Ok, this is nowhere near as coherent as Dr. Pasco's response. But it's a stream of consciousness, something like a third order explanation of my thought process. (How about that for tying in a concept!)
Trying to read Everything is Miscellaneous is a tough task for a cataloger! I spend half my time shivering in fright at the idea of giving up my controlled vocabulary and half my time saying Yes, yes, YES! That’s what we need to do to help our users find the information they want. It’s the difference between the love of the cataloging standards and the disdain towards the convoluted headings (United States – History – Civil War – 1861-1865 – Soldiers – Diaries) that we slog through in catalogs.
The first thing I absolutely loved in this book was the Staples example of watching the user’s eyes (Cassie Nielsen also talked about this). Librarians, architects and interior designers need to try this, maybe we’d have a better idea of what signage was useless and what could work for us, what we want to keep and what needs to never see the light of day. We use jargon (Reference, Interlibrary Loan, Cataloging) to describe the different functions we perform – when it’s actually about finding information and matching it up with the people who need the commodity.
Callie Kallsen talks about the need for libraries to “…get rid of the idea that there’s a best way of organizing the world” – my initial cataloger’s reaction to this is OUCH! J Libraries are making a switch from Dewey to “bookstore” shelving – but most bookstore shelving is based on Dewey, so how different is it really?? It’s about labeling more than anything, in my view. Controlled vocabularies are not the enemy – they can be expanded, they can be adapted, they can grow with the times. They are there to help us bring things together. If the Corbis people can pull together beaches and seaside in one search, why can’t we? “Google-ization” of our catalogs using Library Thing, AquaBrowser, etc., should help with this third-order organization – when we index more fields, we make more terms available to keyword searching.
Sara Baguyos made me smile with the following: The recipe for successful support of my research could be two cups third order data and one cup first order data with a dash of blog. That’s a vivid way to characterize the information needs of the users. And it’s also pretty accurate – we need to have some sort of tagged finding system, some first order (aka primary) sources and some blogging by the experts (and novices!) to help tie it all together.
Lisa Paquette brings up an interesting point – enticing people to search more by making us aware of the hidden information. Most people don’t actually like to search or dig – they like to find. That’s what separates librarians from users, most of the time.
I have a theory about this behavior – it’s not completely original, but it goes something like the following: Researchers are likely to want to find that one piece of information that no one else has come across. Those are going to be the primary users for some of our libraries – particularly academic and special libraries. Dedicated researchers generally learn how to navigate our controlled vocabularies and our databases, and enjoy being able to do the digging on their own. Those users also enjoy the flexibility of the third-order searching as seen in Delicious and Wikipedia, and can function in those environments because they know how to look at the bias of the author, the authority, etc. All that information power/information literacy comes together for these folks. They know how to filter on the way out, without losing the valuable information in the noise.
The idea of filtering on the way in seems a lot like doing a reference interview. We have to start asking questions to get a handle on the information search. If we’re working in an online reference setting (aka chat), it’s possible that the person on the other end will get fed up with all the back and forth. We learn to maximize the transaction by doing some filtering on the way in. Even works in person, since sometimes the user waits until the last minute to gather their information sources – who hasn’t been trying to close the library while some fifth grader’s mother is frantically searching for biographies of female scientists? Charlene Wells mentions the user who asks for what they want and wants nothing extra – been there, done that, just gimme my web site or my article or my book. They are convinced they only need the one thing they ask for and anything else we give them will go into file 13. Ain’t that the truth! It’s a balancing act between these users and the ones like Tim Storer mentions – the ones who have electronic access to the world and want to do their own filtering.
Jenifer Malec mentions that effective marketing should to be aimed at all audiences using complete data sets – using incomplete data can leave out a potential consumer. I’m not sure how one does that, gathering all the information to cover all possibilities – although I agree that it works in theory.
Jennifer Flegle says “I am able to find exactly what I need, and with databases, I have access to reliable information.” Deb Kois mentions that we are responsible for verifying our sources, for checking the accuracy of the information. Yes, indeed! But most of our users don’t know what a database is, let alone which one has what they need. Even those who know what a database is *and* find one that covers their topic, have a hard time with the searching protocols and the limiters/filters involved in each of the resources. It’s a heady responsibility, being a librarian and attempting to lead users down the path to the resources they need. Trying to avoid the filtering on the way in is a lot more difficult when you’re aware of the implications.
Kaitlin Haflett speaks to the idea that filtering on the way out is complicated by the user’s inability to work within an organized information universe. Sometimes even the information professionals don’t know how to find what they’re looking for, although what we learn is the process and the evaluation piece to tell if we’re on the right track. Until users get comfortable with the information universe, they rely on us to do some of the filtering, whichever direction we have to do it (on the way out or on the way in).
Watching the growth of the internet from a library perspective is fascinating. When I started library school in the 90’s, we learned about Silver Platter on CD-Rom. We learned about gopher sites and printed out lots of search results on greenbar paper because it was cheaper than the “regular” paper. Now, there’s remote access and I can create a pdf right in Microsoft Word. Wow. Same thing applies to the changes in newspapers and television news, as Elizabeth Perez mentions. The most sobering example of the power of the internet – learning about the death of a colleague through a Facebook status update. Knowledge in the 21st century – from Wikipedia to Ask.com to Cha Cha – is definitely a social act.
Selecting search terms from within a controlled vocabulary is something of an art. It’s not much easier in the miscellaneous, but it’s getting there. We’re able to do a lot of refining through thesauri and functionality that’s built into the search engines (did you mean? and spellcheck corrections). Adding every word to the search index (making the miscellanea part of the search) might seem overwhelming but we have to realize that those bytes and bits don’t take up much space. There are stop-word conventions that help with the data retrieval concept and there are workarounds that allow us to find “Bud, Not Buddy” in a title search. Marysa Vaughn, Alex King, Ashley Hamernik and Jeanne Kooima all reference this concept in their postings.
Moving further away from what a library used to be is a terrifying (yet eye-opening) statement by Sarah Brown. When I started working in public libraries, we really did control the flow of information. It cost money to execute an InfoTrac search so we only allowed the “professionals” to use that terminal. There wasn’t a database, we had paper resources which were kept behind a desk and parsed out to people who really, truly needed them. Now, we have our resources available from any computer with access to the internet.
I’m left wondering if we can ever truly get away from filtering on the way in, from deciding what resources our users have access to (Amy Corey). Isn’t this part of collection development? We may not be able to afford every database that would assist our users. We certainly can’t afford every book on every subject. Additionally we can’t guarantee that our users will look at what we do have if it doesn’t agree with their position on a topic – but then again, that’s not our concern. That’s their responsibility (Sarah Warneke).
Danielle Rein did make my day by saying that if everything in the library was miscellaneous, it would be useless (a sentiment to cheer up the cataloger’s soul!!). Meggan Luszack mentions that it’s impossible to have a perfect classification system, which goes along with Scott Dombeck saying that LC and Dewey are still flexible, dynamic organisms – thank GOODNESS! I am not the only one to realize the usefulness of the "classic" structure combined with the user-centered third order. ;-)
This was one fascinating experience, and I’m glad I could take the trip down the miscellaneous road with each of you!
--Laura England, Assistant Director @ Keene Memorial Library (and perpetual student in library-land)
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Further Considerations [UNDERGRADUATES]
Danielle Rein made me laugh and was so right when she pointed out that we “organize everything from store shelves to our silverware” and along those same lines, Alex King very appropriately reminds us that “organizing information is a big part of libraries”. For years, organization – or filtering on the way in – was our niche. As Weinberger points out with both story and examples, entire businesses count on a collective need (and habit) to bring “order to chaos”. I could go on and on with even more economic and cultural examples of commercial folks (California Closets, Delicious, Franklin Planners, etc.) that rely on our propensity to shake out our coins and battle “abundance” with their products.
The economic realities of this “filtering” state of mind reminds us that while we perceive that we have “freedom of information and data”, (Sarah Brown ), it “just ain’t so!” What we need to carefully consider is that our filters “cost” us in a variety of ways. Our digital, cultural, socioeconomic, gender, age, personality types, educational and many other filters can, as Jeanne Kooima points out, “put a strangle-hold on the information we put into our libraries” and “weaken our ability to provide the best opportunities” for our patrons (Cassie Nielsen) which is a steep price for consumers to pay. To ensure consumers maintain control of their own learning (Lisa Paquette), and to ensure they have the access and ability to create their own contexts (Deb Kois), we need to throw off, or at the very least, reduce our gatekeeper role, (Sara Baguyos) and not overstep some boundaries (Amy Corey) that have been part of our professional practice for years, decades, even centuries!
Our libraries’ penchant to “capture” information is not inherently a bad thing and our 13 digit classification schematics were developed to help folks, not hinder them. Our original tools were developed with “access” in mind and Weinberger is sometimes guilty of comparing “apples to oranges” when he bashes systems that were developed to actually close the gap between the “haves and have nots” which years ago was defined by one’s access to information and ability to educate themselves. As Scott Dombeck points out, “Criticizing Dewey for his nineteenth century ideas is like faulting the Wright Brothers for not using an auto-pilot during their flights at Kittyhawk”. Meggan Lusczak is also right when she says it is “impossible to have a perfect classification system” and we would be wrong to forget that our tools do indeed, for many folks, “increase the value of abundance” (Jennifer Pace).
I am a part of that population/group that Tim Storer says “wants it all, right now and demand more” and designing library services and tools (which do filter by processes of access, prioritization, and design) that give patrons all the choices they want whenever they want it is tricky. Librarians should balance this thinking with a reminder that, as Charlene Wells said, “Many people want exactly what they ask for and if you throw them a heap of options, they could become annoyed with all the possibilities.” Can we reduce our filtering and design tools that help “patrons become better facilitators of knowledge themselves” (Callie Kallsen) and still make sure patrons don’t miss vital pieces of information that would change their understanding of a topic (Jenifer Malec)? Can we battle our personal (librarians are human) filters and respond without judgment to requests from adults who might want children’s biography or a young person’s forays into adult literature (Sarah Warneke)?
I believe we can. I also believe filtering-on-the-way-in is a bad thing only when the filters are unrecognized, hidden, self-serving and exclusive – acknowledging filters is acknowledging one’s self. Like Marysa Vaughn, I think user-friendly systems are indeed possible. I want my information to be filtered sometimes as I don’t care to know about different kinds of lettuce in detail – I just want some basic information to make my salads pretty. I need my information to be filtered sometimes in medical emergencies. Does that make me a linear or lazy human being? I think not! While I can “get information out of sources” (Kaitlin Haflett), and am able to incorporate my own filters when seeking information (Elizabeth Perez), I appreciate recent developments in our tools and services that provide access in more ways so people can use it (Jennifer Flegle) and that recognize that information doesn’t have to be tied to a single “place” (Ashley Hamernick).
I’ve worked on Intellectual Freedom committees and with other groups all my life to battle filters and any process of tool that restricts access and will continue to do so with passion and integrity. This book prompted me to revisit the ‘why” of my pursuits and support my belief that people should make as many of their own choices as they can. I’m glad you enjoyed the reading and we’ll see what Laura England has to say!
Now I want you to respond to this prompt (just click the comment button as before): “Weinberger (p. 203) says that “Understanding, not knowledge, is what we’re aiming at in most conversations.” My questions for you are – What is the difference between knowledge and understanding and how does/should a world in which “everything is miscellaneous” change its definitions of both “knowledge” and thus “understanding”?
I’ll look forward to your responses!
The economic realities of this “filtering” state of mind reminds us that while we perceive that we have “freedom of information and data”, (Sarah Brown ), it “just ain’t so!” What we need to carefully consider is that our filters “cost” us in a variety of ways. Our digital, cultural, socioeconomic, gender, age, personality types, educational and many other filters can, as Jeanne Kooima points out, “put a strangle-hold on the information we put into our libraries” and “weaken our ability to provide the best opportunities” for our patrons (Cassie Nielsen) which is a steep price for consumers to pay. To ensure consumers maintain control of their own learning (Lisa Paquette), and to ensure they have the access and ability to create their own contexts (Deb Kois), we need to throw off, or at the very least, reduce our gatekeeper role, (Sara Baguyos) and not overstep some boundaries (Amy Corey) that have been part of our professional practice for years, decades, even centuries!
Our libraries’ penchant to “capture” information is not inherently a bad thing and our 13 digit classification schematics were developed to help folks, not hinder them. Our original tools were developed with “access” in mind and Weinberger is sometimes guilty of comparing “apples to oranges” when he bashes systems that were developed to actually close the gap between the “haves and have nots” which years ago was defined by one’s access to information and ability to educate themselves. As Scott Dombeck points out, “Criticizing Dewey for his nineteenth century ideas is like faulting the Wright Brothers for not using an auto-pilot during their flights at Kittyhawk”. Meggan Lusczak is also right when she says it is “impossible to have a perfect classification system” and we would be wrong to forget that our tools do indeed, for many folks, “increase the value of abundance” (Jennifer Pace).
I am a part of that population/group that Tim Storer says “wants it all, right now and demand more” and designing library services and tools (which do filter by processes of access, prioritization, and design) that give patrons all the choices they want whenever they want it is tricky. Librarians should balance this thinking with a reminder that, as Charlene Wells said, “Many people want exactly what they ask for and if you throw them a heap of options, they could become annoyed with all the possibilities.” Can we reduce our filtering and design tools that help “patrons become better facilitators of knowledge themselves” (Callie Kallsen) and still make sure patrons don’t miss vital pieces of information that would change their understanding of a topic (Jenifer Malec)? Can we battle our personal (librarians are human) filters and respond without judgment to requests from adults who might want children’s biography or a young person’s forays into adult literature (Sarah Warneke)?
I believe we can. I also believe filtering-on-the-way-in is a bad thing only when the filters are unrecognized, hidden, self-serving and exclusive – acknowledging filters is acknowledging one’s self. Like Marysa Vaughn, I think user-friendly systems are indeed possible. I want my information to be filtered sometimes as I don’t care to know about different kinds of lettuce in detail – I just want some basic information to make my salads pretty. I need my information to be filtered sometimes in medical emergencies. Does that make me a linear or lazy human being? I think not! While I can “get information out of sources” (Kaitlin Haflett), and am able to incorporate my own filters when seeking information (Elizabeth Perez), I appreciate recent developments in our tools and services that provide access in more ways so people can use it (Jennifer Flegle) and that recognize that information doesn’t have to be tied to a single “place” (Ashley Hamernick).
I’ve worked on Intellectual Freedom committees and with other groups all my life to battle filters and any process of tool that restricts access and will continue to do so with passion and integrity. This book prompted me to revisit the ‘why” of my pursuits and support my belief that people should make as many of their own choices as they can. I’m glad you enjoyed the reading and we’ll see what Laura England has to say!
Now I want you to respond to this prompt (just click the comment button as before): “Weinberger (p. 203) says that “Understanding, not knowledge, is what we’re aiming at in most conversations.” My questions for you are – What is the difference between knowledge and understanding and how does/should a world in which “everything is miscellaneous” change its definitions of both “knowledge” and thus “understanding”?
I’ll look forward to your responses!
Further Considerations [GRADUATES -- Wymer]
Graduates, please use this post to comment on the thoughts and questions posed by Becky Wymer as we continue our discussion of Everything Is Miscellaneous.
Further Considerations [GRADUATES -- Hein]
Graduates, please use this post to comment / respond to the questions / thoughts posed by Karen Hein to continue the discussion of Everything Is Miscellaneous.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Filtering [UNDERGRADUATES -- England]
One of Weinberger's propositions is "Filter on the way out, not on the way in" (p. 102). What do you think the implications of this statement are in terms of a library's support of your own personal information pursuits?
Giving Up Control [GRADUATES -- Wymer]
How can libraries address Weinberger's proposition that we should "give up control" (p. 105) and find a way to connect users with information and ideas in ways other than our traditional approaches to organization?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)