5 Archivist Interview Questions and Answers

Introduction

Heads of Archives often must make difficult trade-offs during financial or organizational changes. This behavioral/leadership question evaluates your decision-making, stakeholder management, communication skills, and capacity to lead teams under stress.

How to answer

• Use the STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) format to structure your response.
• Clearly explain the context: size of budget cut, timeline, and constraints.
• Describe how you assessed priorities: mission-critical services, legal obligations, high-risk collections, and user needs.
• Explain the decision-making process: how you engaged staff, governance bodies, and institutional leadership, including data you used to justify choices.
• Detail communication strategies: transparency with staff, regular updates, and communication with donors, researchers and university/museum leadership.
• Describe steps taken to support staff morale (reassignment, retraining, temporary measures) and any mitigation actions (grants, partnerships, phased reductions).
• Quantify outcomes where possible and reflect on lessons learned and improvements implemented afterward.

What not to say

• Claiming you made unilateral decisions without consultation.
• Focusing only on cuts without discussing mitigation, transparency, or staff well-being.
• Failing to provide concrete outcomes or learnings.
• Blaming leadership or external factors without showing accountability.

Example answer

“At a regional university archive facing a 15% operating cut, I first convened staff and the steering committee to map services and legal obligations. We used circulation, reference request and usage statistics to rank services by impact. I preserved legal and high-value preservation activities, paused lower-impact outreach programs, and negotiated temporary delays for nonessential travel and exhibitions. To protect staff, I redeployed two team members into grant-funded digitization projects and ran a short internal cross-training program. I communicated weekly town-hall updates to staff and monthly briefings to leadership and donors to maintain transparency. As a result, core access and preservation functions remained intact, morale stabilized after the first quarter, and we secured a foundation grant that restored one program line the following year. Key lessons were to prioritize early stakeholder engagement and maintain data-driven justifications for hard choices.”

Introduction

This motivational question explores your personal commitment to archival work and whether your values align with institutional goals such as access, scholarship, and public outreach—important for leading an archives in the U.S. cultural and regulatory environment.

How to answer

• Be specific about formative experiences that led you to archives (collections, mentorships, projects).
• Connect your motivation to professional responsibilities: preserving history, enabling scholarship, increasing equitable access, and stewarding donor trust.
• Explain how you would translate motivation into action: public programs, digital access strategies, partnerships with universities/museums (e.g., Library of Congress, Smithsonian collaborations), and diversity/inclusion initiatives.
• Address the U.S.-specific context: federal/state records policies, copyright considerations, grant funding landscape (NEH, IMLS), and community engagement expectations.
• Show long-term vision: how you would grow the archives' profile, measure impact, and mentor staff to align with institutional mission.

What not to say

• Giving vague answers like 'I love history' without linking to leadership and programmatic outcomes.
• Focusing only on prestige or career advancement.
• Neglecting to mention public access, legal/regulatory responsibilities, or community engagement.
• Overemphasizing technical aspects at the expense of outreach and stewardship.

Example answer

“I've always been driven by the belief that archives make citizenship and scholarship possible. Early in my career, helping researchers discover a family collection at a state historical society showed me how access transforms lives. As Head of Archives, I'm motivated to both protect primary materials and make them discoverable—through digitization, community-led collecting, and partnerships with institutions like the Library of Congress for training and grants. In the U.S., that means navigating copyright and FOIA considerations while pursuing NEH and IMLS funding to expand access. I would prioritize equitable access initiatives—oral histories from underrepresented communities—and build public programming that raises the archives' profile, increases use, and attracts donor support. I view mentorship as part of the role: developing staff so the archives can sustain impact beyond my tenure.”

Introduction

Senior archivists often must manage limited resources while sustaining core services and protecting collections. This behavioral question assesses leadership, prioritisation, communication, and staff-support skills under pressure.

How to answer

• Use the STAR framework (Situation, Task, Action, Result) to structure your response.
• Clearly describe the context: size of cut, which functions were affected, and immediate risks to collections or services.
• Explain how you assessed priorities (risk assessment, stakeholder needs, legal obligations) and what criteria you used to decide what continued, paused, or outsourced.
• Detail the actions you took to reallocate work, cross-train staff, seek temporary funding or partnerships, and communicate transparently with staff and stakeholders.
• Highlight how you maintained or improved morale: clear expectations, recognition, professional development opportunities, and involving staff in decision-making.
• Quantify the outcome where possible (services maintained, backlog reduced, funding found) and reflect on lessons learned.

What not to say

• Claiming you made unilateral decisions without consulting the team or stakeholders.
• Saying you cut services indiscriminately without assessing legal/ethical priorities.
• Focusing only on operational details and not addressing staff wellbeing or communication.
• Taking all the credit and failing to acknowledge team contributions.

Example answer

“When my archive at a South African tertiary institution faced a 20% operating cut, I first convened managers to map critical functions (preservation, legal access obligations, emergency response) and low-risk activities that could pause. We conducted a quick risk assessment to protect irreplaceable holdings and re-prioritised workflows—suspending non-urgent digitization but maintaining environmental monitoring and supervised reading-room services. I redeployed staff into cross-functional teams, arranged short internal secondments to cover vital tasks, and negotiated a partnership with a local heritage NGO to assist with indexing projects. I held weekly briefings, set clear short-term goals, and recognised team efforts publicly. Within six months we kept critical services running, reduced the backlog by 15% through targeted overtime and volunteer support, and secured a small grant to restore one key position. The experience reinforced the value of transparent leadership, staff involvement in prioritisation, and creative partnership-building.”

Introduction

Archives increasingly engage with communities requesting repatriation, restricted access, or co-curation. Senior archivists must navigate ethics, law, provenance research, and community consultation to reach equitable outcomes.

How to answer

• Start by acknowledging the complexity: legal obligations (PAIA/POPIA where relevant), institutional mission, and the cultural significance to the community.
• Describe a consultation-first approach: listen to the community’s concerns and desired outcomes before making decisions.
• Explain the steps: verify provenance and ownership, review acquisition documentation and donor agreements, assess legal constraints, and conduct a risk and impact analysis.
• Discuss potential outcomes and solutions: community access protocols, restricted or mediated access, digital repatriation, long-term loans, joint stewardship agreements, or formal repatriation if legally justified.
• Emphasise transparent documentation of the process, involving legal counsel, Indigenous or community liaison officers, and senior leadership.
• Highlight how you would balance precedent, institutional policy changes, and create a framework for future requests.

What not to say

• Dismissing the request as purely administrative or refusing to consult the community.
• Claiming immediate unilateral repatriation without provenance or legal review.
• Treating the issue only as a legal one and ignoring cultural or ethical dimensions.
• Saying you would defer entirely to donors without attempting negotiation or mediation.

Example answer

“I would begin by meeting with the community representatives to understand their concerns and desired outcomes—whether they seek full repatriation, restricted access, digitised copies, or co-curation. Concurrently, I’d perform provenance research and examine acquisition paperwork and donor conditions, and consult legal counsel about PAIA/POPIA implications. If ownership is clear and the archive has lawful custody, I would explore collaborative solutions first: establishing a community access protocol that permits mediated or on-site access, offering high-quality digitisation for community use, or a long-term loan arrangement. If repatriation is legally and ethically appropriate, I’d work through formal transfer procedures with transparent documentation. Throughout, I’d involve senior leadership, document decisions, and propose policy updates to make future requests more efficient. This approach respects legal duties while centering community agency and seeking sustainable, collaborative outcomes.”

Introduction

A Lead Archivist must manage people and change: reorganizations can improve discoverability and preservation but risk staff resistance and service disruption. This question assesses leadership, communication and practical planning skills.

How to answer

• Use the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) to structure the answer.
• Clearly define the scope of the reorganization (collections affected, objectives such as improving access or consolidation).
• Explain how you assessed stakeholder needs and concerns (researchers, curators, government oversight bodies, indigenous groups).
• Detail change-management actions: communication plan, training programs, role redefinitions, phased implementation to maintain access, and fallback plans.
• Describe how you measured success (service uptime, staff competency, cataloging throughput, user satisfaction).
• Acknowledge challenges and how you mitigated them (budget limits, union/HR issues, technical downtime).

What not to say

• Focusing only on the organizational chart without discussing staff concerns or training.
• Claiming no objections or challenges—change always involves tradeoffs.
• Overstating personal credit without acknowledging team contributions.
• Failing to mention how researchers' access was preserved during the transition.

Example answer

“At a regional archive in Mexico City, I led a reorganization to centralize description standards and consolidate scattered municipal records. Situation: researchers faced inconsistent finding aids and limited hours. Task: align descriptive practices, improve remote access, and cross-train staff. Action: I formed a working group representing curators, technicians, and front-line staff; ran workshops on ISAD(G)/EAD and a shared cataloguing checklist; implemented a phased migration so one collection was migrated each month with parallel access on the legacy system for six months; and maintained weekly town-hall updates to gather feedback. I negotiated with HR for temporary hourly staff to cover public services during training. Result: within nine months we achieved 95% compliance with the new descriptive standard, reduced duplicate backlog by 60%, and user satisfaction surveys showed improved clarity in finding aids. The transparent communication and hands-on training were critical to staff buy-in.”

Introduction

This situational question evaluates judgment around acquisition, preservation triage, legal/provenance risk and community engagement—key responsibilities for a Lead Archivist managing culturally sensitive materials in Mexico.

How to answer

• First outline immediate triage steps: secure the materials, assess physical condition, create an accession record, and take basic environmental protections (stabilize temperature/humidity, use archival boxes).
• Discuss provenance assessment: review donor documentation, request provenance history, consult legal counsel on ownership and potential repatriation claims, and check national heritage registers.
• Explain consultation with stakeholders: contact relevant scholars, affected communities (including indigenous groups if applicable), and cultural authorities like the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) or Archivo General de la Nación.
• Describe conservation and cataloguing prioritization based on risk and research value; include options like digitization for access to fragile items and restricted access policies if provenance is unresolved.
• Address long-term disposition decisions: donor agreements, possible deaccessioning pathways, agreements for shared custody or repatriation, and documentation of all decisions.
• Mention how you would document the whole process for transparency and future audits.

What not to say

• Assuming ownership without proper provenance checks or legal consultation.
• Digitizing or displaying fragile items without conservation assessment.
• Ignoring claims by communities or failing to consult cultural authorities.
• Making irreversible decisions (e.g., deaccessioning or selling) without governance approval and documentation.

Example answer

“I would immediately secure and stabilize the manuscripts—move them to a controlled area, record an accession entry with photographs, and apply minimal handling protocols. I would perform a quick condition assessment and prioritize items for emergency conservation and high-resolution digitization to reduce handling. For provenance, I'd request all donor paperwork and any family history, run checks against national registers and colonial-era inventories, and consult our legal advisor about ownership and potential claims. Because these are colonial-era materials that could involve indigenous heritage or contested ownership, I'd contact INAH and relevant community representatives to inform them and invite input about access and disposition. Long-term, I'd convene an acquisitions committee to evaluate legal, ethical, and research considerations and propose options: retention with restricted access, joint stewardship, or repatriation if justified. Every step would be documented and communicated to stakeholders to ensure transparency and legal compliance.”

Introduction

Archivists must balance preservation, access, legal/privacy obligations and donor relationships. This situational question assesses ethical judgment, knowledge of conservation priorities, data protection (GDPR/Spain LOPDGDD), and communication skills.

How to answer

• Outline an initial triage: assess significance, condition, and urgent conservation needs; separate materials by priority and risk.
• Describe immediate stabilization steps for damaged items and how you'd involve conservation specialists for treatments.
• Explain how you would identify personal data and apply legal frameworks (GDPR/LOPDGDD) to determine access restrictions or necessary redactions.
• Discuss provenance and donor agreement review: check the deed of gift, any donor-imposed restrictions, and negotiate terms transparently when needed.
• Propose an access policy: restricted access periods, internal use only, anonymisation/redaction, or mediated access with supervision.
• Emphasise stakeholder communication: keep the donor informed, explain conservation needs and any recommended restrictions, and offer options (e.g., cleaned copies, digitised access with redaction).
• Include follow-up actions: documentation of decisions, conservation records, and review schedule for restrictions.

What not to say

• Prioritising donor convenience over legal/privacy obligations or preservation best practices.
• Making unilateral access decisions without consulting legal, conservation, or institutional policy.
• Underestimating the need to document decisions and treatments.
• Assuming all personal data must be destroyed or permanently restricted without exploring lawful bases or redaction options.

Example answer

“I would begin with an intake assessment to separate priority materials—those at immediate risk (mould, tears) get temporary stabilization and conservation triage. For the personal letters, I'd identify mentions of living individuals and consult GDPR/Spanish LOPDGDD and our institutional access policy. If the donor's deed of gift is vague, I'd contact them to clarify intent and explain the options: restricted access for a set period, redaction of identifying details before digitisation, or mediated access under supervision. I'd involve a conservator for treatment plans and document all actions in the accession record. To preserve donor relations, I'd offer to provide the donor with a digital copy of non-sensitive items and explain that restrictions protect both privacy and the collection's integrity. Finally, I'd schedule periodic reviews so restrictions can be reconsidered as circumstances change.”

Introduction

This assesses leadership, community engagement, project planning and cross-functional coordination. Crowdsourcing/transcription projects are increasingly used by archives (e.g., FamilySearch, municipal initiatives) to increase access and build public support.

How to answer

• Start with project goals: digitisation targets, transcription accuracy, timelines, audience and KPIs (completed pages, contributor retention, data quality).
• Describe team structure and roles: project manager, outreach/volunteer coordinator, technical lead for the platform (e.g., FromThePage, Zooniverse), QA/validation team and conservator adviser.
• Explain recruitment and training: outreach to local universities, genealogical societies, citizen science groups; provide training materials and clear transcription guidelines.
• Detail quality control and validation: double-keying, expert review samples, consensus algorithms, and workflows to integrate transcriptions into catalog records or finding aids.
• Discuss community engagement and incentives: events, recognition, progress dashboards, and partnerships with local cultural institutions (ayuntamiento, historical societies).
• Cover technical and legal aspects: platform selection, metadata standards, licensing (open data vs restricted), and GDPR considerations for transcribed personal data.
• Mention metrics and sustainability: how you'll measure success, iterate, secure ongoing funding, and integrate outputs into institutional systems (OPAC, institutional repository, Europeana).

What not to say

• Focusing only on the technical platform without considering volunteer management or quality assurance.
• Underestimating the effort required for outreach, training and sustaining volunteer interest.
• Ignoring data protection and rights management when transcribing personal data.
• Failing to define clear success metrics or integration plans for the outputs.

Example answer

“I'd define clear objectives: transcribe 50,000 index pages over three years with 95% accuracy in core fields. I'd form a small core team: a project lead (me) to manage timelines and stakeholders, a technical lead to set up a platform like FromThePage integrated with our repository, a volunteer coordinator to recruit and train contributors, and an archivist/QC lead to validate samples. We'd partner with the local ayuntamiento and university history departments to recruit volunteers and run workshops. Transcriptions would use controlled vocabularies and map to existing metadata schemas; sensitive personal data would be flagged for restricted access or redaction per GDPR guidance. Quality control would combine double-keying for critical fields and random expert review. Progress would be displayed on a public dashboard to maintain engagement. Funding would be pursued via cultural grants (Ministerio de Cultura) and local sponsorship, and final outputs would be ingested into our catalogue and prepared for harvesting to Europeana. This approach balances community engagement, technical rigour and legal compliance while building institutional capacity.”