Repensar a avaliação arquivística: desafios teóricos e propostas neomodernas pós-digitais
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62758/re.310Palavras-chave:
Avaliação Arquivística, Neomodernidade, Pós-Digital, Princípios de Avaliação, PropostasResumo
Introdução. O presente artigo analisa as dinâmicas transformadoras da avaliação arquivística num contexto cada vez mais moldado pelas tecnologias digitais. Método. Conduz-se um estudo de natureza qualitativa, com recolha e análise de fontes informacionais com vista à constituição de um corpus estruturado de informação. Para a interpretação dos dados, recorre-se ao método da Teoria Fundamentada. Análise. Este estudo investiga as tensões entre abordagens modernistas e pós-modernistas, destacando o papel em evolução dos arquivistas enquanto curadores da memória e da cultura. Resultados. A investigação evidencia a necessidade de práticas de avaliação que integrem a [inter]subjectividade, a desconstrução e a inclusividade. Conclusão. Perante os desafios colocados pela era neo-moderna e pós-digital, propõe-se um enquadramento compreensivo de princípios e propostas que visam uma avaliação arquivística sustentável e transparente.
Referências
Adorno, T.; Horkheimer, M. (2016). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Verso Books
An, X. (2003). An integrated approach to records management. Information Management, 37(4), 24–30.
Beneito Arias, P. (2008). Appraising the value of statistical records of the European Central Bank for retention scheduling purposes. Records Management Journal, 18(3), 205–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09565690810916456
Booms, H. (1987). Society and the formation of a documentary heritage: Issues in the appraisal of archival sources. Archivaria, 24(Summer 1987), 69–107.
Booms, H. (1991). Überlieferungsbildung: Keeping Archives as a Social and Political Activity. Archivaria, 33(Winter 1991-92), 25–33.
Booms, H. (2001). Ordre social et constitution du patrimoine archivistique. A propôs de l’évaluation des sources d’archives. Archives: Bulletin de l’Association Des Archivistes Du Québec, 33(3/4), 7–44.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cocciolo, A. (2016). Email as cultural heritage resource: Appraisal solutions from an art museum context. Records Management Journal, 26(1), 68–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-04-2015-0014
Cook, T. (1995). Electronic Records, Paper Minds: The revolution in information management and archives in the post-custodial and post-modernist era. Archives and Manuscripts, 22(2), 300–328.
Cook, T. (2001). Archival Science and Postmodernism. New Formulations for old concepts. Archival Science, 1(1), 3–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435636
Cook, T. (2004). Macro‐appraisal and Functional Analysis: Documenting governance rather than government. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 25(1), 5–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0037981042000199106
Cook, T. (2005). Remembering the Future: Appraisal of Records and the Role of Archives in Constructing Social Memory. In F. Blouin & W. Rosenberg (Eds.), Archives, Documentation, and Institutions of Social Memory: Essays from the Sawyer Seminar (pp. 169–181). University of Michigan Press.
Cook, T. (2011). ‘We Are What We Keep; We Keep What We Are’: Archival Appraisal Past, Present and Future. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 32(2), 173–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00379816.2011.619688
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). SAGE.
Corujo, L. (2023). Avaliação da informação de arquivo eletrónica. Edições Colibri. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51427/10451/58785
Couture, C. (1998). Les fondements théoriques de l’évaluation des archives. L’évaluation Des Archives : Des Nécessités de La Gestion Aux Exigences Du Témoignage, 7–26.
Couture, C. (1999). Les Fonctions de l’Archivistique Contemporaine. Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Couture, C. (2003). La función valoración en la Archivística Contemporânea: Una sinergia entre varias consideraciones complementarias. Tabula: revista de archivos de Castilla y León, 6, 23–49.
Couture, C. (2005). Archival appraisal: A Status Report. Archivaria, 59(Spring 2005), 83–107.
Craig, B. L. (2004). Archival appraisal: Theory and practice. K.G. Saur. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783598440007
Douglas, J. (2010). Origins: Evolving Ideas about the Principle of Provenance. In T. Eastwood & H. MacNeil (Eds.), Currents of Archival Thinking (pp. 23–44). Libraries Unlimited. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216963882.0005
Duranti, L. (1994). The concept of appraisal and archival theory. American Archivist, 57(2), 328–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.57.2.pu548273j5j1p816
Duranti, L. (2001). The impact of digital technology on archival science. Archival Science, 1(1), 39–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435638
Eastwood, T. (1993). How Goes it with Appraisal? Archivaria, 36(Fall 1993), 111–121.
Eastwood, T. (1994). What is Archival Theory and why is it Important? Archivaria, 37(Spring 1994), 122–130.
Eastwood, T., & MacNeil, H. (Eds.). (2010). Currents of Archival Thinking. Libraries Unlimited. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216963882
Foucault, M. (2024). Microfísica del poder. Siglo XXI Editores.
Giddens, A. (1992). Jürgen Habermas. Em Q. Skinner, As Ciências Humanas e os seus Grandes Pensadores (pp. 155–176). Dom Quixote.
Giddens, A. (1997). The Consequences of Modernity (6th pr). Stanford University Press.
Grasso, A. (2023). Toward a Post-Digital Society: Where Digital Evolution Meets People’s Revolution. independently published.
Greene, M. A. (2010). MPLP: It’s Not Just for Processing Anymore. American Archivist, 73(1), 175–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.73.1.m577353w31675348
Greene, M., & Meissner, D. (2005). More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing. American Archivist, 68(2), 208–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.68.2.c741823776k65863
Habermas, J. (1986). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1 Reason and the Rationalization Society. Polity.
Habermas, J. (1992). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Polity.
Habermas, J. (2006). Técnica e Ciência como «Ideologia». Edições 70.
Habermas, J. (2017). A Modernidade: Um Projeto Inacabado (2.a ed.). Nova Vega.
Habermas, J. (2023). A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics. Polity.
Harris, V. (1997). Claiming Less, Delivering More: A Critique of Positivist Formulations on Archives in South Africa. Archivaria, 44(Fall 1997), 132–141.
Huws, U. (2003). The Making of a Cybertariat: Virtual Work in a Real World. Monthly Review Press.
Huws, U. (2014). Labour in the Global Digital Economy, Monthly Review Press.
ISO. (2016). ISO 15489-1:2016 Information and documentation—Records management—Part 1: General (2nd ed.). International Standard Organization.
Jandrić, P., MacKenzie, A., & Knox, J. (Eds.). (2023). Postdigital Research: Genealogies, Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31299-1
Jenkinson, H. (1922). A Manual of Archive Administration including the problems of War Archives and Archive Making. The Clarendon Press.
Ketelaar, E. (2001). Tacit narratives: The Meanings of Archives. Archival Science, 1(2), 131–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435644
Makhlouf Shabou, B. (2011). Étude sur la définition et la mesure des qualités des archives définitives issues d’une évaluation [Tese de Doutoramento, Université de Montréal].
Marques, M. O. (1993). Conhecimento e Modernidade em Reconstrução. Ed. UNIJUI.
Marshall, J. A. (1998). Documentation Strategies in the Twenty-First Century?: Rethinking Institutional Priorities and Professional Limitations. Archival Issues: The Journal of the Midwest Archives Conference, 23(1), 59–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31274/archivalissues.10866
Meissner, D., & Greene, M. A. (2016). To the Editor. American Archivist, 79(1), 219–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081.79.1.219
Menne-Haritz, A. (1994). Appraisal or documentation: Can we appraise archives by selecting content? American Archivist, 57(3), 528–542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.57.3.g114464381p11324
Mersiovsky, K. (2014, December 14). The Pros and Cons of ‘MPLP’. Archives & Memory.
Müller, S., Feith, J. A., & Fruin, R. (2003). Manual for the arrangement and description of archives. Society of American Archivists.
Novara, E. (2013). Documenting Maryland Women State Legislators: The Politics of Collecting Women’s Political Papers. American Archivist, 76(1), 196–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.76.1.u57m635512311v48
Oliver, G., Kim, Y., & Ross, S. (2008). Documentary genre and digital recordkeeping: Red herring or a way forward? Archival Science, 8(4), 295–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-009-9090-5
Pinto, F. P. (2018). Os Dilemas das Verdades para a Neomodernidade e os Efeitos para a Educação. Salão do Conhecimento, 4(4).
Ridener, J. (2009). From Polders to Postmodernism: A Concise History of Archival Theory. Litwin Books.
Rouanet, S. P. (1986). Do Pós-Moderno ao Neo-Moderno. Tempo Brasileiro, 84(jan.-mar.), 86–97.
Rouanet, S. P. (1998). As Razões do Iluminismo (4.a ed.). Companhia das Letras.
Rousseau, J.-Y., & Couture, C. (1994). Les fondements de la discipline archivistique. Presses de l’Université de Québec.
Rydén, R. (2014). Implementation of appraisal regulations including the selection of sample archives. A case study on the Swedish country district police. Archives and Records, 35(1), 43–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2013.864581
Samuels, H. W. (1986). Who controls the past. American Archivist, 49(2), 109–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.49.2.t76m2130txw40746
Samuels, H. W. (1991). Improving our disposition: Documentation strategy. Archivaria, 33(Winter 1991-92), 125–140.
Santos, F. K. S. D. (2023). Teoria da Ação Comunicativa e Neomodernidade à Luz da Educação Geográfica. Revista Ensino de Geografia (Recife), 6(3), 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51359/2594-9616.2023.261005
Schellenberg, T. R. (1956). Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques. University of Chicago Press.
Sloyan, V. (2016). Born-digital archives at the Wellcome Library: Appraisal and sensitivity review of two hard drives. Archives & Records, 37(1), 20–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2016.1144504
Sternfeld, J. (2011). Archival Theory and Digital Historiography: Selection, Search, and Metadata as Archival Processes for Assessing Historical Contextualization. American Archivist, 74(2), 544–575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.74.2.644851p6gmg432h0
Taylor, I. (2016). The German appraisal discussion since 1990: An overview. Archives and Manuscripts, 44(1), 14–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2015.1136226
Thomassen, T. (2001). A first introduction to archival science. Archival Science, 1(4), 373–385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02438903
Thomassen, T. (2015). Archival Science. In L. Duranti & P. C. Franks (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Archival Science (pp. 84–84). Rowman & Littlefield.
Upward, F. (1996). Structuring the Records Continuum - Part One: Postcustodial principles and properties. Archives and Manuscripts, 24(2), 268–285.
Upward, F. (1997). Structuring the Records Continuum, Part Two: Structuration Theory and Recordkeeping. Archives and Manuscripts, 25(1), 10–35.
Williams, C. (2006). Studying Reality: The Application of Theory in an Aspect of UK Practice. Archivaria, 62, 77–101.
Wright, J. (2010, August 17). How Much is Enough? Smithsonian Institution Archives. https://siarchives.si.edu/blog/how-much-enough.
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista EDICIC
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
A Associação detém os direitos autorais dos textos que publica e adota a licença Creative Commons, CC BY 4.0 DEED Atribuição 4.0 Internacional (https://creativecommons.org/
Você tem o direito de:
- Compartilhar: copiar e redistribuir o material em qualquer suporte ou formato para qualquer fim, mesmo que comercial.
- Adaptar: remixar, transformar, e criar a partir do material para qualquer fim, mesmo que comercial.
