1 / 34

N u m e r i c Study - Statistical assessment of the digitisation of Europe’s cultural heritage

N u m e r i c Study - Statistical assessment of the digitisation of Europe’s cultural heritage. Framework Workshop 2 April, 2008 Luxembourg, EUFO ROOM. Study Timeline. CONTEXT. What we have learned; How this has influenced the design of the framework. Desk research Previous studies:-.

shelley
Download Presentation

N u m e r i c Study - Statistical assessment of the digitisation of Europe’s cultural heritage

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. NumericStudy - Statistical assessment of the digitisation of Europe’s cultural heritage Framework Workshop 2 April, 2008 Luxembourg, EUFO ROOM

  2. Study Timeline

  3. CONTEXT What we have learned; How this has influenced the design of the framework.

  4. Desk researchPrevious studies:- • Mostly snapshots; • Fail to define consistent measures for either financial or technical resources; • Concentrate on collecting qualitative rather than quantitative information; • Offer no uniform approaches on how to classify digitised collections; • Poor measures of user needs, usage of materials, accessibility and usability of digitised content.

  5. The Method – put simply • Infer the overall scale of digitisation activity and expenditure using data collated from a sample of institutions believed to be representative in their specific sector / country. • Verify the estimates against a “foundation database” of the known analogue universe. i.e. institutions, collections, staff, etc..

  6. Assembling the data Danger of relying on sample surveys alone. • Collation of information relating to individual digitisation projects to inform estimates; • 2-tier survey approach:- • cooperating with and assisting the international professional associations in undertaking surveys amongst their members and working with Ministries on common survey platforms; • promoting sample surveys in each of the 27 Member States.

  7. HARD - STATISTICS Council of European National Libraries: Survey in 2007 – CENL European Group of Museums: Survey in 2008 - EGMUS Training for Audiovisual Preservation in Europe: Survey in 2007 - TAPE NUMERIC: framework surveys in 2008 SOFT - INFORMATION Minerva / Michael – country policy profiles ERICarts - Compendium of cultural policies and trends in Europe EDL – Project returns Submitted information from country contacts Valuable sources

  8. APROACH Design of the Framework. Consideration in the context of individual Member States.

  9. DEFINE THE “UNIVERSE” We need to identify the “relevant” institutions in each Member State to: • focus the survey effort properly; • Scale any estimates of digitisation activity to the correct size of the universe.

  10. DEFINE “RELEVANT” • Audio-visual / film institutes; Archives / record offices; Libraries; Museums – What about “others” ?e.g. Commission for Monuments • Concentrate on institutions where digitisation of collections will significantly enhance access to the country's cultural Heritage.

  11. CONSIDER “RELEVANT” • Amongst libraries, Nationally prominent institutions had earmarked 3% of their budgets for digitisation purposes. The proportion of budgets for Regional / Local institutions was 0.3%. • 3 out of every 4 responding institutions to the Pathfinder survey considered themselves to be institutions of National prominence.

  12. PREPARATIONS Verify the estimates in the foundation database Highlight specific sources of analogue & digital data Identify relevant institutions & eliminate their duplication SURVEYS List relevant cultural institutions in the Member State Select representative sample (min. 30 institutions per Member state) Use framework questionnaire Framework steps

  13. ACTION RESPONSIBILITIES. STEPS TO TAKE.

  14. RESPONSIBILITY • The study team are responsible for EU coordination • Country contacts are responsible for coordination within their Member State • Where contacts represent domains, then a lead coordinator is required to act as overall coordinator

  15. Study team • Advice • Web and e-mail distribution of survey instruments • Collation, validation and analysis of survey and other data

  16. Country contacts • Definition of relevant institutions • Sample selection • Translation services • Help with queries • Chase survey response

  17. Ministries / Central Statistical Offices Either (default) • Act as country contact (Study team manage the survey) Or • Entirely manage the framework in their own country Or • Distribute the survey for the study team to manage (or variation)

  18. Professional associations Either • Incorporate the Framework questions in their own surveys Or • Adopt the Framework questionnaire as their own survey Or • Endorse the Framework survey and encourage members to participate

  19. Timetable

  20. INSTRUMENTS Sampling. On-line documentation. Definitions. Indicators and analyses.

  21. Sampling guide • At least 30 relevant institutions • Representative of all domains • National and Regional • Confirm with Numeric team – provide list of relevant institutions, and those selected

  22. Preliminaries • Complete pro-forma to identify relevant institutions • Prepare list from which to select sample • Confirm contact details for country and domain coordinators • Professional associations to list the institutions they will survey

  23. On-line resources • Foundation estimates – N° of institutions etc. • Framework questionnaire • Country pages including: • Contact details for coordinators • Links to appropriate Ministerial / CSO sites • Translated definitions • Survey progress log • Definitions – FAQs • Links to professional associations • Overall progress and early statistics

  24. PROFILE FOR: United Kingdom Sample Quota: 30 Domain Quota: 1 Sampling guide pro-forma

  25. Sampling guide pro-forma Complete estimated number of institutions The quota will be calculated

  26. Questionnaire • Excel spreadsheet • Embedded notes / definitions • In-built validation • Web-filing of responses – this provides for rapid scrutiny and follow-up

  27. Questionnaire – The questions About: • The institution • Resources devoted to digitisation • Collections (types of materials) • In-house / contractors / partners • Standards • Access to digitised materials • Project information

  28. Questionnaire – The materials Units: • Archive records – shelf length and pages • Audio-visual / film – hours • Museums – objects / collections • Libraries – volumes and pages What other significant types?

  29. Questionnaire – Conversion

  30. Questionnaire – Unit costs

  31. PARTNERS Reconciling information needs: • International • European • National • Professional • Institutional

  32. IMPLEMENTATION Questions and Answers: • Sampling • Questionnaire • Definitions • Timetable • Responsibilities

  33. SUMMARY Confirmation of the: • framework approach and timelines • definitions, classifications • sampling scheme and adoption in other surveys • responsibilities and collaboration • intent to adopt the framework

  34. www.Numeric.ws Study Team Contact: • Phillip.Ramsdale@ipf.co.uk +44 208 667 8508 European Commission Contact: • Marius.Snyders@ec.europa.eu +352 4301 35786

More Related