Skip to main content

An Exploration of Contributor-Created Description Field in Participatory Archives

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12051))

Abstract

Participatory archive initiatives are an emerging phenomenon in the archives field. These initiatives are defined by the participation of the individuals that archival materials are created by or about. This often includes the description of materials by their creators. However, participatory archival description brings forth several questions: What knowledge and insights can be gained about items in a digital collection when they are described by their record creators and contributors? And what risks are there when the data values for are not created in a standardized format? To answer these questions, this paper examined the outcome of participatory archival description – i.e., free-text description metadata field created by participatory archives’ contributors. Using the Boston Harbor Islands Mass. Memories Collection Dublin Core-based description metadata records, contributor-created Description field length and attributes were analyzed through a combination of quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods. Study results show that data value of contributor-created description metadata was dominated by utterances that provide contextual information regarding archival objects, particularly about the individuals and physical environment that contributors associate with the items, while item content itself can be under-described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://openarchives.umb.edu/digital/collection/p15774coll6.

  2. 2.

    https://www.europeana.eu/portal/el/collections/migration/collection-days.html.

  3. 3.

    https://www.dri.ie/documenting-1916-rising-through-public-memorabilia-collection-days.

  4. 4.

    https://harveymemories.org/news.

  5. 5.

    https://www2.archivists.org/standards/DACS.

  6. 6.

    https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dces/.

  7. 7.

    https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/.

References

  1. Huvila, I.: The unbearable lightness of participating? Revisiting the discourses of “participation” in archival literature. J. Doc. 71(2), 358–386 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shilton, K., Srinivasan, R.: Participatory appraisal and arrangement for multicultural archival collections. Archivaria 63, 87–101 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yakel, E.: Balancing archival authority with encouraging authentic voices to engage with records. In: Theimer, K. (ed.) A Different Kind of Web: New Connections Between Archives and Our Users, pp. 75–101. Society of American Archivists, Chicago (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Theimer, K.: Exploring the participatory archives. Presentation at the 2011 Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting (2011). http://www.slideshare.net/ktheimer/theimer-participatory-archives-saa2011

  5. Caswell, M., Mallick, S.: Collecting the easily missed stories: digital participatory microhistory and the South Asian American Digital Archive. Arch. Manuscripts 42(1), 73–86 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eveleigh, A.: Welcoming the world: an exploration of participatory archives. In: International Council on Archives (ICA) Conference (ICA 2012), August 2012

    Google Scholar 

  7. Roeschley, A., Kim, J.: “Something that feels like a community”: the role of personal stories in building community-based participatory archives. Arch. Sci. 19(1), 27–49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09302-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rolan, G.: Agency in the archive: a model for participatory recordkeeping. Arch. Sci. 17(3), 195–225 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-016-9267-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wick, A.: We’re all vegans here: the twenty-first century archival ecosystem. J. Arch. Organ. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/15332748.2018

  10. Barber, S.T.: The ZOONIVERSE is expanding: crowdsourced solutions to the hidden collections problem and the rise of the revolutionary cataloging interface. J. Libr. Metadata 18(2), 85–111 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2018.1489449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, A.T., Carriere, R.M., Kaplan, S.J.: The user knows what to call it: incorporating patient voice through user-contributed tags on a participatory platform about health management. J. Med. Internet Res. 19(9), e292–e292 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Varin, J.: iTunes metadata and classical music: issues and solutions for crowdsourced metadata in iTunes. Ser. Libr. 69(1), 70–76 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1036196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liew, C.L.: Social metadata and public-contributed contents in memory institutions: “crowd voice” versus “authenticated heritage”? Preserv. Digit. Technol. Cult. 45(3), 122 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2016-0017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Benoit, E.: MPLP part 2: replacing item-level metadata with user-generated social tags. Am. Archivist 81(1), 38–64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-81.1.38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Surles, E.: Sharing notes: a qualitative analysis of description of archival music materials. Music Ref. Serv. Q. 22(3), 111–130 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/10588167.2019.1570739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gracy, K.F., Lambert, F.: Who’s ready to surf the next wave? A study of perceived challenges to implementing new and revised standards for archival description. Am. Archivist 77(1), 96–132 (2014). https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.77.1.b241071w5r252612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baca, M., et al.: Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images. American Library Association, Chicago (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Baca, M., Harpring, P. (eds.): Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA). Getty Research Institute, Santa Monica (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections: Online data sheet for participating institutions (2011). http://www.loc.gov/coll/nucmc/lcforms.html

  20. OLAC Cataloging Policy Committee, Summary/Abstracts Task Force: Summary notes for catalog records (2002). http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/21

  21. Encoded Archival Description: EAD3 (2015). http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/TagLibrary-VersionEAD3.pdf

  22. Bearman, D.A.: Documenting documentation. Archivaria J. Assoc. Can. Archivists 34(Summer), 33–49 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Miller, P.: Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection level description. D-Lib Mag. 6(9) (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., Han, M.J.: Evaluating descriptive richness in collection-level metadata. J. Libr. Metadata 8(4), 263–292 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Northeastern University Libraries: Our Marathon (n.d.). https://marathon.library.northeastern.edu/

  26. The Mass. Memories Road Show. The Mass. Memories Road Show project handbook: A planning guide for local communities. University of Massachusetts Boston, Joseph P. Healey Library, Boston (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Glaser, B., Strauss, A.: Grounded theory: the discovery of grounded theory. Sociol. J. Br. Sociol. Assoc. 12(1), 27–49 (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tarver, H., Zavalina, O.L., Phillips, M.: An exploratory study of a Description field in the Digital Public Library of America. In: Proceedings of the International Conference and Workshop on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Copenhagen, Denmark, 13–16 October 2016 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stewart, K.: Ordinary Affects. Duke University Press, Durham (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Roeschley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Roeschley, A., Kim, J., Zavalina, O.L. (2020). An Exploration of Contributor-Created Description Field in Participatory Archives. In: Sundqvist, A., Berget, G., Nolin, J., Skjerdingstad, K. (eds) Sustainable Digital Communities. iConference 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12051. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43687-2_54

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43687-2_54

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43686-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43687-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics