Monthly Archives: July 2005

“Altruistic and inexpensive” boondoggle

Posted on by

Check out Jessamyn’s post loan forgiveness, the librarian shortage and Laura Bush.

We certainly do live in interesting times people.  ALA’s announcement claims up to 40% of Perkins loans (in certain circumstances) can be forgiven.  The other 2 articles she appended don’t specify which loans qualify, only that up to $5000 can be forgiven after 5 consecutive years served (under certain conditions). 

I’m guessing that ALA got it right and that it is Perkins loans that qualify, not Stafford loans or any others.  I could certainly be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that only Perkins loans qualify for these sorts of loan forgiveness programs.

This altruistic, inexpensive addition to the Higher Education Act would provide a substantial incentive for tomorrow’s leaders to help educate and assist America’s children who live in some of the poorest communities in our country, Rep Becerra said.

Yes, it will be inexpensive.  Altruistic, no.  Not with the announcement splashed all over your congressional webpages.  Seems pretty darn politically motivated to me.  Please, where’s the altrusim?  Or is it defined differently out there in California?

Yes, it will be cheap, because almost no one gets any serious amount of Perkins dollars, and after 5 years you’d already have much of what you did get paid off!  I’m $26k in debt in student loans.  Only $2.5k of that is Perkins loans.  Less than 10%.  What a scam for political gain.  All I can say is that I hope someone actually benefits from it.

As for the librarian shortage bit of Jessamyn’s post title, yes, ALA managed to scam these fools into believing that tripe they’ve been spouting:

Public libraries and schools across this nation are experiencing a dire shortage of librarians. Nationwide, 47 percent of our librarians are expected to reach retirement age by 2008,
while it has become increasingly difficult to recruit and retain librarians due to low salaries and direct competition with industries recruiting workers with similar skills.

Damn!   I have got to get new glasses!  I must be missing these librarians that are dropping like flies around me.  And I must seriously be deluded about all those new students who so joyfully graced the halls of our schoolhouse the last few weeks.  And, again I could be wrong, but aren’t admissions up overall for 2005-2006?

47% by 2008?  That’s less than 2 and a half years.  I just want to SCREAM!

Update 23 Jul 05 AM:

Haven’t Perkins loan program been slashed/underfunded the last several years?  (Sorry, too lazy to look it up right now.  I do believe it to be the case.)

Now that I’ve spent more than a few minutes thinking about this, I’m really beginning to believe that it and similar incentive programs through IMLS (see below) are not good things.

Yes, I certainly believe that qualified students who need monetary help to attend school should get it.  And I also believe that our profession is way too "white bread" and that we need us some real diversity. 

Now that that’s on the table let’s push it to the side for the moment for there are other ways to accomplish those goals.  I don’t see how ALA’s machinations on these things are going to help overall in the long-term.  First off, there is no impending shortage!  Maybe in 15-20 years.  Maybe.  And if that’s the case then why are we offering money to today’s students.  Shouldn’t we be targeting kindergarteners through, say, 5th graders?

And one of these days, the politicians who have been sponsoring these assorted ways of "helping our profession" are going to realize that they got taken, and it may even affect them politically.  Then when we really need their help with some serious cash (not that we don’t now—but for other issues) they won’t be there to support us.  Our profession needs to engage our governments, at all levels, for adequate funding for libraries, of all types, now.

Taking taxpayers money for boondoggles such as currently unneeded recruitment efforts is simply unethical.  And if you think that’s harsh (sorry, I don’t), then it is still wrong when there are so many more issues that we need taxpayer money for.

If I was a conspiracy minded person I’d say that ALA must have some reason to want to keep library worker salaries low.  Luckily, I can’t think of any.

I just don’t get any of this.  I really am naive on how and why ALA operates as it does.  But I know that councilors such as Jessamyn and Michael also have issues with the "shortage" issue.  Karen, your thoughts?  And to all, why is it they focus on this sort of distraction instead of real issues?

My guesses are bureaucracy, playing politics, and some version of Michael’s idea re the ease of talking vs. taking action.  Whatever the reasons, they are not good ones.

Anyone else have any thoughts on these issues?  I really do not want to believe that our major professional organization is undermining libraries and librarians, but currently, I do.

See:
IMLS Funds $21 Million in Library Recruitment Programs

Can we be neutral professionals?

Posted on by

I recommend that you read this excellent, and balanced, article, "The Myth of the Neutral Professional" by Robert Jensen, at Progressive Librarian Iss. 24, Winter 2004.

Argues, correctly, that there is no privileged place from which to stand with a claim of neutrality.

In any situation, there exists a distribution of power. Overtly endorsing or contesting that distribution are, of course, political choices; such positions are not neutral. But to take no explicit position by claiming to be neutral is also a political choice, particularly when one is given the resources that make it easy to evaluate the consequences of that distribution of power and potentially affect its distribution.

Argues that to be accepted as a neutral professional in the US today means an acceptance of the dominant ideology, which consists of two tenets:  "the benevolence of the United States in foreign policy" and "the naturalness of capitalism."

I called it balanced because Jensen is not pointing fingers at anyone here.  He is simply pointing out the fact that there is no privileged position, but that that belief is encouraged by the powers that be because it is useful in discouraging analysis of the distribution of power.

I am not arguing that people who work within, and
accept, the dominant ideology are by definition wrong or corrupt;
reasonable people can disagree about how best to understand and analyze
complex systems. My point is simply that it is not a position of
neutrality.

He goes on to discuss how this belief in the "neutral professional" works in journalism, the academy, and libraries.  Very interesting read.  And for those for which it matters, it is short too.

Highly recommended 5-10 minute read.

TwT

Posted on by

Diversionary tactics?

With all this thinking lately about blogging in academia, and its possible negative impact on the job search, I realized that I can always just start a diversion when the time comes.

I don’t know about other schools, but we have electronic bulletin boards here at UIUC.  Considering how many employers and search committee members are UIUC grads, I wonder how many look at those regularly, or when they are considering one of our grads for a job.  More importantly, what impact, if any, do these postings have on the hiring process?

I am not going to pick on anybody in particular, or even a particular topic even if it is extremely timely, because I actually know, respect, and even like many of these people.  Plus, there are people out there in cyberspace engaging in the some of the same behavior who I feel similarly drawn to.

But seriously folks!  A little passion and excitement in life is a good thing, but can we get that excited about something other than the various pop culture phenomena that are mass marketed to us?

Slacker students

I mean I really find it hard to engage people in a decent discussion about a serious topic of concern to the profession, but then I see scores of posts doing in depth analyses of this, that, or the other pop culture phenom of the moment (or past). 

Why can’t we do that with some article we had to read for class, or if you just can’t face more "class" than you are already forced to bear, why not something else that we choose ourselves?  For instance, something like:  Håkanson, Malin.  "The Impact of Gender on Citations: An Analysis of College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and Library Quarterly." College & Research Libraries, 66(4), pp. 312-322.

I guess I shouldn’t expect any more from a group of students who can’t even assemble in a large enough gaggle to justify the offering of a research methods course to the Masters students.   Joy and Meredith recently discussed the limitations of these courses at their institutions.  They both express legitimate concerns thoughtfully.  But we don’t even get a chance.  No, it is not a mandatory course.  Nor can we get more than five students to enroll in it when offered as an elective so that it is cancelled as non-cost-effective.

Just another one of those things that my Ph.D. seeking friends point out as a reason I should be in their cohort.  But there are even better reasons for me not to pursue a Ph.D.  I just don’t think it is asking too much for Masters students to actually be engaged in their education.

I know I’m a bit of an oddity when it comes to education, but can we just care a bit more?  I just can’t fathom how students who want to be librarians, or information scientists, or whatever appellation they prefer, can not be more involved in their own educations.  This one may truly qualify me as naive.  So be it. 

It is truly a sad reflection on much of the current system though.  And yes, if I get to spend a bit more time here like I’m thinking, I will take the doctoral research methods course.  No. 1 school, whatever.

Post title refers to Trouble with Tribbles (and I. Tribble), or maybe it should be Shepherding sheep?

Update:

Maybe no one noticed but there was a bit of comment coming and going here.  A friend made a hastier comment than they had meant to and preferred they had not, so I happily removed it and my reply.

But part of my reply was something I had wanted to say from the moment I wrote this post, but I decided to put if off and see what became of the post.  With my reply I did address it.  I need to readdress it since that is now gone.

The point is that I want to people to understand that I believe that I attend a darn fine program, with some great professors/instructors, truly caring staff, and many awesome students!

But, as with any institution, some things can always be better.  And our job, as caring members of that institution, is to make them visible and to help to change them for the better.  Thus, I am often critical of certain things I see as deficient/lacking/sub-standard/whatever within whatever organization I am a member of.  I also give my all to contribute in as many positive ways as I can.  Both the positive and negative are my repsonsibility as a caring, engaged member of the organization.  And when you throw into the mix that we are supposed to be "the #1 pick-a-noun," well, you had better count on some even tougher criticism on occasion.  Because if you claim to be the best you had better be working on really being it.

Reply to Lisle

Posted on by

This is an update to my Research assumptions? post and is in reply to a comment from Lisle:

Thanks, Lisle, for believing that I’m not an idiot.  I would also like to say that I’m not naive.  But, of course I am, at least about some things.  I don’t believe this is one of them though.  I know too much about the idea of science and about the practice of science to be naive on this topic.

I do believe that what the author claims is, in fact, a state of the world, or at least some part of the world.  I have no doubt that some people think the way claimed.  My point is that not all do, even if it is only me who doesn’t, and that the author cannot simply assume that authors choose citations based on the gender of the author.  There are so many other reasons, almost all of which are better science methodologically.  I’ll return to the topic of science in a minute or two.  So, I do comprehend; I just don’t understand.  I am sorry that I can’t explain any better.  I think it is a limit of our language.  Maybe if I wrote a 20-page treatise I could get near to the idea, but who has the time, and who would read it?  I know what I mean, I just can’t explicate it to others.  As to other limits of our language….

Gendered language

I do have to disagree with you on the first initial only proposal, although I do agree that your reason is a good one in support of it.  I think it isn’t such a good idea based on two fronts off the top of my head.  One is the cataloging/citation angle, the other is (authorial) reference in the English language.  From the cataloging/citing aspect, how is anyone to identify anything if all we use is 1st initial?  Yes, I am aware that many disciplines, e.g. psychology, use this style.  It sucks!  While it would somewhat solve the reference based on gender issue—at least until people in the field learned who is who—it would make access and reference seriously complicated. 

Over on the AUTOCAT discussion list is an ongoing conversation about LCs proposal to allow death dates to be added to the Name Authority File.  This has developed into a full-blown rehashing of expanded name entries.  I don’t feel like recapping all of the issues but they are many, on both sides.  And the same issues transgress the boundaries of cataloging work into those of bibliographic citation.  One of our main tenets is to assist the reader.  I don’t see how making access and citation more difficult is aiding the reader.  It certainly doesn’t aid this reader.

The second issue I can easily think of is reference in the English language.  I am certainly aware of much power politics in the use of language, although I do wonder about how these issues play out in a language that is explicitly gendered, such as Spanish, or in non-Western languages.  Leaving aside said politics of repression for a moment, gendered pronouns are quite useful in the English language.  I’m not saying we shouldn’t do something to fix the problems of gender, but the s/he thing is a complete abomination.  Maybe we do need a non-gendered pronoun to refer to persons.  If it makes sense and is useful, and usable, I would be happy to support it.  But, that would be a substantive restructuring of English.

…it’s a directionless story
and the dialogue is lame
but in the he said she said
sometimes there’s some poetry…
Ani DiFranco. "Hell Yeah." out of range.

But I don’t see why I can’t refer to the author of the CRL article by she or he; except for I don’t know which gender Malin is.  I found it very hard to construct several of my sentences when writing that post.  I realize that such constructions, as "the author," are routinely used in many disciplines but I can’t stand using them, at least not all of the time.

I sometimes find it quite useful to know the gender of the author.  For one, it makes non-academic reference much easier.  And I believe it does matter in a case like the one at hand.  Considering the article is about gendered citations and the implications of such, it would be very useful to know the gender of the author.  While I concede that it doesn’t really tell me much, it does give me some basis for understanding the phrasing of some of the claims at least.  I know, it shouldn’t matter to science.  I even said so.  But, it does matter. 

One has to disentangle the clearly social aspect of doing and participating in the scientific process from the scientific methodology.  But even that division won’t get us what we want; just take a look at any recent book/article on the sociology of science.  Who and what we are, and especially gender, has a definite impact on how we think about, navigate in, and address the world.  Certainly not in any strict prescriptionist way, but it certainly has an impact.  Else we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, nor would the article at hand have been written.

Now, this is not to claim that male or female "thinking" is better than the other or that one leads to better science.  Personally, I prefer the female, especially in science, and in politics.  Would the world really be a better place if women had been running it all along?  We’ll never really know; although I like to believe so. 

"Science"

You know, I think I’ll leave the science question pretty much alone as it isn’t truly relevant to my question about the article.  If the author seriously thinks there is much science going on in CRL, JAL, and LQ then so be it.  I’m just not in the mood to write a treatise here about a side issue.

Thanks for your comment Lisle!  This is why I blog—it makes me think deeply about how I perceive the world around me.  I have spent untold hours over the past two weeks thinking about the issues and the conversation surounding Tribble’s Chronicle article, not that I hadn’t thought some about them before, and also many hours over the past few days on this reply to Lisle.  I revisited many of my thoughts and previous writings on ‘science’ and started to write them out for this. 

Maybe I have spent too much time as an observer and critic of science, and not as a practitioner, to see the sense of gendered rhetoric in science.  Maybe if my research and standing in the community depended on it I would also be playing that game.  I would like to believe otherwise though.

I will give the author all of their claims, with the caveat that not everyone behaves that way.  But even if I do, they still cannot assume that under the rhetorical theory of reference that all choice is made on the basis of gender.  That is an assumption that must be demonstrated!

So yes, I do understand that many play the game as the author describes it, and I understand the supposed advantages of playing it that way.  I, me personally, just don’t understand it, or those who do play it that way.

Again, a very good article about an important topic, despite the broad, unexamined assumption.

I hope this clarifies my thoughts some.

Blogging in the Academy

Posted on by

think of me what you will
i’ve got a little space to fill
so let’s get to the point….
Tom Petty. "You Don’t Know How It Feels." Wildflowers.

I’m not really happy with much of this, but it is well past time to get it out.   Besides, the thought, for me anyway, is that others can then comment or argue and help me refine my thinking.

No I don’t need a miracle,
but I could use a push in the right direction.
The Refreshments. "Interstate." Fizzy Fuzzy Big & Buzzy.

For me, feedback is one of, if not the main, reason for blogging.   It is great to be an expert on something and to be able to pronounce from on high on a topic, but there are far fewer of these experts than many in academia would like to believe!

Maybe there’s a metaphor in this that I’ll use for my blogging.   It is blogging as the peer review process in action.   Just a bit more public, and a bit less anonymous.   I have a lot of respect for the peer review process, not because I particularly believe in it, but because it has turned out so much that I value.   It has also turned out a whole load of horse pitooey! 

wish i didn’t have this nervous laugh
wish i didn’t say half the stuff i say
wish i could just learn to cover my tracks
guess i’m just not concerned enough with getting away
with it

cause every time i try to hold my tongue
it slips like a fish from the line
they say if you’re going to play
you should learn how to play dumb
guess i can’t bring myself to waste your time….
Ani DiFranco. "Light of Some Kind."  Not A Pretty Girl.

I am tired, oh so very tired.  Not so much physically.  More so mentally.  Primarily at a deep existential level.

There has been a lot of talk lately in the blogosphere, much of it good, about blogging and "the job." 

random access mazar Keeping a Blog and Keeping Your Job: Not a Guide 30 Jun
Caveat Lector Keeping Blog and Job 30 Jun
Information Wants To Be Free Safe Blogging 5 Jul

Then on 8 Jul we get Bloggers Need Not Apply in the Chronicle.  I had actually read some commentary on it that morning at random access mazar but finally read the article in the evening.

Caveats

Before I go much further, let me state I have never claimed to have a "library blog."  I certainly do include stuff about library related issues.  But I am much more than that.

I also want to state that I do not believe that blogs, anonymous or not, should be used to air rants about your coworkers or place of employment, or any other subject, that you would not say to their faces or in public generally.  Nowhere in the following am I advocating such behavior. 

This document is no longer as historically complete as it started out to be twelve or so days ago.

Professionalization

I do worry about this blog and how others, particularly those on a search committee, might perceive it, and me.  And that upsets me.  I am far from perfect; just like everyone else.  Do I need to be professionalized?  Sure, don’t we all?  We are not born professionalized.  Isn’t this a good time while I am in school?  We certainly aren’t professionalized automatically just by being in school.  I know, that is supposedly part of the process of graduate school.  But, be serious.   That may work well for those getting actual educations for the professorate, but what we do in LIS schools has very little to do with professionalization into libraries. 

Blogging while I am in school should be a good place to work on professionalization.  To think that it is something we just get right once we are in the company of fellow "professionals" is simply idiotic.  Just as in learning anything else, one must make mistakes to really learn.  Some "mistakes" are really so egregious that one is kept from the endeavor one is trying to learn or assimilate into.  These, though, usually involve serious ethical lapses.  If I make mistakes in judgment or other professional errors in this blog then in theory I have a whole community of professionals to point my mistakes out to me, so that I can learn from them, and thus become professionalized.

Those moments of learning should not be held against someone when they apply for a job.

Workplace Speech in the Library/Academia

It is very interesting that a profession that holds dear such ideas as the Freedom to Read should behave in such a manner.  Academic freedom?  Maybe.  If you are lucky enough to already have tenure.  Otherwise, no, there is none.  Heck, we don’t even have freedom of speech in our workplaces.  And our major professional organization doesn’t support it.  OK, so it does now.  Just don’t count on it coming to a library near you anytime soon if you didn’t already have it.  I guarantee you that this can have a drastically negative impact on a library.  I watched it in action, or should I say inaction, for six years.

See Workplace Speech at Library Dust.  Let me add that I am not an absolutist regarding the freedom of speech clause in the Constitution.  There most certainly are things we are not allowed to say, and many more that should not be said, whether in a workplace or not.

Yes, I do realize that I am conflating several things here.  But the freedom to read, academic freedom, and workplace speech (particularly in the academy) are, or at least should be, highly related.

Legality of the use of information from blogs

Sad Commentaries at Library Dust.

Briefly stated, the column provided examples and attempted justification for the invasion of privacy and the use of improper information to influence the selection of candidates for employment.  The author apparently didn’t know or care about privacy issues and standards involving persons who were not employees, the application of uniform hiring standards, adherence to federal and state statutes—little things like that.

Since most librarians work in the public sector, I will stick to that arena and say that the hiring process in public agencies is generally governed by a tight set of rules as to what information can be used about a candidate and how it can be obtained.  Most states have applicable privacy laws, and of course there is always that overlooked bit of paper known as the Constitution.

It is especially important to remember that the issue here concerns private citizens who are applicants for employment rather than employees of the particular firm or agency.  Because this is the case, they retain privacy and free-speech rights which might be lost to the control of the employer once they are hired.

Also: Blogs and Jobs at Pattern Recognition.

Yes, a Google search takes 2 minutes, and can provide you with a lot of publically accessible info on the person. But LOTS of public information isn’t allowed to be asked in an interview (for instance, whether the candidate is married is public information, in the form of a marriage license, but it is off limits for a job interview). What would the legal ramifications be if Job Applicant A was denied a position, discovered that it was partially due to a Google search (which happened to reveal his/her marital status) and sued the university on that grounds?

Blogs aren’t therapy?

Blogs shouldn’t be a form of therapy?  Why the hell not? 

<Self-Censored> — personal details removed.

For any of you who may, in fact, be mentally well, or at least have the audacity to believe yourselves so, please just remember:

  • Not everyone has good mental health coverage, even if they have a job and health insurance.
  • For those so blessed, coverage generally runs out very quickly.  Just as one is making progress the system pulls the rug out from under you.
  • Paying for such help out of pocket is out of the question for most.
  • Assuming that as a student one is covered is a critically bad assumption.
  • The VA is not an option for a multitude of reasons for many vets.
  • Not everyone has a significant other or friends who are available to help one decompress as often as is needed.  This leads to unhealthy, single-sided conversation with oneself.

</Self-Censored> — I seriously struggled with not letting this section go out as it was.  We have a serious problem in our society with the issues of mental health.  While it may be a running joke on late night TV, and a generic water cooler topic to some extent, the sales of anti-depressants and other mood elevators, to include to children, are at an all-time and ever increasing high, yet we do not seriously talk to each other about the issues in our society that cause and perpetuate the situation.  Most people with any sort of mental health issue are still stigmatized by much of society—by the very society that causes it.

It is a subject that needs to be openly talked about and I am trying to do my part.  But hashing and rehashing the issues over and over in my mind that the Chronicle blog article brought to the forefront has caused me to chicken out and self-censor myself.  And that hurts.  I feel like a sell-out and that I am betraying myself and several others with whom I have had these sorts of discussions.  But it is much easier to have these sorts of conversations one-on-one or, at least, in a small group.  To all of you and to myself,  I am truly sorry.  I cannot be the poster boy right now, even if I want to be.  "I truly tried" is the best I can say.  I wish you could see what I initially had written.

So, yes, I do use my blog as a form of therapy, although not necessarily intentionally.  But if it serves that function in a society which still truly stigmatizes any form of "mental illness," while not providing proper services to those most in need, then so be it.

The Greeks took no easy problems.  They put on the stage a world of unspeakable anguish, of matricide and fratricide and patricide, and then they refused to blink.  They looked into the abyss of human life and human nature with open eyes and understood that the thing to do is to feel life as it is, in all its anguish as well as its aspirations, its missed opportunities and its savored beauties, never to falsify it, never to pretty it up; but rather to look at it bravely, unflinchingly.  In the sheer steadiness and clarity and courage of that gaze will you achieve real understanding of the complexity of life; and from that come acceptance, grace, and enduring peace.  The greatest blessing you can have in life is to live long enough to take it in.
Mee, Charles L. A Nearly Normal Life: A Memoir.  New York: Little, Brown and Co., 1991, p. 214-215. [Thanks Michael for reviewing this book and pointing me to it.]

As a happily tenured (and therefore safe from such depredating opinions) author of a blog that has of late become, at least in part, a “therapeutic outlet,” one that no doubt reveals some odd things about the “dank, dark depths” of my “tormented soul,” and yet as a scholar whose research focus at the moment circles around questions of the potential literary value of such writing, I find myself, not to put too fine a point on it, seriously pissed off by the infuriating combination of condescension and authoritarianism on absolutely unedited display in this article. 
From Bloggers Need Not Apply at Planned Obsolescence.

My blog is like a book that rarely leaves the shelf

Another reason that the ideas contained in the Chronicle article upset me is that something like six people read my blog.  Yes, it is freely available on the web for anyone to access, but almost no one does!  This makes me as about as important as that book in the library that has never circulated and was maybe taken off the shelf six times in its history to be flipped through for a few seconds.  The only difference here is I can’t be weeded by someone else since I pay to be here, but my blog can certainly be ignored just like that book on the shelf.

But the real point is this:  that the weblog is not in the public eye; it is not some electronic busker, banging away on a drum outside one’s window in the small hours.  To read a weblog a person has to desire to; the act entails a series of conscious, positive actions, even more than would be required to read the content of a magazine.  The weblog is a hidden thing that can only be uncovered by design and effort.  Nobody has to read a weblog.  In fact, most of them are hardly read by anybody.  They are certainly not like billboards screaming from the roadside, nor as some have put it, like graffiti in a washroom.  After all, everybody has to travel the public road, and use the public toilet occasionally, but nobody has to Google up Joe Blow’s weblog to read his delightful outlook on world affairs.
From Vile Weblogs! at Library Dust

Google searches

Another related issue is how someone might stumble over my blog.  Google, and I assume many of the other search engines, does not do a good job indexing blogs.  My blog has been returned by some of the strangest searches.  For instance, I got found by a Google search on something to the effect of:  why the Chinese people consider themselves to be a superier race.  Yes, "superier" is misspelled here.  It seems that somewhere on the monthly archive page which contains my Chinese watermelon sculpture post is a mistyped "superior,"  along with the others words in that string.

Now, I never addressed the topic that was searched, or even anything similar, but that is the kind of crap Google returns with keyword searches.  Put quotes around that string to make it a phrase and I am nowhere in the search results, although there are thousands of hits that do use it.

It seems that Google is indexing pretty much everything on the page, to include anything in TypeLists, blogrolls, etc.—basically any text, not just the primary content. 

So, what if someone on a search committee remembers stumbling over my blog previously because of some search that showed that I "wrote about" some topic that I never did in fact write about?  Are they going to take the time to evaluate said results, or are they just going to assume that I did/do write about such things?

Opinions, ain’t no stinkin’ opinions here

The pertinent question for bloggers is simply, Why? What is the purpose of broadcasting one’s unfiltered thoughts to the whole wired world? It’s not hard to imagine legitimate, constructive applications for such a forum. But it’s also not hard to find examples of the worst kinds of uses.

A blog easily becomes a therapeutic outlet, a place to vent petty gripes and frustrations stemming from congested traffic, rude sales clerks, or unpleasant national news. It becomes an open diary or confessional booth, where inward thoughts are publicly aired.
From the Chronicle article

So.  I’m not supposed to have an opinion about my son being sent to war?  Those sorts of choices are pretty easy for someone who has rarely, if ever, given up their
own freedoms for those of their society, only to be told later that you
must still be "unfree."

This, then, is the ultimate reason that I get upset at the ideas espoused in the Chronicle article—my twenty plus years of service.  If you have never served in the military then you may have no idea what I am talking about; certainly not at the existential level.  Service members, while swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, actually give up quite a few of those same rights that they are pledging to give their lives in defense of for others.  There are often good reasons for this requirement, but it is mostly about control—control of the individual, control of the group, and control of the image of the services.

After relinquishing these freedoms personally for so many years, so that others in my society could enjoy them while I served, and so that some day I too would be able to freely enjoy them myself, I find that I may not be able to.  And that pisses me off! 

But mostly, it just makes me very, very tired deep down in my existential core, in my soul if you like.

Ceaseless drivel…

Posted on by

This is going to be one of those posts that the Chronicle dreads so much—the useless drivel of my life.

It’s a shame too, as I had intended to respond to Lisle’s comment on my "Research assumptions?" post, and hopefully get my post on the Chronicle’s blogging article finally finished and posted.  They may have to wait now.  I can’t help but talk about the useless minutiae of my life, and the complete lack of service I just ‘received.’. 

After getting home this evening I forced myself to go for a run with the promise that I’d take myself out for a really good meal and beers, even if a bit pricey.  So I dutifully put in a few miles and then took my time cooling off—although I was hungry before I even ran—and took a shower and finally got ready to go.  I went to Crane Alley because they have good food and beer and I can sit outside and read.

I got there around 7:35 PM and sat myself at a table.  They weren’t busy yet; maybe six to eight tables and about 25 people at most, with two waitresses.  I began reading my book and patiently waited, not being in any particular hurry.  I sat there for over 2o minutes and never once was asked if I wanted anything, or even if I wanted a menu or a drink or a glass of water.  Nothing.

Never did quite figure out which waitress would’ve been mine as they had kind of interspersed the tables.  Even when they have been busy before they at least acknowledge my presence and try to get menus and water to me in a decent time.  Can’t blame the reading, either, as there was a guy right behind me who was reading and marking up a paper and he had food and drink.  And I didn’t just bury my nose in my book either, not that that would be an excuse.  I purposefully looked up many times and watched them both go in and out as they took care of (their other) business.

After 20 minutes of being completely ignored I finally just got up and quietly left.  I even stepped out of the way of one of the waitresses so she could go by with her load of dishes.  I even smiled.  But when I got in the car I just wanted to cry.  Not really sure why.  But I had promised myself a nice reward, whether I could truly afford it or not, for doing something I should anyway, and I was so looking forward to some good food and beer.  Maybe it was a good lesson for me to feel like a non-entity, although since I don’t treat others like that I’m not sure why my karma decided I needed that little lesson tonight.  Whatever; it was painful and depressing.  No.  That doesn’t adequately describe it either.  <sigh>

We won’t talk about what I ate when I came back home.  I didn’t go anywhere else for several reasons: 1) I was in the mood for the food and beer where I went. 2) I wanted to sit outside. 3) I only know a few other places with seats outsides, and see #1. 4) I went ‘early’ so it wouldn’t be busy, and now it would be getting busy elsewhere. 5) See #1.

Now I sit here in my recliner with my Mac on my lap and read some things in Bloglines.  I am in a somewhat better mood now that I’m no longer hungry. 

Research assumptions?

Posted on by

I need a little help.  Yes, I could just email the author of the article and ask, but I thought maybe the 2 or so friends and acquaintances that read this might be able to help me not make myself look too stupid if in fact I am just being stupid.

I got my College & Research Libraries 66 (4), July 2005 in the mail today.  Read the following over lunch:  Håkanson, Malin.  "The Impact of Gender on Citations: An Analysis of College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and Library Quarterly." College & Research Libraries, 66(4), pp. 312-322.

Background:

The theories of references as rhetoric are heterogeneous, but they have in common the claim that researchers have subjective and strategic motives for choosing certain references over others. The mainstream of this perspective suggests that references first of all are tools of persuasion; they are used to substantiate one’s research and to establish a position within the society of science (313).

Then in the section entitled, "Reference Analysis," we get:

The shares of references to publications by women are significantly lower than the shares of references to publications by men during the investigation period. (See figure 2.) If it is believed that the rhetorical system provides the prerequisites for the reference process, it would mean that the article authors of this sample assume that their own publications gain more credibility if they refer to publications by men (319, emphasis mine).

But isn’t that itself an assumption?  Yes, you may need to read the article, at least to this point.  And I suggest you do; it is interesting.  And maybe I need to read more about theories of reference, but I don’t think so simply for this purpose. 

Even if one is using their citations rhetorically, aren’t there even better reasons to use a specific citation than the gender of the author?  Like maybe it actually supports that stage of your argument?  Or simply that the reference does provide credibility simpliciter?  It is an assumption to say that these authors assume that the credibility is provided by the gender of the authors they are citing.

If anyone has access to this article and has an opinion on this claim, Malin’s or mine, please feel free to respond.  I may just email the author, but I’m going to hold off to see if any of you can show me I’m an idiot.  I don’t think I am in this instance though.

Maybe I’m just parsing words here, because I only have a very small issue with the next few sentences in the previous paragraph as it continues:

…gain more credibility if they refer to publications by men. And if the reward system motivates researchers to use references, the article authors consider themselves to be intellectually indebted to publications by men much more often than to publications by women.   And through their respective networks and information channels, the authors more frequently receive information about publications by men than publications by women if the communication system is thought to be the factor that limits the quantity of referable publications (319).

The "intellectual indebted[ness]" claim can be interpreted in at least two ways.  One is a literal interpretation that results in a clear belief of the authors that they are indebted to authors of specific genders.  The second is a simple factual statement that reflects the gender of the authors cited and thus supposedly those one feels indebted to.  But, the gender may be inconsequential compared to the intellectual indebtedness to the idea or concept one is referencing.  That is my interpretation of that sentence.

The claim about "frequently receive[d] information" is reasonably clear.  We do have incomplete information though.  The author has only provided statistics on the number of all female (38%), female and male authored (17%), and all male authored (44%) articles in the three journals cited in the subtitle of the article.  This, though, tells, us nothing about the ratio of female to male authors in all of the journals cited by articles in the three studied journals.  I am going to assume that the gender discrepancy is at least as large, and probably larger than in the three journals compared (Stats from 316).

The author’s statistics (total sum of references) show that 27% of references are to publications by women, 9% to female and male publications, and 59% to publications by men.  So, there is a discrepancy, but based on these and other statistics presented there is no question that authors of all genders are probably coming into contact with more male authored publications than otherwise (Stats from 316).  Thus, I have no problem with the wording of the third claim re the communication theory of reference.

I guess I could parse the first claim in the same manner as I do the second, but I find that harder to do.  It could be an acceptable interpretation of the English sentence I guess, but I don’t see it as the best interpretation.  For some reason that I can’t quite put my finger on I do not think that it is making the weaker claim, as I think the second claim is doing.  If that is, in fact, what the author intends to claim then I would say that the sentence needs to be restructured.  But, considering the overall point of the article, I do think that my interpretation is what was intended.  And that interpretation contains an assumption that I do question.  Maybe I should be questioning the second claim on the same grounds.

Any thoughts?

Am I picking at nits?  I don’t think so based on the entirely different claims made by the two different interpretations.  It could be due to a distinct possibility that for the author of the article English may be a second language.  Again though, these are two entirely different claims and need to be specifically and clearly addressed. 

And for the record, I do believe that this is an important study and that the author does a good job at pointing out what the studies’ questions are actually asking, what the limitations of those answers are, and good areas for further study.

These are very relevant questions and areas of research in any discipline, but to see it in a discipline that has a female majority is particularly disturbing.  I just don’t understand any reason to make explicitly gendered references.  Maybe I am just naive.  I certainly do believe in the rhetorical theory of reference, at least as simply outlined by this article’s author, but I use a specific citation to support an argument.  I could care less about the gender, nationality, sexual preferences, religion, etc. of said author unless that is relevant to the argument.  But it rarely is relevant.  I just don’t get it….

Recruiting Command asks for my help

Posted on by

Just got my current (Vol. XLIX, Iss. 2 [pdf]) Army Echoes: The Bulletin for the Retired Soldier in the mail today.

Seems the Army’s Recruiting Command needs a little assistance.  See pg. 5 for "Recruiting command asks for your help," written by no less than the Commanding General, U.S. Army Recruiting Command himself.

I know you will agree with me about the importance of service to country;…. [Ok, you're off to a reasonable start sir, but the red flags are already waving.]

I ask for your service once again.  Our Army needs your help communicating to young Americans how the Army can provide them an avenue to achieve their goals and make a difference in the world.  [But see, I only believe this on an individual, case-specific basis, sir.]

As I’m sure you’ve seen in the news, recruiting for the Army has become increasingly difficult.  [Well, yes sir, I have heard that.]

…

Recruiters are working hard to find today’s young men and women who believe in the importance of service to the nation and want to make a difference in the world.  But they need your help.

…
MG Michael D. Rochelle

Riiight! [said ala Bill Cosby as Noah to God.]  That’s why you are offering College Fund up to $70,000.  And student loan repayment up to $65,000.  And enlistment bonuses up to $20,000.  And Reserve enlistment bonuses up to $10,000 for non-prior service and up to $15,000 for prior service.

Damn.  With these kinds of bribes why do you need my help?  Because, you see, sir, if service to the nation was actually important to these kids you wouldn’t have to bribe them.  They would sign up even if the College Fund was only $20,000 or enlistment bonuses were say, $2,000, or even non-existent.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful sir, but I was a recruiter back when you were a lowly Major or such.  In fact, my little forced tour in recruiting ended my rapid upward mobility, just like I’m fairly sure that it will do the same for yours.  Such a shame that a career can be sidetracked over something that you have absolutely no control over, isn’t it?  All I ask is that when it happens to you is that you think of the literally thousands of noncommissioned officers who have had or are having the same thing happen to their careers through no fault of their own.

I am always more than happy to discuss service opportunities in a realistic manner with anyone who shows an interest.  There are reasons I would recommend service in the military to today’s youth, but only on an individual basis based on actually talking with said individual and getting to know them a little.  There are other avenues to many of the same goals that might be realized by joining the service.

There are also many (more) reasons not to join the service, even for the lower socioeconomic groups that the all volunteer force preys on.  There is money for education and job training in places other than the service.  And considering the fact that service members suffer an earnings penalty due to their service, please help me understand why it is that you want my help? [Sorry, NYT has the article locked behind their pay wall, but it provides the citation.]

I will do my part when it is called for sir.  That you have my promise on.  But, just as I did not go shopping after 9/11, I will not routinely help to con the kids of America into the service.  If they think they want to serve, I will provide what help I can on both sides of the equation.  I do feel that service to one’s country is important.  But it needs to be for the right reasons, or at least gone into with open eyes.

So, with all due respect sir, I am declining your request for assistance.  I will not be contacting my local recruiters to offer my assistance to the cause.

SFC (Ret.) Mark R. Lindner

True Patriots Act

Posted on by

I found this opinion piece from the LA Times a little late, but then reasoned thoughts on the true meaning of patriotism are always timely.

The specter of a passive citizenry surrendering its rights is sadly
pertinent — as is the danger of not distinguishing between patriotism
and nationalism. Patriotism, in the tradition outlined by Viroli, is an
activist, participatory ideal. By contrast, nationalism is largely
symbolic, and at its worst mere spectacle. (Witness the attempt by
Congress to draft a constitutional amendment criminalizing flag
burning.)

…

We should reflect on these earlier traditions in American history.
Although appeals to patriotism are almost always used for repressive
purposes, a patriotic position should not be simply grounded in a
citizen’s reflexive acceptance of fear and surveillance. It is also an
active involvement in civic life.

Ev Psych takes one on the chin

Posted on by

Scientific American: Psyching Out Evolutionary Psychology:
Interview with David J. Buller
This philosopher of science rejects claims of a universal human nature

If you have any interest in Evolutionary Psychology, pro or con, you should check out this article in SciAm, or the interviewee’s new book.  I know I will be getting the book.

David Buller.  Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature.  Bradford (MIT), 2005  ISBN: 0262025795

I added it to my Wish List with a Must Have so feel free to buy it for me.  Sorry.  Just kidding.  Going to try and be strong for now and hold out for the big guy in red for a few more months but I imagine I’ll just break down and buy it in a few weeks.

Hey, that Open WorldCat mojo is pretty heady stuff!  But all you cool kids already knew that.  I’ve been using WorldCat at my practicum everyday, but this was the 1st time I actually used Open WorldCat.  Of course, I could’ve just pointed at my university’s (10-million volume collection) catalog and then linked to the rest of the state consortium to accomplish the same thing, but hey, cool is cool.  And I should know about, and how to use, these tools if only to educate others.  Thanks OCLC!

I wrote a rather devastating critique of Ev Psych myself for a class on the status of the gene concept and later took a class that took a semester long critical look at Ev Psych, both from a prof dual tenured in Biology and Philosophy.  Ev Psych starts out from such great premises but goes oh so wrong so very quickly.  I like the way Buller, in the article, contrasts Evolutionary  Psychology with evolutionary psychology.

I have been highly encouraged by the very few people who have read my critique of Ev Psych to circulate it (through publication, formally or informally).  I highly respect and care for these people, and while I agree that the issue through which I frame it needs to be discussed more widely, I am not sticking my neck out like that.  I really wish I could, but suffice it to say it would not be well received in our society—as much as it needs to be.

In a way, it is related to the whole "have a blog get dissed by a search committee" mentality.  And while I have so far been silent on that one, let me just say that I am anything but.  I have been trying to write, rewriting and rewriting, thinking almost nonstop about it, and let me just say I am pissed.  Which means it is probably not a good thing to put up what I’ve said so far.  Besides, I’m not happy with it anyway yet.

I have been generally pleased with most of the comments and analysis that I have seen in the library corner of the blogosphere, but they don’t go far enough either.  Some just want to accept large parts of it as reality, and yes, it is a reality.  My main issues go to the core of it being a reality, especially in our profession, much less academia generally.  But enough.  I’m not ready to take it on this publicly, and I do not need to get riled up before bed.  I know Dorothea, "Take a deep breath."  I agree, and I try.  But I have a deep, fundamental reason why it is so utterly galling to me.  Hopefully I’ll be able to explain soon; maybe even in measured, breathful tones.