Advocacy Survey, Responses and Analysis

ANALYSIS & SUMMARY

Below you will find first an analysis of results, followed by a summary of the responses to the survey. For a key to respondents, see the beginning of the Summary section.

I ANALYSIS

Response

Of NINCH's 23 members (not including our recent 28 research library members) 15 responded to the survey; but as three components of the Smithsonian replied separately (the Archives, the Libraries and the National Museum of American Art), we have a total of 17 responses. Three board members of the Museum Computer Network also collaborated on their response, giving a very rich set of answers.

This short survey had four parts to it

1. THE CONCEPT OF NETWORKED CULTURAL HERITAGE

--one question asking if members felt they and their own members were familiar with the concepts embodied in NINCH's vision statement

2. ADVOCACY

--six questions about members understanding of advocacy and their current advocacy activities and partners in the specific arena of networking cultural heritage

3. NEEDS

--one question about member organizations' needs for further education on networking issues to make them more effective in their advocacy.

4. ISSUES

--one question asking participants to prioritize in ranked order six issues.

1. THE CONCEPT OF NETWORKED CULTURAL HERITAGE

"NINCH's vision of networked cultural heritage is of an integrated, distributed body of cultural material, in which connections can easily be made between texts, artifacts and objects, that is widely accessible on the global information infrastructure. It would be seamlessly interoperable across many media, of the highest possible quality and fidelity, and easily usable and searchable--by creators, scholars, the general public and by teachers and learners of all ages."

To the question, "How familiar is your organization and its constituents with the terms of this vision and with the current issues that have to be grappled with to make this vision a reality?" five respondents proclaimed they were "very familiar," three that they were a mixture of "very" and "somewhat" familiar, five "somewhat," two "mostly unfamiliar," and two quite mixed. The mixed responses included the extremes of "very familiar" to "Luddite." ACLS replied that the answer can be quite staff-dependent: those most familiar (indeed extremely familiar) with the issues at ACLS, the president and vice president, have now left the organization, requiring it to be "re-built."

Thus we can see that the majority of members indicated they were "very" or "somewhat" familiar with the terms and issues of NINCH's vision statement, but many indicated a gap between staff understanding and that of grass-roots members. [Summary of results to this question]

2. ADVOCACY

This section opened with an identification of advocacy as an activity midway along a spectrum of activity between education and lobbying; it "argues and gives voice to a cause and a point-of-view developed from expertise and understanding of an issue, yet does not campaign for specific legislative change."

a) Given this definition, members were asked how they advocated for networked cultural heritage. This broke down into a hierarchy of activism, ranging from educating membership about issues to engagement in practical solutions. From the least to the most active, responses grouped as follows:

educating themselves on issues and joining rather than initiating programs, (NAAO, MCN)
advocating through other organizations (AHA, SIL)
providing platforms for members to speak and advocate for positions in newsletters, at conferences, etc., and often not taking a particular organizational position themselves (MCN, CNI)
informing constituents through their own education and communications programs (AAM, AE/KC)
writing position papers (SAA)
identifying barriers and problems and putting together task-forces, commissioning reports and orchestrating community-based solutions (CLIR, Getty) or organizing or joining projects organized to produce practical solutions to problems (NMAA).

Only CNI mentioned "working with Federal agencies," and none specified political activism. [Summary of results to this question]

b) Members were then asked if they had a problem with the working definition given for advocacy. Seven felt it was fine as is but seven felt it should be more activist and closer to lobbying. AAM's comment is worth repeating here in full:

We offer a reminder that "lobbying" is a legal term that must be determined within the context of the laws and regulations governing nonprofit organizations and NINCH will have to consider its "advocacy" activities within this context. For example, if NINCH "argues and gives voice to a cause and a point-of-view" and proposed legislation exists on point, the coalition may be making a "call to action" which could implicate the laws and regulations governing lobbying activities and nonprofits. We also would ask why NINCH would foreclose the option of campaigning for specific legislative change?

I would suggest that we re-examine our stated role with respect to lobbying, mindful that NINCH is still, legally, a project of ACLS and still has to acquire its own 501(c)(3) status.
[Summary of results to this question]

c) To the question of which of members' advocacy projects were related to digital networking, many answered with regular non-advocacy projects. However taking advocacy very broadly, these projects and activities included: copyright legislation, including fair use and licensing issues; the AMICO licensing consortium; data standards; the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable; the National Digital Library Federation; the Digital Archiving Task Force; Civil War Virtual Library Project (in cooperation with OCLC); Yale's Social Science Data Archive Project; technical publications series; CIMI; NISO standards development.
[Summary of results to this question]

d) Interestingly, members' collaborators on (advocacy-related) projects consisted mostly of fellow NINCH members (AAM, AAMD, ACLS, ARL, ARLIS, CAA, CLIR, CNI, Getty, LC, MCN, RLG, VRA). Non-NINCH members cited included the Digital Future Coalition (of which NINCH is a member, the National Humanities Alliance, the NEA, universities, Cause/Educom, NHPRC and NISO. Projects cited included the Consortium for the Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI) and its CHIO project and the Museum Educational Site Licensing project.
[Summary of results to this question]

e) the fifth question about how success was measured included a variety of answers including: legislative results/acceptance by policy makers/ degree of inclusion in policy deliberations/increased access to policy makers (AHA/Getty/AAM/SAA); funding (AHA, CLIR); general impact of project/product/subsequent use by the community (AHA/MCN/NMAA/Getty). Seven respondents had no measures or did not answer the question.
[Summary of results to this question]

f) Lastly to the question of whom NINCH should principally target for its advocacy activity, members answered with:

the executive office of the President (CNI, MCN, SAA)
government policy makers (Getty, SAA),
federal agencies (VRA, SAA)
other policy makers (Getty, MCN),
general public (Getty, MCN),
universities and colleges (AAM, CAA, CLIR, SAA, VRA),
university presses (SIL)
wider academic and museum community (CAA)
K-12 and public education groups (AAM, VRA, MCN)
media and digerati (SAA)
National Science Foundation (CNI)
NASA (VRA),
National Register of Historic Places and other holders of cultural heritage databases (AAM):
Association for Educational Communication and Technology (ACH)
nonprofit service organizations, such as the American Symphony Orchestra League, the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, OPERA America, and Dance/USA (AAM).
corporations (ACH)

I note here that five groups prioritized the federal government (CNI, Getty, MCN, SAA, VRA) and five mentioned higher education (AAM, CAA, CLIR, SAA VRA).

While some felt a little indignant that we might only speak to our own, AAMD suggested "if we convince our own first, [that] will be no small task in some instances," and ACLS commented that NINCH must keep closely in touch with its membership in order to take advantage of often unpredictable "targets of opportunity."
[Summary of results to this question]

3. NEEDS

The third section had a single question addressing the core issue of what NINCH could do to help member organizations in their own efforts to educate staff so that they could be a more effective advocates for electronic networking of cultural resources.

Answers divided between the content/subject of the assistance NINCH could give, the vehicle for its delivery and kinds of other strategic lessons that would be helpful.

Content

intellectual property rights issues, developments and "changing environments" (AAM, ACH, CNI, SAA)
standards issues (AAM, SIA, VRA)) "most universities and libraries need to know more about the technical challenges of interoperability" (CLIR)
developments of the networking projects of NINCH members (AAM)
the importance of working for creating an improved networking environment, eg Internet2 (CNI)
preservation and access of electronic material (SAA)
nuts-and-bolts issues of digital networking, especially the syntactical issues of SGML usage, ISO standards (VRA)

Vehicle

A number of respondents indicated that NINCH should produce some print guides to essential issues:

"pithy descriptions of pending issues--and range of outcomes--(for boards)" (AHA);
"More descriptions of best practices would also be useful," (CLIR)
"For our staff: Focused, educational materials on key networking issues. Short, succinct, "in-a-nutshell" type technical information sheets would be useful, particularly if they were organized along the lines of outlining a particular problem, identifying work that is underway to address the problem, and reviewing some of the outstanding issues that surround the problem. Some sample topics might be "The Economics of Digitizing Cultural Heritage Materials," "Intellectual Property Rights Issues for Artistic Works in a Digital Environment," "Research Needs for Digital Cultural Information," "The Role of Standards in Fostering Networked Access to Cultural Information", etc." (Getty);
" practical ideas like tools for assessing the issues (for example - worksheets for determining "fair use", checklists for determining IPR criteria for our collections, etc.)" (MCN).

These suggestions, I would suggest, form a very logical candidate for further action.

Strategies

Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, there were a few responses that tackled the issue on a more strategic level:

How to get people interested and involved in the issues (AE/KC, CAA, MCN)
"We need to understand the sentiments and political realities of policy makers on networking issues. This would help us to better target our programs and ensure that all our programs have at least some component that speaks to these sentiments and realities." (Getty)
a way of thinking about the factors to be considered when digitizing collections; how to develop a strategy and rationale for digitizing (what, how and how much); the prioritization of issues on a national or global scale (SIA)

[Summary of results to this question]

4. ISSUES

In the final section, members were asked to prioritize a list of six issues that they think NINCH should get to work on.

First, in terms of gross ranking. I totalled the scores that each issue received and then ranked the issues (see scores in summary below). Interestingly intellectual property rights and standards were virtually tied as top priorities (with "scores" of 38 and 42). I.p. received seven 1s and one 6, while standards received five 1s and one 6. Access came in third (at 53) with five 1s and one 6. There was a long jump then to Economics (66) and Preservation (71), again virtually tied, neither receiving 1s but economics receiving six 6s and preservation three sixes and a 'seven' (caused by the respondent adding an issue as a highest priority to the list of six). Internationalism trailed at 88.

Thus the final ranking is:

Standards
Intellectual Property
Access
Preservation
Economics
Internationalism

The additions to the list could generally be clustered under the heading of "Education" (ACH, ACLS and ArtsEdge/Kennedy Center): implementing new tools and methodogies made possible through networking. For ACH it was "how to use tools and methodologies for research and teaching (and not just access to the resources whose development is promoted by NINCH)." For ACLS, "education" meant "how do we get the word out about what is available, what is at risk and where to go to get help," to which was added "applications: how do we use networked information effectively in teaching and research."
[Summary of results to this question]

II SUMMARY

Key

AAM

American Association of Museums

AAMD

Association of Art Museum Directors

ACH

Association for Computers and the Humanities

ACLS

American Council of Learned Societies

AE/KC

ArtsEdge/Kennedy Center

AHA

American Historical Association

CAA

College Art Association

CLIR

Council for Library Information Resources

CNI

Coalition for Networked Information

GETTY

Getty Information Institute

MCN

Museum Computer Network

NAAO

National Association of Artists Organizations

NMAA

National Museum of American Art

SAA

Society of American Archivists

SIA

Smithsonian Institution Archives

SIL

Smithsonian Institution Libraries

VRA

Visual Resources Association

1. How familiar is your organization and its constituents with the terms of this vision and with the current issues that have to be grappled with to make this vision a reality?

AAM: somewhat [staff:members]

AAMD: somewhat (+Luddites) [staff:members]

ACH: somewhat

ACLS: very (though staff changes)

AE/KC: somewhat

AHA: mixed (+Luddites) [staff:members]

CAA: mostly unfamiliar [staff:members]

CLIR: very/somewhat [staff:members]

CNI: very

Getty: very

MCN: very/somewhat

NAAO: somewhat

NMAA; very

SAA: very

SIA: mostly

SIL: somewhat

VRA: very/somewhat [staff:members]

Summary: very: 5; very/somewhat: 3; somewhat: 5; mostly unfamiliar: 2; mixed: 1

2. ADVOCACY

a) Given this definition of advocacy, how does your organization advocate for networking cultural heritage

AAM: educate constituents on emerging issues

AAMD: broader issues: tax and funding

ACH: advocacy of information interchange stds rather than political advocacy

AE/KC: We give access to as much of this kind of info as possible through the artsedge website

AHA: Through NINCH/DFC/NHA

CAA: none

CLIR: facilitate cooperation; identifying problems and assembling taskforces/reports to address issues--practical knowledge on emerging issues

CNI: advocate for principles by giving platforms at meetings, writing and working with Federal agencies

Getty: identify barriers and adopt community-based programs to overcome them

MCN: platform for general education within museums on information issues (often more of a joiner than initiator)

NAAO: economics prevents advocacy; so work on being educated

NMAA: through forums where issues are discussed; addressing problems in practical way; willing to invest time & resources; participation in standards-setting projects (MESL, CHIO)

SAA: position papers on key issues

SIA: We advocate in small group settings within the Smithsonian and within the archival profession.

SIL: advocates through other organizations (MCN; ALA, CIMI)

VRA: work on copyright & standards issues

b) Do you have a different working definition of advocacy than the one we offer here?

AAM: This is "field education"; we need to go further--we lobby for legislative change; Museum Advocacy Team of grassroots activists

AAMD: OK; but we lobby as well

ACH: have a narrower focus

AE/KC: Legislative action

AHA: needs to include lobbying/legislative change sometimes

CAA: specifically related to govmt support for arts

CLIR: should include lobbying and be m. specific; be practical; focus on audience (influence those who influence)

CNI: OK

Getty: OK; but believe in being more pro-active

MCN: OK

NAAO: OK

NMAA: OK but advocacy does involve action

SAA: OK

SIA: OK

SIL: OK

VRA: OK

c) Of the projects that your organization participates in, which are related to digital networking?

AAM: NINCH, CONFU, Telecommunications Policy Roundtable; CIMI:

AAMD: Fair Use; Licensing (AMICO)

ACH: TEI

ACLS: Copyright

AE/KC: all via ArtsEdge

AHA: several in devpmt

CAA: (NINCH; Website; Fair Use)

CLIR: NDLF; the Digital Archiving Task Force; Civil War Virtual Library Project (in cooperation with OCLC); Yale's Social Science Data Archive Project; technical publications series;

CNI: all projects

Getty: all projects (MESL; private-public; G7; Research Agenda; LACN)

MCN: Most all projects (CIMI; metadata)

NAAO: n/a

NMAA: many:database and new media projects

SAA: EAD; NISO standards devpmt.

SIA: Home pages, on-line data bases in SIRIS (Smithsonian Institution Research and Information System)

SIL: CIMI; Smithsonian digitizing projects include collections information systems (ArtCIS; CIS and NMAA websites)

VRA: data standards; copyright & fair use

d) If you collaborate with partners in any networking advocacy activity, who are they?

AAM: NINCH; AAMD; GII; MCN CIMI

AAMD: AAM +humanities orgs

ACH: ALLC, ACL

ACLS: DFC, ARL, RLG, CPA, Humanist

AE/KC: Many, including NEA, Department of Education, Kennedy Center, Alliance for Arts in Education

AHA: NINCH, DFC, NHA

CAA: NINCH; ACLS ;VRA

CLIR: universities; OCLC; RLG, ARL, LoC

CNI: ARL; CAUSE; EDUCOM

Getty: CNI/ACLS (NINCH); CIMI

MCN: none for advocacy

NAAO: Arts Wire; Benton/NEA Open Studio

NMAA: MESL, CHIO, CIMI

SAA: CNI, NINCH, NHPRC, NISO

SIL: RLG/CIMI

VRA: RLG; LoC; CAA; ARLIS; DFC

e) How do you measure the success of your networking advocacy projects?

AAM: degree of inclusion in policy deliberations; securing opportunities for museums

AAMD: none

ACH: implementation of projects

ACLS no answer

AE/KC: Hits on our pages for advocacy, anecdotal accounts, especially on our listserv.

AHA: legislative results; collaborative projects; fiscal support

CAA: none

CLIR: funding for proposed projects

CNI: no std techniques

Getty: reception; subsequent use by community; acceptance by policy makers

MCN: impact of projects

NAAO: n/a

NMAA: product usually results that is related to museums' goals

SAA: Promulgation of standards; inclusion of archival perspective in position papers; increased access to policy makers

SIA: n/a

SIL: Dont

VRA: VRA Core Categories project measured in a RLG testbed

f) Besides NINCH members, what groups should NINCH target for advocacy?

AAM: higher ed.; K-12 orgs; service orgs: ASOL; APAP, Opera America, Dance USA; holders of cultural heritage databases: National Register of Historic Places

AAMD: (enough dealing with own members)

ACH: AECT (Association for Educational Communication and Technology); corporations

ACLS choose targets of opportunity for advocacy by keeping closely in touch with the membership.

AE/KC: no answer

AHA: no answer

CAA: colleges, universities and wider academic/museum community

CLIR: universities and colleges

CNI: Exec. Office of President; NEA; NEH; NSF

Getty: Administration policymakers; policymakers in other sectors; general public

MCN: present and future presidential administrations, policy makers, educators, and the general public. If we only have NINCH educate its members, what's the point?

NMAA: need adoption of standards by institutions and software developers

SAA: federal govt; universities; media; digerati

SIL: University presses!;

VRA: public education gps; government agencies; NASA; universities engaged in digital projects

3. NEEDS

What further education about networking issues does your organization need--both for staff to understand the issues and for the organization to become an advocate itself for effective electronic networking of cultural resources?

AAM: technical issues of networking (stds devpmt); IP devpmts; news and status of networking projects of NINCH members

AAMD: --

ACH: need to consult with ACH board on issues; ip should interest them...

AE/KC: concept of networking and getting people involved (beyond issues)

AHA: pithy descriptions of pending issues --and range of outcomes--(for boards)

CAA: how to get people to pay attention to the issues

CLIR: universities & libraries need to know technical challenges of interoperability; descriptions of best practices

CNI: imptce of working for better environment (NGI; I2); Fair Use

Getty: to know more about outlooks of policymakers; pithy technical info sheets on key networking issues [Economics of Digitizing; Copyright Issues; Research Needs; Role of Standards]

MCN: need practical tools to help members really understand issues

NAAO: need financial means to keep at the table; need trusted leadership to say what is happening

NMAA: no response

SAA: needs help in following areas: changing copyright environment; digitization (for smart strategies and prioritization about what and how and why to digitize); and preservation/access of electronic media

SIA: role of standards; relative priority of issues from the NINCH perspective

SIL: hard question

VRA: better understanding of nuts-&-bolts of digital networking (we understand semantics, eg cataloging standards, but we need help with syntactical issues, eg, SGML usage; ISO stds)

4. ISSUES

Prioritize the following issue areas within networking as they relate to the core functions of your organization. Add any specifying comments you want to specify any issues within broad topics:

IP

Standards

Access

Economics

Internationalism

Preservation

Other

AAM

2

3

4

1

5

6

AAMD

1

3

5

1

6

4

ACH

3

2

4

6

5

7

1=Education & Training

ACLS

1

2

6

6

2

2

Applications

AHA

5

1

3

2

4

6

AE/KC

6

2

4

5

7

3

1-Education

CAA

1

6

1

3

5

4

CLIR

5

4

1

3

6

2

CNI

1

1

1

1

6

5

Getty

4

2

1

5

3

6

MCN

2

1

3

6

5

4

NAAO

4

3

1

2

6

5

NMAA

2

1

3

4

6

5

SAA

2

1

4

6

5

3

SIA

1

2

4

5

6

3

SIL

1

2

5

4

6

2

VRA

1

2

3

6

5

4

Total

42

38

53

66

88

71

Rank

2

1

3

4

6

5

AAM	American Association of Museums
AAMD	Association of Art Museum Directors
ACH	Association for Computers and the Humanities
ACLS	American Council of Learned Societies
AE/KC	ArtsEdge/Kennedy Center
AHA	American Historical Association
CAA	College Art Association
CLIR	Council for Library Information Resources
CNI	Coalition for Networked Information
GETTY	Getty Information Institute
MCN	Museum Computer Network
NAAO	National Association of Artists Organizations
NMAA	National Museum of American Art
SAA	Society of American Archivists
SIA	Smithsonian Institution Archives
SIL	Smithsonian Institution Libraries
VRA	Visual Resources Association