The author argues that users see texts as tools when they recognize the texts' specific value and function within highly localized use settings. The author argues that users “ground” their texts to local use settings by altering the ways in which the texts structure and represent information (e.g., underlining, annotation, and sketching). The author discusses three practices by which texts are grounded as tools in document reviews: mode shifting, layering, and marking. These practices reflect different ways by which users add, subtract, and restructure information in a text so that it is usable under very specific conditions. This article explores document review as a practice in which grounding is the object of discussion (how others use the reviewed documents) and a practice by which review is facilitated. These observations will be important for exploration of technology to support “grounding” practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClarkH. H., Using Language, Cambridge, New York, 1996.
2.
HendersonK., On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998.
3.
WinsorD. A., Ordering Work: Blue-Collar Literacy and the Political Nature of the Genre, Written Communication, 17, pp. 155–184, 2000.
4.
WinsorD. A., Learning to Do Knowledge Work in Systems of Distributed Cognition, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15: 1, pp. 5–28, 2001.
5.
HendersonK., Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Databases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16: 4, pp. 448–473, 1991.
6.
StarS. L., The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus and Organizational Complexity, Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology, StarS. L. (ed.), SUNY, Albany, New York, 1995.
7.
SellenA. J. and HarperR. H. R., The Myth of the Paperless Office, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002.
8.
ReichR. B., The Work of Nations, Vintage, New York, 1992.
9.
VincentD., Literacy and Popular Culture: England 1750–1914, Cambridge, New York, 1993.
10.
YatesJ., Control Through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1993.
11.
SauerB., Embodied Knowledge: The Textual Representation of Embodied Sensory Information in a Dynamic and Uncertain Material Environment, Written Communication, 15: 2, pp. 131–169, 1998.
EngeströmY., Activity Theory as a Framework for Analyzing and Redesigning Work, Ergonomics, 43: 7, pp. 960–974, 2000.
14.
AckermanJ. and OatesS., Image, Text, and Power in Architectural Design and Workplace Writing, in Nonacademic Writing: Social Theory and Technology, DuinA. H. and HansenC. J. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 81–121, 1996.
15.
DevittA. J., Intertextuality in Tax Accounting: Generic, Referential and Functional, in Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities, BazermanC. and ParadisJ. (eds.), Wisconsin University Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1991.
16.
SmartG., Storytelling in a Central Bank: The Role of Narrative in the Creation and Use of Specialized Economic Knowledge, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13: 3, pp. 249–273, 1999.
17.
WoodC. C., A Study of the Graphical Mediating Representations Used by Collaborative Authors, University of Sussex School of Cognitive and Computing Science, Brighton, 1992.
18.
HollanJ.HutchinsE., and KirshD., Distributed Cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7: 2, pp. 174–196, 2000.
19.
GibsonJ. J., The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1979.
20.
HutchinsE., Cognition in the Wild, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.
21.
ParadisJ.DobrinD., and MillerR., Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the Writing Environment of an R&D Organization, in Writing in Nonacademic Settings, OdellL. and GoswamiD. (eds.), Guilford, New York, pp. 281–307, 1985.
22.
Van der GeestT. and Van GemertL., Review as a Method for Improving Professional Texts, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11: 4, pp. 433–450, October 1997.
23.
GeislerC., Textual Objects: Accounting for the Role of Texts in the Everyday Life of Complex Organizations, Written Communication, 18, pp. 296–325, 2001.
24.
HowardV., Artistry: The Work of Artists, Hackett, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1982.
25.
PolyaniM., Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1974.
26.
MedwayP., Virtual and Material Buildings: Construction and Constructivism in Architecture and Writing, Written Communication, 13: 4, pp. 473–514, 1996.
27.
LatourB., Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands, Knowledge and Society, 6, pp. 1–40, 1986.
28.
SpinuzziC., Software Development as Mediated Activity: Three Analytical Frameworks for Studying Compound Mediation, ACM SIGDOC 2001 Conference Proceedings, ACM, New York, pp. 58–67, 2001.
29.
SharplesM., Design for New Writing Environments, in The New Writing Environment: Writers at Work in a World of Technology, SharplesM. and Van der GeestT. (eds.), Springer, London, pp. 97–115, 1996.
30.
SwartsJason, Speaking in Tongues: Coordinating Multiliterate Work of Tutors and Students Across Disciplines, The Journal of Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 5: 2, August 2001.
31.
SwartsJason and OdellLee, Rethinking the Evaluation of Writing in Engineering Courses, Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2001.
