Custodial and Post-custodial approaches to archives

1. Custodial and Post-custodial approaches to archives Corie Zylstra

2. Custodial history • 1870’s—Theodoor Van Riemsdijk • Focus on why and how records are created rather than their future use • Shellenberg • Noncustody=lost and damaged records • 1937—Jenkinson • Archives are “'documents that are set aside for preservation in official custody'.Custody was critical to what he called 'Archive quality', which depended on records appraised as having continuing value as archives being managed by 'an unblemished line of responsible custodians', whose 'primary duties' were the 'physical and moral defense' of the archives in their care.”

3. Custodial history • 1960’s—Society of American Archivists (SAA) • Custody is still important • 1980—F. Gerald Ham • Introduced the term “postcustodialism” into archival vocabulary and theory • Archivists will manage records and not just keep them • 1980’s—Archivists do not know which approach is best

4. Bearman/cook vseastwood • Bearman (most outspoken critic of custody) and Cook • Abandon the role of custodian • Work with records managers to appraise records. • Appraisal based on relevance to the corporation and society • Eastwood • “The physical custody of archival material remains essential for guaranteeing an uncorrupted and intelligible record of the past, and in terms of ensuring accountability for both institutions and for society as a whole.”

5. The “new paradigm” • Change the focus from • Record content to context • Record itself to its function • Custodial preservation to “intervening in the records creation process and managing the behavior of creators” • New paradigm supporters were very abusive towards the traditional custodial approach

6. “Shellenberg in cyberspace” • Author Linda J. Henry • New paradigm supporters do not support their views well • Poor research and references • Do not consider other opinions and experiences • Suggests looking at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

7. Post-custodial management in Australia • Even more involvement • Archivists “work collaboratively with other information specialists, including records managers and information technology professionals, to analyze information management requirements, design appropriate systems, and estimate and oversee the management of risks involved in keeping or destroying information.” • National Archives of Australia (NAA) • Archivists and creators work together under the same rules

8. Australia’s pro post-custodial • Acland • Followed the NAA’s form at the University of Queenland • McKemmish • Focus on the relationship between agencies, how they create their records, and the records themselves • Custody should remain with the creating or controlling agency

9. Australia’s anti post-custodial • Eastwood—3 concerns • “Weak” institutions • Separating records • Subjectivity and bias • Luciana Duranti • Focus on subjectivity and bias • Roman history • Archival “threshold” • Stephen Ellis • Custody does not guarantee authenticity but physical and intellectual custody are still key

10. Other arguments • Greg O’Shea • If archivists wait for electronic records to become non-current then it will be too late • Frank Upward • Location will matter less than accessibility because records will “no longer have to move across clear boundaries in space or time to be seen as part of an archives.”

11. Other arguments • Alf Erlandsson • ‘Metadata systems approach’ • Have archival users in mind when the systems are designed and records are created • Aid archivists later if they take physical custody

12. Other arguments • Heather MacNeil • Interference from outsiders would undermine the evidential value of the metadata • Sarah Flynn • Post-custodial management is not necessarily permanent

13. Other middle ground approaches • Ellis • Do not take an extreme position • The NAA’s position is case sensitive • Post-custodial management will not work for every institution • Archives have a choice • Certified digital archives

14. Change in Australia • Switch to custodial management of digital records of archival value • Found a “lack of understanding and a high degree of confusion among employees regarding their responsibilities and abilities to manage electronic records’ as well as considerable confusion among agency recordkeepers about the requirements of the standard on electronic recordkeeping.”

15. Analysis • The custody issue has been around for over 130 years • Post-custodial supporters need to act and think more like the archival pioneers • Custodial supporters need to think about the future of electronic records

16. analysis • Both sides worry about the authenticity of the records for future use • Post-custodialists want early archival involvement so that records wont be lost • Custodialists worry that involvement will cause bias • Can a middle ground be found? • Erlandsson’s metadata system?

17. analysis • Post-custodial management is not for everyone • Create policies and standards to keep everyone accountable • No institution should be forced to use it • Higher bodies like the NAA should research theories before making them national standards

18. conclusion • Archivist • “an individual responsible for appraising, acquiring, arranging, describing, preserving, and providing access to records of enduring value, according to the principles of provenance, original order, and collective control to protect the materials’ authenticity and context.” • Creation is beyond the role of the archivist

19. Bibliography • “A Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology.” The Society of American Archivists. Accessed April 10, 2012. http://www.archivists.org/glossary/index.asp. • Bastian, Jeannette Allis. “A Question of Custody: The Colonial Archives of the United States Virgin Islands.” American Archivist 64, no.1 (Spring/Summer 2001): 96–114. • Boadle, Don. “Reinventing the Archive in a Virtual Environment: Australians and the Non-Custodial Management of Electronic Records.” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 35, no. 3 (September 2004): 242-252. • Burrows, Toby. “Personal Electronic Archives: Collecting the Digital Me.” OCLC Systems & Services 22, no. 2 (2006): 85 - 88 • Davis, Susan E. “Electronic Records Planning in ‘Collecting’ Repositories.” The American Archivist 71 (Spring/Summer 2008): 167 - 189. • Henry, Linda J. “Schellenberg in Cyberspace.” American Archivist 61, no. 2 (1998): 309–327. • Ketelaar, Eric. “Archival Theory and the Dutch Manual.” Archivaria 41 (January 1996): 31 - 40 • Tough, Alistair G. “The Post-custodial/Pro-custodial Argument from a Records Management Perspective.” Journal of the Society of Archivists 25, no. 1 (2004): 19 - 26. • Tschan, Reto. “A Comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal.” American Archivist 65 (Fall/Winter 2002): 176 - 195.