Don’t Be Afraid of the Digital
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article Don't Be Afraid of the Digital presents itself as an opportunity to examine the techniques applied at the CCA for the conservation of Born Digital material. The recounting of the massive amount of problems (data degradation, outdated formats, outdated hard- and software) is thoroughly explicated and demonstrates the framework to position this article in a specific set of curatorial and conservation considerations.
As much as a successful case of preservation techniques is presented in this article, the curatorial practice might need further critical scrutiny. In particular the show presented in the article "Archaeology of the Digital" can be perceived as quite revisionist as the show contained primarily the same protagonists as Greg Lynn's Folding in Architecture AD edition, completely ignoring developments which happened outside the immediate surrounding of the curator of this show.
On another note, there is a thorough description of the emergence of digital conservation practices in institutions such as the NAI and Az W, however there is no mention of the FRAC Collection Orleans, which possesses one of the largest Digital Design collections apart from the CCA. It would have been interesting to see a comparison of how these two distinct institution handle similar problems.
The description of the conservation of the Kol/Mac apartment project is laudable and a valuable contribution to the scientific preservation of crucial projects of digitally oriented practices. This can be used as a best practice example for other institutions.
All in all an excellent article, which is certainly a valuable contribution for the discussion on conservation problems of computational work in architecture.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer 1:
The first point of critique, regarding the limited scope of the project following only Greg Lynn`s idea on what and who influenced architecture within the digital realm is a very good one. I am very aware that the project (acquisitions, exhibitions, research, publications) is very much leaning on Lynn`s perception of the digital in architecture. I will acknowledge this shortcoming in the article, and add that the recent publication When is the digital is meant also include other voices. For me (and the CCA), this is only the beginning of the project, so more voices will be included in the future.
The second point of critique, regarding not mentioning the FRAC efforts in collecting and addressing the digital is very interesting. As FRAC is not so active collecting anymore it slipped my memory, but I will mention the efforts of FRAC, as they were absolutely important in the curatorial developments and research on digital developments in architecture. It is my understanding though that FRAC has been addressing the digital from a curatorial perspective, but has not really been focused on solving access to born-digital material, which is what the article is focused on. But it is a very good idea to mention FRAC as part of a landscape of institutions working on the digital in architecture.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper analyzes a very interesting topic regarding the preservation of digital sources in the field of architecture and how to facilitate access to them.
The background and methodology are described in sufficient detail and bring the reader closer to the strategies followed by the center (CCA) in the search of solutions to the aforementioned approach.
In any case, a more detailed and contextualized reflection of the impact of the digital revolution on the architectural practice, as the origin of the conflicts described in the paper, would be of great interest.
It would be appreciated a more academic approach in the presentation of the results.
It is recommended to present the conclusions in a clearer and more direct way, relating them directly to the research method developed and the results obtained.
The bibliography used is missing.
References 3 and 4 are missing.
Author Response
In response to the points of critique of reviewer 2:
It is true that the article is not really focused on the impact of the digital revolution in architecture. I would like to include this in the article, but I am afraid that this would be too much of a d-tour within the structure of the article, that is really focused on collecting, preserving and giving access to born-digital files. Also this particular problem has been addressed in the two print publications published by CCA as well as the e-publications on each project that was part of the Archaeology of the Digital.
The point regarding a more academic approach is a difficult one to solve. This article is a reflection of what we have achieved in collecting and preserving born-digital records. In that sense it is a reflection of a practice and not of a theory. In the past years there has been developed a lot of theory on collecting born digital records, but not many institutions have actually solved it in practice. With this article I want to show that it is possible to preserve and give access to born digital records. I acknowledge that this is not a very academic approach nor reflection.
The recommendation regarding a more clear and direct way of presenting the results and conclusion is a good point, which I have worked on in the revised version.
Notes have been adjusted and corrected. A biography will be added.
Reviewer 3 Report
Originality/Novelty: Is the question original and well defined? Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge?
The research (how to archive born-digital materials in an architecture archive) is well-defined. It does advance current knowledge, through its discussion of how to properly preserve digital formats and disseminate information to the public (through access, exhibition, publication, etc.).
Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses and speculations carefully identified as such?
The results are interpreted appropriately. The author admirably lays out where CCA succeeded in its efforts, as well as potential growth areas for the future. This realistic grasp of where CCA has thrived and where it can still grow, clearly outlined as the author’s interpretations, offers a realistic and helpful analysis for other archivists.
Quality of Presentation: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?
The presentation of the article is superb. The research into the background of the problem is detailed enough to thoroughly inform the reader of the central question of the research (how do we archive born-digital files?). The author then excellently segues into the particularities of CCA.
Scientific Soundness: is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw the conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
The study is designed well, with a thorough discussion of the efforts to curate and preserve born-digital material. The only potential growth area for this article is in the field of drawing conclusions – specifically, a more robust discussion about how users have accessed born-digital architectural records, and for what purposes. Knowing how CCA has met its users’ needs in this area would strengthen the article, and would help future authors compare their efforts to what CCA has accomplished, further contributing to the knowledge of born-digital archives.
Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the Journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (please see the Aims and Scope of the journal)
Yes. It presents the “back end” of archival research by confronting the intersection of human documentation of the present (primary source creation) with digital developments in the specific field of architecture. However, the author is careful to always relate these specifics back to the broader field of knowledge creation and interpretation. In his/her appropriate phrasing, “And for the CCA, defining a technical solution was never the most satisfying research question. We wanted to understand how digital technology had changed architecture ideas, practices, and theories—and we knew we had to start addressing this before the evidence was lost.
Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work provide an advance towards the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?
The work’s greatest contribution is in showing how an actual repository moved from theory to praxis in born-digital archival material. It is a helpful real-world analysis of a theoretical problem archivists confront on a day-to-day basis. Showing the difficulties and triumphs of CCA in this area is aspirational and tangibly codifies some of the theoretical particularities of dealing with born-digitals.
English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
Yes to both “appropriate” and “understandable.” The author’s diction and syntax are advanced, but do not browbeat the reader with his/her intelligence.
P. 1, abstract
–Writing could use some polishing. Ex: “Not to overcome the technocratic question as to how to preserve and give access to born digital material, but to understand how the digital technology has changed and shaped architecture” is a sentence fragment.
P. 1, first paragraph
–first person/second person are not suitable.
--Some context on CCA would be helpful – when it was established, what users it serves.
--Who sent these materials to CA? Architects themselves, firms, etc. This information is presented to the reader in footnote 2, but having a brief note about it within the text itself would help better contextualize the problem of born-digital archives at this specific repository.
--Questions over the scope and difficulties of born-digital archives is thoughtful, and provides helpful context for the rest of the article.
P. 7, first paragraph
--The author’s discussion of the Archaeology of the Digital program neatly ties digital archives, digital humanities, museology, and oral history together.
-- Perhaps it’s early to ask this and it’s addressed later, but it would be interesting to note any audience responses to the exhibits – what did people think about the three displays from 2012-6?
P. 11, second paragraph
--In recounting access, I always find it helpful to lay out general information regarding user populations. What groups are coming to CCA to access born-digital files? For what purpose?
P. 12, footnote 9
--Justifying this line of text has resulted in some strange spacing issues.
Author Response
Regarding the critique of reviewer 3, I have the following reply:
The main critique is a lack of understanding what users of born digital archives need and want, which is a very good point. In the revised article I have added the changes in users and use of born-digital records we have experienced. This is an important addition, as the reviewer implies, because the change of the use and users pose us different questions as an institution. We see indeed that users are less interested in top-down research within one finding aid, but more and more are interested in a horizontal search across archives. This is something new for our reference team to work with.
The different smaller points of critique or suggestions are all very useful and I have edited the article accordingly so (such as the suggestion to add more information about CCA, who were the donors of born digital records).
The question about what the audience thought of the three exhibitions held at CCA (and Yale) is a difficult one to answer, as we don`t have enough data that would support an answer. For the purpose of the article it would be nice to know, but not absolutely necessary I think.
