AREA ROSTER

The Board

built

up

a file of the area experiences

and

linguistic abilities of

some

5,000individuals

which

^it entitled:

"World

File of

24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

VOL. I07

Area and Language

Specialists." This roster, unique in

many

ways,

was

constantly used both

by

^the

Washington

staff

and by

other agencies.

The emergency

value of the roster

and

its potential future importance justify a detailed description.

Need

Rosters are no novelty.

The American

public seems to enjoywrit- ing its

name and

experience

on

a questionnaire blank,

and many

an organization finds pleasure in assembling this information in files.

Who's Who, American Men

of Science,

and

other publications cover the field of up-to-date biographical references.

Most

professional societies keep records of the careers of

members.

All these lists allow

some

evaluation of the individuals. In

wartime Washington,

with personnel at a

premium,

almost every agency

drew up

its

own

list of experts or potential employees.

These were

classed as house documents, not for circulation. Others, like the Office of Strategic Services list of

Near

Eastern Authorities, bore the label:

"Not

for distribution to

non-Governmental

agencies."

Of

all the rosters

which

the

Board examined

before starting its

own, the

most

important

was

the National Roster of Scientific

and

Specialized Personnel

(NRSSP).

This is tindoubtedly the

most com-

plete

and

significant registration of the country's scholarly personnel.

Started well before the war, the National Roster

makes

every effort to record up-to-date information on all scientific fields.

During

the

war

it

became

an importantpart of the

War Manpower Commission.

Before the Ethnogeographic

Board was

established, each of the area committees felt the need for specialized area rosters.

The

extant printed biographies

and

even the National Roster

were

not satisfactory

from

the area point of view.

The

personnel lists

assembled by these committees

formed

the core of the Board's

Area

Roster

and

stimulated its expansion to cover the other areas

and

utilize other sources.

A

^large

volume

of the Board's information service concerned personnel data, so that it

was

inevitable that a

handy

reference file

would

be needed.

Apart from

the practical convenience of an office personnel file,

there

was

a recognized need for a roster

which

placed the primary emphasis

on

area.

The Board wanted

to

know who had

been where,

how

long, doing what.

The

experienceof the Oceania committee

had

shown

that if such a list

were

limited to professionals it

would

be pitifully small. Furthermore, it

was

reasonable to

assume

that sig- nificant

knowledge and

materials

on

an area could be acquired by

NO. ^I

ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD — ^BENNETT 2^

nonprofessionals, particularly those with extended residence.

The

roster

was

built

up

to

meet

^this area requirement.

There was

little question of duplication or conflict

between

the Ethnogeographic

Board and

^its cooperating committees, since, in eflfect, the Board's roster served as the master file.

There

was,

how-

ever, the question of competition with the National Roster. This

was

carefully considered

and

amicably discussed

by

^the

two

organi- zations.

The

National Roster

was

limited to professional scholars of the

United

States, arranged primarily by discipline

and

profes- sion,

and

not evaluated. It placed area

and

language familiarity in a secondary category.

The

Board's roster included professionals

and

nonprofessionals, citizens

and

foreigners. It emphasized area knowl- edge, length of residence,

and

linguistic ability. Instead ofcompeting, the

two

rosters

would complement

each other. Actually the staff used the National Roster as a

major

source for its preliminary lists,

which were

then checked

and

sorted according to the area require- ments.

On

the practicalside the Board'sinformation servicerequired speed.

The

National Roster

was

so overburdened

by

requests at the beginning of the

war

that it could not

have assumed

responsibility for another

major

job.

The

centralization of area personnel information at the

Board

received military sanction.

The

Intelligence

Branch was

worried about the miscellaneous distribution of special personnel lists

and

formally requested thatthe distribution of lists,

and

the master file,

be controlled

by

the Board.

The

laborious

and

painstakingtask of building

up

the

Area

Roster

was

assigned to

William N.

Fenton, research associate.

For

the first year, as he discovered, this

was no

part-time job for one

man and

a secretary.

The

Smithsonian as usual lent its assistance in the

form

of clerical help

and

the services of its archivist.

Miss Mae W.

Tucker.

Sources

The

cooperating committees furnished the basic personnel lists for the

Area

Roster.

The Committee on

Latin

American Anthro-

pology furnished an evaluated list of

United

States anthropologists with Latin

American

experience.

The Committee on

Asiatic

Geog-

raphy furnished a list of

some

professionals.

The

best evaluated language experts

came from

the Intensive

Language Program's

file.

The

Smithsonian

War Committee

provided information on the area experience of the Smithsonian staff. This

was

very useful because the individuals

were

available at all times.

The

^lists

from

the

com-

26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

VOL. I07