HabitsNeurosesTalents_LP

Questions drawn from essays by Evelyn Fox Keller and Roman Jakobson (Jakobson, Roman. 1956.“Two aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances.’” Fundamentals of Language edited by R. Jakobson and M. Halle. The Hague, Switzerland: Mouton.; Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. “Dynamic Objectivity: Love, Power and Knowledge,” p115-126. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale, 1985.):

**• Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object?**

I usually find it easier to articulate my objects - code, databases, Schema.org, the ontology, the neats vs. the scruffies - in my writing. I will know that something interesting is going on, and I’ll mostly expect that to come through with the description of the inner-workings of the object. This is with the notable exception of my design studies paper, where, once I knew I was trying to describe devious design, this concept was much easier to articulate than the objects I was outlining.

**• Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this?**

I tend to project hop, and I believe that this is a result of my struggle to nail down an object of study. I want to try out different objects and see what sorts of social theoretical questions they produced when placed next to each other.

**• Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? Is your desire is to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire is for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention.**

 I am absolutely more interested in internal dynamics. How do the inner workings of code shape a politics of knowledge representation? Yet, I’m also really interested in how very broad discourses/logics/worldviews shape the design of code. The context that tends to fall out for me (in favor of figure) is economical/political contexts.

**• What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it?**

In cases where I start with an object (rather than social theoretical questions), the deviant doesn’t emerge for me quite as much. But I am absolutely drawn to the deviant Web scientist or artificial intelligence researcher that seems to see the world a bit differently than the way these groups as a whole are traditionally characterized in STS research.

**• Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives?**

I tend to resist the construction of a coherent narrative. This is probably why I’m so drawn to very specific objects for analysis; I don’t have to claim how the world works - just how that one piece of code works. This does make it hard to build out a theoretical contribution from object narratives.

**• Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument?**

As a result, I also tend to hold back from overarching arguments, but stick with ones that I feel comfortable with. Almost all of my conference talks/papers over the past year have somehow pushed the following two arguments:  1. information architectures are embedded with their designer’s logics/world views  2. the design of information architecture shapes a politics of knowledge representation

**• Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them?**

I am intimidated by interpretations different than my own.

**• Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what?**

My argument changes quite a bit when I write - since I’m often figuring out what my argument is while I’m writing my object. That said, I //cannot// write a paper without writing an abstract or introduction that outlines the whole paper, including a main argument first. I need that as a launching point. I just assume that that piece of writing will be revised as the paper moves forward.

**• Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking?**

I tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like.” I think this manifests in how I use Google to pull photos for a presentation. I will navigate to Google Images and type in something broad like, re-iteration, or limit or displacement, to see what relevant images appear. I find this activity and the juxtaposition of the search results productive for fleshing out the scope of my argument.

**• Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”)**

I don’t like binary questions. So yes, this drives me insane.