Loading field map
Archival science begins with a deceptively simple question: which records deserve to survive, how should they be arranged, and who gets to decide? Over nearly two centuries, archivists have answered that question in sharply different ways. The frameworks that emerged form a chain of reactions—each one responding to the pressures of expanding record volumes, new technologies, or changing social values. What follows traces the major frameworks, showing how they built on, challenged, or coexisted with one another.
The Principle of Provenance (1841–Present) is the bedrock of modern archival practice. It holds that records created by the same person, family, or organization must be kept together and not intermingled with records from other creators. This principle, formalized in the 1841 French circular and later elaborated in the 1898 Dutch manual, gave archivists a clear rule for arrangement: respect the original order of the records and preserve their context. Provenance was a response to earlier practices that rearranged records by subject, which destroyed evidence of how records were created and used.
Jenkinsonian Custodial Theory (1922–1970) took the principle of provenance and added a strong ethical stance. Sir Hilary Jenkinson, writing in A Manual of Archive Administration (1922), argued that the archivist should be a neutral guardian—a custodian who receives records passively from the creating body and preserves them without intervention. For Jenkinson, the archivist's role was to protect the integrity of the records, not to select what should be kept. This custodial ideal dominated British and Commonwealth archival practice for decades. Its limitation became obvious as government agencies produced ever more records: a purely passive stance left archivists drowning in paper.
Schellenbergian Appraisal (1956–Present) broke decisively with Jenkinson. Theodore Schellenberg, an American archivist, argued that archivists could not simply receive everything—they had to actively select records of enduring value. In The Appraisal of Modern Public Records (1956), he proposed that records be evaluated for their primary (administrative) and secondary (research) value. This framework transformed the archivist from a passive custodian into an active appraiser. Schellenberg's approach coexists with Jenkinson's in the sense that many archives still use appraisal criteria, but the underlying philosophy is a direct rejection of custodial neutrality.
Documentation Strategy (1984–Present) emerged as a refinement of Schellenberg's appraisal. Rather than appraising records from a single institution, documentation strategy coordinates multiple archives, libraries, and museums to document a broad topic or geographic area. It was developed by Helen Samuels and others to address the problem that traditional appraisal missed entire domains of human activity—such as the history of science or urban development—because no single institution held all the relevant records. Documentation strategy broadens the scope of appraisal but retains Schellenberg's active, interventionist stance.
Macroappraisal (1991–Present) shifted the unit of analysis from individual records to the functions and activities of the creating organization. Developed at the National Archives of Canada by Terry Cook and others, macroappraisal asks not "Is this record valuable?" but "What functions of this organization are most important to document?" By focusing on functions rather than documents, macroappraisal aimed to make appraisal more systematic and less subjective. It differs from documentation strategy in its institutional focus: macroappraisal works within a single archival institution, while documentation strategy coordinates across institutions.
Records Lifecycle Model (1950–Present) describes a record's journey from creation through active use to eventual disposition—either destruction or permanent preservation in an archive. This linear model, developed in the mid-twentieth century, divides the record's life into stages: creation, maintenance, and disposition. It gave records managers a clear framework for scheduling retention and disposal. However, the lifecycle model assumes a sharp break between the active phase (managed by the creating office) and the archival phase (managed by the archivist).
Records Continuum Model (1996–Present) rejected that break. Developed by Frank Upward and others in Australia, the continuum model treats records as having multiple, coexisting dimensions—creation, capture, organization, and pluralization—that operate simultaneously rather than sequentially. A record can be used for its original purpose while also being organized for future research and reinterpreted by new communities. The continuum model draws on postmodern ideas about multiple perspectives and challenges the lifecycle model's linearity. Today, both models remain in use: the lifecycle model is simpler for training and daily operations, while the continuum model better captures the complexity of digital records and participatory archives.
Postcustodial Archival Theory (1981–Present) emerged as digital records began to proliferate. If records exist only as bits on a server, the traditional model of physically transferring them to an archival building becomes impractical. Postcustodial theory, articulated by F. Gerald Ham and others, argues that archivists should focus on intellectual control and access rather than physical custody. The archivist's role shifts from warehouse manager to systems designer: building metadata schemas, setting retention rules, and ensuring that records remain authentic and accessible over time. Postcustodial theory does not replace custodial practice—many archives still hold physical records—but it adds a parallel track for digital records.
Archival Diplomatics (1990–Present) revived a much older tradition. Diplomatics originated in the seventeenth century as a method for authenticating medieval documents. Luciana Duranti adapted it for modern records, arguing that the formal characteristics of a record—its structure, context, and transmission—can be analyzed to determine its authenticity and reliability. Archival diplomatics complements the principle of provenance by providing a technical toolkit for verifying that a record is what it claims to be. In the digital environment, diplomatics has become essential for establishing the trustworthiness of electronic records.
Community Archives (1970–Present) emerged from grassroots movements rather than professional theory. Marginalized communities—racial minorities, LGBTQ+ groups, Indigenous peoples—began creating their own archives because mainstream institutions had ignored or misrepresented their histories. Community archives challenge the institutional authority of traditional archives by asserting that communities have the right to control their own records. The framework gained theoretical visibility in the 1990s and 2000s, but its practical roots go back to the 1970s. Community archives coexist with institutional archives, often in a tense relationship: institutions may offer support, but communities insist on autonomy.
Postmodern Archival Theory (2001–Present) provided a philosophical foundation for many of these challenges. Drawing on thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, postmodern archivists argued that archives are not neutral repositories but sites of power that shape what is remembered and what is forgotten. The archivist's decisions—what to keep, how to describe it, who gets access—are inherently political. Postmodern theory did not replace earlier frameworks but transformed how archivists understand their own work. It opened the door for explicit attention to social justice.
Social Justice Archival Theory (2007–Present) took the postmodern critique in a practical direction. If archives are sites of power, then archivists have a responsibility to use that power to redress historical injustices. Social justice archival theory calls for proactive documentation of marginalized communities, participatory description practices, and advocacy for equitable access. It differs from community archives in its focus on the professional archivist's ethical obligations rather than on community self-determination. The two frameworks overlap but are not identical: community archives emphasize autonomy, while social justice theory emphasizes professional responsibility.
Participatory Archives (2008–Present) extends the logic of community involvement into the day-to-day operations of archives. In a participatory archive, users are not just consumers but co-creators: they contribute metadata, tag records, write descriptions, and even help select what to preserve. Participatory archives draw on Web 2.0 technologies and on the continuum model's idea that records are continually re-created through use. The framework coexists with traditional archival practice—many archives offer participatory features alongside professional description—but it challenges the professional monopoly on archival expertise.
Today's leading frameworks—the Records Continuum Model, Postmodern Archival Theory, Social Justice Archival Theory, and Participatory Archives—share a rejection of the archivist as a neutral, passive custodian. They agree that archival decisions are value-laden and that communities should have a voice in how their records are managed. They disagree, however, on how far participation should go. Continuum theorists see participation as built into the nature of records; social justice theorists see it as an ethical imperative; participatory archivists see it as a practical design challenge. Meanwhile, older frameworks like the Principle of Provenance and Schellenbergian Appraisal remain in daily use, not as rivals but as tools that newer frameworks have recontextualized. The field is not a sequence of replacements but an expanding toolkit, with each framework adding a new dimension to what it means to keep records.