Technology and digitization practices in libraries: continued progress and challenges

(University of Michigan)

Digital technology is moving at a rapid pace. According to the Information Data Corporation, the amount of information that is created, captured, or replicated in digital form in 2011 will be 10 times greater than that produced in 2006 (Levi, 2008). Desktop computers were only available as early as 1981, yet almost 28 years later, "computers and the Internet are as ubiquitous as motorized vehicles traveling from one destination to the next" (Kirchhoff, 2008). 

Libraries have responded to the digital technology challenge with progress and innovation, but universal standards and guidelines; proper staffing and funding; and widespread collaborative measures to ensure long-term program success linger behind (IMLS, 2006). For many libraries, this reality has slowed the pace to keep up with technology, largely in the form of digitization of resources, despite their best intentions to meet the demands of information seekers who have now come to expect libraries to provide the same level of access to these resources as search engines and informational websites.

The following research looks at results of a significant 2006 technology and digitization survey as an overview of the research conducted in this relatively new environment and its growing number of users; third-party organizations working collaboratively with libraries to assist with digitization of library resources and digital preservation; and the steps that the Library of Congress have taken in developing universal standards and guidelines for digitization. 

IMLS technology and digitization
 
In 2001, the Institute of Museums and Library Services (IMLS) conducted the first-ever survey on the use of technology and digitization in museums, public libraries, academic libraries, and state library administrative agencies. The study identified that most of these institutions were using some technology to automate operations and support programming, and engaged in digitization planning and activities to increase access to collections. 

In 2004, the institute conducted a second, more exhaustive survey among the same four groups, adding one new entity—archives. The goal was to delve deeper into the previous research, learning more about how these institutions use technology and digitize library collections.

Digitization assessment 

The IMLS survey described digitization as the use of computers (hardware and software) to use and manage information in digital format; automated systems to support services; Internet and other network connections; Web sites and Web-based services; office productivity applications like word processing and e-mail; staff to support these activities; and the range of technologies that help staff and users search, access, and experience collections on-site and virtually. (IMLS, 2006, p. 12)

• Digitization activities in all surveyed entities have increased since 2001, with state library administrative agencies leading the way.
• Most institutions do not have digitization policies and standards.
• Insufficient funding and staff time, and other pressing priorities hinder digitization progress. (Volunteers are heavily used in museums and archives.) 
• Collaborative digitization efforts are growing, but are not widespread. (Most state library administrative agencies provide funding or services to other institutions, including supporting cooperative digitization projects and supporting statewide digitization projects)
•  Most survey institutions do not assess visitor needs for digitized collections and services. (State library administrative agencies provide the highest level of assessment among all groups.) (IMLS, 2006, p. 8)

Drum scanner digitizing area map. (Stefan Kühn/Wikimedia Commons)

Technology assessment 

The 2006 survey described technology as the process of converting, creating, and maintaining books, art works, historical documents, photos, journals, etc. in electronic representation so they can be view via computer and other devices. The results of the survey revealed the following assessment: 

• Implementation and use of technology in all surveyed entities have increased since 2001, the year of the first study.
• Office technologies (e-mail, office productivity software, desktop computers) are pervasive in all surveyed entities, though small museums and public libraries still lag behind medium and large institutions.
• Internet connectivity through broadband connections is pervasive among all surveyed entities.
• Libraries and museum promote services and activities on the web to provide enhanced public service. (Examples include online catalogs, websites, and the use of popular social networking sites like Facebook, YouTube, and blogs).
• Insufficient funding and staff time impede implementation of technology. (Many institutions lack number of skilled staff to accomplish objectives.)
• Assessment of visitor needs is strongest (almost 50%) among academic and state library administrative agencies and weakest (25% or less) among public libraries, archives, and museums  (IMLS, 2006, p. 13).

Challenges  

The research revealed critical challenges in the following areas in all libraries surveyed: 

• Born digital items. Items without print counterparts are defined as being born digital. Serial publications are available today in both print and electronic versions, but content may be different in each format (Hughes, 2002). Other examples of born digital content include e-journals and the vast published content found on blogs, websites, wikis, among many other social networking platforms. Few of these publishing outlets have established guidelines for archiving and preservation.
• No policies. While libraries collectively understand the importance of digitizing collections in order to preserve and promote access to collections, many institutions don't have policies in place for digitization activities. The survey showed that digitization activities have increased among all types of libraries, but fewer than half had policies on all aspects of digitization. (IMLS, 2006).
• Funding. Lack of funding, lack of staffing, and other pressing priorities continue to be barriers to long-term digitization of collections (IMLS, 2006). 
• Partnerships. While collaborative digitization efforts are underway, they are not yet widespread (IMLS, 2006).      

Why digitize?

Digital preservation is the series of management policies and activities necessary to ensure the enduring usability, authenticity, discoverability, and accessibility of content over the very long term (Kirchhoff, 2008, p. 288). The urgency to adopt digital preservation in library environments has been a consistent rallying cry among information technology experts. According to Kirchhoff (2008), the loss of potentially valuable content from the web during its infancy in the early-1990s is a significant concern. When the first full-text search engine, Web Crawler, debuted in 1994, it indexed approximately 72,000 pages. But none of the top 25 pages listed at that time exists today; digital preservation is needed to ensure that future scholars will be able to access and build upon today's research and science.
 
The key goals of digital preservation are defined as follows:

• usability - the intellectual content of the item must remain usable via the delivery mechanism of current technology;
• authenticity - the provenance of the content must be proven and the content an authentic replica of the original;
• discoverability - the content must have logical bibliographic metadata so that the content can be found by end-users through time; and
• accessibility - the content must be available for use to the appropriate community (Kirchhoff, 2008, p.288).
  

As with electronic documents stored on media that are no longer accessible on evolving hardware devices, digital-born documents, such as e-journals, may suffer a similar fate if standards to preserve them are not developed and implemented.

Library of Congress creates list of challenges
 
The National Digital Library Program at the Library of Congress has identified ten challenges that must be met if large and effective digital libraries are to be created during the 21st century.  In some cases, a technology solution to the challenge may not exist, but collaborative efforts among library professionals may assist institutions such as the Library of Congress in formulating policy on important issues. The challenges are grouped under the following broad categories: building the resource, interoperability, intellectual property, providing effective access, and sustaining the resource. (Library of Congress, n.d.). 

• Building the resource refers to the design and development of effective search and retrieval systems that compensate for abbreviated or incomplete cataloging or descriptive information. 
• Interoperability describes the protocols and standards to facilitate the assembly of distributed digital materials.
• Intellectual property looks at the legal concerns associated with access, copying, and dissemination of physical and digital materials.
• Effective access integrates access to both digital and physical materials in search queries, and makes information useful to different communities of users and for different purposes.
• Sustaining the resource explores the costs for production and maintenance of digital materials (Library of Congress, n.d.).

Great Hall of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. (Wikimedia Commons)

Portico, Google to the rescue? 

Some academic and archival libraries have turned to Portico, a non-profit digital preservation service. Serving libraries and the publishers, Portico seeks to preserve scholarly literature published in electronic form and to ensure that these materials remain available to future generations of scholars, researchers, and students. Recognizing that the preservation of digital resources important to libraries requires an array of technological and organizational approaches, the service assists with preservation planning, inventory management, processing of resources, and monitoring—removing much of the technical grunt work for libraries (Fenton, 2008). Since June 2008, Portico has preserved more than 7.4 million articles or about 77.8 million files, with the capacity to process approximately 60,000 articles per day, or one to two million articles per month (Kirchhoff, 2008). One of Portico’s main strategies harnesses collaborative solutions, as it believes the responsibility of preservation should be distributed among a qualified network of organizations committed to digital preservation (Fenton, 2008).

In 2004, Google launched an ambition project to digitally scan from book collections of five major research libraries and make them accessible online. Google partnered with libraries at Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford Universities; University of Michigan; and New York Public Library. Initial library reaction ranged from enthusiasm to dread: While some see Google involvement as accelerating an inevitable transformation to an increasingly digital environment, others question the commercial nature of the enterprise and the quality and usefulness of search results. (American Libraries, 2004). While reactions may be mixed, Google's profound influence and impact on information management remains undeniable with strong implications for libraries struggling to keep up with fluid, technological innovation.

Conclusion

The results of 2006 IMLS survey underscores the growing need for more librarians to pursue careers in library technology and digitization to further develop uniform standards and guidelines. As people continue to embrace the web as their principle means of retrieving information, the demand to efficiently locate and view archives and digital collections will intensify. The proliferation of born-digital content found in social network platforms poses a unique challenge for librarians, as traditional search engines and databases have only started to unearth the wealth of content (ranging from election analysis to scholarly writings) lurking in these unconventional places. Fortunately, libraries are moving forward in right direction, as the IMLS survey suggests. Collaborative efforts through the Library of Congress and third-party partnerships with electronic archiving service Portico and information powerhouse Google may be the trend towards further progress and consistency in digitization policy.


References

Fenton, E. (2008). Responding to the preservation challenge: Portico, an electronic archiving service. Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), 31-40. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Hughes, J. (2002). Issues and concerns with the archiving of electronic journals. Science & Technology Libraries, 22(3/4), 113-136. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). (2002). Status of technology and digitization in the nation's museums and libraries, 2002 report. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from http://www.imls.gov/publications/TechDig02/2002Report.pdf 

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (2006). Status of technology and digitization in the nation's museums and libraries. (2006). Retrieved October 20, 2010 from http://www.imls.gov/publications/TechDig05/Technology%2BDigitization.pdf 

Kirchhoff, A. (2008). Digital preservation: challenges and implementation. Learned Publishing, 21(4), 285-294. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Levi, Y. (2008). Digital preservation: an ever-growing challenge. Information Today. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.

Library of Congress. (n.d.). Challenges to building an effective digital library. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/dli2/html/cbedl.html