I think that particle phyiscs has not lost it's base. I just did my
master's work in the Particle/Nuclear overlap field this summer so I am
familiar with a lot of the work. My research group was also involved
with a couple of neutrino experiments (one now and one future one). I
can try to ask for some references on neutrino osicllations if people
are interested. However, my guess would be the recent Review of Modern
Physics which had a ton of articles on the many advances and even
histories of the subfields. It can be found on the web at
APS research journals: http://publish.aps.org/
There is also a possibility of an overview talk from the Centennial
meeting back in March of the APS. The slides from the plenary sessions
can be viewed at http://www.apscenttalks.org.
There's a site to go to for free access and I think this is it but I am
not positive. Let me know if it is or not.
As for Ed's comment on the use of theory in data analysis, I cannot
think of a field that does not use theory in its data analysis. Usually
the theorists, experimentalists, and phenomenologists get together and
decide what can measured and the theorists produce predictions for those
variables. Then the data is calculated and compared to the data.
Experimentalists usually compare their numbers to many theories
simultaneously to make the many theorists happy that bug them for their
data. Both the experimentalists and the theorists do the comparison as
a cross check and so the theorists can tweak the initial values in
his/her code (a little postdiction with some of the prediction).