Common Practice in LAMs
In
recent years the world of libraries, archives and museums have been seen as
converging with each other, particularly in the digital environment. The
institutions all deal (to some degree) with collecting, processing, organizing,
preserving, presenting and digitizing information. The main difference is
considered as being the types of things collected, what is done with what is
collected and how those items are displayed. As the article from Bishoff (2004) shows
collaboration between these information institutions online is not a new thing
and has been occurring, at least at a local level, for ten years now.
The
introduction of digital records has meant that non-information professionals
searching for information on the web can generally not or do not care to
distinguish between the different institutions and the way they present their
information. Furthermore due to the dearth of information now freely available
through Google at the click of a button, people have started to question the
value of these institutions. Utilizing their resources together to present one
face digitally has been seen as a sensible approach to responding to the needs
and wants of the modern day information seeker, who wants everything in one
place and this has served as a reminder of the many common practices the
institutions already have.
Through
out the course so far we have seen multiple occasions both through the readings
and in case studies where the various types of institutions have collaborated
together or utilized similar skill sets. However the individual professions also
continue to defend their own specific knowledge and ways of operating. Libraries
will not give up the MARC record without a fight! Just because a library and a
museum are connected or under the same authority does not mean that they use
the same catalogue, or record their information in the same way. However if we
broaden our understanding of common practice to the overarching themes rather
than the specifics, then we can clearly see how the three types of institutions
have commonalities.
As
Hjorland
(2000) reminds us
museums, libraries and archives are all seen as “memory institutions”. They are
designed to be repositories of public knowledge, to remind people of their
history and social and cultural traditions. As the name of this course implies,
we also deem them all to be cultural heritage institutions that signifies that
their practices must overlap to some degree. As discussed in class, they are
all related to access. Therefore they have a common goal of getting the
information to the user, though they define their user differently and the type
of access differs the concept is still there, mediated versus not, the way they
get the information to the user digitally has led to much collaboration.
A
successful example of such a collaboration is the digital collection guide repository,
The Online Archive of California. This repository has been designed to connect the
descriptions of content of libraries, museums and archives through collection
guides of the various holdings (The Regents
of The University of California, 2009). While the
descriptive formats differ depending upon the institution the connection
through the portal shows us a form of common practice, that of connecting with
their users.
Another
similar collaboration is the example of BAM, which describes itself as a
“common portal for libraries, museums and archives” (BAM, ND), allowing
the user the ability to search through multiple institutions holdings in the
one catalogue. Kirchhoff,
Schweibenz, and Sieglerschmidt (2008) argue “BAM,
Europeana and similar endeavors could be a reliable source of authentic
material” he suggests that by providing this type of resource they are usurping
the use for Google by delivering more reliable options. Therefore these portals
that combine all the types of institutions highlight that there main goal and
an area of common practice for information professionals is to connect the user
with processed information (e.g. with metadata attached).
There
are also further examples online at sites such as Trove that though run through
the National Library of Australia acts as a catalogue for any Australian
related content, including items found in archives and libraries across
Australia (National Library of Australia, ND). All these
online sites share the same goal, to connect the user with as many institutions
and their holdings as possible. They are providing a cultural portal (Shepherd
& Pringle, 2002) as a result
of having a user centered focus. So in short, the common practice is to connect
the user with relevant information utilizing descriptive elements.
However
some have taken it a step further and have begun to note that the metadata
elements need to become more standardized across all three types of
institutions to improve the ability to converge and provide better access to
their content digitally. Elings and
Waibel (2007) suggest
that rather than the metadata being relevant to the institution it should be
relevant to the type of information object that is being described.
This
post has barely scratched the surface of the common practices that occur in the
information world. Instead it largely looked into the concept of access and the
connection between information and user. But some other common practices (again
to some degree) are the process of collecting, organizing, preserving the
information. All of these institutions must first collect the information
before they can even consider passing it onto the public, and while the way
they go about this differs the concept is still the same.
From
the above points we have seen how libraries, archives and museums have many
common practices, it is often the want to distance themselves that has led to
people forgetting how similar the basic concepts are. However in recent years the
institutions have begun to understand the need to act upon these similarities
and integrate across the information field to combat the question of what value
do these institutions hold in the digital world? It is our responsibility to
provide knowledge to the user and therefore it is our responsibility to do so
in the manner that suits them best. Furthermore the information or knowledge
provided must be valued at a higher level than what Google can offer the user
and therefore it must have been processed and have user friendly metadata
attached to allow the user to judge the material being offered.
References:
National Library of Australia. (ND). Trove. Retrieved 21st October, 2013, from http://trove.nla.gov.au/
The Regents of The University of California. (2009). About
OAC. Retrieved 18th October, 2013, from
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/about/
No comments:
Post a Comment