TEI Conference 2013
Born digital
Historically libraries, especially academic libraries, have contributed to the development of the TEI Guidelines, largely in response to mandates to provide access to and preserve electronic texts (Engle 1998; Friedland 1997; Giesecke, McNeil, and Minks 2000; Nellhaus 2011). At the turn of the 21st century, momentum for text encoding grew in libraries as a result of the maturation of pioneering digital library programs and XML-based web publishing tools and systems (Bradley 2004). Libraries were not only providing “access to original source material, contextualization, and commentaries, but they also provide[ed] a set of additional resources and service[s]” equally rooted in robust technical infrastructure and noble “ethical traditions” that have critically shaped humanities pedagogy and research (Besser 2004).
In 2002, Sukovic posited that libraries’ changing roles would and could positively impact publishing and academic research by leveraging both standards such as the TEI Guidelines and traditional library expertise, namely in cataloging units due to their specialized knowledge in authority control, subject analysis, and of course, bibliographic description. Not long after, in 2004, Google announced the scanning of books in major academic libraries to be included in Google Books (Google 2012), and in 2008 many of these libraries formed HathiTrust to provide access to facsimile page images created through mass digitization efforts (Wilkin 2011), calling into question the role for libraries in text encoding that Sukovic advocated. In 2011, with the formation of the HathiTrust Research Center and IMLS funding of TAPAS (TEI Archiving, Publishing, and Access Service, http://www.tapasproject.org/), we see that both large- and small-scale textual analysis are equally viable and worthy pursuits for digital research inquiry in which libraries are heavily vested (Jockers and Flanders 2013). More recently, we are witnessing a call for greater and more formal involvement of libraries in digital humanities endeavors and partnerships (Vandegrift 2012; Muñoz 2012) in which the resurgence of TEI in libraries is becoming apparent (Green 2013; Milewicz 2012; Tomasek 2011; Dalmau and Courtney 2011). How has advocating for such wide-ranging library objectives — from digital access and preservation to digital literacy and scholarship, from supporting non-expressive/non-consumptive research practices to research practices rooted in the markup itself — informed the evolution or devolution of text encoding projects in libraries?
Inspired by the papers, presentations and discussions that resulted from the theme of the 2009 Conference and Members’ Meeting of the TEI Consortium, “Text Encoding in the Era of Mass Digitization,” the launch of the AccessTEI program in 2010, and the release of the Best Practices for TEI in Libraries in 2011, we surveyed employees of libraries around the world between November 2012 and January 2013 to learn more about text encoding practices and gauge current attitudes about text encoding in libraries. As library services evolve to promote varied modes of scholarly communications and accompanying services, and digital library initiatives become more widespread and increasingly decentralized, how is text encoding situated in these new or expanding areas? Do we see trends in uptake or downsizing of text encoding initiatives in smaller or larger academic institutions? How does administrative support or lack thereof impact the level of interest and engagement in TEI-based projects across the library as whole? What is the nature of library-led or -partnered electronic text projects, and is there an increase or decrease in local mass digitization or scholarly encoding initiatives? Our survey findings provide, if not answers to these, glimpses of the TEI landscape in libraries today.
The survey closed on January 31, 2013, with a total of 138 responses, and a completion rate of 65.2%. Since the survey was targeted specifically toward librarians and library staff, we turned away respondents for not meeting that criterion, with a final total of 90 responses. Most of the respondents are from North America (87%), and affiliated with an academic library (82%). Respondents from academic institutions come from institutions of various sizes, with a plurality (31%) falling in the middle range (10,000-25,000 student enrollment). Of those responding, 81.2% are actively engaged in text encoding projects. Preliminary data analysis shows that those not yet engaged in text encoding (or not sure whether their institution is engaged) are planning to embark on text encoding based on grant funding or new administrative support for text encoding projects. It seems that reports of the death of TEI in libraries are greatly exaggerated, though this is not to say that TEI in libraries is not struggling.
Our paper will unveil a fuller analysis of the data we have gathered, and when applicable, a comparative examination against the following raw data sources and publications for a more complete picture:
Emerging trends and issues will inform the future direction and agenda of the TEI’s Special Interest Group on Libraries.