Digital Preservation Practices among Midwestern Four-year Public Colleges and Universities

Abstract

This article is the result of a study to survey the landscape of digital preservation practices and infrastructure at midwestern four-year public colleges and universities. It summarizes the staffing, tools, policy, and procedural characteristics of the survey population, compares these results to previous studies, and questions if a model for a successful program has emerged. The article concludes by arguing that instead of measuring digital preservation program development to existing ideal models, resource-strapped archives will better assess progress using a matrix linking reasonably achievable infrastructure and workflows with corresponding, categorized levels of financial, technical, and human resources.

Digital preservation practices for information resources in university libraries of Pakistan

“…The plotting confirms that studies have been conducted covering institutions worldwide (Atkins et al, 2017;Bergau, 2010;Bergin, 2013;Engelhardt, 2013;Faria, 2017;Hedstrom and Montgomery, 1998;OCLC/RLGPREMIS Working Group, 2004;Sinclair et al, 2011). However, plotting of the studies also reveal that most of the studies come from North American region (Altman et al, 2013;Bellini et al, 2012;Bailey et al, 2014;Canadian Heritage Information Network, 2011;Gallinger et al, 2017;Gorzalski, 2018;Gregory, 2009;Kenney and Buckley, 2005;Li and Banach, 2011;Library and Archives Canada, 2010;Mantooth, 2009;McMillan et al, 2011;Reed, 2008;Thiede, 2017). Whereas some studies have also been conducted in other parts of the world including UK (McInnes and Phillips, 2009;Semple and Jones, 2006), New Zealand (Dorner, 2009), China (Jiazhen and Daoling, 2007;Mei et al, 2008) and Africa (Adu, 2016;Anyaoku et al, 2019;Kalusopa and Zulu, 2009;Kavishe, 2013;Masenya and Ngulube, 2019;Nworie, 2019;Olatokun, 2008).…”

“…Bellini et al (2012) surveyed 103 associates of APARSEN in the USA and Europe and Digital preservation practices acknowledged that many of them were recording metadata for their d-contents by adhering to schemas like DublinCore (71%), self-developed schemas (36%), METS (33%), MODS (22%), MARCXML (21%), DDI (8%), DIDL (7%) and xMetaDiss (5%). Likewise, the study of Gorzalski (2018) in 54 institutions in the USA also affirmed that the majority (87%) were creating descriptive metadata, and structural metadata (41%). In the UK, Semple and Jones (2006) reported that less than one-third (30%) of the 90 Museum, Library and Archive Council (MLAC) members were adding metadata to their d-contents.…”

“…Another survey in the same region amongst 54 colleges and universities also reported that the majority (64%) distributed content geographically. Some (18%) were also limiting the file formats (Gorzalski, 2018).…”

Global perspective on digital preservation policy: A systematic review

“…However, in contrast some studies that covered worldwide organizations also pointed out toward lack of such policies (Bergin, 2013;Sinclair et al, 2011;UNESCO PERSIST, 2017). The studies that covered organizations in the North American region (mainly the USA and Canada) show satisfactory situation in terms of availability of related policies (Gorzalski, 2018;Japzon, 2008;Kenney and Buckley, 2005;Li and Banach, 2011;Library and Archives Canada, 2010). However, some studies identified a gap regarding the presence of such policies as well (Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN), 2011;Digital Preservation Policy Framework Taskforce, 2016;McMillan et al, 2011. It was astonishing to know that most of the studies conducted in organizations established in the European region identified a gap regarding the availability of digital preservation policies (Krimbacher et al, 2005;Lievesley and Jones, 1998;McInnes and Phillips, 2009;Semple and Jones, 2006).…”

“…For metadata creation/capture only 10% had policies. Availability of policies (16%) and procedures (30%) for digital storage were available in only few of the institutions (Gorzalski, 2018). Majority (65.8%) of the 330 major university, national, general, and research libraries in 29 European countries lacked digital preservation policy.…”