Despre Fondul Arhivistic de Stat. Al Chinei :)

Daca la noi discutii nu prea exista despre asta, sa vedem cum reformeaza China F.A.S. (la noi, F.A.N.).

Fragmente (unele editate pentru logica fragmentului) din articolul Reinventing the concept of the state archival fond in China, scris de: Xiaomi An, Hepu Deng and Bin Zhang si publicat in Archives and Manuscripts, 2014
Vol. 42, No. 2, 146–150.

The concept of the state archival fond was first introduced to China in the 1950s from the former Soviet Union and then updated in the 1980s.
It is based on a planning economy within the socialist administration regime. 
It has three features
 – the state ownership of archives
 – a unified state jurisdiction on archives
 – a centralised state archival information system for accessing and utilising archives.
There are three divided perspectives:
  1. The state archival fond is treated as a physical construct. Based on this perspec- tive, all the archives are state owned. They are national assets which should be centrally controlled as an organic whole to protect the integrity of the state’s assets.
  2. The state archival fond is considered to be a social construct. According to this perspective, all the archives should be placed under a unified leadership for their effective management at various levels to ensure the integrity and safety of archives and to facilitate their optimal use.6  Such a consideration highlights the significance of the state jurisdiction for protecting the integrity of the state archives that have value to be preserved for the country and society.
  3. The state archival fond is viewed as an intellectual construct. According to this perspective, all the archives from the state have value to be preserved for the people and society. The emphasis of such a consideration is on the maintenance of the true history and the comprehensive memory of the state for their use.7 This view of the state archival fond demonstrates the importance of integrating national archival resources for the provision of people-centric knowledge services to improve their utilisation.
Challenges:
  1. Limitations of the physical construct. Since the 1990s, there has been a shift from a unitary state ownership to public, corporate, private and public–private multiple ownerships while China is moving to a market economy. As a result, maintaining  the  integrity  of  the  total  archives  of  the  state  faces  numerous challenges owing to the diversity of archival ownerships and the adoption of disparate approaches to recordkeeping and archiving.
  2. Weakness of the social construct. The supervision and the provision of services with respect to the jurisdiction right of archival authorities are ineffective com- pared with those from private sectors in this time of social transition. A variety of non-state-owned archives that have national significance and societal value for preserving are under inappropriate management. There is a lack of adequate strategies and policies for a systematic disposal, appraisal and acquisition of these valuable archives. This imperils the integrity of the memory and the true history of the state.
  3. Lack of supporting systems for the intellectual construct. With more and more business and people’s social lives being online in the digital era of the twenty- first century, there are diverse ways of integrating archival resources for their optimal utilisation.There is, however, a lack of national cyber-infrastructure to connect people, processes and technologies for recordkeeping and archiving. This threatens information accessibility and integrity as well as the digital continuity of the nation now and in to the future.
New constructs
In a broader perspective on the state archival fond, the state archival fond can be seen as  both  a social  construct of recordkeeping  and  archiving  management at  the national level and an intellectual construct of archival cyber-infrastructure that is to be nationally networked.
Such new constructs have the following advantages over the traditional ones:
  1. People-centric. The concept highlights the value of archives to the country and society. The value to the public and the views of the public about what they regard as valuable are appreciated. The value of archives as the evidence, memories, identities, knowledge, history and cultural heritage of the people and society is recognised.
  2. Pluralist thinking. The concept respects the diversity of provenances of archives. It recognises the use of different ways for aggregating records and integrating archival resources for their optimal utilisation. Furthermore, such a consideration appreciates the diversity of archival holdings and their pluralist value for the many uses of state-owned and non-state-owned archives.
  3. Participatory governance mechanisms. The concept is in conformity with the Archives Law of the People’s Republic of China for the archival jurisdiction in a market economy. It fully considers the administrative rights, disposition rights and access rights of different types of archival ownerships and the role  of citizens and all types of corporate bodies and their obligations to protect the integrity of memories and the true history of the state as well as their rights to access the archives as information consumers.
  4.  A national service framework. The conceptual construct provides a strategic point of view and a holistic approach to identify the relationships between vari- ous types of archives for linking archives with their contexts of creation and their contemporary use, including archives created before and after 1949, state owned and non-state owned.
  5. A risk-based knowledge management strategy. The new construct promotes effective knowledge management practices in managing archival resources rather than physically controlling the archival entity. This represents a shift from the focus on administrative control to the provision of public-oriented knowledge services to increase the overall proficiency in safeguarding national knowledge assets and promoting risk avoidance of black holes in memories and discontinuity in histories. Such a strategy consists of
    • the rearrangement of knowledge management in collaboration to protect the value of archival resources as knowledge assets of a state
    • the re-engineering of knowledge management activities in communication to increase the value of sharing archival resources as knowledge assets in a society, and
    • the development of knowledge management artefacts in connectivity to increase the value of archival resources as knowledge assets for the public.
  6. Complex adaptive systems. The new construct respects the complexity and the uncertainty of aggregating various records across time, space and contexts. The integration of archival resources for their optimal utilisation is dynamic. This involves networks of interactions between different types of stakeholders, and their relationships are always dynamic. This shows that the design of a cyber- infrastructure to connect people, processes and technologies of recordkeeping and archival management is nonlinear. It should be adaptive and self-organise while corresponding to the optimal utilisation of archives.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s