The Great War Archive: How audiences engaged with WW1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The Great War Archive: How audiences engaged with WW1

on

  • 1,304 views

Presents an audience analysis on the Great War Archive projects. Prepared for JISC, September 6th 2011.

Presents an audience analysis on the Great War Archive projects. Prepared for JISC, September 6th 2011.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,304
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,303
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • During  the  GWA  project,  the  majority  of  submissions  were  made  online.  For  the  German  EWA   project,  the  majority  (so  far)  stem  from  submissions  days.  Material  from  the  last  two  EWA   submissions  days  is  still  being  catalogued  (about  100  submissions  to  be  added). EWA had a submission day based marketing campaign, postcard pick-up was over 70%. Whilst GWA targeted the local press, it also used social networking sites such as twitter, and in particular Flickr to engage with existing communities who may have something to contribute.
  • Overall, GWA submissions have fewer files attached than EWA submissions (on average 3.4 and 14.5). This can be attributed to the submission days in Germany being better staffed, and also suggests more material exists in the home in Germany.
  • The number of people contributing to the GWA and EWA is similar, around 450 +distinct individuals.
  • The  number  of  files  that  are  attached  to  each  submission  varies.  Generally,  GWA  submissions  have   fewer  files  attached  than  the  submissions  made  to  the  German  project  (on  average  3.4  and  14.5   respectively).  The  difference  is  particularly  marked  in  the  submissions  day  contributions,  where  the   German  collection  saw  a  considerable  number  of  submissions  with  many  files,  for  example  long   diaries,  large  photo  albums  and  collections  of  related  cards,  letters  and  photographs.  As  a   consequence,  although  the  EWA  collection  so  far  has  fewer  submissions  than  GWA,  the  number  of   files  collected  is  much  higher.  

The Great War Archive: How audiences engaged with WW1 The Great War Archive: How audiences engaged with WW1 Presentation Transcript

  • The Great War Archive: How audiences engaged with WW1 Kate Lindsay Manager for Engagement katharine.lindsay@oucs.ox.ac.uk @ktdigital
  • Project Aims
    • To collect and make available online digital version of WW1 memorabilia
    • held by the public.
  • The Great War Archive (GWA) Year: 2008 Length: 16 Weeks Main Country: UK Collection Days: 6 Website: http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ww1lit/gwa
  • Ester Weltkreg in Altagsdokumenten (EWA) Year: 2011 - Length: 6 Months (ongoing) Main Country: Germany Collection Days: 8 Website: http://www.europeana1914-1918.eu
  • Submissions A submission is the objects + description contributed to the archive together .
  • Submissions
  • Files Overall, GWA submissions have fewer files attached than EWA submissions (on average 3.4 and 14.5)
  • People Contributing
  • People Contributing (EWA) Whilst audience data was not collected for the GWA, we do know that 1/3 of online contributors were uploading submissions on the behalf of someone else.
  • Observations
    • The audiences of GWA and EWA were largely over 45 yrs and male.
    • The project audiences were often genealogists, military collectors and local historians.
    • Tapping into existing audiences, conversing with them in the spaces and places that they already existed led to effective engagement.
    • It is indicated that a significant proportion of our audience did not have the IT literacy skills to engage with the project via technologies.
    • Research needs to be done into finding “the hook” for younger audiences.