Methods, methodology and madness. Digital records management in the Australian government
| Published date | 17 July 2017 |
| Pages | 223-232 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-05-2017-0012 |
| Date | 17 July 2017 |
| Author | Katharine Stuart |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance |
Methods, methodology
and madness
Digital records management in the
Australian government
Katharine Stuart
Government Business Transformation, Department of Finance,
Australian Government, Forrest, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to present ndings from a recent study examining current records management
as t for digital government in Australia.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper draws on ndings from the rst phase of research for a
postdoctoral degree. This research was collected through an online quantitative survey of government records
management professionals in Australia. The survey’s purpose was to understand whether the profession has
kept pace with advances in, and expectations of, digital government. Building on the ndings of the survey,
this paper explores the concepts of methodology and methods and applies them to current digital records
management in the Australian Government. Methodology for Australian Government digital records
management is contained in the 2015 Digital Continuity 2020 policy. However, measuring method proved
more difcult. The researcher supplemented data published by the National Archives of Australia and the
Department of Finance with data from her own research to measure the validity of methods by examining
suitability of current requirements.
Findings –Australian Government records management professionals overwhelmingly feel
requirements, organisational culture and behaviour form a barrier to implementing successful records
management programs. This paper nds that the Australian Government is buying ten times more
digital storage per year than the sum of all of the digital Australian Government records known. This
suggests perhaps not all records are recognised. While there will always be more storage than records,
the ratio should not be so inated. Further problems are found with requirements for records
management being seen as mostly paper-based and too resource intensive to be of use. This research,
combined with a contemporary literature review, shows that there is an imbalance with the current
methodology and methods and asks the question: Has a methodology (Digital Continuity 2020) been
created without suitable and known methods being in place?
Research limitations/implications –The method for collecting survey data was based on
self-reporting, which can lead to limitations in that the population sample may exaggerate their response or
demonstrate bias. However, responses to the survey were common enough to eliminate bias. The study is
based on the Australian Government; however, ndings may translate to other governments. This paper
presents ndings from the rst phase of research of a postdoctoral degree. Not all ndings are presented, only
those relevant to the topic.
Originality/value –As the Australian Government moves to become a true digital government,
records management is still required to ensure accountability of government actions and decisions.
However, while the government transitions to digital, and information stores continue to grow, the
question of whether records management has kept up with the rapid pace of digital information
ow and expansion does not need to be asked. Instead, the time has come to ask, “What can we do to keep
up?”
Keywords Records management, Government, Digital records, Methods and methodology
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm
Digital records
management
223
Received 6 May 2017
Accepted 8 May 2017
RecordsManagement Journal
Vol.27 No. 2, 2017
pp.223-232
©Emerald Publishing Limited
0956-5698
DOI 10.1108/RMJ-05-2017-0012
To continue reading
Request your trial