Surveys of Digital Preservation Practices and Priorities Findings

Surveys of Digital Preservation Practices and Priorities: Findings of the Meta. Archive Cooperative Katherine Skinner, Emory University Gail Mc. Millan, Virginia Tech NDIIPP Annual Partners Meeting June 24, 2009

Two surveys, 158 participants Central aim: to better understand the terrain of the emergent field of digital curation. how emergent is it? what trends are beginning to emerge within it? Meta. Archive 2009 2

Two surveys, 158 participants ETD: December 2007 -April 2008 Universities and Colleges 96 Respondents Five Listservs: ▪ Association of Research Libraries, Association of Southeastern Research Libraries, Council of Graduate Schools, Digital Library Federation, and Electronic Theses and Dissertations Meta. Archive 2009 3

Two surveys, 158 participants Cultural Memory: March 2009 Archives, Museums, Libraries, Historical Societies, Government Agencies 62 Respondents Three Listservs: ▪ H-Museum, A&A-L (Society of American Archivists), and ERECS-L (Electronic Records Managers) Meta. Archive 2009 4

Survey questions addressed: Who is collecting digital materials, what are they collecting, and how are they storing these materials? Who seeks to preserve their digital collections and how do they want to preserve them? What are the biggest barriers to preservation? What are the most desired offerings in preservation? Meta. Archive 2009 5

Who is collecting and what are they collecting? Cultural Memory: 98. 4% are collecting Range: 1 GB-20 TB, average 2 TB Average Growth: 540 GB/year Formats/Genres include: text (83%), video (76%), audio (75%), email (47%), databases (48%), websites (41%), and GIS material (36%) + scads more Repository structures include: home-grown (65%), CONTENTdm (17%), Fedora (9%), DSpace (7%), Access/Excel (6%), plus SRB, Filemaker, and 10 others Meta. Archive 2009 6

Who is collecting and what are they collecting? ETDs: 80% accept ETDs; 40% only accept ETDs Range: 22 -60 GB, average 41 GB Average Growth: 4. 5 GB/year Formats/Genres include: images (92%), applications (89%), audio (79%), text (64%), video (52%), and other (15%) Repository structures include: DSpace (31%), ETD-db (15%), Fedora (5%), Eprints (2%), as well as locally developed solutions (34%) and vendor-based solutions: bepress (6%), Digi. Tool (6%), Pro. Quest (6%), and CONTENTdm (6). Meta. Archive 2009 7

Formats (ETD & Cultural Memory) ETD. ppt. qt. tif. xml. wav. png. pdf. mpg. mp 3. aif. avi. doc. gif Cultural Memory. html. jpg. mov. dwt. xls. csv. zip. mix. snd. tex. txt. midi. exe. jar Meta. Archive 2009 JP 2. ps Textual documents Databases Still images Video Audio GIS Websites Email Computer games Science data Publications Presentation materials 8

Platforms (ETD & Cultural Mem. ) ETDdb Eprints Fedora DSpace Archimede bepress/ Digital Commons CONTENTdm Cybertesis Dias Digi. Tool DLXS Proquest Meta. Archive 2009 MS Access Excell SRB Res. Carta Augias-data Cumulus Collective. Access Windows Explorer IRODS Filesystem Archival. Ware Filmaker Pro i. Tunes 9 Documentum Fez Millennium Online Catalog Ohio. LINK Oracle Sesame VTLS Vital Past Perfect ANCS MINISIS CDs/DVDs In House

Structure (ETD & Cultural Mem) Cultural Memory subject (33%) collection (35%) format (21%) date (10%) department (10%) creator (8%) funder (4%) ETD All in one directory (28%) Date (26%) Departments, Authors, or Disciplines (26%) Access-level labels (7%) Don’t know (13%) *some Cultural Memory respondents selected multiple ways Meta. Archive 2009 10

Who is collecting and what are they collecting? Variation is theme Infrastructures Data Structures Presents preservation challenges, to be sure! Meta. Archive 2009 11

Who seeks preservation and how do they want to preserve? Readiness is low Most institutions are not even backing up Dearth of preservation plans and policies Desire is high Want training Want independent assessments Want to manage their own digital preservation solutions Meta. Archive 2009 12

Who seeks preservation and how do they want to preserve? Cultural Memory: Only 50% back up 100% of their digital holdings Only 19% report having in-house “expert” knowledge in digital preservation 79% have NO preservation plan 55% have NO written policies ETDs: 95% are engaging SOME backup strategies 72% have NO preservation plan Meta. Archive 2009 13

Who seeks preservation and how do they want to preserve? Cultural Memory 83% will develop policies in the next 3 years 90% cited interest in participating in a community -based digital preservation solution Only 30% cited interest in third-party vendor offerings, even at a reasonable cost ETDs 70% have experience with/knowledge of LOCKSS 92% cited interest in participating in an NDLTD- supported LOCKSS-based EDT archive Meta. Archive 2009 14

Who seeks preservation and how do they want to preserve? CMO’s engaging actively with the idea of digital preservation High level of knowledge about communitybased approaches to digital preservation Outsourcing is not the top choice of institutions as they pursue digital preservation; they would rather participate in it themselves Meta. Archive 2009 15

What are the biggest barriers to preservation? Growth of digital collection Backups. NOT File formats Platforms Structures. NOT Lack of documented policies, procedures Meta. Archive 2009 16

What are threats identified by our survey respondents? Meta. Archive 2009 17

What are the most desired preservation offerings? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Training provided by professional organizations Independent study/assessment Local courses in computer or digital technology Hire staff with digital knowledge experience Hire consultants Training provided by vendors Meta. Archive 2009 18

The Meta. Archive Cooperative The most effective preservation strategies incorporate replication of content geographically distributed secure locations private network of trusted partners Meta. Archive 2009 19

Desirable Preservation Service Cooperative preservation network Standards Training: Best practices, inc. technical Model policies Conversion or migration services Preservation services provided by third party vendors 7. Access services 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Meta. Archive 2009 20

Conclusion Calf-Path Syndrome Idiosyncratic, ad-hoc data storage structures Increasingly difficult remediation MASH: triage Survey documented narratives Outreach Offer help to those adrift in cyberspace Through collaboration there are cost-effective and strong strategies that can protect cultural memories Meta. Archive 2009 21

Questions? Katherine Skinner katherine. skinner@emory. edu Gail Mc. Millan gailmac@vt. edu Meta. Archive 2009 22