I have the spent the majority of my career working as a records and information analyst. As such, most of my time is spent immersed in the gray, murky zone of records analysis. Armed with my trusty records schedule, I sit with the materials and try to match records to a record series code. Sometimes it’s an easy fit, but other times, I’m left to scratch my head looking for contextual clues on which to base my analysis. As much as I want the answers to be black-and-white, most often I’m left trying to make sense of what’s in front of me and to make decisions in an objective way.
I find Records Management is very much a profession that exists in the gray zone. I always feel like my job is to combine all the theories, concepts, and principles in such a way that the execution of these elements can be realized in a tangible way that is both accessible to users and takes the guesswork out of the equation. I want the solutions to be binary, yes or no, this bucket or that bucket, but more often than not, I still find myself faced with anomalies, contradictions and the exceptions, which just really don’t seem to fit anywhere.
When I first started working as an analyst, it seemed that every exception was unique and different from the one I uncovered before. Over time, however, I started noticing patterns in the exceptions, regardless of medium or format, which I could then start to define and assign terms to categorize the issues and come up with standardized methods to resolve them. It was only through documenting the occurrences that I was able to devise routine resolutions.
One common example is uncovering records that really don’t fit anywhere in any record series, either because they were part of a legacy collection or a gap or referred to an existing series that needed to be modified to account for the records properly. On the surface, it could be identified as one issue: GAP, but the underlying reasons all indicated different methods for resolving the problem based on a further analysis.
After having experienced this situation numerous times, I now go through a process to identify key elements to help me make a decision. I first ask myself “is this a record?”. Then I go through a further analysis to determine: is the record something that is valuable for the organization, does it have to be maintained, why is it not in the schedule. Once I have the answers to all of these things, I can then proceed to find a solution.
What this has taught me is that even with documentation and standardized methodology, a lot of the initial assessment is still a subjective process left up to the analyst. Often, when I am faced with analyzing something that has multiple issues, I must make a subjective determination about which one is the most pressing. Despite my best efforts and my naturally consistent, methodical nature, I’m often still left in the Gray Zone: Identifying Issues. I’m not complaining because I do love a challenge, but it does make me wonder what is it about records management that makes analysis so perplexing? Is it the complexity, the fragmented processes, the sloppy records creation, the varied formats and mediums? Our approach and methodology?