1 / 26

University of Illinois Campus Media Census

University of Illinois Campus Media Census. Joshua Harris Media Preservation Coordinator University of Illinois Libraries. Introduction. Library Media Preservation Unit: Started in Fall 2011 First programmatic approach within library focused on preservation of analog media formats.

albertg
Download Presentation

University of Illinois Campus Media Census

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University of Illinois Campus Media Census Joshua Harris Media Preservation Coordinator University of Illinois Libraries

  2. Introduction • Library Media Preservation Unit: • Started in Fall 2011 • First programmatic approach within library focused on preservation of analog media formats. • Center for Multimedia Excellence (CME) • Bringing media professionals together

  3. What is the media census? • 2 phased study of campus media landscape • Goal: To determine the extent of audiovisual holdings across entire IL campus • Collect reliable data on the extent of “at risk” media both within and outside of library system • To determine Libraries’ role in media preservation across campus

  4. What is the media census? • Census data hoped to: • Serve as a foundation for establishing an accepted timeframe for the lifespan of these assets. • Provide basis of planning for short-term and long-term conservation, storage, and digital migration.

  5. What is the media census? • Census data hoped to: • Assist in planning for possible library provided services campus-wide. • Help identify and highlight prominent collections of particular cultural or research value.

  6. Census Phase I • Self-reporting, web-based survey designed to collect broad, basic information about departmental media holdings. • legacy analog media formats, still images, and born digital materials. • Goal: define a population of audiovisual collections on campus • responses gathered from 404 individuals, representing 165 departments

  7. Census Phase II • Designed to study a more-defined but deeper population • Focused exclusively on analog audiovisual formats and their digital derivatives. • Represented a population with a high degree of obsolete or obsolescent formats and playback devices (the most “at risk” collection types).

  8. Census Phase II (con’t) • On-site, in person interviews to gather the following: • Counts and basic preservation assessments of time-based, physical audiovisual carriers only. • Assessment of the storage environments • Counts and format types of digital derivatives from analog sources.

  9. Census Phase II (con’t) • On-site, in person interviews to gather the following: • Counts of audiovisual equipment, and identification of Illinois staff with audiovisual experience • Identification of cataloging protocols (or lack thereof) • Identification of emeriti/faculty collections with high likelihood of moving into the University’s possession • Evaluation of “unique” vs. “rare” vs. “commercial”

  10. How did we get people to respond? • Outreach: • Mass emails • Targeted emails / phone calls using Phase I data as a guide • Media Preservation Brochure • Campus-wide announcements • Postings on various list-servs (including message from Dean of Libraries) • References and word-of-mouth (interview question)

  11. Results • As expected: Analog media of wide-ranging formats found campus-wide • Wide ranging storage conditions from purpose built media vaults to moldy basements

  12. Results • Content of high value and importance (often at discretion of subject specialists) • Extreme variation in approaches to digital migration • Although census “officially closed”…People keep coming out of the woodwork.

  13. Results

  14. Results

  15. Results ~400,000*

  16. Statistical Analysis • Consultation with Department of Statistics: confidence interval for “potentially missing” departments? (105 of 735 depts). • Impossible due to bias in Phase I and II • Benefits to this approach • ID of assets in need of immediate triage • more accurate counts of all or most collections held by audiovisual producing departments • wider communication of the goals of the media census and future preservation services

  17. Challenges • Validation of Phase I divisions • Navigating IL divisional landscape and structure • Access to collections ie. “getting in the door.” • Time spent making contact • Wide ranging knowledge of collections: contacts ranged from archivists to facility managers

  18. Possible Outcomes • Short Term: • Immediate triage of problematic collections found during census • Departments spurred into action through census meetings (Landscape Architecture) • Immediate, on-site consulting conducted during site visits

  19. Possible Outcomes • Media Preservation Studio: • Campus data will guide supported formats and design • Design will need to be scalable and sustainable if lab is to service campus needs (currently no campus reformatting service available). • Studio as a “learning lab.”

  20. Possible Outcomes • Can provide cross campus expertise and consultancy in the following areas: • Collection inventories, content analysis and preservation assessments • Storage and maintenance of physical collections (triage if needed) • Development of policies and procedures • Development of plans for financial (internal or external) and human resources: Report to go to campus administration • Advocacy and outreach • In house vs. Out-sourced migration projects • Access mechanisms and workflow design

  21. Possible Outcomes • Clearly defined need for preservation level storage for both library and campus media assets.

  22. Possible Outcome: Institutional Collaboration? • Regional centers of expertise • Regional/State preservation services (CIC, CARLI) • Pooling of resources: umbrella contracts with vendors • Development of cross-institutional standards, strategize common workflows • Template for further institutional surveys • Collaborative access points

  23. The Census & The LOC National Recording Preservation Plan • “Recommendation 2.2: Appraisal of Audio Collections for Preservation” effectively describes the Media Census The census accomplished: • a real count of assets across the campus. • assessment of their storage environments. • knowledge of the ownership and provenance of the assets (to a strong degree). • location of legacy equipment for the lab. • elevated awareness of media preservation on the UIUC campus, • identification and triage for the most at risk collections, and data to rank the remaining assets and collections.

  24. The Census & The LOC National Recording Preservation Plan • “Recommendation 1.3: Digital Storage" and “Recommendation 2.5: Metadata Standards for Digital Audio Files” • Creating a robust digital storage environment via Medusa • This requires creation of metadata standards specific to the collections within the library, and ideally transferable to collections across the UIUC campus • “Recommendation 1.1: Recorded Sound Storage Facilities” • On/near campus cold storage? Off site cold storage for campus?

  25. The Census & The LOC National Recording Preservation Plan • “Recommendation 1.4: University Courses and Degree Programs” • Creating graduate assistant positions in media and digital preservation • Media Preservation studio as a learning lab. Potential for collaboration with other universities and programs.

  26. Thanks!!! Josh Harris Media Preservation 217.244.8555 jsharrs@illinois.edu

More Related