— I have been working as a field researcher with The Bridge for just over three years. In total, I have six years of experience conducting archival research.

— Quite a few: the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History (RGANI), the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI), the Russian State Archive of the Economy (RGAE), the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI), the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ARAN) and the Central State Archive of the City of Moscow (TsGA Moscow). In addition, I was also a regular user of the Russian State Library (RSL) and its numerous specialized departments.

— Overall, the archives in Moscow remain very popular among both local and visiting researchers, so long queues and lengthy waiting times for requested materials are quite common. At the same time, I would note that in recent years the trend toward restricting access to archival documents – and even entire collections – has become increasingly apparent, which creates further challenges for researchers. In this regard, I would particularly highlight ARAN and RGASPI, where collections appear to be closing themselves to researchers faster than many other institutions. Interestingly, my colleagues in St. Petersburg report such issues far less frequently. More broadly, there seems to be a continuing trend in Russia toward tighter restrictions on archival access. Researchers increasingly face difficulties obtaining materials such as the personal files of victims of political repression without documented family ties, along with records related to the activities of state security services and diplomats. Under these circumstances, practical experience working in archives is especially valuable. It helps researchers navigate administrative procedures, formulate requests effectively and establish productive communication with staff.

— Yes, generally speaking, the archives are busy. Foreign researchers do come, though they are relatively rare, and most are from other post-Soviet countries. Personally, I have encountered researchers from Kazakhstan, for example. Even in these cases, staff tend to pay particular attention to them, asking more detailed questions about their research topics and often demanding official documentation confirming their institutional affiliation. My impression is that the number of foreign researchers has declined noticeably compared with several years ago.

— I would place anything related to state violence and political repression in that category. In 2024, I was collecting materials on how the far-right press of the Russian Empire covered a politically charged criminal case involving a Jewish defendant. When I was close to completing the project, the archive stopped issuing the files I had requested. When I asked why, a staff member explained the decision had been made by the collection curator, who believed it was better at that time not to provide materials related to pogroms and ethnic violence. The decision was based on the archive leadership’s perception that topics involving violence and interethnic conflict were sensitive, even though the materials themselves had no direct connection to contemporary political developments. A similar situation occurred to one of my colleagues, who was denied access to 19th-century Georgian diplomatic documents amid large-scale protests in Georgia and deteriorating Russia-Georgia relations. The fact is such situations are not uncommon. Restrictions often originate from staff, who engage in a form of self-censorship shaped by the broader political and media environment. In these cases, decisions are frequently influenced by personal assessments of that environment. When faced with uncertainty, staff may simply choose not to fulfill a request, even when the materials in question are not technically subject to restrictions.
Because archivists are personally responsible for the materials they issue, they often have stronger incentives to withhold documents that may be perceived as touching on politically sensitive subjects.

— Most often, I work on topics related to Soviet foreign relations, including areas such as economic cooperation with countries of the socialist bloc, Soviet support for developing countries and cultural exchange programs. There is lots of work, so our project managers distribute assignments carefully and develop a degree of specialization among field researchers. Over time, this allows each researcher to build expertise in particular subject areas and archival collections.

— I would not say that field research itself presents any major difficulties. Most challenges are related to project management and planning. For example, when I go to an archive to work with materials I have never seen before, I often have no way of knowing their physical condition or even the number of pages they contain. As a result, it can be difficult to estimate in advance how much time will be required to process them. Another challenge is budgeting for paid copying services. Ideally, I do not want a copying project to be interrupted halfway through a file simply because the allocated budget has been exhausted. I would also like to stress the importance of personal relationships in archival work. Every archive has staff who can make your research harder, while others are consistently helpful and willing to accommodate minor procedural issues. Whenever possible, I try to plan my visits around the schedules of archivists who are helpful, which, alas, is not always feasible.

— To be honest, I would hesitate even to conduct archival research in another Russian city. Even in Moscow, every archive has its own informal rules and practices that only become apparent through experience. If I were planning research in another city or country, I would certainly consult colleagues who had worked there before. Ideally, I would also try to find a local assistant familiar with the institution and its procedures.