Digital preservation has never been only a question of choosing software. Institutions also need trained people, clear responsibilities, policies and guidance they can apply with the resources available. The historical Closing the Digital Curation Gap (CDCG) initiative recognised that problem: progress in research was not always reaching librarians, archivists, museum professionals and smaller collecting organisations in a usable form.
The collaboration was announced in November 2009 and involved the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and partners in the United Kingdom, including JISC, the Strategic Content Alliance and the Digital Curation Centre. The IMLS grant record identifies a cooperative effort to develop networks, understand existing practice and contribute to frameworks for better digital curation. Later project materials describe activity spanning 2009-2013.
This article explains the programme's documented aims and its relevance today. It is written by TwoSquares as an independent historical interpretation, not on behalf of the programme or its researchers.
The gap was organisational as well as technical
A digital file does not remain usable merely because a copy survives. Software changes, formats become difficult to interpret, storage devices fail and the context needed to understand a file can be lost. Research communities may develop effective approaches to these problems long before a small archive has the capacity to put them into practice.
CDCG focused on that separation between knowledge and implementation. According to the IMLS award record, the collaboration sought to establish a network of practitioners, researchers and educators; identify baseline practice and knowledge in smaller institutions in the US and UK; and develop a foundation for frameworks, guidance and professional roles.
That choice of audience matters. An approach requiring a specialist team and expensive infrastructure cannot simply be handed to a local history archive and called best practice. Useful guidance must distinguish essentials from optional enhancements, explain dependencies and support proportionate decisions.
The people and institutions behind the initiative
The IMLS announcement identifies UNC and its UK partners as collaborators. Related presentations and research records identify Helen R. Tibbo and Christopher (Cal) Lee among the associated UNC researchers. They are historical participants, not contributors to this TwoSquares article.
The collaboration reflected a wider principle: digital preservation practices evolve through networks. Universities, funders, standards organisations and institutions responsible for collections each see different parts of the problem. A shared exchange of evidence helps make guidance more transferable.
For the original documentation, consult the IMLS project announcement, the IMLS grant record and its published project report.
What does closing the gap look like in practical work?
Start with an inventory. An institution needs to know what digital objects it holds and which systems or people created them. Even a basic inventory can reveal unsupported media, missing source files, duplicate exports and legal restrictions that would otherwise remain hidden.
Document risk rather than guessing. A fragile storage drive, an undocumented database and a collection of everyday PDF files do not present the same preservation problem. Decisions should consider the likelihood of loss, the consequences of failure and the time or funding required to act.
Make guidance repeatable. Instructions for calculating a checksum or documenting a chain of custody are far more useful when another member of staff can follow them. Digital forensics workflow research illustrates why local practice and institutional context matter.
Share tool knowledge. Institutions should be able to learn from existing approaches instead of maintaining isolated lists and repeating the same experiments. Our digital preservation tools guide links to present-day community resources.
Invest in competencies. Preservation work involves assessment, recordkeeping, technical judgement, rights and access, not only storage. See digital curation skills and competencies.
Why the programme remains relevant
Websites and software projects are particularly exposed to the same gap. An organisation may know that an old research site or help centre matters but have no documented method to preserve it. Its domain may expire, the web host may remove files and institutional memory may vanish with a staff change.
The resulting loss affects a second audience: people who referenced the original site. A paper written years earlier may still direct readers to an unavailable PDF or workshop page. A well-maintained historical record can help recover context, but should not pretend to reproduce a lost scholarly work without evidence or appropriate rights.
That is why this TwoSquares collection combines historical source records with practical advice on website archiving and website restoration. The commercial services are separate from the historical CDCG programme.
Frequently asked questions
What was Closing the Digital Curation Gap?
It was a research and practice collaboration announced in 2009, designed to connect digital curation research, education and practical guidance, with particular attention to smaller collecting institutions in the United States and United Kingdom.
Was CDCG a TwoSquares project?
No. TwoSquares did not run or fund the historical initiative. This page is an independent record based on published sources.
Is the Digital Curation Exchange the same as CDCG?
Not exactly. CDCG was a defined collaborative programme. The former Digital Curation Exchange was an online resource whose links and professional context overlap with that programme.
What is the first step for a small organisation with digital material at risk?
Identify and prioritise what exists, create at least one independently stored copy, document provenance and ownership, and establish who is responsible for verification and access. More specialised systems can follow once the basics are under control.
Primary references
- IMLS: International Collaboration to Close the Digital Curation Gap, 20 November 2009
- IMLS: Grant award LG-05-09-0040-09
- IMLS: Closing the Digital Curation Gap project report
Related: Digital preservation hub | Digital Curation Exchange history | Digital preservation competencies