نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشآموخته کارشناسی ارشد، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
2 استادیار، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
3 دانشیار، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
4 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Purpose: The present study was conducted to investigate the status of manuscript digitization across major national Collections in comparative framework. The digitization status was examined in terms of the quantitative progress of manuscripts digitization; the processes of evaluation, selection and preparation, the tools, technologies and technical operations for digital conversion, as well as editing and quality control of digitized manuscripts, and their cataloging.
Method: This research employs a comparative study method based on George Brady’s four-stage model. The comparative method was selected due to its ability to provide comprehensive and analytical comparisons and its suitability to both quantitative and qualitative research. The study examined six major national Collections, selected through purposive, Delphi, and convenience sampling. Data were collected using a researcher-designed checklist, whose validity was confirmed by five experts in the field of digitization. Collected data were categorized according to specific indicators for each research question and the criteria associated with each indicator. To facilitate comparison, the data were organized into tables, each dedicated to an indicator. Finally, the Collections were compared based on these data; their strengths and weaknesses were identified, and common patterns or significant differences were extracted.
Fingings: Out of the 179,000 manuscripts preserved in the studied Collections, 132,900 had been digitized at the time of the research (2024). The highest performance in quantitative progress belonged to the Astan Quds Razavi Libraries, Museums, and Documents Center, with an annual average of 3,333 manuscripts, while the lowest performance was observed at the Ayatollah Marashi Najafi Library, with an average of 577 manuscripts per year. The diversity in methods used in formulating the indicators and criteria for selecting manuscripts reflects the specific objectives and organizational structures. Some Collections have based their selection on the physical criteria of the manuscripts, while others have adopted a more systematic and comprehensive approach. In some Collections, the processes of detaching bindings, flattening pages, repairing damages, and maintaining page order were carried out with high precision. In contrast, others have prioritized speed and volume of output. All Collections have emphasized the production of color images. However, the absence of a unified standard for file formats has led to inconsistencies in archival storage and presentation formats. Editing methods also vary among the examined repositories, and there is a clear weakness in the application of modern metadata and content standards for metadata creation.
Conclusion: Consistent with the study’s findings and their comparison with previous research, the digitization of manuscripts in great national Collections shows a growing yet heterogeneous trend. Despite technological advances within these repositories, persistent challenges remain—including the lack of unified standards for file formats and metadata, variability in image quality, and limited resources. It is therefore recommended to undertake targeted investments in infrastructure and to develop national frameworks to enhance coordination, preservation, and access.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
فرستادن نظر درباره این مقاله