Impact of training and institutional context on book conservation practices
A web-based survey of book conservation treatment practices in research libraries was conducted in 2007. Survey results were summarized in a 2010 report that documented standard practice, moderate-use, and low-use book conservation treatments for special collections and general collections in research libraries in the United States. Similarities and differences between special and general collections practices were highlighted. In an effort to better understand the differences in practices observed in the first report, the authors revisit the data to identify whether, and how, the demographic characteristics of book conservation practitioners are correlated with particular treatment practices. Noting the trend suggested in the literature toward both hybrid facilities—those dedicated to both special and general collections—as well as hybrid practitioners, the authors were especially curious whether such facilities and practitioners might approach treatment differently. The data collected in 2007 were analyzed to identify whether key demographic variables—such as practitioner training, type of collections served by a practitioner, size of library, type of library, and type of conservation facility—were correlated with specific treatment practices. In this report, specific trends associated with the demographic variables are identified and explored. Areas of further research suggested by the results of the study are identified.
A Comparison of Standard Practice Treatments in Research Library Book Conservation, 2007 to 2017
In 2007, a web-based survey of book conservation practices was conducted to document standard-practice, moderate-use, and low-use book conservation treatments for general and special collections in research libraries in the United States. This paper reports on the findings of a ten-year follow-up survey conducted in 2017 to determine whether and how book conservation treatment practices have changed over the last ten years. Overall, the data indicate that while general collections treatment practices have remained consistent, special collections practices continue to evolve, with many treatments newly qualifying as standard practice in the special collections context since 2007. The data also suggest areas of further research, including how demographic factors may correlate with particular treatment practices.
Similarities in protozoan and flatworm habituation behavior.
ONE problem in the study of habituation in protozoa is that similar results, given the same experimental manipulations, may not be obtained in metazoa. I shall compare habituation behaviour in the protozoan Spirostomum with that in the micrometazoan Rhabdocoel flatworm Stenostomum; it remains to be shown whether there is a correspondence between protozoa and metazoa both in behaviour and in their underlying chemical processes. Both these organisms contract in response to mechanical and touch stimuli: when subjected to repeated stimulation, they habituate1. Furthermore, the more intense the stimulus, the longer it takes for habituation to occur1.