Designing and implementing a digital preservation training
needs assessment
Findings from the Bodleian Libraries’ institutional repository
Sarah Mason

Edith Halvarsson

Bodleian Libraries
University of Oxford
Oxford OX2 0EW
sarah.mason@bodleian.ox.ac.uk

Bodleian Libraries
University of Oxford
Oxford OX2 0EWedith.halvarsson@bodleian.ox.ac.uk

ABSTRACTThis paper describes the design and pilot of a digital preservation
training needs assessment at Bodleian Libraries (University of Oxford). The assessment was designed to establish training needs
among staff, with the purpose of creating targeted digital preservation training based on gaps identified. Measurements for theassessment were developed around the DigCurV [7] Framework
skill descriptors combined with a literature review of other skills
frameworks. The measurements were developed into a set of interview questions, which was piloted on nine members of staff fromthe Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) in the winter of
2016. Findings from the assessment have influenced the design oftraining modules which frame digital preservation concepts aroundworkflows in the ORA digital repository. The modules take as theirstarting point the awareness level, knowledge, practical skills, problem solving approaches and preferred learning style of staff within
the ORA team.

KEYWORDS
Auditing, skills, workforce development, training, DigCurV, institutional repository, digital preservation

1

INTRODUCTION

This paper describes the design and trial of a digital preservation
staff training needs assessment undertaken at Bodleian Libraries(University of Oxford). In the winter of 2016, the Digital Preservation at Oxford and Cambridge project 1 trialled a set of interview
questions on staff members from the Oxford University ResearchArchive (ORA) 2 . The purpose of the assessment was to record what
staff knew about digital preservation, and which transferable skills
could be drawn upon to deliver tailored staff training in this area.
Digital Preservation at Oxford and Cambridge (DPOC) is a twoyear project funded by the Polonsky Foundation to research digitalpreservation policy, staffing and technical challenges present at
Bodleian Libraries and Cambridge University Library. The project’s
outcomes and recommendations will form the basis for long-term,
sustainable digital preservation programmes at each institution.
Each institution has appointed 3 Polonsky Fellows to undertake
this work in the following roles: Policy & Planning, Outreach &Training and Technical Specialist.
1 Digital Preservation at Oxford and Cambridge. www.dpoc.ac.uk
2 Oxford University Research Archive. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/

ORA, the Oxford University Research Archive, is the Universityof Oxford’s institutional repository and maintains the scholarly
output of its members. It preserves research publications, journal
articles, conference papers, working papers, theses, reports, booksections, unpublished academic work, and more. ORA-data waslaunched in 2015 as an archival store to help researchers archive,
share and cite research data.
Findings from the assessment revealed that awareness of digitalpreservation risks was good among ORA staff. This knowledge
was often acquired through the practical experience of working
with digital material in ORA. Interestingly, despite being able todescribe core concepts using practical examples, “jargon” digitalpreservation terms were only recognised by members of staff who
had undertaken formal academic training on digital preservation.
Having digital preservation terms as part of a staff member’s vernacular helps with accessing digital preservation literature andconcepts. However, the assessment illustrates that “jargon” is perceived as intimidating and can also create a barrier for entering
into discussions in the digital preservation field.
Furthermore, the assessment found that staff felt uncomfortablespeaking about digital preservation with depositors due to a lack of
up-to-date knowledge of the technical end-to-end workflows usedwithin ORA’s underlying submission and repository service. This
lack of confidence is a key skill to address; one of the strongest
motivators staff expressed for learning about digital preservation
was the ability to provide good service and advice to depositors
and users. As preservation plans for research outputs are requiredby many UK funding bodies, staff in ORA are increasingly receiving queries from academics about digital preservation. Based onthese findings, DPOC concluded that digital preservation training
was better delivered in-house, tailored to Bodleian Libraries’ local
context, rather than outsourced to external providers. DPOC are
currently developing customised training modules around ORA
workflows and repository software to contextualise digital preservation within the service. The modules take as their starting point
the awareness level, knowledge, practical skills, problem solving
approaches and preferred learning style of staff within the ORA
team.

2 ASSESSMENT DESIGN
2.1 Reviewing Skills Frameworks
Before designing a set of interview questions for the assessment,
the DPOC project needed to identify key skills for staff working

in digital preservation. A number of skills frameworks were consulted including the ARA Competency Framework [2], the CILIP
Professional Knowledge and Skills Base [6] and the DigCCurr Matrix from the University of North Carolina [11]. However, as there
were no available interview question templates to work with, theDPOC team needed to design their own. The DigCurV Framework[7] formed the DPOC project’s list of skills for creating interview
questions. DigCurV was chosen as it is the most comprehensive
framework among those assessed, and provides good granularity
as it is tailored around different skill sets for different types of roles(Executive, Manager and Practitioner lenses). Also each skill in the
DigCurV Framework has been assigned a unique number, making
coding of the literature review and interview transcripts clear andconcise.

2.2

Refining DigCurV Skill Descriptors

There are 110 skill descriptors in DigCurV [7], far too many tocondense into a concise set of interview questions or online questionnaire. The volume of skill descriptors in DigCurV posed an issueduring the assessment design, as addressing each one would takeseveral hours and become too disruptive for staff. DPOC therefore
reviewed DigCurV [7] and the earlier frameworks, which produced
a reduced list of 71 skills for managers and practitioners. Skills
were removed if they applied solely to the Executive lens, which
was deemed out of scope for the training needs assessment. Skill
descriptors were combined where the DPOC project assessed that
there was overlap between them or if a skill was too unclear andlacked clarification. Since the DigCurV [7] Framework lacks clear
definitions for all 110 descriptors, the DPOC team created a glossary
for the remaining skill descriptors.
A literature review [1, 3–5, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19] produced a final listof 63 of the most commonly associated digital preservation skills. A
further review of Bodleian Libraries’ training programmes, policies
and job descriptions, narrowed the list to a further 43 skills foruse in the training needs assessment. This list, combined with theliterature review, yielded a shortlist of the top 20 skills for digitalpreservation that focused mainly on:of the ORA team at a time, as this provided participants with confidentiality not available in a focus group setting. Another strengthof one-on-one interviews was that the interviewers received input
equally from each participant [18, p.171]. The flexible nature ofsemi-structured interviews also allowed the interviewers to clarify
problematic phrasing and vague terminology identified by participants during the interview. The feedback resulted in a second
version of the assessment with revised questions; samples of thequestion revisions are in Table 1. It was trialled in a second roundof interviews in April and May 2017; results from these interviews
are currently being analysed.
Two different sets of interview questions were designed and usedin the pilot interviews, depending on whether or not a participant
was considered to be a manager or practitioner. This differentiation
was based on role responsibilities, not the participant’s job title [12].
Later, a manager/practitioner combined set of interview questions
was added; together, these formed the training needs assessmentthat would be trialled on the ORA team.
Table 1: Interview question revisions• technical skills (KIA1.15, KIA5.1, KIA5.2, KIA5.4. MQA3.12),• metadata (KIA4.5, KIA4.6),• communications skills (PQ2.1),• domain and digital preservation knowledge (KIA1.1, KIA2.5),• preservation planning (KIA1.16, KIA3.4),• the designated community, access and searching needs(KIA3.6, KIA4.1, KIA4.2) and• legal requirements (PC1.1, PC1.2, PC2.1, PC2.4) [7].
Using this list of descriptors, the DPOC project created a set ofinterview questions which can be delivered in a manageable 1–1.5
hour session.

2.3

Methodology

The DPOC team considered a number of qualitative and quantitative
methods for the assessment, and settled on running semi-structured
interviews. The use of semi-structured interviews allowed participants to explore alternative areas of interest, aspects which cannot
be adequately captured in a structured interview or online questionnaire [18, p. 57] [8, p. 29]. Interviews were run with one member

3

Original question

Revised question

What is your understanding of adigital file format?

What digital file formats
do you work with in yourrole (for both collection
materials and administrative tasks)?

Using your understanding of adigital file format, what formats
do you work with in your role foryour collection materials and administrative tasks?

Could you explain how
you would handle a situation where you received adigital file without a file extension?

From your professional awareness or experience, can you describe to me an example of a complicated information rights issues
for a digital deposit?

Think about a time youor one of your colleagues
dealt with a complicatedrights issues for a digital
deposit, could you explain
to me how it was managed?

Thinking about your digital collections, are you aware of themhaving any formal accreditation,
certification or being subject tocompliance audits?

Thinking about the repository you work with, areyou aware if it has anyof the following: certifications, or accreditations?

PILOT SAMPLEThe DPOC project interviewed 9 members of the ORA team using
the first version of the interview questions. The interview sample
included:• 2 managers,• 5 metadata assistants,• 1 senior metadata assistant, and• 1 curator of research data.

The metadata assistants in ORA have a broad range of professional
and academic backgrounds. Their time working with the service
ranged from 5 years to a few months—although some have previously worked for Bodleian Libraries in other roles. Notably, oneof the metadata assistants had completed a Masters level module
on digital curation, and was able to respond in more detail arounddigital preservation concepts and terminology.
The interviews were completed over a two month period witheach interview averaging between 1–1.5 hours. The same two
members of the DPOC team took part in each interview to ensurethat questions were delivered consistently across the sample [17,p.1193]. This method allowed one person to focus on accurate notetaking, negating the need for tape recording, which the Oxford
DPOC team felt would be too cumbersome to transcribe and had
the potential to alter interviewees’ responses [15, p.169].

4 FINDINGS FROM THE PILOT INTERVIEWS
4.1 Core DigCurV Skills
The assessments identified a number of core skill strengths as identified by the selected DigCurV [7] skill descriptors. Not surprisingly,
due to the type of material ORA staff work with, all staff had agood understanding of rights management, as well as strong communication and metadata editing skills. Staff also displayed good
problem solving skills when required to learn new technology. Twomembers of staff had experience of using UNIX command lines andscripts.

4.2

Digital Preservation Risks and Concepts

Staff were able to give a number of examples of digital preservation
risks, drawing on experience of their role reviewing digital filesubmissions for ORA. The most common risk areas described were
hardware obsolescence (55% of respondents), file format ’obsolescence’ and software obsolescence (55% of respondents). One staff
member also mentioned storage failure and low quality metadata
as risks to digital material. Although staff were able to describe
these risks, only two recognised the digital preservation terms andconcepts listed in one of the questions (the list contained references to the OAIS model and concepts, normalization and fixity).
In several cases, the interviewers were able to frame what theseconcepts referred to by pointing to examples already supplied bystaff earlier on in the interview. This led the DPOC team to startconsidering the possibility of using these work experiences and the
ORA workflow as an entry to digital preservation concepts.

4.3

Digital Preservation and the ORA Service

While many preservation risks were understood by staff, there
was much uncertainty about how risks can be mitigated. A reoccurring theme throughout the assessment was that staff did notknow, or had out-dated knowledge about technical workflows andpreservation practices associated with ORA, including the roleand implementation of Bodleian Libraries’ Fedora instances andHydra. Opinions were split among the 9 staff interviewed regardingwhether or not ORA carries out digital preservation activities: 4
members of staff were unsure about the answer, 2 thought that
ORA is doing basic bit-level preservation and 3 thought the service
currently does not do any preservation activities (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Excerpt from assessment: digital preservation activities (all interviewees, managers & practitioners)

Not knowing what current preservation actions the ORA service
uses to mitigate risks impacted on how comfortable staff wereabout explaining these concepts to depositors and users. 6 outof the 7 practitioners (one was a manager/practitioner) were not
comfortable discussing digital preservation with depositors—with
one commenting that “it would be nice to be able to answer thosequestions” and another commenting that “I do not know enoughabout the service and its future [to do so]”. One commented that
“I use the words ‘archiving’ and ‘storage’ with depositors, because
I’m not sure we do [digital preservation].”

4.4

Manager Buy-inBoth managers showed a clear understanding of digital preservation, associated risks and techniques to mitigate those risks. Thisfinding was encouraging, as it demonstrated managerial commitment to digital preservation. One manager expressed awarenessthat confidence with digital preservation was lacking in the ORA
team, and believed that training would ensure staff could “answer
queries and understand the wider environments which they workin.” This support for digital preservation training included the manager’s willingness to release staff to attend any available training
sessions and provide additional feedback on session content.

4.5

Practitioner Problem Solving

The practitioner set of questions delved into problem solving approaches. When metadata assistants were asked how they would
handle a scenario of reviewing a digital file with an unknownor missing file extension, their responses showed that most werecomfortable experimenting with digital files and doing online selfdirected research. The questions around problem solving approaches
also revealed that 5 out of 6 metadata assistants relied heavily onthe knowledge base built up within their local team to address scenarios that required them to learn a new task or program. Several
staff explained that if they received problematic or unidentified digital files, they would initially ask their immediate team for advice
to see if anyone had previous experience of that file format.

4.6

Practitioners’ Preferred Learning Styles

The importance of the local team was also evident when staff wereasked about their learning style preferences. The metadata assistants expressed that they preferred small groups for interactive
training modules, but that larger groups for lecture-style training
was good, provided they were not required to interact with otherparticipants. This often reflected confidence in interacting with a
new subject. One participant commented that “I would feel more
comfortable having training with my closest team [the metadata
assistants]” and another that “I don’t like working in a group withpeople I do not know.” However, in terms of general introductory
modules, the same participant commented that “I think it is best
to open it to all [staff], since then you get a much more varied
perspective on things”. This suggested that for general awarenesstopics a large group approach is acceptable, but that ORA-specificor other in-depth workshops should be kept small and be limited
to the core practitioners.

5

MODULE DEVELOPMENT

Based on the findings and skills profile of ORA staff, the DPOC
project are currently developing training material for a tailored
digital preservation module around ORA. Developing the training
module for ORA has proven to be an interesting exercise in itself, as
the DPOC team members are new to their organisations. Training istherefore being developed alongside a technical repository review
of ORA as part of the DPOC project [14]. This has required extensive collaboration with technical support staff around Bodleian
Libraries, in order to inform the DPOC team of ORA’s workflows
and underlying infrastructure. For organisations looking to frame
their digital preservation training in a similar fashion, it is evident
that getting buy-in and advice from a variety of managerial and service support staff will be necessary to develop meaningful, targetedtraining modules.

5.1

Tailored Training Module: ORA

The module currently in development covers digital preservation
concerns in end-to-end ORA workflows, from submission of research outputs by academics, to long-term storage and management by the library. It also includes explanations of how bit-level
preservation is addressed in ORA’s current storage infrastructure.
DPOC hope that framing digital preservation in a familiar context
will help contextualize and introduce digital preservation terminology, and directly impact staff’s understanding of their own role
within the service.

5.2

Hands-on Workshops

As well as having modules around the ORA workflows, the DPOC
team are preparing hands-on workshops for analysing digital files
using tools like DROID, JHOVE, VeraPDF and the BitCurator suite.
As some staff have command line experience, a mixture of GUI andcommand line tasks will be run. Although these tools will not be
used by reviewers on a day-to-day basis, knowledge of how theywork and why they are useful tools will help staff when speaking
about digital preservation to depositors and users.

5.3

All-staff Digital Preservation Awareness
ModuleDuring the assessment pilot phase, there was an interest in developing digital preservation awareness training that could be delivered
to all library staff, not just those currently working with digitalcollections. Due to this demand, an adapted and brief online questionnaire was later sent out to all members of staff at Bodleian
Libraries. The questionnaire enabled the DPOC team to triangulate
some of the themes which were raised from qualitative interviews
with ORA staff [9]. They used the findings to develop an all-staff
digital preservation awareness training module.
This module includes a unit on personal digital archiving, which
has been run multiple times. Several other units are currently being
developed on digital preservation terms and concepts—these will
also cover some basic language from the OAIS reference model. Although the assessment has shown that OAIS terminology is not necessary for identifying digital preservation risks, the DPOC project
would like to explore if familiarity with OAIS terminology makes
participation in discussions more accessible. These awareness modules will mix lecture-style, interactive and online delivery methods.

5.4

Training Evaluation

The success of the ORA and general digital preservation awarenesstraining will be measured by pre- and post-module evaluation.
Where two versions of a similar module or hands-on workshop willbe trialled, one metadata assistant will attend and evaluate the two
versions, facilitating revisions and improvements to the training
materials. This method will allow the DPOC team to ensure aneffective training programme is in place at the conclusion of the
project.

6

NEXT STEPS

Alongside designing the ORA digital preservation training itself,
the DPOC project will also be developing and trialling the next
phase of the training needs assessment. The pilot trial of the sets ofinterview questions on ORA highlighted that there is also a need todesign one for software developers working with digital collections.
The current practitioner interview questions were found to be unsuitable because its focus does not align with skills required for asoftware developer. Further research is required to define the ideal
skills set for software developers and other technical staff working
with collection material. Once done, a specific set of developerinterview questions will be developed. When completed, it will betrialled on developers working with ORA services.
The interview questions, online questionnaire and glossary ofskill descriptors have been developed into a draft training needs
assessment toolkit. This will enable other institutions to audit theskills and training needs of their staff. The authors invite commentand feedback on the draft toolkit, available on the DPOC project
website: www.dpoc.ac.uk.

7

CONCLUSION

Findings from the assessment pilot have been invaluable for developing training modules around digital preservation at Bodleian
Libraries. While there are a number of outsourced training solutions available, the assessment revealed that training modules
benefit from being tailored to Bodleian Libraries’ local context. Staff
in ORA want and need to be informed about their digital services;
they also want to learn about digital preservation in relation totheir digital services. While developing training is more labourintensive, tailored and targeted in-house training will provide staff
with the knowledge to speak confidently to users and depositors
about their digital service. As the amended set of interview questions is rolled out to other members of staff in Bodleian Libraries,
the DPOC project will be able to see whether or not this trend
continues across other teams within the institution.

CONTRIBUTORSSarah Barkla, Bodleian Libraries
Alan Mckechnie, Bodleian Libraries
Jason Partridge, Bodleian Libraries
Thomas Stanbury, Bodleian Libraries
David Tomkins, Bodleian Libraries
Hilary Tricker, Bodleian Libraries
David Watson, Bodleian Libraries

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the contributors for their time, ideas
and feedback for this paper. They would like to thank the entire
ORA team for being generous with their time during the training
needs assessment. Also, thank you to the DPOC Polonsky Fellows at
Cambridge (Lee Pretlove, David Gerrard, Somaya Langley) and therest of the DPOC team at Oxford (Michael Popham, James Mooney).
And lastly, they would like to thank the Polonsky Foundation for
their generous funding of the DPOC project.

REFERENCES[1] Suzie Allard, Christopher Lee, Nancy Y Mcgovern, and Alice Bishop. 2016. The
Open Data Imperative. Technical Report. Council on Library and Information
Resources, Washington, DC. http://www.clir.org[2] Archives and Records Association. 2015. Competency Framework. Technical
Report. London.
[3] Winston Atkins, Andrea Goethals, Carol Kussmann, Meg Phillips, and Mary
Vardigan. 2013. Staffing for Effective Digital Preservation: an NDSA Report. Technical Report. NDSA Standards and Practices Working Group, Washington, DC.
26 pages. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/lcpub.2013655113.1[4] K. R. Blumenthal, P. Griesinger, J. Kim, S. Peltzman, and V. Steeves. 2016. What
Makes a Digital Steward: Survey Instrument. (2016). https://osf.io/zndwq/https://osf.io/zndwq/[5] Youngok Choi and Edie Rasmussen. 2009. What qualifications and skills areimportant for digital librarian positions in academic library? A job advertisement
analysis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 35, 5 (2009), 457 – 467.
[6] CILIP. 2014. Your Professional Knowledge and Skills Base. Technical Report. 1–20
pages. www.cilip.org.uk/pksb[7] DigCurV. 2013. DigCurV - Skills in Digital Curation Curriculum Framework.
(2013). http://www.digcurv.gla.ac.uk/index.html[8] R Edwards and J Holland. 2013. What is qualitative interviewing? Bloomsbury,
London.
[9] T Jick. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation inaction. Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 4 (1979), 602 – 610. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392366[10] Jeonghyun Kim, Edward Warga, William E Moen, Warga Kim, and Moen 67. 2013.
Competencies Required for Digital Curation: An Analysis of Job Advertisements.

The International Journal of Digital Curation International Journal of Digital
Curation 8, 81 (2013), 66–83. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v8i1.242[11] Christopher Lee. 2009. Matrix of Digital Curation Knowledge and Competencies.
Technical Report. School of Information and Library Science, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. https://ils.unc.edu/digccurr/
digccurr-matrix.html[12] Library of Congress. 2010. Digital Preservation Outreach Education. (2010).
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/education/educationneeds.html[13] National Research Council. 2015. Preparing the Workforce for Digital Curation.
Technical Report. Washington, D.C. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/18590[14] OCLC and CRL. 2007. Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification: Criteria
and Checklist. Technical Report. https://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/d6/
attachments/pages/trac[15] Zina O’Leary. 2004. The Essential Guide to Doing Research. Sage Publications,London.
[16] Carole L. Palmer, Cheryl A. Thompson, Karen S. Baker, and Megan Senseney.
2014. Meeting Data Workforce Needs: Indicators Based on Recent Data Curation
Placements. In iConference 2014 Proceedings. iSchools. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.
9776/14133[17] Michael Quinn Patton. 1999. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative
analysis. Heath Services Research 34, 5 (1999), 1189 – 1208. https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089059/pdf/hsresearch00022-0112.pdf[18] Keith F Punch. 2005. Introduction to Social Research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications,London.
[19] Bronwen Sprout and Sarah Romkey. 2012. A Persistent Digital Collections
Strategy for UBC Library. In Memory of the World in the Digital Age: Digitization
and Preservation Conference. Vancouver, British Columbia. http://www.unesco.
org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/mow/VC