Purpose – The aim of the article is to investigate what characterizes the information constructs that the archival discourse and the open data discourse communicate in text, and what their similarities and differences are. This article proposes that it is possible to see the open data initiative and modern archival practice as two discourses that have used different terminology to express and communicate their messages in the literature. In this article, we have applied a hypothesis-like assumption that the information constructs used in open data are actually nothing other than records, as they are in the archival discourse. Design/methodology/approach – This article is based on a mixed method approach. A quantitative text analysis (word count) was carried out in a large set of documents representing the open data discourse and in the archival discourse. This was followed by a qualitative text analysis. Findings – It was found that both discourses did focus on records. However, the opendata discourse very seldom used the term record, but used information and data much more frequently. The archival discourse used the term information almost as often as record. A possible adaption of communication strategies can be identified, targeting a much wider audience through a user-centered approach. This could be an indication of a change in the archival discourse, which seems to be moving from a discourse that is very much regulated by law toward a discourse that is more focused on benefit and usability. Originality/value – This research indicates that it is possible to interpret both the open data and the archival discourse as one united discourse, an effect derived from working with e-government. There is an ongoing harmonization of the words used, and in the studied archival discourse, a more user- and business-oriented focus can be seen.

Purpose Many records professionals are involved in the design and development of recordkeeping systems. To design recordkeeping systems that meet user needs, their perspectives have to be included in the design process. The purpose of this paper is to explore what can be learned from the domain of information systems (IS) regarding user participation in design, and then to reflect on what related to the recordkeeping dimension should be further considered. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a review of literature in the IS development field about user participation. Findings Analysing how users participate in IS development reveals several aspects of interest for records professionals. There are different approaches to, purposes of and driving values in user participation, which should be transparent. For user participation to be successful, an infrastructure has to be in place. The idea of user participation may be a way to include the secondary values of records in the near term, but it may also challenge traditional roles. New issues, such as the archivist’s role as a trusted third party, should be analysed further. Originality/value This study uses knowledge from the information system field to acquire new knowledge about user participation in design, and relate it to the recordkeeping domain. This study addresses issues surrounding user participation, which has been indicated as an area in need of further development in archives and information science.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract