Hello!
Before we get down to the nitty gritty (which probably won't be all that nitty or gritty this week-- Jello pudding more than tapioca), let me tell you a little bit about myself. I have a BA in Psychology from Kenyon College and an MSc in Research Methods in Psychology with an emphasis in Music Psychology from Keele University, Staffordshire, UK. I've worked as a professional musician, a clerk at a large corporate law firm and as a waiter and bartender. Inevitably these experiences will inform my future posts and responses...
(As a matter of nuts and bolts, I'd like to mention that full citations of the articles in question are not provided at the end of this post, as we've all read the same ones, so there shouldn't be too much confusion.)
As promised, I'd like to mention my reaction to the articles we read for Week 1 in the context of my previous experience in the field of Psychology. I wasn't sure what to expect from articles published in the field of LIS, though I was somewhat certain they wouldn't exactly resemble the articles one typically sees in the field of Psychology or Music Psychology. This, indeed, turned out to be the case (though to varying degrees depending on the article in question). Therefore, the primary topics to be discussed will be: article formatting, vocabulary used, and citation habits.
1. 2004 Information Trends: Content, Not Containers (OCLC, 2004)
The language used in this article was perhaps the most surprising aspect of it-- 'consumer' frequently popped up. Certainly, it makes sense to see the world of information technology and access to information in terms of information producers and information consumers, but the word 'consumer' has always alluded to marketing in my mind. (It's associated with opinion leaders and influencers, etc.) In an unexpected way, the use of this term was very effective (even if unintentionally) at drawing a permanent link in my mind between the dissemination of information and the financial forces that underly that dissemination.
Probably somewhat more directly in line with the intent of the authors is the notion that the packaging of information, the containers referred to in the title, is in a state of flux. Tinier pieces of information, pieces that might have previously been considered only fragments of a larger artifact, have become commodities. This commodification has and will continue to have an impact on the shape of the information market. We already buy songs separate from records and melodies separate from songs (in the form of ringtones). It'll be interesting to see how far this dissecting trend goes...
2. Information Literacy and Information Technology Literacy: New Components in the Curriculum for a Digital Culture (Lynch, 1998)
The date of this article struck me immediately. Publishing psychologists, it has been my experience, tend to adhere to a ten-year rule--- that is, if it hasn't been published within the past ten years, it's probably not a particularly interesting article, as the information contained (if of any initial interest) has more than likely already made its way into the canon of relevant articles.
Despite the date, to an LIS newbie like me, it was interesting to see a professional's differentiation between Information Literacy and Information Technology Literacy. In a field that seems riddled with Jargon and alphabet soup, sometimes I guess it's nice to have the basic concepts laid out for you.
3. Lied Library @ four years: technology never stands still (Vaughan, 2004)
I smiled when I saw this one. It's from a peer-reviewed journal (judging from the Received, Revised, Accepted dates provided) and it has an abstract and a body complete with methodology and findings sections. I guess you could say this article was like a comfy couch. However, I was a little wary of reading it after I noticed that it's classified as a case-study, which in the world of psychology usually means that there's some validity (however much or little), but not a great deal of reliability. Accordingly, I was pleasantly surprised to realize how universal the issues of funding, machine maintenance and utilization of space were to all libraries, particularly those on par with Jason Vaughan's library at UNLV.
In terms of the articles citations, I was surprised to see how self-referential the author was. Five out of six of the authors references were to papers he either authored or coauthored. I wonder if this is common practice in LIS? Similarly, I wonder how many people have referenced this article... I suppose that's something to check out after class tonight.
In summary, I was surprised at the breadth of article formatting, authorship and publication. Similarly, I did not expect so many of the references provided by the authors to consists of URLs or self-authored works. I look forward to keeping an eye on these aspects of publication in the field of LIS as we progress through the weeks of LIS 2600. Have a good day!
Time for lunch.
OCLC views patrons as consumers because they are a company that provides services to libraries. Two instances: DDC and WorldCat. OCLC owns the Dewey Decimal System, so they maintain it and charge for its use (although they have some free resources for it... if anyone is interested in those, I can share them). They also are the owners of WorldCat- you've probably used WorldCat before to see if books are in your library or to get things from interlibrary loan. Catalogers also use OCLC to download and upload records to share with each other. For them, libraries are about marketing and commodity- if they don't cater to the "consumers" they don't make their money!
ReplyDeleteRegarding your reaction to the use of the word "consumer" in the OCLC article, I can see why such a connotation comes to your mind. I actually received my bachelor's degree in business administration, with a concentration in information technology. I can tell you from what I studied and my experiences that I too am able to notice this link. Whenever there is a new technology out there, people want to learn how to master it the same reason why they want to buy big cars or shiny watches/jewelery. It becomes more of a status thing if anything.
ReplyDeleteAs for that so called "ten-year rule" you brought up in your response to the Lynch article, I do not think I can support such a notion. Of course, I am aware that information has an expiration date. However, it is essential to preserve the source as to carefully trace the history of the profession. Since you majored in psychology, I will use Freud as an example. Even though most of what he presented would be useless by today's standards, people need to know what paved the way to what has become your field of study.
Speaking of your major, I felt like I was under the impression that you were dismissing the Vaughan article on the grounds that it was a case-study. I understand that some sources of information seem more legitimate than others in varying circumstances, but apparently, through a psychologist's point of view, all case-studies must be viewed in a somewhat dismissive manner. In my opinion, that is a pretty unfair judgment.
@ Amy James: Thanks for the background on OCLC. I wasn't aware that they owned the Dewey Decimal System!
ReplyDelete@ att16: Glad to hear I'm not the only one made wary by the term 'consumer.' haha.
In response to the ten-year-rule (and without getting into Freud), it was not my intention to dismiss all articles more than ten years old, or to treat the ten-year-rule as a practical dictate in any field. I only meant to imply that the older an article gets, the more likely it has been cited in other works if it has been deemed worthwhile by the author's professional peers. The more it has been cited, the more likely it is that the thoughts contained in the paper have been expanded by subsequent authors, perhaps making the work of said subsequent authors somewhat more engaging. Regardless of the date published, Lynch offers some very useful insights into the definitions of IT Literacy and Information Literacy-- seeing such an old article is just not what I'm used to outside of literature reviews.
Regarding case-studies: if effective information seeking is as much about determining the relevance of information as it is about finding the information itself, it's necessary to qualify and assess both content and context. Case studies are typically great at pointing out issues that deserve further research-- in fact, they're invaluable for developing theory; however, they should be viewed with caution, as the issues faced in one isolated situation are not necessary generalizable to other situations. In this case (as i said in my post), I was pleasantly surprised to see that the issues Vaughan discussed seemed to be very generalizable.
In any case, I get it: I'll keep the psych stuff down to a dull roar in the future. It's just where I'm coming from. Thanks for your comments.
I also found the use of the word "consumer" rather odd because it implies that the user is a customer and, as far as I know, most libraries do not see their users as such. However, in the context of the article the word is appropriate because both the users and the libraries are consumers of information technologies.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 10 year rule, it really depends on what you are studying. Some aspects of Library Science (and in my experience Archival Science) are slower to develop or change thus older articles can still be relevant. However, I just read your comment to att16 and you make a very good point. It is not always necessary to cite an original article if the ideas have been built upon.
As for the case-study, again speaking from an archival science POV, there is a battle going on between theory and practice. Having examples of case-studies help to show what is working and how. For a field that is reluctant to jump in and try new things, it is reassuring to know you are not doing so blindly.
And don't worry about inserting psychology into your comments and notes, we all come from different backgrounds which will influence how we interpret the readings. Reading other peoples comments helps to give different perspectives on the subjects.