When organizations face financial pressure or space constraints, libraries and archives are often an area considered for downsizing. Without an understanding of professional archival and library practices, reducing collections can seem practical: fewer materials mean lower costs and easier management.
However, the decision to shrink a collection carries significant risks. Downsizing threatens the integrity of the collections and the institution’s mission and reputation.
Downsizing versus Deaccessioning
Archivists and librarians distinguish between responsible deaccessioning and downsizing driven by expediency. Deaccessioning, when undertaken as part of a deliberate collections management strategy, has long been recognized as best practice. It reviews items against criteria such as relevance to the mission, duplication, condition, and legal restrictions, and adheres to ethical procedures. Deaccessioning strengthens a collection when archivists or librarians remove materials that are out of scope, allowing them to direct resources to those with higher research or historical value.
Downsizing, on the other hand, is a reactive approach. The process is driven by mandates to cut back—rather than careful planning aligned with professional standards. In these situations, archivists lose materials that are historically significant, contextually valuable, or irreplaceable.
Loss of Institutional Memory
Archives serve as institutional memory. For example, art galleries preserve more than books or documents; they safeguard provenance records, exhibition catalogs, artist files, correspondence, and sources that trace the evolution of collections and the institution itself. Downsizing can erase essential evidence of the gallery’s decisions and relationships.
Similarly, universities rely on archives and libraries to preserve faculty papers, student publications, administrative records, and course catalogs that document the intellectual and cultural life of the campus. Without these resources, researchers lose the ability to trace how communities formed and how the institution evolved over time.
Community organizations preserve oral histories, photographs, and records of grassroots movements in their archives to ensure these stories appear alongside official narratives. Downsizing risks erasing the voices of underrepresented groups and silencing the histories that archives exist to protect.
Once archivists or librarians remove materials, they cannot easily recover them. Even digitization is not a safeguard: scanning projects require resources and expertise, and digital surrogates cannot replace the evidentiary and research value of originals. A downsized collection risks becoming fragmented, making it difficult for researchers to reconstruct the past.
Erosion of Trust
Collections are part of the public trust. Stakeholders expect that archives and libraries will preserve knowledge for the long term. Downsizing erodes that trust, raising concerns about the institution’s stewardship and long-term accountability. Donors hesitate to contribute materials if they fear the institution could later discard their gifts for convenience.
Undermining Expertise
Archivists are trained professionals whose work relies on context and comprehensiveness. Downsizing a collection dismantles systems that archivists have developed. Staff expertise becomes difficult to utilize when materials are unavailable or when the collections no longer align with the organization’s mission. In turn, the institution loses the ability to answer research questions, support exhibitions, or develop publications.
Furthermore, downsizing sends a demoralizing message to staff, suggesting that leaders undervalue their work and the collections they steward. It contributes to the broader challenge of underfunding cultural heritage institutions, discouraging the very professionals tasked with preserving knowledge.
The Hidden Costs of Downsizing Collections
Administrators often see downsizing to save money or free space. The short-term savings, if they are even realized, pale in comparison to the long-term financial and reputational costs. Once collections vanish, the institution may need to pay for services to fill knowledge gaps or face reputational damage that affects donor confidence and grant funding.
Discarded materials can also resurface in the market, embarrass the institution, or trigger legal challenges when it fails to account for how or why it removed them. The hidden costs of downsizing, including lost opportunities, a diminished reputation, and weakened research capacity, can far outweigh the perceived benefits.
The museum field provides a cautionary parallel. In recent years, some museums have attempted to justify selling works from their collections to fund operations or alleviate financial pressures, framing such sales as “direct care” of collections. Critics have condemned these actions widely because they undermine the principle that collections serve the public trust rather than functioning as financial assets to be liquidated in times of need.
Similarly, downsizing archival or library collections risks setting a precedent as damaging as selling artworks for revenue. Just as the public calls on museums to uphold their stewardship responsibilities, archives assert that their holdings are indispensable and essential resources that deserve protection and preservation.
Alternatives to Downsizing
Institutions should consider other strategies before downsizing. Deaccessioning, when performed in accordance with established policies and procedures, ensures that archivists only remove materials unrelated to the mission. Space planning reimagines storage environments with compact shelving or off-site facilities, expanding capacity without discarding holdings; often, creative solutions can provide more space for materials. Agreements with peer institutions can prevent duplication and preserve resources. Advocacy and fundraising, when grounded in evidence of a collection’s impact, show the archives’ vitality to the institution’s mission.
A Larger Issue
The impulse to downsize reflects deeper systemic issues, including underfunding, undervaluing, and a misunderstanding of the archives’ or library’s role. Administrators often view archives and libraries as support functions rather than central to the mission and target them when budgets tighten. Nevertheless, these collections are the backbone of institutional identity. Downsizing them weakens the organization’s ability to tell its story and advance knowledge.
Protecting archives and libraries requires ongoing advocacy. Leaders must articulate their value and connect collections to strategic goals. Downsizing may initially offer short-term relief, but it ultimately impoverishes the institution and diminishes its legacy.
0 Comments