Article
Digital Images in Teaching and Learning at York
University: Are the Libraries Meeting the Needs of Faculty Members in Fine
Arts?
Mary
Kandiuk
Visual Arts, Design and Theatre Librarian
York University Libraries
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Email: mkandiuk@yorku.ca
Aaron
Lupton
Electronic Resources Librarian
York University Libraries
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Email: aalupton@yorku.ca
Received: 21 Dec. 2011 Accepted:
27 Apr. 2012
2012 Kandiuk
and Lupton. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share
Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective –
This study assessed the needs for digital image delivery to faculty members in
Fine Arts at York University in order to ensure that future decisions regarding
the provision of digital images offered through commercial vendors and licensed
by the Libraries meet the needs of teaching faculty.
Methods –
The study was comprised of four parts. A Web survey was distributed to 62
full-time faculty members in the Faculty of Fine Arts in February of 2011. A
total of 25 responses were received. Follow-up interviews were conducted with
nine faculty members. Usage statistics were examined for licensed library image
databases. A request was posted on the electronic mail lists of the Art
Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS-L) and the Art Libraries Society of
North America Canada Chapter (CARLIS-L) in April 2011 requesting feedback
regarding the use of licensed image databases. There were 25 responses
received.
Results – Licensed image databases receive low
use and pose pedagogical and technological challenges for the majority of the
faculty members in Fine Arts that we surveyed. Relevant content is the
overriding priority, followed by expediency and convenience, which take precedence
over copyright and cleared permissions, resulting in a heavy reliance on Google
Images Search.
Conclusions –
The needs of faculty members in Fine Arts who use digital images in their
teaching at York University are not being met. The greatest shortcomings of
licensed image databases provided by the Libraries are the content and
technical challenges, which impede the ability of faculty to fully exploit
them. Issues that need to be resolved include the lack of contemporary and
Canadian content, training and support, and organizational responsibility for
the provision of digital images and support for the use of digital images.
Introduction
The increasing
growth of digital images offered through commercial vendors and licensed by
libraries has provided new opportunities for teaching and learning at
universities. Offering a significant number of high-resolution digital images
with educational use permissions, licensed image databases are intended to
facilitate the use of digital images in pedagogy and research. Given the
significant financial expenditures on image databases such as ARTstor by Canadian academic libraries, it is critical to
know whether the needs of library users are being met through these electronic
resources. Informal feedback from faculty members in Fine Arts at York
University suggested that subscription image databases are not being used and
pose pedagogical and technological challenges. This included messages from
faculty members frustrated when trying to use licensed image databases (ARTstor in particular); poorly attended ARTstor
training sessions on campus; the inclusion of Web sources for images on course
readings lists as opposed to licensed image databases; and requests from
faculty members that York University participate in FADIS (a shared common
repository and content management system designed for the teaching, studying,
and researching of art, architecture, and visual culture). In an effort to
ensure that future decisions regarding the provision of digital images by the
Libraries meet the needs of teaching faculty, the authors conducted a four-part
study in 2011 to assess the needs for digital image delivery to faculty members
in Fine Arts at York University.
As
recently as 10 years ago faculty members in Fine Arts at York University relied
on a Slide Library, established in 1971 and housed in the Department of Visual
Arts, for images to support their teaching. The Libraries meanwhile were
responsible for monograph and periodical collections. A variety of factors
contributed to the demise of the Slide Library – a deteriorating slide
collection which included damage sustained during renovations, decreased staff
support for its operation precipitated by budget cuts, as well as the advent of
digital images via the Web and licensed image databases provided by the
Libraries. The original plan to digitize the Slide Library collection – which
at its pinnacle contained over 250,000 slides, including substantial Canadian
and contemporary content as well as unique material relating to prominent York
art teachers – was never realized.
York
University Libraries were an early Canadian adopter of the ARTstor
Digital Library, which was first licensed in 2005. This was followed in the
same year by subscriptions to Corbis Images for Education (no longer available
for licensing) and CAMIO, OCLC’s Catalog of Art Museum Images Online. At the
time these image databases appeared to be a promising campus-wide solution that
would meet the needs of teaching faculty both in and outside the Faculty of
Fine Arts for digital images with secured permissions for non-commercial,
educational, and scholarly use as the Slide Library was quietly laid to rest.
What gradually became evident was that despite initial enthusiasm, faculty
members in Fine Arts were unable to exploit fully, if at all, these resources
that the Libraries had invested in so heavily financially, and the costs for
which were increasingly difficult to rationalize. The challenge therefore was
twofold – how to better support faculty members in their use of digital images
in teaching and how to better exploit resources provided by the Libraries that
were not being used.
Literature
Review
There
were several major studies published from 2001 to 2006 examining the use of
digital images in teaching and learning at American colleges and universities.
These studies, on a much larger scale than ours, were conducted at a time when
faculty members were still making the transition from the use of analog images
to digital images.
The
Visual Image User Study at Penn State University, conducted over several years
starting in 2001, was an extensive needs assessment study that explored the
“use of pictures in higher education in order to inform the design of digital
image delivery systems” (Pisciotta, Dooris, Frost, & Halm, 2005,
p. 33). The project included the study of current and expected use of pictures
by students and faculty, a survey of the image resources supporting those uses,
and a review of current practices related to software and metadata. The summary
of the critical factors influencing the willingness to use an image delivery
system for teaching included: desired content; user-selected technology for
classroom presentation; ability to create presentations with images from many
sources; help with understanding permitted uses; methods of selecting, sorting,
naming groups, and other personalization of portions of the data; and easy
coordination with image-use systems.
Surveying
33 colleges and universities in the United States in 2006, Green’s study, Using
Digital Images in Teaching and Learning: Perspectives from Liberal Arts
Institutions (2006),
focused on the pedagogical implications of the widespread use of the digital
format, revealing issues of infrastructure and support that “need to be
resolved before their deployment can be effective” (p. 3). It examined image
sources, image use, technology and tools, support and training, and institutional
infrastructure issues. It was the infrastructure issues that proved to be the
biggest challenge of all.
Schonfeld,
in The Visual Resources Environment at Liberal Arts Colleges (2006), examined the role images
play in teaching and learning at seven liberal arts colleges in the United
States in 2005 and 2006. The report focused on the issues of organizational
structure and organizational culture and the role they played in supporting
strategies for the provision of digital images. The role of the slide library
or visual resources collection proved to be the key variable, and “those
campuses at which the slide library takes a campus-wide perspective (rather
than serving the art history department alone) seemed to see much easier and
more successful transitions to digital images” (p. 1).
In
2005, Waibel and Arcolio,
as members of the RLG Instructional Technology Group for OCLC, set out to test
“assumptions about how digital images are discovered, acquired and used – and
about preferences for the future” (p. 1). Their primary conclusion was that
“image databases need to leverage the breadth and simplicity of online search
engines such as Google Images Search to achieve higher use” (p. 3).
What
is missing from the literature is current research relating to the use of
digital images in teaching by fine arts teaching faculty. The main purpose of
our study was to determine how digital images are located, stored, and used by
fine arts faculty members in their teaching at a large university with a strong
fine arts program; to examine the shortfalls of available image databases and
barriers inhibiting their use; and to explore potential future models to
support the use and availability of digital images and strategies to maximize
the potential of existing digital resources. In addition, our study sheds light
on the specific needs of fine arts teaching faculty in Canada. The Canadian
Research Knowledge Network (CRKN, a national consortium comprised of 44
Canadian ARTstor subscribers) is licensing image
databases as part of its large-scale content acquisition and licensing
initiatives designed to “build knowledge infrastructure and research capacity”
at Canadian universities (Canadian Research Knowledge Network, 2011). This
study serves in part to evaluate the effectiveness of those initiatives.
Methods
The
information-gathering portion of our study was comprised of four parts.
Part 1
A
Web survey was distributed to 62 full-time faculty members in the Departments
of Visual Arts, Design, Fine Arts Cultural Studies, and Theatre in the Faculty
of Fine Arts in February of 2011. As one of the authors is the liaison
librarian for these four departments, there was a particular interest in
conducting a needs assessment. Each of these departments provides a
comprehensive, balanced program of creative work and academic studies,
combining scholarly work with practical training. Faculty members teach in a
variety of settings, which include the lecture hall, classroom, laboratory, and
studio. The survey was comprised of 26 questions (see Appendix A). The Faculty
Image Use Survey conducted as part of the Penn State Visual Image User Study
proved very useful for the formulation of the questions for our survey.
Respondents were also provided with the opportunity to provide additional
comments throughout the survey.
Part 2
At
the end of the survey respondents were asked if they would be willing to be
contacted for a follow-up interview. Interviews were conducted in person where
possible and otherwise by telephone during April 2011 (see Appendix B).
Part 3
Usage
statistics were examined for licensed library image databases. Statistics were
compiled for ARTstor from 2005 to 2011 and for CAMIO
from 2007 to 2011. ARTstor and CAMIO sessions and
searches per FTE for York University were also compared to the average of
institutions within CRKN and the provincial consortium OCUL (Ontario Council of
University Libraries).
Part 4
As
the final part of the information gathering, a request was posted on the
electronic mail list of the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS-L) and
the Art Libraries Society of North America Canada Chapter (CARLIS-L) in April
2011 as follows:
I have just
finished conducting a survey of faculty members in Fine Arts at my institution
regarding the use of digital images in teaching. Preliminary results indicated
that ARTstor is highly underutilized as a source for
digital images and that faculty members are relying heavily on Google Images. I
am interested in hearing whether the experience has been the same at your
institutions. I am also particularly interested in hearing from those who have
had success in promoting ARTstor at their
institutions and where faculty members are using ARTstor
on a regular basis in their teaching. Feedback regarding the use of other
licensed image databases in teaching is also welcome.
Results and
Discussion
Part 1 – The
Survey
There
was a 40% response rate, with 25 faculty members in total responding to the
survey. The 25 responses received from faculty members were distributed across
the following Departments: Visual Arts (11 respondents – 44%), Theatre (7
respondents – 28%), Design (4 respondents – 16%), Fine Arts Cultural Studies (3
respondents – 12%).
Analog Images
How Often Are
Analog Images Used in Teaching?
There
were 3 faculty members (12%) who reported always using analog images in their
teaching; 4 (16%) reported using them frequently; 6 (24%) sometimes; and 12
(48%) not at all. The greatest reason for using analog images was that content
suited their needs (11 respondents – 44%) and ease of use (7 respondents –
28%). Those least likely to use analog images in their teaching were faculty
members in Visual Arts and Theatre. Those most likely to use analog images were
faculty members in Design.
Why Are Analog Images Used?
The
reasons faculty members gave for using analog images included: preference for
working with tangible objects; lack of access to a projection system;
difficulty in manipulating digital images; preference for using their own
person slide collections; and availability of images only in slide form.
Digital Images
How Often Are
Digital Images Used in Teaching?
The
conversion from the use of 35 mm slides to digital images is described by Sonia
Staum (2010), Director at IUPUI Herron Art Library,
as “perhaps one of the most significant transitions for our collections in the
past decade” (p. 77). Faculty members in Fine Arts at York University appear to
have made the transition (although not always successfully) from the use of
analog to digital images, with 13 respondents (52%) reporting that they always
use digital images in their teaching, 7 (28%) reporting frequent use of digital
images in teaching, and 5 (20%) reporting that they sometimes use digital
images in their teaching. No one indicated
that they never use digital images.
What Sources Are Used for Digital Images?
This
question was divided into three parts: (1) licensed image databases, (2)
creation of own images, and (3) external sources, including photo sharing
sites, image collections and portals from other libraries, purchased CD
collections, and web search engines.
For
licensed digital image databases, very low use of ARTstor
was reported with only 1 respondent (4%) using it
always and 4 respondents (16%) using it frequently. There were 7 respondents
(28%) who reported using ARTstor sometimes,
while another 10 (40%) reported no use of ARTstor
whatsoever. Not a single faculty member in Design used ARTstor,
which was puzzling given the inclusion of design collections in ARTstor (e.g., MoMA Architecture
and Design Collection, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
Graphic Design Collection). There was negligible use of CAMIO reported by all
respondents.
As
reported by Waibel and Arcolio
in their study
in 2005, we discovered what we already suspected, that “by and large, the
library plays only a small role in supplying the faculty with digital image
content” (p. 2).
When
asked to elaborate as to why they did not use licensed digital image databases
in their teaching, faculty members’ responses included:
·
“Images are scanned
from my own book collection.”
·
“Use my own personal
images. I am a photographer. Or I search Google images.”
·
“Use my own research
on line and my own work.”
·
“I didn’t know about
CAMIO; I use a lot straight off the internet but not for lectures – for print
info.”
·
“Locate images from
museum websites and anywhere else I can find them.”
·
“Use CCCA open source
for contemporary Canadian art.”
As
for sources used for the creation of their own digital images, the most
frequent method used by all faculty members was using a digital camera (14
respondents – 56% always or frequently use) followed by scanning from books (10
respondents – 40% always or frequently use). Faculty members in Visual Arts
were the group most likely to create digital images by digitizing slides (7
respondents – 28% always or frequently). When specifically asked about which
Web/Internet sources were used for digital images, the most often used source
was Google Images Search (17 respondents – 68% always or frequently use).
Faculty also reported frequent use of image collections from other libraries,
museums, or archives (15 respondents – 60% always or frequently), followed by public
photo sharing sites such as Flickr (8 respondents – 32% always or frequently).
Additional sources most frequently cited include images scanned from a private
library, printed materials such as books and magazines, and unique digital
documents provided by other artists/educators.
The
majority of faculty members reported that they were able to combine images to
meet their needs if more than one source was used. In
fact, only one respondent (in Visual Arts) reported being unable to combine
images for the reason of time constraints and file/software incompatibility.
When
asked about their favourite sites for digital images, faculty member responses
are as follows:
·
Web search
engines/tools (e.g., Google Images, Flickr, Cooliris,
YouTube)
·
Virtual museum websites
(e.g., Centre for Contemporary Canadian Art, National Arts Centre: The Secret
Life of Costumes, Web Gallery of Art)
·
Museum/gallery
websites (e.g., National Gallery of Canada: Cybermuse,
Carnegie Museum of Art, Guggenheim Museum, MoMA,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Tate Online, the Barnes Foundation)
·
Library digital image
collections (e.g., Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library: The Canadian Theatre
Record, Digitized Images from the Bodleian Libraries Special Collections, Gallica Digital Library)
·
University digital
image collections (e.g., University of Amsterdam Flickr collection)
·
Stock photography
websites (e.g., Getty Images, Stock.xchng)
·
Auction house
websites (e.g., artnet)
·
Personal websites
(e.g., Typefoundry: Documents for the History of
Types and Letterforms)
What
other licensed image databases should be made available? What was telling about
this question is that 8 faculty members (32%) responded that they did not have
enough knowledge to suggest any sources, revealing a general unfamiliarity with
licensed digital image databases. The following resources grouped by department
were suggested by respondents:
·
Design:
Berg Fashion Library, AIGA Design Archives
·
Fine
Arts Cultural Studies: Alinari, Art Resource
·
Visual
Arts: Vtape, FADIS (3 respondents)
When
asked to indicate what criteria are most important to them, as is illustrated by
Figure 1, ease of finding the images they needed ranked highest followed by
image resolution/quality. As was also revealed by Waibel
and Arcolio in the OCLC study, “almost every faculty
member interviewed regarded Google Image Search as a quick, reliable way of
retrieving images for teaching. While the common deficiencies in terms of file
size and color fidelity are apparent to them, ease of use and the search engine’s
ability to deliver a suitable image for almost any request outweigh those
shortcomings” (p. 2). Furthermore, “in their dream of the future, faculty
envision access to high-quality, rights-cleared, persistently available images
with the same retrieval success rate as Google Image Search” (p. 3). Meanwhile,
cleared copyright and permissions, a concern at the top of the library’s mind,
received more of a mixed response. Copyright, as was revealed in the
interviews, is perceived as a barrier to expediency and convenience.
Figure
1
How
important is each of the criteria to you?
What
activities are important for teaching? As revealed in Figure 2, creating image
sequences for presentation was ranked highest followed by being able to
integrate images from several sources, and then the ability to create your own
digital images with a scanner/camera.
Figure
2
What
activities are important for your teaching?
What
activities are desirable that are not currently possible? When we asked faculty
members what they would like to do that current resources do not make possible,
we received a variety of responses, but one common one was the ability to show
two images side by side simultaneously. It was pointed out that it was possible
to do this with the old slide projection, a point also raised by Schonfeld, who commented that “not all digital image
teaching tools have made it easy to bring together two images side by side,
which has made it difficult for some instructors to mimic traditional art
history teaching methods using digital solutions” (p. 7). A related response
came from two members of Fine Arts Cultural Studies, who indicated that they
would like to be able to project an image at the same time as a moving image
with sound. Other singular responses included: having access to the Rare Book
Room to scan images; more flexibility with copyright (specifically, the ability
to use images in a course document/handout); access to more video content;
access to a larger database of content; access to specifically more
contemporary global art content; and more technical assistance with using
images. Many of these responses would come up in future questions.
Where
or how are images stored? As is illustrated by Figure 3, the most common place
where images are currently stored is on faculty members’ personal computers,
followed by a flash memory storage device.
Figure
3
Where
or how do you store your digital images?
What
content management/courseware systems should be made available? This question
revealed a lack of knowledge of other content management systems, with the most
common answer being some variation of “I don’t know.” One respondent in Design
mentioned SlideRoom and Plone,
while one in Visual Arts mentioned FADIS (the Federated
Academic Digital Imaging System currently housed at the University of Toronto).
Frustration was also expressed about the lack of space to mount a slide show
and the need for a system highly compatible with Moodle.
What
presentation software is used? PowerPoint was the most popular response among
Theatre and Visual Arts faculty members, with the majority responding that they
use this well-known Microsoft product. It was not as popular in Design, where
most respondents said they use Adobe Acrobat. ARTstor
presentation software was a distant third.
Where
or how are digital images posted for review? The most common response was that
faculty do not post images for student review. A number of faculty members did
post images for review on a faculty/institutional server and local courseware
systems. However one faculty member, who teaches an online course, indicated
that the lack of space provided on the local course management system posed an
obstacle to posting images for review.
What
are the challenges or obstacles faced when using digital images in teaching? As
is illustrated by Figure 4, a lack of content was identified as the number one
obstacle, with “too few good sources” indicated as an issue by 11 respondents
(44%). However, respondents also gave answers in the open-ended “other”
section. These included: lack of technical knowledge to work with images;
material being obscure, expensive, and difficult to obtain; the time it takes
to obtain material; the poor resolution of most images; a lack of contemporary
material; not enough digital space to hold images; lack of video; and a lack of
finding aids for images.
Figure
4
What
are the challenges/obstacles you face when using digital images in teaching?
What
are the deficiencies/challenges of licensed image databases? Again, content
proved to be a challenge, with 9 respondents (36%) indicating this was an issue
with York’s licensed digital image databases ARTstor
and CAMIO. Specifically, they indicated that these resources lack: Canadian
content (mentioned five times), contemporary content (mentioned twice),
typography, indigenous content, and video. Regarding the advent of image
databases, Sonja Staum (2010) writes that “while
these vast digital image repositories held promise for improved convenience due
to their access-on-demand nature, the content in these resources often did not
match the curricular needs of the respective target audience and as a result
was not useful” (p. 80). Many years later this still appears to hold true. The
second most popular deficiency of licensed image databases was being unable to
manipulate images satisfactorily (3 respondents – 12%). Faculty members
indicated that they found ARTstor “too complicated”
and “laborious to use.”
Who
provides technical support? “Because images can be obtained easily online, it
is falsely assumed that there needs to be little supportive infrastructure.
Nothing could be further from the truth,” states Green (2006, p. 99). This was
also our finding. Most of our respondents (17 respondents – 68%) indicated that
they turned to faculty IT support for assistance. Many (7 respondents – 28%)
indicated that they had insufficient technical knowledge to use licensed image
databases effectively. Several (4 respondents – 16%) indicated that technical
support is too overwhelmed to provide proper support for teaching faculty and
that they relied on hired consultants, family, a paid technician, or a research
assistant. Very few (2 respondents – 8%) said that they relied on support
provided by licensed providers such as ARTstor.
What
type of ARTstor training has been received? Again,
mirroring our own experience, Waibel and Arcolio (2005) write: “while we heard about library
attempts to make faculty more aware of licensed resources, these communications
seem to largely bypass their audience” (p. 2). When asked what type of ARTstor training faculty members have received, the answer
in every category (Figure 5) from online handouts to onsite training sessions
was consistently “have not used.” This was despite promotion by the Libraries
of ARTstor training and support services as well as a
full-day ARTstor training session organized by the
Libraries and conducted by an ARTstor trainer on
campus in fall 2006.
Figure
5
What
type of ARTstor training have you received?
Has
technical assistance been sought or received from ARTstor
and was it useful? Almost no one indicated that they had sought or received technical assistance from ARTstor.
Only two faculty members in Theatre had sought assistance, with one member
finding it very helpful and another indicating it was not, making it difficult
to draw any conclusions. However, several faculty members had indicated in the
past that the lack of a toll-free number for Canadian ARTstor
subscribers was an impediment to obtaining quick assistance (as well as the
ability to participate in ARTstor webinar training
sessions).
Part 2 – The
Interviews
The
interviews were used as an opportunity to elicit more information about the
responses in the survey, and they revealed information that did not emerge in
the survey. We were able to follow up directly with faculty regarding their
individual responses. The nine faculty members (36% of respondents) who were
interviewed were distributed across the following departments, which provided
us with valuable insights into how digital images are used in different
disciplines: Visual Arts (5), Design (1), and Theatre (3). We interviewed one
faculty member in Visual Arts who uses only slides in his teaching (his own
vast personal collection of 190,000 images created with a digital camera), and
another in Theatre who relies entirely on ARTstor for
digital images in his teaching. Neither of these individuals was typical or
representative. Most other faculty members use the Web, pulling together images
for their teaching from a variety of sources.
The
following summarizes what we learned and what issues emerged in the interviews.
Department of
Visual Arts
·
ARTstor:
concerns primarily relate to content (especially Canadian) as well as technical
challenges
·
Web: overriding
concerns relate to the quality of images and the patchwork of resources that need
to be organized
·
FADIS: it is
perceived as a flexible alternative resource, offering more relevant as well as
user-generated content, especially Canadian (“critical mass of material”); York
University’s concerns relating to copyright have impeded participation
·
Visual literacy:
students are perceived to be lacking in this skill
·
Federated searching:
there is a need for collective software that searches across databases quickly
and simply
·
Copyright: this is
perceived to be a bigger issue in Canada than in the United States (because of
CARFAC, Canadian Artists’ Representation/le Front des artistes canadiens); York University is also perceived to be overly
concerned about copyright as compared to other Canadian institutions; the need
to assemble images quickly takes priority over copyright considerations
·
Technical support:
there is a desperate need for more technical support; “budget cuts have
eviscerated support systems” (which went from 3 full-time staff to 0.5);
technical support is needed at short notice
·
Libraries: there is a
diversity of views about the role of the Libraries, with some indicating that
they would not expect the Libraries to assist beyond a general level, while
others felt that the Libraries should take more responsibility and at the very
least provide curating of sources (e.g., image portal Web page)
Department of
Theatre
·
Print materials:
small classes allow for the use of books or hard prints relating to costume and
set design and less reliance on digital images
·
Web: there is a heavy
reliance on the Internet for images
·
ARTstor:
this database is considered technically difficult and lacking in content with
poor IT/Customer Support (yet one faculty member indicated that what he wants
is readily available in ARTstor and that IT/Customer
Support is responsive); concerns were expressed about the technical problems
with updates and the lack of Canadian content
Table
1
ARTstor Usage, 2005-2011
ARTstor |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
Sessions |
700 |
1,608 |
1,932 |
1,464 |
2,268 |
1,944 |
843* |
Sessions
per FTE |
0.3 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.7 |
1.1 |
1 |
|
Searches |
9,584 |
20,307 |
24,987 |
23,640 |
38,559 |
33,648 |
5,756* |
Searches
per FTE |
5 |
10.7 |
12.5 |
11.9 |
19.4 |
18 |
|
*January-March
2011 data only
Department of
Design
·
Print materials: they
are better suited to the needs of this one faculty member who scans digital
images mostly from his own material
·
Web: concerns were
expressed regarding the poor resolution of images
·
ARTstor:
this database is perceived to be lacking as it is not based on typography or
graphic design
The
idea of one search across all of our library resources was mentioned several
times in our interviews. A similar idea was also reported by Waibel and Arcolio (2005), who
write that “the idea of searching across all licensed resources and the Web at
the same time found many proponents” (p. 3). The biggest issue that emerged in
the interviews was the lack of a coordinated strategy for making the transition
from analog to digital images, which was reported in numerous studies as the
critical ingredient for success. As Green (2006) states, “perhaps the biggest
challenge of all is that of institutional response: of managing change and of
thinking strategically about planning the necessary infrastructure for
effective use of digital resources” (p. 15). Green also discovered – which has
been proven true at York – that “often issues were taken one at a time, without
understanding how they were connected” (p. 15).
Part 3 – ARTstor and CAMIO Usage Statistics
The
statistics revealed extremely low usage for CAMIO but growing usage for ARTstor. One of the
limitations of the data is that we were not able to identify the type of user
(what department/program the user was in) and the status of the user (faculty,
student, etc.). It was also impossible to tell if each search represented a
unique user and whether a single user was conducting multiple searches. Updated
usage statistics were available at the time of writing and are included in
Table 1. ARTstor has, more or less, shown steady
growth in usage since its acquisition in 2005.
While
numbers may appear high, it should be noted that York is below the CRKN average
in number of times accessed. Between 2010-11 and 2011-12 the University of
Ottawa recorded over 452,000 searches, which is eight times York’s usage over
the same period. Interestingly,
York is far above the CRKN average number of searches. So while fewer people
are using it at York, they are spending a lot of time using it.
|
|
|
CAMIO
usage is far lower than that of ARTstor, and when the
number of sessions and searches per FTE is factored in, it still can barely be
characterized as “regular usage.” CAMIO is licensed through the Ontario
consortium OCUL, with three subscribing institutions, including York. Table 3
shows that York is above the OCUL average in number of searches and sessions
for the period December 2010 to November 2011.
Table
2
CAMIO Usage at OCUL and York, December 2010-November 2011
CAMIO |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
Sessions |
109* |
169 |
254 |
326 |
Sessions
per FTE |
0.05 |
0.08 |
0.12 |
0.17 |
Searches |
516 |
553 |
806 |
1393 |
Searches
per FTE |
0.25 |
0.27 |
0.40 |
0.74 |
*Only
August-December 2007 data available
Table
3
CAMIO Usage at OCUL and York, December 2010-November 2011
Dec.
2010-Nov. 2011 |
OCUL Total |
OCUL Average |
York Total |
Sessions |
631 |
210 |
354 |
Searches |
2879 |
960 |
1490 |
Part 4 - ARLIS/NA
and ARLIS/NA Canada Electronic Mail Lists Feedback
The
feedback received from art and architecture librarian and visual resources
staff colleagues via the lists was very revealing. There were 25 responses
received in total from 19 American institutions and 5 Canadian institutions.
There were 5 respondents (20%) who reported no success with ARTstor
at their institutions (“I’m afraid that our experience is similar to yours” was
a common response); 3 (12%) reported success with ARTstor;
4 (16%) reported limited success with ARTstor; 6
(24%) reported that they were preparing local collections for inclusion in ARTstor Shared Shelf; and 4 (16%) requested our survey
and/or the results of our survey. The remaining 3 (12%) responses were not
applicable. There appeared to be no discernible difference in the experience of
Canadian and American institutions, although several American institutions
reported heavy use of local digital collections. Of the 12% reporting success
with ARTstor, the existence of a dedicated Visual
Resources Centre and/or Visual Resources Librarian or Curator, an aggressive
promotion and instruction strategy, and the inclusion of in-house images
through participation in ARTstor Shared Shelf seemed
to suggest greater success with ARTstor.
ARTstor’s
Shared Shelf allows “institutions to manage, actively
use, and – should an institution so choose – share their institutional and
faculty image collections” (ARTstor, 2012). One US
college respondent indicated: “Since we signed an agreement to add our own
collections to ARTstor, we have been able to promote
much more, since faculty and students can see our Museum’s collections side by
side with other collections in ARTstor.” Meanwhile
the comments received from those reporting no success using ARTstor
reflected our own experience. Concerns expressed related to the lack of
contemporary and Canadian content as well as the technical challenges
associated with the use of ARTstor. Respondents said:
“ARTstor does not have the images faculty need/want
and they must go elsewhere to locate needed images,” “contemporary Canadian
coverage is not great in ARTstor,” and faculty find “ARTstor to be unwieldy to use.” In addition ARTstor required “publicity and start-up training.”
To
summarize the results, licensed image databases receive low use and pose
pedagogical and technological challenges for the majority of the faculty
members in Fine Arts that we surveyed. Relevant content is the overriding
priority, followed by expediency and convenience, resulting in a heavy reliance
on Google Images Search. Copyright considerations rank lower in priority and
are perceived as a barrier to expediency and convenience. There is also a
direct correlation between comfort level with technology and the use of digital
images in teaching. Licensed image databases are challenging to use and faculty
members surveyed have insufficient training and technical support to fully
exploit them. Feedback received from librarians and visual resources staff at
other institutions polled suggests that their experience mirrors our findings.
Conclusion
Our
study illustrated clearly that the needs of faculty members in Fine Arts who
use digital images in their teaching at York University are not being met. The
greatest shortcomings with respect to licensed image databases provided by the
Libraries relate to content and technical challenges, including technical
support, which impede the ability of faculty to fully exploit them. Green
(2006) states:
Finally, it
might serve us well to recognize the complexity, difficulty and expense of
deploying digital images and to regard the transition to using them as a
longer, more ongoing process than we have expected up until now: a transition
that will need careful managing. As Smith College art historian Dana Leibsohn put it: “This notion of transition is inter-esting – but it has a really long tail and we have to think
harder about it and what it means to be in transition for more like fifteen or
twenty years, rather than the five to eight years we’ve been talking about.
National initiatives will help; peer exchange will help – but I think we’re not
thinking about transition as seriously as we should as an ongoing process.” (p.
100)
The
supportive infrastructure for the provision and use of images in teaching that
existed in the Faculty of Fine Arts was removed with the demise of the Slide
Library, the advent of digital images readily available on the Web, and the
acquisition by the Libraries of licensed image databases. The Libraries
meanwhile have not historically provided technical support for the use of
images; nor do they have the staff resources to provide the kind of assistance
required at short notice by faculty members teaching with digital images. With
respect to the use of image databases, it was believed that the support for the
use of those databases would and could be provided by the licensed digital
image providers. This has resulted in faculty members in Fine Arts being left,
in the words of one York art historian, as “one of the biggest art departments
in the country with no solution.”
There
are a number of strategies that will be pursued by the Libraries to address the
issues and concerns that were identified in our study. The first involves
working to resolve issues relating to the lack of Canadian and contemporary
content. The Libraries are currently exploring participation in FADIS and ARTstor Shared Shelf. They are also members of the OCUL
Visual Resources Working Group, which has been established with a mandate to
“identify opportunities for collaboration across Ontario’s universities that
will improve access to visual resources and services” (Patrick, 2011). This
includes exploring additional opportunities for collaboration with other
Canadian universities to develop shared content and to lobby ARTstor for content that would support the needs of Canadian
users. It should be noted that at the time of writing there are several
Canadian universities that are considering cancelling their subscriptions to ARTstor (Trent University has already cancelled) or have
renewed for only one year in order to provide an opportunity for review (e.g.,
University of Toronto). While we have renewed our ARTstor
subscription for three years, we are reviewing other existing subscriptions
with a view to cancelling image databases receiving extremely low use (such as
CAMIO) and working with faculty members to identify other potentially more
relevant databases. On the basis of the feedback received from our survey the
Libraries are also exploring the creation of a library digital images Web
portal that would provide links to image sites.
The
second initiative is to address issues of training and support at the local
level. This requires identifying the specific needs of faculty members with
respect to training and support, working with appropriate partners at ARTstor and Instructional Technology staff in the Faculty
of Fine Arts to address these issues, and potentially expanding the role of the
Libraries with respect to ARTstor training and
support.
The third is to raise awareness of digital collections in ARTstor in an effort to increase its use, as well as increase awareness and understanding of copyright issues as they relate to the use of digital images, with the aim of promoting the use of ARTstor and other licensed image databases. The Libraries are currently exploring the use of a search and discovery service which would have the potential to search digital images from licensed databases. The issue of copyright meanwhile is a challenging one. As was revealed in the interviews, faculty members, particularly those trained in the United States, perceive Canada’s copyright laws to be overly restrictive (fair use vs. fair dealing) and York University’s enforcement of copyright very rigid.
The
last initiative involves working to resolve issues relating to organizational
responsibility regarding the use of digital images in teaching (including the
digitization, management, and integration of local/personal image collections
and institutional image collections). This will entail working with the Faculty
of Fine Arts and other partners on campus to develop a coordinated and
integrated approach to the provision of digital images and support for the use
of digital images in teaching.
Acknowledgements
An
abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Seventh Annual TRTLibrary Staff Conference, held in Toronto, Ontario (May
2011), and as a poster presentation at the 40th Annual Art Libraries Society of
North America Conference, held in Toronto, Ontario (March 2012).
References
ARTstor.
(2012). Shared Shelf. Retrieved 14 May 2012 from http://www.artstor.org/shared-shelf/s-html/shared-shelf-home.shtml
Canadian
Research Knowledge Network. (2011).
About. In Canadian
Research Knowledge Network. Retrieved 27 April 2012 from http://www.crkn.ca/about
Green,
D. (2006). Using digital
images in teaching and learning: Perspectives from liberal arts institutions.
Retrieved 3 Jan. 2011 from http://www.academiccommons.org/files/image-report.pdf
Patrick,
J. (2011, April 4). Re: OCUL Visual Resources Working Group. Retrieved from OCUL-L
<OCUL-L@LISTSERV.UOFGUELPH.CA>
Pisciotta,
H., Dooris, M. J., Frost, J., & Halm, M. (2005). Penn State’s visual image user study. portal:
Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 33-58.
Schonfeld,
R. C. (2006). The visual resources environment at liberal arts
colleges. Retrieved 3 Jan. 2011 from http://dspace.nitle.org/bitstream/handle/10090/6619/2006_4_3_schonfeld.pdf
Staum,
S. (2010). Swimming with the tides of
technology in an art and design library: From Amico
to Delicious to YouTube. In A. Gluibizzi
& P. Glassman (Eds.), The Handbook of art and design librarianship.
(pp. 75-90). London: Facet Publishing.
Waibel,
G., & Arcolio, A. (2005) Out of the database,
into the classroom. Retrieved 3
Jan. 2011 from http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/rlg/culturalmaterials/outofthedb.htm
Appendix
A
Digital Images
Survey
The increasing growth of digital images offered through commercial
vendors has provided new opportunities for teaching and learning. Given the
significant financial expenditures on licensed digital image resources such as ARTstor by York University Libraries it is important for us
to know whether the needs of faculty and their students are being met through
these electronic databases. In an effort to ensure that future decisions with
respect to the provision of digital images by the Libraries meet the needs of
faculty and their students this survey is being conducted to assess the needs
for digital image delivery to faculty in Design, Fine Arts Cultural Studies,
Theatre and Visual Arts.
Definition of Digital Image:
Still picture in electronic file format in any form and of any subject
including those derived from analog images such as scanned photographs and
slides.
It would be appreciated if you could take a few minutes to fill
out this survey. If you have any questions please contact Mary Kandiuk or Aaron Lupton. Thank you.
1. What Department do you teach in?
o Design
2. What position do you hold?
3. Which type of setting best describes where you teach? Please
check all that are applicable.
4. How often do you use analog images (images that are
not in electronic form) in your teaching?
5. Why do use analog images in your teaching? Please
check all that are applicable.
6. How often do you use digital images in your
teaching?
7. Which of the following sources do you use for your
digital images? Please check all that are applicable and the frequency with
which they are used.
Licensed digital image resources
provided by the Libraries:
ARTstor
CAMIO
Other
If Other, please specify or write
"NA" if never
8. Which of the following sources do you use for your
digital images? Please check all that are applicable and the frequency with
which they are used.
Create own digital images
using the following:
Digital
camera
Scan
from books
Slide
digitization
Other
If Other, please specify or write
"NA" if never
9. Which of the following sources do you use for your
digital images? Please check all that are applicable and the frequency with
which they are used.
Locate own digital images
using the following:
Public
photo sharing sites (e.g. Flickr)
Image collections from other
libraries, museums, or archives
Image portals created by other
libraries
Image search engines (e.g. Google
Image Search)
Purchase CD collections
Other
If Other, please specify or write
"NA" if never
10. If more than one source is used, are you able to
combine digital images from these sources to meet your needs?
If No, why not?
11. What are your favourite sites for digital images?
12. Are there any other licensed digital image resources you would like the Libraries to make
available?
13. How important are each of the following criteria
to you?
Image resolution/quality
Metadata (information about the image)
Ease of finding the image you need
Ability to indicate scale or size of the object
Ability to retain the rights to an image
Cleared copyright and permissions
Having all content in one place
Other
If Other, please specify or write
"NA" if not at all
14. How important are each of the following activities
for your teaching?
Presenting several images simultaneously
Zooming in to show progressive detail in an image
Altering images (cropping, changing contrast, etc.)
Adding text or other media to accompany an image
Creating image sequences for presentation
Being able to interrupt or change sequences in the middle of a
presentation
Posting digital images for student review and study outside the
classroom
Being able to integrate images from several sources
Creating your own digital images (scanning/camera)
Tasking students to find/create digital images for their own
creative work or assignments
Other
If Other, please specify or write
"NA" if not at all
15. What would you like to be able to do when teaching
with digital images that you are currently unable to do?
16. Where or how do you store your digital images?
Please check all that are applicable.
17. Are there any content management/courseware
systems for digital images you would like to have available?
18. What is the presentation software for digital
images that you use in your teaching? Please check all that are applicable.
19. Where or how do you post digital images for
student review? Please check all that are applicable.
20. What are the challenges or obstacles that you
currently face using digital images in your teaching? Please check all that are
applicable.
21. If you experienced any of the challenges or
obstacles listed below when using licensed databases such as ARTstor or CAMIO, please indicate the name of the database
in the corresponding text box.
Content is lacking - please specify how the content is lacking
(e.g. lacks Canadian content) and which database:
Poor quality of images - please specify which database:
Duplicate images - please specify which database:
Images are insufficiently documented - please specify which
database:
Way of searching does not match the way images are organized or
identified - please specify which database:
Unable to manipulate images satisfactorily - please specify which
database:
Difficult to integrate images from other sources - please specify
which database:
Difficult to store images - please specify which database:
Difficult to post/share images - please specify which database:
Insufficient training - please specify which database:
Technology is too complicated - please specify which database:
Lack of technical support - please specify which database:
Other - please specify the challenge or obstacle and which
database:
22. From whom do you receive technical support? Please
check all that are applicable.
23. What type of ARTstor
training have you used or participated in? Please check all that are applicable
and the degree to which it was useful.
Online handouts provided by ARTstor
Online training session provided by ARTstor
Video demonstrations provided by ARTstor
Onsite training session provided by ARTstor
Other
If Other, please specify or
"NA" if have not used
24. How have you sought/received technical assistance
from ARTstor? Please check all that are applicable
and how frequently they were used.
Telephone
E-mail
Other
If Other, please specify or write
"NA" if never
25. How would you rate the technical assistance you
have sought/received from ARTstor?
26. If you sought/received technical assistance from ARTstor and were not satisfied, why not?
27. Would you agree to be contacted for a follow up
interview?
If
yes, please provide your name and email address
Appendix
B
Interview
Schedule
Department |
Position |
Date of
Interview
|
In Person/Telephone |
Design |
Associate Professor, Graphic Design |
April 20, 2011 |
In person
|
Theatre |
Associate Professor, Design |
April 4, 2011 |
Telephone |
Theatre |
Associate Professor, Design |
April 7, 2011 |
Telephone |
Theatre |
Professor, Production |
April 13, 2011 |
In person |
Visual Arts |
Associate Professor, Art History |
April 11, 2011 |
Telephone |
Visual Arts |
Assistant Professor, Art History |
April 13, 2011 |
In person |
Visual Arts |
Associate Professor, Canadian Art
History |
April 13, 2011 |
In person |
Visual Arts |
Associate Professor, Canadian Art
History |
April 20, 2011 |
In person |
Visual Arts |
Professor, Medieval Art and
Architecture |
April 21, 2011 |
Telephone |