Sense and Reference

Goodbye Blogger

2011-11-03T00:31:00.001-04:00

This blog is moving to http://senseandreference.wordpress.com

Please update your RSS feed.

by imazerart on Flickr

Technology is the future. Technology is the past.

2011-10-15T20:59:00.000-04:00

Detroit Public Schools Book Depository, 2025 14th Street

Photo by tunnelbug on Flickr

I'd like to take a moment to riff off of a tidy little post by Joe over at all these birds with teeth (BTW, one of my top two or three favorite library blogs). Joe's recent post, "Drinking the Kool-Aid", takes a look at the claim that we are heading towards a post-text world where video will become the dominant method of communication. As some have argued, video will soon eclipse text as the primary means of ~~communication~~ recording and sharing information. And libraries, following the trend away from knowledge collection and towards knowledge production, should follow suit and direct training, resources, facilities, even our very mission as librarians towards the new paradigm. But, as Joe argues,

The matter of the fact is that text is not dead (“Text” is a part of the world of visual communication) and if we intend to be taken seriously as sites of production then it behooves us to keep the lines to the past open for those in the future.

And he's absolutely right. There is no prima facie reason to abandon a technology simply because something new and different has come along. Sure, it sometimes goes that way: we replaced the typewriter with the computer in less than two decades. Then again, for all the gee-whiz technology we're buying, I've got five bucks that says you've got a pen or pencil within your reach.

That's vintage Canadian money. I'm all about the Lauriers, baby.

Where am I going with this?

There's an unfortunate tendency in some library circles to view new technologies or new theories as the one and only future of librarianship. It's said that ebooks will replace print books, smartphones will replace desktops, the cloud will replace local storage, and so on. And that's just the tech side of things. Library practice sees the same push towards replacement. Patron driven acquisitions will replace collection development. Transliteracy will replace information literacy. Knowledge construction will replace knowledge collection. Tagging will replace classification systems. You get the idea. And, you know, some of that may in fact happen. But, a lot of it won't. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's worth keeping around. New Coke was grody to the max. The New Age movement is patent nonsense. New Jack Swing? Color Me Sadd.

Wow. That's just one "Ooh, baby, ooh" from the worst pun ever. Sorry.

by stgermh on Flickr

My point is just that some of our current practices are in need of replacement, but others will outlive each and every one of us. Sure, saying that text is dead is just hyperbolic rhetoric, not meant to be taken seriously. But, the threat of thinking in terms of obsolescence is very real. For all we know, ebooks may go the way of the microfiche; for all we know, social tagging may go the way of the card catalog. Maybe so, maybe not. But we should at least avoid the rhetoric; we shouldn't turn our backs on the past because something better might come along.

Don't get me wrong. The pitfalls of techno-theoretical boosterism don't entail that we shouldn't be advocates for new technologies and theories. If we don't actively pursue, explore, and recommend new technology or new theory, we won't be going anywhere as a profession. We need to embrace new technologies and see how far we can push them, even if they do turn out to be worthless in the long run. The important thing is that we don't pretend that existing technologies no longer matter when something new comes along. We shouldn't think in terms of replacement, we should think in terms of addition or enhancement. That is, we shouldn't look at our print books begrudgingly because we think they'll soon be replaced. We shouldn't resent what we have because we want what's yet to come.

If ebooks replace print books, so be it, but we shouldn't give print books the cold shoulder just because Kindles just got cheaper. And we shouldn't throw around hyperbolic "X is dead" statements until X is truly long gone. Spending time on future technology and trends is absolutely vital to our profession. But so is spending time on past technologies and trends, and we need to remember that the utility of the technologies and theories of the present can only be determined in relation to the past. I'm not saying we need to start teaching all about microfilm in library instruction or that the scriptorium is integral to the modern library. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that advancement necessarily means replacement. As Joe says: "it behooves us to keep the lines to the past open for those in the future." Again, we shouldn't resent what we've got because something better might come along. Let text and print die a natural death, don't let them die from neglect.

Yes, I know that these books weren't replaced by ebooks.

They were replaced by nothing at all.

by shanegorski no Flickr

Spaces to study or spaces on shelves?

2011-10-13T00:41:00.001-04:00

by puddy77 on Flickr

An interesting trio of articles came through the old Google Reader today. First, from Cracked.com, S. Peter Davis's list of "6 Reasons We're in another Book-Burning Period in History" is a somewhat irreverent attempt at explaining an ugly little truth of libraries: we get rid of books all the time. Second, on NPR's Monkey See blog, Linda Holmes decided to fact-check the Davis article in her aptly titled "Hard Choices: Do Libraries Really Destroy Books?" She finds that, yeah, we do get rid of books all the time, but we're very careful about it. Finally, via Steven Bell, it seems that students at the University of Denver have been actively fighting against plans to remove 800,000 books from their library in order to make room for collaborative, social spaces and "learning commons." All three articles are worth reading, so please check them out. I'll still be here if you want to come back...

If you're a librarian, it isn't shocking to find that libraries routinely discard books. Call it "collection review". Call it "deaccession". Call it "weeding". Call it what you want, we do it all the time and finding out can be quite a shock for non-librarians. I know first hand because I just finished reviewing the entire Philosophy, Religion, and Business-related collections here at UTC, one book at a time. From duplicate copies to abridged titles to outdated editions, the books I flagged for secondary review were mostly crap by any reasonable standard. Still, the protests in the faculty senate were nothing short of hysterical. Apparently, getting rid of an extra copy of Walter McFarland's Concepts for Management Accounting is morally equivalent to kicking the baby Jesus in the balls. Seriously. It even smelled like cat urine! Why would you want the library to hold on to it if it smells like cat pee? I should probably clarify that I mean the book, not Jesus. Reliable sources confirm that Jesus was litter-trained.

Pictured: My reliable source.

by norbet on Flickr

Anyway, I don't want to talk about all of the safeguards against discarding valuable books, the alternatives to pulping them, or the simple fact that disposing of State-owned property is not something librarians do all willy-nilly. These are other posts, to be written at a later date. Instead, I just want to point out that, in many more situations than we realize, there's a tension between the value librarians see in their collections and the role that society has bestowed upon us.

As Davis asks in the Cracked article, what happens "when thousands of turn-of-the-last-century books and newspapers become landfill because the library wants to install a coffee shop?" On NPR, Holmes writes that "when you need more space for group work, you can't pack every inch of your library with more shelves just to avoid getting rid of books." It's an important distinction. Not having enough room for more books is one thing. Not having enough room for the books you have, because the new coffeeshop needs 1,500 square feet, is something quite different.

"Here's a Moby Dick reference that'll totes make up for it!"

by 5-0_og on Flickr

You see, one of the more prevalent ideas going around the library world is that a commitment to collecting, organizing, and making information accessible is a relic of 20th Century librarianship (notice that I said "information", not "books"). Prominent library administrators, library school faculty, and independent technology enthusiasts are vocal about their vision for the future of the library. The books we collect for our communities, the articles to which we provide access, in sum, the knowledge we share...none of it is as important as it once was. Instead, libraries should divest themselves of their hallowed stacks of dusty, old books and make room for collaborative learning spaces. We should trade ownership for ebook licenses and trade the reference desk for tech support. In the traditional model, we provide access to as much quality information as our budgets allow, in order to facilitate self-directed learning while preserving the cultural and intellectual record. Patrons come to us because we manage the world of information. In the new paradigm, we don't need to provide any information at all...just wi-fi, coffee, and collaborative spaces. Patrons will come to us because we provide whiteboards and big tables. And if those books are getting in the way of building a new media lab...then the books have to go. They're irrelevant to librarianship; a "bookless library" is not an oxymoron, it's a virtue.

Which is where Denver comes in. On the one hand, the dean of libraries at Syracuse University told administrators at Denver that "the library, as a place, is dead. Kaput. Finito. And we need to move on to a new concept of what the academic library is." On the other hand, the leader of the student protests is insistent that if all of the intended books had been removed without replacement, "the scribbles and sounds we interpret as 'library' would have begun to lose all meaning." What are we to make of this? Leading library figures want to get rid of the books so they can transform libraries into "learning commons". Students and faculty want to keep the books because, after all, that's what makes a library. Sure, they'd like a latte and extra study rooms to go along with those books, but they aren't going the other direction and requesting cafes in spite of the books. If Denver teaches us anything, it's that students want new technologies and spaces within the library not instead of the library.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about encouraging collaborative spaces in the library. Our new building will be chock full of group study rooms, media labs, cutting-edge technology, even a Starbucks. But we'll also have even more shelf space than we currently have. In a similar vein, when I worked at Oakland University, they moved the government documents to make room for a very popular information commons, but they didn't weed the collection for that purpose. They weeded books for the "regular" reasons; the information commons was a separate issue all together. Again, I'm all for making the library the go-to place for studying, collaborating, and accessing information. All I'm pointing out is that it makes me uncomfortable when I think of libraries discarding massive swaths of their collections solely because they need to make room for collaborative spaces or cafes, while ignoring that the students and faculty want books and coffee. It's fine if a library wants to combine their collections with new learning spaces. Sure, it's tough to find the room, but we need to listen to the students. If building that cafe will require us to cull the collection, that needs to be an open conversation. (You'd be surprised how much relaxing your food and beverage policy can help.) The trend towards replacing traditional collections of information with the blank slates of collaborative spaces is worrisome. I mean, what is a reference librarian to do? "Oh, you need articles about Voltaire's role in creating the first encyclopedia...go over to that media-station by the espresso machine and figure it out with some friends...we're a library, after all."

Thoughts on Banned Books Week: We're not prejudiced, we're discriminating.

2011-10-04T23:20:00.003-04:00

Photo by peskylibrary on Flickr

Well, Banned Books Week is officially over. I don't really have a problem with the event, though it's hard not to make snarky observations. Thankfully, the Annoyed Librarian has already taken care of the snark, so I can get along with my day.

Anyway, reading about all of the banned book displays and banned book read-outs has got me thinking about how highlighting ~~banned~~ ~~challenged~~ controversial books matches up with the policies recommended by the ALA. Surprisingly, these displays are a violation of ALA policies on intellectual freedom. Specifically, it seems that a lot of the hoopla surrounding banned books is in direct violation of the ALA's official position on labeling. That's right...by pulling controversial titles from the general collection, assembling them into a special exhibit, and encouraging patrons to read them, librarians are going against an official policy of the ALA regarding censorship.

Labeling and Rating
Long before our society was overrun by gay penguins and sparkly vampires, conservative and religious groups had a different problem: Commies. Those damned pinkos were everywhere and they needed to be stopped. So, concerned citizens started pressuring libraries to place big, fat stickers on any books that might be considered "subversive" or "un-American". Of course, the ALA was having none of that, so in 1951 it released an official Statement on Labeling that condemned any attempts to label a book "subversive". As the statement argued "labeling is an attempt to prejudice the reader, and as such, it is a censor's tool."

The statement on labeling has been amended a handful of times over the past 60 years, ultimately ending up as a statement on "Labels and Rating Systems." Here are the five core principles regarding labeling:

"The presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate endorsement of their contents by the library."
"Labels on library materials may be viewpoint-neutral directional aids that save the time of users, or they may be attempts to prejudice or discourage users or restrict their access to materials."
"Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language or themes of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users."
"Viewpoint-neutral directional aids facilitate access by making it easier for users to locate materials."
"When directional aids are used to forbid access or to suggest moral or doctrinal endorsement, the effect is the same as prejudicial labeling."

The ALA also provides this helpful FAQ on labeling, if you'd like (slightly) more explanation.

Are Banned Books displays viewpoint-neutral?
The statement on labeling makes it pretty clear that there are only two types of labels: directional and prejudicial. That's it. The call number on the spine is a finding aid, so that's an acceptable directional aid. Same goes for barcodes. A sign that says "Fiction" is okay, and it's even permissible to make a display for a summer reading list, because "assembling materials that will be in high demand for a limited period of time helps library users find them." But, as the ALA repeatedly insist, any non-directional label is prejudicial. So, where do the Banned Books displays fit in?

It seems clear that a Banned Book display would fall under the "directional aid" category. But, the ALA is explicit that when a directional aid is used "to suggest moral or doctrinal endorsement, the effect is the same as prejudicial labeling." Moral or doctrinal endorsement, huh? What am I doing if I actively encourage people to read a select class of books in order "to draw attention to the danger that exists when restraints are imposed on the availability of information in a free society"? Sounds to me like I'm...wait for it...suggesting moral or doctrinal endorsement. Oh, snap! We're endorsing a particular moral stance towards the freedom to read! Oh, double-snap! That means Banned Books Week displays are a form of prejudicial labeling! Yes, I'm completely serious about this. According to the official ALA statement on labeling, Banned Books Week is a biased treatment of specific library materials. Sure, it's a bias in favor of something librarians think is morally acceptable, but according to the ALA it's a "prejudice" all the same.

"Ooh, dang!"

By yaffamedia on Flickr

Celebrating banned books...with extreme prejudice.
Before you assume I'm a conservative zealot like that jackass from SafeLibraries, let me add that I'm all about the freedom to read. I love Banned Books Week. I used to read And Tango Makes Three to my son regularly and if he wants to read those controversial YA books with mature themes, I'm all for it. The problem isn't with Banned Books Week. The problem is that ALA policies on censorship are inconsistently applied and poorly defined.

The Statement on Labeling was a purely reactionary gesture at the height of the Red Scare but, for whatever reason, subsequent amendments have only increased the derp. In a nutshell, the statement is founded on a straightforward false dilemma: labels are either directional or they are a prejudicial "censor's tool". Period. But, there is no reason at all to suppose that these are the only two options for labels.

A simple example of acceptable labeling would be the case of a label indicating that certain pages are missing from a volume. That sort of label is not a finding aid, but it's also not an instance of censorship. To take another example, if my library decides to go with an OPAC that allows user reviews, public lists, and links to book reviews (which we're deciding right now) then we are enhancing records with non-directional information. But is this prejudicial information? I think not.

But, you know what, these are boring examples of how libraries might inform patrons as to the quality or value of their collections. They suffice to show that the statement on labeling is B.S., but let's try something more challenging. What about bowdlerized books? I'm sort of thinking that bowdlerized books should be labeled as such, if only to prevent patrons from mistaking an expurgated text for an original. What do we tell the Freshman English major who checks out the Charles Lamb edition of Romeo and Juliet, where the roles of Mercutio and the Nurse have vanished? Or, more recently, what do we do with that copy of Stephenson's Reamde that Amazon just reworked on the fly? Shouldn't we indicate whether a book on the shelf is the censored or abridged version, at least so that we might be consistent in our moral opposition to censorship?

Or, what about instances of fraud? If it turns out that a book in the collection is plagiarized, falsifies data, or the author just made everything up, should you include a little descriptive note in the MARC 500 field? Something like, "hey there, it turns out the author plagiarized, so here's a link to the original version of this work" or " 'sup bro, just wanted to let you know that even though this book is shelved with the non-fiction books, the author admitted that he just made everything up." Can we do that? Did you know you probably do it already? Yeppers, take a look at your library's record for James Frey's A Million Little Pieces. What's that little bit in the 500 field? Oh, crap, it's a non-directional note! Dear God, your library is an affront to intellectual freedom! You heartless pinko censor, you!

"THE LITTLE RED BOOK OF GOSSIP GIRL IS THE UNIVERSITY OF MAO ZEDONG THOUGHT!"

by fortinbras on Flickr

We aren't prejudiced, we're discriminating
Obviously, there's more to maintaining a collection than slapping on a barcode and then washing our hands. The simple fact of the matter is that the Statement on Labeling is poorly written. But, I think the tension between the statement and Banned Books Week points to a larger issue: that official ALA policies on intellectual freedom are inconsistent with other library values and ignore the important distinction between prejudice and discrimination. Librarians advocating for intellectual freedom are not prejudiced, they're discriminating, and there's nothing wrong with that. Prejudice involves passing judgment without adequate knowledge or relevant reasons. But, sometimes we do know something about the books on our shelves and we believe that our patrons need to share in the same information. We know how to distinguish between different information sources, and we know how to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant bibliographic data. Likewise, sometimes we do know something about intellectual freedom and we believe that we should spread the word. Obviously, we have constraining moral rules, ideals, and virtues. Out of respect for autonomy, we're not going to command a patron to read or not read a particular book. But, as discriminating experts on intellectual freedom, there's nothing wrong with advocacy.

If we took the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom at it's word, we'd not just have to abandon Banned Books Week, but abandon most forms of library advocacy (want kids to get library cards? sorry, that's indoctrination). I realize that the ALA doesn't really want to end library advocacy. Nor does it want to turn its back on issues of intellectual freedom, censorship, literacy, and the other moral concerns of libraries. But, we can't go about understanding intellectual freedom through policy statements, and I guess all I'm pointing out is that any librarian interested in promoting intellectual freedom is making a tacit admission that the "official" policies on intellectual freedom can be safely ignored. Though, I wouldn't go so far as to ban them...that's just what the ALA would want.

By anirvan on Flickr

[and, by the way, I got bored of this post and decided to move on to more interesting stuff halfway through writing it. but, whatever, it's my blog, I'll do what I want, yo.]

[[crap. that was a non-directional label on my own post. I am so screwed.]]

Can library instruction learn from Facebook?

2011-09-23T21:02:00.001-04:00

courtesy of t1ffan1e, on Flickr

Oh hell no! Facebook changed its interface?! What happened to my News Feed? What's a Ticker? Where's my recent activity? I'm so filled with rage over this new layout that I'm leaving Facebook for good! Just like I left Facebook the last time there was a major redesign...less than a year ago. And in 2009. And 2008. And 2007. And dozens of times in between. Just like I went to Canada when Bush was elected.

Which I totally didn't do. For all of the huffing and puffing about redesigns to Facebook, we all know what's going to happen: people will get used to it. Just like we get used to the periodic redesigns to Google or Twitter or any of the other services that dominate our online lives. Trust me, when Facebook announces its semiannual big redesign next summer, you'll find pundits everywhere threatening to pack up and move to Google+ if Zuckerberg so much as thinks about doing anything to our precious Ticker. Life goes on, right? But, in the middle of this backlash against the Facebook redesign, I think library instructors should pause and take note...

In your face, interface!
What do all of the following have in common:

It should be fairly obvious what they have in common: none of these are current search interfaces. But, these interfaces are only from last Fall semester. That's right. This is how we researched just 12 months ago. JSTOR, Gale, ProQuest, and LexisNexis have since made some changes:

Some of the differences are cosmetic. Some are functional. Some new features have been added. Some features have been removed. Tabs turn into columns and columns into tabs and some of the databases wind up completely unrecognizable. And though you may be diligently updating your videos, handouts, walk-throughs, games, and activities to reflect the changes, where does that leave the Freshmen who had their one and only library instruction session last year? They're only Sophomores now and several key databases are almost unrecognizable compared to what you showed them just 12 months ago. And I guarantee they'll see LexisNexis or JSTOR or ProQuest or another vendor update interfaces again before they graduate.

Not to mention the fact that many important databases are available through many vendors. What happens when you move your PsycINFO subscription from CSA to EBSCO? When those Education majors you trained on the ProQuest version of ERIC move on to graduate school, how will they handle searching ERIC in Firstsearch?

Of course, this isn't a problem for the majority of college graduates. Most of them will go straight into the workforce. Not long after graduation, they'll lose access to all of their college library's resources and, though I hope they'll make use of the databases provided by their public library, they'll most likely spend the rest of their lives relying on Google. Is there a four year expiration date on library instruction? How much of your library instruction applies outside of academia?

How can we learn from Facebook?
I think we can learn a lot about library instruction by reflecting on what happens when an important service like Facebook changes in drastic ways. Specifically, we can learn from the fact that, except for a vocal minority, most users quickly adapt to the changes and carry on with their lives. So, let's ask ourselves, "How much of our library instruction will survive similar, drastic changes to academic databases?" How well does our supposed "information literacy" instruction survive past graduation and the loss of library privileges? We know that Facebook users will carry on with the service after a major overhaul, so how do we get library users to do the same?

I don't have any global answers; I'm sure that most of you smart instructional librarians out there are well beyond these sorts of questions. But, for what it's worth, the instruction program here at UTC (a.k.a. the best damn library instruction program ever) has taken notice of the shifting uncertainties of database design, and we're down for the challenge. I won't bore you with a rundown of our curriculum; you can do that on your own; And I'll be revisiting this topic in the near future anyway. But, I would like to point out some of our guiding principles: We don't teach to the database, we use the database as a teaching tool. We teach how databases are similar, not how they are different. We embrace transfer of learning. We focus on the world of information, not the world of library resources. I guess you could say we do lots of stuff. But one thing we don't do is assume that the places we tell our students to click will be there in the morning.

So...about updating those handouts?

by evilpeacock, on Flickr

"Greetings, friend! Have you heard the

Good News about keyword searching!?"

Reorganizing literacy

2011-09-19T00:16:00.000-04:00

By 48614116@N05 on Flickr

Approximately forever ago (that's March 30 in social media years), I got pretty tired of a certain argument bouncing around the pipes. On the one side, you have the transliteracy early adopters, insisting that transliteracy is a unifying framework covering all types of literacy. On the other side, you have the information literacy purists, insisting that transliteracy is a silly buzzword because, lest we forget, information literacy already covers all types of literacy. The problem is that it isn't entirely clear that "all" types of literacy are even in the same category.

To the transliteracy folk, I wanted to ask: what does it mean to move across literacies, anyway? How do you move between print literacy, health literacy, and critical literacy, for example. These are categorically different activities, so it just seems nonsensical. To the information literacy crowd, I wanted to ask: if information literacy already covers all literacy-types, why don't we refer to new readers as 'information literate' when they learn to read and write? I smell an equivocation.

So, in this long, long ago time of warring literacies, I put together a post called 'Literacy' sucks that tried to categorize competing literacies in a consistent and logical way. Here's the original chart:

Within a week, the post had more than 1,000 views. Most of my posts would take a month just to get 100 views. By now, this chart has been seen at least 6,000 times on this blog and it's even being used in some LIS school courses (Howdy, SI 641!). People are taking this stuff seriously?!

Anyway, I used this chart at a few conferences over the summer, though, as I studied literacy more, I had to make a few changes. So, here's an updated (though less-colorful) version of my literacy chart:

It's largely the same, but there's an important difference that I'd like to explain...

Literacy refers to both communicative skills and evaluative skills

Rather than divide along medium specific and non-specific lines, I started to think in terms of communication and evaluation as a better way of dividing literacy types. Sometimes when we talk about literacy, we are talking about the commonplace sense of literacy as the ability to read and write. Both reading and writing are required to count as literate in this basic sense. Why? Well, I think it's because we naturally think of print literacy as a communication skill. And communication is a two-way street; it requires that we can both send and receive information. But, here's the catch...we don't have to be able to evaluate the information we're reading and writing in order to read and write it. Moreover, many people routinely read and write things that would fail even the most basic criteria of information literacy, yet they still count as literate. Lots of people read and write articles explaining homeopathy, Obama's secret Muslim faith, that link between vaccines and autism, or the shadow government run by George Soros. Of course, when they accept such patent nonsense as true, we don't say they are illiterate. Information illiterate, yes. But they still have the ability to read and write. So, reading and writing are distinct from the ability to evaluate what is being read or written. Reading and writing are simply a communication skill, a part of sending and receiving messages.

In contrast, information literacy is all about evaluation. Sure, the bright and shiny digital world makes it seem as though information literacy is tied to computer literacy, but consider the following scenario. A former professor of mine was completely in the dark when it came to using a computer, let alone the Internet. Blogs were a complete novelty and, echoing Michael Gorman, they simply couldn't be trusted. But, though he couldn't access an article in JSTOR, when the same article was printed on paper he could make complete sense out of it. I hesitate to say that his lack of computer skills made him information illiterate. As a seasoned academic he was very well-acquainted with scholarly communication and the notions of credibility, authority, and the like. He just preferred his information in print. And whether in print or in JSTOR, it's the same information. It seems to follow that information literacy is treated as a conceptually separate skill from the functional skills required to use a computer or read a book. Information literacy is about the information, not the medium.

by s_volenszki, on Flickr

Containers and Content

Let me try to explain the difference between transliteracy and information literacy as simply as possible:

Transliteracy is about containers. Information literacy is about content.

I used to despise the container/content metaphor, but I think it makes perfect sense in this case.

You see, information literacy is all about accessing and evaluating information with the intent of determining if it is truthful or a load of crap, based on certain relevant criteria. When paper ruled the world, it was easy to incorporate both access and evaluation into information literacy because our modes of access required little more than basic print literacy. Yet, as digital communication expanded, information literacy was forced to absorb new and radically different modes of access. Gradually, the nature of accessing information became complex to the point that information literacy started to strain under the burden of new technologies. Though the content is still able to be evaluated by time-tested methods, getting to that content has pushed information literacy in several, often opposing, directions.

This is why I think transliteracy has merit as an approach to information use. Transliteracy alleviates the pressure on information literacy by treating access separately. If information literacy is about the content (the information), then transliteracy is all about the containers. The complexity of the information ecosystem requires that we have some account for how information travels between radically different media, from print to pixels and beyond. That account, I believe, is transliteracy. Transliteracy refers to an ability to transfer meaning between different media...different containers, if you will. Whether the message is truthful or a load of crap, it doesn't matter for the purposes of transliteracy. It's all about the ability to move fluidly between platforms and media.

And in this distinction between content and container, I see echoes of Claude Shannon's (1948) famous exhortation:

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.

The meaning of a given piece of information is separate from issues of communicating that information. The content is separate from the container. In a sense, information literacy addresses the problems of meaning, transliteracy addresses the engineering problem. Why else would the vast majority of articles on transliteracy speak so frequently of ebook readers, social media, the digital divide, tablets, and other technological issues? Why else would articles on information literacy so frequently discuss plagiarism, the credibility of Wikipedia, scholarly communication, and other conceptual issues? We need information literacy so we can think about the meaning of information. We need transliteracy so we can think about the communication of information. In a word, we need both.

So, there you have it. I tinkered with my chart. I'm sure a lot of people will think the communication/evaluation distinction is a load of rubbish. Information literacy folk will say they've got access under wraps (as they struggle to cram another technology into a concept bulging at the seams). Transliteracy folk will insist they really are talking about all literacies (as they re-appropriate basic concepts of information literacy). My only response is that it makes sense to me.

Shannon, Claude E. "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", Part I, Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27, (1948): pp. 379-423

The Social Transcript (Essential Readings in the Philosophy of LIS)

2011-09-17T14:48:00.002-04:00

Image by naturalkinds

My books piled up before me for my use

waiting in space where I placed them, they

haven't disappeared, time's left its remnants and qual-

ities for me to use.

(Allen Ginsberg)

A few weeks ago, a philosophy of librarianship thing started going around [link] [link] [link] [link]. I started to write out my own philosophy of librarianship statement, but (1) I was distracted by a massive collection review project, (2) I had to finish a book chapter, and (3) I can't write a succinct philosophy of librarianship statement. I found myself double-checking everything and running down far too many rabbit holes. So, in lieu of a philosophy of librarianship, I'd like to recommend what I feel is (despite its flaws) the most powerful recent statement of library philosophy: Charles Osburn's The Social Transcript (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2009).

My books piled up before me for my use
I've only seen a handful of previous reviews of Osburn's book. Wayne Bivens-Tatum correctly notes that Osburn's treatise is about "why the library exists rather than how it functions" and that "[w]hat Osburn tries to do...is uncover the larger philosophy governing libraries and their role in our culture so that we may see more clearly." (p. 584). This really is a book about libraries as socio-cultural linchpins. And, as Mike Matthews has described it, Osburn avoids the common pitfalls of library philosophy "by emphasizing the study of the library as an object, rather than trying to articulate a library philosophy from a strictly subjective (i.e., librarian's) point of view" (p. 90). This is not a "how-to" book heavy on praxis. This is a book written from the proverbial Archimedean standpoint, on the outside, looking in.

Both Bivens-Tatum and Matthews criticize Osburn's overwrought prose and excessive use of direct quotations (something Osburn even admits, p. xii). And I agree: Osburn quotes from so many wildly varied sources that his argument is, more often than not, obscured by other voices. It's excessive to the point that he veers dangerously close to plagiarism at points.* Still, the overarching message is powerful and instructive, regardless of whose message it really is.

Waiting in space where I placed them, they haven't disappeared
I'm going to try to reconstruct Osburn's thesis and argument as best I can, though I may be taking some liberties for the sake of not-wanting-to-make-you-have-to-read-a-5000-damned-word-review.

The library, Osburn argues, is not so much a place, but a sociocultural function. From the Peripatetics of Alexandria through the monastic era and down to today, the library qua place has changed hands repeatedly, and each time with different political and social intent. Yet, the common thread that has carried the library through more than 2,000 years of Western society has been its function as the means by which we preserve the "social transcript". As he writes, "the organization, differentiation, and integration of extant knowledge for use by humanity, now and in the future, constitute the abbreviated single function of the library" (p. 241).

Drawing on sociology, political science, education, evolutionary theory, and more, Osburn argues that history writ large is the story of cultural progress mediated by continued access to the cultural record. Humanity advances through millennia only by virtue of shared memories, values, imaginative creations, and intellectual achievements. Collectively, these shared artifacts form a "social transcript", a means of preserving and transmitting our beliefs through time. Osburn defines the social transcript as "both oral and written communications that are passed on to subsequent generations as knowledge of many kinds, and therefore to be critiqued, accepted, rejected, or even ignored for the time being" (p. 134). Even more succinctly, Osburn offers this: "the social transcript can be considered culture in transit" (p. 135).

Osburn writes, "none of this is mysterious when placed in the context of the library as function, as a cultural technology. That function is stewardship of the social transcript" (p. 258). And I think I agree with him. Rather than start with librarianship, as most grand theories seem to do, it seems more fitting to start with the library itself. Librarianship thus exists as a response to the deeply ingrained cultural technology of "the library", and not the other way around. By situating the library in society, Osburn provides the necessary starting point for understanding how librarians, library science, and librarianship should proceed as cultural stewards.

Time's left its remnants and qualities for me to use
Of course, Osburn's book is far from perfect. As mentioned above, the excessive number of citations are incredibly distracting and are often of only marginal relevance. Further, Osburn is frequently inconsistent insofar as he presents a lengthy discussion of the social utility of aesthetic works (books, poetry, plays, etc.), yet reverts back to describing cultural progress strictly in terms of the transmission of knowledge. When it comes time to actually define the social transcript and its role in cultural progress, aesthetic considerations seem to take a backseat.

Finally, and most damningly, Osburn completely ignores the impact of the Internet on the social transcript. I'm no Twopointopian by any means, but to ignore the effects of digital communication and storage seems extraordinarily negligent...especially for a book published in 2009. I can already hear the digital desperadoes proudly retort that the digital world in general (and social media in particular) allows us to act as our own cultural stewards, obviating the need for libraries. "Who needs libraries when there's Google?" There are plenty of good responses; I'm sure you can name a dozen off the top of your head. But, for Osburn to set the library up as a cultural steward, and then ignore the Internet's challenge to the cultural record, is evidence of an incredible oversight. If anything, digital media are the largest challenges to social transcript theory, and Osburn has nothing to say. As far as his version of social transcript theory is concerned, books are the end of the line.

I'd like to explore social transcript theory further, because I think that the theory can, in fact, answer the tension between libraries and the Internet. In the next post, I'll try to explain why social transcript theory offers a better alternative to other popular theories. I really do think that Osburn has the right idea, and I encourage you to get a copy of The Social Transcript, with the one caveat that, for all of the book's research and erudition, the argument is, ultimately, left incomplete. But, that's not such a bad thing. At least it gives us something to do.

Essential Readings in the Philosophy of Library and Information Science

Bivens-Tatum, Wayne. "The Social Transcript: Uncovering Library Philosophy (Review)." portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 11, Issue 1, January 2011: 584-585.
Matthews, Mike. "The Social Transcript: Uncovering Library Philosophy (Review)." Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol. 50, Issue 1, Fall 2010: 90-91.
Osburn, Charles. The Social Transcript: Uncovering Library Philosophy. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2009.

Image by nedcc, on Flickr

* Yes, plagiarism is a serious charge to level at someone. But, for example, Osburn writes

Sponsorship of the library has changed hands frequently throughout history, moving from the nobility, the priesthood, private benefactors, voluntary associations, business and industrial enterprise, and a variety of governmental agencies represented in the public sector. Concurrently, however, the library increased dramatically in size, geographic ubiquity, and complexity; created for it was a body of rules and procedures as it evolved new patterns for its administrative control, and constantly extended its clientele base. And through all that, as Jesse Shera points out (1973, p. 94), the library did not change its basic mission, "which is to maximize the social utility of graphic records"... (Osburn, p. 18-19)

Compare to Shera (1973):

The sponsorship of the library, then, has throughout history and during varying periods of time, been assumed by the nobility, the priesthoods, private benefactors, voluntary associations, business and industrial enterprise, and a variety of governmental agencies represented in the public sector. The library has increased dramatically in size and complexity, created a body of more or less standardized rules and procedures, evolved new patterns for its administrative control, and constantly widened its clientele, while not changing its basic mission, which is to maximize the social utility of graphic records for benefit of the individual and, through the individual, of society.

I'm going to assume that this is just a case of sloppy scholarship, but it rides a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable use and it's hardly an isolated incident. Here's hoping the second edition is more accurate in its source attribution.

Convincing Teens that Reading is Lame...Forever!

2011-08-23T15:01:00.000-04:00

Image by liquidnight, on FLickr

By now you've probably come across the news that 90% of Internet users don't know about using CTRL+F to search a web page or document (that's Command+F for all you hipsters out there). Librarians are jumping on this statistic as a rallying cry for the importance of information literacy, digital literacy, keyboard literacy, or [insert modifier] literacy. Throw in the recent article at Inside Higher Ed about college students' piss-poor research skills, and...wow...college students are having some serious trouble using technology. It's starting to sound like the future of academic library instruction will be less about search strategies and more about removing choking hazards from the computer lab.

"Where's the link to ELMOSTOR?"

Image by Paul Mayne, on Flickr

I'll admit that I'm skeptical about the 90% figure (simply because I haven't seen the original research). But, let's assume it's true. Why should CTRL+F matter? Well, as Daniel Russell explains, "if you only learn one keyboard shortcut in your entire life, this should be it. Knowing how to rapidly spot the word, phrase or substring you're looking for quickly will change the way you read texts online." So, that's it...CTRL+F will change the way you read!

I'll admit that CTRL+F is an integral part of my search behavior. I search through electronic sources all day long for a living, and I couldn't do it efficiently without the keyboard shortcut. I suspect that the same is true of the many librarians on Twitter who are spreading the 90% story like wildfire. Reference librarians are advanced researchers and CTRL+F is one of our most prized tools. But, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, rather than being a simple shortcut, CTRL+F is actually an advanced tool that many student researchers aren't yet ready for. That 90% figure might not be such a bad thing.

You see, I work with college students, the supposed "digital natives" whose research skills are routinely called into question. When I'm not clearing paper-jams from the printer, I help students find sources for papers. Same goes for library instruction; we show students how to use both web and library resources to find the information they need. Typically, in both reference help and library instruction, librarians only take students to the document level. That is, we show them how to find their way to a relevant document, but we usually do not show them how to search within the document. They still have to read the whole article or book to find the information they need for their paper.

The problem is that students aren't actually absorbing what they're reading. Research through the Citation Project has provided evidence for what many of us already suspected: most students simply scan the book for a relevant quote and then copy and paste it into their "research" papers without actually absorbing or comprehending what they're reading. As Barbara Fister has recently argued, this is a natural outcome of our insistence that students use a specified number of reputable sources to support their arguments, before they are fully capable of comprehending and presenting arguments in the first place. Growing up in a "teach-to-the-test" environment, students learn to focus exclusively on finding articles that confirm preconceived notions and then parrot chunks of text in the hopes of scoring a passing grade. Fister writes, "This is not research. I’m not even sure it’s writing. It’s more or less organized transcription. It's kind of like remix, kind of like mashup, only without being transformative."

Image by Kalexanderson, on Flickr

Maybe you can see where I'm going with this. The much vaunted CTRL+F is far from a simple, time-saving shortcut. When Russell writes that CTRL+F "changes the way you read long documents" he's absolutely right: CTRL+F changes the way we read...by making it so that we don't have to read. This can be a good thing. But, it can also be a barrier to real learning. Why read through a long, boring article when you can search for the exact phrase or fact you want? Are you one of those Luddites who "reads every single word until they find the one they’re looking for"? What kind of n00b actually reads the whole book? Have a book report on Plato's use of the Sun as metaphor? Don't waste time reading, simply CTRL+F your way through The Republic!

Of course, I'm only talking about beginning researchers. Skilled researchers realize that you have to use the "Find" command in conjunction with an understanding and appreciation for the text as a whole. There's nothing wrong with studying the arguments in The Republic and also using CTRL+F as a time-saver to get to that passage that you remember, but can't find. There's also nothing wrong with using CTRL+F to perform a meta-search on the frequency and location of a particular string of words in a long document. Skilled researchers know how to use CTRL+F. But, it doesn't work in reverse; knowing about CTRL+F does not make you a skilled researcher. I know it's tempting to confuse technology skills with critical thinking skills, but it just doesn't work that way.

I'm not saying that the "Find" command necessarily leads to sloppy research. I just think that we need to appreciate it for what it is and we should be aware that it makes it ever so much easier to engage in the kind of cherry picking described by Fister and the Citation Project. CTRL+F makes it easy to find a string of words, but it does nothing to help us comprehend a sustained argument. Sure, 90% of Internet users may not be familiar with the "Find" command. But, of the 10% who do know about it, are they using it as an efficient tool, or are they using it as an intellectually irresponsible crutch? With all the hoopla about search engines negatively affecting our memory, the last thing we need is to make it easier to avoid learning.

Reference question solved!

2011-08-12T15:49:00.000-04:00

A few days ago I shared the following interesting reference question:

"We are trying to find the following book:

Pera, Francesco: Memoria sopra il monument inalzato al Granduca Ferdinando I. in Livorno e relazione sulla presa di Bona. Livorno 1888."

I chose this question for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the fact that the book in question is not listed in Worldcat or available through Google Books. Even worse, the title is both incomplete and misspelled. Worst of all, Francesco Pera is not the author.

But, still, three librarians responded and I suppose I should hand out some prizes.

The second-runner up was Alison from Johnson City, TN. Alison had the key insight that if an Italian book isn't in Worldcat, then maybe it's in whatever the Italian equivalent of Worldcat is. This took her to the National Library in Rome which is close enough to merit a prize of....four fish! Alison, be sure to bring some bags!

First runner-up was Andromeda, from Massachusetts. Andromeda quickly figured out the book wasn't in Worldcat and turned to Google Books, hoping for a digitized frontispiece from the holding library. That's a neat trick. Unfortunately, the book isn't in Google Books, but she did find a bibliography that sent her to the National Library in Florence and to the book in question. Her search moved through search engines, digitized bibliographies, library catalogs, and plenty of Google Translate, I'm sure. For effectively pushing the question through a wide variety of information sources, she deserves to "sing loud, sing proud" with...an autographed Dropkick Murphy's poster from the 2001 Vans Warped Tour!

And the winner was Elizabeth from...well, I don't know where, but she correctly identified four libraries in Italy that have the book:

The National Central Library in Florence
The F.D. Guerrazzi branch of the Public Library of Labronica (Livorno)
The Piombino Municipal Archives
The library of the Museo del Risorgimento

Moreover, she did so in about the most elegantly simple way possible: she asked her colleagues. I'll admit, I doggedly pursued the book through online resources for about 15 minutes before I finally got to a list of libraries holding the title. Rather than waste the time, she asked the head of her Interlibrary Loan department, who suggested a search through national union catalogs, something easily done using the Karlsruhe Virtueller Katalog (KVK). I had never seen the KVK before, but maybe that's because I don't work in ILL. I've sure as heck bookmarked it for future use! For showing us that, sometimes, our colleagues are the best place to start our search, Elizabeth deserves a prize, but I don't know where she lives. So, I'll take a random guess that she lives in Ohio and likes venison. Congratulations, Elizabeth, you've won a "not too tore up" deer carcass!

It's really interesting to see how other librarians approach tricky reference questions, and I'll put something a bit more challenging up in the near future.

Oh yeah, here's the text of the e-mail I sent when I originally answered the Francesco Pera question:

Hi XXXXXXX,

Ugolino della Gherardesca wrote a historical bibliographyof 18th and 19th century monographs relating to the Province of Livorno. Youcan read Volume 1 here.

The full title of the book you need is Memoria sopra il monumento inalzato al granduca Ferdinando 1. in Livorno : estratta dalla Filza degli affari della direzione del r. archivio centrale di stato in Firenze, anno 1855, e Relazione sulla presa di Bona. It appears that the work is a collection of papers related to thefamous I Quattro Mori in the Piazza Micheli. The papers werecompiled and edited by Francesco Bonaini in 1855, and later edited again byFrancesco Pera in 1888, hence the confusing authorship. della Gherardesca shows available copies of the reportat the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence, the Piombino municipal archives, and theBiblioteca Labronica in Livorno.

Here's the catalog at the BNCF: http://www.bncf.firenze.sbn.it/ (themonograph is catalogued under Bonaini's name) And the record in Piombino is available through their OPAC (search for Bonaini). I can't figure out the catalog in Livorno, but theysupposedly have a copy as well. Finally, I searched the British Library on a whim, and there seems to be a copy at the National Art Library in the U.K.; I've sent the record in a separate email.

Oh, and here's the monument in question in Google Street View (just because it's neat!)

I hope this helps!

Lane Wilkinson, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Have a nice weekend!

Can you solve this reference question?

2011-08-10T09:30:00.001-04:00

Photo by Tyler Harnach, on Flickr

Fact-checking is a deeply ingrained part of reference librarianship that is often overlooked in all of talk of information literacy, research papers, and printer jams. In days of yore (read: before Google), if you wanted to know the largest moon of Saturn (Titan), the atomic number of nickel (28), or the capital of South Africa (which one?), your friendly, local reference librarian was the end of the line.The modern form of research assistance (in the form of helping to develop topics, navigate databases, cite sources, etc) is actually a rather new development. Still, every now and again, the lucky reference librarian will get an honest-to-goodness, old-school reference question.

I love reference questions, and the trickier the better. And what I really find interesting is that no two reference librarians tackle a difficult question the same way. So, I thought it might be fun to share a recent reference question and see if any librarians want to give it a go and share their search strategies. I'm genuinely curious about how different librarians interpret a reference question, which elements of a reference request they see as the "starting point", and how they manipulate the tools of the trade. Solving a vexing reference request might require ingenuity, creativity, prior knowledge, logic, all of these, or none...and we all have our preferred strategies.

So, here's a reference request that came my way not too long ago. In the spirit of privacy, I can't identify the source of the question, but that doesn't affect the request itself. Anyway, here it goes, quoted verbatim:

"We are trying to find a library that has thefollowing book:

Pera, Francesco: Memoria sopra il monument inalzato alGranduca Ferdinando I. in Livorno e relazione sulla presa di Bona. Livorno1888."

Can you help find this book?

In a few days I'll post a list of libraries that have the book, along with my search strategy. In the meantime, I'd love to see what you can come up with.

Library Day in the Life: Round 7

2011-07-25T10:28:00.009-04:00

My name is Lane Wilkinson and I am a librarian.

Specifically, I am a reference and instruction librarian at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, and this is my "library day in the life" entry for the week of July 25, 2011. I'm writing this for the benefit of future librarians who would like a snapshot of the day-to-day activities in an academic library.

Monday
7:30 - The library opens in 15 minutes, so I'm patiently waiting at the reference desk for the first students. I should probably take this opportunity to describe my library. UTC is a mid-sized, urban university with a "Masters/L" Carnegie Classification and an enrollment just shy of 11,000 students. (If you're thinking of becoming an academic librarian, I highly recommend that you think carefully about the Carnegie Classifications while looking for jobs.) The library is primarily a teaching library, rather than a research library, by which I mean that library services are primarily in support of the undergraduate curriculum. As a reference and instruction librarian, I teach an average of 30 classes each semester and each week I spend 5-10 hours on the reference desk each week and handle one or two in-depth research appointments. Most of the reference work involves formatting papers, finding scholarly articles, and helping students refine their research topics/arguments. As the liaison to the Department of Philosophy and Religion and the College of Business, I work with faculty to build the collection and I work closely with honors students, upper-level undergraduates, and graduate students in these areas. And then there are the committees...good lord there are a lot of committees...

8:20 - 35 minutes into the reference desk, and I haven't had a question yet. Given that it's summer, this isn't surprising.

8:39 - Here's my agenda for the day:

Go over the suggested edits a peer-reviewer sent regarding my LOEX conference proceedings.
Order at least $500 of titles for the College of Business.
Write a mission statement and philosophy of instruction for the library instruction website we're designing.
Work on a proposal for extending library instruction into the Department of Philosophy and Religion.
Start working on storyboards for new video tutorials.
Create 5-10 advertisements for the digital displays we're installing around the library.

8:47 - First reference question of the day: "Can I borrow a pen?"

9:37 - Finished "fixing" the LOEX paper. Now, on to some CD.

10:10 - Scouring LibGuides at other universities for new and interesting business books. I find an recommended title, compare it to faculty research interests and courses offered, look for a review, add it my spreadsheet, and throw it into my account in Ambassador.

10:31 - Switching to digital displays for a little while. We are installing digital signage around the library and we need lots of content. So, I'm trying to churn out ads for our hours, collections, library services, technology, etc.. Here's one that probably won't get used:

10:58 - A word of advice, Photoshop and Illustrator are expensive. If you're on a budget, GIMP and Inkscape are excellent, free, open-source alternatives.

11:35 - Just got a copy of a synthesis essay assignment from a first-year composition assignment. I'll need to go over the assignment in preparation for tomorrow's library instruction session. (One of the things I like best about the library instruction team here at UTC is the way we've embedded ourselves in the Freshman English program to the point that we work directly with faculty to develop the curriculum and assignments.)

12:45 - I've finished the digital display content, ordered my books, edited my paper, and now it's time to turn to the storyboards for new video tutorials. The subcommittee I'm on has until the end of August to create a half-dozen or so videos. Our goal is to put out a series of short (30-60 seconds) videos targeted at specific library services (ILL, printing, etc.) and a few longer videos for classroom use.

1:05 - Back on the reference desk until 2:00.

1:11 - The reference desk is a great place to clear out all of those listserv messages in my inbox.

1:16 - Reference question: A student needs a chapter from a book we do not own. I explain how we can either have the book mailed through interlibrary loan, or have the chapter in question scanned and emailed directly to him. He selects the latter. As I'm walking him through the ILL request menu I ask him to fill out the "Not wanted after" field. He says he needs it for a class in two hours. Wow.

1:23 - Internet Reference Service Quarterly is seeking manuscripts. I'm tempted to send them something, but I would have to transfer my copyright over to Taylor & Francis. I'll probably send them something, but if I have to trade away ownership, I don't see the need in putting too much energy into it. They should just reword their call for articles to read, "send us a half-assed paper that you don't care about ever seeing again."

1:54 - Reference question: A patron needed help searching he Tennessee Code Annotated. It took a while to explain that the Tennessee "Code" was located under State "Statutes".

2:30 - Trying to figure out how best to sell library instruction to the Department of Philosophy and Religion. I would suppose it's pretty much the same at most university libraries: library instruction is used heavily by a half dozen or so departments, and infrequently (if ever) by most departments. Here at UTC, English, Education, Social Work, Business (Accounting, Marketing, Finance, Management), and the medical disciplines (Nursing, HHP, Physical Therapy) are heavy users of library instruction and support services. Interestingly, there as many instruction sessions for grad students as undergrads. But, I digress....

3:15 - Had a great chat with Khristy (my wife) about her lecture on Doestoevsky and Plato. Maybe I'll write a Doestoevsky, Plato, and libraries post in the near future. I've been looking for something fun to write.

5:26 - So, I sort of forgot to update this for a while. Oh well. Let's just say that I librarianated for a while then came home to hang out with the little guy.

I didn't know JSTOR even had four million articles

2011-07-20T16:46:00.000-04:00

Photo by feralindeed

As you may have heard by now, a young rabble-rouser by the name of Aaron Swartz has landed himself in a whole heap of trouble. If you don't know what I'm talking about, take a look at this article in the New York Times, then come back so I can ramble incoherently about things I don't understand.

Allegedly, Aaron Swartz broke into a restricted wiring closet at MIT, made an unauthorized connection to MITs network (he is not affiliated with the school), used several methods to mask his identity (MAC address spoofing, IP switching, clever Python scripts, etc.), and proceeded to download over four million articles from JSTOR in direct violation of JSTOR terms of service. Wow. JSTOR, libraries, information, access...get ready for every librarian with a Twitter account to jump on the biggest thing to hit libraries since McMastergate.

So, what do librarians think about Swartzgate (yes, I just called dibs on the inevitable stupid suffix). Well, it's still early, but here are the three most tweeted headlines in my feed:

"Feds Charge Activist as Hacker for Downloading Millions of Academic Articles"
"Feds Charge Aaron Swartz With Felony Hacking... For Downloading A Ton Of Academic Research"
"Breaking: Feds indict Demand Progress's Aaron Swartz for downloading too many journal articles" (To the librarians that shared this headline, please take an information literacy refresher. Here's a hint: what starts with B and rhymes with "bias"?)

If the headlines are to be believed, Aaron Swartz has been indicted for downloading too many articles from JSTOR. Given the possibly unethical nature of the academic publishing world and the oppressive nature of publisher copyright agreements, Swartz's case looks like a great rallying cause for librarians concerned with freedom of information, open access, and scholarly communication. But, before the onslaught of blog posts gets too far, I'd like to clear up a few things...

No, Swartz did not really steal anything
Some reports are framing the Swartz indictment in terms of theft. Supposedly, by downloading millions of articles, he stole the property of JSTOR (and MIT, depending on how you read the license agreement). As U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz was quoted in a DOJ press release:

Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but Swartz did not steal anything in the traditional sense of theft. Take a look at Black's Law Dictionary, which defines 'theft' as "the felonious taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it." As many bloggers have already pointed out, Swartz did not deprive JSTOR (or MIT) of the articles in question; JSTOR still has the articles. You'll hear this line of thinking a lot in the near future.

Yes, Swartz really did commit larceny
Though it may not be theft, Swartz did commit larceny. What a lot of commentators don't realize is that the legal sense of larceny is not the same as the everyday sense of theft. Moreover, with the exception of a handful of very narrow cases, larceny is only prosecuted at the state level, so it helps to look at the Massachusetts General Laws. Specifically, Chapter 266, Section 30, on larceny:

Section 30. (1) Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another as defined in this section, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny...[my emphasis]

But electronic information isn't property, right? Not so fast there, buster. Under Massachusetts law, property includes "electronically processed or stored data, either tangible or intangible, data while in transit, telecommunications services." I'm no legal expert, but under Massachusetts law, it looks like Swartz did commit larceny. Specifically, he obtained intangible, electronically stored data through false pretenses. As to whether he intended to defraud (cause injury or loss through deceit) JSTOR or MIT, I won't speculate as to his motives, but lets just say that if the entire contents of JSTOR were suddenly available for free through BitTorrent, I think the financial loss would be substantial. So, no, he did not deprive anyone of property, but yes he did obtain data through false pretence with the intent to affect JSTOR in some manner. Perhaps most interesting is the fact that Swartz is not being prosecuted for larceny at all. JSTOR is not pursuing legal action against Swartz at all and the case is being directed by the U.S. Attorney's Office. So, the whole issue of theft is a red herring.

Swartz was not indicted for downloading too many articles

This is the big one. Yes, Swartz allegedly downloaded more than four million articles. He did this under false pretenses and in direct violation of JSTOR's license agreements. And what was he charged with? Here's the list:

Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343)
Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4))
Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), (c)(2)(B)(iii))
Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B), (c)(4)(A)(i)(I),(VI))

Err...where's the "you stole our articles" charge? Well, as I pointed out above, there was no deprivation of property, and more importantly, this type of larceny would be prosecuted at the state level, if at all. Instead, Swartz is charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Really, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) is the only charge that comes close to addressing the large number of articles downloaded, but, as at least one real legal expert has noted, Swartz was completely within his rights to access the information in question; he did not exceed authorized access in the sense intended by the provision (by 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6), to exceed authorized access is "to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled so to obtain or alter"). It's the manner in which he accessed it that lead to the indictment, not the quantity of articles downloaded.

If anything, the relevant federal charges would have to do with copyright infringement. But, Swartz is not being charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2319 (Criminal Infringement of Copyright) and Title 17 does not appear anywhere in the indictment. It all comes down to a case of computer fraud and unauthorized access. If entering restricted areas, making unauthorized connections to a secure network, intentionally masking your identity, and repeatedly circumventing security interventions is your preferred method of making a statement about copyright and open access to scholarly communication, you might be going about it the wrong way.

Don't believe the hype
Some of the more popular soundbites flying around the interwebs only serve to confuse the issue. For example, Demand Progress Executive Director David Segal is widely quoted as saying that the case "is like trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library.” No Dave, it's not like that at all. It's more like trying to put someone in jail for allegedly breaking into the library after hours. James Jacobs, a librarian at Stanford, has been quoted as saying that “it’s incredible that the government would try to lock someone up for allegedly looking up articles at a library.” Yes, James, that would be incredible, if it happened. But, there's a big difference between looking up articles in a library and committing fraud in order to violate license agreements.

Again, Swartz is not being charged with downloading too many articles. He is being charged with computer fraud. Whether he downloaded four million articles, or just four, the articles themselves are immaterial. Hell, he could have just played Farmville and the indictment would stick. As to whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a just law, that's a separate issue from JSTOR.

"I'm growing Z39.50s!"

The takeaway

I'm not a legal scholar, so I could be wrong about all of this. But, there seems to be a disconnect between what the indictment alleges and what the "information wants to be free" crowd alleges. From some posts, it looks even less like a disconnect and more like misinformation and misrepresentation. I get that scholarly communication is broken. Believe me, I would like nothing more than to see the current system replaced with free and open access to information. Too much of our intellectual heritage is trapped behind exorbitant subscription models and draconian terms of use. Still, computer fraud is not necessarily the way to go about realizing change, and the whole thing leaves me with more questions than answers. Here are the two big ones:

First, I'm still trying to figure out how fraudulently downloading and sharing four million articles from JSTOR is supposed to help the open access movement. The primary users of JSTORs archives are scholars who probably already have access through their library, so Swartz must be interested in making the archives available to non-academics. But, what is the demand for scholarly articles outside of the ivory tower? How many people are anxiously awaiting the day they can finally put down that James Patterson novel and curl up with Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung? I know, I know, that's a bit hyperbolic. But, my point is that the problem isn't a lack of access for those that most want to read scholarly articles in JSTOR, the problem is found in exorbitant subscriptions and byzantine terms-of-use agreements.

Second, I'm also wondering why JSTOR was targeted. Since when is JSTOR the bad guy? I may be pretty green on matters of institutional subscription services, but I thought JSTOR was a non-profit. Sure, JSTOR costs an arm and a leg, but isn't that mostly the fault of publisher license agreements? Wouldn't it make a stronger statement to go after a publisher/vendor like SAGE or ThomsonReuters? Why not hit a publisher that's making oodles of money off of scholarly indifference to the predatory licensing we librarians have warned about for years? Seriously, JSTOR? WTF? I'm deeply troubled by this because publishers have JSTOR bent over just like the rest of us, and the most probable outcome I can foresee involves big name publishers like Oxford, Cambridge, or Blackwell forcing even more stringent license agreements and higher subscription fees. If anything, publishers are going to force JSTOR to adopt stricter licensing and libraries will be forced to eat the cost.

In sum, there's a lot of hyperbole and misinformation in the circus surrounding Swartzgate, and I think it can only detract from the open access movement. It's one thing to sit at a library computer and openly and honestly violate database terms of agreement as an act of civil disobedience or protest. It's quite another to sneak into unauthorized areas and commit wire fraud. However, there is a silver lining. Though Swartz has done nothing to help open-access, his case (along with the Bradley Manning case) will bring more scrutiny to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. I'm sure that after the moving wall has passed you can read all about it in a convenient JSTOR-provided journal...assuming you can still afford the subscription.

New Orleans in 30 CDs

2011-06-22T18:50:00.000-04:00

Photo courtesy of Brenda Anderson (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

I've been tapped to present at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference as a part of the "Why Transliteracy?" panel and I'm excited by the opportunity. As to the conference itself, I've never been to Annual, so I don't have any sage words of advice or survival strategies. I can't recommend any sessions or events, though there are some interesting suggestions from HackLibSchool, Bobbi Newman, and others. If you want the skinny, it's best to head over to Ink and Vellum for a bit, then come back. You know, I also can't recommend what to pack, though I've been told that you should wear sensible walking shoes during the day and stash those cute espadrille slingbacks in your oversized summer tote for later (do they have a size 12?). In fact, outside of my presentation, the only preparations I'm making involve the music I'll be bringing...

I'll be leaving around 5:30a.m. on Friday, and it's about eight hours to the Big Easy. Given that I'll be going from the pre-dawn fog of Northern Alabama hill country to the blistered blacktop of Mississippi to the sweltering back-alleys of the Big Easy, I'll need a range of musical offerings to keep me going. Here's the catch: I'll be driving a university car and I don't know if I'll be able to connect my iPod. This is strange because, now that we expect to have our entire music library in our pocket at all times, we don't usually have to choose which albums to take on a trip. So, just to be safe, I've pulled out the old 30 CD Case Logic visor and now I have to revisit the lost art of crafting the road trip playlist.

Here, in a strange order that makes sense perhaps only to me, are the 30 CDs I'll have by my side. It's a mix of classic driving albums, Louisiana voodoo, recent purchases, summery weirdness, and more. Links go to YouTube.

JOMF - WOW/The Magick Fire Music - "Bone Saw"
Grateful Dead - 10/12/1968, Avalon Ballroom - "St. Stephen / The Eleven"
Lou Reed - Street Hassle - "Street Hassle"
Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest - "Southern Point"
Tubeway Army - Replicas - "Are Friends Electric?"
Panda Bear - Tomboy - "You Can Count on Me"

Battles - Gloss Drop - "Ice Cream"
Herocop - Tukwila Mockingbird - "Joanna Newsong"
Radiohead - King of Limbs - "Bloom"
The Joy Formidable - The Big Roar - "Whirring"
El Guincho - Pop Negro - "Bombay"
Dungen - Skit i Allt - "Skit i Allt"

Deerhunter - Microcastle - "Saved by Old Times"
Television - The Blow Up - "Little Johnny Jewel"
Modern Lovers - Modern Lovers - "Roadrunner"
Pavement - Brighten the Corners (Nicene Creedence Edition) - "Passat Dream"
The Stooges - Fun House - "Down on the Street"
Dylan Group - Ur-Klang Search - "Towers of Dub"

Neil Young - Everybody Knows This is Nowhere - "Down by The River"
Big Star - Radio City - "O My Soul"
Rodriguez - Cold Fact - "Sugar Man"
J.J. Cale - Troubadour - "Let Me Do It to You"
John Lee Hooker - Endless Boogie - "Standin' at the Crossroads"
Trees - The Garden of Jane Delawney - "Lady Margaret"

Dr. John - Gris Gris - "Gris-Gris Gumbo Ya Ya"
Manu Chao - Próxima Estación: Esperanza - "Merry Blues"
Tom Waits - Rain Dogs - "Singapore"
Shuggie Otis - Inspiration Informtion - "Inspiration Information"
Fela Kuti - Confusion & No Gentleman - "Confusion"
The Meters - Look-Ka Py Py - "Look-Ka Py Py"

Obviously this is more than enough for 16 hours of driving, but it's nice to have options. Speaking of options...

I'm always looking for more music and I don't know who reads this blog, but perhaps you could chime in with your ALA playlist. Whether you're driving, flying, or whatever, what music will you have at the conference? Can you recommend music for librarians?

One last thing, if you're a music-lover, be sure to check out Euclid Records at 3401 Chartres St. in Bywater (about 1.5 miles east of Jackson Square)

See Rock City!

2011-06-09T15:48:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Brent (CC BY-2.0)

I work for the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and you can too! That's right, we're hiring TWO librarians this summer! Now, I realize that I'm not much of a draw, but you'll also be working with Jason Griffey, Colleen Harris, Virginia Cairns, Caitlin Shanley, Beverly Kutz, and lots of other librarians that I guarantee you've seen at a conference or two. Oh yeah, and thanks to our kick-ass dean we have a LEED certified library currently under construction, and it's always fun to work in a new library, right!? Want more? Check out our wiki for org charts, meeting minutes, statistics, surveys, and more (we're as transparent and open as is legally possible).

Okay, so you may be thinking, "Chattanooga, Tennessee? But I have all my teeth and I don't play the banjo!" Just stop. Seriously, cut it out. Chattanooga is routinely ranked as one of the most livable cities in the U.S.. Rising home values, the fastest internet in the country, major economic investment, a nationally renowned art scene, and an international mecca for hiking, climbing, biking, and caving all contribute to a seriously modern and progressive city; it's what the Grey Lady calls an "undiscovered gem."

Anyway, here are the postings:

The University of Tennessee, Chattanooga’s Lupton Library invites applications from energetic, intellectually curious, and student-centered librarians to fill two, tenure-track vacancies on our team. This dynamic duo will lead the Library’s further development in electronic resources access and discovery.

Electronic Resources and Serials LibrarianThe Electronic Resources and Serials Librarian ensures optimal and accurate access to subscription resources in all formats, including databases, electronic journals and books, print journals and other continuations.

Digital Integration LibrarianThe Digital Integration Librarian implements public facing digital tools and services, such as link resolvers, that connect electronic and other library resources for patrons.

View a chart comparing requirements and qualifications for each positionView the library's organization chart

A review of applications will begin on July 5, 2011 and will continue until the positions are filled. Interested applicants should submit 1) a letter of interest, 2) a current CV, and 3) the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of three references including the professional relationship of each reference to facultyvitae@utc.edu.

Come on, you know you want to...

Frank Kehren (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The Age of The Symbol (Essential Readings in the Philosophy of LIS)

2011-06-03T16:54:00.002-04:00

Courtesy of Duluth Public Library

So far as I am aware, librarianship is really in a critical condition...the profession itself is now unsure of what its functions are and unsure also of just how to go about performing whatever functions are assigned to it or that it adopts. This state of affairs seems to me to be entirely understandable in the light of certain developments that affect not merely the profession but our society as a whole (p. 295)

It's a busy day at work so I'll keep this brief...

As one of the core, foundational texts in the philosophy of librarianship, Abraham Kaplan's "The Age of the Symbol" is a testament to the importance of appreciating the philosophical foundations of librarianship. Moreover, his discussion of the myriad problems facing librarianship are eerily prescient...new technologies, an explosion of information, external socio-political pressures...the same things you'll see in the current literature. And how does Kaplan propose we respond to the challenges facing librarianship? Well, I'm not much for spoilers, so you'll have to read the article yourself.

However, I will point out that Kaplan advocates a particular approach to library science. First, he argues that librarianship is a humanist enterprise. Second, he makes the case that librarianship is more akin to the "metasciences" of logic, mathematics, linguistics, and information science (p. 301) than to social or hard sciences. Given that most librarians believe that library science is a social science and most library research takes its cue from sociological research methods, the second point should raise some eyebrows, but I think he is spot-on. Library science is not a social science like sociology, anthropology, or political science. Neither is it a hard science like physics, chemistry, or biology. Library science is

not about subject matters provided by man and nature, but about subject matters provided fundamentally by our ideas about man and nature, or by our language, or by our ways of transmitting and processing the information that we have derived, and so on. (p. 301)

And later, he elaborates that library science

has thrust upon it, as its appropriate domain, the whole of knowledge, the whole of culture; nothing is supposed to be foreign to us, and we ought to be prepared under suitable circumstances to be helpful with regard to any and every area of human concern. [W]e cannot even begin to occupy ourselves with the substance and content of this endless domain, but only with its form, with its structure, with its order, with the interrelations of the various parts. (p. 304)

I like this approach and I probably agree with Kaplan more than I disagree. If anything, placing library science in the meta-scientific realm places it at a more foundational level than the profession may realize. Hopefully I can return to Kaplan's arguments in a future post.

Essential Reading in the Philosophy of Library and Information Science

Kaplan, A. (1964). The age of the symbol--a philosophy of library education. Library Quarterly, 34(4), 295-304.

The taiga is a place of thin, nutrient-poor soil

2011-05-27T22:08:00.000-04:00

"Taiga torch" Courtesy of Copper Kettle. CC-BY-SA 2.0

It's come to my attention that I am a librarian with a blog. This means that I am obliged to say something about the newest set of "provocative statements" coming out of the Taiga Forum. I could give a point-by-point criticism or analysis of each statement, but other bloggers are already doing it. I could rail against the futility of futurist predictions, but I'm too busy trying to feed all of my printed books to Skynet so it can learn human emotions. I could point out that the taiga is the planet's largest terrestrial biome, but this ain't a geography lesson. I guess I really don't know what to say about the provocative statements and part of the reason is that I still can't figure out what the hell they're for in the first place.

The Taiga Forum prides itself on it's biennial release of controversial statements, though they are adamant that the statements are not predictions; they are merely talking points intended to start important conversations. But, conversations about what? Are these problems for which we must seek solutions? Are these inevitabilities we must embrace? Are they intentionally vague pronouncements issued in a self-congratulatory manner so that a select group of librarians can proclaim, "Look! We started conversations!" All I can tell is that the Taiga Forum loves taking a huge dump on our nachos and high-fiving each other when we lose our appetites. "But, we started a conversation!" is the argument we'll hear while we reach for the toothpicks, vowing never to invite them to the party again.

Courtesy of OctpusHat. CC BY-SA 2.0

Listen, I'm all for starting conversations about important library issues, but it's frustrating when a group of leading librarians throw down the gauntlet and then giggle in the back row as we try to sort it out. Where are the recommendations? Where is the analysis? Where's the guidance? The big complaint I have with Taiga has nothing to do with the particular futurisms they put on the table. My complaint is that they don't follow through and create a discussion about how we should address the statements. To date, the forum has not given any evidence that their statements are realistic concerns, nor have they fostered conversations about practical solutions to perceived problems. Really, if the last few Taiga pronouncements have taught us anything, it's that their instruction manual must read as follows:

Make some outlandish claims.
Let librarians discuss how outlandish our claims are.
Remind everyone that these are "just talking points".
Stay silent for a year as everyone forgets about us and gets on with real library issues.
Repeat.

In the absence of any discussion, analysis, solutions, or other commentary, these provocative statements are meaningless. I think that this is what gets librarians the most upset about Taiga: throwing out "issues" and failing to follow through with solutions. For example, I could easily blurt out some vague premonition that "in the next five years, academic libraries will stop collecting materials in support of the humanities." In the absence of evidence that this may come to pass, or in absence of a recommended response, what purpose does such a statement serve? It's as if the Taiga members are simply antagonizing the profession for the sake of antagonizing; they are the library equivalent of the playground bully who tells us to stop hitting ourselves.

If you don't buy from the Sharing Machine, you hate America.

So, here's my provocative statement: these Taiga statements will bounce around for a month or two and then fade away for a year or two until the next provocation. Nothing important will come of them outside of a few tenure promotions for "professional service". Like all the previous statements, they are purely rhetorical and bereft of any guidance. If, miraculously, the "Taiganos" (as I like to call them) decide to buck the trend and turn these statements into a constructive, actionable conversation based on real trends and real issues, then I will be a willing participant. Until then, I've got these nachos to eat.

Libraries are in the demolition business

2011-05-23T17:12:00.003-04:00

Courtesy of Brandon Doran CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0

I really kicked the hornets' nest with my last post, and library constructivists are going out of their way to defend what I believe to be an indefensible position. I should point out that on the constructivist view my arguments for realism are an equally valid viewpoint, so why the fuss? I should also point out that I find it odd that, when pressed, the most common constructivist retorts I'm seeing are: "But, look at all the oppression in the name of science!" Should I even dignify such naïveté with a response? Of course there is oppression in the name of science, but that has nothing to do with science. Really, if you can name it, someone has probably been oppressed by it, and that includes social constructionism. Completely abandoning rationality and objectivity because bad things have happened in the name of rationality and objectivity is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Tell you what, here's a bit of Latin you can get as your next bitchin' tattoo: cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. Better yet, tattoo it on the baby, so you don't forget. (Bonus if you add "4 Lyfe" after it.)

"Pokemon 4 Lyfe"
Bob Jagendorf. CC BY 2.0

Anyway, two things have come out in the ensuing debate that are commonly confused. On the one hand there is the question, "What is the world really like?" Is it a social construct or is it a mind-independent reality? On the other hand, there is the question, "What can we know about the world?" Are claims to knowledge socially constructed, or are they objective? Though these are separate philosophical issues, and I tried to distinguish between the two when I covered constructionist theories, I've been asked to explain my views on each. First, I'll address the issue of what the world is really like; the metaphysical realist vs. anti-realist debate.

NKESR stands for "Use Common Sense, Dummy"
Why am I a metaphysical realist to begin with? I suppose I could give a personal history of the courses I took and the lectures I've given, but you kind of had to be there. Instead I'll take an old lecture I gave in a philosophical problems class and blog-o-tize it for mass consumption. (Skip it if you really don't want to read about Kant.)

Start with Kant, who held that things that exist independently of our minds cannot be known "in themselves". These objects (noumena he called them) are only experienced through representations in the mind. In fact, according to Kant, all we have direct access to are our mental representations of external objects (he called these phenomena). Some philosophers ran with this idealism and created theories to the effect that we can have no knowledge of the world outside of ourselves and our own minds. But, Kant had a trick up his sleeve. Our mental representations are remarkably well structured. Things like causality, extension in space or the fact that things persist through time are inescapable constraints on how we see the world (he called these schema). Where do these constraints come from? His answer was that they come from the external objects themselves. So, we may not have access to the physical objects in themselves but we do have access to the causal and relational properties between them.

Filtered through a few centuries, Kant's theory leads to Kantian Epistemic Structural Realism. This is the view that we cannot know anything about physical objects in themselves, but we can know their causal and relational properties. For example, I may not be able to see atoms, but I can describe the way they interact, make predictions, and use atoms to investigate other aspects of nature. So, scientific theories are just accounts of the causal and relational properties of objects, and not of the objects themselves. Yet, this is still a realism because it acknowledges that certain relationships do in fact obtain in some external reality, even if the objects themselves cannot be directly experienced.

Now, for one last twist. Scientific experimentation is remarkably consistent in its results. Actually, the successes of science are the best evidence that reality is not a social construct. In fact, as Putnam put it, realism is the only attitude that doesn't make the successes of science miraculous. (See this article for a brief overview). In reference to Kantian structural realism, I think that the remarkable consistency and predictive power of our scientific theories is the best evidence that the objects they describe really do exist. The causal and relational properties described by our theories are so powerful, that the objects in those relations must be real. So, call this neo-Kantian Epistemic Structural Realism (NKESR). That's what I believe. There are some good criticisms of this position, especially Arthur Fine's Natural Ontological Attitutde and Bas van Fraassen's constructive empiricism. These are criticisms that I take seriously, though answering them exceeds the scope of this post.

(Update 5/25/11: No sooner did I post this than PNAS published an article somewhat corroborating Kantian psychology: apparently intuitions about Euclidean geometry are innate and independent of social constructs...including language. Neat!)

So, the simple version is just that whatever reality is actually like, socially constructed or not, if you jump out the window, you're going to fall. It just so happens that the best account for why this is the case is that there really is an external, physical world. To quote a contemporary realist philosopher, "What they eat don't make us shit...Real talk."

"Girl, concepts are just freely repeatable elements
in propositional representational contents. Real talk."

So, what is knowledge?
Everything I just said was about metaphysical realism (ontological realism). How we should describe reality is a separate, epistemological issue. The question becomes, "What can we know about the world?" I should take a second to say what knowledge is, in order to set up epistemological realism. Knowledge is non-accidentally true belief. To say that you know that the head office of the American Library Association is in Chicago means that

You believe the ALA head office is in Chicago,
It is true that the ALA head office is in Chicago, and
You are justified in believing that the head office of the ALA is in Chicago.

What are truth and justification? Well, in my last post I explained constructivist theories of truth (fact), and those don't work, so let's go with what works and adopt a correspondence theory: a proposition is true if it corresponds with reality. Constructivists should have no problem accepting this theory, for them reality is a social construct so truth would just be what corresponds to social agreements. But, as I showed earlier, reality is objective and external, so truth corresponds with that. Now, what about justification? That's actually a HUGE thing to answer.

You see, we can accept that there is a mind-independent physical reality, but that doesn't tell us what we are justified in believing about that reality (inversely, we can be realists about our theories, but not about physical objects. cf. instrumentalism). Epistemic social constructionism tells us that all beliefs about reality are equally valid social constructs and that though there may be genuine facts out there, there is no privileged way of representing the world. Boghossian (2006) describes it this way:

Of course, the world doesn't just inscribe itself onto our minds. In trying to get at the truth, what we do is try to figure out what's true from the evidence available to us: we try to form the belief that it would be most rational to have, given the evidence. But is there just one way of forming rational beliefs in response to the evidence? Are facts about justification universal or might they vary from community to community? (p. 58)

Most of the more persuasive constructionists follow this type of epistemic constructionism; Richard Rorty is a prime example of someone who follows this line. According to Rorty, facts aren't socially constructed and relative at all. The same facts hold for everyone, everywhere. This is a metaphysical realism. BUT, Rorty hastens to add that there is not a privileged way of representing the world. We can create wildly different epistemic systems based on the same evidence, and all of these systems are equally valid. So, it isn't that facts are relative, it's that facts about rational belief are relative. For the epistemic constructivist, knowledge is still justified, true belief, but justification is relative to a particular community. As Boghossian puts it, "different people may rationally arrive at opposed conclusions, even as they acknowledge all the same data" (p. 59)

On the flip-side, epistemological realism tells us that there is, in fact, a right way and a wrong way to represent the world and we can accurately represent the world as it really is. So, what is the right path to knowledge? I for one follow a reliablist account of justification: a belief is justified if it is the outcome of a reliable, truth-conducive process. Since the scientific methodology is the most reliable, truth-conducive process, the scientific methodology gives us a true account of reality. And just to be clear, a scientific methodology is not the same as the hard sciences. The scientific methodology is just the application of logic, reason, empirical evidence, experimentation, etc. to questions of fact. So, for example, on the question of which is better, the Dewey Decimal System or the Library of Congress Classification system, we use logic, reason, and analysis to examine each carefully. The context, the social agreements, the ingrained biases...these are still relevant and important factors that we must consider as evidence or "experimental controls". When I want to figure out which to adopt in my library, there is a fact of the matter that one is better than the other in my situation, and I can figure it out through reason. If I were a constructivist about knowledge, I may appeal to tradition, to holy scripture, to what feels right, or some other method of justification, since none are superior. As a realist, I appeal to reason and evidence. Since I want to be done with the philosophy part of this post, I'll just direct you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you need more, because I'm supposed to be talking about libraries.

Courtesy of nualabugeye. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Libraries and Objectivity

Okay, back to libraries. What am I advocating for the foundations of library and information science? Well, I think LIS should be committed to the following things:

Metaphysical realism: There are mind-independent facts about the way the world really is.
Epistemological realism: We can, in fact, accurately represent the way the world really is.
Reliablism: We are justified in believing the truth of our representations if those representations are the product of a reliable, truth-conducive process.
Scientism: Scientific methodology (reason and evidence) is the most reliable, truth-conducive justificatory process.

The best approach to a philosophy of librarianship begins with embracing reason and truth, understanding that both are grounded in an objective reality. Our metaphysical commitments and epistemic commitments are united insofar as our knowledge claims are about real things and can be evaluated in terms of an objective reality. Let me quickly cut a misconception off at the pass: social interaction, culture, bias, and all the other weapons of constructivism are still relevant in an important way. There are biases in how we evaluate information. There are cultural influences on what we believe. There are social processes that inform us. But all of this is at a different level from actual knowledge. I have to keep coming back to the very important and often overlooked distinction between what we think about the way the world is, and how the world really is. A great deal of what we think about the world is, in fact, socially constructed. But, the way the world really is is independent of what we think. Since the demythologizing of the ancient Milesian philosophers, the concepts of objectivity, reason, rationality, and truth...in a word knowledge...have been developed to cut through our socially constructed biases and lift the veil on reality.

Demolition science
Librarians who want to treat all knowledge and truth as socially constructed are adamant that we need to get in on the construction business and assist our patrons in creating their realities. I've already said what I think about that. My proposal is that libraries enter the demolition business instead. We need to use the tools of reason and objectivity to tear down cultural biases, falsehoods, and misconceptions. We need to provide society with the tools to stand up to misinformation, disinformation, and deception. We need to blast a big-ass hole in the wall and let our patrons become educated and enlightened so they can stand up to whatever society throws at them. It's that whole speaking truth to power, truth-shall-set-you-free thing that guided us through the liberalism of the 1960s. Let me give some brief examples:

Collection Development
Don't listen to postmodernists when they tell you that realism will force libraries to only collect what the librarians have deemed to be acceptable knowledge. Far from it. Libraries should provide access to as many varied viewpoints and perspectives as possible, because these perspectives are the evidence we use to determine what is true and what is false. My library makes available books and articles in favor of intelligent design and in favor of evolution. A constructivist would say that the library collects these contradictory positions because both are equally valid accounts of the world. A realist would say that only one theory is correct, but in order to determine the truth, you have to consult all of the evidence. So, as realist librarians, we are committed to making available the widest possible selection of viewpoints because each is another bit of evidence for or against the way the world really is.

Reference
Don't listen to postmodernists when they tell you that realism will turn reference librarians into authoritarians who pass judgment on what counts as acceptable knowledge. First, our epistemic commitments are distinct from our moral commitments, and reference librarians have a moral obligation not to assume how or why patrons will use the information they seek. All we can assume is that information seekers often do have the goal of acquiring true beliefs (Fallis, 2004). By directing patrons to the viewpoints most relevant to their information need, we can be assured that we are providing them with the relevant evidence. Second, we have to avoid focusing on information wants and instead focus on information needs. When a patron asks for information, we should avoid simply handing over all and only the materials that meet that specific request. Realism entails that information exists independently of what we believe, so the realist librarian focuses on identifying a patron need and satisfying that need with the best resources available. Obviously, what the patron wants will usually be a part of the information need, but other viewpoints may be relevant, and it is the reference librarian's job to acknowledge that they exist.

For example, when a student asks for books and articles that prove that homosexuality is immoral, I won't take the constructivist approach and hand over only what will confirm the student's preconceptions. I'll take the realist approach and direct the student to books and articles about homosexuality and morality, which include competing theories, and I'll let the student use that evidence as he sees fit. Hopefully, the student will critically examine all of the relevant arguments and come to understand the way the world really is (Which is that homosexuality is not immoral. I am inflexible on this, so constructivists, don't even try to argue the point.) I should add that this applies to all information needs, regardless of what the reference librarian believes. If a patron wants to show that homosexuality is immoral, he needs to look at all the evidence; if a patron wants to show that homosexuality is not immoral, she needs to look at all the evidence. Put another way, the scientific approach is to critically examine all the relevant evidence in order to form true beliefs.

Cataloging
Don't listen to postmodernists when they tall you that realism will lead to artificial hierarchies and divisions in how we organize information. They routinely criticize the supposed rigidity of the "ontologies" librarians impose on information and offer the "wisdom of the crowds" as non-discriminatory and emancipatory alternatives. The Semantic Web, folksonomies, even Wikipedia as an authority control...these are purported to be the way of the future. In contrast, the realist cataloger knows that these crowd-sourced options are incredibly powerful tools, but she recognizes that information has a life outside of what we believe.

Library Instruction
Don't listen to postmodernists when they tell you that realism will force library instructors to adopt an authoritarian stance and force students to adopt one and only one predetermined method of research. Realism in instruction begins with the acknowledgement that research skills are not monolithic; there are several methods of access and evaluation. However, there are better and worse ways of accessing and evaluating information. These evaluative tactics have to be themselves evaluated, and this is only possible if research is directed towards something fixed, such as information that exists independently of what we believe. One of the most common forms of research you'll see among college students is research ex post facto. Students decide on a thesis, write their arguments, and then look for articles that support their position. This method of research becomes a means of corroboration, rather than a means of discovery. As I showed in my last post, this method of "research" is consistent with constructivism...perhaps even preferred by constructivism. If social agreements are the path to knowledge creation, then it only makes sense to seek out agreement and adopt it as justification. But, from a realist stance, this simply will not do. The scientific approach begins by abandoning preconceptions and letting the available evidence guide us. Students should collect information first, synthesize it, and let it determine whether the thesis is or is not supported. The scientific method is to adopt a hypothesis, test it, and either confirm it or change it in light of the evidence. This is the realist approach to research and information literacy.

I should add that, over the past week, I have repeatedly seen critics and supporters of realism mistakenly confuse constructivist epistemology and social constructionism with constructivist and constructionist learning theories. Mixing and matching these is a flat-out category mistake, but it occurs with alarming regularity. For the record, I am only critical of the epistemological theories. Philosophical realism is entirely consistent with constructivist teaching techniques (as Socrates no doubt would have lead you to conclude.)

"Damn, Crito, bust off my sizzurp!"

This ain't a scholarly paper
This is just a cursory explanation of a realist foundation for librarianship; there's a lot more to be said, for sure.
I'll probably wind up posting more on realism in the future, but for now I'd like to end this long post with one final observation that was just pointed out an hour ago in the comments to the last post. As Paul H. points out,

Even a thoroughgoing realist can admit that language is a social construct. A realist might say that we construct a language to enable us to talk about objective reality; the fact that the language is socially constructed doesn’t affect objective reality. For example, French people have a different set of agreements for their language than English speakers—we can all admit that—but the French and English speakers are still talking about the same reality, we can say they agree with each other or disagree, etc.

Paul is absolutely right. Realism does not deny that there are social constructs. Languages, libraries, the internet, governments...these and more are excellent examples of social constructs. All realism posits is that these socially constructs are aimed at something real and objective, and they can be evaluated accordingly. So, I'm not denying the weak sense of social construction. I'm not denying that social factors influence us all the time. This weaker sense of constructivism is uncontroversial, uninteresting, and it doesn't add anything valuable to the conversation about the theoretical foundations of librarianship. If anything, I'm discussing the stronger form of constructionism in order to avoid creating a straw-man argument.

So, If you disagree with me, I say "Awesome!" Let me know how and why. I'm not a terribly good philosopher, so I may have jumbled things up a bit. I'm also pretty green as a librarian, so let me know what aspects of library science I need to work on (I know cataloging is one area). This blog is my source for peer-review, where I can bang out an idea and see if it sticks well enough to write a more formal treatment, so feel free to chime in.

Reading list

Boghossian, P. A. (2006). Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Fallis, D. (2004). On verifying the accuracy of information: Philosophical perspectives. Library Trends, 52(3), 463-487. [link]
Fine, A. (1984). The Natural Ontological Attitude. In Leplin, J. (ed.). Scientific Realism (pp. 83-107). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. New York: Oxford.
van Fraassen, B. (1976). To save the phenomena. Journal of Philosophy, 73(18), 623-32. [link]

Libraries are not in the construction business

2011-05-18T10:01:00.001-04:00

"Knowledge", courtesy of Halans. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

[An aide to President George W. Bush] said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. (Ron Suskind, 2004)

Social constructionism, constructivism, post-structuralism, standpoint epistemology, deconstructionism....ever heard of these? Chance are, if you've taken a look at some of the recent literature in the philosophical aspects of librarianship, you've come across these and/or similar theories. Variously lumped together under the aegis of postmodernism, these theories are distinct, yet they are united through a common belief that we have no epistemic access to a mind-independent reality. Some of these theories go even further and claim not only that we can't know anything about the world outside of ourselves, but that there isn't even an objective, mind-independent reality at all---reality is subjective. In effect, these theories advocate various forms of relativism. I've criticized this type of relativistic thinking in previous posts, but perhaps it's time to clarify. Specifically, I want to explain why relativism, in all of its forms, is harmful to librarianship. This type of thinking is self-refuting, it impedes learning, it disenfranchises those who most need our help, it obstructs social progress, and it erodes the value of libraries in society.

Constructionism
The dominant form of relativistic theory in librarianship is constructionism. Generally speaking, constructionism is the theory that our concepts and beliefs about the world are constructed rather than discovered. Constructionist theories deny that the external, mind-independent world (if there is one) is the source of our claims to knowledge. Everything we think about the world around us is the product of some sort of constructive process. However, there are a few forms of constructionism, and I don't want to mix them up. You see, the first big question for constructionists is "who is doing all of this construction"? We can make a neat division between social constructionists and constructivists.

Social constructionists believe that societies, institutions, or other social groups are the determining factor in how we construct our world-views. On this account, knowledge, information, and truth are determined by large-scale social negotiations and conventions. So, for example, the claim that "electrons are negatively charged" is true only in virtue of the fact that the scientific community has agreed that it is true. There is no external fact of the matter about electrons, there are only contingent social agreements.

On the other hand, constructivists believe that individuals, alone or in small groups, are the ones constructing knowledge, truth, and information. So, you accept the claim that "electrons are negatively charged" is true because you have chosen to agree that it is true (either agree with someone else, or agree with yourself). Your belief is constructed by conversation, communication, or some other discourse and it is entirely contingent on what you agree that reality is like. As Protagoras said, "man is the measure of all things."

In both cases, knowledge is constructed, rather than discovered, and an objective reality (if there is one) has no causal effect on what we believe to be true about the world. It is a separate question whether there even is an objective reality at all. As presented above, constructionist theories are committed to the view that our claims to knowledge are based in contingent, social or interpersonal agreements. But, some constructionists go even further and make the claim that reality, itself, is constructed. The idea is that there is not a mind-independent world "out there" at all. The distinction I want to make is between constructionism about our beliefs and knowledge and constructionism about reality and fact. Fact-constructionism implies knowledge-constructionism, but not necessarily the other way around.

Fact-constructionism describes those theories that hold that truth is a relative concept. This shows up quite often in conversation, for example, when you hear phrases like "that's true for you". The general idea is that there are no objective facts in the world and all truth-claims are relative to a particular culture, individual, historical period, or other source of subjectivity. It follows that the objects we talk about in the world (and the facts corresponding to them) are subjective constructs. To take an overused example, truth relativism requires us to accept that the geocentric model of the Solar System (with Earth at the center) was (or still is) true for many cultures, and the heliocentric model of the Solar System is true for other cultures. Because of this difference between the facts that different cultures (or individuals) accept, there is no independent fact of the matter. The truth of how the Solar System is arranged depends on your outlook.

Knowledge constructionism admits that there may in fact be an objective, mind-independent reality, but that there is no privileged way of accessing that reality. In effect, there are many competing yet equally valid forms of rationality. There is more than one "way of knowing". So, Western science is just one of many epistemic systems, though there are others out there. For example, the Ptolemaic view of a geocentric universe was founded in an epistemic system based in scriptural authority. The Copernican heliocentric system was founded on the epistemic value of empirical evidence and a rudimentary scientific method. In deciding between scriptural authority and empirical evidence, proponents of epistemic relativism suggest that each is an acceptable means of describing the world, and neither is necessarily better than the other.

(I admit to painting in fairly broad brush-strokes here, but I think these are charitable interpretations of constructionist theory. If any constructivists or social constructionists would like to correct my descriptions, I'd be happy to include revisions.)

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

Why believe in constructionism?
Why is constructionist thinking popular among? I think Paul Boghossian is on the right track when he writes,

Ideologically, the appeal of the doctrine of equal validity [that all claims to knowledge are equally valid] cannot be detached from its emergence in the post-colonial era. Advocates of colonial expansion often sought to justify their projects by the claim that colonized subjects stood to gain much from the superior science and culture of the West. In a moral climate which has turned its back decisively on colonialism, it is appealing to many to say not only--what is true--that one cannot morally justify subjugating a sovereign people in the name of spreading knowledge, but that there is no such thing as superior knowledge only different knowledges, each appropriate to its particular setting (2006, pp. 5-6)

To post-colonialism, I might add that the history of oppression in the name of absolute knowledge also includes the subjugation of women, minorities, non-heterosexuals, and lower economic classes. Absolutist, objective facts are routinely pointed to as a means of disenfranchisement and maintaining power. So-called "scientific" theories about racial intelligence, women's ability to think rationally, or that homosexuality is a mental disorder are often held up as evidence that objective thinking has routinely lead to oppression. Since these theories have since been abandoned, so the argument goes, it must be the case that the scientific worldview doesn't get things right, and therefore there is no "superior knowledge only different knowledges."

Constructionist theorists often describe their positions as liberatory or empowering, and they portray themselves as a counter to the positivist, conservative, fundamentalist, oppressive, authoritarian theories that adopt an objective stance towards reality. Positivism, in particular, is often held up as the scapegoat for what ails society and constructionism is the only alternative. Is it any wonder that many librarians would want to gravitate towards "anti-positivist" theories?

Libraries and social constructionism
Libraries are at a watershed moment. The past two decades have seen a technological and informational revolution not seen since the so-called Gutenberg Revolution. The democratizing effect of the internet has found librarians shying away from their old roles as the archivists and arbiters of knowledge and the rise of social media has found us celebrating the participatory culture. Indeed, the new information landscape is so democratic, so participatory, and so complex, that it has lead librarians to reconsider the very meanings of the terms "true" and "knowledge". How can there be a single, objective fact-of-the-matter to which libraries are somehow privileged, when the participatory internet seems to accept all claims to knowledge?

I think the fear is that if we adopt objective, realist theories of truth or knowledge, then we will be situating the library above the flow of information on the internet, thereby distancing ourselves from the information-seekers we depend upon. If librarians cling steadfast to objectivity and realism, we will be casting ourselves as judge, jury, and executioner of information, thereby standing in the way of a free and open information exchange. Here's a sampling of this fear in the literature:

Without this suspension of truth in librarianship, the accumulation of past and present knowledge could be compromised. This compromise can take various forms, such as eliminating whole collections or suppressing information that does not share the present majority view, be that view scientific, religious, or political. (Labaree and Scimeca, p. 63)

Cultural diversity and recruitment practices within academic libraries are currently limited by the profession’s dominant worldview. Moreover, unmodified Enlightenment worldview values of rationalism and individualism necessarily condition the profession's overall understanding of diversity and fairness. (Weissinger, p. 37)

By scientizing itself, LIS may be attempting to intimate a relationship with the so-called "hard" sciences. From a critical theorist's perspective, this suggests that the claim to legitimacy by service is being replaced by a claim of legitimacy that is inherited by relying on empirical method: an appeal to the a priori truth and universal application of the methods. Moreover, social and linguistic distances are increased between user and LIS because reliance on technical performance to imply responsibility removes LIS from the role of a responsible agent. (Benoit, p. 463)

When one discourse takes up a dominant position in relation to others it potentially means that marginalized groups within, for example, an organization are forced to use tools that have been created to further the interests of other more “powerful” groups. (Sundin and Johannisson, p. 35)

The modern library experience for both librarian and user is structured by the values of order, control, and suppression...Such an experience is ultimately grounded in a positivist epistemology which renders the library an emotionless, cold, and mechanistic place. (Radford, 1998, p. 621)

The recurring theme is that objective, fact-oriented approaches to knowledge are destined to lead to alienation and disenfranchisement. Information will be suppressed, collections will be decimated, cultural diversity in the workplace will suffer, LIS practitioners will abdicate themselves of responsibility, the powerful will continue their oppression, and the library will become an "emotionless, cold, and mechanistic place." With this sort of characterization of realism in the literature, is it any wonder that librarians are attracted to constructionist theories? I'll answer these criticisms of realism in the next post, but for now I'd like to turn my attention to the problems of constructionist thinking.

Where it all breaks down
What really happens if constructionist theory is adopted as the foundation for library science? Would we achieve the liberatory results we so desire? Quite the contrary. Constructionist epistemology is no cure for librarianship, it is a cancer. Let me explain.

(1) Fact-Constructionism is self-refuting.
Let's assume that fact-constructionism is the correct theory to adopt. The theory entails that there are no universal facts, everything is socially constructed. But, isn't the pronouncement that "all facts are socially constructed" an absolute statement? The only way that fact-constructionism can survive is to admit that it is not a universal theory, thus allowing realists to continue being realists. Of course, this is the sledgehammer approach, Paul Boghossian offers a more precise and even more damning criticism: constructionism leads to a theory that "consists in the claim that we should so reinterpret our utterances that they express infinitary propositions that we can neither express nor understand." (Boghossian, p. 56). For example, look at Lankes' Conversation Theory. His brand of constructivism asks librarians to think of knowledge as "a set of agreements in relation to one another through a memory that is derived from language exchange between conversants" (Lankes, p. 32). So, the claim "electrons are negatively charged" is to be interpreted as "According to the agreement we have reached, electrons are negatively charged." But, isn't the description of this agreement an absolute statement? We can't have that! So, we have to reword it as, "according to the agreement we have reached, there is an agreement that electrons are negatively charged." Oops! Still absolute! One more time: "According to an agreement we have reached, there is an agreement we have reached according to which there is an agreement that electrons are negatively charged." The infinite regress is unavoidable; at some point there simply have to be mind-independent, objective facts. Any theory that is based in acceptance, agreement, or assent as the foundation for truth will fail in this respect.

(2) Constructionism impedes learning
Paradoxically, knowledge-constructionism is purported to be a boon to education, even though it actively undermines the learning process. (I should be clear: there is a distinction between constructivist epistemology and constructivist or constructionist learning theories. This distinction is consistently ignored, which leads to some fairly significant problems.) Consider the student who comes to the reference desk inquiring after books or articles that prove that homosexuality is a mental disorder that can and should be treated (I have had this request). Assume that this student was raised in a devout Christian home, home-schooled, and has otherwise always lived within a community that believes that homosexuality is a a mental disorder. It follows from constructionism that this student knows that homosexuality is a mental disorder. His community of discourse has discussed homosexuality persistently and consistently, the relevant agreements have been reached, and so their belief constitutes knowledge. But, if the goal of education is to learn, and learning is knowledge creation, then I, as a reference librarian, would be acting against this student's best interests if I provided anything that contradicted his "knowledge". So, all I can do is hand him a pre-1974 DSM-II and a few articles from fundamentalist websites and send him on his way. Here's my question: how can a student be expected to learn when everything he or she believes upon entering the library is already knowledge? Put another way, how do we define 'learning' without appealing to knowledge?
I suppose the constructivist might respond: "But, it's about creating new knowledge." But, this doesn't make sense. If prior beliefs already constitute knowledge, why change them? Unless we adopt a realist stance and distinguish between "is true" and "is believed to be true" or "knows that homosexuality is a mental disorder" and "believes that homosexuality is a mental disorder", all claims to knowledge are equally valid and there is no point in learning.

(3) Constructionism disenfranchises those who most need our help and obstructs social progress
Of course, as librarians, we must operate within the socially constructed bounds of our profession. Our social agreements with other librarians dictate how we are to act as librarians. Indeed, if constructivism is true, our entire code of ethics is a social construct. To that end, the desegregation of libraries during the Civil Rights Era must have been unprofessional and against our code of ethics. If our social group had agreed that public libraries should not be integrated (as was the case in libraries throughout the South), then any librarian who checked-out a book to an African-American was violating his or her responsibilities as a librarian. And the black patrons who sought to improve their own knowledge? Well, according to constructionism, they should have just "agreed to disagree" with the white majority and been content in their own indigenous knowledge. As Boghossian puts it, clearer that I can:

if the powerful can't criticize the oppressed, because the central epistemological categories are inexorably tied to particular perspectives, it also follows that the oppressed can't criticize the powerful (p. 130)

If it really is social agreement all the way down, and there is no privileged way of knowing about the world, then who is to criticize epistemic systems that are founded in tradition and scriptural authority? For the constructionist, there can be no substantive criticism of entrenched social agreement, hence there can be no social progress. And if there can be no social progress, the mission of libraries is reduced to little more than a warehouse of artifacts for maintaining the status quo. [Yes, this is what social constructionism and constructivism really entails. If you can't tell how much this pisses me off, I think we're almost at 2,500 words.]

(4) Constructionism erodes the value of libraries in society.
Since social constructionism and constructivism stand in the way of social progress, disenfranchise the oppressed, and impede learning, in the constructionist world these cannot be core library values. So, in their absence, what is left of the library? Well, the value that libraries provide as a source of entertainment is intact. Likewise, the value of libraries as a meeting place is maintained. But, these are hollow values and they make the library little more than a public park or town hall. These are good things, but they are a far cry from the once and future mission of the library as a place of knowledge and learning, a place where our community can better itself through education.

"Beach House" courtesy of skagman CC-BY 2.0

A library built on sand
I'm adopting this metaphor from Noretta Koertge's 1998 A House Built on Sand, because I think it is the perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with social constructionism. For as fascinating as some constructivist theories are, and for as compelling as their social ambitions can be, these theories lack a meaningful foundation. In fact, that lack of a foundation is often a point of pride. But, once we start down the path of social construction, we have to give up any sense of the library as a place of knowledge, learning, or social progress. These are foundational concepts, and constructionism will not allow them to exist without being subjected to intersubjectivity and bias. Where libraries were once viewed as the bedrock for an enlightened society, constructivism erodes that cultural solidity and replaces it with shifting uncertainty. And that uncertainty opens the door to doubt, which I would hope libraries would like to avoid.

Surprisingly, one of the best defenders of the profound importance of objective knowledge and rational foundations is one of the architects of social constructionism: Bruno Latour. Yeah...that Bruno Latour. In recent years, Latour has turned his back on postmodern studies in general and social constructionism in particular, and he dropped quite a bombshell with his 2004 article "Why has critique run out of steam?" I started this post with a rather long quote from a Bush aide (thought to be Karl Rove), and I'll end with another lengthy quote, this time from Latour:

I’d like to believe that...I intended to emancipate the public from prematurely naturalized objectiﬁed facts. Was I foolishly mistaken? Have things changed so fast? In which case the danger would no longer be coming from an excessive conﬁdence in ideological arguments posturing as matters of fact—as we have learned to combat so efficiently in the past—but from an excessive distrust of good matters of fact disguised as bad ideological biases! While we spent years trying to detect the real prejudices hidden behind the appearance of objective statements, do we now have to reveal the real objective and incontrovertible facts hidden behind the illusion of prejudices? And yet entire Ph.D. programs are still running to make sure that good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always prisoners of language, that we always speak from a particular standpoint, and so on, while dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. (Latour, p. 227)

I realize that this is a long blog post, but I admit that it barely scratches the surface and it paints in rather broad strokes. But, after four hours, I think I'll retire. I'd be delighted to defend my take on constructionism if any social constructionists want to step forward with particulars.

In the next post, I'll try to defend objective knowledge as the most intuitive, progressive, and flexible approach to librarianship. Rather than take the constructionists at their word and believe that objectivity is undermined by hidden biases, cultural differences, power struggles, or whatever other social forces are out there, it is much simpler and liberating to understand that biases, cultural differences, power struggles, and other social forces are undermined by objective knowledge. This is the real power of libraries.

Some things I pulled off the shelf while thinking about this post

Criticism of social constructionism

Boghossian, P. A. (2006). Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Koertge, N. (1998). A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. New York: Oxford University Press.

Critical Inquiry, 30

Meiland, J. W., & Krausz, M. (1982). Relativism, cognitive and moral. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Sokal, A. (2008). Beyond the hoax: Science, philosophy, and culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sosa, E., & Villaneuva, E. (2002). Realism and relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Windschuttle, K. (1997). The killing of history: How literary critics and social theorists are murdering our past. New York: Free Press

Social constructionism in library science
A short list of recent articles in scholarly publications. This is just what I've read in the past year, and I'm sure there's more out there:

Andersen, J. and Skouvig, L. (2006). Knowledge organization: A sociohistorical analysis and critique. The Library Quarterly, 76(3), 300-322.
Benoit, G. (2002). Toward a critical theoretic perspective in information systems. The Library Quarterly, 72(4), 441-471.
Campbell, D. G. (2007). The birth of the new web: A Foucauldian reading of the semantic web. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43(3/4), 9-20.
Haider, J. (2007). Conceptions of "information poverty" in LIS: A discourse analysis. Journal of Documentation, 63(4), 534-557
Huang, S. (2006). A semiotic view of information: Semiotics as a foundation of LIS research in information behavior. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), n.p.. [link]
Labaree, R. V., & Scimeca, R. (2008). The philosophical problem of truth in librarianship. The Library Quarterly, 78(1), 43-70.
Lankes, R. D. (2011) The atlas of new librarianship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Olsson, M. (2007). Power/knowledge: The discursive construction of an author. The Library Quarterly, 77(2), 219-240.
Radford, G. P. (1992). Positivism, Foucault, and the fantasia of the library: Conceptions of knowledge and the modern library experience. The Library Quarterly, 62(4), 408-424.
Radford, G. (1998). Flaubert, Foucault, and the Bibliotheque Fantastique: toward a postmodern epistemology for library science. Library Trends, 46(4), 616-34.
Sundin, O., & Johannisson, J. (2005). Pragmatism, neo-pragmatism and sociocultural theory: Communicative participation as a perspective in LIS. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 23-43
Weissinger, T. (2003). Competing models of librarianship: Do core values make a difference? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(1), 32-39.

The Atlas of New Librarianship (Essential Readings in the Philosophy of LIS)

2011-05-13T13:21:00.004-04:00

[Reposted on May 13, because Blogger ate the original.]

When I first caught wind of The Atlas of New Librarianship, I was so excited that I think I peed my pants a little bit. According to the press releases, the author, R. David Lankes, had created a monumental survey of the theoretical foundations of librarianship. He was going to advocate "a new librarianship based not on books and artifacts but on knowledge and learning." Early reviews by assorted library luminaries were glowing, and ACRL was making a big to-do about the book's release. All in all, this book is a BIG DEAL. So, imagine my excitement when my copy arrived. Here I am, keenly interested in the philosophical foundations of librarianship (and information science) and I finally get to read the book that promises to set it all straight!

My initial reaction after reading this hefty tome can be summed up in seven words:
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

Allow me to explain...

Topography
In his introduction, Lankes offers this statement of intent:

The Atlas before you is an attempt to...look to the history of the field for the core and constant while looking to even deeper theory of how people know to help shape the future. (p. 3)

I like this. The future of librarianship will be shaped by our epistemological commitments. In moving from an artifact-based librarianship to a knowledge-based librarianship, librarians need to understand what knowledge is, how it is obtained, and how it can be used. In other words, philosophy matters to librarianship.

So, with an eye towards epistemology, Lankes offers a field-wide mission statement for librarianship. Something to guide the discipline into the future, come what may. And, here it is:

Awesome. I support the hell out of this mission. I've already ordered the ribbon magnets for my pick-up truck. The key, of course, is that libraries need to focus on knowledge creation rather than mere artifact collection. Historically, Lankes argues, libraries have been focused on artifacts: recorded knowledge, information-as-thing, books, media, technology, etc. However, the future will need librarians of a different sort. It will need librarians who can actively work within their communities to foster knowledge creation and learning, regardless of the available artifacts.

Lankes returns to this point several times, and I agree with him. His discussion is often compelling and certainly worth a read. Unfortunately, when he turns his attention to knowledge creation (the new core of librarianship) everything breaks down.

Knowledge Creationism

If you are reading the Atlas and hoping for a serious discussion of knowledge, you're looking in the wrong place. Despite being the heart of his mission statement, Lankes's treatment of knowledge wouldn't pass a Freshman philosophy (or sociology or psychology or computer science) course. In fact, I'll go so far as to argue that his reliance on constructivist epistemology works against his own mission statement and is ultimately more harmful to librarianship than beneficial (more on that in the next post).

You see, Lankes has adopted Conversation Theory as his conceptual framework for librarianship. In a nutshell, Conversation Theory holds that knowledge is constructed through conversation. If you think this sounds like a constructivist epistemology, you're right. Lankes is explicitly advocating a form of radical constructivism as the epistemological foundation for librarianship. Knowledge, on this account, is socially constructed and refined through dialectic. As Lankes puts it, knowledge is "the requisite domain understanding necessary to converse" (p. 66). More formally,

Knowledge is a set of agreements in relation to one another through a memory that is derived from language exchange between conversants. (p. 32)

The terms 'agreement', 'memory', 'language', and 'conversant' are loaded terms for Lankes, and I don't have the time to nitpick every little detail (though I will on request), so I will just point out that notably absent from Lankes' treatment of knowledge are the concepts of truth, justification, warrant, objectivity, or other standard epistemic concepts. For Lankes, knowledge is a shifting, malleable set of "agreements", each of which is founded solely in intersubjective agreement, rather than objective or factual reality. In other words, it's epistemic relativism. To see just what this entails, Lankes offers the following conversation:

"So if two men having a conversation about a topic they know little about, can we truly say that knowledge is created?" "Yes," I said. "For those two people, if they are willing to act on the agreements they have developed, it is knowledge." "But what if they are idiots?" "It is still knowledge, although I would imagine that their knowledge would change if they tried out their agreement and it didn't work." OK, I realize I have just lost most of the positivists in the crowd, but please give me a moment to explain... (p. 117-118) [The subsequent explanation is question-begging.]

When asked to clarify his views, Lankes admits that even a false belief can be knowledge. It seems pretty clear that he is just confusing knowledge with belief, which is a regrettably common error. But, following the principle of charity, I'll take him at his word and assume that Lankes is, in fact, claiming that knowledge claims are truth-independent.

But, I want to be clear here and avoid creating a straw-man. Lankes is advocating epistemic relativism, but he does not explicitly say that facts are socially constructed. For example, in his discussion of source amnesia he discusses the importance of avoiding factual error and even points to mind-independent, objective facts as epistemically relevant ("I [made an error] based on a set of agreements I attributed to an artifact, not what was in the artifact" (p. 42)). However, he is inconsistent throughout the book and there are points where he implicitlyappeals to a base fact-constuctivism. I know it's an over-simplification, but fact-constructivism is a member of those relativistic theories to the effect that all truth is socially constructed, or that there is no objective reality independent of contingent human agreements. Given the well-established incoherence of this sort of straight-forward relativistic thinking, I can't in good conscience attribute it to Lankes. [For a short introduction to the lunacy of relativism/constructivism, see Paul Boghossian's Fear of Knowledge]

Relatively speaking, I'm no expert
So, Lankes doesn't advocate a relativist position about facts, but he does advocate relativism about what justifies our beliefs. The epistemic relativism inherent in Conversation Theory manifests itself in the way the theory insists that our beliefs about the world are justified through a process of negotiation. Sure, there may be an external reality, but there is no privileged way of accessing that world: all we have are our conversations and agreements. We become justified in believing this or that because we have come to a "shared understanding" about the object of our belief. Our knowledge is not shaped by an external reality; in fact, we don't even have access to any external reality. It's internalized social agreements all the way down.

If this sounds postmodern, it is. But, it's hard to tell if Lankes understands this. True, he does have an agreement supplement for "Postmodernism", but it doesn't add anything to his Atlas. He claims that postmodernism "reinforces the idea of constant change and adaptation" (p. 344), which is nice, but not particularly unique to postmodernism. So, how does postmodern thought influence new librarianship? Lankes picks out the reference interview as a particularly good exemplar of postmodern librarianship. He writes:

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, two main roles in postmodernism are the "expert" and the "philosopher," both of which serve roles in the reference interview...by seeking to better understand these roles the librarian can become more comfortable and adept in the reference process." (p. 344)

Again, that's nice, but not particularly postmodern. What's worse, it's a gross misreading of the SEP article on postmodernism. The SEP article is making reference to Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition (1984), where Lyotard describes himself as playing the language games of both a philosopher and an expert. (It probably doesn't help that Lyotard admitted that for this book he just made things up and cited things he never read.) Interestingly, just a few lines past the misquoted text, the SEP includes Lyotard's true pronouncement: “I define postmodern as incredulity toward meta-narratives” (Lyotard, 1984, xxiv). How would that affect New Librarianship?

Lankes' approach leads inevitably to the conclusion that knowledge is causally distinct from any external reality or facts. There may be facts, but they don't adjudicate between knowledge and other belief states. He even goes so far as to admit that this is the case. And his response?

There are critics of constructivism. They argue that it denies the existence of a true reality--that philosophically there are issues with creating a worldview of complete relativism...[but] in the context of new librarianship, we do not necessarily have to enter into the philosophical debate about constructivism because we are looking more narrowly at its concrete applications as a learning theory and at its application within the cosmos of librarianship. (p. 216-17)

That's it? A theory of the theoretical foundations of librarianship, with knowledge-creation at the center...and the deep philosophical problems don't matter? Moreover, the equivocation between constructivism as an epistemological theory and constructivism as a learning theory is not just philosophically sloppy, but grossly misleading. To propose a constructivist epistemology and then fall back on constructivist learning theory in the face of criticism shows a profound misunderstanding of both.

Straw librarianship

Lankes admits that his theory is a work in progress, going so far as to ask that readers "poke and prod at the framework" (p. 186) and acknowledging that "two different people reading this can come to different conclusions: Lankes is crazy or Lankes got it right" (p. 33). Of course, this self-deprecating humility does not extend to alternative accounts of librarianship. Indeed, on several occasions, Lankes shows his hand insofar as he tries to force the Bush "patriot vs. terrorist" style false dilemma. Either you agree with him, or you are part of the problem. This is, at best, philosophically sloppy and, at worst, intellectually dishonest. Consider the following quote:

The annoyed librarians of the world who seek the status quo and see their mission as recorded knowledge, the collection of artifacts, and the maintenance of organizations labeled libraries...They will cry foul against relativism and new age ideas (p. 172)

The rhetorical implication is that critics of Conversation Theory...those who "cry foul against relativism"...are stuck in an outdated, outmoded worldview. Hey, that must be me! But, this false "with us or against us" thinking is unnecessarily divisive. Granted, Lankes does encourage the debate between "bibliofundamentalists" and his proposed model, but only insofar as "it means there is a conversation, and we are learning" (p. 172). (Wait, so now librarians have to beg the question as well?)

The fact is that there are alternatives to Conversation Theory and there are alternative knowledge-based missions for librarianship. Lankes paints librarianship in an either/or situation. Those who look to librarianship in terms of collecting and making available information are referred to as "traditional", "conservative", "fundamentalist". Those who adopt his theory (he's addicted to the rhetorical "we") are "enlightened" and "fight against ignorance and intolerance" (p. 185). And no other options exist! What happened to pragmatism, empiricism, rationalism, critical idealism, existentialism, Marxism, or other philosophical theories? No compelling reason to accept social constructivism or Conversation Theory is to be found in the entire Atlas, you're just "an annoyed librarian" if you disagree.

Even more unfortunate, this new mission for librarians has been discussed for decades, in various forms. That librarianship is about knowledge, rather than artifacts, is a common view in the metaphilosophy of Joseph Nitecki or the social epistemology of Jesse Shera as well as in recent work such as the hermeneutical phenomenology of John Budd and the social transcript approach described by Charles Osburn. There is a healthy, vibrant literature on the importance of knowledge-creation in libraries, but the Atlas conveniently ignores the lot of it, which is a shame because a great deal of the book would benefit from the more philosophically coherent existing literature.

Next time
Summing up, The Atlas of New Librarianship is pretty much a let-down. It adopts a relativist world-view, it is philosophically sloppy and it ignores the existence of any competing philosophy of librarianship. Of course, I realize that there are a few librarians who don't see that there is anything wrong with relativism. So, in the next post, I'll try to provide both arguments and examples of the dangers of relativistic thinking in library science. From impeding learning to reinforcing social divisions, epistemological constructivism is not the path we as librarians want to be taking. We need a better map.

Tornadoes and transliteracy: LOEX 2011

2011-05-09T13:22:00.000-04:00

I regret not posting anything here in a while, but I was busy working on my presentation for LOEX in Fort Worth. Oh, and it was the end of the semester library rush. Oh, and tornadoes knocked our power out for five days. Anyway...LOEX.

I started writing about transliteracy last November, and little did I know how controversial the topic would become in the ensuing months. There's no need to rehash the details of that silly, internet feud between librarians, but it was clear as I entered the standing-room only presentation room that there was a lot of lingering doubt and skepticism about transliteracy. I even polled the room, "How many of you think 'transliteracy' is just a meaningless buzzword with no substance behind it?" Almost half the audience raised their hands.

I raised my hand, too.

You see, 'transliteracy' is a buzzword and every day I see the term applied to increasingly irrelevant and unrelated topics. I won't quote directly, but there are a lot of people slapping the label "transliteracy" on their posts just because they are talking about technology or social media or the future of libraries. It's like, "I just bought a Kindle! #transliteracy!" or "The future of libraries is uncertain! #transliteracy!" It's a lot of hand-waving, wishy-washy, meaningless drivel with little to no substance behind it. It's "Library 2.0" all over again.

Then again, in the Library 2.0 era, there were a lot of librarians who really did want to look into the practical applications of social media in librarianship. Similarly, there are a lot of librarians who are interested in whether and, if so, how the concept of transliteracy might be applied. These librarians look to the research into transliteracy and see how it might inform librarianship. I like to think I fall into this latter category, though I can't say for sure. I just try to keep in mind that transliteracy is a concept being discussed quite independently of libraries and that most of the substantive research is not library-oriented. Transliteracy is a theory being actively discussed in the social sciences, humanities, education, and other fields. Rather than throw the term around as meaningless jargon, some of us are keeping just to the research and letting that guide us. I don't see what's so controversial about that.

So, as I told my audience, yes, 'transliteracy' is frequently used as just a cool-sounding buzzword with nothing substantive behind it. But, it is also frequently used as a legitimate area of inquiry into how new communications media are affecting traditional notions of literacy. For my part, I don't care one bit about this vague ability to "read and write across a range of platforms, tools, and media." But, I do care about the ability to research across a range of platforms, tools, and media, and if transliteracy lets me get at that, then I'm all in favor of studying transliteracy. If another term already exists to cover the same territory, then I'll use that instead. I don't care about words, I only care about the concepts.

Anyway, I've posted a brief summary of the presentation (and the slides) over at Libraries and Transliteracy, so check it out if you feel inclined. I'll let you decide where I fall between buzzword and substance.

Shut up, Jeff

2011-04-11T23:26:00.000-04:00

Agnes Shumbleford. D. Litt, Oxon. 1972. PhD, Harvard, 1966.
Library Page, P.S. 139, Brooklyn, NY

PhD > MLIS
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach become academic librarians.

Did I get that right? I'll have to double-check with the Annoyed Librarian, but I think that's the story. University librarians are failed PhDs looking for some sort of back-door way of getting tenure or calling themselves "Professor" without all the hard work. Yeah...I think that's the idea. Of course, the AL is a satirist with a gift for calling shenanigans when shenanigans need to be called. Whatever truth is to be had in the belief that academic librarians are failed scholars is surely more instructive than damning, right? Well, not if you happen to work for Jeff Trzeciak, University Librarian at McMaster University, where the library of the future gets rid of librarians in favor of people who actually earned their doctorates.

For those who don't know, Mr. Trzeciak has come under fire for recent remarks to the effect that the future at his library does not include librarians. As he puts it, McMaster is "unlikely in the future to be hiring librarians." Who's going to run the show? Well, new hires are "likely to come out of IT" and "likely to be PhDs". Here's the offending slide:

Jenica Rogers has an excellent summary of Trzeciak's position, so I won't rehash his entire argument. Even better is her just-created Agiat Forum which straight-up pisses in the Kool-Aid Trzeciak's been drinking. Other library voices are speaking out, too. Karen Schneider discusses her own wildly different administrative standpoint. Colleen Harris points out that faculty holding PhDs "don't know quite as much about research skills as we assume they do." And Mita Williams discusses the very real possibility that Trzeciak's approach to libraries could be infectious among library administrators. These are excellent blog posts and I'm sure there will be more to come. But what does this have to do with the stereotypical "failed scholar"?

PhD < MLIS
Here's the thing: Trzeciak doesn't hate librarians. Organizing, collecting, reference, instruction, etc., he admits that librarians are great at these things. He just thinks that PhDs and IT people would be better. You see, that snarky observation that academic librarians are just failed PhDs is actually rather important in understanding where Trzeciak is coming from. If you want your library staffed by subject-specialists, why not go all the way and get people with real PhDs, rather than people who couldn't cut it in grad school and took the easy way out? If librarians are expected to embrace digital projects and new technology, why not go after IT people who are certified experts in new technologies? Trzeciak isn't saying that librarians are worthless or that they can't do a decent job. He's saying that the future of libraries requires more specialized skills than librarians are capable of. He's portraying librarians as inferior to faculty with PhDs. In other words, he's taken to heart the unfortunately common belief that librarians are somehow lesser scholars than the rest of the university faculty.

Sure, there are plenty of university librarians out there who really are failed scholars who took to librarianship as a back-up plan. I'm sure you know at least one librarian that would rather be teaching upper-level classes for an academic department. And you know what, I think a properly motivated post-doc can, in fact, replace that kind of librarian. I mean, was library school really that hard? Are the basics so arcane that only we select few can be entrusted with their awesome power? Give me a break. Any reasonably bright person can learn basic library skills. But, that misses the point. In fact, if all we do is reduce academic librarianship to a measure of scholarship or a certain finite skill-set, then we're part of the problem.

What matters most to the future of academic libraries are not the strings of letters following the names of library employees. PhD, MLIS, JD, MD, MA...these are all just hoops. What really matters are the motivating factors that lead people to want to work in an academic library in the first place. Good academic librarians are there because they are bright, highly-skilled, and, more importantly, they want to be there. They are passionate about organizing and collection information, about providing access, about research and information literacy. They are irreplaceable because they chose to become academic librarians as their first choice, not as their fall-back. I ask Trzeciak, "what kind of PhDs will be clamoring for your library jobs?" If they are passionate about the same things academic librarians are passionate about, if they can pick up the basics and are willing to learn through experience, and if they would actively want to work in a library, then they're librarians in my book. PhD or no PhD. MLIS or no MLIS.

"If that shit ain't rocket science, step off my reference desk, son."

PhD ≠ MLIS
But, I have a funny feeling that these "PhDs and IT people" that Trzeciak will start hiring won't be the ones who are the most passionate about working in libraries. No, I have a feeling that this administrative decision will actually lend more credence to the cynical "failed scholar" caricature of the academic librarian. Rather than hire trained professionals who have the skills necessary and most importantly want a library job, McMaster will be looking at postdocs who can't find work in their fields, ex-faculty who couldn't muster tenure, and tech-geeks who just want a paycheck wherever it comes from. In sum, McMaster University libraries will give credence to the snark. These highly-decorated LIMOs ("librarians-in-name-only") will either treat librarianship as a compromise or as a stepping stone, and what kind of administrator wants employees who treat their jobs as degenerate positions?

Again, if they can learn the ropes and they are as passionate about collecting, organizing, and providing access to information as I am, then they'll be great librarians. Librarianship is about a mindset, not an initialism. (Though, with the increasing competitiveness of academic library positions, I won't be surprise if the PhD + MLIS combo becomes more prevalent.) So, Jeff Trzeciak, if you can find PhDs who would rather work in a library than as teaching faculty in their subject areas, more power to you. But, I doubt that's going to be the future of librarianship.

'Literacy' sucks

2011-03-30T01:04:00.001-04:00

(I don't know if you'll be interested, but I made a few changes to my taxonomy.

You can check out a newer version at 'Reorganizing Literacy'. 9/19/2011)

Yeah, I'm looking at you Moustache Man. 'Literacy' sucks. Not the concept, mind you. I mean the word 'literacy'. We have digital literacy, visual literacy, transliteracy, critical literacy, information literacy, scientific literacy, health literacy, computer literacy, digital literacy, media literacy....the list goes on and on. Of course, nobody colors within the lines, so there's a lot of confusion out there. This sucks. Well, today I started writing a post trying to organize these various literacies, but after almost 4,000 words, I said, "WTF? Anglo-Saxon etymology? Metonymy? Walter Ong? This is going to bore the hell out of everyone." So, I figure I'll just throw the "brief" version of my taxonomy out there and see what sticks...

A Taxonomy of Literacies
What do we do with all these literacies everybody is arguing about these days? After thinking it over for a few hours, here's what I came up with:

"A Taxonomy of Literacies" CC 2.0 BY-NC-SA Click here for original.

Allow me to explain...

Two senses of 'literacy': media specific and media neutral
For all of the variants out there, it's actually pretty easy to identify two separate ways of thinking about literacy. On the one hand we have the literacies that have to do with particular media. These are the literacies in the literal sense. On the other hand, we have the literacies that are media neutral. These are the literacies that use 'literacy' in the more figurative sense. So, this is the first division: media-specific literacy and media-neutral literacy.

Media-specific literacies are those that have to do with particular communication media. We usually think of reading and writing in this category, but when we step back, we realize that reading and writing describe just one possible way of communicating: i.e., print media. This isn't anything new, if you read Orality and Literacy in library school (or any number of similar works), you're already familiar with the concept of reading and writing as the technology of the written or printed word. But, other media are out there. Orality is actually a communication medium with specific skills required for mastery (everything from pronunciation to dialectic). Visual literacy is a relatively new term, but the ability to communicate and interpret meaning in images dates back at least to Lascaux. Computer literacy refers to the skills needed to use computing technology (word processing, saving, typing, using a mouse, etc.). I just made up web literacy, but it might be the skills specific to navigating the internet (URLs, email, downloads, etc.). I know of others out there, so the list isn't meant to be complete. The important thing is that each of these is treated as a separate medium for communication, and these literacies can be grouped accordingly. However, I acknowledge that there is a significant overlap in communicative media. For example, it's hard to surf the web if you can't read. I'll address the overlap further down the post.

Media-neutral literacies are those literacies that encompass skills or concepts that are independent of any particular communication method. Information literacy is neutral with respect to print, video, orality, etc.. The same holds true for health literacy, scientific literacy, critical literacy, and the rest. When we focus on information literacy or scientific literacy, we aren't concerned with instruction in grammar or spelling. Likewise, when we focus on the reading and writing of print literacy, we aren't concerned with evaluating information sources or understanding the scientific method. These media-neutral literacies really are neutral with respect to the particular technology medium we use to communicate information.

Domains of media neutral information
Yet another division is appropriate: domain-specific and domain-neutral literacies. Put another way, some of the common literacies are tied to particular subjects or domains: science, health, economics, social networks, etc.. Other common literacies are more conceptual: critical literacy and media literacy are good examples. Uniting them all is the general, media-neutral, information literacy.

Information literacy is just literacy independent of specific media. Evaluation, access, and related IL concepts exist independently of any one medium...they apply to any medium. But, information literacy is a multi-faceted thing. It can apply to narrow subject areas or to general, evaluative tactics.

Domain-specific literacies are those subject-specific literacies that fall under the umbrella of information literacy. For example, health literacy "is not simply the ability to read. It requires a complex group of reading, listening, analytical, and decision-making skills, and the ability to apply these skills to health situations" (nnlm.gov). Examples provided include "the ability to understand instructions on prescription drug bottles, appointment slips, medical education brochures, doctor's directions and consent forms." Obviously, these skills are specific to health and medicine...you aren't going to cover them in a general information literacy course, neither would you cover them in a specific scientific literacy program. Speaking of which, scientific literacy covers the scientific method, empirical observation, experimentation and other concepts that are, again, not media specific. As before, the list in my chart is not meant to be exclusive. Economic literacy, agricultural literacy, statistical literacy...the possibilities for subject-specific literacies are boundless.

Domain-neutral literacies are more conceptual and are not tied to specific subject areas. These literacies are tied to more robust, though narrow, evaluative concepts than are encountered in general information literacy. For example, critical literacy is a particular approach to information literacy based in Marxist theory. It emphasizes evaluative criteria such as social justice, inequality, and the search for hidden subtext (1). Applicable to all subject domains, it is separate from the scientific, health, and related literacies. The same holds true for media literacy, and its focus on propaganda, censorship, journalistic bias, and other evaluative competencies for understanding media (typically the newspaper/radio/TV/website sense of media, not the general sense I used earlier). The subject domain is irrelevant, these types of literacy trade in evaluative methods.

Transliteracy
You knew it was coming: transliteracy. The buzzword of the day.The enfant terrible of the library blogosphere. Well, it's not so bad. In fact, looking at literacy through the lens of this current taxonomy, I think I've found a way to make transliteracy less controversial and more palatable...

For one thing, I take back my previous remarks to the effect that transliteracy is just "a particular approach within information literacy." I'll also retract the whole "spheres of information literacy" approach. I think I was mistaken in how I understood information literacy, but not, mind you, in how I understand transliteracy. I still believe that transliteracy deals with transferable skills, analogical reasoning, and whatnot. If anything, transliteracy is our way of addressing the increasing overlap between medium specific literacies. Orality, print, images, social networks...the skills needed to move between these media show an incredible amount of overlap and cross-pollination. I think that's how we can best make sense of transliteracy. It has nothing to do with information literacy and related, medium-neutral literacies. I think that most of the work coming out of the various transliteracy interest groups is consistent with this medium-specific approach (though there are regrettable exceptions).

Summing up
In sum, there are multiple literacies out there, but they can be organized in a way that makes sense. In fact, I think they should be organized better. I'll admit that the organizational structure I tossed up there is a work in progress and may be completely, utterly idiotic. But, it's a start. Feel free to criticize, compliment, or call me a moron, but at least let me know what you think. I'm always open to suggestions for improvement.

(1) For the record, I want nothing to do with "critical literacy".

Information buckets and literacy chains

2011-03-22T11:59:00.000-04:00

By secchio. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

I don't know if y'all have noticed, but I've been playing some blog tag with the Academic Librarian. Well, it turns out I'm "it" again, so I guess I need to say something about information literacy. Specifically, I want to address this recent post claiming that librarians do not play a significant, direct role in information literacy.

A drop in the bucket
The gist of the Academic Librarian's last post is that information literacy, like a liberal education in general, is built over an extended period. Information literate students don't get that way from a few hours with a librarian; they become information literate as the result of the "cumulative effect of the efforts of many people directly and indirectly influencing the lives of students, and the students themselves working and practicing those skills." In a nutshell, when it comes to information literacy, the role that librarians play is extremely limited and "it seems pretentious to think that librarians' direct effect on information literacy teaching is going to be significant."

I suppose I have to agree with his assessment: when considered in the long term, it is pretentious to think that a librarian is going to have a primary role in making students information literate. If we take a holistic view of information literacy, we're looking at a skill set that takes years (a lifetime?) to develop, not a couple of hours in the library. As an analogy to education in general, Bivens-Tatum points out that it is unlikely that "a given professor teaching semester-long courses has a huge effect on the overall education of most students." At best, educators can provide a foundation to build upon, but the real learning goes on outside the classroom. I agree with this. But, what are we to make of it?

A bucketful of drops
I'm trying to figure out what is being implied by this "grand scheme of things" observation. Am I to believe that librarians (or just a few of us) are spending too much time and energy on something that only amounts to a drop in the bucket of a student's education? By the same logic, why should we pursue a liberal education in the first place? The day you studied Plato's allegory of the cave in freshman philosophy, the day you learned about the equal angle theorem in geometry, the time you talked about Caesar crossing the Rubicon in history class...each just a drop in the bucket compared to a your entire education.

By Pranav Singh. CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0

A bucket of fish
And yet, comparing a single class to a lifetime of learning is a red herring. In the context of information literacy, it's misleading to say that librarians don't play much of a role when compared to a skill that takes years to master. For one thing, it directs attention away from the importance of the foundations. Bivens-Tatum agrees that "done right and timed well, even minimal amounts of research instruction can give students a good foundation to build upon", yet he doesn't think it is very important in the grand scheme of things. I don't understand. What is a good foundation, if not something important? Sure, the multiplication tables I learned one week in 1988 are a drop in the bucket compared to my entire education, but I couldn't have made it very far without them. Foundations are like that, it's easy to minimize their importance in retrospect, but without them there wouldn't be any retrospect. Perhaps the problem is that whereas Bivens-Tatum views information literacy programs as drops in the bucket, I view them as links in the chain. Sure, that one link may be long past, but without it, the chain couldn't hold any weight.

By ...-wink-... CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Moreover, this minimizing of librarians' roles in information literacy ignores that many librarians can and do play rather large roles. Just as an example, the librarians here at UTC helped write the curriculum for freshman English, and we made sure that the standard, two semester course (reaching 78% of our freshmen) met the ACRL information literacy standards. This bears repeating: the librarians helped write the curriculum. Students have library homework, writing assignments are tied to ACRL standards, paper topics are vetted by librarians, research consultations are a fact of life...the list goes on. Students simply cannot pass either semester of freshman composition without meeting a certain minimal threshold of information literacy in accordance with ACRL standards 1 through 4 (we're working on 5). And that's just freshman English! I could write pages about all the work we do here at UTC, but my point is simple: rather than take a passive, supportive role in student education, we have successfully cultivated a culture of information literacy across the curriculum.

In sum, librarians can play a larger role in information literacy than the Academic Librarian gives credit. We lay the foundations without which there would be nothing to build, and we can and should take an active role in the curriculum. We have to start thinking of ourselves as links in a chain, rather than drops in the bucket. I thought this was obvious, but it isn't. And perhaps this is just the naïveté of a new librarian only 18 months on the job, but I can't help thinking that librarians can and should play a significant role in shaping the curriculum and seeing students through from orientation to commencement, no matter the difficulty involved. We do it here at UTC; with 10,000 FTE and only eight librarians here in the reference and instruction, we still manage to leave a mark on almost every student. Sure, there will always be students who don't need us. Some students are self-sufficient learners. I know I was...I rarely even entered the library until grad school, I just bought all of my books and used the journal collection in the philosophy department. Others just don't give a shit in the first place and will graduate degreed, but incurious and uninterested. But, that's how education goes. The thousands of students who do spend time with librarians, or with the fruits of our labor, more than make up for the outliers.

Back to the beginning
This entire conversation originally started when I outlined a project that will hopefully show that a realist conception of truth is the only way to meet Standard Three of the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards. Believe it or not, I'm still working on the project (hence my recent reading list posts). But, as to this question of worth, I suppose the Academic Librarian and I will have to agree to disagree. I think information literacy plays a large role in librarianship and he thinks that it plays a minor role. I haven't found his arguments convincing, but neither has he been convinced by mine, so it's best to move on. Give me until after this week's Tennessee Library Association conference and I promise I'll get something interesting up.

Meaning, truth, and information: prolegomena to a theory. (Essential Readings in the Philosophy of LIS)

2011-03-15T14:44:00.002-04:00

All of what is said here is, of course, subject to the judgment of the professional and scholarly community. Confirmation, correction, and dispute will be necessary for any progress to occur. (p. 72)

I like this line. In one parting remark at the end of his most recent article, John Budd has shifted his burden onto other shoulders. And it's a good thing, too, because there is a heck of a lot to think about in his brand, spanking-new "Meaning, Truth, and Information: Prolegomena to a Theory"

Setting it up
I'm very interested in the roles of information, truth, and meaning in librarianship in general and information literacy in particular. Two of the goals I'm currently picking away at are (1) establishing the lack of a consensus among librarians about what 'information' is and (2) advocating a particular theory of information for librarianship. So, I was a little surprised to see John Budd's contribution to the most recent Journal of Documentation, wherein he attempts to do the exact same thing! Damn it! There goes my paper. Yet, though Budd does a great job explaining the lack of a consensus, I can't help but notice some substantive problems with his assessment of the meaning of 'information". Let's take a look.

Librarians don't know what information is
The thesis of Budd's paper is that information "cannot be defined unless within the context of meaning and truth" (p. 56). Awesome. I couldn't agree more. Later, he adds that "[a] reader from within or without IS would reasonably respond to the initial challenge of examining truth’s relation to information by stating that definitions of both are required before anyone can proceed" (p. 58). So, Budd begins with defining "information". His analysis covers all the usual suspects (Buckland, Rowley, Hjorland, Losee, etc.) and ends with the observation that in the whole of information science, there is not yet a definition that "establishe[s] parameters that enable inquiring and praxis" (p. 60). Here's a brief rundown of theories considered:

Buckland (1991) and the "information as thing" approach.
Kaye (1995): Information "is a central and defining characteristic of all life forms, manifested in genetic transfer, in stimulus response mechanisms, in the communication of signals and messages and, in the case of humans, in the intelligent acquisition of understanding and wisdom” (p.37)
Brookes (1974): information as that which modifies a knowledge structure
Eaton & Bawden (1991): "information is a dynamic force for change in the systems within which it operates" (p.59)
Rowley (1998): Information is a relational property.
Losee (1997): "information may be understood as the value attached or instantiated to a characteristic or variable returned by a function or produced by a process" (p. 267)
Bates (2006): "information as an agglomeration of matter and energy...that it can be encoded or embodied" (p. 60)
Bawden (2007): "information as embodied, as a self-organizing complex physically present entity" (p. 60)

Again, Budd examines each of these theories and finds them wanting. They simply do not provide us with a decision procedure for determining whether something is or is not an instance of information. He argues that this is sorely needed in information science and promises to suggest a workable definition. Following the thesis of the paper, it's time for Budd to take a look at truth. But first, some housecleaning

Reference, Meaning, Truth
So, Budd dispenses with the available candidates for definitions of "information" (well, he leaves a few important ones out...more on that later). He is primed to launch into a discussion of truth, but first he has to take a detour through the concepts of reference and meaning...making a few surprising errors along the way.

Budd begins discussing the concept of reference by appealing to Donald Davidson and I'm not too sure about what's going on here. Not only did Davidson explicitly hold a negative view of reference (cf. "Reality and Reference", Dialectica, 31: 247-253. 1977) but Budd misquotes Davidson¹ and later erroneously credits Davidson with introducing the concept of reference.² So, what is Budd doing with reference anyway? I can't tell for sure, but he discusses reference first in terms of aboutness and then in terms of discursive practice...though in both cases he seems to be talking about sense instead of reference. Whatever the case, Budd claims that information seekers have "quite an intellectual and cognitive burden to reach the point where reference is comprehensible" (p. 61) and he drops the subject, turning to an analysis of meaning.

Budd begins his discussion of meaning with the assertion that "reference is an essential element of meaning, but it is not the only one" (p. 61). That's more like it! On to the discussion of sense! But...Budd never gets around to the sense/reference distinction, and I'm not sure what his angle is. His discussion of meaning touches on indexicality, the analytic/synthetic distinction, speech-acts, semantic prescriptivism, intentionality,³ and rhetoric. I like that he cites Predelli's work on the context-dependence of semantic utterances as a good direction for information science, insofar as he argues that we need to understand in what ways "contexts are manifest in formal communication" (p. 62). However, the nagging question remains...what does he mean by 'meaning'? Various technical issues in the philosophy of language are discussed, but meaning itself isn't really covered at all. I can only guess that his definition of meaning is "that which is understood" which is far from technical.He ends the section by directing readers to Steven Pinker's 2007 The Stuff of Thought which is a really great and important book on the psychology of language, but not exactly the best starting place for the philosophy of language. Anyway, he then sets up his discussion of truth...

But, is it a fair treatment of truth in the first place? I'm worried that it isn't. Budd introduces Tarski's Semantic Theory of truth but quickly dismisses it as "far too limiting for useful application to formal communication of the sort IS is concerned with" (p. 64). He goes on to address the canonical correspondence, coherentist, and pragmatic theories of truth, and finds them all lacking as well (though for rather strange and unconvincing reasons). Ultimately, Budd proposes that we "liberate ourselves from the notion that truth is limited to the meaning of words used in sentences" (p. 65).Yet, just a few pages later he reverses and claims that his definition requires that "any utterance or argument, to be evaluated for its potential truth, must first be meaningful" (p. 68). Granted, he could be saying that the concept of truth applies to both propositional and non-propositional content, but it's unclear.

Back to information
So, what does Budd propose for a definition of information? Here it goes...

Definition: Information is meaningful communicative action that aims at truth claims and conditions.
Statement of Theory: Information is comprised of those communicative actions (and only those communicative actions) that can be evaluated by a population – defined as the intended or potential hearers of the communication – as meaningful. Meaning is not limited to pure semantics, but includes context and history within evaluation. Further, information is true in that there is warrant for the communicative action, that this action includes no deliberate deception or omission, has inherent evaluative components, provides evidentiary justification, and is fundamental to ethics. (p. 70)

So, there are three necessary and sufficient conditions: meaningful, communicative, truth-directed. Is this a plausible theory? Only if we are willing to accept the following:

Budd's theory eliminates environmental information. Consider the dendrochronologist counting tree-rings in the middle of the forest. She determines that a particular oak is 147 years old and writes it down in her log-book. It would seem that she has gathered some information about the tree, though in the absence of a communicative exchange, Budd's theory would say she has not.
Budd's theory eliminates instructional information. For example, a recipe for a cake may include the instruction, "Slowly mix in the flour until the dough forms a ball." Obviously, you can't call this instuction "true", so it fails Budd's test for information. Indeed, the whole recipe fails the test because it is not aimed at truth claims.

There are other potential counterexamples, but I'll just list the two. My larger concern is that I just don't think Budd has established workable accounts of truth or meaning. He claims that meaning includes semantic content, historical context and a "phenomenological element" of intentionality, though he offers little explanation. In light of his discussion of communication, it almost seems as if he is confusing theories of meaning with the related, yet distinct, speech act theories. His discussion of truth is similarly vexing: truth is independent of semantic content and it is neither "naively objectivist" nor "entirely subjective" (p. 71). So what is it? Budd does not tell us, though he offers several competing theories we can reject. Perhaps that's the takeaway. Budd's analysis of information takes cues from so many disparate (and sometimes contradictory) areas in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology, that the end result winds up seeming rather confused. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume its just me that's confused.

The takeaway
I'll refer to Budd's theory as the Communicative Theory of Information; I'm sure it will be fleshed out in more detail in the future, but for now we should treat it as just a sketch. But, is it a sketch that can inform library practice? Budd offers the example of information retrieval:

An individual asserts a query...which includes a finite set of elements. Most of the elements are unknown by the individual, but reside within some frames of known and potentially knowable bits. If the individual is seeking information as it is defined here, a search can be constructed that can...result in a set of items that are meaningful and true. That is, the items can be evaluated for meaning and truth. The individual, following the theoretical principles as stated above, has criteria to use in evaluating meaning and truth. Each item retrieved can be evaluated in such a way. That said, the individual is not likely to intuit the assessment mechanisms. In other words, the definition I suggest is usable only inasmuch as it is used by information seekers. (p. 71)

I don't know what to make of this example, and, damn it, I'm tired of not knowing what is going on in this paper. I can at least make out that the example shows how the Communicative Theory of Information takes information out of the world of data and reduces it to particular discursive practices. But, hold up. Do we really want this? It's good news for information seekers, but bad news for information systems. Yes, bad news for librarians. Though Budd's theory may provide insight into search behavior and the social life of information, it is of no help for understanding the systems that collect, analyze, and organize information. Limiting information to Budd's interpretation of communicative practices makes information too relational and subjective to effectively work with. In sum, we need a different definition of information in library science. I mentioned earlier that Budd left some important definitions of information out of his survey, and I'd like to advocate for one in particular: the Semantic Conception of Information. I'll get a defense of the Semantic Conception up as soon as possible. Until then, I recommend you take a look at "Meaning, Truth, and Information: Prolegomena to a Theory" and see what you think.

Notes:
(1) Budd writes:

A truthful sentence is also a meaningful sentence. Davidson (1984), in his early writings, criticized this kind of connection: “any meaning of a sentence is what it refers to, all sentences alike in truth value must be synonymous – an intolerable result” (Davidson, 1984, p. 19).

Davidson originally wrote:

Hence, any two sentences have the same reference if they have the same truth value. And if the meaning of a sentence is what it refers to, all sentences alike in truth value must be synonymous – an intolerable result. (my emphasis)

This is an important distinction. Davidson was criticizing a naive Referential Theory of Meaning. He was not criticizing the connection between truth and meaning, as Budd implies. In point of fact, Davidson's entire contribution to the philosophy of language was based in his truth-condition of meaning; that to know the meaning of a sentence is to know the circumstances under which that sentence would be true.

(2) It was Frege (1879, and 1892)

(3) Though he seems to be confusing intentionality (the 'aboutness' of mental states) with the ordinary language sense of intention (a deliberate determination to act a certain way, and in this case to communicate)

Information as Thing (Essential Readings in the Philosophy of LIS)

2011-03-11T13:45:00.002-05:00

I was re-reading Michael K. Buckland's "Information as Thing" and I realized that this should be added to my essential reading list. So, if you are interested in the philosophy of information, please check this article out.

Buckland, Michael K. "Information as Thing." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42, no. 5 (1991): 351-360.

Buckland identifies three distinct approaches to the definition of information: as process, as knowledge, and as thing. He goes on to argue that the information-as-thing approach is the "only form of information with which information systems can deal directly" (p. 359). This is an attributive sense of information such that information becomes a particular sort of data: meaningful data. Moreover, he argues, we should not be confused by text, documents, sounds, images, etc.. These are all equivalent to data and their position as information is determined by their ability to inform. I like this. In particular, I like Buckland's description of information-as-thing as similar to the way evidence is a thing: it's a thing "from which one becomes informed" (p. 353). As information professionals, librarians can learn from the information-as-thing approach because it allows us to treat information with the sort of objective neutrality demanded by our professional standards. That is, it allows a systems-based approach to working with information in a way that knowledge and process information theories do not allow.

As a word of warning, it seems as though he is committed to an entirely physicalist approach to information: informative data are necessarily physical objects; information is supervenient on the physical.¹ This is fine if you're a physicalist, but not everyone is. In any event, it's a great paper that foreshadows most of the current work in philosophy of information.

¹ It isn't clear whether Buckland is advocating a straight-up reductive physicalism or some sort of emergentism for information. Maybe it's clearer in a later paper?

Library Trends, Winter 2004 (Essential Readings in the Philosophy of LIS)

2011-03-07T23:49:00.004-05:00

Photo courtesy of KJGarbutt. Some rights reserved.

There is a surprising amount of literature available on the philosophy of library and information science (LIS), but it's hard to know where to start. What should a library philosopher read? Where's the best place to begin? Part of the problem arises when we see that there are many, competing foundational philosophical approaches to LIS. Pragmatism, social epistemology, philosophy of information, Habermas' universal pragmatics, post-structuralism...the list could go on for a while. Do we really have to study each and every one of these?

Here's the plan. Since this blog is supposedly about philosophy and librarianship, the least I can do is attempt to build a list of suggested readings to aid the interested. Granted, I'm no expert, but I can at least start building a bibliography of the texts I think are most important to understanding the intersection of philosophy and librarianship at a foundational level. So, I've added a new page--"Essential Readings"--to keep track of foundational and influential books and articles. (And if you have a book, article, blog, or website you would like to include in a list of essential readings on the philosophy of librarianship, please let me know.)

Here's the catch. I wear my philosophical leanings on my sleeve. Coming from the analytic tradition, I tend to look more favorably on social epistemology, philosophy of information, pragmatism, and other rational philosophical traditions in library science. Many of the so-called "postmodern" approaches influenced by Foucault, Derrida, Rorty, Latour, and other continental philosophers strike me as irrational and too anti-egalitarian to be helpful in librarianship ('relativism' is a four-letter word in my house). So, my recommended books will be heavily geared towards realist, rational philosophy.

Well, enough of the jibber-jabber. Here's today's recommendation...the Winter 2004 issue of Library Trends.

The Philosophy of Information, Library Trends,
Winter 2004, 52(3)
edited by Ken Herold

As you may already know, Library Trends is a journal that specializes in thematic issues (how do you cite an entire journal, anyway?). Each issue features several articles entirely on one subject, and the Winter 2004 issue "The Philosophy of Information" is one of the best LT has published. In 16 articles, almost every core concern in the philosophy of LIS is explored by some of the leading thinkers in philosophy and librarianship, including John Budd, Don Fallis, Luciano Floridi, and more. In particular, this volume is absolutely indispensable for those interested in the philosophy of information as the foundation for LIS. Arguments for and against competing theories are advanced and the entire issue represents a fascinating snapshot of the current status of the philosophy of information in librarianship.

The impetus for this issue can be found in the work of Luciano Floridi, whose 2002 "On Defining Library and Information Science as Applied Philosophy of Information" set the groundwork for adopting the philosophy of information as foundational theory in LIS. It is therefore only natural that his afterword in the Library Trends issue is probably the best entry point, and a good summary of the philosophical approach that is both defended and criticized throughout this volume. Here is a link to the article on his personal website. Again, this issue is not a unified defense of a particular approach to the philosophy of information in librarianship. Articles run the gamut from analytic defenses of realism and epistemology to arguments for the importance of Hegel, Gadamer, and Habermas. Truly, there's something in this issue for philosopher-librarians of every background. I, for one, find the analytical articles the most compelling, but the entire issue is of enormous value. Rather than ramble on about the importance of this issue of LT, I'll end with a list of contents and brief descriptions of each article. Titles in boldface are those that I, personally, find the most compelling and useful.

Library Trends, Winter 2004, 52(3). Edited by Ken Herold.

"Information and Its Philosophy" by Ian Cornelius

Argues that Floridi's work in PI is "innocent of LIS practice" and fails to recognize the myriad roles and responsibilities of actual librarianship.

"Documentation Redux: Prolegomenon to (Another) Philosophy of Information" by Bernd Frohmann

A neo-Wittgensteinian call for a shift from discrete theories of information to descriptions of documentary practice as the embodiment of "informing".

"Community as Event" by Ronald E. Day

Discusses the meaning of "information" in light of political philosophy an ontology. Draws heavily from the work of Negri, Heidegger, and Habermas.

"Information Studies Without Information" by Jonathan Furner

Argues that we do not need a separate concept of information, favoring instead an information-as-relevance approach designed to cut across philosophical distinctions.

"Relevance: Language, Semantics, Philosophy" by John M. Budd

Argues that the philosophy of language is invaluable in assessing the role of relevance in LIS.

"On Verifying the Accuracy of Information: Philosophical Perspectives" by Don Fallis

Fallis urges librarians to consider the epistemology of testimony as a means of understanding the role that information professionals play in knowledge creation. Draws heavily from David Hume and Alvin Goldman. Awesome.

"Arguments for Philosophical Realism in Library and Information Science" by Birger Hjørland

Some researchers in LIS love to throw around the term "positivism" as a catch-all for post-Enlightenment or analytic approaches to LIS; the label "realism" has even been thrown about as a sort of intellectual epithet. Hjorland shows that this is a terribly naive approach. He argues that LIS needs to embrace the explanatory virtues of realism as the only viable means for addressing issues in LIS.

"Knowledge Profiling: The Basis for Knowledge Organization" by Torkild Thellefsen

Uses Peirce's pragmaticism (it's not the same as James's "pragmatism") as a means for analyzing knowledge organizations such as libraries.

"Classification and Categorization: A Difference that Makes a Difference" by Elin K. Jacob

A look at the syntactic and semantic differences between classification and categorization and how these differences shape information systems and information retrieval.

"Faceted Classification and Logical Division in Information Retrieval" by Jack Mills

Argues that the nature of information requires faceted classification as the optimal means of organizing information for discovery.

"The Epistemological Foundations of Knowledge Representations" by Elaine Svenonius

Looks at operationalism, Wittgensteinian referentialism, and instrumentalism as competing theories of meaning that can inform us as we develop optimal retrieval systems.

"Classification, Rhetoric, and the Classificatory Horizon" by Stephen Paling

Uses Gadamer to provide a hermeneutics of information classification.

"The Ubiquitous Hierarchy: An Army to Overcome the Threat of a Mob" by Hope A. Olson

Argues that Hegel's conception of hierarchy and Reid's defense of common sense are the foundations for library classification systems such as Dewey and LC.

"A Human Information Behavior Approach to a Philosophy of Information" by Amanda Spink and Charles Cole

Looks at how a cognitive approach to information-seeking behavior can inform the philosophy of information.

"Cybersemiotics and the Problems of the Information-Processing Paradigm as a Candidate for a Unified Science of Information Behind Library Information Science" by Søren Brier

A poorly explained mess of self-contradictory, post-modern drivel. I have no idea why this was included.

"Afterword: LIS as Applied Philosophy of Information: A Reappraisal" by Luciano Floridi

A defense of the philosophy of information against critics. Argues that PI is a better foundation for LIS than its main competitor, social epistemology.

Is truth relevant to librarians? (Once more with feeling)

2011-02-28T10:36:00.000-05:00

Some rights reserved by Andrew Coulter Enright

I've been chasing so many ideas down so many rabbit holes that I haven't posted in a few weeks. So, just to get something out there, I'm posting the same thing twice as an experiment. This is the unpretentious post that avoids the unnecessary jargon and technical stuff. But, if you like the analytical stuff, you can take a look at the analytic mix. It's unfortunately technical, so you can skip it if you'd like. In any event, my hope is that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

As I outlined in previous posts, I'm interested in the relationship between truth, information, and information literacy. The feedback I've received has been enormously instructive and the project seems to be headed down some interesting paths. However, one concern stands out above all others: is the concept of truth even relevant to librarians? I thought it might be worthwhile to say a little something to the effect that, even if the concept of truth is invisible to our patrons or to the everyday practicalities of librarianship, it is still relevant to the profession.

Academic concerns, or confusions?

Wayne Bivens-Tatum has raised quite a few thought-provoking points about the role of truth in librarianship. Though I think several of his points are the result of us just talking past one another and getting confused by one another's positions, he does make a few claims that simply cannot be ignored. In particular, he makes the claim that:

Truth is relevant to information literacy broadly conceived, but I'm not sure librarians play much of a role in information literacy. I wouldn't send physics students to astrology books, but outside of factual questions, which I rarely get, I'm not sure I've ever gotten to the point where truth as such played a role in what I was doing with students.

As I read it, there are two main arguments here. One is that librarians don't play much of a role in information literacy. The other is that truth doesn't play much of a role in librarianship. Maybe I'm naive in thinking that information literacy and truth apply to librarianship, but I'd like to think otherwise. So, I'll try to say something to the effect that truth is relevant to information literacy and information literacy is relevant to librarians.

From truth to information literacy to academic libraries

I'll admit it: my previous "career" in philosophy has colored my perceptions of librarianship. For what it's worth, when I decided that the life a philosophy professor wasn't for me, I could have chosen any number of alternatives. Law school, an MBA, a teacher's certificate, perpetual adjunct work...I have friends who went down each road. But, I was always motivated to do something about the lack of information literacy I kept running into with my students (though I didn't know the term at the time). After several years and hundreds of term papers, it was very clear that the inability to find, access, and critically evaluate source material appropriate for scholarly research was a major barrier in higher education. Sure, I would assist them in my class, and they would do fine, but I wanted to address IL from a cross-disciplinary angle. Couple that with my existing interests in information theory, epistemology, and logic, and library and information science seemed like the right choice. Why? Well, because the LIS program seemed to be the only one that addressed information literacy head-on and information literacy was what I was most interested in.

So, if information literacy isn't something that librarians play a role in, I seem to have made a huge mistake. But, I do teach general information literacy skills almost every day. From showing a student how to select appropriate sources to assisting a student with a citation, the opportunities for IL instruction are everywhere. And it isn't just in the classroom; every moment on the reference desk is a teachable moment, too. I don't just "give some initial guidance on search and evaluation;" I give advice, insight, and instruction on search and evaluation. In less than five minutes a librarian can teach a patron a transferable skill or concept. And when we consider the extensive work on information literacy coming out of the ALA and ACRL, the nature of library instruction programs (at least as I have encountered them), and the extent to which reference librarians engage directly with the research process, it seems that information literacy is a direct concern to academic librarians.

Then again, academic librarians come in all shapes and sizes and librarians engaged strictly in collection development, cataloging, ILL, or other activities may have a different take on IL than reference and instruction librarians. So, perhaps I should limit my discussion to academic, reference and instruction librarians. But, it should be noted, no matter what aspect of librarianship you're in, information is a relevant concern, so the argument still stands: the concept of truth is relevant to librarianship. We are information professionals and it is incumbent upon us to have an understanding of the object of our trade: information.

Library Science/Information Science

There are several possible roles for librarians in the coming decades and one that I think we should be cultivating is a bit of a throwback to days-gone-by: the cultural role of librarians as authorities on information. Librarians used to be the supposed gatekeepers of knowledge and information. Google has all but demolished that cultural position, but that doesn't mean we can't still be ambassadors for information. If anything, I'd like to see librarians do more to sell themselves as authorities on the world of information in general. Librarians should be clamoring for interviews about Wikileaks, copyright legislation, information technology, and other information-related current events. We should brand ourselves as the experts on information and information related issues. To put it another way, we work in applied information theory and we have the ability to position ourselves as society's information experts. But, we can only do this if we treat information theory as a relevant concern.

But what is relevance, anyway?

However we position ourselves, they bottom line is that information is the stuff we trade in, whether or not information literacy in particular is relevant. So, studying and understanding information is something we should be engaged in. Does that address the relevance issue? Well, yes and no. I think the real problem is that there are at least two types of relevance that are commonly discussed in libraryland and I think the distinction is best described by analogy...

Last night at dinner, Khristy offered a helpful analogy for how I'm envisioning the role of information in librarianship: think of librarianship like the financial world of economists, brokers, bankers, tellers, and more. For example, economists "analyze the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services"(Wikipedia). They analyze the flow of goods and services across various networks and they develop policies, procedures, and theories for managing and understanding that flow. They analyze and inform policies, they serve as advisors, and they construct the foundational theories. Then again, economists are only one part of the financial world. The money is actually handled by brokers, traders, bankers, tellers, etc. Whereas an economist may debate contractionary versus expansionary fiscal policies, the teller is actually counting out the change. The various aspects of money and finance that count as "relevant" will vary between all of these different roles. An economist may be interested only in what is relevant to the financial world in general. The stockbroker may be interested only in what's relevant to investors.

Now, what if we replace "goods and services" or "money" with "information"? Who studies the production, distribution and consumption of information? Who handles practical aspects of working with information? Why can't it be librarians? After all, we're uniquely situated to address almost every angle on information and information-related issues. We should join the computer scientists and programmers, the internet gurus, and the social network entrepreneurs as the go-to sources for the theory and the practice behind information. So, I propose that we think of librarianship in the same way we think of the financial sector; only, instead of dealing in money, we deal in information. This gives librarians enormous clout and places us near the center of the information ecosystem. (Of course, librarians tend to not to have such diverse roles as you'll see in finance; so librarians have to be economists and bankers at the same time, so to speak.)

Following the analogy to its conclusion, it's clear that what counts as relevant with respect to information will depend on what role we're playing. Certain issues are only relevant to librarians when they act like economists: drafting policies, creating curricula, tackling ethical issues...in other words, surveying the profession and the information ecosystem in general. However, just as a stockbroker or banker uses economic theory (among other things) to develop practical solutions for assisting investors, so to do librarians use information theory (among other things) to develop practical solutions for assisting patrons.

So, there are two types of relevance: relevant to librarians and relevant to patrons, and both are important. Looking back at my interest in the nature of truth, information, and information literacy, I'll concede that none of it is going to be very practical or show direct relevance to my day-to-day dealings with students. But, I'm hoping that it will be relevant to the economic side of librarianship, and help me to understand the increasingly complicated nature of information in libraries.

For next time

So, where do we stand? The philosophical concept of truth is probably not going to do a bit of difference in how I build collections, manage the reference interview, direct research consultations, or teach classes. But, if truth plays a role in understanding what information is, and if studying the nature of information can inform collection development policies, reference services, information literacy, and beyond, then the concept of truth can make a difference. It may not be relevant to patrons, but it is relevant to librarians.

Here's where I want to go in the next few blog posts: First, I'll propose that libraries adopt Floridi's semantic conception of information. Later, I'll discuss whether misinformation and disinformation count as information, and if so, what kind of information. Finally, I'll see if I can't make a case that adopting the semantic conception of information--and understanding the role of misinformation and disinformation--can strengthen our information literacy programs, not to mention our commitments to privacy, freedom of information, and more.

Is truth relevant to librarians? (Analytic mix)

2011-02-28T10:33:00.001-05:00

I've been chasing so many ideas down so many rabbit holes that I haven't posted in a few weeks. So, just to get something out there, I'm posting the same thing twice as an experiment. This is the philosophical post that mirrors my thought process: it's boring, poorly written, and unnecessarily technical. The other post isn't as pretentious; it avoids the jargon and stupid technical stuff. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

It's been a few weeks since my last post about the nature of truth and it's role in information literacy. Liam was violently ill, nieces and nephews came to visit, loads to do at work...you know the drill. But, I do have several aborted posts that, for one reason or another, I couldn't seem to finish. I have long attempts at addressing issues ranging from the problems of pragmatism in library and information science to why the "articulation problem" rests on a misunderstanding. Along the way I took another stab at answering the many concerns raised by the Academic Librarian. Here's an effort at answering what I think is his biggest issue with the role of truth in information literacy: is a philosophical inquiry into truth even relevant to librarianship?

Academic concerns, or confusions?
I'll start by listing the issues Bivens-Tatum raises in his initial post and subsequent blog comments. I'm trying my best to abide by the principle of charity, so I hope this is close to the original intent...

Inquiring into the nature of truth is redundant. ("The library is part of [a] larger academic enterprise that already assumes [a realist conception] of truth")
A philosophical theory of truth "still doesn't explain why academic research takes place, or why academic libraries collect things."
Librarians should remain neutral with respect to the truth of the information they collect (Librarians should hope "for "truth" in the aggregate, not in the truth of any given work")
Librarians do not "play much of a role in information literacy" (The job of a librarian "is to build collections and give some initial guidance on search and evaluation.")
Truth is simply not a relevant concept in librarianship; what librarians "teach has more to do with certain academic standards" not truth. ("'truth' isn't a direct professional concern of ours")

Some of these are simple philosophical errors. #1 is a fallacy of division, #2 is a category mistake, and #3 confuses fact and value. However, the final two objections are substantive and are directed at my underlying position, so it's best if I try to reconstruct exactly what I aim to prove, show where his objections fit in, and attempt a response. I'll start with a logical reconstruction...you can skip it if you want to avoid the technical stuff.

From truth to information literacy to academic libraries
Here is a reconstruction of the argument from my previous two posts...the argument I'd like to make for the relevance of truth to academic librarians:

(1) For any term C that entails necessary conditions (c₀, c₁, ..., c_n), if C is relevant to subject S, then c_n is relevant to S.
(2) Information literacy is relevant to academic librarians.
(3) Information¹ is a necessary condition in defining information literacy.
(4) Subconclusion: So, information is relevant to academic librarians.
(5) The concept of truth² is a necessary condition in defining information.
(6) Conclusion: So, the concept of truth is relevant to academic librarians.

Again, I realize that this may come across as unreasonably technical, but I want to make a sound argument. The argument above is valid, so if I can show the truth of the premises, then I have made my point. I hope that (1) is uncontroversial...it makes sense as a general epistemic rule. I also hope that (3) is uncontroversial given that information literacy seems to have at least some relation to information. Obviously, (4) follows from (1)-(3). I admit that (5) is an open question, but if it is true, then (6) follows. Proving (5) will let me prove (6), which is the whole point of my research.

Moreover, this presentation makes it easier to show how Bivens-Tatum's concerns fit in. Specifically, he is objecting to (2) and (6). We can strike the objection to (6) on the grounds that it doesn't address the argument itself. This leaves premise (2) and the objection that librarians don't play much of a role in information literacy. I actually find it hard to believe that academic librarians don't see the importance of information literacy Given the extensive work on information literacy coming out of the ALA and ACRL, the nature of library instruction programs (at least as I have encountered them), and the extent to which reference librarians engage directly with the research process, it seems that information literacy is a direct concern to academic librarians.

Then again, I forget that academic librarians come in all shapes and sizes and librarians engaged strictly in collection development, cataloging, ILL, or other activities may have a different take on IL than reference and instruction librarians.³ So, perhaps I should limit my discussion to academic, reference and instruction librarians. But, it should be noted, no matter what aspect of librarianship you're in, information is a relevant concern, so the argument still stands: the concept of truth is relevant to librarianship. We are information professionals and it is incumbent upon us to have an understanding of the object of our trade: information.

Library Science/Information Science

I grant that if academic librarianship is just about day-to-day operational duties, then there really isn't a need for any theorizing about information, truth, knowledge, or other epistemic and metaphysical concerns. But, I understand library science as a type of applied information science (which probably explains why many librarians work within the hybrid field of library and information science). As librarians, not only are many of us dealing with issues of practical librarianship, but we are also dealing with the "analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval and dissemination of information." Put another way, academic librarians have a vested interest in information; information is the stuff we trade in. The extent to which we work with information, and the nature of that work, will differ between libraries, between departments, and even between individual librarians. But, we are still information professionals in a way that other disciplines may not be. Every field makes use of information, but librarians are unique in that information is the object of quite a bit of what we do. If anything, it's the reason our patrons are here in the first place. Information is the cornerstone of librarianship, so it is in our best interests to study it, debate it, learn about it, and teach others about it. It just seems so obvious: information is relevant to librarianship.

But what is relevance, anyway?
The real objection to the role of truth in librarianship has to do with relevance, but what is relevance anyway? Perhaps everyone agrees that truth is relevant to librarians, but we all disagree about what type of relevance we're dealing with. For most librarians, relevance is a practical issue and the idea is that X is relevant to Y if and only if X yields beneficial consequences for Y. Call this pragmatic relevance. But, pragmatic relevance comes in at least two flavors: relevant to patrons and relevant to librarians.

Patron-centered pragmatic relevance (PCLR) is the idea that an idea or project is relevant if it yields direct beneficial consequences for patrons. This is an incredibly popular position (#echolib, anyone?) and probably the majority view. Recent examples of this pragmatism are seen in the heavy criticism leveled at elements of librarianship not directly relevant to patrons. John Dupuis's Stealth Librarian's Manifesto is one of the more recent and clear-cut cases of PCLR. Michelle Boule's Being Articulate and Finding Context also comes to mind in the way it points to technical vocabularies and theories as a hindrance to librarianship. With PCLR, again and again, relevance to patrons is hoisted as the banner under which every aspect of librarianship must pass. Your patrons don't get it? Then get out of the "echo chamber"!

On the other hand, library-centered pragmatic relevance (LCPR) is the idea that an idea or project is relevant if it yields direct beneficial consequences for librarians and librarianship. The idea here is that librarians are professionals and projects in service to the profession are relevant, even though patrons may have no idea these projects ever occur. MARC records, metadata, and OpenURL resolvers are instances of library project that are not relevant to patrons. Another good example would be the IL standards drafted by the ACRL. The standards themselves are invisible to non-librarians. Yet, these standards help direct library information literacy programs, so they benefit our patrons indirectly. Assisting patrons is still the normative goal, but the tools and theories for doing so are oriented towards the librarians.

So, we can focus on the consequences our theories have for patrons or we can focus on the consequences our theories have for the profession. Or both.

Librarians serving librarians
This is where I make the controversial claim that not every aspect of librarianship is going to be directly relevant to non-librarians, nor should it. (and the philosophy of librarianship is a perfect example). Some of what we do is going to be directed at policies, technologies, or curricula that are inherently library-centric. There's nothing wrong with this. In fact, I think that this is something we should do more often, not only so that we know what we're talking about but also so we can figure out where we're going as a profession, what policies we should adopt, and how we should handle thorny issues like censorship, fair use, and privacy. These and other issues merit discussions that may only be directly relevant to librarians, though indirectly relevant to patrons.

What does this mean for my interest in the nature of truth? Well, Bivens-Tatum expressed the concern that neither information literacy nor truth are relevant to librarianship. I think this objection may be correct in the case of patron-centered pragmatic relevance and incorrect in the case of library-centered pragmatic relevance. From the patron side, I agree that we don't need to carve out 15 minutes of class time to discuss epistemology. We don't need to lecture students on information theory or the realism vs. relativism debate. These are patron-centered approaches to information theory and they are obviously absurd. But, for librarians who work with information, understanding the nature of information is highly relevant in how we develop the profession. So, a philosophy of information (i.e., an inquiry into whether information is necessarily true) is relevant to librarians, who can then create policies, curricula, etc. that are relevant to patrons.

For next time

So, where do we stand? To make my argument work I just needed to show that information literacy is relevant to librarianship. I think it's pretty obvious that it is. But, even if all I can show is that information is relevant, then the argument goes through. The only thing to be careful about is in qualifying what we mean by "relevant", and I only intend to work within the context of librarian-centered relevance because I'm only concerned with how information will affect our policies, curricula, procedures, and other "behind-the-scenes" aspects of the profession.

All that's left is to say something about premise (5): the concept of truth is a necessary condition in defining information. I think that information is necessarily true, but it will take another post to propose an account of what information is, a second post to discuss whether information is true, and yet another to explain how this can strengthen our information literacy programs (not to mention our commitments to freedom of information, privacy, and other issues.). I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I can pull it off.

(1) i.e., information as an object of inquiry
(2) i.e., the property 'is true'
(3) Wilder's 2005 article in the Chronicle may be partly to blame, though his arguments were as ill-informed then as they are today.

Truth is relevant to information literacy...it's a fact!

2011-02-02T14:00:00.001-05:00

In my last post I outlined an informal project regarding truth and information literacy. A few days later, I saw this interesting response from the Academic Librarian. As always, he raises some great points, not the least of which is the way he explains exactly what's wrong with the historicist conception of truth (and I agree almost to the letter). But, towards the end of the post, Bivens-Tatum raises several questions about the relevance of truth to librarianship and information literacy. I wish I could say that I understand his concerns, but I find them very confusing and/or confused. I’ll attempt a response, but, just so I don’t accidentally misrepresent his arguments, I’ll quote at the paragraph level and offer plausible interpretations for three criticisms I've been able to extract. And, I'm aware that I may be completely and idiotically wrong, so don't hesitate to tell me!

Problem #1: Information literacy is about evaluating and accessing information, not truth.

"We can't really evaluate the reliability or accuracy of information without some standard against which to judge it. Nevertheless, I wonder whether truth is really the business we're in, even when we're working with students and helping them evaluate sources. By inculcating standards of information literacy, are we concerned with truth? Or rather, do we get to the level where a concern with truth is appropriate?

With students, we're often helping them to find and evaluate scholarly sources, not assessing the factual accuracy of a statement. When doing this, is truth our standard? Is truth the standard of scholarship at all, especially in the humanities? Or is it something else? Maybe I'm not putting this right. Truth might be the ultimate standard, but how far along that path would we ever go with students? Even assuming information literacy is a meaningful goal for everyone to achieve and that it requires a theory of truth, how far towards information literacy do librarians ever take students? And if we don't take them very far, do we need a theory of truth?"

There's a lot going on in these two paragraphs, and there are a few ways to understand these concerns. I'll try to be organized and address each possible way of understanding Bivens-Tatum's line of questioning.

(Interpretation #1): The concept of truth is not an appropriate part of the information literacy curriculum.
There's a confusion here between (1) telling students "These are the facts," and (2) telling students "There are facts and this is how you find them." Put another way, there is a big difference between an instructor teaching a concept of truth and an instructor having a concept of truth. I'm concerned with the latter. I don't intend to argue that we need to carve five minutes out of our instruction session to address the distinction between realism and antirealism; I intend to talk about how competing theories of truth shape the way we as educators understand information literacy.

(Interpretation #2): The concept of truth is not relevant to information literacy.
Bivens-Tatum agrees that "we can't really evaluate the reliability or accuracy of information without some standard against which to judge it." But, he doesn't think that truth is relevant to information literacy? I don't understand this. Our conception of truth is a determining factor in how we identify appropriate standards for evaluation; evaluation is a core aspect of information literacy. The very concepts of authority, accuracy, reliability, and bias are radically different depending on whether you adopt an objective or a subjective theory of truth. For example, a philosophical realist about truth might describe the accuracy of a source in terms of how often the statements made by the source actually do describe the world (i.e., are facts). On the other hand, a cultural relativist about truth might describe the accuracy of a source in terms of how often the statements made by the source match up with prevailing beliefs of the cultural group to which the source belongs. In a nutshell, do we teach our students to look for fact-based resources or widely-believed resources? So, yes, when we teach information literacy we are concerned with truth. Of course, we're concerned with a lot of other things, too, but truth is definitely something that guides how we evaluate authority, accuracy, etc..

(Interpretation #3): The concept of truth may be relevant, but librarians only get the ball rolling and never actually get to a point where truth is of concern
I agree that (except in the case of ready reference questions) librarians don't take students all the way to the point of adjudicating whether a particular claim is true. That's the job of the faculty, the students themselves, or someone else. But, even though information literacy instruction doesn't directly cover the concept of truth, any information literacy initiative that's worth it's salt will mention evaluating sources, which entails accuracy, reliability, authority, etc. Moreover, we should take a step back and ask whether libraries have anything to do with knowledge or information at all. Knowledge is justified, true belief, so if you believe that libraries are concerned with knowledge (collecting it, organizing it, teaching others how to locate it, etc.) then truth is a concern by definition. Whether we think information must track the truth will also determine whether truth is a concern in information literacy.
For a detailed analysis of just how important truth is to evaluating sources, I highly recommend the Winter 2004 issue of Library Trends, specifically the articles by Don Fallis ("On Verifying the Accuracy of Information") and Birger Hjorland ("Arguments for philosophical realism in library and information science.")

Problem #2: There are many conflicting accounts of what is true, librarians should stay neutral and only judge whether a source meets accepted criteria for scholarship.

"Librarians are typically there for the initial stages of research, when it really is a search for information. For students in the humanities, I suggest finding a good recent scholarly book or article on the topic and chasing footnotes. "Good" would typically mean an article from a good press or journal by a reputable scholar. Would such a book or article be "true"? Almost certainly not in its entirety, because there is bound to be a similarly reputable work that will disagree with the interpretation of various facts, if not the facts themselves. If this is the case, we find ourselves in the situation that Lebaree and Scimeca find themselves with true and false documents in a library. When evaluating a single scholarly source at the level we do with students, we're not dealing with truth or falsity. We're concerned with whether the work meets certain standards of scholarship, which are designed ultimately to discover truth, but which never guarantee the truthfulness of any given work of scholarship"

A few points should be made here. First, books or articles cannot be true. Only propositions can be true. However, books or articles can contain true propositions. Second, the mere fact that a multiple sources disagree on the facts does not mean that we shouldn't care what the facts actually are. Sure, some books in the library make claims that are patently false, but we should still retain them because although the primary information in the books may be unusable, the second-order information is quite valuable. For example, the first printing of the DSM-II includes the false claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder. As primary information about homosexuality, the DSM-II fails and is not an appropriate source for psychological research. But, the second-order claim "According to the 1968 printing of the DSM-II, homosexuality is a mental disorder." is true and the book is relevant to, say, a research paper on historical attitudes towards homosexuality. Just because an information source is discredited does not mean that the information source is not valuable.

Here's a question for anyone who works the reference desk: when students request assistance researching medical issues, do you routinely direct them to the books on homeopathy (LoC class RX!)? Do you direct physics majors to the astrology books? I know you don't and I know that your reasons for not doing so will somehow involve either factual content and verifiability (i.e., an objective account of truth), or commonly accepted social practice (i.e., social constructivist account of truth), or some other account of truth. What I mean to say is that we do have theories of truth that play into our decisions. Usually, competing theories agree and truth can take a back seat to other concerns. But, every now and then the issue of truth becomes the deciding factor in the sources we recommend.

Finally, I agree that we are primarily concerned with whether a work meets certain standards of scholarship that aim at the truth. I also agree that we can't necessarily guarantee that a work of scholarship does make all and only true claims. But, there is a big difference between understanding what 'truth' means and whether a particular statement is true.

Problem #3: Our job is to build collections and give initial advice on searching, so truth is irrelevant.

"Or so one might argue. If that's the case, if the bulk of our jobs is to build collections and give some initial guidance on search and evaluation, then it's possible that "truth" isn't a direct professional concern of ours, that while the ACRL Standards as a whole do require a theory of truth, the relationship of academic librarians to information literacy does not."

This is extremely reductionist: there is obviously more to librarianship than collection development and giving basic research help. In any event, we should ask ourselves why libraries are important and why we perform research. To what end do we seek information? The answer is knowledge, specifically, justified, true beliefs. Don Fallis (2004) explains,

the goal is to acquire beliefs that correspond to reality. Philosophers typically take this to be the goal of information seekers...John Locke, for example, explicitly states that the reason that we should proportion our belief to the evidence is so that we will end up with true beliefs. Library and information scientists, however, are much less likely to take this to be the goal of information seekers. Jesse Shera, for example, says that "false knowledge ... is still knowledge, it is knowable and known." However, as a number of library and information scientists have recently argued, information seekers often do have the goal of acquiring true beliefs. For example, a student writing a report on the Eiffel Tower wants to know how tall the Eiffel Tower really is. In other words, she is after the truth. Similarly, a parent wants to know whether a particular treatment for a child with a fever really is safe and effective. In fact, it does not really make sense for someone to bother about verifying the accuracy of information unless acquiring true beliefs is her goal. (p. 468)

Even if we admit that not all information-seeking behavior is directed at determining the truth, we have to admit that a large percentage of it is. And, if librarians are to develop policies about how to organize information, develop procedures for handling morally difficult reference requests, instruct others in appropriate evaluative techniques, or any other of our duties, then we need to understand this thing called 'information' and how it relates to 'knowledge'. Given that truth is integral to knowledge (and perhaps to information, too) it follows that truth is a professional concern.

Conclusion
I hope this isn't taken as an attack on Bivens-Tatum. I'm only trying to understand his concerns. I also want to point out that I want to keep my discussion to information literacy. Collection development, censorship, privacy, and a host of other library concerns are impacted by our conceptions of truth, but I have a bad habit of getting lost on tangents, so I'm going to try to keep this discussion strictly to IL. I should also reiterate the is/ought distinction: I may advocate that truth is a certain way, but how we ought to act is a separate matter. So, don't worry about setting flamethrowers to discredited books. Re-read the first half of Bivens-Tatum's post for a great explanation.

I'll try to get another post on truth up pretty soon. Perhaps I'll do a case study or use some practical examples to show how the interpretation of truth we adopt will influence how we approach information literacy. Perhaps I'll write a more cohesive narrative (rather than a response) about the relevance of truth in info lit. I'll think about it.

Is misinformation information? Information literacy and the nature of truth

2011-01-28T12:25:00.006-05:00

CC license by Idiolector

Today, I declined an invitation to present at a conference. Unfortunately, with my LOEX presentation and a (possible) poster at ALA, I simply don't have any more money left for travel (until July). That being said, I thought it might be fun to take the presentation I submitted and turn it into a paper...using my blog to document the writing, research, and thought processes. So, over the next few weeks I'll hash things out here and see what happens...starting with the proposal itself.

My proposed paper
So, this is the proposal that was accepted:

TITLE: Is misinformation information? Information fluency and nature of truth.

ABSTRACT: One of the primary IF skills is the ability to critically evaluate information.. Unfortunately, this task is complicated when students must distinguish information from non-information. This presentation focuses on a semantic definition of information and the need to address false information as a part of any IF pedagogy.

INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL TARGETED: Program/Degree

TYPE OF SESSION: Individual

DESCRIPTION: One of the primary goals of Information Fluency (IF) is the ability to collect and critically evaluate the information relevant to a particular need. Unfortunately, this task is complicated by the ever-expanding amount of data available digitally and the difficulty in distinguishing information from non-information: misinformation, false information, contradictions, and other types of non-information are abundant online. Moreover, certain subjective conceptions of truth negatively impact students’ abilities to sort true from false information. This presentation focuses on the importance of addressing misinformation and false information as a part of any successful information fluency pedagogy. Taking a cue from the philosophy of information, a semantic definition of information will be advocated as a framework for evaluating the IF curriculum. Further, a non-subjective conception of truth will be explored as a means of demarcating information from non-information. Competing theories of data, truth, information, and knowledge will be explored and critically evaluated for their applicability to information literacy programs.

Genesis of an idea
A few things motivated this project:

For all the talk of 'information literacy' it's surprising how few people can give a coherent definition of 'information',
Does information track the truth, and if so, how does that affect the concept of information literacy? (put another way, is "false information" a contradiction and what does that mean for IL?)
I have a general worry about anti-realist conceptions of truth that show up in common approaches to information literacy.
ACRL standards don't mention truth, but Standard Three requires an account.

1. Information and information literacy

The term "information literacy" is well established in librarianship, but I think that there's still a need to discuss what, exactly, information is. The most common approaches within the field are summarized nicely in John Budd's (2011) "Meaning, Truth, and Information".² Unfortunately, his survey of common approaches almost completely ignores the semantic conception of information as it doesn't suit his self-described phenomenological hermeneutics of librarianship. One of my upcoming goals in the blog is to take a look at the semantic conception of information as a better foundation for the information in information literacy.

2. Is misinformation information?
This is something I've yet to decide on, so it is the most active area of inquiry. I'm really partial to Floridi's work in the philosophy of information, and he advocates that truth is a necessary condition for information, but I simply haven't read enough to make a decision yet. As it stands, I take information to be well-formed, meaningful data (with a few important corollaries). Now, is information well-formed, meaningful, factual or true data? I get stuck here because I agree with a minimalist, semantic conception of truth, but I'm not sure that all well-formed, meaningful data are necessarily semantic things. I'll hash this out one way or the other in coming weeks.

3. Truth in Librarianship

Surprisingly little has been said about truth in librarianship. In 2008, Labaree and Scimeca published an article in Library Quarterly that discussed the concept, but their proposed "historicist" concept of truth is...for lack of a better term...stupid¹

Wait...I just thought of a better term: ridiculous.

In an upcoming post, I'll pick apart their approach as an example of the sort of fact-value conflations and anti-realisms that lurk around the edges of information literacy. I'll even go so far as to say that these theories actively undermine information literacy. (constructivists and historicists...beware!)

4. ACRL Standard What?
The terms "true" or "truth" or "fact" never appear in ACRL Information Literacy Standard Three. But, the need for a robust account of truth are implied. For example, Standard 3, Outcome 2(a) stresses the ability to examine and compare "information from various sources in order to evaluate reliability, ~~validity~~³, accuracy, authority, timeliness, and point of view or bias". 2(b) points to the "structure and logic of supporting arguments" These evaluative criteria...by definition...must be comparative. Accurate compared to what? Bias away from what? Reliability to what end? Without a robust account of truth or fact, the whole nature of evaluation becomes pointless or, worse, relativistic. So, in the coming weeks I'll discuss how and why a realist approach to truth and information is the only way to meet ACRL Standard Three.

Coming soon
So, there you have it. I'm taking a presentation I won't be giving, hashing it out on the blog, and turning the result into a paper for eventual publication (fingers crossed!). I'll start by addressing the four points in greater detail (maybe one a week?), but things may change. I may change my mind in light of new evidence or argument, I may get stuck on one point and give up, I may forget the whole thing entirely...we'll see what happens.

¹ Labaree, R. V. & Scimeca, R. (2008). The philosophical concept of truth in librarianship. Library Quarterly 78(1): 43-70.
² Budd, J. (2011). Meaning, truth, and information: prolegomena to a theory. Journal of Documentation, 67(1): 56-74.

³ Information can't be valid; only arguments can be valid. Logic 101.

Library Day in the Life Round 6, January 24, 2011

2011-01-24T10:56:00.013-05:00

Here's another Library Day in the Life round, y'all. This should be a fairly normal day in the life of an academic librarian...

10:20 - I'm coming in to work late, since I'll be teaching until 8:00 tonight. Here's the agenda for the day:

~~Schedule a meeting for the Outreach committee.~~
Assign articles for the Spring newsletter *
~~Go over tonight's BFIN 5000 presentation~~
~~Edit the Business research guide, as needed~~
~~Make handouts for tonight's class~~
~~Read through a stack of curriculum proposals for today's university Curriculum Committee meeting~~
~~Look over the eHRAF database trial~~
Brainstorm marketing ideas for tomorrow's Ethnographic Video Online meeting **
~~Meet with some faculty members about a Black History Month display in the library~~
~~Goal: order $1000 worth of business materials while on the ref desk~~
~~1:00-3:00 - Reference Desk~~
~~3:30-5:00 - Curriculum Committee meeting~~
~~6:30-8:00 - BFIN 5000 presentation~~

10:50 - Sorting through emails to figure out the best time for Outreach to meet this week. I'm chair of the committee, and with the snow days a few weeks ago, we need to play a bit of catch up to get the newsletter out on time.

11:33 - Outreach meeting is scheduled. With such a diverse group of librarians and staff from every department, it's a miracle we can ever find a common time to meet.

11:41 - So, Hoover's is getting a major upgrade. Actually, it was scheduled for last Friday, but they're still having problems rolling it out. Problem is, I'm teaching a business class tonight and I can only work with the old Hoover's interface and add "but, this will all be different any day now." Went through the same thing last year with LexisNexis. I'm sure a flurry of quick and dirty emergency video tutorials are in my near future.

12:06 - Just finished giving a short tour of available library display cases for Black History Month. We'll have some cool Yoruba art up by the end of the week.

1:00 - Just grabbed a stack of Harvard Business Reviews and BusinessWeek magazines to look for new business books. I find that collection development is a great thing to do while on the reference desk.

1:03 - "How do I get a receipt from the card station?"
1:11 - "How do I print?"
1:13 - "How do I print?"
1:17 - "Do you have Nixon and Kissinger by Robert Dallek (yes, E856 .D35 2007)"
1:21 - Printer 2 is out of paper
1:21 - IM question about interlibrary loans and dissertations (they usu. come as PDFs)
1:25 - "Is the tall librarian in?"
1:27 - "I think I broke the hole-punch."
1:46 - "Where is Ms. Anderson teaching?"
1:48 - "Where are the science journals?" (Student actually needed current research on arsenic levels in East Tennessee groundwater. Helped out with that.)
1:48 - "Stapler?"
1:57 - "Tax forms?"
1:57 - "Stapler?"

2:00 - I've ordered 17 accounting books so far. Protip: Search through LibGuides and you'll find a ton of guides for new books on specific subjects, recommended titles, core collections, and more. LibGuides is a great way to compare our collection to the core collections at peer institutions.

2:00 - "Do you have another three-hole punch? This one only has two holes." (I did a demo...yes, it still punches three holes.)
2:02 - Security guard asks, "how do i put money on my ID?"
2:06 - "Do you have Hamlet on DVD? Which version is best?" (FWIW, I can't stand Shakespeare. Cervantes, Marlowe, Jonson, Lope de Vega...I love the early 17th century...just not Shakespeare.)

2:19 - Talked to another librarian about LOEX. Two of us at UTC got accepted to present this year. Rock. Now we're just sorting out travel requests and reimbursement schedules.

2:27 - Helping a new student print his schedule.
2:30-2:50 - Three students having problems authenticating their laptops.
2:52 - Directing a student to a work-study interview

3:00 - Off the desk, still ordering books through Ambassador

**3:05 - Meeting moved to Wednesday, so I'll think more about marketing tomorrow.

3:16 - Headed out for the Curriculum Committee meeting. Hopefully, this will only take an hour.

4:53 - Back from an epic committee meeting. Note to hopeful academic librarians: you will have to be on university-wide committees and library committees. (Luckily, the committees here at UTC are productive and can actually be enjoyable).

4:56 - Now, on to the business research methods class...

5:11 - Just checked the tally: $2,089 worth of accounting materials ordered. I demolished my goal. I checked the titles against our catalog (of course) but I haven't checked against approval orders yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that there aren't any dupes.

5:35 - The presentation is good to go for BFIN 5000.

5:40 - The eHRAF databases are subject-indexed at the paragraph level?! This is going to be interesting.

*6:00 - Didn't get the number of responses I hoped for. I'll have to assign articles tomorrow.

6:10 - Off to set up the classroom for my business class.

8:41 - Finished my class at 7:30, had to manually shut down all the computers :-(, rushed home in time to give Liam a bath and read him a goodnight story.

And that's a Monday in the life of an academic librarian.

New post at Libraries and Transliteracy

2011-01-20T16:45:00.000-05:00

After reading Lucy Holman's article in the January 2011 Journal of Academic Librarianship, I decided to post something over at Libraries and Transliteracy. Check it out.

Non sequitur

2011-01-16T22:14:00.000-05:00

(1) This blog is about libraries.
(2) This video was found in a library.
(3) This video is relevant to this blog. QED.

Transliteracy Leftovers

2011-01-06T15:14:00.002-05:00

In cleaning house, I came across this rather long post that has been hiding away as a draft since mid-December. It's still a draft and it's still unfinished, but I haven't posted yet this year so I should put something up.

The debate about the meaning of the term 'transliteracy' is pretty damn entertaining, if you ask me. For the record, I've adopted the term 'transliteracy' in a very specific way. That is, I treat transliteracy as a second-order concept for instructional use: a literacy-about-literacy, if you will. Here's my reasoning...

'Literacy'
'Transliteracy' is treated as an extension of the term 'literacy', so everyone starts there. Here's my simple definition of 'literacy':

Literacy is the ability to read and write in a particular language.¹

No, this isn't in Wikipedia or the dictionary; neither usually includes that little part about language. But, I have to limit it by language because, though I can sound out the words in Der Spiegel, I would be lying if I said I was literate in German. This points to an important distinction in discussing literacy, between

Linguistic competency, and
Comprehension

The former allows us to recognize that a certain string of symbols is an instance of written language, that certain glyphs correspond to certain phonemes, that we should read left-to-right or right-to-left or boustrophedon, etc. Linguistic competency is akin to understanding (more or less) the syntactic, phonetic, and morphological rules so that we can "sound it out". On the other hand, comprehension is the ability to extract meaning from the written language². Note that comprehension requires linguistic competency (though not vice-versa). But, whatever...I'm supposed to be addressing transliteracy...

'Linguistic Competencies'
Consider the linguistic competencies involved in reading a book in English: the understanding of the alphabet, the understanding that '?' indicates a question, '!' indicates a surprise, tiny numbers at the ends of phrases are directional cues³, etc. And that's just parsing sentences, a whole range of other competencies are introduced by the medium itself. For example, English-language books are read from left-to-right and top-to-bottom. Books also make use of indices, bibliographies, tables of contents, page numbers, and a range of other features that point to specific linguistic competencies. Where it gets even more interesting is the way in which digital media often have unique syntactic elements independent of print. In a previous post I gave the example of the hyperlink. On Twitter we see the hash-tag and the URL shortener. When editing Wikipedia we have brackets, asterisks, and quotation marks. The list goes on, but the part I want to point out is that the mechanics of "print" literacy are expanded online. So, given that literacy requires comprehension and linguistic competency, if you can successfully comprehend a website (making use of the added syntactical rules) then you exhibit literacy in a domain with a slightly different set of linguistic competencies from print. But, you can't say that a person who has never been online, but is a voracious reader of books, is illiterate. So, literacy does not require comprehension in multiple domains. In fact, comprehension in multiple domains is just an instance of having multiple literacies. But, how do we move between them?

'Transliteration' and 'Translation'
Think back to the example of reading German. If you are a native English-speaker, yet you can comprehend German and understand the articles in Der Spiegel, then you are literate in German. In a sense, you are translating. Translation is simply the ability to communicate meaning from one written language into another. This is distinct from transliteration, which is the one-to-one mapping of signs (graphemes, phonemes, etc.) between languages. Translation preserves meaning but not necessarily syntax. Transliteration preserves syntax but not necessarily meaning. Either way, we are talking about moving between different languages, but facility with both a book and a Twitter feed is, ostensibly, happening within the same language. What gives? The answer is found in the expanded linguistic competencies.

'Second-Order Literacy'
Within the English language, digital media have introduced a range of new domains with new linguistic competencies required for comprehension. The neat part is that, in many cases, these new syntactical techniques are conceptually tied to other domains. When reading or writing in different media, our reading brains make these connections behind the scenes.⁴These connections come to the surface when we try to teach a new language or skill. This is why we make analogies between different formats: hyperlinks are like footnotes, hashtags are like words in the index, Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia, JSTOR is like a file-cabinet, etc. When we can comprehend information in multiple domains we exhibit multiple literacies. When we can step back and compare different linguistic domains, we engage in a second-order literacy: a literacy about literacies. This, I contend, is the meat of transliteracy. It isn't about learning how to use a particular digital tool. It isn't about social media. It isn't about new media, augmented reality, immersive story-telling, or any of that jazz. Transliteracy is about our ability to understand when and how we move across an ever-expanding realm of linguistic domains.

'The Value of a Second-Order Literacy'
I'm approaching transliteracy as a means for approaching certain aspects of information literacy, particularly the cognitive abilities involved in moving from one linguistic domain to another. Of course, information literacy also includes concepts of evaluating authority, locating relevant information, understanding proper sources, and a range of other skills; to me, transliteracy only addresses the rather specific IL area of linguistic competency. That's all. Information literacy is a a general concept; transliteracy is a specific concept entailed by information literacy. Moreover, even though I think that we already engage in transliteracy, that doesn't mean transliteracy is the "same old stuff". Criticisms along the lines of "why do we need a new term/buzzword for what we already do" or "isn't transliteracy just doing information literacy well" miss the point. It's like asking "isn't the Socratic method just doing instruction well?" Sure, we already engage in transliteracy, but by giving it a name and discussing it, we can better understand how to incorporate it into our instructional practices when we teach information literacy.

¹ This is very close to Brad's definition of literacy in his post 'On Transliteracy'. Thanks Brad!
² For the sake of simplicity, I'm only focusing on reading for now
³ ...that send you to the footnote at the bottom of the page
⁴ I'd use the term 'subconscious' but I don't want to be associated with any bullshit Freudian psychology

Final thoughts on transliteracy

2010-12-21T16:41:00.000-05:00

Before I head off on vacation, I thought I'd make one last shot at clarifying my position on transliteracy. As far as I'm concerned...

1. Transliteracy is a pedagogical method. Nothing more.¹
The people talking about transliteracy come from many, varied backgrounds and each brings a different approach to transliteracy, so I can't speak for their use of the term. For my part, I understand transliteracy strictly as a teaching method. It’s another pedagogical tool to add to the toolbox. A chapter in a book of teaching strategies, if you will. Transliteracy has nothing to do with combating the librarians who hide from Wikipedia or avoid the web…that’s just negligence. I’m only concerned with the students and faculty who are drawing distinctions between “academic” and “non-academic” research. One way I tackle student apprehension is to make a structured appeal to their existing competencies using analogy and cognitive transfer. I might make active use of, say, Wikipedia, in order to teach them about Academic OneFile. Of course, I also use games, demonstrations, quizzes, lectures and a whole slew of teaching tricks, so I don't see transliteracy as a . But, since I don’t know the actual name for the former method, I’m using transliteracy. In sum, teaching best practices for navigating the information ecosystem is good old information literacy, not transliteracy. Using Wikipedia as a means for teaching a library database, that’s what I want to focus on. Anything outside of that is outside of my realm of expertise.

2. Transliteracy is something librarians already engage in.
The criticisms are predictable: we already do this. Agreed. Libraries are already incorporating social media and other assorted digital sundries into their instruction. That's just good practice and it's nothing new. I'm only using transliteracy as a catch-all for one particular slice of information literacy that I haven't seen before. Marcus Banks sums up my position nicely: "transliteracy, as a concept, is an attempt to label what we are already doing--linking up traditional notions of authority with the realities of how people obtain information today."

3. 'Transliteracy' is just a word. It's the underlying concepts that matter.
Again, transliteracy is not a replacement for information literacy, it is a particular approach within information literacy. So, it isn't just information literacy and its an approach I don't know another name for. Fill in the blank: "_____________ is an instructional approach that attempts to harness students' existing linguistic competencies in one medium for use in another medium." Or, something like that. Whatever word works, we can just use that.

4. There is no unified front for transliteracy.
My take on transliteracy is mine alone. I can't speak to how other people use the term because that's outside my area of expertise. To borrow a term from John Jackson, I use transliteracy strictly as a metonym for a particular instructional approach. Others use the term to refer to different conceptual areas. Further, I'll grant that I don't always understand the various blog posts on transliteracy; many of them I find down right absurd. But, by and large these are smart people and there's always an instructive takeaway...whether from critics or supporters.

I could go on with the observations, but I'm almost off the reference desk, so I'll leave them for another time.

¹ Adapted from my comment on Meredith Farkas' recent post about transliteracy.

Subverting the vernacular through obfuscation

2010-12-20T09:19:00.000-05:00

So, I wrote this post over at Libraries and Transliteracy. In a nutshell, I argued that transliteracy can be viewed as a methodology that exists somewhere between the conservativism of the pro-book crowd and the naive optimism of the all-digital-all-the-time crowd. These two groups treat old-style literacy as completely at odds with the future of learning. My take is that both past and future are pretty cool and transliteracy can be a bridge between them.

I stand by my ideas, but I think I'll back off from the writing style. Why? Well, as David Rothman points out, the post was a mess of jargon and inaccessible technical writing. From terms like 'incommensurable', 'pedagogical', and 'hegemony' to unwieldy sentence structures, the writing was an unfortunate throwback to grad school.

You see, I had a really great e-mail conversation/argument with an old library school chum just prior to writing for L&T. He's a really astute guy, and the back-and-forth got so specific and technical that technical writing was legitimately called for. Couple that with having just read through the archives at HASTAC.org, and you just sort of start writing and even thinking in highly-technical terms.

But, blogs are not always the same as philosophy exams or personal communications. Many blogs are directed at a general audience from a range of disciplinary backgrounds and it's a mistake to think that what is transparent for me will necessarily be transparent for every reader. So, from now on I'll keep the technical stuff here on my personal blog and I'll try not to muddy the waters in more wide-reaching and important forums.

The Things I Carried

2010-12-17T10:04:00.000-05:00

I'm just back from a First Year Reading Experience Committee meeting. Briefly, the university is looking into a common reading program for incoming freshmen...Google "common reading program" for background. Today the committee took a list of 63 suggested titles and narrowed it down to five. Committee members will be reading these books over the holiday break. Hence the terrible pun in the title of this post...

You see, I'll be spending the holidays back in Michigan, meaning I'll be living out of a suitcase. I have five books to read for this committee: The Things They Carried, Bright-sided, The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, In Defense of Food, and The World without Us. On top of the committee work, I am in the middle of two books of fiction (City of Thieves and Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned), one book review for Choice (Virtue and Vice, Moral and Epistemic), and two books on librarianship (Questioning Library Neutrality and Humanism and Libraries). That's a grand total of ten (10!) books to pack and take up north. All that space in my suitcase! The added weight! The lack of convenience! But, Khristy has her own books...two or three books on Descartes, Inferno, Primal Myths, The Norton Book of Classical Literature, and at least two or three more. Man, I must really want an Kindle right about right now....

Except, I don't. Even in the case where e-readers are supposed to shine, I'm still not impressed. I want physical books that take up space and make my luggage heavier. I want to be reminded of the physicality of those books every time I rearrange the luggage to get Liam another toy. I want a stack of books on my nightstand and the promise that when I go home I can put those books on the shelf next to the hundreds of other books that make me dread moving to another house. You see, I like to have physical books around as souvenirs, as mementos, as proof...the simple haeccity of the books on the shelf is of unimaginable value.

It's not that I have anything against ebooks; they are justifiably useful, convenient, capable, and popular. But, ebooks are pure content, they lack the 'thingness' inherent in printed books. Physical books combine content with an extension in space that reaffirms their importance. Whether standing in rows on shelves or stacked on tables, paper books are there in a way that ebooks cannot be, and I like that. I like that Liam is growing up in a home with shelves of books in every room, reliquaries of our collective mental lives. I like that, as he grows up, books will be part of the architecture of his childhood, a subtle reminder of the importance of imagination, creativity, and intellect. Some people frame physical photographs and hang them on the wall; I shelve books.

So, I still don't want an ereader. Neither cost nor convenience will sway me. I would rather curse and sweat over the inconvenience of packing 10 or 20 books because in that instant the books reassert themselves as more than mere containers: they are souvenirs of the mind.

It's a book!

2010-12-15T11:15:00.004-05:00

This is on my short list of things to get for Liam.

I'm also over here...

2010-12-10T23:09:00.000-05:00

I just posted my first short article over at Libraries and Transliteracy. I'm really excited for the opportunity to post alongside some incredibly intelligent and successful people, and I urge all four of the spam-bots reading this to grab the feed for Libraries and Transliteracy. (Oh, and be sure to vote while yr at it!)

A self-referential example

2010-12-06T12:03:00.002-05:00

I just fielded a "what is transliteracy?" question and found the following example helpful:

Wait, did you just click on the words "following example"? Why the heck would you do that? Doesn't "following example" imply that there's something after the end of the sentence? What's the matter with you!?

Or, maybe, as a person literate with respect to hypertext, you realized that a few words in bold, orange type are probably a hyper-link to some external content. In a printed document, I would have to introduce the example via a colon, and then go on to describe an example of transliteracy. In a blog post, I can rely on my readers' understanding that the example I want to stress is behind the hyper-link...and I don't even need to say "Click Here" the way we used to.

Much as footnotes and indices are integral to reading in print, clicking hyper-links becomes an integral part of the reading process when online. The humble hyper-link has changed the way we read. But, what's really interesting is that we don't start tapping on bold-faced words in our print books. Whatever cognitive abilities allow us to effortlessly read, write, and communicate in these different spheres of literacy, these are the cognitive abilities that underlie transliteracy. The same holds true when we start analyzing more complex elements of competing literacies; things like hashtags, search algorithms, databases, annotated images, wikis, and beyond.

So, if you clicked on the following example without thinking, you acted under the auspices of transliteracy. If you had no idea that I wanted you to click there, well, now you know about embedded hyper-links.

Slideshare and failures in transliteracy

2010-12-03T10:26:00.001-05:00

Most all of the recent bloggery discussing transliteracy is focused on identifying positive instances. As I previously argued, this is a good thing...we need examples of transliteracy to help explain what, exactly, it is. Of course, positive accounts are only one option. I'd like to briefly point out the importance of discussing failures in transliteracy.

The SlideShare Problem
This morning, I had quite a few SlideShare presentations show up via Google Alerts, Twitter, and various feeds. I won't name names, but some of the presentations left me scratching my head. Now, I don't want to embarrass anyone, so I made a quick PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the type of sharing that confuses me. Go ahead and click, it's only eight slides. From hyper-minimal text to bold backgrounds to vague, over-arching concepts, I keep seeing this kind of slideshow in my feeds. In the hands of a skilled presenter, this is exactly the kind of slideshow I want to see...I don't want to be read to, I don't want to stare at a sea of text, and I like when the flexibility of such design affords a presenter. But, when I see a link proudly exclaiming "look at my awesome presentation on the future of libraries", and I get twenty photos with ten words, I see a failure to understand that many of the best presentations are meaningless without the speaker present. Moreover, I contend that this sort of practice on SlideShare is often an example of failure in transliteracy.

A Failure of Narrative
Oratory is an ancient art and whether the advent of PowerPoint is a boon or a curse largely depends on the communicative skills of the orator...the "slideshow literacy", if you will. We know what makes for a bad slideshow: from hideous colors to whole paragraphs of text on each slide to presenters simply reading the slides to the audience, there is no need to rehash the litany of bad PowerPoint practices. As the most effective orators demonstrate, the key is to make sure that the narrative is provided by the speaker...the slides are for emphasis, organization, and impact. So, the best slideshow presentations tend towards high-impact slides with minimal text, freeing the speaker to extemporize, ruminate, and guide the audience. In sum, the "slideshow literate" presenter sets herself up as the focal point and the presentation is not overly determined by the slides.

But, when this "Jobsian" type of slideshow is exported to SlideShare, the narrative is often lost. In providing raw slides, with no orator to link them, a winning presentation at the conference can quickly become a puzzling string of non-sequiturs on the web. Blame this on the separate "literacy" of social file-sharing or hosting sites; this is a communicative practice that tends towards the asynchronous and the self-guided. That is, the "literacy" involved in communicating in the cloud includes some sort of requirement that the context of a particular message be included. You don't just upload photos...you upload photos and annotate them. You don't just blog a series of bullet points...you explain yourself. So, in the case of minimalist presentations on SlideShare, why is the narrative element often missing?

Competing Literacies
This is the important bit. The minimalist slideshows I keep seeing on SlideShare are often uploaded by people who are very "slideshow literate" and also very "social media literate". These are people who can command an audience at a conference in the morning and then write a stunning blog-post later in the day. The problems occur at the intersection of these distinct literacies, in this case, SlideShare. In effect, certain SlideShare users conflate literacies and fail to take into consideration the proper means for communicating the same message across platforms. I contend that this is a failure in transliteracy: specifically, a person can be literate in two separate communicative areas, yet be unable to communicate across them, at their intersection.

It's Not SlideShare's Fault
The most effective presentations have their narratives provided in real-time by the presentation. This is a good thing. But, in the absence of the presenter, the narrative is lost. Even a Steve Jobs presentation would be difficult to comprehend without him there to walk us through it. Since SlideShare is a means of sharing a presentation with the speaker in absentia, it is clear that the burden of exposition must be shifted from the presenter back to the slides. But, this is the road back to the overly wordy slides that we should avoid in presentations.

Note that none of this is the fault of SlideShare. To its credit, SlideShare offers the ability to annotate or provide speaker notes for any presentation. There is no need to leave asynchronous viewers in the dark. Further, there are plenty of examples of SlideShare presentations that are (1) compelling when seen at a conference and (2) informative when seen at SlideShare. When just the right amount of narrative is included in the slides, the live presentation can avoid mere recitation and the shared file can avoid incoherence. Achieving this balance is an exercise in transliteracy.

The Transliterate Presenter
This long-winded post can be summarized succinctly: presenting a good slide-based presentation requires a certain "literacy" with respect to slideshows, expressing oneself well via social media requires a certain "literacy" with respect to decontextualized, decentralized, asynchronous communication, the ability to blend the two in one place requires the ability to understand the benefits and limitations of each communication platform and format the message accordingly. Failure to do so is a failure in transliteracy.

Transliteracy: a brief example

2010-11-23T11:56:00.001-05:00

Last night a patron asked for help designing a website. Expecting a laborious foray into HTML and CSS, imagine my surprise when she showed me her laptop...the webpage was being built using Weebly. Here's the catch: I had never seen Weebly until that very instant. I didn't even know what a 'Weebly' was. How could I possibly help her include a hyperlinked image on her website when I had never seen the Weebly design platform before?

Well, it took less than five minutes to teach her how to use Weebly. But...how could I take a content editor I had never seen and turn it into a teaching moment? The answer is transliteracy.

Let me give a rough approximation of my thought processes. First, a screenshot of Weebly may help:

The particular task the patron needed help with involved (1) uploading a local image to her Weebly page, (2) inserting the image in the upper-left part of the main content area, and (3) adding a hyperlink to the image. Here's how I tackled it:

Note that Weebly has a "toolbar" with assorted content elements from which to choose
The "canvas" instructs users to drag elements into place.
Most programs that allow you to insert an image will allow you to upload an image from your local machine.
Content editors usually allow left, center, and right justifications at a bare minimum.
Most authoring programs allow you to set hyperlinks with either a right-click context menu or a little icon that either says "link" or shows a few links of chain
So, in Weebly, you probably drag the photo icon to the intended spot on the canvas, look for a context menu that says "insert image" or something similar, locate the desired image on your computer, look for a context menu with a chain icon or the word 'link', copy and paste the desired URL at the appropriate place, and save/submit.

This is pretty much exactly how to do it. But, that's not the interesting part. What interests me is that, whereas I took one look at Weebly and understood how to use it, the patron was completely lost.

Though I had never seen Weebly before, a quick glance at its editing environment brought to mind other content editors ranging from PowerPoint to Word to Blogger to Picasa and more. Further, I understand the basics of HTML and the general design principles that websites usually follow. Almost instantaneously, I was able to take a new content editor, and map onto it the user interfaces and design principles for dozens of programs that I know quite well. I never had to Google for help or click around until I found the answer. In a sense, I knew how to use Weebly without ever having seen it. This, I contend, is an instance of transliteracy.

To explain, notice what it was not. It was not an instance of communicating using multiple media. It was not a particular level of comfortability with the digital. What it was was an instance of the cognitive processes that allowed me to take preexisting concepts and apply them in a new environment. I am literate with respect to, say, Blogger, meaning I understand the syntax, the semiotics, and the semantics of the Blogger platform. In successfully transferring this "literacy" (and others) to Weebly, I exhibited transliteracy.

Granted, this is a crude example, but it's what I think of when I hear talk of transliteracy: i.e., transliteracy refers to certain cognitive abilities that allow us to transfer skills and knowledge across a range of information systems. I'm not proffering a definition. I'm just giving an everyday example. I'll be a bit more technical in the next post.