MUSEUM PARTICIPATION IN COLLABORATIVE DIGITAL PROJECTS:
A STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF STAFF MEMBERS
AT CONNECTICUT HERITAGE ORGANIZATIONS
BY
ELIZABETH ROSE
A Special Project Submitted to the School of Graduate
Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Library Science
Southern Connecticut State University
New Haven, Connecticut
April 2014
ABSTRACT
Author:
Title:
Elizabeth Rose
MUSEUM PARTICIPATION IN COLLABORATIVE DIGITAL PROJECTS:
A STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF STAFF MEMBERS
AT CONNECTICUT HERITAGE ORGANIZATIONS
Special Project Advisor:
Mary E. Brown, Ph.D.
Institution:
Southern Connecticut State University
Year:
2014
In order to understand the problem of smaller heritage organizations’ participation in
collaborative digital projects in Connecticut, this research study used an online survey of staff
from selected organizations in the state to learn how they perceive the benefits and barriers to
their organizations’ involvement. The survey found that while all the responding organizations
were engaged in some digitization of their materials, they faced some significant barriers and
would like to do more in order to reach a broader audience. Funding for additional staff time to
work on digitization was the most desired type of support. Additionally, the study addressed one
significant barrier – lack of a common set of metadata standards – by surveying the practices of
successful state digitization projects to develop recommendations about what metadata standards
would be most appropriate for these organizations’ collections. Modified Dublin Core was found
to be the most accessible and flexible metadata standard to use for such collaborative digital
projects.
These findings were shared with the Connecticut League of History Organizations and
Connecticut History Online in order to help inform their plans for shaping collaborative digital
projects in the state.
Keywords: digitization, cultural heritage, collaboration, museums, metadata
MUSEUM PARTICIPATION IN COLLABORATIVE DIGITAL PROJECTS:
A STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF STAFF MEMBERS
AT CONNECTICUT HERITAGE ORGANIZATIONS
BY
ELIZABETH ROSE
This special project proposal was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s Special Project
advisor, Dr. Mary Brown, and it has been approved by the members of the candidate’s special
project committee. It was submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and was accepted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Library Science.
______________________________
Mary E. Brown, Ph.D.
Special Project Advisor
_____________________________
Briann Greenfield, Ph.D.
Second Reader
I. INTRODUCTION
Overview
Since the late 1990s, libraries, museums, and archives across the United States have
created collaborative digital collections to share cultural heritage objects from their collections
with a larger public. The new Digital Public Library of America has identified 40 such
collaborative digital projects across the country and is currently working with six of them as
“content hubs” to contribute material as part of a pilot phase (“Hubs,” 2013).
Smaller museums, libraries, and historical organizations (hereafter referred to collectively
as heritage organizations) face a number of barriers to participating in collaborative digital
projects. These barriers include limited staff, limited funding, lack of expertise in digitization and
cataloging/metadata standards, and lack of equipment for digitization. In some organizations,
collections may not have been catalogued at all, or have been catalogued according to the
organization’s internal needs rather than adhering to any broader standard for access or
preservation. When such barriers prevent small heritage organizations from participating, the
digital projects that are developed are missing the richness of these organizations’ collections,
and the organizations themselves miss out on reaching out to a growing audience that looks for
cultural content online.
In Connecticut, several collaborative digital projects are currently underway. Connecticut
History Online has been gathering images and other materials since 1999, and will serve as a
collection point for material dealing with Connecticut history for the new Connecticut Digital
Archive, which in turn will send content to the Digital Public Library of America (“Connecticut
Digital Archive Launches Softly,” 2013). Other digital projects include the Treasures of
Connecticut Libraries, which collected digital images from public libraries and historical
societies in the state, and Connecticut Archives Online, which collects archival finding aids from
different archives in the state so that researchers can more easily locate material.
To date, these projects have mainly represented Connecticut’s larger heritage
organizations. Connecticut History Online, for instance, includes content from seven
organizations, with the majority of its content coming from four large repositories (“About
Connecticut History Online,” 2012). Most of Connecticut Archives Online’s content comes from
university collections and from the Connecticut State Library, with only three local historical
societies represented (“What is CAO,” n.d.).
In order to understand the problem of smaller heritage organizations’ participation in
collaborative digital projects in Connecticut, this research study used an online survey of staff
from selected organizations in the state to learn how they perceive the benefits and barriers to
their organizations’ involvement. The survey and request to participate was distributed via email
to participants in the “Digital Collections 101” workshop sponsored by the Connecticut League
of History Organizations and the Conservation ConneCTion initiative in May 2013, and to
selected organizations in Connecticut using the PastPerfect museum software. Questions about
the nature of the organization’s collections and current cataloging practices helped establish the
context for the perceptions of benefits and barriers. A supplemental part of the study addressed
metadata – one potential barrier to collaborative digitization projects – by surveying the existing
literature and gathering information from other state project staff (including interviews) to
determine the best approach to metadata for statewide projects in Connecticut.
Significance and Relevance
The problem of smaller organizations’ exclusion from collaborative digital projects is
twofold: first, that the digital collections that result do not represent the full richness and
diversity of the state’s cultural heritage, and second, that smaller organizations miss out on the
benefits of sharing their collections with a broader public online. If only larger organizations’
collections are represented, digital collections will reflect the biases of those organizations’
collecting history and leave out the geographic regions, ethnic groups, and topics that are
represented in smaller organizations’ collections, which are typically closely tied to local history
and specialized topics. For instance, Hungarians were a significant ethnic group in the area
around Bridgeport. But a search of Connecticut History Online produces only three results for
the term “Hungarian,” and two of these are only minimally relevant (“Connecticut History
Online,” 2012). As more users – including students and teachers – look online for material in
coming years, organizations that do not participate in digital projects risk losing their audience.
They may also miss opportunities to collaborate with each other on shared collection themes and
material, which may be discovered through such projects.
Understanding and addressing the barriers that prevent participation in these collaborative
digital projects is important in order to ensure that Connecticut’s cultural heritage is broadly
represented, made accessible to audiences who increasingly look for content online, and
preserved. While digital projects in Connecticut have had limited participation from smaller
organizations, similar projects in some other states have included a much wider range of
organizations. In each of these cases, projects took deliberate steps to encourage broader
participation, including addressing the specific barriers that faced smaller organizations. As the
Connecticut Digital Archive prepares to start taking in new content from other organizations in
2014, it is an opportune time to determine perceptions of the benefits and obstacles to
participation, in order to help decision makers proceed with the best chances of broad-based
participation in the future.
This study addresses the problem of barriers to smaller organizations’ participation in
collaborative digital projects in two ways. First, it assesses the perceived benefits and barriers to
participating in collaborative digital projects by surveying staff from selected heritage
organizations in Connecticut. Background research from evaluations of digital projects in other
states helped shape the survey questions, testing possible ways that these projects might be made
more accessible. Second, the study addresses one specific barrier – lack of a common set of
metadata standards – by making recommendations about what metadata standards are most
appropriate for these organizations’ collections. These recommendations will be based both on
survey questions about cataloging practices and on gathering information on best practices being
used by other collaborative projects around the country.
This study contributes both to the cultural heritage community in Connecticut
(represented by the client organization, the Connecticut League of History Organizations) and to
those in library and information science and digital humanities fields concerned with making
museum and archival collections available to the public. It identifies barriers to the participation
of smaller heritage organizations in the collaborative digital projects that are underway in
Connecticut, and determine some steps by which these barriers might be overcome. Studying
metadata practices helps identify the best approach to helping smaller organizations catalog their
collections in a way that will ensure they can be shared across the state.
Review of Literature
Libraries, museums, and archives across the country have created collaborative digital
collections to share cultural heritage objects from their collections with a larger public, and these
are becoming an important way for users to discover material. It is important that smaller
museums and organizations are able to participate in these projects, which have “tended to
originate in the largest, most well-funded institutions” (Jones, 2005, p. 205). Evaluation
literature on specific digital projects, on collaboration among these different kinds of institutions,
and on metadata approaches points to common problems of participation by smaller museums,
and some possible solutions.
Evaluations and descriptions of state and regional collaborative digital projects help to
identify specific barriers to participation by smaller institutions. These include lack of staff time
and capacity (including knowledge about digitization and metadata for collection materials), lack
of funding, lack of technological capacity (access to equipment, familiarity with digitization
standards), and lack of understanding of the importance of digitizing materials, as well as
concerns about copyright issues in sharing materials. Wisser (2005) reports that the North
Carolina ECHO project found that “the diversity of the cultural heritage landscape, with its wide
range of technological and professional knowledge and capabilities, produces challenges for a
statewide consortium” (p. 165). A survey of cultural organizations in the state showed that the
majority of institutions had five or fewer staff members, and many institutions reported
limitations related to staffing, infrastructure, and physical space (Wisser, 2005). Similarly,
institutions in Michigan indicated that access to equipment and training in digitization techniques
and standards were high priority needs, closely followed by training in copyright issues,
metadata creation, and storage for master copies of digital items (Jones, 2005).
Evaluations of other statewide projects also highlight the strategic steps that these
projects took to encourage widespread participation by heritage organizations. These include
dedicated outreach staff for the Maine Memory Network who trained staff at all 270 contributing
organizations, helped them select material to include through workshops, video presentations on
"Doing Good History," and individual consultation. They found that this kind of "handholding"
was important in encouraging broad-based participation (Mt. Auburn Associates, Inc., 2003;
Amoroso, 2014). The New Jersey Digital Highway developed software tools to make it easier for
staff at heritage organizations to upload and describe their materials, while Ohio Memory Online
staff provided guidance to organizations about what kinds of materials would be most valuable to
the statewide project ( Gemmill & O’Neal, 2005; Jeng, 2008). The Columbia River Basin Ethnic
History Archive provided a travelling team to handle the digitization of materials (Wykoff,
Mercier, Bond, & Cornish, 2005). In the Making of Modern Michigan project, a preliminary
survey had shown that libraries were reluctant to send their rare material to a centralized location
for digitizing, fearing that they would not get it back in a timely fashion. In response, the project
identified “digitization centers” across the state that could dedicate a scanner to the project, and
determined that 95% of the state’s libraries were located within a two-hour drive of one of these
centers. Grants of $1500 provided an important incentive for small libraries to participate,
enabling them to purchase their own scanner, pay a staff member for the extra time to do the
scanning and metadata creation or to pay replacement staff for the library (Jones, 2014). Grants
to heritage organizations also played an important role in encouraging participation in the Maine
Memory Network - where they were used to encourage partnerships among a community's
schools, libraries, and heritage organizations - and the North Carolina ECHO projects (Amoroso,
2014; Wisser, 2014).
A particular challenge for a number of projects bringing together different types of
heritage organizations is the need for a common set of descriptors for the material they
contribute. Creation of consistent, quality metadata is essential to the operation of both digital
collections and online catalogs, making possible effective retrieval of information by users.
Although library science professionals are keenly aware of the importance of quality metadata,
Park and Tosaka (2010) found that metadata guidelines and other quality control measures were
used less often in collaborative projects involving multiple institutions than in those of a single
institution.
Libraries, archives, and museums have disparate “metadata cultures and practices” that
stem from different traditions of sharing information about their collections (Roel, 2013).
Libraries and archives have long experience with providing collection information to the public
and encouraging direct public access to resources. Librarians are trained to use highly
standardized cataloging methods in order to share information across institutions, employing
detailed controlled vocabularies. Archivists have built on this tradition in recent years by making
finding aids available electronically and developing descriptive standards for archival collections.
Museums, on the other hand, emphasize presenting their unique collections to the public in welldesigned exhibitions, rather than sharing collections information directly with the public, and
have not developed a system for sharing information across institutions. Information about
collections is held in “collection management systems” which are meant for internal staff use and
employ the institution’s own methods for cataloging information (Bishoff, 2004; Nodler &
Botticelli, 2009; Wythe, 2006). These systems tend to use proprietary software, making it more
difficult to share information (Waibel, 2010).
In other statewide digitization projects, small organizations often had trouble providing
good descriptive metadata, as they did not have the staff capacity to do much cataloging. This
was one of the major reasons given for the Maine Memory Project’s lower than expected number
of items contributed at the time of the project evaluation. Smaller organizations found that
cataloging was the most time-consuming element of the process, and many items that had been
scanned had not yet been uploaded because of the lack of documentation to meet the project’s
high standards for cataloging (Mt. Auburn Associates, Inc., 2003, p. 27). Anticipating this
problem in the Making of Modern Michigan project, much effort went into creating a userfriendly process for metadata creation (Jones, 2005, p. 219). The North Carolina ECHO project
focused particularly on helping partner institutions create good metadata, offering onsite training,
an online template for metadata creation, and consultations with a metadata coordinator (Wisser,
2005) as part of an overall focus on empowering local organizations to carry out their own
digitization projects.
Different solutions have been found for creating metadata combining different cataloging
traditions. The Morgan Library in New York chose to use a library system to catalog all their
materials (including works of art as well as rare books and typical library collections), adapting
MARC/AACR standards to encompass the needs of curators. Connecticut History Online
followed this model in its first phase, until a shift in software systems required a change (Foulke,
2014).
A more common solution is to use the most basic type of metadata – the Dublin Core – as
a lowest common denominator. Dublin Core consists of 15 elements that can be used for
description of a range of resources (CDP Metadata Working Group, 2006; “Dublin Core
Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1,” 2013), and it has been refined and adapted in slightly
different ways for many different digital heritage projects. Yet another approach is to allow a
range of metadata schemas and ensure interoperability through data exchange protocols. For
instance, the “Music of Social Change” project in Atlanta used the Open Archives Initiative
Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) to maximize flexibility for participating
institutions. This protocol can handle any metadata format expressed by XML, including those
that are significantly more structured than Dublin Core. It is therefore “maximally forgiving of
discordant metadata suppliers,” giving institutions discretion as to what metadata are exposed
and what level of description is provided (Roel, 2013).
Most of the cultural heritage digital projects represented in the literature have adopted
Dublin Core as a metadata standard, though a number of projects have made modifications in
order to make it easier for organizations with limited staff to contribute. For instance, projects in
Alabama and Colorado required only a subset of Dublin Core’s 15 elements (Downer, Medina,
Nicol, & Trehub, 2005; Bishoff, 2000).
Collaboration among different types of heritage organizations has been spurred by the
potential benefits of bringing together collections digitally and building audience, as well as by
funding opportunities that prioritize digital collaboration, such as grants from the Institute for
Library and Museum Services. In some cases collaboration has been encouraged by a desire to
increase place-based heritage tourism. For instance, five cultural institutions in Newport, Rhode
Island that are located close to each other and share common collections are creating a joint
online collections catalog known as NewPortal (Bernier, Costa, Ecenarro, & Keagle, 2013). In
Nova Scotia, more than 50 museums collaborated on a joint catalog known as NovaMuse
(“NovaMuse: About,” 2013).
The literature on collaboration between museums, libraries, and archives points to the
challenges as well as the benefits of these collaborative projects. Collaborative digital projects
have the potential to integrate heritage organizations and unite collections in the digital world.
Given & McTavish (2010) suggest that such projects are bringing about a convergence of
libraries, archives, and museums, reflecting a return to the common historical roots of these
institutions.
Evaluations of state and regional digital collections projects highlight the importance of
taking deliberate steps to maximize the involvement of smaller institutions in such projects, and
of understanding the challenges that they face in digitizing and cataloging their collections.
Focusing on metadata – one of the key technical challenges of bringing together a variety of
large and small institutions in such projects – helps to highlight some of the concrete steps that
might need to be taken.
The current research project contributes to this literature by documenting the perceptions
of staff at smaller heritage organizations in Connecticut, where digitization projects have been
built but have not yet involved a large number of organizations. While other studies have
explored challenges and barriers in the context of describing or evaluating projects in other states,
none have focused on organizations in Connecticut, and none have focused specifically on the
problem of encouraging the participation of smaller heritage organizations.
II. RESEARCH METHODS
The study used an online survey of staff from selected Connecticut heritage organizations
to identify their perceptions about the benefits and barriers to participating in collaborative
digital projects. A supplemental part of the study on metadata standards surveyed the research
literature to identify five state or regional digital collections projects with broad participation (i.e.,
more than 15 organizations contributing content). Using this literature, interviews with project
staff, and documentation available on the project’s websites, the study analyzes the metadata
approaches taken by these projects.
Subjects
The survey and request to participate was distributed to staff at heritage organizations in
Connecticut who are responsible for historical collections (of papers, photographs, artwork,
clothing, and other three-dimensional objects). Subjects could be paid professional staff or
volunteers, including board members. See Appendix 1 for cover letters that accompanied
invitations to participate in the survey.
Subjects were recruited through three different email invitations: first, an invitation was
sent to all 30 participants in a digitization workshop sponsored by the Conservation ConneCTion
initiative in May 2013 in conjunction with the Connecticut League of History Organizations
(“Digital Collections 101: An Introductory Workshop,” 2013). Participants at this workshop
were staff and board members from heritage organizations who were interested in learning more
about digital collections. Second, an invitation was sent to the organizations listed as being users
of the PastPerfect museum software in Connecticut (“Past Perfect Client List,” 2013) but not
represented in the digitization workshop list. Since using Past Perfect reflects a commitment to
computerized collections cataloging (and potentially online presentation of collections), this
helped to recruit respondents whose organizations have an interest in digital projects and the
capacity to share cataloging information. Finally, the Connecticut League of History
Organizations sent an email out to its members, inviting them to participate in the survey.
Instruments
The survey, consisting of 14 multiple-choice questions, is designed to be relatively easy
to complete while still producing valuable information. The questions are independent of each
other and start with the easiest-to-answer questions, such as the type of organization, the
respondent’s role, and what kind of staffing arrangement is in place for managing collections.
The organization's name is not requested, providing anonymity for respondents. Five questions
about collection management and current digitization practices measure how prepared the
organization is to contribute material to a collaborative project. Two of these questions allow for
a write-in response if the fixed-choice responses are not adequate. A table asks respondents
about their level of familiarity with four different digital projects in Connecticut: Connecticut
History Online, Connecticut Archives Online, Treasures of Connecticut Libraries, and the
Connecticut Digital Archive. The final four questions ask about the benefits and barriers to
participating in collaborative digital projects, the organization’s current sharing of digital images,
and the type of support that would be most valuable for the organization to participate in
digitization projects. See Appendix 2 for the survey.
Procedure
The survey was posted online using Google Forms, and invitations to participants
included the URL and instructions. There were 44 total respondents. Data entered into the
Google Form populated a spreadsheet in Google Drive. Once the responses were submitted, the
raw data were reviewed and re-entered into a second Excel spreadsheet; one duplicate response
was removed and write-in answers were assigned to categories when appropriate, in order to
create cleaner data for analysis. Partway through the administration of the survey, a problem with
the formatting one of the questions required revision in order to allow respondents to select more
than one response, so the initial responses to that particular question had to be discarded.
Responses were analyzed in terms of percentages and frequency, as well as looking at
relationships between staffing levels of organizations and attitudes about participating in digital
projects.
For the analysis of metadata in other digital collections projects, the study used the
research literature on state and regional projects to identify five projects with broad-based
participation, defined as having at least 15 different organizations contributing content. These
projects were the Maine Memory Project, the Making of Modern Michigan project, the New
Jersey Digital Highway, the North Carolina ECHO project, and Ohio Memory Online.
Connecticut History Online was also studied with this group as it is the most important such
project in Connecticut, even though it does not meet the criteria of having broad-based
participation. For each of these projects, metadata standards and procedures described in the
literature and documentation provided on the projects’ websites were analyzed in order to show
commonalities and differences in the projects’ approach, and interviews were conducted with
project staff members to learn more in-depth about their evolution.
III. PROJECT RESULTS
A. Survey results
Organizations and respondents
The largest group of respondents was from local historical societies (68%), with smaller
numbers representing museums (28%) and other categories (4%). Reflecting the predominance
of historical societies, the respondents’ collections were described as a combination of archival
materials, historical objects, and works of art. Sixteen percent described their collections as
primarily archival, and 14% described theirs as primarily historical artifacts/museum objects.
None described their collection as primarily paintings or other works of art.
Library
that
includes
historical
collections
2%
Organization Type
(n=44)
Museum
28%
Art & local
history
exibition
space
2%
Local
historical
society
68%
The small size of these organizations as a group is reflected by the staff they have to manage
their collections. The largest category of respondents (43%) said that their organizations relied
on volunteers to carry out this task, and the second largest category said that their organizations
had a part-time curator or archivist. Only 7% of respondents worked for organizations that had
two or more full-time staff members dedicated to managing collections, and one respondent
wrote in that his/her collection had "no real management."
Two or more
full-time staff
members
7%
Staffing for Collection Management
No real
(n=44)
Full-time
curator or
archivist
14%
management
2%
Part-time
curator or
archivist
34%
Volunteers
43%
About a quarter of the people responding to the survey were directors (or assistant
directors) of the heritage organization, and some identified their role in the organization as "all of
the above" (i.e., curator, archivist, director, board member or volunteer), reflecting the many hats
that people in these organizations need to wear.
The State of Cataloging
With limited staff and volunteer time, these organizations face some significant
challenges in cataloging their collections: 36% reported that less than half their collection is
catalogued (i.e., that staff can find basic information for each item in either written or electronic
records) and another 16% said that about half their collection is catalogued. Thirty-seven percent
reported that their collection is mostly catalogued, while only 11% reported that their collection
is fully catalogued.
How much of the collection is
catalogued?
(n=44)
Less than half
catalogued
36%
Half catalogued
16%
Fully
catalogued
11%
Mostly
catalogued
37%
To catalog and manage their collections, heritage organizations can use a number of tools,
and these may affect their capacity to participate in collaborative digital projects. The majority of
respondents (52%) used Past Perfect, proprietary software that is designed specifically for
historical collections. Seven percent used another specialized database program (The Museum
System, Archon, CollectionSpace, and a library catalog). At the other end of the spectrum, a
quarter (23%) used paper files or a log book rather than an electronic system. Eighteen percent of
respondents fell somewhere in between, using either an Excel spreadsheet or a generic database
program such as Microsoft Access or Filemaker.
Collection Management Tools
(n=44)
Specialized
database
program
7%
Paper files or
log book
23%
Past
Perfect
52%
Excel
spreadsheet Standard
9%
database
(FileMaker,
Access)
9%
In their cataloging, respondents reported using a combination of cataloging standards and
terms. When asked to identify which standards they used, the most frequent answer was that they
used their own terms to describe collections, a practice that makes any kind of standardization
more difficult. This pattern was especially associated with organizations whose collections were
managed by volunteers; those who reported having an archivist or curator were more likely to
report using a controlled vocabulary. Beyond these local terms, the two most frequently
mentioned controlled vocabularies used in cataloging collections were the Library of Congress
subject headings and that the Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging (also known as Chenhall’s
or as the lexicon that is provided with Past Perfect, which is based on this) (“The Lexicon,” n.d.) .
Standards such as Describing Archival Collections and the Art and Architecture Thesaurus were
listed less frequently.
Controlled Vocabularies
Other
2
Nomenclature
10
Our own terms
25
Art and Architecture Thesaurus
4
Describing Archival Collections (DACS)
4
Library of Congress subject headings
10
Attitudes towards digitization
The survey found overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards digitization in general. Most
organizations (91%) are already digitizing items from their collections for specific purposes,
such as research requests, reproduction in publications, or use in exhibitions. Thirty-two percent
reported that their organization already shares a significant number of images online (through a
website, Facebook, or other platform), and another 61% indicate that they think it would be
beneficial for their organization to do so. Only three respondents (7%) indicated negative or
skeptical attitudes towards this kind of effort, with one commenting that s/he needed to see more
evidence of the benefit of doing this in order to justify the cost.
Attitudes Towards Digitization
(n=44)
Not beneficial
5%
Currently
shares images
from our
collection
online
32%
Need to
show
benefit
to justify
cost
2%
Beneficial but
have not done
it very much
61%
Benefits of Sharing Collections Information
Connect with other institutions
Service beyond limited library hours
Offer material to teachers/students
Reach a broader audience
22
26
28
43
Respondents overwhelmingly identified "reaching a broader audience" as the benefit to their
organization of sharing information about their collections online; all but one respondent selected
this answer. They also expressed a desire to reach out to teachers and students, to make material
available beyond their limited library hours, and to connect with other institutions. One
respondent noted that making material available would free up some of their volunteers' valuable
time, and another expressed an interest in fostering shared exhibits and adding "greater depth and
insight into CT history by seeing a bigger picture of the collections in the state."
Most respondents were familiar with Connecticut History Online, the digital project in
Connecticut that has been the most fully developed, but only about half the respondents had
heard of Connecticut Archives Online or the new Connecticut Digital Archive. Treasures of
Connecticut Libraries was even less well-known; only about a third of respondents had heard of
it.
Barriers and Assistance
Despite these positive attitudes towards digitization projects, the respondents identified
significant barriers to their organizations' sharing more of their collections online. Of these, the
lack of staff time to select and digitize material was mentioned most frequently. Lack of time to
describe material (i.e., create metadata) and concerns about material being used without
permission were the next most frequently cited concerns, with lack of equipment and lack of
information about online platforms to use in sharing material being mentioned less often.
Barriers
Permission concerns
23
Lack of time to describe
material
Lack of scanning equipment
30
9
Lack of staff time to select and
digitize material
Don’t know the best way to
share images online
42
12
One of the challenging aspects of digitization projects can be selecting which items should be
digitized, based on historical importance, uniqueness, and public interest. A majority of the
respondents (57%) indicated that they felt comfortable selecting which collections items were
most worth digitizing, while 39% indicated that they “could use guidance in choosing which
items in our collection are most worth digitizing.”
Selecting Items to Digitize
(n=44)
Other
4%
Could use
guidance
39%
Confident about
selecting
material
57%
When asked what kind of help would be most likely to spur their organizations to do
more with digitizing and sharing collections online, the overwhelming response was "funding for
additional staff time to work on digitization." This follows logically from identifying the biggest
barrier being lack of staff time to work on such projects. Training about digitization and online
platforms was the next most common choice, followed closely by a cataloging (metadata)
consultant who could help with describing materials, and a team that could come to your site to
scan materials.
Most Effective Types of Assistance
Funding staff time for digitization
39
Cataloging consultant
18
Team to do scanning on-site
16
Access to scanning equipment
17
Training on digitization and online
platforms
20
B. Metadata results
Drawing on the literature reviewed above, five collaborative statewide digital projects that had
broad-based participation from heritage organizations were identified. They are:
Project Name
Number of Contributing
Metadata Schema
Organizations
Maine Memory Project
270
Dublin Core
Making of Modern Michigan
55
Dublin Core
New Jersey Digital Highway
36
METS/MODS
North Carolina ECHO/Digital
143
Dublin Core
Ohio Memory Online
330
Dublin Core
Connecticut History Online
7
Dublin Core
North Carolina1
1
These started as separate projects but merged over time.
Additional research was conducted to study the approach to metadata taken by each of these
projects, including examination of metadata guidelines, descriptions of metadata procedures, and
interviews with project staff members. Connecticut History Online was also included in this part
of the research because it is the most important collaborative digital project in Connecticut and
will be the basis for heritage materials in the Connecticut Digital Archive.
Four of these five projects used Dublin Core as their metadata framework, although they
modified it in slightly different ways. Descriptions in the evaluation/research literature and
interviews with project staff confirm that Dublin Core is seen as the “lowest common
denominator” for metadata, being the simplest and most flexible for those contributing materials.
Dublin Core’s accessibility is the basis for its wide use in cultural heritage repositories. Dublin
Core was developed with the non-specialist searcher in mind, using commonly understood
terminology and aiming to be as simple to create as possible (CDP Metadata Working Group,
2006, p. 5). The Colorado-based Collaborative Digitization Program adopted Dublin Core as the
standard “to promote interoperability among cultural heritage institutions” in 2006 because of its
common elements, flexibility, and applications to such institutions. Dublin Core is also used by
the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), which is supported
by the federal Institute for Museum and Library Services to create a single repository of digital
collections (CDP Metadata Working Group, 2006, p. 7). Ruth Anne Jones indicated that in the
Making of Modern Michigan project, it would have been very difficult to get participation from
the small libraries (many with only one or two people on staff and no cataloguers) if a more
complex set of metadata had been required (Jones, 2014).
The flip side of Dublin Core’s accessibility is a lack of depth and specificity. Katherine
Wisser, who served as metadata coordinator for the North Carolina ECHO project, prefers a
more detailed standard for metadata, but found that there was no better solution than Dublin Core
when seeking to serve the "variety and heterogeneity of cultural heritage organizations in the
state" (Wisser, 2014). When Connecticut History Online shifted from a MARC-based system to
Dublin Core, they lost some of the granularity that the first system had provided, and had to
concatenate fields and controlled vocabularies. Through many discussions with the ten different
people involved in cataloging from the organizations participating in the project, they arrived at
adaptations of qualified Dublin Core that they felt best served their core audience: K-12
educators and the general public. This meant modifying the labels on some of the fields as well
as date formats to make it more “user-friendly” for this general audience, a step that was also
taken by the Maine Memory Network (Amoroso, 2014; Foulke, 2014).
Several elements in Dublin Core require modification in order to function well for
cultural heritage collections, and these statewide projects made their own adaptions, particularly
to fields such as dates (which need to be able to include estimated dates or ranges), subjects, and
publishers (which are usually not traditional publishers). The Collaborative Digitization Program
added a “Date Original” and a “Date Digital” field to identify chronological information; a field
called “Digitization Specifications” to provide technical metadata; and a “Contributing
Institution” field to distinguish these from copyright holders and publishers (CDP Metadata
Working Group, 2006). The Maine Memory Network provided separate fields for exact dates,
estimated dates, and date ranges; as well as creating separate fields for subject names, dates, and
locations (Maine Historical Society, 2012, pp. 50-57). Digital North Carolina changed the
names of some Dublin Core fields and added several others to meet its needs as a statewide
database, such as "Digital Collection," "Collection in Repository," and "Contact Information"
(North Carolina Digital Heritage Center).
The New Jersey Digital Highway took a different approach to metadata, using the
Metadata Encoding and Transcription Schema (METS) along with the Metadata Object
Description Schema (MODS), packaging together the descriptive and administrative metadata
for each object. These schemas offer richer descriptive metadata than Dublin Core but also
require more effort on the part of catalogers. In order to simplify the process for contributing
organizations, only certain fields of descriptive and administrative metadata were required, while
the others were recommended (Marker, 2006). The fact that the New Jersey Digital Highway
project is centered in a university library and connected to the university’s digital repository may
explain the use of this more in-depth approach to metadata.
The five projects that included many different organizations also took steps to make the
creation and entry of metadata as user-friendly and consistent as possible. The Making of
Modern Michigan, the Maine Memory Network, the New Jersey Digital Highway, and the Ohio
Memory project all used web-based templates for data entry in order to provide guidelines and
examples at the point of cataloging. All these projects also provided training to contributing
institutions on metadata creation as well as on scanning specifications and other issues. The
Maine Memory Network focused on “quality, not quantity” of records, and worked closely with
participating organizations to make sure that items were only included in the database if they
included contextual information that explained why they were of historical significance
(Amoroso, 2014). The North Carolina ECHO project hired a metadata coordinator to conduct
workshops and offer consultation, by phone or on-site, to organizations on creating high-quality
metadata. This outreach effort aimed to "provide an arsenal of knowledge and skills in consistent
metadata applications to as many professionals as possible" (Wisser, 2005, p. 168). Both the
Maine and the Ohio projects devoted much staff time to reviewing metadata as it was submitted
in order to ensure consistency; in the Maine project, staff took on the job of assigning subject
headings to each record (Amoroso, 2014; Gemmill & O’Neal, 2005, p. 178). Since Connecticut
History Online involved a smaller number of organizations employing professional cataloguers,
it has not taken as many of these steps to facilitate the creation of descriptive records, relying
instead on intensive collaborative work among the cataloguers to arrive at a common standard
(Foulke, 2014).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Survey Results
The results of the survey show that many of the issues identified in the literature as
creating challenges for the participation of smaller heritage organizations in collaborative digital
projects are relevant in Connecticut. Small organizations with limited staff are not wellpositioned to embark on digitization projects when they do not have the resources to catalog their
collections and are not accustomed to using controlled vocabularies and standards in describing
them.
At the same time, the positive attitudes towards digitization evident in the survey provide
a solid foundation on which to build. All but a few of those respondents whose organizations are
not currently sharing a significant number of images online believe that it would be beneficial for
them to do so. Almost all the respondents saw the potential benefit to their organizations of
digitizing and sharing collections information, as a way to reach a broader audience, serve their
constituents better, and help make connections with other institutions. Another important finding
is that almost all the organizations surveyed are already digitizing at least some of their
collections items for certain purposes, so it may not be a big step to move towards a more
systematic approach.
The survey also identified specific steps that could be taken to assist smaller heritage
organizations in participating in digitization projects. Specifically, there is a strong demand for
funding that would enable organizations to devote additional staff time to digitization. There is
also strong interest in further training on digitization and sharing of collections information. Such
training should address issues of copyright and permissions (identified as a concern by a number
of respondents), as well as guidance in selecting which material from a collection to digitize.
Finally, there is interest in getting help with metadata creation for digitized materials, and some
organizations are interested in a mobile scanning team that could come to their site and scan
materials. Most organizations seem less concerned with access to scanning equipment than with
other barriers. All of these steps have been taken by various digitization projects in other states
and could be developed based on those examples.
B. Metadata practices
The survey of metadata approaches in different statewide collaboration digitization projects
indicates that Dublin Core is the framework of choice for projects that want to be as inclusive as
possible of many different heritage organizations, especially smaller organizations that do not
have professional cataloguers on staff. Despite the historically-rooted differences in cataloging
practices between libraries, archives, and museums, Dublin Core is flexible enough to effectively
describe - at least on a basic level - the different kinds of materials that heritage organizations in
Connecticut hold in their collections, from archival material to three-dimensional objects. With
minor modification, the labelling of Dublin Core fields makes sense to the general audience that
is the core user base for heritage organizations in Connecticut. Furthermore, using Dublin Core is
a good choice from the perspective of interoperability, as it is compatible with the system used
by the Digital Public Library of America, as well as the OAI-PMH.
In order to make the process of metadata creation as easy and consistent as possible, projects
in other states have provided detailed guidelines for each of the Dublin Core fields, with
examples, often through an online template for entry of records. Because the Dublin Core
standard is quite flexible, it is important for a statewide project to spell out how each field should
be used in order to maintain consistency, and to provide some staff oversight over records as
they are uploaded into the system.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear from looking at digitization projects in other states that have succeeded in
including many different heritage organizations that this took dedicated resources and a
conscious effort to include and empower smaller organizations. Outreach and training for
heritage organizations - about the selection of items to be entered into the project, scanning
requirements, and the creation of metadata - are important elements of creating a broad-based
collaborative digital collection.
Projects developed so far in Connecticut - notably Connecticut History Online and
Connecticut Archives Online - have relied on the skills of professional curators and cataloguers,
working with established standards, to ensure quality and consistency. In order to expand such
projects to incorporate the wealth of material from smaller heritage organizations, a different
approach is necessary.
The benefits of making a concerted effort to include many different organizations include
creating a richer and more representative collection of the state's cultural heritage, by drawing on
a wider variety of collections; and assisting smaller organizations to serve broader audiences and
make connections across institutions by including their materials.
Recommendations:
- Provide small grants to organizations to support staff time on selection, digitization, and
description of materials.
- Create a staff position to coordinate content related to Connecticut history and heritage as
the Connecticut Digital Archive takes in material from different organizations in the state. This
person would be the primary point of contact between heritage organizations throughout the state
and be responsible for outreach, training, and monitoring of submitted material.
- Develop detailed guidelines for entering metadata (using Dublin Core fields adapted to the
needs of the Connecticut Digital Archive), with examples. Specify which fields are mandatory
and which are recommended. A web-based template for entering this data would be preferable.
- Offer training through workshops on selection, digitization and metadata best practices, and
platforms for sharing materials several times a year in different parts of the state, as well as onsite consultations and telephone support. Workshops and presentations can be coordinated by the
Connecticut League of History Organizations, building on the "Digitization 101" workshop
offered in 2013.
REFERENCES
About Connecticut History Online. (2012). Connecticut History Online. Retrieved July 22, 2013,
from http://www.cthistoryonline.org/cho/project/index.htm
Amoroso, K. (2014, March 24). Telephone interivew.
Bernier, M., Costa, K., Ecenarro, T., & Keagle, M. (2013). Newport Cultural Consortium:
Creating a Regional Online Catalog. Presented at the New England Archivists conference,
College of the Holy Cross.
Bishoff, L. (2004). The Collaboration Imperative: Library Journal, 129(1), 34–35.
CDP Metadata Working Group. (2006). Dublin Core Best Practices, Version 2.1.1. Retrieved
June 2, 2013, from www.mndigital.org/digitizing/standards/metadata.pdf
Connecticut Digital Archive Launches Softly. (2013, January 11). Connecticut Digital Archive.
Retrieved from http://blog.ctdigitalarchive.org/2013/01/11/connecticut-digital-archivesoft-launched/
Connecticut History Online. (2012). Connecticut History Online. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from
http://www.cthistoryonline.org/cdm/search/collection/cho/searchterm/hungarian/order/no
sort
Digital Collections 101: An Introductory Workshop. (2013). Conservation ConneCTion.
Retrieved June 18, 2013, from http://www.conservationct.org/content/digital-collections101-introductory-workshop-may-6-2013
Downer, S., Medina, S., Nicol, B., & Trehub, A. (2005). Alabama Mosaic: sharing Alabama
history online. Library Hi Tech, 23(2), 233–251. doi:10.1108/07378830510605188
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1. (2013). Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/
Foulke, K. (2014, March 10). Telephone interview.
Gemmill, L., & O’Neal, A. (2005). Ohio Memory Online Scrapbook: creating a statewide digital
library. Library Hi Tech, 23(2), 172–186. doi:10.1108/07378830510605142
Hubs. (2013). Digital Public Library of America. Retrieved June 2, 2013, from
http://dp.la/info/about/who/partners/hubs/
Jeng, J. (2008). Evaluation of the New Jersey Digital Highway. Information Technology and
Libraries, 27(4), 17–24.
Jones, R. A. (2005). Empowerment for Digitization: Lessons learned from The Making of
Modern Michigan. Library Hi Tech, 23(2), 205–219. doi:10.1108/07378830510605160
Jones, R. A. (2014, March 13). Telephone interview.
Maine Historical Society. (2012). Contributing Partners’ Manual: Your Guide to Digitizing and
Cataloging Historical Items for Maine Memory Network. Maine Historical Society.
Retrieved from http://www.mainememory.net/share_history/share_resources.shtml
Marker, R. (2006). Repository Metadata Guidelines. Rutgers University Libraries. Retrieved
from http://www.njdigitalhighway.org/documents/metadata-guidelines.pdf
Mt. Auburn Associates, Inc. (2003). Evaluation of the Maine Memory Network. Retrieved from
http://ntiaotiant2.ntia.doc.gov/top/docs/eval/pdf/236001006e.pdf
Nodler, H., & Botticelli, P. (2009). Case Example: Museum Data Exchange Good Things Come
to Those Who Share. Retrieved from
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~hnodler/portfolio/digin671MDEcase_final.pdf
NovaMuse: About. (2013). NovaMuse. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from
http://www.novamuse.ca/index.php/About/Index
Past Perfect Client List. (2013). Past Perfect Museum Software. Retrieved from
http://www.museumsoftware.com/clientlist.html
Roel, E. (2013). The MOSC Project: Using the OAI-PMH to bridge metadata cultural differences
across museums, archives, and libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 24(1),
22–24.
The Lexicon. (n.d.). In Past Perfect Museum Software User’s Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.museumsoftware.com/v5ug/pdf/PP5-10lex3.pdf
Waibel, G. (2010). Museum Data Exchange: Learning How to Share. D-Lib Magazine, 16(3/4).
Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/waibel/03waibel.html
What is CAO. (n.d.). Connecticut Archives Online. Retrieved July 22, 2013, from
http://library.wcsu.edu/cao/about
Wisser, K. (2005). Meeting Metadata Challenges in the Consortial Environment: Metadata
coordination for North Carolina Exploring Cultural Heritage Online. Library Hi Tech,
23(2), 164–171. doi:10.1108/07378830510605133
Wisser, K. (2014, March 26). Telephone interview.
Wykoff, L., Mercier, L., Bond, T., & Cornish, A. (2005). Columbia River Basin Ethnic History
Archive: A tri-state online history database and learning center. Library Hi Tech, 23(2),
252–264. doi:10.1108/07378830510605197
Wythe, D. (2006). Review of: Collaborative access to virtual museum collection information
seeing through the walls, by Bernadette Callery. American Archivist, 69(2), 543–546.
Appendix 1: Invitations to participate
A. Email sent to participants in “Digitization 101” workshops held in May and June, 2013
Dear fellow Digitization 101 participants,
I’m writing to ask you to complete a survey I am doing as part of my research toward my Library
Science degree at Southern Connecticut State University. I am conducting a research study to
identify barriers to museum and historical societies’ participation in statewide digital projects. I
would greatly appreciate your help in filling out the survey, which you can access online at
http://……………..
No personal information will be collected and your organization will not be identified, but the
results of the survey will help guide efforts to encourage the participation of history
organizations in digital projects in the state.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Rose, Fairfield Museum & History Center
Please feel free to contact me with any questions: elizabethruthrose@gmail.com
B. Email sent to institutions listed as using Past Perfect museum software
To the curator, collections manager, or librarian:
As part of my work toward the Master’s in Library Science degree at Southern Connecticut State
University, I am conducting a research study to identify barriers to museum and historical
societies’ participation in statewide digital projects, like Connecticut History Online. I would
greatly appreciate your help in filling out the survey, which you can access online at
http://……………..
The survey consists of 14 multiple-choice questions and should take no more than 10 minutes to
complete. No personal information will be collected and your organization will not be identified,
but the results of the survey will help guide efforts to encourage the participation of history
organizations in digital projects in Connecticut.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Rose, Fairfield Museum & History Center
Please feel free to contact me with any questions: elizabethruthrose@gmail.com
C. Email sent by Connecticut League of History Organizations
Connecticut League of History
Organizations March 27, 2014
Take our survey and help advance the heritage
community's knowledge about directions in
digitization
A Special Request from A Colleague
I am writing to ask you to complete a survey I am doing as part of coursework for a Library
Science degree at Southern Connecticut State University.
I am conducting a research study to identify barriers to museum and historical societies'
participation in statewide digital projects, and I would like to include your organization.
I would greatly appreciate your help in filling out the survey, which you can access
online at http://goo.gl/6w4Tgv
No personal information will be collected and your organization will not be identified,
but the results of the survey will help guide efforts to encourage the participation of
heritage organizations in digital projects in the state.
Please feel free to share the survey with co-workers and colleagues.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Rose, Fairfield Museum & History Center
Please feel free to contact me with any questions:elizabethruthrose@gmail.com
Connecticut League of History Organizations
37 Broad Street
Middletown, CT 06457
liz@clho.org
860-685-7595
End your promotion with a kick - consider a postscript to reinforce oecticut League of History Organizations
Appendix 2: Survey instrument
Thank you for participating in this survey about collaborative digital projects in
Connecticut, which is part of a research study undertaken by Elizabeth Rose, a graduate
student in Library Science at Southern Connecticut State University.
The survey consists of 14 questions and should not take more than 15 minutes to complete.
Of course, your participation is voluntary and you may stop taking the survey at any time.
All data about your organization and role will be kept anonymous. Completion of this
survey indicates your consent to having responses used in this research. For questions
about the research project, please contact Elizabeth Rose at elizabethruthrose@gmail.com
or Southern Connecticut State University’s Human Research Protection Program at (203)
392-5243.
1. Which of the following best describes your organization?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
local historical society
museum
library that includes historical collections
special collections/archive at a college or university
other
2. Which of the following best describes how your organization manages its collection?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Part-time volunteers
Part-time curator or archivist
Full-time curator or archivist
Two or more full-time staff members responsible for collection
3. Which of the following best describes your role in the organization?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
board member or other volunteer
director of organization
curator
archivist
librarian
4. How would you describe the items in your collection?
a. Primarily archival materials such as family papers, organizational records, and
photographs
b. Primarily historical objects such as furniture, clothing, tools, and/or household items
c. Primarily paintings and other works of art
d. A combination of all of the above
5. Which of these statements about your collection is most accurate?
a. The collection is fully catalogued (i.e., staff can find basic information for each item)
b. The collection is mostly catalogued
c. About half of the collection is catalogued
d. Less than half of the collection is catalogued
6. Which of these methods do you use to keep track of your collection?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Paper files or log book
Excel spreadsheet
Database program (FileMaker, Access)
Past Perfect software
The Museum System (TMS) software
Other [write in]
7. When you are cataloging materials from your collection, do you use any of these standards?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Library of Congress subject headings
Describing Archival Collections (DACS)
Art and Architecture Thesaurus
other [write in]
No, we use terms that our organization has decided on
8. Does your organization currently scan or digitally photograph collections items for purposes
such as research requests, reproduction in publications, or use in exhibitions?
a. yes
b. no
9. How familiar are you with the following digital projects in Connecticut? (circle one response
for each project)
Connecticut History
Online
Connecticut
Archives Online
Connecticut Digital
Archive
I have not heard of it
Treasures of
Connecticut
Libraries
I have not heard of it
I have not heard of it
I’ve heard of it or
have used it
I’ve heard of it or
have used it
I’ve heard of it or
have used it
I’ve heard of it or
have used it
My organization has
contributed content to
it
My organization has
contributed content to
it
My organization has
contributed content to
it
My organization has
contributed content to
it
My organization
would like to
contribute content to
it
My organization
would like to
contribute content to
it
My organization
would like to
contribute content to
it
My organization
would like to
contribute content to
it
I have not heard of it
10. Which of these statements is most accurate?
a. My organization currently shares a significant number of images from our collection
online (on our website, Facebook page, or other site)
b. I think it would be beneficial for our organization to share images from our collection
online, but we have not done it very much so far
c. I do not think it would be beneficial for our organization to share images from our
collection online
11. Which of these statements is most accurate?
a. I have a good idea of which items in our collection are most worth digitizing, because of their
unique historical value and interest to the public.
b. I could use guidance in choosing which items in our collection are most worth digitizing.
12. What would be the most important benefits to your organization of sharing information
about its collections?
a. reaching a broader audience
b. making material available to teachers and students
c. making material available beyond our limited library hours
d. connecting with other institutions with shared collection themes
e. other [write in]
13. What are the main barriers to sharing more of your collection online?
a. We don’t know the best way to share images online
b. We don’t have staff time to select and digitize material
c. We don’t have equipment to digitize material
d. We don’t have time to describe material that’s put online
e. We are concerned about people using images from our collection without permission
14. What kind of help would be most likely spur your organization to do more with digitizing
and sharing collections online?
a. training/information sessions about digitization and online sharing
b. access to equipment for scanning
c. a team that could come to your site and scan materials
d. a cataloging consultant who could help with describing materials
e. funding for additional staff time