This article considers the role of overseas academic travel in the development of the modern research university, with particular reference to the University of Cambridge from the 1880s to the 1950s. The Cambridge academic community, relatively sedentary at the beginning of this period, became progressively more mobile and globalized through the early twentieth century, facilitated by regular research sabbaticals. The culture of research travel diffused at varying rates, and with differing consequences, across the arts and humanities and the field, laboratory and theoretical sciences, reshaping disciplinary identities and practices in the process. The nature of research travel also changed as the genteel scholarly excursion was replaced by the purposeful, output-orientated expedition.
1 Arthur S. Eddington to William L. Mollison, 23 October 1918, Cambridge University Archives (subsequently CUA), Minutes of Proceedings at a Meeting of the General Board (subsequently GB), Min III.3, 67. See also Malcolm Longair, ‘Arthur Stanley Eddington’, in Peter Harman and Simon Mitton (eds.), Cambridge Scientific Minds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 220–239, especially 230–231.
2 Dyson, Frank W., Eddington, Arthur S. and Davidson, Charles, ‘A determination of the deflection of light by the sun's gravitational field, from observations made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1920) 220, pp. 291–333. For details on the two expeditions, see Earman, John and Glymour, Clark, ‘Relativity and eclipses: the British eclipse expeditions of 1919’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1980) 11, pp. 49–85.
3 For a critical discussion of these expeditions and their results see Waller, John, Fabulous Science: Fact and Fiction in the History of Scientific Discovery, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 49–63.
4 A request, submitted in the autumn of 1912, from William Emery Barnes, Hulsean Professor of Divinity, for leave to undertake a six-month visit to Malta was received with bewilderment by the university's General Board and required written support by his colleague Francis Crawford Burkitt, Norris Professor of Divinity. See Francis Crawford Burkitt to William Emery Barnes, 20 October 1912, CUA, GB, Min III.2, 264.
5 See, for example, Driver, Felix, Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration and Empire, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001; Withers, Charles W.J., Placing the Enlightenment: Thinking Geographically about the Age of Reason, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007; Dorinda Outram, ‘On being Perseus: new knowledge, dislocation and Enlightenment exploration’, in David N. Livingstone and Charles W.J. Withers (eds.), Geography and Enlightenment, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999, pp. 281–294; Gregory, Derek, ‘Cultures of travel and spatial formations of knowledge’, Erdkunde (2000) 54, pp. 297–319. The role of travel in the production of knowledge prior to the eighteenth century is discussed by Harris, Steven J., ‘Long-distance corporations, big sciences, and the geography of knowledge’, Configurations (1998) 6, pp. 269–304; and Dominik Collet, ‘Big sciences, open networks, and global collecting in early museums’, in Peter Meusburger, David N. Livingstone and Heike Jöns (eds.), Geographies of Science, Dordrecht: Springer, 2010, pp. 121–137. For scientific travels in Europe from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries see Simões, Ana, Carneiro, Ana and Diogo, Maria P. (eds.), Travels of Learning: A Geography of Science in Europe, Dordrecht: Springer, 2003.
6 For a rare comparable investigation see Christophe Charle, ‘The intellectual networks of two leading universities: Paris and Berlin, 1890–1930’, in Christophe Charle, Jürgen Schriewer and Peter Wagner (eds.), Transnational Intellectual Networks: Forms of Academic Knowledge and the Search for Cultural Identities, Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2004, pp. 401–450. See also Jöns, Heike, ‘Academic travel from Cambridge University and the formation of centres of knowledge, 1885–1954’, Journal of Historical Geography (2008) 34, pp. 338–362.
7 Smith, Crosbie and Agar, Jon (eds.), Making Space for Science: Territorial Themes in the Shaping of Knowledge, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998; and Livingstone, David N., Putting Science in Its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003, provide excellent reviews, supplemented by Finnegan, Diarmid A., ‘The spatial turn: geographical approaches in the history of science’, Journal of the History of Biology (2008) 41, pp. 369–88; Livingstone, David N., ‘The spaces of knowledge: contributions towards a historical geography of science’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space (1995) 13, pp. 5–34; and Ophir, Adi and Shapin, Steven, ‘The place of knowledge: a methodological survey’, Science in Context (1991) 4, pp. 3–21. Secord, James A., ‘Knowledge in transit’, Isis (2004) 95, pp. 654–672, recently suggested a greater emphasis on processes of movement and transmission in the history of science.
8 See, for example, the classic investigation by Latour, Bruno, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
9 For the second half of the twentieth century, this is highlighted by Altbach, Philip G., ‘The new internationalism: foreign students and scholars’, Studies in Higher Education (1989) 14, pp. 125–136; Jöns, Heike, ‘“Brain circulation” and transnational knowledge networks: studying long-term effects of academic mobility to Germany, 1954–2000’, Global Networks (2009) 9, pp. 315–338; and Welch, Anthony R., ‘The peripatetic professor: the internationalisation of the academic profession’, Higher Education (1997) 34, pp. 323–345.
10 Brooke, Christopher N.L., A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. 4: 1870–1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 354. Pietsch, Tamson, Universities and Empire: Academic Networks and the British World, 1850–1939, Manchester: Manchester University Press, forthcoming 2012, points out that Australian and Canadian universities facilitated travel abroad for their academics in the mid-nineteenth century to stay in touch with European centres of knowledge, either by introducing application procedures (in the University of Sydney from the 1860s) or by extending the length of the summer vacation (at King's College in Toronto from the 1840s). These leave-of-absence practices, however, were not formalized before the 1880s, and fully paid sabbatical schemes were only established from the 1930s.
11 For rare commentaries see Eells, Walter C. and Hollis, Ernest V., Sabbatical Leave in American Higher Education, Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1962; and Sima, Celina M., ‘The role and benefits of the sabbatical leave in faculty development and satisfaction’, New Directions for Institutional Research (2000) 105, pp. 67–75.
12 Recent examples include Powell, Richard C., ‘“The rigours of an arctic experiment”: the precarious authority of field practices in the Canadian High Arctic, 1958–1970’, Environment and Planning A (2007) 39, pp. 1794–1811; Mayhew, Robert, ‘Mapping science's imagined community: geography as a Republic of Letters, 1600–1800’, BJHS (2005) 38, pp. 73–92; Lux, David S. and Cook, Harold J., ‘Closed circles or open networks? Communicating at a distance during the scientific revolution’, History of Science (1998) 36, pp. 179–211; and Pietsch, Tamson, ‘Wandering scholars? Academic mobility and the British world, 1850–1940’, Journal of Historical Geography (2010) 36, pp. 377–387.
13 The constitutive role of travel in research practice is emphasized by Heffernan, Michael, ‘A state scholarship: the political geography of French international science during the nineteenth century’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (1994) 19, pp. 21–45.
14 Barnett, Ronald and Phipps, Alison, ‘Academic travel: modes and directions’, Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies (2005) 27, pp. 3–16, 5–6, 11–13.
15 Ana Simões, Ana Carneiro and Maria P. Diogo, ‘Travels of learning: introductory remarks’, in Simões, Carneiro and Diogo, op. cit. (5), pp. 1–18. See also Hanno Beck, ‘Geography and travel in the nineteenth century: prolegomena to a general history of travel (1957)’, in Gary S. Dunbar (ed.), The History of Geography: Translations of Some French and German Essays, Malibu: Undena Publications, 1983, pp. 73–102.
16 Livingstone, David N., The Geographical Tradition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, p. 126; Stoddart, David R., On Geography and Its History, Oxford: Blackwell, 1986, p. 33.
17 Joseph Conrad labelled the period between James Cook's oceanic voyages into the Pacific and David Livingstone's continental explorations in Africa the age of ‘geography militant’, i.e. a time when explorers and scientific travellers revealed the secrets about previously unknown places in the world. This was apparently followed by ‘geography triumphant’, an era in which the aims of explorations had become ‘scientific rather than narrowly geographical or for personal or nationalistic ends … because of the professionalisation and institutionalisation of science at that time’. James Ryan and Simon Naylor have challenged this view by arguing that it ‘unintentionally exacerbates the idea of a rupture that in many ways was a fiction. Put another way, scientifically motivated exploration extended backwards in time well before 1900, while heroic exploration traditionally associated with the Victorian era extended well into the twentieth century’. See James R. Ryan and Simon Naylor, ‘Exploration and the twentieth century’, in Simon Naylor and James R. Ryan (eds.), New Spaces of Exploration: Geographies of Discovery in the Twentieth Century, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010, pp. 1–22, 9–11.
18 Since the 1970s, exploration has been discussed ‘less as some impartial means of “discovering” the “unknown” than part of a powerful and enduring projection of Western imperial interests onto other parts of the world’. Ryan and Naylor, op. cit. (17), p. 1. See also Driver, Felix, ‘Distance and disturbance: travel, exploration and knowledge in the nineteenth century’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (2004) 14, pp. 73–92; Michael Heffernan, ‘Histories of geography’, in Sarah L. Holloway, Stephen P. Rice and Gill Valentine (eds.) Key Concepts in Geography, London, 2003, pp. 3–22; and Naylor and Ryan, op. cit. (17).
19 For detailed accounts see Black, Jeremy, The British and the Grand Tour, London: Croom Helm, 1985; Black, , The British Abroad: The Grand Tour in the Eighteenth Century, New York: St Martin's Press, 1992; and Hibbert, Christopher, The Grand Tour, London: Spring Books, 1974.
20 Brodsky-Porges, Edward, ‘The grand tour: travel as an educational device, 1600–1800’, Annals of Tourism Research (1981) 8, pp. 171–186, 183. On the history of Thomas Cook see Hamilton, Jill, Thomas Cook: The Holiday-Maker, Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2005.
21 Foucher, M., Fragments d'Europe, Paris: Fayard, 1993, pp. 23–24.
22 Burke, Peter, A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot, Cambridge: Polity, 2000, p. 21; Hilde De Ridder-Symoens, ‘The changing face of centres of learning, 1400–1700’, in Alasdair A. MacDonald and Michael W. Twomey (eds.), Schooling and Society: The Ordering and Reordering of Knowledge in the Western Middle Ages, Leuven: Peeters, 2004, pp. 115–138.
23 Burke, op. cit. (22), pp. 49–51.
24 In the sixteenth century, academies were founded for the discussion of humanist ideas beyond the reach of the establishment. By the time these ideas had entered university curricula, the scientific revolution was well under way, inspiring the foundation of the Royal Society in London (1660) and the Académie royale des sciences in Paris (1666), with their emphasis on the study of nature. In the eighteenth century, the very idea of ‘research’ appeared on the scene, based on the awareness that there is a need for searches of knowledge to be systematic, professional, useful and cooperative. This century became the age of academies that organized knowledge-gathering expeditions, offered prizes and increasingly formed an international network. For details see Burke, op. cit. (22), pp. 33–51.
25 Burke, op. cit. (22), p. 49. Taylor, Peter J., Hoyler, Michael and Evans, David, ‘A geohistorical study of “the rise of modern science”: mapping scientific practice through urban networks, 1500–1900’, Minerva (2008) 46, 391–394, visualized the shifting geographies of university-based knowledge centres in Europe from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries based on the workplaces and career paths of a thousand leading ‘scientists’.
26 On Cook see, for example, Thomas, Nicholas, Cook: The Extraordinary Voyages of Captain Cook, New York: Walker & Company, 2004; on Banks see Fulford, Tim, Lee, Debbie and Kitson, Peter J., Literature, Science and Exploration in the Romantic Era: Bodies of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; on von Humboldt see Rupke, Nicolaas A., Alexander Von Humboldt: A Metabiography, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008; and on Livingstone's travels see Dritsas, Lawrence, ‘From Lake Nyassa to Philadelphia: a geography of the Zambesi expedition, 1858–64’, BJHS (2005) 38, pp. 35–52. See also Driver, Felix and Jones, Lowri, Hidden Histories of Exploration, London: Royal Geographical Society, 2009; note 5 above.
27 Prevailing national perspectives on academic mobility are evident, for example, in Mike Byram and Fred Dervin (eds.), Students, Staff and Academic Mobility in Higher Education, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.
28 For such a comparative perspective see Jöns, Heike, ‘Transnational mobility and the spaces of knowledge production: a comparison of global patterns, motivations and collaborations in different academic fields’, Social Geography (2007) 2, pp. 97–114. Without attention to travel behaviour, subject-specific research cultures have been explored by Becher, Tony and Trowler, Paul R., Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd edn, Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001; see also Knorr-Cetina, Karin D., Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999; and Barbara H. Smith, ‘Disciplinary cultures and tribal warfare: the sciences and the humanities today’, in Smith, Scandalous Knowledge: Science, Truth and the Human, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005, pp. 108–129.
29 Derek Gregory, ‘The geographical discourse of modernity’, in Gregory (ed.), Explorations in Critical Human Geography, Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg, 1998, pp. 45–67.
30 Gregory, ‘The geographical discourse of modernity’, op. cit. (29), pp. 57–58, original emphases.
31 Latour, op. cit. (8), p. 161.
32 Driver, op. cit. (5), p. 2, used the term ‘field’ to describe ‘the heterogeneous nature of geographical knowledge before the formation of modern disciplines at the end of the nineteenth century’.
33 As mentioned in note 6 above, Charle has done a comparable study for Paris and Berlin from 1880 to 1940, but his study includes samples from different, shorter periods and does not cover all subjects.
34 This explains why from 1885–1886 to 1954–1955 less than 1 per cent of recorded applications for academic leave were not granted.
35 Journeys exceeding three months are best covered as this was the length of the long vacation in the summer and thus required leave of absence for those parts of the adjacent terms that were missed. Most research leaves from the University of Cambridge lasted longer than three months (45 per cent), followed by leaves of more than one month to three months (39 per cent) and shorter leaves of up to one month (13 per cent); 4 per cent had no specified length. For sources on the first regulations for leave of absence see note 46 below.
36 Charle, op. cit. (6), p. 425.
37 Christophe Charle, ‘Patterns’, in Walter Rüegg (ed.), A History of the University in Europe, vol. 3: Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800–1945), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 33–80.
38 Edward Shils and John Roberts, ‘The diffusion of European models outside Europe’, in Rüegg, op. cit. (37), pp. 163–230, 168; Daniel Fallon, ‘German influences on American education’, in Frank Trommler and Elliott Shore (eds.), The German–American Encounter: Conflict and Cooperation between Two Cultures, 1800–2000, New York: Berghahn Books, 2001, pp. 77–87, 83–84.
39 Clark, William, Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2006, p. 463.
40 Shils and Roberts, op. cit. (38), pp. 174–175.
41 Brooke, op. cit. (10), p. xv.
42 Clark, op. cit. (39), p. 458.
43 Clark, op. cit. (39), p. 459; Shils and Roberts, op. cit. (38), pp. 174–175.
44 Simpson, Renate, How the PhD Came to Britain: A Century of Struggle for Postgraduate Education, Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education, 1983, p. 63.
45 Clark, op. cit. (39), p. 459; and John Darwin, ‘The growth of an international university’, in John Prest (ed.), The Illustrated History of Oxford University, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 336–370, 357.
46 For residence requirements, see Statute B.XI.2, in University of Cambridge (ed.), Statutes of the University of Cambridge with Some Acts of Parliament Relating to the University, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1882, p. 61. The first regulations for leave of absence can be found in Cambridge University Reporter, 23 June 1885, p. 931, Grace No. 4 and Draft, for the General Board of Studies, 22 February 1886, CUA, GB, Min III.1, p. 109.
47 The five main motivations for academic travel from Cambridge in the period from 1885–1886 to 1954–1955 were research and travelling (35 per cent), visiting appointments (10 per cent), lecturing (18 per cent), conference visits and representation (18 per cent), consulting and administration (10 per cent). The remaining 8 per cent were unspecified research leaves. For details see Jöns, op. cit. (6).
48 Eells, Walter C., ‘The origin and early history of sabbatical leave’, Bulletin, American Association of University Professors (1962) 48, pp. 253–256, 253. For the new regulations see The Registrary of the University (ed.), Statutes of the University of Cambridge and Passages from Acts of Parliament Relating to the University, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928, pp. 40–41.
49 In comparison, at least half of all visiting appointments were with full stipend, less than 10 per cent were with reduced stipend (for example at Cornell University and the University of Otago in Dunedin), and at least a quarter were without stipend from Cambridge and fully paid by the host university (for example at Cairo University, Harvard Law School, MIT, University of Chicago, Yale Law School). Leave for consultancy work was frequently granted on the understanding that the institutions for which this work was undertaken would pay the university stipend (for example the Colonial Office and the United Nations).
50 For Cambridge, see the correspondence between Burkitt and Barnes, op. cit. (4), quoted in Jöns, op. cit. (6), pp. 346–347. The new regulations at Oxford aimed at encouraging applications for research leave; see Oxford University Archives, Hebdomadal Council Papers, Vol. 220, p. 191, and Vol. 221, pp. 9–10 and 275. Christopher Brooke also implied that Cambridge was the first British university to establish a sabbatical scheme (see note 10 above).
51 Driver, op. cit. (5), p. 8.
52 Nicholas Jardine and Emma Spary, ‘The natures of cultural history’, in Nicholas Jardine, James Secord and Emma Spary (eds.), Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 3–13.
53 The records show that fifteen of 366 granted research leaves were cancelled (4 per cent); five of those leaves had no specified destination, five targeted the United States, and the others were planned in Germany (two), France, Spain and India (one each).
54 Brooke, op. cit. (10), p. 427.
55 Minute of 17 March 1886, CUA, GB, Min III.1, p. 118. Francis Darwin, lecturer in botany, was also given research leave for the Lent Term 1887 in order to prepare for publication the letters of his father Dr Charles Darwin. See Minute of 15 November 1886, CUA, GB, Min III.1, p. 128.
56 Minute of 4 January 1890, CUA, GB, Min III.1, p. 213; Minute of 16 November 1892, CUA, GB, Min III.1, p. 299.
57 The rise and fall of applications for travel scholarships provided by the French Service de missions between 1830 and 1914 can be interpreted as the heyday of ‘a pioneering, amateur form of fieldwork and exploration that pre-dated the emergence of professional, university-based research’. See Heffernan, op. cit. (13), p. 26.
58 A similar geographical focus was to be found among scholars funded by the French Service de mission between 1870 and 1914 as about ‘a third of all post-1870 missions involved either a colonial or an Eastern Mediterranean destination’. This was the result of a ‘compromise between intellectual curiosity, practical expediency and the political judgements of well-briefed scientists and scholars under the direct control of government officials and civil servants’. See Heffernan, op. cit. (13), pp. 28–29 and 34.
59 Minute of 19 November 1902, CUA, GB, Min III.2, p. 20.
60 Minute of 22 April 1953, CUA, GB, Box 307, p. 160.
61 Anthropology is discussed here as a social science. Despite the departmental affiliation with archaeology in Cambridge, applications for archaeological research were classified under language and cultural studies.
62 Derek Gregory, ‘Power, knowledge and geography’, in Gregory, op. cit. (29), pp. 9–40, 15–22.
63 Minute of 19 November 1913, CUA, GB, Min III.2, p. 296.
64 Moore, David R., The Torres Strait Collections of A.C. Haddon: A Descriptive Catalogue, London: British Museum Publications, 1984, p. 12.
65 Moore, op. cit. (64), p. 12.
66 Brooke, op. cit. (10), p. 205; Reo Franklin Fortune, lecturer in anthropology, planned to work in New Guinea in 1951–1952; see Minute of 6 June 1951, CUA, GB, Box 306, p. 247.
67 Minute of 10 May 1914, CUA, GB, Min III.2, p. 312. See also Groenewegen, Peter, ‘Walter Layton on The Relations of Capital and Labour (1914): A Marshallian text pur sang?’, History of Economics Review (2007) 46, pp. 19–31.
68 Minute of 9 June 1926, CUA, GB, Min III.4, p. 38.
69 Minute of 1 November 1933, CUA, GB, Min III.7, p. 59.
70 Minute of 3 March 1937, CUA, GB, Min III.7, p. 114; Minute of 5 May 1948, CUA, GB, Box 304, p. 242; Minute of 21 May 1952, CUA, GB, Box 306, p. 220.
71 Dr Barker, Note of 21 February 1934, CUA, GB, Min III.7, p. 70; Mr Hamson, Minute of 4 May 1949, CUA, GB, Box 305, p. 209; Dr Henderson, Minute of 14 January 1953, CUA, GB, Box 307, p. 88; Miss Cohen, Minute of 21 October 1953, CUA, GB, Box 307, p. 23.
72 For example, Frederick Charles Bartlett, who was the first professor of experimental psychology at Cambridge (1931–1951) and was widely regarded as the founder of the subject in Britain, and his successor Oliver Louis Zangwill (1952–1981), both visited American centres of psychological research (the former in 1947, the later in 1955). On Bartlett see Brooke, op. cit. (10), p. 500; and Minute of 23 October 1946, CUA, GB, Box 304, p. 28; on Zangwill see Minute of 26 January 1955, CUA, GB, Box 308, p. 100.
73 These travels included the cited trips of Haddon (1914) and Fortune (1951) to Papua and New Guinea, a research leave of Dr Frederick Alexander Kirkpatrick, reader in Spanish, to Buenos Aires for the preparation of a history of Argentina (in 1928), and the two mentioned research stays of economists in Uganda and Australia (both in 1954). On Kirkpatrick see Minute of 14 March 1928, CUA, GB, Min III.6, p. 37.
74 Charle, op. cit. (6), p. 423.
75 Previously, only three research leaves had been granted to natural scientists and these were all spent in the United Kingdom. Francis Darwin, lecturer in botany, wished to prepare the letters of his father Charles Darwin for publication (Lent Term 1887); W.F.R Weldon, lecturer in the advanced morphology of invertebrates, aimed to study various species of decapod crustacea in the Plymouth Marine Biological Laboratory (academic year 1889–1890); and George Nuttall, professor of biology, planned to conduct research on the Government Experimental Farm at Wembley, Middlesex (for part of the Easter term 1909). See Minute of 15 November 1886, CUA, GB, Min III.1, p. 128; Minute of 22 October 1888, CUA, GB, Min III.1, p. 178; Minute of 21 October 1889, CUA, GB, Min III.1, p. 205; and Minute of 19 May 1909, CUA, GB, Min III.2, p. 182.
76 For details see Dyson, Eddington and Davidson, op. cit. (2).
77 Minute of 4 May 1921, CUA, GB, Min III.3, p. 153; Minute of 7 November 1921, CUA, GB, Min III.3, p. 165.
78 Henrika Kuklick and Robert E. Kohler, ‘Introduction’, in Kuklick and Kohler (eds.), Science in the Field, Osiris (1996) 11, pp. 1–14, 4. On local support for scientific travellers see, for example, Pratt, Mary L., Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, London: Routledge, 1992; and Driver and Jones, op. cit. (26).
79 Harrison, Mark, ‘Science and the British Empire’, Isis (2005) 96, pp. 56–63, 60.
80 Kohler, Robert E., Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab–Field Border in Biology, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002, p. 1.
81 Kohler, op. cit. (80), pp. 6–7.
82 Livingstone, Putting Science in Its Place, op. cit. (7), p. 3.
83 This includes engineering scientists, who are not discussed in detail in this essay, but whose research travels from Cambridge began even later than in the physical and biological laboratory sciences, namely in the early 1930s (Table 1).
84 Wilkinson, Denys H., ‘Nuclear Physics at Oxford: Prof. D.H. Wilkinson, F.R.S.’, Nature (1957) 180, pp. 464–465.
85 Minute of 21 April 1954, CUA, GB, Box 307, p. 142.
86 Note of 30 April 1952, CUA, Notes and agenda for meetings of the General Board, GB 1/6, 9170.
87 William A. Wooster, ‘Personal experiences of a crystallographer’, in Paul P. Ewald (ed.) Fifty Years of X-ray Diffraction: Dedicated to the International Union of Crystallography on the Occasion of the Commemoration Meeting in Munich, July 1962, Utrecht: International Union of Crystallography, 1962, p. 682.
88 Note of 16 October 1935, CUA, GB, Min III.7, p. 90.
89 Kohler, op. cit. (80), p. 42.
90 These were the female demonstrator Dr M.E. Brown and the male lecturers Dr G.S. Carter and Dr Cott; see Minute of 19 April 1950, CUA, GB, Box 305, p. 200; Minute of 25 July 1951, GB, Box 306, p. 277; and Minute of 18 April 1951, GB, Box 306, p. 187.
91 Cary Gilson, H., ‘East African Fisheries Research Organization’, Nature (1960) 187, pp. 469–470.
92 For average durations of research leaves, see note 35 above.
93 In the same period, the disciplinary profile of the increasing number of professors remained relatively stable, which shows that the need for travel in the natural and technical sciences had grown above average.
94 The notion of economic capital is used in Pierre Bourdieu's terms; see Pierre Bourdieu, ‘The forms of capital’, in J.G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press, 1986, pp. 241–258, 253.
95 Dr Frank Smithies, lecturer in mathematics, Minute of 30 January 1952, CUA, GB, Box 306, p. 121.
96 See Duren, Peter (ed.), A Century of Mathematics in America, Part 3, Providence: American Mathematical Society, 1989.
97 Robin J. Wilson, ‘Hardy and Littlewood’, in Peter Harman and Simon Mitton (eds.) Cambridge Scientific Minds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 202–219, 202.
98 Dirac spent at least the 1934–1935 and 1947–1948 academic years, as well as the Michaelmas Term of 1946, in Princeton (the destination of a further stay in the United States during the Michaelmas Term of 1931 is undisclosed). In the era of McCarthyism, his scientific contacts in the Soviet Union contributed to the denial of a visa to the United States so that he could not take a further granted leave at the Institute for Advanced Study in the 1954–1955 academic year. See Helge Kragh, ‘Paul Dirac: the purest soul in an atomic age’, in Kevin C. Knox and Richard Noakes (eds.), From Newton to Hawking: A History of Cambridge University's Lucasian Professors of Mathematics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 387–424, 414; Minute of 25 February 1931, CUA, GB, Min III.6, p. 118; Minute of 7 March 1934, CUA, GB, Min III.7, p. 71; Minute of 13 March 1946, CUA, GB, Box 303, p. 193; Minute of 19 February 1947, CUA, GB, Box 304, p. 179; Minute of 17 February 1954, CUA, GB, Box 307, p. 112.
99 Kragh, op. cit. (98), p. 398.
100 This includes not only Princeton but also Copenhagen, where he had protracted discussions with Niels Bohr. See Kragh, op. cit. (98), p. 399.
101 Heffernan, op. cit. (13).
102 Charle, op. cit. (6), p. 426.
This essay is based on research jointly funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany, and the University of Nottingham, UK. We are grateful to Jacqueline Cox and her colleagues, to Alexa Färber and Peter Taylor, and to Jon Agar and the anonymous readers for their constructive feedback on producing this final version. Documents from the Cambridge University Archives are reproduced with kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed