A History of Digitization: Dutch Museums Trilce Navarrete Boekmanbibliotheek | 10 november 2014

A History of Digitization: Dutch Museums

Trilce NavarreteBoekmanbibliotheek | 10 november 2014

Research in view

With thanks to:

• Boekmanbibliotheek for invitation• DEN, DDF, NUMERIC, ENUMERATE, OCW• RICHES• For a (partial) list see p. 253 in book • Max Kisman for book cover

A History of Digitization | T.Navarrete | Boekmanbibliotheek

Research in view

• Context• The research method• Main results: museums becoming digital– Users and technology– Networks– Information valuation

• Discussion



Context

• My interdisciplinary background– Museums + Economics (+ Library Science)

• 2008 broad idea– About the economic aspects of digital heritage– Post 2004 Dutch EU Presidency momentum– No production / costs data available– NUMERIC project promise


Context

• Initial model:

*


Context

• Final model:

*


The Research Method• Research question: – What processes have Dutch museums followed to adopt

information technologies and how are these reflected in current (digital) museum practice?

• Literature review– International museum experience / theory

• Data collection– Literature review: policy / internal documents– Interviews (63)– Case studies (5) Maritime, Ethnographic, Natural History, Archaeology,

Art and History + National, Regional, University• Analysis• Conclusions


The Research Method• Shortcomings and learning moments:

– Black hole in 2000s due to limited data / documentation available.

– Lack of structural institutional data collection led to partial data availability, often dependent on individuals (personal databases / archives).

– Partial view formed by issues relevant to case studies, selected based on availability (why not Pianola Museum?).

– Flexible timeframe to accommodate respondents.– Limited literature on economic aspects of digital heritage.– Goals:

• To document the digitization process• To give a voice to all participants• Raise awareness and inspire further research


The Research Method

• Writings (self-made research framework)“Museums.” In Handke, Christian and Ruth Towse (eds.) (2013) Handbook of

the Digital Creative Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 330-343.

“Digital Cultural Heritage.” In Rizzo, Ilde and Anna Mignosa (eds.) (2013) Handbook Economics of Cultural Heritage. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 251-271.

“Becoming Digital: A Dutch Heritage Perspective.” (2014) Journal of Arts, Management, Law and Society. 44:3, 153-168.

“Museum Libraries: Collections of Collections” with John Mackenzie Owen in Palabra Clave (La Plata). No.1 Vol.1, October 2011, pp 12-20. Universidad Nacional de La Plata (Argentina).

Main results

Museums are becoming digital: use of digital tools to enhance core activities, enable newness, and increase greater reach in a networked market of information.

Generally, there is a three-step process:

• Computers are first used for internal management.• Then to communicate with the public (museum information,

then collections online).• When fully adopted, the digital tool permeates all core

activities and museum merges into the networked market of information.


Main results

Main changes documented in museums:

• Collection information processes: marginal and supporting role at the core.isolated networked across institutions.controlled serve to communicate.monopolized participation is democratic.


Main results

Adoption of digital technology has required an adaptation process (50 years) that continues to this day.

Areas of analysis:• Users and technology• Networks• Information valuation


Main results

Users and technology:• SCOTS theory (Social Construction of Technology

Systems) explains the relation between technology and society.

• Adoption of technology is dependent on people’s interpretation of its use.

• There can be multiple interpretations (controversy) until eventually a single use is adopted and closure is found.


Main results

Users and technology: General interpretation of computers changing over time.


Main results

Users and technology:• It is no surprise that every museum adopted

technology differently:– Allard Pierson Museum: focus on AR, interactivity– Amsterdam Museum: all collection online, links– Maritime Museum Rotterdam: coordinate network– Naturalis: inventory (1970) to mass digitization– Rijksmuseum Amsterdam: high quality images– Tropenmuseum: contextual information


Main results

Networks:• The value of the network depends on the number

of people already connected.• Network externalities are often positive, effect

without payment. • Positive feedback makes selected network stronger

(winner takes all).• Networks are social (MARDOC, SVCN) and physical

(Internet). 99% museums have websites (-1/3 collections are published online).


Main results

Network benefits:


Main results

Networks:• Choosing the right technology is important: to avoid the

dialectics of progress (de wet van de remmende voorsprong).• Switching costs are ubiquitous in information technologies for

hardware, software, netware.• Too large costs can lead to lock-in: acquisition of equipment,

training, and information (data) and databases (data storage).• Most museums have multiple databases, paper information

systems have been partially transferred to a digital system due to limited resources.


Main results

Information valuation:• Usability depends on the content and the

information service (package) that delivers it.• Information has characteristics of experience

goods. Value is linked to use.• Some information has the ability to serve as

catalyst for future development and innovation (so value is hard to measure).

• Ideally, content and package should be balanced. This is not the case.


Main results

Information valuation:• Ultimately, the user defines communication.


Main results

Information valuation:• Selection is key: – Production: quantity / quality.– Distribution: channels, restrictions, services.– Selection: information need, accessibility.– Use: market supply, information literacy, available

technology, trust.


In summary

• Research question: – What processes have Dutch museums followed to adopt

information technologies and how are these reflected in current (digital) museum practice?

• The current museum:– Has followed a specific path in the interpretation and thus

adoption of technology;– Has become part of the (social / physical) network;– Aims to position collections online balancing content and

package to increase use (=value); – Is in the process of becoming digital.


Thank you to all the individuals that advanced the process to become digital !

In fact, it is all about access.

Discussion

• What are museums waiting for to become digital?– What prevents museums from developing a financial strategy?– Are there benefits to increase transparency?– Why are only 25% of collections available online?– Should there be better statistics to (open linked) digital data?– Are financial incentives the only reason to change?

• How can national policies support institutional processes? – Are governments responsible for the digitization of collections?– Is it only a matter of resources?– How can policies ensure balance in financing of content and

packages?– What future research would benefit the field / policy makers?A History of Digitization | T.Navarrete | Boekmanbibliotheek

Documents

A History of Digitization: Dutch Museums Trilce Navarrete Boekmanbibliotheek | 10 november 2014