Introduction
In October 2002 Dr.
Marcia J. Bates, Professor of Information Studies at the University
of California, Los Angeles, posted a message to the JESSE mailing
list in which she discussed some ways in which the word "information"
and the phrase "library science" are used and misused
in connection with education for library and information science.
Her message struck me as so pithy and pertinent that it deserves
to be read in full by students in LIS 386.13. Here is Dr. Bates's
message:
Approved-By: GWHITNEY@UTK.EDU
X-Sender: mjbates@mail.ucla.edu
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 17:40:47 -0700
Reply-To: Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum <JESSE@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Sender: Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum <JESSE@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
From: Marcia Bates <mjbates@UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Libraries and information
To: JESSE@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0
tests=DEAR_SOMEBODY,AWL
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Status:
Dear Folks,
In reading the various comments regarding libraries and information--and
library schools and information schools--it seems to me that there
are serious misunderstandings about the "information"
term that is being used in this debate.
On the one hand, Bill Crowley [in an earlier message] writes of
a businessman who says that information is a commodity and therefore
why shouldn't students with two-year degrees in information technology
be able to do everything librarians do, if we are in 'information"
schools, rather than library schools.
On the other hand, librarians opposed to the "information"
approach paint the term in a variety of ways that are just unrecognizable
to me. It's seldom well defined, but it appears that "information"
in the LIS context is often seen as either very trivial--as in a
ready reference question on the population of Turkey, or else as
huge and ominous, as representing some monstrously powerful technological
imperative that will overwhelm mere human beings and leave us helpless
to determine our own destinies.
None of the above understandings of "information" as used
in new LIS programs fits my understanding and observation of these
programs, particularly the one I'm most familiar with here at UCLA.
First of all, the businessman makes the same mistake so much of
the larger society makes. He assumed that if it's called "information
technology," then the technicians and programmers who deal
with that technology must be able to handle everything concerning
information as well. Well, they can't. In fact, they are dreadful
at it. There's a separate, extensive expertise associated with the
information--that expertise occupies much of the heart of our profession.
All the librarians who understand how to embed that information
in the technology--from understanding USMARC, Z39.50, metadata,
to online database and online catalog design, from understanding
information seeking behavior to knowing how to teach information
searching--all that expertise is INFORMATION EXPERTISE.
I've done a lot of consulting for a variety of organizations, including
dot-coms, and this failure to understand that there is a distinct,
and vast, expertise associated with the information itself is very
widespread. See my recent article in FirstMonday, "After the
Dot-Bomb: Getting Web Information Retrieval Right This Time"
July 2002, http://www.firstmonday.dk.
I've also made the argument in a much more academic way in "The
Cascade of Interactions in the Digital Library Interface,"
and "The Invisible Substrate of Information Science,"
which are available on my Website.
The other side of the misunderstandings about information, as noted
above, seems to arise among librarians and library faculty, some
of whom see "information" as the enemy, marching on and
about to gobble up the library. Or else "information"
represents a sterile, heartless perspective on information/library
services that must be resisted at all costs.
I think it's important to separate out just what is and is not the
enemy here. Yes, there are a lot of techies who really don't "get"
it. That is irritating, but instead of fighting against the use
of the word or idea of information, why not separate the people
from the wrong-headed ideas and seek to educate and propagate OUR
ideas of information. Some of the most interesting research going
on in this field--and it's research that the social sciences as
a whole badly need--is being done on how information flows through
and enlivens and gives meaning to people's lives. "Information"
in this context is interpreted in a much larger and richer sense
as all the new learning and memories people develop through life.
There's no reason why such an understanding of information cannot
be embedded in our whole understanding of, and values around, what
libraries are.
Marcia
--
Marcia J. Bates, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Information Studies
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1520 USA
Tel: 310-206-9353
Fax: 310-206-4460
Web: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/
