Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:56:54.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: Knowledge in the Making: Drawing and Writing as Research Techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

Christoph Hoffmann  and
Barbara Wittmann
Christoph Hoffmann
Affiliation:
University of Lucerne and Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
Barbara Wittmann
Affiliation:
University of Lucerne and Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Drawing and writing number among the most widespread scientific practices of representation. Neither photography, graphic recording apparatuses, typewriters, nor digital word- and image-processing ever completely replaced drawing and writing by hand. The interaction of hand, paper, and pen indeed involves much more than simply recording or visualizing what was previously thought, observed, or imagined. Both writing and drawing have the power to translate concepts and observations into two-dimensional, manageable, reproducible objects. They help to develop research questions and they open up an interaction between the gathering of phenomena and the formation of theses. Related to the manifold studies of representational activities in the sciences and the humanities, this topical issue tries to refine our understanding of the capacities of drawing and writing as research techniques; i.e. as productive epistemic practices. In particular the contributions address three aspects: the material conditions and configurations of the “scene of drawing and writing,” the involved procedures of production, and the languages of inscription.

Type
Introduction
Information
Science in Context , Volume 26 , Special Issue 2: Knowledge in the Making , June 2013 , pp. 203 - 213
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

Anderson, Nancy, and Dietrich, Michael R., eds. 2012. The Educated Eye: Visual Culture and Pedagogy in the Life Sciences. Dartmouth: Dartmouth College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Friedrich Teja, and Pichler, Wolfram, eds. 2009. Öffnungen. Zur Theorie und Geschichte der Zeichnung. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberousse, Anouk. 2003. “Dessiner, calculer, transmettre. Écriture et création scientifique chez Pierre-Gilles de Gennes.” Genesis 20:145–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Peter, and Clark, William, eds. 2001. Little Tools of Knowledge: Historical Essays on Academic and Bureaucratic Practices. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Marc. 1996. “Practices of Reading and Writing: The Constitutive Role of the Patient Record in Medical Work.” Sociology of Health & Illness 18:499–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Marc, and Bowker, Geoffrey. 1997. “The Multiple Bodies of the Medical Record: Toward a Sociology of an Artifact.” Sociological Quarterly 38:513–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernet, Brigitta. 2009. “‘Eintragen und Ausfüllen’. Der Fall des psychiatrischen Formulars.” In Zum Fall machen, zum Fall werden. Wissensproduktion und Patientenerfahrung in Medizin und Psychiatrie des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, edited by Brändli, Sybille, Lüthi, Barbara, and Spuhler, Gregor, 62–91. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus.Google Scholar
Blair, Ann. 2010. Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information Before the Modern Age. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bogen, Steffen, and Thürlemann, Felix. 2003. “Jenseits der Opposition von Text und Bild. Überlegungen zu einer Theorie des Diagramms und des Diagrammatischen.” In Die Bildwelt der Diagramme Joachims von Fiore: Zur Medialität religiös-politischer Programme im Mittelalter, edited by Patschovsky, Alexander, 1–22. Ostfildern: Thorbecke.Google Scholar
Bourguet, Marie-Noëlle. 2010. “A Portable World: The Notebooks of European Travellers (Eighteenth to Nineteenth Centuries).” Intellectual History Review 20:377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredekamp, Horst. 2000. “Gazing Hands and Blind Spots: Galileo as Draftsman.” Science in Context 13:423–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredekamp, Horst. 2009. Galilei der Künstler. Der Mond – die Sonne – die Hand, second, revised edition. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, Norman. 2003. “A Walk for a Walk's Sake.” In The Stage of Drawing: Gesture and Act, edited by de Zegher, Catherine, 149–158. New York: Tate Publishing and the Drawing Center.Google Scholar
Buchwald, Jed. 1994. The Creation of Scientific Effects: Heinrich Hertz and Electric Waves. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, Werner, Jehle, Oliver, and Meister, Carolin, eds. 2007. Randgänge der Zeichnung. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google 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
Craig, Barbara L. 1991. “The Role of Records and of Record-Keeping in the Development of the Modern Hospital in London, England, and Ontario, Canada, c.1890–c.1940.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 65:376–397.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 2004. “Taking Note(s).” Isis 95:443–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Lunbeck, Elizabeth, eds. 2011. Histories of Scientific Observation. Chicago, London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Décultot, Elisabeth, ed. 2003. Lire, copier, écrire. Les Bibliothèques manuscrites et leurs usages au XVIIIe siècle. Paris: CNRS Editions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, Michael Aaron. 1989. “Graphic Understanding: Instruments and Interpretation in Robert Hooke's Micrographia.” Science in Context 3:309–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Rijcke, Sarah. 2008. “Drawing into Abstraction: Practices of Observation and Visualisation in the Work of Santiago Ramón y Cajal.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 33:287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, Eric J. 2003. Clinical Psychiatry in Imperial Germany: A History of Psychiatric Practice. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Robin. 2000. The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, Erna. 2006. “Instrument des Urteils. Zeichnen mit der Camera Lucida als Komposit.” In The Picture's Image: Wissenschaftliche Visualisierung als Komposit, edited by Hinterwaldner, Inge and Buschhaus, Markus, 44–58. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, Erna. 2008. “Optical Instruments and Modes of Vision in Early Nineteenth Century.” In Verfeinertes Sehen. Optik und Farbe im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Busch, Werner, 201–21. Munich: R. Oldenbourg VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1976. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. 2nd ed.Indianapolis: Hackett.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gréssilon, Almuth. 1994. Éléments de critique génétique: Lire les manuscrits modernes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Grube, Gernot, Kogge, Werner, and Krämer, Sybille, eds. 2005. Schrift. Kulturtechnik zwischen Auge, Hand und Maschine. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Gründler, Hana, Hildebrandt, Toni, Nasim, Omar, and Pichler, Wolfram, eds. 2012. Zur Händigkeit der Zeichnung. Issue of Rheinsprung 11: Zeitschrift für Bildkritik 03.Google Scholar
Gunn, Wendy, ed. 2009. Fieldnotes and Scetchbooks: Challenging the Boundaries Between Descriptions and Processes of Describing. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hay, Louis. 1989. De la lettre au livre. Sémiotique des manuscrits littéraires. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Hensel, Thomas. 2011. Wie aus der Kunstgeschichte eine Bildwissenschaft wurde: Aby Warburgs Graphien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, Volker, and Mendelsohn, J. Andrew. 2010. “Case and Series: Medical Knowledge and Paper Technology 1600–1900.” History of Science 48:287–314.CrossRefGoogle 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 Academic Publishers.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
Holland, Jocelyn, and Strätling, Susanne. 2010. “Introduction: Aesthetics of the Tool–Technologies, Figures, and Instruments of Literature and Art.” Configurations 18:203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Frederic L. 1974. Claude Bernard and Animal Chemistry: The Emergence of a Scientist. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Frederic L. 1985. Lavoisier and the Chemistry of Life: An Exploration of Scientific Creativity. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Frederic L. 1991–93. Hans Krebs. 2 vols. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Frederic L., 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
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krämer, Sybille. 2003. “Writing, Notational Iconicity, Calculus: On Writing as a Cultural Technique.” Modern Language Notes 118:518–537.Google Scholar
Krämer, Sybille. 2009. “Operative Bildlichkeit. Von der ‘Grammatologie’ zu einer ‘Diagrammatologie’? Reflexionen über erkennendes ‘Sehen’.” In Logik des Bildlichen. Zur Kritik der ikonischen Vernunft, edited by Hessler, Martina and Mersch, Dieter, 94–122. Bielefeld: transcript.CrossRefGoogle 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
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Law, John. 1986. “Laboratories and Texts.” In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, edited by Callon, Michel, Law, John, and Rip, Arie, 35–50. London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledebur, Sophie. 2011. “Schreiben und Beschreiben. Zur epistemischen Funktion von psychiatrischen Krankenakten, ihrer Archivierung und deren Übersetzung in Fallgeschichten.” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 34:102–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcintyre, Sally. 1978. “Some Notes on Record Taking and Making in an Antenatal Clinic.” Sociological Review 26:595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIver Lopes, Dominic. 2009. “Drawing in a Social Science: Lithic Illustration.” Perspectives on Science 17:5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meister, Carolin. 2007. “Picassos Carnets. Das Skizzenbuch als graphisches Dispositiv.” In Randgänge der Zeichnung, edited by Busch, Werner, Jehle, Oliver, and Meister, Carolin, 257–282. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, J. Andrew. 2011. “The World on a Page: Making a General Observation in the Eighteenth Century.” In Histories of Scientific Observation, edited by Daston, Lorraine and Lunbeck, Elizabeth, 396–420. Chicago, London: Chicago University Press.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
Müller-Wille, Staffan, and Charmantier, Isabelle. 2012. “Natural History and Information Overload: The Case of Linnaeus.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43:4–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortlieb, Cornelia. 2010. Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi und die Philosophie als Schreibart. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Wolfram, and Ubl, Ralph. 2007. “Vor dem ersten Strich. Dispositive der Zeichnung in der modernen und vormodernen Kunst,” In Randgänge der Zeichnung, edited by Busch, Werner, Jehle, Oliver, and Meister, Carolin, 231–255. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google 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
Rosand, David. 2002. Drawing Acts: Studies in Graphic Expression and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rößler, Johannes. 2008. “Das Notizbuch als Werkzeug des Kunsthistorikers. Schrift und Zeichnung in den Forschungen von Wilhelm Bode und Carl Justi.” In Daten sichern. Schreiben und Zeichnen als Verfahren der Aufzeichnung, edited by Hoffmann, Christoph, 73–102. Zurich, Berlin: diaphanes.Google Scholar
Sammet, Kai. 2007. “Paratext und Text. Über das Abheften und die Verwendung psychiatrischer Krankenakten. Beispiele aus den Jahren 1900–1930.” Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Nervenheilkunde 12:339–367.Google Scholar
Schickore, Jutta. 2002. “Fixierung mikroskopischer Beobachtungen: Zeichnung, Dauerpräparat, Mikrofotografie.” In Ordnungen der Sichtbarkeit: Fotografie in Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technologie, edited by Geimer, Peter, 285–310. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
Schulze, Elke. 2002. “‘Einführung in die Kunst des Zeichnens zum Zweck bewussten Sehens’: Das Lektorat Akademisches Zeichnen an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität.” Jahrbuch für Universitätsgeschichte 5:51–67.Google Scholar
Schulze, Elke. 2005. “Zeichnung und Fotografie: Universitäres Zeichnen und naturwissenschaftliche Bildfindung.” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 28:151–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simondon, Gilbert. 1989. Du mode d'existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich. 2005. Explorative Experimente. Ampère, Faraday und die Ursprünge der Elektrodynamik. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Stingelin, Martin. 2004. “Schreiben. Einleitung.” In “Mir ekelt vor diesem tintenklecksenden Säkulum”: Schreibszenen im Zeitalter der Manuskripte, edited by Stingelin, Martin, 7–21. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.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, 582–589. Cambridge MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Todes, Daniel P. 2002. Pavlov's Physiology Factory: Experiment, Interpretation, Laboratory Enterprise. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Trüper, Henning. 2007. “Das Klein-Klein der Arbeit: Die Notizführung des Historikers François Louis Ganshof.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 18/2:82–104.Google Scholar
Trüper, Henning. 2011. “Unordnungssysteme. Zur Praxis der Notizführung bei Johan Huizinga.” Zeitenblicke 10 http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2011/1/Trueper/index_html (last accessed January 4, 2013).Google Scholar
Warwick, Andrew. 2003. Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics. Chicago, London: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfelé, Odile. 1998–99. “Organiser le désordre. Usages du cahier de laboratoire en physique contemporaine.” Alliage 37/38:25–41.Google Scholar
Wickman, Chad. 2010. “Writing Material in Chemical Physics Research: The Laboratory Notebook as Locus of Technical and Textual Integration.” Written Communication 27:259–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittmann, Barbara. 2013. “Morphologische Erkundungen. Zeichnen am Mikroskop.” Bildwelten des Wissens 9 (2):45–54.Google Scholar