geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is' an organization oriented view on archives - part i to view society and social complexity, and a reductionist approach may not be possible (or might be difficult) in other views of society. The claim of 'universality' is, thus, nonsense. Lau also attacks the form of objectivity and impartiality that is suggested in the theory: 'a privileged transcendent vantage point in which the archivist using the records continuum can 'see' all of society and speculate how records move from immediate contexts of creation through capture, organization, and the ultimate plural view of societal recordkeeping' (Lau 2013, p. 202). Such objectivity and impartiality of the archivist is impossible as understanding of reality is never complete. It is always constrained by the observer's perspective and knowledge and always carries blind spots, as Donna Haraway (1988) already stated. It ignores the effects of the archivist's context, his social preoccupations, moral codes, preconceptions, and choices made in the process of 'archivization'. This is remarkable in a theory that is (essentially) a context theory. As David Greetham (1999) concluded, archives do not tell us the truth. They propose a constructed, prejudiced, sometimes an idealized historical image. They are politicized bodies of information, pretending to be neutral. Joan Schwartz and Terry Cook (2002) stated that 'the archive' is always a reflection or a justification for the society that created it. Archivists are important in capturing, appraising, and maintaining archives and have a large responsibility for the reflection 'the Archive' provides. 3.1.3. Daily practice The records continuum theory proves very challenging in the daily practice of managing business processes of organizations. Afshar and Ahmad (2015) propose a hybrid model for records management (a combination of continuum and linear models), because of the problems to implement the records continuum theory and model. Jeurgens (2014) concluded (albeit related to appraisal) that in daily (professional) practice 'in spite of all efforts and even the firm belief held by some professionals that archival thinking has undergone a paradigm shift, there is still no revolutionary progress in solving the many puzzles of records management and archiving'. The suggestion of Karabinos (2015, p. 150) that by removing the theory's 'universality' claim testing would not be necessary is, in my opinion, accepting defeat in bringing theory into practice. It is revealing that (although Sue McKemmish (2017, p. 143-144) states that the model is 'widely used as an implementation model, as exemplified through its use in the development of standards, metadata entity-relationship models and schemas, and best practice guidelines for the design of recordkeeping systems and appraisal programs') practical examples of implementation of the theory within daily organizational practice are genuinely missing. The (needless) 'invention' of 'recordkeeping informatics' to 're-figure a discipline in crisis' (that is: a records management that does not use the records continuum theory and model) (Upward et al, 2013; Evans et al, 2014) only confirms that there is no convincing evidence that the theory has been used by organizations to manage their records and archives. 3.2. Digital diplomatics 3.2.1. The revitalization of traditional, proven methods in Digital Diplomatics Not all archival scholars are following Foucault, Derrida or Giddens in their observations of 'the archive'. There is still a tradition, based on the 'old' diplomatic science, in which principles and concepts are 'universally valid', precisely defined, and 'objective' regardless of place. It provides a systematic method for the analysis of the internal and external elements of documentary form, the circumstances of the writing, and the juridical nature of the fact that is communicated. It analyses the creation, form, and status of transmission of records, and the relationship with the facts represented in them and with their creator, in order to identify, evaluate, and communicate their 'true nature' (Duranti, 1998, p. 27). The primary focus of this tradition has been the 'record' (equated with the documents that were the subject of diplomatic science) and all the elements that it embodies. The content of the record is subject of its analysis, but also the relationships of the record and the persons, functions, procedures, acts, and the system that created them. The basic affirmations of this diplomatic tradition is that hypotheses and theories need to be empirically testable. Its philosophical roots lie in empiricism. Luciana Duranti is nowadays the most notable scholar within this tradition. She revitalized the traditional diplomatic methods and has argued for its relevance to electronic records and archives (Duranti, 1998, 2005, 2010a). Digital diplomatics integrates traditional diplomatic techniques, concepts and methods with archival theory 'based on jurisprudence, the history and theory of administration, and an extensive and centuries old body of written reflection and experience' about the nature of records and archives within organizations (MacNeil, 2004, p. 205). Digital diplomatics emphasizes the importance of identifying evidence. For being used as evidence, records need to be authentic for only than it can be presumed their integrity has been maintained. To prove authenticity, the continuing identity and integrity of records and archives must be established. Identity and integrity of records allow to determine the who, what, where, when, and why, and establish 'perfection' in quality. Identity is revealed by documentary form or presentation. It is the whole of the distinguishing attributes that in combination uniquely characterize records. They have stable content and a fixed form, reveal together with the metadata layers of the organizational archive it belongs to, the legal, administrative, provenancial, procedural, technological, and documentary context, belong to identifiable organizations, persons or groups, are part of actions, are linked to related records, and are stored within the infrastructure of the organizational archive (Duranti and Jansen, 2011). 3.2.2. Computerized processing Duranti has tried to broaden the types of records to which diplomatics could be effectively applied. In the InterPARES projects (1998-2018), she has applied diplomatic mechanisms to investigate the veracity of records in new, computerized environments (Ross, 2012). Within these projects, theory and methods are developed capable of ensuring the reliability, accuracy, and authenticity of electronic records and archives created in dynamic, experiential and interactive systems. InterPARES developed the Chain of Preservation, a series of continuous records- centric activities that contribute to the authenticity and preservation of records stored within the organizational archive. All activities that a record participates in are linked together. Any omission in a link deteriorates the ability of the chain to preserve the authenticity of records (and the archive they belong to), its ultimate objective (Jansen, 2015). According to Duranti (2009), it is possible that digital diplomatics may not be sufficient for dealing with challenges of increasingly complex digital environments, which might require that concepts, principles, and methods of other disciplines are evaluated by digital diplomatics. An expectation archives in liquid times 30 31

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2017 | | pagina 17