Every industry has undergone major changes since the COVID-19 pandemic and archives and related repositories are no exception. As historical researchers, we had a unique perspective as we watched these institutions adjust in real-time. Since 2020, we at TRG have discussed internally the changes we’ve seen at local and national repositories. After all, what happens in the archival world impacts us directly and therefore impacts our clients. From abrupt lockdown to cautious reopening to new normal, here are some of the most significant changes we have seen:
The Library of Congress reopened in 2021 with protocols in place to reduce the spread of Covid-19. (Photo by Ama Ansah, Taylor Research Group)
1. A Push Towards Digitization
Digitization of physical records, such as maps, photographs, newspapers, and other print or written materials, was a hot topic before 2020. Throughout the late 2000s and 2010s, libraries and archives at the federal, state, local, and university level built or expanded their digital presence. At the time, much of the discussion surrounding digitization focused on increasing access; allowing interested parties who may not have the time or resources to visit an archive to engage with its materials from afar. With the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, all research became remote.
As libraries and archives the world over temporarily closed their doors, digitization projects took on a new urgency. For example, staff at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) digitized and transcribed finding aids. The Still Picture Division shared their progress digitizing their subject finding aids in periodic blog posts, linking their latest completed efforts. In a June 2021 blog post, a staff member explained, “with our research rooms being closed due to the pandemic, we recognized the need to replicate our finding aids in a digital capacity, one that would allow a similar starting point for researchers without being physically there. As a result, we came up with a way to connect our records virtually, utilizing the tagging feature in the National Archives Catalog. This feature allowed us to weave a unique thread through the records compiled in each finding aid.” Later in the year for example, the blog shared a completed photographic finding aid of images taken during the Cuban Missile Crisis. By late 2022, NARA’s Still Pictures team had made over 125 subject finding aids available online in this manner.
For researchers like us, this is incredibly useful. Finding aids help us navigate collections by providing indexed information and data on the contents of a collection. For example, a finding aid not only tells us how many boxes are in a collection but also provides information on what the boxes contain, such as correspondence, reports, photographs, maps, and technical drawings or plans. Finding aids can also provide background on the collection, such as when it was acquired or what years it covers. In many cases, detailed finding aids are only available in-person. Institutions focusing on both digitizing their holdings and indices allow us to more thoroughly screen collections when deciding if we should make an in-person visit. Additionally, we are better able to maximize our time during such a visit because we can work with archivists to home in on materials of potential interest and request that boxes be pulled in advance of our arrival.
2. Staffing shortages
In the 2010s, enrollment in public history, archival, museum, and library master’s level programs increased as more millennials entered the field. However, increased enrollment does not always equate to an increase in job availability. In some cases, libraries, archives, and special collections faced shrinking staff sizes due in large part to cutbacks in funding. In Amanda K. Hawk’s January 2020 survey of reference staffing and scheduling at libraries and archives, more than one-third of survey respondents expressed concerns over staffing shortages at their institution. Many pointed to budget constraints as a factor in staffing shortages. The pandemic threw the issue of staffing into even sharper focus.
As in many other industries, the pandemic resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and early retirements. This turnover in staff, combined with the limited or, for some facilities, non-existent ability to hire new staff members during lockdown resulted in difficulties for many archives upon re-opening. They not only had to face a rush of researchers needing full access to their resources but had to train new staff members or, in some cases, learn to operate with a reduced staff.
Additionally, the loss of institutional knowledge not only impacted researchers seeking further information and guidance in repositories, but fellow staff members as well. In Isabel Planton and Amanda Ferrara’s 2021 article “Overcoming Disruption in Special Collections Public Services,” an unnamed special collections librarian explained, “when you lose people you also lose their knowledge about the institution, the history, where to find things. While also expiring that loss, you also face uncertainty. When are you going to get new people? In the meantime, do you pause certain work?”
The good news is that there are plenty of trained archivists and librarians willing to work in these institutions. And, we have seen an uptick in postings from NARA and elsewhere for archival technicians and other staff which we hope is a sign that, as repositories recover from the pandemic, they are revamping their staff.
Among other challenges, NARA staff had to remind patrons that masks and gloves are not flushable. (Photo by Ama Ansah, Taylor Research Group)
3. Limited visitation
In 2021, many repositories that had been closed to the public since March 2020 began to reopen. However, access to them came with caveats. NARA, for example, required that visitors wear masks, sanitize their work spaces using NARA-provided cleaning supplies, and that researchers must sit far apart to reduce the chance of spreading illness. After researchers viewed records, boxes were quarantined for three days and were unavailable to other researchers during that time. While most of these measures have been phased out—boxes are no longer quarantined and researchers are no longer one-to-a-table—other pandemic-era policies have stayed. Namely, the requirement that researchers schedule their visits in advance.
There are benefits and drawbacks to an appointments policy. During the pandemic, scheduling appointments served to limit the number of researchers in a facility, thereby limiting the potential for the transmission of COVID-19. Scheduling appointments also allowed for easier contact tracing; if a researcher or staff member tested positive for COVID-19, the repository could view a list of everyone who had scheduled appointments that day and let them know via email that they were exposed. This notification system is still in place today. Before the pandemic, most Washington, DC-area research facilities accepted walk-ins. This was convenient for us as researchers, as our day-to-day schedules are sometimes unpredictable and being able to drop into a repository without an appointment allowed for flexibility. While some facilities, such as the Library of Congress, ended their appointment-only policy other facilities, like NARA, still require appointments and continue to cap researcher access. Previously, researchers were able to sit four to a table, which was convenient for research teams needing to discuss their findings in real-time. Now, only two researchers may be at the same table, effectively halving the capacity of the research room. As of this writing, the textual research room at NARA College Park, is still operating at lower capacity than in 2019, with around 100 appointment slots per day. Though we miss the pre-pandemic flexibility at NARA, we have been able to work with its staff to better prepare for our visits, which again as at other repositories, allows us to maximize our time when we are on site. In fact, NARA is hosting a forum at the end of October to engage with researchers and gather feedback related to on-site operations. TRG will certainly be in attendance to voice our concerns regarding access.
4. More community involvement
The role of archives in communities had been a major topic of conversation in the humanities prior to the pandemic. How can archives better serve the communities they are in? What might collaborative archival efforts look like?
During the pandemic, libraries and archives encouraged locals to submit and share images and media of life during lockdown. Archives collected materials in a variety of ways. The District of Columbia Public Library (DCPL) encouraged its Instagram followers to use the hashtag #archivethismomentdc to share their photos of the city in lockdown. Then, archivists with the DCPL People’s archive combed through the tag and accessioned relevant materials which can now be viewed in their digital collection. Such efforts were common among archives and special collections, from major cities like DC to smaller communities. The Maine Contemporary Archive, for example, collected photos and videos which they then turned into a digital exhibit. Many universities, such as University of Utah and Harvard, encouraged their campus communities to document their experiences during the pandemic. University of California Irvine took a different approach, curating a Prison Pandemic collection focused on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on prison populations across the state. Inmates shared their stories by calling the archive’s Prison Pandemic hotline.
The DC Public Library was one of many institutions archiving content related to the pandemic.
Each of these examples achieves what many in the public humanities have held as a goal: tangible engagement with communities and community partnership in the creation of collection. The longevity of the connection between community members and such archival projects will remain to be seen in the coming years. But the creation of these collections can serve as a touchpoint in future efforts towards public engagement. As historical researchers, we appreciate these projects for their efforts to preserve a broader range of perspectives and lived experiences, which will be valuable to not only future TRG projects, but also to future generations. We also hope that such projects will demonstrate to the general public that history, in all its nuance, is being written as it unfolds.