The Process of Documentary Assessment in Light of the Result of Current Archival Science Debates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v40n3a07Keywords:
Archival science, Custodial and Post-custodial approaches, documentary assessmentAbstract
Currently, documentary assessment is one of the most controversial processes in archival science because of its implications from an informational, political and social point of view. Although the background of this process dates back to medieval times, it would be inaccurate to speak about some theoretical systematization before Americans Philip Brooks and Theodore Schellenberg's contributions in the 40s and 50s in the 20th century. In the light of the post custodial paradigm, the assessment of archival documents has been the object of increasing theoretical reflections, which has led to different positions. This article intends to perform an approach to archival document assessment based on custodial and post custodial paradigms. To that effect, it addresses some of the aspects which have been the subject of questioning in both cases. Afterwards, this article presents a macro assessment analysis and its fundamental characteristics.
Downloads
References
Archivo Nacional de Brasil. (2005). Diccionario brasileño de terminología archivística. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Publicaciones Técnicas.
Avila Araújo, C.A. (2014). Critical perspective in Archival Science, Library Science and Museum Studies. InCID: Revista de Ciência da Informação e Documentação, 5(1), 27-46.
Bailey, C. (2013). Past Imperfect? Reflections on the Evolution of Canadian Federal Government Records Appraisal. Archivaria, 75, 5-47.
Booms, H. (1987). Society and the formation of a documentary heritage: issues in the appraisal of archival sources. Archivaria, 24, 69-107.
Brooks, P. (1940). The Selection of records for preservation. The American Archivist, (3), 230-234.
Cook, T. (1997). What is Past is Prologue: A History of Archival Ideas Since 1898, and the Future Paradigm Shift. Archivaria, 43, 17-63.
Cook, T. (2001). Archival science and postmodernism: new formulations for old concepts. Journal Archival Science, 1(1), 3-24.
Cook, T. (2003). Macrovaloración y análisis functional: la preeminencia de la interacción político-social. Tabula, (6), 87-104.
Cook, M. (2010). Appraisal and access: We should expect changes driven by the media and by public awareness. Records Management Journal, 20(1), 72-77.
Cook, T. (2013). Evidence, memory, identity, and community: four shifting archival paradigms. Archival Science, 13(2), 95-120.
Couture, C. (1999). La evaluación de los archivos: estado de la cuestión. Lligall: Revista Catalana d'Arxivística, 11, 59-88.
Couture, C. (2003). La función valoración en la archivística contemporánea: una sinergia entre varias consideraciones complementarias. Tabula, (6), 23-50.
Duranti, L. (1989). The Odyssey Of Records Managers Part I: From Middle Ages to Modern Times. ARMA Records Management Quarterly, 23(4), 3-11.
Fernandes de Oliveira Miranda, M. K. (2010). Acesso à informação no paradigma pós-custodial: da aplicação da intencionalidade para findability (tese Doutorado). Porto: Universidade do Porto.
Gilliland-Swetland, A.J. (2014). Conceptualizing 21st-Century Archives. Society of American Archivists. Society of American Archivists.
Huvila, I. (2015). The unbearable lightness of participating? Revisiting the discourses of “participation” in archival literature. Journal of Documentation, 71(2), 358-386.
ISO/TC 46/SC 11. (2011). ISO 30301:11 Information and documentation –Management system for records– Requirements.
Jenkinson, H. (1992). A Manual of Archive Administration. Data Science Journal, ed. Lund Percy. London: Humphries.
Kenosi, L., & Moathodi, T. (2012). The determination of value in archival science and the ever evolving theories of records selection. The Eastern Librarian, 23(1), 24-36.
Kuhn, T. (1986). La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México: Breviarios del Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Lim Rhee, H. (2012). Genres and genre repertoires of user and use information sources in U.S. state archival and records management appraisal practice. Archival Science, 12, 461-483.
Malheiro da Silva, A. (2006). Informação: da compreensão do fenômeno e construção do objecto científico. Porto: Afrontamento.
Malheiro da Silva, A., Ribeiro, F., Ramos, J., & Real, ML. (1998). Archivística: teoría y práctica de una ciencia de la información. Ediciones Afrontamiento.
Mena, M. (2006). Propuesta de Requisitos Funcionales para la Gestión de Documentos Archivísticos Electrónicos en la Administración Central del Estado Cubano (tesis de doctorado, no publicada). Universidad de la Habana: Facultad de Comunicación.
Moreira dos Santos, S. C. (2014). O clássico e o pós-moderno: algumas reflexões acerca da ar-quivologia a partir do pensamento de Hilary Jenkinson e Terry Cook. Informação Arquivística, 3(1), 42-59.
Muller, S., Feith, J. A., and Fruin, R. (1898). Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives. New York
Schellenberg, T. R. (1956). Modern archives: principles and techniques (2.ª ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Theimer, K. (2011). What is the meaning of Archives 2.0? The American Archivist, 74(1), 58-68.
Tschan, R. (2002). A Comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on Appraisal. The American Archivist, 65.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
![](/revistas/index.php/RIB/manager/setup/"http:/aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/public/site/images/revistabibliotecologia/licencia11.png)
