Constructing Taxonomies: Surveying the Manuscript Holdings of the APS’s Center for the History of Science

^{Co-authored by Gina Surita and Adrianna Link}

Over the past several months, the APS’s Center for the History of Science has been engaged in a survey of the Library & Museum’s extant manuscript holdings related to the history of science, technology, and medicine. Prior to the founding of the Center, we knew that well over half of the APS’s manuscript collections could be categorized as relating to the history of science; however, we did not have a good sense of the disciplinary breakdown represented therein. The aims of the survey have therefore been to better understand the scope of the collections and to begin to ascertain future processing needs and acquisition opportunities.

To guide our project, we began with a spreadsheet of history of science, technology, and medicine manuscript collections compiled several years ago by Valerie-Ann Lutz, Assistant Librarian and Head of Manuscripts Processing. We then devised a taxonomy of subject categories that we differentiated into a color-coded drop-down list of primary and secondary subjects. We also created a tertiary or “write-in” category to capture any other topics of interest with greater specificity. Primary subjects represented broad categories like Engineering & Technology, Medicine, and the main branches of science (e.g., Physical Sciences, Formal Sciences, Life Sciences, etc). Secondary subjects captured specific fields within those categories; for example, under “Life Sciences,” we added Botany, Genetics, Physiology, Zoology, etc.

We employed different combinations of surveying methods, determined on a case-by-case basis according to the processing status of each collection. For fully processed collections with robust electronic finding aids, our work involved thoroughly reading through these guides (sometimes alongside additional background information/collection records) to assign subject categories. On the other hand, determining subject categories for unprocessed collections or collections with less developed electronic finding aids required us to survey the physical contents of collections and/or look up any relevant hard copies of preliminary inventories. Additionally, we consulted with relevant APS staff for guidance on collections that are currently being processed. More detailed survey work for unprocessed and minimally described collections is ongoing.

After surveying about 500 individual collections—totaling around 9,300 linear feet—we have been able to put together some preliminary data representing the scope of our manuscript materials. 107 of these 500 collections consist of material from the National Center for Science Education (about 213 linear feet in total). Because most of these collections are quite small and cover very similar subject matter (debates around the teaching of evolution), we made the decision to represent all of the separate collections related to the National Center for Science Education as a single collection in the survey so as not to skew the data heavily towards Life Sciences.

As it is, nearly half of our manuscript collections already fall under the primary category of Life Sciences (49.0%), followed by Physical Sciences (20.8%), and Medicine (11%). Periodization data indicated that most of our history of science, technology, and medicine collections contain material dating from the 20th century, followed by the 19th, and 21st. In terms of secondary subjects, Natural History and Genetics constituted the two largest topics found across our collections, followed by material related to Zoology, Botany, Earth Sciences, Evolution, and Physics.

As we continue to gather data, the history of science, technology, and medicine manuscripts survey will be instrumental for our understanding of the subject breakdown of material within the APS’s holdings. Establishing our survey categories—and discovering new categories that emerge in the process—will certainly prove useful for preparing revised history of science, technology, and medicine subject guides.

From an acquisitions perspective, the data will also be helpful for making decisions about which areas to target for future collecting. We look forward to learning how an assessment of our microfilm collections and printed materials, especially our rare books, impacts the distribution of topics and periodization.