Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:18:27.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processes on Paper: Writing Procedures as Non-Material Research Devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

Christoph Hoffmann
Christoph Hoffmann*
Affiliation:
University of Lucerne E-mail: christoph.hoffmann@unilu.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

The paper focuses on the instrumentality of writing in the context of scientific research. It is suggested that the tool-character of writing is related to specific writing procedures, such as the list. These procedures can vary in their degree of complexity and often follow rules that are not codified. In any case, writing procedures can be characterized as non-material devices of “concretion.” Two examples from the notebooks of the physicist and philosopher of science, Ernst Mach (1838–1916), will help to develop the notion of writing procedures. Typical for Mach's use of his notebooks, they highlight the effects of writing in the context of reasoning and reflecting.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 26 , Special Issue 2: Knowledge in the Making , June 2013 , pp. 279 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alamargot, Denis, and Chanquoy, Lucile. 2001. Through the Models of Writing. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberousse, Annouk. 2003. “Desiner, Calculer, Transmettre. Écriture et Création scientifique chez Pierre-Gilles de Gennes.” Genesis 20:145–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belknap, Robert E. 2004. The List: The Uses and Pleasures of Cataloguing. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, Carl. 1980. “Development in Writing.” In Cognitive Processes in Writing, edited by Gregg, Lee W. and Steinberg, Erwin R., 73–93. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bereiter, Carl, and Scardamalia, Marlene. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale NJ, London: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Blackmore, John Thomas. 1972. Ernst Mach: His Life, Work, and Influence. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. [1980] 1990. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Nice, Richard. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campe, Rüdiger. 1991. “Die Schreibszene. Schreiben.” In Paradoxien, Dissonanzen, Zusammenbrüche. Situationen offener Epistemologie, edited by Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich and Pfeifer, K. Ludwig, 759–71. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 2004. “Taking Note(s).” Isis 95:443–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienel, Hans-Liudger. 2006. “Schreiben, Zeichnen, Erinnern. Persönliches Wissensmanagement im Ingenieurberuf seit 1850.” In Technografie. Zur Mikrosoziologie der Technik, edited by Rammert, Werner and Schübel, Cornelius, 397–424. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Droysen, Johann Gustav. [1857] 1977. Historik. Rekonstruktion der ersten vollständigen Fassung der Vorlesungen (1857), Grundriß der Historik in der ersten handschriftlichen (1857/58) und in der letzten gedruckten Fassung (1882), edited by Leyh, Peter. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Verlag Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Eric J. 2003. Clinical Psychiatry in Imperial Germany: A History of Psychiatric Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 2000. “The Suppressed Drawing: Paul Dirac's Hidden Geometry.” Representations 72:145–66.
Gooding, David. 1992. “The Procedural Turn; or, Why Do Thought Experiments Work?” In Cognitive Models of Science, edited by Giere, Ronald N., 44–76. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack, and Watt, Ian. 1963. “The Consequences of Literacy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 5:304–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havelock, Eric A. 1963. Preface To Plato: A History of the Greek Mind. Cambridge MA, London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, John R., and Flowers, Linda S.. 1980. “Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes.” In Cognitive Processes in Writing, edited by Gregg, Lee W. and Steinberg, Erwin R., 3–30. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. [1938] 1977. “Die Zeit des Weltbildes.” In Gesamtausgabe. I. Abteilung, Vol. 5: Holzwege, edited by von Herrmann, Friedrich-Wilhelm, 75–113. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. [1938] 2009. “The Age of the World Picture.” In The Heidegger Reader, edited by Figal, Günter, translated by Feith, Jerome, 207–23. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Christoph. 2003. “The Pocket Schedule. Note-taking as Research Technique: Ernst Mach's Ballistic-Photographic Experiments.” In Reworking the Bench: Research Notebooks in the History of Science, edited by Holmes, Frederic Lawrence, Renn, Jürgen, and Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg, 183–202. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Christoph. 2008. “Schneiden und Schreiben. Das Sektionsprotokoll in der Pathologie um 1900.” In Daten sichern. Schreiben und Zeichnen als Verfahren der Aufzeichnung, edited by Hoffmann, Christoph, 153–96. Zurich, Berlin: Diaphanes.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Christoph. 2010. “Umgebungen. Über Ort und Materialität von Ernst Machs Notizbüchern.” In Portable Media. Schreibszenen in Bewegung zwischen Peripatetik und Mobiltelefon, edited by Stingelin, Martin, and Thiele, Matthias, 89–107. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Christoph, and Berz, Peter, eds. 2001. Über Schall. Ernst Machs und Peter Salchers Geschoßfotografien. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar
Holmes, Frederic Lawrence. 2004. Investigative Pathways: Patterns and Stages in the Careers of Experimental Scientists. With an afterword by Buchwald, Jed Z.. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Frederic Lawrence, Renn, Jürgen, and Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg, eds. 2003. Reworking the Bench: Research Notebooks in the History of Science. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, David. 2005. Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Ursula. 2001. “Paper Tools in Experimental Cultures – The Case of Berzelian Formulas.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32:265–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogge, Werner. 2005. “Erschriebene Denkräume. Grammatologie in der Perspektive einer Philosophie der Praxis.” In Schrift. Kulturtechnik zwischen Auge, Hand und Maschine, edited by Grube, Gernot, Kogge, Werner, and Krämer, Sybille, 137–69. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Krämer, Sybille. 2005. “Operationsraum Schrift: Über einen Perspektivenwechsel in der Betrachtung der Schrift.” In Schrift. Kulturtechnik zwischen Auge, Hand und Maschine, edited by Grube, Gernot, Kogge, Werner, and Krämer, Sybille, 23–57. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1990. “Drawing Things Together.” In Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by Lynch, Michael, and Woolgar, Steve, 19–68. Cambridge MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. [1975] 1983. Legitimation durch Verfahren. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1985. Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst. [1896] 1943. “On the Part Played by Accident in Invention and Discovery.” In idem Popular Scientific Lectures, 5th edition, 259–81. La Salle IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Mainberger, Sabine. 2003. Die Kunst des Aufzählens. Elemente zu einer Poetik des Enumerativen. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCutchen, Deborah, Teske, Paul, and Bankston, Catherine. 2008. “Writing and Cognition: Implications of the Cognitive Architecture for Learning to Write and Writing to Learn.” In Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text, edited by Bazerman, Charles, 451–70. New York, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Meyer-Krahmer, Benjamin. 2012. “My Brain Is Localized in my Inkstand. Zur graphischen Praxis von Charles Sanders Peirce.” In Schriftbildlichkeit. Wahrnehmbarkeit, Materialität und Operativität von Notationen, edited by Krämer, Sybille, Cancik-Kirschbaum, Eva, and Totzke, Rainer, 401–14, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Donald M. 1978. “Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery.” In Research on Composing. Points of Departure, edited by Cooper, Charles R., and Odell, Lee, 85–103. Urbana IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Nasim, Omar. 2010. “Observation, Working Images and Procedure: The ‘Great Spiral’ in Lord Rosse's Astronomical Record Books and Beyond.” British Journal for the History of Science 44:353–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2003. “Scrips and Scribbles.” Modern Language Notes 118:623–36.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. [2007] 2010. On Historicizing Epistemology, translated by Fernbach, David. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
te Heesen, Anke. 2005. “The Notebook: A Paper Technology.” In Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by Latour, Bruno, and Weibel, Peter, 582–89. Cambridge MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
te Heesen, Anke. 2006. Der Zeitungsausschnitt. Ein Papierobjekt der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuchverlag.Google Scholar
Weber, Matthias M., and Engstrom, Eric J.. 1997. “Kraepelin's ‘Diagnostic Cards’: The Confluence of Clinical Research and Preconceived Categories.” History of Psychiatry 8:375–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfelé, Odile. 1998–99. “Organiser le désordre. Usages du cahier de laboratoire en physique contemporaine.” Alliage 37–38:25–41.Google Scholar