Episode 4: What information did permanent recorder cards contain?

Even the most cursory comparison of permanent recorder cards produced by different Rockefeller-endowed organizations reveals that the types of information added to these documents could differ significantly. To a large extent, record-keeping practices varied according to how each organization perceived the awards it granted. These different perspectives were reflected in the very layout of the cards.

The cards created at the Rockefeller Foundation remained heterogenous for quite a while: some listed one piece of information after another without a pattern (figure 14), others used patterns created to serve other ends (figure 15), while on the other side of the Atlantic, the
pre-printed forms ordered locally by the Rockefeller Foundation’s Paris office had their own layout (figure 16).

Figure 14: First page of a permanent record card created in 1919 for an award granted by the China Medical Board. The lack of an organized layout was typical of cards from the period.

Figure 15: First page of a permanent recorder card created for an award granted in 1919 by the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Board. The card layout had originally been designed for recording data on field staff, whence the presence of “Education of Wife” and “Geographic Field Preferred” fields, as well as sections for recording an individual’s health status, educational history, previous stipend amounts, etc. The Rockefeller Foundation’s Division of Medical Education occasionally used this same layout for its first cards.

Figure 16: First page of a permanent recorder card created at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Paris office for an award granted by the International Health Board. A separate card was created for the same award at the Foundation’s New York headquarters, using the International Health Board layout shown above.

Starting in the mid-1920s, in parallel with their adoption as a systematic means of tracking key information on awards and recipients, permanent recorder cards gradually became more standardized. To some extent, the visual and typographical structure came to resemble that of the Paris office card pictured above. This emerging structure, which would remain in use until 1970, was designed to capture two distinct categories of information. One section recorded basic facts on each award and its recipient (name, age, dates, etc.). Another (which was briefly titled “Movements”) kept tabs on a recipient’s activities both during the award term and after it had been completed. Still, the adoption of a common card structure did not mean that all Rockefeller-endowed organizations suddenly began using the same card layout, recorded the same pieces of information, or even sought to capture the same types of information. Rather, different organizations took one of two distinct approaches to filling out permanent recorder cards.

Starting in 1924, the International Education Board and the General Education Board—which shared a president (Wickliffe Rose), some staff, and many administrative resources—adopted what we call a “short” form, designed for sparse record-keeping (figure 17). Except for the color of the paper, the cards used by these two organizations remained identical until 1926, when certain organization-specific fields were added to the recipient information section.

Figure 17: First page of a permanent recorder card created in 1926 for an award granted by the General Education Board. Note the check boxes for race and domain of study, which were added that same year, along with the “Position taken under completion of study” field. The organization had always recorded a recipient’s race, although this information had previously been merely typed.

Short-form cards remained in use at the International Education Board until it ceased its activities in 1928 and at the General Education Board until 1933. As president of both of the organizations in question, Wickliffe Rose ardently supported the use of both diaries and card indexes (see above). And yet, the permanent recorder cards created under his watch were rather terse. The contents of the “Education” and “Study” fields in the recipient information section were remarkably brief, with the former listing only an individual’s most advanced degree and the latter usually limited to a one-word description of their field or domain. Meanwhile, both organizations tended to largely overlook a recipient’s activities. During the 1920s and 1930s, the General Education Board might enter a list of courses taken and grades received. As for the International Education Board, it tended, at best, to include a few notes regarding changes in the program of study. More substantial information was added only after these organizations had stopped creating and maintaining their own cards. After the International Education Board ceased its activities in 1928, the Rockefeller Foundation took over responsibility for administering ongoing awards and for updating permanent record cards, whatever their vintage, in domains where both organizations were active (mainly the natural sciences). Between 1930 and 1970, the Rockefeller Foundation regularly added information on recipients’ professional and scientific achievements to these cards. In the case of awards granted by the General Education Board, information about a recipient’s activities during and after the award term only started to appear in 1935. This was shortly after the organization definitively expanded its activities beyond the US South by launching a national fellowship program in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation, whose officers favored the use of an “extended” form designed for more copious record-keeping (see below).

Before the 1930s, the general absence of information on a recipient’s activities seems to have reflected a deliberate choice. Granted, in the case of the General Education Board, the limited availability of digitized diaries made it difficult for us to confirm whether officers regularly met with current and past recipients, as well as sponsors and advisors, before 1935. However, diaries kept by officers at the International Education Board clearly show that they kept close tabs on what recipients had been doing. The information was collected, but it was simply not entered onto permanent recorder cards.

The practice of keeping cards brief and compact may have been a strategy to avoid putting too much strain on these organizations’ limited human resources. But the reluctance to add any details on activities can also be seen as the reflection of a widespread belief that permanent recorder cards were only intended to list basic facts on an award and its recipient, as opposed to consolidating the contents of an individual’s dossier or chronicling their career. In any case, neither organization appears to have considered it essential to document activities carried out during or after the award term. The General Education Board, which principally funded postsecondary studies, was mainly concerned with whether recipients passed their courses. Until 1935, this was the only activity-related information regularly added to the organization’s cards. As for the International Education Board, it was focused on documenting how it arranged opportunities for the best and brightest scientists to work with even more illustrious figures in a given domain. In the famous words of Wickliffe Rose, the organization strove to “make the peaks higher.” Anything else was insignificant.

Use of the short form produced many information gaps, adding to the impression that the organizations favoring its use did not consider permanent recorder cards a vital source of information. Accordingly, compared to cards created for awards granted by the Rockefeller Foundation, database users will find a higher number of empty fields for International Education Board awards and those granted by the General Education Board before 1935. The International Education Board was more likely to note the name of a recipient’s sponsor and advisor than to list a home or host institution. The General Education Board almost never completed the “Date Ends” field or, as explained above, provided information on a recipient’s activities during the award term. We did our best to infer such details from other information included on the permanent recorder cards, and by referring to other documents produced by Rockefeller-endowed organizations or to external sources (biographies, scientific publications, etc.). However, where we lacked reliable data, we simply left the relevant database fields blank.

By contrast, starting around 1923, the Rockefeller Foundation adopted an extended form which implied more copious record-keeping (figure 18). The corresponding permanent recorder cards were characterized by a lengthy recipient information section and highly detailed escriptions of activities undertaken during and after the award term.

Figure 18: One of the first permanent record cards created using the Rockefeller Foundation’s extended form. This example was produced in 1923 for an award marked as “Rescinded.” The typo in the heading of the “Marital Status” field, spelled as “Martial” (top right corner) indicates that it was created using one of the first batch of pre-printed cards, before the typo was corrected.

The same form was used when creating and updating cards under the national fellowship program launched by the General Education Board in 1934 (relevant awards were granted in medicine, the humanities, and the natural sciences, as well as in fields of child study and general education). In fact, from the selection of recipients to the monitoring of their activities, the program was largely overseen by Rockefeller Foundation officers and clerical staff. And as noted above, the same extended form soon came to be used for all permanent record cards created for awards granted by the General Education Board. In fact, alongside the addition of some new fields in the recipient information section, this form remained the norm for permanent record cards from about 1923 until 1970.

The extended form had a much more detailed recipient information section, with two clearly defined columns (see figure 19).

Figure 19: First page of a permanent recorder card created in 1947 for an award granted by the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division. The “Number of Children” field was added in 1929, when stipends began to be adjusted based on the size of a recipient’s family.

An extensive set of basic facts about the recipient and the award were listed on the right. Detailed specifics on a person’s education, current and prospective positions, and program of study appeared on the left.

This was crucial information, given how the Rockefeller Foundation viewed the mobility awards it granted to individuals. Following the end of the award term, recipients were expected to become driving forces behind the creation or consolidation of institutions and organizations, he development and implementation of public policy, and the advancement of study in various disciplines and fields. Educational background served as a key selection criterion, candidates were expected to have a position lined up, and the program of study was frequently made to measure by Foundation officers.

The differences between the short and extended forms are even more striking in the section reserved for detailing a recipient’s activities. The cursory overview provided on cards produced using the short form generally fills no more than one side of a single card. By contrast, the activities section on extended forms can stretch over as many as six double-sided cards. Once again, this reflects the importance that Rockefeller Foundation officers placed on the careful and frequent monitoring of recipients through meetings and correspondence, whether with the individuals concerned or with the people responsible for supervising their studies, assignments, or research.

Officers’ diaries are full of notes taken at such meetings, which took up a significant portion of their time. Traditionally held in-person at the Foundation’s New York or Paris office (at the beginning or end of an award term), or on location at a recipient’s host institution, they increasingly came to be conducted by telephone. The diaries were indexed and quoted to supplement the letter records and fellowship files created for all recipients. In turn, these individual dossiers, which also contained correspondence and various other award-related materials, were mined for information to be added in the activities section of permanent recorder cards (see figure 20). Still, only a fraction of the available data found its way onto the cards. By all indications, information was filtered based on perceived importance and relevance to performance. However, it remains unclear whether the clerical staff made these decisions entirely on their own or if officers flagged certain content for inclusion.

Figure 20: Two examples of entries chronicling the activities of recipients during the award term.

On the one hand, each permanent recorder card provided a comprehensive record of key events involving the corresponding recipient over the award term. In addition to the activities undertaken in the course of visiting different institutions, places, and persons, the card would also note any difficulties faced by the individual concerned. Frequent examples include language barriers, homesickness, mental or physical illness, and family crises. On the other hand, each card provided an account of a recipient’s achievements, accompanied by assessments of their intellectual, scientific, and social abilities. Officers’ diaries are full of such assessments, based on conversations with recipients, peers, supervisors at home and host institutions, and anyone else willing to provide feedback. Officers of the Rockefeller Foundation did not hesitate to praise recipients whom they deemed worthy of it, or to find fault with others (figure 22).

Figure 22: Comments on a recipient’s achievements, activities section of permanent record card for an award granted by the Rockefeller Foundation’s Division of Medical Studies.

This dual focus on relevance and performance was maintained well after the end of an award term. On many cards, information continued to be added for decades. For instance, some cards created for awards granted by the International Education Board include follow-up entries made well after 1928 (see figure 23) .

Figure 23: Follow-up entries on a card created for a British Medical Research Council award granted in 1925.

Even cards related to awards that were administered but not granted by the Rockefeller Foundation, including some British Medical Research Council awards, were updated.

Such entries included details on a recipient’s career development, research efforts, publications, prizes, and distinctions. Keen to stay in touch with the Foundation, which might prove a source of funding or support again in the future, some individuals willingly provided updates on their professional activities and achievements. Foundation officers and clerical staff also gathered information from press clippings, through discussions with recipients and their peers, as well as by sending out questionnaires in the course of preparing directories. The cards also include notes on any subsequent interactions with a given recipient, whether in the form of a new award, a grant-in-aid to purchase equipment or conduct research, or some meeting with an officer of the Foundation at the headquarters or on some campus.

Assessment remained an important aspect of these later entries to the activities section. The aim was to see how far recipients had come in terms of exercising leadership, contributing to knowledge, helping develop policy, rising through the ranks of their institution, and achieving recognition in the scientific community both at home and abroad. The concern was not just with how a recipient’s career was progressing, but also about how the Foundation was performing. Indeed, permanent recorder cards were filled with clues to whether the Foundation’s “fellowship programs” were achieving their objectives. Were past recipients still active in their domain? How had an award impacted a person’s career? Had the Foundation been right to support a given individual? How far the Foundation’s invesment in individuals help it to achieve its goals ? As a result, in addition to providing data about individual career trajectories, the activities section of permanent recorder cards provide today’s researchers with an opportunity to “see like a foundation.”

Regardless of the organization involved, the different sections of a permanent recorder card were not completed at the same point in time—save for cards created after the fact. By comparing a large number of cards, we have been able to determine that the recipient information section was likely completed shortly after an award was approved by the relevant committee. Although there were differences in the content of the recipient information section from one Rockefeller-endowed organization to the next (see above), it invariably included certain key facts on the award and its recipient, facts drawn from the application form filled out by the recipient and from the officers’ decision. The content of the activities section was added over time by the organization responsible. Typographical and chronological clues suggest that in the case of the Rockefeller Foundation set, whose cards provide the richest source of historical data, award-related information in the activities section was entered all at once—either at the end of the award term or, after the implementation of the 1945 decision (see above), ten years later, when the corresponding fellowship file was cleaned out. And although it appears that other Rockefeller-endowed organizations sometimes followed the Foundation’s lead in this regard, they also sometimes entered information on a recipient’s activities throughout the award term, as it became available. After the award term ended, any new information received was added one item at a time.

---

---