By Joan Warnow-Blewett, Lynn Maloney, Roxanne Nilan



    1. The AIP Long-Term Study of Collaborations                  
    1. Historical and Archival Analysis of Interviews
    2. Sociological Analysis of Interviews
    1. Discovery of the Upsilon
    2. Discovery of the J/Psi
    3. CLEO Collaboration at CESR Mini-Probe
    1. Basic Activities
    2. Survey of Spokespersons
    3. Appraisal Guidelines
    4. Site Visits to Accelerator Laboratories
    5. Archival Analysis
    6. Preservation Activities
    7. Project Recommendations
    1. Talks and Publications During the Two-Year Study
    2. Final Reports
    3. Forthcoming Publications
    4. Other Products
  8. APPENDIXES     




    1. Experiment Books         
    2. Other          
    1. Proposal Files of Principal Investigators
    2. Other Proposals and Reports

AIP Working Group for Documenting Multi-Institutional Collaborations in High-Energy Physics

[Table of Contents]

[Table of Contents]

A. The AIP Long-term Study of Collaborations
[Table of Contents]

Since World War II, the organizational frame work for scientific research is increasingly the multi-institutional collaboration. However, this form of research has received only incidental attention from scholars. Without a dedicated effort to understand such collaborations, policymakers and administrators will continue to have only hearsay and their own memories to guide their management; even the records necessary for efficient administration, for historical and management studies, and for posterity, will be largely scattered or destroyed.

The Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP), in keeping with its mission to preserve and make known the record of modern physics, is working to redress this situation with a multi-stage investigation into areas of physics and allied sciences where multi-institutional collaborations are prominent. The long-term study began in 1989. Phase I, focussed on the field of high-energy physics, is now completed; Phase II, now underway, is devoted to collaborative research in space science and geophysics; comparative studies of other fields in science and technology and questions of documentation policy and practice will be the particular foci of Phase III, to get underway in 1994.

The goal of the long-term study is to make it possible for scholars and others to understand these transient "institutions."  In order to locate and preserve historical documentation, we must first get some idea of the process of collaborative research and how the records are generated and used. Hence we are making a broad preliminary survey, the first of its kind, into the functioning of research collaborations that include three or more institutions.

Our study is designed to identify patterns of collaborations, define the scope of the documentation problems, field test possible solutions, and recommend future actions. Along the way we are building an archives of oral history interviews and other resources for scholarly use. Toward the end of the study, the AIP Center will begin to make use of its findings to promote systems to document significant collaborative research.

We focus on major research "sites."  In high-energy physics, sites are accelerator facilities; in space science and geophysics, they are research vehicles (spacecraft and ocean-going vessels) or other systems for data-gathering (such as drill holes and seismic networks and arrays).

We collect three levels of descriptive data. At the most aggregated level, we prepare a census of collaborations by supplementing information that can be gleaned from databases covering the science and technology literature. The census makes possible a quantitative analysis of basic collaboration patterns and their changes over time. At an intermediate level, we conduct interviews with 150-180 selected members of collaborations chosen to cover a range of historical, sociological, and scientific parameters. Qualitative analysis of these interviews provides a foundation for generalizing about how scientists view the process of collaborative research and on where they think records of historical value repose. At the most detailed level, we conduct a few "probes," which are case studies of very significant collaborations that seem certain to be of interest to future scholars. Probes make for concrete experience in locating records, the actual preservation of priceless historical material, and historical monographs of publishable quality.

In addition, we give attention to industrial subcontracting because of the managerial problems this practice poses and the further dispersal of records it implies. We also conduct "special perspective interviews" with women and minority members of collaborations whose social roles merit study, and with others, such as program officers of funding agencies and laboratory directors, who have special information of value to our understanding of collaborative research.

Critical to the success of our study are the definition of categories for census data, the selection of collaborations for interviewing and the construction of interview question sets that are sufficiently varied to capture multiple perspectives on collaborations, yet sufficiently uniform to yield suitable results for statistical and sociological as well as historical analysis. The AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations is guided by a Working Group of distinguished scientists and science administrators, archivists, historians, and sociologists who join in designing the project's methodology and research instruments and reviewing its findings and recommendations.

Interim reports on archival, historical, and sociological findings issued at the end of each phase of the project will culminate in final reports and recommendations at the end of the long-term study. Other resources developed throughout the study, including oral history recordings and transcripts, will be available at the AIP Center's Niels Bohr Library. In addition, we would like to microfilm a few selected sets of particularly valuable documentation. Finally, working in cooperation with institutional archivists, the project will locate and see to the preservation of records, field-testing possible approaches and solutions. Indexed information on all these collections will be made widely available to scholars.

The main consultants for the project are historians Peter Galison (high-energy physics), Robert Smith (space science and geophysics), and Frederik Nebeker (former project historian, now conducting the joint AIP-IEEE study of subcontracting); archivists Roxanne Nilan (high-energy physics) and Deborah Cozort Day (geophysics); and sociologist Lynne Zucker. At the AIP, Nebeker and Joel Genuth have served as project historian and Lynn Maloney and Janet Linde as project archivist. The project is directed by Joan Warnow-Blewett with the assistance of Spencer R. Weart.

B. The Study of Collaborative Research in High-Energy Physics
[Table of Contents]

The AIP Center's two-year study of high-energy physics research focussed on experiments approved between 1973 and 1984 at five of the world's major accelerator laboratories: the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) facility of Cornell University's Newman Laboratory, the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN), the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).

AIP project members obtained a broad-scale picture of changes in the structure of collaborations by using databases on high-energy physics experiments and publications at SLAC, with the assistance of SLAC staff. At a more detailed level, the project conducted close to 200 interviews on 24 selected experimental collaborations, using a structured question set covering all stages of the collaborative process. Still more detailed "probes" of three highly significant collaborations featured historical research as well as many additional interviews (a total of about 100) and work to preserve records. Specifically, Peter Galison studied the work at SLAC that led to the discovery of the psi particle; Frederik Nebeker studied the discovery of the upsilon particle at FNAL, and Joel Genuth studied the CLEO collaboration at Cornell. Meanwhile project staff surveyed the records-keeping practices of key physicists and made numerous site visits to accelerator facilities and university archives to discuss archival issues and records policies.

The project has gained substantial understanding of how to document the collaborative process in high-energy physics. The AIP Center will put this to use. During the next year or so, we will identify the most significant collaborations in high-energy physics—using a combination of citation studies, peer reviews, and other techniques. At the same time—beginning with the project's three probes—we will begin the lengthy task of working with laboratory and university archivists to locate and preserve the key records. This experience will sharpen our knowledge of the practical and policy issues that present obstacles to documentation of collaborative research. Efforts to resolve such problems will continue throughout the long-term study and, thereafter, as an ongoing activity of the AIP Center's documentation strategy.

[Table of Contents]

A. Project Funding
[Table of Contents]

In addition to support for the project's domestic work from the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) at the National Archives and Records Administration, and the National Science Foundation (NSF), funding was received from the Mellon Foundation to extend the study to take international considerations into account. Mellon support made it possible for the AIP project to include collaborations using the four American sites that involve teams (also referred to as groups) from outside the United States.

A separate Mellon grant to the CERN laboratory enabled historian John Krige to carry out a coordinated, parallel study of experiments conducted at CERN. The methodology of the AIP project was fully employed in the CERN work.

B. Project Staffing
[Table of Contents]

Staffing was erratic during the first year, due to the resignations for personal reasons of the first project historian and project archivist. In each case, it took several months to locate and hire replacements, and remaining staff were loaded down with carrying out essential project tasks.

In April 1990, the second project historian (Nebeker) announced he would resign his position in September to take on the position of associate historian for the IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering. This advance notice enabled the AIP project to hire another postdoctoral historian of science, Joel Genuth, whose tenure overlapped Nebeker's. With the addition of project archivist Lynn Maloney to the staff in June 1990 and the employment of Genuth, staff for the high-energy physics study was complete and stable.

There has also been a change in project consultants. Sociology consultant Thomas Gieryn left in August 1990 because of the press of other commitments; since then the task of analyzing the project's interviews and the census for sociological issues has been under the direction of Lynne Zucker of UCLA.

C. Institutional Contributions
[Table of Contents]

The AIP contributed a major portion of the time of the Center's postdoctoral historian Finn Aaserud, particularly during 1989. It continues to support the long-term project by contributing some time of the AIP Center's librarian/archivist Bridget Sisk and its senior program coordinator Virginia French, as well as administrative and clerical costs. The AIP science writer Phillip Schewe assisted the project by reading relevant articles and writing lay language synopses of them as background material for project staff prior to the interviews. This was very successful for our work during Phase I, particularly since Schewe is a former high-energy physicist. Finally, the project absorbed far more than Warnow-Blewett's allotted one-third time and more of Weart's time than expected.

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) too has made substantial contributions to the project by supporting the efforts of associate director William Kirk, librarian Louise Addis, and archivists Roxanne Nilan and Robin Chandler. In addition to service on the project's Working Group, Kirk and Nilan conducted pilot interviews to test the project's questions set and, joined by Chandler, conducted 14 interviews related to the project's selected experiments. Addis (also on the Working Group) provided critical leadership for the project's census work, as detailed below, and trained project staff and consultants on the use of the databases on SPIRES at SLAC.

The AIP project also coordinated its work with a history project at FNAL, funded by the National Science Foundation and directed by historians of science Lillian Hoddeson and Catherine Westfall. The AIP project shared its research results to avoid duplication of effort (such as interviewing physicists on the same experiments).

Other contributions have been made by the laboratories, especially support of the census work by the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, as mentioned later in this report.

[Table of Contents]

The study of collaborations in high-energy physics had a Working Group and a larger Advisory Committee for documenting multi-institutional collaborations in high-energy physics. The project's Advisory Committee was never intended to meet; rather, its members agreed to respond as individuals to our requests for advice. Both groups included a number of expert scientists, historians, archivists, and sociologists. However, the Working Group had a greater concentration of distinguished high-energy physicists and science administrators. The members of the Working Group for High-Energy Physics are listed in Appendix A;  the Advisory Committee for High-Energy Physics is listed in Appendix B.

The project's Working Group for High-Energy Physics met twice: on 14-15 April 1989 and on 22-23 February 1991. The first meeting, near the outset of the project, was an effective tool for introducing the various groups to each others' interests and concerns. The physicists shared their knowledge of the process of collaboration from the perspective of funding agencies, laboratory administration, and laboratory users. These reports were enormously useful in shedding light on such critical points as how collaborations are formed and how they frequently extend over a string of experiments. In addition, the archivists, historians, and sociologists expressed their concerns and interests as keepers and users of the records and eventual audience for the project's findings.

The products of this meeting included revisions to the project's draft set of questions for use in its interview program, the compilation of an initial list of experiments to be included in the interview program, and the selection of the upsilon experiments—with confirmation of the two already chosen (the J and the psi discoveries)—for the more thorough "probe" studies.

The purpose of the February 1991 meeting of the Working Group was to review progress, critique preliminary findings, and set priorities for the rest of the Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations in High-Energy Physics. All levels of project work were reviewed (the census; interviews of selected experiments; probe work; historical, sociological, and archival analysis; the parallel study underway of CERN experiments; and the study of subcontracting). In addition, the Working Group reviewed draft appraisal guidelines for records of high-energy physics experiments, plans for the project's final reports, and possible microfilming of selected files; finally, the Group discussed tactics the AIP Center might use to identify key experiments from the past as well as in the future for special preservation efforts.

[Table of Contents]

The broadest level of the study of multi-institutional collaborations in high-energy physics is the census of all high-energy physics experiments conducted for the period from 1973 through 1987 at the four American facilities and—to some extent—the CERN laboratory in Europe. This effort involved, first, defining basic data needed for the census, and second, learning how to manipulate the databases maintained on SPIRES for the high-energy physics community: the Experiments database by the Particle Data Group at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) and the HEP Publications database by SLAC and the DESY laboratory in Hamburg, Germany. The Experiments and HEP Publications databases for high-energy physics, both using the SPIRES program, were made accessible to us through the SLAC Library.

For the most part, the strengths of the databases for project purposes were impressive. On the other hand, the databases had not been used previously for historical, sociological, or other "nonscientific" purposes, and certain weaknesses for project purposes were quickly apparent. These weaknesses range from the humorous and easily solved (such as counting "et al" as a person in a collaboration) to the disappointing (e.g., the periodic updating of the members of collaborations in the Experiments database that removes the possibility of counting physicists on the original proposal and the identification of a collaboration's previous spokes persons).

On another level, not all laboratories were systematic in reporting which publications in the database were linked to specific experiments. This weakness was serious for a number of reasons; for example, it made it impossible to rank experiments in terms of numbers of publications and numbers of citations. For BNL, the most problematic case, project funds were used to employ as freelancer a recently retired BNL physicist, Robert Phillips, to begin to link BNL experiments to publications. This work has since been continued with BNL funding; the project is, unfortunately, not yet completed. Also, in enlarging the census to include the experiments carried out at CERN, we found another problem: the linking of experiments with CERN report numbers rather than with journal publications. Other priorities on the part of CERN staff stood in the way of a project to revise their database. On a positive note, FNAL completed a special effort working directly with Louise Addis to bring its experiment publications identifications up to date. Despite limitations regarding BNL and CERN, the completion of the census has made possible a reasonable measure of the productivity of collaborations in terms of numbers of publications and their citations and provided information on the length of collaborations. The HEP Publications database is now more useful than ever for both scientific and nonscientific queries.

In November 1991, Louise Addis and William Kirk suggested a number of additional questions—such as the number of experiments approved for each accelerator at five laboratories and the number of experiments approved for each major detector—that could be pursued based on their solid knowledge of the databases and collaborations at SLAC. With the help of Addis, Robin Chandler developed data on these questions for analysis by Zucker. A listing of the census questions in Appendix C.

Finally, the project manipulated the SPIRES databases to compile three lists: (1) individuals most frequently involved in collaborations, (2) individuals serving as spokespersons on three or more collaborations, and (3) institutions most frequently involved in collaborations. These data have been particularly useful—when linked to other findings from the census, interviews, and site visits—in pursuing the preservation goals of the study of high-energy physics.

[Table of Contents]

A. Selection of Experiments
[Table of Contents]

From the outset it was clear that the project should look at a broad range of experiments in terms of both scientific and sociological factors. At the April 1989 meeting of the Working Group, a number of criteria were agreed upon. From the sociological standpoint the set of selected experiments was to cover a range in such areas as the size of the collaboration (both number of institutions and number of individuals), the starting year, the duration, the site, and the possible use of subcontracting. From the scientific standpoint each of the following was to be represented: the various detector types (including bubble chamber, hybrid emulsions, and calorimeter), a beam dump, a rare process, a "crucial test" of theory, a result contrary to current theory, a non-accelerator experiment, high transverse momentum, start-up of an instrument, startup of an electronic facility, and a precision experiment. The Working Group nominated a number of experiments. It recommended that the project request the three DOE sites to nominate additional experiments following the criteria set up by the Working Group. Such requests were made to heads of research programs of these laboratories through site visits, telephone calls, and correspondence in May 1989.

The project staff compiled a database containing information about all 72 experiments nominated for the project's program of interviews. For each experiment this included: title, participants, their affiliations, approval date, starting date, end date, and comments—classified as either physics comments or sociological/non-scientific comments. In July, consultants Galison and Gieryn met at the AIP with project staff to make the first cut in the list of experiments. From the original 72 nominated by the Working Group and by the representatives of SLAC, BNL, and FNAL, 27 experiments were selected, including all three CESR experiments. One of these CESR experiments was later selected for the final list in consultation with the laboratory director. Further cuts were necessary in order to limit to twenty the number of experiments for the project's interview program. The final cuts were made during the process of investigating the current whereabouts of spokespersons for all selected experiments and subsequent discussion with advisors. See Appendix D for information on the selected experiments.

B. Selection of Individuals to be Interviewed
[Table of Contents]

The identification of individuals to be interviewed was made through discussions with the official spokespersons of the selected experiments (a first step made at the recommendation of project advisors) supplemented by conversations with other collaboration members. In all cases, the project sought to identify team leaders (typically called group leaders), women and minority members, and representatives of our various categories (postdocs, grad students, engineers, computer specialists, and technicians). A list of 179 candidates for interviews was thus compiled; a map was flagged with their locations to maximize travel efficiency.

C. Preparation of Working Files
[Table of Contents]

Working files were developed for each selected collaboration, including a list of collaboration institutions and members, lay language summary of the experiment, selected publications, and—where available—a biographical entry for interview subjects and a bibliography of published results.

D. Development of the Question Sets for Interviews
[Table of Contents]

The project proposal included a draft question set to be used for the project's program of interviews. That draft (developed by project staff with consulting historian Galison and sociologist Gieryn) was used to solicit further suggestions and modifications. At the meeting of the Working Group in April, and immediately thereafter, numerous additions and revisions were put forth by project advisors, staff, and William Aspray, Director of the IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering.

In July 1989, three physics experiments (from 1974, 1975, and 1982) were selected for pilot interviews to test the question set. Project staff and consultant Gieryn conducted test interviews with six individuals during September and October. The staff (along with Gieryn, Hargens, and Roxanne Nilan) met in October at Fermilab to discuss their experiences and modify the question set accordingly. The revised question set was then tested at SLAC by project advisors Nilan and Kirk during November. Only minor adjustments have been made since, and interviewers (and interviewees) agree the question set has been highly successful in tracking the collaborative research process. A copy of the Question Set for Senior Physicists is in Appendix E.

We also completed work on several additional shorter question sets for other members of collaborations: representative physicists who are graduate or postdoctoral students; women physicists; and representative non-physicists, including electrical engineers, computer scientists, and technicians. These question sets were tested and have been in use since the early months of 1990. These question sets are also included in Appendix E.

E. Interviewing Activities on Selected Experiments
[Table of Contents]

 From early January 1990 through March 1991, project staff have made 25 major field trips, in addition to nearby visits. Each of these trips involved scheduling appointments with interviewees, completion of working files (lay language versions of key papers, etc.) and travel arrangements. In addition, appointments were made whenever possible with the archivists at each of the interviewee's institutions to discuss the project's documentation goals, the particular situation of the interviewee's files, and the current policies of the institutional archives. In addition to nine pilot interviews, 144 project interviews were conducted through August 1991 for the 19 selected collaborations using domestic sites.

Transcribing of the tape-recorded interviews, under the direction of the AIP Center's Virginia French, moved into high gear in Spring 1990. Particularly taxing was the hiring of freelance transcribers with word processors to carry the large load of work. Duplicate tapes were shipped out and duplicate diskettes returned for inhouse printing. All 144 interviews have been transcribed in addition to seven of the pilot interviews.

F. Historical and Archival Analysis of Interviews
[Table of Contents]

Work was initiated in May 1990 on the historical and archival analysis of interviews for selected experiments. Project staff developed a form covering historical themes and archival issues; this form was used to index interview transcripts. A second form was prepared for an archival database to facilitate archival analysis. Both forms provide access points so that historical issues and archival issues can be tracked over time and by accelerator site. A copy of the indexing form is in Appendix F; the archival database form is in Appendix G. Thus far, 143 transcripts have been indexed. In addition, historical analysis of 134 transcripts and archival analysis of 141 transcripts were completed. An updated report on the historical analysis was distributed to the Working Group prior to its February 1991 meeting. For more details on archival work, see Section X. "Archival and Preservation Activities" below, and also Part B: "Archival Findings: Analysis and Future Actions," in this Report No. 2.[1]

G. Sociological Analysis of Interviews
[Table of Contents]

The program to carry out sociological analysis of interviews was stalled until the appointment in August 1990 of Lynne Zucker, a professor of sociology at UCLA, for the position as consultant, replacing Gieryn. Zucker appointed a postdoc, Margaret Phillips, and a graduate student, Anna Leon-Guerrero, who started work in October under Zucker's supervision.

Zucker and Phillips narrowed the theoretical sociological issues to be addressed and identified variables to pursue those issues and measures that can be used as surrogates for those variables. The issues pursued included the persistence of affiliations and other collaboration matters, influences on the degree of experimental innovation, the determinants of leadership, the effects of centralization of control, and sponsored mobility (especially the degree to which scientific research was carried out within an ever-narrowing network).

Zucker and Phillips also checked out the usefulness of alternative measures to supplement findings of the project interviews (such as the SPIRES databases at SLAC, citations including self-citations, and vitae) in order to identify the kinds of measures that can give the best accuracy in studying the issues. The analysis is multi-level, looking at individuals, home institutions, and relationships of institutions to the experiment and to the accelerator site. Because of their late start, the results of the sociological analysis will not be available until Spring 1993.[2]

[Table of Contents]

Project work on probes largely resembled the planning and scheduling of interviews for the selected collaborations. However, the differences are marked. First of all, the probes involved talking to a larger number of the participants. Second, probe work involved greater attention to collaboration records to determine what files should be saved, identify major gaps, and initiate steps necessary for preserving records of archival value at appropriate institutions.

A. Discovery of the Upsilon
[Table of Contents]

Our study of the upsilon discovery at Fermilab, under the direction of former project historian Frederik Nebeker, covered a string of seven experiments conducted between 1970 and 1985. Altogether, some 130 individuals and eight institutions (four of them outside the United States) were involved. Nebeker completed most of the interviewing and research work on the upsilon probe during four major field trips before he left the project in mid-September 1990; other project staff have done upsilon interviews as well. A total of 57 interviews were conducted (as well as notes of telephone discussions with four of the collaborators). These include six spokespersons, 21 other senior physicists (including nine group leaders), postdocs, graduate students, engineers, and technicians.

Whenever Nebeker (or other staff) interviewed participants, he also examined experiment records in or near their offices and prepared rough inventories. Nebeker also discussed upsilon files with archivists at Fermilab, Stony Brook, SLAC, CERN, and elsewhere to lay the groundwork for a plan to secure an adequate record of the experiments. Some steps have already been taken in conjunction with Adrienne Kolb, Fermilab archivist, to preserve certain very important materials, including detector logbooks and professional papers of two key participants, Leon Lederman and Jeff Appel.

B. Discovery of the J/Psi
[Table of Contents]

The discovery of the J at Brookhaven and of the psi at SLAC were simultaneous, and typically combined in references as the discovery of the J/psi. The AIP project originally planned for consultant historian Peter Galison to work on both the J and psi collaborations (led respectively by Sam Ting at Brookhaven and by Burton Richter at SLAC). Because of difficulties in contacting Ting, Galison's study was limited to the SLAC collaboration.

Galison interviewed nine members of the psi collaboration and reviewed their files. In addition, he worked with archivists at SLAC to develop and carry out a survey mailing to all available participants of the psi collaboration. With the help of archivists at both SLAC and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (the other major institution on the collaboration), a number of valuable records were located, including unpublished internal technical memoranda (e.g., on event analysis, on the interface between equipment and computers, and on the detector, storage ring, and accelerator), materials on Monte Carlo simulations, and minutes of committees and subgroups.[3]

C. CLEO Collaboration at CESR Mini-Probe
[Table of Contents]

The project added a "mini-probe" to its list by upgrading the CLEO collaboration at the CESR facility at Cornell University's Newman Laboratory from one of the 20 selected experiments. The reasons for this special attention are several: (1) Experiments are treated quite differently at CESR; only two collaborations have conducted experiments there since it began running in 1979, and one now monopolizes the facility; (2) CESR is one of the four main accelerator facilities in the U.S.A., but it is the only NSF-funded site; we wanted a better understanding of the differences between the NSF and DOE situations; (3) There has been little historical study of the Cornell accelerators, and we needed to conduct some background research to place the experiment in context; and (4) The project wanted to benefit from another in-depth exposure to research and preservation of archival records. The mini-probe was conducted under the direction of project historian Joel Genuth.

In contrast to the psi and upsilon probes, which are organized around the examination of scientific discoveries, Genuth examined the CLEO collaboration at CESR from an institutional perspective. For example, he looked for documents that shed light on Cornell's decision to pursue collider physics and its efforts to attract the interest of the physics community and obtain funding from the Federal Government. Genuth, with the assistance of Maloney, conducted 21 interviews.

The archival aspects of the CESR­/CLEO probe are particularly challenging, especially the records of CESR and its Newman Laboratory at Cornell University. Since CESR is an NSF-contract facility, it does not produce Federal records that fall under the domain of the National Archives and Records Administration. Warnow-Blewett and Genuth are working out an arrangement between the Newman Laboratory and the Cornell University Archives to safeguard the records; the prognosis is very promising.

The reports by the three historians on the probes of the discoveries of the psi and the upsilon and of the CLEO experiment at CESR are included in Report No. 4: Historical Findings on Collaborations in High-Energy Physics. Information on the records secured is in Report No. 3: Catalog of Selected Historical Materials.[4] In addition, articles by Genuth, Galison, and Nebeker are in preparation and will be submitted to scholarly journals.

[Table of Contents]

One aspect that the AIP project planned to explore from the outset is that of sub­contracting to industry. The investigation of subcontracting throughout the long-term study is a joint project of the AIP Center and the IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering; it is under the direction of Nebeker of the IEEE Center. During our study of high-energy physics, we sought—by means of project interviews and probes—to identify sub­contracts the collaborations might have had with industry to carry out significant research and development. We did not find sub­contracts with such design work or innovative engineering.

Nebeker presented this situation to the Working Group at its February 1991 meeting. There was general agreement that early contributions of industry to high-energy physics in the U.S.A. were done without contracts (although this is changing with the development of detectors for the Super-Conducting Super Collider). During the period of the AIP study, there were a number of areas, such as super-conducting magnets and photomultipliers, where the important research-and development was carried out within industry without subcontracts from high-energy physics experiments.

The Working Group decided that LeCroy Electronics, a company that has for 25 years manufactured electronics exclusively for high-energy physics, should be the focus of the project's investigation of industrial research. LeCroy is important and a good example of successful interaction between industry and high-energy physics. Many of its staff are high-energy physicists and they have cultivated informal relations with the high-energy physics community as a way to learn its needs. Nebeker made a site visit in May to LeCroy to interview key staff, review files, and discuss records-keeping practices; he prepared a written report on his findings.[5]

[Table of Contents]

The Working Group, at its April 1989 meeting, recommended that the project conduct perspective interviews, outside of the selected experiments and probes, to supply missing pieces from the overview of community leaders such as administrators at funding agencies and laboratories. Ten of these interviews have been completed (with Wallenmeyer and Hildebrand on DOE, Berley on NSF, Nishikawa and Kikuchi on KEK, McDaniel and Abashian on CESR, Ticho on university-laboratory relationships, and Neal on university administration).

In June 1989, the AIP Advisory Committee for History of Physics went further still and suggested the project interview a few women and minority physicists (in addition to those who participated in our selected experiments) who have made significant contributions to experimental high-energy physics or are articulate spokespersons for the concerns of women and minorities in the field. Five of these interviews with women in high-energy physics have been conducted; one black physicist was also interviewed, but primarily from the perspective of administration.

Altogether 15 perspective interviews have been conducted; all have been transcribed.

[Table of Contents]

Historian John Krige conducted the study of selected experiments carried out at the European CERN laboratory in Geneva, funded by a separate Mellon Foundation grant. The methodology of the AIP project was fully employed in the CERN work, for example in the criteria for selecting experiments and the question sets used in interviews.

Work on the study at CERN got seriously underway towards the end of 1989, after meetings with individual physicists and the CERN Archive Advisory Committee. Five experiments were chosen to meet a range of different criteria in keeping with the AIP project: (1 and 2) UA1 and UA2, renowned for the discovery of the W and Z particles (large, colliders, electronic, historical importance); (3) T-185 and T-228, the discovery of neutral currents (fixed target, bubble chamber, historical importance); (4) WA1 (large, electronic, neutrino physics, classical mid-1970s experiment, fixed target); and (5) WA9 (small, elegant, non-CERN participation, with an important Soviet contingent). For more information on these experiments, see Appendix D.

Three lines of attack were made on these experiments. First, more than 30 interviews were conducted with individuals who participated in the collaborations, the sample deliberately chosen to include physicists, engineers, computer specialists, and some women. The bulk of these were with physicists and engineers who worked in collaborations UA1 and UA2. A perspective interview on the place of women in high-energy physics was also conducted. Although some differences were noted, Krige's findings confirm virtually all of those made on experiments at American sites.[6]

Second, major progress on preservation of records and papers has been made. With the active support of the CERN Archive Advisory Committee and of the CERN archivist, Krige took positive steps to trace important collections of papers related to the selected CERN experiments. This was successfully done for four of the five selected collaborations; it has proved difficult only for WA1, where most papers seem to have been destroyed. Ultimately it is expected that these will be transferred to the CERN Archive. It should be mentioned that Krige prepared a catalog of the collections of papers of two physicists involved in two of these experiments (UA1 and neutral currents). The first is particularly comprehensive and, once the papers have been transferred to the Archive, will serve as a valuable guide for archivists and historians to the kind of material that is generated in a large collaboration.

Another major preservation breakthrough was the decision on the part of the CERN laboratory to preserve the records of major experiments conducted at CERN. The CERN Archive Advisory Committee, inspired by the AIP project and in consultation with Krige, has solicited from its physics community suggestions for 20 experiments of historical interest; the Committee hopes to track down key collections of papers related to these experiments and, if possible, to transfer them to the CERN Archive. Finally, Krige has identified other important papers and encouraged physicists to deposit them in appropriate repositories; this work has been supported by the CERN Archive Advisory Committee.

Third, some results of Krige's work have been used in two reports: (1) A report summarizing the findings of the research done on experiments UA1 and UA2; this will be published in the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook for 1992 and (2) A CERN Internal Report on the relation between CERN and its user community. Krige hopes to use some data, in cooperation with a young American graduate student, to compare the CDF (Collider Detector at Fermilab) with the UA1.

[Table of Contents]

The methodology was thoroughly effective in identifying the archival issues and pointing the way toward preservation. As expected, the in-depth work on the selected probes proved to be particularly valuable in issues regarding appraisal of technical documentation. Probe work was also useful in identifying specific difficulties in saving the records. We are more surprised at how valuable the historical analysis and the archival analysis of the interviews covering selected collaborations could be in combination with the census work. These analyses provided both an overall understanding and specific information on records creation and retention by the various collaboration members. The census combined well with these findings by giving us names of key institutional and individual players that we could approach for practical preservation work.

A. Basic Activities
[Table of Contents]

There are a number of ways the project has taken steps during the two-year study of high-energy physics to have an impact on the records keeping practices of archivists and scientists. For example, from the start our interviews with scientists were conducted at their home institutions so that we could review their files and also meet with the institutional archivists to talk about project goals and their current archival programs. These meetings with scientists were, virtually without exception, the first time anyone had discussed with them the potential historical value of their papers. Based on previous experience of the AIP Center, we believe these discussions will have a positive impact on care of records. The meetings with archivists strengthened the AIP Center's cooperative ties, gave us "grass roots" information on the likelihood of saving records of multi-institutional collaborative research, and in return let us provide information and encouragement.

More specifically, the question sets used for interviews with senior physicists and other members of collaborations were designed with archival goals in mind. The question sets in Appendix C show that each step of the collaborative process was covered, from funding initiatives through publication of research results. There was considerable emphasis on organizational and social issues that impact on records, such as communication patterns, delegation of responsibilities, degree of bureaucratization, impact of computer technology, role of internationalism, and the use of subcontracting to industry. Further issues relating directly to archival matters were those of records creation, use, and reuse for scientific purposes. Here we were particularly keen to capture information about electronic records, both the use of e-mail and the scientific data on magnetic tapes and diskettes. All interview transcripts were indexed by project archivist Lynn Maloney to assure optimum consistency. Information on organizational and social issues was analyzed by project historian Joel Genuth; information specific to records was entered into an archival database for analysis by Maloney and Warnow-Blewett.

B. Survey of Spokespersons
[Table of Contents]

Midway through our data gathering period, both the interviews and the archival database indicated that, as collaborations have become larger and more bureaucratic, spokespersons have taken on more managerial responsibilities including records distribution. Our preliminary archival analysis showed that, of all collaboration members, spokespersons are likely to hold the best documentation. Because of this finding, the project decided to carry out a survey during the first half of 1991. We used the Experiments database at SLAC to compile a list of those people who had served as spokespersons on three or more collaborations. Separate survey procedures were developed for those living in the U.S.A. and those living abroad; project staff were assisted in survey development by sociologists Zucker and Phillips.

The domestic survey was based on a mailing and follow-up telephone interviews. The mailing consisted of a letter explaining the project and the kinds of questions we would cover in the interview; attachments included a summary of the historical analysis of the role of spokespersons, a list of records that the project is interested in, and a printout from the database describing the experiments for which that person was a spokesperson. The telephone follow-ups made it possible to cover virtually everyone included in the domestic survey. Thorough notes were taken and tape recordings were made in case further reference would be required.

Project staff adapted and shortened the interview into a questionnaire to be mailed to foreign spokespersons and returned. This questionnaire focussed on the creation and retention of both collaboration and other professional records and was also accompanied by a letter explaining the project and a database printout describing the experiments for which the spokesperson acted. The survey was mailed in June. The response was disappointing: out of 17 surveyed, only four individuals replied.

Results of the spokesperson surveys were incorporated into the project's archival analysis. The domestic survey broadened the scope of the project's perspective in that many of the experiments examined in the survey differ in physics goals and in historical significance from the project's 19 experiments which are being studied in greater depth.

C. Appraisal Guidelines
[Table of Contents]

Warnow-Blewett drafted guidelines for the appraisal of records of high-energy physics collaborations prior to the February 1991 meeting of the Working Group. The draft included key publications as well as manuscript sources. Each record category was marked for discussion purposes with a recommendation that it should be retained for all experiments, retained only for significant experiments, or that it need not be saved except in special circumstances. When appraising the informational value of the records, the Working Group was asked to take into consideration the future needs of scientists and those in science policy and management as well as historians of physics, technology, information processing, economics, and institutions, and sociologists of science.

Peter Galison—as Chief Consulting Historian—led the review of the draft guidelines providing insights on the records he and other historians on the project had found most valuable for the study of especially significant experiments: correspondence files of individuals, internal collaboration memoranda, and experiment logbooks. The Working Group discussion about appraisal led to the following priorities for retention of records for all experiments: 1) Physics Advisory Committees records, 2) laboratory directors' files, 3) proposals to the laboratories, 4) Memoranda of Understanding (contracts), 5) blueprints of detectors and their components, and 6) proposals, including narrative and financial progress and final reports to funding agencies. It was noted that virtually all of these core records are likely to be retained (or at least not destroyed) by the laboratories. It was also agreed that technical data (especially the raw data) had virtually no value after its use by the collaboration. After the meeting, Galison assisted in reviewing the guide­lines before they were sent to the Working Group for their comments. See Part D: "Appraisal Guidelines for Records of Collaborations in High-Energy Physics" in this Report No. 2.

D. Site Visits to Accelerator Laboratories
[Table of Contents]

Site visits to the five laboratories under study—to meet with top-level science administrators as well as with those in direct charge of records—have been particularly important in two phases of project work. First, near the outset of the project, when laboratory staff were generous in providing detailed tours of their facilities, including discussions with collaboration members in the midst of conducting experiments. Such tours were essential to our understanding of the process of collaborations in high-energy physics. The scheduling of these site visits were coordinated with periodic meetings of staff, consultants, and advisors. Also important were three site visits (in October 1989 and January and July 1990) to the CERN laboratory in Geneva to coordinate project work with CERN historian John Krige.

Later site visits to the laboratories shifted toward discussions of the project's preliminary findings and recommendations. Toward the end of the period, we made visits for the purpose of determining the extent to which the laboratories retain records documenting collaborative research and to obtain current information on their general records retention policies and archival programs. We were particularly concerned to share information on the project's appraisal guidelines and to encourage the retention by the laboratories of the core records to be saved for all experiments. Finally, a history conference at SLAC in June 1992 brought together Warnow-Blewett and archivists from DOE national laboratories, including FNAL, LBL, SLAC, and SSCL (Superconducting Super-Collider Laboratory); the gathering made it possible to review face-to-face the AIP project's findings and recommendations.

E. Archival Analysis
[Table of Contents]

The project's archival analysis covers a wide range of information regarding records. These include patterns of records creation, use, and reuse by the collaboration as well as patterns of records retention and destruction. We also report on the locations where valuable sets of records are likely to repose and on shifts in records practices on the part of collaborations; both of these can provide opportunities for preservation recommendations that appear "natural" to our records creators.

The archival analysis has been based on all aspects of our work—the census, historical analysis of interviews on selected experiments, historical probe work, sociological studies, site visits, and our archival database. Drafts and revisions have been issued since the initial year of data gathering; the final report is Part B: "Archival Findings: Analysis and Future Actions" of this Report No. 2.

F. Preservation Activities
[Table of Contents]

During the two-year study, the main efforts in locating papers and records of historical value focussed on two targets: the papers documenting the three probes and the core records at the accelerator laboratories.

In documenting the probe experiments we have made substantial progress, although more remains to be done. In the case of documenting the upsilon series of experiments at FNAL, the papers of Leon Lederman (the main principal investigator [PI] and a spokesperson) and the papers of Jeff Appel have been secured in the FNAL Archives with the help of archivist, Adrienne Kolb. In the case of the psi discovery collaboration at SLAC, extensive searches for key records were conducted for the project by archivist Roxanne Nilan at SLAC and archivist Lori Hefner at LBL; extensive sets of documentation are now under their care at SLAC and LBL. Work to document the CLEO collaboration at the CESR facility of Cornell's Newman Laboratory is also well underway. As mentioned earlier, the main issue here is to establish a repository for these nonfederal records; we have confidence that arrangements under discussion with the University Archives and Special Collections department will prove successful. The AIP Center's general approach to documenting all three of these collaborations is to first secure the most central records (typically at the laboratory and in the hands of the spokesperson[s]) and—once we have information on the gaps in these collections—proceed to investigate additional papers or files (for example, in the possession of group leaders) that should be preserved.

The other focus of our preservation work has been on efforts to secure the core set of laboratory records for all experiments—i.e., proposals, blueprints, etc. (See Part D: "Appraisal Guidelines for Records of Collaborations in High-Energy Physics" in this Report No. 2.) We were, first of all, relieved to learn that the laboratories also placed value on these basic files; at least, they had not been destroyed. We are aware that some valuable records on our core list, notably those of the Physics Advisory Committees, are not authorized by the National Archives for permanent retention in existing DOE records schedules. LBL Archivist Hefner is working to strengthen the National Archives schedules for DOE laboratories; we are assisting her and we hope our project recommendations will help legitimize the preservation of such valuable evidence.

The AIP Center is greatly impressed by the contributions of several laboratories in documenting high-energy physics, inspired in part by our study. Particularly noteworthy are the new efforts, both at SLAC and at CERN, to take steps to identify outstanding experiments and secure their documentation in laboratory archives.

G. Project Recommendations
[Table of Contents]

 Based on our findings and analyses, we developed 12 project recommendations addressed to accelerator laboratories, universities, other laboratories, and, in part, to DOE and NSF Headquarters and to NARA. The purpose of the recommendations is to outline policies and actions that would greatly improve the documentation of high-energy physics collaborations and the dissemination of information about the records.

The most important recommendation urges a new approach to securing the documentation for future experiments. We suggest that, once an experiment has been approved, the accelerator laboratory should ask the spokesperson to identify one of the collaboration members who would be responsible for collaboration-wide records. In addition—where historical significance warrants—individuals would be named to be responsible for group level documentation of innovative components or techniques. The information would become part of the laboratory's contract agreement with the collaboration. Use of this simple mechanism would assist archivists by assuring that records will be available for appraisal and by providing information on their location.[7]

[Table of Contents]

A. Talks and Publications During the Two-Year Study
[Table of Contents]

Five issues of the AIP Center for History of Physics Newsletter (May 1988 and 1989 and Fall 1989, 1990, and 1991) had lead articles reporting on project activities. The Fall 1990 issue also featured a summary of preliminary findings.

Warnow-Blewett and Nebeker spoke about the project at the Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) held in St. Louis, Missouri, in October 1989. Warnow-Blewett also focussed on the AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations in talks at a conference convened in May 1990 by the Beckman Center for the History of Chemistry and at another conference in December 1990 convened by George­town University. Another paper on documenting postwar science and technology, including discussion of the project, was given by Warnow-Blewett in June 1991 in Milan, Italy, at a conference on archives for history of science and technology; a longer version of her paper will be published in the next issue of Osiris, a journal of the History of Science Society. Warnow-Blewett gave a paper on the project at the New York Academy of Science in February 1992 and at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the SAA in Montreal. Finally, Warnow-Blewett has been asked to give the Keynote Address on the AIP project at the Conference on the History and Archives of Science in Australia this November. Historian Genuth presented a paper on his historical analysis at a seminar of the Smithsonian Institution's History of Science Series. Krige, the historian of our parallel study of CERN, has given numerous talks drawing on his research.

B. Final Reports
[Table of Contents]

Four of the five final reports on the two-year study of high-energy physics collaborations were distributed for review by the project's Working Group and Advisory Committee in October 1991. After revisions and final editorial work, the reports were printed and distributed in September 1992. Research continues on the fifth report covering sociological analysis; its publication and distribution is expected in Spring 1993. The reports are: Report No. 1: Summary of Project Activities and Findings / Project Recommendations, report No. 2: Documenting Collaborations in High-Energy Physics, Report No. 3: Catalog of Selected Historical Materials, Report No. 4: Historical Findings on Collaborations in High-Energy Physics, and Report No. 5: Sociological Analysis of Collaborations in High-Energy Physics.

The distribution of the reports includes offices for high-energy physics at the DOE and the NSF, academic departments of physics most active in the field of high-energy physics, accelerator physics laboratories, and archival and records management programs at all of these institutions. The reports will also be available upon request from the AIP Center.

C. Forthcoming Publications
[Table of Contents]

Now that Phase I of the long-term study has been completed, reports on project activities, findings, and recommendations will be submitted to the newsletters of the Society of American Archivists, the History of Science Society, the Society for the History of Technology, the Society for the Social Studies of Science, and the Association of Records Managers and Administrators.

In addition, scholarly papers will be submitted to history of science and sociology journals. These will include papers by: Nebeker on the upsilon experiments; Genuth on the CLEO collaboration in the institutional setting of the CESR facility; Galison on the J/psi discovery; and Zucker, Phillips, and Leon-Guerrero on sociological aspects of high-energy physics collaborations. In addition, based on his parallel study at CERN, Krige will publish two papers—one on experiments UA1 and UA2 (in the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook for 1992) and one on the relation between CERN and its user community (to appear as a chapter in a forth­coming volume in the History of CERN series). At the end of the long-term project, an article on the study's methodology, findings, and recommendations will be submitted to The American Archivist.

D. Other Products
[Table of Contents]

Project records, especially interview tapes and transcripts, are preserved in the AIP Center's Niels Bohr Library for historical and other research purposes. They are likely to be used by historians and sociologists of science for many years to come. In addition, project records documenting details of our methodology and findings are preserved for those who may wish to carry out similar studies of other disciplines in the future. Finally, the project would like to microfilm selected paper files of high historical value; these microfilming plans depend upon the availability of project funds.

[Table of Contents]

The AIP project's future activities to document high-energy physics are detailed in Part B: "Archival Findings: Analysis and Future Actions" in this Report No. 2. We only mention briefly here that the project intends to continue sociological research and to hold a workshop with archivists during its Phase II study of space science and geophysics.

Because of their late start, the sociological research of consultant Lynne Zucker and her group at UCLA has been limited in a variety of ways. Fortunately, the Mellon Foundation has approved use of remaining funds for the group's further research. The general scope of the research will be threefold: (1) to extend the analysis of the project's 19 selected experiments, especially by focusing on characteristics of the laboratory sites, using quantitative approaches to the similarities and variation across experiments; (2) to examine the interviews of the AIP project's more detailed probes of highly significant experiments, comparing them with the results of the analysis of interviews on the selected experiments; and (3) to analyze the CERN experiments for which there are sufficient interviews, to determine what is similar to the American predictors and what is not. The findings of Zucker and her group will help us understand more completely high-energy physics research and the conduct of modern science.

[Table of Contents]

APPENDIX A: AIP Working Group for Documenting Multi-Institutional Collaborations in High-Energy Physics
[Table of Contents]

Main Consultants:

Prof. Peter Galison
Stanford University

Dr. Frederik Nebeker
IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering

Ms. Roxanne Nilan
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Prof. Lynne Zucker
University of California at Los Angeles

Prof. Lowell Hargens
University of Illinois

Archival Representatives:

Ms. Helen Samuels
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Anne Millbrooke
United Technologies Corp.

Dr. Sharon Thibodeau
National Archives and Records Administration

(Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers)
Ms. Victoria Davis
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Others On Working Group:

Ms. Louise Addis
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Dr. David Berley
Physics Program
National Science Foundation

Prof. Sheldon Glashow
Lyman Laboratory
Harvard University

Dr. Bernard Hildebrand
Div. of High Energy Physics
Department of Energy (Retired)

Mr. Herbert Kinney
Office of the Director
Brookhaven National Laboratory

Mr. William Kirk
Office of the Director
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Prof. Ronald Kline
Department of Electrical Engineering
Cornell University

Dr. Derek Lowenstein
AGS Department
Brookhaven National Laboratory

Dr. Robert Smith
National Air & Space Museum
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
The Johns Hopkins University

Dr. William Wallenmeyer
Southeastern Universities
Research Association

Prof. Robert R. Wilson
F. R. Newman Laboratory of Nuclear Studies
Cornell University

Dr. Stanley G. Wojcicki
Experimental Group G
Stanford Linear Accelerator

Prof. Harriet Zuckerman
Department of Sociology
Columbia University

AIP Project Staff

Ms. Joan Warnow-Blewett
Project Director

Dr. Spencer R. Weart,
Associate Project Director and Chair, Working Group

Dr. Joel Genuth
Project Historian

Ms. Lynn Maloney
Project Archivist

APPENDIX B: AIP Advisors for High-Energy Physics
[Table of Contents]

Prof. Ronald Breiger
Department of Sociology
Cornell University

Prof. David Edge
Science Studies Unit
University of Edinburgh

Dr. Lillian Hoddeson
Department of Physics
University of Illinois

Prof. Robert Kargon
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
The Johns Hopkins University

Dr. Henry Lowood
Head Librarian Physics Library
Stanford University

Dr. Robert Seidel
Bradbury Science Museum
Los Alamos National Laboratory

Prof. Silvan S. Schweber
Department of Physics
Brandeis University

Prof. Herbert Smith
Department of Sociology
University of Pennsylvania

Prof. Sharon Traweek
Department of Anthropology
Rice University

Dr. Catherine Westfall
History Office
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

[Table of Contents]

These census questions will be answered for both the selected experiments, and for all experiments approved 1973-1985 at BNL, CESR, FNAL, SLAC, and in some cases CERN.*

  1. Duration of collaborations from approval year to the year of the first publication and to the year of the last publication.
  2. Number of refereed publications from each collaboration.
  3. Number of citations to each publication, and the number of papers cited more than 25 times.
  4. Number of institutions on a collaboration as listed in publications.
  5. Number of individuals on a collaboration as listed in publications.

If possible, the following questions will be included in the census:

  1. Number of experiments for each accelerator, e.g. at CERN and SLAC.
  2. Number of experiments per major detector.
  3. Number of collaborations with groups from more than one country.

* All census questions based on data gathered from the High-Energy Physics bibliographic database (HEP) are in relation to physics articles in refereed journals.

[Table of Contents]

(As listed in the SPIRES Experiments database)


BNL-643                     Beam: PBAR 
M Eckhause, K L Giovanetti, J R Kane*, J R Lindemuth, M S Pandey, A M Rushton, W R Vulcan, R E Welsh, R G Winter (William and Mary   Coll.), P D Barnes, J N Craig, R A Eisenstein, J D Sherman, R B    Sutton, W R Wharton (Carnegie Mellon U.), A R Kunselman (Wyoming   U.), J P Miller, R J Powers (Cal Tech), B L Roberts (MIT)                 
Approved: Jun 1974 
         Started: May 1976
         Complete: Jul 1977 
Collaborators: 19      Affiliations: 5      Papers: 0 

BNL-650                     Beam: P


E W Beier, R Van Berg, R Patton, K Raychaudhuri, H Takeda, R Thern, H Weisberg* (Penn U.), M L Good, P D Grannis, K Johnson, J Kirz (SUNY, Stony Brook) 
         Complete: Dec 1974 
Collaborators: 11      Affiliations: 2      Papers: 0 

BNL-654                     Beam: PBAR 


J Bensinger, S Jacobs, L Kirsch, P Schmidt (Brandeis U.), S U Chung, K J Foley, W A Love, W J Miller, T W Morris, S Ozaki, E D  Platner, S Protopopescu, A C Saulys, E H Willen (Brookhaven), S J  Lindenbaum (Brook­haven & City Coll., N. Y.), R M Edelstein, D Green, H Halpern, J S Russ, N Stein, D Weintraub (Carnegie Mellon U.), R Endorf, B T Meadows (Cincinnati U.), A Etkin, M A Kramer, U Mallik (City Coll., N. Y.), J Button Shafer, S Hertzbach, M Rabin, M Singer (Massachusetts U., Amherst), W Selove (Penn U.), Z Bar Yam, J Dowd, H Gittleson, W Kern, J de Pagter, J Russell (Southeastern Mass. U.), M A Fainberg, P Gauthier, M Goldberg, N Horwitz, I Linscott (Syracuse U.) 
         Approved: DEC 1974 
         Complete: Apr 1975 
Collaborators: 42      Affiliations: 10      Papers: 0 

BNL-734                     Beam: NUMU,NUMUBAR 


L A Ahrens, S H Aronson, B G Gibbard, M J Murtagh*, S J Murtagh, P  J Wanderer, D H White (Brookhaven), J Callas, D Cutts, J Hoftun, R E Lanou (Brown U.), K Abe, K Amako, S Kabe, T Shinkawa, A Sterad (KEK, Tsukuba), Y Nagashima, Y Suzuki (Osaka U.), E W Beier, L S Durkin, S M Heagy, M Hurley, A K Mann, H H Williams, T York (Penn U.), D Hedin, M D Marx, E Stern (SUNY, Stony Brook) 
        Approved: Feb 1979, Feb 1984 
        Started: Jan 1981 
        Complete: May 1986 

BNL-791                     Beam: KL     


R D Cousins*, J Konigsberg, J Kubic, P Melese, P Rubin, W E Slater, D Wagner (UCLA), G Hart, W Kinneson, D M Lee, R McKee, Jr , E C  Milner, G Sanders, H J Ziock (Los Alamos), K Arisaka, P Knibbe, J Urheim (Penn U.), J F Greenhalgh (Princeton U.), S Axelrod, K Biery, G M Irwin, K Lang, J Marguiles, D Ouimette, J L Ritchie, Q Trang, S G Wojcicki (Stanford U., Phys. Dept.), L B Auerbach, P Buchholz, V L Highland, W K McFarlane, M Sivertz, C Zhang (Temple U.), C Mathiazhagan, W R Molzon* (UC, Irvine), M Chapman, E Eckhouse, J Ginkel, D Joyce, J R Kane, C Kenney, W F Vulcan, R E Welsch, R J Whyley, R G Winter (William and Mary Coll.) 
         Approved: Jun 1984 
         Started: APR 1985 
Collaborators: 45      Affiliations: 8      Papers: 0 


FNAL-289                    Beam: P


A Bujak, P Devensky, A Kuznetsov, B Morosov, V Nikitin, P Nomokonov, Y Pilipenko, V Smirnov (Dubna, JINR), E Malamud*, M Miyajima, R Yamada (Fermilab), E Jenkins (Arizona U.), A Sandacz (Warsaw, INR)
         Approved: Mar 1974
         Complete: Nov 1977   
Collaborators: 13      Affiliations: 4      Papers: 2

FNAL-398                    Beam: MU   


H L Anderson, L W Mo, S C Wright (Chicago U.), W A Loomis, F M Pipkin, A L Sessoms, L J Verhey, R Wilson* (Harvard U.), W R Francis, T B W Kirk (Illinois U., Urbana), N E Booth, T W Quirk, A  Skuja, W S C Williams (Oxford U.), et al. (Virginia Tech.)
         Approved: Jul 1975
         Complete: Dec 1976
Collaborators: 15      Affiliations: 5      Papers: 2

FNAL-E-428: 400 GeV


Approved 1975, completed running 1975.
OTTAWA U--H Areti, C J D Hebert, J Hebert (Spokesperson)
NANCY U--G Baumann, R Devienne
PARIS, CURIE UNIV VI--C O Kim, J Lory, C Menson, D Schune, Tsai-Chu, B Willot
STRASBOURG, CRN--C J Jacquot, R Kaiser, J P Massue, R PfohlLYON, IPN--R Schmitt
LUND U--B Andersen, I Otterlund
FERMILAB--A Van Ginneken
BELGRADE U--O Adamovic, M Juric
VALENCIA U-- J M Bolta, G Rey
SANTANDER U--E Villar, et al.

FNAL-616                    Beam: NUMU,NUMUBAR


D B MacFarlane, R L Messner, D B Novikoff, M V Purohit (Cal Tech), E Fisk, Y Fukushima, B N Jin, T Kondo, P A Rapidis, D Yovanovitch (Fermilab), A Bodek, R Coleman, W Marsh (Rochester U.), O Fackler, K Jenkins (Rocke­feller U.), R Blair, F Sciulli*, M Shaevitz (Columbia  U.), F S Merritt, P G Reutens (Chicago U.)
         Approved: Mar 1979
         Complete: Jan 1980
Collaborators: 20      Affiliations: 6      Papers: 7

FNAL-632                    Beam: NUMU,NUMUBAR    


G T Jones, R Jones, B Kennedy, S O'Neale (Birmingham U.), P Marage,  J Moreels, J Sacton, P Vilain, E A de Wolf (Brussels U., IIHE), C Brand, A M Cooper, H Drevermann, H Foeth, K K Geissler, G Harigel, H Klein, J Mittendorfer, D R O Morrison*, A Parker, P Schmid, H Wachsmuth (CERN), J M Kohli, I S Mitra, J Singh, P M Sood (Panjab U.), W Smart, L Voyvodic (Fermilab), K W J Barnham, J R Campbell, E Clayton, D Miller, M M Mobbayyen, P R Nailor (Imperial Coll., London), J B Barclay, R A Burnstein, D Cullen, R G Dillenberg, J E Hanlon, D Karatas, C P Mailander, R Naon, H A Rubin (Illinois Tech), G L Kaul, J Prakash, N K Rao (Jammu U.), M Aderholz, L L Deck, N Schmitz, W Wittek (Munich, Max Planck Inst.), G Corrigan, J J Lloyd, G Myatt, D Radojicic (Oxford U., NPL), M S Kalelkar, R J Plano, P E Stamer (Rutgers U.), B Franck, J Guy, G Kalmus, P Kasper, R L Sekulin, M Tyndal, W A Venus (Rutherford), J P Baton, C Coutures, M Faccini Turluer, M Jabiol, M Neveu (Saclay), E B Brucker, E L Koller (Stevens Tech.), H Akbari, T Kafka, T Mann, R H Milburn, A Napier, J Schneps (Tufts U.), H H Bingham, P Dingus, J E Lys, G P Yost (UC, Berkeley), R J Cence, F A Harris, V Jain, M D Jones, M W Peters*, V Z Peterson (Hawaii U.)
         Approved: Jun 1982
         Complete: Feb 1988
Collaborators: 86      Affiliations: 17      Papers: 1

FNAL-715                    Beam: SIGMA-


E Swallow (Elmhurst College), J P Berge, A Brenner, P Grafstrom, E Jastrzembski, J Lach, J Marriner, R Raja (Fermilab), A Denisov, V Grachev, A Kulikov, V Schegelsky, D Seliverstov, N Smirnov, N Terentiev, I Tkach, A Vorobyov (Leningrad, INP), P S Cooper*, P Razis, L J Teig (Yale U.), E W Anderson (Iowa State U.), E McCliment, C Newsom (Iowa U.), S Y Hsueh, D Mueller, J Tang, R Winston, G Zapalac (Chicago U.)
         Approved: Jun 1982
         Complete: Feb 1984
Collaborators: 28      Affiliations: 7      Papers: 2


SLAC-E-132                  Beam: K    


L Bird, R K Carnegie*, P Estabrooks, C K Hargrove, R J Hemingway, R McKee, H Mes, F G Oakham, J Vavra (Carleton U.), W Dunwoodie, S Durkin, T H Fieguth, A Honma, D Hutchinson, W B Johnson, P Kunz, T Lasinski, D W G S Leith, W T Meyer, B Ratcliff*, S Shapiro, R Stroynowski, S H Williams (SLAC)
         Approved: Jan 1977, Sep 1977
         Complete: Mar 1978
Collaborators: 23      Affiliations: 2      Papers: 2

SLAC-E-137                  Beam: E-   


J D Bjorken (Fermilab), A Abashian, L W MO* (Virginia Tech.), S Ecklund, W R Nelson, Y S Tsai (SLAC)
       Approved: Sep 1980, DEC 1980
       Complete: DEC 1982
Collaborators: 6      Affiliations: 3      Papers: 0

SLAC-PEP-004-009            Beam: E+ E    


M Alston-Garnjost, R E Avery, A Barbaro-Galtieri, A Barnes, A Bay, T S Bolognese, A Bross, A R Clark, G D Cowan, O Dahl, K A Derby, J J Eastman, P Eberhard, T K Edberg, J W Gary, W Hofmann, J E Huth, H S Kaye, R W Kenney, L T Kerth, D Lambert, S C Loken, G Lynch, R Madaras, J Marx, L G Mathis, W Moses, D R Nygren, P Oddone*, M Pripstein, M Ronan, R Ross, F R Rouse, G Shapiro, M D Shapiro, M Stevenson, R van Tyen, E M Wang, W Wenzel, Z R Wolf, H Yamamoto (LBL, Berkeley), H Bingham, J Lys, G P Yost (UC, Berkeley), W Ko, R Lander, K Maeshima, R R McNeil, D Pellett, J R Smith, W Wagner, M C S Williams, C Zeitlin (UC, Davis), A M Eisner, B D Magnuson, M K Sullivan (UC, Berkeley & Stanford U.), D L Bintinger, K H Kees, G Masek, E Miller, J R Thompson, W Vernon, J T White (UC, San Diego), A R Barker, D A Bauer, D Caldwell, A Lu, K A Schwitkis, R Stephens, Y X Wang, S Yellin (UC, Santa Barbara), H U Bengtsson, C D Buchanan, R I Koda, D A Park, W E Slater, J S Steinman, D H Stork, M G Strauss, M R Wayne, R F van Daalen Wetters (UCLA), G J Van Dalen, W Gorn, K K Kwong, W G J Langeveld, J Layter, T T Lin, C S Lindsey, S O Melnikoff, B Shen (UC, Riverside), G J Bobbink (Carnegie Mellon U.), J M Hauptman, S K Park (Ames Lab), B A Barnett, D A Crane, J Hylen, X Q Lu, J A J Matthews, W M Zhang (Johns Hopkins U.), R R Kofler, S J Maxfield, S Toutounchi (Massachusetts U., Amherst), P Nemethy (New York U.), A Buijs, F Erne, F L Linde, H Paar, J C Sens, B van Uitert (NIKHEF, Amsterdam), E Bloom, A Fridman, G Godfrey, K Kiess, G Zapalac (SLAC), H Aihara, R Enomoto, T Fujii, T Kamae, T Takahashi, N Toge (Tokyo U.)
    Approved: Jan 1977
Collaborators: 120      Affiliations: 16      Papers: 38

SLAC-PEP-006                Beam: E+ E-    


E Fernandez, W Ford, N Qi, A L Read, Jr , J Smith (Colorado U.), T Camporesi, R DeSangro, A Marini, I Peruzzi, M Piccolo, F Ronga (Frascati), H T Blume, R B Hurst, K Lau, J P Venuti, H B Wald, R Weinstein (Houston U.), M C Delfino, B K Heltsley, J R Johnson, T L Lavine, T Maruyama, R Prepost (Wisconsin U., Madison), H R Band, M W Gettner, G P Goderre, E Von Goeler, O A Meyer, J Moromisato, R Polvado, D Sanders, D Shambroom, J C Sleeman (Northeastern U.), W Ash, E D Bloom, G Chadwick, S H Clearwater, R W Coombes, G Godfrey, H S Kaye, R E Leedy, H L Lynch, R L Messner, L T Moss, F Muller, D  Ritson, D E Wiser, R W Zdarko (SLAC), H Lee, P Verdini (Utah U.), B Heltsley (Cornell U., LNS), H Nelson, L Rosenberg (Stanford U., Phys. Dept.), D Groom* (LBL, Berkeley)
         Approved: Jan 1977
         Complete: Mar 1986
Collaborators: 54      Affiliations: 10      Papers: 22

SLAC-SP-024                 Beam: E+ E-


E D Bloom*, F Bulos, R Chestnut, J Gaiser, G Godfrey, C Kiesling, M Oreglia (SLAC), R Hofstadter, I Kirkbride, H Kolanoski, A D Liberman, J O'Reilly, J Tompkins (Stanford U., HEPL), R Partridge, C Peck, F Porter (Cal Tech), W Kollmann, M Richardson, K Strauch (Harvard U.), D Aschman, M Cavalli-Sforza, D Coyne, H Sadrozinski (Princeton U.)
         Approved: Mar 1975, May 1978
         Complete: Jun 1979
Collaborators: 23      Affiliations: 5      Papers: 1

SLAC-SP-032                 Beam: E+ E-


G Dubois, G Eigen, D G Hitlin, C Matthews, A Mincer, W Wisniewski,  Y Zhu (Cal Tech), T Bolton, J C Brient, K Bunnell, R E Cassell, D Coward, C Grab, U Mallik, R Mozley, A Odian, J Parker, D Pitman, R Schindler*, W Stockhausen, W Toki*, F Villa, S Wasserbaech, D E Wisinski (SLAC), M Burchell, G Corrado, D Dorfan, C Heusch, W Lockman, H Sadrozinski, M Scarlatella, T Schalk, A Seiden, A Weinstein, R C Xu (UC, Santa Cruz), B Eisenstein, T Freese, G Gladding, J Izen, C Simopoulos, E Stockdale, B Tripsas, A Wattenberg (Illinois U., Urbana), T Burnett, V Cook, A D Li, R Mir,  P Mockett, B Nemati, L Parrish (Washington U., Seattle)                        
          Approved: May 1981
          Started: Apr 1982
Collaborators: 50      Affiliations: 5      Papers: 13


   IMB The Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven Experiment. Approved 1979.
UC, IRVINE--W Gajewski, K Ganezer, T J Haines, W R Kropp, L Price, F Reines­(+Spokesperson), J Schultz, H W Sobel, C Wuest
MICHIGAN U--D Casper, P Chrysicopoulou, R Claus, H S Park, S Seidel, DSinclair, J L Stone, L R Sulak, J C van der Velde (+Spokesperson)
CAL TECH--G Blewitt, J M Losecco
HAWAII U--J G Learned, R SvobodaUC,
IRVINE & WARSAW U, IEP--D Kielczewska


(We have learned from the spokespersons for these experiments that these experiments are not related and should not be referred to as "multilab, SLAC-SP-007B/FNAL-310.")   

SLAC-SP-007B                Beam: E+ E-   


W Ford, A K Mann, L Resvanis (Penn U.), U Camerini*, D Cline*, J G Learned, C Spencer (Wisconsin U., Madison)
         Approved: Aug 1974
         Started: 1976
         Complete: Dec 1976
Collaborators: 7      Affiliations: 2      Papers: 0

FNAL-310                    Beam: NUMU,NUE,NUMUBAR,NUEBAR


D Cline* (Wisconsin U., Madison), A Benvenuti, A Entenberg, W T Ford, R Imlay, T Y Ling, A K Mann, F Messing, D D Reeder, C Rubbia,  R Stefanski, L Sulak, P Wanderer, H H Williams (Harvard U. & Penn U. & Wisconsin U., Madison & Fermilab & Rutgers U.)
         Approved: Nov 1974, Nov 1976, Mar 1977, Mar 1978
         Complete: Aug 1978
Collaborators: 14      Affiliations: 2      Papers: 2




Approved Jun 1978, Jun  Sep 1983, Feb 1984,Nov 1984.
  AACHEN, TECH HOCHSCH, III PHYS INST -- P Erhard, H Faissner, A Geiser, H Grassmann, H Moser, A Moulin, T Redelberger, H Reithler, E Tscheslog, HTuchscherer, K Wacker
  NIKHEF, AMSTERDAM -- K Bos, J Dorenbosch, A Van Dyk, W Van de Guchte, DHolthuizen, M Schroeder, I Ten-Have, I Zacharov
  ANNECY -- B Aubert, F Cavanna, J Colas, P Ghez, C Ghiglino, J-P Lees, DLinglin, M N Minard, B Mours, J P Vialle, M Yvert
  BIRMINGHAM U -- N Bains, D G Charlton, M Corden, G Cox, J Dowell, N Ellis, JGarvey, D Grant, J Gregory, S J Haywood, M Jimack, I Kenyon, M Nikitas
  BOSTON U -- M Felcini, J Rohlf
  CERN -- A Bezaguet, G Bouquet, P Cennini, S Cittolin, M Demoulin, A DiCiaccio, K Eggert, A Ferrando, J Feyt, A Givernaud, A Gonidec, W Jank, W Kienzle,F Lacava, G Maurin, T Meyer, T Muller, R Munoz, L Naumann, M Della Negra, A Norton (Spokes­person), F Pauss, A Placci, J P Porte, E Radermacher, CRubbia (Spokesperson), D Samyn, D Schinzel, V Vuillemin, I Wingerter
  HARVARD U -- G Bauer, E Buckley, S Geer, C Jessup, J Kroll, S Pavlon, J Rohlf, A Schwartz
  HELSINKI U -- V Karimaki, R Kinnunen, T Oksakivi, E Pietarinen, M Pimia, J­TuominiemiKIEL U -- O C Allkofer, H G Boerst, H Bohn, D Dau, R Leuchs, S Levergrun, DOhlendorf, M Preischel
  IMPERIAL COLL -- T Bacon, E Clayton, A Khan, C Markou, S McMahon, C Seez, ISiotis, L Taylor, T S Virdee, A Wildish
  QUEEN MARY COLL -- R Batley, P Biddulph, D Clarke, E Eisenhandler, I Fensome,P Kalmus, M Landon, D Robinson, W Von Schlippe, G Thompson, C Topping
  MADRID, JEN -- F Diez-Hedo, I Josa, M Marquina, T Rodrigo, J Salicio, ETorrenteMIT -- T Fuess, J P Revol, P Sphicas, K C T O Sumorok, S Tether, X Wu
  PADUA U -- A Bettini, A Braggiotti, G Busetto, S Calvani, A Canner, P Casoli,S Centro, R Conte, M De Giorgi, A Meneguzzo, M Nicoletto, R Pavanello, P Rossi, P Zatti, Y Zolnir­owski, P L Zotto
  COLLEGE DE FRANCE -- B Andrieu, L Dobrzynski, G Fontaine, C Ghesquiere, Y Giraud-Heraud, D Kryn, D Marchand, J-P Mendiburu, P Nedelec, G Sajot, J Vrana
  UC, RIVERSIDE -- M Ikeda, D Joyce, A Kernan, M Lindgren, J P Merlo, K Morgan,I Sheer, D Smith
  ROME U -- C Bacci, R Bonino, V Cecconi, F Ceradini, G Ciapetti, M Moricca, ANisati, E Petrolo, G Piano-Mortari, G Salvini, M Torelli, A Tusi, SVeneziano, C Zacardelli, L Zanello
  RUTHERFORD -- M Albrow, R Apsimon, J Coughlan, P Flynn, V O'Dell, T Shah
  SACLAY -- J P De Brion, C Cochet, P Colas, D Denegri, C Stubenrauch, N Zaganidis
  VICTORIA U -- A Astbury, S Beingessner, M Keeler, R Keeler, S Li, R Sobie
  VIENNA, OAW -- M Botlo, B Buschbeck, H Dibon, M Krammer, P Lipa, M Markytan, MNeururer, J Strauss, F Szoncso, A Taurok, G Walzel, C Wulz  UCLA -- K Ankoviak, C Buchanan, D Cline, H Evans, L Fortson, B Gonzalez, JGronberg, T Kubic, M Mohammadi, J Rhoades, T Smart, D Stork, D Summers, MVargas, L Villasenor


STUDY OF ANTIPROTON-PROTON INTERACTIONS AT 630-GEV C.M. ENERGY.(Jan 1978) Approved Dec 1978, Sep 1984, Feb 1985;Started Nov 1981

BERN U -- K Borer, A Federspiel, K Hara, E Hugentobler, L Mueller, K P Pretzl,J Schacher
  CAMBRIDGE U -- R Ansorge, R S DeWolf, S Katvars, M Lefebvre, D J Munday, MPentney, S Singh, P Wells, T White, S Wotton
  CERN -- G Blaylock, M Bonesini, M Borghini, P Darriulat, G Egan, K Einsweiler, G Fumagalli, O Gildemeister, C Goessling, V Goggi, J R Hansen, S Hellman,K Hultqvist, J Incandela, K Jakobs, P Jenni, L Di Lella (+Spokesperson) ,L Linssen, B Lisowski, P Lubrano, L Mapelli, K H Meier, C Onions, T Pal, A Parker, A Poppleton, L Rasmussen, V Simak, S Stapnes, S Tovey, VVercesi, A Weidberg, D Wood
  HEIDELBERG U, IHEP -- S Gruenendahl, E E Kluge, T Koch, N Kurz, H Plothow-Besch, K Tittel
  MILAN U & INFN, MILAN -- D Cavalli, G Costa, F Gianotti, L Mandelli, MMazzanti, L Perini, G Polesello
  ORSAY, LAL -- R Ansari, D Buskulic, J C Chollet, L Fayard, D Froidevaux, J MGaillard, B Merkel, M Moniez, G Parrour, P Petroff, J P Repellin
  PAVIA U & INFN, PAVIA -- C Conta, R Ferrari, M Fraternali, M Livan, B DeLotto, F Pastore, A Rimoldi
  PERUGIA U & INFN, PERUGIA -- P Cenci, P Lariccia, M S Pepe, P Scampoli
  PISA U & INFN, PISA -- G Carboni, V Cavasinni, F Costantini, E Iacopini, SLami, M Morganti, C Petridou, T Del Prete, M Valdata-Nappi
  ROME U & INFN, ROME -- P Bagnaia
  SACLAY -- J Alitti, P Bareyre, P Bonamy, C Magneville, J P Meyer, A V Stirling, H Zaccone



(Jul 1973) Approved Apr 1974, Dec 1975, Feb 1979, May 1979; Completed Dec 1983.
  CERN -- F Dydak, R Hagelberg, M Krasny, J May, A Para, F Ranjard, W vonRueden, J Steinberger (Spokesperson), H Taureg, H Wachsmuth, H Wahl, JWotschack
  DORTMUND U -- H Bluemer, H Brummel, P Buchholz, J Duda, F Eisele, B Kampschulte, K Kleinknecht, J Knobloch, D Pollmann, B Pszola, B Renk  HEIDELBERG U, IHEP -- R Belusevic, B Falkenburg, M Fiedler, R Geiges, CGeweniger, V Hepp, H Keilwerth, K TittelSACLAY -- P Debu, C Guyot, J P Merlo, P Perez, F Perrier, J Rander, J PSchuller, R Turlay, B Vallage
  WARSAW, INR -- H Abramowicz, J Krolikowski, A Lipniacka



CLERMONT-FERRAND U -- C Dore, S Maury, L Meritet, M Querrou
  LENINGRAD, INP -- A S Denisov, A P Kashchuk, G A Korolev, V A Schegelsky, I ITkach, A A Vorobyov
  LYON, IPN -- J P Burq, M Chemarin, M Chevallier, B Ille, M Lambert, J PMartin
  UPPSALA U -- T Ekelof (Spokesperson), P Grafstrom, E Hagberg, S Kullander

    NEUTRAL CURRENTS. Approved prior to 1974.

[Table of Contents]


I'd like to ask you about Experiment ____ at ____ [lab], which began in 19__.

Here are a list of some of the participants and a list of some of the publications reporting results of the experiment.

Our Project is archival as well as historical, so I'll be asking some questions about the availability of documents or other materials that might be of use to future historians of science. There will also be questions about the social organization of the experiment, the physics produced, and the equipment involved.

First, some questions about yourself:

  1. You got your Ph.D. at ____ University in 19__. What was the title of your dissertation?  Who was your dissertation advisor?  Did you have other mentors?
  2. Did your affiliation change during, or since, the experiment? 
    1. If so, did you bring papers with you when you moved?
  3. Do you write letters to colleagues?             
    1. Do you often annotate preprints? 
    2. Do you have a note-taking routine?  For example, do you keep a telephone log?  Do you take notes during formal or informal conferences?  Do you make notes to a file (perhaps electronically)?
    3. Do you save e-mail? In hard or soft format?
  4. How are your files organized?
    1. Do you keep your files on this experiment separate from other files? 
    2. Where are they kept?
    3. Do you have another office?
    4. Do you use storage at home, on campus, or at a laboratory?

Let's talk about the formation of the team:

  1. Was the team that worked on Experiment ____ a continuation of a collaboration formed to work on earlier experiments?
  2. How and when was the team that worked on this experiment formed?  How and when was the spokesperson selected? 
    ASK OF THE SPOKESPERSON: What were your responsibilities as spokesperson?
    1. Was there an original "core" set of members?
    2. How was each institutional team added?  In what order?  How were those decisions made?
    3. Did you have any previous personal or institutional links to the other collaborators?
  3. What factors were important in deciding who would be part of the team (access to money, specialized physical or technical knowledge, access to specialized equipment, mentor-student linkages, congeniality, etc.)?
    1. Do you know if any individuals or institutions were included in order to score "political" points?
    2. Did your team have theorists on board?  Were they formal members of the team or informal advisors?  How did they influence the experiment?
  1. What were the significant changes in membership of the collaboration in the experiments leading up to Experiment ____?
    1. What caused those changes in personnel?
  2. Were any individuals or institutional groups considered as collaborators, but did not end up on this project?  Why?
    1. Were these groups eventually not asked to join, or did they decline the invitation?
  3. After this experiment ended, did some members of the collaboration continue to work together?

Now some questions about the proposal:

  1. Were you involved in writing the proposal?
  2. What inspired the proposal for this experiment?
    1. Was the proposal a response to a new research opportunity, like the availability of some new accelerator or other instrument, or to some recent discovery or theory?
    2. Who were the principal contributors to the idea for this experiment?
    3. What previous research materials did you use to prepare for this experiment (e.g., articles, records, log books)?  During the course of the experiment did you consult any of them?
  3. What was the sequence in securing the funding for the experiment?  Were there disputes?
    1. What kind of support came from each source? 
      (to the university departmental program?  to the collaboration from the lab or from other sources?)
  4. Tell me something about the team's relationship to _____ [lab]: Who made the presentation(s) to the Physics Advisory Committee at the lab?  Was there a contract with the laboratory? Can you say something about interactions with the Committee?  Did the lab place conditions on approval of the proposal?
    1. Tell me something about the team's relationship to the funding agency: how were contacts made?  Did the agency place conditions on approving funds for the research?
    2. Were you involved in writing reports to the funding agency?  Did you assemble files to assist in this process? 

Let's turn to some questions about the equipment and software used in this experiment:

  1. First of all, how did groups communicate during this phase?
    1. Were minutes taken?  If so, were they systematically distributed?
  2. How was responsibility for making major pieces of equipment assigned?  Were there any disputes?
    1. Did the detector differ either quantitatively or qualitatively from that originally proposed? 
      If yes:

      What was the idea?

      How did it come up?
      Whose idea was it?
      Did pursuing the new idea require changes in assignments in work?
  3. Tell me about the piece of equipment or software that you were most involved with.
    1. Was this equipment already available--either at the accelerator or at one of the participating institutions--or did it need to be built more or less from scratch?
    2. Was there a strong infrastructure at the university -- inhouse lab facilities and access to engineers and technicians -- for building components or prototypes?
  4. Were there subcontracts involved in which a company or individuals from outside of the collaboration played a role in helping design an important piece of equipment?  IF "YES", ASK: Who would know most about these?
  5. How did the groups communicate while you were building equipment at separate institutions (collab meetings, other trips, phone calls, letters, e-mail)? 
  6. Who was mainly responsible for the assembly of the equipment at _____ [lab]?  How did that go?  WHEN RELEVANT, ASK: Why was no laboratory person listed as collaborator?

Now some questions about testing and data runs:

  1. How long was the period for equipment testing and break-in and other such preparations at the accelerator laboratory?
  2. Did any large changes have to be made in the equipment?  What was the decision-making process for these changes?
  3. Did you experience major delays (caused, for example, by accelerator-beam problems or detector breakdown)?  Were there communication or decision-making problems? 
    1. What happened during "downtime"?
  4. Over what time period did the principal data runs take place?
  5. What was the division of labor during the run?  Who did what, and how were such assignments made?
    1. Who was present at the data runs of the experiment (senior staff, junior staff, grad students, post docs, engineers, technicians, computer specialists, accelerator staff, etc.)?

Let's talk about the analysis of data after the runs:

  1. What sort of data analysis did you do?  What analysis was done at the other institutions involved in the experiment?
    1. Which people or groups became especially important during this phase?  What role did theorists play in this stage?
    2. Was the data analysis mostly done at the lab or was significant work done on campus?  Was that a matter of choice?
  2. How did groups communicate during the data-analysis phase?  Did the collaboration meet as frequently as before?
    1. Were minutes taken? If so, were they systematically distributed?
    2. Do minutes include transparencies?
    3. Were there any particularly good note-takers?
  3. Was the data analysis ever contested within the team?  By outsiders?  IF YES, ASK: What was the point of dispute?  How was the dispute resolved?
    1. Did anyone come up with new techniques that improved the date analysis? 
      If yes:
      1. What was the idea?
      2. How did it come up?
      3. Whose idea was it?
      4. Did pursuing the idea require changes in assignments of work?
  4. What software was already available that could be used in the data analysis?
  5. We are interested in the role of computers and software. From this point of view, how would the experiment have been different if it were done 10 years earlier?  10 years later?

Before we move on, I want to be sure what data were produced by the experiment:

  1. What kinds of raw data were created?
    1. Do you think the raw data generated by this experiment would be useful to physicists outside the collaboration?
    2. Where are they now?
  2. How were raw data summarized or selected? What kind of physics was being done?
    1. How long are data summary tapes useful to members of the collaboration? (e.g. 5 years?)
    2. Are summary data still available? 
    3. Could these data be used by physicists outside the collaboration? Is good software documentation still available? Where?
    4. How long are DSTs useful to members of the collaboration? (estimate number of years)
  3. We assume a formal detector log was maintained for the experiment. Where is it now?
  4. What other logbooks were kept during the experiment? 
    1. Was there an experiment log, or other source of centralized information used by and contributed to by all collaboration members?
      If no: Where else would a collaboration member go for information on the experiment?
  5. Did you keep your own logbook on the experiment?
  6. What records did the laboratory keep?
    1. Raw data tapes? DSTs? experiment logs? Progress reports? 
    2. Where are these?

Let's talk about writing up and communicating results of this experiment:

  1. Which members of the team reported on the physics results at international and national meetings?  How was it decided at which meetings to present results?
  2. How were reports or publications drafted and circulated?  Who played leading roles?  Who was not involved at all?
    1. How was it decided whose name would appear on an article and in what order? 
    2. Who made these decisions? 
    3. Were people required to sign articles they did not agree with? 
    4. Did everyone listed as author understand the entire experiment? 
    5. How was it decided in which journal to publish the results?

Looking back on the experiment as a whole:

  1. What was the most innovative or important physics to come out of this experiment?  Where was that done?  IF A DISCOVERY WAS MADE, ASK: How and when did you decide to go public?
  2. Did the original goals of the experiment change in the course of the project?  IF "YES", ASK: How did this affect the team?
  3. Were there secondary goals (such as engineering goals)?  Which institutions were leaders on these?
  4. Were there unanticipated achievements?
  5. How would you judge the success of the experiment measured by your original expectations?  Did the personnel make-up of the team or its size contribute to its success or failure?  What were the principal shortcomings?  How might they have been corrected?
  6. What did you do after the experiment and analysis were completed?  What impact did this experiment have on your career?

Now a few questions about the accelerator site:

  1. Was there a characteristic style of this laboratory?  How did your work on this experiment at this accelerator facility differ from your experiences at other facilities?
    1. Tell me about the interactions between the visiting scientists/technicians on the team and the in-house accelerator staff (physicists, engineers, administrators, and other staff).
    2. How have things changed at _____ [lab] in the past ____ years?


Let's talk about your home institution during the experiment:

  1. Was there any pressure from your home university as you worked on this experiment?  Was there an effect on tenure, promotion, or salary decisions? 
    1. How was your teaching schedule adjusted to accommodate your participation on this experiment?
  2. Were any of your students with you at ____ [lab]? 
    How did your participation in this experiment affect their training?  The training of postdocs?
      1. What was the role of undergraduates on this experiment?
        • On campus?
        • At the accelerator site?
        • What impact did this experience have on their careers?
  3. What do you see as the major problems of graduate education in high-energy physics?  Was the training of graduate students an issue of concern in this experiment? 
    1. How has graduate education in physics changed since the early 1970s?
    2. How does one do a thesis when working as a junior physicist on a 100-person project that may take years to reach publishable results?

A few additional questions about the team itself:

  1. Was there a characteristic style of the team?  Describe the structure for making decisions. Did these procedures change throughout the experiment?  What were the rules and formalities, organizational charts, governing boards, etc.?
    1. Would you describe the team as democratic, autocratic, or what?
  2. Was there a "pecking order" within the team?  Did junior people feel free to argue their viewpoints?
  3. Was there competition between this team and other groups of experimenters in high-energy physics?  IF "YES", ASK: Who were they?
    1. How did the competition affect the direction and pace of this experiment?  Were there any priority disputes surrounding this experiment?
    2. Was there communication (formal or informal, written or oral or electronic) with competitors?  With other collaborations?
  4. Did team members seem to get along?  Were there any major disagreements or particular interpersonal problems in this experiment?
    1. Did anyone on the team suffer emotional problems?
  5. We're trying to figure out how individual contributions get recognized. Were there aspects of your contribution to the experiment which were not recognized?
    1. What personal qualities are most important for a successful career in high-energy physics?
  6. Thus far we've focussed on Experiment ____ . Now I'd like to turn to a broader subject. We would like to learn about the ways in which an experiment can be less than successful. Of all the experiments you've been involved in, which was least successful?  What made it so?

Finally, a last question or two about records:

  1. Were records circulated systematically?  Was anyone given responsibility for keeping the documents produced by the collaboration?  Who else is likely to have a fairly complete set of records for the experiment?
    1. Did the collaboration impose any requirements regarding record keeping? 
    2. Which team members were good note-takers? correspondents? record-keepers?
  2. Let's estimate the volume of your records on this experiment in linear feet:
  3. Volume of your general records?
  4. Do you have records on the experiment that are unique?
  5. What will happen to your files?
  6. Is there any topic you'd like to return to?
  7. Is there anything I didn't ask that you would like to talk about?
    1. What obstacles do you feel you've overcome to get this far in your career? 
    2. Did the work have adverse effects on family life? 
    3. Was there resentment toward those who did not contribute their share? 
  8. We would like to use this interview as part of the AIP project on multi-institutional collaborations. Do we have your permission to do so?  IF "YES", ASK: Do we have your permission to keep the transcript in AIP archives, after the completion of the project, for the future use of scholars?

[Using the checklist, note amount of material, approximate dates, physical condition, content, informational value, whether original or copy, and--for machine-readable records--whether the required hardware and software are still available.]

[Table of Contents]


Interview subject                                              Experiment number                                             

Organization within the collaboration:

         for building the detector

         for analyzing the data

         role of spokespersons

         role of lab liaison persons

Bureaucracy (formalization of a social organization; operating style of the collaboration; difficulties as a result of size)

Specialization (esp. among physicists, but also the use of specialists who are not physicists)

Funding (amount; source--through labs or direct from NSF or DOE)

Length of experiments (also length string of experiments)

International collaboration (benefits and problems)

Detector development (types; size; built for one experiment or as a more permanent instrument)

Use of computers and software (major operational changes; developments by physicists; computer facilities and services at labs; off-the-shelf software; sharing of software and software libraries)

Other new technologies (e.g. new plastics, new holographic technique)

Testing of the Standard Model (also the role of theory and theorists)

Styles of the national laboratories (lab administration; use of lab facilities, including engineers and technicians; other lab services such as computer facilities; housing patterns of lab funding)

Publications (participation in writing and revising; credits, including the order of authors and the inclusion of non-physcists; special roll of Ph.D. candidates)

Graduate education (both at universities and at the labs)

Sub-Contracting (or lack of it)

User of university lab and shop facilities and staff

Communication patters (within collaborations)

Other issues


Name of spokesperson having records                                                                                             
Which records does spokesperson have?                                                                                          

Other Location:                                                                                                                           

[Table of Contents]

I. Experiment Name _________________________, year approved_____

II. Name ____________________________________,

III. Position of interviewee: (Spokesperson, Group leader, Other Physicist, Grad Student, Engineer, Technician)

IV. Employer, Current: ____________________________________

     During Experiment: ____________________________________

(Use "s" or "p" to indicate if student or physicist at each institution)

V. Institutional archives of current employer


Type____________________(Federal, Academic, Gov't)

Does the institution's archives have policy regarding professional files?

yes                   no               don't know            occasionally

Does the institution's archives accept experiment files?

yes                   no               don't know            occasionally

VI. Individual has papers (general)?

No                   If yes: Bulk_______________

   Span Dates_________


VII. Individual has experiment files?

Yes            No                   If yes: Bulk_______________

   Span Dates_________


Are experiment files copied only?    no   yes

Are experiment files interfiled?             no   yes

Specific records kept (list):

Records created but not kept:

VIII. Other locations of specific records

Name of lab where other records are:___________, Which records?________________________________________________________

Name of spokesperson having records_____________________________

Which records does spokesperson have? __________________________


Other Location: ________________________________________________

Notes: _________________________________________________________

[Table of Contents]

[Table of Contents]

Project methodology has been effective in identifying the archival issues and in pointing the way toward preservation. As expected, the in-depth work on the selected probes proved to be particularly valuable in issues regarding appraisal of technical documentation. We have been somewhat surprised at how valuable the analysis of the interviews covering selected collaborations has been, alone and in combination with the census work. The historical analysis and the archival analysis provided both an overall understanding and specific information on creation and retention of records by the various collaboration members. The census combined well with these findings by giving us names of key institutions and individuals that we could approach for practical preservation work.

This report is based on a number of sources: (1) the archival assessment of 144 interviews on 18 of the 19 domestic experiments selected for case studies (one selected experiment was not analyzed for archival findings due to insufficient data); (2) the patterns uncovered through the historical analysis of these interviews; (3) the probes of the discoveries of the psi at SLAC and the upsilon at Fermilab and of the CLEO collaboration at Cornell's CESR accelerator; (4) data drawn from the Experiments database on SPIRES; (5) discussions with archivists at home institutions of interviewees; (6) site visits to accelerator laboratories; (7) a telephone survey of 12 physicists who served as spokespersons on three or more collaborations, (not included in our selected experiments); (8) the project's appraisal guidelines; and (9) the AIP Center's general knowledge of archival institutions in various settings.

[Table of Contents]

A. General Observations
[Table of Contents]

In multi-institutional collaborations some types of records are created by necessity: proposals, designs of detectors and components, purchase requisitions, experiment logbooks of data acquisition, data analysis records, progress and final narrative and financial reports, and—­more recently (and not in all cases)—Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding specifying arrangements between the collaborations and the laboratories.

In addition to these operational records, individual physicists create two other categories of records: first, intra-collaboration mailings—including minutes, technical reports, and other memoranda—and second, notebooks and other files of individuals. Our interviews show that decisions to create these records to a large extent reflect the style and personal inclinations of individuals. This is particularly the case for their own notebooks and files, but it also affects the extent of intra-collaboration mailings. Does the individual keep a personal notebook or believe that personal encounters and phone calls are no substitute for written letters and reports (e-mail, fax, or otherwise)?  These can be critical issues from an archival point of view if the individual in question is the group leader or, even more important, the spokesperson. For this reason, the quality of written documentation varied greatly across collaborations with otherwise similar characteristics.

B. Data on Categories of Records
[Table of Contents]

We begin with data taken from the project's archival database on 18 of the selected experiments and on our surveys of spokespersons that shed light on problems to be addressed when locating documentation on significant collaborations.[8]

1. Collaboration-Wide Mailings

• Two of the 18 collaborations managed without mailings at all (they were short in duration with everyone nearby, entailed only two groups (in addition to the accelerator laboratory), involved little construction, and the analysis was not considered very interesting). Our telephone survey for other collaborations revealed that collaborations usually begin distributing intra-collaboration mailings when there are more than two groups.

• 12 of the collaborations had numbered memoranda and another three had unnumbered memoranda (technical reports, minutes, transparencies, etc.); the final three had no memos.

• Approximately half of the collaborations had minutes, often integrated with the memoranda. Increasing complexity of detector design may favor creation of minutes.

• Distribution of mailings was primarily the responsibility of spokespersons, but was sometimes assigned to others, such as a group secretary at the accelerator facility. In three cases, where memoranda were occasional and less formal, they were distributed directly by the author.

2. Experiment ("Running") Logbooks

• Most often—seven out of the 18 collaborations (and most of the spokespersons in our telephone survey)—the spokesperson held the experiment logbooks. In four other cases, the logbooks were at the accelerator laboratory. One collaboration (a nuclear emulsion experiment) did not create a logbook. For the remaining six collaborations, the interviewees either did not know where the logbooks were or were unresponsive to the question. Experiment logbooks were most often suggested as the most valuable unpublished record.

• Nearly all collaborations created "detector" or "component" logbooks which were created and kept by the groups responsible for building components for the experimental detector.

3. Electronic Records

• The first use of electronic mail (e-mail) in our selected experiments was in 1982; many say usage became common between 1983 and 1985. The result has been more documentation; the impact is evident for experiments approved as early as 1976. There was evidence of the use of electronic bulletin boards by collaborations as well.

• 36 interviewees made clear responses to the question of e-mail. Of these, 44% kept e-mail on disk for two to 24 months, about 22% print out "important" e-mail (i.e., five to ten percent of it), and some 34% discarded it routinely.

• Individuals' e-mail may be backed up on a system at their home institution or at the accelerator laboratory during an experiment.

• Some collaborations chose to use a laboratory's e-mail system (when it's available to them, as it is at SLAC) for distribution of its intra-collaboration mailings. Minutes are increasingly being distributed by e-mail. The limitations of e-mail require that rapid distribution of graphs and other drawings is via fax.

• Some experimental logbooks, or at least substantial portions of them, are now computerized—at least at FNAL.

• Personal notes are increasingly being maintained on computer, replacing traditional notebooks.

C. Circumstances Affecting Records Creation and Retention
[Table of Contents]

Particular circumstances pressed for the creation or retention of valuable documentation.

• Size (especially in terms of numbers of institutions) and geographical dispersal of institutions tended to foster records of intra-collaboration communications on technical progress.

• The emergence of fax and e-mail, with correspondingly less reliance on the telephone, resulted in additional documentation of collaborations.

• Collaborations that required extensive communication with engineers—who as a group do not have the same orientation as physicists—found it necessary to write out more of their ideas than they would otherwise; this applied to cases where the accelerator or detectors were being significantly altered.

• The greatest bulk of records was created during the construction stage of an experiment when groups were highly interdependent. Apart from experiment (or "running") logbooks, the least documentation was created during running, when the greatest number of collaborators were at the laboratory site and could communicate face-to-face. Records creation increased during the analysis stage, but records were not shared or distributed as extensively as during construction.

• In a rush to meet beamtime, collaborations at times dispensed with memos, minutes, and internal progress reports. Delays imposed by the laboratory, however, gave collaborators the luxury of creating more detailed documentation.

• Experiments that had what physicists call "interesting results" tended to create more documentation of potential value to future scholars, e.g., by stimulating more written arguments over analysis and by producing more publications.

• Experiments in which the detector was designed to study a broad range of physics problems (such as the multiple-purpose four-pi detector experiments) resulted in arguments regarding the selection of physics problems and standards of analysis; this led to creation of more records.

• It is quite common for experiments to be parts of strings (a series of experiments in which a core group of institutions changes the beam, target, detector, or physics goals while holding other elements constant). One-half of our 18 selected experiments were parts of strings, and one-half were solitary (or freestanding) experiments. In our telephone survey of 12 spokespersons, seven said all of their experiments were parts of strings; two said some of their experiments were strings and some were freestanding enterprises; and three said all of their experiments were freestanding enterprises. Experiments that were part of strings had deceptively little documentation of their own because documentation relating to construction of the apparatus was created in previous experiments and so would be found in the files for these earlier experiments. This made collaboration records for individual experiments that were part of strings appear more simple or incomplete than records for long-lived, solitary experiments. Overall, there was evidence that strings retained better records throughout their series of experiments, probably for practical reasons. It will be a great deal easier to locate documentation from the late 1970s for experiments that were succeeded by strings and also for freestanding, long-lived collider experiments that extended to the near present.

Since all the experiments studied by the AIP are from the recent past, our findings do not necessarily apply to patterns of records destruction that may take place some time after experiments are completed. Like other groups, most physicists only keep documents if they think they will be useful to them. Good recordkeeping may be acknowledged by all as necessary while the experimental process is alive, but when the experiment is over records can easily be neglected, forgotten, or destroyed. A decade from now, many if not most of the records located by the AIP project may well be gone. To be most effective in documenting multi-institutional collaborations, future archival efforts should take place during the brief period of years when the recordkeeping needs of the scientific collaboration coincide with the goals of archivists. As one of its recommendations, the AIP study proposes that the accelerator laboratories set up a mechanism, based on contractual arrangements with collaborations, that will assign records-keeping responsibilities to an individual member as soon as an experiment has been approved.

D. Location of Records
[Table of Contents]

The main locations of records appear to be in the hands of spokespersons; at the laboratories; and, to a lesser extent, with group leaders.

1. Spokespersons

• Among our 19 selected experiments, we interviewed 30 spokes­persons, eleven of whom were sole spokespersons, and 19 (or nearly two-thirds) of whom were co- or rotating spokespersons. In our telephone survey of 12 additional spokespersons from these experiments, one-half of the spokespersons surveyed were the sole spokesperson of their experiments, and one-half were either CO-spokespersons or rotating spokespersons who followed or preceded other spokespersons during the experiment. In cases where a collaboration had more than one spokesperson, archivists must be aware of the number of spokespersons in an experiment and their relation to one another as successive or simultaneous.

The point, although obvious, must be made that spokespersons may have distinguished careers beyond their leadership on any one experiment; all their professional files will often merit preservation at their home institution.

• Spokespersons, in all but five cases out of our 18, had the most complete documentation. Our telephone survey of additional spokespersons asked about documentation they had kept relating to experiment proposals and their background. Seven of the 12 spokespersons surveyed had such material. We found that the larger the collaboration the more likely the spokesperson is to have kept the proposal and related materials. In addition, most spokespersons have some unique materials, e.g., correspondence with laboratory administration.

With larger numbers of people and institutional members, the role of spokesperson has come to encompass managerial tasks. There is, for example, ample evidence that intra-collaboration mailings correlate with the larger, more recent collaborations; responsibility for such mailings falls largely on spokespersons. In the best cases we've seen, their "archives" were well-organized and covered all aspects of the collaboration's work, including minutes of collaboration meetings (technical reports from group leaders and others on their assignments for detector development and data analysis, etc.), technical memoranda, and other intra-collaboration mailings. In other cases, spokespersons appeared to have kept many of these files but they were literally in piles all over their offices and may be difficult to extract from other, unrelated materials. Conversely, collaborations with fewer than 30 people and four or five groups, as was common in the 1970s, communicated more by telephone and in less formal meetings, resulting in far thinner documentation.

2. Groups

• Ten collaborations of our 18 had group leaders with good records that should be sought if the spokesperson's records are unavailable. In fact, three of these ten had group leaders whose records were superior to those of their collaboration's spokes­person. Another three collaborations did not have group leaders with adequate documentation. Five collaborations did not have recognized group leaders, per se, due to informality of the collaboration's organization and small size.

Like spokespersons, group leaders may well have professional files on other aspects of their careers that will merit preservation at their home institution.

• For two of the collaborations, the best documentation was with physicists who were thesis students during the experiment.

• At the level of the institutional groups in experiments, records creation centers on their assigned responsibilities for building detector components and analyzing data.

We conclude that—while the role of the spokesperson provides the single most promising location of intra-collaboration mailings and other records, such as logbooks and reports to funding agencies—we cannot assume that saving the records retained by the spokesperson will result in adequate documentation of a collaboration. If a significant experiment is to be fully documented, it will be necessary to check the spokesperson's files for any gaps and turn, when necessary, to group leaders or to other individual members who were known to have kept good records. Where collaborations had co-spokespersons or a practice of rotating spokespersons, the process of locating a full record will be more complex.

3. Accelerator Laboratories

The AIP Center was aware from its earlier study of DOE National Laboratories that these laboratories were the best source of documentation on the activities of their Physics Advisory Committees. (There are variations on the title of these committees; we refer to them generically here as PACs.)  Site visits during the current project established that the laboratories still retain a full set of PAC records, including proposals from collaborations for experimental work and accelerator beam­time and minutes of the PAC's decision-making process.

The AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations in High-Energy Physics provided evidence for other significant documentation of collaborations at the laboratories. In particular, we saw that during the 1980s at most laboratories (BNL appears to be the exception) more detailed agreements emerged covering the responsibilities of both the laboratory and each of the institutional members of a collaboration. These responsibilities range from detector development and construction, provision of computer facilities, and financial commitments. The most detailed of these agreements today are called Memoranda of Understanding.

Collaborations with a spokesperson on the laboratory staff or a strong in-house laboratory group were more likely to have well-kept and complete records than their counterparts in academia. This was largely due to the practice of assigning the records-keeping task to a group secretary. We found this to be particularly true in the case of BNL, CERN, and SLAC. These may not be scheduled by records officers for permanent retention, but they are likely to be kept for a period of years after the end of the collaboration—allowing for the possibility of archival intervention and preservation.

A related finding was that there currently seems to be a clear move at the laboratories to have tighter control over experiments—at least the larger, more expensive ones. For one thing, major funding for large detectors is now likely to come directly to the laboratories from DOE and NSF, rather than to the institutional groups. In addition, there are increasing and widespread demands for accountability on the part of DOE in such areas as fiscal matters and health and safety. In some cases, the need for tighter control on the part of the laboratories may be reflected in the spokesperson being a laboratory staffer; in other cases, the spokes­person may be required to remain on site during the entire construction period of the experiment. Finally, there was evidence of yet another shift from academic laboratories to accelerator facilities, in this case for fabrication of detector components; to the extent this is true, the laboratories will be the location for many technical records.

Many, if not most, of the physicists interviewed believed that the laboratories were the location for certain types of records, especially magnetic data tapes, experiment (or "running") logbooks, and engineering drawings; their information on locations of these records has often been imprecise. Follow-up site visits or conversations with laboratory staff showed few specific patterns. For example, blueprints and other engineering drawings were systematically kept by the laboratories; on the other hand, collaborations varied in their practices of storing data tapes and leaving behind their experiment logbooks at the laboratories. Data tapes were typically destroyed when laboratories ran out of storage space or, in the case of older records, when the tapes could no longer be read on existing equipment. It should be mentioned that data summary tapes (DSTs) and the more recent data cassettes are duplicated for use by collaboration members. We also know that some experiment logbooks are being microfiched for distribution.

Overall, then, we can expect to find more collaboration records at laboratory sites than ever before.

We remind readers that our findings are useful in indicating the patterns of records locations that may apply to contemporary and future experiments. They do not indicate records that will be preserved on a "permanent" basis.

[Table of Contents]

Guidelines for the appraisal of records of collaborative research in high-energy physics were developed based on interview discussions with physicists, historical research, prior appraisal experience of the AIP Center, and review by the Working Group. The purpose of these guidelines is to identify what kinds of evidence are needed to provide adequate documentation of all experiments in high-energy physics and what kinds of additional evidence should be saved for experiments of special significance (and also, where possible, some of more representative quality). The "Appraisal Guidelines for Records of High-Energy Physics" is Part D of this Report No. 2.

There are nine categories of records that form a core and, taken together, they provide basic evidence of the process of collaborative research for virtually all experiments. Our investigation located all but two of the categories at the accelerator laboratories: laboratory directors' files, records of the PACs, proposals to the laboratories, contracts between laboratories and collaborations, accelerator or research division files on experiments, blueprints and specifications, and special databases on high-energy experiments and literature available at SLAC. Apart from the databases, most of these records were still in office space; however, the laboratories obviously had some appreciation of their value and retained them all. We have confidence that they will eventually be preserved in laboratory archives and made available for research use.

Two other categories of records are on our list of core items: Ph.D. theses and proposals (including narrative and financial reports) to funding agencies. We have no concern about the theses—between University Microfilms, Inc. and university libraries, virtually all are available. 

The main problem that remains is in locating proposal files with summary narrative and financial reports on all experiments. The DOE laboratories create key financial records, including proposals for all their experiment work; unfortunately, they are authorized to retain these valuable records for only five years. Some university financial departments keep proposal records and related reports—but, again, not permanently. Our investigations regarding records at the headquarters of the agencies determined that NSF now schedules successful proposal files as permanent, while DOE retains none.[9]

Professional papers of individuals provide additional, essential documentation of collaborative research in high-energy physics.

[Table of Contents]

Institutional archival policies are key to the preservation of documentation. The databases on SPIRES show (not surprisingly) that the two settings for American members of high-energy physics collaborations during our period of study were academia and Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), primarily DOE national laboratories.

A. Academic Archives
[Table of Contents]

On the academic side there is a long-standing tradition (at least in English-speaking countries) of documenting full careers of outstanding faculty, but a basic question remains: will academic archivists be receptive to the idea of documenting outstanding multi-institutional collaborations?  Our discussions about the project with academic archivists indicate a wide interest in the archival issues involved. At the same time, most of them were forced to deal with budgetary and space constraints. Accordingly, while academic archivists recognized the role a faculty member might have as a collaboration spokesperson, most felt they would hesitate to commit their limited resources to technical files or even to the records of group leaders.

These discussions and the AIP's previous experience with academic archives lead us to believe we will have the greatest success where the aims of documenting significant collaborations overlap with the academic archives' aims of documenting significant careers. Archivists are more likely to preserve the records of faculty members who served as spokesperson on one or more collaborations or perhaps as group leader on a number of collaborations. In cases where a collaboration's best documentation will not be preserved in the institutional archives, AIP will perform its traditional role of locating the most suitable repository for such papers.

B. Accelerator Laboratories
[Table of Contents]

The American accelerator laboratories we studied are all FFRDCs, also commonly called government-contract laboratories. BNL, FNAL, and SLAC are DOE laboratories, while Cornell's Newman Laboratory (and its CESR accelerator) is an NSF laboratory.

The AIP Center has had previous experience with the DOE National Laboratories. We saw some recent evidence of improvements in their care of papers. In general the laboratories were more likely than before to keep records—at least for short-term retention; this may have been due to more office space and the improvement of records management programs. Also working on behalf of documenting collaborations is the tradition of organizing files along project lines, a tradition strengthened by ever more formal requirements for budget requests at these laboratories.

A far more important point is the emergence of archival programs. These archival programs are recent—the earliest go back to the late 1970s—and not always fully operational or professional. Two problematical cases are BNL (where archives is barely more than an affectionate term for a stash of a few records) and the Newman Laboratory at Cornell (which lacks an archival program—see more on this below). Where full professional programs are in place, as at SLAC, archivists play a key role in records retention decisions.

We have discussed the fact that the core records to be kept by the laboratories do not appear to be in danger. Our main concern is securing further documentation of especially significant experiments. One issue relates to the extent to which existing laboratory archival programs have both policies and approved records schedules to secure valuable files documenting experiments conducted at their sites. A second issue relates to files at one laboratory documenting experiments conducted at another laboratory. In this latter regard we are particularly concerned about the security of records of spokespersons. Will the laboratories consider such files outside their domain of responsibility if the experiments in question were conducted at other facilities? This is a matter the laboratories should take seriously and make appropriate arrangements for the preservation of such records.

The fact that the Newman Laboratory and its CESR accelerator is an NSF-funded laboratory means that—among other things—it does not create Federal records that come under the responsibility of the National Archives. The AIP project is working with Cornell University's Department of Manuscripts and University Archives and has some confidence that the Department will take on the responsibility for securing records of historical significance for the Newman Laboratory.

There is another issue that needs to be ad­dressed with archivists at both academic and laboratory settings in terms of documenting significant collaborations. Due to a variety of reasons, such as records-keeping policies at laboratories, it will not always be possible to keep all the records for a collaboration at one repository. What we should aim for is to have any one series—such as intra-collaboration mailings—located at one repository. The AIP will provide guidance in making these arrangements.

C. Agency Headquarters
[Table of Contents]

The records of DOE and NSF Headquarters are Federal in ownership; those of permanent value are to be transferred eventually to the National Archives. We discussed in Section III, above, the fact that NSF now schedules all successful proposals as permanent records, while DOE does not. In addition, our preliminary investigation found that DOE's History Office has virtually no documentation on laboratory operations, let alone experimental research conduct­ed at these sites. At the NSF, on the other hand, we found some valuable files, such as reports of NSF site visits to Cornell, in the office of the High-Energy Program of the Physics Division.[10] Steps are being taken to secure these files for eventual transfer to the National Archives.

D. Institutions Abroad
[Table of Contents]

The AIP Center's knowledge of archival situations in foreign countries is quite limited, especially outside of Canada and—to some extent—the United Kingdom. However, in the case of Japan (where Warnow-Blewett made a number of site visits to laboratories, universities, and libraries) we found that, apart from a few memorial rooms, there appeared to be no archival programs to document modern science and technology. Also, in the process of conducting 27 interviews in Europe we talked with a number of administrators and can make a general observation that there seems to be far less activity directed toward preserving important documentation of postwar science there than in the United States. We found only a very few cases where European university archives seemed receptive to preserving papers of distinguished high-energy physicists.

In addition, most government-funded research laboratories in Europe lack archival programs altogether; the major exceptions so far were at the UK Atomic Energy Authority facilities (notably the Harwell Laboratory), the European laboratory CERN, and CNRS in Paris. CERN's archival program is an active one. Although until recently it was directed almost entirely toward administrative records at the directors' level, it has initiated a policy to gather records for significant experiments conducted at CERN.

[Table of Contents]

A. Continued Research to Identify Significant Experiments
[Table of Contents]

In the "Report on Project Activities," we refer to the continuing sociological research on high-energy physics of consultant Lynne Zucker and her group at UCLA.[11] The first goal of the research is to help us understand more completely high-energy physics research and the conduct of modern science.

A second goal of Zucker's group—one that relates directly to future preservation work of the AIP Center—is to use their findings predictively. Using the variables they identify as contributing to experiment success (e.g., "young" accelerator center), the Zucker group will develop a framework for identifying experiments of significance. They will compare and, where possible, combine their framework with alternative methods of assessing significance: citation indices, citations in other experimental papers as compared to theoretical papers, and selection by top experimental physicists, science administrators, and the like.

The AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations will work with and benefit from these efforts. Specifically, Warnow-Blewett will use Zucker's listing of significant experiments and refine it by canvassing individuals and groups in the high-energy physics community, such as distinguished experimentalists and theorists, laboratory directors, the NSF and DOE program officers, members of the National Academy of Sciences review panels, and HEPAP (the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel of the DOE). The first assessment will be of high-energy physics experiments completed prior to 1990; a report on these activities and the identified experiments will be reviewed by the Working Group on High-Energy Physics. One year or more will be needed to complete this study.

B. Actions to Document Significant Collaborations
[Table of Contents]

The identification of significant—and, hopefully, some more representative—experiments is a major issue. For these experiments more extensive documentation should be preserved, and the actions necessary to preserve the records should be made in a timely fashion. The AIP Center will put the knowledge gained through the study to work—in cooperation with accelerator laboratories, institutional archivists, and others—to locate and preserve key records of high-energy physics. This experience will sharpen our knowledge of the practical and policy issues that present obstacles to documentation of collaborative research. (The lessons learned will be reported at the end of the AIP's long-term study of collaborative research in various fields.)

The AIP study has made a recommendation that could have a major impact on securing records of future collaborative re­search. In this recommendation, an accelerator laboratory would include information on records responsibilities in its Memorandum of Understanding or other contract with each collaboration once the experiment has been approved. One or more individual members of the collaboration would be assigned responsibility to care for the records. The scope of the coverage would be all those records needed to document significant experiments, including—where spokespersons can provide justification—records of innovative or revolutionary detectors components or techniques. The acceptance of this mechanism would put archivists in an excellent position to locate, appraise, and preserve records of future significant experiments.

Efforts to resolve problems will continue long after completion of the long-term study—especially since many physicists will not want to transfer records to archives until their retirement. These efforts will be an ongoing activity, part of the AIP Center's documentation strategy.

C. Actions to Preserve Papers of Leading Physicists
[Table of Contents]

The sociological research and related surveys will also serve to identify some leading experimental and theoretical high-energy physicists. Saving papers of key individuals when they retire or die is a standard part of the AIP Center's preservation program in a cooperative effort with institutional archivists. Again, these efforts will continue long after the AIP study of collaborative research is completed.

D. Actions to Secure Core Records
[Table of Contents]

This will consist largely in maintaining contact with the laboratories to make certain the core records at these sites are preserved and available for research use. At the same time, we are aware that some valuable records on our core list are not authorized by the National Archives for permanent retention in existing DOE records schedules. Two notable examples are the files of the Physics Advisory Committees and proposal files (with fiscal and narrative reports) to the DOE. LBL Archivist Hefner is working to strengthen the National Archives schedules for DOE laboratories; we are assisting her and we hope our project recommendations will help legitimize the preservation of such valuable evidence. We will also make efforts to see that DOE and NSF Headquarters schedule as permanent all proposals and related records for accelerators, accelerator upgrades, and major detectors (both successful and rejected proposals). For other experiment proposals from in-house laboratory groups and university groups, both Headquarters should retain files on successful proposals and at least a random sample of rejected ones.

[Table of Contents]

[Table of Contents]

The AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations has coincided, fortuitously, with the establishment and organization of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Archives in 1989. In an effort to augment the study, or "probe," of SP-17 (later referred to as the "psi collaboration") at SLAC, the SLAC Archives has located additional documentation generated not by the scientific collaborators but in the normal operation of the laboratory facility.

This report provides historical background relevant to the location and content of the SLAC archival record and places the larger realm of records in laboratory context. It covers records that have either been transferred to the SLAC Archives or records that are currently under the care of creating offices in the SLAC warehouse on the laboratory site. A small portion has been transferred to the Federal Records Center in San Bruno. All are in various stages of appraisal and description; in a number of cases, current staff have lost track of their records or are too new to be able to document or remember past purgings. We have tried to gather information where possible that will facilitate use of the records but caution patience.[12]

This probe has coincided with a laboratory review of records keeping and records preservation practice and procedures. Although a designated laboratory records officer (organizationally located in a different division than the Archives) has been responsible for the transfer of scheduled records to the Federal Records Center in San Bruno, this activity has been directed predominantly at financial and health records and has been done largely on a crisis basis (e.g., crowded office). SLAC archivist Robin Chandler has begun working with the Laboratory's records officer, Richard Fuendling, as well as individuals who maintain on-site documentation of SLAC research, operations, facilities, and health and safety, to expedite records appraisal, transfer and preservation. In anticipation of a Department of Energy agency-wide mandate to establish individual records schedules for research and development at each laboratory, she intends to create a series of records schedules specific to SLAC's organization and mission along with a more rational procedure for proactive records management at the Laboratory.

[Table of Contents]

The descriptions of archival records at Stanford in the Catalog of Selected Historical Materials are largely self-explanatory, but a few background comments will help clarify why some of these records were selected for description.

In April 1972, SLAC completed construction of the Stanford Positron-Electron Asymmetrical Storage Ring (SPEAR). SPEAR with its Mark I detector was the site of the SLAC/LBL collaboration, SP-17. The psi collaboration is a part of a larger story that ranges through all aspects of laboratory work, from innovative accelerator design through experimental collaboration and theoretical quandary. This collaboration provides a convenient window onto the development of storage-ring technology, the frustrating battle for adequate funding in the late 1960s and early 1970s, construction of an innovative facility and, ultimately, an unexpected milestone in our understanding of the Standard Model for particle physics, events known today as the "November Revolution" of 1974. Archival records relating to the psi collaboration are to be found throughout the Research, Technical and Business divisions of SLAC as well as in the files of the Laboratory's directors and supporting materials in Stanford University files.

The nature of SLAC's strong in-house research program and its direct relationship with technological development on-site has provided both stability of records keeping and a certain peculiarity of organization. For example, much work centered in the long-lived Group C office and much documentation was preserved in the Group C office. However, some records migrated to other offices on-site as several members of the collaboration made career moves up the administrative ladder. Similarly, Group records and other files maintained by the collaborations spokesmen include much more than material related specifically to physics research and to the development of the Mark I detector. Also well documented are the technological developments associated with the creation of colliding beam technology and the construction of SPEAR, and the implications of government-lab relations entwined in the proposal, funding and operation of SPEAR and the selection of experiments.

A. Leadership
[Table of Contents]

An excellent example of the longevity of careers at SLAC is the relationship of the psi collaboration to the construction of a major facility at SLAC and the leadership role played by Burton Richter. Richter took an active role not only in the collaboration, but in the development of SPEAR and, much later, the course of research and technical programs of SLAC itself. Richter's career has directly affected the location of records, their contents, their completeness and their mixture with other record groups. On the one hand, it has meant a certain institutional stability for the records (few office moves) that has helped preserve most Group C records in the first place. On the other hand, files are not neatly packed up as psi collaboration files, but have found a number of niches in the files of a spokesman who has also been technical leader, Group leader and Director of the Laboratory.

B. Design and Planning for SPEAR (1961-1970)
[Table of Contents]

The technical and organizational history of SPEAR itself provides a larger background to the study of the psi collaboration. As a result, we have attempted to locate not only records directly relating to the collaboration but to the broader historical arena of the development of SPEAR, the technological innovations that were necessary in order for the collaboration to conduct its experiments, and the operation of the facility and detector.

The development of SPEAR came early in the construction and operation of SLAC (proposals were first submitted to the AEC just as the two-mile linear accelerator and its two end stations began construction). Initial work was carried out not at the SLAC site but at the nearby High Energy Physics Laboratory (or HEPL, more centrally located on campus) while a number of future SP-17 collaborators were employed as Stanford scientists. As a result, material can be found regarding an earlier generation in the Colliding Beam experiment records, 1958 to 1965, at HEPL.

During its first twenty years, SLAC's Research Division supported a strong in-house research staff of scientists, engineers and support staff arranged by "groups," with each group focusing on a particular realm of experiments at a particular facility. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, while Group A centered its work on fixed target experiments with the spectrometer at end station A, and Group B worked with bubble chamber experiments at end station B, Burt Richter's Group C developed colliding beam technology and the Mark I detector in support of various proposed experiments. Collaborating with a group of scientists from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, this group provided the foundation for SP-17. In addition, Group E, led by Martin Perl, would later become involved with the SP-17 experiments though less so with development of the facility and detector.

Initial design work on a large positron-electron storage ring for SLAC, begun under the direction of Burt Richter and Dave Ritson, is documented predominantly in the records of Richter. The Research Division's Group C records also contain much information.

Proposals for the construction of SPEAR were submitted by SLAC to the Atomic Energy Commission beginning in 1964. The printed proposals, available in the Archives, document the succession of scaled-down proposals. Equally important are the deliberations of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) to the President of the United States. Two HEPAP committees (Laslett and Pake, 1964, '65 and '66) as well as the HEPAP board recommended immediate funding (1968). That funding was never authorized. In 1970, a new approach was offered during congressional hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy by John Abadessa, AEC/ERDA controller. SLAC was authorized to build SPEAR as a temporary building improvement from its regular operating funds but without additional project funds. While official HEPAP records of the panels and published congressional hearings provide documentation, we have additional documentation in the records of Laboratory Director Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky. Panofsky was a member of HEPAP at this time and his files regarding the SPEAR deliberations were later transferred to his successor Richter and are preserved in the Director's Office files. Interestingly, these files served simultaneously as Panofsky's working HEPAP files and Richter's Group C/SPEAR files.

C. Construction of SPEAR (1971-72)
[Table of Contents]

Abadessa's "compromise"—that SPEAR be considered an equipment modification to SLAC rather than a permanent construction—did not net SLAC adequate funding to construct the facility but allowed SLAC to construct SPEAR using funds allotted for equipment and facility improvement. The construction of SPEAR thus was carried out with contributions, in budget and manpower, from all divisions of the Laboratory.

Construction of SPEAR and later of the Mark I is documented by mechanical, electrical, architectural, civil and other drawings and specifications in the Plant Engineering Office's records. Drawings and specifications can be located with the help of the online inventory, "DRAW," a SPIRES data file. A complete list of all drawings for SPEAR is appended to the inventory. The drawings themselves are available on microfiche by ID number in the Document Control. Additional files regarding construction contracts are maintained by contract number in Plant Engineering. A listing of relevant contracts is also appended to the listing. Plant Engineering staff point out that the records now in their care have gone through many hands and a search for contracts regarding SP-17 or the construction of SPEAR have revealed a good deal of purging.

Some progress photographs are also available from Plant Engineering, but a more complete portrait of construction is available in the photographs maintained by the Publications Office. Proof sheets are available, arranged roughly by date. An online data base is currently being developed that will provide access by keyword as well as date, photographer and negative number. However, the descriptions in the data base are drawn directly from descriptions on the photographs by support staff unfamiliar with particular pieces of equipment, with specific collaborations or with SPEAR itself. The accuracy in any comprehensive listing of available SPEAR photographs, therefore, may be limited but it will provide a lead to groups of photographs on proof sheets.

D. Operation of SPEAR, 1970-1976 (Research and Technical)
[Table of Contents]

Thirteen proposals were initially received for experiments; two were selected including the SLAC/LBL Mark I detector. In addition to proposals and supporting material to be found in Group C records, the proposals for the initial experiments, approved or not, are preserved along with correspondence and reports in the records of the Program Advisory Committee. Some additional files regarding the SPEAR experiment proposals are also preserved in the Director's Office Records (Panofsky).

The Technical Division maintains a wide range of log books for the operation of the linac at the time of SP-17. It should be noted, however, that the operating logs for SPEAR itself (which have remained at the SPEAR facility) were transferred to the care of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL) when that lab took over full responsibility for SPEAR in 1990. (SSRL, at this time funded and managed separately from SLAC, will merge with SLAC in October 1992 with the renewal of SLAC's DOE contract; at this point, the SLAC Archives will be better positioned to advise on the care of these logs.)

E. The Development of the Mark I and the Running of SP-17
[Table of Contents]

This area is covered more extensively in Peter Galison's report, which explores the usefulness of the very important material to be found in the Group C records maintained for group leader Richter.[13] As an additional archival note, however, we point out that while one group of records seems to have been continually maintained in the Group Office, another, less definitive group moved upstairs when Richter became lab director. Fortunately, the group records include a full set of SPEAR technical memos and other communications as well as Richter's own subject files. Those files that moved to the Director's Office tend to relate more specifically to the psi discovery and to the Nobel Prize, which Richter shared with Samuel Ting in 1976.

F. Personnel
[Table of Contents]

There are a number of levels of personnel records relating to the individuals involved in this collaboration. At the most basic level are employment records of all SLAC personnel. This would include not only those employed by SLAC to provide technical and administrative support, but also those SLAC physicists involved in SP-17. SLAC personnel are employed by Stanford University and related personnel records, maintained by the University Personnel Office, are restricted in accordance with Stanford University regulations and state privacy laws.

In addition to these, faculty, post-doc and graduate student files are maintained in the University office of the head of the faculty. These relate to hiring, promotion, and tenure of the faculty and research physicists, and to the progress and review of students. As such, they are considered confidential, in accordance with University practice and state privacy laws.

Furthermore, individual scientists invariably keep files regarding the work of colleagues, graduate students and post-docs; these files may include recommendations, comments or reviews. While these informal files are not covered by personnel procedures, they should be carefully used whether or not the scientist is aware of privacy laws or the nature of confidentiality. Most scientists are sensitive to this issue and purge their records (sometimes too much) of what they consider potentially embarrassing to a colleague.

G. Results of SP-17
[Table of Contents]

The results of SP-17 are preserved as SLAC publications (whether or not titles appeared later in physics journals). The DOE requires its labs to preserve a complete set of its publications. These are readily available in the SLAC library or through the SLAC Publications Office and can be found by searching the SPIRES High Energy Physics (HEP) file.

Publicity regarding the psi discovery and later discoveries (psi prime, charm, etc.) was preserved in university news releases and in files of news clippings in the Stanford News Service ("Burton Richter" file and "SLAC" file). The News Service transfers non-current files to the Stanford University Archives and will in time add the 1974-76 files regarding SLAC to the Archives. Biographical material tends not to be transferred until some years after the death of the individual, but is readily available to scholars at the News Service.

News clippings and other publicity about the 1976 Nobel Prize award to Richter are also preserved in the Director's Office files.

H. Other Stanford University Records
[Table of Contents]

Richter's papers at SLAC include records from his colliding beam experimental work at Stanford's High Energy Physics Laboratory, 1958-1981. Some additional supporting material regarding his pre-SP-17 work can be found in the Stanford University Archives. However, the High Energy Physics Laboratory has transferred only early records (1947-64) to the University Archives. Most supporting records following this period (Richter's CBX experiment ran from 1963-1967) are still at HEPL.

[Table of Contents]

[Table of Contents]

The purpose of these guidelines is to assist archivists and others with responsibilities for selecting records for long-term preservation. The guidelines are based on two years of field work by the project staff of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations in High-Energy Physics; they were reviewed by the study's Working Group, composed of high-energy physicists and science administrators as well as archivists and historians and sociologists of science. Peter Galison, consulting historian and high-energy physicist, played an important role.

The scope of these guidelines is records created by collaborative research in high-energy physics—that is, by groups of physicists from a number of institutions who join together for a period of years to design and construct apparatus and software, collect and analyze data, and publish results. A collaboration is a transient but important mini-institution, comprised of the institutional groups and the accelerator facility where the experiment was carried out. The AIP study covered experiments approved between 1973 and 1985 at the four major accelerator facilities in the U.S.A.: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR), Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva. Close to 300 interviews with members of 27 collaborations were conducted using structured question sets to cover all phases of the collaborative process and the records created by the activities; science administrators were also interviewed.

Outside the scope of these guidelines are the records created by other activities at the accelerator laboratories, universities, and other institutions involved, and by other activities of individual scientists. For example, we do not cover documentation of accelerator design or other areas of physics, science, and technology. We recommend different appraisal guidelines for these materials.[14]

Guidelines for the selection of records should emphasize the kinds of information, or evidence" required to document these activities. We have endeavored to take into account future needs of physicists and people in science policy and management, as well as historians and sociologists of science. Appraisal guidelines are not fixed rules; they are informed recommendations that require interpretation by those who select records. Since functional analysis is a useful tool for selecting records, we begin our guidelines with summary statements about the key activities of high-energy physics collaborations and include references to the categories of records created in the process.

Appraisal guidelines require unending revision. As the process of collaborative research changes (and we have seen such changes during the 1970s and '80s), the kinds of evidence needed will be altered. Equally important, the formats of the evidence will change. The records described in these guidelines are virtually all paper files; but we are in a revolution—especially in the area of electronic recods. Five years from now, we may find ourselves recommending that—since correspondence, logbooks, and a variety of other files are widely available in electronic formats—they should be retained in that format for future use by historians and others. Further, technology may soon permit computer data on microfiche (COM) to be transferred back as needed to the contemporary electronic formats. We need to watch the new technologies and try new solutions for securing adequate documentation.[15]

Over the next few years, our guidelines for high-energy physics will be sharpened by the practical experience of reviewing files and taking the steps to preserve them. High-energy physics presents just one case study of multi-institutional collaborative research. The guidelines will be extended by the AIP study to cover other areas of physics and allied sciences; in particular, the disciplines of space science and geophysics will be incorporated. At the end of the AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, other disciplines of science and technology will be able to use these guidelines as a basis, extending them into their own fields.

Eventually, appraisal of records documenting collaborative projects in other areas, such as industry and banking, could make these guidelines germane to a wide range of important combinations of institutions in modern society. Thus, archivists outside the arenas of science and technology should consider these recommendations. The idea of moving from high-energy physics to collaborative efforts outside of science and technology is not as futuristic as it may seem to some readers. The world is increasingly operating in the mode of large, temporary, multi-institutional projects. Don W. Wilson, Archivist of the United States, recently reported that—at a March 1991 conference at the National Archives—several people:

... described a radically different style of work, `adhocracy,' that is increasingly having an impact in the modern workplace. Adhocracy is characterized by workgroups that are temporary, crossdisciplinary, and based on shared knowledge. Archivists used to relying on organizational structure for the retrieval of information or for historical understanding will have to find other ways of ensuring that the deliberations and decisions of an adhocracy like this are recorded and preserved in a way that future users can understand them.[16]

[Table of Contents]

Records are created in the process of carrying out activities or functions. The most effective approach to appraisal of records is "functional analysis," in which important functions are identified and then the best documentation of these functions is located and preserved.

The key functions of all scientific activities can be summarized as administration of research and development, the research and development itself, and dissemination. The particular characteristic of multi-institutional collaborations in high-energy physics is that they carry out functions on two levels. First, each individual group fulfills the functions required by its own institution, including raising funds for the experiment and, frequently, training of graduate students. Second, the collaboration as a whole is a mini-institution with an internal organizational structure headed by one, or perhaps two, spokespersons, together with group leaders from each institutional member; and, increasingly, by a more elaborate structure to oversee the various functions of the experiment—including those required by the accelerator facility, from the initial proposal for beamtime to completion of the experiment.

What follows is a brief analysis of these functions along with the categories of records created through these activities and references to the sections of these guidelines where further information can be found.[17]

A. Administration of Research and Development
[Table of Contents]

1. Establishing Research Priorities
New multi-institutional collaborations in high-energy physics are initiated for a variety of reasons. However, the opening of a new accelerator facility and the discovery of new detection techniques or strategies are the most prominent stimuli to the formation of new collaborations. Planning for new experiments is typically initiated by a small core of individuals from several institutions who seek opportunities for their creativity, their passion for leadership, or their need to build a record of professional accomplishment. The core group develops proposals and seeks additional institutions to flesh out the collaboration. Once in place, a collaboration may extend its lifetime by proposing future experiments that modify the original in meaningful ways, thereby generating a "string" of experiments. In other cases, an idea for a brand new experiment will emerge from one or more members of an existing experiment; this often results in the joining up of some institutional members and the dropping off of others. So the cycle continues. In most cases, the originators of the future experiments become the group leaders for their institutions and one of the originators becomes the collaboration's initial spokesperson.

Documentation: Correspondence of Spokespersons and Group Leaders (V.D.), Professional Files of Individuals (VI.), Physics Advisory Committee Records (IV.C.), and Laboratory Directors' Files (IV.B.).

2. Support/Funding
The collaboration as a whole submits a proposal to an accelerator laboratory. The proposal is an official request for allocation of accelerator beamtime and includes plans and goals of the experiment. Proposals are reviewed, often extensively, by the laboratory's Physics Advisory Committee (PAC) which then makes its recommendations to the laboratory.

Documentation: Physics Advisory Committee Records (IV.C.), Proposals to Laboratories for Experiments (IV.D.), And Contracts Between Laboratories and Collaborations (IV.E.).

The funding for experiments is typically acquired through proposals from each institutional group in the collaboration to one of two funding agencies for the discipline, the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the Department of Energy (DOE). This procedure gives university departments the ability to manage the activities of their faculty members in accordance with the needs of their graduate students and the demands on their laboratory and shop facilities.

Documentation: Proposals Submitted to DOE and NSF (IV.A.), Proposal Files of Principal Investigators (V.A.), and Other Proposals and Reports (V.B.).

The exception to this pattern is that major funding for the largest detector experiments is often provided to the accelerator laboratory rather than to individual institutional teams. A separate office may be set up at the laboratories for these experiments. This procedure strengthens the ability of the accelerator laboratories to monitor the expenditures and activities needed to create such detectors.

Documentation: Proposals Submitted to DOE and NSF (IV.A.), Proposal Files of Principal Investigators (VA), Other Proposals and Reports (V.B.), and Laboratory Directors' Files (IV.B.).

3. Staffing
Prior to the submission of the proposal to the laboratory for beamtime, institutional membership on a collaboration is determined by the original core group of Principal Investigators (PIs). In the course of reviewing proposals, the PAC or laboratory director may pressure the proponents of similar proposals to resubmit a unified proposal (the so-called "shotgun marriage") or may insist that the proponents of a proposal find additional collaborators in order to have enough resources to carry out all the proposed work.

Documentation: Correspondence of Spokespersons and Group Leaders (V.D.), Physics Advisory Committee Records (IV.C.), And Laboratory Directors' Files (IV.B.).

Decisions regarding which individuals (physicists, postdocs, graduate students, etc.) should staff the experiment are made by each institutional group leader.

Documentation: Correspondence of Spokespersons and Group Leaders (VD), Professional Files of Individuals (VI.), and Physics Advisory Committee Records (IV.C.).

B. Research and Development
[Table of Contents]

1. Hypothesizing, Thinking, and Visualizing
Ideas for an experiment may be inspired by recent discoveries or theories, the possibility for more precise measurement, the availability of new techniques or materials for detector development, or simply the possible modification of the existing experiment to obtain new or better data.

Documentation: Professional Files of Individuals (VI.), Correspondence of Spokespersons and Group Leaders (V.D.), Physics Advisory Committee Records (IV.C.).

2. Planning Experiment
While the outline of the experimental plan is covered in the proposal of the whole collaboration to the accelerator laboratory, numerous decisions on details follow its approval. One major category, assignments of responsibility for development of detector components, may involve written agreements between institutional groups and with the accelerator laboratory. Later details, modification of plans, work schedules, etc. would be made by or reported to the collaboration as a whole. Progress reports are submitted to the laboratory and funding agencies.

Documentation: Physics Advisory Committee Records (IV.C.), Contracts Between Laboratories and Collaborations (IV.E.), Intra-collaboration Mailings (V.C.), and, in some cases, Accelerator or Research Division Files (V.F.).

3. Conducting Experiment and Analyzing Data
Between approval and dissemination of research results, there are three major stages in experiments in high-energy physics: (1) the design, construction, and testing of the detector's components, (2) assembly and testing of the detector and data collection at the laboratory, and (3) data analysis, carried out increasingly at the home institutions.

Documentation: Intra-collaboration Mailings (V.C.), Technical Records of Collaborations (V.E.—including Experiment [or "Running"] Logbooks, Other Logbooks, Raw Data Tapes and Data Summary Tapes, Computer Programs and Software, and Other Scientific Data), Audio Visual Materials (VF), Ph.D. Theses (IV.H.), And, in some cases, Subcontracting Records (V.H.).

C. Communicating and Disseminating Findings
[Table of Contents]

Communication of research results becomes increasingly formal over time. The initial presentation of research results may well be an oral report given at the accelerator laboratory to test reactions to the findings. Subsequently, collaboration members will select individuals to make presentations at various professional meetings or topical conferences; usually some kind of balance is struck between giving the young professionals the chance to show themselves (especially at regional or national meetings) and having the senior physicists make the more visible presentations at international conferences. Submission of articles to refereed journals is often a drawn out process with drafts reviewed by each member of the collaboration. Through all of this there will be informal, sometimes crucial interchanges between individuals on the collaboration and outside colleagues.

Documentation: Intra-collaboration Mailings (V.C.), Correspondence Between Spokespersons and Group Leaders (VD), Professional Files of Individuals (VI.), Papers Prepared for Publication or for Talks (V.G.), And—for access to a full range of publications—High-Energy Physics Databases (IV.I).

[Table of Contents]

We recommend that the following publications be saved.

A. Journal Articles
[Table of Contents]

The journals are widely available in libraries. Our comments pertain to access to both experimental and instrumentation articles through the Publications Database on SPIRES maintained by the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) and the Deutches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY) laboratories. The accelerator laboratories around the world bear the responsibility of linking refereed articles to experiment numbers.

Recommendation: The laboratories should maintain the efforts necessary to link experimental publications to experiment numbers in the Publication Database on SPIRES. They should consider linking instrumentation articles to experiments—as Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) is currently doing—as an aid to their own reporting requirements with the extra benefit of improving the database for other purposes. Journal editors could assist this effort by asking authors to identify numbers of the experiments that provide the basis of their articles.

B. Experiment Books
[Table of Contents]

Most of the accelerator laboratories have started to publish books with basic information on all approved experiments, including schematic drawings of detector layouts and summaries of research plans. These annual publications are available for experiments at Brookhaven National Laboratory (AGS Experiments Book, 1982-), CERN (Experiments at CERN, 1975-), and FNAL (Fermilab Research Program Workbook, 1975-).

Recommendation: The practice of issuing these books should be broadened to all laboratories. Laboratory archives should preserve a full set.

C. Detector Books
[Table of Contents]

The Particle Data Group (PDG) at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory has issued two editions of Major Detectors in Elementary Particle Physics (in March 1983 and May 1985) with schematic drawings and summary information on major detectors at laboratories around the world.

Recommendation: The PDG should be urged to continue publishing these volumes. The LBL archives should preserve a full set. Other laboratories may also want to retain copies because of their research value to scientists as well as historians and other scholars.

D. Conference Proceedings
[Table of Contents]

Published proceedings of conferences on high-energy physics provide valuable documentation on the physics and technology goal developments as the experiments proceed from the planning, building, data taking, and analysis stages.

Recommendation: Libraries in accelerator laboratories and other major physics libraries should keep these proceedings in their collections.

E. Other
[Table of Contents]

Laboratory magazines, such as the CERN Courier, FNAL's Bulletin and SLAC's Beamline have valuable information on their experiments. The CERN Courier covers work at all the major laboratory sites; SLAC's Beamline has begun to extend its coverage as well.

Recommendation: Laboratory archives should preserve a full set of their own publications.

[Table of Contents]

A. Proposals Submitted to DOE and NSF
[Table of Contents]

There are two major categories of proposals submitted to the funding agencies for high-energy physics in the U.S.A.: (1) those submitted by the accelerator laboratories for major detectors and for building or upgrading accelerators and (2) those submitted by each of the institutional groups participating in a collaboration experiment (normally as part of a larger budget request by a unit of an academic physics department or a research group at a laboratory). Proposal files provide rich summary information on research goals and techniques, budgets, and the agency review process. Files for accepted proposals document progress and expenditures; those for accelerators and major detectors would frequently include (in a separate records group) documentation of agency site visits. Proposal files are located in the offices of the DOE administrator and the NSF program officer responsible for high-energy physics (or laboratory accelerators). All proposals (approved or rejected) for major detectors and for new or upgraded accelerators should be preserved. All approved proposals and at least a random sample of rejected proposals submitted for high-energy physics experiments should also be kept.

Recommendation: DOE and NSF administrators for high-energy physics (or accelerators) should see to it that these files are scheduled for permanent retention and eventual transfer to the National Archives.

B. Laboratory Directors' Files
[Table of Contents]

A primary source of correspondence, reports, memoranda, and other records documenting laboratory policy and substantive programs in high-energy physics is the files of laboratory directors. In most single purpose accelerator laboratories, these files will be found in the office of the director and, for example, the director for research; in multiple purpose laboratories, such as Brookhaven National Laboratory, they would be located primarily in the office of the associate director responsible for high-energy and nuclear physics.

Recommendation: Laboratory archives should include records of the offices of laboratory directors with principal authority for high-energy physics.

C. Physics Advisory Committee Records
[Table of Contents]

Each laboratory has an advisory committee whose responsibility it is to review proposals (written and oral) for high-energy physics experiments at the site. Committee names vary; our generic term is Physics Advisory Committee (PAC). PAC records are likely to include minutes of full committee meetings or private recommendations, formal proposals with budgets, letters to collaboration spokespersons on decisions, and, more recently, impact statements by laboratory staff and reports of PAC subcommittees summarizing conclusions. Meetings of PACs may be tape-recorded. Details on some of these files, along with our recommendations, follow.

Recommendation: Each laboratory archives should contain a full set of PAC files, including any tape recordings.

D. Proposals to Laboratories for Experiments
[Table of Contents]

Most proposals submitted by collaborations constitute a request for access to the accelerator (beamtime, beam conditions, etc.) and approval of the physics and experiment plan. In the case of more recent experiments, involving the construction of large detectors, proposals will be more complex as they frequently involve direct funding to the laboratory from the DOE or NSF. The proposals submitted to laboratory PACs (including any preliminary proposals [letters of intent], addenda, requested revisions, responses, and reviews) are valuable for assessing the expectations on importance and feasibility of a particular experiment.

Recommendation: The laboratory archives should include these materials for both accepted and rejected proposals. They are typically found as part of the PAC records.

E. Contracts Between Laboratories and Collaborations
[Table of Contents]

Contracts and other agreements documenting the arrangements between the laboratory and the collaboration, including each institutional group. The arrangements cover funds, responsibilities for constructing and assembling detector components, computing support, safety regulations, and so forth. Over the years, contracts have become increasingly formal; since the 1980s, for some large and expensive experiments, there are now Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).

Recommendation: Contracts, including MOUs, should be pre­served as a permanent record in the laboratory archives; they are typically found in the PAC records.

F. Accelerator or Research Division Files on Experiments
[Table of Contents]

The laboratories have a department or division responsible for maintaining beam lines of accelerators and the overall experimental areas, as well as supplying technical and other services to experimenters. Records of these divisions are the key laboratory files documenting experiments after their approval. They typically include copies of proposals, exchanges between the laboratory and the experimental collaboration and between various offices at the laboratory, and some engineering drawings. In some laboratories, correspondence with experimental collaborations after approval continues to be kept in the PAC files.

Recommendation: These records should be preserved in the laboratory archives insofar as they do not overlap with existing contract and PAC files.

G. Blueprints and Specifications
[Table of Contents]

Engineering drawings of detectors and their components—and the more recent CAD/CAMs (computer aided designs/computer aided mechanicals)—are maintained at the laboratories at least in microform, if not also in the original, accompanied by a database providing a variety of access points. Specifications provide information on quality of materials and tolerances required.

Recommendation: The system is in place to save these records and the microfilm format is space saving. We recommend—especially where laboratories keep originals— saving blueprints and specifications only for significant experiments, if it is economical to locate and destroy the balance. The records are probably located in the accelerator or research department.

H. Ph.D. Theses
[Table of Contents]

Much of the work on detector development, software design, and data analysis is assigned to graduate students and postdocs. The work of the graduate students is documented in some detail in Ph.D. theses.

Recommendation: Most theses are available from University Microfilms, Inc. and university libraries or archives typically preserve Ph.D. theses submitted to their university. To make theses for a given experiment more accessible, the spokesperson and group leaders should compile a listing with the following information on each thesis: author, title, advisor, degree, degree date, and institution.

I. High-Energy Physics Databases
[Table of Contents]

Since 1974, two special international databases have been maintained on SPIRES for the high-energy physics community: the Experiments database by the Particle Data Group at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) and the HEP Publications Database by SLAC and the DESY laboratory in Germany. The Experiments database includes reports on all experiments approved by the laboratories. The information includes the laboratory and experiment number, approval year, and names of collaboration members and their institution (with the spokesperson asterisked); unfortunately, as membership information is updated, the historical data is wiped out. The HEP Publications Database is a vast bibliographic record covering preprints, conference talks, theses, refereed physics articles (many with links to laboratory experiment numbers), instrumentation articles, etc.—all with citations. The list of authors and their affiliations is complete.

Recommendation: We recommend improvements because of the great value of these databases for historical and sociological purposes. A historical data set of the Experiments database should be initiated. To further improve the HEP Publications Data­base—as stated in Section III.A., above— work on the part of the laboratories to link physics articles with experiments numbers should be continued and this effort should be extended to instrumentation articles.

[Table of Contents]

The purpose of this section is to identify the types of materials that are needed to document selected experiments—those that are of major significance as well as some that are of great value because they can serve as typical or representative of a period or category of experiment—and that, therefore, will be of high interest to future historians, sociologists, and other users. Hereafter, these selected experiments will be referred to as "significant." Action mechanisms for identifying these experiments are included in the AIP study's recommendations.[18] Note that several categories are marked with an asterisk to indicate that they should not be kept permanently except in limited quantities for exhibit purposes or under special circumstances.

A. Proposal Files of Principal Investigators (see also Section IV, Professional Files of Individuals)
[Table of Contents]

Thus far, we have discussed proposal files to be kept for all experiments by DOE and NSF (Section IV.A.) and by the laboratories in the PAC records (Section IV.D.). In Section V, we are concerned about additional proposal files to be kept for significant experiments. One reason for keeping them is because the files provide unique documentation. This will often be the case for proposal files found at the group level (often in the files of a principle investigator [PI]). In addition to a copy of the proposal submitted to the accelerator laboratory for the entire collaboration, these files are likely to include significant drafts and related documentation, e.g., correspondence between PIs and the laboratories and funding agencies.

Recommendation: These proposal files should be preserved at the institutional archives of the PIs. N.B.: the key initiator and senior PI is frequently the spokesperson and the other PIs are the initial group leaders for a collaboration (other institutions may be added).

B. Other Proposals and Reports
[Table of Contents]

Additional proposals and narrative and fiscal reports should be preserved in order to obtain a clearer picture of significant collaborations—especially of kinds of expenditures and overall costs—from the perspective of individual institutions. Institutional archivists may want to determine whether or not a specific proposal file has been scheduled for permanent retention by the DOE and NSF. However, some proposal files at the home institutions will include valuable documents not held elsewhere.

General Recommendation: Proposals, narrative and financial reports, charts of accounts, and summaries should be kept for significant experiments in the archives of each of the participating university groups and the laboratories.

Recommendation—University Groups: Many universities have grants and contract offices that retain contracts, including proposals and budget, negotiations, interim reports, and changes in contracts. Those for selected high-energy physics collaborations should be transferred to university archives.

Recommendation—Laboratory Groups: Every year laboratory divisions—including those laboratory staff who constitute a group on a collaboration—submit formal requests for funding along with details on staff, equipment, past progress, proposed plans, etc. These records, along with year-end budget reports should be preserved in the laboratory archives for selected experiments.

Recommendation—Laboratories: Finally, in cases where the laboratories receive direct support from the DOE or the NSF to cover costs of major detectors for a significant multi-institutional collaboration, detailed narrative and financial reports should be preserved at the laboratory archives, along with correspondence and records of any site visits by the funding agency. Centralization of management, required by the large budgets involved, gives the laboratory greater responsibility and authority than the individual groups in the collaboration.

C. Intra-collaboration Mailings
[Table of Contents]

During the period covered by the AIP study—the 1970s and '80s—intra-collaboration mailings have become the standard procedure for virtually all experiments; responsibility for their distribution is typically assigned to the spokesperson. These mailings provide the most valuable documentation of the organizational structure and research process of multi-institutional collaborations in high-energy physics. The records are compact and increasingly found as a numbered, chronological set of "memoranda." The following are the types of records we have found:

1. Organization charts and other documents showing organizational structure
These are mostly limited to larger, more bureaucratic collaborations; they show individuals in charge of such functions as data analysis and publications. For more recent, large collaborations, one might find a substantial management plan, taking months to write and get approved.

2. Agendas and minutes of collaboration meetings
These are not generated by all collaborations.

3. Memoranda and correspondence.
After years of phone calls, these records are back again in the form of fax and, more recently, e-mail. The continued use of fax is, in part, because of the ability to include drawings. Some correspondence and memoranda through regular mail continues. The trend is toward formal memoranda, frequently numbered, and systematically distributed to all collaboration members or at least group leaders.

4. Technical reports for detector development, computer software, analysis, etc
These may be written reports, that frequently appear as memoranda, or transparencies for oral reports given at meetings (outlines and some technical drawings).

Recommendation: A complete set of intra-collaboration mailings should be preserved in one repository. Normally, this will be in the archives of the spokesperson's institution. The first step should be to try to assemble a full set from the spokesperson and other members of his or her group, filling any minor gaps from other members of the collaboration. If this fails, the approach should be repeated with a group leader; in this case, the set should be preserved in the group's institutional archives. For collaborations with more than one spokesperson, the laboratory archives may be the most appropriate repository. N.B.: Where the funding for a collaboration's large detector was provided through a DOE National Laboratory, there may be an issue of legal ownership of the records making the laboratory archives the most appropriate repository for the intra-collaboration mailings.

D. Correspondence of Spokespersons and Group Leaders (see also Section V, Professional Files of Individuals)
Correspondence between group leaders and group leaders with spokespersons are likely to contain more unvarnished thought on technical and social issues that may arise throughout an experiment. Such files become even more essential for those experiments lacking collaboration-wide mailings. In addition, the spokespersons are most likely to have significant contacts with the accelerator laboratories and funding agencies. These communications, when not by telephone, increasingly take place by e-mail.

Recommendation: Correspondence files of group leaders and spokespersons should be preserved in their institutional archives.

E. Technical Records of Collaborations
[Table of Contents]

1. Notebooks Kept by Individuals (see Section V)
2. Experiment (or "Running") Logbooks
These are the logbooks maintained by the full collaboration that track the overall functioning of the detector and provide the best chronology of data gathering.

Recommendation: Among the various types, the experiment logbooks are of greatest value. They may require the cooperation of a member of the collaboration to decipher handwriting or "translate" shop talk; we recommend a tape recorded interview by a knowledgeable historian or archivist whenever possible. We welcome the fact that some experiment logbooks—or portions of them—are being computerized. Experiment logbooks should be preserved at the accelerator laboratories.

3. Other Logbooks
Collaborations tend to generate a variety of other logbooks, the most common being the detector component logbooks (kept by institutional groups responsible for individual components of the detector). In addition, there may be logbooks for construction and testing, data analysis, and patent logbooks—kept by institutional groups, other subgroups, or individuals.

Recommendation: Logbooks (other than experiment "running" log­books) should be appraised according to the particular significance of various aspects of the experiment, e.g. logbooks on specific components of the detector that were particularly novel; analysis logbooks, where this activity was a special feature of historical interest; or patent logbooks that may have been created because of patent implications. Appraisals should be conducted by a knowledgeable archivist or historian in conjunction with a physicist familiar with the experiment. Since most of these logbooks document work on the institutional group or individual level, those (or sections of them) of archival value should be preserved at the group's institutional archives.

*4. Raw Data Tapes and Data Summary Tapes (DSTs)
Virtually all of the experiments in high-energy physics are generating data in electronic format. Raw data tapes are not useful to individuals outside the collaboration, including high-energy physicists. DSTs, on the other hand, may be of some use to high-energy physicists outside the collaboration for a limited period of time; their use probably requires accessibility to collaboration members as well as documented software.

Recommendation: DSTs should be retained for perhaps ten years to insure their availability to high-energy physicists who may want to use them for research purposes. Permanent preservation of raw data tapes and DSTs should be limited to an extremely small sample for exhibit purposes; the most appropriate repositories would be the accelerator laboratories or a science museum.

5. Computer Programs and Software
A number of accelerator facilities and experimental groups maintain computer programs and software. These "libraries" are frequently drawn on by high-energy physics collaborations who then must further develop programs and software to meet their specific needs for data gathering and analysis.

Recommendations: Future historians will be interested in documentation of the computer programs for the trigger systems on the detector and for data analysis. The full working program is not needed, only documentation sufficient to know how the software was laid out, its logic, and who did what to it. A copy of the computer program listing, often kept on microfiche, captures this information and should be preserved. In addition, software should be retained for those few raw data tapes and DSTs that are selected for preservation. The most appropriate repository is the accelerator laboratory.

*6. Other Scientific Data
Bubble chamber experiments ceased in most labs by the late 1970s, but at FNAL the last was in 1989. They produced data records in the form of films that showed tracks of particles and their interactions. These films are extremely bulky. Prior to the mid-'70s, spark chambers produced still photos with particle tracks; they now produce data on magnetic tapes (covered above). Emulsion experiments continue, producing data in the form of particle tracks in emulsion stacks that are studied with special microscopes; the stacks require special storage conditions.

Recommendation: These data should be kept in very limited quantity even for the most significant experiments to illustrate discoveries of new particles. They have some usefulness for exhibit and educational purposes; CERN, for example, has bubble chamber film exhibited on a scanning table in one of its museums. Accelerator laboratories or museums are the most appropriate repositories.

F. Audio-Visual Materials
[Table of Contents]

Photographs and, in some cases, videotape recordings help capture the process of building detector components, the final setup on the experimental floor, collaboration members with instrumentation or during meetings, and a variety of other activities.

Recommendation: Future historians and educators will be among those who will benefit from photographs and other audio-visual materials. The most appropriate repositories are the accelerator laboratories or the institutional archives of spokespersons or, in the case of some materials, individual groups of the collaboration.

*G. Papers Prepared for Publication or for Talks Given by Collaboration Members at Laboratory Meetings or at Professional Meetings on a Regional, National, or International Level
[Table of Contents]

Two noteworthy points: Papers prepared for publication are increasingly drafted, edited, and submitted in electronic format; papers prepared for talks are almost always in the form of transparencies or view-graphs.

Recommendation: Retain only if the papers are unpublished and there is an inadequate record of project progress and findings in the intra-collaboration mailings. Likely repositories are the laboratories and institutional archives of the spokespersons or groups.

H. Subcontracting Records
[Table of Contents]

We are concerned here with subcontracts to industry involving substantial or innovative research and development. The AIP study, covering experiments approved from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, found virtually no evidence of subcontracting at this level. However, we are aware that more recent collaborations, e.g., for detectors at LEP in Europe and SSC in the U.S.A., involve subcontracts to industry with substantial research and development. The laboratory or university which has the responsibility for monitoring the subcontractor has a set of files and technical reports.

Recommendation: Where substantial or innovative research and development is subcontracted to industry, an adequate record of policy, administrative, and technical activities should be preserved. For any one subcontract, the contract itself should be examined for records requirements, including periods of records retention, to be fulfilled by the corporate laboratory. This will be needed for an adequate appraisal of the records at the institution responsible for the subcontract. It may be necessary to contact the corporate laboratory to see that it is fulfilling the records requirements stipulated in the con­tract or to make arrangements to preserve other essential documentation that may have survived.

[Table of Contents]

Throughout this report we have mentioned professional files of individuals as providing invaluable documentation of collaborative research. These are primarily records of spokespersons and group leaders that contain proposals, correspondence, and memoranda. In high-energy physics, these individuals are employed primarily by accelerator laboratories and universities.

We want to make special mention of personal notebooks that many members of collaborations—on all levels, from spokespersons and group leaders to graduate students and post­docs—continue to create. These notebooks provide unique and potentially valuable evidence of significant experiments; they may, for example, contain preliminary forms of ideas and sketches of equipment for the experiment that cannot be found in the more formal logbooks shared by the entire collaboration or a subgroup.

It should be noted that—at such DOE laboratories as SLAC—some of these notebooks may be referred to as patent log­books. Patent logbooks, maintained by individuals, relate to work in creating, designing, and developing technological innovations such as accelerator or detector improvements, software, electronics, etc. The use and retention of patent logbooks is more carefully regulated than other notebooks.

Recommendations: In order to document selected significant experiments, institutional archives should pre­serve papers of spokes­persons or group leaders as they pertain to selected experiments as well as personal notebooks of archival value kept by other members of these experiments. In some cases, these papers and notebooks of a group member should be kept along with other files the individual may have of archival value; in other cases, archivists will find it more appropriate to preserve papers and notebooks of individuals on a given experiment along with other technical records of the collaboration group.

Academic archivists should continue to consider full professional files of distinguished scientists—including spokespersons and group leaders who have served on several experiments—as appropriate additions to their institutional archives. Nonacademic archives should adopt a similar approach to professional papers as a valuable supplement to case files, administrative records, and other materials narrowly defined as "institutional archives."

Institutional archivists should make a practice of identifying substantial documentation of collaborative research in finding aids and other records descriptions (as well as index terms) by the accelerator site and experiment number or name. This identification is essential for future scholars to find collaboration records intellectually, even though the physical files are scattered in various locations.

[Table of Contents]

[1] For information on historical findings, see Joel Genuth's report Part A: Report No. 4: "Historical Analysis on the Selected Experiments at U.S.A. Sites," AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics, (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[2] See Report No. 5: Sociological Analysis of Collaborations in High-Energy Physics, AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics (New York: American Institute of Physics, publication expected 1993). In addition, Leon-Guerrero has passed her Ph.D. oral qualifying examination for her dissertation on the sociological analysis of high-energy physics (November 1991). She has received an NSF doctoral award for her dissertation research. The NSF panel was particularly impressed with her ability to combine qualitative and quantitative analysis of the AIP project's interviews and the SPIRES data.

[3] See AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics, Report No. 3: Catalog of Selected Historical Materials (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[4] The reports are published as parts of AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[5] See report by Frederik Nebeker in Part E, Report No. 4: Historical Findings on Collaborations in High-Energy Physics, AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics  (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[6] See John Krige's report in Part B, Report No. 4: Historical Findings on Collaborations in High-Energy Physics, AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[7] For the complete set of recommendations, see AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High Energy Physics, Report No. 1: Summary of Project Activities and Findings / Project Recommendations (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[8] For information on the archival database and the surveys, see Part A: "Report on Project Activities," in this Report No. 2.

[9] For further information on the value of proposal files and the AIP project's recommendations, see Part D: "Appraisal Guidelines for Records of High-Energy Physics" in this Report No. 2 and also Report No. 1: Summary of Project Activities and Findings / Project Recommendations (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[10] For records located at the NSF see, Report No. 3: Catalog of Selected Historical Materials. AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[11] See Part A of this Report No. 2.

[12] The records descriptions provided by the SLAC Archives are included in AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics, Report No. 3: Catalog of Selected Historical Materials, (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[13] See AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics, Report No. 4: Historical Findings on Collaborations in High-Energy Physics, Part D: "Probe Report on History of the PSI Experiment" (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992).

[14] See Joan N. Warnow with Allan Needell, Spencer Weart, and Jane Wolff, A Study of Preservation of Documents at Department of Energy Laboratories  (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1982) and, also, Haas, Joan K., Helen Willa Samuels, and Barbara Trippel Simmons, Appraising the Records of Modern Science and Technology:  A Guide. (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1985).

[15] Two interesting reports on changes in technologies and their impact on research are "Report of the APS [American Physical Society] Task Force on Electronic Information Systems," Bulletin of the American Physical Society 36, no. 4 (April 1991): 1119-1151; and Michelson, Avra and Jeff Rothenberg, "Scholarly Communication and Information Technology: Exploring the Impact of Changes in the Research Process on Archives, The American Archivist (forthcoming).

[16] As quoted in the column, "From the Archivist of the United States," Society of American Archivists Newsletter, July 1991, p. 6.

[17] The categories of functions have been drawn from Haas et al., op. cit. note 1.

[18] See AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, Phase I: High-Energy Physics, Report No. 1: Summary of Project Activities / Project Recommendations.

RETURN to History Center HomePage or RETURN to the Publications List