Dissertation Week 4

The Future of Three-Dimensional Imaging and Museum Applications


This article debates whether museums should embrace 3D imaging for their collections.  The article states that museums are interested in the technology, but still see it as too expensive.  One particular benefit that the article states is that 3D helps to turn regular images into entertainment, and helps to show the object more realistically.  Also, 3D printing could help museums to share their collections with researchers around the world.  3D images can also help to preserve a record of objects as an insurance against their decay.  A drawback is the learning curve for 3D technology, including learning new hardware and software.  In addition, different types of hardware and software may be necessary for different types of objects.  File sizes would also be larger.  3D could be used to enhance user experience via more realistic augmented reality.  The public is also often more excited to get involved in crowdsourcing of 3D objects.  An option to overcome the hardware cost is to use software to combine multiple 2D images into a 3D object, and subjected to crowdsourcing this could continuously be refined as more users add more images (an example of this is PhotoCity).  Arc3D and Microsoft Photosynth may also be used free to do this.

Implications


One of the most important aspects of a successful crowdsourcing project is public engagement.  3D images are more engaging to the public, and therefore more likely to generate a large enough user base to improve museum content.  Also, even though getting cutting edge 3D equipment can be expensive, using the available free services can provide significant benefit for little cost.

Dissertation Week 3

Blobgects:  Digital Museum Catalogs and Diverse User Communities


The article in primarily about how museums can more effectively engage with their audiences using Web 2.0. It posits that simply adding Web 2.0 applications to the existing museum catalogue is insufficient because that expects the users to use and learn the museum's specialist terminology, and effectively negates the purpose of the new museology.  In effect, it does little to prevent the museum from being a gatekeeper of knowledge or education, and only further engagement will help to break that barrier.  Basically, digital museums should do more to allow many classifications of objects "according to the different narratives and uses to which they are connected".  Museums should thus allow many expert account, and to allow more direct engagement with the objects.  The article also states that the main barrier to further engagement is the museum catalogue itself, which requires specialist terms to search, and doesn't allow users to manipulate the content of the records.  The ability of users to engage with the catalogue improves their experience of the catalogue.  Three ways to do this are to allow uncontrolled tagging of objects; allowing users to follow the tags of other users; and providing visual representations of objects, not just verbal ones.

The study that was done for the article suggests that plain language descriptions are needed for objects in order for people to be able to effectively interact with the catalogue.  Part of the problem was that the metadata for many objects did not include much of the cultural context of the objects.  Users also seem to need a starting point in order to add comments to an object, so "seeding" may be important.  However, of more importance, is that users are much interested in feeling that their contribution is valued and welcomed, which helps them to feel motivated to add tags.  Users are also very reluctant to tag catalogue entries without images.  Key lessons from the study:  the power of narratological tags; diverse users with diverse inputs add meaning to the online catalog; tagging must fit within a discursive conversation; the power of images; blogs versus tags.

Implications
For the purpose of my dissertation, it is important to note that simply adding a tagging feature is not likely to provide much of a benefit.  Also, only objects with pictures are likely to be tagged, or commented upon.  Users need to have a free form ability to add to an object, and standard metadata formats are too specialised to offer the average user much help.  In order to gain the most benefit from the users, objects will need to have some seeding of description in order to prompt the user to add tags and comments.  The more comments and tags an object has, the more likely it is to draw more comments and tags.

Descriptive metadata is a reasonably broad realm for museum objects, and could accommodate less specialist knowledge than other types of metadata.  It also allows for creating cultural contexts, so the users should have a gateway to the object through those tags.

Additions:


From a kind person at the British Museum I also received some very useful links:

http://www.humanitiescrowds.org/
which gives presentations on the topic of crowdsourcing in the humanities

http://www.delicious.com/stacks/view/KMzXC2
a set of links on crowdsourcing in the humanities

http://openobjects.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/frequently-asked-questions-about.html
a nice summary of crowdsourcing in the humanities

Dissertation Week 2

Return to Babel:  Emergent Diversity, Digital Resources, and Local Knowledge

This article presents the argument that the use of online communities can help to preserve and promote local narratives for cultural objects.  It proposes that current technology could allow us to show visitors to museums different perspectives on a piece of art or culture, rather than the singular perspective of the museum itself.
In essence, the article states that with new technology, there is no longer a particular need for everything to remain standardised to facilitate finding.  It proposes that it is now possible to have parallel schemes for finding any object, and that all of these may have validity and purpose.  It proposes that having only one scheme limits the way that the audience can interact with an object, and thus with the museum. 
With new technology, it is now possible to engage directly with different communities, and determine how they may classify objects, rather than simply translating exisiting schema into their cultural framework.  Also, the article would like museums to explore means to getting these communities to take up authorship of narratives. 
The article promotes RSS tagging as a possible means of achieving this. 
Three important points are made regarding distributed communities:
1.  knowledge is based in a time frame and a place.  So it is important to know where and when someone makes a statement.
2.  authority is a problem for all information objects.  authority cannot be guaranteed centrally, but must be renegotiated in each context.  authority is linked to authorship.
3.  changing knowledge to information removes its dynamic character

Implications

Given that I intend to limit my dissertation to the creation of descriptive metadata, it may not be possible to use all the points of this article immediately.  My understanding would be that this would require engagement with the originating culture (if such still exist), and allow a different metadata standard to be created for each.  While I certainaly think this is a worthwhile endeavor, I'm not sure that about the technical capacity of a museum to have a different metadata standard for each culture.  I may be mistaken, and I will need to clarify this point with the British Museum, as they have much more experience in dealing with objects from a variety of cultures. 
Some points are very well made, and bear more consideration.  Particularly, that knowledge is based in a time and a place, and I'm sure that metadata could be used to collect that information from those contributing to an object.

Digital:  Museum as Platform, Curator as Champion, in the Age of Social Media

This article discusses the change in dialogue between museums and their audiences in the digital age.  The author posits that the musuem is no longer the sole repository of knowledge and discussion about their collection, whether they wish it or not.  Most activity about museum collections no longer primarily occurs on the museum's website, but on many other platforms such as social media.  Also, the article states that most of a museum's visitors are now visiting it online. 
New trends also allow smaller museums to expand their reach by further engagment with the public.  Particularly it discusses the Torrance Art Museum in California, which has opened up their curating to crowdsourcing as an ongoing project.
Opening up collections to the online community can help museums to identify objects, such as was the case with the Powerhouse Museum in Australia, that received identification and a summary of the object from a patron. 
4 points were madebased on an online discussion with the public by the Collections Trust in the UK :
1.  they're our collections (the public)
2.  many voices are critical to the interpretation of culture
3.  the museum will attempt to go where the participation takes them.
4.  the museum will provide the platform for culture, the training and advocacy to support it, and would like to work with their audience to construct the content.

So, the curator becomes the assembler of many voices, and still does require expertise. 

Implications

It is important to engage with audiences actively so the museum remains relevant to the discussion about their collections.  If the museum is able to do this, then their audiences will reward them with increased understanding about their own objects.  

Dissertation Survey Link

Below is the link to my Dissertation survey.  Please feel free to crack at it if you work in a cataloging/metadata field:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/L83XM8C

Dissertation Week 1

Art Images Online:  Leveraging Social Tagging and Language for Browsing

This small article offers a solution to the problems inherent in tagging as was brought up in the IMLS Leadership Project "T3:  Text, Tagging and Trust to Improve Image Access for Museums and Libraries".  Namely, the great difference in specificity of the tagging.  It offers "computational linguistic processing of user-contributed tags and associated text" and "leveraging multilingual tags" sections.

In the first section it offers their results for the computational linguistic tools.  These tools sit at the back end of a website similar to www.steve.museum, and the front end gathers tags.  Their tools were able to achieve 79% accuracy in lemmatizing (finding the base of words).  They also looked at Parts of Speech Ambiguity, and found that such terms often occur in the same tag cloud, which can be used to "determine cohesion of bigrams".  They also determine that most text about images is about the work of art, rather than the context (ie the painter).

The article also discussed that multilingual tags.  The most popular terms are often exact translations of the most popular terms in the other language (45% of the time) or the second most popular term in the other language (36.36% of the time).  The most common tagging elements where in the following order:  "general person or thing", "visual elements" and "non-subject matter" (painter names, etc.)

Implications:

For my dissertation,  the tool that lemmitizes tags at such a high rate of accuracy is clearly important, and could definitely help to overcome the perception that tagging offers inconsistent results.  The results showing that the most common results of multilingual tagging are often direct translations is interesting in that it offers an argument that tagging leads to standardisation.  I will have to take a look at the references of this article given how most of use was found in such a short article.

Enacting engagement online:  framing social media use for the museum

This article discusses how museums might want to re-engage with their audiences.  In particular it deals with the problem that although museums might want to do this, their methods have traditionally left the public feeling that the museum was trying to take their traditional authority on interpretation into a new sphere.  It does this by frame analysis, with the frames:  The Marketing Frame (advertising the museum's activities, and promoting the brand); The Inclusivity Frame (providing inclusion for the public into the activities of the museum); The Collaborative Frame (the frame where the museum allows for the audience to co-produce narratives).

One of the problems the article found is that museums often have a "risk averse culture", and this means that their efforts state that they intend to empower, interact with and democratise their processes, but rarely actually do so.  Often museums simply launch social media initiatives, without understanding the technical resources needed in order to garner the benefit they hope to achieve (ie, that simply joining Facebook, and having an audience doesn't mean that the posts will automatically achieve any of the museum's goals without planning and staff who know how to engage with the audience in that platform).

The article proposes those three frames as a beginning, but also mentions that there are other potential frames of analysis.

Implications:

The main implication is that museums may state that they are interested in engaging with the general public concerning their collections, but haven't thus far actually done so.  They often seem to be a bit preachy, and without developing a good framework for addressing increased public engagement, they run the risk of putting effort into something in a way that doesn't gain them the intended benefit.  Perhaps of the greatest implication is the fact that this article was published by someone at my university.  So, it might be interesting to see if I can contact this person in order to see if she has further insights or suggestions.

Dissertation Proposal

Below is my approved proposal, just to give context:

Title

The benefits of crowdsourcing for creating descriptive metadata in cultural institutions as compared with traditional cataloguing:  Exemplified by case studies of the Maryland State Archives and British Museum

Introduction

Crowdsourcing has become a popular topic in the information sciences and IT fields.  There is a generally high level of excitement over how this tactic can be used to help in many diverse topics. 

Museums and cultural institutions can potentially benefit from this tactic for the creation of descriptive metadata since their collections are heterogeneous, and cataloguing styles are diverse.  Given that over time crowdsourcing helps to refine vocabulary by the people who are interested in finding the material, this could help to save time in cataloguing, as well as increase engagement by the populations the museums or cultural institutions are trying to reach.

Aims and Objectives

My aim is to show that crowdsourcing is a viable resource for cultural institutions to use in order to create metadata.  Another aim is to show that crowdsourcing metadata can reduce the cataloguing burden of institutions. 

One objective is to show that crowdsourcing of metadata can be useful for both small and large organisations.  Another objective is to show that crowdsourcing can be adaptable to many cataloguing goals.

Scope and Definition

-Crowdsourcing:  Crowdsourcing is submitting a project for work by a crowd, usually over the internet.  There may, or may not, be compensation offered for this work, but participation is usually voluntary.  The participants are usually assumed to gain some benefit for participating in crowdsourcing by either increasing their ability to access the information, or perhaps altruism.

-Descriptive Metadata:  “Descriptive metadata is a record of the identifying characteristics of an information resource and the analysis of its contents for the purposes of discovery, identification, selection, and acquisition” (Taylor, Arlene G. 2009; pp. 102-103).  An example of descriptive metadata categories for a painting would be the title, artist, medium and style.

-Cataloguing:  “Catalogs provide access to individual items within collections of information resources (e.g., physical entities such as books, videocassettes, and CDs in a library; artists’ works in an art museum; Web pages on the Internet; etc.).  Each information resource is represented by a description of the resource that is somewhat longer than a bibliography description” (Taylor, Arlene G. 2009; p. 43). 

-Benefits:  Benefits for the purpose of this dissertation involve an increase in the amount of metadata produced, an increase in the level of description, an increase in the how well the metadata leads to finding an object, or an increase in the engagement with the institution.  It also includes a decrease in the amount of staff time needed for cataloguing or a general decrease in the amount of staff resources needed for cataloguing.  I do not intend to address short term funding concerns of the agencies, but long term funding benefits might be addressed.

Research Context/Literature Review

Crowdsourcing can be used affectively to notice new trends in the ways that people understand objects.  Patterns in tagging, in particular, make us face the fact that official categorisations are constructions (Panke, Stefanie 2009; 320).  A good way of putting this is:

The issue is not whether an individual tagger has correctly identified (‘‘tagged’’) a reference. What tagging essentially does is link a concept to its social practice. . . . [Tags] connect the objects involved and the correlated concepts to activity clusters in a community. (Schill, Truyen, & Coppens, 2007, p. 107) (Panke, Stefanie 2009; 320). 

Folksonomies also tends to become more standardised over time (Panke, Stefanie 2009; 326).  For museums, possibly the best aspect of social tagging is the increased engagement with potential visitors, allowing them to categorise pieces in the way that relates to them, and there for encouraging a deeper relationship with the institution (Panke, Stefanie 2009; 326).  It is important to note a little bit about the differences between a museum and libraries.  “At the core of the new museology is an assumption that the museum is not a center of research nor primarily a collecting institution but that it is in fact an educational instrument.” (Srinivasan, Ramesh 2009; 667).  Since only the experts are allowed to classify information in the museum, this can shut off valuable dialogue with potential visitors (Srinivasan, Ramesh 2009; 667).

Given this background, it seems that crowdsourcing may be a very valuable tool for museums in creating descriptive metadata.

Methodology

-Research:  As part of this dissertation, I will need to engage in on-going research of the topics of crowdsourcing, metadata, and cataloguing.  Also, I will be looking mainly for studies done on these topics as they relate to cultural institutions, such as museums, galleries and archives.  Each week I expect to find one to three articles about these topics.  I do not expect the weekly research to take much time initially, but as the project advances, I may have to use more advanced and iterative search strategies in order to find relevant articles.  Also, after compiling the results of the survey, I would like to do some targeted research on the areas uncovered.  Considering the more specialised nature of this work, the research could take a more considerable amount of time.  Last, after compiling the results of the interviews, I will engage in more specialised research to address the issues specific to those concerns and problems.

-Reading:  Considering that it will be important to increase my breadth of subject knowledge in order to present the final dissertation, I intend to read one to three articles each week that I have researched.  My intention is to more often read more articles than less, but I recognise that some articles can be very long in length and heavy on content, so it is possible that one article would constitute a more significant amount of reading than several.  In addition, after more specific areas from the results of the survey, I intend to read on those specific areas.  Last, I will do targeted reading based on the interviews in order to construct my final arguments.

-Survey:  The purpose of the survey is to clarify what type of cataloguing and metadata the target institutions are using, and to gain an idea of their institutional receptivity to change in those areas.  While I’m familiar with both target institutions from work and volunteering, I would like to have a source that officially states how cataloguing and metadata operate in them.  I plan on using either Survey Monkey or Google Docs in order to disseminate the survey.  This will allow easier compilation of the results.  In order to ensure the chance for significant results, I would prefer to have 20 respondents.

-Interview:  The interview portion of the project takes the reading from the results of the survey to construct questions that will help to bring the final concerns of the dissertation to light.  It is in this phase, that the major concerns and operational realities of the organisations will be brought to light, and it is from that information that the final argument for how to overcome or mitigate these factors will be constructed.  One or two staff members from the Maryland State Archives and two or three staff members from the British Museum will be interviewed.  In order to prevent any difficulties in obtaining the interviews, it will be important to contact those staff members at the start of the process to work out a good time to perform the interviews within the specified time frame.  My intention is to email a copy of my interview questions to the staff members before the actual interview, and then to conduct the British Museum interviews in person and the Maryland State Archives interviews over Skype.  After the interviews I will construct a transcript, and email those to the staff members with any clarification questions to make sure that I am not misrepresenting them.

-Supervisor Meetings:  Throughout the dissertation process I will seek the advice and expertise of my supervisor.  The first instance of this will be in the survey questions.  For the purpose of that topic, email will be sufficient.  However, on other occasions I would like to meet in person to discuss my progress and any questions.  I have planned for four meetings, but that number may change if the need arises. 

-Writing:  For all my writing, I intend to use a blog.  The purpose is multi-fold.  One, this will allow tagging of each post to a specific topic.  Two, it will allow outside comments, giving a potential review process throughout the dissertation.  Three, having writing in a place where it is expected to be read will increase accountability.  Each week, I would like to write at least 200 words about what work has been done towards the completion of the dissertation.  This will include reviewing the articles read, and the potential implications of those articles.  It will also include questions that may crop up requiring further research or those that it might be best to direct to the supervisor.  Next, I intend to write a reflection on the results of the survey.  This will help to clarify the themes discovered in the results, which will then be used to research and read on the topic, and finally to the construction of interview questions.  Later, I will perform the same task for the interview results, and intend to update that as I find more research to address those results.  Last, my writing will be in preparation for each supervisor meeting.  This is to show progress, as well as to clarify questions that I would like to ask my supervisor, and therefore make those meetings more productive.

-Document Assembly:  The Final element of the dissertation involves drawing from the previous writing in order to construct a first draft, revision and final document for the dissertation.  As long as the writing from the previous sections continues well, the construction of the drafts should be much aided and supported.

Conclusion:  My methodology for this dissertation is to have a constant research and reading program, which will aid in broadening my understanding of the subjects this dissertation touches upon.  From subject knowledge and readings, the survey questions should help to clarify the positions of the institutions involved in this dissertation.  The results of the survey will lead to more targeted research and reading, which will be used to construct the interview questions, which will bring up the situation of the organisations, and set up the research to address how crowdsourcing of metadata can be used to help them as opposed to their cataloguing.  Writing throughout the process will aid in reducing the burden of the final writing, and having the writing in a blog format will potentially allow for comments from peers. 

My thought is that the combination of research, survey and interview will help to elucidate the particular concerns a large and small cultural institution have, and allow me to address those concerns highlighting the way that crowdsourcing can meet those challenges in creating descriptive metadata.

My concern is in being able to get enough surveys completed, and within my time frame.  I have built in reminders for this, but still within a relatively small time frame.  The same concern can be said for the interviews.  For the Maryland State Archives, I don’t anticipate much of a problem, since these are former colleagues, and they are generally very receptive to helping with dissertation work.  For the British Museum, I may have more difficulties.  While I do volunteer there, it is in the Central Library, which isn’t a focus of my dissertation.  Their policy is to be open to helping volunteers with their studies, but I think it will still be best to try to set up the interviews with them as early as possible in case of other schedule conflicts that may come up for them.

Work Plan

Task Name	Start Date	End Date	Duration	Comments
Dissertation Work Plan
Reading	01/06/12	14/09/12	76
Weekly reading, 1-3 relevant articles	01/06/12	14/09/12	76	read articles to keep current on topic
Survey Results reading	09/07/12	16/07/12	6	read articles to address issues from survey results
Interview results reading	22/08/12	29/08/12	6	read articles to address issues from interview results
Research	01/06/12	14/09/12	76
Weekly research, 1-3 relevant articles	01/06/12	14/09/12	76	research articles to keep current on topic
Survey Results research	06/07/12	09/07/12	2	research articles to address issues from survey results
Interview results research	20/08/12	22/08/12	3	research articles to address issues from interview results
Survey	01/06/12	06/07/12	26
Survey Construction	01/06/12	15/06/12	11	construct the wording of the survey, and upload to Survey Monkey
Survey Dissemination	15/06/12	15/06/12	1	send out survey to participants
Survey Reminders	22/06/12	29/06/12	6	automatic reminders concerning survey completion
Survey reminder 1	22/06/12	22/06/12	1
Survey reminder 2	26/06/12	26/06/12	1
Survey reminder 3	29/06/12	29/06/12	1
Survey Results Compilation	06/07/12	06/07/12	1	review the results from Survey Monkey, noting trends
Interview	01/06/12	20/08/12	57
Set up Interviews	01/06/12	08/06/12	6	contact staff of agencies to set up interviews in July
Interview question construction	16/07/12	23/07/12	6	construct interview questions for target institutions
Interviews	23/07/12	13/08/12	16
Maryland State Archives interviews	23/07/12	06/08/12	11	conduct interview with Maryland State Archives staff
British Museum Interviews	23/07/12	13/08/12	16	conduct interviews with British Museum staff
Interview Results Compilation	13/08/12	20/08/12	6	compile the results of the interviews, noting trends
Supervisor meetings	05/06/12	21/09/12	79
Supervisor survey question consultation	05/06/12	12/06/12	6	consult supervisor regarding survey questions
First supervisor meeting	21/06/12	02/07/12	8	first meeting to discuss initial concerns over dissertation
Second supervisor meeting	16/07/12	23/07/12	6	second meeting to discuss progress and ask questions regarding dissertation
Third supervisor meeting	13/08/12	16/08/12	4	third meeting to go over writing and layout of dissertation
Final supervisor meeting	17/09/12	21/09/12	5	final meeting to address any last minute dissertation concerns
Writing	01/06/12	14/09/12	76
Weekly 200 words topic writing	01/06/12	14/09/12	76	write a summary of dissertation topic, paying attention to items that have come up with weekly tasks
Survey Results writing	16/07/12	23/07/12	6	write a summary of the results of the surveys
Interview Results writing	29/08/12	05/09/12	6	write a summary of the results of the interviews
First supervisor meeting writing	18/06/12	22/06/12	5	prepare topic writing of 1000 words of dissertation progress
Second supervisor meeting writing	16/07/12	23/07/12	6	prepare topic writing of 1000 words of dissertation progress
Third supervisor meeting writing	13/08/12	20/08/12	6	prepare topic writing of 1000 words of dissertation progress
Final supervisor meeting writing	01/09/12	14/09/12	11	prepare topic writing of 1000 words of dissertation progress
Document Assembly	27/08/12	28/09/12	25
First Draft	27/08/12	31/08/12	5	first assemblage of the dissertation
Revision	17/09/12	19/09/12	3	after seeking comments and suggestion, implement those into writing
Final Draft	21/09/12	25/09/12	3	after second round of input, implement those suggestions into writing between 15,000 and 20,000 words
Printing	26/09/12	26/09/12	1	send document for printing
Turn in	28/09/12	28/09/12	1	turn in dissertation

Resources

I do not anticipate needing many resources for this project.  Any travel costs would be covered by my travel card for London.  The survey will use either the free version of Survey Monkey or Google Docs which is free.  The calls to the Maryland State Archives will be addressed through Skype calls to staff computers.  If there are technical difficulties with that, I can use Skype to call the work phones, which would involve roughly £20. 

Ethics

All the participants involved in this dissertation will be over 18 years of age. I do not anticipate that the survey or interview participants will be vulnerable adults, adults with learning disabilities, or pregnant women.  If that case arises then I will immediately contact my supervisor for direction.   Also, each of them will only participate by consent, and attempts will be made to allow the participants to see how they will be portrayed in the writing.

Confidentiality

I don’t anticipate any confidentiality problems with this dissertation.  The cataloguing of both the Maryland State Archives and the British Museum are available to the public, so there is no privacy issue in writing on that.  As I intend to deal with broad concerns of the agencies, and not specific policies I do not anticipate privacy concerns in that space.  However, should those come up, I will work with my supervisor and the staff of that agency to determine how best to proceed on that point. 

Works Cited

Panke, S. & Gaiser, B. 2009, ""With My Head Up in the Clouds": Using Social Tagging to Organize Knowledge", Journal of Business & Technical Communication, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 318-349.

Srinivasan, R., Boast, R., Becvar, K.M. & Furner, J. 2009, "Blobgects: Digital museum catalogs and diverse user communities", Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 666-678.

Taylor, A.G. 2009, The organization of information, 3rd edn, Libraries Unlimited, Westport, Conn. ; London.