Introduction and Week 1 Reading Notes:

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.