‘Isn’t it information assets we’re really talking about?’ A discourse analysis of a panel discussion on digital archives

Abstract

This article explores three different discourse, found by analyzing a panel discussion on digital archives held in Sweden in 2011. The aim was to identify the varying implications of different discourse on the holistic concept of the archive. The overall aim was to increase understanding of information governance within the context of e-government. To this end, discourse theory is used to compare and analyze ideas and visions connected to digital archives and then discuss whether the differences depend on different perceptions of the concept of the archive. The result shows that plans and suggestions connected to digital archives vary greatly, possibly as an effect of conflicting discourse. This article argues that the concept of the archive is multifaceted and that it is important to take into account the power of discourse when discussing and planning for archives and records creation, management, preservation and use.

Keywords:

• archives
• discourse
• digital archives
• recordkeeping
• Sweden

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

^1. Riksarkivet eARD, “Delprojekt 1 (Dp1) Inom,” 2013.

^2.SFS, Sweden. Tryckfrihetsförordning, 105.

^3. All citizens have the right to access public records from the time of creation or receipt, unless the record is confidential (for reasons of official secrecy, personal integrity, etc.). This is seen as a foundation for democratic empowerment.

^4. SFS, Archives Act, 782

^5.Hörnfeldt, “The Concept of Record”.

^6. There are also other types of archival institutions, for example social movement archives and business archives. The main difference is that public sectors have a supervisory role supported by legislation.

^7.Näringsdepartementet, “Uppdrag Att Utveckla” and Statens servicecenter, “En Förvaltningsgemensam”.

^8.Geijer, Lenberg, & Lövblad, “Arkivlagen. En Kommentar”.

^9. Regeringen, 2014, author’s translation.

^10.eGovernment Delegation, “About the Delegation”, 2013.

^11. Riksarkivet, 2014.

^12.Myndighetsnätverk Västernorland, “Kvalitetsmässan”, 2011.

^13. Gorman & Clayton, Qualitative Research, 3.

^14. Börjesson & Palmblad, 2007Diskursanalys I Praktiken.

^15. Foucault, 2002 “Vetandets Arkeologi”.

^16. Howarth, 2000Discourse.

^17.Wreder, “Ovanliga Analyser”, 50.

^18. Winther Jørgensen, Phillips, & Torhell, “Diskursanalys Som”, 47.

^19. Beckman, Grundbok I Idéanalys,94.

^20.Bergström & Boréus, Textens Mening Och Makt, 305–309.

^21. McKemmish, 1994“Are Records Ever Actual?”.

^22.McKemmish, “Placing Records Continuum”, 334–335.

^23. Harris, “Against the Grain”, p. 141.

^24. Upward, Structuring the Records, 10.

^25. Hildebrand, Om Den S. K. Ursprungsprincipens, 90, author’s translation.

^26.Statens servicecenter,En Förvaltningsgemensam.

^27. McKemmish, “Traces: Document, Record”, 14.

^28. Currall, Moss, & Stuart, “What Is a Collection?”, 145.

^29. Duranti, The Impact of Digital, 47.

^30.Statens servicecenter, En Förvaltningsgemensam, 10, author's translation.

Additional information

Funding

Funding and collaborative partners are critical to promote purposeful research. I would like to thank the County Administrative Board in Västernorrland and Härnösand Municipality for funding the Good Information Governance project (GoInfo) together with Mid Sweden University. I am also grateful to the Regulatory Network Västernorrland and the National Archives for participating and contributing to the project. Last but not least, I wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable help. This work was supported by Länsstyrelsen Västernorrland [00171892].