Sorry for the delay in reaction -- but I've changed
countries in the meantime and was for quite some
time without Internet.
You wrote :
> The psychology of cataloging would make an
> interesting essay in its own "write."
And I can't disagree with you.
Quite a coincidence, then, that, shortly before you
wrote this, a cfp was sent out ( I got it a bit later, on
COLLDV-L ; I don't think it was sent to this
NGC4LIB list ) for chapters for a book entitled
_The Psychology of Librarianship_, to be published
by Scarecrow Press.
An excerpt from the call :
"The Psychology of Librarianship will be a collection of scholarly essays
examining the psychological aspects of library work and the profession of
librarianship. This will be the first book-length, in-depth study of the
psychological implications and underpinnings of the library profession.
Although there have been occasional articles about the psychological dimensions
of library work (especially in regard to job stress), and a few theses that
study specific issues (such as training) in detail, there has never been a book
that attempts a broader and more comprehensive examination of this topic."
If you're so inclined, you've now got a chance 'til 15
October to submit your own chapter proposal on the
psychology of cataloging :-).
You can find the cfp at :
http://serials.infomotions.com/colldv-l/archive/2010/201009/0127.html
- Laval Hunsucker
Knokke-Heist, België
----- Original Message ----
From: john g marr <jmarr_at_UNM.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 12:14:33 AM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] RDA, One more comment
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Laval Hunsucker wrote:
> I'm inclined to doubt that those who effectively determine
> (have determined) what "comprehensive cataloging" means or
> involves have ever given much serious attention to what it is
> that information seekers want and need ... since they
> probably mostly had not much inkling anyway of what
> information seekers genuinely wanted and needed, and didn't
> consider it a priority, or perhaps even worth their effort, to go
> and find out ... The incentive was largely absent.
I think we agree on the cynical absence of appropriate motive in the development
of RDA, but I see it as more of a general inability to consider the problem of
"cataloging standards" (or anything else) from multiple (even reverse)
perspectives rather than predetermined self-focused priorities.
Part of my emphasis, of course, is to suggest reflection upon the RDA "process"
as an example of inadequate process development itself. Think of it as a
further example of how librarians might contribute to the general knowledge from
experience rather than focusing too narrowly on pedantic trivia.
> But is it in fact "library science theoreticians" we're talking
> about here?
OF course not-- I'm just being kind in including the RDA developers in that
category. Would that they were in that category. Would that there was a
rational and comprehensive "theoretical" basis to RDA.
> And I'm almost positive that [theoreticians are] quite different animal[s] from
>those who in the real world determine (have determined) how cataloguing is done.
We've already demonstrated that the developers of RDA were out of contact with
the "real" world of information seekers, and, I would insist, only theoreticians
could be capable of defining "reality" (g*d forbid committees and politicians be
given that responsibility!).
> Or am I badly out of touch ?
The problem is that being in touch with any particular form of "reality" (e.g.
what RDA is??) apparently has to require being out of touch with several others
(e.g what RDA need and need not do). RDA is thus an excellent example of the
primitive state of human rhetoric (what is said and what can be done with what
is said are unfortunately limitedly related concepts, but I would have to give
"political" examples to demonstrate thoroughly).
> ( Is the concept of comprehensive cataloguing any longer -- if
> it ever was -- an important, a useful, or even a viable one for
> the library/information services world in general?)
(Just to demonstrate the "rhetoric" problem, a *constructive* approach would be
to reverse that question: "What would be important, useful, viable, and socially
pertinent activities for persons with an interest in "cataloging" to engage
in?")
The psychology of cataloging would make an interesting essay in its own "write."
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Fri Sep 03 2010 - 11:36:40 EDT