NCPTT-funded grants

Link to NCPTT site:
http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/index.php/grants/call-for-proposals-2009/

The National Center for Preservation Technology and Training offers funding for innovative projects in the fields of preservation education in the form of workshops and cirriculum development, documentation using new methods and development of web material that disseminates new preservation technologies. The grants are not very large, the maximum amount being $25,000. The areas of research that they provide funding for, which are relevant to libraries and museums, are collections management and materials research.

The topis of most interest to the agency are:

-conserve cultural resources of the "recent past"

-monitor and evaluate preservation treatments

-investigate minimally invasive techniques to inventory and assess cultural resources
protect cultural resources against natural and human threats

-preserve cemeteries and places of worship

-safeguard resources from effects of pollution and climate

The funding is available to U.S. universties and colleges, U.S. non-for profit organizations, and government agencies.

When reviewing the proposals, NCPTT officials look for certain criteria:

-have a concrete goal and objectives
-employ innovate technologies
-coherent project design
-qualified PI
-disseminate project results effectively
-cost effectiveness
-use non-traditional disseminaton of educational information that summarizes grant results, such as online web based training, webinars, podcasts, videos, DVDs, electronic publishing, etc.

The NCPTT website provides detailed directions for compiling the grant proposal and application, including specific length of each application component.

The website also has a page that shows all the institutions that had received NCPTT grants in the last several years, the monetary amounts and the project topics.

Link to grants: http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/index.php/grants/

This has proved extremely facinating. Conservation-related projects include a FAIC wiki and a review of past conservation treatments and preservation strategies for the southwest pottery collection at the University of Arizona. This is a collection that I used to work with while at the Arizona State Mumseum (U of A). Many of the objects in the collection had undergone several treatment campaigns, which fell under different philosophical periods in archaeological reconstruction and later on archaelogical conservation. Work related to this grant began, when I left for graduate school, so it would be really interesting to find out what they found about the differet kinds of repairs.

Natural History Museum- a preservation policy

Here are some notes from class discussion about preservation strategies in different institutions.
Our group- Helen, Kathy and Sonya- discussed possible points for a preservation strategy at a Natural History Museum.

1) Re-housing
Proper housing for collections is very important because it facilitates better access practices. If the artifacts are well-labeled and housed in secure trays with cavity cuts or in zip-locked plastic bags, researchers would have an easy time identifying which objects they want to look at will replace the objects into their specific cavity cut or container, when they are finished.

2) Access and Education
Only staff members should take out trays or boxes. Researchers should receive a short tutorial in handling objects before allowed to proceed with their work. Gloves should be provided. Some objects in natural history collections have a risk of toxicity associated with them. These objects include taxidermy and artifacts treated with pesticides during their institutional life. Artifacts suspected of toxicity should be clearly labeled and handled with gloves and possibly a mask. Staff and researchers should be alerted to the health risks involved in interacting with these artifacts.

3) Outreach
The museum should encourage students from relevant departments to volunteer in order to gain practical experience handling, organizing and preserving artifacts. Some departments that a natural history museum could advertise itself to are Museum Studies, Science, Archaeology/Anthropology and Classics. Many rehousing projects can be greatly aided with the involvement of student volunteers. It is a hands-on educational opportunity for the students and a chance to cut costs for the museum institution.

4) New Collections.
A major source of new collection material bringing back artifacts from the field during excavation projects. Some requirements should be instituted for the condition of these incoming collections. The artifacts should be clearly labeled so that they might be cataloged in a timely manner. The artifacts should not contain biological growth or pests. The artifacts should be cleaned in the gentlest possible way.

Analysis of 2 digitization programs

1) Library of Congress: National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program:

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/library/program_back.html
once on this page, click on the link Preserving Our Digital Heritage: Plan for the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program
Reading the "Executive Summary" section of the document should be sufficient to get enough information.

2) British Library Digital Preservation Strategy:

www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/ccare/introduction/digital/digpresstrat.pdf

Both documents are very complex and cover a broad spectrum of issues. The documents are structured in different ways: the British Library strategy document is written in bullet points, like a brief business agenda document. In the end there is a table that juxtaposes possible risks to digital material with appropriate actions taken as a part of the British Library digitization program. This section of the document is helpful in summarizing the main points of the program and embedding these points in the reader's memory.

The document published at the beginning of the LOC digitization program is a whole brochure, which is written in a narrative style of a grant proposal. This document was published in the very beginning of the digitization program and it outlines what the program will do in the long term future.

Aside from differences in style and format, there are many key points that cross over from one digitization program to the other. Here are some of the shared points for both programs.

1) Selection of appropriate materials to be digitized.
Both plans talk about the importance of prioritizing what gets digitized based on demand of collections for public access and ease of digitizing a particular format.

2) Communication with software vendors and technology specialists.
Gaining knowledge from the industry about proprietary file formats and new ways of preserving/migrating data.

3) Saving digital objects in several locations.
Safeguarding against loss of information caused by disc failure.

4) Saving the relevant incarnations of the file.
Making sure that the digital files that are being preserved can be considered preservation maters.

5) Automating preservation preservation procedures.
To make the preservation programs more cost effective, as many functions as possible should be automated. Automated actions can be guided by reminders that are based one: tracking the last time a file was updated, the kind of file it is and the inherent longevity properties of that file.

6) Long term retention as a priority.
Both programs, but especially LOC, makes long term retention a priority. Reassessment and evaluation of criteria for retention is built into the process of preservation.

Some differences
The LOC digitization initiative document had in it a few points that were not detailed in the British Library strategic digitization plan. As a part of the national digitization initiative, the Library of Congress would work with other federal agencies, state governments and private entities in a comprehensive program, in which it would funciton as a leader. The digitization strategy is not limited to the collections housed at the Library of Congress, but is extended to relevant cultural heritage material across the United States. The Library of Congress document also stresses the importance of rights protected access to the public. The manner of public access the issue of copyright law is a major consideration for this program.

Digitization dilema - NYT article

I was struck by one of the recurring points made in the article - that the new generation of researchers are not willing to travel and study original source material. The author of the article believes that unless the material is digitized, researchers are not going to make the effort to access it. It is true that a document or a film reel that is digitized will get a huge bump in exposure, as illustrated by the example of WWII and NASA film reels digitized at NARA and the library of Congress. But I still think that researchers who are only willing to access materials online are amateurs. I mean, we are not talking about looking up movie times or restaurant reviews. This is scholarly work we are talking about, our intellectual wealth. Yeah, while we are in college we all write papers using Wikipedia for our main reference because we don't have the time to search out books and articles on our own. But if you are a professional and you call yourself a researcher, the limitations of the Web as a research tools should be fairly obvious to you. If the scholarship pursuit is serious, the researcher will find a way to get a hold of as much of the story as possible, whether the sources have been digitized or not.

If you want to look up your aunt Betsy's birth certificate, fine go online, don't go to Minnesota. But if you want to write a new definitive chapter on race in America in 1770's.... you might have to spend some time in an archive. Toni Morrison spent 5 years researching historic documents from that time period in archives and libraries across the United States before writing her new novel A Mercy. This is how long it took her to become comfortable with the historic period she wanted to write about. A Mercy is a relatively short novel and it is a work of fiction. Yet she put in the effort, so that her characters might sound authentic, so that she is not perpetuating blatant historic untruths if she can help it. Why the effort? Because she is good at what she does!

Another point that struck me in the article is the point that is completely missing from it - how in the world are we going to preserve all this digital data? Who is going to organize the multitudes of scans? Who is going to be charged with the stewardship of the cultural heritage in digital
format? After all, the digitized information can only remain accessible by the public if the servers, or wherever the files are kept, are diligently maintained by dedicated professionals, and if the file formats are migrated, when they become technologically obsolete.

If the stewards of the electronic/digital resources are going to be the people, who had financed the digitization process in the first place, this could lead to some tricky issues. Do you really want the Church of the Latter Day Saints Genealogical Society or Google to be the main stakeholder in your digitization initiative? What if they have agendas other than preservation of the material? (aside from making a profit)