I wonder if people intentionally planned that these ads would have a backlash? I am not entirely sure if the creative team is clever enough to have created a video with lasting viral or social impact. I can see nothing with this add which will bring it into social consciousness for kids/teens or impact on vernacular - another big win for media. Although I could be wrong -certainly Gabrielle Leigh thinks I am.

However, as always, controversy in the press means that these ads will get more exposure. More people go to Youtube to find them, watch and share them and more people can talk about it. Advertising in social media is all about the conversation rather than the image, so perhaps this ad campaign will be quite successful.

I am also interested in the value of this ad as a social record - what does it tell us? I thought I had read that it was launched only for online - what does that tell us about expectations of online audiences? It is also directed at kids and although I have not seen the 'emo' version, it seems to have age groups on the ad which are not the target audience. The element of derision teamed with humour which seems to be the fashion in the vernacular - calling people and actions 'gay' for example meaning lame, or calling someone a 'bitch' as a term of affection. I suppose it is not a new fashion and every generation has it to some extent.

How will this social phenomenon be represented in our archival and cultural heritage institutions? Is it important to them or us? Who would want to know about it in the future? What does this phenomenon tell us about our society and where will online social advertising go to next? Such fascinating subjects and of particular interest to me and my PhD. This ad is TAC, so theoretically, the Public Records Office of Victoria will end up having custody of this ad - but will it come with all the rest of the information that will make it a social record? Or will there simply be a copy of the video itself, as is common in archives, isolated from its social context?

This photo is incredible. There is another one from the day after in which this water is replaced by sand. You can see those photos on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=102344733137428&ref=mf

This photo was taken in Perth two days ago. Just recently Melbourne experienced a similar storm with equally shocking outcomes.

The blog in the link and the photos on Facebook reveals the importance of disaster recovery. Not just for books or hard copy records, but for all contents, including digital content. Where are the servers housed? Where is the data stored? Do you have a plan if disaster strikes? Do you know which are your organisations vital records?

And disaster recovery does not just extend to businesses or organisations like Libraries. Have you thought of your own personal vital records, including those that are digital? Where are they stored? How do you access them? How would you go about protecting them?

It is interesting to think of disaster recovery in the light of the previous post I made earlier today about the digitisation project of destroyed documents. If disaster struck, which records would be the ones to keep?

BERTRAM Nickolay does not like doing jigsaws. This is strange because for the past 15 years the German computer engineer has sweated over the most fiendish jigsaw puzzle imaginable, made up of 600 million scraps of paper.

This article is fascinating and has many implications for the re-construction of a documentary history, as well as for organisational evidence and use of digital technologies.
When I first read this article my mind thought of the many stories that records tell us. It amazed me to read that these bags of torn paper have been lying around for decades and that years of work had been put into trying to 'piece together the puzzle'.
Each individual piece of ripped paper tells a story - a story about resources that ensured these papers were kept together for restoration, a story about the dedication of the Stasi in destroying records, a story about technology and how it was not efficient in destroying so many records, a story on resources that effected the disposal of these records and many more.
The digital transformation of these records tells more stories, re-inventing the records as they go. The new, digitally transformed records, where the content 'makes sense' are different records telling different stories.
The ‘original’ record no longer exists, but the digitised and re-constructed version can tell us what its purpose was. The ‘original’ record exists in the stories and the history of this digital version. But is the digital record merely a version? No. It is now a record in its own right - a digital record of the process of reconstructing torn pieces of paper. A record of the resources spent on finding a solution to the re-construction. A record of the skills of programmers and capacity of technology. A record which has content that makes ‘sense’ and communicates information.
And what of the digitised pieces themselves? I can think of how these pieces can be used to tell stories about the records, and their place in time and space, not just of the Stasi’s actions, but of technology and determination to find a solution. I can see this technology being used to provide a tool for interactive storytelling in archives and museums and on the web. And not just to make ‘sense’, but to make nonsense using the pieces – what else can they tell us, how else can they be used? What is the value of the record pieces?
Of course my mind wanders to organisational implications, particularly regarding evidence. Imagine if this technology became cheap enough for everyone to use? Recordkeeping disposal and destruction would have be exceptionally rigorous and effective. Furthermore, the technology that re-constructs shredded paper would be needed as evidence as much the re-constructed record itself in order to prove that the technology reconstructed it ‘the right way’. What types of stories would shredded organisational records tell, other than just their content?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Social constructivism (learning theory) and Critical psychology.

Activity theory is a psychological meta-theory, paradigm, or framework, with its roots in Vygotsky's cultural-historical psychology. Its founders were Alexei N. Leont'ev (1903-1979), and Sergei Rubinshtein (1889-1960) who sought to understand human activities as complex, socially situated phenomena and go beyond paradigms of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. It became one of the major psychological approaches in the former USSR, being widely used in both theoretical and applied psychology, in areas such as education, training, ergonomics, and work psychology ^[1]. Activity theory theorizes that when individuals engage and interact with their environment, production of tools results. These tools are "exteriorized" forms of mental processes, and as these mental processes are manifested in tools, they become more readily accessible and communicable to other people, thereafter becoming useful for social interaction.^[2]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_theory"

Categories: Educational psychology

 

I have been attempting to write an article for Archival Science which introduces a particular model I developed on 2008. The model is based on the Information Continuum Processes model, developed by Frank Upward, Don Schauder and Barbara Reed in the late 1990s.

I used the ICM model to develop my own model which can be used in approaching research design, particularly choice of method and philosophical tradition. The model situates the research in time and place, performing the conceptual actions of provenance, a concept in archival science linked to context of a record in time and space. The purpose of the model is to promote and build transparency, and almost create inbuilt emulation, so that a better understanding of the research outcomes and research process can be made so that future research in the same and similar areas have a rich picture upon which to build the same or new methods.

However, in doing the research for this paper I have come across 'activity theory'. Now, the ICM is described as being an activity based model, but my questions are, what is the relationship, if any, between the ICM and in particular the continuum, and activity theory? Are they complementary, or the same or what?

Of course I turned to wikipedia first to suss out a general overview of activity theory and find where the actual information is that will be helpful. Taking on board the definition above, where activity theory is about the results of action, I think there are some linkages between the ICM - namely the dimensions of create, capture, organise and pluralise. These are all actions and they refer to activities that have particular outcomes. In the case of my model, the outcome is a research thesis or report. I am guessing that within the report the activities that have taken place. This relates directly to the understandings I have about implicit and explicit knowledge and that recorded information contributes to explicit knowledge. However, activity theory talks about tools - what exactly are tools? 

I notice that in the wikipedia article there is mention about user design processes and the role activity theory can have in designing processes. This reminds me of functional classification wherein the outcomes are classified into functions (groups of activities) and the lower level activities related to these functions and even further into transactions. I wonder what the theoretical base to functional classification has come from? 

Again referring to the Wikipedia article, the relationship between activities and actions is described as being interdependent, in a way. Actions do not necessarily contribute to a specific activity. The explicit focus of an activity is to address a need and actions are taken to achieve that activity. Again this seems like functional classification and workflow. 

In the ICM activity is based on Giddens' Structuration Theory and are conceptualised as create - capture - organise - pluralise. I can see similarities between Structuration Theory and Activity Theory. Simplified, I can see:

• Both have concepts of structures that impact on action. 
• Activity Theory focusses on individual processes and mediated object, whereas Structuration theory focuses on systems and concepts of actions and change over spacetime. 
• Structuration theory is focussed on social processes
• Activity theory is focussed on individual processing

I think that Structuration Theory, although as far as I recall, does not have anything explicit about mediated outcomes, has a more situated approach that can provide greater complexity - particularly over time. 

So to answer my question, I do not think that there is an explicit relationship between the ICM and activity theory as understood above. However, I also think that there may be a role for Activity theory within the ICM, particularly related to my research model and also in particular situations, such as user testing.  

It is vital to keep accurate historical records of digital events as they occur.

via Archiving Britain’s web: The legal nightmare explored.

I am interested in this article primarily because it talks about archiving the web for cultural heritage, which is a topic close to my heart as my PhD research is somewhat related.

I find it fascinating that people want to archive the web. What does ‘archive the web’ actually mean? From this article, and the general consensus, archiving the web means taking snapshots of websites using software programs according to rules that determine their significance, and then storing them on computers in closed networks and then usually organising them. If a library is the archivist, then websites are generally organised by subject.

I want to know how a subject arrangement of images that are sometimes linked to each other have to do with the actual web.  To me, this is taking the traditional concept of archiving and storing documents and making it try to fit something infinitely more complex and dynamic.  To me the web is not just the content, nor is it links to other pages.  So what is the web?

I am not entirely sure, to be honest.  According to Wikipedia, the web (as in the www) is:  ”a system of interlinked hypertext documents contained on the Internet“. After reading this definition I now understand where this notion of snapshots as archives comes from – the use of the word ‘document’.  Trying not to go too deeply into the semantics, I turned back to Wikipedia and asked it what a document was: “a bounded physical or digital representation of a body of information designed with the capacity (and usually intent) to communicate“.  I wonder what bounded means? I dilly dally – the lie that is contained in this definition is found in the use of  the term, “digital representation”.

When I create a word document, or indeed as I type this blog post, I am not creating a digital representation of anything. I am communicating, that is for sure…just the same as my friend who writes in the air is communicating, but is not a representation – a likeness – it is a digital entity. Of what, I am not sure. We usually call them documents, but obviously that gets us into trouble.

So this brings me back to why I found this article so interesting.  Not because of the article itself, but because of the comment. I have quoted it above.  The comment communicates that “digital events” must be captured. Hmmmm. How do you capture an event? What is an event exactly, particularly if it is digital? I am suspicious that the use of the word ‘event’ is being used to cover up the real intention of wanting to say, ’subjects’.

The National Library of Australia captures and stores webpages, very poorly in my opinion, however, it performs these actions according to what might be called, ‘digital events’. An example I used recently in a paper on web archiving of video, is one where the NLA captured web material on the 2007 Australian Federal Election. Its in the PANDORA archive here under the subject of Politics – Election Campaigns.  If you check it out you will see that they have further broken the content down into six separate headings.  I want to direct you to this particular archived website  - content from The Chaser – here.  Looked? um…where is the web in that?

I am sliding over this topic like a slippery slope, not offering any real answers, but only asking questions and leaving my points out there in the open.  I apologise, but as is the quality of the rhizome, this topic has multiple dimensions in which there is much to be said, so I will probably have more to say about it at another time.  However, I would like to point out a website that perhaps ‘archives’ the web in a much more useful way, although not as long lasting. You will find it here.

But that is not archiving I hear you say!? Well,  you might say you know what archiving is, but I bet you are thinking about the definition in terms of an “archive” – the place or the space that holds ’stuff’.  What does archiving mean to you?  I’ll put forward some words to help you…retention, filing, saving, retrieving, removing, old, later, reference, collect…

Answers.com defines Archival Science as: The study and practice of organizing, preserving, and providing access to information and materials in archives.
*shudder*

I am trying to figure out the definition of Archival Science for a paper I am writing to be submitted to one of the big journals. Me being me I am not happy simply to appropriate someone else's definition, but I feel I need to include some explanation of what I think personally. I need to put forward an argument.
Anyway, the more I read into what people think Archival Science means, the more the term itself upsets me. I have been finding myself more and more turning to the word 'Archivistics' to define what I consider is my profession.
I have been struggling with Archival Science primarily because of that word Science in the title - what exactly does it mean? When I think i science I think of people conducting experiments and having loads of data that streams out of a computer and looks like nonsense. I keep thinking that Anthropology is a discipline without science in its name - although some might suggest that it is without science at all. And there is the problem - the idea that social science is as valuable as any other science. And who determines values then?

Psychology conducts experiments but does not have to have 'science' in its name. Psychology, I would suggest, sits a fence in which one leg loosely hangs in the positivist realm with repeatable experiments, quantifiable data and so on and the other leg kicks out into the interpretive like a reflex, almost unknowingly. I have not read a lot of psychology research, so I am making this judgement up, but it does highlight to me the ideal or importance of science-y kinds of research - as if it is more valid. I think hiding the subjective nature of research is damaging, but that is just me.

So, back again to Archival Science. When writing this definition I am looking at the Records Continuum model and Frank's explanation in the text, Archives: Recordkeeping in Society - "Recordkeeping objects are marked out by their processes of formation and continuing formations, not by their intrinsic nature." (page 206).

Another definition of Archival Science:
A systematic body of theory that supports the practice of appraising, acquiring, authenticating, preserving, and providing access to recorded materials.http://www.archivists.org/glossary/term_details.asp?DefinitionKey=1814

This one is interesting to me. I like the use of the word 'recorded', but not sure about materials as it sounds very physical world to me. I also raise an eyebrow at the word 'systematic' and its use with 'body of theory'. Is the theory systematic or the organisation of it? Why use systematic at all? Does it have a special significance to Archival Science because it implies that all Archival Scientists are well organised? I like the inclusion of all those good verbs in there - this also strikes me as something that is creating an identity myth as well. I am not entirely convinced that Archival Science is really just about the theory and practice of appraising, acquiring, authenticating, preserving, and providing access. Why not the creation, capture, organisation and pluralisation of records? I guess the final issue I have with this definition is that I am not entirely sure what 'study' actually means. Studying records (or recorded materials) or the processes behind the verbs mentioned above, or both?

Can study mean philosophy, paradigm, principles? I like to use the word assumptions. The identity the SAA has wrapped up about Archival Science in this definition is an assumption. The use of those particular verbs are through assumption.

My other favourite word of the minute is, 'expectation'. I have been talking about it in relation to email management and business requirements, but I think it is also relevant to a definition of Archival Science. The expectations and assumptions of Archival Science are what makes it Archival Science. Perhaps I am really trying to define Archival Science research?

Anyway, I came up with a definition of Archival Science (with a caveat) which I have used in my paper. This is the second draft of the definition and I have borrowed concepts from Eric Ketelaar...
Archival Science is:
a field of study concerned with recorded information that includes the practitioners in the field, as well as the assumptions that drive the practice.