| The impact of RAMP studies in the field of education |
Answers to questions 3, 4 and 5 were again broken down by RAMP study. The answers reveal at times surprising disparities between the different geographical regions surveyed. For example, the McCLEARY study (PGI-87/WS/7) appears «too advanced» for Portugal, as well as for two African countries (Morocco and Nigeria), but is deemed «adapted to the institutional needs,, of several European institutions (Germany, Spain, France and Switzerland) as well as to those of Israel, Canada (2) and Argentina. The HILDESHEIMER study (PGI-83/WS/9) is considered adequate by European, African and Israeli participants, but regarded as outdated by Canada (1) and poor by Russia. The TAYLOR study (PGI-84/WS/5), considered outdated by Switzerland, appears too advanced for Argentina, adequate to German, Moroccan and Brazilian needs, and is considered mediocre by Spain and Nigeria. Participants from Argentina, Israel and Switzerland consider RHOADS (PGI-82/WS/4) outdated, while Morocco finds the study too advanced. Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Morocco, Nigeria and Costa Rica appreciate COOK (PGI-86/WS/26), while Tunisia considers the report outdated, France considers it too advanced, and Russia considers it mediocre.
Brazil and Tunisia are the two countries that consider most RAMP studies too advanced, in view of the situation of national archives development prevailing in their respective countries. In the case of Brazil, topics in question deal essentially with preservation and restoration. On the other hand, Switzerland and Argentina (to a lesser degree) consider outdated the contents of many studies in relation to the situation of archival management in their countries, although Argentina did rate two studies as being too advanced. Overall, RAMP studies appear better adapted to the needs of participants surveyed in the following countries: France, Portugal, the Vatican, Israel, Canada (1 and 2), and especially Germany and Spain, as well as Costa Rica (although the number of studies our Costa Rican participant was acquainted with is relatively small). It is interesting to note that several studies were rated «poor» by Nigeria, and especially by Russia.
In explaining the absence of a study in a collection or its not being used, certain countries invoke the language barrier (Senegal and Tunisia) or poor availability (Spain, Russia), while others invoke other sources of information available on the subject (Argentina); irrelevance is rarely mentioned (Appendix 4).