Preservation management: informing and developing policy and strategy for practice
Submitting Institution
Loughborough UniversityUnit of Assessment
Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information Management Summary Impact Type
CulturalResearch Subject Area(s)
Information and Computing Sciences: Library and Information Studies
Language, Communication and Culture: Communication and Media Studies
Summary of the impact
Since 1993, the outcomes of preservation management research at
Loughborough University have:
- contributed to the content and development of international and
national policies for preservation of materials and data in information
collections and memory institutions
- led to the development of a method and tool which has been widely
applied for assessing preservation needs in these collections
- significantly improved disaster management procedures in libraries and
archives
- influenced changes in cultural heritage-related laws including
international agreements to facilitate preservation of digital material
- enabled the creation of a registry tool to support collection managers
in decision-making on the preservation of journals.
Underpinning research
The research as detailed below was undertaken at Loughborough University,
led by Professor John Feather (Loughborough 1979-date), Professor Graham
Matthews (Loughborough 1991-97, 2006-date) and Dr Adrienne Muir
(Loughborough 2000-date).
1. Feather, Matthews and Eden (1994-1999) comprehensively researched
preservation practices and issues in UK libraries in 1993-1994 [G3.1].
This national survey (682 British libraries — all public library
authorities, all national, university and a sample of college and special
libraries, with a 72% response rate) identified good practice and
significant gaps in understanding among funding bodies and senior
professional leaders [3.1]. Feather and Eden followed this with
detailed research at policy level [G3.3]. Feather, Matthews, Muir
and Lockyer (2004-2008) subsequently investigated preservation policies
and practices in libraries, in 2007, which included a review of the
National Preservation Office's (NPO) activities [G3.2, 3.2]. This
research evidenced the developments of the previous decade including the
derivation of evidence-based policies from previous research at
Loughborough University.
2. The research (at 2.1) led to greater understanding and recognition of
UK national needs in preservation management. In 1997, Matthews led a team
which undertook additional research which provided the data to underpin
the team's development of a collection survey method for assessing
preservation needs in libraries and archives [G3.4] locally and
nationally [3.3]. Prior to this no such dedicated tool for use in
British libraries existed.
3. In 1995-1996, Matthews led the first comprehensive research into
disaster management in British Libraries [G3.5]. The libraries
which responded to the survey at 2.1 were surveyed and interviews with a
range of non-library stakeholders (for example, fire service personnel,
local authority emergency managers, insurers, disaster recovery company
experts) were undertaken. This research investigated disaster management
practice, discovering data and giving insights into professional and
technical issues on a national scale, identifying issues which needed to
be resolved and helping to define methodologies for the implementation of
policies. Key findings were incorporated into guidelines for policy and
practice [3.4]. Matthews undertook further research in this field
between 2006 and 2008. This was broader in scope, with coverage extended
to include archives and museums as well as libraries, also drawing on
international experience including the consequences of large scale natural
and man-made disasters and recent widespread flooding in England at that
time
4. Developments in digital publishing from the late 1990s necessitated a
reconsideration of legal deposit arrangements and long-term preservation
of, and access to, digital materials. The policy and practical
implications of the legal deposit and long-term storage of digital
materials was the focus of work led by Muir. Key findings included that
copyright posed a barrier to preservation of digital material and that
publishers had strong concerns about the nature of access to their
publications and possible impact on their businesses. Further research
included surveys that confirmed that current preservation copyright
exceptions were no longer fit for purpose and needed to be revised [3.5]
[G3.6]. This led to a major project with libraries and publishers to
research international copyright issues in digital preservation; the team
went on to explore the international dimension [G3.7]. Key
findings across the four jurisdictions surveyed (UK, Netherlands, USA and
Australia) were that existing exceptions to copyright were not appropriate
for digital preservation or for digitising orphan works, threatening the
preservation of digital heritage.
5. Muir researched the issues around the creation and management of an
archived e-journals registry [G3.8] and used these to develop a
set of scenarios for the registry and a set of alternative implementations
[3.6]. EDINA (Edinburgh University Data Library) developed these
into a tool for librarians.
References to the research
Outputs
3.1. Feather, J.P., Matthews, G. and Eden, P.A. (1996), Preservation
management. Policies and practices in British libraries, Gower,
Aldershot, xii, 174 pp, ISBN 978-0566076220 [Research monograph]
3.2. Feather, J., S. Lockyer, G. Matthews and Muir, A. (2007), The
preservation landscape in the UK and Ireland. Alexandria, 19(2),
123-134. [Refereed journal]
3.3. Eden, P., Bell, N., Dungworth, N. and Matthews, G. (1998),
Preservation needs assessment in libraries and archives: piecing together
the national jigsaw, Library Management, 19(4), 228-237. DOI:
10.1108/01435129810213325 [Refereed journal]
3.4. Matthews, G. and Eden, P. (1996), Disaster management in
British libraries: project report with guidelines for library managers.
(Library and Information Report 109) British Library Research and
Development Department, 106pp. ISBN 978-0712333061
3.5. Muir, A. (2004), Digital preservation: awareness,
responsibility and rights issues, Journal of Information Science,
30(1), 73-92. DOI: 10.1177/0165551504041680 [Refereed journal]
3.6. Sparks, S., Look, H., Bide, M. and Muir, A. (2010), A
registry of archived electronic journals. Journal of Librarianship and
Information Science, 42(2), 111-121. DOI: 10.1177/0961000610361552
[Refereed journal]
Key research grants
G3.1. Leverhulme Trust. Preservation policies in British
libraries: a ten year review, 1983 -1992. 1993. Feather (PI), Matthews
(CI), P Eden (RA). £33,000
G3.2. National Preservation Office. UK preservation landscape
survey. 2007. Feather (PI), Matthews (CI), Muir (CI), Lockyer (RA) £10,000
G3.3. British Library and Research and Innovation Centre. National
preservation policy: policies and practices in libraries, archives and
record offices. 1996. Feather (PI), Eden (RA). £35,000
G3.4. British Library Research and Innovation Centre. A collection
survey method for assessing preservation needs in libraries and archives.
1997. Matthews (PI) Eden (RA), Dungworth (RA) and Bell (Oxford
Conservation Consortium, University of Oxford). £55,000
G3.5. British Library Research and Development Department.
Disaster management in British libraries. 1995. Matthews (PI), Eden (RA).
£35,000
G3.6. Arts and Humanities Research Board. Copyright and licensing
for digital preservation. 2002. Muir (PI), Ayre (RA). £72,742
G3.7. Joint Information Systems Committee. International study of
copyright and digital preservation. 2007. Muir (PI). £22,450
G3.8. Joint Information Systems Committee. Scoping and feasibility
study for a registry of archived electronic journals. 2007. Muir (PI),
Sparks, Look, Bide (all research consultants, Rightscom). £29,601
Details of the impact
1. The outcomes of the policy work were incorporated into policy
statements and practical professional guidelines developed by
international and national organisations and institutions, including the
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions and the
NPO [5.1]. Within the UK, a specific area of impact of the policy
and strategy research has been in the reconfiguration of the Preservation
Advisory Centre (PAC), the successor body (2009- ) to the NPO. The new
structure and terms of reference of the PAC were a direct outcome of the
work published as Feather, Lockyer, Matthews and Muir [3.2].
2. The development of a Preservation Needs Assessment (PNA) tool was a
key element in achieving significant impact. It has been applied in
libraries and archives throughout the UK [5.1], leading to the
publication of Knowing the need reports (2006, NPO and 2013, PAC)
on the emerging picture of preservation need in libraries and archives in
the UK and Ireland. The 2006 report, based on 97 individual surveys,
representing over 28 million items was the first ever national survey of
preservation needs in the UK which achieved this level of granularity. The
2013 report is based on 86 surveys representing collections totalling more
than 50 million items [5.2]. This data, analysed for PAC by LISU
(Library and Information Statistics Unit), a research unit in this UoA,
has strengthened the information base which informs national policy and
investment, and institutional strategy. Through the NPO, the PNA has been
used in libraries in Australia, Israel and Sweden, and archives in Norway.
3. The impact of the disaster management strand of the research also
began before 2008; for example, the guidelines [3.4] were adopted
by practitioners in libraries and networks across the UK and publications
from the research included in guidance and bibliographies for disaster
management across the world The disaster plan of the M25 Consortium of
Academic Libraries, for example, was directly based on this work which
continues to be influential in institutions and consortia [5.3].
In 1996, it was found that 30% of UK institutions had disaster management
plans, rising to 62% by 2013 (Knowing the Need, 2013), an increase
which was a consequence of the Loughborough University research and the
high profile of its dissemination in the relevant sectors. There is also
wider and continuing impact beyond libraries and archives, providing, for
example, an evidence base for English Heritage to develop nationwide
training for heritage employees and managers and fire service personnel
(by mid-2012 it had run 16 courses and trained 350 people) [5.4, 5.5].
There has also been a significant international dimension to this work as
evidenced by the engagement of the International Committee of
the Blue Shield [5.6].
4. The need for legislative change clarified by the research was
recognised by the Hargreaves review of intellectual property law in the
UK. At the end of 2012, the UK government formally indicated its intention
to update current preservation exceptions to facilitate digital
preservation. JISC used Muir's work [G3.7] in its written
submission
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmbis/367/367vw50.htm)
to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee [5.7]. Since
then, the UK Intellectual Property Office has sought views on how to
implement an improved preservation exception (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/techreview-research-library.pdf).
The international impact of the research is evident in the work of the
Legal Panel of the Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation
meeting organised by the Library of Congress and the National Library of
Estonia in 2011. The results of the international study on copyright and
digital preservation formed the basis of an international workshop on
copyright and preservation at the World Intellectual Property Organization
in 2008. The WIPO Standing Committee for Copyright and Related Rights has
now included copyright exceptions in its work programme; this derives from
one of the key findings of the research. In the UK, the government
established a Legal Deposit Advisory Panel (LDAP) to progress the work
done at Loughborough. The Panel's e-journals working group (chaired by
Muir) established a pilot e-journal deposit scheme and identified and
analysed the definitional and practical implementation challenges. The
LDAP made recommendations on regulations for legal deposit of non-print
publications in 2009. The regulations came into force in April 2013 (http://bit.ly/ZhFDud).
The legal deposit libraries are now collecting digital material for
long-term preservation and are already making this material available to
the public. For example, material on NHS reform is now discoverable
through the British Library's search interface.
5. The results of the scoping and feasibility study for an archived
e-journals registry were used by EDINA (which operates the national union
catalogue of serials) in the development of the Piloting an E-journals
Preservation Registry Service, which is now a successful operational
service (The Keepers Registry), international in coverage [5.8].
This service can be used by collection managers in decision making in
acquiring and preserving electronic journals.
Sources to corroborate the impact
The following sources of corroboration can be made available at request.
Institutional practice and policies and Preservation needs assessment
5.1. Head, Preservation Advisory Centre, British Library, 96
Euston Road London NW1 2DB. Reference provided
5.2. Peach, C. and Foster, J. (2013) Knowing the need.
Optimising preservation for library and archive collections, London,
Preservation Advisory Centre
(http://www.bl.uk/blpac/pdf/ktn.pdf);
and see acknowledgements)
Disaster management
5.3. M25 Consortium of Academic Libraries. Disaster Control Plan
website
http://www.m25lib.ac.uk/m25dcp/
5.4. Fire Safety Adviser, English Heritage [and Chairman,
Institution of Fire Engineers], The Engine House, Fire Fly Avenue,
Swindon, SN2 2EH. Reference provided
5.5. Emery, S. (2011) Protecting our heritage, International
Preservation News (47), 66-70)
5.6. President of the International Committee of the Blue Shield
and Director General of the International Committee of the Blue Shield.
Letter
International Study on copyright and digital preservation and Archived
e-journal registry projects
5.7. Programme Manager, Digital Infrastructure (Digital
Preservation), JISC Executive Reference provided
Archived e-journals registry
5.8. KEEPERS Registry
SUNCAT Project Manager, EDINA
Reference provided
(http://thekeepers.org/thekeepers/keepers.asp?action=agencies&naecache=1&session-id=066be22a9e89f36da965e2441cd2ee6f).