As regular Bitstreams readers know, a cross departmental team within Duke University Libraries has been exploring Multispectral Imaging and its potential to make Duke collections more accessible to researchers in the Duke scholarly community and beyond since 2015. After spending 2017 developing MSI workflows, building expertise, writing documentation, and responding to experimental imaging requests, we are now ready to unveil the first version of Duke University Libraries MSI service for researchers!
Our first service model version accommodates small requests that are not urgent. The MSI team wants to partner with researchers to facilitate their requests as well as hear feedback about our current service and any other needs for MSI. We are offering MSI services for free for the next few months, but will institute a fee structure on or before July 1.
The service breaks down into 4 general steps:
First, researchers submit a request for MSI services using a webform. The form prompts requesters to share their research question and details about what they want imaged. We also want to know where researchers are from, as we are expecting both Duke and non-Duke affiliated patrons.
Second, the MSI team will review all requests, as MSI is not the ideal imaging solution for all materials and research questions. Requests that will not benefit from MSI will not be approved.
Third, we schedule approved requests for imaging and processing. We plan to conduct 1 imaging and processing day per month, so it may take several weeks to a month for approved requests to make it though our full process.
Fourth, we deliver the processed files to our patrons along with a report that details the imaging and processing procedures and outcomes.
Please note the following:
We are currently only imaging Duke University Library holdings.
We are limiting requests to 1-3 individual items or 1-3 pages within a bound item (which is the number of items we can generally image and process in 1 day).
Allow 2-4 weeks for vetting and up to a month for imaging.
If you are interested in requesting MSI services, but your needs do not fit the service described here, we still want to hear from you! Please do not hesitate to fill out our researcher request form to get the process started, or contact Susan Ivey directly.
Providing access to captions and transcripts is not new for digital collections. We have been able to provide access to pdf transcripts and caption both in digital collections and finding aids for years. See items from the Behind the Veil and Memory Project digital collections for examples.
In recent years however, we stepped our efforts in creating captions and transcripts. Our work began in response to a 2015 lawsuit brought against Harvard and MIT by the National Association of the Deaf. The lawsuit triggered many discussions in the library, and the Advisory Council for Digital Collections eventually decided that we would proactively create captions or transcripts for all new A/V digital collections assuming it is feasible and reasonable to do so. The feasible and reasonable part of our policy is key. The Radio Haiti collection for example is composed of thousands of recordings primarily in Haitian Creole and French. The costs to transcribe that volume of material in non-English languages make it unreasonable (and not feasible) to transcribe. In addition to our work in the library, Duke has established campus wide web accessibility guidelines that includes captioning and transcription. Therefore our work in digital collections is only one aspect of campus wide accessibility efforts.
To create transcripts and captions, we have partnered with several vendors since 2015, and we have seen the costs for these services drop dramatically. Our primary vendor right now is Rev, who also works with Duke’s Academic Media Services department. Rev guarantees 99% accurate captions or transcripts for $1/minute.
Early on, Duke Digital Collections decided to center our captioning efforts around the WebVTT format, which is a time-coded text based file and a W3C standard. We use it for both audio and video captions when possible, but we can also accommodate legacy transcript formats like pdfs. Transcripts and captions can be easily replaced with new versions if and when edits need to be made.
Examples from the Silent Vigil (1968) and Allen Building Takeover (1969) Audio Recordings
When WebVTT captions are present, they load in the interface as an interactive transcript. This transcript can be used for navigation purposes; click the text and the file moves to that portion of the recording.
In addition to providing access to transcripts on the screen, we offer downloadable versions of the WebVTT transcript as a text file, a pdf or in the original webVTT format.
An advantage of the WebVTT format is that it includes “v” tags, which can be used to note changes in speakers and one can even add names to the transcript. This can require additional manual work if the names of the speakers is not obvious to the vendor, but we are excited to have this opportunity.
As Sean described in his blog post, we can also provide access to legacy pdf documents. They cannot be rendered into an interactive version, but they are still accessible for download.
On a related note, we also have a new feature that links time codes listed in the description metadata field of an item to the corresponding portion of the audio or video file. This enables librarians to describe specific segments of audio and/or video items. The Radio Haiti digital collection is the first to utilize this feature, but the feature will be a huge benefit to the H. Lee Waters and Chapel Recordings digital collections as well as many others.
As mentioned at the top of this post, the Duke Vigil and Allen Building Takeover collection includes our first batch of interactive transcripts. We plan to launch more this Spring, so stay tuned!!
2017 has been an action packed year for Digital Collections full of exciting projects, interface developments and new processes and procedures. This blog post is an attempt to summarize just a few of our favorite accomplishments from the last year. Digital Collections is truly a group cross-departmental collaboration here at Duke, and we couldn’t do complete any of the work listed below without all our colleagues across the library – thanks to all!
New Digital Collections Portal
Regular visitors to Duke Digital Collections may have noticed that our old portal (library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/) now redirects to our new homepage on the Duke Digital Repository (DDR) public interface. We are thrilled to make this change! But never fear, your favorite collections that have not been migrated to DDR are still accessible either on our Tripod2 interface or by visiting new placeholder landing pages in the Digital Repository.
Supporting A/V materials in the Digital Repository has been a major software development priority throughout 2017. As a result our A/V items are becoming more accessible and easier to share. Thanks to a year of hard work we can now do and support the following (we posted examples of these on a previous post).
Model, store and stream A/V derivatives
Share A/V easily through our embed feature (even on Duke WordPress sites- a long standing bug)
Finding aids can now display inline AV for DAOs from DDR
Clickable timecode links in item descriptions (example)
Display captions and interactive transcripts
Download and Export captions and transcripts (as .pdf, .txt.,or .vtt)
Display Video thumbnails & poster frames
Rights Statements and Metadata
Bitstreams recently featured a review of all things metadata from 2017, many of which impact the digital collections program. We are especially pleased with our rights management work from the last year and our rights statements implementation (http://rightsstatements.org/en/). We are still in the process of retrospectively applying the statements, but we are making good progress. The end result will give our patrons a clearer indication of the copyright status of our digital objects and how they can be used. Read more about our rights management work in past Bitstreams posts.
Also this year in metadata, we have been developing integrations between ArchivesSpace (the tool Rubenstein Library uses for finding aids) and the repository (this is a project that has been in the works since 2015. With these new features Rubenstein’s archivist for metadata and encoding is in the process of reconciling metadata between ArchivesSpace and the Digital Repository for approximately 50 collections to enable bi-directional links between the two systems. Bi-directonal linking helps our patrons move easily from a digital object in the repository to its finding aid or catalog record and vice versa. You can read about the start of this work in a blog post from 2016.
At the end of 2016, Duke Libraries purchased Multispectral Imaging (MSI) equipment, and members of Digital Collections, Data and Visualization Studies, Conservation Services, the Duke Collaboratory for Classics Computing, and the Rubenstein Library joined forces to explore how to best use the technology to serve the Duke community. The past year has been a time of research, development, and exploration around MSI and you can read about our efforts on Bitstreams. Our plan is to launch an MSI service in 2018. Stay tuned!
Ingest into the Duke Digital Repository (DDR)
With the addition of new colleagues focussed on research data management, there have been more demands on and enhancements to our DDR ingest tools. Digital collections has benefited from more robust batch ingest features as well as the ability to upload more types of files (captions, transcripts, derivatives, thumbnails) through the user interface. We can also now ingest nested folders of collections. On the opposite side of the spectrum we now have the ability to batch export sets of files or even whole collections.
The Digital Collections Advisory Committee and Implementation Team are always looking for more efficient ways to manage our sprawling portfolio of projects and services. We started 2017 with a new call for proposals around the themes of diversity and inclusion, which resulted in 7 successful proposals that are now in the process of implementation.
In addition to a thematic call for proposals, we later rolled out a new process for our colleagues to propose smaller projects in response to faculty requests, events or for other reasons. In other words, projects of a certain size and scope that were not required to respond to a thematic call for proposals. The idea being that these projects can be easily implemented, and therefore do not require extensive project management to complete. Our first completed “easy” project is the Carlo Naya photograph albums of Venice.
In 2016 (perhaps even back in 2015), the digital collections team started working with colleagues in Rubenstein to digitize the set of collections known in as “Section A”. The history of this moniker is a little uncertain, so let me just say that Section A is a set of 3000+ small manuscript collections (1-2 folders each) boxed together; each Section A box holds up to 30 collections. Section A collections are highly used and are often the subject of reproduction requests, hence they are perfect candidates for digitization. Our goal has been to set up a mass-digitization pipeline for these collections, that involves vetting rights, updating description, evaluating their condition, digitizing them, ingesting them into DDR, crosswalking metadata and finally making them publicly accessible in the repository and through their finding aids. In 2017 we evaluated 37 boxes for rights restrictions, updated descriptions for 24 boxes, assessed the condition of 31 boxes, digitized 19 boxes, ingested 4 boxes, crosswalked metadata for 2 boxes and box 1 is now online! Read more about the project in a May Bitstreams post. Although progress has felt slow given all the other projects we manage simultaneously, we really feel like our foot is on the gas now!
You can see the fruits of our digital collection labors in the list of new and migrated collections from the past year. We are excited to see what 2018 will bring!!
International Broadsides (added to migrated Broadsides and Ephemera collection): https://repository.duke.edu/dc/broadsides
Orange County Tax List Ledger, 1875: https://repository.duke.edu/dc/orangecountytaxlist
Radio Haiti Archive, second batch of recordings: https://repository.duke.edu/dc/radiohaiti
William Gedney Finished Prints and Contact Sheets (newly re-digitized with new and improved metadata): https://repository.duke.edu/dc/gedney
In addition to the brand new items, the digital collections team is constantly chipping away at the digital collections migration. Here are the latest collections to move from Tripod 2 to the Duke Digital Repository (these are either available now or will be very soon):
What we hoped would be a speedy transition is still a work in progress 2 years later. This is due to a variety of factors one of which is that the work itself is very complex. Before we can move a collection into the digital repository it has to be reviewed, all digital objects fully accounted for, and all metadata remediated and crosswalked into the DDR metadata profile. Sometimes this process requires little effort. However other times, especially with older collection, we have items with no metadata, or metadata with no items, or the numbers in our various systems simply do not match. Tracking down the answers can require some major detective work on the part of my amazing colleagues.
Despite these challenges, we eagerly press on. As each collection moves we get a little closer to having all of our digital collections under preservation control and providing access to all of them from a single platform. Onward!
A recent tweet from my colleague in the Rubenstein Library (pictured above) pretty much sums up the last few weeks at work. Although I rarely work directly with students and classes, I am still impacted by the hustle and bustle in the library when classes are in session. Throughout the busy Spring I found myself saying, oh I’ll have time to work on that over the Summer. Now Summer is here, so it is time to make some progress on those delayed projects while keeping others moving forward. With that in mind here is your late Spring and early Summer round-up of Digital Collections news and updates.
The long anticipated launch of the Radio Haiti Archives is upon us. After many meetings to review the metadata profile, discuss modeling relationships between recordings, and find a pragmatic approach to representing metadata in 3 languages all in the Duke Digital Repository public interface, we are now in preview mode, and it is thrilling. Behind the scenes, Radio Haiti represents a huge step forward in the Duke Digital Repository’s ability to store and play back audio and video files.
You can already listen to many recordings via the Radio Haiti collection guide, and we will share the digital collection with the world in late June or early July. In the meantime, check out this teaser image of the homepage.
My colleague Meghan recently wrote about our ambitions Section A digitization project, which will result in creating finding aids for and digitizing 3000+ small manuscript collections from the Rubenstein library. This past week the 12 people involved in the project met to review our workflow. Although we are trying to take a mass digitization and streamlined approach to this project, there are still a lot of people and steps. For example, we spent about 20-30 minutes of our 90 minute meeting reviewing the various status codes we use on our giant Google spreadsheet and when to update them. I’ve also created a 6 page project plan that encompasses both a high and medium level view of the project. In addition to that document, each part of the process (appraisal, cataloging review, digitization, etc.) also has their own more detailed documentation. This project is going to last at least a few years, so taking the time to document every step is essential, as is agreeing on status codes and how to use them. It is a big process, but with every box the project gets a little easier.
Diversity and Inclusion Digitization Initiative Proposals and Easy Projects
As Bitstreams readers and DUL colleagues know, this year we instituted 2 new processes for proposing digitization projects. Our second digitization initiative deadline has just passed (it was June 15) and I will be working with the review committee to review new proposals as well as reevaluate 2 proposals from the first round in June and early July. I’m excited to say that we have already approved one project outright (Emma Goldman papers), and plan to announce more approved projects later this Summer.
We also codified “easy project” guidelines and have received several easy project proposals. It is still too soon to really assess this process, but so far the process is going well.
Transcription and Closed Captioning
Speaking of A/V developments, another large project planned for this Summer is to begin codifying our captioning and transcription practices. Duke Libraries has had a mandate to create transcriptions and closed captions for newly digitized A/V for over a year. In that time we have been working with vendors on selected projects. Our next steps will serve two fronts; on the programmatic side we need review the time and expense captioning efforts have incurred so far and see how we can scale our efforts to our backlog of publicly accessible A/V. On the technology side I’ve partnered with one of our amazing developers to sketch out a multi-phase plan for storing and providing access to captions and time-coded transcriptions accessible and searchable in our user interface. The first phase goes into development this Summer. All of these efforts will no doubt be the subject of a future blog post.
Summer of Documentation
My aspirational Summer project this year is to update digital collections project tracking documentation, review/consolidate/replace/trash existing digital collections documentation and work with the Digital Production Center to create a DPC manual. Admittedly writing and reviewing documentation is not the most exciting Summer plan, but with so many projects and collaborators in the air, this documentation is essential to our productivity, communication practices, and my personal sanity.
Late Spring Collection launches and Migrations
Over the past few months we launched several new digital collections as well as completed the migration of a number of collections from our old platform into the Duke Digital Repository.
In addition to the projects above, we continue to make slow and steady progress on our MSI system, are exploring using the FFv1 format for preserving selected moving image collections, planning the next phase of the Digital Collections migration into the Duke Digital Repository, thinking deeply about collection level metadata and structured metadata, planning to launch newly digitized Gedney images, integrating digital objects in finding aids and more. No doubt some of these efforts will appear in subsequent Bitstreams posts. In the meantime, let’s all try not to let this Summer fly by too quickly!
At Duke University Libraries (DUL), we are embarking on a new way to propose digitization projects. This isn’t a spur of the moment New Year’s resolution I promise, but has been in the works for months. Our goal in making a change to our proposal process is twofold: first, we want to focus our resources on specific types of projects, and second, we want to make our efforts as efficient as possible.
Introducing Digitization Initiatives
The new proposal workflow centers on what we are calling “digitization initiatives.” These are groups of digitization projects that relate to a specific theme or characteristic. DUL’s Advisory Council for Digital Collections develops guidelines for an initiative, and will then issue a call for proposals to the library. Once the call has been issued, library staff can submit proposals on or before one of two deadlines over a 6 month period. Following submission, proposals will be vetted, and accepted proposals will move onto implementation. Our previous system did not include deadlines, and proposals were asked to demonstrate broad strategic importance only.
DUL is issuing our first call for proposals now, and if this system proves successful we will develop a second digitization initiative to be announced in 2018.
I’ll say more about why we are embarking on this new system later, but first I would like to tell you about our first digitization initiative.
Call for Proposals
Duke University Libraries’ Advisory Council for Digital Collections has chosen diversity and inclusion as the theme of our first digitization initiative. This initiative draws on areas of strategic importance both for DUL (as noted in the 2016 strategic plan) and the University. Prospective champions are invited to think broadly about definitions of diversity and inclusion and how particular collections embody these concepts, which may include but is not limited to topics of race, religion, class, ability, socioeconomic status, gender, political beliefs, sexuality, age, and nation of origin.
Proposals will be due on March 15, 2017 or June 15, 2017.
Proposing non-diversity and inclusion related proposal
We have not forgotten about all the important digitization proposals that support faculty, important campus or off campus partnerships, and special events. In our experience, these are often small projects and do not require a lot of extra conservation, technical services, or metadata support so we are creating an“easy” project pipeline. This will be a more light-weight process that will still requires a proposal, but less strategic vetting at the outset. There will be more details coming out in late January or February on these projects so stay tuned.
Why this change?
I mentioned above that we are moving to this new system to meet two goals. First, this new system will allow us to focus proposal and vetting resources on projects that meet a specific strategic goal as articulated by an initiative’s guidelines. Additionally, over the last few years we have received a huge variety of proposals: some are small “no brainer” type proposals while others are extremely large and complicated. We only had one system for proposing and reviewing all proposals, and sometimes it seemed like too much process and sometimes too little. In other words one process size does not not fit all. By dividing our process into strategically focussed proposals on the one hand and easy projects on the other, we can spend more of our Advisory committee’s time on proposals that need it and get the smaller ones straight into the hands of the implementation team.
Another benefit of this process is that proposal deadlines will allow the implementation team to batch various aspects of our work (batching similar types of work makes it go faster). The deadlines will also allow us to better coordinate the digitization related work performed by other departments. I often find myself asking departments to fit digitization projects in with their already busy schedules, and it feels rushed and can create unnecessary stress. If the implementation team has a queue of projects to address, then we can schedule it well in advance.
I’m really excited to see this new process get off the ground, and I’m looking forward to seeing all the fantastic proposals that will result from the Diversity and Inclusion initiative!
As the Digital Collections Program Manager at DUL, I spend most of my time managing projects. I really enjoy the work, and I’m always looking for ways to improve my methods, skills and overall approach. For this reason, I was excited to join forces with a few colleagues to think about how we could help graduate students develop and sharpen their project management skills. We have been meeting since last Spring and our accomplishments include defining key skills, reaching out to grad school departments about available resources and needs, assembling a list of project management readings and resources that we think are relevant in the academic context (still a work in progress: http://bit.ly/DHProjMgmt), and we are in the process of planning a workshop. But my most favorite project has been making project management themed zines.
Yes, you read that correctly: project management zines. You can print them on letter sized paper, and they are very easy to assemble (check out the a demo our friends in Rubenstein put together). But before you download, read on to learn more about the process behind the time management related zine.
Gathering Zine Content
Early on in our work the group decided to focus on 5 key aspects of project management: time management, communicating with others, logging research activities, goal setting, and document or research management. After talking with faculty we decided to focus on time management and document/research management.
I’ve been working with a colleague on time management tips for grad students, so we spent a lot of time combing Lifehacker and GradHacker and found some really good ideas and great resources! Based on our findings, we decided to break the concept of time management down further into smaller areas: planning, prioritizing and monotasking. From there, we made zines (monotasking coming soon)! We are also working on a libguide and some kind of learning module for a workshop.
Here are a few of my favorite new ideas from our time management research:
Monotasking: sometimes focussing on one task for an extended period of time sounds impossible, but my colleague found some really practical approaches for doing one thing at a time, such as the “Pomodoro technique” (http://pomodorotechnique.com/)
Park your work when multitasking: the idea is that before you move from task a to task b, spend a moment noting where you are leaving off on task a, and what you plan to do next when you come back to it.
Prioritization grids: if you don’t know where to begin with the long list of tasks in front of you (something grand students can surely related to), try plotting them on a priority matrix. The most popular grid for this kind of work that I found is the Eisenhower grid, which has you rank tasks by urgency and importance (https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_91.htm). Then you accomplish your tasks by grid quadrant in a defined order (starting with tasks that are both important and urgent). Although I haven’t tried this, I feel like you use other variables depending on your context, perhaps impact and effort. I have an example grid on my zine so you can try this method out yourself!
Use small amounts of time effectively: this is really a mind shift more than a tool or tip, and relates to the Pomodoro technique. Essentially the idea is to stop thinking that you cannot get anything done in those random 15-30 minute windows of downtime we all have between meetings, classes or other engagements. I often feel defeated by 20 minutes of availability and 4 hours of work to do. So I tried really jumping into those small time blocks, and it has been great. Instead of waiting for a longer time slot to work on a “big” task, I’m getting better at carving away at my projects over time. I’ve found that I can really get more done than I thought in 20 minutes. It has been a game changer for me!
Designing the Zines
I was inspired to make zines by my colleague in Rubenstein, who created a researcher how-to zine. The 1-page layout makes the idea of designing a zine much less intimidating. Everyone in the ad-hoc project management group adopted the template and we designed our zines in a variety of design tools: google draw, powerpoint or illustrator. We still have a few more to finish, but you can see our work so far online: http://tinyurl.com/pmzines
Each zine prints out to an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper and can easily be cut and folded into its zine form following an easy gif demo.
Introduction to Project Management (you can use this one as a coloring book too!)
Monotasking for Productive Work Blocks
Planning and Prioritizing
Project Manage your Writing
Just to remind you, the Chapel Recordings digital collection features recordings of services and sermons given in the chapel dating back to the mid 1950s. The collection also includes a set of written versions of the sermons that were prepared prior to the service dating back to the mid 1940s.
What is Unique about the Duke Chapel Recordings Project?
All of our digital collections projects are unique, but the Chapel Recordings had some special challenges that raised the level of complexity of the project overall. All of our usual digital collections tasks (digitization, metadata, interface development) were turned up to 11 (in the Spinal Tap sense) for all the reasons listed below.
More stakeholders: Usually there is one person in the library who champions a digital collection, but in this case we also had stakeholders from both the Chapel and the Divinity School who applied for the grant to get funding to digitize. The ultimate goal for the collection is to use the recordings of sermons as a homiletics teaching tool. As such they continue to create metadata for the sermons, and use it as a resource for their homiletics communities both at Duke and beyond.
More formats and data: we digitized close to 1000 audio items, around 480 video items and 1300 written sermons. That is a lot of material to digitize! At the end of the project we had created 58 TB of data!! The data was also complex; we had some sermons with just a written version, some with written, audio, and video versions and every possible combination in between. Following digitization we had to match all the recordings and writings together as well as clean up metadata and file identifiers. It was a difficult, time-consuming, and confusing process.
More vendors: given the scope of digitization for this project we outsourced the work to two vendors. We also decided to contract with a vendor for transcription and closed captioning. Although this allowed our Digital Production Center to keep other projects and digitization pipelines moving, it was still a lot of work to ship batches of material, review files, and keep in touch throughout the process.
More changes in direction: during the implementation phase of the project we made 2 key decisions which elevated the complexity of our project. First, we decided to launch the new material in the new Digital Repository platform. This meant we basically started from scratch in terms of A/V interfaces, and representing complex metadata. Sean, one of our digital projects developers, talked about that in a past blog post and our TRLN presentation. Second, in Spring of 2015 colleagues in the library started thinking deeply about how we could make historic A/V like the Chapel Recordings more accessible through closed captions and transcriptions. After many conversations both in the library and with our colleagues in the Chapel and Divinity, we decided that the Chapel Recordings would be a good test case for working with closed captioning tools and vendors. The Divinity School graciously diverted funds from their Lilly Endowment grant to make this possible. This work is still in the early phases, and we hope to share more information about the process in an upcoming blog post.
Lessons learned and re-learned
As with any big project that utilizes new methods and technology, the implementation team learned a lot. Below are our key takeaways.
More formal RFP / MOU: we had invoices, simple agreements, and were in constant communication with the digitization vendors, but we could have used a more detailed MOU defining vendor practices at a more detailed level. Not every project requires this kind of documentation, but a project of this scale with so many batches of materials going back and forth would have benefitted from a more detailed agreement.
Interns are the best: University Archives was able to redirect intern funding to digital collections, and we would not have finished this project (or the Chronicle) with any sanity left if not for our intern. We have had field experience students, and student workers, but it was much more effective to have someone dedicated to the project throughout the entire digitization and launch process. From now on, we will include interns in any similar grant funded project.
Review first – digitize 2nd: this is definitely a lesson we re-learned for this project. Prior to digitization, the collection was itemized and processed and we thought we were ready to roll. However there were errors that would have been easier to resolve had we found them prior to digitization. We also could have gotten a head start on normalizing data, and curating the collection had we spent more time with the inventory prior to digitization.
Modeling and prototypes: For the last few years we have been able to roll out new digital collections through an interface that was well known, and very flexible. However we developed Chapel Recordings in our new interface, and it was a difficult and at times confusing process. Next time around, we plan to be more proactive with our modeling and prototyping the interface before we implement it. This would have saved both the team and our project stakeholders time, and would have made for less surprises at the end of the launch process.
Post Launch work
As I mentioned at the top of this blog post, Chapel Recordings work continues. We are working with Pop Up Archive to transcribe the Chapel Recordings, and there is a small group of people at the Divinity School who are currently in the process of cleaning up transcripts specifically for the sermons themselves. Eventually these transcriptions will be made available in the Chapel Recordings collection as closed captions or time synced transcripts or in some other way. We have until December 2019 to plan and implement these features.
The Divinity School is also creating specialized metadata that will help make the the collection a more effective homiletics teaching tool. They are capturing specific information from the sermons (liturgical season, bible chapter and verse quoted), but also applying subject terms from a controlled list they are creating with the help of their stakeholders and our metadata architect. These terms are incredibly diverse and range from LCSH terms, to very specific theological terms (ex, God’s Love), to current events (ex, Black Lives Matter), to demographic-related terms (ex, LGBTQ) and more. Both the transcription and enhanced metadata work is still in the early phases, and both will be integrated into the collection sometime before December 2019.
The team here at Duke has been both challenged and amazed by working with the Duke Chapel Recordings. Working with the Divinity School and the Chapel has been a fantastic partnership, and we look forward to bringing the transcriptions and metadata into the collection. Stay tuned to find out what we learn next!
The 1905 to 1939 Chronicle issues are now live online at the Duke Chronicle Digital Collection. This marks the completion of a multi-year project to digitize Duke’s student newspaper. Not only will digitization provide easier online access to this gem of a collection, but it will also help preserve the originals held in the University Archives. With over 5,600 issues digitized and over 63,000 pages scanned, this massive collection is sure to have something for everyone.
The first two decades of the Chronicle saw its inception and growth as the student newspaper under the title The Trinity Chronicle. In the mid-1920s after the name change to Duke University, the Chronicle followed suit. In Fall of 1925, it officially became The Duke Chronicle.
The Nineteen-teens saw the growth of the university, with new buildings popping up, while others burned down – a tragic fire decimated the Washington Duke Building.
In the shadow of the Great Depression, the 1930s at Duke was a time to unite around a common cause – sports! Headlines during this time, like decades to follow, abounded with games, rivalries, and team pride.
Take the time to explore this great resource, and see how Duke and the world has changed. View it through the eyes of student journalists, through advertisements and images. So much occurred from 1905 to 1989, and the Duke Chronicle was there to capture it.
Post contributed by Jessica Serrao, former King Intern for Digital Collections.
Last Summer, Sean and I wrote about efforts we were were undertaking with colleagues to assess the research and scholarly impact of Duke Digital Collections. Sean wrote about data analysis approaches we took to detect scholarly use, and I wrote about a survey we launched in Spring 2015. The goal of the survey was to gather information about our patrons and their motivations that were not obvious from Google Analytics and other quantitative data. The survey was live for 7 months, and today I’m here to share the full results.
In a nutshell (my post last Summer included many details about setting up the survey), the survey asked users, “who are you,” “why are you here,” and “what are you going to do with what you find here?” The survey was accessible from every page of our Digital Collections website from April 30 – November 30, 2015. We set up event tracking in Google Analytics, so we know that around 43% of our 208,205 visitors during that time hovered on the survey link. A very small percentage of those clicked through (0.3% or 659 clicks), but 20% of the users that clicked through did answer the survey. This gave us a total of 132 responses, only one of which seems to be 100% spam. Traffic to the survey remained steady throughout the survey period. Now, onto the results!
Question 1: Who are you?
Respondents were asked to identify as one of 2 academically oriented groups (students or educators), librarians, or as “other”. Results are represented in the bubble graphic below. You can see that the majority of respondents identified as “other”. Of those 65 respondents, 30 described themselves, and these labels have been grouped in the pie chart below. It is fascinating to note that other than the handful of self-identified musicians (I grouped vocalists, piano players, anything musical under musicians) and retirees, there is a large variety of self descriptors listed.
The results breakdown of responses to question 1 remained steady over time when you compare the overall results to those I shared last Summer. Overall 26% of respondents identified as student (compared to 25% in July), 14% identified as educator (compared to 18% earlier), 9% identified as librarian, archivist or museum overall (exactly the same as earlier), and 51% identified as other (47% in the initial results). We thought these results might change when the Fall academic semester started, but as you can see that was not the case.
Question 2: Why are you here?
As I said above, our goal in all of our assessment work this time around was to look for signs of scholarly use so we were very interested in knowing if visitors come to Duke Digital Collections for academic research or for some other reason. Of the 125 total responses to question 2, personal research and casual browsing outweighed academic research ( see in the bar graph below). Respondents were able to check multiple categories. There were 8 instances where the same respondent selected casual browsing and personal research, 4 instances where casual browsing was paired with followed a link, 3 where academic research was tied to casual browsing, and 3 where academic research was tied to other. Several users selected more than 2 categories, but by in large respondents selected 1 category only. To me, this infers that our users are very clear about why they come to Duke Digital Collections.
Respondents were prompted to enter their research topic/purpose whether it be academic, personal or other. Every respondent that identified with other filled in a topic, 73% of personal researchers identified their topic, and 63% of academic researchers shared their topics. Many of the topics/purposes were unique, but research around music came up across all 3 categories as did topics related the history of a local region (all different regions). Advertising related topics also came up under academic and personal research. Several of the respondents who chose other entered a topic that suggested that they were in the early phases of a book project or looking for materials to use in classes. To me these seemed like more academically associated activities, and I was surprised they turned up under “other”. If I was able to ask follow up questions to these respondents, I would prompt for more information about their topic and why they defined it as academic or personal. Similarly, if we were designing this survey again, I think we would want to include a category for academic related uses apart from official research.
The results to question 2 also remained mostly consistent since our first view of the results last Summer. Academic research and casual browsing were tied at a 28% response rate each initially, and finished tied at a 30% response rate. The followed a link response rate when down from 17% to an overall 11%, personal research also went down from 44% to 36% overall, and other climbed slightly from 11% to 15% overall.
Question 3: What will you do with the images and/or resources you find on this site?
The third survey question attempts to get at the “now what” part of resource discovery. Following trends with the first two questions, it is not surprising that a majority of the 121 respondences are oriented towards “personal” use (see bar graph below). Like question 2, respondents were able to select multiple choices, however they tended to choose only one response.
Everyone who selected “other” did enter a statement, and of these a handful seemed like they could have fit under one of the defined categories. Several of the write-ins mentioned wanting to share items they found with family and friends assumably using methods other than social media. Five “others” responded with potentially academic related pursuits such as “an article”, “a book”, “update a book”, and 2 class related projects. I re-ran some numbers and combined these 5 responses with the academic publication, teaching tool, and homework respondents for a total of 55 possibly academically related answers or 45% of the total response to this question. The new 45% “academicish” grouping, as I like to think of it, is a more substantial total than each academic topic on its own. I propose this as an interesting way to slice and dice the data, and I’m sure there are others.
My colleagues and I have been very pleased with the results of this survey. First, we couldn’t be more thrilled that we were successfully able to collect necessary data (any data!). At the beginning of this assessment project, we were looking for evidence of research, scholarly and instructional use of Duke Digital Collections. We did find some, but this survey along with other data shows that the majority of our users come to Duke Digital Collections with a more personal agenda. We welcome the opportunity to make this kind of individual impact, and it is powerful. If the respondents of this survey are a representative sample of our user base, then our patrons are actively performing our collections (we have a lot of music), sharing items with family, friends, and community, as well as using the collections to pursue a wide variety of interests.
While this survey data assures us that we are making individual impacts, it also reveals that there is more we can do to cultivate our scholarly and researcher audience. This will be a long term process, but we have made some short term progress. As a result of our work in 2015, my colleagues and I put together a “teaching with digital collections” webpage to collect examples of instructional use and encourage more. In the course of developing a new platform for digital collections, we are also exploring new tools that could serve scholarly researchers more effectively. With a look towards the longer term, all of Duke University Libraries has been engaged in strategic planning for the past year, and Digital Collections is no exception. As we develop our goals around scholarly use, survey data like this is an important asset.
I’m curious to hear from others, what has your experience been with surveys? What have you learned and how have you put that knowledge to use? Feel free to comment or contact me directly! (molly.bragg at duke.edu)
Notes from the Duke University Libraries Digital Projects Team