The Korean Journal of Archival Studies (기록학연구)

  • Issue 52
  • /
  • Pages.59-117
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1229-7941(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2671-7891(eISSN)
Korea Society of Archival Studies (한국기록학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Discourses on Interpreting and Applying the Principle of Provenance in Archival Organization

기록관리 원칙의 해석과 적용에 관한 담론 분석 출처주의를 중심으로

  • 설문원 (부산대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2017.03.31
  • Accepted : 2017.04.21
  • Published : 2017.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to logically investigate the changing interpretation and implementation of the principle of provenance by using an argument model for discourse analysis. First, it divides the history of discourses on the principle from the Dutch Manual publication of 1989 up to the present into four areas, which includes establishing, diffusing, transforming, and expanding or deconstructing, and articulates the core discourses of each. Second, it designs the argument model for analyzing the discourses on the principle by applying Toulmin's argument model and Dunn's policy argument model. Third, it selects the articles and books that cover the core discourses of the principle, and analyzes their contents in consideration of the argument model. Fourth and finally, it presents four argument models corresponding to each area of the discourses.

이 연구는 보존기록관리 원칙인 출처주의의 해석과 적용에 관한 담론을 체계적으로 분석함으로써 이론적, 실무적 주장의 근거와 배경을 구조적으로 파악하기 위한 것이다. 이를 위해 첫째, 출처주의 담론 영역을 구분하였다. 유럽의 여러 지역에서 오랫동안 실무적으로 채택되어온 방법론이 네덜란드 매뉴얼을 통해 명문화된 1898년 이후 출처주의 담론의 흐름을 대체로 정립, 확산, 전환, 확장 해체영역으로 나누고 각 영역별로 핵심 담론을 살펴보았다. 둘째, 출처주의 담론 분석에 맞도록 논변 모형을 설계하였다. 툴민의 논변 모형과 던의 정책논변 모형을 참고로 하되 출처주의 담론 분석에 적합한 요소들을 결합하여 모형을 재설계하였다. 셋째, 각 영역의 핵심 담론별로 출처주의에 관한 영어권 저자들의 논문과 저서를 일차적으로 조사하여 선별하고 각 논저에 나타나는 인용논문을 추가하는 방법으로 담론텍스트를 뽑아 그 내용을 분석하였다. 이러한 분석을 토대로 각 영역별로 논변 모형을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국가기록원. 2011. 영구기록물 기술규칙. 기록관리업무표준(NAK/S 14:2011(v2.0)).
  2. 국가기록원 2007. 국가기록원 소장물 가이드. 대전: 국가기록원.
  3. 권명화. 2006. 호주제 폐지에 관한 논변구조 분석: 문화이론과 정책논변모형을 중심으로. 한국정책학회보, 15(3), 203-240.
  4. 김대성, 김연아. 2007. 정책논변모형을 통한 근로장려세제(EITC) 도입 담론분석. 한국정책연구, 7(2), 45-67.
  5. 박성진. 2002. 일제하 조선총독부의 공문서 분류방식. 기록학연구, 5, 179-208.
  6. 박성희. 2014. 아규멘테이션: 설득하고 설득당하는 사회의 논쟁법. 서울: 이화출판사, 2014.
  7. 방효순. 2002a. 출처주의의 새로운 경향과 적용에 관한 연구. 한국기록관리학회지, 2(2), 69-92.
  8. 배성준 2004, 조선총독부 공문서 분류체계의 복원. 기록학연구, 9, 41-73.
  9. 설문원. 2012. 기록분류에 관한 국내 연구 동향과 과제. 한국기록관리학회지, 12(3), 203-232.
  10. 설문원. 2003. 조선총독부 기록물을 위한 기능분류 체계 개발 연구. 정보관리학회지, 20(1), 457-488.
  11. 설진아. 2009. 탐사보도 프로그램의 논증모형에 관한 분석 연구: 의 '줄기세포' 관련 프로그램을 중심으로. 한국언론학보, 53(3), 370-394.
  12. 유민봉. 1994. 정책분석틀로서의 정책논변모형. 한국행정학보, 28(4), 1175-1190.
  13. 이승억. 2013. 경계 밖의 수용 : 보존기록학과 포스트모더니즘. 기록학연구, 38, 189-223.
  14. 이승억. 2002. 전자환경에서의 기록관리 개념에 관한 재검토. 기록학연구, 6, 41-72.
  15. 이승일. 2006. "국가기록원 소장 조선총독부 법무 문서군의 분류 방안. 서지학연구, 35, 113-143.
  16. Acland, G. K. Cumming, and S. McKemmish. 1999. The end of the beginning; the SPIRT Recordkeeping Metadata Project. Retrieved June 2, 2016 from http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/research.rcrg.publiccations/asaq99.html.
  17. Barr, Debra. 1987-1988. The Fonds concept in the Working Group on Archival Descriptive Standards Report, Archivaria, 25, 163-70.
  18. Barr, Debra. 1989. Protecting provenance: Response to the report of the Working Group on Description at the Fonds Level. Archivaria, 28, 141-45.
  19. Bastian, Jeanette Allis. 2003. Owning Memory: Howa Caribbean Community Lost its Archives and Found its History, Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
  20. Bastian, Jeanette Allis. 2003-2004. In a 'House of Memory': Discovering the provenance of place. Archival Issues, 28, 9-19.
  21. Bearman, David. 1994. Electronic Evidence. Pittsburgh: Archives & Museum Informatics.
  22. Bearman, David & Lytle, Richard. 1985. The Power of the Principle of Provenance. Archivaria, 21(Winter 1985-86), 14-27.
  23. Brothman, Brien. 1991. Orders of value: Probing the theoretical terms of archival practice. Archivaria, 32, 78-100.
  24. Bunn, Jenny 2014. Questioning autonomy: an alternative perspective on the principles which govern archival description. Archival Science, 14, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-013-9200-2
  25. Cook, Terry. 2001. Archival science and postmodernism: New formulations for old concepts. Archival Science, 1, 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435636
  26. Cook, Terry. 1997. What is past is prologue: a history of archival ideas since 1898, and the future paradigm shift. Archivaria, 43, 17-63.
  27. Cook, Terry. 1993. The concept of the archival fonds in the post-custodial era: theory, problems and solutions. Archivaria, 35, 24-37.
  28. Cook, Terry. 1992. The concept of the archival fonds: Theory, description and provenance in the post-custodial era. In: The Archival Fonds; From Theory to Practice. Terry Eastwood. ed. Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists.
  29. Douglas, Jennifer, 2010. Origins : evolving ideas about the Principle of Provenance. In: Currents of Archival Thinking. Terry Eastwood and Heather MacNeil. ed. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, 23-43.
  30. Duchein, Michel. 1983. Theoretical principles and practical problems of Respect des fonds in archival science. Archivaria, 16, 64-82.
  31. Duff, W. M. & Harris, V. 2002. Stories and names: Archival description as narrating records and constructing meanings. Archival Science, 2, 263-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435625
  32. Eastwood, Terry. 2010. A contested realm : The nature of archives and the orientation of Archival Science. In: Currents of Archival Thinking. Terry Eastwood and Heatehr Macneil. ed. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, 3-21.
  33. Eastwood, Terry. 2000. Putting the parts of the whole together: Systematic arrangement of archives. Archivaria, 50, 93-116.
  34. Holmes, O. W. 1964. Archival arrangement: Five different operations at five different levels. American Archivist, 27, 21-41. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.27.1.l721857l17617w15
  35. Horsman, Peter 2002. The last dance of the phoenix, or the de-discovery of the archival fonds, Archivaria, 54, 1-23.
  36. Horsman, Peter. 1994. Taming the elephant: An orthodox approach to the principle of provenance. In: The Principle of Provenance: Report from the First Stockholm Conference on the Archival Principle of Provenance, September 2-3, 1993. Stockholm: Swedish National Archives.
  37. Horsman, Peter. 1999. Dirty hands: A new perspective on the original order. Archives and Manuscripts, 27, 42-53.
  38. Hurley, Chris. 2004. Relationships in records. Retrieved July 12, 2016 from http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/rcrg/publications/relationships-in-records-rev-3b.rtf.
  39. Hurley, Chris. 1995. Problems with provenance. Archives and Manuscripts, 23, 234-59.
  40. International Council on Archives. 2000. ISAD(G): General International Standard Archival Description, 2nd ed. Madrid: International Council on Archives.
  41. Ketelaar, Eric. 2005. Sharing: Collected memories in communities of records. Archives and Manuscripts, 33, 44-61.
  42. Ketelaar, Eric. 2001. Tacit narratives: The meaning of archives. Archival Science, 1, 131-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435644
  43. Lowry, James. ed. 2017. Displaced Archives. Abingdon(UK): Routledge.
  44. MacNeil, Heather 2005. Picking our text: Archival description, authenticity, and the archivist as editor. American Archivist, 68, 265-78.
  45. MacNeil, Heather. 2008. Archivalterity: Rethinking original order, Archivaria, 66, 1-24.
  46. Meehan, J. 2013. Arrangement and description: between theory and practice. In: Archives and Recordkeeping: Theory into Practice. Caroline Brown. ed. Facet Publishing.
  47. Millar L. 2002. The death of the fonds and the resurrection of provenance: archival context in space and time. Archivaria, 53, 1-15.
  48. Muller, Samuel; Feith, J. A. & Fruin, R. 2003. Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives: Drawn up by Direction of the Netherlands Association of Archivists. 2nd ed., trans. Arthur H. Leavitt. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
  49. Nesmith, Tom. 2006. The concept of societal provenance and records of nineteenthcentury Aboriginal-European relations in Western Canada: Implications for archival theory and practice. Archival Science, 6, 351-60.
  50. Nesmith, Tom. 2005. Reopening archives: Bringing new contextualities into archival theory and practice. Archivaria, 60, 259-74.
  51. Nesmith, Tom. 2002. seeing archives: Postmodernism and the changing intellectual place of archives. American Archivist, 65, 24-41. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.65.1.rr48450509r0712u
  52. Nesmith, Tom. 1999. Still fuzzy but more accurate: Some thoughts on the 'ghosts' of archival theory. Archivaria, 47, 136-150.
  53. Pohjola, Raimo. 1994. The principle of provenance and the arrangement of records/archives. In: The Principle of Provenance: Report from the First Stockholm Conference on Archival Theory and the Principle of Provenance, 2-3 September 1993. Stockholm: The Swedish National Archives, 87-98.
  54. Posner, Ernst. 1950. Max Lehmann and the genesis of the principle of provenance. In: Archives and the Public Interest: Selected Essays by Ernst Posner. Ken Munden. ed. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2006, 36-44.
  55. Posner, Ernst. 1940. Some aspects of archival development since the French Revolution. In: Archives and the Public Interest: Selected Essays by Ernst Posner. Ken Munden. ed. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2006, 23-35.
  56. Ridener. 2011. From Polders to Postmodernism: A Concise History of Archival Theory. Duluth(MN), Litwin Books.
  57. Savoja, Maurizio & Vitali, Stefano. 2007. Authority control for creators in Italy: Theory and practice. Journal of Archival Organization, 5, 121-47.
  58. Schellenberg, Theodore R. 2001. 현대 기록학개론. 이원영 옮김. 서울: 진리탐구. 원전 : Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques, 1956.
  59. Scott, P. J. 1966. The record group concept: A case for abandonment. American Archivist 29, 493-504. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.29.4.y886054240174401
  60. Shilton, Katie & Srinivasan, Ramesh. 2007. Participatory appraisal and arrangement for multicultural archival collections. Archivaria, 63, 87-101.
  61. Stapleton, Rick. 1983-1984, Jenkinson and Schellenberg: A comparison. Archivaria, 17, 75-85.
  62. Taylor, H, A. 1987. Transformation in the Archives: Technological Adjustment or Paradigm Shift. Archivaria, 25, 12-28.
  63. Wurl, Joel. 2005. Ethnicity as provenance: In search of values and principles for documenting the immigrant experience. Archival Issues, 29, 65-76.
  64. Yakel, Elizabeth. 2003. Archival representation. Archival Science, 3, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02438926
  65. Yeo, Geoffrey. 2012a. The conceptual fonds and the physical collection, Archivaria, 73, 43-80.
  66. Yeo, Geoffrey. 2012b. Bringing things together: Aggregate records in a digital age. Archivaria, 74, 43-91.
  67. Yeo, Geoffrey. 2010. Debates about description. In: Currents of Archival Thinking. Terry Eastwood and Heatehr Macneil. ed. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, 89-14.
  68. Zhang, Jane. 2012. Original oder in digital archives. Archivaria, 35, 167-193.

Cited by

  1. 무질서의 원질서 개인기록 정리에 있어 원질서 존중 원칙의 실효성 고찰 vol.54, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.20923/kjas.2017.54.005