Logo of Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinLogo of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
edoc-Server
Open-Access-Publikationsserver der Humboldt-Universität
de|en
Header image: facade of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
2021-07-20Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.18452/25520
Risk in trustworthy digital repository audit and certifcation
Frank, Rebecca cc
Philosophische Fakultät
Risk is a foundational concept in digital preservation. While it has been examined from technical, economic, and organizational perspectives, I argue that it is also a social phenomenon. In this study I report on the results from 42 interviews with stakeholders in the Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certifcation (TRAC) system, and analysis of documents relating to the ISO 16363 standard in order to examine how standard developers, auditors, and repository staf members understand the concept of risk for digital repositories. The results of this research demonstrate that members of these three stakeholder groups identifed risk in the TRAC audit and certifcation process in terms of specifc potential threats or sources of risk, which I have organized into fve main categories: fnance, legal, organizational governance, repository processes, and technical infrastructure. While standard developers, auditors, and repository staf generally shared an understanding of the major sources of potential risk that face digital repositories, they disagreed about whether and how these risks can be mitigated and how mitigation can be proven. Individuals who were more removed from the day-to-day work of the repositories undergoing an audit were more likely to accept well-documented risk identifcation and mitigation strategies as sufcient evidence of trustworthiness, while repository staf were skeptical that documentation was sufcient evidence of risk assessment and mitigation and thus questioned whether this would translate to actual trustworthiness for longterm digital preservation.
Files in this item
Thumbnail
s10502-021-09366-z.pdf — Adobe PDF — 680.6 Kb
MD5: 3ca0a74db20ef905a4dcda95ed8cb452
Notes
Cite
BibTeX
EndNote
RIS
(CC BY 4.0) Attribution 4.0 International(CC BY 4.0) Attribution 4.0 International
Details
DINI-Zertifikat 2019OpenAIRE validatedORCID Consortium
Imprint Policy Contact Data Privacy Statement
A service of University Library and Computer and Media Service
© Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
 
DOI
10.18452/25520
Permanent URL
https://doi.org/10.18452/25520
HTML
<a href="https://doi.org/10.18452/25520">https://doi.org/10.18452/25520</a>