Abstract
Digital preservation fulfills a critical role in the digital continuity of individual, institutional, and cultural memory. It is important for archival stewards and stakeholders to know whether or not those activities have been successful in order to deploy finite programmatic resources most relevantly, effectively, and productively. While preservation trustworthiness has been subject to extensive examination, the complementary evaluative quality of success has received less critical consideration. This study looks at how the preservation community ascribes meaning to the concept of success through attitudinal norms tacitly embedded in domain discourse. These are recovered through qualitative content analysis of selected preservation policy statements, which act as public affirmations of the archival service “contract” regarding stewardship intention and reciprocal stakeholder expectation. Success is a measure of the alignment between anticipated outcomes and actual preserved state resulting from intentional intervention. Communicological critique of the norms illuminates why the measure of success remains problematic and suggests avenues by which metrical practice can be augmented to enhance its evaluative power. This includes repositioning evaluative prerogatives to incorporate concern for the persistence not only of authentic digital information objects but also legitimate communicative experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data are publicly available via the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZHTQJ, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X4SDN, and https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/75Q29.
Notes
The policy document dataset and codebook are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZHTQJ.
The thesaurus and codebook are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X4SDN.
The predicate synthesis dataset and codebook is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/75Q29.
References
Abrams S (2018) Theorizing success: measures for evaluating digital preservation efficacy. In: JCDL '18, 18th ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries, Fort Worth.
Aitchison J, Gilchrist A, Bawden D (2000) Thesaurus construction and use: a practical manual, 4th edn. Aslib IMI, London
Altman M, Adams MO, Crabtree J, Donakowski D, Maynard M, Pienta A, Young CH (2009) Digital preservation through archival collaboration: the data preservation alliance for the social sciences. Am Arch 72:170–184. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.72.1.eu7252lhnrp7h188
Anderson D (2015) The digital dark age. Commun of the ACM 58:20–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/2835856
Bak G, Armstrong P (2008) Points of convergence: seamless long-term access to digital publications and archival records at Library and Archives Canada. Arch Sci 8:279–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-009-9091-4
Becker C (2018) Metaphors we work by: reframing digital objects, significant properties, and the design of digital preservation systems. Archivaria 85:6–36
Becker C, Antunes G, Barateiro J, Vieira R, Borbinha J (2011) Control objectives for DP: digital preservation as an integrated part of IT governance. PASIST 48:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801124
Becker C, Faria L, Duretec K (2014) Scalable decision suport for digital preservation. OCLC Syst & Serv 30:249–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-06-2014-0025
Bermès E, Fauduet L (2011) The human face of digital preservation: organizational and staff challenges, and initiatives at the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Int J Dig Cur 6:226–237. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v6i1.184
BIPM (2012) International vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 3rd edn. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, Sèvres
Bishop BW, Hank C (2018) Measuring FAIR principles to inform fitness for use. Int J Dig Cur 13:35–46. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.630
Black PE, Scarfone KA, Souppaya MP (2008) Cyber security metrics and measures. In: Voeller JG (ed) Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470087923.hhs440
BMA (2016) Digital preservation policy. Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore
Bollacker KD (2010) Avoiding a digital dark age. Am Sci 98:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1511/2010.83.106
Bountouri L, Gratz P, Sanmartin F (2018) Digital preservation: how to be trustworthy. In: Ioannides M (ed) Digital cultural heritage. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 10605. Springer, Cham, pp 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75826-8_29
Brand S (1999) Escaping the digital dark age. Libr J 124:46–48
Buckland M (2013) Document theory: an introduction. In: Willer M, Gilliland AJ, Tomić M (eds) Records, archives and memory studies. University of Zadar, Zardar, Crotia
Burda D, Teuteberg F (2013) Sustaining accessibility of information through digital preservation: a literature review. J Inf Sci 39:442–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513480107
Caplan P (2008) What is digital preservation? Libr Technl Rep 2:7–9. https://doi.org/10.5860/ltr.44n2
Carter R, McCarthy M (2006) Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
CLIR (2002) The state of digital preservation: an international perspective. CLIR reports pub107. Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC
Conway P (2010) Preservation in the age of Google: digitization, digital preservation, and dilemmas. Libr Q 80:61–79. https://doi.org/10.1086/648463
Cook T (2001) Archival science and postmodernism: new formulations for old concepts. Arch Sci 1:22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435636
Corrado EM, Moulaison Sandy H (2017) Digital preservation for libraries, archives, and museums. Rowman & Litlefield, Lanham
CUL (2018) Cambridge University Libraries Digital Preservation Policy. Cambridge University Libraries, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.32927
Dearborn C, Meister S (2017) Failure as process: interrogating disaster, loss, and recovery in digital preservation. Alexandria 27:83–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0955749017722076
Donaldson DR (2015) Development of a scale for measuring perceptions of trustworthiness for digitized archival documents. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan
Donaldson DR (2016) The digitized archival document trustworthiness scale. Int J Dig Cur 11:252–270. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v11i1.387
DPC (2015) Digital preservation handbook, 2nd edn. Digital Preservation Coalition, Glasgow
Dryden J (2011) Measuring trust: standards for trusted digital repositories. J Arch Organ 9:127–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332748.2011.590744
Duranti L (2005) The long-term preservation of accurate and authentic digital data: the InterPARES project. Data Sci J 4:106–118. https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.4.106
Duranti L, Thibodeau K (2006) The concept of record in interactive, experiential and dynamic environments: the view of InterPARES. Arch Sci 6:13–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-006-9021-7
Eicher-Catt D, Catt IE (2008) What can it mean to say that communication is “effective” (and for whom) in postmodernity? Atl J Commun 16:119–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870802086903
Partners for preservation: advancing digital preservation through cross-community collaboration (2019). Facet, London
Frank RD (2019) The social construction of risk in digital preservation. JASIST 71:474–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24247
Giaretta D (2011) Advanced digital preservation. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16809-3
Gladney HM (2006) Principles for digital preservation. Commun ACM 49:111–116. https://doi.org/10.1145/1113034.1113038
Green R (1991) The profession’s models of information: a cognitive linguistic analysis. J Docu 47:130–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026874
Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE (2014) Applied analytic techniques. Sage, Thousand Oaks. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436
Hansson J (2005) Hermeneutics as a bridge between the modern and postmodern in library and information science. J Doc 61:12. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578032
Heslop H, Davis S, Wilson A (2002) An approach to the preservation of digital records. National Archives of Australia, Canberra
Hirtle PB (2008) The history and current state of digital preservation. In: Westbrooks E, Jenkins K (eds) Metadata and digital collections: a festschrift in honor of tom turner. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, pp 121–140
ICPSR (2018a) ICPSR access policy framework, version 3. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor
ICPSR (2018b) ICPSR digital preservation policy framework, version 4. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor
Innocenti P, Vullo G, Ross S (2010) Towards a digital library policy and quality interoperability framework: the DL.org project. New Rev Inf Netw 15:29–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614571003751071
InterPARES (2008) InterPARES 2 project glossary. international research on permanent authentic records in electronic systems (InterPARES) 2: experiential, interactive and dynamic records. Associazione Nazionale Archivistica Italiana, Padova
ISO (2012a) Space data and information transfer systems—Audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories. 16363. ISO, Geneva
ISO (2012b) Space data and information transfer systems—open archival information system (OAIS)—reference model. 14721. ISO, Geneva
ISO (2016) Information and documentation—Records management—Part 1: concepts and principles. 15489-1. ISO, Geneva
Jeffrey S (2012) A new digital dark age? Collaborative web tools, social media and long-term preservation. World Archaeol 44:553–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.737579
Jenson D (2008) Transferability. In: Given LM (ed) The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 888–887. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
Jeong J, Kurnia S, Samson D, Cullen S (2018) Psychological contract in IT outsourcing: a systematic literature review. In: Bui T (ed) 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Waikoloa Village. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.019
Johnston L (2020) Challenges in preservation and archiving digital materials. Inf Serv Use. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-200090
Ketelaar E (2012) Cultivating archives: meanings and identities. Arch Sci 12:15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-011-9142-5
Kirchhoff AJ (2008) Digital preservation: challenges and implementation. Learn Publ 21:285–294. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315108X356716
Korenkova M, Hägerfors A (2011) Quality criteria for digital information in long-term digital preservation. In: Archiving 2011 conference, Salt Lake City, May 16–19. IS&T, Springfield, VA
Krippendorff K (2019) Content analysis: an introduction to its methods, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Kuhlthau CC (2017) Information search process (ISP) model. In: McDonald JD, Levine-Clark M (eds) Encyclopedia of library and information sciences, 4th edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 2232–2238. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4
Lanigan RL (2010) Verbal and nonverbal codes of communicology: the foundation of interpersonal agency and efficacy. In: Eicher-Catt D, Catt IE (eds) Communicology: the new science of embodied discourse. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison & Teaneck, pp 102–128
Lanigan RL (2013) Information theories. In: Cobley P, Schulz P (eds) Theories and models of communication, vol 1. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp 58–83
Lee CA, Tibbo H (2007) Digital curation and trusted repositories: steps towards success. J Digital Inf 8:2
L’Hours H, Kleemola M, de Leeuw L (2019) CoreTrustSeal: from academic collaboration to sustainable services. IASSIST Q 43:1–17. https://doi.org/10.29173/iq936
Madsen C, Hurst M (2019) Digital preservation policy and strategy: where do I start? In: Myntti J, Zoom J (eds) Digital preservation in libraries: preparing for a sustainable future. ALA, Chicago, pp 37–48
Maemura E, Moles N, Becker C (2017) Organizational assessment frameworks for digital preservation: a literature review and mapping. JASIST 68:1619–1637. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23807
Maier M (2018) Content analysis: advantages and disadvantages. In: Allen M (ed) The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 240–242. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411
Mason C, Simmons J (2012) Are they being served? Linking consumer expectation, evaluation and commitment. J Serv Mark 26:227–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041211237532
Menne-Haritz A (2001) Access—the reformulation of an archival paradigm. Arch Sci 1:57–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435639
Mingers J, Willcocks L (2017) An integrative semiotic methodology for IS research. Inf Organ 27:7–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.12.001
Morrissey SM (2014) “How can we know the dancer from the dance?” Intention and the preservation of digital objects. New Rev Inf Netw 19:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2014.883935
NAN (2015) Preservation Policy. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag
Nicholson D, Dobreva M (2009) Beyond OAIS: towards a reliable and consistent digital preservation implementation framework. In: 16th international conference on digital signal processing, Santorini-Hellas, 5–7 July. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDSP.2009.5201126
Nitecki D (1993) Conceptual models of libraries held by faculty, administrators, and librarians: an exploration of communications in the Chronicle of Higher Education. J Doc 49:255–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026915
NLNZ (2012) Digital preservation policy manual. Archives New Zealand; National Library of New Zealand, Wellington
Osgood CE, Saporta S, Nannally JC (1956) Evaluative assertion analysis. Litera 3:47–102
Owens T (2018) The theory and craft of digital preservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Ravenwood C, Muir A, Matthews G (2015) Stakeholders in the selection of digital material for preservation: relationships, responsibilities, and influence. Collect Manag 40:83–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2015.1011816
Robinson OC (2014) Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: a theoretical and practical guide. Qual Res Psychol 11:25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
Rogers C (2015) Diplomatics of born digital documents—considering documentary form in a digital environment. Rec Manag J 25:6–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-03-2014-0021
Ross S (2006) Approaching digital preservation holistically. In: Tough A, Moss M (eds) Record keeping in a hybrid environment: managing the creation, use, preservation, and disposal of unpublished information objects in context. Chandos, Oxford, pp 115–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-142-0.50006-2
Ross S (2012) Digital preservation, archival science and methodological foundations for digital libraries. New Rev Inf Netw 17:43–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2012.679446
SAA (2020) Dictionary of archives terminology. Society of American Archivists, Chicago
Sacchi S (2015) What do we mean by 'Preserving Digital Information'? Towards sound conceptual foundations for digital stewardship. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Sanett S (2013) Archival digital preservation programs: staffing, costs, and policy. Preserv Dig Technol Cult 42:137–149. https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2013-0019
Savolainen R (2019) Elaborating the sensory and cognitive-affective aspects of information experience. J Libr Inf Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619871595
SCAPE (2016) Published preservation policies.
Schreier M (2013) Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick U (ed) Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis. Sage, London, pp 170–193. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Seffah A, Donyaee M, Kline RB, Padda HK (2006) Usability measurement and metrics: a consolidated model. Softw Qual J 14:159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-006-7600-8
Sheldon M (2013) Analysis of current digital preservation policies: archives, libraries, and museums. Library of Congress, Washington
Sierman B, Jones C, Bechhofer S, Elstrøm G (2013) Digital policy levels in SCAPE. In: Borbinha J, Nelson M, Knight S (eds) 10th international conference on preservation of digital objects, Lisbon. Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, Lisbon
Stamper R (1996) Signs, information, norms and systems. In: Holmqvist B, Andersen PB, Klein H, Posner R (eds) Signs of work: semiosis and information processing in organisations. Foundations of Communication and Cognition, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 349–398
Stemler S (2001) An overview of content analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 7:17
Traczyk T (2017) Requirements for digital preservation. In: Traczyk T, Ogryczak W, Pałka P, Śłiwiński T (eds) Digital preservation: putting it to work. Studies in computational intelligence, vol 700. Springer, Cham, pp 3–14
Waller M, Sharpe R (2006) Mind the gap: assessing digital preservation needs in the UK. Digital Preservation Coalition, Glasgow
Walters T, Skinner K (2011) Digital Curation for Preservation. Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC
Waters D, Garrett J (1996) Preserving digital information: report of the task force on archiving of digital information. Council on Library and Information Resources; Research Libraries Group, Washington, DC
Webb C, Pearson D, Koerbin P (2013) “Oh, you wanted us to preserve that?!” Statements of preservation intent for the National Library of Australia’s digital collections. D-Lib Mag 19. https://doi.org/10.1045/january2013-webb
White MD, Marsh EE (2006) Content analysis: a flexible methodology. Libr Trends 55:22–45. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Whitelaw M (2012) Towards generous interfaces for archival collections. In: International council on archives congress, Brisbane, August 20–24. ICA, Paris
Wilson TC (2017) Rethinking digital preservation: definitions, models, and requirements. Digit Libr Perspect 33:128–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-08-2016-0029
Xie I, Matusiak K (2016) Digital preservation. Discover digital libraries: theory and practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 255–279
Yakel E (2007) Digital curation OCLC. Syst Serv 23:6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650750710831466
Yoon A (2014) End users’ trust in data repositories: definition and influences on trust development. Arch Sci 14:17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-013-9207-8
ZBW (2018) Preservation policy: guidelines for digital preservation at the ZBW. Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Hamburg
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SA is the sole investigator of the reported research and the sole author.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abrams, S. Tacit attitudinal principles for evaluating digital preservation success. Arch Sci 21, 295–315 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-021-09360-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-021-09360-5