Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
TÁBULA

Studia

Núm. 21 (2018): Espacios de memoria. Estrategias y discursos para archivos históricos

Archivos institucionales en el ‘Mundo 2.0’ : El marco de actuación para el ‘Archive-as-Is’ [Archivo-como-es]

Enviado
September 24, 2020
Publicado
2019-01-01

Resumen

Este trabajo tiene como objetivo encontrar una base teórica viable para la gestión de la información empresarial (EIM) en un Mundo 2.0. El entorno “Archive-as-Is” es una teoría archivística dirigida a la organización. Es un modelo para entender el archivo "tal cual", cómo se diseñó, construyó, procesó, manipuló y administró, y cómo "creció" para constituir el archivo que la organización que lo generó quería que fuera. Desde el momento de su creación, los archivos son distorsiones de la realidad, solo presentan imágenes sesgadas del pasado debido a la forma en que las organizaciones (y las personas) se "comportan". La contextualización (de los archiveros) será crucial para "corregir" la distorsión. El desafío es garantizar que el archivo se pueda utilizar como un recurso “confiable” y se administre de tal manera que una organización pueda sobrevivir a los desafíos de Mundo 2.0. El marco de actuación del "Archive-as-Is" podría utilizarse para conseguirlo.

This paper has the objective of finding a viable theoretical foundation for Enterprise Information Management (EIM) in World 2.0. The framework of the “Archive-as-Is” is an organization-oriented archival theory. The framework is a declarative model for understanding the archive “as is”, how it has been designed, constructed, processed, manipulated, and managed, and how it has “grown” to be the archive that the organization that generated it, wanted it to be. From the moment of their creation, archives are distortions of reality, only presenting biased images of the past due to the way organizations (and the people) “behave”. Contextualizing (by archivists) will be crucial to “correct” that distortion as much as is possible. The challenge in World 2.0 is to ensure that the organizational archive can be used as a “trusted” resource and be managed in such a way that an organization can survive the challenges of World 2.0. The theoretical framework of the “Archive-as-Is” may be the model that could be used to realize just that.

Citas

  1. ACCENTURE. Redefine your company based on the company you keep. Intelligent Enterprise unleashed. Accenture Technology Vision 2018. Accenture, 2018.
  2. ANGWIN, J., J. LARSON, S. MATTU y L. KIRCHNER, “Machine Bias.” ProPubli-ca.org, 23 de mayo de 2016. Extraído el 16 de julio de 2018 de: https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
  3. AFSHAR, M y K. AHMAD. “A new hybrid model for electronic records management.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 81, nº 3 (2015): 489-495.
  4. ATHANASSIADES, J.C. “The distortion of upward communication in hierarchical or-ganizations”, The Academy of Management Journal 16, nº 2 (1973): 207-226.
  5. BAETS, W. “Aligning information systems with business strategy”. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1, nº 4 (1992): 205-213.
  6. BEARMAN, D. “Moments of risk. Identifying threats to electronic records”, Archivaria 62 (2006): 15-46.
  7. BOUDREZ, F., H. DEKEYSER, y J. DUMORTIER. Digital Archiving. The new chal-lenge. Mont Saint Guibert: IRIS, 2005.
  8. BROTHMAN, B. “Declining Derrida. Integrity, tensegrity and the preservation of ar-chives from deconstruction.” Archivaria 48 (1999): 64-88.
  9. BROTHMAN, B. “The past that archives keep. Memory, history, and the preservation of archival records.” Archivaria 51 (2001): 41-80.
  10. BROWN, R. “Death of a Renaissance Record-Keeper: The Murder of Tomasso da Tortona in Ferrara 1385.” Archivaria 44 (1997): 1-43.
  11. BUNEMAN, P., S. KHANNA y W.C. TAN. “Why and where. A characterization of data provenance”, Database Theory. ICDT-2001. Proceedings of the 8th International Con-ference on Database Theory, Londres, 4-6 enero, editado por J. Van den Bussche y V. Vianu, 316-330. (Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 2001).
  12. CAMPBELL, D.T. “Systematic error on the part of human links in communication sys-tems”. Information and Control 1 (1958): 334-369.
  13. CHAKI, S. Enterprise Information Management in Practice, Nueva York: Apress, 2015.
  14. CLEGG, S., M. PINA E CUNHA, I. MUNRO, A. REGO y M. OOM DE SOUSA. “Kaf-kaesque power and bureaucracy”. Journal of Political Power 9, nº 2 (2016), 157-181.
  15. CLINE, B.N., R.A. WALKLING y A.S. YORE. “The consequences of managerial in-discretions: Sex, lies, and firm value.” Journal of Financial Economics 127, nº1 (2018): 380-415.
  16. COOK, T. “What is past is prologue. A history of archival ideas since 1898, and the future paradigm shift.” Archivaria 43 (1997): 17-63.
  17. COOK, T. “Archival science and postmodernism. New formulations for old con-cepts”, Archival Science 1, nº. 1, (2001): 3-24. [Archivística y posmodernismo: nuevas fórmulas para antiguos conceptos, Tabula nº 10 (2007): 59-82]
  18. COOK, T. “Electronic Records, Paper Minds: the revolution in information manage-ment and archives in the post-cus¬todial and post-modernist era”. Archives & Social Studies: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Re¬search 1, nº 0 (2007), 399-443 (reprint from 1994).
  19. COX, R.J. y H.W. SAMUELS. “The archivist’s first responsibility. A research agenda to improve the identification and retention of records of enduring value.” The Ameri-can Archivist 51 (invierno/primavera 1988): 28-42.
  20. CUI, Y. y J. WIDOM. “Lineage tracing for general data warehouse transformations.” The VLDB Journal - The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases 12, nº 1 (2003): 41-58.
  21. CUNNINGHAM, A. ‘Postcustodialism’, Encyclopedia of Archival Science, editado por L. Duranti y P.C. Franks (274-278). (Londres: Rowman y Littlefield, 2015.
  22. DERRIDA, J. “Archive Fever. A Freudian impression.” Diacritics 25, nº 2 (1995): 9-63.
  23. DERVIN, B. “Given a context by any other name. Methodological tools for taming the unruly beast”, Information seeking in context, editado por P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, B. Dervin, 13-38. (Londres: Taylor Graham, 1997).
  24. DEVLIN, K.J. “Oracles in situation semantics.” Situation Theory and its Applications, editado por J. Barwise, J.M. Gawron, G. Plotkin, S. Tutiya (II, 41-49). (Menlo Park: CLSI, 1991).
  25. DOLLAR, C. Archival theory and information technologies. The impact of information technologies on archival principles and methods. Macerata: Universidad de Macera-ta, 1992.
  26. DOWNS, A. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little-Brown, 1967.
  27. DUBNICK, M.J. y H.G. FREDERICKSON. Public accountability. Performance meas-urement, the extended state, and the search for trust. Washington, D.C.: Kettering Foundation & National Academy of Public Administration, 2011.
  28. DURANTI, L. “The Archival Bond.” Archives & Museum Informatics 11, nº 3-4 (1997), 213-218.
  29. DURANTI, L. Diplomatics. New uses for an old science. Lanham y Londres: The Scarecrow Press, 1998.
  30. DURANTI, L. “Archives as a Place”. Archives & Social Studies: A Journal of Interdis-ciplinary Research 1, nº 0 (2007), 445-466. Reedición de 1996.
  31. DURANTI, L. y A. JANSEN. “Authenticity of Digital Records. An Archival Diplomatics framework for Digital Forensics.” Proceedings of the 5th European Conference of Information Management and Evaluation, editado por W. Castelnova, E. Ferrari (134-139). (Como: Academic Publishing Limited, 2011).
  32. EL KHARBILI, M., S. STEIN, I. MARKOVIC, E. Pulvermüller. “Towards a framework for semantic business process compliance management.” Proceedings of the Work-shop on Governance, Risk and Compliance for Information Systems (GRCIS 2008), CEUR, Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 339, editado por S. Sadiq, M. Indulska, M. zur Muehlen (1-15). (Montpellier, 2008).
  33. FOUCAULT, M. Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. París: Gallimard, 1975.
  34. FOUCAULT, M. L’Archéologie du savoir. París: Gallimard, 1992. Primera edición: 1969.
  35. FREGE, G. The Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Enquiry into the Concept of Number. Translated by J.L. Austin, Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 19802. Primera edición: 1884.
  36. GÖPFERICH, S. “Comprehensibility assessment using the Karlsruhe Comprehensi-bility Concept.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 6, nº 11 (2006), 31-53.
  37. GIDDENS, A. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cam-bridge: Polity Press, 1984.
  38. GILLILAND, A.J., S. MCKEMMISH, A.J. Lau, eds., Research in the Archival multi-verse. Clayton: Mo¬nash University Publishing, 2017.
  39. GREETHAM, D. “Who’s in, who’s out. The cultural politics of archival exclusion.” Studies in the Literary Imagination, 32, nº 1 (1999), 1-28.
  40. HARRIS, V. “Concerned with the writings of others: Archival canons, discourses and voices.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 25, nº 2 (2004), 211-220.
  41. HARTSHORNE, C. y P. WEISS, eds., The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. IV. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1933.
  42. HEIDELBERG, R.L. “Political accountability and spaces of contestation”, Administra-tion & Society, 14 abril (2015), 1-24.
  43. HELBING, D. “Societal, economic, ethical and legal challenges of the digital revolu-tion. From Big Data to Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence, and Manipulative Tech-nol¬ogies”. Jusletter 21 (2015). Fuente en línea. Extraído el 16 de julio de 2018 de: https://arxiv.org/abs/¬1504.03751.
  44. HOFSTEDE, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Nueva York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
  45. HOLSAPPLE, C.W. y M. Singh. ”The knowledge chain model: activities for competi-tiveness”. Expert Systems with Applications 20, nº 1 (2001), 77-98.
  46. HORSMAN, P.J. “Taming the elephant. An orthodox approach to the principle of provenance”, The principle of provenance. First Stockholm Conference on archival theory and the principle of provenance, 2-3 septiembre de 1993, editado por K. Abu-khanfusa, J. Sydbeck (51-63). Estocolmo, 1994.
  47. IHANUS, J. “The archive and psychoanalysis: Memories and histories toward fu-tures.” International Forum of Psychoanalysis 16, nº 2 (2007), 119-131.
  48. JAMES, W. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Cambridge (Ma): The Riverside Press, 1907.
  49. JANSEN, A. “Chain of Preservation”, Encyclopedia of Archival Science, editado por L. Duranti, y P.C. Franks (133-136). Londres: Rowman y Littlefield, 2015.
  50. JENKINSON, H. “Modern Archives: Some Reflections on T. R. Schellenberg: Modern Archives. Principles and Techniques”, Selected writings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson, edit-ado por R.H. Ellis y P. Walne (339-342). Chicago: SAA, 2003.
  51. KAPLAN, E. “We are what we collect, we collect what we are. Archives and the con-struction of identity.” The American Archivist 63 (2000), 126-151.
  52. KARAKAS, F. “Welcome to World 2.0: the new digital ecosystem”. Journal of Busi-ness Strategy 30, nº 4 (2009), 23-30.
  53. KAUFMAN, H. Administrative Feedback. Monitoring subordinates’ behavior. Wash-ington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1973.
  54. KETELAAR, E. “Archivalisation and archiving.” Archives and Manuscripts 27 (1999), 54-61.
  55. KETELAAR, E. “Archivistics research saving the profession.” The American Archivist 63 (2000a), 322-340.
  56. KETELAAR, E. “De culturele context van archieven.” Context. Interpretatiekaders in de archivistiek, editado por P.J. Horsman, F.C.J. Ketelaar, y T.H.P.M. Thomassen (83-91). ’s-Gravenhage: Stichting Archiefpublicaties, 2000b.
  57. KETELAAR, E. “Archival turns and returns. Studies of the Archive.” Research in the Archival multiverse, editado por A.J. Gilliland, S. McKemmish y A.J. Lau (228-268). Clayton: Monash University Publishing, 2017.
  58. KULTHAU, C.C. “Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process”, Theories of Information Behavior, editado por K.E. Fisher, S. Erdelez y L. McKechnie (230-234). Nueva Jer-sey: Information Today, 2006.
  59. LATOUR, B. “Postmodern? No, simply a modern! Steps towards an anthropology of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21, nº 1 (1990), 145-171.
  60. LAU, A.J. Collecting Experiences. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de California, Los An-geles, 2013. En línea: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9f8572zp.
  61. LE ROY LADURIE, E. Montaillou, village occitan de 1294 à 1324. París: Gallimard, 1975.
  62. LESSIG, L. Code, and other laws of cyberspace, version 2.0, Nueva York: Basic Books, 2006.
  63. LEVY, D.M. Scrolling forward. Mak¬ing sen¬se of documents in the digital age. Nueva York: Arcade Pub¬lish¬ing, 2001.
  64. MACNEIL, H. “Contemporary Archival Diplomatics as a Method of Inquiry. Lessons learned from Two Research Projects.” Archival Science 4, nº 3 (2004), 199-232.
  65. MAGNANI, L. Morality in a technological world. Knowledge as duty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  66. MANOFF, M. “Theories of the Archive from Across the Disciplines.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 4, nº 1 (2004), 9-25.
  67. MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, V. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2009.
  68. MCKEMMISH, S. “Placing records continuum theory and practice.” Archival Science 1, nº 4 (2001), 333-359.
  69. MCKEMMISH, S.M., F.H. Upward, y B. Reed. “Records Management Continuum”, Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition, editado por M.J. Bates y M.N. Maack (4447-4459). Londres: Taylor & Francis, 2010.
  70. MCKEMMISH, S. “Recordkeeping in the Continuum. An Australian tradition.” Re-search in the Archival multiverse, editado por A.J. Gilliland, S. McKemmish y A.J. Lau (122-160). Clayton: Monash University Publishing, 2017.
  71. MEREDITH, R., S. REMINGTON, P.A. O'DONNELL, y N. SHARMA. “Transforming organizations with business intelligence. Comparing theory with the vendor perspec-tive”, Fusing Decision Support Systems into the fabric of the context, editado por A. Respicio and F. Burstein (89-100). Ámsterdam: IOS Press, 2012.
  72. MICHETTI, G. “Provenance: An archival perspective.”, Building trust in Information. Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance editado por V.L. Lemieux (59-68). Cham (ZG): Springer International Publishing AG, 2016.
  73. NESMITH, T. “Still fuzzy, but more accurate. Some thoughts on the ‘ghosts’ of ar-chival theory.” Archivaria 47 (1999), 136-150.
  74. NESMITH, T. “Seeing archives. Postmodernism and the changing intellectual place of archives.” The American Ar¬chiv¬ist 65 (2002), 24-41.
  75. O’KELLEY, C. y M. DUBNICK “Accountability and its metaphors. From forum to ago-ra and bazaar”. Conferencia anual de 2015 EGPA 24-29 agosto, 2015, Toulouse, Francia, PSG VII track (Quality and Integrity of Governance) (1-25). Toulouse: EG-PA, 2015. En línea: http://pure.qub.ac.uk/por¬tal/files/¬130325-28/COK_MJD_EGPA_Paper.pdf.
  76. O’REILLY, C.A. “The intentional distortion of information in organizational communi-cation: A laboratory and field investigation.” Human Relations 31, nº 2 (1978), 173-193.
  77. PAINTER-MORLAND, M. “Defining Accountability in a network society”. Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (2007), 515-534.
  78. PFEFFER, J. y G.R. SALANCIK. The external control of organizations. A resource dependence perspec¬tive. Nueva York: Harper & Row, 1978.
  79. PIGGOTT, M. “Two cheers for the records continuum.” M. Piggott, Archives and So-cietal Provenance: Australian Essays. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2012, 175-195.
  80. PORTER, M., y V.E. MILLER. “How information gives you competitive advantage.” Harvard Business Review 63, nº 4 (1985), 149-160.
  81. PURI, C., D.S. KIM, P.Z. YEH, y K. VERMA. “Implementing a data lineage tracker”, Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference, DaWaK 2012, 3-6 de septiembre de 2012, editada por A. Cuzzocrea y U. Dayal (390-403). Viena, 2012.
  82. REDMAN, T.C. “Data: un unfolding quality disaster.” DM Review, nº 8 (agosto de 2004), 22-23, 57.
  83. RESMINI, A. y L. ROSATI, “From physical to digital environments (and back). Seven laws of findability.” Translating Information Architecture: Proceedings of Europe’s third Information Architecture summit (EuroIA) (162-170). Barcelona: ASIS&T, 2007.
  84. RICE, R.E. y S.D. COOPER. Organizations and Unusual Routines. A Systems Anal-ysis of Dysfunctional Feedback Pro¬cesses. Cambridge (Reino Unido): Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  85. SEROVA, E. “Enterprise Information Systems of new Generation”. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation 15, nº 1 (2012), 116-126.
  86. SCHELLENBERG, T. Modern Archives. Principles and techniques. Chicago: SAA, 2003.
  87. SHIELDS, P. “Pragmatism as philosophy of science. A tool for public administration.”, Research in Public Administration, editado por J.D. White (195-226). Bingley: Emer-ald Group Publishing, (IV, 1998).
  88. SINGER, B.D. “Crazy Systems and Kafka Circuits.” Social Policy 11 (1980), 46-54.
  89. SMITH, G.D. y L.G. STEADMAN. “Present value of corporate history.” Harvard Busi-ness Review 6, nº 59 (1981), 164-173.
  90. STALNAKER, S. “Here comes the P2P Economy”. Harvard Business Review 86, nº 2 (2008), 17-45.
  91. STOLER, A.L “Colonial Archives and the Arts of Governance. On the Content in the Form.” Refiguring the Archive, editado por C. Hamilton, V. Harris, M. Pickover, G. Reid, R. Saleh, y J. Taylor (83-100). Londres: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
  92. STYLIANOU, K. “Hasta la Vista Privacy, or how technology terminated privacy”, Per-sonal Data Privacy and protection in a surveillance era. Technologies and practices, editado por C. Akrivopoulou y A. Psygjas (44-57). Hershey (Pa.): IGI Global, 2010.
  93. SWEENEY, S. “The ambiguous origins of the archival principle of provenance.” Li-braries & the cultural record 43, nº 2 (2008), 193-213.
  94. TOFFLER, A. Future shock, Nueva York: Random House, 1970.
  95. TURNER, V., J.F. Gantz, D. Reinsel, and S. Minton. The digital universe of opportu-nities: Rich data and the increasing value of the internet of things, Framingham (Ma.): IDC, 2014.
  96. UPWARD, F. “Structuring the records continuum, part one. Postcustodial principles and properties.” Archives and Manuscripts 24, nº 2 (1996), 268–285.
  97. UPWARD, F. “Structuring the records continuum, part two. Structuration theory and recordkeeping.” Archives and Manuscripts 25, nº 1 (1997), 10-35.
  98. UPWARD, F. “Records continuum”, Archives: recordkeeping in society, editado por S. McKemmish, M. Piggott, B. Reed y F. Upward. (197-222). Wagga Wagga, Charles Sturt University, 2005.
  99. UPWARD, F. y S. MCKEMMISH. “Somewhere beyond custody”. Archives and Man-uscripts 22, nº 1 (1994), 136-149.
  100. VAN BUSSEL, G.J. Archiving should be just like an Apple, en acht andere (nuttige?) stellingen. Amster¬dam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012a.
  101. VAN Bussel, G.J. “Reconstructing the Past for Organizational Accountability.” The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation 15, nº 1 (2012b), 127 -137.
  102. VAN BUSSEL, G.J. “An Accountability Challenge. Capturing records and their con-text in Enterprise Information Sys¬tems.” Proceedings of the 10th European Confer-ence of Information Systems Management. ECISM 2016, Évora, Portugal, 8-9 de septiembre de 2016, editado por P. Silva, A. Guerreiro y R. Quaresma (204-211). Lectura: ACPI, 2016.
  103. VAN BUSSEL, G.J. y F.F.M. ECTOR. Op zoek naar de herinnering. Verant-woordingssystemen, content-intensieve organisaties en performance. Helmond: Van Bussel Document Services, 2009.
  104. VAN BUSSEL, G.J. y H. HENSELER. “Digital Archiving and eDiscovery. Delivering evidence in an age of overload., Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Systems Management and Evaluation. ICIME 2013, Ho Chi Min City, Vietnam, 13-14 mayo de 2013, editado por B. John, M. Nkhoma y N. Leung (281-288). Lectura, 2013.
  105. VAN DE PAS, J. y G.J. VAN BUSSEL. “Privacy lost – and found? The information value chain as a model to meet citizens’ concerns”, Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation 18, nº 2, (2015a), 199-209.
  106. VAN DE PAS, J. y G.J. VAN BUSSEL. “Embedding Privacy in ICT Architectures. The citizen as public stakeholder in architecture development”. Proceedings of the Am-sterdam Privacy Conference (21-26 de octubre de 2015), editado por B. van der Sloot. Amsterdam: APPR, 2015b, pág. 14. En línea: http://www.vbds.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Van-de-Pas_-Van-Bussel.pdf.
  107. WEICK, K. Sensemaking in Organisations. Londres: Sage, 1995.
  108. WITTGENSTEIN, L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961. Primera edición: 1922.
  109. YEO, G. “Concepts of record (1): evidence, information, and persistent representa-tions.” The American Archivist 70, nº 2 (2007), 315-343.
  110. YEO, G. “Information, records, and the philosophy of speech acts.” Archives in Liquid Times, editado por A. Glaudemans, R. Jonker and F. Smit (92-118). ‘s-Gravenhage: Stichting Archiefpublicaties, 2017.
  111. ZMUD, R.W. “Opportunities for Strategic Information Manipulation through new in-formation technology”, Organizations and Communication Technology, editado por J. Fulk y C.W. Steinfield (95-116). Londres, Nueva Delhi: Sage Publications, 1990.