共查询到10条相似文献，搜索用时 156 毫秒
1.
Terry Cook 《Archival Science》2001,1(1):3-24
Process rather than product, becoming rather than being, dynamic rather than static, context rather than text, reflecting
time and place rather than universal absolutes—these have become the postmodern watchwords for analyzing and understanding
science, society, organizations, and business activity, among others. They should likewise become the watchwords for archival
science in the new century, and thus the foundation for a new conceptual paradigm for the profession. Postmodernism is not
the only reason for reformulating the main precepts of archival science. Significant changes in the purpose of archives as
institutions and the nature of records are other factors which, combined with postmodern insights, form the basis of the new
perception of archives as documents, institutions, and profession in society.
This essay explores the nature of postmodernism and archival science, and suggest links between the two. It outlines two broad
changes in archival thinking that underpin the archival paradigm shift, before suggesting new formulations for most traditional
archival concepts. 相似文献
2.
Håkan Lövblad 《Archival Science》2003,3(2):131-155
The contextual approach gives the impression that we are moving into the 21st century with three competing scientific traditions
of interpretation. Another understanding is the systemic view, which indicates a paradigm with complementing traditions of
interpretation, depending on ontological level. The paradigm of archival science is, like that of many other sciences, influenced
by positivism, systems theory and hermeneutics. The relevance of the paradigm depends on personal beliefs. The hermeneutic
understanding of archival science emphasizes the context and deconstructs central concepts. Hermeneutics emphasizes the influence
of conceptual changes and technological advances on perception. Hermeneutics stresses the need for a socio-cultural and historical
orientation of archival science. The positivistic tradition is coloured by the myths about an ideal science. This is reflected
firstly in the analogy comparing archives with nature, and secondly in the deductive method. Positivism is instrumental in
its demands for distinct definitions of concepts and its insistence on the record as the basis of archival science. The flexibility
of systems theory highlights the complex relations between context and record. Systems theory can, at its best, serve as a
meeting-place for researchers, archivists and users and accordingly form the basis for new knowledge and theory formation.
Systems theory enables a materialistic/dialectic epistemology based in reality and inspired by other relevant sciences. The
result may be the foundation of a systemic-functionalist archival science with activities, records creation and evidential
values in focus. 相似文献
3.
Terry Cook 《Archival Science》1987,1(1):3-24
Process rather than product, becoming rather than being, dynamicrather than static, context rather than text, reflecting time andplace rather than universal absolutes – these have become thepostmodern watchwords for analyzing and understanding science,society, organizations, and business activity, among others. Theyshould likewise become the watchwords for archival science in thenew century, and thus the foundation for a new conceptual paradigmfor the profession. Postmodernism is not the only reason for reformulatingthe main precepts of archival science. Significant changes in thepurpose of archives as institutions and the nature of records areother factors which, combined with postmodern insights, form thebasis of the new perception of archives as documents, institutions,and profession in society.This essay explores the nature of postmodernism and archival science,and suggest links between the two. It outlines two broad changes inarchival thinking that underpin the archival paradigm shift, beforesuggesting new formulations for most traditional archival concepts. 相似文献
4.
Livia Iacovino 《Archival Science》2004,4(3-4):267-286
This article describes the issues involved in using a multi-method approach to address multi-faceted interdisciplinary research
in archival science. The example chosen to illustrate the multi-method approach is taken from recent research, which explored
the recordkeeping-ethics-law nexus from the perspective of communities as social systems, regulatory models for recordkeeping
and their continuing application to online records. The methods combined traditional archival and social science research
techniques, as well as legal and ethics research tools drawn from law and moral philosophy, together with disciplinary discourse
analysis, concept mapping and empirical examples to illustrate the concepts. The example demonstrates that complex research
questions that cross disciplinary boundaries need to draw from a number of research paradigms and conceptual understandings,
which assist in breaking down the barriers with knowledge domains that have to date, had limited contact with archival science. 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
8.
A first introduction to archival science 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
Theo Thomassen 《Archival Science》2001,1(4):373-385
This first introduction, written for educational purposes, is meant to be a concise basic text in which the core concepts
of archival science are coherently defined and explained, in a non-polemical way and departing from a de-institutionalised
point of view. It is not intended to support or reject any single theory, but to provide an overview. It should be read as
a synthesis of a variety of shared ideas and views, not as a manifesto of a new approach to archival science. If there is
anything new to it, it might be located in the coherent and integrated presentation. In this primer of archival science annotation
has been avoided.
The first of several versions of this First Introduction was written in August 1995. It was meant to meet the need of the
Netherlands Archiefschool for a basic text on archival science which could support its different programs for archival education
and training. After ample discussion with the archival science teachers of the Archiefschool, it was introduced in the 1995/1996
courses. From then on, it has been used in almost all courses and classes on archival science on the undergraduate, graduate
and postgraduate levels and in several training and retraining programs of the Archiefschool. The design of the first version
has been maintained in all subsequent versions, including this last one. Still, the text has frequently been adapted as a
result of discussions with students and colleagues, in and outside the school. This first English version can almost be deemed
as a collective product. Of the numerous colleagues who were engaged in this discussion and contributed to the text, special
mention has to be made of Peter Horsman, Hans Scheurkogel, Hans Hofman, Eric Ketelaar, Herman Coppens and Kent Hayworth, who
commented the English version. For the final text and all imperfections that may still cling to it I am, of course, responsible.
An earlier version in Dutch has been published as: Theo thomassen, “Een korte introductie in de archivistiek”, in: P.J. Horsman,
F.C.J. Ketelaar en T.H.P.M. Thomassen (red.),Naar een nieuw paradigma in de archivistiek ('s-Gravenhage, 1999), pp. 11–20. 相似文献
9.
针对中国档案界（包括学界和业界）近年来就档案学专业的英文概念record(s)应如何与中文概念相对应的讨论以及在讨论中所凸显的问题,本研究选择了中美两国政府颁布的相关法律法规为数据源并对所选数据进行了逐字逐句式内容分析。分析过程导引出两类成果,一类以直接的形式呈现了中文概念“文件”、“档案”、“公文”与英文概念record(s)、archives、document(s) 之间相关或无关的关系;而另一类则以间接的方式揭示出中美两国法律法规中皆缺乏完整的、兼具逻辑性和系统性的概念体系。作为第一部分,本文汇报该研究的研究背景、研究方法、研究数据选择以及研究所揭示的中国部分核心概念关系。 相似文献
10.
与现代信息技术的深度融合是档案学科发展的趋势与动力,对信息技术的认知及应用能力是档案学研究生必备的素质。但认知不能仅限于对宏观概念的泛泛感知,也不能过分强调对技术细节的精通,而是基于档案学研究与创新的需求,按照一定的层次培养学生对技术原理的理解与辩证分析能力,以及对技术的作用、应用条件、实施工具的认知能力。 相似文献