Digital Dog

Latest bibliography

2005-11-29T23:44:12Z

STUDENT NOESIS OF DISTANCE EDUCATION: BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2005.11.28

Ahern, T. C., & Repman, J. (1994). The effects of technology on on-line education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4): 537-546.

Allen, M., Bourhis J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing Student Satisfaction with Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97.

Anderson, L., S. Banks, & P. Leary. (2002) The effect of interactive television courses on student satisfaction. The Journal of Education for Business. 77(3), 164-168.

Barbrow, E., M. Jeong, & S. Parks. (1996). Computer experiences and attitudes of students and preceptors in distance education. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(12): 1280-1281.

Bee R. H. (1998). Differing attitudes of economics students about web-based instruction. College Student Journal, 32(2), 258-269.

Biner P. M. (1999). Re-assessing the role of student attitudes in the evaluation of distance education effectiveness. Distance Education Review. ??(??), ??

Bisciglia, M., and E. Monk-Turner. (2002). Differences in Attitudes Between On-Site and Distance-Site Students in Group Teleconference Courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 37-52.

Brown, K. M. (1996). The role of internal and external factors in the discontinuation of off-campus students. Distance Education, 17(1), 44-71.

Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced contexts: The learners' perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 19-43.

Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How do on-line students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 1-20

Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 6(2), 169-186.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2003). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course: an ethnographic study of participants' experiences. Information, Communication, and Society, 3(4), 557-579

Harasim, L. M. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2): 117-135.

Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Turoff, M. & Benbunan-Fich, R.. (2000). Measuring the Importance of Collaborative Learning for the Effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 4(2), 103-125.

Kling, R. (1999). "What is Social Informatics and Why Does it Matter?" 1999. D-Lib Magazine, (5:1) Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html

McGettigan, T. (1999). Virtually Educated: Student Perspectives on the Distance Learning Experience. Radical Pedagogy, 1(2). Retrived 2005.10.30 from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/03mcgettigan1_2.html

Mastrian K.G., McGonigle D. (1997). Older student perceptions of technology based learning nation. assignments. On-Line Journal of Nursing Informatics, 11(2). Retrieved 2005.10.21 from http://cac.psu.edu/~dxm12/percep1.html

Mayzar, R., & Dejong, C. (2003). Student satisfaction with distance education in a criminal justice graduate course. The Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14(4), 37-53.

Njagi, K., Smith, R., & Isbell, C. (2003). Assessing Student Attitudes Towards Web-based Learning Resources. The North America Web-based Learning Series. Retrieved 2005.10 from http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/2003/PosterNjagiIsbell.html

O'Malley, J., & McCraw, H. (1999). Students Perceptions of Distance Learning, Online Learning and the Traditional Classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(4), retrieved: 2005.11.01 http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/omalley24.html

Qureshi, E. , L.L. Morton, E. Antosz. (2002). An Interesting Profile-University Students who Take Distance Education Courses Show Weaker Motivation Than On-Campus Students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(4). Retrieved 2005.11.11 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/Qureshi54.htm

Rhodes, C. S. (1998). Multiple perceptions and perspectives: Faculty/students' responses to distance learning. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1089-1092.

Rivera, J., McAlister M.K., & Rice, M. (2002). A Comparison of Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Between Traditional & Web Based Course Offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(3), ??

Rovai, Alfred, and Kirk T. Barnum. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: Student Interactions and Perceptions of Learning. Journal of Distance Education. 18(1), 57-73.

Royal, Kenneth, and K.D. Bradley, G.T. Lineberry. (2005). Evaluating Interactive Television Courses: An Identification of Factors Associated with Student Satisfaction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 8(2), retrieved 2005.11.01

Sawyer, Steve. (2005). Social informatics: overview, principles and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun-05/sawyer.html

Spiceland, J. Davis, and Charlene Hawkins. (2002). The impact of learning of an asynchronous active learning course format. Journal of the Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 68-75.

Thurmond, Veronica, and Karen Wambach, Helen Connors, Bruce Frey. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: determining the impact of web-based environments by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(3), 169-189.

Valenta, A.,Therriault, D., Dieter, M., & Mrtek, R. (2001). Identifying Student Attitudes and Learning Styles in Distance Education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 111-127.

Zarghami, F. & Hausafus, C. (2002) Graduate student satisfaction with interactive televised courses based on the site of participation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 295-306.

Update on term paper for Human Information Behavior

2005-11-12T16:54:17Z

Work is proceeding apace. I have copies of most of the articles and some are beginning to trickle in through ILL. One thing I’ve noticed is that a portion of the ILL material is unusable. When I read an article in a journal or online I only copy and add it to the bibliography if I feel it will add to the final product. But I don’t get to vet the ILL material; I have to order it blind. So some titles below – Feenberg, for example – probably won’t make it into the final work.

Here is my strategy from here on out:

As I read each article I’ll enter notes on thesis and methodology on the Notes Excel chart (the template of which is included in the copy of this document sent to Prof. Pavlovsky through eCollege).
As I read through the articles certain themes (at this rate I’m guessing 3-5) will emerge. When I’m done with the articles I’ll assign each theme a number and re-sort the Excel Notes by theme.
I’ll write a section on each of the themes,
followed by the segueways between themes,
followed by the conclusion,
and finally the introduction.
I’ll let it rest for a few days, proofread and submit.

Finally, I have submitted a slightly amended version of this paper to NERCOMP 2006, the northeast regional EDUCAUSE conference held in (ych) Worcester MA in March. Re-working it for a conference presentation, along with the professor’s notes, will help me shape it into an article for publication.

Here is the latest version of the proposal (amended only slightly) and the 11/10 version of the bibliography -- Robert

Student Noesis in the World of Online Coursework

The dawning of the information age has given young people more than portable music players and the ubiquitous cell phone: digitization allows coursework to be presented in startling new formats that rival any development in educational technology since Socrates picked up a stick and began drawing in the sand. It is not a change that should be taken lightly. The sudden shift from dragging backpacks full of books before a human teacher in a room filled with peers to a laptop alone at the kitchen table necessitates the development of new theoretical and psychological frameworks for both teacher and student. I will draw on the rich, interdisciplinary literature of social informatics to create a model of the emotional, intellectual, and social needs of distance learning students in the digital age. I neither to either praise nor condemn technology-mediated education, merely to get a glimpse into the minds, and needs, of students stepping over this new pedagogical threshold.

Bibliography updated 11/22

Ahern, T. C. and Repman, J. (1994). The effects of technology on on-line education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4): 537-546.

Allen, Mike, and John Bourhis, Nancy Burrell, and Edward Mabry. (2002). Comparing Student Satisfaction with Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(2), 83-97.

Anderson, Lorraine. and S. Banks, P. Leary. (2002) The effect of interactive television courses on student satisfaction. The Journal of Education for Business. 77(3), 164-168.

Barbrow, E. and M. Jeong, S. Parks. (1996). Computer experiences and attitudes of students and preceptors in distance education. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(12), ??

Bee R. H. (1998). Differing attitudes of economics students about web-based instruction. College Student Journal, 32(2), pp. 258-269.

Biner P. M. (1999). Re-assessing the role of student attitudes in the evaluation of distance education effectiveness. Distance Education Review. ??(??), ??

Bisciglia, Michael, and Elizabeth Monk-Turner. (2002). Differences in Attitudes Between On-Site and Distance-Site Students in Group Teleconference Courses. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(1), 37-52.

Brown, K. M. (1996). The role of internal and external factors in the discontinuation of off-campus students. Distance Education, 17(1): 44-71.

Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced contexts: The learners' perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1): 19-43.

Dutton, John and Marilyn Dutton, Jo Perry. (2002). How do on-line students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 6(1): 1-20

Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 6(2): 169-186.

Hara, Norika, and Robert Kling. (2003). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course: an ethnographic study of participants' experiences. Information, Communication, and Society. 3(4): 557-579

Harasim, L. M. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2): 117-135.

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, and Nancy Coppola, Naomo Rotter, Murray Turoff, and Raquel Benbunan-Fich. (2000). Measuring the Importance of Collaborative Learning for the Effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 4(2).

Kling, R. (1999). "What is Social Informatics and Why Does it Matter?" 1999. D-Lib Magazine, (5:1) Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html

McGettigan, T. (1999). Virtually Educated: Student Perspectives on the Distance Learning Experience. Radical Pedagogy. 1(2).

Mastrian K.G., McGonigle D. (1997). Older student perceptions of technology based learning nation. assignments. On-Line Journal of Nursing Informatics, 11(2). Retrieved 2005.10.21 from http://cac.psu.edu/~dxm12/percep1.html

Mayzar, R. And C. Dejong. (2003). Student satisfaction with distance education in a criminal justice graduate course. The Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 14(4), ??.

Njagi, Kageni, and Ron Smith, Clint Isbell. (2003). Assessing Student Attitudes Towards Web-based Learning Resources. The North America Web-based Learning Series. Retrieved 2005.10 from http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/2003/PosterNjagiIsbell.html

O'Malley, John, Harrison McCraw. (1999). Students Perceptions of Distance Learning, Online Learning and the Traditional Classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2(4), retrieved: 2005.11.01 http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/omalley24.html

Qureshi, E. , L.L. Morton, E. Antosz. (2002). An Interesting Profile-University Students who Take Distance Education Courses Show Weaker Motivation Than On-Campus Students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 4(4),

Rhodes, C. S. (1998). Multiple perceptions and perspectives: Faculty/students' responses to distance learning. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1089-1092.

Rivera, Julio C., and M.K. McAlister, Margaret Rice. (2002). A Comparison of Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Between Traditional & Web Based Course Offerings. Online Journal of DistanceLearning Administration. 4(3)

Rovai, Alfred, and Kirk T. Barnum. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: Student Interactions and Perceptions of Learning. Journal of Distance Education. 18(1), 57-73.

Royal, Kenneth, and K.D. Bradley, G.T. Lineberry. (2005). Evaluating Interactive Television Courses: An Identification of Factors Associated with Student Satisfaction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 8(2), retrieved 2005.11.01

Sawyer, Steve. (2005). Social informatics: overview, principles and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun-05/sawyer.html

Spiceland, J. Davis, and Charlene Hawkins. (2002). The impact of learning of an asynchronous active learning course format. Journal of the Asynchronous Learning Networks. 6(1), 68-75.

Thurmond, Veronica, and Karen Wambach, Helen Connors, Bruce Frey. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: determining the impact of web-based environments by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(3), 169-189.

Valenta, Annette, and David Therriault, Michael Dieter and Robert Mrtek. (2001). Identifying Student Attitudes and Learning Styles in Distance Education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), pp. 111-127.

Zarghami, F. and C. Hausafus. (2002) Graduate student satisfaction with interactive televised courses based on the site of participation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 3(3), 295-306.

A break from class -- Metadata w/ Grace Agnew

2005-11-03T23:23:55Z

Metadata – NJEdge, 2005.11.02
Grace Agnew, Rutgers University Libraries (and NJ Digital Highway)

She has been in the metadata game since it started, and wrote the first book on the subject. She's been involved in OAI, etc.

Metadata: describes data

Where does it come from? Can be added by hand, can have it auto generated or auto harvested.

Audience: Almost everyone – end user, metadata creator/manager, computer applications or programs.

For example, at the NJDH they can ask organizations if they want NJDM watermarks on material printed out – it is not on the object itself, and the organization hosting the document has the choice if they want to have it or not.

Metadata can be posted in the document, linked to the document, or some kind of hybrid (not unlike CSS). Putting the information in the header can be bulky and inaccurate; if you link it you can point it to a database that will update UTC, etc.

There are commercial and open source models. The commercial costs money obviously, but the open source is not really monitored and standardized. But because it is open source it is flexible.

D-Space is an opens ource turnkey model. Because it is on the business model it is not as flexible as one might expect from open source.

Fedora – developed by Cornell and UVA – powerful, flexible, combines objects, metadata and behaviors in a modular fashion.

DATA MODEL
-- Supports the information context of data users (current and future) – that is, context independence.

Agnew is working with the National Earthquake Engineering System (NEES). They didn't want to start with a data model as they assumed they had on already. She demurred, demonstrating that their data model was not flexible. The contextualized model that NEES started with was systems oriented, it started with the systems. Her contextualized model puts data at the center, around which are located various user communities.

RU/NJDH Model

Moves into IFLA models – structure of information

Expression	Manifestation	Item
Novel	Paper	Copy at Blockbuster
Script	PDF	Reel of film
Movie	HTML

Metadata Schema

Shared understanding
Shareable across repositories
Can be mapped to other schema (re-purpose it)
Maintained by standards body for durability
“Namespace” used to document the XML schema that defines and validates the metadata schema.
Versions distinguished by number and/or date

She likes to start out with the data model and uses whatever schema is out there.

Metadata schema components
Data element – community defined
Attribute – refines, extends, interprets data element
Value – information unique to each data instance
Constraint – order imposed on elements
Label -- -- contextual instance of data element name

XML – describes data (not unlike metadata itself!)

As I said, she uses any schema that seems interesting, but beginners should start with one and use it.

Types of metadata

Structural metadata – Structured relationship between components – allows a user to browser for chapters, etc.

Meta metadata – describes and manages the metadata record – who created it, when, for what reason
Administrative metadata – official records, rights of access, etc.
Digital provenance -- change in version, audit trail, etc.
Technical metadata – file size, duration, encoding, etc.
Descriptive – find, identify, select, obtain. --> all four elements necessary.

File encoding and Transport

METS -- Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard -- LOC -- used by NJDH
File selection, structural map, structural links, behaviors

METS is fairly new and the NJDH is one of the first full implementations.

See diagram on Pg. 10 of the first handout for NJDH data model.

Initial goals for Metadata --
Enable discovery access to information
Preserve information for discovery and access to future users

End of first part of presentation

She describes learning about metadata as an iterative process – that is, it might not make a lot of sense now, but sooner or later the shoe will drop. Much like we spoke of in the early part of the HIB class.

Descriptive metadata Schema examples:

MARC
Dublin Core
IEEE Learning Object Metadata
MODS (LOC) – NJDH uses it. She says there are not any great schema out there, but this is as good as it comes.
MPEG-7 Multimedia Description Interface

She is pretty down on DC – she said you'd never want to submit a proposal saying you'd be using DC, but that the schema you'd be using is expressible in DC. Good portability but lacks in flexibility

MODS is pretty flexible – it's really built from a base of MARC (so a librarian likes it – duuuuhhh!!).

MPEG-7 is new and not many people really use it – she claims to be one of it's only real proponents, and suggests that it is finally gaining traction. Describes textual and color attributes. She says the XML is horrible – took her a year to learn it: four months to actually get down to brass tacks preceded by eight months of trying to find anything else to do with her time!

Vocabularies must be controlled – don't let students come up with tags of their own; won't come out well.

Remember, the other goal of metadata is preservation for future generations. Brings us to the technical aspects of metadata.

Key issues of preservation

Authenticity
integrity
provenance
see Gladney and Bennett What do we mean by authentic? Http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july03/gladney/07gladney.html

What is a digital master file? Not Word or Word Perfect. Maybe a canonical master in PDF form?

Representative schema

NISO Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images (Z39.87-2002)
http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39_87_tiral_use.pdf

PREMIS Preservation Metadata
http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/

Fair use, rights:
See the Mary Minow website about rights. Of course there is always the Creative Commons solution.

For examples of metadata in use, see her Moving Images Collections site at UGA (moving to LOC soon enough). They have links to MIC XML, MARC XML, MPEG7 XML DC XML and the original record.

Readings, Week 7: Human Information Behavior

2005-10-22T16:43:08Z

There are many similarities between two studies of the information needs of understudied sub-sections of the female population; both Harris' (1994) discussion of battered women and Chatman's (1991) analysis of female prisoners locate specific information strategies that arise from the peculiar nature of their situations. In each case the information needs are specific to the sub-group, and change with the intensity of the battery, on one hand, and the severity of circumstances within the prison. Battered women are more likely to rely on informal sources of information and, being under served by more formal venues, are more likely to turn away from the non-existent or inefficient formal services, back to the comfort of the informal information networks. The women are nor quiescent, however, and the popular perception of helplessness of this sub-group derives from “an unresponsive help system that fails for provide the information and the assistance these women have legitimate reasons to expect” (Harris, 58). Imprisoned women tend to develop internal information networks within two types of cliques: “cosmopolitan,” facing outward toward family and friends, and a “local,” an inward-looking behavior focused on life inside the prison. Existence for these women become a Life in the Round in which ambiguity is embraced: “it is a world in which most events fit within the natural order of things” (Chatman, 213).

Lessons that can be drawn from these studies include both the specificity and the fluidity of the information needs needs of social subgroups. Both sub-groups present information needs tailored to the unique nature of their predicament, peer-based networks predicated on close-knit, local affinities, and both are subject to change as the severity of their situation does. The reliance on informal information networks is necessitated by the lack of more formal venues as well as the mistrust of those few which do exist. Left to the information scientist is the challenge of developing both theoretical models that encompass the information seeking needs of subgroups, and formal information networks to serve what the authors demonstrate are under served segments of the population.

Chatman, E. A. (1991). A Theory of Life in the Round. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 207-217.

Harris, R.M. & Dewdney, P. (1994). Barriers to information. How formal help systems fail battered women. , CN: . Chapters 4 & 8: pp. 47-60, 121-140

Proposed Paper Topic

2005-10-22T16:41:04Z

Student Noesis in the World of Online Coursework

The dawning of the information age has given young people more than portable music players and the ubiquitous cell phone: digitization allows coursework to be presented in startling new formats that rival any communication development since Socrates picked up a stick and began drawing in the sand. It is not a change that should be taken lightly. The sudden shift from dragging backpacks full of books before a human teacher in a room filled with peers to a laptop alone at the kitchen table necessitates the development of new theoretical and psychological frameworks for both teacher and student. I will draw on the rich, interdisciplinary literature of social informatics to create a model of the emotional, intellectual, and social needs of distance learning students in the digital age. I don't seek to either praise or condemn technology-mediated education, merely to get a glimpse into the minds, and needs, of students stepping over this new pedagogical threshold.

Some [updated 11/06] thoughts on sources:

Ahern, T. C. and Repman, J. (1994). The effects of technology on online education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4): 537-546.

Allen, Mike, and John Bourhis, Nancy Burrell, and Edward Mabry. ((2002). Comparing Student Satisfaction with Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta -Analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(2), 83-97.

Barbrow, E. and M. Jeong, S. Parks. (1996). Computer experiences and attitudes of students and preceptors in distance education. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(12).

Bee R. H. (1998). Differing attitudes of economics students about web-based instruction. College Student Journal, 32(2), pp. 258-269.

Biner P. M. (1999). Re-assessing the role of student attitudes in the evaluation of distance education effectiveness. Distance Education Review

Bisciglia, Michael, and Elizabeth Monk-Turner. (2002) Differences in Attitudes Between On-Site and Distance-Site Students in Group Teleconference Courses. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(1), 37-52.

Brown, K. M. (1996). The role of internal and external factors in the discontinuation of off-campus students. Distance Education, 17(1): 44-71.

Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced contexts: The learners' perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1): 19-43.

Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 6(2): 169-186.

Harasim, L. M. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2): 117-135.

Kling, R. (1999). "What is Social Informatics and Why Does it Matter?" 1999. D-Lib Magazine, (5:1) Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html

Kling, Robert, and Norika Hara. (2003). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course: an ethnographic study of participants' experiences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 4(2). Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde10/articles/hara.htm

O'Malley, John, Harrison McCraw. (1999). Students Perceptions of Distance Learning, Online Learning and the Traditional Classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2(4), retrieved 2005.11.01 from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/omalley24.html

Mastrian K.G., McGonigle D. (1997). Older student perceptions of technology based learning nation. assignments. On-Line Journal of Nursing Informatics, 11(2). Retrieved 2005.10.21 from http://cac.psu.edu/~dxm12/percep1.html

McGettigan, T. (1999). Virtually Educated: Student Perspectives on the Distance Learning Experience. Radical Pedagogy. 1(2).

Njagi, Kageni, and Ron Smith, Clint Isbell. (2003). Assessing Student Attitudes Towards Web-based Learning Resources. The North America Web-based Learning Series. Retrieved 2005.10 from http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/2003/PosterNjagiIsbell.html

Qureshi, E. , L.L. Morton, E. Antosz. (2002). An Interesting Profile-University Students who Take Distance Education Courses Show Weaker Motivation Than On-Campus Students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 4(4), retrieved 2005.11.01 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/Qureshi54.htm

Rhodes, C. S. (1998). Multiple perceptions and perspectives: Faculty/students' responses to distance learning. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1089-1092.

Rivera, Julio C., and M.K. McAlister, Margaret Rice. (2002). A Comparison of Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Between Traditional & Web Based Course Offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 4(3), retrieved 2005.11.01 from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/fall53/rivera53.html

Royal, Kenneth, and K.D. Bradley, G.T. Lineberry. (2005). Evaluating Interactive Television Courses: An Identification of Factors Associated with Student Satisfaction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 8(2), retrieved 2005.11.01 from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer82/royal82.htm

Sawyer, Steve. (2005). Social informatics: overview, principles and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun-05/sawyer.html

Valenta, Annette, and David Therriault, Michael Dieter and Robert Mrtek. (2001). Identifying Student Attitudes and Learning Styles in Distance Education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), pp. 111-127.

so-shall kon-struk-shun (deconstructed)

2005-10-09T18:19:19Z

wk5_reflections

I.Grad school meditations continued
a. 20 years of grad school
b. My options
II.Affective behavior folded into the cognitive model of information seeking
a. Carol Kuhlthau
b. Transposing the model to graduate school and classes in general
III.The term paper
a. Assignment and original thoughts
b. The challenge, the doubts
IV.Grad school mediations resolved?
a. Why I made the choice I did
b. Why I am still filled with doubt.

I.Grad school meditations, continued – this is the continuation of a discussion with Lilia earlier this semester, but which I’ve been having with myself since the late 80s.

a. 20 years of grad school – In the mid-80s I was a chef in San Francisco who had two problems: dissatisfaction with my career path and feet that hurt like hell. In the first case I realized that I’d gotten about as far as I was going to get as a chef for some time, and that although I might make many job moves in the upcoming decades they’d all be lateral. Although I enjoyed what I was doing I couldn’t see myself doing essentially the same thing in 20, even 30 years. A change was in order.

b. I chose history because I liked reading about the past. I chose labor history because I worked for a living and belonged to a union. I chose Binghamton because a famous labor historian whose work I’d enjoyed was a professor there. I didn’t like BU because it was too intensely political, though I learned a lot and of course met my wife there. I’d do it again if only for meeting Molly – but that’s a different story. The coursework went well but I got interested in technology and lost my way in the dissertation and never finished it. I’ll always feel bad about that; I let down Mel, Molly, and of course myself.

Years pass I finally give up on the dissertation then wonder what next? I work in academics where one’s degree is sometimes more important that one’s competence (oh the stories I could tell . . . ) but what was I interested in? Did I want an Ed D in whatever I could get the degree in? I could do it easily enough and nearly did until I realized that I wasn’t excited about the degree. That was my problem with the dissertation, so why put myself through that again? Suddenly during a re-reading of Stephenson’s Crytonomicon it occurred to me I was interested in information – it all came together: searching, metadata, digitalization – it was all part of a whole that could be expressed through information science. So I began to look at library school. The question at this point was: MLIS or PhD? I’ll come back to this below.

II. All of the information seeking studies we’ve read this semester have deprecated systems -centered models in favor of those that put the user at the center of the process. How users fit into the process is the point of contention, with each succeeding school of thought arguing against the “tradition” that preceded it. This week Carol Kuhlthau doesn’t sniff at the cognitive model as much as suggesting that we layer affective behavior onto it, that is, considering a user’s feelings as being important as his/her intellectual understanding.

Kuhlthau, Carol. (1991). Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User’s Perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42:5, 361-271.

This is the part that I’ve found missing in the models we’ve read so far, though I was never able to articulate it. It fits in beautifully with the stuff Molly is doing with emotions in her work as a women’s studies historian. (One of the other readings was a brave attempt to rehabilitate the long-discredited Foucauldian claptrap that doesn’t deserve even the space I’ve already accorded it).

Kuhlthau’s analysis is predicated on the empirical observation of five different studies. She posits six stages of emotional development in the information seeking process, shortly explicated below.

The six stages include 1) initiation, when person first becomes aware of an information need; 2) selection, when one selects a general topic; 3) exploration, “characterized by feelings of confusion, uncertainty, and doubt which frequently increase (during this period). 366; 4) formulation, the turning point at which one begins to feel that progress is being made; 5) collection, when the user is at the center of the learning groove; and 6) presentation, when one feels good that the process has gone well, or bad if it has not.
One of the great beauties of this model is that it transposes to any number of different processes. Including but certainly not limited to a) graduate school and b) any given course in graduate school.

Initiation
a) deciding to enroll in graduate school
b) deciding to enroll in a course

Selection
a) selecting a program
b) enrolling in the class

Exploration
a) learning the basics of the discipline
b) learning the basics of the course

Formulation
a) deciding on a sub-specialty
b) deciding on a final project

Collection
a) doing the course-work
b) researching the final project

Presentation
a) thesis/dissertation
b) final project

III. Which brings me to the term paper. The question, broadly stated, is to find a group one wants to serve and explicate it’s information seeking behavior. Being married to an historian my first thought was to find what it was historians wanted from the information seeking process, and I proposed a number of of sources:

Buchanan, George, & Ann Blandford, Jonathan Rimmer, Clair Warwick. (n.d.). Usability Challenges in Digital Libraries for the Humanities. Retrieved 10.05.2005, from http://www.dlese.org/cms/qdl/jcdl05/04_buchanan/document_view.

Cullen, Charles T. (2000). Authentication of Digital Objects: Lessons from a Historian's Research. Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved 10.05.2005, from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/cullen.html

Jantz, Ronald, & Michael Giarlo. (2005). Digital Preservation: Architecture and Technology for Trusted Digital Repositories. D-Lib Magazine 11:6. Retrieved 10.05.2005, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june05/jantz/06jantz.html

Meghini, Carlo, & Thomas Risse. (2005). BRICKS: A Digital Library Management System for Cultural Heritage. ERCIM News No. 61. Retrieved 10.05.2005, from http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw61/meghini.html.

Seely, Bruce. (1995). Libraries, Printing, and Infrastructure: A Historian’s Perspective. Association of Research Libraries, Proceedings of the 126th Annual Meeting. Retrieved 10.05.2005, from http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/126/seeley2.html.

Unsworth, John. Supporting Digital Scholarship. (1999). Retrieved 10.05.2005, from http://www.dlese.org/cms/qdl/jcdl05/04_buchanan/document_view.

Which the professor initially rejected as being too systems-oriented. I took from that that I should be looking at information-science theory first. Molly of course rolled her eyes and said something to the effect of “that’s what’s wrong with all academics; people want to talk to each other and not to the subjects of the inquiry.” She suggested that historians were frustrated with librarians because sometimes librarians seem more interested in their own theories that what it is historians need. It is worth noting that when I re-presented both Cullen and Seely in the context of the “historian’s eye view” the professor semi-relented, urging me to keep my options open.

So where does that leave me with the paper? I’ll use the template provided by the Week 12 readings in Information and the Humanities to re-cast my sources, but in the meantime see Kuhlthau’s third stage – uncertainty, confusion, constipation, yada yada.

IV.Grad school meditations resolved?

a. Speaking of confusion, where does that leave me with grad school? So I decided on Information Science – that isn’t enough. The next question is: which degree, MLIS or PhD? Or both? After some initial research I decided that while the PhD might be the ultimate goal there were advantages to the MLIS:

1.I’d learn the groundwork – searching, cataloging, etc, that would be essential for a PhD. One would not do a history PhD until s/he had the theoretical and content grounding provided by the MA, for example.

2.The content work looked interesting enough (human information behavior? Bring it on!)

3.Even if I didn’t get the PhD the MLIS is considered “terminal.”

b. This is all sound reasoning. No huhu. Right? Well, I’m beginning to wonder. First off they’re not even planning on offering metadata to the distance “digital library” students. What’s that all about? Why not just not offer MARC to anyone?! Second, does the MLIS really lay the groundwork to the PhD, or are they different animals? Is one designed for public and school librarians and the other for academics? And third, haven’t I already been through the MA rigmarole once? Discipline-to-discipline the MA involves coming to grips with many of the same intellectual issues, and if my ultimate goal is the PhD do I really need to jump through these hoops again?

There is no answer here. Much of the reasoning in IV a. still seems sound to me, so I don’t anticipate any changes right off. But re-cast in the context of Kuhlthau’s six stages I can be comforted that my intellectual and emotional processes are not isolated, but can be seen as part of a natural progression.

User-centered infomration seeking models, continued

2005-10-08T22:09:55Z

Week four continues a study of user-centered information seeking models. I'll pick up on week five where I leave off below -- RAH

“Information retrieval” sounds formal and mechanistic, but it’s a process we undergo in any number of ways all day long. The obvious example from a library perspective is locating the correct source of information using online and text tools as well as consultation with librarians. But that process is rather formal; many of the information we gather is done much less formally. Say I’m on my way to work and can’t find my hat – what resources do I have to draw from? My own memory and that of my wife. Having burned away much of my short-term memory a quarter of a century ago my wife can be considered the better resource in this case. “Honey, have you seen my hat?” Of course it’s not that simple; I have lots of hats, and how is she to know to which I am referring?

“Which hat?” she might answer.
“Why, my Boston Red Sox hat,” I say.
“You have about a dozen of those. The old weather-beaten one?”
“No, the 2004 World Series one.”
“You have two of those – the one with the red “B” or the one that says Championship?”
“The second one. Championship.”
“It’s right there about four inches from your left elbow.”
“Right – thanks.”

That is a simple information-seeking process that engaged my wife’s memory, what is left of my memory, and about a dozen blue baseball hats. It may have taken 20 seconds to transpire and in the scope of things not very important. It’s not an interaction that would evoke a lot of debate or analysis.

Except from information scientists.

We’ve spent the last several weeks reading very astute analyses of all sorts of information-seeking behavior. Some of it is rather absorbing, some dense, and some is frankly reductive. One thing for sure, I’ll never think of IR the same way again. When reading these articles I’ve been bearing two things in mind: the reference interview and the possibility of writing the cognitive process into into algorithms that will allow digital tools to mediate the expressions.

The reference interview concerns me because my students are the human information resources in computing labs around campus. They exist to answer questions and help people use the software and hardware. Like clients in a reference room, lab users often don’t know quite what they are asking for when they ask for it, and my students need to tease it out of them, then point them to the right resources. Often this is done rather clumsily, in part because they are working without this theory and in part because we’re talking about 20-year olds. I can’t do much about age thing, but I can work to translate this theory into some concrete interview tools that will help my students help the clients.

The algorithm thing comes from my interest in digital libraries, search engines and the like. The only thing I’m convinced of right off is that I have a long, long way to go. Long way.

[segue to grad school meditations]

To be continued . . .

User-centeredness

2005-09-27T13:55:25Z

I'm developing the bit below into a longer work -- RAH

I started work at William Paterson on the first day of the Fall 1995 semester with the understanding that I was to create a staff of student lab technicians – as well as the labs in which they were to work. What I found when I got there were two in-staffed labs each with some battered 386 and 486 computers running MS DOS. Plans were afoot to create a third lab, this in an unused room adjacent to the reference center in the library. There would be new computers in the library Electronic Resource Center (ERC), and they would be running MS Windows NT and, better yet, connected to the Internet. So in addition to hiring and training a staff from scratch I was faced with two poorly equipped old labs that needed new operating systems and Internet connections, an one new lab that would have both those things. Naturally I thought most of my trouble would come from the superannuated labs; Imagine my surprise half a year later when it occurred to me that the library-based lab had caused me more problems than the other two combined.

One problem was the fact that adults – the reference librarians – shared contiguous space with the ERC technology lab. The other problem was that those adults were reference librarians. For example, since both the program and the students were young there was a problem with tardiness. Most students have a generous opinion of what it means to be “on time,” and shift changes often resulted in coverage gaps. If the biologists down near the Science lab ever noticed these inconsistencies I never heard about it. Ditto the computer scientists in the Coach House. I noticed, of course, but I didn’t tend to call myself in order to leave panicky messages on my voice mail. The librarians noticed, and boy did they call. Such was their concern that a restroom-length absence might be enough to trigger a call. These calls were so persistent that I soon, made “friendships” with many of the librarians, and the memory of those relations are carried down to today, a decade later*.

A bigger issue arose from the nature of help offered the patrons. The student technologists were there to help their peer students use the computers: getting online, double-spacing in MS Word, learning what spreadsheets do, and the like. But because the reference area and computer lab share a contiguous area many patrons approached the technologists with questions better handled by librarians trained in consulting with patrons on library-related issues. But the student technologists had been trained to be helpful, and when someone approached with a question they tried their best to answer it without distinguishing between technology and reference. This did not make the librarians happy. They complained to the students, to me, to my supervisor, and the their supervisor. The library supervisor in turn complained to the students, to me, to my supervisor, and to the provost. The provost has recently retired so I can’t ask him if he complained to anyone.

At the time I assumed the librarians had some kind of turn issue with the STCs. A proud lot, they knew their jobs but at the time those jobs didn’t entail use of technology and many were, to be blunt, afraid of computers. Afraid perhaps that computer labs staffed by scantily trained (in comparison to their own) student were going to take their jobs. Despite any fears and the occurrence of panicky calls one thing the librarians had in abundance was patience. Again and again they explained to me the importance of what they called the “reference interview,” the process by which they teased answers to questions the patrons weren’t sure of to begin with. I thought the librarians were being over-sensitive and picky; they probably thought I was being insensitive and sloppy. No doubt there’s some center ground between the two positions that best describes the scenario I am relating, but over time I came to better understand what it is the librarians had in mind.

At the root of the librarians’ argument was the principle of customer service. Patrons were at the center of every interaction, and the importance was to understand what the patron wanted (even if s/he didn’t) and provide the appropriate resource(s). I didn’t reject their argument because I disagreed, but because I felt that my students actions complied en toto with that described by our friends in the reference section. I’d trained the students in the technological aspects of their jobs and had no doubts they understood the proper resources in that arena, and I’d advised the best resource for reference-related questions were the librarians. My bases covered, I didn’t see the problem.

With time and observation I gradually began to understand the librarians’ perspective, but it took this weeks reading to uncover the root of their orientation. While both camps had the best intentions, the librarians had a theoretical matrix from which to work while I did not. The librarian entrusted with overseeing the ERC was fresh from library school and could probably quote textbooks from memory. I don’t know the texts in question, but no doubt they were influenced by the user-centered approach espoused by Belkin and others. Implicit in that approach was the concept of negotiation. I never once suggested that the students knew more than the librarians, I just didn’t think it was such a big deal that the students could take first whack at student questions then refer them to the librarians if necessary. I tried to frame this approach as labor-saving, but the reference staff wasn’t going for it. They didn’t want their labor saved, and now I see a little better why. The student workers not only didn’t know the answers, to a large degree they didn’t know the questions. They didn’t know how to help the patrons articulate their queries, for example. The issue was more than one of turf or of understanding the library, but of understanding the patrons themselves. Taylor and especially Belkin have helped me to understand the user-centered library in a more sophisticated manner. The patron is not just the center but is the point of the entire exercise.

I don’t think it has always been that way. Back when I was still flogging away at my history dissertation I spent some time in an archive at a coal museum in Pennsylvania where I shared a table with the volunteers who helped out. One of the regulars was a professional librarian probably in her 80s, someone who’d worked in both school and public libraries. I understand it is a mistake to use one person as a template for understanding an entire profession, but this old gal did not suggest a user-centered approach. Just the opposite, in fact; her opinion seemed to be that she guarded a precious resource, and her most important job was to maintain strict vigilance over it. Yes, users should be allowed in a library, but only if they met certain criteria and acted in a given manner. She was like a mother hen guarding the latest batch of chicklets. I suspect that what new librarians today might want to remember about Belkin et alia is not just their message but the fact that it was probably revolutionary for its time, and helped to shape not only the librarians of today but the libraries themselves. And if the architects of the Internet can bring that message online it can only help to improve the usefulness of cyberspace as well.

*One of those librarians is currently on the faculty at SCILS – not telling you who!

Commotion motion

2005-09-18T18:26:40Z

I think this is week two, though I can't be certain. The journal below is the original version, but I should note two exceptions proffered by Professor Pavlovsky: 1. She did not call a halt to the discussion, she just encouraged us to chill out. 2. Despite my outrage at Julien and Duggan, the fact is the vast majority of the lit =is= in English.

Prof. Belkin, a well-respected information scientist, will be dropping into our class in Week 3.

Journal, week two:
Apparently there was something of a commotion about the reading this week. I don’t know the details but part-way through the week the professor waved the white flag can called a halt to both the reading the the discussion. I’ve been in graduate school in one way of another since the mid-80s and this is a new one on me! One gathers the professor didn’t take this action on a whim, that either the quality of the discussion suffered or my colleagues were on the verge of rebellion. Or both.

Here’s the issue – the reading in question was a pair of literature reviews and one longitudinal analysis of information needs and literature. The reasoning for assigning this material now is sound; lit reviews pull double duty in familiarizing students with the literature and with the history and direction of the discipline. It can be a good short cut to reading all the literature and coming to conclusions oneself. Lit reviews amass the scope of the debate in a digestible format that helps students, especially, understand the larger picture in a straightforward and relatively pain free manner.

Not pain-free enough, it seems. Again I am not familiar with the details, but some of my student colleagues found must have found the articles difficult enough to get their arms around that them professor called a halt, for the time being anyway, to the discussion. There are likely many reasons for this, one of which was readily admitted by the professor: the information =is= difficult to get one’s arms around! Readers expecting to understand every tick and ninny of the articles were going to be in for a disappointment. I certainly didn’t and I doubt many students, if any, did. That’s one problem, the expectation that every reading if going to be immediately accessible. It won’t. I had a history grad professor who specialized in intellectual history. While most of us in the class understood the political and or social historical underpinnings of the era under discussion, the majority of my student colleagues at the time lacked a background in intellectual history, and it was slow going for most of us. And of course we worried; all of us were accustomed to reading and understanding quickly and efficiently, and the intellectual class proved a challenge . Of course professor Elbert had been through this before and knew that we’d all do well provided that just concentrated on reading. Read enough and the understanding will come; maybe not immediately, but with time.

I associated her suggestion with my own realization that I didn’t understand everything my parents told me when I was a teenager, but that much of their advice took new meaning in my adulthood. Though not all of their advice was accessible to my adolescent mind I stored it up, then grew up, and suddenly much of it made a lot more sense. I took Sarah’s advice and just read with an eye for eventual understanding and, like my parent’s advice, some of the reading did eventually make sense to me and, unfortunately, some never will!

So that may well be reason number one for the problem this week: an unreasonable expectation of immediate accessibility of the reading material. Anyone expecting to take all this in on the first go- around was bound to be sorely disappointed. But I don’t think that was the only problem; no, part of the blame should be placed on the medium itself. Literature reviews have always struck me as self-referential as best, masturbatory at worst. The theory is good: short analyses of the ongoing debate with an eye to the development of of the discipline and advice about future directions. The problem is not the theory but the practice (to paraphrase, in a way, Pettigrew et alia!). Authors of lit reviews take as read the idea that to be considered valid their studies must be expressed with metrics. So they set out categories or analysis, count the frequencies of articles which suit those categories, then report that, for example, that “28% of . . . 165 articles supplied were theoretically grounded,” or that “Of the 95 information behavior papers examined, 58.9% used theory with 1.99 theory incidents per article.” (Pettigrew et al., p. 45).

Metrics are great – I love metrics. Use them all the time myself. But metrics are only as good as the categories of analysis upon which they are based. Like computer programs, metrics are rules-based, meaning that a set of rules are established and the data are assessed by a strict application of those rules. The best computer programs are those which start with a valid rules set, and the same goes for databases, the ground rules are all important. The problem I find with lit reviews is that the datasets are highly subjective to begin with. Julien and Duggan’s (2000) longitudinal analysis limits itself to studies published in the English language (p. 293)! I can’t imagine a more randomly established category of analysis.

So, in my humble opinion, lit reviews start out with subjective categories of analysis which both skew the eventual results and offer a glimpse into the biases of the authors (referring us back of course to last week’s discussion of cognitive authority – see how it all fits together?!). But it gets worse – in many cases lit reviews point to each other for validation! This is where my “self-referential” critique comes in. Evidence of this practice can be found in all three of our readings for this week, but none more humorous than Julien and Duggan’s division of the literature into three periods, the first and the last of which are analyzed by the authors and then =compared= to a seperate analysis done in the middle period!

“Masturbatory” might seem a strong term, but I think it is the best description of what this genre of literature has become. Authors depend on metrics as a validation of their conclusions, but the categories of analysis upon which those metrics are predicated are composed subjectively, often it seem, randomly. Then a published lit review is taken as a source for =other= lit reviews, who then use a =review of lit reviews= as an established source! This is crazy!

So one problem may be the density of the medium, combined with the expectation that articles should be immediately accessible to readers. But I think a more significant problem is the medium itself, which lacks the objectivity to make it a cognitive authority.

Cognitive authority

2005-09-12T14:48:33Z

This week in Human Information Behavior the subject was cognitive authority and Prof. Pavlovsky had us read:

1.1 Wilson, P. (1983). Second hand knowledge; Cognitive authority. In P. Wilson, Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority (p.vii-viii, 13-37, 107-112, 120) Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

1.2 Meltzoff, J. (1998). Critical Reading (Chapter 1) In J. Meltzoff Critical thinking about Research p. 3-12. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association

Our assignment was to write critical journals of each article, but including them here would lack the context of having read the article. Instead, a reflection about my grand father, teaching history, and composing authority.

My grandfather – 90-some years old and going strong – is convinced that history is being re-written. What he hears historians saying today does not jibe with what he learned in the 19-teens, and the clever right-wing operatives at Fox TV “news” (and yes, I dare to question the cognitive authority of an entire network) have convinced him that liberals are involved in a world-wide plot to obfuscate the truth. So is all adds up: (1) what is being taught in the 20-oughts differs from what I learned in the 19-teens, + (2) the liberal media/Hollywood/academic elite are plotting to hide the truth, = (3) historians are re-writing history.

In history courses we teach that the teaching of history is not static. Over time subtle changes creep into the way our history is understood; new sources are uncovered and modes of analysis come in and out of fashion. And many people think that history is taught as a means of understanding ourselves; as our society changes so do those needs. The history of the study of history is called historiography, and understanding the evolution of historical trends plays a big role in the intellectual development of historians. The vast majority of history dissertations begin with a review of the historiography of the subject under study, and suggestions of how the current work improves upon that which has preceded it.

When I teach history courses I usually include a class or two on historiography in the 100- 200-level courses, and an entire unit in the 300- and 400-levels. Take the history of the American Civil War (ACW) -- understanding the great war between the states has evolved tremendously over time, and people unfamiliar with the subject might not even recognize that the same subject is being covered in the histories written in the 1880s and those written in the 1980s.

The original historical analyses of the ACW were written by people who live through the war. Their writing represents attempts to explain and justify actions, positions, and emotions taken during the war. It has not been very long since the Persian Gulf war, and already we have a shelf full of volumes written by people who participated in that event. And of course they all have different biases, because of different perspectives and different objectives.

That is, one's memory of the event is going to have a certain slant if one is planning to, say, run for President. And that is the way it was for those who wrote just after the Civil War -- winners or losers, each had the incentive to explain and justify their actions.

A second school of historiography include those who advocated what has been called the "irrepressible conflict" mode of thought, did not have the need to justify their participation because, of course, they took no part. Their interpretation of the war had more to do with using the new social sciences, a recent development, to understand events in the turn-of-the-century America. A great deal had taken place between the Civil War and the "Progressive" period, and practitioners of the new social sciences, or political economy, felt under some obligation to explain the roots of that change. And they were apt to locate it in unpreventable, unstoppable "natural" forces; thus, an irrepressible conflict.

If we look hard you can see how these historians drew upon 19th century tendencies to contrast the moral influences of history v. the material influences; that is, you should be able to see how these historians mimicked the "quarrel between Hegel and Marx over the primacy of ideas or material resources as dialectical dynamics in human history." Or: Did the moral objections to slavery outweigh the primacy of economic influences?

Historians in the third group were called "revisionists" at the time they wrote, but now may be said to represent the "repressible conflict" mode of thinking. These were people who had lived through the First World War, called the Great War in Europe, and their primary, if unstated, concern was to reinterpret the Civil War in the attempt to better understand the horrors of WWI. The brunt of this argument had it that no difference was irreconcilable enough to have led the North and the South to War. Everything could have been prevented, and responsibility for the war should be laid at the doorstep of blundering politicians or fanatical agitators.

At this time many people in the US were busy reinterpreting out participation in WWI to read that America had unnecessarily gotten itself embroiled in an affair which was none oft its business -- the many American deaths were preventable, as was the economic chaos. In the attempt to reinterpret the US involvement in Europe, then, historians reinterpreted the ACW to fit a model.

Finally, the last group are members of the historical trend known as the "New Social History." This group chooses not to concentrate analyses on the institutional bodies of history, the leaders and the governments, but to try and analyze the lives of real people. Not the GW Bushes, but the blankety-blank you and mes. Not surprisingly, members of this group tend to root the war in the clashing of social systems -- differences in the needs and the lives of real people were not reconciled, and war resulted.

Granddad Pellerin doesn't give a hoot for this or that. Why should he? He worked hard all his life and is part of the generation that invented the middle class as we know it today. When he learned history the predominant mode of thought suggested that the war was the result of an irrepressible conflict, and no matter what has happened in the world of academics that is how he is going to understand the Civil War, period-end-of-story. Several schools of thought have passed him by and the suggestion that history should be considered from the ground up, from the point of view of the common man and woman, is simply not viable. So with the help of a conservative mind-set and Fox "news" propaganda he sees modern ways of thinking as not only wrong, but as being part of a vast left-wing plot to re-write history.

The cognitive authority he recognizes was established 80-some years ago and is reinforced by a slick right-wing propaganda unit masking as a news agency. Does that make him wrong? No. His Weltanschauung suggests and interpretation of history that is not only real for him, but is correct. When he approaches a reference librarian with a request that librarian needs to conduct the reference interview with an understanding of the roots of his biases and should conduct the interview with a compassion for and an appreciation of that background. In a nutshell, that is what what both Meltzoff and Wilson imply with their suggestions that we pay special attention to the depth and variety of cognitive authority.

As the semester closes in . . .

2005-08-29T05:37:35Z

Well campers, when last we left ye I was preparting to sally out for three days of mandatory on-campus orientation. My joke at the time was that they'd seem to have packed an afternoon's worth of activities into three days -- humor near the mark but not quite on it. After two days the director, a sensible woman, recognized there was no reason to go three days just because the schedule was written that way. We'd done our work in two days and that was enough.

One thing I was worried about was students who had really come from a distance -- three days is a long time away from home! I needn't have worried, and not just because the period was truncated. More on that as I go into my Ebert/Roeper routine --

Let's start with the positive -- THUMBS UP

- Program director Karen Novick is a good choice for that position -- creative, flexible, organized, intelligent. The selection of the director is important, as it can mean the difference between a program that works and one that doesn't.
So far I have a good feeling about this program.
- The first year is well-defined -- two course the first semester, two the second. Then options open up. But this is also a thumbs down -- see below.
- Faculty seem fine -- the one or two we met.
_ They've got a great library and it should be fun to work in. It's a "distance" program but I live close enough to take advantage of the physical library, and I plan to.
- They have a well-developed digital library infrastructure, including the Digital Highways program, something I hope to work with if I can. I wrote one of their grad students for help/tips/information this afternoon and I hope he answers

The THUMBS DOWN probably seens long, but remember that I'm a trained historian: we put the crit back in critical

- The program demographics seem narrow. This is a distance education program with two programmatic foci: K-12 Ed-Media and Digital Libraries. I expected people from all over the country representing many different local and received cultures, a diversity of gender and an even split between program foci. No offence against my future colleagues, nor noe against a grad committee who could only work with what they were given, but here's how things worked out in the diversity area: Almost everyone is from NJ; in fact the geographical spread differs little from their traditional program. Of the 35 people in the program sex breaks down this way: 34 women, 1 man. Guess who the man is. Finally, from what I can tell I am the only representative from the higher ed IT community. Some of my colleagues adjunct on the university level, some are hausfrauen, and most seem to be k-12 teachers or librarians.

There is nothing wrong with this composition. If I can't learn from someone it is my fault, not theirs. But it wasn't what I expected. The Drexel program -- again, a very good education -- featured much the same mix of hausfrauen and K-12 types. For some bizarre reason I'd convinced myself that the RU gang would be more academically-inclined. That they do not seem to be is no fault of either the students or the administrators, but is one of my imagination, and my imagination alone.

- I'd also imagined we'd be meeting greeting and getting to konw the faculty during this period. One or two slowed down for a wave as a scurried by, but that was it for meeting the faculty. I'd had a lot ot questions - they'll all have to wait.

-- The campus itself seems very nice but access to it is restricted to tiny loop of semi-highway connecting the campus with the turnpike. The exits are confusing; there is a George street exit at the Douglass College end of campus and another at the New Brunswick/Library end, and newbies are left to guess which is appropriate. The fourland road that runs between the river and the campuses was hard to manage in August and is likely to be murder in September.

- Which brings me to the possibility or taking courses there. Not something I want to do -- hence the whole signing up for the distance program. But it turns out they had four courses set out for the DL students the first year. A real good idea until I found the fault: one of the courses concerns technology, and at least one person besides myself has tested out of it. Leaving me free to take another course but, as I mentioned above, they have the first four courses worked out for us and no alternatives. My tough luck. So I thought for this one semester I'd trek down once a week to take an in-person course. The program director was open to the idea and gave me three choices -- one was too advances or me, one was =very= interesting and just as irrelevant, and the third, Metadata, seemed just the choice.

Two things here. First, due to politics on my end I'm not going to be able to take off the Monday afternoons I'd need in order to get down to RU. Second, the director mentioned it might be a good idea for me to take the course now, since it wasn't going to be offered at a distance. And therein lies the rub. It has seemed that the program skews to the K-12/edmedia crowd, and this seems to offer proof. IMHO, If the program was thinking at all clearly about digital libraries, Metadata would be taught front-and-center, no ifs/ands or buts.

There is a suggestion that course offerings for the distance program are undergoing a re-appraisal, and I hope they add metadata to the offerings. Sure, I could probably do it as an independent study, but I'd rather take a course.

All in, all good, it's late, off to bed -- Robert

Development on Del.icio.us

2005-08-29T04:35:16Z

Here we are with a new semester to begin and I'm getting ramped up. To a certain extent I've been doing this all summer long, at least since my acceptance to the MLIS program at SCILS (RU). Research means finding things on the web, recording their existance and categorizing them for future accessibility. A pile of books in the middle of a room isn't a library, a roster of links isn't folksonomy.

But it ain't easy either. I've been through two major revisions:
1. The first iteration stressed geographic origination over content. I think spatially so it made sense to sort things by point-of-origin. But p-o-o says POO about about meaning and is useless as a category of analysis. Now, if the levels of categorization ever become very sophisticated I'll probably work my way down to geospatial orienation as a category of meaning, but certainly never THE primary key of rationalization. In short, first big fuck-up. We learn.

2. The second time around I decided on a more meaningful set of categories and sub-categories (see below). But I was't happy with the composition of link names themselves. For better or worse I'm a child of Redmond, so I think hierarchically. There is a usefulness to this way of through, but only of the hierarchy is 3-dimensional. The old DOS hierarchies were triangular, flat. Top, middle and bottom all existed on one plane. Time, depth and dimension played no role in WOD -- the world of DOS. But the Internet changed all that, smashing barriers imposed by place and time, and allowing for the creation of truly 3-D (string theorists might say 11-D, but I'll let them argue that one out).

I wanted to connect tag fragments with arrowheads (carets) in order to demonstrate interlinkable, detachable, configurable relationshipts between tag fragments, each of which would comprise almost limitless compound tag formations simulating depth and dimension within the hierarchy. OK, I have'nt given up on that principle yet, but let's just sum up that go by suggesting, in short: second big fuckup.

The thrid go-around abandons illusions of introducing novelty to the process -- in effect, I've surrendered. Look at my del.icio.us site now and it will look vary familiar. You've seen hundreds of them, literatlly, as have I. Hey, for now it works. If you want to see a digital-library bookmark site that =really= works give a gander at http://del.icio.us/spdegabrielle/ -- I wrote him once but he never answered. Too busy I'd imagine -- or didn't think enough of my missive to bother. In any event, his site is much more mature than mine and should be considered a better template, whereas mine is more a work-in-progress.

For what it is worth this is what I've got: 142 links in 12 categories, each of which subsumes many sub-categories.
There will be time to parse -- analyze and re-parse -- the organization, but for now this is what I am going with. Lots of work to be done and everyone knows more than me, so please lay it on! Robert

12 TAG BUNDLES

1.Digital-Archives
2.Digital-Libraries
3.Digital-Libraries-Metadata
4.Digital-Libraries-Periodicals
5.Digital-Libraries-Projects
6.Digital-Libraries-RutgersU
7.Digital-Libraries-Tools
8.Digital-Libraries-Universities
9.Digitized-Collections
10.Digitized-History-Collections
11.Digitized-Humanities-Collections
12.Misc.-Locations

BUNDLES UNPACKAGED

Digital-Archives

26 Digital-Archives

Digital-Libraries

95 Digital-Libraries

Digital-Libraries-Metadata

4 digital-libraries-dublincore

10 digital-libraries-metadata

Digital-Libraries-Periodicals

7 digital-libraries-articles

15 digital-libraries-periodicals

Digital-Libraries-Projects

3 digital-libraries-centers

2 digital-libraries-conferences

2 digital-libraries-consortia

2 digital-libraries-initiatives

2 digital-libraries-labs

4 digital-libraries-organizations

15 digital-libraries-projects

7 library-of-congress

5 us.gov't

Digital-Libraries-RutgersU

11 rutgers.u

Digital-Libraries-Tools

2 del.icio.us

1 digital-libraries-audio-tools

11 digital-libraries-tools

4 Folksonomies

3 linux

2 oai

2 open-access

2 software

Digital-Libraries-Universities

2 columbia.u

2 cornell.u

43 digital-libraries-universities

1 harvard.u

1 lehigh.u

1 lund.u

1 oxford.u

11 rutgers.u

1 stanford.u

1 suny.albany

1 texas.a&m.u

1 tufts.u

1 u.arizona

1 u.chicago

1 u.heidelberg

1 u.houston

2 u.illinois.uc

1 u.maryland

6 u.michigan

1 u.minnesota

1 u.mississippi

1 u.northcarolina

2 u.pennsylvania

1 u.pittsburgh

1 u.so.california

1 u.tennesee

2 u.virginia

1 u.wisconsin

5 uc.berkeley

1 washington.u

Digitized-Collections
68 collections

Digitized-History-Collections

30 digitized-history-collections

4 digitized-history-collections-18thC

2 digitized-history-collections-19thC

7 digitized-history-collections-20thC

1 digitized-history-collections-ancient

3 digitized-history-collections-labor

3 digitized-history-collections-medieval

Digitized-Humanities-Collections

1 art

2 audio

3 bibliography

1 biography

2 buddhism

1 dissertations

1 education

1 ethnicity

1 googleprint

1 gutenberg

2 humanities

3 images

7 literature

2 maps

1 pepys

1 perseus

1 photos

1 quaker

2 religion

3 social-sciences

1 text

1 theses

1 victorian

3 women

Digitized-Misc.-Locations

1 africa

1 alaska

1 america

2 asia

1 california

1 europe

1 himalaya

1 illinois

1 india

1 massachusetts

1 michigan

1 minnesota

2 newjersey

2 newyork

1 northcarolina

2 pennsylvania

1 spain

1 sweden

1 trans-ireland

1 u.k.

2 u.s.

1 wales

1 washington-state

Preparing for orientaion to the Rutgers MLIS program

2005-08-03T04:24:48Z

Hello non-existant audience!

Been a while since I've posted, but this is supposed to be a library school blog and I've not had a class since last I posted. To summarize, I started an MLIS program at Drexel University but after the class started I was accepted into a program that seems to serve better my needs. The MLIS program at Rutgers is also distance learning, but this one emphasizes a subject near to my heart: digital libraries.

So I finished the one course at Drexel and I liked it. The professor was very good, I learned a lot, and if for any reason Rutgers does not work out (and I expect it will) I'd be happy to return to DU.

Finally received my introductory packet from Rutgers. One thing I think is funny about a distance learning program is a mandatory 3-day on-site orientation. Not a big deal for me because I can commute, but if I was from Binghamton NY, Missoula MT, or Santa Fe, NM I might be peeved at having to travel for a degree that was promised to have been taught at a distance. Still, it is only three days and being that it is a pioneer program I can't blame them for wanting to meet their victimes -- er -- students, and make sure everything starts right. In all I find the orientation surprising but not irksom

Mini Orientation Syllabus:

Day 1:
Overview of LIS as a profession and discipline
Plan of study
Aministrative issues and registration
Rutgers email accounts and IDs

Day 2:
Distsance access to Rutgers resources
Tour of New Brunswick campus
ID Cards
Student life

Day 3:
About online learning
Tutorial: Rutgers Online course system
Issues in grad studies

Honestly I can't see how all that adds up to barely two days, but I don't know what comprises each element and what is missing from this short list.

Classes for our first year are pre-determined, starting with:
Human Information Behavior
Info Tech for Libraries and Information Agencies

The first course promises to be a special one, but I am conflicted about the second. I've been a provessional in information tech for going on 12 years now, so you'd think the course too elementary for my needs. And they've offered us a chance to CLEP out (American slang meaning to waive a course dependent on the successful completion of an assessment) of it and into something else, an offer I've been considering

On one hand a lot of what is going to be covered in this course really will be review. On the other some of it will be either new or, and here's the kicker, presented to me in an organized fashion for the first time. Remember I started this out as a history teacher interested in using tech in the classroom. I wanted to be the historian who used technology but became the technologist who studies history. Being an autodidact is great fun and got me where I am, but it can't hurt to review these subjects systematically.

So that's my decision -- I'll take that standardized course structure, including the info tech course. As with the other, it should be fun. As I've said, I'm not looking forward to the orientation but am very excited about the program.

I'll ring back when I have something to report from the orientation next week -- cheers --
Robert

more on folksonomy

2005-06-09T13:03:26Z

Little did I realize what I was getting myself into with the digital libraries site at del.icio.us:
http://del.icio.us/raharris/

Some changes:

1. My original folks-onomy included make (digital library or something else), model (collections, projects, centers, etc.) and some subject descriptors (history, literature, women, etc.). But is also included geographic locators: Regions > (Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe) > (U.S., Namibia, China, U.K., etc.) > even states in the case of the US. But then I got to thinking -- since this is online one can access an Asian site from the US and a Eurpean from Africa, so why is geography important? I guess I included it because my blighted old arse was born and brought up in the pre-cyber world where geography was an important indicator of access. If something was in Europe one could potentially fly there, but most things behind the Iron Curtain were off limits. In cyber reality geography becomes less important, and in this case not significant enough to make it into my system of classification.

With some exceptions. When the location is a subject matter rather then a mere geographic locator it is included. For example the Illinois Alive! site concerns the history of Illinois and thus earns a tag by that name. However the Digital Projects at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champagne) holds collections not relevant to location and the Region > Continent > Country > State classification is eliminated.

2. Originally I was thinking in terms of digital libraries, but the more I poked about the more I became aware of another important classification: digital archives. The first concentrates on text resources while the second collects material artifacts, sound and image recordings, etc. The US Labor and Industrial History WWW Audio Archive (Cambridge) stresses, as one might expect, sound recordings. So I've added another major type to the digital.libraries designation, digital.archives The more experienced browsers among my readership (which as far as I can tell is comprised of just one person: hello pruneprisms!) will note the problem right off: while it might be important I make the distinction between archives and libraries (I think it is) what is to be done in the case of collections that straddle the line? For example the Emma Goldman Papers (Berkeley) contains both text and material artifacts.

My solution thus far has been to enter both designations in such cases, but that is somewhat akward. What are the other possibilities? The only logical option that comes to mind right off is that I could come up with an overarching term and sub-designate collection type: text, material, images, multimedia, etc. While that sounds good I see two problems: first, what term would overarch both libraries and archives? Second, with over a hundred entries I'd have a lot of back-tracking to do . . . maybe I can just convert existing tags for digital.libraries . . . no, that won't do it . . .

Which brings me to my final point for the day -- two actually. 1. It would have been better to have come up with the folksonomy before I started applying it. The problem with that is that you don't know what you'll need until you are knee deep in it already. 2. There is just a shit of a lot out there. Some of it is indeed shit, some not. What to include and what not? One of the criteria I've used is that anything involving history or literature, but especially history, is in right off. Science oriented sites and the like get a much more robust screening. One result there is that only the best of the science sites have made it into the list, while all sorts of history sites have.

What other criteria could I use besides personal interest? Perhaps the quality of the site. But how does one assess that? It's difficult (despite the fact that above I claim to have done it for science sites). Does one go by the looks of the site, how often it is maintained and updated, navigability, quality of content? And what are the benchmarks in any of those cases? The use of metadata to describe the site? I'll tell ya', some of the metadata sites stink and some that don't employ are great, IMHO.

So anyway, considering these questions is fun. I imagine if I had more formal experience in the subject, but it's interesting to work these things out on one's own -- Cheers, Robert

I'm baaaaack

2005-06-07T13:30:47Z

Was away for a while as I dealt with work, illness, and the end of the semester. Semesters, I should say -- end of the academic year at work and end of the Spring semester at Drexel. Some updates re: library school, and my next note will detail progress on my social bookmarking project

School is over, as I've mentioned. I ran out of steam toward the end, but what do you want from a fat old man? After my last entry we covered issues such as the digital divide, accessibility, and the future of libraries and librarianship. I'd have shared some of my stunning insights, but none were either that stunning or very insightful. So, dear readership, you win on both accounts.

The final project was a grant proposal. I think I've written before that I am conflicted by the project. On the one hand it is great to get some grant-writing practice, but on the other the assignment reflects a cynicism about the future of libraries and librarianship. That grant-writing is one of the basic skills necessary to be a librarian suggests that local, state, and federal governments devalue libraries into starvation, leaving information science professionals to proffer tin cups on street corners. It is a sad state of affairs that the state is valorizing public prayer and ritualizing state-sponsored religion at the expense of both information and science. That we are developing important grant writing skills is good; that we need to is disappointing.

'Nuff said on that subject. For my grant I conflated the Botto Labor Museum and the D&L Cheng (doesn't that sound like a railroad line?!) Library into a digital archive that will store "recently uncovered artifacts" of the 1913 silk strike, including sound recordings, texts, and material artifacts. I injected a bit of a joke -- the sound recordings are tapes, and of course magnetic tapes didn't exist in 1913. Let's see if the prof. catches that one. A second joke: the title of my fictional information science dissertation: "The Spinach Papers: Folksonomy v. Taxonomy in the Online Popeye Archive." I don't even know where that came from; I haven't thought about Popeye in what, decades?!

Onwards and upwards. She'll score it, we'll all move on. Rutgers holds it's orientation in August, so I'll drive down to New Bruswick for a few days then start the digital libraries program in the Fall. Chances are good this will have been both the first and the last course in which I'll participate at Drexel, but we shall see.

It's funny -- Drexel's mascot is a dragon, Rutgers' is a knight -- get it?! Oh I just slay myself . . .
;-)
Cheers, Robert

Intellectual Freedom, part 2 -- Info 520 Week 6 -- Drexel U.

2005-05-09T22:20:08Z

Turns out that most of the books "challenged" in public libraries are written for children.

Now I'm sorry that some children are denied access to good literature, but I'm sorrier still that they are being taught that it is fine to determine to what the public ought and ought not have access. Because that's the lesson of a banned book: my mom says that we shouldn't read Harry Potter because it's a bad book that teaches us bad things. other moms must agree because it's not available in my library. it's a good thing our wise adults can keep bad things from us

On one hand that’s great – it means that the people who are worried about banning or limiting access to books aren’t that concerned with what adults read. It’s also likely that book banners don’t read adult books, which may be one of their problems to begin with. But that’s another story.

The “other hand” is that children, wee little consciousnesses in their formative states, are a) missing out on some good literature and b) learning that it is OK to limit freedoms. Most of the class discussion has concentrated on the first point: that well-written books with good morals are being kept from some children. And that is a fine point to make. For me the second point is more important. While I’m sorry that some kids won’t be able to read the Harry Potter books, in the long run they are ephemeral. More long-lasting is the lesson some parents and school boards send: some information is good to read and some is not, and that the people in charge have a right to distinguish one from the other.

What lesson does that teach children? That it is just fine for the military to limit information from the war front? That presidents have a right to limit access to information that has traditionally belonged in the public domain? Every day I see people in this country accepting both of those tenets, perhaps because they learned in school that is was indeed all right for the people in charge to determine what information we have a right to and to what information what we do not.

Losing out on some great literature? That is a pity, really. Learning that information is only as free as the people in charge determine it is? Priceless.

raharris/folksonomy

2005-05-08T20:41:35Z

a FolksWelten Tax.no.no.my of del.icio.us/raharris/

digital.libraries

collections

content

media

regions

sites

tools

universities

folksonomy

RAH

Intellectual Freedom -- Info 520 Week 6 -- Drexel U.

2005-05-08T17:13:06Z

Intellectual Freedom. Turns out everyone in the class supports the concept. 'Nuff said.

RAH

A break from class to discuss Folksonomy, Digital Libraries

2005-05-06T19:28:19Z

Folksonomy, according to Wikipedia:
"Folksonomy is a neologism for a practice of collaborative categorization using freely chosen keywords. More colloquially, this refers to a group of people cooperating spontaneously to organize information into categories, noted because it is almost completely unlike traditional formal methods of faceted classification. This phenomenon typically only arises in non-hierarchical communities such as public websites as opposed to multi-level teams. Since the organizers of the information are usually its primary users, folksonomy produces results that more accurately reflect the population's conceptual model of the information."

There, now doesn't that make sense? Essentially, where a taxonomy is codified and maintained by an entity, a folksonomy is barely codified and maintained by anybody. Examples include social bookmarking sites such as del.icio.us and Simpy, a photo-sharing site such as Flickr or the sound sharing site freesound. A relatively recent phonomenon, a measure it's impact might be might be determined in the fact that folksonomy is being taught in information science programs around the country.

Being text-oriented and interested in digital libraries, my own very modest contribution is a DL site on del.icio.us: del.icio.us/raharris/. Please check it out and let me know if you have any suggestions -- Robert

Privacy and the Patriot Act, pt. 3 -- Info 520 Week 5 -- Drexel U.

2005-05-01T21:29:18Z

Notes on the subject of privacy and the USA PATRIOT act:

Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available...Ways may some day be developed by which Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be able to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home.

Justice Louis Brandeis
Olmstead v. United States (1928)*

=> I like the Brandeis quote with above; I wonder if people know how prescient they are being when they are being, well, prescient. I keep one not-so-prophetic piece on my desktop: a 1940s or 50s-era picture of a well-dressed mother using some kind of video phone to note that her son is upstairs reading a book. “Junior,” she says to him through the device, “put down that book and turn on the electric dog washer.” Never mind that in the real future mom would be at work and junior would be playing video games, what I note is the glibness with which the author concluded that mom not only could be, but would and presumably should be spying on her child. No doubt her actions were considered reasonable because she was exercising her parental duty. I would argue that the USA Patriot Act puts the government in the position of a parent and citizens as children. Parental duty gives the government the right to spy on children, as the woman in the picture does, for their own good. (Pun warning) It puts the “loco” back in in loco parentis.

=> I note with some humor the array of cryptographic resources available on the Tools page of the Electronic Privacy Information Center website. Some years back I read Stephenson’s wonderful novel Cryptonomicon and went on something of a crypto trip. I downloaded a freeware encryption program and began encrypting my email. Well, some of my email. See, encrypted email requires that parties on both ends of the transaction share the same concerns and cooperate by agreeing on an encryption systems to work with, but no one else I knew at the time shared my concerns or even pretended to play along with me (as my wife can be counted on doing, occasionally), so there was only one person to whom I could send encrypted email: myself. And I already knew what I had to say and, all of it being eminently boring, there was no one I could depend on to try and hack into it. Sensing the futility, I gave up (eventually). More realistic precautions are shared on the EPIC site and also in the class notes: don’t give away important personal information to anyone you don’t completely trust, anonymize personal email addresses posted to listservs and other online fora, monitor cookies, avoid any contact with spam-meisters, etc.

=> Until reading Mary Minow’s article I had no idea that the USA PATRIOT part of the Patriot Act is in fact an acronym: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. My word, who thought of that? In any event, that I didn’t know the acronym is not as disappointing as the fact that many of the signatories to the law probably didn’t know it either; may still not be able to tell constituents what it stands for. The attack on US soil occurred in the first third of September, 2001 and Mr. Bush signed it before October was out. That’s some quick drafting and some quicker voting; much has been made of the fact that most of the legislators who voted for the act hadn’t the time to read it before having done so. In fact, I’d guess that Minow put more thought into her article on the subject (published a scant three months after the act was signed into law) than some legislators did in voting for it. That doesn’t strike me as being an informed way of going about one’s business. Employed librarians would no doubt want to be informed, and a good place to start would probably the Minow’s own (with Lipinski) The Library’s Legal Answer Book.

=> One conclusion I can make is that standing up for what I feel is the librarian’s duty to protect the privacy of patrons is not necessarily a good way for winning friends and influencing enemies. I’d never told an associate the story of how FBI agents whisked away computers from one of my labs shortly after 9/11, but after I shared it with our group the other day I thought it was time to tell him. A (pun alert) starch conservative, said my associate was not amused by my little anecdote, or by my suggestion that when the government starts taking away from us some rights all rights are at risk. The fight for liberty, I’m afraid, is going to be a long hard one, and it’s not being fought on the streets of Baghdad but in the aisles of our local libraries.

The Brandies quote is borrowed from Dr. Sandra Hughes class notes for week 5. All these notes are adapted from my weekly journal assignment for Information 520.

Robert, robert.a.harris@gmail.com