The Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) is embarking on a new survey project concerning audio materials in academic libraries. The project “aims to guide decision makers and managers, not staff closer to the ground, about what problems exist and how they can be ameliorated” (Smith 2003).
CLIR has taken a number of steps to prepare for this effort. For example, it commissioned the preparation of a report titled State of Recorded Sound Survey of Surveys, which concisely summarizes the aims of ten independent surveys conducted between 1995 and the present, and considers the results of these surveys together, from which a number of conclusions are drawn:
Budgets for the management of recorded sound collections are limited or nonexistent.
Many collections managers may be in need of education concerning the differences between master copies and listening copies, media storage requirements, and the urgent need for preservation of certain audio formats.
Proper storage conditions for recorded sound are understood but not always followed.
The most widely held sound recording format in collections appears to be magnetic audio cassettes [a format] not recommended for long-term storage.
While some formats of recorded sound media are in greater decay and more urgently in need of preservation than others, all formats are in some need of preservation, identification, and cataloging.
There is no authoritative dataset describing the content, location, and preservation status of the nation’s inventory of recorded sound held in special and private collections. Furthermore there appears to be no single approach to gathering such data (Allen 2003).
To librarians and archivists with experience working with audio materials, these statements will not sound off the mark.
Many of the factors inhibiting the use and preservation of sound recordings in libraries and archives are symptomatic of a single fundamental problem: the lack of documentation and understanding about the sound recordings, their contents, and their condition. It seems that research libraries and archives simply do not know what they have or where to focus their attention, and this has been the case for far too long. One effective way to address this situation is to conduct a collection survey, and today there are a host of good reasons to do just that.
A number of indications suggest that the coming decade will be for audio materials what digital imaging was for photographic and other printed materials in libraries and archives during the 1990s. Foremost among these is digital audio technology, which is the inevitable, acceptable, and feasible choice for preservation reformatting of audio information. The time has come to abandon the wait for an analog “archival medium” or “format” for the long-term storage of media materials such as sound recordings and to prepare for migrations to the digital domain.
The ubiquity of digital audio technology has fomented widespread interest in access to media content, both among scholars and the general public alike. As a result, the number of potential users of sound recordings in collections is on the rise. With this newfound, popular appeal, our collections can enjoy a new life among a new audience.
Of course digital audio technology has also brought to the fore sticky intellectual property rights issues, but these issues in no way prevent cultural institutions from conducting honest preservation activities like collection surveys. Indeed, survey results may catalyze action on the part of rights holders to collaborate with archives and libraries to find balanced solutions that enable enhanced access to sound recordings in collections.
Meanwhile, it seems that within the research library community, there is a greater awareness of the problem of technology and format obsolescence. This awareness may be due to the tremendous threat that obsolescence now poses to the longevity of digital information. We may come to find that a wider understanding of the relationship between obsolescence and the preservation of digital materials brings about a wider understanding of the hindering role obsolescence has always played in the preservation of sound recordings and other technology-driven materials in collections.
Other indications that audio preservation is coming of age are the newfound sources of financial support. With the formation of the National Recording Preservation Board, federal grants for audio preservation will be available soon. Over time, these grants will be increasingly competitive, so those who are prepared early to embark on audio preservation projects will be in the best position to take advantage of the grants.
To make the most of this unprecedented opportunity to preserve and provide access to sound, collection caretakers need to be able to make intelligent decisions. But effective, responsible decision making requires accurate and thorough information about the collections and their condition—precisely the information not readily available to decision-makers.
This paper describes how to end this perpetual state that is hindering the preservation of audio materials by conducting a survey. Topics addressed include: what a survey is and what it can accomplish; how an audio survey differs from a survey of print materials; factors and considerations in survey planning; and the conditions and traits to observe and document during the survey process. Sampling methodologies, as well as the design and application of the data collection instrument, are briefly discussed.
The aim of the paper is to demonstrate that a collection caretaker does not need to be an audio expert in order to get a feel for the condition of audio recordings in the collections under her care, for once she explores the materials and becomes familiar with the range of intrinsic and potential problems, it is possible to develop a sensibility for their relative condition and thus initiate an effective audio preservation program.
Survey work is research. It is a formal process of gathering and analyzing data about a given population, a collection of things. It is science, more than it is art, though as the work progresses, the artful aspects of survey work emerge. A survey is an opportunity to study items in a way that day-to-day routine work does not allow. And while often a collection survey involves random sampling, the process is anything but arbitrary. Make time for it and take it seriously.
A survey will be most effective, however, if it is conceived as not simply a process of observation, data collection, and analysis. A survey forms the basis of a plan of action. As Barbara Appelbaum and Paul Himmelstein keenly noted, “For a survey to be useful, it must be part of a wider plan for collections management” (Appelbaum and Himmelstein 1986). A collection survey becomes a part of the collection’s history, the data gathered serving as a reflection of the collection’s past, present, and future. The institution must be committed to taking action based on results of survey work.
With careful design and implementation, a survey can lead to a number of productive outcomes: the character and extent of holdings are defined; the condition of items, housings, the storage environment, and disaster plans are assessed; and reformatting priorities are established as the deterioration or damage exhibited by collection items is observed.
Also, the data compiled in a survey can be employed to estimate the rate of future growth of sound recording media within incoming collections (Seubert 2003), as well as to project costs for reformatting and rehousing.
Furthermore, information pertaining to the contents of recordings that supplement existing catalog records may be readily gathered in the course of a survey. A survey may ultimately reveal opportunities to collaborate with peer institutions with like holdings in coordinated preservation reformatting projects in order to leverage limited funding effectively. Finally, with the information generated by a survey, an institution can contribute its knowledge of its collections to those broad-reaching efforts, like the one spearheaded by CLIR, to arrive at a meaningful understanding of the state of the nation’s recorded sound heritage.
Many collecting institutions have experience in conducting surveys of their holdings. In research libraries and archives, past surveys overwhelmingly have been focused on paper-based materials. Items in non-paper based formats have not enjoyed the same level of attention for a number of reasons.
One primary reason is that, to many curators, archivists, and librarians working with broad collections in diverse formats, the preservation issues of sound recordings (not to mention video recordings) are shrouded in arcane jargon and technical complexity. Only in recent years has preservation education broadened its coverage to address media formats in depth. Collection caretakers interested in turning their attention to audio may find that they need more upfront training, especially in areas of audio format identification and signs of deterioration, before they are ready to embark on an audio survey.
Another distinguishing feature of a survey focused on audio materials is that, unlike a book or manuscript, whose content is overt and can be assessed for its legibility and research value by simply looking at it, a sound recording must be played back in order to judiciously assess its contents and the quality of the recording.
Unfortunately, for many institutions, listening to recordings as part of the survey process may not be possible or practical due to time constraints or a lack of available equipment. Indeed, the fragile condition of many recordings in archives is such that they should only be played back by an expert with experience in handling original recordings and operating the equipment necessary to access them.
This situation forces the surveyor to recognize and accept the risks inherent to conducting an audio survey that does not include a playback component. If selection decisions are based solely on visual inspection, the potential exists to either pass over an important artifact if it appears to be in good condition, failing to identify and address its hidden needs, or alternatively, to expend attention and resources in preserving an item deemed to be in bad condition, only to discover later after hearing the recording, that its condition was not so dire and its contents are of little historic interest.
Selecting audio materials for preservation reformatting with little knowledge of the recording itself can have other unpredictable consequences. For instance, in the case of a digitization project, if you do not know the temporal duration of the recordings, it is difficult to estimate the number of files (and their size in bytes) that will be produced in the course of the project. Tapes in archival collections can often exceed two hours in duration; some hold as many as four hours of sound.
As digital files of these originals accumulate, so do file storage costs, and file management becomes increasingly complex. Another concern is lack of knowledge about the quality of the recording. It is frustrating to spend precious preservation resources on reformatting a recording, only to hear that the quality of the original is so poor or the sound is unbearable to listen to; more time and resources may be necessary to “de-noise” and boost the recording in order to produce an access copy someone can use effectively.
If one is flexible, open, and attentive, vagaries such as these add a sense of adventure and discovery, rather than frustration, to the work of sound preservation. In any case, the results of the CLIR Survey of Surveys serves as a reminder that most audio materials require some degree of preservation attention, whether due to the uniqueness of many recordings in archives, the likelihood of media instability and deterioration, or, at some point in the future, the inevitable lack of access to appropriate playback equipment. Thus, more often than not, preservation efforts and resources effectively directed at audio materials are, by and large, efforts not wasted.
Furthermore, in fact, much can be learned about the state of an audio recording, and decisions about whole collections can be made simply based on the process of observation. The trick is knowing what to look for and being prepared to record the observations.
In planning an audio survey, it is crucial to define its purpose. Articulate in writing the questions to be answered by the survey. Be clear about the intended outcome of the survey, what actions may be taken as a result of data gathering and analysis. Delineate the scope of the survey. Is it a collection-level or an item-level survey? Is the survey limited to certain formats, certain parts of the institutions’ holdings, or will it be comprehensive? Will existing preservation masters or listening copies be evaluated, or only original materials?
Define the duration of the survey and be sure to limit it to a reasonable period of time. A survey with seemingly no end in sight is subject to drift, likely never to be completed or to accomplish its intended goals in full. Finally, consider the survey methodology and how it serves the underlying goals of the project, being sure to keep careful documentation of the procedures for future reference.
The survey design must take into account a number of factors. How much information about the audio materials exists? Do the items have catalog records or are they only represented in listings on paper? Do existing records provide complete and accurate information about the collection’s size, location, and the formats it encompasses? How are the materials organized and stored? Are audio recordings dispersed among discrete collections with items in other formats or are they stored together by format? How much data entry is the survey staff willing and able to do?
Consult with catalogers, curators, and archivists to ask questions about finding aids, the history of the collections, past storage conditions, and any available documentation about the items to be surveyed, such as acquisition files and processing records, for it may contain crucial clues that save time and influence the survey approach. Consideration of these factors will determine if a full assessment of each sound recording is necessary and feasible.
If the size of the collection is manageable given the available resources, then a full assessment is recommended. However, for most institutions, a full-scale, item-by-item survey is neither affordable nor practical. In these cases, a sample survey is called for.
Sample surveying is a powerful tool. It is remarkable that one can gather representative data (with a confidence interval of 95% ±5%) about a collection encompassing 50,000 items by surveying only 381 items (Powell 1991). But the choice and application of a sampling methodology is critical to the success of a survey. If a sample is not selected carefully, then the data collected in the survey will not accurately portray the traits of the larger collection it is intended to represent.
There are several sampling methodologies used in survey research. Typically in surveying collection materials, one of four methods is employed: systematic sampling, judgment sampling, simple random sampling, and stratified sampling. The decision about which sampling methodology is appropriate depends on how a given collection is organized or arranged, how heterogeneous or homogenous it is, and which variables are to be observed.
The first two methods, systematic and judgment sampling, are both attractive for their ease of implementation; these are non-random methods, and as such, are inherently prone to bias or systematic error. On the other hand, simple random sampling and stratified sampling are methods that, if applied correctly, are less likely to introduce bias into the survey results, yet they are not immune from random error, also known as noise.
There always remains the chance of encountering noise in the course of surveying. In the face of this fact, the surveyor must ask from the outset: “What are the consequences of being wrong? When it comes time to analyze the survey data, to make assertions about the population as a whole, and to take action accordingly, how wrong am I willing to be?” The answer to this question plays a key role in determining the size of the sample.
Generally, the bigger the sample size, the more precisely the data will reflect the traits of the population in question. Yet “there is no point in utilizing a sample that is larger than necessary; doing so unnecessarily increases the time and money needed” (Powell 1991). Detailed information on selecting a sample, in addition to clear explanations and useful guidelines for the sample surveying process, is provided in a number of publications listed in the Works Cited; some specifically address surveying in the library context.
Once the survey methodology has been determined, the data collection instrument, which in essence is the database forming the heart of a survey project, can be designed. The use of database or spreadsheet software, or a combination thereof, for data collection is highly preferable to paper and pencil, because it facilitates the gathering, manipulation, analysis, and portability of the survey data.
Employ software that is familiar to the surveying staff and that does not encumber the data collection and analysis process. The database should be flexible in design to order to accommodate any changes incurred along the way; it should also be compatible with other working databases used by the institution for collection management.
Furthermore, it is important to design the database with an eye towards the future. When the formal audio survey is complete, the database may be used to record information about incoming audio collection materials. It also may be expanded to catalog new preservation masters and listening copies.
Finally, some of the survey data related to original recordings can be repurposed as technical metadata describing the source recording when original materials are digitally reformatted.
The data collection instrument should be tested before the survey is formally underway. This pretest serves as an opportunity to identify any aspect of the survey that may have been overlooked, to refine the tool, and to streamline its use. A pretest is also useful for estimating the time required to survey a given number of items and helps surveyors to hone their senses and achieve a baseline understanding of what to look for and what they can expect to find when the survey is underway.
Adequate workspace, certain tools and supplies, and established handling protocols are required for survey work. At a minimum, a sturdy table with ample surface area is required so that, for instance, phonodiscs can be safely removed from their jackets and sleeves for inspection of their condition and identification of their composition. Materials may be cracked or broken, so housings should be opened and items removed with great care (for more information on sound recordings handling, see Warren 1994).
Cotton gloves should be available for handling recordings made of delicate materials, and conservation instruments such as spatulas and tweezers may come in handy, as will a good source of light when close inspection of materials is called for. If surveying is done in collection storage areas, a laptop computer can be used. The use of a handheld computing device has been demonstrated to be effective for data collection (Drewes and Robb 2000), especially if the survey does not involve a great deal of data entry per collection item.
While an audio survey may involve gathering basic or supplemental descriptive information, the survey should be primarily geared toward identifying conditions and traits, including conditions that pose a threat to the collection as a whole, the condition of one artifact that poses a threat to itself or to other artifacts, and conditions or traits that may have a bearing on preservation reformatting decisions.
Conditions that may pose a threat to the collection as a whole include such things as: the temperature and relative humidity of the storage environment; cleanliness of the storage area; how and where the audio materials are positioned while in storage (which almost universally should be vertical); emergency response readiness; and general assessment of the materials’ housing (adequate support and protection from light and dust).
Possible conditions of an artifact that may pose a threat to itself or to other artifacts are: contamination, such as mold; extreme media deterioration, such as acetate tapes afflicted with vinegar syndrome; and extreme damage, such as cracking, deformation, or delamination of composite structures, such as lacquer discs. Conditions or traits that may have a bearing on selection for preservation reformatting may include: the uniqueness or rarity of the recording; the uniqueness or rarity of the format; variable properties intrinsic to format, such as tape thickness or base material; physical condition relative to similar items within collection; sound quality; and high use.
The notion of high use in the context of archival sound recordings is one that bears further discussion. What does “high use” mean in the case of an uncataloged collection of obsolete formats with no correlating playback equipment, a collection that, from a user’s perspective, might as well not exist? In the research library context, the use of a sound recording is not the same as the use of a book; to make judgments about use as if the two were equivalent would be unfair, because in the past, sound recordings in most collections have been undervalued, marginalized research materials.
Therefore, past and present usage statistics, if they are available, may be misleading at best. Estimations of past use—whether use by members of the institution’s user community or by the original owner, creator, or custodian of the recording prior to its acquisition—can be surmised by examining the artifact for tell-tale signs of wear. This is where the surveyor’s careful eye weighs in on the all-important matter of use.
Heavily-used grooved sound recordings are usually easy to identify by their dull finish, scratches, and pits. Other recordings, especially magnetic media, can be more difficult to read for signs of high use. In these cases, the surveyor turns her attention to the housing.
Housings speak volumes. The cheap cardboard and plastic used in the manufacture of the majority of original sound recording containers do not wear well. Plastic becomes scratched and cracked; the cardboard becomes abraded, tears, and crushes easily. The more they are handled, the more this evidence will appear.
In addition to use, housings can reveal a great deal about the recording’s storage history. Tidelines on a box or warped cardboard suggests involvement in a water-related incident. Fading suggests exposure to light and heat; gaps or holes suggest exposure to particulates. Housings may bear detailed descriptive information about the recording itself, not to mention critical data on the format, dimensions, and composition of the recording media. For all these reasons, original housings should never be discarded without studying and documenting them thoroughly before doing so.
Yet, despite the many useful clues a housing may bear, the surveyor must be aware that it is not uncommon for sound recordings to make their way to an archive not in their original housing. For this reason, surveyors should bear in mind that information printed on the housing may not apply to the sound recording inside.
A chart outlining information typically collected in a survey of audio collection materials is provided in the Appendix. The information to be gathered is organized into several broad categories: the Survey, the Artifact, the Recording, the Condition, Restoration/Reformatting Documentation, and Related Materials.
Within these categories, data elements are grouped in narrower categories. A selection of possible values for data elements, and related definitions, comments, and guidance is included.
The information provided in the chart does not represent a comprehensive list of all formats, conditions, traits, and characteristics that may be encountered in the process of surveying. The data elements and correlating values simply represent those that describe sound recordings commonly found in the collections of research libraries, including both special collections and general collections.
Highly-specialized collections may contain unusual formats that do not appear on this list. Collections of published sound recordings, particularly out of print material, may call for a higher degree of documentation concerning contents and rights information. The chart is intended to serve as a starting point from which survey designers can develop a set of data elements that adequately addresses the range of possibilities reflected in the collections to be assessed.
Many of the data elements may have more than one value and are therefore repeatable. Though not included in the chart, the possible values of “unknown” or “other” may be included as values in the data collection instrument, because while surveying it is not uncommon to come across a collection item whose characteristics are not easily identified or assessed or does not neatly match any of the predetermined elements and values.
Once accurate data has been gathered about the audio collection, including the range and volume of format types and the scope of preservation problems observed, the institution is poised to take action. It is likely that critically necessary preventive preservation measures will be readily apparent, such as the need for improved housing or storage of materials. Yet the survey results can be leveraged to initiate broader preservation programmatic activities.
With statistics in hand, librarians and archivists can hold meaningful discussions with their fellow stakeholders and other individuals who have an interest in preserving the institution’s sound recording holdings. These stakeholders include members of the immediate user community who can provide input concerning the research value of the surveyed audio materials, therefore contributing to the process of setting priorities for preservation attention.
With an understanding of the formats in the collection with the greatest needs and highest research value, consideration can be given to whether the institution should acquire correlating playback equipment. Audio specialists, such as transfer engineers with experience in working with archival materials, can play a very important role by helping to sort out appropriate reformatting solutions and their costs.
Archivists and librarians at other institutions who are or have been involved in audio preservation activities can serve as another invaluable resource, as their experiences may offer a pragmatic perspective on preservation reformatting projects involving specific formats as well as the impact of reformatting on public service and the overall continued need for collection management, especially if digital reformatting is involved. Whatever pathway is followed, the likelihood is high that an audio survey project will raise general awareness about audio preservation within and throughout the institution and the community it serves, often leading to an increased level of support—tangible support, not simply moral support—from upper administration to make audio preservation a routine programmatic activity. When it is clear from the survey data which sound recordings are at stake if the risks they face remain unaddressed, then the incentive to take action in order to prevent their loss is realized.
The author gratefully recognizes the support and contributions of Cathy Aster, Connie Brooks, Maria Grandinette, Walter Henry, Richard Koprowski, David Seubert, and Sarah Stauderman.
Allen, David Randel. State of Recorded Sound: Survey of Surveys. Report prepared by the Communications Office, Inc. for the Council on Library and Information Resources, 2003.
Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990.
Busha, Charles H. and Stephen P. Harter. Research Methods in Librarianship: Techniques and Interpretation. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
Drewes, Jeanne and Andrew Robb. “The Use of Handheld Computers in Preservation and Conservation Settings.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Institute for the Conservation of Artistic and Historic Works, Philadelphia, June 2000. Information available at http://www.lib.msu.edu/drewes/Presentation/palmp/survey.html and http://www.lib.msu.edu/drewes/Presentation/palmp/handout0606.doc (29 September 2003).
Drott, M. Carl. “Random Sampling: A Tool for Library Research.” College and Research Library News 30 (1969): 199-125.
Powell, Ronald R. Basic Research Methods for Librarians. 2d ed. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1991.
Seubert, David. “Designing and Managing an Audio Preservation Program.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Recorded Sound Collections, Philadelphia, May 2003.
Smith, Abby. "Background for 14 March meeting." E-mail to Connie Brooks. 1 Mar. 2003.
Warren Jr., Richard. “Handling of Sound Recordings.” ARSC Journal 25 (Fall 1994): 139-162.
© 2003 Hannah Frost