Staff Papers

The likely impact(s) of digital technology on conservation/ preservation in Australia.

Prepared for the National Newsletter of the Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Materials July 2000, by Colin Webb, Director Preservation Services, National Library of Australia


As a senior preservation manager involved in digital preservation, I'm often asked whether I think digital technology will be a good thing or a bad thing for preservation.

I don't think I know the answer to that question - it lies in some deeper questions about 'good for whom', and how you measure 'good'. I certainly think it will have an impact, or many impacts, and that there are ongoing roles for preservation people and preservation principles, but whether they are good roles and whether preservation people get to play them depends a lot on what you are looking for, and whether we can bring enough value and leadership to them.

I am most interested in the impact of digital technology on preservation, as the broader set of responsibilities for keeping collections, objects and/or the information or values they convey available for use for as long as they are needed. This includes conservation as a subset but I don't want to spend time arguing definitions here.

Over the past few decades our profession has done a wonderful job of understanding the materials making up our collections, and how they deteriorate, and devising ways of preventing damage, of stabilising existing damage, and of repairing things that have been damaged. We've had our share of losses, but generally the story has been very positive. This has been strongly associated with a strong emphasis on materials science and objects as physical things subject to physical deterioration.

Depending on your perspective, digital technology presents either just a new set of challenges and opportunities, or a fundamental reshaping of the mindset with which we have approached preservation in the past.

Let's look on the bleak side for awhile.

But there are many positives, and I don't think we should be pessimistic. Digital technology itself could free conservators from having to deal with endless numbers of less important items, much as microfilming has done but in a more user-friendly manner. Digital imaging also does offer a genuine prospect of reduced pressure of use on important items. I still think the nett effect is to increase the preservation burden, but there are benefits if we can manage to achieve them.

From the point of view of our own involvement, we have more assets to draw on than we may think. While I've said that our preservation paradigms aren't very helpful in looking at digital information, in fact there are many principles we have used with analogue collections that are important in dealing with digital collections, eg understanding what you have, thinking ahead, understanding threats, thinking holistically, looking for underlying principles, setting priorities, documentation, critical thinking, working collaboratively, sharing information. These have come to seem just as important in our training as the techniques of repair.

Digital technology also gives us the means of communicating rapidly and effectively.

In my own institution there are many encouraging signs. Preserving access to digital information is publicly acknowledged as a critical core function, and our Preservation section has been involved from the start. It is also seen as a key player in all digital imaging projects. However imperfect our response has been, (and it is far from perfect), we have managed to direct some solidly preservation-focused resources into digital preservation while increasing the effectiveness of our traditional collection preservation and conservation programs. All of our preservation managers are involved to varying degrees in digital issues, but a number of our conservators have been able to keep on treating and managing all the physical things that need their attention, while our digital preservation people have been able to focus on digital things.

On the other hand, it's still not at all clear how we will manage to meet our digital preservation responsibilities, both in terms of methods still needing to be developed and of how we manage to put procedures and resources in place.

At a personal level, I sometimes also wonder whether the path we are on is sustainable. We are on it largely because of the "busybody" approach to preservation management we have taken in recent years: we take an interest in most things that happen in our institution, and often step outside our comfort zone. We frequently find ourselves sitting in meetings thinking "I have no idea what these people are talking about", often wondering whether it is worth it, feeling very exposed and sometimes unwelcome. My only comfort is knowing that just about everyone else involved feels as far out on the edge as I do.

So, I'm not at all sure whether the overall impact on preservation/conservation will be positive or negative. Both, I guess. Neither good nor bad is inevitable: what happens is at least partly in our hands. If we can see enough need or enough value in it to be involved, and if we can convince others that we bring enough value to it to be included, I think we can make good things happen.

But good or bad, it's going to happen. This is one bandwagon that's not going to stop because a bunch of conservators don't like it. I think our task is to work out how, not if, we are going to live with it.

Colin is Director of Preservation at the National Library of Australia, but these comments represent his own views, not those of the Library.

Top

About This Site | Copyright | Privacy | Accessibility | Site Map | Site Search | Content A-Z | Contact Us