1 / 10

Sofía Becerra- Licha | B erklee College of Music SAA Research Forum | August 13, 2013

MPLP and the Audiovisual Archive: An Exploratory Study of Minimal Processing Practices for Sound Recordings. Sofía Becerra- Licha | B erklee College of Music SAA Research Forum | August 13, 2013 sbecerra@alumni.unc.edu.

talli
Download Presentation

Sofía Becerra- Licha | B erklee College of Music SAA Research Forum | August 13, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MPLP and the Audiovisual Archive: An Exploratory Study of Minimal Processing Practices for Sound Recordings Sofía Becerra-Licha | Berklee College of Music SAA Research Forum | August 13, 2013 sbecerra@alumni.unc.edu

  2. “expedites getting collection materials into the hands of users; MPLP: More Product, Less Process assures arrangement of materials adequate to user needs; • Greene & Meissner (2005): “Golden Minimum” (pp. 212-213) takes the minimal steps necessary to physically preserve collection materials; describes materials sufficient to promote use”

  3. MPLP & Audiovisual Archiving MPLP: Critiques A/V archiving: Challenges • Diversity of archives • Technical support • Non-manuscript collections • Specialized training • Media considerations • Many localized practices

  4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS What has been the impact and/or application of the MPLP model on the processes used by audiovisual archivists? What does minimal processing look like for sound recordings versus paper-based archives? What disciplines, theories, or other influences have informed audiovisual archivists’ current practices?

  5. Methodology • Snowball sample of U.S.-based audiovisual repositories • 12 contacted • 11 participated (13 individual respondents) • Semi-structured interviews (30 minutes) • Phone (9) • In-person (1) • Email (2)

  6. Selected Demographics • Repository locations: • Northeast: 3 • Southeast: 2 • Midwest: 3 • West Coast: 3 • Average staff: 2-4 • Holdings: 11,000 – 2,000,000 items • Average: 385,800

  7. Results: applicability of MPLP • 3/13 considered MPLP to be central to their current approach • 11/13 indicated basic familiarity with MPLP • 11/13 believed (some) aspects of MPLP were applicable to audiovisual materials

  8. Results: minimal processing for A/V materials • 5/13 considered minimal processing to include item-level description • Most described their institution’s approach as more maximalist than minimalist • Many factors & considerations • Commercial vs. non-commercial • Analog vs. digital • Research value • Preservation and/or storage requirements

  9. Final Thoughts: MPLP & A/V Archives • Challenges: • MPLP vsfindability • Limited resources • Lack of applicable literature/case studies • Applications: • Holistic framework (mindset/planning) • Some short-cuts are possible: concert series, recurring radio programs, etc. • Refocusing descriptive efforts

  10. Selected References • American Folklife Center (2011). Archives, museums and libraries. http://www.loc.gov/folklife/source/list_archives.php • Bradley, C. J. (2003). Classifying and cataloging music in American libraries: A historical overview. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 35:3-4, 467-481. • Casey, M., Gordon, B. (2007). Sound Directions: Best Practices for Audio Preservation. http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/sounddirections/papersPresent/sd_bp_07.pdf • Fells, N., Donachy, P. Owen, C. (2002). Creating digital audio resources: A guide to good practice. Oxford: Oxbow. • Greene, Mark A. , Meissner, D. (2005). More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing. American Archivist, 68:2, 208-263. • Hoffman, G. L. (2009). Meeting users’ needs in cataloging: What is the right thing to do? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47:7, 631-641. • Jaszi, P., Lewis, N., eds. (2006). Capturing Analog Sound for Digital Preservation: Report of a Roundtable Discussion of Best Practices for Transferring Analog Discs and Tapes. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources and Library of Congress. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub137/pub137.pdf • MacLeod, J., Lloyd, K. (1994). A study of music cataloging backlogs. Library resources & technical services, 38:1, 7-15. • Mudge, S., Hoek, D. J. (2000). Describing jazz, blues, and popular 78 RPM sound recordings: Suggestions and guidelines. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29:3, 21-48. • Paton, C. A. (1990). Whispers in the stacks: The problem of sound recordings in archives. American Archivist, 53:2, 274-280. • Prom, C. J. (2010). Optimum Access? Processing in College and University Archives. American Archivist, 73:1, 146-174. • Prom, C.J. (2010). Forum (Letters to the Editor). American Archivist, 73:2, 411-420. • Smith, A. Allen, D. R., Allen, K. (2004.) Survey of the state of audio collections in academic libraries. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources. • Society for Ethnomusicology (2012). Archives, libraries, and museums. http://webdb.iu.edu/sem/scripts/links/linkentries.cfm?lcID=22 • Van Ness, C. (2010). Much Ado about Paper Clips: 'More Product, Less Process' and the Modern Manuscript Repository. American Archivist, 73:1, 129-145. • Van Ness, C. (2010). Forum (Letters to the Editor). American Archivist, 73:2, 411-420.

More Related