Historians’ Use of Digital Archival Collections: The Web,
Historical Scholarship, and Archival Research
Donghee Sinn and Nicholas Soares
Department of Information Studies, University at Albany (State University of New York), 135 Western Avenue,
Albany, NY 12222. E-mail: {dsinn, nsoares}@albany.edu
This article reports a research study about historians’
experiences using digital archival collections for
research articles that they published in the American
Historical Review. We contacted these authors to ask
about their research processes, with regard to digital
archival collections, and their perceptions of the useful-
ness of digital archival collections to historical research.
This study presents a realistic portrayal of the “uses”
and “impacts” of digital primary sources from the per-
spectives of historians who use digital collections for
their research projects. The findings from this study
indicate that digital archival collections are important
source materials for historical studies for various
reasons. However, the amount of authority digital mate-
rials possess as historical resources was disputed.
Many historians preferred documents in their original
form, but historians’ preferences began to change as
they increasingly consulted digital formats. As the web
has developed into an important research platform, his-
torians have adopted different research patterns, one of
which is using random web searches to find digital
primary sources. Historians’ understandings of the
“use” of digital archival collections revealed a spectrum
of activities including finding, understanding, interpret-
ing, and citing digital information. Historians in this
study worked concurrently on multiple studies or on a
larger project for a book, and each of their searches for
digital collections had the potential to provide them with
useful results for several research studies.
Introduction
Over the years, the archival community has tried to learn
how society’s documentary heritage is being used. Histori-
ans have often been consulted in archival user-studies
because, besides being one of archives’ major user-groups,
their work is largely based on primary resources. Historians’
uses of primary resources can be easily verified by viewing
citations in their publications. The appearance of certain
Received April 16, 2013; revised August 1, 2013; accepted August 1, 2013
© 2014 ASIS&T • Published online 21 April 2014 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.23091
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 65(9):1794–1809, 2014
materials in citations indicates that they were useful and
relevant to the topic addressed by the study. Such informa-
tion shows the direct relationship between source materials
and historical inquiries for specific projects on which histo-
rians work. However, the citation information stops short of
revealing the prior paths historians took to learn about each
source or explaining why they decided to use a particular
source for their specific projects. Consequently, researchers
have employed various methods, such as experiments, inter-
views, and surveys, to understand how historians learn
about, identify, locate, and use primary materials and how
these information activities are related to historical research
processes. As a result, a significant amount of knowledge
has accumulated about the views that historians have in
general about their research processes in archives, their
searching and browsing behaviors with primary resources,
and certain archival systems’ levels of usefulness. To date,
little research has been done to examine, in an empirical
manner, the complete paths historians follow from finding
and identifying archival materials to making final decisions
about using them in their particular research projects. More
studies are needed to understand the whole picture of how
historians use primary materials for learning, critical think-
ing, building arguments, and promoting knowledge during
their particular research projects.
There are even fewer studies devoted to historians’ uses
of digital archival collections with their specific experiences
for their research. Since the 1990s, many projects to digitize
primary materials have been undertaken to provide easier
access to historical resources. As an enormous amount of
money and manpower has been put forth for such projects,
there is significant interest about how such digital collec-
tions are being used. Again, researchers have reviewed cita-
tions to monitor the use of digital archival collections so that
they could obtain a realistic understanding about the impact
they are having. Graham (2002) reported that among the 128
articles she surveyed only six (4.6%) used electronic
resources. The portion of digital collections was only four
(8.7%) among all electronic resources (46 items) used in
these six articles. This usage pattern has gradually increased
in recent years, as about half of the articles in the American
Historical Review (AHR) from 2009 and 2010 contain cita-
tions to digital archival collections (Sinn, 2012). Citation
studies provide firm evidence of the use of digital archival
collections. However, studies employing various approaches
are necessary to investigate deeper layers of the evidence
and to map out the broader landscape surrounding the usage
of such information.
This study contributes to the general understanding of
historians’ use of digital archival collections by empirically
examining how historians conduct historical projects with
digital collections. It investigates historians’ concrete expe-
riences of becoming aware of the existence of a particular
digital collection, finding and searching for materials
within the collection, and deciding to use digital materials
in their research studies that they published in the
American Historical Review. We expect that learning from
historians’ particular experiences with certain digital col-
lections for their particular research studies will reveal
certain aspects of the process in which historians work
with digital archival collections that they may not have
remembered immediately when asked to comment in a
general sense about their research activities. We contacted
historians who cited digital archival collections in articles
within the American Historical Review. Using an open-
ended questionnaire, we asked historians about their spe-
cific behaviors and perceptions using digital archival
collections during their particular studies. Through this
research, we believe we have gained an in-depth and real-
istic understanding about historians’ research patterns in
relation to digital archival collections.
Literature Review
Digital technology and resources have changed the aca-
demic landscape of the history field, although the change has
been slow (Burton, 2005, pp. 206–208). In a history confer-
ence, Cohen (2010) stated that as “searchers and sifters of
evidence,” historians have gained a powerful tool to aid them
in these tasks in the form of web search engines such as
Google. The digital platform for historical resources has
altered how historians interact with primary materials. His-
torians spend less time in archives and more time online, and
historians’ time in archives is spent more for “informally
digitizing materials for later review” than for sitting and
analyzing the materials (Rutner & Schonfeld, 2012, p. 8).
These changes, however, are not new, as the web has become
an important platform over the years to search for primary as
well as secondary resources for research (Tibbo, 2003). The
changes to how scholars read and write about history are
evident, especially with the emergence of new technologies
and digital cultures from Web 2.0 (Rosenzweig, 2006). The
term digital history does not just mean the utilization of
technology for researching and teaching but also implicitly
signifies the consideration of new methods to frame new
types of research questions (Weller, 2013).
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
The web experience has had a significant impact on
research processes, and the general expectation of historians
about the information-seeking process now seems consider-
ably different from what it was before. There have been
studies attempting to understand how historians use archival
resources and how using these resources have affected his-
torians’ research patterns, especially in the digital environ-
ment. In this literature review, the findings of previous
archival use/user-studies are examined in three contexts:
studies from a material (institution/system)-centered
approach, studies from a patron-centered approach, and
studies from a research product-centered approach.
Material (Institution/System)-Centered Use/User Studies
Some studies have been conducted to understand the
use of archival materials from material or institutional
standpoints. These focus on identifying the users of certain
materials and systems, the frequency of material use in
certain institutions, the increased accessibility of materials
after digitization (i.e., the promotion of hidden or unpopu-
lar materials on the web), or the ways in which the uses of
materials are promoted by usability and system interfaces.
The focus is on materials, institutions, or systems that
provide access to materials, and it evaluates both the use of
systems and the users of systems.
In previous years, many archival user-studies belonged
to this category, and these studies provide good informa-
tion about the types of archival users an institution or a
collection has and how these users tend to use primary
materials from a traditional setting or an information
system setting (Blais & Enns, 1993; Cherry & Duff, 2002;
Gordon, 1992; Górny & Mazurek, 2012). Some research-
ers analyze the ease of use and challenges of archival
information systems, such as finding aids, MARC, EAD,
and access systems. As archival systems have incorporated
advanced technologies and newer standards, researchers
have delved more into the users’ understanding and usage
of such systems; the usability of a system, its functional-
ities, the effectiveness of its searching and retrieval func-
tions, the learning curves faced by its users, and users’
willingness to accept a system are a few of the topics that
have emerged although the subjects of these studies have
not always been historians (Altman & Nemmers, 2001;
Czeck, 1998; Daniels & Yakel, 2010; Meissner, 1997;
Prom, 2004; Scheir, 2005; Spindler & Pearce-Moses,
1993; Yakel, 2004). The findability of archival materials on
the web has been increasingly of interest to researchers as
the web has become an important venue for information
seeking (Feeney, 1999; Tibbo & Meho, 2001). Studies
have been conducted to identify online users of archives
and to examine the behaviors of anonymous users within
archival access systems (Assadi, Beauvisage, Lupovici, &
Cloarec, 2003; Hill, 2004; Prom, 2011). The advantages
and concerns that digital technologies have brought, such
as increased access to resources through the web, chal-
lenges that a new format has created for users and
1795
DOI: 10.1002/asi
archivists, and specific information-seeking behaviors of
searching and browsing have been studied as well (Hirtle,
2002).
Patron-Centered Use/User Studies
A corpus of literature devotes itself to understanding
archival research from users’ own perspectives, including
those of historians. Many studies have surveyed how histo-
rians behave and interact with source materials, aiming to
learn about specific information-seeking activities as well as
the purposes and impacts of archival research. Unfortu-
nately, many of these studies dealt with the pre-internet
world. There is still little research on how historians search
for digital primary materials. Researchers are calling for
studies about historians’ information needs, search strate-
gies, and work patterns in the digital environment because
such information behaviors and research patterns are differ-
ent than those used during the pre-Internet world (Elena,
Katifori, Vassilakis, Lepouras, & Halatsis, 2010).
There have been some studies on historians’ use of elec-
tronic retrieval tools, such as online finding aids and web
searches (Anderson, 2004; Southwell, 2002; Tibbo, 2003).
As identified in these studies, the electronic methods of
distributing and finding resources are critical for historians
to conduct their research. The percentage of users who
found manuscripts in a repository through web searches was
15.2% in 2000 (Southwell, 2002). A 2003 report shows a
large increase in historians’ reliance on the internet; 44% of
surveyed historians used search engines and 63% visited
repository websites for archival research (Tibbo, 2003).
Some other general findings concerning archival research in
the digital environment show that historians do not use
digital resources only for research. Teaching and curricular
are also important purposes historians have in mind when
using digital archival collections (Anderson, 2009). Regard-
less of their purposes, archival users prefer to discover
primary sources “at the network level, not at the institutional
level,” and this exposure of primary sources online may
increase the chances of users’ discovering hidden collec-
tions (Schaffner, 2009, p. 5). More and more historians have
found the potential of the electronic forms of retrieval tools
helpful in their search for primary materials (Duff, Craig, &
Cherry, 2004a).
Researchers have also investigated historians’ research
patterns and attitudes in relation to digital resources. His-
torians generally believe the digital sources are less reli-
able than traditional print sources (Elena et al., 2010).
Maxwell (2010) asserts that historians always prefer origi-
nal documents instead of digital artifacts and wish to use
digital technology as a way of duplicating original docu-
ments to promote use rather than as a way of replacing
them. Weller (2013) argues that the original format carries
specific meanings and particular experiences and conse-
quently that changing a document’s format changes the
interpretation of historical source materials. Digital images
are susceptible to having lost meaning intrinsic to primary
1796 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
sources or to having been altered (whether accidentally or
intentionally), and these risks are major reasons that his-
torians are wary of digital images (Maidment, 2013). This
prudence may stem from the general characteristics of the
history field. Burton notes that mainstream academic his-
torical journals only began to accept digital contents as a
part of their publication in 2000, and further states, “a
large problem faced in history is that work done in digital
forms is not rewarded in the same ways as work done in
more traditional forms of history” (2005, p. 216).
In recent years, historical publications have shown a
gradual increase in the citations of digital resources (Dalton
& Charnigo, 2004; Duff et al., 2004b; Graham, 2002;
Sherriff, 2010; Sinn, 2012). Studies focusing on historians’
research activities in the digital environment have identified
that they keep their own library of notes and copies of
documents, either physical or digital, to collect and organize
information while conducting research (Elena et al., 2010;
Rutner & Schonfeld, 2012). This tendency of historians to
deliberately acquire the digital formats of original materials
shows that historians take advantage of digital reproduction
technologies and view them as important. Digital copying of
primary materials has different kinds of advantages for
research, and it is a shift in research practices “with as-yet
largely unrecognized implications for the work of historical
research and its support” (Rutner & Schonfeld, 2012, p. 11).
Studies find that historians use informal channels, such as
their colleagues, as well as formal sources, such as archivists
and citations in publications, to look for relevant informa-
tion (Conway, 1986; Maher, 1986; Stevens, 1977). Histori-
ans show similar information behaviors with digital
collections. One difference in historians’ behaviors when
using the web environment was their tendency to work on
their archival research independently. Schaffner (2009,
p. 5) states that “goals to disclose descriptions online and to
digitize primary resources have made special collections
more visible and roles of archivists and librarians less
visible.” This situation forces archivists to create improved
descriptions of archival holdings and to develop better dis-
covery tools in order to justify their existence. However,
Rutner and Schonfeld (2012) present some evidence that
serious archival users of the digital world still rely on
archivists.
Elena et al. (2010) identify some specific behaviors of
historians seeking digital primary resources. They report
that historians break down information queries into small
segments and try to search for them one by one. Historians
show general information behaviors that researchers in
other fields also have, such as using synonymous terms
derived from original keywords, combining these terms to
make various queries, and then iterating their searches.
When compared with historians’ behaviors with original
documents, however, historians’ searches for digital
resources are characterized as less active; historians used
fewer keywords, fewer combinations of keywords, and
fewer terms that derived from or related to original key-
words when using digital collections. Historians seem to
have less confidence with digital archives than traditional
archives, and Elena et al. (2010) postulate that this may
be due to the limited functionalities of digital archival infor-
mation retrieval systems combined with users’ undeveloped
technological skill levels. Researchers also assert that tradi-
tional archival representation methods (provenance-based or
organization-based) have been little help for historians who
search in digital archives (Elena et al., 2010; Katifori et al.,
2008).
Maxwell (2010) relates, from a historian’s perspective,
that he prefers to see digitally scanned images of original
documents rather than html text versions because digital
images provide an experience similar to that of original
documents. The digital interface is also an important factor
and should be user friendly so that users are able to browse
and zoom in on digital images with minimal clicks. Brows-
ing is a method preferred to keyword searching. Inconve-
nient interfaces and slow page loadings may make users give
up potentially useful online resources (Maxwell, 2010).
Historians and other archival researchers do not regularly
use archival utilities such as ArchivesUSA, OCLC (and pre-
viously RLIN), or NUCMC (Hamburger, 2004; Maher,
1986; Southwell, 2002; Tibbo, 2003; Yakel, 2002). In cases
when users use information systems for primary resources,
findings in previous studies repeatedly present the evidence
of historians’ preferences for subject searches (Duff &
Johnson, 2002; Duff & Stoyanova, 1998; NWDA, 2008;
Pugh, 1982). More specifically, historians prefer keyword
searching for known items, and their keyword search terms
tend to include names, places, titles, and discipline-specific
terms (Tibbo, 1993). Historians consider searches for names
the easiest method for collections (Duff & Johnson, 2002).
Keyword searching is an important search strategy not only
for historians but also for humanities scholars in general
(Palmer, Teffeau, & Pirmann, 2009). Historians prefer that
their subject search results be directly linked to collections
(Duff & Johnson, 2002) and also that subject searches guide
them to other relevant collections and catalogs (NWDA,
2008). Historians conduct subject searches with unstruc-
tured keywords, but they use a structured term systems for
browsing (NWDA, 2008; Prom, 2004).
Product-Centered Use/User Studies
Material/institutional approaches and patron-based
approaches have studied in detail who archival users are and
how they search for primary resources. Some further studies
focus on what users do with archival collections and how
users’ archival research is impacted by their use of archival
collections. These studies take into account the final prod-
ucts of archival research such as the archival references
being used in historical publications. Such studies have
provided a good understanding about the actual usages,
rather than the perceptions, of certain materials and
about their value or usefulness to particular purposes of
archival research. A sizable amount of these studies employ
traditional citation analysis to understand an academic
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
constituency for a specific topic or area of study. While not
focusing particularly on digital resources, such studies have
helped identify the position and role of archival materials
within various topics in historical studies. These topics
include history of science (Elliot, 1981), social history
(Miller, 1986), women’s history (Beattie, 1989), English
history (Jones, Chapman, & Woods, 1972), local history
(Brubaker, 2005; Hitchcock, 1989), and history in general
(Lowe, 2003; McAnally, 1951; Sherriff, 2010). Often, find-
ings from these studies are used in discussions about the
relationships between archival practices, actual use,
appraisal, acquisition, and historical scholarship as a way to
suggest predictable patterns between material usage and the
archival practices of appraisal and collection building.
To identify the most influential format(s) and the value of
a certain type of material among other materials, some
attempts were made to compare the various formats of
resources, including electronic formats, being used in pub-
lications. Graham (2002), reporting on historians’ use of
electronic resources, found that a large number of historians
believed that digitization projects have a positive impact on
their research, but approximately half of them did not
believe that a digital copy is equivalent to the original. Of
historians, she states that “the majority agreed they would
cite the print version even if an electronic surrogate were
available” (Graham, 2002). She explains this result in part
by the fact that the contextual information of the original
document is lost by digitization. The finding of historians’
preference for print resources is consistent with that of pre-
vious studies and also shows the discrepancy between the
perception historians have of digital resources and their
actual citation behaviors.
Dalton and Charnigo (2004) identify some of the most
frequently used electronic databases, reference databases,
and source databases that provide digital primary resources.
Popular websites that historians visited include various
types of sites and services, but the single most frequently
visited site was the Library of Congress’s American
Memory Collection. One of the barriers that historians expe-
rienced in using online databases was the sketchy coverage
of full-text or digital content in electronic databases. Dalton
and Charnigo (2004, p. 414) found that historians identified
foreign language materials as a problem not because they
did not read such languages, but mainly because they were
often “absent from collections, absent from databases, and
difficult to use” in electronic systems.
Conway (2010) takes a different approach to identifying
the use of digital resources. He focuses on the expert users
and their use of digital photographic archives for their own
purposes. Although his research does not focus only on
historians’ uses of digital sources for academic purposes, it
does help show the multiple advantages that digital photo-
graphic resources provide in the users’ final products of
books, websites, and databases (Conway, 2010). Conway
(2010) found that whether users preferred digital formats or
the original photographs depended on various reasons; these
included users’ familiarity with the original sources, specific
1797
DOI: 10.1002/asi
advantages of using the originals (such as details or aesthetic
qualities), technical limitations of exploring the details of
digital images, and the users’ views about which methods of
research are most authoritative. The users Conway inter-
viewed showed positive attitudes about digitized photo-
graphs and valued them highly for their purposes. Their trust
in digital photographs as authentic source materials came
from their respect for the digitizing institution, the Library
of Congress, and their own expertise and knowledge of
digital collections that enable them to compare, contrast, and
compile other resources to verify the values of digitized
photographs (Conway, 2010).
Sinn’s (2012) study, which analyzes references in
history journal articles from 2001 to 2010, presents the
general patterns of digital archival collection usage. The
impact of digital archival collections when compared with
other source materials is not significant when judging by
the frequency of citations, and the predominating source
materials that historians use are secondary materials.
However, the appearance of digital archival collections in
citations and figures increases over time, and the past few
years have witnessed about half of the articles include cita-
tions and/or figures of digital archival collections. Sinn
reasons that the field of history and the conservative char-
acteristics of the American Historical Review (the aca-
demic journal she used) may have influenced the citation
patterns in its publications. Historians seem to be gradually
changing their notion of authoritative source materials to
cite for historical research and expanding it to include
digital formats of primary resources. This phenomenon is
also identifiable from the pattern of historians initially pre-
ferring digital collections created by trusted entities. His-
torians use digital collections by authentic institutions,
such as the Library of Congress and higher education insti-
tutions, earlier in the analyzing period, and their use of
digital collections created by individuals or small nonprofit
organizations occurs later.
Methods
This is a follow-up to a study published by one of the
authors described above (Sinn, 2012). In the previous study,
the impact of digital archival collections for historical
research was addressed by reference analysis. The impact
was measured by evaluating the degrees of intensity (i.e.,
depth: how frequently was a certain type of collection used
in a history article) and extensity (i.e., width: how many
articles include references to digital archival collections) of
usages. Popular digital collections and their characteristics
were also identified by the study. The current study was
developed based on general knowledge obtained in the pre-
vious study about usage patterns of digital archival collec-
tions in the AHR’s academic articles. Our study considers
the following research questions:
1) What process did historians undertake to find digital
resources?
1798 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
2) How and why did historians decide to use digital archival
collection materials among other sources (i.e., for what
qualities did historians see in the digital archival collec-
tions for their particular projects)?
3) What other factors have affected historians’ uses of
digital archival collections?
We contacted historians who were identified from the
previous study as using digital archival collections in their
AHR articles to ask about their specific experiences with the
digital collections they used. We identified a total of 87
authors responsible for contributing to 84 articles in the
issues of the AHR published between 2001 (v. 106 n. 1) and
2010 (v. 115 n. 5), from the previous study. Additionally, we
reviewed eight later issues of the journal, from 2011 (v. 116
n.1) to 2012 (v. 115 n. 3), which were available at the time of
research, to identify further authors and articles that refer-
ence to digital archival collections. As a result, a total of 102
authors of 99 articles were identified from a total of 58
issues between 2001 and 2012.
The research period from 2001 to 2012 is an important
phase in terms of observing the use of digital archival proj-
ects. The early digital projects started in 1990s, and since
then there have been a great many digital projects imple-
mented. Large amounts of grant money have been distrib-
uted to the digital projects by many funding agencies, and
there has been much discussion regarding how to assess the
digital projects and how they have been used (Saracevic,
2000). Digital resources intended for use by historians have
been accumulating for more than a decade. Thus, the study
period of the past decade is a critical point to see how digital
resources have been used for historical inquiries. In this
study, digital archival collections are defined as materials in
archival nature that are digitized or created in digital format.
Typical primary sources that are converted in a digital form
(such as American Memory project by the Library of Con-
gress) are included as well as born digital ones (such as the
BBC’s WWII Peoples’ War project).
The authors created an online survey with open-ended
questions. The questions asked historians about various
aspects of their uses of digital archival collections, that is,
methods of identification, reasons to include them in
publications, the relationship between historical research
patterns and digital archival research, and other questions
about the use of digital archival materials. The invitation to
the online survey was sent to these historians via email. The
invitation was deliberately written to include each histori-
an’s publication title and referenced digital archival collec-
tion(s), and the survey questions were developed to ask
historians’ specific experiences with their particular digital
collections. This was to guide the respondents to focus on
their experiences with particular collections, rather than
general perceptions about using digital resources. The data
were collected in November and December 2012.
There was a problem related to the citation style of the
AHR. This journal uses the Chicago Manual of Style, which
does not have any specific citation format for digital archival
collections. The citation patterns of digital resources vary by
author, which makes it unclear at times if a source came
from the digital collection or from the original collection.
When in doubt, the citation was checked in digital collec-
tions, but there may be some cases that authors used original
primary materials rather than digital materials. Thus, we
created another survey for those who had not used any
digital archival collections. In fact, there were eight histori-
ans who responded to the survey as not using any digital
archival collections. Twenty-one historians participated in
the survey as users of digital archival collections and pro-
vided lengthy accounts about their experiences, which were
reviewed and analyzed with NVivo (a qualitative data analy-
sis program). The survey questions are presented in the
Appendix.
One of the limitations of the study was the size of the
research sample and its response rate. Of the 102 historians
we contacted, only 21 replied, a response rate of 20.6%.
With such a low response rate, response bias is likely.
Because the survey did not include questions regarding their
affiliations or anything else about their identities, we cannot
know how well the sample represents the whole population.
The historians’ self-identification of their research fields in
the survey was the only way to gauge the sample’ represen-
tativeness. In another study, the topics of AHR articles that
cite digital archival collections were identified through
content analysis of abstracts and keywords (Sinn, 2013).
When comparing these two sets of topic information (“self-
identified research fields” and “abstracts and keywords”),
we found similar coverage in topics. Six self-identified fields
were revealed in 17 responses: European-5, North
American-4, African-3, Atlantic-2, Asian-2, and Latin
American-1. The previous study reports a breakdown of
articles: European-36, North American-27, Asian-7,
Eurasian-7, Latin American-7, African-6, Atlantic-3,
Mediterranean-2, Middle Eastern-1, and Pacific Region-1.
The comparison is not between the same objects (one for
research fields of respondents and the other for topics of
articles) and thus these two data sets do not exactly match.
However, the basic variety and coverage appear to be
roughly similar. Therefore, even though the sample in this
study is small, we assume it is broadly representative.
The historians we contacted are those who published at
least one article in AHR during the 12-year period. As the
study period is broad, it may be that those who published
their work earlier in the decade may not accurately recall
their usage of digital collections. Thus, this may result in no
responses or less specific responses to what they really went
through. There was no way to compensate for this, and it
poses another study limitation.
Findings and Discussion
Historians’ Paths to Digital Archival Collections
The paths historians took to find digital collections
were similar to the paths historians took to seek general
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
TABLE 1. Methods to learn about digital archival collections.
How did you learn about the existence of the
digital archival collections that you used for your
publication(s) in American Historical Review?
(Respondents could select multiple answers.) Response count
Found from web searches 13
Heard from a colleague 10
Heard from a librarian/archivist/museum curator 8
Learned from a conference 4
I’m involved with the digital project 3
News articles or professional journals 3
Learned from a citation in a publication 3
Others: previous knowledge 2
information, identified in previous studies. Among them,
another significant method appeared: web searches. A large
number of respondents (13) mentioned web searches as their
specific method for learning about digital archival collec-
tions. This is an increase from Tibbo’s study in 2003, which
reported 44% of historians using web searches to find
primary collections. The web has been an important method
for finding both primary materials and their digital formats.
Table 1 shows the methods historians used to find out about
the digital archival collections that they used for their
articles.
The paths that historians took to locate specific materials
within a digital archival collection include methods similar
to the ones they used to find the existence of digital collec-
tions. The most prominent method historians used to locate
specific items was information retrieval from random web
searches. Among 21 respondents, nine mentioned web
searches in this way. Some particularly mentioned they tried
using the web in hopes of finding useful items to cite. For
example, Respondent 16 said:
I was looking for nineteenth-century maps of the Indian Ocean
region which I could use in publication (i.e., copyright free), I
found the University of Texas Perry-Castañeda Library Map
Collection excellent and easy to use. I was not previously aware
of the collection, so found it with a simple web search. (Respon-
dent 16)
Others said Google was their starting point, as can be
seen in Respondent 20’s statement that “I usually just
Google a subject I want to know about and go from there.”
Google has become one of the major platforms used to look
for information by historians, including our respondents.
Using Google, they encounter useful digital materials
through random web searches. Given this phenomenon,
perhaps digital project developers need to pay more atten-
tion to how their digitized items will appear through web
searches. It may be advantageous for digital project devel-
opers to make digital collection databases indexable by
search engines (perhaps each entry of the database could be
indexable, rather than the whole collection of the database
itself). As some researchers have found, many users of
1799
DOI: 10.1002/asi
archives are brought to databases directly from web searches
(Hill, 2004; Prom, 2011). The pages to which users are first
linked are not necessarily the home page of a digital project
or the cover page of a collection. Fragmented information in
each page of digital items could be reengineered to better
serve those who do not have much contextual information
about the whole collection. This phenomenon of search
engines being research tools requires further attention.
Search engines do not grant access to all resources available
on the web, and neither is everything available on the web.
The cutting-edge technology and new digital culture in his-
torical research may have increased historians’ expectations
to be able to conduct complete research online and with
digital technologies (Jordanova, 2006). However, something
that is not searched by search engines could still exist, and
there is always more information available in the physical
world than in the digital world (Sandle, 2013). In this sense,
information professionals need not only to promote digital
content but also to educate users about the advantages and
risks of researching with online tools and the potential ben-
efits of using hidden or physical collections.
Many researchers conduct studies based on prior work,
and historians appear to be no exception. Historians’ previ-
ous knowledge, and especially their knowledge about
primary sources, proved to be a great asset for their current
studies. Several historians said they already knew about the
digital collection they used and were aware of the potential
that useful items would exist in the digital collection
(Respondents 5, 15, and 18). In some cases, they knew about
the institution and its holdings but did not particularly
realize a known institution had valuable digital collections
until checking it for possible materials. Respondent 11
described how he1 conducted “a search through the websites
of institutions I knew to be relevant whether or not I knew
that they had digitalized their collections.” Many historians
said they did not remember precisely how they became
acquainted with the particular sources they used in their
current AHR publication, and one respondent particularly
mentioned:
Some are sources I’ve worked with for a longtime. For example,
the Portal de Archivos Españoles (PARES) allows you to search
for documents in multiple Spanish archives, with a subset of
those available in digital format. I learned about that source years
ago while doing research in Spanish archives. (Respondent 5)
Four historians mentioned libraries as one of the venues
in which they looked for digital archival materials. Digital
items were found by searches in libraries’ databases or web-
sites. Respondent 4 described how he collected digital items,
stating, “Most are collected alphabetically or by field in
online library databases.” Respondent 5 also mentioned a
digital source (America’s Historical Newspapers) provided
by his institution.
1
All respondents are referred to as “he” (without reference to gender) to
ensure consistency and anonymity.
1800 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Unfortunately, from these respondents’ comments it is
unclear whether the collections were a part of a library’s
digital collections or a database to which the library
subscribed.
Respondents once again mentioned typical methods of
information-seeking identified in previous studies (i.e., the
use of their colleagues and the citations of publications) as a
way to find specific digital archival materials. Respondent 5
pointed out that knowing his colleague contributed to a
digital collection gave him respect for the collection’s cre-
dentials. He said of his discovery, “Constitutions Online, I
found doing an online search; the fact that a colleague is one
of the contributors gave me additional confidence in using
it.” This may signify that, for historians, the credentials of
digital collections also come from the confirmation of peer
researchers. In fact, some digital projects have been imple-
mented with the collaboration of historians and other field
experts in various phases during the process, including
selection, metadata creation, evaluation, and so on. If
involvement of peers added value to digital collections, it is
an important aspect that cannot be overlooked by digital
project developers. When considering possible collabora-
tions, digital project developers can work with a collection’s
target audience.
Historians also showed very active behaviors in pursuing
information. Two historians said their information came
from the personnel of providing institutions. Respondent 17
used a “contact us” link in cases of Getty Images and Corbis
database. It is interesting to note that, in addition to using
both footnotes and institutional websites during his research,
Respondent 19 also used a social network application (aca-
demia.edu). This reflects the growing influence of the Web
2.0 environment.
Experiences With Digital Collections
When historians were asked about their experiences
with the digital collections they used, they gave various
responses. Some said searching and browsing experiences
were extremely easy, simple, and straightforward. Others
answered that they were tedious and time consuming and that
they wished to find good resources serendipitously with less
effort. Because many different digital archival collections
were discussed in this study, the reporting of differing expe-
riences may be natural. Some historians mentioned that their
experiences were not too difficult because they had prior
experience using digital collections. Respondent 11 said he
“had a great deal of previous knowledge concerning archival
and museum holdings, which greatly facilitated the process.”
Other historians hinted at a learning curve; one respondent
described the following:
The Transatlantic Slave Trade Database is not an “intuitive”
research tool. One has to have some previous historical knowl-
edge to really make it do useful/interesting work. Moreover, one
has to familiarize oneself with the various search fields, which
can take some time. (Respondent 15)
 Not surprisingly, historians shared their negative experi-
ences enthusiastically. Many mentioned deficiencies in a
system’s general usability, such as ineffective searching,
browsing, navigating functionalities, and retrieval/display
interfaces. Others were concerned about the poor quality of
digital images (Respondents 1, 5, 18, and 19). A few also
voiced a fear that digital resources are insufficient and lack
diversity (Respondents 5, 6, and 13). The absence of a func-
tion to submit reference questions or otherwise interact with
an archivist or librarian online was a barrier for some histo-
rians (Respondents 9, 10, and 19). A further complaint by
historians was that they wanted to have the text in images
searchable (Respondents 2 and 5). This is interesting
because searchable text is a potential bonus feature of digi-
tized archival materials and cannot be found in original
primary sources. Such a complaint seems to demonstrate
that historians are buying into the usefulness of digital
resources. The treatment of the individual pages making up
a multiple-paged item as individual files was considered to
be particularly inefficient by Respondent 3, who remarked
that “page by page downloads of digital documents is
annoying, and generates fragmentary files. No standard
naming conventions.” Historians further commented about
incorrect or scarce descriptions in cataloging, as well as the
lack of contextual information surrounding individual items.
Respondent 5 commented on inconsistent functionalities in
PARES, which is a system consisting of an aggregated data-
base with multiple collections and sources:
PARES which is great, does not have a uniform system for
doing searches by archival reference, so that each archive
included in the database uses it’s [sic] own “grammar.”
(Respondent 5)
Another mentioned difficulty was the hardship historians
had to undergo to receive permission to publish digital
sources in an article (Respondent 11). A well-developed
system was also a target for complaint by some respondents
when it served a range of users with different levels of
knowledge spanning from novice to expert. The complaint
was that a sophisticated system may be less useful than less
complex systems to nonexpert users. Respondent 15 com-
mented on a complex database that “it’s invaluable for
researchers like me, but less so for my undergraduates or
regular folks just trying to access basic information on the
slave trade.”
Most of the difficulties that historians articulated were
technological and included difficulties regarding searching,
browsing, and downloading rather than archival and concep-
tual difficulties, which would have been inherent to archival
descriptions. It was also interesting to see how historians
shared challenges they experienced while using popular
digital archival collections. Slave Voyages: Trans-Atlantic
Slave Trade Database, for example, was mentioned by his-
torians discussing difficulties, but it is the most popularly
used database for its topic (Sinn, 2012). This seems to indi-
cate that the benefits of good content outweigh the difficul-
ties a system may have.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
Respondents also shared many good experiences that
they had with digital archival collections. Many comments
about their positive experiences were centered around the
speed and ease of use involved with searching and browsing.
Many mentioned that digital collections saved them time
and effort; otherwise, they would have had to make a visit to
a library or an archive for research. Respondent 13 said, “It
takes about 15 seconds to find them on line, as opposed to
the time going to the library, etc., to get them on paper.
Finding a particular passage is also easy with keyword
searching.” Historians also acknowledged that digital collec-
tions were much more convenient and made it easier to skim
through a large amount of information. Respondent 2
addressed how image collections helped him identify par-
ticular illustrations at a glance when he said, “I sometimes
find material, especially illustrations that I might not have
found otherwise. It is a fast and easy way to browse lots of
images. Because similar kinds of images get grouped
together, one sometimes stumbles across texts or images that
one would not have discovered elsewhere.” Historians men-
tioned that intuitive searching and browsing, the ability to
create one’s own library, the mechanisms of zooming and
flipping pages, and some features available for advanced
browsing and discovery in systems were particularly useful
functions. Respondent 5 recounted the following:
One can do a keyword search and find something useful. Then
on the suspicion that the bundle might have more material, one
can change the search method (what they call a dynamic search)
and browse the contents of the whole legajo [files]. Amazing.
(Respondent 5)
Just as with the difficulties mentioned, many benefits that
digital collections have brought to historians were connected
to digital technologies. On the positive side, digital technolo-
gies allowed historians fast and easy access to primary
resources. The content of digital collections is an important
matter for historians, but their impressions of an archival
collection’s ease of use seemed to be shaped by the system
and technologies to a certain extent. Thus, despite the tech-
nological difficulties, the good content of digital archival
collections is sufficient for historians to make use of them.
However, the general perceptions of usefulness and ease of
use come from technological capability. Both good content
and technological efficiency appear critical determinants of
historians’ willingness to use digital archives.
The Values of Digital Archival Collections
The advantages digital archival materials provided intel-
lectually were highly respected by historians. Of 21 respon-
dents, 20 agreed that digital materials provided a good
source of relevant content to their particular article topics.
The value of digital materials as an enrichment tool for their
argument and/or interpretation was the next most popular
answer, being mentioned by 10 respondents. The rareness
and uniqueness of digital items were also considered worth
1801
DOI: 10.1002/asi
mentioning by nine respondents. Seven historians answered
that they used digital collections for the uniqueness of an
image, and not just for textual information. Two other
historians used figures from digital collections for their
artistic value. Other respondents pointed out that another
benefit of digital archival resources is that they illustrate a
certain event or broader social activity that the authors
described in their articles. Respondent 12 used images
in this way, explaining how “the images I used in my
article were illustrative. They allowed readers to visualize
events I was describing, adding texture and nuance to my
argument.”
Respondent 15’s use of digital materials was somewhat
different. He said, “The piece of data used for the AHR piece
was a quantitative piece useful in illustrating broader social/
cultural trends I described in the article.”
As previous studies have discovered, historians’ first
preference for source materials is those in their original
forms. When comparing the values of digital content to the
original physical items, historians had mixed feelings about
the value of digital sources. Some did not accept the digital
primary sources as the same as the original artifacts, even
though they accepted that the former facilitated their histori-
cal research by providing valuable information quickly and
easily. Respondents 18’s and 2’s comments below represent
this viewpoint:
No, digital copies are NEVER [emphasis original] the same, but
they are very, very useful. I have been involved in creating
digital archives at my home institution. They allow much
broader access, but in teaching I often ask students to work both
with digital copies and originals and have then describe the
advantages and disadvantages of each. It is important that we
not think of digitization as a substitute for original materials.
These need to be preserved and remain accessible for research
(by students as well as scholars, where appropriate). (Respon-
dent 18)
I think that digital copies are invaluable scholarly resources, but
I definitely do not see digital copies as substituting for originals.
Too much valuable information would be lost if we had only
digitized versions. (Respondent 2)
The respondents pointed out several reasons why histo-
rians would choose the original format to cite in publications
when a digital copy is available. Historians said they would
cite the original primary materials because they believed the
original items are more authoritative than digital copies.
Respondent 2, for example, stated that original forms of
primary resources were “authoritative for many scholars,”
and Respondent 4 put forth them as “the accepted edition of
primary source material, including the scholarly apparatus:
footnotes, glossaries, and so forth.” Traditional historical
training puts special value on original materials. Respondent
12 directly supported this conclusion that, “As a historian, I
am trained always to prefer the source closest to the origi-
nal.” Respondent 18 similarly admitted, “I almost always
cite originals if they exist.”
1802 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Another reason historians preferred original sources was
because their physicality sometimes embodies the qualities
that made them special. Respondent 9 preferred the “origi-
nal in cases where some quality of the original makes it
special.” Respondent 6 spent time “Looking for marginalia
in particular copies,” so original documents were important
to his work. A historian commented that the citation format
for the primary materials was easier to use was another
reason he avoided citing digital materials when possible
(Respondent 5). Some historians mentioned they used a
digital copy as a supplementary source. Respondent 16 said,
“The search for digital collections was never my priority —
in many ways I began with the more traditional print and
manuscript archives,” but he added searching for digital
collections “was a supplemental step at each stage.” Simi-
larly, Respondent 13 stated, “In this particular case, I used it
to supplement the source or the literature I already had
found.”
Digital formats were useful to historians for several
reasons. Some historians articulated that digital archival
materials allow them to easily access and check content and
quotations after they had already looked at its original form.
One of the respondents explained that, “Many of the mate-
rials I used I had consulted in research libraries in their
original form. I use digital archival collections primarily to
check quotations, to review sections of the book I might not
have noticed before, to reread” (Respondent 2).
There were also historians who thought digital content
was as critical as traditional primary sources for their par-
ticular research. Several mentioned that they searched for
digital sources routinely during their research processes just
the same as they did for primary materials in their original
forms (Respondents 1, 15, 16, and 19). Respondent 19 in
particular said, “I use digital sources at the same time that I
use more traditional hard copy sources, so they are com-
pletely integrated into my research.” Respondent 7 even said
of digital materials, “If possible, I accessed them on line or
had material scanned by the archive. When that wasn’t an
option, I went to the archive.” Meanwhile, Respondent 21
declared, “Some of the original documents available digi-
tally are transformative for research on foreign policy.” Also
praising the invaluable potential of digital resources,
Respondent 3 believes “DNSA [Digital National Security
Archive] is especially important for their advocacy in
getting the material in the first place.”
As stated previously, historians showed diverse responses
toward digital materials for their research. In our survey, we
asked the respondent to rate their level of skill with digital
technology. The question was intended to correlate technical
skills and use of digital collections. However, no particular
pattern was identified. Several historians who reported high
technology skill said something negative about digital col-
lections, whereas respondents from a low technology skilled
group spoke in favor of them. Our survey did not have any
demographic questions, so there is no clear evidence
whether such differences relate demographic factors (e.g.,
age, gender, schools and training, other social elements,
etc.). As Riley (2013) previously pointed out the new gen-
eration of historians who enter the history scholarship in
recent years may have different perceptions about authori-
tative archival and library research due to the abundant infor-
mation in digital forms through easy web services. In future
research, digital historical scholarship can be studied more
rigorously from such perspectives of who these historians
are and what training/perceptions they have for the new
types of historical studies.
Many historians perceived digital collections as a whole
to be influential beyond their immediate usefulness to the
articles that they wrote. A majority of respondents (19 of 20)
who were asked, “Did the digital archival collections you
searched provide good content and valuable resources col-
lectively in general (beyond the cited digital item)?”
responded to it very positively. It seems that although histo-
rians may view particular citations in publications as
“supplementary” in the sense that they provide easy access
to historians and readers, the existence of digital materials in
general greatly assisted historians during their planning and
studying of a topic. Respondent 16 recognized the potential
of digital archival collections when he wrote, “The digital
archival collection in question provided an excellent range
of sources, useful to my work beyond the immediate needs
of my AHR article.”
The reason why historians chose digital formats to cite in
publications when they had the option of choosing between
digital and original formats was clear when it came to pro-
viding “ease of access.” The accessibility was important not
only for historians to locate important primary materials
with the least effort, but also for readers to identify and
check the sources that the historians used. The authenticity
of historical research could be proved to some extent if
historians provided an easy method for others to check their
sources. Historians, therefore, saw the major benefit of
digital collections to be their accessibility, and this was seen
as improving the presentation of their research. Respondent
17 added that citations of digital materials provide “acces-
sibility for readers wanting to check the sources.” According
to Respondent 3, digital archival collections “allow for
readers to confirm your sources and hence your arguments.”
In this sense, digital archival collections seemed to offer a
newer method to allow readers to check the quality of pub-
lications while, somewhat ironically, historians were person-
ally suspicious of a digital source’s authority compared to
the authority of an original document.
When historians needed materials, they showed very
active behaviors in acquiring them whether they were digital
or not. If digital copies were not available in high-quality
images, historians made the effort to acquire those with
good quality directly from repositories. They also contacted
librarians and archivists or service personnel in the company
that provided resources to seek for help. Historians did not
mind paying a reasonable fee for the service or for the copies
of images that they obtained.
All 21 respondents said they would look for digital archi-
val collections for their future studies. Some of the areas and
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
types of primary materials that historians wished to see
digitized in larger numbers include German history, South
Asian studies, African studies, local newspapers and maps,
and 19th- and early-20th-century medical journals. Histori-
ans had some interesting comments about their wishes for
digital projects, such as “I wish every archive and every
newspaper, magazine, and book ever published were avail-
able online” (Respondent 15) and “I would like to see more
routine conversion of older microfilm collections when not
superseded” (Respondent 3).
It is notable that many historians wanted more diverse
coverage than was currently available would be included in
digital archival collections, including those who worried
about the disadvantages of not being able to investigate
original artifacts where they are housed. The suspicion that
digital copies may not the same as the originals seemed to be
changing. This change is also hinted at in Rutner and
Schonfeld’s (2012) study, as they reported some historians
they interviewed completed research projects by working
with only the digital forms of primary sources. Among the
barriers of using digital archival collections, languages were
not included by respondents. In fact, many digital collections
in a foreign language or multilingual, or maintained by
foreign institutions, were referenced in these articles of AHR
(Sinn, 2013). Historians wished to see materials in wider
geographical and temporal coverage be digitized. The
absence of foreign language materials and nontextual
materials in digital collections of contemporary academic
resources has already been acknowledged by previous
research (Rutner & Schonfeld, 2012). In this sense, interna-
tional collaboration could also be encouraged, especially for
those materials that are accessible only through particular
institutions. The active announcement of existing resources
that are available abroad would also be helpful to historians.
Librarians and archivists could work at creating subject
guides for digital resources from multiple repositories in this
respect.
As acknowledged, the impact of digital archival collec-
tions on historical research has been significant. Historians
thought digital archival collections were invaluable sources
for their research. Some historians even showed changed
information behavior patterns and began to search for digi-
tally available sources and original primary materials
simultaneously. The changes in historians’ information
behavior patterns are not limited to the digitally available
primary resources, but occur alongside the general cultural
changes brought about by the web. As the web culture and
newer research trends of historians affect their work pat-
terns with digital collections, it is important that informa-
tion professionals consider the broad trend changes when
designing and implementing digital projects. By doing so,
digital archivists will best serve their users by facilitating
their involvement with the digital information that digital
archives provide.
Respondents agreed with the prevailing academic
approach within the history field that authoritative informa-
tion for historical research is materials in their original
1803
DOI: 10.1002/asi
forms. this widely held view of historians obviously corre-
sponds with the results of previous studies (Rutner &
Schonfeld, 2012). Considering that many historians wanted
to have more diverse resources available in digital formats
despite having used digital collections as supplementary
support for their AHR articles, it is safe to conclude that
historians harbor two differing perceptions about digital
archival collections: when using them for acquiring knowl-
edge, digital collections are essential, but when citing
sources for a publication, digital collections are supplemen-
tary. The usefulness of digital collections has two dimen-
sions: one involves using digital collections and the content
of digital items for their own knowledge-building (which is
easily done through the digital platform), and the other
involves using digital collections to allow readers to conve-
niently check what they cited (which is a way to show that
their research is academically accountable).
Research Patterns and Information Behavior
Some historians stated that they found additional digital
archival collections during their research process but did not
use them in their particular article of AHR. Respondent 9
claimed, “the Leo Baeck Institute in New York has fantastic
digital materials. I will include these in future publications.”
Respondent 16 said of digital materials that there are
“Plenty — I will be including them in other publications.
These include digitized documents on the websites of
the UK’s National Archives and the National Archives of
Singapore.” Historians discovered potentially useful digital
collections in the process of research, even though they may
not be necessarily relevant to their current project. In other
words, searching and finding digital archival collections
occurred across research projects, not separately and inde-
pendently by project. The information historians find about
digital collections could become “prior knowledge” when
the time comes for them to begin their next projects.
Random web searches allow historians seeking information
to stumble across potentially useful digital sources for mul-
tiple projects simultaneously.
Similarly, historians responded to work on multiple proj-
ects at the same time or on a larger project from which they
would publish a book or multiple essays. Thus, finding rel-
evant digital archival collections was not isolated by an
immediate information need for a certain project. The infor-
mation seeking was more likely associated with a complex
research process. When historians looked for digital infor-
mation they were apt to be open to viewing any potential
information that they could utilize broadly or for other proj-
ects. Respondent 13’s article seemed to emerge in this way;
he explains how in the following:
This article emerged from research I was doing for a book, and
was an attempt to sketch out the broad outlines of the historical
problem once I was immersed in the archives. A need to pull
back, in a sense, to make sense of what I was finding. The
1804 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
problem thus sort of emerged from the sources which I’d con-
sulted for other reasons. (Respondent 13)
Historians talked about how materials they found during
other projects were useful for their AHR articles. One of
these historians said, “The AHR essay used parts of two
book projects for which I have made very extensive use of
digital collections. I didn’t need more archives for this
essay” (Respondent 11).
In the particular research process historians used for their
AHR articles, they showed a wide spectrum of involvement
with digital archival collection. Some used digital collec-
tions from the preliminary stage, whereas for others the use
of digital collections came later. Respondent 1 “used some
digital texts during primary research. Later, having written
my article, I went searching for images to assist with pre-
sentation.” Respondent 12’s circumstances led him to search
for images after writing the article because, as he describes,
“I researched and wrote the article before I knew that it was
possible to include images. As a result my research for
images did not interact with the earlier data collection or
analysis and interpretation.” Respondent 17 also looked for
digital resources in the late stages of his work “after the
research had been done and the writing was in its final
stages.”
Peter Uva (1977) used a five-stage process to describe
historical work: (a) problem selection (including prelimi-
nary work and hypotheses), (b) detailed planning of data
collection, (c) data collection, (d) analysis and interpretation
of data, and (e) presentation of findings. When asked about
the use of digital archival materials according to these
stages, many historians mentioned multiple stages of histori-
cal research, and they consulted digital collections in all of
the stages as a whole. There were certain stages that histo-
rians referenced more than others. Respondents identified
steps 3 through 5 as being the most central to their digital
archival research. Five historians mentioned steps 1 and 2 as
the stages they looked for digital collections, whereas steps
3, 4, and 5 were mentioned by 11, 8, and 10 historians,
respectively, as a phase that involves the use of digital
collections.
Some stated that they did not even think primary sources
counted as data for (an objective of) a historical study.
Instead, they thought that the process of understanding and
interpreting primary sources was the historical research
process itself. Identifying research problems and finding
primary sources (whether digital or physical) are not sepa-
rable processes to historians who believe identifying and
studying primary sources is the process of refining research
questions. Respondents expressed how their research pro-
cesses were interwoven with consulting digital collections,
as follows:
In all five. . . . Historical research is not quite this linear—it
loops back and forth from primary sources (I don’t think
of these materials as “data”) to interpretive strategies. (Respon-
dent 18)
 Because many historians stated that they consulted
digital collections from the phase of the problem selection to
data collection, to data analysis (interpretation) and presen-
tation (writing), their perception of the “use” of digital archi-
val collections seemed to be related to consulting and
understanding the sources, rather than simply finding or
locating them. The involvement of a digital collection in
historians’ research may be interpreted in a variety of ways.
The phrase, “use of digital collections” may mean “looking
for possible materials” to some, but “finding the relevant
intellectual content in materials,” “understanding and inter-
preting of primary digital materials,” or “presenting materi-
als in the paper” to others. What historians mean by “use of
a digital collection” may be different from what information
scientists understand by the phrase. When they study the
usage patterns of information, information professionals
often focus on how users find, search for, locate, and access
materials. Future studies should clarify which aspect of
“use” they intend to analyze.
Many respondents stated that their research did not
follow the five stages that Uva described. Instead, they said
their research process was not top-down and was rather
multidirectional, and that they repeated some stages.
Respondent 13 called it “much more haphazard,” Respon-
dent 2 said it is “not sequentially distinct,” Respondent 16
warned that it is “not necessarily systematic or easily broken
down,” and Respondent 3 voiced that it is “less top-down
and more evolving.” The respondents considered the stages
in the research process to be indistinguishable and non-
chronological, therefore preventing digital archival collec-
tions being connected to any of Uva’s particular stages.
Factors Affecting the Use of Digital Archival Collections
The presentation of citations can be influenced by many
factors, such as the customs of an academic field, external
factors related to specific requirements in publishing jour-
nals, or the formats and authenticity required for internal
factors by digital resources. Table 2 presents the influencing
factors for historians’ use of digital archival collections.
As Table 2 shows, the most influential questions histori-
ans asked themselves when considering whether or not to
use digital collections were who created the collection and
how authentic it was. Historians seemed to consider the
digital resources from an authoritative institution more reli-
able and authentic as historical source materials than those
from lesser-known entities. Respondent 18 described his
routine of only using “digital archives which are fully docu-
mented. I need to know where things come from.”
The characteristics of digital collections themselves were
another important factor. The content, scope (whether the
materials represent all areas of a given topic), format
(whether the materials are in text format such as html or an
aggregated database), and quality (whether the materials
were high-quality digital images) of the collections were
also important matters to historians. Respondent 18 noted
that “the Quilt Index often has poor quality images and is
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
TABLE 2. Factors that influence the use of digital archival collections.
Would there be any additional factors that may affect
your use of digital archival collections? (Respondents Response
could select multiple answers.) count
The institution that provides digital contents (if digital 14
collections are provided from authoritative
institutions, such as higher education institutions and
well-established museums, or by individuals or
small private organizations)
Formats of digital contents (if they are html text or 13
high quality digital images)
Characteristics of a journal that you consider to 8
publish (conservative or liberal in accepting
unconventional materials)
Using a different research method (not using primary 1
sources)
Others: 4
“The issue of reproduction rights and costs is a huge
issue for images, digital and otherwise.”
“I prefer scanned images as a general rule.”
“Some archives are ONLY [emphasis original]
accessible via institutional subscribers (e.g. State
Papers Online and the Cecil Papers).”
“I would use digital content only from authoritative
sources—which are highly regarded in the field.”
not yet as geographically representative as it might be.”
Respondent 5 complained about the “poor digital quality of
images—on things like America’s Historical Newspapers”
where “Character recognition doesn’t work.” Respondent 4
stated, “generally, the process of digitizing seems to be done
by hourly employees, whereas the process of editing and
publishing primary sources was the work of teams of
scholars. Very different.”
As discussed above, historians are traditionally trained to
use original primary sources as the method for conducting
historical research. Thus, the field’s norms regarding
primary materials seemed to affect which sources historians
cited. Respondent 16 described this as a “prejudice among
more conservative scholars against using digital collections”
but this view “might be changing.” Respondent 4 agreed
that,
Yes—in general, my field prefers to cite a range of commonly
found print sources for primary sources. Online databases of
those are more useful for teaching as a result. It’s possible that
over time, fewer of us will refer back to the definitive scholarly
editions of early texts and manuscripts. (Respondent 4)
Respondent 17 added that using original sources implies
more work has been done because it “demonstrates that the
historian has been on-the-spot—which generally implies a
deeper knowledge of the country, culture, history.” Never-
theless, some historians mentioned that digital archival col-
lections could have the same value as originals, as described
below:
1805
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 Truly excellent digital copies made by authoritative procedures
seem to me as good as, and sometimes better than, originals.
(Respondent 6)
Historians, no matter whether they prefer original forms
of primary materials or digital collections, are similarly con-
cerned about the disadvantages that accompany doing
research exclusively with digital content. Digital content
cannot provide field experience, which is considered a part
of the authoritative historical research method. Respondent
15 explained this as follows: “the downside is that ‘field’
experience may be lost. Seeing, smelling, touching the docu-
ments, objects, and places that our historical subjects knew
provides crucial insights that digital documents cannot.” The
inability of digital collections to provide field experience is
a limitation that may further prevent some historians from
interacting with digitized primary sources. Despite this,
digitized archives still have the potential to reach a far
greater number of scholars than original materials stored
away in traditional archival collections. Another historian
shared a similar thought, stating:
Digital copies are tremendously important but they do not
replace the originals. They obviously enable access by a far
larger community of scholars and can greatly reduce the costs
of research (by reducing or eliminating travel costs). Informa-
tion is, however, inevitably lost. Handling originals gives one a
“sense” of a document that is irreplaceable. (Respondent 11)
Respondent 14 stated some additional advantages and dis-
advantages associated with digital collections:
a) Same in 2-dimensions—the document is the same either way.
b) No chance to interact with others at the archive; no
e-community in the digital archive. c) I am disabled (mobility
problems) so it’s great to be able to access the material from my
study. (Respondent 14)
Historians use informal channels to find information:
they find interacting with other researchers in archives and
talking to archivist (creating an anecdotal research commu-
nity) useful in exploring additional information and sources.
In the digital environment, such a community is not easily
available, which can be another disadvantage of digital
content. These examples show that the general norms to
conduct research studies, to write research findings, and to
present citations and references in academia were important
elements that determined historians’ usage patterns of
digital archival collections.
While they had varying perceptions about the value of
digital collections, many respondents recognized the changes
in historical research patterns. Respondent 11 also stated that
“Digital copies of archival collections are invaluable sources
for historians; they are revolutionizing our profession. . . . I
now consider searching for digital archives and images a
necessary and obvious part of the research process.” Then
historians noticed that they not only found such materials to
be significant to their research, but that they also promoted
1806 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
them to their students and colleagues. Respondent 16 com-
mented he had become more and more of a convert when it
comes to the usefulness of digital archival collections, stating
“I am increasingly of the view that digital archival collections
are hugely important to historians. I encourage my students to
use them as much as possible.” Respondent 1 even believed
that digital collections “are the future. In relation to search-
able newspaper and periodical data bases, I am now able to do
kinds of research I would not previously have contemplated
because of the time & effort required.” Respondent 20 went
so far as to say, “obviously, digital collections are now
essential to all serious historical research,” as his comments
may indicate that digital collections as not only the future, but
the present for academic researchers.
Nonusers of Digital Archival Collections
Since we suspected certain citations may have come from
the originals because of the inconsistent citation format for
digital resources in the journal, we created a few questions
for those who did not use digital collections. The invitation
to the online survey included two links, one leading to the
survey for digital collection users and the other leading to
the survey for nonusers. Eight historians participated in the
nonuser survey. Of the possible reasons why they did not use
digital archival collections, the one selected by seven histo-
rians was that there were no digital archival collections
available for their particular research topics. Two said they
used online catalogs and/or finding aids, but that the actual
content of materials was not digitized. Another respondent
commented that, “I used the online catalogues of the British
Library before going there to use the documents, which are
only available there.” As mentioned earlier, we checked
cited materials in their digital collections when we won-
dered if the citations referred to digital sources, and we
confirmed that the cited materials are available in a digital
collection. One explanation for nonusers’ claims that no
digital materials existed may be that such digital collections
were developed after the articles were published. However,
the paradox may also indicate historians’ lack of awareness
about the existing digital sources. Another historian men-
tioned that he found some digital archival collections related
to his research topic and used them during the research, but
those materials were not appropraite to include in citations.
This historian chose to cite the original form of primary
sources when the digital copy was available.
For their future studies, seven historians said they
would use and cite digital archival collections if there was
anything available on their topics. The one remaining
selected the answer that “I am not aware of the availability
of digital primary resources and would like to learn more
about them.” This respondent added a comment that “I use
a lot of 19th century printed Urdu materials that are not
digitized but some are and I’ve downloaded a few books
digitized from Indian collections.” This historian utilized
digital collections and still wished to learn about more
digitally available sources.
Conclusion
This study attempted to draw a picture about the general
paths historians took to find and locate digital archival col-
lections and to discover from an empirical standpoint the
impacts of such collections on historians’ studies. It sur-
veyed the historians’ utilization of digital archival collec-
tions for projects, which finally were published by the
American Historical Review. The findings of the study shed
light on the digital collection use, such as the reasons why
historians considered using and not using them, while also
revealing some benefits and barriers historians experienced
when using digital materials. This study found that histori-
ans showed the same general research behaviors when
seeking and using a digital archival collection that they used,
according to previous studies, when seeking and using origi-
nal materials. However, this study also found that there
appeared to be a shift in historians’ treatment of digital
archives and their perceptions regarding the value of digital
contents. The shift has been gradual, but historians who
initially considered primary source materials worthier than
materials from digital archives were beginning to see digital
archival sources as invaluable to their work, even if original
primary source materials constitute the ideal. The change is
also related to the different kinds of values that digital forms
provide, such as easy browsing, search functionalities and
speedy accessibility. These newly identified behaviors and
perceptions of historians who use digital archives and their
materials can be used to help information scientists and
archivists cater to their users’ needs, and also provide the
groundwork for future studies.
References
Altman, B., & Nemmers, J.R. (2001). The usability of on-line archival
resources: The Polaris Project Finding Aid. The American Archivist, 61,
121–131.
Anderson, I.G. (2004). Are you being served? Historians and the search for
primary sources. Archivaria, 58, 81–129.
Anderson, J.E. (2009). Using professional forums to assess historians’
e-resource needs. Collection Building, 28(1), 4–8.
Assadi, H., Beauvisage, T., Lupovici, C., & Cloarec, T. (2003). Users and
uses of online digital libraries in France. Bibliothèque Nationale de
France. Retrieved from http://www.bnf.fr/documents/bibusages
_ecdl2003.pdf
Beattie, D.L. (1989). An archival user study: Researchers in the field of
women’s history. Archivaria, 29, 33–50.
Blais, G., & Enns, D. (1993). From paper archives to people archives:
Public programming in the management of archives. In T. Nesmith (Ed.),
Canadian archival studies and rediscovery of provenance (pp. 443–459).
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.
Brubaker, J. (2005). Primary materials used by Illinois state history
researchers. Illinois Libraries, 85(3), 4–8.
Burton, O.V. (2005). American digital history. Social Science Computer
Review, 23, 206–220.
Cherry, J.M., & Duff, W.M. (2002). Studying digital library users over time:
a follow-up survey of Early Canadiana Online. Information Research,
7(2). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/7-2/paper123.html
Cohen, D. (2010). Is Google Good for History? Retrieved from http://
www.dancohen.org/2010/01/07/is-google-good-for-history
Conway, P. (1986). Research in presidential libraries: A user survey. Mid-
western Archivist, 11(1), 33–56.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
Conway, P. (2010). Modes of seeing: Digitized photographic archives and
the experienced users. The American Archivist, 73, 425–462.
Czeck, R.L.H. (1998). Archival MARC records and finding aids in the
context of end-user subject access to archival collections. The American
Archivist, 61, 426–440.
Dalton, M.S., & Charnigo, L. (2004). Historians and their information
sources. College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 400–425.
Daniels, M.G., & Yakel, E. (2010). See and you may find: Successful
search in online finding aid systems. The American Archivist, 73, 535–
568.
Duff, W.M., Craig, B., & Cherry, J.M. (2004a). Finding and using archival
resources: A cross-Canada survey of historians studying Canadian
history. Archivaria, 58, 51–80.
Duff, W.M., Craig, B., & Cherry, J.M. (2004b). Historians’ use of archival
sources: Promises and pitfalls of the digital age. The Public Historian,
26(2), 7–22.
Duff, W.M., & Johnson, C.A. (2002). Accidentally found on purpose:
Information-seeking behavior of historians in archives. The Library
Quarterly, 72(4), 472–496.
Duff, W.M., & Stoyanova, P. (1998). Transforming the crazy quilt:
Archival displays from the users point of view. Archivaria, 45, 44–
79.
Elena, T., Katifori, A., Vassilakis, C., Lepouras, G., & Halatsis, C. (2010).
Historical research in archives: User methodology and supporting tools.
Journal of Digital Library, 11, 25–36.
Elliot, C.A. (1981). Citation patterns and documentation. The American
Archivist, 44(2), 131–142.
Feeney, K. (1999). Retrieval of archival finding aids using world-wide-web
search engines. The American Archivist, 62, 206–228.
Gordon, A.D. (1992). Using the nation’s documentary heritage: The report
of the Historical Documents Study. Washington, DC: National Historical
Publications and Records Commission.
Górny, M., & Mazurek, J. (2012). Key users of Polish digital libraries.
Electronic Library, 30(4), 543–556.
Graham, S. (2002). Historians and electronic resources: Patterns and use.
Journal of the Association for History and Computing, 5(2). Retrieved
from http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3310410.0005.201
Hamburger, S. (2004). How researchers search for manuscript and archival
collections. Journal of Archival Organization, 2(1/2), 79–102.
Hill, A. (2004). Serving the invisible researcher: Meeting the needs of
online users. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 25(2), 139–148.
Hirtle, P. (2002). The impact of digitization on special collections in librar-
ies. Library and the Cultural Record, 37(1), 42–52.
Hitchcock, E.R. (1989). Materials used in the research of state history: A
citation analysis of the 1986 Tennessee Historical Quarterly. Collection
Building, 10(1/2), 52–54.
Jones, C., Chapman, M., & Woods, P.C. (1972). The characteristics
of the literature used by historians. Journal of Librarianship, 137–
156.
Jordanova, L. (2006). History in practice. London: Hodder Arnold.
Katifori, A., Elena, T., Vassilakis, C., & Halatsis, C. (2008). Supporting
research in historical archives: Historical information visualization and
modeling requirements. In Proceedings of the 12th International Con-
ference Information Visualization IV 08 (pp. 32–37). London.
Lowe, M.S. (2003). Reference analysis of the American Historical Review.
Collection Building, 22(1), 13–20.
Maher, W.J. (1986). The use of user studies. Midwestern Archivist, 11(1),
15–26.
Maidment, B. (2013). Writing history with the digital image: A cautious
celebration. In T. Weller (Ed.), History in the digital age (pp. 111–126).
New York: Routledge.
Maxwell, A. (2010). Digital archives and history research: feedback from
an end-user. Library Review, 59(1), 24–39.
McAnally, A.M. (1951). Characteristics of materials used in research in
United States History (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago.
Meissner, D. (1997). First things first: Reengineering finding aids for
implementation of EAD. The American Archivist, 60(4), 372–387.
1807
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Miller, F. (1986). Use, appraisal, and research: A case study of social
history. The American Archivist, 49, 371–392.
NWDA. (2008). Executive summary: Usability test #5. Northwest Digital
Archives (NWDA). Retrieved from http://www.orbiscascade.org/index/
usability-design-working-group-reports
Palmer, C.L., Teffeau, L.C., & Pirmann, C.M. (2009). Scholarly informa-
tion practices in the online environment: Themes from the literature and
implications for library service development. Report commissioned by
OCLC Research. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/
research/publications/library/2009/2009-02.pdf
Prom, C.J. (2004). User interactions with electronic finding aids in a con-
trolled setting. The American Archivist, 67(2), 234–268.
Prom, C.J. (2011). Using web analytics to improve online access to archival
resources. The American Archivist, 74, 158–184.
Pugh, M.J. (1982). The illusion of omniscience: Subject access and the
reference archivist. The American Archivist, 45(1), 33–44.
Riley, C.L. (2013). Beyond Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v: Teaching and learning history in
the digital age. In T. Weller (Ed.), History in the digital age (pp. 149–
169). New York: Routledge.
Rosenzweig, R. (2006). Can history be open source? Wikipedia and
the future of the past. The Journal of American History, 93(1),
117–146.
Rutner, J., & Schonfeld, R.C. (2012). Supporting the changing research
practices of historians: Final report from ITHAKA S+R.
Sandle, M. (2013). Studying the past in the digital age: from tourist to
explorer. In T. Weller (Ed.), History in the digital age (pp. 130–148).
New York: Routledge.
Saracevic, T. (2000). Digital library evaluation: Toward evolution of con-
cepts. Library Trends, 49(3), 350–369.
Schaffner, J. (2009). The metadata is the interface: Better description for
better discovery of archives and special collections, synthesized from
user studies. Report produced by OCLC Research. Retrieved from http://
www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-06.pdf
Scheir, W. (2005). First entry: Report on a qualitative exploratory study of
novice user experience with online finding aids. Journal of Archival
Organization, 3(4), 49–85.
Sherriff, G. (2010). Information use in history research: A citation
analysis of master’s level theses. Portal: Libraries and the Academy,
10(2).
Sinn, D. (2012). Impact of digital archival collections on historical
research. Journal of American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 63(8), 1521–1537.
Sinn, D. (2013). The use context of digital archival collections: Mapping
with historical research topics and the content of digital archival collec-
tions. Preservation, Digital Technology, & Culture, 42(2), 73–86.
Southwell, K.L. (2002). How researchers learn of manuscript resources at
the Western History Collections. Archival Issues, 26(2), 91–109.
Spindler, R.P., & Pearce-Moses, R. (1993). Does AMC mean “archives
made confusin”? Patron understanding of USMARC AMC catalog
records. The American Archivist, 56(2), 330–341.
Stevens, M. (1977). The historian and archival finding aids. Georgia
Archives, 5, 64–74.
Tibbo, H.R. (1993). Abstracting information retrieval and the humanities:
Providing access to historical literature. Chicago: American Library
Association.
Tibbo, H.R. (2003). Primarily history in America: How U.S. historians
search for primary materials at the dawn of the digital age. The American
Archivist, 66, 9–50.
Tibbo, H.R., & Meho, L.I. (2001). Finding finding aids on the world wide
web. The American Archivist, 64, 61–77.
Uva, P. (1977). Information gathering habits of academic historians: Report
of the pilot study. Syracuse, NY: Upstate Medical Center, State
University of New York, Syracuse.
Weller, T. (Ed.). (2013). History in the digital age. New York: Routledge.
Yakel, E. (2002). Listening to users. Archival Issues, 26(2), 53–68.
Yakel, E. (2004). Encoded archival description: Are finding aids boundary
spanners or barriers for users? Journal of Archival Organization, 2(1/2),
63–77.
1808 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Appendix
Questions for authors who used digital
archival collections
1. How did you learn about the existence of the digital archival
collections that you used for your publication(s) in American
Historical Review?
a) Advertisement messages (email, other announcement
messages, etc.)
b) News articles or professional magazines
c) Learned from a conference (presentations, vendor booths)
d) Heard from a colleague
e) Heard from a librarian/archivist/museum curator
f) Learned from a citation in a publication
g) I’m involved with the digital project
h) Found from Web searches
i) Other. Please specify:
2. Once you knew about the existence of digital archival
collections, how was your experience locating them? Please
place special emphasis on sharing details about your path
(i.e., the process you underwent) to find each digital archival
collection?
3. How were your specific experiences searching and retrieving
digital archival collections? Was it easy, effortful, or accidental
to find the digital material(s)?
4. What were the reasons why you included the particular digital
archival item(s) in your publication(s) in American Historical
Review? Please select all that apply.
a) The content of the item(s): relevant to your topic
b) Rare and unique information: available in the item(s),
making it worth including
c) Enrichment tools: a good example (evidence) for a specific
argument (interpretation)
d) Uniqueness as an image
e) Artistic value for figures
f) Supplemental value for other sources materials
g) Easy access to the digital format than physical materials for
you and for readers
h) Other. Please specify:
5. Did the digital archival collections you searched provide
good content and valuable resources collectively in general
(beyond the cited digital item)? How helpful was their selec-
tion of materials was for your particular study published in
the American Historical Review?
6. How did you find it helpful to browse individual digital
items? Did the digital archival collections provide enough
information about the digital items?Peter Uva used a five-
stage process to describe historical work: (1) problem
selection (including preliminary work and hypotheses);
(2) detailed planning of data collection; (3) data collection;
(4) analysis and interpretation of data; and (5) presentation of
findings (Uva, P.A. 1977. “Information Gathering Habits of
Academic Historians: Report of the Pilot Study.” Syracuse,
NY: State University of New York, Upstate Medical Center,
p. 16). With Uva’s process in mind, please share with us
about your research procedure for your publication(s) in the
American Historical Review in relation to searching digital
archival materials.
7. Where did your search for digital archival collections appear
in these stages? And how the search for digital archival col-
lections interrelate with each step of research process?
 8. If the research process of your study was different from the
Uva’s description, please share with us your research process
and where in this process you sought to use the digital archival
collections?
9. Were there any difficulties that you experienced in using
digital archival collections? You can use specific examples of
your digital materials.
a) Poor quality of digital images
b) Lack of contextual information of an individual digital item
c) Poor system design for searching and browsing (not user-
friendly system, little functionalities of browsing and
navigating, etc.)
d) Poor system interface for retrieval and display
e) Diverse resources unavailable
f) Foreign languages in the content were hard to
understand
g) Hard to pursue further inquiries beyond the seeing the
digital copies of materials (no human experts available,
getting reference services was hard, etc.)
h) Other. Please specify:
i) Comments (your specific examples):
10. In general, would there be any additional factors that may
affect your use of digital archival collections?
a) Characteristics of a journal that you consider to publish
(conservative or liberal in accepting unconventional
materials)
b) The institution that provides digital contents (if digital col-
lections are provided from authoritative institutions, such
as higher education institutions and well-established
museums, or by individuals or small private organizations)
c) Using a different research method (not using primary
sources much)
d) Formats of digital contents (if they are html text or high
quality digital images)
e) Other. Please specify:
11. In general, how do you see the value of the digital copies of
archival collections as historical source materials? Do you
consider digital archival collections the same as the originals if
the digital copies are created by authoritative procedures? Any
opinions on this issue?
12. When do you have an option to choose either digital materials or
physical materials (e.g., in case that you have seen both types of
a material), which one would you cite in your publication?
a) Digital copy. Reason? ____________________________
b) Original item. Reason? ___________________________
c) Would be different depending on ____________________
13. Were there other digital archival collections you found during
your research process but did not include in your publica-
tion(s)? Why?
14. Are there any historical resources you wish to have access
digitally online? What are they and why do you see the impor-
tance to have them readily available on the Web?
15. Would you look for digital archival collections for future
research studies?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Other. Please specify:
16. How do you define your specific research field within History?
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—September 2014
17. Do you consider yourself a skilled digital technology user?
a) Yes
b) Probably
c) Neutral
d) Not really
e) No
Questions for authors who did not use digital
archival collection
1. Please share with us the reason why you did not include digital
archival collections for your publication(s) in American Histori-
cal Review. Please select all that apply.
a) There were no digital archival collections available for my
particular research topic when I was working on it.
b) I found some digital archival collections related to my
research topic and used them during my research, but they
were not strongly relevant to include as citations in the
publication(s).
c) There may have been digital archival collections available at
that time, but I didn’t have time to look for them.
d) There may have been digital archival collections available at
that time, but I didn’t know where and how I search for them
and/or didn’t have time to learn such skills.
e) My institution provides only a small number of proprietary
digital collections, so the digital materials that I could utilize
were limited.
f) I searched for possible digital archival collection on the web
(using web search engines), but I was not able to find any.
g) I used online catalogs (or online archival finding aids) but
the actual content of materials was not readily available
digitally.
h) I was not aware of digital primary resources and did not
think of looking up such materials during my research.
i) Since digital archival collections are not desirable for
authentic historical research (because they are not original),
I did not look for them.
j) I found some digital primary resources related to my
research topic, but I sought the original document (or arti-
fact) for citations, not the digital copy of them.
k) Other. Please specify:
2. Please select how it is likely or unlikely for you to involve
digital archival collections in your future studies.
a) I will use and cite digital archival collections if there is
anything relevant for my research topic.
b) I will use digital archival collections during the research
process, but I’ll cite only the original item in the publications.
c) I will always look for original items because I can’t be
certain about the value of digital copies against originals for
an authentic historical research study.
d) I wasn’t aware of the availability of digital primary
resources, and I would like to learn more about them.
e) I find it difficult to use digital technology to do historical
research and this may hinder me from actively utilizing
digital primary resources.
f) Other. Please specify:
3. How do you define your specialized field within History?
1809
DOI: 10.1002/asi