Search

This article examines the impact of the reporting practice and paper technologies like forms on reports that were later used for national morbidity statistics by studying the Swiss reporting system for infectious diseases between 1886 and 1921. Analysing the production processes of notifications shows the difficulties and solutions in the implementation of the statutory reporting process. Two disease outbreaks-a smallpox outbreak in Schaffhausen and a typhoid outbreak in the canton of Lucerne-serve as case studies. It is shown that reports are not only objective representations of diseases, but also symbolize the medico-social interactions that produce them, timed by administrative tools like reporting forms and the act of reporting. This destabilises historical statistics and illustrates the complexity of the historical source material, as these interactions and their impact on reporting must be considered. These findings are further supported by examining the Swiss reporting system during the Spanish flu of 1918 and its failure to record influenza cases., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The paper uses the example of historical paper research in Vienna around 1900 in order to analyze the dynamics of scientific cooperation between the natural sciences and the humanities. It focuses on the Vienna-based plant physiologist Julius Wiesner (1838-1916), who from 1884 to 1911 studied medieval paper manuscripts under the microscope in productive cooperation with paleographers, archaeologists and orientalists (Josef Karabacek, Marc Aurel Stein, Rudolf Hoernle). The paper examines why these cooperations succeeded and how they developed over time. Here we distinguish between two forms of cooperation: while Wiesner initially worked only reactively, in a "closed cooperation", he later entered into "open cooperations", in which both parties defined research questions and methods. This form of cooperation proved particularly successful, but at the same time was especially demanding because, in addition to contributing one's own skills, it required considerable "interlocking expertise" (Andersen 2016). This was favored because the historical auxiliary sciences were in a phase of upheaval. Wiesner contributed his knowledge of technical microscopy and developed a genuine interest in historical questions, while the humanists were prepared to open themselves to scientific processes and ultimately acknowledged Wiesner as a historian of paper in his own right.