BB writes:
> No, that's not a good analogy, because they are both automotive tools,
>and
>what we might be talking about might be the differences between plumbing
>tools
>and, let's say, carpentry tools. These are tools to support substantially
>different kinds of activity. Can one borrow from one for another? Well,
>things like saws work in either situation, as do glues (different types,
>of
>course, plastic and wood). Now its great that carpenters can frame walls,
>and
>plumbers can put in pipes, and also electricians can connect wires, and
>they
>can all do their separate things, with mostly specialized tools, but when
>it
>comes to putting a house together, we need all three. And then the
>general
>contractor has to speak the speak of all, to coordinate their work.
>
>Granted, electricians use concepts of volts, current, and resistance that
>are
>not very useful in carpentry and plumbing. The plumber uses concepts of
>pressure, flow, and control valves. And the carpenter thinks in terms of
>level, building loads, and geometry.
>
>Where is this going? I don't know --
This brings to mind the classic example given of a "boundary object" (Star
etc and expanded by J S Brown) which is the architect's plan. Whereas
each member in the community of practice will have their own frame of
discourse and theories to explain and model house building, there is a
need for a commensurate language or frame of reference. In this case it is
the formalisms of a plan... the boundary object.
This puts the architect in a special position of needing to know something
of everyone's specialism (in Welsh the word for architect has the
etymology: chief carpenter).
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:02:05 PST