Pgina 1 de 7

Why bother with digitisation? Users and using digital resources

Content written on: 8th June 2004 by William Kilbride.
Content updated: 8th June 2004 by William Kilbride.
Why bother with digitisation? Users and using digital resources ....................................1
Proving the argument: digital archives and empirical evidence................................................. 1
Checking the facts: Digital reference resources ............................................................................. 2
Any time any place any where: the digital surrogate.................................................................... 4
From learning to research: digital objects in the classroom. ......................................................... 5
Discussion: interfaces for different types of use................................................................................ 5
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 6
Links and Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 6
Digitisation is not an end in itself. Successful digital projects begin with a defined set of uses,
and an implied set of users. The use to which the digital resource is put relates to real world tasks and
behaviours, so it stands to reason that digitisation efforts ought to be cognisant of the real world tasks that
users will be expected to fulfil. Consequently, expanding the number of users is not simply a question of
marketing: it involves expanding the number of tasks that a resource will support. As will be seen, the fit
between a digital resource and its application in these tasks may be influenced by artefacts of the
digitisation process and its supporting activities. Furthermore, over-extending a resource risks
undermining the core tasks that it was created to fulfil in the first place. Detrimental aspects can be
mitigated and positive aspects encouraged if suitable forward planning has taken place. By looking at
stereotypes of use associated with different resources this paper informs the planning and development
of new resources.
Perhaps the most immediately visible opportunity associated with digital resources is the
ability to transmit high volumes of information among many people over great distances with relative
ease. Networking allows scholars to eschew many of the problems associated with the inflexibility of
paper, reaching much wider audiences with novel, interactive forms of publication (e.g. Cunliffe 1996). As
user experience and expectation of such resources both grows and hardens, and as the sheer volume of
resources grows, so the need to identify and plan for user needs at the outset becomes more evident. But
planning for use is not simply a question of maximising the number of 'hits' per month once a project is
complete. Ensuring that user needs and expectations are met is a key component of the digitisation
process itself.
This paper presents four stereotypes of use based on real examples. It looks at digital
resources as empirical data to support an argument; as reference resources to support the research
process; as surrogates for real world phenomena; and as aids to teaching and learning in classroom and
curricular settings. These stereotypes are neither self-contained nor exhaustive but by concentrating on
how digital resources are used we explore problems and opportunities associated with their creation.
Proving the argument: digital archives and empirical evidence
'Proving an argument' is seldom a matter of presenting uncontroversial facts. There is a
complicated relationship in the humanities between empirical data and its interpretation. Currency,
consistency, comprehensiveness, replicability, ethics and simplicity are important for high quality
humanities research, while methods and the constitution of data are subjects for debate. Digital resources
present unique opportunities for humanities disciplines to repeat experiments or to identify previously
hidden patterns in data, as well as to question the constitution of the data itself. Distributing and
describing empirical data electronically means that fellow researcher can examine, extend or refute
conclusions based on data sets that may previously have been difficult to access or assess. Perhaps
Pgina 2 de 7
more importantly, they can also examine how the data has been constituted and methods associated with
it. This changes significantly the relationship between research publications and research archives.
The Ave Valley Survey project is a good example of how this opportunity has been exploited.
This extensive field survey of a river valley in northern Portugal led to various conclusions about the
relationship between Iron Age, Roman and early medieval settlement of the area, and thus gave insights
to major themes such as Romanisation in Western Europe. The research team presented its conclusions
in a substantial e-monograph (Millett et al 2000), but is able to support this monograph by allowing
readers to reach into digital archives of the project (Millett 2000). Presenting these unpublished files in
digital form allows reviewers to see parts of the project that might otherwise be hidden, and to reassess
conclusions based on them.
For example, 'cost surfaces' are used to analyse aspects of settlement in the area. In the
publication these are presented as a series of maps, but in the archive it is possible to test the digital
elevation model upon which these cost surfaces are derived. The elevation model is a triangulated
irregular network based on the detailed digitisation of contour lines. Contour lines are an interpolation of
height, and thus the cost surfaces derive from an interpolation of an interpolation of real world heights. If
the digital elevation model had instead been derived from observed spot heights, then it would be one
step closer to the real world, and thus conclusions based on it would be more compelling. If the contours
had been used to create some other form of digital elevation model such as a raster grid, or if the
algorithm used to specify costs had been different, then the maps of expected cost may too have
changed. By presenting the underlying data, an alterative line of research is possible. This example is not
intended as a critique of Millett: by making underlying data available in this way they open up debate and
discussion that would otherwise be impossible. It shows that by presenting the underlying data, the
process of research and re-analysis is strengthened.
Sharing data in the arts and humanities is not simply a question of swapping processing and
integrating uncontroversial facts about the world. The interpretative process depends on being able to
contest data and the methods by which it is processed. Retaining and presenting the digital by-products
of research for scrutiny by others is more than just a way to open debate: it is an essential part of the
review process.
The digital resources presented in the Ave Valley archive were created for the purposes of
the research project itself, so the primary user community is the project team. In such circumstances,
attention focuses on the research design and there is little to be gained from an intensive evaluation of
user needs or expectations: a focus group of the public is unlikely to contribute to the success of the
digital resource. But given that it is expected that these resources can and should be used by fellow
researchers, it is important to document the processes that led to salient conclusions being drawn. This
includes not just a description of the data set, but also the data gathering methods - in Ave Valley there is
a detailed description of fieldwork methods - assessments of data quality and a description of the
processes applied to derive relevant conclusions. This supporting metadata can be as important to future
scholars as the data itself, and there is little to be gained from simply presenting the data without an
explanation of what it is and how it was derived. It may even be appropriate to prompt such users by
identifying unexplored research topics that might be supported with the digital resource.
Checking the facts: Digital reference resources
Comprehensiveness is a characteristic of first-rate scholarship in all disciplines. Anyone who
has completed a research project is familiar with the 'literature search' where every single article, book
and thesis on a given topic is listed, acquired and digested. The Internet has transformed 'resource
discovery'. Whereas previous generations faced a challenge simply compiling a suitable bibliography, the
Internet allows scholars to share bibliographic and other information with relative ease (Clarke, Hardman
and Kilbride 2003). Whereas previous generations of scholars constructed and consulted multi-volumed
definitive editions that described every known example of a specific phenomenon, it makes a lot more
sense now to create databases of such resources and then create online interfaces to them. The online
corpus is faster to search, often cheaper to produce, easier to update and accessible to a much wider
audience.
An example of an online digital corpus is English Heritage's Excavation Index for England.
This index describes and summarises all archaeological research undertaken in England in any given
year. Reaching back to the early years of antiquarian interest, it is an essential tool for anyone interested
in local history or archaeology. Because it grows year on year, it attracts frequent repeat visits. The
Pgina 3 de 7
Excavation Index is an exemplary reference resource, but various aspects of it demonstrate some of the
problems associated with digitising all reference works.
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the Excavation Index is precisely what it claims to be -
an index. The virtue of comprehensiveness is offset by its relatively shallow coverage of each individual
record. This has two implications for users and developers. On one hand, users can very quickly get
access to the sorts of data that might otherwise have slipped their notice - especially in terms of 'grey
literature', the small or unpublished reports that are not readily accessible. Perversely, an attempt to
create access underlines exclusion, especially if there is no mechanism by which users can follow up
requests. Resources that point to offline or rare resources should include some explicit method by which
more detailed questions can be pursued, such as bibliographic references or contact details. On the other
hand, curatorial staff in libraries archives or museums may become inundated with requests for
information that they may either not have, or not be able to supply. It is therefore sensible to plan not just
digitisation but to have in mind the implications for increased demand on conventional resources that may
result, such as interlibrary-loan requests or research trips. Experience shows that users often expect
much more than can reasonably be supported, so if necessary expectations should be managed: it is
wiser to promise little and over-deliver than to promise much and disappoint.
A record set as large as the Excavation Index is created by staff in many different agencies.
In these circumstances it is important to develop terminology controls to prevent confusion. Applied
thoughtfully, however, such terminology controls can have three uses beyond speeding up the
compilation of the underlying data set. Firstly, they are a measure of data quality - both in terms of
operator error (accuracy) and as an implicit declaration of precision. Secondly, terminology controls are
powerful tools for retrieving data: so if users can be taught the terminology, or better still the terminology
draw from familiar subject classifications, then users will be equipped with some of the basic tools to
understand the data. Finally, terminology controls and thesauri can be difficult to construct, so it may
often be possible to adopt or adapt an existing vocabulary. At very least, by making your vocabulary
available one can expedite the work of others. Promoting your own thesauri, or adopting someone else's
enhances enormously the ability to cross-search more than one data set, and this can increase
exponentially the user-base.
Cross-searching is also enhanced by familiarity with relevant 'resource discovery' standards
(Miller and Greenstein 1997). The Excavation Index fits into a qualified implementation of the Dublin Core
metadata element set. Consequently, the Excavation Index for England can be cross-searched with
cognate data sets like the National Monuments Record of Scotland and the National Trust Sites and
Monuments Record. Cross-searching makes the Excavation Index much more powerful as a reference
tool.
Geography is often overlooked as a classification scheme (Kilbride 2004). Archaeological
research is pre-discursively geographic, so it is little surprise that the Excavation Index contains National
Grid References. However, the grid references are more than a mere convention. They also present an
instant classification of the records, and create a map-based search interface. This is possible when two
or more resource share a standard geographic base like the National Grid. This makes it possible to build
a powerful cross-search facility that requires little prior knowledge from users. Indeed, mobile phones and
global position satellites are able to relay locational information directly to personal computers and thus,
in an experimental interface, connect directly to local records in the Excavation Index. This is possible
because the standard geographic base is widely shared and readily understood.
Some reference resources are definitive and need only occasional updating, though even
where the number of specific cases of a phenomenon is largely fixed, the bibliographies associated with
them will grow (e.g Sawyer 1968). Frequent updating may have implications for quality assurance and
thus for long-term maintenance. The Excavation Index now has an online update tool, but data submitted
in this way is only included in the Index after it goes through three different quality checks which
investigate its technical competence, its veracity and its adherence to standards (Hardman and Richards
2003). This process implies a long-term commitment. Frequent updates to large reference works are an
obvious benefit of digitisation, but the implication in terms of long-term maintenance should not be
overlooked.
Digitising reference resources can have a profound impact on scholarship, but their
digitisation can cause unforeseen frustrations if not handled well. It may point users to resources that they
cannot in fact obtain, or it may place a strain on curators and librarians to supply records that are difficult
of access. Vocabulary standards are important from a data quality perspective, but they can also greatly
enhance the use and flexibility of a resource. Attention to appropriate metadata standards, especially
Pgina 4 de 7
when vocabulary standards are consistent or a common geographic base is used, makes cross-searching
possible, and thus increases the impact that a resource may have. Finally, update tools are attractive, but
quality assurance means that they imply a long-term commitment.
Any time any place any where: the digital surrogate
'Digital surrogate' is the name given to a digital version of an expensive, fragile or
inaccessible real world object. The digital surrogate is attractive to archivists and librarians because it
reduces wear and tear, but it also allows researchers to work on real world models from the comfort of
their desks, bringing together or sharing material that may be large, heavy, unwieldy or friable. This
means that researchers can reduce the number and duration of expensive research trips, can work in
conditions of their own choosing, and can return over and again to the same question without
inconveniencing colleagues. Supplementing real access, the digital surrogate ensures that when
researchers require access to the original, they are better able to carry out their work.
An example of a digital surrogate is the British Library's Electronic Beowulf (Kiernan et al
1999). This ambitious project has brought together the oldest surviving manuscript of Beowulf and
presented it alongside three of its earliest transliterations. This enables readers to trace the origin of all
modern editions, observing where words or letters have been lost since the start of the nineteenth
century. Moreover, sophisticated scanning has been used to highlight aspects of the manuscript, such as
scribal corrections. The digitisation is of a very high resolution so that it is possible to examine the text in
detail. Individual files are assembled in the order that they appear in the manuscript, giving the
appearance of page turning, and the whole thing is accompanied by a modern edition that can be read in
parallel.
There are four points worth noting about this digital surrogate that may impact on other
similar projects. Firstly, the high resolution is essential for a project like this to work. Electronic Beowulf
allowed analysis of the manuscript at much greater detail than the naked eye would allow, and by using
the invisible ends of the spectrum, drew attention to details that could not otherwise be seen. If the
manuscript had not been presented to such a high resolution, then researchers would have reverted to
accessing the original. This high resolution has the consequence of large files, which in turn has
implications for data delivery. Not surprisingly, Electronic Beowulf is presented on a set of CDs as the file
sizes precluded online delivery. Compression algorithms can now be used to render details without
creating huge files to download, but this technology was not available at the time. High resolution
scanning and imagery may also become a threat to the original document or object to be digitised. For
example, the high-powered lamps required to photograph in detail may in fact be more of a threat to the
original object than conventional access. Alternatively, if heavy lifting gear is to be used for large objects,
then there should be appropriate health and safety planning. A detailed risk assessment should precede
any digitisation of a valuable or unusual original, with the possibility that the resource not be digitised at
all. Presuming that digitisation does proceed the resulting digital object should have a preservation plan of
its own. Digitisation may be unrepeatable, expensive or undesirable. It is ironic that a plan to safeguard a
real world object creates a need to safeguard a digital one too.
Perhaps one of the most instructive aspects of Electronic Beowulf is the relationship
between the modern edition and the images of the twelfth century manuscript. The modern edition is the
product of an intensive research project, and is to some extent a product of an analysis of the digitised
manuscript. But there is more to it than this - the modern edition also performs a supporting role to help
understand the images. The script of the medieval document is difficult for human readers, and makes
computer reading - optical character recognition - impractical. This makes it impossible to search through
the images for occasions of specific words or phrases. However, by presenting a parallel modern edition,
and by linking this with the images of the manuscript, the developers make it possible to search the
images of the manuscript vicariously. In essence, the modern edition serves as an index to the images,
and thus is a surrogate of the surrogate.
Digital objects render the real world systematically, and in so doing they frequently either fail
to render the irregularities of the real world, or simplify them. This can be a critical problem for digital
surrogates that seek to represent objects whose irregularities contain significant properties. The choice of
data model influences significantly the sorts of use that a resource is fit for. The palaeography and
archaeology of the Beowulf manuscript is a case in point. The penmanship and form of the document is
not simply a source of frustrating irregularities that can be systematised: they are crucial to establishing or
contesting the age of the document. A simple computerised transcription would restrict significantly the
ability of readers to understand these aspects of the document, and the decisions made by the editor
where established editions are disputed. Though it may create considerably more work for the digitisation
Pgina 5 de 7
project, the fit between the data model, the real world object and the real world tasks the surrogate is
intended to support is essential.
From learning to research: digital objects in the classroom.
Digital resources can be effective tools to assist and even supplant classroom teaching. But
as Laurillard (1995) notes, we should not confuse access to digital resources with teaching or learning. In
simple terms learners are not yet ready to be researchers: we cannot simply digitise a resource and
expect student's learning to flourish. Pathways into or through the digital resource, and tasks that help
students explore aspects of the resource are essential. Problem-based-learning with digital resources can
be among the most effective forms of active student learning, and in the end can equip students with the
skills to undertake their own open ended engagements with the underlying digital resource (Kilbride and
Reynier 2002). However, the effort involved in creating such resources can be significant, and is
considerably greater than the effort of digitising. Consequently, when a teaching and learning strategy is
quoted in support of digitisation, curriculum design should be as much if not more of a concern than
digitisation.
The PATOIS project provides a good example of where digital resources have been used in
teaching and learning (for a discussion of this see Kilbride et al 2002). Five aspects of this project are
worth considering. Firstly, the four tutorial packs developed in the project focus on information skills for
students, so the Internet is an appropriate vehicle to present these tutorials. Secondly, the tutorials select
from a much larger set of resources. Students are presented with only a small selection of the resources
on the understanding that, having completed the tutorials they will be equipped with the skills they need to
explore the much larger whole. Thirdly, students, lecturers and subject specialists were involved in their
creation. This means that the resources fit with a demonstrable need, and that they are written with
specific skill-levels in mind. Fourthly, the appreciation of prior skills, learning outcomes, aims and
objectives means that the tutorials are congruent with widely expressed subject needs and disciplinary
norms (such as QAA 2000). This process also involved an understanding of the hardware and software
platforms available to the end users, and thus a decision about the levels of software required to render
or process data for users. Open standards were used, maximising the range of platforms that can support
the tutorials. Finally, the tutorials are written in as consistent a manner as possible, maximising student
familiarity and reducing the possibility of the technology getting in the way of the learning that it is
intended to support.
The implication of PATOIS and other projects like this is that teaching and learning cannot
be supported by digitisation alone. The development of electronic teaching and learning materials
requires more than technical skills, and indeed that the technical skills may be relatively trivial as against
the intellectual challenge that teaching and learning poses.
Discussion: interfaces for different types of use
These examples are instructive because they reveal different types of use that a digital
resource may have. These uses are not and should not be exclusive, and each of the examples quoted
above can be deployed in more than one of the stereotyped modes above. For example, the Ave Valley
archive is used in teaching and may even be considered a digital surrogate for the archaeology of
Northern Portugal. The digitised manuscript of Beowulf is to some extent one large archive supporting the
new edition of the text. The Excavation Index is available as a set of downloads to be analysed and
processed offline, much in the same way as a research resource can be.
Nonetheless, alternative uses are constrained by the nature of the resource. For example,
the lack of a translation with Electronic Beowulf undermines claims that it is readily used in teaching and
learning: it is an academic text for an expert audience (Kilbride 2000). The Excavation Index may be
excellent for reference, but it does not yet provide the deep access that, in another context, Beowulf does.
The Ave Valley survey data does not pretend to be a comprehensive account of the archaeology of
Northern Portugal, so it can only act as a reference source in very specific circumstances. PATOIS might
be excellent for teaching and learning but it is really only an extended interface to data already digitised.
The degree to which a resource can be redeployed in other ways is in part a function of how
it is presented, so projects that want to maximise the flexibility of a resource should consider carefully the
online presentation. The uses of the data sets described above feed into the way that they are presented.
As well as being authoritative and comprehensive, reference data needs to be easily and
quickly queried. It would make little sense to present the data as a single large file with supporting
documentation: better by far to let users build complicated queries quickly, get results rapidly, ignore
Pgina 6 de 7
irrelevant records and repeat the process with ease. The interface to the Excavation Index facilitates
these sorts of reference searches by allowing complex searches to be repeated, and in addition allows it
to be cross-searched.
The approach to research archives may be radically different: to evaluate the resource, a
researcher will need to see the whole data set, will want to understand how parts relate to the whole, and
to try out the data with their own tools. For research uses it makes sense to let fellow researchers transfer
data directly to their own computers. The implication is that the interface can be relatively simple, and that
data files need to be presented in widely supported formats. This may be considerably less work than is
required for other forms of digital resource. However, the academic process implies a degree of stability,
and that alterations and additions clearly marked. Academic research is based on the credibility of the
data presented, so it would bring a researcher into disrepute if published data was changed without the
original being retained. This does not mean that changes cannot be made: rather that they should be
clearly signalled and incremental. The archive and publication of the Ave Valley data are fixed in so far as
the data and discussion published are not altered. Subsequent additions and extensions are possible, but
only as a supplement not a replacement.
Academic referencing is also important for data that is intended to prove an argument.
Conventions of bibliographic referencing like the Harvard convention include guidance on how to
reference Internet and other digital resources. For these to work, not only should the data set be stable in
its content but in access arrangements and location. The chain of references upon which academic
citation is intended to allow subsequent researchers to follow an argument. It stands to reason therefore
that URLs need to be stable, and that they point to the same resources. Without this sense of authority,
research into the archives will be inhibited and the digitisation effort undermined.
Teaching and learning is perhaps the most demanding in terms of interface, and certainly
has the largest amount of research associated with it (inter alia Littlejohn and Higgison 2003, Armitage
and O'Leary 2003 Core, Rothery and Walton 2003, Kilbride and Reynier 2002). Such advanced
understandings of user needs demand the attention of those engaged in teaching and learning projects,
not least because of the discourses of professionalism that are now attached to them (Newland and
Ringan 2003, Jenkins and Hanson 2003).
Conclusion
Digitising has many benefits, not least the large number of users that can access and
contribute to a digital resource. But digitisation is not an end in itself, nor should users be taken for
granted. Evaluating the uses that a resource can support, and understanding how those uses can be
expanded is critical to the success of any digitisation project. Decisions made early in the digitisation
process can both reduce and expand the ability of a resource to meet these expected uses, so it makes
sense to consider these uses at an early stage.
Links and Bibliography
Ave Valley
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/projArch/ave_millett/
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue9/millett_index.html
Excavation Index
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/collections/blurbs/304.cfm
Electronic Beowulf
http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/beowulf.html
PATOIS
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/patois/module1/index.html
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/patois/module2/index.html
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/patois/module3/index.html
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/patois/module4/index.html
Armitage, S and O'Leary R 2003 A Guide for Learning Technologists, LTSN Generic Centre
E-learning Series No 4, York
Pgina 7 de 7
Clarke, JP, Hardman, CS and Kilbride WG 2003 'Comprehensiveness for All: The OASIS
Project and Research Values in the Digital Age' in CSA Newsletter XV, online at:
http://www.csanet.org/newsletter/winter03/nlw0305.html, last visited 12/03/04
Core, J, Rothery A, and Walton G 2003 A Guide for Support Staff, LTSN Generic Centre E-
learning Series No 5, York
Cunliffe, B 1996 'Foreward' in Internet Archaeology 1, online at
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue1/foreword.html last visited 06/03/04
Hardman, CS and Richards, JD 2003 'OASIS: Dealing with the Digital Revolution' in M Doerr
and A Sarris (eds) The Digital Heritage of Archaeology: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods
in Archaeology, Archive of Monuments and Publications, Hellenic Ministry of Culture 325-9
Jenkins M and Hanson J 2003 A Guide for Senior Managers LTSN Generic Centre E-
learning Series No 1, York
Kiernan K, Presscott A, Solopova E, French D, Cantara L, Ellis M and Yuan CJ 1999
Electronic Beowulf, British Library and the University of Michigan Press, London
Kilbride, WG, Fernie KM, McKinney P, Richards, JD 2002 'Contexts of Learning: The
PATOIS project and Internet-based teaching and learning in Higher Education' in Internet Archaeology
12, online at http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue12/patois_toc.html last visited 12/03/04
Kilbride, WG and Reynier MJ 2002 'Editorial - Keeping the Learning in Computer-Based
Learning' in Internet Archaeology 12 online at http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue12/editorial.html last visited
12/03/04
Kilbride WG 2004 'From One Context to Another: Building a Common Information
Environment for Archaeology' in CSA Newsletter XVI online at
http://www.csanet.org/newsletter/winter04/nlw0402.html last visited 12/03/04
Kilbride, WG 2000 'Whose Beowulf is it any way' in Internet Archaeology 9, online at:
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue9/reviews/beowulf.html last visited 12/03/04
Laurillard, D 1995 'Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner', British Journal of
Educational Technology 26, 179-89
Littlejohn A and Higgison C 2003 A Guide for Teachers LTSN Generic Centre E-learning
Series No 3, York
Miller, P and Greenstein, D 1997 Discovering Online Resources in the Arts and Humanities:
a practical implementation of the Dublin Core, AHDS and UKOLN, London. Also online at:
http://ahds.ac.uk/public/metadata/discovery.html last visited 12/03/04
Newland B and Ringan N 2003 A Guide for Heads of Department LTSNGeneric Centre E-
learning Series No 2, York
Millett, M 2000 Ave Valley Survey Project, Porto, Portugal, online at:
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/projArch/ave_millett/ last visited 12/03/04
Millett, M Queiroga, F Strutt, K and Willis, S 2000 The Ave Valley, northern Portugal: an
archaeological survey of Iron Age and Roman settlement in Internet Archaeology 9, online at
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue9/millett_toc.html last visited 12/03/04
Quality Assurance Agency, 2000 Archaeology: Subject Benchmarking Statement, Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Gloucester
Sawyer, PH 1968 Anglo-Saxon charters an annotated list and bibliography, Royal Historical
Society, London