In my experience, I would say the answer is yes. I currently work in the special collection/archive within a library. I have an MA in history and an MLIS with a concentration in archives. There are a few fundamental differences between archivists and historians you may want to consider.

While I was an MLIS, one topic that often came up in our group discussions was whether the archivist is a gatekeeper or a historian. The archivist as gatekeeper means that we are only responsible for providing researchers and patrons with access to the materials in our archives. We set the stage for them to do their research and then step back. Behind the scenes we preserve the materials and make sure they are organized efficiently according to national standards. The archivist as historian, however, suggests that we have a responsibility to both care for and understand our collections. We would need to have a thorough knowledge of the historical context surrounding our materials, and act as a guide/interpreter for the visiting researchers. This version would also argue in favor of the archivist having multiple publications and an additional Master’s in a specialty subject.

Based on my background, I’ve always been in favor of the archivist as historian. I enjoy presenting information to researchers and using my own knowledge to help them in their search. This of course comes with the caveat that I don’t influence them based on my own opinions or biases. I also enjoy contributing to the field by publishing both within my institution and in journals.

There are also differences between the daily work of an archivist vs. a historian. Archivists can be employed by libraries, museums, corporate archives or in academia. They are responsible for organizing the collection, repairing/preserving fragile materials, weeding out unnecessary materials, and processing new items. Archivists create finding aids, which are guides that provide information regarding a specific collection. Additionally, materials can be arranged to the “item level (one item by itself)” or the “collection level (a group of items donated by one party that fits into a theme, for example the Smith-Farrington Papers or the Rosenberg Collection).” These finding aids come with a descriptive summary that includes the Creator of the collection (who previously owned the materials), Title, Dates, Abstract, Quantity, Graphic Materials (if it’s stored in boxes, folders, etc), Call number, Historical Note, Scope and Contents Note (a detailed summary of what’s in each box), Access Points/Subject topics, and finally Administration Information (such as how to cite the materials, what other collections are in the institution are related to this one, and who made the gift to the institution). Archivists also work with researchers and other kind of patrons who are interested in the collection.

Historians can also work within the fields I mentioned above, but they do not have access to the collections in the way that archivists do. If a historian is doing research for a book or a class for next semester, they will need to contact the archivist and schedule a time to work in the reading room. They won’t be able to browse within the archive like you can in the main stacks. This is also true for other librarians within the same institution. For example, a reference librarian can put a patron in contact with the archivist to answer their questions. The reference librarian would usually not have the ability to physically retrieve any item from the archives themselves.

I feel very fulfilled in my career, and I would recommend you pursue working in archives if you have a passion for history!

Further reading

Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS)

Hull, Felix (1980). The Archivist should not be a historian. Journal of the Society of Archivists.

Spencer, Thomas (1983). The Archivist as Historian: Toward a Broader Definition. Archivaria, 17: 296-300.