American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Development (AJMRD)

Volume 04, Issue 12 (December - 2022), PP 01-08

ISSN: 2360-821X
www.ajmrd.com

Research Paper Open Access

Digital preservation practices for Institutional Repositories (IRs) of

Universities in Kenya.
Hellen M. Ndegwa, John N. Gitau
Karatina University
Meru University of science & Technology

I. Introduction
Academic libraries play an important role of imparting knowledge to the communities they serve in
institutions of higher learning. However due information explosion, libraries have found themselves in precarious
position to store all the information content being produced. This has led the information managers to be creative in
solving space problem. The emergence of institutional repositories (IRs) gave academic libraries a sigh of relief to
share and preserve digitized content to the scholarly community. Issues of long term preservation of IRs have
always affected their development and maintenance. If the question of long term preservation is not well addressed
it will erode credibility and goals of IRs. Durant, (2010) defines digital preservation as ―the whole of the principles,
policies, rules and strategies aimed at prolonging the existence of a digital object by maintaining it in a condition
suitable for use, either in its original format or in a more persistent format, while protecting the object’s identity and
integrity, that is, its authenticity.‖Scholars like Kirchhoff, (2008) support this holistic definition by describing digital
preservation as ―the series of management policies and activities necessary to ensure the enduring usability,
authenticity, discoverability and accessibility of content over the very long term.‖ The two definitions agree that
digital preservation is holistic and takes into consideration management (rules and policies among others) as well as
actions/activities necessary to ensure the resources have integrity and are available and usable in future. Preservation
and access go hand in hand. It is impossible to promote access without preservation. IRs have to take digital
preservation seriously to ensure that their goals to both institutions and users are fulfilled.
Digital Preservation Strategies
Shimray & Ramaiah, (2018) defines a digital preservation strategy as a deliberate documentation method
for the preservation of digital content as well as a broad approach adopted by an organisation to ensure that the
content of digital records remains in a usable form over time. According to Verheul (2006) there is no single
strategy that can achieve long-term preservation and access to all the types of digital resources stored in digital
repositories. Bountouri (2017) proposes that strategies should be based on proactive preservation indicating that
these strategies should be applicable throughout the life of the digital object. According to Barrueco and Termens,
(2021) digital preservation strategies should start at the creation of the digital objects by raising awareness among
the creators. UNESCO’s Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage (2003) group digital preservation
strategies into four groups:
Short-term Strategies
These are digital preservation strategies that are geared towards providing access to digital resources for a
predetermined period of time. They include:
Bitstream Copying: This is the process of making an exact duplicate of a digital object (D.P. Workshop: Digital
preservation strategies, 2014). It works in combination of other digital preservation strategies like remote storage,
refreshing and migration. It only addresses the problem of data loss either through malicious destruction, normal
decay or natural disaster. It is also intended to maintain authenticity and integrity (Arora, 2009).
Refreshing: refers to copying of digital information from one long-term storage medium to another of the same
type, with no change whatsoever in the bit stream (e.g. from a decaying 4mm DAT tape to a new 4mm DAT tape, or
from an older CD-RW to a new CD-RW). Refreshing is a necessary component of any successful digital
preservation program, but is not itself a complete program. It potentially addresses both decay and obsolescence
issues related to only the storage media.
Technology Preservation: this strategy involves preserving the computing environment and it is sometimes called
the "computer museum" solution. It has been argued that technology preservation is more of a disaster recovery
Multidisciplinary Journal www.ajmrd.com Page | 1
 Digital preservation practices for Institutional Repositories (IRs) of Universities in Kenya

strategy for use on digital objects that have not been subject to a proper digital preservation strategy (Arora, 2009;
Ismail & Affandy, 2018). Others have argued that the strategy offers the potential of coping with media
obsolescence, assuming the media hasn't decayed beyond readability (Arora, 2006; Digital preservation
Management, 2009; Harvey, 2011).
Normalization: CLIR & LoC (2002) describe normalization as the aspect of collecting various file formats and
conversion them to one file format. In essence it is a formalized implementation of reliance on standards. It involves
gathering all the digital objects of a particular type (for example color images, structured text) within a repository
and converting them into a single chosen file format that is thought to embody the best overall compromise amongst
characteristics such as functionality, longevity, and preservability (Arora, 2009).
Encapsulation: encapsulation has been described as ―a technique of grouping together a digital object and metadata
necessary to provide access to that object‖ (Beagrie, 2002, p.108). Ostensibly, the grouping process lessens the
likelihood that any critical component necessary to decode and render a digital object will be lost. Appropriate types
of metadata to encapsulate with a digital object include reference, representation, provenance, fixity and context
information (Deshpande, 2016). According to Harvey (2005), encapsulation is a prerequisite to emulation.
Universal Virtual Computer (UVC): Lorie (2001) describes a UVC as a Computer in its functionality, Virtual as it
will never have to be built physically and Universal because its definition is so basic that it will endure forever
suggesting that all that was needed was to write a UVC interpreter that could be written for any machine without
changing the UVC program that is independent of architecture. According to Mohanty and Das (2014) a UVC
requires the development of a computer program that is hardware and software independent and has the ability to
simulate the basic computing environment architecture of every computer since the beginning. It uses both the
elements of migration and emulation
Analog Backups: This strategy combines the conversion of digital objects into analog form with the use of durable
analog media. Hoke (2012) give an example of converting digital to paper arguing that paper offered a longer
lifespan but at the same time warned that the repository risked losing some digital qualities such as accessibility,
lossless transferability and increase in costs especially storage if volume increases a feeling supported by Harvey
(2005) who termed it as a non-solution.
Challenges to Digital Preservation
Libraries, archives and museums today face numerous challenges among them technology obsolescence,
information overload as well as maintaining trust as repositories that hold documentary evidence of scholars and
citizens (The Council of Canadian Academies, 2015). In addition, digital records are inherently software-dependent
posing immense challenges to its long-term preservation (Dar & Ahmad, 2017; Matlala, 2019). Rendering the bit
stream of a digital object into an understandable and useable information object requires software and hardware
designed to interpret the bit stream in accordance with an underlying file format (The community archives and
heritage group, 2018). Howell, (2000), notes that digital materials require a specific hardware and software in order
to access them without which information in digital format is incomprehensible, useless and irrelevant. Hedstrom
and Montgomery (1998), in a survey of 54 institutions found out that technology obsolescence was generally
regarded as the greatest technical threat to ensuring continued access to digital material. It is the single most major
risk to long term preservation of digital information. For example, magnetic tapes with varying storage densities
replaced punch cards. Arora (2009) agreed with them by concluding that machine dependency was one of the
greatest challenges to digital preservation since computer and storage technologies were in a continuous flux of
change, giving little timeframe for organisations to migrate digital contents to new software / hardware and could be
within the 3 to 5years, as opposed to decades or even centuries that may be available for preserving traditional
materials. The threat to digital content caused by technology obsolescence is summed up by Johnstone (2020) by
noting that there are dozens of carrier formats - floppy disks, hard drives, CDs, DVDs, thumb drives, tapes among
others requiring hardware that is no longer manufactured or supported by modern personal computer architectures
and software that can no longer be found online, even if the original manufacturer still exists. Today, manufacturers
are phasing out optical readers and librarians have no other option but to provide alternatives to access information
in CD ROMs. Niehof, et al 2018 and Langley (2019) decried the limited time afforded to managers of digital content
to save them due to rapid changes in technology and complexities of technologies involved.
Fragility of the media is another major challenges that custodians of digital material wrestle with’. According to
Hedstrom and Montgomery, (1998), the media digital materials are stored on is inherently unstable and without
suitable storage conditions and management can deteriorate very quickly even though it may not appear to be
damaged. Arora (2006) adds on that most storage devices, without suitable storage conditions and proper

Multidisciplinary Journal www.ajmrd.com Page | 2

 Digital preservation practices for Institutional Repositories (IRs) of Universities in Kenya

Management, deteriorate very quickly wand this may lead to loss of data. Tallman and Work (2018) summed it up
by arguing that physical degradation of hard drives and other digital storage media can lead to file corruption.
Rapid changes in technologies render file formats obsolete. This is compounded by the existence of many types of
formats making it difficult for repository administrators to keep track of them. Pearson and Webb (2008), described
file format obsolescence as a major risk factor threatening the ongoing usefulness of digital information collections.
According to Arora (2006), the problem is compounded by the fact that many of the most commonly used computer
applications rely on proprietary native file formats to create, save, store, manage and retrieve digital content.
According to Duff, et al(2006), digital preservation is an extremely complex, evolving field that requires a great deal
of knowledge to understand which when coupled with the high speed of technological changes mean that few
organizations are able fully to articulate what their needs are in this area, much less employ or develop staff with
appropriate skills. It has also been noted that there is little in the way of appropriate training and "learning by doing"
is often the most practical interim measure a point that was brought out clearly by Engelhardt, (2013) in ―The
DigCurV Review of Training Needs in the Field of Digital Preservation and Curation‖ done in Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Lithuania, and the UK. The study concluded that there was a severe lack of professionals with the skills and
competences necessary to deal with digital preservation tasks not only among the existing staff in institutions but
also among potential staff in the labour market compounded with the lack of appropriate training options. A recent
study by Masenya and Ngulube (2019) in South Africa also identified a lack of training and skills in the industry and
went on to recommend use of external expertise and investment in staff training especially through workshops and
seminars. This is in agreement with Alison, et al (2019) when they shared the University of Glasgow’s Digital
Preservation Journey 2017-2019 and found out knowledge and skills among the staff were enhanced by participating
in a national digital preservation pilot project and learning from practitioners through workshops and information
exchange.
The integrity of digital information resources is critical to their use. According to the Council on Library &
Information Resources & the Library of Congress (2002), Information security guarantees trust. Information security
encompasses a number of aspect such as: confidentiality, availability, integrity and authentication (Campisi, et al,
2009). In a repository perspective, availability ensures that the information is available and can be used when needed
a notion supported by NISO (2007) who described availability as ensuring that the collection is accessible and
usable upon demand by an authorized but goes on to clarify that this does not mean that materials should be free and
unrestricted for all but attempts should be made to ensure that resources are as widely available as possible within
the required constraints. Integrity ensures that it is not corrupted while authenticity ensures that it remains original.
Owens (2018) argues that information security goes beyond having backups but also ensuring that any changes done
on the digital document is recorded and legitimate.
Intellectual property rights has been described as one of the biggest problems in digital preservation (RLG,
1996). Whitt (2017) opines that unless an information resource is exempted by copyright law; is in the public
domain or preservation is done by copyright owner then institutions have challenges because irrespective of the
strategy adopted, some form of copying is done leading to infringement of copyright. Kilbride and Norris (2013)
warns that there are risks when digital preservation actions are delayed due to IPR issues and recommends adoption
of appropriate and practical actions to manage the risks.
Limited funding has been and continues to be an obstacle to digital preservation forcing organisations to develop
policies that can be implemented with limited budget (Owens, 2018). Wittenberg et al (2018) challenged the trend in
higher education funding which reflected on limited funds received by the libraries making them focus on content
acquisition at the expense of digital preservation activities. This limited funding has resulted in failure by libraries in
Nigeria to invest in infrastructure to support digital preservation (Solomon & Soyen, 2021). Weinraub et al (2018)
summed it up by declaring that funding remained a major impediment to the establishment of a robust digital
preservation program.
Digital objects today are made of various components all presiding in one repository (Wittenberg et al,
2018). This complexity underscores the need to create, capture and maintain more information on context and
relationships in order to support discovery, access and rendering in future. Baillieul, Grenier & Setti (2018) notes
that versioning which is one of the components of complexity needs authoritative monitoring and proposes
infrastructure that supports distributed systems ranging from author personal websites, publisher portals and IRs.
Heterogeneity: Johnstone (2020) argues that no community or organization can to create, collect, and/or preserve
just a single type of born-digital or digitized object since there exists many types of file formats as well as a number
of variants of the same format.

Multidisciplinary Journal www.ajmrd.com Page | 3

 Digital preservation practices for Institutional Repositories (IRs) of Universities in Kenya

Digital Preservation Trends

Today organisations implement digital preservation either in a centralized or distributed model. Centralized
preservation refers to preservation activities managed by single institution  like DAITSS, a digital preservation
software application developed by the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) and used by Florida Digital
Archive (FDA), a long-term preservation repository service provided by the Florida Virtual Campus for the use of
the libraries of the eleven publicly-funded universities in Florida, (FCLA, 2011). The preservation protocol
implemented by DAITSS combines bit‐level preservation, format normalization, and forward format migration
(Caplan, 2008). Decman and Vintar (2013) proposed a centralized digital preservation solution for e-government
based on cloud computing. They suggested a single repository for digital information held by governments
institutions and departments instead of each managing their own.

Centralized Digital Preservation Model

Source: Decman and Vintar (2013)
Distributed preservation refers to Preservation activities managed by multiple institutions replicating and/
or geographically locating collections like the Meta-Archive Cooperative. According to Skinner and Halbert (2009),
distributed digital preservation involves collaboration between like-minded institutions and is meant to alleviate
problems arising from scarcity of resources since a single institution may not maintain infrastructure in different
resources to support long-term access to digital resources. Skinner and Halbert (2009) went on to propose that best
practice for distributed preservation is to have a minimum of three sites for the resources, that sites preserving the
same content should not be within a 75 to 125 miles’ radius of one another, sites should be away from paths of
natural disasters, should not share power grids, under different administrators and should be on live media
frequently checked for bit rot.
The Florida Centre for library automation (2011) argues that no one institution can preserve everything and
neither can they be wholly isolated and independent organizations. There has been a National and international focus
on mechanisms for cooperation, coordination, and federation of preservation efforts, as well as the development of
shared standards. For example, in the United States, the National Digital Information Infrastructure and
Preservation Program (NDIIPP) program is taking the lead in establishing a distributed digital preservation network
while in Europe, the PLANETS (Preservation and Long-term Access through Networked Services) project funded
by the European Union is a major vehicle for integrating distributed preservation services (Baucom, 2019).
Proponents of distributed systems Trehub and Halbert (2012) argue that there is safety in numbers and support the
adoption of the Lots of Copies keeps Stuff Safe (software).
Evaluation of Digital Preservation Practices
The main objective of a digital preservation program is to be able to assure stakeholders that information
held in digital form and is understood today can be transmitted into an unknown system in the future and still be
correctly understood (Antunes et al, 2012). To achieve this objective quality management is one of the essential

Multidisciplinary Journal www.ajmrd.com Page | 4

 Digital preservation practices for Institutional Repositories (IRs) of Universities in Kenya

parts of any digital archive (Dobratz et al, 2010). The idea of establishing the effectiveness of digital preservation
practices was born in December 1994 when the Commission on Preservation and Access and the Research Libraries
Group created the Task Force on digital archiving with the mandate to investigate the means of ensuring continued
access indefinitely into the future of records stored in digital electronic form (Waters & Garrett (eds.) (1996)). The
taskforce identified a gap that required for a process of certification for digital archives to cultivate a climate of trust
about the prospects of preserving digital information (Waters & Garrett (eds.), (1996). From this evolved the first
check list which later became ISO 16363/TDR to evaluate digital preservation environments in digital repositories
(Baucom, 2019). According to Maemura, et al (2017) assessments should form a major component of a digital
preservation program because it is only after an assessment that a digital repository can demonstrate efficacy as well
as bridge any gaps identified and consequently promote trust amongst the stakeholders.
Many digital repositories are today using preservation needs analysis to audit the status of their
preservation activities. Durant (2019) describes a preservation needs assessment as a broad, holistic evaluation of
how an organization cares for and preserves its collections aimed at describing the impact of the existing conditions
and policies on the collections, and providing corresponding short, medium, and long-term steps that an organization
can take to benefit the materials under its care. Maemura, et al (2017) notes that evaluations can range from simple
check lists to rigorous audits while the categories of assessment used can be both descriptive or qualitative (Durant,
2019). Despites the necessity to carry out assessment, it is faced with some challenges with Antunes et al (2012)
decrying the lack objective assessable (measurable) features regarding long-term aspects proposing the use of
indicators to show the degree of trustworthiness. Researchers like Pearson and Coufal (2013) proposed some metrics
by describing an ideal digital preservation environment as consisting of a mix between policies, processes and
resources that comprise staff and technologies.
In the area of institutional repositories, Dell and Shultz (2014) felt that it was important that IRs adopted
practices that could be tracked, audited and measured as this encouraged the designated communities to trust them
as custodians of their research output. According to Altman et al (2019) much content has been lost due to
organizational failure and recommends an audit of content, and the evaluation of organizations themselves to
mitigate the risks. Although the preservation community has made considerable progress towards articulating the
practices and behaviors of trustworthy preservation, organizations have been slow in conducting reliable evaluation
of their digital repositories (Altman, et al, 2019). Maemura, et al (2017) identified three approaches to the evaluation
of digital preservation in organisations. These include evaluations aimed at planning, improvement and those aimed
at certification. Whatever approach the organisation chose, the evaluation assists the digital repository to document
its digital preservation success, report areas that need further growth, and identify challenges that could prevent that
growth (Tapscot 2019).

II. Conclusion
Successful digital preservation programs are imperative in IRs to support long term accessibility of the
digital resources in their custody. Institutional repositories in Kenya have a commitment to collect, store, preserve
and disseminate the resources in their care.In the light of the findings, the study concludes that IRs in Kenya have
not incorporated best practices required to support long-term preservation of digital resources. The current state of
digital preservation practices indicated visible disparities with industry best practices. as evidenced by lack of
preservation policies and plans. This was as evidenced by lack of content selection policies, procedures for content
creators, preservation policies and plans as well as staff development strategies to equip them with digital
preservation skills.
It is also imperative that comprehensive digital preservation policies are required to create a conducive
environment for digital resources in the custody of the IRs.Successful digital preservation should be guided by
comprehensive policies outlining the scope and aim, content and formats as well as authority for staff to carry out
digital preservation activities. Digital preservation is expensive and as such, the development of selection policies is
very critical for its success as it identified digital objects that could be preserved long-term as well as resources that
met the need of the designated community. The IRs lacked metadata policies that guided metadata collection and
management as well as a technology plan to guide them in digital object management, infrastructural investment and
technology watch. Because of a nonexistent policy framework, preservation actions were performed haphazardly
with no documented preservation strategies identified contrary to best practices that require that this be the case.

Multidisciplinary Journal www.ajmrd.com Page | 5

 Digital preservation practices for Institutional Repositories (IRs) of Universities in Kenya

References
[1]. Alison, S., McCutcheon, V. & Mahon, M. (2019). Case Study: The University of Glasgow’s Digital
Preservation Journey 2017-2019. Insights, 32 (1): 10. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.461
[2]. Altman, M. et al (2019). A report on the challenges, opportunities, gaps, emerging trends, and key areas for
research and development that support the global capacity for digital stewardship. 2020 NDSA Agenda for
Digital Stewardship. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.05474.pdf on
03/03/2021
[3]. Antunes, G. et al (2012). Assessing Digital Preservation Capabilities Using a Checklist Assessment
Method. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects. Toronto,
ON, Canada. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235922156_Assessing_Digital_Preservation_Capabilities_Using_
a_Checklist_Assessment_Method on 22/02/2021
[4]. Arora, J. (2009). Digital Preservation: an overview. Proceedings of Open Access to Textual and
Multimedia Content: Bridging the Digital Divide (p.106-148) New Delhi. Retrieved from:
https://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/1944/1466/1/8.pdf on 17/02/2021
[5]. Baillieul, J.,Grenier, G. &Setti, G. (2018). Reflections on the Future of Research Curation and Research
Reproducibility [Point of View] in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 779-783, doi:
10.1109/JPROC.2018.2816618.
[6]. Barrueco, J. M., & Termens, M. (2021). Digital preservation in institutional repositories: A systematic
literature review. Digital Library Perspectives, 38(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-02-2021-0011
[7]. Baucom, E. (2019) Planning and Implementing a Sustainable Digital Preservation Program. Library
technology reports, 55(6), 1. Retrieved from: https://journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/issue/viewIssue/732/495
on 15/02/2021
[8]. Beagrie, N. et al (2002). Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities. ResearchLibraries
Group & Online Computer Library Center, Report. Retrieved from
https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/activities/trustedrep/repositories.pdf assessed on 02/11/2019
[9]. Bountouri, L., Gratz, P. &Sanmartin, F. (2018). Digital preservation: how to be trustworthy. Digital
Cultural Heritage, 10605, 364-374. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-75826-8_29
[10]. Campisi, P., Maiorana, E., Teri, D. &Neri, A. (2009). Challenges to long-term data preservation: a glimpse
of the Italian experience. In DSP’09: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Digital Signal
Processing. Pages 120-127, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ. DOI: 10.1109/ICDSP.2009.5201056
[11]. Caplan, P. (2008). Preservation Practices. Library Technology Reports, 2, 10-13. Retrieved from:
https://journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/4223/4807 on 10/12/2020
[12]. Community Archives and heritage Group (2018). Digital Preservation for Community Archives. Retrieved
from: https://www.communityarchives.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Digital-Preservation-for-
Community-Archives-V1.4-2018.pdf on 17/02/2021
[13]. Council of Canadians Academies. (2015). Leading in the digital world: Opportunities for Canada’s memory
institutions. The expert panel on memory institutions in the digital revolution. Ottawa: Council of Canadian
Academies.
[14]. Council on Library & Information Resources & the Library of Congress (2002). Building a National
Strategy for Preservation: Issues in Digital Media Archiving. Retrieved from
https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub106/contents/#preface on 17/02/2021
[15]. Dar, B.A & Ahmad, S. 2017. Recent trends in digital archiving and preservation: a global perspective.
Raleigh: Laxmi book publication.
[16]. Decman, M. &Vintar, M. (2013). A possible solution for digital preservation of e-government: a
centralized repository within a cloud computing framework. Aslib Proceedings, 65(4), 5. DOI:
10.1108/AP-05-2012-0049
[17]. Dell, E. Y. & Shultz, S. M. (2014) Conserving Digital Resources: Issues and Future Access. Journal of
Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 11(3), 124-133, https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2014.937657
[18]. Deshpande, J. (2016). Digital preservation in library. International Journal of Library & Information
Science (IJLIS). 5(2) 25–29. Article ID: IJLIS_05_02_004
[19]. Digital Preservation Coalition. (2008). Preservation Management of Digital Materials: The Handbook.
York: Digital preservation Coalition. Retrieved from
http://www.dpconline.org/advice/preservationhandbook/introduction on 12/05/2020

Multidisciplinary Journal www.ajmrd.com Page | 6

 Digital preservation practices for Institutional Repositories (IRs) of Universities in Kenya

[20]. Dobratz, S. et al (2010). The Use of Quality Management Standards in Trustworthy Digital Archives.
International Journal of Digital Curation, 5(1), 46-63. DOI: 10.2218/ijdc.v5i1.143
[21]. Duff, W.M., Limkilde, C. & van Ballegooie, M. (2006). Digital preservation education: educating or
networking? The American Archivist. 69, 188-212. DOI: 10.17723/aarc.69.1.0437j178u17665v5
[22]. Durant, F. (2019). Preservation assessments in Edward, K. A. & Leonard, M. Analysis and Assessment in
Technical Services. Chicago: ALA Editions retrieved from: https://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00011301/00001on
22/02/2021
[23]. Engelhardt, C (2013). The DigCurV review of training needs in the field of digital preservation and
curation. An overview of the main findings. In: CirinnàCh, Fernie K, Lunghi M, Casarosa V (eds)
Proceedings of the framing the digital curation curriculum conference. CEUR workshop proceedings, vol
1016. CEUR-WS, Aachen. Retrieved from: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1016/paper10.pdf on 10/12/2020
[24]. Florida Center for Library Automation (FLCA), (2011). DAITSS Digital Preservation Repository Software.
Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA). Accessed from: https://daitss.fcla.edu/ on 02/06/2019
[25]. Hedstrom, M. (1998). Digital Preservation: A Time Bomb for Digital Libraries. Computers and the
Humanities 31 189–202 Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30200423 on 12/05/2020
[26]. Harvey, R.&Mahard, M. (2013). Mapping the Preservation Landscape for the Twenty-Frist Century.
Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture, 42(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2013-0002
[27]. Harvey, D. (2005). Preserving Digital Materials. München: KG Saur.
[28]. Hoke, G. E. (2012). Future Watch: Strategies for Long-Term Preservation of Electronic Records.
Information Management, 1-7. Retrieved from: https://www.dar.cah.ucf.edu/items/show/66 on 03/06/2020
[29]. Howell, A. (2000). Perfect One Day—Digital The Next: Challenges in Preserving Digital Information.
Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 31(4), 121-141. DOI: 10.1080/00048623.2000.10755130
[30]. Ismail, A & Affandy, H. B. (2018). Conceptual Paper: Digital Preservation Strategies in Archival
Institution. MATEC Web of Conferences 150, 05052 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815005052
[31]. Johnstone, L. (2020). Challenges in preservation and archiving digital materials. L Johnston. Information
Services & Use. 40 (3), 193-199 DOI: 10.3233/ISU-200090
[32]. Kilbride, W. G. & Norris, S.L. (2013). Making Our Digital Memory Accessible Tomorrow by Watching
Technology Today, New Review of Information Networking, 18:2, 70-73, DOI:
10.1080/13614576.2013.839393
[33]. Langley, S. (2019). Digital Preservation Should Be More Holistic: A Digital Stewardship Approach. In
Myntti, J. and Zoom, J. (eds) Digital Preservation in Libraries: Preparing for a Sustainable Future.
Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved from:
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/287006/EDITIONS%20ALCTS%20Digital%20
%20CH%207.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yon 05/04/2020
[34]. Lorie, R.A. (2001). Long term preservation of digital information. JCDL '01: Proceedings of the 1st
ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries Roanoke. January 2001 Pages 346–352
https://doi.org/10.1145/379437.379726
[35]. Maemura, E. et al (2017). Organizational assessment frameworks for digital preservation: A literature
review and mapping. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 68(7),
1619-1637. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23807
[36]. Masenya, T.M. & Ngulube, P. (2019). Digital preservation practices in academic libraries in South Africa
in the wake of the digital revolution. South African Journal of Information Management 21(1), a1011.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v21i1.1011
[37]. Matlala, E. (2019). Long-term preservation of digital records at the University of KwaZulu-Natal archives.
Journal of the South African Society of Archivists, 52, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.4314/jsasa.v52i0
[38]. Mohanty, R., & Das, R. K. (2014). Digital libraries: Reshaping Traditional Libraries into Next Generation
Libraries.Mumbai: Allied Publishers. Accessed from:
https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=XluhCgAAQBAJ on 12/12/2020
[39]. National Information Standards Organization. (2007). A framework of guidance for building good digital
collections. (3rd ed.). Bethesda, MD: NISO. Retrieved from: https://www.niso.org/sites/default/files/2017-
08/framework3.pdf on 06/07/2019
[40]. Niehof, J. M.et al (2018), Long-term Preservation of Deprecated Media: How Can Libraries Provide
Information from Today’s CD-ROMs in the Future? Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah. Retrieved from: https://peer.asee.org/30777 on 04/03/2021
Multidisciplinary Journal www.ajmrd.com Page | 7
 Digital preservation practices for Institutional Repositories (IRs) of Universities in Kenya

[41]. Owens, T. (2018), The Theory and Craft of Digital Preservation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press
[42]. Pearson, D. & Webb, C. (2008). Defining File Format Obsolescence: A Risky Journey. The International
Journal of Digital Curation. 1(3), 89-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.44
[43]. Shimray, S. R., & Ramaiah, C. K. (2018). DIGITAL PRESERVATION STRATEGIES: AN OVERVIEW. 10.
[44]. Skinner, K. & Halbert. M. (2009). The MetaArchive Cooperative: A Collaborative Approach to Distributed
Digital Preservation. Library Trends. 57 (3): 371–392. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/1360 on
10/12/2020
[45]. Solomon D., Soyemi, O.D (2021). ICT competence and digital preservation practices of library personnel
in selected Nigerian private universities. Inter. J. Acad. Res. Educ. Rev. 9(5): 248-259 doi:
10.14662/Ijarer2021.195
[46]. Tallman, N. & Work, L (2018,September 24-28). Approaching Appraisal Guidelines and Criteria to Select
for Digital Preservation. International Conference on Digital preservation, Boston, MA, United States
retrieved from: https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:923633.pdf on 03/06/2019
[47]. Trehub, A., & Halbert, M. (2012). Safety in Numbers: Distributed Digital Preservation Networks. In
Proceedings of the IFLA World Library and Information Congress, 78th IFLA General Conference and
Assembly, Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from: https://www.ifla.org/past-wlic/2012/216-trehub-en.pdf on
10/12/2020
[48]. Verheul, I. (2006). Networking for Digital Preservation: Current Practice in 15 National
Libraries.München: K.G. Saur, Retrieved from: https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/publications/ifla-
publications-series-119.pdf on 02/06/2019
[49]. Waters, D. & Garrett, J. (eds.) (1996). Preserving Digital Information: Report of the Task Force on
Archiving of Digital Information. Washington, DC: Commission on Preservation and Access and the
Research Libraries Group. Retrieved from: https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub63/ on 06/04/2018
[50]. Weinraub, E. et al. (2018). Beyond the Repository: Integrating Local Preservation Systems with National
Distribution Systems. Report.https://doi.org/10.21985/N28M2Z
[51]. Whitt, R.S. (2017). Trough A Glass, darkly: Technical, Policy, and Financial Actions to Avert the Coming
Digital Dark Ages. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 33(2). Retrieved from:
https://assets.pubpub.org/auraylo2/11521405338888.pdf on 01/12/2019
[52]. Wittenberg, K., et al (2018). Challenges and opportunities in the evolving digital preservation landscape:
reflections from Portico. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 31, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.421

Multidisciplinary Journal www.ajmrd.com Page | 8