12 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
locally curated digital collections, but policies and
guidelines for assessment and evaluation are rarer.
Of the 69 responding libraries, one third (23) have a
formal policy in place for digitization, while nearly
half (33 or 48%) have informal guidelines. The re-
maining respondents plan to have either a formal
policy or informal guidelines in the next three years.
The number of formal policies and informal guide-
lines related to assessment/evaluation and outreach
dropped considerably. Only seven of 68 respondents
(10%) have formal policies governing assessment
and evaluation while another 21 (31%) have informal
guidelines. Of the remaining respondents, 21 (31%)
reported plans to develop a policy or guidelines in
the next three years. Responses regarding outreach
for locally curated digital collections were similar
to those for assessment and evaluation. Only four
respondents (6%) have a formal policy while another
28 (42%) have informal guidelines. Sixteen of the re-
maining respondents (24%) reported plans to develop
policies or guidelines in the next three years. In the
comments, seven respondents reported that policies
often vary depending on the digital collection.
The responding libraries use a variety of technol-
ogy platforms to provide access to their locally cu-
rated digital collections many use several different
platforms, with a variety of different materials and
collections. Of the top five platforms used, three are
open source and three can be provided as a hosted
solution. Thirty-four libraries (49%) use the open-
source DSpace platform and 30 (44%) use Omeka.
These are followed by ContentDM and Fedora, which
are each used by 22 libraries (32%). BePress, Hydra,
and Islandora are used by a fair number of respon-
dents. In the comments, 14 respondents mentioned
locally developed collection-specific platforms or key
components for locally developed platforms (such as
Solr and Blacklight). In addition, seven respondents
mentioned local implementations of Open Journal
Systems (OJS), and five mentioned local implementa-
tions of Luna Insight. (Respondents were not asked to
identify which platforms were locally hosted or were
hosted through an outside group.) The comments in-
clude concerns regarding support or migration from
a current system or systems, and the impacts from
the migration or limitations to current systems that
took priority and resources from other areas, includ-
ing assessment.
Staff Organization
Survey participants were asked to identify the or-
ganizational structures that support digital collec-
tion management, assessment and evaluation, and
outreach and promotion. The majority of libraries (48
or 69%) reported that multi-department library com-
mittees have responsibility for one or more of these
three functions. Nineteen libraries (27%) reported that
a single department has responsibility for one or more
functions in 13 of these libraries responsibilities are
shared by departments and committees. Twelve librar-
ies (17%) reported that a cross-institutional group has
these responsibilities nine of these groups overlap
with other departments or committees that share the
responsibilities. Seven respondents reported that a
single position in the library has some or all of these
digital collection responsibilities in four cases this
position seems to be associated with a department
that shares the responsibility. Seventeen respondents
described a variety of other organizational structures
that support these activities.
Digital Collections Assessment
The next set of survey questions focused on how li-
braries prepare for, plan, and conduct assessment ac-
tivities, and use the results. The approaches used to
assess collections depended on many factors, includ-
ing staffing, availability of local resources, integration
with other processes (e.g., digital preservation), and
systematic supports that could be leveraged, such as
web log analysis and ad hoc assessment of user com-
ments submitted through library websites. The librar-
ies’ reasons for assessment affected their methods and
frequency, for example when externally funded proj-
ects required assessment and evaluation processes.
The majority of respondents (58 or 83%) indicated
that no specific assessment plan covers locally curated
digital collections, though a number commented that
they expect a plan to be developed. One institution
noted that a collection assessment plan was in place,
“but would require considerable alterations to be ap-
plicable to locally curated digital collections.” Of the
twelve libraries that reported they have an assessment
Previous Page Next Page