geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is' an organization oriented view on archives - part ii organizations that are generating records and constructing archives. In the second part of this article, I defined the theoretical framework of the 'Archive-as-Is' that emphasizes the organizational value of the archive and the organizational challenges that EIM has to solve. The theoretical framework of the 'Archive-as-Is' is primarily an organizational theory on records and archives. The focus of the framework is on the organizations (and/or persons) that construct archives and create, process, manage, and preserve records in their business processes and activities. The framework is based on the philosophy of pragmatism. As is common with each pragmatic theory, there is an unmistakable relationship with organizational practice. This relationship expresses itself in the framework's components that are all directly influencing organizational policies, business processes, actions, and transactions. They have to be recognized by EIM to improve the organizational processing of records and archives, to fight 'information chaos', and to guide organizational behaviour. In the archival spectrum, the framework finds its place between the context oriented theory of the Records Continuum and the records oriented theory of Digital Diplomatics. Both theories have influenced the framework. It may be called an organization oriented archival theory. That is an orientation that is just as indispensable in a digital world as the context and object orientations are. It has been 'forgotten' in the frenzy of exciting research following the 'archival turn'. The framework is a declarative model for understanding the archive 'as is', how it has been designed, constructed, processed, manipulated, and managed, and how it has 'grown' to be the archive that the organization or the person that generated it, wants it to be. The three defining components of the theoretical framework can be used by EIM as an analytical tool to ascertain if all conditions for managing records and archives are met. The fourth component, the information value chain, offers a model for EIM to define and implement primary and secondary processes (and related activities) to realize the dimensions of information, the archival principles, and the requirements of information access. Organizational behaviour, the fifth component, stresses the necessity for EIM (and for archivists) to contextualize organizational practice, to allow for flexible ICTs to offer employees the possibility to use spaces of contestation 'per factum', and to be prepared for distortion of archives. Archives shape and control the way history is read. They do. But archives are, from the moment of their construction, distortions of reality, leading to biased images of the past. Contextualizing will be crucial to 'correct' that distortion as much as is possible although the simplified metadata that capture context will also be distorting reality. In the end, the archive is as it is, a construct configured, managed, and preserved according to organizational (or personal) demands and desires, with gaps as a result of appraisal and selection, and, as a consequence, presenting a social reality that is only mirroring a very simplified and distorted view of the contexts in wich the records and the archive were generated. Further research is an absolute necessity. It is necessary to see if the theory can be used as an analytical tool for EIM. The relationships between the components of the framework need to be studied more in depth. The relationship between EIM, the theoretical framework, and the realization of organizational objectives needs more research. Research is necessary to see if Muller, Feith, and Fruin's statement about 'organically grown archives' is correct within digital environments. The effects of organizational behaviour on records and archives in daily organizational practice are neglected in archival research projects at the moment, although they are crucial to explain why the archive is as it is. I think the biggest challenge for EIM is to find ways to guide organizational behaviour in constructing and contextualizing archives. More research is needed in organizational behaviour and human-computer interaction within spaces of contestation that extremely influence accountability and archiving. Activity theory may be a very useful theory for research in that regard. archives in liquid times 64 Literature Acland, G. (1991). Archivist-Keeper, Undertaker, or Auditor. Archives and Manuscripts, 19(1), 13-14. Arnold, J., with J. Silvester, F. Patterson, I. Robertson, C. Cooper, B. Burnes (2005). Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Athanassiades, J.C. (1973). The distortion of upward communication in hierarchical organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 207-226. Baker, M. (2013). Findability is a content problem, not a search problem. (May 28). Retrieved from search-problem/. Archived at problem/. Barwise, J., J. Perry (1983). Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bearman, D. (1993a). Record Keeping Systems. Archivaria, 36, 16-36. Bearman, D. (2006). Moments of risk. Identifying threats to electronic records. Archivaria, 62, 15-46. Berlin, L.M., R. Jeffries, V.L. O'Day, A. Paepcke, C. Wharton (1993). Where did you put it? Issues in the design and use of a group memory. In B. Arnold, G. Van der Veer, T. White (eds.), Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 23-30). New York: ACM. Boudrez, F., H. Dekeyser, J. Dumortier (2005). Digital Archiving. The new challenge. Mont Saint Guibert: IRIS. Bruschi, C. (2009). The Wandering Heretics of Languedoc. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. Buckland, M.K. (1991). Information and information systems. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Buneman, P., S. Khanna, W.C. Tan (2001). Why and where. A characterization of data provenance. In J. Van den Bussche, V. Vianu (eds.), Database Theory. ICDT-2001. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Database Theory, London, January 4-6 (pp. 316-330). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Burnett, G., P.T. Jaeger, K.M. Thompson (2008). Normative behavior and information: the social aspects of information access. Library Information Science Research, 30(1), 56-66. Campbell, D.T. (1958). Systematic error on the part of human links in communication systems. Information and Control, I, 334-369. Clegg, S., M. Pina e Cunha, I. Munro, A. Rego, M. Oom de Sousa (2016). Kafkaesque power and bureaucracy.Journal ofPoliticalPower, 9(2), 157-181. 65

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2017 | | pagina 34