STATE RECORDKEEPING in the CLOUD Lorraine L. Richards A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EVIDENCE-AS-A-SERVICE: STATE RECORDKEEPING IN THE CLOUD Lorraine L. Richards A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School Information and Library Science. Chapel Hill 2014 Approved by: Christopher A. Lee Helen R. Tibbo Richard Marciano Jeffrey Pomerantz Theresa A. Pardo © 2014 Lorraine L. Richards ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Lorraine L. Richards: Evidence-as-a-Service: State Recordkeeping in the Cloud (Under the Direction of Christopher A. Lee) The White House has engaged in recent years in efforts to ensure greater citizen access to government information and greater efficiency and effectiveness in managing that information. The Open Data policy and recent directives requiring that federal agencies create capacity to share scientific data have fallen on the heels of the Federal Government’s “Cloud First” policy, an initiative requiring Federal agencies to consider using cloud computing before making IT investments. Still, much of the information accessed by the public resides in the hands of state and local records creators. Thus, this exploratory study sought to examine how cloud computing actually affects public information recordkeeping stewards. Specifically, it investigated whether recordkeeping stewards’ concerns about cloud computing risks are similar to published risks in newly implemented cloud computing environments, it examined their perceptions of how cross-occupational relationships affect their ability to perform recordkeeping responsibilities in the Cloud, and it compared how recordkeeping roles and responsibilities are distributed within their organizations. The distribution was compared to published reports of recordkeeping roles and responsibilities in archives and records management journals published over the past 42 years. iii The study used an interpretive, constant comparative approach to data collection and an analytical framework from Structuration Theory. Findings were drawn from 29 interviews and their associated transcripts and from 682 published articles from six archives and records management journals dating from 1970 onwards. It was found that the actual work environments reported by interview participants most resembled the recordkeeping environments published by archival continuum theorists. In addition, records managers reported greater worry about status and a lack of clearly demarcated lines of responsibility in their work than did the archivists. Records managers also reported less impact from the new technology as physical artifact than from political and inter-occupational power adjustments that altered their status after the cloud implementations. It was also found that current cloud computing environments exhibit a variety of disincentives for accurate and complete recordkeeping, some of which are primarily due to political changes and others from the distributed nature of information storage in the Cloud. iv To Don Robert Richards, Sr. (1922-2000) and Donna Lorraine Richards (1924-1988) v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS So many people have helped me in so many ways along my path. It isn’t possible to thank them all here. Chances are good they know who they are, though, and will forgive any omissions here because they also know how absent-minded I can sometimes be. Obviously, I owe a tremendous debt to my advisor Cal (Christopher) Lee. He spent a great deal of time discussing and critiquing ideas, urging me onward, reading a few hideous first drafts, and pushing me to think (and therefore) write more clearly. I also owe a huge debt to my co- advisor Helen Tibbo, who has been a constant professional role model. I have benefited so much from her unrelenting honesty, her incisive and extensive knowledge of the profession, and her friendly help in every aspect of my degree program when I’ve needed it. I also want to thank the other members of my comprehensive exam committee and my dissertation committee, who have each provided helpful comments and critiques, and have offered professional insights along the way – Paul Jones, Richard Marciano, and Jeffrey Pomerantz from the School of Information and Library Science (SILS) at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) and Theresa A. Pardo from the Center for Technology and Government (CTG) at the University at Albany, the State University of New York (SUNY). I want to thank the interview respondents who took the time to discuss their workplace environments, concerns, and work objectives. I hope you keep in mind that this paper is not attempting to report “objective truths” about your organizations but rather, to highlight the perceptions which you have discussed so openly. vi A large number of friends and colleagues have also provided help to me while writing this. I want to thank Amber Cushing and Sarah Ramdeen for some very early comments and critiques that helped me fine tune my ideas and better present them. I also want to thank the past and current members of the Curation and Archives Research Group at SILS. I received a number of excellent comments and questions from the members of this group during the various presentations and discussions we had. In addition, I want to extend a huge thank you to the SILS administrative folks who have provided excellent services along the way – Lara Bailey, Tammy Cox, Kaitlyn Murphy, Susan Sylvester, Shaundria Williams, and others too numerous to mention! And of course, thank you to Barbara Wildemuth and Gary Marchionini, who taught my first class in the Ph.D. program at SILS and who now perform so many administrative and academic duties to help students succeed that it boggles my mind. I want to thank two very good friends who have provided moral support, intellectual aid, and good humor along the way – Jewel Ward and Carolyn Hank. I couldn’t have done it without your advice, your jokes, and your willingness to listen to whining. Carolyn, I decided finally to write my own acknowledgments instead of just using yours. Your parents are undoubtedly great, but if I used your acknowledgments *you* wouldn’t have been in them! Jewel, thank you for keeping me going when things seemed dark and thank you for rushing to Hillsborough to be my witness on the morning Garnet and I decided to just go get married. I want to thank my very patient, very loving (and did I mention very patient?) family – Garnet Bornn, Jennifer Ryden, Christopher Nayar, and Jay Eakin. They put up with the days I could do nothing but write and the days that I couldn’t write to defend myself. They offered support, made sarcastic comments when necessary (and funny), and have always vii made not just my work, but my entire life, brighter for their being in it. Garnet - thank you for coming back into my life. You are my best friend and my true love. Luna, Chris, and Jay – I love you and am so proud of you! Thank you for putting up with me! And of course, thank you Bootsie, Jimoa, Hobo, Saber, Matches, and Butters who gave me lots of furry love these past years. Finally, I want to thank my dear, departed friend and boss Joe Fuhrig from my Golden Gate University days. I haven’t followed directly in your path but I have learned so many lessons from you about the ways the market can work when founded on ethical behavior, about the nature of dedication and the pursuit of knowledge, and about sticking to your fundamental beliefs even when no one else accepts them. You never gave up and you never gave in. I miss you, and think of you often. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1. Why cloud computing? ......................................................................................... 8 1.1.2. Why state government? ....................................................................................... 12 1.2. Research Questions and Methods ........................................................................... 15 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 18 2.1. The Work Environment .......................................................................................... 18 2.1.1. Work in Complex Sociotechnical Systems ......................................................... 18 2.1.2. The Structuration of a Social System .................................................................. 22 2.1.3. Changing Patterns of Work ................................................................................. 25 2.1.3.1. Increasing Collaboration in State Government ............................................ 25 2.1.3.2. Accountability Concerns in Society and at Work ........................................ 31 2.1.3.3. Accountability in the ARM Literature ......................................................... 37 2.2. The Workers ........................................................................................................... 43 2.2.1. ARM Occupational Identity in the Pre-Computerization Era ............................. 43 2.2.2. Occupational Identity of ARM Workers in the Computerized Era .................... 48 2.2.3. Current Thoughts on ARM Identity .................................................................... 57 2.2.4. Recordkeeping Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................