Doing Archival Research in Political Science By Scott A. Frisch, ...

to portray their actions in the best possible light, and sitting members may be unwilling to be completely frank in any interview for fear that their statements will make their way into the popular media.

The archival record, in contrast, is often not subject to this problem. Minutes of meetings typically provide a more accurate picture of what occurred than does a single member’s account relayed long after the meeting. For instance, Frisch and Kelly interviewed a member of Congress several years ago about his committee assignments. When he was asked about his request to be placed on the Budget Committee in the mid-1980s, he did not recall making that request. The archival record, however, includes significant evidence that he did in fact request assignment to the Budget Committee. It is possible that he forgot; it is also possible that he did not want to provide the impression that he did not have the political “juice” to warrant an assignment to an important committee.

Reason Five: Other Subjects of Research Will Be Uncovered

One of the pure joys of archival research is the unexpected finds and the materials that spark new research questions and directions. During his first trip to Tom Foley’s papers, Kelly discovered a large series of whip counts from Foley’s time as Democratic Whip. Kelly tucked that little find away as a possible next project (only to discover later that Larry Evans had targeted those data for his own work!).

Whip counts for leadership races are very common in the collections of members who sought leadership positions. Harris (2006) and Green (2007) have made good use of these in their quantitative work on the determinants of leadership selection, as did the authors of The Austin-Boston Connection (Champagne, Harris, Riddlesperger, and Nelson 2009), though in a more qualitative and historical examination of intraparty leadership races. Whip counts are also common in the papers of members who whipped on behalf of their own personal policy initiatives (see chapter 1) or committee leaders who sought support for certain positions in committee.