Digitalization: An Overview of the Advantages and Disadvantages

Abstract

Collections are the heart of museums, born for anyone’s benefit. In order to ensure people enjoy collections, museums operate as the stewards of items to preserve them for today and future generations. Due to the growing technological improvements and the advent of the Internet, collections have been made available for the audience’s benefit, both offline and online. This paper aims to provide the reader with a general picture of the matter. For this purpose, it illustrates the development of digitization since its first steps, when cultural institutions started approaching the usage of computers in the 1960s. Then, this study focuses on the main advantages and disadvantages of digitization. For instance, this practice contributes to preserving items through digital surrogates. Additionally, collections are made widely accessible-albeit virtually- thereby democratizing them. Nevertheless, it is argued that digital content might trigger the loss of the “aura” typically associated with seeing original items due to their uniqueness. Furthermore, digitization is a resource and time-consuming process whose outcome is prone to incurring the phenomenon of rapid “technological quicksand.” Finally, this study deals with revenue streams from digital content, such as merchandise and image licensing sale.

1. Introduction

This chapter deals with the digitization of collections, also referred to as digitization. At first, the relevance of this topic is highlighted. Following that, the most significant contributions made by authors to the field are presented. Then, in order to avoid confusion, some definitions are provided. Later, the various phases of the digitalization’s development are described. Eventually, financial obstacles are encountered, and potential solutions to overcome them are suggested. Ultimately, the chapter illustrates the overriding advantages and disadvantages of digitization as a strategy to increase the accessibility of collections, including those that are stored.

The topic is crucial due to the significance of collections as the very heart of museums. Reasons such as preservation issues, uncontrolled collections development due to thoughtless acquisitions, and lack of storage space have doomed a substantial portion of cultural objects to remain in storage. Given this context, the digitalization of collections may represent a strategy to increase the accessibility of collections, particularly those that are kept in depots and would otherwise be difficult to access, especially for nonsector people.

According to the International Council of Museums (ICOM), “a museum is a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that researches, collects, conserves, and interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally, and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection, and knowledge sharing” [1]. This definition does not have a direct reference to the digitization process. Nevertheless, it can be argued that digitization contributes to museum goals. Specifically, digitalization may represent a strategy that combines preservation and accessibility. Preservation of collections can be ensured by adopting appropriate storage for collections. On the other hand, museums maintain collections for the benefit of the public so that collections can be used for education, research, and pleasure. Due to the vast number of potentially conflicting factors, it is not always possible to make them physically accessible. Creating an appropriate local environment to preserve collections, for instance, would be of utmost importance if a low-cost, ready-to-use solution were available. Today, technology is of utmost significance to everyone. Even non-tech-savvy people use the Internet and social media on computers and mobile devices as part of their daily life. Similarly, museums have been impacted by these enhancements and can use this trend to promote their collections. By digitizing the collections, it is possible to make collections visible due to technological advancements. Therefore, the relevance of digitization is related to the fundamental functions of museums.

Numerous authors have considered digitization as a possible tool to increase the accessibility of stored collections. For example, a significant study was conducted on the uses of stored collections in many London museums [2]. Despite being undertaken approximately 15 years ago, this study revealed that more than half of the museums that responded offered digitalized collections online. Another research examined the use of digital tools by London-based museums to provide online and onsite visitors with access to information [3]. Another contributor to the field examined the digital world as a personalized interactive experience [4]. Another study compared an onsite visit to an online visit [5]. There are also authors who researched museums’ economic profiles [6]. These concluded that museums operate in a complex environment where the decision-making process of cultural entities (such as the setting of prices) is influenced by multiple factors (such as their governance). Another crucial contribution was provided to shed light on how only 5% of collections are displayed in museum galleries for anyone’s benefit [7]. Specifically, this study highlights digitization makes 41% of stored collections accessible.

2. Digitization and metadata

In order to gain some understanding of this topic, it is necessary to define specific terms. Digitization refers to creating a digital copy of a physical original, also referred to as a digital surrogate, replica, digital copy, or digitized product of an original analog good [8]. In order to accomplish this, the original objects are associated with computers via photography, photogrammetry, or scanning to acquire digital images or substitutes. Digital image processing or digital imaging refers to the process of converting a physical object to a digital format. Due to the absence of conversion, there is disagreement regarding the inclusion of digital-born objects as a result of digitization [9]. In addition to digital surrogates, cultural institutions may also possess born-digital products and metadata.

Metadata are “structured tags indexing or describing the characteristics of an asset, represented in a metadata schema or standard.” They are essential because retrieving content without metadata is difficult. The term “digitized goods” refers to collections housed in libraries, museums, archives, or archaeology locations, and includes both the objects and their documentation. Collections refer to tangible and ethereal cultural artifacts that become intangible upon digitization. Metadata is “structured information associated with an object for the purposes of discovery, description, use, management, and preservation” [10]. This description suggests the existence of a complementary relationship between digital commodities and metadata, indicating that their production and consumption occur simultaneously [11]. It can be argued that digital objects “serve no purpose unless metadata are linked to them” [12]. For example, the Egyptian Museum of Turin in Italy provided fifteen ancient wooden model surrogates and their historical documentation to provide complete information to professionals and nonprofessionals [13]. Some authors have stated that information is more important than the items themselves [14, 15, 16]: not only are items meaningless if they lack information but information is more important than the items themselves. This relationship affects their value: the value of digital collections depends on the value of their metadata, which is expected to be FAIR so that they do not vanish or become obsolete [17]. FAIR is an acronym for discoverable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Briefly, metadata should have a unique universal identifier and be indexed so that they can be found in searchable resources to be discoverable. Reusability implies that data usage licenses are accessible. Accessible metadata are those whose identifiers permit retrieval. Interoperability is the ability of digital content to “be easily shared between services and users; usable without specialist tools; surfaced in a variety of environments, as well as to manage intellectual property rights and privacy and to secure the integrity and authenticity of content and services” [12].

Metadata should be recorded in accordance with standards so that the same principles are applied universally, regardless of the item, collection, or cultural institution. As reported by NISO, the cultural heritage community employs a variety of metadata standards. Due to its flexibility and simplicity, the Dublin Core [18] is one of the most popular metadata schemas used for a wide variety of collections.

The use of the same standards contributes to the interoperability of collections, as digital collections can be readily aggregated and accessed through more prominent aggregators. These aggregators are very important because they increase the accessibility of collections by linking together collections from all over the world, including those stored: people can access collections from anywhere via these aggregators rather than searching through the digital contents of numerous museums. Europeana, an initiative of the European Union [19], is an aggregator that has digitized more than 50 million objects to date. Google Art Project is a second pertinent aggregator.

3. Digitization over time

In the past decade, numerous museums have digitized their collections and made them accessible to the public in various ways. Consequently, the means of appreciating and analyzing them have evolved over time. Collections were made accessible by selling CD-ROMs; eventually, museum content was disseminated via websites. The first commercially available CD-ROM was titled Le Louvre-Peintures et Palais and debuted in 1995. It was a bestseller and included information on 100 masterpieces [20]. After CD-ROMs, museum collections were displayed on their websites. Later, more prominent aggregators were introduced as a different cultural dissemination tool. Most cultural institutions have made their collections accessible online so that they can be appreciated by a global audience with computer and Internet access. The digitization of museum collections began during the latter half of the twentieth century. National Inventory Programme (NIC) was established in Canada in 1972 to create digital inventories of collections using computers [21, 22]. The NIC was renamed CHIN-Canadian Heritage Information after initially consisting of five institutions. The CHIN has assisted museums with documenting and disseminating information about their collections.

In the nineties, however, the most significant shift toward opening them to the general public occurred. In fact, despite being conceived for internal collections management purposes in the form of a digital catalog, museums provided digital content for physical visitors to access high-quality images and information about some items in their collections [14, 15, 16, 23]. The advent of the World Wide Web in 1991 encouraged museums to create websites so that online visitors could access their collections. This form of accessible collections was described as a natural and inevitable result of the advent of the Internet, and it has been deemed the result of the marriage between the Internet and digital collections, as well as the demand to make them available.

Despite the reluctance of some institutions, digitalization as a means of enhancing the accessibility of collections has been broadly supported. Due to the concept of actual physical experience and its aura, a form of resistance was identified. This unease primarily involved art museums. According to the European Union, digital content and connected services are essential for the development of industries such as culture and education. As a result, starting in 2006, many recommendations regarding the digitization process and online access were issued to support this claim. In addition, numerous nations worldwide have advocated for initiatives involving digitalizing collections. Several European initiatives exist, such as the United Kingdom’s Effective Collections [24, 25, 26, 27].

4. Digitization for preservation and accessibility

The digitization of collections has the great advantage of contributing to preserving objects for future generations. Although it is not a method for directly preserving objects, creating a digital surrogate of an item allows for its preservation because the risks of harm associated with their handling are significantly reduced [28]. This argument is fundamental for exceptionally fragile items, distinct (hence irreplaceable) or of high value. In addition to the economic profile, the concept of collection value also encompasses social and cultural values. Consequently, the value of collections is contingent on variables such as esthetic, spiritual, social, historical, symbolic, and authenticity factors. Typically, the selection of items to digitize is based on technical criteria (materials’ physical condition), content criteria (uniqueness, significance, and representativeness), and use criteria (materials’ demand). Applying these criteria suggests engaging diverse groups of online users to represent a broad spectrum of digitization demand [12, 29]. In addition to preserving objects, digitizing also preserves information when combined with stored administrative metadata, thereby ensuring accuracy and integrity. In the absence of data, integration is expensive and, in some instances, unthinkable. As a result, it can be argued that digitizing collections enables museums to continue to serve as “stewards of cultural material” [30].

Access to the collections, including the stored ones, is facilitated by the digitization of collections, which represents a further significant advantage. The digital collections are accessible and usable via four primary models: online display, proprietary licensing, open licensing, and user-generated art images. Quantitative and qualitative accessibility to collections has increased due to technological advancements [30]. This benefit is significant because it implies that the collections held in storage can be displayed and made known. “Virtual Museum” is commonly used to describe “a digital extension of the museum on the Internet, a museum without walls” [25]. The virtual museum has progressively acquired the connotation of a learning tool [31].

Digitalization eliminates numerous barriers. In the past, only curators, researchers, and academics had access to specific collections. However, digitalization has widened the audience for these collections. Therefore, anyone can access the entire collection at any time, from any location, using any method, and at any hour [32]. Digitization increases the accessibility of the entire collection, including objects that cannot be viewed for various reasons. First, the digital space provides access to items placed in storage for preservation purposes. Secondly, most museum collections are so extensive that the premises are overcrowded and hazardous. Due to these factors, a substantial portion of collections is unseen (or only for research purposes) and destined to be obscure. Another portion of the collections cannot be viewed because it is on loan to other cultural institutions. In addition, digitalization provides widespread access to a global audience comprised of both researchers and the general public, including individuals who would not have had the opportunity to visit collections in person due to their geographical location. Accordingly, it is asserted that digitalization implements the democratization of access and increases the diversity of access opportunities to collections. People cannot view the collections they desire because they are preserved for various reasons and are housed in museums in different countries. In addition, the distribution of collections is not uniform; for instance, the greatest concentration of significant scientific collections is located in the Northern Hemisphere [33]. In addition, it represents a way to engage a new audience because it eliminates barriers associated with geographical factors, access types, financial concerns, and educational qualifications. Online access reduces the so-called opportunity gap, which refers to the disparity in educational opportunities between individuals from different income brackets [34]. In a nutshell, digitizing is a tool for achieving inclusiveness and diversity in museums around the globe. There are no items that could remain inaccessible to the public.

Because digitizing collections promotes inclusivity and increases access to collections, it contributes to achieving the United Nations’ (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’s sustainable development goals. Specifically, it achieves the quality education objective because it seeks to reduce unequal access due to socioeconomic factors and educational skills and abilities.

To increase online users’ access to their digital content, museums should develop descriptive metadata with a high level of accessibility, such as through Google [10]. In addition, it was argued that for museums to make their collections genuinely accessible, they must be willing to abandon their traditional methods of operation to exchange information and operate in virtual spaces. In order to increase accessibility, cultural institutions should adopt policies governing metadata, the true determinants of object interpretation.

Not only does the creation of digital content allow for the display of collections, but it also has the potential to alleviate problems associated with exhibition space requirements. Among other advantages, using technology can reduce the cost of exhibitions [35].

One of the benefits of digital collections is their widespread accessibility. Digital content is likely a potent tool for disseminating culture to accomplish important objectives such as learning, research, and enjoyment. The educational purpose is met if the digital content is a flexible instrument that can be shaped according to the primary characteristics of the different visitors. It means that if the content is too complex for the average person to comprehend, neither the collections nor their metadata is understood, and no educational purpose is achieved [4]. In contrast, a superficial representation of the content is meaningless to academics. Museums can make digital content truly accessible by allowing visitors to select the language, level of detail, etc. In addition, digital surrogates allow the reuse of digital collections so that items, such as the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci or other masterpieces, can be reelaborated [30]. Digital collections enable it! Indeed, digital users can combine, juxtapose, and construct links between digital objects. The reprocessing of digital content produces social benefits through increased public access to information. Due to the accessibility of collections, there may be an increase in requests for loans. This was the case for the Science Museum of the University of Coimbra, whose loan requests increased significantly after online accessibility was enhanced [36]. Digital content is accessible to individuals regardless of their educational background, location, age, or disability [37].

5. Democratization of collections for everyone’s benefit

The digitization of collections is a vehicle for democratization. Accessibility is potentially available to anyone in the world at any time. The only requirements are a computer and an Internet connection. Due to social and economic issues, it could be argued that not every person in the globe has access to the Internet and has a computer. Furthermore, not all regions have dependable Internet connections, as digital content frequently requires high-speed connections. If, on the one hand, it is argued that digitization is an unequal distribution of knowledge because not everyone can afford their own computer and Internet connection, on the other hand, it can be argued that the number of locations offering free Internet connections has increased over the years, including schools, public libraries, airports, and city halls. Additionally, public authorities may provide some economically disadvantaged students with computers for use at home. In addition, some governments periodically distribute economic bonuses to purchase computers. In addition, technological device prices have decreased over time. Similarly, Internet service providers offer a variety of subscriptions at significantly lower prices than in the past. Then, the Internet is widespread in many previously unconnected nations. Since the digitization process is continuous, the number of objects that are accessible will likely increase.

Regarding online users, the new generation is born-digital; therefore, the debate could entail the older generation and the phenomenon known as the generational gap. However, aging populations have embraced technology over time. They can purchase theater tickets, schedule doctor’s appointments, and explore museum collections. To communicate with their children during the Coronavirus quarantine, most of them learned the language with the assistance of younger relatives, in public classes, or independently. In addition, access is restricted to objects that have been digitized to date. Not all existing collections have been digitized due to the immense size of existing collections worldwide. In addition, the digital collections must be updated over time due to occurrences such as new acquisitions and loans. In light of these constraints, digitization may be viewed as a distant beacon on the path to achieving the objective of universal access to collections. However, digitization is an ongoing process, and more and more museums are increasing the number of online-accessible objects.

Due to the lack of boundaries, digital collections may reduce the distance between cultural institutions and individuals. It was argued that the digital content did not constitute a museum in the conventional sense. In order to support this argument, the difference between the physical experience and the online visit was highlighted: only the physical visit was deemed capable of creating a real experience due to the interaction between visitors and the physical space of the museum and its collections; in contrast, the interaction between online user and a museum was found to be limited to a screen; thus, it was defined as a sort of representation of an experience. In addition, the digital content has been compared to museum pamphlets [38]. In addition, a study conducted in 2020 revealed that information associated with collections is provided by the collections themselves and is underrepresented on the Internet [39]. However, there are presently several methods for engaging online users [40]. For example, Wiki, a content management system where online users can revise data to disseminate knowledge, achieves a high level of engagement. They can also include their personal museum experiences and updated photographs. In addition, numerous museums have joined Wikimedia [41]. The Archeological Museum of Naples, which introduced the 2D game “Father and Son” in 2021 [42] illustrates how to increase audience engagement with stored collections. In addition, it was found that the lack of physical space is precisely one of the virtual museum’s strengths. The digitization of collections creates an opportunity for those who will never have the chance to visit a physical museum to view museum collections [25]. Moreover, it was asserted that onsite museums provide information within a specific space bounded by the museum’s physical borders. In contrast, virtual museums operate in a larger space without boundaries, making accessibility an independent factor from variables such as location, time, and others. The information space provides potentially unrestricted access to information. For this reason, the physical museum is not nearly as effective as a virtual museum. Consequently, it can be stated that technology improves access.

The virtual museum tour overcomes some limitations of the conventional physical visit. Due to the fact that digital collections are displayed in virtual space, many risks to collections are eliminated: not only are items better preserved from physical risks associated with wear and tear and environmental factors such as light and temperature but also security-related risks are eliminated. Moreover, functions such as zoom, illumination control, rotation, etc., enable individuals to observe details that would be difficult to watch during a traditional visit. In addition, digital collections can be viewed when physical access cannot be granted for the reasons outlined previously and during extraordinary events. Despite the outbreak and persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic, some museums, including the Louvre Museum, have seized the opportunity to share their collections online [43].

Visits onsite and online are effective means of disseminating culture. Therefore, it can be argued that their coexistence would be the optimal scenario. Since an online visit can be followed by an onsite visit and vice versa, the onsite and online content can be evaluated in a manner that is not in conflict. They can form a relationship of complementarity with one another. The two can be combined [5]. Furthermore, digitization enables museums to better communicate with the public [44].

6. Digital content versus authenticity of collections

Digital content provides prospective access to the entire collection. It could be argued that digitalized objects lack the authenticity of the originals and debate the irreplaceability of the originals through reproductions. Since the turn of the last century, it has been argued that the copy of original items endangers the uniqueness of products and causes their aura to deteriorate. The concept of “loss of aura” and the resulting loss of cultural value of an object date back to the 1930s and refers to the mechanical reproduction of works of art [45]. It was argued that original objects were considered singular due to their characteristics and irreplaceable because they contained information unavailable in digital content. Moreover, some authors [46] state that the value of digital items is lower than that of their physical counterparts. Nonetheless, the concept of aura annihilation was rejected by a different perspective that viewed digital collections not as copies of original items, but as valuable objects in their own right [44, 47]. Consequently, if, on the one hand, original items of collections can be viewed as irreplaceable goods, on the other hand, digital reproductions eradicate many disadvantages associated with the physical experience, such as the handling of items [4]. This argument is crucial for all of the collection’s objects, particularly those whose fragility and light- and temperature-sensitivity make them susceptible to damage during traditional exhibitions. Since most collections are stored, digital surrogates may be able to address their inaccessibility issue. Items destined to remain in storage for preservation purposes could be displayed for the purposes of enjoyment, education, and research. In addition, a broader audience can access digital content while sitting on their sofa at home, as opposed to only those who can appreciate collections through an onsite visit due to the aura of collections. Nevertheless, the digital content does not conflict with the aura because onsite and online visits can be complementary.

7. Financial implications and possible solutions

One of the disadvantages of digitization is its financial viability [48]. The creation of digital content is still expensive and time-consuming. The problem of balancing the need for accessibility with financial sustainability is not new to museums, and they are attempting to find solutions [6]. Digitizing collections necessitates adequate funding, but it accomplishes its goal of increasing the accessibility of stored collections while simultaneously preserving them. Additionally, money, staff, and space are required to store and preserve collections housed in depots. However, museums cannot simply store objects because they hold collections in trust for the public. Collections must be utilized. Because digitization offers the chance to increase the accessibility of stored collections, museums must be able to finance it and discover ways to reduce expenses. For this purpose, the digital content could be reduced to those pieces of collections that online users are more likely to find intriguing. According to this theory, numerous museums have decided to restrict the construction of digital collections, including those that are stored, to a subset of their collections. Although not all collections are displayed, it is essential to note that not all items of collections are likely to be of interest to visitors, such as repetitive items: museums can display a few of them; what’s the point of displaying them all? Does the inaccessibility of a thousand identical copies of the same sample render the accessibility of a few insufficient?

7.1 Items selection to mitigate costs

A proper selection of items to digitize based on some fundamental criteria can reduce the cost of the process, bringing the stored collections to life through digitization. To save money, museums concentrate their efforts on representing the entirety of their collections. To achieve this objective, providing individuals with digital versions of all items is insufficient. In contrast, it means to select items to provide a representation of the entire collection. Therefore, a museum could represent its entire collection by merely making a small portion of its objects available. To accurately represent the scope of their collections, museums must make an appropriate selection of objects based on some criterion. The selection process itself incurs expenses for activities such as establishing guidelines, handling, storage, and transport. Therefore, the selection process should be conducted with caution.

One of the criteria is the physical criterion, which prioritizes items to be digitized based on the accessibility of content, the physical condition of the material, quality, and postdigitization added value. Therefore, the accessibility of items likely to vanish soon may be a factor in determining which items are selected for the digital process. In contrast, potential causes of future inaccessibility of collections include physical deterioration, a lack of old-generation technological know-how, and the replacement of hardware and software systems due to obsolescence [12]. As this characteristic is likely to be a critical factor for storing many items, a large portion of the stored collections should be selected for digitization. Similarly, the storage facility houses numerous items whose physical conditions may threaten their continued existence. For example, fragile objects and documents are susceptible to deterioration due to their handling, also for products that are sensitive to light and temperature. As a result, digital surrogates may represent a method for preserving their memory during storage. However, some items may be so fragile that the digitization procedure is likely to result in additional loss or damage. For this reason, museums may opt not to digitize them, or at least postpone the process until innovative, risk-free methods become available. Some museums digitized the damaged objects to illustrate the “before and after” of conservatism.

After deciding which objects to digitize, museums must consider the quality of the digitization and their workflow and financial constraints [5]. Additionally, the quality of the access content, that is, the digital content, depends on the quality of the associated metadata. Therefore, museums should focus on data entry for both internal and external purposes [49]. It should be of the utmost importance to avoid financial constraints to provide online consumers with complete, high-quality collections. Due to the impossibility, museums may choose to digitize a few pieces of high quality or many pieces of low quality. In addition, they could employ a compromise solution to produce pieces of both poor and high quality. This alternative may mitigate the so-called “digital-divide” between small and large museums, mainly if renowned museums such as the Louvre, Met, MOMA, and Hermitage adopt it [4]. Consequently, digital collections, including stored collections, can acquire value due to their improved accessibility and functionality and the possibility of new relationships.

Unfortunately, sizable digital collections may become unmanageable. At that point, a selection of items to delete will be required. It can be argued that, just as any digital item should be selected in accordance with the museum’s collection policy, any decision to delete it should also be ruled by museum policy. Although the selection process raised some concerns regarding the democratization of collections, it could be argued that this presents museums with an excellent opportunity to reconsider the compatibility of objects with their mission [40].

Appropriate selections of items for digitization can affect both accessibility and expenses. The selection should prioritize items that are easily accessible and manageable to reduce costs. Thus, the number of items that can be made digitally available can increase. In addition, as stated previously, repetitive objects can only be represented by a few examples. Then, items that were digitized elsewhere can be eliminated from consideration. Next, although creating metadata and destaining collections can be difficult, museums could select only items with associated metadata to save money by avoiding spending time and money on those without them. Due to the creation of digital content, museums can attain some economic benefits and cost savings. For this reason, museums should choose items that have the potential to pique the public’s interest to sell in their gift shops [12].

7.2 Technical solutions

Long-term financial needs are an essential aspect of digitizing collections, as the costs of digitizing include the creation of digital surrogates and the costs associated with their long-term preservation and updating the required expertise [50]. Despite the benefits of creating digital substitutes, digital content has a limited lifespan or shelf life due to its high fragility rate. In addition, digital content is perpetually threatened by the phenomenon of technological quicksand [51, 52]. Due to their susceptibility to degradation or obsolescence, digital collections are vulnerable to loss. Therefore, it is possible to contend that the digital content, designed to preserve collections and make them accessible to anyone at any time, is merely a temporary strategy for making the stored collection accessible. However, museums have adopted migration and emulation as their primary strategies for preserving digital collections and ensuring their accessibility. Migration is the process of transferring data from an obsolete platform to an active platform [11]. Emulation is sometimes favored because it can result in the loss of data or original functionality. Emulation simulates future hardware and software so that digital content can be read on uncertain future systems.

Museums could implement strategies for three-dimensional objects that require enormous financial resources to save money. For instance, these objects could be reproduced in two-dimensional to reduce the economic impact. Increasing the digital process of natural science collections through centers of excellence could be one approach to overcoming technical obstacles. To develop the DiSSCo, the National Museum of Natural History Luxembourg digitized nearly seventy percent of its herbarium specimens in 2020 [33, 53, 54].

7.3 Volunteers

In countries where it is feasible, museums can utilize volunteer labor to increase their digitization rate and circumvent financial difficulties. Volunteers are not typical employees in terms of their skills and time availability. Despite their limited availability, their contribution helps museums continue the digitization process. Volunteer recruitment assumes the development and management of a well-trained team. In addition to the training provided by museums, the employment of volunteers requires coordination and oversight by professionals with management skills and digital expertise. Volunteering is nonetheless a powerful instrument for involving the community in museum life, as it fosters civic pride and builds stronger communities. In addition, museums may increase the benefits of free collaboration by utilizing specific groups of volunteers, such as museology students, training-ship participants, or previously trained volunteers. In this context, museums promote active engagement by permitting visitors to interact with their collections. To this end, museums have recently shifted their focus from collections to people and increasingly encourage public engagement with collections. The Australian Museum devised a project to digitize its entomology collections with the assistance of volunteers [55].

7.4 Indirect benefits

Museums can reduce the expense of digitization by focusing on other opportunities. The combination of efforts by museums, libraries, and archives may provide a solution [27]. Digitization requires substantial resources, but museums can only generate income by selling image licenses. The public disapproves of these operations because they impede the accessibility of collections that museums should hold in trust on behalf of the people. Despite the lack of direct economic revenues, museums can benefit indirectly from their investments in digital technologies, such as increased attendance, public contributions, and bequests [5]. Due to their positive reputation, museums can benefit indirectly through agreements with other institutions or crowdsourcing initiatives. For instance, museums could turn to technology-leading information providers such as Google that have the financial means to digitize museum collections. In such a scenario, there is a chance that the provider will gain a dominant position over museums, exploit the collections, and produce low-quality content. Therefore, care must be taken in constructing the agreement [30].

According to the ICOM definition of a museum, museums are non-profit organizations. For this reason, image accessibility is generally free, and museums benefit in various ways, including positive visibility, public funding, donations, membership, etc. More and more museums are expanding the number of works that can be readily viewed and reused online. However, some museums do not offer complimentary admission. In Tate’s case, the revenues were used to pay for a portion of the digitization procedure [56]. Approximately 800 museums and libraries have open data for online users who desire to access, share, and reuse their collections. Consequently, disseminating collections via open data generates knowledge and culture and is an effective marketing strategy. Museum collections are cultural capital, including their held collections [29]. As a cultural capital, collections, including those that are stored, can generate cultural value for individuals through their use. Since open data are provided for free, digital content cannot be evaluated based on its monetary worth when considering open data. These are items whose cultural value exceeds their economic value. If it is not feasible to profit from disseminating knowledge provided by image licensing, this does not imply that digital content has no value.

7.5 Revenues from the digital content

The merchandise market allows museums to generate income from digital content. Some museums sell products directly (images, so no). Print-on-demand services such as IMS, which stands for the Infinite Museum Store and are provided at no cost to museums, are another method for generating a financial return. This service lets users obtain the desired product while printing content from books and pamphlets [57]. Museums do not deal with advance orders or inventory. The printer service provider handles orders directly, from printing to delivery. Visitors are directly involved in creating the product: they select the item, such as a painting; then, they choose the outcome they desire, such as a T-shirt, mobile cover, scarf, or shopper; and lastly, they provide the delivery address. All of these actions are performed on mobile devices by customers. It is advantageous for museums to increase the accessibility of their preserved collections. Therefore, the value of the collections and the visibility of the museums increase. In addition, museums generate revenue from digital collections without incurring initial costs. This system has thus far been evaluated in art museums, but it can be expanded to all museums [56].

8. Summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of digitization

Digitization of collections is the strategy by which museums actively utilize 41% of their stored collections [7]. Figure 1 illustrates the primary benefits and drawbacks of this strategy. Specifically, it makes it possible to potentially view the entire collection. In fact, this practice promotes the democratization of collections because it makes them accessible to anyone, anywhere, and at any time (generally financially accessible, with the exception of Internet access), regardless of the current availability of storage space. In addition, making items available in the digital realm may reduce the number of investigation inquiries, resulting in fewer tasks. Reduced exposure to risks, such as handling, light, pollution, security, and so on, contributes to the increased preservation of collections. For these reasons, museums would like to increase their digitalization efforts.

Figure 1.

Main advantages and disadvantages of digitisation (Corona).

Despite the benefits associated with the decision to increase digitization, there are certain constraints that discouraged the adoption of this strategy to some extent. The lack of sensory accessibility [58, 59], loss of the aura that could affect emotional accessibility [39, 45, 46], and people’s social currency due to their status for social meetings [60], are some of the reasons why some people prefer physical visits to museums. People’s digital illiteracy may also be a deterrent, limiting the intellectual accessibility of collections [61]. Another argument is that the absence of resources is the most significant barrier to increasing the use of stored collections through digitization. This refers to the insufficient workforce, quantity, knowledge, and budget.

9. Conclusions

According to the ICOM’s definition of a museum, museums serve multiple purposes, none of which should be pursued at the expense of another. Equally important are accumulating, preserving, researching, exhibiting, and interpreting. It is essential that all museum collections are accessible to the general public, as they are the museums’ very essence.

The majority of museum collections around the globe are stored. A catastrophe in terms of accessibility, considering there are over 95,000 museums worldwide. Even though the majority of museum collections are not accessible to the general public, collections must be viewed, utilized, or at least actively available for use, as they provide no value to the modern public if they are not. Preservation for future generations is essential, but it must be balanced with the benefit to the current generation, which pays for the collections and is responsible for generating interest among future generations. In the past, museums prioritized the preservation and conservation of artworks and other objects over their use. As some curators have been preoccupied with the preservation aspect of their mission, some museums have been preoccupied with the objects in their collection, thereby disregarding the public’s access to the objects. It was restricted since public access was considered a threat to preservation. In addition, museums have implemented a dynamic improper storage policy over the years. In addition, curators did not adhere to a valid storage policy. They had the propensity to acquire (via purchase or donation) new works simply because they had space in their reserves to store them. In addition, it was said that a museum that ceased adding to its collection was in decline. This conduct has delayed addressing the issue of lack of access until later. Nonetheless, it should be mentioned that an acquisitions policy without a storage collection policy could suffocate the museum to death. As time has progressed and the earliest museums have aged, the congestion of the invisible stored collections has led to a dynamically improper storage system. This policy has suffocated the storage space and rendered the collections inaccessible. The earlier method impacted storage and consequently became a widespread problem over time. Museums had to find solutions for their storage problems. The collections must be administered so that preservation, collecting, accessibility, and all museum purposes do not conflict. This constitutes a challenging objective for collection management professionals. To reach this objective, the entire collection must be viewed as something to be relished by the audience, not as a burden.

Due to museums’ social and cultural function, the stored collections have sparked public debate, and their monetary worth has been brought up. Museum professionals must deal with the increasing financial pressure, exacerbated by the fact that a significant portion of the collections are maintained with public funds. Museums should focus their efforts on finding solutions that consider the long-term cost of keeping objects, including those that are not actively used.

Museums are making attempts to incorporate diverse functions. The digitization of collections provides the opportunity to realize this objective so that collections can be preserved and utilized for future generations. This argument is significant for collections that contain vulnerable or light-sensitive items more susceptible to damage. For example, fragile ancient books require careful handling. They can only be viewed, and their pages are turned due to their digitization. The physical access would impact its ability to survive. Many items likely to be stored in a depot can be made accessible due to the digitization process. In addition, due to overcrowding, storage spaces are frequently hazardous for both collections and individuals. Due to a shortage of storage space, many items are stored in distant facilities. Consequently, the cached collections cannot be accessed. Similarly, cultural items on loan to other institutions are inaccessible to nontraveling individuals who reside in a different region.

The digitization of collections contributes to their democratization. The digital content makes collections available to anyone, including professionals. It contributes to the dissemination of culture and knowledge and inspires the creation of new content. It appears that this strategy to enhance collection accessibility enables individuals to appreciate collections. Regardless of where they reside, when they want to see them, their educational background, history, or physical conditions. Therefore, it is a tool accessible to everyone in the world. Modern technologies have increased the accessibility of collections and their associated data.

Digital content is a viable alternative to physical travel. For the above reasons, the digital content reaches visitors who could not visit the actual physical museum. Additionally, it makes collections accessible regardless of the user’s location or ability level. Despite claims that physical visits are irreplaceable, digital content provides access to collections even when physical visits are not permitted. This excellent point has been validated since the first phase of the COVID-19 virus outbreak. Consequently, it contributes to expanding a virtual museum beyond the physical confines of conventional museums. The future challenge for museums that wish to preserve collections and make them more accessible for educational, recreational, and research purposes may be to balance digital and physical space to reap both benefits. In addition to researchers and academicians, casual visitors can access collections. It can reach an unlimited worldwide audience who can access the entire collection. Although cultural objects are irreplaceable, they serve museum missions according to the ICOM definition of a museum. In essence, it signifies that digitizing collections enables people to access collections even when they are not physically present.

Digital content embodies the significance of museum collections. Due to financial and time constraints imposed by the vast number of objects, digitizing the entire collection is impossible. Therefore, museums must implement criteria for selecting items to digitize. It implies that the significant components are typically objects of the procedure and are displayed. It could be argued that not all collections are currently digitized and, therefore, accessible. Nonetheless, collection digitization is an ongoing process. Consequently, museums now provide more digital content, which is expected to increase over time. Additionally, it could be emphasized that the number of items accessible through digital content is irrelevant. In contrast, what is essential is that all collections are represented. This objective could be accomplished with a few items from the entire collection; therefore, the appropriate selection determines the degree of accessibility. For example, museums contain many items that are unlikely to be of interest to many people: repetitive items, for instance, can be reproduced from a small sample. Therefore, museum collections could be better represented by a small number of pieces that comprise the whole, as opposed to a large number of pieces of the same type. Occasionally, less is more, depending on the value of the less.

According to the previous considerations, digitizing collections is a satisfactory, albeit imperfect, solution for museums and individuals to preserve collections while making them accessible. It is said that museums store knowledge in the form of objects and that the physical experience cannot be replicated. In addition, the issue of inadequate space within depots due to overcrowding persists. Therefore, digitizing collections is likely to be viewed as a half-measure for the storage issue. The digital content, however, finds a balance between preservation and accessibility. Without digitization, stored collections would not be accessible at all, and they would remain unseen. Although this solution does not increase depot space or reduce the extent of stored collections, it improves their uses. Why are collections maintained if they are not utilized? Therefore, even in the half-measure assumption, it could be argued that a small outcome is preferable to none.

In conclusion, digital resources, including the museum industry, are expanding throughout society. The digitization process is essential for internal museum purposes and represents a crucial solution to the historical dilemma between the preservation and accessibility of museum collections. Thus, digitizing collections represents an excellent opportunity for museums and online users, as cyberspace is an infinite space that can potentially make unlimited collections accessible to anyone.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.