Is Digitization the Answer for Preserving Paper-Based Library Materials?

The digital age has wrought a reliance on electronically-transmitted and formatted materials for use by the public. Digitization of records has come over the past twenty or so years to offer a means of reformatting deteriorating paper-based library materials, ensuring the information contained in the ink and paper is available for long-term access. Digitization offers several advantages for libraries in terms of preservation, providing access, and removing severely-deteriorated materials from library shelves in order to protect the library’s other materials. Since around the 1920s, microfilm offered such a solution for libraries, archives, and other cultural institution fighting the battle of the rot and ware of paper-based materials. However, microfilming requires a great deal of time, a lot of oversight during the whole process, can be costly, requires elaborate equipment, and often has to be outsourced to microfilming vendors. Most patrons of library do not enjoy the experience of utilizing microfilm, as eye fatigue and continually having to reload rolls of film on a viewer wear on a user’s patience.

Over the past twenty years especially, digitization has become one of the main answers for libraries and archives in creating use surrogates of original materials for public handling, in order to protect the original items and sustain the availability of the items in their original format for as long as possible. However, digitization carries many of its own problems, among which are long-term storage and maintenance of digital materials, complete substitution of the original materials for electronic copies, and the loss of information only available from the original format of the paper-based materials. The most important questions concerning digitization for libraries still have yet to find concrete solutions, while in the meantime libraries continue to digitize for short-term benefits initially. Is digitization the solution for the preservation of paper-based library materials? Is there a difference between “digitization for preservation” and “digital preservation”?

Books and other paper-based records carry with them uniqueness, as well as the record of the physical impact they have received from people and time. Library collections are increasingly focusing on digital collections and digital curation—with digitized paper-based records such as archival material fitting within this movement. However, the concept of “physical artifact” that is embodied within old books and manuscript collections imbues library preservation with the need to take steps to ensure the longevity of the original materials, through providing both a use copy of the fragile originals and sustaining the integrity of the original materials. In a January 2010 issue of The Library Quarterly, Paul Conway echoes this view in his study of the conversion to digitization within libraries and archives, recommending that libraries:

"Continue to give pride of place to preservation quality environments and the buildings required to sustain them. Perhaps for decades to come, material culture artifacts will serve as the ultimate backups for their digital surrogates. Preservation environments buy time for careful decision making and represent highly tangible commitments to long-term preservation" (“Preservation in the Age of Google,” 75).

Even so, the Association for Research Libraries Preservation of Research Library Materials Committee notes that, with all preservation and reformatting options for paper-based library materials, there are benefits and shortcomings. The Committee stated in a June 2004 report that

"Digitization increases the capture capability for many types of paper-based material, such as oversize and color items, for which there has been no effective reformatting strategy to date. Functionality, such as zooming capabilities, allows users to examine more closely fine details and produce a variety of outputs to suit different needs. Digital facsimiles better reproduce the navigational experience of a book than does the linear format of microfilm" (“Recognizing Digitization As A Preservation Reformatting Method,” 2, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/digi_preserv.pdf).

Even with these reasons to utilize digitization, it is important to note that the ARL recognizes, as the title of the report suggests, that digitization of paper-based materials for preservation is an issue of “reformatting,” not necessarily substitution of the digital surrogate for the original item. This goes counter to a popular attitude amongst library professionals, which is promoted, as Robert Bee discusses in an April 2008 Library Quarterly issue, by “The idea that texts are information that can be reformatted without loss permeates the professional library literature, a view that tends to ignore the importance of a text’s medium and physical format” (“The Importance of Preserving Paper-Based Artifacts in a Digital Age," 180).

Original formats of paper-based library materials carry with them unique “historical dents” created through the agency of various people and the impact of time’s wear. Reproducing these alterations and “dents” are difficult because of their variety on paper-based materials: “Faithful digital representation is even more difficult with manuscripts. Take a look at the Library of Congress’s online versions of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Life Histories, which requires some complex notation just to represent a small handwritten correction” (Daniel J. Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig, “Digital History,” http://chnm.gmu.edu/ digitalhistory/digitizing/1.php). Digitization for preservation, despite its benefits for “reduce[ing] wear and tear on fragile items,” remains a tool that is to be fit within a library or archives overall preservation program, for “Preservation remains a secondary benefit of digital projects” (Trevor Jones, “An Introduction to Digital Projects for Libraries, Museums and Archives; http://images. library.uiuc.edu/resources/introduction.htm). There is no substitute of the original paper-based record. Searchability, unlimited access, and ready availability will continue to push digitization of library materials for preservation and research needs, and the public will understand only that they want the materials available digitally—not necessarily caring about the preservation issues involved. Public pressure and funding objectives will push libraries to use digitization as a primary means of preservation in the future.

Yet, as pointed out briefly already, Richard Rubin succinctly identifies the most pressing issue regarding digitization for preservation: “The problem is fixity. That is, print materials have some permanence, but electronic text is impermanent. Ironically, the ease with which digital material can be altered raises serious questions about its capacity to serve as a preservation technique” (Foundations of Library and Information Science, 3rd ed., 2010, 259). Long-term preservation of the digital formats most often used to capture digitized records (such as PDF and TIFF) are only reliable as a preservation medium if they can be migrated to newer formats, be able to have guaranteed continual access on technological devices, and have no or little loss of data representing the originally-scanned record. This is where digital preservation—or the long-term curation of digital materials—comes into play, and where the difficulties embodied within both digital preservation and digitization for preservation become joined together. There are no agreed upon long-term digital preservation formats. Rather, there are digital formats that limit or have no loss of digitized material within a certain amount of stored time or certain number of repeated uses of the original digital records. Bee points out that “Digitization offers the potential of much better surrogates for documents, but it also is fraught with danger. Digitized information erodes more quickly than print does, contains errors, must be continually “refreshed,” and is encoded on constantly changing software and hardware” (“The Importance of Preserving,”191).

The costs involved with creating, maintaining, and promoting digitized paper-based library materials can be just as expensive as microfilming, with the major distinction being the great disparity in length of longevity of the storage medium. Digitization relies on magnetic and optical media that require electricity for the basis of access. As more and more digitized library materials are places on the Web, access of these materials also becomes dependent on the type of web browsers used, computers and other digital devices utilized by users and patrons, and the ability of different people from different socio-economic backgrounds to be able to obtain access to those materials.

Digitized library materials give more opportunity for the public and researchers to discover the records without having to be physically present in the records’ repository. Even so, this wider access and discovery opportunity also brings up the “Google question” of copyright issues regarding digitized materials. Libraries do not have the luxury of time to check on the copyrighted nature of all the materials they digitize, though they must according to professional practice and legal restrictions. Thus, digitization offers great flexibility as a preservation tool, but not as the substitute for what others have produced or contributed to a particular produced record within a library’s collection: “Even after digitization, original documents and artifacts must still be cared for” (Jones, “An Introduction,” http://images.library.uiuc.edu/resources/introduction. htm).

In the end, digitization for preservation will continue to operate for the immediate future as a tool only for preservation for most materials, with some materials demanding digitization as the only way to save the information contained in the materials. Long-term, advances may be made to give digital records a storage and use stability of 25-50 years, yet a step below microfilm but a great improvement over current digital storage abilities. Rubin sees that “as new digital storage techniques are developed, digital preservation will become increasingly common” (Foundations of Library 2010, 260). Still, there will be no substitute for the preservation of original paper-based library materials in their original, non-digital format—-at least until digital-born publications and records begin to outnumber and to outperform the amount produced of and opportunities offered by hard copy paper-based materials. Digitization for preservation is a good weapon in the fight to preserve, but just like microfilm has not completely negated preserving the original paper-based materials, so too will digitization not—nor should it—replace the hard copies of the printed word.

The Gap Between MLIS and MA in the Archival World

As a currently job-seeking archivist, I have during this past year become ever more increasingly aware of the gap between archivists who have MLIS degrees and those with M..A. degrees in public history or archival studies. This is not a new issue, nor one that most of you readers probably would be taken surprise by; yet it is an issue that is putting young professionals in a quandary and sitting on the outskirts of the job market. After attending a prominent archives conference in the Midwest this year, it became abundantly clear that those with MLIS degrees often are much better at cataloguing and access-related issues for archives, than they are at actual understanding of the historical subject matters in the materials they deal with on a daily basis.

Many MLIS archivists I encountered in workshops would be asking simple questions such as "how do you describe XYZ" in archival databases or encoded schema (such as ContentDM or EAD), and those leading the workshops often simply responded that you enter the description in the "Description" field or under the collection abstract. Some of the most basic archival procedures or descriptive standards often appear as complicated codices, needing precise slots to fill information in or else the archivist is lost. Now, I truly realize this to be a great generalization, and I mean no insult or questioning of the skills of those MLIS degrees whom have led the way in the archival profession. On the other hand, from my perspective as both a researcher and a young archivist, I believe much of the archival community has missed the mark in their field. What I mean is that, while many groups and organizations cannot afford to high a full-time qualified archivist, other institutions hiring archivists zero in on only the MLIS candidates; frequently this is due to their being a library within a university setting.

What we find is a large number of unemployed individuals with M.A.s in Public History or Archival Studies who cannot get work in the field, while those institutions seeking only an MLIS candidate are taking longer and longer to find archivists to fill their positions. A number of states with some of the best archival institutions in the nation also have few, MLIS archives programs: the state of Ohio, for example, only has one ALA-accredited school in Kent State University, making it hard for many interested in the archival profession to gain the "accepted degree" for archivists (though the state of Ohio also has some of the best history and public history programs in the country, many of these students still have to earn a MLIS from an institution to get in the field). What would an institution rather have: someone who does not have as much library experience but has a solid background in history, historical research, and practical experience processing and preserving archival collections, or an MLIS candidate who frequently only has a couple of archival classes and volunteer experience in a library archives setting? An example of the struggle many wanting to get a professional degree in archival studies are having was discussed a few years ago in an online forum at the Chronicle of Higher Education's website: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=32957.0

The fact of the matter is that archival materials, though they may contain items that are frequently encountered in library collections (i.e. audio recordings, books, etc.), are historical records, and the current prevailing trend of librarians falling library guidelines for processing historical collections makes it very difficult for historians to do research in a historiographical manner. Archival materials often do not follow logical historical categorizations unless the MLIS archivist has an extensive history background. Personally, I would prefer going to an archives for research and encountering a historian working as an archivist, with all the necessary archivist training, than an MLIS archivist. I feel that the disconnect between MLIS and M.A. professionals has and is creating a lost repository of records: as archivists fight over electronic descriptive standards and HTML/XML codings of finding aids, many users don't even understand the searching tools or division of materials used in these "archival online databases." Some of the findings aids I've encountered would take an actual archivist to understand. The result is a lot of unprocessed and undescribed archival materials sitting in backrooms where researchers don't even really know what's there, all the while archives are worried about keeping up with the current generation through Facebook and Twitter (though they have not yet solved how to save the information created for these online social networks).

I realize this again is very general. Archivists are not to blame for everything that is troubling archival materials in the United States. Budget cuts, board of directors' push for new programs, lack of supplies, and other such devices that distract archivists from their work have caused a lot of problems. Too much to do, too little time is the oft-cited mantra. But we need to buckle down and deal with what we have in our collections. The best outreach and donor relations are processed collections. This brings us back to the issue at the heart of this post: MLIS vs. M.A. Those archivists with history degrees bring professional connections to an archival repository that many MLIS professionals lack, and the more connection an archives has to professional historical organizations the more need for one's collections will be brought to the institution. Yes, online is the demand of the time; but even more so than instantaneous access should be the issue of general access. Archivists, we need to unite, regardless of the degree, to work together. As long as there continues to be a bias in favor of MLIS professionals in the archival community, the nation's records will continue to suffer.

-Matthew, the Eclectic Archivist

P.S. As a post script, since the initial writing of this post, I have gone to the darkside and am now in a MLIS program so I can compete better for an archives job. My one professor, who has worked in archives, made a very interesting statement to the class about cataloging. He said that cataloging archives is a whole other ballpark from standard AACR2R and MARC cataloging approaches, mainly because most archival collections are not an individual item themselves, unlike books or audio recordings. It takes a different mindset to process archives. You know I agree with him, which is the biggest reason I, as a historian, don't agree with this MLIS bias in archives. It's improving, and more institutions are recognizing the M.A. public history programs, but if you have the experience and training, that should be what matters in locating archival jobs.