Skip to main content
Log in

Electronic records research: What have archivists learned from the mistakes of the past?

  • Article
  • Published:
Archives and Museum Informatics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Archival Informatics Newsletter 2:3 (1988): 52–53.

  2. For a comprehensive compilation of best practices, see Kenney, A.R. and S. Chapman,Digital Imaging for Libraries and Archives (Ithaca: Cornell University Department of Preservation and Conservation, 1996). David Bearman summarized these developments in a recent issue of this journal. See Bearman, D., “ State of Electronic Records Management

  3. Worldwide ”,Archives and Museum Informatics 10:1 (1996): 3–40. For a summary of recent electronic records projects in North America, see the reports and background materials for the conference on Electronic Records Research held at the University of Michigan, June 28 and 29, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. National Historical Publications and Records Commission,Research Issues in Electronic Records (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  5. The most comprehensive documentation on the Pittsburgh Project is available from the project’s web site. February 1996.

  6. Within the archival community, two most developed models are the Pittsburgh Project’s “ Functional Requirements for Evidence in Reeordkeeping ” and a model being developed at the University of British Columbia called “ Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records.”

  7. The Pittsburgh Project uses the term “ literary warrant ” to refer to this body of laws, guidelines, and best practices. For additional details, see the Pittsburgh Project Home Page. In her Ph.D. dissertation, Wendy Duff explores this issue further and evaluates how the origins of the literary warrant affect different users’ perceptions of its validity and weight. See Duff, W.,The Influence of Warrant on the Acceptance and Credibility of the Functional Requirements For Reeordkeeping, Ph.D. dissertation, (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1996). (Editor’s Note: A section of this research is reported in this issue.)

  8. These projects are discussed in a summary paper prepared for the Ann Arbor conference. See Hedstrom, M., “ Electronic Records Research Issues: A Summary of Recent Research.”

  9. Stout, L., “ The Role of University Archives in the Campus Information Environment”,American Archivist 58:2 (1995): 124–40.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Two projects that have used the Pittsburgh requirements during analysis and design are the City of Philadelphia’s redesign of its Human Resources Information System http://www.phila.gov/city/departoents/erms/erm.html and the Indiana University’s project to redesign student records and financial accounting systems http://www.indiana.edu/-libarche/. The Swedish Pharmaceutical Company, ASTRA, has designed a recordkeeping system for New Drug Applications that addresses reliability, authenticity, and long-term retention. The U.S. Department of Defense has included models and procedures recommended by the UBC project in the redesign of its records management program.

  11. D. Bearman,op. cit. (1996): 3.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hedstrom, M. Electronic records research: What have archivists learned from the mistakes of the past?. Arch Museum Inf 10, 313–325 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02802338

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02802338

Keywords

Navigation