Umberto Eco uses the concepts of "model author", "empirical author", "model
reader" and "empirical reader" to discuss the relationship between writers
and readers.
My example would be: In scientific writing the "empirical reader" has a
notion of the "model author" being a researcher, which implies certain
assumptions. In the same way the "empirical author" has to decide which
"model reader" s/he or they are addressing. Non-researchers as "empirical
readers" seldom match the "model reader" of science. And so forth. (Of
course Eco goes on to note that in fiction the "empirical author" may
introduce a fictive "model author" in the text, and so forth.)
In science writing some appears to argue that the "model author" is
invisible, which creates problems in situations where the "empirical
authors" needs to report on hers/his own choices, observations and
interventions. And so forth.
Satoshi's question, which I think is very important, can be put as: Can
scientific (both model and empirical) authors choose a "model reader" that
is not a researcher?
In my own doctoral project my main supervisor advices me not to, the
dissertation is to have the scientific community as "model readers", but I
am still hopeful that future research will take on a broader audience.
/Lars
Eco, U. (1994). Six walks in the fictional woods. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] För Francois-Xavier
Nsenga
Skickat: den 1 april 2008 02:24
Till: [log in to unmask]
Ämne: Re: I, We, The Author
Satoshi wrote:
"Academic authors tend not to think of the readers. If authors are
trained to place readers in the first place, the legibility
(understandability) will be greatly improved."
In my French composition lessons (long ago!) I was often reminded (is
the passive appropriate here?) that the rationale to use "nous" (we)
instead of "je" (I) was not a matter of personal pretention or else, of
trait of cultural reserve. I was told that to any writing there always
is more than one person involved. Minimally they are two: the writer and
eventually one reader, this latter being willingly or otherwise engaged
by the former, which is the purpose of writing anyway!
But even more so, to any artifact, in addition unknown but potential
future end-readers, there are draft reviewers, peer reviewers, proof
readers, editors, librarians, collectors, etc. who all will somehow read
the artifact for one purpose or another. I was told that a good writer
(designer) should aim at addressing his message to all those eventual
readers (users) and enroll all of them into his discourse (into using
his artifact). These latter are the only judges of clarity and
accountability...
I entirely agree with Satoshi. Like in case of any other design output,
the quality of a written artifact should ALSO be measured by the numbers
of readers (users) the author (designer) has satisfactorily engaged.
|