habitually probing generalist

Some people in my chosen profession terrify me.  Some just baffle me.

I have just finished reading Gross, Tina and Arlene G. Taylor. "What Have We Got to Lose? The Effect of Controlled Vocabulary on Keyword Searching Results." College & Research Libraries, 66(3): May 2005, pp. 212-230. 

I literally do not know where to begin.  And let me state categorically, none of my comments have anything to do with my following the path of cataloging.  They are entirely based on my own experience in using library catalogs and on the theoretic knowledge I have learned in school; knowledge I would have received no matter which direction I pursue.

Let me be up front here, it is the authors who baffle me.  Certainly this study has merit in its own right, but it seems to have been generated by an unattributed "suggestion."  If so, then I am baffled about why someone would go to the trouble of doing this research for a ‘simple’ comment.  If it isn’t so simple—say, was it the dean of a major ARL institution?—then why not finger them?  I know, I know.  Politics.  Another good reason to be terrified.  So fine, we have some important research reported, along with good suggestions for further research.  Thank you.  Sincerely.

As I said, it appears to have been generated by an unattributed "suggestion (in at least one academic library) that subject headings should be stripped from the bibliographic records in the catalog. The argument was that thousands of subject headings needlessly take up gigabytes of space because users hardly ever search for subject headings" (213).

It is the attitude that supposedly led to this suggestion, and more so, the people who hold it that terrifies me.  Who are these people?  Are they librarians?  Are they educated human beings?

This is such a specious argument, or a highly disingenuous one, or both!  Give me a break—"gigabytes of space."  Please!  Do you have any idea what "gigabytes of space" cost?  Even in a RAID configuration?  This argument is not even worth discussing people!  It is a total nonstarter.

Now the real argument—the disingenuous one—is that "an unspoken cost saving, of course, would be that catalogers would not need to provide subject headings for new records" (213).

Bafflement.  Did the authors just get intrigued by the mentioned attitude and comment, and realize that this was an interesting and important study so they went ahead and did it?  Or was it solely in response to this comment?  Or were they already interested in the question and maybe even working on it, but used the "suggestion" as part of their rhetoric?  I don’t know, and since I agree that this study presents useful information I’ll accept  the bafflement.

Terror.   Utter and complete terror.  I really do not want to squelch conversation, nor even dissent [you swear an oath to the Constitution for 20+ years and you'll know what I mean], but we can’t have a conversation if we don’t know which idiots [oops, sorry] kind souls are saying things like this.  I know for a fact that I sometimes say stupid things, and I expect, and even hope that people will call me on them.  But if I’m allowed to say them in a vacuum then no one can do so, and I can’t learn from the wisdom of others.

The authors talk about keywords being found in other fields besides the subject heading fields in the bib record, but let’s be honest with ourselves here.  If catalogers aren’t putting in subject headings, there are going to be a lot of other fields not being filled in!  Saves even more money, and so many more of those critical gigabytes, now doesn’t it?

The data presented are very interesting and will be needed to counter arguments such as, "Who needs controlled vocabulary subject headings because we now have tables of contents?"  Nice to know that this wonderful new, and, yes, useful, tool seriously reduces precision though.  Tends to move less relevant, and nonrelevant, hits to the top.  Yes, there are means by which this can be (somewhat) compensated for.  But we already know that most users are not, and do not want to be, sophisticated searchers.  And if we stop catering to the lowest common denominator for a second (remember, the "suggestion" was made in an academic library), what would be the effect on scholars?  And feel free to tell me that we’re really trying to serve our students and we all know how sophisticated they are.  Wink, wink. 

I call "bullshit" on several counts.  First, while many of them are simple-minded in their search techniques and in their use of material, not all of them are.  And part of that problem is fully ours by our simple-minded acceptance of difficult to use OPAC and database interfaces.  Simple-to-use does not equate to completely powerless.  Secondly, I can’t begin to recall how many arguments I heard made within an academic library on behalf of the faculty, and sometimes the grad students (as if they are automatically better students), when the institution is primarily an undergraduate one with the university and library mission statements claiming as much.  In many cases, the mission statement gets a generous wink while the primary constituency is purposefully overlooked.   I am not claiming that that is always a bad thing, just that it is often a reality.

So, if we truly want to also support our better "scholars," why would we even consider making it harder, in multiple ways, for them to find what they need?  Enough on this study for now, I highly suggest you read it and think about it.  I most certainly will continue to do so.  It may even serve to help focus my interests in cataloging and classification, because I have no doubt that more "suggestions" like the one mentioned in this study are going to be forthcoming in a very public way.  Actually, they already exist, just usually argued from another angle.

Now I’d like to turn to why I think, ‘politics’ be damned, the person making the suggestion should be identified.  Please keep in mind, there is absolutely no reason why if this was so for the sake of discussion that it could not be kept civil and polite. 

If I just had a lifetime to research everthing that I find interesting… <sigh>.  I believe that, like much of our society today, our profession is overrun with what M.P. Baumgartner identified as "moral minimalism" in her wonderful book, The Moral Order of a Suburb. (NY: Oxford UP, 1988) 

"This book contends that such a peacable way of life arises from fluidity in social relations, a lack of social integration, and a relative indifference among people—all of which are customarily viewed as sources of disorder and antagonism in human affairs.  Instead, … , these conditions actually foster a moral order largely devoid of violence and rancor and noteworthy for civility and forbearance" (3).

"In practice, moral minimalism encompasses a variety of responses to interpersonal problems, all of which manifest an aversion to confrontation and conflict and a preference for spare, even weak strategies of control.  Thus, depending on the circumstances, these suburbanites tend to tolerate or do nothing at all about behavior they find disturbing, abandon matters in contention, simply avoid those who annoy them, approach offenders in a conciliatory fashion, or complain secretly to officials who might serve as their champions" (10-11).

Please do not misunderstand me!  I am most definitely not arguing for violence and rancor among library staff, or suburbanites.  Neither was Baumgartner.  And yes, civility and forbearance can be virtues.  But they are not always so.  There are other socio-historical methods of resolving conflict besides aggression or avoidance.  Read Baumgartner and see if some of what she says doesn’t apply to libraries.  I admit my view is colored by my time in a highly dysfunctional library.  It can’t help but be.  I am also aware that there are libraries that are not as dysfunctional.  But I would submit that they are so because they are not engaged in the avoidance behavior elicited by moral minimalism, while still remaining civil and forbearant.   

That is why I believe the person making the suggestion should be identified.  Not for the purpose of public ridicule, bu to foster discussion rather than avoidance.  And yes, you might argue the topic hasn’t been avoided—it was brought out in a major professional publication.  And you would be correct.  But I would still maintain that this sort of behavior is a form of avoidance, and as such is a form of professional moral minimalism.

As I stated above, I often say things that could have been thought out better, or are even outright stupid; we all do.  But I hope and desire to be called on them.  Ask me to refine my comment or my argument.  Present a side I haven’t considered or have too lightly dismissed.  Some of this could’ve been made more clear or argued more fully.  I know that.  But I didn’t just react and spit this out.  I have actually been working on this on-and-off for over three and a half days now.  It is far from perfect, but it is only supposed to represent some reasonably considered 1st thoughts.  So here they are.  Let me know if you disagree, think I’m an idiot, or have suggestions for tightening up the argument, etc.

Baumgartner’s arguments were very lightly sketched.  I suggest you read the book.  Just steel yourself first.  It is rather innocuous in its presentation, but as I told Dr. Stivers once, "It is probably the most terrifying book I have ever read!"  It is truly frightening in its implications.