on a regular schedule with the other network mem-

bers to discuss existing programs of cooperation and plan for new projects. The

mechanism for reaching consensus for specific areas of cooperative effort would

be the passage of guidelines by a vote of the network members. Some of the pos-

sible areas of cooperation that might be considered by network members for incor-

poration into guidelines are as follows:

PRINTED MATERIALS (books, pamphlets, periodicals, government documents)--sale

or exchange of duplicate copies on a preferential basis to other network mem-

bers, photoduplication of rare items, serve as cooperating libraries for the union

bibliography of printed state documents, share microfilm responsibilities for key

periodicals, maintain a union card catalog in machine readable format.

NEWSPAPERS (daily and weekly general press, specialized press)--acquisition pro-

gram to locate runs of all Ohio newspapers, preparation of a union guide to

newspapers in Ohio, exchange of microfilm, indexing of selected papers.

SPECIAL COLLECTIONS (iconography: maps, photographs, prints, broadsides; and

audio-visuals: tape recordings, phonograph records, movie film)--consultation in

bidding from dealers, duplicate any iconography and audio-visuals that pertain

to another region, share specialized photographic and recording equipment,

compile guides to maps and photographs.

ARCHIVES (government records, private manuscripts, oral history, data archives)--

inter-library loan of original collections, shared use of the restoration laboratory

6. A team of three history professors, Jacob Dorn, Paul Merriam, and Carl Becker received recently

a large National Science Foundation grant to prepare an inventory of research materials for the city

of Dayton. The results of this project would provide the data base for a collecting program by Wright

State University.

• 5
 

Essay and Comment                                                        67

at the new Ohio Historical Center, serve as official repositories for county and

municipal records, jointly sponsor oral history interview series, central computer

facilities for data archives with terminals at each network center.

The network boundaries will work well in regard to unique source material that

can be identified only with a particular region. The one overlapping area where

competition would still exist would be for collections of state and national impor-

tance that also have local origin significance. However, the formal mechanism of

the network will partly alleviate this difficulty by the provisions for inter-library

loan and photocopy of materials.

While most of the guidelines will be implemented by the network centers out

of their own operating budgets, careful attention should be given to soliciting private

and governmental funds for inter-institutional statewide programs. The first attempt

to secure common funding for the network should be attempted in the 1971-1973

biennial state budget request of the Ohio Historical Society. While the Society

could probably not provide operating fund allotments to the other six network

members, it can contract with them for specific projects. Two projects the Ohio

Historical Society should propose is a county and municipal records project and a

newspaper project.

The local records project should aim to put all county and municipal records on

schedule, with noncurrent records either cared for in the office of origin or in a

regional network center; or if the records have no historical, administrative, legal,

or fiscal value, they should be destroyed to avoid the overcrowded conditions facing

almost all of Ohio's city halls and county courthouses. Included in the project

would be the publication of a county and a municipal manual for use by public

officials; and a microfilm program to secure positive copies of film for network

centers. The newspaper project would be a two year statewide program on Ohio

newspapers, involving collecting original papers, particularly the special interest

press, like business, labor, organizations; microfilming papers not already filmed

by commercial companies or by other research institutions; preparing computer

indexes on a selective basis for state and local news items in one paper for each

region; and compile a second edition to the Union Guide to Newspapers in Ohio.

The allocation of money by the state legislature for one or both of these proj-

ects, along with the immediate passage of five to ten of the items in the guide-

lines, would give the network a solid core of cooperative projects for the next

three to five years. By the middle of the decade the working relationships and

procedures will be established and a new round of projects will have begun.

This network proposal, I believe, offers the best solution to insuring an orderly

growth of American history research centers in Ohio. The alternative, it seems to

me, would be to have fifteen to twenty research centers, all except three or four

poorly supported, resulting in large geographical areas of the state unserviced and

types of materials needed for urban studies unaccessioned. Since five of the seven

institutions are state supported, the network seems to be a good vehicle for expend-

ing state funds and expanding public support. It also would provide a strong base

on which to build statewide projects funded by special project grants. If the net-

work should be established and should prove successful. I believe it would push

Ohio into the front ranks nationally in the preservation of local, state, and national

source materials for research.

DAVID R. LARSON, Chief,

Archives and Manuscripts Division, Ohio Historical Society

• 6