geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is'.
an organization oriented view on archives - part i
Twelve articles use the concepts only to indicate specific information objects
('(personal) health records', 'medical records', 'patient records', 'personal records',
'archives'). Eleven articles use the concepts to indicate aspects of the management
of records and archives: 'records management', 'records management systems',
'records management metadata', 'records laws', 'archival finding aids', 'records
management strategies', 'record search', and '(functional) records classification'.
One article explores the relationship between information culture and records
management and offers an interesting theoretical discourse, but it is not meant to
be a theoretical framework for records and archives (Sundqvist and Svard, 2016).
In the articles analysed, there is only one that offers a theoretical framework, a
formal model for digital achives as cultural heritage (Ferro and Silvello, 2013). It is
not a full-scale framework for records and archives, but a very useful application of
digital library research to archives as cultural heritage. Ferro and Silvello propose a
formal model, called NEsted SeTs for Object hieRarchies (NESTOR). The model is
used to extend the 5S model, a unified formal theory for Digital Libraries. It allows
for a definition of a digital archive as a specific digital library able to cope with the
peculiar features of archives (as context and hierarchy) and provides archives
with the full wealth of digital library technologies and methods.
archives in liquid times
MIS Quarterly: Management Information
Information Systems Research
ACM Computing Surveys
Journal of Management Information Systems
IEEE Transactions of Industrial Informatics
Library and Information Science Research
Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology
5 (record, archival
Information and Organization
International Journal of Information
9 (record, archives)
Information Processing and Management
3 (record, archives)
Table 1. Analysis of content of applicable top journals 2010-2016
(Scimago Journal and Country Rank (April 26, 2017))
Journal of the
1. Kohli, R., and S.S.L. Tan (2016). 'Electronic Health Records:
How Can IS Researchers Contribute to Transforming Healthcare?', Mis Quarterly,
Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 553-573.
2. Ozdemir, Z., J. Barron, and S. Bandyopadhyay (2011). 'An analysis of the
adoption of digital health records under switching costs', Information Systems
Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 491-503.
3. Oborn, E., M. Barrett, M., and E. Davidson (2011). 'Unity in diversity: electronic
patient record use in multidisciplinary practice', Information Systems Research,
Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 547-564.
4. Mishra, A.N., C. Anderson, C.M. Angst, and R. Agarwal (2012). 'Electronic
health records assimilation and physician identity evolution: An identity theory
perspective', Information Systems Research, No. 3 (part 1), pp. 738-760.
5. Kettunen, K., and P. Henttonen (2010). 'Missing in action? Content of records
management metadata in real life', Library information science research, Vol. 32,
No. 1, pp. 43-52.
6. Sinn, D., S.Y. Syn, and S.M. Kim (2011). 'Personal records on the web: Who's in
charge of archiving, Hotmail or archivists?', Library Information Science Research,
No. 4, pp. 320-330.
7. Oltmann, S.M., E.J. Knox, C. Peterson, and S. Musgrave (2015). 'Using open records
laws for research purposes', Library Information Science Research, Vol. 37, No. 4,
8. Nov, O., and W. Schecter (2012). 'Dispositional resistance to change and hospital
physicians' use of electronic medical records: A multidimensional perspective',
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 63, No. 4,
9. Steele, R., K. Min, K., and A. Lo (2012). 'Personal health record architectures:
technology infrastructure implications and dependencies', Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 1079-1091.
10. Li, T., and T. Slee (2014). 'The effects of information privacy concerns on
digitizing personal health records', Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, Vol. 65, No. 8, pp. 1541-1554.
11. Huvila, I., A. Cajander, M. Daniels, and R.M. Ahlfeldt (2015). 'Patients' perceptions
of their medical records from different subject positions', Journal of the Association
for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 66, No. 12, pp. 2456-2470.
12. Freund, L., E.G. Toms (2015). 'Interacting with archival finding aids', Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 994-1008.
13. Davidson, E. J., C.S. 0sterlund, and M.G. Flaherty (2015). 'Drift and shift in the
organizing vision career for personal health records: An investigation of innovation
discourse dynamics', Information and Organization, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 191-221.
14. Külcü, and T. Cakmak (2010). 'Evaluation of the ERM application in Turkey
within the framework of InterPARES Project', International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 199-211.
15. Xie, S.L. (2013). 'National strategy for digital records: Comparing the approaches
of Canada and China', International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33,
No. 4, pp. 697-701.
16. Shaw, N. (2014). 'The role of the professional association: a grounded theory study
of electronic medical records usage in Ontario, Canada', International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 200-209.
17. Asma'Mokhtar, U., and Z.M. Yusof (2015). 'The requirement for developing
functional records classification', International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 403-407.
18. Vilar, P., and A. auperl (2015). 'Archives, quo vadis et cum quibus?: Archivists'
self-perceptions and perceptions of users of contemporary archives', International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 551-560.