Does Size Matter?: Dissecting the Pros and Cons of Big, Midsized, and Small Historical Institutions

Our class' exact prompt from @phillyhistory this week is, "When it comes to interpreting, preserving, presenting the past, what are the pros and cons of big, midsized and small institutions?"

My gut reaction says that bigger is better

It seems simple: the larger the institution, the more money and resources available to interpret, preserve, and present the past. More money means shinier graphics, more paid employees, and larger buildings.

The reading room at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia

Outside of the Anna Maria Island Historical Society (AMIHS), near my hometown of Sarasota, Florida

Let's be honest, which one of these buildings seems better for interpreting, preserving, and presenting the past?

But it's not so simple

My colleague @dduquette already shared some great thoughts on this matter. He summed up his thoughts with the succinct yet powerful quote, "more money, more problems."

While bigger may seem better equipped, bigger also means more people to answer to, more people to potentially offend with a controversial, yet important, interpretation. Bigger means a greater likelihood of power in the hands of board members who are not intimately connected with the history the institution is working to preserve.

While the small AMIHS has fewer resources than a larger institution, the entirely volunteer-run organization cares deeply about its collection due to its care for its surrounding community. As I've discussed before, people care more about history when they feel connected to it. Thus, smaller can mean bigger passion.

A photo from the AMIHS Facebook. The caption reads, "Maureen McCormick, President of the AMIHS, presents a Certificate of Appreciation to Sam Samuel, coordinator of the Anna Maria Horseshoe Club for their generous donation to the Society." This is an example of the Society's relationship with its small surrounding community.

At the same time, passion can be dangerous

While the money and pressure that comes with larger institutions can limit willingness to engage with challenging interpretations of the past, the passion felt by volunteers and workers at smaller institutions can have the same effect.

The volunteer who grew up in the place commemorated by the institution may not want to acknowledge the negative parts of its past. Further, the small size of an institution like the AMIHS can limit outside pressure to engage with challenging narratives. While a large institution promoting a clear agenda may face public outcry, a small institution promoting a certain interpretation may be protected by an insular community.

Size matters, but one isn't necessarily better or worse than the other

I don't think that bigger is inherently bad or good, but I do believe that only having bigger is inherently bad. At the same time, I don't think that having only small is good, either. I think that we need each of small, midsized, and large institutions to provide a variety of historical perspectives.

What do you think? Have you experienced an institution interpreting the past in a way that you disagreed with? What size was it?

---

100% of the SBD rewards from this #explore1918 post will support the Philadelphia History Initiative @phillyhistory. This crypto-experiment conducted by graduate courses at Temple University's Center for Public History and MLA Program, is exploring history and empowering education. Click here to learn more.