NINCH guide home        interview table of contents               next chapter

 

 

Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation of Cultural Heritage Materials - Interview Reports

 

Introduction

 

Data Collection Instrument

In tackling the research for the Guide, the research team hired by NINCH, from Glasgow University’s Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute (HATII), established an empirical methodology that adopted four main instruments: literature reviews, face-to-face interviews and observation, telephone interviews and written discussion.

The key information-gathering tool used for research was the Digitization Data Collection Instrument for Site Visit Interviews. In developing this instrument, the HATII research team drew on the six principles developed by the NINCH Working Group in addition to building upon a number of previous surveys.[1] Consisting of six main sections, made up of 31 parts and 202 questions, the instrument was designed to collect data on all types of media (still and moving images, text and sound) and from all project types (projects or programs, large, medium or small scale, museum, gallery, library or academic based, publicly or privately funded, etc.). The site visit instrument was used in preference to free-form interviews in order to provide researchers with a core of comparable data irrespective of the interviewer, time or place of the interview or project type. It was used by four researchers on 20 site visits, involving 36 projects and 68 individuals from Fall 2000 through Spring 2001. The instrument proved able to elicit high quality responses and sustain a logical chain of thought. In many cases it prompted subjects to think deeply and reflectively about their projects in ways that they had not hitherto done.

 

The Interviews

The HATII team considered these extensive face-to-face practitioner interviews as an essential part of the survey of the field. It placed people and projects in context, enabling interviewers to observe facilities, equipment and practices first hand. Standardized to allow for comparable responses, yet covering a variety of media and projects, the interview elicited many responses that inevitably required interpretation or explanation where their meaning, relevance or application was not immediately apparent. Interviews lasted between one hour 30 minutes and three hours and it was found that the instrument was as long as can be used in one session.

Subjects were sent a copy of the instrument in advance to lessen the chance of their being unable to answer questions, (thus improving the quality of data) and to build a sense of openness and trust — promoting the fact that the interview was an information gathering exercise and not a critical assessment.

Each of the interviewers used the instrument to structure the interview and gather as complete a profile of each project as possible. An annotated transcript of each interview was subject to internal review before being sent to each subject for comments, corrections or additions. At this stage, the transcript was intended to represent as faithfully as possible the interview itself and provided an opportunity to ask any follow-up questions or request clarifications. Upon receipt of any changes by the interviewer, the transcript was re-written and subject to a second internal review. The transcripts were then amalgamated into a single document and submitted to members of the NINCH Working Group. Following their review and amendment, a draft publication copy of the transcript was sent to subjects for final follow-up questions and review. The transcript was then amended and given its third internal review before being incorporated into the draft Guide.

 

Other Research

In parallel to the site visit data collection, the research team also undertook focused research on a thematic basis with the goal of expanding data collection in five particular areas: text encoding, digital preservation, asset management, rights management, and quality assurance. This research was conducted by a combination of literature review, telephone interviews and written correspondence, supplemented by specific questions for key practitioners in the relevant field. In addition to the sites selected for site visits, the project team identified a further series of relevant projects for inclusion in this stage of research. This research produced a series of theme reports that filled knowledge gaps that had not been addressed by the site visits and provided a more analytical view of current community good practice in these areas.

 

Site Selection

In addition to data collection methods, site selection was the second major methodological issue faced by the project. Sites were selected on a “best fit” basis to a matrix of project types and key themes established by the project team. The digitization and networking of cultural heritage materials takes place across a variety of media and in a variety of institutional contexts. In order to reflect this diversity, the research team extensively reviewed potential sites. Collectively, the sites needed to incorporate projects that digitized still images, texts, moving images and audio as well as education, library, museum, gallery and archive institutions. However, the project did not select sites to reflect the proportion of each media type being digitized or the extent to which particular institutional types are represented in the cultural heritage community, even if such figures could be ascertained. In this sense the sites selected were not a scientific or representative sample, but ones that broadly reflected the diversity of the community, while representing one or more key themes of good practice.

Since the aim of the Guide was to seek out and document good practice rather than merely profiling current practice, the project team's expertise played a crucial role in identifying sites that would support this goal. Particular care was given to establishing an open and transparent selection process, a stringent review of proposals, and a project team with broadly international expertise in cultural heritage digitization projects.

 

---