I have often said to researchers that the archives is a terrible first or even second stop. Archives are a good third or fourth stop. As an archivist, of course I want people to want to use the archives, to find meaning in the documents and to find use for the records in the every day world. However, archives require context. Without context most of the records don’t make sense. They can be cool, but not necessarily useful.
The best resource to learn all about how to do archival research is Using Archives: A guide to Effective Research created by Laura Schmidt and produced by the Society of American Archivists. I used to send it to almost everyone I interacted with at the archives, from individual researchers to tour groups to college classes. It answers all the questions before they are asked. However I found that most people did NOT read it before coming in or asking questions. I do understand that some people are not wired to learn from reading instructions, but you can’t say I didn’t try.
It begins with describing the difference between a library and an archives. My short answer is libraries contain collected information in the form of books that are one of many printed. Archives are filled with essentially raw data that is unique and the only one that exists. You can replace most library books if they don’t get returned or are damaged, but a letter to the Mayor in 1908 is the only one.
One of my favorite researchers described archives like this, “It’s like someone ripped out every page in a book and filed them separately into file folders. And I have to piece together the story from all the bits and pieces.” It is a brilliant description of archives.
Libraries (or the internet) and books are a great first stop on a research journey. With context and a little bit of information, archival researchers can not only make sense of what they find in an archives, but streamline their searches to locate materials that actually match their research question. A way less frustrating process.
The other major distinction between libraries and archives is the way that people interact with the materials. There are rules when dealing with archival materials and not just for rules sake. After fire, people do the most damage to records. Every time we pull the file there is potential for damage.
People think they don’t lick their fingers before flipping pages, but I have seen how unconscious it is for folks. When researchers would tell me, “I don’t lick my fingers”, I would say, “good because you don’t want to ingest all the fecal matter, mold and dust on the records.” (My approach was to gross them out of licking their fingers, even unconsciously)
We use pencils in archives because you can erase pencil markings. Pen marks are forever and who knows when a pen might explode. A researcher once complained, quite bitterly, about not being able to use her pen. Later she accidentally marked up a document with the pencil, which I could then easily erase. I was only smug on the inside.
Archives often restrict what can be brought into the research or reading room, again these rules are not arbitrary. Backpacks, purses, jackets, books, more than one binder of research notes all add to the general busyness of the table space. The more researchers have to manage the more difficult it can be to be gentle with delicate records. I have had to ask a researcher to not write their notes on top of an archival document so the pencil impressions don’t come through when they had too many things out on the table. They were simply distracted and not malicious, but still damage can be done.
I often used to say to researchers, that I wanted the next researcher to find the records in the same condition as they did. Sometimes it worked. There has to be a balance between access and preservation, but it ends up being more like a dance.