B1: Explain situatedness: in time? Space? Some other way?

My initial intention was to use the concept of situatedness in a similar manner to practice (i.e., the document as situated in practice). However, in considering this criticism I realize that using constructs such as situatedness or materiality may be a methodological plunder. Upon further consideration, articulating any descriptive concept a priori of actual analysis may be a mistake. While I can ground my work in the recent work of the novum documentum and use borrowed concepts my initial research questions should be a bit broader. Instead of asking: “How has the materiality of handbooks contributed to their ongoing stabilization?”, I could ask: “How have technical handbooks stabilized as artefacts? Was materiality a factor?”

B2: this is a metaphor, but of what? You’ll have to identify precisely, with references, the view to which you offer an alternative

I initially used the metaphor simply as a trope to move to the next paragraph but Prof. Frohmann makes a very good point. I feel that our discourse on books seems to reify them in an inappropriate manner. Of course, a gut feel isn’t the same as a well-reasoned argument! Perhaps I’m reacting to a very literal interpretation of the book as a conveyor of information (a typical novum documentum argument). I can build from the arguments of Frohmann or Radford. An extension of this argument is to the classification system itself. Borrowing from the work of Olson—and Bowker—I can perhaps argue that the classification system provides a type of platonic-ontology that structures how we interact with books. My intention is not, however, to belabour this point. I just want to talk about documents that are “at hand” rather than “at reference”. A content analysis of the needs and uses literature in ARIST may serve may purposes as well as a drawn out philosophical discussion. Regardless, some discussion of this issue will be required in the first chapter.

B3: similar point to the last comment; identify the view you are supplanting

I covered some of this discussion above. My unintentional use of “mythology”, however, seems to call for some Barthes or Derrida; if we have supplanted literal interpretation in individual works in libraries, have we done so in our studies of information? Again, I suspect this discussion treads quite closely to work that has already been done and I just need to make my argument (i.e., “with references”).

B4: you’ll have to more carefully define what you mean by the function of documents

Perhaps I don’t actually know what the function is! I can borrow work on the epistemology of engineering from authors like Vincenti but I suspect they may have missed something. Instead of articulating function up front, I prefer to look at the documents themselves—the epistemological technology of engineers—to determine what has stabilized. These stabilized features and their affordances must be the result of some function of their use. By defining the function of documents a priori I may compromise the rigour of the project.

B5: this [is] vague, and will have to be developed; you’ll want to ask some specific questions about situatedness and materialily, and will have to use existing theoretical literature to help you formulate those questions

Again, we see the question about the function of documents. Although I want to start the analysis from a broad theoretical base, I intend to use a theoretically informed and rigorous approach. In formulating my questions, I may remove a single word that Prof. Frohmann may include. Compare “How does materiality influence the function of documents?” with “Does materiality influence the function of documents?”, or even—shudder—“H1: Materiality influences the function of documents.”

B6: You’ll have to develop quite precisely how you intend to use this approach; for example, what is the technology whose social construction is at stake in your work? Is it the specific genre of books that constitute the focus of your study? and what is constructed? is it their “production cycle”? and how does the interest in social construction relate to the interest in the function(s) of these documents?

I’ve recently completed some work on this topic. Prof. Frohmann provides some very good insight. The technology that interests me is the document itself. That’s right, the document is technology. My argument is that a document takes on a particular physical form through an evolutionary process in the same way that any other physical artefact does. A document is a more complicated type of technology than other artefacts. In addition to a particular physical form with particular affordances, a document contains markings and inscriptions that are also technologies that have stabilized. While other commentators have noted that modern man is a type of man-machine hybrid (or info-human cybord), a tripartite representation may be more appropriate. I could argue that we are man-machine-marking hybrids. Regardless, the unit of study in the individual works themselves. Their production cycle is of interest due to the “relevant social groups” represented therein. The interest in social construction relates to the ways in which these groups—and their practices—have influenced the actual materiality of the artefacts.

B7: this decision will have to be more precisely motivated

The decision to focus on two particular periods is based on the constraints and criticisms of the methodology I have adopted.

B8: book production technology?

Yes. And no. The changes are in means of communicating information (whatever that may be). My intention is to provide as broad a time period as possibly while still maintaining commensurability. In my analysis of the relevant social groups for the production of technical handbooks I could stretch my analysis from the sketchbooks of the medieval architects (e.g., Villard de Honnecourt) or to the machine manuscripts of the early Renaissance (e.g., Leonardo or di Georgio di Martini), to the most recent electronic editions of engineering handbooks. The materiality and production of these works, however, is hardly the same. To the greatest extent possible, I want to compare apples to apples.

B9: this perspective will have to be explained and supported

Explaining documentalism will be part of the first chapter. The theoretical approach will tie in to some of the analysis I have described under B1 and B2.

B10: this sounds like you anticipate empirical study of such accounts, is that so?

At this stage, I have no intention of conducting empirical study of these accounts because they don’t exist (and I’ve looked!). Instead, we are limited to the same sort of analysis available to us for the theatrum machinarum. What is different, however, is the type of resources we have available for explicating the relevant social groups and processes of stabilization. The correspondence of one of the original authors is available in the archives of Cornell and the modern discourse of architecture is still ongoing. Unlike the theatrum machinarum—an artefact whose world is largely lost to us—AGS is the product of our own world. The commonalities and differences of these works may yield important insights into the practices that have shaped them. Why, for example, is the oblique perspective used throughout both works? What function does the exploded view provide and what points is text use instead of pure visual representation? What purpose does the text provide? Is it related to representations of any particular thing? The questions are endless…