Archival Science and Changes In the Paradigm

Archival Science 1: 295-310, 2001. 9 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 295 A r c h i v a l Science a n d C h a n g e s in the P a r a d i g m FERNANDA RIBEIRO Faculdade de Letras, Universidade do Porto, via Panorrmica, s/n, 4150-564, Porto, Portugal. E-mail: fribeiro.hierro@mail.telepac.pt Abstract. The dominant paradigm in Archival Science, the historical-technicist paradigm, has its origins with the French Revolution and raised from the social, economic, political, ideological and cultural changes that occur during the 19th and 20th centuries. During this last one and due specially to the technological revolution Archival Science reinforced its technical component and became autonomous in face of History, but the consolidation of the model, based on a custodial, technicist and documentalist perspective, is associated to a knowledge essentially empirical. By effect of the new conditions generated by Information Society, the dominant paradigm entered into a crisis and developed inside itself the factors which, unavoidably, will produce the paradigm shift. The new paradigm - the scientificinformational paradigm - conceives Archival Science as an applied discipline into the scope of Information Science and defines unequivocally its object of study - the archive, understood as an information system - and its scientific method of research. The method tends to find consolidation through quadripolar research dynamics, which is operated and continuously repeated within the field of knowledge itself, which implies a permanent interaction on four poles - epistemological, theoretical, technical and morphological. Keywords: archival science, paradigm shift, research method A reflection on Archival Science at the present moment - a turning point in which old and new perspectives coexist - must necessarily confront the traditional and, admittedly, still dominant view, substantiated in the historical-technicist paradigm, and a new approach, which we will designate as scientific-informational. 1 The former was established at the end of the 19th century and was developed and consolidated during the 20th century, while the latter is progressively affirming itself and gradually consolidating its theoretical and epistemological foundations. 1 The notion of "paradigm" has been used with different meanings. However, we want to clarify that we follow the thinking of Thomas Kuhn exposed in: Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 1962, 3rd edn.; Chicago, 1996). This article provides, necessarily, a summarized view of the subject; for a more detailed perspective, cf. Silva, Armando Malheiro da [et al.], Arquivfstica: Teoria e Prdtica de uma Ci~ncia da lnformaf~o (Porto: Edi~res Afrontamento, 1998) (Biblioteca das Ci~ncias do Homem. Plural; 2) vol. 1, chap. 2. 296 FERNANDA RIBEIRO The Historical-Technicist Paradigm Archives are at least as old as writing itself, and it is obvious that archival management procedures were inherent to them practically since their origins. These became more complex as societies evolved and the needs of archival information agents and users demanded it. However, Archival Science as a subject or as a more or less structured c o r p u s of knowledge, is a recent "product", the origin of which goes back barely two hundred years, or, more precisely, to an era marked by an event that, at many levels, transformed the contemporary world - the French Revolution. The values of the liberal ideology, namely that of the Nation-State, spread from France to practically all the Western world and the archives were also affected. New services appeared, dedicated to the gathering, management and accessibility of documents of patrimonial interest, considered as indispensable sources of historical study. Part of the heritage of the 1789 Revolution is the model which still prevails today and is characterised, on the one hand, by the existence of an organism to co-ordinate archive management policies at a national level (usually the National Archives), issuing technical guidelines and standardising procedures for general use in all archival services under State jurisdiction. On the other hand, this model is based on the static and merely operational notion o f f o n d s - formalised in 1841 by the French historian/archivist Natalis de Wailly - and on "theoretical" principles based on evidence and pragmatism, like "respect des fonds" and "original order", the latter formulated by the Italian school represented by Francesco Bonaini and others. It was due to political and ideological reasons of the new liberal order that a policy was initiated, comprising mass transfers of documentation from private archives and extinct organisms into the new services of the State archives, a process which was accelerated during the whole of the 19th century and a large part of the 20th, stimulated by other factors, such as the development in history science and positivism. It is in fact in this context that, during the second half of the 19th century, it is possible to speak of Archival Science, although the term still is connected with, on the one hand, an "auxiliary science" of history and, on the other, a professional area, of which the archivist/palaeographer trained by the l~cole Nationale des Chartes is the most emblematic symbol. We can only situate the disciplinary autonomy of Archival Science at the end of the 19th century. It may be said that the publication of the famous "Dutch Manual ''2 in 1898 contributed to Archival Science being considered more than just an auxiliary area of historical science; it gradually became a 2 Muller, S., J.A. Feith and R. Fruin, Handleiding voor het ordenen en beschrijven van (Groningen: Erven B. van der Kamp, 1898). English translation by Arthur H. archieven ARCHIVALSCIENCE 297 subject of a markedly technical character, although still characterised by a historicist "format". The increasingly technical component of Archival Science was developed during the 20th century due to a number of factors, which were directly related with the evolution which followed World War I. The technological developments favoured the appearance of new information media and new means of communication, which, associated with an increase in documentary production, brought along new problems, such as appraisal, selection and disposition of documents. Additionally, the "incorporationist" policies, responsible for the concentration of archives under State tutelage, showed certain unmistakable signs of a crisis: the material insufficiency of facilities and the inability to process and make available the whole mass of documents collected with the interests of historical research in mind. Parallel to the so-called historical archives, dedicated to serving research and promoting cultural development, the need to face the problems created by the overwhelming growth in documentary production lead to the emergence, during the inter-War period and especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, of a new area of professional interests directed at current administrations, which came to be referred as records management. 3 Although they dealt with the same information as traditional archivists, records managers started developing work methods essentially characterised by great pragmatism and efficiency related to the management of current documents, thus creating a break within Archival Science, which had only just initiated its disciplinary autonomy and the corresponding theoretical foundations. The creation of the International Council on Archives, which was ratified in 1950, was an important mark in the affirmation of the discipline's identity, although the intervention of the ICA has always been more characterised by the union of a professional class and in bringing archivists closer in matters concerning technical issues, than by the development of a spirit of research and the theoretical foundations which are essential as a basis for the technique which it sought to define. Notwithstanding the high level of technicality which has come to pervade Archival Science, especially after World War II, the theoretical concerns have not been totally absent and in fact they can be found in various works from different countries since the 1970s. In France, Carlo Laroche (1971) 4 and Leavitt, Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1940, reissue 1968). 3 In fact, records management and archival procedures - if we want to make this distinction, - existed since the origins of archives, but from a conceptual point of view and as a professional area records management only emerged in anglophone literature by this time. 4 Laroche, Carlo, Que Signifie le Respect des Fonds?: Esquisse d'une Archivistique Structurale (Paris: Association des Archivistes Fran~ais, 1971). 298 FERNANDARIBEIRO Michel Duchein (1977) 5 must be mentioned. In the United States of America, the polemics about the scientific nature of Archival Science found expression in The A m e r i c a n A r c h i v i s t 6 during the 1980s. In Canada there has been a significant production of literature of theoretical character in the past couple of decades, either through compilations of studies or individual w o r k s ] I C A at the 9th International Congress on Archives (London, 1980), witnessed, thanks to Arid Arad's report, s an important discussion on the scientific character of Archival Science. F r o m Italy to Spain and the United Kingdom, f r o m Australia to Latin America, one m a y notice a proliferation of works on Archival Science, in which theoretical issues are more or less explicitly discussed, which is a sure indicator of the changes in the paradigm which are underway in the subject. 9 After this brief survey of the Archival Science born with the French Revolution, outlined here to contextualise and understand better the origins and development of the historical-technicist model, we must now point out the foundations and the "pillars" of this model, in the form of a synoptic and referential table: the creation of "historical archives" conceived to preserve, m a n a g e and provide access to documentation, essentially patrimonial in character, the first aim of which is to provide a source for historiography; 5 Duchein, Michel, "Le Respect des fonds en Archivistique: Principes Th6oriques et Probl~mes Pratiques", La Gazette des Archives (Paris) 2(97) (1977): 71-96. 6 Cf. the following articles: Boles, Frank. "Disrespecting Original Order", The American Archivist (Chicago) 45(1) (Winter, 1982): 26-32; Burke, Frank G., "The Future Course of Archival Theory in the United States", The American Archivist (Chicago) 44(1) (Winter 1981): 40--46; Cappon, Lester J., "What, Then, is There to Theorize About?", The American Archivist (Chicago) 45(1) (Winter 1982): 19-25; Kimball, Gregg D., "The Burke-Cappon Debate: Some Further Criticisms and Considerations for Archival Theory", The American Archivist (Chicago) 48(4) (Fall 1985): 369-376; Pinkett, Harold T., "American Archival Theory: The State of the Art", The Americcm Archivist (Chicago) 44(3) (Summer 1981): 217-222; Stielow, Frederik, "Archival Theory Redux and Redeemed: Definition and Context Towards a General Theory", The American Archivist (Chicago) 44(1) (Winter 1981): 14-26. 7 Just as an example, we will mention some of the most significant works: The Archival Fonds: From Theory to Practice. Ed. by Terry Eastwood ([S.1.]: Bureau of Canadian Archivists, 1992); Canadian Archival Studies and the Rediscovery of Provenance. Ed. by Tom Nesmith (Memchen, London: Society of American Archivists; Association of Canadian Archivists, The Scarecrow Press, 1993); Rousseau, Jean-Yves; Couture, Carol - Les Fondements de la discipline archivistique (Qudbec: Presses de 1' Universit6 du Qu6bec, 1994). 8 Arad, Ari6, "The International Council on Archives and Archival Methodology", Archivum (Paris) 29 (1982): 182-186. 9 Bibliographic references are plentiful and we cannot possibly mention all of them. Readers are referred to chapter 2 of the previously-mentioned work: Silva, Armando Malheiro da [et al.], op. cit. ARCHIVAL SCIENCE - - - - - - 299 the existence of a State organism co-ordinating archival policy, above all directed at the safeguard and dissemination of documentary patrimony; the theoretical justification based on the 19th century's instrumental notion of fonds, considered as the object of the discipline and often understood as a synonym of "archive"; the so-called "theoretical" principles - the well-known "principle of respect des fonds" or "provenance principle" and "principle of original order" - not submitted to confirmation or refutation by scientific research, because they are based on evidence and pragmatism; the adoption of alleged "theories" as a basis of merely operational practical options, like the so-called "theory of the three ages", 1~ which has served to justify artificial separations of the whole that is the archive, leading to the application of differentiated techniques and methods in the treatment of information of different ages, as if they were distinct realities; an overestimation of the technical component, which tends to confuse operations and procedures, such as archival description according to the usual methods, and emphasises standardisation, in a reductive perspective, which can lead to bias on the accurate representation of archival reality; the assumption of the "document" as the archive's basic material, or constitutive object, hence the expression "gestion des documents" which denotes a perspective with a strong patrimonialist and historicist connotation (let us not forget the saying, "history is made with documents"). Signs o f Crisis a n d C h a n g e in the D o m i n a n t P a r a d i g m Since the 1980s, and particularly in the last decade, important considerations have been put forward, questioning established "truths" which until a very short time ago were unchallenged, and discussing the new issues raised by the appearance of the electronic records and by the obvious fragility and inadequacy of the existing "theory" when confronted with a social and informational reality which sets the context for archives. Looking back at each of the characteristics of the historical-technicist model mentioned above, it is possible to enunciate a number of inconsistencies and faults which are clear signs of the profound crisis which affects 10 Favier, Jean and Nierinck, Danirle, La Pratique Archivistique Franfaise (Paris: Archives Nationales, 1993), pp. 232-238. The founder of the theory was Yves Prrotin: see The American Archivist 29 (1966): 363-369. 300 FERNANDARIBEIRO the dominant paradigm in Archival Science, because it is no longer possible to confer scientific foundations to the discipline within the framework of the empirical knowledge which has traditionally characterised it. Understanding of this crisis is indispensable if we want to take the qualitative step necessary for the construction and affirmation of a truly scientific perception of the phenomenon of social information in all its complexity. We will thus systematically analyse the fragility of the foundations of the previously-mentioned paradigm: - the so-called "historical archives", with the function of a service incorporating "fonds" of patrimonial interest, whose usefulness for the producing entity itself has finished, already proved that it cannot guarantee the necessary articulation in a systemic view with the informationgenerating context; for this very reason, occur prejudicial breaches in the knowledge and the subsequent representation of the archival systems transferred to the "historical archives"; furthermore, the s e r v i c e ~ u s e f u n c t i o n - one of the factors which configures the archive, understood in a systemic way 11 - h a s been superimposed, in an asphyxiating manner, over the organic structure of the archival systems, what leads to deviant representation of archives through the respective finding aids; the existence of a national body, co-ordinating archival policies and defining standards and procedures at a technical level, does not favour the development of a scientific Archival Science, because technique without a theoretical and consistent foundation doesn't enable a representation of archival reality in an accurate manner; the notion of "fonds", as formulated in 1841, has a merely operative character and it isn't obviously adequate to a scientific knowledge as we conceive it today, despite the fact that some authors - Michel Duchein and the modern Canadian "school" are good examples 12 - try to adapt it to new realities and give it new contours that guarantee it some form of survival, however short-lived; it is not possible to reconcile the theoretical foundations demanded by the scientific statute of the discipline with the "theoretical" principles which have sustained the historical-technicist paradigm, since these are mere evidence, which raises insoluble problems and notorious inconsistencies for those who vindicate that statute; - - - 11 See, further, the explanations about the archive's configuration, within a systemic thinking. 12 See, for example: Duchein, Michel, "Le Principe de Provenance et la Pratique du Tri, du Classement et de la Description en Archivistique Contemporaine", Janus: Revue Archivistique (Pads) 1 (1998): 87-100; The Archival Fonds . . . (op. cir.). ARCHIVAL SCIENCE - - - - 301 the "theory" of the three ages is no theory; confirming this statement we have the positions of those who argue for an "integrated Archival Science"] 3 in which the complete life cycle of archives is not broken up, whether for the purpose of study or for analysis and representation, at the same time introducing a new perspective of appraisal which emphasises the context of production, in detriment of the informative content p e r se; the importance given to technique, particularly in the normative aspects of the description and the access points to information, without the necessary theoretical substratum, is self-erosive and becomes insufficient to solve all problems in the new situations which may appear; the research projects which are being undertaken in some universities and research centres 14 reveal precisely this fault and seek to theorise when faced with problems to solve, but we feel that they do so without a comprehensive reference framework and a consistent method, applicable to a diversity of situations and able to validate continuously the theory in new contexts; the static concept of "document", which means the inexorable attachment of information to a physical support, has also come to reveal inconsistency in materialising the object of Archival Science, in a context in which, after all, it is perfectly acceptable that information can be thought about and known independently of the material on which it is recorded; this issue - apparently insignificant, due to the fact that the information which persists is that which is recorded, or attached to a medium - is however crucial, because this information, whether recorded or not, is converted into a cognisable object and thus the core of a new science - i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e . Many authors, conscious of the crisis of the dominant paradigm in Archival Science, in outlining a new conceptual model which is adapted to the resolution of new issues, to which technique cannot give an adequate answer, have produced valuable contributions to the scientific construction that must be built. 15 However, these have appeared in a syncopated manner, reflecting partial aspects of Archival Science in an innovative way, but without conside13 The writings of Jean-Yves Rousseau and Carol Couture are a good example of this perspective. See, for instance: Rousseau, Jean-Yves; Couture, Carol, ot). cit. 14 Projects carried by the University of Pittsburgh (1993-1996) and the University of British Columbia concerning the management and preservation of electronic records are two examples. See also Bantin, Philip C., "Developing a Strategy for Managing Electronic Records: The Findings of the Indiana University Electronic Records Project", The American Archivist (Chicago) 61 (Fall 1998): 328-364. 15 Readers are directed again to the book mentioned previously (Silva, Armando Malheiro da let al.], op. cit., chap. 2) where the main significant works referred, in the last two decades, devoted a scientific perspective for Archival Science. 302 FERNANDARIBEIRO ring the full scope of a c o r p u s of knowledge, capable of researching and knowing a simultaneously singular and multifaceted object with the help of a consistent method, to build this knowledge in all its complexity. The position of Canadian colleagues such as Couture and Rousseau, defensors of an integrated Archival Science, 16 a perspective of the stream personified by Terry C o o k in favour of new criteria for appraisal 17 and, also from Canada, the research lead by Terry Eastwood, Luciana Duranti and Heather MacNeil, is which aims at the preservation of authentic electronic records, are some illustrative examples of the changes being m a d e in order to confer a scientific statute to Archival Science. Signs of this change can also be found in the United States, in the works of authors such as David Bearman, Margaret Hedstrom, David Wallace or Helen Samuels, to mention but a few.19 In Europe, the Dutch "school ''2~ or the "multifunctional Archival Science" of Angelika Menne-Haritz, 21 which personifies the school of Marburg, are also examples of the new perspective, which, in m a n y aspects, breaks away f r o m the traditionally accepted model. And, also in countries from Latin America 16 Rousseau, Jean-Yves and Couture, Carol, op. cit. 17 Cook, Terry, "Mind Over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal", in Barbara L. Craig (ed.), The Archival imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1992), pp. 38-70. 18 Duranti, Luciana and Eastwood, Terry, "Protecting Electronic Evidence: A Progress Report on a Research Study and Its Methodology", Archivi and Computer (San Miniato) 3 (1995 ): 213-250; Duranti, Luciana, Heather Macneil and William E. Underwood, "Protecting Electronic Evidence: A Second Progress Report on a Research Study and Its Methodology", Archivi and Computer (San Miniato) 1 (1996): 37-69; Duranti, Luciana, "The Thinking on Appraisal of Electronic Records: Its Evolution, Focuses, and Future Directions", Archivi and Computer (San Miniato) 6 (1996). 19 Just to mention some illustrative examples: Bearman, David and Richard H. Lytle, "The Power of the Principle of Provenance", Archivaria (Ottawa) 21 (Winter 1985-1986): 14-27; Bearman, David, "Record-Keeping Systems", Archivaria (Ottawa) 36 (Autumn 1993): 16-35; Hedstrom, Margaret, "Descriptive Practices for Electronic Records: Deciding What is Essential and Imagining What is Possible", Archivaria (Ottawa) 36 (Autumn 1993): 53~53; Hedstrom, Margaret, "Building Record-Keeping Systems: Archivists Are Not Alone in the Wild Frontier", Archivaria (Ottawa) 44 (Fall 1997): 44-71; Wallace, David A., "Metadata and the Archival Management of Electronic Records: A Review", Arehivaria (Ottawa) 36 (Autumn 1993): 87-110; Wallace, David A., "Managing the Present: Metadata as Archival Description", Archivaria (Ottawa) 39 (Spring 1995): 11-21; Samuels, Helen W., Varsity Letters: Documenting Modern Colleges and Universities (Metuchen N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1992). 20 Authors like Eric Ketelaar, Theo Thomassen and Peter Horsman are some of the most representative of the new perspective. 21 Menne-Haritz, Angelika, "Archival Education: Preparing the Profession to Meet the Needs of Society in the Twenty-First Century", Archivum (Munchen; Paris) 39 (1994): 261-283. AP,CH~VALSCn~NCE 303 such as Brazil 22 or Argentina, 23 there is a search for a scientific justification which discusses many facets of the dominant paradigm. We can find signs of a regenerating effort that announces the change of paradigm in Archival Science in various perspectives which have an ever increasing general acceptance. Such is the case of: the tendency to conceive an archive as a "system", which is justified by some authors within the theory of systems itself; 24 the integrated view of the different ages of the archive, thus cancelling the breach between records and archives; the progressive increase in importance of the archive's organicism which, in spite of the much-proclaimed "principle of provenance", has been largely "suppressed" by the technicist trend of reducing the archivist's activity to procedures which are essentially directed at validating access; the emphasis on functional analysis, a method defended by some authors as an indispensable tool for the knowledge of the production and flow of information within organisations and, consequently, the knowledge of the archive; 25 the recognition of social information as an object of study, 26 despite its insufficient definition and characterisation as a cognisable phenomenon and the reductionist perspective which identifies it with "document". This brief summary falls within a trend in progressive expansion that positions Archival Science in the world of information. Actually, changes can be perceived. But what are the contours of the emerging paradigm? The Scientific-Informational Paradigm In our way of thinking, it is within the framework of Information Science that Archival Science must be rethought and (re)constructed, otherwise it will not be able to overcome the empiricism and the status of a technical discipline that has characterised it. This affirmation, which apparently is simple, may however generate controversy and various difficulties, due to the fact 22 For example: Jardim, Jos6 Maria and Maria Odila Fonseca, "As Relag~es entre a Arquivfstica e a Ciancia da Informaq~o", Cadernos de Biblioteconomia, Arquivfstica e Documental(to (Lisboa) 2 (1992): 29-45. 23 Vfisquez, Manuel, Manual de Selecci6n Documental, 2nd edn., actualizada (Santaf6 de Bogot& Archivo General de la Naci6n, 1992). 24 See, for instance: Artvalo Jordfin, "Victor Hugo - La Archivologfa y la Teoria de Sistemas", Cuadernos: Archivologia (Santa Fe) 1(1) (1987): 1-10; Jardim, Jos6 Maria, "La Concepci6n Sistemfitica [i.e. sist4mica] de Archivos: Marcos Te6ricos y la Experiencia Brasilefia",Archivum (Munchen; Paris) 44 (1999): 85-102. In the perspective of the "system thinking" can also be referred: Silva, Armando Malheiro da [et al.], op. cit. 25 See, for example: Sarnuels, Helen W., op. cit. 26 See: Bates, Marcia J., "The Invisible Substrate of Information Science", JASIS - Journal of the American Society oflnformation Science (New York) 50(12) (Oct. 1999): 1.043-1.050. 304 FERNANDARIBEIRO that the phenomenon of social information and its cognoscibility has still not been sufficiently thought out and studied. And also because it is not yet generally accepted that this phenomenon is shared - for study purposes - by Archival Science, by Library Science, by the branch of Computer Science which is dedicated to the analysis of information systems, and, perhaps, by other disciplines whose epistemological and theoretical frameworks can only be coherently defined within a multidisciplinary, or even transdisciplinary, science (a metascience, according to some 27) - Information Science, - which has also been termed, and not without some justification, as Informatology. We think it is already possible, with some degree of consistency, to postulate stable references for the new paradigm which we have named "scientific-informational". At the very start, we are faced with two essential components of the paradigm: the issue of science and the issue of information, considered here as the object of that very science. Science cannot exist without an object, and this particular object lacks a precise definition upon which to construct a valid operational concept. A discussion on the understanding of information is beyond the aims of this paper; thus we will not discuss in what measure information is distinguished from knowledge and communication - two concepts, incidentally, which are also very often inappropriately applied and defined - and to what point it does relate to and interact with them, and how is it defined as the object of the science which studies it. However, this debate is absolutely fundamental in order to clarify positions and to define clearly the concept in question, because it represents the basis from which a whole number of theoretical surmises arise inherent to the science of information itself. 28 Briefly, and in order to avoid ambiguities, we shall begin by stating that the information which concerns us here is, naturally, social information (as distinct from genetic or biological information and physical or thermodynamic information), thus understood as a set of mental, coded and socially contextualised representations (significant symbols) possible 27 The study of information science requires an understanding of a number of disciplines. Some have suggested that information science thus fulfills the role and function of a merescience - in: Debons, Anthony, "Information Science", in ALA World Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (Chicago: American Library Association, 1986), p. 356. See also: Zhang, Y., "Definitions and Sciences of Information", Information Processing and Management (Elmsford) 24(4) (1988), cit. by: Jardim, Jos6 Maria and Mafia Odila Fonseca, op. cit. 28 By initiative of the Specialisation Course in Documentation Sciences (SCDS) of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Porto, a discussion group was created, composed of lecturers of SCDS of several Faculties, with the aim of reflecting on Information Science and the respective scientific field, having in mind the production of literature on the subject. The studies have practically ended, and the results will be published soon. ARCHIVAL SCIENCE 305 of being recorded on any medium (paper, film, magnetic tape, etc,) and, therefore, permanently communicated. Furthermore, the fact that this information has a psycho-social character and that its genetic process makes it an entity in itself gives it an originality prior to its materialisation (record) as an object of study of some sciences such as Archival Science, Library Science and Documentation. It is a fact that information tends to be materialised so as to be more easily preserved, exchanged and disseminated, but its materialisation brings little value to the information that already was (already existed as a conceptual object, before becoming a material object). Furthermore, it does not transform it into something essentially different, just because it is attached to a physical medium. However, the definition of information as a set of mental representations which are socially coded and contextualised is not sufficient to comprehend the full complexity of its essence. More than a set o f data - a simplistic definition which is occasionally used - or process, being naturally dynamic, easily comprehensible due to its characteristics of information transmissibility and reproductiveness, it must be objectified essentially as a phenomenon (both human and social). In fact, as far back as 1968, Harold Borko, when defining the object of Information Science, fully acknowledged the phenomenal character of information, which, according to him, should be studied taking into account its properties and characteristics, although he did not mention which properties they should be. 29 From this perspective, it is easy to understand that the object at the centre of the new paradigm - information - can be isolated as a cognisable entity and, therefore, can be studied by a science. And herein lies one more issue, which is still unresolved today - or perhaps rarely studied and discussed - namely, the existence of one or more Information Science(s). One can find the following definition in the recent Dictionnaire encyclopddique de l'information et de la documentation: "La science de l'information a pour objectif l'ttude des proprittts gtntrales de l'information et l'analyse des processus de sa construction, de sa communication et de son usage". 3~ In our opinion, this definition seems correct, and leaves no margin for several sciences to share this scientific field, although it may naturally transverse, involve or he involved in other scientific areas, with obvious interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary characteristics. 29 Borko, Harold, "Information Science - What is it?" American Documentation (Washington) 19(1) (Jan. 1968): 3-5. 30 Le Coadic, Yves F., "Science de l'Information", in Dictionnaire Encyclopddique de l'Information et de la Documentation, Dir. Serge Cacaly (Paris: Nathan, cop. 1997), pp. 516523. 306 FERNANDARIBEIRO Therefore, the following question is pertinent: if information is the object of the study of Information Science, how can Archival Science, Library Science, Documentation, the area of Computer Science that studies Information Systems, and all other related fields that study information be considered autonomous sciences? There does not seem to be a place for so many information sciences, even though this lack of autonomy does not obviously reduce their scientific character as applied disciplines with certain specificities, understood in the light of theories and models of analysis that may be adopted. The scientific-informational paradigm which we defend for Archival Science is characterised through a well-known theory applied in the most varied contexts, due to its plasticity, and already used to some extent in Archival Science as well: the Systemic Theory. 3~ According to this theory, we consider the archive in a holistic way and defined as a (semi-)closed system of social information, recorded in any type of medium, and configured by two factors - the organic nature (structure) and the functional nature (service/use) - to which is associated a third one - the memory - imbricated in the previous ones. According to these factors, the archive may take on several characteristics, allowing for the definition of various types of archives. Thus, if we consider only the factor organic structure the archive can be unicellular or pluricellular. A unicellular archive is any system based on an organizational structure of reduced dimension, generated by an individual or corporate entity, without sectorial divisions in order to carry on the administrative and organizational procedures. A pluricellular archive is any system based on a middle or big organizational structure, divided into two or more functional sectors, which may reach a great complexity; in the scope of some pluricellular archives (governmental bodies, industries, business enterprises, etc.) appear subsystems with organic-functional autonomy, what influences the practical way of information management. These configurations are insufficient to characterize an archival information system as a whole. We need to consider, also, the performance of the factor service~use in connection with organic structure and, therefore, we have centralized and decentralized archives. So, a centralized archive is any system (unicellular or pluricellular) that operates the control of its information through a single centre (where all the information is concentrated) developing arrangement and the production of access tools (finding aids or other) in order to provide access to such information. A decentralized archive is any pluricellular system that, in order to gain more effectiveness, 31 Mella, Piero, Dai Sistemi al Pensiero Sistemico: per Capire i Sistemi e Pensare con i Sistemi (Milano: Franco Angeli, 1997). ARCHIVAL SCIENCE 307 operates the control of its information through various autonomous organicfunctional sectors (and subsystems, if they exist) to which correspond an archival organization (arrangement, description, access tools) in accordance with the practical decentralization. From the conjugation of the two factors organic structure and function service/use may rise different types of archives: unicellular centralized, pluricellular centralized and pluricellular decentralized. Considering the factor memory, we have active and de-activated archives. The former corresponds to a situation of regular activity of the entity who creates the archive; the later corresponds to a situation of extinction or inactivity of the entity who created the archive - the archival system has been closed in what concerns the production or information. Besides the various types of archives mentioned, there is another type that we must consider, although outside of the configurations determined by the three factors mentioned earlier. This other type emerged with the dissemination of the romantic, nationalist, historicist and centralist model that appeared after the French Revolution. This model justified the creation of big centralized structures, specialized in concentrating, preserving and making available the documents (information) needed to write the national history. These structures - a genuine product of Modernity - were conceived artificially and aren't of the same kind of the archives (= information systems) referred before; we designate them as specialized archives. 32 So, the specialized archive is any pluricellular system created specifically to keep, preserve and make available de-activated archives (unicellular or pluricellular) or to integrate records without utility to their own creators, even if these are in a mode of full activity. We must note that there exist pluricellular and active systems that, by structural reasons, assume, additionally, the role of specialized archives (for example, municipal archives that may integrate archives generated by other local entities). The form of the object "social information" in a systemic perspective allows for the establishment of certain specificities proper to (semi-)closed systems, studied by Archival Science, at the same time as, for example, others more related to open systems, the study of which is more connected with Library Science. 33 It is precisely this systemic and dynamic conception, applied to the object of study, that produces a radical change in the historical32 The terminology proposed tries to avoid the polysemy of the term "archive". In our theorization "archive" is a synonym of "information system" and, according to the various factors that configure it, we can identify different types of archives. The specialized archives (traditionally named historical archives) have been overestimated, but the archival reality can't be reduced to such kind of archives. 33 It's not possible in this article to enunciate and define the multiple types of systems, either operatory (category where archives and libraries created within organizations can be inserted) 308 FERNANDA RIBEIRO technicist paradigm, which is based on the static notion of "fonds". The new paradigm is not limited to replace "fonds" by "system", nor does it intend to convert the "fonds" into something it can never be - an information system as has been attempted by some authors, by introducing the notion of "archive system". 34 At this point, it is important to clarify some ambiguities that have passed undetected: on the one hand, "fonds" has an essentially physical, i.e. documentary, connotation, and, for this reason, it cannot serve as an operational concept in an informational conception, which is in itself dynamic, fluid, interactive with the surrounding context; on the other hand, the systemic approach implies a holistic perspective and thus cannot be applied only to the traditional "archive service", or "archive system" as it currently is better known. The function of service is one of the system's several components and, therefore, must not be confused with the system itself. According to the topological model proposed by De Bruyne, Herman and De Schoutheete for research in social sciences, 35 the method of information science is finding acceptance and tends to find consolidation through quadripolar research dynamics, which is operated and continuously repeated within the field of knowledge itself. This action conjugates quantitative approaches (there are aspects of the object which can be observed, experimented on and measured) and qualitative approaches, in which the subject's interpretative/explanatory ability necessarily has modelling implications. The research dynamics referred thus implies a permanent interaction on four poles, to wit, epistemological, theoretical, technical and morphological. On the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p o l e - the scientific community of archivists, their schools, institutes, working places, with their own political, ideological and cultural references - operates the permanent construction of the scientific object and the definition of the boundaries of the research's problematics. The discursive parameters are constantly reformulated, as are the paradigms and scientific criteria (objectivity, reliability and evaluation) which guide the whole research process. Empirical procedures and archival knowledge gradually substantiate this pole, which is by no means static but, on the contrary, must be subjected to periodic reflection on the occurrence, or otherwise, of epistemological continuity or gaps. or combinatory systems (category where public libraries can be included). For a development of these questions see: Mella, Piero, op. cit. 34 The Canadian work, already referred, devoted to a theorization about the notion of "fonds" is one of the most significant examples of this replacement (see: The Archivalfonds . . . . op. cir.). 35 De Bruyne, Paul [et al.], Dynamique de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales de POles de la Pratique Mdthodologique (Paris: PUF, 1974). The methodological proposals by these authors were further developed: Lessard-HObert, Michelle let al.], Investigafdo Qualitativa: Fundamentos e Prdticas (Lisboa: Instituto Piaget, 1994). ARCHIVAL SCIENCE 309 On the theoretical pole operates the rationality of the subject (who knows and approaches) over the object, as well as the postulation of laws, the formulation of hypotheses, theories and operational concepts and the consequent validation or refutation of the "theoretical context" elaborated. The laws or principles which give a theoretical foundation to the scientific-informational paradigm have already been formulated, 36 for reasons we will only describe them briefly: the principle of structuring action - any archive results from a founder act, individual or collective, formal or informal, that models the organizational structure and its functional specificity into a dynamic evolution; the principle of dynamic integration - any archive integrates and is integrated by the dynamics of its systemic environment; the principle of relative greatness - any archive develops itself as a simple organic structure (unicellular) or a complex organic structure (pluricellular); the principle of pertinence - any archive makes information available which may be retrieved in accordance to the pertinence of the organizational structure. These principles are included in the emergent scientific-informational paradigm in the same way as the principles of respect des fonds and original order are inserted into the previous historical-technicist paradigm. On the technical pole a contact with objectified reality is operated through instrumental application, thus verifying the validation capacity of the methodological mechanism. It is here that crucial operations are developed, such as the study of cases and variables and retrospective and prospective evaluation, always keeping in mind the confirmation or refutation of the postulated laws or principles, the theories elaborated and the operational concepts formulated. On the morphological pole the results of the research carried out are formalised through the representation of the object of study and the exposition of the whole research process, which enabled the scientific construction around it. It deals with the organization and presentation of data, duly checked on the theoretical and the epistemological poles, thus showing the interactive character of the quadripolar method of research. The dynamics of quadripolar research, which, in the case of Archival Science, leads us to knowledge on social information contextualised in (semi)-closed systems, is equally applied to open systems (the traditional libraries and the so-called documentation centres), since the object of study - - - - 36 On this subject and, in fact, on all the problematics of the quadripolar method, see a more detailed perspective in: Silva, Armando Malheiro da [et al.], op. cit., chap. 3, pp. 217-226. 310 FERNANDARIBEIRO theoretical pole epistemological pole / METHOD \ technical pole morphological pole Figure 1. Dynamics of research inspired on the topological model of methodological practice proposed by Paul de Bruyne [et al.] (1974). is, after all, cognisable within the same rationality. It can equally be applied to computerised information systems, with greater or lesser recourse to qualification or deduction, but always within the framework of Information Science. Summing up, we can identify the following as characterising components of the new model: the assumption of social information as the object of study, independently of its actual or potential materialisation on a physical medium, considering it not only as a set of data or a dynamic process, but also as a phenomenon with attributes and properties capable of being known; - the recourse to the systemic theory as an interpretative/explanatory "tool" of the informational phenomenon, thus leading to the consideration of the archive as a (semi-)closed system, configurated by three factors - organic structure, functional nature and memory; - the application of a research method in perfect accordance with the adopted scientific status, which is characterised by quadripolar research dynamics, in which there is a permanent interaction between the different poles towards the scientific construction of archival knowledge. Without rejecting the whole of its empirical heritage, the new paradigm seeks to integrate the previous one, as a precious investment. In our opinion, that is the only way for Archival Science to prevail overcoming, thanks to theory, the challenges which technological advances pose at an increasingly accelerated rate.