I really enjoyed Star's article on the ethnography of infrastructure. I didn't think I would, since, as the article states, infrastructure seems boring. It's the nuts and bolts, the wires, the stuff that's invisible. But I found the following to be very true: "one person's infrastructure is another person's difficulty". It's interesting that, once again, a couple of the courses I'm taking intersect and discuss similar issues in the same week. In my Introduction to Reference, I just read an article discussing the way humanities scholars search online databases. The article, by Marcia Bates, is an old one, and talks about the very beginnings of computer database searching, but as I was reading it I thought that it is still the case! The databases we use, and in particular how they are constructed, are very much "science-y", requiring us to translate our thoughts into precise queries that the computer can process. I noticed that some databases now include a "visual search", perhaps to appeal to those of us with a more visual learning style. Incidentally when I tried to do a "visual search", I was not successful. Or at least it looked like I was not successful, because the interface didn't change. But moreover, even if I were successful the search would still require me to translate my vague, gut-feeling of a query into concrete terms, the more precise the better. This shows a definite bias towards science in the way we approach searching - everything is logical, standardized, codified, hierarchical. I'm not suggesting by any means that I know a better way to go about searching for information, but this is one very concrete example of infrastructure that most of us don't even notice (hence the transparency) until it becomes a hindrance and suddenly comes into view.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI love your post on this topic! You're right, there definitely is a "science" to how indexes are organized and how database searches can be conducted. A lot of disciplines have overlapping topics, but inevitably refer to the same concepts using different terms. This is something I came across frequently when doing a double major in Psychology and Philosophy. Arguably, the terms "personality" and "character" refer to the same concept, but each term has a different history, and has been used by different people within different contexts to mean different things. Yet somehow the two terms still refer to the same entity, as though they were two sides of the same coin!
ReplyDeleteWith the development of large, interdisciplinary databases (such as Web of Science and JSTOR), I too have noticed a movement towards a "science-y" standardization of search terms and phrases. My background in social science and philosophy complements this type of infrastructure and it quite naturally facilitates my research, but I can see how these new developments would make life more difficult for humanities or fine arts students. It would be great if there were more "browse" features for the search engines of popular databases. For example, if you were finding it difficult to locate U of T library books using the catalogue, there is an option for you to digitally browse the shelves the way one would normally browse a physical shelf in a library. Such an approach is more holistic and intuitive than relying on standardized atomistic terms and phrases.
I like Star's (1999) example of how a cook would consider the water system of a city to be "... working infrastructure integral to making dinner", whereas the city planner or plumber would consider it to be "... a variable in a complex planning process or a target for repair." (p.380). I agree that infrastructure should be viewed as a relational property, and not as "... a thing stripped of use" (Star & Ruhleder qtd. in Star, 1999, p.380). And you're right, quite often it isn't until infrastructure breaks down (loses its 'transparency') that its existence and relational roles become most apparent.