Project Methodology (1/3)

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 The project’s design, implementation, and oversight were undertaken by FAIC and AIC staff, a project director and assistant, and an advisory committee.[1] Information reported here was derived from a community survey, a baseline review of online resources, interviews with international experts and special projects personnel, and community forums. These activities were designed to gather data and insights about digital integration in the field,[2] and each is summarized below.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Community Survey
In May of 2014, FAIC conducted a survey to explore how conservation professionals are using digital resources, what limitations they face in doing so, and what additional digital tools and resources they need.[3] More than 750 professionals completed the survey. Their responses suggest that conservation professionals use a variety of online resources for their work.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 2 Google is a prominent tool used to locate resources, but the most frequently queried sites are those developed specifically for the conservation profession or those created by allied professions (e.g., National Park Service) and information aggregators (e.g., JSTOR) (see Figure 1.) The most popular topics of search queries are suppliers, the deterioration of materials, the history/manufacture of objects, and conservation treatments. The most frequent problems associated with online resources are an inability to find information specific to a particular query, out-of-date information, unreliable information, and the amount of time it takes to find relevant information (See Figure 2).

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Top Three Online Resources

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Figure 1

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Figure 2

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 1 Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents routinely create digital documents and images, but many also create content on social media platforms and websites. Inadequate time and staffing are cited as the major factors affecting the ability to create and maintain digital resources. These factors might account for other concerns expressed in the survey, such as an inability to keep resources current, and a lack of procedures (in place, or being followed) for preserving the digital assets created by conservation professionals. Inadequate digital skills and training were also cited as key factors that hinder digital resource creation.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 3 Survey respondents felt the digital landscape would be more useful if there were: better indexing of information within existing resources; repositories for research findings and data sets, and for conservation treatment records; archives of past conservation practices; and clear identification of trustworthy information (See Figure 3). Broader issues that inhibit the creation, quality, and sharing of information include intellectual property policies, institutional IT policies, and inadequate support for developing and maintaining digital resources.

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Figure 3

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 3 The audience for conservation information was not addressed in the survey but the topic did arise in questions about resource creation. Digital resources such as documents, reference databases, and images are being created or maintained for personal, organizational or professional use, but not for public consultation and use. However, the general public was singled out as a common audience for social media, websites, and video/audio resources.

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 [1] Project team members are Eryl Wentworth (Executive Director, AIC/FAIC), Eric Pourchot (Institutional Advancement Director, FAIC), Bonnie Naugle (Communications Director, AIC), Diane Zorich (Consultant and Project Director), and Ayesha Fuentes, (Independent Conservator, Project Assistant). Advisory Committee members are Kenneth Hamma (Independent Consultant, Advisor to The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation), Pamela Hatchfield (Head of Objects Conservation, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston), Nancie Ravenel (Objects Conservator, Shelburne Museum), and Koven Smith (Director of Digital Adaptation, Blanton Museum of Art)

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 [2] General information, notes, presentations, and reports associated with this project can be found at www.conservation-us.org/digital_landscape.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 [3] For the full report, see Charting the Digital Landscape of Conservation, Survey Results. August 2014. http://www.conservation-us.org/docs/default-source/reports/the-digital-landscape-of-conservation-survey-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Comments

4 Comments on the whole Page

Kristin deGhetaldi September 9, 2015 at 6:04 am

I applaud the committee for their efforts to gather this data. The one thing I might add (which is extremely difficult to account for) relates to the “Inability to find Information Needed.” This hurdle truly depends on the user’s ability to navigate the available resources effectively. I have occasionally been able to locate information, for example, that my supervisor who is less “tech savy” was unable to find. In addition the “Out-of-Date Information” category may be attributed to a number of factors, the two main factors being: 1) the field’s slow response rate within the digital landscape (e.g. publishing digital conference proceedings, editorial processes involved with publications, etc.) 2) the fact that we do not move as quickly as our fellow scientific fields. The latter must be impressed upon as conservation is increasingly being pressured to act, publish, and feature itself as a “scientific-savy field” when in fact we do not have nearly the same amount of resources or research turn-rate as the scientific community.

Reply to Kristin deGhetaldi
Fletcher Durant September 16, 2015 at 8:12 pm

Sorry, but is this chart at a lower resolution than the other?

Reply to Fletcher Durant
Eric Pourchot September 17, 2015 at 8:16 pm

Good points. And I think it gets to something we have identified with our own AIC and FAIC resources – if people can’t find it, it is as though it doesn’t exist. So making sure information is available AND findable are both necessary.

Reply to Eric Pourchot
Eric Pourchot September 17, 2015 at 8:16 pm

Seems to be. Will be fixed in final report.

Reply to Eric Pourchot

Fletcher Durant September 16, 2015 at 8:09 pm

“The most popular topics of search queries are suppliers, the deterioration of materials, the history/manufacture of objects, and conservation treatments.”

Conservation treatment case studies? Procedures?

Reply to Fletcher Durant
Eric Pourchot September 17, 2015 at 8:14 pm

The survey choice was “Treatment information,” which could cover either procedures or case studies.

Reply to Eric Pourchot

Neal Stimler October 3, 2015 at 1:46 pm

We are at a moment in museums where digital as a skillset and cultural mindset must be core and distributed throughout the entire organization. If staff time and positions are lacking to address the needs of peers, researchers and the public through digital tools, internally or externally, then this is business and mission failure of an institution’s leadership that must be addressed as such. We are well into the 21st century. Any continued belief that digital initiatives can be delayed or differed fundamentally undermines the impact of conservation and museums as whole in a digital culture.

Reply to Neal Stimler

3 Comments on paragraph 11

Suzanne Davis September 22, 2015 at 9:08 pm

What about publishing in peer-reviewed venues? That’s what most academic disciplines do, and most journals are accessible online. The work is then accessible, and it’s been reviewed. Encouraging peer-reviewed publication does not seem to be considered as an option in the survey or in this report. Plus, again, I find the idea that conservators cannot judge the “trustworthiness” of information, and need to have some external entity evaluate it for them, to be disturbing.

Reply to Suzanne Davis
Peter D Verheyen September 29, 2015 at 2:38 pm

AIC has its Wikis and other sites that see very little use…

Find a personal librarian to help with validating sources…

Reply to Peter D Verheyen
Eliza Gilligan October 22, 2015 at 6:52 pm

Suzanne, most peer-reviewed journals are available online through academic library subscriptions which works for those who are in big institutions, but people in private practice or at small institutions don’t have the same level of access. Our peer-reviewed journal JAIC has a three year embargo on free access which is dictated by our contract with Maney, the publisher.

I think open-source/access will be a crucial investment for AIC to keep access to information on an even field. And I do think the Wiki gets quite a bit of use!

Reply to Eliza Gilligan

0 Comments on paragraph 12

3 Comments on paragraph 13

Suzanne Davis September 22, 2015 at 9:11 pm

This is interesting because I know that my museum, The Kelsey Museum at University of Michigan, and several other academic museums, are about to start making all conservation information publicly available. I don’t know that we will change how we write in order to make info more publicly digestible, but the idea is that it will be available for interested allied scholars and members of the public.

Reply to Suzanne Davis
Peter D Verheyen September 29, 2015 at 2:41 pm

Again, two completely different audiences. Most of what we create not for public as primary audience, but aspects could be. Learn how to write and communicate with diverse audiences. Academia also struggling with this at times… https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1100-freelance-academics-as-public-intellectuals

Reply to Peter D Verheyen
eden October 22, 2015 at 6:01 pm

Really? I would think these resources would be developed, in many cases, for the public

Reply to eden

Comment on AIC-FAIC Projects

Contents

Search

Special Pages

Table of Contents