 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Continuum in Context: Post-Eighteenth Century Archival Theory and the Records Continuum Model
Adam Stapleton
Published in Archifacts, April (2005): 21-45
Introduction
In recent years, New Zealand’s national archival institution, Archives New Zealand, has developed a range of programmes and initiatives that are underpinned by the records continuum model, the Australian formulation of a consistent and integrated model for managing records from creation to preservation and use as archives. The most obvious example of this is the re-branding of its standards and other publications as part of the Continuum – Create & Maintain programme. Other examples include custodianship of the New Zealand Government Locator Standard (NZGLS), an all-of-government discovery metadata standard for information resources; an information technology solution (Archway) that will, ultimately, describe public records from the point of their creation; and the drafting of new public records legislation (Public Records Act 2005) to address deficiencies in the Archives Act 1957 [1]. Because of the importance of the records continuum model to Archives New Zealand, and by inference, to the New Zealand archival and recordkeeping communities, this article places it within the context of the development of archival theory from late eighteenth century Europe to the present day.
This article begins by outlining the development of the international archival community’s traditional body of principles and practices, the custodial paradigm, from its origins in eighteenth century Europe to the emergence of the life-cycle model in North America during the mid-twentieth century. This outline highlights key themes that emerged from the development of custodial principles and practices relating to arrangement, description and appraisal. These themes provide the background against which the article explores the re-conceptualisation of the archival mission, termed the post-custodial paradigm, during the 1980s and 1990s, in response to a series of challenges that threatened the viability of the custodial paradigm. Key post-custodial themes are then identified and contrasted with the custodial themes. Finally, the development of the records continuum model is described and shown to be an Australian synthesis and extension of a range of post-custodial themes.
It should be noted, however, that the development of archival theory has not been consistent from country to country or over time. New developments were often rejected or revised before being adopted, and then often only after considerable periods of time had elapsed. Thus, this article highlights key developments without attempting to unravel the minutiae of the archival discourse.
Custodial Origins
European archival thinking underwent a profound and paradigmatic shift during the late eighteenth century, in which the archival institution was transformed from an agent responsible for the authentication of documents to a repository of historical sources [2]. This shift can be traced to the establishment of the Archives Nationales, the French national archives, a result of the revolution. As a consequence of this transformation, archival practices developed by ancient civilisations, and Europe before the early modern era, are of limited relevance to understanding archival theory and archival institutions from the European early modern period onward [3]. Indeed, the first articulation of archival principles did not occur until the nineteenth century in France and Germany, with their subsequent re-interpretation and publication by Dutch, English and Italian archivists during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries [4]. Thus, the origin of the custodial paradigm as a set of archival principles and practices is located in Europe during the last decades of the eighteenth century, with its subsequent development in Europe and North America during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Arranging and Describing the Things in Archives
Prior to the establishment of archival institutions as repositories of historical sources during the eighteenth century, the primary purpose of archival description was to guarantee the authenticity of records [5]. This purpose originated from the need to study precedents, to document rights, and to defend the interests of municipal cities against central powers [6]. With the transformation of archival institutions into repositories of historical sources came a need to provide access tools for researchers. Consequently, the authentication of records lost its role as the primary purpose of archival description [7]. This change is indicative of the custodial paradigm’s emphasis on the cultural value of records at the expense of their evidential value and the role they play in supporting organisational accountability.
The need to describe records in order to guide researchers to particular sources also began to impact upon the way archivists physically arranged records, thus integrating the previously separate activities of physical arrangement and intellectual description [8]. There were, however, no general principles for physically arranging records in Europe before the nineteenth century, records typically being incorporated into existing collections according to subject-based rules [9]. It was not until the development in Italy during the early nineteenth century of the principle known as respect des fonds that a distinction was again made between the physical arrangement of records and their intellectual description [10]. In France, physical arrangement of records according to predetermined classifications was superseded, at least theoretically, in 1841, by the introduction of this principle, in which all records created by an organisation or family (the fonds) were treated as a single entity. Within the fonds, however, records were physically arranged, or re-arranged, according to any one of a range of predetermined classifications, such as alphabetic or geographic [11]. In Prussia during the 1880s respect des fonds evolved into provenienzprinzip, the principle of provenance, in which records were physically aggregated according to the administrative unit that created them. Furthermore, a second principle, registraturprinzip, the principle of registration order, was established in which, instead of re-arranging records within each fonds according to predetermined classifications, records were kept in the original order in which they were created [12]. These developments were later absorbed and elaborated by the archival community in the Netherlands, where a trio of Dutch archivists, Muller, Feith and Fruin, published their 1898 treatise Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives [13]. This so-called “Dutch Manual” was subsequently translated into German, Italian, French and English during the early twentieth century and became a bible for archivists in these countries [14]. All of these developments highlight the importance of the physical attributes of records within the custodial paradigm.
This emphasis on the physical attributes of records can also be seen in developments in archival description during the twentieth century. The concept of the archive group, formulated by the Englishman Sir Hilary Jenkinson, proposed that records be physically arranged in discrete and finite series in order to physically recreate the fonds of defunct administrative bodies [15]. The American variation on the archive group, the record group, was developed in response to their experience with constantly changing administrative structures. It, too, focused on creating a physical representation of the archival fonds, so much so that its compromises tended to obscure rather than protect the provenance of records [16].
Appraisal – The Historiographical Weathervane
Compared with the almost linear evolution of the principles and practices relating to arrangement and description, the development of those relating to appraisal, the selection of records for on-going preservation, was more complex. Nevertheless, a number of key themes emerge. These can be broadly construed as an emphasis on the cultural aspect of records; the abrogation of the role of the archivist in the creation of records; and a downplaying of the role of records in supporting of organisational accountability. In France the Archives Nationales, at its establishment in 1794, was confronted with the appraisal of records created during the pre-revolutionary era [17]. Its initial approach was to preserve those records that had value as evidence of the rights and entitlement for the post-revolutionary state, “useful papers,” and those that had historical value, “historical papers.” Although it is not clear how these principles were applied, Theodore Schellenberg, an influential American archival writer, suggested that the far more conservative appraisal regulations subsequently enacted by the French government were indicative of the Archives Nationales’ “ill-considered” early appraisal of records created during the pre-revolutionary era [18]. In particular, he concluded that the fact that records of feudal rights and entitlements, the “feudal papers,” were destroyed because they were perceived to have no historical value, implies that the Archives Nationales’ appraisal did not regard records that documented the functioning of pre-revolutionary organisations as being of archival value. Additionally, those “feudal papers” that were considered to have historical value were subsequently arranged in a manner that ignored their provenance. These two points are significant when considered in the context of the later development of appraisal principles that stress the need to preserve records of organisation and function. In contrast to the French tradition, Schellenberg noted that in the early twentieth century the German archivist H. Meissner articulated a range of appraisal criteria in which he advocated the retention of records relating to the functioning of each unit – its organisation, direction, housing, and business arrangements – and policy and procedure. This was further elaborated upon by H. Meinert who emphasised the importance of appraising records, not as isolated records, but as part of a larger administrative context [19]. In the United Kingdom, Jenkinson drew no distinction between records and archives. He regarded archives as being created as a result of their natural accumulation during the course of administrative activity, rather than as a result of their selection by archivists [20]. Jenkinson’s definition of archives, or archival documents, stresses their impartiality, authenticity, naturalness, interrelatedness, and uniqueness [21]. The role of the archivist was, therefore, to preserve these evidential properties, the so-called physical and moral defence of the record [22]. For Jenkinson, archives were only permanently preserved because they were evidence of their creator’s administrative and legal requirements. Any value that they might have for historical research was, as one writer has described “. . . an unintentional but fortuitous by-product of their preservation.” [23] As a corollary, Jenkinson could not condone any systematic selection of archives for permanent preservation as this would diminish their value as evidence [24]. Aside from this, his reluctance to address the issues surrounding the preservation of large quantities of records created during the early decades of the twentieth century was largely based on his experience with medieval and early modern records. He effectively abdicated archivists’ responsibility for the creation of records and their subsequent selection for permanent preservation. Gerald Ham, one of the first post-custodial theorists, criticised Jenkinson’s approach by stating that: “[a]llowing the creator to designate what should be the archival record solves the problems of complexity, impermanence, and volume of contemporary records by ignoring them.” [25] Though agreeing with Ham’s critique of Jenkinson, the Canadian theorist Terry Cook observed, that though Jenkinson’s approach had its limitations, his notion of the physical and moral defence of the evidential properties of records was, in modified form, central to the evidence-based definition of records espoused by post-custodial theorists [26]. This notion had found application, as will be shown below, in approaches to dealing with the erosion of established recordkeeping practices during the 1980s and 1990s. In Cook’s own words:
[Jenkinson’s] spirited defence of the evidential character of records certainly remains inspirational to archivists everywhere . . . among many electronic records theorists everywhere, in the age of ephemeral records, virtual documents, decontexualised information and increasing incidents of unscrupulous and haphazard records destruction.[27]
In contrast to Jenkinson, when the National Archives of the United States of America was established in 1934, its first archivists faced the unavoidable challenge of coping with the preservation of vast quantities of modern records. In direct response to this challenge, they developed the life-cycle model, where records were created and managed by their creators, then stored elsewhere as their use gradually diminished, until they were destroyed or transferred and preserved as archives [28]. The development of the North American records management profession was a related response.
The challenge of preserving vast quantities of modern records also drove Schellenberg’s approach to appraisal [29]. In particular, his approach was developed in response to an environment “that stressed the need to reduce bulk by selecting from among the masses of documentation that which was permanently valuable.” [30] Hence, not only did he regard appraisal as central to the archivist’s role, he also made it central to his definition of archives [31]. That is, archives are those records that have been selected for permanent preservation on the basis of their value “for reasons other than those for which they were created or accumulated.” [32] Schellenberg’s value-based definition is at odds with Jenkinson’s evidence-based definition [33]. In building upon his value-based definition, Schellenberg made a clear distinction between the primary and secondary values that records are purported to possess [34]. Primary value refers to the value a record has to the creating agency, whereas secondary value refers to the value of a record as evidence and information to users other than the creating agency [35]. Schellenberg asserted that archivists should be concerned exclusively with secondary values when selecting archives [36]. In determining informational value, as opposed to evidential value, Schellenberg advocated analysing records solely on the basis of their informational content [37]. This emphasis on content focused particularly on research needs [38]. As shown below, proponents of the post-custodial paradigm have challenged this view. In fact, Cook argued that Schellenberg’s successors over-emphasised the importance of secondary value, causing Ham to warn that this approach would result in archivists remaining “at best nothing more than a weathervane moved by the changing winds of historiography.” [39] Duranti also claimed that archival writers have questioned Schellenberg’s definition in response to the enactment of freedom of information legislation during the 1970s and 1980s and the consequent demand by the public for accurate and reliable evidence [40].
Given Jenkinson’s and Schellenberg’s fundamentally opposed definitions, it is not surprising that Jenkinson also disputed Schellenberg’s focus on determining secondary or use-based values. His reason for this was that he considered archivists could not impartially select records on the basis of long-term value [41]. As this article will demonstrate, post-custodial writers have challenged Jenkinson’s notion of impartiality. A further criticism of Schellenberg was that, despite his efforts at building bridges between archivists and librarians, and between public archivists and private archivists, his definition of archives “tended to emphasise the differences between records managers and archivists . . . rather than their similarities and interconnections.” [42] This has created problems for archivists responsible for preserving electronic records simply because their fragility means that they require specialised management from the point of creation, well before they cross the so-called Schellenbergian threshold and become archives, and thus fall under an archival preservation regime [43]. Again, post-custodial writers have challenged this demarcation of responsibilities.
Custodial Reality
To conclude this outline of the custodial paradigm’s origin and development of its principles and practices, the paradigm tended to emphasise the cultural aspect of records at the expense of their role as evidence, a development perhaps not surprising given the societal changes that gave rise to European archival institutions in the eighteenth century. This emphasis is indicated by the gradual transformation of the purpose of archival description from authentication to access and the replacement of Jenkinson’s evidence-based definition of archives by Schellenberg’s value-based definition. The development of the principles of provenienzprinzip and registraturprinzip highlighted the importance of the physical attributes of record within the custodial paradigm, particularly their physical arrangement. Substantial exploration of their non-physical or virtual attributes only began to be explored by post-custodial theorists during the late twentieth century. The custodial paradigm also tended to advocate little, if any, involvement by archivists in the process of records creation. This is partly due to Jenkinson’s insistence that archivists are neutral, impartial custodians who, consequently, have no role to play in the appraisal of records, let alone in influencing the creation of records [44]. Even Schellenberg, with his distinction between primary and secondary values and a clear separation of the roles and responsibilities of archivists and records managers, contributed to this lack of involvement by archivists in the process of records creation. The custodial paradigm also implicitly assumes the existence of well-established processes for creating records, an assumption which, as shown below, was no longer valid by the late twentieth century. Finally, the custodial paradigm has tended to downplay the role of records in supporting organisational accountability. As examples, the cultural emphasis of European archives during the eighteenth century and Schellenberg’s value-based definition of archives both tended to obscure the role of records as authenticating agents.
The Changing Recordkeeping Landscape
During the 1980s and 1990s, three factors emerged as features of the recordkeeping landscape: the increasingly pervasive deployment of information technology; accountability failures; and public sector reform. These factors led to the erosion of established recordkeeping practices and, consequently, the viability of the custodial paradigm. The literatures of the North American and Australian archival communities reveal, in response to these factors, a more conscious re-conceptualisation of the archival mission and the eventual establishment of an alternative paradigm, the post-custodial paradigm. It should also be noted that this re-conceptualisation is a phenomenon of the North American and Australian archival communities only. Post-custodial notions have only recently emerged in the literature of other communities, such as those in the United Kingdom and Europe, and where they do appear they occur in articles that simply review rather then contribute to the North American and Australian post-custodial discourse.
One of the factors affecting the recordkeeping landscape was the deployment of desktop information technology in workplaces and its subsequent impact on established recordkeeping practices. This factor has been metaphorically likened to the American “wild frontier” because of the absence of business rules and processes, laws and regulations, for managing electronic information [45]. The proliferation of desktop information technology within the workplace was identified by the Australian archives manager David Roberts as a factor in the erosion of established recordkeeping practices, as such technology invariably lacked formal and practical data management processes [46]. Similarly, Chris Hurley, the Australasian archival theorist, has described the recordkeeping challenges faced by corporations as they struggled to deal with the management of electronic mail (email) and other electronic documents created by desktop information technologies:
Email only seems to be a particular problem because corporations are unused to controlling their servants’ use of it. It has crept into corporate business as a (now) essential tool of communication, but we allow employees to treat it like it was their private tool. The same phenomenon has followed the IT focus on desk-top – to the great detriment of all corporate processes (like recordkeeping). The corporation now has to ask the employee to please file emails dealing with corporate business [47].
Hurley infers that, by allowing immediate technological needs to drive the adoption of desktop information technologies, corporations were faced with the task of rebuilding their recordkeeping practices to regain control of their business information. The American records management consultant Rick Barry went one step further by explicitly linking technology-driven adoption of desktop information technologies with recordkeeping failures [48].
The second factor was the official recognition and response to corporate and government corruption. Australian archives and records management consultant Glenda Acland and academic Sue McKemmish observed this phenomenon in the Australian Government’s establishment of a steady stream of Royal Commissions and inquiries into cases of corporate and government corruption and mismanagement during the 1980s and 1990s [49]. They speculated that the reason corruption and mismanagement was rife was a systemic failure of accountability mechanisms, specifically the dilution of financial and governance standards and the weakness of their respective regulatory bodies. This phenomenon is, of course, not limited to Australia, as a number of scandals, notably the 2001 accounting scandal that led to the bankruptcy of Enron, a Texas-based energy-trading firm, attest:
A growing body of evidence does indeed suggest that Enron was a peculiarly egregious case of bad management, misleading accounts, shoddy auditing and, quite probably, outright fraud. But the bigger lessons that Enron offers for accounting and corporate governance have long been familiar from previous scandals, in America and elsewhere [50].
Although a causal relationship in which corruption or mismanagement leads to poor or non-existent recordkeeping has not been proven, a correlation between the two has been drawn by Acland and McKemmish [51].
Finally, recordkeeping within government suffered as a result of radical public sector reforms undertaken during the 1980s and 1990s by many Western democratic governments. The purpose of these reforms was to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, and accountability of public agencies [52]. One of the theories underpinning these reforms was managerialism, or new public management, which placed emphasis on devolving management responsibility, privatising assets, commercialising government functions, and separating purchasers, providers, and funders of government functions [53]. It is precisely these principles, which stress decentralisation and fragmentation of government, that also contribute to the erosion of established recordkeeping practices by government entities. In the New Zealand public sector, for example, restructured agencies often regarded recordkeeping functions as low priority, and in some agencies the function was completely eliminated [54].
In response to the erosion of established recordkeeping practices, the North American and Australian archival communities articulated an alternative to the custodial paradigm. Cook traced the origin of this new approach to Ham’s 1981 article Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era [55]. In essence, this post-custodial approach sought to revitalise the archival mission by “reconceptualising the traditional strengths of the profession . . . and transforming it for a new age.” [56] One of the key challenges of this re-conceptualisation was the repositioning of the archival community from being custodians of physical objects having iconic value to being advisors in partnership with technology shapers, legal professionals, and various “watch-dog” bodies [57]. This repositioning has been metaphorically likened to a shift from being “rowers” to “steerers.” [58] Necessarily, such a repositioning requires the adoption of strategies fundamentally different from those employed by the traditional approach [59]. The paradigm is one that “goes back to fundamentals to define the record and the role of recordkeeping in society.” [60] In making such statements, proponents of the post-custodial paradigm have observed that the custodial approach focused, to its detriment, on “particular custodial strategies and methods rather than purposes or outcomes.” [61] Thus the repositioning is not merely a refinement of existing strategies, but a fundamental transformation, a new paradigm that the archival literature has termed “post-custodial.” [62]
Describing the Idea of Archives
In reviewing the development of the post-custodial paradigm, a number of writers have suggested that the work of Peter Scott and Ian Maclean in Australia during the 1960s anticipated many of the features of the post-custodial model. In particular, Hurley suggested that Scott’s approach to describing records, the Australian “series system,” anticipated the post-custodial paradigm since it was designed to describe records and their provenance, the creators of records, regardless of their status in the life-cycle model (archival, semi-current, or current) and thus, implicitly, regardless of their physical location [63].
The fundamental nature of Scott’s insight and the subsequent ubiquity of the “series” system within the Australian archival community was noted by Hurley, who also, along with Cook, observed that Scott’s view of the series system’s applicability to records not yet in archival custody was implicitly post-custodial [64]. Indeed, Cook, referring to Scott as the grandfather of the post-custodial paradigm, asserted that he “advocated that archivists must move away from describing records in the ‘custody’ of an archival institution . . . [he] shifted our focus from the things in archives to the idea of archives.” [65] That is, Scott’s series system recognised that records are virtual constructs, being, in essence, ideas rather than physical objects or icons. For post-custodialists Scott’s insight also implies that the Schellenbergian split between records management and archives management is inherently unsound, and that archivists have a role to play in the creation and maintenance of records irrespective of whether they are physically located with record creators or archivists. These emphases on the virtual attributes of records and the need to intervene in the process of records creation are key post-custodial themes.
From the late 1970s the Canadian archival community also became interested in the virtual attributes of records [66]. Although only emphasising the description of records in archival custody, the Canadian archival community sought to replace Schellenberg’s record group concept with Rules for Archival Description (RAD), a descriptive system centred on the virtual attributes of records as a means to document their multiple contexts [67].
Appraisal as Analysis of Societal Values
In addition to influencing the description of records and archives, the post-custodial emphasis on the virtual attributes of records also drove the development of several alternatives to Schellenberg’s use-based approach to appraisal. By focusing on the virtual attributes of records, their creators and the functions they document, rather than their physical attributes and intellectual content (Schellenberg’s secondary value), new approaches to appraisal were developed in North America and Europe. For example, Cook cited the German theorist Hans Booms’ assertion that appraisal should focus on research into societal dynamics and public opinion because:
. . . society, not Schellenberg’s specialised users and not Jenkinson’s state administrators, must generate the values that define, ‘importance’ and therefore archival significance and archival retention [68].
Booms’ ideas were adapted by Cook and subsequently implemented as the macroappraisal acquisition strategy by the National Archives of Canada in 1991. The strategy assumed that society’s values were mirrored in the structural and functional context of records. That is, the creators of records, and the functions that they administer, reflect the values of a society and, by analysing these virtual attributes, archivists can select for permanent preservation the records that reflect those values [69]. A second example is the Dutch PIVOT project that, although focused more on documenting the state rather than broader society, adopted a similar functional approach to the macroappraisal strategy [70]. Finally, in the United States, Helen Samuels’ documentation strategy extended Schellenberg’s secondary values across institutions by co-ordinating the appraisal activities of public and private archives so that records relating to the themes, issues, activities, or functions of society would be preserved as archives [71]. This wider or contextual concern also focuses on the virtual attributes of records.
The Electronic Peril
The importance of the virtual attributes of records is similarly highlighted by post-custodial responses to the threat posed by electronic records. In addition, these responses emphasise the evidential value of records and the need to actively intervene in their creation and ongoing management. For example, Cook observed that records created in electronic formats threaten the ability of record creators to account for their decisions or preserve their corporate memory over the long-term [72]. In response to this threat he advocated that archivists must actively intervene in record creators’ business processes to ensure that records, as reliable evidence of important acts and ideas, are created and maintained [73]. Although Cook’s notion of records as evidence can be read as Jenkinsonian, he clearly departed from the Jenkinsonian notion that archivists should not intervene in the process of records creation. He also recognised that, for the long-term management of electronic records, the physical attributes of the media on which they are stored are far less important than the virtual or logical attributes of the electronic data stored on the media [74]. For Cook:
. . . the physical medium becomes almost totally irrelevant, as the records themselves will be migrated forward long before the physical storage medium deteriorates. What will be important is reconfiguring the actual functionality and thus provenance . . . [the] context of the ‘original’ record [75].
The American theorist David Bearman profoundly influenced development of strategies for managing electronic records by archivists during the 1990s [76]. His key insight was that archivists should focus only on managing records, a particular type of information resource he defined as evidence of business transactions and activities [77]. Bearman developed this insight in response to the difficulty in providing for organisational accountability in an era where information systems began to be pervasively deployed by organisations [78]. In articulating his evidence-based definition of records, Bearman drew a distinction between information systems and recordkeeping systems by observing that information systems only contain data that is constantly updated (timely), able to be transformed (manipulable), and is current (non-redundant). In contrast, information systems that capture and manage records as evidence (recordkeeping systems), contain data which is explicitly linked to business activities (timebound), unable to be altered (inviolable), and is non-current (redundant) [79]. The profound influence of Bearman’s distinction between information systems and recordkeeping systems can be seen in the way that its adoption helped the then Archives Authority of New South Wales’ Records Management Office not only to re-think its strategy for managing electronic records, but to re-define fundamentally its mission and purpose [80].
Bearman identified a range of tactics – policy, design, implementation, and standards – together with their limitations, that archivists could employ to ensure that electronic records are appropriately created and maintained [81]. The policy tactic focuses on the development of organisational policies and guidelines. However, as Bearman observed, “policy will not alone provide adequate assurance that electronic records are created and managed appropriately.” [82] The design tactic provides input into the design of recordkeeping systems by incorporating archival functional requirements into information systems [83]. Bearman noted that this tactic can be expensive, requiring archivists to know precisely what requirements are needed, and “can be defeated by poor training of staff or incomplete or insensitive implementation.” [84] To mitigate the problems inherent with the design tactic, Bearman suggested assisting users and system support staff to understand archival functional requirements (implementation tactic). Again, this tactic depends on the existence of a suitable corporate culture. Finally, the standards tactic, which Bearman suggested is unlikely to succeed, involves incorporating archival functional requirements within international information technology standards. Paraphrased below is a series of implications, identified by Cook, of Bearman’s approach to managing electronic records [85]. Archivists should shift their focus from:
- The attributes of individual documents to their functional and business contexts;
- Appraising records based on their research value to appraising the functions and activities of record creators (by using a risk management approach);
- Arranging, describing, and preserving physical objects to a contextual understanding and exploitation of information systems;
- Hoping for cooperation from record creators to auditing and monitoring record creators; and
- From passively storing records to facilitating access to records.
These implications illustrate the importance of the virtual attributes of records to Bearman’s definition of records. His definition forced archivists to focus their attention on the evidential qualities of records and their virtual or non-physical attributes that associate them with business transactions and activities. These virtual attributes, referred to by Cook as functional and business contexts, provided the mechanism for new approaches to the traditional archival functions of appraisal, arrangement, and description. These themes also show how Bearman’s challenge to the Jenkinsonian notion of archival neutrality forced archivists to consider intervening in the processes of records creation and maintenance by adopting new roles such as monitoring and auditing. Similarly, archivists were also forced to consider the possibility of actively engaging with their research communities.
Post-modern Influences
The notion of archivists actively intervening in the creation and ongoing maintenance of records is quintessentially post-modern. Indeed, Cook asserted that:
. . . the postmodern shift requires [archivists to move] . . . away from identifying themselves as passive guardians of an inherited legacy to celebrating their role in actively shaping societal memory . . . a consciously constructed and actively mediated ‘archivalisation’ of social memory [86].
Cook also asserted that post-modernists dismiss the modernist notions of absolute truth and regard records as just one type of text [87]. He claimed that this dismissal of the notion of absolute truth can be seen in Peter Scott’s “series system” of description which, because it emphasises the contextual rather than physical nature of records, embodies post-modern emphasis on accepting the validity of multiple realities [88]. More importantly, postmodernism is fundamentally antithetical to custodial paradigm theorists such as Jenkinson who asserted that “archivists are neutral, impartial custodians of ‘truth’.” [89] For these reasons, Cook stated that archivists could no longer claim to be engaged in a value-free activity. This explains his post-custodial vision that “[a]rchivists should accept rather than deny their own historicity, that is, their own participation in the historical process.” [90] Post-modern implications are further discussed in the next section.
Schismatic Tendencies
Post-custodial concepts have, of course, been subject to a number of criticisms. The main criticism of the post-custodial paradigm centres on its opponents’ notion that acquiring physical custody of records is the only guaranteed method of ensuring their long-term authenticity [91]. In fact, much of the controversy in the literature surrounding the post-custodial paradigm appears to revolve around the meaning of the term post-custodial and, in particular, the prefix ‘post’. For many writers antagonistic to the post-custodial paradigm, post-custodial is virtually synonymous with non-custodial [92]. However, post-custodial writers have asserted that the traditional custodial strategy of passively receiving records into archival repositories once their value to their creators has ceased is no longer viable and must be augmented, though not necessarily replaced, by other strategies [93]. Cook expressed a typical post-custodial response:
Advocates of the post-custodial approach are not saying that archivists of the future will no longer have physical custody of records . . . [but] our traditional focus on caring for the physical things under out institutional custody will be replaced or (at the very least) enhanced by a focus on the context, purpose, intent, interrelationships, functionality, and accountability of the record . . . All this goes well beyond simple custody, and thus has usefully been termed post-custodial [94].
By appealing to the French post-modern philosopher Jean Francois Lyotard’s interpretation of ‘post’ as a prefix, Upward asserted that post-custodial is not synonymous with non-custodial. He argued that this prefix refers to the replacement of custodial methods [95]. However, he also suggested that this notion of succession does not imply a complete break with tradition, hence alluding to the re-conceptualisation of traditional or custodial principles, but rather a sign of a collapse of confidence in the custodial paradigm. Finally, this prefix also refers to the conscious integration, or “deconstruction” in post-modern parlance, of the many dualisms prevalent in the custodial paradigm:
The custodial debate could furnish us with another dualism: custody and non-custody. From the postcustodial [sic] viewpoint, why bother debating the issue? The postcustodial position is not non-custodial [96].
Another criticism is that post-custodial writers over-emphasise the evidentiary qualities of records and the role that records play in supporting accountability. This over-emphasis, it has been asserted, ignores archivists’ cultural role [97]. The South African archivist Verne Harris provided a particularly articulate example of this criticism:
As much as the record-keeping paradigm has to offer, as attractive the strategic advantages it promises, it – in assuming too much, forgetting too much, excluding too much – forfeits large tracts of what I would call the archival heartland [98].
In particular, both American archivist Linda Henry and, curiously, Cook stated that the definition of records as evidence ignores the cultural and humanistic values of records and, as a result, post-custodial thinking tends to exclude collecting archives, the institutions that collect and manage non-government records [99]. Responses to this criticism tend to observe that, while the cultural dimension has not been stressed in the post-custodial re-conceptualisation of archival principles, this does not imply that the paradigm excludes these dimensions [100]. Cook’s subsequent resolution of this criticism asserted that the threatened schism between the accountability and cultural aspects of archival work is due to a misinterpretation of “professional rhetoric and work strategies, rather then by any inherent conceptual flaw.” [101] Australian recordkeeper Adrian Cunningham and New Zealand archivist Janine Delaney both observed that archivists from collecting archives tend to regard post-custodial approaches as largely irrelevant for their work [102]. Cunningham noted that this perception is due to the fact that collecting archives tend to regard the provision of input into the process of records creation as being too labour-intensive and may create records that lack impartiality. More significantly, he noted that non-government organisations from whom they collect records have less stringent accountability requirements than government organisations. His rebuttal of these objections concluded that, not only are post-custodial strategies eminently applicable to collecting archives, but that remaining in a custodial mindset would lead archivists from collecting archives “inexorably towards antiquarian oblivion.”[103].
Post-custodial writers have also been criticised for not basing their arguments on archival theory and practice [104]. For example, Henry claimed that the post-custodial emphasis on the evidential qualities of records has “little precedent in the archival literature.” [105] This claim is, in fact, unfounded given the manner in which post-custodial writers have consciously re-interpreted the principle of provenance and Jenkinson’s evidence-based definition of records [106]. As Cook pointed out:
Rather than abandoning archival principles for those of information management or computer science . . . or remaining locked in the Schellenbergian content-centred cocoon . . . [Canadian archivists] began discovering (or ‘re-discovering’) the intellectual excitement of contexualized information that was their own profession’s legacy [107].
What is clear, however, is that the post-custodial literature rarely references practical implementations of post-custodial ideas. Indeed, Cook’s critique of David Bearman’s writings suggests that “[r]eal-world implementation strategies and obstacles need to be incorporated in[to] Bearman’s paradigm.” [108]
The post-custodial emphasis on intervening in the creation and ongoing maintenance of records has been criticised as degrading the neutrality of records [109]. As discussed earlier, this Jenkinsonian notion is indefensible in a post-modern era. For example, Cunningham observed that: “[w]hile Jenkinson’s ideas should not be dismissed out of hand, his emphasis on objectivity and truthfulness sits somewhat uncomfortably in our postmodernist present.” [110]
The final criticism is that the post-custodial paradigm marginalises the archival perspective. This criticism is based on statements that call for archivists to develop new roles and partnerships. For example, McKemmish observed that:
Recordkeeping professionals have been developing new roles as policy makers, standard setters, strategic planners, system designers, educators, advocates and auditors, and this has involved the forging of new partnerships [111].
While Duranti agreed that recordkeeping professionals (or “archivists” and “records managers”, as she preferred) should forge new partnerships, she believed that, in the pursuit of new roles, recordkeeping professionals must be careful to avoid losing their “distinct professional and disciplinary perspectives.” [112]
Post-custodial Realities
As noted above, the changing recordkeeping landscape of the 1980s and 1990s was characterised by three factors that eroded the viability of traditional recordkeeping principles and practices: the ‘wild frontier’; accountability failures; and managerialism. The North American and Australian archival communities responded to this crisis by re-conceptualising the archival mission so as to counteract the erosion of traditional recordkeeping principles and practices. Although the threat posed by electronic records played a significant role in driving the development of this re-conceptualisation – the post-custodial paradigm – the paradigm itself is not focused on the management of electronic records. Nor are arguments around custody, distributed or otherwise, central to the paradigm. Although the terminology used in this re-conceptualisation differs from community to community, and within them from writer to writer, it is possible to trace the development of distinct themes within the post-custodial discourse.
Whereas the custodial paradigm emphasised the cultural aspect of records at the expense of their role as evidence, most notably in Schellenberg’s value-based definition of archives, the re-conceptualisation that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s embraced the evidence-based definition of records that was dominant in the period prior to the early modern era. Concurrently, post-custodial theorists also began to explore and take advantage of the non-physical or virtual attributes of records in their approaches to description and appraisal. For example, the Australian “series system” emphasised the description of records and their provenance regardless of their physical location. Similarly, the Canadian macroappriasal acquisition strategy relied on the assumption that the significance of records was best deduced from the virtual attributes of records, their creators and the functions they document, rather than their physical attributes and intellectual content (Schellenberg’s secondary value). Post-custodial theorists also advocated active intervention in the creation and on-going maintenance of all records. In many ways this reflects the influence of post-modernism, with its rejection of the notion of absolute truth. In particular, it rejects the Jenkinsonian notion of neutrality and archivists as neutral, impartial custodians of truth. Closely associated with the interventionist stance is a stated intent to influence the design of information technology solutions so that records are appropriately created and maintained. The interventionist strategies advocated by Bearman included: policy; design; implementation; and standards. Finally, post-custodial theorists, through Bearman and McKemmish, have, to some extent, revived the original role of archives as authenticating agents by recognising that records support organisational accountability for decision making and provide long-term memory for record creators.
An Australian Synthesis
The Australian archival community has made significant contributions to the re-conceptualisation of the archival mission. These contributions include recognition that: there is a correlation between failures in accountability mechanisms, including recordkeeping, and corruption and mismanagement; corporations struggled to deal with the management of electronic artefacts created by desktop information technologies; the archival community needed to forge partnerships with other professions and learn to “steer” rather than “row”; and that records, and their provenances, could be described independently of their physical locations. The Australian archival community’s most significant contribution was, however, the development of the records continuum model, a consistent and integrated model for managing records from creation to preservation and use as archives. It should be noted that, although Sue McKemmish, Frank Upward, and other Australian writers were instrumental in developing the records continuum model, the concept of the records continuum was first articulated by the Canadian Jay Atherton, who asserted that because the life-cycle’s linear transfer of responsibilities between records managers and archivists was unsatisfactory, it should be replaced by a model in which creation, classification, appraisal, and maintenance and use “are interrelated, forming a continuum in which both records managers and archivists are involved, to varying degrees, in the on-going management of recorded information.” [113]
McKemmish and Upward developed the records continuum model, in response to a series of corporate accountability failures, by emphasising the evidentiary qualities of records and the role they play in supporting accountability:
. . . evidentiary qualities of archival documents form, in short, a basis for the institution’s internal accountability and for wider public accountability essential for any democracy where leaders and institutions are required to account to the people for their actions [114].
In articulating the evidentiary qualities of records, McKemmish and Upward consciously rejected Schellenberg’s distinction between records and archives. They did this by drawing on Jenkinson’s evidence-based definition of records and Bearman’s transaction-based definition to develop the concept of the archival document [115]. The adoption of this concept in Australia can be seen in the evidence and transaction-based definition of records in the Australian Standard on Records Management [116]:
Recorded information in any form, including data in computer systems, created or received and maintained by an organisation or person in the transaction of business or the conduct of affairs and kept as evidence of such activity [117].
Although influenced by Jenkinson, Australian theorists did not adhere to his vision of archivists as passive keepers and custodians of records. Instead, they regarded “archivists as active interveners, even auditors in the archival document continuum.” [118] In the records continuum model, archivists actively intervene in the process of record creation, even to the extent of being actively involved in the design of recordkeeping systems (Bearman’s design tactic). This active intervention can be seen in the way in which the Australian Standard on Records Management was designed to apply to recordkeeping, that is, both records management and archival mangement [119]. In contrast, the International Standard on Records Management, although based on the Australian Standard on Records Management has a much narrower scope, applying only to records management [120]. This suggests that the concept of a consistent and coherent model for managing records from creation to preservation and use as archives has not been universally accepted outside of Australia. However, even in Australia the records continuum model presented a radical or fundamental challenge for archivists. Adrian Cunningham alludes to this challenge by observing the reluctance of archivists to adopt the strategy of active intervention in the creation and maintenance of records before they are transferred to archival custody:
Good recordkeeping requires the involvement of recordkeeping professionals throughout the entire life of the records . . . we cannot afford to be squeamish about getting involved in the processes of records creation and recordkeeping system design [121].
In fact, McKemmish and other Australian post-custodialists regard the records continuum model as empowering archivists to adopt a range of non-traditional roles [122].
The fragility of the content, structure and context of electronic records has particularly highlighted the need for archivists to intervene in the design of recordkeeping systems. For example, Cunningham asserted that: “[i]f electronic records are to survive as reliable evidence of human activity, they have to be created and captured into well-designed, well-documented record-keeping systems.” [123] In fact, Upward observed that his interest in the continuum was stimulated “[w]hen electronic recordkeeping issues resurrected continuum approaches in Australia.” [124] In particular, he tried to reflect the role of records in providing evidence for accountability purposes. Upward stated that his practical experience working in a public archival institution and the ideas of David Bearman and English sociologist Anthony Giddens provided the basis for his articulation of the records continuum model the late 1990s [125]. By comparing Giddens’ ideas from structuration theory with the processes of records creation, capture, organisation and pluralisation, Upward depicted these processes as dimensions of “the evidence component of records management.”[126] The four dimensions he chose – identity, transactionality, evidentiality, and recordkeeping – emphasised the non-physical or virtual attributes of records.
Within this brief outline of the records continuum model can be seen all of the post-custodial themes identified in this article. For example, the records continuum model shares the post-custodial emphasis on the evidential nature of records and their non-physical or virtual attributes. It also advocates, in line with post-modernism, an interventionist approach by archivists, specifically in systems design. Finally, it appeals to the role that records play in supporting accountability. Thus, the records continuum model can be regarded as an Australian synthesis and extension of a range of post-custodial concepts. Moreover, this post-custodial context, and its custodial precursor, provides the New Zealand archival and recordkeeping communities with a framework within which both the records continuum model and Archives New Zealand’s continuum-based programmes and initiatives can be understood and evaluated.
Footnotes
1 Archives New Zealand, Archives New Zealand: Statement of Intent 2004-05 (Wellington:
Archives New Zealand, 2004).
2 Luciana Duranti, “Archives as Place,” Archives and Manuscripts, vol.24, no.2 (1996): 248.
3 Theodore Schellenberg, Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques (Chicago: The
Society of The American Archivists, 1996 [1956]), 3, and Ernst Posner, Archives in
the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 5.
4 Terry Cook, “Archives in the Post-Custodial World: Interaction of Archival Theory and
Practice Since the Publication of the Dutch Manual in 1889.” Paper presented at the
13th International Congress on Archives, Beijing, 1996, 4.
5 Luciana Duranti, “Origin and Development of the Concept of Archival Description,”
Archivaria, vol.35 (Spring 1993): 49.
6 Duranti, “Origin and Development,” 48.
7 Ibid., 49-50. 8 Ibid., 49-50.
9 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 169.
10 Duranti, “Origin and Development,” 49-50.
11 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 170-172.
12 Ibid., 173-75.
13 Ibid., 175-76 and Cook, “Archives in the Post-Custodial World,” 4.
14 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 175.
15 Terry Cook, “What is Past is Prologue: A History of Archival Ideas Since 1898 and the
Future Paradigm Shift,” Archivaria, vol.43 (Spring 1997), 24.
16 Ibid., 28.
17 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 133.
18 Ibid., 134.
19 Ibid., 136-37.
20 Reto Tschan, “A Comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal,” The American
Archivist, vol.64 (Fall/Winter 2002), 178.
21 Luciana Duranti, “The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory,” The American Archivist,
vol.57 (Spring 1994): 334-35.
22 Tschan, “Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal,” 178.
23 Ibid., 186-87.
24 Ibid., 178.
25 Gerald Ham, “Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era,” The American Archivist,
vol.44 (Summer 1981): 207-16, quoted in Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 24.
26 Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 25.
27 Ibid., 25.
28 Ibid., 26.
29 Ibid., 26-27.
30 Tschan, “Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal,” 180.
31 Ibid., 180.
32 Schellenberg Modern Archives, 13-16, quoted in Duranti, “Appraisal and Archival Theory,”
338.
33 Duranti, “Appraisal and Archival Theory,” 339 and Tschan, “Jenkinson and Schellenberg on
Appraisal,” 186.
34 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 133.
35 Schellenberg’s use of the term evidence was much broader than Jenkinson’s use of the
term.
36 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 133.
37 Ibid., 148.
38 Tschan, “Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal,” 184.
39 Gerald Ham, cited in Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 29.
40 Duranti, “Appraisal and Archival Theory,” 339.
41 Tschan, “Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal,” 183.
42 Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 28.
43 Ibid., 28.
44 Terry Cook, “Fashionable Nonsense or Professional Rebirth: Postmodernism and the
Practice of Archives,” Archivaria, vol.51 (Spring 2001): 33.
45 John McDonald, “Managing Records in the Modern Office: The Experience of the National
Archives of Canada,” in Playing for Keeps: The Proceedings of an Electronic Records
Management Conference Hosted by the Australian Archives, Canberra, Australia 8-10
November 1994, ed. Stephen Yorke (Dickson: Australian Archives, 1994).
46 David Roberts, “Defining Electronic Records, Documents and Data,” Archives and
Manuscripts, vol.22, no.1 (1994): 22-3.
47 Chris Hurley, Email to NZRecords listserv (30 January 2003, 15:01).
48 Rick Barry, “Making the Distinctions Between Information Management and Records
Management,” (www.mybestdocs.com [Accessed 27 May 2003], 1996).
49 Glenda Acland and Sue McKemmish, “Archivists at Risk: Accountability and the
Role of the Professional Society,” (www.sims.monash.edu.au [Accessed 27 May 2004],
1999), 3.
50 “The Lessons from Enron,” The Economist, 9 February 2002, 9-10.
51 Acland and McKemmish, “Archivists at Risk,” 3.
52 Johnathan Boston et al, Public Management: The New Zealand Model (Auckland: Oxford
University Press, 1996), 2.
53 Johnathan Boston, preface to The State Under Contract, ed. Johnathan Boston (Wellington:
Bridget Williams Books, 1995), ix-x.
54 Michael Hoyle, “Review, Restructure, and Reform: Recordkeeping Standards in the New
Zealand State Sector,” Archivaria, vol.48 (Fall 1999): 51.
55 Terry Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds: The Revolution in Information Management
and Archives in the Post-Custodial and Post-Modernist Era,” Archives and Manuscripts,
vol.22, no.2 (1994): 307.
56 Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 301.
57 Sue McKemmish, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: A Continuum of Responsibility
(www.sims.monash.edu.au [Accessed 13 March 2000], 1997), 8-9.
58 Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 304.
59 Greg O’Shea and David Roberts, “Living in a Digital World: Recognising the Electronic and
Post-custodial Realities,” Archives and Manuscripts, vol.24, no.2 (1996): 305-07.
60 McKemmish, “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” 8.
61 Ibid., 8.
62 Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 306.
63 Chris Hurley, “The Australian ‘Series’ System: An Exposition,” in The Records Continuum:
Ian Maclean and Australian Archive First Fifty Years, ed. Sue McKemmish and Michael
Piggott (Clayton: Ancora Press and Australian Archives, 1994); O’Shea and Roberts, “Living
in a Digital World”; and Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds.”
64 Hurley, “The Australian ‘Series’ System,’” 151.
65 Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 307.
66 Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 35-38.
67 Ibid., 37.
68 Ibid., 30.
69 Ibid., 30-31.
70 Ibid., 32.
71 Ibid., 32-33.
72 Ibid., 41.
73 Ibid., 44-45.
74 Ibid., 45.
75 Ibid., 45.
76 Terry Cook, “The Impact of David Bearman on Modern Archival Thinking: An Essay of
Personal Reflection and Critique,” Archives and Museum Informatics, vol.11(1997): 15-37;
and Cook, “Past is Prologue.”
77 Cook, “The Impact of David Bearman,” 23.
78 David Bearman, “Archival Data Management to Achieve Organisational Accountability for
Electronic Records,” Archives and Manuscripts, vol.21, no.1 (1993):, 15.
79 David Bearman, “Item Level Control and Electronic Recordkeeping,” Archives and Museum
Informatics, vol.10, no.3 (1996): 211.
80 David Roberts, “Defining Electronic Records,” 23-24.
81 Bearman, “Archival Data Management,” 21-22.
82 Ibid., 21.
83 Bearman’s input into the University of Pittsburgh’s research into the functional requirements
for evidence in recordkeeping systems further articulated what he meant by the design
tactic. See Wendy Duff, “Ensuring the Preservation of Reliable Evidence: A Research
Project Funded by the NHPRC,” Archivaria, vol.42 (Fall 1996): 38-39.
84 Bearman, “Archival Data Management,” 21-22.
85 Cook, “The Impact of David Bearman,” 27.
86 Cook, “Fashionable Nonsense,” 29.
87 Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 316.
88 Cook, “Fashionable Nonsense,” 33.
89 Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 318.
90 Ibid., 319.
91 Luciana Duranti, “Archives as Place,” and Terry Eastwood, “Should Creating Agencies
Keep Electronic Records Indefinitely?,” Archives and Manuscripts, vol.24, no.2 (1996): 256-
67.
92 Duranti, “Archives as Place”; Steven Ellis, “Four Travellers, Two Ways, One Direction:
Where to Now for Archival Practice?,” Archives and Manuscripts, vol.24, no.2 (1996): 322-
19; and Linda Henry, “Schellenberg in Cyberspace,” The American Archivist, vol.61, no.2
(Fall 1998): 309-27.
93 O’Shea and Roberts, “Living in a Digital World,” 292.
94 Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 308.
95 Frank Upward, “Structuring the Records Continuum, Part One: Post-Custodial Principles
and Properties,” Archives and Manuscripts,” vol.24, no.2 (1996): 270.
96 Upward, “Structuring the Records Continuum, Part One,” 273.
97 Cook, “The Impact of David Bearman”; Verne Harris, Law, Evidence and Electronic
Records: A Strategic Perspective from the Global Periphery (www.archivists.org.au
[Accessed 13 March 2000], 2000); and Henry, “Schellenberg in Cyberspace.”
98 Harris, Law, Evidence and Electronic Records, 14-15.
99 Henry, “Schellenberg in Cyberspace,” 315; and Cook, “The Impact of David Bearman,” 29-
30.
100 Cook, “The Impact of David Bearman,” 35.
101 Terry Cook, “Beyond the Screen: The Records Continuum and Archival Cultural Heritage.”
Paper presented at the Australian Society of Archivists Conference, Melbourne, Australia,
18 May, 2000. (www.archivists.org.au [Accessed 15 July 2004]), 11.
102 Adrian Cunningham, “Waiting for the Ghost Train: Strategies for Managing Electronic
Personal Records Before it is Too Late,” Archival Issues, vol.24, no.1 (1999): 60-62 and
Janine Delaney, “Redefining the Role for Collecting Archives in an Electronic Paradigm,”
Archifacts, (April 2000): 23.
103 Cunningham, “Waiting for the Ghost Train,” 59.
104 Henry, “Schellenberg in Cyberspace,” 325.
105 Ibid., 314.
106 Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 31; Upward, “Structuring the Records Continuum, Part One,” 275.
107 Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 36.
108 Cook, “The Impact of David Bearman,” 31.
109 Henry, “Schellenberg in Cyberspace,” 318.
110 Cunningham, “Waiting for the Ghost Train,” 61.
111 Sue McKemmish, The Smoking Gun: Recordkeeping and Accountability
(www.sims.monash.edu.au [Accessed 31 January 2003], 1998), 10.
112 Luciana Duranti, “Meeting the Challenge of Contemporary Records: Does it Require a Role
Change for the Archivist?,” The American Archivist, vol.63,no.1 (Spring/Summer 2000): 13.
113 Flynn, “The Records Continuum Model,” 80.
114 Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 39.
115 Ibid., 39.
116 Although the Australian Standard on Records Management (AS4390) was superseded by
the International Standard on Records Management (ISO 15489), in practice the Australian
Standard is still referred to and used by practitioners in both Australia and New Zealand.
117 Standards Australia, AS 4390.1-1996: Records Management – General (Homebush:
Standards Australia, 1996), 7.
118 Cook, “Past is Prologue,” 40.
119 Standards Australia, AS 4390.1-1996: Records Management – General (Homebush:
Standards Australia, 1996), 4.
120 International Standards Organisation, Information and Documentation – Records
Management – Part 1: General. 15489-1:2001(E) (Geneva, Switzerland: International
Standards Organisation, 2001), 1.
121 Cunningham, “Waiting for the Ghost Train,” 59.
122 McKemmish, The Smoking Gun, 10.
123 Cunningham, “Waiting for the Ghost Train,” 59.
124 Frank Upward, “Modelling the Continuum as a Paradigm Shift in Recordkeeping and
Archiving Processes, and Beyond – a Personal Reflection,” Records Management Journal,
vol.10, no.3 (2000): 121.
125 Ibid., 121.
126 Ibid., 123.
|
|
| |
|
| | | |
|
