Best Practices in Digital Asset Management for Electronic Texts in Academic Research Libraries

BEST PRACTICES IN DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR ELECTRONIC TEXTS IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH LIBRARIES

William Cleland

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

August 2007

Committee:

Paul Cesarini, Advisor

Linda Brown

Kathryn S. Hoff

William Cleland

Dr. Paul Cesarini, Advisor

Digital information is becoming increasingly prevalent and libraries must develop new strategies to effectively archive electronic materials. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify and synthesize best practices of digital asset management of electronic texts in academic research libraries. The study was a “snapshot” of major topics related to digital asset management.

Minimal research has been conducted to identify best practices in this field when compared to the amount of research that has been conducted for the print domain. The main issues that are seen in existing literature are digital materials selection, funding, digital rights management (DRM), and information authenticity. Several major trends also arose from the literature, including digital library architecture, metadata standards and search strategies, and bibliographic management software.

A modified Delphi study was used to gather qualitative data from librarians at several institutions within the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Eight librarians from several

ARL institutions participated in two E-mail questionnaires. Participants were selected by identifying research-extensive libraries on the ARL website and selecting potential participants based on their job titles. Data was analyzed by identifying major themes and patterns that arose in the individual responses.

Participants all possessed baccalaureate degrees, but had varied educational backgrounds, representing fields such as computer science, history, humanities, and natural sciences. Most of the participants also held advanced degrees in library science. Each library represented by the participants had a unique organizational structure and used different systems and strategies.

There was significant discussion about the use of proprietary versus open-source software, content management systems, and other specific digital asset management strategies.

Participants revealed that each library has a specialization and fulfills a specific role within the ARL libraries. Software selection and preferred strategies and methods were also discussed by the participants, but these issues were trivial compared to more major issues raised in the responses such as the fundamental roles of digital libraries and the desire for consortia.

The consensus among the participants was that digital libraries must work to cooperate within their own university libraries as well as with other digital libraries. v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The success of this study is due in large part to the exceptional knowledge and expertise of Dr. Paul Cesarini. Without his cutting-edge instruction, patient guidance, and persistence, I would not have been able to maintain a scholarly approach to my research. I would also like to thank Linda Brown for her thorough knowledge and experience in the area of my research, as well as for her willingness and interest in my topic. Also, without Dr. Kathryn Hoff's commitment to research excellence and her easily approachable nature, I would have been at a loss for much of this study. She has also been a fantastic friend and neighbor over the years and demands my respect and appreciation. I am thankful for all the hard work and dedication all my committee members have put forth to help me in my research, and would not have been able to compose this paper without them.

I would like to thank Dr. Donna Trautman and Kim Strickland for their excellent leadership, knowledge, and assistance during my graduate program. Dr. Carol Engler, my assistantship supervisor, has been a trustworthy and discerning advocate for my success as a graduate student. She has truly been an anchor who helped me hone my skills and build confidence in my own abilities. My professors and colleagues have also been significant, and sadly, often unacknowledged contributors to my success in graduate research. Of course, I am tremendously thankful for the constant support and encouragement of my family and friends.

Thank you all for making this a challenging and rewarding part of my life. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1 Context of the Problem...... 1 Statement of the Problem...... 6 Significance of the Study...... 6 Objectives of the Study...... 7 Assumptions...... 7 Limitations...... 7 Definition of Terms...... 8 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 10 Introduction...... 10 Issues...... 10 Materials Selection...... 11 Storage Media...... 12 Funding...... 13 Digital Rights Management...... 14 Information Authenticity...... 16 Trends...... 17 Digital Library Architecture...... 18 Metadata Standards and Search Strategies...... 19 Bibliographic Management Software...... 20 Practices...... 21 Digital Library Initiative...... 21 Digital Libraries...... 22 Summary...... 24 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY...... 25 Introduction...... 25 Restatement of the Problem...... 25 vii

Research Design...... 25 Population/Sample...... 26 Participants...... 26 Data Collection...... 27 Phase One...... 28 Phase Two...... 28 Pilot Testing the Data Collection Instrument...... 29 Procedures of Data Analysis...... 29 Protection of Human Subjects...... 30 Timeline...... 30 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS...... 31 Introduction...... 31 Response Rates...... 31 Profile of Survey Participants...... 32 Results...... 32 Profile of Libraries...... 32 Current Digital Asset Management Strategies and Methods...... 34 Best Practices...... 39 Summary...... 40 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 41 Introduction...... 41 Summary...... 41 Conclusions...... 42 Recommendations for Future Study...... 46 REFERENCES...... 47 viii

APPENDIXES Page APPENDIX A: Explanation of Study and Consent...... 52 APPENDIX B: Phase One Survey Questions...... 54 APPENDIX C: Phase Two Survey Questions...... 55 APPENDIX D: Phase One Survey Reminder...... 57 APPENDIX E: Follow-up Correspondence...... 58 APPENDIX F: Phase Two Survey Reminder...... 59 APPENDIX G: Human Subjects Review Board Approval Letter...... 60 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Context of the Problem

Archiving documents has been an important part of preserving society's historical impact in the world. Without ongoing, systematic, and effective archival strategies, important historical information could be lost forever. Not only do archives enable the current generation to examine the past, they enable researchers to understand historical events in order to expand current knowledge. Bricklin (n.d.) explained:

As human beings, we benefit greatly from the works of others. Artists, thinkers, scholars,

and performers create works that we all enjoy, learn from, and are inspired by. Many

works are timeless. Either standing alone or in the context of their time or other times,

they are valuable periodically years after they are created. We often hear of authors,

artists, or composers who only become popular or have their greatest impact after their

death, sometimes years later. (¶3)

It is through careful, standardized, and methodical preservation strategies and methods that these works can be preserved theoretically forever; effectively managing digital assets in libraries will make it possible for future generations to benefit from the efforts of those in the past.

According to Phillips (2005), the fundamental role of libraries has traditionally been

“collecting, describing, and preserving for future generations at least one copy of every item published in print” (p. 57). Although this role of libraries has been prominent in library science for centuries, recent technological developments have made it difficult for librarians and archivists to accomplish this role effectively. Because of these challenges and difficulties, many issues and questions have surfaced about the role of libraries in preserving and managing digital information. 2

Digital information is becoming increasingly prevalent. Print materials are being digitized to make electronic copies of documents available to the public as well as to protect delicate original documents from excessive handling. Documents stored in thousands of different file formats have created complicated processes necessary for their future preservation. There is also a proliferation of “born-digital” materials that have never existed in print form but still must be effectively managed to ensure their preservation. These born-digital materials are of particular concern to librarians involved in managing digital information because of their recent abundance. Therefore, the issues, policies, and trends, and best practices surrounding digital asset management of born-digital electronic texts was the focus of this study.

As digital documents are produced at increasing rates, the need for effective digital asset management methods is becoming increasingly urgent. Digital media is continuously becoming obsolete; storage media such as magnetic tapes, floppy disks, and even compact disks are already being replaced by newer forms of storage such as removable USB drives and remote server space. Lazinger (2001) wrote, “where we can read the 400 year-old books printed by Gutenberg, it is often difficult to read a 15 year-old computer disk” (p. 10). The volatility of electronic documents is due to issues such as software obsolescence, lack of interoperability between computer systems, and lack of downwards compatibility. Digital rights management practices further complicate the issues of system interoperability because of the proprietary nature of many digital documents. These issues are therefore a major concern to librarians in the field of digital asset management.

Presently, the field of digital asset management is highly fragmented, comprised of many different, disconnected issues. According to Barlow (1994), “since we don’t have a solution to what is a profoundly new kind of challenge, and are apparently unable to delay the galloping 3 digitization of everything not obstinately physical, we are sailing into the future on a sinking ship” (¶3). Although Barlow wrote about patent and copyright issues in the digital age more than a decade ago, the issues have not yet been resolved, and many more have since crept into the field adding further complexity and uncertainty.

The complex and volatile issues surrounding technology and policy are also a source of difficulty for digital librarians. For example, it is currently unknown what groups should be responsible for implementing digital asset management strategies. Responsible groups could be authors, patrons, librarians, or the government, but this is still a divisive issue. Additionally, materials in the digital domain do not apply to standards and practices developed for traditional print archives. The issue of selecting what materials to preserve and what materials to discard is thus a major question for academic research librarians making decisions about digital asset management.

Information authenticity is also a major issue. Digital materials can be easily altered, intentionally or unintentionally, without notice. According to Cullen, Hirtle, Levy, Lynch, and

Rothenberg (2000), “validating authenticity entails verifying claims that are associated with an object—in effect, verifying that an object is indeed what it claims to be, or what it is claimed to be” (pp. 39-40). Being able to ensure that digital materials in an archive are an exact replica of the original digital document is one of the principal challenges for librarians involved in digital asset management. Ease of editing electronic texts, multiple file formats, interoperability between computer systems, and lack of metadata standards are all issues that can cause considerable problems in ensuring that born-digital texts are authentic. 4

As information migrates from print to the digital domain, librarians must understand and adhere to standards in digital asset management. According to Chowdhury and Chowdhury

(1999):

Traditional libraries have developed and used several standards particularly with regard

to the organisation of information resources, cataloguing, indexing, and so on. The need

for standards and strict adherence to those is much more essential in a digital library

environment. (p. 433)

Despite the many standards that have been developed to bring consistency to digital asset management practices, there are currently too many different types of practices to be helpful to librarians. A major problem in developing standards is due to uncertainty in deciding when a standard is an accepted standard. Such decisions could be based on a ratification process or on widespread usage, but this is still unclear to librarians. Due to this ambiguity, digital librarians must face the challenge of selecting which standards to employ and which to disregard when setting up a digital collection.

Copyright law is also a major concern. Digital materials are not subject to the same copyright laws as print materials, since distribution of digital materials is more difficult to regulate than those in the print domain. According to Lazinger (2001):

The 1976 Copyright Act, which provides much of the legal context for the creation and

management of digital archives in the United States, is governed by a different set of

standards than the one that governs the communications infrastructure that supports the

digital world. These different standards, inevitably, will significantly affect the

dissemination of intellectual property in a distributed, networked environment. (p. 97) 5

Copyright laws relating to digital materials are therefore still subject to debate because of the many issues that have thus far been unresolved. These laws can severely hinder the future of digital asset management because copy-protected original documents cannot be maintained the way a document that is not copy-protected is maintained. Bricklin (n.d.) argued that “archivists, collectors, and preservers will be unable to maintain [copy-protected electronic documents] the way they would if they weren’t protected” (¶12).

There are many trends that have developed during the short history of digital asset management relating to economics, content, scholarly communication, preservation, and evaluation. As digital librarians continue to implement different strategies, many of these trends will surface as significant in the future practice of digital preservation of information. Currently, several leading research institutions have implemented sophisticated digital library systems.

These include the Glasgow Digital Library, the University of Central England Electronic

Library, the National Library of Theses and Dissertations, and the Library of Congress. Each of these institutions has developed and implemented their own strategies relating to effective management of electronic texts, but there is still disparity in determining which standards and significant trends should be used in the future.

Since these issues, trends, and practices of digital asset management are still largely disconnected, implementing effective strategies is difficult. The need for coordination between digital libraries was identified by Mischo (2004):

One possible scenario for advancing the field of digital libraries is for federally funded

digital library research and the development work carried out by vendors, publishers,

institutions, library consortia, and other entities to be coordinated and integrated. This is

presently being done within the NSDL [The National Science Digital Library] project, 6

but it needs to be greatly expanded. In the day-to-day life of libraries, particularly

academic libraries, librarians find themselves confronting a number of collection

development and service issues as they deal with a scholarly information environment

that comprises a broad array of distributed and heterogeneous online resources. (p 15)

Libraries must find effective ways to deal with the issues and technologies relating to digital asset management. Therefore, a high-level analysis of these content areas will help academic research librarians understand the relationships between and among the major themes and patterns in managing electronic texts.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was to identify and synthesize the current best practices of digital asset management of electronic texts in academic research libraries.

Significance of the Study

Research librarians cannot have a fully objective perspective of digital asset management because they were immersed in digital preservation on a daily basis. Since the researcher in this study is not a librarian, the study can be done with an external perspective. This will allow for an overview of major topics related to digital asset management without a narrow focus on any one aspect.

Much research has been conducted to understand specific issues of digital asset management, including multiple file formats, software obsolescence, and metadata (Chowdhury

& Chowdhury, 1999, p. 409), but researchers have done little to produce an overview of the major topics of digital asset management. Currently, concepts in the field are independent of each other and interrelationships are unclear. Therefore, this study provided an overview of digital asset management practices from the perspective of research librarians who were subject 7 matter experts in managing born-digital electronic texts. This study identified common relationships between the many aspects of digital asset management and serve to synthesize digital asset management practices in research libraries.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study were to:

1. Identify major themes and patterns in digital asset management at academic research

libraries.

2. Synthesize common relationships among the best practices of digital asset

management.

Assumptions

Considering the rapid rate of change occurring in fields related to information and communication technologies, digital rights management, and digital asset management, there are likely to be some significant and/or unforeseen events and issues that will arise after the survey has been completed and the data compiled. As such, this study represents a "snapshot" of best practices at the time. Also, it was assumed that the group of ARL librarians surveyed were committed to and involved in digital asset management practices on a professional level. All participant responses were assumed to be voluntary, honest, and unbiased.

Limitations

The following limitations are inherent to the study:

1. The survey questions focused on gathering information about digital asset

management specific to electronic text materials. Management practices of digital

assets such as graphics, audio, video, and animations were not studied. 8

2. Survey questions were specific to born-digital files that have never existed in any

form of physical, hard-copy storage.

3. The sample group will be comprised of librarians within the Association of Research

Libraries.

Definition of Terms

The following terms have been defined for the purposes of this study:

Born digital materials – Information that has been initially created in the digital form (Lazinger,

2001).

Derivative work rights - “The manipulation of the content to create additional (derivative)

works” (Rosenblatt, Trippe, & Mooney, 2001, p. 62).

Digital archive – “A documented information system employing information architecture

configured to assure trustworthiness and long-term retention of digital assets” (The

University of Texas at Austin, n.d., ¶1).

Digital asset – “Any digital material owned by an enterprise or individual including text,

graphics, audio, video and animations” (TechWeb, 2006, ¶1).

Digital asset management (DAM) – Refers to “keeping track of the digital assets of an

organization” (TechWeb, 2006, ¶1).

Digital authenticity – Information that is “unaltered from the original; that it is what it purports to

be; and/or that its representation is transparent…” (Lazinger, 2001, p. 88)

Digital library – An “assemblage of digital computing, storage and communications machinery

together with the content and software needed to reproduce, emulate and extend the

services provided by conventional libraries based on paper and other material means of 9

collecting, cataloguing, finding and disseminating information” (Chowdhury &

Chowhury, 1999).

Digital preservation – The “diligent and conscientious system of procedures holding caretakers

accountable for their custodianship of digital objects” (The University of Texas at Austin,

n.d., ¶1).

Digital rights management (DRM) – “Rights management that uses digital technology and

applies to intellectual property in digital form” (Rosenblatt, Trippe, & Mooney, 2001, p.

4).

Downward compatible – “Also called backward compatible, it refers to hardware or software

that is compatible with earlier versions” (TechWeb, 2006, ¶1).

Interoperability – “The capability of two or more hardware devices or two or more software

routines to work harmoniously together” (TechWeb, 2006, ¶1).

The National Science Digital Library (NSDL) – A digital library “created by the National

Science Foundation to provide organized access to high quality resources and tools that

support innovations in teaching and learning at all levels of science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics education” (The National Science Digital Library, n.d.,

¶1).

Metadata – “any data that aids in the identification, description and location of networked

electronic resources” (Lazinger, 2001, p. 88).

Render rights – restricting the output of a document; controlling how the material is printed,

viewed, or played (Rosenblatt, Trippe, & Mooney, 2001, p. 62).

Transport rights - “the rights to move or copy content from one place to another” (Rosenblatt,

Trippe, & Mooney, 2001, p. 62). 10

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

Digital asset management is a complex field and there are many issues surrounding it that must be understood to develop effective digital libraries for the future. In order to identify and synthesize best practices of digital asset management, it is important to understand that the fundamental role of libraries has traditionally been to collect, preserve, and catalogue materials to provide access theoretically forever (Phillips, 2005). While that role will remain static, the methods librarians use to carry it out will constantly be in flux due to the rapid proliferation of digital media. An overview of the issues, trends, and practices of digital libraries is important to understand the themes and relationships among the many aspects of digital asset management in academic research libraries.

Issues

Digital asset management in research libraries is still an emerging field. Best practices of managing born-digital electronic texts exist in relative infancy compared to that of print materials. Thus, electronic information is much harder to preserve and effectively archive because personal files, E-mail, and other electronic data on personal computers are getting lost in a tangle of Internet technology (Law, 2004). There is potential for a greater loss of information in the future due to the rapid increase of digital data which can cause problems in preserving these documents (Lazinger, 2001). In comparison with traditional archiving of print materials, Law

(2004) described the issues as “much more daunting when it comes to electronic materials and largely revolve around media formats and preservation” (p. 53). Within the field of digital asset management, research librarians must understand the complexities relating to selecting digital content and media, financing and access, copyright law, and information authenticity. 11

Materials Selection

One major issue in digital asset management is deciding how to select materials.

According to Chowdhury and Chowdhury (1999), the selection process is one of the most important stages of building a digital library, but also a major stumbling block. Therefore, particular attention must be focused on developing strategies for materials selection. Phillips identified two distinct approaches in selecting digital materials. The first approach, called

“selective archiving,” involves library staff making decisions about what materials to preserve, often selecting materials based on “resources that are like print publications and that do not change or contain interactive or dynamic information” (p. 59). The second approach, called

“whole domain harvesting,” requires taking a snapshot of an entire country's Internet domain at specific time intervals (p. 59). Selective archiving, because it is reviewed by librarians, is the preferred approach in terms of research library archiving. The obvious disadvantage of whole domain harvesting is that there is a lack of discernment based on selection criteria. There are also hybrid approaches that combine whole domain and selective harvesting that have been put into place to bring some consistency to the materials selection process.

It is impossible to preserve everything, so research librarians must develop a set of criteria to determine which materials to select. These criteria are based on consideration of end users, quality of information, quality of medium, quality of the systems, and Internet service providers (Lazinger, 2001). The traditional library relies on “qualities of fixity and durability”

(Deken, 2004, pp. 234-235) that help librarians determine which materials should be preserved.

Print materials can be effectively archived and preserved for long periods of time because they are physical objects. These physical objects are fixed and durable, which is a quality that allows librarians to preserve them in an archive without significant modification. Digital materials, 12 however, are much more difficult to ensure continued access and longevity because they are stored in easily damaged media prone to obsolescence (Lazinger, 2001).

Storage Media

The medium in which digital materials are stored is a crucial consideration for digital librarians. This is an important issue mainly because of the rapid technological obsolescence of computer hardware and software. Lazinger (2001) stated:

Based on tests done by the National Media Lab, the [U.S. News Online] article shows that

VHS tapes stored at room temperature can be depended on to preserve data for just a

decade and that CD-ROMs become unreliable after five years, whereas archival quality

microfilm has a life of over 100 years and permanent paper a life of 500 years. In

addition, even in the best-case scenario—when the tapes and disks remain intact and

readable—the hardware and software necessary to read them may no longer be available

after five to ten years. (p. 76)

This scenario highlights one of the most frightening and relevant issues for digital librarians.

Dealing with this problem of software and hardware obsolescence is still an unresolved issue, but there are a few possible solutions being considered. Lazinger (2004) identified three main options for digital preservation: refreshing, emulation, and migration (p. 102). The refreshing method involves copying digital material to another medium of the same type to avoid problems with software and hardware obsolescence. In the migration method, digital materials can be copied from an old storage medium to a newer, more supported one. Emulation involves the development of a new hardware and software platform that can mimic or emulate the older, outdated technology of the digital material. Migration “is the current favorite strategy for preserving electronic data” because it involves “the transfer of the entire digital environment, not 13 just the physical storage medium” (p. 103). Regardless of the preservation method employed, digital archivists have many other interrelated issues to consider when maintaining a usable digital library.

Funding

Once issues of selecting content and storage media have been resolved, digital libraries must determine reliable sources of funding. There are a number of different options for obtaining funding for digital libraries. Funding can come from one or combination of various sources such as local communities, user subscription fees, fees per transaction, author funding, or advertising

(Lesk, 2004). Each of these sources of funding has distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Community support can be a very effective source of funding since digital materials are relatively inexpensive compared to print materials. According to Lesk (2004):

If we assume that a book is about 0.5 MB on average, that means a typical cost is at least

$5 per MB, and that each staff member keeps track of not more than 10 GB. By contrast,

the San Diego Supercomputer Center manages disks, even replicated for safety, at

something like $3000 per terabyte or one-third of a cent per megabyte. (pp. 38-39)

Based on this argument, using community support for funding would be effective since the technology is inexpensive to maintain. However, this only accounts for the cost of having materials maintained; it does not address materials selection and preservation.

Having users and patrons pay for digital library services by a subscription fee is a commonly used approach. Many newspapers currently require a fee for their online access (Lesk,

2004, p. 40). Similarly, users can also pay per transaction in accessing digital materials. Both of these sources provide adequate funding for digital materials except for the fact that they serve as a barrier to access. According to Harnad (2004), “Subscription/License/Pay-Per-View (S/L/P) 14 tolls are the access-barriers, hence the impact-barriers, constraining researchers and their give- away research” (p. 65). This type of funding severely limits the distribution of and access to academic research. Authors of academic research do not want to make money from their papers; they instead want to distribute their findings in order to create an impact on the academic community (p. 64). Therefore, generating funding from subscription and transaction fees are generally detrimental to the fundamental role of libraries because access to information can be greatly limited.

There are many actors involved in setting up, maintaining, funding, providing content, and managing digital libraries. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is highly involved in supporting and funding digital collections, and is relevant to academic research libraries because of a commitment to research and education. Members of a task force, committed to addressing policy issues about NSF data collection support, “[believe] that urgent action, involving transformative, rather than incremental, change is required” (National Science Board, 2005, p.

29). The actors involved are the “data users, authors, managers, and funding agencies” (p. 25).

Digital Rights Management

Electronic information is now becoming an international commodity, so stakeholders in digital libraries need to decide how to best protect intellectual property. According to

Chowdhury and Chowdhury (1999), it is “particularly important that the concerned parties come together to agree how to manage rights in an international electronic environment” (p. 430). It is unlikely that Digital Rights Management (DRM) issues will be resolved any time soon due to the number of stakeholders and actors involved. However, DRM is an important consideration in making sure both the intellectual property and the integrity of information is protected. 15

Websites are one of the most common formats of born-digital electronic texts, and are subsequently a major target for DRM issues. According to Rosenblatt, Trippe, and Mooney

(2001), there are two ways for web publishers to create rights specifications for their sites. The first way is through the use of DRM technologies, including render rights, transport rights, and derivative work rights. Render rights involve restricting the output of a document, which typically means controlling how the material is printed, viewed, or played. Transport rights are defined as “the rights to move or copy content from one place to another” (p. 62). Web publishers have the ability to control how a user copies, moves, or loans an electronic document to others. Derivative work rights “have to do with the manipulation of the content to create additional (derivative) works” (p. 62). In this type of DRM technology, a user is limited in how the document is extracted, edited, or embedded in another medium.

The second way web publishers can control how electronic media is provided on their sites is through legal means. This can be handled by establishing a contract between a publisher and the source of content, such as a textbook with “illustrations, tables, charts, or formulae that are licensed from other publishers” (Rosenblatt, Trippe, & Mooney, 2001, p. 66). Another strategy is the End-User License Agreement (EULA), which is another form of contract between the user and the manufacturer of an application.

Yet, these DRM strategies in terms of web publishing are ambiguous because of the vast number of rights specifications imposed by publishers. Ease of accessing electronic texts through

Web browsers makes it difficult for Web publishers to control and manage their intellectual property. Web browsers “are like sieves as far as copyright protection is concerned” (Rosenblatt,

Trippe, & Mooney, 2001, p. 66), suggesting that many copyright issues are often completely ignored when using Internet browsers. The authors argued that “more restrictive rights 16 specifications for Web content . . . really depend on the legal and technical frameworks that the publisher puts in place” (p. 66). Therefore, it is the prerogative of the Web publisher to put such rights specifications in place, which is the main distinction between DRM and copyright law relating to traditional print materials.

Information Authenticity

Another major issue is ensuring authenticity of information. The authenticity of digital information can be easily corrupted due to inadvertent destruction of data or unauthorized tampering with data (Lazinger, 2001). Electronic texts are “so easy to edit, manipulate, revise, and improve” that they have “lost their assurance of permanence” (p. 6). Since the technology to edit documents is so readily available, it is also very easy to claim information created by others as one's own (Chowdhury & Chowdhury, 1999), or change a work to cover one's tracks

(Lazinger, 2001). Therefore, digital librarians must take extensive measures to ensure that born- digital electronic texts are authentic—that is—they are as the author intended them to be.

One solution to the issue of information authenticity is authentication and encryption, but this has yet to be implemented due to preservation difficulties. According to Lazinger (2004):

Tools of authentication, such as encryption, make preserving authentic documents very

difficult because all the pieces of a public key infrastructure, encryption algorithms,

encryption and decryption software private keys, public keys, certificates, certificate

authorities, etc., have to be preserved along with the encrypted document. (p. 105)

Perhaps a better approach is the Document Access Control Method (DACM), discussed by

Chowdhury and Chowdhury (1999). This method incorporates hidden data into digital materials which can then be used to track a document (p. 432). This method is only one of many strategies being considered by digital libraries. Due to the volatile nature of electronic data, it is unlikely 17 that a standardized, fully secure method will be developed any time soon. Yet, digital libraries must continue to develop strategies and methods to ensure information authenticity for present users.

Bradley (2005) surveyed digital culture heritage repositories to “identify methods currently used to secure digital content and ensure authenticity and integrity” (p. 167). Several information authenticity strategies were identified through the survey results. Using “digital signatures, digital time-stamping, trusted systems, digital watermarks, and descriptive metadata provide the researcher with a means of verifying that the digital representation received matches the digital representation sent” (p. 169). These methods are commonly used and accepted by digital librarians to ensure the authenticity of electronic texts.

Researchers and practitioners within the field of digital asset management have identified countless issues that must be considered to effectively preserve and archive electronic texts.

Among the most important are materials selection, funding and access, digital rights management, and information authenticity. As these issues are dealt with and sorted through by digital librarians, a number of trends will arise to bring consistency to the field.

Trends

As digital libraries continue to become more prevalent, the wide variety of issues has slowly been sorted out to reveal a few common trends in digital library creation and management. The trends that have come to the surface in digital libraries cannot be segregated, as they are all tightly interwoven. Each development strategy and common practice used will closely affect other issues related to digital asset management. Therefore, it is difficult to categorize trends in digital library creation. Still, the most important of these trends are digital library architecture, personalized search strategies, and online collections and bibliographies. 18

Digital Library Architecture

In terms of the overall structure of digital libraries, an open architecture has been created to help structure many different libraries. According to Chowdhury and Chowdhury (1999), this open architecture will ensure that “the functionality of the digital library is partitioned into a set of well-defined services or functions, each with a well-defined protocol specifying the interface to that service” (p. 420). The Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library

(NCSTRL) developed this open architecture to provide consistency among a federation of 100 different institutions. This architecture is a growing trend in digital library creation, as it provides standardized information categorization for varying institutions.

The three-tier client-server architecture of the Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) is notable for highly usable metadata searching, retrieval, and evaluation features (Frew, Freeston,

Freitas, Hill, Janée, Lovette, Nideffer, Smith, & Zheng, 2000). Servers, middleware, and clients represent the three tiers of the library's architecture. In the first tier, servers are used to maintain collections using metadata to describe library materials. They also are used for searching through holdings based on that metadata. The middleware tier is responsible for mapping “an assortment of heterogeneous collection servers into a few standard client interfaces for metadata queries, metadata retrieval, and digital holding retrieval” (p. 260). It is the middleware that allows the entire system to work cohesively, serving as the main support of the entire architecture. Client interfaces comprise the third tier of the ADL architecture. They serve as “the primary public artifact of the ADL architecture, since they define and circumscribe the library’s capabilities” (p.

260). It is through the client interface that patrons and users can tap into this digital library architecture that has been designed to make information access and retrieval efficient and seamless. 19

Metadata Standards and Search Strategies

Several metadata standards have become widely used by large digital libraries. The

Dublin Core and MARC 21 standards are among the most standardized and accepted. The

Dublin Core metadata standard includes descriptions about Internet resources and is used for resource discovery. Information contained in a Dublin Core metadata tag includes “data elements such as title, creator, subject, description, date, type, format and so on” (TechWeb, 2006, ¶1).

MARC 21 is a standard devoted to representing bibliographic information in a form that is easily read by a computer. Three elements are involved in a MARC record, which are the record structure, the content designation, and the data content of the record (Machine-Readable

Bibliographic Information Committee, 1996).

Dependent on these two accepted metadata standards, another major trend in digital libraries is the provision of a computer-based, comprehensive search tool. What once took a user many hours to find a resource can now be done in minutes with computerized search systems

(Metzl, 1998, p. 150). However, these search tools have been taken further than traditional card catalogs, now offering services that provide personalized information to users. Chowdhury

(2001) explained that these services have been a growing trend since the inception of digital asset management practices. Computerized search tools can make the user's experience personal, since data is stored about both the user and the materials for which the user is searching.

“Provision of such personalised information services has remained the central theme of the library and information profession. The importance of these services grew over time with the introduction of new technologies and services in libraries” (p. 259). This is an important trend in digital asset management because it allows for increased information access and usability. 20

One example of the use of metadata can be seen in Amazon.com's recommendation service. A customer who buys a particular product will be given a recommendation on a similar product based on previous user reviews. This information is stored as metadata, which can be searched by database systems. Amazon also uses metadata to create a strategy to find and store

“statistically improbable phrases” (Lavoie, Dempsey, & Connaway, 2006, p. 40). A computer can search a book or document for phrases that are particular to a specific title, and then match those phrases with other books. The user will get a recommendation that is related to their area of interest. By using these personalized information services, digital libraries can tailor information to users to make their search process faster. This strategy is quickly becoming a trend as it is being adopted by major projects in digital library development (Meyyappan, Chowdhury, & Foo,

2001, p. 252).

Bibliographic Management Software

Bibliographic management software is also a growing trend in the field of digital asset management. These online reference services allow users to find information remotely, either free of charge or for a fee. The premise behind these online reference services is to provide users of digital libraries an easy way of accessing and managing electronic texts. Chowdhury (2001) explained that these online services can be supplied by digital libraries, database search services, specialized institutions, publishers, and experts through the Internet.

In a study conducted by McGeachin (2004), changes in the information-seeking behavior of scholars was examined. The researcher studied how the increase in availability of electronic information has affected the way scholars obtain information. McGeachin found that scholars use “personal information management software to index and store electronic collections” (p.

136). Additionally, the study explained that “scholars currently use bibliographic database 21 software such as Pro-Cite, EndNote, or Reference Manager to replace card catalogs for organizing and gaining access to their personal print collections” (p. 128). The use of various metadata based indexing, referencing software, and web-based services is a growing trend within the field of digital asset management in research libraries. Scholars and librarians are making use of these technological changes in order to provide access and searchability to their electronic documents.

As these trends become more popular and widely used in research libraries, they will be readily adopted into practice. Through careful consideration of the issues related to the architecture of digital libraries, personalized search strategies, and reference services available online, digital librarians can develop commonalities in the implementation of various trends. It is when the trends become practice that digital libraries will finally become standardized.

Practices

A review of current digital library practices will provide insight into the implementation of some digital asset management strategies. There are several major digital library projects in the United States and England that deserve particular attention. The Digital Library Initiative,

Glasgow Digital Library, University of Central England Electronic Library, the Networked

Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, and the Library of Congress are a few major projects that are on the forefront of digital library research and practice.

Digital Library Initiative

One important program implemented by the U. S. Government that has a direct effect on research libraries is the Digital Library Initiative (DLI). There were six different Digital Library

Initiatives, all of which were research projects devoted to finding effective ways to set up digital libraries at large universities in the country. According to Chowdhury and Chowdhury (1999), 22

“the initiatives’ focus is to advance the means to collect, store and organise information in digital forms, and make it available for searching, retrieval and processing via communication networks

—all in user-friendly ways” (p. 415). Of particular importance is the DLI-1 project, which

“served to identify and define important document and metadata standards, protocols for web- based access, and the issues surrounding the federated and broadcast search protocols” (Mischo,

2004, p. 8). These projects provided the early research to create a foundation for digital library practice in years to come. Without these projects, the important document and metadata standards would not have been developed. These standards, although complex, provide consistency for many more recent digital library projects.

Digital Libraries

The Glasgow Digital Library is an example of a major digital library project that successfully combined theory and practice (Dawson, 2004). It differs from other digital library projects in that it helps “balance the immediate needs of local partners and users with a global and long-term perspective on digital resources” (p. 131). The Glasgow Digital Library focused on many important issues such as collection development, design issues, resource discovery, access and file management, information retrieval, standards, and preservation. Some solutions for these issues came from a “clear and consistent naming scheme” (Chowdhury & Chowdhury,

1999, p. 133), a flexible database structure with a user-friendly interface (pp. 136-138), and implementing the Dublin Core and MARC metadata standards (pp. 142-143). Throughout this project, solutions to the issues were still unclear, but implementing important digital asset management theories revealed some advantages in specific practices.

Librarians at the large, research-oriented University of Central England (UCE) wanted to provide better quality information services by moving to the forefront of electronic information 23 delivery (Dodd & Andrews, 2004). The library is called the University of Central England

Electronic Library (UCEEL). The objective of the project was to provide continual access to a broad range of electronic data (p. 155). This project resolved many important issues during its creation. The funding issue was resolved by allocating funds from the UK's Higher Education

Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (p. 156). The team that created UCEEL was also careful to implement Management Information Systems (MIS) data as well as metadata to ensure interoperability between systems (p. 160). They were also careful to develop document and interface standards (p. 161). UCEEL is a unique and fully developed teaching tool at UCE that will help create standards and common practices for future digital library projects.

Another project devoted to enhancing the quality of graduate development and research was the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD). The goals of the

NDLTD were “to ensure that graduate students are prepared to function in the Information Age, to enhance the expressiveness of theses and dissertations, to expand the infrastructure in universities to support institutional repositories, and to broaden access to student research worldwide” (Fox, McMillan, Suleman, Gonçalves, & Luo, 2004, p. 167). The NDLTD project is significant because it was done on a limited budget, is large, constantly growing, and self- sustaining (p. 186). The content at the library is exclusively electronic theses and dissertations relying on the Dublin Core and MARC 21 metadata standards (p. 173). Quantitative research studies were conducted on this library project to reveal a fully functional, high-capacity, digital research library built on a limited budget.

The Library of Congress has developed a premier digital library that should be considered a model of effective digital asset management strategies. The project, entitled the

National Digital Library Program (NDLP), is “an initiative that has been applauded and 24 recognized as much for its technical innovations as its freely available content” (Kresh, 2004, p.

213). Chowdhury and Chowdhury (1999) explained that the NDLP is a five-year program devoted to “assemble an initial core of American historical and cultural primary source material in digital form selected for conversion from the Library’s vast holdings of print and non-print materials” (p. 416). Through this massive process of transferring print material in digital form, the Library of Congress will make tremendous strides in digital asset management practices. The developments made by the NDLP will be an important model for other, smaller digital library projects done by research institutions around the world.

Summary

Through the process of digital asset management, librarians must develop and implement effective strategies to create and maintain an effective digital library. Materials selection, storage media, financing and access, digital rights management, and information authenticity are among the most important and difficult issues to resolve. However, as digital libraries expand at increasing rates, numerous trends have arisen. The most notable of these trends are digital library architecture, personalized search strategies based on metadata standards, and online collections and bibliography services. The implementation of these trends can be seen in practice through mass digitization projects such as the Digital Library Initiative, Glasgow Digital Library,

University of Central England Electronic Library, the Networked Digital Library of Theses and

Dissertations, and the Library of Congress. As digital librarians continue to find solutions to the issues relating to digital asset management, practices may become more standardized and some experts hope for greater access and reliable preservation for digital information in the future. 25

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The research procedures chosen to conduct this study and achieve the research objectives are defined in this chapter. A modified Delphi method was used to gather data from participants chosen using purposive sampling. This chapter includes a restatement of the research problem, a description of the research design including an explanation of the population, and methods of participant selection. There will also be an explanation of the procedures of data analysis and protection of human subjects.

Restatement of the Problem

The problem of this study was to identify and synthesize the current best practices of digital asset management of electronic texts in academic research libraries.

Research Design

A modified Delphi method was used to collect qualitative data from geographically dispersed experts (About Delphi, 2006). Obtaining data by using the Delphi method is similar to collecting data from a focus group, except the participants are not required to meet in a face-to- face environment. A standard Delphi method is usually made up of four phases (Linstone &

Turoff, 1975, p. 5), but for the purposes of this study, only two phases were used because sufficient data was collected after the second phase was completed. The method involved two questionnaires sent via E-mail to a pre-selected group of librarians with job descriptions relating to digital asset management of born-digital electronic texts. Participants had job descriptions such as Electronic Resources Facilitator, Digital Documents Specialist, Digital Initiatives

Librarian, and other similar titles. The questionnaires were designed to “elicit and develop individual responses to the problems posed and to enable the experts to refine their views as the 26 group’s work progresses in accordance with the assigned task” (About Delphi, 2006, ¶1). The research revealed a current snapshot of the field of digital asset management among academic research librarians who are involved in frequent digital archiving activities.

Population/Sample

The population of interest was librarians working with born-digital electronic texts in academic, research-extensive libraries. Research-extensive institutions offer many baccalaureate programs as well as a commitment to graduate education. These institutions award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year across 15 disciplines, offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and are committed to graduate education through the doctoral level (Educause, 2006). According to the Carnegie classification system, these doctorate-granting universities are “differentiated based on an explicit measure of research activity” (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching, 2006, ¶8).

The librarians were identified from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), which is “a nonprofit organization of 123 research libraries at comprehensive, research-extensive institutions in the US and Canada that share similar research missions, aspirations, and achievements” (About ARL, 2006, ¶1). The ARL member libraries comprise a significant segment of academic research libraries around the country with distinctive member institutions.

Therefore, these librarians are experienced and knowledgeable in digital archiving and are involved in managing digital transfers and collections for their libraries.

Participants

The participants were chosen through purposive sampling (Kerlinger, 1999). In order to obtain names of potential participants for the study, the ARL website was used to identify ARL member institutions. Faculty and staff lists were obtained from these institutions and names were 27 selected based on job title and description, as well as the department the faculty or staff member worked for in the library. After compiling a list of 69 potential participants, an E-mail was sent out to all of them with a letter of invitation and the questionnaire within the body text, and an explanation of informed consent included as an attachment (Appendix A). Upon receipt of the first completed questionnaire, the librarians were considered participants.

Data Collection

After agreeing to participate in the study, participants were asked to complete an initial survey questionnaire. The survey questions were administered via E-mail, and participant answers were collected as responses to the E-mails. Questions for the survey were selected based on themes and patterns that arose in the literature.

There were two phases of questionnaires. The first phase involved open-ended questions that allowed participants to answer freely without feeling restricted by closed-ended or multiple- choice questions that demand specific answers (Appendix B). The second phase involved much more specific questions derived from similarities and discrepancies revealed in the first phase

(Appendix C).

Participants were given a month to complete the first questionnaire, and two weeks to complete the second questionnaire. In the event that a participant did not respond within the first two weeks, a reminder E-mail was sent requesting that the questionnaire be completed

(Appendix D). This E-mail explained the importance and value of the participants potential responses and provided a deadline for the response to be completed. A follow-up E-mail was sent after the firs phase was completed, notifying participants of what to expect in the second phase (Appendix E). The same approach was used on the second phase, except the follow-up email was sent 10 days after the second questionnaire was distributed (Appendix F). 28

Phase One

A questionnaire was distributed to the participants via E-mail during the first phase of the study. The participants indicated their consent to participate by responding to the E-mail. The questions were designed to elicit information relating to how the participant dealt with digital asset management issues at his/her specific institution.

The questions were assigned to the following categories:

1. Profile of Survey Participants – included information about educational background,

relevant career experience, and specific digital asset management responsibilities of

participants.

2. Profile of Libraries – included information about library organization, budget and staff,

and materials selection policies.

3. Current Digital Asset Management Strategies and Methods – included information about

current practices and preferred practices.

4. Preferred Strategies and Methods – included information about what the librarians are

currently doing or would like to do in an ideal situation to best manage born-digital

electronic texts.

Phase Two

During the second phase of the survey, a follow-up questionnaire was distributed via E- mail to the participants. Questions for this second questionnaire were created after compiling and analyzing the data obtained in the first phase. Any similarities or discrepancies found in participant responses were used to create specific questions to gather data about the themes and patterns revealed in the first phase. The questions were assigned to the same four categories as in 29 phase one, except particular emphasis was given to proprietary versus open-source software preferences, electronic resource department organization, and the relation of software features to protecting the rights of content creators. These categories were of particular importance because they gathered information specific to the current best practices of digital asset management among the participants.

Pilot Testing the Data Collection Instrument

The questionnaires were pilot tested by having local librarians who were unrelated to the study review them prior to the distribution of the surveys. They were asked to complete the

E-mail questionnaire and then offer feedback about the effectiveness and completeness of the questions. The survey was shortened and some of the questions were revised based on the feedback received from the pilot participants.

Procedures of Data Analysis

After the first phase had been conducted, the researcher identified the themes and patterns that arose from participant responses. Responses were grouped according to common topics revealed in participant responses. Discrepancies among participant responses were used to create specific questions for the next questionnaire. Common themes and patterns among participant responses were then identified and used to create a questionnaire for the next phase of the survey.

Upon completion of the second set of questionnaires, the data was summarized and similarities were identified. The findings were reviewed with the committee members to control for researcher bias. After data analysis, participant responses revealed the real-world practices of electronic resources librarians in light of the practices suggested in pre-existing literature. 30

Protection of Human Subjects

All efforts were made to assure that no human subjects were harmed during this research process. The study complied with all rules and regulations set forth by The Human Subjects

Review Board (HSRB) at Bowling Green State University. HSRB reviewed and approved the explanation of informed consent, pilot survey, and questionnaires prior to implementation. A copy of the HSRB letter of approval can be found in Appendix G.

Timeline

September – October 2006 Topic Exploration & Proposal

Selection of Thesis Committee and Chairperson

November 2006 Completion of Thesis Introduction, Review of

Literature, and Methodology

Defense and Approval of Thesis Topic

December 2006 Development of Questionnaires

January 2007 HSRB Approval

Selection of Participants

February 2007 Administer and Review Pre-Test Instrument

March 2007 Conduct Initial Survey Phase

April 2007 Data Analysis

Conduct Second Survey Phase

Data Analysis

Completion of Chapters 4 and 5

May 2007 Defense of Thesis

June 2007 Submission of Thesis to the Graduate College 31

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

The data that were collected from two E-mail surveys are defined in this chapter. The surveys were developed to identify and synthesize the current best practices of digital asset management of born-digital electronic texts in academic research libraries. The first set of questions was created to collect general information about the participants and their practices relating to digital asset management. These questions were categorized into four major areas of inquiry. The first category covered the profile of survey participants, including information about educational background, relevant career experience, and the specific digital asset management responsibilities of participants. The second category was designed to determine the profile of participants’ libraries, including information about library organization, budget and staffing, and materials selection policies. The next category dealt with current digital asset management strategies and methods, which included information about current practices and preferred practices. The final category dealt with best practices, which included information about what the librarians are currently doing or would like to do in an ideal situation to best manage born- digital electronic texts.

The second phase of questions was created based on data obtained in the first phase, which targeted more specific and focused themes and patterns in digital asset management. The questions were created from similarities and dissimilarities in participants' responses, and served to further solidify the understanding of current best practices among this group of experts in the field. This section of the survey consisted of three questions.

Response Rates

The first survey was sent via E-mail to 69 librarians within ARL institutions. The survey was administered for three weeks, starting March 1, 2007. During this time, eight responses were 32 collected after sending out two reminder E-mails. Participants were not required to answer all of the questions, and response rates ranged from 27 - 100% of the 15 total questions. Most participants (six of the eight) answered at least ten of the questions. The second phase of the survey was sent to the eight participants from the first phase. This survey was administered for one week, starting April 3, 2007. Six of these participants responded, each answering all three questions.

Profile of Survey Participants

The participants had varied educational and career backgrounds, but all had similar qualifications. Six out of eight participants had Master’s degrees in Library Science, one had a

Master’s degree in Computer Science, and one had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science.

Participants also had degrees in indirectly related fields such as language, history, anthropology, geology, and geochemistry. In terms of career experience, the participants all had extensive but varied experience working with digital library technology. Relevant career fields include website management, content management, cataloging, digital image management, digital collections management, information technology, and data retrieval.

Results

Profile of Libraries

Among the libraries represented in the study, there was significant variability in organizational models for managing born-digital electronic texts. According to one participant, the library's digital initiative operates outside of the traditional technology services and public services hierarchy, but is comprised of people from both of those units. The major similarity among respondents regarding library organization is that the digital asset management department is small and decentralized. 33

Most participants stated that they were unaware of the percentage of staff involved in digital asset management, but the overall consensus was that these departments or individuals responsible for digital collections were very small. Two participants estimated that 5-8% of total library staff members are involved in this sort of work. Still, most participants were largely unaware of how their institutions' digital library department was organized.

One participant commented that job descriptions for electronic resources librarians do not include the appropriate responsibilities to allow for a well-organized electronic resources department. Additionally, the respondents reached consensus in suggesting that electronic resources departments need to grow to effectively accomplish their goals. One participant explained that without adequate support for electronic resources, “libraries face a real crisis of not positioning themselves adequately to organize the growing amount of information being created.” The participants indicated that this problem is a direct result of thin staffing and inadequate organizational strategies cause job responsibilities to be unclear.

In addition to increasing the level of financial and staff support, one participant suggested that “there needs to be more interaction between technical, public, information technology, and administrative services and digital initiatives because the work of the digital initiative impact what everyone else is doing.” Similarly, another participant further validated this issue of cooperation, writing that “consortial arrangements, probably at the state level, can pool resources.” A third participant highlighted the cooperation theme by stating that

“communications networks inside the single academic library need to be nurtured so that effort is not duplicated and that common goals may be shared . . . communications between different libraries is essential.” This lack of communication and cooperation both internally and externally was a common theme. 34

Responses ranged considerably in terms of materials selection. Some libraries select materials based on scholarly value, collection development and digital collections committees, collection development policies, rarity and value of materials, or executive decisions or gifts. In terms of improving the quality and breadth of an electronic collection, participants had several different ideas. One participant said that collection policies should reflect current library needs.

Another participant said that libraries need “a more systematic evaluation of all of the libraries’ collection” to identify materials that are in need of preservation and encourage better strategies to preserve these items. One other idea was mentioned by a participant:

Libraries should focus more on building systems to incorporate the growing corpus of

free information (Wikipedia, Google). “Materials selection” is a vestige of pre-internet

library philosophy. The challenge of the future will be to (a) promote information

literacy, and (b) shift out of the medieval model in which “authority” eclipses all else

(including the accuracy of the information itself).

Another line of thinking revealed a very different problem that makes materials selection for digital repositories difficult. “It’s not the material selection criteria that’s the issue, it’s the antiquated tenure process. University administration need to be persuaded to accept born digital materials as worthy materials for tenure, understanding that peer review can be just as rigorous with e journal and books as with traditional paper.”

Current Digital Asset Management Strategies and Methods

In terms of the technologies relating to born-digital electronic texts participants use frequently, five of the eight participants mentioned using PDF creation software (Adobe Acrobat

Professional). However, one participant explained, “I rarely use PDF creation software, maybe only a few times a year when we post a new online publication.” One of the main software 35 programs mentioned was ContentDM, which is a proprietary digital asset management system.

Several participants mentioned using DSpace, which is “an Open Archive Initiative (OAI) - compliant open-source software released by MIT for archiving eprints and other kinds of academic content” (Dspace, 2007, ¶1). DSpace is a digital repository system that “captures, stores, indexes, preserves, and distributes digital research material” (¶1). Other systems were mentioned, such as private and public web-based search engines, including Wikipedia, Google, and institution-specific online catalogs and search engines. Common programming and web languages were mentioned, including html, xml, and javascript, although these technologies were specific to technologists working directly in the software side of digital asset management and were not mentioned by those at management levels.

Several participants mentioned involvement in planning committees for the implementation of digital asset management systems and institutional repository systems. It was clear that the participants were typically part of large teams working on these projects, suggesting that systems like ContentDM and DSpace were very commonly used. These systems were mentioned by four participants. There was also a mention of creating a web space for

Master’s theses and electronic books.

One of the main areas of disagreement among the participants was about the use of vendored/proprietary versus open-source digital asset management systems. Four of the eight participants stated specifically that they would prefer to use open-source systems because they are more flexible and offer advanced functionality, provided there is a sufficient team of technologists to manage it. Only one participant specifically indicated a preference toward proprietary systems, and the other three were neutral on the issue. However, most of the participants offered arguments to support both sides of the debate. One participant indicated that 36 choosing proprietary versus open-source is dependent on the “size and mission of the institution.” Smaller institutions are more likely to choose proprietary systems because they lack the human resources required to operate complicated and sometimes cumbersome open-source systems. Factors involved in choosing between the two options were software functionality, vendor support, institutional expertise, professional use, pricing, and developer stability.

In terms of the specific methods the participants use to preserve electronic texts, and how their institutions deal with different file formats and platform interoperability issues, several strategies were mentioned. Two participants mentioned that they are only starting to deal with this issue. Overall responses ranged from using PDF file formats as a current preservation format, using TIFF for digital images or using XML. ContentDM and DSpace proved to be common systems for preservation. Only one participant mentioned using a LOCKSS (“lots of copies keeps stuff safe”) server. Two participants mentioned using open-source technologies, including the Fedora digital object repository, Apache servers, mySQL databases, and PHP.

Responses were quite varied in terms of file formats, including PDF, JPG, TIFF, SLM,

RTF, and PNG. One participant mentioned that “selected formats such as doc, wpd, htm are also transformed to pdf archival.” Another participant said “I think our institution is still using Word,

PDF, and the JPG2000 format – all of which are destined for the cycle of planned deprecation.”

Participants were asked to explain what metadata standards they used and why they selected these standards. Dublin Core proved to be the most common metadata standard used, receiving mention from four of the participants. Only two participants mentioned using the

MARC 21 standard. Dublin Core proved to be preferred because it is more recognized by a wide range of library professionals, and it seems to be better for digital materials. MARC 21 was only used on a few electronic repositories. Other metadata types mentioned were EAD, TEI, and 37 institution-specific standards.

Participants were asked to explain how they ensure that an electronic text is exactly as the author intended, free from modifications or tampering. They were asked to comment on what digital rights management methods they might employ to deal with such information authenticity issues. Responses were again varied on this issue, including some who admitted that this issue has not yet been addressed. Using the PDF format and ContentDM digital asset management system were mentioned as being some strategies to ensure information authenticity, but the specific security features of the different systems were not addressed. One participant explained that it is the author’s responsibility to ensure his or her works remain unmodified, stating that the

“author can review; keep original; audit trail, etc.” Another participant wrote:

Currently, the only electronic texts we (that is the digital repository) have are TEI or

EAD-encoded XML which is delivered to the user through a XLS stylesheet in HTML.

At the moment, only the programming staff have the ability to add, delete, or modify

documents in the repository. We are building an administrative interface that will allow

library staff with proper permissions to do these things as well. As far as digital rights

management, we can control who has access and at what level to our collections, based

on authentication. This feature is currently in development, but should be available soon,

along with the administrative interface for staff. This means that not all users will have

access to objects, they may only see a thumbnail or only the metadata record, if that is

appropriate for the material.

Strategies mentioned by the participants that help protect content creators are using watermarks, password protection, and item-level permissions. But again, there were a wide variety of responses about protecting content creators. One participant stated that “one area that 38 some of these systems fall short are in letting the content creators (or at least the content provider) determine the rights to which the public will have access to the materials.” Also, the argument for open-source systems was addressed again under the umbrella of this issue. This participant stated that “we can worry about protecting author rights when we no longer rely on vended publishers – and become publishers ourselves.”

Widely ranging responses were collected relating to the strategies that have worked well in digital asset management. Some of these strategies were technical, using software and information technology teams to maintain systems to manage electronic texts. Other strategies were more abstract, dealing with the importance of effectively preserving electronic texts. One participant wrote:

Not that this might be considered a DAM strategy but it’s one that I’m finding to be an

effective content recruitment strategy with our faculty. I’m getting myself invited to

faculty meetings, along with that department’s library liaison, and start talking about

scholarly communication issues, author rights, impact factor analysis of materials

available in open access repositories, etc. The faculty really seem to get it when I talk

about this topic. Then I suggest the digital repository as one part of the solution, where

they can put pre-prints, conference proceedings, research results, etc.

Another participant suggested that improving team structure is the best way for staff to manage digital assets. Admitting a lack of staff to do this job, a participant stated:

At this point it is apparent that we need more human resources in this area because the

amount of content available exceeds our ability to efficiently digitize and apply the

metadata to it. The organization is in the process of re-evaluating resources to find how

we might bring additional resources to the area. Some of the digital collections are still 39

experimental or young and we are constantly re-examining choices and discussing how to

best shore up the policies, guidelines and practices of areas like the IR and the ETC

collections to help them endure and grow.

Furthermore, one participant wrote:

I wouldn’t say that we have really had any remarkable digital asset management

strategies. We have shared servers for our own working documents, but other than that,

there are no digital asset management strategies. The digital repository has only been

operating since last summer and is still being worked out, so I don’t know that we have

any real strategies at the moment, that have really been tested.

Best Practices

One noticeable similarity among four participants is that in an ideal world, free from financial and technological limitations, only open-source technologies would be used because of flexibility and potential for customization. Other participants mentioned a desire to have unlimited file-sizes to allow for high quality archival, making both digital and print documents available on the same systems. Of course, increased financing was also a common theme mentioned by several of the participants.

When asked to comment on some ideas and strategies that have not been already addressed, one participant suggested that looking to other institutions for ideas was a good way to see best practices in digital asset management. This participant stated that “the goal to find ways to preserve the institutional capital of scholarly research and publications requires us to realize we are in an area where there may be more questions than answers and many of the answers might involve a testing of the waters in order to see if they are sustainable.” Also, one participant revealed some deficiencies in digital asset management, who stated: 40

There are many reasons that librarians are missing the boat here, one of which may be

that technologists are not properly in charge of technology, vendors seem to have

somewhat hijacked the standards longevity cycle and perhaps much of the librarian

profession. Furthermore, most librarians currently in management are (themselves),

largely pre-digital and are learning things as they go. Therefore, I’d reiterate what I’ve

said earlier, and emphasize the importance of rejecting the proprietary and close-source

software, and abandon the term ‘standard’ unless it has genuine organizational and

professional commitment behind it.

In order for libraries to make use of the knowledge and experience of staff members, they must allow the technologists to have some decision-making power. Software and hardware experts, digital initiatives librarians, and other technology-based staff have an incredible amount of practical skills and knowledge to help digital libraries determine best practices.

Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to report the findings of the two phases of the digital asset management survey. The data was presented in three main categories: Profile of Survey

Participants, Current Digital Asset Management Strategies and Methods, and Best Practices.

Information was also reported about survey response rates. The information included information about technology and software, electronic resources department organization and staffing, funding, materials selection, information authenticity, and digital rights management. 41

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Included in this chapter is a brief summary of the survey responses, followed by several conclusions based on those responses. The conclusions yield major implications about the current best practices of digital asset management as well as ways to improve the future of digital libraries. Finally, the chapter will conclude with several recommendations for future studies.

Summary

The first research objective of this study was to identify the major themes and patterns in digital asset management at academic research libraries. The results from two E-mail surveys of electronic resources librarians within the ARL were analyzed and three distinct themes became apparent. The first theme reveals a considerable amount of diversity in library strategies as well as within the staff at digital research libraries. The survey also contained information about the theme of cooperation within and among digital libraries, which was a common desire among the participants. Perhaps the most obvious theme is that of the many different and complex strategies and methods, with each digital library specializing in only one or two main systems and approaches to digital asset management.

The second research objective was to synthesize common relationships among the best practices of digital asset management. This was accomplished by using the themes and patterns to identify implications about the current best practices at the digital libraries from which participants were surveyed. Overall, several important implications arose during the course of this study. First, digital libraries are still largely unorganized and lacking sufficient cooperation both internally and externally. This suggests that digital libraries are still in relative infancy; much research, testing, and development still needs to take place in order to move in a positive direction to accomplish basic library goals in the digital domain. Secondly, the systems in place 42 at digital libraries are widely varied and not standardized. While standards are difficult to define, the survey showed that increasing cooperation and pooling resources is the best way to move closer to a “standard” system. The final implication revealed in this research is that the primary goal of a digital library is not necessarily to develop the best software or organizational systems, it is instead to provide faster and more efficient access to high quality materials. A digital library should be seen as a point of access, and not just a static collection.

Conclusions

Library professionals, particularly those working with electronic resources, require a diverse set of skills and varied areas of expertise. Electronic resources librarians have educational backgrounds in areas such as computer science, language, history, anthropology, and technology. The seemingly assorted backgrounds of electronic resources librarians are an essential characteristic of staff within an electronic resources library. One participant wrote that

“to curate [digital library] materials would require staff with many diverse talents such as archival records management, technological skills, and understanding of the needs of humanities research and scholarship.” Thus, the elaborate nature of a digital collections departments demands staffing with a deep working knowledge of both the complex technology systems but also an ability to apply that technology to enable libraries to better accomplish their goals.

Libraries within the ARL have varied ways of organizing their digital collections departments. Digital libraries are not exactly a cutting edge idea, as they have been in active development for over a decade. Yet, institutions have not yet developed many agreements on ways to organize electronic collections. Each library within the ARL has a unique makeup, not only having institution-specific technologies and staff members, but also fulfilling a niche within the larger academic community. As one library grows to specialize in, for example, digital 43 historical document preservation, another library may respond by specializing in preserving digital images. Still another may be pioneering the software systems development necessary for the first two libraries to operate.

Just as the professionals who run the libraries have diverse backgrounds, the libraries among the ARL institutions have specializations. Despite a library's efforts to specialize in a particular type of software or type of collection, they must cooperate with other institutions, as revealed by the survey. In order to steer digital libraries in a productive direction, instead of libraries just adding to an already tangled field, librarians must communicate to reach agreements on best practices. These agreements can be the foundation for a digital library consortium. The desire for consortia was clear in the surveys, spurred by a recognition of the power of pooling resources and knowledge.

The problems of deciding what digital materials to preserve is still a troublesome question. With a tremendously large and rapidly growing body of digital information, libraries face a challenge of finding ways to take a snapshot of cyberspace at regular intervals. However, the issue may not be as literal as it seems. Materials selection applies best in the print domain.

The challenge electronic libraries face may not be to pick and choose randomly (or at best with an educated guess about the worth of materials), it is more likely to provide access. One participant noted that “we need to stop thinking of digital as something 'other' and start thinking of it as another component of all our library service.” The library should be seen as a point of entry into the digital academic cyberspace, with systems to facilitate the process and make information retrieval simple and effective for an average student or researcher.

Libraries use many different software systems to accomplish similar preservation goals.

Upon reviewing the survey results, it becomes clear that the specific software systems alone are 44 not significant factors in determining best practices. Of course, software plays a role in the overall digital library system, but should only be seen as a tool. In the case of different digital libraries using different software systems, the brand or specific features of the software tool are trivial. The goals of the library are accomplished by people: technologists, researchers, content managers, etc.

Still, the proprietary versus open-source debate rages. However, the debate is somewhat futile. Clearly, every library is unique and has specific software needs. For small, staff-thin libraries, proprietary software systems appear to be a highly effective and viable solution. For larger libraries with an experienced IT team, open-source software systems are a customizable, infinitely expandable, and cost-effective solution. Overall, software systems are a matter of expertise and resources, and software users at different institutions must make their own decisions about software based on their specialized needs.

Similarly, selecting preservation strategies and methods is an institution-specific task.

Just as one institution has the ability to choose software solutions based on unique needs, an institution will also implement unique preservation strategies. Different strategies and methods are necessary to appeal to the broad range of digital library specializations. A library specializing in preserving digital images will certainly require different approaches to file management than a library specializing in electronic theses and dissertations.

However, this is where the issue of cooperation becomes critical. In order for cooperative agreements among libraries to be possible, libraries must make decisions about file formats, metadata standards, and preservation strategies carefully because they must be compatible with other institutions. Software selection, therefore, is not just based on an institution's unique needs, but on the needs of an entire consortium (or what will become a consortium in the future). 45

Clearly, determining best practices is a complex issue that must address the needs of both the digital library at a specific university as well as the needs of several institutions in the future.

Without agreement and cooperation on best practices, digital libraries will not be headed in a fruitful direction due to an assortment of incompatible systems.

Software determines much of the functionality of a digital library, but also has a direct affect on ensuring effective digital rights management and information authenticity.

Unfortunately, strategies to protect content creators are still in infancy. Some libraries use proprietary software formats and their built-in security features, while others use content management systems as protection. However, it seems that the authors themselves are less concerned about this than the technologists. Software experts recognize security problems in the systems, but digital libraries are so novel to authors that they are excited to have a new way to access materials.

Still, security is a big question for libraries. The only way for digital librarians to ensure that digital assets are protected more effectively in the future is to lobby for cooperation, communication, and ultimately, consortia. By pooling resources and knowledge, library consortia have the research and development power to invent new security solutions and continue to improve on existing ones.

With the surge of digital information and the imminent need to manage it more effectively, increasing human resources in digital libraries is an obvious need. But not only do libraries need more people in offices devising digital asset management solutions, they also need to be reaching out to other institutions. Until libraries recognize the enormous potential and largely untapped resources hidden away at universities all around the world, digital asset management will still be a muddled and ineffective field. Each institution has its own unique 46 digital asset management strategy. Instead of viewing that as a hindrance, it should be viewed as an opportunity to pool human and technology resources and implement larger-scale solutions.

The goal is to provide access to a world wide web of information, and the best way to do that is to tap into a world wide selection of digital asset management experts.

Recommendations for Future Study

The two major concerns addressed by the survey participants were a need for better software systems for digital asset management and increased cooperation among digital libraries.

There is a clear need for an improvement in software, regardless of whether or not the system is based on proprietary or open-source systems, to help professionals accomplish their goals in managing electronic texts. Yet, these institutions must make sure to develop their software systems while keeping a watchful eye on their peers. In order to ensure continued improvement in digital asset management, institutions must work to avoid redundancy in software development by pooling resources and knowledge.

The issues of software systems and working toward digital library consortia are thus the most likely areas for future research. It will be necessary to use some of the pre-existing qualitative data collected in studies like this to create detailed and thorough interview guides to further investigate how professionals in this field are overcoming challenges, as well as their future goals. However, using expert opinion should only be the starting point for further digital library research. New strategies, methods, and software systems must be developed and tested at different libraries to ensure that the most effective solutions can be implemented. Therefore, the challenge for researchers will not just involve determining best practices in digital asset management, but will require identifying and developing new ways to coordinate digital library efforts. 47

REFERENCES

About ARL. (2006). Overview. Retrieved October 23, 2006 from

http://www.arl.org/arl/arlfacts.html

About Delphi. (2006). Retrieved November 7, 2006 from http://www.delphistudy.org/about.html

Andrews, J., & Law, D. (2004). Digital libraries: Policy, planning and practice. Burlington, VT:

Ashgate.

Barlow, J. P. (1994). The economy of ideas [Electronic version]. Wired, 2.03.

Bradley, R. (2005). Digital authenticity and integrity: Digital cultural heritage documents as

research resources. Libraries and the Academy, 5(2), 165-175.

Bricklin, D. (n.d.). Copy protection robs the future. Dan Bricklin: The personal web site of the

co-creator of VisiCalc. Retrieved November 1, 2006 from

http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2006). Basic Classification

Description. Retrieved November 6, 2006 from

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=791

Chowdhury, G. G. (2001). Digital libraries and reference services: Present and future. Journal of

Documentation, 58, 258-283.

Chowdhury, G. G., & Chowdhury, S. (1999). Digital library research: Major issues and trends.

Journal of Documentation, 55, 409-408.

Cullen, C. T., Hirtle, P. B., Levy, D., Lynch, C. A., & Rothenberg, J. (2000). Authenticity in a

digital environment. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. 48

Dawson, A. (2004). Building a digital library in 80 days: The Glasgow experience. In J.

Andrews, & D. Law (Eds.), Digital libraries: Policy, planning and practices (pp. 131-

153). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Deken, J. M. (2004). Preserving digital libraries: Determining “What?” before deciding “How?”.

In J. P. Miller (Ed.), Emerging issues in the electronic environment: Challenges for

librarians and researchers in the sciences (pp. 127-137). New York: Haworth Press.

Dodd, C., & Andrews, J. (2004). The development of UCEEL: A digital library for the

University of Central England. In J. Andrews, & D. (Eds.), Digital libraries: Policy,

planning and practices (pp. 155-167). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Dspace. (2007). Retrieved May 23, 2007 from http://www.dspace.org/

Educause (2006). Carnegie Classifications. Retrieved October 31, 2006 from

http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=1051&bhcp=1

Fox, E. A., McMillan, G., Suleman, H., Gonçavles, M. A., & Luo, M. (2004). Networked digital

library of theses and dissertations (NDLTD). In J. Andrews, & D. Law (Eds.), Digital

libraries: Policy, planning and practices (pp. 167-187). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Frew, J., Freeston, M., Freitas, N., Hill, L., Janée, G., Lovette, K., Nideffer, R., Smith, T., &

Zheng, Q. (2000). The Alexandria Digital Library architecture. International Journal on

Digital Libraries, 2(4), 259-268.

Harnad, S. (2004). Open access to peer-reviewed research through author/institution self-

archiving: Maximizing research impact by maximizing online access. In J. Andrews & D.

Law (Eds.), Digital Libraries: Policy, planning, and practice (pp. 63-98). Burlington,

VT: Ashgate. 49

Kerlinger, F. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research, 4th ed. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt

College Publishers.

Kresh, D. N. (2004). Beyond bricks and mortar: Building a digital library program at the Library

of Congress. In J. Andrews & D. Law (Eds.), Digital Libraries: Policy, planning, and

practice (pp. 213-228). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Lazinger, S. (2001). Digital preservation and metadata: History, theory, practice. Englewood,

CO: Libraries Unlimited. In J. Andrews & D. Law (Eds.), Digital Libraries: Policy,

planning, and practice (pp. 99-112). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Lazinger, S. (2004). Issues of policy and practice in digital preservation. In J. Andrews & D.

Law (Eds.), Digital Libraries: Policy, planning, and practice (pp. 5-17). Burlington, VT:

Ashgate.

Lavoie, B., Dempsey, L., & Connaway, L. S. (2006). Making data work harder. Library Journal,

141(1), 40-42.

Law, D. (2004). Content and services issues for digital libraries. In J. Andrews & D. Law (Eds.),

Digital Libraries: Policy, planning, and practice (pp. 53-61). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Lesk, M. (2004). How to pay for digital libraries. In J. Andrews & D. Law (Eds.), Digital

Libraries: Policy, planning, and practice (pp. 37-51). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee. (1996). The MARC 21 Formats:

Background and Principles. Retrieved November 8, 2006 from

http://www.loc.gov/marc/96principl.html 50

Mischo, W. H. (2004). United States federal support for digital library research and its

implications for digital library development. In J. Andrews & D. Law (Eds.), Digital

Libraries: Policy, planning, and practice (pp. 5-17). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

McGeachin, R. B. (2004). The impact of electronic bibliographic databases and electronic

journal articles on the scholar’s information-seeking behavior and personal collections of

“reprints”. In J. P. Miller (Ed.), Emerging issues in the electronic environment:

Challenges for librarians and researchers in the sciences (pp. 127-137). New York:

Haworth Press.

Metzl, J. F. (1998). Searching for the catalog of catalogues. In S. R. Graubard, & P. LeClerc

(Eds.). Books, bricks, & bytes: Libraries in the twenty-first century (pp. 147-160). New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Meyyappan, N., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Use of a digital work environment

prototype to create a user-centered university digital library. Journal of Information

Science, 27, 249-264.

National Science Board. (2005, September). Long-lived digital data collections enabling

research and education in the 21st century. (Issue NSB-05-40). Arlington, VA.

National Science Digital Library. (n.d.). About NSDL. Retrieved November 1, 2006 from

http://nsdl.org/about/index.php

Phillips, M. E. (2005). What should we preserve? The question for heritage libraries in a digital

world. Library Trends, 54(1), 57-71.

Rosenblatt, W., Trippe, W., & Mooney, S. (2001). Digital rights management: Business and

technology. New York: M&T Books.

TechWeb. (2006). Retrieved November 1, 2006 from http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia 51

University of Texas at Austin. (n.d.). Digital assets management system terminology. Retreived

November 1, 2006 from http://www.lib.utexas. edu/dams/terminology.html 52

APPENDIX A: Explanation of Study and Consent

Dear Electronic Resources Librarian,

My name is Will Cleland and I am a graduate student at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio pursuing a degree in Career and Technology Education (M.Ed.). I am conducting a research study for my thesis to identify the current best practices of digital asset management of electronic texts in research-extensive university libraries. Throughout my research, I have found considerable information about the problems and issues facing electronic libraries, but little information exists about the daily activities that electronic resources librarians perform to manage and preserve electronic texts. Therefore, the purpose of my study is to provide a “snapshot” of the current best practices of digital asset management academic research libraries. This study will benefit electronic resource librarians by providing a current picture of what professionals in your field are doing to manage electronic texts.

In order to obtain information about the current best practices of digital asset management, I am contacting staff and faculty members at libraries within the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Since you are a part of this group of library professionals, I am requesting your voluntary participation in this study and that you complete the following survey. If I have incorrectly identified you as a possible participant, please forward this message to a more appropriate library employee.

I estimate that your initial participation will take 15-25 minutes. You will be asked to complete an e-mail survey of 14 open-ended questions relating to your daily practices in digital asset management. You will be asked questions about your academic and professional career choices, as well as questions about your opinions on best practices of digital asset management. Subsequent participation will involve completing one, and possibly two more short surveys with questions of progressively greater focus and specificity. The estimated total amount of time for your participation is one and a half hours, and there will be approximately ten days between each survey phase. I am willing to provide preliminary survey results, as well as a URL to access the final thesis document if you choose to be a participant.

The risks associated with this study are no greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life. Your confidentiality and your institution’s anonymity will be maintained when reporting results by using identifiers such as Participant A, Participant B, and so on. Please note that e-mail is not 100% secure, so it is possible that someone intercepting your e-mail will gain knowledge of your interest in the study. Also remember to clear your browser’s cache and page history after you submit the survey in order to protect your privacy. Some employers use tracking software to monitor and record keystrokes, mouse clicks, and web sites visited. This could impact the confidentiality of your responses. Therefore, you may wish to complete the survey on your home computer or a public computer.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you may refrain from answering any questions without penalty or explanation. You are free to withdraw consent and to discontinue participation in the project at any time. 53

If you have any questions or comments about this study, you may contact me at (419) 372-4420, ([email protected]) or Dr. Paul Cesarini, my thesis advisor, at (419) 372-7740, ([email protected]). If you have questions about the conduct of this study or your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Chair of Bowling Green State University's Human Subjects Review Board at (419) 372-7716 ([email protected]).

Thank you for your participation in this study, Will Cleland

Statement of consent: By completing and submitting the e-mail survey, I assert that I am at least 18 years of age and volunteer to participate in this study. I have been informed that completion and submission of this survey constitutes my consent to participate. I have also been informed that I will be asked personal questions about my academic and professional career choices, as well as questions about my opinions on best practices of digital asset management. My participation in this study is completely voluntary and I may withdraw from the survey at any time without penalty or explanation. 54

APPENDIX B: Phase One Survey Questions

Digital Asset Management Survey Questions

The following questions relate specifically to the management of born-digital electronic texts. While these questions are open-ended and can involve very lengthy and detailed responses, please plan on spending 30-45 minutes to complete this first survey. Responses that are brief and specific will be the most helpful to me. Thank you for your time.

Relevant Participant Information

1. What have you, as a library staff member, done to prepare for your career? Explain your educational background and relevant career experience.

2. What technologies relating to born-digital electronic texts are you familiar with and use frequently? For example, do you use metadata driven search engines? Online databases? PDF creation software? Anything else?

Library Organization

3. Describe your involvement in implementing methods of managing and preserving born-digital electronic texts. Identify some of the main tasks that are used to manage these texts and what departments handle them.

4. How is your library organized to manage born-digital electronic texts? Does this organizational model help or hinder the management of born-digital electronic texts? Can you suggest an alternative model?

Budget and Staffing

5. Approximately what percentage of the total library materials budget is allocated for electronic resources? For born-digital e-resources?

6. Approximately what percentage of library staff are involved in digital asset management? What percentage of library staff deal specifically with print resources?

7. If you had additional staff and/or funding for electronic resources at your library, what additional methods would you employ?

Materials Selection

8. How do you select electronic texts for your library’s collection? Identify specific criteria that are used to select or reject materials or provide URL to selection policy such as storage quality of information, quality of medium, quality of computer systems.

9. How might you change the materials selection criteria to improve the quality and breadth of 55 your electronic collection?

Digital Asset Management Strategies and Methods

10. Describe some of the specific methods you use to preserve electronic texts. Explain how your institution deals with different file formats and platform interoperability issues.

11. What file format(s) do you use as a standard? For example, do you use encrypted PDF formats for electronic texts or other formats? What were the reasons for selecting these formats? If the document is not originally in your library’s standard format, how do you convert from a non-standard file format to your library’s standard format?

12. What metadata standards (e.g. Dublin core or MARC 21) are used to describe and allow retrieval of materials? Why did you select these standards? Are the metadata standards modified for your institution? If so, how are they modified?

13. How do you ensure that an electronic text is exactly as the author intended, free from modifications or tampering? What digital rights management methods might you employ to deal with such information authenticity issues?

14. What digital asset management strategies have you or the library staff used that have worked well? Why do you think these strategies were effective? If a strategy did not work well, what was done to change the problem?

15. What other strategies and methods do you use that have not been already addressed?

16. Imagine a world free from financial and technological limitations. What methods would you use to manage electronic texts? How do these ideal methods differ from what is currently done? Do you want folks to imagine what’s not possible today (i.e. no technological limitations?) or do you want them to articulate how, given current or soon forthcoming technology, what methods they might use? 56

APPENDIX C: Phase Two Survey Questions

Second Set of Digital Asset Management Survey Questions

1. The first set of responses indicated some differences of opinion about the use of vendored/proprietary versus open-source digital asset management systems. Do you feel there is a significant need to move away from proprietary systems? What might be some reasons for doing so?

2. Many academic libraries have relatively small and decentralized electronic resources departments. Are these organizational, funding, and staffing issues something you feel needs to change to more effectively manage electronic documents? If so, how might this change be facilitated?

3. Major software products that are in use right now in libraries are CONTENTdm, Dspace, Adobe Acrobat Professional, etc. In your opinion, do these systems offer sufficient features to protect the rights of content creators? If they are not sufficient, where do these systems come up short? 57

APPENDIX D: Phase One Survey Reminder

Dear Electronic Resources Librarian,

This is just a reminder for you to take about 15-25 minutes to complete the survey for my Master’s Thesis on digital asset management of born-digital electronic texts. I certainly hope you will take the time to complete this survey because your opinions and experiences as an electronic resources librarian are important and informative; the responses you provide will help me to form a snapshot of current best practices of digital asset management in ARL member institutions.

The survey is being administered from March 1 through March 23, 2007. Please take the time to complete the survey now; if that is not possible, then for certain by March 23, 2007.

If you have any questions or comments about this study, you may contact me at (419) 372-4420, ([email protected]) or Dr. Paul Cesarini, my thesis advisor, at (419) 372-7740, ([email protected]).

I have included the survey below and attached the explanation of informed consent. Your participation is completely voluntary and does not put you at any risk. If you would like to participate in this study, please submit your answers to the questions as a reply to this email.

Thank you, Will Cleland 58

APPENDIX E: Follow-up Correspondence

Dear Electronic Resources Libraian:

Thank you for your participation in my survey on best practices of digital asset management of electronic texts in academic research libraries. I will be analyzing the responses this week and formulating questions for a follow-up questionnaire. This will be very brief (3-5 questions) and will target some of the themes and patterns that arose in the first survey phase. Expect this second (and last) questionnaire to be arriving in your inbox by the end of this week. It will take much less time than the first questionnaire – about 10 minutes at the most. Again, thank you very much for offering your valuable time to complete this study. I will provide a link to my thesis when it is completed so you can see the final results.

Thank you, Will Cleland 59

APPENDIX F: Phase Two Survey Reminder

Dear Electronic Resources Librarian:

This is just a reminder that tomorrow is the last day that I will be administering the survey for my Master’s Thesis on digital asset management of born-digital electronic texts. I still need 5-10 more responses to have sufficient data, so please take 15-25 minutes to complete the questions below. Again, if you have any questions or comments about this study, you may contact me at (419) 372-4420, ([email protected]) or Dr. Paul Cesarini, my thesis advisor, at (419) 372-7740, ([email protected]). Remember that your participation is completely voluntary and does not put you at any risk. If you would like to participate in this study, please submit your answers to the questions as a reply to this email.

Thank you, Will Cleland 60

APPENDIX G: Human Subjects Review Board Approval Letter