The state of affairs with digital preservation at ARL member libraries. A survey and analysis of policy
| Pages | 137-155 |
| Published date | 08 May 2017 |
| Date | 08 May 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-08-2016-0030 |
| Author | Virginia A. Dressler |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library technology,Records management & preservation,Information repositories |
The state of affairs with
digital preservation at ARL
member libraries
A survey and analysis of policy
Virginia A. Dressler
University Libraries, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Digital preservation is a term thatis a bit of an enigma to many people both in and out of the
digital arena, but it will undoubtedlybe important in an increasingly all-digital world. The underlyingwork
relating to digital preservation is essential to the long-term care of digital media, but who is charged with
addressing this type of work, and can policy serve to structure and also reflect this complexconcept? The
main point of interest for this study is to examine existing digital preservation policies at Association of
ResearchLibraries (ARL) institutions and analyze the content of the policies.The purpose will be to determine
if these policiesare able to provide a robust framework for true digital preservationwork at this point in time.
First, an introductionis made to provide the structure of the study and background. Next,a literature review
is provided, followed by an outline of the methods and results of the study, and finally a conclusion with
recommendationsfor future research.
Design/methodology/approach –An analysis of digital preservation policy at ARL institutions is
conducted,with recommendations provided for furtherresearch.
Findings –This study was an attempt to highlight the current state of digital preservation policies,
reviewing both the positiveelements and the shortcomings of policies at ARL member institutions.The call
for policies made for this study resulted in finding that 32 (26 per cent) ARL institutions currently have a
digital preservation policyin place, from the institutions that responded (58 per cent response rate). In total,
23/40 institutions withouta current policy indicate there is, or will be, work to complete a policy withinthe
coming year (2016-2017). A call can be made at this time for more in-depth research and analysis of the
policies for furtherinquiry. Both effective (University of Houston, Universityof Florida,York University) and
ineffective (ColoradoState University, University of Texas, Virginia Tech) digitalpreservation policies were
discovered during the course of the study, with many policies falling somewhere in the middle. Many
institutions provided a good templatefor digital preservation but lacked details for how this work would be
addressedand who would be completing such work.
Research limitations/implications –Limited to ARL member institutions at the time of the study
(January2016).
Originality/value –There is currently a gap in analysis and research of digital preservation policies. This is an
area of active policy creation for many institutions, and it will likely be a growing area for researchers to examine.
Keywords Digital preservation, Digital repositories, Analysis of policy,
ARL institutional policy study, Digital preservation framework, Policy review
Paper type Research Paper
Glossary
ALA American Library Association;
ARL Association of Research Libraries;
DPN Digital Preservation Network;
Digital
preservation
137
Received2 August 201 6
Revised16September2016
Accepted16September2016
DigitalLibrary Perspectives
Vol.33 No. 2, 2017
pp. 137-155
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5816
DOI 10.1108/DLP-08-2016-0030
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5816.htm
ISO International Organization for Standardization;
LOCKSS Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe;
MARC Machine-Readable Cataloging;
METS Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard;
METS/ALTO Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard/Analyzed Layout and Text Object;
MIX Metadata for Images in XML;
PREMIS PREservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies;
OAIS Open Archival Information System; and
TRAC Trusted Digital Repository Accreditation Process.
Introduction
Digital preservationis a term that is a bit of an enigma to many people both in and out of the
digital arena, but will undoubtedly be important in an increasingly all-digital world. The
underlying work relating to digital preservation is essential to thelong-term care of digital
media, but who is charged with addressing this type of work, and can policy serve to
structure and reflect this complex concept? The main point of interest for this study is to
examine existing digital preservation policies at Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
institutions and analyze the contentof the policies. The purpose will be to determine if these
policies are able to provide a robust framework for true digital preservation work at this
point in time. First, an introduction is made to provide the structure of the study and
background. Next a literaturereview is provided, followed by an outline of the methods and
results of the study, and finally a conclusionwith recommendations for future research.
Digital preservation is a complex topic, difficult to truly define or pin down, and, some
may say, it is very much in the infancy of understanding the full implications and
ramifications of such work. The tools to support comprehensive digital preservation work
are slowly catching up to everyday practice. In many institutions, this work is lagging
behind even at a rudimentary level, while collections of digital objects continue to grow
exponentially. In Florida State’s policy (FSU Libraries Digital Preservation Policy/Program
Framework, FL StateUniversity, 2016, p. 3), they state:
Digital preservation is dynamic; responses to technological obsolescence or media decay must be
taken more quickly and the life expectancy of a preservation treatment is shorter because the
technologies utilized are evolutionary.
Throughout the course of the study, some patterns began to emerge from the sampled
digital preservation policies, although perhaps more interesting than the commonalities
between the documents are the vast differences and the gaps. Many policies provide the
exact or very similar overarching passages and phrases to indicate knowledge of the issue
by citing known/common frameworks or ideology in digital preservation, but lack
specificity in exactly how suchwork would take place. This similarity in language indicates
that there is a level of awareness to certain concepts supporting digital preservation work,
but a gap that is presentin most of the policies in exactly how this work will be completed or
how comprehensivethe work will be.
To step back a moment, the American Library Association (ALA) defines digital
preservation assomething which:
[...] combines policies, strategies and actions to ensure access to reformatted and born digital
content regardless of the challenges of media failure and technological change. The goal of digital
preservation is the accurate rendering of authenticated content over time[1].
DLP
33,2
138
To continue reading
Request your trial