Developing and refining a catalogue or index is an iterative process that includes cycles of brainstorming, organizing, arranging,
testing, reorganizing, editing, and publication. Iterative means we expect to go back and adjust work done earlier in the process, informed by things we learn later in the process. This may seem inefficient if we are comparing to other types of work. But indexing is more like writing or music composition, where the goal is quality content and the product comes as a result of a number of drafts. Although some brilliant artists create and compose well spontaneously, others require multiple revisions of initial drafts. In indexing, we behave more like the latter artists, revising significantly our first attempts based on an evolving conception of what's important or feedback from an audience.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Digital Humanities Discussion
In November I'll be attending the American Studies conference in San Juan and will be on a panel talking about Digital Humanities in graduate education. Although our primary identity at Randforce is more in Digital Indexing than digital humanities, we've worked with people like Mark Tebeau at Cleveland State and folks at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University--who run THATcamp and have developed Omeka--and generally have a lot to say about this diverse and emerging field. As part of the ramp-up to the conference I've been invited/encouraged to post and comment on this blog:
Digital Dimensions of Grad Ed in Am Studies
Check it out to join or view the discussion... The session is co-sponsored by the Graduate Education Committee and the Digital Humanities Caucus of the American Studies Association. Thanks to Rob Snyder for inviting me to join that panel!
Digital Dimensions of Grad Ed in Am Studies
Check it out to join or view the discussion... The session is co-sponsored by the Graduate Education Committee and the Digital Humanities Caucus of the American Studies Association. Thanks to Rob Snyder for inviting me to join that panel!
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Producer/Publisher
A producer may be involved at any stage of an oral historydigital indexing project, and can focus on concise published content that features parts of a collection even as comprehensive annotation and indexing proceeds. Production can begin immediately after an interview is recorded or long after an interview was performed. Naturally, finding the best segments to produce from older footage is more convenient when the content is annotated and/or indexed.
Producers work in a variety of
different ways, but fundamentally their role is to identify content they wish
to work with, redact that content as part of an editorial process, and
reproduce the material in edited videos, podcasts, segments for radio, etc. The producer uses the content of the audio/video resource, brings additional
research and vision, and adds other historical recordings, music, images and
other documents to create palatable products to
audiences. Annotation and indexing is crucial for creating access to oral history audio and video, but production and publication is important for spreading awareness of and exposure to the collection. Even as we attempt to preserve and create better access to oral history collections, ultimately we want to see them be used for the education and enjoyment of others, and producers are crucial players in that effort.
Return to Oral History Digital Indexing Roles.
Editor
As with any published document, an editor is needed to assure consistency and quality. An editorial role is also important to unify
inconsistencies that may emerge between different annotators of the audio and video by dictating a style and
giving feedback until the desired “voice” is achieved. The work may be as much managerial
in nature as it is an editing role. In
general, the editor should be the master of all the text created in the annotation/indexingprocess. The editor would not be expected to have heard every minute of the original
audio or video, but they would be expected to have read most or every word annotated
within the collection. In a larger
project, the editor might delegate editorial tasks to trusted personnel, but
ultimately there should be one person at the top of a hierarchy who is ultimately responsible for all published content.
For newly developed controlled vocabulary, there is also an
editorial role associated with approving new terms. In the context of a custom/local controlled vocabulary being developed from scratch, the editorial process occurs as proposed terms are agreed upon and finalized. In the case of updating, amending or expanding on an existing standard or local controlled vocabulary, content management
systems like CONTENTdm have features that cue and allow a librarian to approve specific terms that
have been added. In that case, the librarian who has the authority to approve or disapprove of a term being added is acting as an editor as well.
Return to Oral History Digital Indexing Roles.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Indexer/Coder
The role of indexer entails two parts of the indexing work. There is developing the index—i.e., brainstorming and organizing the customized
controlled vocabulary to be used, and then actually applying the index to the
content, which could be referred to as coding. As
with all the other roles discussed here, this work may all be done by the same
person.
Developing an index, or more specifically the controlled
vocabulary used as the index, may include contributions from anyone familiar
with the content of the oral history interviews and the subject area in general.
The annotator is typically best equipped to provide the most specific and
topical input relative to the material that has been annotated. However, the controlled
vocabulary is based not only on the very specific content of the collection but
outside factors as well. Existing thesauri such as TGM and LCSH can be drawn
upon to develop the controlled vocabulary. Also, the users--the anticipated
audience of the collection—should be explicitly defined and considered when
choosing terms (e.g., a local term for an object might be more appropriate than
what LOC calls it.) Developing a
controlled vocabulary is particularly challenging in an on-going project, as
the terms chosen and the architectural structure of terms (e.g., hierarchy)
will necessarily change as more material is added. Ideally, the controlled
vocabulary is developed after all interviewing and annotation is complete,
though sometimes this is not possible. Developing the controlled vocabulary works
best as a collaborative, iterative process (including drafting, debating, and
test application) aimed at a comprehensive taxonomy that represents the whole
collection.
Applying the controlled vocabulary is another task of the
indexer, or more specifically the coder.
Coding is sometimes done by more than one person, and often done by
someone different than the person who composed the annotation originally. Frequently,
the coder applies the controlled vocabulary based on the annotation summary
only, not by actually listening to the original recorded passage, which has
certain advantages and disadvantages. The key challenge with this job is maintaining
a reasonable amount of “intercoder reliability”—i.e., that two indexers/coders
independently will assign the same vocabulary term to the same passage. Some
inconsistency and subjectivity is expected in this process—just as two people
would not index a book in exactly the same way. Ideally, one person, such as a
lead indexer or the editor, should oversee the indexing/coding and develop some
means of quality control of to assure a reasonable amount of consistency.
Return to Oral History Digital Indexing Roles.
Return to Oral History Digital Indexing Roles.
Labels:
coding,
controlled vocabulary,
Digital indexing,
electronic indexing,
intercoder reliability
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Annotator
Annotation is a key step upon which indexing is built, and
the role of the annotator is to link the content of the audio or video with
meaningful text. Annotation is itself a form of indexing—creating text that
directs a user to content of interest—that simply takes a linear form, similar
to a transcript. The basic skill is listening to a recording, and composing
text that summarizes the content. Although annotation seeks to lighten the
tedious burden of word-for-word transcription, it still takes significant time
to complete (at least 1 ¼ hours per hour of interview, sometimes up to 2+ hours
or more if a great deal of detail is desired). Annotation proceeds faster with
practice and with increasing familiarity with the content. Familiarity with the
content from the outset (whether because of personal background/interest or
because the annotator conducted the interviews) is typically an additional
advantage. Because annotation is the foundation upon which the indexing is
built, consistency of style, density, and overall quality of annotation is
strongly recommended. Generally, annotations that are shorter but consistent
are better than a highly varied collection of sparse and detailed annotation
written by different people in different styles. When there is more than one
annotator, an editor is an essential player in the indexing process.
Return to Oral History Digital Indexing Roles.
Labels:
annotation,
Digital indexing,
electronic indexing,
metadata
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Interviewer
Digital Indexing of oral histories begins with the work of interviewer. In an ideal digital indexing project, the
role of the interviewer may continue throughout the process of indexing, and in
some cases right through to editing and production. In other cases, the interviewer cannot be involved, for example in older, archival collections. In
any oral history, a key responsibility of the interviewer is to know their
subject and have conducted thorough background and contextual research. An interviewer is by default a steward of the
recordings, and is thus on some level responsible for seeing through certain
follow up steps after the recording is made. In a project that includes indexing, an
interviewer is well positioned—because of their familiarity with the content—to
be an annotator and indexer of the material they recorded. This is not
imperative, and sometimes has the downside that they are not as objective as a
less familiar annotator might be. However, the original interviewer—especially
at a time shortly after the interview was conducted—has the potential to most
efficiently annotate material, taking advantage of their own memory of the
recorded event. When someone besides the interviewer does the annotation, they
have the disadvantage of being unfamiliar with the content.
Return to Oral History Digital Indexing Roles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)