With the expansion of digital humanities work, the line between historian or DH practitioner and archivist has blurred and it has become vital for us to learn something about archival principles to create more responsible digital projects that are also discoverable and helpful for other researchers. Metadata is one aspect of archival study that bleeds into the work of digital humanities. Metadata is often described as data about data (Carbajal and Caswell 2021). It includes, among other things, the title, description, dimensions, and format of our items that allow context for our resources.
Metadata is useful for DH practitioners for several reasons. I’ll focus just on just three. First, I would argue that we can have a better grasp of the resources we are describing, analyzing, creating, or preserving if we are considering all their properties. According to Carbajal and Caswell, “The interpretation of records requires context. If users do not know who created a record, or where or why, it becomes virtually meaningless to preserve that record over time . . . [Metadata] allows us to keep in mind the context of when, where, and from what perspective that information was collected” (2021). Metadata can help explain the significance of an item, so, the quality and depth of our study could be influenced by a greater understanding of our sources. The design of a digital project could also be informed by and structured according to information gleaned from the metadata.
Second, metadata helps to create and maintain structure to large amounts of data. Keeping the data organized lends to a more thought-out project. Also, we aren’t likely to forget what we learn from the metadata over the weeks, months, or years, that we are working on a project because the data is attached to the items or sources we are working with. Context and order in the data structure help keep a project from becoming unmanageable or unfocused.
Third, I would argue that metadata helps the researchers or users of our projects to understand our sources and find what they need. This is accomplished in several ways: items are contextualized for those who visit a digital project, items are searchable through carefully linked subject associations, tagging, and quality titles descriptions, and, if mapped correctly, resources are discoverable through internet searching. We live in a digital world where consumers are used to being able to navigate quickly through interconnected information and recommendations based on their preferences, and careful metadata practice allows for increased visibility and searchability for the best user experience (see Vogelsang, 2024). Standardized metadata practices and information architecture also provide a shared language of understanding between cultural heritage professionals, making your work mappable and understandable for others.
I recommend a couple of tools for using and keeping track of metadata for digital humanities professionals. Tropy is a free, open-source desktop software tool that helps to keep digital documents and photos organized. It allows historians and DH practitioners to keep dates, archival data, and rights information organized and attached to the sources, rather than having to keep separate files. It also features tagging and grouping capabilities, which makes it possible to filter materials by different criteria depending on the workflow. For a digital humanities project, sources could be grouped in Tropy by section of a project, for instance, keeping research clean and organized. Another benefit of Tropy is the ability to seamlessly transfer metadata to Omeka via a CSV file. I’ve started adding my sources in Tropy at the time I collect them, and it has made for a smoother process between research and writing or between research and digital project.
One of the reasons that Omeka is such a great platform for digital humanities projects (in addition to being free and open source) is the built-in metadata fields to follow recognized industry standards (such as Dublin Core) for describing resources. In addition to the built-in fields, it’s possible to create your own custom vocabulary if your sources would benefit from additional descriptive categories. I find this incorporated structure beneficial in building quality metadata that will help others find my work and make good use of it.
Resources
Carbajal, Itza, and Michelle Caswell. “Critical Digital Archives: A Review from Archival Studies.” American Historical Review 126, 3 (2021): 1102-1120.
Vogelsang, Henning von. “Categories Or Tagging? Differences In Taxonomy And IA.” Bootcamp, November 22, 2024.