In-Class Ruminations (Blog Post #2)

The article that I have found to be most interesting in the class thus far was the Buckland piece “What is a ‘document’?” I had not read the article previous to this class, and though I know it seems naïve, it really opened my eyes to ideas that had been ruminating in my head, but I had been unable to articulate because I don’t yet have the foundations and vocabulary to do so. Questioning something as simple as the definition of the unit of study – a document – not only helps to identify the scope of the profession, but also identifies areas of uncertainty, dissent, and cultural differentiation of the field. These things are all important to me as a student as I formulate my own opinion and definition of the field. So often in the excitement of learning new technologies and theories, we forget (or at least I do!) to study the founders of a field; Buckland’s piece gave me just enough insight into the earlier theorists of documentation to make me realize how much I didn’t know. Additionally, I find it fascinating to see how each opinion of what constitutes a document interacts with the other – how earlier opinions inform later ones, and in what ways they differ.

Three opinions that Buckland presents in the article were particularly interesting to me: Briet, Otlet, and Ranganathan. I especially enjoyed Briet, with her unequivocal definition of a document in 1951: “any physical or symbolic sign, preserved or recorded, intended to represent, to reconstruct, or to demonstrate a physical or conceptual phenomenon.” I love that she defines, with simple yeses and nos, what is or is not a document. It takes audacity to lay out a black and white definition of the scope of a field, and while I don’t necessarily think that it is all that simple, I do think that her definition of what constitutes a document allows leniency for new technologies and formats – she is more forward thinking than her colleagues of what the future might hold. Otlet provided a foundation for Briet’s opinions by allowing, in 1934, that documents can also be objects provided that they inform the observer. This has obvious ramifications on Briet’s thinking, as allowing an object to be a document, rather than just written papers is fundamental to her idea that anything that is “evidence in support of a fact” is a document. Alternatively, Ranganathan is an interesting juxtaposition to Briet and Otlet, as he rejects their ideas of objects as documents and contends in 1961 that a document is a “record on a more or less flat surface,” and an “‘embodied micro thought’ on paper ‘or other material, fit for physical handling, transport across space, and preservation through time.’” I wonder if there is a cultural difference as to the way documentation is handled in India versus Europe. Whatever the reason, I find it fascinating that with a foundation of Briet and Otlet, (if in fact he read them, which I assume he did, if he was writing in the field), Ranganathan took a completely conservative view on the subject, relegating documents to physical pieces of paper. Would Ranganathan consider a picture of a clay pot with metadata attached a document, rather than the clay pot itself?

Grocery Store Post

For this exercise, I visited the Carrboro Harris Teeter, in the Carr Mill Plaza on Greensboro Street.

Toothpicks

I found the toothpicks nestled between plastic cups and bowls, straws, and napkins. The common thread was party planning – each of the items in direct proximity to the toothpicks could be used when entertaining. Other items that could be placed nearby are Popsicle sticks, cocktail straws/umbrellas, and disposable cutlery. Perhaps items that would be used with toothpicks, such as olives, could also be close by. Initially, I thought that the toothpicks would be in the baking aisle – I had to look around and finally read every sign until I found the correct aisle.

Pasta Sauce

Items near the pasta sauce were white sauce, clam sauce, pizza sauce, vodka sauce, canned parmesan cheese, dried pasta, and can openers. It makes sense that these items are placed near traditional pasta sauce; obviously the other sauces are just variations on a theme, so they should be placed nearby, and pasta is what you would ostensibly put the pasta sauce on top of, so this is a smart placement as well. Parmesan cheese is a traditional topping for pasta sauce, so that product placement is convenient too, potentially provoking a customer into purchasing something that they did not intend to purchase. The only other things that I could think of to add to this display were items such as capers, fresh cheeses, and other toppings for pasta. In addition, it might be nice to place some pizza crusts near the sauces for those who might want to create their own pizzas.

Peppercinis

Fresh peppercinis were predictably surrounded by other fresh peppers. Varieties included habanero, jalapeño, chili, poblano, sweet peppers, cubanelle, and red, yellow, and green bell peppers. Additionally, and, in my opinion, oddly, the peppercinis were next to several varieties of cucumbers. As most of these products were also fresh peppers, it makes organizational sense to place them together. Regarding the cucumbers, I can discern no other relationship other than “vegetable.” As a pepper is almost a universal item in terms of cuisine, specific to no single dish or style, it becomes difficult to determine what it should be placed next to in the physical store. I think that it should remain with other varieties of peppers, and with other fresh vegetables.

The Store

The arrangement of the store was easy for me to comprehend due to the simple fact that it is my regular grocery store. Save for the toothpicks, which I found on my second try, I knew where to locate everything on the list. The basic problem with the organization harkens back to the Weinberger piece, “The New Order of Order.” The grocery store is grounded in the first order of order, whereby it is concerned with the placement of the actual physical objects (Weinberger, 2007). Following the same logic as in Weinberger’s piece, the grocery store can be improved by second order organization. While there are finding aids such as signage in the store, I am more interested in the level of access granted by cross referencing. The problem with the grocery store is that an item like shredded cheese can arguably live near the cheese, near the taco items, near the pasta items, and in the dairy case. Which one does the shopper investigate first? Where is the “correct” home for the shredded cheese? If some sort of system could be created where items could be cross referenced, either with representations that marked the physical location of the item, or with iterations of the item living in multiple spots in the store, it would provide a greater level of access to the consumer.

Is a Vegetable a Document?

In examining the case of whether or not a vegetable is a document, I am considering two of the documentarians presented in Buckland’s piece: Briet and Otlet. Briet sets forth four evaluative standards for determining an object’s document status:

1. There is materiality: Physical objects and physical signs only

2. There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be treated as evidence

3. The objects have to be processed: They have to be made into documents

4. There is a phenomenological position: the object is perceived to be a document (Buckland, 1997)

Let’s consider these criteria in relation to a yam in a grocery store. A yam has a physical presence – it is a tangible object in the material world. This yam is in a grocery store; it is not growing in the wild. It might be a bit of a stretch to consider the yam as evidence (more on this to follow) – it is most likely considered food – but there is intentionality. The yam has been taken from its natural habitat and put in an aisle to be displayed for the public eye. The yam has also been processed in order to be on display – it has gone through a factory to be cleaned, boxed, and shipped to a precise location. The last factor, the perception of the yam to be a document, is the deciding factor.

Briet asserts that, “a document is evidence in support of a fact” (Buckland, 1997). Does our yam support any facts? Otlet provides some insight into the matter by stating that, “objects themselves can be regarded as documents if you are informed by your observation of them” (Buckland, 1997). Synthesized, an object is a document when it provides information or insight to the observer in support of facts or information. It is here that I believe the most important distinction between object and document is made. Does the yam provide us with any more insight or fact than the mere presence of the actual object? I would argue that it depends. The yam itself does not provide us with much primary data or contextual information with which to gain insight about this yam. However, were some metadata provided with the yam, for example a sign that read, “organic beauregard yams, SheepHorse Farm, NC,” then there is contextual information with which we can draw insights, facts, and conclusions. We now know that SheepHorse Farm possesses the correct soil mixture with which to grow healthy yams, that they grow them organically, and that this is a locally grown item. Just as a clay pot in a museum means nothing and provides no insight without context, neither does our yam. I assert that this is the crucial element of an object’s transformation into a document: both the evidential intentionality glossed over in my previous paragraph (providing metadata), and the ability to use that metadata to draw conclusions about the object and its context. Thusly, if enough metadata is provided with the vegetable, it is, in my estimation, a document. However, the vegetable alone is merely a vegetable.

Works Referenced:

Buckland, M. (1997). What is a “document”? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 804-809.

Weinberger. (2007). Everything is Miscellaneous. New York: Times Books. Chapter 1: The New Order of Order.