Beware! Barbarians at the Gate!

Someone has once said ‘the only thing that is constant is change’. We get comfortable with the status quo and don’t like it when something comes along the shakes up our comfort zone of what we know. What we don’t know presents the possibility of something fearful, largely because we don’t know what it is. We want to stay where it is safe, in a world with which we are familiar.

But our present world has had more change in the last 18-25 years than mankind has ever faced. This change has been brought on by the explosion of high technology on the scene of grassroots life. It burst out of the doors of the elite few, if you will, and onto the main stage of life as a whole, pouring into the cracks and crevices of the ordinary man’s life and business.

As it applies to the world of librarianship, someone once told of visiting the Library of Congress. They were guided by a veteran librarian. The LC was experimenting with automation of cataloging records and was experiencing some difficulties. The tour guide commented on the venture that was being attempted, as the visitors passed the door where this was taking place. In essence her comment was that it would fail. They will never change the way librarianship is being done. It has stood the test of time. Need I say more?

A couple of weeks ago there was a discussion on the results of the LC’s Working Group report. Following is the thread of that discussion and the changes that are coming. As discussions often go, various sub-themes would pop up. Linear thinking that we western-world people are, this may be a bit disconcerting as the conversation became circular*, but the attempt has been made to put the comments in relative order, so that one may be able to follow the comments that were made and references to previous comments. (*Example: the discussion of copyright that spun off but not included here.) I have not tried to summarize the comments. They are “cut and pasted” as originally written. A line of three asterics, ***, were used to indicate separation of authored comments. There have been only minor editing done, e.g. putting in an apostrophe that got left out, etc.

Those contributing to this topic are: JSH, GAS, JGM, AK, JFM, TM, AM, SG, TG, NR, JA, JH, IF, DG. If you want complete names please send an email with contact information. My thanks to all who had a part in this mind-stretching exercise.

Please note, this is a lengthy post.

***

We have many choices available to us as we attempt to provide bibliographic access to information resources while operating in today's setting.

We can have a tantrum, and drum our heels on the floor, demanding to get our way. It may be momentarily satisfying, but it's ultimately exhausting and it rarely has the result we'd like. We probably don't get our way. We may get slapped. We may get put in our room. Or we may just get ignored.

We can throw up our hands and declare that it's all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, so why are we bothering to care. Learning not to care is at least not exhausting, but it's also not satisfying. And if things
really ARE going to hell in a handbasket, we're helping make it happen.

We can stand our ground, continuing with what we've learned, what we are familiar with, what has always worked up to now. And we'll do much good that way, but we can't block the whole path, and eventually people will walk around us.

We can remind ourselves of the real purpose of what we are working on, figure out which of the things we do are ENDS, and which are only MEANS, and try to see what parts of what we are doing contribute the most to our desired outcome, and fight for those.

We can remind ourselves of the real purpose of what we are working on, and try to see if some of what others are suggesting might help us achieve it ... even if it's stuff we don't know how to do yet, or even if it's stuff we are less than thrilled about as yet.

We can continue to believe that all things either are, or ought to be possible, and that if we just say something loudly enough, often enough, clearly enough, or with enough passion, eventually people will believe us and cave in, finding the money for it somewhere. But, if we do this, we will be disappointed, because it's not that we haven't been convincing enough, and it's not that we are not RIGHT in what we are asking for, it's that there really aren't enough resources to do everything.

We can continue to be proud of all we have achieved, proud of the efforts we are making to maintain our principles in the face of less than ideal circumstances, and proud of all we WILL achieve. We can try to make use of new technologies, and can experiment with new approaches without betraying what we are about. We have NEVER been able to do everything that there is to be done, and we never will, but we can reassess what part of everything most warrants our attention now, and by doing so, we can continue to contribute immeasurably to the ideals of access to information and contributing to the growth and dissemination of knowledge and to a civilized society.

We can be realistic about which are the immovable objects and which are not, and we can stop wasting our energy on trying to move the cliff and concentrate our efforts on the boulders. The Library of Congress SHOULD BE all things to all people. It should be funded at a level that would allow it to assume and continue the role of mothership to us all. But it's not going to happen. If that be the case, we need to incorporate that reality into our situational construct, and move forward.

The recommendations of the LC Working Group were unanimous among the Working Group. They reflected much discussion, much consideration of community input, and many changes of opinion along the way. They also reflected some reluctant acceptance of unpalatable realities, some reluctant dismissal of things that some initially thought would be cool, groovy, and/or inevitable, some assessment of what recommendations might be doomed from the start, and lots of compromise. Some of our recommendations made us happy. Some made us sad. The Working Group is under no illusion that all of its recommendations will be followed or their promise fulfilled. We know that some things will probably take so long to do that something better will have come along in the meantime. The Working Group is under no illusion that everyone will like what we had to say. But we do believe firmly that it all needs to be considered carefully. And if recommendation X or observation Y is rejected, we want it to be rejected for good reasons, and not just because it represents change.

***

I absolutely agree with this (above statement)! This will be a short reply! There will always be change. Some of it good and some bad. At this juncture there are many choices and we can either do something to elevate what our concerns are in a way that is respectful to all sides and know and understand that we will not always agree 100 per cent but hopefully that we can agree to an extent that the road to change, innovation can begin and in many cases continue. I'll be honest and say that I am not interested in one side or another, but I am most interested in what I can do to improve, and enhance access to information, no matter the format for my users!

***

The question becomes whether both "sides" (only 2?) can be equally respectful and openly communicative while being driven by different interests (e.g., serving the individual vs. serving the public?).

So long as that is the dominant paradigm for both "sides", we do not have a problem, do we?

***

The Barbarians are offering the option of metadata (that's really just a cool name for cataloging, see my article on TSLL newsletter several years ago) that can be produced by well trained monkeys armed with scanners who are willing to work for bananas. Retrieval is by keyword based on the terminology used by the author. Access if "good enough".

We members of the aging priesthood of the dying scholar civilization, offer metadata based on professionals analyzing the work and providing authority control for the author and title, and professional assignment of subject terms based on controlled vocabulary as well as classification. I question the value of any cataloging (metadata) system that doesn't provide authority control, controlled vocabulary, and subject analysis by someone who is well versed in the subject. Regardless of what rules and tools we use, if it doesn't provide good cataloging (metadata), is it really any better than switching to monkeys with scanners.

Some test questions to ask:

Does the system enable one to find the linkage of Arthur Clarke's "The sentinel" and "2001"? Does the system indicate the "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is NOT a prequel to "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone". Will it find all the books by Harry Turtledove regardless of in which universe they are written, or under which version of his name? Does the subject analysis bring together books on the "pro-choice" movement with books on the "pro-abortion" movement (not to mention the "pro-life" and the "anti-abortion" movement)? Does it provide access to materials regardless of language or script?

If we can answer "yes" to these, and the similar questions we can all think of, we can justify our jobs to even the most savage of the barbarians (who in the final analysis want a way to find materials based on author, title or subject). If we simplify cataloging so that the answer is "no", then it probably is reasonable to replace us with monkeys (who hopefully will share their bananas with us). In looking at proposed changes, the criterion we should use it whether it reduces our ability to meet the venerable Cutter standard (author, title or subject) - if it doesn't we should support it, if it does then we should oppose it.

***
Thank you (JH) for your passage… I still am not entirely convinced of the premises, conclusions, and recommendations of "On the record", but the passage (above)lends far more credibility to the WG's efforts and product than could ever be conveyed by reports of unanimity. The loss of nuanced positions is perhaps inevitable in this age of hard-sell sound bites, but I gladly would have read a larger report to learn of such things and the awareness of such realities on the process that brought about the unanimity in the WG's report.

FWIW, to pick up on the issue of change which has permeated follow-on postings, I am not against change in and of itself. I know that we have used a model and system that has worked exceedingly well for a long time, but which is falling behind the power curve of technological and societal changes. My point is that Mann and the LCWG are both in error for failing to acknowledge or adequately address the complexity of the issues that underlie their positions on status quo or change. At the risk of making overly broad generalizations: Mann goes too far in arguing solely from a benefit point of view and the LCWG report goes too far in arguing solely from a cost point of view; Mann presses the case of the highest denominator and the LCWG report goes for the lowest denominator. There are some hard choices to make ahead of us in the face of expanding information resources, technological changes, diminishing personnel resources, and limited financial resources. We are not going to find the solutions in the extreme poles of the arguments.

An economist herself, my dean recently called me a "closet economist". One of my favorite quotes is by Burke, "Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part of true economy. Economy is a distributive virtue, and consists not in saving but selection. Parsimony requires no providence, no sagacity, no power of combination, no comparison, no judgment." Parsimony led our forebears to institute superimposition when AACR1 was issued. Economy drove them to undertake the great expense to revisit that course when AACR2 was issued. We will need all our powers of sagacity and judgment to avoid similar mistakes and to plot a wise course in selecting for our future.

***
A lot surely depends on what you want catalogued and are there enough priests to catalogue it all. If you think of the web, you'll be lucky to get simian-level metadata for a fraction of the pages. However, a few baboons adding tags for a lot of pages are still arguably better than some archbishops producing illuminated catalogue records for a few. If we do want to enlist some help from the nerds and the monkeys to at least get some things described and accessible beyond simple keywords, I think there is a strong case for making new rules that are compatible with both hieratic and demotic metadata needs, in other words some kind of standard.

I also think it not unlikely that the Nerds will gradually overtake the priests in any case. Even if they are a long way off, I see them driving the pace of change and in control of the technological tools we also need to make progress.

***
RE: We members of the aging priesthood of the dying scholar civilization,

I wonder if those who were 100 years before us thought the same thing.... "every" older generation thinks the younger ones are going to hell in a handbasket... same principle here... hmmm?

***
Their biggest problems were that some librarians couldn't manage the switch from "library hand" to typewriters, and that LC selling catalog cards would result in all other libraries outsourcing all their cataloging to LC.

But at the time, literacy was rising, America was growing and for the first time getting involved in what was happening overseas, so things worked out (though penmanship has never recovered).

(Blogger's editorial comment: it was once thought that Library Hand penmanship would never give way to typewriters. We know what the outcome of that was.)

***
That would have been a real tough transition for me, too, because I could never get comfortable using a typewriter. It was such a great thing when the personal computer came in, because you got to fix errors before they were on paper. Some of my worst memories in adolescence are of trying to use a typewriter and being embarrassed by it. My last grade in high school was a D in typing, and I was usually an A or B student.

(AK), I think you bring up another point that may be relevant to these discussions. At that earlier time of transition, America was growing and literacy was rising. What I worry about this period is that we may not be in that sort of growth stage. While the discussion is claimed to be about new technologies and "openness to change," in many cases it really seems to be more about having less money. As "M" pointed out, we increase funding for armies and prisons and cut it for educational institutions like libraries. "J's" statement yesterday seemed to imply that this is just an inevitability we have to accept.

I think that when the online catalog came in the 80's, Thomas Mann probably thought it was the greatest development in libraries ever. It allowed us to do many things we couldn't do before. I don't think it was until sometime in the 90's that he began to see evidence computerization was beginning to be used as an excuse for dismantling our library systems. I think his position needs to be put in that sort of context.

***
From my perspective, there do appear to be some "Priest-Nerds" but they seem to be few and far between. :)

***
This reminds me of those 'gatekeepers' that think the library is their personal territory. I have also found this in the genealogy world when you want information (like at a court house) and some little ole lady will not let you have access to it, no matter what the law says!

***
I know exactly what you are talking about! (I've heard of this happening in archives around here - actually at a Christian seminary). So, let me be clear: what's good about the "priests" is that they are "good elitists": good elitists are eager to serve their clientele, and always eager to encourage inquiry and learning.

***
It goes way back:

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." -- Socrates

***

Didn't Cutter say 100 years ago, "I cannot help thinking that the golden age of cataloging is over, and the difficulties and discussions which have furnished an innocent pleasure to so many will interest them no more." (bottom of the page).

***
I was thinking about this the other day. I'd say we're just now entering the Iron Age of Cataloguing. But, hey, there's still pleasures to be had, innocent or otherwise.

***
I thought the Nerds would become the Priests.

Have you ever read “The Integral Trees” by Larry Niven? The high priest in the society is called the Prof and his acolyte is called the Grad.

***
End of thread. There was no conclusion to this conversation, but maybe you should draw your own conclusions? Besides, who’s to say who the correct prophet will be? There was a lengthy discussion first regarding the Library of Congress Working Group’s report and the response by Thomas Mann.

LCWG's report and Mann’s response to the report gives background information to the above discussion thread.If you are interested in reading more about this topic, visit the links given above.
.
.
.