INLS 490-121: Collaborative Writing Exercise/Special Collections 2.0

From Pomerantz

Jump to: navigation, search

← Return to Collaborative Writing Exercise

Contents

Unique problems introduced by archives and special collections

Traditionally special collections units keep those things that are considered to be "special." More often than not in our culture "special" is synonymous with "old." So it can be reasoned that more often that not, special collections units are housing really old, really special stuff. This sort of stuff, while varying from the mundane to the wildly intriguing, does have one thing in common: it should probably not be handled too much. It's old, special, usually rare and extensive handling of said item could be detrimental.

This is one of the more interesting problems facing special collections. They have stuff, usually really cool stuff, that they want patrons to see, use, experience. But not too many patrons. Over use of the materials can damage not only the material itself but the very work of special collections. Without the special stuff, where will special collections be? The relationship between special collections and patrons is tenuous one.

Special collections have two main problems:

  • preservation and
  • access

Both of these problems could be solved, at least in part, by the digitization of collections. By somehow allowing for a digital copy to be made, special collections units could provide access more easily to patrons as well as limit exposure of the original item. Additionally, by allowing collections to be accessed online, special collections units would be increasing the find-ability and discover-ability of collections that would otherwise remain hidden.

What makes archives different?

More often than not, it is the special collections unit that is most, forgive the pun, antiquated in libraries. Archives and special collections have always operated slightly apart from library norms. For example, many special collections units do not include their items in the library's catalog. Why are special collections the slowest to change? Is it a side effect of collecting old stuff? Many special collections units do not have their finding aids (surrogate documents that describe a given collection) accessible online. The Folklife Collection at UNC is one such example. While many of their collections have online finding aids, there are a lot that still exist only in paper format. Many, well, most special collections have a limited online presence and that which is available online is usually difficult to work with, understand, or use. The fact that some, most, special collections units are not fully integrated into the web environment, it seems that the migration to the 2.0 world is unrealistic. One of the main principles, it would seem, of web 2.0 is to always remain in beta mode and to fail fast and often. This does not fit at all with the methodology of special collections, especially considering the fact that most have not made surrogates available online, much less actual items or documents.

This is not to say that I don't think that there is room for special collections 2.0. Another principle of web 2.0 is that users can take and use content in new and different ways to suit their individualized needs. I think this concept would definitely work in the special collections framework. I think that researchers could potentially collaborate and use information housed in special collections and do so virtually. Plus, to me it seems that a lot of special collections' problems could be solved using web 2.0 technologies. But it seems to be a larger cultural issue that is holding special collections back from embracing the 2.0 world. It could be argued that this same culture is holding back all sorts of libraries, not just those that collect the really old stuff. Special collections have a history of adopting things last in the library world and my guess is that by the time special collections is ready to adopt the 2.0 culture, the library world will have moved on to bigger and better things.

Web 2.0 tools for special collections

Tangentially, it must be noted that this spring Archivist's Toolkit (AT) was released. AT is an open source archival management system; the project was funded by a Mellon grant. Basically, AT goes against everything that I've just said. It is an open source product that has been designed to meet the specific needs of archivists. AT states that it hopes to be able to incorporate user generated data in the future. Perhaps AT will prove me wrong and put special collections on the road to the 2.0 world.

On a different special collections note, it should be said that some organizations are attempting to collection web 2.0 tools, such as blogs. The question has often been raised as to how to preserve Twitter tweets, especially when links are often condensed into "tiny urls." It is imperative that we begin to collect this material now if we are to preserve a record of the evolution of web 2.0 because with the "fail fast" mindset of web 2.0, it is easy to miss trends or features that die quickly.

The idea of preserving something that is every changing, every evolving is overwhelming, especially given that traditional archives are the made up of papers on which things have been recorded. It will be interesting to watch as libraries and special collections seek to find solutions for this problem.

A View to Hugh

In 2007, the photographic archives at Wilson Library acquired the complete work of renowned North Carolina photographer Hugh Morton. Archivists created an now award-winning blog called A View to Hugh to document the processing of that collection, and to seek community participation with the materials. Users have helped the archivists to identify people in the photographs, and have been given a chance to contribute content to help this amazing collection unfold. Wilson Library has had similar success on its other blogs, North Carolina Miscellany and Southern Sources.

Other 2.0 projects

References

Archivist's Toolkit. (2007).

A View to Hugh. (2007-2009).

Another Viewpoint

Not to go against the general idea of the items housed in special collections but I like to think of the items as "unique." Because of their inherent "uniqueness," (someone's personal papers or a 17th century first edition) these items need to be preserved and sometimes conserved. These items are housed in the aforementioned facilities so that they can be preserved and made accessible to the public. Personally, I would not consider access and preservation in special collections problems but they are necessary "evils" that must be considered in order for the unique items to be used by the public for a long time.

I agree that the digitization of special collections will increase their find-ability but there are other issues that need to be discussed and sussed out. In my opinion, it is not an issue of whether archives and special collections are embracing digitization projects, because in fact they are, but there are legal ramifications for many of the things they may decide to do. This may, in many people's opinion, keep them in the dark ages, but I think that special collections are being more innovative than people give them credit for.

The idea of being in a continuous state of failure is something that I am not comfortable with. For special collections and archives, I can understand why this may not appeal to them; failure for them could signal inaccessible materials for their user community, whether the items are in-house or available digitally.

Although this may be horrible to say, special collections, for the most part, work with sophisticated users who usually know what they are looking for and what to do when they find it; let's refer to them as researchers. Researchers are familiar in working with primary and "unique" resources. Archivists and special collection librarians focus on providing access to their specialized user groups and they understand that digitization and web 2.0 tools would benefit their work as well as their users but it is not something they can just jump into head-first.

It seems that we are all too quick to jump on the 2.0 band wagon. For special collections, in particular, there are so many hidden nuances that concern the accessioning, conservation, control, dissemination, maintenance, preservation, etc., of these documents and items that the public does not (need to) worry about. People seem to think that libraries are still in the dark ages even though, they are sometimes the first places to implement a new tool or software. We should not focus on the speed at which special collections are (not) adopting some of these principles of our 2.0 world. What we should be doing in encouraging institution-wide collaboration because like the old adage says, "there is power in numbers."

2.0-ish Projects in Archives

  • [1] Southern Sources at UNC-Chapel Hill Wilson Library
  • [2] Duke's Yearlook Photostream on Flickr