habitually probing generalist

"Do research libraries have a purpose?"  That, is the question.  The follow-up question is, "Do educated people in positions of ‘power’ have a clue as to what that might be?"

Yesterday I read Karen Calhoun’s final report to the Library of Congress, "The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery Tools," and Thomas Mann’s rebuttal, "The Changing Nature of the Catalog and Its Integration with Other Discovery Tools.  Final Report.  March 17, 2006.  Prepared for the Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun.  A Critical Review."

As much as some people in my chosen profession scare the bejeesus out of me, I am glad that I made myself read Calhoun’s report.  There is certainly some value in her report, but that said, it is a complete abomination.  Here is what I posted on my Cat & Class II’s electronic bulletin board last night after writing and posting the previous entry about Thomas Frey’s futurist view of the "book as experience."

I finally got off my rear and read both of these today after printing
them out. While there is some of value in Calhoun’s report, she has
clearly entered the ranks of "the AntiChrist" in my book. She has
completely conflated the purpose of the research library to that of the
business world. She has also completely equated scholars (you know, the
folks who research libraries serve) with the typical Google using
"information seeker." I am increasingly finding it hard to believe that
people like this have graduate degrees and work at places like Cornell.
Dante did not report on a level of Hell near "good" enough for the
likes of Calhoun and her ilk.

I was already impressed with
Thomas Mann, but his rebuttal has made him my current personal hero.
While I had already caught most of what he says in his rebuttal, he
says it far more eloquently than I could or would, AND he has the
status of researcher himself, and decades of serving researchers as a
reference librarian, to back up what he says.

If you have not
yet read either of these, I highly suggest that you take the hour (or
2-3) that it’s take you to read them. If you come to different
conclusions than me, then fine. But if you are only going to read one,
then read Mann. 1) It is shorter. 2) If you really disagree, then he
will have pulled enough quotes from Calhoun to intrigue you into
reading her. BUT. It would be patently unfair to read only Calhoun and
not Mann.

Either way.  Read with an open, but highly questioning mind.

I was teasingly called a "blasphemer" for my use of "AntiChrist."  So be it.  But, personally, I think the term "blasphemer" might best be directed toward someone else in this discussion.

I could say much, much more about the abomination that the Calhoun report is, but Thomas Mann said most of it already, and much better.

But yes, I too want my tax dollars back for this highly faulty "product."