I don’t have a pat answer.  I think that thinking about thinking in an open-source sort of way does entail some risk of a form of idea piracy.  That’s not without basis, given the fact that a great deal of work in the design/research intersection has been ‘citation-free,’ largely, I think, due the perception among all kinds of practitioners that they need to be able to claim uniqueness in order to offer value, and that uniqueness has been understood as pure invention.  Differentiation is seen as the offer of value to clients.  In a  practitioner-heavy field, that becomes the dominant ethos.

We started pulp because we think the field will grow more robustly if it is more open, if the contest of ideas happens with the ideas rather than in marketing claims.  But if the zeitgeist of the space is going to change toward an everyday comfort with saying, “We got this idea from Dr. X, and man is it cool”  two things have to happen:  Dr. X has to put his idea out beyond the margins of his own practice, where it may have huge holes poked into it, and the folks who use it, build on it, have to be willing to say that Dr. X works for their arch-competitor, Xcorp.

I think that’s worth it if I get to see more of Dr. X’s stuff in return.  And if I’m Dr. X (which really, I’m not.  Honest.  But I’ve met him), I would like to be able to tell my next prospective customer that the model or the method I’m suggesting for their work has been raked over the intellectual coals and turned inside out by the entire field, and remains standing.  My apologies for the terribly mixed metaphors, a habit I picked up from John Cain.

Here’s why I’m putting this up as a strand:  I may well be wrong about the idea of having readers, as well as writers and critics.  Maybe the only way to get the kind of depth of engagement, quality of interaction over work in progress is to wall the garden, to make the space only available to folks who have put something in.  I’m trying to avoid a game/sports analogy here, folks.  I’ll leave it at that.  I’ve gone back and forth on this a thousand times during the floating of the idea for pulp and the building of it, and have come down on the side of thinking that the folks out there who read, but don’t contribute are for the most part not pirates but instead nascent writers and thinkers themselves.  And the best thing to do is set the example of being open about the work and equally committed to citation, acknowledgment.

So I’d like to open it up.  Get comments, points of view.  It’s early in the life of pulp, and we could change the way it works.   Or see where it goes, how it goes.

In graduate school I was part of a ‘workshop’ that had been started by one of my advisors (Wendy Griswold, now at Northwestern University) on the ‘Sociology of Culture.’  There wasn’t a curriculum.  Wendy didn’t lecture.  There were no grades. It went across academic quarters, year over year (I was part of it for four of them), with an evolving composition of graduate students and faculty members from across the university.

We presented work in progress. We shared drafts of papers and chapters. We critiqued what we read and we argued (productively) about what we were working on. In the workshop, the papers and the arguments grew and developed (and sometimes died) as their authors brought new versions back for another round. It was perhaps the single most valuable part of my graduate education.

I think that having something like that workshop would be a very good thing to have now, in the professional context, with a different, even more diverse group of colleagues.  So we’ve started to develop one, and this is it.  We want it to have the feel of the workshop that Wendy developed: open, collegial, intense, and rewarding.

We’re developing pulp for the community of folks who think about and practice in the intersection of design, the interpretive social sciences, technology, and business.  The kinds of work that go by the names of ‘interaction design’ or ‘user centered research’ or ‘design strategy’ just to pick a few.  The idea of a salon (think Dorothy Parker and the Algonquin Round Table) gets at what we are after pretty well.  pulp is not any one person’s blog.  It is not a running commentary in short form on topics of the day.

What pulp is ‘about’
pulp is being developed by and for folks who are trying to figure out some aspect of how we all work, of what is important about it, and where the field (fields?) we’re engaged with might be headed.  We don’t know where, exactly, that is. We have different backgrounds and specific interests, but pulp isn’t a blog “about” service design, or “about” design thinking or ethnographic research or any of a dozen other topics that somehow, add up to the emerging whole of a field. But any of those might be what one of us is working on in one of the pieces at any given point in time.

It has seemed for some time that this space has been in need of a place for both new folks to find their feet, get introduced to some of the central tenets and core dialogues, and at the same time, allowing the edges of the field to get explored, developed, and extended.   Collectively, as they evolve toward ‘done’ we think that both the articles and the discourse around them will feed the larger dynamic of the work.  Will help to shape the future of this emerging field.  That’s why the ‘working on’ aspect is most important to us.

How it will work (we think).
pulp is organized around the give and take of criticism around a “work-in-progress” (aka a “WIP”)   At the top level of the site are current  works-in-progress by the authors who are part of the pulp community.  Alongside those are the archives of completed (or at least temporarily put aside) work and ‘strands’ of emerging topics.  The site will be available for reading and searching by anyone who registers, but only the community of authors and critical readers will be able to post articles or add comments and criticism.  We are explicitly trying to structure pulp so that we don’t get “LOL! Thx for posting!!” types of posts from users like “anxiousweasel82.”

pulp is here primarily to support the dialogue between writer (or writers) and their critical community.  We have “@pulp.com” email addresses if you need them (sometimes, you just need to write something outside of work).  Part of what we want to do for each author, each article, is to build a following in advance of publication.  To engage the ‘wisdom of crowds’ when it makes sense, and to make a much wider audience more aware of your work.

The four main categories are:

Works in Progress (“WIPs” )  Book outlines, article drafts, conference presentations.  Theory, review, speculation, argument.  All good.  Promotional pieces, simple case studies, self-aggrandizing stunts and ad hominem arguments not good.  Pitched overboard immediately.

Strands, which are more like a conventional discussion thread, though built around an author’s specific questions;

Archives for completed articles,or unpublished papers put up by the authors; and

Authors are a community of contributors  from more than a few disciplines, with many types of affiliation and  levels of seniority, involved in the work of this field.  That’s kind of the point.   We do distinguish between folks who are working on stuff, and engaged with other author’s works, from folks who just want to read or scan (though we want them to do that).  So, ‘authors’ will be by application or invitation, and require contributing at least one work in progress.

We have some pretty strongly held views on the importance of citation & acknowledgement, and how critical those are to building a community of practice.  So check out the “House Rules” on the About page. pulp will not be for cases (that’s The ACME Review’s job), but for theory, method, review, integration, synthesis, and exploration.

become a pulp author

Where pulp WIPs go
We are committed to increasing the circulation and citation of the work we are all doing to further the discourse and thinking in the field. We hope that the work here will provide practitioners, students, colleagues more things to read, more things to think with.  In other words, what’s up here, we expect and hope that people will use, but give credit where it is due.  We promise to do the same.