It is less than 20 years since family historians first had access to digitized images of records in the form of the 1901 census. Many of us date our interest in family history to then and remember how demand crashed the website then we all had to wait what seemed like months until they had sorted it all out and it was back online. Bandwidth was a consideration in those dial-up days and those early downloads were designed to be low resolution so as not to take hours over a line where an incoming phone call cut off your internet.
Copyright Jacqui Kirk 2017. Caption: At work in Warwickshire Record Office’s Digitisation Suite
Now we have so much available to us on the Internet, in the form of officially licensed records and the less formal community archives, personal websites and social media and we are told that:
The Future of Archives is Digital
Last summer the National Archives held a series of round table workshops with archive staff from around the country aimed at producing a Digital Strategy – “A New Vision for Archives”. I was privileged to attend one of these in Birmingham, (as that rare being a “User”), and we were asked to envisage the future of archives and their users as an exercise in Blue Sky Thinking.
Strategic Vision for Archives
According to their blog about this
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/consultation-on-a-new-vision-for-archives/
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/consultation-on-a-new-vision-for-archives/
“we need a strategic vision for the role of the archive in a digital era”
And that:
“The vision should be ambitious and make an engaging and compelling case for funders and decision makers……..
The vision needs to set out a future where archives confidently manage digital as well as paper records and where access is expanded to new fields of research and a diverse audience
The vision must address the financial challenges archives face.”
The vision needs to set out a future where archives confidently manage digital as well as paper records and where access is expanded to new fields of research and a diverse audience
The vision must address the financial challenges archives face.”
To my mind this was all about digitising records and attracting funding to do so whilst preferably generating income for archives as well. They wanted to attract new users from the community at large so that they could tap into new sources of funding.
Is that really what the archive sector is thinking?
The results of this exercise and the resulting consultation (4 round tables with 179 participants, an online survey with 235 responses and a public consultation with 130 responses) and a reference group from across the archive sector plus an expert panel composed of much the same have led to the final document “Archives Unlocked” released this month.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/strategic-vision-for-archives/
In its introduction it states that
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/projects-and-programmes/strategic-vision-for-archives/
In its introduction it states that
“Our collections need to be used to be useful”
And that
“The publics (sic) interest in archives and what they have to offer is growing and digital technologies are opening up our archives like never before, to local, national and global audiences keen to learn and to be inspired”
Three Ambitions
It articulates three ambitions for the “benefits which archives will deliver"
- TRUST – “people and institutions trust in the authenticity of records and how they are preserved and presented”
- ENRICHMENT – “archives enhance and enrich our society intellectually, culturally and economically”
- OPENNESS – “archives cultivate an open approach to knowledge and are accessible to all”
User Expectations
One of the key drivers of change is highlighted as User Expectations.
“Society is changing, opening up new uses for data and records, and posing new questions about what is collected now and in the future, in both paper-based documents and digital formats.”
Action Plan
At the end of the document is the Action Plan (still very broad brush so far) saying that they have to tackle the “barriers to success”, meeting the key challenges facing the sector whilst still advocating for archives and making sure that they are valued or that their value is understood.
The plan would address 3 vital themes of digital capacity, resilience and impact. Within the archive sector digital capacity would be developed so as to make it easier to find both paper and digital records, and increasing resilience would encompass more Archive Accreditation, open up the archive sector to new skills and a more diverse workforce, and increase income generation and support innovative service models.
The plan would address 3 vital themes of digital capacity, resilience and impact. Within the archive sector digital capacity would be developed so as to make it easier to find both paper and digital records, and increasing resilience would encompass more Archive Accreditation, open up the archive sector to new skills and a more diverse workforce, and increase income generation and support innovative service models.
Finally the pledge was to increase the impact of archives “by developing and expanding audiences, piloting approaches to using data and evidence, and influencing thinking in the IT, commercial and knowledge sectors.”
Whilst in general agreement with its aims, my feelings about this document are mixed. On the one hand I applaud its identified ambitions but deplore the fact that it talks grandly about “User Expectations” without any significant user input nor any plans it seems to find out what exactly the user, either existing or future, actually wants or needs. It is all very much “if we build it they will come” with not a hint of market research!
Whilst in general agreement with its aims, my feelings about this document are mixed. On the one hand I applaud its identified ambitions but deplore the fact that it talks grandly about “User Expectations” without any significant user input nor any plans it seems to find out what exactly the user, either existing or future, actually wants or needs. It is all very much “if we build it they will come” with not a hint of market research!
Copyright Jacqui Kirk 2017. Caption: Warwickshire Digitisation Suite
The Future is Digital?
Based on what has happened in the archive sector so far I have a number of concerns.
Digitisation seen as an opportunity for income generation rather than for conserving records?
Quite a lot of what has been already digitised for family historians was already on microfilm so that the issue of conservation of original documents cannot always be said to be relevant except that Familysearch will be discontinuing their microfilm loans to their outreach family history centres at the end of this year due to the discontinuation of film stock manufacture.
It is a complicated issue. As users we have not had a say in what has been digitised and to a large extent are expected to be grateful for what we are given. It is all very Oliver Twist.
It is a complicated issue. As users we have not had a say in what has been digitised and to a large extent are expected to be grateful for what we are given. It is all very Oliver Twist.
Digitisation and its implications for genealogy and historical research
I feel it is time for Users to discuss the whole issue of digitisation and its implications.
We know that the digitisation of parish registers, for instance, has generally reduced footfall in those record offices which have entered into licensing agreements with commercial companies.
Are we by asking for increased access online condemning record offices and archives to cuts and reduced service? Did we in fact ask for it directly or was it just an opportunity grabbed?
Are we in fact complicit in reducing archival services by not supporting or using them?
In addition are we the genealogical and historical research community condoning the reduced standard of research which the assumption that “it is all on the internet” generates?
How can we change this and educate the average researcher that there is so much more out there if archives are difficult to access and what is digitised is not decided by the genealogical community ie the users?
If the concept of a complete online catalogue for most record offices/archives is still only a dream shouldn’t they be concentrating on that rather than spending scarce resources on digitisation or promotion?
Do we prefer archives to do their own digitisation to guarantee that we the users have access without strings? How could this be funded?
Who will decide what is to be digitised and by what means?
Do we prefer archives to do their own digitisation to guarantee that we the users have access without strings? How could this be funded?
Who will decide what is to be digitised and by what means?
Licensing of images and datasets to commercial companies
Some archives and record offices have licensed their datasets to commercial companies. In the case of the National Archives these licences run for 10 years. Recent controversy about the purchase of Fold3 by Ancestry and its subsequent transfer of UK military records licensed to Ancestry from there to Fold3 has highlighted the minefield that this is. At present users have no say as to licensing conditions and usually online access is only guaranteed actually at the site of the original records.
This is fine as long as that access is actually possible although there have been occasions when this was not. Some archives will allow production of the original document if access is not possible online but this is not always the policy and can be problematic if it has been placed in long term storage from which it is difficult and expensive to be retrieved.
The argument is that digitisation and making records available online will attract new users (for instance in other countries) but is this perhaps a case of attracting new paying customers at the expense of the existing ones?
There are considerable costs involved in putting a digital dataset online but when is the break-even point reached and how much profit do the commercial companies make?
Certainly some users feel “ripped off” by the commercial companies.
Should the commercial companies be paying more attention to user education – in fact who should be responsible for educating users as to how to use the datasets effectively and responsibly for their research?
Should this be a function of the archives which hold the originals or the commercial genealogy sector (and in this I include professional genealogists and archival researchers)?
It seems to have been a bit of a battle to actually get complete source citation information and information about datasets included on some of the websites and there are still some where it is woefully lacking. Should this be a component of the licensing conditions?
Another area of concern is the quality control of digitised images. This seems to be based on mechanical sampling making it inevitable that mistakes, and missed images will slip through the net. This is even before transcription and indexing errors come into play.
This is fine as long as that access is actually possible although there have been occasions when this was not. Some archives will allow production of the original document if access is not possible online but this is not always the policy and can be problematic if it has been placed in long term storage from which it is difficult and expensive to be retrieved.
The argument is that digitisation and making records available online will attract new users (for instance in other countries) but is this perhaps a case of attracting new paying customers at the expense of the existing ones?
There are considerable costs involved in putting a digital dataset online but when is the break-even point reached and how much profit do the commercial companies make?
Certainly some users feel “ripped off” by the commercial companies.
Should the commercial companies be paying more attention to user education – in fact who should be responsible for educating users as to how to use the datasets effectively and responsibly for their research?
Should this be a function of the archives which hold the originals or the commercial genealogy sector (and in this I include professional genealogists and archival researchers)?
It seems to have been a bit of a battle to actually get complete source citation information and information about datasets included on some of the websites and there are still some where it is woefully lacking. Should this be a component of the licensing conditions?
Another area of concern is the quality control of digitised images. This seems to be based on mechanical sampling making it inevitable that mistakes, and missed images will slip through the net. This is even before transcription and indexing errors come into play.
How can we be sure of the integrity of a digital document – is what we are using the full record?
Hiving off of some document series to Academic users only
Some document series such as State Papers and Prize Papers held at the National Archives have been licensed to companies which service the academic sector to whose subscriptions the genealogical community has no access. Whilst the user still has onsite access digitally this has impacted the way in which researchers work.
Digital access via these subscriptions means that access now has to be via the computers available onsite and there seems to be a lack of understanding of how professional researchers both academic and otherwise work nowadays. Rather than pore over the original documents making notes and transcripts onsite many of us tend to photograph where possible so that the digital photos can be viewed and transcribed in our office or home. These photographic images are in colour and at a relatively high resolution and can be manipulated electronically to zoom in, change the colour palette or merely view on a larger screen to aid transcription.
Onsite subscription access to digitised images often offers none of these advantages particularly when using onsite computers with which we are unfamiliar and where the only option for obtaining multiple images is to photograph the screen or make a large number of prints as downloading or sharing via email is not an option offered.
Should attention be given to making these subscriptions more user friendly?
Should the accessibility options available for the physical documents such as UV lamps to pick out faint handwriting be replicated in the software tools offered by commercial companies as a matter of course?
Should onsite computers at archives be of a higher standard to compensate for difficulties eg larger monitor screens?
Should difficult to read documents be scanned at a higher resolution to make it easier to zoom without blurring?
And of course there is the elitist nature of the whole issue given the aim to open up documents to new users expressed in “Archives Unlocked”. Who benefits from this hiving off certainly not the genealogical community or the “personal interest” public?
Digital access via these subscriptions means that access now has to be via the computers available onsite and there seems to be a lack of understanding of how professional researchers both academic and otherwise work nowadays. Rather than pore over the original documents making notes and transcripts onsite many of us tend to photograph where possible so that the digital photos can be viewed and transcribed in our office or home. These photographic images are in colour and at a relatively high resolution and can be manipulated electronically to zoom in, change the colour palette or merely view on a larger screen to aid transcription.
Onsite subscription access to digitised images often offers none of these advantages particularly when using onsite computers with which we are unfamiliar and where the only option for obtaining multiple images is to photograph the screen or make a large number of prints as downloading or sharing via email is not an option offered.
Should attention be given to making these subscriptions more user friendly?
Should the accessibility options available for the physical documents such as UV lamps to pick out faint handwriting be replicated in the software tools offered by commercial companies as a matter of course?
Should onsite computers at archives be of a higher standard to compensate for difficulties eg larger monitor screens?
Should difficult to read documents be scanned at a higher resolution to make it easier to zoom without blurring?
And of course there is the elitist nature of the whole issue given the aim to open up documents to new users expressed in “Archives Unlocked”. Who benefits from this hiving off certainly not the genealogical community or the “personal interest” public?
The Voice of Users
These are just some of my areas of concern about digitisation. I am by no means a Luddite – in my view digitisation is a godsend. However there comes a time to stand back and take a long hard look at what has gone before and where we want to go next. In my view that time is NOW and the most important part of that process – the User – is being largely ignored.
I call on you all to become more vocal, questioning and participatory in your use of archives and digitised material.
Persuade your local archive or record office or museum or library to set up a User Group to discuss user issues including archive strategy or apply to join it if it already exists. Find out who is representing you and contact them with your concerns.
Keep up to date with what is going on in the archive and library sector – you don’t want to suddenly wake up to find your archive access has changed without your knowledge.
Encourage plain speaking and the cutting through of jargon and waffle.
Above all demand the same high standards of archives and commercial companies as we apply to our own genealogical research.
I call on you all to become more vocal, questioning and participatory in your use of archives and digitised material.
Persuade your local archive or record office or museum or library to set up a User Group to discuss user issues including archive strategy or apply to join it if it already exists. Find out who is representing you and contact them with your concerns.
Keep up to date with what is going on in the archive and library sector – you don’t want to suddenly wake up to find your archive access has changed without your knowledge.
Encourage plain speaking and the cutting through of jargon and waffle.
Above all demand the same high standards of archives and commercial companies as we apply to our own genealogical research.
THE FUTURE IS IN YOUR HANDS
Jacqui Kirk - Montague Cottage Research
Jacqui Kirk is a professional genealogist and archival researcher who started and ran a family history group in Leamington Spa for 10 years until she retired from it last Christmas. She has been a representative on the National Archives User Advisory Group since 2014 and was involved as a volunteer last year’s Strong Rooms archive outreach project in the West Midlands. She is a member of APG, SoG, BALH, FIBIS and FACHRS.
You can also follow Jacqui on Twitter at https://twitter.com/genealgenie
You can also follow Jacqui on Twitter at https://twitter.com/genealgenie
RSS Feed
