By Mary Chance
Its 1968. A graduate history student from UCLA, we will call her Jane, is doing her master's thesis on Thomas E. Watson. After much research she discovers that the Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a collection of Mr. Watson's personal papers. She is looking for a specific letter to Mr. Watson from William Jennings Bryan. The UNC library does not allow the items in this collection to be loaned. They are too rare and losing them is not an option. She could have the archival staff copy the items she is looking for but she doesn't know exactly which item she's after. She only has a hunch. The student is living on a shoestring budget but this research is the crux of her thesis. The only option is to travel to North Carolina and do the research herself.
Jane scrapes together enough money and time to take a bus to North Carolina. The price of her trip exceeds her budget by several times, but her research depends upon it. She takes several days off of work and misses an exam in one of her other classes to take the trip. Jane arrives at the UNC library and finally gains access to the collection. She finds many things of use to her but the missing piece is still missing. She asks the archivist for the folder that she believes is holding the letter she is seeking. The archivist informs Jane that the item she is requesting is too damaged and delicate to be handled. Jane's trip is a loss. Not only did she not find what she was looking for but even if the item she thinks would have been her missing piece was there, she could not look at it for fear it would be destroyed.
Flash forward.
Its 2008. A graduate student from UCLA, we will call him John, is doing his master's thesis on Thomas E. Watson. After a quick Google search, he discovers that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a collection of Mr. Watson's personal papers. John is looking for a specific letter to Mr. Watson from William Jennings Bryan. John logs on to http://www2.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson/ and does a keyword search for "William Jennings Bryan." A list of correspondences pops up. John selects a letter he thinks might be what he's looking for. Its not the letter he wants. He selects another. Its exactly what he's looking for. The letter looks very fragile but that doesn't matter for his purposes. He saves a link for the resource to his bookmarks. He'll look at it later. He's meeting friends this afternoon and doesn't have much time to spend on his project today.
In today's world, research happens in a flash. Jane's situation is a rarity in the world of digitization. Today, most large institutions have undertaken the massive task of digitizing their primary source collections. The Library of Congress has digitized almost 95% of their collection of photographs. Dan Jones of the U.K.National Archives (2008, pp. 101) estimates that his institution has more than 100 million records digitized and available to the public. As digitization becomes the norm among larger institutions, smaller institutions are digitizing their collections as well. My own institution, the McCracken Research Library, has more than 30,000 items cataloged in our digital collections. So why the push for digitization of primary source material?
The first reason is access. Take our fictional Jane. In her day, she had to take time to search through a variety of journals and other information venues to discover where her primary source may be located. If the resource was not allowed out of its home institution, Jane would have to travel to where it is. Many researchers likely missed out on items they didn't know were there in the first place. Others may have decided that a trip to see an item that may or may not meet their needs is not worth it. The result is that researchers may neglect hard to find primary source material and smaller institutions that rely on user fees miss out on researchers because they are in remote or other inconveniently located areas. Colorado State University is in the process of digitizing its Water Resource Archive. As of 2011 (CSU, 2011) the university had digitized more than 60,000 individual items which represented less than 2% of its entire holdings in that collection. In their publication "Why Digitize?" they state that increased access to materials is one of the driving forces behind their decision to digitize. My workplace is located in Cody, Wyoming. While we have an extensive collection of very rare primary source documents related to western frontier history, Cody is in a very remote location. It is about an hour's drive from the east gate of Yellowstone National Park. It is several hours away from any major metropolitan area by car and it is quite expensive to fly into the local airport. By digitizing our collections we hope to increase awareness of what we do have and in turn hope to increase visitation to our museum and library.
A second consideration is preservation of the original items themselves. In the world of primary documents, the more time passes, the more fragile our originals become. Paper breaks down. Light fades ink. Oils from hands damage delicate items. In Jane's situation, she was unable to view an item she wanted to because it was already damaged and further handling could have possibly destroyed it. The Smithsonian Institution Archives cites the protective factor of digitization as a reason behind their efforts to digitize their collections. By making their works available online, the archivists at the Smithsonian Institute, (2014) believe that by eliminating repetitive handling, the digitization process protects valuable historical documents. Daniel Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig (2006) cite a case where the the Library of Congress was able to provide access to the original plan for the city of Washington D.C. to researchers after several years of limiting access because the document was too damaged to be handled. Conservationists were able to create a digital reproduction of the original item and thus a document that was in danger of being lost to the ravages of time was preserved in digital form for future use.
Time and careful handling are not the only threats to original historical documents. Disasters threaten traditional archives. The fire in the Library of Alexandria set back human knowledge by centuries. By digitizing traditional archives, libraries can create a back-up of irreplaceable sources in the event of a disaster. A program out of the University of Stanford, titled LOCKSS [Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe], is currently being used to provide a low-cost backup for e-resources housed in public libraries. At this time it is not widely used as a way to back-up digital collections of primary source material, but the theory behind it has great potential. Additionally, their name rings true. Lots of copies do keep stuff safe. Samantha Harper, archivist for the McCracken Research Library at the Buffalo Bill Center of the West is a traditional archivist. Her chief concern is keeping the physical documents safe. Harper sees digitization as a part of this process. According to Harper (S. Harper, personal communication, December 27, 2013), a preservation quality digital copy is an "insurance policy" against destruction and theft. By providing digital copies on the web, most researchers are able to get what they need without actually touching the items. If the original item is destroyed, the institution is still able to provide the information to the public. If the item is stolen, the digital copy is proof that the institution had the document in question at the time it was stolen and provides an avenue for reclaiming a document that may show up at auction.
Ultimately, digitization of primary source material is proving to be another indispensable tool in the hands of digital archivists and librarians. Many small libraries have collections of local history that are underutilized because patrons don't know they are there. The chances that someone from across the country will be able to find their collection and come see it are limited. By digitizing, the library is able to bring attention to a previously neglected part of their collection as well as improving the quality of research in the marketplace by making more primary sources available. Digitizing primary source documents preserves them by reducing the need for them to be handled. Once digitized, they can be stored safely away and brought out only when necessary. Digitization can allow researchers to view items previously rendered unusable by damage. As digitization increases the preservation of the data becomes just as important as the preservation of the original document. A survey by Jody DeRidder (2013. pp. 20) revealed that more than 60% of respondents felt that digitized collections were "extremely important" to their digital preservation efforts. Digitization increases access, improves scholarship, protects originals from further damage by handling, and provides an "insurance policy" against destruction and theft. As time goes on the need for librarians trained in digital content creation and management will only increase.
*The story of Jane and John is a fictional account. Any similarities to any persons living or dead is purely coincidental. The UNC collection used in the story is real but the experiences of John and Jane's research activities involving the collection are an invention of the author's imagination*
Its 1968. A graduate history student from UCLA, we will call her Jane, is doing her master's thesis on Thomas E. Watson. After much research she discovers that the Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a collection of Mr. Watson's personal papers. She is looking for a specific letter to Mr. Watson from William Jennings Bryan. The UNC library does not allow the items in this collection to be loaned. They are too rare and losing them is not an option. She could have the archival staff copy the items she is looking for but she doesn't know exactly which item she's after. She only has a hunch. The student is living on a shoestring budget but this research is the crux of her thesis. The only option is to travel to North Carolina and do the research herself.
Jane scrapes together enough money and time to take a bus to North Carolina. The price of her trip exceeds her budget by several times, but her research depends upon it. She takes several days off of work and misses an exam in one of her other classes to take the trip. Jane arrives at the UNC library and finally gains access to the collection. She finds many things of use to her but the missing piece is still missing. She asks the archivist for the folder that she believes is holding the letter she is seeking. The archivist informs Jane that the item she is requesting is too damaged and delicate to be handled. Jane's trip is a loss. Not only did she not find what she was looking for but even if the item she thinks would have been her missing piece was there, she could not look at it for fear it would be destroyed.
Flash forward.
Its 2008. A graduate student from UCLA, we will call him John, is doing his master's thesis on Thomas E. Watson. After a quick Google search, he discovers that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a collection of Mr. Watson's personal papers. John is looking for a specific letter to Mr. Watson from William Jennings Bryan. John logs on to http://www2.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson/ and does a keyword search for "William Jennings Bryan." A list of correspondences pops up. John selects a letter he thinks might be what he's looking for. Its not the letter he wants. He selects another. Its exactly what he's looking for. The letter looks very fragile but that doesn't matter for his purposes. He saves a link for the resource to his bookmarks. He'll look at it later. He's meeting friends this afternoon and doesn't have much time to spend on his project today.
In today's world, research happens in a flash. Jane's situation is a rarity in the world of digitization. Today, most large institutions have undertaken the massive task of digitizing their primary source collections. The Library of Congress has digitized almost 95% of their collection of photographs. Dan Jones of the U.K.National Archives (2008, pp. 101) estimates that his institution has more than 100 million records digitized and available to the public. As digitization becomes the norm among larger institutions, smaller institutions are digitizing their collections as well. My own institution, the McCracken Research Library, has more than 30,000 items cataloged in our digital collections. So why the push for digitization of primary source material?
The first reason is access. Take our fictional Jane. In her day, she had to take time to search through a variety of journals and other information venues to discover where her primary source may be located. If the resource was not allowed out of its home institution, Jane would have to travel to where it is. Many researchers likely missed out on items they didn't know were there in the first place. Others may have decided that a trip to see an item that may or may not meet their needs is not worth it. The result is that researchers may neglect hard to find primary source material and smaller institutions that rely on user fees miss out on researchers because they are in remote or other inconveniently located areas. Colorado State University is in the process of digitizing its Water Resource Archive. As of 2011 (CSU, 2011) the university had digitized more than 60,000 individual items which represented less than 2% of its entire holdings in that collection. In their publication "Why Digitize?" they state that increased access to materials is one of the driving forces behind their decision to digitize. My workplace is located in Cody, Wyoming. While we have an extensive collection of very rare primary source documents related to western frontier history, Cody is in a very remote location. It is about an hour's drive from the east gate of Yellowstone National Park. It is several hours away from any major metropolitan area by car and it is quite expensive to fly into the local airport. By digitizing our collections we hope to increase awareness of what we do have and in turn hope to increase visitation to our museum and library.
A second consideration is preservation of the original items themselves. In the world of primary documents, the more time passes, the more fragile our originals become. Paper breaks down. Light fades ink. Oils from hands damage delicate items. In Jane's situation, she was unable to view an item she wanted to because it was already damaged and further handling could have possibly destroyed it. The Smithsonian Institution Archives cites the protective factor of digitization as a reason behind their efforts to digitize their collections. By making their works available online, the archivists at the Smithsonian Institute, (2014) believe that by eliminating repetitive handling, the digitization process protects valuable historical documents. Daniel Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig (2006) cite a case where the the Library of Congress was able to provide access to the original plan for the city of Washington D.C. to researchers after several years of limiting access because the document was too damaged to be handled. Conservationists were able to create a digital reproduction of the original item and thus a document that was in danger of being lost to the ravages of time was preserved in digital form for future use.
Time and careful handling are not the only threats to original historical documents. Disasters threaten traditional archives. The fire in the Library of Alexandria set back human knowledge by centuries. By digitizing traditional archives, libraries can create a back-up of irreplaceable sources in the event of a disaster. A program out of the University of Stanford, titled LOCKSS [Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe], is currently being used to provide a low-cost backup for e-resources housed in public libraries. At this time it is not widely used as a way to back-up digital collections of primary source material, but the theory behind it has great potential. Additionally, their name rings true. Lots of copies do keep stuff safe. Samantha Harper, archivist for the McCracken Research Library at the Buffalo Bill Center of the West is a traditional archivist. Her chief concern is keeping the physical documents safe. Harper sees digitization as a part of this process. According to Harper (S. Harper, personal communication, December 27, 2013), a preservation quality digital copy is an "insurance policy" against destruction and theft. By providing digital copies on the web, most researchers are able to get what they need without actually touching the items. If the original item is destroyed, the institution is still able to provide the information to the public. If the item is stolen, the digital copy is proof that the institution had the document in question at the time it was stolen and provides an avenue for reclaiming a document that may show up at auction.
Ultimately, digitization of primary source material is proving to be another indispensable tool in the hands of digital archivists and librarians. Many small libraries have collections of local history that are underutilized because patrons don't know they are there. The chances that someone from across the country will be able to find their collection and come see it are limited. By digitizing, the library is able to bring attention to a previously neglected part of their collection as well as improving the quality of research in the marketplace by making more primary sources available. Digitizing primary source documents preserves them by reducing the need for them to be handled. Once digitized, they can be stored safely away and brought out only when necessary. Digitization can allow researchers to view items previously rendered unusable by damage. As digitization increases the preservation of the data becomes just as important as the preservation of the original document. A survey by Jody DeRidder (2013. pp. 20) revealed that more than 60% of respondents felt that digitized collections were "extremely important" to their digital preservation efforts. Digitization increases access, improves scholarship, protects originals from further damage by handling, and provides an "insurance policy" against destruction and theft. As time goes on the need for librarians trained in digital content creation and management will only increase.
*The story of Jane and John is a fictional account. Any similarities to any persons living or dead is purely coincidental. The UNC collection used in the story is real but the experiences of John and Jane's research activities involving the collection are an invention of the author's imagination*
References
Cohen, D.J. &
Rosenzweig, R.(2006) Digital history: a guide to gathering, preserving, and
presenting the past on the web. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press. Retrieved from http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/
Colorado State University
[CSU]. (2011) Why digitize? Accessed from http://lib.colostate.edu/archives/water/digitization/
DeRidder, J. (2013).
First Aid Training for Those on the Front Lines: Digital Preservation Needs
Survey Results 2012. Information Technology & Libraries, 32(2), 18-28.
Jones, D. (2008). Mass
digitization of historical records for access and preservation. Serials, 21(2),
98-101.
Library of Congress.
(2014) About PPOC. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/about/
Smithsonian Institution.
(2014) Digitization. Retrieved from http://siarchives.si.edu/services/digitization
Mary, I think your story of Jane and John explains perfectly why digitization is so important. Jane was limited to costly travel, and on top of that was unable to access the letter she was looking for, while John could not only do research from his home computer but also access fragile documents that would be restricted if he were to visit the collection in person. Another advantage of digitization is the ability that it allows the library/archive to help the user make the most of a document. Translations can be provided along with digital records of non-English documents. Less-than-legible handwriting can be deciphered with the option to view a document in "full text" mode. Documents or images that have faded over time can be enhanced. The possibilities are endless when it comes to additional tools/improvements that can complement a digitized item.
ReplyDeleteI agree-- the stories really help illustrate the difficulty in research just a few years ago and now how simple it can be.
ReplyDeleteYour post made me think about a segment I saw on 60 Minutes several weeks ago about the theft of historical documents in the last several years. Apparently there is a huge black market out there for these types of items. Digitization definitely would help keep these documents safe.
I also would love to learn more about digitization for our collection of local history. You are correct in that many people do not realize what we have.....plus we also do not allow some of it to leave the library which can cause issues (hours vs time they need to do research). Thanks for the idea!
I had never considered the ability of digitization to act as proof of ownership in the event of theft, but this is a very good point!
ReplyDeleteMy own library has a very small local history collection that is only available to the public by special request. Many people are not even aware that the library has these items. I would love to see this information digitized and available on our website. You mention that your own place of work has over 30,000 items available in digital format. Do you know how long it took to digitize this collection?
Melissa, I'm not certain when we started digitizing. Right now we have almost 33,000 individual items encompassing 13 collections. I do know that we scan items daily and I prepare for online publication hundreds (sometimes thousands!) of items each week. I'm currently working on two different collections. The Schuyler, Hartley & Graham collection has been partially cataloged for online viewing and I am updating the metadata for the Winchester Repeating Arms Company collection. This is an ongoing process as our institution has hundreds of thousands of documents that could potentially be digitized. You can see the complete list of our collections here.
DeleteMary, excellent job on this post. Contrasting how Jane struggled with retrieving information with how easily those same documents could be accessed by John was a brilliant way to drive your main points 'home.' Speaking of theses, it would be wonderful to see more of those digitized by academic libraries. One of the libraries that I visited was in the process of digitizing the work of past students, those of the 1930s and 1940s, most of which wrote about feats in automotive engineering. Seeing what 'came before' needs to be pursued by the students of the present day. I am a big fan of LOCKSS, which I had not heard of prior to reading your post. I can understand how it would be a great asset for a library and/or information agency, though it would also benefit publishing companies. It was called 'low-cost' but I am curious regarding the truthfulness behind that statement.
ReplyDeleteYou can see the fees they charge here. In the realm of software licensing it is low cost considering that for a basic four-year university the licensing fee is well under $5,000 per year
DeleteA quick comparison: Denver Public Schools has 13,087 employees. Microsoft Office 365 Education A4 (this is the full version) costs $6.00 per user per month. That is $78, 522 or $942,264 per year. For what LOCKSS calls "Very Large Research Facilities" like MIT, the total cost per year for LOCKSS is $11,515.
DeleteMary,
DeleteThanks for the example! It really brought costs into perspective.
Mary, excellent job explaining and demonstrating the importance of digitization. Not only does it increased access, but it also contributes to the object's longevity. This is a major issues for some small institutions because sometimes they do not have it in their budget to begin a major digitization project. This in turns causes certain objects to have limited access.
ReplyDeleteExcellent Job, Mary. I am a novice when it comes to artifacts and the digitizing of them and appreciated the comparison between Jane and John. I also appreciated the cost comparison between Microsoft and LOCKSS!
ReplyDeleteBecky