A Balance of Primary and Secondary Values: Exploring a Digital Legacy

2.1. Archivists and early intervention with creators of digital content

Examples of archivists offering preservation expertise to potential donors provides one of the most substantial early examples of archivists offering personal information management advice about personal digital materials. However, these examples state that providing this personal preservation advice was motivated by a concern for the stability of digital records that would some day become part of institutional archives holdings.

In his early discussion of the challenges archivists faced in accessioning electronic personal records into institutional archives, Cunningham (1994) suggested that collecting archivists become actively involved in the pre-custodial records creation phase of personal recordkeeping, with the thought that the personal records would some day be accessioned to an institutional archive. By creating an early relationship with the donor/creator and maintaining the relationship over time, the archivist could provide advice to the creator as she managed her collection, leading to a more substantial (potential) donation in the future.

The theme of early intervention was also present in articles that documented viewpoints of archivists recounting their personal experiences working with personal records collections held at archival institutions, and personal observations of archival work. Paquet (2000) chronicled her experiences working with personal records at the national archives of Canada. In recounting, sheexplained that if archivists intervened shortly after records were created, archivists could then have opportunities to educate creators about the necessity of preserving their electronic records. Paquet (2000) discussed her two pronged strategy to address personal records when working with donors, a proactive approach to address recently created records and a passive approach to address records created using older forms of technology that potential donors may not be able to access using current technology.

Thomas developed the Personal Archives Accessible in Digital Media (PARADIGM) project “to explore how archivists might select, acquire, process, store, preserve and provide access to the digital archives of individuals for the use of future researchers” (Thomas, 2007, p. 29). Archivists who worked with the PARADIGM project practiced Cunningham’s (1994/1999) suggested early intervention (Thomas, 2007). The PARADIGM project archivists visited politicians and their staff in political offices to discuss deposit and preservation, as well as to learn which records were most important to the politicians and their staff. The PARADIGM archivists used a survey stage to discover the importance of records. In this survey stage, screen prints or text files of directory lists on all office computers were captured so that the archivists and political staff could begin a dialogue about the digital files (Thomas, 2007). While the project team found the records survey useful, it only provided general information about what existed on a single computer: it did not engage the creator in appraisal and selection of material for preservation.

The Digital Lives project did not explicitly apply Cunningham’s suggestion of early intervention: the project aimed to collect information about the potential of personal digital archival collections for future research, to understand how individuals engaged with personal computers, and to make individuals aware of the necessity of maintaining personal archival collections (John, Rowlands, Williams, & Dean, 2010).

As part of the Digital Lives project, project team members interviewed archivists who work with personal collections (in both analog and digital form) to obtain their views and suggestions on how to maintain personal digital content. The Digital Lives team found that the archivists “wished for instruction manuals” on how to maintain personal digital collections that the archivists could then “enable them to advise in turn the digital public” (John et al., 2010, p. 99-100). These research studies suggest information professionals’ interest in resources that they could employ to help them advise patrons in personal information archiving.

As is evidenced by the body of work, archival scholars recognize the need to provide assistance to creators of digital content, due to the fragile nature of the material. However, this research has yet to identify tangible concepts that archivists could harness to formalize these interactions with creators of digital content that may some day be maintained for the long term.

While not connected to the studies described above, the concepts of primary value and secondary value are well known to archivists and are commonly utilized when appraising archival collections for potential value, before ingesting material into an institutional collection. In Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques (1956) Theodore Schellenberg, “the father of American archival appraisal,” explains that public archives have two different kinds of values: primary value to those from whom they originated and secondary value to other users. Secondary value evolves over time. Archives are typically concerned with collecting material that has a secondary value, while libraries are concerned with collecting material with primary value. For example, the primary value of the United States Census is to determine population figures. Over time, the census has taken on a secondary value for genealogists, who utilize the record to discover information about their ancestors. The concept of primary and secondary value is vital to archivists as they determine value in material, but it also has relevance to individuals as they distinguish digital possessions and determine which digital possessions create a digital legacy.

2.2. The concept of self in the preservation of personal digital collections

Several researchers, many from the human computer interaction (HCI) community, have explored individuals’ maintaining practices of digital material. The common thread in these studies is the concept of self and its influences in the preservation of personal material. The concept of a digital legacy involves these concepts of self.

When describing the personal information management (PIM) meta-level activity of maintaining, Jones (2008) breaks maintaining into several stages, the last stage being “maintaining information for our lives and beyond.” In this stage, individuals maintain digital material that may exist beyond the individual’s life. According to Jones, most personal digital information was maintained for reuse, but personal digital information “for our lives and beyond” suggests that the digital material may be maintained for more than reuse, a concept present in many of the HCI studies described below.

Kaye et al. (2006) conducted site visits, office tours, and semi-structured interviews with 48 scholars at a university in order to understand the personal archiving strategies of academics. Kaye et al. found that academics archived material in order to retrieve it later, to build a legacy, to share information, to preserve important possessions and, to construct identity. These values could effect the design of a personal archive. In addition, the design of the personal archive frequently reflected the creator. Similar to the findings of PARADIGM and the Digital Lives projects, Kaye et al. was also unable to identify any “best practices” for archiving among the scholars, due to the differences in use of tools and individual goals, methods, and styles. Kaye et al.’s finding that individuals archive to construct identity is similar to the archiving values of defining the self, also discussed by Kirk and Sellen (2010).

Kirk and Sellen (2010) found that physical and digital possessions often served as a trace of, or mechanism for, “sacred” things (things regarded with some kind of reverence). Participants imbued the possessions with value because they served as traces of something sacred. Fewer digital possessions than physical or “hybrid” (possessions with physical and digital characteristics) possessions were kept.

The maintained possessions were often removed from functional use. The most common digital items were digital photos and videos. Emails were less popular, but were kept by at least one couple, that kept the emails from when they had first dated. The authors identified six values associated with home archiving, beyond the broad purpose of remembering: defining the self, forgetting, fulfilling duty, framing the family, connecting with the past, and honoring those we care about.

In order to develop new technologies that would enhance individuals’ perceptions of value in their virtual possessions, Odom, Zimerman, and Forlizzi (2011) interviewed 21 teens and tweens (ages 12-17) in their bedrooms, about their material and virtual possessions, as well as had each participant provide a tour of their bedroom.

Odom et. al, found that homework assignments, blog entries, status messages from SMS, archived SMS messages, digital video, digital artwork, digital music and digital photos to exist in participant’s collections. In addition, Odom et al. found several characteristics associated with virtual possessions, including but not limited to

∙ Evidence participants were transitioning to the cloud for file management because of the ubiquitous access the cloud provided;

∙ A desire to move virtual possessions around a digital environment;

∙ An understanding that virtual possessions can represent identity to others; and

∙ A feeling of control over social networking sites, in contrast to their physical location as teens (living in their parents homes)

Odom et. al suggested that a focus on the accrual of metadata, placelessness and presence, and presentation of selves would provide the greatest avenues for design. While not focused on maintaining digital possessions, Odom et al. still discerned findings relevant to maintaining digital possessions.

Concerned with the idea of passing on material and the desire to understand how individuals remember and what they would like to remember about their lives, Petrelli, van den Hoven and Whittaker (2009) directed 10 families to create a time capsule of items that represented themselves that would be viewed 25 years later. The authors found that photographs were the most common item added to the time capsules; possessions once in use and personal belongings were also popular, followed by craftwork, ephemera, and publications. Participants described their chosen items as representing people, the identity of the family, experiences, places, and life today. Petrelli et al. found that the selection process was important, as individuals preferred to reconstruct memories from selected cues rather than from a lifelog that recorded all life events.

Writing from an archival perspective, McKemmish (1996) addresses maintaining behavior from the point of view of institutional archivists who maintain personal collections. Although she did not distinguish between digital and paper collections, McKemmish examined several personal collections of authors. According to McKemmish, evidence of the social uses of personal archival collections can be found in the writings of many popular authors and she examines their writing in her study. Like Kirk and Sellen (2010) and Kaye et al. (2006), McKemmish found that personal archiving served additional purposes beyond the retrieval of items for future use.

The results reported in this article are part of larger study, in which the first stage was reported in Cushing (2013). Cushing (2013) found that individuals could differentiate between personal digital information by using the concept of digital possessions. Cushing applied Belk’s (1988) and Sividas and Machliet’s (1994) concept that individuals can perceive their physical possession to contribute to their identity, to digital possessions to determine what characterized self extended in an digital environment. Furby (1978) identified several characteristics of physical possessions, the most significant being that possessions describe a use, are used to accomplish a means to an end, and are maintained.

Digital possessions are distinguished from all other personal digital material because these digital objects deemed possessionsare characterized as a) providing evidence of the individual, b) representing the individual’s identity, c) recognized as having value, and d) exhibiting a sense of bounded control. One of the larger goals of the study was to explore digital possessions and their implications for maintaining personal information. Part of maintaining personal information is maintaining it in the form of a digital legacy a conceptual collection of related digital possessions. Therefore, it was natural to report these findings in two different articles: Cushing (2013) narrowly focused on digital possessions, while this article focused on the broader perspective of a collection digital possessions, or a digital legacy.

While not specifically reporting findings related to the self or identity, Marshall’s work on personal digital archiving should not be ignored. In the reports of various studies, Marshall (2007/2008a/2008b) and Marshall, Bly and Brun-Cottan (2006) outlined problems and challenges associated with personal digital archiving, or behavior related to maintaining digital material. Marshall and Marshall et al. identified four main attributes, challenges and/or tasks associated with personal digital archiving: digital stewardship/curatorial effort, distributed storage, long term access, and value and accumulation. To ensure long-term survival of digital material, individuals should not ignore collections and let them grow haphazardly, decisions needed be made about what to keep and what to delete. Deciding what to keep was linked with assessments of value at a specific point in time: valuable stuff stayed and stuff of little value was deleted. This made sense in theory, but Marshall et al. (2006) discovered that people put off making value judgments, engaged in spontaneous clean up, and relied upon periodic loss to limit their digital collections. Still, individuals desired a sense of control over their digital belongings. Like curatorial effort, people did not like to make value judgments.

In order to reign in growing individual collections of belongings that may or may not be valuable, Marshall et al. (2006) called for the development of “heuristic notions of value.” These heuristics would be imbedded in personal archiving systems in order to assist people with the cognitive burden of making value judgments. Marshall et al. observed that people expressed value by demonstrated worth, or how often the item was replicated, the creative effort invested in the item’s creation, the time spent creating the item, the item’s stability, and the emotional impact that the item had on them.

Marshall’s research raised an important consideration for the preservation of personal material: that individuals resist engagement in maintaining decisions because the task can be cognitively taxing and time consuming. Therefore, any attempt to work with creators must address the motivation of the creator, and the studies above suggest that identity building and/or display may provide such motivation.

2.3. Theories of collecting behavior

The above studies on working with creators and maintaining behavior suggest that information professionals have a potential role for assisting creators with maintaining their personal digital material. Individuals may be motivated to engage in the cognitively taxing task of maintaining activities related to identity construction and display. Building on Cushing’s (2013) definition of digital possessions, theories of collecting behavior can be applied to collecting digital possessions, which may be of use when working with creators. Like Cushing’s digital possessions, items that an individual considers to be part of a collection are brought together and distinguished from all other items.

According to Rigby and Rigby (1944), collecting has been defined as an “impulse” related to “the instinct to live.” (p. 3-4). A collection has consisted of objects that were selected by the collector and related to each other in someway. A collection should have boundaries. Often, boundaries have been imposed for financial reasons, and so that completion could appear to be attainable (Rigby & Rigby, 1944). Belk (1995) has defined collecting similar to Rigby and Rigby: “the process of actively, selectively and passionately acquiring and possessing things removed from ordinary use and perceived as part of a set of non-identical objects or experiences” (p. 67).

Belk, Wallendorf, and Holbrook (1991) further defined collecting as “a form of acquisition and possession that is selective, active and longitudinal. A necessary condition is that the objects, ideas, beings, or experiences derived larger meaning by their assemblage into a set” (p. 182).

Pearce (1992) has likened collecting to a “non-utilitarian gathering” of related things (p. 50). In addition, collecting involved selection, acquisition, and disposal. Pearce also acknowledged the collector in her definition: a collector should acknowledge a collection as such, and the collector should imbue the collection with a specific value.

According to Pearce (1992), three modes of collecting have existed: “souvenirs,” “fetish objects,” and “systematics.” Souvenirs were related to each other through their relationship with the collector and his life history. A refrigerator magnet collection consisting of refrigerator magnets from each place an individual has visited could be considered a souvenir collection. Fetish objects were objects of desire and were usually rare. A collection of Impressionist art would qualify as a Fetish collection. Lastly, a systematics collection usually consisted of natural history objects and belonged to scientists: these collections helped scientists distinguish between species (Pearce, 1992).

Muensterberger (1994) defined collecting as “the selecting, gathering, and keeping of objects of subjective value” and did not include a statement about boundaries, limits or value (p. 4). Like Belk and Muensterberger, Pearce (1995) agreed that selection was key in the collecting process: “the selection process clearly lies at the heart of collecting” (p. 23). According to Pearce, collecting involved the desire to control and organize, and included “hunting behavior.”

McIntosh and Schmeichel (2004) have defined a collector as an individual “motivated to accumulate a series of similar objects where the instrumental function of the objects was of secondary (or no) concern and the person did not plan to immediately dispose of the objects”; a definition similar to the above definitions of collecting (p. 86).

These definitions of collecting highlight the importance of selection and value, which can be related to constructing a digital legacy. If constructing a digital legacy involves the same boundary building that is involved in collecting, the boundary building may play an important role in the process of selecting which personal digital material to maintain for a digital legacy.

3.1. Population

Participants were recruited using a campus wide listserv, posters displayed at various locations in the local area, and word of mouth. Quota sampling, stratified by sex and age, was used to create six sample groups. According to Whittaker and Hirschberg (2001) individuals tend to assess value in their personal collections during periods of transition. Therefore, Levinson’s theory of life stage transitions was used to create the age groups (Levinson, 1990). According to Levinson, individuals experience life stages during several age ranges. The life stages utilized in this study include Early Adult (ages 18-24), Mid Adult (ages 38-47), and Late Adult (ages 58-67). Study Groups A, B, C and D, E, and F correspond to these life stages, as displayed by Table 1. Interview participants were assigned a number, a group letter (A-C) and a gender identified (F or M). For example a participant identified as “2CM ” was assigned the number “2,” was assigned to Age Group “C ” (ages 58-67) and was male, designated by “M.” Participants were not identified by occupation.

Table 1.

Study sample groups

4.1. Part 1: Characteristics of a digital legacy

In Part 1 of the study, 23 participants were interviewed in a conference room about their definitions of a digital legacy in order to explore participants’ understandings of the general concept.

When asked to define a digital legacy, most participants reported that they had not heard or used the term in the past. Once the question was posed, some participants began to question what might happen to their digital possessions after they died. One participant in the 18-24 Age Group expressed that thinking about her legacy after death was “morbid,” and something she resisted. Most members of the 58-64 Age Group were more comfortable discussing a legacy after death. Despite unfamiliarity with the term, most participants were able to provide a definition of the term digital legacy. The most commonly expressed characteristics used to describe a digital legacy were that a digital legacy:

∙ displays a progression, tell a story

∙ represents the individual (in a good light)

∙ provides evidence of the individual, usually on the internet

∙ is created or manipulated by the individual

∙ specifically maintained/developed for people other than the individual

An exploration of these characteristics provides a wider understanding of how individuals define a digital legacy and potential uses for the concept.

4.2. Part 2: Significant Characteristics of the Digital Possessions that Compose a Digital Legacy

In Part 2 of the study, 48 participants ranked 60 statements characterizing the digital possessions that they would consider maintaining for a digital legacy. The 60 statements (the Q sample) were created from common utterances reported in the interviews that explored the characteristics of digital possessions, reported in Cushing (2013). As displayed by Figure 1, the language from commonly coded areas of the interview transcripts was used to create the Q sample statements.

The 48 participant sorts were analyzed using Q factor analysis, using the computer program PQ Method.PQ Method provided factor loadings for each of the 60 statements in the Q sample. Each of the five factors represents a distinct opinion about the characteristics of the digital possessions that participants would like to maintain for a digital legacy. The participants that load onto one distinct factor shared opinions and thoughts about the characteristics of the digital possessions that they would choose to compose their digital legacy. It is important to note that the participants that loaded on a similar factor perceived common characteristics of the digital possessions they would consider maintaining for a digital legacy, not common digital possessions.

This data allowed the researcher to understand that five significant viewpoints exist that describe the characteristics of the digital possessions that individuals would like to maintain for a digital legacy. Table 3 displays the factor loadings for each participant. Forty-one of the 48 participants displayed a significant loading onto one factor, suggesting that seven of the 48 participants did not hold a strong opinion about the issue at hand. Digital photos were the most common digital possessions chosen. In addition, Facebook, digital music, and personal websites were also chosen. However, as detailed above, the most significant data was the opinions about the digital items, not the digital items themselves. Defining sorts for each Factor (cluster of individuals who similarly ranked the statement cards for each sorting task) are bolded, based on Schlinger’s (1969) formula to determine significant Factor loading: 3*1/ √n.

Table 3 displays the significant factor loadings (in bold) for each participant, organized by age. For example, the first row lists the factor loadings for Participant 5: the figure in the column for factor one is bolded, so Participant 5 loaded onto Factor 1.

Table 3.

Factor matrix (participant’s significant loading in bold)

Table 4.

A sample of digital possessions loading onto Factors 1-5, with corresponding sex and age

As is standard in Q method, each factor will be explored in order to understand the significant characteristics each factor describes. The most and least indicative statements determine the characteristics of each factor and are described below. Q sort statements are listed as being associated with primary (P) or secondary (S) value. Digital photos and Facebook profiles were the most commonly selected digital possessions, across all factors.

4.2.1. Factor 1, “Use and purpose”

Table 5.

Distinguishing statements for Factor 1, “Use & Purpose”

Eleven participants loaded onto Factor 1. Table 4 displays the demographics of participants who loaded onto Factor 1, as well as a sample of the digital possession they had in mind when completing the sorting task. As is displayed by Table 4, common digital possessions were used for reflection across all factors. Participants were not asked to provide additional detail about their chosen digital possession, as data collection focused on gathering information about their opinions about the possessions, rather than basic detail on the possessions themselves. While all age groups were represented, the majority of participants who loaded onto Factor 1 fell into the 18-24 Age Group and werefemale. Most participants who loaded onto Factor 1 chose digital photos as the digital possession they would most like to maintain for a digital legacy.

Table 5 displays the defining statements for Factor 1, the average -5 to +5 distribution ranking for the statement, as well as the archival value category and possession value category linked with the statement, as reported in Table 2. According to Table 5, participants who loaded onto Factor 1 favored primary archival values when ranking the characteristics of the digital possession they would most want to maintain for a digital legacy. “There is no hard copy of it” and “It’s easy to use” were both ranked +5 and are associated with primary value and “description and use.” Over all, four of the eight positively ranked statements were associated with “description and use” at the possession level. From these statement rankings, it is evident that participants who loaded onto this factor were most concerned with a possession’s descriptive characteristics and the possession’s potential future use when considering which digital possession to maintain. This finding is bolstered by the negatively ranked statements of the factor, demonstrating a strong distaste for self extension characteristics. The statements that loaded onto factor 1 demonstrate that participants valued possessions for how they were intended to be used, not for the possessions’ ability to contribute to identity.

4.2.2. Factor 2, “Evidence, purpose, and use”

Table 6.

Distinguishing statements for Factor 2, “Evidence, purpose & use”

According to table 6, eight participants loaded onto Factor 2. In contrast to Factor 1, 63% of the participants loading onto Factor 2 are male and most fell into the 58-67 Age Group. While the positively ranked statements were associated with a mix of primary and secondary values, participants who loaded onto this Factor favored digital possessions for how they could be used (“It helps me function,” “It helps me forget”), such as providing evidence (“it acts as a witness to creativity”). In addition, the data suggests that the possessions would represent parts of their identity (“It represents a side of me,” “It represents quirks about me”), but not all of it. While these participants imbued their chosen possession with some characteristics of self extension, the negative statement rankings suggest that they would not go so far as to agree with statements that suggest their possession could completely represent their identity.

4.2.3. Factor 3, “Uniqueness and Memory”

Table 7.

Distinguishing statements for Factor 3, “Uniqueness and memories”

Seven participants loaded onto Factor 3 (Table 7). Males and females loaded equally onto this factor, and half of all participants who loaded onto this factor were member of the 38-47 Age Group. Participants who loaded onto this factor were slightly more likely to perceive secondary value in their digital possession, as demonstrated by the positively ranked statements (“It represents quirks about me,” It’s a visual representation of a memory”). According to the table, these self extension characteristics were associated with the self and one’s own memories, in contrast to one’s family and experiences, as suggested by the negatively ranked statements.

4.2.4. Factor 4, “Memory aid”

Table 8.

Distinguishing statements for Factor 4, “Memory aid”

According to Table 8, nine participants loaded onto Factor 4. More females than males loaded onto this factor, and half the participants were members of the 38-47 age group. Most of the statements that positively loaded onto this factor were associated with secondary values. Participants who loaded on this factor strongly believed that their digital possession could act as a memory aid, as suggested by the positively ranked statements (“It helps me remember,” “It helps me remember my childhood,” “It’s nostalgia”). These participants’ ability to perceive their possessions as imbued with memories is clearly associated with characteristics of self extension, a secondary value.

4.2.5. Factor 5, “Attachment”

Table 9.

Distinguishing statements for Factor 5, “Attachment”

As displayed by Table 9, six participants loaded onto Factor 5. Considering the positively ranked statements, participants loading on Factor 5 most associate their chosen digital possession with secondary values. The highest ranked statement (“It has sentimental value”) is associated with attachment, which can be perceived as a “step above” self extension, as attachment is defined by self extension characteristics, as well as an emotional connection and personal history with the possession. Findings suggest that these participants were motivated to maintain their digital possessions due to the deep connection they feel to the possessions. This is supported by the negatively ranked statements that are in stark contrast with attachment characteristics, such as “I don’t think of it as a possession.”