Postingan ini menjelaskan tentang Penilaian Arsip Secara Makro, dimana saya memasukkannya diakeranakan untuk menilai suatu arsip masih menjadi perdebatan terhadap tata cara menilai arsip untuk kemudian dilanjutkan dengan akuisisinya.
Artikel dibawah ini saya temukan saat berselancar di internet. Ini pun hanya saya ambil untuk bagian Penjelasan Penilaian Arsip Saja (Appraisal) dari keseluruhan bahasan artikel ini dengan judul Theories Of Archival. Untuk itu jika anda ingin mengetahuinya secara total silahkan baca pada situs : http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uczcw09/appraisl/level1.htm
Artikel dibawah ini saya temukan saat berselancar di internet. Ini pun hanya saya ambil untuk bagian Penjelasan Penilaian Arsip Saja (Appraisal) dari keseluruhan bahasan artikel ini dengan judul Theories Of Archival. Untuk itu jika anda ingin mengetahuinya secara total silahkan baca pada situs : http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uczcw09/appraisl/level1.htm
Macro Appraisal
This section examines the origins of the functional appraisal of conventional records and its recent re-emergence in the light of thinking about electronic records. It notes the link between functional appraisal and macro appraisal, and stresses the need for archivists to become involved in the design of electronic record keeping systems.
The roots of macro appraisal, though he would not recognise the term, can be traced back to the head of the Dutch Archives Van Riemsdijk who, at about the time Muller, Feith and Fruin were producing their well known Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives, propounded the view that what should be studied was the record creating process, not the records themselves. His view was that in general the original organisation of records corresponds to the original organisation of the administration and not, as Muller, Feith and Fruin claimed, to the structure of the administrative body. He is thus a forerunner of the post-custodial paradigm where analysis of individual documents or series is replaced by analysis of the business functions, transactions and workflows that cause documents to be created, with the intention of identifying those important enough to merit further investigation, and of eliminating duplication. However, the success of the Manual, which concentrated on methodology and practice rather than theory, resulted in this early attempt to appraise the organisation being stillborn.
A later attempt at defining what can be seen in retrospect as a prototype of macro appraisal was made by the records manager of the US Treasury Board at about the same time as Philip Brooks was setting out his proposals for appraisal criteria. The author, Helen Chatfield, proposed a functional approach based on the broad hierarchical nature of the organisation. Functions consist of two elements, the subject matter and the type of energy or “faculty” required to carry them out. The functions of an organisation with respect to faculty fall into certain classes common to all organisations. During the performance of the function in each of these classes, distinct types of record material accumulate and remain as evidence of performance. It is therefore important to recognise these classes wherever they be located. To her recognition of the importance of provenance: “the discovery of the principle is as important to archival economy as the discovery of the law of gravity is to the physical sciences”, she added that the organisation of record material should reveal the functional history of the institution in which it is engendered, which she regarded “as being as important as the law of relativity is to the law of gravity”. She urged going behind the units in the administrative structure to the functions and purposes that they supported and treating these as the units in the record scheme. Little seems to have come of this, however.
In 1965 the Dutch archival theorist, Panhuysen, published an article in which he recommended that “archivists study closely the history of record-creating institutions. Archivists need to know exactly and with the fullest detail, how modern government agencies create records and what records they produce. They also need to know the interrelation between the competencies of these agencies, because that determines essentially the content and value of the records they create; because from that knowledge depends a good judgment about the relationship of these records and thereby concurrently the decision which records are of enduring historical value and which records can be considered for destruction”. This approach, sometimes referred to as Functional Archival Science, is strikingly similar to current ideas about macro appraisal.
The recent interest in macro appraisal stems partly from the societal approaches to appraisal outlined in the previous section and partly from the theoretical study and practical use of electronic record creating and keeping systems, as well as from rather more mundane concerns about efficiency and effectiveness, in particular the effort expended in appraising the vast percentage of records that are not preserved. It may also be viewed as reverting to some degree to the traditional Jenkinsonian non-interventionist approach in so far as it views selection as one part of the ongoing administrative process, albeit one in which archivists should participate.
Both Cook and Eastwood are in agreement that appraisal needs to be carried out on the basis of an analysis of organisational business functions and processes and of the record keeping systems necessary to support them, though they may differ in their views as to the precise ends and means to which these are then put. The approach adopted by the National Archives of the Netherlands involves agencies in first determining what processes are critical to their business missions and the tasks required to perform them; then the selection of records or classes of records generated should reflect these activities: “If a function does not contribute to such an act (i.e. an act which is considered to be worth preservation), the records produced by it are not worth keeping. The evidential value of the records derives from the value of the function”.
The Australian Archives have adopted a similar view: “Only by a functional interpretation of the context surrounding the creation of documents can one understand the integrity of the fonds and the functions of the archival documents in their original context. The form and function of the record are determined by the business functions that have led to their creation. Therefore, before we can appraise or use records, we have to analyse and appraise the business functions”.
The National Archives of Canada has adopted a similar approach :
“Archivists no longer get stuck down in trenches facing five hundred systems in a single large agency and trying to appraise them one-by-one in a near hopeless attempt to stitch together disparate systems and applications. Rather, they adopt a top-down perspective related to corporate functions, programs and activities and focus first on the mandates and functions of the agency and its interactions with the citizens and societal groups. Only once the significance of these broad functions are clearly assessed – which requires careful research by archivists – can archivists start pinpointing key systems and records in all media for actual appraisal and possible acquisition by the Archives or for long term retention by the agency under the Archives auspices.”
Bearman and Hedstrom argue that traditional methods of surveying and scheduling records have been wasteful. It should not be necessary to identify, list and schedule all records when only one to three per cent are of archival value :
“Reviewing all records created in order to select the less than three percent which should be saved beyond the time they are needed for on-going operations is inefficient. Scheduling approaches therefore fail to identify records of significant transactions because so much effort is involved in disposing of routine material that there is no time to locate the documentation of the more important and less routine activity. In focusing on scheduling records rather than on identifying the significant activity of the organisation, archivists miss an opportunity to build a knowledge-base about the structure and functions of the organisation. Moreover, insisting on details of records disposal perpetuates the impression that archivists are bean counters rather than management partners.”
In its broad outlines, the PIVOT project serves as a representative case. The growth of state functions in the post Second World War period resulted in a massive increase in bureaucracy. In time this led to decentralisation of departments and agencies, together with their record keeping function. In 1966, a new Archive Law in the Netherlands reduced the period by which selected records should be transferred to the National and Regional Archives from 50 to 20 years. Subsequently, a General Audit Office report, ‘State Records Management and Maintenance‘, uncovered “huge amounts of unsorted records in ministries and departments which should have been transferred to the Archives”. In particular, it found that important policy documents were being retained outside the formal record keeping systems, which were excessively preoccupied with problems of managing relatively low level, high volume records. The National Archives was well aware of the position, but had been unable to effect remedial measures. The Archives Law gave it three roles in this area; advising on and inspecting departments’ record keeping practices, appraisal and assistance with disposal methods and schedules, and ensuring timely transfer of selected records. But it was not until a clear objective for appraisal was formulated; ” records appraised as worthy of preservation should be able to reconstruct government activity along broad lines in relation to the environment (i.e. society)”, that progress could be made. In effect this objective meant that society would not be fully documented, but that there should be ample information on a specified image of society, the interrelationship between government and citizens.
Although the Archive Law required government bodies to keep their records physically and intellectually in good condition, there had been no real sanction should they fail to do so, as was frequently the case. Under the PIVOT project, set up in 1991 to run for ten years in the first instance, and with the backing of the General Audit Office, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior, that is changing. The PIVOT concept is simple: “Its scope is the organisation and its environment, not the records. The activities of government departments should in the main represent government’s output in society. If a government function does not contribute to the goal, it is not considered worthy of documentation for posterity. The evidential value of the records derives from the value of the function. In theory, the intrinsic value of records plays no role, though in practice there may be exceptional concerning specific historical events, such as the Great Floods of 1953. In short, the method of appraisal is based on organisational research rather than on documentary analysis. The PIVOT research staff read laws, regulations, policy documents and so on describing government institutions, their mission statements, functions and activities rather than the files they produced. Many records are disposed of without being seen.”
The method involves identifying all actors within a sphere of activity contributing to a primary government function. This avoids duplication arising from some actors being active in more than one sphere of government. Within a sphere, the functions of each actor contributing to the activity are identified and described and the legal basis for the functions established. These functions are appraised, and the records disposed of on the basis of the importance or insignificance of the function. This process results in a Basis Appraisal Document, of which two features are key:
====================================================
In 1965 the Dutch archival theorist, Panhuysen, published an article in which he recommended that “archivists study closely the history of record-creating institutions. Archivists need to know exactly and with the fullest detail, how modern government agencies create records and what records they produce. They also need to know the interrelation between the competencies of these agencies, because that determines essentially the content and value of the records they create; because from that knowledge depends a good judgment about the relationship of these records and thereby concurrently the decision which records are of enduring historical value and which records can be considered for destruction”. This approach, sometimes referred to as Functional Archival Science, is strikingly similar to current ideas about macro appraisal.
The recent interest in macro appraisal stems partly from the societal approaches to appraisal outlined in the previous section and partly from the theoretical study and practical use of electronic record creating and keeping systems, as well as from rather more mundane concerns about efficiency and effectiveness, in particular the effort expended in appraising the vast percentage of records that are not preserved. It may also be viewed as reverting to some degree to the traditional Jenkinsonian non-interventionist approach in so far as it views selection as one part of the ongoing administrative process, albeit one in which archivists should participate.
Both Cook and Eastwood are in agreement that appraisal needs to be carried out on the basis of an analysis of organisational business functions and processes and of the record keeping systems necessary to support them, though they may differ in their views as to the precise ends and means to which these are then put. The approach adopted by the National Archives of the Netherlands involves agencies in first determining what processes are critical to their business missions and the tasks required to perform them; then the selection of records or classes of records generated should reflect these activities: “If a function does not contribute to such an act (i.e. an act which is considered to be worth preservation), the records produced by it are not worth keeping. The evidential value of the records derives from the value of the function”.
The Australian Archives have adopted a similar view: “Only by a functional interpretation of the context surrounding the creation of documents can one understand the integrity of the fonds and the functions of the archival documents in their original context. The form and function of the record are determined by the business functions that have led to their creation. Therefore, before we can appraise or use records, we have to analyse and appraise the business functions”.
The National Archives of Canada has adopted a similar approach :
“Archivists no longer get stuck down in trenches facing five hundred systems in a single large agency and trying to appraise them one-by-one in a near hopeless attempt to stitch together disparate systems and applications. Rather, they adopt a top-down perspective related to corporate functions, programs and activities and focus first on the mandates and functions of the agency and its interactions with the citizens and societal groups. Only once the significance of these broad functions are clearly assessed – which requires careful research by archivists – can archivists start pinpointing key systems and records in all media for actual appraisal and possible acquisition by the Archives or for long term retention by the agency under the Archives auspices.”
Bearman and Hedstrom argue that traditional methods of surveying and scheduling records have been wasteful. It should not be necessary to identify, list and schedule all records when only one to three per cent are of archival value :
“Reviewing all records created in order to select the less than three percent which should be saved beyond the time they are needed for on-going operations is inefficient. Scheduling approaches therefore fail to identify records of significant transactions because so much effort is involved in disposing of routine material that there is no time to locate the documentation of the more important and less routine activity. In focusing on scheduling records rather than on identifying the significant activity of the organisation, archivists miss an opportunity to build a knowledge-base about the structure and functions of the organisation. Moreover, insisting on details of records disposal perpetuates the impression that archivists are bean counters rather than management partners.”
The effectiveness of the functional approach is borne out by a study undertaken by the Australian Archives in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It found that the record keeping systems broke down into functional and housekeeping, and that appraisal could be limited to deal with the functional systems. The functional descriptions served three purposes: as a set of criteria to enable appropriate records to be selected; as a method of describing the records and their retention periods and as a means of providing continuing coverage over time despite changes in the systems and the organisation because functions in the broadest sense have far more stability than systems and organisations. By taking a macro view of the agency and its functions, it was possible to select records without regard to their format. The preferred strategy will therefore be to appraise an entire Department’s record keeping systems by concentrating on its unique functions as part of a mega-appraisal where the focus is on the selection of the most important records regardless of format.
Although the Archive Law required government bodies to keep their records physically and intellectually in good condition, there had been no real sanction should they fail to do so, as was frequently the case. Under the PIVOT project, set up in 1991 to run for ten years in the first instance, and with the backing of the General Audit Office, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior, that is changing. The PIVOT concept is simple: “Its scope is the organisation and its environment, not the records. The activities of government departments should in the main represent government’s output in society. If a government function does not contribute to the goal, it is not considered worthy of documentation for posterity. The evidential value of the records derives from the value of the function. In theory, the intrinsic value of records plays no role, though in practice there may be exceptional concerning specific historical events, such as the Great Floods of 1953. In short, the method of appraisal is based on organisational research rather than on documentary analysis. The PIVOT research staff read laws, regulations, policy documents and so on describing government institutions, their mission statements, functions and activities rather than the files they produced. Many records are disposed of without being seen.”
The method involves identifying all actors within a sphere of activity contributing to a primary government function. This avoids duplication arising from some actors being active in more than one sphere of government. Within a sphere, the functions of each actor contributing to the activity are identified and described and the legal basis for the functions established. These functions are appraised, and the records disposed of on the basis of the importance or insignificance of the function. This process results in a Basis Appraisal Document, of which two features are key:
- the retrospective appraisal, based on administrative functions. It describes the main reasons for the appraisal choices which have been made, the criteria that have been applied, and for each actor, a summary of business functions. For each function the appraisal decision is also recorded.
- the prospective appraisal, which outlines future appraisal decisions as well as providing the structure for the future arrangement and description of records selected for preservation based on the actors’ business functions. It is anticipated that this process will lead to improvements in records management and possibly to developments in archival theory.
====================================================
Endnotes
- Eastwood, T: Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal, in Barbara L. Craig, ed The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor pp 71-85.
- Cencetti, G. Script DI Archivistica Rome 1970.
- Brennecke, A. & Lest, W. Archivkunde: organisation Beitrag zur Theorie und Geschicte des Europaischen Archivwesens Leipzig 1953.
- Except in the writings of Mary Cross Norton: see Mitchell, T.W. ed. Norton on Archives: The Writings of Margaret Cross Norton on Archival & Records Management. Carbondale, 1975 pp 231-265.
- Duranti, L: The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory, American Archivist, Spring 1994 p 329.
- It is arguable that functional appraisal, for which see further below, avoids this particular pitfall because it ranks the importance of functions rather than content.
- Jenkinson, H. A Manual of Archive Administration 1965 edition pp 148-9. Kolsrud, O. considers Jenkinson’s theory to be “an original and unique contribution to archival theory, the zenith of English attempts to put destruction before preservation”, though it has a long pedigree. American Archivist 55, 1992: The Evolution of Basic Archival Principles: Some Comparative Observations. Jenkinson’s formulation of the archivist’s role is representative of the European School.
- Committee on Departmental Records: London, HMSO 1954.
- Cassesse, L. Term coined by Cassesse; Teorica e Metodologia. Scritt editi e inediti di paleographia, diplomatica, archivistica e biblioteconomia p 54 Ed. Caproni, A.M. 1959
- Brooks, P.C. American Archivist 3 1940 p221-234. Brooks specifically warned against adopting the European approach.
- Bauer, G.P. The Appraisal of Current and Recent Records Staff Information Circular 13, 1946 based on his paper to the National Archives Open Conference on Administration in 1944.
- Chief of Division of Interior Department Archives, US National Archives.
- See Characteristics 1 & 3.
- Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques pp 13-16.
- Journal of the Society of Archivists 1, 1957 pp 148-9.
- Duranti, op.cit. p338 No doubt an exaggeration: much of the rest of the world was converted.
- Menne-Haritz, A. Appraisal or selection. Can a Content Oriented Appraisal be Harmonised with the Principle of Provenance? Proceedings of the First Stockholm Conference on Archival Theory and the Principle of Provenance, 1993.
- Eastwood, T. Archivaria 35 Nailing a little Jelly to the Mast.
- Wendell Holmes, O. Memo to Director of Archival Management 1 October 1954.
- Schellenberg 0p.cit. p 139.
- Cook, Terry. From the Record to its Context: the Theory and Practice of Archival Appraisal since Jenkinson: S.A. Archives Journal 37, 1995 p 41.
- A Viewpoint on Appraisal of National Records: American Archivist 33, 1970 p175.
- Archives and Manuscripts: Appraisal and Accessioning. (SAA Series 1) Chicago 1979.
- The Role of use in Defining Archival Practice and Principle: a Research Agenda for the Availability and Use of Records: American Archivist 51 1988 p 74.
- In the eye of the beholder: Archival Administration from the users Point of View: American Archivist 47 1984 pp 112-113, 119.
- The Archival Edge: in Daniels, M. F. and Walch, T. A Modern Archives Reader: Basic Readings on Archival Theory and Practice 1984 pp 328-329.
- Duranti, L. op.cit. p 339.
- See from numerous examples: Samuels, H. Varsity letters: Documenting Modern Colleges and Universities. Metuchen N.J. 1992, and Philips, F. Developing Collecting Policies for Manuscript Collections. American Archivist 47 pp 30-42. See also p 23.
- Bucci, O. ed. Evolution of Archival Science in Archival Science on the Threshold of the year 2000. Mascerata, Italy 1992.
- For a recent attempt to reconcile at a theoretical level the differences between the Jenkinsonian and Schellenbergian definitions of appraisal criteria, see Livelton, T. Archival Theory, Records and the Public, Lanham, Maryland and London 1996, especially pp 72 -79.
- Booms, H. Archivaria 33 Winter (1991-2), UBERLIEFERUNGSBILDUNG: Keeping Archives as a Social and Political Activity p 25. This is a summary and reflection on the article cited in note 24.
- Booms, H. ibid.
- Booms, H. Archivalische Zeitschrift 68, (1972) Gesellshaftsordnung und Uberliefferungsbildung. Zur Problematik Archiviarischer Quellenbewertung. An English translation with introduction by the translators is in Archivaria 24 Summer (1987) pp 69-107.
- Schieder, T. Grundfragen der Geschicte ( Fundamentals of History) p 20 in Die Weltgeschicte, Freiberg 1971.
- Koselleck, R. Woch noch Historie (Once more History) Historische Zeitschrift (HZ) 212 (1971) pp 1ff.
- Faber, K-G. Theorie der Geschichtswissenshaft (Theory of Historical Knowledge) p 218 Munich 1971.
- Engel, J. Die Zukunft als Kategorie der Geschichte (Future Categories of History) HZ 198 (1964) p 66.
- Enders, G. Archivverwaltungslehre (Archives Management) Berlin 1968.
- Verstehen - intuitive understanding, developed out of a gift for sensitivity and human maturity enabling archivists to empathise with historical events. Fingerspitzengefuhl - literally rule of thumb, a combination of experience and subtle intuition.
- Lippert,W. Deutsche Geschichtsblatter 2 (German History Newsletter) 1901 p 258.
- Hille, G. Die Grundsatze der Aktenkassation. (Fundamentals of File Registries) Korrespondendzblatt des Gesamtvereins der deatschen Geshicts-und Alterhymsvereine 49 (1901) p 26.
- Hauptarchiv. Archival institutions of Germany before unification: Auslesearchiv or selective archives were maintained by the higher government offices of 18th century Prussia and Bavaria to aid in developing domestic and foreign policy. Individual documents were selected from the Behordenarchive (official archives) of lower government offices and combined with the records of the higher offices to form one large collection. In the 19th century, the government established a Hauptarchiv or central state archive (which was closed to the public) to house only the registries (elite registraturen) of the higher offices.
- Zimmerman, F. Wesen und Ermittlungdes Archivwertes: Theorie einer archivalischen wertlehre (Character and Determination of Archival Value: Theory of an Archival Doctrine of Value), Archivalische Zeitschrift 54 (1958) pp 103-107.
- Volk - the people, the nation: Staat – the State: kultur – culture, civilisation.
- Booms op.cit. (1972) pp 95-100. For a later and more damning account based on later experience, see Menne Haritz, A. American Archivist 57, 1994 pp 528-542, Appraisal or Documentation: Can we Appraise Archives by Selecting Content?
- What follows is based on Cook, T. Mind over matter: Towards a new Theory of Archival Appraisal in Craig, B.L. ed. The Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor pp 38-70. Ottowa 1992.
- Eastwood, T. Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal: in Craig, B.L. ed. op.cit pp 71-85 Ottowa 1992.
- op.cit. pp 81-2.
- op.cit p 84.
- op.cit. p 85.
- Groningen 1898, second edition 1920. Often referred to as the ‘100 rules’, Ketelaar considers its prescriptive nature set back the development of archival theory for a long period.
- Ketelaar, E. Archival Theory and the Dutch Manual. Archivaria 41 1996.
- Faculty in the sense of power or capacity.
- Chatfield, Helen. American Archivist 3 pp 93-101 1940.
- Panhuysen, G.W.A. Structuurginsel contra beginsel van hercomst? Netherlands Archievenbled 69 (1965) pp 32ff.
- Horsman, P. Appraisal on Wooden Shoes. The Netherlands PIVOT Project. PIVOT translated stands for Project Implementation Reduction Period and was set up to deal with a backlog of five hundred linear kilometres of Netherlands records awaiting appraisal and transfer.
- McKennish, S. Are Records Ever Actual?, The Records Continuum pp189-91, 196, ed. McKennish, S. & Piggott, M.
- Cook, T. & Frost, E. The Electronic Records Archival Programme at the National Archives of Canada: Evolution and Critical Factors of Success. Archives and Museums Informatics Technical Report No. 18 (1993) ed. Hedstrom, M.
- Bearman, D. & Hedstrom, M. Re-inventing Archives for Electronic Records: Alternative Service Delivery Options. Archives and Museums Informatics Technical Report No. 18 (1993) ed. Hedstrom, M.
- O’Shea, G. The Medium is NOT the Message: Appraisal of Electronic Records by Australian Archives. Archives and Manuscripts, May 1994. The project director commented on how few records of ongoing value were created.
- Hol, R.C. PIVOTS Appraisal of Modern Records: A ‘Floody’ Tale from the Dutch Experience. S.A. Archives Journal 38 (1996) pp 5-15.
No comments:
Post a Comment