Constructing risk in trustworthy digital repositories

IF 1.7 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Journal of Documentation Pub Date : 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1108/jd-08-2023-0157
Rebecca D. Frank
{"title":"Constructing risk in trustworthy digital repositories","authors":"Rebecca D. Frank","doi":"10.1108/jd-08-2023-0157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis article investigates the construction of risk within trustworthy digital repository audits. It contends that risk is a social construct, and social factors influence how stakeholders in digital preservation processes comprehend and react to risk.Design/methodology/approachThis research employs a qualitative research design involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in the Trustworthy Digital Repository Audit and Certification (TRAC) process, and document analysis of the TRAC checklist and audit reports. I apply an analytic framework based on the Model for the Social Construction of Risk in Digital Preservation to this data.FindingsThe findings validate the argument that risk in digital preservation is indeed socially constructed and demonstrate that the eight factors in the Model for the Social Construction of Risk in Digital Preservation do indeed influence how stakeholders constructed their understanding of risk. Of the eight factors in the model, communication, expertise, uncertainty and vulnerability were found to be the most influential in the construction of risk during the TRAC audit process. The influence of complexity, organizations political culture, were more limited.Originality/valueThis article brings new insights to digital preservation by demonstrating the importance of understanding risk as a social construct. I argue that risk identification and/or assessment is only the first step in the long-term preservation of digital information and show that perceptions of risk in digital preservation are shaped by social factors by applying theories of social construction and risk perception to an analysis of the TRAC process.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Documentation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-08-2023-0157","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThis article investigates the construction of risk within trustworthy digital repository audits. It contends that risk is a social construct, and social factors influence how stakeholders in digital preservation processes comprehend and react to risk.Design/methodology/approachThis research employs a qualitative research design involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in the Trustworthy Digital Repository Audit and Certification (TRAC) process, and document analysis of the TRAC checklist and audit reports. I apply an analytic framework based on the Model for the Social Construction of Risk in Digital Preservation to this data.FindingsThe findings validate the argument that risk in digital preservation is indeed socially constructed and demonstrate that the eight factors in the Model for the Social Construction of Risk in Digital Preservation do indeed influence how stakeholders constructed their understanding of risk. Of the eight factors in the model, communication, expertise, uncertainty and vulnerability were found to be the most influential in the construction of risk during the TRAC audit process. The influence of complexity, organizations political culture, were more limited.Originality/valueThis article brings new insights to digital preservation by demonstrating the importance of understanding risk as a social construct. I argue that risk identification and/or assessment is only the first step in the long-term preservation of digital information and show that perceptions of risk in digital preservation are shaped by social factors by applying theories of social construction and risk perception to an analysis of the TRAC process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
构建可信数字资料库中的风险
目的本文研究了可信数字资料库审计中的风险构建。本文认为,风险是一种社会建构,社会因素会影响数字保存过程中的利益相关者对风险的理解和反应。本研究采用了定性研究设计,包括对可信数字资源库审核和认证(TRAC)过程中的利益相关者进行深入的半结构式访谈,以及对 TRAC 核对表和审核报告进行文档分析。研究结果研究结果验证了数字保存中的风险确实是由社会构建的这一论点,并证明了数字保存风险社会构建模型中的八个因素确实影响了利益相关者如何构建他们对风险的理解。在该模型的八个因素中,沟通、专业知识、不确定性和脆弱性被认为是 TRAC 审计过程中对风险建构影响最大的因素。本文通过证明将风险理解为一种社会建构的重要性,为数字保存带来了新的见解。我认为,风险识别和/或评估只是数字信息长期保存的第一步,并通过将社会建构和风险感知理论应用于 TRAC 流程分析,说明数字保存中的风险感知是由社会因素形成的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Documentation
Journal of Documentation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: The scope of the Journal of Documentation is broadly information sciences, encompassing all of the academic and professional disciplines which deal with recorded information. These include, but are certainly not limited to: ■Information science, librarianship and related disciplines ■Information and knowledge management ■Information and knowledge organisation ■Information seeking and retrieval, and human information behaviour ■Information and digital literacies
期刊最新文献
Information experiences of bonsai growers: a phenomenological study in serious leisure Information experiences of bonsai growers: a phenomenological study in serious leisure Constructing risk in trustworthy digital repositories Information seeking and communication model (ISCM): application and extension Evolving legitimacy of the public library in the 21st century
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1