No profession can survive if it throws its core principles and values overboard in response to every shift in the zeitgeist. However, it can be equally disastrous when a profession fails to acknowledge and adapt to radical, fundamental change in the marketplace it serves. At this point in time, our profession is far closer to the latter type of disaster than it is to the former. We need to shift direction, and we can’t wait for the big ship of our profession to change course first. It’s going to have to happen one library—one little boat—at a time."Away from the 'icebergs'"
Rick Anderson
Director of Resource Acquisition,
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
The speed of life and technology has accelerated exponentially since the advent of the home computer age in 1980. Although the methods that people search for and retain information have been enhanced by computers, humans haven't universally adapted. Many folks would still prefer to use the physical card catalog, while some seem to prefer not to touch paper at all.
The library needs to find a middle ground between the analog and the digital. Folks (customers) who can't/won't use the online card catalog will have to turn to staff to search for them when they need something specific; we need to be there for them. It's called job security, people! One thing this challenge has taught me is that 1/3 of people are enthusiastic learners, 1/3 are willing but at varying degrees of able, and 1/3 are just not interested and have other priorities. You can lead a horse to water...
As an institution, libraries are having serious growing pains in the information age, an age we should OWN. It is our business to continue to develop paths of access to information, to adapt to what technology has to offer as far as information storage, organization and retrieval. But yes, we need to keep hard copies (books) of information available as a balance against the constant flux of changing current information, and keep in mind that the printed word survives, more reliably, that counting on some server somewhere in cyberspace. Digital storage is just not as reliable as many utopian thinkers believe it is. A virus has killed at least one of my computers, but it hasn't erased the ink from any book I own.
The other issue I explored was cooperative intelligence as discussed by Chip Nilges in his article "To more powerful ways to cooperate." I especially like the concept of users adding value, and OCLC is a great model for libraries across the country collectively creating metadata for everyone to mine. As someone who cataloged for several years, this collective model saves tons of hours of work.
By extension, I like the idea of mining the collective intelligence of patrons by enabling them to participate in the cataloging process with tagging. Let's face it, Library of Congress subject headings work well for library folk who are familiar with the structure and vocabulary, but civilians are often confounded by them. I once helped a man looking for a video on home improvement search for "sheetrock". I found NOTHING, though I knew we had a video on the subject. As it turned out, sheetrock is a brand name, though people in the building trade use is freely to refer to wallboard or drywall. "Drywall" was the only word our catalogers had deemed necessary to include in the subject guide, with no see reference to the commonly used "sheetrock" or less commonly used "wallboard."
If I had been able, I would have added the see reference myself so not only I, but others, could find the items using common language, not MLS/LC/OCLC-vetted language. In a tagging-enabled catalog, user themselves could add tags that could be accessed by all users, using language that everyone can understand.
1 comment:
Wow, Jill, what an EXCELLENT post. You really nailed it. Nice job!
Post a Comment