Last week we presented Part I of this article and now here is Part II:
1. Review of existing vocabularies
The vocabulary team, under the guidance of our grant consultants, The Randforce Associates, began by reviewing other locally created vocabularies, both World War II– and non-World War II–related and especially those of other IMLS grant projects. The museum focused most heavily on a coding framework developed by Arkansas Educational Television Network (AETN) for a project entitled “In Their Words” (http://www.intheirwords.org/). Although our team rejected many of the terms used in this project, we agreed that it was crucial to use terms that described experiences rather than objects. For example, the team concentrated on, and later adopted, a version of the AETN term Interactions with Friends/Family. Narrowing our focus on this type of description was instrumental in developing the theory behind the museum’s vocabulary.
2. Review and annotation of sample videos from the museum’s collection
The vocabulary team then individually watched a sample of videos from all service branches and theaters of the war, including the home front, to review a majority of the museum’s collecting themes. Each member noted common themes and shared experiences that repeated across interviews. At this time, the team began to practice annotation in order to explore themes and similarities between the resulting entries. The annotations provided textual evidence for use in later discussions.
3. Key experiences and themes are identified from all videos
The vocabulary team then reviewed their individual annotations together, noting where multiple team members identified similar subjects. The team worked closely with the oral historians during this process to identify the frequency of certain themes. As the oral historians are well versed in the content of the collection, they could discern whether an experience (such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) would be useful as a vocabulary term or whether it did not have a place in the museum’s specific vocabulary.
A good principle to introduce at this step is that of defining the concepts of “too narrow” and “too broad”—in other words, finding out which terms are too specific and too general for the project’s purposes and eliminating those terms from the vocabulary choices. One of the ways in which our team began to understand the distinction between narrow and broad terms was realizing that some experiences might be useful at the interview level, but those same experiences may not be so useful at the segment level. For example, a term such as Pacific War would be too broad, while the naval rating Storekeeper 2nd Class would be too narrow. The team needed to settle on terms that would have relevance to many segments within the collection but not the vast majority.
4. Vocabulary terms are listed based on these key experiences and themes
Once a basic framework of themes was established, the team concentrated on the term itself. The team worked to create a search term that would describe an experience rather than a static subject, often including verbs, such as the term being wounded. All terms were then brought to the table for review. This process was repeated many times during the initial phases of the project, until a cache of terms, based on the chronology of typical service experiences and other prominent themes of the war, developed. With each meeting, additional terms were added or deemed unnecessary based on the consensus of the group.
5. Vocabulary terms are placed in hierarchical structure
The core vocabulary team then took the created list of terms and began to place them in a hierarchical order. As it helped to have a physical manifestation at this stage, the team first cut the terms out of a large sheet of paper and simply began arranging them on a table, putting groups of terms together under broader terms and, in the process, identifying “orphans” (terms with no parent terms in the hierarchy, such as weather) and terms that seemed too analogous to each other (such as correspondence and mail). This exercise was extremely helpful in identifying the structure that our vocabulary had naturally assumed.
At this point, the team arranged the hierarchy of terms together and created the “vocabulary map,” which allowed the team to visually explain the hierarchical structure via a skeletal structure. This created a way for anyone unfamiliar with cataloging and controlled vocabularies to physically and visually identify with the new system they would be using. The map was also extremely helpful for the staff applying the vocabulary terms to the segments because it gave them a way to familiarize themselves with the structure by “reading the map.”
6. The videos are again reviewed and vocabulary terms are applied
After the vocabulary included nearly one hundred terms, it was deemed complete. The team then again individually reviewed video segments, while annotating and applying the new vocabulary terms to them. There were revisions and additions, but the team felt this was a good beginning framework—complex enough to aptly describe our collections but small enough to introduce to novices and to expand upon.
7. Vocabulary terms are evaluated through discussion after application
When the majority of the team used the same term in the same segment, the term was considered a success. All terms applied were then compared through a group discussion, and the final terms were validated based on application within the intended environment. When the term was used improperly or confused with another term, we revised that term to reflect its specific theme. When there was a common theme identified by the group that no term was suitable for, we created another term but made sure it would be pertinent in more than just one oral history.
8. First vocabulary set is created
At this point, the first vocabulary set was created and became our working set for the next few months of more intensive review, during which we introduced a wider range of oral histories. This wider range tested the limits of the initial set and was an opportune time to discuss the small subsets of variant experiences within our broader oral history collection (such as Holocaust survivors and Axis combatants). The vocabulary will remain in perpetual review as the museum adds to its collections and identifies new themes, which is the ninth and final step in initially creating the controlled vocabulary.
When terms were finalized, the team created a list of definitions for each so that every term’s meaning could not be manipulated by judgment or used inappropriately. This vocabulary glossary also helped the team to define each term and stipulate how each would be used to describe different experiences. For example, the term food/mess should be applied to all personal experiences centered on eating or cooking. This demonstrates how all of the terms chosen are defined by actions, even if they do not contain a verb. Such a glossary is also invaluable for training new indexers as they begin to work on the project.
Next, the results of focus groups with NHD students and teachers were analyzed to compare museum-developed vocabulary with NHD-supplied vocabulary of the same oral history clips. The participants were high-performing middle and high school students who opted to attend the sessions during NHD events. In both sessions, we asked the students to list terms describing a series of interview clips. The aim was to compare our professional vocabulary with user-supplied terms and evaluate the success of the coverage of our vocabulary. In analyzing the results, we looked for several categories of applied terms. The data produced showed percentages of terms that fell into the following categories: (1) errors; (2) too broad/interview-level cataloging; (3) supported by the museum-developed vocabulary; (4) too narrow/covered in annotation; (5) valuable for creating new terms. Errors occurred when a student applied a term describing someone as Navy when they were in the Army. Terms such as World War II and others applicable to all interviews were deemed too broad. Very specific or technical terms such as M2 Browning.50 caliber machine gun were deemed too narrow, and other themes not previously considered by the vocabulary team were considered potential new terms. Terms closely related to the museum’s vocabulary were considered successful matches.
Next Steps and the Future of the Project
With the controlled vocabulary in place, the project is now looking to its future and addressing a variety of issues: the imperatives of collecting versus managing, the use of emotional and subjective terms, enabling cross-section searching, and the role of the advisory board.
Collecting versus Managing: The museum has been heavily focused on the urgency of collecting, due to the rapid rate at which World War II veterans are dying. Because of this somber fact, interviews were often conducted, deposited, and then left for future processing and cataloging. A shift in approach has now emerged, broadening the focus from simply collecting interviews to managing and providing access to them. Such a shift is always difficult, but transitioning to a new and innovative approach to access was an even more complex, albeit rewarding, process.
Emotional/Subjective Terms: Decisions had to be made regarding the level of specificity of the description. One such decision resulted in a focus on the objective, leaving out terms related to emotions because of the challenges of subjectivity. It was partially through the focus groups and also through our own work processes that we discovered that viewers/listeners/readers, including our own staff, gravitate toward emotional passages and want to search these videos by emotional, subjective themes, like fear and bravery. During the vocabulary’s development, the team chose not to include emotional terms, such as being afraid or feeling hopeless, because the team felt that professionally applied terms should be based solely in fact. The project’s website will monitor subjective/emotional tags applied by users for possible inclusion in future projects.
Cross-Collection Searching: This grant laid the groundwork for the digitization of and access to the rest of our collections. An important take-away from this project was an institutional solution to enable cross-collection searching based on this vocabulary dedicated to the stories that the museum endeavors to share. All of the museum’s collections are accumulated to support its mission statement of telling the stories of the American experience during World War II; therefore, many of our artifact and archival collections can also be described with this vocabulary. Through a new collections management system, the vocabulary will be applied to all collections, enabling powerful cross-collection searching.
The vocabulary is now an essential way to catalog and identify the museum’s major themes. For example, the term experiencing enemy fire will be applied to an oral history segment of a serviceman describing an enemy attack, but it will also be applied to a helmet with a bullet hole, an after-action report describing enemy fire tactics, or even Axis footage of weapons being fired. At The National WWII Museum, the vocabulary will work well when used with other high-level cataloging areas, such as theater of war and branch of service/civilian, for complex browsing opportunities through the experiences of different people all over the world. However, the wider use of the vocabulary throughout the institution will call for an even greater review of its application and strict control of its scope and purpose.
Advisory Board: As the museum forges its way in creating a new system, new questions arise, and we are constantly addressing them and learning as we go. Our partners, consultants, and the advisory board created to inform our project’s path and outcome were especially helpful in informing every aspect of the project. Prior to this year, we have had relatively little contact with professionals in the oral history field, but this project has sparked discussions with new mentors and partners, and we have discovered many opportunities for collaboration. The museum hopes to continue these relationships long after the grant is finished.
The National WWII Museum looks to become a leader in identifying national trends centering on the use of local, World War II–related controlled vocabularies. We also hope to open a discussion that will connect this community through this case study. As many museums turn toward exhibitions based on narratives, storytelling, and personal experiences, the ability to catalog collections to support these ideas becomes imperative, and a specific vocabulary becomes one of the best core access tools.
Lindsey Barnes and Kim Guise
Lindsey Barnes is the Senior Archivist and Digital Projects Manager at The National WWII Museum. She earned her master’s in library and information science from Louisiana State University. E-mail: Lindsey.Barnes@nationalww2museum.org.
Kim Guise is a Curator and Content Specialist at The National WWII Museum. She earned her master’s in library and information science from Louisiana State University. E-mail: Kimberly.Guise@nationalww2museum.org.
