档案研究和知识管理从业者如何描述研究的价值:评估“安静”的档案管理员形象

IF 1.4 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE ARCHIVAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s10502-021-09369-w
Jennifer Y. Pearson
{"title":"档案研究和知识管理从业者如何描述研究的价值:评估“安静”的档案管理员形象","authors":"Jennifer Y. Pearson","doi":"10.1007/s10502-021-09369-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The archivist persona is frequently described in terms of passive, introverted attributes, which are then viewed as contributing to critical concerns for the sector, such as a lack of visibility, perceived effectiveness, and funding. This study is the first to assess the archivist persona through a discourse analysis, examining the usage of words promoting value and positive benefits in archival studies publications. Titles and abstracts from research articles published in five prominent journals between 2015 and 2019 were analysed for a set of 57 words connoting value or valuable benefits, including terms such as “innovative”, “positive”, and “strategic.” An identical analysis of research articles published in five knowledge management (KM) publications over the same timeframe was also completed in order to provide a comparative dataset from an adjacent, yet more corporate-embedded information practice. The results demonstrate that archival studies researchers use value words to promote the benefits of their research, but do so at a significantly lower frequency and density when compared to KM. A qualitative analysis of the results shows that archivists leverage a passive lexicon to promote value and benefits, relying on generic adjectives and indirect claims, whereas the lexicon of KM communicates direct, actionable outcomes that more readily align with business stakeholders’ priorities. These findings suggest practical communications recommendations for the archives sector, which could enhance business stakeholders’ perceptions of archivists and the value of archival work.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46131,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","volume":"22 1","pages":"95 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How archival studies and knowledge management practitioners describe the value of research: assessing the “quiet” archivist persona\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Y. Pearson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10502-021-09369-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The archivist persona is frequently described in terms of passive, introverted attributes, which are then viewed as contributing to critical concerns for the sector, such as a lack of visibility, perceived effectiveness, and funding. This study is the first to assess the archivist persona through a discourse analysis, examining the usage of words promoting value and positive benefits in archival studies publications. Titles and abstracts from research articles published in five prominent journals between 2015 and 2019 were analysed for a set of 57 words connoting value or valuable benefits, including terms such as “innovative”, “positive”, and “strategic.” An identical analysis of research articles published in five knowledge management (KM) publications over the same timeframe was also completed in order to provide a comparative dataset from an adjacent, yet more corporate-embedded information practice. The results demonstrate that archival studies researchers use value words to promote the benefits of their research, but do so at a significantly lower frequency and density when compared to KM. A qualitative analysis of the results shows that archivists leverage a passive lexicon to promote value and benefits, relying on generic adjectives and indirect claims, whereas the lexicon of KM communicates direct, actionable outcomes that more readily align with business stakeholders’ priorities. These findings suggest practical communications recommendations for the archives sector, which could enhance business stakeholders’ perceptions of archivists and the value of archival work.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"95 - 112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-021-09369-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-021-09369-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

档案管理员的角色经常被描述为被动、内向的属性,然后被视为导致该行业的关键问题,如缺乏可见性、感知有效性和资金。本研究首次通过话语分析来评估档案管理员的个性,考察了档案研究出版物中促进价值和积极利益的词语的使用情况。分析了2015年至2019年间发表在五家著名期刊上的研究文章的标题和摘要,共57个单词,其中包括“创新”、“积极”和“战略性”等术语。“还完成了对在同一时间段内发表在五份知识管理出版物上的研究文章的相同分析,以提供来自邻近但更具企业嵌入式信息实践的比较数据集。结果表明,档案研究人员使用价值词来促进他们研究的利益,但与KM相比,使用价值词的频率和密度要低得多。对结果的定性分析表明,档案工作者利用被动词汇来促进价值和利益,依赖于一般形容词和间接声明,而知识管理的词汇传达了直接的、可操作的结果,这些结果更容易与业务利益相关者的优先事项相一致。这些发现为档案部门提出了切实可行的沟通建议,可以提高企业利益相关者对档案工作者和档案工作价值的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How archival studies and knowledge management practitioners describe the value of research: assessing the “quiet” archivist persona

The archivist persona is frequently described in terms of passive, introverted attributes, which are then viewed as contributing to critical concerns for the sector, such as a lack of visibility, perceived effectiveness, and funding. This study is the first to assess the archivist persona through a discourse analysis, examining the usage of words promoting value and positive benefits in archival studies publications. Titles and abstracts from research articles published in five prominent journals between 2015 and 2019 were analysed for a set of 57 words connoting value or valuable benefits, including terms such as “innovative”, “positive”, and “strategic.” An identical analysis of research articles published in five knowledge management (KM) publications over the same timeframe was also completed in order to provide a comparative dataset from an adjacent, yet more corporate-embedded information practice. The results demonstrate that archival studies researchers use value words to promote the benefits of their research, but do so at a significantly lower frequency and density when compared to KM. A qualitative analysis of the results shows that archivists leverage a passive lexicon to promote value and benefits, relying on generic adjectives and indirect claims, whereas the lexicon of KM communicates direct, actionable outcomes that more readily align with business stakeholders’ priorities. These findings suggest practical communications recommendations for the archives sector, which could enhance business stakeholders’ perceptions of archivists and the value of archival work.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ARCHIVAL SCIENCE
ARCHIVAL SCIENCE INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
18.20%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Archival Science promotes the development of archival science as an autonomous scientific discipline. The journal covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practice. Moreover, it investigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and data. It also seeks to promote the exchange and comparison of concepts, views and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the world.Archival Science''s approach is integrated, interdisciplinary, and intercultural. Its scope encompasses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context. To meet its objectives, the journal draws from scientific disciplines that deal with the function of records and the way they are created, preserved, and retrieved; the context in which information is generated, managed, and used; and the social and cultural environment of records creation at different times and places.Covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practiceInvestigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and dataPromotes the exchange and comparison of concepts, views, and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the worldAddresses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context
期刊最新文献
Dedication and introduction to the provenance special issue Kindred contexts: archives, archaeology, and the concept of provenance The power of provenance in the records continuum Archival context, provenance, and a tool to capture archival context* The archive as home: ruminations on domestic notions of provenance
×
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