Witness Figure 1: "A six-stage model of the innovation process."

Then Figure 2 steps up, with its "multidirectional view of the developmental process of the Penny Farthing bicycle":

See, the hexagons that are labeled with the names of artifacts -- those symbolize artifacts. Get it?
But then -- then I got to Figure 8:

I have to say, this is the point where I began to question Pinch and Bijker's ability to diagram. Apparantly, I'm not alone. (The scan I'm reading is from my professor, whose marginal notes are both insightful and hilarious.) Not only does this "visualization" visualize precisely nothing, it also manages to look awkward doing so. A hexagon is employed to represent what should be a pentagon; the lines meet the shapes at seemingly random points; and, although the whole thing is supposed to represent the "relationship" between artifacts and social groups, there's no visual differentiation between different shapes, lines or points of connection.
This is a truly awful bit of diagramming.
And, just when I thought it could get no worse, there was Figure 9. "The relationship between one problem and it's possible solutions."

1 comment:
Hilarious!!!
I love your professor's notes!
Post a Comment