Is archival advocacy the missing pierce in the management of records and archives in Zimbabwe? Records and Archives Professional’s perceptions

The public sector in Zimbabwe has experienced missing, incomplete and poorly managed records leading to government losing money, assets and equipment. Even during the pre-colonial era, in the then Southern Rhodesia, public records were inappropriately managed, and the records would accumulate to abnormal volumes in different offices (Chaterera 2016).in addition, Mnjana (1989) state that archivists only arrange and describe archives assuming users will come and access them. Fast forward to the present day, the trend continues. The Auditor General’s Reports (2015-2017) highlighted incomplete financial records, fuel records, and at times missing procurement records in public entities. Maphorisa and Jain (2013) state that archives are suffering from low uptake and utilisation by users making it difficult for Information professionals to justify their existence and receive funding. While records have been considered an organisational asset that ensures transparency and good government, these records management anomalies raise the question on what could be the reason behind this poor string of records management malpractice. This qualitative study sought opinions of Information professionals to establish whether records and archival advocacy was the missing piece of the puzzle in the management of records and archives. Convenient sampling technique was used to obtain views on archival advocacy with open ended questionnaire method used to solicit data. Data generated was analysed thematically and presented in narrative format. Findings from the study showed that due to poor records and archival advocacy initiatives the profession was negatively perceived, vacancies were occupied by unqualified staff while resources allocated were not enough. It was recommended that records and archives professionals should coordinate records and archival advocacy efforts and be active in changing the negative perceptions of resource allocators, public figure and the general public about their profession.