Paper review: Information Science is Neither

Furner, J. (2015). Information Science Is Neither. Library Trends, 63(3), 362–377. http://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0009
I read with this paper a review Furner did of the English translation of Briet’s French text: What is Documentation? The purpose of reading Furner, the review and the 2015 paper is part of my quest to understand documentation and concepts of the document.
 
Furner, J. (2008). What Is Documentation?: English Translation of the Classic French Text. Libraries and the Cultural Record, (1), 107.
I was introduced to Buckland’s 1991 Information as thing paper in 2006 when I first started my Masters, but never really went into it or explored the notion of the document any further. In archives I recall discussions about documents related to structure and content (of a record) and how to undertake a document reading using multiple components that make up content and structure. This would help to arrive at context – somewhat. The definition of a record also includes metadata – the capture of context – which is important to understanding where a record is located in (any) time and space.
  
Record = content + structure + metadata
I have begun to explore documentation in more depth because of Helen Samuels and documentation traditions, but also because this is now part of what I teach and research. I investigate, write about and critique collections/acquisition/appraisal policy from a complex, evidential point of view within a continuum philosophy, but what other ideas might be of interest? I note that definitions of the document in Furner’s review, as he compares different translations, refer to representation, reconstruction, demonstration (proving) something. This is very similar to my thoughts about ‘records as trace’ as described by the continuum, drawn from Derrida’s work. What is implied in this definition of the document is that a document cannot be the thing, but is only part of something. I have written about then and now and understandings of time within the context of records and will dig this out and post it. I am of the camp that claims that all documents are records and that all records are evidence of something. If they are good evidence, or represent good proof, well, that is another matter, completely subjective, dependent on purpose and context of use. There is something else here in relation to meaning and memory (or memory-making) that I think is missing. This is what the purpose of the document or the record is, whether it does it successfully or not. Representation, demonstration and reconstruction all point towards a greater purpose – remembering. And I would also link identity, defined in various ways including individual, group, organizational, institutional, but also cultural, societal etc. Memory and identity cannot be separated from each other and the intersections of these are as important as considering each on its own.
 
Furner’s paper, Information Science is Neither, drew me into another thought bubble about conceptualisation and I see that he has written another paper I need to read:
 
Furner, J. (2004). Conceptual Analysis: A Method for Understanding Information as Evidence, and Evidence as Information. Archival Science, 4(3), 233–265.
I had a discussion with a colleague yesterday about how to do research into theory as I am very interested in exploring conceptual positions within the archival discipline. It seems odd to me that continuum theory is positioned next to or opposed with lifecycle theory when the lifecycle is not a theory but a work process. I want to know if there is a theory that underpins the lifecycle, if it is shared between all people who refer to the lifecycle, and whether it can be related to current paradigms. My proposition is that the lifecycle approach to archives and records is a positivist view but is not a consistent concept and that people actually think about and implement lifecycle positions in quite diverse ways.
Onto Furner’s ideas about information science, a discipline I am unclear about. In Australia, the school and the faculty talked about archival systems and information systems. I also tried to figure out the meaning of archival science without much success and in the end use this term to describe that people do research in the area of archives. Epistemology, ontology and methodology.
My thoughts are random and may be developed more later:
  • The first thing I wondered is if there is a philosophy of archives and is Derrida the only (known) person in that club?
  • I laughed.
  • Information is something people (do not) search for. People use information to search for something. Some other meaning or goal. Or to make sense of something. People do not search for information as the goal.
  • Same goes for retrieval. The end goal is not to retrieve information, but to find something.
  • I am already thinking that how stuff is defined and how language is used to communicate these ideas, contributes to how solutions are understood and evolved. For example: if I think that people are interested in searching for people’s names then I will have a search field of author. And I will structure the database so people can search via author. But what if I think that people are interested in searching for stories, or how something is made, or what connections it has to something else? These are sometimes built into databases and it is possible to see the medium, format, linked subjects and so on, but this is not necessarily what people are interested in. Or wanting to find. Something else I have been thinking a lot about lately is how what technologies are created construct the meaning of how they are supposed to be used. For example: Facebook works in a particular way, there is a timeline, posts, etc. But I cannot search my own or anyone else’s timeline. I cannot represent my information in different ways. Facebook apps do this, but again, I cannot do what I might want to do. People create work arounds or create new software/apps/platforms.
  • People create, communicate, search for, share, access and develop meaning and meaningful ways to interact with each other using various tools. Meaning-making is about culture as the transmission of ideas. Memory is part of culture and in particular, remembering. Without remembering there is no transmission of something over time.
  • Can a philosophy of information include philosophy of archives? The more I think about this the more I think that these are separate. But looking at the idea about people and meaning, this includes archives, so maybe not.
  • Furner explores the idea of activities of representation and results of representation, and positions them as separate. I disagree. In the same way that people use technologies in expected and unexpected ways, activities of representation must include how results impact on activities.  Furner might think this too, but does not make this clear as his argument moves on towards explaining types of representation.
  • Collection, access and preservation studies. I don’t like it. It does not articulate very well the social and cultural aspects of interacting with and generating meaning and memory.
  • I agree with the idea of situating information studies within a cultural understanding of how information is used, but my mind keeps trying to fit in the idea of dimensions of memory and the action/outcome system in relation to memory into a cultural understanding. I have been talking to people about a cultural understanding of recordkeeping and archives for a long time with varied success. My position comes from the idea that people make decisions about things related to records all the time. These decisions are necessarily influenced by culture at various levels and forms part of the complexity of how recordkeeping gets done. For example: a collections policy is only ever implemented as far as an individual interprets it. The interpretation is always going to be cultural – from their own understanding of meaning-making, the bosses, the organization, etc. There might be processes in place, but these are also interpreted via these cultural frameworks. This is also then related to memory. So many times I heard from employees that NFPs do not do business. This is absolutely not true, but it depends on definition, which is interpreted. Interpretation is cultural. Furner refers to a resources continuum that influences decisions and I think this is particularly useful. It also makes me think of needing to explore cultural theory more.
  • “We want to know about the ways in which individual people construct representations of the natural and cultural world with which they interact, and we want to understand the very nature of representation and interpretation.” p. 375. There is more Furner has written here in his last paragraph which is wonderful. I like that he mentions that we want to know the ‘ways’, ‘how’ and ‘about’ in relation to various activities related to people and stuff.
  • I prefer the terms, meaning-making and memory-making in relation to stuff. Although these are problematic.

In case you were wondering, my reviews of these articles are in fact my notes and thoughts rather than an evaluation. This paper is so well written and logical and I have read it twice now, and I think there is more for me to learn here. This may be another post. Or not. As a wise woman once said to me (actually she said it lots) – everything is process. I am going to add – so live with it.

Paper review – Self-determination and archival autonomy: advocating activism

Evans, J., McKemmish, S., Daniels, E., & McCarthy, G. (2015). Self-determination and archival autonomy: advocating activism. Archival Science, 15(4), 337–368. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-015-9244-6
This paper is a really important part of the growing discourse and awareness of the active role archivists in the profession and in academia can take. It illuminates the particular situation in Australia, as well as references examples around the world. The authors make it clear what needs changing – access, discovery, rights, appraisal, description and disclosure. Some of these are key archival terms that all archivists are aware of. But the key aspect of this paper that shines brightest to me is the continuum perspective. The authors state that they have taken a continuum point of view and they talk about recordkeeping, co-creators, multiple provenance, but the key to what they mean by continuum is in the use of the concept  – the system.
◊ 
There are several ways this is mentioned in the paper and one of the first is the goal of addressing identity, memory and accountability needs that also includes redress, recovery, emotional, medical and psychological health, financial security and right to legal restitution of individuals and communities. This statement might make you think about context and yes, these are contexts, but these ideas are really about understanding the systems that underpin why and how records are created and how they become archives. Archivists often talk about ‘contexts’ and how context provides information about how records are created and managed before they get to the archive. Legal, organizational and social contexts. But these are not just impacting on the record, but are part of the record
A systemic view of archives acknowledges that records are not just things but are part of systems of many things – linked to activities, interaction, people and mandates. Recordkeeping is a term that embodies this notion of a system of records – not just the things themselves, but why they are created and how, as well as how actions related to the record (or records at various aggregations) impacts on what role the record might play. This is why the term archival systems is important and the notion of systemic issues is a vital position within the archival activism discourse, but also within a wider archival discourse.
 
From a social perspective, referencing Giddens (as the continuum models do), the notion of systems refers to the interconnectedness of things and processes, but also to how these enact and influence the evolution of the systems. How the system works is not just what the system does, but how it is adapted through various mechanisms, particularly power. This is why the concept of archival autonomy, which is raised in the paper, is so important. It is not just about understanding or advocating for rights in records such as access or privacy, but to change the system so rights are inherent in how records are conceived of within the system.
I have been working recently in articulating the core principles or theory that is continuum theory, or perhaps information continuum theory, as developed by the Australians. Yes, it references various other theories, including structuration theory, but what about information continuum theory is theory? One of my first suggestions is that information continuum theory posits that records exist within a system of interconnected networks. These networks act as contexts to help position the record within spacetime. The networks can be micro and detailed, such as an individual making a decision about deleting an email because it is spam, to macro and expansive, such as how archives build collections because they have a mandate to preserve memory. The macro point of view is inclusive of the micro – they are always connected in some way. Context can include technology, law, community, social norms, culture and so on. Incidentally, this is my fractal explanation of multiple complex realities existing in different planes. I have written about it in my PhD and am thinking about writing a paper on it.
 
The system and the network documents multiple complex realities. The archival autonomy concept in the system (or the fractal) means that at any point in the network an individual has a role to play and a voice to be heard. The paper refers to individuals and communities and although I understand the concept of a community having an identity and memory, I believe that only the individual can articulate that community identity through remembering and action. Shared memory only exists within individuals. Ultimately, what this is about is power and the individual right to power within a complex system.
 
So, two important things can be drawn from these ideas. Firstly, if information continuum theory therefore also posits that if there are multiple complex realities then there are also multiple ways to comprehend recorded information, including those that are yet to be discovered, or those that are hidden, as well as those that appear to be incommensurate. Secondly, if records exist within a system then the concept of the archive as being a stage or past a threshold does not make as much sense. Although, the threshold idea can be seen within the context of the fractal view and within an understanding of movement of power – part of the contexts or network. This is why the idea of archival autonomy is important because it recognises that the systems that support the archive need to include the idea that an individual is part of the network of contexts and are as valuable to design and decision making as the societal mandates for preservation of memory, or legal obligations etc. How the concept of archival autonomy plays out within the system is something that this paper explores. The case studies presented demonstrate very clearly what it means for an individual to be part of the system.
 
Two final thoughts:
  1. Can the concept of archival autonomy be considered within a cultural heritage framework, such as in my own work with understanding social media as cultural heritage?
  2. From this perspective, is all archival research activist? The paper mentions two archival research projects that are about particular communities in Australia that have strong advocacy identities. Is the topic what makes them activist? The research goals? Engagement with critical theory? Engagement with action research methods? Identification of change?

What is archival theory Pt. 2

I am back in the US now, although still not home. Today I am giving a talk to the UCLA student chapter of SAA. I go home tomorrow. Right now I am living off caffeine. For some reason the trip across the pacific going back in time really knocks me around, but going forward in time is not as bad. Time travel is not as fun as you would imagine.

I have had time to spend thinking more about this archival theory issue. I have been reading Anne Gilliland’s book; Conceptualizing 21st Century Archives and it helped me realise a few things:

  • Archival theory is born from practice. In particular, I am referring to the principles of fonds, provenance etc. The principles were formed from understanding and reflecting on practice.
  • New archival theory is born from reflection on existing archival theory and practice taking into account new environments.
  • Not all models represent or ARE archival theory. Rather they reflect a philosophical position. But the theory has yet to be explicated.

This last point got me thinking about the life cycle model which has only been around for a short period of time. In Australia, we all exclaim how strange the life cycle model is because it treats records as if they were a living thing, i.e. have a life/death. It sounds odd because records are not living things, but then again in Australia we talk about living archives, so this seems to be a contradiction in my mind. In fact I believe the issue is more about the focus on processes and stages rather than evolving context and use – the “living” is articulated from the archivist’s point of view, not the records. Records are and conceptualised constructed before they are created and continue to evolve and change over time according to multiple contexts. What this leads me to believe is that the life cycle model is born from a particular worldview and specific philosophy. This philosophy has been articulated in the context of archives and records, but has it been explored, analysed and discussed as a worldview in the abstract? What is the paradigm that supports this view? And should people working in it state their position? Of course people do say that they are in the Schellenberg or Jenkinson camp, and this is totally valid way to articulate a worldview in the archival discipline. But what are the principles that articulate these world views? What is the theory? What does it mean to have a Schellenberg worldview? Is it the same as being a constructivist? I have not read much on how Schellenberg’s work is contextualised as theory so if there is something out there you think I should read that provides answers to this, please let me know.

These thoughts lead me to explore other areas of archival theory and ask what the worldview is. For example: I can quickly explain macro-appraisal as a top down approach that seeks to document or appraise according to a totality of human experiences. Yet, what is the philosophical position here? Other terms in the archival vocabulary also articulate a worldview. I am thinking of the concepts in particular of the archival bond and archival threshold.

In my own research I position myself as a continuum theorist (a researcher using continuum theory and models as a framework). The continuum lens is my habitus, using Pierre Bourdieu’s term for his concept that refers to how an individual “becomes” through developing values, judgements and approaches to social interaction (their habitual state), but also to how individuals participate in practices: their predisposition to action (Bourdieu, 1984; Webb et al., 2002*). My interpretation and application of continuum theory also assumes that social actors have multiple, non-linear and non-hierarchical ways of seeing and knowing. Social transactions and interactions are activities that provide meaning across time and space that can be communicated in various formats and utilising a range of technologies. These assumptions are closely aligned with an interpretive research paradigm. However, there are many positions within this overarching paradigm and I have yet to explore them in enough detail to identify with one or more. I will leave myself as a continuum theorist for now.

External to the research world is there a way for an archivist or anyone else to articulate a worldview? There is an assumption I think that all archival theory comes from the same place and is just different articulations about records. I am not sure this is entirely true. But then again I am not entirely sure how not true it is. Why this is important? To me, to be able to contribute to the profession and the discipline it is essential to be able to explain and defend ideas and decisions so that they are transferable and able to be articulated clearly by anyone. Why is it so hard for people to understand the records continuum model? Maybe because it is a different worldview and there has not been good enough explanations of what kind of worldview it is. Another way to explain is to apply and use examples, but this can only be successful if the principles underlying the ideas are easily transferable. I am working on this for continuum theory by exploring continuum informatics.

These thoughts also bring me back to the idea about what archival means in relation to archival theory. Can there be an archive without records? Why is it not then called records theory? Because surely records can be archives at any point in time?

I am interested in when, why and how records become archives. And how long archives as being records of continuing value actually is. This is often referred to as appraisal, but I do not want to get involved in the archival terms for this process. I am interested in how anyone makes these decisions. I am not interested in whether or not people do create records and archives or not, but want to speak to those people who do or who want to. People who would not identify as archivists. Or even use terms such as record or archive. I am interested in how these people use technologies, specifically social media as part of their own documentation strategies as personal recordkeeping. I think this would help to reveal something of what it means to archive, to record, and what worldviews people have in relation to this.

Wouldn’t it also be interesting to then talk to archivists who create archives because they want to? Rick Prelinger would be a great person to speak to. Brewster Kahle would be another. There are archivists who helped to create archives such as the People’s Archive of Police Violence in Cleveland who would be great to speak to. There are non-archivists creating archives as well such as those who created the Digital Archives and Marginalized Communities Project.

Others such as those people who create Facebook groups to support a community would also provide great information about why people document and how they think about ongoing work in relation to it and what this means in relation to archives. There are some complexities here in relation to what an archive might mean and this would be the exciting part of the research. Although, I can already see the work growing exponentially.

The ideas I share in this blog are in progress and are not necessarily formed. I welcome any comments and feedback.

*From the dissertation. If you want the full references, please let me know.

 

 

 

 

What is archival theory?

Here I am in Adelaide, Australia, sitting and thinking about archival theory.  As you do. This week I gave a speech to the Doctoral student consortium at the Australasian Conference on Information Systems about my experiences undertaking a PhD. While I was writing my presentation I realised there is not much in the way of methodology or research design in the archival literature about how to build theory. I think there are two reasons for this: firstly, that archival theory is assumed to be somewhat static or the principles are set in stone. Even new ideas stem from old ones such as “new provenance theory” or “macro-appraisal theory.” The second is that there is very little research in the sense of systematic, rigorous, reflexive research as a science that has resulted in developed theory for archives. I had to figure it out myself and this is in part the story I tell.

I thought I would have a look at Wikipedia’s definitions of archival science and archival theory to figure out exactly what archival theory means. This kind of thinking for me is linked to a conversation I had many years ago about what was an archival research question. And now I see that the FARMER conference is taking Anne Gilliland‘s idea about what archives do that nothing else does. I reckon that the idea of archival identity in relation to formulation of research questions and an understanding of the discipline are linked.  Continuum models, my field of expertise, did not exist more than 25 years ago as a coherent theoretical contribution, but now they are part of the archival discourse and archival theory. So what makes archival theory archival theory?

I see the first line of Wikipedia’s entry on Archival science states that first of all archival science is synonymous with archival studies. This might be the case for some people, but in Australia we do not call anything archival studies. Along with archival records, archival theory, and archival research questions, I am not sure entirely what this means.

Secondly, Wikipedia says that archival science is the “study and theory of building and curating archives.” Archives in this sentence links to another article that says that an archive is: “…an accumulation of historical records or the physical place they are located.” This I also have an issue with as it excludes the practice of constructing archives, which contributes to the theory as much as theory informs practice. The idea that archives are built is at least recognition that construction takes place, but it also implies that once an archive is “built” it is finished (conceptually), which is something I disagree with. It also implies that the building and curating of archives as a practice is studied, rather than the conceptual foundations of what contributes to the construction of the archive.

The next thing I notice is that it says “An archival record preserves data that is not intended to change.” This is problematic as well as what data is being referred to? Contextual data (metadata) is part of how a record is defined and this will change over time according to what and who is accessing the record and how it is used. So, not static at all.

In my mind I translate these ideas to mean an archive is a place where stuff has inherent and time-bound value based on the information contained in the object. Once it is built then archivists organise the pickings so that people may be amazed at their content and marvel over their historical look and feel. Not true.

Archives do not even have to exist physically to exert power, fear or to silence.

Records can be deemed archival before they are even born.

The online dictionary defines “archival” (adjective) as being “of or relating to archives or valuable records; contained in or comprising such archives or records.” In an archival theory context this definition focuses on the grouping together of records (as archives), the identity (valuable records) and holdings (contained). Archival is therefore subjective understanding of value of informational content and context. How is the subjective value established? This identity is equally as part of how archival can be understood as the grouping or the holdings. There exists theory, but I believe it is entwined in an understand of grouping and holdings. 

continuum-diagThe term archive has been adopted by others outside of the discipline and practice. It would be interesting to explore in more depth how others see and understand the archive (not just Derrida). I have a feeling it is through this understanding of subjective value. This area of interest is something I want to explore in more depth. In my research and in the model I created I removed the archive (it appears in the Records Continuum Model) to look more closely at the concept of archival systems and how these fit into and are an extension of other information systems. My concept of archival refers to establishing continuing value by whoever at whatever point in time. It is not about the archive as a place or a collection but the application of subjective value.

In this context, archival theory is then about understanding the conceptual principles of how decisions (including what decisions and their implementation) are made in relation to subjective value. By anyone, at any time.

ACIS Conference – digital cultural artefacts – who owns them?

An interesting project from Brett Leavy using gamification to preserve songlines in a digital cultural artefacts.

Brett tells us in this conference session that he works in a do-first, ask for forgiveness later practitioner-focussed way. He says the IP belongs essentially to the community (communities), but what about the game? If is a product – a commodity. What if a museum or archive wants to acquire and/or use the game? What about beyond Brett’s lifetime? Admittedly, the technology may not last that long, but the potential for preservation by an institution seems reasonably high.

I found this presentation and project particularly interesting because decisions about how preservation can be conceptualised and carried out can be widely different. The Monash Country Lines project is about a similar topic, but is conceptualised in a different way. Yet is also about preservation.

What both make me wonder if the digital artefacts, created from a perspective of cultural heritage and preservation, actually become the archive. The externalisation of stories presents an interesting idea about how it fits into the notion of cultural heritage within the community the stories come from. Listening to Shannon Faulkhead from Monash about the Country Lines at CIRN Conference a couple of weeks ago I got the impression that in this project the artefact is part of an ongoing archive (and narrative), not the embodiment of cultural heritage.

In the context of my own work what I am interested about is how these artefacts contribute to evidence – what are they evidence of? Whose evidence are they? One of the most interesting things about it is that they are evidence not only of indigenous stories, but also of use and knowledge of digital technologies. In the context of Brett’s game, it is evidence of the role that games play in current society in relation to learning, for access and to communicate. Brett harnesses the power of the game to present information. Is it preserving it though? What exactly is being preserved? Whose memory is it? It would be great to explore in more detail the construction of this project, as well as the Monash Country Lines project. Not to compare, but to explore how the decisions made in their inception and ongoing activities contribute to a diversity of cultural heritage and how.

Time, Songs and Records

On the plane back from Italy earlier this month I watched the documentary on Amy Winehouse that make me think more about time, songs and records. I planned a blog post in my head but then forgot about it in the fog of ongoing back pain from long haul flights. Until today, when I saw an article about Adele (no, not the one where she pranks her fans), but an article with the tag line when it was posted on the NY Times Facebook page as: ““That’s how I know that I’ve written a good song for myself — it’s when I start crying. It’s when I just break out in [expletive] tears in the vocal booth or in the studio, and I’ll need a moment to myself.” The actual article is here.

Adele says that she gets involved in her songs – they move her when she sings them. When watching the Amy doco a similar thing was said about how Amy used her life to help her write songs. And what songs they are! The thing abouAmy_Movie_Postert the doco is that it paralleled her songs with events in her life. So it was really clear the affect her life had on her work. I cannot remember where it was in the film, or in what context, but Amy says something similar to Adele above – that the music takes her to the place she was when she created it. All I could think was how painful this time travelling must be. How it is must be a cruel thing to be made to sing something again and again when it takes to you back to something excruciating in your life.

Then I realised that songs are records.

I did know this already, or have a sense of this, but did not realise what kind of records they are until now. And I am not talking about the vinyl plastic. But that songs, as they are conceived, written, sung, recorded and performed, are records that are witness to a life, they document and are evidence of the process of song-writing, of the singer, of the performer – and in being created song tell multiple stories. This is the brilliance of the film Amy – it tells all these stories from all different points of view. Each story is a documentations of Amy’s life and are part of how to understand her songs. I think this is likely the point of the film.

This is the thing with records – they are a portal into another dimension (in fact multiple dimensions). Archivists and recordkeepers call this context, but it is much more – MUCH MUCH MORE than just an understanding of context. Context in dictionary terms means circumstances around something that contribute to how it can be understood. How is it possible to understand the idea of time travel and the affect of the record? How is it possible to comprehend what it meant to create these songs, to be a friend, a husband, a manager, a family member? Each of these multiple dimensions are context. I remember a scene from the film when two fans ask for a picture with Amy, apologising for disturbing her, and she eventually makes a comment that if they were sorry they would not have asked. How is it possible to understand this context?*

Archivists are known as those that preserve records for the future so that others can use these records for various purposes. Most of the time it was thought the records would be used for research (primary sources they are called), particularly by historians, but as academic research expanded in the post-modern era, and deeper understandings of how society contributes to atrocities and inter-generational pain, and the role of records in accountability, archivists have seen the role of records and their use expand into areas of reconciliation, redress, social justice and as evidence in human rights abuses. In addition to this, archives are now being used more and more for documenting family histories and genealogy and I cannot help but think about the implications for this in relation to donor eggs and IVF. There has already been a case around this in Australia that of course involves records. In the Australian Story segment on this it also mentions others who have had issues with missing records because of private organisational control over these records.

1024px-Documents_stacks_in_a_repository_at_The_National_ArchivesThese evolving understandings of how records are created and used by society impact on the way that recordkeeping is being constructed. The thing about these stories that is important, but no one seems to mention, is that records and archives are not conceptualised by how old they are, but by their purpose and role in the lives of these people. Archival records, whatever that means, are not those that are in actual archival buildings, but are records that need to be accessible over time because of their continuing value. For people like Lauren who was conceived with donor sperm, records about this process were born archival – they always had continuing value for various reasons. How they might be accessed over time – that is another story that evolves and changes over time.

So, I wonder about cultural heritage and how these new ways of seeing records might have on an area where the archivist is still seen as the collector, custodian and protector of culture and its stories. At least in western societies as far as I am aware. And I also think about how in our digital society how much information is being created everyday, and that much of this information is created and managed within private corporation websites. Facebook has no national boundaries, no cultural distinctions – it only has Facebook rules and ever changing privacy statements.

How is it possible to understand the multiple dimensions of the records that make up our cultural heritage? The Amy doco is about people making sense of the records and their contexts within its current time frame. What about in 100 years time? What about 500? What contexts – what information – do we need to link to be able to provide context about what it was like for Amy, for her family, her record label, her fans…and so on…at the time? What about how these songs and Amy as their co-creator relate to the social and cultural world now, or into the future? Is it even up to the archivist to think about these things? If the song and its contexts are the record – then what is that needs to be in the archive? What lessons can we draw from the radical archives movement that will ensure that the multiple dimensions and the implications of records are managed over time?

For a while now there has been a counter archive movement in community archives. Some community archives, such as historical societies, work within the established boundaries to preserve community-based records such as those from local councils or governments, as well as records donated by people from the community. These are archives about place. In my experience local history societies rely on archivists to come and do the intellectual leg work from them. Archivists, either associated with the government, or volunteers, often come from a library background, and work on the intellectual organisation of the collections. They provide the frameworks and knowledge to appraise, describe and arrange, and contribute to ideas about access. Counter to this are community archives that reject these support mechanisms and sometimes the intellectual frameworks because they represent a dominant narrative. Community archives are formed through a need to document and remember lives, and provide a counter narrative. Often it is LGBT or women’s archives that are first mentioned in relation to these counter archives. But there are many more, as well as many more nuanced versions of these kinds of community driven, counter memory actions.

The lessons of these counter narratives and how they are constructed and preserved as having continuing value are not just part of the archival landscape, but have a lesson for all archivists in understanding what motivates people to keep records for memory (remembering) and identity. The concept of the counter archive and decisions related to memory and identity are being explored outside of the archival discipline.  So when there are so many different ways of understanding, constructing, using, accessing, interacting with records and archives what is the role of description standards? How is it possible to build multiple notions of context into an archive and across archives? Instead of collecting and preserving content why can’t archival institutions work on exploring what needs to be in place to support memory and identity needs where ever it exists? What is the core role/purpose of the archive? Perhaps societal memory, or cultural heritage, or accountability, or information access. There are more. What if archival design worked from flexible requirements rather than built on existing, rigid standards?

 

* Colleagues are exploring the notion of affect and the archive particularly in relation to critical studies.  And another colleague reminds me of affect in relation to corporeality in relation to digitization every time he finds more physical documents/letters in an antique store.

Digital archives future?

I pitched an article about digital archive(s) to the Conversation recently, and was rejected – sort of, the idea was good, but apparently my writing had a bit too much jargon. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t.* I find it a real challenge to be able to accomplish academic writing for journals and developing conference presentations. Plus tweet and blog, and update the various academic websites.  The Conversation is part of strategy to develop a public intellectual profile, but I am just not sure how to write for this medium – I am not a journalist after all. So, whining over, I thought I would share the piece I wrote here and perhaps it might generate its own conversation and readers can give me feedback via the comments. It would be appreciated.

Memory, evidence and people

Technology is everywhere in our lives. It is equally disruptive, transformative and indispensable. We use screens to view, share and transform the past, present and future all at the same time. We explore new ways of seeing, capturing and remembering with apps, games and augmented reality. We are so much at one with our digital technologies they are like extensions of our memory and sense-making functions. Our technology is us – it is part of our evolving social and cultural identity. Researchers have already suggested that we already are cyborgs. What does all this radical change mean for archives and memory-making? If the internet is our collective memory, then whose remembering is it?

In my recent research on how people used YouTube as a memory-making space revealed how connected people are with the various technologies to create, upload and share video, but also used these same technologies to remember for themselves, for their community and for the wider groups of people who interact with online video. How they used the technology influenced what they wanted from it and how they evolved their online identity to support their narratives. This research outcome has two important implications for collective memory and the future of archives.

Firstly, people co-create with technologies, and that interaction is now part of culture – it is part of the narrative of society.  Technology is clearly evidence of us, but without being used, it is only technology. Related to this implication is an understanding that it is the interactions plus the outcomes that tells the story of an evolving society engaged with technologies. Yet, when we think of cultural heritage, archives and collective memory we think of things – artefacts. Objects are collected, described and displayed as evidence of culture, but there are some significant problems with this concept of proof, heritage and value, especially when it comes to co-created interactions and outcomes with technologies. How is the transformative use of technologies going to be remembered – what is evidence of culture?

My research into YouTube identified that archives and other memory institutions create their own evidence of culture by making decisions about what they think are significant as heritage. This practice is based on a history where institutions document events by collecting everything about them (often referred to as special collections), but it has some serious failings that are amplified in a technological era. In the YouTube research I found out that co-creation is not just about making video and uploading it, but is also about making sense of and participating in community decisions and values over time. Consider how people use Twitter and re-tweeting to inspire revolution, as well as socially execute. Gamers whose interest in the game extends beyond playing it modify code to share and play a game of their own devising. There now exists social media that allows people to document and share memories, such as HistoryPin and Collectish, but these has an equally as important role as YouTube and Instagram in capturing and organizing memory.

Essena O’Neill’s recent Instagram revelations and subsequent changes to her account highlights how social media is a space for multiple and changing memories, a documented identity and an evolving narrative. In recent years, there has been a significant research movement in the archival discipline to explore the hidden, marginalized, and absent voices from official records. This work is linked to an already evolving conversation about records, people and power, and how archives have been used to subjugate and make invisible communities of people over the ages. In part, this movement explores the idea that evidence is not within the object, but rather in the stories shared by people and their evolving contexts. Archives and archivists, have a role to play in helping people make sense of these contexts, but traditional role of being selector and custodian of heritage is no longer feasible, nor ethical. Archives and archivists need to be able to facilitate the connections between different ways of experiencing and constructing evidence. This means connecting what is already out there (in archives as well as already online, plus what is on our computers) to help make sense of it over time.

The new kind of digital archive my research hints at enables the creation and management of evidence by providing the technologies and the intellectual framework to allow people, including archivists, to add, manage and link metadata. Metadata is the lifeblood of the archive – it is the description of what happened, who did it, how it was done and why. The archivist is therefore not a selector, nor custodian of cultural heritage, but rather preserves the systems that support wide, diverse and multi-layered understandings of value and evidence. In this distributed, non-custodial archive, anyone can decide to remove something they are responsible for, but the archivist manages the evidence of its contribution to the network of memories – the metadata and the links. The story continues to be told.

The ideas presented in this article are specific to what are referred to as special collections, often managed by libraries but called archives. Archives, in the true sense of the word (as understood by archivists), particularly organizational and government archives do include mechanisms to document and manage context over time, but the lessons of this research and the concept of co-creation is equally applicable. In Australia, we have an entity called the National Archives of Australia, but it only manages federal government records, which is only part of what it means to be the nation of Australia. Archival legislation across Australia does not recognize the notion of co-created records and what it might mean in relation to rights in the records – not just in access, but in how they are created, captured and managed over time.

Archivists should be facilitators of remembering and embrace the complexity of evidence by enabling people to tell their own stories so that the multiple truths that exist in our world can be heard. There has been talk of losing memory because archives are not digitizing materials fast enough, but this is not the most critical problem for archivists. What is critical is moving beyond the models of the archive imbued with power, prestige and control. Digitizing the world’s information is a fabulous idea, but how will it be managed brings a heavy responsibility. Being digital means more accessible, and the ability to crunch data and mash content. Is this for everyone? Who makes decisions about descriptions? How will people be able to make sense of evolving contexts? How can all peoples have a right or a say in collective memory? Who controls the archive controls the future.  In our technological world the archive is evolving, diverse and beyond the confines the institution. The role of the archive and the archivist needs to change to face these new challenges.

* My SEO program tells me: The copy scores 41.0 in the Flesch Reading Ease test, which is considered difficult to read. Try to make shorter sentences, using less difficult words to improve readability. Yikes! It must be true!

How to research decision-making in the archival discipline

Finally I have some books in my office!
Finally I have some books in my office!

There are a couple of things that have been on my mind for a while – the concept of an ‘archival record’ and how people make decisions about what to archive. In my recent research*, I examined some of the activities and interactions that occur in the formation of cultural heritage. My work looks at online social spaces (social media – specifically YouTube), and so in a way looks closely at technology. In the model I developed I specifically dedicated one area of it to mediated memories – a term I borrowed from José van Dijck’s book of the same title that I spotted on the catalogue of new items coming out when working in a bookshop and so bought and then devoured it and then started a degree in research – and well, here we are.

José van Dijck’s book is about memory in a digital age, and I did apply it in that way within my model, but I think about mediated as being not just about technology and what it does, but the systems that support decision-making in relation to technology. Because, technology does what we tell it to, but how we do it is shaped by how the technology does or does not work. In my model the contexts of mediated memories concerns the tools that support memory-making – tools, local systems, shared systems, collaborative systems, archival systems. These are not just places for stuff, but active systems that support memory co-creation, capture, organisation, curation and pluralisation. More about those terms in a future blog post.

This gets me back to the concept of archival record. As a records professional (encompassing all activities related to recordkeeping), I am confused by this term. I must have read it already many times, but I am now thinking about it in relation to building a new archival course – how do I explain what this is? Why is there a difference between a record and an archival record apart from it has been identified as one and perhaps managed in an archive? Can people who are not archivists decide something is an archival record? Is its inherent archival-ness important in making this decision?

Back to mediated memories – the only part of my model that mentions archives at all. Archival systems however, in my mind, is not about archives though, but about the ability to make a decision related to how a record is managed. Yet, a local system can also be an archival system – they are not mutually exclusive. I looked up “archival” on the SAA Glossary (such a great tool – thanks Richard) and note that it mentions “enduring” value. The definition of the term “archival records” also mentions “enduring value”. This is an interesting term and one I will explore again later, but in the meantime, thinking about mediated memories and the role that decisions have in making memory, and how it is managed, I wonder if the term archival records, is defined only in relation to the physicality of the record – that it is tangible and located in an archive? An archival system will have records – as much as a local system will have records. The differences are about how enduring the records are (as decided by someone), and how much organising they go through in order to be managed over time. Does this ultimately mean that the more “archival” a record is, the more metadata it has where the metadata shows its enduring value through time?

The concept of archival and archival records as being enduring, long-lived, permanent, is problematic within a social media context. Social media is inherently ephemeral (defined in the SAA Glossary as: Useful or significant for a limited period of time. Ephemera are things generally designed to be discarded after use). The idea of ephemera implies there is no enduring value, and this is not necessarily true. Of course archives, libraries and other memories institutions collect ephemera, but it is treated differently from records – for various reasons.  Yet, the networks and systems that provide contexts for ephemera are not necessarily captured – the decision-making that goes on in relation to ephemera as archival record really begins at the archival “door” (some refer to it as the threshold – a term I am not comfortable with). But there are decisions that are made about ephemera, and in social digital spaces, these decisions are part of the network of systems – local, shared, collaborative – the tools that are used.

I am not sure exactly where this line of thinking ends. I am interested in how decisions – by anyone, determine value over time. I am also interested in how the network contributes context to understanding something like enduring value. I wonder that if the archival system is linked to but separate from the record, then something of the decision-making and an understanding of enduring value remains.

My research in this area looks at how individuals and communities make decisions about memory – the making, the tools, the stories told.  This links to how people make decisions about their own identities, and the value of their stories – the making of (personal and community) memory.  My previous research (get the published copy here) indicated that archival and other cultural heritage institutions when collecting digital content from the web in particular do not capture or manage all the context that contribute to how the thing/document/content/record was created in the first place – the decisions made about value, story and memory by the people who created it.

*OK, it was my PhD, but I am trying to get away from saying that. I really feel like I need to move on.

A lesson in taking your own advice

The silly thing about being an archivist and records management professional is that when you misplace records/information it reflects poorly on you. You even loathe yourself for your own lack of foresight.

In July this year I was visiting my relatives in Western Australia, giving them some of my good attention vibes as I was packing up to live and work in the United States. While at my sister’s I organized my tax (swore a bit as well) and then packed up all my business files. These are secure (never fear) in at least three places. I was very good. But…I was not so clever about my website.

My Rhizome Digital website had been going in various incarnations since 2010. I had some great comments about the kind of writing I did and the topics I explored on my blog. I had already transferred/migrated it twice – successfully. When in WA I shut down my digital business footprint and did what I had already done at least twice before – exported the website content to an xml file so I could upload to my evolved Rhizome Digital website I was planning.

Where is that xml file? Did I save it to the same place I saved the Rhizome Digital business records? No. Did I save it onto one of the various USB sticks I deliberately made sure I brought with me on the plane? No. Where is that damn file? I had planned to have this blog up and running a while ago, but was looking for the file so my blog would look more complete somehow.

Now, instead, I am faced with an empty blog and a lesson on humility about how even records professionals can mess up backups and disaster recovery (it is a disaster OK). Now I start again. Thinking about it, it is not necessarily a bad thing, the starting again. I have done this already with the move to the US. I am looking forward to posting about my research and what interests me beyond that which is relevant to marketing my business (although I was never really that great at the marketing side – lets face it).

In celebration of this new opportunity I have to express myself, and frankly, blow my own horn (I was a horn player), I officially launch my new blog and share a photo of my new office – the Kent State University Library building – Third Floor. Come and visit!

Kent State University Library building

Rhizome Digital is back – but different

I have moved to the US to take up an academic position at the Kent State University in Ohio. I am renewing Rhizome Digital as my blog. It is my identity after all.

I am trying to migrate my blog archive from previous work – but am not sure where I put it. Great archivist I am!

Watch this space for blog updates. Twitter just is not enough words. Really.
http://leisagibbons.info/page/2/
leisagibbons.info
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-05
102885
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:CDAOAWJILSQEWKIUGMLLF6PZZLU5V432
<urn:uuid:710f2c7b-f3bb-4c3c-abec-a7873b68f848>
2018-01-23T01:50:55Z
108.167.160.42
text/html
sha1:F7AH5PKROOHSRJZAXQHFGRHP2TAHV7TH
<urn:uuid:206abb7e-a4c0-4d56-a25d-fd78c34fa863>
http://leisagibbons.info/page/2/
length
response
<urn:uuid:a827e3a9-232b-4386-a640-0090fd0d5606>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-166-197-187.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-05
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf