Evaluating Technology-mediated Access in Library and Information Services
Turning 45 years old this year, I can’t help but reflect on the odd position I find myself in, teetering on the cusp of Generation X and Millennials, or being considered, ironically, as a Cusper. Although this presents a personal identity crisis to navigate, it has provided me with a unique life experience, balanced between the divergent worlds of analog and digital environments. I am thankful for this fact; it has shaped my understanding and defined my relationship with technology and the role of libraries. My childhood memories of libraries entail card catalogs and Campbell’s soup label drives; however, my memories of technology are intrinsically linked to libraries, as well. My first encounter with a computer was an Apple Macintosh 128k in the school library of Northside Elementary. It was 1985, and I was in the 3rd grade. I am honestly amazed that the enjoyment of playing Face Maker on a machine, whose cost would be equivalent to $6,500 today, was even an opportunity presented to me in a small town in Middle Georgia in the early 1980s. Therefore, for me, libraries have always been associated with technological innovation. Having come to age experiencing rapid technological integration into every aspect of life, while having the foregrounded memory of life without these “enhancements,” I equate technology as a tool rather than a ubiquitous state of being. Mirroring these feelings, SLIS coursework has illuminated not only the means and methods of how technology functions as a tool of librarianship but has asserted an acknowledgment of technology’s weaknesses, barriers, and privileging.
Librarians and archivists utilize technology to facilitate access. Exploring the evolving implementation of technology into archival work has been an enlightening experience, bringing forth considerations that transcend time and illustrate how shifts in professional practice come with conflict and debate, along with successes and advancements. I attempt to articulate this point with “For Want of a Better Name: Oral History,” a bibliographic essay I wrote for LS555 Introduction to Archival Studies. Historically, archives have collected the written text, which usurped the authority and agency of the human voice and established a continuous, even if unintentional, professional practice of rendering orality two-dimensional. While technological evolution made voice recordings a viable archival documentation tool, the profession explored the implications. The abundance of material that could find itself recorded for the sake of recording was a primary concern. The archival turn in the 1960s saw perceptions of oral history shift, becoming a means to democratize the archive by providing a voice to the voiceless. As the practice gained professional support, discoverability barriers were identified. Transcribing oral history collections was seen as a solution, yet transcriptions can be argued to be interpretations of recordings rather than true representations, resulting in a decontextualization of a communitive event. The long-assumed need for transcription in facilitating access no longer holds true in the digital age, prompting the profession to redefine its responsibilities. The internet allows the presentation of oral histories on a scale unimagined at the practice’s inception. This has re-established the voice’s authority as a primary source document and, along with digital indexing and cataloging, has facilitated wide discoverability. However, universal access does not guarantee meaningful access. Archivists must ensure that access is intuitive and develop innovative mapping and indexing, such as time-coded summaries, to provide more engaged points of entry into an oral history than a transcript could provide. Web 2.0 technologies have furthered the possibilities, injecting co-creatorship and co-descriptive authorship into the contextualization of archival holdings in ways enabling oral histories to better achieve their ideal status of combating archival silences. It is imperative that archivists not lose sight of the digital divide that continues to present barriers to accessibility in rural and underprivileged communities and seek the means to redress this issue.
Taking advantage of an LS598 Directed Research project, I merged my learning experience with professional practice, implementing the practical application of technology-mediated access to archival materials. Collaborating with a faculty member at Georgia College teaching The Vietnam War in the Media, students were tasked with researching and compiling documentation on the nine soldier-dead from Milledgeville, Georgia. This material was to form a stand-alone collection of student research that would live either in our institutional repository or the Digital Library of Georgia. The 26 students were divided into nine groups and randomly assigned a veteran to research. To facilitate the student research, I provided instruction on available resources and worked with each group in locating local community contacts. For my directed research, I arranged and described the student research into a cohesive collection of material, making it accessible on the Georgia College Knowledge Box, our institutional repository for student research. Additionally, I curated a digital exhibit entitled Native Sons Lost: The Vietnam Dead of Milledgeville, Georgia. The digital exhibit required significant supplemental research on each veteran and contextual information framing the exhibit narrative, such as outlining the military mortuary practices of the Vietnam War. The power of technology manifested in not only presenting information, but connecting an archivist with information. The contextualization that others were able to provide, enhancing narratives with greater clarity and content, illustrated the limits of the archival record. The project was successful due to the participatory methods used to foster co-creatorship in the exhibit's narratives and has been well-received in the community.
Librarians and archivists utilize technology to facilitate access. Exploring the evolving implementation of technology into archival work has been an enlightening experience, bringing forth considerations that transcend time and illustrate how shifts in professional practice come with conflict and debate, along with successes and advancements. I attempt to articulate this point with “For Want of a Better Name: Oral History,” a bibliographic essay I wrote for LS555 Introduction to Archival Studies. Historically, archives have collected the written text, which usurped the authority and agency of the human voice and established a continuous, even if unintentional, professional practice of rendering orality two-dimensional. While technological evolution made voice recordings a viable archival documentation tool, the profession explored the implications. The abundance of material that could find itself recorded for the sake of recording was a primary concern. The archival turn in the 1960s saw perceptions of oral history shift, becoming a means to democratize the archive by providing a voice to the voiceless. As the practice gained professional support, discoverability barriers were identified. Transcribing oral history collections was seen as a solution, yet transcriptions can be argued to be interpretations of recordings rather than true representations, resulting in a decontextualization of a communitive event. The long-assumed need for transcription in facilitating access no longer holds true in the digital age, prompting the profession to redefine its responsibilities. The internet allows the presentation of oral histories on a scale unimagined at the practice’s inception. This has re-established the voice’s authority as a primary source document and, along with digital indexing and cataloging, has facilitated wide discoverability. However, universal access does not guarantee meaningful access. Archivists must ensure that access is intuitive and develop innovative mapping and indexing, such as time-coded summaries, to provide more engaged points of entry into an oral history than a transcript could provide. Web 2.0 technologies have furthered the possibilities, injecting co-creatorship and co-descriptive authorship into the contextualization of archival holdings in ways enabling oral histories to better achieve their ideal status of combating archival silences. It is imperative that archivists not lose sight of the digital divide that continues to present barriers to accessibility in rural and underprivileged communities and seek the means to redress this issue.
Taking advantage of an LS598 Directed Research project, I merged my learning experience with professional practice, implementing the practical application of technology-mediated access to archival materials. Collaborating with a faculty member at Georgia College teaching The Vietnam War in the Media, students were tasked with researching and compiling documentation on the nine soldier-dead from Milledgeville, Georgia. This material was to form a stand-alone collection of student research that would live either in our institutional repository or the Digital Library of Georgia. The 26 students were divided into nine groups and randomly assigned a veteran to research. To facilitate the student research, I provided instruction on available resources and worked with each group in locating local community contacts. For my directed research, I arranged and described the student research into a cohesive collection of material, making it accessible on the Georgia College Knowledge Box, our institutional repository for student research. Additionally, I curated a digital exhibit entitled Native Sons Lost: The Vietnam Dead of Milledgeville, Georgia. The digital exhibit required significant supplemental research on each veteran and contextual information framing the exhibit narrative, such as outlining the military mortuary practices of the Vietnam War. The power of technology manifested in not only presenting information, but connecting an archivist with information. The contextualization that others were able to provide, enhancing narratives with greater clarity and content, illustrated the limits of the archival record. The project was successful due to the participatory methods used to foster co-creatorship in the exhibit's narratives and has been well-received in the community.
Work Samples
![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/pdf.png)
evan_leavitt_bibliographic_essay_ls555_dr_riter_fall_2020.pdf |
LS598 Directed Research: Native Sons Lost Digital Exhibit