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