15
th
International Congress on Archives
Myburgh
www.wien2004.ica.org
7
Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA) International. ICA is regional forum in all parts of the world
except North America. There are several striking similarities between the role and objectives of these
organisations:
1.
Both operate internationally;
2.
Both are concerned with the professional education and lifelong learning of their members;
3.
Both demonstrate an interest in the maintenance of professional ethics;
4.
Both wish to promote their professions (the ICA includes records management specifically);
5.
There is development of formal recognition of basic education for professional recognition in both
associations;
6.
There are, however, significant differences between the members of these organisations:
1.
ARMA members are often employed by smaller and for-profit organisations, whereas ICA members are
mostly employed by state or government archives;
2.
There are significant differences in education, where archivists typically have a university degree, and
often post-graduate education, whereas records managers show evidence primarily of vocational training
(based on a survey conducted in Australia). This is reinforced by the development, in Australia, of
Competency Standards, and the emergence of Recognised Training Organisations (RTOs) which are
profit-making entities which operate in lieu of colleges and universities.
Cultural context other differences
The philosophical differences between records management and archives, as two distinct professions, have been
indicated above. Now we look at the question of difference between these professions from national and cultural
points of view.
In many European countries, such as Sweden, records management has long been included with archives. There is
nonetheless increasing emphasis on establishing links between active and inactive records. The separation
between records management and archives is largely a North American device, one which has been copied in the
UK and in Australia. In the UK, USA and Australia, records creation and retention have always been recognized
as an unavoidable result of business activities; but the quality of record keeping and compliance with regulations
has varied widely. Similarly, the organizational status and authority of Records Managers varies from one
employer to another, across both the public and private sectors in different areas of the world.
In Australia, there has been considerable interest in developing public information systems, as demonstrated by the
existence of the federally established National Office for the Information Economy, and the Office for Government
Online. Let us not forget that Australia was home to the development of continuum theory, described above. This
is explained by Cunningham: "A key element of this [Australian] system was a rejection of the traditional North
American division between the work of records managers (who work with current records) and archivists (who
work with non-current or historical records). Intrinsic to the Australian system is the philosophy that if archivists
are to have historical records to preserve they first of all have to ensure that the current records are properly created
and maintained" (Cunningham, 1997). Brubach has indicated that archivists established records centres in
Germany, although there were still clear distinctions between each function records were instruments in
decision-making, and archives were used to provide insights into methods used (Brubach, n.d.). The countries of
the Caribbean have been influenced by a number of factors, not least slavery, and being members of the British
Empire (and now Commonwealth). This has led to contextualised interpretations of, for example, the new
International Standard. The manner in which business is done, and records kept, in Asia, is again quite different.
These few examples serve to illustrate a general theme that runs through this paper: recordkeeping is a social
science and an art, and depends on local context for appropriate interpretation and use, even though broad points of
similarity and convergence can be discerned.
Conclusions
Professions are developed largely in response to societal, rather than individual, needs. In the Information Society,
we can presume that there is a need for information and for that information to be managed so that access can be
provided (and at the same time, some information protected). Information can be described in various dimensions
according to its content, function, format, context, age, stage of use and so on and there are professionals to
handle each of these various aspects, or even combinations of these aspects.
However, the point is made here that there are many characteristics that all information professionals share, and in
particular, adjacent professions such as records managers and archivists who both deal with specialised
organisational documents known as records. By acknowledging the similarities amongst the information (not data
or document) professionals who form this metacommunity, paradoxically we are recognising diversity and areas of
specialisation, and avoid overlap and reinvention of the wheel.
Steemson has noted that "the convergence of interests of previously separate functions such as records
management, libraries, publishing and public affairs, and the development of tools which enable direct access to
disparate data and document resources now make it imperative to take an integrated approach". A converged
profession will have many advantages: we can work on a uniform vocabulary, so we can understand each other;
