Public Engagement Through Programming in Archives: A Systematic Review of Activities and Resultant Outcomes

Abstract

Archives have the potential to contribute to national development by preserving historical records and providing access to information. However, their impact is constrained by ineffective outreach strategies, insufficient institutional investment, and low public visibility. Public programming has been used as a strategic approach to bridge the gap between archival institutions and their user communities through engagement initiatives. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically review and analyse the diverse public programming activities undertaken by archival institutions globally and to identify the resultant outcomes of these engagements. To achieve this, the study employed a systematic literature review methodology, examining scholarly publications to synthesise existing evidence on public engagement in archives, thereby providing a comprehensive overview of current practices and their demonstrated impacts. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, utilising a two-stage selection process involving a search of six databases and four specialised journals. This search yielded 39 publications that met the inclusion criteria. Methodological rigour was evaluated using the CASP checklist. The results from the study indicated that exhibitions, educational programmes, community outreach, and digital initiatives were the most common public programming strategies. These activities enhance public awareness, increase accessibility, and foster community engagement. Despite the availability of various public programming activities, challenges such as inadequate funding, lack of digital infrastructure, and bureaucratic constraints hinder their effectiveness. The need for structured outreach strategies, institutional support, and the integration of emerging technologies to optimise public programming in archives is emphasised. The findings contribute to improving archival accessibility and user engagement in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

1. Introduction

Archives play a crucial role in preserving and disseminating historical and cultural heritage by serving as repositories of collective memory [1]. They offer access to valuable records that inform research, education and policymaking in different forms and formats such as correspondence, manuscripts, reports, and audiovisuals such as photographs, maps, audiotapes, videos and films [1,2]. The fundamental premise of archives providing access to various informational resources inherently includes the critical role of academics and researchers in the scientific domain as key beneficiaries and collaborators in leveraging archival resources [3]. This assertion underscores the profound symbiotic relationship between archival institutions and the scientific community, where the former serves as an indispensable repository of longitudinal data, experimental results, and historical scientific discourse [3,4], while the latter utilises these resources to advance knowledge. Within the scientific domain, access to primary archival materials, ranging from historical scientific instrument blueprints, laboratory notebooks, and early research papers to institutional records of scientific organisations and personal papers of prominent scientists, is crucial for contextualising contemporary research [5,6,7], understanding the evolution of scientific thought, and avoiding the replication of past endeavours.

Despite their importance, many archival institutions struggle with low public engagement due to limited outreach efforts and inadequate promotional strategies [1,3,4,5]. Consequently, the potential for archival materials to inform and engage the broader public remains significantly underutilized [4]. While it has been observed that the number of researchers consulting archives is notably low, particularly within the Eastern and Southern African regions [6], it is crucial to acknowledge that such trends are not universally consistent across all geographical contexts, including parts of Europe where academic engagement may be more robust [6]. Therefore, a more nuanced understanding highlights the paramount importance of public programming initiatives to cultivate wider societal connections with archival collections, ensuring that these invaluable historical resources are accessible and relevant to diverse audiences beyond the confines of specialist scholarly communities, regardless of geographical locale [7]. It should be noted that the effective utilisation of archival materials depends on publicity given to the archival institutions and public programming has emerged as a way of enhancing the visibility and utilisation of archival materials, fostering a closer connection between archives and society [2]. Miller [7] added that outreach programmes increase the use of archives, improve the image of archives, create support for funding archives, and increase awareness of the importance of archives.

Public programming in archives encompasses a range of activities designed to increase public awareness and accessibility to archival collections. Kamatula [6] defined public programming in archives as a way of creating awareness of archives within society and promoting their use. Public programming is also known as outreach or advocacy programmes [8], and the activities include exhibitions, workshops, educational initiatives, and digital engagement through social media and online platforms [3,8]. In the United States, Miller [7] pointed out that they include “lectures, tours, exhibits, and teacher resources and workshops”. Kamatula [6] categorised the archival programming activities into promotions and public relations through publications, guided tours to the archives, archive open days and archive weeks, archival exhibitions, seminars, workshops and conferences; personal selling; advertising through magazines, newspapers, televisions, internet; and using the telephone to market through telemarketing. The implementation of these programmes expands the audience base of the archival institutions, engages communities, and advocates for the significance of documentary heritage [3,5,8]. However, the success of these initiatives depends on various factors such as institutional support, funding availability, technology adoption, and strategic planning [9].

In Tanzania for example, archival institutions participate in trade fair activities by showcasing their holdings and attracting new users, distributing and selling some of the archival publications [6]. They also exhibit cultural activities to attract the general public through pictures and historic documents. However, it has been noted that the exhibitions do not have proper schedules and are held on an ad hoc basis, and, as a result, few citizens are informed about them. The lack of a planned schedule of outreach activities was also observed at the National Archives of Zimbabwe, leading to dwindling visits to the research rooms [8,10,11]. Visits to schools, colleges and other institutions were carried out to create awareness, and students were encouraged to use archival materials and also encourage them to visit archives to see the original source materials [6]. This study aims to explore the different types of public programming activities in archival institutions and evaluate their impact by addressing the following research questions:

• What types of public programming activities are implemented in archives?
• What are the outcomes of public programming in archives?

Answering these questions is vital for understanding current public programming practices in archives and for evaluating the success and societal impact of these initiatives.

2. Materials and Methods

The PRISMA checklist [12], provided the framework for this systematic review, ensuring both transparency and methodological rigour.

2.1. Search and Eligibility Process

This systematic review undertook an examination of the scope and nature of public programming initiatives in archival settings. The review methodology involved a systematic and rigorous evaluation of relevant literature, identified through a multi-database search strategy. A distinctive feature of this approach was the iterative development and refinement of database-specific search protocols, leveraging a combination of carefully selected keywords, controlled vocabularies (Library of Congress Subject Headings, UNESCO Thesaurus), and Boolean operators to optimise the retrieval of pertinent studies. This search strategy aimed to ensure a comprehensive and representative sample of the existing literature on public programming in archives [13].

A literature search was conducted across multiple academic databases to identify relevant scholarly works, ensuring a broad and interdisciplinary coverage of the research topic. The search strategy encompassed major multi-disciplinary databases, including ERIC, JSTOR, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Additionally, specialised databases in library and information science, such as Archival Science, The American Archivist, Digital Humanities Quarterly, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA) and Library Literature and Information Science Full Text, were consulted to capture domain-specific knowledge. This multi-faceted approach aimed to maximise the comprehensiveness of the search and capture a diverse range of perspectives and research outputs pertinent to the study’s focus.

A multi-faceted search strategy was employed, structured around four distinct keyword categories [13]. The first category, “Public Programming Activities”, explored core concepts related to public engagement within archival settings, employing the following search string: (“public programming” OR “outreach” OR “community engagement” OR “educational programmes” OR “events”) AND (“archives” OR “archival institutions” OR “historical records” OR “repositories”). The second category, “Archival Context”, focused specifically on the archival environment, using the following search string: (“archives” OR “archival institutions” OR “historical records” OR “repositories”). The third category, “Combined Programming and Archives”, sought to capture literature where these concepts intersect, using the following search string: (“public programming” OR “outreach” OR “community engagement” OR “educational programmes” OR “events”) AND (“archives” OR “archival institutions” OR “historical records” OR “repositories”). Finally, exclusion criteria were applied using Boolean operators to refine the search and eliminate irrelevant studies. Specifically, studies focusing primarily on library science, and lacking any intersection with archival studies, were excluded: NOT (AB = (“library science” AND NOT (“archives” OR “archival institutions” OR “historical records” OR “repositories”))). This refined keyword strategy was designed to comprehensively capture the multifaceted nature of the research, ensuring a focused and relevant search for literature on public programming within archival institutions.

To maximise the relevance and rigour of the literature search, this study utilised the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework to inform its search strategy and eligibility criteria [14]. The following eligibility criteria were established within the PICO framework to guide the study selection process. The PICO framework proved instrumental in streamlining the initial study selection process by highlighting pertinent articles [14]. The following eligibility criteria were established within the PICO framework to guide the selection of studies:

• Population (P): Studies of individuals or groups engaging with archival materials within archival settings (archives, special collections, related institutions). Prioritised studies where the archival setting is central. Excluded studies in non-archival settings or where the archival context is peripheral.
• Intervention (I): Studies of public programming initiatives implemented within archival settings (exhibitions, educational programmes, community outreach, events, digital engagement). Focused on initiatives engaging users with archival materials, promoting learning, or fostering community partnerships. Excluded studies focused solely on internal archival functions (collection management, preservation, digitisation) without a substantial public programming component.
• Comparison (C): Comparison was not strictly required but preferred. Prioritised studies comparing public programming initiatives with traditional archival practices or control groups. Considered studies with baseline data or comparing different types of initiatives. Accepted studies evaluate impact without direct comparison if robust outcome evidence is provided.
• Outcome (O): Studies measuring outcomes of public programming effectiveness in archival settings. Focused on: (1) Improved user engagement (visitation, participation, use of materials, demonstrated interest); (2) Enhanced learning outcomes (knowledge of materials, historical context, research skills); (3) Strengthened community partnerships (collaborative projects, community involvement, enhanced relationships). Excluded studies lacking clear outcomes or evaluations of program impact [15].

To optimise the search strategy and ensure a complete review, the following supplementary eligibility criteria were instituted:

• Study Design: Empirical research employing quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods will be included. Purely descriptive studies, opinion pieces, editorials, and commentaries were excluded.
• Publication Type: Eligible publications which included peer-reviewed journal articles and specific forms of grey literature, such as reports, conference proceedings, and dissertations/theses. Non-peer-reviewed publications (excluding specified grey literature) were excluded.
• Language: Studies published in English were included. Studies published in other languages were excluded.
• Publication Date: Studies published between 2010 and 2025 (inclusive) were included. Studies published before 2010 were excluded.
• The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) provides a clear illustration of the systematic search and study selection process.

The initial search across designated databases yielded 3441 records (Figure 1). A two-stage screening methodology, employing Rayyan software version 1.5.0 for deduplication [15], and ASReview version 2.0 (open-source machine learning-assisted tools) for screening, was used to manage this volume [16].

2.1.1. Deduplication and Prioritisation

Rayyan’s deduplication functionality was used to identify and remove redundant and non-English records [15]. Utilising algorithms that compared attributes such as title, authors, abstract, and publication details, 1610 records were excluded. This process reduced the dataset to 1831 records for subsequent evaluation. Consequently, ASReview was used to prioritise the remaining 1831 records for full-text review. In comparing abstracts and titles to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, ASReview’s machine learning algorithms predicted each record’s relevance, enabling reviewers to concentrate on the most promising records [16]. This automated prioritisation significantly expedited the screening process [15,16].

2.1.2. Full-Text Review and Selection

Two independent reviewers conducted a full-text review using Rayyan after ASReview prioritisation, applying predetermined eligibility criteria to each record. This process excluded 1698 records due to lack of peer review or non-compliance with research objectives. The 133 remaining records, relevant to public programming activities in archival institutions, were retained for quality assessment, evaluating conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, participant sampling, and reported findings.

2.2. Validity Assessment

An assessment of study quality was conducted to ensure the integrity and robustness of this systematic review. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, a proven tool for evaluating research articles, was utilised to provide an organised and systematic framework [17]. To minimise subjective bias and enhance transparency in the selection process, the CASP checklist facilitated a uniform approach across all included research [17]. The CASP checklist guided the assessment of four key dimensions of study quality and reliability, as they pertain to research on public programming activities:

• Conceptual and Theoretical Clarity: Reviewers examined the articulation and understanding of the fundamental concepts underpinning public programming in archives, as well as how these concepts were applied in archival settings. This involved analysing the introduction and literature review sections to determine the authors’ familiarity with pertinent theoretical frameworks, current research, and the unique possibilities and challenges present in this field of archival practice. This assessed the construct validity of literature related to public programming [17].
• Methodological Accuracy: Methodology sections of articles dealing with public programming were examined. The reviewers assessed the suitability of data analysis methods, the validity and reliability of data collection tools (such as surveys and interviews used to evaluate programmes), the researchers’ attempts to address potential sources of bias in their studies of public programming, and the appropriateness of the research design in respect to the stated research questions about archival outreach. Prioritising studies that demonstrated well-reasoned and methodologically sound procedures strengthened the research’s internal validity concerning public programming effectiveness [17].
• Sampling Adequacy and Generalisability: Reviewers evaluated how well the authors defined the target group of participants in public programming, the sampling procedure used to select participants or archival institutions for study, and the rationale for sample size and representativeness, as emphasised by the CASP checklist. Clearly defined and representative sampling frames were favoured to enhance the external validity and transferability of the results to other archival contexts [17].
• Importance and Interpretive Complexity of Results: The results and discussion sections of relevant articles were analysed to assess the coherence, clarity, and applicability of findings to the study objectives and methodology of public programming research. The reviewers evaluated how well the authors articulated the implications of their findings and how deeply they interpreted them. Particularly noteworthy were articles that offered novel perspectives and practical suggestions for improving public programming in archival institutions [17].

The methodical implementation of the CASP checklist facilitated a comprehensive assessment of each article’s strengths and weaknesses in relation to these four important quality metrics for public programming research [17]. This process resulted in the identification of a cohort of eligible research publications, forming the foundation of this systematic review. Following the application of the quality criteria, 43 studies were deemed ineligible, resulting in the selection of 39 studies as the basis of this review.

2.3. Inter-Rater Reliability and Consistency

The reviewers worked together to settle any disagreements that surfaced throughout the selection process. To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the study selection process, the research team engaged in a collaborative review of discrepancies, achieving consensus on study inclusion through a systematic and collective approach. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) assessment [18], using percentage agreement and kappa statistic (κ) [19], demonstrated a high level of agreement (80% agreement, κ = 0.68), providing robust evidence of the selection process’s validity and reliability [18,19].

2.4. Data Charting Process

To facilitate the extraction and organisation of relevant data from the included studies, the data charting process was employed. This process was designed to ensure the accurate and reliable extraction of data, minimising the risk of errors or biases. This process was underpinned by the use of reference management software (Zotero version 7.0.11) to ensure accurate citation and efficient management of bibliographic data [20]. A bespoke data extraction form was developed, explicitly aligned with the study objectives and informed by best practices for data extraction in systematic reviews [12].

2.5. Data Management Software

Zotero reference management software was also used to support the data charting process and ensure the management of bibliographic information. Zotero facilitated the efficient organisation and storage of all included studies, creating a centralised repository of relevant literature [20]. Beyond basic bibliographic management, Zotero’s tagging and categorisation functionalities were strategically utilised to enhance the data charting process. Specifically, these features allowed for the systematic labelling and grouping of data elements extracted from the studies, aligning with the pre-defined categories established in the data extraction form. This granular level of organisation within Zotero facilitated the subsequent synthesis and analysis of the extracted data, enabling researchers to quickly identify patterns, trends, and relationships across the body of included literature [20]. Furthermore, the use of Zotero ensured the accurate and consistent citation of all included studies throughout the review process and in the final report, adhering to established academic standards. This robust approach to reference management contributed to the transparency and reproducibility of the systematic review [20].

2.6. Data Extraction Form

A standardised data extraction form was developed using Microsoft Excel and pilot-tested to ensure its effectiveness in capturing the required data, guided by the PRISMA checklist [12]. The form was designed to extract the following key information:

Study Characteristics: Author(s), year of publication, publisher, and study design.

• Context: Archive type, location, size, community.
• Public programming activities: Specific activities implemented, target audience, objectives, and descriptions.
• Public programming activity findings: Benefits, challenges, impact on outcomes, ethical considerations, recommendations related to the activities.

2.7. Results Synthesis and Analysis

To facilitate the systematic extraction and organisation of critical study data, a manual coding framework was developed and implemented using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. This framework enabled the accurate and reliable capture of key study information, including authorship, methodology, publication details, and primary findings [1,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. Although the extracted data are presented in a tabular format in Appendix A,

Table 1. Geographic distribution of data provenance in the included studies.

Country/Region	Percentage (%)
Global/General	25.64
South Africa	17.95
United States (USA)	15.38
Tanzania	7.69
Zimbabwe	7.69
ESARBICA Region	5.13
United Kingdom (UK)	5.13
Botswana	2.56
Canada	2.56
Ghana	2.56
Namibia	2.56
South Korea	2.56
Zambia	2.56

shows the provenance of the studies, in terms of countries or regions.

The table illustrates the diverse geographical origins of the studies included in the analysis. This distribution reflects both broad theoretical discussions and concentrated empirical research in specific national and regional archival landscapes.

3. Findings

The subsequent section details the results of the analysis, with particular emphasis on addressing the study’s primary research questions: Firstly, what types of public programming activities are implemented in archival institutions? Secondly, what are the outcomes associated with public programming in archives?

Table 2. Type of public programming activity in archives.

Type of Public Programming Activity	Description	Scholarly Examples
Exhibitions	Physical or virtual displays of archival materials to showcase their significance and engage the public	[21,35,48]
Outreach Programs	Activities designed to connect with specific communities or the general public, often including presentations, workshops, and collaborative projects	[28,32,40]
Educational Programs	Structured learning experiences that utilise archival materials to teach specific subjects or skills, often in collaboration with schools or universities	[1,9,50]
Social Media Engagement	Using platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn to share archival content, interact with users, and promote events	[27,37]
Digital Engagement/Online Outreach	Utilising Web 2.0 tools, creating online resources, and developing mobile applications to enhance access and interaction with archival materials	[22,30]
Community Archiving	Collaborative efforts to document and preserve the history and culture of specific communities, often emphasising inclusivity and diverse perspectives	[26,49]
Oral History Programs	Recording and preserving personal narratives and memories to supplement traditional archival records and provide a more complete historical record	[11,47]

provides a structured overview pertaining to the first research question, categorising and synthesising the various activities observed in the literature.

Table 2 illustrates the diverse range of public programming activities employed by archival institutions to engage various audiences [9,21,26]. These activities, encompassing both traditional methods like exhibitions and contemporary approaches such as social media and digital engagement, aim to enhance access, promote understanding, and foster community connections with archival materials [22,28,49].

However, it is important to acknowledge that the implementation of these diverse public programming activities is not without its complexities. The analysis of the literature highlights a range of challenges that archival institutions encounter in their efforts to connect with the public. These challenges are systematically presented in

Table 3. Challenges in the implementation of public programming activities.

Challenge	Description	Example Sources
Lack of Resources	Insufficient funding, staffing, technological infrastructure, and time to plan and execute effective programs.	[8,11,28]
Lack of Awareness/Understanding	Public and institutional unawareness of the value of archives and the potential of public programming.	[1,6,25]
Ineffective Strategies	Poorly planned or implemented programs, lack of strategic marketing, and underutilisation of modern technologies.	[6,34,45]
Balancing Preservation and Access	Difficulty in making materials accessible to the public while ensuring their long-term preservation.	[35]
Skills Gap	Archivists may lack the necessary skills in marketing, technology, community engagement, and program development.	[34,46]
Technological Challenges	Difficulties in adopting and implementing digital tools and platforms for outreach and engagement.	[33,36]

.

Table 3 outlines the primary challenges that archival institutions face in implementing public programming, revealing that limitations in resources, awareness, and strategic planning are significant impediments [6,8,25]. These challenges are further compounded by the need to balance preservation with access, address skills gaps among archivists, and navigate the complexities of technological integration for outreach [33,34,35]. Overcoming these obstacles is crucial for archives to effectively engage with the public and fulfil their mission.

Even with the challenges archives experience in their public programming, there are notable outcomes from these activities. These outcomes are outlined in

Table 4. Outcomes of public programming in archives.

Outcome of Public Programming	Description	Example Sources
Increased Public Awareness	Greater recognition and understanding of the existence, value, and services of archives among the public.	[6,25,40]
Enhanced User Engagement	Higher levels of interaction and participation with archival materials and programs.	[21,42,48]
Improved Accessibility	Greater ease of access to archival resources, both physically and digitally.	[29,30,51]
Community Building	Fostering connections and relationships between archives and various communities.	[24,26,28]
Educational Impact	Increased learning and understanding of history, culture, and other subjects through the use of archival materials.	[9,50]
Promotion of Social Justice	Using archives to highlight diverse perspectives, challenge dominant narratives, and advocate for equity.	[31,47]

, consistent with this study’s second research question.

Table 4 illustrates the diverse outcomes of public programming in archives, demonstrating its capacity to enhance public awareness and engagement [21,25,40]. These initiatives also contribute to improved accessibility, community building, and educational impact, ultimately promoting social justice and a deeper understanding of archival resources [9,26,29,31]. The table underscores the multifaceted value of public programming in strengthening the connection between archives and the communities they serve.

4. Discussion

The findings showed that archives are engaging in public programming activities to promote engagement and utilisation of documentary heritage through exhibitions, outreach initiatives, digital activities and outreach initiatives. The study findings indicate that exhibitions, whether physical or virtual, consistently emerge as a primary tool for public engagement in archives [1]. Their effectiveness lies in their capacity to visually present archival materials, thereby making historical narratives tangible and accessible to a broader audience. For instance, the University of Florida’s Smathers Libraries prioritises exhibitions as a central public engagement tool [21], reflecting an institutional focus on scholarly research through curated displays [35]. This approach empirically demonstrates that exhibitions can effectively showcase the significance of archival holdings, particularly for institutions with a scholarly emphasis [21,35]. However, the study also notes that the effectiveness of exhibitions can be hampered by a lack of proper scheduling and an ad hoc implementation, as observed in Tanzanian archival institutions [36], leading to limited public awareness despite their potential. The suggestion to utilise digital exhibitions also arises to protect collections while still promoting them [1], highlighting a practical outcome of balancing preservation with access.

Digital engagement, encompassing Web 2.0 tools, online resources, and social media platforms, plays a crucial role in enhancing access and interaction with archival materials [27]. Studies indicate that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter enable archives to move beyond passive information dissemination towards creating meaningful “digital dialogues” with users [27]. This active engagement is empirically supported by findings that demonstrate increased public interaction and democratisation of archives [27]. Bowden’s [22] case study on “Archives Outreach in a Digital World” explicitly highlights that while Web 2.0 tools can enhance outreach, their effectiveness is contingent upon strategic planning and interactive engagement, rather than mere broadcasting. However, the study findings observe that bureaucratic constraints and operational restrictions often hinder archives from fully leveraging social media, leading to a weak online presence and under-engagement of younger audiences [27,33,37]. This suggests that despite the proven potential for enhanced accessibility and user interaction through digital means, institutional limitations can impede the full realisation of these outcomes.

Outreach programmes are designed to establish connections with specific communities and the general public through presentations, workshops, and collaborative projects [8]. The empirical evidence indicates that these initiatives are vital for community building and fostering relationships between archives and diverse communities [21,25]. The University of Georgia’s Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, for instance, demonstrates a robust commitment to accessibility and community engagement through a wide range of programmes and dedicated staff [21]. This highlights that a well-resourced and strategically staffed outreach programme can lead to significant community involvement and stronger partnerships [9]. Conversely, institutions with low outreach efforts, such as the Zanzibar National Archives [25], struggle with local engagement. The findings further point out that unstructured schedules and a lack of digital technologies can negatively impact the effectiveness of outreach strategies, as seen at the National Archives of Zimbabwe [8]. Also, some archives use educational programmes to enhance public programming, and Mukwevho [9] noted that archives in South Africa remain ineffective and poorly designed despite having the potential to integrate educational activities into the national curriculum. In addition, some archives lack institutional support in performing advocacy work which assists in obtaining resources and influencing policy, as supported by Brett and Jones [23]. This suggests that while the activity itself has clear potential for educational impact, systemic issues and lack of collaboration with educators can hinder its effectiveness.

Oral history programmes, focusing on recording and preserving personal narratives and memories, also emerged as a vital component of public programming activities for robust community engagement [8,11]. These initiatives go beyond supplementing traditional archival records; they actively construct a more inclusive historical narrative by giving voice to individuals and communities whose experiences might otherwise be absent from official documentation [47]. The fundamental outcome of this activity is intrinsically linked to the promotion of social justice, achieved by highlighting diverse perspectives and challenging dominant narratives [11,47]. Through the collection of oral histories, archives can empower marginalised groups, validate their experiences, and offer alternative viewpoints on historical events, thereby fostering a more equitable and representative understanding of the past [8,47]. This direct engagement with personal testimonies not only enriches the archival collection but also serves as a powerful mechanism for reconciliation, recognition, and the active participation of communities in shaping their own historical legacies [8].

The outcomes of public programming in archives are evaluated through increased accessibility and community engagement. These are enhanced when there are structured and proactive outreach strategies leading to greater public interaction and utilisation [52]. From the findings, key themes have been drawn that can be used for public programming activities in archival institutions. It was emphasised that outreach is evolving from an auxiliary activity to a central function of archival institutions where archivists expand their roles to include community engagement, advocacy, and social justice initiatives [52]. Social media has the potential to democratise archives and increase public interaction. However, its adoption remains limited and underutilised as stated by Maluleka et al. [33], Mukwevho and Ngoepe [37], and Sommer [48]. Digital tools such as Web 2.0, Linked data, and mobile SNS platforms offer new opportunities for accessing and engaging in public programming initiatives. Web 2.0 technologies and social media platforms enhance archival outreach, but their effectiveness depends on strategic planning, interactive engagement, and moving beyond passive information dissemination as supported by Bowden [22]. It was found that institutions vary in their outreach approaches, with some prioritising scholarly research and exhibitions, while others emphasise accessibility, public engagement and community-centred initiatives.

Archivists have been engaged in proactive outreach initiatives to enhance the visibility and engagement with users. These include virtual exhibitions, community activities and social media integration such as at the University of Nevada Las Vegas Special Collections as stated by Sommer [48]. The National Archives of Zimbabwe, for example, uses brochures, oral history programmes, and training workshops for outreach activities as stated by Chaterera and Rodrigues [8]. Collaborative approaches with independent community archives have been carried out in UK publicly funded archives, showing greater community control of the archival materials, and community-driven partnerships. Hands-on learning experiences have been carried out to give students a deeper learning experience and to understand the societal impact of records as supported by Webster [50]. This shows the importance of involving the students to learn from doing and engaging with the archives [2].

The findings showed that archives have a weak social media presence [27], often relying on parent institutions’ accounts which in turn restrict direct interaction with the public. Although it was noted that social media is recognised as a tool to take archives to the people [30], institutions faced bureaucratic constraints in managing their social media accounts and this limited the effectiveness of social media activities in public programming, as noted by Mukwevho and Ngoepe [37]. Since young people frequently use social media, it is known that they are under-engaged with, which calls for independent social media strategies by archives. In other countries, engaging younger audiences has been problematic due to limited social media presence and reliance on parent body accounts. This shows that archival institutions face insufficient professional development, weak marketing strategies and limited online presence, as indicated by Maluleka et al. [33].

The challenges being faced in public awareness and engagement with archives included a lack of public awareness of archives, as stated by Kamatula [6], Njobvu et al. [3], and Otu and Asante [41]. In archival institutions where public awareness of archives exists, they were not linked to their role in national development, leading to underutilisation. This shows that archives require proactive outreach strategies that go beyond the passive service provision including community engagement activities [52]. Some archival institutions face low public access due to inadequate digital infrastructure, material deterioration and outdated facilities, as indicated by Chaterera and Rodriques [8], Mollel and Mungwabi [36], and Sigauke et al. [11]. They would need to digitise and modernise to enhance accessibility, user experience, and long-term preservation. It was also noted that archives are often excluded from national development plans and there is a need for stronger advocacy to reposition them in policymaking [1].

Policy gaps and resource constraints have been hampering public programming activities, leading to ad hoc implementation instead of having structured engagement, as stated by Chaterera and Rodriques [8] and Magadza [32]. The lack of clear frameworks for sustained public programming makes archival institutions struggle with policy implementation despite legislative mandates. It has been noted that many national archives lack structured marketing strategies, leading to poor engagement. There is another challenge of inconsistent messaging and insufficient marketing expertise that has been weakening the visibility and accessibility of archives making them less relevant to the general public, as indicated by Kamatula [6], Maphorisa and Jain [34], Njobvu et al. [3] and Saurombe [45]. In Zimbabwe, funding and personnel shortages limit the effectiveness of the outreach activities that are carried out by archivists to promote archives [11]. In South Africa, for example, there are archival representation gaps that affect public programming as supported by Maluleka et al. [33], Mukwevho and Ngulube [38] and Saurombe and Ngulube [46]. Political and institutional barriers including limited political support and insufficient archivist skills affect engagement strategies. Some marketing strategies are weak and non-existent and this affects the public programming activities [1,3,52].

It has been noted that educational programmes and public engagement strategies are often underutilised, especially in South African archives where archival materials are not well integrated into school curricula, as noted by Mukwevho [9]. Therefore, there is a need for collaborative approaches, such as working with educators, media, and policymakers, to embed archival content into formal education, as recommended by Mukwevho [9]. In addition, a distinction between advocacy and outreach has been emerging, where advocacy focuses on persuading policymakers and securing resources, as stated by Brett and Jones [23]. However, many archival institutions lack performance metrics for advocacy and outreach effectiveness, making it difficult to measure the impact. Challenges were also highlighted in user experience design, emphasising the need for user personas and hybrid exhibitions, as indicated by Opgenhaffen [39]. Although exhibitions play a key role in promoting special archives, resource limitations, lack of expertise, and the tension between preservation and access persist. There might be a need to utilise digital exhibitions to protect the collection as recommended by Marini [35].

5. Recommendations

It is recommended that archives should have structured outreach programmes to enhance visibility and engagement. These outreach strategies should have clear schedules, defined objectives, and a target audience for them to be effective. When archivists carry out marketing activities, there is a need to have structured marketing plans buttressed with better funding and diversified communication methods to leave no one behind. Successful implementation of outreach programmes depends on the availability of funding. Furthermore, due to the technological changes that are taking place, archives should actively make use of digital engagement through social media and digital platforms for public programming activities. For example, the use of mobile systems can enhance archival accessibility and the way in which archives engage with the users. In addition, archives can partner with universities and other schools as a way of integrating archives into the curricula and users can be engaged from the grassroots level and embed archival content into formal education. The importance of resources cannot be overlooked as a need to strengthen archival outreach efforts. All the stakeholders should play their part, and the government should allocate and provide adequate resources including staffing and training programmes to enhance the effectiveness of public programming. There is a need to improve advocacy efforts in order to secure resources and influence policy, at the same time distinguishing promotion, marketing, and outreach in order to adopt effective strategies to increase public engagement. Archives can also implement community-centred archiving by adopting community-led outreach approaches and decoloniality as a way of representing diverse historical narratives at the same time fostering public participation. In so doing, there should be institutional independence from bureaucratic interferences, and archivists should be given an opportunity to take archives to the people to create awareness. Professional training programmes, collaboration, and the development, use and maintenance of social media platforms and dedicated websites would enhance the visibility of archives.

6. Conclusions

It can be concluded that public programming is key in promoting the accessibility, engagement, and historical awareness of archives, and archival institutions have been utilising virtual exhibitions, community activities, social media, web 2.0, linked data, and mobile platforms in public programming activities. While these activities are widely implemented, there is a variety in effectiveness due to institutional commitment and resource availability. Public programming activities lead to increased public engagement, enhanced digital interaction, and inclusive archival representation. However, despite their efforts, many archival institutions suffer from low public engagement, lack of planned outreach, and ineffective marketing strategies, while institutional reluctance, limited staffing, and inadequate funding hamper outreach efforts. Therefore, the importance of outreach, partnerships, and diverse programming is emphasised to attract broader audiences. Success can be achieved through effective assessment and evaluation to measure impact while collaboration and funding are key to sustaining public engagement initiatives.

7. Limitations and Areas for Further Research

Although this review provides valuable insights into public programming in archives, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations. Firstly, the review focused primarily on English-language publications, potentially excluding relevant studies published in other languages. Secondly, the search strategy, although comprehensive, may not have captured all existing literature on the topic. Future research could expand the search to include non-English publications and explore additional databases or other grey literature sources to provide a more exhaustive analysis. Additionally, there is a need for more empirical studies that evaluate the long-term impact of public programming initiatives on user engagement, community development, and archival advocacy.