Archival Reference in the 21st-Century: A Degree of Age?

Lately, I've had the privilege for a summer position to research in two states for various archival materials in support of a project I was hired to complete by a major state historical organization. I've been to 10 archival institutions in person, and contacted 10 more via email. The responses I've gotten have been quite interesting. The best reference services I have gotten thus far have been from archival professionals under the age of 40. Most of those I have encountered older than that have approached me with a degree of pedantic instruction in the finer rules of reading room policies (I'm sorry, I get it: pencils only, no notebooks, a couple items at a time, and copy request forms--thanks, that's very high-security). Now, please don't misunderstand: I'm not knocking the policies. As an archivist with the degree to prove it, I understand why the policies are in place. Still, is this all that reference service seems to have become in archives today, along with pointing people to access all the material online first before they come to the institution for help?

I have noticed that despite proper notification of my research interests, provision in most cases or items and collections I would like to research in, and a badge that gives me some credence, youth is still looked down upon by the elder in the archival fraternity. Not only that, I've had the privilege of being scolded in person a few times for not understanding archival procedure (again, the degree and work experience did not seem to matter at all). I've gone on to state that I've used their collections before and have studied their system online before coming, and I came to speak with them because so much of their records either do not have finding aids or are cataloged in an archives personnel-only system. I do not need to be lectured on timing and communication when the archives never responded to me. This type of reaction from archives does not create effective research environments for outsiders, and even as an "insider" to a degree delays for assistance, poor professional attitudes, and inabilities to find vital records for important research get frustrating. Again, the noticeable difference in this regard had to do with the age of and the approach by the archivists.

At one institution I visited last week, an older, more established archivist proceeded to approach me like a 5 year old whose never read before in his life. After describing what I wanted, he was somewhat dumbfounded as to where, if at all, they might have anything. After a reference desk shift change, the helpful mid-30s archivist and I talked for a bit, and I asked if she knew of anything related to what I was looking for. She came out 5 minutes later with a minutes book that was very helpful for providing context for an aspect of my research. You might say that the other archivist didn't know it was there--but she mentioned it was a well-known archival resource the archives held. Okay, maybe an anomaly.

At one of the most important archives in the state I'm conducting research in, the most helpful person was a 21-year older summer student worker, who in-between helping me was texting on his phone and watching the Women's World Cup online. Now, the older readers of this blog might roll their eyes and say "That's the problem with the younger people in archives." Not only did this younger archives employee who had been at the institution for three years help me far more than the supervisory archivist, whose only response when I arrived was an apology for not responded to me and "you should come back next week when our reference archivist is back from vacation," this young man took a digitization order from me, pulled 4 carts of archival materials, looked up throughout the entire library's system for records that were in another department, and generally was interested in helping me. Not only was he helpful to me--a person with a credential for another history institution--but he was the same way with everyone who came through the door: school groups, old ladies doing genealogy, and fellow student employees.

In Ohio while researching, I had two different series of archival reference staff at one institution over two days assist me with copies and records requests. Half were over 35 and the other half were between 22 and 32 (I happened to know one of the people). It was interesting that the younger people were much more helpful and pleasant--with a less pedantic approach--than the other reference staff. Like with the previous institution I mentioned, this pattern carried with everyone else who came to the reference desk (so my being a younger person did not have much to do with the better treatment). So what is it that is a major difference in relation to the reference experience in archives with regards to the staffs' ages?

Having known a number of student workers in archives (and been one myself), a great deal of it has to do with personality. Equally, though, younger students and young archivists are still eager to become the "best archivist they can be," and have not become completely worn down by large numbers of reference requests, the great rolling multitude that are genealogists, and institutional politics/lack of resources that seem to wear down a number of more established archivists I've encountered. Again, this is all opinion based on my experiences--limited as they have been--and they bear no psychological studies (though a member of my family is licensed as a counselor) or "empirical data" to confirm such assertions. But my feeling is that many of you younger archivists who read this blog have felt the same at times. The old Biblical proverb of "not letting anyone look down on you because of your age" (paraphrase) should be applied here. Youth brings vigor and inexperience, though it does bring energy and endurance oftentimes. Most archives demand experience and management--two things many young archivists lack.

However, most young archivists begin as reference archivists, learning under the wings of an older, more established archivist. Unfortunately, I've had the "pleasure" of listening to many patrons (somehow people think I'm invisible) complain about the unhelpful older professionals, while complimenting the younger archivists. Obviously, this can go both ways, but there is something to be said for exposing the public at your institution to a newer, fresher, less weary face to bring out all those census microfilm records. Still, I cannot help but wonder where this sense of superiority has sneaked into the archival community. When many of us got into this field, it was because we loved historic records and the power they had: from providing a family with their ancestral identity, to opening a new field of study in historical scholarship, to giving better appreciation for the sacrifice of our military veterans. Archives and archival preservation was a continuation of the ancient tribal storyteller, who preserved community memory.

Now it seems, that goal, that mission, has become enveloped in policies, politics, and financial restrictions that tend to show themselves on the faces and in the behaviors of archivists the longer they remain in the field. This is not to say that every archivist over the age of 40 is mean and unhelpful--if that were the case, I'd never have gotten into this profession. Still, younger archivists and students see this mentality often, and wonder one thing: will that happen to me? I had the pleasure last week to talk with a former head of a state historical society, as well as a college archivist who was at a major state historical society. They expressed that passion that drives young archivists and students to provide, on the whole, service-oriented archival reference assistance to the public. It's the opening of a letter no one has read in 200 years, the discovery of a Lincoln letter in a trunk in an attic while doing an archival survey on-site, it is the satisfaction one feels when seeing a woman with cancer cry and hug you because you cared enough about her family's history to work to preserve it and make it available for others. It is the drama, the amazement, and the excitement, that makes reference services good in archival institutions. I tend to think these attributes more common (or less worn down) in the young than the older, and I believe that the more older archivists encourage this in students and new archivists who provide reference services, the better overall the research experience will be in archival institutions around the country for the public--particularly as we are in the U.S. in an explosion in the interest in and enrollment in archival studies.

Reference in an archives demands two major things: 1) a willingness to keep looking and not give up because you think you know where everything is for a request or records search (i.e. tenacity and stick-to-it-ness), and 2) humility (because we all ask people at various "help desks" and information centers dumb questions too!). References services for the 21st century of the digital age will be less reliant on technological prowess as much as personability, attitude, approach, and being service-oriented. With the inundation of technology and impersonal methods of communication, archives offer a touch of in-person care as mediums between the researcher and the people long-past whose records they are request. We are cross-time socializers, if you will, and the enthusiasm I see in many younger archivists is the key in this period of impersonalism and automated services.