WAITING
FOR THE GHOST TRAIN: STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING ELECTRONIC PERSONAL RECORDS BEFORE
IT IS TOO LATE
[This is a
pre-publication version of a paper that was delivered by Adrian Cunningham at the
Aug 23-29, 1999 Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh,
PA. It was subsequently published, with
minor editorial revisions, in Archival Issues: Journal of the Midwest
Archives Conference, vol. 24, no. 1, 1999, pp. 55-64. It is published here with the kind
permission of the author and the Midwest Archives Conference. At time of writing, Adrian Cunningham was
President of the Australian Society of Archivists and a member of the staff of
the National Archives of Australia.]
Some History
In
the world of electronic records research seven years is probably a couple of
generations. Over the past seven years the literature on electronic records has
consumed countless gigabytes of memory, experienced more than a few new
paradigms, and travelled up any number of dead end streets.
Six
years ago I published an article on the management of personal records in
electronic form in the Australian journal Archives
and Manuscripts under the title ‘The Archival Management of Personal
Records in Electronic Form: Some Suggestions’.[2]
While other articles on electronic records published at that time have since
been swamped by a tidal wave of new literature, my 1994 article has been joined
by only one other article on the same topic in the intervening period. There it
sits in splendid semi-isolation, regarded with suspicion by some and apparently
ignored by almost everyone else!
My
aims in 1993-94 were modest. More than anything I wanted to kick-start a
discussion of a neglected topic. I wished to address and redress the lopsided
nature of the electronic records discourse which was, and sadly still is,
completely dominated by the corporate/organizational records perspective. This
lopsided discourse is something I have over the years criticized as ‘corporate
myopia’, a phrase denoting the failure to recognize that private individuals
also create records.[3]
It
was my intention in 1994 to present a number of suggestions in the hope that
they would get people thinking and talking about the issues involved. My suggestions
were presented as being more tentative than definitive. I simply wanted to get
some discussion and debate started in the hope that more detailed and
authoritative strategies and solutions might follow.
A
subsidiary aim of my 1994 paper was to get personal records archivists and
manuscript curators interested in electronic records issues. My feeling was
that my personal records colleagues considered the whole electronic records
issue to be too hard. They seemed to find it easier to keep working with
traditional paper formats, seemingly in the hope that someone else might solve
the problem for them. In Australia this approach to dealing with problems is
called ‘putting them on the never-never’. It was my intention to take the issue
out of never-never land and put it squarely on the agenda of personal records
archivists.
I
believed then and still believe now that the issue requires urgent attention.
We cannot afford to postpone dealing with the challenge of electronic personal
records until tomorrow. This is because important personal records are
increasingly being created in electronic form only. Waiting for a solution
rather than working towards a solution effectively consigns into limbo those
vital electronic personal records that are created during our period of
inactivity. Make no mistake, there is an electronic records time-bomb ticking
away out there in the land of personal records, and it is up to us to start
working out how we are going to defuse it before it blows us all away.
By
my own yardsticks, my 1994 article was an abject failure. The past five years
have effectively been wasted. While my paper generated a few ripples of
interest amongst personal records archivists in Australia, there has not since
been a single article or piece of research in the Australian literature on this
particular topic that has been written by a practitioner in the field. I could
not even convince my own employing institution, the National Library of
Australia, to take my suggestions seriously or to produce a viable set of
alternatives. Instead my Library colleagues passed over my suggestions as being
too anti-Jenkinsonian for their liking.
My
article did, however, generate some interest among electronic records
specialists in Australia. This had the positive effect of encouraging them to
recognize that personal records are also records and therefore worthy of some
consideration. The best example of this is a wonderful article by Sue McKemmish
called ‘Evidence of Me….’, which appeared in the May 1996 personal records
theme issue of Archives and Manuscripts.[4]
This article was an attempt to take the study of personal recordkeeping back to
first principles, by exploring the nature of personal recordkeeping and the
broad social mandates for its role in paying witness to individual lives, in
contributing to society’s collective memory, and in constructing our cultural
identity. While McKemmish did not address the issue of electronic records per se, she set out a research agenda
that should be pursued if we are going to devise adequate holistic strategies
for managing personal records in electronic form. Sue McKemmish, however, is an
academic at Monash University with a background in government records – I only
wish that I could have provoked a similar response from a personal records
practitioner!
Oddly
enough, my 1994 article received more attention from personal records
archivists outside of Australia than it did from my compatriots. The most
detailed consideration of the specific issues it raised has been Tom Hyry and
Rachel Onuf’s paper published in Archival
Issues in 1997.[5] I have been
delighted by this development and have had some interesting and illuminating
email discussions with the co-authors. Finally, after all this time, the
discussion I hoped to generate in 1994 seems to be getting under way – albeit
on the other side of the world!
What
follows is a re-examination of the suggestions I presented in 1994. Do those
suggestions still hold water given what has changed in the wider environment
over the past six years? Do my suggestions now look ridiculously misguided? Has
my own thinking moved on? What would I suggest today by way of dealing with the
same challenges?
In
six years an awful lot has happened in the broader electronic records landscape.
In that time there has been a shift away from pure theory and assertion to the
development, implementation, and testing of practical solutions. Among other
things this progress has included the emergence of a very encouraging and
absolutely essential dialog with the vendors of commercial software systems and
applications. Admittedly, progress has been on a somewhat limited front. It has
addressed the short- to medium-term imperatives of capturing accurate,
authentic, reliable, meaningful, and accessible electronic records in
corporate/organizational recordkeeping settings. While this is a good start
(and one always has to start somewhere), the challenge of dealing with the
imperatives of long-term preservation and access remains considerable. Nevertheless,
useful and interesting work is being carried out in the area of migration
strategies and the use of stable, standard storage formats.[6]
Given these significant advances, do my 1994 suggestions still stand up to
scrutiny?
To
recap, the previous article made four main suggestions. These were:
1.
I
rejected the non-custodial or ‘distributed custody’ approach to the archival
management of electronic records that was then being recommended by David
Bearman and which has since become an important component of the electronic
records strategies of government archives in Australia. Bearman has described
custody as an ‘indefensible bastion’, arguing that the best place to manage the
migration of electronic organizational records is the business environment in which
they have been created and used.[7]
While distributed custody may be fine for government records, the transitory
nature of personal records creators means that in Australia personal records
archivists have little choice but to confront the custodial challenge if they
are to preserve and provide access to important personal records created in
electronic form. In saying this, however, I am conscious that I can only really
speak from an Australian perspective, for in Australia we do not have the
phenomenon of enduring family archives that are more common in the upper
echelons of some European societies. All the same, even in Europe I would
anticipate that distributed custody of personal records could only ever be the
exception rather than the rule.
2.
I
argued in favour of what I called ‘pre-custodial intervention’ by personal
records archivists to ensure that personal electronic records were properly
created, managed and documented in the first instance, thus improving our
ability to preserve and provide access to those records over the long haul.
3.
In
the area of custodial strategies I recommended the migration or conversion of
electronic records to standard formats and the provision of online networked
access to electronic records for remote users.
4.
I
highlighted the need for improved training in information technology for
personal records archivists and the employment by collecting archives of
specialist IT staff to assist with the technical work that is involved in
managing electronic records.
What was the reaction to these suggestions and how do they look six years later?
From
the limited reaction I have received I get the impression that few if any
people had problems with three of the four above suggestions. The second
suggestion is the one that has proved to be contentious. I will give further
consideration to this matter shortly, but I should say at this point that I
still stand by all of the suggestions I made six years ago. There are others
that I would now add to the original mix (more of these later), but there is
nothing that I said in 1994 that I would now recant.
The
suggestion that personal records archivists should seek to become actively
involved in the records creation process has been the one major bone of
contention with my 1994 article.[8]
It is a suggestion that I do not retreat from. Indeed, if anything, it is a
suggestion that I feel far more strongly about today than I did then. It is
very much in harmony with the so-called ‘records continuum’ school of thought
that has emerged (some would say re-emerged) in Australia over the past decade.
In continuum thinking there is no useful distinction to be made between records
management and archival science – it is all simply ‘recordkeeping’. Continuum
thinking posits that the division of records into the separate categories of
‘current records’ and ‘historical records’ impedes the pursuit of a holistic
and integrated recordkeeping mission. Put simply, in continuum thinking a
record is a record is a record – it’s just that some records need to be kept
for longer than other records, and some records may end up being used by a
wider circle of users than other records.[9]
Much
of the impetus for continuum thinking has come from the emergence of electronic
records. Continuum and post-custodial thinkers argue that the effective
long-term management of electronic records requires more than a minor tweaking
of traditional practices. The imperatives of electronic records are such that a
whole new set of strategies is required. The old ways of doing things simply
will not work in the digital networked environment. According to continuum
thinkers archivists cannot afford to be the passive recipients of records that
are no longer required by their creators. The traditional post-hoc approach to
recordkeeping, which has probably always been unsatisfactory, is patently
inadequate in the electronic environment.
The
emergence of electronic records has highlighted the fact that we can no longer
take for granted (if we ever could) that records once created will remain
reliable, comprehensible, authentic, accessible, and durable for as long as
they are required to be used. If electronic records are to survive as reliable
evidence of human activity they have to be created and captured into
well-designed, well-documented recordkeeping systems. These recordkeeping
systems not only have to capture reliable records, they will have to be
migrated across successive software and hardware platforms lest they become the
useless casualties of the rapid cycles of technological obsolescence that is
one of the defining characteristics of the digital age.
The
design of durable, good-quality recordkeeping systems is something that cannot
be left to chance. We have already witnessed more than enough electronic
recordkeeping disasters where valuable records have been rendered useless or
unreadable because of a lack of foresight and an absence of professional
recordkeeping expertise during the system design and creation phases of the
records life span. To quote one of my Australian colleagues “durable
evidence-rich records don’t grow on trees”. Good recordkeeping requires the
involvement of recordkeeping professionals throughout the entire life of the
records. Put simply, if we are to have any electronic records to put into our
archives we cannot afford to be squeamish about getting involved in the
processes of records creation and recordkeeping system design.
This
proactive agenda is something that government and organizational archivists are
naturally more comfortable with than personal records archivists. There are
good reasons for this, and I certainly do not underestimate the difficulties
associated with pre-custodial intervention in the processes of personal
recordkeeping. Governments and organizations are used to regulating the recordkeeping
behaviour of their employees. They are also usually in the habit of employing
recordkeeping professionals who can help to determine and administer
recordkeeping policies and procedures. The personal recordkeeping domain is a
far less regulated one. Personal recordkeepers are not normally in the habit of
employing professional expertise to help them keep their records.
So,
is the separation of archivists from the records creation process one of the
defining differences between personal records archivists and corporate
archivists? My feeling is that, if the answer to this question is going to be
yes, then personal recordkeeping archivists are heading inexorably towards
antiquarian oblivion. In the greater scheme of things this in itself may not
matter very much. Where it does matter is that, if it indeed happens, we will
lose forever a vital component of our documentary heritage – that component
created by private individuals in all walks of life and in all areas of human
creative endeavour. If we are to be true to our professional mission, we have a
duty to do our level best to ensure that essential evidence of private human
activity is captured into reliable and durable recordkeeping systems.
As far
as I can discern there are three main objections to personal records archivists
becoming involved in the creation phase of personal recordkeeping. These are as
follows:
1: It is not always possible to discern the ultimate historical significance of records while they are being created[10].
This
is a point that I am happy to concede readily. But this concession in no way
undermines the validity of my argument. Quite simply, it is nonsense to argue
that, because a strategy will not work in all cases, it should not be used at
all. Of course no one could have known before November 1963 that the personal
records of Lee Harvey Oswald would be of such all-consuming interest after his
death. But it is equally true that it was apparent from a young age that Albert
Einstein was going to be a major figure of the 20th Century and that
every effort needed to be made to preserve the records of his work and
achievements. We cannot know what will happen in the future, but there are
things about the present that we do know will be of enduring interest to
society in the future. We should not be derelict in our duty to the future by
neglecting those people in the present who we know are significant. It is a
cop-out to argue that, because there are people in the present whose significance
will only be revealed in the future, we should ignore everyone, even the Albert
Einsteins of the world, until they reach the end of their lives.
Shifting
the archival appraisal/selection decision closer to the time of records
creation is not necessarily a bad thing in any case. It is in line with
classical (as opposed to Schellenbergian) appraisal theory that records should
be appraised on the basis of their contemporary functional context and
significance, not through a process of second-guessing the shifting whims and
trends of historical research.
Moreover,
my exhortation towards pre-custodial intervention does not preclude the
application of traditional post-hoc strategies for those individuals whose
significance does not become apparent until late in life or posthumously. The
application of such post-hoc strategies is likely to be far less successful in
preserving complete and comprehensible records of the individual concerned, but
it may nevertheless capture something of value to posterity.
2: Pre-custodial intervention is far too labor-intensive.
Certainly
the provision of one-on-one guidance and assistance in personal records
creation is likely to be labor intensive and is only ever likely to be pursued
in the most significant of cases. All the same, some front-end investment of
time is likely to pay dividends in the long run. Just think of all the time
that is currently spent on the detailed arrangement and description of poorly
maintained personal records fonds and
how much time might be saved if the records arrived in the repository in
perfect and complete order and under full intellectual control. A bit of time
invested by the archivist earlier in the process is likely to save a lot more
time that would otherwise be needed later on in sorting out the undocumented
mess that is acquired by the archives – a process that I have heard described
quite accurately I think as ‘picking up after the kids’.
Admittedly,
some records creators will be difficult if not downright impossible to work
with. Still, this is no excuse for not trying. As with any worthwhile endeavor
there will be some successes and some failures. The trick is to minimize the
failures through the application of patience and professionalism.[11]
In
any case, there are more types of pre-custodial intervention than the provision
of one-on-one guidance. Pre-custodial intervention can encompass a range of
activities. It might include the production of guidelines on recordkeeping
targeted at particular groups of personal records creators such as scientists,
creative writers, etc. It might also include working with software developers
and vendors to encourage the incorporation of good recordkeeping functionality
and self-documenting features in the desktop authoring applications favored by
personal records creators. These kinds of pre-custodial interventions hold the
promise of getting the good recordkeeping message to the greatest number of
personal records creators for a relatively small investment of well-targeted
professional effort.
3: The involvement of archivists in the processes of personal records creation will lead to self-conscious and unnatural recordkeeping practices.
This
is the Jenkinsonian objection to which I alluded earlier. Sir Hilary Jenkinson
had an enduring attachment to the notion of recordkeeping as being an entirely
objective, unselfconscious and natural activity. He deplored any occurrence of
recordkeeping for posterity, arguing that such practices did not generate
authentic, truthful, and reliable records. While Jenkinson’s ideas should not
be dismissed out of hand, his emphasis on objectivity and truthfulness sit
somewhat uncomfortably in our post-modernist present. Personally, I am less
inclined to emphasise the Jenkinsonian ‘records as objective truth’ mantra than
Terry Cook’s ‘records are contingent and need to be understood in the full
context of their creation’ argument.[12]
Certainly, I have seen plenty of examples of self-conscious recordkeeping in my
time.[13]
While the self-consciousness of the recordkeeping behaviour of the records
creator needs to be discerned and understood by anyone using such records, it
does not make them non-records – nor does it make them any less valuable as
evidence, it is simply a different kind of evidence.
It
has always intrigued me that the Jenkinsonian objection to continuum-based
recordkeeping has been so common in the personal records sphere, but is
virtually unheard of in the organizational sphere. Why should proactive
professional recordkeeping only pose a philosophical problem for personal
records and not any other types of records? One possibility is that
organizations need professional recordkeeping assistance more for their
short-term accountability and efficiency requirements than for the sake of
posterity. Conversely, a collecting archivist advising a creative writer is
only likely to be interested in the imperatives of posterity. This is perhaps
the one defining difference between the regulated recordkeeping domains of
governments and organizations and the largely unregulated recordkeeping domains
of private individuals. Even here, however, there are exceptions. Some
categories of personal recordkeeping are more heavily regulated than others.
These regulations can take the form of occupational conventions, professional
codes of conduct and other recordkeeping warrants. Architects and scientists,
for example are required to keep good records or else risk losing their
professional standing. Members of such groups may be more inclined to welcome
some professional recordkeeping assistance without bothering to worry too much
about what is in it for the professional recordkeeper.
So,
while the Jenkinsonian objection cannot be discounted, it is not in my view a
reason for inaction. Rather than deny the partiality or self-consciousness of
records, these things should be recognized as reality, and the records should
be managed accordingly with adequate contextual metadata that supports full
interpretation and analysis.
Those
readers who have read my somewhat tentative and exploratory 1994 article may
have detected a greater degree of stridency in my current message. While in
part this may reflect a greater confidence in my message, it is mostly a
reflection of my frustration at the lack of activity and discussion in the area
of electronic personal records.
While
the rest of the archival profession has been busy reinventing itself to meet
the challenges of the digital age, I get the impression that the collecting
archives and personal records sectors of our profession, at least in Australia,
have been operating on a ‘business as usual’ basis. I am, however, not without
some optimism that my North American colleagues are more prepared to open up
discussion on these vital issues than many of my compatriots.
Indeed,
our procrastination may, ironically, turn out to be in some ways advantageous.
This is because we may now be in the position to adapt some of the more
successful electronic records strategies that have been devised in the
government/corporate records sectors.
In
Australia government and corporate recordkeeping is being transformed as a
result of the widespread adoption of the 1996 Australian Standard on Records
Management (AS 4390).[14]
This world’s first national best practice standard has also provided the basis
for a new international standard on records management, which is currently
being finalized by the International Standards Organisation as ISO 15489. While
neither of these standards has been written with personal recordkeeping in
mind, it is my belief that the conceptual framework and recordkeeping
strategies presented in these documents can be of enormous use to personal
records archivists.
Taking
the lead from AS 4390, the National Archives of Australia has developed a
comprehensive suite of manuals, guidelines, and standards which are designed to
assist Australian government agencies to design and implement recordkeeping
systems to ensure the creation, retention, and use of accurate, reliable, and
authentic electronic records.[15]
Operating within a records continuum-based conceptual framework, AS 4390
recommends a rigorous methodology based on an analysis of the functions and
activities of an organization and identification of the recordkeeping
requirements or warrants for each of those functions and activities.
Recordkeeping systems then need to be designed and implemented in ways that
ensure that these recordkeeping requirements are satisfied.
There
is no reason why this methodology could not be adapted to the design and
implementation of personal recordkeeping systems. Indeed, an extremely useful
research project could involve researching the generic recordkeeping
requirements of particular categories of personal records creators – creative
writers, lawyers, architects, politicians, etc. This research could then inform
the production of booklets based on the AS 4390 methodology that would provide
guidance to these individuals on how to create and maintain adequate records to
meet their recordkeeping requirements. I should stress here that one of the
sets of recordkeeping requirements accommodated by the AS 4390 methodology is
‘community expectations’, which encompass the cultural and historical
imperatives of archives. These recordkeeping requirements need to be researched
for each function or activity performed. In addition, the recordkeeping
requirements embodied in laws, regulations, professional codes of best
practice, and so forth should be researched by a combination of literature
review and personal interview, in the manner pioneered by Wendy Duff in her
research into recordkeeping warrants.[16]
For
too long personal records archivists have been too ready to leave to pure
chance the creation and retention of personal records documenting significant
events and activities. Collecting archives have been built on the random
remainders of those recordkeeping systems that just happen to be halfway
decent.
The
advent of electronic records presents us with a golden opportunity to improve
both our societal recordkeeping practices and our professional documentation
outcomes. To do this properly we need to conduct more research into the
dynamics of personal recordkeeping, the societal warrants for personal
recordkeeping, and the functional
requirements for evidence in personal recordkeeping.[17]
A good start would be some pilot research projects with some individual records
creators.
Failure
to pursue a more active agenda will leave us patiently waiting at the railway
station for the goods train of life to deliver the unreliable electronic
leavings of our society’s movers and shakers. Years of passive and patient
pacing of the platform will come to an end, I fear, when the whistle blows and
the train pulls in to the station and we finally come to the realization that
it is full of ghosts and that ghosts do not satisfy our researchers’ need for
solid, reliable, and authentic evidence of the past.
[1] Adrian Cunningham is Director, Recordkeeping Standards and Policy at the National Archives of Australia and former President of the Australian Society of Archivists (1998-2000). Before joining the NAA in 1998, he worked for many years as a personal records archivist in collecting archives. He is widely known as an authority on personal electronic records.
[2] Adrian Cunningham, ‘The Archival Management of Personal Records in Electronic Form: Some Suggestions’, Archives and Manuscripts 22:94-105 (May 1994).
[3] Adrian Cunningham, ‘Beyond the Pale? The ‘flinty’ relationship between archivists who collect the private records of individuals and the rest of the archival profession’, Archives and Manuscripts 24:20-26 (May 1996).
[4] Sue McKemmish, ‘Evidence of me ….’, Archives and Manuscripts 24:28-45 (May 1996).
[5] Tom Hyry and Rachel Onuf, ‘The Personality of Electronic Records: The Impact of new Information Technology on Personal Papers’, Archival Issues 22:37-44 (1997).
[6] For a useful overview of much of this work see Charles M. Dollar, Authentic Electronic Records: Strategies for Long-term Access, Chicago, Cohesset Associates, 1999. (See Society of American Archivists journal American Archivists book review by Rick Barry.)
[7] David Bearman, ‘An Indefensible Bastion: Archives as a Repository in the Electronic Age’, Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Report 13 (1991).
[8] As far as I am aware, these ‘Jenkinsonian’ objections have never appeared in print. They have been brought to my attention by way of informal personal comments and communications from a variety of Australian private records practitioners. Indeed, the fact that the objections have not appeared in print has itself been a disappointment to me. I had hoped that the arguments presented in my 1994 paper would provoke some helpful debate in the literature. Despite my urging, none of my colleagues felt sufficiently motivated by the issue to publish their objections in any kind of rejoinder piece.
[9] Sue McKemmish, ‘Yesterday, today and tomorrow: a continuum of responsibility’, in Proceedings of the Records Management Association of Australia 14th National Convention, 15-17 Sept 1997, Perth, RMAA, 1997.
[10] Shirley Spragge, ‘The Abdication Crisis: Are Archivists Giving Up Their Cultural Responsibility?’, Archivaria 40:175-176.
[11] After delivering this paper I became aware of a very interesting project being pursued by the Manuscript Division of the National Archives of Canada which involves making contact with Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada to assist them with the design and documentation of their personal electronic recordkeeping systems. Reports on this project by its coordinator, Lucie Paquet, should appear in the Canadian archival literature in due course.
[12] Terry Cook, ‘Electronic Records Paper Minds’, Archives and Manuscripts 22:300-329 (Nov. 1994).
[13] Adrian Cunningham, ‘The Mysterious Outside Reader’, Archives and Manuscripts 24: 130-145 (May 1996).
[14] Standards Australia, Australian Standard AS 4390 – 1996 Records Management, Sydney, 1996.
[16] Wendy Duff, ‘Harnessing the power of warrant’, The American Archivist, vol. 61, no. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 88-105.
[17] Chris Hurley, ‘Beating the French’, Archives and Manuscripts 24:12-19 (May 1996); and Adrian Cunningham, ‘From Here to Eternity: Collecting Archives and the Need for a National Documentation Strategy’, Lasie 29:32-45 (March 1998).