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

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2017 | | pagina 18