Collection-Level Subject Access in Aggregations of Digital Collections: Metadata Application and Use

Problems in subject access to information organization systems have been under investigation for a long time. Focusing on item-level information discovery and access, researchers have identified a range of subject access problems, including quality and application of metadata, as well as the complexity of user knowledge required for successful subject exploration. While aggregations of digital collections built in the United States and abroad generate collection-level metadata of various levels of granularity and richness, no research has yet focused on the role of collection-level metadata in user interaction with these aggregations. This dissertation research sought to bridge this gap by answering the question “How does collection-level metadata mediate scholarly subject access to aggregated digital collections?” This goal was achieved using three research methods: • in-depth comparative content analysis of collection-level metadata in three large-scale aggregations of cultural heritage digital collections: Opening History, American Memory, and The European Library • transaction log analysis of user interactions, with Opening History, and • interview and observation data on academic historians interacting with two aggregations: Opening History and American Memory. It was found that subject-based resource discovery is significantly influenced by collection-level metadata richness. The richness includes such components as: 1) describing collection’s subject matter with mutually-complementary values in different metadata fields, and 2) a variety of collection properties/characteristics encoded in the free-text Description field, including types and genres of objects in a digital collection, as well as topical, geographic and temporal coverage are the most consistently represented collection characteristics in free-text Description fields. Analysis of user interactions with aggregations of digital collections yields a number of interesting findings. Item-level user interactions were found to occur more often than collection-level interactions. Collection browse is initiated more often than search, while subject browse (topical and geographic) is used most often. Majority of collection search queries fall within FRBR Group 3 categories: object, concept, and place. Significantly more object, concept, and corporate body searches and less individual person, event and class of persons searches were observed in collection searches than in item searches. While collection search is most often satisfied by Description and/or Subjects collection metadata fields, it would not retrieve a significant proportion of collection records without controlled-vocabulary subject metadata (Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage, Subjects, and Objects), and free-text metadata (the Description field). Observation data shows that collection metadata records in Opening History and American Memory aggregations are often viewed. Transaction log data show a high level of engagement with collection metadata records in Opening History, with the total page views for collections more than 4 times greater than item page views. Scholars observed viewing collection records valued descriptive information on provenance, collection size, types of objects, subjects, geographic coverage, and temporal coverage information. They also considered the structured display of collection metadata in Opening History more useful than the alternative approach taken by other aggregations, such as American Memory, which displays only the free-text Description field to the end-user. The results extend the understanding of the value of collection-level subject metadata, particularly free-text metadata, for the scholarly users of aggregations of digital collections. The analysis of the collection metadata created by three large-scale aggregations provides a better understanding of collection-level metadata application patterns and suggests best practices. This dissertation is also the first empirical research contribution to test the FRBR model as a conceptual and analytic framework for studying collection-level subject access.

No right to sext? A critical examination of media and legal debates about teenage girls' sexual agency in the digital age

Advances in digital photography and distribution technologies enable many people to produce and distribute images of their sex acts. When teenagers do this, the photos and videos they create can be legally classified as child pornography since the law makes no exception for youth who create sexually explicit images of themselves. The dominant discussions about teenage girls producing sexually explicit media (including sexting) are profoundly unproductive: (1) they blame teenage girls for creating private images that another person later maliciously distributed and (2) they fail to respect—or even discuss—teenagers’ rights to freedom of expression. Cell phones and the internet make producing and distributing images extremely easy, which provide widely accessible venues for both consensual sexual expression between partners and for sexual harassment. Dominant understandings view sexting as a troubling teenage trend created through the combination of camera phones and adolescent hormones and impulsivity, but this view often conflates consensual sexting between partners with the malicious distribution of a person’s private image as essentially equivalent behaviors. In this project, I ask: What is the role of assumptions about teen girls’ sexual agency in these problematic understandings of sexting that blame victims and deny teenagers’ rights? In contrast to the popular media panic about online predators and the familiar accusation that youth are wasting their leisure time by using digital media, some people champion the internet as a democratic space that offers young people the opportunity to explore identities and develop social and communication skills. Yet, when teen girls’ sexuality enters this conversation, all this debate and discussion narrows to a problematic consensus. The optimists about adolescents and technology fall silent, and the argument that media production is inherently empowering for girls does not seem to apply to a girl who produces a sexually explicit image of herself. Instead, feminist, popular, and legal commentaries assert that she is necessarily a victim: of a “sexualized” mass media, pressure from her male peers, digital technology, her brain structures or hormones, or her own low self-esteem and misplaced desire for attention. Why and how are teenage girls’ sexual choices produced as evidence of their failure or success in achieving Western liberal ideals of self-esteem, resistance, and agency? Since mass media and policy reactions to sexting have so far been overwhelmingly sexist and counter-productive, it is crucial to interrogate the concepts and assumptions that characterize mainstream understandings of sexting. I argue that the common sense that is co-produced by law and mass media underlies the problematic legal and policy responses to sexting. Analyzing a range of nonfiction texts including newspaper articles, talk shows, press releases, public service announcements, websites, legislative debates, and legal documents, I investigate gendered, racialized, age-based, and technologically determinist common sense assumptions about teenage girls’ sexual agency. I examine the consensus and continuities that exist between news, nonfiction mass media, policy, institutions, and law, and describe the limits of their debates. I find that this early 21st century post-feminist girl-power moment not only demands that girls live up to gendered sexual ideals but also insists that actively choosing to follow these norms is the only way to exercise sexual agency. This is the first study to date examining the relationship of conventional wisdom about digital media and teenage girls’ sexuality to both policy and mass media.