geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is' an organization oriented view on archives - part ii Derridean sense (see Part I of this article)), about externalizing archivalization's choice in inscribing a trace in an external location. The last, conscious phase is Archiving, capturing and filing a record into the (organizational) archive. Between these three phases are psychological filters, and interplays between unconsciousness and consciousness. The first two phases of registrations determine whether (and how) actions are externalized and inscribed in archives. They determine the way people behave. They define behaviour that influences the way people construct, process, and use archives and the way archivists acquire, contextualize, and appraise archives and records. Ketelaar assumes that people working within the same organization will use and create records in different ways (Ketelaar, 2000a, p. 328).1 Different organizations are implementing the information value chain differently. Professional standards lead to different ways of creating and using records and archives. For understanding records and archives, employees and archivists of organizations are to be known in their social, religious, cultural, political, and economic contexts (Ketelaar, 2000a, 2001). These contexts define the 'software of the mind', and the effects of human behaviour that are its consequences. The 'software of the mind' impresses the fact that archives are not neutral, not complete, and a result of human behaviour within organizations. That behaviour reflects morals, preconceptions, and the limitations of the social and cultural environment of employees, and offers only a distorted view of reality. Or, maybe better, they allow for the construction of realities, excluding, other realities as a result of archivalization and, later, appraisal and selection (Ihanus, 2007). The information value chain is embedded and largely configured by this behavioural component of the theoretical framework. Behaviour can have detrimental effects on organizational and personal archives. Managing records and constructing archives is strongly dependent on the working of organizational systems of controls, the methods and instruments used to strengthen such controls, and the behaviour of employees when confronted with these systems, methods, and instruments. When entering an organization, an individual employee brings personal characteristics, a personal social, ideological, ethical, religious, and cultural background, and experiences from other organizations. Employees have their expectations, goals, and ambitions. Those can change when they are interconnecting with other employees when working and collaborating. This affects the organization itself, and the organizational morals and ethics agreed upon may change those of the individual employee, or the other way around. It may explain why some people choose to leave an organization and others elect to stay (Griffin and Moorhead, 2014: 4-5). Hofstede (1997) found that specific attitudes and behaviours of employees differed significantly because of the values and beliefs that characterized their environment. The ways employees are handling information, the choices they are making, and the way they are behaving when confronted with systems of (information) control are heaviliy affected by these values and beliefs. Study of behaviour and culture has never been part of archival science. The first to connect behaviour and culture explicitly with records and archives management are Gillian Oliver and Fiorella Foscarini (2013). They use the viewpoint of information culture to 'tackle the people problem'. Based on an inadequate introduction of information culture, they try to use the Information Culture Framework2 for analysing and assessing recordkeeping behaviour and practices. Although it is a very courageous and interesting exploration, they, in my opinion, do not really succeed in the endeavor to 'tackle the people problem'. It is not really a practical guide and only offers superficial ideas for assessment techniques and training that cannot be used to develop behavioural change programs. More problematic is that their work is extensively based on work of archival scientists and cultural theorists, which probably accounts for irrelevant chapters on records continuum, information continuum, and record keeping informatics. But their work neglects very relevant work done on organizational behaviour and culture within organization studies, such as Weick (1979), Shein (1992), Kotter and Heskett (1992), Simon (1997), O'Donovan (2006), Robbins and Langton (2007), and many more. The effects of behaviour in organizations on information and information management are already known for a very long time. Campbell (1958), Wilensky (1967), Downs (1967), Janis (1972), Kaufman (1973), Athanassiades (1973), O'Reilly (1978), and others, have provided considerable evidence of organizational dysfunctions attributed to failures in the information value chain. The hypothesis of Benjamin Singer (1980) was that organizations suffer from psychotic and pathological behaviours, just like people do, but are rarely diagnosed with it or treated as such. According to Singer (1980, p. 48), dysfunctional organizational behaviours often take the form of 'crazy systems' that generate 'confusion, error, and ambiguity' and even 'inscrutability and unaccountability, involving harm to the victim and often to the system itself, [breeding] a new kind of organizational trap' called Kafka circuits. These involve 'blind alleys, crazy situations', and processes that 'end where they began'. More recently, Ronald Rice and Stephen Cooper (2010) confirmed that information is often blocked or distorted in organizational communications. They state convincingly that organizations allow employees to (consciously or unconsciously) misuse, distort, or suppress information and records (Rice and Cooper, 2010, chapters 7 and 8). Zmud (1990) argued that the use of ICTs make organizational functions vulnerable to strategic information behaviours such as distortion of records. It is quite clear that employee behaviour can have detrimental effects of the way records are created, processed, managed, and com municated (Singer, 1980; Clegg et al, 2016). Especially in bureaucratic organizations, information access might be (or will be) influenced by the intentional or unintentional choices employees make when handling records and when deciding which information to keep (or not). These 61 archives in liquid times 60 1 Although the concept of archivalization is mentioned many times in archival literature, there is almost no research done on the concept since its introduction almost seventeen years ago. The concept is completely misrepresented in literature and is identified as (a step in) the appraisal of records and archives. But it is a psychological phenomenon that influences human behaviour. As such, it defines appraisal and selection, but it cannot be considered part of them. For an interesting study in which the concept is applied on archival institutions and social communities and in which some of its psychological nature is expressed: Mark A. Matienzo, 'Canonization, Archivalization, and the 'Archival Imaginary", Paper presented at Archive Fervour/ Archive Further: Literature, Archives, and Literary Archives, Aberystwyth, Wales, July 9-11, 2008. Online source. Archived at: http://hdl.handle.net/10150/216929 (retrieved on December 22, 2016). 2 The name of their framework is not unique. The name has been used for completely different Information Culture Frameworks by M.N. Khan and F.T. Azmi (2005). 'Reinventing business organisations: the information culture framework'. Singapore Management Review, Vol, 27, No. 2, pp. 37-62, and Y. Zheng (2005). 'Information culture and development: Chinese experience of e-health', Thirty-Eighth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (Hicss 38). 2005. Big Island, Hawaii, Los Alamitos, California IEEE Computer Society, pp. 153a, 1-11.

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2017 | | pagina 32