In Praise of the Routine

Abstract

I am stung by this remark, having just finished co-editing a volume in which many of the contributions deal with authorship of precisely the kinds thus pompously dismissed. 2 To settle the score with Whewell, I here offer some reasons for holding the close study of the production, distribution, and vicissitudes of reception of such 'routine' works to be crucial for an understanding of authorship and innovation in the sciences, indeed in all intellectual disciplines. Primarily, of course, I shall be out to demonstrate the importance of such works accord-