This is the official video from the Australian Society of Archivists of my presentation on Engaging Expert Knowledge Outside the Profession which I renamed Disrupting Archival Educationat the 2017 annual conference.
I spoke this presentation from very brief talking points which is a VBL (very big deal) for me as I have had to learn not to completely freak out about public speaking. This also means I do not have a script or transcript of this talk.
I intend to submit a publication about my ideas about Disrupting Archival Education to Archives & Manuscripts. Watch out for it! I am keen to hear from everyone about these ideas as it seems that there is some pushback from employers about various aspects of archival and LIS (Library and Information Science) education more broadly, as I saw at the recent RAILS conference in Adelaide.
One key sticking point for at least one employer was that they wanted the ability to hire people with grad certs and diplomas rather than those with Masters. The person couched this reasoning in the term “diversity” which was mortifying to hear. Diversity to me means hiring people from various backgrounds and understanding and identifying silences and silencing structures in the work we do (e.g. white supremacy). To hear diversity used as a reason to hire underqualified librarians (which is what I consider the grad certs and diplomas being) was appalling. Which brings me to the point of this blog post:
Appropriation of Criticality
It was not the first or last co-opting of terms to suit a different agenda. I also heard a simplisitic co-opting of the term ’emotional labour’ in a presentation. These instances raised several questions and issues for me (as well as made me angry as hell) about challenging people in a public forum. At ASA, RAILS and the Critical Archives conference I attended a couple of weeks ago I witnessed an appropriation of criticality which left me feeling very uncomfortable.
Broadly, appropriation and a general lack of understanding included:
head bobbing and general agreement at the notions of criticality being expressed but there is little or no evidence of actual change in the profession;
an acceptance of the meaning criticality but an absence of defining, explaining or interrogating it (there were some amazing exceptions);
expressions of paternalistic, and what I considered deeply troubling representation of marginalised peoples, that were couched in terms of partnered research.
I decided to be non-specific about where these incidents happened and perhaps this is the wrong thing to do. And so this brings me to what I can do as an audience member, professional, researcher, peer and concerned person in these situations.
I did sometimes ask questions of the presenter but I did not challenge them on their assumptions, their language, and their structural biases. What do I say that will not upset the people who are presenting? I don’t want to upset them. But maybe that is what has to be done? They are doing a job and trying to do it well. But it is also no excuse. This kind of research is perpetuating paternalistic, colonial, disempowering and racist systems and structures. In short, white supremacy. Its essential we challenge ourselves and each other in supported environments.
What is the solution? Mentoring. Real partnerships. Challenging your own assumptions. Understanding language and expression. Disrupting archival education. Disrupting ourselves.
I am not saying I am a perfect communicator and the video below is likely to reveal my own biases (I have not watched it yet). But I am working on changing and exploring what it is like to not judge, assume, dismiss and deny people their rights, autonomy, and culture through the systems I work within.
This week I am teaching the second part of a unit on access, reference and community engagement as part of an archives concepts and practices class for undergrads and postgrads. I was presenting on the ICA Universal Declaration on Archives and in particular how archives are conceptualised via protection, preservation, usability, and authentic evidence. The Declaration focuses on the competence of archival management and the role of the archivist and institution in this role. The Declaration also talks about access in relation to being open yet constrained by legal frameworks and the rights of individuals, creators, owners and users.
And while I am saying this I realise a few things:
Subjects of records are not specifically included or mentioned. This is one of the biggest areas of contest and discussion in the archival field. With specific relation to people who want to use or have access to records related to human rights, redress, and healing. Sometimes subjects of records are actually the owners of records but no one tells them they are. (A story for another time).
The entire Declaration is about the archival profession and archival institutions, not archives. Or as Verne Harris would say ‘Archive’. From my perspective archives are those spaces where people engage with memory-making. They may not be literally passed on from one generation to another, but they may have some continuing value for that person or others who interact with the Archive. Generations of cultural stories are archives. How we understand what to do in social media is part of the memory or archive of how social media is constructed. Archives are about memory and remembering. Sharing and passing along an understanding. It does not have to be about handing over artefacts. The evidence of culture is everywhere. Not just in documents.
I heard a story about access to archives and the records they contain while under a grossly inhumane regime. Those working in institutional archives figured out ways to get restricted records accessible to the people who needed them to find out where people went, what decisions were being made and so on. What does pertinent laws, as stated on the Declaration on Archives mean anyway?
I remember having similar conversations to those points I wrote above about the Declaration on Archives when it was published. I like the poster and I teach with it every semester, but it needs some rethinking about what archives mean to people. And that the Archive is about people, not about documents, so how is it possible to construct a Universal declaration that includes these critical points of view?
And while I am watching Tim Sherratt’s Keynote from last year’s ASA conference I am reminded on Eric Ketalaar’s thoughts on how access ‘enables use’ and that ‘we have a right to know’. Last week in class we examined the NAA records to look for decisions about records and access to them, noting that it was a challenge. Yet we also saw the week before that the CRS provides an extremely useful understanding of context in records (links to other entities in time and the recordkeeping that created the records). But it does not document adequately the actions and implications of archives being about people (and potentially their access and use by people for people-centred reasons such as human rights). There is lots to say about description and the role it plays, but description is a system to follow. Recordsearch is a system that we see and interact with. How description is implemented and how those descriptions can be accessed and seen is vital to how archives play a role in society. That is what Tim is talking about (but I am only 10 minutes in – can’t wait to hear what is next).
Last week I attended the Australian Society of Archivists Annual Conference. One of my jobs was to talk about the cultural perspectives of technologies. I talked about algorithms, machine learning, and constructions of evidence of culture. I think I scared people.
Below is a video of the extended talk. It goes for just over 10 mins. At the end, I talk about my Mediated recordkeeping model and how it might be useful in exploring these expanding contexts and complexities of culture.
I am keen to explore the role of machine learning in cultural heritage spaces. Who wants to help?
Hello, I am Dr. Leisa Gibbons from Curtin University. I teach archives and preservation to undergrad and post grad students. In my research, I explore sociotechnical issues, impacts and implications of acquisition and preservation of online content and the role that archivists can, do and might play in the formation of digital cultural heritage.
In this presentation I am going to share with you some intriguing information about algorithms and machine learning I have been collecting over the last year or so, so that I might talk about the nature and purpose of web archiving and how it is possible to understand evidence of culture as it is being valued and formed over spacetime.
Originally, this presentation was designed in PechaKucha style where 20 slides are shown for 20 seconds each. This presentation has 13 slides with the last one being quite a lot longer than 20 seconds.
This year Professor Geoff Goodhill, from the University of Queensland wrote about AlphaGo, an AI program designed to learn to play Go. AlphaGo learns via use of neural networks and extraction of key ideas.
You’ve probably heard about the algorithm created by Standford researchers that predicts sexual orientation from photographs of a person’s face? This is also generated with learning neural network technology.
Yet, as Professor Geoff Goodhill mentioned, there is no known way to interrogate the network to directly read out what these key ideas are that help the algorithm make decisions. Instead they can only study its outputs and hope to learn from these.
A couple of years ago, Vladan Joler and colleagues in Belgrade began investigating the inner workings of Facebook. This image is a flow chart that they created on how our interactions with Facebook create data – which show how we, as Facebook users, are in fact doing unpaid work for Facebook – so they can sell us stuff.
We all know this of course, but perhaps we think less about what this might mean in 20 or 150 years time related to data privacy and surveillance when you think about the data we give Facebook is used to calculate our ethnic affinity (Facebook’s term), sexual orientation, political affiliation, social class, travel schedule and much more.
In 2013, a community of scholars and activists gathered in the US to examine and discuss the social justice impact of algorithmic accountability or #algacc. Tthey raised more questions than answers about the impact of data surveillance and our right to know what and how data collected about us is being used.
UCLA Assistant Professor Safiya Noble writes about algorithms of oppression and how the data they use to learn reinforces existing structures of racism and sexism. Safiya talks about how a Google search she undertook on the search term “black girls” often suggested porn sites and un-moderated discussions about “why black women are so sassy” or “why black women are so angry” – presenting a disturbing portrait of black womanhood in modern society.
In Australia, there are at least 20 separate parts of law that allow the government to give computers the power to make decisions. Decisions that used to be made by a human and can have important consequences.
These laws allow for computers to make decisions about social security, taxation, parental leave, superannuation, migration, biosecurity and child support. In every case, some kind of algorithm may be used to make decisions, yet we have no knowledge of how these work.
These are powerful and disturbing stories about the creation and use of data, the role the internet plays and the shaping role that mathematics and computers are playing in our society. This brings me to web archiving.
One of the most basic tenants of all data science is that data doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it is the result of a massive pipeline of explicit and implicit decisions…
…yet so much of the output of the data science world proceeds as if data can be cleanly separated from the contexts in which it is created.
Nowhere is this more apparent than the world of web archiving.
Researcher Kalev Leetaru, wrote an article for Forbes recently that starts with this paragraph. This was not his first dig at how poorly web archiving is conceptualised and constructed. He started in 2012 talking about the lack of documentation regarding even the most critical decisions like inclusion criteria, seed lists and third-party crawl donors means that we have precious little insight into how these archives were constructed and what biases may be manifest through those myriad decisions.
This is not a new conversation for me either. But algorthms and the rate of change in our virtual spaces and technologies are raising the stakes.
When it comes to using data to understand the world around us, the most important question revolves around how well that data reflects the phenomena we are attempting to study.
Kalev rightly asks questions about the nature of web archiving. When it comes to using data to understand the world around us, the most important question revolves around how well that data reflects the phenomena we are attempting to study. Do Twitter-based studies of human society truly reflect the dreams and fears of global society or are they systematically biasedgeographically and demographically? Do the breaking news events surfaced by the Facebook Trending Topics module exclude much of the continent of Africa and is Africa as a whole largely absent from the datasets we use to understand the world? Does the relative dearth of analytic algorithms for languages other than English mean we miss critical trends.
All this exploration of algorithms and the internet comes back to a question I have been raising for a decade now – what is evidence of culture? And in this question, what is the role of the archivist and the archives in the construction and dissemination of cultural heritage?
If web archives are online cultural heritage, how is their construction being understood and documented? As Kalev points out – does the medium examined define the results?
This raises the question of what web archives actually evidence of? But how do we interrogate the notion of evidence of culture?
I want to share with you a model I created from research on how to understand the complexity of evidence of culture in online spaces. This model is an attempt to make sense of how and why people interact with recorded information – the purposes, the values, and the nature of memory as it is created, shared, accessed and managed over time in various and complex ways, including in response to technologies, other people and entities, and various mechanisms, systems and tools that help to enable and empower, as well as disempower and make hidden.
I want to share with you the three important areas it represents:
Firstly, memory and evidence as processes are separate but intrinsically linked. The processes of memory-making has a relationship to multiple systems, mechanisms and perspectives involved in establishing evidence.
Secondly, how people create is linked to how they see and identify themselves, what they are interested in, how they identify with various communities, as well as what values they perceive according to various community cultures. Narrative is vital to understanding this as it is a tool that can construct and communicate multiple and simultaneous realities, identify and make sense of the self within groups, community and society, and is imbued with power; of dominant, counter and competing narratives and as a mechanism for memory-making and knowledge preservation.
Thirdly, interaction occurs in conjunction with an understanding of action at various levels, as well as in relation to how people use, value and experience technologies including what technologies afford or do not allow to help people achieve their goals in creating and sharing something of who they are.
This model shows all these points of view to exist simultaneously and in multiples. How an individual understands their identity and work is not necessarily how it is seen by someone else. So when the archivist creates, in the creator dimension by documenting the world, they should be taking into account the varied, diverse and potentially incommensurable complexities that make up this map of how we understand cultural heritage as evidence of culture.
If we see algorithms as part of a continuum of mediated memories where and how do they fit in? Whose narratives are being told and what do we need to know about mandates to understand their contexts as memory? I don’t have any answers today but this is something I am about to examine.
But what my research into algorithms is beginning to reveal is the deep complex relationship and nature we have with data and machines. Recordkeeping is a memory-making process that contributes to evolving values, purposes and interactions over spacetime including memory (as making and remembering), narrative (as personal, sharing and evolving), evidence (as constructions of value and meaning) and technologies (as mediators and facilitators).
Archivists, and I count myself as one, need to consider what this means as to how we understand culture as evidence and heritage as it is being formed. Archivists also needs to understand and challenge their role in the system so that they may empower, discover and transform to meet multiple needs over time. Flexibility, adaptability and a need to understand what is being valued and who by as it is being created is essential to any transformation. That includes transformation within ourselves as professionals as well as the transformation of what role archives as constructions of evidence play in society.
I had to shorten it for the conference, but have now recorded it in full. I also adapted it to fit with an online presentation. It is a PREZI so please click using the forward arrow to listen to me explain each screen.
The key ideas in my research is how personal memory systems (such as those that exist in how we manage stuff on computers, tablets, mobile phones and in online spaces such as social media) help to form collective memory (this term can include various conceptualisations of ‘collective’ but in this research it is primarily focused on what we might call traditional memory institutions).
In looking to explore the formation of memory systems from personal to collective I examine how value is constructed and contextualised by individuals who create and share digital content. By understanding value at the creator level it can provide deeper and richer insight into whose memory is being captured and preserved.
As a final note on terminology, I do not use the terms personal digital archiving, nor personal information management. I prefer to use the term recordkeeping and memory-making. These latter two terms encompass various aspects of what it means to create and manage information for various purposes, including to remember. I see information management is a form of memory management and control. Recordkeeping provides a way to construct the systems to manage and control. And recordkeeping is not necessarily about producing or managing authentic, reliable records or evidence in the sense of what is usually done by governments and organisations. We all do recordkeeping in some form or another using various tools and processes to do so, some more effective than others. Archiving activities or processes are just another kind of recordkeeping process, regardless of who does them. Recordkeeping is a process where recorded information is managed according to its value. The value could mean retention for an instant or forever (although the latter is highly unlikely in practice, but rather is an intention). Value is assigned or identified at various times. This is what this research was looking to find out more about.
Recently, I submitted a paper to the Computational Archival Science (CAS) workshop about my research exploring ways to develop tools and methods to support and undertake automated appraisal for cultural heritage. The project is at the conception stage and I am exploring the existing methods and tools that identify data from documents and map them as networked contexts. I am starting with a pilot project focusing on the Zoetic Walls street art project in Cleveland.
The project is heavily conceptual and explores what it means to document and manage cultural heritage that exists physically and virtually, and has significant ephemerality issues. The goal is to explore how it is possible to do this work in a way that engages with multiple stakeholders and various contexts that contribute to a social phenomenon that has been given some meaning and value. The ultimate goal is to design appraisal tools that might be able to be used in a much more participatory way. It is heavily conceptual right now and right at the beginning. A great place for some feedback from people who are interested in archival science and data. Or so I thought.
My short paper for the workshop was rejected, although the reviewers said it was well written. From the comments and then a closer reading of the workshop history and goals, I realise that I was trying to pitch a research project about archives to mostly digital humanities scholars who have their own particular view about what CAS is as well as what archival science is more broadly. I wrote an email responding to the reviewer comments, but it bounced back as it one of those email boxes that are not read. I could not find an email address for them either, so I have copied the email I wrote below.
The main issues that the reviewers seemed to have was that my work was too conceptual and that the conceptual aspects I was talking about are not “computational archival science.” Not just not suited or not part of the conversation, but actually not CAS. The email I wrote addresses comments from the second reviewer mostly and while I have not copied the second reviewer’s comments here, I think you get the gist from my email.
I feel like I must have missed a conversation somewhere about the relationship between computational archival science has with the actual discipline of archival science (or archival studies as it is also called here in the US). Are there any archival scholars out there who have been involved in this CAS that can enlighten me? I have read the definition listed on the website and wonder primarily about how the term, “archival thinking” has been used and its relationship use of “archival science.” I checked and I believe my work fit into the notion of Computational Thinking (CT) as being “the thought processes involved in formulating a problem and expressing its solution(s) in such a way that a computer—human or machine—can effectively carry out”. Of course I am happy to receive feedback and improve on my work and I can see where I could improve on the paper to expressly address CT, especially at this pilot stage. However, my concern remains this issue with what “archival thinking” means and how this is carried out in CT contexts as CAS.
To the workshop organizers;
Thank you for the feedback. From the reviewer feedback it is clearer to me that this workshop focus is on data science and machine learning from digital humanities perspectives.
It is unfortunate to hear that while engagement with archival science theories and principles is being asked for, engagement with archives and archival work is not suitable for the workshop. I am of course engaged with exploring what it means to document cultural heritage from an archives-as-institution point of view as this one of the ways that big data and linked data gets created. However, my research also attempts to grapple with alternative conceptual, practical and technological approaches to appraisal via crafting and testing methods to identify data as context (and then what that data tells us about the social phenomenon). I do see that I did not explore the notion of automation enough from an archival processing point of view and the potential role it can play for digital humanities research.
Regards literature on conceptual modelling, I am not addressing or using conceptual modelling, rather context entity mapping and network analysis using existing archival science standards and methodologies. It is possible to explore links between conceptual modelling from a computer science and information systems point of view, but it is really the topic for another paper. In archival science there is not much literature on conceptual modelling other than possibly the OAIS model (which is a functional model, albeit from a computer science idea of conceptual modelling) or the models developed from InterPARES (mostly business process models), or the records continuum model (conceptual and activity model) and other entity models developed by the Records Continuum Research Group (context entity models), so I am not sure what was expected in relation to this.
Regards the comment about being heavily influenced by critical theory, I do not refer to or engage in any critical theory literature or frameworks in this paper. As was mentioned clearly in the paper, my paradigmatic approach is social constructivism. The comment about being heavily influenced by critical theory in archives indicates a lack of understanding about engagement by archival science scholars with critical theory.
Finally, it is regrettable that a workshop on archival science does not want to engage with the “four walls” of the archives and provide a space to engage with challenges that can be made from within and outside of this context. I do not work within those four walls, but I study them and what they mean in various conceptual, technological and practical ways, and any engagement with archival science, computational or not, requires exploration of their impact and meaning.
Had a little play with Ngrams again today for a paper I am writing. I have several issues with the limitations of Ngrams (books from western traditions, written in English, only those scanned, only those scanned full text are useful, context and association issues with language). But it is fun.
I was looking to see when lifecycle (or life cycle) appears first in relation to information, records and archives. Interestingly enough, archive[s] lifecycle does not appear in the literature. This made me realise something that I had been pondering in my head quite a bit over the years. The lifecycle model is actually not about archives at all. This is therefore both freeing (archives as new things aka. Schellenberg), and a bit odd at the same time. Aren’t records in archives about contexts and relationships? The relationships and contexts are not just about the records themselves either, but about their various roles during which time they were in the life cycle before getting to the archive. They do not get a new life, but provide evidence of the sum of their old one, as well as have new parts to play. I do wonder to what extent this thinking about archives as being something ‘other’ plays a role in how they are conceived of in the US tradition. And by conceived I mean created, studied, used and so on. More pondering needed.
As Schellenberg, often associated with the life cycle model, did not actually use that term (he used life span) I wondered if this turned up anything interesting in Ngrams using the same prefixes above. Answer = no.
However, record life span did achieve a result.
Upon reviewing the books for this result however it shows up the use of the term record (as in achievement) life span, mostly related to biology and population studies (where the use of the term life cycle is also derived).
One last fun Ngram on records management, information management and information governance. Revealing yes?
I also note that in my research into this there has been a LOT of plagiarising from the 1998 Philip C. Bantin paper (quoted in the SAA Glossary). So many others have copied word for word what is written about life cycle without attribution. But also, Bantin says: “Schellenberg and others…” without any reference. Who are the others?????
Last year I published a model called the Mediated Recordkeeping Model, a systems and activity-based theoretical model that explores and attempts to explain the formation of cultural heritage via narrative, identity, memory, technological and evidential systems. I created this ‘thing’ and for a while I have not really know what to do with it. I know how it came to be, but what now?
The first thing I did to explore what this model can do was to re-engage with a YouTube video I often use in presentations. This video, the first featured below, can be found in the Australian National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA). I wrote about it in a 2009 paper and often start presentations off with showing what the NFSA catalogue description of this video documents (and what it does not). I mention this description in that 2009 paper and there is an image of the entry, but also search for it yourself in the NFSA collection catalogue. The purpose of highlighting the NFSA catalogue entry is to show how metadata does not explain much, if anything, and can actually be quite judgemental and incorrect.
My first test of the Mediated Recordkeeping Model was to go back to this video and to identify what description might look like if I was to use the model labels. So, I put the model labels into a table format and added metadata to each. What I realised when I was doing this process is that I was crafting a story. Then I realised I was creating more than one story.
The sum of the analysis/description is my interpretation of the video and its role as cultural heritage.
As I built up the metadata and for each element described a different story was being told with multiple potential endings/contexts that were not described.
The relationships between each element as they were documented and mapped was not just linear or entries on a table, but were part of a movement or mapping that could be done on the model. The process of this mapping is as important as the mapping itself.
I was creating the potential of multiple stories. By documenting my own story or interpretation of the model I was also providing a process for others to create their stories. These stories might be built the same way, or in different ways. Stories could be critical, ancestral, visionary, contemporary, individual, collective, antagonistic, conflicting, incommensurable as well as many other kinds of stories.
That in seeing one story, there can exist a way to see many more, as well as what is absent.
This led me to consider some things:
Is it possible to see absence only when something else is present?
How can multiple stories be told? And are there different ways to interact with stories? Can the process of the storytelling be represented in different ways?
How can people, including archivists, use this model to help tell these multiple stories?
I have been dabbling with visual presentations of theoretical models for a while now which led me to do some Google Sketchup work a few years ago, see video below, as well as influenced my redesign of the classic continuum model shape as shown in the Mediated Recordkeeping Model (and contrasted with the image shown on the Wikipedia page of the Records Continuum Model). I was also given the opportunity to develop and exhibit a visualisation of data and this led me to think more about how the Mediated Recordkeeping Model might look like visualised.
The result is the sun ray or flower representation of the video description I laid out in the table. For the exhibition I recorded myself talking about the model, what it shows and how I created it. I have now uploaded this to YouTube. I showed some people at the recent AERI held at Kent State and their feedback got me intrigued about how to use this model and visualisation such as this in a practical or operational way.
What does this way of modelling (the sun ray) bring to archival description?
Does the sun ray and the Mediated Recordkeeping Model include or address what is important about archival description?
Can the sun ray move in 3 dimensions? How would it move?
And what would it look like if I was able to add additional stories?
I am preparing to write a paper on conceptual model making and the use of theoretical models for critical archiving.
I delivered a paper recently on What it means to teach ethics to students: exploring the complexity of representation and equity in records, recordkeeping and archives. I also referred to the Mediated Recordkeeping Model in this presentationand plan to include something of the lessons I outlined into the paper.
Lessons from the presentation:
How we, as educators, can help to teach our new archivists what the power of technology means and what it means to act?
How technology affords reaction rather than action and how individuals can be made aware of the difference?
How ethical standards and statements of principles sit with an increasing awareness of activism not just in our profession, but globally, and the continued tension with the position of an impartial view?
Is it ethical to document or manage any records without consent or allowing them to have an active, collaborative role in the processes including decisions about access, rights and description over time?
So, finally, in thinking about modelling, theoretical and conceptual frameworks and operationalising them in various contexts, its seems there are many things to consider. Some of these issues are already being explored in the archival discipline including what is being represented and how, what is missing or in conflict, and how the processing of recordkeeping (including use of the model) influence and impact on representation. Another issue I think equally important is how it is possible to evaluate and build on the theoretical models. It is great to operationalise them or show how they can impact on practice, but what does this also mean for the theory?
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?
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.
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:
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?
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?
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.
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.