In the midst of rapid social changes such as informatization and globalization, universities are in more urgent need of competition for adaptation to and survival in a new environment than any other organization. One of the responsibilities new enviro...
In the midst of rapid social changes such as informatization and globalization, universities are in more urgent need of competition for adaptation to and survival in a new environment than any other organization. One of the responsibilities new environmental changes call on universities to assume is the establishment of university archives. The importance of the university archives lies in its primary function as historical evidence that can prove the existence of the universities and the reason of their existence.
The purpose of this study is to examine the level of universities in Korea to fulfilling the new responsibility of administering university archives programs by surveying the university archives in Korea and analyzing them. The results of this study show that the overall standard of the archival management system falls short of the standard and the management system is not consistent with the actual circumstances of each university. The specific details about the current situation of the management of archives in universities in Korea and suggestions for future improvement are as follows.
First, the total number of universities that manage university archives amounts to 45; among them, 18 universities or 39.13percent are national or public, and 27 universities or 15.25percent private.
Second, most universities started managing their archival holdings after 1999 when the law related was enacted and national and public universities in particular were heavily influenced by the enactment of the law.
Third, it is critical for the university archives to establish itself as an independent organization with identity in drawing up long-term visions of the university and comprehensive plans. Unfortunately, however, university archives in most universities in Korea tend to be affiliated to the offices in charge of existing related programs.
Fourth, the titles of the archives in charge of managing university record is not consistent and the titles the offices are referred to as do not manifest their autonomous functions in managing university records and archives.
Fifth, the collection of university records does not transcend the scope of its archival holdings, which calls for more active and aggressive measures to collect materials through the cooperative system with other universities.
Sixth, each university should collect university records through an active publicity campaign on the one hand and build a cooperative system with other universities and endeavor to collect university records in partnership with other universities on the other.
Seventh, as the arrangement of professional manpower for the management of records falls short of any reasonable standard, it is difficult to expect their independent right and role in evaluating records and administering the whole managing system.
Finally, the utilization of preserved records in each university is limited to the exhibition of them and the publication of periodical journals. It is necessary to find various ways to utilize collected materials and expand sound usage of them as historical evidence and a means to publicize the university.
As the results of the study clearly show, what is at stake in the current circumstances in managing university archival holdings in Korea is to find solutions to improve the current poor management of university archival holdings in the future. Above all, it requires support at the governmental level rather than relying entirely on the internal awareness and effort of the universities themselves.