Providing Access to Born-Digital Materials in Special Collections

by Diana Thurm

---

Over the last 40 years or so, it has become increasingly likely that many of the materials special collections typically collect—manuscripts, photographs, audio, video, documents—will be born-digital, that is, will have been created in a digital form. Yet, according to a 2010 OCLC survey, while 79% of special collections institutions had them in their collection, born-digital materials were considered one of the most challenging issues in special collections and the area in which education and training were most needed. With the management of born-digital materials still in its infancy, one of many challenges is how to provide access to these materials, especially when they were created on now-obsolete hardware or software. It’s unreasonable to expect institutions to have access to a collection of the old computers and software needed to open these files. There are two competing solutions for this: migration vs. emulation. 

Migration involves converting files from their original file format to another (e.g. Word documents to PDF/A). This method has been employed by archivists at UC Irvine and the J. Paul Getty Trust, among others. Another similar solution is disk imaging, or creating 1:1 copies of the content of a physical disk in software form. These folders are typically copied to non-networked laptops in reading rooms and opened using software like QuickView Pro, which can be used to open a wide array of file types. 

Emulation involves the use of virtual machines (VM), which essentially allows a computer to emulate a different operating system, making it possible to run old software on newer hardware. Emulation is unique in that by replicating the original “look and feel” and interactivity, it provides a more authentic experience of the context in which the material was created. If you’ve ever used the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine or a game emulator, you might understand. 

There are pros and cons to both methods. With migration, you lose the context and interactivity that emulation provides. Still, there is some argument about whether it’s reasonable to expect archivists and/or researchers to have the technical knowledge to navigate emulations. Migration is a significantly cheaper and easier method. Considering two of the most commonly cited obstacles to born-digital management are lack of funding and lack of expertise, it’s understandable that emulation can pose a great challenge. Also, interestingly, a study showed that researchers found emulation to be novel but a challenging research tool. As one researcher remarked, “Authenticity is not a researcher concern. Authenticity is an archivist concern”.

At least for now, perhaps the best method depends on the resources and capabilities of the institution and on what’s best for the particular collection. The context emulation provides may be more important for some content than others. Publishing case studies, as a few institutions have done, is an invaluable way for archivists to learn from each other’s efforts. Born-digital materials will only grow in number and variety, and with the threat of bit rot and obsolescence looming, collaborating for solutions should be a priority.