SECTION 4       PLAN OF WORK AND PROJECT GOALS

4.1     PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

 

The goals and objectives of this project are:

To preserve and improve access to a critical mass of the most significant publications documenting the history of agriculture and rural life in a diverse cross-section of states.

To continue the momentum of the National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature by having the states fulfill their responsibility for preserving state and local publications.

To provide additional institutions with substantive experience in the practice of systematic, discipline-based preservation; and to advance the concept of discipline-based, cooperative preservation.

4.2     PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

The project will be implemented and administered through the auspices of the Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University. Wallace C. Olsen, Director of Core Agricultural Literature Project, will serve as Project Director, as he has in Phase II, and will work closely with the eight project libraries and their designated institutional Project Managers or Co-Managers. The USAIN National Preservation Program Steering Committee will serve as advisor to the project. [See Appendix A for the vitas of the principal project staff.]

The administration, coordination, and management plan is based on a successful model that has been well-established and tested through other cooperative preservation and access projects such as those of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (Big-Ten University libraries and the University of Chicago), and projects administered by the Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET). The value of this particular project is that it will enable institutions to be linked in a discipline-based preservation and access project for the benefit of humanities scholars, while also insuring that preservation and access standards for quality and productivity are maintained throughout the project.

During Phase I, the cooperative preservation model was successfully adapted to a cooperative project incorporating a discipline-based selection model and using a review panel to rank materials according to their importance as resources for humanities studies. Experience gained during Phases I and II is being shared during meetings held in conjunction with the annual meetings of USAIN or the American Library Association. This dialog improves the methodology of the present program to preserve the history of agriculture and rural life. Based on the experience in Phases I and II, the model is a useful one, helping libraries address the additional set of preservation issues faced in identifying and preserving high priority materials within the context of a discipline-based approach to preservation.

Cornell University has long been a leader in the land-grant community and in the agricultural sciences world-wide. The Albert R. Mann Library is a major land-grant library with a proven record of leadership in the trends and issues in agricultural information. Cornellís commitment to preserving the literature of the agricultural sciences is an outgrowth of its role as a world center for agricultural sciences research. This commitment to excellence and innovation in agricultural information services, and to leadership in preservation, is demonstrated in Cornellís initiative in the development of a National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature; in identifying the core literature, contemporary and historical, of the agricultural sciences; in preserving the core historical literature; and in developing a methodology for the preservation of state and local literature.

Sam Demas, an employee until June 1998 of the Albert R. Mann Library, organized the 1991 USAIN preconference program in which the idea of a national preservation program was developed and an outline and plan of action emerged. Wallace C. Olsenís work in identifying the core literature and Mannís work to preserve the core historical literature have contributed immensely to the USAIN preservation program and to stimulating continued action on projects to implement the program. Mary Ochs, Head of Collection Development and Preservation Division at Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University, will serve as Deputy Project Coordinator. Ms. Ochs was Deputy Director of Mann Libraryís The Essential Electronic Agricultural Library (TEEAL) project with responsibility for the design of the user interface, creation of the database, and development of the online and written documentation. Her current job covers all collection coordination and development, and planning and implementation of conservation and preservation activities for Mannís collections. See Appendix A for biographical details. Cornell is committed to the National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature. Albert R. Mann Library views the NEH-funded project as a continuing step forward in the evolution of a cooperative, discipline-based preservation program.

As Project Director, Wallace C. Olsen will oversee the continued implementation of the project. He will be responsible for establishing standards for the project, maintaining contact with NEH staff and Cornellís Office of Sponsored Programs, and administering project funds. He will assure progress toward project goals, represent the project in national forums, and direct the work of the Project Coordinator.

Wallace Olsen has worked in administrative positions in academic and governmental libraries for thirty years. During the past ten he has specialized in the evaluation and identification of agricultural research library collections. He developed the methodology for systematic identification of the core historical literature, extending and adapting the selection methodologies in the subjects of entomology, state and local level agriculture and rural life literature (as part of the National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature), and local and regional natural history literature.

4.2.1.     Project Coordination

As Project Director and Coordinator, Wallace C. Olsen will be responsible for the management of the project on a one-third time basis for two years. He is currently Project Director and Coordinator for the Phase II effort. He will coordinate the work of the eight participating institutions, serving as resource person for the institutional project managers and maintaining regular contact to resolve problems and issues and ensure that work proceeds in a timely manner. He will oversee the development of quarterly production goals for each project, monitor progress towards meeting the goals, recommend approval of payments to participants, and draft quarterly progress reports to NEH for review and approval.

Wallace C. Olsen has worked in the agricultural library community for twenty-five years and is an authority on land-grant libraries. Over a period of nearly twenty years at the National Agricultural Library, he held positions as liaison officer to the land-grant and USDA field libraries, deputy director for public services, deputy director for technical services, and officer for special programs. He was responsible for efforts to create an agricultural libraries network involving land-grant libraries and the libraries of the USDA. He served as Project Director for the NAL/land-grant cooperative microfilming project, involving over thirty participating libraries, which resulted in the filming of 1.4 million frames of experiment station and extension service publications. In this capacity, he organized the agreements and "sold" the project to land-grant librarians, obtained the funds at NAL, set the technical standards with Peter Scott of MIT, and managed the finances, project organization, and quality control. He has identified the contemporary and historical core literature of seven disciplines comprising the agricultural sciences. The core historical literature is a key component of the National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature. Mr. Olsen received The Oberly Award for Excellence in agricultural bibliography for his work as editor-in-chief of the 7-volume set The Core Literature of the Agricultural Sciences (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991-96). He brings years of administrative experience, profound knowledge of the agricultural literature, complete familiarity with land-grant libraries, and experience in managing a large cooperative microfilming project.

4.2.2     Project Management

Each of the eight participating institutions has appointed an institutional Project Manager or Project Co-managers who will be responsible for the implementation of their libraryís and stateís participation in this project. Project managers will attend the two project meetings, implement the plan of work, supervise project staff, establish local work flows, oversee contracts with vendors, assure that all procedures and products meet established guidelines and standards, verify that work has been completed, and submit quarterly reports to the Project Director.

During Phase II, those participating states and libraries that identified the universe of materials and selected the most important for preservation (Arkansas, Iowa, and Minnesota) will complete their work by applying for the microfilming step in Phase III. In addition, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and North Dakota will identify the universe of materials and -- with the assistance of a scholarly review panel in each state -- will select the most important materials for preservation. Also, funds are requested to complete the filming of the selected materials in Kansas, New Mexico, and North Dakota in Phase III. These three states will identify, select, and preserve materials during this phase. Arizona has decided not to proceed beyond its bibliographic work (in Phase II) at this time and prefers to wait until Phase IV for participation in the preservation effort.

Participating institutions and libraries and their Project Managers are listed here. Section 5 provides a complete list of project staff and Project Managers.

Arkansas: University of Arkansas

Michael Dabrishus, Head of the Special Collections Division

Iowa: Iowa State University

Dilys Morris, Assistant Director for Technical Services

Ivan Hanthorn, Head of Preservation Department

Kansas: Kansas State University

Diana Farmer, Sciences Collection Manager

Michigan: Michigan State University

Jeanne Drewes, Assistant Director for Access and Preservation

Minnesota: University of Minnesota

JoAnn DeVries, Collections Coordinator for Agriculture, Biology and Environment, Magrath Library

New Mexico: New Mexico State University

Timothy McKimmie, Agriculture Librarian

North Carolina: North Carolina State University

Winston Atkins, Preservation Librarian

North Dakota: North Dakota State University

Kathy Richardson, Agricultural Science Librarian

John Bye, University Archivist

 

4.2.3     Project Financial Administration

The Project Director will review progress as outlined in the following project timetable to ensure that the project is conducted in a timely manner and that project goals are met for quality and productivity. The Project Coordinator will work with the institutional Project Managers to establish institutional benchmarks during the first six months. Benchmarks for the preservation stage of the project will be fully established for each participating library after the completion of the bibliographic analysis and selection stage and will be based on the number of volumes to be preserved and titles cataloged.

All costs attendant to the identification, selection, and preservation of the target materials are included in the project budget for each participating institution in Section 5, Preservation Profiles and Project Staff. The summary budget in Section 4.2.4 (page 22) provides a Project Overview, for each participant and for the project as a whole, including the total number of titles and volumes to be identified and preserved, the per-volume reimbursed cost, and the total project cost. See Appendix E for detailed project budgets for each participant. Also see Section 7, Budget Narrative, for more budget detail.

According to a formal Memorandum of Agreement, participating libraries that are identifying and selecting only (Michigan and North Carolina) will be paid 50% of the total project cost in advance, and 50% upon completion of the ranked bibliography. Participating libraries that are preserving materials selected in Phase II (Arkansas, Iowa, and Minnesota) will be reimbursed according to their cost-per-volume rate on a quarterly basis up to the total project cost submitted by each participant. The three libraries (Kansas, New Mexico, and North Dakota) that are identifying, selecting, and preserving materials in Phase III will also be reimbursed according to their per-volume rate on a quarterly basis. A quarterly report from the institutional Project Manager to the Project Director (certifying the number of volumes preserved and titles cataloged) will be required with a formal billing.

Because reimbursement will be based on work completed, those participating institutions preserving materials in Phase III will be required to spend institutional funds up front in the first stages of the project to complete bibliographic work and get production started.

As project sponsor, Cornell has received from each participating institution letters of intent to collaborate in this project. These letters, included as Appendix E, indicate institutional commitment to participate and to waive indirect cost recovery, considering it as a cost share contribution. Indirect cost recovery rates are shown.

Cornell University will be reimbursed for the partial costs of administering and coordinating the project, including a thirty percent time salary and benefits for the Project Director; travel to the project meetings by the Project Director and Deputy Project Director; expenses for telecommunications, postage, and duplication associated with coordinating the work of the participating institutions; and indirect costs at Cornellís negotiated rate for non-research projects. Cornell will contribute 10% of Olsenís time as Project Director and the wages of a part-time student assistant to help with maintaining project records and clerical tasks.

 

4.2.4    Project Timetable

The project will extend for two years beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2002.

 

Year One

July - September 2000

Project Managersí start-up meeting, at ALA annual conference

Identification of resources for compiling the bibliography

Training in bibliographic phase of the project

Training for scholarly evaluation phase of the project

Quality control workshop for libraries filming in Phase III

Hiring and training of institutional staff

Begin searching and compilation

Seek initial funds

Set filming contracts for continuing libraries

October - December 2000

Compilation of the bibliographies for each state

Review of bibliography scope documents from each state

Start-up of the preservation stage of the project

Benchmark approx. 15% of volumes completed by continuing libraries

Half-year reports due

January - March 2001

Scholarly review and ranking of the bibliographies

Review of ranked bibliographies

Continuation of preservation stage by continuing libraries

Complete filming of 30% of project volumes

April - June 2001

Preservation and quality assurance completed for 40% of project volumes by continuing libraries

Start preservation phase for new libraries; contract for filming

Annual reports due

 

Year Two

July - September 2001

Project Managersí meeting at ALA annual conference

Review progress and compare strategies

Quality assurance completed for 60% of project volumes filmed, continuing libraries 25% of project volumes for new libraries

Quarterly reports due

October - December 2001

Preservation and quality assurance complete for 80% of volumes, continuing libraries

50% of project volumes of new libraries

Completion of any needed refilming, continuing libraries

January - March 2002

Preservation and quality assurance completed for 100% of volumes, continuing libraries

Preservation and quality assurance completed for 75% of project volumes, new libraries

April - June 2002

Preservation and quality assurance completed for 100% of volumes, including refilming by new libraries

Wrap-up of project activities

Notification of scholarly journals and societies

Creation of a state database of titles preserved and yet to be preserved, with rankings

Completion of institutional and project final reports

 

 

Preserving the History of U.S. Agriculture and Rural Life 1820-1945

PHASE III: GRANTEE BUDGET OVERVIEW, 2000-2002

 

Participant

Titles

Volumes

$/volume (preservation cost only)

Year 1

Year 2

Total

Identify only

100%

--

100%

Michigan

$ 26,925

 

$ 26,925

North Carolina

30,256

 

30,256

Subtotal

$ 57,181

 

$ 57,181

 

Identify and preserve

   

 

100%

Kansas

775

1,500

$103.14

$ 26,248

$154,705

$180,953

New Mexico

550

1,500

63.02

14,650

94,525

109,175

North Dakota

400

700

64.06

11,660

44,839

56,499

Subtotal

1,725

3,700

$ 79.48

$ 52,558

$294,069

$346,627

 

Preserve only

40%

 

60%

100%

Arkansas

236

277

$ 45.80

$ 5,074

$ 7,611

$ 12,685

Iowa

368

1,542

87.83

54,177

81,265

135,442

Minnesota

350

2,990

88.34

105,657

158,486

264,143

Subtotal

954

4,809

$ 85.73

$164,908

$247,362

$412,270

Project total

2,679

8,509

$ 83.01

$274,647

$541,431

$816,078

 

 

Project Administration

 


Administrative costs and overhead $162,278

 

Total $978,356

The eight land-grant libraries have devoted $157,542 of staff and other expenses as a cost-sharing portion of their operations. The institutional indirect costs, normally charged by these institutions but not paid by this grant, amount to $300,497. The actual cost-share and indirect cost waived amount to $460,000.

 

4.3     BIBLIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

Over the last decade, research libraries and archives, with funding assistance from federal and private sources, have mounted an impressive national effort to preserve our endangered intellectual heritage. As the program has evolved, so have the strategies for defining and selecting materials for preservation. A number of projects have employed the "great collections" model introduced by the Research Libraries Group, whereby materials on a particular subject are preserved from the great collection of an individual library. The use of the national bibliographic databases has allowed more than one great collection library to work in a subject area without duplication of effort. However, this approach to selection for preservation does not meet the need of scholars for the systematic preservation of the "core literature" of a discipline. Nor does it meet the national programís need to be selective and cost-effective.

The preservation problem in research libraries is estimated to include over twelve million unique titles requiring preservation. When Congress increased funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1988, the national program was targeted to preserve a selected three million volumes over a twenty-year period. Thus, at the same time that Congress and research libraries acknowledged the urgency of the preservation problem, they also recognized that it would be impossible, given financial realities, to preserve everything. While the great collections approach is valuable, when considered in the context of limited funding it cannot meet the goal of developing a coordinated and focused strategy to preserve the highest priority literature of individual disciplines.

The limitations of funding from both federal and local sources demand that the national program be highly selective. Some preservation projects, targeting the needs of scholars, have employed a partnership strategy between scholars and librarians to analyze the literature and designate priorities. Such a strategy can be particularly effective when applied to a specific discipline such as the history of agriculture and rural life.

In addition, to further advance the goals of coordination, cost-effectiveness, and selectivity, a powerful strategy has emerged whereby materials are designated for preservation based on a comprehensive national plan for the preservation of the literature of a discipline. Such a plan defines and analyzes the literature of an academic or research discipline, sets priorities for preservation, identifies the major players, and organizes projects around logical topics or genres. Programs are underway in such diverse disciplines as theology, biomedicine, performing arts, anthropology, geology, architecture, art history, and agriculture. Through the experience of these programs national preservation planning, discipline by discipline, is emerging as a rational and cost-efficient model. The value of this model lies not only in its cost-effectiveness, since there will never be enough resources to preserve all materials, but also in its involvement of scholars in the decision process. The ranking of literature in terms of preservation priorities provides the basis for incremental projects.

This project employs the model of a discipline-based preservation project and continues the work of Phases I and II. Its purpose is to preserve additional materials and improve access to them, thus approaching a critical mass of the most significant publications documenting the history of U.S. agriculture and rural life between 1820 and 1945 from a diverse cross-section of states. This cooperative project will be conducted with eight land-grant university libraries and state partners. They will use the proven methodology for bibliographic analysis and evaluation developed and implemented at Cornell University, in cooperation with the New York State Library, to preserve New York Stateís agriculture and rural life literature, and applied successfully. (See Appendix C for an article describing this methodology ).

This methodology has been tested and refined in Phases I and II. At the second Project Managers Meeting in San Francisco (in June 1997) we took stock of what was learned through the experience of eight states in compiling their bibliographies and having them reviewed by scholars. Based on similar discussions with Phase II participants, their quarterly reports, and a meeting in June 1998, we know that the methodology has been successfully adapted to the needs of land-grant institutions. We have a growing body of librarians experienced in this methodology of selection for preservation.

The plan of work is organized so that libraries first conduct a systematic bibliographic analysis and evaluation of the materials, with priorities for preservation determined by a team of scholars and librarians. This stage of the project includes the following steps:

 

Each state plans to preserve the top-ranked 25% of titles so identified. At the conclusion of the project, ranked lists of titles that were not preserved in the project (i.e., the balance of the universe of publishing on the subject) are included in a state-maintained accessible database. Also included are lists of titles preserved prior to or parallel with the project by commercial filmers or libraries. These lists will provide guidance on preservation priorities for future efforts to preserve a greater share of the universe of the relevant publishing in any of the states.

This approach focuses limited preservation funds on the most important materials first, provides a method of measuring overall progress in preserving the published record of a discipline, and leaves for posterity a record of what has been preserved and what hasnít.

Two project meetings will be held to provide training and direction in bibliographic analysis, scholarly evaluation, and quality assurance, and to develop consensus about the utility and methodology of the discipline-based approach to preservation and access projects.

4.3.1     Defining the Scope of the Literature

For the purpose of developing an estimate of the materials to be preserved, each state estimated the universe of publications that constitute the published historical record of agriculture and its fundamental relationship to the stateís landscape, natural resources, rural society, and economy between 1820-1945. Earlier imprints were excluded from consideration as nearly all are included in the Evans and the Shaw and Shoemaker bibliographies and because as part of the national plan, the National Agriculture Library has assumed preservation responsibility for early imprints. Later imprints were considered out-of-scope at this time. Land-grant and experiment station publications previously filmed as part of the NAL-sponsored cooperative microfilming project are excluded from this project.

The definition of rural society that will be covered by the project can be characterized by Dr. Albert R. Mannís definition: "the study of associated or group activities of the people who live in the country viewed from the standpoint of the effect of these activities on the character of the farm people themselves." Also included is the effect of outside influences (e.g., advertising, technology, war, immigration) on the activities and character of rural people and communities. Broad subject areas include the following:

Rural society: family farming; the farm home and family; forestry and its industries; rural communities; standards of living in rural communities; rural organizations (agricultural societies, Grange, Farm and Home bureau, 4-H, church and improvement societies); rural political organizations and movements; farm demographics; rural communications and radio programming; centralization/consolidation of schools; nature study movement; country life movement; rural play and recreation activities; county and local fairs; cooperative extension services; rural peopleís attitudes and opinions; rural leadership; selected mail order catalogs of interest to farm families; women in farm life and rural communities; immigrants and immigrant populations in rural societies; employment of migrant workers; Rural Free Delivery; automobiles and rural life; rural architecture; rural health and medical care; rural social services, welfare, and social security; rural art; rural water supply and waste water treatment; rural land use and planning.

Rural economy: agricultural and forestry economics; farm organization and management; production economics; food distribution; state food supply; statistical data; agricultural prices; marketing of agricultural and forestry products; state agricultural and food policies; cooperatives; agricultural finance; land economics and land use; land tenure; marketing of agricultural products; rural economy other than farm economy; food exports.

Technical agriculture: farming, food and nonfood agricultural and forestry products; major, minor, and experimental crops; agronomic techniques, including plant breeding; animal science; forestry; crop insects and diseases and their control; food science; agricultural engineering (farm equipment, farm structures, agricultural technology); rural transportation; natural resources pertaining to agriculture (soils, water, meteorology) and their conservation.

4.3.2     Compilation of the Bibliography for each State

During this stage of the project, participating libraries will systematically identify the universe of publications on agriculture and rural life in their respective states. The object is to identify the state and local literature in total -- not just the titles held in each of the libraryís collections. Therefore, depending on the state, the lead library will seek the cooperation of one or more other libraries, such as the state library, state historical society library, other research libraries, the stateís historically black land-grant university, and forestry schools in order to identify the universe of relevant materials.

Institutional project managers have received training on the bibliographic process from Sam Demas and Wallace C. Olsen in the first two phases. Instruction and consultation on developing scope statements and the compilation of the bibliographies will continue as an integral part of Phase III.

Because the program is national in scope, the participants will come to final agreement at their first meeting about those materials to be included and excluded from consideration based on subject and topic, as well as considerations of format, date, provenance, and the likelihood of coverage in other preservation projects. The project will exclude, for example, materials such as reprints, almanacs, daily newspapers, and state legislative documents. In the final analysis, each state will be responsible for identifying its most important material relevant to the history of agriculture and rural life; therefore, some differences in scope and subject matter will result in consultation with Program Directors.

Also at the start-up meeting, the participants will discuss the use of a database management program for compiling and manipulating the bibliographies. The use of a database management program designed to handle bibliographic references can facilitate downloading records from online systems, and allow merging, sorting, and duplicate detection of records.

Following the start-up meeting, the participants will begin by:

  1. Identifying the sources they will use for compiling the bibliography; and
  2. Listing the subject headings to be used based on modifications for their states

By the end of the first three months of the project, they will also have hired or assigned staff and begun the searching and compilation process so that questions about compilation can be fruitfully addressed at this early stage. Libraries will generally employ a team consisting of a librarian and a support staff person to compile the bibliography and prepare it for scholarly evaluation. The amount of time devoted to this will vary from state to state, but typically it will involve a half-time librarian and half-time support staff person for 3 - 5 months, depending on the size of the universe of materials. These personnel costs are included in the project budget for each participant.

Three months into the project, the Project Directors will review the products developed in each state and provide additional guidance. Participants will be provided with materials developed for the scholarly evaluation stage of the project. In addition, questions about the preservation stage of the project will be addressed. Participants will be asked to attend a filming quality assurance workshop at the beginning of the project. [See Section 4.4.4 Microfilming and Quality Assurance below.]

With the scope of each state bibliography determined, project participants will compile the bibliographies, a process that will take approximately 2 - 4 months and will involve an extensive review of both print and electronic sources. Participants will work from the list of subject headings derived from the original New York State project and Phase I, but customized to reflect their stateís agricultural history. Selected subject headings and date parameters will be searched in each libraryís online catalog as well as the databases of other libraries in the state and, if appropriate, in national bibliographic databases. Lists generated from online sources will be supplemented with citations from a wide variety of printed sources, including scholarly bibliographies, dictionary catalogs, repository shelf-lists, source bibliographies appended to books, theses, dissertations, and esoteric bibliographies.

4.3.3     Scholarly Evaluation and Ranking

Each library will engage a scholarly review panel of three to four individuals to review and rank the titles in the bibliography for preservation priority according to the rating scheme described below. Reviewers were selected for their knowledge of agriculture and/or state history and chosen to reflect different backgrounds and points of view. Each reviewer will be paid an honorarium ($450 per person; costs are included in the cost for each state) for this consulting service and asked to deliver the completed product within six weeks. Based on Phases I and II experiences, each reviewer will spend approximately eight hours reviewing the list, usually over a period of two or three weeks.

Prior to distributing the bibliography, a library may host a meeting for the reviewers to discuss the project as a whole, the scope of the bibliography and the compilation process, and the rating scheme and scholarly review process. This meeting will help insure that reviewers are applying the rating scheme in a similar manner and that questions are addressed up front. Directions and explanations will also go with each list for review.

Monograph citations are best separated into subject categories to help structure the review process and make it easier for the reviewers to consider each title within the context of the subject matter and the time of publication. Likewise, serial titles will be arranged in categories depending upon the type of publication (e.g., serials about state agriculture, land-grant university publications, etc.). Reviewers will also be notified about titles that have already been acceptably preserved.

Reviewers will be asked to determine the relative importance of each title for historical research in the humanities compared to other titles in the lists according to the following scheme:

First Priority: Very important historical title, of critical importance to preserve.

Second Priority: Important title definitely worth preserving, funds permitting.

Third Priority: Worth preserving at some time, but of a lower priority.

Fourth Priority: Not worth preserving.

In addition to the scholarly reviewers, the institutional project managers, or another appropriate person in the institution, will also evaluate the list from the point of view of an agriculture bibliographer. A review by a practicing librarian will contribute a broad perspective on how the materials are used by students and scholars in many disciplines and a sense of the relative scarcity of the publications.

Following the rating process, the results for each title will be averaged and ranges assigned in order to sort the titles into logical and manageable priority groups. For example, in New York, titles that fell into the 1.0 - 1.5 range became first priority titles; titles that fell into the 1.6 - 2.0 range were ranked second priority for the project. The experience of the original New York State project and Phases I and II showed remarkable similarity in the way historians viewed the literature. A random sampling of the ratings showed that the four reviewers rated each title either the same or one rating apart about 90% of the time.

4.3.4     Priority Selection for Preservation

Setting preservation priorities by the use of a rated bibliography is more time-consuming than the more typical model for a preservation project that selects deteriorated materials within a subject and time period from the shelves of a library. The premise of this proposal is that a thorough bibliographic and scholarly evaluation project can objectively and authoritatively set preservation priorities for a discipline, thus setting the stage for the conduct of a systematic preservation program. Such a methodology allows individual projects to be undertaken at cooperating institutions at different times, when funding is available and without losing momentum. Most importantly, use of a rated bibliography as a selection tool for preservation ensures that the most important materials in a discipline will be preserved first. Given the realities of limited funding for preservation, this more time-consuming approach to selection probably is the most effective and appropriate strategy for this program.

Funds requested for preservation in the Phase III project are based on the actual quantity of material of highest priority selected for preservation by scholars during Phase II in Arkansas, Iowa, and Minnesota. Funds requested for identification, selection, and preservation of materials in Kansas, New Mexico, and North Dakota, and for identification and selection in Michigan and North Carolina, were established based on the estimates of the universe of materials provided by the project libraries during the development of the proposal, drawing on the experience of prior projects.

The budget requested for each state is estimated to be sufficient to preserve those materials that have been or will be ranked priority one and two by the scholarly reviewers. The goal of the project is to preserve approximately 25% of the universe of materials. When titles previously preserved are added to this 25% (22% in New York State; estimated to be 10-20% in most states), approximately 35-45% of the universe of materials will have been preserved. Project libraries are committed to preserve any remaining priority two materials within their local preservation programs, as funding permits. In addition to preserving the most important materials on the history of agriculture and rural life, this project also establishes priorities for preserving the remaining historical record.

 

4.4   PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS

Throughout the project, participants will adhere to specifications, guidelines, and standards from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM), the Research Libraries Group (RLG), and the Library of Congress. These specifications and standards apply to the physical and bibliographic preparation of materials for microfilming; the bibliographic control of microfilm masters for monographs and serials; the preservation microfilming of library materials; processing, duplication, inspection, and quality assurance procedures for preservation microfilm; and the housing and storage of master negative microfilms completed for the project.

The Project Director will work with the institutional Project Managers to ensure that staff from participating libraries have access to and appropriate knowledge of all standards, specifications, and guidelines to be used in the project. In addition, Ann Swartzell, Head of Preservation Services at Harvard University, will serve as Quality Assurance Consultant to the project. She will conduct a formal workshop on quality assurance procedures for those institutions that are microfilming in Phase III at the start-up meeting in June 2000. If needed and upon the recommendation of the Project Director, USAIN will arrange and finance a follow-up visit by the consultant to those libraries needing additional assistance with quality assurance procedures. Although all participating libraries have some experience with microfilm reformatting, the coordination of project procedures will also include linking libraries less experienced in the conduct of preservation projects with experienced participants so that procedures and practical advice will be immediately available. Workforms and guidelines will be distributed to help determine when a microfilm copy is an acceptable preservation replacement.

4.4.1     Searching and Identification

In the course of the bibliographic analysis and selection phase of the project, (see Section 4.3.2), project staff will search for and identify all relevant titles, using both print and electronic sources. The national bibliographic databases, OCLC and RLIN, will be searched to identify titles, as well as to determine whether titles identified from other sources have already been preserved on archival quality microfilm.

As a result of these and other searching strategies, the project libraries will collect information on which relevant titles have already been microfilmed. A list of titles, both monographic and serial, that are suitably preserved will be provided to the scholarly reviewers in addition to the list that they will be asked to evaluate and rank in order to establish the priorities for the project. This will insure that the reviewers are given an appropriate context in which to judge the importance of material.

Priority one and two materials selected for inclusion in the project (see Sections 4.3.3 & 4.3.4) will be retrieved from the libraryís collection or requested on interlibrary loan from another cooperating library in the state. Because online catalogs are typically inadequate sources for detailed holdings information for serials, project staffs will need to conduct additional searches of manual records as well as shelves.

 

4.4.2     Physical Preparation for Filming

Each of the project libraries microfilming materials in Phase III will carry out the preparation of materials for microfilming according to guidelines established by the Research Libraries Group for their cooperative projects, and published in the RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook (March 1992), pages 20-35.

Physical preparation begins with page-by-page collation of the material to check the order and completeness of individual monographic volumes and serial runs. Every effort will be made to ensure that microfilmed material is complete by obtaining photocopies of missing pages or borrowing missing volumes or issues from other libraries. Items will be identified that need page repair, temporary removal of foldouts, or disbinding before they can be successfully microfilmed. Also at this stage, microfilm reel programming for serial titles will take place to prepare the list of volumes and issues being filmed and the reels on which they will appear. This list will appear at the beginning of each microfilm reel for a serial title. Serials will be processed for microfilming in advance of monographs to allow time to locate and obtain any missing issues.

Microfilm targets to be filmed in conjunction with the original materials, including technical targets and bibliographic record targets, will be prepared and assembled by preservation staff, or by the filming agent when so instructed.

When titles and volumes are complete and in filmable condition, they will be cataloged so that a printout of the online bibliographic record can be microfilmed along with the original materials.

 

4.4.3     Bibliographic Control and Record Distribution

Immediately prior to microfilming, bibliographic records for each title will be entered into the libraryís online catalog in conformance with the ARL Guidelines for Bibliographic Control of Microform Masters for both monographs and serials. These documents are based upon existing national cataloging rules and interpretations for creating catalog records, including Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, the Library of Congress Name Authority File, the CONSER Editing Guide, and the Library of Congress classification schedules and cataloging manuals. If no subject headings are present on existing catalog records, one subject heading will be added.

Master negative information will be included in the reproduction note (533) and physical description (007) fields of the MARC record according to national standards. Holdings statements for serial titles will be summarized in the reproduction note (533, subfield M) according to guidelines established by ARL and CONSER. This will ensure that information about the extent of preservation of a particular serial title will be available nationally.

All machine-readable bibliographic records for project materials will be entered into OCLC or RLIN through either direct input or tape loading. Bibliographic records for master negative microforms entered into OCLC and RLIN are exchanged monthly.

4.4.4     Microfilming and Quality Assurance

The institutions microfilming in Phase III will contract with filming agencies for microfilming services. Each project participant procured at least two bids for services and chose the filming agent most capable of doing preservation quality work at a reasonable cost and within the time of the project. A mention of these procedures for filming is in Section 5, along with names of Project Staff for each library. Supporting materials are available for examination from the Project Director.

All project participants, or their filming agents, will produce three generations of polyester-based silver-gelatin 35 mm microfilm for each volume in the project, including the camera master negative, a duplicate negative to be used for producing additional copies, and a positive film copy for patron or library use. The microfilm will be produced according to relevant ANSI/AIIM standards and the technical microfilming guidelines published in the RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook (pages 36-44).

Quality Assurance Consultant Ann Swartzell, Head of Preservation Services at Harvard University, will work with the Project Director and participants to help ensure the quality of the preservation microfilm produced for the project. The QA Consultant will conduct a half-day workshop during the first project managers meeting; the focus will be to make certain that project participants have the information they need to develop local QA routines and ensure that the preservation product meets all applicable national standards and relevant guidelines. The QA Consultant will work with the Project Director and project participants to develop a letter of agreement governing the work of microfilmers. Finally, the QA Consultant may make a site visit to those libraries that need additional help in establishing QA routines.

Project Managers will be responsible for ensuring the quality of all film produced for the project. A quality assurance report form will be established for the project to assist libraries in their examination and certification of completed film. In general, the project will follow the quality assurance procedures developed by the Research Libraries Group for their cooperative projects and described in the RLG technical microfilming guidelines.

4.4.5     Access to Preserved Materials

Service copies of all microfilms created in the project will be available to users through Interlibrary Loan, as well as on-site in the holding libraries. Copies of the microfilm will be available for purchase at cost by other institutions or individuals, subject to copyright restrictions. The availability of preserved titles will be made known through the distribution of bibliographic records to the national bibliographic databases, OCLC and RLIN.

4.4.6     Storage of Master Negative Microfilms

Duplicate negatives will be maintained by the project libraries in facilities that are appropriate for microfilm storage; they will be used, as needed, to make service copies. All first generation master negative microfilm produced in the project will be sent to the National Library of Agriculture (NAL) as security against any unforeseen damage to the duplicate negative, and for preservation in perpetuity as part of the national preservation program for agriculture and rural life (See Appendix B, letter of support from NAL).

Project materials will be stored according to established temperature and humidity levels set forth in ANSI PH1.43-1985, American National Standard Practice for Storage of Processed Safety Photographic Film. Film enclosures will conform to ANSI IT9.2-1989, Imaging Media- Photographic Processed Films, Plates, and Papers - Filing Enclosures and Storage Containers. The Project Directors have worked with staff at NAL to establish procedures for identifying and labeling master negatives.

4.4.7     Estimated Titles and Volumes to be Preserved, Phase III

 

Serials

Monographs

Total

 

Titles

Vols.

Titles

Vols.

Titles

Vols.

Arkansas

26

59

210

218

236

277

Iowa

126

1,296

242

246

368

1,542

Kansas

20

640

755

860

775

1,500

Minnesota

110

2,750

240

240

350

2,990

New Mexico

50

1,000

500

500

550

1,500

North Dakota

100

350

300

350

400

700

Total

432

6,095

2,347

2,414

2,679

8,509


 
 
 
 

Grant Proposal, PHASE III
Back to homepage