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.

Sunday, 11 Mar

Paglia, Camille. Break, blow, burn. 2005. Read:

Shakespeare, The Ghost’s Speech (from Hamlet)

John Donne, “The Flea”

Green, Rebecca. “Relationships in the organization of knowledge: An overview.” In Bean & Green, Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. 3-18. Re-read for Representation & Organization.

“Mereology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Read because Allen Renear suggested I do so in relation to my trying to elucidate the difference between P88 and P89 in the CIDOC CRM. I made a rather lengthy class forum post trying to elucidate this difference, and will probably write my first paper on it.

And, yes, portions of it were beyond my current abilities. And other portions were beyond the work I was willing to put into it. But he also said, “You don’t need to read all to get the basic introduction to standard axioms for mereology.” So I was going “above and beyond” again. Glutton. Punishment.

Monday, 12 Mar

Thomas Gruber. (2005) Ontology of folksonomy: A mash-up of apples and oranges. For Representation and Organization, with nice overlap for Ontologies.

Good, but simple [not simplistic] article about the development of an ontology for tagging. I’ve had thoughts along this line myself on occasion, so I was happy to read this. I found myself wishing for a bit more in way of technical details, though; perhaps a little XML or RDF, say. But I imagine that is to be found at http://tagcommons.org/. Oh well, another blog added to my aggregator. Then again, I promised myself I’d look into more projects and actual practical things and remove some of the biblioblogosphere echo chamber.

Tagging for me, though, is at best secondary and perhaps even tertiary. But since I can actually get my mind around an ontology for tagging it may be a good project to use to learn more about ontologies, XML, RDF, and whatever else they are using to implement.

Smith, Barry and Achille C. Varzi. (2000) “Fiat and bona fide boundaries.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LX (2), March 2000: 401-420. [pdf]

Same as my entry on “Mereology,” except Barry Smith recommended, in general, for his work on bona fide and fiat boundaries.

Smith, Barry and David M. Mark. (2001) “Geographical categories: an ontological investigation.” International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15 (7): 591-612.

See above entry. Excellent article that happened to be an awesome congruence of ontologies, categorization, Lakoff and CIDOC CRM. I’m not sure how much of this mereology stuff I’ll actually use in my paper on P88 vs. P89, because I honestly don’t think some of the ultra-analytic philosophy issues need to be gone into to clear up the CIDOC CRM issues, but there is some useful material in this paper. The issues can be easily cleared up with some reference to basic thesaural principles and other KOS work, and experiential work in categorization, without anything useful being contributed by “deep” philosophical analysis of mereology. Even the bona fide vs. fiat boundary issue—while immensely interesting and useful (in some sense)—is not directly applicable. This paper, though, brings the best of all those areas to bear and, while not necessary to the defense of my pulling P88 and P89 apart, it can add something to the discussion.

Tuesday, 13 Mar

Budd, John M. (2006) “Toward a practical and normative ethics for librarianship.” Library Quarterly 76 (3), July 2006: 251-269.

Stumbled over browsing the current issues of print journals in the LIS Library. Pretty good, all in all.

Noy, Natalya F. and Deborah L. McGuinness. Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology.

Re-read for Ontologies. Read 30 Nov 06 for Information Modeling.

Lakoff, Chap. 14.

Paglia, Camille. Break, blow, burn. 2005. Read:

John Donne, Holy Sonnet I

John Donne, Holy Sonnet XIV

Wednesday – Thursday, 14 – 15 Mar

Green, Rebecca. (2000) “Locating sources in humanities scholarship: The efficacy of following bibliographic references.” Library Quarterly 70 (2): 201-229.

Re-read. Originally read 22 Jan 2007. Maybe I’ll get it blogged this time.

Just went back looking for the link to my previous mention of this article. I had forgotten that this was the article that led to my “Intellectual crushes and more mature relationships” post. It’s amazing what a good article, a quiet bar on a Monday evening, and $2 pints of fresh Guinness will lead a boy to say.

Foucault, Michel. The Discourse on language.

Made a lot more sense than the book it comes in, The Archaeology of knowledge.

Friday, 16 Mar 2007

Kemp, Rebecca. (2007) “Catalog/cataloging changes and Web 2.0 functionality: New directions for serials.” The Serials Librarian 53 (4): 33 pages. Preprint found via post at NGC4LIB list 14-15 March 2007.

Worth the read; is actually much shorter as it is a double-spaced Word doc converted to pdf.

Asheim, Lester. (1983) “Selection and censorship: A reappraisal.” Wilson Library Bulletin November 1983: 180-184.

I was quite excited when I found out last night that Asheim wrote a follow-up to his famous article 30 years later. One of my earliest posts was on an Asheim article. I probably should’ve gone back and read the original, but didn’t. The follow-up deserves a read, though.

Beall, Jeffrey. (2007) “Search fatigue: Finding a cure for the database blues.” American Libraries March 2007: 46-50.

Not a bad article all-in-all. The shame is that it even needs to be written in this day and age, and at such a basic level. But it does, and I find that truly sad. Honestly, any degreed librarian ought to be able to write that article in its essence! The sad truth that they cannot is attested to by the Calhoun Report, numerous blog posts and posts on assorted list servs.

Other than the general sad state of affairs just mentioned, I have 2 small complaints with this article.

First, there is really nothing “natural” about alphabetic order. It is simply a historically contingent arrangement of symbols, which admittedly seems natural since most literate folks are used to it, but it is in no way natural. And relevance ranking (Oh, please don’t get me started on that!) is not the only alternative.

Second, while I fully agree that quality metadata can compensate for the weaknesses of keyword searching, it is not the case that “every document” is assigned the correct indexing terms, nor that “no relevant information is excluded from the results” (49). There is the issue of interindexer consistency, failure to provide retrospective indexing when new or changed terms are introduced, and other issues which affect the quality of metadata enabled searching. The professionals within our field who seem to think that keyword indexing is all that is required are (usually) well aware of this, and ignoring the issue entirely only provides them with (perceived) ammunition. Please, do not do this! We have rock-solid ground to stand on, but we cannot ignore the sometimes rock strewn ground that makes the footing a bit unstable at times.

Shapiro, Lawrence A. “Can psychology be a unified science?” Philosophy of Science 72 (5): Dec 2005 Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Part I Contributed Papers, ed. by Miriam Solomon: 953-963.

I got this issue the mail yesterday and, yes, I am a member of the Philosophy of Science Association despite the fact that much of what these folks are after just baffles me. And while some of it is beyond me (one sense of baffle), it is mostly the fact that they actually pursue these things which baffles me. Much of it is so vastly disconnected from the world and what goes on it that it is hard to believe that it is, in fact, the world that they are trying to describe and reason about.

This is a mighty big issue, of which I’ll only read some of. Just over 800 pages big. There are 3-4 papers (generally) on all of the following topics: Topics in philosophy of biology; Topics in philosophy of physics; Quantum mechanics; History of philosophy of science; Observation and experiment; Causality, confirmation and inference; Philosophy of social science; Gender and science; Topics in evolutionary theory; Realism and underdetermination; Natural selection and evolution; Decision theory; Race and science; Science models; General relativity; and Structural realism.

I read the Shapiro article because he was taking on Jaegwon Kim’s argument that there cannot be a unified science of psychology due to multiple realizability of mental states. I used to read a lot of Kim on consciousness, multiple realizability, supervenience, and so forth.

This is actually a pretty good article and, despite my rustiness in these areas, it seems well argued. Even better, it may actually have some impact in the world even though many of these arguments do not.

One good reason to continue reading philosophy is that “these kids” know how to argue and call each other names in a highly civilized and humorous manner. Many of us could learn a lot from them. I absolutely loved this put down by Shapiro:

I hate to rest on reductio arguments, because there is a disturbing trend among philosophers not always to agree with me about what is absurd, but this will have to do for now (958).

Masterly and snarky, all at the same time.

Well, I can’t swear that I won’t read anything else this week, but I should be writing and perhaps re-looking some of the mereology stuff so I can write. But writing is my mission at the moment.

See you next week.

As some are aware—and a few more than others—I have been seriously stressed by some self-inflicted personal/professional drama lately.

I tried to say something that I feel very strongly about. I took my time and re-read and revised over an eight day period. Shortly after it was released into the wild one of my friends, who was doing the right thing by me, let me know that it might not be perceived as I meant it to be. I had to agree that they were right and I pulled it. Of course, anyone who is subscribed to my blog got a chance to see it via RSS, but at least the live link just 404s.

It is, of course, thanks to search engine technology, still available for those who know how. And it turns out that it sits quite high in a very basic, current affairs-type, search. <sigh> Another lesson learned, perhaps. Although, since the initial intent was to put it out there, I am unsure what lesson I was supposed to learn. [Thankfully, a day later it is quickly sliding down.]

I am currently in the process of rewriting that post with the help of a few wonderful people. Why? Well, I was just going to let it go. I figured I had had my say, even if few actually saw it. I decided to wait and see what happened after pulling it. A few days later someone responded to me that it was “a great critique!” I then wrote a semi-veiled post to explain what happened.

At that point, I began to get some wonderful feedback, much of which came by personal email. I also had a few direct conversations with physically local people. It turns out more people than I imagined have serious issues with what passes for professionalism in our field, and more generally. Of course, the reasons for this vary, and few are for the reasons I espouse. But the feeling is there nonetheless. Something needs to be said.

Thus, I must say something. My hope is to start a conversation. Here. There. Everywhere. Privately. Publicly. In blogs. In professional journals. Wherever. Whenever. I do not want to be the moderator. I only want to be a spark. And a participant.

Just what is “professionalism,” particularly in the context of libraries? What is it as a concept and ideal? And what is it as it is embodied in practice? The second is the most important, by far. And they most certainly are not the same thing. Embodied practice rarely reaches to the level of principle or ideal, even though we ought to try.

There has been a lot of conversation in the biblioblogosphere lately about several topics that are highly related to this subject. Group think, over-niceness of librarians, who you represent when you write, personal behavior/bullying, encouraging participation/conversation and so on. There has also been much discussion of “professional experience” on the AUTOCAT discussion list lately, particularly in the area of job descriptions and also “professional” vs. paraprofessional.

One of the participants in the Five Weeks To A Social Library project wrote about separating the personal from the professional within social software. This is definitely something that belongs in the discussion of professionalism. T. Scott Plutchak responded with a lovely post at his own blog about fragmentation, something I have written about extensively here. It is also one of my main reasons for what I do here. Fragmentation accounts for why I mix so much personal and professional, for why I only have one blog vs. two, and for the name of my first blog, “…the thoughts are broken….”

Before you read any further, I highly encourage you to read T. Scott’s post. “Trying To Be Complete.” I hope to someday meet this gentleman whose writing I so admire, but whom I admire (and did long before he wrote this) more for his wholeness and honesty.

The challenge, with all of these audiences, is to not let myself be stifled in what I have to say. There’s a simple rule of thumb — can I stand behind every word I write, no matter who might come across it?

I’m no longer looking for “balance” because that still seems to imply managing two poles. I don’t have a “personal” or “professional” side. I strive to be complete.

I do not have the time or energy to do a lot of synthesis of my previous writings right now. This is due both to illness and also to the volume of my previous writings on this subject. Thus, I am going list some links where I wrote about some of the topics listed in the title of this post, all of which have to do with professionalism in my mind. Maybe some of this will resonate with you, maybe not.

Either way, whether I am involved or not, my hope in exposing all of this (again) and in a concentrated form is to start some conversations. It is not that I don’t understand what constitutes professionalism in our field. It is that I disagree with it and find it highly dangerous, precisely because it is so fragmenting, amongst other things.

I have already asked you to read T. Scott Plutchak’s post, “Trying To Be Complete.”

I have also linked above to my most current statement on some of these issues, “if i had sense, i guess i’d fear this” from 1 Feb 2007.

I want to start with my first two blog posts from my 1st blog (now moved here) as they hint at some of this:

“So, what is this about, and for?” 29 Jan 2005

“Putting oneself into one’s writing” 29 Jan 2005

I think I will continue in a chronological vein. Please feel free to comment on any of these posts; I do not believe I have turned off commenting on any of my posts. I will try to add some comments to cue you in as to why I chose these posts, as some of the titles and main topics may seem like odd places to find what I’m going on about. That is because I tend to make what might be to some people odd connections. So, let me connect away for you….

“Blogging as Metaphor” 9 May 05

While it may not have been my explicit intention when I started this blog back in January, it is now one of my primary intentions, which I am now stating publicly, to use this blog as a means to stitch my life together into a coherent whole—past, present, future, academic interests, hobbies, family, friends, enemies, loves, hates, desires, fears, hopes, thoughts, wishes.

Please click through to the above post and follow the link to post that triggered it; far more eloquent than I can ever be.

“Baumgartner on moral minimalism” 9 May 05

This entry is part of my final exam for a grad sociology class on “lived morality” and “Discuss(es) moral minimalism as Baumgartner describes it as a kind of ordinary vice.” I have stated that I feel that moral minimalism is rampant in our profession. This might be a good place to start. Better yet would be to read Baumgartner’s amazing book which is cited at the end of the post.

Moral minimalism, and the fragmentation and depersonalization that feed and are fed by it lead to moral indifference. This, coupled with the belief that moral responsibility reside with the state and its’ institutions lead to the lack of moral judgment on the part of the individual. If one will or can not exercise moral judgment, they can not act morally. Thus, moral minimalism is an ordinary vice.

“Can we do away with subject headings? Only if we keep ‘Moral minimalism and libraries’” 29 May 05

Truth be told, this rant was my first take on this article, which is sort of a shame because it is one of my favorite articles. It is certainly my favorite from any ACRL publication. This is an article that is firmly in my toolkit and I will pull it out faster than you can ask, “Can we…?” I have given a full-scale class presentation on this article alone, and have used it in several other presentations and a paper or two. You also can’t begin to imagine how utterly furious I was when Karen Calhoun completely misrepresented this article’s conclusions to her own end in the Calhoun Report. But it is one of my finest expositions of moral minimalism in our profession, and as much as I wish I had done better by this article at some point on my blog, I stand by it.

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

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

“Todorov on Totalitarianism” 16 Aug 05

Another question from the same grad sociology final. Here is the assignment statement: Discuss Todorov’s theory of totalitarianism and how it accounts for the widespread use of concentration camps and for related crimes in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Interpret this statement of Todorov’s: “Totalitarianism reveals what democracy leaves in the shadows – that at the end of the path of indifference and conformity lies the concentration camp.” Distinguish between moralism and the moral judgment that is a component of moral virtue. Discuss the lessons to be learned from the concentration camps about moral values.

Now, “What,” you might ask “do concentration camps and totalitarianism have to do with libraries?” While I admit that it seems a bit extreme, let me pull out a few lines and see if they don’t fit some things in our profession and, in particular, life in the academy (for anyone without tenure).

This evil was banal in that it was committed by people who were “terrifyingly normal.”

The first of these traits is that of the internal enemy. If the individual is not with the state, then he is against it. This leads to dividing humanity into two groups of unequal worth.

This leads the individual to the feeling of relief from personal responsibility for decisions. The state restricts its subjects to instrumental thinking and the treating of all actions as means. This is precisely how such “ordinary people” are capable of such evil. The state accomplishes its goals without disturbing the individual’s moral conscience; it is simply replaced with a new one.

The state controls who works, where they work, what kind of job they get, if they can travel, where they can travel, whether they can own property, whether they can live, and so on. Almost all aspects of life are under the control of the totalitarian state. This leads to social schizophrenia. The individual must exhibit public docility at least. This social schizophrenia is a weapon in the hands of the state though. “[I]t lulls to sleep the conscience of the totalitarian subject, reassures him, and lets him underestimate the seriousness of his public deeds. Master of his heart of hearts, the subject no longer pays much attention to what he does in the world.” (Todorov, 129)

Thus, what Todorov is saying is that the resignation, deliberate blindness, and fatalism that is present in today’s technological democracies can easily lead a society down “the path of indifference and conformity” to the concentration camp.

Moralism is the invoking of a set of principles without acting on them, or without placing oneself at risk. It makes one feel superior, “I’m good, you’re evil.” According to Jacques Ellul, it is “one of the worst scourges of human existence.”

Another lesson I believe that was at least confirmed by the horrors of the camps is that: “All, or almost all, of us prefer comfort to truth.” (Todorov, 156)

There is so much more in this essay, including issues of gender that touch on other issues of note in the biblioblogosphere lately, and that also should be wrapped into professionalism.

“Librarianship as Penance?” 15 Oct 05

For some explanation as to why I now take an engaged morality as so important.

“Don’t You Think?” 23 Oct 05

Finding one’s voice. Liminality. Intention. One reason why I must speak up.

“Designing Jakob Nielsen” 23 Oct 05

This is mostly a rant about Jakob Nielsen’s pathetic attempt at defining weblog usability. Many of us in the biblioblogosphere, much less the wider blogosphere, had a harsh reaction to his ideas on the design of blogs. My post includes links to some of them, even some not so harsh reactions.

Nielsen’s first mistake is his unspoken assumption that all blogs except those that “are really just private diaries” are actively trying to “reach new readers who aren’t your mother.” Underlying this assumption though is a far more insidious one; that we are all just selling a product, a corporate identity. Along with that assumption is one of extreme danger to human beings; that we must separate the personal from the public, “corporate” identity.

…

I was almost destroyed by following this path. I am still trying to recover from it, and many days I am not convinced that I will succeed due to the extreme opposite pressure my society exerts on me, and everyone else. [See my "Librarianship as Penance?" post for more info on my personal battles.]

I will not succumb to this path again. I am one person; not multiple persons. My life must remain coherent and integrated. This is not to imply that everyone who only blogs about professional library issues is highly fragmented, just that I do not choose it as a path for me.

“Two blogs or not two blog? That is my question.” 3 Nov 05

My 1st discussion of the possibility of having a 2nd blog, complete with great feedback. I know I’ve had at least one more of these conversations more recently but I can’t find it.

“Interesting days here lately” 10 May 06

More on moral minimalism and more.

Collegiality and professionalism are perfectly fine qualities. But they also often stand in the way of real dialogue and progress. That does not mean that they can be completely tossed aside. That is not what I am advocating. I am striving to find a way to be critical, as in offering critique, while remaining collegial and professional. That is a difficult balancing act, and no matter how well one succeeds many will consider any attempt to do so an abject failure. Mind you, I am not even claiming that I am succeeding, only that I am striving to get there.

Everything above is from my 1st blog, …the thoughts are broken… and was migrated here in July of 1996.

“Shutting down conversations … and starting them” 18 Oct 06

Many of the important ideas have been around for a very long time. They are all critical today. They are being used; by people who can afford to pay. We finally have the computational ability (affordability, primarily) to do things thought of at least as far back as 1867. Cutter and multiple class numbers, anyone? Many other wonderful ideas arose in the intervening decades. But for a long time, computing “power” was non-existent and expensive. Now that we can finally do many of the things dreamed of for 130 years, some of “our leaders” want to dismantle the whole structure. [Why do I pick so many darn underdogs? Something about being a small kid….]

As a reminder to myself as I rewrite my critique of an article that I think does much to shut down conversation. Many will think my critique is doing the same thing. Maybe. But what it (and this) is really doing is trying to start a new conversation.

And, of course (again):

“if i had sense, i guess i’d fear this” 1 Feb 07

“Professionalism.” Often, use of that term is simply Orwellian so that it can be used to rein in others.

As long as it is “professional” to label a completely unnamed group as “fervent believers” with all the “elements of a religious argument” with a “plethora of unexamined assumptions” but it is unprofessional to actually name your opponents and point out their unexamined assumptions … well, simply count me out.

I was very sad when I wrote that. But, if you know me in the slightest, you knew you couldn’t count me out.

And believe me, this trigger, if you will, is only the tip of the iceberg for me as you will have realized if you read any of the above.

But due to it I have come to realize that there are others who feel much the same as me about what “professionalism” is and is not, and the manner in which the term is used within our profession. With that in mind, I would like to start a conversation; actually I want to start lots of conversations.

Postscript: The article critique I have been hinting at will reappear in no more than a few days hopefully.

Tuesday morning we awoke to fog and while getting coffee before the first session I got some nice pictures of “that building.”

I went to Paul Otlet, Documentation and Classification (SIGs/HFIS, ED) early in the morning. But having seen the movie twice, having heard Boyd and Kathryn, Boyd, and others discuss Otlet before, I used the time to catch up on email, upload photos, etc.

I do highly suggest you watch this movie and/or learn about Otlet and other early documentalists. This is extremely interesting stuff, and may one day allow us to quit telling bad history that gives so much credit to Vannevar Bush [see my forthcoming notes on M. Buckland's Wed. afternoon presentation].

From here, I stopped by the posters when I noticed Michael Buckland [and others] with one, “Infrastructure for the Representation of Events and their Contexts.” Here is a photo with the project URL and abstract. Very interesting, but preliminary, work.

Next up, Building a Digital Teaching Commons to Enhance Teaching and Learning: The MERIC Experience and Challenges with Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (moderator/presenter) (Catholic U), Sherry Vellucci (Rutgers), Bill Moen (UNT), Fran Miksa (UTA), and Diane Hillmann (via webcast) (Cornell).

Dorky as I am about cataloging/metadata education, this was one of my most highly anticipated sessions. [Photo of bad metadata in action.]
MERIC is the Metadata Education and Research Information Center. Please do not confuse this like a few members of the audience did. This is metadata in its broad sense and thus subsumes cataloging. Maybe we need another word that includes both metadata in its 21st century connotations and cataloging in its 19th century connotations, but there is no question that catalogers have been doing metadata for well over 100 years.

I have been aware of this project, in its earlier incarnation, for a while now. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee wrote Cataloging and Metadata Education: A Proposal for Preparing Cataloging Professionals of the 21st Century. A response to Action Item 5.1 of the “Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan” submitted to The ALCTS/ALISE Task Force (2002/2003). Available here from the LoC [pdf].

This report came out of the same LoC conference as the Calhoun Report. Take a look at the Hsieh-Yee report to see how it can be done. Now if only this report was read as widely; there weren’t very many in attendance at the session either. *sigh* Then again, if they are going to get rid of us, why should they worry about our education?

Ingrid Hsieh-Yee covered the evolution of MERIC, and then Sherry Vellucci presented an introduction and background of MERIC.

The purpose of MERIC is to be “A center for teaching and learning materials on metadata education and research:

To promote understanding and teaching of metadata in LIS community

To support users interested in metadata and cataloging education (educators, trainers, practitioners, students)

To facilitate and promote metadata research

To provide a space for metadata and cataloging educators and trainers to collaborate on teaching, learning and research”

The Hsieh-Yee report recommends three levels of technical expertise [a 4th has been added for continuing education], and also recommended an information package on basic metadata be made available (see M. Zeng), an online discussion group for educators (EduCAT), a Web clearinghouse (MERIC), and a one day conference (details not at hand, but did take place).

Next, Bill Moen discussed the newest instantiation of the MERIC prototype. It has grown significantly since Anita Coleman’s first stab. Bill Moen and his class in Spring 2006, and some overlap into Summer, 2006, designed and built the current prototype. Several of the students who worked on it were in the audience.

We watched a bit over half of an approx. 25 minute webcast by Diane Hillmann who could not be present. It had to be stopped as we were running out of time, though. In it, she spoke of “eating our own dog food.”

Last, but certainly not least, was Fran Miksa, who “from the trenches” provided a non-MERIC particpant view. He commented on what he saw in MERIC, both good and bad, and made several suggestions for its improvement, which the panelists seemed to take to heart.

Several questions were asked, but they seemed to focus on the term “metadata” and its seeming dismissal of cataloging, and also on the intellectual property issues of a collection of learning objects and their usage.

The Awards Luncheon was next. Karen Wickett did a great job representing ASIST@UIUC as Student Chapter of the Year. Other members of the chapter were asked to stand while Karen went forward to receive our award. I am unsure who all was present, but I know Karen, Matt Schreiber, and I were there. Photos: Candy Schwartz reading the citation. One of two of Karen speechifying. Karen and Candy. There were many other awards but I did not write them down. Brenda Dervin, Blaise Cronin, Geoffrey Bowker and others received awards.

The first afternoon session I attended was Education for Digital Librarianship: Employer’s Needs and How They Can Be Addressed (SIGs/ED & DL) with Youngok Choi (SUNY Oswego), Kristine Brancolini (Indiana U), Jeffrey Pomerantz (UNC-CH), and Abby Clobridge (Bucknell) with June Abbas (Buffalo) moderating.

Choi presented “Qualifications for Digital Librarians” which reported on a study by Choi and Rasmussen on the competencies required by digital librarians. These competencies were discovered by content analysis of (academic) job postings (CR&L News, if i remember correctly, was the source of postings). She also compared/contrasted these to the findings of a survey of DL practitioners. Summary.

Brancolini, “Creating a Digital Library Program,” reported on the IMLS-funded, joint efforts of Indiana University and UIUC to create graduate level programs in digital librarianship.

Pomerantz in “Education for Digital Librarianship: Addressing Employer’s Needs” argued that most schools will not be able to offer a full degree in DLs and thus reported on efforts to create and map modules and learning object onto the competencies spoken of by Choi. This curriculum development project is a joint effort of Virginia Tech and UNC.

Clobridge presented “In-House Training for Digital Projects.” Since turning to/relying on formal LIS graduate programs is not always an option, this talk reported on Bucknell’s creation of an in-house education program for current practitioners. Metadata is the issue!

The last session of the day I attempted to attend was New Theoretical Approaches (Papers). The first paper was “A Conception-based Approach to Automatic Subject Term Assignment for Scientific Journal Articles.” I was pretty burnt out at this point but I really wanted to hear this paper and the last one by Allen Renear and Yunseon Choi. Unfortunately, I could not understand one word that the first speaker used in about every third sentence or so. I figured it had to be important but I just could not figure it out from the context, so I left to try and refresh my mind. I never did manage to wander back in time for Allen and Yunseon’s paper. But I just discovered that the full papers are on the Proceedings CD we received at registration. Yay!

I went wandering with Ben to try and find gifts for people. He was successful; I was not. After we returned and distributed one of his gifts, Ben and I went to get some dinner at The Boiling Pot.

After this, members of the fledgling SIG-TAG met in the hotel bar to prep for SIG-CON. I will report on these in my next post.

So much for my pleasure with myself over how I wanted to use the Calhoun Report to focus on what our “response” might be. I really wanted to discuss What can we accept from it? What needs a different scope, modal verb, etc. for acceptance? What can be added? And, the big one, how we’ll pay for it?

It didn’t turn out that way. Too many others are still at earlier stages of engagment with the report. And I honestly cannot, and do not want to try to, answer “So what did she mean by getting rid of LCSH? What exactly…?” [The best I could say to that was that they could listen to her on just that question in her own words since all of us present have access to the interview with her in Steve Oberg's Tech Services class on 2 Aug.] Oh well. I can’t really be upset; I have spent far more time with this report and various responses to it than many, many others. It took me a long time to get to the point where I wanted to use it as a catalyst to a discussion of what we need to be doing; thus, I am not faulting my fellow students. Maybe in another venue….

Truthfully, I am tired of talking about “Calhoun, the Report.” It is seriously flawed at both micro- and macro-levels. It has seriously questionable unstated assumptions. It doesn’t begin to cite where it should…. Stop! See. It’s easy to beat up on it. I hereby resolve to do my best not to beat up on it anymore. I will (try to) speak negatively of it only when I need to critique a specific flaw in a related context.

I think “we” will be living with “Calhoun, the Report” for a long time. I hope that this, “the best of all possible worlds,” turns out such that this report is known historically as a defining moment in the world of classification—that this was what “woke us from our dogmatic slumbers.”

As Edward Swanson points put in his “book review,” the Calhoun Report effectively “damaged the prospects for discussions to be conducted amicably in the near future” (LRTS, 50(4):295-6). I haven’t been the best of help in bringing this back to a good discussion either (not that I could have half the impact of Karen Calhoun). But I’m finally ready to move on. Maybe I’ve grown up some, maybe I’ve spent enough time and had enough small discussions of it and some more education on related topics and I’m now ready to have an ethical response to it, maybe I’m just getting old, maybe I’ve realized that the message I want the decision makers to hear isn’t telling itself, maybe …. Probably some of all of this.

I think “Calhoun, the Report” calls for a response. Part of that response will be “conversation,” again at least in “the best of all possible worlds.” Discussion, advocacy, education, training,…. Actual dialogue about these and other important topics. While talking is a form of doing, more active doing is also required. Test projects, standardization work, advocacy, education and training,…. I hope to be involved in this response in multiple ways.

I want to be involved in the dialogue. It is beginning to show up in some places. It needs to show up in more. Maybe some people will only hear the message by overhearing it, by catching it obliquely. “Whatever,” I say. As long as they are hearing “the message.”

Let me just state for the record, I despise the marketing of almost any message. I called marketers (the “industry [includes education thereof]“) the Anti…, repeatedly, before ever leveling that name at Karen Calhoun. But I am enough of a realist (or simply old enough) to have some idea of how the world works. In fact, by despising “them” I am actually giving them credit for the impact marketing has.

Many of the important ideas have been around for a very long time. They are all critical today. They are being used; by people who can afford to pay. We finally have the computational ability (affordability, primarily) to do things thought of at least as far back as 1867. Cutter and multiple class numbers, anyone? Many other wonderful ideas arose in the intervening decades. But for a long time, computing “power” was non-existent and expensive. Now that we can finally do many of the things dreamed of for 130 years, some of “our leaders” want to dismantle the whole structure. [Why do I pick so many darn underdogs? Something about being a small kid....]

So what is this “message” of mine that is going to cause me to switch to the dark side and being “marketing”? I can’t exactly say yet. I can give you some “bones” for now and maybe by Halloween I’ll have a little “flesh” to put on them. It will be fluid for awhile.

Disclaimer: I am not asking anyone to join me, there is no bandwagon, the only catchy slogan I have so far is “Free the Authorities!,” which is definitely not exactly a buzzword. And it could get old at some point. I swear there’ll be no beta, and certainly no 2.0.

Semantics will, though, be important. Nuances of meaning will be brought out when required. What I would love is some dialogue. Contribute whatever you can when you can with whatever strength or weaknesses you bring to the discussion. Question and push me.

I am unsure what form this “dialogue” might take and where I might contribute. But feel free to remind me of something I might do, such as there’s this wiki over here that needs something about “authority control,” or…. I hope to get back to the library (or more so anyway) in my “new” home here at Off the Mark.

Pauline’s classification seminar was great! The format has some issues but you’d be [choose your own nasty adjective] to not take a class with Pauline Cochrane. It has left me invigorated mentally and helped me regain a sense of hope, even if it is a small hope. Even though my Calhoun discussion went where I didn’t want it to, but knew it would, go I am looking to this report and its ilk to motivate me into a positive response. There are some stories that need to be told in our and allied fields. There are some things that need to be demonstrated. Some of this is happening in diverse places. Maybe I’ll pass some of that on here.

So here is what I’m excited about at the moment — interoperability, internationalization, actually using classification systems to their fullest, freeing authorities, new data structures, vocabulary control, thesauri, classification systems, faceted classification, classification for the Web, exchanging this kind of data, making it play well together, making good use of the installed base of LCC and DDC, faceting LCSH, …. Oh, and the questions in the first paragraph.

I don’t really know what is going to change around here. But when I get as excited as I did yesterday by the 025.431: The Dewy blog — EPC day 2: Highlights post so that I post the following to our class bulletin board after the final class of the semester, then something is up.

See this blog report about day 2 of the EPC meeting. Stuff on UDC harmonization of Religion in DDC, Dewey training,

“update on the status of our new editorial support system. We are working out the details of data conversion from the current ESS proprietary format to an enhanced version of the MARC 21 Format for Classification Data (and to an enhanced version of the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data for the Relative Index). The format conversion will facilitate improved data representation within the system, and easy distribution of data in XML and other formats.”

And “Dewey numbers in authority files.”

Maybe something of interest to you…

I’ll definitely be looking at the “enhanced MARC 21 formats.” Thanks all for a great class!

See the upcoming post for more on these and related matters.

Just remember, nothing to join and since I can’t carry a tune there’s no reason for a wagon for this band of one [Walt, thank you for making my day! You often do.]