Writing public lands history necessarily requires conducting research in government records. In my experience conducting research for administrative histories for the National Park Service, navigating the filing systems of twentieth century records is a historian’s dream thanks to the administrative officers of the past who followed reliable guidelines for archiving material. Into the twenty-first century, however, with the widespread embrace of email for correspondence and idiosyncratic filing systems on personal work computers, a once orderly filing system became a morass of electronic files. I have found myself and many colleagues baffled by how to find important emails scattered in the depths of government email servers. Instead of dependable access to public records, historians must rely on the generosity of government employees to provide access to email correspondence and computer files. The obstacles of digital archive practices present a very real, practical obstacle to responsibly conducting public lands history.
The barriers of the digital archive also highlight surprising dynamics between oral histories and the written record as sources. In my experience, oral histories of the twentieth century provide complimentary material to written sources, providing a more human dimension to bureaucratic records. Of course, the further back in time we study, the less likely new oral histories can be conducted on a particular topic. I have found that oral histories play a different role when researching twenty-first century administrative decisions about public lands. When government entities like the National Park Service prioritize and fund the creation of oral history collections, the result is a rich and dynamic source material that becomes a deeper well of information compared to the inscrutable digital archive described above. I find myself more heavily depending on oral histories to provide grounding for a narrative and to compensate for inconsistent electronic records.
Even with the prioritization of robust oral history collections, the need for better access to bureaucratic records remains. That need proves particularly salient when dealing with sensitive issues regarding sexual, gender, and racial harassment, as well as financial impropriety. Folks in oral histories may introduce and elucidate incidents and patterns, but the written record is necessary to corroborate individual stories and counter charges of hearsay. Recorded evidence can also protect people who may have been targets of harassment, those whose job could be at risk as a whistleblower, or even the people who may have been the subject of an investigation. Of course, specific records can be acquired through the Freedom of Information Act, but public historians also need to be able to synthesize the full scope of records available. After all, the value of our work is to make sense of the historical record and craft accessible narratives that are useful for administrators, stakeholders, and the broader public.[1]
In addition to advocating for public access to federal records and supporting the critical work of our archivist colleagues in government positions, what can public historians do to address the challenges of researching twenty-first century public lands records? Perhaps this working group is an opportunity to assemble a guide of how to navigate government records for public lands research. I am personally grateful to colleagues who have shared tips on different nooks and crannies of the federal record system that yield incredible resources and would like to see that information become public knowledge rather than remain an accidental trade secret. Such a guide could reinforce the incredible value of oral histories and offer general guidance on the strengths and limitations of different types of sources. In other words, the guide could not only show how to find sources but also provide advice on how to critically analyze sources to avoid replicating bureaucratic harm to marginalized groups or individuals.
Leadership and guidance on government records research, especially for twenty-first century sources, will be crucial for the future of administrative histories and similar reports on public lands. When I wrote my first administrative history, the inconsistency of recent records proved a contributing factor in pushing the end date of the report further back into the past. I cannot recommend that as best practice, and hope that more open discussion of how to navigate government digital archives can help other public historians more successfully navigate recent public lands history research. If the work of finding relevant records can be more transparent, public historians can spend more time doing the valuable labor of synthesizing sources to inform how we understand the past, present, and future of public lands.
[1] This includes writing histories that document and assess government stewardship of land that can be returned to Indigenous people, a topic that I hope will be more fully explored in other working group papers.