There’s a concept in anthropology called the “basic assumption.” basic assumptions are the assumptions that are such an entrenched part of a culture that we don’t even realise that they’re there. The classic way of explaining it is to say that fish don’t know what water is.
You have some very good points. But, lifecycle (for those who still follow lifecycle theory) doesn't equate to destruction; it includes storage, access, and use. And so, records managers should absolutely be catering to use of the record for the lifecycle of the author (which records frequently outlive) and organisation.
I do believe that more should be done to educate end-users that the job of a records manager is not the same as an archivist (whose primary job is to manage legacy records) - and that it includes supporting the business of the organisation - not just through managing the records but also through supporting the staff and the associated business processes that the records originate from and move through.
We should start with educating records managers that their job is not the same as an archivist, when they start behaving like it the education of end-users would probably be unnecessary.
Also worth noting that the whole profession still follows lifecycle theory. People like to talk about continuum, but almost no one wants to talk about record quality, and you can't do anything continuum until you take responsibility for the quality of the record - as in, specifying the information that needs to be recorded so that the information needed for other uses across time and through space are met.
definitely agree that record quality doesn't get the attention that it needs. There's little value (and in fact, a disadvantage) to caring for your dirt the same way as your diamonds. Much more needs to be done to move organisations away from the "just keep everything" philosophy. There might be even be some standards that cover the issue.
You have some very good points. But, lifecycle (for those who still follow lifecycle theory) doesn't equate to destruction; it includes storage, access, and use. And so, records managers should absolutely be catering to use of the record for the lifecycle of the author (which records frequently outlive) and organisation.
I do believe that more should be done to educate end-users that the job of a records manager is not the same as an archivist (whose primary job is to manage legacy records) - and that it includes supporting the business of the organisation - not just through managing the records but also through supporting the staff and the associated business processes that the records originate from and move through.
We should start with educating records managers that their job is not the same as an archivist, when they start behaving like it the education of end-users would probably be unnecessary.
Can't argue with you there, Karl - I look forward to seeing your education program ;)
Also worth noting that the whole profession still follows lifecycle theory. People like to talk about continuum, but almost no one wants to talk about record quality, and you can't do anything continuum until you take responsibility for the quality of the record - as in, specifying the information that needs to be recorded so that the information needed for other uses across time and through space are met.
definitely agree that record quality doesn't get the attention that it needs. There's little value (and in fact, a disadvantage) to caring for your dirt the same way as your diamonds. Much more needs to be done to move organisations away from the "just keep everything" philosophy. There might be even be some standards that cover the issue.