Archivists vs. Historians

Today I read “The Archive(s) Is a Foreign Country: Historians, Archivists and the Changing Archival Landscape” by Terry Cook. Cook, a Canadian archivist, sought to explain why there is so much distance between archivists and historians. He argued that historians do not understand how much archivists influence and control history. Obviously this can be applied to the National Archives in the United States and around the world. But Cook basically ignores the historian’s perspective.
For one thing, the two professions are separate professions for a reason. Without archival training, the historian has no knowledge of how archives evolve over time. This is very similar to how archivists do not need to know historiography. It is simply not part of their profession. Historians and archivists have different professions because they do different things.
Cook also failed to realize that historians’ time in the archive is often limited due to time and financial restraints. I consider myself lucky that I can spend so much time in the National Archives. But most researchers do not have this luxury. Last week, I overheard a researcher say she was a doctoral student doing research for her dissertation on Civil War camps. She only researched at the National Archives for two days. This researcher, like many others, did not have the time to explore all avenues of research. Reference archivists know what is often requested and only tell researchers about the most popular records related to their research. In this way, they continue to control what becomes history. Often, having a large amount of time to research, experience researching, and the willingness to look everywhere can yield results that are not controlled by an archivist. But few have this opportunity.
Cook needed to realize that archival work is not one-sided. While historians are not trained to understand the archivists’ craft, historians can choose to impact history by expanding their research.