Conference paper Open Access

Unneutrality of archival standards and processes

Michetti, Giovanni

Standardization is a very complex process in which many different factors need to be mediated and harmonized in order to create tools based on the consensus of the parties involved: standards are the result of a negotiation process where different perspectives and approaches compete, in a domain populated by different stakeholders. As such, they may well be qualified as social constructions. However, the widespread technocratic attitude tends to hide their very human nature, overstressing the technical aspects and presenting them as neutral instruments to get to some objectives. Archival standards are based on consensus, but the level and quality of such consensus is rarely investigated: as a matter of fact, the creation of international archival standards has been committed to groups of people representing a well-identifiable geographical and cultural portion of the whole world; nonetheless, they are assumed to serve archival communities all over the world. Moreover, standardization may be seen as a process of codification of professional knowledge—as such, it is a biased and historically determined process. The language, the interpretation of objects and actions, the nature of professional functions, the definitions of terms and concepts: all standards rely on these ever-changing factors. Last but not least, digital memory relies on the use of technical standards in order to be managed, accessed and preserved; therefore, it is fundamental to investigate the nature of technical standards along with their biases, in order to understand how they affect digital memory and its representation, since memory is malleable, continuously reinterpreted and represented on the basis of the cultural milieu and available tools. We cannot escape unneutrality but we can raise awareness of the discretional factors affecting digital memory if we really want to serve our role of professional mediators between objects and users.

Files (739.4 kB)
Name Size
ISI_2015_submission_85_FP.docx
md5:db1867a593bc5167b2da22f1474fa600
739.4 kB Download
  • Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan L. Star (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Davies, Susan (2003). “Descriptive Standards and the Archival Profession.” Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly 35, n. 3/4: 291-308.

  • Derrida, Jacques (1995). “Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression.” Diacritics 25, n. 2: 9-63.

  • Duff, Wendy M., and Verne Harris (2002). “Stories and Names: Archival Description as Narrating Records and Constructing Meanings.” Archival Science 2: 263-285.

  • Eco, Umberto (1998). La struttura assente. La ricerca semiotica e il metodo strutturale. Milano: Bompiani.

  • Gillies, Donald (2012). “Economics and Research Assessment Systems.” Economic Thought 1: 23-47.

  • Gilliland, Anne (2010). “Afterword: in and out of the archives.” Archival Science 10: 333-343.

  • Greene, Mark A., and Dennis Meissner (2005). “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing.” The American Archivist 68, n. 2: 208-263.

  • Gueguen, Gretchen, Vitor Manoel Marques da Fonseca, Daniel V. Pitti, and Claire Sibille-de Grimoüard (2013). “Toward an International Conceptual Model for Archival Description: A Preliminary Report from the International Council on Archives’ Experts Group on Archival Description.” The American Archivist 76, n. 2: 567-584.

  • International Council on Archives (2000). ISAD(G). General International Standard Archival Description. Ottawa: ICA.

  • International Council on Archives (2004). ISAAR (CPF). International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families. Second Edition. Paris: ICA.

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Nesmith, Tom (1999) “Still Fuzzy, But More Accurate: Some Thoughts on the ‘Ghosts’ of Archival Theory.” Archivaria 47: 136-150.

  • Nesmith, Tom (2002). “Seeing Archives: Postmodernism and the Changing Intellectual Place of Archives”. The American Archivist 65, n. 1: 24-41.

  • Pitti, Daniel (1997). “Encoded Archival Description: The Development of an Encoding Standard for Archival Finding Aids.” The American Archivist 50, n. 3: 268-283.

  • Schwartz, Joan M., and Terry Cook (2002). “Archives, Records, and Power: The Making of Modern Memory.” Archival Science 2: 1-19.

  • van de Kaa, Geerten, Kenk Jan de Vries, Eric van Heck, and Jan van den Ende (2007). “The Emergence of Standards: a Meta-Analysis.” Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences.

  • Youn, Eunha (2011). Standardization of Archival Description in Korea: Examining the Undeerstanding, Adoption, and Implementation of ISAD(G). Doctoral dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Information Studies. Los Angeles: University of California.

37
21
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 3737
Downloads 2121
Data volume 15.5 MB15.5 MB
Unique views 3333
Unique downloads 2020

Share

Cite as