Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

6023 results in Facet Publishing

Page 86 of 302

  • 5 - Library Statistics

  • Edited by Selena Killick, Frankie Wilson
  • Book:
    Putting Library Assessment Data to Work
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    31 January 2019, pp 83-98

  • Summary

    Chapter overview

    There are two types of librarians, those who love statistics and those whose eyes glaze over at the sight of a spreadsheet. If you've made it to Chapter 5 of this text the chances are you fit into the former category. Libraries have a long history of data collection. Early records show that the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford was collecting data on the number of readers in the 18th century (Thompson, 1951). Nowadays libraries collect a vast amount of data for a variety of purposes. In this chapter we explore some of these data sets and how they are used to improve the library service.

    The following case studies are presented in this chapter:

  • • Case Study 5.1 Keeping purposeful intelligence: a case study from Learning Services at Edge Hill University (Helen Jamieson, Edge Hill University)

  • • Case Study 5.2 Assessing subject access in special collections at Harvard University (Emilie Hardman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Susan Pyzynski, Harvard University).

    • The wealth of data available frequently requires a library to develop and maintain a data inventory. In Case Study 5.1 Jamieson shows how various library data sets collected in the library can be used. The Management Information and Data Solutions (MIDAS) project team at Edge Hill University has worked with library staff to develop and understand data. By engaging stakeholders and building staff skills they have gone on to design key performance indicators (KPIs) which inform decision making and service planning, and advocate the service within the wider organisation and beyond.

    In Case Study 5.2 by Hardman and Pyzynski we see how using library data to investigate the use of the special collections at Harvard University had an unexpected outcome. The initial research focused on using library analytics to identify which titles in the collection were most popular with customers. Staff wanted to evaluate which subject areas were consulted the most. Instead they found that items which did not have any subject-identifying metadata were used less than those with detailed records. Cataloguing practices in the past had focused only on recording item details, for example the title and author, but without subject headings.

  • 3 - Standardised Library Surveys

  • Edited by Selena Killick, Frankie Wilson
  • Book:
    Putting Library Assessment Data to Work
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    31 January 2019, pp 31-54

  • Summary

    Chapter overview

    In this chapter we explore some of the more common standardised library survey methodologies, and share case studies from three libraries whose staff have used these forms of assessment. Standardised library surveys, commonly developed by national library associations or commercial providers, focus on assessing customers’ perceptions of the library service in a consistent manner. These surveys have enabled library staff to assess their users’ requirements and satisfaction levels with limited development costs; their key strength is the ability to compare performance against sector averages and/or other libraries using the same methodology.

    Typically the questions evaluate common aspects of library provision at a broad level, for example by asking respondents about their perceptions of library information provision. Library staff choose this methodology if they wish to compare their service with other libraries where similar surveys are used, or as an aggregated data set thereof. They may also choose a standardised tool if they wish to evaluate the library services at a general, broad level without going to the expense of developing a bespoke local survey. Users of standardised tools typically repeat the methodology over a period of time to assess the impact any changes have had and to monitor customers’ perceptions longitudinally. Standardised library surveys cannot evaluate local issues, for example perceptions of a unique or uncommon service.

    Standardised library surveys are a long-established form of assessment. In 1990 the American Library Association published Measuring Academic Library Performance: a practical approach, providing libraries with a standardised survey tool (Van House, Weil and McClure, 1990). Previous assessment activity had focused on quantitative measures of library expenditure and operational activity. Van House, Weil and McClure sought to address the gap in assessing user experience of libraries. They provided different survey tools in the book, including a general satisfaction survey and one focusing on material availability, tabulation forms for survey analysis and examples of data presentation.

    In the UK the Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) launched a standardised survey for libraries to deploy locally in 1996 (Revill and Ford, 1996). This briefing paper provided academic libraries with questions they were free to adapt to local circumstances, but reduced the time needed for a library to create a survey themselves.

  • 7 - Emerging Techniques

  • Edited by Selena Killick, Frankie Wilson
  • Book:
    Putting Library Assessment Data to Work
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    31 January 2019, pp 123-144

  • Summary

    Chapter overview

    As our libraries continue to evolve, so too do library assessment techniques. Cutting edge techniques include econometric modelling (Tuomikoski, 2017) and big data (Xu et al., 2017), but in recent years usability testing, ethnographic research, user experience and library analytics have gradually become established in the field of library assessment. This chapter provides an overview of some of the emerging techniques and discusses how they could be applied locally.

    The following case studies are presented in this chapter:

  • • Case Study 7.1 Working with students as partners to understand the needs of distance learners at the Open University (Sam Dick and Keren Stiles, Open University)

  • • Case Study 7.2 Small-scale user analysis; big library gains at Anglia Ruskin University (Norman Boyd and Hannah Fogg, Anglia Ruskin University)

  • • Case Study 7.3 Working hard or hardly working? Use of collaborative working space at the University of Bradford (Josie Field, Sarah George and Reshma Khan, University of Bradford).

    • Case Study 7.1 describes how Dick and Styles work with students to undertake usability testing of the online provision of Open University Library Services. Through setting up a 400–500 member student panel, there is always a group of willing participants ready to test if a proposed change or development improves the student experience. This has enabled the Library to make decisions faster and with more confidence.

    As well as demonstrating Anglia Ruskin University Library's commitment to empowering frontline library staff, Case Study 7.2 describes how Boyd and Fogg supported teams of staff to undertake nine projects using five different user experience techniques. This had benefits for their users – directly as a result of changes made in response to the projects’ results, and indirectly by giving frontline staff the opportunity to interact with students outside the usual transactions.

    In contrast, Field, George and Khan (Case Study 7.3) used multiple forms of observation in a single project. Their unobtrusive observation revealed previously unknown behaviour was taking place in one part of the library under inspection, which led to a more nuanced understanding of how users viewed that area. However, the results gave rise to a crucial question – were students working hard, or hardly working? Applying cyber-ethnographic research techniques alongside the observation showed that they were engaged in productive study sessions.

  • 4 - In-House Library Surveys

  • Edited by Selena Killick, Frankie Wilson
  • Book:
    Putting Library Assessment Data to Work
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    31 January 2019, pp 55-82

  • Summary

    Chapter overview

    In this chapter we will discuss the use of locally designed and administered surveys and how they can be used to improve libraries. One of the key concepts discussed in the previous chapter on standardised surveys is echoed here – the use of survey methodologies to evaluate customers’ expectations and perceptions – but the two approaches have different advantages and disadvantages. Standardised surveys are designed by a team, and often some level of analysis is conducted by the tool, saving the library time and money. Library staff design and analyse in-house surveys. And whereas a standardised survey provides a generic set of questions to enable comparisons to be made between institutions, an inhouse survey can provide greater insight by focusing on local issues. Before you embark on a local or a standardised survey, we recommend you identify your strategic needs and determine which methodology suits your library best.

    This chapter presents four case studies on how local surveys have been developed and implemented to improve customers’ experience at academic libraries:

  • • Case Study 4.1 Beyond answering questions: designing actionable surveys to guide assessment, make decisions and support ongoing analysis (Jackie Belanger, Maggie Faber and Steve Hiller)

  • • Case Study 4.2 Taking users’ opinions into account when managing an academic library: a decade in retrospect (Tatiana Sanches)

  • • Case Study 4.3 Giving students voice: a biennial user satisfaction survey at Duke University Libraries (Emily Daly, Duke University)

  • • Case Study 4.4 Listening to the student voice at Library and Learning Services at Kingston University (Davina Omar and Simon Collins, Kingston University).

    • The University of Washington (UW) Libraries has a strong history of applying library assessment techniques to improve its service to customers. This forms part of the long-standing culture of assessment at the library, using evidence to shape and inform strategic developments. In Case Study 4.1 Belanger and colleagues discuss the large triennial survey used at UW Libraries since 1992, which has led to an evidence-driven culture of continual improvement. In providing examples of how librarians can act on survey results and how internal improvements in the assessment process can enable more effective use of results, the authors aim to provide librarians with ideas they can apply to their own surveys and service improvement efforts.

  • 1 - Introduction to Library Assessment

  • Edited by Selena Killick, Frankie Wilson
  • Book:
    Putting Library Assessment Data to Work
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    31 January 2019, pp 1-12

  • Summary

    The purpose of this book

    Many libraries appreciate the need for assessment, to improve customers’ experience, to support advocacy, or both. Librarians reviewing the literature will find no shortage of books to guide them (e.g. Dobbs, 2017; Priestner, 2017; Showers, 2015) and conference papers to inspire them.

    The purpose of this book is not to add to the body of knowledge on library assessment, but to address the barriers that most libraries face when considering assessment activities. The central tenet is that there is no need to undertake special data gathering in order to make assessments. Most libraries have huge amounts of data that they have gathered but is sitting on a metaphorical (or in some cases physical) shelf gathering dust, data such as usage statistics, institution-wide survey results, library survey responses and comments books. Using basic skills (all of which can be self-taught from many excellent books within your library and via websites) and a small amount of time, every library can put this data to work to improve customers’ experience.

    What is library assessment?

    Library assessment is the endeavour of determining and communicating how a library is performing, with the aim of driving improvement. There are three key features of library assessment: focus on stakeholders, the goal of improving services to meet stakeholders’ needs, and communication of the results and outcomes.

    Stakeholders are at the heart of library assessment. They are predominantly library users (and non-users), although assessment extends to determining the performance of the library from the point of view of funders and library staff. Consequently many library assessment tools and techniques are geared towards learning about the needs of users (and non-users) and evaluating how well the library supports these needs, in order to improve library facilities, services and resources.

    Library assessment is not undertaken for the sake of it, or for merely monitoring purposes (for example recording the number of people visiting the library each month). It is measurement for the purpose of improving the programmes and service. Library assessment involves a continuous improvement cycle grounded in customers’ expectations – data gathering, analysis, interpretation and contextual - isation, determining implications for the library, acting to effect improvement and reporting, and finally evaluating the changes made.

  • 6 - Qualitative Feedback

  • Edited by Selena Killick, Frankie Wilson
  • Book:
    Putting Library Assessment Data to Work
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    31 January 2019, pp 99-122

  • Summary

    Chapter overview

    Academic libraries receive a huge amount of qualitative data about what custom - ers want, and how they are performing. This might be explicitly sought via a survey as discussed in chapters two, three and four, or through qualitative research techniques, such as focus groups and interviews. Alternatively, it may be unsolicited via social media, a feedback book, a form on the library website, or simply from interactions with library staff. How can this data be harnessed to improve the library? How can the data be analysed? Should we make changes based on one person's opinion?

    This chapter describes how libraries can get more from such feedback: by using it to answer future business questions; and through undertaking deeper analysis to gain insights. It also describes how to address some of the common challenges that arise when using qualitative data. Each area is illustrated by one of the three case studies:

  • • Case Study 6.1 Breaking out of the silos: taking the holistic view of customer feedback at Cranfield University (Selena Killick, Open University)

  • • Case Study 6.2 Digging deeper: using qualitative data analysis of survey feedback to inform library strategy at the University of Oxford (Frankie Wilson, University of Oxford)

  • • Case Study 6.3 Let the computer take the strain: automatic analysis of LibQUAL+ free-text comments at Singapore Management University Libraries (Tamera Hanken, Xavier University of Louisiana).

    • Using qualitative data to improve customers’ experience

    Libraries rarely need to employ a full qualitative research design, such as that espoused in the social science methodological literature (e.g. Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). Nor is it usually appropriate to apply true grounded theory techniques, such as those described by Anselm Strauss (e.g. Strauss and Corbin, 1998) to qualitative data analysis. Therefore, if someone who wishes to analyse their customer feedback trawls along the shelves in the qualitative methodology section of a library they are likely to conclude that it is too time consuming and complex. However, by applying the principles of such methods judiciously, qualitative feedback can be used to drive change without the risk of the library being accused that it is merely responding to those who shout the loudest.

  • 2 - Institutional Measures of Student Satisfaction

  • Edited by Selena Killick, Frankie Wilson
  • Book:
    Putting Library Assessment Data to Work
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    31 January 2019, pp 13-30

  • Summary

    Chapter overview

    Regular surveying of student satisfaction within universities is commonplace. Final year undergraduate students at all UK higher education institutions have completed the National Student Survey (NSS; www.thestudentsurvey.com/) since 2005, which is similar to international surveys. National and international standardised student satisfaction surveys have become more common in the past decade, prior to this the use of surveys to measure student satisfaction was commonly used at a local level. One of the earlier examples of an institutional survey was developed by Student Satisfaction Research Unit at the University of Central England, evaluating the whole university experience, including the Library (Green et al., 1994). General student surveys assessing students’ experiences of institutional life vary, depending on the institution setting the questions. Institutional surveys examine a variety of aspects of student life, potentially including teaching and learning, social life, finance, and student support; evaluation of the library is inevitably limited in these forms of assessment. However responses to institutional surveys are often publicised more widely than responses to surveys conducted by libraries so the visibility of these survey results can be greater than for other forms of assessment with senior stakeholders.

    In this chapter we explore some of the compulsory and optional standardised methodologies used to measure student satisfaction today, which all have the same common characteristic: a standardised set of questions addressing institution-wide issues. Often institutional-specific issues can be addressed by including questions on local matters. While the library may be assessed when such a standardised methodology is used, it can sometimes be difficult to identify how and where to improve the library based on a single survey question alone. However, there are several advantages of libraries using an institutional survey to gain student feedback about library services:

  • • the relatively low administration cost to the library as the surveys tend to be administered centrally within the institution

  • • the use by the institution of modern survey design methods, often resulting in a more comprehensive and robust survey being used

  • • where standardised surveys are used, being able to benchmark the data, allowing institutions to put their results into context against peer institutions

  • • when the surveys are compulsory, the response rates are high and results within and outside the institution are usually publicised widely

  • 8 - More than Measuring: using Assessment Holistically

  • Edited by Selena Killick, Frankie Wilson
  • Book:
    Putting Library Assessment Data to Work
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    31 January 2019, pp 145-162

  • Summary

    Chapter overview

    In this final substantive chapter we turn our attention to ways of using the results of assessment activities, in particular the power of taking a holistic approach to library assessment.

    As described in Chapter 1, what makes library assessment different from performance measures and indicators is that the information gathered and/or results of analysis are used to drive change or communicate with stakeholders. The assessment activities presented in previous chapters are powerful forces for service improvement in their own right, but bringing the outputs together enables library staff to acquire a deeper understanding of users’ needs and the impact of service changes, and to tell the story of the library service or customer experience as a whole.

    In this chapter we discuss how the method of presenting the results of assessment activities is as important as the results themselves. We present case studies where data sets have been successfully combined to generate deeper understanding, and where the results of assessment activities have been used to advocate successfully on behalf of the library service.

    The following case studies are presented in this chapter:

  • • Case Study 8.1 Departmental reporting at the University of York (Vanya Gallimore, University of York)

  • • Case Study 8.2 University Library Services Sunderland: articulating value and impact through visual presentation of combined data sets (Kay Grieves, University Library Services Sunderland).

    • Both the University of York and University of Sunderland library services took as their starting point the needs of a particular target group. Both planned data collection to evidence whether the library service was successful in meeting these needs – in Sunderland's case designing new, appropriate collection methods, whereas York identified existing sources of data and feedback. Through focusing on a holistic approach, using all appropriate sources of information, staff in each of the library services gained insights into how to improve the support they offer to the specific group. They were then able to demonstrate the impact of making such improvements, so completing the iterative plan–do–check–adjust cycle of continuous improvement (Deming, 2000).

    The University of York Library Service produces a highly visual presentation of a report covering three areas: a summary of the past year, the impact of the previous year's actions, and proposed actions for the coming year.

  • 2 - Social tagging and commenting in participatory archives: a critical literature review

  • from SECTION 1 - SOCIAL TAGGING AND COMMENTING
    • By Alex H. Poole, Drexel University's College of Computing and Informatics.
  • Edward Benoit, III, Alexandra Eveleigh
  • Book:
    Participatory Archives
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    25 October 2019
    Print publication:
    30 January 2019, pp 15-32

  • Summary

    What if you could contribute your own description of a certain photo in … the Library of Congress’ vast photographic archive, knowing that it might make the photo you've touched a little easier to find for the next person? Well … you can.

    George Oates

    Introduction

    Participatory archiving hinges on the ‘sharing of authority and control/curation between the archivist and a body of users who self-identify as stakeholders in the archives’ content’. Participatory archiving received a terrific boost from the emergence of Web 2.0, which ‘embraces collective intelligence and participation, and affords previously passive recipients of content the opportunity to engage with, combine, share, and “mash up” information in new and imaginative ways’. With the advent of Web 2.0 and social tagging applications such as Flickr and del.icio.us in late 2003, archivists and other information professionals saw an opportunity to engage the public actively in knowledge creation. The ‘wisdom of the crowd’ became an article of faith for many Web 2.0 proponents affiliated with galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAMs).

    Archives 2.0 introduced the possibility of the archive as a participatory platform as well as a physical space. By engaging with and potentially contributing to the archives, users helped define its very meaning. (Archives 2.0's admirers positioned it as open, transparent, collaborative, experimental, user-centred, technology-oriented, iterative, innovative, flexible, and proactive regarding outreach.) It allowed laypersons to be archivists – to create and describe their collections as well as to refer to others’ collections.

    Though archivists (and museum professionals) seemed relatively slow adopters of these technologies, beginning in the mid-2000s a number of participatory archiving initiatives solicited the contributions of diverse audiences to enhance records’ descriptions or metadata. Democratising archival decision making seemed a ‘golden opportunity’ for GLAMs to drum up new stakeholders.

    Despite hopes of a ready-made ‘virtual volunteer corps’, however, it remains difficult to integrate user contributions into repositories’ descriptive workflows. An increasing number of archivists exploit social media to publicise collections and the institution, but the potential of social tagging and commenting is far from fulfilled. In 2009, Trant asserted, ‘We still need to know more about why people tag, whether taggers’ motivations differ in different circumstances, and how people might be encouraged to tag or tag “well”.’ Her point remains valid in early 2018: much information on Web 2.0 users is speculative, anecdotal or founded on sample populations that resist comparison.

  • 9 - Participatory transcription in Amsterdam and Copenhagen

  • from SECTION 2 - TRANSCRIPTION
  • Edward Benoit, III, Alexandra Eveleigh
  • Book:
    Participatory Archives
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    25 October 2019
    Print publication:
    30 January 2019, pp 103-114

  • Summary

    Transcription-based projects quickly rose to be one of the most popular manifestations of participatory archives. European archives developed new transcription platforms, conducted pilot tests, and subsequently expanded offerings to a wide range of projects. Unfortunately, many of these innovations went unseen by English-speaking practitioners and scholars as they were conducted in the local vernacular. This chapter highlights participatory transcription activities at two institutions, Amsterdam City Archives and Copenhagen City Archives.

    The first case study describes the development of the VeleHanden trans - cription platform – a co-operative effort between Amsterdam City Archives and software developer Picturae. Through its testing and imple mentation, the VeleHanden system helped Amsterdam City Archives develop a set of participatory engagement principles to encourage high-quality participation in future projects. Additional analysis discusses participants’ shared characteristics and possible future developments of the software.

    The second case study describes the lessons learned from Copenhagen City Archives’ initial participatory transcription project, which – like VeleHanden – started in 2010. The case focuses on the way this experience fed into subsequent projects, primarily as regards to motivating factors and mana - gerial and organisational aspects of working with highly dedicated participants.

    The history and development of Dutch crowdsourcing platform VeleHanden.nl

    Meet the Amsterdam City Archives, housing over 50 kilometres of archival material in an impressive building from the 1920s called De Bazel in the heart of the city centre. Amsterdam City Archives seeks to inspire and innovate online: our first website was launched in 1998, an image database in 2003, a scan-on-demand service started in 2005, and by mid-2018 we reached the milestone of having 30 million images online.

    These digital developments were all demand-driven. We listened to our users carefully and tried to respond to their requests or needs. But as more and more digitised material became available, these needs became harder to interpret. Users made remarks like ‘I cannot find what I am looking for’ or ‘it is too difficult’. After a while, we realised that in a world where Google reigns, they expected to fill out a name or address in a search box and get their questions answered within the blink of an eye.

  • 4 - Project Naming: reconnecting indigenous communities with their histories through archival photographs

  • from SECTION 1 - SOCIAL TAGGING AND COMMENTING
  • Edward Benoit, III, Alexandra Eveleigh
  • Book:
    Participatory Archives
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    25 October 2019
    Print publication:
    30 January 2019, pp 45-58

  • Summary

    Inuit are storytellers by nature, and everything we hear we like to tell other people … just hearing these stories helps us to keep going. So the stories that I heard from these elders, I'm going to be telling them to my children, my grandchildren, my nieces and nephews, and so on. And I think having these photographs gives the story a picture too, so that we can just look at the picture and remember the story that was told about that picture. You learn your family tree through pictures.

    Paula Ikuutaq Rumbolt, from Qamani'tuaq, Nunavut

    A special thanks to Elder Piita Irniq, Murray Angus and Morley Hanson for conceptualising Project Naming, and to the photo archivists who saw the need and supported this initiative, and to my colleague William Benoit for his input and feedback.

    Introduction

    I started working at the National Archives of Canada, now Library and Archives Canada, in June 2003. One of my first assignments was Project Naming, which began the year before my arrival. The project is a photographic identification and community engagement initiative that began with the digitisation of approximately 500 photographs of Nunavummiut taken in the late 1940s and early 1950s by photographer Richard Harrington. With a few exceptions, the names of Inuit were never recorded in this collection of photographs.

    In early 2000, Inuit students from Nunavut Sivuniksavut (NS) in Ottawa took digital images to four communities in Nunavut, to share with elders for identification. That June, Library and Archives Canada received the names gathered through these intergenerational conversations. The results were an overwhelming success as three-quarters of the individuals depicted in the photographs now had identities. In addition to the names, the elders shared other genealogical information and described the activities, clothing and geographical places captured in the images.

    Since its modest beginnings, Project Naming developed into a nationally and internationally renowned community engagement initiative. While I recognised its importance in 2003, I never imagined the impact it would have on indigenous communities involved or its influence on the archival community.

    The work of Project Naming is part journey and part process. It is about communities and reconciliation – individually and collectively.

  • 15 - Activist participatory communities in archival contexts: theoretical perspectives

  • from SECTION 4 - ALTERNATIVE AND ACTIVIST COMMUNITIES
  • Edward Benoit, III, Alexandra Eveleigh
  • Book:
    Participatory Archives
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    25 October 2019
    Print publication:
    30 January 2019, pp 173-190

  • Summary

    We start this chapter by acknowledging that the label ‘activist participatory communities’ is a construct that is rooted in what we will describe as the ‘institutional gaze’. Our use of this construct as a means to define and under - stand ‘different’ forms of archiving is therefore complex and can have positive and negative consequences. In our archival context, which is the place from which both authors speak, the label can be used constructively by archive professionals as a means of acknowledging, seeking to understand, embrace and support archival activities and spaces that occur outside traditional archive structures. However, all processes of defining that position something or someone against an implicitly accepted ‘norm’ can be problematic. The fixing of the institutionally rooted (and therefore mainstream) archival gaze on the ‘other’ carries the risk of reinforcing distance, a continual forcing and holding at the margins, as opposed to an embedding into the heart of archival theory and practice.

    In writing this chapter, we acknowledge this tension, and rather than adopting the terminology of hierarchies and of ‘alternative’ and ‘other’ we agree with views that recognise and embrace the multiplicity of ways of thinking about and ways of doing archiving that coexist in the archival multiverse. Indeed we write to celebrate the richness of archival spaces and practices that sit alongside the traditional archive institution. We believe that our archive institutions and the associated archive profession is (and will continue to be) enriched and challenged to change through growing exposure to (and collaboration with) the theory, methods, people, spaces, action and outputs that drive the processes of archiving outside the walls of the traditional archive institution.

    Both authors embrace postmodern understandings of the archive, and in our teaching of emerging archive professionals we acknowledge the traditions from which the profession has grown, while opening our students up to new and growing currents of thinking, which position archive theory and practice as a pluralistic and dynamic space in which a multiplicity of positions and perspectives coexist.

  • 13 - Thinking outside the box: crowdfunding the Peter Mackay Archive

  • from SECTION 3 - CROWDFUNDING AND OUTREACH
  • Edward Benoit, III, Alexandra Eveleigh
  • Book:
    Participatory Archives
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    25 October 2019
    Print publication:
    30 January 2019, pp 149-156

  • Summary

    At a time when heritage budgets are being stretched, and competition for grants and awards is fierce, crowdfunding provides an additional alternative way of obtaining support for cataloguing and digitising your collections.

    Between November 2016 and January 2017, the University of Stirling Archives raised £8,100 through a crowdfunding campaign to support the cataloguing and digitisation of the Peter Mackay Archive. The campaign was a successful first step into the realm of crowdfunding for the archives service and the university as a whole, our pilot project providing the model for subsequent university-wide campaigns. The organisation and management of a crowd - funding campaign requires a considerable investment of time and effort and is not without risks, but it can provide an archive service with valuable additional support for the conservation, cataloguing and digitisation of collections.

    At Stirling we developed our project in partnership with the university's fundraising team. The opportunity to open up a new collection to researchers across the world through a programme of cataloguing and digitisation was the primary goal of the university archives. For the university's fundraisers the project fed into their strategy of innovative fundraising – aiming to engage with alumni in new ways.

    Being able to draw on the knowledge and experience of our fundraisers was invaluable when we chose the right platform for our crowdfunding project. While the operation of most platforms is broadly similar, it is worth checking the fine print, as it can make all the difference to your project.

    Our fundraising team identified Crowdfunder UK as being the most popular platform for the charity and university sectors. The choice of Crowdfunder was confirmed with the announcement by the Heritage Lottery Fund in the autumn of 2016 of a new partnership programme providing match funding for up to 25% of total costs for specially selected Crowdfunder projects to enable them to reach their fundraising targets.

    When we began to plan our crowdfunding project one of the first key tasks was to identify the audience for our campaign. Not every collection is suited to this form of fundraising. During the project we used social media to spread the campaign message far and wide, identifying and connecting with communities of interest around the world.

Page 86 of 302