Skip to content
Publicly Available Published by De Gruyter April 4, 2018

Learning from Digital Library Evaluations: The Europeana Case

Aus Evaluationen digitaler Bibliotheken lernen: Das Fallbeispiel Europeana
Juliane Stiller

Juliane Stiller

ORCID logo EMAIL logo
and Vivien Petras

Vivien Petras

ORCID logo EMAIL logo
From the journal ABI Technik

Abstract

In this paper we analyse evaluation studies of the Europeana digital library from its launch in 2009 until today. Using Saracevic’s digital library evaluation framework, the studies are categorised by their constructs, contexts, criteria, and methodologies. Concentrating on studies that evaluate Europeana services or single components, we show gaps in the evaluation of certain Europeana aspects. Finally, we derive strategies for building an evaluation archive that serves as memory and supports comparisons.

Zusammenfassung

Im vorliegenden Artikel analysieren wir Evaluationsstudien der digitalen Bibliothek Europeana von 2009 bis heute. Unter Berücksichtigung von Saracevic’ Evaluationsframework für digitale Bibliotheken werden die Studien nach ihren Konstrukten, Kontexten, Kriterien und Methodologien kategorisiert. Die Analyse konzentriert sich auf Studien, die Dienstleistungen oder einzelne Komponenten von Europeana evaluieren, und zeigt Lücken in der Evaluation bestimmter Aspekte von Europeana auf. Schließlich werden Strategien diskutiert, um ein Evaluationsarchiv zu entwickeln, welches sowohl der Langzeitarchivierung dient als auch Vergleiche von Evaluationsergebnissen unterstützt.

Introduction

Europeana[1] is Europe’s digital library, museum and archive. In 2009, it was launched with the mission to aggregate digital cultural heritage content from various institutions in Europe[2]. By that time, the Digital Library (DL) field had been well established with the first European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL, now TPDL)[3] being held in Pisa, Italy, more than 10 years earlier (ECDL 1997)[4]. Today, however, Europeana has achieved exemplary status for other DLs in the area. Many more DLs such as the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA)[5] and the German Digital Library (DDB)[6] base their services on Europeana’s experiences and Europeana continues its trailblazer role in metadata modelling, licensing and the aggregation of large and heterogeneous volumes of digital cultural heritage content.

Europeana is not only an access point to digital cultural heritage content, but also a platform that provides various services for different stakeholders such as cultural heritage professionals and the creative industry. The authors have accompanied Europeana’s development from its first steps in the European Digital Library Network (EDLnet) to becoming the ecosystem of offerings around digital cultural heritage it is now. In this paper, we would like to investigate the evaluations of Europeana of the past decade and the changes accompanied by these studies. Applying Tefko Saracevic’s framework of DL evaluation[7], we identify common evaluation objectives, the methods used and the results obtained. Based on an earlier study of a meta-analysis of 41 Europeana evaluations[8], we extracted a smaller pool of 31 papers that solely evaluate the Europeana portal and its services. Offering a closer look into the criteria and methods of these papers, we propose the outline of an evaluation archive that can be used to store evaluations, their results and the changes initiated by them. Ideally, such a memory will avoid double work and encourage the re-use of research data.

The paper is structured as follows: section 2 presents some of the frameworks that were developed for the evaluation of digital libraries as well as Saracevic’s framework that is used to categorise the evaluations in this study. Section 3 describes the Europeana digital library as well as the methodology used to assess the evaluations. In section 4, we present the results of the meta-analysis of Europeana focusing on methods and criteria used for the evaluations and identifying gaps of past evaluations. In section 5, we outline an envisioned evaluation archive for Europeana.

Digital Library Evaluations

Digital libraries became a topic of research in the mid-1990s and have remained an active research area ever since. With substantial funding initiatives in the US and Europe, a large number of digital libraries in many different cultural heritage domains were developed. Along with these projects, a theory of DLs and accompanying research developed. While Saracevic laments in his foreword to the 2016 book Discover Digital Libraries[9] that DL practice (the development and maintenance of a DL) and DL research still “reside in parallel universes” with few intersections, DL evaluation is certainly an area where both communities interact since an evaluation cannot take place without an actual DL to be evaluated.

The exact number of DL projects is difficult to ascertain and many of them have ceased to exist when funding or research interest ran out. The same is true for their evaluations as only few have been properly documented in the research literature. However, because of review articles that organise and synthesise evaluation approaches according to different aspects, we can get an idea of the diverse landscape of DLs.

Large evaluation frameworks, which summarised DL projects and their evaluations, were developed both in Europe and in the US. In Europe, the DELOS Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries[10] developed an evaluation framework based on its DL reference model[11]. The Interaction Triptych Evaluation Model[12] defines content, system and users as the important DL components to be evaluated. These components should be assessed on three different axes: usability (the quality of the interactions between users and the system), usefulness (the quality of the relationship between users and content) and performance (the quality of the relationship between system and content). DELOS also suggests criteria and methodologies to perform the evaluation along these axes. Blandford and colleagues[13] developed the ‘PRET A Rapporter framework’ to support the design of evaluation user studies. While these two frameworks provide concrete guidelines for designing an evaluation, the DiLEO DL evaluation ontology[14] is a research effort to model evaluation components from different frameworks in order to guide understanding of the whole evaluation process.

In the US, three research centres developed large-scale evaluation frameworks and initiatives. The Perseus DL, which continues its services until today, was one of the first DL projects, which made a concerted effort to evaluate its components and functionalities in a more structured way.[15] At the University of Virginia, the 5S research group[16] developed an evaluation framework based on its DL model[17] and even developed an automatic method to assess DL components[18]. The Rutgers University research group around Saracevic (next section) analysed and summarised evaluation elements in their specialized frameworks[19], which are usually based on Saracevic’s. In their recent book, Xie and Matusiak describe their Multifaceted Evaluation of Digital Libraries (MEDaL)[20] review study, which included a literature analysis of 85 papers and a Delphi study to describe DL evaluation dimensions, objectives, criteria and measures also based on Saracevic.

Saracevic’s Evaluation Framework

In this study, we used the evaluation framework of Saracevic[21], which appears to be one of the more widely adopted frameworks in evaluation research. For example, the elements introduced in this framework were adapted to others in the domain such as DELOS and MEDaL. Saracevic introduces five elements that frame a DL evaluation, namely Construct, Context, Criteria, Measures and Methodology. These elements are the components of each evaluation and are described as follows:

  1. Construct describes the object of the evaluation: What is evaluated? Which aspect is at the centre of the evaluation?

  2. The Context determines the perspective that is used for the evaluation. Saracevic distinguishes the user-centred perspective (with social, institutional or individual levels), the interface perspective and the system-centred perspective (with engineering, process and content levels).

  3. The Criteria element describes, which objectives are evaluated. Saracevic names library criteria such as information accuracy, information retrieval criteria such as relevance, human-computer-interaction and interface criteria such as usability.

  4. The Measures element determines, how the criteria are evaluated.

  5. The Methodology describes the approach, process or tool that is used for the evaluation.

In 2004, Saracevic reviewed 80 DL evaluation studies using his framework.[22] Results indicate that for the component Context, the system-centred perspective is taken more often than the human- or usability-centred one. The prevailing criteria used in the evaluations are usability, system performance and usage. For methodologies, Saracevic finds surveys most often applied to answer research questions. Structured interviews, focus groups, observations and task accomplishments are further methods identified in the evaluations. Saracevic does not name measures with which the criteria are evaluated. We also found them to be very tailored to particular research questions.

Tsakonas et al. analyse about 220 evaluation studies using their DiLEO ontology. They focus on evaluations published between 2001 and 2011 in the JCDL and ECDL/TPDL conferences.[23] Similar to Saracevic’s findings, system-centred contexts are prevailing, employing mainly criteria such as effectiveness, performance measurement and technical excellence. They identify laboratory experiments and surveys as the methodologies primarily used.

The analysis in this paper and the study it is based upon are both similar to the studies mentioned above, but focus on evaluation studies of just one use case – Europeana. We detail the evaluations of one particular DL to underline the necessity of tracking evaluations over time and recording the improvements driven by the studies. Therefore, this paper concentrates on the evaluation of the Europeana portal, the learnings and outcomes of these evaluations and how an evaluation framework can serve for better re-use of processes.

A Meta-analysis of Europeana Evaluations

The portal Europeana[24] offers a single access point to Europe’s digital cultural and scientific heritage aggregated from libraries, archives, museums and audio-visual archives. Currently, over 55 million objects can be accessed via Europeana provided by over 3,200 memory institutions. Europeana does not only provide search and browsing functionalities for the aggregated metadata objects, but also maintains API access points for integrating Europeana’s data into other contexts. Due to its scale and the heterogeneity of its data in terms of formats, media types and languages, Europeana assumes a trailblazing role in maintaining and offering digital cultural heritage material. Over the past decade, Europeana was the object of interest for many evaluations.

Methodology

In our previous study[25], we accumulate relevant studies based on an existing list created by the Europeana Task Force for Enrichment and Evaluation[26] as well as searches for documents in Google Scholar and Web of Science[27]. The resulting list of 55 papers was reviewed in detail to extract 41 papers that reflect studies with Europeana as research object or used Europeana data to conduct evaluations. Looking for information on Saracevic’s five elements, Construct, Context, Criteria, Measures and Methodology, each of the 41 publications was analysed and relevant information extracted. We followed a grounded theory approach to form categories from the emerging data through discussion and a constant switch between the publication and the categories[28]. For the Construct category, the analysis resulted in five groups: Europeana, Europeana Component, Europeana in Comparison, Europeana Service, and Europeana Data.

For this analysis, we only look at studies that focus their efforts on Europeana. We reduce the pool of articles to the ones that have one of the following Constructs: Europeana, Europeana Component or Europeana in Comparison. The category Europeana Services aggregates evaluations where developments within Europeana’s satellite projects were assessed. As these services often did not make it into the Europeana production system, we exclude these evaluations from this analysis. Similarly, the category Europeana Data focuses on evaluations that solely use data of Europeana to evaluate algorithms or retrieval performance. As these evaluations were not used to assess and improve the portal, we omit them, too. Three documents are added to the pool, as these are the most recent evaluations from 2017. In total, we assess 31 papers in detail using Saracevic’s framework, defining the used criteria and describing the methods in more detail.

Results from the Meta-analysis

In this section, we present the results of assessing the evaluations with Saracevic’s framework, looking into the process and categorising the methods in more detail. Most of the evaluations (17 in total) focus on evaluating Europeana and its services. Nine evaluations specifically choose a component of Europeana and assess it, whereas five studies evaluate Europeana in comparison to other large-scale digital libraries.

Constructs and Context

We further analysed, which perspective the evaluations adopted: a user-centred, system-centred or interface perspective and their corresponding levels. Table 1 lists the number of evaluations for each perspective as well as the overlap with the Construct of the evaluation.

Tab. 1:

Number of studies in relation to their Construct and their Context. Note that studies can focus on more than one perspective.

Europeana Digital LibraryEuropeana ComponentEuropeana in Comparison
Number of Studies1795
User-centred1624
Social 200
Institutional 000
Individual1524
Interface610
System-centred1195
Engineering 000
Process 650
Content1195

As the results show, system-centred evaluations are prevailing, although the focus is clearly on evaluating the content or the technical processes. We did not find any evaluations that focus on the engineering perspective. With regard to the user-centred perspective, there is a clear majority of evaluations that target the individual perspective meaning that either users were directly involved or experts evaluated the system from the users’ point of view. Evaluations with a focus on the institutional perspective were not found. The societal perspective is only taken into account in two studies that we subsume under the category ‘Impact studies’.

Methods and Criteria

To re-use the results of evaluations or learn from their outcomes, it is essential to identify the applied methods as well as the criteria used for the assessment. The methodologies used were manifold and we subsume them under the four categories presented in table 2. Most of the evaluations determine custom criteria for their assessment; these types of evaluations were aggregated under the category ‘criteria-based study’.

Tab. 2:

Methods used in the evaluations and the number of studies applying them.

MethodDescriptionNumber of studies
Criteria-based studyCertain criteria were determined to assess a service or algorithm.18
Log file analysisEvaluation uses an automatically created log file of user interactions. 7
Usability studyEvaluation incorporates several methods to assess usability of a service, e.g. user studies, interviews, surveys, etc. 4
Impact StudyStudy uses an expert assessment of the overall value of a service within one or more specific areas. 2

For further detailing the objectives of the evaluations, we specifically look at the criteria assessed and try to identify patterns in the criteria used. Although, many studies do not specifically name the criteria they applied to evaluate a given Construct, we were able to extract the objectives described in table 3.

Tab. 3:

Criteria applied in evaluation studies and the number of studies applying them (more than one criterium per study is possible).

CriteriaDescriptionNumber of studies
AccessibilityThis criterion covers the forms of access used to navigate the content of Europeana. 7
CoverageThis focuses on the content of Europeana and covers linguistic, thematic or geographic coverage; also different media types are covered here, as well as the size of the collection. 9
Data qualityIt describes all criteria used to identify the quality of data and metadata.10
Error rateIt covers the quantification of errors of workflows or in data quality. 2
Impact criteriaIt covers all criteria that express change on users or society. 2
Performance evaluationCriteria that measures how easy workflows, algorithms are executed. It is mainly system-focused. 7
UsabilityIt covers established criteria in usability research such as efficiency and effectiveness as well as ease of use and related criteria. 4
Usage statistics and patternsIt covers user behaviour such as paths through the system, items clicked or viewed. 9
User satisfactionThese are subjective criteria of users’ perception of the system. 2

This classification gives a concise picture of the nature of the evaluation and could be helpful in guiding future evaluations.

Furthermore, we identify only five evaluations involving users, the others are expert evaluations. We consider 12 studies to be quantitative, whereas 19 studies used a qualitative approach.

To allow other researchers interested in past evaluations of Europeana to get an overview of the assessments, we aggregated all information on the studies in table 4.

Tab. 4:

Summary of the meta-analysis of the 31 evaluations studied.[29]

PaperYearConstructMethodCriteriaPerspectiveTypeUser-centredInterfaceSystem-Centred
Ceccarelli et al.[30]2011Europeanalog file analysisusage statistics & patternsexpertquantitativex
CIBER Research Ltd[31]2013Europeanalog file analysisusage statistics & patterns, performance evaluationexpertquantitativexx
Clark et al.[32]2011Europeanalog file analysisusage statistics & patterns, performance evaluationexpertquantitativexx
Dangerfield et al.[33]2015Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationdata qualityexpertqualitativex
Dani et. al[34]2015Europeanausability studyusabilityuserqualitativexxx
Dickel[35]2015Europeana in comparisoncriteria-based evaluationcoverage, data quality, usabilityexpertqualitativexx
Dobreva et al.[36]2010Europeanausability studyuser satisfaction, coverage, usabilityuserqualitativexxx
Dobreva et al.[37]2010Europeanausability studyusabilityuserqualitativexx
Gäde[38]2014Europeanalog file analysisusage statistics & patterns, coverage, accessibilityexpertquantitativexx
Gäde et al.[39]2014Europeanalog file analysisusage statistics & patternsexpertquantitativex
Kapidakis[40]2012Europeana in comparisoncriteria-based evaluationdata qualityexpertquantitativex
Király[41]2015Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationdata qualityexpertquantitativex
Navarrete[42]2016Europeanacriteria-based evaluationcoverage,

usage statistics and patterns
expertqualitativexxx
Nicholas et al.[43]2013Europeanalog file analysisusage statistics & patterns, coverage, accessibilityexpertquantitativexx
Nicholas et al.[44]2013Europeanalog file analysisusage statistics & patterns, coverage, accessibilityexpertquantitativexx
Olensky et al.[45]2012Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationperformance evaluation, data quality, error rateexpertqualitativex
Schweibenz[46]2010Europeanausability studyuser satisfactionuserqualitativexxx
Şencan[47]2013Europeanacriteria-based evaluationperformance evaluationexpertqualitativex
Stiller et al.[48]2014Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationperformance evaluation, coverage, error rateexpertqualitativex
Stiller[49]2014Europeana in comparisoncriteria-based evaluationaccessibilityexpertqualitativexx
Stiller et al.[50]2015Europeana in comparisoncriteria-based evaluationaccessibilityexpertqualitativexx
Stiller et al.[51]2013Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationaccessibilityexpertqualitativexxx
Stiller et al.[52]2014Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationdata quality, performance evaluationexpertqualitativex
Stiller et al.[53]2014Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationdata quality, performance evaluationexpertqualitativex
Sykes et al.[54]2010Europeanacriteria-based evaluationusage statistics and patternsuserqualitativexx
Valtysson et al.[55]2012Europeanaimpact studyimpact criteriaexpertqualitativex
Van den Akker et al.[56]2013Europeana in comparisoncriteria-based evaluationaccessibilityexpertqualitativexx
Yankova et al.[57]2015Europeanaimpact studyimpact criteriaexpertqualitativex
Charles et al.[58]2017Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationcoverage, data qualityexpertquantitativexx
Stiller et al.[59]2017Europeana componentcriteria-based evaluationcoverage, data qualityexpertquantitativex
Gaona-Garcia et al.[60]2017Europeanacriteria-based evaluationdata qualityexpertquantitativexx

The framework developed by Saracevic allows us to identify gaps in evaluation and perspectives that might have not been taken into account in the assessments. Given the pool of 31 studies we looked at, we could identify the following gaps in evaluations – or the documentation thereof – applied to Europeana so are:

  1. The user-centred perspective is often chosen in the assessments and the individual perspective is presented in the majority of studies, showing a lack of other perspectives.

  2. There are no studies looking at the institutional context of Europeana, and only two looking at the societal perspective and the value of the service for the society.

  3. Evaluation criteria are not described well enough to allow a repetition of the evaluation on updated Europeana components or the re-use of the evaluation results for comparisons.

  4. Re-use of results or data for evaluation only happens within the same research group, probably also for lack of documentation.

  5. The methodologies applied are often insufficiently described, making it difficult to compare evaluations even by methodology.

A Call for an Evaluation Archive

This analysis of over 10 years of published evaluation studies of Europeana provides an overview over the variety of evaluated components, applied criteria, methods and perspectives. At the same time, the lack of detail in these studies frustrates as evaluation results are difficult to compare and evaluations can hardly be repeated with the same experimental design. But isn’t it only the continuous cycle of evaluations, which will show progress in comparison to previous versions of a component or service? And isn’t it only the standardised experimental designs, methods and measures that allow a validated comparison between different DL versions or even different DLs? This initiative to categorise evaluations for Europeana has demonstrated that a more considerable effort should be invested into an evaluation archive, which would allow progress to be tracked. This is not only true for Europeana, but for all large-scale DL projects where an institutional memory needs to survive past individuals. An even grander vision would document evaluation studies across DL in order to drive the standardisation of this research area. First efforts are underway: for example, the RePast Repository of Assigned Search Tasks[61], the DIRECT portal for information retrieval evaluation campaign data[62] or a planned workshop on the re-use of interactive information retrieval resources[63]. However, as cross-organisational initiatives take time, we recommend the development of an evaluation archive even for an individual DL. The elements from Saracevic’s framework can serve as a first structural organisation for such an envisioned repository, however, we learned that each element needs to be documented in more detail in order to allow for comparisons over time and over evaluation component. Such a repository would also aggregate the research data and relevant analysis results in one place, providing all the necessary ingredients to support both the comparison between studies, but also the design and planning for new evaluations as parallel work can be avoided and earlier mistakes rectified. An evaluation archive serves all stakeholders of a DL, not just the developers, as developments and progress can be tracked over time and gaps in the evaluation coverage for a DL can be identified. Now that the data modelling and information architecture of DLs have become standardised, it is high time that evaluation efforts follow suit.

About the authors

Juliane Stiller

Juliane Stiller

Vivien Petras

Vivien Petras

Published Online: 2018-4-4
Published in Print: 2018-4-25

© 2018 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 3.12.2022 from frontend.live.degruyter.dgbricks.com/document/doi/10.1515/abitech-2018-0006/html
Scroll Up Arrow