This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 30 October 2014, At: 18:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Library MetadataPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjlm20

Digital Collections:Transforming the Work ofLibrariesDonna Skekel aa Musselman Library , Gettysburg College , 300 NorthWashington Street, Gettysburg, PA, 17325 E-mail:Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Donna Skekel (2008) Digital Collections: Transformingthe Work of Libraries, Journal of Library Metadata, 8:2, 147-153, DOI:10.1080/10911360802087341

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911360802087341

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:02

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Digital Collections:Transforming the Work of Libraries

Donna Skekel

ABSTRACT. While recent years have seen an increase in the numberof digital collections being produced by academic, public, and special li-braries, these endeavors represent a new direction. Libraries engaged ininitiating, implementing, and maintaining digital collections are expandingtheir traditional roles of collecting, organizing, and providing access to re-sources. Their new roles include creating content and in some ways, alsocreating the access. Libraries are involved in the “business” of producingdigital collections–a task made possible and also easier by the technologydeveloped and available, but a task often begun with scant initial fundingand achieved by “converting” staff members already dedicated to other tasksat the institution. This article will look to the bright future and usability ofdigital collections, while remembering digitization’s humble beginnings andthe lessons we are learning along the way.

KEYWORDS. Digital collections, digital libraries, metadata, collectiondevelopment, special collections, user access

Few can overlook the huge benefit of overcoming physical space andtime achieved by the development and evolution of digital collectionsin libraries. In the past, if one wanted to view the special collectionsof a distant library, it often required a personal appointment scheduledmonths in advance. One would have to plan for time away from work orhome to travel to another location to view and possibly handle–with white

Donna Skekel is Serials/Electronic Collections Librarian, Musselman Library,Gettysburg College, 300 North Washington Street, Gettysburg, PA 17325 (E-mail:dskekel@gettysburg.edu).

Journal of Library Metadata, Vol. 8(2) 2008Available online at http://jlm.haworthpress.com

C© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1080/10911360802087341 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:02

30

Oct

ober

201

4

148 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA

gloves–a rare document or archival object. Now, with libraries digitizingsome of their most valuable treasures and making them available in theonline environment, viewing documents or items may only require a fewclicks of the mouse.

Libraries have, in the last decade, been performing as unrecognized en-trepreneurs when embracing the task of producing digital collections. Li-brarians, administrators, information technologists, faculty, students, staff,and even volunteers have hit the ground running with digital projects, andif you look out at the digital horizon, you will see an entire universe ofundigitized objects and documents waiting for their opportunity to becomeglobally accessible.

How far have libraries come? Do libraries anticipate that they willachieve their digitization goals?

Consider the chronology of new library services enabled by technology:online catalogs, Internet access, electronic resources. Then, along camethe demand for library-created digital collections. Suddenly, decipheringthe licenses for electronic resources looked tame compared to the am-bitious endeavor of creating a digital collection from scratch. Early on,there were commercial software products and hosting services availableto help libraries get started with their digital projects (e.g., CONTENTdmor Insight), and though training was required to use the not-yet-enhancedproducts, this did make initial digital efforts easier. Most of the fundsavailable for digitization were often used toward the purchase or devel-opment of useful software applications. These technology hurdles werequickly overshadowed by the staffing and time commitments of produc-ing a worthwhile collection that would be useful to local and even globalresearch communities. How should libraries decide what to digitize–whatspecial collection would be the first to gain the benefit of increased access?Libraries have strived to work into the mix the overarching goals of collec-tion development. “Such efforts often began as special projects in specialcollections, but are moving into the collection development mainstream”(Phillips & Williams, 2004, p. 279).

CREATING DIGITAL COLLECTIONS

While the very first digital project is often viewed as a singular projectwith a distinct beginning and end, it is often later enhanced and updatedand is usually just the first in a long line of digitization efforts. The digitalcollections that libraries have produced are frequently so well received or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:02

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Donna Skekel 149

popular with the public or faculty or institutional administration that thecreators of digital collections are ill prepared for the tsunami of digitalprojects and requests that soon come their way. Though libraries cannotalways foresee their own digital futures or predict their ability (or avail-able funding) to achieve new goals or initiatives, it is advantageous toplan for developing full-scale digital operations even while endeavoring,against many odds, to complete the very first digital project. Some librariespropose the creation of an entirely new “digital” department. The authorsof “South Carolina goes digital” recount the development of the DigitalActivities Department in their library at the University of South Carolina-Columbia. After forming an interdepartmental digital initiatives team, theteam members “soon discovered that it was difficult to find the time to fitdigitization into their already full schedules” (Boyd & King, 2006, p. 181).Eventually a new digital activities librarian was named, creating the DigitalActivities Department.

It may require a little luck and a lot of monetary support for aninstitution to have the opportunity to develop an organizational struc-ture with departments or individuals that specifically address digitizationneeds or are devoted solely to digital collections work. Sometimes–oftentimes–the funding is just not possible, especially for smaller institutions.Other limitations include time pressures that have to do with the demandfor certain subject content or the need to keep current for a library’susers and not wanting to be marginalized in the online environment orcommunity.

The increased number of libraries developing digital collections in therecent past has often involved blazing an uncertain trail individual to eachlibrary. Traditionally charged with collecting and providing access toresources, libraries have now taken a giant first step in providing digi-tal collections for their library users. This is especially important if thedigitized collection is distinctive content particular to a specific library,such as antique maps, early institutional photographs, letters authored byhistorical figures, or unique or locally significant archival objects from aspecial collections or archives department. However, before a library canadd a digital collection to its holdings, it must fill the roles of developer,grant writer, creator, researcher, metadata specialist, photographic special-ist, archivist, appraiser, writer, editor, project manager, publisher, producer,technologist, programmer, artist, copyright specialist, advertiser–and thelist goes on. These roles represent some large and varied shoes to fill, oftenaccomplished with only a minimum of training to get a project going. “Wefound it telling that our interviewees, when asked whether digital library

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:02

30

Oct

ober

201

4

150 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA

development was most like collection development, publishing, research,editing, curatorship, or a technology project, uniformly told us, ‘All of theabove”’ (Panitch & Michalak, 2007, p. 61).

It is no wonder that digital projects are sometimes approached by li-braries in a nonlinear or “piecemeal” way–there are so many pieces re-quired to produce a collection that libraries have to fit tasks in wheneverand however possible. Perhaps a research specialist is only available in thesummertime–that is when a library completes the research piece. Perhapsthe library only has funds to digitize 250 objects–that is how many itemsthe collection will have until additional funding is obtained. It is oftenmore advantageous to have several projects going at once, since you willnot always have control over when each piece will be able to be com-pleted. A digital project manager will often spend the largest percentageof his or her time scheduling other individuals’ time in order to producea digital collection. While the qualifications of librarianship are often anexcellent match for digital projects, libraries addressing staffing for digitalcollections have also greatly emphasized skills in project management,communication, technology, and good quality control, in addition to theability to properly plan and organize a digital collection.

QUALITY NOT QUANTITY

Metadata standards for digitization have been developed and continueto evolve and be updated. Adhering to standards offers some assurancethat digital collections will be appreciated by library users beyond thoseassociated with a particular institution. The great value of metadata is itsflexibility. However, the quality of the metadata and the way a collectionis organized has a direct impact on the user’s ability to browse and searcha collection. If one digital entry receives metadata containing an historicaltimeframe, and another similar entry does not, only the one entry will bediscoverable through metadata related to time. Sometimes a unique wayof grouping the content of a digital collection must be utilized due to theway the collection will be browsed or searched. A customized vocabu-lary may have to be created for a digital project, rather than relying ona particular subject thesaurus or Library of Congress subject headings.Collection organization and search functions must be designed and im-plemented with the end user in mind–a user with Googlized expectationsfor discovering digitized content. Panitch and Michalak (2007) found thatthe creators of digital collections must “exhibit an understanding of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:02

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Donna Skekel 151

way research materials are, or can be, used” (p. 54). Someone viewinga collection of art objects will search differently than someone exploringhistorical documents. And while the general process of developing a dig-itization project is repeated for each collection, it will never be exactlythe same. Every collection is unique; each project is like starting all overagain.

The mixing of different formats in one digital collection is becominga more common practice for digital libraries. For example, one collectionof Civil War Era Political Cartoons at Gettysburg College, Gettysburg,PA, has evolved into a Civil War Era Collection http://www.gettysburg.edu/library/gettdigital/civil war/civilwar.htm, which now includes pho-tographs, letters, maps, and artifacts in addition to the political cartoons.This calls attention to the need to adapt to new ways of thinking aboutcollection development at libraries and institutions. Phillips and Williams(2004) note that traditional “collection management values may soonreach a digital wall that challenges the definition of collection, along withassumptions about collection building. The digital environment demandsnew approaches to collecting for future generations” (p. 283).

A SHIFT IN FOCUS

The emphasis of digitization at libraries has shifted from creating digitalcollections to preserving and sharing digital collections.

One key to preservation and access for digital collections identified byPanitch and Michalak (2007) is to create content using software that iscompliant with Open Archives Initiative (OAI) standards, so that the “sys-tem remains flexible and retains the potential for broad interoperability”(p. 56) as we think about ways to “improve searching across multiplecollections from multiple institutions” (p. 58).

Institutions are working to make collections more “findable” throughlocal, regional, or online collaborations with others (e.g., AccessPennsylvania Digital Repository http://www.accesspadigital.org/index.htm). Some serve as “hosts” or develop customized interfaces for their owncollections and invite others to contribute content as well, often resulting instrengthening the subject content of a particular collection. There are alsoweb-based initiatives in existence, such as OAIster http://www. oaister.org/(whose slogan is “find the pearls”), an online catalog of digital collectionsthat currently (as of this writing) has 979 contributors and is continuallygrowing. OAIster’s catalog can be searched by title, author/creator, subject

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:02

30

Oct

ober

201

4

152 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA

or language, limited by resource format (text, image, audio, video, etc.),and sorted by title, author, date, and hit frequency.

Many academic institutions are also responding to the demand for initiat-ing institutional repositories, not just for storing completed digital projectsor content “born digital,” but also to house faculty research and to contributeto open access for scholarly works and research. The first academic institu-tions in the United States to implement institutional repositories have usu-ally been the larger universities, but small private colleges are also feelingthe pull. “Until now, much emphasis has been placed on the role of repos-itory software. . . In truth, reliance on repository software alone will not besufficient. . . Repository support teams need to engage in preservation man-agement, planning, and policy. . . the extended risks to physical and digitalmaterials might be most cost-effectively tackled by specialist preservationservices. For information materials like books and journals, these serviceshave traditionally been offered by libraries and archives, and such organi-zations might be well positioned to serve digital sources too” (Hitchcock,Brody, Hey, & Carr, 2007, “What Is Preservation” section, para. 1).

When all is said and done, what will the public access for this con-tent look like? We are speeding “toward a time when scholarship, andhow we make it available, will be affected by information abundance”(Jensen, 2007, p. B6). Institutions want to promote their own researchers,researchers want to share their ideas, ideas will be stored in many differentonline containers. What is the next logical step–a global repository arrangedby subject or format? Is this beginning already, with large online databasessuch as ARTstor http://www.artstor.org/index.shtml? Is it possible to eventhink about placing a single interface on top of all these digital libraries?And how about the traditional library method of cataloging each digitalcollection and/or each individual digital item? Will the content of these dig-ital libraries all be discoverable through Google http://www.google.com/?What about WorldCat http://www.worldcat.org/? As we struggle withpreservation and access for digital collections, Jensen (2007) warns that ifscholarly output is locked away behind firewalls, it risks becoming invisi-ble to the automated web crawlers, indexers, and authority-interpreters thatare being developed. “Scholarly invisibility is rarely the path to scholarlyauthority” (p. B8).

CONCLUSION

Libraries have arrived at the digital party. Still, many occasionally pon-der if they are “getting it right.” It is not always possible for a library to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:02

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Donna Skekel 153

compare or validate its current approach to digitizing collections, since thedifferences in approaches are as numerous as the number of institutionsdigitizing. It is of tremendous value that librarians and information tech-nologists are able to collaborate on projects and share information, soft-ware, guidelines, and solve digitization problems through many avenuesof online communication, as well as through professional associations andconferences.

Though much of the scholarly research, metadata creation, and organi-zation of digital collections is, in fact, invisible to viewers, we continueto strive for quality. Panitch and Michalak (2007) remind us, “What theynotice, what serves as a guarantor of accuracy and authority, is the nameassociated with the content. Our libraries and the institutions of which weare part trade in effect on our institutions’ good name” (p. 62). Digitalcollections can have brand value, just as well-known and well-respectedpublishers do; this helps insure longevity.

“Our digital libraries provide citizens with direct access to extraordi-nary collections, often built with public funding,” say Panitch and Michalak(2007), “and shed light upon state, local, even personal histories and her-itage” (p. 61). It will be in our own best interests, but also for the greaterbenefit of the global community of online researchers, for libraries topersist in producing exceptional digital collections.

REFERENCES

Boyd, K., & D. King. (2006). South Carolina goes digital: The creation and developmentof the University of South Carolina’s Digital Activities Department. OCLC Systems &Services, 22(3), 179–191.

Hitchcock, S., T. Brody, J. Hey, & L. Carr. (2007, May/June). Digital preserva-tion service provider models for institutional repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 13(5/6),<doi:10.1045/may2007-hitchcock>.

Jensen, M. (2007, June 15). The new metrics of scholarly authority. The Chronicle of HigherEducation; Section: The Chronicle Review, 53(41), B6–B8.

Panitch, J., & S. Michalak. (2007). The scholarly work of digital libraries. Journal ofLibrary Administration, 46(1), 41–64.

Phillips, L., & S. Williams. (2004). Collection development embraces the digital age: areview of the literature, 1997–2003. Library Resources & Technical Services, 48(4),273–299.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:02

30

Oct

ober

201

4