Tuesday, December 15, 2009

The value of LIS education

I just watched the Friday edition of The Agenda with Steve Paikin, which was about the increase of corporate money in university research in Canada, more specifically in Ontario. The discussion centred on the decade old debate of whether university research (and education) needs to have an immediate economic benefit to business and society. It was a great debate, fair and balanced and with some good insights (though not much new stuff). The debate is interesting to LIS because we seem to have a similar debate going on -- where some people would argue that the research and education that takes place in LIS schools ought to the directly tied to the practice of LIS, others would, of course, have a more loose understanding of what it means to be educated at a research university.

Michael Buckland asked us in '96 to consider which LIS books we would hand a university president who would be interested in understanding what LIS is about… most books in LIS are "how-to" books, and as Buckland says: "books that provide a general introduction to [the] scope and nature of LIS are not common" which is quite unfortunate because "the general emphasis on professionally useful education discourages interest in the field of LIS itself, in the nature of information and information technology, and in the intellectual history of LIS because there are always more apparently useful agenda".

The Agenda has a short discussion towards the end of the program about the value of liberal arts education, and Buckland asks us to consider if we could develop a liberal arts LIS education and he suggests that: "any view of LIS is incomplete and lacking in coherence if it could not include a liberal arts program".

I fear a bit that i) the majority of the LIS community would not even be interested in entertaining the idea of a liberal arts LIS education and ii) it would be tremendously difficult to develop a liberal arts education based on the current research tradition within LIS. The reason for this is clear: LIS education is seen as a place that merely produces workers for the library industry, and it is argued that the focus of research and education in LIS school should merely reflect today's needs and practices.

I think that is sad state of affairs. It is intellectually empty -- and it does a disservice to the library profession in the long run.

Then there is always the option of moving library education out of large research universities, as my colleague Juris Dilevko suggests. This would indeed be an interesting development, and one that would certainly force LIS departments to rethink their mission.

My sense is that we need to ensure that LIS education has relevance and value beyond the needs and practices of today's and tomorrow's libraries - LIS education needs to research based (as long as it take place at research universities) and the research ought to ask larger questions, be less focused on technical minutiae, and more bold as Andrew Dillon argued a couple years ago.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Good to remember...

Remember, that just because lots of people hate your ideas, doesn't mean that they aren't powerful -- in fact, the most powerful ideas will be hated as well as loved. Excellent post today at Indexed.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

The difference between men and women

Excellent article in the New Yorker [Nov. 30, 2009] about the Caster Semenya situation… a couple quotes:

"Unfortunately for I.A.A.F. officials, they are faced with a question that no one has ever been able to answer: what is the ultimate difference between a man and a woman? “This is not a solvable problem,” Alice Dreger [a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine] said. “People always press me: ‘Isn’t there one marker we can use?’ No. We couldn’t then and we can’t now, and science is making it more difficult and not less, because it ends up showing us how much blending there is and how many nuances, and it becomes impossible to point to one thing, or even a set of things, and say that’s what it means to be male.""

and later:

"There is much more at stake in organizing sports by gender than just making things fair. If we were to admit that at some level we don’t know the difference between men and women, we might start to wonder about the way we’ve organized our entire world. Who gets to use what bathroom? Who is allowed to get married?"

Right, at the end of the day, reality doesn't come carved up into little chunks -- we have to make those chunks. That requires acts that are drenched in politics, ethics, epistemology, etc.

Friday, December 4, 2009

The recommend objective

We have in the past, oh, approx. 150 years had four basic objectives that we want to accomplish through the catalog. Often referred to as FISO (Finding, Identifying, Selecting, Obtaining). Svenonius (The Intellectual Foundation of Info Org., 2000, p. 18) rightly added Navigation. So FISON. I am wondering if time has come to add a sixth objective, recommending, so FISONR, or FRISON.

The basic idea in the original four objectives and also in Svenonius' Navigation objective is that people, aka users, come to the system with a desire, a need, a problem, articulate it, and retrieve something relevant (hopefully). That's very good. I think. It has served us well, and I suppose we will continue to develop systems that can accomplish what those objectives set out to do.

But I am starting to wonder if we can't do better and more than that… some would call it being proactive. That's where recommendation comes in; librarians and other information professionals have always done some recommendation, I suppose. Though Patrick Wilson did note, “the librarian not only has no politics, no religion, and no morals; he has no opinion on any open question. Librarians see their role as one of complete hospitality to all opinions” (Second-Hand Knowledge, 1983, p. 190)… despite this official position of the profession, I suppose that some librarians actually do have opinions and have recommend materials to people... anyway, I hope we are ready to take the catalog beyond the sort of liberal librarianship that Wilson talked about… whereas librarians might have made recommendations in the past, based on their knowledge of the material and the topic, I would hope that we in the future could harvest the insight, knowledge and inspiration of the people using and interacting with the material to help recommend and review the material to support other people's information quests.

Almost all information systems use some sort of recommender systems today; Amazon, Netflix, Epinions, CitULike, LibraryThing, Delicious, Last.fm, Connotea, Flickr, InSuggest, etc. etc. But no traditional library catalogs. Why?

As explained in this short piece in Communications of the ACM ("Just for you" no. 8, 2009), "The key thing with recommender systems is they're trying to help with discovery," . . . unlike search engines that "help you find something you already know you want."

Maybe it is time to move beyond just giving people what the already know they want, to helping people discover information, books, material.

Let's build recommendation into the catalog of the future!

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Inspiration for the future?

So, I am prepping my intro to KO class for next semester -- and I just re-read Fran Miksa's review [LQ, 79(1): 131-143] of Lois Mai Chan's [Cataloging and Classification: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007] and Arlene Taylor's [Introduction to Cataloging and Classification. 10th ed. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2006] textbooks on cataloging and classification... it is a splendid historical critique of textbooks (and education) in the area of cataloging and classification and their relation (or lack thereof) to practice in libraries, esp. in small, medium, public, and special libraries. Miksa finds that much of today's textbooks in the area focuses almost exclusively on the technical procedures of cataloging and classification and doesn't include anything that would inspire the reader to view cataloging and classification as "worthwhile, even inspiring, endeavors". He ends his review by saying:

"Finally, there is the matter of creating a unified rationale for cataloging and classification that would not simply recognize the past and the present but also offer reasonable inspiration for the future. Mention has already been made of the reality that no present text offers such a rationale. In this respect, the Chan and Taylor texts, despite all of their strengths, seem “tired” when it comes to eliciting such a vision. That they are is not so much a fault of the authors, however, as much as it reflects the contemporary climate of thought in library cataloging and classification. At some point between Mann’s text [i.e. Introduction to Cataloging and the Classification of Books. Chicago: ALA, 1930] and the appearance of new texts since the 1960s, cataloging and classification had already started down the road of being thought of only or merely as access mechanisms without the complications and implications that arise from their relationship to the origin, character, and organization of humankind’s knowledge. The latter is, to say the least, a striking social phenomenon in its own right, and given its extraordinary nature I cannot help but think how grand a change would occur in texts on cataloging and classification were they to capture at least some of that extraordinary character in their vision."

Is the tail wagging the dog? It does seem to me that the lack of imagination, the staleness of cataloging and classification, and the downward interest among students in this area in the age of the participatory social web, is our own fault. Many seem more keen on preserving what we have had instead of offering "reasonable inspiration for the future". We need to start by developing syllabi and curriculum that is inspiring and offer paths for the "future of the catalog"...

Speaking of "future of the catalog", I also re-read Nancy Williamson's paper from '81, "Is there a catalog in your future" [reprinted in CCQ 48(1): 10-25) - in '81, she said: "We have perfected the catalog which has existed for more than one hundred years without significantly improving the kinds of bibliographic and subject access that the catalog might provide. Nor have we experimented sufficiently with possible new approaches to subject retrieval of bibliographic items which modern technology could support" - and then she goes on to predict what the catalog would look like 25 years later, in 2006. My sense is that it is quite appropriate to reprint Williamson's paper... and then we can hope that we can accomplish in the next 25 years what wasn't possible to even touch in the past 25 years.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Reliable metadata?

Yes, as Geoff Nunberg shows, it is difficult to catalog huge masses of stuff, and few people should be surprised that Google ain't perfect... but to call for 'reliable metadata' as the way to solve this problem... Come on... How old fashioned is that? Reliable to whom? where? when?

Thursday, August 27, 2009

What's KO core?

At my school, we require all LIS students in the Master of Information program to take a basic introductory course in knowledge organization (called "Introduction to Bibliographic Control") -- but what we haven't agreed on is the content of such course. We haven't even agreed on the core knowledge that students should have after taking the course. So this winter (2010) we will offer two versions of the same course; this one and this one.

So, of course, students ask: Which version should I take? My stock answer goes like this:
"The two variations of INF 1320 offer different approaches to building the core knowledge that LIS students ought to have re. bibliographic control/knowledge organization. The two variations represent two different educational paradigms within LIS — and as instructors we have chosen to construct our section of the course to support our belief and view of LIS education. So, it is not easy to give you an entirely objective answer to your question...

I think you need to consider what you want to gain from your graduate education -- would you like to gain a solid understanding of the systems and methods for organizing and representing material using tools traditionally used in the broad cross section of libraries or would you like to gain an understanding of theoretical concepts in knowledge organization and approaches to the design of systems for organizing information?

My sense is that both variations of the course will give you a foundation for your career. The foundation will just be quite different depending on which course you take."

But I guess that poses this question: Should we (as instructors of KO) agree on a core KO knowledge that we present to students in a required KO course? If that is not possible, perhaps a solution is to offer many different kinds of foundational courses and let the students themselves decides which kind of foundational knowledge they want/need. That would take the consumer orientated university a step further... but, I guess, it also reflects reality of the vast disagreements within the LIS education community.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

A category for everything

Yeah, finally... a system with a category for everything. Dilbert style. :-)

Monday, August 17, 2009

100 Best Blogs for Library Science Students

It is always difficult, if not impossible, to name the best of anything -- I suppose what's good and great depends on your perspective... but this [link removed] is a good list of good blogs for 'library's students. Though, IMHO Stephen's Lighthouse and InfoMatters ought to have been included... Of course, I'm happy to see Organizing Stuff on the list - and I feel the slight pressure to post more often...

Update, Aug. 20: Well, apparently, I made a fool of myself by linking to this list of "100 Best Blogs for Library Students" - one does not link to 'spammers' in the blogphere. See an excellent explanation here. I guess I hadn't thought though how one adds to to the credibility of sites by linking to it. It is obvious, once one think about it. I didn't. Ooops.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Order, index cards and taxonomy

For some people the conclusion that, "The natural world was no longer ordered on a fixed, linear scale, but came to be seen as a map-like natural system of multiple affinities" seem novel and groundbreaking... for others it ought to be foundation for all work in KO. As soon as the mid-1760s, this insight was motivation for Linnaeus' work on information retrieval, and his invention of the index card.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Crazy verdict

It is concerning, I think, how little main stream media has covered about the craziness of the Pirate Bay verdict. As the Pirate Bay guys have pointed out over and over, you can find the exact same files using Google... try a search for <filetype:torrent "the cure"> on Google and a you'll get a fantastic collection of The Cure's excellent albums... Will Google now also be found guilty in aiding copyright infringement? It is indeed a crazy verdict.

UPDATE, April 27: OK -- it turns out that the judge in the Pirate Bay case was involved with a number of "pro-copyright" groups... a mistrial?

Friday, April 24, 2009

The end of monopoly?

David Weinberger noted a few days ago (in a note from a conference on User Generated Content): "Then John Palfrey gave a talk about how the world and books look to those born into the digital age. To these digital natives, said John, the world doesn’t divide into online and offline; it’s all converged. They assume digital access. (YouTube is the #2 search engine, JP said.) They expect to be co-creators. They also give away too much information and need to learn to do for themselves the gatekeeping that used to be done for them. The opportunities are huge, JP said, for creativity, reuse, and making knowledge together. JP expects libraries will continue to become social spaces where we learn and explore together, and he expects physical books to persevere because they are so well engineered for knowledge and extended argument. [Personally, I'm not convinced of that. I think books may turn out to be an accident of paper. Check back in 30 years to see who's right.]" -- hrmm... that's interesting. I think. Libraries as social spaces... The end of physical books... OK, that's all well. But users as co-creators of the organization, representation, classification and meaning-making of books? How do we go about that; how do we get librarians to give up on their monopoly of being the profession that have the right to say what books in libraries are about and how we should think about them? When will it be the norm that I can add my categories, my thoughts, my comments to any book in any library catalog?

Thursday, April 23, 2009


US News and World Report has published their updated ranking of US LIS programs - not much news to report there... there are no revelations -- and not surprisingly (at least not to me), the iSchools are well represented at the top of the list. That's all very nice...

However, one gotta wonder how much we should read into these rankings... especially given the way the rankings were reached, US News describe their method as: "The rankings are based solely on the results of a fall 2008 survey sent to the dean of each program, the program director, and a senior faculty member in each program. The questionnaires asked individuals to rate the academic quality of programs at each institution as outstanding (5), strong (4), good (3), adequate (2), or marginal (1). Individuals who were unfamiliar with a particular school's programs were asked to select "don't know." Scores for each school were totaled and divided by the number of respondents who rated that school. The response rate was 56 percent" -- so three people from each school is contacted, and a bit more than half the people responded? And, does US News really expect deans, program directors and senior faculty members to have informed opinions about all 45+ programs? I am not even sure how one would rate the academic quality of a program... maybe you just rate your alma mater and the places your friends teaching highly?

Thursday, April 16, 2009

This is not cool...

I am very excited about the upcoming conference on Ethics of Information Organization; the program looks promising -- but it is not cool that you can only register for the conference if you have a US address... Notice that the drop-down list of states only gives US states... no Canadian provinces or territories; not to mention that many countries don't have the equivalence of American/Canadian states/provinces/territories... they also ask for a zip code (not a postal code) which has to consist of five characters... geez...

If it wasn't because this was for a conference about ethics... I assume that some of the speakers will talk about the challenges of creating systems that aren't exclusive... then one could go into a rant about the stupidity and ignorance of systems designers... but in this case, I assume it is a trick to get us thinking and blogging before the start of conference. Mission accomplished.

Monday, January 5, 2009

in the future we will all be...

A couple of months ago, I went to a conference where someone stated, as a matter of fact, "in the future we will all be librarians"... I was struck by that statement for two reasons: i) I disgreed, but I wasn't sure why I disagreed... and ii) in my application in 1999 to my previous job at U of Washington, I had stated: "I am confident that in the future--in a society where everyone will be able to do what librarians have always done--there will be an accelerated demand for professionals who are able to create efficient systems for the organization of knowledge." -- But is this really so? I don't think I believe this, any longer...

As I noted in my last post, I think KO can be divided in three sets of problem types... and I while I do think that some of the ideas developed in KO practice and theory in the past 50 years or so (mainly those out of the CRG) can be utilized in the medium IOP set -- people practicing medium IOP draw, to some degree, on what librarians know (or should know)... but is it mostly very, very different than librarianship. The big IOPs do, of course, occupy librarians and librarian-type people... but I think the solutions to big IOPs, in the long term, will come from ideas other than those developed in librarinship. Small IOPs doesn't draw on librarianship at all -- and small IOP practitioners don't do librarianship.

So... will everyone in teh future do what librarians have always done; will we all be librarians in the future -- I think not, espeically not the KO area... because, basically, librarians will not do what they have always done...