Blanka,
Yes, Nathan's posts are wonderful. So gracious and thought provoking.
He's a lot better exponent of library values than I am (when I logged
onto my e-mail last night, I did with trepidation, expecting some angry
responses to my rant on Wednesday about library literature. And I may
still get them.)
Nathan, you confirmed something I'd been thinking for awhile. I also
figured Mann was real pro-computer until a certain point, not at all
reactionary. In fact, I bet that when the online catalog came along, he
thought it was the greatest thing ever for library users. I think the
tipping point may have come with the 1991 article by Dorothy Gregor and
Carol Mandel, "Cataloging must change!" Or perhaps a bit later, since I
think that article did not begin to be real influential right away. At
any rate, it wasn't until 1997 that he wrote his response to it, which I
think is a classic. Here are a few lines from it:
"A few years ago, I was surprised to hear a speaker at an ALA convention
assert that it was 'known' that subject catalogers cannot agree on which
headings to assign to books; the speaker referred to a 1991 Library
Journal article as, apparently, validating that belief ... A few months
ago I heard it once more from a graduate student at one of the local
library schools. Her cataloging class, it seems, was debating whether or
not LC Subject Headings were even necessary any more, and the same 1991
LJ article was being offered as "evidence" in the discussion. The gist
of one of the major arguments presented in the article, 'Cataloging must
change!' ... is that fine distinctions in subject cataloging simply do
not matter because there is so little consistency in the assignment of
LC subject headings anyway."
Suddenly the online catalog and keyword searching, things which had
given users more access, were being used as an excuse to dismantle our
system of subject cataloging.
It's significant that Karen Calhoun cited Gregor and Mandel's article as
an inspiration for her work when she made her Report on the future of
bibliographic control over the last couple of years. Mann's article in
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly can be found in v. 23 (3/4), 1997.
Now, I will say, as I have before, that I don't think consistency is
quite as important as Mann or Gregor and Mandel think. I side with Mann
on the value of assigning subject headings and do think consistency is a
good goal, but I guess I'm kind of Weinbergian in thinking that a
certain amount of inconsistency is okay. Part of the burden of research
belongs to the user, and complexities of ideas are such that you
probably can't expect indexers to assign all headings consistently. The
user needs to figure that out to some extent, with the help of reference
people.
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
(205)934-2461
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bajankova, Blanka (KCEL)
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:32 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Elitism - and Aristotle again! - in libraries
(was Elitism in libraries)
It is a joy to read your thoughts, Nathan Rinne.
Blanka
Blanka Bajankova, Librarian
FAO UN
David Lubin M. Library
CDP-Monographs Cataloguing Unit
00153 Rome, Italy
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu]
On Behalf Of Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
Sent: 02 August 2007 15:36
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: [NGC4LIB] Elitism - and Aristotle again! - in libraries (was
Elitism
in libraries)
Everybody tech:
You guys are very funny. I hope to be there someday in my
understanding. I
want to be elites like you!
Karen:
"My measure of a librarian's value would be in how much she or he
facilitated
the creation of knowledge, not how much organization s/he imposed on
documents. In this highly networked world, facilitating knowledge may
take
the form of allowing users interested in a topic to find each other, or
allowing users to show *their* view to others. Basically helping build
the
conversation around the resources. And this is the thing that I don't
see us
doing today."
Karen - I think it would be awesome for us to be able to do this! A la
Library Thing. Maybe Tim has the wherewithal - or we can help him - get
into
specialized libraries and academic libraries (Go Tim). You know, I
*want* to be able to do this - to be a facilitator at the center of it
all (I
think many libs have always wanted to do this) - but meanwhile I don't
think
it is a good idea for us to give up what I believe is the historic core
of
our profession - which is "organization... imposed on documents" for the
sake
of findability (niche, niche, niche) - and not just because the market
sees
this as valuable, but because it is our
*responsibility* to do this for the common good (I am thankful that Tim
seems
to do both well: http://tinyurl.com/33fovq )
Andrea:
"in addition to functioning as a way to build connections through social
networks that facilitate scholarly communication. I don't think this is
an
either-or situation."
Andrea, you express similar sentiments to what Karen did earlier (Karen,
good
points - I don't think libs should push for prosecution vs. those who
practice cataloging without a license! :) ). So I am with you here.
No
"either-or"ing! And yet - I know we must be realistic with budgets,
etc. I
admit that I think that busting up the specialized infrastructure is not
a
good plan - I think it's a horrible plan and that folks like Mann and
Yee are
largely right. At the same time I appreciate so much the concern folks
like
Karen Schneider, Karen Coyle and Diane Hillman have - I don't *want* to
minimize their very important contributions, insights, concerns. But
nevertheless, do I de-legitimize myself as being a "change agent" if I
say
all this? I hope not.
Getting back to Thomas Mann, I agree with Ted. I had read a good amount
of
library lit myself (for my age, I'm only 33) - I never realized to care
about
this stuff until I read him - and then it hit me: This guy is a true
librarian. Anyone reading him can see that he loves what he does and is
great at it. He's real. He's on the ground. He is a specialist. I'd
be
happy to submit to his expert guidance for this or that. And not only
that -
I'm a librarian too, and I *love* my job.
Not only this - reading some of Mann's pre-internet stuff, its amazing
how
"progressive" he sounds. He was writing about the great importance of
keyword searches to complement subject searching. He talked about how
the
existing superstructure is necessarily limited in that it carved up the
world
into disciplines, often not allowing or encouraging people to see beyond
their silos (he didn't use the world "silo" but that's what he meant).
He
was writing about the "Principle of Least Effort", saying that "people
tend
to choose perceived ease of access over quality of content in selecting
an
information source;... regardless of whether it is leading them to the
best
sources" (Library Research Models, 1993, p. 93). He even talked about
how
this behavior was not something to change in the patron!: "it is
acceptable... for the problem to remain unsolved as long as the blame
can be
shifted [i.e. to the patron!] (p. 98)! This man is no ideologue - and
just
because he writes for a union, does not necessarily de-legitimize his
serious
insights. I'm with Mann, as I suspect many of you elitists are - though
you
might not yet fully realize it!
And he still shows he's still a real "library practitioner" by
supporting the
idea of using user tags now - and I'd guess would be OK with patrons
deciding
to use simple keyword searching to start the catalog. And yet - we know
how
he feels about holding on to those advanced tools!
Andrea:
"In essense, the value of what we do is to empower our users towards a
goal
of lifelong learning. As such, it is our privileged mission to engage
our
users in meeting their needs, rather than to impose our views onto
them...
The measure of a librarian's value is intimately tied to facilitating
access
to knowledge in ways that have meaning to our users, not to us. That is
a key
difference in how our profession differs from the legal and medical
professions."
Agreed with first sentence. After that we enter into iffy territory, I
think
- *sometimes*, when we *know better* than someone else, it is our
*responsibility* to impose our views on them. This does not mean we
physically force them to do something, or something like that - it means
we
are firm and we don't let a person believe after talking to us that we
think
they're making a good decision if they totally disregard our advice.
Doctors
would of course behave in a similar fashion. We all do this here and
there.
Now, of course, if you question whether experts and the expert
librarians who
catalog their materials (and yes, Karen, I agree with you here - as Mann
notes, there should be expert catalogers who work closely with experts
in the
fields to get the best labeling possible - and again, we need "authority
control" or "vocabulary consistency" to find as much that is truly
relevant
as possible) have views that are really related in some sense to the
views of
others - i.e. we assume that we share a world "out there" - I can
understand
why you would disagree with me - and I suppose, consider my views of
little
value?
Andrea, your message sounds very "Weinbergian" to me. David, whose
insights
I appreciate very much, says in his latest blogpost that he wants "[a
web]
infrastructure super-saturated with meaning". I ask: "What kind of
meaning?
How do we get there?" I ask this because though he critiques the idea
that
the universe has an "inner order" that *experts and authorities* can
*expose*
and *discover*, he leaves us with... what?
Thomas Mann, talking in his paper about the importance of "scope-match
coverage" (vs. increasing granularity), illustrating how librarians have
created and use tools to help people see "the whole elephant" *"with all
the
parts properly interrelated"* (of course, this is not to say that the
Library
of Congress, for example, with its collective wisdom holds all the
secrets of
the world - when further questioned, Mann would almost certainly say
that
*even this* only offers some of the picture, not everything - as we are
only
human). Now, I am wondering to what extent folks like Weinberger think
we
*can* *discover* things in this world? Can we at all? And if so - and
here
is the big question -
*how* are things discovered now, or will they be discovered, in ways
that are
different from the past?
Were back to Aristotle again. Keep in mind that not even Weinberger
thinks
reality can be carved up in just any way - i.e. it is not infinitely
malleable. Therefore, I don't think he really has an argument with
Aristotle. So - are the connections that experts and those who catalog
them
have seen for the most part "really real" - or not? If they are to a
fairly
good extent - then the existing superstructure we have is of some very
real
value whether or not we realize it, no?
Though this will probably sound funny given my talkative and often
relatively
confident tone on this list (especially above now), there are very few
things
in life I will go to the wall for - mostly because I am always
questioning
what I've learned, and am plagued by many a doubt... and I often annoy
people
by questioning everything they hold most dear.
There is not one legitimate view - the one we are "licensed to
practice", in
Karen Coyle's words. But there is a core to our profession, and I
submit
this is it.
Please explain why I am wrong. Like I said, I am full of doubts.
Andrea, I hope I haven't forever chased you back to "lurkdom". Keep
fighting!
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
Received on Fri Aug 03 2007 - 11:36:26 EDT