Digital transformations and the archival nature of surrogates

Abstract

Large-scale digitization is generating extraordinary collections of visual and textual surrogates, potentially endowed with transcendent long-term cultural and research values. Understanding the nature of digital surrogacy is a substantial intellectual opportunity for archival science and the digital humanities, because of the increasing independence of surrogate collections from their archival sources. The paper presents an argument that one of the most significant requirements for the long-term access to collections of digital surrogates is to treat digital surrogates as archival records that embody traces of their fluid lifecycles and therefore are worthy of management and preservation as archives. It advances a theory of the archival nature of surrogacy founded on longstanding notions of archival quality, the traces of their source and the conditions of their creation, and the functional “work of the archive.” The paper presents evidence supporting a “secondary provenance” derived from re-digitization, re-ingestion of multiple versions, and de facto replacement of the original sources. The design of the underlying research that motivates the paper and summary findings are reported separately. The research has been supported generously by the US Institute of Museum and Library Services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Library of Congress. Prints and Photographs Online Catalog. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/.

  2. 2.

    Library of Congress, Flickr Photostream. http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/; Library of Congress, America from the Great Depression to World War II: Black-and White Photographs from the FSA-OWI, 1935-45. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/fahome.html; OCLC, The OAIster Database. http://www.oclc.org/oaister.en.html.

  3. 3.

    HathiTrust Digital Library. http://www.hathitrust.org/about.

References

  1. Art of Google Books (2013) http://theartofgooglebooks.tumblr.com/. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  2. Bia A, Muñoz R, Gómez J (2010) DiCoMo: the digitization cost model. Int J Digit Libr 11(2):141–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bloomberg (2012) Permira agrees to buy ancestry com. 22 Oct 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-22/permira-agrees-to-buy-ancestry-com-for-about-1-6-billion.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  4. Boon M (2010) In praise of copying. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brothman B (2002) Afterglow: conceptions of record and evidence in archival discourse. Arch Sci 2:337–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brynjolfsson E (1993) The productivity paradox of information technology. Commun ACM 36(12):66–77. doi:10.1145/163298.163309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Caplan P (2009) Understanding PREMIS. Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Washington, DC http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/understanding-premis.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2013

  8. Cobbe FP, Atkinson B (1904) Life of Frances Power Cobbe as told by herself. Swan Sonnenschein & Co, London. Original from University of Michigan. HathiTrust handle: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015005338747?urlappend=%3Bseq=10

  9. Conway P (2010) Modes of seeing: digitized photographic archives and the experienced user. Am Arch 73(2):425–462

    Google Scholar 

  10. Conway P (2011) Archival quality and long-term preservation: a research framework for validating the usefulness of digital surrogates. Arch Sci 11(3):293–309. doi:10.1007/s10502-011-9155-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Conway P (2013) Preserving imperfection: assessing the incidence of digitization error in HathiTrust. Preserv Digit Technol Cult 42 (1): 17–30. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/99522

  12. Cook T (2001) Fashionable nonsense or professional rebirth: postmodernism and the practice of archives. Archivaria 51:14–35

    Google Scholar 

  13. Delano J (1941) A prisoner dancing while another plays the guitar at a prison camp, Greene County, Georgia. Library of Congress, U.S. Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black & White Negatives http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsa.8c29073

  14. Drucker J (2013) Performative materiality and theoretical approaches to interface. Digital Humanit Q 7(1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/7/1/000143/000143.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  15. Duguid P (2007) Inheritance and loss? A brief survey of Google Books. First Monday 12(8). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1972/1847. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  16. Eastwood T (2012) A contested realm: the nature of archives and the orientation of archival science. In: Eastwood T, MacNeil H (eds) Currents of archival thinking. Libraries Unlimited, Santa Barbara, pp 3–21

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ellis R, Walne P (eds) (2010) Selected writings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson. Society of American Archivists, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ernst W (2013) Digital memory and the archive. Univ of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  19. FADGI (2010) Technical guidelines for digitizing cultural heritage materials. Federal Agencies Digitization Guidelines Initiative, Still Image Working Group. http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/guidelines/digitize-technical.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  20. FSA/OWA (n.d.a) Digitizing the collection. Library of Congress, Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information black-and-white negatives. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsa/digitizing.html Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  21. FSA/OWA (n.d.b) Background and scope. Library of Congress, Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information black-and-white negatives. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsa/background.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  22. FSA/OWA (n.d.c) Selected bibliography and related resources. Library of Congress, Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information black-and-white negatives. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsa/bibliography.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  23. Hirtle PB (2002) The impact of digitization on special collections in libraries. Libr Cult 37(1):42–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoskins A (2009) Digital network memory. In: Erll A, Rigney A (eds) Mediation, remediation, and the dynamics of cultural memory. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 91–106

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jacobs JA, Jacobs JR (2013) The digital-surrogate seal of approval: a consumer-oriented standard. D-Lib Mag 19(3/4). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march13/jacobs/03jacobs.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  26. Kenney AR, Rieger O (2000) Moving theory into practice: digital imaging for libraries and archives. Cornell University, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ketelaar E (2001) Tacit narratives: the meanings of archives. Arch Sci 1:143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ketelaar E (2012) Cultivating archives: meanings and identities. Arch Sci 12(1):19–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kirschenbaum M (2003) The word as image in an age of digital reproduction. In: Hocks M, Kendrick M (eds) Eloquent images: word and image in the age of new media. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 137–156

    Google Scholar 

  30. Leetaru K (2008) Mass book digitization: the deeper story of Google Books and the Open Content Alliance, First Monday 13(10), 6 October 2008 http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2101/2037. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  31. Levy DM (1994) Fixed or fluid? Document stability and new media. ECHT ‘94 proceedings of the 1994 ACM European conference on hypermedia technology, pp 24–31

  32. McEathron S (2011) An assessment of image quality in geology works from the HathiTrust Digital Library. Proc Geosci Inform Soc 41 http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8301

  33. Mitchell WJT (1990) Representation. In: Lentricchia F, McLaughlin T (eds) Critical terms for literary study. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 11–22

    Google Scholar 

  34. Monks-Leeson E (2011) Archives on the internet: representing contexts and provenance from repository to website. Am Arch 74(1):38–57

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nesmith T (2002) Seeing archives: postmodernism and the changing intellectual place of archives. Am Arch 65(1):24–41

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nordland LP (2004) The concept of ‘Secondary Provenance’: reinterpreting Ac ko mok ki’s map as evolving text. Archivaria 58:147–159

    Google Scholar 

  37. Oakland JS (2008) Statistical process control, 6th edn. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Raymond R (1999) The cathedral and the bazaar. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ross S (2007) Digital preservation, archival science and methodological foundations for digital libraries. Keynote address at the 11th European conference on digital libraries (ECDL), 17 Sep 2007, Budapest, p 13

  40. Ruchatz J (2008) The photograph as externalization and trace. In: Erll A, Nunning A (eds) Cultural memory studies: an international and interdisciplinary handbook. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 367–378

    Google Scholar 

  41. Scruton R (1981) Photography and representation. Crit Inq 7(3):577–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith A (1999) Why digitize? Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC

  43. Taussig M (1993) Mimesis and alterity: a particular history of the senses. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  44. Taylor H (1987) Transformation in the archives: technological adjustment or paradigm shift? Archivaria 25:12–28

    Google Scholar 

  45. Terras M (2011) Artefacts and errors: acknowledging issues of representation in the digital imaging of ancient texts. In: Fischer F, Fritze C, Vogeler, G (eds) Kodikologie und paläographie im digitalen zeitalter 2/Codicology and paleography in the digital age 2. Books on Demand, Norderstedt, Germany, pp 43–61. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/171362/. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  46. Thomassen T (2001) A first introduction to archival science. Arch Sci 1(2):373–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tibbo H (2003) On the nature and importance of archiving in the digital age. Adv Comp 57:1–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. University of Michigan (2001) Assessing the costs of conversion: making of America IV: the American voice 1850–1876. University of Michigan Library, Digital Library Production Service, Ann Arbor, MI http://www.lib.umich.edu/files/services/dlps/moa4_costs.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2014

  49. Van Denburg MW (1895) A homœopathic materia medica on a new and original plan. Pub. by the author, Fort Edward, NY. HathiTrust handle. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015020206036?urlappend=%3Bseq=380

  50. Waters DJ, Garrett J (1996) Preserving digital information: report of the task force on archiving digital information. Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yeo G (2007) Concepts of record (1): evidence, information, and persistent representations. Am Arch 70(2):315–343

    Google Scholar 

  52. Yeo G (2008) Concepts of record (2): prototypes and boundary objects. Am Arch 71(1):118–143

    Google Scholar 

  53. Yeo G (2009) Custodial history, provenance, and the description of personal records. Libr Cult Rec 44:59–60

    Google Scholar 

  54. York J (2008) This library never forgets: preservation, cooperation, and the making of the HathiTrust Digital Library. In: Proceedings of archiving 2008, 24–27 June 2008, Society for Imaging Science & Technology, Bern, Switzerland, pp 5–10

  55. York J (2010) Building a future by preserving our past: the preservation infrastructure of the HathiTrust Digital Library. 76th IFLA general congress and assembly, 10–15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden

  56. York J (2012) A preservation infrastructure built to last: preservation, community, and HathiTrust. In: Proceedings of UNESCO memory of the world: digitization and preservation, 24–26 September 2012, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Download references

Acknowledgments

The ideas in this article were presented initially at the 5th Conference on Archival Databases about Archival Information in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 4, 2013. A substantially revised version was delivered as the 2013 Hilary Jenkinson Memorial Lecture at University College London, September 25, 2013. The Institute for Museum and Library Services provided support for the underlying research represented in this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Conway.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Conway, P. Digital transformations and the archival nature of surrogates. Arch Sci 15, 51–69 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-014-9219-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Large-scale digitization
  • Preservation repositories
  • Archival quality
  • Surrogacy
  • Digitization