Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Archival law from the trenches : the impact of archival legislation on records management in commonwealth… Goh, Elaine Mei Yee 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2016_may_goh_elaine.pdf [ 1.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0300019.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0300019-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0300019-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0300019-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0300019-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0300019-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0300019-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0300019-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0300019.ris

Full Text

ARCHIVAL LAW FROM THE TRENCHES: THE IMPACT OF ARCHIVAL LEGISLATION ON RECORDS MANAGEMENT IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES by  Elaine Mei Yee Goh  MAS, The University of British Columbia, 2002  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Library, Archival and Information Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  April 2016  © Elaine Mei Yee Goh, 2016 ii  Abstract Archival legislation in several Commonwealth countries provides the national archives with the statutory mandate to manage and preserve government records. The archival literature recognizes that archival legislation lags behind advances in technology and that it is often not robust enough to support the management and preservation of records. However, there is a lack of empirical research on how archival legislation is operationalized within specific socio-political, cultural, and juridical contexts, and on the perceptions of archivists and records managers about such operationalization.  This dissertation addresses how the operationalization of archival legislation in the UK, Canada, and Singapore influences its effectiveness in the implementation of records management programs. The study takes into account the common law system based on an intergovernmental organization, the Commonwealth, as well as the different socio-political and cultural contexts of the countries. To explore the shared and varying views that archivists and records managers have on archival legislation, the study largely employs interpretivist perspectives and hermeneutic principles to examine interviews conducted with archivists and records managers, selected legislation, normative sources, and other documentary sources related to the enactment of archival legislation. The findings of this research suggest that archival legislation operates in the context of a patchwork constituted by other records-related legislation and normative sources, and that there are complexities involved in making amendments to such legislation. There are also organizational culture issues that stem from the institutional relationships between the national archives and government departments and the individual-level relationships of archivists and records managers. These issues can enable and constrain the delivery of a records management iii  program. Additionally, the joint responsibilities in recordkeeping and record preservation held by the national archives and other departments that have an interest in information management result in a collaboration constraint and have contributed to a perceived lack of leadership on the part of the national archives in records management. The study concludes with recommendations for the decoupling of archival national institutions from national archival legislation, and for a comprehensive regulation of all aspects of records creation, maintenance, and preservation in the public sector.   iv  Preface  This dissertation is based on original, independent research carried out by the author, Elaine Mei Yee Goh. Some of the literature review discussed in Chapter 2 was presented by the author at the Memory of the world in digital age: Digitization and preservation – An international conference on permanent access to digital documentary heritage in Vancouver, Canada, September 2012. In addition, parts of Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 were drawn from two encyclopedia entries written by the author on archival legislation and organizational culture from the Encyclopedia of Archival Science published in 2015. The interviews discussed in Chapter 4 and 5 were covered by The University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board Certificate H12-03267.  v  Table of Contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iiPreface ........................................................................................................................................... ivTable of Contents ...........................................................................................................................vList of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiiList of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xiiiAcknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xviDedication ................................................................................................................................. xviiiChapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................11.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 11.2 Research Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 11.3 Research Statement ............................................................................................................ 71.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 81.5 Research Contexts .............................................................................................................. 91.5.1 UK ............................................................................................................................... 91.5.2 Canada....................................................................................................................... 131.5.3 Singapore .................................................................................................................. 141.6 Summary of Methodology and Methods ......................................................................... 151.7 Citation Style ................................................................................................................... 161.8 Overview of the Dissertation ........................................................................................... 17Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Perspectives ...................................................182.1 Key Concepts and Definitions ......................................................................................... 18vi  2.2 Archival Science Literature ............................................................................................. 192.2.1 Background on Modern Archival Legislation .......................................................... 202.2.2 The Historical Development of Archival Legislation in the UK, Canada, and Singapore .............................................................................................................................. 232.2.2.1 UK ...................................................................................................................... 232.2.2.2 Canada................................................................................................................ 362.2.2.3 Singapore ........................................................................................................... 452.2.3 Overview of International and Comparative Studies on Archival Legislation ......... 512.2.4 Overview of Case Studies on Archival and Records-related Legislation ................. 562.2.5 Research Studies Relating to Law and Recordkeeping ............................................ 612.2.6 Archival Concepts in Relation to Archival and Records-related Legislation ........... 632.3 Law and Technological Development ............................................................................. 702.4 Statutory Interpretation .................................................................................................... 712.5 Organizational Culture ..................................................................................................... 722.6 Theoretical Perspective .................................................................................................... 762.6.1 Ricoeur’s Theory of Interpretation ........................................................................... 762.6.1.1 Concept of a Text ............................................................................................... 772.6.1.2 Dialectic of Explanation and Understanding ..................................................... 812.6.1.3 Application to Study and Archival Science ....................................................... 842.6.2 Gidden’s Structuration Theory ................................................................................. 862.6.2.1 Concept of Structure .......................................................................................... 872.6.2.2 Concept of Agency and Agent ........................................................................... 892.6.2.3 Concept of Duality of Structure ......................................................................... 92vii  2.6.2.4 Application to Study and Archival Science ....................................................... 942.7 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 95Chapter 3: Methodological Framework and Methods .............................................................963.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 963.2 An Interpretivist Perspective............................................................................................ 963.3 Hermeneutic Principles .................................................................................................... 973.4 Methods Employed ........................................................................................................ 1023.4.1 Selection of Cases ................................................................................................... 1023.4.2 Selection of Research Sites and Research Participants ........................................... 1043.4.3 Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 1053.4.4 Implementation of Study......................................................................................... 1063.5 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 1073.5.1 “Meaning Making” during the Interview Process .................................................. 1103.5.2 Interpretation of Data during the Transcription Process ......................................... 1123.5.3 Distanciation from the Data Sources ...................................................................... 1123.5.4 Stage One: Explanation........................................................................................... 1133.5.5 Stage Two: Structural Analysis of Text .................................................................. 1143.5.6 Stage Three: In-depth Understanding ..................................................................... 1163.6 Situating This Author in the Research ........................................................................... 1183.7 Establishing Trustworthiness in Research Study ........................................................... 1223.7.1 Addressing Issues Relating to Dependability ......................................................... 1223.7.2 Addressing Issues Relating to Confirmability ........................................................ 1233.7.3 Addressing Issues Relating to Transferability ........................................................ 123viii  3.7.4 Establishing Credibility in the Study ...................................................................... 1243.7.4.1 Triangulation .................................................................................................... 1243.7.4.2 Peer Debriefing ................................................................................................ 1253.7.4.3 Exercising Reflexivity ..................................................................................... 1253.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 126Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results .....................................................................................1274.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1274.2 Themes ........................................................................................................................... 1274.2.1 Records Management and Preservation are Expressed in a Patchwork of              Normative Sources .............................................................................................................. 1294.2.1.1 Normative Sources are Not Mutually Exclusive and There is a Hierarchical Relationship Among Them ............................................................................................. 1314.2.1.1.1 UK ............................................................................................................. 1314.2.1.1.2 Canada....................................................................................................... 1374.2.1.1.3 Singapore .................................................................................................. 1414.2.1.2 The Language of Archival Legislation Lacks Clarity and Consistency with Other Normative Sources ................................................................................................ 1454.2.1.2.1 UK ............................................................................................................. 1464.2.1.2.2 Canada....................................................................................................... 1514.2.1.2.3 Singapore .................................................................................................. 1624.2.2 There is No Consensus about the Comprehensiveness of the Archival Legislation in Its Definition of a Record [UK and Canada] ...................................................................... 1664.2.2.1 UK .................................................................................................................... 166ix  4.2.2.2 Canada.............................................................................................................. 1674.2.3 There is No Consensus about the Comprehensiveness of Archival Legislation in Its Definition of a Public Office [Singapore] ........................................................................... 1684.2.3.1 Singapore ......................................................................................................... 1694.2.4 Archival Legislation is Not Expressly Concerned with Authenticity of Records .. 1724.2.4.1 UK .................................................................................................................... 1724.2.4.2 Canada.............................................................................................................. 1744.2.4.3 Singapore ......................................................................................................... 1784.2.5 The Complexities of Tabling a Bill in Parliament Impede Changes to Archival Legislation........................................................................................................................... 1814.2.5.1 UK .................................................................................................................... 1814.2.5.2 Canada.............................................................................................................. 1824.2.5.3 Singapore ......................................................................................................... 1844.2.6 The Scope of the Mandate Given by the Archival Legislation Limits the National Archives’ Role in Records Management ............................................................................ 1864.2.6.1 UK .................................................................................................................... 1864.2.6.2 Canada.............................................................................................................. 1884.2.6.3 Singapore ......................................................................................................... 1904.2.7 The Institutional Relationships between the National Archives and the Government Departments Can Limit the Effective Delivery of a Records Management Program ........ 1924.2.7.1 UK .................................................................................................................... 1934.2.7.2 Canada.............................................................................................................. 1984.2.7.3 Singapore ......................................................................................................... 200x  4.2.8 Interpersonal/Professional Relationships Between Archivists and Records Managers are the Foundation of an Effective Records Management Program ................................... 2014.2.8.1 UK .................................................................................................................... 2024.2.8.2 Canada.............................................................................................................. 2034.2.8.3 Singapore ......................................................................................................... 2064.2.9 There is a Perceived Lack of Leadership of the National Archives in Records Management ........................................................................................................................ 2074.2.9.1 UK .................................................................................................................... 2084.2.9.2 Canada.............................................................................................................. 2104.2.9.3 Singapore ......................................................................................................... 2124.2.10 The Status of the National Archives’ Reporting Structure Affects its Scope of Influence in the Government .............................................................................................. 2144.2.10.1 UK .................................................................................................................. 2154.2.10.2 Canada............................................................................................................ 2204.2.10.3 Singapore ....................................................................................................... 2224.2.10.4 The Reporting Structure of the National Archives is Influenced by Its Dual Role in Preserving Public and Private Records [Canada and Singapore] ....................... 2244.2.10.5 The Lack of Sanctions for the Destruction of Public Records is Symptomatic of the Perceived Low Status of the National Archives within the Government Hierarchy and the Low Status Accorded to Records Management ................................................. 2254.2.10.6 The Role and Ability of the National Archives to Influence Records Management is Dependent on the Political and Social Context ..................................... 2284.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 231xi  Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings and Conclusion ................................................................2335.1 Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................... 2335.1.1 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................... 2335.1.2 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................... 2415.1.3 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................... 2555.2 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 2605.3 Limitations of the Study................................................................................................. 2615.4 Implications of the Study ............................................................................................... 2625.4.1 Implications for Theory .......................................................................................... 2625.4.2 Implications for Practice ......................................................................................... 2645.4.3 Implications for Future Research ............................................................................ 2665.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 267References ...................................................................................................................................269Legislation, Normative Sources, and Case Law Cited............................................................288Government Documents and Websites Cited ..........................................................................291Archival Records Cited .............................................................................................................298Appendices ..................................................................................................................................299Appendix A Invitation to participate in study......................................................................... 299Appendix B Interview guide for archivists ............................................................................. 300Appendix C Interview guide for records managers ................................................................ 302 xii  List of Figures  Figure 1  Data analysis using Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation ............................................... 109 xiii  List of Abbreviations ACARM  Association of Commonwealth Archivists and Records Managers AIA   Access to Information Act, Canada APA   American Psychology Association ATI   Access to Information, Canada CIO   Chief Information Officer CRGA   Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, UK CSIS   Canadian Security Intelligence Service DCMS   Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK DPA   Data Protection Act, UK DRK   Directive on Recordkeeping, Canada DRO   Department Records Officer EDRMS  Electronic document and records management system EIR   The Environmental Information Regulations, UK e-registry  Electronic registry FAA   Financial Administration Act, Canada FCO   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK FOI   Freedom of Information FOIA   Freedom of Information Act, UK GDS   Government Digital Service, UK GTO   Government Technology Organization, Singapore HIP   Hillsborough Independent Panel, UK HMC   Historical Manuscripts Commission, UK HMSO   Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, UK IAP   Independent Assessment Process, Canada ICA   International Council on Archives ICO   Information Commissioner’s Office, UK IDA   Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore IM   Instruction Manual, Singapore  xiv  IM4L   Instruction Manual 4 Office Administration - Registry and    Records Management, Singapore IM8   Instruction Manual 8 Policy on Data Management, Singapore InterPARES International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems IRBV   Information resources of business value IREV   Information resources of enduring value IRSSA   Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, Canada ISO   International Organization for Standardization LACA   Library and Archives Canada Act LAC   Library and Archives Canada LGRA   Local Government (Records) Act, UK MAF   Management Accountability Framework MLA Council  Museum, Libraries and Archives Council, UK MOJ   Ministry of Justice, UK MOU   Memorandum of Understanding NACA   National Archives of Canada Act NAC   National Archives of Canada NARC   National Archives and Records Centre, Singapore NARCA  National Archives and Records Centre Act, Singapore NAS   National Archives of Singapore NATR   National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, Canada NHBA   National Heritage Board Act, Singapore NHB   National Heritage Board, Singapore NLBA   National Library Board Act, Singapore NLB   National Library Board, Singapore OPSI   Office of Public Sector Information, UK OSA   Official Secrets Act, Singapore PAA   Public Archives Act, Canada PDF   Portable Document Format xv  PRA   Public Records Act, UK PRO   Public Record Office, UK PROA   Public Record Office Act, UK RCMP   Royal Canadian Mounted Police SIRO   Senior Information Risk Owner TB   Treasury Board, Canada TBS   Treasury Board Secretariat, Canada TDR   Trusted digital repository TNA   The National Archives, UK UNESCO  United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization  xvi  Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and encouragement from a number of individuals who contributed their time, feedback, and emotional support. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Luciana Duranti, for her constructive and astute feedback, and her unfailing support and encouragement throughout my doctoral studies. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee: Dr. Giovanni Michetti for our conversations on archival theory and for his valuable and thoughtful comments; Dr. Samson Nashon for our conversations on research methodology and for his refreshing insights on hermeneutics; Professor Anthony Sheppard for his insights on the legal perspective and for his careful review; and Dr. Ronald Cenfetelli for our conversations about organizational theory.  My sincere thanks and gratitude to the management and staff of The National Archives in UK, Library and Archives Canada, and the National Archives of Singapore, as well as to the research participants in my study, whose dedication to the archives and records management profession have inspired me in my academic endeavors.  My doctoral studies have been partially supported over the years by the Faculty of Arts Graduate Award, Anne and George Piternick Student Research Award, and PhD Student Conference Support.  My sincere appreciation to all my professors at the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies who have influenced me in my academic and professional life and to the administrative staff at the School who provided me with the administrative support during my studies.  Thanks go also to my friends and doctoral colleagues for patiently listening to my ideas, for our spirited discussions, and for their practical wisdom and constant encouragement xvii  throughout the writing process: Adam Jansen, Donald Force, Elizabeth Shaffer, Corinne Rogers, Jessica Bushey, Evelyn Markwei, Sherry Xie, Weimei Pan, Thomas Dang, Yau Min Chong, Seow Ling Yeo, Teng Teng Tan, Stefan Honisch, Christopher Cook, Nicole Ong, Owen Lo, Eng Sengsavang, Jennifer Borland, Emily Chicorli, John Lett, and Kyle Hamer. Special thanks to my aunt, Stella Clare Wee for helping me make copies of materials from the library, and to my long-time friends: Jennifer Teng, Stephen Quick, and Justine Taylor for hosting me in London while I was collecting my data. Last but not least, I am grateful for the love and support of my family who made it all possible. xviii  Dedication  To my maternal grandmother and dad, Who are no longer present in this world, but whose presence is always constant To my mom, One of the first generation of working women in Singapore, for providing me with the best opportunities in education   1Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Overview This introductory chapter outlines the research problem, statement of purpose, and central research questions. It also describes the research context in the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, and Singapore. In addition, the chapter provides a brief outline of the methodology employed in this research. The chapter concludes with an overview of the dissertation.   1.2 Research Problem Statement Archival legislation in a number of Commonwealth countries such as the UK, Canada, and Singapore provides national archives with the statutory mandate to manage and preserve government records.1 However, as some archival scholars have observed, archival legislation in several Commonwealth countries lacks sufficient rigor to enable national archives to manage and preserve records throughout their entire lifecycle (Gibson, 1999; Lemieux, 1992; Roper, 1999). Archival scholars have described archival legislation as “permissive” in nature (Berry, 1996, p. 341; Knightbridge, 1983, p. 216; Simpson, 2002, p. 10) because it does not impose “statutory obligations” (Knightbridge, 1983, p. 216) on the roles and responsibilities of creating agencies, nor does it provide a system to ensure that agencies comply with recordkeeping requirements. Archival legislation also does not provide “statutory force” (Simpson, 2002, p. 10) as national archives are unable to impose sanctions on departments that infringe on specific provisions in the legislation, such as the unauthorized destruction of public records (Knightbridge, 1983). Another criticism of archival legislation is that it lags behind advances in technology and therefore it is not sufficiently robust to enable the management and preservation of digital records, especially                                                  1 This author would like to acknowledge that the UK is a unitary state that comprises four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, this dissertation will use the term “country” in a general manner, including when referring to the UK.  2with regard to issues relating to the authenticity of records (Simpson, 2002; Gränström, 2002; Roper, 1999). A 2003 paper examining a proposed national records and archives legislation by The National Archives (TNA) of the UK highlights some of the limitations of archival legislation. The paper argues that the Public Records Act (PRA) of 1958 was conceived in an analogue environment where “records were physical objects, needing physical processes and care to manage and preserve them.”2 The existing provisions in the PRA are therefore insufficient to ensure the reliability and authenticity of records in a digital environment. The paper recommends a “strengthened legislative framework” that would replace the PRA.3 The paper received over 250 responses from various stakeholders, including central government, local government, professional groups, and private individuals who provided their comments on specific questions relating to the records and archives legislation in the UK.4 Approximately 76% of the respondents felt that there should be a new legislative framework to “establish a duty to keep and manage records that can serve as evidence of policies, procedures, actions and decisions.”5  Since the publication of this paper by TNA in 2003 and the subsequent report on responses to the paper in 2004, the UK has not changed the legislative provisions of the PRA. Instead, the PRA has been “substantially amended” by other statutes and statutory instruments (Tyacke, 2006, p. 46). One of the purposes of writing this dissertation was to complement the TNA paper and explore through empirical research how archivists working at the TNA and                                                  2 UK, The National Archives, Proposed National Records and Archives Legislation – Proposals to Change the Current Legislative Provision for Records Management and Archives (Consultation Paper No 01/03) (Crown copyright, 2003) at para 2.25. 3 Ibid, p. 6. 4 UK, The National Archives, Report on Responses to the National Archives’ Consultation Paper CP03/01–Proposed National Records and Archives –Proposals to Change the Current Legislative Provision for Records Management and Archives (Crown copyright, 2004). 5 Ibid, p. 21.  3records managers from the various departments in the central government interact with each other with regard to their responsibilities as outlined in the archival legislation. The dissertation also is intended to provide insight into how those archivists and records managers fulfill the statutory obligations specified in the PRA in relation to other related pieces of legislation and codes of practice. There are potential areas of tension when archival legislation interacts with other records-related legislation, as multiple pieces of legislation are involved in governing management and preservation of records as well as issues related to access. For example, questions arise as to which legislation overrides another on the specific issue of access to information requests (Cauchi, 2004; Schäfer, 2003). The Bronskill v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) 6case is an example where the Canadian Federal Court took into consideration two related pieces of legislation, the Access to Information Act (AIA), and the Library and Archives Canada Act (LACA). The case centered on an access to information request made by Jim Bronskill, a journalist, to Library and Archives Canada (LAC). He sought records relating to Tommy Douglas, a former Canadian politician. Bronskill was specifically interested in the records created by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Security Intelligence Division, which subsequently became the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). LAC had to respond to the Access to Information (ATI) request since some of the records sought by Bronskill were in LAC’s custody. LAC was also required to consult with CSIS in reviewing the nature of the request and in assessing whether the records are exempted from release, as specified by the AIA and Treasury Board Policy.                                                   6 Bronskill v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2011 FC 983 [2011] FCJ 1199 (QL), (available on Lexis) [Bronskill].  4There were two issues in this case. Firstly, there was the ATI request by Bronskill for a “copy of the [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] RCMP Security Service Files(s) on Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas.”7 LAC interpreted the ATI request “literally” as a request for a single file, and claimed that the request by Bronskill “was not a request for access to all records related to Mr. Douglas in the possession or control of LAC.”8 Secondly, there were concerns about several pages that were missing from a report provided to Bronskill. The Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator for CSIS claimed that she was aware of the missing pages when she initially handled the ATI request. However, as the issue of the missing pages was not raised by Bronskill, the coordinator did not highlight it in her sworn affidavit. Subsequently, efforts were made by LAC to identify other missing pages. The court found LAC’s narrow interpretation of the ATI request and the incident of not mentioning the issue of missing pages constituted possible “breaches of the duty of utmost good faith.”9 Such a narrow interpretation of the ATI request was a matter of concern to the court, because LAC is the “custodian of Canada’s history and documentary heritage.”10 The court also considered LAC’s argument that “right of access is not to be confused with a right to the preservation of records” to be “troubling.”11 The court was disturbed to learn that the sworn affidavit made by one of LAC staff stated that “LAC neither verifies the completeness of the record, the content of the record nor does it do a page count of the record.”12    One of the issues raised in this legal case was the mandate and role of LAC stipulated by the archival legislation. The court determined that LAC has a “dynamic mandate and                                                  7 Ibid at para 29. 8 Ibid at para 89. 9 Ibid at para 98. 10 Ibid at para 90. 11 Ibid at para 93. 12 Ibid at para 96.  5purpose” and that the “intrinsic value of documentary archives and access thereof, must be considered by any decision-maker when considering Access to Information requests as these fully complemented the objectives and spirit of the Act itself.”13 In fact, the court stressed that “Parliament considers access to information in Canada and document retention as essential components of citizens’ right to government information.”14 The court also highlighted that “[w]hether or not the records are in LAC’s possession or not is beside the point, all government institutions answer to the Librarian and Archivist and those with his delegated authority in terms of document retention.”15  Despite the significance accorded by the court to LACA, there are challenges for archival institutions to operationalize and meet their statutory obligations. LAC was the respondent for the ATI request because the records were transferred to it for preservation. LAC was also expected to consult with the department which created and maintained the records and to assess whether these records could be released for access. Consequently, LAC and its reporting Ministry, the Ministry of Canadian Heritage, had to bear the risk of legal action because the records were kept in the archives’ custody. Bronskill raises questions about the organizational dynamics between government departments and the national archives in terms of fulfilling their statutory obligations enshrined in the LACA. Such organizational dynamics and interaction between the departments and LAC are explored in this dissertation by examining the perceptions of records managers and archivists. Unlike Canada and the UK, Singapore does not have access to information or freedom of information legislation. The archival legislation of Singapore has been criticized for being too                                                  13 Ibid at para 25. 14 Ibid at para 17. 15 Ibid at para 21.  6restrictive, resulting in a limiting access policy with regard to public archives. Dobbs (2010) claims that the archival legislation in Singapore has given creating agencies “control of access” to records even when they were more than 25 years old and had been transferred to archival custody (p. 75). Similarly, Huang (2010) asserts that the National Archives of Singapore (NAS) “overly deferred to the authority of almost all the creating or depositing agencies, while seemingly reluctant to commit enough of its own time and manpower to meet the international benchmark” (p. 35). Huang (2010) argues that the archival legislation has “granted the originating agency almost total discretionary power to impose any conditions or restrictions on public access” (p. 35). Huang (2010) urges the NAS to “seriously reflect” and review its archival legislation in order to fulfill its mandate (p. 34). More recently, Member of Parliament Loh has argued that researchers need to go through an arduous process of obtaining approval from the creating agencies in order to access records.16 Loh proposes a “structured de-classification system” for records transferred to archival custody and which are more than 25 years old.17 While archival legislation has a role in governing the roles and responsibilities of creating agencies and the archival institution which is the designated preserver for their records, the law is not an independent force governing recordkeeping responsibilities and recordkeeping culture. Archivists and records managers make sense of and internalize the meaning of archival legislation in the context of their business activities and are “not merely the inert recipients of law’s external pressures” (Sarat & Kearns, 1995, p. 29). Moreover, since legislation is issued within a larger socio-political and cultural context, there is a need to understand how stakeholders interact with the law, to draw out their perceptions of how the law is operationalized within the context of their country, and to uncover the gaps between the law and recordkeeping                                                  16 Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 93 (10 March 2015) (Mr Low Thia Khiang). 17 Ibid.  7activities in the government. Archival legislation needs to be examined in light of the views and opinions of archivists working in the national archives and records managers from the various government departments. These professionals are tasked with the responsibility for the management and preservation of records and they are also involved in declassifying and providing access to archives.   1.3 Research Statement The purpose of this research is to explore matters that support or hinder the effectiveness of archival legislation in implementing a records management program in Commonwealth countries. The research takes into account a shared juridical system based on common law and on an intergovernmental organization, the Commonwealth, as well as the different socio-political and cultural contexts of the three countries that constitute the study's focal points. The UK, Canada, and Singapore are identified as case study sites. The research participants in the study are archivists from the national archives and records managers working in various government departments of each country. The study aims to: a) Examine the ways in which archival legislation address the management of records, b) Identify gaps in archival legislation about the recordkeeping activities of each government, and c) Analyse the perspectives and interpretations of archivists from the national archives and records managers from government agencies on how archival legislation shapes the implementation of a records management program.     81.4 Research Questions This study is guided by an overarching research question:  In what ways does the operationalization of the existing archival legislation in the UK, Canada, and Singapore influence its effectiveness in implementing a records management program?  This research question encompasses three primary research questions: Research Question 1: To what extent and how effectively does the existing archival legislation in the UK, Canada, and Singapore, address issues related to the management of government records?  Research Question 2: How do archivists and records managers in the UK, Canada, and Singapore perceive the existing archival legislation, and how does this perception affect the way they interpret and apply the legislation in the management and preservation of records? a) What are the perceptions of archivists and records managers in the UK, Canada, and Singapore on the adequacy of the archival legislation in providing effective controls for the management of records? b) How do archivists and records managers in the UK, Canada, and Singapore deal with the perceived weaknesses/strengths of archival legislation in their respective countries? c) How do the perceived roles of the national archives in the UK, Canada, and Singapore affect the ability of each country’s national archives to implement a records management program in their respective governments?   d) How does the reporting structure of the national archives in the UK, Canada, and Singapore, and attitudes towards this structure, affect the ability of each country’s national archives to implement a records management program in their respective governments?    9Research Question 3: What are the similarities and differences among the UK, Canada, and Singapore with regard to factors that support and/or hinder the implementation of a records management program in the government? What are the reasons behind such similarities and differences? 1.5 Research Contexts This study starts from the assumption that archival legislation is tied to the overall  role of a country’s national archives in managing and preserving public records. The UK, Canada, and Singapore are identified as research sites in this study – the UK as the headquarters of the Commonwealth Secretariat, and Canada and Singapore for their shared historical connection with the UK. The pieces of archival legislation which are the focus of the study are the PRA, the LACA, and the National Library Board Act (NLBA). Sections 1.5.1 to 1.5.3 present a brief narration of the development of the legal context in which the national archives of the UK, Canada, and Singapore operate.  1.5.1 UK Among the pieces of archival legislation of the three countries considered by this study, the PRA in the UK is the oldest. In fact, several Commonwealth countries model their archival legislation after the PRA (Parer, 2001; Roper, 1999). There are four constituent countries in the unitary state of the UK: England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. While Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own national archives, known as the National Archives of Scotland and the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland respectively, TNA is the “official archive and publisher for the UK government and for England and Wales.”18                                                   18 UK Government, The National Archives, online: < https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-national-archives>.  10TNA was formed by an amalgamation of four government bodies that took place during 2003-2006. These bodies were the Public Record Office (PRO), the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, and the Office of Public Sector Information. The PRO was the “national archive of England, Wales and the United Kingdom government dedicated to preserving key public records,”19 while the role of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts was to “perform the Historical Manuscripts functions in relation to private records.”20 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office was the “holder of Crown copyright and official printer of all Acts of Parliament”21 and the Office of Public Sector Information “promote[d] the re-use of information produced and collected by public sector organisations.”22 The merger of these four bodies was not effected through legislation or by any revisions to the PRA. In 2003, the PRO was merged with the Historical Manuscripts Commission (HMC) through an amendment to the Royal Warrant for the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. The Royal Warrant allowed the “Office of Keeper of Public Records, and any persons who shall succeed [them] in that Office, for so long as they shall hold it, shall act as sole Historical Manuscripts Commissioner.”23The merger of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO) and the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) was carried out through “administration action[s]” (email from staff in TNA, 10 Oct 2012). The Director of Information and Policy Services at TNA is tasked with “oversight of HMSO and OPSI” and “is formally appointed by Letters Patent to the office of Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament” (email from staff in TNA, 10 Oct 2012). In addition, The Transfer of Functions (Statutory Instruments)                                                  19 The National Archives, Our History, online: < http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/what-we-do/our-history/>. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 The National Archives, Historical Manuscripts Commission Warrant, online: <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/legislation/hmc-warrant/>.  11Order24 moved the functions of the Minister for the Civil Service to the Secretary of State because of the merger of the OPSI, which was formally under the Cabinet Office, and the HMSO with TNA. In effect, TNA carries out the functions of four separate bodies and is governed by the PRA, the Historical Manuscripts Commission Royal Warrant, the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations, the Statutory Instruments Act, and the “responsibilities under Letters Patents.”25 In 2012, TNA assumed the functions of the Museums, Libraries and Archives (MLA) Council26 and took on the “leadership role for the archives sector” and the provision of “information and advice to Ministers on archives policy” (Kingsley, 2012, p. 138). Such a role is said to be largely an “extension” of TNA’s work on the archives sector after it assumed responsibility for the HMC (Kingsley, 2012, p. 136).  In mid-September 2015, the reporting authority of TNA changed from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The reporting structure of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) also changed from MOJ to DCMS. This change in reporting structure was announced through a statement issued by the British Prime Minister. The statement reads: responsibility for data protection policy, sponsorship of the Information Commissioner’s Office, and sponsorship of The National Archives will transfer from the Ministry of Justice to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and that responsibility for government records management policy will transfer from the Ministry of Justice to the Cabinet Office. These changes will be effective from 17 September [2015]. The Lord                                                  24 The Transfer of Functions (Statutory Instruments) Order 2006, SI 2006/1927, Explanatory note. 25 UK, The National Archives, Executive Agency Framework Document for TNA by Rt Hon Jack Straw (Crown copyright, 2009). 26 The MLA was dissolved in 2012 and its functions were transferred to Arts Council England and to TNA. This was largely due to budget cuts in the public sector. See UK, Museums, Libraries and Archives, The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council – Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2012 (HC 343) (London: The Stationery Office, 2012).   12Chancellor's responsibilities under the Public Records Act 1958 and associated legislation will therefore be transferred as necessary to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.27 The transfer of responsibilities as outlined in the written statement took legal effect on 9 December 2015 with The Transfer of Functions (Information and Public Records) Order (Transfer Order).28 The Order resulted in some amendments to the statutory provisions in the PRA as “certain statutory functions relating to public records from the Lord Chancellor” were transferred to the Secretary of State.29 The Order also transferred the “statutory functions relating to freedom of information from the Secretary of State to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and provide[d] for certain functions to be exercisable concurrently.”30 The 1967 PRA reduced the access to records from 50 years to 30 years (Shepherd, 2009). The 1967 Act was repealed by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which now governs access to records. The “presumption of openness”31 under the FOIA means that records transferred to archival custody are “presumed to be accessible” (Shepherd, 2009, p. 55). However, the 1958 PRA still functions as the “main archives legislation for central government” (Healy, 2003, p. 78). In addition, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRGA) amended the 1958 PRA by reducing the timeframe for the transfer of public records from 30                                                  27 UK, Parliament, Machinery of Government changes: Data Protection Policy; Information Commissioner’s Office; The National Archives; and Government Records Management Policy: Written Statement (HCWS209) (17 September 2015). See http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-09-17/HCWS209/>. 28 UK, The National Archives, Access to Public Records (Crown copyright, 2015), p. 5. 29 The Transfer of Functions (Information and Public Records) Order 2015, SI 2015/1897, Explanatory note [Transfer Order]. 30 Ibid. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in “overall charge of the Cabinet Office” and part of his responsibilities include “advising the Prime Minister on how to implement government policy.” See UK Government, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, online: < https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/chancellor-of-the-duchy-of-lancaster>. 31 UK, The National Archives, Access to Public Records (Crown copyright, 2015), p. 8.  13years to 20 years. The reduction in time frame for the transfer of public records is implemented over a 10-year transition period starting in 2013, which TNA describes as a “manageable and affordable way, using a phased approach.”32Section 46 of the CRGA33 also amended the FOIA by reducing the period after which a record becomes a historical record from 30 years to 20 years and changed some of the exemptions to this rule in the FOIA.  1.5.2 Canada The Library and Archives Canada (LAC) Act was enacted in 2004 with the merger of the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada. LAC is said to be “the first worldwide establishment to successfully merge its documentary heritage institutions” (Caron, 2011, p. 69). One of the compelling reasons behind the merger was concern about the issue of scalability and efficiency, particularly since both the library and the archives had traditionally shared some services, such as finance and material management (Doucet, 2007; English, 1999). The merger was an initiative proposed by the former National Librarian and National Archivist, who firmly believed that the convergence of information technology and telecommunications required joint services and access to library and archival materials. Ian Wilson, the former National Archivist, stressed that the purpose of the merger was not the creation of an entirely new institution, or an “amalgamation of the library and archives” but the establishment of a “knowledge institution for Canada.”34 He also emphasized that the roles of the two institutions would continue with the merger, including the role of LAC as the “centre of leadership and                                                  32 The National Archives, 20-year Rule, online: < http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/plans-policies-performance-and-projects/our-projects/20-year-rule/>. 33 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (UK), c 25, s 46 [CRGA]. 34 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Bill C36 – An Act to Establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to Amend the Copyright Act and to Amend Certain Acts in Consequence (3 June 2003) (Chair: Clifford Lincoln).  14expertise on information management within the Government of Canada.”35 The objective of the new legislation was thus viewed as providing a “wider mandate than the two existing bodies” had before, “with the stated goal of better providing easy and integrated access to Canada’s knowledge, information and documentary heritage.”36 Much of LAC’s Act was based on the preceding National Archives of Canada Act (NACA)37 and National Library Act (NLA),38with attempts to “modernize the language and legal concepts.”39  1.5.3 Singapore The National Archives of Singapore (NAS) was legislatively transferred from the National Heritage Board (NHB) to the National Library Board (NLB) in 2012. Prior to this transfer, the NLB oversaw the National Library, public libraries, and special libraries in Singapore. The NAS was part of a larger body known as the NHB, which had jurisdiction over a number of museums, including the National Museum of Singapore (Ngian, 2013). Unlike Canada, where LACA determined a merger of library and archives, the NAS now reports to the NLB. The legislative transfer took place within the context of the restructuring of ministries. According to the Minister for Information, Communications, and the Arts, the reasons behind the legislative transfer were to “better” align the functions of NAS and to create “greater synergies and economies of scale in the protection and preservation of Singapore’s documentary records.”40 In contrast to Canada, where there was an attempt to modernize and harmonize the language of the archival legislation, in Singapore there was hardly any change to the archival legislation. One of the main reasons for this was the tight three-month period from the time the                                                  35 Ibid. 36 Parliamentary Research Branch, Bill C-8: The Library and Archives of Canada Act, (Library of Parliament, 2004). 37 National Archives of Canada Act, RSC 1985, c 1 [NACA].  38 National Library Act, RSC 1985, c N-12 [NLA]. 39 Parliamentary Research Branch, Bill C-8: The Library and Archives of Canada Act, (Library of Parliament, 2004). 40 Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 89 (15 October 2012) (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim).  15Prime Minister’s Office made the press announcement on the restructuring of ministries to the time when the actual transfer of NAS to NLB was to take place. During the period of the transfer, the focus was largely on administrative aspects including the transfer of personnel, budgets, and assets (Ngian, 2013, p. 5). The legislation relating to public records and archives and the functions of the NAS under the National Heritage Board Act (NHBA)41 were in most instances carried over to the revised NLBA.42 Ngian (2013) notes that “the top priority was to ensure that the clauses relating to NAS in the NHB Act were properly transferred to the NLB Act. Both the NLB and the NAS were advised by the Ministry of Information, Communications, and the Arts that no other changes to the sections in the Act were to be made, as there was no time to do more than the changes to the legislative sections needed to enable the transfer of the NAS to the NLB” (Ngian, 2013, p. 3).  1.6 Summary of Methodology and Methods  This study is both exploratory and interpretive, drawing on hermeneutic principles and an application of Paul Ricoeur’s (2007, 1981) theory of interpretation. It is exploratory because it is a “broad-ranging, purposive, systematic, prearranged undertaking” (Stebbins, 2001, p. 5) that is intended to lead to an understanding of the role and effectiveness of archival legislation with regard to records management activities. The study is also interpretative in nature, because it seeks to “understand the possible meanings” (Holland, 2006, p. 3) given and the constructions made by archivists and records managers regarding archival legislation. Furthermore, there is a dialectical process of interaction and engagement between this author’s role as an interpreter and the data sources for her research.  The data sources utilized in this study include texts from                                                  41 National Heritage Board Act (Cap 196A, 1994, Rev Ed Sing) [NHBA]. 42 This was confirmed by my interviews with archivists in Singapore and by a comparison of the old archival legislation under the 1993 NHBA with the 2014 NLBA.  16various pieces of legislation, directives, policies, parliamentary debates, records, and interviews with archivists and records managers. These data sources supported the understanding of the impact of archival legislation on records management and elucidated the shared and varying experiences of archivists and records managers regarding how they make sense of archival legislation and how their perceptions influence their application of the legislation in the management and preservation of records.  1.7 Citation Style This dissertation uses two citation styles – the Publication Manual of the American Psychology Association, or APA (APA, 2010), and the Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, which is also known as the McGill Guide (McGill, 2010). Bibliographic entries including journal articles, books, newspapers, and interviews are cited using the APA style. Legal documents including relevant pieces of legislation, case law, parliamentary reports, and government records are cited using the McGill Guide.   In order to facilitate fluency/flow and to preserve the anonymity of interviewees, this dissertation has made some minor deviations from the citation styles. Section 6.20 of the APA style states that personal communications in the form of interviews and emails should be cited in-text, with the name of the communicator, the phrase “personal communication” and the date of the interview (APA, 2010, p. 179). This dissertation has anonymized the names of the interviewees using the country code of the International Organization for Standardization and a numerical code. In addition, the phrase “personal communication” in the context of interview data will not be used because it can become very repetitive and may be distracting. Since email correspondence comprises only a small segment of the dissertation data, the term “email communication” will be used to distinguish it from the interview data.  17 The McGill Guide (2010) requires the use of supra and an accompanying footnote number to denote the “original full citation,” because the full citation is documented only the “first time a source appears” (E-9 – E-12). This dissertation will not use the supra-plus-footnote-number method, but will instead repeat the full citation to improve readability.  1.8 Overview of the Dissertation This chapter introduced the research problem statement, the purpose of the study, the overarching research questions, and the guiding questions for the study, as well as the research context, which is based in the UK, Canada, and Singapore. Finally, the chapter provided a brief summary of the research methodology and methods employed. Chapter 2 covers the literature review and introduces the theoretical frameworks adopted for the research – Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation and Gidden’s structuration theory. It also addresses aspects of research question 1 regarding the legislative intent and statutory provisions of the archival legislation. Chapter 3 discusses the methodological framework informed by interpretivism and hermeneutical principles. It also explains how Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation is applied to the analysis of data sources and discusses how the author situates herself in the research. Chapter 4 presents the results of the research and analyses them. It outlines the major themes that cut across the three countries – the UK, Canada, and Singapore, and highlights the congruencies and variances among the different countries and within the same country. However, it does not include the analysis of the results of research question 3, which are better addressed in the context of a discussion, and thus located in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 discusses the research findings in response to the research questions and the implications of the study, and proposes future research directions.  18Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Perspectives  This chapter begins with a presentation of the key concepts and definitions relevant to this study and a discussion of the literature relating to archival legislation. The sources for the literature review and the theoretical framework are limited to writings in English. The chapter also presents selected literature from law and organizational theory, which provides the lines of inquiry supporting this research study. Finally, the chapter covers two main theoretical perspectives – Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation and Gidden’s structuration theory, and explains how they provide the framework underpinning the dissertation. 2.1 Key Concepts and Definitions For the purposes of this dissertation archival legislation is defined as “legislation that enables (brings into existence and assigns responsibilities to) an archival institution or repository” (Suderman, Foscarini, & Coulter, 2005, p. 4). Archival legislation is thus an enabling statute, because it establishes the overall mandate and functions of an archival institution and specifies the powers of the National Archivist. Records-related legislation “deals with records or information generally, such as evidence legislation, which is not in connection with a specific legislated activity like banking” (Suderman, Foscarini, & Coulter, 2005, p. 4). Records management is defined as a “field of management responsible for the efficient and systematic control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use and disposition of records, including processes for capturing and maintaining evidence of and information about business activities and transactions in the form of records” (International Organization for Standardization, 2001, p. 3). The two groups of targeted stakeholders in this study are archivists and records managers. While the former are individuals “with responsibility for management and oversight of an archival repository or of records of enduring value” (Pearce-Moses, 2005), the latter are individuals  19“responsible for systematically managing the recorded information generated and received by the organization” (Association of Records Managers and Administrators International, 2007). Legislative intent refers to the “collective design or plan that the enacting legislature is positioned to have had for the application of a statute to specific situations that might arise” (Garner, 2014, p. 1039). The legislative intent or the objective of the legislation is discussed under section 2.2.2 and in Chapter 4. Organizational culture is defined as a “system of shared values, assumptions, and beliefs that may be explicit or implicit in nature; practices and ways of working; an organization’s sociocultural system, processes, and technology, and the interaction of values and assumptions of various stakeholders” (InterPARES 3 Project Terminology Database, n.d.).  2.2 Archival Science Literature Archival science is the body of knowledge concerning records and archives and the context in which they are created, managed, and used. It also includes the various meanings persons “individually or jointly attribute to records and to their recordkeeping and archival operations” (Thomassen, 2015, p. 84). The sub-sections under section 2.2 will provide the background of modern archival legislation, a historical development of archival legislation in the UK, Canada, and Singapore, an overview of international and comparative studies on archival legislation, and an overview of case studies relating to archival and records-related legislation. The section will also discuss selected research studies relating to law and recordkeeping, and elaborate on some of the scholarly debates relating to archival concepts that are commonly used in the archival and records-related legislation.   202.2.1 Background on Modern Archival Legislation This sub-section describes the close historical association between archival theory and the laws concerning archives in Europe. It will also illustrate how the French Revolution led to the birth of modern archival legislation and the establishment of modern archival institutions.  Early archival theory on the nature of archives, such as the definition of archives and the concept of unbroken chain of custody to attest to the authenticity of records, was based on the legislation of ancient Rome (Duranti, 1996). For example, the Justinian Code defines an archives as “the public place where records are deposited,” “so that they remain uncorrupted and serve as authentic evidence, and so that a continuing memory of the acts to which they attest be preserved” (Duranti, 1994, p. 41). The archives thus functions as a “place of preservation under the jurisdiction of a public authority” and imbues documents with the “capacity of serving as evidence and continuing memory of action” (Duranti, 1996, p. 243). The custodial role of the archives as a trusted third party serves to protect the authenticity of records since the archives is under the authority of a “public sovereign” (Duranti, 1996, p, 244). Moreover, the authenticity of the records is safeguarded when records are maintained by their respective records creators and legitimate successors, who in turn entrust the records to the archives. Specific rules on assessing the authenticity of records, including the use of signatures, seals, and the “requirement to produce documentary originals” are also reflected in the Justinian Code (MacNeil, 2000, p. 2). Since then, the archival concepts based on Roman laws spread to other countries in Europe and other parts of the world as the common law (Duranti, 1994; 1996). In the 16th century and with the birth of modern nation states, laws and regulations on archives were passed to protect the preservation of records that were created by government offices (Duranti, 1996).  There was no distinction between the records created and maintained by  21government offices and what Duranti (1996) refers to as the “great archives,” which were part of the responsibilities of the chancery, or records office (p.2).  The French Revolution and the decree of 25 June 1794, which provided for the creation of a central repository for the preservation and access to archives for the citizens, were landmark events in the history of modern archives administration (Duchein, 1980; Duranti, 1996; Posner, 1940). One of the major outcomes of the decree was the establishment of a “nation-wide public archives administration” (Posner, 1940, p. 161). Countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium, which were influenced by the French Revolution, created their National Archives as newly established institutions. However, countries like the UK and Sweden, whose administrative structures were not dismantled, were able to develop their archival institution “in a more organic way,” and the national archives of these countries evolved from their existing government departments, like the chancery (Posner, 1940, p. 163).  Another outcome of the French Revolution was the state’s recognition of its duty to protect and preserve the documentary heritage on behalf of the citizens and for their use (Posner, 1984).  During the initial years of the revolution, records associated with the ancien régime such as genealogies and feudal titles were destroyed in what Lokke (1968) refers to as the “records holocaust” (p. 28).  These records were viewed as “relics or memorials which retained the original powers of the old order” (Klumpenhouwer, 1988, p. 19).  Thereafter, the state took an interest in determining the value of the archives and in identifying archives that needed to be protected and preserved because of the “intense ideological importance which the revolutionaries attached to the control of France’s documentary records” (Klumpenhouwer, 1988, p. 17).  The appraisal of records was shifted from the respective record creating offices to the centralized archives repository (Kumperhouwer, 1988; Turner, 1992). Appraisal of records, as the “process  22of assessing the value of records for the purpose of determining the length and conditions of their preservation” (InterPARES 2 Project Terminology Database, n.d.), became a core function of a centralized archival institution. The biggest impact of the French Revolution was making archives accessible to the citizens. A conceptual and methodological distinction was made between administrative archives and historical archives (Duranti, 1989; Klumpenhouwer, 1988). The former were the current records kept in the various offices of the new administration, while the latter were the historical records created during the pre-Revolution period, and which were preserved in the newly formed national archives and departmental archives. These historical records were also made available to the public for consultation (Duranti, 1989). The segregation of historical archives from the office which created them corresponds to the “[A]nglo-[S]axon distinction between records and archives” (Duranti, 1989, p. 8). Such a conceptual distinction still continues in some Commonwealth countries, including Canada and Singapore, as illustrated in archival legislation and related policy instruments. This conceptual distinction will be discussed in Chapter 4. During the 19th century, laws relating to archives that were enacted in Naples, Holland, Prussia, and France stipulated the core principles of archival science, such as the principle of provenance and the principle of original order. Such laws were enacted to preserve the documentary context of records in consideration of the fact that the archives of the administrative bodies that were previously kept separately in various government offices were centralized into one repository. The “juridical norms” later became the “historical core of archival science” (Duranti, 1996, p. 4). Such laws on archives show how law and jurisprudence of modern nation states continued to contribute to the legal foundation of archival theory. This theory is derived from the nature of archives and an “analysis of its relationship with the body producing it, with  23that body’s functions and activities, and with the rights and duties of the people interacting with it” (Duranti, 1996, p. 5). Consequently, early archival concepts and principles were based on laws relating to archives.   2.2.2 The Historical Development of Archival Legislation in the UK, Canada, and Singapore                                       The objectives of this sub-section are to situate this study in the historical context of archival legislation in the UK, Canada, and Singapore and to provide an historical insight into current archival legislation and the responsibilities it assigns for the management of public records in the three countries. The sub-section explains why the UK acquires and preserves mainly government records, whereas Canada and Singapore acquire both public and private records. The historical and political context on how a bill is tabled in Parliament also reveals that the process of amending the statutory provisions in archival legislation can be fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. In addition, the UK example shows that it can be difficult for archivists to obtain the necessary political buy-in and support in changing archival legislation. Since there have been specific studies done on archival legislation and records-related legislation in the UK, this author will draw upon these studies when discussing sub-section 2.2.2.1 about the UK. All three countries share a Commonwealth tradition, and Chapter 3 will explain the rationale for their selection as research sites among all Commonwealth countries.  2.2.2.1 UK In the UK, there are several pieces of legislation governing the management and preservation of central and local government records, manorial and ecclesiastical records, as well as records from Northern Ireland and Scotland (Knightbridge, 1983 & 1985; Shepherd, 2009). Knightbridge (1983) attributes the disparate management of records in the UK to the “sporadic,  24partial and specialized nature of the intervention of the State” (p. 215) There is also a clear separation between the management of central government records and local government records. As a result, there is a lack of centralized control and a division in “policy responsibility” among several government departments for the management of records and archives (Shepherd, 2009, p. 21).  The archival legislation for the central government in the UK is the PRA, which “applies to the records of all government departments, the central courts of law, the armed services, the National Health Service and some non-departmental public bodies” (Healy, 2003, p. 78). The archival legislation has a long history, going back to 1838, when it was proclaimed as An Act for Keeping Safely the Public Records. The Act is also commonly referred to as the Public Record Office Act (PROA). The enactment of the Public Record Office Act (PROA) in 1838 was a landmark event because it was the “first legislation to protect public records by the creation of an official archive” (Coppel, 2010, p. 222). Prior to the enactment of the PRAO, records from the central government were scattered and stored in various locations, including the Tower of London and the Chapter House at Westminster (Coppel, 2010; Shepherd, 2009). These facilities were not well-equipped, and space was a constraint owing to the massive volume of paper. The Records Commission, which was appointed in 1800, brought up the issue of unsuitable storage facilities that caused records to become fragile (Coppel, 2010; Shepherd, 2009). A subsequent report prepared by the Parliamentary Committee in 1836 established the basis for the development and enactment of the 1838 PROA. The report recommended the establishment of a central archives repository for the preservation of public records because records were kept in “unsafe and unsuitable buildings,” and supervised by “a multitude of imperfectly responsible keepers” (Cantwell, 1984, p. 277). Despite the eventual implementation of archival legislation in  251838, work for the archives building did not commence until 1851 and there was a delay in the appointment of a Deputy Keeper of records (Cantwell, 1991; Shepherd, 2009). According to Cantwell (1991), the government was a “reluctant legislator” and only acted because of pressure from the Master of the Rolls (p. 1).  One limitation of the 1838 PROA was that records discussed therein were narrowly confined to legal and court records. The Act defines records as “all Rolls, Records, Writs, Books, Proceedings, Decrees, Bills, Warrants, Accounts, Papers, and Documents whatsoever of a public Nature belonging to Her Majesty, or now deposited in any of the Offices or Places of Custody before mentioned.”43 However, records that fall outside the definition of the Act, such as administrative records from various executive offices of the central government, were subsequently transferred to the custody of the Public Records Office (PRO). The Deputy Keeper advised the Master of the Rolls of the need for legal reinforcement to address the informal transfer of administrative records that were not included under the archival legislation’s definition.44 In 1852, the Order in Council Placing Certain Records in the Custody of the Master of the Rolls was passed. The objective of the order in council was to place records deposited in “any office, court, place, or custody,”45 other than those indicated in the 1838 PROA, under the control of the Master of the Rolls. Despite the enactment of the order in council, a gap remained between what was stipulated in the law and how records are managed in practice. The Committee on Departmental Records states,  In law, all records of Government Departments, from the time they are created, are under the charge and superintendence of the Master of the Rolls and subject to his direction and                                                  43An Act for Keeping Safely the Public Records, 1838 (UK) 1 & 2 Vic, c 94 [PROA], s XX. 44 UK, Committee on Departmental Records Report (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1972). 45 Order in Council Placing Certain Records in the Custody of the Master of the Rolls, SR & O 1852/5002.  26eventual custody; in practice, they remain at the direction of Departments themselves even when housed in the Public Record Office.46  Another limitation of the 1838 PROA was that that the PRO had no power to destroy public records (Shepherd, 2009). Departments were also not obliged to transfer records to the PRO (Coppel, 2010). There were thus further amendments to the archival legislation. The 1877 PROA provided the Master of the Rolls with the authority to establish a system for the destruction of records dating after 1715. In addition, the Master of the Rolls, with the approval of the Treasury, could formulate rules regarding the “disposal by destruction or otherwise of documents which are deposited in or can be removed to the Public which are deposited in or are not of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the PRO.”47 There were some disagreements between the Master of the Rolls and the Treasury with regard to the interpretation of the 1877 PROA. The Master of the Rolls believed that the destruction of records applied only to records transferred to the PRO, and excluded records that were still kept by the departments. The Treasury, however, was of the opinion that the legislation “applied to all records.”48 The Committee on Departmental Records expressed the opinion that the 1877 PROA provided the government with the authority to destroy records.49 To clarify its meaning, the 1877 PROA was later amended by the 1898 PROA,50 which allowed for the “disposal of valueless documents” created after 1660. In 1952, the Committee on Departmental Records chaired by Sir James Grigg tabled a report known as the Grigg Report. The main objective of the Committee was to “review the                                                  46 UK, Committee on Departmental Records Report (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1972), p. 15. 47 Public Records Office Act, 1877 (UK), 40 & 41 Vic, c 55, s 1 [PROA]. 48 UK, Committee on Departmental Records Report (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1972), p. 18. 49 Ibid. 50 Public Record Office Act, 1898 (UK), 61 & 62 Vic, c 22, s1 [PROA].  27arrangements for the preservation of the records of Government Departments (other than the records of Scottish Departments and records transmissible to the Keeper of the Records of Scotland) in the light of the purposes which they are intended to serve; and to make recommendations as to the changes, if any, in law and practice which are required.”51 The terms of reference of the Committee were primarily about records of the central government, and excluded records of Scotland and the local government (Jarvis, 1955, p. 10).  The terms of reference of the Committee partly explain why the current archival legislation in the UK primarily focuses on records of the central government. The Committee acknowledged that the two world wars, the expanded role of the central government, and the use of the typewriter and the duplicator had dramatically increased the volume of records created by departments (Shepherd, 2009). The immediate concern of the Committee was to select records that “ought to be preserved” from the bulk of records generated by departments.52 The Committee also observed that there were differences between how the 1838 PROA defined specific terms and how these concepts were translated into practice. For example, the 1838 PROA defined records strictly in terms of legal documents (Jarvis, 1955). The Act also did not define the term “public,” which in the early 1800s was associated with the concept of promoting access to records for citizens (Jarvis, 1955). The rationale was that these records should be accessible to the citizens because they documented the legal rights and privileges of individuals and were considered the “people’s evidences.”53 Over time, the term “records” became more than just legal documents, and included administrative documents.54 The meaning of the expression “public records” also evolved. It was no longer confined to legal                                                  51 UK, Committee on Departmental Records Report (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1972), p. 5. 52 Ibid, p. 19. 53 Ibid, p. 9. 54 Ibid, p. 18.  28records accessible to the public but extended to “documents accumulated by the central government, irrespective of whether there is any general right of access to them.”55 The terms of reference adopted by the Committee and the evolution of the terminology explain why the current archival legislation focuses mainly on records of the central government, including records of courts, tribunals, and chancery. The management of public records also evolved, increasingly driven by pragmatic considerations rather than by archival theory.   One significant recommendation made by the Committee was that the “Public Record Office Acts, 1838 to 1898 should be repealed” and that a new legislation should be enacted.56 The Committee recommended the establishment of an Advisory Council, with members from the legal profession and from universities to provide guidance on various aspects of archival activity, including the management and use of public records.57 In addition, the Committee acknowledged the “ancient link” between the Master of the Rolls and his responsibility in managing records of the chancery and recommended that he assume the role of ex-officio chairman of the council (Cantwell, 1991, p. 490). The Master of the Rolls continued to hold the position of chairman of the council to the present. The Committee proposed that a Minister should oversee the administration of the PRO so that the PRO would be able to “influence other Departments regarding the destruction of worthless records and the transfer to the Public Record Office of those which should be preserved.”58 It suggested that the Minister in charge of the PRO be either the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord President of the Council, or the Home Secretary.59                                                   55 Ibid, p. 9. 56Ibid, p. 80. 57 Ibid. 58 UK, HL, Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, vol 206, col 1148 (16 December 1957) (Lord Chancellor). 59 UK, Committee on Departmental Records Report (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1972).  29Most of the observations and recommendations made by the Committee laid the foundation for the development of the 1958 PRA. The main objective of the PRA was to “make modern and apt provision for public records, for their custody, for the collection and preservation of those which ought to be preserved, for the destruction of those which ought not to be preserved and for the access by the public to public records.”60 The legislation was meant to resolve two specific issues – the appointment of a Minister to oversee the PRO and the creation of a statutory provision allowing for the destruction of records. The 1958 PRA61 entrusted the Lord Chancellor with the responsibility for the overall direction of the PRO and for the preservation of public records. One reason behind the government’s decision to appoint the Lord Chancellor was that he was viewed as the “most appropriate Minister to be responsible for legal records”62 due to his judicial duties. The Lord Chancellor would be assisted by the Advisory Council, chaired by the Master of the Rolls. The Keeper of Public Records, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, was also given the authority to destroy public records. The Act also expanded the definition of public records beyond legal documents. Furthermore, the Act allowed the Lord Chancellor to establish a place of deposit outside the PRO for the “safe-keeping and preservation of records and their inspection by the public.”63 Such a statutory provision means that there are places of deposit outside the PRO which preserve public records. For example, the British Library is considered a place of deposit64 under the 1958 PRA. The Library preserves the India Office records, which used to be administered by a government body, the Foreign and                                                  60 UK, HC, Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, vol 585, col 499 (26 March 1958) (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster). 61 Public Records Act, 1958 (UK), 6 & 7 Eliz II, c 51 [PRA], s 1(1). 62 UK, HL, Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, vol 206, col 1148 (16 December 1957) (Lord Chancellor). col 1150. 63 Public Records Act, 1958 (UK), 6 & 7 Eliz II, c 51, s 4(1). 64 The National Archives, Places of Deposit, online: <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/archives/10.12.2015_Approved_repositories_and_places_of_deposit.pdf>.   30Commonwealth Office.65 These records are considered public records, but the “specialist nature” of the records resulted in the British Library becoming the place of deposit (Cantwell, 1991, p. 491). The duties of the Lord Chancellor relating to public records were subsequently transferred to the Secretary of State with the enactment of The Transfer Order in December 2015, as discussed in Chapter 1. The access provision in archival legislation has undergone a number of changes. Originally, the 1958 PRA66 allowed access to only public records that were 50 years old. The 1967 PRA67 reduced the time frame for the release of public records from 50 to 30 years. According to McDonald (1998), the change in the 1967 PRA was in part due to a public policy debate that supported the agenda of promoting a more open policy for access to public records, but was also the “product of political chance” (p. 27). During a Cabinet meeting in 1965, Harold Wilson, who was then the Prime Minister of the UK, needed a “filler paper” for discussion while waiting for two other Ministers to join the second half of the meeting (McDonald, 1998, p. 27).  That “filler paper” happened to be the review of the archival legislation to facilitate access to public records. McDonald (1998) notes that “there can be no clearer statement of the low priority attached to public records than its selection to fill this role at the last Cabinet meeting before the summer recess” (pp. 27-28).  The 30-year access provision, also known as the 30-year rule, under the 1967 PRA was subsequently repealed by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which came into effect between 2000-2005 (Shepherd, 2007 & 2009; Coppel, 2010). The FOIA applies to “information created                                                  65 British Library, Help for Researchers, online: <http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/india/indiaofficerecords/indiaofficescope/indiaofficehistoryscope.html>. 66 Public Records Act, 1958 (UK), 6 & 7 Eliz II, c 51, s 5(1). 67 Public Records Act 1967 (UK), c 44, s 1 [PRA].  31before and after the legislation was passed” and to public records in the custody of The National Archives, the successor of the PRO (Crockett, 2009, p. 193). With the implementation of the FOIA, records transferred from departments to TNA are assumed to be open to the public for consultation, unless the records fall under specific exemptions stipulated in the FOIA or in other pieces of legislation.  Another outcome of the FOIA is that it recognizes the need for “good records management to underpin statutory rights of access to information and to make explicit provision for this in the legislation” (Healy, 2009, p. 168). The FOIA provides the legislative basis for the establishment of Codes of Practice. This includes the provision of “guidance to public authorities on good practice in dealing with requests for information” and “guidance to relevant authorities on good practice in keeping, managing, and destroying records” (Coppel, 2010, p. 371). A Code of Practice differs from legislation as it does not have “statutory force” and is not enforceable in a court of law (Coppel, 2010, pp. 371-372). However, the UK government emphasizes that the “power of naming and shaming” can compel public authorities to meet the guiding principles stipulated in the Codes of Practice (Coppel, 2010, p. 372).  The existence of the 1958 PRA, records-related legislation, and Codes of Practice governing records creation, management, and access shows a “complex web of legislative provisions, government policy instructions” (Coppel, 2010, p. 223) and Codes of Practices. According to Tyacke (2006), “it remains to be seen whether the patchwork of existing legislation gives the National Archives sufficient power to play a truly effective national role, enabling records managers and archivists in government, the wider public sector and private institutions to face the challenges of the digital age” (p. 53). Tyacke’s statement makes reference to other records-related legislation working with the archival legislation, a topic that will be discussed later in this dissertation.   32The historical evolution of archival legislation in the UK shows an element of continuity in the current 1958 PRA. The 1958 PRA was a product of its time – it was enacted in an environment where paper dominated and where the primary concern was how to reduce the abundance of records. Owing to the historical context which led to its establishment, it is hardly surprising that the Act “makes no explicit provision for records management as we know today” (Healy, 2003, p. 79). In addition, the historical evolution of the legislation explains the previous role of the Lord Chancellor, who was named in the Act as responsible for its “execution” and for the “care and preservation of public records.”68 The role of the Lord Chancellor in supervising TNA explains why TNA was until September 2015 under the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The role of the Lord Chancellor has also changed over the years. Prior to 2005, the Lord Chancellor held a number of roles, which was a result of “historical accident” and “strategic logic.”69 He held a number of positions, including the head of the judiciary in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland70 and he also presided over the House of Lords, which is the “second chamber of the UK Parliament.”71 However, the enactment of the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act changed the role and responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. He “ceased to be the head of the judiciary (or even a judge): and was replaced as presiding officer in the Lords by the new Lord Speaker.”72 The Lord Chancellor thus no longer needs to be a lawyer or to be a member of the House of Lords.73 With the creation of the MOJ, the Lord Chancellor became the Secretary of State of Justice. The change in the reporting authority of TNA from MOJ to the Department for Culture, Media and                                                  68 Public Records Act, 1958 (UK), 6 & 7 Eliz II, c 51, s 1(1). 69 UK, Parliament and Constitution Centre, The Role of the Lord Chancellor (SN/PC/2105) by Alexander Horne, (London: House of Commons Library, 2015), p.3 70 Ibid, p. 8 71 UK, Parliament, What the Lord Does, online: < http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/work-of-the-house-of-lords/what-the-lords-does/>. 72 UK, Parliament and Constitution Centre, The Role of the Lord Chancellor (SN/PC/2105) by Alexander Horne, (London: House of Commons Library, 2015), p.5. 73 Ibid.  33Sport (DCMS) as indicated in Chapter 1 means that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport74 has now replaced the Lord Chancellor for the “care and preservation of public records.”75 Even with the change in the reporting structure, the Master of the Rolls still continues to be the Chairman of the Advisory Council of Public Records, now known as the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives. However, the change in reporting structure means that the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives now advises the Secretary of State from DCMS. Under The Transfer Order, the role of the Council, is to “advise the Secretary of State on matters concerning public records” and on “aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office.”76 In addition, the Council advises the Secretary of State on the “application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information contained in public records which are historical records.”77 In other words, the Council was given an advisory and independent role in advising the Secretary of State on the management and access of public records. As discussed in Chapter 1, the PRO, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, and the Office of Public Sector Information came together to form TNA between 2003-2006. The CEO of TNA assumes the dual role of the Keeper of Public Records and the Historical Manuscripts Commissioner.78 The Keeper of Public Records is responsible for the “public records system,” while the Historical Manuscripts Commissioner                                                  74 The Secretary of State is a “title typically held by Cabinet Ministers in charge of Government Departments.” See UK, Parliament, Glossary: Secretary of State, online: < http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/secretary-of-state/>. 75 The Transfer of Functions (Information and Public Records) Order 2015, SI 2015/1897, Explanatory note [Transfer Order], Schedule Consequential Amendments, s 1(3a). 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 UK, HC, “Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Progress Towards Implementation”, HC 79-II vol II (2004-05) Ev 58 (Chair: A J Beith).  34provides advice for “all non public record holdings across the country.”79 With the merger, TNA assumed the “leadership role for the archives sector” (Kingsley, 2012, p. 138). However, these private archives were not acquired by TNA, except in “a few, very restricted circumstances.”80 After its creation, TNA prepared a paper reviewing the records and archives legislation in the UK and initiated a public consultation exercise. The paper states that, based on legal advice, there are “limits to the extent to which the Public Record Office and Historical Manuscripts Commission can merge their operations” and that there is a need for primary legislation.81 The paper asserts that the existing archival legislation is unable to keep up with the changes in technology and is “weak and outdated” and “inconsistent.”82 In this paper, TNA (2003) notes: Yet the legislation which controls record keeping and archives services in this country is old and inconsistent. It takes no account of the crucial development in the past two decades of the universal use of digital records including emails…Huge and growing amounts of important digital records are at risk because the means to preserve them are not well understood, and many public sector organisations are not taking steps to provide for them.83 TNA urged a revised archival legislation so as to protect the preservation of accurate, reliable, and authentic records. In addition, it requested a statutory requirement stipulating that individuals and organizations subjected to archival legislation “make and keep full and accurate                                                  79 Ibid, Ev 3. 80 Norman James, Keeping and Using Private Archives: A Wider Perspective (December 2012), online: The National Archives < http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/archives/norman-james.pdf>.   81 UK, The National Archives, Proposed National Records and Archives Legislation – Proposals to Change the Current Legislative Provision for Records Management and Archives (Consultation Paper No 01/03) (Crown copyright, 2003) at para 4.3. 82 Ibid, p. 9. 83 Ibid.  35records that can serve as evidence of their policies, procedures, actions and decisions.”84 Despite the effort of TNA to initiate a review of archival legislation, there has been “no commitment” by the government to change it (Shepherd, 2007, p. 252).  The report prepared by TNA echoes some of the earlier observations made by archival scholars on archival legislation in the UK. Berry (1996), Simpson (2006), and Shepherd (2009) critique archival legislation in the UK as being “permissive” in nature. Apart from specifying the role of the department in selecting and transferring records to archival custody and outlining the mandate of the national archives, archival legislation does not impose statutory obligations on departments for the creation and management of records. Moreover, the legislation is not robust enough to support the management and preservation of digital records. This is confirmed by the legal advice given to the TNA, asserting that the legislation “will not be adequate” for the management of digital records (Simpson, 2006, p. 11). Knightbridge (1983) also points out that archival legislation does not impose penalties on individuals who contravene specific sections of the Act. Knightbridge (1983) laments: “I described the Public Records Act 1958 as an Act without teeth. It has no penalty clauses and it has never been tested in the courts” (p. 216). In addition, archival legislation has been criticized for being too limited in scope, as it excludes public and semi-public bodies “with national and regional responsibilities, including many quasi-governmental organizations, grant aided bodies and nationalised industries” (Berry, 1996, p. 337). Furthermore, the Act is inconsistent, because it includes probate but excludes ecclesiastical records (Hull, 1983, p. 228). Archival scholars like Hull (1983) had urged well before the creation of TNA for a “comprehensive” archival legislation that will “cover all essential classes of records in an adequate manner” (p. 228).                                                   84 Ibid. para 3.3a.  36However, apart from the consultation paper prepared by the TNA, the studies conducted on archival legislation in the UK have not explored the perceptions of archivists and records managers of the adequacy of archival legislation in addressing issues relating to the management and preservation of records. This dissertation attempts to fill this gap in the literature by examining the perceptions of UK archivists and records managers about archival legislation and how they cope with the weaknesses of archival legislation.  In 2015, the Cabinet Office appointed Sir Alex Allan to conduct a review of the management of government digital records. According to Sir Allan, TNA felt that the crux of the issue for managing digital records was obtaining “high level buy-in across Whitehall,” rather than obtaining “additional powers to fulfil [TNA’s] remit.”85 However, because the scope of Sir Allan’s review was not specifically on the PRA and because his report was administrative in nature, it did not sufficiently explore the perceptions of archivists and records managers about the adequacy of archival legislation. 2.2.2.2 Canada Unlike TNA, which acquires and preserves records of the UK central government, LAC acquires and preserves records of the government and of private persons (individuals and organizations).86 The national archives of Canada traces its roots to a historical society, known as the Literacy and Historical Society of Quebec, which lobbied the government to create and establish a national archives (English, 1999; Wilson, 1982). An Order of Council was passed in                                                  85 Alex Allan, Review of Government Digital Records, (August 2015), para 85, online: Government of UK < https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486418/Report_-_Digital_Records_Review.pdf>. 86 The term “persons” refers to juridical persons and can apply to an organization that is “created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being.” (Garner, 2014, p. 1325).  371872, which lead to the creation of an archives branch in the Department of Agriculture.87 Douglas Brymner was then appointed as the first Dominion Archivist and Henry Morgan as the Keeper of the Records in the Department of State. The latter appointment reflected the “British tradition” of a public records system (English, 1999, para. 2) but led to a duplication of resources for the preservation of records, and resulted in departmental rivalry and conflict between the archives branch and the Department of State. Confederation, which was the union of four provinces to form Canada in 1867, resulted in a rise in national consciousness and identity. During the early and formative years in the national archives’ history, the Dominion archivists acquired copies of records preserved in archives outside of Canada, as well as records and even museum artefacts from private individuals and organizations within Canada (Wilson, 1982; Millar, 1998). The first Dominion Archivist did not pay attention to government records as he believed that the “real history” of Canada was to be found in British and French records (Millar, 1988, p. 108). The Keeper of the Records also paid scant attention to government records, and departments were slow in transferring records to both the archives branch and the Secretary of State. The early history of the national archives in Canada showed that the institution did not place emphasis on the management of records or on recordkeeping procedures, in contrast with the early historical roots of TNA, which were primarily in the management and preservation of public records.   In 1897, the outbreak of a fire at the West block in Ottawa where the archives were kept led to the appointment of a Commission (Wilson, 1982), which recommended the construction of a Record Office, that would provide the “unity of responsibility and control” for inactive                                                  87 Canada, Royal Commission on Government Organization, Management of the Public Service: Paperwork and Systems Management. (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1962) (J. Grant Glassco).  38archives,88 similar to the Public Records Office in England. The Commissioners argued that archives which were kept by various government departments should be transferred to the central records office. They also proposed the appointment of a Deputy Keeper of the Records, who should also acquire private archives for the purpose of “building up and maintaining the continuity of the Archives of Canada.”89 It was only in 1903 that the positions of Dominion Archivist and Keeper of the Records were merged. The new position, known as the Dominion Archivist and Keeper of the Records, was established under the Department of Agriculture (Atherton, 1979; Wilson, 1982). However, the government still did not follow up with the recommendations of the 1897 Commission relating to records management such as the transfer of inactive records to the central repository.  In 1912, the Public Archives Act (PAA) was passed, one of the earliest archival legislation of a Commonwealth country outside the UK (Burke, 1959). Section 3 of the PAA90 establishes the position of Dominion Archivist, with “the rank and salary of a deputy head of a department, and who, under the direction of the Minister, shall have the care, custody and control of the Public Archives.” According to Atherton (1979), the enactment of the PAA recognized that the Dominion Archivist was a rank equivalent to that of the Deputy Minister. The Act also states that “public records, documents or other historical material” shall be transferred from any government department to the Public Archives.91 In addition, it specifies that the Public Archives can acquire copies of archival records.92 The “legislative confirmation and foundation” of the PAA thus recognized the dual mandate of the national archives of Canada to acquire both public                                                  88 Canada, Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the State of Public Records, Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the State of Public Records 1897, (Ottawa: S.E. Dawson, 1898) at p.11. 89 Ibid. 90Public Archives Act, 1912, 2 & 5 Geo V, c 4 [PAA], s 3. 91 Ibid. s 8. 92 Ibid. s 9.  39and private records (Berrigan, 2014, p. 6). Such a dual mandate implied “an acceptance of public responsibility for the preservation of a wide range of archival materials, in all media and from all sources, in order to preserve society’s documentary heritage” (Millar, 1998, p. 103). One limitation of the PAA is that there were no specific provisions relating to records management as the primary objective of the legislation was to “establish the archives under the authority of an act of Parliament and to give a certain status to the Dominion archivist” (Thomas, 1962, p. 104).   In 1914, a Royal Commission on the Records of the Public Departments had presented a report on the “state of records” kept in the various government departments, including the storage facilities and the conditions for the preservation of records.93 The Committee made a number of recommendations including the establishment of a record office within the archives building for the storage of inactive records from government departments, the transfer of records that were more than 25 years old to the Public Record Office, and the assignment of responsibility to the Treasury Board (TB) for approving the destruction of records that were considered “useless.”94 The outbreak of the First World War and the Great Depression prevented the government from implementing the Committee’s recommendations (Halliday, 1949; Thomas, 1962). In 1936, the TB assumed responsibility for the destruction of government records, while the Dominion Archivist’s main role became to identify records of historical value (Atherton, 1979). In the event of a disagreement between the respective departments on the disposition of records, the TB would make the final decision. Although the responsibility of TB in records management has evolved, the historical context shows that both the Treasury Board and the national archives have consistently played a role in records management, which has                                                  93 Canada, Royal Commission on the Records of the Public Departments, (1914) at p.14 (Joseph Pope). 94 Ibid, p. 28.  40continued until the present day. Chapter 4 will discuss the sharing of responsibilities between TB and the national archives in relation to information management. World War II resulted in an increase in the volume of records generated. In 1945, the government issued an Order in Council that created a second Committee on Public Records. One of the recommendations of the Committee was that the “care and maintainance of records” and their disposition should be with departments.95 Each department should have a senior officer responsible for reviewing public records and for submitting a proposal for the destruction or preservation of records to the Committee. The responsible officer would then transfer records of permanent value to the Public Archives.96 Subsequently, the Committee also recommended that the role of the Dominion Archivist should “include responsibility for the custody of all federal government records not actually needed in the departments” (Atherton, 1979, p. 51). Thomas (1962) suggests that the 1945 Order in Council was instrumental in delineating the “responsibilities of the departments concerning the care of records and also enabled the Public Archives to serve more effectively as a public record office” (p. 104). However, the Order in Council also reveals that the government viewed the Public Archives as simply a place of custody for inactive records. Although the Public Archives was represented in the Committee on Public Records, the role of records management was limited to the appraisal, transfer, and custody of records and did not include control of their creation and management.  Between the 1950s and the 1980s, some of the commissions that examined the state of recordkeeping and preservation in the federal government recommended the revision of the Archives Act. For example, the Royal Commission on Government Organization, also known as                                                  95 Public Records Order, PC 1945-6175. s 6. Ottawa, Library and Archives Canada (RG2, Series A-1-a, Volume 1912, microfilm T-5181). 96 Ibid, s 7.  41the Glassco Commission, recommended that the Government should enact legislation that would provide “emphasis to the departmental responsibility to document activities” and to “establish a continuing control over the creation, maintenance, use, and disposition of records.”97 The Glassco Commission recognized that the appraisal of records is an “archival and not a managerial responsibility” and that the Public Archives should approve the destruction of records.98 Based on the recommendation of the Commission, the Public Records Order99 gave the Dominion Archivist the authority to approve the destruction of public records and to provide “records-centre storage facilties.” The Public Records Order100 also outlined the role of the TB in issuing “policy statements or guides aimed at the administrative improvement of records management in the public service of Canada, or assessing the effectiveness of any department or agency in these matters.” This role of the TB continues today as the TB Secretariat (TBS) issues directives and policies in information management and assesses departments’ performance in information management. Similar to the Glassco Commission, the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee101 also recommended the revision of the PAA. The Committee emphasised that the authority of the Dominion Archivist in records management, such as approving the destruction of records, should be established through revising the PAA and not by relying on the Public Records Order.  It was only in 1987 that the PAA was repealed through the enactment of the National Archives of Canada Act (NACA). Despite various commissions, organizations, and even the                                                  97 Canada, Royal Commission on Government Organization, Management of the Public Service: Paperwork and Systems Management. (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1962) (J. Grant Glassco), p. 555.  98 Ibid, p. 571 99 Public Records Order, PC 1966-1749. s 4a & s 6. Ottawa, Library and Archives Canada (RG2, Series A-1-a, Volume 2357, microfilm T-5408). 100 Ibid, s 3. 101 Canada, Report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, (Ottawa: Department of Communications, 1982).  42former Dominion Archivist urging a revision of archival legislation, it took nearly 75 years for the government to do it. This illustrates how the process of obtaining government support in tabling and revising a bill in Parliament can be a lengthy political and legislative process. The complexity of tabling a bill is discussed in Chapter 4. The government recognized  that the 1912 legislation was conceived in a predominately paper-based environment and did not address the challenges in the “new storing and information transfer technology.”102The new legislation resulted from the need to ensure a  legislative basis for the national archives to “play a leading role in the management of government records and encourage archival activities and the archival community.”103  One of the objectives of the NACA was to provide clarity in the mandate of the National Archives of Canada (NAC) in terms of “conserving private and public records of national significance and faciliating access.”104 The dual mandate of the archival institution in terms of preserving both public and private records continues until the present time. The NACA105 also provided NAC with responsibility for records management entrusting it with the development of “standards and procedures,” the provision of storage facilities, reproduction and other services relating to the “care and control of records.” In 2004, the NACA was replaced by the LACA, which operates as the current archival legislation in the federal government of Canada. The process of tabling the LACA was said to be                                                  102 House of Commons Debates, 33rd Parliament, 1st Sess, Vol 10 (6 June 1986) at 14063 (Hon Marcel Masse). 103 Ibid, p. 14065. 104 Ibid. 105 National Archives of Canada Act, RSC 1985, c 1 [NACA], s 2f, 2g, 2h, 2i.  43“contentious” mainly because it involved amendments to the Copyright Act.106 Eventually, an agreement was reached for the period of protection for copyrighted works.  The purpose of the LACA was to merge the National Library of Canada and the NAC into a “unified institution.”107 The Act “maintains the exisiting powers and responsibilities that were accorded to both the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada under their respective statutes” and “harmonizes activities” under an integrated legislation.108 It is noted that the merger of the national archives and the national library was not imposed by any political or external pressure. Rather, the new institution is said to result from the “vision” of Ian Wilson, the former National Archivist, and Roch Carrier, the National Librarian109to be the “first worldwide establishment [that] successfully merge[d] its national documentary heritage institutions” (Caron, 2011, p. 69). One result of the merger and the integrated legislation was that it provided LAC with an expanded mandate for acquiring and preserving documentary heritage by referring to “publications and records of interest to Canada.”110The term “documentary heritage” was used to integrate the acquisition and preservation mandates of LAC. This study will later discuss how the terminology used in the LACA interacts with other pieces of legislation and policy as well as how archivists interpret and internalise the meanings of specific terms used in archival legislation. In terms of records management, the new legislation maintains the exisiting role of the national archives in being the “sole authority with the power to authorize the disposition of any                                                  106 Parliamentary Research Branch, Bill C-8: The Library and Archives of Canada Act, (Library of Parliament, 2004) p. 2. 107 Ibid. 108 Debates of the Senate, 37th Parl, 3rd Sess, Vol 141 (22 March 2004) at 2120 (Hon Yves Morin). 109 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Bill C36 – An Act to Establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to Amend the Copyright Act and to Amend Certain Acts in Consequence (29 May 2003) (Chair: Clifford Lincoln). 110 Library and Archives Canada Act, SC 2004, c 11 [LACA], s 2.  44federal government records, including destruction.”111A new provision allows the Librarian and Archivist to request the transfer of records that are “at risk of serious damage or destruction.”112During the Committee hearing, concerns were raised about the responsibility shared by Treasury Board and LAC concerning information management.While TB has overall responsibility for information management across the government, LAC also acts as the “centre of expertise for the management of government information through its life cycle,” and is responsible for the disposal of records and the preservation of records of archival value.113 In effect, TB and TBS within it, act as one of the central agencies of the federal government. It sets a spectrum of mandatory policies regarding human resources, financial management, and information management, and “provides departments with advice on the interpretation of policies.”114 It also monitors the performance of departments and deputy ministers through the Management Accountability Framework (MAF), which is “an annual asssessment of management practices and performance.”115 LAC has less influence than TB because it is a departmental agency under Canadian Heritage. It reports to Parliament through the Minister but the operations of LAC are directed by the Librarian and Archivist of Canada.116 The roles of TBS and LAC in relation to information management, based on the LACA and other related legislation, are discussed in Chapter 4.                                                  111 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Bill C36 – An Act to Establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to Amend the Copyright Act and to Amend Certain Acts in Consequence (29 May 2003) (Chair: Clifford Lincoln). 112 Library and Archives Canada Act, SC 2004, c 11 [LACA], s 3.  113 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Bill C36 – An Act to Establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to Amend the Copyright Act and to Amend Certain Acts in Consequence (10 June 2003) (Chair: Clifford Lincoln). 114 Canada, Library of Parliament, The Role and Responsibilities of Central Agencies, Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Services, 2009) at p. 8. 115 Government of Canada, Management Accountability Framework, online: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat <http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/oversight-surveillance/maf-crg/index-eng.asp>. 116 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Bill C36 – An Act to Establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to Amend the Copyright Act and to Amend Certain Acts in Consequence (3 June 2003) (Chair: Clifford Lincoln).  45Recent studies have revealed that LAC has not effectively fulfilled its statutory mandate as enshrined in the preamble of the LACA.  One of the recommendations made by the Royal Society of Canada in its 2014 report is that LAC needs to engage effectively with its stakeholders, including Canadian Heritage and TBS (Demers et al., 2014). The report states that LAC should: review and revise if necessary the enabling policies and protocols that inhibit the fulfilment of the LAC mandate as expressed in the Library and Archives Act (2004), and which seem to prevent LAC from performing at a level in keeping with the expectations of Canadians and the best practices of similarly situated national libraries and archives (Demers et al., 2014, p. 49) The report also notes that LAC needs to fulfil its leadership role in both the archives and library communities within Canada and internationally. The report by the Council of Canadian Academies (2015) stresses that memory institutions, which include archives, libraries and museums, should exercise “effective institutional leadership” so that they can meet the challenges of the digital environment (p. xii) . The report also observes there is a “leadership opportunity” for LAC in the area of government archives because creating agencies will “benefit from guidance from the archival community on the creation and keeping of reliable, accurate, and authentic digital records.” (Council of Canadian Academies, 2015, p. 93). The perceptions of archivists and records managers regarding the leadership role of LAC with regard to records management is discussed in Chapter 4. 2.2.2.3 Singapore In contrast to UK and Canada, where archival institutions were established in the early  4619th century, the historical roots of the preservation of archives in Singapore are in the library. During the early 19th century, the curator of the Raffles Museum and Library was responsible for the care and custody of archives (Chandy, 1978).  In 1838, the position of archivist was created, even before the establishment of the national archives. The main responsibility of the archivist was to arrange and describe the pre-war records of the British colonial administration in Singapore (Ferroa, 1948); thus, the archivist played no role in the appraisal of government records. In 1955, the museum and the library were separated from each other to form two entities and archival materials came under the custody of the Librarian (Chandy, 1978). The Raffles National Library Ordinance117 stated that the National Library is to “receive, preserve and administer the official archives of the Colony and to arrange for the micro-filming of such archives.” A general order was also passed, which stipulated that “each head of department is responsible for ensuring that the records not required on administrative or historical grounds are destroyed, and that records of historical value are transferred to the Government Archives in the National Library” (Verhoeven, 1967, p. 4). The general order also stated the retention period for financial and personal records. Other categories of records were to be reviewed by the respective departments, and those records which were “not required for departmental or historical purposes” were to be destroyed (Verhoeven 1967, p. 4). Verhoeven (1967) argues that the general order had its limitations. The concept of government archives used in the general order is confined to the “pre-war holdings of archives” kept at the National Library (Verhoeven 1967, p. 4).  In other words, archives were associated with historical documents or pre-war records and discussed only in terms of physical placement, as physical documents that are kept in the custody of the National Library. This concept of government archives excluded documents identified for                                                  117 Raffles National Library Ordinance (No 31 of 1957, Sing), s 5d.  47permanent preservation, which could be located in various government departments. Another limitation of the general order was that the “authority for destruction or preservation of records and archives was vested in administrative officers and not in the archivist” (Verhoeven, 1967, p. 4). The approval for the destruction of records in the departments varied widely and was inconsistently applied. Some departments allowed junior record keepers to authorize the destruction of records, while other departments required the approval of their Director (Verhoeven, 1967, p. 5).  Verhoeven (1967) proposed the establishment of a National Archives and Records Centre allowing for the authorized destruction of government records and ensuring the preservation of pre-war archival records that were in the custody of the National Library. The establishment of a dedicated archival institution would have enabled the acquisition and preservation of private records of businesses and prominent individuals. Verhoeven (1967) argued that the formation of an archival institution could help Singapore to become a “centre of scholarly research” and promote a sense of national heritage and national consciousness in a young and developing nation (p. 8). Verhoeven (1967) urged the enactment of an archives and records management legislation in Singapore, which would “provide the administrative and legal basis for the necessary development of an archives and records management system” (p. 24).  In 1967, the National Archives and Records Centre was formally established, with the enactment of the National Archives and Records Centre Act (NARC)118. With the passing of the Act, the national archives became an independent department and was placed under the Ministry of Culture. The objective of the NARC was to “provide a national Archives and Records Centre for Singapore where national archival services providing for the custody and preservation of                                                  118 National Archives and Records Centre Act (Cap 310, 1967, Sing) [NARCA].  48Government archives and records of high value and importance, historical research as well as to the administration can be undertaken.”119 In addition, it was acknowledged that the preservation of archives is a “public obligation” and that “well-considered decisions should be taken on the difficult and recurrent question of [the] disposal” of records.120 The dual mandate given by the archival legislation to preserve both public and private records still continues. The Act stipulates the role of the NARC in implementing a “records management programme for the efficient creation, utilization, maintenance, retention, preservation and disposal of public records” as well as “acquir[ing] by purchase, donation, bequest or otherwise any document, book or other material which in the opinion of the Director is or is likely to be of enduring or historical value.”121 In addition, the Act provides a definition of public archives. Section 2 of NARCA122 states that “public archives” means those public records which – (a) are more than twenty-five years old; (b) are specified by the Director as being of enduring national or historical value; and (c) have been transferred to the Centre or to such other place as the Director may from time to time determine”  The definition of public archives in the NARCA is similar to that in the current archival legislation known as the NLBA. However, under the NLBA,123 the word “Board” is used to replace the words “Director” and “Centre," which were used in the NARCA.124The former Director of the National Library explained in 1979 that the rationale for providing a definition of public archives is that “while all public archives are part of public records, not all public records                                                  119 Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 26 at col 228 (8 September 1967) (Inche Othman Bin Wok). 120 Ibid, at col 229. 121 National Archives and Records Centre Act (Cap 310, 1967, Sing) [NARCA], s 4e and s 4k. 122 Ibid, s 2. 123 National Library Board Act (Cap 197, 2014 Rev Ed Sing) [NLBA], s 2. 124 National Archives and Records Centre Act (Cap 310, 1967, Sing) [NARCA], s 2.  49are public archives. Records can only become public archives when they are at least 25 years old and should be available for inspection and publication by the public only then” (Verhoeven 1967, Annex II). Section 2.2.6 of this dissertation covers the scholarly debates on the use of the term “archives” in archival and records-related legislation.  In 1993, the NARC was repealed with the enactment of the National Heritage Board Act (NHBA). The National Heritage Board (NHB) is a statutory body that aims to “better preserve and promote Singapore’s heritage” and initially comprised the National Museum, the National Archives, and the Oral History Department.125 By 2012, the NHB had expanded to include nine museums and NAS (Ngian, 2013). Part of the mandate of the NHB is to “promote the establishment and development of organisations concerned with the national heritage of Singapore,” to “provide a permanent repository of records of national or historical significance and to facilitate access.”126 The Act includes statutory provisions relating to the NAS.127 According to Kwa (2013), the issue of “professional compatibility of archivists and museum curators” was a significant challenge in the formation of NHB. In 2005, NHB conducted a review of its organizational structure and one of the issues examined was the organizational placement of the NAS. Various options were considered, including the separation of the NAS from the NHB, and the incorporation of NAS in the NLB. The Archives Advisory Board then made an argument that “archives are archives and libraries are libraries and never will the twain meet,” thus, NAS remained under the NHB (Kwa, 2013).                                                   125 Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol. 61 at col 137 (13 April 1993) (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo). 126 National Archives and Records Centre Act (Cap 310, 1967, Sing) [NARCA], s 6c and s 6d. 127 Ibid, part IV.  50In 2012, the government announced a restructuring of Ministries and NAS was legislatively transferred from the NHB to the NLB. The Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts asserted, The functions performed by NAS are very similar to some of the functions currently served by NLB, and require similar expertise and systems...By consolidating NAS’ archives and oral histories with NLB’s Singapore-related library materials, we will reap greater synergies and economies of scale in the protection and preservation of Singapore’s documentary records.128 The statement by the Minister also reveals the legislative intent of the NLBA. As noted in Chapter 1, there was a tight timeframe of three months between the time of the announcement of the restructuring and the date when the restructuring had to take effect (Ngian, 2013). This meant that there was no time for substantial changes to the legislation, apart from amending the relevant statutory provisions to facilitate the transfer of the NAS to the NLB. Thus, the specific context surrounding the restructuring of Ministries resulted in a revised archival legislation based on administrative expediency. During the period of the transfer, there was hardly any attention paid to the matter of how the reporting structure would affect the role of the national archives and its mandate in the management and preservation of records.  The top-down approach of the government in restructuring the NAS did not provide an avenue for archivists and librarians to harmonize the terminology in the revised Act. Consequently, the statutory provisions relating to NAS were simply transcribed from the 1994 NHBA into the 2014 NLBA. In contrast to Canada, where the term “documentary heritage” was introduced to refer to both published materials and records, there was no new terminology                                                  128 Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 89 (15 October 2012) (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim).  51introduced in the 2014 NLBA. The 2014 NLBA continues to use the previous terminology of the 1996 NLBA and the 1994 NHBA. For example, the terms, “library materials,” “public archives,” and “public records,” which were previously used in the 1996 NLBA129 and 1994 NHBA,130 were incorporated in the 2014 NLBA without any change.131 The terms “public archives” and “public records” will be discussed in section 2.2.6, and specific terms used in the 2014 NLBA will be discussed in Chapter 4.  2.2.3 Overview of International and Comparative Studies on Archival Legislation  This section presents an overview of studies about archival legislation conducted by or under the sponsorship of various international archival professional organizations such as the International Council on Archives (ICA), United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Association of Commonwealth Archivists and Records Managers (ACARM) and the International Records Management Trust on archival legislation. Generally, these studies identify general or abstract principles of a model law for records and archives through a comparative analysis of the archival laws of various countries. Studies conducted on archival legislation by Carbone and Guêze (1972), Delmas (1975), Ketelaar (1985), McDonald (1997), Roper (1999), and Choy (2006) also focus their attention on the broad principles that are applicable across various juridical, social, cultural, and political contexts. Carbone and Guêze (1972) claim that the objective of their study is to develop a draft model law for archives that can “serve as the basis for the reform of existing legislation, which is unsatisfactory in many ways, and for the formulation of a law on archives in countries which have to organize their archives from the beginning” (p. 21). Ketelaar’s (1985) research, which refers to archival legislation of                                                  129 National Library Board Act, (Cap 197, 1996 Rec Ed Sing), [NLBA], s 2. 130 National Heritage Board Act (Cap 196A, 1994, Rev Ed Sing) [NHBA].s 2. 131 National Library Board Act, (Cap 197, 1996 Rec Ed Sing), [NLBA], s 2.  52120 countries, provides a set of recommended guidelines for the development of archival legislation. In the same vein, the ICA Committee on Archival Legal Matters asserts that its study covers “the most essential principles of archives and current records legislation” and enables countries to establish a state archives (McDonald, 1997, p. 111). Choy (2006) claims that her study “do(es) not intend to offer a model of a perfect Archives Act” (p. 11). Nevertheless, her study still covers the “most essential principles and practices” that archival legislation should cover, regardless of the background and socio-political context of a country (Choy, 2006, p. 11).   Most of the studies on archival legislation also tend to emphasize the principles of archival science in recommending statutory provisions for an archival law and do not attempt an in-depth analysis of how archival legislation is operationalized within a specific socio-political context. Couture and Lajeunesse (1994) acknowledge that archival legislation of each country is dependent on the legal context, and the specific “cultural, economic, or political realities” (p. 2). However, as their research covers 37 countries, it is not possible for them to explore issues and challenges encountered by each country. Roper (1999) also notes that the socio-political, economic, and cultural context of each country, the “existing records and archives legislation”, and the “general level of records and archival development” shape the form of the records and archives law (p. 3). Roper recommends “a new, comprehensive National Records and Archives Act” based on the lifecycle management of records and archives (p. 4). Similarly, Parer (2001) recognizes that archival legislation of each country is dependent on the “general political, economic, social, cultural and administrative environment,” the “existing records and archives legislation,” and the “general level of records and archival development” (p.7). Parer’s (2001) study involves an examination of archival legislation and public records laws in Commonwealth countries, including the freedom of information and privacy legislation. The study is wide  53ranging and spans across Commonwealth countries in the seven regional branches of the ICA, including Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe and North America. Owing to the wide scope of her study and because the overall objective of the research is to identify the key principles in developing or updating a records and archives law, Parer was not able to elaborate on how archival legislation is operationalized within specific political and juridical-administrative context. This dissertation complements the existing research conducted by these international studies by focusing on how archival legislation is operationalized within the context of UK, Canada, and Singapore. The study aims to bridge the principles of archival science and the context in which individuals within these countries operate. It adopts the perspective of Duchein (1993) that it would be “unrealistic” to recommend a model archives law without an appreciation of the context of the country in which the archives law is to be applied (p. 58).   One issue discussed in the international studies on archival legislation is the recommended role of the national archives in relation to records management. Ketelaar (1985) asserts that “in only a few countries does the National Archives have statutory responsibility for the whole range of records management functions or the task of formulating standards for record systems and providing an advisory service” (p. 45). The role of the national archives is generally confined to the appraisal and disposition of records. However, Ketelaar (1985) does not recommend that the national archives should play a more active role in records management, except for developing standards, procedures, and guidelines and providing records management training to government departments. He argues that it is not “feasible” for the National Archives to have “statutory responsibility for the whole range of records management functions,” and recommends the use of regulations and circulars rather than the use of legislation to address records management issues, including the creation of records (Ketelaar, 1985, p. 109). In  54contrast, Parer (2001) argues for better clarity in archival legislation with regard to the national archives’ roles and responsibilities in records management. She states that the national archives need to play a more pro-active role in records management and that archival legislation needs to reflect the role of the national archives in setting standards and guidelines for managing records as well as for preserving and promoting access to archives. Choy’s (2006) perspective is similar to Parer. She states that the archives and records legislation “should direct the National Archives to develop, approve and review advisory and mandatory standards and regulations for adequate and accurate recordkeeping and other management functions of records from creation to ultimate disposition to ensure their authenticity and integrity and usability” (p. 18).  These studies, however, do not address the issue of how the perceived roles of the national archives affect the ability of the archives to implement a records management program. As noted in section 2.2, the dual mandate of the national archives in the acquisition and preservation of both public and private records and the existence of central agencies that have a mandated role in establishing policies on information management can influence the manner in which archival legislation is operationalized in each country.  Closely related to the issue of the recommended role of the national archives in records management is the organizational placement of the national archives in the government bureaucracy. Most studies postulate that the national archives should ideally be placed in a department with influence and authority. Archival scholars such as Delmas (1980) state that “only placement at the highest level of authority can give to the archival administration a sufficient degree of legal and administrative effectiveness” (p. 59). One of the earliest studies conducted by UNESCO (1977) on legislation related to public records and archives states that the “statutory basis of the relationship of the National Archives to government departments and  55other public bodies” determines the “success of a public archives policy” (p. 48). The UNESCO study recommends that the national archives report to a Minister who has a “considerable degree of inter-ministerial influence or authority” so that it can play a more active role in records management (p. 55). A subsequent UNESCO study conducted by Ketelaar (1985) echoes the recommendation of the earlier study and asserts that the national archives should report to a Minister “with a degree of inter-ministerial or supra-ministerial authority” (p. 38). In addition, the national archives should be ideally placed within the government administration, which prevents “competing interests” and “eliminates blurring of functions with other professional agencies and disciplines” (p. 107).  Parer (2001) notes that the reporting structure of the national archives is dependent on whether the national archives wants to emphasize its heritage and cultural role or the recordkeeping role. However, she does not elaborate on the ideal reporting structure in countries where the national archives is mandated to fulfil the cultural and the heritage role, as well as promote recordkeeping and preservation in the government. Parer affirms that the national archives should be placed in an administrative structure that recognizes the “autonomy and independence given to an archives as an entity” (Parer, 2001, p. 11). One notable gap in these studies is that they do not elaborate on how the reporting structure of the national archives within the administrative framework shapes the implementation of a records management program in the government. The studies also do not discuss how the reporting structure is influenced by the role of the national archives in fulfilling both heritage and recordkeeping roles.   Another issue that is not sufficiently discussed by the international studies on archival legislation is the hierarchical relationship between a piece of archival legislation and other legal and policy instruments regulating archives. Bautier (1966) makes a distinction between an  56archival law and an archival regulation. The archival law is formal in nature as it is enacted by the highest authority “through the collaboration of the legislative authority (Parliament) and the executive body (government)” (Bautier, 1966, p. 33). As any changes to the statutory provisions require an amendment of the legislation, Bautier (1966) recommends that the legislation be less prescriptive so that it can meet the baseline requirements of most government agencies. On the other hand, regulation is concerned with the “enforcement of the law” and is issued with the understanding that it is “likely to be modified, taking into consideration circumstances or experience” (Bautier, 1966, p. 33). Similarly, Parer (2001) distinguishes between law and regulation. Law is a form of primary legislation that is “enacted by parliament or some other supreme legislative authority,” whereas regulation is a form of secondary legislation and is usually passed by a Minister “under powers conferred by the primary legislation” (p. 1). Parer (2001) points out that there can be a primary legislation relating to records and archives which is supported by secondary legislation and other normative documents. However these studies do not provide specific contextual information on how primary and secondary legislation interact with each other. This dissertation will discuss how specific statutory provisions in archival legislation interact with other legal and policy instruments because this interaction affects the operationalization of archival legislation.  2.2.4 Overview of Case Studies on Archival and Records-related Legislation There are several case studies of archives legislation in specific national or supranational contexts, including Australia, Europe, and Africa. Examples are: Hurley’s study of archival legislation in New South Wales (1998) and a general overview of archival legislation in Australia at both the state and federal level (Hurley, 1998; Ling, 2002), overviews of archival legislation in the UK and Scotland’s experience in revising its archival legislation (Berry, 1996;   57Cantwell, 1984; Knightbridge, 1983, 1985; Longmore, 2013; Simpson, 2002), and studies of archival legislation in France, Africa and in Belize (Duchein, 1980; Enwere, 1996; Gibson, 1999; Olunlade & Adebayo, 1996). The case studies relating to the archival law in UK are discussed in section 2.2.2.1 in the context of the historical development of archival legislation in the UK. Though there are two studies on provincial and territorial archival legislation in Canada (Bryans, 1989; Lemieux, 1993), there is a lack of scholarly literature regarding archival legislation at the federal level in Canada. There is also a lack of scholarly literature on archival legislation in Singapore. This study addresses the gap in the literature by using Canada and Singapore as research sites, with the UK as the head of the Commonwealth.   Most of the existing studies tend to describe archival legislation, and highlight its weakness from the perspective of archival science. There are also studies that discuss the interaction of archival legislation with other pieces of legislation, highlighting some of the areas of contradictions and the possible conflicts when different pieces of legislation interact with each other. Schäfer (2003), for instance, calls attention to the areas of inconsistencies among the German archives law, the data protection law and the access law; Cauchi (2004) describes the areas where the archives law, the information act, and the privacy act in New Zealand are inconsistent with each other; and Guercio, Lograno, Battistelli, and Marini (2003) point out that the “fragmented legislation and regulation activity” in Europe has resulted in inconsistencies in the legislative framework for the preservation of digital resources (p. 7). Such studies focus on the text of the legislation rather than on how individuals perceive, interpret, and engage with the law. Consequently, there is a lack of empirical research on how different groups of stakeholders interpret the legislation. Bryans (1989) acknowledges that there could be different interpretations of the archival law. She argues there is a tension and disjuncture between the intended meaning  58of the words as used by legislators, which is based on legal principles and the socio-political context of the time, and the meaning of the words as interpreted by readers (p. 13). Moreover, the different layers of meaning in a term can “lead to inconsistency, misconceptions and misinterpretation of the legislation” (p. 35). Bryan’s research methodology is based on content analysis of specific components of the provincial and territorial archival legislation. She thus analyzes the meanings of specific terms in archival legislation from the perspective of archival science. As her study was not concerned with how individuals interpret and internalize the legislation, she did not interview relevant stakeholders. This dissertation draws upon Bryan’s premise about the social meaning of legislative texts and expands on her study by providing an insight into how archivists and records managers interpret and apply the legislation within different socio-political and administrative contexts.  Most of the case studies on archival legislation acknowledge that there is a link between archival legislation and the mandate and role of the archival institution. Olunlade and Adebayo (1996) state that “archival legislation affects the development of archival institutions and their ability to act as the national memory of the countries in which they are established” (p. 169).  The premise of Olunlade’s and Adebayo’s (1996) argument is that the “permissive” nature of archival legislation in West Africa has impeded the development of archival services in West Africa, particularly in Nigeria (p. 169). Lemieux (1993) also recognize that the “soundness” of archival legislation will influence the ability of the archival institution in fulfilling its mandate and functions (p. 153). Since archival legislation is an enabling statute, the organizational placement of the national archives is an important factor to consider in determining its authority in the management and preservation of public records and the scope of such authority. However, there are few writings discussing the organizational placement of the national archives.   59The Heiner affair in Australia is one of the few examples cited in the literature which illustrates the challenges an archival institution can face in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities as defined in the archives law and withstanding political pressure. In 1990, the Queensland Government urgently sought the approval of the State Archivist for the destruction of investigation records on the Heiner inquiry relating to an abuse case at a youth centre. This was in line with the legislative requirements stipulated under the then Libraries and Archives Act, 1988, which stated that the destruction of public records could only be effected with the approval of the State Archivist (Australian Society of Archivists, 1999). However, the State Archivist was not informed that there were requests for access to records as a result of legal proceedings. The withholding of this information from the State Archivist raised the question of whether the State Archivist could make an independent and professional decision on the appraisal and disposition of records. Questions were raised as to whether “the role of State Archivist remains that of an employee of a Department and vulnerable to the budgetary control, direction and pressure of senior bureaucrats and ministers” (Australian Society of Archivists & Records Management Association of Australasia, 2010). The Heiner case is a well-documented affair within the context of Australia. However, there is a need for further research in other countries to discover how the organizational placement of the National Archives influences its ability to exercise control over the records management activities in the government. As noted by Eastwood (2010), an archival institution that comes under the executive branch of the government would have difficulties in “standing up against political, executive power to expose to public understanding poor recordkeeping or irresponsible destruction of records” (p. 154). One specific theme which emerges from the archival literature is that most of the studies on records-related legislation tend either to focus on the legislation, or to view it as a variable  60which influences the recordkeeping and record preservation processes in organizations. For example, there is a corpus of literature on the implications of the freedom of information acts on how organizations create, manage, dispose and provide access to their records (Badgley et al. 2003; Crockett, 2009; Gilbert, 2000; Holsen, 2007; Ozdemir, 2009; Peterson, 1980; Screene, 2005; Shepherd & Ennion, 2007; Shepherd, Stevenson & Flinn, 2011).  The archival science literature has also analyzed other legislation such as the Crimes (Document Destruction) Act, Personal Information Act, Uniform Electronic Evidence law and the impact and implications of these laws on the creation, management, use and preservation of records as well as the admissibility of electronic records in a court of law (Sinclair; 2010; Cook, 2002; Duranti, Rogers, & Sheppard, 2010). There are studies examining legislation affecting the private and commercial sectors, such as laws on electronic signatures, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and its implications on recordkeeping and record preservation (Pulzello, 2011; Montana, 2001, 2006). In addition, there is an emerging body of literature which draws upon existing case law and analyses the implications of such cases on the record creation and recordkeeping process (Brown, 1995; Force, 2010; Force, 2014). Such studies tend to look at case law in the context of the common law tradition, where the “doctrine of precedent” affects the manner in which statutes are tested in a court of law and the court’s interpretation of the Act (Iacovino, 1998, pp. 226-227).  However, there is a paucity of research conducted in archival science about how archivists and records professionals interact with the law. Although these individuals are legal persons, they are also social beings with their own shared frames of understanding and sets of experiences, which affect the manner in which they interpret and internalize archival legislation in the course of carrying out their business activities and interacting with each other.  612.2.5 Research Studies Relating to Law and Recordkeeping  This section reviews three research studies relating to law and recordkeeping – the University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project conducted between 1993-1996, the International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems (InterPARES 2) project conducted between 2002-2007, and Iacovino’s (2006) doctoral dissertation research on the legal and ethical frameworks of recordkeeping.  One of the objectives of the Pittsburgh project was to develop “recordkeeping functional requirements for electronic information systems” (Cox, 1994, p. 283). The project developed model functional requirements for recordkeeping and metadata specifications based on the concept of a literary warrant (Duff, 1996; Cox & Duff, 1997). The literary warrant is the “mandate from law, professional best practices, and other social sources requiring the creation and continued maintenance of records” (Cox & Duff, 1997; p. 224). Organizations need to be aware of the relevant laws, regulations, and best practices so that they can “comply with the legal and administrative requirements for the industry or business sector to which they belong” (Duff, 1996, p. 41). Cox and Duff (1997) recommend further research on the warrant for recordkeeping within specific industries, in national and organizational contexts, including testing the effectiveness of the warrant to support the mandate of an archival institution. The Pittsburgh project recognizes the importance of organizational culture, and states that particular dimensions of it can influence the effectiveness of the functional requirements for recordkeeping (Cox, 1994; Bearman, 1993). By investigating archival legislation within the context of the governments in the UK, Canada, and Singapore, this dissertation addresses some of the concerns of the Pittsburgh project, including those related to the organizational dynamics between the national  62archives and other government departments and between archivists and records managers when they interpret and apply the archival legislation. The InterPARES 2 Project aimed to develop principles and strategies for the creation, maintenance, and preservation of trustworthiness of digital records created in the artistic, scientific, and government sectors (Duranti, Suderman, & Todd, 2008). The research maintained primarily an archival science perspective, but analyzed the concepts of accuracy, reliability, and authenticity (i.e. trustworthiness) within the context of the arts, sciences, and e-government. One of the products of the project was a study of the relevant archival and records-related legislation from about 10 countries, such as laws relating to access and privacy, and the use of digital evidence in criminal and civil proceedings (Suderman, Foscarini, & Coulter, 2005). The study adopted a “records lifecycle lens” and examined whether the archival and records-related legislation addressed specific issues related to the creation, maintenance and disposition of records (Suderman et al., 2005, p. 25). Suderman et al (2005) critiqued the general “piecemeal treatment of the lifecycle in legislation” and stated that a records policy should include “all legislated requirements in a comprehensive and integrated way” (p. 25). Another product of the InterPARES 2 research was Foscarini’s study (2007) on legislation, policy, and regulations relating to the preservation of records in the European Union. Her research aimed to examine the “barriers and enablers to the preservation of digital records” (Foscarini, 2007, p. 121). These two studies analyzed legislation from the perspective of archival science, and used the records lifecycle concept to evaluate areas in which legislation is able to establish and/or is inadequate to bring about controls on records management activities. The studies also encompass what legislation ought to be. However, they do not cover the practical effects of legislation, such as how people interact with it. This dissertation discusses what is articulated in archival legislation  63in relation to its ability to provide oversight on recordkeeping and record preservation in government, based on the perceptions of archivists and records managers.  Iacovino’s research analysed the interrelationship among law, ethics, archival science and recordkeeping (Iacovino, 2006). She viewed the part of the juridical system affecting recordkeeping as comprising both legal and social relationships. Legal relationship is an encompassing concept, which includes the ethical dimensions of social relationships. For example, a relationship with one’s spouse has both legal and personal dimensions. A legal relationship involves a “duty to another individual or legal entity which in turn creates a right in the other party” (Iacovino, 2006, p. 176). A social relationship involves forming communities of interest such as professional bodies that formulate standards and ethical guidance which affect recordkeeping requirements. Iacovino (2006) claims that studying “legal and social relationships” would provide a better insight into a “complex regulatory environment,” rather than simply focusing one’s attention on a specific enabling legislation (p. 212). She also argues that “recordkeeping, like law, cannot be understood in a social, cultural, economic or political vacuum” and that there is a need to understand the “legal recordkeeping requirements in specific organisational and professional contexts” (p. 218). In light of Iacovino’s statements, this dissertation aims to provide insights regarding how archival legislation is operationalized and interpreted, based on specific juridical-administrative and socio-political contexts.  2.2.6 Archival Concepts in Relation to Archival and Records-related Legislation  This section discusses how archival concepts are used in archival and records-related legislation. Two concepts that have been extensively discussed in the context of archival legislation are those of records and archives. Records and archives in archival legislation are generally defined in terms of provenance, as by-products of activity, or in terms of ownership  64and custody (Ketelaar, 1985; Couture and Lajeunesse, 1994). Some countries define records and archives in terms of evidential or informational value (Couture and Lajeunesse, 1994), while other countries provide no definition of records and archives, apart from listing the various forms of documents (Ketelaar, 1985). Both Parer (2001) and Ketelaar (1985) caution against adopting media-focused definitions because they would easily become obsolete due to changes in digital technology and urge the adoption of definitions based on provenance rather than on ownership. One example of archival legislation that defines records on the basis of ownership is the Australian one. The Archives Act132 defines “Commonwealth record” in terms of property. According to the Australian Law Reform Commission (1998), one disadvantage of such definition is that the national archives find it difficult to obtain public records that have fallen into the hands of private individuals because it is “impractical to establish that the Commonwealth still owns the records concerned.”133  Ketelaar (1985) also emphasizes that the usage of the terms “records” and “archives” in association with each other changes from country to country. For example, some countries make a conceptual distinction between records and archives. However, countries like France, Italy, Netherlands, and Indonesia use the term archives to refer to both records and archives (p. 6). Foscarini (2007) explains that Latin countries in the European Union use the term “document” as a synonym for record, referring to “any content” regardless of its medium “falling within the Institution’s sphere of responsibility” (p. 125). The term “archives” as used in the European Union legislative texts refer to a “plurality of documents independently of their being current/active or non-current/inactive” (Foscarini, 2007, p. 125).                                                  132 Archives Act 1983 (Cth), s 3(1). 133 Australia, Commonwealth, Australian Law Reform Commission, Australia’s Federal Record: A Review of Archives Act 1983 (Report No 85) (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1998) at para 8.14.  65Among archival scholars discussing legislation, some argue that the conceptual distinction between records and archives “denies the constant nature of archives or public records, as documents accumulated and preserved by a natural process in the conduct of affairs of any kind whether public or private, at any date” (Bryans, 1989, p. 14). In addition, the use of the term “archives” where the value of records is tied to the “physical placement in the archival repository” implies that archivists are mainly concerned with the preservation of records at the end rather than during the early stages of the lifecycle (Lemieux, 1993, p. 155-156). There is a need for a requirement for archivists to manage records proactively during the early stages of the lifecycle, particularly electronic records, so as to ensure that preservation requirements are addressed (Lemieux, 1993; Hackett, 2008). Furthermore, archivists should have the formal responsibility of engaging actively with the record creator so as to integrate recordkeeping and record preservation functionalities with their business requirements (Hackett, 2008). The NLBA is an example of a legislation which defines archives on the basis of their “physical placement” (Lemieux, 1993, p. 155): one of the criteria is that the records have been transferred to archival custody.  Lemieux (1993) proposes to use in legislation Duchein’s definition of archives, which is the “whole of the documents of any nature that every administrative body, every physical or corporate body, automatically and organically collects by reason of its function or its activity and which are kept for reference” (p. 156). Lemieux’s suggestion of using a definition of archives that recognizes its organic nature aligns with the arguments of Livelton. Livelton (1996) defines archives as records “made or received in the course of the conduct of affairs and preserved” (p. 83) and this definition supports the notion that “records are best considered as archives in the traditional understanding” (p. 141).   66Livelton (1996) also proposes defining public records in terms of provenance and recommends that public records be defined as “documents made or received in the conduct of its functions by the sovereign or its agents” (p. 142). In contrast, Ketelaar (1985) adopts a more pragmatic approach by stating that archival legislation should define the scope of public records, which includes not only those resulting from the “legislative, judicial, and administrative functions of the State, but also those produced by State-controlled corporations and all other organizations directly or indirectly controlled by government” (p. 103). The “migrated archives” in the UK illustrate how the lack of clarity over the status of a body of records as public records can potentially lead to a “legacy of suspicion” (Badger, 2012, p. 805) about a government’s intentions and its “veil of secrecy” (Banton, 2012, p. 333). The migrated archives were originally created by the colonial administration in the former colonies. Despite instructions for these archives from the former colonies to be destroyed in 1961 by the Colonial Office, some of them survived and were eventually kept in the custody of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in the UK. Until 2011, migrated archives were in “limbo”134 because there was a “lack of clarity over ownership between departing colonial administrations and independent successor states” (Rawlings, 2015, p. 195). A report by Sir Anthony Cary who investigated the series of events surrounding the migrated archives reveals that FCO saw itself as a custodian rather than the owner of the records.135 In addition, the national archives have “blown hot and cold”136 over the status of the migrated archives, and changed its stance multiple times as to whether these records are public records. For example, in 1982, the PRO initially                                                  134 Anthony Carey, The Migrated Archives: What Went Wrong and What Lessons Should We Draw? (24 February 2011), para 18 < https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255562/migrated-archives.pdf>. 135 Ibid, para 16. 136 Ibid, para 40.  67assessed these records as the “records of the former Colonial Government Administration” and suggested that they should be “handed over to the incoming government on independence.”137 Thus, PRO recognized the provenance of these records to be the colonial administration. Banton (forthcoming, 2016), who has conducted extensive research on the migrated archives at TNA, also notes that the provenance of such archives is “obscured” because “documents had routinely been removed from colonial governments to the governor’s or high commissioner’s office before being sent to London.” In 2011, TNA claimed that the “migrated archive contains public records and that as records of historical interest [they] are likely to select them for transfer to TNA.”138 This implies that the informational content of their records or their "historical interest”139 influences TNA’s decision to treat migrated archives as public records. According to Banton (2016, forthcoming), TNA advised FCO to seek legal advice and the “legal opinion received was that the migrated archives are indeed UK public records.” The report by Carey also reveals that the FCO did not consider the migrated archives of Hong Kong as public records, and that these records do not fall under the purview of the Lord Chancellor. However, the migrated archives began to be treated as UK public records after they “passed into the ownership of the FCO” on 1 July 2007, which is the date when the sovereignty of Hong Kong was officially transferred from the UK to China.140 Consequently, ownership of records rather than provenance was used by the FCO to determine whether the records of a colonial administration are considered public records.                                                  137 Ibid, para 9. 138 Ibid, para 40. 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid, para 17.  68In Canada, the Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General) 141case illustrates how there can be different opinions on whether records are to be considered public or private. The case relates to whether the records resulting from the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) are public records. The IAP records are the written testimonies from former students who suffered abuse from the residential school system, as well as the application forms and compensation decisions regarding the survivors’ claims. The supervising judge ruled that these are “not government records” and that they are “only under the control of the various supervisory bodies established by the IRSSA [Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement].”142 These records are thus not subjected to the LACA, AIA, and the Privacy Act and should be retained for 15 years. The survivors should also be allowed to make a decision on whether they can transfer the records relating to the IAP to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR). The supervising judge stressed the private nature of the IAP records, which contain the “most private and intimate personal information” regarding the abuse suffered by the survivors.143However, the dissenting view claimed that, as the government has utilized public funds to make decisions regarding the IAP, these records should be “within the control of the government.”144 The argument is that these records “can only be destroyed with the written consent of LAC.”145 This case illustrates how issues like “who possess the records, the independence of the entity in possession of the records, [and] the nature and origin of the records”146 can potentially affect a court’s decision as to whether records are considered to be government records.                                                   141 Fontaine v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 ONCA 241 (available on CanLII) [Fontaine]. 142 Ibid at para 70. 143 Ibid at para 68. 144 Ibid at para 281. 145 Ibid at para 285. 146 Ibid at para 141.  69Archival scholars have observed that archival legislation does not pay sufficient attention to the appraisal of records (Gränström, 2002; Lemieux, 1993). For example, Lemieux (1993) refers to the “underdevelopment of provisions concerning archival functions” including appraisal in the Canadian provincial and territorial archival legislation. During the discussion by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage about the proposed LAC bill in 2003, Cook stressed that the bill did not specifically address the issue of appraisal, which is “one of the most difficult and certainly the most controversial function that archivists undertake.”147  In terms of the transfer of records, there is recognition that records must be systematically transferred from the creating agency to archival custody (Choy, 2006, Parer, 2001). This is because the archival institution is seen as fulfilling the role of trusted custodian that is, a “neutral third party who must demonstrate that it has no reason to alter or to allow others to alter the records in its care, and that it has the knowledge required for attesting to, and ensuring the continuing authenticity of the records” (Duranti, 2009, p. 41). While Parer (2001) states that archival legislation should specify the “required times of transfer” based on the requirements of each country (p. 31), Choy (2006) disagrees. Choy (2006) asserts that specifying the number of years before transfer would not be ideal, particularly for electronic records, where there is a need to ensure that records are transferred as soon as no longer needed for the usual and ordinary course of affairs owing to technological obsolescence. Foscarini (2007) also critiques the “time-based” approach of the European Union regulations, which stipulates the number of years after which appraisal must be conducted and records transferred to the historical archives (p. 126).  The NLBA is an example of an archival legislation that uses a “time based” (Foscarini, 2007, p.                                                  147 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Bill C36 – An Act to Establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to Amend the Copyright Act and to Amend Certain Acts in Consequence (5 June 2003) (Chair: Clifford Lincoln).  70126) approach because part of the definition of public archives is that records have to be more than 25 years old.  Another concept that is discussed in the archival literature and which has relevance to archival legislation is that of authenticity. In ancient Rome, citizens would deposit records in the Tabularium so that the records would be imbued with the quality of authenticity (InterPARES, 2001). Historically, archival institutions have performed the role of trusted custodian by attesting to the authenticity of the records. Bautier (1966) is one of the few archival scholars who state that archival legislation must address the authenticity and authentication of records.148 He also stresses that a certificate of authentication issued by an archival institution does not “confer authenticity on a document which is not authentic” (Bautier, 1966, pp. 48-49). Choy (2006) also recommends that archival legislation should stipulate that the national archives can issue regulations and standards relating to “adequate and accurate recordkeeping and other management functions of records from creation to ultimate disposition to ensure their authenticity and integrity and usability” (p. 18).  2.3 Law and Technological Development Both legal and archival literature acknowledge the inability of the law to keep up with technological change. Perry and Ballard (1993) stress that the law is reactive, and that, because of its reliance on the “sanctity of stare decisis and common law, [it] does not react quickly enough to what has become almost daily technological change” (p. 799). Similarly, Moses (2011) states that, while technology has transformed the way in which people interact with each                                                  148 Authenticity is the “trustworthiness of a record as a record i.e , the quality of a record that is what it purports to be and that is free from tampering or corruption.” Authentication is a “declaration of a record’s authenticity at a specific point in time by a juridical person entrusted with the authority to make such a declaration (e.g., public officer, notary, certification authority.” See InterPARES 2 Terminology Database, online: < http://www.interpares.org/ip2/ip2_terminology_db.cfm>.  71other, “the law continues to be directed to solving old problems and is unable to keep up with the modern world” (p. 763). Archival literature also acknowledges that the law is reactive and does not sufficiently address issues relating to the creation, management and preservation of digital records. Duranti, Rogers and Sheppard (2010) argue that legislation can easily become out-of-date because of technological changes, and thus the law “requires continuous and sustained updating” (p. 100). The ICA Committee on Electronic Records (1997), Gränström (2002), and Simpson (2002) observe that most archival legislation was based on the traditional analogue paper environment. As a consequence, archival institutions are “constrained” by archival legislation, which does not cater to the management and preservation of records in a digital environment (ICA Committee on Electronic Records, 1997). There is a need to update archival legislation to reflect emerging issues in order to effectively address the creation, maintenance and preservation of trustworthy digital records.  2.4 Statutory Interpretation This section draws upon the work of Sullivan (2008) on how “statutes should be read” (p. xi).  While her work focuses on how judges and legal professionals interpret statutes, Sullivan’s argument on textual analysis and interpretation has relevance to this study because it relates to how individuals interpret the legislative text. According to Sullivan (2008), a text can become “detached” from the author and its original context. Readers can have “substantial control” on the interpretation of the text based on their prior knowledge and experience (Suillvan, 2008, p. 1). Sullivan’s premise is similar to Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation, which is discussed in section 2.6.1 and its supporting sub-sections. The meaning of the text is dependent on its context, and this context includes both the immediate and the external context. The immediate context includes the Act and its statutory provisions, title, preamble, and headings, as well as other  72related legislation, that is, “legislation that deals with the same subject as the provision to be interpreted or legislation that has the same purpose” (Sullivan, 2008, p. 355). In this study, the immediate context refers to archival legislation in each of the examined countries, UK, Canada, and Singapore, as well as other records-related legislation identified by the interviewees. One important component of the Act is the preamble, and this is seen in the LACA, which is discussed in Chapter 4. The purpose of the preamble is to establish the “circumstances and considerations that gave rise to the need for legislation” (Sullivan, 2008, p. 381). The preamble also reflects the “legislative values and assumptions” (Sullivan, 2008, p. 384). The external context refers to the “historical setting in which a provision was enacted – the relevant social, economic, and logical conditions existing at the time of enactment” as well as the “knowledge interpreters bring to a legislative text, consisting of their factual assumptions and values” (Sullivan, 2008, p. 356). In this study, the external context includes organizational culture issues as discussed in section 2.5 and in Chapter 4. 2.5 Organizational Culture There are several empirical studies in the archival literature that uncover the organizational dynamics and processes behind record creation and recordkeeping. Lemieux’s (2001) case study research of recordkeeping practices in Jamaican commercial banks illustrates how the “organizational recordkeeping culture” (p. 97) - individuals’ personal interests, societal values, and professional values - influences the manner in individuals create or deliberately choose not to create records. Trace’s (2002) analysis of the records created in law enforcement work explains how organizational and social factors shape the way in which records are created and kept and how such “records reflect practical organizational concerns.” (p. 151).   73The research by Oliver and Foscarini demonstrates how organizational culture can provide a lens through which information management and recordkeeping issues can be critically analysed. Oliver (2008, 2007) utilizes a cultural dimensions theory developed by Hofstede, who is well known for his research on cross-cultural management studies, to examine information cultures within the context of three universities in Australia, Germany, and Hong Kong. Similarly, Foscarini’s (2010, 2012) research on the development and implementation of records classification systems in four central banks utilizes aspects from Hofstede’s model. Foscarini (2010) also advocates developing a three-level analysis comprising soft systems methodology, adaptive structuration theory, and genre theory to develop a “human factor-aware” framework and “culturally sensitive tools” (p. 403) in the design and implementation of a records management system and program. However there is a gap in the archival literature on the interaction between organizational culture and the legislation prescribing control on the management of records.   This study recognizes that, in order to “understand how laws are interpreted and implemented, we need to understand the functioning of organizations” (Heimer, 1996, p. 38), Lee McDonald, the former Chairperson of the Committee on Archival Legal Matters of the ICA states that archival legislation “is an expression of the principles held most firmly by a state. Archival legislation expresses values that a people have associated with recorded memory” (ICA, 1997, p. 111). While the existing archival legislation clearly articulates the “perceived institutional and social needs and values” (Maley, 1987, p.27), individuals also subscribe to an implicit set of values and norms that are neither expressed nor articulated in the codified system of legislation. As noted by Gregory (1983), “culture is only explicit as people express it: much of  74the system must be considered as being made up of implicit meanings that motivate behaviour” (p.364).  Organizational culture is an interdisciplinary construct, which spans several disciplines, including organizational management, sociology, cultural anthropology, and information science. This largely explains why there is no universal agreement on the definition of organizational culture, and it is estimated that there are about 160 definitions of the term “culture” (Skyrme 1994).  One perspective of organizational culture views it at a cognitive level in terms of a system of ideas, beliefs, and practices. For example, Hofstede (2001) defines organizational culture as the “differences in collective mental programming found among people from different organizations, or parts thereof, within the same national context” (p. 373). Hofstede (2001) views national and organizational cultures as being manifested at two different levels as “a nation is not an organization, and the two types of culture are of different kinds” (p. 393).  Hofstede has been criticized because he views culture in deterministic terms, and also because he views organizational culture as a monolithic concept (McSweetney, 2002, 2013), though he had invited researchers to utilize other forms of research methods and to include or expand on his dimensions of national and organizational culture (Hofstede, 2001). Oliver utilizes Hofstede’s approach of analyzing culture at different levels. She defines organizational culture in three layers: national, occupational, and corporate culture, and borrows from Hofestede’s definition of national culture as the “collective programming of the mind acquired by growing up in a particular country” (Oliver, 2011, p. 33). According to Oliver (2011), legislation is dependent not only on national culture but also on “employee awareness and acceptance of its provisions” (p. 3). Occupational culture is described as those “values and practices which have been learned in the course of vocational education and training,” while  75corporate culture is defined by the “sector or industry that the organization is engaged in” and the “occupational groupings working inside the organization” (Oliver, 2011, p. 26). Oliver (2011) claims that there is a tendency to misconstrue corporate culture as comprising the entire culture of the organization. The corporate culture is reflected in terms of the management style, the use of specific language or jargon, as well as how the organization presents itself to the outside world.  Oliver’s layered approach of analyzing culture aligns with the multilevel perspective on organizational research adopted by Kozlowski and Klein (2000), and Chao (2000). The multilevel perspective recognizes that “micro phenomena are embedded in macro contexts and that macro phenomena often emerge through the interaction and dynamics of lower-level elements” (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 7). According to Chao (2000), organizational culture is a multilevel construct that can be studied at a group level, with respect to “a collectivity of people” (p. 311), and at an individual level, with respect to the individual-level manifestations of shared meaning systems which are learned from other members of the society” (p. 315).  Organizational culture is also the process of interaction with individuals at a group and interpersonal level, which reveals the “integrative and fragmentary aspects” of organizational dynamics (Goh, 2012, p. 8). A multi-level analysis of organizational culture recognizes that culture is not a uniform and unitary concept since there are “different and competing value systems that create a mosaic of organizational realities” (Morgan, 2006, p. 132). This dissertation explores the perceptions of archivists and records managers on how they interpret and apply archival legislation in the course of interacting with each other on at interpersonal and institutional level (i.e between the national archives and other government departments).   76Culture is also reflected in visible structures and symbols such as legislation and policies relating to recordkeeping and preservation. Symbols are the “words, gestures, pictures and objects that carry often complex meanings recognized as such only by those who share the culture” (Hofstede 2001, p. 10). Oliver and Foscarini (2014) emphasize that there are varying understandings and interpretations of archival concepts and terms like “records” not only among different professional groups but also within the records and archives communities. This is partly because the archival discipline has drawn from other disciplines, including diplomatics, law, and information science. Oliver and Foscarini (2014) also note that “even the most technical languages come from a complex history of negotiations of meanings and are subject to continuous renegotiation” (p. 80). Accordingly, this dissertation will explore the meaning making process as archivists and records managers internalize, interpret, and apply the archival legislation in relation with other records-related policy instruments.  2.6 Theoretical Perspective The following section discusses the two theoretical perspectives largely employed for this study – the interpretation theory by Ricoeur and the structuration theory by Giddens. It outlines the rationale for the adoption of these two theoretical perspectives and the application of these perspectives to the study and to archival science.   2.6.1 Ricoeur’s Theory of Interpretation According to Ricoeur, interpretation is the “work of thought which consists in deciphering the hidden meaning in the apparent meaning, in unfolding the levels of meaning implied in the literal meaning” (Ricoeur, Reagan, & Stewart, p. 98). Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation is based on hermeneutics, which he defines as the “theory of operations of understanding in their relation to the interpretation of texts” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 43).  77Hermeneutics does not involve the study of the “psychological intents” of the text or analyzing the intent of the author through the text (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 112). Instead, hermeneutics involves mediating the “internal dynamic of the text” in terms of its structure and codes and the “external projection” of the work (Ricoeur, 2007, pp. 17-18). The external projection involves the reader projecting the text inwardly to his or her experiences and understanding. In effect, there is a dialectic relationship between explanation and understanding along the hermeneutical arc (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 15). The theory of interpretation thus provides a useful framework for this study because the process of integrating explanation and understanding provides an insight to the multiple meanings of the text as manifested in the form of archival legislation and its relationship with other related pieces of text. The concept of a text and how a reader relates to the text is a seminal concept in the theory of interpretation, and is discussed in section 2.6.1.1. The other aspect of the theory of interpretation is the dialectic of explanation and understanding as outlined in section 2.6.1.2. Section 2.6.1.3 will discuss the application of the theory of interpretation to archival science and to this study. 2.6.1.1 Concept of a Text According to Ricoeur (1981), a “text is any discourse fixed by writing” (p. 145). The act of writing introduces an element of fixity to a discourse, the “world in which it claims to describe, express, or represent” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 133). In other words, a discourse can be manifested in the form of a speech and in a written work. However, unlike speech, which is a “fleeting event” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 198) and is temporal in nature, a written work or text allows not only the fixity of a message and a medium, but also a commemoration of human achievements (Ricoeur, 1976). Such achievements include the establishment of juridical codes and of archives. The process of recording actions through records or carrying out juridical acts  78through records results in a “sedimentation in social time” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 207). Over time, the meanings and interpretations of individuals who read these texts “no longer coincide[s] with what the author meant” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 139).  These meanings can eclipse the original socio-cultural context of the text and be “re-enacted in new social contexts” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 208).  The “sedimentation in social time” over texts also results in a separation of the meaning of the text from the intention of the author (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 207). According to Ricoeur (1976),  Inscription becomes synonymous with the semantic autonomy of the text, which results from the disconnection of the mental intention of the author from the verbal meaning of the text, of what the author meant and what the text means” (pp. 29-30). In a speech, there is an opportunity for the hearer to clarify his or her doubts with the speaker. Moreover, both the hearer and the speaker are placed within a common space and situation, and the speaker can rely on “ostensive indicators” (Ricoeur, 1976, p. 35) such as the use of gestures, intonation, or “demonstratives, the adverbs of time and place, and the tense of the verb” (Ricoeur, 1981, p.  201).  In contrast, a text results in a split between the reader and the writer because of the lack of a shared situation and the inability of the reader to observe the tone, facial expressions, and the body language of the writer. As a result, there is a “double eclipse of the reader and the writer” because the “reader is absent from the act of writing [and] the writer is absent from the act of reading” (Ricoeur, 1981, pp. 146-147).    Another aspect of a text is that it is it addressed to multiple readers whereas in a speech, it is limited to a specific audience. The author no longer has control over how his or her text is interpreted by the reader. Ricoeur (1976) notes,  79Whereas spoken discourse is addressed to someone who is determined in advanced by the dialogical situation – it is addressed to you, the second person – a written text is addressed to an unknown reader and potentially to whoever knows how to read (p. 31). As a result, the text is subjected to “unlimited series of readings” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 14) and multiple interpretations as it is “no longer bound to the particular time and place in which the dialogue occurred” (Allen & Jensen, 1990, p. 243). Ricoeur’s argument is similar to the position taken by Barthes. Barthes (1977) states,   A text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, and there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author (p. 148)       The separation of the text from its author and its original context leads to a hermeneutic problem, known as distanciation, which is defined as the “semantic autonomy of the text to bear meaning apart from the intentions of the author” (Kaplan, 2003, p. 33).  Distanciation occurs because the fixity of the text results in a “threefold autonomy” as the text becomes independent from the intention of the author, the original addressee to whom the text is directed, and the specific socio-cultural context that created the text (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 91). In effect, fixity is only a physical manifestation of a text. More importantly, the inscription of a text results in a situation where the authorial intent of the text may not necessarily correspond to that of the reader. Ricoeur (1981) describes an aspect of distanciation as when the “textual meaning and psychological meaning have different destinies” (p. 139). Part of the process of interpretation thus involves uncovering the “matter of the text” or the “world of the work,” which is autonomous from the intent or consciousness of the author (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 143).   80The study of diplomatics, which is at the core of archival science, involves the “analysis of the creation, form, status, and transmission of archival documents, or records, and their relationship with the facts represented in them and their creator in order to identify, evaluate, and communicate their true nature” (Duranti, 1998, p. 45). Traditional diplomatics was concerned with legal records, that is records whose written form is required by law, which fall under two main categories – dispositive and probative records. Dispositive records are records where the “written form was the essence and substance of the act” while probative records are records that “provide evidence of an act which came into existence and was complete before being manifested in writing” (Duranti, 1998, pp. 65-66). In the context of this study, the relevant pieces of legislation and policy instruments are regarded as dispositive records, while parliamentary debates and reports are regarded as probative records. The authors of the dispositive and probative records within the context of this dissertation are generally the governments of UK, Canada, and Singapore or specific public bodies, since they are the “physical or juridical person[s] having the authority and capacity to issue the record or in whose name or by whose command the record has been issued” (InterPARES Project, 2000, p. 2). The analysis of the intentions of the author of dispositive records would not be a meaningful endeavor since the written form constitutes an act in itself such as enacting the establishment of the national archives. Similarly, it is of little consequence to analyze the intent of the authors of probative records since the main purpose of the records is to document an act that has already taken place by public bodies. As it regards the transcribed interviews, the interview process involved the interviewee recounting an experience and the joint creation of meaning between both the interviewer and interviewee. Thus, they are records whose written form is not prescribed and to which both parties are authors and addressee. They can be regarded as narrative records (Duranti,  811998, p. 69). Based on Ricoeuer’s theory of interpretation, the text from these dispositive, probative, and narrative records should be decontextualized from its original context so that it can be recontexualized and open to multiple interpretations. The words and sentences from the dispositive and probative records as well as the utterances from the interviewees were therefore freed from their original context and then examined in relation to one another. At the same time, the text provided insights into the larger context in which the national archives of the three countries operate, including the reporting structure, the relationship with the key players in the government bureaucracy, and the interpersonal relationships between archivists and the records managers from government departments.    The other hermeneutic task in interpreting a text involves the act of appropriation of meaning, which comes from a German word, aneignung, which means to “make one’s own which was initially alien” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 185). Appropriation involves overcoming the “cultural distance” and the “system of values” articulated within the text and integrating textual interpretation with “self-interpretation” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 159). Appropriation also involves an act of distanciating from oneself and thus involves self-reflexivity as it aims to attain a form of “self-understanding mediated through the text” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 19). Such form of self-reflexivity helps to reconcile the double eclipse and tension between the self and the text.   Consequently, appropriation provides an avenue of sensemaking and meaning making as archivists, records managers, and even this author, need to “expose” themselves to the text, based on their own experiences (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 94).  2.6.1.2 Dialectic of Explanation and Understanding  According to Ricoeur (1976), explanation and understanding are not two distinct concepts but are rather part of a “complex and highly mediated dialectic” (p. 74). In this regard,  82Ricoeur disputes the dualist concept of explanation and understanding. Under the dualist sphere of reality, explanation is associated with the natural sciences, while understanding is associated with the human sciences. Explanation involves the observation of laws and theories, while understanding involves the lived human experiences (Ricouer, 1976, 1981).  Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation argues that explanation and understanding are not mutually exclusive, but are “relative moments in a complex process that could be termed interpretation” (Ricoeur, 2007, p. 126), where “to read is to interpret and to interpret is to understand and explain” (Kaplan, 2003, p. 67). The process of interpretation thus involves shuttling back and forth along the hermeneutical arc and understanding the text from “what it says, to what it talks about” (Ricouer, 1976, pp. 87-88).  Within the context of this study, the process of interpreting legislation involves moving from understanding what the text in the legislation says to what it really means in relation to other texts, such as the experiences and meanings internalized by archivists and records managers. Chapter 3 discusses how this author applied the dialectic of explanation and understanding to the interpretation of the data sources used in this study.  Explanation involves elucidating the codes and internal structure of the text while understanding is the “ability to take up again within oneself the work of structuring that is performed by the text” (Ricoeur, 2007, p. 18). Explanation also includes examining the whole-part relationship in a text and also among other related texts as “words acquire meaning in the context of sentences and sentences acquire meaning in the context of paragraphs” and paragraphs acquire meaning in relation to the entirety of the text and other related texts (Allen & Jensen, 1990, p. 243). The reader of the text follows along the grain of the text, identifying the relevant concepts, the hierarchy of themes, and analyzing the whole-part relationship of the meaning in the text as a “cumulative, holistic process” (Ricoeur, 1976, p. 76). The reader uses validation and  83the logic of qualitative probability to “argue for or against an interpretation, to confront interpretations, to arbitrate between them, and to seek for an agreement, even if this agreement remains beyond our reach” (Ricoeur, 1981, pp. 212-213).  The reader also reads against the grain of the text by looking for absences in the text or the lack of controls on the management and preservation of records. Evidently, the process of reading along and against the grain involves identifying commonalities and inconsistencies within archival legislation and among other related texts. The reader thus “move(s) between the two limits of dogmatism and skepticism” (Ricoeur, 1981, p.  213).   In terms of understanding the text, the reader mediates between himself or herself and the text so as to attain “fusion of horizons” where there is a “convergence of the world horizons” between the text and the reader (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 192). There is a rejection of objectivism where knowledge is revealed through the text and where an individual’s pre-understandings and assumptions are suspended. There is also the rejection of the concept of a “closed horizon” where the reader is not open to the meanings gleaned from the text (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 75). The dialectic process of explanation and understanding enables this author to interpret the text in the form of archival legislation, regulations, and policy instruments, as well as interview transcripts. The text underwent the process of distanciation as the meaning of the text was freed from its original context, including the “tutlelage of the mental intention” of the author, and from the “situational discourse” (Ricoeur, 1976, p. 36). Appropriation, as the act of overcoming distanciation, also “expand(ed) the conscious horizon” of this author through “actualizing the meaning of the text” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 18). The act of interpreting archival legislation provided a manner of revealing a new world of “plurality of constructions” which goes beyond the narration of facts or surface meaning (Ricoeur, 1976, p. 77).    842.6.1.3 Application to Study and Archival Science  Based on hermeneutics, Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation is relevant to archival science and applicable to this study. Brown (1991) and Ricci (2008) call upon the application of hermeneutics theory and concepts in the appraisal of records, and in the concept of an original and the restoration of moving images, respectively. For example, both authors urge the use of hermeneutics interpretation to read the context of records’ creation, including the acts involved in the creation of these records. Brown (1991) uses the term “archival hermeneutics” to refer to a “particular application to the physical and intellectual environment in which public records are created and encoded, of a philosophy of understanding and historical representation principally derived from the presumptive knowledge of and engagement with context” (p.39).  The use of hermeneutics as a theoretical perspective and as a methodological framework in the study of archival legislation enables archival scholars to read the text of archival legislation and the context on how the legislation is operationalized, which shapes and impacts the delivery of a records management program. The meaning of the text provided from the various data sources also gives insight into the various layers of context in which the study of archival legislation is carried out. For example, reading the text to analyze the juridical-administrative context provides an insight into the “legal and organizational system” (Duranti, 2002, p. 18) of the national archives in relation to the government system in UK, Canada and Singapore. Researchers can read the text to understand the provenancial context in terms of the “mandate, structure, and functions” (Duranti, 2002, p. 18) of the national archives with respect to records management. In addition, the text provides an insight into the socio-political context of the country in which the national archives operates. The text allows researchers to read with and against the grain in order to interpret the various layers of context to the way archival legislation is operationalized.  85Reading with the grain enables one to identify “regularities”, “consistencies of misinformation, omission, and mistakes” (Stoler, 2002, p. 100), while reading against the grain enables one to look at what is absent or silent in relation to specific archival concepts and issues relating to the management and preservation of records. Another area of archival science to which Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation can be applied is how researchers can utilize hermeneutics to interpret archivists’ and records managers’ constructs and meaning making. Within the context of this study, Ricoeur’s theory provides an insight into how archivists and records managers interpret and internalize archival legislation and other related text. The reading of the text provides an understanding of specific concepts relating to archival science such as the definition of the record, as well as the functions and activities of the national archives and how they are carried out in real-life situations. However the concepts and the rules from archival legislation and the policy instruments are not objective facts governing the behavior of archivists and records managers in the management and preservation of government records. Archivists and records managers need to interpret and apply these concepts and rules in concrete situations. The meanings of the laws and rules are thus shaped by the experiences of archivists and records managers.   Finally, the theory of interpretation provides a framework in terms of reconciling normative and descriptive theory. Normative theory describes how things should be organized and achieved and “aims not so much to describe what we actually do as to help us decide what we ought to do” (Livelton, 1996, p. 11).  It would include concepts such as the ontology of a record, and the attributes to determine the authenticity of a record. Descriptive theory explains “what we do and how the world works, rather than determine[s] what we ought to do” (Livelton, 1996, p. 11). Descriptive theories would include how specific archival concepts are articulated in  86the various pieces of legislation and policies, and how archival legislation is operationalized. According to Livelton (1996), normative and descriptive theories are “two aspects of a unified approach to theory” and both theories work “conjointly like the blade of a scissors” (p. 42). The process of shuttling back and forth along the hermeneutical arc from explanation to understanding as described in section 2.6.1.2 helps to reconcile what the text says with what it really means as the rules and concepts articulated in archival legislation are put into practice. It also brings to light the gap between the legislation and the way it is operationalized and sets the path of what these rules and concepts ought to be. 2.6.2 Gidden’s Structuration Theory Gidden’s structuration theory was developed as a response to the divide between the functionalist perspective and the interpretative or humanistic aspects of social science. The functionalist perspective was influenced by the natural sciences, where there was an emphasis on the collective and societal whole over individuals’ actions (Giddens, 1989; Giddens, 1984). The interpretative aspect of social science, on the other hand, focuses more on an individual’s actions, motivations, and interpretations over those of societal groups (Cohen, 1989; Giddens, 1989). Giddens (1989) views the debate between these two perspectives as “sterile,” since neither structure nor agency dominates social life (p. 252). Instead, Giddens (1984) postulates that the study of social sciences “is neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of societal totality, but social practices ordered across space and time” (p.2). Such social practices are recursively produced and reproduced by individuals or what Giddens (1984) refers to as agents. Both structure and agency are thus “two sides of the same coin” (Kebede, 2011, p. 643). The theory of structuration centres on three main aspects – the concept of structure as discussed in section 2.6.2.1, the concept of agent in section 2.6.2.2, and  87the dualism of structure in section 2.6.2.3.  Finally, section 2.6.2.4 discusses how structuration theory can be applied to this study. 2.6.2.1 Concept of Structure  Giddens (1984) defines structure as “rules and resources, recursively implicated in the reproduction of social systems” (p. 377). Rules are not something which is solely prescriptive in nature. It can refer to constitution of meaning (constitutive rules), means to sanction social conduct (regulative rules), and a generalized procedure that “applies over a range of contexts and occasions” (Giddens, 1984, p. 20). Giddens (1984) cites as an example of rules what constitutes checkmate in chess, or that all workers have to start work at a specific time. These two examples are both constitutive and regulative in nature. The rules of checkmate explain what chess means and also regulate the game of chess. Similarly, the rule about starting work at a specific time not only regulates the behavior of workers but also it is constitutive of an industrial bureaucracy (Giddens, 1984). An example of a rule as a form of generalized procedure is an individual mastering the rules of language and applying them to his or her daily activities (Giddens, 1979; Giddens, 1984). Consequently, rules are not just prescribed formulas but also “codified interpretations” (Giddens, 1984, p.21). In other words, individuals need to be aware not only of formal rules but also of how to “play according to the rule” (Giddens, 1979, p. 67). In this study, one aspect of structure is constituted of the formalized rules expressed in archival legislation and other related policy instruments as well as “informally applied sanctions” (Giddens, 1984, p. 24) exercised during interactions between archivists and records managers. Such informal sanctions co-exist with the codified rules.   The second aspect of structure are resources, that is, the “facilities or bases of power to which the agent has access and which she manipulates to influence the course of interactions  88with others” (Cohen, 1989, p. 28). Resources fall under two broad categories – allocative and authoritative. Allocative resources involve “command over objects, goods, or material phenomena” such as raw materials, land, and technology (Giddens, 1984, p. 33). Authoritative resources are “capabilities that generate command over persons” and this includes the organization and coordination of individuals in various societal roles (Cohen, 1989, p. 28). Another component of authoritative resources is the “organization of social time-space” which includes activities bounded in time and space (Giddens, 1984, p. 260). Giddens (1984) cites the storage and retrieval of information as an example of an authoritative resource that involves control over space and time and contributes to the reproduction of institutions.  In this study, the national archives in the three countries have the allocative and authoritative resources in terms of possessing the facilities and expertise for the preservation of archival records. However, the national archives also operate in a wider context within the government. The resources of the national archives are limited and there are also other government departments that have a stronger political influence and power than the archival institution.   The theory of structuration involves the production of both rules and resources, which are recursively reproduced through space and time. Structures exist owing to the existence of “memory traces” in terms of “how things are to be done (said, written), on the part of social actors” (Giddens, 1979, p. 64). These memory traces can be manifested in the form of records, such as pieces of legislation and policy instruments, and even the memory and experiences of individuals. Structures are also generated based on the reproduction of recurrent social practices. As a result, systems can develop owing to “reproduced practices” (Giddens, 1984, p. 377) and become institutionalized as they become “stabilized across time and space” (Giddens, 1984, p. xxxi).  According to Giddens (1984), structures are not just understood as systems of rules and  89resources, but also as “institutionalized features of social systems stretching across time and space” (p. 185). The institutionalization of social systems is not a “form of social organization” but rather refers to “routinized practices that are carried out or recognized by the majority of members of a collectivity” such as the use of procedures and specific conventions to guide events and social behavior (Cohen, 1989, p. 39).   The theory of structuration is of relevance to this study as it explores how structures as manifested in the form of archival legislation and other records-related policy instruments are recursively reproduced, establishing what Giddens calls legal institutions. The national archives also operate in a wider political environment where there are other departments within the government which have more allocative and authoritative resources than the national archives. This in turn affects how other forms of social relations are reproduced along with the formalized rules. 2.6.2.2 Concept of Agency and Agent  Agency is defined as “the capacity of an individual actor to control its own actions instead of being subjected to external forces and conditions” (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009, p.39). Giddens stresses the importance of understanding agency not in terms of individuals’ intentions but rather the ability of the agents in “changing the trajectory of their doing at any moment in a given sequence of conduct” (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009, p. 41).  Giddens outlines a number of characteristics of an agency or an agent. First, agents are knowledgeable about their social practices and can describe the societal conditions and consequences and of their activities (Cohen, 1989; Giddens 1979; Giddens, 1984). Second, agents are self-reflexive: there is a “reflexive monitoring of activity” of an individual’s activity, its context, and the reaction of other individuals (Giddens, 1984, p. 5). A large part of the  90knowledge and self-reflexivity of an agent is derived from his or her practical consciousness, that is, “all the things which actors know tacitly about how to go on in the contexts of social life without being able to give them direct discursive expression” (Giddens, 1984, p. xxiii).  Practical consciousness can be elevated to the level of discursive consciousness, which is the ability to “give verbal expression about social conditions” (Giddens, 1984, p. 374). Third, agency does not refer to intentional actions. Giddens emphasizes that actions of an agent can result in unintended consequences. A series of repetitive activities and social practices can lead to “cycles of unintended consequences” which will then generate and reproduce institutions (Giddens, 1984, p.14).  Fourth, agency refers to an individual’s “capability of doing things” (Giddens, 1984, p.9). Such capabilities in taking action suggest that the concept of agent is tied to the concept of power, which is “the transformative capacity” that enables an agent to do or to change things and to get “others to comply with their wants” (Giddens, 1979, p. 93).  The two types of transformative capabilities are allocative and authoritative resources as discussed in section 2.6.2.1. These resources, which are the “structured properties of social systems,” are then “drawn upon and reproduced by knowledgeable agents in the course of interaction” (Giddens, 1984, p. 15). In other words, the exercise of power through the utilization of resources is not an independent force within social structures that govern the lives of individuals. Power should be understood in terms of the duality of the structure where an agent draws upon the resources during the course of his or her interactions and, at the same time, reproducing the structural properties of the system (Giddens, 1979; 1984). According to Giddens (1979, 1984), power is not solely controlled by agents who have access to resources. Agents who are in subordinate positions are also capable of influencing the activities of those who are in dominant positions and  91influence the reproduction of social systems. Giddens describes the process of those who are in less dominant positions influencing social systems as “dialectic of control.” Dialectic of control demonstrates the “two-way character of the distributive aspect of power” and illustrates how the less dominant party can establish control in social systems. The process of the dialectic of control by less dominant parties also illustrates that agents do not consistently reproduce existing institutional practices and that there are avenues for change in social reproduction.  For example, the agent may make mistakes and breach cultural practices, or those who have the competence and authority may choose not to reproduce social practices (Cohen, 1989, p. 45).  Within the context of this study, this author has utilized the concept of agents with regard to records managers and archivists, who have the knowledge and experience in terms of operationalizing the archival legislation. These records managers and archivists exercise self-reflexivity in terms of being able to monitor the recordkeeping activities in their department and other departments, as well as other government initiatives, and this has an impact on recordkeeping and preservation. They have both practical consciousness and discursive consciousness in terms of being able to describe and share their experiences of what they do to fulfil their responsibilities as outlined in archival legislation. They can also describe the gaps between what is stated in archival legislation and how the legislation is operationalized within specific contexts. These archivists and records managers also exercise dialectic of control in terms of implementing other forms of organizational control and collaborating with more influential government departments so as to address the gaps in archival legislation.   922.6.2.3 Concept of Duality of Structure  The duality of structure is one of the central concepts in structuration theory. Giddens (1979, 1984) does not view structure and agency as dichotomous constructs. Structure is the “essential reclusiveness of social life, as constituted in social practices” and is the “medium and outcome of the reproduction of practices” (Giddens, 1979, p. 5). Agents enact and draw upon structure, which is manifested in the form of rules and resources as means to generate action. Such structure also becomes the outcome for the production and reproduction of social practices. Giddens calls the “intimate connection between production and reproductive” of social practices the “recursive character of social life” (Thompson, 1989, p. 58).  As described in section 2.6.2.1, structures are reconstituted based on the memory traces and the knowledge of social agents. The continual repetition of social practices results in a routinization of activities which is the “habitual, taken-for-granted character of the vast bulk of the activities of day-to-day social life” (Giddens, 1984, p. 376). Over time, these “regularized social practices” are sustained through what Giddens refer (1984) to as position-practice relations of agents, which are the “normative rights, obligations, and sanctions” (p. 282). Cohen (1989) expands upon Gidden’s concept of position-practice relations and views it as part of the institutionalization of social life (p. 210). Cohen (1989) argues that position-practice relations are relationships that are not only governed by a set of prerogatives and obligations, but also by the identity of agents, such as their documented qualifications or unique attributes (p. 210). Position-practice relations as used in this study are the reporting structure of the national archives within government, and the institutionalized roles of the national archives and the departments. At the same time, there are also interpersonal relationships between archivists and records managers which complement these formal roles and position-practice relations.   93However, the structuring properties of activities and the institutionalization of practices do not produce “docile bodies” (Giddens, 1984, p. 16). Individuals can transform social practices and conduct and through time, the “mutual knowledge of specific configuration of rules and resources associations with these practices begins to lapse and fade” (Cohen, 1989, pp. 46-7). Eventually, such memory traces are preserved in the form of records and archives or what Cohen (1989) refers to as “historical documentation” (p. 47).  Another aspect of the duality of structure is that structuring properties in social systems have both “enabling” and “constraining” aspects (Giddens, 1979, p. 69). They are not independent forces governing the reproduction of social practices, but “shape, channel, and facilitate system reproduction” by providing agents with the practical consciousness to facilitate the reproduction of systems (Cohen, 1989, p. 201). These systems and practices are institutionalized and reproduced by “succeeding cohorts or generations of agents” (Cohen, 1989, p. 201).  However, there are also constraining aspects in structure. One type of constraint identified by Giddens (1984) is negative sanctions, that is, constraints “deriving from punitive responses on the part of some agents towards others” (p. 176). A second type is coupling constraints, that is, “activities undertaken jointly with others” (Giddens, 1984, p. 114). A third type is structural constraint, that is, the “institutionalized qualities of practices and relations” due to the reproduction of such practices over time (Cohen, 1989, p. 219). Structural constraints thus mean that the institutionalized nature of social systems limits the activities and behavior of agents. Within the context of this study, the negative sanctions can include both legal and administrative sanctions relating to non-compliance on recordkeeping issues. Some examples are benchmarking the performance of the departments and senior civil servants based on the department’s level of compliance with recordkeeping requirements. Coupling constraints include  94the joint roles in recordkeeping and record preservation of the national archives and the departments, including those that are responsible for monitoring compliance with legislation and policies relating to information management or the protection of personal information. Structural constraints can include how the mandate of the national archives as articulated in the archival legislation and the institutionalized relationships between the national archives and other government departments can potentially limit the delivery of a records management program in the government.  2.6.2.4 Application to Study and Archival Science  In the archival literature, structuration theory and its variant, adaptive structuration theory, have been applied to the study of recordkeeping, the adoption of electronic records management systems, and the use of function-based records classification systems. For example, Upward (1997) utilized the adaptive structuration theory for developing the continuum model in recordkeeping and Foscarini (2010) utilized it to argue how the interaction between people and technology enables and limits human action.  Gidden’s theory of structuration provides a lens to the study of archival legislation. Structures in the form of archival legislation, records-related legislation, policy instruments and other informal sanctions are not independent forces governing social practices and social systems: they exist because of the activities and actions of agents. These structures are instantiated as archivists and records managers apply and enact the archival legislation and records-related legislation and policy instruments. These formal rules and the “systems of interaction and social relationships” are then “reproduced across space and time” and become institutionalized (Giddens, 1989, p. 256). In addition, the unintended consequences of actions by agents can lead to the “reproduction of unacknowledged structural conditions” (Cohen, 1989, p.  9555). For example, archivists may adopt other strategies to overcome the perceived weakness of the archival legislation, and this may lead to a series of unintended consequences and become the “unacknowledged conditions of further action” (Thompson, 1989, p. 59). This study also provides an avenue to examine both the “enabling” and “constraining” (Giddens, 1979, p. 69) aspects of the archival legislation because the legislation itself can facilitate the reproduction of institutionalized systems and practices and also limit activities undertaken by agents. The enabling and constraining aspects of the archival legislation and the role of the national archives will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 2.7 Summary This chapter has provided an overview of the relevant archival literature and aspects of the organizational theory and legal literature that support the lines of inquiry of this study. It has also discussed the adoption and application of the interpretation theory by Ricoeur and the structuration theory by Giddens for the study and argued their relevance to archival science and to this study in particular.   96Chapter 3: Methodological Framework and Methods 3.1 Introduction This chapter discusses the methodological framework informed by the interpretivist perspective and hermeneutical principles. It also explains the rationale for the selection of cases and research participants, describes the research process, the data sources utilized for the study, and how the data was analyzed, as well as this author’s position in the study. The chapter is concluded by a discussion of issues relating to the trustworthiness of the research.  3.2 An Interpretivist Perspective  Interpretivism or interpretive perspective is about the belief that human action is meaningful and that the task of the researcher is to uncover the various layers of meaning (Schwandt, 2007; Schwandt, 2000; Williamson, Burstein, & Kemmish, 2002). Interpretivism as defined by Crotty (1998) refers to the “culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social interpretations of the social life-world” (p. 67). While positivist modes of inquiry have been guided by the assumption that the methods of the natural sciences can be duplicated, such as explaining the causal relationship between independent and dependent variables, interpretivism in qualitative research carries with it a different set of assumptions (Flyvbjerg, 2005; Schwandt, 2000; Myers, 2009). Interpretivism is grounded in the view that meaning making cannot be simply reduced to an “analysis of variables and factors that avoid comprehension of the meaning of a situation or a process” (Bakker, 2010, p. 3). It rejects the premise that the researcher can observe the phenomenon in a “value-free” environment (Crotty, 1998, p. 67). Interpretivism emphasizes understanding the lived experiences of individuals and their “multiple and emergent meanings” through elucidating the context of such experiences (Myers, 2009, p. 40).  The interpretivist perspective is relevant to this study because the research  97questions focus on how archivists and records managers in the UK, Canada, and Singapore construct meanings based on their interpretations of archival legislation. In addition, this study aims to explicate how “these meanings are created, negotiated, sustained, and modified within a specific context of human action” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 120). An interpretivist perspective thus situates this author’s role as a researcher in terms of how she interacts and engages with documentary texts, such as archival and other records-related legislation, directives and policies. These documentary texts are not just objective facts operating independently as objects of inquiry. Their meaning is dependent on the “reflexive relationship” (Holland, 2006, p. 524) between this author’s role as a researcher and the text, her interactions with the research participants and their understanding of archival legislation, the theoretical framework adopted for the study and her personal experiences.  3.3 Hermeneutic Principles  Hermeneutics involves the study and interpretation of the underlying meanings of a text and its context (Prasad, 2005; Smith, 1989). The term hermeneutics is derived from a Greek verb, hermeneuein, which means “to express aloud, to explain or interpret and to translate” (Schmidt, 2006, p. 6). Hermeneutics is named after Hermes, one of the Greek gods who was responsible for transmitting and interpreting messages from the gods to the humans (Given, 2008; Leonardo, 2003; Prasad, 2005). Hermeneutics thus involves the “continual interpretation and reinterpretation of texts” (Bernard & Ryan, 2010, p. 255) so as to examine the “larger meaning of narratives,” including the context of these narratives (Bernard & Ryan, 2010, p. 248).     98Hermeneutics originated from biblical exegesis and the study of text but later expanded beyond the study of written texts to the study of social phenomena, human actions, organizational and social practices, and even institutions (Crotty, 1998; Prasad, 2005; Holland, 2006). The term “text” refers to written discourse and as a metaphor used to analyze other forms of discourse, such as a conversation or event. Such texts are then interpreted in terms of their parts and elements as well as according to various layers of context, such as the socio-historical and cultural context (Prasad, 2005).  In this study, interpretation involves making sense of the shared and varied meanings archivists and records managers attribute to archival legislation and how their understanding of the legislation affects the manner in which they operationalize recordkeeping and record preservation. The process of sense making thus aligns hermeneutics with an interpretivist epistemology because there is a need for interpreting the “multiple significance(s)” (Ricoeur & Ihde, 2007, p. xiv) and the various layers in a text and for understanding the meaning constructs of individuals. Human beings are interpretive beings and develop their own meanings of social reality (Williamson, et al., 2002). The objective of interpretation is not the discovery of a universal truth or rule but to “explicate context and the world” (Rabinow & Sullivan , 1979, p. 13).   The methodological framework for this study is based on several hermeneutic principles. The first principle is that the overall objective of hermeneutics is not for the researcher to uncover the underlying motives and intentions of the author and the original context of the text, but to uncover what Ricoeur (2007) refers to as the “work of the text” (p. 18) and what Gadamer refers to as the “matter of the text,” which is independent from the intentions of the author (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 143). The text must be able to project itself internally and to attain a form of  99“semantic autonomy” (Ricoeur, 1976, pp. 29-30). The term “semantic autonomy” means that the meaning of the text becomes independent from the original intent of the author (Ricoeur, 1976; Taylor, 1995; Valdés, 1991). Unlike a spoken discourse, a text has an element of fixity and it does not provide the reader with an opportunity to clarify its meanings with the author (Kaplan, 2008; Valdés, 1991). Because the text is accessed by various readers, it is open to “multiple readings” and “multiple interpretations” (Ricoeur, 2007, p. 32). The study of hermeneutics thus focuses on the text itself and a “rejection of author intentionality” (Prasad & Mir, 2002, p. 97). As noted by Ricoeur (Valdés, 1991), a “text is not an entity closed in upon itself; it is the projection of a new universe, different from the one in which we live” (p. 431). The text should also project itself externally and researchers should gain a form of self-understanding, not through imposing their “finite capacity for understanding” but by “exposing [themselves] to the text” (Ricoeur, 2007, p. 88). Interpretation is a key element of hermeneutics because the researcher attempts to “make sense of an object of study” and to “bring to light an underlying coherence or sense” (Taylor, 1979, p. 25). The second principle is that the researcher needs to understand both the meanings of the parts of a text and the text as a whole. For example, the researcher needs to understand specific words within the context of individual sentences and paragraphs, because the meaning of the text as a whole is also dependent on the meaning of specific words (Smith, 1989, p. 134).  In addition, the researcher needs to identify and understand the various themes and “hierarchy of topics” in the text (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 211). Interpretation fundamentally involves a discursive exercise, teasing out the relationships between the parts and the whole. Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall (2004) note that the process of interpreting a text involves a movement “from the whole to the part and back to the whole” so as to achieve the “harmony of all the details with the  100whole” (p. 291). The iterative process of understanding the whole-part relationship and to move in “broader nested levels of context until an acceptable level of saturation is reached” constitutes the hermeneutic circle (Heracleous, 2008, p. 585). The section on data analysis in this chapter outlines how this author first worked to understand the whole of each interview transcript, analyze its component parts through thematic coding, and comprehended the whole of the interview transcripts by analyzing the themes collectively across several interview transcripts.  The hermeneutic circle comes into being when the researcher moves amongst personal assumptions, traditions, and beliefs, the meanings articulated in the text, and the response from interviewees during the course of the verbal exchange (Paterson & Higgs, 2005; Koch, 1996). The researchers’ assumptions and beliefs about themselves and their own work are also known as fore-understanding or pre-understanding (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004; Ricoeur, 1981). Hermeneutics embodies the worldview that there is a “living relationship between the interpreter and the text,” and the interpreter’s “previous connection with the subject matter” (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 327). Interpretation occurs when there is a “convergence of the world horizons” between the text and the world of the researcher (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 192). Similarly, the metaphor “fusion of horizons” is used by Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall (2004) to describe the convergence between the previously unfamiliar world of the text and the world of the interpreter (p. 367). At this stage of interpretation, there is no division between the text, as the “object of interpretation,” and the researcher, who acts as the “subject engaging in interpretation” (Prasad, 2002, p. 16). Consequently, this study does not subscribe to the concept of bracketing, which means that the researcher “set[s] aside, or suspend[s] common sense assumptions about social reality” in order to “investigate what is perceived and thought about without  that assumption” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 25). Instead, this study recognizes that this  101author’s understanding of archival legislation, the perceptions of the interviewees, their experiences, and the tradition of the archival system cannot be divorced and detached from her prior experiences, background and practices (Blaikie, 2007; Schwandt, 2000). Such a form of “hermeneutically trained consciousness,” which involves an awareness and engagement of one’s prejudices and fore-meanings (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 271) is discussed under section 3.6.   The third principle is that a hermeneutic form of inquiry recognizes that language is an important element in the hermeneutic experience (Blaikie, 2007; Dowling, 2004; Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004). Understanding interviewees does not mean “getting inside” the head of the interviewees and “reliving their experiences” (Blaikie, 2007, p. 456). Understanding a text being engaged in a hermeneutic conversation is analogous to translating a language. It requires a researcher to translate the meaning of a text or what a speaker said based on its context. The researcher, just like a translator, needs to overcome the “alienness” of the text, which is the divide between the meanings articulated in the text and the researcher’s own opinion and understanding. (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 389). The translator also needs to be aware of his or her own language, the language that s/he is translating, and the language of the text. In effect, “all interpretation takes place in the medium of a language” that allows the meaning of the text to come through and, at the same time, allows the researcher to express his or her thoughts and to understand the text (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 390). In order for the interpretation of the text to be meaningful, the researcher has to articulate the text in his or her language as a way of demonstrating that s/he truly connects with the text based on his or her own experiences, to the “point that [the text] becomes one’s own” (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 400).  1023.4 Methods Employed This section describes the selection of cases and research participants, the data sources utilised for the research, and the research process. 3.4.1 Selection of Cases In this study, the “unit of analysis” (Yin, 2009, p. 29) or the case is at the level of the nation-state – the UK, Canada and Singapore. All of these countries are member countries of the Commonwealth and with a shared historical link with the British Empire. They also have a common juridical system – the common law, which is a “body of law derived from juridical decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions” (Garner, 2010, p. 334). This study does not approach the concept of case from the perspective of a research methodology but more in terms of identifying “a choice of object to be studied” in the form of a “specific, unique, bounded system” (Stake, 1994, pp. 237). There are two reasons why this author has chosen the UK, Canada, and Singapore as the cases for her research. The first reason is this author’s educational and professional background. Since she is a Singaporean, has worked in Singapore for a number of years, and has completed her Master of Archival Studies in Canada, she was drawn to utilizing both Singapore and Canada as cases for her research. The UK was selected as the third case because most Commonwealth countries base their archival legislation on the PRA (Roper, 1999). Furthermore, the UK operates as the headquarters of the Commonwealth Secretariat and Queen Elizabeth II functions as the “head of the Commonwealth” (The Commonwealth, 2016).   Second, the selection of the three cases is supported by Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture, which is defined as the “collective mental programming of otherwise similar persons from different organizations” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 71). The two dimensions in Hofstede’s model that are of relevance to the study are power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Power distance  103“relates to the degree of centralization of authority and the degree of autocratic leadership” (Hofstede, 1983, p. 81). Uncertainty avoidance is the degree to which individuals “look for structure in their organizations, institutions, and relationships, which make events clearly interpretable and predictable” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 148). In effect, power distance relates to the “authority of the persons” issuing the rules while uncertainty avoidance relates to the “authority of rules” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 147). The formation and use of legislation and rules help societies and organizations to cope with uncertainty and this explains why “uncertainty-avoiding countries will have a greater need for legislation than will less uncertainty-avoiding countries” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 174). Hofstede (1983) categorized Great Britain and Canada as countries with a small power distance index and weak uncertainty avoidance whereas Singapore is identified as a country with large power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance. Among the three countries, Singapore has the lowest uncertainty avoidance index and technically, it should not have had many pieces of legislation and rules. In reality, Singapore is well-known as a country with a large number of rules and laws and is touted as a “fine city” (Aglionby, 2002; Duvall, 2012, p. 3). The term “fine city” denotes the penalties imposed by the government on various offences such as littering, spitting, and smoking in public spaces.  However, it has been argued that Singapore has such a relatively large number of laws and rules “not because they have need for structure but because of high PDI [power distance index]” (The Hofstede Centre, n.d). Great Britain, with its low uncertainty avoidance index, has been singled out by Hofstede (2001) for not having a written constitution and for having less need for legislation. Canada was selected as another research site as it falls between the two cases of small power distance with weak uncertainty avoidance, and larger power distance with weak uncertainty avoidance. Among the three countries, Canada has the highest uncertainty avoidance index.  1043.4.2 Selection of Research Sites and Research Participants As a case operates in multiple contexts and there are embedded cases within a specific case, there is a need to narrow down the research sites and research participants identified in the three nation-states (Stake, 2006, Stake 1994).  The targeted research sites in this study are the national archives and government agencies of the UK, Canada, and Singapore. As archival legislation in these three countries mentions the name of the archival institution, or the name of the body which the archival institution reports to, LAC, TNA and NAS were selected as the research sites for this study. Archivists dealing with the management of public records and records managers from various government agencies were selected as research participants. As this study’s research questions focus on how archival legislation is operationalized to implement a records management program in the government, the two groups – archivists and records managers – would be the most familiar with the management and preservation of government records. In addition, the two groups interact and coordinate with one another on issues such as the appraisal and transfer of records to the archives. Furthermore, retired archivists and records managers, as well as some senior managers and administrators, who were either involved in overseeing the management and preservation of government records or in drafting archival legislation, were included among the interviewees. This author has deliberately excluded archivists involved in the acquisition or preservation of private records, because these records are outside the scope of the research questions. Purposive sampling was used to identify interviewees who have knowledge of archival legislation and its application and who could provide the accounts and narratives needed to answer to the research questions (Bryman, 2004; Creswell, 2007).   1053.4.3 Data Sources The primary data sources utilized for this study are interviews with archivists and records professionals; archival legislation; related directives, policies, codes of practices, and instructional manuals on records management; minutes of parliamentary sessions regarding the enactment of the legislation; parliamentary reports or debates; and other related records relating to the enactment of archival legislation. In total, this author conducted face-to-face interviews with 54 individuals, and all the interviews were digitally recorded in audio form. The average duration of each interview session was one and a half hours. A total of 30 interviews were transcribed and selected as part of the data analysis because they provide “thick descriptive data” (Guba, 1981, p. 86) that allow a comparative analysis of the selected cases and research sites. While published sources, records, field notes, and memos written by this author on her insights about emerging themes about the data are clearly texts, that is, “discourse fixed by writing,” (Ricoeur, 1997, p. 106), the concept of a text also applies to the interviews, which were digitally recorded and transcribed into text. Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation, as outlined in Chapter 2, makes a distinction between speech and written text. However, the participatory nature of an interview and the hermeneutic conversation between the interviewer and the interviewee do not make an interview a speech. In a spoken discourse, “reference is ostensive” in the sense that the speaker can use gestures or, via the use of “demonstratives, the adverbs of time and place, and the tense of the verb,” convey an event that “surrounds the dialogue,” but this is less apparent during an interview (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 201). In fact, during an interview, interviewees are often asked to provide their perception of an event or to reflect on an event, thus distancing the “shared reality of the speech situation” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 14). In addition, the deliberate process of interviewing a research participant and recording the interview, with the consent of the  106interviewee, suggests that there is an element of intentionality to create fixity to the conversation (Honey, 1987). The awareness of such intentionality may explain why some interviewees requested this author either to switch off the digital recorder, when they felt that what they shared might be potentially confidential in nature, or to avoid providing the specificities of a described event in the study. The fixing of the interview into the form of a transcript also meant that there was the potential for the meaning of the text to be changed “by dissociating the meaning of the text from the meaning of the author” (Kaplan, 2003, p. 32). In other words, the transcribed text acts as a form of “spoken text," which was one of the main data sources utilized in this study (Honey, 1987, p. 80). 3.4.4 Implementation of Study Approval was sought from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia before beginning the study, which was broadly divided into two phases: (1) a pilot study conducted with four archivists and records professionals from the provincial and municipal governments of British Columbia, located in Vancouver and Victoria, Canada, with both locations falling outside the targeted research sites, between December 2012 and January 2013; and (2) a full-scale study, which was conducted in Singapore, UK and Canada between February and July 2013.  Typically, pilot studies are “small-scale versions of the planned study”and as such, proceeding with the pilot study allows the testing of the interview protocol (Prescott and Soeken, 1989, p. 60). The pilot interviews allowed the author to revise specific interview questions that were confusing to interviewees (Berg, 2007; Bryman, 2004) and to add headers to the interview guide. The headers provided interviewees with an overview of the issues with which this author was concerned and enabled both the interviewees and this author to navigate through the issues  107raised for discussion, in the event that the interviewee had a tight timeframe (see Appendix B and C for interview guides). In addition, the pilot study provided this author with the confidence to conduct interviews for her research and to improve the interview techniques (Bryman, 2004; Given, 2008; Kim, 2011).   For the full-scale study, the potential interviewees were contacted via email or through fax (see Appendix A for invitation to participate in study). The interviews were semi-structured because having a “set of predetermined but open-ended questions” provides the research participants with an element of structure and the topical areas of the research (Given, 2008, p. 810). A written interview guide facilitated the process of obtaining permission from specific organizations because it included a set of topics and questions for them to review. In addition, a semi-structured interview provides flexibility as the interviewer can change the order of the questions and make adjustments to the interview questions depending on the research participants’ perception of what are the most important issues (Berg, 2007; Robson, 2002). Such flexibility in questioning and the use of probing questions lend an element of spontaneity, as interviewees can elaborate on specific issues (Berg, 2007; Flick, 2014).   3.5 Data Analysis This section highlights how data analysis is integrated in the data collection process and  is not a “distinct phase” of research (Bryman & Burgess, 1994, p. 216). It discusses how meaning is jointly created by the research participants and the researcher, how data is interpreted during the transcription process, and how Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation is applied in analyzing the various data sources in the form of text. Interpretation is a dialectic process involving both explanation and understanding. It also involves situating this author in the research, interacting with the text based on her pre-understanding, and recognizing how her pre- 108understanding can change in the course of her engagement with the text. Sections 3.5.4 to 3.5.6 explain how the data was analysed in three main stages – explanation, structural analysis of text, and an in-depth understanding. The process is summarized in Figure 1.      109                 Figure 1  Data analysis using Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation  Datasourcesastext Distanciationfromdatasources Stage1:Explanation Stage2:Structuralanalysis Stage3:Indepthunderstanding Appropriation Preunderstandingsofresearcher Expandedhorizon Segmentationoftext Deepstructures Guessingthemeaningofthetext  1103.5.1 “Meaning Making” during the Interview Process     The process of interviewing research participants is interpretive in nature as “meaning making [takes] center stage” (Warren, 2001, p. 5). From a hermeneutic perspective, meaning making does not mean interpreting the intentions of the author or, in the case of the interview, the intentions of the research participants. According to Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall (2004), “to understand what a person says is, as we saw, to come to an understanding about the subject matter, not to get inside another person and relive his experiences” (p. 385). The process of being engaged in a hermeneutic conversation does not involve understanding the interviewee as person, or empathizing with the interviewee, but understanding the “totality of the meaning” of “what is spoken” (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 483).  The participation of both the researcher and the interviewee in a “narrative and interpretive dialogue” during the interview results in the co-creation of meaning (Wiklund-Gustin, 2010, p.36). For example, one of the interviewees from Singapore made a sudden comment: “To be honest, I didn’t know that there was a, what you called, a dedicated piece of legislation on archives, you know. But is there one?” (Interviewee SG-10, March 8, 2013). The interviewee’s remark caught this author a little off-guard as she assumed that the interviewee would know about the archival legislation before agreeing to be interviewed. This author proceeded to summarize the scope of the legislation. The interviewee later revealed that s/he relied on the government instruction manual on registry and records management. The dialogue and exchange between the interviewee and this author resulted in the interviewer informing the interviewee about the archival legislation. At the same time, this author learnt the main source of policy the interviewee relied upon for records management, and that the civil service in Singapore used to conduct examinations for civil servants on financial procedures, human  111resources management, and office procedures, which includes records management. The interviewee felt that such examinations were useful as they forced civil servants to be aware of government policies relating to records management. The “dialogic intersection” (Vandermause & Fleming, 2011, p. 370) of ideas between the research participant and this author resulted in a “narrative text” (Freeman, 2007, p. 925), as both of them gained an understanding of a particular subject matter. In fact, as human beings are interpretive in nature, the process of being engaged in a dialogue is not to “figure out a person or looking to some central core of his being” but to enable those engaged in a conversation to have a deeper understanding of the issues discussed (Kimball & Garrison, 1996, p. 52). The interview process can potentially result in a “fusion of ideas” between the research participant and the researcher, where there is “integral interaction between two worlds, perceptions, or stances” (Vandermause & Fleming, 2011, p. 370), as illustrated in this author’s interaction with the interviewee from Singapore. The author also prompted the interviewees to elaborate on their responses and one of them even proceeded to draw a diagram to convey her understanding of what is a record and how it relates to archival legislation. These two examples illustrate how the process of “meaning making” is a “continually unfolding process” (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995, p. 52) because interpretation takes place throughout the interview process. Some qualitative researchers view conducting a study as a “linear progression” (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009, p. 102) where, after the interview, the researcher transcribes the recording of it into text and then proceeds to analyze the transcripts. However, interpretation of data is an on-going process and takes place also during the data collection stage (Lichtman, 2001).  Consequently, the process of interpretation of data takes place even before the data is coded and analyzed. While engaging with the research participant in  112a “participatory conversation” (Geanellos, 1999, p. 40), this author also made sense of and interpreted the utterances of the interviewee, as well as, within the context of the interview, her understanding of the literature, the supporting data sources, and the responses of other interviewees. The interview process also allows this author to clarify the meaning association of specific words or phrases used by the interviewee so as to elucidate the “meaning in language” utilized by the interviewee (Geanellos, 1999, p. 40). It also offered a way of understanding the “other person’s standpoint and horizon” “without necessarily agreeing” (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 302) with the viewpoints of the interviewee. 3.5.2 Interpretation of Data during the Transcription Process The interpretation of data also takes place during the transcription of the interviews. Transcription of the interview data is more than a mechanical process of listening and fixing the conversation into text. It also involves reviewing and making sense of the utterances of each interviewee in relation to other interviewees, and is thus an “interpretive act” (Lapadat & Lindsay, 1999, p. 81). For example, transcribing an interview allowed this author to immerse herself in the data, and to formulate some preliminary codes as part of her data analysis. During the process of transcription, this author also paid attention to the “emotional context” of the interview, including the “intonation of voice, pauses, sighs and laughter” and specific gestures, such as knocking on a table to emphasize a point (Poland, 1995. p. 292). However, it must be acknowledged that non-verbal cues such as the facial expressions of the interviewees cannot be captured in the audio recording and thus they are not documented in the transcripts.  3.5.3 Distanciation from the Data Sources Data sources comprising relevant pieces of archival legislation, records management policies, and records distance the researcher from the text because the researcher was not  113physically present when the discourse was written. Distanciation involves setting the text free from its original meaning and the psychological intent of the author and to open the text to “multiple and unlimited readings” (Wiklund, Lindholm, & Lindstrom, 2009, p. 116). As a researcher, this author became immersed in the text of the transcripts and other data sources in order to critically evaluate them. Thus, she became distanced from the transcripts, even though she personally interviewed the research participants (Tan, Wilson, & Olver, 2009). Interviewees can also become distanced from specific issues or events when they are asked to provide their perspective about archival legislation and reflect on their experiences. Interviewees can experience a "spatial and temporal gap" between themselves and the event (Ricoeur, 1976, p. 43). 3.5.4 Stage One: Explanation   The explanatory stage involves both a naïve understanding of the text and guessing the meaning of the text. A naïve understanding means a “grasping of the meaning of the text as a whole” and also involves an element of guessing (Ricoeur, 1976, p. 74). The texts of the relevant data sources were first read and taken at face value in order to acquire a “general sense of the text as a whole” (Dreyer and Pedersen, 2009, p. 67). Notes were also taken documenting initial observations and impressions strictly based on the information presented in the texts. The data was first coded with the use of qualitative software, NVivo, based on how they related to the research questions. The coded data were subsequently broken down into “component parts” and then grouped into various descriptive and explanatory nodes (Bryman, 2004, p. 537). Guessing the meaning of a text involves deciding on which segments of the text one should focus on and making a decision on how to name the initial coding categories. Guessing the meaning of the text also does not mean guessing the meaning intended by the author through the text but to  114understand the text in itself. According to Wiklund et al. (2002), the term guess is a “synonym to understand” and is a “hint of the researcher’s pre-understanding” (p. 116). The pre-understandings that this author had this stage, which was influenced by her academic background and work experience, resulted in the creation of some preliminary categories. Ricoeur (1981) explains that guessing the meaning of a text involves a “onesidedness implied in the act of reading” (p. 212). Analyzing a text is analogous to viewing a cube “from several sides, but never from all sides at once” (Ricoeur, 1976, p. 77). This author adapted Ricouer’s concept of one-sided reading in coding and understanding the data. After coding the data from various texts into the descriptive and explanatory nodes in NVivo, this author read the data under each node. The process of re-reading the data under each node provided her with a new perspective, as it enabled her to consider a segment of the text divorced from its original text and in relation to related segments of text from other sources. Such a process also allowed her to refine the coding structure and to group similar nodes together. Because of this, the process of coding is said to be “organic” and “dynamic” in nature (Schwandt, 2007, p. 33). For example, the nodes that were labelled as “authenticity,” “concept of an original,” and “multiple copies of records” were conceptually related, thus they were examined more closely so that they can be integrated. Codes that were labelled as “archival legislation as the lynchpin of archival activity” and “archival legislation is too vague” were also deemed to be conceptually related and integrated. 3.5.5 Stage Two: Structural Analysis of Text  The structural analysis of a text is an intermediate stage between explanation and understanding (Ricoeur, 1976). One aspect of structural analysis is “an interpretation of what the text says across data” (Dreyer & Pedersen, 2009, p. 68). This author examined all the quotes under the related codes, interpreted them, and derived themes. For example, she analyzed all the  115quotations of the text relating to the codes on authenticity, and formulated a theme, which states that archival legislation is not expressly concerned with the authenticity of records. She also examined variances in the definition of the same term between two different pieces of text. For example, in the UK, the definition of record under the PRA differed from the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Management of Records Issued under Section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This type of approach in interpreting data is analogous to what Ricoeur (1981) calls “segmentation of the work” (p. 156).   The other aspect of structural analysis is to examine the “various levels of integration of the parts of the whole (hierarchical aspect)” of the text (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 156) and to explore how words, sentences, and the meaning of the text relate to each other. In effect, structural analysis examines how the researcher can construct “architecture of themes” from the text (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 175). ). This author raised questions on how interviewees interpret specific sections in the archival legislation. Interviewees shared how they and other individuals in their organization choose to emphasize different aspects of the text and at times, this resulted in disagreements and debates. Finally, structural analysis obliges the researcher to look for “deep structures in the text” and to come up with metaphors in order to “grasp the underlying meaning of the narrative” (Wiklund et al., 2002, p. 121).  The researcher looks beyond the literal meaning of the text and formulates a metaphor to represent a “meaning which emerges as the unique and fleeting result of a contextual action” (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 169). This author examined the interview data and was able to discern the metaphors that reflected the meanings implied in archival legislation, as experienced by the interviewees.  1163.5.6 Stage Three: In-depth Understanding  This stage proceeds from a naïve understanding of a text to a “deeper understanding through recognition of the parts to the whole” (Geanellos, 2000, p. 114). At this stage, the researcher goes beyond the semantics and structural analysis of the text into what Ricoeur (1981) refers to as “depth interpretation” (p. 220). Understanding does not mean finding an emotional attachment with the author of the text but rather engaging with the meanings articulated in the text. Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall (2004) note that “the task of hermeneutics is to clarify this miracle of understanding, which is not a mysterious communion of souls but sharing in a common meaning” (p. 292).  Unlike the earlier stages where the researcher is distanced from his or her data sources so that the text can be set free from its original context, stage three involves the “appropriation of textual meaning” (Ghasemi, Taghinejad, & Imani, 2011, p. 1626). As noted when discussing Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation, appropriation involves transforming what is initially distanced from the reader or researcher into something familiar to the researcher. It is similar to the concept of fusion of horizons where there is a merging of the “past horizon of the text with the present horizon of the one who understands” (Schmidt, 2006, p. 8).  One of the pre-understandings this author had was that Singapore’s archival legislation states that if a public office destroys public records without seeking the approval from the national archives, then the responsible person will be liable to fines, or imprisonment, or to both. Section 14H (1) of the NLBA149 states that “no person shall – without the permission of the Board, take or send out of Singapore any public records; write on, mark, inscribe or otherwise deface any public records or mutilate, excise or otherwise damage any public records.” In addition, section 14H (2) states that “any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty                                                  149 National Library Board Act (Cap 197, 2014 Rev Ed Sing.), s 14 H(1).  117of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.”150 This author recalled that archivists at the NAS used to cite this clause to departments as part of their training sessions and mentioned that there were penalties involved if the department destroyed public records without seeking the approval from the National Archives. She shared her interpretation of section 14(H) in the NLBA, which in turn prompted interviewees to offer their various interpretations.  Such exchanges with the interviewees demonstrates how “words acquire meaning in the context of sentences and sentences acquire meaning in the context of paragraphs and of the text as a whole” (Allen & Jensen, 1990, p. 243). Initially, this author interpreted the word “damage” as articulated in the Act as encompassing the destruction of public records without seeking approval from the permission from the national archives.151 However, upon re-reading the transcripts and the legislation, she began to realize that the Act did not have specific provisions for the unauthorized destruction of public records. This example also illustrates how the horizon of this author’s world as a researcher expanded once she examined the nuances of language in the legislation and the differing perspectives. After reconciling her pre-understandings with the world presented by the text of the legislation and the transcripts of the interviews, she began to explore other possibilities with an “expanded horizon” (Schmidt, 2006, p. 8). For instance, she questioned whether there is even a need for penalties under archival legislation, and pondered on whether the archival institution can effectively enforce or monitor the unauthorized destruction of records. The expansion of her horizon led this author to question her initial assumptions and thus “open[ed] up the possibility of seeing things differently and of orienting oneself in other ways in the world” (Geanellos, 1999, p. 114).                                                   150 Ibid at s 14 H(2). 151 Ibid.  118The process of moving through the various stages – from explanation, to structural analysis, and to in-depth understanding is an iterative process and this process is summarized in Figure 1. Explanation and structural analysis involve understanding the text within its immediate context, which is the “internal relations of the text (the parts)” (Geanellos, 2000, p. 114). In-depth understanding, on the other hand, involves interpreting the text within its larger context, including struggling with the values articulated in the text. In-depth understanding requires “overcoming cultural distance and [of] fusing textual interpretation with self interpretation” (Valdés, 1991, p. 59).  The meaning of the text is then freed from its original context and “understanding is directed toward grasping the meanings the text discloses (the whole in relation to its parts)” (Geanellos, 2000, p. 114). Throughout her data analysis, this author had to examine segments of the text and quotations from interview transcripts and to constantly return to the whole by revisiting the overall thematic structure and the research questions. Thus, there was a constant process of shuttling back and forth between explanation and understanding or what is known as the hermeneutical arc (Ricoeur, 1981; Tan, Wilson, & Olver, 2009; Valdés, 1991). In fact, Ricoeur (1981) states that explanation and understanding are at “two different stages of a unique hermeneutical arc” and “it is this depth semantics which constitutes the genuine object of understanding and which requires a special affinity between the reader and the kind of things the text is about” (p.  218).  3.6 Situating This Author in the Research As noted in section 3.5.6, interpretation of a text requires the researcher to engage  with both the text and his or her pre-understandings. The same text can be interpreted differently by different researchers, partly because of their pre-understandings. Therefore, there can be a “plurality of constructions” in textual interpretation (Ricoeur, 1976, p. 77). This section describes  119how this author’s identity and concept of self is linked with her research and how the process of interpretation influences the “conceptualizing of [this] study” (Peshkin, 2000, p. 9).  Part of developing a “hermeneutically trained consciousness” is to be sensitive to one’s own pre-understandings and prejudices (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 271). The term “prejudice” does not imply something which is negative but rather is a “judgement that is rendered before all the elements that determine a situation have been examined” (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 273).  In the course of collecting data, this author was made aware of her prejudices when some interviewees causally asked her why she chose to study archival legislation. She also noted that part of the element of curiosity was due to the fact that some of the interviewees felt that archival legislation had largely become irrelevant for the management of records in the digital environment and that legislation served primarily to establish the mandate and scope of the national archives. The process of explaining to the interviewees why archival legislation was chosen as the focus of research made this author more conscious of how her identity as a doctoral candidate and as an archivist influences her research.  It also heightened her level of hermeneutical consciousness by making her acknowledge that a “person seeking to understand something has a bond to the subject matter” or “acquires, a connection with the tradition from which the text speaks” (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 295). When she first embarked on data collection, this author initially perceived herself both as an insider and outsider. Although she spent about 10 years working as an archivist at the NAS, she was aware before commencing field work that the landscape and her views of it had changed due to her distance from the field and her engagement in scholarly research and teaching during her doctoral studies. However, she also found that it was impossible to suspend her pre- 120understandings and that such pre-understandings had in fact infused her new lens and affected the manner in which she interacted with and interpreted her data.  Knies (2006) used the concept of nation to describe one’s familiarity with one’s traditions and worldview. A nation is not just a geographical space or political entity but it is the “home of specific mythical powers, gods, demons, and traditions” (Knies, p. 8). Throughout her research, this author was aware that her concept of a nation and role of insider and outsider were at times not distinct – she considers herself a doctoral candidate, a former archivist from the NAS, a Singaporean, and someone who spent a considerable part of her life in Canada, thereby absorbing aspects of its worldview. At times, one aspect of this identity emerges, especially when interviewees from Singapore ask for feedback on certain aspects of records management work conducted by the NAS. This author clarified that the feedback given was her personal opinion, and that it was best to consult NAS staff. At other times, she was struck by the familiarity of certain language and concepts used by some of the Canadian interviewees who shared similar background or of certain issues that were discussed in the Canadian archival community listserv. Being aware of her “community horizon,” which poses “questions about who I am and what the world is” is critical to the research as it involves appropriating one’s traditions and being engaged with the meanings articulated in the text (Knies, 2006, p. 8).   This author also found that her assumptions were “provoked” (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 298) while engaging with the data sources and interacting with research participants who did not necessarily have a similar educational background or work experience. For example, the archivists interviewed in Canada, UK, and Singapore came from a varied educational background in the arts and social sciences, business management, library management, information management, and archival science. Some of those who held relatively  121senior positions at the national archives had no prior experience in working in an archives or in a job related to information management, and also had varied educational backgrounds, including arts and social sciences, and law. This author recorded her reflections during the data collection and analysis stage. These notes enabled her to critically examine her “personal and theoretical commitments to see how they serve as resources for generating particular data” and “developing particular interpretations” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 261).  Besides being aware of her connection to the subject matter, this author was also cognizant that developing a sense of hermeneutical consciousness also meant that she should remain open to the “text’s alterity,” as well as situating and appropriating her prejudices and pre-understandings (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 271). For example, she was initially quite surprised to discover that some records professionals in Singapore were disappointed that NAS did not exercise its leadership role in records management. Her prejudice was influenced by her previous knowledge that the NAS used to actively promote electronic document records management systems (EDRMS) for the civil service and regularly conducted records management training to departments. Similarly, several records professionals from various government agencies in the UK and Canada commented about the lack of leadership by the national archives in records management and lack of clarity in vision and strategy. The process of listening and later reading these utterances of some of the interviewees made her question her earlier assumptions. One’s set of prejudices is constantly being tested and challenged once we are confronted with meanings from the text and the “hermeneutical task becomes of itself a questioning of things” (Gadamer, Weinsheimer, & Marshall, 2004, p. 271).  Similarly, Knies’ (2006) assertion that researchers’ “travel,” in terms of encountering something “foreign” and which is outside one’s tradition, helps to bring along a deeper level of  122understanding and interpretation to one’s research proved to be true, as one’s “zone of familiarity stands out in its character of being unthinkingly accepted” (p. 8). 3.7 Establishing Trustworthiness in Research Study The term trustworthiness refers to the “quality or goodness of qualitative research” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 299) and to the establishment of criteria that will result in “increased confidence in the rigorousness of findings” (Lincoln, 2004, p. 1145). Several qualitative researchers have expressed caution about using the criteria for positivistic research to judge the quality of research that is qualitative and interpretive in nature (Golafshani, 2003; Sandberg, 2005; Guba, 1981). Scholars such as Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Flick (2007) have developed specific criteria to evaluate the trustworthiness of qualitative research. The criteria for establishing trustworthiness of research include dependability, confirmability, transferability, and credibility (Schwandt, 2007; Lincoln, 2004; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Section 3.7.1 to section 3.7.4 elaborate on the measures that this author has taken to meet the various criteria related to establishing trustworthiness. 3.7.1 Addressing Issues Relating to Dependability  Dependability or reliability refers to the stability and consistency of the research process (Guba, 1981; Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012). Some qualitative researchers have argued that reliability is less applicable in a qualitative research, which does not aim for replicability of results (Guest et al., 2012). One common method of improving dependability is to implement intercoder reliability, which involves at least two researchers coding the data independently, and then discussing discrepancies in the coding structure (van den Hoonaard, 2008). This study did not employ intercoder reliability because understanding from a hermeneutics perspective did not mean coming to the “single or correct interpretation” (Bernstein, 1983, p. 148). Understanding a  123text involves recognizing the researcher’s historicity and context. The researcher engages with the meanings articulated in the text and also tests his or her own pre-understanding and prejudices. There can be no “objective understanding” out there waiting to be discovered but rather a researcher’s understanding of a phenomenon can change through time, in light of the researcher’s horizons and experiences (Bernstein, 1983, p. 150). As suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985), this author deployed triangulation to strengthen the reliability of the results. Section 3.7.4.1 elaborates on how triangulation was used.  3.7.2 Addressing Issues Relating to Confirmability  Confirmability is the process of anchoring the research findings and interpretation to the data collected (Schwandt, 2007; Lincoln, 2004). One technique this author applied was exercising reflexivity and documenting the emerging insights and reflections. Reflexivity involves reflecting on one’s role as a researcher within the context of a given study, taking into account how one’s values shape the insights that emerge while conducting the research (Bloor & Wood, 2006; Jupp, 2006). Section 3.7.4.3 describes the implications of exercising reflexivity throughout the research process. 3.7.3 Addressing Issues Relating to Transferability   Transferability involves the extent to which the findings from a study can be applied to other research contexts (Jensen, 2008; Schwandt, 2007). One measure taken to increase the transferability of research is to write thick description in terms of providing a “full and purposeful account of the context, participants, and research design” (Jensen, 2008). Chapter 1 of this dissertation provides the legal context of the research sites while this chapter provides information on how the study was carried out and how the data sources were analyzed. Chapter 4 will provide additional context about the accounts provided by the interviewees and the relevant  124documentary texts. Another method for increasing transferability is to adopt purposive sampling in order to “maximize the range of information uncovered” (Guba, 1981, p. 86).  In this study, archivists and records managers were identified who were involved in the management and preservation of government records, as well as senior managers and administrators who were involved either in overseeing the management and preservation of government records or in drafting archival legislation. 3.7.4 Establishing Credibility in the Study  Credibility means that the researcher has demonstrated that he or she has represented the multiple meanings and interpretations of the research participants and the specific data sources (Jensen, 1985; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).  This author adopted triangulation and peer debriefing. She also exercised reflexivity through documenting her reflections in memos to enhance credibility in her research.  3.7.4.1 Triangulation Triangulation involves using a variety of sources to enhance the richness of data  and provides the research with the means necessary to check and cross-check emerging interpretations and themes (Janesick, 1994; Flick, 2007; Mathison, 1998). Section 3.4.3 of this chapter outlines the various data sources relied upon for this study. The primary data sources were the interview transcripts and archival legislation. In the course of the interviews, the research participants drew attention to other relevant pieces of legislation, directives, codes of practices, and policies that they relied upon to implement a records management program. These data sources were also analyzed as part of the study. In the course of interpreting the sources, this author looked for evidence which not only revealed communalities but also highlighted areas of contradictions to generate a nuanced understanding of how archival legislation is interpreted and  125applied in the context of the UK, Canada and Singapore. As argued by Mathison (1998), “the value of triangulation lies in providing evidence – whether convergent, inconsistent, or contradictory – such that the researcher can construct good explanations of the social phenomenon from which they arise” (p. 15). 3.7.4.2 Peer Debriefing Peer debriefing involves sharing with peers one’s evolving insights and the basis of one’s interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This has been done by speaking with colleagues who are knowledgeable in the field of records management and archival studies, and students from this author’s doctoral program. She conducted her discussion with colleagues in a systematic manner by creating a document highlighting emerging themes and some of the supporting quotes from various interviews. These colleagues were only presented a limited snapshot of the data, and they did not have access to the larger context of the research sites. However, preparing such a document presented an opportunity for this author to clarify the emerging themes and to elicit responses and feedback from her colleagues. This author also presented her research to doctoral students and faculty from information schools outside of Canada.    3.7.4.3 Exercising Reflexivity  Hamdan (2009) highlights how reflexivity enables a researcher to “deconstruct one’s own work and the motives behind it” (p. 379).  For instance, as discussed in section 3.6, one of the insights gleaned by this author through self reflexivity was that the boundary between being an insider and an outsider is at times porous and never static, and is dependent on the context of a researcher’s interaction with the research participants. This author realized during the research process that her experience and identity as an archivist influenced the manner in which research participants interacted with her and related their experiences, as well as the manner in which she  126engaged with the data. She also found that it was impossible to suspend one’s assumptions and that meaning making includes incorporating one’s assumptions and experiences in the research process. 3.8 Summary This chapter has higlighted the interpretivist research conducted for this study, which was informed by hermeneutic principles and the application of Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation. It outlined the process of moving back and forth from explanation to structural analysis, and to in-depth understanding of the data sources. Finally, it examined how this author reflected on her role as a researcher in the study by examining her pre-understandings and narratives. The next chapter will discuss the data analysis and its results across the UK, Canada, and Singapore.   127Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results 4.1 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 3, data analysis was an ongoing process of interaction with the data sources, as this author moved back and forth along the hermeneutic arc, from explanation to understanding. The main data sources in this study included interviews that were transcribed verbatim, and relevant pieces of legislation, regulations, directives, policies, codes of practice, standards, and guidelines, as well as related archival sources, such as parliamentary debates preceding the enactment of the archival legislation. Initial categories were developed in the course of data collection and during the transcription process, and were supported by relevant excerpts from the interview transcripts and documentary text. These categories were further examined based on reviewing the interview transcripts in order to construct themes that cut across the data sources and the three countries, the UK, Canada, and Singapore. This author identified variances, not only in terms of differences in themes among the three countries but also in terms of varying perspectives of archivists and records professionals within and across countries.  4.2 Themes   There are ten themes that emerge from the data; they are discussed in sections 4.2.1-4.2.10. In the process of doing so, this author will illustrate them with supporting quotations from interviewees across the three countries. The interviewees are referred to by alphanumerical codes – starting with an alphabetical code denoting the country, followed by a numerical code. In terms of the alphabetical code, UK refers to interviewees from the United Kingdom, CA to interviewees from Canada, and SG to interviewees from Singapore. The alphabetical codes are based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 3166 standard, which defines  128codes for countries.152 In this dissertation, the pronoun she or her refers to all interviewees. In order to ease reading, the dissertation will also use the term “normative sources” to refer to pieces of legislation, regulations, directives, codes of practice, policies, standards and guidelines.  The themes and sub-themes discussed in this chapter are: 1. Records management and preservation are expressed in a patchwork of normative sources. • Normative sources are not mutually exclusive and there is a hierarchical relationship among them. • The language of archival legislation lacks clarity and consistency with other normative sources. 2. There is no consensus about the comprehensiveness of archival legislation in its definition of a record [UK and Canada]. 3. There is no consensus about the comprehensiveness of archival legislation in its definition of a public office [Singapore]. 4. Archival legislation is not expressly concerned with authenticity of records. 5. The complexities of tabling a bill in Parliament impede changes to the archival legislation. 6. The scope of the mandate given by the archival legislation limits the national archives’ role in records management.                                                  152 International Organization for Standardization, online: International Organization for Standardization ISO 3166  < https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search>. The country code for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is GB. However, the code UK also refers to the United Kingdom and is said to be “reserved at the request of United Kingdom”. See <http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes_glossary.html>. This study uses the country code UK since a number of the government websites are based on the domain name gov.uk.   1297. The institutional relationships between the national archives and the government departments can limit the effective delivery of a records management program. 8. Interpersonal/professional relationships between archivists and records managers are the foundation of an effective records management program. 9. There is a perceived lack of leadership of the national archives in records management. 10. The status of the national archives’ reporting structure affects its scope of influence in the government. • The reporting structure of the national archives is influenced by its dual role in preserving public and private records [Canada and Singapore]. • The lack of sanctions for the destruction of public records is symptomatic of the perceived low status of the national archives within the government hierarchy and the low status accorded to records management. • The role and ability of the national archives to influence records management is dependent on the political and social context. 4.2.1 Records Management and Preservation are Expressed in a Patchwork of              Normative Sources According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2015), the word “patchwork” means “something composed of many different pieces or elements, especially when put together in a makeshift or incongruous way; a medley or jumble.” The term “patchwork” also denotes “miscellaneous pieces or elements” that come together to “form one article” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2015). The metaphor of a patchwork is used to suggest that each piece of legislation, regulation, directive, policy, code of practice, standard, and guideline has its own purpose, but it can come together with others to serve a separate objective, such as governing the management  130and preservation of records. There is no single piece of legislation that comprehensively governs the management and preservation of records. There are also contradictions and inconsistencies in the definition of specific concepts as well as how in they are applied. The metaphor of a patchwork is best illustrated by interviewee UK-11. UK-11 states, If you think of the word patchwork, there are two types of patchwork. For example the patchwork quilt which you have on your bed. It keep you warm, it is all encompassing. But patchwork, for someone like a beggar on the street, wearing some rags, ensure that he is physically decent. In other words, his skin is exposed to the air. That's clearly not adequate. And the trouble with the patchwork... is that there are too many gaps, too many holes. (April 25, 2013)  In other words, a patchwork of the normative sources can help to address issues related to the management and preservation of records. However, as noted by UK-11, the various elements in a patchwork may not necessarily fit neatly with each other, and there can be gaps in how to combine different elements in a coherent whole. Sections 4.2.1.1 - 4.2.1.2 will discuss how normative sources work with one another, and identify the gaps left by them within the context of the following sub-themes. The sub-themes are: 1. Normative sources are not mutually exclusive and there is a hierarchical relationship among them, and  2. The language of archival legislation lacks clarity and consistency with other normative sources.  1314.2.1.1 Normative Sources are Not Mutually Exclusive and There is a Hierarchical Relationship Among Them This sub-theme discusses how different normative sources have their own role within the legislative framework of each country and do not operate independently from one another. Since it is not possible to discuss each of them in detail, the discussion will be framed in terms of providing examples of how related normative sources interact with one another.  4.2.1.1.1 UK Several interviewees observed that the 1958 PRA by itself was insufficient to provide the legislative basis for records management in the UK government. UK-1 states that the PRA by itself “doesn’t cover everything” and that archivists and records professionals have to rely on provisions from other pieces of legislation, regulations and codes of practices to “fill the gaps” and to “build on what you have” (April 10, 2013). Similarly, UK-10 claims that the PRA is “very much focused on archives” and, when it was first enacted, records management did not evolve as a “separate discipline” (April 8, 2013).  One example of a piece of legislation that provides the basis for the creation and maintenance of records is the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Section 46(1) of the FOIA states that the “Secretary of State shall issue, and may from time to time revise, a code of practice providing guidance to relevant authorities as to the practice which it would, in his opinion, be desirable for them in connection with the keeping, management and destruction of their records.”153 Both UK-12 and UK-10 feel that the FOIA provided the legal framework for records management in the government. UK-12 states that with the FOIA, the phrase “records management from the basement to the board room” is “bandied around government” (April 9,                                                  153 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (UK), c 36, s 46(1) [FOIA].  1322013). UK-12 also argues that such phrase is a good metaphor since it illustrates how FOIA “transforms the way information is being kept” by elevating records management, which is normally associated with “low status in the organization” (i.e. the basement), to the “very top of the organization” (i.e. the board room) (April 9, 2013). Similarly, UK-10 claims that “records management was in the doldrums before Freedom of Information [FOI]” but the Act allows archivists to “take the line to say, look, if you don't get your records straightened out, you got no chance of implementing FOI and you will be in trouble if you can't implement FOI” (April 8, 2013). Interviewee UK-10 also feels that the FOIA fills up the void for records management in the UK government left by the PRA, which is “very much focused on archives” (April 8, 2013). In effect, she feels that the FOIA provides “authority or weight” to the records management and archival community who are “trying to tell people how good records management is” (April 8, 2013).  One of the codes of practices issued under the FOIA is the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Management of Records Issued under Section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, referred to as Section 46 Code of Practice. The Section 46 Code of Practice provides guidance on records creation, maintenance, selection, destruction, and transfer to archival custody, and on access to records. According to UK-7, Section 46 Code of Practice contains the necessary “details” for records managers and archivists to carry out their responsibilities and duties, whereas the legislation is more about determining the “general principles” (April 2, 2013).  The Section 46 Code of Practice states that “good records and information management” underpins the FOIA, as “access rights are of limited value if information cannot be found when  133requested or, when found, cannot be relied upon as authoritative.” 154 The Code was developed with the recognition that, since the enactment of the FOIA, digital technology had transformed the manner in which individuals create and disseminate records.155 Although the Code is considered “discretionary” (UK-11, April 25, 2013), has “no statutory penalties” (UK-11, April 25, 2013), and is “not mandatory” (UK-12, April 9, 2013), it does adopt a strong wording. For example, Section 46 Code of Practice states that “all relevant authorities are strongly encouraged to pay heed to the guidance in the Code.”156 According to UK-12,  Even then the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice is not statutory: it is not you must, it is a kind of guidance and advisory. It is not you must, it is not mandatory, although it is strongly advised. (April 9, 2013) In addition, Section 46 Code of Practice issues a cautionary statement: Authorities should note that if they fail to comply with the Code, they may also fail to comply with legislation relating to the creation, management, disposal, use and re-use of records and information, for example the Public Records Act 1958, the Data Protection Act 1998, and the Reuse of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005, and they may consequently be in breach of their statutory obligations.157 This statement acknowledges that even though the Section 46 Code of Practice is discretionary in nature, a department’s failure to comply with the Code might imply that it is unable to fulfil its statutory responsibilities. This is because the Section 46 Code of Practice incorporates the main principles covered in several pieces of legislation that govern record                                                  154 UK, Ministry of Justice & TNA, Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the management of records issued under section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Crown copyright, 2009), para iv. 155 UK, HL, Parliamentary Debates, vol 712, col WS113 (16 July 2009) (Lord Bach).  156 UK, Ministry of Justice & TNA, Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the management of records issued under section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Crown copyright, 2009), para vii. 157 Ibid, para viii.  134creation, management, and access. As noted by UK-1, there is a “network of legislation feeding in” (April 10, 2013). For example, Section 46 Code of Practice states that though records containing personal data should not be retained other than for the original purpose of data collection, there are certain exemptions such as those for records that are to be “kept indefinitely for historical research purposes.”158 Such an exemption from destruction is in line with the PRA and the Data Protection Act (DPA). Section 3(4) of the PRA159 states that “public records selected for permanent preservation” should be transferred to either the “Public Record Office or to such other place of deposit appointed by the Secretary of State under this Act as the Secretary of State may direct.” In other words, records identified for permanent preservation, regardless of whether they contain personal data must be retained and should be transferred to archival custody. Similarly, section 33(3) of the DPA160 states that “personal data which are processed only for research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions may, notwithstanding the fifth data protection principle, be kept indefinitely.” The Code of Practice for archivists and records managers under Section 51(4) of the DPA 1998 (also known as Code of Practice on Data Protection) complements the DPA by providing guidance to records managers and archivists on how to collect, protect, process, and acquire records with personal data. For example, it identifies conditions where archivists can process personal data for the purposes of archival preservation. Such conditions include data that are “not processed in such a way that substantial damage or substantial distress is, or is likely to                                                  158 Ibid, para 12.3b 159 Public Records Act, 1958 (UK), 6 & 7 Eliz II, c 51, s 3(4) [PRA]. 160 Data Protection Act 1998 (UK), c 29, s 33(3) [DPA].  135be, caused to any data subject.” 161 The Code of Practice on Data Protection clearly states that it does not operate independently, but it is to be “used in conjunction with the [DPA], secondary legislation (such as Regulations) and guidance published by the Information Commissioner.”162 The existence and interplay of the PRA, DPA, Section 46 Code of Practice and the Code of Practice on Data Protection, in the words of UK-1, “all knits together” (April 10, 2013).  Both UK-7 and UK-5 share their views on how there is no one single piece of legislation governing the management and preservation of records. UK-7 feels that one of the difficulties is that there is “no single source” and that “it is quite difficult to work out” the various pieces of legislation that have an impact on the management and preservation of records (April 2, 2013). Similarly, UK-5 asserts that there is a “complex web” of pieces of legislation interacting with one another and that she is “not sure whether [her] understanding is complete” (March 26, 2013). One of the issues UK-5 grapples with is to identify the relevant pieces of legislation governing transfer and access to records. For instance, the enactment of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRGA)163 changed the statutory provisions of the PRA governing the transfer of public records selected for preservation to either the Public Record Office or places of deposit from 30 to 20 years after the record’s creation. The CRGA also amended the statutory provisions in the FOIA164 by reducing the period when a record becomes a historical record from 30 to 20 years. However, the PRA also states there are some historical records that are still retained by the department for “administrative                                                  161 UK, TNA, the Society of Archivists, the Records Management Society, & the National Association for Information Management, Code of Practice for archivists and records managers of the Data Protection Act 1998 (Crown copyright, 2007), para 4.2.2. 162 Ibid, para 1.8. 163 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (UK), c 25, s 45(1a) [CRGA]. 164 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (UK), c 36, s 62 [FOIA].   136purpose” or “for any special reason.”165 Such records require permission from TNA’s Advisory Council, which is mandated to “advise the Secretary of State” on the “application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information contained in public records which are historical records within the meaning of Part VI of that Act.”166  Conversely, there are historical records that are transferred to TNA’s custody and are not available to the public for consultation. Such records are exempted from release based on the FOIA, the DPA, or as falling into the category of “exception to disclosure” under The Environmental Information Regulation (EIR).167 The relevant departments have to conduct a review to assess the sensitivity of the information before transferring the records to TNA. If the record is exempted from release based on the relevant pieces of legislation, the department should cite the appropriate legislative exemptions in a closure application form.168 The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives would then review and make a decision as to whether the information from the historical records can be exempted from release.169  The “complex web” (UK-5, March 26, 2013) and “a bit of the mishmash” (UK-7, April 2, 2013) of the various pieces of legislation, regulations, and codes of practices in the UK mean that archivists and records managers need to know which legislative framework applies to their area of work, and how the various pieces relate to one another. While the various pieces of legislation provide the broad principles, statutory instruments such as regulations “provide the necessary detail that would be too complex to include in the Act itself.”170 The codes of practice                                                  165 Public Records Act, 1958 (UK), 6 & 7 Eliz II, c 51 [PRA], s 3(4). 166 Ibid, s 1(2A). 167 The Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI 2004/3391, s 12(1) [EIR]. 168 UK, The National Archives, Access to Public Records (Crown copyright, 2015). 169 Ibid. 170 UK Parliament, Statutory Instruments, online:< http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/secondary-legislation/statutory-instruments/>.  137are not mandatory but they provide specific guidance and best practices drawn from various pieces of legislation and regulation. 4.2.1.1.2 Canada The main pieces of legislation governing information management in Canada are the Financial Administration Act (FAA), the LACA, and the AIA, which have “requirements that hinge on information” (CA-9, June 18, 2013). The FAA specifies the roles and responsibilities of the Treasury Board (TB). Section 7(1) of the FAA171 states that TB is in charge of “financial management,” administration of lands by departments, “human resources management,” “internal audit” in the federal government, and “general administration policy”. Consequently, TB is charged with the responsibility of overseeing information management, which is part of “general administration policy.”172 The FAA also specifies that departments should manage and maintain financial records and records relating to the administration of land and public property.173 The FAA states the role of TB in terms of providing the framework for information management as well as establishing “general administrative standards of performance” like the Management Accountability Framework (MAF).174 The LACA complements the FAA by governing the disposition of records.175 In addition, the AIA is meant to “provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution.”176 The enactment of the Federal Accountability Act has an indirect impact on information management because it                                                  171 Financial Administration Act, RSC 1985, c F-11, s 7(1) [FAA]. 172 Ibid, s 7(1a). 173 Ibid, s 9. 174 Ibid, s 10(b). 175 Library and Archives Canada Act, SC 2004, c 11, s 12 [LACA]. 176 Access to Information Act, RSC 1985, c A-1, s 2(1) [AIA].  138expands the scope of the AIA and brings a total of 70 institutions under the purview of the AIA.177 These departments also come under the purview of the LACA because the definition of government institutions under the LACA is based on section 3 of the AIA.178 As such, LAC is “really at the mercy to any changes to the Access to Information Act” (CA-7, June 25, 2013).  Some interviewees from Canada view the network of rules governing information management in terms of a hierarchy of relevant pieces of legislation, policies, directives, standards and guidelines. Legislation or a statute is a body of rules that provides a broad and “high level” framework (CA-9, June 18, 2013), a “waterfront” for a department’s mandate (CA-4, June 28, 2013), and for laying the foundation for the development of a relevant suite of policies. CA-4 elaborates, If you don’t have the right legislation as your overarching framework, you are in trouble. You will not be able to do your suite of policy; you will not be able to do the things that you need to do. You are challenged at every turn. (June 28, 2013) Similarly, CA-2 describes a piece of legislation as being “mandated from Parliament” and empowering the relevant departments with “certain powers and authority” (June 17, 2013). The pieces of legislation, policies, directives, standards, and guidelines relating to information management provide increasingly detailed levels on how to manage and preserve information. CA-9 explains: So the policy itself is directed at deputy heads. And when you look at the requirements in the [Policy on Information Management], they are very much principal based. …So the directives and the standards become much more specific. When you talk to departments,                                                  177 Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, Striking the Right Balance for Transparency: Recommendations to Modernize the Access to Information Act, (Gatineau: Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, 2015) at p. 8. 178Access to Information Act, RSC 1985, c A-1, s 3 [AIA].  139the policy is fine. But for them, the focus is on the Directive because it gives them much more specificity in the direction … to manage their information. And then the standards become much more specific after that. … It becomes much more specific about what they can do or the things they have to put in place. And guidelines are non-mandatory, they are best practices, often based on the work that the Department has done that has worked very well. (June 18, 2013) Interviewees describe a policy as a “mandatory instrument with the less rigorous authority” as compared to a piece of legislation (CA-2, June 17, 2013) and one which is “principle based” (CA-9, June 18, 2013). For example, the Policy on Information Management179 outlines the responsibility of the department to “integrate information management requirements into development, implementation, evaluation, and reporting activities,” and security and privacy requirements within their information management infrastructure. The policy also describes the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) in monitoring compliance with information management, including assessing the maturity of information management under the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) and the role of other government departments in information management, such as LAC.  Although policies are mandatory, CA-11 perceives policies as having “no detail at it” and “say[ing] the same thing” (June 27, 2013). She claims that the level of detail is “maybe at the directive level” and “definitely at the standards and guides level” (June 27, 2013). A comparison between the Policy on Information Management and the Directive on Recordkeeping indicates that the latter is more specific than the former. For example, the Policy on Information                                                  179 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Policy on Information Management, 2007, para 6.1.1 & para 6.1.3.  140Management180 states that the deputy head is responsible for “designating a senior official to represent the deputy head to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for the purposes of the policy.” The Directive on Recordkeeping (DRK) goes into the details in terms of stating the roles and responsibilities of the departmental senior information management (IM) official designated by the deputy head. The departmental IM senior official is responsible for developing and implementing “recordkeeping requirements throughout the information life cycle,” such as identifying and protecting information resources of business value.181 The Directive on Recordkeeping also goes beyond the Policy on Information Management, which highlights the role of the deputy head in establishing and reporting on measures taken to improve the information management framework in the department. The Directive on Recordkeeping182 elaborates on some measures that should be adopted to develop an information management framework such as establishing a file classification scheme and a retention schedule. It also stresses the need to identify risks in the information assets of the organization and to develop strategies to mitigate such risks. 183   Standards and guidelines are more specific than policies and directives (CA-9, June 18, 2013; CA-11, June 27, 2013). For example, TBS issues Standards for Electronic Documents and Records Management Solution184 and specific guidelines such as A Guideline for Employees of the Government of Canada: Information Management Basics185 on the basics of information management for employees. As noted by CA-9, “policies, directives, and standards are all                                                  180 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Policy on Information Management, 2007, para 6.1.7. 181 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Directive on Recordkeeping, 2009, para 6.1.3. 182 Ibid, para 6.1.3 183 Ibid, para 6.1.2 184 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Standard for Electronic Documents and Records Management Solutions (EDRMS), 2010. 185 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Guideline for Employees of the Government of Canada: Information Management (IM) Basics, 2015.   141mandatory. Guidelines are not” since guidelines are based on “best practices” (CA-9, June 18, 2013).  4.2.1.1.3 Singapore One of the main observations made by interviewees from Singapore is that the NLBA operates with other existing pieces of legislation. This author could not name the other pieces of legislation as