Dear Colleagues,

On June 29, Victor Margolin posted a note headed “Literacy.” Victor
draws a clear distinction “between a list of resources and an
intellectual history that locates texts in a framework of when they were
written, what they responded to, how they addressed what came before
them, what effect they had on what came after them, what other texts
they relate to, when and where were these other texts produced.”
[Victor's original post appears at the end of this note.]

Victor dismisses such projects as the Zotero book list: “I am not a
big fan of lists if the material on the lists has no context, no
relation between the texts. The basic point of my initial post was to
argue for a mapping of texts and issues as a way to orient old and new
researchers so that thought in the design research field can develop as
it has in other fields where such mapping has occurred. The point is not
to collect resources but rather to know where and when they originated
and why.” 

It is a misreading to claim that Victor’s note calls for “a
bibliography of seminal design literature.” A list without context or
commentary is irrelevant to Victor’s concerns. He did not ask for a
bibliography, but rather a series of tools such as focused literature
review articles and, to a lesser degree, annotated bibliographies.
Zotero offers neither.

The problem of this latest list lies in the inability to distinguish
between a list, a bibliography, an annotated bibliography, and a
literature review.

A bibliography is a structured list of published resources organized in
a consistent bibliographic format. This formatting principle makes it
easy for everyone using the bibliography to locate and work from the
same documents. A proper bibliography uses a specific citation style
such as APA, MLA, or one of the two Chicago styles – “notes and
bibliography,” or “author-date.” 

A bibliography generally focuses on a single theme or topic, though it
may contain subsidiary sections within a larger topic. Most
bibliographies are organized alphabetically by the author’s last name.
Other principles are possible. For example, a bibliography might be
organized chronologically to show the evolution of a field. A
bibliography is a resource list. 

But Victor has no interest in yet another resource list. Victor’s
challenge calls for: “an intellectual history that locates texts in a
framework of when they were written, what they responded to, how they
addressed what came before them, what effect they had on what came after
them, what other texts they relate to, when and where were these other
texts produced.”

While a properly structured bibliography is a step up from a list, even
a well-structured bibliography doesn’t fulfill Victor’s goal. There
are two ways to move toward Victor’s goal. One might be possibly done
as a software-based community project. The other requires a single
author or a small team of authors. The first is an annotated
bibliography. The other is a literature review.

An annotated bibliography supplies a bibliographic note for each item
in a bibliography. This note – the annotation –describes each item
with well-structured information. An annotated bibliography generally
provides consistent notes that allow the reader to compare and
understand the items in relation to one another, taking the first step
toward what Victor describes as “a mapping of texts and issues as a
way to orient old and new researchers so that thought in the design
research field can develop as it has in other fields where such mapping
has occurred.”

Those who wish to learn more about how to write a good bibliographic
note will find useful guidance on the nature, purposes, and content of
an annotated bibliography on the University of New South Wales Learning
Center web site:

 http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/annotated_bib.html

The UNSW site notes that robust notes should contain all or some of the
following elements, depending on purpose, word limit, and cited
sources:

1) full bibliographic citation, 2) the background of the author or
author, 3) the content or scope of the text, 4) an outline of the main
argument, 5) a description of the intended audience, 6) a description of
the research methods, if applicable, 7) conclusions, 8) reliability, 9)
description of special features that are unique or helpful, such as
charts or graphs 10) the relevance or usefulness of the text for
research, either for the field in general or, in some cases, the
specific research of the author of the annotated bibliography, 11) the
way that the text relates to themes or concepts, 12) the strengths and
limitations of the text, 13) the view or reaction of the author of the
annotated bibliography to the text.

While the UNSW site writes for an audience of students with an emphasis
on bibliographic notes written for course work, the outline can be
adapted to most annotated bibliographies.

Cornell University has an excellent guide on how to prepare an
annotated bibliography:

 http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/skill28.htm

Like the UNSW site, the Cornell site calls for consistent, well
formatted citations in an appropriate reference style. In concise notes,
the author of the bibliography should examine and review the items in
the bibliography, 1) summarizing the theme and scope of each
publication, 2) evaluating the authority or background of the author of
each items, 3) commenting on the intended audience, 4) comparing or
contrasting this work with other items cited in the bibliography, and 5)
explaining how this work illuminates the bibliography topic.

The Cornell site emphasizes the critical analysis of information
sources:

 http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/skill26.htm

What Victor’s note really calls for is a series of critical
literature reviews. A critical literature review is a conceptual mapping
tool, and that is Victor's challenge to the field. I’ll post a note on
the nature and purposes of the critical literature review another time.
At the moment, I’m in Delft for the IASDR conference. This morning,
we’re holding the doctoral colloquium. Some of the best new
researchers from around the world present the work they are doing to
complete a PhD, with the idea that interaction and consultation with
each other and with senior scholars will help them to develop and
improve their thesis projects.

Yours,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61
39214 6078 | Faculty 

--

Victor Margolin wrote:

--snip--

Much has been written on this list since my initial post a few days ago
about literature and literacy. Ken amplified some of my points by
discussing a field's need for a literature and the importance of knowing
the literature and building on it. The discussion has moved to websites
and programs to keep track of high volumes of reading material. The
point I wish to return to is the function of core reading material in a
field's development. In that spirit, I would like to distinguish between
a list of resources and an intellectual history that locates texts in a
framework of when they were written, what they responded to, how they
addressed what came before them, what effect they had on what came after
them, what other texts they relate to, when and where were these other
texts produced. It is this intellectual history of design studies and
design research that a good PhD program should provide so that a student
can locate her or his own thinking within a trajectory, as I mentioned
in my initial post. As to the gendering of texts, by first locating them
within an intellectual history, one can expose the gender implications
and patterns within which they exist. There are particular moments when
women began to publish texts on design history or design and these
moments have increased as many more women have entered the fields of
design and design research. I am not a big fan of lists if the material
on the lists has no context, no relation between the texts. The basic
point of my initial post was to argue for a mapping of texts and issues
as a way to orient old and new researchers so that  thought in the
design research field can develop as it has in other fields where such
mapping has occurred. The point is not to collect resources but rather
to know where and when they originated and why.

--snip--