Exploration of Adoption of Preservation Metadata in Cultural Heritage Institutions Page: 3
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The researchers conducted semi-structured, follow-up
telephone interviews with the survey respondents who were
willing to participate in the interview to clarify and confirm
the questionnaire data. By consulting and involving actual
stakeholders (who are active in developing improved
solutions for digital preservation challenges), factors that
affect adoption of preservation metadata identified and
discussed. Such triangulations of methods provided a
holistic framework to identify factors and their relationship
in order to understand the factors that affect adoption of
preservation metadata in cultural heritage institutions.
The survey questionnaire collected several demographic
characteristics of the research participants such as their
institution affiliations, locations, positions, and levels of
education. As can be seen from Figure 2, respondents were
predominantly from higher education institutions (about
40%), followed by archives (about 18%), museums (16%),
and national libraries (9%). Some of the participant
institutions categorized as others include: government and
non-government research institutes, digital documents
producers (e.g., publishers, broadcasting agencies, or image
service companies), non-profit art institutions, and other
libraries (e.g., public, state, and charity libraries).
Intellectual Frpelty Managelilent- 1.79%
Digit:l FPreservatiiln ,iffiel- 3.57%
I Adinistr",tin-- 1.79%
Re'i'rds Managier- 1.79%
Artl J s 10.71%
Edto,: _ 1.79%
0% 5% 10% 15%
Respondents' fields of specialty were distributed as shown
in Figure 3; a significant number (about one-fourth or 26%)
of the respondents were librarians, while more than 20 %
represented IT and general management positions.
However, it is interesting to note that many respondents to
the survey indicated that they regarded themselves as
metadata specialists, archivists, digital curators, intellectual
property managers, and digital preservation officers. As
noted by Lee, Tibbo, and Schaefer (2007), in the past a data
creator may have had little or nothing to do with subsequent
curation, but today the digital environment demands that
understanding bridge the differing roles.
PREMIS ADOPTION STATUS
Cultural heritage institutions accept the notion that
maintaining usable and sustainable digital collections
requires a complex set of actions. In this regard, most
respondents agreed that preservation metadata is crucial to
implementing reliable, usable, and sustainable digital
libraries. Most (more than 91%) of the respondents in the
sample believed that preservation metadata help resource
managers in analyzing data and facilitating preservation
decisions and actions.
However, the institutional context for preservation metadata
requirements may differ across cultural heritage
institutions. In this regard, despite the role of preservation
metadata in digital resource life cycle management, a
number of survey participants mentioned that they viewed
PREMIS adoption in light of their institutions' specific
characteristics. One respondent said that "PREMIS is more
library-centric and our team members are cautious in
recommending full PREMIS adoption." As can be seen
from their statements, many emphasized that the
institutional context actually matters when it comes to
adopting PREMIS. The following statement from one of the
interview respondents sums up the views of many
participants: "While we can be informed by PREMIS and
what worked elsewhere in terms adopting preservation
metadata, we must take account of our own local specific
conditions before implementing change."
PREMIS is relatively new innovation and perhaps growth is
somewhat slow as the innovation establishes itself.
Literature on diffusion of innovations suggests that time
could be a vital factor in adoption of the innovation. Rogers
(2003) defined five main steps in an innovation-decision
process: learning of an innovation's existence and some of
its functions (knowledge); forming a favorable or
26.79 unfavorable attitude toward it (persuasion); engaging in
activities that lead to an adopt/reject choice (decision);
putting the innovation into use (implementation); and
seeking information that reinforces or refutes the
20% 25% 30% innovation-decision (confirmation).
Figure 3. Distribution of the participants by specialty.
Digital rUlatr:l -! '1.79%
Here’s what’s next.
This paper can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Paper.
Alemneh, Daniel Gelaw & Hastings, Samantha Kelly. Exploration of Adoption of Preservation Metadata in Cultural Heritage Institutions, paper, 2010; [Silver Spring, Maryland]. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29321/m1/3/: accessed November 21, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; .