#hoener

This week I spent some quality time the the microfilm machine, skimming and scanning research correspondence from the Botany and Plant Pathology Department Records (RG 054). I’ve been steadily (but slowly) reviewing the materials in our collections to learn more about OSU’s research history into hops and brewing, but also to learn more about the types of records we have for researchers. I’ve written about this before, but I always have access and digitization and use on the brain when I review collections.

I really don't dislike microfilm that much, but for those who have used this special media format you know that the quality of the scans can be pretty poor and the order on the reels can be pretty wonky. There was a certain time period when archivists microfilmed records and destroyed the original paper to save space and preserve the information on (what seemed like) an unstable medium (paper). We have some pretty important records now living their life on film... I vociferously curse those who microfilmed (and destroyed) the original correspondence from our first presidents, because they sort of deserve my wrath, but I will admit to doing a bit of whining about these sorts of pages as well ->

Are you saying "What? Sorry, that's a bit unclear..." For me it's worse than flowery cursive when you want to skim or trying to read French with my remedial language skills. However, there are always those things that aren't murky... 

I was working with scanned documents that were sometimes questionable in quality, but also with memos and reports referencing projects from the 1940s and 1950s I was unfamiliar with, people who worked here during that time that I couldn’t quite place in the organizational structure, people who worked in Corvallis but not for OSU during that time, subjects that I was unfamiliar with, and terminology that might as well have been a different language (or in bold, smeared, mimeographed typeface).

I also found that sometimes things that I could read, but that weren’t all that helpful, such as this memo I saved on my computer with the file name "most unhelpful memo ever" -> 

So while I can complain about all the things I am lacking (clear scans, an org chart, scientific knowledge), I can also appreciate what I have: the perspective of hindsight. I know how this story ends.

I found a couple of interesting examples to show the benefit of our hindsight. One is a memo from Dr. DD Hill, head of the Department of Farm Crops, to Dr. DC Mote, head of the Department of Entomology. Dr. Hill has run into the "expected research without proper funding" issue. He writes ->

The Brewers agreed to make pilot brews from five to ten samples per year and it is expected that for the next year or so most of the samples will be from the entomological work. They are reluctant however, to allocate any of the research funds for maintaining a graduate student in entomology.

You can tell he is frustrated by the reluctance to fund what is clearly essential for this research, but he also offers an interesting bit of personal feeling: embarrassment. 

From our 2013 perspective we know that funding is still an issue for research at OSU, but that research relating to hops and brewing is seeing a run of good times with strong programs and partnerships with the brewing industries. 

Here is a great letter from 1952 written by FE Connery, who is the Chairman of the United State Brewing Foundation (USBF) Sub-Committee for Hop Research and employee of Ballantine & Sons. The USBF is funding a chunk of this research and funneling research results to breweries for "on the scene" testing. I like this one because it allows us to reflect on the role of the brewing industry in the research going on at OSU. We know that there is a benefit to a united hop research effort, and from my vantage point, "uniting" can be complicated when you try to merge the interests of "big beer" and "craft brew." But that's for another post...  

In this letter we see Connery writing to RS Besse, who is the Associate Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station. Besse has been somewhat tardy with his reports and Connery is going to offer some suggestions to go with his reprimands. 

The first is to be concise, be brief, but put it all in the report. 

As far as the bimonthly progress reports are concerned, brevity will be appreciated, but the reports must be to the point and contain concrete information, with supporting data, either in the form of graphs, tabulations, or specific information as to the type of work being conducted and on what samples.

...but keep it brief. And do it quickly. 

I realize all the well that a major part of the time must be spent in conducting research work if productive results are to be forthcoming; however, you must also realize that we of the brewing industry, wish to have close contact with the work being done so that we may be part of it and may be fully informed on any and all developments.

The final point, and in my mind one that might have come before paragraph five in this memo, is "please actually write the reports." 

To the best of my knowledge the last report put out by your investigators was the June 1950 report covering the 1949 crop. Here it is early in 1952 and as yet I have not received a report of the 1950 work.

But even if I know how the story ends, I was (once again) struck by how much things stay the same even when names and dates on memos change. As is sometimes the case for my own work, there were times when I felt like I was drowning in the Murky Waters of Administravia. 

For all our clearly typewritten emails and high definition photographs, we still struggle with communication -- and we still flub up and not everyone feels like they had their due spot at the table. I noticed several instances of crossed communication in these records, which led me to believe that though the subject matter was complicated for me, the organizational structure was tough for those who were working in it. To keep this long story (not very) short, there were lots of different people and departments and agencies working on lots of different pieces. And sometimes they just did a crappy job of sharing with each other. 

I found this memo from one person on campus (Dr. SM Dietz, chair of Botany & Plant Pathology at OSU), to someone in Maryland (Dr. DM Crooks, head Horticulturalist in Charge of Division of Tobacco Medicinal and Special Crops for the USDA in Maryland), about being overlooked for a meeting with some people on the OSU campus (those named below as well as Dr. GR Hoerner, Extension Hops Specialist). 

For reference, these people were actually working in the same small town, mere buildings away from each other! But you can imagine how it must have felt to be Dr. Dietz, new to his job and being excluded from a meeting with a bunch of people it probably would have been helpful to talk with in the same room. 

So I am thankful for those who saved these records, even if they did so by microfilming them. There's so much information even in this small reel -- including a fabulously informative 1949 summary report on all the research activities of the Oregon Hops Research Program.