Sustaining Digital Curation and Preservation Training Report

January 2019 | Sam Meister

Introduction
Over the last two decades, continuing education opportunities in digital curation and digital
preservation have been crucial for advancing the skills of librarians, archivists, and curators in a quickly
evolving information environment. Such training resources are typically the primary avenue for
information professionals to increase and advance their knowledge and skills in this area beyond an
initial graduate degree program. Consortia, individual libraries, nonprofits, and for-profit businesses
serving libraries and archives provide hundreds of institutes, workshops, online and blended training,
MOOCs, and other offerings on these topics each year. 

Despite the increased number of training offerings in recent years, many of these grant-funded
programs are at risk of disappearing once they are no longer able to secure continued external funding,
or once program staff move on to other initiatives. Even when these projects have produced free, open,
online continuing education materials, the need for funding still remains to enable ongoing updates
both to the content and to the delivery platform. Currently, there are no clear pathways for training
resources developed during grant projects to transition to organizations with more stable funding
models. While recent studies have investigated sustainability in relation to digital collections
development, digital humanities programs, and digital scholarship, to date there have been limited
comparable studies of sustainability options for digital curation training resources and programs. The
present scenario, in which there are  multiple digital curation training offerings available for
practitioners of different levels and needs, may quickly change if grant-based funding is no longer
available, or if key project personnel and stakeholders shift priorities.

To ensure our national investments in digital curation and preservation training have the greatest
possible impact, we need to establish better mechanisms and pathways for transitioning successful
grant-funded curricula and resources into ongoing, replicable training programs that can serve the
needs of targeted constituencies. We also need to strengthen relationships between existing trainers,
hosts, and administrators of digital curation and preservation training programs, improving their
knowledge of each other’s offerings, providing complementary offerings, and fostering a network of
support rather than competition. Finally, we need better mechanisms for informing those seeking
continuing education opportunities about what programs are available and what competencies they
fulfill.

Project Scope and Methodology

This project, conducted from July 2018 to June 2019 and funded by an Institute for Museum and Library
Services Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program grant, attempted to address the needs described
above by convening leading continuing education (CE) stakeholders (trainers, hosts, administrators)
from LYRASIS, Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC), Digital Preservation Management
Workshop (DPM), Northern Illinois University (Digital POWRR), University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill School of Information and Library Science (DigCCurr, CRADLE MOOC), AVP, Digital Preservation
Network (DPN), Sustainable Heritage Network (SHN), and OCLC WebJunction to 1) document the
Sustaining Digital Curation and Preservation Training

variables and approaches to sustainability in practice, and; 2) produce recommendations for the critical
elements needed to transition grant-funded curriculum into sustainable training programs.

The project’s primary goal was to explore sustainability scenarios and relationships between grant-
funded training projects and organizations that host continuing education resources as part of their
mission, based on a shared definition of sustainability. It brought together a diverse set of stakeholders
currently developing and/or providing continuing education resources to engage in discussions on
sustainability. These discussions provided the materials for this report, including: descriptions of current
training program structures and activities, current issues and challenges programs are encountering, a
set of critical elements to be considered in relation to transitioning grant-funded training curriculum and
resources to other organizational environments, and recommendations for next steps. The project has
produced a set of materials that focus on the bounded, high-need area of digital curation and
preservation training sustainability; however, these materials will also serve as a model for how other
topical training areas might address similar issues. 

The core project activities focused on facilitating discussions and fostering relationships among project
partners. The project kicked off with a series of virtual partner presentations, where partners provided
overviews of their training programs, including each program’s background and origins, funding model,
current goals, target audience, and curriculum examples. This initial sharing of information built a
foundation of understanding about program basics, and assisted in preparing partners for the more
detailed discussions that took place at the first in-person partner meeting in November 2018. The
outputs from the initial in-person partner meeting, including a draft list of critical elements for
sustainability, were further discussed, defined, and refined during monthly virtual meetings between
December 2018 and April 2019. At the second and final in-person meeting in May 2019, partners
engaged in discussion and an exercise focused on sustainability scenario planning.

Partner Meeting 1: Surfacing Issues and Challenges

At the first in-person partner meeting, which took place on November 15, 2018, partners engaged in
exploratory discussions to further surface the similarities and differences between their training
programs. The project team analyzed the virtual partner overview presentations in order to identify
specific focus areas around which we could structure these in-person discussions. The resulting focus
areas included hosting structure, governance, audience, curriculum, and evaluation. 

Partners were presented with prompt questions to guide their discussions around these focus areas, for
example: 
● How does ownership function?
● Who are your attendees?
● What lessons have you learned in producing curriculum?
● How is the curriculum / training program evaluated?
● What has been the impact of your training offerings?

The “Focus Areas” section of the report below represents a distillation of the partner overview
presentations and the issues, challenges, and opportunities that were shared during the in-person
meeting discussions. 

At the end of each focus area discussion, partners were encouraged to reflect on the discussion and
attempt to identify what they thought were the critical elements for program sustainability in relation to

2
Educopia Institute
Sustaining Digital Curation and Preservation Training

the specific focus area. This draft list of critical elements for sustainability was one of the primary
outputs from the initial partner meeting, and helped to frame the follow on discussions that took place
during additional virtual partner meetings over the following six months. 

Focus Areas
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE
Project partner programs that create, maintain, and deliver digital curation and preservation training
resources are often a unit or entity within a larger host institution. The relationship between host
institutions and programs has a direct impact on program structure, staffing, funding, and governance.
Project partners primarily fall within one of a few types: non-profit organizations (LYRASIS, NEDCC, OCLC
WebJunction, SAA, DPN); for-profit entities (AVP); or academic institutions (Sustainable Heritage
Network, Digital POWRR, DPM, DPOE-N, DigCCurr). Academic institutions are often the initial home for
training programs that are primarily grant-funded, with full-time employees dedicating a portion of their
time as core program staff. Within non-profit organizations and/or for-profit companies, continuing
education programs may be one of multiple services that are provided. Often there is a key leader or
champion(s) who serves as a bridge between the training program and host institution.

In terms of program governance, some partners have utilized advisory committees to help guide and
steer the direction and shape of programs. These groups often play a role in early grant-funded stages of
a program to advise on the initial creation and delivery of training resources. Some partners reported
that as their program matured, they have moved away from having a standing advisory committee in
place, in part to streamline operations with limited resources. Other partners report that they have a
specific group or team that provides oversight over all aspects of a training program.

Issues and Challenges

During discussions, partners identified some issues and challenges related to creating and maintaining
training programs. These issues often emerge based on the strength and formality of the connection
between a training program and a host institution, whether this is an academic institution, non-profit, or
for-profit organization. 

Some partners reported that they worried about the potential for overburdening the human resources
within their programs, particularly for those that are currently or recently dependent on grant funding.
During early creation and piloting stages, core staff are relied upon to create the vision and goals, set up
structural elements, and participate in the initial testing and piloting of training program resources. In
some cases, these activities are carried out by existing FTE staff in addition to their other regular full-
time employment duties (e.g., teaching, curation, or administrative tasks). The effort and energy
required of a typically small project group may lead to committed individuals being overextended and
eventually unable to continue the training program without additional staffing support. Partners noted
that shifting from project-based to more structured programmatic activities, specifically allocating more
resources to staffing, is necessary to increase overall program capacity. 
Transitioning from a founder (or set of founders) to new program leadership was also highlighted as an
important issue by project partners. This transition may be motivated by a range of factors, including the
capacity issue described above, but also may be necessitated because a program leader has retired or
changed positions and/or institutions. Leadership transitions are often challenging, especially if a
program is strongly connected to a specific individual or champion as the external “face” of the
3
Educopia Institute
Sustaining Digital Curation and Preservation Training

program. If this champion was the driving force with a strong sense of the program vision, it can be
difficult to maintain the program when that person leaves. 

Finally, the potentially tenuous relationship between host institutions and training programs was
identified as a risk. Training programs that depend on host institution resources, such as staffing and
administrative support, may have those resources decreased or removed completely with little-or-no
forewarning if the host institution administration decides to shift its focus and/or determines that the
training program is no longer a priority.

CURRICULUM AND EVALUATION

Partner programs report many commonalities in their production, delivery, and evaluation of digital
curation and preservation training curriculum. Most programs offer some form of in-person workshop or
event, as well as provide online or virtual training opportunities. The formats for this online delivery vary
across programs, ranging from single standalone webinars on specific topics to online workshop series,
to multiple week courses. One of the primary drivers for the online delivery of training resources is to
reach a wide audience, but partners noted that there are tradeoffs between in-person training delivery
and online experiences. Many partners highlighted the importance of in-person events as a starting
point for trainees to develop relationships with their peers, forming a network of support that can often
extend beyond the workshop or training event. They also noted the cost-prohibitive nature of in-person
events for many who need training opportunities.

Partner programs reported using different approaches to licensing and training resources. Partner
programs situated in academic institutions all have adopted open licenses, which allow  anyone to freely
use and adapt training resources. Many of these openly available curricular materials have been
produced through grant-funded research projects. Programs in partner nonprofit organizations report
that they often keep licensing of training materials closed, especially for programs that pay instructors
and that support administrative staffing lines. Other hybrid models exist, including one used by LYRASIS
in which instructors who develop training resources for course retain the rights to that content, but
training resources produced by LYRASIS program staff remain closed. Similarly, when AVP creates
content as a service for a client, the client retains the rights to that content. This approach was used, for
example, when AVP was contracted by DPN to produce the Digital Preservation Workflow Curriculum.
However, AVP retains rights to any training resources it has produced for its own courses and/or
workshops.

Almost all programs utilize a post-training event evaluation to collect feedback from participants. Some
programs incorporate other evaluation mechanisms, including pre-workshop surveys, in-person exit
interviews for workshop series, and six-month follow ups with in-person workshop participants. In
addition, the Digital Preservation Management workshop has developed the Continuing Education
Program Impact Assessment Model, or CEPIA, resource that provides a framework for overall training
program assessment. Participant feedback from these evaluation mechanisms drive the assessment and
updating process for almost all of the partner’s programs. Some programs utilize comprehensive annual
or bi-annual reviews where instructors and program staff review and update curriculum. One program
(LYRASIS) conducts regular instructor reviews of specific course materials in lieu of annual
comprehensive reviews, while another (OCLC WebJunction) does not conduct annual curriculum reviews
due to limited funding support, but uses other strategies for updating and maintaining curriculum.
4
Educopia Institute
Sustaining Digital Curation and Preservation Training

Issues and Challenges

Project partners articulated a range of issues and challenges related to the creation, delivery, and
assessment of training curriculum during discussions. Starting with terminology, partners identified the
need for clarity among training format definitions. Training offerings often have many titles, including
“workshops,” “webinars,” “tutorials,” and “courses,” that may be confusing for trainees making
decisions about what kind of resource will be most useful for their needs. Partners noted that creating a
set of shared definitions would be beneficial in clarifying the distinctions among delivery formats and
resulting learning outcomes and experience for participants. Keeping track of multiple versions of
curriculum materials was also highlighted by partners as a shared challenge. This is related to another
shared issue--that of delivery formats--as the same baseline training content may be designed and
delivered in different ways (e.g. webinars, self-paced courses, guided tutorials), each with variations on
the content. Versioning approaches are also needed to document how training curricula have been
updated over time. 

Additionally, partners engaged in discussions on the topic of open education resources (OER), defined as
“teaching, learning and research materials in any medium – digital or otherwise – that reside in the
public domain or have been released under an open license that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation
and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions”.  Partners noted that to be useful, the
creation of OER should involve planning and producing supplementary materials such as instructor
guides to be packaged with core curriculum materials. OER also need to be designed to allow for future
customization and implementation in potentially multiple delivery formats and settings. These kinds of
preparation activities require additional resources beyond those dedicated to the creation of core
curriculum materials. 

Finally, there was a common recognition among partners that not all subject matter or content experts
are skilled instructors. The needed skills for content and/or subject matter knowledge, instruction, and
instructional design may require multiple people to meet identified needs, rather than one individual
with a combination of those skills and experience. Partners also recognized a shared need to define
baseline instructor skills across current training programs.

AUDIENCE
The primary institutional audiences served by most partner programs are libraries, archives, and
museums. Some programs are intentional in the creation and delivery of training to specific audiences
such as OCLC WebJunction course offerings for public libraries and the Sustainable Heritage Network’s
focus on tribal libraries, archives, and museums. In terms of individuals, most partner programs focus on
practitioners whose current responsibilities include curation or preservation of digital content, or who
are looking to increase their knowledge and skills in this area. An exception is the Digital Preservation
Management Workshop that focuses on managers and administrators, rather than on content curators. 

Issues and Challenges

Limited understanding of audience demographics, including race/ethnicity, gender, age, education level,
geographic location, was noted as a challenge by partners, mostly due to limited collection of
demographic data in evaluation mechanisms. Most partners rely on self-reporting of demographic
information by participants. Without more comprehensive demographic data it is challenging to identify

5
Educopia Institute
Sustaining Digital Curation and Preservation Training

where there may be gaps in what audiences are being served or not served by current training
offerings. 

Another challenge noted by partners was providing a good fit between the level of knowledge of
attendees and the curriculum materials of a given event. Sometimes due to misperceptions or
miscommunication about training prerequisites, attendees may select a training event that is either too
basic or too advanced for their current needs. Some partners stated that instituting an application
process helps with limiting the potential for this kind of mismatch, but it still may occur in some cases.
Partners also reported that this kind of mismatch is increased in cases where attendees select in-person
training events that are most convenient in terms of location, calendar dates, or length, rather than
prioritizing training that would best fit their current needs.

FUNDING MODEL
A mix of funding streams are currently utilized by project partners to support their programs, with many
programs supported by grant-funding in some part, especially during early development stages. Some
programs (SAA, LYRASIS) have well-established cost recovery mechanisms where revenues from training
event registration fees are used to offset the costs of paying instructors, production of course materials,
and other expenses. Training programs that have been developed in response to specific audience
needs are likely to be dependent on grant-funding especially during the initial curriculum creation and
piloting activities. This funding model provides the support to offer training resources to targeted
audiences at low to no cost, lowering barriers to access these resources. Across all partners, even those
that are supported primarily by grant funding, in-kind contributions from institutional staff are relied on
to carry out program activities. 

Issues and Challenges

Simply stated, the primary challenge for many partners is ensuring ongoing funding support for training
programs through public or private grant funders. As in other areas, most grant funding opportunities
are focused on the development of new and innovative outputs, but there are limited options for
programs seeking ongoing support for basic maintenance and updating of training resources. 

6
Educopia Institute