habitually probing generalist

Free Speech in the Catalog from David Bigwood at Catalogablog points to the article Do You Really Want to Be a Forum? by Leonard Hitchcock in the current issue of Library Philosophy and Practice.  [This post was started sometime before mid-October.]

There are several other interesting articles in this issue of LPP.

One in particular is Information as a Value Concept: Reconciling Theory and Practice by Thomas Weissinger.

Hitchcock, Leonard A. "Do You Really Want to Be a Forum?" Library Philosophy and Practice 8, no. 1 (2005)

Weissinger, Thomas. "Information as a Value Concept: Reconciling Theory and Practice." Library Philosophy and Practice 8, no. 1 (2005)

For a nice short synopsis of the Hitchcock article please see David Bigwood’s post at Catalogablog.  It really can’t be summed up any more succinctly or clearly.

This article, while heavy on the law, is reasonably understandable by most.  It will require keeping in mind some distinctions that are drawn via the case law reviews.  My law competence is not enough to judge the article on its merits as a review of the law, but it is interesting. 

It just seems a very odd way to argue for allowing patron input to our catalogs.  But then I guess all the various ways of arguing for something should be heard.   And it can help point out people’s inadequate attempts to reason through issues.  If libraries do claim to be, and in fact desire to be, public fora, then they need to understand what it is they are claiming and what it takes to be what they claim.

I found the Weissinger article far more interesting personally.  It is a look at materialist, idealist, and critical theorist views of information.

…librarianship risks intellectual isolation as it remains aloof from theorizing about itself and the nature of information. The implication of this is either that librarianship’s theory will never be articulated adequately or those who do the articulating will not be librarians.

…

This article’s central thesis is that the concept of information favored by materialist theories is not interchangeable with the concepts preferred by idealists and critical theorists.

Weissinger looks at selected writings by Michael Buckland, Jesse Shera, H. Curtis Wright, and Ronald E. Day.  "This is a philosophical article and will analyze metaphysical theories about the evaluative nature of information" (2).

The Materialist Idea of Information

In this section, the author looks at Michael Buckland as a materialist systems theorist and at Ellen Bonnevie as a materialist non-systems theorist.

The Idealist Notion of Information

Here, Jesse H. Shera and H. Curtis Wright are utilized.

Critical Theory’s Depiction of Information

Ronald E. Day is the theorist cited in this section.  "Critical theory has its roots in the sociology of knowledge and the idea that one’s social situation determines beliefs and knowledge" (4). 

Information as Value

The author claims that the above theorists "are unified in acknowledging that information has an evaluative sense even though they differ on what it is exactly" (4).

For the author, both the materialist and idealist conceptions of the value of information are utilitarian.  The difference between them  is that materialists recognize a fact-value distinction, while idealists deny it.   Critical theory, he claims, is ambiguous regarding the distinction (6).

Conclusion

The author makes two assumptions from the previous discussion: 

(1) "[T]he idealist theory of Shera and Wright seems compatible with Day’s critical theory," and that reconciling these would go a long way towards a critial theory of librarianship (7). 

(2) "[T]he idea of information as value affords one an opportunity to reconsider certain futurist and historical notions of librarianship" (7).  Materialist theories generally lead to misleading visions of progress, and particularly of human progess. 

"Wayne A. Wiegand has argued that the preoccupation with information technologies privileges forms of information favored by powerful societal groups and has "done a fundamental injustice to the democratic service goals of the profession"" (7) [Wiegand. "Broadening Our Perspectives." Library Quarterly 73 (1) January 2003.  I hope to address this article at some point also.  In fact, I collected 7 other articles in relation to the Weissinger piece.]

I believe that some of the talking past each other that is currently happening in the biblioblogosphere in regard to Library 2.0 is a direct result of these differing views of information as value, and unarticulated ideas about progress.  While I agree with some who argue that we just need to move forward by "doing", that by itself is also a recipe for disaster.  Many people learn (and are influenced) by doing, while a probably equal number [not to imply a strict dichotomy] learn (and are influenced) by thinking, reasoning and talking.  Many of the folks arguing for the doing seem to think that doing will be enough to influence and convince the Luddites, Old Guard, bun-wearers, and whichever other derogatory names they can come up with that all of these various technologies and "new" service ideas are a grand thing.  That is seriously myopic.  Important, yes.  Myopic, definitely.  Weissinger quotes Anthony Brewerton from "The Creed of a Librarian: a Review Article" in the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science35 (1), March 2003: 49:

It is increasingly commonplace to hear that we do not need libraries, that we do not need librarians in the Internet Age. Detractors find these arguments come easily. What is possibly worse, without cogent philosophical arguments to the contrary, we can easily (but most unfairly) come across as Luddites, feared of the new technology and unwilling to accept our fate.

Now some of you who are embracing the new technologies and the "doing" may be asking what is this fool talking about.  We are clearly demonstrating that we are not "feared of the new technology."  Yes, you are.  But I still maintain that that alone will not convincingly reach many of your professional peers, nor some of our detractors who will simply claim that you are trying to stave off the inevitable by "plugging up the dike."

As for your peers, remember that to be a "certified" professional in this field we need a masters degree, and in some cases more than one graduate level degree or professional qualification.  We are talking, generally, about highly educated people.  Doing can be persuasive, but for many of us it takes much more after all the education we’ve gone through.  And besides, thinking, reasoning and talking are doing, just of a different sort.

Just as in most things, we need to find a balance between the thinking, reasoning and talking and the (more active) doing.  And for different people, this will be a different point on the scale.  They are not a dichotomy, though.  To believe that they are is simply inane, absurd and ridiculous.  There is simply no doubt in my mind that Edward Vielmetti, Superpatron, is thinking, reasoning and talking while he codes, tests, and presents the wonderful things he’s been "doing."

There is far more in this short article than I addressed.  I didn’t even try to explicate the differences between the various theoretical perspective on information, nor did I discuss the article or comments that motivated the article, nor some of the other issues that a critical theory of librarianship might do for us as a discipline and for our patrons.  I had to leave some of the "doing" to you.

Highly suggested.