A view from the bridge: Reviewing other literature on personal recordkeeping and archiving behaviour



Download 67.9 Kb.
Date07.08.2017
Size67.9 Kb.

A view from the bridge: Reviewing other literature on personal recordkeeping and archiving behaviour



Introduction


In 2013 Sue McKemmish and Michael Piggott argued forcefully for ‘a liberation from binary opposition mindsets’, placing particular emphasis on the personal/corporate duality.1 In this context they noted a lack of research into ‘personal recordkeeping and archiving behaviour’, which is only gradually being addressed, and in which regard further research is still needed. One way to start to meet this need is to look outside our own discipline to learn from others, who are perhaps more advanced in their research in this area. There is, after all, little point in repeating what others have already done.

Steps already taken in this direction include; work by Amber Cushing to compare archival thinking with the ideas of Cathy Marshall, a prominent researcher in the field of personal information management2, the monograph I, Digital edited by Cal Lee, which also includes a comparison between archival thinking and personal information management3, and a suggestion, made by Steve Bailey and Jay Vidyarthi, that human-computer interaction might be ‘the missing piece of the records management puzzle’.4 This article will add to this growing corpus, by raising awareness of literature and research into personal recordkeeping which has been undertaken in ‘other’ disciplines. It will also reflect on whether, and how, it is possible to do so in a way that does not tend to reinforce yet another binary opposition – that between us and them, the archival discipline on the one hand, and everything outside that discipline on the other.


Defining the terms of engagement


Engaging with literature and research outside your home discipline can often be a daunting prospect, like entering a foreign country without a map. Initially I chose to approach this task by going through an interesting looking gateway, namely the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, described by ACM as ‘the computing field’s premier digital library’. Its holdings are reported as including 1,379 journal titles, 21,075 proceedings, 144,847 books, 75,544 theses and 25,422 reports. The library was searched on 10 September 2014, for the terms ‘archives’ or ‘archiving’ in the title field only. The search resulted in 364 hits and these were then narrowed down to 30, on the basis that they needed to relate to personal recordkeeping and archiving behaviour. This selection eventually grew in number to 36 as a number of articles referenced in the original 30 were also found to be of interest in the same context and were subsequently added to the collection. All 6 additional articles are however also held within the ACM Digital Library.

Once I had assembled this body of work, I started to consider how to analyse it. The obvious approach seemed to be to undertake a comparison of some sort, between this ‘other’ literature on the one hand and archival thought and research on the other. I was concerned however that such an approach might not be consistent with trying to escape from binary opposition mindsets. Admittedly I had assembled the body of work as ‘other’, as being from outside my home discipline, but that did not mean that I necessarily needed to analyse it as such. Instead I decided that, as an experiment, I would consider the body of work I had assembled in more neutral and less divisive terms, not as something ‘other’, but rather as a body of work in itself. To this end, I decided that what I meant by a body of work was something akin to the concept of disciplined study, and that, as such, the terms in which to best analyse it might be those of theory, methodology and practice.


The body of work in terms of theory


There is very little explicit discussion of ‘theory’ or of particular ‘theories’ within the selected literature, but one exception to this is an appeal by Rawassizadeh, Anjohmshoaa and Tomitsch to what they call ‘valence instrumentality expectancy theory’, which is a theory developed in the field of management to explain individual motivation in the context of organisational behaviour.5 The authors use this theory to justify the need to ‘reduce the user intervention as much as possible’ when ‘establishing a software model for digital preservation of pervasive personal information’, since their interpretation of the aforementioned theory is that it shows that users ‘are not keen to perform additional administration tasks unless they are motivated enough to do them’.6 This is not to say that there is no reference at all to theory in the selection under consideration, rather it is more that it is not often presented in formal terms as this or that theory, or indeed in terms of ‘theory’ at all – that word is noticeable mainly in its absence.

One place where it is used however, is in a consideration of the ‘Many Faces of Facebook’.7 Here the aim is ‘to provide a deep understanding of how aforementioned theories manifest in the interaction between users and their own data’.8 In this case the theories indirectly referred to as theories are ‘Goffman’s theatrical metaphor and Hogan’s exhibition approach’.9 The authors are explicit that they are drawing on these ideas, referencing both what is generally described (e.g. in Wikipedia) as ‘a seminal sociology book’, The presentation of self in everyday life by Goffman, but also an article by Hogan entitled ‘The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online’.10 These ideas are highlighted because the authors present their work, in part, ‘As an extension to Hogan’s exhibition approach’, with Hogan’s own approach being, it would seem, an extension of Goffman.11 Thus, whereas Goffman developed the idea of ‘selective self-presentation’, characterised in this article as performance, and Hogan is associated with the idea that ‘social media data are used more for asynchronous exhibitions than synchronous performances’, the authors present their own finding that;

as social media data expire from public attention, they not only move to an exhibition region that affords presenting one’s long term image, but also gradually become part of a personal region, where social media data functions as a personal archive and repository for meaningful memories.12

Building on the above examples, it becomes clear that, whether explicit or not, there is engagement with theory in the selected literature and that this engagement varies from almost throw away reference to it, to more active theorizing. Such engagement tends to be presented however, more in terms of discussion of/references to related work or research, bodies of work or literature. This related research and these bodies of work can be quite disparate; from an ‘emerging research area called personal experience computing’13, to the ‘considerable body of work on writing as a cognitive process’.14 There are however a few such bodies that are more coherent and more common in their reference within the selected literature than others. We shall consider these in more detail in a moment, but before we do so, we will just look at one other term that is used in the literature to illustrate the more informal or loose presentation of theory that characterises it, this term is intuition.

For example, when Maltzahn, Jhala, Mateas and Whitehead report on their work to design a game to make document tagging more enjoyable, they explain that they have designed the scoring system for this game such that it encourages orthogonal tagging, where ‘Keywords are considered orthogonal if there is no proper subset relationship between them’.15 They go on to explain that ‘The intuition behind orthogonal tagging is that it covers more facets of the document and increases the likelihood of a user to recall the tagged content’.16 Then again, Adams, Greenhill and Venkatesh report that ‘Experiments confirm the intuition that each [of the three techniques they propose] holds promise for augmenting traditional browsing environments’.17 Work in the selected literature is then, sometimes presented as being informed by a hunch, but these hunches can sometimes also be seen as being supported by ‘theory’ in some way. For example, in their discussion of the MUSE system, Hangal, Lam and Heer explain how they are going to ‘discuss a set of memory cues for browsing email archives’ and that ‘For each type of cue, we present the intuition, some details of its implementation, and the presentation technique used’.18 Some of these intuitions seem to include the ideas that ‘people mentally chunk their contacts into groups’ and that ‘Terms that make the best cues are often names of various kinds, including people, places, organizations and so on, because names generally tend to carry rich associations in the user’s episodic memory’.19 This reference to episodic memory makes it clear that at least some of the assumptions on which they are basing their work come from theories or previous work about human memory. This proves to be the case, as they earlier reference Endel Tulving’s Elements of Episodic Memory, which is, according to the publisher of a recent reissue ‘a classic text in the psychology of memory’.20 Then again, later in connection with their discussion of sentiment cues, they state that ‘There is much evidence that emotional episodes tend to be well-remembered’ referencing Reisberg and Hertel’s Memory and Emotion.21

Psychology can then be identified as one of the bodies of thought that does have a particular influence in the selected literature. The direct line of this influence is not always clear, but the work of Tulving is often referenced, mainly in connection with the idea of episodic (as opposed to semantic) memory mentioned above, but also in connection with that of ‘encoding specificity’ which Kelly, Chen, Fuller and Jones explain as stating ‘that the effectiveness of retrieval depends on how similar the conditions of retrieval are with that of encoding’.22 The distinction between episodic and semantic memory is explained by Doherty, Gurrin and Smeaton as follows; ‘Semantic memories are knowing about facts e.g. Paris is the capital of France […] Episodic/autobiographical memories refer to personal experiences e.g. remembering when one’s child first walks’.23 Unsurprisingly then most of the articles that draw on these ideas, focus on retrieval (or recall) by the individual from amongst their own ‘lifelog data’24 or ‘email archives’25 or ‘Human Digital Memories’.26 In that focus, work is also influenced by further works, such as those by Greene27 and Purdy, Markham, Schwartz and Gordon28, and by more general ideas in this area, such as ‘the generation effect, which states that things one thought of or did oneself tend to be better remembered, because this kind of information will be linked with one’s experience of creating it’29, and ‘evidence pointing towards “cued recall” leading to retrieval of memories that can’t be accessed via “free recall”’.30

With this in mind, the sense of Hangal, Lam and Heer’s concentration on memory cues, as mentioned above, starts to become clear. As does the work of Kelly, Chen, Fuller and Jones in investigating what sorts of ‘context data’ are ‘best remembered for different item types and categories over time’.31 For, in their study, context data seem to equate to memory cues, such as location, time and weather conditions, designed to improve the chances of retrieval by leveraging the idea ‘that people usually do not have very good memory of individual items of information, rather they have better memory of personal experiences at the time of using/creating the item/file’.32 The connection is however a little less obvious in the work of Doherty, Gurrin and Smeaton. Here the more pertinent idea about memory seems to be that of Zacks, who, according to Doherty, Gurrin and Smeaton, ‘studies how representation in the brain works’ and ‘states that humans store memories as events’.33 Consequently, their work focuses on how individuals choose to segment their own (and others’) lifelog data, in the form of continuous video recordings, into events, and also whether and how the individual’s perception of the boundaries between those events might alter over time. They invoke the idea of event decay, or the forgetting of events that have happened, as ‘an area that is of great interest to the cognitive neuropsychology community’ and expand it to include the idea of changes in perception ‘of what exactly constitutes a boundary between two distinct and adjacent semantic events’ as mentioned previously.34

This broadly termed psychological influence is also explicitly recognised within the selected literature. For example, in the context of a critique of lifelogging, Sellen and Whittaker argue for an increased ‘focus on the psychological basis of human memory’ and suggest that ‘psychology as design framework could help define the types of memory such systems should support, along with their key interface properties […]’.35 At the same time, it is also seen to have limitations. For example, Harper, Thereska, Lindley, Banks, Gosset, Odom, Smyth and Whitworth seem to suggest that there may be problems with the conceptualisation of the file, given the use within human-computer interaction (HCI) of ‘a basic premise in much of psychology […] that the external world needs to be represented in some kind of internal form or ‘qualia’ in the human mind and good design ensures that there is fit between this internal model and the external’.36 This particular article is the most obviously theoretical one from within the selection and it will be considered in more detail later. Its inclusion here though is designed, not only to demonstrate that a psychological influence is recognised from within, but also to highlight that this psychological influence is often, but not always, associated with ideas about memory in particular rather than mental functions in general.

It is however from this memory focus that Kirk and Sellen wish to distinguish themselves in one of the articles under consideration.37 In it, they make a deliberate attempt ‘to argue that archiving practice in the home is not solely concerned with the invocation of memory’.38 The authors identify, within the field of HCI, and in association with the idea of lifelogging, a tendency to ‘make an explicit assumption that the reason why we might want to store or “archive” digital data […] is for the purpose of supporting memory’ and of ‘a second assumption that the real value of the digital is that it offers the potential for a more complete and accurate record of things that have happened’.39 They wish to challenge both these assumptions and do so, in my opinion, very effectively by outlining how, with their findings, they both ‘go beyond the ways in which objects merely provide links to past events or memories’ and also ‘go beyond the realm of the individual’.40

The way in which Kirk and Sellen establish their alternative position is, in part, by explicitly drawing on a different body of work. For, rather than appeal to the sort of psychological studies discussed above, they instead turn to ‘existing anthropological studies’ referencing, for example Mauss’s (who tends to be identified as a sociologist rather than an anthropologist) classic text The Gift, and Douglas and Isherwood, The World of Goods. Towards an Anthropology of Consumption.41 They see this work into ‘material cultures and the processes of exchange economies’ as ‘the precursor for our understanding of the importance of objects and why we might accumulate them’ and they then reference further work (by, for example, Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton) that has ‘sought more explicitly to explore the role of artefacts in the construction of memory […], identity […], and the work of making a home a home’.42 They also later reference Goffman, which suggests that this work (as mentioned above) also falls within this ‘alternative to psychology’ literature, which forms the other main body of work to which reference is made in the selection under consideration. This body of work is sketched out further by Odom, Sellen, Harper and Thereska who expand it to include sociology, speaking of ‘the sociological and anthropological literature on the topic of materiality’.43 In which connection they reference work by individuals such as Daniel Miller and Lucy Suchman.44

Unsurprisingly therefore the work associated with this theoretical position does not deal with retrieval, but instead with topics such as the holistic practice of family, personal or home archiving or the nature of ‘the possession of digital things in the cloud’.45 An idea of how this work is seen by those more in the ‘memory’ camp can be seen by the mention of the Kirk and Sellen article in that by Hangal, Lam and Heer. There, it is used as an example of ‘several studies that take an ethnographic approach to understanding family memories and archiving practices’ and that ‘establish the value of personal and family archives’.46

In considering the selected literature in terms of theory we have therefore established, firstly that, although there is engagement with theory, it is mainly undertaken in more informal terms, and secondly that a number of bodies of work have influence, including those of psychology, sociology and anthropology. What has not been said explicitly, but should perhaps be made clear, is that another body of work that has influence in the selected literature is that body of work of which the selected literature is taken to be a sample, so some of the articles in the selection do reference other articles in the selection, as well as other articles that might be seen to be in the same field, however that might be defined. Then again, to complete our consideration of theory, and importantly given the frame of this discussion, it is also necessary to make explicit that one body of work that, whilst apparent, is not very apparent, as an influence in the selected literature is that which we might call archival theory. In this regard, it is noticeable that the vast majority of references to sources with which archivists might be familiar, is to recent work concerned with digital preservation or the digital sphere. For example, Lindley, Marshall, Banks, Sellen and Regan mention, in the context of their article ‘Rethinking the Web as a Personal Archive’, the initial synthesis of the Digital Lives project.47 Then again, the digital preservation concept of significant forms an important underpinning to the work of Tiffany Chao on ‘Data Repositories: A Home for Microblog Archives?’, and she also references Hans Booms’ seminal article on appraisal and Geoffrey Yeo’s recent article which also touches on significant properties.48 Then again, the article ‘Personal and SOHO Archiving’ by Strodl, Motlik, Stadler and Rauber, which is the article most definitely framed by a digital preservation (as it is understood by archivists) framework, references many works and tools that will be familiar to those working in digital preservation.49



The body of work in terms of practice


Having considered the selection in terms of theory, we turn now to terms of practice, asking the question, what is the practice in which those creating the selected literature are engaging? Putting to one side for now the idea that they are engaged in presenting their work, and often in research (which practice will be considered later), it becomes apparent that the practice on which the most focus is placed is that of design. Practically every single article under consideration ends with an examination of design implications and the intention at almost every turn seems to be to create better tools, services and systems using existing, and developing new, technology. This focus is common across work influenced by all the different bodies of work identified above. For example, Doherty, Gurrin and Smeaton (psychology) wish to use the insights they have generated into event decay in ‘lifelog search and browsing systems’50 and Kirk and Sellen (anthropology/sociology) state that ‘Ultimately this article has [amongst other things] provided suggestions for how we might design new and better archiving technologies’.51

In the context of this design focus, the type of activities undertaken are understandable. For example, those whose work is represented in the selected literature often develop architectures, proof-of-concept implementations and prototypes for tools and systems, such as, for example the MUSE (Memories Using Email) system already mentioned, or Wu, Teng, Chen, Lin, Chu and Hsu’s mProducer, ‘a mobile authoring tool […] that enables everyday users to effectively and efficiently perform archiving and editing at or immediately after the point-of-capture of digital personal experiences’52 (original emphasis), or Strodl, Motlik, Stadler and Rauber’s Hoppla, ‘a home archiving system to provide digital preservation solutions specifically for digital holdings in the small office and home environments’.53 Sometimes those developing such tools and systems also carry out evaluation on them, with varying degrees of formality. Thus, whereas Nakamura uses informal feedback on his ‘calendar based user interface and recommendation system’ received from some of those who have downloaded it54, the user study on the mProducer tool mentioned above is much more structured and controlled55.

Another distinguishable activity in this context is that of working out design requirements or considerations. These criteria are sometimes based purely on reviews of previous work, e.g. we have already seen how the design of some of the systems in the retrieval area is influenced by psychological thinking about how human memory functions. Sometimes, however, they are based on more exploratory and qualitative research activities, such as interviews with, surveys and observations of families and individuals, often in the home environment, and, where this is the case, the findings can be more broadly framed in terms of an increased understanding of the problem domain. For example, Whittaker and Hirschberg surveyed 50 people at the time of an office move ‘about how much data they preserved, and their estimates of how much they had discarded’, ‘collected information about each person’s new office’ and also conducted follow up interviews with some of the participants in order to gain a better understanding of their archiving practices56; and similarly Kaye, Vertesi, Avery, Dafoe, David, Onaga, Rosero and Pinch visited and interviewed academics to try to work out, amongst other things, their motivation for archiving and what they wanted to achieve through it.57

This sort of activity, probably comes closer to the idea of research rather than system design or development. In which context the research being undertaken involves the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data, and a range of methods that are sometimes explicitly described as ethnographic, and sometimes come closer to an experimental model. For example, Stevens, Abowd, Truong and Vollmer speak of their interviews as ‘ethnographic’ and assign ‘Ethnographic studies’ as one of the keywords to their article58, whereas Whittaker and Hirschberg formally state a number of hypotheses, which are held to have been supported, or not, as a result of their work.59 That said, Whittaker and Hirschberg do not use the term ‘experiment’ explicitly, but it is used, for example, by Gurrin, Jones, Lee, Hare, Smeaton and Murphy, who tested their assumption ‘that integrating context, using location, will better support user search and browsing […]’ by conducting ‘an experiment using a desktop photo archive searching system’.60 Once again though, even when the activity being undertaken comes nearer to research than system design or development, the implications of the results of the research are considered, not in the terms of those who have been interviewed or experimented on, but rather in terms of ‘designing tools for processing personal digital data’61 and the ‘development of digital tools that allow for personal archiving’.62 Consequently, if I had to characterise the practice that those represented in the selected literature were involved in, I think I would have to say design, the design and development of systems and tools. It is unclear, whether those concerned would agree with this characterisation.



The body of work in terms of methodology


Moving from terms of practice into those of methodology there is little evidence of either reflection on existing methods or development of new ones, with only a few possible exceptions which will be considered later. In most cases the approach being taken does seem to make sense in terms of what the authors are trying to do by using it, but equally, in most cases what has been done is described and not questioned. One of the exceptions is Marshall and Shipman’s discussion of ‘Mechanical Turk and techniques for using it to recruit and screen study participants and perform studies’.63 This pertains to the practice of research more generally, but the other exceptions are more pertinent to the practice of design and are therefore perhaps more relevant in this current context.

Firstly then, there is the reflection of Kirk, Izadi, Sellen, Taylor, Banks and Hilliges on the debate about the technique of deploying prototype technologies as probes within the home.64 They note that it is sometimes ‘done for the purpose of bringing households into the design process […], but at other times it can be done ‘provocatively’. They enter the debate about these different uses and seek ‘to adopt a middle ground’ by showing ‘how deploying a new technology can indeed be disruptive’, but can also ‘be revealing of the social relations, organizing systems and process of ‘getting things done’ in domestic life’. Their contribution to the debate is perhaps not as extensive as it could have been, but it is one of the few steps, visible in the selected literature, towards what they see in terms of ‘critical reflection on technology design’.65

Secondly, there is an article by Cockton, Kirk, Sellen and Banks on ‘Evolving and Augmenting Worth Mapping for Family Archives’.66 In this case, the first author stands out from the majority of the other authors in the selection because he comes from a School of Design, and the article itself concentrates wholly on the idea of ‘Worth-Centered Development’, which seems to involve adapting and adopting the technique of worth mapping ‘to support an ambitious design research programme’.67 Here then, the attention is very much on the design process and on questions such as ‘How do we settle on design purpose? How do we express design purpose in ways that are not intrinsic to the artefact or interaction? How do we link choice of means to choices of ends?’68 In this context, another body of thought is appealed to, that of axiology or, as it is described in the article ‘the study of the truly good things in life’.69 Worth-centered development is clearly the first author’s area of interest, and a number of articles he has written on the subject are referenced. He expresses the distinction he wants to make in terms of a shift ‘from designing as crafting, to designing as connecting’, but it falls outside the scope of this article to investigate exactly what he might mean by this, as it is not covered in a lot of detail in the article under consideration.70 Rather the bulk of the article deals with the experience of using this technique in the design process, concluding with a series of recommendations to other project teams who might wish to employ it.

In some ways then, the article above starts to return us to theory, or at least to the version of theory that Preben Mortensen would recognise, that is theory as ‘a self-conscious reflection on a particular practice in order to bring to light the presuppositions unconsciously assumed in that practice’.71 In this context the last article that I wish to consider in detail is the one by Harper, Thereska, Lindley, Banks, Gosset, Odom, Smyth and Whitworth mentioned earlier.72 In this article, the perspective being taken is slightly less design-focused, rather its frame is the need for a common language or ‘grammar of action’ between engineers (rather than designers) and users. In a similar way to the article discussed in the previous paragraph, here too the body of thought to which appeal is made, starts to become more philosophical. In particular they reference philosophers such as Wittgenstein in their discussion of ‘the question of how words are to be understood’.73 Then again, they also appeal to the same concept, that of the ‘boundary object’ (as developed by Star) that has recently been employed in the archival literature by Geoffrey Yeo.74 Yeo’s exploration is of concepts of record, whereas Harper, Thereska, Lindley, Banks, Gosset, Odom, Smyth and Whitworth ask ‘What is a file’, but both are ultimately interested in questions of definition. That there is a direct point of connection makes these articles ripe for comparison, but such a comparison will not be carried out here as those are not the terms we are using for our current engagement, as discussed previously.



Conclusion


This article has reported on existing research and literature which deals with personal recordkeeping and archiving behaviour, but which comes from a place, the ACM Digital Library, with which the readers of this journal are likely to be less familiar. This research and literature has been presented and characterised, not as something ‘other’, but less divisively, as a body of work in terms of theory, practice and methodology. This perspective was deliberately taken as an experiment in escaping an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mindset, which sees this work and its subject as coming from outside the archival discipline. The view offered by this approach is quite an open one, but it does suggest and bring to our attention;

  • a number of articles that report work in this area

  • a number of relevant bodies of thought, including psychology (especially thought on human memory) and anthropology and sociology (particularly with regards to materiality and the valuing of objects)

  • the use of a design perspective, with a focus on developing, experimenting with and evaluating new tools and services, and with reflecting on our own role in framing and shaping design purpose and requirements.

As such it starts to map the territory, but does not dictate any particular pathway. It is not (and has never claimed to be) a work of translation, but it is a suggestion that the translation we should be concentrating on is not that between those within, and those without, our own discipline, but rather between what we all know and what we can achieve together with that knowledge.

1 Sue McKemmish and Michael Piggott, ‘Toward the Archival Multiverse: Challenging the Binary Opposition of the Personal and Corporate Archive in Modern Archival Theory and Practice’, Archivaria, vol. 76, 2013, pp. 111-44.

2 Amber Cushing, ‘The preservation of personal digital information from the perspective of the archives and records management tradition’, Library Hi Tech, vol. 28, no. 2, 2010, pp. 301-12.

3 Christopher A. Lee (ed.), I, Digital: Personal Collections in the Digital Age, Society of American Archivists, Chicago, 2011.

4 Steve Bailey and Jay Vidyarthi, ‘Human-computer interaction: the missing piece of the records management puzzle?’, Records Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 3, 2010, pp. 279-90.

5 Reza Rawassizadeh, Anmin Anjomshoaa and Martin Tomitsch, ‘A Framework for Long-Term Archiving of Pervasive Device Information’, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia, 2011, pp.244-47, p. 245.

6 ibid., p. 245, p.247.

7 Xuan Zhao, Niloufar Salehi, Sasha Naranjit, Sara Alwaalan, Stephen Voida, and Dan Cosley, ‘The Many Faces of Facebook: Experiencing Social Media as Performance, Exhibition, and Personal Archive’, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2013, pp. 1-10.

8 ibid., p. 3.

9 ibid., p. 1.

10 Erving Goffman, The presentation of self in everyday life, Anchor, New York, 1959. Bernie Hogan, ‘The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 30, no.6, 2010, pp. 377-86.

11 Zhao, Salehi, Naranjit et al., p. 9.

12 ibid., p. 2, p. 9.

13 Chon-In Wu, Chao-Ming James Teng, Yi-Chao Chen, Tung-Yun Lin, Hao-Hua Chu and Jane Yung-Jen Hsu, ‘Point-of-capture archiving and editing of personal experiences from a mobile device’, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 11, no. 4, April 2007, pp. 235-49, p. 236.

14 Cathy Marshall, ‘From Writing and Analysis to the Repository: Taking the Scholars’ Perspective on Scholarly Archiving’, Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 2008, pp. 251-60, p. 251.

15 Carlos Maltzahn, Arnav Jhala, Michael Mateas, and Jim Whitehead, ‘Gamification of Private Digital Data Archive Management’, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Gamification for Information Retrieval, 2014, pp. 33-7, p. 36.

16 ibid., p. 36.

17 Brett Adams, Stewart Greenhill, and Svetha Venkatesh, ‘Browsing Personal Media Archives with Spatial Context Using Panoramas’, Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2006, pp. 711-4, p. 711.

18 Suheendra Hangal, Monica Lam, and Jeffrey Heer, ‘MUSE: Reviving Memories Using Email Archives’, Proceedings of the 24th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2011, pp. 75-84, p. 77.

19 ibid., p. 78.

20 Endel Tulving, Elements of Episodic Memory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983. Oxford University Press, ‘Elements of Episodic Memory’ available at < http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198521259.do>, accessed 4 December 2014.

21 Hangal, Lam and Heer, p. 79. Daniel Reisberg and Paula Hertel (eds), Memory and Emotion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2004.

22 Liadh Kelly, Yi Chen, Marguerite Fuller, and Gareth J. F. Jones, ‘A Study of Remembered Context for Information Access from Personal Digital Archives’, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Interaction in Context, 2008, pp. 44-50, p. 45.

23 Aiden Doherty, Cathal Gurrin, and Alan Smeaton, ‘An Investigation into Event Decay from Large Personal Media Archives’, Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Events in Multimedia, 2009, pp. 49-56, p. 50.

24 ibid., p. 49.

25 Hangal, Lam and Heer, p. 75.

26 Kelly, Chen, Fuller and Jones, p. 44.

27 Robert Greene, Human Memory: Paradigms and Paradoxes, L Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1992. Referenced in Kelly, Chen, Fuller and Jones.

28 Jess Purdy, Michael Markham, Bennett Schwartz and William Gordon (eds), Learning and Memory (2nd edition), Thomson Learning, Belmont, 2001. Referenced in Doherty, Gurrin and Smeaton.

29 Kelly, Chen, Fuller and Jones, p. 45.

30 Doherty, Gurrin and Smeaton, p. 51.

31 Kelly, Chen, Fuller and Jones, p. 44.

32 ibid., p. 44.

33 Doherty, Gurrin and Smeaton, p. 51.

34 ibid., p. 51.

35 Abigail Sellen and Steve Whittaker, ‘Beyond Total Capture: A Constructive Critique of Lifelogging’, Communications of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 5, May 2010, pp. 70-7, p. 70.

36 Richard Harper, Siân Lindley, Eno Thereska, Richard Banks, Philip Gosset, Gavin Smyth, William Odom, and Eryn Whitworth, ‘What Is a File?’, Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2013, pp. 1125-36, p. 1125.

37David Kirk and Abigail Sellen, ‘On Human Remains: Values and Practice in the Home Archiving of Cherished Objects’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 17, no. 3, July 2010, pp. 1–43.

38 ibid., p. 1.

39 ibid., p. 2.

40 ibid., p. 15-6.

41 ibid., p. 5. Marcel Mauss, The Gift, Cohen and West, London, 1954. Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood, The World of Goods. Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, Allen Lane, London, 1979.

42 Kirk and Sellen, p.5. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton, The meaning of things: domestic symbols and the self, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.

43 William Odom, Abigail Sellen, Richard Harper, and Eno Thereska, ‘Lost in Translation: Understanding the Possession of Digital Things in the Cloud’, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Science, 2012, pp. 781-90, p. 781.

44 Daniel Miller, The comfort of things, Polity, Cambridge, 2008. Lucy Suchman, Plans and situated actions: the problems of human-machine communication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.

45 Odom, Sellen, Harper and Thereska, p. 781.

46 Hangal, Lam and Heer, p. 77.

47 Jeremy Leighton John, Ian Rowlands, Peter Williams and Katrina Dean, Digital Lives: personal digital archives for the 21st century: an initial synthesis, British Library, London, 2010. Referenced in Sian Lindley, Cathy Marshall, Richard Banks, Abigail Sellen and Tim Regan, ‘Rethinking the web as a personal archive’, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, 2013, pp. 749-60.

48 Hans Booms, ‘Society and the formation of a documentary heritage: issues in the appraisal of archival sources’, Archivaria, vol. 24, 1987, pp. 69-107. Geoffrey Yeo, ‘Nothing is the same as something else: significant properties and notions of identity and originality’, Archival Science, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 85-116. References in Tiffany Chao, ‘Data Repositories: A Home for Microblog Archives?’ Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, 2011, pp. 655–56.

49 Stephan Strodl, Florian Motlik, Kevin Stadler, and Andreas Rauber, ‘Personal & Soho Archiving’, Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital Libraries, 2008, pp. 115-23.

50 Doherty, Gurrin and Smeaton, p. 55.

51 Kirk and Sellen, p. 41.

52 Wu, Teng, Chen, Lin et al., p. 235.

53 Strodl, Motlik, Stadler and Rauber, p. 115.

54 Satoshi Nakamura, ‘Calendar for Everything: Browse and Search for Personal Archive on Calendar’, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Ubiquitous information management and communication, 2008, pp. 191-5, p. 191.

55 Wu, Teng, Chen, Lin et al.

56 Steve Whittaker and Julia Hirschberg, ‘The Character, Value, and Management of Personal Paper Archives’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 8, no. 2, June 2001, pp. 150–70, p. 152.

57 Joseph Kaye, Janet Vertesi, Shari Avery, Allan Dafoe, Shay David, Lisa Onaga, Ivan Rosero, and Trevor Pinch, ‘To Have and to Hold: Exploring the Personal Archive’, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2006, pp. 275-84.

58 Molly Stevens, Gregory Abowd, Khai Truong and Florian Vollmer, ‘Getting into the Living Memory Box: Family Archives & Holistic Design’, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 7, no. 3–4, July 2003, pp. 210–16.

59 Whittaker and Hirschberg.

60 Cathal Gurrin, Gareth Jones, Hyowon Lee, Neil O’Hare, Alan Smeaton, and Noel Murphy, ‘Mobile Access to Personal Digital Photograph Archives’ Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices & services, 2005, pp. 311-14, p. 312.

61 Whittaker and Hirschberg, p. 152.

62 Kaye, Vertesi, Avery et al., p. 275.

63 Cathy Marshall and Frank Shipman, ‘Social media ownership: using Twitter as a window onto current attitudes and beliefs’, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011, pp. 1081-90, p. 1082.

64 David Kirk, Shahram Izadi, Abigail Sellen, Stuart Taylor, Richard Banks, and Otmar Hilliges, ‘Opening up the Family Archive’, Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 201, pp. 261-70.

65 ibid., p. 261.

66 Gilbert Cockton, Dave Kirk, Abigail Sellen, and Richard Banks, ‘Evolving and Augmenting Worth Mapping for Family Archives’, Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology, 2009, pp. 329–38.

67 ibid., p. 330.

68 ibid., p. 329.

69 ibid., p. 329.

70 ibid., p. 329.

71 Preben Mortensen, ‘The Place of Theory in Archival Practice’, Archivaria, vol. 47, 1999, pp. 1-26, p. 17.

72 Harper, Thereska, Lindley, Banks, Gosset, Odom, Smyth and Whitworth.

73 ibid., p. 1127.

74 Geoffrey Yeo, ‘Concepts of Record (2): Prototypes and Boundary Objects’, The American Archivist, vol. 71, no. 1, Spring/Summer 2008, pp. 118-43.


Download 67.9 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page