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

Studia

Núm. 25 (2022): Tiempos modernos. Una agenda 2025 para los archivos

Fijeza y fluidez en el mundo digital

DOI
https://doi.org/10.51598/tab.934
Enviado
enero 19, 2023
Publicado
2023-01-31

Resumen

 

La transición al ámbito digital ha introducido nuevos y potentes métodos para acceder a los archivos y compartirlos, pero también ha traído consigo nuevos retos. La fluidez y la variabilidad han llevado a sugerir que las antiguas concepciones de la naturaleza estable de los archivos deben sustituirse por conceptos más nuevos adecuados a la era digital. Por supuesto, se pueden identificar una serie de acepciones en las que los documentos de archivo se pueden considerar adecuadamente mutables. Pero si los documentos digitales fueran totalmente fluidos, serían incapaces de comunicar sus mensajes. En este artículo se defiende que la sociedad sigue necesitando documentos con capacidad para garantizar la rendición de cuentas, dar testimonio de hechos pasados y sostener derechos y obligaciones, y que tales documentos siguen requiriendo grados adecuados de estabilidad y contextualización. Aunque se ha afirmado que las características fundamentales de los archivos y los documentos de archivo se han visto alteradas en el entorno digital, su naturaleza no ha pasado de la fijeza a la fluidez constante o total. Los archivos siguen cumpliendo sus funciones, y no tenemos por qué ver los archivos digitales como algo diferente de los creados en épocas anteriores.

The transition to the digital realm has introduced powerful new methods of accessing and sharing archives, but it has also brought new challenges. The fluidity and variability have led to suggestions that older understandings of the stable nature of archives should be replaced with newer concepts appropriate to the digital age. Of course, it is possible to identify a number of senses in which archival documents can appropriately be seen as mutable. But if digital documents were wholly fluid, they would be unable to communicate their messages. This article argues that society continues to need documents with the power to underwrite accountability, to testify to past events, and to sustain rights and obligations, and that such documents still require appropriate degrees of stability and contextualization. Although it has been claimed that the fundamental characteristics of archives and archival documents have been altered in the digital environment, their nature has not changed from fixity to constant or total fluidity. Archives continue to serve their functions, and we need not see digital archives as something different from those created in earlier eras.

Citas

  1. Bearman, D. (1996). “Item Level Control and Electronic Recordkeeping”. Archives and Museum Informatics, vol. 10 nº 3, pp. 195-245.
  2. Bell, A. (2014). “Participation vs Principle: Does Technological Change Marginalize Recordkeeping Theory?” En: C. Brown (ed.), Archives and Recordkeeping: Theory into Practice. Londres: Facet.
  3. Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext and the History of Writing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  4. Brothman, B. (2006). “Archives, Life Cycles, and Death Wishes: A Helical Model of Record Formation”. Archivaria, nº 61, pp. 235-69.
  5. Caswell, M. (2016). “‘The Archive’ Is Not an Archives: Acknowledging the Intellectual Contributions of Archival Studies”. Reconstruction, vol. 16 nº 1, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7bn4v1fk.
  6. Cook, T. (1992). “The Concept of the Archival Fonds: Theory, Description, and Provenance in the Post-Custodial Era.” En: T. Eastwood (ed.), The Archival Fonds: From Theory to Practice. Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists.
  7. Cunningham, A. (2011). “Good Digital Records Don’t Just “Happen”: Embedding Digital Recordkeeping as an Organic Component of Business Processes and Systems.” Archivaria, nº 71, pp. 21-34.
  8. Dearstyne, B. W. (1999). “Records Management of the Future: Anticipate, Adapt, and Succeed.” Information Management Journal, vol. 33 nº 4, pp. 4-16.
  9. Gibson, W. (2005). “God’s Little Toys.” Wired, July, https://www.wired.com/2005/07/gibson-3/.
  10. Grimard, J. (2005). “Managing the Long-Term Preservation of Electronic Archives or Preserving the Medium and the Message”. Archivaria, nº 59, pp. 153-67.
  11. Hirsch, M. and Taylor, D. (2012). “The Archive in Transit”. E-misférica, vol. 9 nº 1-2, http://www.hemisphericinstitute.org/hemi/en/e-misferica-91/hirschtaylor.
  12. Hofman, H. (2005). “The Archive”. En: S. McKemmish, M. Piggott, B. Reed and F. Upward (eds.), Archives: Recordkeeping in Society. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University.
  13. Jenkinson, H. (1944). “Reflections of an Archivist”. Contemporary Review, nº 165, pp. 355-61.
  14. Jimerson, R. C. (2009). Archives Power: Memory, Accountability, and Social Justice. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
  15. Johns, A. (1998). The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  16. Johnson, V. and Thomas, D. (2013). “Digital Information: ‘Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom …’. Is Digital a Cultural Revolution?” En: N. Partner and S. Foot (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Historical Theory. Londres: Sage.
  17. Keen, A. (2007). The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture. New York: Doubleday.
  18. Ketelaar, E. (2001). “Tacit Narratives: The Meanings of Archives.” Archival Science, vol. 1 nº 2, pp. 131-41.
  19. Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  20. Lemieux, V. L. (2015). “Risk Management (Records)”. En: L. Duranti and P. C. Franks (eds.), Encyclopedia of Archival Science. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
  21. Lemieux, V. L. (2021). “Blockchain and Recordkeeping.” Computers, vol. 10 nº 11, pp. 1-8.
  22. Levy, D. M. (2001). Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age. Nueva York: Arcade.
  23. MacNeil, H. (2009). “Trusting Description: Authenticity, Accountability, and Archival Description Standards.” Journal of Archival Organization, vol. 7 nº 3, pp. 89-107.
  24. McKemmish, S. (1994). “Are Records Ever Actual?” En: S. McKemmish and M. Piggott (eds.), The Records Continuum: Ian Maclean and Australian Archives First Fifty Years. Clayton: Ancora.
  25. McKemmish, S. (2001). “Placing Records Continuum Theory and Practice”. Archival Science vol. 1 nº 4, pp. 333-59.
  26. McLeod, J. (2008). “Why Am I a Records Manager?” Inaugural lecture, Northumbria University, http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/8298/1/McLeodInauguralLecture.pdf.
  27. Millar, L. A. (2019). A Matter of Facts: The Value of Evidence in an Information Age. Chicago: ALA Neal-Schuman.
  28. Momanyi, S. B. (2018). “A Secure Electronic Document Management System Using Public Key Encryption”. Dissertation, Strathmore University, https://su-plus.strathmore.edu/handle/11071/6002.
  29. Nesmith, T. (2011). “Documenting Appraisal as a Societal-Archival Process: Theory, Practice, and Ethics in the Wake of Helen Willa Samuels”. En: T. Cook (ed.), Controlling the Past: Documenting Society and Institutions. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
  30. Noonan, D. W., McCrory, A. and Black, E. L. (2010). “PDF/A: A Viable Addition to the Preservation Toolkit”. D-Lib Magazine, vol. 16 nº 11-12, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november10/noonan/11noonan.html.
  31. Papailias, P. (2005). Genres of Recollection: Archival Poetics and Modern Greece. Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  32. Pitti, D., Stockting, B. and Clavaud, F. (2016). “An Introduction to ‘Records in Contexts’: An Archival Description Draft Standard”. Comma, anno 2016 nº 1-2, pp. 173-88.
  33. Prior, L. (2003). Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage.
  34. Reed, B. (2005). “Records”. En: S. McKemmish, M. Piggott, B. Reed and F. Upward (eds.), Archives: Recordkeeping in Society. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University.
  35. Schamber, L. (1996). “What Is a Document? Rethinking the Concept in Uneasy Times”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 47 nº 9, pp. 669-71.
  36. Schellenberg, T. R. (1956). Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques. Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire.
  37. Selden, R., Widdowson, P. and Brooker, P. (2005). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, 5ª edición. Londres: Pearson.
  38. Stein, D. (2020). “What’s in an Archive? Cursory Observations and Serendipitous Reflections”. Anglia, vol. 138 nº3, pp. 337-54.
  39. Thibodeau, K. (2009). “The Survival of Records (and Records Management) in the Twenty-First Century”. En: H. R. Tibbo, C. Hank, C. A. Lee and R. Clemens (eds.), Digital Curation: Practice, Promise and Prospects. Proceedings of DigCCurr 2009. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
  40. UK Research and Innovation (2018). Record DNA: Reconceptualising the Life of Digital Records as the Future Evidence Base, https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH/P006868/1.
  41. Upward, F. (1996). “Structuring the Records Continuum. Part One: Postcustodial Principles and Properties”. Archives and Manuscripts, 24 nº 2, pp. 268-85.
  42. Upward, F. (2004). “The Records Continuum and the Concept of an End Product.” Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 32 nº 1, pp. 40-62.
  43. Yeo, G. (2009). “Custodial History, Provenance, and the Description of Personal Records”. Libraries and the Cultural Record, vol. 44 nº 1, pp. 50-64.
  44. Yeo, G. (2012). “Bringing Things Together: Aggregate Records in a Digital Age”. Archivaria, nº 74, pp. 43-91.
  45. Yeo, G. (2015). “Contexts, Original Orders, and Item-Level Orientation: Responding Creatively to Users’ Needs and Technological Change”. Journal of Archival Organization, vol. 12 nº 3-4, pp. 170-85.
  46. Yeo, G. (2018). Records, Information and Data: Exploring the Role of Record-Keeping in an Information Culture. Londres: Facet.