2.3.4 Complementary models of the study
2.3.4.1 The Records Life Cycle (RLC) model
RLC model is the ground model for recordkeeping, despite its focus upon paper records. Shepherd and Yeo (2003) posited that the development of the RLC model can be traced to the 1930s when the model was developed by Theodore Schellenberg while employed by National Archives of USA. Shepherd and Yeo (2003) affirmed that RLC has been the key model for North American records managers and Archivists since 1960s.
According to Upward (2001), a life cycle is “the entire series of processes constituting the life history of an organism”. This refers to the life experiences of a record so-to- speak. Various scholars have presented these phases of records in different ways.
Penn, Pennix and Coulson (1994) opined that records begin from the current or active phase, to a semi-current or semi-active phase and then to a non-current or non-active phase. An (2003) used a birth-to-death analogy to describe records as passing through a series of stages where a record is created, used as long as it had continuing value and subsequently transferred to the Archive or destroyed.
Karabinos (2015:7) identified three distinct stages that records go through under the RLC model, similar to a living organism. The first stage, also known as the active stage, is where records are created and used for day-to-day business activities by the creating agency. At the second stage, also known as the semi-active stage, records are no longer required for current use but are referred to frequently by the creating office.
59
During this stage, selection and appraisal is undertaken periodically to identify records t are to be discarded or moved to the third stage, also known as the inactive or archival stage where records become archives and are stored and preserved indefinitely.
According to Bantin (1998), a small percentage of records in an organization (approximately five per cent of the total documentation) is sent to an archival repository.
Bantin (1998) asserted that besides describing what will happen to a record, the life cycle model also defines who will manage the record at each stage. The record creators have a primary responsibility for managing the record during the creation and active periods, although records managers may be involved. The records manager takes center stage at the semi-active stage. Finally, the archivist takes the lead in preserving, describing, and providing access to the archival record in the inactive stage. In this analogy therefore, the records life-cycle model presents a clear demarcation in the roles and responsibilities of records managers and archivists by treating each stage in isolation and restricting the activities of each professional group to a particular stage.
2.3.4.1.1 Gaps in the Records Life Cycle (RLC) Model
The isolation of recordkeeping stages in the life-cycle model has been a bone of contention in the recordkeeping profession, in light of the new technologies that have given rise to digital records. Acker (2017:291) reported that in the 1990s, scholars such as David Bearman, Terry Cook, Sue McKemmish and Frank Upward argued for a new paradigm in archives. They argued that this paradigm should account for the new realities of e-record environments that moved beyond the discrete stages of the life cycle approach and the limited archival oversight of inactive records only. Yusof and Chell (2002) agreed that the RLC model is not applicable in the management of e-records. Shepherd (2006:55) concurred that digital records can only be managed successfully as a continuous process. The RLC model is therefore inappropriate for the present study which majorly concerns digital archives.
60
As has been discussed, the records life cycle model is divided between records management and archives management phases. The RLC model creates the impression that RM and archives management are separate activities, implying that the archivist is only responsible for archival records and is not involved in the early stages of a record’s life. The model draws a line between the functions of records managers and archivists. In a resounding statement, Artherton (1985) shunned this misleading view by stating that even though the life cycle has been supportive of general RM practices, strict adherence to its principles undermined any trends towards greater cooperation and coordination among archivists and records managers, and ignored the many ways in which records and archives operations are interrelated. The records life-cycle model is therefore not appropriate for use in the foregoing study as an underpinning model.
2.3.4.2 The Digital Centre Curation (DCC) Lifecycle Model Digital Curation Centre (2004) defines digital curation as follows:
Digital curation is about maintaining, and adding value to, a trusted body of digital information for current and future use: in other words, it is the active management and appraisal of digital information over its entire life cycle.
Pennock (2007) concurs that data curation is about maintaining and adding value to a trusted body and appraisal of digital information over its entire life. Data are defined in the DCC Curation Lifecycle model as “any information in the binary digital form”.
Harvey (2010) describes the breadth of data as encompassing all things digital, based on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage.
The DCC Curation Lifecycle model was launched on 1 March 2004, following a successful response to Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Circular 6/038 by a consortium comprising the University of Edinburgh, University of Glasgow, UK Office for Library and Information Networking (UKOLN) at the University of Bath, and Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). The development of DCC curation lifecycle model involved groups engaged in digital preservation and curation activities which included UK higher and further education, data specialists, records
61
managers, librarians, archivists, researcher (as data creators), and policy makers.
During its development, the public and commercial sectors, international organizations and standards working groups were also engaged (Higgins 2008).
Higgins (2008) explains that the DCC lifecycle model supports the management of digital objects throughout their lifecycle to allow for successful curation and preservation, from conceptualization to their ultimate disposition or selection for long-term preservation. Figure 2.3 depicts the Data Curation Centre (DCC) lifecycle model.
Figure 2.3 Data Curation Centre (DCC) Lifecycle Model (Source: UK Digital Data Curation Centre 2008)
The DCC Curation Lifecycle model comprises three action groups namely, full lifecycle actions, sequential actions and occasional actions. As illustrated in Figure
62
2.3, lifecycle actions are shown inside the sequential actions (Digital Data Curation Centre 2008). These activities take place at any time during the digital curation lifecycle and are discussed hereunder.
Full lifecycle actions - Description and Representation Information (see inner ring surrounding the data, Figure 2.3) involves assigning metadata (administrative, descriptive, technical, structural and preservation metadata). This action is carried out to assign representation information to understand and render digital data and associated metadata, enabling data to be used and reused. Preservation planning (ring surrounding description and representation information), plans for preservation throughout the data curation lifecycle and includes plans for management and administration of data. Community watch and participation (ring surrounding preservation planning) are implemented to monitor or watch appropriate communities and share standards and tools for digital curation. Data curation and preservation actions (ring surrounding community watch and participation) caution communities to manage and assign preservation and curation actions (Digital Data Curation Centre 2008).
Sequential actions - Sequential actions in the DCC lifecycle model (Figure 2.3) form the basis for active data curation and guide the data curation process in a systematic manner. Higgins (2008:138) identifies the following actions:
i. Conceptualization: This entails conception and planning for data creation, capture and storage;
ii. Creation and receipt: This activity entails creation of metadata such as technical, administrative, descriptive, structural and preservation metadata.
Receipt of data from data creators, archives and other data repositories is accomplished in line with formal collection policies;
iii. Appraisal and Selection: This entails data evaluation and selection for long- term preservation and curation in accordance to formal policies, guidelines and laws;
iv. Ingest action: Data is transferred to the Archive, data repository or other custodial authority in accordance to formal policies, guidance or laws;
v. Preservation Action: Actions to ensure long-term preservation and access of data are undertaken such as assigning preservation metadata, validation,
63
data cleaning, ensuring acceptable data structures or file formats and assigning representation information;
vi. Store: Data is stored securely in adherence to relevant standards;
vii. Access, use and reuse: Actions are undertaken to ensure continued data access by publicly availing the information. Access control and authentication procedures are also put in place; and
viii. Transformation: New data is created from the original data through data migration or creation of a data subset.
These sequential actions have a logical orderly flow of actions, hence the name sequential actions. Data curation requires such logical processing to maintain and add value to data effectively (Higgins 2008:138).
Occasional Actions - There are three actions in this third category of the DCC curation lifecycle model which are located outside of the sequential actions, namely dispose, reappraise and migrate (see Figure 2.3). Data that has been selected for long- term storage needs to be stored in accordance with policies and requirements. To reappraise data, data which fails the validation procedures must be returned and reintegrated into the cycle for re-selection. Finally, data needs to be migrated into different formats in accordance with the storage environment (Higgins 2008:138).
Franks (2013) comments that institutions that generate research data must put a data preservation plan in place to ensure that digital research data, as well as digital media content and information acquired from third parties is reliable, usable and authentic, and maintains its integrity. The DCC Lifecycle model is the model of choice for organizations whose key concern is to organise and preserve digital information for future access and use.
2.3.4.2.1 Gaps in the Data Curation Centre (DCC) lifecycle model
Higgins (2008) acknowledges that DCC Curation Lifecycle Model complements the OAIS model but points out the recognition of appraisal in DCC model, which is not the case in OAIS. However, Higgins (2008) reveals that though the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model may complement the OAIS model, it does not show a clear relationship between the SIP, AIP, Representation Information (RI) and Preservation
64
Description Information (PDI). This points to the fact that there is a disconnect in the information as it passes through various stages of growth, which disqualifies it from adoption as an underpinning model for the present study. In addition, the DCC Curation Lifecycle Model was developed specifically as a data curation and preservation model. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the study which focuses on digital archives that must permanently be maintained as authentic records.