Two Professions, One Goal

Information Management Journal, May/Jun 2004 by Ghetu, Magia

Collaboration between archivist and records manager may reinforce each profession's purpose in an organization and improve information management

As keepers of civilization's documented past, archivists and records managers have been managing information since at least the creation of paper. Although the two professions have many similarities and even complement each other, they split long ago over philosophical differences between those who thought archivists are mere custodians of "dead" or inactive records and those who believe records have a role to play in an organization's vitality and should be appraised for value.

Luciana Duranti, in her history of the records and information management (RIM) profession, points to the French Revolution as the pivotal time in which inactive records were distinguished from active records in use by an administration. Records created before the Revolution were housed in the National Archives, whereas active records "were maintained in the offices of the new administration and kept secret."

Later, British archivist Hilary Jenkinson defined the role of archivists as one of impartial treatment and preservation. He viewed archivists as custodians of the past, who merely keep materials without passing judgment on them or "managing" them in the modern sense. American archivist Theodore R. Schellenberg, on the other hand, rejected the idea of a passive role for archivists and promoted the notion of appraisal - determining which materials had continuing value - in response to the sheer bulk of records produced during World War II.

The schism between records managers and archivists grew more acute, and entirely separate disciplines emerged, with archivists typically coming from a background in history and records managers coming from a business administration background. This trend alienated archivists from active records and organizations' dynamic processes, reinforcing the Jenkinsonian view of archivists as custodians of dead records. Thus, from an organization's viewpoint, archivists came to be seen as keepers of outdated information that no longer had a role to play in the organization's growth.

The trend in archival theory during the past few decades, however, has been to create a more proactive role for the archivist in light of growing technology. A merging of the records professions has been proposed by several theorists as a means to control electronic records more effectively. Collaboration between archivist and records manager is logical because the professions' basic principles and mission are identical. A partnership could reinforce each other's purpose in an organization and help it manage its information more effectively. In fact, it is easy to agree with Australian theorists who believe that every archivist is a records manager, and every records manager is an archivist; technology is the glue that might bind them together once more.

Redefining the Archivist's Role in the Information Age

The development of information technology (IT) has made it necessary for the records manager to redefine his/her role in an organization. The advent of databases, word processing programs, and online communication has added more power and complexity to the somewhat predictable paper filing systems of the past.

Archivists are not immune to these technological changes and, in fact, have been incorporating technology into their descriptive practices with the help of encoded archival description (EAD). Modern archival literature is replete with references to the demands of preserving electronic records, and many prominent theorists, such as Charles Dollar and Terry Cook, have advocated a merger between records managers and archivists as a solution. In reflecting on the increasing complexity of information environments, Cook insists that archivists "must take charge and move from being passive custodians to active documenters, from managing the actual record to understanding the conceptual context, business processes, and functional purpose behind its creation."

Living out this redefinition of an archivist - from impartial keeper of the past to strategic actor in the information ecology of an organization - will re-energize the profession. Unfortunately, archivists and records managers are missing from much of the RIM literature. In fact, most of the literature either regards RIM as a product of computer systems or as a strategic innovation on the part of learning organizations. In addition, this literature tends to focus on acquiring information to improve business strategy but ignores what will happen to it later. As author Thomas Davenport writes, technology tends to dominate approaches to information management. This supremacy has proven unsuccessful in most organizations, so Davenport structures his idea of an information ecology on several factors, including people, business politics, organizational culture, strategy, and the external environment.

While the practice of RIM requires a variety of skills from an understanding of business processes to technical knowledge, much of the extant literature on the topic ignores the role of the archivist. Often perceived by information managers as a remnant of the past, archivists must emphasize the benefits they can bring to an organization. Cook contends that many of these are found in traditional archival principles: