There has been an interesting discussion on the Second Life Educators (SLED) list this week about "old digital natives." The term "digital native" is usually used to refer to students who grew up with technology and speak its language with the ease of a native speaker. This is contrasted with those who arrive on technological shores from outside that world and must learn that particular language. A digital native isn't necessarily defined by age. Many on the SLED list this week have identified themselves as "old" digital natives - those who are in their 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s who have used technology since the days of punch cards and home-built computer kits.
There has been a lot of discussion in the education community about how accurate or helpful the "digital native" stereotype is (or isn't), and like any generalization, it can only take us so far. As I read that discussion, though, I am starting to see a parallel to the way we think about records management. Our mindsets and our approaches to records management determine how fluently we can speak its language and how comfortable we are with its concepts, but they also determine how we approach the new challenges of the digital world.
Much has been said about the decline in proper records management due to the rise in technology and the decline in the number of clerical and administrative staff available to file, maintain, retrieve, and destroy or archive records. I would agree that that's part of the problem, but I would also argue that while the number of secretaries has decreased, the old-world mindset that "someone else will take care of this for me" and the attitude that "I am too busy and important to manage information" have persisted. I think this gap is caused, at least in part, by a professional world heavily populated by Records Dependents.
A Records Dependent "grew up" in his or her professional career with the notion that some people perform thought labor (creating ideas and information but not the records themselves), and some people perform clerical labor (taking care of the recorded information created by the thinkers). Don Draper, the 1960s ad mogul on the TV show Mad Men, comes up with an idea and has his "girl" type up the report. Don has people to type, file, research, and find things for him. Someone else takes care of him. I'd argue that this model was true, to one degree or another, for many corporate and government employees over the past several decades. Someone else held and managed the paper records. When computers first appeared in the professional world, this was still true: the IT department held and managed the data.
Records Management grew up in that world. The answer to "what's a record?" was formed under those conditions. File plans, disposition schedules, inactive records storage, decisions about what is worthy of "archiving," and the role of records managers themselves were all defined during that time period. The notion that records management was all about throwing things away or filing things elsewhere to save space grew up in that world, too. In that world, someone else (or a small army of someones) made the decisions about information and took care of records for everyone else. That worked because that clerical role still existed in sufficient numbers, and it worked because those employees took the time and care to learn and follow its rules. It carries over into records managers' thinking, too: We expect to have the final say and full control over the records.
Many RMs I know today are struggling with too few resources, too few staff, too little respect, and a very strong belief among their users that dealing with all that records stuff is the records manager's problem, not theirs. While records creators still behave like Records Dependents, when it comes to maintaining their records, these same people think like Information Independents. Because records management is still someone else's problem, they see things like filing systems and records schedules as unnecessary and intrusive. What do you mean we might throw this away? I can buy a giant hard drive for $80 and keep everything forever! Who are you, anyway, to tell me what to do with MY information?
The challenge records managers face with Information Independents is that they have the motivation and the tools to do precisely what they want, not necessarily what is best for the company. If information is lost or takes a long time to find, they rarely feel that pain for long. Employees have little or no motivation to protect the company by filing things carefully, and since they are not taught to behave differently and are not given the tools to do so easily, employees simply don't. Applying old-school records management philosophies to an Information Independent world just isn't working for us.
So, what do we do? In this post-secretarial world, people have to learn to type to survive, but they have not been forced to learn to manage their information. One approach might involve having management hold employees responsible for the way they handle information. We don't have the time, resources, or business need to allow you to ignore your responsibility or do whatever you want with information at the expense of the company's efficiency and legal accountability. The problem here is, of course, that so many managers also believe deeply that no one should tell them what to do with "their" information, either. (See all the outcry over Sarbanes-Oxley, US Vice Presidential records, and a number of state government officials for examples.) Until the time consumed, the inefficiency, and the pain caused by poor records management is seen and felt by the company, few will be motivated to change. Complicated, bureaucratic filing schemes and rules that take time to memorize and understand give users very little incentive to change, too.
Another option is to join forces with those who are interested in information access and control. Many scientists, engineers, and others are consumed with the idea of getting data into digital form and sharing it in online systems. Many IT professionals have no time for records management but are investing resources in the idea of "content management" and "digital governance." Why not stop treating all these groups as "Others" and start forming a broader coalition that better represents the situation at hand? None of us should tackle this alone. It does mean that records managers must learn about technology, even if that's not comfortable for them. Records management is just as unfathomable and icky to an IT person at first glance, but as each side learns about the other, we can find common language and common ground. It does mean that records managers will have to give up some of their professional biases and probably some of their traditions, but maybe a combination of "their" way and "our" way could be a better answer.
Another option is user education. Experience teaches some of us. Some of the most enthusiastic records management true believers I know are people who have lived through a lawsuit or audit and found exactly what they needed because information was managed well, and some are believers because they have felt the loss of information that wasn't managed at all. Working with people to help them understand that managing records is all about protecting their interests and helping them get their work done could go a long way toward bridging that gap. Of course, we also need to be sure our practices and systems are updated, usable, and friendly to users.
In today's world, everyone is a records manager, but not everyone is going to be willing to think and act like one. We need to begin looking for ways to update our professional approaches without sacrificing the benefits that traditional records management brings.
Comments