A critique of the Records Continuum Model 6th October 2017. Mark Koerber Supervisor: Dr. Diane Velasquez

What is the Records Continuum Model? The records life-cycle: ACTIVE → INACTIVE → THRESHOLD → ARCHIVE or DISPOSAL. A life span model. Too linear, unidirectional. Does it cope with digital? Digital records less predictable than the life-cycle allows. Life cycle vs the records continuum

Records Continuum Model diagram (copyrighted material) - used to have axes, but that means quadrants, and what could they possibly mean? Not clear at all… - not a life span model - no archival threshold - does the structure mean anything? Not really…

Records Continuum Model table (copyrighted material) - so just a conceptual framework then - still not that explanatory - but claims to be a universal model for all kinds of records in all eras

What is the Records Continuum Model? Over 20 years ago it was thought the concept of record needed to be re-defined to cope with digital records e.g. can’t look at every record. Don’t at the record itself, only how it relates to functions and other records. So, focus on the external aspects of records – evidentiality, transactionality, contextuality i.e. their “recordness” – captured in metadata. Appraisal in terms of organisational function, not informational value. Records considered to be logical constructs. Post-custodial i.e. records kept in the systems in which they are created. Digital records and the record-keeping paradigm

Problems with the Records Continuum Model Every one of the points mentioned above have been challenged, some before RCM was fully articulated. Emphasises context but not content, even though information content is important. All records are of transactions, even though some are clearly not, e.g. private diary. All records are evidence, even though some are not e.g. inaccurate records. What happens when a records system reaches the end of its life? Archives take custody, so archival threshold still applies. Digital records not just logical constructs, definitely considered material for preservation purposes. Functional appraisal not much use for collecting archives. Contentious theoretical propositions

Problems with the Records Continuum Model “Recordness’” not appropriate e.g. private diary. Appraising content is vital. Thus, RCM not universal. Personal archives

Problems with the Records Continuum Model Also “metaview of reality”. Less said the better… Spacetime and other oddities

Can the records continuum replace the life-cycle? A non-linear version of the life-cycle model, e.g. “records matrix”. Modelling the life-span of records

Do we need the Records Continuum Model? What has been overlooked is that digital records are machine-readable. Algorithms can be used to analyse the content of digital records. Would allow archivist to appraise the information in records en masse. So digital records mean that content can be considered in appraisal. RCM got it wrong. ‘Digital appraisal’

Research-based approaches vs grand theory Conclusion Questions? Research-based approaches vs grand theory

Key references Atherton, J 1985, ‘From life cycle to continuum’ Boles, F & Greene, M 2001, ‘Confusing the bun for the burger’ Cook, T 1997, ‘The impact of David Bearman’ Harris, V 2005, ‘Record-keeping and records continuum thinkers’ Hobbs, C 2010, ‘Re-envisioning the personal’ Piggott, M 2012, ‘Two cheers for the records continuum’ McKemmish, S 1996, ‘Evidence of me…’ McKemmish, S 2017, ‘Recordkeeping in the continuum’ Upward, F 1996, ‘Structuring the records continuum’ Upward, F 2005, ‘Continuum mechanics and memory banks’ Yeo, G 2007, ‘Concepts of records’ Some light reading…