Expressions of Intent for IPY 2007-2008 Activities

Expression of Interest Details

PROPOSAL INFORMATION

Norway and the History of the IPY/IGY (1882/83, 1932/33, 1957/58): The significance of small scientific communities in large-scale international collaboration  (History of Norway in the IPY)

Outline
The IPYs in 1882/83, in 1932/33 and the IGY in 1957/58 are of course milestones in the history of international scientific cooperation and in the history of large-scale geophysical polar research. These endeavours provide much insight into how, over time, nationally-based and internationally-coordinated research ventures were financed, organized, put into practice in the field to produce reliable data, and finally able to be transformed into scientific findings. To the extent that the history of science represents a significant part of the broader history of human-kind's intellectual achievement, the IGY entails a monumental collective achievement. IGYs history belongs naturally to collective memory of the geophysical sciences and needs to be given fuller and deeper place in these disciplines’ self-understanding. But, the IGY deserves also to be understood as part of broader histories of recent civilization. We need more than story telling and legends; we need these as well as scholarly insight. Before the IGY and the IPYs can take their proper place as part of cultural heritage, considerable historical and social science research is required. Studies of international and national scale of planning, practices, and results that allows comparative understanding over time and community will be necessary. Coordination, collaboration, and comparison among historians and social scientists of many nations will be necessary to grasp the full significance of the IPY/IGY both in their historical contexts as well as for the cultural heritage of present and coming generations. The 1957-58 IGY was one of the greatest scientific events of the past century and even of all time. Both the actual work during the IGY and the subsequent research based on IGY data, resulted in massive transformations in our understanding of the earth's physical environment. It also marked a new era in large-scale internationally-coordinated field science, which has scarcely been studied as a cognitive, social, and political phenomenon. Whereas massive international laboratory-based endeavours such as CERN have been studied as a subject in itself and with respect to the impact on science (research, pedagogy, spin-off benefits) of sponsoring nations, relatively little has been analyzed with respect to comparable 'big science' organized internationally with respect to geophysical and polar science. By taking a national focus, but in comparative perspective, it will be possible to analyze significant aspects and the meaning of the international polar/geophysical years that are lost when discussions focus too exclusively on the experiences of America and other major nations. How national institutions, disciplines, and individuals mobilized to participate in these three international endeavours provide three ‘slices’ over time for comparative analyses of various facets of local polar and geophysical science. The case of Norway is especially important as Norway at various times assumed an internationally leading role in various geophysical sciences and polar research. Norway’s importance for the international collaborative efforts entailed contributing resources in terms of disciplinary expertise, geographical ‘platform’ location, and polar know-how. But the comparative strength of Norway’s scientific resources – the number and quality of researchers – as well as the economic and technological resources available, not to mention the political will and rationale to support such endeavours varied: how and to what local and global significance could a relatively small nation contribute to the international polar/geophysical years?Historical analyses of the past IGY/IPYs will reveal how small nations endeavoured to find niches for themselves within international collaboration especially when large national actors with huge budgets and complex political agendas increasingly dominated. To what extent and how did smaller nations such as Norway influence the decision-making process as well as change its own research strategies as a consequence? Similarly how did the call for international collaboration provide opportunities for local scientists to mobilize new resources at home? What rationale was used to obtain support from the government; how did various government ministries and research councils justify support; how did the scientific community organize itself to set priorities and allocate resources? Preliminary research based on previously unstudied archival collections (individual scientists, institutions, and government ministries) related to Norwegian participation in all three international endeavours reveals much greater complexity and even complete surprises than that which the few existing published accounts provide. Members of the research community, relevant scientific institutions, and government ministries not only differed in priorities, but each internally experienced conflicting agendas with respect to IPY/IGY participation. As in the case of recent historical scholarship on America’s IGY participation, subtle and not so subtle political considerations also entered into Norwegian IGY activities. Even back in the 1880s ‘science for its own sake’ was infused with political implications as nations competed for the right to be considered ‘civilised’ and sought honour by showing their ‘fitness’ to contribute to the advance of knowledge. Understanding comparatively the politics of declared non-political international scientific collaborations might well shatter well-entrenched legend and self-understanding, but in the end such illumination will help bring greater realism for research communities and policy maker alike.IPY/IGY entails much more than politics, resources, and scientific results. What scientific and social practices were necessary to carry out the research programs? What scientific and technical skills as well as personal-social resources were necessary to maintain a research station over an extended period and obtain reliable results in the field? Whether Axel Steen in Bossekop and Sophus Tromholt in Kautokeino during the first IPY or the occupants of ‘Norway Station’ in Queen Maud Land during the IGY, we need to understand how the Norwegian researchers and support personnel organized their field stations, planned their scientific programmes, obtained reliable instruments, and actually carried out the work. What types of ‘know-how’ were involved and how were these acquired? How did these differ from other national expeditions and field practices?To what extent did the IPY/IGY serve as a conduit to encourage exchanges of field work know-how, disciplinary expertise, and collaborative analyses of results across national boundaries? Did these international ventures enhance cross-fertilization of national traditions for ‘how to do’ polar and geophysical research? In this respect it will be especially important to see what Norway actually contributed and gained from participating in these large-scale cooperative international projects. Did the IPY/IGY prompt Norwegian scientists to collaborate in new ways among themselves and with foreign colleagues, learn new research practices, and also gain new skills for negotiating with public authorities? To what extent did the IPY/IGY result in greater public awareness and understanding of science in Norway; and, as in all other aspects of this history, how did the national experience differ from those of other nations?What actually did happen and why – there are no substitutes for detailed historical and social science analyses based on study of original published and unpublished documents as well as artefacts, such as instruments and even field sites. New York Times’ then science correspondent Walter Sullivan wrote what remains the most comprehensive overview of the IGY: IGY – Assault on the Unknown: The International Geophysical Year (1961). Although rich in anecdote and journalistic detail – and still an invaluable resource – the book hardly fills the need for scholarly overview. The IPYs have been treated in overview by a number of authors, but have yet to receive adequate historical study. Because professional historians of science have in the past largely – but not totally – neglected field sciences and contemporary science, neither the IPYs/IGY nor the various geophysical and polar sciences received extensive study internationally. The few detailed historical excavations into IPY/IGY history reveal more questions than we have answers. In Norway where professional research in history of science is a recent development, the opposite has been the case: polar and geophysical sciences have received prominent attention. This situation provides an encouraging starting point for organizing a national endeavour linked to comparable international projects for a scholarly collaborative venture to make sense of the IPY/IGY.

What significant advance(s) in relation to the IPY themes and targets can be anticipated from this project?
The project will contribute to the fulfilment of the goals in Theme 4 and 6 of the IPY Framework. A historical study of the of IPYs from 1882 will discuss and explain the goals, practices, and achievements of previous IPYs. In this way the project hopefully will contribute to transforming the IPYS into cultural heritage and furthering the public understanding of science.

What international collaboration is involved in this project?
The project will join comparable initiatives to establish an international research network. We have had a late start in formal planning of a national project because of intense work right through most of fall 2004 leading to the publication of Norwegian Polar History. But based on encouraging informal discussions and brainstorming both locally and with international colleagues during the past three years we have good reason to believe we can create strong networks on national, Nordic, and international levels to foster collaborative effort to study the IPY/IGY. Friedman, trained and earlier professor in USA, has strong connections with American and European historians of science. Friedman was one of the organizers, together with Sörlin (Sweden) and Wråkberg (Sweden), of the Nordic Research Council supported research network, “The Northern Space: The Nordic nations and polar research,” The major researchers in the group also included scholars from Denmark and Great Britain; the programme hosted four international workshops on the history and anthropology of polar science that brought European and North American scholars together. This network will be called upon in organizing collaboration. Drivenes, as one of the editors of Norwegian Polar History, of course has comprehensive view of potential Norwegian historians, social scientists, and natural scientists, who could contribute; and himself was guest researcher at Scott Polar Institute for extended periods, and thereby establishing contacts with historians and social scientists at the institute as well as other visiting scholars. At the 2002 Kirkenes conference, “Arctic Encounters: Cooperation and Conflict in the Arctic in the 19th and 20th Centuries,” we discussed with Russian, American, and Canadian colleagues the agreed upon need to create a broad international network for IPY/IGY history. Two of the participants, National Science Foundation’s Fae Korsmo and historian of American Cold War geophysics, Ron Doel, who both have already made significant contributions to IGY history, expressed strong interest in collaborating with any Norwegian project and to help further links with North American efforts. We hope to work with other networks. We have been in touch with Cornelia Ludecke (Hamburg/Munich) and Sverker Sörlin/Michael Bravo (Stockholm/Cambridge),who are proposing relevant projects, and all agree upon collaboration. Certainly other national and trans-national proposals of relevance are being submitted; we hope to collaborate with these. And lacking sufficient organized projects, we will contact relevant historians in other nations, including outside Europe-America, to locate scholars with whom we might compare studies. We hope in the coming months to formalize contacts with several particularly relevant scholars. Friedman has been invited to SPRI to discuss Norwegian collaboration with Bravo & Sörlin.

FIELD ACTIVITY DETAILS

Geographical location(s) for the proposed field activities:
Archives in Europe and North America. Some field work may be desirable with respect to comparative understanding of field stations and practices in the field. Collaboration is anticipated with Bravo & Sörlin’s proposal, “Polar field stations and IPY History.” The degree of necessity for field work will first emerge once detailed study of published and unpublished documents has begun.

Approximate timeframe(s) for proposed field activities:
Arctic: TBC            
Antarctic: n/a

Significant facilities will be required for this project:
See 2.1

Will the project leave a legacy of infrastructure?
A website linking projects in the network will make it possible to present and share the quantitative and qualitative data.Together with other historical projects, this work will provide in the form of data and scholarly publications a reservoir of information and insight able to be used for print and other media efforts for popularizing science and creating educational materials. Not the least with respect to the epoch-making IGY, the legacy of this and related projects will provide a foundation for future studies for comprehending this milestone in the history of science. Just as in the case of the ‘Scientific Revolution’ in early modern time and the creation of quantum physics, the IGY deservingly will attract the attention of historians and social scientists for decades to come. The project will provide better foundations for the decision-making on IPYs in the future.

How is it envisaged that the required logistic support will be secured?

Has the project been "endorsed" at a national or international level?
Some information about the initiative has been given to a conference in Tromsø, arranged by The Norwegian National Committee for Polar Science.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND STRUCTURE

Is the project a short-term expansion (over the IPY 2007-2008 timeframe) of an existing plan, programme or initiative or is it a new autonomous proposal?

The project is a new programme. It has however been of great interest for the lead investigators for some time in connection with the three volume work, Norwegian Polar History finished in 2004 with Einar-Arne Drivenes and Harald Dag Jølle as editors. Robert Marc Friedman has written two chapters in volume 2. In one of the chapters Friedman has described some of the political history of the Norwegian involvement in the IGY in 1957/58 as well as some of the expeditions in connection with the IGY. Friedman began studying the first two IPYs in connection with his contribution to Making Sense of Space: The History of Norwegian Space Activities and for the Nordic project, “The Northern Space.” Friedman will be working with the Forum for University History, which is producing a 6 volume history of the University of Oslo, and expects to include a focus on traditions of polar and geophysical research from late 19th-century through the Cold War. Forum’s activities and results will provide an important resource but by no means precludes or conflicts with a separate multi-institutional initiative for IPY/IGY history.

How will the project be organised and managed?
The lead investigators hold permanent position at the University of Tromsø and the University of Oslo. A loose network structure allows individual sub-projects to organise their own activities. The number of PIs will be small, but other researchers will be encouraged to affiliate and of course close contact with other relevant historical and social science projects is anticipated. An annual seminar at The University of Tromsø/University of Oslo starting in 2006 will address common scientific topics. It is anticipated that participants will also attend conferences hosted by relevant projects in other nations. Oslo or Tromsø might also be able to host one such international workshop for discussing works-in-progress.

What are the initial plans of the project for addressing the education, outreach and communication issues outlined in the Framework document?
The seminar at University of Tromsø/University of Oslo will involve doctoral candidates and researchers outside the network. Efforts will be made to inform the public about the project (through papers and the mass media) and to co-ordinate with other national projects in outreach.

What are the initial plans of the project to address data management issues (as outlined in the Framework document)?
The seminar and attendance at internationally coordinating conferences will provide an opportunity to compare methodologies and the website will provide a way to link studies in the national and international networks.

How is it proposed to fund the project?
Through national funding agencies.

Is there additional information you wish to provide?
100 words maxWe have had a late start in formal planning of a national project because of intense work right through most of fall 2004 leading to the publication of Norwegian Polar History. But based on encouraging informal discussions and brainstorming both locally and with international colleagues during the past two years we have good reason to believe we can create strong networks on national, Nordic, and international levels to foster collaborative effort to study the IPY/IGY. We also hope to have ongoing contact with Norwegian natural scientists as well as interviewing researchers who were engaged with IGY.

PROPOSER DETAILS

Associate Professor Einar-Arne Drivenes
University of Tromsø
Department of History
9037 Tromsø
Norway

Tel: 47-77644353
Mobile: 47-97669049
Fax: 47-77645790
Email:

Other project members and their affiliation

Other Information