Part 1 of this post focused on things I think we should avoid. This part focuses on positive alternatives.
Hit the Reset Button.
Let's remove the assumption that the way forward necessarily involves tweaking existing cataloging standards. For example, the compact notation that was necessary on catalog cards may now be a hindrance. Because storage space for metadata is now cheap, we can be more expansive. So let's talk to users about what tasks they need to perform, and let's build our systems around those needs. For example, if users find free-text abstracts more useful than compact subject headings, then let's look at ways to give them abstracts that will be useful. Keep in mind that, to the extent that the vocabulary of subject headings in useful, that vocabulary can be incorporated into abstracts. In the study I mentioned earlier, 82% of literary community members were interested in abstracts. But library-assigned subject headings? Only 31%. And classification numbers? Only 14%.
Conduct Basic Research.
“Got Evidence?” should be our mantra. If someone in our field makes a statement such as, “Access will increase if we [fill in the blank],” immediately ask whether the person can provide evidence for the assertion. If the person can't muster evidence, ignore the assertion. Or test it. If someone in our field asserts that they have improved something, e.g., subject heading use by users, ask, “In comparison to what?”. Let's force our cataloging practices to, in effect, compete against other standards for organizing information. Let's do studies in which we compare not just different ways to educate users about our tools, but in which we compare our tools against other ways of organizing information, e.g., exploitation of internal markup (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/). Putting ketchup on cube steak may cause people to like it more, but filet mignon may be what they're really after.
Users First, Technology and Standards Second.
I am amazed by the number of people who advocate the use of new standards such as RDA and FRBR without even a nod toward any evidence that either standard is actually what users want or need. The days in which figures like Dewey could simply lay down a system with no real regard for users are gone. It's not clear to me that we should even continue developing standards such as RDA and FRBR until we have a chance to see if they work for users. Let's stop development of those standards, conduct some basic research, and move forward based on our findings. That may require the difficult decision to abandon work that was insufficiently tested.
Keep an Open Mind About Automation.
The amount of information available to users is now too large for handcrafted surrogates to be practical for anything but a very small subset (http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/). Much of the organization of information will need to be done by machines in an automated fashion. Instead of fighting this, let's ask ourselves how we can be involved in producing ontologies (http://informationr.net/ir/6-2/paper94.html) and other tools. What do we know about various communities? Are we skilled testers of systems? In short, what are our signature skills, and what do they add to the current environment?
=====================================
Stephen Paling
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Studies
4251 Helen C. White Hall
600 N. Park St.
Madison, WI 53706-1403
Phone: (608) 263-2944
Fax: (608) 263-4849
paling_at_wisc.edu
Received on Mon Jun 28 2010 - 12:02:47 EDT