This article, drawing on ethnographic study in a chemical physics research facility, explores how notebooks are used and produced in the conduct of laboratory science. Data include written field notes of laboratory activity; visual documentation of in situ writing processes; analysis of inscriptions, texts, and material artifacts produced in the laboratory and assembled in notebooks; and an in-depth interview with an expert chemist whose research and writing formed the basis of this investigation. Findings from this study suggest that the notebook occupies a negotiated space between the scientist’s contingent response to exigency in the laboratory and the genre-specific strategies that he or she deploys to communicate his or her work outside the laboratory. This text, the author argues, might therefore be understood as a locus in the sense that it facilitates a reflexive process whereby inscriptions are used both to interpret a-perceptual chemical phenomena in time, and, through their inclusion and integration in the notebook, to discipline that interpretation over time. Tracing the way inscriptions move between material synthesis, on the one hand, and text production, on the other, this article ultimately offers a methodical approach for investigating how the material, technical, and symbolic dimensions of writing and text converge in a modern scientific workplace.
Ackerman, J., & Oates, S. ( 1996). Image, text, and power in architectural design and workplace writing. In A. H. Duin & C. J. Hansen (Eds.), Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology (pp. 81-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. ( 2008) Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25, 166-195.
3.
Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. ( 2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. London: Equinox.
4.
Bakhtin, M.M. ( 1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans., pp. 259-422). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1935)
5.
Bazerman, C. ( 1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
Bazerman, C. ( 1999). The languages of Edison’s light. Cambridge: MIT Press.
7.
Bracewell, R.J., & Witte, S.P. ( 2003). Tasks, ensembles, and activity: Linkages between text production and situation of use in the workplace. Written Communication, 20, 511-59.
8.
Campbell, J.A. ( 1990). Scientific discovery and rhetorical invention: The path to Darwin’s Origin. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry (pp. 58-90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Chin, E. ( 1994). Redefining "context" in research on writing. Written Communication, 11, 445-482.
10.
Collings, P.J. ( 2002). Liquid crystals: Nature’s delicate phase of matter . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Crick, N. ( 2005). "A capital and a novel argument": Charles Darwin’s notebooks and the productivity of rhetorical consciousness. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 91, 337-364.
12.
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Paré, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Fahnestock, Jeanne. ( 1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275-296.
14.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. ( 1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
15.
Gooding, D. ( 1989). "Magnetic curves" and the magnetic field: Experimentation and representation in the history of a theory. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, S. Schaeffer, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences (pp. 183-224). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Gooding, D. ( 1990a). Mapping experiment as a learning process: How the first electromagnetic motor was invented. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 165-201.
17.
Gooding, D. ( 1990b). Experiment and the making of meaning: Human agency in scientific observation and experiment. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
18.
Gross, A.G. ( 2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science studies . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
19.
Gruber, H.E. ( 1974). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity . New York: E. P. Dutton.
20.
Haas, C., & Witte, S.P. ( 2001). Writing as embodied practice: The case of engineering standards. Journal of Business and Technical Writing, 15, 413-57.
21.
Harris, R. ( 1995). Signs of writing. London: Routledge.
22.
Harris, R. ( 2000). Rethinking writing. New York: Continuum.
23.
Holmes, F.L. ( 1984). Lavoisier and Krebs: The individual scientists in the near and deeper past. Isis, 75, 131-142.
24.
Holmes, F.L. ( 1985). Lavoisier and the chemistry of life: An exploration of scientific creativity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Holmes, F.L. ( 1990). Laboratory notebooks: Can the daily record illuminate the broader picture?Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 134, 349-366.
27.
Holmes, F.L. ( 2004). Investigating pathways: Patterns and stages in the careers of experimental scientists. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
Holmes, F.L., Renn, J., & Rheinberger, H-J. (2003). Reworking the bench: Research notebooks in the history of science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
29.
Hull, G., & Nelson, M.E. ( 2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22, 224-61.
30.
Klein, U. ( 2001). Tools and modes of representation in the laboratory sciences . Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer .
31.
Knorr-Cetina, K. ( 1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. New York: Pergamon Press.
32.
Knorr-Cetina, K. ( 1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. ( 2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 105-143.
34.
Kress, G. ( 2000). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182-202). London: Routledge.
35.
Kress, G. ( 2003). Literacy in the new media age. London : Routledge.
36.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge .
37.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. New York : Oxford University Press.
38.
Kristeva. J. ( 1986). Word, dialogue, and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (T. Gora, A. Jardine, & L. S. Roudiez, Trans., pp. 34-61). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. (Original work published 1969)
39.
Latour, B. ( 1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Latour, B. ( 1988). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-69). Cambridge: MIT Press.
41.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. ( 1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1979).
42.
Lemke, J. ( 1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London : Routledge.
43.
Lynch, M. ( 1985b). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
44.
Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (1988). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
45.
Medway, P. ( 1996). Virtual and material buildings: Construction and constructionism in architecture and writing. Written Communication, 13, 473-514.
46.
Medway, P. ( 2002). Fuzzy genres and community identities: The case of architecture students’ sketchbooks. In R. Coe , L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 123-153). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
47.
Miller, C. ( 1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-176.
48.
Palffy-Muhoray, P. ( 2007). The diverse world of liquid crystals. Physics Today, 60, 54-60.
49.
Prior, P. ( 1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
Rheinberger, H.J. ( 1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
51.
Smagorinsky, P., Zoss, M., & Reed, P. ( 2006). Residential interior design as complex composition: A case study of a high school senior’s composing process. Written Communication, 23, 295-330.
52.
Strauss, A.L. ( 1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Tweney, R.D. ( 1991). Faraday’s notebooks: The active organization of creative science. Physics Education, 26, 301-306.
54.
Tweney, R.D., & Gooding, D. ( 1991). Michael Faraday’s "chemical notes, hints, suggestions, and objects of pursuit" of 1822. London: Short Run Press.
55.
Winsor, D. ( 1994). Invention and writing in technical work: Representing the object. Written Communication, 11, 227-250.
56.
Witte, S. ( 1992). Text, context, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9, 237-308.
