Participatory information governance

Purpose This paper examines the recordkeeping governance requirements of the childhood out-of-home Care sector, with critical interlaced identity, memory, cultural and accountability needs. They argue that as we enter a new era of participation, new models for governance are required to recognise and dynamically negotiate a range of rights in and to records, across space and through time. Instead of recordkeeping configured to support closed organisations and closely bounded information silos, there is a need for recordkeeping to reflect, facilitate and be part of governance frameworks for organisations as nodes in complex information networks. Design/methodology/approach The paper reports on a key outcome of the Setting the Record Straight for the Rights of the Child National Summit held in Melbourne Australia in May 2017, the National Framework for Recordkeeping in Out-of-Home Care, and the research and advocacy agenda that will support its development. Findings The authors argue that as we enter an algorithmic age, designing for shared ownership, stewardship, interoperability and participation is an increasing imperative to address the information asymmetries that foster social disadvantage and discrimination. The authors introduce the concept of participatory information governance in response to social, political and cultural mandates for recordkeeping. Given the challenges associated with progressing new participatory models of recordkeeping governance in the inhospitable environment of existing recordkeeping law, standards and governance frameworks, the authors outline how these frameworks will need to be re-figured for participatory recordkeeping. Practical implications The National Framework for Recordkeeping for Childhood Out-of-Home Care seeks to address the systemic recordkeeping problems that have been most recently highlighted in the 2013-2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Social implications The National Framework for Recordkeeping for Childhood Out-of-Home Care will also address how a suite of recordkeeping rights can be embedded into networked socio-technical systems. This represents an example of a framework for participatory information governance which can help guide the design of new systems in an algorithmic age. Originality/value The proposed National Framework represents a new model for recordkeeping governance to recognise and enact multiple rights in records. Designed to support the lifelong identity, memory and accountability needs for those who experience childhood out-of-home Care, it aims to foster the transformation of recordkeeping and archival infrastructure to a participatory model that can address the current inequities and better enable the design and oversight of equitable algorithmic systems.

[1]  Gary Marcus,et al.  Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal , 2018, ArXiv.

[2]  Ines Mergel.  Opening Government , 2015 .

[3]  Frank Golding,et al.  Latent scrutiny: personal archives as perpetual mementos of the official gaze , 2016 .

[4]  Frank Golding,et al.  Hope Street: From Voice to Agency for Care-Leavers in Higher Education , 2018 .

[5]  Sue McKemmish,et al.  Self-determination and archival autonomy: advocating activism , 2015 .

[6]  Virginia E. Eubanks.  Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor , 2018 .

[7]  Sue McKemmish,et al.  Critical Archiving and Recordkeeping Research and Practice in the Continuum , 2017 .

[8]  Gillian Oliver,et al.  Recordkeeping Informatics for a Networked Age , 2020 .

[9]  Sue McKemmish,et al.  The Role of Participatory Archives in Furthering Human Rights, Reconciliation and Recovery , 2014 .

[10]  Thomas S. Woodson.  Weapons of math destruction , 2018, Journal of Responsible Innovation.

[11]  A. Roland,et al.  Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. , 1995 .

[12]  Hannah Lebovits.  Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor , 2018, Public Integrity.

[13]  John McDonald,et al.  Managing Records in the Modern Office: Taming the Wild Frontier , 1995 .

[14]  Sue McKemmish.  Placing records continuum theory and practice , 2001 .

[15]  Terry Cook.  Archival science and postmodernism: new formulations for old concepts , 2001 .

[16]  Juerg Hagmann,et al.  Information governance – beyond the buzz , 2013 .

[17]  Joanne Evans,et al.  Setting the Record Straight for the Rights of the Child Summit , 2017 .

[18]  Rob Kling,et al.  Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism , 1996 .

[19]  Alexey Tsymbal,et al.  The problem of concept drift: definitions and related work , 2004 .

[20]  Clay Spinuzzi,et al.  The Methodology of Participatory Design , 2005 .

[21]  Ledivina V. Cariño.  The Concept of Governance , 2015 .

[22]  Stefan Wolle,et al.  The poisoned society: The Stasi file syndrome in the former GDR , 1992 .

[23]  Gillian Oliver,et al.  Multiple rights in records: the role of recordkeeping informatics , 2018, Archival Futures.

[24]  Barbara Reed,et al.  Records Continuum Model , 2010 .

[25]  J. Dijck.  Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology , 2014 .

[26]  Elizabeth Lomas.  Information governance: information security and access within a UK context , 2010 .

[27]  Terry Carney Ao.  The New Digital Future for Welfare: Debts Without Legal Proofs or Moral Authority? , 2018 .

[28]  Hal Hodson,et al.  Google DeepMind and healthcare in an age of algorithms , 2017, Health and Technology.

[29]  Kate Cumming,et al.  Reinventing appraisal , 2014 .

[30]  Phillip Mendes,et al.  Improving Outcomes for Teenage Pregnancy and Early Parenthood for Young People in Out-of-home Care: A Review of the Literature , 2009 .

[31]  Sue McKemmish,et al.  Decolonizing recordkeeping and archival praxis in childhood out-of-home Care and indigenous archival collections , 2020, Archival Science.