Sucker for Software

When it comes to technological “appliances” (i.e., gadget objects), I find that I most often have the magpie response: pretty!  shiny!  want to take back to my nest!.  With a very few exceptions (the iPhone, strangely, being one of them, but only because of my bizarre dislike for cell phone apparati), I can be convinced to want a lot of shiny metal objects run by computer chips.  That same love has now transmuted itself to software, all of which promises the functionality that I’ve always been missing; or in other words, it promises, like any good product, to fix all of my problems.  The focus here, in fact, seems to be on fixing the problems of research and writing.

It must have begun with Endnote, which promised to optimize my crap recording of research.  Back when I was working on the dissertation, I had a terrible habit of getting excited about an article, photocopying it, and neglecting to copy or write down WHERE THE ARTICLE CAME FROM.  Cue montage music of my hours in the library, retracing my steps from stacks to carrel to reshelving units (and yes, kiddies, this was in the days before JSTOR, dammit).  So Endnote promised to solve that fundamental issue: if I could stay on it, then I would have a neverending database of my research.  Three years later, Endnote is still in the box; in large measure precisely because online databases are so ubiquitous, and because it seems easier to type up a bibliography than it is to learn all of the functions of the program.

Round two: Zoho’s suite of programs.  Not software per se, but something that began to speak to my desire for a common storage place to put notes, upload relevant files of all types, etc.  I spent 3 days working with the Zoho notebook and found that it did just that, except that the notetaking function was a bit clunky for my taste, and I was doing a bunch of flipping back and forth between tabs when I wanted everything in the same place.

Round three: collaborative writing on a wiki.  Now that’s more like it!  What began as a mild brainstorm over the summer (Jeez, M., how are we going to keep everything in the same place so that we don’t lose it and can show each other what we’re working on?  What do you think about a wiki?).  By far the most productive and easy to use, our PBwiki site has been the central housing place for documents and files and lists and links and notes on a faculty lunch series for teaching and learning, a co-authored conference paper, a co-authored article, and virtually all of the secondary sources related to these.

And now there’s Scrivener (hat tip New Kid).   Promising to integrate the various tools that are now crucial to extensive writing projects (pdf files, word processing, digital movies, sound files, web pages) into a single format, Scrivener appears to be the hub that consolidates all of the errata that one brings into lengthy compositions.  Shiny!  Want to bring home!!

It’s difficult to tell whether I’m more attracted to the format itself (it looks awfully clean, that Scrivener, unlike my desktop), or to the promise that I could, someday, get my research organized.  And that promise is no joke: I’ve got a June 30 deadline to talk about a series of fan videos, and the thought of keeping them all in line is daunting, to say the least.  But the question, as always, is this: will it really work, in practice?  Because if I begin a project in Scrivener and end up hating the interface, then I’ve lost three days of work time getting everything set up.  And if one already has agita about beginning monumental writing tasks (no one I know, but I’m just saying), then the feeling of double jeopardy in a false start with untried software is pretty daunting.  Oh, but the promise of organization and clean integration…

On a less personal note, I’m fascinated by the number of emerging programs now that attend to this idea of organizing information for writing.  If I hear one more word about Devon and the majesty and wonder therein, I might scream.   Add Zoho, and Scrivener, and a host of other products with good press, and it just may add up to the ways in which our collective anxiety about the glut of information—and about finding and then later re-locating the gems within the glut—is growing, and with it, we’re creating a whole new sub-market of software.  For my part, I’m wondering how long it will take for someone to provide this service with humans—a personal research assistant to rival the Hollywood personal assistant.  Now who doesn’t want one of those?

3 thoughts on “Sucker for Software

  1. You’re absolutely correct on this notion. That’s why I created my company, Gittel on the Go. I was a Hollywood executive assistant and saw that people outside of Hollywood needed assistance at the level that I provided for the agents and producers that I supported. My company does exactly what you’re suggesting – provide personal assistance for research projects among other detail oriented tasks. There is SO MUCH information out there that sometimes you just need a designated person to gather it, organize and send it to you. That’s what we do for people all over the country. Check us out at – your research dilemma is over!

  2. Please keep me posted on which software proves the most useful for you. For my thesis, I used the paper method – print everything out and put it into piles relating to which chapter it would be useful. But then I’d have some blasted primary source that would have the nerve to talk about “gender” AND “empire” – don’t they know knowledge is supposed to fit into little compartments?

    And then I’d remember that I had a really great source and couldn’t find it. If only I could Google my sources.

    So, in brief, you’ve touched upon a central question for all of us in the humanities. What would Foucault use? Would Baudrillard be an Endnote fan? Of course Marx would have hated them all- unless he could pirate Engels’ copies.

  3. Chayah—Sigh. Why am I not surprised that someone has already figured out a system for this? I love the fact that it’s grown out of the Hollywood management system; best of luck to you in your business!

    Buffalochips—what fun it would be to design research systems that famous theorists would have used. God help us if Baudrillard were to pick one. Hyper-real research? But what a fabulous marketing opportunity! If I come across something that I really love, I’ll write it up here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s