College and Research Libraries FRANK G. BURKE The lrnpact of the Specialist on Archives This paper was delivered at the 1971 Program of the Law and Po- litical Science Subsection of the Subfect Specialist Section at the ALA Annual Conference, at Dallas, Texas. IF THERE IS ANY DOGMA in the archival profession, it is that one does not re- arrange or otherwise disturb the natural order of the archival record. Although it is quite permissible, and even recom- mended, that disordered records be re- turned through rearrangement to their natural sequence, an archival code states that natural sequence is inviolate. One must understand the reason for this dictum in order to comprehend the archivist's insistence on it in practice. The justi:Bcation is that the creator of the record was a rational being, and had logical reasons for putting one docu- ment in a certain juxtaposition to an- other, and that the :Sling scheme itself could thus be used as a :Bnding aid once the scheme was understood. This thesis occasionally holds true, and the incidence of truth increases in direct proportion to the size of the file and the organiza- tion that created it, because large rec- ords holders require good :Sling arrange- ments-a simple truism. Archivists, then, have dwelt on this concept of "respect des fonds," or respect of original order, in accessioning and processing records holdings. And since the records are kept that way, they Since June, 1968, Mr. Burke has been Director of Educational Programs at the National Archives and Records Service in Washington, D.C. 312 I should be described that way-that is, in their organic order. The description of records, therefore, is neither an in- dex, since it is not an alphabetical list- ing or an item-by-item analysis, nor a calendar, since it is not a listing of all documents by date. Rather, it is an in- ventory, or a register. Both terms are passive. One takes inventory of a warehouse, but the process does not affect the nature or ar- rangement of its contents. One registers deeds or legal instruments, merely ac- counting for them as they come, with no attributes imposed upon the material by the process. One may inventory rec- ords regardless of their order, and they are not rearranged to :Bt the inventory scheme. This is unlike cataloging a book, in which the process places the book in a scheme that is imposed upon it. In- ventorying records merely recognizes their location in an inherited scheme. Archivists in the federal government inventory by record group; usually a record group consists of the records of a bureau, or major large office within an agency. National Archives inventories, therefore, represent the vertical B.ow of bureau responsibilities, commonly known as a hierarchical format. Below the bu- reau are described its offices; within each office its departments; within each department its divisions, branches, and units. The inventory, therefore, is or should be an accurate description of the bureau's organization. Rarely does it reach perfection because of lacunae, and because organizational changes interrupt the time continuum of agency structure. Inventories are but one reflection of an archivist's preoccupation with original order of records. In a major institution such as the National Archives, distribu- tion of work responsibilities follows the same dictates as the arrangement of rec- ords. Archivists deal with specific agen- cies' records grouped according to some commonality. There are therefore, an Old Military Records Branch (pre- 1918), Modem Military Records Branch, an Industrial and Social Records Branch, a Legislative, Judicial, and Fiscal Records Branch, and so on. Characteris- tic of a large institution, there is a cer- tain built-in isolation between branches. As archivists react to researchers, they tend . to think hierarchically and orga- nizationally. A research question is im- mediately converted into which agency or bureau had the function, which di- visions or branch of that bureau, and how the records are arranged. Under these circumstances, one can easily understand why research in ar- chives is a rather personalized activity. There is considerable intellectual contact between the archivist and the research- er. One cannot simply walk into an archives, nod at the staff members be- hind the service desk, go to the file of descriptive material, fill out a call slip, and sit back and wait for the records. Unfortunately, not many researchers un- derstand this. This lack of understand- ing is not surprising since undergraduate students have little cause for, and no significant training in, the use of archival materials. Such is not the case with libraries. My ten-year-old fourth-grader recently was asked literally to catalog a dozen books as part of a work assignment. The au- thors and titles of the books were given, with brief indications of whether or not Specialist Impact on Archives I 313 they were fiction, biography, science, etc. In an opposite column were twelve Dewey decimal classification numbers, and her assignment was to match col- umn A with column B. I was gratified when I looked over her finished work and found that she got all twelve right. She and her classmates can orient them- selves in the school library and in the public library. They have learned to read the book and card catalogs. When they go to high school they may shift over, effortlessly, to the L.C. classifica- tion. By the time they get to college, and, perhaps on to graduate school, they will be able to walk into any library in the country, take a minute for orienta- tion; and, after learning the floor plan and local idiosyncracies of the institu- tion, go to work. However, if they step over into original source research in a major archive, they will be in trouble. It is this never-never world of archives that deters young graduate students from taking the initial dip, and it is as- tounding how many reputable scholars, with significant bibliographies of their own, will admit, in a weak moment, to never having breached the formidable barrier of archival research. There is even a reluctance by many to enter an archives to initiate research, not be- cause the process is so complex, but be- cause the process is unknown to them, and the adult researcher does not wish to put himself in a prospectively embar- rassing position by admitting to an ar- chivist that he does not know the first thing about using archives. Archivists, of course, are continually on the alert for this attitude, and attempt to assuage the researcher's fears with soothing counsel to the effect that he is not expected to know anything about archives. They are prepared to be friend- ly and to help him over the initial hump. For this reason most archives and manuscript collections have an interview routine. The researcher initially talks with what one might call a superarchivist 314 I College & Research Libraries • July 1972 who knows something about the entire collection of materials and can direct him to the proper area and specialist archivist. The interviewer elicits from the researcher the bounds of his search, specifics he might be interested in, pe- ripheral materials he is concerned with, and any other information helpful in de- termining the records to be used. In most cases, the interviewer then directs the researcher to an archivist who spe- cializes in these records, and the inter- view process narrows until specific doc- uments are identified. Once research has begun, there is further rapport between the researcher and the archivist respon- sible for the records. There are still other basic differences between the use of an archives and the use of a library. One significant differ- ence could be posited as the position of the staff between the researcher and his source. Both librarians and archivists act as the researcher's interpreters. In most instances the reference librarian stands between the researcher and the catalog, interpreting for the library user how to obtain information leading to his source. Once the user has been pointed in the proper direction through the catalog, the use and interpretation of printed matter is his private affair. By the time a researcher gets to an archive, he may well have read all the descriptive literature in the form of record group inventories, since these are usually in printed brochure format and are .available in many libraries around the country. At the archives, however, the archivist places himself between the researcher and the actual record, inter- preting the user's needs in terms of the material itself-its arrangement, its re- lationship to other material, its internal finding aids (such as agency created in- dexes), and related matters (often even including historical significance). Very simply, it might be stated that the librarian is placed between the research- er and the finding aid, whereas the ar- chivist is between the finding aid and the records themselves. There is another implication here. It is that the archivist, to be truly classified an archivist, must be a subject or an area specialist, with substantive knowledge of the content of the material for which he is responsible. His value is enhanced by the length of time he has worked with researchers in the records, and this experience results in a significant profes- sional difference between librarians and archivists. A young law librarian at Wash- ington University in St. Louis might have become very effective through her knowl- edge of the reference materials in her field, and the bibliographic corpus for a generalized law library. Should she be given an opportunity to assume a better paying position, for example, chief ref- erence librarian at another general law library, she could make an advantageous professional move, and perform her du- ties at the new post with little trauma. On the other hand, an archivist, who has assumed some professional stature at the National Archives because of his in- timate familiarity with the records of Department of Justice, would find it dif- ficult if not impossible to transfer to an- other archival institution except in an administrative capacity. His professional strength would be weakened instead of reinforced, and a move to, let us say, the Texas State Archives would not permit him to use the knowledge he might have spent years developing. Except for some expertise in the use of storage boxes, the transferred archivist would be of little more value to Texas than a young, in- experienced one. For this reason, there is little move- ment among archivists from institution to institution. Even within an institution there is little movement from one cus- todial division to another. This inevita- bly leads to a certain insularity of archivists that may not be true with li- brarians. The picture drawn thus far, then, is of an institution containing unique docu- ments of a highly detailed nature that, except in the case of genealogists, are rarely used below the advanced re- search level, or graduate-school level. To this institution come researchers who are untrained and inexperienced in the use of archival facilities. They find that records are kept, not according to any classification scheme, but in the order provided by the creating agency, and that overall the archives has arranged its material according to the structure and organization of the corporation or government whose records it holds. When the researcher seeks assistance, he is not confronted by a staff member who in- structs him in the use of reference tools, points him in the right direction, and lets him go. Rather, he is met by one who presumes that he has a knowledge of the reference tools, leads him far be- yond them into the very records them- selves, hovers nearby available for fur- ther assistance should he loom up against the proverbial brick wall, and on occa- sion practically turns the pages and checks the indexes for the user. Perhaps this summary illustrates that archival practice has been oriented to- ward the arrangement and description rather than the use of records. In the United States, really in the true tradi- tion of major archives the world over, the arrangement, description, and pres- ervation of public records has followed a practice of keeping them in an order reflecting government activities. This ar- rangement facilitates the search for spe- cific information: a fact, report, or series of events that led to a policy decision or institution of a procedure. Archival ar- rangement facilitates pinpointing respon- sibility among government officials, and in many ways this is what archives are all about. But this is not all that archives are about. Introduced to this highly formal- ized, hierarchical body of organized records is a conceptually oriented re- Specialist Impact on Archives I 315 searcher, not interested in pinning down isolated facts, but devoted to exploring the broad range of a subject which he deems worthy of study. The metes and bounds of his subject may have no re- lationship to the organized structure of government. In fact, his interest in the government record may be only a small part of his study, which might also en- compass periodical, monographic, and biographical literature, as well as per- sonal papers and official archives. His concept, when superimposed on a body of records, may span a broad range of organizational divisions and time peri- ods. For example, it is one thing to do archival research on the role of the Committee on Fair Employment Prac- tice in World War II; it is quite another to enter the National Archives with a topic such as the social and economic condition of the Afro-American in the New Deal era. In the first case the re- searcher would receive a copy of Pre- liminary Inventory No. 147 for the Com- mittee on Fair Employment Practice for Record Group 228. He would then con- sult the appropriate archivist in the In- dustrial and Social Records Branch, for help in using the files and suggestions for other sources of information. A search for records relating to the social and economic condition of the Afro-American in the New Deal era would immediately create two problems. It is likely that New Deal era records would not refer to Afro-Americans in those terms, and it is improbable that agencies in the 1930s would have ap- plied the term "New Deal" to them- selves. Interpretation would therefore begin by changing terminology, and would proceed to analyzing federal ac- tivity in the field in the 1930s. Ar- chivist and researcher would join in an effort to determine which federal agen- cies, both civilian and military, had ac- tive roles in Negro social and economic conditions. Probably a variety of agen- cies have dealt with labor, commerce, 316 I College & Research Libraries • July 1972 agriculture, the armed forces, health, wel- fare, education, and so on-in fact, one could envision almost every agency be- ing involved in one way or another. Considering the structuring of an ar- chives as earlier noted, such a concep- tual approach could cause the research- er considerable problems. He might want to look at almost all of the inven- tories of records contemporary with his project in order to assure himself that he is not missing anything. Then he might speak with archivists in most of the branches that he could receive the bene- fit of their cumulated knowledge. The task would be long and arduous, and under time pressures, the researcher might retreat to more easily used sec- ondary and published documentary sources. This, then, is the question of "the impact of the specialist on ar- chives." The response to the specialist's needs may seem obvious, but it came about slowly in the archival world. It was to set up projects to analyze archival rec- ords in light of certain subject areas. The choice of where to start was not too dif- ficult, because after many years of ser- vicing records, the needs of researchers became apparent. But implementing sub- ject guide projects was not as easy as deciding which ones should have prior- ity. Again, the problem revolved around the need for highly qualified archivists to do the work. One cannot produce a guide to complex records with an un- trained staff. The person most logically suited to cover a broad subject area is the senior professional with many years of work in his area of specialization. But because of retirements, shifts to admin- istrative positions, and other natural reasons, such a person is not always on hand. Other considerations then im- pede. Instead of producing a guide to rec- ords that have traditionally been heavily used, it is occasionally appropriate to an- ticipate heavy use far enough ahead to begin work on a guide based on future needs. Such a judgment would take an unnatural degree of prognostication on the part of the archivist were it not for the human habit of commemorating past events. Thus, in the 1950s one could as- sume that the period 1961-65 would produce an outpouring of research on the Civil War, so preparations were made for guides to records relating to the Civil War far enough in advance to answer the projected need. It takes no visionary to predict that a year or two from now historians, journalists, and others will turn to Revolutionary War themes in great numbers, so now is the time to be- gin work on a guide to records relating to the Revolution. A National Archives Civil War Guide was produced, in two volumes, .and work is well underway to- ward the production of a Revolutionary War guide at the National Archives. Other conditions, leading to the pro- duction of special guides, occasionally prevail. The mere existence of a senior staff member, extraordinarily knowledge- able about a subject or a record group may be sufficient reason to have him produce a special guide before he re- tires and his knowledge is lost to the researcher. Such was the case with the preparation of a first volume of the Guide to Materials on Latin America in the National Archives. We are far along on a guide to Alaskan material, and hope that it will be finished before the ar- chivist in charge retires. We also have as- signed an archivist and are now doing a research on a general guide to records relevant to Black history in the United States. Thus, the subject specialist has caused the archivist to depart from his tradi- tional descriptive role of inventorying records as they were created, and has led him to describe records, regardless of their sources, which fit a predeter- mined subject area. This is a step in the right direction for making archives easier to use for some, but it should be clear that it will never really answer the needs of the research community. Every day a researcher approaches the Nation- al Archives with a different conceptual framework into which he is trying to fit the records of the federal government. It is not possible to produce the variety of special guides needed to meet all of the scholar's requirements. It now takes anywhere from three to five years to prepare one special guide. Some of us have been looking at ar- chivists' methods for creating special guides, and we are becoming suspicious that there may be a better way, which would respond more to researcher needs. Just as one could computerize an en- tire library card catalog and then auto- matically search it for terms provided by the researcher-such as title, author, subject headings, and so on-so one could, theoretically, produce an archival data base containing all the tools the archivist now uses to manually produce a conceptual guide. By putting all known or published information about the rec- ords into the computer it would then be possible to query the data base through the use of terms relevant to the research- er's subject. These terms might number in the hundreds, and the researcher, who presumably has a better knowledge of his overall subject than the archivist does, should be able to supply the search terms. This is not fantasy. We are following this procedure now, and have done so for many years. The only difference is that we are bound to a manual instead of an automated system. The archivist writing a guide peruses all of the pub- lished and unpublished finding aids, guides, indexes and other materials re- Specialist Impact on Archives I 317 lating to the records. He has in mind a vast conglomeration of terms relevant to his search. When his mind registers a match in terms, he copies out the entry from the record and adds it to his grow- ing list, which eventually will become the guide. If this menial automatic task can be consigned to a machine, the archivist will be free to sophisticate the search by looking at the actual record and checking out leads that the ma- chine has fed him. Archivists would then be in a position to render service to the subject specialist in accordance with his needs, rather than tailored to the archivist's work methods. These halcyon days, needless to say, have not yet arrived. The technology is available, but other resources are not. There has been experimentation in these areas, and we are working toward such goals as the automated production of finding aids at the National Archives at the present time with some success, but on a small scale. We would not be working on the problem at all if archives were as many theorists say they should be: merely re- positories for the records of a corporate body, bastions of moldy antiquities used almost solely for analyzing or verifying activities and events of that corporate body. But the impact of the specialist researcher on archives has removed them from that category and transformed them into dynamic information centers. The challenge of the specialist is caus- ing a minor upheaval among the archival theoreticians of this world, but the mod- ern concept is emerging as the dominant one. It is in the wide dissemination of vast historical information that the fu- ture of archives lies.