The document discusses a project to virtually reunite related paper and media collections that have been split between institutions. Specifically, it aims to reunite the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) historic radio collection, which contains audio tapes held at the University of Maryland and related paper materials held at the Wisconsin Historical Society. The project will digitize materials from both collections and develop metadata using standards like EAD, PBCore and EAC-CPF to allow the audio and contextual information to be discovered and studied together online, providing new insights into the recordings and American history.
5. Actually, when thinking about the very salient points that archivists make to defend the use
of each of these different approaches, I like to sometimes revisit an online discussion from
Spring2013 that occurred between McShea and AVPreserve’s Josh Ranger. Ranger originally
published a blog post entitled ‘Does the Creation of EAD Finding Aids Inhibit Archival
Activities?’ which posited that using EAD in the most traditional sense is problematic for
a/v collections, since EAD often has issues with discoverability through Internet search
engines, and partially because the lack of item‐level information does nothing to
prepare/plan for preservation efforts.
McShea replied to this post with a longer retort on the values of EAD for certain situations,
addressing many of Ranger’s points as valid, but arguing that in many cases, finding aids
become the easiest way for archivists dealing with mixed collections to deal with
institutional realities. And that, if proper measures are taken (as with the practices she’d
established at the Smithsonian, you can effectively combine item‐level and collection‐level
processing.Ranger’s reply was that every one of McShea’s points was also valid, but then
restressed a set of final points about EAD. That item level processing is really the only
way to tell what’s what and find the right pieces to preserve or transfer for access,
and that EAD does not achieve this level of need. In my view the reliance on EAD
has resulted in it becoming an endpoint or cul de sac, not a pivot point.” (1:20)
5
6. This brings me to the project I’ve been trying to get funded and deployed for some time,
which aims to virtually reunify a historic radio collection with its associated paper
collections. The split collection is question is the National Association of Educational
Broadcasters (NAEB) historic radio collection.
The mission of the NAEB was to use communications technology for education and
social purposes. It was by all accounts an extremely successful and effective trade
organization that, throughout its 60 years of existence, and ushered in or helped to
enable major changes in early educational broadcasting policy. The forerunner of
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its arms, National Public Radio (NPR)
and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), the NAEB served as the primary
organizer, developer, and distributor for noncommercial broadcast production and
analysis between 1925 and 1981 (note: the NAEB tape collection only covers the
period through 1970). Beginning with low‐wattage AM frequencies and later
moving into FM, the broadcasts balanced focusing on public service reporting of
national events (e.g., the economy, the depression, World War II, the Civil Rights
movement) with providing a forum for local issues (e.g., agricultural prices,
community events, elections) and with expanding public education.
6