Ross,
Thanks for your reply. In full disclosure, I am pretty new in the lib.
field, and am writing what I write - putting forth these ideas - mostly
to learn here, even as I am trying to learn from other sources as well
(so as not to waste people's time!)
Your questions:
Re: #1, I don't think I am saying that they are mutually exclusive, just
that a lot of what is valuable re: the traditional methods (esp. the
advantages of LC subject headings and corresponding authority control)
is in danger of being undervalued - as we feel pressure to "grasp for
relevancy" as our existence feels more and more threatened. Even as we
move forward in the hopes of producing better tools for the user - as we
should - Karen, it seemed to me, was implying that if the catalog is not
currently used by users for discovery (vs. "known-item" searching) - and
we are therefore not seeing a reasonable " cost/benefit trade-off for
discovery" - we should consider not seeing this *as a primary function*
(at the least) of future catalogs.
This seems to me circular - and a good recipe for any library that does
not want be seen as a serious candidate by those who value serious
research, which I am saying we all have a stake in.
Because... good research is a public service. Therefore, good
cataloging that can help people discover things is a good public
service.
If people don't understand this, education is the answer. I believe
some highly educated folks with the means will always see that this is
the case, but that *everyone should at least be taught to value those
who do the hard work of research* - and being trained to use libraries,
in addition to the internet (separate "niches"), is something we should
expect of everyone.
Again, as far as educating ourselves about what we are considering
abandoning, Mann can help. I submit that reading Thomas Mann *can be
very humbling.* Even if you think you are good at research and
understand libraries, you will find out that it takes a true
professional reference librarian like him - who shows a genuine interest
and curiosity in the world *AND* who can maximize the existing
intellectual superstructure of a good library - to really understand
just what we will be losing if librarians continue to lose confidence in
the good things they have helped produce.
Finally, you ask,
"Why couldn't a more intuitive, user-friendly interface serve both
camps?"
I think it could. Key, I think, is educating the user that there are
"two types of searching". What follows is long, but I think very
insightful. I posted it first here:
http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2007/03/dear-library-of-congress.html
:
...with [her] permission, the idea of Dru Edrington from the PUC Library
of Texas. In a recent AUTOCAT email, [s]he said: "I can see it now -- an
OPAC front page divided into two screens. One screen has a single
keyword entry search box, with text under it stating 'Feeling lucky? Use
this search box if you want quick, but not necessarily accurate
results.' The other screen has a screen typical of an advanced search
OPAC screen, with subject browse, subject keyword, etc. The text under
that screen states 'If you need results that are focused and more
accurate, use this search screen'. If Google didn't sue us for the
aspersions cast on them by the first search screen, this could be a good
idea. All kidding aside, something similar to *this would at least
educate the user that there are two levels of searching*. I also
envision a help link under 'Keyword search' and 'Keyword browse' that
would take the user to a full-text searchable database of LC Subject
Headings." (end quote)
I think this kind of thinking is a really good start...
Elizabeth McDonald, from the University of Memphis had some helpful
points as well: "...Even though I am a cataloger I do not always use the
catalog in the same manner each time. When I am doing research I want to
be able to control what I am looking for and need all the bells and
whistles. By the same token, I use the same catalog when I am in the
mood to reread Jane Austin. In that case, I do what most kids do, I get
the call number, go to the shelf and pick the volume that is the least
grotty, best size and typeface that I feel like reading. I am likely to
take the same approach when I am looking for general information. Plus
keyword searching can be a way to locate a true subject heading.
Sometimes I think we get so caught up in one aspect that we forget that
the catalog often has to meet more than one set of needs. This is what
we need to remember and to put forth when we defend subject headings.
Flame away, but they are not always needed. It's just that when you need
them you need them. I think we need to try to depolarize the discussion.
I realize that administrators don't always get what we are trying to say
about the importance of subject headings. But we also need to
acknowledge, that even in a research university there is a place for a
less rigorous use of a catalog. If we say that you must always use
subject headings, then I think we lose some credibility, because we are
getting caught up in a did so, did not type of argument. The best
catalog should provide for both with the ability to lead from one to
another as needed. Just my two cents." (quoted with her permission).
I really think that she put that wonderfully...
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
Nathan, I have two points on your analogy:
1) Why do you assume these two methods are mutually exclusive (re:
improved discovery tool vs. traditional methods).
2) What percentage of library activity actually follows the serious
research model? What percentage of library activity is casual use?
If, in fact, the latter are the dominant group, why should they be
forced to use systems designed for librarians and researchers? For
that matter, why couldn't a more intuitive, user-friendly interface
serve both camps? (I guess that goes back to #1)
Do we even know what our users are doing?
-Ross.
Received on Mon Apr 30 2007 - 11:04:56 EDT