Toward a definition of digital object reuse
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-06-2021-0044 |
| Published date | 17 January 2022 |
| Date | 17 January 2022 |
| Pages | 378-394 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library technology,Records management & preservation,Information repositories |
| Author | Ayla Stein Kenfield,Liz Woolcott,Santi Thompson,Elizabeth Joan Kelly,Ali Shiri,Caroline Muglia,Kinza Masood,Joyce Chapman,Derrick Jefferson,Myrna E. Morales |
Toward a definition of
digital object reuse
Ayla Stein Kenfield,Liz Woolcott,Santi Thompson,
Elizabeth Joan Kelly,Ali Shiri,Caroline Muglia,Kinza Masood,
Joyce Chapman,Derrick Jefferson and Myrna E. Morales
(Author affiliations can be found at the end of the article)
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present conceptual definitions for digital object use and reuse.
Typically, assessmentof digital repository content struggles to go beyond traditionalusage metrics such as
clicks, views or downloads. This is problematic for galleries, libraries, archives, museums and repositories
(GLAMR) practitionersbecause use assessment does not tell a nuanced story of howusers engage with digital
contentand objects.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper reviews prior research and literature aimed at defining
use and reuse of digital contentin GLAMR contexts and builds off of this group’s previous research to devise
a new model fordefining use and reuse called the use-reuse matrix.
Findings –This paper presents the use-reuse matrix, which visually represents eight categories and
numerous examples of use and reuse. Additionally, the paper explores the concept of “permeability”and its
bearing on the matrix. It concludeswith the next steps for future research and application in the development
of the Digital ContentReuse Assessment Framework Toolkit (D-CRAFT).
Practical implications –The authors developed this model and definitions to inform D-CRAFT, an
Institute of Museum and LibraryServices National Leadership Grant project. This toolkit is being developed
to help practitionersassess reuse at their own institutions.
Originality/value –To the best of the authors’knowledge,this paper is one of the first to propose distinct
definitions that describe and differentiate between digital object use and reuse in the context of assessing
digital collectionsand data.
Keywords Content reuse,Content use, Digital collectionsassessment, Digital objectreuse assessment,
Reuse definition,Use definition
Paper type Conceptual paper
© Ayla Stein Kenfield, Liz Woolcott, Santi Thompson, Elizabeth Joan Kelly, Ali Shiri,
Caroline Muglia, Kinza Masood, Joyce Chapman, Derrick Jefferson and Myrna E. Morales. Published
by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this
article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original
publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/
licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The researchers would like to acknowledge that this project was made possible in part by the
Institute of Museum and Library Services National Forum Grant LG-36–19-0036–19. The views,
findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent those
of the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
The researchers would like to extend their gratitude to members of the D-CRAFT Advisory Group,
who provided helpful feedback on the Matrix and Spectrum. The members are: Paige Dansinger,
Latoya Devezin, Genya O’Gara, Anna Naruta-Moya, Kelly Riddle, Betty Rozum, Kayla Siddell and
Holly Smith.
Funding: Institute of Museum and Library Services (LG-36-19-0036-19).
DLP
38,3
378
Received2 June 2021
Revised20 August 2021
11October 2021
Accepted11 November 2021
DigitalLibrary Perspectives
Vol.38 No. 3, 2022
pp. 378-394
EmeraldPublishing Limited
2059-5816
DOI 10.1108/DLP-06-2021-0044
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2059-5816.htm
Introduction
As knowledge and memory organizations increase access to their collections by making
them available online, digital library practitioners are increasingly tasked with assessing
the value of their digitized and born-digitalcultural heritage objects, institutional repository
items, research data, learning objects, and more. An awareness of use cases for digital
objects facilitates stronger digital collection building through a more nuanced
understanding of how and why users interact with digital objects. Quantitative access
statistics, like downloads andclicks, begin to show some indication of significance to users.
But qualitative data showing how these materials are used and repurposed may be of
greater value to digital library practitioners in building user-centric digital collections that
are responsive to user needs and demonstrably valuable to stakeholders. The differences
between access and repurposingof digital library objects can also be framed as a distinction
between the consumptionof adigital library object for its initially envisaged purpose and its
recontextualization and repurposing. One method of differentiating between access and
repurposing of digital objectsis to focus on their use and reuse. Despite wishing to conduct
more reuse assessment of their digital collections, digital library practitioners have
expressed that the lack of an accepted methodologyfor gathering and/or interpreting reuse
data is a major barrier in doing so (O’Gara et al.,2018). An integral factor of best practices
for assessing use and reuse must make clear to practitionershow to discern use from reuse.
But what differentiatesuse and reuse?
In 2019, the Content Reuse working group of the Digital Library Federation (DLF)
Assessment Interest Group (AIG) was awarded an Institute of Museum and Library
Services (IMLS) National Leadership Grantfor Libraries to build the Digital Content Reuse
Assessment Framework Toolkit (D-CRAFT). This toolkit will “...contain resources,
recommended practices, and use cases for sustainably measuring and evaluating the reuse
of digital assets held by cultural heritage knowledgeorganizations”(Thompson et al.,2019).
The purpose of the projectis to facilitate the assessment of digital repository content beyond
traditional metrics such as clicks, views or downloads, as these metrics are insufficient for
clearly demonstratingthe impact of how digital content and objects are reused after viewing
or downloading. Since practitioners cannot rely on traditional usage statistics for assessing
reuse, this begs the question:what is in scope for assessing reuse? At this point in time, there
are no community accepted definitions for use or reuse of digital content, of what
differentiates themand of how their assessment methods and approaches differ. If assessing
reuse is important to digital library practitioners, then digital object reuse must be clearly
defined to facilitate the creation of said assessment toolkit (Kelly et al.,2018;O’Gara et al.,
2018;Thompson et al., 2019).
In this article, the researcherspropose answers to these three questions:
Q1.Whatdefines use and reuse of digital content held by galleries, libraries, archives,
museums and repositories(GLAMR)?
Q2. What differentiatesuse and reuse?
Q3. What constitutes instances,examples and indications of use and reuse?
The paper will present a review of prior research and literature aimed at defining use and
reuse of digital content in GLAMR organizations, provides and builds on a review of
findings of six focus groupsconducted by Developing a Framework for Measuring Reuseof
Digital Objects (Thompson et al.,2017), propose definitions for use and reuse of digital
content held by GLAMR institutions, present the use-reuse matrix, unpack the concept of
Definition of
digital object
reuse
379
To continue reading
Request your trial