Abstract

Sensitive information in public records is critically important for public security and individual privacy. For this reason, it is essential to examine in a comprehensive manner how records containing sensitive information are managed and appraised during their transfer to national archival institutions in accordance with records management and archival science principles. Research that approaches the sensitivity review process from a holistic perspective remains limited. This study aims to address this gap by examining the management and appraisal practices applied during the transfer of public records containing sensitive information to national archives. Within a qualitative research design, the views of archival specialists were collected through semi-structured interviews. Data were obtained from eight archival specialists, six from Türkiye and two from the United Kingdom, a leading country in the field of archives and records management. The findings reveal a comprehensive thematic structure consisting of five themes, eighteen categories and 101 codes. This structure demonstrates the challenges encountered in the sensitivity review process, the professional and technological approaches developed to address these challenges and the influence of institutional mechanisms on the process. Archival specialists insights provide new perspectives on the issues inherent in sensitivity review. The study concludes that sensitivity review is a context-dependent, multidimensional and ethically grounded area of professional practice that requires a systematic approach within archival agencies. It also offers original methodological and technological contributions to the literature by presenting Archival specialists evaluations on how AI-assisted review tools may transform sensitivity review processes.

Keywords: Privacy, sensitivity review, public records, archival appraisal, archival specialists’ perspectives

References

  1. Al-Fedaghi, S. (2007). How sensitive is your personal information? In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 165–169). Association for Computing Machinery. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1244002.1244046 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1244002.1244046
  2. Altunışık, R., Boz, H., Gegez, E., Koç, E., Sığrı, Ü., Yıldız, E., & Yüksel, A. (2022). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: Yeni perspektifler (1st ed.) [Research methods in social sciences: New perspectives]. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  3. Association of Canadian Archivists. (2017). Association of Canadian Archivists Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. https://www.archivists.ca/Policies-and-Codes
  4. Belen-Sağlam, R. B., Nurse, J. R., & Hodges, D. (2022). Personal information: Perceptions, types and evolution. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 66, 103163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2022.103163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2022.103163
  5. Berardi, G., Esuli, A., Macdonald, C., Ounis, I., & Sebastiani, F. (2015). Semi-automated text classification for sensitivity identification. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 1711–1714). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2806416.2806597 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2806416.2806597
  6. Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2019). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (A. Arı, Trans.; 4th Turkish ed.). Eğitim Yayınevi.
  7. Bilgi Edinme Hakkı Kanunu. (2003, October 24). [Law on the Right to Information], No. 4982. Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye (Issue No. 25269).
  8. Branting, K., Brown, B., Giannella, C., Guilder, J. V., Harrold, J., Howell, S., & Baron, J. R. (2023). Decision support for detecting sensitive text in government records. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09383-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09383-6
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Psikolojide tematik analizin kullanımı [Using thematic analysis in psychology]. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(2), 873–898. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.7c.2s.17m DOI: https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.7c.2s.17m
  10. Cengiz-Mater, E., & Özdemir-Şahin, L. (2026). An examination of the challenges and awareness presented by the transfer of born-digital records in the public sector: A case study of Türkiye. Information Development, 42(1), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231214529 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231214529
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Eds. & Trans.; 3rd Turkish ed.). Siyasal Kitabevi.
  12. Cox, R. J., & Samuels, H. W. (1988). The archivist’s first responsibility: A research agenda to improve the identification and retention of records of enduring value. American Archivist, 51(1-2), 28–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40293193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.51.1-2.gkw67424l3344ug8
  13. Cook, T. (2011). We are what we keep; we keep what we are: Archival appraisal past, present and future. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 32(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379816.2011.619688 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00379816.2011.619688
  14. Devlet Arşiv Hizmetleri Hakkında Yönetmelik. (2019, October 18). [Regulation on State Archival Services]. Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye (Issue No. 30922).
  15. Dressler, V., & Kearns, J. (2023). Probing archivists’ perceptions and practices in privacy. Archives and Records, 44(2), 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2022.2073207 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2022.2073207
  16. Etzioni, A. (2014). A cyber-age privacy doctrine: More coherent, less subjective, and operational. Brooklyn Law Review, 80(4), 1263–1308. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2506313 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2464698
  17. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
  18. Gizlilik Dereceli Belgelerde Uygulanacak Usul ve Esaslar Hakkında Yönetmelik. (2022, April 26). [Regulation on Classified Records]. Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye (Issue No. 31821).
  19. Gollins, T., McDonald, G., Macdonald, C., & Ounis, I. (2014). On using information retrieval for the selection and sensitivity review of digital public records. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Privacy-Preserving IR (pp. 39–40). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1225/pir2014_submission_9.pdf
  20. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
  21. Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, M. B., & Taşğın, S. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma [Qualitative research in social sciences] (2nd ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  22. Jaillant, L. (2022). More data, less process: A user-centered approach to email and born-digital archives. The American Archivist, 85(2), 533–555. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/16560135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17723/2327-9702-85.2.533
  23. Jaillant, L., & Rees, A. (2023). Applying AI to digital archives: Trust, collaboration and shared professional ethics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 38(2), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqad019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqac073
  24. Johns, R. (n.d.). Appraisal and disposal. https://silo.tips/embed/04-appraisal-and-disposal.html
  25. Keskin, İ. (2012). Türkiye için bir arşiv kanunu yazmak: Bir model önerisi [Writing an archival law for Türkiye: A model proposal]. Arşiv Dünyası, 13, 5–19.
  26. Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu. (2016, April 7). [Personal Data Protection Law]. No. 6698. (2016). Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye (Issue No. 29677).
  27. Marciano, R., Underwood, W., Hanaee, M., Mullane, C., Singh, A., & Tethong, Z. (2018). Automating the detection of personally identifiable information (PII) in Japanese-American WWII incarceration camp records. University of Maryland, Digital Curation Innovation Center. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2018.8622634 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2018.8622634
  28. Mathers, J. (2000). Providing access to sensitive records: The Personal History Index (PHIND). Archives and Manuscripts, 28(2), 58–70. https://publications.archivists.org.au/index.php/asa/article/view/8855
  29. McDonald, G. (2019). A framework for technology-assisted sensitivity review: Using sensitivity classification to prioritise documents for review [Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow]. https://theses.gla.ac.uk/41076/1/2019mcdonaldphd.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3458537.3458544
  30. McDonald, G., García-Pedrajas, N., MacDonald, C., & Ounis, I. (2017). A study of SVM kernel functions for sensitivity classification ensembles with POS sequences. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 1097–1100). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077136.3080731 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3077136.3080731
  31. McDonald, G., Macdonald, C., & Ounis, I. (2014). Towards a classifier for digital sensitivity review. In Advances in Information Retrieval: 36th European Conference on IR Research (pp. 500–506). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06028-6_52 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06028-6_48
  32. McDonald, G., Macdonald, C., & Ounis, I. (2015). Using part-of-speech n-grams for sensitive text classification. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval (pp. 381–384). https://doi.org/10.1145/2808194.2809493 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2808194.2809496
  33. McDonald, G., Macdonald, C., & Ounis, I. (2018a). Active learning strategies for technology-assisted sensitivity review. In European Conference on Information Retrieval (pp. 439–453). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76941-7_32 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76941-7_33
  34. McDonald, G., Macdonald, C., & Ounis, I. (2018b). Towards maximising openness in digital sensitivity review using reviewing time predictions. In European Conference on Information Retrieval (pp. 699–706). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76941-7_47 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76941-7_65
  35. McDonald, G., Macdonald, C., & Ounis, I. (2020). How sensitivity classification effectiveness impacts reviewers in technology-assisted sensitivity review. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 39(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298962 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298962
  36. McKechnie, J. & McDonald, G. (2024). SARA: A collection of sensitivity-aware relevance assessments. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.05144
  37. Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183
  38. Moss, M. S. & Gollins, T. J. (2017). Our digital legacy: An archival perspective. Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies, 4(2), 3. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol4/iss2/3
  39. Narvala, H., McDonald, G., & Ounis, I. (2022a). Sensitivity review of large collections by identifying and prioritising coherent document groups. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 4931–4935). https://doi.org/10.1145/3511808.3557182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3511808.3557182
  40. Narvala, H., McDonald, G., & Ounis, I. (2022b, March 14). The role of latent semantic categories and clustering in enhancing the efficiency of human sensitivity review. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (pp. 56–66). https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505824 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505824
  41. Narvala, H. (2024). Identifying latent relationship information in documents for efficient and effective sensitivity review [PhD thesis]. University of Glasgow.
  42. National Archives and Records Administration. (2025). AI Use Cases – Inventory of AI Applications in NARA. https://www.archives.gov/ai
  43. Öztürk, H. (2024). Kamu belgelerinin hassasiyet değerlendirmesi: Kuram, süreç ve zorluklar [Sensitivity review of public records: Theory, process and challenges]. Hazine-i Evrak Arşiv ve Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(6), 91–126. https://doi.org/10.59054/hed.1497456 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59054/hed.1497456
  44. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research and evaluation methods] (3rd ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  45. Peterson, T. H. (2007). Attitudes and access in the United States of America. In Proceedings of the Japan–US Friendship Association Seminar (pp. 1–8). https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/11_Trudy_PETERSON.pdf
  46. Photopoulos, C. (2011). Managing catastrophic loss of sensitive data: A guide for IT and security professionals. Elsevier.
  47. Rukancı, F., Anameriç, H., & Başar, A. (2021). Arşiv ve arşivcilik: Kuram, strateji ve uygulamalar [Archives and archiving: Theory, strategy and practices]. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Yayınları.
  48. Rukancı, F., Anameriç, H., & Başar, A. (2023). Arşiv Terimleri [Archival terms]. Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Yayınları.
  49. Sánchez, D., Batet, M., & Viejo, A. (2012). Detecting sensitive information from textual documents: An information-theoretic approach. In Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence: 9th International Conference Proceedings (pp. 173–184). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34620-0_17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34620-0_17
  50. Sillitoe, P. J. (1998). Privacy in a public place: Managing public access to personal information controlled by archives services. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 19(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379819809514418 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00379819809514418
  51. Sloyan, V. (2016). Born-digital archives at the Wellcome Library: Appraisal and sensitivity review of two hard drives. Archives and Records, 37(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2016.1144504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2016.1144504
  52. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
  53. The National Archives. (December, 2015). Access to public records. Erişim adresi: https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-to-public-records.pdf
  54. The National Archives. (February, 2016). The application of technology-assisted review to born-digital records transfer, inquiries and beyond. https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/technology-assisted-review-to-born-digital-records-transfer.pdf
  55. The National Archives. (March, 2019). Personal information: a guide for justification wording. https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/personal-information-justification.pdf
  56. The National Archives. (July, 2021). Access at transfer – Sensitivity Review Overview. https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-at-transfer-sensitivity-review-overview.pdf
  57. The National Archives. (2024). Step 3: Sensitivity review records. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/digital-records-transfer/digital-transfer-steps/step-3-sensitivity-review/
  58. Thompson, E. D., & Kaarst-Brown, M. L. (2005). Sensitive information: A review and research agenda. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20121 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20121
  59. TOMES Project. (n.d.). Transforming online mail with embedded semantics. https://www.dncr.nc.gov/tomes/20181127-tomessoftwareoverview/download
  60. Tough, A. G. (2018). The scope and appetite for technology-assisted sensitivity reviewing of born-digital records in a resource-poor environment: A case study from Malawi. In P. Ngulube (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Heritage Management and Preservation (pp. 175–182). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3137-1.ch009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3137-1.ch009
  61. US Department of Justice. (2023). Summary of Annual FOIA Reports for Fiscal Year 2022. https://www.justice.gov/oip/page/file/1581856/dl?inline=
  62. Wadsworth, C., Vera, F. & Piech, C. (2018, June 30). Achieving fairness through adversarial learning: an application to recidivism prediction. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.00199
  63. Whyte, J., & Walsh, T. (2024). Carefully and cautiously: How Canadian cultural memory workers review digital materials for private and sensitive information. The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 19(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v19i1.7180 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v19i1.7180
  64. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (12th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  65. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

License

Copyright (c) 1970 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Öztürk, H., & Rukancı, F. (2026). Sensitivity review of public records: A thematic qualitative inquiry. Information World, 27, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2026.899