Field Book Project

The Method

By Christina V. Fidler, Museum Archivist, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology

Joseph Grinnell with Skull, 1930, by G.E. Hoover, http://arctos.database.museum/media/10008377

“The Journal, written in pen at the end of every day, would be considerably fuller and neater, her notes organized, sorted out, edited, expanded, with detailed observations of behavior recorded at the back, on separate pages for each individual species. For the Journal, and for Species Accounts, she created a narrative, free of sentiment or much personal reflection—a scientific document, not a diary, but with the skeleton of facts dressed in the clothes of complete sentences, so as to be readable by any stranger looking over her shoulder. All manner of facts might prove important to a student of the future, this was Grinnell's belief. Nothing in nature should be assumed insignificant.”

Much has been written about Joseph Grinnell’s methodical standard for taking notes, better known as the Grinnell method, but the fictional short story written by Molly Gloss is probably my favorite. It’s titled, The Grinnell Method. I can’t resist the romantic interpretation of Grinnell’s perfected method. I especially love how the Grinnell method is the constant, the order behind this protagonist’s wandering life.

Robert C. Stebbins illustrated field notes, 1947 http://bscit.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mvz_volume_query?special=page&scan_directory=v1626_s6&section_order=6&page=57&orig_query=459936.

The Grinnell Method is a comprehensive approach to recording observations and activity in the field and is recognized internationally as a standard in field note taking. Field notes consist of the Journal, Species Accounts, and the Catalogue. Maps, drawings and photos of localities and specimens are expected. Grinnell had standardized the method by 1908, when he was established as the first director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California Berkeley (MVZ). His earlier field notebooks contain similar header information as outlined by the method but the standard sized paper and headers aren't consistent until 1908. The museum still follows the method today, including the paper size.

From an archives perspective, the uniformity of the data makes it easier to catalog geographic locations and more importantly, the historic field notes have been the foundation for resurveys conducted by the MVZ. You can learn more about the Grinnell Method on the MVZ website.

The majority of the MVZ archival collections consist of field notes. As I'm sure the Field Book Project can attest to, working with field notes is both fascinating and complex. There is a wealth of data stored in and related to the pages bound (or unbound) in the notebooks. One focus of the MVZ’s three-year Hidden Collections grant from the Council for Library and Information Resources is to try to link our existing resources to our archival finding aids in a dynamic and new way.

The MVZ has a number of field notes scanned as part of an earlier grant. They are located on the MVZ Field Notebook site. Additionally, the MVZ utilizes Arctos, a multi-institutional specimen database, to manage its specimen collections in addition to other data related to collecting events. Because our data are available online, I can link them through various finding aid notes. Primarily I utilize the Related Archival Materials note and the Existence of Copies note. The Charles H. Richardson finding aid is an example of how a finding aid can incorporate references to specimen data and digitized material.

Screenshot of how finding aid notes are used to link materials.

We are still perfecting our own methods for making these connections. We’re also looking at ways in which Arctos can link back to the finding aid for a two-way match. This is just the start of the grant and I hope that future developments include more innovative ways of bringing all of the data together.

Readers can keep up with the MVZ Hidden Collections Project by visiting the MVZ Archives blog.


References
Gloss, Molly. “The Grinnell Method.” Strange Horizons. September 3, 2012. http://www.strangehorizons.com/2012/20120903/grinnell-f.shtml.

Related Links
http://books.google.com/books?id=GiADAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA163&ots=30WFxwp-Xh&dq=The%20Methods%20and%20Uses%20of%20a%20Research%20Museum&pg=PA164#v=onepage&q&f=false (The Methods and Uses of a Research Museum, by Joseph Grinnelll)

http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1977AFN.PDF (On Taking Field Notes, by James V.  Remsen Jr.)

http://gk12calbio.berkeley.edu/lessons/fieldnoteguide.pdf (Guide used in UC Berkeley’s IB104 class)

The Digital Specimen, Field Book, and Publication Trifecta

Burying Members of the Franklin Expedition at Starvation Cove, c. 1924. Smithsonian Institution Archives, Science Service Records, RU 007091, Box 409, Folder 2. 2005-8639.

By Lesley Parilla, Field Book Project, with contributions from Bianca Crowley, BHL Collections Coordinator

The Field Book Project (FBP) and the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) are pleased to bring you a joint blog series showcasing some of the best examples of digital connections between museum specimens, field book catalog records, and the resulting publications for three notable expeditions. This four part series will continue over the coming months. Ever wonder what it takes to understand the full story of historical expedition science? Read on!

It’s safe to say, everyone has an idea of what an expedition is; I hope all will agree when I say they are fascinating. Expeditions can be a thrilling story of exploration, national pride, thrill-seeking, and personal drama. They have been organized for a myriad of political or personal reasons; whatever these may have been, expeditions frequently yield natural history observations and specimens. Expeditions are also a wonderful source of information about biodiversity. Since expedition participants usually come from multiple institutions and disciplines, more collecting is often possible. This can result in a specimen collection of greater breadth and variety than a typical collecting event. With these characteristics, an expedition can prove a fascinating story and an important source of scientific documentation.

So I’ve been thinking it would be interesting to look at the Field Book Project’s expedition content. FBP was inspired by the challenges a researcher experienced tracking down specimens and field books from an expedition. Those experiences helped shape the cataloging structure FBP developed. We create catalog records for field books, their collections, and their creators (persons, organizations, and expeditions). Since we started, we have cataloged field books from 103 expeditions, some involving well-known individuals or documenting the first time an area was thoroughly studied.

Theodore Roosevelt on African Expedition, 1909. Smithsonian Institution Archives, RU 00095, Box 56, Folder 10. SIA2009-1371.

On December 19th, FBP catalog records were made available through the Smithsonian’s Collection Search Center. This has created what I like to think of as the trifecta. What constitutes the trifecta? There are three major parts to natural history documentation that have proven important to researchers with whom we’ve worked: (1) the specimens, (2) the field books created when specimens were collected, and (3) the publications that resulted from their study. The Smithsonian Institution maintains online databases for many of their specimens. As BHL blog readers know, Smithsonian Libraries has also contributed to the Biodiversity Heritage Library to provide digitized versions of the publications for free access online. The FBP now offers online descriptions of the individual primary documents. The trifecta is growing for a number of Smithsonian sponsored expeditions and collecting events. A researcher now has a better chance of locating a specimen, its related field book, and a publication that cites it.

As a Field Book Project cataloger, I am thrilled to see the last element of the trifecta, our records, now available. While cataloging, we often verify information like location names by searching for digitized publications the creator may have written based on the field books. I find it fascinating to see how a publication can be informed by a primary document and vice versa. A researcher may be able to determine what a creator saw as significant about the collecting through the publication, and see the day-to-day work that the creator used to come to that conclusion in the field book.

Researching an Expedition

Reid Inlet, Glacier Bay 1899. Taken during the Harriman Alaska Expedition of 1899. Smithsonian Institution Archives. RU 007243 Box 1, Folder 2. 1558_Image_RU7243_Box1_Harriman-13.

What is so challenging about researching specimens and documentation from a historical expedition? When an expedition ends, it can eventually fall from the public consciousness. The specimens and documentation might then be divided. At the very least, specimens go to each institution whose staff collected it. Specimens and documentation may be separated again by type and sent to different departments within an institution (e.g. mammal specimens go to mammalogy, bird specimens to ornithology). The fact that they were collected during the same expedition may not be recorded with each handoff. Each separation makes it harder to guarantee that the expedition connection is still evident.

Publications resulting from expeditions also run a high risk of losing an explicit expedition connection. Book catalog records do not always indicate that a publication documents a certain expedition. A researcher looking for resulting publications might have to search for participants as authors, looking for a period of time after the expedition was completed, then read the publication itself to verify the content is relevant.

Some of these issues, like discovery of expedition related publications, may seem pretty straightforward, but this type of search assumes that the researcher knows who took part in the expedition.

How expeditions are documented

Expedition documentation varies widely. In recent years, some universities and museums have used the general appeal of expeditions to highlight some of their own collections online. These can be wonderfully informative websites, but usually only cover a few expeditions of significance to the home institution.

The Smithsonian Institution, as part of its initiative to be a provider of public history, has a detailed list of Smithsonian related expeditions available as an online guide that covers 1878 – 1917, compiled from Smithsonian Annual Reports. The Institution’s annual reports have a long tradition of discussing any major fieldwork. Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA) also maintains more than 150 individual expedition records. These records are at varied levels of completeness, since Annual Reports sometimes only mention the name of a collecting effort if it was small.

Over the last two years, FBP has documented 103 expeditions relating to field notes. Several were not in the extensive list already kept by SIA, but deeply buried in personal or departmental papers. These can be rich resources, but a researcher would usually not know the information was there without reading the materials, despite the detailed finding aids SIA generates every year.

Researching an expedition is like untangling a very large knot. FBP, BHL, and museum divisions work to increase online documentation so researchers can find the right string to pull. This is by no means a finished process; many of us know what a gnarly tangle the search through materials can become. The digitization of the specimen, field book, and publication trifecta can only serve to ease the burden of this twisted ravel of biology, personal history and published record, helping us and our researchers to find the connections.

Reflections or Sayonara Sonoe

By Sonoe Nakasone, Cataloging Coordinator, Field Book Project

It was a sweltering hot summer afternoon when the phone, weak from the D.C. heat, gave a woozy ring.

“Alright, kid, you’re in.  You start Monday.”  It was the voice of Tammy Peters, Supervisory Archivist at Smithsonian Institution Archives.  “Bring your smarts, kid, ‘cause you’re gonna need ‘em.” *Click.*

Surprised, I stood like stone clenching the phone, dial tone droning in the background after Tammy hung up.  “Cataloging Coordinator,” I thought.  “This should be interesting.”

My first few days working for the Field Book Project flew by in a blur until the day Carolyn Sheffield, Project Manager, decided it was time for an initiation.  On that day, she led me deep into the bowels of the National Museum of Natural History through a dark winding hall.  We were half way between the ocean floor and the earth’s core when I saw a light beckon from our destination: The Botany and Horticulture Library. 

“You get used to the walk,” she smirked.

We crept along the stacks until we reached the rows where field books lay each as strange as the next.  I saw one with at least two other books bound inside it.  Another was as large as an elephant and filled with photos.  Others were small enough to fit into a mouse’s breast pocket.  The writing in some was as intricate and decorative as a medieval manuscript, and in others, scratchier than a chicken’s claws.  Within the first five minutes of this journey, I could tell smooth sailing wasn’t ahead.

*             *             *

Okay, so it didn’t really happen like that, but I did become Cataloging Coordinator on the Field Book Project in the uncomfortably hot summer of 2010.  At that time, we had zero catalog records and agreements with only the Department of Botany and the Smithsonian Institution Archives to catalog field books.  But we also had the hope and the inspiring vision of our Principle Investigators Rusty Russell and Anne Van Camp that if we built it—by “it” we mean the workflows, cataloging infrastructure, and Field Book Registry—they would come.

Field Book Project Team, 2012

And they did.  We now have nearly 7,000 item level records from the Departments of Botany and Entomology, the Divisions of Birds, Fishes, and Mammals, Smithsonian Libraries, and the Smithsonian Institution Archives.  In addition to our item records, we have records describing the collections these items belong to and records describing the persons, organizations, and expeditions that created the field notes.

Two and a half years has not only brought about the realization of our cataloging goals, we’ve also enjoyed sharing with our supporters what we learn from the field notes through our blog, Flickr, Twitter, and our Website.  This has enabled us to form partnerships and develop educational and outreach opportunities we wouldn’t have otherwise.

As interesting as the individual stories that each field book tells are, what I find far more compelling is the overarching story of access to information and building bridges between similar and related information.  Although I will no longer be working for the Field Book Project, I look forward to seeing great things to come, for example, crowdsourcing and the Semantic Web. 

With so much information and so few resources to make sense of it, crowdsourcing is the way to go.  “Citizen Scientists” and enthusiasts can transcribe digitally imaged field notes to make them keyword searchable for researchers.  Transcription also enables tools like Taxon Finder to identify and tag scientific names in the field books or similar tools to recognize geographic names and entity names (e.g. persons, organizations, and expeditions).  Once these names are recognized, other tools can be built to link those names to existing information (like in Encyclopedia of Life or SNAC) on the web or prompt visitors to annotate transcriptions (e.g. So You Think You Can Digitize), geotag, or create an authority record for entities.  Data visualizations such as mappings, word graphs, time lines, and many others will also be made easier by transcription and crowdsourcing.  Such visualizations present the data in a way that is easy to grasp at a glance, but also allows us to see trends and relationships we might not otherwise see.  

From my favorite field book collection: Constantine S. Rafinesque's Notes N. 17, pages 64 and 65, 1818, RU 007250. SIA2012-6075.

There is also potential for the Field Book Project metadata to become part of the Semantic Web.  Natural Collections Description (NCD), which FBP uses for collection level descriptions, and Metadata Objects Description Schema (MODS), which FBP uses for item level data, are being enhanced with  Research Description Framework (RDF), one of the key components of the Semantic Web.   In a nutshell, the use of the RDF data model will enable connections between data from different schemas, platforms, and applications.  More information on RDF is found at http://www.w3.org/RDF/.

Needless to say, I’ll be keeping an eye on the exciting things happening here at the Field Book Project, and I hope you will too because this project is Seriously Amazing.

That said, perhaps I should exit the way I came…

*             *             *

As the sun set on a cold February Friday, its gold-red light blanketed my badge, lying stoically on my empty desk.  I picked up my box of things and headed for the door.  A sound from behind made me turn.  It was Tammy’s footsteps as she walked out of her office slowly.  With half her mouth smiling and a twinkle in her eye she said, “You did good, kid.  You did good.”

Field Report: 2/19/2013

• Audio, Video, and PDF’s, Oh My! The Smithsonian Institution Archives launched several enhanced finding aids that include direct links to digitized content. Check out these three fully digitized field books of Edward Chapin. [via The Bigger Picture]
• The Smithsonian Collections Search Center is celebrating their 500th blog post this month! Read some of their favorite posts. [via Smithsonian Collections Blog]
• How to link specimen data to digitized content is an ongoing conversation. Our friends at the Henderson Field Notes Project ask, “What gets linked to global unique identifiers (GUIDs) in natural history collections digitization?” [via So You Think You Can Digitize]

Flash! Laysan Albatross Courtship

Illustration of two Laysan albatrosses displaying courtship behavior, artist unknown, Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program, 1961-1973. SIA2011-1357.

Field Books of the Secretaries

By Lesley Parilla, Field Book Project

Last August, G. Wayne Clough, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, contributed a guest blog post discussing the legacy of field research at the Smithsonian. He touched on his own background of field work when he was a professor. My curiosity was piqued by the post. The Smithsonian has a long history of field research; is this also to be found in the careers of past Secretaries? I knew that many of the Smithsonian Secretaries, especially among the first, were scientists. How many other Smithsonian Secretaries personally shared in this legacy of field research, and consequently had created field notes?

You might wonder why I find this point of field research completed by Smithsonian Secretaries to be so important. It stems from the fact that the Smithsonian, in profound ways, has been shaped by the people who run it. It was founded with a laudable but vague mission to, “increase and diffuse knowledge among men.” It could have fulfilled this in many ways—as a national library, university, observatory, to name a few. There were a multitude of options, and from the very beginning officials at the Smithsonian endeavored to shape it into a cohesive entity to fulfill this mission. Their interests guided Smithsonian collections, and their professional associations shaped long term relationships with federal agencies as well as the public. Secretaries, especially in the early years of the Smithsonian, were fundamental in determining how the institution completed its mission.

When one looks through the backgrounds of the Secretaries, it is telling that the majority of them came from a scientific background, and that many of the earliest worked in natural history. 10 out of the last twelve Secretaries have a background in the sciences.

• Joseph Henry: Secretary 1846 - 1878 (physics)
• Spencer Fullerton Baird: Secretary 1878 - 1887 (ornithology, ichthyology)
• Samuel Pierpont Langley: Secretary 1887 - 1906 (astrophysics)
• Charles Doolittle Walcott: Secretary 1907 - 1927 (paleontology)
• Charles Greeley Abbot: Secretary 1928 - 1944 (astrophysics)
• (Frank) Alexander Wetmore: Secretary 1945 - 1954 (ornithology, avian paleontology)
• Leonard Carmichael: Secretary 1953 - 1964 (experimental psychology with primates)
• S. Dillon Ripley: Secretary 1964 - 1984 (ornithology)
• Robert McCormick Adams: Secretary 1984 - 1994 (archaeology and anthropology)
• G. Wayne Clough: Secretary since 2008 (civil engineering)

So where are the field books of the Smithsonian Secretaries? I have cataloged several collections of field notes from Smithsonian Secretaries, but several possible collections of Secretaries’ field notes seem conspicuously absent. This kind of search seems to be an ongoing theme for several of our blog posts. It highlights one of my favorite aspects of archives. Archival materials are unique, primary documents and are the product of a creator in a specific place and time. My rather esoteric statement simply means that a person’s papers usually reside in a location that makes sense with when and where the materials were created. A researcher frequently must know where a creator worked and studied to figure out what organization houses the creator’s materials. Additionally, in some cases, a creator will donate his personal papers to an institution that had special meaning to him. If you search for the field notes of Smithsonian Secretaries, you’ll see what I mean. Smithsonian frequently has the field books of the earliest Secretaries, because they were often closely affiliated with the Smithsonian for decades before taking the post as its head. Many of them worked with government agencies like US Geological Survey or US Department of Agriculture that worked closely with Smithsonian departments. Later Secretaries did not always have the same kind of long term relationship with the Institution prior to accepting the position. Thus, their field notes are with alma maters, favored institutions, or societies like American Philosophical Society who holds the papers of Leonard Carmichael.

The Smithsonian has a wonderful legacy in scientific field work that is demonstrated even in the personal endeavors of individuals who led the institution. It is a legacy that we at the Field Book Project are pleased to support.

To learn more about the history of the Smithsonian Secretaries, we encourage you to visit the Smithsonian Institution Archives website.

Flash! Disembarking, San José, Guatemala

Disembarking, San San José, Guatemala. Photograph taken by Mary Agnes Chase or A. S. Hitchcock, documenting field work, circa 1898-1903. SIA2012-4621.

Lost and Found: Book Curses and Positive Reinforcement

By Lesley Parilla, Field Book Project

Field Book of A. H. Howell, housed in the Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History. howell_a_h_192504-192506-1.

When I was in graduate school earning my MLIS, one of my favorite courses was on the history of books. One of the more memorable lectures in the class was on illuminated manuscripts and the book curses sometimes written in them. Scribes worked in difficult conditions for months or years at a time to create one-of-a-kind works. As a result, sometimes scribes would write warnings in the books, to discourage individuals from stealing or harming the labor-intensive creations.

The idea of a curse to protect one's texts appears to go back millenia.  One of the oldest known curses comes from the library at Ninevah, c. 668 to 627 BCE:

I have transcribed upon tablets the noble products of the work of the scribe which none of the kings who have gone before me had learned, together with the wisdom of Nabu insofar as it existeth [in writing]. I have arranged them in classes, I have revised them and I have placed them in my palace, that I, even I, the ruler who knoweth the light of Ashur, the king of the gods, may read them. Whosoever shall carry off this tablet, or shall inscribe his name on it, side by side with mine own, may Ashur and Belit overthrow him in wrath and anger, and may they destroy his name and posterity in the land.

There are few modern works comparable to the medieval texts, but these warnings came to mind when I found notes in some of field books to those who might find or otherwise come into possession of them. Most of these notes look to use positive reinforcement. For example, some offer rewards. Lester F. Ward who worked for the US Geological Survey, wrote in the front cover of his field book (October 29, 1893 to June 4, 1897):

Two dollars reward will be paid to anyone returning this book, if lost, to Lester F. Ward, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C.

Other field books, like those of the US Biological Survey, were issued with return postage on a perforated sheet, so someone could simply mail it back postage paid.

Page from field book of Gary L. Ranck in Iran, 1962–1963. Housed at the Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History.

When reading these notes in the field books, I remember learning about the amount of time and conditions in which the medieval scribes worked. They also remind me of quotes in the field books about swarms of insects, adverse weather, and difficult travel conditions. Field books may not be as visually arresting, but they often document the same level of effort, time, and dedication. So if you have the opportunity to handle one, please handle with care.

Flash! Barbour, Wortman, and Gidley

Erwin Hinckley Barbour, J.L. Wortman, and James William Gidley on paleontological expedition. Circa 1900-1935. SIA2011-1415.