How a prototype argues

Alan Galey, Stan Ruecker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In this article, we argue that, just as an edition of a book can be a means of reifying a theory about how books should be edited, so can the creation of an experimental digital prototype be understood as conveying an argument about designing interfaces. Building on this premise, we explore theoretical affinities shared by recent design and book history scholarship, and connect those theories to the emerging practice of peer-reviewing digital objects in scholarly contexts. We suggest a checklist for subjecting prototypes directly to peer review: Is the argument reified by the prototype contestable, defensible, and substantive? Does the prototype have a recognizable position in the context of similar work, either in terms of concept or affordances? Is the prototype part of a series of prototypes with an identifiable trajectory? Does the prototype address possible objections? Is the prototype itself an original contribution to knowledge? We also outline some implications for funding agencies interested in supporting researchers who are designing experimental computer prototypes. For instance, if a series of prototypes functions as a set of smaller arguments within a larger debate, it might be more appropriate to fund the sequence rather than treating each project as an individual proposal.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)405-424
Number of pages20
JournalLiterary and Linguistic Computing
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2010

Fingerprint

Conveying
Trajectories
peer review
edition
funding
history
Prototype

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Information Systems
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

How a prototype argues. / Galey, Alan; Ruecker, Stan.

In: Literary and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 25, No. 4, 01.12.2010, p. 405-424.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Galey, Alan ; Ruecker, Stan. / How a prototype argues. In: Literary and Linguistic Computing. 2010 ; Vol. 25, No. 4. pp. 405-424.
@article{9099c69c4f2c4f97b2dd52a90b8e7415,
title = "How a prototype argues",
abstract = "In this article, we argue that, just as an edition of a book can be a means of reifying a theory about how books should be edited, so can the creation of an experimental digital prototype be understood as conveying an argument about designing interfaces. Building on this premise, we explore theoretical affinities shared by recent design and book history scholarship, and connect those theories to the emerging practice of peer-reviewing digital objects in scholarly contexts. We suggest a checklist for subjecting prototypes directly to peer review: Is the argument reified by the prototype contestable, defensible, and substantive? Does the prototype have a recognizable position in the context of similar work, either in terms of concept or affordances? Is the prototype part of a series of prototypes with an identifiable trajectory? Does the prototype address possible objections? Is the prototype itself an original contribution to knowledge? We also outline some implications for funding agencies interested in supporting researchers who are designing experimental computer prototypes. For instance, if a series of prototypes functions as a set of smaller arguments within a larger debate, it might be more appropriate to fund the sequence rather than treating each project as an individual proposal.",
author = "Alan Galey and Stan Ruecker",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/llc/fqq021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "405--424",
journal = "Literary and Linguistics Computing",
issn = "0268-1145",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How a prototype argues

AU - Galey, Alan

AU - Ruecker, Stan

PY - 2010/12/1

Y1 - 2010/12/1

N2 - In this article, we argue that, just as an edition of a book can be a means of reifying a theory about how books should be edited, so can the creation of an experimental digital prototype be understood as conveying an argument about designing interfaces. Building on this premise, we explore theoretical affinities shared by recent design and book history scholarship, and connect those theories to the emerging practice of peer-reviewing digital objects in scholarly contexts. We suggest a checklist for subjecting prototypes directly to peer review: Is the argument reified by the prototype contestable, defensible, and substantive? Does the prototype have a recognizable position in the context of similar work, either in terms of concept or affordances? Is the prototype part of a series of prototypes with an identifiable trajectory? Does the prototype address possible objections? Is the prototype itself an original contribution to knowledge? We also outline some implications for funding agencies interested in supporting researchers who are designing experimental computer prototypes. For instance, if a series of prototypes functions as a set of smaller arguments within a larger debate, it might be more appropriate to fund the sequence rather than treating each project as an individual proposal.

AB - In this article, we argue that, just as an edition of a book can be a means of reifying a theory about how books should be edited, so can the creation of an experimental digital prototype be understood as conveying an argument about designing interfaces. Building on this premise, we explore theoretical affinities shared by recent design and book history scholarship, and connect those theories to the emerging practice of peer-reviewing digital objects in scholarly contexts. We suggest a checklist for subjecting prototypes directly to peer review: Is the argument reified by the prototype contestable, defensible, and substantive? Does the prototype have a recognizable position in the context of similar work, either in terms of concept or affordances? Is the prototype part of a series of prototypes with an identifiable trajectory? Does the prototype address possible objections? Is the prototype itself an original contribution to knowledge? We also outline some implications for funding agencies interested in supporting researchers who are designing experimental computer prototypes. For instance, if a series of prototypes functions as a set of smaller arguments within a larger debate, it might be more appropriate to fund the sequence rather than treating each project as an individual proposal.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650403484&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650403484&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/llc/fqq021

DO - 10.1093/llc/fqq021

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:78650403484

VL - 25

SP - 405

EP - 424

JO - Literary and Linguistics Computing

JF - Literary and Linguistics Computing

SN - 0268-1145

IS - 4

ER -