Background and Methodology

Background to the Study

In 2001, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) undertook a survey of the use and practice of technology and digitization in museums and libraries across the country. The report was published as Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation's Museums and Libraries 2002 Report (www.imls.gov/resources/TechDig02). The purpose of the report was to gather information to support technology adoption in libraries and museums. In addition to key findings about technology use and digitization activities among museums and libraries, the report included a number of action recommendations, one of which was that the survey be repeated in 2004. The survey was conducted a second time with some modifications in 2004. This is the report of that survey.

IMLS was created in 1996 when Congress passed the Museum and Library Services Act. When it was reauthorized in 2003, the act gave IMLS the additional authority to undertake analyses identifying needs and trends of museum and library services and to report on the impact and effectiveness of programs conducted with IMLS funds. This additional authority reaffirms the Institute's commitment to better understand, and respond to, technology needs and trends in the nation's museums and libraries.

Subtitles of the 1996 and 2003 legislation support funding for museums, libraries, and state library administrative agencies (SLAAs). Funding from these grant programs supports a wide range of technology and digitization services. The results of the 2001 and 2004 surveys are of interest to the following groups:

• Museums and libraries, who can plan their technology development by looking at the status and experience of their peers;
• IMLS, who will use the data to inform grant administration, focus research and related activities, and strengthen service to our communities;
• The public, who makes use of technology and digitization services at museums and libraries; and
• Policy makers, researchers, and funders, who can examine trends in technology and digitization activities, content, needs, and services at museums and libraries.

Purpose of the Survey and Survey Development

The purpose of this survey was to gather information on the nature and extent of technology and digitization use and related plans and policies in the nation's museums and libraries and to compare these data with the data collected in 2001. The current survey was developed using the 2001 survey as a foundation, updating the initial baseline, and expanding the scope both in terms of context and the level of detail collected about digitization and technology in museums and libraries. Determining the status of digitization and technology in libraries and museums is an important step toward ensuring continued development of these institutions.

To develop the 2004 survey, IMLS staff representing libraries, museums, archives, and SLAAs were consulted concerning their goals for the 2004 survey. The 2001 survey was also reviewed for potential changes. The 2004 survey appears in Appendix A.

The 2001 survey contained four sections:

1. Demographics (type, size, location)
2. Technology (current and planned use, funding sources, use of technology in programming)
3. Digitization (plans, practices, policies, hindrances, goals)
4. IMLS's role

While the general outline remained the same for the 2004 survey, the following changes were made:

1. The 2001 survey collected data for four institution types: museums, public libraries, academic libraries, and SLAAs. The 2004 survey added archives as an institution type because this is an important constituent group about which IMLS has insufficient data.
2. The technology section from the 2001 survey contained 8 questions; the 2004 survey kept 5 of those and added 10 new questions, for a total of 15.
3. The digitization section of the 2001 survey contained 21 questions. The 2004 survey repeated 13 questions from the 2001 survey and added 13 new ones, for a total of 26 questions.
4. The section on IMLS's role retained two questions from the 2001 survey.

Sampling Methods

The potential respondent universe was composed of five groups: museums, public libraries, academic libraries, archives, and SLAAs.

The museum population was identified by using the IMLS museums database (total number, 18,142), from which a random sample, stratified by region of the country and staff size, was drawn¹. The public and academic library population was identified by using the American Library Directory (ALD). For SLAAs, all 51 agencies (50 states plus the District of Columbia) were included.

The archives population was identified by compiling a list of all known archives that both served the public interest and were stand-alone institutions (i.e., not subunits of larger libraries or museums). To avoid duplication of data collected from other institution types (such as museums and academic libraries), the archives sample did not include² university archives (since those data would be included in the academic library sample), historic sites and national monuments (since those data would be included in the museum sample), or archives of for-profit institutions (since these institutions are not part of the IMLS constituency). The total number of archives that satisfied these criteria was 395, the entire population of which was surveyed.

As an institution type, archives were a challenge to define. A historical society, for instance, may be both a museum and archives, and some institutions have "library" in their name yet consider themselves to be archives. The problem of how to define each institutional category was resolved for the purpose of this survey by allowing each participating institution to choose the category to which it primarily belonged. However, the issues of how to define archives and how to identify the institutions that belong in an archives sample still remain to be addressed.

Using the parameters described above produced a total initial sample size of 6,089 organizations. Figure 1 shows the population size and initial sample size for this survey.

Conducting the Survey

A pretest was conducted in April 2004 that allowed the survey team to determine if there were any questions that respondents were unable to answer and to review any unusual response patterns. Based on the pilot test results, minor modifications were made to the survey. The survey was conducted in both a paper-based and a Web-based format during July, August, and September 2004. To improve the response rate, several follow-up notices were sent to participants, reiterating the importance of the survey and requesting that the survey be completed within two weeks.

Response Rate and Validity

A total of 3,931 surveys were sent to 2,124 museums, 1,361 public and academic libraries, 395 archives, and 51 SLAAs³. A total of 947 survey responses were received. The overall response rate to the survey was 24 percent.

The findings of the survey are statistically representative at the following levels:

• Museums at the 95 percent (+/-4.4 percent) level
• Public libraries at the 95 percent (+/-6.3 percent) level
• Academic libraries at the 95 percent (+/-11.6 percent) level
• SLAAs at the 95 percent (+/-6.4 percent) level

At these confidence levels, the findings for SLAAs are definitive. The specific results for museums, public libraries, and academic libraries can be discussed in terms of trends for each. Trend results are also discussed when breaking down the data by demographic information, such as size of population served (public libraries) and size of budget (museums).

Definitions

The following definitions are provided for key terms used in the survey:

Technology: refers to the use of computers (hardware and software) to use and manage information in digital format; automated systems to support services; Internet and other network connections; Web sites and Web-based services; office productivity applications like word processing and e-mail; staff to support these activities; and the range of technologies that help staff and users search, access, and experience collections on-site and virtually.

Digitization: refers to the process of converting, creating, and maintaining books, art works, historical documents, photos, journals, etc., in electronic representation so they can be viewed via computer and other devices.

¹ The IMLS in-house museums database represents approximately the entire museum universe in the United States.

² ALD includes all known libraries in the United States, including public, academic, government, special libraries, etc. The total population of 23,030 in the directory was reduced to 13,247 once public and academic libraries were identified. While the electronic version of the ALD did not initially allow sorting of the sample by library type (i.e., public or academic), it was possible to distinguish library type by population once a revised database was received.

³The initial museum sample was reduced from 2,510 to 2,124, and the initial library sample was reduced from 3,133 to 1,361 after institutions with bad e-mail and mailing addresses and institutions initially placed in the wrong group were excluded.