Theory, regulation and practice in Swedish digital records appraisal

Abstract

Purpose Digital records appraisal and aspects of archival values in theory, regularization and practice are explored. This paper aims to reflect upon the appraisal process, responsibility and norms for value creation in a digitalized environment. The research question was how do appraisal theory, normative rules and appraisal practice meet the aims of values in digital archives? Design/methodology/approach The study triangulated appraisal theory, normative values and participants’ views about archival values in appraisal practice in a Swedish setting. Content analysis were used to explore normative documents and interviews. Appraisal theories of the Swedish Nils Nilsson and the Canadian Terry Cook were interpreted. The result was related to theories on public values, the nature of responsibility and relations between the state and citizens. Findings The results show influences between theory, norms and practice. Changes in norms and practice do not follow the development of digitalization. Responsibility is focused on tasks, which exposes risks of accountability control and knowledge of appraisal grounds. The paper concludes that access requirements and user needs may prompt change in appraisal processes. In the light of digitalization, “primary and secondary value” are merely a matter of use and usability in a time and space (continuum) perspective. Research limitations/implications This study is based in Sweden where extensive right of access to public records and default preservation are norm. Originality/value The result shows how allocated responsibilities impinge on a re-active digital appraisal process.

Assessment of the appraisal of records: Case of the University of Witwatersrand and the University of Venda

“…An archival appraisal is based on theory, rationales, policies, strategies and procedures (Craig, 2015; Cook, 2004). According to Klett (2019), theory identifies an archival value, rationales are based on societal norms, regulations formalize norms, policies interpret and explain the regulations and guides to procedures. South African institutions adopted the macro-appraisal approach to implementing the appraisal of records (Ngoepe and Nkwe, 2018; Netshakhuma, 2018a).…”

La auditoría en los archivos

“… Responsabilidad social. En el proceso de evaluación de la autoridad archivística se pueden investigar los valores secundarios que tengan en cuenta las necesidades sociales (Klett 2019), para que la toma de decisiones permita cohesionar la comunidad a la que pertenecen.  Plan de innovación.…”

WAKING TO NORMAL: Examining Archival Appraisal in Data-driven Society

“…At a base level, it is impossible to separate the story of appraisal or data sciences from the essence they share -the need to store, access, and use ever-expanding amounts of data. For archives, "The core of archival theory is about the creation, recreation and remediation of records and archives and about records being used in the course of these processes" (Klett 2019). Beginning in the late 19th century, with the publication of The Dutch Manual, archival practice establishes itself on the foundational principle of provenance and adherence to respects de fonds.…”

“…Over the next 120 years, the industry exhibits contention and rhythms of epistemological reasoning that entrench analog-record theories and divert from radical advancements. Points of debate include defining records, the biases of archivists, postmodernism, and post-custodialism (Gauld 2018, Gilliland 2014, Klett 2019, Ridener 2009. Ridener (2009) explains, "The tension between appraisal and custody, between passive and active archival practice, between history "as it happened" and communication through historical records is rooted in the discourse between subjectivity and objectivity in archival theory.…”

“…This is a global problem, because the requirements of digital records are different from those of paper records" (81). Today, efforts towards implementing appraisal automation and developing consensus about intangible-record management remain arduous and fragmented (Gauld 2018, Gilliland 2014, Klareld 2017, Klett 2019, Goudarouli et al, 2019.…”