Preservation of access?
Developing strategies for microfilming and digitisation
Graham Jefcoate
INTRODUCTION
First of all, I should like to thank Maria Luisa Cabral and the organisers of this LIBER workshop for inviting me to give
this keynote address. I hardly need an excuse to come to the Hague and to the KB, the National Library of the Netherlands,
where, through working with KB colleagues, I have learnt such a lot about the future potential of European libraries over
the years. When the invitation was issued last year, I had myself only recently taken charge of a large international research
library. As many of you know, I have now left that post at Berlin, so that what I shall be saying today is based on my thinking
about some of the issues from the point of view of library decision makers, but I won't be constrained by current institutional
responsibility. Needless to say, I shall also be drawing on my personal experience of preservation and digitisation issues
not only at Berlin State Library but also at the British Library, latterly as the Head of Early Printed Collections, and especially as it relates to surrogacy or reformatting.
I should stress I shall be drawing on my own professional experience, and not on any specialist expertise in the preservation
field. That experience centres on historic collections, and particularly early printed materials, but also extends to digital
library issues and of course to library management. As is appropriate, I hope, for a keynote address, I shall therefore be
concentrating on some policy and strategic aspects of the topic, rather than providing any new insights into technical issues.
I shall be posing some rather difficult questions, rather than offering any startling solutions. If I succeed in provoking
debate among the experts assembled here about those wider issues, I shall have achieved what I set out today, but I apologise
in advance to any who find my ruminations too vague or philosophical.
I want to begin by reviewing briefly how we got where we are today - the developing significance of microform and digital
surrogacy in libraries, and especially in large research libraries. I shall then turn to the policy and strategic challenges
that the current state-of-the-art and future developments present for library managers. I shall argue that they are creating
a new complexity in the decision-making process. This complexity means that decisions about surrogacy can no longer be made
purely on conservation or preservation grounds. Rather they need to be seen holistically in relation to the library's overall
policy on acquisitions, retention and access. In other words, they have ceased to be rather marginal in terms of library policy;
the formulation and implementation of strategies on surrogacy will become increasing central to the library's whole development.
MICROFILM
Ten years ago, it all seemed so simple. Microform had established itself since the Second World War as the preferred surrogacy
medium for both conservation and preservation purposes. In addition, its benefits as a useful medium for the production of
facsimiles were apparent, a facsimile that was relatively simple and cheap to produce and could be successfully reproduced
and, where feasible, marketed. A classic example for the half century of success for microform is the series Early English Books, produced by University Microfilms, now part of ProQuest. Eugene Power, the founder of UMI, began his work at the British
Museum Library in the late 1930s, collecting and filming the canon of printed works in English from Caxton to 1700. The series
was based on the Short Title Catalogue, the national bibliography of English works printed before 1701, so that Power could be sure his selection of texts was rational
and appropriate. The urgency of the task in the shadow of war was also abundantly clear. The resulting film collection had
an obvious preservation benefit, in that the texts of many rare or unique copies could be stored as durable facsimiles at
a safe location away from the originals.
Much of the success of the early microfilming business was based on the record of intelligence programmes during the Second
World War, when, for example, printed materials and other enemy documents where surreptitiously filmed in neutral countries
and shipped for evaluation to allied capitals. Government agencies took note of this success and were willing to support filming
programmes, but the commercial publishing potential was obvious too: libraries could, for example, acquire from UMI facsimile
copies of early English texts of reasonable quality. This allowed them to build a critical mass of often rare or unique research
materials at acceptable cost and to store them conveniently in very little space. Research libraries across Britain and the
United States, as well as some on the continent, took advantage of this new accessibility. The users grumbled about the relatively
cumbersome microfilm reading and copying equipment, but the access benefit was scarcely in dispute. Some information and library
theorists predicted, not for the first or indeed the last time, the end of the paper era.
The British Museum Library, and later the British Library, saw multiple benefits in microfilming programmes: it obtained preservation copies of key collection works; it achieved a
conservation benefit by being able to restrict access to many originals; it reduced pressure on its facilities (at least in
theory) by making its collections available as photographic facsimiles at libraries abroad; and it received royalties on the
sales of its material sold by UMI. It is hardly surprising that the British Library has pursued an active policy of the preservation
microfilming of key collections ever since, both through its own internally funded programmes and in close collaboration with
publishing partners such as ProQuest and the Gale Group.
The proven success of microform as a medium has ensured that the British Library and other agencies across the world have
accepted it as the preferred surrogacy form for preservation purposes. Preservation projects would be most unlikely to receive
national funding for surrogacy, for example from the British Heritage Lottery Fund or the National Endowment for the Humanities
in the US, unless their applications expressed an intention to film collections to the appropriate national or international
standards. Nevertheless, microfilming has quite suddenly become controversial, at least among the general public and especially
in the United States where, as the writer Nicholson Baker lamented,[1] newspapers and other originals, the preservation of which in original formats was regarded as uneconomic, were discarded
after filming. Above all, Baker deplored the limitations of microfilm as a medium of surrogacy.
DIGITAL SURROGACY
Despite Nicholson Baker's objections, after 50 years, the history of microfilming programmes in libraries could be characterised
as a record of success. By the mid-1990s, however, the shortcomings of microfilm as a medium were becoming more apparent as
new surrogacy technologies began to emerge. Digital photography could provide the same or even superior conservation benefits
to microfilm: the accuracy of - and level of detail in - the photographic image would mean that even fewer scholars would
be able to claim the need to access fragile originals. Digital photography was achieving not only a better facsimile; linked
with networking technologies, it could provide much more convenient access. Ubiquitous PCs connected to the Internet were
far more popular with users than cumbersome microfilm reader-printers in libraries' reading rooms.
In common with other libraries, the British Library accordingly began to investigate the potential of the new medium during
the mid-1990s in a programme called, not insignificantly, Initiatives for Access.[2] The project to digitise the Anglo-Saxon manuscript Beowulf, for example, showed that high-definition digital images of unique material could not only improve access in the sense of
the making an accurate facsimile available at a distance from the original; digital photography was also opening up access
to parts of the text invisible to the naked eye, enabling new ways of examining and researching the manuscript.
One key project under the Initiatives for Access programme actually addressed the potential shift from microfilming to digitisation: DAMP, the Digitisation of Ageing Microfilm
project, set out to digitise the films of the Burney Collection of Early English Newspapers. Ironically, the relatively old and much used microfilm of the national collection of mainly 18th century London newspaper
titles itself presented a preservation and access problem, its much deteriorated state hindering use of a key collection (the
originals themselves had been too fragile for use by readers for several decades and were certainly regarded as too fragile
to be re-filmed). DAMP sought to address this by converting one surrogate form into another in order to make the texts available
in a more convenient and machine-readable form. Again, a key aspect of this project was to investigate the potential of digitisation
in widening access to the content, in this case by converting and indexing the printed texts through an early version of OCR.
Microfilm was itself beginning to look like a legacy medium.
But if digital facsimiles easily outclassed their microfilm equivalents in terms of conservation and access, what about that
other test of the success of a surrogacy medium, preservation? Here real doubts about the long-term archiving of digital facsimiles
put them at an obvious disadvantage to their analogue, microfilm equivalents. We felt we understood how to store and preserve
analogue materials, even if we rarely had the resources to preserve them comprehensively; no one was quite sure about what
to do with data stored on CD-Roms or hard disks. Some solutions involved conversion of digital data back to analogue media,
for example, by storing images on microfilm, although this is surely an unsatisfactory solution in the longer term. Critically,
few funding programmes, at least in Britain, would support preservation projects that proposed digitisation as the only surrogacy
medium. A new orthodoxy appeared to be emerging by the end of the 1990s: microfilm remained the preferred preservation medium;
digitisation was for access. Indeed, our own programme in Early Printed Collections at the British Library was called Digitisation for Access. We emphasised the unprecedented visibility of rare works and collections through high-definition, networked images. The
Library's microfilming programmes, however, continued to receive the lion's share of budgetary allocations for collection
security and preservation purposes. An analogy with retrospective cataloguing was made: the production of digital facsimiles
available online was regarded as an additional access tool, equivalent - and often closely related to - the production of
machine-readable records in online catalogues. Digitisation projects often needed to be funded not from preservation budgets,
but from other, mostly external, sources.
THE NEW COMPLEXITY
I need hardly tell this audience today, what I might call this "interim orthodoxy" quickly began to break down, and essentially
under the pressure of the spread of "born digital" materials, digital materials which are not themselves facsimiles or surrogates
for analogue materials. Major research libraries and national libraries, with their responsibility for national collections
and legal deposit, have been especially concerned about creating the digital equivalents of physical stores for long-term
preservation. The new technologies of migration and emulation have appeared to suggest long-term solutions to the problem
of rapidly developing technical platforms. We have perhaps become more confident about understanding the issues involved in
the long-term preservation of digital collections. It is no longer possible simply to say, as one American commentator did
in an article entitled "The Digital Dark Ages?" in the late 1990s: "Being digital means being ephemeral" (Kuny, 1998). The
National Library of Australia was one of the first apparently to break with the former consensus. While acknowledging the reliability of microfilm, the
NLA tells us in its Policy statement on preservation copying that it is:
"committed to producing digital copies that can be preserved, and investing in preserving both their data integrity and means
of accessing them. For this reason the Library accepts its digital copies are preservation copies."