The History of the Future of the National Archives and How Accurate Predictions Can Be

Recently, I read an article entitled “The Future of the Archival Profession” by T. R. Schellenberg, published in 1959. He wrote

“One of the future developments that I see is a more rational, a more orderly, and a more enlightened policy of accessioning and a freer interchange of copies of documents among documentary repositories. The function of an archival institution, I believe, is not one of collecting and hoarding research materials, but one of serving the needs of scholars and other users; and these needs can be best served by having documentary resources preserved in the places to which they pertain and where they are most likely to be used. It is not the function of an archivist to complicate the problems of research by dispersing research resources; it is his function to bring them together.”

As a researcher in the twenty first century, I have a few opinions on this matter. First off, I have a hard time saying that the working in the archives is anywhere near rational. The National Archives is a bureaucracy. I have seen plenty of archivists not chose the rational choice in matters because they did not want to get into trouble. They did not chose based on what is the current archival standard. The hoops that I have had to jump through in order to get a few documents are just proof that the National Archives can be a little irrational.

Secondly, the free interchange of copies of records is a great idea. That is what the citizen archivist dashboard will be all about. Unfortunately, I think that the National Archives may simultaneously be restricting this by charging for copies of material. I am aware that copiers and scanners cost a fortune and require a lot of money to keep them going. But putting costs on copies only restricts access to materials. In an open access age, charging for copies just should not happen. Archives need funding to survive, but charging for copies goes against the initiative of open access at the National Archives (and realistically, charging for copies cannot pay the bills of such a large institution.) There are not guarantees that we will be allowed to use our own scanners and cameras in the future, so this is something that every researcher should be worried about.

Third, the National Archives should be here to serve the researcher. But I wonder if archives employees hide behind preservation instead of supporting research. I know records need to be preserved. I know records are in danger of deterioration. The conservation department at the National Archives tries to preserve, but it is woefully understaffed and underfunded. Often times, the researcher is restricted for preservation reasons when realistically, preservation may never happen for a particular record. So what is the point? The researchers are not being paid to preserve. While researchers should not actively try to destroy records, we are not the ones who should be responsible for them. The National Archives is responsible for the preservation of records. In the end, the researcher is not supported in their endeavors because the massive hurdle of preservation may be in the way.

In conclusion, although Schellenberg had high hopes, not a whole lot has actually been achieved.