geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is'
an organization oriented view on archives - part ii
contextualized by metadata that capture changing contexts in organizational,
social and personal circumstances. Hence, the lifecycle of records takes place
within a continuum of management and context.
3. Archives are neither complete, nor neutral or objective sources of 'truth (Lane
and Hill 2010). Although they are 'process bound information' (Cook, 1997,
p. 48; Thomassen, 1999, p. 76) and 'a sediment of organizational' (or personal!)
'actions' (PIVOT, 1994), they are constructed bodies, configured to retain all
those records organizations or persons choose to retain, enriched with all the
metadata that are allowed to be included in metadata schedules. Archives are
primarily used to reconstruct the past (for, for instance, accountability)
(Van Bussel, 2012b). They retain (at a minimum) all records that, according to
legal obligations, have to be kept for specified periods of time. Archives embed
all preoccupations, moral codes and preconceptions entrenched in procedures,
business processes, legislation, and social environments. They are subjective
constructs (Greetham, 1999). Not all records are captured in the organizational
archive: employees may decide to delete them prematurely, because they do not
find them relevant, do not want them to be known to anyone, do not want them
to become part of accountability processes, or out of deviant behaviour. Archives
change constantly: new records are added daily, metadata are added or changed,
and records that have reached the end of their retention period are removed
from the archive and irreparably destroyed. Only a (small) part of the archive is
preserved indefinitely for its 'historical value'. That part of the archive can only
deliver a distorted view of the reality in which the creating organization func
tioned (Kaplan, 2000).
4. In the Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives (1896, Muller
et al, 2003, p. 19) in its Statement 2, it is declared that an archive 'is an organic
whole', a 'living organism, which grows, takes shape, and undergoes changes
in accordance with fixed rules. The rules which govern the composition, the
arrangement and the formation of an archival collection, therefore, cannot be
fixed by the archivist in advance; he can only study the organism and ascertain
the rules under which it was formed' (italics by GJvB). Although this is true
for archives that are no longer a 'living organism' (as is stated in a footnote),
there may arise a problem for archives that are: organizational archives as
digital, constructed bodies need to be configured in advance. This means that the
business rules that govern composition, arrangement, formation, and (even)
method of description are defined before the archive as a construct is created.
They do not have a 'life'; they do not 'grow organically'. It is one of the reasons
why archivists need to participate in the configuration phases of digital archives.
But what does it mean for the statement of Muller, Feith and Fruin about the
archive as an 'organic whole' when the business rules that define an archive need
to be fixed in advance and do not grow organically? I do not have an answer now,
but it needs careful consideration and research.
5. It is possible that archival repositories will be 'without walls' (Cook, 2007,
p. 429-430), but the opposite is also true. In this age of big data, organizational
chains, inter-organizational data warehouses, cloud computing, authentic
registrations, and computer mediated exchange, the archival repository may
be changing into a 'hub' for access to the original organizational and personal
systems or web-environments that have managed the archive from the moment
of its creation (a postcustodial view: Acland, 1991; Bearman, 1993a; Upward
and McKemmish, 1994). Charles Dollar (1992) stated that as the integrity of
archives and records would be best preserved in its original ICT environment,
the costs of proprietary systems would be extremely high, and technology
obsolescence would make preservation extremely complex, management of
archives would become unsustainable for any archival repository. Duranti's
(2007, p. 464-465) argument is that a physical place is an absolute necessity to
maintain the integrity of archives. It is necessary that 'the archival institution
establish an architecture in which the records of all creating bodies, once
received, can be put into clearly defined and stable relationships, and in which
their broader context can be identified and the associations among the records
never broken' (a custodial view). Even adherents that agree with Duranti's
argument about the absolute importance of guaranteeing the authenticity of
records have disagreed with her conclusion that this only can be achieved by
taken physical custody of the archive by an archival repository (for a discussion:
Cunningham, 2015). Both statements are ideological and not substantiated
with convincing practical evidence. In the theoretical framework of the 'Archive-
as-Is', it is not important whether archives are preserved by the organizations
that created them (or their successors) or transferred to an archival repository,
although the practical consequences for EIM are far-reaching.
6. Archivists are part of the information management function of organizations.
They help organizations in configuring policies, procedures, business processes,
and ICTs to shape the organizational archive and to implement laws and
regulations for compliance and accountability. They assist in developing
metadata schedules that try to capture organizational and environmental
contexts. They play a crucial role in reconstructing the past and appraising,
selecting, contextualizing, and preserving records within the organizational
archive. When they are working with an archival repository, they are acquiring
and preserving archives, contextualizing and relating them, and realizing access.
But they do not shape an objective narrative of past occurrences in preserving
and contextualizing archives. They need to acknowledge their own subjectivity
and the impossibility of creating complete and objective organizational or
personal archives. They are part in deciding which archives will be indefinitely
preserved and are accountable for gaps, inconsistencies, and distortions in
(and between) them. Archivists are not neutral, independent, and objective
custodians of organizational, cultural or historical knowledge.
7. My definition of a record (in Part I of this article) allows the inclusion of
information objects that are traditionally not known as records and have not
been part of organizational archives. There are information objects that, as
Jenkinson (2003, p. 342) stated, have become a record because 'someone
decided to stick it into a file rather than the bin'. They are set aside and preserved,
maybe out of a notion of potential future value (as Schellenberg, 2003, p. 11-16,
stated), maybe because of subjective perceptions of employees. If an organization
wants to preserve an ebook because it is perceived as extremely valuable for the
organization (although it is not evidence or cultural heritage), according to my
definition it can be considered a record.
archives in liquid times
46
47