geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is'
an organization oriented view on archives - part i
I tend to agree with. As such, it is interesting to see how in digital records forensics
the relationship between digital diplomatics and digital forensics is researched
(Xie, 2011).
Digital diplomatics produces very detailed definitions and requirements for
authentic electronic records that help business informatics in designing adequate
ICTs for the organizational archive. That will be necessary: in an information deluge
it is economically only viable to manage and store records in the organizational
archive in a computerized way. The biggest contribution of digital diplomatics are
the very detailed frameworks of authenticity and integrity requirements and its
Chain of Preservation that allow (ultimately) for computerized processing and
archiving of 'trusted' records. They have greatly influenced me in my ideas about
the quality requirements for records and the information value chain. It is this
contribution that makes digital diplomatics into a very interesting theoretical
framework for EIM.
3.2.3. Theoretical problems
There are, however, some theoretical challenges with digital diplomatics. As
Geoffrey Yeo (2017) points out, the equation of 'records' with the documents that
were the subject of diplomatic science (particularly made in an English-speaking
environment) may be a problem. The word 'record' was, until the late twentieth
century, confined to countries whose legal and administrative systems are of English
origin. It has no equivalent in other linguistic cultures. It was most certainly not
common in the civil-law traditions based on Roman law in which diplomatic science
has evolved (Yeo 2015). Yeo (2017) agrees that the equation seems to be correct for
legal, textual records, for diplomatic science was primarily designed for their
analysis. But is it correct for the new forms of record in the contemporary world that
are largely non-legal and non-textual? Is it possible to apply diplomatic principles,
techniques, and methods to these records, too? Joan Schwartz (1995, p. 54-55) does
not think so and asserts that, at least for photographs, the 'extension of diplomatics
from records of bureaucratic transactions created within the procedural rules,
written or unwritten, of a juridical system to records of cultural actions and
transactions' cannot be directly made and that 'the rigour of diplomatic criticism is
undermined by the inherent ambiguity of the photograph'. Yeo (2017) also tends to
answer those questions negatively and, although it is not explicitly addressed, he
implies that the mentioned equation never has been researched adequately and that,
for that reason, digital diplomatics is partly based on an unproven hypothesis. It is a
serious allegation that cannot be refuted without researching the equation itself.
Even before digital diplomatics was born, there were issues with the reductive
emphasis of diplomatic science on the relationship between record and juridical act.
According to Leonard Boyle (1976) and Armando Petrucci (1995) that emphasis
risked overlooking the contextual complexities of documents, their function and the
power dynamics involved. Boyle (1976, p. 78) claims that the application of
diplomatics demands intricate knowledge of the context of the object of analysis.
A 'thorough competence in the language of the document' is needed, 'a knowledge
of chronology', 'of local usages [and] conventions' and 'an easy familiarity with the
methods, formulae, and practices of the period and region'. Such knowledge is
necessary to uncover the 'central reality' of the document to be analysed, but cannot
be gained by only using diplomatics. Petrucci (1995, p. 239) agrees with Boyle
(1976) and states that 'the document is first and foremost evidence of a process
entirely internal to its own making. And only the reconstruction of the process of
documentation, of its articulations and reasons, can permit us to consider, with
both greater insight and greater humility than before, the complex relationship
between written documentation and the event that from time to time gave (or
should have given) impulse to the process of documentation: what we call, in the
language of diplomatics, the connection between action and documentation'.
Following these interpretations, Richard Brown (1997) challenged the strict (even
narrow) contextual interpretation within digital diplomatics. He argued for a
broader interpretation, in which social, cultural, ideological and other factors are
considered, in addition to the very limited administrative-juridical context he
observed in digital diplomatics at that time. And although digital diplomatists no
longer perceive the juridical system as the only context for a record and recognize an
extended range of contexts (legal, administrative, provenancial, procedural,
technological, and documentary context (Duranti 2010b, p. 1596)), they have, as
Yeo (2017) asserts, continued to emphasize the dominance of the legal context.
Digital diplomatics faces a contextual crisis. The context it captures is not enough in
the long term to help users understand the wider social, cultural, and (inter-)
organizational environment that generated the archive.
4. Concluding remarks
In this first part of the article, the problem EIM faces in contributing to
organizational objectives and to defining business strategies was explored. To cope
with the deluge of structured and unstructured information objects, EIM needs a
theoretical foundation that effectively guides it in reaching business value. A
possible solution for that problem is (following Smith and Steadman (1981)) 'the
archive' and the records within it. Archival science has developed two overall
theoretical frameworks relating to records and archives, but not focused on the
(organizational or personal) construction of archives, the effects of (organizational)
behaviour on their evolution, reaching organizational objectives, and designing
business strategies. These two archival frameworks are based on philosophical
traditions that are on opposite sides of the philosophical spectrum: postmodernism
and empiricism. This shows itself especially in the very different forms of methodol
ogy used. The Records Continuum school uses deductive research methods,
beginning with general a-priori concepts and, regardless of empirical data, deciding
what to do with records and archives based on those concepts. Digital diplomatics
uses inductive research methods, starting with empirical data and observations to
find general principles about the subject.
The Records Continuum theory, characterized by structurationist and
poststructuralist thinking, considers 'the archive' to be an epistemological and
symbolic representation for the ways in which histories are constructed, organized,
and narrated. An archive is a symbol of contestation, within which historical
narratives, social power structures, and traditional meanings are challenged. This
theory is not about records and archives themselves, but about their evolving
archives in liquid times
32
33