Note: I really struggled with this post and almost decided to trash it except for letting people know that they should not take my misconstrual of David Bade’s words as I had. But I spoke with someone whose opinion I value this afternoon and was reminded that I am at least trying to engage in dialogue, that it should be evident that I actually care because of his message, that even though I display a concern with the manner in which David Bade’s words are formulated I have helped to show some that there are far more to them than those of a “frustrated intellectual” who is tilting at a madly whirring windmill. That helped bolster my spirits some. So I guess I’ll ask that if you cannot recognize that, or if you are not willing to try and keep that in mind as you read, then just move along now. If you cannot respect that simple request, please do not read another word.
David Bade has responded to my critique of his paper at the LC Working Group meeting last week.
His comments add quite a bit to situate the sentences I found offensive in such a manner that I now see them in a much better light. Please read his response.
Before I proceed I’d like to repeat something I said in my 1st post on this topic:
At this point I will add some comments on David’s paper. Please do not misconstrue these thoughts. I have no doubt that if he and I were able to sit down over a few pints [or some Mongolian tea] we would agree that we are both saying the same thing. I also humbly offer this critique as the things I am about to complain about are the same issues I struggle with the most—voice, nuance, and “selling” your message to your audience. These comments are offered as a request for some of that nuance and not as a deconstruction of his points.
He has also graciously offered to provide a copy of his paper to any who ask [AUTOCAT 15 May 2007]. It is none of my business to post his email address, but it is findable if you look for it at the University of Chicago Joseph Regenstein Library.
I can accept his comments in the light he has placed them with his comment on my post. But. There are still several tiny (and not so tiny) issues overall, both with the specific thing I found offensive and with the whole paper. With my background in philosophy, history/philosophy/sociology of technology and so on (and his clarification), I can see what he appears to be up to in his paper. And I applaud him. Let me make this very clear: I really like and appreciate his paper, and I love the concepts that he is attempting to bring to the table.
But these are extremely complex ideas, and the tack he is using to bring them out will be unfamiliar to a large number of librarians. I am fully aware of the limited amount of time and conceptual space in which he had to work at the Working Group meeting. As such, perhaps his chosen tack was not the best one; or perhaps he only tried to fit too much in. These are not some sort of lordly critique on my part; I have often been in this predicament and have no doubt I will be again. Often. It is one of my biggest weaknesses; one I am working hard to overcome.
His main point is “to reorient and reestablish librarianship on a totally different basis (communication rather than engineering)” [or described as a theory of transportation in the paper]. But, David, do you realize that many of the prominent, if not the most prominent in LIS, theories and metaphors of communication are based on engineering, mathematics, and/or transportation?
I could be mistaken but I certainly do not remember Grice—nor Wittgenstein, in a serious way—ever being mentioned in 70+ hours of graduate LIS education. Shannon, yes. Lakoff, yes. Many other mathematical/engineering/transportation-based concepts/metaphors of communication? Yes. This is not to suggest that you should not try. Only that you need to be seriously and critically aware of the battle you are undertaking. [I am well aware that Shannon's is a theory of information supposedly, but if information is not what is communicated (among being other things) during an act of communication, what is?]
As I alluded to in his offer to provide his paper, David also addressed my concerns on AUTOCAT. Let me state here unequivocally, except for the 1st couple paragraphs of my post on David Bade’s paper all of the comments came from me. Let me also try and help shut down the idea I may have started: He did not mean to disparage catalogers at all in his comments that I critiqued. In fact, he finds himself in that situation. Maybe it was just me and a few others, or perhaps it truly is easy to be offended by his wording of those thoughts, but he meant no offense. I take him at his word on that!
In his AUTOCAT post he offers some more clarification and context. Again. It helps. But it is not an answer. Not because he failed, but because there really is no “answer.” There are only many and varied things we can do—as he calls for—to mitigate the situation.
If he wants to reorient librarianship towards a theory of communication then he ought to learn a lot more about communication. As much insight and intelligence as Grice and Wittgenstein bring to the topic, they are not the last word by any stretch. And as much of a wonderful tool as philosophy can be, in the end we are talking about language, people, people using language, and other social practices. There is and never will be a philosopher who can “save” us on these subjects. And that statement comes lovingly from one who considers himself a philosopher in his better moments.
Again. Let me state. I pretty much agree with most of what David Bade has said. But he is in many ways on one end of what can only be a continuum. The world he rallies for—as much as I would even love to see and live in it—probably never did, nor will it ever exist.
But can we do something to orient ourselves, our profession, and our institutions toward it? Certainly we can! And I would even be honored to help him try.
One of my biggest concerns with his presentation of his ideas is that as hard as it was for me to grasp what he’s really trying to say I can only wonder how doable it is for others; especially those who need to hear it. In a world in which the Calhoun Report exists and is taken seriously by many who control the purse strings and directions of our institutions I have serious sleep-disturbing thoughts about the language in which David’s ideas are cashed. It is far too easy for those unprepared, unable, or unwilling to engage with the actual ideas contained in his ideas to dismiss them out-of-hand and just say, “See. These “frustrated intellectuals’” ideas are inscribed in stone. We’ll just go with what Calhoun recommends and everything will be great.”
Either way is suicide for the profession. We need both (and so much more), but in the right contexts. Maybe David Bade will not like my 2nd engagement with his ideas either. But, at least, I take his ideas seriously enough to engage with them. I hope that counts for something; with him and the (few) others who suggested perhaps I was a bit hard on him. Perhaps I was/am. We hurt the ones we love, right? But for those who suggested I was, where is your engagement? “Great job, David” does not constitute engagement.
You should have no doubt that I take his ideas far more seriously than many of you. And I approve of them, in the proper contexts. I’d just love to see them presented in such a way that most of the people who they need to reach can understand them, so that when/if they dismiss them it will have to be an active dismissal. It is far too easy to dismiss an idea that you have to work to understand.
My ideas here are probably much stronger sounding they really are. So, beware. If you (anyone) wants clarification, more context, some nuance or whatever, just ask. That is what I try to do. It is how I see my role in this profession. [There are issues in philosophy, linguistics, scholarly communication, inter- and intra-indexer consistency, and so many others tied up in my statement that the world David envisions cannot exist, except in a few rare circumstances; that is, item by item.]
I, too, often have problems communicating. I struggle frequently. And until recently, I have steadfastly clung to the belief that others ought to try and understand the message despite the tone, voice, attitude, language, or whatever. But that is simply not how communication works!
I give these comments in a loving spirit of healthy dialogue and honest concern for David’s message getting through to those who need to hear it. My mission is at best barely orthogonal to his. And I for one will be tracking down as many of his writings as I can for serious reading. I would like to know better where he is coming from so that perhaps I might be of assistance in helping propagate his message.
And, David, you should be aware that in addition to those who might disparage your dress, or even someone like me with the audacity to question the actual content of your views, that you do have a fan club. I have received several emails and have spoken personally with people who admire you greatly and care deeply about your message. As do I. But I simply do not consider “Way to go, David!” as sincere engagement. In fact, it seems to me to fall squarely into the gist of your paragraph that so [initially] offended me.
A couple of the folks who have been in contact with me will be engaged as our discussions show. But do not simply read David’s papers; read them and then take action to help foster his ideas. Perhaps by coming at the issues with our own voices we will be able to facilitate a world where others are capable of hearing the value in David’s “voice.”
This needs lots of work to reach the level of communication that I would like, whether it is between two people or a lot more. There are too many other things to do, though, at the moment. A large number of assumptions, lived experiences, theories (across and amongst disciplines) are essentially hidden behind almost every one of my words; just as there are in every one of David Bade’s words or anyone else’s.
And to the gentleman who via public and private correspondence thinks I am advocating a lowest common denominator approach and that I do not think that there are varying levels of qualifications and abilities, to include the possibility that someone is “elite,” that is simply not the case. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of what I would argue. I apologize if I made it seem that way, or if I did not reply to your further email quickly enough. But as David has asked that people not attribute a slur towards catalogers via his words, I would ask that you not allude to those of us who supposedly advocate a lowest common denominator approach.
In fact, alluding is downright cowardly—even if sometimes perceived as necessary and is rampant in our profession. Just who is it that is advocating this approach? And don’t say Calhoun because you have admitted to not having read all of the report. As much as I liked Thomas Mann’s critique, it is not the only or the final word on the report. As much as I respect Thomas Mann, I would not recommend letting him interpret the report for anyone else. That is why, all along, I linked to both and said “Go read both.” I despise the Calhoun Report, but I have read it at least 5 times now. I do know what’s in it. I do know what (most) Thomas Mann got right. I have a decent idea from talking with others where Mann’s rhetoric got in the way. I know where Calhoun misused citations. But all of this takes work; engaged work as David might say. Cheerleading, questioning and, perhaps even, disparagement can serve a valuable purpose, but either alone ought to be highly suspect.
Walt, if you made it this far, please, please, please, write about “librarians’ willingness to disagree with one another!” [C&I 7 (6), June 2007, pg. 6 pdf] I’ll be a guinea pig, or subject, or whatever the term is nowadays, if need be.
I am once again completely disheartened! I do not claim to be a great communicator and, in fact, maintain the opposite. This post is far more negative than it needed to be, which is not what I intended or wanted. But I keep trying and I keep trying to learn amongst all the “failures to communicate.” For those very few who seem willing to stick with me as I try we often each learn something. That does not mean we always end up agreeing. Nope. But we usually know where and why we disagree, and that is often enough, and even if not enough it is valuable.
Stephen Bell may want more disagreement, but I cannot even get people to accept questioning.
25 responses so far ↓
1 walt crawford // May 16, 2007 at 3:21 pm
It’s on my list, probably for later this week, but probably as a post (at least initially), not an article. And possibly with a different emphasis than you’re interested in: That is, I’m acutely aware of reasons why people who don’t have tenure, independent wealth, or secure public positions may be a little nervous about taking on some forms of disagreement. (I pulled a page from the current C&I, and I’m still not sure whether it was a cowardly thing to do).
But your problems here are pointing out another, third, aspect: That is, it’s tough to carry on honest disagreement at times. That’s a topic I’ve touched on elsewhere, badly.
So, yes (geez, this is too long for a comment, but your post isn’t a two-paragraph drive-by either!), I do need to think about a proper essay. But maybe not today. Meanwhile, now I have to go look at Bade’s comments. (BTW, I may not be a cataloger and may be staying away from this particular set of issues, but I did read Calhoun’s report, front to back, as well as Tom Mann’s take. That’s when I decided that others were better qualified to deal with this.)
2 Mark // May 16, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Thanks, Walt! And, honestly, I’m interested in any angle you want to give it. Whatever you feel comfortable with is great with me.
And if I haven’t told you before, you are welcome to write comments of any length; but I do recognize that nagging voice that says ‘This comment is not a comment….”
3 Christina Pikas // May 16, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Ah - but reference work, information behavior, and information seeking literature are all based on communication and information transfer! In my program we did talk Clarke & Brennan and others. All librarians should have to take the basic “information access” (reference course). They should also have taken some sort of intro to information behavior/intro to information science type thingy which should have covered this, too. It’s not *all* of librarianship, maybe, but it’s information organization/information retrieval/catalogers,etc. who are not emphasizing it enough. I can’t really engage with you on cataloging stuff as that is not my specialty. (We did read Shannon, but I hadn’t heard of Lakoff until PhD work, or maybe I blocked it?)
4 walt crawford // May 16, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Mark, I feel comfortable with all three angles, but I think the post will be on my specific angle–unless I get ambitious. A later essay would cover more, but it also wouldn’t happen until post-ALA. (There will be another C&I before ALA, most likely, but it will be, ahem, a special issue with special focus, a sequel if you will…)
5 Mark // May 16, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Hi Christina, hope things are well with you. “Information” and even sometimes “communication” is certainly touched on in our program, and I assume in most. But assuming that you are are at all familiar with the literature you realize that there are a VAST number of conflicting views about what either is.
And my point is simply about how–at least in most of my LIS exposure to these concepts–they are generally cashed out in theories/metaphors of math, engineering and transportation.
Considering how much we use these concepts in all of our field, I think there ought to be more emphasis on them. And my concern, specifically, with Bade’s move is that he wants to move from a theory of transportation/engineering to one of communication; but how exactly is that to be cashed out?
Again, my concern is that most librarians’ view of info/communication has been heavily influenced by these models whether or not they ever read a single theory/model of them. Just look at the words we use to talk about the subject: send, receive, transmit, convey, pass on, ….
I have no doubt that Bade has an answer; and Grice and Wittgenstein are probably a large part of it. But how many of us are familiar enough with them to make the explicit switch to thinking like that?
It’s not that I’m saying it isn’t doable; I guess I’m just saying, again, that perhaps this was too much for Bade to bite off in this one presentation.
6 Mark // May 16, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Walt, whenever is good enough for me. Just knowing that “you are on the job” makes me feel better.
I’m really struggling with much of this–all the angles, but I know that whatever you come up with will help me. Perhaps only a little, perhaps a lot. Either way it will be fodder for thought.
7 jenn // May 16, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I’ll add more to these conversations when I have a full time job (forget tenure, I shudder to think of how long that will be!). For whom does the Bell toll? He tolls for me… for I am one of those nice people. I and many others disagree nicely, why even right here on these pages. Yeah, it struck a nerve with me for awhile, but I got over it. I stand behind who I am and how I engage with the profession. Room for growth and evolution, sure.
Someone out there, and I forget who (was it you Walt?) mentioned something others I have read missed: LIS FACULTY should be openly and actively engaging in these “Ringing” discussions. Ours, like it or not, is a technical degree. Not to say many of us don’t also do research or philosophize, but we are practitioners.
Last year at my university our School of Informatics (which housed the LIS program) was dissolved by university administration, and I didn’t hear much from anyone anywhere about it, other than from a few libloggers, yours truly included…. Students and a few alums were most vociferous, nothing from faculty. A few meetings, but nothing reaching out to the broader profession. Their silence spoke VOLUMES. OK, I better stop.
8 walt crawford // May 17, 2007 at 11:43 am
I don’t think it was me. I’m not ready to take on LIS faculty, and am assuredly not the right one to do so for several good reasons.
9 The Improbable Don Quijote // May 17, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Hey! I laughed at Diane’s comments, but I took your misunderstanding to heart because it matters to me that someone who takes my remarks seriously should understand rather than misunderstand me. So let us continue the engagement, tea or no.
You wrote: “And my concern, specifically, with Bade’s move is that he wants to move from a theory of transportation/engineering to one of communication; but how exactly is that to be cashed out?”
Since reading Barbara Dervin’s 1982(?) paper I have been thinking about this, but Dervin never went anywhere interesting (sorry Barbara). Then about 5 years ago I began reading the works of the philosopher/linguist Roy Harris. Very few readers of Harris grasp the implications of the radical break with Western philosophy of language and communication which he has made, but I count myself as one of them. Over the course of the last 30 years and as many books he has marshalled the evidence and made the arguments for a philosophy of language grounded in a theory of communication which is not anything like a theory of transportation. I cannot reprise that work here nor in a book length treatment. But if you are serious about a non-engineering theory of communication, then forget my writings: you really ought to be reading Roy Harris.
Perhaps the best place to begin is the place where I began: “Saying Nothing”, the epilogue to his The Language Machine (Cornell, 1987). This is one of, if not the most brilliant essay in the history of linguistics and the philosophy of language. It is a gas. It is a riot. It is magnificent. And when you finish that, read everything else he has written. Beyond his work, there actually is a large and growing body of scholars working in many disciplines who have been reoriented like I have by his unsettling of western philosophy. It is worth looking into.
10 Mark // May 17, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Hi, David. Glad to hear you laughed those off’ not sure I could/would as easily.
I am particularly pleased to see that you took my comment as intended; not that there are not any theories of communication that can do the job, just that they aren’t prevalent in our field or, perhaps even, in Western scholarship. If they are growing as you say, that is a good thing.
I see it is sitting on our shelves, so I will go pick it up tomorrow. Thanks!
I will most certainly start where you suggest (thanks!) and see where that leads me.
11 David Bade // May 18, 2007 at 3:46 am
As is so often the case, The Improbable Don Quijote got it wrong. It is Brenda Dervin, not Barbara. Sorry to say it but I am certain that guy with the beret sometimes writes from faulty memory rather than checking his sources. Mistakes like that underscore the importance of citations.
12 Mark // May 18, 2007 at 5:40 am
Ah, yes, but we are all human. I got Allen Mullen’s name wrong and it was practically staring me in the face.
13 Tracy // May 18, 2007 at 6:19 am
Aww come on!
But for those who suggested I was, where is your engagement? “Great job, David” does not constitute engagement.
Maybe our talents are best applied elsewhere. In the past couple of weeks I’ve written two book reviews; like every one else, I’ve had deadlines! Sure, I said, “Great job, David.” Then I posted a few comments on the SRRT and PLG listservs (comments of which I’m certain Mr. Bade would approve) that got some attention.
Please understand that those of us saying, “Great job,” might also be out there saying the same things Mr. Bade is saying, just not as eloquently. Surely that’s a form of “engaging” too.
14 Mark // May 18, 2007 at 6:38 am
C’mon, Tracy! You know I’m not talking about you. I’ve know (some of) what you are up to. I know about your book reviews and which books (books that are important), I read your stuff at Library Juice, I know about your engagement in various communities. I’ve seen your comments on listservs.
Maybe that was a bit generic of a statement for my purposes. And perhaps I was even being cowardly myself. But I got a couple emails from people who (admittedly I know nothing about) who I have never seen post on said listservs (or at least of any real substance), who ONLY said “Way to go!” publicly (a paraphrase), yet wanted to give me crap because I have questions and comments.
We’ve had our discussions and I have no doubt we can (and will) have more.
I agree that telling people “Way to go!” serves a very valuable purpose. I sure like to hear it on occasion. But I’d much rather hear, “Way to go! Now what about this this?” “Couldn’t that maybe be extended this way?” Or even, “Dude, you got 95% right, but you are wrong about this, AND here’s why.”
I’m not talking about getting out in the streets and waving signs. There are also a lot of people saying stuff like, “Way to go! … And we have no voice.” Well, dammit, they do have a voice and I am simply trying (albeit crudely) to remind them of that.
15 Dorothea Salo // May 18, 2007 at 7:14 am
I would like to encourage all the presenters, including David Bade, to make their papers available in E-LIS and/or DList. One way to ease such misunderstandings as this is to ensure that the lengthier, more subtle arguments are easily available for perusal by everyone involved in the discussion.
It also cuts down on email!
16 Mark // May 18, 2007 at 7:23 am
Very good point, Dorothea!
While I was calling for LC to do something in this specific case AND I still believe that they should, your point is something that is actually doable in the immediate present. No waiting on LC to do the right thing….
17 Tracy // May 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Aw, come oooonnnnn!
Ok, I see what you’re saying. And I kinda sorta thought you were talking about me, but I certainly wasn’t insulted or anything. I just wanted to join in the conversation!
We’ve had our discussions and I have no doubt we can (and will) have more.
If I’m lucky.
18 Mark // May 19, 2007 at 10:41 am
I did, in fact, grab Harris’ The Language Machine and three other books by him.
I read the epilogue, “Saying Nothing” yesterday afternoon and it is as David said, “It is a gas. It is a riot.” It certainly has me hooked! I will begin at the beginning of this book and then see what I can do with the others amongst the many other things I need to do.
Highly recommended.
19 Christina Pikas // May 19, 2007 at 10:52 am
Ok, back to this: “And my point is simply about how–at least in most of my LIS exposure to these concepts–they are generally cashed out in theories/metaphors of math, engineering and transportation.”
I respectfully disagree! Well I can’t disagree about your experience, but I can say that you shouldn’t generalize to the whole field. Yes we hit Shannon, but I have my 601 binder right next to me, and in it we have Dervin, Rogers & Kincaid, Pao (convergence model of communication)… and lots of reference interview stuff there and in my basic reference course that’s strongly based in communication research and cognitive science. Look at all the research on question asking/answering for heaven’s sake — that is communication, humanistic, user-oriented. Like I said, I can’t talk about what an information structure person would read in a LIS program, but we reference types hit this stuff hard and often.
20 Mark // May 21, 2007 at 6:33 am
Hi, Christina. I now feel properly (but respectfully) chastised.
I do realize that there are other models, admittedly I am lacking in the what goes on in most reference classes (altho I have had reference and broadcast a few specialized ref courses), and I have not spent a lot of time with many of these sources.
You make a very important point and I gratefully back off my claim; some. While my statement needed some moderating, and your points help do that, I also have some concerns about how much mitigation they are actually capable of.
I don’t imagine that this is something we can easily discuss electronically, or me anyway. Some of my concerns are: you’re in PhD classes (and most ref librarians never got near a PhD seminar), how much time is actually spent on theories of communication in ref classes, to what depth are they compared and contrasted, question asking/answering is a subset (critically important to us!, but how much to my point?) of communication, and so on.
Honestly, I do not even remember the famous “reference interview” being discussed in my ref class, and I was looking for it. Friends who were in it with me swear we did. Perhaps we did, but if so, it was at most 5 minutes and to no real depth. As in much of LIS (MS-level anyway), it was designed only to provide an acquaintance with the topic.
And while it is often necessary that this happens–due to limited time, resources, etc.–mere acquaintance with a topic is (generally) not enough to change one’s actual views on something; especially something so fundamental to our lives and so embodied.
Theory alone cannot change how we interact with the world on a topic of this nature. It can start (some of us) down the road to thinking and studying more on our own. But as I look around at (most of) my fellow students (yes, I know this is purely anecdotal), I do not see a lot of further individual study and learning.
Some of us have an addiction, though, it seems. For instance, I am now 2/3ds of the way through one of the books David recommended. I can probably find Dervin easy enough as I should have something here in the house by her from one of my 2 required courses.
Could you shoot me a citation or 2 for Rogers & Kincaid, Pao and maybe something on question asking/answering? I prefer the more coherent, concise, but (reasonably) complete pieces, or maybe a good lit review article. I can always find my own way into the literature once I have a decent starting point.
Thanks for your disagreement, and I hope you know that I always welcome it.
I just wish many of us were closer so we could sit around over coffee, tea, beers, or whatever and discuss more of this face-to-face.
21 Christina Pikas // May 22, 2007 at 11:02 am
There’s a lot of Dervin… I think you have to pick some… I haven’t put all of my old stuff in my bibliographic manager yet so I’ll pull something together for you when I get a chance (probably on my blog with a link back). Surely you used Bopp & Smith (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44958622) for reference? There’s a reference interview section there.
22 Mark // May 22, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Yes, we did use Bopp & Smith, and I have no doubt that it has nothing to do with the fact that the wonderful Dr. Smith is ours….
I have since seen some stuff on the reference interview and maybe our “discussion” of it in my ref class was to read the textbook. I’m just saying that I don’t remember any “real” discussion in class, which seems rather odd since the ref interview has always sort of struck me as the heart of reference work.
I also know that there’s been a ton of stuff written about it. At some point I’ll probably need to turn to it as it might be very valuable in designing interactive IR systems. Not that that’s where I’ll end up; just saying’.
But I still wonder as to it’s value overall, instead of as a subset of communication. But, then, the only way to answer my ?s is to have a look, isn’t it?
23 Roy Harris, philosopher and linguist // Jun 5, 2007 at 5:55 pm
[...] to a suggestion from David Bade I have been reading a fair amount of Roy Harris [...]
24 Some things read this week, 3 - 9 June 2007 // Jun 9, 2007 at 9:12 pm
[...] of Information Science and Technology 21, 1986. 3-33. Cited by Pimentel above. Also read based on recommendations from Christina [...]
25 Some things read this week, 17 - 23 June 2007 // Jun 23, 2007 at 10:42 am
[...] Quarterly 67 (1), 1997: 50-71. Citation provided to me by Christina Pikas via email 17 June due to our comments re theories of communication back on my David Bade LC WG posts, in particular for the Grice reference. She says I “opened [...]