Report on the County Societies Symposium held at the Institute of Historical Research on Saturday 1 May 2010

This one day symposium was organised by the Victoria County History in partnership with the Institute of Historical Research, the British Association for Local History, the Historical Association, the Royal Historical Society and the Centre for Local History of the University of Leicester.  It was designed to provide a forum for representatives of county societies - a broad spectrum of archaeological, antiquarian and record societies, most of long-standing - to meet together to discuss matters of mutual interest and share good practice.  The symposium was attended by approximately 45 people for all or parts of the day, representing at least 28 societies, around 24 counties.

Sessions were arranged to discuss matters of recruitment, funding and role; publishing in various forms; the work of record societies in particular; the impact of the digital revolution on our work; and the role of county societies in providing adult education given the context of the collapse of traditional adult education departments in HE. Plenary ‘breakout' sessions discussed matters for inclusion in future conferences and ways of improving networking to the benefit of all present.

Professor John Beckett, Director of the Victoria County History, set the day in context with a presentation outlining the history of the county societies, noting their origins in the nineteenth century, the explosion of interest after the second world war - stimulating discussion about the role of the country record offices that opened up at that time - and then outlining the current challenges posed to all by the present plight of higher/adult education and the work of the societies against a backdrop of rapid technological change and an economic recession.

There was a general feeling that the day was extremely useful, that the agenda had been apposite, and discussion well stimulated and handled.  Regret was expressed that not more societies had been represented, for the issues raised were indeed common to all and fundamental to the work of voluntary societies as we seem to be entering a ‘new age of austerity'.

The drive for a younger and more inclusive membership was seen as vital to the continuing success of all the societies and there was some discussion of the need to get out and about in communities, and attend local/family history fairs.  It was agreed later that website links might be a way of providing greater service to members, alerting them to activities of neighbouring societies and possible discount deals on publications of mutual interest.

The issue of ‘publications' informed a large part of the day.  New pressures on societies were noted as the role of record society officers had expanded to deal with ‘copy-editing' and other technical matters once dealt with by publishers.  Meanwhile the whole issue of ‘publication' had been transformed by the bewildering range of possibilities opened up by the digital revolution: simultaneous hard copy and electronic publications, e-books, print-on-demand, short print runs, etc.  These choices raised in turn concerns about quality assurance, ‘authority' and ‘publication' policies.  Record Society representatives reported pressure to expand their remit now that publication had become ‘easier'; others noted that things might not be as ‘easy' as they appeared.

Discussion of website developments revealed that most societies now had one, and indeed, many had ‘website managers' and felt confident that theirs was an ‘active' website. While this was good news, few societies had yet carried out a review of their ‘publication policy' that encompassed the full implications of these developments. Words of caution were expressed about members who did not have access to the internet, but it was revealing that this was now quite definitely seen as a minority.  Most people present envisaged greater use of their society websites in the future.  It was noted that having the facility for members to join and shop on-line might become critical to future growth in membership.

There was some discussion of the degree to which publications were ‘commissioned' or simply accepted when offered, with most commentators feeling that the latter system predominated. It was agreed that societies might need to do more to indicate on their websites and in other publicity the types of volumes they would like to publish, the help which they might offer editors, sources of funding, and use that might be made of electronic modes of production - simultaneous with hard copy or as back up.  More might be done to link with university supervisors in encouraging researchers to consider publication of aspects of their work through record societies.  There was also some debate about print-runs, with reference to how many copies were produced for sale, with consequences for distribution and storage systems.

Whilst a gloomy picture was painted of the collapse of adult education departments across the country, great optimism was expressed about how voluntary societies could step into the gap and provide support for tutors, resources, course frameworks and assist in training people in research skills.  There was a feeling that this process might be somehow liberating and that a ‘bottom-up' approach to local history was occurring.  This could be linked with the development of groups advocating the creation of ‘community archives', another area in which societies were repositories of advice.  Several people pointed to Heritage Lottery Funds as a good source of support for all kinds of local history projects.  Others stressed the ways in which many societies had forged good links with schools to support projects required by the National Curriculum.  There may be scope here for local initiatives and partnerships organised through the Historical Association to provide greater support for teachers in provision of CPD regarding local history, fieldwork, use of museums and documents in the classroom - all drawing upon the knowledge and resources of the county societies.

There was not enough time to give full rein to debate about so many issues in one day. Yet the agenda is clear, the challenges noted, and there was enthusiasm for the idea of improving contacts between all parties in the room and with others not present.  The challenges are such that effective responses call for us all to learn from each other and work together for the benefit of local history.  There is a role for VCH to continue to offer leadership and assist in convening such conferences, perhaps annually.  VCH in turn is calling for the aid of more volunteers in its research in the counties.  The IHR and the RHS will continue to link up in the provision of documentary and bibliographical materials on-line, to support national conferences and seminar programmes, and to lobby for the interests of all working as historians and in allied professions. The Historical Association, through the work of its Committee for Public History, might be a natural body to undertake more work as a potential umbrella for county networks, and may certainly act as one host of information for all on its website.  The HA is already well-known for the support it offers teachers in schools, FE and HE and it incorporates a distributed structure of over 50 local branches  This is not to underestimate the importance of the British Association for Local History which already acts as a valuable umbrella society for local & family history societies and individuals.  What may be desirable here is that BALH and the HA move to work more closely together - also with the Council for British Archaeology - to strengthen support available to societies in the localities.  It is fortunate that these bodies are represented on the Committee for Public History and much may be achieved in the first instance by simply improving and enhancing website links.  There is a big agenda here and plenty of work to be shared out amongst all those interested in maintaining and enhancing the valuable work of Britain's county history societies.

Andrew Foster: Chair of the HA Committee for Public History May 2010

This report is written in a personal capacity, and like so many present at this symposium, the writer wears several hats in this debate - as a member of the HA Council, a member of the Teaching Policy Committee of the Royal Historical Society, and as a long-serving Literary Director of the Sussex Record Society, not to mention honorary member of several local history societies in West Sussex.